what role does the British PM play in British system of government, and how has this role changed?
970395
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.
820433
Parliamentary government is the government where there is only one legislative body that selects the prime minister who appoints the different ministers of departments in running the government.
412669
Although there were many aspects of the British political system that the USA did not want to copy such as the monarchy and a hereditary second chamber there were influences of British rule that were to remain such as jury trial, an independent judiciary, the voting system and freedom of the press and association. Two influences that have remained in the American system but were dying out in Britain even at the time of the Declaration of Independence were grand juries and impeachment.\n\nImpeachment, in which Crown officials (which included ministers and judges) could be tried before a committee of the House of Lords (chaired by the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor) after the House of Commons had prepared and voted on an indictment and was mainly used for cases of corruption and bribery whilst in office, was fading out as ministers became more responsible to Parliament, rather than the Crown, for their actions and ministers accepted responsibility for their officials' actions.\n\nThe last major impeachment proceedings were against Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India, who was accused of privately profiting from his official post. The trial lasted 7 years from 1788 to 1795 and among the prosecutors were Edmund Burke and the playwright, Richard Sheridan, but it was really a thinly-veiled attack on the government of Pitt the Younger who had a solid majority in the House of Lords which would never have voted to convict Hastings and the presiding officer was also a member of Pitt's Cabinet and the proceedings swiftly developed into farce along the lines of the O.J.Simpson trial.\n\nThe attempt to revive this antiquated procedure by a few Scottish & Welsh Nationalists with the support of a few Labour left-wingers arises from the fact that they lack the political support to oppose Mr Blair's foreign policy. It is also extremely undemocratic as it involves using a judicial procedure to override the doctrine of ministerial accountability to the elected chamber of the House of Commons. Before the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 a debate was held in the House of Commons to discuss the matter and the government's policy was approved by a majority of 200 (as the opposition Conservative Party joined in supporting the government). According to subsequent reports Mr Blair made it clear that had he lost that vote, or even if less than half the number of Labour MPs had supported him (in the event slightly more than half supported him) he would have resigned. Since that vote a General Election has been held in May 2005 in which the electorate were given a chance to express their feelings about the Iraq issue (as well as other matters)and could have forced Mr Blair to stand down if they had wanted to and felt strongly enough about it. In the event, although there was some rise in support for the Liberal Democrats (although Iraq was not the only reason for this) Mr Blair was returned to power with a majority of 65 seats. 66% of the electorate voted for the two major parties which had supported the invasion of Iraq and anti-war Labour MPs suffered as big a swing against them (in some cases much larger) as pro-war Labour MPs.\n\nI agree with the Democrats who, during the impeachment of Present Clinton, argued that to remove a head of government by this method while he still retains the confidence of the electorate would be tantamount to a "legalised coup d'etat". The best and most democratic way to express dissatisfaction with a sitting Prime Minister under our system is to pass a vote of censure or no confidence in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister would then be faced with two choices, he would either have to resign, as Neville Chamberlain did after the Norway fiasco in 1940 or call a general election as James Callaghan did in 1979 (which he subsequently lost).
1162451
The power of the royal family in England has been declining steadily ever since the Magna Carta.  Nowadays, the royal family has almost no say in anything whatsoever.  They can, however, make speeches to appeal to the masses, although this tactic for control has almost never been used.  The queen can suggest things to the prime minister, and in certain cases it would be impolite for him to refuse (like asking him over for tea), but the monarch cannot order the prime minister to do anything.
392874
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.
626956
In theory they are in charge of the various departments that make up the government.  Civil Servants do the work, Ministers make the decisions and then respond to the critisism in Parliament and through the media.\n\nIn practise most government ministers are not up to the job and end up wasting billions.  They 'hinder' rather than 'help' the government function.
941848
Blair is still in power and his party is still a stooge to bush govt. so the chances are bleak.it will happen only when the british elect leftist government.
366318
in England Tony Blair is our prime minister
918231
the British Labour Party was from it's conception, a left wing socialist party, which championed workers rights.  However, as the UK became more prosperous their left-wing message, fell from grace.  Following on from the Conservative PM John Major, Tony Blair came to power on a mandate of policies which were slightly right of centre.  This had a greater appeal for the majority of British people, but many old Labourites felt as if the party had 'sold out' the grass-root members.
407198
yes.  they don't need a monarch but they need a form of parliamentary government that will hold the prime minister (executive) more accountable to the legislature and provides for his dismissal.  the american model of an antagonistic presidency has only allowed it to grow into a criminal agency for the national elite and not a representative democracy.
912650
There isn't one.  Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of Britain.  Jack McConnell is the First Minister of Scotland and under the present constitution there is no Prime Minister of England.
623896
The british have lost their identity.They follow Americans.in fact USA decides all policies and no poltician is required for Britain now.
619656
A parliamentary system appeals to me because of the quick manner in which a government is elected and created.  The Brits do it in about a month - a lot quicker than we Americans, with our evenly-spaced two-year election cycles that seem endless.\n\nThat said, I prefer the presidential system.  I like the fact that in a presidential system, the executive does not derive its power and authority from the legislature, as with a parliamentary system.  In parliamentary systems, the executive / prime minister must maintain the approval of the legislature and is therefore unlikely to do anything that will be unpopular with his party; a president, since his authority does not rest with the legislature, has more freedom to act on principle and take an unpopular stand if he feels it is right.
514420
At the moment it is a democracy/constitutional monarchy, where the queen is the head of state but does not wield any power.\n\nPreviously Britain has been ruled by an absolute monarchy within a feudal system as well as having Oliver Cromwell, who, I guess, would be described as a president at a time when representational democracy did not really happen (1641?)
679067
Technically speaking yes. In 1995, John Major resigned as Conservative Party leader but still remained Prime Minister, so in theory Tony Blair could resign as Labour Party Leader but still be PM.
1015326
The Prime Minister is more powerful as long as he is a good Prime Minister. He needs the Queen's approval and the Queen is obliged to give it. If for instance though the government and the Prime Minister were jeopardising the freedom and safetly of their citizens or becoming ruthless dictators, the Queen could (in theory) use her influence to raise the people and her armies against them.
553999
The Prime minister does not have a "term" in the American sense. \n\nThe process begins with a parliamentary election. Such elections must be called at least once very five years but may be called sooner.\n\nAfter the elections, the Queen, as Head of State, calls upon a member of Parliament to form a government and be her Prime Minister. In theory she may summon anyone she chooses but in fact it will always be the leader of the party that won the most seats in Parliament.\n\n\nThis person must then win the support of a majority of the members. If his party has won a majority this is no problem but if it has not he must negotiate with members of other parties to achieve a majority.\n\nIf he acheives such a majority he may then remain as prime minister for as long as five years (at which time another election must be called) so long as a majority continue to support him. \n\nIf, at any time he loses majority support thru what is called a "vote of no confidence" he must step down. In that instance the Queen may either summon another individual to attempt to gain a majority within the existing Parliament or call a new election. As a practical matter, a new election will be the choice.\n\nHe is, by the way, as others have mentioned, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not just of England.\n\nEngland as a seperate political entity vanished in 1707 with the passage of the Act of Union which joined the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in the Kindom of Great Britain.\n\nThe recent creation of a Scottish Parliament does not make Scotland a seperate country or revoke the Act of Union and England continues to be incorporated into the Kingdom of Great Britain which is itself now a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island.