As the Prime Minister is normally the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons they are normally able to count upon their party whips to carry through any policy that they back. The current PM Tony Blair enjoys a huge parliamentary Majority with his Labour party holding over four hundred seats. This majority has meant that he has been able to steer legislation through the legislative process despite facing huge rebellions from his own backbenchers. During the last session of parliament Blair was able to pass an act of parliament despite nearly one hundred and twenty of his own MP’s voting against the government at various stages of the legislative process. A large majority such as this gives the PM power to put forward any legislation they wish provided the party will support them.
Parliamentary majorities can, however, also restrict the power of a Prime Minister. If a Prime Ministers party does not dominate the commons as Blair’s does then they can find themselves outnumbered. Take for example John Major’s four year term of office. The Tory party was the single largest party in the house but was outnumbered by the combined number of MP’s from other parties. This forced Major to operate very carefully during his time as PM. He had to be careful not to alienate the other parties as doing so would mean he could be defeated at every turn. Naturally this limited Major’s power and gave considerable amounts of power to the opposition parties.
Different commentators have assessed the role of Prime Minister and applied various theories to the office. Former cabinet minister Tony Benn claims that as far as he can see the PM has ten separately categorised powers (1981). Benn came up with this theory at a time when many MP’s were arguing that the office of Prime Minister was gaining power at the expense of the cabinet. Benn’s theory was, however, not an entirely new one; Richard Crossman had come up with a similar idea in his book ‘The English Constitution’ in 1960. Benn’s ten powers were:
- The power to create peers.
- The power to give out honours.
- The power to appoint chairs of nationalised industry.
- The power to make other appointments (Judicial service, Civil service etc.).
- Power over ministerial conduct.
- Power relating to government business. i.e. agenda setting.
- Power over information.
- Power in international relations.
- The power to terminate a parliament or government.
Benn believed that the ability to ‘hire and fire’ was the most important of these powers. After the 1997 election in which Tony Blair’s Labour Party swept to power with a landslide victory Blair was accused by many commentators of abusing the first of Benn’s ten powers. He appointed many acquaintances of his to high ranking positions of power. The tabloid press dubbed them ‘Tony’s cronies’.
In addition to this Crossman argued that there had been two major changes in the machinery of the PM’s office. He claimed that the party machinery was now centralized under the control of the PM and also that the Civil Service had become too large for the cabinet. The combination of these two factors, he claimed, was that the Prime Minister was now at the apex of both the administrational and political arms of government. This, Crossman claimed, was a clear shift from a cabinet government to a Prime Ministerial government.
In the past some commentators have argued that the office of PM is becoming a presidential position. This is certainly far more true of some PM’s than others. John Major could not feasibly be described as having a presidential style of government whereas Margaret Thatcher was once described by Michael Foley as ‘not merely presidential but quasi-monarchical’. This statement was backed by a record low in the number of cabinet meetings during Thatcher’s reign.
However, in his book ‘The British Presidency’ Foley goes on to argue that power is not moving away from the cabinet to the PM. He then puts forward a new model of political power known as the ‘core executive’. He argues that power is dispersed throughout the political system with each part dependent upon each other.
It is crucial that a Prime Minister keeps control of their ‘core executive’ as if they were to lose control of it and face rebellion then it is possible that they could face a leadership challenge within their own party or even that they could face a vote of no confidence in the commons. For this reason it is a key part of the job of Prime Minister not to alienate the people who are in a position to challenge the PM’s position.
In addition to this the PM must also seek to avoid alienating the people of Britain. This is not only because of the obvious reason that the PM would be unpopular and unable to secure re-election but also because many people would protest against the government’s policy. This would weaken the position and standing of the executive and could also be used for political gain by the opposition.
The professor of Government and Politics at Hull University, Phillip Norton or Lord Norton of Louth, came up with an interesting thesis paper in 1987 that linked the style of a PM’s leadership with the power held by that PM. His thesis states that PM’s can be classified in four different categories. Namely:
- Innovators- Those who seek power to achieve a personal goal.
- Reformers- Those whose goals are formulated by their party.
- Egotists- Those who are motivated by self regard.
- Balancers- Those who seek to ensure stability.
Most PM’s exhibit predominance for one category but this is not mutually exclusive. When applying Norton’s model one must be careful not to pigeon hole a PM as a member of one category as it is not uncommon for a PM to start in one category and then move to another as happened with Winston Churchill and Harold Wilson.
Professor of government and politics at Manchester Metropolitan University Martin Burch came up with a similar thesis in a paper published in ‘Transforming British Government Vol. 1’ (2000). He claimed there were only three categories of classification:
-
Delegators – Those with a tendency to trust ministers and who interfere minimally.
-
Interveners – Those who Push colleagues towards a certain view.
-
Overseers – Those who adopt a more general overview and seek an overall government objective.
In conclusion I believe that it would be fair to say that the power held by the Prime Minister varies considerably depending upon a variety of factors. This is best stated by former PM Sir Richard Wilson:
‘’The PM’s power varies from time to time according to the extent their cabinet colleagues allow them to have that power, depending on whether the cabinet is split, depending upon the strength of the government majority in the house of commons and also upon popular opinion in the electorate and attitudes in the party’’.
-Sir Richard Wilson
In theory the PM is the most powerful person in these Isles; however, there are a number of limiting factors placed upon this power. From the lowliest voter to the highest civil servant to the opposition leader everyone has a certain amount of power with which they can constrain a PM to prevent the establishment of a tyrannous dictatorship or worse. The PM’s power is a variable whilst freewill remains a constant.
Bibliography:
Richard Crossman, ‘The English Constitution’ (1960)
Tony Benn, ‘Benn’s Ten Powers’ (1981)
Michael Foley, ‘The British Presidency’
Various Contributors, ‘Transforming British Government Vol.1’ (2000)
Philip Norton’s ‘Styles Of Leadership Thesis Paper’ (1987)
1713 words
