Has the experience of coalition government strengthened or weakened prime ministerial power?
Since the formation of the coalition in 2010 between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, David Cameron’s prime ministerial powers have been both weakened and strengthened as a result of this.
Firstly, the coalition government has weakened Cameron’s prime ministerial power due to the idea of a Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2010, this reform being long-backed by the Liberal Democrats. Essentially, this means that the next UK general election has to take place on the 7th May 2015, although the prime minister still obtains the ability to change the date by two months. The introduction of fixed-term Parliaments is greatly significant as it means that the prime minister has surrendered a key power of being able to dissolve Parliament and to call a general election. This is one of the prerogative powers that the prime minister exercises on behalf of the monarchy. Although, the introduction of fixed-term Parliament did weaken the prime minister’s power, it
…show more content…
For example, Cameron introduced many controversial policies in his first year in office and he suffered no policy clash from the opposition within the Cabinet or government much to everyones surprise. This could be due to the fact that those senior Liberal Democrats were enjoying their position they have been put in due to the coalition, examples being Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander who, alongside David Cameron and George Osbourne, make up the Quad. This is where they meet as a four and resolve any coalition issues which have spending implications. It conveys an equal sharing of power in the quad due to the
In order to let our members of parliament to have more power and saying, we will have to cut power from the party whip and the Prime Minister. In this way no one can force anyone to make a predetermined vote according to party lines rather than their personal conviction. In taking away the power from the PM and party whips will allow the riding representatives more freedom in which power is one
The Tory party were in office prior to parliamentary reform and for years they had time and again strenuously refused to widen the electorate, arguing what made the British political system so very successful was due to the fact that their was more emphasis on the landowning than the sheer numbers of electorate. The Tory party dominated British politics with the support of royals such as George III and George IV. However, by 1830 divisions in the party began to form and came to prominence. The cause of these divisions was the issue of Roman Catholic Emancipation which led to Tory hardliners threatening to support reform in order to ensure a wider electorate that would throw out any idea of emancipation with fervour. This split in the Tory government eventual became so bitter that the Tory government eventually collapsed in November 1830.
This essay has argued that there are many limitations that the Prime Minister is subjected too. The three most important are federalism in Canadian society, the role of the Governor General, and the charter of rights and freedoms. I used two different views of federalism and illustrated how both of them put boundaries on the Prime Minister’s power. Next I explain the powers of the governor general, and explained the ability to dissolve parliament in greater detail. Last I analyzed how the charter of rights of freedoms has limited the Prime Minister’s power with respect to policy-making, interests groups and the courts. The Prime Minister does not have absolute power in Canadian society, there are many infringements on the power that they have to respect.
In 1970, Britain saw the return of the Conservative government under the power of Edward Heath. After the minors strike, the Conservative government lost power and Britain reverted back to a Labour government. After the ‘winter of discontent’ in 1979, Britain once again saw the return of the Conservative government, however this time it was under the power of Margaret Thatcher.
...ssay has argued that British political parties have suffered from a decline in membership due to internal factors including change or reluctance to change. Secondly, a change in society and social groups has further damaged political parties, as they have had to adjust to a shift in voter audience. Finally, the disempowerment of the British government and its political parties has had a negative effect on the population who started to doubt party efficiency and contributed to the decline in participation and in turn, of the parties. All these factors show that indeed British political parties are in decline, but this does not mean that British parties will disappear; as the Hughton Report mentioned in 1976, “if the parties fail, then democracy fails”. Our democratic system needs political parties to function properly; it is not too late for British party resurgence.
Between 1964 1974 conservatives party was not success in elections, they lost four election out of five and three of them lose came under the leadership of Edward Heath. Margaret Thatcher succeeded, and replaced Heath in (1975). Margaret Thatcher became the prime Minster leading the Conservative Govt. Below shows t the results of Thatcher Govt majority of seats won on the following terms
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
The most significant and challenge to the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty was Britain’s membership of the European Community in 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 brought with it the requirement that European Law be given priority over domestic courts over conflicting issues of national law. This notion was a direct affront to parliamentary sovereignty, which required that if a later statute, contradicted and earlier statute, which sought to incorporate European Law into English Law, then the later statute should impliedly repeal the earlier statute. Therefore the European Communities act imposed a substantive limit on the legislative ability of subsequent Parliaments.
The Extent of the Prime Minister's Power and Authority In society today people think that the most powerful person in the British government system is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. However, to what extent does he have power and authority? The Prime Minister doesn’t govern the country alone; the Cabinet as a whole discuss most matters. You could then say that we have Cabinet government as they do supposedly collectively make decisions on matters. The position however of power in one government may differ from that of another, Margaret Thatcher for example rarely used Cabinet at all, John Major on the other hand used it regularly and considered there opinions vital in the decision making process.
The Harper government, elected in 2006 and defeated in 2015, was one of the longest serving governments in Canadian history. Starting as the smallest minority government to ever be formed in Canada, it expanded, becoming a powerful majority serving nine years. The Harper government ended with the loss of 67 seats for the Conservative government and the gain of 150 seats for the Liberals. This rapid change was not surprising, as the Harper government alienated many. Harper himself was known to be temperamental and a control freak. While Harper was disliked by many, however, his government led Canada through a period of change and created many of those changes. Some of those changes were extremely controversial, such as the tough-on-crime agenda
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
Since the 1950s there has been a rise in the power of the Prime Minister, specially Crossman in 1962 and Benn, who in 1979 referred to “a system of personal rule in the very heart of our Parliamentary democracy”. As Britain has remained the “world’s most successful representative democracy”. The role of the executive has significantly increased at a great deal since the end of World War 2, however, the outward dangers of a supplementary individual hegemony attached to the Prime Minister shouldn’t be overemphasized. Although the modern examples of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair whose styles of leadership have each been labelled as presidential. In this essay I will be assessing the four main prime minister’s power and if his or her powers constrained under the British system. For instances, the power of patronage, cabinet power, the party leadership and the mass media. These are four main factors of the prime minister and its effectiveness can be argued.
be necessary to take a brief look at the history of the office of the
We discussed their powers and compared them by their powers. We showed you how their candidature starts and what they do to be the head of their states. We talked about how they become Presidents, respectively Prime Ministers. We showed you what they can do and what they cannot. Furthermore, we talked about their cabinets. We showed you their strengths and weaknesses. Then we talked about where they lack in powers or who has more powers than the other one. In the end we showed you where their powers come from. Now we let you to decide about which one is more
...s party generally has the second most seats in the House of Commons. The leader of the Official Opposition party is in charge of leading the debates against the majority government’s policies, and proposes alternative legislature that reflects their party’s ideals. As a result of the parties raising issues and generating public debate, awareness is driven upwards and the public becomes educated by forming their own opinions on such matters. In short, the Official Opposition opposes the majority government party, and the public reacts. This way, the public who is represented by the Opposition still gets represented fairly in matters that concern them. Opposition parties are essential for a democracy to thrive because “without opposition, a government tends to drift towards complacency and presumptuousness and fails to search for alternatives” (Hoffmeister, 2011: 17).