The Smoke Filled Room: March 2015

Monday, 30 March 2015

"The US electoral system is in dire need of reform" 35/45, Tamanna Moushumi

The US electoral system is a complicated and lengthy mechanism which is stuck in a historical era and ceases to serve the modern 21st century electorate. Reforming the electoral system proves fundamentally crucial in achieving a fully participating electorate who represent democracy. Debatably, the question to reform the electoral system arises due to the porous nature of the US system , making it far too easy to exploit elements of campaign finance and manipulate the way voters cast their votes.

Campaign finance proves problematic in the US system of elections. As a result of the McCutcheon v FEC decision, the limits previously established by FECA and BCRA were lifted, allowing an unlimited flow of money to be injected into an election cycle; with donors such as Sheldon Anderson donating $93 million in the 2012 election as an exhibition of his 1st Amendment rights. Contrastingly, the reforming of the electoral system regarding finance has made elections more transparent, which has permitted members of the public and press to see what is donated by who. Such reforms to the system have allowed the creation of SuperPACs which cease to have donations taken by candidate but by party. However, it could be argued that greater reform of the system is required because corporations are not entitled to 1st Amendment benefits - much of where Anderson would have got his donations from, his corporation being his casino.

Similarly, by exploiting the loopholes of finance, the election result is manipulated; which also happens as a result of gerrymandering or redistricting the boundaries of states. Gerrymandering appears as an element of the electoral system in need of reform due to the mathematical manipulation it entails. The "earmuff" district illustrates this manipulation through the packing of the Latino minority into the district which will unequivocally produce a minority. However, this limits the number of minorities selected as House Representatives, if they are all packed into the same district. The North Carolina 12th district appears as the most gerrymandered state, reported by the Washington Post having suffered from "political pornography". However, gerrymandering creates safe seats which secure tenure and experience congressionally. North Carolina, 12th district produced a 21 year incumbent, Mel Watt who had amazing political experience, displaying the positive aspect of gerrymandering and incumbency having a direct correlation. Having said that, however gerrymandering is ultimately manipulation district boundaries which proves the electoral process is neither fair nor equal.

Whilst gerrymandering promotes voting in a certain procedure, voter ID laws work to create preventative procedures to disenfranchise certain members of the electorate. The Shelby County v Holder case permitted the state to control voting procedures, which were previously at the discretion of federal government. Allowing preventative procedures by legalising them ceases to be an effective form of democracy, but places the electorate back in the 19th century, where Jim Crow laws were still prevalent. However, the use of such voter ID laws could be seen as a means of protecting the electoral system and enhancing democracy, as the Texas turnout increased by 63% as a result of the Shelby County decision. Having said that, by promoting federalism, a fifty way America emerges, and a disregard for central government which ceases to be an effective utilisation of democracy. Manipulation of the electorate by such laws proves the system is in dire need of reform.

Manipulation of the system by states does not end with voter ID laws, however. By promoting federalism, states are able to "pull the master lever" and use the option of straight ticket voting, in states including Texas, West Virginia and Utah. This mechanism permits the electorate to vote on a party basis rather than on a candidate basis. This proves disproportionately appropriate considering the extremes to which the system places on the initial candidate selection process. Comparatively, whilst straight ticket voting is seen as easier, split ticket voting is compulsory in some states, suggesting reform has already been attempted. Having said that, it is neither the state of federal government's decision in the way people are to vote, suggesting that making either of these options compulsory is an infringement on voting rights.

"Pulling the master lever" only contributes to candidate selection of Congressmen. One of the greatest problems in the US electoral system is the use of the Electoral College, which ceases to permit citizens the right of directly electing their president. The Electoral College appears as anachronistic measure that ceases to promote democracy, putting the selection of the presidency into the hands of 538 electors who have votes of disproportionate and unequal value. A vote in the least populous state would carry three times as many votes as one in Ohio, proving the system to be of mathematical disparity. Contrastingly, the Electoral College being reformed to a system of popular voting would erase the constitutional planks that the Founding Fathers intended; with a voice to the least populous states. Reformation of the Electoral College is however a fundamentally crucial step to creating a better electoral system where the president has a popular mandate to govern.

