Turn on thread page Beta

Has UK Prime Minister become President effectively? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi..

    I am doing edexcel Govt & Politics unit2.. I need help on this question...


    Has the UK Prime Minister become President effectively?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    depends. Maybe slightly on the presidential republic system although he cant veto legislation however if you are comparing to a parliamentary presidency (not its real name, mean as in Germany.) then it is the queen who retains the executive function, I think anyway.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So you literally just write the question to TSR, hoping someone will give you an essay answer?

    Do some work!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steezy)
    So you literally just write the question to TSR, hoping someone will give you an essay answer?

    Do some work!
    I dont want any1 to give me the complete essay answer....I just want to get some help..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No. A president is completely independent of all other institutions for their tenure, bar a specific impeachment process. Moreover he has relative freedom over who to choose to form his cabinet.

    A Prime Minister is dependent upon the support of Parliament, and has limited choice over his cabinet - for example, Cameron must balance Tories and Lib Dems, and keep both sides sweet.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    A UK PM does not have the powers that a President does. However some can rule in a more presidential style (eg Thatcher and Blair) when they either dominate Cabinet or fill it with yes men.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pluto-invader)
    I dont want any1 to give me answers....I just want to get some help..
    Well, in terms of 'help' that isn't cheating: I'd strongly recommend you read some books, and do something about your standard of English as a matter of urgency.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The UK PM effectively has more power than the US President. As long as he can control the HoC, which is easy since he is likely to have a large majority and has the power of patronage, he can just about anything passed into law.

    Though the use of the Royal Prerogative he just about has all the powers of a King, as well as all the powers of the Head of Government.

    Its how he uses this power that makes him presidential or not, he can choose to use the cabinet, but then again he doesn't have to.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The PM leads the executive and legislature as we use a Parliamentary system, and in that sense is technically more powerful than the President who only leads the executive and can get pretty beaten up by the US legislature and judiciary on most controversial matters.

    However, different PMs have different approaches to government. Some prefer to head a strong cabinet who are largely responsible for their own departments, some prefer to rule from the top and use their cabinets as fall-guys.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The UK PM effectively has more power than the US President. As long as he can control the HoC, which is easy since he is likely to have a large majority and has the power of patronage, he can just about anything passed into law.

    Though the use of the Royal Prerogative he just about has all the powers of a King, as well as all the powers of the Head of Government.

    Its how he uses this power that makes him presidential or not, he can choose to use the cabinet, but then again he doesn't have to.
    Yes, he does. Any Prime Minister that takes their Cabiner for granted will face disaster - it happened to Thatcher, Major and, to a lesser extent, Blair.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Yes, he does. Any Prime Minister that takes their Cabiner for granted will face disaster - it happened to Thatcher, Major and, to a lesser extent, Blair.
    Blair and Thatch lasted long enough without full use of the cabinet, I don't know much about Major but he inherited a pretty dodgy position I think.

    As long as he has a majority in, and approval of, the HoC he will be fine. Not to mention its the PM who chooses the Cabinet in the first place so he could fill it with yes men if he pleased, and people are worried about losing there positions unless there a political heavyweight.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, ever since Thatcher. When Thatcher started insisting on meeting cabinet members directly rather than discussing things in Cabinet, and after this was followed by subsequent PMs, it was game, set and match for Cabinet government. There are far fewer cabinet meetings now than there were pre-1979.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Blair and Thatch lasted long enough without full use of the cabinet, I don't know much about Major but he inherited a pretty dodgy position I think.

    As long as he has a majority in, and approval of, the HoC he will be fine. Not to mention its the PM who chooses the Cabinet in the first place so he could fill it with yes men if he pleased, and people are worried about losing there positions unless there a political heavyweight.
    No, it doesn't work like that - even Thatcher had to ensure the Cabinet suited her backbenchers or they would have lost patience with her a lot sooner, which is why there were moderates in her Cabinet. They both satisfied the backbenchers and worked to restrain her. People like Willie Whitelaw and Michael Heseltine had sufficiently strong backbench support to be able to be quite frank with the PM in ways a presidential cabinet member could never have been, and her later disregard was because of her lack of regard for the importance of the cabinet.

    Just because they last a long time doesn't indicate the cabinet is irrelevant - more that they were quite good at keeping the cabinet and the backbenches happy, but lost their grip. Once Whitelaw went Thatcher steadily lost control of both, and Major never regained it.

    As someone above already said, it really is context- and personality-based.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Yes, ever since Thatcher. When Thatcher started insisting on meeting cabinet members directly rather than discussing things in Cabinet, and after this was followed by subsequent PMs, it was game, set and match for Cabinet government. There are far fewer cabinet meetings now than there were pre-1979.
    People have been complaining of the 'decline' of Cabinet government since Lloyd George. Rather, government's been changing to reflect different needs.

    As I said, it's personality based, but the increase under Blair of the used of bilateral agreements shouldn't undersell the continued importance of the Cabinet as a unit.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.