Are British Prime Ministers as powerful as sometimes claimed?

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.

These sorts of powers would generally be associated with a President, not a Prime Minister.

Having control or power over something is in the monarchy type of government but that type of power is by heredity or being the son of a royal king. There is another type of “power” that is forceful or just on accident, and too much power can cause someone to go insane or do something that was just instinct.

Under the British constitution, parliament is sovereign. This means, amongst other things, that Parliament has a monopoly on making and amending laws. The British constitution, and the three functions of government which operate it often falls short of creating a definitive separation. Separation of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of government should function independent of each other, in a utopian world there should aim to be a balance between the Crown and Parliament. In practice however, separation between the executive and legislature is near enough non-existent, an example being that government is made up almost entirely of MPs. Contrast this with the USA where no member of Obama’s government is equally a member of congress. However, the USA does have a codified constitution, a constitution written to delegate a clear separation of power. As we are well aware the UK doesn’t have such a constitution, the rules that

Elective Dictatorship is the term used to describe the government and the Prime minister to be seen as having powers over the country that seem excessive. A government appointing as an elected dictatorship is likely to have a large majority over all other parties in the House of Commons. This essay will analise the arguments for and against the UK having an elected dictatorship. It will conclude that a proper dictatorship is never possible because the UK’s constitution is a democratic one and there are counter balances to accessive Prime ministerial powers. However when a government has a very large majority it can use its control over the House of Commons to make decisions that can seem to some as being dictatorial.

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

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)

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)

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

The monarch is a figure head and does no decision making. The voters of a parliamentary system elect parliament who then elect the prime minister and the cabinet. The prime minister is normally the leader of the most popular party in parliament. The PM even being the head of government is not as powerful as the head of government in a presidential system. The parliament of the system withholds the most power. They make or break any law. Compared to the separation of powers as in a presidential system there is only a separation of functions. Each part of government has its own function to perform, but there is no system of checks and balances. An example of the overlapping of powers is the need of a vote of confidence. A vote of confidence is proposed by a party and needs backing from the other part of government. With no system of sorts there is more likely of upheaval and change of rule. There is not as much stability in a parliamentary system as there is in a presidential. Lastly there is no judicial rule as there is in a presidential system. A parliamentary system has had success in the past but still is seen as not as successful as a presidential system.

Although The Prime Minister is quite lengthy, the author manages to keep it focused and interesting. He is able to show how different leaders can shape the office the way they wish. Although he disagrees with people who believe that Britain has transformed into a Presidential system, Peter Hennessey does think the office has changed enough for the PM to decide how he wants to lead. The book has been a great aid in helping further understand class content and the politics of Western

After reading the min-case, The Prime Minister’s Powerful Better Half I would portray Ching as an authoritative leader. As stated by the textbook “influences can be defined as the change in a target agent’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behavior as the result of influence tactics”. Influence tactics is a person’s actual behavior that is designed to change another person’s attitudes, beliefs, values or behaviors. The concept usually comes from the leader’s perspective. HO Ching is the CEO of Temasek with an outstanding education background, excellent working background as well as a personal background. Also, in my reading HO Ching expresses her abilities to change the behaviors of staff in ‘humble roots’. She has the commitment and the determination to build an effective enterprise.

Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons and serves as a Member of Parliament throughout his prime Ministerial Career. Also prime minister has strong power over his parliamentary members and legislative process like bills and laws. Prime Minister has the right to introduce new laws and pass a bill. But in case of a Minority Government, Prime Minister has to rely on other political parties to get bill passed. Also, Prime Minister has the power to close the legislature and he can conduct a federal election to select a new Prime minister.

The National Assembly does actually have the power to overthrow the executive government, including the power to overthrow the executive government, including Ministers and Prime Ministers, but the National Assembly does not have power to overthrow the President himself. Thus, in reality the Prime Minister and his cabinet ‘must’ be part of the party that holds the majority of deputies in the Assembly; this sometimes leads to what is called a ‘cohabitation’, which means a president has to choose a Prime Minister whom does not share the same political views and often becoming ‘direct’ opponents. Since 2008, the power of the Assembly have been reformed and reinforced. Before the reform, the Executive Government used to set the priorities of the National Assembly sessions, but now, the Executive Government sets the for two weeks each month; one week is devoted to questions addressed to the Government and the last week is completely free for the Assembly to make their own decisions. Every Wednesday, sessions are broadcasted to the public, consisting of questions from the deputies to members of the Executive Government. Although the National Assembly is the ‘lower’ chamber, it has more powers than the higher chamber: the Senate. In this bicameral system, the two chambers independently discuss bills, but the Assembly has the last word, on all laws passed.