In conclusion, the manipulation of the electoral system by gerrymandering, campaign finance and straight ticket voting pose the need for further reform. Arguably, such reform would ensure greater participation by the electorate rather than an exploitation of the incredibly porous system. In doing so, the electoral system could increase from 36.3% (2014 midterms) illustrating an improvement to US politics.

To what extent is the Republican Party conservative? 36/45, Tamanna Moushumi

The prominence of the Tea Party as a fundamental faction of the Republican Party has it become more and more conservative in recent years. This is due to large scale polarisation of the two main political parties within the political arena. Debatbly, this has been demonstrated through their 2014 midterm win, where they recaptured the Senate from previous Democratic control. However, on more liberal and controversial issues, such as immigration, particularly the ‘Latino crisis’, gay marriage and debates on abortion, the party is unequivocally split. Many younger Republicans have arguably been less conservative and more pragmatic on controversial matters. However, the majority of the party remain true to conservatism in their views, producing an incredibly conservative Republican Party.

Regarding abortion, conservative ideology illustrates the idea of sanctity of life, demonstrating pure conservatism. Factions such as the Social Conservatives believe in the rights for the unborn child, suggesting traditional conservatism prevailing as a fundamental principle. In Texas, governor, Rick Perry signed a law preventing abortions in Texas, resulting in the closure of thirty three abortion clinics. Contrastingly, the interest group,Republicans for Choice believe in the accessibility of abortion. Susan Collins (Maine Senator) voted in favour of two bills regarding the $100 million investment in preventative procedures as well as the expansion of embryonic stem cell research. Whilst Republicans for Choice have new Senators including Shelly Moore Capito (West Virginia) and Susan Collins endorsing their cause, not every member of the Republican Party has such a pragmatic approach. One interest group fails to erase the fundamental principle of sanctity of life, of which the Republican Party is formed from.

The GOP want to tighten border security and enforce greater controls ensuring illegal immigrants do not receive the same benefits tax paying citizens receive. Opposition to large scale, unfiltered immigration illustrates the truly conservative stance of the Republican Party. John Boehner argues “...with the correct immigration reform, the economy will be able to flourish - but only with stricter border control” suggesting the Republicans cease to be opposed to immigration, but rather prefer to control the types of immigrants coming into the USA. This is evidenced by the opposition to the Dream Act by the majority of Republicans proving their disregard for economically inefficient people. Contrastingly, the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill illustrates the moves towards tolerating immigration - by allowing ‘Dreamers’ to remain in the USA. Again, the Gang of Eight comprised of 4 Republican Senators (Rubio, Flake, McCain and Graham) which like Republicans for Choice demonstrates only a minority of Republicans prepared to deviate from Conservative ideology. Due to the ‘Latino Crisis’ in 2012 which cost the Republican’s the election, the GOP have needed to demonstrate the need for a more liberal stance on immigration as constant opposition (particularly after Obama’s executive order) would defer the electorate away from the Republican Party; many of whom would be considered lost voters.

The conservative interpretation of the constitution is through strict constructionism, guaranteeing the right to bear arms (Amendment II) as ‘responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their lives and communities’. The GOP took advantage of its new Senate majority to steer through a repeal of expanded background-check requirements on private and online sales of arms. Comparatively, the increase of moderate conservatism has proved popular as Senators including Susan Collins, John McCain and Mark Kirk voted to strengthen gun control, through a bill introduced by Congress without infringing on Second Amendment rights, argued Senator Collins in support of the measure. However, Susan Collins remains a moderate conservative, whereas other members of the Republican Party believe in strict constructionism, and the belief that gun ownership is key to a safe society.

