First Among Euals

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.

In recent times many commentators have pointed out that the UK’s Prime Ministers are increasingly acting like Presidents- of course the UK Prime Minister cannot actually become a President as the system would not allow it. Below I shall be analysing and explaining the factors that highlight the growth of presidentialism in the UK, as well as the points which suggest that the UK’s Prime Minister is still a Prime Minister.

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

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)

Tony Blair introduced me to politics. Taken by my parents to protest in London against the Iraq war I experienced the inability of national politics and international relations to be mutually exclusive concepts. Key issues such as the growing refugee crisis, the debate regarding Britain’s place in Europe and trade agreements such as TTIP all have national and international implications. Britain’s political sovereignty has been eroded by Unions, Agreements and world events. This opens up the debate as to where power is concentrated. A more controversial debate would address whether national and global decisions are in fact being made by politicians at all, or if global corporations impose greater power. Regardless of this nihilistic view, the

But has the Conservative party actually abandoned Thatcherism? Considering the points displayed in this essay, I have come to the conclusion that Cameron’s ‘progressive’ party may not so adverse to Thatcherism at all. The most important issues over specific reforms raised by the current Conservative Government seem to be highly influenced by the ideas of Thatcher. What is essential to point out is that times have evolved since the Thatcher timeframe and the Conservatives have had to evolve along with these times and adapt their attitudes to gain support from the electorate who view the ‘Iron Lady’s’ concepts as out of date. As to any argument, there are two sides to the story; let us remember that Cameron’s Government has only had the chance

Adopt the view of the Prime Minister. Consider the character’s strengths, responsibilities, and blind spots. Why is the Prime Minister in this dilemma?

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

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.

When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister the first thing she wanted to do was limit union power. She felt that union power applied to nationalized industrial monopolies resulted in poor service at exorbitant cost to the taxpayers. She pointed to inefficient work practices, over employment and restrictive employment