“The president also has a free hand in the appointment of cabinet and is not especially restricted by the wishes of their own party”
It is often considered that Blair has tried to become ‘the voice of the people’ and thus changed his role to that of statesman rather than party politician. This was seen in the weeks after the Princess of Wales’s death in 1997 when Blair led the nation’s mourning and spoke openly about the Princesses life. Another example was the Iraq war of 2003 when Blair did not follow his party’s wishes and instead followed a course of action which he personally believed to be morally and politically justified and correct.
However the USA has a far more rigid constitution, as it is written and the president must work within these constitutional constraints. It is seen that the PM has a much more “flexible and malleable role” while the president is also under the obligations of checks on his power, in the USA for example there a significant separation of powers. The president does not have the key roles in the legislature that the British Prime minister has, he is also restricted by a fixed term of four years meaning he does not have the benefit of calling an election when he chooses.
In relation to the presidential roles the Prime Ministers roles have changed in some ways towards a British version of the American model. For example the Prime Ministers power of patronage has increased greatly, this can now rival the president who appoints over 4,000 officials. The appointment to such positions as the Lord Chancellor ensures that the Prime Minister is not only allowed a voice in the House of Lords, but he also has the opportunity to expand his power of patronage as the Lord Chancellor himself appoints several key positions within the judiciary.
In recent years the Prime minister has also had a better grip on the media and has more policymaking support.
“Tony Blair seems to have made a significant start in further enhancing the policy-making and control functions of the PM”
Critics of Blair’s style of leadership have continually used Alistair Campbell, Blair’s communications director as a source of bitter resentment. Campbell and Blair’s relationship has been criticised for bringing about an age of spin doctoring and a “media class” where-by the public trust very little the government tells them. Blair’s relationship with the media through Campbell has led people again to draw comparisons of his role to that of the President. His regular meetings with members of the press and his weekly conferences with representatives of the press shows once more how Blair wishes to manipulate the media through good relations to get the best possible publicity. Campbell resigned in September 2003 which many hoped would lead to a decrease in the use of spin. Many have acknowledged Campbell’s skills, while at the same time admitting how he ensured that Blair’s presidential style graduated.
“Big personalities embody the period they dominate, of the nineties people will think of Campbell and Blair”
An additional similarity between the two roles is the increasing appearance of the PM has a national leader. Thatcher and Blair have been used as examples when considering this point, Blair occasionally has the Union flag in the background when making speeches, as the president does with the stars and stripes.
“Huge devotional pictures of Thatcher at Tory meetings, her endless taking of salutes on military occasions, her mother-of-the-nation act at national times of tragedy…. describe Thatchers premiership as.. Presidential”
Foley has argued that elements such as spatial leadership, where the president detaches themselves from the legislature and the presidency has been seen in British leadership. An example of this is John Majors Citizens Charters initiative while Blair has disowned MP’s before political corruption reports have been published which could have damaged the government.
Foley declared that Presidents such as Nixon and Clinton claimed to be outsiders, not having vested interests of the Government insiders, this is true of PM’s since Callaghan. Thatcher kept in line with party policy and engaged in politics with Whitehall. Foley also analysed how both American presidents and British Prime ministers have appealed to the public over congress and parliament, relations with the public are now central. Finally Folly argued the PM is more presidential with particular personalities such as Thatcher and Blair.
In contrast to these arguments is the difference between being head of state and head of government. It is also acknowledged that the British Prime Minister, despite having a more flexible role within the constitution, still has several constraints which the president doesn’t have to work within. These include the political party which the PM may be accountable to, for example they can only form a cabinet of party members which leaves competent opposition out of front bench positions. There is also a restriction of policy through fear of splitting a party clear examples include Europe for Major as well as Blair recent proposals for foundation hospitals. The PM also has the threat of being removed by his party, the most notable is perhaps Thatcher’s removal in 1990
“Her personal authority was ultimately over-stretched to the extent that her cabinet colleagues decided that she had gone too far. She paid the ultimate price and was removed from office”
However Asquith was also removed by his party in 1916, as well as Lloyd George in 1922 and Chamberlain in 1940.
Furthermore the Prime Minister has administrative and cabinet constraints to their policy making along with constraints implied by civil servants. Recent examples include the significant opposition to Tony Blair’s plans for foundation hospitals and university top up fees, both of which have come under criticism from the Labour party and do not receive full support from cabinet members such as Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister, in addition, has personal human constraints such as tiredness, for instance recent media speculation regarding Blair’s health and considerations for his young family has been widespread. It has been said Thatcher was a workaholic working long hours into the night.
There is a momentous debate as to whether the PM has become a more presidential role. Within the British constitution it is possible for PM’s to “stretch the powers of office” and make the post their own. This explains why certain Prime ministers have had a clear influence on the role over others, such as Thatcher and Blair. It has been argued that the starting point for this change was World War Two when Churchill had nearly dictatorial powers, handed back after peace time. His position had been artificially enhanced by war but it led the way for change. The debate is accentuated under Blair as he returned the question into consideration after Majors attempt at collective government. Most memorable, are Thatcher’s years in government. She had a strong ideological commitment and dominated her colleagues mostly out of distrust. Her work ethic was considerable and this allowed her to spend much time at work on policies. She certainly didn’t agree with cabinet government “I am the cabinet rebel”.
Both she and Blair became national figures and separated themselves from cabinet. Many in the present day would look to the topical debate surrounding the latest war in Iraq to see Blair’s presidential role. He has been deeply criticised for not communicating with cabinet and backbenchers, as well as taking foreign affairs into his own role and embracing the media in a large way. The cabinet secretary Wilson however disagrees stating that the prime minister still has many checks on their power stating that executive powers are legally vested in individual departments limiting the PM’s powers. Perhaps it is significant to look at the definition of presidentialism, which states
“ That a president is a form of personalised leadership that is disengaged from parties”
It is then possible to compare this to a quote from Tony Benn;
“The present centralisation of power into the hands of one person has gone too far and amounts to a system of personal rule in the very heart of our parliamentary democracy”
Many people consider the role of PM to be changed, most however believe it is branching away from American presidency towards its own British model.
Dennis Kavangh from a social Studies review, volume 6 No.4 1991- taken from ‘access to politics’
The PM and cabinet Gov by Neil Mcnaughton
Politics by Andrew Heywood
Alistair Campbell by Peter Oborne
Jonathan Freedland in The guardian September 2003
Johnson 1990 quoted in British politics by Roberts.
PM and cabinet Gov.- Neil McNaughton
Thatcher quoted in Politics by Heywood
Tony Benn quoted in The British PM edited by Anthony King