It is essential to expand on this title, before I begin my response. The question is asking whether the Westminster System (in the traditional and historic sense of the term) is still an accurate descriptor of British politics - given the significant amount of political evolution that has occurred over the last two centuries. Perhaps the Westminster Model has become anachronistic in the internet age? Or, perhaps its core components can still be observed in contemporary British politics? Maybe an informed revision of the Westminster Model is what is needed? I will address all of these various possibilities in my essay, through a systematic analysis and comparison of the key features of the Westminster Model and their resemblance to the features …show more content…
In traditional constitutional theory the cabinet is the primary decision making body of the executive. Over the years various scholars have developed succinct ways of describing the role of the cabinet in British politics, Walter Bagehot construed it as the 'efficient secret ' of British government, and throughout the first half of the 20th century the Cabinet Model of British Government was typically used as a descriptor. However, this once established pillar of the Westminster Model has been eroded throughout the latter half of the 20th century and the 21st century. Political commentators observe that the role of the Cabinet has been usurped by the office of Prime Minister. You only have to examine the ritual patterns of the British media to realise that the Prime Minister is taken as the representative and primary force of the executive and of government in general. If you look at Tony Blair 's control over cabinet meetings, the hiring and firing of ministers, his interference in departmental affairs, his use of civil service appointments and patronage, it 's pretty clear that the Prime Minister is no longer the mere leader of the cabinet, but the executive superior to the cabinet. However, one could argue that because the power of the cabinet is dependent on the power of the prime minister, the Prime Ministerial Model of British politics could potentially …show more content…
What we now observe is a kind of Neo-Westminster Model, where the monarch has been consigned to a wholly liturgical role, the prime minister has just as much clout and power as a president, the cabinet operate at the discretion of the prime minister, and there are multiple tiers of governance - extending from European Parliament to local government. From a macroscopic viewpoint, the key features are still present (the monarchy, prime minister, cabinet and sovereign Parliament), but on a microscopic level each component has significantly changed. So, what use is the Westminster Model? It is useful as a theoretical base, which we can then adapt to fit our observations of contemporary British politics, to be useful a political theory should be dynamic, and its genesis into a Neo-Westminster Model allows the Westminster Model to retain its usefulness as a political
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
The history between the British Empire and its dominions always was significantly distinguished through the strong ties which people connected to the mother-country of Britain. However, as always in history changes were about to happen as each dominion urged to become more and more independent. The end of this process is marked by the Statute of Westminster passed in 1931 which granted the former dominions full legal freedom and established legislative equality between the now self-governing dominions of the British Empire. Therefore, the Statute of Westminster is one of the most remarkable acts in Canadian history as it set the road to the development of Canada in which we live today.
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
To conclude, our parliamentary system is hugely problematic in holding the executive to account. At times Westminster Parliament is very effective in holding the executive accountable by use of scrutiny and various other mechanisms. However, this is not necessarily the case in times of huge majorities in favour of the executive such as in the cases of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. In short, the effectiveness of Westminster Parliament depends on the situation in terms of (the biggest factor being) degree of majority, presence of war, unity of the party and hostility of the media.
on what the electorate in each country votes for. In the US the have a
This is confirmed by the period 1945-79, when power tended to alternate frequently between the Labour and Conservative parties. However, during this period, Labour won power twice with a majority of less than twenty seats, resulting in a near hung parliament. This tends to weaken the idea that the electoral pendulum has swung evenly for both parties. It is important to consider the period of time looked when attempting to identify which system best describes
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
Dinkin, M., and White, I.2008. Voting system in UK. Library of House of Commons: Parliament and Constitution Centre. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/108_icpr_final.pdf (accessed November 20, 2010)
The Prime Minister of Canada has an integral role within the Canadian parliament. In the political Parliamentary system of Canada, the Prime Minister wields the executive responsibility. He is accountable for an assortment of administrative, managerial, and supervisory decisions in effect across the country. The executive role is the branch of government that is generally responsible for creating laws, and enforcing the regulations to ensure these laws are observed.
Since the 1950s there has been a rise in the power of the Prime Minister, specially Crossman in 1962 and Benn, who in 1979 referred to “a system of personal rule in the very heart of our Parliamentary democracy”. As Britain has remained the “world’s most successful representative democracy”. The role of the executive has significantly increased at a great deal since the end of World War 2, however, the outward dangers of a supplementary individual hegemony attached to the Prime Minister shouldn’t be overemphasized. Although the modern examples of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair whose styles of leadership have each been labelled as presidential. In this essay I will be assessing the four main prime minister’s power and if his or her powers constrained under the British system. For instances, the power of patronage, cabinet power, the party leadership and the mass media. These are four main factors of the prime minister and its effectiveness can be argued.
Spanning “over a fifth of the world’s land surface” and the governance of 458 million people at its peak, the British Empire came to bear the name of the “vast empire on which the sun never sets.” At the time of writing this in 1773, Macartney, a British statesman and colonial administrator, also asserted that the Empire’s “bounds nature has not yet ascertained.” When considering the significance of the Palace of Westminster, London in British imperial history, this statement could not ring truer. The House of Commons and the House of Lords meet within the Palace of Westminster, and it was within these democratic buildings that many of the most controversial aspects of the Empire were decided, discussed and debated. Whether this be over topics
Parliament sovereignty means that the Parliament’s power is unlimited and it can make law on any subject matter. No one can limit the law - making power of any future Parliament. It is impossible therefore for any Parliament to pass a permanent law or in other words to entrench an Act of Parliament. According to Dicey, parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has the “right to make or unmake ay law whatever”. This basically mean that there is no limit on the subject matter on which Parliament may legislate.
Taylor, H. (1910). The constitutional crisis in Great Britain: Bicameral system should be retained with House of Lords reorganized on an elective basis. Concord, N.H: Rumford Press. 6th edition
The British Electoral System In democratic states, electoral systems are of great importance. Elections give people the right to choose their government; ensure that governments represent the majority (or largest minority) of the people; ensure peaceful changes of government (stability); allow people with fresh ideas an opportunity to enter the political arena; confer legitimacy of government and allow the government to expect people to obey their rules. Unfortunately the British system, Simple Plurality, (also known as 'First Past The Post') has come under fire for its alleged discrimination against smaller parties and its tendency to allow the losing party the ability to rule. Therefore, this creates a question - is the British system fair and democratic, or is it in need of drastic change? There is no denying that the British system has its advantages.
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?