Prime Minister Essay Plans and Notes

How important is the Cabinet?

For	Against
Settling Disputes – a forum to resolve Government areas of conflict, budget & EU. Very significant in the coalition government where there were divided parties with divided ideologies. Likely to continue to be a significant factor as the cabinet is filled with powerful members who have conflicting beliefs.	The present cabinet rarely meets. The Prime Minister conducts work at number 10 and cabinet members work with their departments. Potentially another issue the Quad probably works through to get things done.
National Emergencies – in national emergency quick and informed decisions are required to be made which tends to occur in the cabinet. Cameron’s war cabinet during the war with Libya, continued through to Syrian war.	These tend to reflect the beliefs and wants of the Prime Minister rather than the Cabinet. Resolutions tend to be chosen by the Prime Minister.
Supreme Policy Making Body – especially in the Coalition government where the Prime Minister cannot formulate policies with the expectation of it being accepted, the Prime Minister is dependent on cabinet unity to get things passed.	The idea of collective decision making is merely a myth. In Blair’s Government they had a Sofa Cabinet with all of his best mates and in the previous coalition government there was the Quad
Containing PM’s Power – fundamental for preserving the constitution and protecting the rights of individuals. The government is under the constitutional basis of one amongst others; there is an equal share of power.	The media is a powerful tool used by the Prime Minister against this. Collective Responsibility has been used for political gain rather than containing power. Prime Ministers can also outgrow constraints and become spatial leaders.
Individuals – when the PM lacks party control, the individual beliefs and ideas of cabinet members start to come through. These members can then play a big role in shaping the profile of the party. Michael Gove who made huge education reforms, Theresa Mae, who is a key member, is retaining her position for a while now.	This depends on the department the ministers are in. Some departments do little to shape policy and are given little attention by the media.

Limitations on PM power

o   Size of parliamentary majority – coalition enjoys a comfortable lead over parties. A

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.

Divisions within the Conservative Party have severely weakened Cameron’s power. Cameron has virtually no control over Conservative MPs which has resulted in the two UKIP defectors.

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.

The media has played a detrimental role is weakening the Prime Ministers power towards the end of the coalition government.  Having being forced propose a referendum on the EU by the media it is clear that Cameron’s power is heavily reliant on public opinion.

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

The Prime Ministers power to persuade has been widely exercised in the coalition government. The Prime Minister has also faced the threat of backbench rebellion repeatedly which is a power held by parliament that limits the PM authority.

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

o   Coalitions (special problems) – not totally free to appoint or having control of policies. No parliamentary majority and carries an artificial mandate.

Compromise became a key feature of the coalition government; Cameron has had to compromise over budgets, constitutional reforms and foreign affairs which previous Prime Ministers did not have to be worried about. The presidential theory can no longer stand because Cameron cannot be a spatial leader.

Strengths of the PM Power

*      Independence from cabinet. The PM has become less reliant on consensus from the cabinet and can run departments himself.

*      Face of Government. Despite electing representatives the PM remains the central focus of government.

*      Presidential style government. The PM’s power and effectiveness has increasingly resembled a presidential government.

*      Power of Patronage. Prime Minister can shape the Cabinet to a powerful but controllable cabinet that allows him/her to dominate the policy making process.

*      Critical Events. The public tend to centralise focus on a prime minister at critical events which is a time at which they can pass a series of reforms without opposition and show off their strengths.

*      Media. The media can be used as a political weapon.

Can the Prime Minister control Parliament

*      Collective responsibility. The Prime Minister can declare support for a legislation which the Cabinet have to publically accept. Provided Blair with a great deal of power (Iraq).

*      Agenda. The Prime Ministers sets the agenda for each cabinet meeting and concludes the outcome. Blair often mad the cabinet revolve around him and his policies and Cameron pushed through with controversial policies.

*      Inner Cabinets. The image of a cabinet collectively making decisions is a myth; the PM often forms inner cabinet where most policy discussion is formed. (Quad and Sofa Government)

*      Patronage. The Prime Minister can appoint ministers who he wishes to control or remove ones that are considered a liability.

Is the Prime Minister effectively a President?

