Comparative Government

What support does the evidence provided by the government of Tony Blair give to the argument that British Prime Ministers are becoming more “Presidential?”

Tony Blair is considered “presidential” because he concentrated and centralized power in his immediate office at the expense of the cabinet, Commons, and collectivism.

Blair, like Thatcher, has narrowed the scope of collective responsibility. Cabinet meetings are often dull and debate is rare. Not to mention that meetings are less often and usually take less than an hour, which cannot possibly allow time to resolve any policy differences. Thus, Blair tripled the size of the staff at 10 Downing Street for decision-making, and had meetings rather like those of the U.S. White House. Also, the prime minister employs quangos and advisers to make decisions in smaller gatherings outside the cabinet. A primary example of this is right after the election in the early Blair premiership, when the full cabinet had not yet met, the government announced the decision to free the Bank of England to set interest rates. In addition, for the war in Iraq, there was never a full scale debate or formal cabinet approval, but rather, Blair met with each member individually to pressure them into agreeing. To further erode the principles of collective responsibility, Blair prefers special units in the Cabinet Offices such as the Social Exclusion Unite, the Women’s Unit, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, and the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit.

Moreover, Blair spent less time in Commons. Whereas Prime Minister Churchill voted in 55 percent of Commons divisions in 1951 and Prime Minister Wilson voted 43 percent of the time in 1974, Blair only voted 5 percent of the time in Commons in 1997. Also, similar to the U.S. cabinet secretaries, prime ministers are more like top administrators. Prime ministers have enough power to appoint Lords to cabinet. Like Blair’s 2005 electoral victory when he appointed a former...