In what ways have Prime Ministers become more Presidential in recent years? (30)? Watch

amywalters
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
In what ways have Prime Ministers become more Presidential in recent years? (30)

Can anyone answer this question for me? thankyou, x
0
reply
asdodge1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
1. more emphasise on personality of PM and supposed first lady (cherie blair)
2. Increasing use of personal advisors (andrew adonis)
3. use of bilaterals and sofa governments, sidelining the cabinet when PM is supposed to be first among equal
4. use of spin and spin docters allistar campbell
thats just the ones i can think of, there's probably some more considering its 30 marks
0
reply
netuser07
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
the majority of parliament members are of the labour party , so the prime minister is now less accountable of his actions as his members of the party have to show loyalty and the reinforcement of the whips which creates tension ensuring that MPs vote their party line. ultimately less accountability indicates that the Prime minister is acting as a President.

that might be a point to add .. am not sure if that's right though .
0
reply
asdodge1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
(Original post by netuser07)
the majority of parliament members are of the labour party , so the prime minister is now less accountable of his actions as his members of the party have to show loyalty and the reinforcement of the whips which creates tension ensuring that MPs vote their party line. ultimately less accountability indicates that the Prime minister is acting as a President.

that might be a point to add .. am not sure if that's right though .
this probably relates to how effective parliament is in checking the executives power, yes if the executive has a large majority it can sideline parliament
0
reply
little one
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
(c) In what ways have Prime Ministers become more presidential in recent years? (30)

The Prime Minister has become more presidential in a number of respects. Increasingly, the Prime Minister is the centre of media attention, particularly at election time where heavy focus is placed on the leadership. The Prime Minister is increasingly called upon to settle disputes or controversies (such as the tanker drivers protest). The Prime Minister has become more interested in the policy details of individual departments and is entering into more bilateral relationships with ministers as opposed to a more collective approach hitherto. More dominant figures such as Thatcher and Blair have capitalised heavily on both strength of their personality and their parliamentary majorities. The creation of a more developed policy unit in Downing Street is effectively creating a "Prime Minister's Department". Reference to Michael Foley's conclusions (spatial leadership etc) may be made.
0
reply
jken89
Badges: 0
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
- The PM (Tony Blair) has changed cabinet agenda's, reduced the frequency and length of Cabinet meetings as well as making policy decisions within more formal meetings with his aides
- The PM is the focus of the media - commonly associated with a president as the president is the figurehead of his executive
- The PM has entered into more bilateral, personal links with his MP's and head's of departments as well as the Civil Service
- Blair and Thatcher have had the charisma and personality associated with a president and this is reflected in their approach to a Cabinet Government in comparison to Major who had a personal role with his cabinet, used and consulted with them more.

So basically what all these other people have been saying, I think that's really it
0
reply
iloveexamsnot
Badges: 0
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
(c) In what ways have Prime Ministers become more presidential in recent years? (30)

The Prime Minister has become more presidential in a number of respects. Increasingly, the Prime Minister is the centre of media attention, particularly at election time where heavy focus is placed on the leadership. The Prime Minister is increasingly called upon to settle disputes or controversies (such as the tanker drivers protest). The Prime Minister has become more interested in the policy details of individual departments and is entering into more bilateral relationships with ministers as opposed to a more collective approach hitherto. More dominant figures such as Thatcher and Blair have capitalised heavily on both strength of their personality and their parliamentary majorities. The creation of a more developed policy unit in Downing Street is effectively creating a "Prime Minister's Department". Reference to Michael Foley's conclusions (spatial leadership etc) may be made.
0
reply
Spike4848
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 12 years ago
#8
It distrubs me that I was about to come on here and ask this exact same question.
what annoys me about this is that the arguments saying that the Prime Minister has become more presidential are just so weak. If you compare prime ministerial government to parliamentary and then see how the UK system measures up they are still totally different..
But my answer essentially is:

Presidential system: President elected separately to legislature, fixed term, head of state, tends to be based more on personality then party, president can choose who he likes to be in the executive, President manages budget, can appoint supreme court judges, essentially head of foreign service,

Prime Ministerial system: Executive is accountable to and drawn from Parliament, not head of state, tends to be more party based, Prime Minister must choose his executive from members of Parliament.

PM increasingly like head of state
Increasingly control of foreign office (i.e. Blair)
Personality over party (Blair versus various Conservative leaders)
Special Advisers/Lords means PM can appoint not just MPs
PM has large input into the budget - Blair particularly, Brown will probably be the same
With 2008 UK Supreme Court PMs will be able to directly appoint the judges of highest court of appeal
0
reply
adelante
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 12 years ago
#9
Hi

You're all pretty much on target on this discussion but I should make a few comments.

You're right to suggest that because of the increase in special advisors to the PM and his domination of certain areas of policy and Lord Butler's criticism of "sofa government" and bilateral talks with minsters rather than more collective discussions in the Cabinet the PM is an example of Blair becoming more presidential.

Blair has also been a quite gifted communicator: "he quickly demonstrated his sure instinct for the public mood when he led his nation in its grief after the 1997 death of Princess Diana in an automobile crash, calling her “the people’s princess.”"
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/ar...ccomplishment/ Gifted communicator is not something you could say about President Bush! So at times you could say Blair has been even more presidential than Bush.

However, a couple of things mentioned are wrong. Whilst Blair clearly takes a lead in health, education and foreign affairs he does not have much to do with the economy. Gordon Brown has tended to rule that roost and although Blair has wanted to join the European single currency, Brown has blocked him. The political commentator Andrew Rawnsley has referred to Blair and Brown as a "dual monarchy".

It should also be remembered that many of Blair's strongest critics are his own backbenchers.

One other thing worth pointing out and I return to Lord Butler's comments here. Blair's leadership style has also been his great undoing. Butler's comments about the decision to go to war with Iraq are worth looking at despite the popular view that his report was seen as a whitewash. The fact that Blair did not discuss the decision to go to war against Iraq with his fellow Cabinet members as equals was part of the problem.

Because of Blair's leadership style few opportunities arose to question his views and as a result flawed evidence produced by the US and UK intelligence services about Iraq was not properly scrutinized or questioned. Blair dominated discussions with small groups of ministers and advisors without the people around him having the courage to question what was being presented. He also distanced himself from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so cut himself off from civil servants that could have questioned his views. This happened as a direct result of Blair's leadership style of government and management of foreign policy.

HTH

Ad
0
reply
liamb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report 12 years ago
#10
You MUST mention that TB's power has declined since 2003/2005. Iraq has weakened TB's authority and party unity. the 2005 election cut his commons majority which gave party rebels a chance to derail certain bills (90 detention, education - needed Tory votes to go through). Sept 2006 saw a half hearted coup attempt fail but TB had to promise to resign within 12 months. The only type of president he has resembled recently is a lame duck one (i.e. like Chirac or Nixon at the time of watergate).

If you don't present the decline your answer won't be complete.
0
reply
es.ed
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
10 years on, any updates to this dicussion?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

University open days

  • University of Stirling
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Thu, 26 Sep '19
  • Heriot-Watt University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Scottish Borders Campus Undergraduate
    Fri, 27 Sep '19
  • Royal Holloway, University of London
    Undergraduate open day Undergraduate
    Sat, 28 Sep '19

It is really important for me to be involved in helping make my university better

Strongly disagree (15)
9.68%
Disagree (11)
7.1%
Neither agree or disagree (50)
32.26%
Agree (59)
38.06%
Strongly Agree (20)
12.9%

Watched Threads

View All