PM IS A PRESIDENT	THE PM IS NOT A PRESIDENT
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 (financial crisis)
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 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	Cameron cannot be a spatial leader. When there is no government or parliamentary unity the Prime minister is heavily reliant on compromising to get things down.The Prime Ministers authority also lies within the party. It has become increasingly apparent that Prime Ministers who try to create a presidential government through claiming their own authority has become less significant. A party can cause both the success and failure of a Prime Minister.
Blair’s status on the world stage supported this belief; 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.
Cameron faces a minority in parliament, a divided cabinet and an artificial mandate but still manages to dominate parliament and the legislative body. Government has reflected right wing ideologies even after having a coalition	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

To what extent has the coalition government reformed the relationship between parliament and government?

Agree	Evaluation
Legislative process – the prime minister can no longer dominate the legislative process. Cameron was dependent on his power to persuade members of both parties and had to compromise on a great deal of policies. (Snoopers charter was dropped, welfare reforms were limited etc.)	Like we saw with previous governments, much legislation was produced in the prime ministers inner cabinet, the quad. Much of this legislation was also passed by parliament, Cameron controlled parliament more than anticipated.
Collective responsibility – weaker towards the end of the government. Liberal democrats became a strong opposition in the government. The Prime Minister could no longer create a strong government than could control parliament.	Conservative domination remains, controversial polices still did pass through a cabinet divided by parties and then through parliament.
Whips & Party Discipline – a collation means different party MPs can vote as they wish. A Conservative whip may have not been as effective at controlling a Liberal Democrat backbench MP.	The coalition government had no major defeats despite the controversy of cuts made and remained a dominating body.
House of Lords – the power of the Lords significantly increased in the new government. The coalition government suffered 103 defeats by the Lords as the Salisbury Convention did not stand and the Lords wanted to act as “an effective opposition”.	The constitution will always limit their scope allowing for a powerful Government. Whatever power the Lords enjoyed is likely to be weakened in the new government.

Parliament Essays

Assess the main factors that limit the effectiveness of Parliament

Argument	Counter argument	Mini conclusion
Discipline that is exercised by the party whips and leaders prevents MPs and peers from operating independently. Divisions and standing committees are usually strictly whipped.	MP’s today are not just ‘lobby fodders’ as reported by Peter Riddell in his article scrutinising the House of Commons, concluding that MPs today are more effective than ever of holding the government accountable. MPs rebel more than ever, EU budget vote: 53 Rebel Tory MPs defeat their own government over spending cut call – voting against their own party.	Although party whips exist, they are much more lenient because of the fusion of the legislature and the executive, in the British parliamentary democracy. However, in a presidential democracy, party whips are able to have greater control and fewer rebellions occur.
MP’s do not have sufficient time, expertise, knowledge, research to examine legislation and government policy to its fullest.	Lords are of many fields, and the delegation and perhaps sharing of the role of scrutiny could be shared between both Houses to enable the widest range of expertise and knowledge to be utilised. Legislation is passed relatively quickly due to not having a codified constitution, so MPs should use time effectively whilst dealing and scrutinising legislation before passing to the Lords.	There are many MPs, and between them and the Lords – totalling 650 members of Parliament there should be enough time, expertise and knowledge to examine legislation to create the most effective sets of laws for the country to be run by.
Commons lacks legitimacy due to a distorted representation because of the electoral system for Westminster – FPTP. The Lords are also unelected and therefore have no legitimacy, particularly the 92 hereditary peers that still exist.	Commons can be perceived as legitimate, as an MP would need concentrated support in a constituency to achieve a seat, so there is representation, although it is arguably very limited.	Commons is debating electoral reform after the coalition in 2010. The effectiveness of Parliament is significantly reduced purely by the existence of a coalition; the lack of legitimacy to the Commons and Lords is further highlighted because of the coalition making Parliament ineffective because of internal divisions within the current government.
	Hereditary means are not the only way to get at Lordship; part of the PM prerogative powers is the ability to select Lords; they have legitimacy from the governing party.
Traditional secrecy of government making it difficult for MPs, peers and select committees to obtain information and examine policy effectively	Freedom of Information Act 2000 makes information accessible and open. The ‘expenses scandal’ 2009, caused public outrage by disclosure of widespread actual and alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expenses.	The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has made it easier to access information, and therefore obtain and examine information. Trust in a lot of MPs has declined after the expenses scandal.

