When Tony Blair was elected in 1997 the PMs Staff was doubled during the first two years of the Blair premiership. Not only does this suggest that the premiers position has been strengthened, it also points to the emergence of a ‘Prime Ministers department’, much like that of the President’s personal department which provides powerful intellectual and political support for George Bush. You only have to look at the transformation of the Cabinet Office under Blair, which previously served to facilitate the work of the Cabinet but since 1997 now serves Blair as a personal resource to see that there is fair evidence that points to an ‘executive office in all but name’. Critics also point to the introduction of New Labour professionals from party positions to strategic relating to policy advice and media presentation, for example Alistair Campbell, to some Blair’s personal spin doctor.
A major difference in the position of PM and president though is that the president is directly elected by a country-wide constituency. Until, or if the election process is ever changed the Prime Minister will never have the right to this claim, but in recent history though, as election turnouts have dwindled it is hard to ignore the fact that a large percentage of voters have voted based on the leader of each party, rather than local candidates. For example in the run up to the 1997 elections part of the Labour campaign focussed around presenting Blair as a likeable, "just like us" man, being photographed in his Newcastle football shirt. This is also confirmed by the media where opinion polls and often voting patterns are primarily centred on public feeling toward the Prime Minister, rather than to the governing party as a whole.
Now onto the cabinet; While a president can appoint a cabinet based on personal choice, a prime minister is restricted in the fact that he must appoint elected MPs.
In theory the Prime Minster needs the support of his cabinet, party and parliament while a president does not need the support of congress; he or she has been directly elected and therefore has the right to represent his or her country. This theory has been brought into question though during Blair’s tenure as he held such a large majority from his re-election in 2001. Often accused of bypassing Parliament it could be said Blair has become Bush-like as he has become independent of the support of Parliament. One obvious difference though between a PM and president though in this area is that whereas in America executive and legislative powers are separated, in Britain the executive dominates the legislature. This leaves the Prime Minister with far tighter control over Westminster than the President has over Congress.
Political commentators have also pointed to the fact that Blair’s reign has departed from traditional cabinet government. They point to the infrequency and reduced length of Cabinet meetings, the PMs Preference for informal ad hoc meetings with small numbers of selected ministers and staff around the sofa of his private office and Balir’s regular abandonment of Cabinet agendas as if he has his own personal mandate because he feels he has been directly elected president-like.
In conclusion, you cannot ignore the fact that Tony Blair’s premiership appears to have evolved away from traditional cabinet government. Blair has undermined his cabinet by placing them on the edge of decision-making and basically re-possessing the Cabinet Office as a personal resource. People who do not support this idea though point to the fact that Prime Ministers can never be fully independent of Parliament like a president is of congress, they must woo and coax their colleagues and their party to support them and their policies, they must carry major colleagues who are rivals with them, prime ministers operate in a structured context and that Parliament use strategies to control the executive, some of which cannot be avoided such as media uproar.
Bibliography
Government and Politics in Britain Textbook
The debate about Prime Ministerial power sheets
