Primarily the significance of a growing spatial leadership shows how the role of the prime minister is becoming more individual, distinguishing himself away from the party he represents. The tendency of the prime minister to distance themselves away their parties and governments by presenting themselves as an ‘outsider’ allows them to develop a personal ideological stance. The powerfulness of a prime ministers spatial leadership could be seen by Margaret Thatcher and the idea of Thatcherism, the same could also be seen more recently from Tony Blair and ‘Blairism’, Tony Blair also illustrated this by taking credit for the idea’s of ‘New Labour’ as it was associated with him more than his party or his cabinet.
Secondly the tendency towards ‘populist outreach’ of the prime minister has become vital to win elections in the recent years. The pattern of prime ministers to reach out to the electorate articulating their deepest hopes and fears and meeting them on a personal level, thus becoming 'one of the people' rather than a politician, has become more apparent and necessary in recent UK politics. This can be seen by prime ministers such as Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and more recently Gordon Brown, as they speak for the nation over major events, political crisis or simply high-profile news stories such as when Gordon Brown recently discussed and in some ways was blamed for the 'Baby P' case instead of the minister of children, schools and families (Ed Balls) the same was seen when Tony Blair was the key figure instigating the war in Iraq as opposed to the foreign secretary.
Thirdly, the personalised election campaigns demonstrate how it is the leader of the party that is fighting for the votes of the electorate as opposed to the MP's of the constituencies. The media increasingly portrays elections as battles between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, this was illustrated by The Independent’s headline ‘Brown Vs Cameron: Let the battle commence’ at the time of the party conferences. The Party leaders have become the ‘brand image’ of their parties or government, meaning that personality and image have become crucial determinants of political success.
Finally, the decreasing importance of the cabinet demonstrates the prime ministers growing independence; this is made evident by the rising use of private advisors rather than cabinet ministers. This was particularly apparent during Tony Blair’s leadership as he side-lined the Cabinet to reporting exercises for less than 1-hour per week.
Despite the growing resemblance between out prime minister and a president due to the rise in personal leadership, in the UK there are significant features to our system of politics that will prevent this ever becoming an absolute reality. Aspects such as the decentralisation of powers and the prime ministers dependence upon the party illustrate that the British prime minister does not have enough power to be entirely presidential.
The prime minister cannot be seen to hold total power in today’s British politics; this is due to a number of factors including privation and devolution which have all resulted in an inevitable decentralisation of powers. The devolution of Scotland and Wales has passed much power from the UK prime minister to the independent assemblies and despite the fact that in theory the prime minister could reclaim that power; the public outrage this would cause makes this near impossible. Tony Blair’s lack of control was demonstrated by the Scottish abolishment of university fees, an act that was strongly opposed by Blair. The overall effect this has however on the prime ministers presidential state is minimised by the fact that the prime minister maintains his power over Scotland and Wales on national issues such as the decision to go to war which was demonstrated in 2003 by the war in Iraq.
The prime ministers ongoing dependence on his political party yet again emphasizes a key weakness to claim that the prime minister is more presidential that prime ministerial. It can be argued that a prime presidential power exists solely because of current circumstance, such as maintaining a majority in parliament to push through any bills, the lack of strong opponents, thus keeping a spotlight on the prime minister together with a popular public profile aided by thriving media image. Without these factors a prime minister will appear incredibly weak and therefore both unpowerful and unpresidential which would force a prime minister into a much more consensual style of leadership, this was seen by Gordon Brown throughout the summer of 2008 which then lead to a lot of further debates of his ability to lead and disputes within the party. Although this would be seem as if a prime minister has lost all presidential status, the fact that throughout 2008 Gordon Brown was blamed and publicised as opposed to the blame for the government blunders being shared amongst the party, Gordon Brown continued to demonstrate his spatial leadership, a key determinant that the prime minister leadership does lean towards the trend of presidentialism.
It is clear that there is a growing trend towards a British presidency despite the fact that no British prime minister will ever be able to exercise the same powers as the American president but due to increasing tendency of the growth of spatial leadership, the tendency towards ‘populist outreach’ and the increase of personalised election campaigns, it is hard to ignore that the face of British politics are evolving.