Something based on this belief may well be valid but with numerous pieces of evidence that suggest the traditional role of the British Prime Minister is becoming more presidential and modern society adhering less to written convention, it has become far less clear who wields the most domestic power outside of conventional parameters. Both the UK Prime Minister and US president are the key figures in their countries politics. The UK Prime Minister has no formal written role but is rather a product of convention and historical evolution. His main powers include those of patronage, the control of the cabinet and its agenda, and the overall direction of government policy, both of head of government and leader of the party in power. In contrast, the US president has an official outlined role.
You only have to examine the ritual patterns of the British media to realise that the Prime Minister is taken as the representative and primary force of the executive and of government in general. If you look at Tony Blair 's control over cabinet meetings, the hiring and firing of ministers, his interference in departmental affairs, his use of civil service appointments and patronage, it 's pretty clear that the Prime Minister is no longer the mere leader of the cabinet, but the executive superior to the cabinet. However, one could argue that because the power of the cabinet is dependent on the power of the prime minister, the Prime Ministerial Model of British politics could potentially
The appointed legislature is the House of Lords, and they constitute the unwritten constitution, acting as an extra safety measure, also with the ability to criticize and approve laws. The judiciary upholds the law and represents such as the UK courts of law. The crown is the monarch, and Her Majesty’s role is to represent the United Kingdom as a symbol of ceremony and tradition, and sign bills into law. The most essential element that distinguishes the Westminster model is the executive power that is given to the largest party after a first past the post election. Additionally, with the fusion of powers, the party that controls the legislature also directs the executive branch.
The constitutional monarchy: an impartial symbolic head of state, and always acts on the advice of minister, especially of prime minister, i.e. the monarch reigns, but does not rule. In theory, the monarch has other prerogative such as appointment and dismissal of the Prime Minister; opening and dissolving of parliament, the veto of legislation, ect. Additionally, the monarch enjoys "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn". Clearly, the powers which the monarch now exercises are more theoretical than real, but we still have our queen in Britain.
British government is democratic government. So, too, is American government; it roots are buried deep in English political and social history. Yet there are important differences between the two systems of government. Most of those differences grow out of this fundamnetally important point: Unlike government in the United State, government in Great Britain is unitary and and parlimentary in form and rests upon an unwritten constitution. They rule what they call a monarchy.
It is perhaps largely the power of Blair's mandate in conjunction with the vice-like control of the party whips over MPs that has led to comments such as that of Lord Hailsham that we live under an "elective dictatorship." The power of the executive however, is based on long-standing constitutional principles and practise. The concept of 'Queen in Parliament' has long been used to describe the legislative sovereign created in the fusion of parliament and the executive. The executive has come to govern through parliament, requiring in effect its assent for legislation, while drawing from it, as the nation's chief representative body, the legitimacy it requires to sustain its authority. It comes as a surprise to many, given the ostensible thirst for power of the Blair administration, that since coming into power in 1997 it should have undertaken admittedly moderate reforms with the aim... ... middle of paper ... ... to hold the government to account - if it were able to tie it down to its mandate - but the government's domination of parliament has led it to control parliament's means of scrutiny and opposition.
Although these two types of governments are very much different, they do hold some similarities. England is most known for their Constitutional Monarchy form of government during the seventeenth century. Constitutional Monarchy is a form of government in which there is a parliament or group of executives that are supposed to act on the states behalf. The Constitutional Monarch is elected either directly or indirectly and is legally bound to the country. Although many of the regulations are created from the parliament, the Constitutional Monarch is the person who passes the laws created.
Absolute monarchy is when the monarch has complete control, while constitutional monarchy is when the monarch is recognized known as the head of state, but with certain constraints (Makarenko, 2007). Republic is a form of government, in which the people and their elected representatives hold power (Makarenko, 2007). It is an alternative to the monarchy, which focuses on the “hereditary royal lineage” ((Makarenko, 2007). The people of state with the republic government play a significant role in many decisions (Makarenko, 2007). Some examples of this are participating in elections and reforming certain things (Makarenko, 2007).
The effectiveness of Westminster Parliament in holding the executive to account relies on a number of variables, arguably, the most important being the degree of the government’s majority. Other variables include the unity of the party, the presence of a foreign war or the presence of a hostile media. This being said, there are also a number of mechanisms by which Parliament is able to hold the executive accountable. Westminster Parliament has the ability to hold the executive to account through a variety of methods, such as through the House of Lords. Though it is unelected, the Lords fulfill a fundamental democratic requirement; as the upper chamber within a bicameral legislature, it acts as a constitutional check and balance on executive power.
Power of the British Prime Minister The prime minister is that person who leads the majority party in the House of Commons, or who commands a majority of support in that house. PMs continue in office until they resign or concede a defeat after a general election. They also may reign after losing a motion of no confidence. In the 19th Century, Bagehot wrote (in the English constitution 1867), that parliamentary government had been superseded by Cabinet Government - that the theoretical sovereignty of parliament had been delegated to the executive for all practical purposes. The powers of government, and its cohesion under the convention of collective responsibility, ensured that the government could maintain a united front in the face of parliamentary opposition.