In order to become prime minister a politician must first of all become leader of his party. As such the changes since 1945 by both the Labour and the Conservatives regarding the selection of party leaders have in effect changed the role of the prime minister. Since 1965 the leader of the Conservatives has been elected by the Conservative members of the House of Commons, whereas prior to this he was chosen by ‘leading figures in the party’ (King, 1991, p26). Furthermore the reform also “calls for the annual election of the leader” (King, 1991, p29). King has suggested that the combination of these reforms is that now a conservative prime minister is likely to be more sensitive to the backbencher’s opinions (Mrs Thatcher being a clear contradiction) and as such have an increased intra party role. In 1981 the Labour party changed their method of electing the leader from a vote amongst just the MPs. Now an electoral college of the MPs (having 30% of the votes), constituency parties (also with 30%), and trade unions affiliated to the party (with 40% of the votes) elects the leader. So for a Labour leader “(since his election depends mainly on the views of trade union leaders and constituency activists) the issue of his capacity as a parliamentary performer scarcely arises” (King, 1991, p28). This is clearly demonstrated by Blair who is the only prime minister since 1945 not to have been a cabinet minister. As such Labour prime ministers are now more likely than their predecessors to have their roots outside of Westminster.
Once a politician has managed to become leader of his party he must then win a general election in order to become prime minister. This too has changed since 1945, not in terms of the logistics of elections but because “the political divisions within the United Kingdom have become more fluid and less easy to manage” (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p230). Prior to the 1960’s the argument between Labour and Conservative was a clearly defined economic one and each party had large blocks of loyal supporters and as such when in power prime ministers could be “confident directors of public policy” (1995, p230). However with the breakdown of class divisions party divisions became far more fluid, so today “New-style party leaders seek the support of much the same group of middle-of-the-road voters” (Rose, 2001, p63). As such prime ministers can no longer implement one dimensional public policy and instead face the difficulty of trying to appeal to a massively diverse electorate.
Since 1945 Britain’s place in the world, and as such the prime minister’s global role has changed dramatically. At the end of the second world war Churchill enjoyed the status of being one of ‘the big three’, taking a front seat in international affairs. Britain was also “the only major European country with an economy that had survived the war intact”(Rhodes, 2000, p58). Britain’s international status and economic power was further enhanced by its empire, and after the end of imperialism, its role as head of the Commonwealth. In the last 59 years, the empire has collapsed and the control of the commonwealth has diminished. “Economic growth, free trade and technological innovations have, simultaneously, expanded the global reach of the economy and shrunk the role of Britain within it” (Rhodes, 2000, p58). As such “the middle power status which Britain now enjoys makes the British prime minister a figure of significantly reduced power on the world stage” (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p229). Despite this it is arguable that the international role of the prime minister today is greater than it was in 1945. Firstly with advances in technology in both transport and communications, the prime minister is now more able to visit or communicate with important political figures from other nations (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p226). Prime minister’s today also have far more international commitments than they did in 1945. Since the early 1970’s the prime minister has been obliged to attend regular international summits. He/she is “enmeshed, as a central part of his or her working life, in a network of relationships extending far beyond Britain’s shores and includes … NATO as well as the commonwealth and the European community” (King, 1991, p33).
Britain’s control over international affairs has been reduced so inevitably the prime minister’s has too. However because of an increase in summits etc, the prime minister has more on his agenda than he used to and as such he can be said to have an increased international role “foreign policy issues have necessarily become more central to a prime minister’s agenda” (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p227). King has argued that this has in effect granted the prime minister more power, because when decisions have to be taken at summits then it is the prime minister alone who makes them. “Collective bodies like cabinets have little alternative but to grant some powers of agency to their national representatives” (King, 1991, p37), as such the prime minister has more freedom to act independently of parliament.
The increasing amount of time spent on foreign policy by the prime minister has meant that his role in government has had to diminish. Dunleavy and Jones have demonstrated this through the decline in prime minister’s participation in the house of commons. This is best shown through the reduction of prime minister’s question time. Prior to the 1950’s the prime minister was expected to answer questions four days a week. However “in deference to Churchill’s frailty his questions were reduced from four to two days only in 1953” (Dunleavy, 1995, p280). This change prompted a reform in 1961 which allocated two 15 minute slots for prime minister’s questions on Tuesday and Thursday. Under Blair these two slots have been amalgamated to one half hour session on Wednesdays, further reducing the number of days the prime minister spends in parliament. The reduction of question time has arguably made the prime minister less accountable to parliament, and as such increased his power.
According to Dunleavy since 1961 question time has also increased the role of the leader of the opposition who now almost alone questions the prime minister (1995, p281). This has turned question time from a practice of ‘redressing grievances’ (1995, p283) to a battle between parties. This is of particular significance since the televising of the commons because “the interchanges between the prime minister and the opposition leader are by far the most frequently replayed material in news programmes” (195, p281). The effect of this is that party leaders have now come to represent their parties. This “personalisation of political issues and allegiances is said to be essential if most of the electors, who are not very politically conscious, are to be reached interested and one over.” (King, 1985, p196). This appears to further give power to the prime minister because if they embody their party then “the only mandate given by the electorate to an MP is to support his leader” (King, 1985, p197). However as King later points out, there is little evidence to support that the public vote purely for the party leader, and therefore no such mandate exists.
