About how many people are normally members of the cabinet in britain

How often does the Cabinet normally meet?

READING-2 (Famous Brits)
Read the article about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. Take a look at the italicized word combinations, explain and expand on them. Search the Internet for the background information on the asterisked items
NOW ESPECIALLY, THE WORLD NEEDS TO HOLD FAST TO MARGARET THATCHER’S PRINCIPLES

ONLY a handful of peacetime politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher was one. She transformed not just her own Conservative Party, but the whole of British politics. Her enthusiasm for privatisation launched a global revolution and her willingness to stand up to tyranny helped to bring down the Berlin wall. Winston Churchill won a war, but he never created an “-ism”.

The essence of Thatcherism was to oppose the status quo and bet on freedom—odd, since as a prim, upwardly mobile striver, she was in some ways the embodiment of conservatism. She thought nations could become great only if individuals were set free. Unlike Churchill’s famous pudding*, her struggles had a theme: the right of individuals to run their own lives, as free as possible from micromanagement by the state.

In her early years in politics, economic liberalism was in retreat, the Soviet Union was extending its empire, and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek* were dismissed as academic eccentrics. In Britain the government hobnobbed with trade unions (“beer and sandwiches in Number 10*”) and handed out subsidies to failing nationalized industries and primed the pump through Keynesian demand management. To begin with the ambitious young politician went along with this consensus. But the widespread notion that politics should be “the management of decline” made her blood boil. The ideas of Friedman and Hayek persuaded her that things could be different.

Most of this radicalism was hidden from the British electorate that voted her into office in 1979, largely in frustration with Labour’s ineptitude. What followed was an economic revolution. She privatized state industries, refused to negotiate with the unions, abolished state controls, broke the striking miners and replaced Keynesianism with Friedman’s monetarism. The inflation rate fell from a high of 27% in 1975 to 2.4% in 1986. The number of working days lost to strikes fell from 29m in 1979 to 2m in 1986. The top rate of tax fell from 83% to 40%.

Her battles with the left—especially the miners—gave her a reputation as a blue-rinse Boadicea*. But she was just as willing to clobber the right, sidelining old-fashioned Tory “wets” and unleashing her creed on conservative strongholds, notably by setting off the “big bang” in the City of London. Many of her pithiest put-downs were directed at her own side: “U-turn if you want to,” she told the Conservatives as unemployment passed 2m. “The lady’s not for turning.” She told George Bush senior: “This is no time to go wobbly!” Ronald Reagan was her soulmate but lacked her sharp elbows and hostility to deficits.

She might not be for turning, but she knew how to compromise. She seized on Mikhail Gorbachev as a man she “could do business with” despite warnings from American hawks. She backed down from a battle with the miners in 1981, waiting until she had built up sufficient reserves of coal three years later. For all her talk about reforming the welfare state, the public sector consumed almost the same proportion of GDP when she left office as when she came to it.

She was also often outrageously lucky: lucky that the striking miners were led by Arthur Scargill, a hardline Marxist; lucky that the British left fractured and insisted on choosing unelectable leaders; lucky that General Galtieri decided to invade the Falkland Islands when he did; lucky that she was a tough woman in a system dominated by patrician men (the wets never knew how to cope with her); lucky in the flow of North Sea oil; and above all lucky in her timing. The post-war consensus was ripe for destruction, and a host of new forces, from personal computers to private equity, aided her more rumbustious form of capitalism.

The verdict of history

Criticism of her comes in two forms. First, that she could have done more had she wielded her handbag more deftly. Hatred, it is true, sometimes blinded her. Infuriated by the antics of left-wing local councils, she ended up centralizing power in Whitehall. Her hostility to Eurocrats undermined her campaign to stop the drift of power to Brussels. Her stridency, from her early days as “Thatcher the milk snatcher*” to her defenestration by her own party, was divisive. Under her the Conservatives shrank from a national force to a party of the rich south. Tony Blair won several elections by offering Thatcherism without the rough edges.

The second criticism addresses the substance of Thatcherism. Her reforms, it is said, sowed the seeds of the recent economic crisis. Without Thatcherism, the big bang would not have happened. Financial services would not make up such a large slice of the British economy and the country would not now be struggling under the burden of individual debt caused by excessive borrowing and government debt caused by the need to bail out the banks. Some of this is true; but then without Thatcherism Britain’s economy would still be mired in state control, the commanding heights of its economy would be owned by the government and militant unions would be a power in the land.

