Tony Blair: Prime Minister or President?
Tony Blair: Prime Minister or President?
‘Blair is by far the worst of the eight prime ministers I have known’.
‘It is the presidential system he sees emerging under Mr Blair (the fault of over-large majorities, the prime minister’s character and his well documented disdain for parliament) which he loathes’. Guardian article on veteran maverick Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, 29/03/05.
Ever since he swept to power in 1997, Tony Blair’s unique dominance over his party and indeed, the UK’s political scene, has attracted comparisons with a ‘presidential’ figure. Inevitably, the president most often cited is the American one. This note seeks to analyse: the origin of this debate about the increased importance of the British Prime Minister; the impact of Thatcher and Blair on the debate; and why the arguments in favour of there being a British Presidency might possibly be persuasive.
The Origin of the Debate
The famous work on the British Constitution by Walter Bagehot embodied a classic conception of the office which has informed many traditional textbook versions of British politics. This involved the idea of the PM as essentially a chairman of the nation’s most important committee, engaged in a constant search for consensus. The term ‘primus inter pares’- first amongst equals - used to describe a reality but could not now be said to do so.
Emergence of the Prime Minister
Britain originally was an absolute monarchy which increasingly found it had to exchange power with an advisory parliament in order to gain the resources to govern. Soon parliament, which developed into an aristocratic House of Lords and gentleman-filled House of Commons, clashed with the monarch in the Civil War 1639-1660. The decapitation of Charles I in 1649 symbolised the loss of decisive power to parliament, confirmed by the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 whereby the monarch agreed to be bound by the wishes of parliament.
During the 18th century, parliament had to deal with
‘Blair is by far the worst of the eight prime ministers I have known’.
‘It is the presidential system he sees emerging under Mr Blair (the fault of over-large majorities, the prime minister’s character and his well documented disdain for parliament) which he loathes’. Guardian article on veteran maverick Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, 29/03/05.
Ever since he swept to power in 1997, Tony Blair’s unique dominance over his party and indeed, the UK’s political scene, has attracted comparisons with a ‘presidential’ figure. Inevitably, the president most often cited is the American one. This note seeks to analyse: the origin of this debate about the increased importance of the British Prime Minister; the impact of Thatcher and Blair on the debate; and why the arguments in favour of there being a British Presidency might possibly be persuasive.
The Origin of the Debate
The famous work on the British Constitution by Walter Bagehot embodied a classic conception of the office which has informed many traditional textbook versions of British politics. This involved the idea of the PM as essentially a chairman of the nation’s most important committee, engaged in a constant search for consensus. The term ‘primus inter pares’- first amongst equals - used to describe a reality but could not now be said to do so.
Emergence of the Prime Minister
Britain originally was an absolute monarchy which increasingly found it had to exchange power with an advisory parliament in order to gain the resources to govern. Soon parliament, which developed into an aristocratic House of Lords and gentleman-filled House of Commons, clashed with the monarch in the Civil War 1639-1660. The decapitation of Charles I in 1649 symbolised the loss of decisive power to parliament, confirmed by the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 whereby the monarch agreed to be bound by the wishes of parliament.
During the 18th century, parliament had to deal with