Law According To A King

The debate as to how far the office of the Prime Minister has evolved to become more like that of a President is a hot one in political and constitutional theory, but it does have some practical ramifications for the way we think about our leaders. This post shall take a look at the arguments for and against the 'presidentialisation' of the prime minister, and examine the consequences for either side.  Firstly, it is widely accepted that the executive office of the PM has grown in recent decades. In 1970, the cabinet office had just 600 staff, but under Tony Blair, that number grew to over 2,500. As a comparison, the executive office of the President has around 4,000 - though most scholars agree this growth can be attributed to the expansion of the administrative state since the end of WWII. Better, Dowding argues, to look at the role of the executive office. Dowding says the role of staffers in the PM's office is largely based around coordination across government, and the

 'Cancel culture', defined as a form of ostracism in which someone is forced out of social or professional circles - either online, in real life, or both - as the result of doing something that is considered objectionable or offensive, is becoming more and more relevant, particularly in the age of Trump, #MeToo, and Black Lives Matter. It is derided by those on all sides of the political spectrum as stifling discourse and freedom of speech, while its proponents argue that 'cancelling' someone is merely the consequence of their wrongful behaviour. This poses an important legal question, particularly when the courts routinely protect freedom of speech, arguing that "freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." But, similarly, the courts have also imposed constraints on the freedom of speech - indeed, it has long been accepted one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre and expect to face no consequences if there was no fire. This blog post s