Paper 2 · 2019 · 30 marks
Using the source, evaluate the view that Prime Ministers have too much power.
PM & Executive
Source
This source is adapted from the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report 'Role and powers of the Prime Minister' (2014). It examines whether there is adequate clarity about the Prime Minister's powers and whether the checks on them are sufficient.
The case that Prime Ministers have too much power
Prime Ministers have significant powers of patronage such as appointing ministers. They set the Cabinet agenda and are able to control the Cabinet, including deciding who chairs the most important Cabinet committees. If a Prime Minister is an electoral asset, they are fairly secure in office and, as long as they have the support of their closest allies in Cabinet and a large Commons majority, they face very few limits to their power.
The case that Prime Ministers face real limits
Prime Ministers cannot appoint whoever they want to Cabinet. They must reflect the balance of party opinion and appoint the 'big beasts', as it is better to have them 'inside the tent rather than outside'. Theresa May had to retain a balance of 'Brexiteers' and 'Remainers' in her Cabinet, reflecting Conservative Party divisions.
Prime Ministers can be brought down by their party. Tony Blair was arguably forced to resign. Margaret Thatcher resigned after losing the support of her Cabinet, when her Poll Tax was rejected by the public. Prime Ministers with small majorities, or no majority, cannot take Parliament for granted. Theresa May avoided votes in Parliament which she expected to lose, and the Commons prevented Cameron from going to war over Syria.
Mark scheme: agreement
AO1: FPTP damages legitimacy and discourages turnout because of wasted vote.
AO2: Governments and MPs gain election with less than 50% of the vote and thus exercise majority power on a minority vote.
AO3: We can conclude that FPTP lacks a democratic mandate.
AO1: FPTP breeds adversarial politics and negates the need for compromise.
AO2: The Westminster Parliament is built on adversarial politics with a binary view of issues and causes.
AO3: We can reach a verdict that FPTP undermines consensus reducing the effectiveness of elections.
AO1: FPTP leads to a 'winner takes all' approach which delivers extremes of policy changes which damages the country.
AO2: Incoming governments are driven by changing their predecessors work and setting off in constantly new directions.
AO3: We can reach a judgement that a strong economy and stable society require PR to provide the framework for this.
AO1: PR would encourage more people to vote and improve the chances of a more reflective Parliament.
AO2: FPP does not treat all votes as equal and deters many from voting, especially those who support minor parties.
AO3: We can conclude that Multi party politics does not equate with FPTP – a multicultural society is not served well by FPP.
Mark scheme: disagreement
AO1: PR would hand excessive power to parties.
AO2: This is because deals are made between parties after the election which can be undemocratic, leaders also control the order of the lists in some forms of PR.
AO3: We can conclude that PR would not improve elections as it would take power away from the people to parties.
AO1: FPTP delivers strong and stable government.
AO2: For decades with only a few minor blips FPTP has served the nation well in delivering single party stable governments.
AO3: We can reach a judgement that FPTP enhances election as Governments are able to carry out their manifesto held accountable at the next GE.
AO1: FTPT provides for a good MP-constituency link.
AO2: This is because constituency sizes are relatively small enabling constituents to have clear access to their representation.
AO3: We can conclude that having good access to your representative is a crucial factor in a representative democracy.
AO1: FPTP is clear and easy to understand and it keeps out extremists.
AO2: Few spoiled ballots show the clarity surrounding FPTP and it has an impressive record of preventing extremist parties gaining seats.
AO3: We can reach a verdict that more damage can be done to democracy by extremists parties if FPTP was to go.