Because of the crisis, the pendulum is swinging dangerously away from the principles Mrs Thatcher espoused. In most of the rich world, the state’s share of the economy has stubbornly risen. Regulations—excessive as well as necessary—are tying up the private sector. Businesspeople are under scrutiny as they have not been for 30 years and bankers are everyone’s favourite bogeyman. And with the rise of China state control, not economic liberalism, is being hailed as a model for emerging markets.

For a world in desperate need of growth, this is the wrong direction. Europe will never thrive until it frees up its markets. America will throttle its recovery unless it avoids overregulation. China will not sustain its success unless it starts to liberalise. This is a crucial time to hang on to Margaret Thatcher’s central perception: that for countries to flourish, people need to push back against the advance of the state. What the world needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.
Reading Notes:

disease, arms race, rage, change, influence, emotions, conflict, a cause, authority, war, a bomb, recession, retirement, a way of life, aggression, a case, principles, charges, power, terror, anger

SPEAKING-3 Team Work + Individual Statements
In 2010 the BBC conducted a television poll to determine whom the United Kingdom public considered the greatest British people in history. The poll resulted in nominees including Guy Fawkes, who was executed for trying to blow up the Parliament of England; Oliver Cromwell who created a republican England and Richard III, suspected of murdering his nephews. Diana, Princess of Wales was judged to be a greater historical British figure than William Shakespeare by BBC respondents to the survey. The highest-ranked then living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th. Perhaps the most surprising high entry was Isambard Kingdom Brunel, whose 2nd place was due largely to «students from Brunel University who have been campaigning vigorously for the engineer for weeks.»

In teams make your own list of 5 people known for their unparalleled contribution in changing the course of history.
FOLLOW-UP:

Go to the full list of 100 Greatest Britons Choose the person whose contribution to British history in your opinion is the greatest. Get ready with a 3-minute statement making the case for your choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons.
READING-3 (British Class System)
Pre-reading: What is social class? Do class divisions exist only in monarchical societies? Do democratic societies recognize classes?

Read the texts and answer the questions that follow:
TEXT 1

ABOUT THE GREAT BRITISH CLASS

It’s said that the British are obsessed with class, but does the traditional hierarchy of ‘working’, ‘middle’ and ‘upper’ class really exist anymore? And does social class even matter in 21st century Britain?

Can a Victorian system still be relevant today?

The labels ‘working’, ‘middle’ and ‘upper’ first appeared in the 19th century as a way of classifying the sharp social differences that arose in Britain as it led the world in the Industrial Revolution. But can a Victorian system designed to describe the relationship between industrial workers, managers and owners still be relevant today?

We simply don’t know. It’s clear that social divisions have far from disappeared, and the traditional language of class still pervades public affairs, shapes political thinking, and influences our personal careers. So what does class really mean in Britain in the 21st century?

It used to be thought that social class was defined by the occupation. Teachers or doctors, for instance, have different income levels, job security, and social experiences than ambulance drivers or gardeners.

Another way of putting this is to say that people in professional occupations have different lifestyles to people who earn money by physical labour. But our economy and our lifestyles have changed profoundly since these categories were invented, so this may no longer hold true.

Indeed, some sociologists have come to see classification by occupation as too simplistic, and argue that social class actually has three dimensions: economic, social, and cultural. To measure an individual’s ‘resources’ in each of these dimensions, sociologists look at many factors which can collectively be referred to as ‘capital’.

Economic capital is about wealth (your occupation, earnings, assets and savings).

Social capital is about social connections (the sort of people you know, how many people you know and whether you are engaged in any organised groups, like political parties, sports teams, shared hobbies or social clubs)

Cultural Capital is about interests. (your education, your participation in cultural activities and how you like to spend your free time)

Policy makers tend to focus primarily on the economic dimension of class. Concepts like progressive taxation (taxing richer people more heavily than poorer people) are a good example of this.

Increasingly, the social dimension of class is receiving some attention, with initiatives to improve networking opportunities for people who are otherwise socially excluded.

But the cultural aspect of class has so far largely been ignored, perhaps because it is a broad yet subtle concept that can be difficult to measure. The problem is, if we don’t measure it, we can’t know how important it is and how much it influences people’s chances in life.

