Has the Prime Minister become more powerful?

The idea of the British Prime Minister becoming increasingly powerful is one regularly raised when the role of the Prime Minister in our political system, and his position as the ‘First Minister’, is discussed. Of course, the Prime Minister is always going to have a significant degree of power, and this is what has always been known, as he (or she) is rightly regarded as the major player in British politics and sits at the top of the hierarchical structure which we adopt in our government. It is very difficult to calculate the extent of power exercised by the Prime Minister as of course, they do not govern alone – as for example many strategic policy decisions are made within the Cabinet as a whole, within which the Prime Minister sits, with many other key ministers. It must be pointed out at this stage that the Prime Minister does in fact appoint the Cabinet, so in reality he has significant power over the people within, and of course he can tailor this to his own advantage.

Before discussing the idea in any detail, it is a good idea to have a reminder of the contextual definitions of power and exactly who the Prime Minister is. The ‘textbook definition’ of power is “the ability of an individual or an institution to force people to do things, whether they wish to or do not”. The Prime Minister has considerable amounts of this through convention, and has the ability to control who formulates the said institution under his control, of governing the nation. The Prime Minister himself is the person who is considered the ‘primus inter pares’ (the first among equals), meaning that he has a higher status than that of his colleagues, but also implying that he could be, and often was, outvoted within the Cabinet – hence the significance of him appointing the members – he still has the overall power over the decisions made.

The overall reason why this question is usually raised relates to the changing political circumstances within the UK, such as the modern concept of a parliamentary majority, as was the case with Labour under Blair and now under Brown. There are of course two opposing arguments as to whether the power of the Prime Minister himself is actually increasing, or whether his role is merely altering with circumstance. Those who are arguing yes to the above question are taking the stance concerning the influence had over decisions made in government, whilst those arguing no are doing so on the grounds that we still have a considerable instance of Cabinet government in operation in this country.

The Prime Minister has a number of conventional powers, a small amount of which has already been mentioned. These are not necessarily held in law but are mere traditions and practices which have always been upheld over the years. The office holder of today of course does have his own legal powers, which only he has Prime Minister has. These have been evolving constantly over time, and include him being the chief policy maker, the head of government, the chief government spokesperson, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and ultimately the parliamentary leader. The Prime Minister therefore does of course have, and has always had, a great deal of responsibility, and as the key government spokesperson, is regularly held to account, at the weekly Prime Minister’s question time on a Wednesday morning. This does not of course mean any change in power, as these can fluctuate in influence based on political circumstances, as already mentioned. The ‘formal powers’ enjoyed by the Prime Minister is his ability to entirely control the appointment and dismissal of ministers, granting peerages, heading the civil service, appointing senior judges and bishops, determining the date of the general election (so usually to his own advantage) and commanding the armed forces. He also controls the conduct of foreign relations, the maintenance of national security and of course chairing of the Cabinet meetings. These are examples of powers/responsibilities which will always be held by the Prime Minister, although his ability to make government policy and controlling the Cabinet for example can be varied according to circumstances such as the unity of the ruling party, the forcefulness of his personality, and how generally secure he is as the ruling party leader. The overall goal of the Prime Minister in this way is to achieve and maintain the high approval ratings and successfully manage their government and administration to remain the core politician in Britain, and win the respect of his colleagues, as these are the people which are largely responsible for carrying out tasks as he delegates his policies and party ideologies to them. His influence over both government and public has perhaps granted Prime Ministers in recent years far more power than what convention would suggest, such as with the bold leadership demonstrated by Thatcher (1979-1990) and Blair (1997-2007), where they had great public influence and also great influence over policy making and decisions made internally, with controversial decisions such as privatisation/deregulation and going to war with Iraq all taking place under these named principal politicians, as an example.

