To What Extent Have Pime Ministers Become More Presidential

In: Other Topics

Submitted By Jworts
Words 456
Pages 2
To what extent have the UK prime ministers become more ‘presidential’? ( 25 )
T
he theory that prime ministers are becoming more presidential can come under the term ‘presidentialism’. This is the notion that the British prime minister has outgrown the parliamentary system. This suggests that UK prime ministers increasingly resemble presidents such as Wilson, Thatcher and Blair usually being seen as key examples.
Evidence that shows the growth of presidentialism is that some prime ministers tend to distance themselves from their parties and governments by representing themselves as outsiders or even developing personal ideological stance for example ‘Thatcherism’ or ‘Blarism’. Another piece of evidence is that prime ministers have personalized election campaigns which means the mass media increasingly portrays elections as personalized battles between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. Party leaders thus become the ‘brand image’ of their parties or government which means that personality and image have become major determinants of political success or failure. Furthermore, prime ministers have a strengthened cabinet office. The size and administrative resources available to the cabinet office have grown, turning it into a small-scale prime ministers department responsible for coordinating the rest of Whitehall. Also, prime ministers are using a wider range of special advisors as they are relying increasingly on hand-picked political advisors rather than on cabinets, ministers and senior civil servants. These often have personal loyalty to the prime ministers rather than to the party or government. Finally, the theory of personal mandates is a trend for prime ministers to claim popular authority on the basis of their electoral success. Prime ministers have therefore become the ideological consciences of their party or government.
Since the…...

Similar Documents

What I Have Become

...| What I Have Become | Sandtron Leon Harrell | | | | Approaching the end of my Fall Semester of 2011 I had accomplished one of the greatest things in my life. I had become a member Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Incorporated. All was well and I felt as though there was not too much else for me to conquer. Then as the semester drew to a close being advised and selecting classes for the Spring Semester began to be advertised all over myUWG. So to rid myself of all the irksome alerts of West Georgia I went and got advised. While selecting my classes my advisor brought up Personal Relationships. When I first heard it the first two things I thought were “my girlfriend took that class” and “she said it was easy.” So with me being the collegiate student I am I decided I would take it. I figured why not I’m in a personal relationship I should be able to relate. The first day of class was definitely not what I expected. I did not know that my teacher would look, think and talk like a student! From then on I knew that this was class was going to have the biggest impact on me, the way I thought, the way I talked, the way I evaluated relationships and how I looked at my life’s up and downs all together we’re going to change in due time. From the time I got advised up to the first day of class I honestly thought that this was just going to be another class. When in reality it wasn’t just another class, it was going to be THE class. From January 10, 2012 and so on, my life......

Words: 2218 - Pages: 9

To What Extent Have Socialists Disagreed About the Means of Achieving Socialism?

...To what extent have socialists disagreed about the means of achieving socialism? Socialism along with many other ideologies has a vast number of different strands and with a couple of different roads to achieving what is fundamentally socialism. Socialism being the ideology that utilises collectivisation to bring people together and to unite people by their common humanity. The two most obvious roads of socialism would be that of revolutionary socialism and also that of evolutionary socialism. This are taken on by two different types of socialists, revisionist socialists and fundamentalist socialists. Revolutionary socialism is the belief that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolution against the current political system. To them this would inevitably involve the use of violence as a means to achieve what they wish. Evolutionary socialism involves the belief that evolution would lead to socialism as the times had changed and revolution was no longer as fresh in people’s minds and the alternative was that there was an alternative that would benefit the proletariat more. Both roads of socialism agree on one thing fundamentally, this is the fact that socialism is inevitable no matter what route is taken to get there. Evolutionary socialists believe that socialism is inevitable as it will slowly adapt over time due to the change in economics and living conditions which will eventually lead to socialism emerging as the most practical outcome. Revolutionary socialists......

Words: 933 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Have Socialist Favoured Common Ownership?

...favour common ownership is because they believe property breeds acquisitiveness therefore is morally corrupting. Socialists argue that private property encourages people to be materialistic, leading individuals to believe human happiness can be gained through the pursuit of wealth. Those with their own property want to gain more, whilst those who have little or no wealth can no longer acquire it. Socialists also believe property is divisive: It creates conflict in society, for example, this is most clearly illustrated in the Marxist belief of class conflict. According to Marx, class is linked to economic power, as defined by the individuals relationship to the means of production, Class conflict is therefore between ‘capital’ and ‘labour’, that is between the bourgeoisie; owners of productive wealth, and the proletariat; those who live off the sale of their labour. Those who believe in fundamentalist socialism, which is a form of socialism that seeks to abolish capitalism and replace it with a qualitatively different kind of society, favour common ownership of wealth. Marx and Engels wanted the abolition of private property, so that society will ultimately become classless and there would be no economic inequality amongst humans. This theory is based on the principle of fraternity within Socialism. Fraternity means brotherhood, bonds of sympathy between and amongst human beings. In practice, when Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917, they believed......

