‘To what extent has coalition government undermined the power of the PM?’ (40)
A coalition government is when a government is made up of more than one political party. This occurred in the 2010 general election when the Conservatives failed to achieve an outright majority, therefore having to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
One argument for is that the cabinet includes more than one political party, this means that the Prime Minister has to confer, with other MP’s and with the other party in the coalition, on all matters. This limits the patronage and decision-making power of the Prime Minister, and that he/ she has to share their power with another party, in order to come to a decision that both parties are happy with. An example of this was when the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had to discuss the annual Spending Review and decide which taxes they should raise and cut. This led to both parties wanting to cut different taxes, which the other party wanted to raise, such as housing. If only one party was in government and the one Prime Minister had all the power, then they would have been able to cut and raise the taxes they wanted to, but being in a coalition meant that they had to come to a group agreement, where both parties weren’t entirely happy. This argument is quite strong because if the Prime Minister has to share his/ her powers it means it is harder for the cabinet to come to a decision, however it does lead to the decision being fairer and appealing to a wider range of the population.
Another argument for is that because there is a coalition government, this leads to parliament being split, leading to no overall majority. This then means that disagreement could occur, which could have been avoided in the first place if only one party was involved. If the Prime Minister had complete power, then the decision would have been easier and they could have decided the outcome with their party. However the Prime Minister now has to consider the other parties views, and has to share his/ her powers with other
One argument for is that the cabinet includes more than one political party, this means that the Prime Minister has to confer, with other MP’s and with the other party in the coalition, on all matters. This limits the patronage and decision-making power of the Prime Minister, and that he/ she has to share their power with another party, in order to come to a decision that both parties are happy with. An example of this was when the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had to discuss the annual Spending Review and decide which taxes they should raise and cut. This led to both parties wanting to cut different taxes, which the other party wanted to raise, such as housing. If only one party was in government and the one Prime Minister had all the power, then they would have been able to cut and raise the taxes they wanted to, but being in a coalition meant that they had to come to a group agreement, where both parties weren’t entirely happy. This argument is quite strong because if the Prime Minister has to share his/ her powers it means it is harder for the cabinet to come to a decision, however it does lead to the decision being fairer and appealing to a wider range of the population.
Another argument for is that because there is a coalition government, this leads to parliament being split, leading to no overall majority. This then means that disagreement could occur, which could have been avoided in the first place if only one party was involved. If the Prime Minister had complete power, then the decision would have been easier and they could have decided the outcome with their party. However the Prime Minister now has to consider the other parties views, and has to share his/ her powers with other