The Republican Party strongly believe in limited government and a balancing the budget, illustrated through their cuts to expenditure and cuts in taxes. The GOP has proposed a balanced budget amendment to the constitution which would ensure government spending is controlled and correctly regulated, in light of the October 2013 government shutdown. This was the first since 1996, as a result of the House’s refusal to pass a spending bill, proposed by the Democrat Party, to fund the Affordable Care Act. The Republican Party has grown increasingly moderate. This is shown through the growing influence of moderates such as McCain and Boehner. Their influence is particularly evident in the GOP ‘U-turn’ in the 2013 shutdown where the more moderate Republicans condemned the Tea Party’s approach to opposing the bill as the party’s approval ratings dropped to 9% of the electorate. This therefore illustrated that there are widening divisions within the party, particularly over balancing the budget and increasing the debt ceiling. Nevertheless, regardless of the growing moderate influence within the party, it is apparent that the GOP is continuing to push for a balanced budget whilst slamming White House overspending. This therefore shows that they are still conservative in their beliefs.

The Republican Party have traditional beliefs that minority groups do not need preferential treatment through the means of Affirmative Action and that everyone must be open to equal opportunities. Fiscal conservatives even suggested that Affirmative Action could lead to distortion in the labour market. Whilst as Governor of Florida in 1999, Jeb Bush ended the use of affirmative action in state hiring & contracting and university admissions by executive order (the One Florida Plan) then issued statement saying it would “transcend the tired debate” about racial preferences. Further reiterated today as he and his spokespeople still support his move saying it helped more minorities into University. It could be considered that The Republican Party stance on Affirmative Action has changed since this period. They now see Affirmative Action as a great way to gain minority votes, somewhat following the Democrat liberal stance on the issue

Traditionally, the Republican Party have always been readily pro-war, to many degrees, rather than diplomacy as a tool to tackle foreign policy. Following the events of 9/11, the Republican ideology has increased in conservatism. Bush's "War on Terror" illustrated the strength of Republican foreign policy in a time of such uncertainty. His approach towards this situation saw him gain increased approval ratings. The recent Republican stance on war has changed in recent years, with regards to ISIS as they have not been conservative enough to curb ISIS power. However the signing of of the Iran letter by 47 Republicans to not go into a nuclear arms deal demonstrates how conservative the Republican Party really are.

In conclusion, the GOP have liberalised their conservative approach to certain issues. Members of the GOP taking such an approach are the younger and more pragmatic members of the GOP. However the most conservative Republicans including Jeb Bush have consistently argued more conservative policies including obstructing the closure of Guantanomo Bay and argue arguing for greater defence spending, illustrating that the Republican Party are true to their conservative beliefs.

Monday, 23 March 2015

Prime Minister and His Cabinet full notes

Elements of government:

Members	Typical number
Cabinet members – PM, heads of large government departments, senior party members, Chief Whip. *Ultimate source of government policy*	23
Senior non-cabinet posts – Attorney General; not senior enough to be in the cabinet	15
Junior ministers (non-cabinet) – subordinates of the cabinet ministers who run departments *Ministers of State*	60
Whips – ensuring party discipline amongst MPs, peers. Running admin in Parliament; informing members	17
Total	115 = 25 (LORDS) + 90 (COMMONS)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOVERNMENT

· Members of government must sit in Parliament as well as being ministers.

· MP’s who are members of government also have to look after a constituency – even the PM

· MPs from the governing party are BACKBENCHERS

· Members of GOVERNMENT are FRONTBENCHERS

· Members of government are appointed by the PM; he can dismiss them too

· Collective responsibility binds them; all take public responsibility for the policies of government even if they are not involved in aggregation. Public opposition to government policy results in dismissal.

· Full government wouldn’t meet together; the cabinet would.

