Are PMs becoming more presidential?

Whether the British prime minister is now effectively a president is a different question to an evaluation of the extent of, and limitations to, the prime minister's power. This question asks whether the power and authority of modern prime ministers has grown so much that he or she is in effect a head of state.

Evidence of presidentialism

· The prime minister enjoys prerogative powers. These are powers that the PM can exercise without the sanction of cabinet or Parliament. They are therefore, similar to the powers enjoyed by an elected president.

Reshuffle Sept 2021 Boris wields the axe

Case Study Boris Johnson

• • Michael Foley, an academic commentator, describes a tendency to 'spatial. leadership'. This implies that modern prime ministers have tended to separate themselves from the rest of the government. Sometimes they have even criticised government itself, suggesting that they stand above it. It also means that prime ministers have claimed a direct link to the nation, above the heads of the rest of government. MrsThatcher presented herself as a sensible 'Grocer's daughter and was critical of the establishment particularly the mandarins of the civil service. Blair's claim to speak for the ordinary man- 'Mondeo Man'- He made one of his first objectives to remove Clause 4 from the Labour Party's constitution. Theresa May says she will stand up for the JAMs- Just About Managing families.

• the process of ‘presidentialisation’ has allegedly altered the role and influence of the prime minister and affected the working of UK government in broader ways. Evidence of growing presidentialism in UK politics includes the following:

• Growth of ‘spatial leadership’. This is the tendency of prime ministers to distance themselves (giving them ‘space’) from their parties and governments by presenting themselves as ‘outsiders’ or developing a personal ideological stance (for example, ‘Thatcherism’ or ‘Blairism’).

• Tendency towards ‘populist outreach’. This is the tendency of prime ministers to try to ‘reach out’ directly to the public by claiming to articulate their deepest hopes and fears. It is evident in the growing tendency of the prime minister to speak for the nation over major events, political crises or simply high-profile news stories. It is also reflected in the ‘cult of the outsider’, the attempt by prime ministers to present themselves as non-establishment figures on the side of the ordinary citizen.

• Personalised election campaigns. The mass media increasingly portrays elections as personalised battles between the prime minister and the leader of the The Media increasingly treat the prime minister as a quasi-president.

• Party leaders thus become the ‘brand image’ of their parties or government, meaning that personality and image have become major determinants of political success or failure.

• Personal mandates. This is the trend for prime ministers to claim popular authority on the basis of their electoral success. Prime ministers have therefore become the ideological consciences of their party or government, their chief source of conviction and policy direction.

• • Wider use of special advisers. Prime ministers increasingly rely on hand-picked political advisers rather than on cabinets, ministers and senior civil servants.These advisers often have a personal loyalty to the prime minister rather than to the party or government.

• • Strengthened Cabinet Office.The size and administrative resources available to the Cabinet Office have grown, turning it (perhaps) into a small-scale prime minister’s department responsible for coordinating the rest of Whitehall.

· Several modern prime ministers have adopted a presidential style. This means that they often claim to speak for the nation as a whole (as a president can do), especially during times of crisis.

e.g Blair's 'people's Princess'- 2014 David Cameron visits victims of flooding

· Since the 1980s and the end of the Cold War in 1990, prime ministers have increasingly become involved with foreign policy. This has been especially true in terms of the Middle East, the Balkans and parts of Africa. Blair's meetings with George Bush and his personal agreement to support the USA in Iraq.

· There has been a huge growth in the availability of independent advice to the prime minister. There is now an extensive Downing Street machine that looks increasingly like elements of the White House in Washington.e.g SPADs like Fiona Hill/ Policy units/ the use of Sofa Politics and bilateral decision making-Blair increased his political staff to nearly 80 - many of them concerned with managing the media - but also a host of new units like the Social Exclusion Unit, the Policy and Innovation Unit and the Centre of Management and Policy Studies. Most of these have been located in the Cabinet Office but many of them reporting direct to the PM.

· The personalisation of politics has increased. During elections, the party leaders have become the key figures (notably in the 2010 election with the arrival of televised leadership debates which are a feature of US elections). Election broadcasts often focus on the personality and personal life of the leaders- e.g Major was shown touring Brixton where he was brought up.

· The decline of the cabinet has enhanced the power of the prime minister. Cabinet meets less often, for shorter periods, and is less of a collective body than it used to be. e.g Blair's Millennium Dome decision. PMs dominate policy leadership-e.g May's support for Grammar Schools contrasted with Cameron's lack of enthusiasm.

• Blair was accused of 'control freakery'. He insisted on the whole government being 'on message' and used the term 'joined up government'-All speeches and press releases had to be approved by the Number 10 Press Office led by Alistair Campbell. Blair and Campbell also engaged in 'spin' to manipulate the media- most notoriously in the 'dodgy dossia'- which claimed Iraq had WMDs