The growth of the Prime Minister’s role has not been a straight line, and over the years his power has subtly grown. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the Prime Minister was thought to be “Primus inter pares” which means “First among equals”. This suggests that at the time, although the PM was the official leader, he was considered to be equal to his peers in the Cabinet, but just a figure of seniority to look up upon. This has clearly changed, especially over the last 10 years or so, as Tony Blair’s regime has proven to become more presidential in style, which gave him much more power and authority that other Cabinet members – definitely not a first amongst equals, however is not a dictator as constraints against his power still do exist. It is this rapid growth of PM power that means that the growth has not been in a steady straight line, but due to influence from perhaps the West (USA).
Tony Blair can definitely be a past Prime Minister named to be involved in the overall development of this new PM role. His regime is always said to have been very “presidential” and often compared to the role of the US president, at the time mostly being George Bush, whom he had been very influenced by during the Iraq War. It can be argued that Blair’s methods of running the country have changed the role of the PM – he developed the de-factor Prime Minister’s Office which had before not existed. This is seen to be presidential as the US president also has an office of advisors that help him and the executive. Furthermore, he used a lot of advisors before he made the main decisions – another point suggesting an increased amount of power for the PM. As the PM he was shaped in the media to be shown as a very strong and independent character with a strong personality – and Alistair Campbell’s role went beyond the shaping of the PM’s image – he was to control the way the media took on the government and communications between, trying to perhaps control it. Blair was also given the nickname “Teflon Tony” as a response to his behaviour as PM. Instead of acting an equal in his Cabinet, he often acted to be a spatial leader, where he appeared to be “above the fray” and acting like the government was not influencing his policy making. This was a technique used by President Reagan, a definite development of the PM’s role as it indicated a new air of superiority. Again, this also points towards an overall presidential style of government that Tony Blair had seemed to have created for himself.
However, one can argue that Blair’s style of government is better described to be bilateral in terms of the relationship between the US and the UK. It can be said that the stronger bonds formed between the US whilst Blair was PM can suggest that there was influence to a presidential style of leader just as Bush was, especially with the events surrounding the Iraq War, where there was increased pressures on Blair’s shoulders.
Blair’s increased use of advisors helped the increase of Blair being seen as a more presidential leader. This is due to the fact that the US President usually has a committee of advisors to advise him, which was not usually the case with the UK PM. However, Tony Blair created an office where he was advised from everything to do with the way he appeared in the media to what he should do in the Iraq War. The important thing to consider is that these were merely advisors, and whilst they had a big role in helping Blair, they were ultimately just giving him options to which he decided the overall decision from. This suggests an overall presidential style as it shows him as a more independent leader, similar to the US president traditionally is, and not the traditional PM of the UK who usually made decisions together with his Cabinet.