Ministerial selection…

· Politically reliable – willing to accept collective responsibility in public
Robin Cook and Clare Short were dismissed from the government over policy in Iraq

· Potential – PM looks to junior ministers who can cope under pressure. Developing and displaying skills such as negotiation and persuasion

· Strong political philosophy – united and dynamic government. Dissent within a government can hold back progress to goals. Thatcher and Blair are excellent examples, and John Major had serious rifts in the Conservative Party and was constantly undermined

· Managerial skill - heads of departments. Poor management will mean failure

· Under coalition:
1) How many cabinet posts should each coalition partner have?
2) Which leaders between the coalition should the PM elect?

MINORITY government

Unusual, unstable and short lived – caretaker government until the next general election

Financial budgets and legislation can’t theoretically be

passed. Can’t do anything radical.

COALITION GOVERNMENT

1. Ministerial posts must be split: Conservatives took 18 cabinet seats and the Lib-Dems 5. Lib Dems are usually given junior posts outside of the cabinet

2. Agreement on which policies can be accepted: adversary and consensus politics

Majority coalitions:
2 parties, parliamentary majority

Grand coalitions:
2 major parties, overwhelming majority – national emergency

Rainbow coalitions:

Agreements between many parties for varying philosophies

1 Large + Several Smaller

National coalitions:
All parties invited to participate – national crisis for unity

National Government 1930s, WW2

Alternatives presented in May 2010
Conservative minority government – 20 seats short of a majority. Rely on Democratic Unionists in NI.
Silly alternative, wouldn’t last more than a few months.

Progressive rainbow coalition – Labour, Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Alliance MP, Green MP = 329 MPs, majority of 8

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition – SUCCESSFUL
Theoretical support of 363 MPs a majority of 76

Figure on 244 textbook to illustrate the decision

Previous ‘cabinet government’ – cabinet is the central policy making body
Cabinet government eroded and prime ministerial government replaced it:

- Cabinet represented the collective identity of the government

- Important domestic and foreign policy decisions made in the cabinet with full approval

- Disputes in the government would be resolved in the cabinet

- PM considered primus inter pares / first among equals and therefore of higher status than his colleagues. Often outvoted in the cabinet

The changing UK Cabinet – Harold Wilson’s government degraded the cabinet government idea

Wilson found out how he could dominate the process – kitchen cabinet: few trusted private advisors from Number 10.
Reached private agreements before meetings, so the decisions and outcomes were inevitable
Secret cabinet minutes were written to suit his conclusions

The media was becoming increasingly important; TV, radio and the press were becoming the main focus from Parliament. Harold Wilson underestimated the power of the media – he effectively became both the maker of government policy and the presenter of the government.

Margaret Thatcher took prime ministerial domination to another level after 1983 where she removed most of her political opponents from the government and won the Falklands War. Media concentrated attention to her exclusively.
However, it was her own cabinet that ousted her in 1990. Replaced her with Major and the return of cabinet government came to height.

This was unsuccessful under Major; he survived for seven years risking many votes of no confidence.
The cabinet government proved an obstacle in saving the country economically – adopting a coherent policy towards the European Union. Less collective decision making; warring factions instigated a war of self-destruction.

Tony Blair = SOFA POLITICS/ settling matters privately with ministers.

HAROLD WILSON + MARGARET THATCHER = TONY BLAIR

Manipulation of the govt. machine + Media supremacy = DOMINATION
(flow of info to the govt.)

SOFA politics considered a direct challenge to CABINET GOVERNMENT

Blair DOMINATED Labour policy, but economic policy was left with the Chancellor, Gordon Brown.

Blair: presidential, charismatic, persuasive. On behalf of the nation rather than simply the head of the government.

