To What Extent Has Prime Ministerial Power Grown in Recent Years?

To what extent has prime ministerial power grown in recent years? (25)

The prime ministers powers varies to many extents; it is debatable as to whether the prime minister has too much power and is becoming presidential; claiming a separate source of authority by becoming a policy leader, having their own source of advice and being considered by the media as a spokesperson of the government alike to that of a presidential manner.

The queen’s royal prerogative; the formal powers of the crown has almost been entirely passed on to the prime minister and parliament are not able to pose any sanctions on these powers for example, in the past the monarch would usually declare war or sign treaties without the input of the house of lords and house of commons and such powers have been transferred to the prime minister over time. Foreign policy and military affairs have become more important overtime and the prime minister dominates these. Tony Blaire took a world lead in supporting the American Middle East policy, the 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was decided by him. In this instance, clearly the PM seems to be claiming a separate source of authority as a democratically elected politician accountable to the electorate by the general election and the other in the position of a quirk of birth as the prime minister is declaring war on behalf of the crown implications are that the PM is exercising power which is typically associated with the head of state and as a result he appears more presidential.

It could be argued that there has been no permanent change. The dominant role of the prime minister constantly changes for example, although Blair did declare war against war in 2003 when the decision of whether not Britain should support and aid Israel against gaze was posed, David Cameron took the question to parliament and did not make the decision himself showing that there has not been any permanent change, power exercised depends on the situation. Thus it could be argued that by performing actions of the head of state doesn’t necessarily mean that he is the head of state. The actual power is with the queen she just chooses not to use them. The queen is the head of the state and the prime minister is appointed by her and he is merely acting on behalf of the crown.

The media tends to concentrate much of its public focus on the prime minister as the personal spokesperson for the government rather than the party or its manifesto. The prime ministers power and authority is ebbed away without public support when the leader loses the confidence of the public they become a liability they have to persuade the public to receive their support for example, in 2015 general elections Ed Miliband was considered by the public as not a sufficient leader and many argue this is why Labour didn’t win. This shows a fine similarity to how a US president functions they’re elected based on their speeches, their behaviour and how well these appeal to the public. They have to persuade the public to win the votes. The media creates the impression that the PM is separate from their party thus are a separate leader.