Finally, the strength of the opposition is an important factor in determining the Prime Minister’s power. A weak, ineffective opposition will mean that the public is likely to carry on voting for the current party in power, since they don’t see a credible opposition. On the other hand, if the opposition challenges policy and embarrasses the Prime Minister, for example at Prime Minister’s Question Time, then this could change drastically. In 1979, Thatcher often humiliated Callaghan and proved to the British public that her policies were more competent than that of the Labour government.
(c) In what ways have Prime Minister’s become more Presidential in recent years? (30 marks)
Political commentators have argued in recent years that Prime Ministers are becoming more Presidential. In particular, they have pointed to Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair as evidence of this thesis, due to the powerful and dominating politics that they enhanced – although in particular, since 1997, the Blair era.
One feature that many argue displays Blair’s use of a Presidential style of government is his tendency to make important announcements via the media rather than in more formal settings, such as Parliament or party conferences. This feature goes hand-in-hand with the increased size and importance of institutions answering directly to Blair, such as the Communications and Strategy Unit, – formerly headed by Alistair Campbell, – the Downing Street Policy Unit, and other bodies designed to ensure the coordination of government decisions and publicity.
Secondly, the increasing politicisation of the civil service, particularly its information services, is seen by many to be another way in which Blair is exercising Presidential powers. Whilst John Major only had eight special advisors, Tony Blair has twenty. Alistair Campbell’s appointment after the 1997 election as the Prime Minister’s official spokesman was clearly a political one. Yet, he is also a civil servant. It is this blurring of the boundaries between party politics and civil service neutrality that is cause for concern.
In the same way, Thatcher had appointed Bernard Ingham as a ‘press officer.’ He was supposed to be independent of political parties, and yet he turned it into a personal role to suit Margaret Thatcher’s view of world politics.
Furthermore, the relegation of the role of the cabinet, and Blair’s preference for dealing face to face with responsible ministers, raises serious questions. Margaret Thatcher was accused of doing the same thing. She frequently by-passed the formal cabinet, entrusting many important decisions to sub-committees. The demise of the British cabinet as an effective institution of government was pronounced as long ago as 1963, when the Labour MP (and later Cabinet Minister) claimed that the doctrine of ‘collective responsibility’ meant no more than ‘collective obedience’ to the will of the Prime Minister. Under Margaret Thatcher, it was claimed that the cabinet had been reduced. A striking example of Thatcher undermining her cabinet was during the Westland Affair – Lord Heseltine was ‘forced’ to resign in a fury that he wasn’t being listened to during his meeting with Thatcher.
Under Major, ‘collective cabinet responsibility’ broke down. His chancellor, Norman Lamont, was blamed for Britain’s departure from the European exchange rate mechanism, and later Major became convinced that some ministers were giving hostile briefings to the press. Even so, the Major years seem like a golden age of cabinet government compared to the situation under Blair.
When constructing a cabinet, previous Prime Ministers have considered the competence and personal integrity of the ministers, the balance of ideological factions within the party, and the ministers’ personal ambitions and loyalty to the Prime Minister.
In October 2002, the Education Secretary, Estelle Morris, resigned from the government because she felt unequal to the job. Her decision stunned commentators, because it contrasted so sharply with other ministerial departures. Peter Mandelson left the cabinet in 1998 because of allegations about his integrity. In May 2002, Stephen Byers resigned as Secretary of State for Transport after months of damaging revelations about his competence. Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary, left in 2003 ‘to spend more time with his family.’ In these three circumstances, it was made clear that the Prime Minister deeply regretted the departures and would seize any decent chance of reversing them. In Mandelson’s case, Blair put these wishes into action, reappointing him after less than a year – although he was soon forced into a second resignation. Milburn has recently decided to place less emphasis on time with his family, and helped Blair with the 2005 elections.
These examples present a sharp contrast with the fate of competent ministers who have lacked friends in the right places. Mo Mowlam was first demoted and then resigned because of personal differences with the Prime Minister. Robin Cook and Clare Short both resigned on principle over Iraq. In September 2004, Work and Pensions Secretary Andrew Smith – a known ‘Brownite’ – resigned before being sacked.
Lastly, the behaviour of the Prime Minister strongly suggests a Presidential style of leadership. For example, it now seems that Tony Blair took Britain into the war against Iraq despite well-founded warnings from the Foreign Office, as well as strong misgivings from several ministers. Unlike the British Prime Minister, the US President is commander-in-chief of his armed forces, but any casual observer of the Falklands War would have been forgiven for thinking that Margaret Thatcher performed that role, and during the war on Iraq, the British Commander Queen Elizabeth was clearly absent from any role. Other observers might also note another huge similarity between Blair and Thatcher’s leadership style – both had extremely close relationships with the US Presidents of the time, Thatcher with Ronald Reagan and Blair with George Bush.
To conclude, in recent years Prime Minister’s have become more ‘Presidential-like’ in recent years – especially in the case of Tony Blair. However, it is worth noting that our system does allow for a pure President. This is for two reasons – firstly, we have a constitutional monarchy who is Head of State. Finally, and most importantly, we do not have a separation of powers as is the case in a Presidential system – the executive is drawn straight from the legislature.