Words: 922 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Have Constitutional Reforms Since 1997 Made the Uk More Democratic?

...To what extent have constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 made the UK more democratic? Constitutional reform is a process whereby the fundamental nature of the system of government is changed or where a change is proposed. In the UK this may also involve the process of codification. Since 1997 there has been many key reforms that have made UK more democratic by a large amount and sometimes not so much if at all. Firstly the House of Lords reform where the voting rights of most hereditary peers was abolished. This makes the UK less undemocratic rather then more democratic. This is due to the fact that the House of Lords as a whole is an unelected chamber and therefore undemocratic, however by removing the voting rights of some hereditary peers it makes it less undemocratic as they are there simply by birth and not even appointed. So this reform does make the UK slightly more democratic however some peers remain and the whole chamber is still unelected and so is still very undemocratic. The referendum reform which is the introduction that any proposal to transfer power within the UK should be approved by a referendum. This makes the UK more democratic as it allows the country to become directly involved in the big decisions of devolution as it means large changes in there area/country and as a form of direct democracy makes the decision legitimate and fair. However it also can lead to voter fatigue and also only the government can decide when to put forward a......

Words: 709 - Pages: 3

Have Supermarkets Become Too Big to the Extent That They Are Damaging Competition

...Question 1: HAVE SUPERMARKETS BECOME TOO BIG TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE DAMAGING COMPETITION Question 2: THE DOMINANCE OF THE BIG FOUR SUPERMARKETS IN THE GROCERY MARKET MEAN THAT THERE IS AN INCREASED RISK OF CONSUMERS GETTING A POOR DEAL A poor deal will have different meaning for consumers for instance consumers with a higher income would not mind paying a higher price for a good quality product and for them this would be considered a good deal however for consumers with lower incomes the same deal would be considered poor as they do not have such a large budget. A poor deal can either mean a product of poor quality which is retail at a higher price with less variety of product so consumers have limited choice or it can mean a poor quality product, retailing at a very low price because the supermarkets are competing with each other to attract consumers and this is affecting the quality of the product. On the other hand this might only be true if the big four supermarkets dominate the market so instead of it being an oligopoly market, the grocery market would be considered a monopoly market. The BIG 4 would be able to this by opening small stores such as Tesco Express around local small convenience stores and making them out of business as Tesco benefits from economies of scales so it can charge a lower price in comparison to the local independent stores, which would make Tesco more attractive to consumers. Also the big four have some sort of loyalty cards deal which...

Words: 454 - Pages: 2

To What Extent Had Russia Become More Stable by 1914?

...By 1914, the stability of Russia was questionable to say the least. Historians continually argue about what factors mean that Russia was stable or unstable. Some evidence is clear for example the Tsar still being in control of his ministers and other evidence is arguable, for example the increase in population, this could be indicating a prosperous time in Russia and an increase in stability, or it could mean there was a lack of activities to be done, and the increased population meant there were more mouths to feed. There are many factors that contribute to how stable Russia was at this time. Economically, Russia seemed more unstable: eighty percent of the population were peasant farmers and the gap between the rich and poor was only increasing, making Russia even more unstable than it already was. Autocracy continued to repress the poor and the rich continued to hold most of the country’s finances. The poor struggled to become economically active, the rich fought to keep things the way they were during this time period. Stolypin tried to help the peasants by introducing land reforms – these meant that peasant’s owned the land and had more of an incentive to maintain and produce from it. However Stolypin was not supported in this and a lot of the peasants believed in the commune, they didn’t want privatisation for social and economic reasons. There was a massive pressure on the land and due to the fact that there was no unrest at this time indicates that the stability......

Words: 1136 - Pages: 5

To What Extent Have Uk Prime Ministers Become More Presidential

...our prime ministers is the fact that they are not our head of state whereas presidents are heads of state. However our prime minister is or head of government. The head of state is responsible for attending political functions, exercising political powers and legitimising the state. They also have the power to call for early elections and are responsible for signing off all laws passed in parliamentary government. Whereas the head of government is the leader of the ruling party and is the chief of the executive branch. Their responsibilities are implementing laws and making all important decisions with the approval of the cabinet. In the presidential form of government the head of government and the head of state are the same individual whereas in our government the head of state is the Queen and the head of government is the prime minister. One way that the prime minister can be seen as becoming presidential is the greater concentration on the presentation of policy. The prime minister likes to be associated with the positive policies being enforced and passed through their government, guidance and leadership. So as to add to their public appeal. Famously Blair announced on Breakfast TV that the government was to make significant investments in the health service. Brown accused the prime minister of stealing his budget when in fact Brown was due to make the announcement the following day as part of his spending review. A second way in which the prime minister appears......

