However, there is evidence to suggest increasing centralisation of power in the office of Prime Minister. While dependent on a range of other political actors, the Prime Minister is nonetheless the most powerful individual in the British political System
There is copious evidence of the Prime Minister’s dominance over the political system. Fore example, there has most certainly been a decline in ‘Collective Ministerial Responsibility’ in recent years. The premiership of Tony Blair has been marked by criticism over decision-making without adequate debate. Examples:
In the last two decades we have seen the emergence of ‘presidential tendencies’. While, the theory of the Core executive’ is correct to stress the existence of networks at the heart of governmental decision-making. Observers (Foley, 2000) argue that the British Political system is becoming more and more presidential as a result of the greater focus on leaders rather than political parties. This process was accelerated by Thatcher and increased by Blair, this has helped in the formation of ‘The theory of Presidential Leadership’. Here, Foley describes how party politics has been transcended by the ‘spatial leadership’ of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has populist appeal to voters who tend to identify with leader rather than party. The Prime Minister (and his senior ministers) now possesses privileges traditionally enjoyed by the monarch in the Royal prerogative, allowing the Prime Minister the power to call elections, dissolve Parliament, pardon criminals and declare war among other things. There has also been a sharp increase in the number on non-ministerial appointments and an influx in special advisors at Downing Street. Blair, like Thatcher, was keen to bring in advice from the private sector, as demonstrated with is close alliance on powerful advisors such as Alistair Campbell and Jonathan Powell. Moreover the Prime Minister has unique access to the media, which is highly focused on Downing Street and on the leader rather than party. There are further fears that Prime Ministers are somehow relinquished from the control of their parties once they win office. Kennedy and Joseph (2001) argue that this trend has increased under Blair who favours a managerial rather than consultative approach to inner-party democracy.
There are, however, constraints on the Prime Minister’s power. Firstly, it is important to point out that the Prime Minister is not a president in any formal sense, such as is the case in the USA (where the president is elected separately from the congress). Only that the electorate increasingly demand ‘visible leadership’ rather than old-fashioned party politics as the focal point of government. The Prime Minister is dependent on support from parliament and cannot exist without it. Other sources of authority within the cabinet might pose a threat/challenge or moderate the Prime Minister’s authority (as seen with powerful ministers such Gordon Brown and Mo Mowlam). Similarly, the Civil Services’ influence in determining government is vast (due to permanence, neutrality, Unity anonymity). Moreover external factors/pressures can also constrain the Prime Minister’s powers such as the economic climate and the Government’s popularity etc. The dispersal of decision-making power to other key actors in the core executive (such as the Bank of England) have reduced the power concentrated in the Prime Minister’s hands.
Finally, the influence of corporate interests/pressure groups on Government policy cannot be underestimated, as seen with the NFU’s influence during the Foot and Mouth Crisis.
There is clear evidence of the Prime Minister’s power, but also the many constraints on that power. The importance of personality is great, but this must be measured against the objective factors afore-mentioned. The Prime Minister is only one individual and cannot control the entire system. Instead, we might conclude that he/she plays a strategic role and increasingly serves as the focal point of government and popular expectations.