Many people in this country now believe that the power of the Prime Minister is now escalating to such an extent that it is becoming comparable to that held by the US President. This is of course technically incorrect, as the British Prime minister cannot be directly elected and is never independent of the legislature, as is the case in the US, whereas in the UK the Prime Minister is subject to the will of Parliament, specifically by his or her party majority within the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the argument that the governing style of Tony Blair was very presidential remains due to his perceived command over his party and government, coupled with his long standing high approval ratings. This led to many arguing that he is one of the most powerful Prime Minister’s of modern times, with his power increasing as his influence took hold over his decade as Britain’s chief diplomat. They say that he has effectively become the head of state, irrespective of party allegiance. It is also said that, just as the US President has his own White House staff and large executive office, so too does the Prime Minister have their own government department, mostly in Downing Street. The undoubted growth of the importance of foreign and military affairs has contributed to a presidential feel to the office of the Prime Minister, an illustration of which occurred under Blair in 2003 with the declaration of the Iraq War, even though this did pass through Cabinet meetings (but perhaps not without his positive influence). Another example was in 1982, when Thatcher ordered troops to battle over the Falkland Islands, due to Argentinean invaders trying to take over.

The overall notion of presidentialisation relates to the general role of the Prime Minister within British government. Whilst government may not be anywhere near as centralised as traditional approaches have argued, it is not anywhere near as decentralised as others suggest. Whilst some Prime Ministers require the aid of others more, it has to be said that a powerful example of a Prime Minister such as Tony Blair has the ability to operate on a largely independent basis, but did not have a monopoly of power alone. He did, however, have extensive authority. Despite this example, to describe the Prime Minister as a British President misrepresents the power the prime minister has by being a parliamentary chief executive, and seriously undermines his colleagues within the Cabinet in comparison.

Another factor which leads some people to believe power is increasing is through the influence of the media, which is becoming an ever more important and powerful tool in raising political awareness and enticing participation among the modern public. The scale to which this is significant is of course variable with individual leaders, as their own personalities, individual qualities and personal tact attract different levels of media attention, from such as newspapers and TV channels, for example. The classic example of a media attractive personality was Margaret Thatcher, as Conservative ruler towards the end of the 20th century. Whilst she had a spin doctor, her Press Officer Bernard Ingram, she herself made many public appearances and gained much attention from her passionate and enthusiastic speeches and her overall character was to the liking (and disliking) of many citizens. It was probably the case that she, and other media attractive personalities such as Blair, had far more influence over the British public to characters such as John Major, Conservative leader 1990-1997, who received far less favourable media attention than his predecessor. In the current political climate, media influences have described Gordon Brown as ‘dithering’, and he has been evaluated as having much less political power through his lack of responsiveness to media opportunities to convey messages more efficiently to ‘his’ public, and this then formulates an association with his personal power resources, skill and ability, to win public popularity interest.

Another key factor is the growth of Downing Street. With the Cabinet Office itself being located at Number 10, it is an indication of how this organisation is linked with Prime Ministerial Responsibility, and him having much influence over policies of individual departments. However, more important is the Prime Minister’s Office in its own right. This is where there are political appointees and advisers, and it is split into four main groups; the private office, the political unit, the press office and the policy unit. Perhaps the most significant of these relating to Prime Minister’s power is the policy unit, which was introduced under Harold Wilson in 1974. This advises the Prime Minister on government policy, and is made up of specialist Civil Servants. It advises principally on the practicability of policies, and how they would be carried out. This increases the power of the Prime Minister in that he is being given his own private advice by unelected civil servants, and therefore he is making many decisions by himself, or with one or two others in private (‘sofa politics’) instead of with the influence of and at Cabinet meetings. But many argue that this is not, or should not, be the case, as these individuals do not have an electoral mandate to set and/or influence policy as is the case with the Cabinet and the ruling party in general.

Alongside these factors, there are also the theories of leadership, as set out by Foley in 1994. He states that some features of the American presidency can be employed to analyse some of the changes in the role of the Prime Minister which have taken place since the late 1970s. He picks out four significant parts of the American system which he claims have been enacted by British Prime Ministers. The first of these is the idea of spatial leadership. This refers to the way in which leaders distance themselves politically from the presidency in America. John Major’s Citizen’s Charter initiative was a good example of this occurring in the UK, by giving the impression that he was on the side of the ‘ordinary citizen’. The second is the idea of the Cult of the Outsider. This is where leaders have vested interests in what goes outside of government rather than inside, which has been the stance of Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Clinton in the US and has been adopted by Prime Ministers of Britain from Callaghan onwards. The third is the idea of a public leadership, with the factor of the dominating communicator which is media playing an important role in a Leader’s relationship with the public, and to focus what they say on what they know to be in the public interest. The fourth and final aspect of Foley’s ideas is the personal factor. This is the theory that the differences between parties tend to become more personalised. In this way it is then assumed that the personal qualities of the Prime Minister and other party leaders are central to public evaluations and political leadership and performance, therefore affecting the level of power which they possess in this way. The conclusion of this is that, with these factors in place, not only does this support the idea of increased presidency, but the increased power overall over both the government and Cabinet and the general public of the country. However, in June 1998, the Cabinet Secretary Sir Richard Wilson argued against all of Foley’s ideas, claiming that the Prime Minister had to work through his colleagues under all circumstances, therefore entirely eliminating the idea of a presidential Prime Minister and therefore significantly reducing the power in which Foley layed out as being at the fingertips of the modern British Prime Minister.