How effective are backbench MPs?

Effective	Evaluation
Calling Government to Account – Backbench MP’s are provided with a variety of opportunities to check the performance of the Government and of Parliament; PMQ and the ability of legislative scrutiny.	Despite the opportunities this is limited; MP’s are not given enough time an understanding over an issue and PMQ is an opportunity for the PM to show off rather than real deliberation to occur.
Scrutinising Ability is Strong – MP’s ability to scrutinise legislation has been effective and more frequent over recent years. Michael Gove’s plan to reform GCSE’s.	Select committee power is severely limited, there work is often rushed by parliament and does not have to be acknowledged when formulating polices.
Backbench Rebellion – MP’s have exercised their ability to defy against whips and the party line to impact long term policy changes. House Lords Reform and a freezing of the EU budget have been the most significant rebellions. David Cameron thus becomes the latest in the line of Prime Minister dating back to Edward Heath to have at least one Commons defeat inflicted on them by their own backbenchers.	Backbench rebellions often fail to make impact on policy. This is also increasingly a thing of the past; James Callaghan suffered 34 defeats under his time whilst Cameron has only faced 4 to date. The Conservative-Lib Dem government have been successful in avoiding rebellions through control and compromise.
Ensuring Representation – Backbench MP’s do a great deal of work in the constituencies and local government. Successful fulfil parliaments function of representation. Stephen Timms, very busy, very popular.	Whips still hold great power, even in a coalition government their power has allowed the government to dominate parliament with a minority.
Coalition – the coalition has been dependent on Parliamentary unit to pass any policies. Unlike previous prime ministers, Cameron has needed to work through backbench MP’s to succeed. Changes in EU membership, privatisation and drastic cuts.	Unpopular policies have still been able to pass under the current coalition government. Bedroom tax, legal aid cuts and education cuts.
Media – individual ministerial responsibility still stands so MP’s often create a personal persona over the media. This is often an effective way to impact the attitude of the public and effectively policies formulated in government. Mark Garnier against leaving the EU.	The media often only concentrates of the PM and his/her cabinet. The media can also be a tool used to expose the flaws in an MP resulting in a decrease in their political power.

How effective is Parliament in controlling the executive?

For (Effective)	Against (Not Effective)
Parliamentary sovereignty meant that sole power lies within parliament and not the Executive. If a parliament feels that an executive’s performance is weak they can be dismissed James Callaghan vote of no confidence 1979.	Political sovereignty shows that power realistically lies within the executive. The executive set the agenda and is likely to have an effective rule with a majority in parliament. Prime Ministers now claim to have a personal mandate from the people.
Parliament holds legislative power. Legislations may be drafted by government but parliament has to pass them which often connotes that they are redrafted and amended to suit the members of parliaments view. Especially in the current coalition government where Cameron is severely constrained.	Whips have become increasingly significant who encourage parliament to pass government legalisation. The executives have increasingly been able to dominate the workings and the agenda of parliament even Cameron with his artificial mandate.
Backbench MPs have played a greater role in parliament. As of the introduction of the Backbench business committee and the increased use of backbench rebellion Government has lost its ability to control parliament.	Even in a coalition the executive dominates parliament. Legislations often go to the will of the Conservative Party. Backbench rebellion is often a thing of the past, with James Callaghan experiencing 34 but Thatcher, Blair and Cameron experiencing bellow five.
Checks and balances of government power. Despite the fusion of powers the executive is checked by select committees, through PMQ and by the judiciary.	There are constitutionally no checks and balances which allows for a weak system to be put in place. Checks like PMQ and committees do little to improve and contain the performance of government; they are often open to exploitation and lack effectiveness.
Increasing significance of Select Committees. Select Committees have taken their roles more seriously and have been given a more effective role in recent years.	The House of Lords still remain weak in their effectiveness in parliament. Select Committees have an abundance of restrains.
House of Lords have a played a bigger role in recent parliament. As the coalition government has an artificial government the Lords have taken it upon themselves the question the authority & legitimacy of Parliament.	The House of Lords lack any democratic mandate to challenge the authority of Government. The Salisbury convention still remains and weakens Lords powers.

