Different Styles of Recent British Prime Ministers Essay

Different Styles of Recent British Prime Ministers - Essay Example Amongst the most renowned prime ministers in Britain are such as Winston Churchill; who led Britain during the second world war, Margaret Thatcher who is commonly referred to as the iron lady, John Major and Lloyd George (Bennister, 2012). This discussion looks into the similarities and differences in leadership approaches of latest British prime ministers. These are john Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the incumbent David Cameron. Major John rose to the position of prime minister after serving for 11 years in parliament; Blair became the prime minister after serving for fourteen years. Gordon Brown waited for twenty five years before becoming prime minister, and the current Prime Minister Cameron took nine years before becoming prime minister. Prime ministers govern depending on their styles of management. Major John was accommodative and tolerant, allowing a greater variety of opinion. He stressed on consensus and collegiality, giving the department as much autonomy as possible . He rarely interfered with the decision making of departments during tenure (Bennister, 2012). Tony Blair is known for his authoritative style having developed a standing for enforcing strong discipline both in his party and cabinet. Blair assigned discretion to strong ministers prepared to follow the government without question. His autocratic style attracted criticism of assuming presidential powers. Cameron leadership is characterized by several policies, the Majority of which are propelled by the need to trim down the government expenditure. Having secured office in 2010, Cameron came in office at a time when Britain was grappling with economic downtowns. The following valuables will be the basis of evaluation leadership styles and aptitude. These are proficiency and communication skills, political skills, emotional intelligence, organizational capacity and policy vision. Proficiency and communication skills Tony Blair has an outstanding proficiency in public communication, usu ally described as an exciting politician, who is able to interact well with the media. His strong control over the government’s message was highly successful in imposing unity and projecting an image of competence. How Blair managed communications during the 1999 Kosovo war, was an illustration of this skill. On the other hand, Major John and Gordon Brown are not proficient and good communicators (Bennister, 2012). Cameron is also known for his communication skills, which is enhanced by background in television. Organizational capacity Cameron noticeable organization skills are his self confidence and inner motivation. He strives to excel and accomplish objectives. He sets intricate goals and works on how the objectives will be accomplished. His strong communication skills enable him to respond positively to setbacks whenever they occur. He is able to remain calm under strenuous circumstances. Cameron organizational capacity has been put under criticism as a result of his jud gments with regards to key government appointments. Major John had a strong organizational capacity due to his democratic leadership. His reign had few ad hoc cabinet meetings and fewer ad hoc committees to compete for a central position in policy making. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had less organizational capacities, and usually struggled to find arrangements that suited them.

INTERNATIONAL LAW Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

INTERNATIONAL LAW - Essay Example itory. Under this conception, self-determination goes beyond the rights of distinctive territorial communities to choose their own government and independence; it is a right of self-government for all peoples. Noteworthy is Principle VIII of the Helsinki Accord of 1975, which reads as follows: â€Å"By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.† It must said, however, that a too-radical interpretation of this provision should not be countenanced. There must be no disruption of the territorial integrity of states, and the principle must not be used as a blanket sanction for secession. Many legal thinkers posit, however, that this is not inconsistent with the recognition of internal free choice. (Henkin, 2 83.) The right of self-determination is important in light of the case of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This paper will discuss the importance of the case of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the context of the opinions of the Badinter Committee. Background In August of 1991, The European Community formed the Badinter Committee which would arbitrate legal issues arising from the conflicts in Yugoslavia, in light of the cessation of the Republics of Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. The chosen chair of the committee was Mr Robert Badinter, President of the French Constitutional Council, and his panel included the Presidents of the German and Italian Constitutional Courts, the Belgian Court of Arbitration and the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal. A good and concise summary is provided by Pellet (1991: 178-179): The primary Serbian question concerned the right of the Serbian populations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to self-determination. The second deal t with the delimitation of internal borders, in other words the identification of frontiers between the Republics. Although the Committee gave two distinct opinions in response to the questions posed, it was made clear that these two questions, as well as the queries addressed in its first Opinion, delivered on the 29th of November 1991, were closely related to each other. In its November Opinion, although the Committee displayed little originality in observing that Yugoslavia was 'engaged in a process of dissolution', it made interesting considerations. Discussion Whilst there were many critics, it is important to look at the difficult context on which it is set. Post-reconstruction efforts in a region that was as divided ethnically as Yugoslavia need to include clear-cut and streamlined efforts to address horizontal inequalities – defined by Stewart (2009: 137) as â€Å"inequalities among groups with shared identities – identities formed by religion, ethnic ties or racial affiliations, or other