There is strong evidence to suggest social class divisions have not disappeared from British life. Indeed, there is some evidence that class matters more in contemporary Britain than it did a couple of decades ago. And the global financial crisis and subsequent recession may even have acted to make class divisions more, rather than less defined.
Do you agree that nowadays a class can be defined by the occupation? Which of the capitals in your opinion is central to shaping a class?
TEXT 2

SOCIAL MOBILITY: IS IT THE POLITICAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME OR A SMOKESCREEN?

Economies are evaluated in regard to what extent where you are born determines where you end up. In a culture which values people’s talents and hard work, social mobility is an indication of whether society is succeeding in ensuring that skills and effort, and not background, allow people to progress. Social mobility is the key to a society which is ostensibly meritocratic. If social mobility is low it suggests either that there are factors other than an individual’s talents (such as a rigid class structure) affecting people’s life chances or it means that the education system is not ensuring those from poorer backgrounds gain the skills necessary for success in a capitalist economy. Social mobility acts as an indication of whether an education system is working and whether professions are open to those from diverse backgrounds. If a public education system is succeeding in helping the worst off then you will see a more socially mobile society.

The concept of social mobility is predicated on a hierarchy of incomes or professions. There are professions such as law and business management, which are economically distinct from shelf stacking and fishing. Social mobility works on the condition that there are classes of jobs which pay significantly better whilst there are other classes of jobs which pay less. It is social mobility’s aim to ensure that people can move between these socio economic groups.

The aim of intergenerational social mobility is to enable those born to parents in poorer income bands move into better-paid jobs. Social mobility has such widespread support as a societal aim, because a society in which people can end up in better paid and arguably more desirable jobs seems fair.

Furthermore, social mobility ensures that professions include those from diverse backgrounds. Many people argue that it is important that professions like law, journalism and politics are not simply middle class professions. This is because people from poorer backgrounds may have particular experiences, which will improve those industries. For example, a journalist from a working class background may understand certain news better than journalists from middle class backgrounds.

However, social mobility has been criticised, at least to the extent it acts as a smokescreen to other issues. Social mobility inherently involves individuals from one class moving to another class. Marxist commentators have pointed out that this has several drawbacks. Firstly, social mobility is ultimately unworkable. No society can have every single person join the higher paid jobs. There are not enough of these jobs and society requires people to be in working class jobs. How would society function without nurses, cleaners and workers?

This connects to a further criticism. The Marxist philosopher G.A. Cohen argued that the working class as a whole are unfree to move between classes. Although some people can move between classes it is true that there are not enough opportunities for the whole of the working class to leave. There are simply not enough jobs – there is only the opportunity to leave for a minority of individuals. Instead Cohen argues we should accept the principle ‘I want to rise with my class, not above my class.’ By this, Cohen means we should strive to improve the conditions of the less well off rather than seek to ensure that only a few gain better standards of living by moving class.

Another criticism of social mobility is that it is not a reality. Some people contend that it is impossible for any individual to move between classes. This argument is falsified by the evidence because there are many examples of people not ending up in the same economic position they were born in.

Although Cohen’s criticism is a strong one it is still the case that social mobility is very important within society. People should not be constrained by their background. If young people born in poverty want to become doctors or lawyers then it is important that society allows them to. Even if it is the case that only a minority of people from the poorest background are able to leave, a fair society would be one which allows the people who want to end up somewhere differently in life to do so. Everyone has different talents and ambitions and the extent to which one achieves success with them should not be determined by birth.

social differences / divisions

to have different lifestyle to other people

economic, social and cultural dimensions of class

to improve networking opportunities (возможности для налаживания контактов)

socially excluded people (ant. social inclusion)

to affect/influence people’s life chances

the importance of social mobility

to value people’s talents and hard work

to ensure that skills and effort allow people to progress

to affect people’s life chances

from poorer background / diverse background

to be constrained by background

cabinet

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Read a brief summary of this topic

cabinet, in political systems, a body of advisers to a head of state who also serve as the heads of government departments. The cabinet has become an important element of government wherever legislative powers have been vested in a parliament, but its form differs markedly in various countries, the two most striking examples being the United Kingdom and the United States.

