Ep. 222 Is the PM a president?

(upbeat music) - Hello my lovelies and welcome to episode 222 of the A Level Politics Show. Today we are going to go back to a pod I recorded at the height of lockdown when Boris Johnson was prime minister. We've had three prime ministers since then, and so it's defotime for an update to the question and evaluate the view that the prime minister is effectively a president. There are a few things we have to consider for this question. Presidentialism is not just about power. In many ways prime ministers can do more than US presidents, whether they act presidential or not. For example, a prime minister with a strong majority can push through legislation. The separation of powers the president's face in the US makes it difficult for them to control their legislatures. Trump has had few legislative accomplishments, just the Lakin Rylee Act and the one big, beautiful bill act in his second term stand out. He even gets laws he doesn't want like the Epstein Viles Transparency Act. In addition, there is undoubtedly a parliamentary system of government in the UK. There is no point arguing otherwise because well, there is this fact that we have this thing called parliament in a place called Westminster. So what is this question about then? It's about the style of leadership. Essentially do prime ministers adopt a presidential style. The direction of my pod is that prime ministers are not effectively presidents. To analyze and evaluate this question, I should look at the degree of personalization of UK politics, the existence or lack thereof, of what we call spatial leadership. And finally, the extent to which prime ministers attempt to copy aspects of US presidents and how far they are prevented from doing so by the UK's parliamentary system. Hope this is all agreeable with you. Okay? Onward. (upbeat music) Now, there are some who claim that the prime minister is effectively a president because leadership has been personalized with prime ministers claiming a direct mandate from the people. This is particularly the case when it comes to electioneering. Theresa May made the 2017 general election about her strong and stable leadership. Thatcher cast herself as the iron lady in one by election, a conservative party candidate stood as one of David Cameron's conservatives on the ballot paper. Prime ministers use empathy to win support for themselves and their government just like a president tries to do. Tony Blair relied on his sky high approval ratings to claim a personal mandate, a mandate that was only bolstered after the way he handled the death of Princess Diana. The manifestos of labor and conservative parties had images of their party leaders. Blair and Cameron, respectively on the front covers, in part to show that this was not only a document from the party, but also directly from the leader. Boris Johnson meanwhile seemed to win a personal mandate to get Brexit done in the 2019 general election, especially since he fronted the leave campaign in the EU referendum. Stama voiced the wishes of the country in the July 2024 general election with the slogan change. Labour's manifesto also depicted his photo on the front cover. However, personal leadership, will only allow for a presidential style if the leader is a capable and be popular in the first place. Having charisma and personal appeal is fundamental for a presidential style of a personalised government to work. Stama lacks charisma and is awkward in media interviews. Theresa May's presidential style did not work for her in the 2017 general election, as her claim to be strong and stable with it after the U-turn on the dementia tax. It is rare for Prime ministers to maintain their personal appeal for a long time. Blair's image took a huge knock after failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. On election night in 2005, last minute calls to wavering voters from Labour activists focused on how Blair would be gone soon after the general election. Blair's face was not on the Labour Party manifesto for that election. Thatcher was removed from office in large part because her cabinet feared she was becoming an electoral liability. Trust in Johnson plummeted following his refusal to sack senior adviser Dominic Cummings over claims that he had breached COVID-19 lockdown guidelines. Sunaq had a net approval rating of -53% on the eve of the 2024 general election, according to you, gav. Stama's election win in 2024 was described as a loveless landslide with his party only winning 34% of the vote, undermining his own legitimacy in that of his government. Indeed, Stama's net approval is also in the toilet as of March 2026, especially after the Mandelson scandal that saw him unwisely delegate the decision on appointing Mandelson, US ambassador to his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. Thus, the personalization of leadership can be a double-edged sword and might sway parties away from it if their leaders are unpopular as recent UK Prime Ministers all have been. Next up, let's think about this idea of spatial leadership. In a presidential model, Prime Ministers increasingly create strategic space between themselves and other institutions, including the Cabinet, Parliament and especially their own party. This style is often referred to as spatial leadership, something first coined by Michael Foley in his 1993 book, The Rise of the British Presidency. It involves Prime Ministers distinguishing themselves as people who take on the vested interests, be it in their party or in the wider government. Towards the end of the decade that Foley was writing in, Blair set himself up as someone who would endure the scars on his back over public sector reform. Cameron painted himself as a modernizer out to reform his stuffy party by advocating policies such as legalising gay marriage. His high profile visits to council estates, which the papers labelled as Cameron's attempt to "hugger hoodie" and to environmental beauty spots, which they labelled as "hugger husky", focused on his attempts to steer the conservative party away from its nasty party image to one that was more compassionate. Thatcher took on her cabinet more readily than other Prime Ministers, often preferring to rely on Alan Waters, her economic adviser, rather than Nigel Lawson, her chancellor, who sat in cabinet. May was dismissive of Parliament, first by attempting to trigger the article 50 process of leaving the EU through the role prerogative, and then by continuing to delay a vote on the deal she signed with the EU in December 2018. Johnson removed the whip from 20 senior pro-Roman MPs soon after becoming Prime Minister, illustrating a willingness to take on the moderate wing of his party, the One Nation Conservatives. Likewise, Starma removed the whip from seven Labour MPs who defied a three-line whip in favour of keeping the two-charbed benefit cap. However, no matter how hard Prime Ministers try to take on their party, they are prevented from doing so. George Jones speaks about the elastic ban theory. The Prime Minister will always attempt to stretch their powers, but they're reigned in by the forces of constraint. If they set themselves apart from their own backbentures, they will find themselves over time, increasingly isolated. Starma has alienated not just the hard left of his party, but also the soft left, with former Deputy Prime Minister