DOWNING STREET MACHINE – exceptionally used during foreign affairs

Gordon Brown – ‘the unelected prime minister’ BASICALLY THE BIGGEST SIDEMAN EVER

David Cameron – PM of a coalition government/
‘quad government’ - Four senior ministers at the centre of policy making: Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Alexander

o Cameron wants to dominate his government (naturally) but he understands he must share the power with his Liberal Democrat colleagues

Cabinet Committees – small group of cabinet ministers who meet to discuss government policy
Often have taken the work of the full cabinet – full cabinet doesn’t have the time/information to deal with all issues within government policy
Approval tends to be automatic – unusual if they overrule committee recommendation

Temporary committees, Olympics
Permanent committees, Economy, Defence, Foreign Affairs

PM controls the creation and appointment of the people in the cabinet committees, agendas.
PM is able to effectively exercise some control.

Marginalisation of the cabinet system:

Ø Personal authority of the power of the PM has GROWN vs. the collective power of the cabinet

Ø Foreign Office, Treasury, Home Office see themselves as kingdoms/baronies. Resent attempt at interference by the cabinet – must be retaining allegiance to the PM. Less inclination to bring matters of importance to full cabinet

Ø Cabinet = system/network rather than as a single body

Ø Policy making functions to 10 Downing Street

Ø Think tanks/policy units completing the work of the cabinet instead

Ø PM conducts the government on a bilateral basis – discussing and agreeing policy with an individual minister, presenting it as fait accompli

Today’s cabinet

Meetings every week, PM and his colleagues as compulsory
Often meetings last about 45 minutes with little publicity

Ø Matters are only brought to the full cabinet when matters cannot be resolved by the PM/cabinet Secretary

Ø PM decides that an issue should be resolved by full cabinet session – to avoid embarrassment or because he doesn’t have much interest. Millennium Dome 1997 – Blair wanted it built, others said it would be a waste of public money; full cabinet decision. 2005, introduction of ID cards, opposition was expected in Parliament, Collective government approval was needed.

Ø National emergency – the cabinet must back government policies
New York Trade Center in 9/11

Ø Making decisions about the presentation of policy

Ø Cabinet must legitimise policy proposals and key decisions to be official. Formal process, ‘little more than rubber stamping’

Cabinet under coalition government

SIMILARITIES	DIFFERENCES
Dominated by the PM who controls the agenda, chairs meetings etc.	Agreements to differ Apply to general policy, not all cabinet decisions Lib Dems don’t support nuclear power generation, have to still support the decisions to create a nuclear power station
Meetings are still secrets	Lib Dem appointed to cabinet/moved within cabinet, PM must agree it with Clegg
Collective identity of the government	Collective responsibility is weaker How to tax the rich: 2012 spring conference Vince Cable, Business (Lib Dem) Promoted the idea of mansion tax (20% in tax)– Clegg said this was *tycoon tax* *Conservatives –* didn’t want to tax the rich March 2012 budget – compromise Top rate of tax, 45p STAMP DUTY – purchasing properties increased to 7% on homes above £7million *The entire coalition didn’t agree with this but still had to support it in its entirety.*
Members of government are expected to defend publicly ALL cabinet decisions	PM more account of differing opinions; dictating the cabinet would lead to a catastrophic revolt
Settling ministerial disputes	MORE dominance of the PM
Making decisions that cannot be made elsewhere	More decisions are made in committee
Dealing with domestic emergencies	Meetings are shorter/stage managed
Determining presentation of policy	Large departments have become more independent
Legitimising decisions made elsewhere	More decisions made in bilateral meetings (coalition, two groups)
Settling coalition disputes	Decision making moved to 10 Downing Street

CABINET FORMATION – POWER OF PATRONAGE – CONTROLLING THE POWERS OF THOSE IN THE CABINET.

