To what extent have UK Prime ministers become “presidential”?
There are a number of reasons that the UK’s prime ministers can be called presidential. For instance Blair and Thatcher were both dominant over their government they would often ignore what their cabinet said. The PM is also very much seen as the head of state Also the PM is very much a figure head and the media portrays him as the head of the party, the government and the party ideology.
The PM if he or she has a majority in the House of Commons they can pretty much pass any law that they like as long as the whips are used to enforce that the party votes the way that the leader of the party wants. Also Tony Blair was a very dominant PM, he would take his cabinet’s opinions in to consideration but quite often he would ignore what his cabinet had said and do what he wanted. For instance some members of his cabinet resigned as ministers over the Iraq war because Blair would not listen to them.
But there is also an argument to say that the UK’s PM s are not presidential for instance the PM is part of the legislature and is therefore accountable to the House of Commons instead of directly to the people whereas a President is voted for directly by the people so the president is directly accountable to the public. Although it could be argued that the PM is accountable to the people through the media for instance televised debates and coverage in broadsheet newspapers.
The PM is very much a figurehead and this is the way that the PM is portrayed within the media, for instance when a parties policies fail or something goes wrong with the country it will invariably be blamed on the PM as he is portrayed as the head of the party and the government even if the thing that goes wrong has nothing to do with them they will still be blamed by the public and held accountable by the House of Commons. In this sense the PM is more of a president than a Prime Minister.
On the other hand the legislature and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document