One aspect of power the PM currently has is patronage, the ability of ‘hiring and firing’ all ministers in the government. This strengthens PM power as he or she can maintain a group of ministers that they can trust to remain loyal, as it emphasises that they serve under the PM. This power can be seen to benefit the PM as it did for Blair, with his hiring of John Reid. Tony Blair moved Reid between departments when he felt they were in crisis, despite not necessarily having experience in these specific departments. Reid was appointed under ability rather than experience. Similar movements within ministers and cabinet can be seen in Thatcher years, as she removed the “wet” one nation conservatives to be replaced by “dry” Thatcherites. Gordon Brown, on becoming PM in June ’07 carried out the largest cabinet re-shuffle in over 100 years as a way of enhancing that a new prime minister meant a new government. However, though the PM may have the ‘power’ of patronage, there are ways in which ministers can find the ‘loop hole’ as Brown did as Chancellor to Blair. Many claimed he was the ‘Domestic PM’ alongside Blair who then gained more interest in foreign policy. Tony Blair could not afford not to hire Brown, as he was far too popular with the public and without him Blair’s popularity could be damaged.
A PM’s power over cabinet management is vital, as it means they can dominate the cabinet system, too. This ensures his or her decision making authority as well as determining the role and significance of the cabinet. Tony Blair’s method of cabinet management was far more relaxed, coining the phrase “sofa government” which operated through “bilateral” meetings between Blair and individual ministers. Both Blair and Thatcher made use of committees and sub committees meetings, though since Thatcher these meetings were shortened by Blair. When Blair announced the independence of the Bank of England without consulting cabinet this proved his power over the cabinet system, though when Brown was able to prevent him from switching to the euro it emphasised Blair’s weakness without the support of cabinet, or at the very least, Brown.
Essentially, no person can win the vote without the support of their party. Tony Blair once again showed tremendous popularity with not only his party, but nationally with 90% approval rate in his first 18 months. The number one secretary at the time, Mo Molem, along with many of her supporters, felt she had been undermined by Blair as she was also a popular candidate for party leader. Though his popularity was ample, it was not consistent. Minister resigned over the war in Iraq and many left-wing labour supporters disapproved of the strong relation he had with American President Bush. With 144 labour MPs voting against the invasion (Feb 2003), some would argue Blair was “pushing it”. Similarly, Thatcher’s fall was a consequence of her losing support from the conservative party, with Heseltine seeming as a threat to party leader. A party leader may have power, but as Hennessey’s theory suggests, it could all depend on the personality and circumstance of a PM.
Beginning with Margaret Thatcher, Prime Ministers have increased their focus on Number 10 offices. Institutional support also is key to a PM’s power with bodies and advisors supporting the PM. Blair’s labour party advisors included Alistair Campbell, a reformed alcoholic former journalist, who before Blair was elected was employed out of labour funds. Campbell became Blair’s main “spin-doctor” and press officer, ensuring a positive image of Blair in the media. Despite this initial power from institutional support, the government soon got a reputation for spinning too much and public sceptism grew, especially over the terrorist threat and Blair’s motivation for anti-terror. Though institutional support centralised Blair’s leadership, his favourite spin-doctor’s resignation rendered him weak to the media, with too much controversy around Campbell forcing him out.
How the PM is viewed in the media has a direct link to the PM’s power, as so long as he or she can control his or her image they remain popular. This is another reason why some argue that the PM has increased power in recent years, as the accessibility of media today has developed a tremendous amount. With Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah using Twitter she is one of the UK’s most popular users, and this access to public opinion and media has been a great benefit to Brown. Social networking sites and application on mobile phones, such as the Labour application for the iphone or the Conservative application for blackberry, means the public are able to access news about the PM or leader of the opposition party far quicker than previously. Blair’s speech after the death of Dianna caused controversy, and he was accused of being “all charm”. However, with thousands of people marching in Trafalgar Square against the invasion in Iraq, Blair needed more than just his charm. Blair’s loss of power over the media was apparent when the turnout in 2001 was only 51%, which was the lowest ever. Continuing to 2004, when there was an encouraged by Brown revolt of students over top-up fees, it was clear Blair’s power was decreasing.
With our generation of ever-growing celebrity fascination, comes an increased importance of the PM’s image in the media, as Rose would argue. However, without the support of the party or indeed the electorate it is impossible for a Prime Minister to be elected, therefore leaving them powerless. As has been seen with Thatcher’s fall after the resignation of Lawson and Heseltine, and Brown’s coup to force Blair’s resignation after the student revolt, the cabinet is where the power lies and the PM is merely “the face” of the party.
