The monarch appoints a first, or prime, minister. There is thus clearly a head of government. But what happens if the primeminister is away, temporarily indisposed, or tied up exclusively on business that means they are not able to deal with other matters of state? On the premise that someone needs to be running government, who, if anyone, stands in for the primeminister?
There may be benefits to having a second-in-command. On occasion, the media have described a senior politician as ‘deputy primeminister’. However, the existence of the royal prerogative
The choice of the primeminister rests formally with the sovereign – the holder is the principal adviser to the monarch – but the means by which the holder has been chosen has changed over time. Initially, the choice was in the personal gift of the sovereign. He or she could hire and fire as they wished. With the advent of a mass franchise and the growth of organised political parties in the nineteenth century, it became the practice to select the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. The constitutional position remained unchanged in that the
The book provides an analysis of the contemporary state of the British constitution, identifying ambiguities and the changing relationships at the heart of the constitution. It offers a succinct and accessible overview of the core features of how the UK is governed – the key principles and conventions underpinning the constitution and how they are under pressure. It is essential for anyone wanting to make sense of the UK constitution in a period of constitutional turbulence, not least following the referendum to leave the European Union, three general elections in five years, major judgments by the UK supreme court, governments suffering major defeats in the House of Commons, and pressure for more referendums, including on Scottish independence and on remaining in the European Union. Each chapter draws out a core feature of the constitution, not least a relationship between different organs of the state, and offers an explanation of its shape and operation and the extent to which it is changing. It examines the key principles underpinning the UK constitution, the extent to which they are contested, and how political behaviour is shaped by convention.
This book is the first in the new series The Labour Governments 1964–70 and concentrates on Britain's domestic policy during Harold Wilson's tenure as Prime Minister. It deals, in particular, with how the Labour government and Labour party as a whole tried to come to terms with the 1960's cultural revolution. The book is grounded in original research, takes account of responses from Labour's grass roots and from Wilson's ministerial colleagues, and constructs a total history of the party at this critical moment in history. It situates Labour in its wider cultural context and focuses on how the party approached issues such as the apparent transformation of the class structure, the changing place of women in society, rising immigration, the widening generation gap, and increasing calls for direct participation in politics. Together with the other volumes in the series, on international policy and economic policy, the book provides an insight into the development of Britain under Harold Wilson's government.
On the afternoon of September 11 2001 the Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach), Bertie Ahern ordered the ‘heads of the security services of key government departments’ to undertake a complete re-evaluation of measures to protect the state from attack. Hence, underway within hours of the 9/11 outrage in the United States was potentially the most far-reaching review of Irish national security in decades. This book, an academic investigation of Irish national security policy as it has operated since 9/11, provides a theoretically informed analysis of that re-evaluation and the decisions that were taken as a consequence of it up until September 2008. In so doing, it draws on unprecedented access to Ireland's police, security and intelligence agencies; over twenty senior personnel agreed to be interviewed. Questions are raised over the effectiveness of the Irish agencies, the relative absence of naval and airborne defence and the impact on national security of the policy imperative to transform the Defence Forces, particularly the army, for more robust missions overseas. The book also considers the securitisation of Irish immigration policy and the apparent absence of a coherent integration policy despite international evidence suggesting the potential for radicalisation in socially marginalised western communities. Theoretically, the book demonstrates the utility to the analysis of national security policy of three conceptual models of historical institutionalism, governmental politics and threat evaluation.
Why did Tony Blair take Britain to war with Iraq? Because, this book argues, he was following the core political beliefs and style—the Blair identity—manifest and consistent throughout his decade in power. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and finally Iraq were wars to which Blair was drawn due to his black-and-white framing of the world, his overwhelming confidence that he could shape events, and his tightly-held, presidential style of government. This new application of political psychology to the British prime ministership analyses every answer Blair gave to a foreign policy question in the House of Commons during his decade in power in order to develop a portrait of the prime minister as decision maker. Drawing upon original interviews with major political, diplomatic and military figures at the top of British politics, the book reconstructs Blair's wars, tracing his personal influence on British foreign policy and international politics during his tumultuous tenure.
This essay focuses upon the controversy surrounding Lord George Townshends
appointment as Irish viceroy in 1767. He was the first viceroy to be made
constantly resident and therefore it was a shift that could be seen as part of a
process of imperial centralization, akin to assertive British policy-making for
the American colonies and India. Up until this point there has been some doubt
as to whether Townshend himself or the British Government was the prime mover
behind this key decision. This article uses the Caldwell-Shelburne
correspondence in the John Rylands Library,to shed further light on this
policy-making process, as well as commenting on the importance of Sir James
Caldwell, landowner, hack writer and place-hunter extraordinaire, and the Earl
of Shelburne, Irish-born Secretary of State and later Prime Minister, and
reflecting on the historiography,of the Townshend administration and Anglo-Irish
relations more generally.
An Interview with Celso Amorim, Former Brazilian Foreign Minister
primeminister during the government of [President Jacques] Chirac. Villepin is a
republican in the French sense, a democrat, but he isn’t a man of the Left. He recently
said to me, ‘The world misses Brazil,’ because Brazil was bringing a soft power
that isn’t only for its own benefit. As soon as we put our house in order… sure, it
is clear that we need to stop cutting down the Amazon, stop killing indigenous people, which
still happens, even if less than twenty years ago… but if we put our house in order,
relatively, in social terms primarily, we
example, international norms about the slave trade and aspects of
empire were agreed by major states. 3 UK primeminister Theresa May recently called global elites citizens not of the world but of
‘nowhere’ ( Merrick, 2017 ). Bibliography Barnett ,
M. ( 2011 ), Empire
of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism ( Ithaca, NY :
Cornell University Press ). Barry ,
B. ( 1990 ),
‘ How Not to Defend Liberal Institutions ’,
British Journal of Political Science , 20 : 1 ,
1 – 14 . BBC ( 2018a ), ‘ Oxfam Haiti
PrimeMinister and Cabinet, as key features of British government, emerged around the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The monarch originally looked to the Privy Council for advice on matters of state but Charles II found it too large and so invited a smaller group to meet with him in his ‘cabinet’ or private rooms. Under Queen Anne it became an official title and the Cabinet still remains, formally, a committee of the Privy Council. As Parliament had won supremacy over the monarch in the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89, this senior committee of