Are UK prime ministers as powerful as is sometimes claimed? Discuss with at least 2 PMs, one
before 1997 and one post 1997, looking at events and policies.
Prime ministers can be as powerful as sometimes is claimed, and this can be seen through prime
ministers, including Margret Thatcher and Tony Blair, and their actions; however, all prime ministers
are faced with limitations that can restrain this power. Whilst all prime ministers are given the same
powers, including prerogative powers, bodies including parliament and the Cabinet, as well as other
factors like events of the time and the media, can limit these powers, making the prime ministers
less powerful. The prime minister themselves can also play a significant part in how powerful they
are by their own personalities and the skills they have.
Prime ministers can be seen as very powerful due to the theoretical powers they have and can carry
out. Their main prerogative powers include signing treaties, declaring war and authorising the use of
armed forces, granting and withdrawing passports, and appointing minister and other senior office
holders. By being able to appoint ministers and senior office holder, prime ministers can build up a
loyal cabinet or group of people that can support them and ensure their power is not compromised.
However, whilst these powers may make prime ministers seem very powerful and be dominant
forces, there are some restriction to the actions they take. Two of the previous prerogative powers
have been abolished or reforms under the coalition government of 2010-15; the 2011 Fixed Term
Parliaments Acts removed the right of the prime minister to determine the date of the general
election, and governments now requires prior parliamentary approval on military action (however,
in case of an emergency government can secure approval after deploying troops). By removing the
right of prime ministers determining the date of a general election, they can no longer call elections
that is at a time more favourable to them, which limits their power; as parliamentary approval is
now needed to carry out military action, there is a suggestion that prime ministers are not powerful
enough to carry out any major decisions themselves and that parliament is a big limitation to their
dominance. Therefore, whilst their prerogative powers make them powerful, there are restrictions,
like parliament, to ensure their power is not overbearingly large.
Additionally, there are other powers that suggest that prime ministers are as powerful as is
sometimes claimed. They have management of the Cabinet (which included chairing its meetings
and controlling the agenda), have direction of government policy and have responsibility for the
overall shape and structure of government. However, whilst the magnitude of these powers
depends on certain factors. For example, the popularity of the prime minister and the size of their
parliamentary majority affects how much power they have in terms of appointing ministers and
formulating policies; Tony Blair could therefore be seen as extremely powerful because his majority
of 179, as this allowed him to carry out certain actions and still have widespread support, even if
there were some rebels in his party. Another feature that allowed Tony Blair to be powerful and not
allow his powers to be compromised was his charismatic personality and great management skills;
he was young, energetic and charismatic, and this made his popular with both the public but also
parliament and so he was able to use his powers effectively. However, an example where having
these powers may not be enough to be powerful can be seen under Gordon Brown's leadership.
Whilst, in theory, he had the same powers, he was less successful in being a powerful prime minister
due to various factors; firstly, the global financial crisis, which caused major financial instability,
weakened his authority as the public blamed him for not acting well or fast enough, and secondly,
his much weaker leadership style and less attractive personality meant that he was less popular, and
therefore less powerful. Therefore, it is evident that there are other factors other than the
theoretical powers that prime minister have that conclude whether a prime minister is as powerful
as is sometimes claimed; arguably, whilst they have the potential, events and circumstances,
alongside personality and popularity, have a significant impact on a prime minister's power.
before 1997 and one post 1997, looking at events and policies.
Prime ministers can be as powerful as sometimes is claimed, and this can be seen through prime
ministers, including Margret Thatcher and Tony Blair, and their actions; however, all prime ministers
are faced with limitations that can restrain this power. Whilst all prime ministers are given the same
powers, including prerogative powers, bodies including parliament and the Cabinet, as well as other
factors like events of the time and the media, can limit these powers, making the prime ministers
less powerful. The prime minister themselves can also play a significant part in how powerful they
are by their own personalities and the skills they have.
Prime ministers can be seen as very powerful due to the theoretical powers they have and can carry
out. Their main prerogative powers include signing treaties, declaring war and authorising the use of
armed forces, granting and withdrawing passports, and appointing minister and other senior office
holders. By being able to appoint ministers and senior office holder, prime ministers can build up a
loyal cabinet or group of people that can support them and ensure their power is not compromised.
However, whilst these powers may make prime ministers seem very powerful and be dominant
forces, there are some restriction to the actions they take. Two of the previous prerogative powers
have been abolished or reforms under the coalition government of 2010-15; the 2011 Fixed Term
Parliaments Acts removed the right of the prime minister to determine the date of the general
election, and governments now requires prior parliamentary approval on military action (however,
in case of an emergency government can secure approval after deploying troops). By removing the
right of prime ministers determining the date of a general election, they can no longer call elections
that is at a time more favourable to them, which limits their power; as parliamentary approval is
now needed to carry out military action, there is a suggestion that prime ministers are not powerful
enough to carry out any major decisions themselves and that parliament is a big limitation to their
dominance. Therefore, whilst their prerogative powers make them powerful, there are restrictions,
like parliament, to ensure their power is not overbearingly large.
Additionally, there are other powers that suggest that prime ministers are as powerful as is
sometimes claimed. They have management of the Cabinet (which included chairing its meetings
and controlling the agenda), have direction of government policy and have responsibility for the
overall shape and structure of government. However, whilst the magnitude of these powers
depends on certain factors. For example, the popularity of the prime minister and the size of their
parliamentary majority affects how much power they have in terms of appointing ministers and
formulating policies; Tony Blair could therefore be seen as extremely powerful because his majority
of 179, as this allowed him to carry out certain actions and still have widespread support, even if
there were some rebels in his party. Another feature that allowed Tony Blair to be powerful and not
allow his powers to be compromised was his charismatic personality and great management skills;
he was young, energetic and charismatic, and this made his popular with both the public but also
parliament and so he was able to use his powers effectively. However, an example where having
these powers may not be enough to be powerful can be seen under Gordon Brown's leadership.
Whilst, in theory, he had the same powers, he was less successful in being a powerful prime minister
due to various factors; firstly, the global financial crisis, which caused major financial instability,
weakened his authority as the public blamed him for not acting well or fast enough, and secondly,
his much weaker leadership style and less attractive personality meant that he was less popular, and
therefore less powerful. Therefore, it is evident that there are other factors other than the
theoretical powers that prime minister have that conclude whether a prime minister is as powerful
as is sometimes claimed; arguably, whilst they have the potential, events and circumstances,
alongside personality and popularity, have a significant impact on a prime minister's power.