Words: 809 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Is Population Growth More of a Problem Than Resource Growth

...To what extent is population growth more of a problem than resource growth? To ensure a good quality of life for future generations they need to have easily accessible bacic resources like water, food and fuel, however at the current rates of resource use, some suggest we many have run out of oil and gas by 2050. For example the institute of Mechanical Engineers predicts that in the future oil extaction will become more difficult and that by 2040 we will only be able to produce 20% of our current oil output, while population continues to grow 75million per year. So what is the answer and how much of a problem is population growth and resource usage? That is what I aim to clear up in this essay. The ideas put forward by Robert Malthus in the late 18th century suggested that as time goes on, sooner or later population will exceed Earth’s carrying capacity and thus the Earth’s resources will not be able to provide a sufficient standard of life to all its inhabitants. This is because human population grows geometrically while resource numbers grow arithmetically. Therefore Malthus suggests that people should delay marriages, reduce fertility rates and also that some should not marry at all and therefore abstain from sexual intercourse. However Malthus’ theory has been vulnerable to a lot of scrutinizing because many feel his ideas have now been proved wrong. For example since his lifetime the population has doubled and life expectancy is now at 68 and the World seems to be......

Words: 726 - Pages: 3

To What Extent Does the Prime Minister Dominate the Political System in the Uk?

...years we have seen more charismatic, ‘presidential’, dominant Prime Ministers; Thatcher and Blair for example. Although, in order to determine the extent that the Prime Minister dominates the political system, we have to look at changes in the role rather than looking at a couple of individuals. An argument that says the Prime Minister dominates the political system is the growth and use of an extensive advisory unit who work exclusively for the Prime Minister. This means the Prime Minister has access to information that his Ministers do not have, and it also means the Prime Minister can essentially overlook the advice of his/her Ministers thus allowing the Prime Minister to dominate cabinet. The Prime Minister, as the chief appointer of the Cabinet, can also effectively remove anyone who does not agree with his/her views. This results in a complete dominance of the executive, which inevitably results in dominance of the UK political system. However, this dominance is a short term consequence of the Prime Minister’s powers. There are only so many Ministers the Prime Minister can remove before his Cabinet loses complete faith in him/her; secondly, by completely dominating policy, Ministers lose any sense of ownership over policy which can cause party factions, or even a vote of no confidence. A Prime Minister’s power is said to be elastic, in that the further the Prime Minister tries to stretch their power, the harder his/her party pulls back. This is something we have seen......

Words: 902 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Does the Prime Minister Control the Cabinet?

...The extent to way in which the prime minister controls cabinet varies, and can vary greatly, as Prime ministers have great amounts of scope in which they can manage and control the cabinet and the system surrounding it. The main reasons for the control the Prime Minister has over Cabinet are due to the powers he/she has over the Cabinet itself. The first is that the Prime Minister chairs cabinet meetings, and manages the agendas, as well as summing up the decisions at the end. This means that the PM has a great deal of control over the meetings, and can direct them in a course that suits what the PM wants. Combine this with the fact that the Prime Minister convenes cabinet meetings and decides when they are called and sets their length – it means that in effect, the PM determines the role and significance of the entire cabinet. Cabinet meetings have declined over the past decades, from around 100 a year to only 40, under Blair they rarely lasted more than an hour, which, when taking into consideration the size of Cabinet and the sheer amount of issues that are discussed, indicates that Blair put little importance on Cabinet meetings. Brown has changed things so that they last longer, but not by a great deal. They are now places where discussion isn’t encouraged and dissent not tolerated, and many of the decisions made there have in fact already been approved of, but merely require formal approval. Thatcher, at first, manipulated the Cabinet to great effect for......

Words: 562 - Pages: 3

O What Extent Have Constitutional Reforms Since 1997 Made the Uk More Democratic?

...is proposed. In the UK this may also involve the process of codification. Since 1997 there have been many key reforms that have impacted on the UK whether it makes the country more democratic or even undemocratic. The first reform is the reform of the House of Lords, this was were the voting rights of most hereditary peers were abolished. The Blair government subsequently passed the House of Lords Act 1999, on 7th November 2001 the government undertook a public consultation. This helped to create a public debate on the issue of Lords reform. In 2010 all three main parties promised to take action on the Lords reform in the 2010 general election, this was then followed up by the House Of Lords Reform Bill 2012, however this Bill was abandoned by the Government on 6th August 2012 following opposition from within the Conservative Party. A successful attempt to pursue minor reform of the House was made on 14 May 2014 when the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 gained Royal Assent. The original idea of abolishing voting rights of most hereditary peers, makes the UK less democratic rather than more democratic. This is due to the House Of Lords as a whole being an unelected chamber and therefore makes it undemocratic, however by removing the hereditary rights of some peers makes it less undemocratic as they are born into it at birth and not voted in. So this reform does make the UK slightly more democratic, but overall some peers remain and the whole chamber is still unelected still......

