The central focus of this essay is to understand the common process of appointing the Prime Minister, interpreting how Theresa May was selected and to comprehend as to whether or not this process was fair. Traditionally, the leader of the political party that can control a majority in the House of Commons, shall be appointed Prime Minister. ‘When a Prime Minister resigns, he or she advises the Queen’, however this is only a suggestion, she isn’t obliged. This is a rather inadequate factor as the Monarch has ‘Royal Prerogative’, a privilege of entitlement in appointing whoever she wishes to fulfil this role. As Harold Nicolson wrote in 1952 "When the head of a Government resigns, or is defeated in Parliament’, ‘the choice of his successor devolves upon the King alone’. Although the Queen can lawfully select anybody she wishes, this is overruled by constitutional conventions, a set of rules which guide her in this process. On June 23rd,2016 the results of the referendum called by David Cameron, changed the political landscape of England. David Cameron, former Prime Minister led the campaign to remain during the referendum, however he was unsuccessful and an incumbent Prime Minister. Thus he had to resign, ‘The Prime Minister resigned on Friday 24th June’. Theresa May …show more content…
The reason being is that she commanded a handsome amount of support in both rounds of her party’s vote. Her final contender Andrea Leadson left the race, leaving only Theresa May standing. The Conservative party was left without a leader and due to Theresa May being ‘a more cogent and experienced politician than the other candidates’, she was unequivocally the most suitable candidate for the role of the Prime Minister. This displays that this process was equal and at no point was it uncandid. Respectfully Westminster have remained democratic throughout the difficult circumstances relating to the resignation of David
However, prime ministers are as powerful as they appear due to the multiple sources of power they control within the UK. Mainly, the prime minister has a vast amount of power as
These sorts of powers would generally be associated with a President, not a 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 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.
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
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.
Government is organized in 3 levels, which includes Queen of Canada who is Canada’s formal head of state then House of Commons and the power is in Prime Minister’s Hand.
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
While all members of the parliament have an equal vote in decisions that are made by the parliament, there are three individuals or groups that have more influence than the others. These are the prime minister, the members of the government ministry and the members of the government cabinet.
The electoral system is often criticized as Canadians do not directly vote for its Prime Minister as it is through proxy of a local MP and voting result of a leadership vote only open to political party members. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/fra/sys/courtney&document=courtney&lang=e.
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
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).
Britain withdrawing the European Union has always been an ongoing discussion, one of the many goals pursued by some British political parties, along with groups of people and individuals. Leaving the European Union is a right that every country that is part of the Treaty on the European Union has (Article 50 of the treaty), and this is what the Conservative political parties that proposed the referendum are triggering to impulse a faster withdraw from the EU; specially the new prime minister Theresa May. There had been another referendum in 1975, but it resulted in
Adopt the view of the Prime Minister. Consider the character’s strengths, responsibilities, and blind spots. Why is the Prime Minister in this dilemma?
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