Analyse the Limitations on the Powers of the Prime Minister.

In Canada, the Prime Minister has too much power, some PM take advantages of this power while others do not. The Prime Minister is the head of the party with a plurality of seats in the House of Commons. Some of the things that the PM is responsible for are: summons and dissolves, decides of the cabinet make up, advising the governor general, etc. All of these responsibilities allocated to the PM give him the absolute power. First, the PM has the ability to choose when to end the session of the parliament or simply dissolve it. The PM could use this power for his advantages. For example, Stephen Harper asked Michaëlle Jean to suspend the Parliament because he knew that a coalition was formed against him and could even lead to new elections.

Another reason why the House of Commons is more effective in checking government power is Prime ministers Question Time, which is a weekly slot where MPs can ask one notified question of the Prime Minister and one unscripted supplementary question. These are also usually dominated by the PM and the leader of the opposition who can ask four or five supplementary questions. Question Time also extends to other ministers, forcing them to answer oral questions from MPs. On occasion Prime Minister question time can expose a PM or seem to sum up the political weather, for example Tony Blair said to John Major “You’re weak, weak, weak”. Furthermore, PM questions are very high profile due to the high amount coverage via the media and the one occasion in the week where much of the population will form a judgement on the two main party leaders. Also, the vast majority of the government can only be questioned in the House of Commons.

Although the UK Prime Minister is elected separately through Parliamentary elections, unlike the USA President, there is a trend for Prime Ministers to claim popular authority on the basis of electoral victory. Prime Ministers have therefore become the ideological consciences of their

Many people would like to believe that the president is the most powerful person in the world. However, the structure of America has put restraints on the president that a Prime Minister would not have. There are many differences between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. These differences include regulations, term of office, powers, and cultures. Throughout this paper you will learn that just being the leader of their country is about as similar as these two people get.

The Scrutiny of executives by the Parliament would not let political parties to abuse its power as Select Committees question the Prime Minister publicly. A confidence vote, meaning a motion of no confidence, is a vote on whether a group of people still has confidence in a government or leader. This is mainly a statement or vote which states that a person in a superior position, be it government, managerial, etc, is no longer deemed fit to hold that position. Votes of no confidence would not let the leader of a political power to hold this post is the Prime Minister is found to be dictatorial. Other members of Executive, for example cabinet discussions, scrutinise the Prime Minister

The prime minister has a significant amount of power within the Canadian government. Some of the sources of the prime minister’s powers are the number of seats in the House of Commons he and his party has, his ability to give push/give priority to certain government agendas, and his ability to appoint different governmental positions. For a politician to hold the office of PM his party must hold the majority of the seats in the house; this means that by convention his party must be in solidarity with his decisions, which gives the PM’s the loyal support of his party. Another power of the PM is the ability to put forward government agendas that they believe should be prioritized. The PM also has the ability to appoint people who they believe

In Canadian government it best to have legislators who do not vote their own interests and they vote the interests of their constituents. If legislators vote in their own interests they could be going against their own parties or the constituents that voted them in. Even if they know a lot about the subject they should still keep their interests out of their decisions and keep the interests of their constituents. Legislators that vote their own interests might even be going against the party policies, which could get them kicked out of the party or disciplined. Legislators are there to represent the people of their riding, not to vote their own interests in.

Harper used the weak liberal leaders to ensure he stayed in power and he was able to ensure that a coalition did not happen between the Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois. He remained strong when the possibility of his government being replaced by a coalition almost happened, he was successful by saying that the deal the liberals made was “‘a betrayal of the voters of this country… a betrayal of the best interests of our economy… a betrayal of the best interests of our country. And we will fight it with every means that we have’” (223). Harper kept his opponents divided and he showed Canadians that he was not going anywhere. Finally, he showed leadership after winning a majority by promising “‘major reforms’ in ‘a whole range of areas’ to ‘secure the sustainability of our key programs… for a generation to come’” (364). This showed that he was just getting started. Stephen Harper’s leadership style was to remain a strong leader while making as few headlines as possible. Harper did not like making headlines, “This helps explain why he has lasted. He lies low because he wants to last” (291). Harper was an effective leader because he knew how to keep a low profile which limited the amount of bad

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.

The Canadian Prime Minister presents the illusion that this so-called democratic Canada is run by the will of the people and attempts to maintain this image, yet the truth is that the power stays

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.

Docherty addresses criticism both internally and externally of the governing party. Internally Docherty suggests that while advances for nonpartisan selection of specific roles, such as the Speaker, have been successful in achieving some neutrality, party discipline and loyalty to the executive remain incredibly strong in Canada making internal dissention both politically and strategically unwise for members of a governing party. Externally of the government, parties and individual MP’s do not receive the same type of research support as well as funding as those which hold particular positions such as Ministers or meet standards set by the Board of Internal Economy. While oppositions can scrutinize in the form of Question Period (QP) or Private Members Bills (PMB) these measures have become more symbolic and theatrically politicized than they have been historically leading to more talk and much less action.

PM doesn’t need legislative approval of Cabinet choices, as long as they are MPs; president needs Senate approval. Choice wise the president has more liberty in that he can choose any he please, not only does the PM have to choose an MP, they are also dependent on party pressures (a-c Heffernan, 2005:65).

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.

One major issue that allows the Prime Minister execute such a high degree of ministerial power is the Cabinets ability to use party discipline to ensure it has its party’s support. MPs of the party must always “toe the party line” to guarantee the will of the PM is carried out. If any elected member of the Prime Ministers’ party were to vote against the PM, the PM has the executive