Is the UK Prime Minister now effectively a president?

Another factor that shows that the prime ministers is becoming more like a president is through the prime ministers increasingly acting like a representative of the nation. This is usually over security or a national crisis. In recent events, David Cameron visited Scotland to represent the country in the debate over whether the North Sea Oil will belong to Scotland, if they are to become independent after the 2014 Referendum. Blair also showed this characteristic by initiating the 'Good Friday Agreement' with Northern Ireland and the ROI. Foreign affairs have become more important and have been dominated by the prime minister. This is similar to one of the roles of a president.

An additional characteristics is that the prime minister usually has majority in the House of commons, along with a dominant cabinet. The prime minister also has a high standing in their party, meaning that they have full support of their party members. This allows the prime minister to press through any legislations that they want, which is effectively what Blair did during his premiership. Blair was able to pass through the legislations that he wanted as he had majority of the support in the Commons and the Lords. For example, declaring war on Iraq, which was decided by Blair as he has the prerogative power and majority seats in the Commons which greatly influenced the debate on whether or not to go to war. This reflects the presidential government, as the Commons is only used as a 'sounding board' for the prime minister to pass legislations and declarations through.

In an age of 'political celebrity' the image of a prime minister dominates that of their party and senior colleagues. This is demonstrated by the fact that elections to an extent have become personalised campaigns between the  PM and the leader of the Opposition. For example, many of the Labour campaign posters in 2001 and 2005 during the lead up to the general election, featured Tony Blair’s face prominently, indicating that British campaigns are starting to appear more like American elections, placing more stress on party leaders rather than party policies.

However, some may argue against the idea that PM's are now effectively presidents, because there hasn’t been any permanent change in the style of leadership adopted by the prime ministers. The dominant role of the PM constantly ebbs and flows. This is shows in the difference in leadership style between Blair, a dominant leader, and Brown, an indecisive and weak leader. Brown's indecisive behaviour, especially when he first came to power, lost him majority of his support from his party and the public as it showed him to be weak and unstable.

As the government is currently formed by a coalition, it prevents Cameron from becoming a president. This is because the power is shared with Clegg. Presidents have full power over the government and are dominant leaders. Cameron is restrained as he does not have the majority support in the Commons or the power that Thatcher or Blair once previously had. The previous prime ministers were able to squeeze as much power as possible whilst in office. Cameron aperates with an inner cabinet, which shows that power is shared between the few rather than concentrated in the one person. This is also known as the 'quad', which consists of Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander. Cameron has adopted a 'hands-off' approach, which is different to previous Pms, which is evident in the NHS reforms. The coalition government proves that the presidential-style government is not inevitable for David Cameron.

Furthermore, Prime minsters are unable to become presidents due to the circumstance they are under  which effect the amount that they can exercise their powers. This is illustrated during Browns premiership because of the economic crisis which prevented him from making any reforms to the NHS or educational system, as Blair was previously able to do. Instead he had to concentrate on improving the at-the-time economic situation, which he was blamed for. Brown also lacked the support of the media because of his poor communication skills and indecisive leadership style. This lead to Brown lacking legitimacy because he couldn’t decide whether or not to hold an election as he inherited the seat into power.

A final point is that prime ministers can only be as powerful as their ministerial colleagues allow them to be. Although the cabinet may not appear to be important it actually holds a significant amount of authority as it can turn against the prime minister, stopping them from making the decisions that they want. This was evident during Thatchers term when she was oust out of government by her own cabinet members because she made majority of decisions without consulting them, as a president would do. Prime ministers are stopped by their cabinet members from becoming presidential.

In conclusion, although some previous prime ministers have appeared to become 'presidents', it is important to remember that the legal system of British politics has not changed. This means that the prime minister will never be able to become the head of state and head of government, as a president is. The extent to which prime ministers can act as presidents depends on variable factors such as economic situation, strength of executives dominance and political profile in the media. The future for the British political system is unknown, but it appears to steer away from a presidential government.