SINGLE PARTY
Balanced cabinet? All political opinions? United team – alienate some sections, PM will be given an easier ride
WHO should fill the 22 posts:
Close political allies who have guaranteed posts	Brown chose Jack Straw Cameron promoted George Orborne
Individuals who can represent an important section of the party	Alan Johnson and trade unionists for Labour Theresa May, represented the right wing part of the CP.
May decide a potential rebel has a great ability and will be widely respected in the cabinet – silenced by discipline of collective responsibility	John Denham in Brown’s cabinet
Might identify individuals who have great potential to be successful to manage a department	Cameron appointed Oliver Letwin
Old personal friends	Brown promoted Ed Balls, Cameron favoured Hammond
Popular figures in public/media	Appointment of Lib Dem Vince Cable
Desire to retain political identity of the government – symbolise the ideology of the ruling group	Iain Duncan Smith represents Cameron’s new Conservatism – concerned with social deprivation
Simply ‘able people’ who will do a good job	CP appointed Kenneth Clark as Justice Minister, ‘safe pair of hands’

CABINET FORMATION – COALITION

Individual ministerial responsibility

Naturally responsible for their personal conduct: responsibility, prepared to face criticism from Parliament

Resign – up to 1970s, any serious mistakes should result in resignation
Ministers considered to be responsible for the actions of their senior civil servants

2010 – David Laws
resigned over alleged irregularities in his claiming of parliamentary expenses

2011 – Liam Fox
resigned over using a private adviser in his work as Defence Secretary – not properly authorised to advise him

2012 – Chris Huhne
resigned as Environment Secretary when he was charged with a crime relating to misleading the police over driving

Parliament has no power to remove individuals from office – only the PM does

Collective cabinet responsibility

Are they all prepared to defend that decision in public?
Either that, or they resign – Robin Cook, Iraq, 2003; Clare Short – she survived a few months
if it didn’t apply, governments would fall apart – Parliament would lose respect for the cabinet

ROLE OF THE PRIME MINISTER
FUNCTIONS

1. Chief Policy Maker – pre-eminent in making government policy

2. Head of government – in charge of the government, new posts, new departments – abolish them. Head of the civil service

3. Chief government spokesperson – ultimately the media persona, to create illusion that PM makes all policy.

4. Commander in chief of the armed forces – no longer permitted to become involved unless except on ceremonial level. PM has the ultimate decision to commit the British troops to battle
Cameron ordered the RAF to enforce a no fly zone over Libya in 2011, later extended to missions to destroy the regime’s ability to carry out operations against the rebels/civilian population

5. Chief foreign-policy maker; for the monarch
From negotiating with foreign powers – signing treaties
Chaired the British presidency of the EU in 2005 taking a leading role on issues such as global warming and relief of poverty

6. Parliamentary leader - must decide who is a minister, to control the government’s strategy within BOTH houses

Sources of prime ministerial power and authority

© The ruling party: unusual and unworkable for the PM to not be the leader of the governing party.
David Cameron’s legitimacy is from the parliamentary party and the later endorsement of the agreement by both coalition parties

© The royal prerogative: reigning monarch retains the power to carry out functions as head of state (commanding the armed forces, conducting relations and the security of state), dismiss and appoint ministers, dates of the general elections, appointments of peers, judges, bishops. The delegation to the PM is part of democracy

Limitations on PM power

o Size of parliamentary majority – coalition enjoys a comfortable lead over parties, Cameron is secure

o The unity of the ruling party or coalition - Thatcher led a divided party; some supported her free market economy & reduced state intervention; however the wets/traditional conservative views opposed her. She removed the dissenting cabinet members, leading Britain into the most dynamic leadership
Major led a split Conservative Party on British relationship with Europe and the state relationship to the economy

o The public & media profile of the PM = IMPORTANT – leaders that lose the confidence of the public and media become a political liability. Thatcher when she was removed, and what weakened Blair.

o Prime minister’s survival based on the confidence of the cabinet and Parliament – policies of the PM are meaningless if there isn’t any parliamentary approval

o Prime ministers can be hindered by opposition from own party: parties less importance today, PM draws his authority from the governing party.

o Coalitions = special problems – not totally free to appoint or having control of policies. No parliamentary majority

Is the Prime Minister effectively a President?

