Cabinet government model tells us that it’s a reminder that despite the growth of the PM power no PM can survive if he or she loses the support of the cabinet. Cabinet government is kept alive by the fact that PM’s authority is linked to... ... middle of paper ... ...he party. Only that the electorate increasingly demand ‘visible leadership’ rather than old-fashioned party politics as the focal point of government. The Prime Minister is dependent on support from parliament and cannot exist without it. Other sources of authority within the cabinet might pose a threat/challenge or moderate the Prime Minister’s authority (as seen with powerful ministers such Gordon Brown and Mo Mowlam).
Federalist Paper 10: Madison argues that the Constitution creates a government that is strong enough to deal with the tension between the different political factions. Madison essentially states that factions are created from people who have similar backgrounds and political ideals/ beliefs. Despite the significant differences between the factions, they rarely interfere with the public good. During this time period, the majority of people were concerned with the financial woes caused by the divide in the political factions. Government starts to get unnecessary blame, because people believe that those in power are doing little to nothing to get these problems under control.
-Sir Richard Wilson In theory the PM is the most powerful person in these Isles; however, there are a number of limiting factors placed upon this power. From the lowliest voter to the highest civil servant to the opposition leader everyone has a certain amount of power with which they can constrain a PM to prevent the establishment of a tyrannous dictatorship or worse. The PM’s power is a variable whilst freewill remains a constant. Bibliography: Richard Crossman, ‘The English Constitution’ (1960) Tony Benn, ‘Benn’s Ten Powers’ (1981) Michael Foley, ‘The British Presidency’ Various Contributors, ‘Transforming British Government Vol.1’ (2000) Philip Norton’s ‘Styles Of Leadership Thesis Paper’ (1987)
Controlling the Parliament and the House of Commons 'The government controls parliament but it cannot always rely on getting its own way.' A tendency to ignore the protestations and activities of parliament in issuing central, top-down directives and 'memos' is a criticism often levied at Tony Blair's Labour administration. It is seen to signify a consolidation of executive power, often represented in the media as control-freakery on the part of the Prime Minister. Although any apparent increase in the power of the executive would be accentuated by the immense size of the 179 seat Labour majority, the present government is widely seen to have taken up a continuing trend towards centralised government, often revolving around Downing Street. 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."
A PM like Home may have been similar to the 19th century "primus inter pares", but mrs Thatcher has displayed a strength of personality that represents a growth in PM power. However any PM in a modern government faces limitations from every sector of the government, the public and parliament, and PMs can only do what's feasible - as RAB Butler said "politics is the art of the possible". Neither "parliamentary government" nor cabinet government has ever existed in a pure form and equally prime ministerial government has its constraints. If mrs Thatcher at the peak of her influence signified the outer limits of prime ministerial power, john major saddled with a small parliamentary majority and a party bitterly divided over Europe, equally signifies the very real limitations a PM can be subject to.
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
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.
Sure, some of the people in the president’s cabinet are close friends, campaign aides, representatives and experts on various policy issues but if you already have someone on the inside like how Great Britain does, it makes the job a whole lot easier. And maybe the people of the government are in fact really welcoming and thankful that an outsider is coming in, but when it comes down to policy issues and the insiders do not agree with the president, they will turn on you. Another huge weakness of the president is that a president’s party often does not have a congressional majority. A prime minister’s party always has a majority in parliament. Does this really mean anything?
While he is often seen as a very influential president, his position as the first President require that he had to set many standards. In fact President Washington hoped that the presidency would not be dominate. In his inaugural address he argued for a strong legislature which he r... ... middle of paper ... ...t must deal with, it does not necessarily explain how he comes to a position on issues and deals with problems. The behavior of a President can only be explained as a combination of many factors. His personal politics and approach to the power of the Presidency will explain if he will try to lead the whole government and beyond that the whole nation, or if he will act as a clerk, putting into action the orders of Congress.
All of them were frustrated by congresses unwillingness to conform to the president's agenda, highlighting again a weakness. In the British system of parliamentary government, a PM with an overall majority is more or less assured of getting his/her policies approved but the US system deliberately make it hard for the executive to get policies through the system, this avoids tyranny but it frustrates proposals of change - e.g. Clintons health bill. Although the president of the United states is often regarded as the most powerful head of state in the world. It is never the less a constitutionally limited presidency.