Words: 996 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Does the Prime Minister Control the Decisions Made by Their Government

...The extent to way in which the prime minister controls cabinet varies, and can vary greatly, as Prime ministers have great amounts of scope in which they can manage and control the cabinet and the system surrounding it. The main reasons for the control the Prime Minister has over Cabinet are due to the powers he/she has over the Cabinet itself. The first is that the Prime Minister chairs cabinet meetings, and manages the agendas, as well as summing up the decisions at the end. This means that the PM has a great deal of control over the meetings, and can direct them in a course that suits what the PM wants. Combine this with the fact that the Prime Minister convenes cabinet meetings and decides when they are called and sets their length – it means that in effect, the PM determines the role and significance of the entire cabinet. Cabinet meetings have declined over the past decades, from around 100 a year to only 40, under Blair they rarely lasted more than an hour, which, when taking into consideration the size of Cabinet and the sheer amount of issues that are discussed, indicates that Blair put little importance on Cabinet meetings. Brown has changed things so that they last longer, but not by a great deal. They are now places where discussion isn’t encouraged and dissent not tolerated, and many of the decisions made there have in fact already been approved of, but merely require formal approval. Thatcher, at first, manipulated the Cabinet to great effect for......

Words: 562 - Pages: 3

To What Extent Is the Uk’s Government Becoming More Presidential? Discuss

...To what extent is the Uk’s government becoming more Presidential? Discuss A presidential system is a republican system of government where a head of government is also head of state and leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch. The United States, for instance, has a presidential system. Whereas, a prime ministerial system adopts a fused system, in which the three branches of government are fused together and the monarchy is head of state. The Uk, for instance has a prime ministerial government, where Queen Elizabeth is head of state and David Cameron is the Executive. One could argue that the Uk’s government has become marginally presidential, as the need for a cabinet has become less over time. However, the UK are still a fused government in which powers are shared within parliament, unlike a presidential system. The tendency of Prime Ministers to distance themselves from their party and government has increased, developing a personal ideological stance. Prime Ministers such as Blair and Thatcher are key examples. Both Prime Ministers have developed their own stances: “Blairism” and “Thatcherism’. Blair, for example, had really bad attendance at Parliament and his Cabinet Ministers have been quoted as saying that: “Cabinet meeting sometimes lasted only fifteen minutes.” also, Blair decided a lot of his policies within the Pm’s office, rather than discussing it with his cabinet. For example, the decision to go to war with Iraq was seen as...

Words: 1122 - Pages: 5

To What Extent Have Constitutional Reforms Introduced Since 1997 Made the Uk More Democratic?

...To what extent have constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 made the UK more democratic? Since 1997 the UK has seen many constitutional reforms; it is argued about whether or not they have made the UK more democratic, this easy will be going through a few of these reforms and explain how they have effected the UK. The word democracy means a system of government in which all the people are involved in making decisions that effect the country/state, it can further be defined as a government for the people, by the people, of the people, the people of the state can have their say through electoral votes, referendums lobbying or protests. Democracy has many aspects such as decentralisation, accountability, participation, open government and rights protection; decentralisation means the process of distributing or dispersing power away from the central government, an example of this can be seen in the Devolution Act of 1997. Accountability is the act of the government being liable for everything they do; this relates back to the rule of law which states that anybody can be taken to court if they have broken the law including the law makers themselves. Holding the government accountable means that anybody of the public can take the government to court if they have broken the law or if someone feels like an Act has been broken. Open government definitely helps democracy as it means that citizens have the right to access documents and proceedings of the government to allow......

Words: 1303 - Pages: 6

To What Extent Have Liberals Agreed over Freedom?

...To what extent have liberals agreed over freedom? Liberals believe that human beings are first and foremost, individuals, endowed with reason. This implies that each individual should enjoy the maximum possible freedom consistent with a like freedom for all. Belief in the supreme importance of the individual leads naturally to a commitment to individual freedom. Isaiah Berlin distinguished between a `negative' theory of liberty and a `positive' one. Early liberals have believed in Negative Freedom. It is the absence of external restrictions and constraints upon the individual, usually understood as non-interference. It is often associated with freedom of choice and importance of privacy. However, classical liberals feared that `free' individuals may exploit others for their own interest and advantage hence why law and government are necessary. Negative freedom is therefore upheld primarily through checks and balances proposed by Montesquieu on government power through codified constitutions and bills of rights. Examples of negative freedom include civil liberties, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of religious worship. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed that the unrestrained freedom promoted by classical liberalism has brought about new forms of poverty and injustice. T.H. Green challenged the classical liberal notion of liberty. Negative freedom merely removes external constraints on the individual, giving......

Words: 360 - Pages: 2