Unit 2: Are Prime Ministers becoming too Presidential?

This question comes up in lots of past papers. Below are two articles on this...please take some time to read. They will give you examples to help with application marks in your essays.

To what extent have UK Prime Ministers become Presidential? (25 Marks)

Mark Scheme

A range of factors have been identified as contributing to a “Presidential” style of Prime

Minister. Reference may be made to the factors outlined by Foley, these include: the

culture of the outsider, where the PM is seen as a non-establishment figure on the side of

the ordinary citizen: spatial leadership where the PM distances him or herself from the

formal Governmental apparatus; the growth of bilateralism where the PM instead of

conducting the bulk of meetings in a full Cabinet forum with a number of Ministers, by

contrast chooses to hold “one to one” meetings with each Departmental Head or Secretary

of State, this allows a greater leverage for the PM, instead of this being diluted and

challenged in a full Cabinet; next there is the increasing focus of the media which puts a

direct spotlight on the PM raising her or his profile above and beyond fellow colleagues.

The drive to a “Presidential” style allegedly focuses on the person above issues and this

downplays ideological or policy debate and raises the importance of style and individual

characteristics. This can be seen in the personalised drive of current electioneering where

the leader of a party is seen as far more important than its policies. This in turn has been

implied to diminish the role of the political party in its former context and the leader is

seen as the “brand image” to the loss of the political party. The PM is seen to have more

direct contact with public, making a point to be seen at grassroots level. In addition the

last 20 years has seen the growth of the PM’s Office and an increase in the number of

staff. It is alleged that there has been a diminishing role for the Cabinet and decisions are

made elsewhere in smaller groups and presented to the Cabinet simply to approve as

opposed to discussing. It is further alleged that the decline of Parliament has enhanced or

raised the prestige and power of the PM.

However, the extent and reality of a “Presidential” style of Prime Minister may be

challenged by pressures which curtail PM power. The Cabinet is still an important and

instrumental part of the Government machine, it is noted that lack of support here was

the factor which finally removed Mrs. Thatcher. The political party is not as enfeebled as

often suggested and a PM who acts arrogantly will ultimately fall or be curtailed by its

power, for instance backbench revolts can limit the legislative scope of the PM. The media

which can deliver power can also damage the PM’s image. In the UK the constitutional

arrangements can and do limit the PM, for instance the Constitutional Monarch acts as the

Head of State not the PM. Likewise Parliament can act to censure the PM as noted in

legislation but also in an open forum. Events can also act to undermine and restrict the

PM, events over which the PM has no direct control or influence. The latter can also

deliver failure in post for the PM which undermines his or her authority and image.
Click here to access an article which discusses the reasons why Cameron may be becoming more presedential.

This article, although very long, is the one examiners like you to use/quote when discussing Prime Ministerial powers.