The Liaison Committee: taking evidence from the Prime Minister

The Liaison Committee was formally established in 1980, following the creation of departmental select committees in 1979. However, since 1967 select committee chairs had met to co-ordinate administrative matters. The Liaison Committee comprises all the chairs of select committees in the House of Commons. It considers matters relating to select committees and has administrative, advisory and co-ordinating roles. It advises House authorities on select committee matters; determines which select committees reports are debated; considers issues facing committees; reviews committee practice; and takes oral evidence from the Prime Minister

The limits to prime ministerial autonomy: Cameron and the constraints of coalition

In heading up a coalition David Cameron has had to confront two unusual constraints that prevent him from being a dominant prime minister. The first constraint, something unfamiliar to previous prime ministers, is his having to work with and through a coalition partner firmly placed to the Conservatives’ left. The second constraint, equally problematic but more familiar, is that Cameron has faced a restive Conservative parliamentary party in which a sizable minority of Tory MPs remained unreconciled to his political agenda. These two interrelated constraints mean Cameron has lacked the freedom of manoeuvre enjoyed by most past prime ministers. Two aspects of Cameron’s premiership help cast light on his predicament: first, his relations with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats and second, the nature of his dependency upon Conservative MPs. We look at these in turn and conclude by assessing Cameron’s effectiveness as prime minister

Rebels Leading London: the mayoralties of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson compared

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link

From City Hall to Downing Street: what would Boris as Mayor tell us about Boris as PM?

As speculation mounts again about Theresa May’s longevity at Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s star has risen once again. But what would PM Boris be like? Ben Worthy and Mark Bennister read the runes from his time as London’s Mayor

Cameron as Prime Minister: the intra-executive politics of Britain’s coalition

Forming a coalition involves compromise, so a prime minister heading up a coalition government, even one as predominant a party leader as David Cameron, should not be as powerful as a prime minister leading a single-party government. Cameron has still to work with and through ministers from his own party, but has also to work with and through Liberal Democrat ministers; not least the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. The relationship between the prime minister and his deputy is unchartered territory for recent academic study of the British prime minister. This article explores how Cameron and Clegg operate within both Whitehall and Westminster: the cabinet arrangements, the prime minister’s patronage, advisory resources and more informal mechanisms. Cameron and Clegg both possess institutional and personal resources, but Cameron remains the predominant resource-rich actor, so at this stage in the coalition government we can observe that no formal, substantial change in the role of prime minister has been enacted. Cameron’s predominance, by leading a coalition, is partially constrained by Clegg, but he too constrains Clegg. This prime minister, then, can be predominant even when he is constrained in significant ways by the imperatives of coalition government. Cameron is presently no more constrained than a prime minister who is faced with a pre-eminent intra-party rival with a significant power base

Leadership capital ebbs and flows but trends downwards,influencing political fortunes over time

How can we measure leadership? What makes a leader succeed or fail? Here Mark Bennister and Ben Worthy examine the idea of ‘leadership capital’ and offer a way to understand why some leaders ‘spend’ their ‘capital’ successfully and others squander or waste it

Rebels leading London: the mayoralties of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson compared

This article compares the mayoralties of the first two directly elected Mayors of London, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. The position offers a commanding electoral platform, but weak powers to lead a city regarded as ‘ungovernable’ (Travers 2004). The two mayors had some obvious points of comparison: both were party rebels, mavericks and skilled media operators. Both also used publicity to make up for weak powers, but courted controversy and faced charges of corruption and cronyism. Utilising Hambleton and Sweeting (2004), this article compares their mayoralties in terms of vision, leadership style and policies. Livingstone had a powerful vision that translated into clear policy aims while Johnson was more cautious, shaped by a desire for higher office. In terms of style, Livingstone built coalitions but proved divisive whereas Johnson retained remarkable levels of popularity. Where Livingstone bought experience and skill, Johnson delegated. In policy terms, the two mayors found themselves pushed by their institutional powers towards transport and planning while struggling with deeper issues such as housing. Livingstone introduced the radical congestion charge and a series of symbolic policies. Johnson was far more modest – championing cycling, the 2012 Olympics and avoiding difficult decisions. The two used their office to negotiate, but also challenge, central government. Livingstone’s rebel mayoralty was a platform for personalised change, Johnson’s one for personal ambition

Why is real leadership in such short supply in UK politics?

In the aftermath of the referendum, the UK seems to be suffering from individual and collective leadership failure, write Mark Bennister and Ben Worthy. The use of fear tactics instead of thought-through strategies and of quick fixes instead of long-term visions are some of the reasons behind this failure