DOES TONY BLAIR RUN A PRESIDENTIAL-STYLE ADMINISTRATION? In this paper, I intend to analyse the extent to which the current Labour administration shows the characteristics of a presidential government. To do this, the term presidential' must first be defined. A definition of a presidential government that is generally accepted by political analysts is a system of government in which the powers of the president are constitutionally separate from those of the legislature.' The British system of government is parliamentary and does not match the definition of presidential. Therefore, the question must be answered by looking at the individual features of a presidential government and comparing them with aspects of the Labour …show more content…
However, not all cabinet ministers are that willing to give up their positions. In recent years, parliament has witnessed the rise of career politicians'. People that have aligned their education and career purely in the pursuit of becoming a member of parliament and eventually a cabinet minister. After a lifetime of working towards the positions in which they now find themselves, they would probably think twice before challenging party policy and jeopardising their career. There is certainly a strong incentive for cabinet ministers to conform to policies recommended by the Prime Minister. The benefits to the Prime Minister of having a supportive cabinet have already been highlighted. A 14.4% rise in people studying politics at university this year is an indication that the occurrence of career politicians' is set to become more common in the future. The British Prime Minister has always had many powers which some would deem to be excessive. These include the power to: choose their election date; appoint members of the judiciary; appoint the archbishop of Canterbury; dismiss members of the cabinet and arrange committees and agendas. In a parliamentary system of government, the Prime Minister also has the power to appoint the executive without his decision having to be approved by the legislature as is
Firstly, the House of Commons has the ultimate check on government power via a vote of no confidence, this last happened in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher was able to be elected due to the Labour government's failure.
Political thinkers Rousseau, Locke and Montesqieu claimed that the powers of government should be limited, divided and checked. The principle is that there should be a division of government executive, legislative and judiciary powers into three separate arms or institutions that act separately and are independent of one another (members of one branch cannot be members of either of the other two). Australia’s constitution separated powers by delegating the legislative power to Federal parliament (s.1), executive power to the Governor General (s.61) and the Judiciary to the High Court (s.71). However due to Westminster conventions (adopted from the British system of parliament) commonly practiced by the Australia government, the members of the executive (cabinet) are selected from the legislative by the Prime Minister (going against the concept of having no cross-branched members). The PM (also Westminster convention) is not mentioned in the constitution and yet exercised executive power; for example in 2003 PM John Howard exercises (s.68) by sending troops to Iraq. The constitution also provides the executive with the power to appoint the High Court Judge (s.72) and thus is could be argued that the executive has power over the Judiciary in that sense; However the constitution actively safeguards the position of the Judiciary by stating the High Court Judge “Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the
Tony Blair's Approach to Power Since Labour came into power in 1997 Tony Blair has been criticised by some for being the 'son of Thatcher'. Many say that labour is now following the values and policies similar to that of a Tory government and in particular a Tory government lead by Margaret Thatcher. Before the time of Tony Blair and New Labour, the left wing party stood firm on one value and that was socialism. More on Labours old Values and policies The conservatives on the other hand have very different policies or not so different as some may argue.
These sorts of powers would generally be associated with a President, not a Prime Minister.
To assess the Wilson Government which ran from the years 1964 to 1970 you have to look at what the Labour government promised to achieve if they won the election in 1964. You have to look at what the changes the Wilson government brought forward in their time in office and how the personalities of its politician’s effects decisions made.
This period of Labour rule is often marked down as a poor performance on behalf of the labour party, critically looked upon by many historians. There were many failings under the rule of this government however the circumstances they were placed in caused severe restraints in their options.
The doctrine of separation of power is not followed in England, it follows a parliamentary form of government where the parliament is supreme. Instead of crown that is the nominal head, the cabinet calls the shots on most of the matters. (Peterson)
A parliamentary government is a democratic form of government which operates on a party system. It is the most popular and widely adopted form of democracy. A state that operates on a parliamentary system is run by two executives, firstly the head of state who is either a monarch or president who then appoints a prime minister as the head of government. A parliament can be run by either a single majority political party or as a coalition government in which more than one party collaborate to form the government. In this essay I will be assessing the key strengths and weaknesses associated with a parliamentary government. In doing so I will conclude that whilst a parliamentary government has weaknesses its strengths outweigh these and therefore it is the superior form of democratic government.
Advocates of the parliamentary form of government suggested a few competitive strengths of this system of government. Since it has gained a stable parliamentary majority, the government is able to smoothly process its legislative project. In addition, the government is adequately furnished that it could still choose to adopt measures designed to support the national interests while many strong sectional groups oppose such measures (Dyck, 2012). The prime minister is the leader of this type of government, who is obliged to be responsive to all its people’s demands. Also, the people have the right to vote and replace the prime minister due to any incompetency of governance that does not address and fulfill their desires. This is known as the non-confidence vote; the government may be removed when it has lost confidence in the parliament, and cause the head of state to resign a new government (Dyck, 2012). An example of such measure occurred in Britain on March 28th, 1979. When James Callaghan’s labour government was defeated in the House of Commons just by one vote, it was forced into an early election that was won by the opposition leader Margaret Thatcher (Dyck, 2012). In this case, it can avoid or at least reduce the period of legislative gridlock, because of its flexibility in elections and the power is centered in the country’s prime
The legislative powers of the British Prime Minister are far superior to the American President “ despite the efforts of opposition parties, the majority [in the House of Commons] has little incentive to do anything other than cheerlead (or occasionally carp at) the Prime Minister and his or her ministerial team” (Heffernan, 2005:59)
Since the writing of the Russian constitution in 1993, the presidency has been a concentration of power that has ultimately led to the demolition of democracy in the country in contrast to France’s success. The basis of the president’s power in each respective country is vastly different: in the 1993 Russian constitution, the president’s powers are multifarious, in the French Fifth Republic constitution, the president does not “directly govern” (Cases, O’Neil, 162). Much
The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be
Royal prerogative is a source of law, historically exercised by the ruling monarch. However, the prerogative powers are transferred to government ministers over many years, allowing them to exercise the prerogative powers without the authority of parliament. Although there two types of controls existed to limit the use of these powers; 1) Judicial Review, and 2) constitutional conventions, but there are problems existed in both types of controls. RP can be controlled through judicial authority but there are not many statute for all of the prerogative powers to be controlled.
Parliament can however override and replace the prerogative by statute e.g. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Courts are capable of judicial review of these powers as was held unanimously in the GCHQ case. Only prerogative acts, which don’t involve high policy best determined by the executives will be reviewed.
There’s no doubt that Margaret Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister changed the way Britain saw itself and how it was seen on the international stage, but what can be debated is whether or not she was elected due to her own party’s strengths, or the weaknesses of the opposition. The years before and during Thatcher’s time were fraught for the country, with inflation running high and lots of discontent, displayed not only through strikes but also the via ballot boxes.