Here was an essay I wrote on David Cameron as a prime minister. I thought it would be a good read for someone in any way remotely interested in AS level government politics :S (if anyone!)
How powerful a prime-minister is David Cameron?
The 19th century saw the great constitutionalist Walter Bagehot speak of the decline of a Parliamentary system of government and the subsequent domination of power by Cabinet. He asserted that the theoretical sovereignty of parliament had been delegated to the executive for all practical purposes, describing the Prime minister's role in such structure as 'primus enter pares'. Almost a hundred years later, under Harold Wilson's administration, the labour MP Richard Crossman stated that the doctrine of Cabinet government had itself been replaced by one of Prime-ministerial government. 'First Among Equals' was no longer an adequate description to encompass the full breadth and depth of prime-ministerial power which can now be seen as flowing from many different sources and extending beyond the simple operation of chairing cabinet meetings; as Bagehot had outlined. The fact that the prime ministerial role has been able to evolve over the decades, is largely due to the unmodified nature of the British constitution, and as a result, the lack of formal definition of the prime minister's power. We have seen over the past fifty years or so, a range of 'powerful' and 'successful' premierships. How we come to decide the extent of David Cameron's power as prime minister, we will analyse it in terms of institutional, political and personal levels. However we must take into account, when comparing his power to that of previous premierships, that the 2010 Coalition government has brought a mixture of pressures to not only the role of the prime-minster, but also the extent to his power, and hence the very process of government itself.
After Tony Blair's 'sofa-style', informal and 'sleazy' approach to government, Cameron declared his wish for the 'clean-up' of politics and the return to a more collective cabinet government style of policy making and decision taking. He wanted to construct a cabinet of trustworthy colleagues that he could leave to carry out the tasks of government policy formation. This desire was made all the more important with the imperatives and dynamics that a coalition government brings to the system, affecting the sort of role David Cameron must play as head of a two-party administration. In traditional governments, the prime minister has the formal power to appoint, fire and reshuffle ministers (powers transferred by the Royal Prerogative.) However, under the 'Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform', the prime minister must now consult and agree with Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, over the appointment and dismissal of Liberal Democrat MPs. This obviously curtails and undermines the power of David Cameron as a prime minister, as he does not have ultimate authority to organise his cabinet as he sees fit, having instead to comply to the 'one in, one out' rule to maintain the agreed balance of Liberal Democrat to Conservative party members in the Cabinet. (As it stands, the Liberal Democrats have 5 out of the 23 places in the Cabinet.)
Furthermore, the Fixed-Term parliaments Act of 2011 restrained prime-ministerial power by removing another formal power of the prime minister; the ability to call an election at any time.
Not only is the prime ministers power been attenuated in this manner, but there is now a similar limitation on the prime minister's normal ability to solely choose to establish cabinet committees, their members and the terms of their reference. He now has to deliberate on all these affairs with Nick Clegg. This would be a substantial issue when discussing Cameron's institutional power, as cabinet committees are the key decision making bodies of government. If David Cameron is not in complete control of the mechanism of policy formulating, it could be argued that David Cameron has significantly less power than his predecessors.
That being said, with the promise to enforce the 'Whitehall conventions' in his election manifesto, David Cameron has formed 'The Quad' to help administer the running of the coalition. Although, one could argue that this has weakened his election promise of a more formal and open government, as he should be taking issues to the official Coalition Committee, it has undoubtedly given him slightly more power, to deal with big policy disputes, often pertaining to tax and public spending issues, as it is a more informal body, that he can have more sway over. Although, obviously this power is still not as great as the power he could have held if the conservatives had won a larger majority in the general election, and did not have to form a coalition, where he could have the ultimate control over how the machinery of government is organised and operates.
In assessing whether or David Cameron possesses power in political terms, we must look to whether he has the support of his party. It is common knowledge that the Conservative party are facing many party management problems, with backbench MP's rebelling over many issues, especially those revolving around Europe. The Conservative right have felt alienated and unhappy, raising questions with regard to Britain's relationship with Europe. It is interesting to note, that in the recent Eastleigh by-election, despite the Liberal Democrat candidate Mike Thornton managing to just about win, with 32 % of the vote, the conservatives came third, with UKIP placing second with a high 27%. As by-elections are usually methods for the public to proclaim disgruntlement with the present government at the time, it is unsurprising that the Conservatives did not win, but the fact that UKIP polled more votes shows the publics reactions and views over the Europe question. David Cameron, arguably in response to this embarrassing by-election, and the obvious implications he has interpreted it to have meant (a loss of electoral support from eurosceptics), and various backbench rebellions, (the largest being in 2011, when 81 tory MPs voted in favour of a motion for the administering of an EU referendum, despite a three line whip. The motion failed, since Liberal Democrats, on the whole, support European integration,) has promised a referendum over European membership in 2017. However, it has to be said that the parliamentary party is not so far unmanageable, as it was in the John Major years. It can be said that if Cameron had he formed a single-party government with only a small majority, he may have been more vulnerable to blackmail from the right; the coalition has actually offered him more freedom to manoeuvre in managing his own party. The relationship between Cameron and Clegg has developed over the last three years; from the initial 'Rose-Garden marriage' style, to more of a transactional and business like approach. This has been for a number of reasons, however mainly because of the AV referendum of 2011, and the personal attacks and smears on Nick Clegg by the Cameron supported 'NO Campaign'. In this way, Cameron's power has seen to be weakened, especially as in return for the AV referendum failure, the Liberal Democrat backbenchers sided with the Labour party in the recent Conservative backed policy to change constituency boundaries. This internal politics of the coalition itself has obviously had implications to the way in which Cameron has to spend more time balancing the two parties disagreements and demands, and as a result, has made the discussion of the ultimate amount of power of the prime minister hard to calculate.
In his favour, up until recently, Cameron has had no real leadership challenges from members of the conservative party. He has enjoyed a strong personal relationship with his Chancellor of the Exchequer;George Osbourne, and it could be debated that there is no real alternative leader in the commons or the cabinet with the stature or popularity to threaten him, as Brown did to Blair. That being mentioned, recently, there have been rumours that Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is positioning herself to replace him, at a time where press criticisms of Cameron's Bedroom tax has had a damaging effect on the personal popularity of the prime minister.
In the prime minister's favour, Cameron's authority had been underpinned by his undoubted excellence at the public communication aspects of political leadership. He is a highly regarded as being able to use the mediums of the press and media to sell and promote both himself and his ideas. When compared to Gordon Brown's negative media profile, we can directly gauge the obvious sway and power Cameron has with his relaxed style. However, Cameron's hand's off approach has been identified as a factor in government difficulties such as the NHS reorganisation and Votes for prisoners.
Fundamentally, the formation of the 2010 has provided a new framework that somewhat limits government power. However, Cameron's personal standing within the government and the country, among other factors, has ensured that the executive branch of government remains the central focal point of the decision making of government.
What do you think?
