Each Prime Minister is the public face of Government and the increase in mass media has strengthened this is image, encouraging the electorate to associate the policies of the party with the Prime Minister. Historians and the media often refer to Governments by the name of the respective Prime Minister for example the ‘Blair’ or ‘Thatcher’ Government. Another example of this image that the Prime Minister controls the government rather than decisions being taking collectively between ministers is in Parliament’s question time when it is the Prime Minister alone who must defend the governments policies. Yet despite this the degree to which a Prime Minister dominates politics depends on both their personality and environmental factors. The elements that determine how powerful a prime minister is include the nature and experience of the cabinet, the nature of economy and the size of the majority in Parliament. International events and international recognition also play a significant part in the strength of a Prime Ministers leadership. After winning the 1997 elections Blair found himself in a stronger position than any of his predecessors. He had a huge majority in parliament, a favourable press, and a weak and divided opposition at a point when the Labour party was more united than at any time previously. He was also fortunate enough to be the first Labour Prime Minister not to inherit an economic crisis. Most western governments were controlled by centre- left parties and he found a natural ally in the kindred spirit Bill Clinton. It was therefore very easy for Blair to assume a dominant and controlling attitude to the role of Prime Minister. His personality and leadership style are also fundamental reasons behind the presidential manner with which he governs.
A Prime Ministers power fluctuates greatly depending on his or her character. The impact of Thatcherism in the 1980s caused political scientists to first look at the issue of a presidential Prime Minister. Her dominating and aggressive personality made it almost impossible to argue with her and those that did often found their views ignored. When describing herself and her leadership style she once said ‘I am not a consensus politician, I am a conviction politician’. Major deliberately set himself up as the opposite to this. He promoted the friendly image of a consensus politician who encouraged discussion in Cabinet. Because of this he has often been labelled as a weak leader who was controlled by his party rather then controlling them. Blair is an ambiguous character as he has combined elements from both leadership styles. Like Major he gives the impression of a friendly ‘man of the people’ politician while in reality he is just as domineering as Thatcher.
A Prime Ministers use of Cabinet varies depending on their personality but under Blair there has been a significant decline in the number and length of Cabinet meetings. Like Thatcher, Blair makes little use of his Cabinet preferring instead to address the full Cabinet to approve a decision with little discussion. He prefers instead one to one meetings with ministers and only when they reach a decision is the Cabinet presented with the issue and expected to endorse it. Nick Cohen when describing these face-to-face meetings said ‘As for Blair’s one-to-ones, they are one-way traffic except when Gordon Brown is in the room’. Labour ministers have little chance of opposing the Prime Minister on their own and the Cabinet has no opportunity of discussing policies collectively. As with Thatcher under Blair collective responsibility has become ‘collective obedience’ where opposing ministers must either bow to his will or resign.’ The idea of appearing as a presidential figure above ordinary policy was first adopted by Thatcher and later by Blair. Johnson a political writer in the 1980s identified some of the methods used by Thatcher to promote a presidential image of herself. Thatcher would use quasi-regal language referring to herself as ‘we’. She had a presidential foreign policy and on several occasions took the military salute, an action associated very much with the President of the United States. She attempted to promote an image of power and did so using huge pictures of herself at party conferences. Blair has adopted many of these methods in a similar attempt to make himself a presidential figure.
Prime-ministerial power has increased over the last 50 years due to the power of the public image, the manipulation of the civil service, the control over the Cabinet and the ‘hire and fire’ power the Prime Minister has over those in government. Despite this these powers are limited to some degree by the strength of the financial backing for important ministers, the unpredictability of public image, and the impossibility of always controlling the Cabinet. The dominance a Prime Minister holds over their government depends more on their personality and the nature of outside factors such as the strength of the economy. The debate as to whether Britain has a cabinet or prime ministerial government continues and opinions vary widely. Some believe that there are still sufficient checks in place to ensure we have a Cabinet government others agree with Michael Foley (2000) who believes ‘that the form of cabinet government may have been maintained but not in reality’.
Bibliography
Politics Review
Essential ‘Government and Politics’ by Jim Cordell
Politics UK by Bill Jones