Origins

The cabinet system of government originated in Great Britain. The cabinet developed from the Privy Council in the 17th and early 18th centuries when that body grew too large to debate affairs of state effectively. The English monarchs Charles II (reigned 1660–85) and Anne (1702–14) began regularly consulting leading members of the Privy Council in order to reach decisions before meeting with the more unwieldy full council. By the reign of Anne, the weekly, and sometimes daily, meetings of this select committee of leading ministers had become the accepted machinery of executive government, and the Privy Council’s power was in inexorable decline. After George I (1714–27), who spoke little English, ceased to attend meetings with the committee in 1717, the decision-making process within that body, or cabinet, as it was now known, gradually became centred on a chief, or prime, minister. This office began to emerge during the long chief ministry (1721–42) of Sir Robert Walpole and was definitively established by Sir William Pitt later in the century.

The passage of the Reform Bill in 1832 clarified two basic principles of cabinet government: that a cabinet should be composed of members drawn from the party or political faction that holds a majority in the House of Commons and that a cabinet’s members are collectively responsible to the Commons for their conduct of the government. Henceforth no cabinet could maintain itself in power unless it had the support of a majority in the Commons. Unity in a political party proved the best way to organize support for a cabinet within the House of Commons, and the party system thus developed along with cabinet government in England.

The modern British cabinet

In Great Britain today the cabinet consists of about 15 to 25 members, or ministers, appointed by the prime minister, who in turn has been appointed by the monarch on the basis of ability to command a majority of votes in the Commons. Though formerly empowered to select the cabinet, the sovereign is now restricted to the mere formal act of inviting the head of Parliament’s majority party to form a government. The prime minister must put together a cabinet that represents and balances the various factions within his or her own party (or within a coalition of parties). Cabinet members must all be members of Parliament, as must the prime minister. The members of a cabinet head the principal government departments, or ministries, such as Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and the Exchequer (treasury). Other ministers may serve without portfolio or hold sinecure offices and are included in the cabinet on account of the value of their counsel or debating skills. The cabinet does much of its work through committees headed by individual ministers, and its overall functioning is coordinated by the Secretariat, which consists of career civil servants. The cabinet usually meets in the prime minister’s official residence at 10 Downing Street in London.

Cabinet ministers are responsible for their departments, but the cabinet as a whole is accountable to Parliament for its actions, and its individual members must be willing and able to publicly defend the cabinet’s policies. Cabinet members can freely disagree with each other within the secrecy of cabinet meetings, but once a decision has been reached, all are obligated to support the cabinet’s policies, both in the Commons and before the general public. The loss of a vote of confidence or the defeat of a major legislative bill in the Commons can mean a cabinet’s fall from power and the collective resignation of its members. Only rarely are individual ministers disavowed by their colleagues and forced to accept sole responsibility for their policy initiatives; such was the case with Sir Samuel Hoare’s resignation in 1935 over his proposed appeasement of Fascist Italy. Despite the need for consensus and collective action within a cabinet, ultimate decision-making power rests in the prime minister as the party leader. Various other member countries of the Commonwealth, notably India, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, maintain cabinet systems of government that are closely related to that developed in Great Britain.

Continental Europe

In continental Europe the cabinet, or council of ministers, similarly became an intrinsic part of parliamentary systems of government, though with some differences from the British system. Modern cabinets first appeared in Europe during the 19th century with the gradual spread of constitutional government. Monarchs had previously used members of their court circles to carry out various administrative functions, but the establishment of constitutional rule endowed a monarch’s ministers with a new status. This was largely due to the creation of elected parliaments whose approval was needed for budgetary matters and legislative acts. Ministers now came to share with the monarch responsibility for the processes of government, and it became their task to defend policy proposals in parliament. The power to choose these ministers gradually shifted from the monarch to elected prime ministers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Traditionally in many European countries, notably Italy and France, several parties competed for power and no one party proved able to command stable majorities in the parliament. Under these conditions, only coalition cabinets commanding the support of several minority parties could muster legislative majorities and hence form a government. The multiparty systems in France and Italy gave rise to unstable and disunited coalitions that rarely stayed in power for long, however. To remedy this, when France established the Fifth Republic under Charles de Gaulle (1958), it retained the parliamentary system but reinforced the power of the president, who is directly elected and appoints the premier (prime minister) and cabinet. This reformed system is an example of the search for a form of executive power that can overcome the weaknesses often displayed by cabinets that are dependent on parliamentary approval. After World War II, West Germany found a different solution to the problem of frequent cabinet crises provoked by adverse parliamentary votes. A provision in the German Basic Law, or constitution, mandates that the Bundestag, or lower house of parliament, can force a federal chancellor (prime minister) from office by a vote of no confidence only if at the same time it elects a successor by an absolute majority.

