Prime Ministers Flashcards
arguments suggesting that prime ministers have become too powerful in recent years
FPTP gives prime ministers too much power over parliament
the prime minister has significant influence over select committees because their government usually has a majority in these committees
the prime minister also has power over the Lords due to the fact that they are their government are elected and the Lords are not, there are severe restrictions on the Lords
the PM dominates and controls Cabinet
arguments suggesting that prime ministers have NOT become too powerful in recent years
in recent years, FPTP has not given governments strong majorities, thus not allowing the prime minister to dominate
the prime minister is not too powerful because select committees are very effective in scrutinising them and their government
the PM is not too powerful because they are restricted and challenged frequently by the House of Lords
Cabinet provides a check on prime ministerial power
FPTP gives prime ministers too much power over parliament: how do majorities allow the prime minister to dominate?
these secure majorities make it hard to defeat a government in the Commons and give the executive a clear mandate to carry out their manifesto pledges with little to no major pushback
nowhere is this clearer than in Tony Blair’s government, which had the undeniable strength and dominance to make major decisions and implement fundamental reforms
for instance, the government ended the right of all except 92 hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, which meant that now no party held a dominant position in the upper house as the majority of hereditary peers were Conservative supporters
Blair’s government also introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated ECHR into UK statute law, enshrining rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy
moreover, a government with its own majority that is particularly strong will usually have no problem dismissing the opposition and overriding any criticism
this demonstrates that the electoral system used in Westminster allows the executive to retain power by making them more effective and increasing their strength
FPTP gives prime ministers too much power over parliament: example of a PM dominating with a large majority
a prime minister is able to dominate if they have a large majority because they can easily implement the policies in their manifesto and have a strong mandate to do so since the electorate voted for them very strongly
for example, in 1997, Labour under Tony Blair won a landslide victory with an outstanding 179 seat majority which is the largest majority seen by a party in decades
this allowed him to pass legislation very efficiently and impact the UK with Labour’s key policies
this can be seen in the major reforms of the constitution carried out during Blair’s time in office that show his ability to dominate and dictate policy
for example, in the House of Lords he abolished all but 92 peers and in 1998 he passed the Human Rights Act which set out the fundamental rights and freedoms of UK citizens
for this reason, it is possible to say that the prime minister can be dominant over the political system
FPTP gives prime ministers too much power over parliament: example of a PM dominating with a large majority
a prime minister is able to dominate if they have a large majority because they can easily implement the policies in their manifesto and have a strong mandate to do so since the electorate voted for them very strongly
for example, in 1997, Labour under Tony Blair won a landslide victory with an outstanding 179 seat majority which is the largest majority seen by a party in decades
this allowed him to pass legislation very efficiently and impact the UK with Labour’s key policies
this can be seen in the major reforms of the constitution carried out during Blair’s time in office that show his ability to dominate and dictate policy
for example, in the House of Lords he abolished all but 92 peers and in 1998 he passed the Human Rights Act which set out the fundamental rights and freedoms of UK citizens
for this reason, it is possible to say that the prime minister can be dominant over the political system
in recent years, FPTP has not given governments strong majorities, thus not allowing the prime minister to dominate: examples of small or no majorities
in recent years, FPTP has not given governments strong majorities, thus not allowing the prime minister to dominate, which suggests that prime ministers have not become too powerful in recent years
in 2010, the Conservatives had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats because they were 20 seats short of a majority, and in 2017 the Conservatives were 8 seats short of a majority, resulting in a hung Parliament and a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP
in recent years, FPTP has not given governments strong majorities, thus not allowing the prime minister to dominate: example of a PM being undermined by a small or no majority (Theresa May)
in the event that a prime minister has a small majority or no majority at all, they and their government tend to be seen as weak and unstable
for example, Theresa May has been severely undermined throughout the Brexit process
her lack of a majority has caused undeniable problems with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, problems that may have been much easier to maintain and control had she had a majority in the Commons
this weakness has allowed Parliament to wield a significant amount of power and influence, with MPs and peers undermining and challenging the executive more than ever before
in recent years, FPTP has not given governments strong majorities, thus not allowing the prime minister to dominate: example of a PM being undermined by a small or no majority (David Cameron)
