Tony Blair said he believed he was doing the right thing in chosing to go to war in Iraq... but why do decisions such as this seem to fall to one person, why can't they just be the result of voting in the house of commons or within the cabinet?
To what extent can the Prime Minister really make final decisions & can he over-rule everyone else, or is he just a figure-head to the Cabinet that he selects?
2007-05-12 09:26:18 · 9 answers · asked by Quasimojo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
i think you will find that a prime minister can be over ruled by his cabinet and the decision to go to Iraq was voted on by the House so they are all guilty not just the PM
2007-05-12 09:30:32 · answer #1 · answered by Vengeance_is_mine 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let me try and answer your questions in a roundabout way, if I may.
Traditionally, the UK Prime Minister was seen as a first among equals, or something like that - that sounds a bit oxymoronic to me but nevermind. He was the most important member of the cabinet, but not by much. Then around 1920 (not being very precise here), the PM started to emerge from the cabinet as a clear leader. The cabinet can out-vote the PM as can the entire House of Commons: the important matters are voted upon. As Blair has a huge majority in parliament, and never loses a bloody vote, it's easy to forget that parliament is forever checking his ideas and the policies his government want to enact only lost one vote in his life I think - that of allowing the police to hold people without charge for 90 days or something wacko like that.
As Blair is so far ahead in terms of power than any one member of his cabinet, he's often described as presidential. He's actually more powerful than a US-style President.......
because there's a strong separation of powers in the US: Dubya is the most important part of the executive, but not part of the legislature and doesn't have much influence over the Senate or House of Reps, whereas Blair is part of the executive and the legislature (and just to throw something else in, the UK's top court is in the House of Lords, which Blair obviously has massive power over, whereas in the US the Supreme Court, again, is a divided, protected part of the US power structure).
Look at it this way: Bush loses votes all the time. Congress stopped his plan to drill for oil in Alaska. Blair would have had to resign if he lost an important vote which divides the country, such as the one concerning top-up fees - something American observers would have barely understood!
2007-05-12 17:08:16 · answer #2 · answered by rage707_666 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Constitutionally, the Queen makes the ultimate decisions - the PM advises her based on the decisions of her government, which are themselves based on the decisions of parliament. (The phrase "Prime Minister" means "First Advisor".)
Now you may think that Parliament holds the real power (since the civil war), and of course that's true in real terms, but the reality is that the Queen can overrule its decisions - remember that any law needs the Royal Assent. Of course, if she did, there would be a constitutional crisis, and, if it went that far (which it could do if she stood her ground), we'd all have to decide which side of the fence we're on.
Normally, the Queen accepts the decisions of her PM, because it's based on Parliament, whose members are elected by the people.
One more thing to consider - the PM gets to be First Lord of the Treasury (the person who holds the nation's purse-strings). There's real power for you.
Incidentally, the official address of the First Lord of the Treasury is 10 Downing Street (right next-door to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course) - that's why the PM lives there.
2007-05-12 16:51:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This country has been taken over by a rogue Prime Minister (Monster) as all decisions should be firstly put to the Cabinet and then debated. Ultimately the Queen alone has the power to declare war. Britain is not a democracy it is a nation governed by a government elected by a minority of voters and run by demagogues and kleptocrats. The idea of Constitutional Monarchy with the people represented in Parliament is a joke.
2007-05-12 16:32:10 · answer #4 · answered by pwwatson8888 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
B_liar has just changed the UK into an Islamic African
Eastern European conglomerate with not one word of consultation with the real UK people , need any more proof?
2007-05-14 15:37:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there was a vote in the house of commons. one of the first times there has been over a war
2007-05-12 16:38:12 · answer #6 · answered by bruce m 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't govern by committee. Ultimately someone has to make the difficult decisions.
2007-05-12 16:30:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because if a committee tries to make a decision it will not be made untill 2107
2007-05-12 16:58:50 · answer #8 · answered by Scouse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush can fit only 1 lapdog on his lap at a time....
2007-05-12 16:51:15 · answer #9 · answered by Your Teeth or Mine? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