The Cabinet and British Politics

The Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister. The senior positions within the Cabinet are usually appointed by the Prime Minister within hours of an election victory. In British Politics, all Cabinet members are serving MP’s or peers though in the recent past, Tony Blair has experimented with allowing non-party politicians into Cabinet meetings – most notably Paddy Ashdown who lead the Liberal Democrats immediately after the 1997 election.

Please enable JavaScript

The most senior members of the Cabinet are the Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary. These positions are the ones most immediately made known after the result of a general election is known. ‘Lesser’ posts are announced later and it may be a day or two before the minor Cabinet positions are made known.

There has never been a set number for posts within the Cabinet. The Prime Minister can amalgamate government departments and join together Cabinet positions and he can also create new ones thus requiring a new Cabinet post. The most common figure for a Cabinet is 22. The current Labour Cabinet numbers 24.

Unlike the American version, heads of government departments are not usually experts in their fields. Hence they are surrounded by experts from the Civil Service and what are referred to as ‘special advisors’. The current Cabinet members who buck this trend are Gordon Brown who is considered to be highly skilled in economic matters and Estelle Morris, who as Minister for Education, has a teaching background. In America, heads of government departments are selected for their expertise within their fields and they do not have to be serving politicians to be appointed by the president.

In theory, Britain has a Cabinet government. This according to current constitutional theory, is where the Cabinet meets as a body to discuss issues relevant to the country. It discusses various points of view, weighs up arguments concerning whatever is being discussed and comes to a decision that is backed by the majority of the Cabinet. As such it becomes government policy, if supported in the House of Commons, and has the legitimacy of majority Cabinet support behind it. This means that decisions have collective responsibility behind them – all Cabinet members would be expected to publicly support and defend such policies. Cabinet ministers would also be expected to defend such policies during Parliamentary debates. If a Cabinet minister feels that he/she cannot defend a policy, he/she has the option to resign from the Cabinet. The most high profile Cabinet Minister to do this in recent years was Michael Heseltine who quit Thatcher’s Cabinet in 1986 over the Westland helicopter affair. However, Tony Blair has been accused by some of moving away from cabinet government to prime ministerial government and of by-passing his Cabinet in favour of decision making by a few favoured individuals.

The Cabinet has no official standing in itself. It acts through the Privy Council. The Privy Council dates back to the C13th and contains several hundred people including Cabinet ministers, former Cabinet ministers, the Speaker of the House, the Lords of Appeal etc. It only meets when the monarch dies or decides to marry. When this is not happening, its business is conducted by the Cabinet. Therefore all members of a government Cabinet are members of the Privy Council.

There are limits to the power of people who serve in a Cabinet. People appointed to it can be dismissed by the Prime Minister; in an age of supposedly prime ministerial government, the impact of the Cabinet may be less and less; the Prime Minister drives the agenda of Cabinet meetings so that contentious issues can be left out of discussion and the Cabinet can do little if the Prime Minister does prefer to use a ‘kitchen cabinet’. Also a Cabinet minister must take full responsibility for any problems that occur that involve his/her department. The serious problems with trains lead to the resignation of Stephen Byers, Minister of Transport, in 2002 to be replaced by Alastair Darling. In such a fall from political grace, cabinet privileges are lost immediately as the politician involved returns to the back- benches.

A) Read the text and complete the sentence

The British Parliament has two houses, or chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Commons is the most powerful and decides national policy, but the House of Lords can ask the House of Commons to rewrite certain parts of a bill before it becomes a new law.

The House of Commons consists of Members of Parliament, MPs. Each MP is elected by voters in one constituency (region). There are 651 MPs, or seats, in the House of Commons. The 1234 members of the House of Lords are not elected. Some are life peers: they are members of the House of Lords, but their sons or daughters cannot be members. Life peers are usually former members of the House of Commons. There are also a number of judges or bishops. The majority, however, are hereditary peers, the heads of aristocratic families. This means that most members of the House of Lords are there because of something their ancestors did. The head of both Houses of Parliament is the Queen, but she has very little power.

The party with most MPs forms the government. The leader of the winning party automatically becomes the Prime Minister and appoints the Cabinet. The members of the Cabinet are the leading government ministers. The Prime Minister is the most important person in Parliament. The party who comes second is the Opposition and forms its own Shadow Cabinet.

British Prime Ministers have lived at 10 Downing Street since 1731.

