• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Evaluate the above statement and consider the extent to which you think it is true.

Extracts from this document...


"Arguments that the British Prime Minister is an elective dictator are arrant nonsense. The Prime Minister is constrained by his or her Cabinet colleagues, the will of Parliament and the decisions of the Judiciary. The British Constitution rests on the separation of power and the operation of the rule of law. The Prime Minister operates firmly within the particular constitutional arrangement in place for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Evaluate the above statement and consider the extent to which you think it is true. Although not quite an oxymoron, the phrase "the British Constitution" may be perceived as something of a misnomer. The term "constitution" is generally understood as meaning a document or set of containing a full list of the rules which determine how the state shall be administered, and a comprehensive catalogue of the rights, freedoms and protections enjoyed by its citizens. There is no such document in existence in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland1. The reasons for this lack of codified constitution are many and various. I do not propose to discuss them. A better term for the system in place in the UK is indeed "the constitutional arrangement" since it suggests that the constitutional principle is a fundamental part of the current system of government, implies that there is more involved than clear-cut legislation, and avoids the instinctive assumption that the rules involved are in some way set apart from the normal run of governmental decision-making. The term "elective dictator" can be described, for present purposes, as an autocrat selected by the people: the Little Oxford English Dictionary gives "dictator" as "a ruler who has total power over a country," and "elective" as "using or chosen by election". A Prime Minister2 is defined simply as "the head of a government". The role has, as briefly discussed below, evolved quite significantly from its earliest form to the present. ...read more.


and agreement to uphold the principles of the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights: however, the potential and actual functions of the European Courts in checking the activities of the British government will not be considered here. This is not to say that the institutions of government are wholly powerless in the face of the Prime Minister's whims: should the executive or the legislature so choose, a confidence vote can be demanded, and by the same level of convention that binds the members of the Cabinet to lend public support to government policies or resign, a Prime Minister losing such a vote is expected to stand down in his own turn18. It is not known what would happen should the Prime Minister refuse to resign in those circumstances; it could be suggested that the most probable result is a species of civil coup d'etat in which the Prime Minister would simply cease to be acknowledged, his deputy would put a request for the dissolution of Parliament to the monarch, and a general election would be called. To describe such a situation as "highly unlikely" is to understate the odds against it enormously: the conventions governing the behaviour of a Prime Minister are so ingrained as to be comparable to law in terms of their binding effect. That said, they are not actually legally enforceable, and so are arguably only as binding as the Prime Minister chooses to allow them to be. Nonetheless the conclusion must be that the legislature is fused, to a greater or lesser extent, with both the executive (through the House of Commons) and the judiciary (through the House of Lords); and that all three are, in normal circumstances and barring extreme measures, essentially in the control of the Prime Minister and therefore cannot be argued to constitute a realistic check on his power. Without for a moment being outwith the constitutional arrangements of the UK, the Prime Minister is fundamentally unrestricted by his Cabinet colleagues, the will of Parliament, or the decisions of the judiciary. ...read more.


16 The three key premises of the concept of the Rule of Law, a traditional restraint on the power of the government and, therefore, the Prime Minister. 17 The process of Judicial Review could be seen to be quite important in that it allows the judiciary the opportunity to examine the legality of the exercise of the powers of the executive, although the judiciary is traditionally more willing to comment on the use of statutory powers than of common law, or prerogative, powers. In the cases of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 and M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 the judiciary ruled on the exercise of executive powers of both kinds, but the point remains that the courts have very little ability to enforce their decisions. 18 See previous notes on Clare Short and the threat of calling a general election. If a Cabinet minister can ignore a binding constitutional convention, why not a Prime Minister? This is a rather frightening potential ramification of the precedent Ms Short established. The previous footnote on the threat of calling a general election goes to illustrate how double-edged a weapon a confidence vote can be. 19 The sovereign and the Crown should not be confused. They can be two separate entities. The sovereign is the individual incumbent of the throne; the Crown is a legal entity holding considerable powers, sometimes embodied in the monarch, sometimes in a Minister, the government as a whole, the judiciary, or another body. Originally, all of the powers of the Crown belonged to the sovereign, but most have been transferred by statute into the direct control of other individuals or institutions. A full discussion concerning the prerogative powers - those by which executive decisions are made under common rather than statute law - can be found in S de Smith and R Brazier Constitutional and Administrative Law. 20 This convention has been unbroken since Queen Anne's reign (1702-1714), though King George V hesitated over the Irish Home Rule Bill in 1914. ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The House of Commons is a highly effective parliamentary chamber" to what extent do ...

    4 star(s)

    For example; The Abortion Act in 1967 and the abolition of the death penalty in 1964 were both Private Members Bills that made a huge difference to society. However, unfortunately, very few Private Members Bills are passed, for example last year just 3 out of 100 were passed.

  2. To what extent are judges neutral and independent?

    Secondly, the Human Rights Act aids judicial neutrality by allowing judges to use the powers of the state to defend individual rights. This shows that they are neutral as both political parties have attempted to reduce the Act's influence so that they can get more of what they want done

  1. To what extent does the prime minister dominate the UK political system?

    Brown was the Chancellor, therefore he was in a powerful position and would get his way on economic policy. No referendum was ever held. Blair and Brown are a very good example of how political heavyweights limit Prime Ministerial power.

  2. Government & Politics Revision Notes

    This in turn affects how the media cover politics and therefore how the public see it. However the UK is democratic in the sense that a number of parties compete for power, giving the public a choice of candidates & manifesto's at election time.

  1. Discuss the indepedence of the UK Judiciary

    A second argument is a simple one referring to the fusion of powers. Because in the UK, there is such a close fusion of powers in practise between the other two branches of government it is difficult to consider that this does not affect the judiciary, especially concerning its relations to the executive.

  2. priministers power

    by Mrs Thatcher was intended to make that department more amenable to the Prime Minister's intentions. o Mrs Thatcher used appointments,to promote her own policy aims. Parkinson, Lawson, Ridley, Tebbit, Brittan and Lilley were all promoted as 'true believers'. Waverers like Pym, Prior, Biffen, and St John Stevas were discarded.

  1. Reform of the judiciary has made it a powerful check on the executive. How ...

    It is argued that these have increased the autonomy of the judiciary and have significantly enhanced its power to act as a check on the executive. The dramatic increase in the number of judicial reviews suggests an increased faith in the mechanism on the part of the public.

  2. Critically evaluate the laws and conventions that regulate and control the relationship between the ...

    Restrictions on the exercise of powers by HOL Parliament Act 1911/1949 Until 1911, HOL enjoyed equal powers with the HOC and that the relationship between the two Houses was governed by convention. In 1909 the HOL rejected the Finance Bill containing Lloyd George?s budget, which, was a breach of convention.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work