PM is presidential

• theme 1: By appointing supportive Special Advisers (SPADs), the PM creates an echo chamber, where their views go unchallenged. The UK’s uncodified constitution, which lacks defined prime ministerial powers, allows the PM to shape their role freely—much like Donald Trump’s attempt to appoint Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, despite his controversial background.

  Under Blair, cabinet meetings were marginalised to 30-minute briefings, with real decisions made between the PM, the Chancellor, and a select circle of advisers. This trend continued under Johnson, with Dominic Cummings taking a central role in the Covid response, often sidelining ministers.

  Such practices allow unelected, unaccountable figures to wield significant power, replicating the PM’s views rather than offering genuine scrutiny. This shift undermines collective Cabinet government, fostering a culture of unchallenged, unilateral decision-making.
• theme 1: Against Prime minsters act like A head of state

  • The Cabinet limits the PM’s patronage power—senior party figures must be included, regardless of personal or factional divides.
  • Acting presidential is only possible with a favourable political climate.
  • PMs like May and Major inherited divided parties, forcing them to include rivals in Cabinet. - May forced to bring back Michael Gove
  • Blair, despite his presidential image, had to appoint Gordon Brown as Chancellor, showing reliance on key figures.
  • Excluding powerful ministers risks leadership challenges, so PMs must balance Cabinet unity with their own agenda.
• Argument 2: foreign affairs - the Prime Minister has their energies expanded on foreign policies.

  • Close relationships with foreign leaders (e.g., Blair & Bush) and ceremonial visits elevate the PM's international profile, portraying them similarly to a president.
  • Bilateral meetings frame the PM as an equal to powerful leaders like the US president.
  • In globalization, foreign policy (controlled by the PM) gains importance—e.g., Cameron’s prominence in EU/NATO summits and involvement in Syria/Libya.
  • PMs spend significant time on foreign policy (Cameron: ~50% on foreign policy/security).

  Strengthens the PM’s domestic authority by showcasing their global leadership, especially through alliances with hegemons like the US.
• Counter-Argument: The PM’s presidential image in foreign affairs does not translate to real executive power domestically or internationally.

  • Gordon Brown was seen as a global leader but lacked a personal mandate at home, weakening his authority. Economic crises further constrained his ability to act unilaterally.
  • David Cameron failed to approve Syria airstrikes after a Commons defeat, proving PMs cannot dictate foreign policy like presidents.
  • Comparison to US Presidents: Trump bypassed opposition (e.g., recalling Syria troops), while UK PMs remain bound by parliamentary and party constraints.
  • Media may portray the PM as presidential, but structural limits (no direct mandate, reliance on Parliament/party) prevent true presidential-style autonomy. The US’s hegemony further overshadows the PM’s actual influence.
• Argument 3 : Media proliferation reinforces the PM’s presidential image, portraying them as the sole spokesperson of government.

  • Boris Johnson’s media dominance:
  • Appointed key strategists (Dominic Cummings, Lee Cain) to control "spin" and news narratives.
  • Brexit deal branded as "Boris’ Deal", sidelining collective cabinet responsibility.
  • Election focus: Media reduces elections to a clash between two party leaders (e.g., PM vs. Opposition Leader), ignoring broader parliamentary candidates.
  • The media’s fixation on personality elevates the PM as the face of government, weakening institutional checks (cabinet, MPs) and fostering a cult of leadership.
  • Enhances PM’s autonomy in the short term but risks over-centralisation and eroded scrutiny—key differences from a true presidential system remain
• Counter-Argument 3 - PMs may appear presidential, but constitutional constraints prevent true presidential power.

  • UK’s uncodified constitution keeps PMs dependent on Parliament (unlike presidents with fixed powers).
  • PMs are not directly elected—power ebbs/flows with their parliamentary majority (e.g., Thatcher/Blair’s dominance relied on landslide wins, not institutional authority).
  • Thatcher’s Poll Tax: Despite her majority, rebellion forced her resignation—proving PMs lack absolute power.
  • Blair’s "Rubber Stamp" Parliament: His control resembled authoritarian dominance, not presidential separation of powers.
  • Media may boost PMs’ style, but their power remains tied to MPs. Even strong PMs face limits (e.g., Commons defeats, party revolts), unlike presidents who act unilaterally (e.g., executive orders).
  • Highlights core UK vs. US difference: Fusion of powers (PM in Parliament) vs. separation (president vs. Congress)..
• theme 3: against personal legitimacy part 2

  • The last 3 Prime Ministers May, Johnson and Truss - were ultimately removed by their cabinets and the wider Conservative Party after becoming unpopular.
  • This shows the limits to how much the Prime Minister can be presidential, as they ultimately remain accountable to their party and cabinet
  • It can be argued that the office of the Prime Minister is elastic; the more a Prime Minister attempts to expand the office the more resistance they face.