B) Answer the questions.

1. How many chambers are there in the British Parliament and how are they called?

2. How many members of Parliament are there in the House of Commons?

3. Who can be members of the House of Lords?

4. Who forms the government?

5. Who becomes the Prime Minister?

6. Who are the members of the Cabinet?

C) Retell the text using the words in bold type.

A) Read and translate the text.

The Royal Family

For more than a thousand years Britain has always had kings or queens except for the ten years between 1649 and 1659. In the past, kings had great power and they really helped to make history. They started wars, made laws, and did things in their own way. But gradually more and more power went to Parliament. What does the Queen do now? Why does Britain need monarchy? And does it?

Elizabeth II calls the Windsor family a ‘Firm’. She thinks of it as a business rather than a family. And the main business of the royal family is … well, probably being royal. And they are paid for it. The Queen is one of the richest women in the world and yet she gets about 8 million pounds a year to be Queen. But many people agree that she does her job well and she deserves her salary.

Being Queen is a really busy job. Elizabeth II gets up early and begins the day by looking through the newspapers. Then she reads letters from the public (she gets more than 1000 each week), and tells her staff how she would like them to be answered. The Queen has daily meetings with her Private Secretary who helps her to go through her paperwork, and lots of meetings with ambassadors, new judges, and bishops.

In the afternoon Elizabeth II often goes out on public engagements – she gets thousands of invitations each year. She opens new hospitals, bridges and factories.

Once a week, the Queen has a meeting with the Prime Minister and they discuss government business and important things that are happening in the country.

In the evening the Queen reads the report of the day from Parliament. She isn’t a politician, and in modern Britain the power belongs to the government, but she must agree to every new law. It’s a formal agreement: no king or queen has refused a new law since 1701!

Being a Queen is not a 9 to 5 job, and Elizabeth II has to work from early in the morning until late at night. And people watch her all the time.

Of course, she has some free time, and some private life, but less than most people.

In her spare time Elizabeth II enjoys horse racing, fishing, and walking in the countryside. She also enjoys photography and likes taking photos on her travels.

Many people think that the Royals are useless and monarchy is outdated. But… the British people seem to like them that way. They like to read about the royal family, royal scandals and shocking secrets. They like to watch royal ceremonies, they are proud of the tradition of monarchy. Britain has had kings and queens for a thousand years – probably they’ll have them for another thousand.

b) Write an outline of the text made of Wh- questions (When? Where? Who? Why?) Use the outline to retell the text.

The composition of the Britih Government. The role of the British Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Explain the term “Shadow Cabinet” and its significance.

The party which wins most seats (but not necessarily most votes) at a general election usually forms the GOVERNMENT. The leader of the majority party is appointed PRIME MINISTER by the Sovereign, and all other ministers are appointed by the Sovereign on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

The majority of ministers are the members of the Commons, although there are always some ministers in the Lords. The Government is charged with the administration of national affairs. The office of Prime Minister as head of the

Government has been in existence since the middle of the 18th century. As a matter of fact it is not necessary that a Prime Minister should hold a first-class honours degree or have high academic qualifications. Britain knew Prime Ministers who had no university education. However, any Prime

Minister today must possess initiative, be able to organize others and get his policies accepted and pushed through Parliament.

The Prime Minister has a considerable list of functions and powers. It is his duty to inform the Crown of the general business of the Government, to exercise a general supervision over Departments (Ministries), to be prepared to speak in Parliament on the most important Government Bills, to answer to Parliament for all actions of the Government. Only the Prime Minister can recommend to the Sovereign a dissolution of Parliament before the normal time for a general election has come. He makes changes in the Government, presides over the Cabinet.

The Prime Minister selects Cabinet ministers. The Cabinet is a conventional organ of Government composed of about 20 most important ministers (Secretary of State for the Home Department, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for Defence, Secretary of State for Education and Science, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Chancellor,etc.).

The main functions of the Cabinet are:

a) the final determination of the policy to be submitted to Parliament,

b) the supreme control of the national executive power in accordance with the policy agreed by parliament, and

c) the continuous coordination of the authority of the Departments of State.

In the performance of its functions the Cabinet makes considerable use of a system of committees. The Cabinet is the centre of the political power of the United Kingdom at the present time. Normally it meets for about two hours once or twice a week during parliamentary sittings at No. 10 Downing Street, London, the official residence of the Prime Minister.