Modern Britain Pre Reading

8/2/2019 Modern Britain Pre Reading

1/21

PDFlib PLOP: PDF Linearization, Optimization, Protection

Page inserted by evaluation versionwww.pdflib.com [email protected]


2/21

Presidential Attribution as an Agencyof Prime Ministerial Critique in aParliamentary Democracy:The Case of Tony BlairMichael Foley

The allusion to presidentialism in relation to the status, role and meaning of a prime ministers position is almost invariably skewed towards positive, purposive and expansive interpretations of strong executive authority. This study examines the negative and critical dimensions of the presi-dential attribution, and analyses the nature of its appeal as a device for organising and rational-

ising political dissent. The incidence and conditions of its usage in political argument duringTony Blairs premiership are reviewed. As a consequence, seven strands of usage are identied inthe selection of presidentialism as a focus of opposition. In assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the presidential critique, the analysis not only shows its utility in drawing uponother sources of complaint, but also demonstrates its limitations in the delegitimation of executiveauthority.

In Britain a deepening debate exists over the extent to which the premiership hasacquiredor is in the process of acquiringa presidential character. The termpresidential is increasingly employed to portray the position of the prime minis-ter in modern British politics (Foley 1993 and 2000; Hargrove 2001; Allen 2001).The use of the term has become conspicuously central in the depiction of a rapidand deep-seated change in the status, identity and expectations attached to theofce. And yet, even though the presidential allusion is widely regarded as a usefuland often compulsive point of analytical reference, the term is rarely used in a neu-trally descriptive sense. In fact, the distinguishing feature of this attribution lies in

its close relationship between the usage of the term and the intentions motivatingits conspicuous application to the premiership. In essence, it is almost invariablyused, and seen, as both an implicit and explicit indictment of prime ministerial

behaviour.

The analysis that follows concentrates upon this connection between usage andcritical intent. The aim is neither to assess the empirical merits of the cases for andagainst the presence of a presidential dimension in Britain, nor to determine thevalidity of their respective premises and conclusions in relation to an identiedpoint of comparison. It is accepted that in strict formal terms, a British prime min-ister possesses a different constitutional position to that of a president in terms of

institutional independence, electoral authority and executive resources (Lijphart1992). It is precisely the substantive content between the generic characteristics of

BJPIR: 2004 VOL 6, 292311

Political Studies Association, 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.


3/21

THE CASE OF TONY BLAIR 293

the two ofces that incites such controversy when references to presidentialismare made in connection with a prime minister like Tony Blair.

The purpose of this inquiry is, rstly, to study the usage of the presidential allu-sion in British politics; and, secondly, to inquire into its appeal as an instrument

of dissent and disapproval. By examining the circumstances and conditions of itsusage, it will be possible to reach an improved understanding of its substantial roleand critical value in structuring and rationalising political opposition. The analysisis, therefore, concerned with the ways in which the claims of a presidential exist-ence service wider political complaints, and it draws on traditions and attitudesthat nd an outlet in the indictment of executive power in the form of a presi-dential gure. Given that the primary locus of critical discourse lies in the publicsphere of opinion exchange and formation, the analysis will draw on the contri-

butions made by public gures and political commentators in establishing anddeveloping the theme of presidentialism within the medium of British political

debate. In reviewing the incidence and conditions of the presidential critique inrelationship to Tony Blair, seven discernible strands become evident in the patternof usage.

Strand 1: Personal HostilityUnder Blair, the phenomenon of leadership stretch has been extended to newlengths. Recent leaders have experienced pressures to become progressively dif-ferentiated from their organisational bases in terms of media attention, public

recognition and political identity (Foley 1993, ch. 5). The level of expectations andthe scale of outreach associated with Blair, however, have advanced the stretcheffect to an unprecedented degree (Foley 2000, ch. 7). The Prime Minister hasachieved a ubiquitous presence in the coverage of news events and in the portrayalof political developments. He is constantly seen and heard as the authoritative voiceof government intentions and reactions. Just as the Prime Minister dominates newsagendas and political commentary, so in turn the media increasingly gravitatetowards him as the chief source of news and explanation. The ination of personalprojection and the intensity of public consumption have the effect of displacingcabinet ministers into relative obscurity and of marginalising other political

institutions to the periphery of public attention (Foley 2000, 301314, 317323;Hennessy 2000a, 476483; Kavanagh 2001, 320; P. Riddell, The Times , 5 January1998).

