2006-11-01 22:20:49 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Technically, his role is the same as any other former PM. His party and cabinet have allowed him to operate more like a president out of self interest. The party have the power to get rid of a sitting PM. The PM shouldn't make unilateral decisions, that is why we have a cabinet. The PM is meant to provide leadership and represent the government abroad, but he doesn't hold unfettered right to do as he pleases.
2006-11-02 07:20:13 · answer #1 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Does anyone here have any idea what they are talking about, or do you just want to take the opportunity to make stupid remarks?
To answer the question seriously, as I believe it deserves a serious answer, the Prime Minister is the leader of the Party with the most seats in the House of Commons. By and large he sets the policies of the Government, but he has to have a good working relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who basically decides how much the government can afford to spend.
The role has changed over the last 50 years or so; in some ways the Prime Minister has become less powerful as we no longer have an Empire and take decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of people in other countries. Domestically they have probably become more powerful as the media focuses on them rather than their policies.
And anyone who thinks that Tony Blair is running a dictatorship should go and look at the 1979-1990 period under Margaret Thatcher.
2006-11-04 18:11:07 · answer #2 · answered by Timothy M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One way that it has changed is that he has taken away more responsibility for setting foreign policy from the FCO. Number 10 did not used to have any foreign policy advisers - remember in the first episode of Yes, Prime Minister when Sir Humphrey said the job involved as little work as the PM wanted - but now he is playing more of a role in making foreign policy, sidelining the foreign secretary.
Over the past 270 years that we have had PMs, he has taken over the exercise of roles which once belonged to the king (deciding who gets honours, for example), and in the past thirty years cabinet has had a smaller and smaller role in decision-making. They no longer have real debates to decide policy - the last time this happened was under Callaghan. Blair even admitted he did not bothering showing the cabinet the attorney general's 'legal advice' over the war.
2006-11-06 03:34:27 · answer #3 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The PM plays the role of village idiot and shopuld quit his job at the nearest possible time.
He should not have started or helped out with the war on iraq. The weapons he thought were of mass destruction were can openers. he just likes to be a bully and suck up to the president of the USA.
If you want to reply to my answer e-mail at davies4steph@yahoo.com
2006-11-02 08:36:51 · answer #4 · answered by Angel of Life 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He plays no effective role and is now just a figure head. He has changed the role of Prime Minister from 'leader' to ,Head of The-- 'You must be ashamed to be English' party. (manifesto? We will weaken you) but make u pay also, with massive tax rises.
2006-11-02 08:10:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The new word for P.M. is Dictator.
2006-11-02 10:49:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he plays the banker , staching our hard earned cash in his pocket, [ the overflow goes in his wife's ]
2006-11-02 15:08:57 · answer #7 · answered by len m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
president bliar is a dictator
2006-11-05 12:08:14 · answer #8 · answered by fair-and-squire 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't he supposed to run and oversee everything !!!
2006-11-02 06:22:42 · answer #9 · answered by IloveMarmite 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