In the end, there are a clear number of arguments and theories for and against the question posed, as to whether the Prime Minister has become more powerful in recent years. There are arguments that Prime Minister’s powers have increased at the expense of the Cabinet itself, whilst others suggest they have increased under the present political climate. On the other hand, it is suggested the power is decreasing as less people show any interest or participation in politics, and that the Prime Minister is unable to influence any members of the public or the government, as he can also be outvoted by his own Cabinet if they strongly disagree on a piece of policy on a collective basis. Naturally, personality and style make a significant difference to the way in which a Prime Minister conducts their own office. Margaret Thatcher led her government from the front, whilst the likes of John Major who succeeded her in 1990 were more reserved. Of course, for Prime Ministers to have the power they seek, they really need to have both good luck and judgement in equal measure. In conclusion, it is largely felt that the Prime Minister has become more powerful within the last two to three decades, and that all those who have been in office have continually developed upon the principles layed out, hence why they formulate the bulk of the named examples above. I personally agree also, feeling that the significance and power of the media over the general public has played a vital role in increasing power and significance of the Prime Minister, and politics in general, in the lives of the general public, as well as within the government and policy and decision making bodies themselves.

The Council Estate Stigma

I have never generally had any great fear for tackling sensitive issues. Afterall, it's not what you do, but how you do it. Although I must say I harbour no doubt that all who read this will agree entirely with what I have to say. I'm an observant person, and this is based on something I witnessed last week that inspired me to look in to this particular avenue of the welfare state, and in particular those who are a party of it.

The 'council house' is a form of public or social housing in the UK. Council houses were built and operated by local councils to supply un-crowded, well built homes on secure tenancies at below market rents to, primarily, the working classes. Council house development began in the late nineteenth century and peaked in the mid-20th century. Some of these developments did not live up to the hopes of their supporters, and now suffer from a distinct reputation for urban blight and degeneration. A substantial part of the UK population still lives in council housing, despite the influence of the 'Right to Buy' Scheme under the 1980 Housing Act. Approximately 40% of the country’s social housing stock is owned by local authorities, 15% is managed by arm's length management organisations, and 45% by housing associations.

The facts over with, it is time to note some observation and opinion. Different political parties will of course have their own standing on the subject, although it has got to be said that, now that council housing is so well established, no party could ever abolish it. If it did, it would have to be done very slowly, and probably as a bi-product of other schemes and legislation over time.

However, the key issues on council housing and its sustainability seem to lie with 'who, where and why'. I will briefly look at each of these in reverse order, based on my own observations:

Firstly, why? The point of council housing was, as I have already mentioned, to provide better quality and maintained housing for the less privileged groups of our society. This always seems to have materialised naturally - afterall, (and I may get shot for saying this given everybodys circumstances are of course different,) those who work hard at school, achieve qualifications, seek employment and a career and manage themselves and their finances responsibly do tend to own their own homes, or at least have a mortgaged or rented property, and sustain their own lives without the need to fall back on the public purse. That is the middle-right wing view, and one must remember that for some (albeit a minority) it is misfortune that places them in need of council provided housing despite making the effort for themselves. Sadly though, despite that positivity, it remains the case that most of the occupants are people who simply could not be bothered.

Secondly, where? Peripheral areas tend to be the plots for council housing, usually built on estates. Walk through any city suburbia or the inner city residential clusters (basically the clump between the Central Business District and the outer suburbs) and you are bound to stumble across an agglomeration of council owned property somewhere. I say stumble, as despite the 'free' maintenance that the tenants are granted, things do tend to be tatty and it is a sad reality that little pride is taken in the physical environment by neither residents or authorities. Just take the goegraphy of estates in cities in the North of England, such as in Newcastle or Ripon, for your case study examples. I suppose these are the only places they could be. Nobody would want a council estate, or any residential property for that matter, dumping in the historic city centre areas of locations such as York, Norwich or Durham, would they?