Has the Formation of the Coalition Government Altered the Relationship between Parliament and Government?

Point	Evaluation
Legislative Process – Prime Minister can no longer dominate the legislative process. The PM is highly dependent on their power to persuade. Faced with difficulties from the opposition and within the main party.	Much legislation is prosed in the Quad which the Prime Minister controls. This reflects many other governments where a few or a PM’s closest advisors dominate the workings of the system.
Collective Responsibility – no longer exists so there is no illusion of a strong and united government. Allowing for parliamentary scrutiny to be stronger.	Conservatives still dominate the government; most conservative policies are passed through despite their controversy.
Whips & Party Discipline – party discipline has become a thing of the past. It is hard to discipline someone form another party and please those whom lost out from the coalition agreement; forced centre ground politics.	Government has had no major defeats showing that party discipline is still strong. Government also lasted the five year term.
House of Lords – Salisbury convention does not stand in the coalition, allowing for the HOL to amend mandated legislation. The mandate was also not clear so the need for strong scrutiny increased the influence of the Lords.	Constitution will always limit their scope allowing for a powerful government.

Asses the arguments in favour of a largely elected House of Lords

Point	Evaluation
Representation – if the lords are to become elected, they would be elected on the basis of a Proportionately Representation system. This would then means that the lords would have greater presentation in regions and could be more representative for parties than the house of commons.	The lords are already representative, they are appointed on the basis of their political background, experience and knowledge which provides them with a great deal of ability to scrutinise the workings of government.
Increase power – as executive dominance has become an occurrence each parliament the Lords would be able to operate with a democratic mandate. This would potentially allow the lords to block and controversial legislation and conventions like the Salisbury Convention would be weaker.	The lords could be given too much power and become an obstructionist chamber. This then makes gridlock likely to happen if a divided government forms which would limit the efficiency of government.
Corruption – as it stands, the Lords positions are far too secure and far too unchecked which allows them a great deal of power to act corrupt. The Lords had an as controversial expense scandal as the commons and rarely attend debate.	Lords have developed a greater professionalism since the reforms in 1999. The lords had also seen it as their duty to check the coalition government as of its weak mandate and have felt the need to “make up for the lack of opposition in the commons”.
Biggest Democratic Flaw – the UK has a large unelected chamber which possesses a great deal of power over legislation that an elected government passes.	The Lords are both well-educated and experienced which has allowed them to conduct their role. Most controversial legislations are dealt or defeated in the Lords. (Education reforms, scrap GCSEs)
Public Support – since the Scottish referendum on devolution both the Labour Party and SNP pledged to remove the chamber and replace it with an elected chamber to improve efficiency and representation in parliament.	The coalition government failed to bring about a house of lords reform and were given no reason to continue as the lack of direct support

Is the House of Lords more effective than the House of Commons in checking the executives power?

Arguments For	Evaluation
Party Discipline – Lords are not constrained by whips and have proven to be more independent. Together with their life memberships the Lords tend to be more willing to fulfil parliament’s function of scrutinising the work of government.	Select Committees in the common can be as significant as the Lords. There tends to be weak party discipline amongst committees which also allows them to have a great deal of power to check the work of government.
Controversial Legislation – the Lords have developed a reputation for dealing with controversial pieces of legislation like the proposed education reform that was dropped. The coalition government faces 103 defeats by the Lords.	The lords are severely limited because there is no unilateral power to create and pass laws. Parliament can and sometimes does act solely on the basis of commons accepting legislation.
Neutral – the reforms made by the Labour government removed the inbuilt conservative majority which created a more politically balanced chamber. The Lords are diverse by political party and experience.	Cameron has appointees tended to be very conservative and have only led to increase in the size of the chamber.
Salisbury Convention – under the coalition government the Salisbury convention did not stand, this meant that the lords could check a greater deal of the work of government.	Coalition government was a clear anomaly so the lord’s ability to check government now is likely to have reduced. The commons will therefore be more successful at this.
Life Peers – life membership means that Lords have a long period of time to check the work of government and bring about significant proposals that can create an efficient government.	The house of commons are elected which gives them an incentive to be more productive and scrutinise the work of government. Backbench MPs conduct a great deal of this.