Angelirena criticising the government's immigration policies, and he burned them attempting to re-enter Parliament to set himself up as a leadership rival, and backbentures forcing the government into at least 12 U-turns on policies ranging from winter fuel allowance cuts to introducing ID cards since Labour, where it turns office. Indeed, spatial leadership is not possible due to the fusion of powers. Theresa May lost control of the Brexit process when, in March 2019, Parliament voted to take over that process. She also lost control of the payroll vote, accepting on March 26, 2019, that junior Ministers could vote with their conscience over the indicative vote process over Brexit. That's your lost control of her cabinet after the poll tax riots, and she subsequently faced a leadership contest from the backbentures. Johnson was forced by his backbentures to face a vote of confidence in his own leadership, Sunack proved unwilling or unable to take on the hard right in his party, which splintered into several subgroups attacking his leadership collectively known as the five families. Starma has been reigned in by his restless backbentures who threatened to sink his welfare reforms. So separation is not possible, and therefore neither is presidentialism. But what about the style of Prime Minister's how have they attempted to look and sound pretend to be like presidents? Admittedly, there does seem to be some elements of the job of Prime Minister, which appear to be presidential in style. As previously stated, the Prime Minister is often seen as separate from the government and parliament. Blair spent less time in the House of Commons in his first term than most other Prime Ministers. Prime Ministers also rely on a network of special advisors or spads or spin doctors, Tony Blair relied heavily on Alistair Campbell, his chief communications officer, Boris Johnson was heavily reliant on senior advisor Dominic Cummings. Starma relied first on Sue Gray and then on Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff. Theresa May relied on Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy in her first year in office. They were collectively known as the chiefs. So just like the White House has a West Wing, so Downey Street has a policy unit to advise the Prime Minister and coordinate policy between government departments, which they rely on more perhaps than the cabinet. It is something Starma has attempted to revive by placing Stuart Ingham in charge a long-term ally. Furthermore, the Prime Minister enjoys supremacy in foreign affairs under a presidential government. He's amazed use of the royal prerogative in the 2018 Syria bombings highlighted her preference to accept partly a parliament, so too Sunak and Starma who both bombed who deregports without recalling Parliament. In February 2025, Stama became the first Western leader to offer to provide troops on the ground to police a peace settlement in Ukraine and reiterated that promise in January 2026 without first consulting parliament. His decision to allow US jets to use British air bases in the war in Iran saw no vote in parliament either. Prime Ministers use the media to persuade the public, just like US presidents, Blair, Brown and Cameron held monthly press briefings, may announce her Brexit plan to the press before parliament. In January 2023, Sunak unveiled his five priorities, which included a pledge to stop the boats to the nation via press conference rather than before parliament. Stama used a Q&A with journalists in January 2025 to push back against lies and misinformation as he described it, that were being propagated by Elon Musk who described safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips as a rape genocide apologist. And style means little without substance to affect policy, prime ministers have to feel comfortable acting like a president and to truly be successful that had to get their business through the elephant in the room, the fact that the UK has a parliamentary system, not a presidential one. In this parliamentary system, the executive is formed from the legislature, members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords make up the government. There is a fusion or a sharing of powers. The government is answerable to parliament. The government cannot take action without the approval of parliament. The vote in Syria in 2013 demonstrated the way a prime minister is limited in foreign policy compared to a president. So too, the inability of Sunak to enact his Rwanda plan, which was first rejected by the courts and then subject to a difficult passage through parliament. Scrutiny of the executive takes place inside parliament through such mechanisms as prime ministers' questions and parliamentary committees. Hence why parliament compelts to start to release all documents related to the aforementioned appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador in a humble address motion called for by the Tories. There is no direct election for prime minister unlike in the US, where there is a direct election for the president. They are elected as an MP like every other member of the House of Commons. The trappings of office may mean that they forget this simple inconvenient truth, but their party, their cabinet, the parliament and the people have a particularly nasty habit of reminding them. Thus, the prime minister is not effectively a president. Indeed, the extent of presidentialism depends on a host of factors. These include prime ministerial preference. Yes, that you like to cajole, Blair preferred in formal meetings. Starmer rarely meets back benches, leading to a separation of sorts, a presidentialism of sorts. But major liked to consult, Cameron was happy to delegate. The presidential thesis also relies too much on the presumption that prime ministers had the capacity and the ability to act like presidents. But May's worst moments as prime minister was when she relied too heavily on her advisers. Truss appeared socially inept in virtually every interview and speech. As prime minister, Starmer is hardly any better. In addition, a majority that the party enjoys in parliament will affect how easy it will be to ignore their party and the aforementioned parliament. It was hard for May to ignore parliament when she operated in a minority government and where every vote mattered. Also, rivals in cabinet can deflate the presidential bloom. Sunak was forced to invite back Suela Bravaman as home secretary to appease the new right in his party. Granted, Starmer feels able to sideline the hard left and has demoted them from cabinet. But that in turn has made him pretty isolated should there be a leadership challenge. Finally, a personal mandate associated with presidentialism can only exist if you are given one. Theresa May was perceived to have lost the 2017 general election while Sunak was not elected by anybody to be prime minister. Starmer's loveless landslide is hardly firm ground with which to act presidential. If we consider the trends, we've had multiple recent prime ministers who have struggled with the number of aspects when it comes to presidential style, even though they may have attempted it. Prime ministers have been shown up by their advisors, have proved unable to manage their party, have lacked charisma and post Brexit have found it really difficult to finding a meaningful voice on the world stage. [MUSIC]