Your Politics offer holder day

Leaders are chosen for many reasons. The need for party unity. Electoral success. Policy-change. Perceived strength. Or for ‘a change.’ And leading a country, or a political party is tough. We’ve heard evidence to the Covid Inquiry that Boris Johnson didn’t have the right ‘skill set’ to lead the country at the time.

Your session will look at the theories of political leadership as well as how some leaders are chosen, or not, for the role. You’ll get to look at a particular UK or overseas case study. And you’ll work with others to explore what the party, politician or governing group should do next.

The UK Prime Minister is “primus inter pares” – first among equals. They head a Cabinet which is responsible for Government Policy. They decide what the Government Policy should include. And they ensure that this is implemented. All Cabinet members have ‘collective responsibility’, which means they should speak with one voice once a decision is made. But is this realistic? We’ve already seen disagreements and cases where collective responsibility is deliberately set aside. And how involved are Cabinet members? Tony Blair’s approach was dubbed “sofa government” with decisions being taken by a smaller group in a less formal way. Is this in fact a more realistic and workable approach?

Your session will look at the history and some of the theories of Cabinet Government. You’ll explore a particular scenario linked to current events. And you’ll consider how far we can push the idea of collective responsibility and whether this should be maintained. Especially in an age of immediate communications.

The UN Security Council is a major body which takes key decisions on behalf of the UN. It’s made up of 15 members, has a rotating chair and a schedule of meetings. But there’s a power imbalance. Five members are permanent, and the rest are elected for two-year spells. And five members have a veto – the ability to reject an action. But the other members don’t have this power.

Campaigners for change argue that the set-up of the Security Council reflects a power balance that no longer exists. There are arguments to get rid of the veto, for a change to the permanent members and for a change in the balance of the elected members.

Your session will use current examples of Security Council decisions to explore the actions of key players. As well as what the perceived problems of the body are. This will involve highlighting some Security Council resolutions and some use of the veto. You’ll then think about whether there are other nations which should be given more influence or power within the Security Council. And decide which nations they are and what your reasoning is.

Parliamentary systems are expected to have a Government and an Opposition. In the UK, the role of the opposition is formalised. But in others, like German Bundestag, it isn’t formalised, but parties still operate in an opposition role.
But what should the Opposition do? Should they oppose everything? Should they use their position to advocate for policy positions? What are the limits and opportunities?

In your session, you’ll look at some of the theories of opposition politics. And you’ll look at key opposition tactics and strategies from recent years. You’ll then work on a scenario where you’ll become the Opposition in a particular system, which may not be the UK. And you’ll be asked to draw up a plan of action with justification for your choices.