Functions of The British Prime Minister - Essay Example

The Prime Minister is the most important personality in British politics. He possesses the ity to appoint his cabinet and makes the final decisions on major issues such as whether a referendum should be held on any issue like the the Euro or whether Britain should be a party to a potential American attack on Iraq. The Prime Minister also drives the Labor Party's policies and is most likely to be expected to justify those policies at the time of election. The Prime Minister is a working Member of Parliament. The Prime Minister may be head of the government but he is also seen as 'primus inter pares' - first among equals .Since he chooses his Cabinet, the Prime Minister has to be seen as the head of the executive branch of government. Apart from that, he also has patronage elsewhere such as the appointment of junior ministers The Prime Minister also chairs a number of select committees; at present the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee, the Constitutional Reform Committee, the Intelligence Services Committee and the Northern Ireland Committee. In these committees the Prime Minister has to be very influential in the determining of policies in these committees. Another function of the Prime Minister is to represent the country internationally. The queen is Britain's head of state, but the Prime Minister is Britain's de facto representative abroad. Coming to the question as to whether the British Prime Minister enjoys Presidential imperialship, it would be apt to compare his powers and authority with that of the U.S. President. Political instinct alone seems to dictate the American president as 'the world's most powerful man' in the sense that most powerful politician in any of the world's democratic nations. He heads the world's most modern military force and the world's largest economy. In America, the president is the best known among politicians. This by itself gives him a great deal of authority as many people within their own states cannot name their own representatives in the House, Senate or governor. The title of president gives him enormous authority and power as he is the main figurehead within the whole of the massive American political structure. The British Prime Minister, in comparison, does have the same international standing as the president. In the crisis involving Iraq, the driving force behind any move against the leadership in Baghdad has been the American president, George Bush, while the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair has been referred to as clinging onto the coat tails of Bush. Britain simply does not seem to have the international standing to overtly influence policies. Such a position does not allow the Prime Minister to drive an international agenda which the US president is capable of. In this sense, the power of the US president abroad is far greater than that of the British Prime Minister. Taking domestic politics into picture, it is pretty much a reverse case scenario. Although the president can select his own cabinet with which he can work, it has to be ratified by the Senate but it does not necessarily mean that the president might have to work with people he did not initially select for his cabinet. The Prime Minister on the other hand, has no such restrictions. He selects all those people he wants for his cabinet and can remove them if they fail to satisfy his expectations and standards. He does not require consultation and approval from anybody over this though he might discuss it with an inner circle of very close colleagues. Least of all does the Prime Minister have to have his cabinet agreed to be the House of Commons or Lords. The president is not head of his party. The British Prime Minister is not only prime minister; he is also a serving Member of Parliament and head of his party. As such, he commands huge respect within that party and does a great deal to drive the policies of that party in power. With a large parliamentary majority, it is almost certain that prime ministerial policies will eventually become the actual policy and law. He is ultimately held responsible for everything- right or wrong. It has been about an year since Tony Blair won a historic third general election victory. Since, he no longer commands a guaranteed parliamentary majority , he is in danger of finding himself "in office, but not in power" .nevertheless, in the US, Mr. Blair is seen as a trusted partner of President George W. Bush, an ally of unshakeable resolve. The primary issue at the moment for Mr. Blair is that he is losing the authority needed to drive through the present political scenario. The possibility of his inability to pass the legislation needed to prepare Britain to meet the challenges of the century has ignited debates about his resignation from politics altogether. Possibly the biggest presidential power that separates the President and the Prime Minister is the President's power to veto legislation proposed by Congress. As the post of President of the United States was created to be a check on the elected houses, the President was given this power and still has it. However, this power is potentially dangerous and can therefore be overridden by a two-thirds vote in Congress against the veto. Whilst the idea of a veto is one that Blair can only dream of, his tight hold on his cabinet means that legislation which he disagrees with never becomes an issue. Also, if a decision were likely to go against the Prime Minister, a three line whip obligates the MPs of his party, to vote with him. Even when a large number of MPs disagree with the proposal, the party in power losing the election has more connotations than most are prepared to allow. This was displayed in the fight for the top-up fees vote, in which Blair was only saved when members of his party loyal to Gordon Brown decided to vote with him unexpectedly. Blair won the vote by only five votes, even though his Labor party have a majority in the house of 166. For some, the idea that Tony Blair has a legion of special advisers working behind him and behind the scenes is terrifying, and a clear signal that he has a presidential premiership. However, when all arguments are assessed, the unelected, unaccountable people that surround Blair in Number 10 seem to be the only real evidence for this type of premiership. The Prime Minister's informal powers do stretch into the realms of presidency, yet, in some cases they extend further. When considering Blair combines domination of his rarely consulted Cabinet, with a clear majority in the House of Commons, and a system built on strong party loyalty, it could be said that Blair's premiership not only invades presidential territory, but touches on monarchical. His ability to decide on election dates, solely decides on foreign policy, and almost single-handedly makes constitutional changes, makes him a step above any president. The British system is set up so that the power of veto is unnecessary and Blair's constant Cabinet reshuffles make it unlikely that he should fall to the mighty blow of a takeover. With142 Labor backbenchers needing to stay on the PM's good side to retain ministerial and private secretarial positions, and 113 needing his approval to maintain their select committee seats, Blair can consider his position within his party as safe1. Quietly but surely, Tony Blair has made himself relatively untouchable and currently hovers between the position of president and king. Pending the results of the May general election, Blair looks set to complete the shift upwards, past presidency; fulfilling Nick Cohen's label as "The man who would be king." 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY US Politics Today - Edward Ashbee & Nigel Ashford "The British Presidency" - Michael Foley The Prime Minister & Cabinet - Neil McNaughton New Statesman, 6 May 2002 - "The man who would be king" by Nick Cohen Developments in Politics, Vol. 13, p36 "Is Britain's Premier Too Presidential" by Jamie Dettmer www.theregister.co.uk www.whitehouse.gov www.number-ten.gov.uk www.red-star-research.org.uk www.grandorange.org.uk www.cgpb.org.uk/worker/index.html Tony Blair: in office, but not in power Published: April 3 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 3 2006 03:00 Read More