Evaluate the view that the Prime Minister is now a President in all but name

Since the premiership of Thatcher, there has arguably been an alleged “presedentialisation” of role of the UK Prime Minister. The seeming erosion of any form of cabinet government notably under the Thatcher and Blair years alongside the ongoing development of the downing street machine, has portrayed the PM as entirely separated from government much like a president. Combined with the personalising nature of the media, the UK PM has never been portrayed more like a president as is today, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. However, a more convincing argument is that in reality the Prime Minister by no means reassembles a president. Constitutionally the parliamentary system means that however much a prime minister attempts to copy presidents they remain constitutionally vulnerable to challenges to their power by their cabinet, party and parliament. Media attention only seeks to replicate a presidential style but this does not translate into actual substance. On balance, it’s evident that the Prime Minister is not a president in all but name.

Proponents of the statement argue incorrectly that the erosion of cabinet government and the simultaneous emergence of the “downing street machine”, clearly show a move towards a presidential system of government in the UK. The UK has an uncodified constitution that, unlike a codified constitution, does not pre-define prime ministerial powers, which in turn give prime ministers the ability to make what they want out of their role. This was exploited under Thatcher, who with an autocratic style of leadership, totally dominated her cabinet, especially in the crucial area of economic policy. This continued under Blair who marginalised his cabinet to mere unimportance in 30-minute meetings, and also attempted to copy presidential behaviour in growing the prime minister’s personal office. Blair preferred to resolve big policy decisions with key ministers like the Chancellor and with his 26 special advisors. Controversial decisions, such as privatising the Bank of England, were not made by his cabinet, in fact they were told after it was announced to the press.  Not only does this clearly highlight a shift to unilateral decision making rather than collective cabinet government, but it also shows a deliberate attempt to develop a “culture of outsider” - separating the prime minister from the rest of government. This directly correlates with the US system of government which has a greater emphasis on presidential aides and reduces the role of the cabinet as seen by the fact that President Bush only met his Cabinet twice a year to merely update them on developments. This trend has only continued with the “Downing Street machine” growing ever more important in recent years. Johnson’s special adviser Cummings had been instrumental to the Covid-19 response, often overriding elected ministers and making key decisions. Such reliance on Cummings was exposed by Johnson’s unwillingness to sack him following a breach of the Covid rules. Therefore, ongoing development of the prime minister’s office at the cost the cabinet suggests the prime minister is in fact not first among equals and is thus a president who governs with a close-knit circle of their advisors and not collectively with their cabinet.  

However, cabinet government still remains a vital part of the core executive and the ability to temporarily side-line it, acting like a president only depends on the favourable political circumstances surrounding the prime minister. Unlike the relatively united parties and economic success under Thatcher and Blair, Prime Ministers such as Major and May inherited a vastly divided party, which in turn meant the they were heavily reliant on the cabinet to govern. For example, John Major, in contrast to Blair who had 30-minute cabinet meetings, had to have an inclusive cabinet including rivals from one-nation to the new right in his cabinet. His cabinet meetings often lasted many hours and some discussions would go on for days. This has also been the case for recent prime ministers who inherit deeply factionalised parties such as May, as she recalled ex-cabinet ministers she had initially sacked, in order to keep the divides of the party represented in the cabinet. Such instability and dependency on cabinet demonstrates that the UK prime minister is anything but presidential, as their ability to govern without cabinet is determined by the unity of their party and their economic competence. In contrast, presidents despite having poor economic conditions, such as Trump during the pandemic, can continue to dominate the executive and sack any rival that disagrees with him. This happened when Trump’s Defence Secretary resigned after he was overruled by the president on Syria strategy. Nonetheless, even perceived “presidential” prime ministers such as Thatcher and Blair eventually became increasingly reliant on their cabinet.  For instance, the unpopular poll tax by Thatcher led to her party and her cabinet withdrawing support as she became a potential liability for their future electoral success, which in turn caused her forced resignation. Similar occurrences have been seen under Blair who, despite the growth of highly influential SPADs such as Alistair Campbell often referred to as the “real deputy prime minister” and a huge personal mandate, had to appoint his biggest rival, Brown, as Chancellor, the second most powerful role in the country. Eventually even Blair lost support from cabinet ministers, as his unpopular decision on the Iraq war made him more unpopular in the country.

Therefore, it’s evident that the prime minister falls short of being called a president, because the cabinet remains vitally important to govern, even for the perceived powerful prime ministers fortunate to have favourable circumstances. 

Another argument made by supporters of the statement is that there has been a personalisation of the Prime Ministers -much like a president -by the media. Over the years the prime minister has become the centre of media attention over the failures and successes of the government. In effect this has heavily contributed to individualising the role of the prime minister as being somewhat in isolation form the rest of government and their party. This particularly intensifies during general elections, whereby rather than focusing on the election of 650 parliamentarians as a whole, the media default to focusing on the two main party leaders and their public appearance. This directly mirrors presidential elections where the president is elected directly by the people and the media focuses on the character of the candidates rather than the policies or promises that they pledge. Tony Blair set out to deliberately exploit this with a heavy focus on his personal appeal during elections and the use of the media to announce important decisions rather than directly through parliament. This has also been seen with the Brexit deal reached by Johnson’s government which was widely shared under headlines of “Boris’ deal” with videos of him signing the deal, again clearly proving the point that the prime minister, much like a president, is at the centre of attention and the cabinet is seemingly detached from involvement in the core executive.  Keir Starmer has even attempted to embrace this in his presential inspired patriotic media messages with the union jack in the background and a focus of “new leadership” rather than tabling popular policies to appeal to voters. This is a synoptic link to party leaders. This is all too reminiscent and consistent with the behaviour of a president, demonstrating that the prime minister in not merely first among equals but in fact president. And this focus only seeks to intensify as the 24-hour constant media attention and social media focus has more than ever put the behaviour and appearance of prime ministers at the forefront of political events. Thus, the prime minister is arguably a president in all but name.  