Presidentialism – PM behaving as a president. Claims the PM is claiming a separate source of authority

*PM is effectively* a PRESIDENT**	No, the PM is not a president
Effectively: Head of State + Leader of the nation In times of difficulty, the country unites behind the Head of Govt.	Peter Hennessy PM is a flexible post – what the holder makes of it THATCHER & BLAIR = PRESIDENTIAL MAJOR + CALLAGHAN = NOT presidential
Extensive network of personal advisers, think tanks, policy units, working groups Own govt. department – 10 Downing Street, resembling the White House Few civil servants	Style rather than substance PM seem more presidential; media attention & importance of foreign policy Thatcher – poll tax against her party’s wishes
Importance of media in politics: sole media advisers on enhancing the PM image & controlling information coming from 10 Downing Street General public see the PM as a motif/icon for the entire government. This is a double edged sword – successes of the government, failures of the government	Elastic theory = PM can stretch the powers of office further, and the forces of constraint become very strong. Thatcher, above
Growth of importance of foreign & military affairs contributed to the ‘presidential feel’ Thatcher & Reagan Clinton and Bush All appeared PRESIDENTIAL.	Gordon Brown, no presidential status – didn’t face an electorate. PM whose power was destroyed by the world events
Spatial leadership – new theory, Michael Foley : leaders are SPEERATE from the rest of the government because they are elected separately from the rest of government – different source of authority & directly accountable to the people Not present with the British PM – more effective if the PM could claim his mandate from the people and not from his party Thatcher promised a roll back the frontiers of the state criticising the civil service for their wastefulness and not open to opposing own ministers She used her own advisers on economic policy to bypass her own Chancellor – Lawson = start to her demise Major – not spatial through choice, separate himself because they were his political enemies and he wasn’t powerful enough to remove them. Outsider – more popular outside of the country rather than within it Blair chose to adopt certain foreign policy – NI, education and health. Attempted to dominate politics. Areas he wasn’t interested in, he became an outsider Labour, Allen suggests the constitutional change to accommodate the British Presidency – the British PM is effectively a quasi-president
PRESIDENT BLAIR? Yes, he looked like a staged one. Took leading interest in international affairs; world poverty, reform of the EU, political structure. NI – final decisions Iraq war – counterproductive, because of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Respect abroad countered by a lack of tryst at home	Government was weak – dominated the through the failings of others Not focussed on domestic policy
PRESIDENT CAMERON? Dominant leader: · Cameron has no secure parliamentary majority · Cabinet isn’t as ideologically united as Blair’s · Cameron more of a consensual politician · Constrained by the need to reduce government debt. Unable to contemplate major reforms; NHS & Welfare reforms faced so much opposition.	Not presidential on the world stage: 2011 Libya – won him support holding up a great defence of surrendering British sovereignty in the moves towards greater EU Not focussed on domestic policy

MINISTERIAL	CIVIL SERVANT
TASKS
SETS the political agenda	Gathers information for policy making
Determine priorities for actions	Provide alternative courses of action
Decide between political alternatives	Advise on consequences of decisions
Obtain cabinet and PM approval for policies	Draft legislation
Steer proposals through Parliament	Briefings for other ministers
Accountable to Parliament for the general performance of the department	Organise the implementation of policy
	Drafts answers to parliamentary questions
Status
Politically committed to one party	No political allegiance
Temporary, only hold office as long as the PM wishes them to	Permanent and will spend a long time in the civil service
Expected to make political decisions	Only can suggest alternatives in a neutral way
Have to use judgements about the outcomes of decisions	Expected to be largely anonymous
Have a high public profile and are publicly accountable for the performance of their department	Cannot be held publicly accountable for what they do
Will lose office if their party loses power	Remain in position despite a change of government

diagram, page 269

Civil service neutrality – must remain politically neutral and not give advice to minsters or become involved in politics. Leads to secrecy in government

OPEN Government – more media and public access to the decision making process in government. Freedom of Information, 2005 opened up government to an extent. Aspirational rather than a reality.