Register to read the introduction…
A common argument in today's political world is that the role of the British Prime Minister is becoming to presidential. This suggests that the Prime Ministers power is becoming less and less democratic and more autonomous. One of the constraints on the amount of the power the Prime Minister holds is the cabinet.
The Cabinet is there to coordinate the running of the country. Each Cabinet member has responsibility for a specific area of government policy. So, for example, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has responsibility for that area. The size of the Cabinet depends on the Prime Minister, but it usually has around 20 members. This makes it too large to look at detailed policies so what tends to happen is that ministers concerned with a particular issue meet in …show more content…
Conservative backbenchers and cabinet members such as Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe became unhappy at their exclusion from areas such as policy formulation and the general governmental process. After Howe and Lawson's "resignation" the conservative party saw their problem and realised that that Thatcher was not what they wanted. This resulted in Thatcher loosing her title as party leader and Prime Minister and John major taking over government. This example provides strong evidence that although a Prime Minister holds the title and the "power", the cabinet can usurp them. Showing that the power the Prime Minister holds is not unlimited.
To conclude, it could be argued that the Prime Minister holds the most powerful position within the country. However there are enough restraints to ensure that this power is not abused; e.g. opposition within the House of Commons and House of Lords, the Prime Ministers own backbenchers and cabinet, and the voting general public. In my opinion the Prime Minister holds a lot of power but they certainly can't do what they want with it, as safety nets within government have been
The Cabinet is there to coordinate the running of the country. Each Cabinet member has responsibility for a specific area of government policy. So, for example, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has responsibility for that area. The size of the Cabinet depends on the Prime Minister, but it usually has around 20 members. This makes it too large to look at detailed policies so what tends to happen is that ministers concerned with a particular issue meet in …show more content…
Conservative backbenchers and cabinet members such as Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe became unhappy at their exclusion from areas such as policy formulation and the general governmental process. After Howe and Lawson's "resignation" the conservative party saw their problem and realised that that Thatcher was not what they wanted. This resulted in Thatcher loosing her title as party leader and Prime Minister and John major taking over government. This example provides strong evidence that although a Prime Minister holds the title and the "power", the cabinet can usurp them. Showing that the power the Prime Minister holds is not unlimited.
To conclude, it could be argued that the Prime Minister holds the most powerful position within the country. However there are enough restraints to ensure that this power is not abused; e.g. opposition within the House of Commons and House of Lords, the Prime Ministers own backbenchers and cabinet, and the voting general public. In my opinion the Prime Minister holds a lot of power but they certainly can't do what they want with it, as safety nets within government have been