Thirdly, or finally, who? If you've been reading this and struggling to figure out where it is going to end up, this is the crux of the debate. We know by now what the stigma is. The lower/working classes - associated historically with poverty, antisocial behaviour and no respect for humanity. In fact, many people would say this still prevails today. But we must look at the better side. Elderly people for example, such as those in sheltered accommodation or adapted bungalows are probably the most well receiving inhabitants. Afterall, tiny state pensions and no assistance would do nothing to aid the community or political democracy. Help for the disabled and elderly will always be valued and must be continued in the best format possible

However last week I was unfortunate enough to bear witness to an individual who is likely a candidate for most disgusting council house resident in the country. As this man listed his convictions proudly to myself and my friend (including stabbing, supplying drugs, violent assault and criminal damage) I found myself feeling increasingly resentful towards the entire system. Why? Because if an indecent low life like this is actually permitted to live in state funded accommodation, something is seriously wrong. At the end of the day, if he doesn't give a sh*t about society, why should society give a sh*t about him. Personally, I think the system needs reforming to seriously promote better social standards, and if that means denying council accommodation to anybody with more than a mediocre criminal conviction, then so be it. These councils are that obsessed with doing CRB checks on the employees providing their services, what about the people they allow to live in their property, given lots of vulnerable people (families with children, the disabled and the elderly) are likely to be nearby! That is the end of it - and this aforementioned individual should be evicted from his home and sent to prison for these crimes alone - he clearly had no desire to better himself, but we'll save the justice system for another day.

In conclusion, there are rights and wrongs with council housing, and this blog could be ten times longer. It exists for a reason - and for some people, it is just and deserved. For others, it frankly takes the Michael out of the entire welfare system and in turn, the hard working, tax paying, economically active population who (albiet in-directly) finance it. I for one am thoroughly discontented at having to pay for the man I mention to exist, and would loudly applaud any upcoming change to this horrific contradiction of social interest.

The Eternal Press: Life & Death by the Media

The presence of the celebrity culture across the media, particularly in the tabloid newspapers, on TV, and on the internet, has in many cases popularised individuals with no obvious talents and a somewhat superficial claim to joining the celebrity cult. Whilst some will relish in the thought of being the centre of attention, for a larger segment of them, it will also reep sincere consequences. The most significant of all of these has to be the distinct loss of personal privacy, and the denial of a quiet, peaceful lifestyle is quickly mobilised.

It could be argued that a fantastic example of this is the well known contemporary celebrity, Jade Goody. She was initially made famous it would seem for her seemingly strong desires to undress herself in front of the nation on 'Big Brother'. Since performing this and similar outrageous stunts which to many of course may cause offence or be simply considered completely unacceptable, for example with the latest 'Big Brother' racism scandal that became a subject of national debate. With these incidents and her charismatic personality behind her she has of course magnetised the media and the interest of a large number of the lower socio-economic classes. Jade has succeeded at achieving copious amounts of both criticism and popular acclaim, but by a cruel twist of fate, the tables have turned against her and she has become the centre of media interest for one of the worst possible reasons. Diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2008, she has been pursued by the media and the watchful eye of Joe Public for news on her treatment and how she is making use of her final days. There has not been a single day in the last few weeks where Jade Goody has not featured in a fore-frontal newspaper headline across the UK. It would seem that no matter what happens to her, she has no right to any personal privacy, and she never will.

The right to one's own privacy is something that humanity is very focused on, with the majority of people wishing to protect their private affairs from becoming knowledge within their social circle or (worse still) public knowledge within an even wider sphere! However it is unarguable that celebrities struggle with protecting it, such is the case with the Beckhams who have for example found genuine fame through what is perceived to be raw talent. Consequently, they are both followed relentlessly by the fashion industry and the tabloid press for the benefits of their estranged fan base.

Unfortunately, it is a saddened reality that people thrive on talking about other people. Whilst made worse now by the prominence of advanced communication systems, it is my thought that this has always been the case since the dawn of a civilised society that agglomerates as a community. It is in this way that celebrities have become an increasing focal point for national attention in the context of their personal affairs, purely in order to satisfy the compulsive needs of people to view others' rises and falls from a comfortable perspective.