Secondly some senior ministers may feel that the prime minister is not listening to their views and changing the agenda to avoid controversial or matters that he knows he has done wrong on. If the prime minister carries this on he might lose their support and might not get his way easily. Poor management of the cabinet by a prime minister who is too domineering or too indecisive will weaken his position.
Lastly the support of the prime ministers party is not conditional. If the prime minister does not have the support of the majority of his party he would have a problem as it would be very difficult for him to get any legislation through. Lastly his own party could force him out of Downing Street i.e. Margaret Thatcher.
- Many commentators feel that prime ministers have become more presidential as in acting like how presidents act i.e. President Bush. Also some feel that he is an elected dictator. The Prime minister can act as he wishes as we do not have a written constitution to limit his powers or his behaviour.
Firstly the prime minister now has increasing control over appointments made in the civil service. Prime ministers now have greater control of public departments so as to make sure that what they want is what is being done. The civil service has grown too large to be controlled by the cabinet however now it has been developed into a centralised bureaucracy with the prime minister in control.
The prime minister is now more closely involved in foreign and economic affairs as is the President of America. The media today is making the electorate focus on the leader of the party rather than the whole party and its policies as in America the electorate vote for the leader not the whole party. The prime minister uses more bilateral meetings (informal meetings) so he can pre decide policies and get other members on his side before presenting it to the rest of the members.
Margaret Thatcher was described as having presidential powers because she reduced the number, duration of cabinet meetings so as to have the cabinet as a rubber stamp or as a way of keeping the tradition going. Also Johnson argued that in one year the prime ministers office spent more than the Queens household as she is the head of state she should be spending more. During this time the power of the prime minister increased whilst the cabinet’s power decreased to a mere rubber stamp.
Prime minister now use spatial leadership when it suits them especially if a government department does badly i.e. John Major’s Citizen Charter initiative, he publicly criticised government departments giving the impression that he was on the side of the ordinary citizen. Tony Blair shook off reports of political corruption in his party by disowning both MPs before anything was proven against them.
Presidents in America claim to be outsiders politically and socially so as to not seem as having the same vested interests as government insiders. Prime Ministers from James Callaghan to Tony Blair have done the same. Tony Blair used this when he was reforming the Labour party success ensured that the same approach would be continued in government.
American Presidents appeal for support directly to the public rather than through Congress. This has been done mostly by Tony Blair who has an obsession with presentation and trying to ensure that the public is convinced that everything is running smoothly when it is not. Also he makes decisions public before discussing with parliament and his cabinet. As the cabinet have collective ministerial responsibility they have to agree and follow it.
The Prime Minster’s powers have in recent years become more presidential because of the increase in power in the place of the cabinet and the power of using the media. However there are many constraints on this power increasing so this might not increase furthermore.