between 2010 and 2015, the Conservatives under Cameron had to share power with the Liberal Democrats in a coalition which can be said to have restricted Cameron’s ability to dominate as he often had to compromise and negotiate rather than dictate policy
the coalition reduced his powers of patronage, he had to have Liberal Democrat ministers in his cabinet and no Liberal Democrat minister could be removed by Cameron without full consultation with Nick Clegg and he could not reshuffle or remove Clegg, which undermined his ability to act in purely his and his party’s vision alone
therefore, the prime minister may not be dominant over the political system
the prime minister has significant influence over select committees because their government usually has a majority in these committees
the prime minister has significant influence over select committees because their government usually has a majority in these committees
the executive tends to have a majority in select committees because the composition of select committees reflects the relative strength of each party in the Commons
for instance, in 2015, the Education Select Committee was chaired by Conservative MP Neil Carmichael and of the other 10 members, 5 were Conservative, 4 were Labour and 1 was SNP, demonstrating that the PM still has an upper-hand as the PM and the executive are likely to be treated more leniently by committee members from their own party, especially those who wish to remain under consideration for promotions
but even if the executive did not enjoy this advantage, select committees still have severe limitations, such as their lack of enforcement powers, meaning they cannot compel the government to follow their recommendations or ensure this action is implemented
additionally, 60% of select committee recommendations are rejected by the government and any recommendations that are accepted rarely involve major changes of policy, which limits the ability of Parliament to scrutinise and have power over the PM and executive
the prime minister is not too powerful because select committees are very effective in scrutinising them and their government
the prime minister is not too powerful because these select committees are very effective in scrutinising them and their government
select committees have given Parliament significant power to scrutinise the executive, a power that has been enhanced as committees have grown in importance and influence since being reformed
they provide scrutiny of a particular government department, analysing its expenditure, administration and policy
the government must respond to select committee suggestions within 8 weeks and often listen to their reports, taking recommendations on board in order to improve legislation
the prime minister is not too powerful because select committees are very effective in scrutinising them and their government: example of an effective select committee
in recent years, they have been particularly effective in putting pressure on the executive to make amendments
for example, in 2015, the Justice Select Committee published a report on criminal charges recommending that the criminal courts charge should be removed
2 months later, the charge was removed, demonstrating the influence that select committees and Parliament can have over the executive
the prime minister is not too powerful because select committees are very effective in scrutinising them and their government: reforms
moreover, since the reforms, which meant that the chair of select committees are now elected by the whole House rather than appointed by the executive, select committees have increased in independence and enjoyed far greater legitimacy
the prime minister also has power over the Lords due to the fact that they are their government are elected and the Lords are not
the prime minister also has power over the Lords due to the fact that they are their government are elected and the Lords are not
the House of Lords faces restrictions on its powers which often means that the executive is more powerful and influential
the upper house tends to avoid outright conflict with the elected government because it still lacks democratic legitimacy, usually backing down after a prolonged period of debate
the prime minister also has power over the Lords due to the fact that they are their government are elected and the Lords are not: example of the Lords backing down
for example, in 2017, the House of Lords voted on amendments to the EU Bill regarding residency rights of EU citizens in the UK and a pledge to ensure that Parliament had a vote on the final Brexit deal — both of which were voted down in the House of Commons
however, the Lords eventually backed down and the bill was passed, demonstrating that the Lords are usually careful not to overstep their boundaries, particularly since the decision to leave the EU had legitimacy by being backed by a UK wide referendum
the prime minister also has power over the Lords due to the fact that they are their government are elected and the Lords are not: if the Lords maintains its opposition…
but even if the Lords decides to maintain its opposition, the PM and executive can use the Parliament Act to force through a bill
this was used three times by Blair, including in 2000 over equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual people and in 2004 over banning hunting with dogs
the executive can also usually use its majority in the House of Commons to overturn critical Lords amendments, as seen in the coalition government’s decision to reject 7 amendments to its Welfare Reform and Work Bill, arguing that only the Commons was entitled to take decisions with large financial implications
