Does the Prime Minister have too much power
Whilst there are already undeniable restrictions and limitations on the PM’s power, it could be argued that the prime minister as a singular individual enjoys too much power without strict or consistent limitations, and arguably the UK is headed towards, although not yet, a prime-ministerial government.
One clear limitation on the PM is the cabinet.
Generally relies on cabinet approval, and the cabinet can strongly influence the decisions and influence of the PM
Harold Wilson faced cabinet backlash over his attempt at restricting trade unions
Thatcher’s resignation was prompted by Geoffrey Howe’s speech and the lack of cabinet backing against Heseltine
But, the PM can act independently of the cabinet or reduce their influence, and tis has been happening increasingly
Reduced from two meetings a week to only one lasting an hour
Tony Blair’s sofa government
Thatcher ignored her cabinet in passing Poll Tax (although this proved unpopular)
Overall, the role of the cabinet is a clear restriction on the PMs power, and an attempt to make decisions more democratic with a greater level of scrutiny but this isn’t always the case and arguably there aren’t enough restrictions on the PMs power to ensure cabinet has a say
Another limitation to the power of the PM is the rest of parliament, especially the role of the House of Lords
Bills typically need to be debated in both the Commons and the Lords, and are carefully scrutinized
in the 2021-22 session the PM suffered no defeats in the commons but 133 in the lords, demonstrating a decreased political influence in the lords
lords have also been able to influence bills such as EVEL and Sunday Trading arrangements
But, the constitutional limitations on the Lords reduce the extent to which they truly limit the PMs power
For example, article 50 suffered two major defeats in the lords but was still passed through
Salisbury convention, house of lords act
it is rational to have these limitations on the lords, as an unelected body arguably lacking the same mandate as the government
PM can also appoint peers e.g. Lord Crudas appointed by Johnson (faced a lot of backlash)
Can act as a limitation but is ultimately inferior to the PM, thus reducing any firm restriction on his power
The house of commons, in particular backbenchers, can also limit the PM
35% of backbench rebellions in 2010 compared to 28% under labour
13 MPs rebelled against May over no deal agreement
both examples of the impact of small majorities
vote of no confidence lost by james callaghan (only way for the opposition to remove the PM)
have to resign if they lose party support
clearly shaped by the size of the majority the PM has, and with FPTP this can be complicated
blair called an early election to gain a 166-person majority
in 2019 it took 38,000 voted to get one tory seat but 833,000 votes to get a green seat
other powers of the PM which have since been challenged but were enabled by the PM include Syria, Iraq and proroguing parliament
Whilst there are already undeniable restrictions and limitations on the PM’s power, it could be argued that the prime minister as a singular individual enjoys too much power without strict or consistent limitations, and arguably the UK is headed towards, although not yet, a prime-ministerial government.
One clear limitation on the PM is the cabinet.
Generally relies on cabinet approval, and the cabinet can strongly influence the decisions and influence of the PM
Harold Wilson faced cabinet backlash over his attempt at restricting trade unions
Thatcher’s resignation was prompted by Geoffrey Howe’s speech and the lack of cabinet backing against Heseltine
But, the PM can act independently of the cabinet or reduce their influence, and tis has been happening increasingly
Reduced from two meetings a week to only one lasting an hour
Tony Blair’s sofa government
Thatcher ignored her cabinet in passing Poll Tax (although this proved unpopular)
Overall, the role of the cabinet is a clear restriction on the PMs power, and an attempt to make decisions more democratic with a greater level of scrutiny but this isn’t always the case and arguably there aren’t enough restrictions on the PMs power to ensure cabinet has a say
Another limitation to the power of the PM is the rest of parliament, especially the role of the House of Lords
Bills typically need to be debated in both the Commons and the Lords, and are carefully scrutinized
in the 2021-22 session the PM suffered no defeats in the commons but 133 in the lords, demonstrating a decreased political influence in the lords
lords have also been able to influence bills such as EVEL and Sunday Trading arrangements
But, the constitutional limitations on the Lords reduce the extent to which they truly limit the PMs power
For example, article 50 suffered two major defeats in the lords but was still passed through
Salisbury convention, house of lords act
it is rational to have these limitations on the lords, as an unelected body arguably lacking the same mandate as the government
PM can also appoint peers e.g. Lord Crudas appointed by Johnson (faced a lot of backlash)
Can act as a limitation but is ultimately inferior to the PM, thus reducing any firm restriction on his power
The house of commons, in particular backbenchers, can also limit the PM
35% of backbench rebellions in 2010 compared to 28% under labour
13 MPs rebelled against May over no deal agreement
both examples of the impact of small majorities
vote of no confidence lost by james callaghan (only way for the opposition to remove the PM)
have to resign if they lose party support
clearly shaped by the size of the majority the PM has, and with FPTP this can be complicated
blair called an early election to gain a 166-person majority
in 2019 it took 38,000 voted to get one tory seat but 833,000 votes to get a green seat
other powers of the PM which have since been challenged but were enabled by the PM include Syria, Iraq and proroguing parliament