Television and in particular the development of the mass media has had an enormous effect on reshaping the role of the prime minister in the last half century. “The media has come to dominate much of a prime minister’s working day” (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p227). One way in which the media has changed the role of the prime minister is by bringing him closer to the public. The prime minister is constantly now in the public eye. This was simply not the case in 1945. It has been suggested that the extra exposure to the public, through the press, has increased the power of the prime minister. “By a well-judged television interview” (King, 1991, p37) for example the prime minister can seek to win over popular support, demonstrated by public opinion poles, which in turn can oblige his party to support him. “The relentless publication of, and attention to, public opinion poles evaluating the standing of prime ministers has a profound effect on their standing within the parliamentary party” (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p237). However it must also be noted that “from a prime minister’s point of view television and the press are two-edged swords” (King, 1991, p37). “Greater media coverage of the Prime Minister, and the implication that he is responsible for government policy, may be an advantage when things go well, but it is an embarrassment when things go badly” (Kavanagh, 1999, p313). The extra exposure to the public that a prime minister receives today can also work against him if he is not telegenic. As such modern party leaders and therefore potential prime ministers may be chosen more on the basis of appealing to the public. For example the choice of Tony Blair over Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour party may have arisen because Blair was thought to appeal more to the electorate due to his charisma. It is also important to note that while the prime minister receives greater media coverage so do his chief colleagues. “They have the chance to win, consolidate and encourage a personal following” (Jones, 1985, p206). In this way the media may work to undermine rather than enhance a prime ministers support from his party. Whilst it is therefore uncertain whether or not the media increase the power of the prime minister it is clear that it has changed his role. “The growth of the visual media and access of television to the houses of parliament have widened the political community whose views and actions affect public life” (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p232). The prime minister must now focus far more now on his public standing because it is no longer the case that he is known well only to parliament, the mass media has created a far more informed electorate who are regularly consulted by the way of opinion poles. As such a prime minister must now focus more on the public because without public popularity he may lose the support of his party.
One of the ways in which the prime minister has been able to cope with the mounting media pressure is through the development and increase in size of the press office. It has “expanded to take on a more proactive role and to cope with the rapidly growing demands since 1970 of an avaricious and subtle mass media” (Kavanagh, 1999, p303). Alongside the press office there has been an increasing number of staff in ten downing street. “Faced with more pressures, the Prime Minister has had little choice but to rely more on the staff around him in Number Ten”. As such the number of staff employed at Number Ten has doubled since 1970 (Kavanagh, 1999, p300). It is proposed that the larger office of the prime minister has lead to an increased role and power of the prime minister in policy implementation. The large number of ministers and civil servants involved in policy making are all split into different divisions and today have far more policy to deal with due to the increasing demands on government that they may have little if any contact with one another, but all answer to the prime minister. “More than any other minister, the prime minister is involved in a flow of business, of meetings, paper and telephone calls, that encompasses the full range of the government’s activities” (King, 1991, p36). As such the cabinet has had to take more of a backseat in terms of collectively deciding policy. Instead its role has become “essentially a confirming and perhaps legitimising one” (Hodder-Williams, 1995, p239). However “to carry on as leader, the prime minister must retain the confidence of his cabinet, which means that he cannot dictate to it” (King, 1985, p211). Even though the prime minister may have a unique knowledge of all ministers activities he alone cannot determine what policy is implemented. Any minister who’s work is rejected by the prime minister can have it discussed at cabinet level, and the cabinet can reject any policy proposed by the prime minister. As such “the doctrine of collective responsibility is still meaningful” (King, 1985, p212). So whilst the prime minister may be more informed about policy he is not more able to implement it independent of his cabinet.
Another way in which the larger office of the prime minister has changed the role of the prime minister is through patronage. With more ministerial posts available the prime minister has to appoint more politicians to them. “The importance of the power of patronage has increased as the number of government offices has grown” (King, 1985, p198). The prime minister’s power through patronage is said to have increased even further, when in the 1950s and 60s a new generation of MPs arrived in parliament. These MPs have been described as “career politicians” (King, 1991), desperate to work their way up the government ladder. As such the only way that they can achieve this is to give loyal service to the prime minister, as he determines who occupies every ministerial post. This appears to enhance the power of the prime minister, as such increasing his role over policy, for it seems likely that only those who support his initiatives will be rewarded with government office. However Jones has suggested that in fact the reverse might be true. “The way to achieve top office is not to give loyal and silent service, but to build up a following, to gain a reputation of having expertise in a certain sphere and to make a nuisance of oneself” (King, 1985, p208). The prime minister will then be forced to bring the troublemaker on board in order to hush up the man’s attacks and prevent a division within the party. If this is the case, then whilst the prime minister’s patronage role has increased in terms of having more positions to fill, then this has not coincided with an increase in prime minister’s power.