However, this argument ought to be rejected, because whilst the prime minister may seem presidential in style, constitutionally the Prime Minister is not a president. The UK has an uncodified constitution that fuses the power of parliament which determines the applicable power of the prime minister, in turn meaning the power of the prime minister is continuously ebbing and flowing depending on their parliamentary majority. In contrast to a presidential system where the president is directly elected by the people, the UK under a parliamentary system has the prime minister elected alongside parliament creating a fusion of power- the executive sits in the legislature. Naturally this means that the power a prime minister yields immensely depends on the parliamentary majority they achieve.  Thatcher and Blair could only afford to behave in a “presidential” manner given the elective dictatorship and widespread personal mandate that their landslide majorities allowed. But even this is disputable as technically presidents do not reside in the legislature given the separation of powers in presidential systems. The vast power and domination of Parliament, being a mere “rubber stamp”, that Blair enjoyed in parliament is closer to an authoritarian control over government rather than a presidential system. Further, for prime ministers who fail to obtain such landslide or even secure majority they are even further away from a president. For example, May following the 2017 general election had a confidence-and-supply agreement after she failed to return a single party majority. Consequently, she had a deeply unstable prime ministerial position, and her leadership was constantly challenged by her party until her forced resignation in 2019. Despite this when May attempted to behave like a head of state in tigering article 50, she was quickly forced to back track and get parliament’s consent.  This has also been seen with Johnson who was forced to recall parliament following an unlawful prorogation of parliament. All this show beyond reasonable doubt that no matter how much a prime minister may try and seem presidential in style, constitutionally they remain at the mercy of their majority in parliament. Repeated attempts to translate a presidential style into presidential behaviour fails to materialise, and even prime ministers such as Thatcher who had landslide majorities lacked absolute power as seen by the fateful decision of the poll tax.   

Therefore, the alleged presidentialism of the role of the UK Prime Minister is a wrong assertion as the prime minister will remain for as long as the constitution stays a parliamentary system.  

Finally, over the years there has been an increase of a presidential role in foreign affairs by the prime minister. Since Thatcher and her visits to her close ally president Regan, prime ministers have increasingly appeared as the spokesman for the government much like a president. This has been particularly the case with prime minister visits to the US president such as the Blair and Bush very warm relationship on international matters. Frequent ceremonial foreign visits like this by prime ministers not only reinforce the UK PM at the centre of attention but shows the prime minister in the same light as a president. As a result, through showing these bilateral meetings of two leaders in the same light the prime minister naturally is viewed abroad as an equal to the president. This has only intensified and boosted with the era of political and economic globalisation encouraging global cooperation on global issues. For example, the annual COP summits that unite all heads of states including presidents across the world from China to the US, further portrays the appearance of the prime minister as a presidential head of state. This was particularly the case for Brown who internationally was widely seen as a president as he played a major role in coordinating the G20 response to the financial crisis. Recently, Theresa May also attempted to exercise her royal prerogative powers to give the green light to joining the military intervention in Syria without following convention to ask parliament, which suggests that the prime minister in the UK is activity seeking to distance themselves from the parliamentary branch of government. Therefore, internationally the prime minister is increasingly viewed as presidential. 

However, this argument is flawed, because whilst the prime minister may be internationally viewed as a president, domestically they remain a prime minister. For example, Brown enjoyed international viewership of a president, however domestically he lacked a personal mandate a president would have and unfavourable political circumstances of a contracting economy. This deeply hindered his ability to behave in a presidential manner, separate from institutions, and he could not simply ignore politicians and party rivals. Even prime ministers who attempted to purse a presidential image are simply unable to dictate foreign policy like a president, and this was clearly seen in Cameron’s inability to approve air strike in Syria flowing a defeat in the House of Commons. In stark contrast, President Trump was able to immediately recall troops in Syria despite disagreement from his defence secretary, outlining the vast power a president has which the prime minister comes nowhere close to internationally though they may seem one in the media spotlight. Therefore, the prime minister is not a president in all but name. 

Overall, it is clear that the UK prime minister is certainly not a president in all but name. Whilst prime ministers, such a Blair and Thatcher, undeniably seemed to replicate a presidential style in seeming separate from government, as evident by the infrequent parliament visits and sofa politics under Blair, the extent to which prime ministers try and succeed in acting like a president is wholly dependent on unity of their party (and cabinet), and most importantly the size of their parliamentary majority. Blair had a landslide majority giving him a large personal mandate which allowed him to detach himself from institutions like the cabinet and grow the policy unit with personal advisors. However, for prime ministers who lack electoral success, such as May, the ability to copy a presidential style is entirely inexistent. Theresa May was heavily reliant on her cabinet, which is unheard of under for a president. Even for perceived powerful and successful prime ministers, like Thatcher their ability to marginalise their cabinet is eventually halted as they lose support from their party. ultimately, it is evident that whilst prime ministers with the rise of media and foreign affairs, have tried to seem presidential in separating themselves from government, the UK fundamentally has a parliamentary system of government which means prime ministers are open and vulnerable to checks that a president will never face. Thus, although prime ministers may seem presidential in style (spatial leadership) this will never translate into substance for as long as the UK constitution remains a parliamentary system. 

Adam Ouarda