In addition Tony Blair has elevated the role of individual leadership into a den-ing value of New Labour. Blairs project and his personal vision have been given acentral signicance in the partys electoral strategies and in its governing priorities.The Prime Minister has pursued an uninhibited process of claiming a contractualrelationship between himself and his administration on the one side and the inter-ests of the British people on the other. In doing so, he has conspicuously estab-lished himself at the centre of government responsibility and accountability: that

is my covenant with the British people. Judge me upon it. The buck stops here(Blair 1996b). An explicit connection is made within the party, and particularlywithin the inner group of senior party and government strategists, between the


4/21

294 MICHAEL FOLEY

person of the Prime Minister and a corporate reputation for trust, competence andcoherence. Given Blairs ability to give a guiding vision and an operational iden-tity for his party, and given the resources that are directed to maintaining theleader-centred nature of New Labours appeal, the attribution of a presidential stylehas become commonplace. More often than not this characterisation is made andreceived, as a form of critique relating to the degree of personal pre-eminence onthe part of the prime minister. Its usage implies a development that is inappro-priate and out of context in the British political system.

In the contemporary sphere of individual appearance and association, the usage ofthe presidential term can be strongly suggestive of personal disapprobation. Blairsreputation for arrogance on a personal level, for example, can be extrapolated toinfer a presidential level of political arrogation and self-advancement. Both claimscan serve to lend validity to each other. The usage of the presidential term in thesecircumstances can be derived from a personal dislike of the Prime Minister and also

from distaste over the way that his personality is promoted as a political resource.References to a presidential style, therefore, can act as both a euphemism and arepository for complaints fuelled by personal animosity and enmity. The presiden-tial epithet lends itself very well to a device for the expression of personal hostil-ity. The magnied presence of Blair draws to it an antagonism that develops apremise of presidentialism, which in turn helps to validate a personal critiqueencased in references to a presidential level of manifest individualism.

In this context, it is pertinent to acknowledge the rivalry between Tony Blair andthe Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. The friction between them hasa history that stretches back to the Labour leadership contest following JohnSmiths death in 1994. It is not simply that Browns supporters continue to believethat Blair usurped the leadership by displacing his senior colleague to the position.It is that Brown, and those who sympathise with him, are resentful over the waythat Blair has enhanced his formal prime ministerial powers with an authoritydrawn from his persistent penetration into the consciousness of contemporaryBritain. Blair has exerted strains upon the New Labour leadership in other ways:namely, the prime ministers celebrity status in government; the importance heattaches to the diffuse constituency of Middle Britain; his instinctive and ideo-logical distance from his own party; and his usage of personal values, life experi-ences and declarations of individual destiny as political instruments (Naughtie2001; Routledge 1998). The original emphasis upon the utility of leadership in thequest to establish public condence in the Labour party has in its turn fostered atechnique of encoded critique. The accusation of presidentialism can be seen as asubsequent corollary to Blairs breakthrough as leader. It infers a leadership thathas surpassed its prospectus and that, in doing so, has revealed the presence of aawed personality.

Strand 2: Excessive Power

The second strand can be connected to the rst but the two categories are not nec-essarily mutually inclusive. If the rst strand is related to the claim that Blair hasa presidential personality, the second is rooted in the perception of an emphatic


5/21


power differential between the Prime Minister and other senior actors and elitesin the political process. The premise here is that the Blair premiership has suc-ceeded not only in being rst among equals, but also in extending the roles, respon-sibilities and presumptions of Number 10 to produce a pre-eminent centre ofstrategic direction and political management. Whether the process is seen more asan effect of new conditions devolving upon the premiership, or the Prime Minis-ter actively seeking to maximise the potential of his position, the net effect is awidely held conviction that Blair has accumulated a level of personal inuence thatis at variance with the normal conguration of the ofce (Hennessy 2000b; Hef-fernan 2003; Norton 2003).

His leadership of the Labour party and his conduct as prime minister have pro-voked numerous references to Blairs attachment to a leader-centred ethos oforganisational coherence (Blair, The Independent , 20 November 1998; Foley 2000,chs. 4, 7, 8, 9; Gould 1998, chs. 6, 7; Hennessy 2000a, 484502, 514520; Rawns-

ley 2001, ch. 4). According to Bernard Crick, for example, Blair has a clear andemulative understanding of the real nature of presidential government, as do mostof his inner circle ( The Times , 4 March 2003). The Prime Ministers evangelisingcalls for party discipline and governing competence have been accompanied byincreasing assertions that even his high ambitions have been exceeded by achieve-ment. The strong implication in these sentiments is one of abnormality and excep-tionalism. Blair has developed a reputation not only for acquiring a pre-eminencein conventional prime ministerial power but also for drawing upon alternativeresources of leadership in respect to organisational management, media cultiva-tion, populist outreach, party cohesion and representational innovation. As a

result, the Prime Ministers position no longer appears to be even nominallyreducible to a construction of parliamentary accountability, nor to being a purederivative of party democracy. This view is typied by the caustic observationsmade by trade union leader, Nigel De Gruchy, reecting upon ve years of theBlair premiership:

People arent stupid. They ask themselves a simple question: why botherto join political parties, community associations and the like when nomatter how hard I might work, Im going to be ignored when it comesto having a say on policy. They know it is decided by the presidentsorry,Prime Ministerand his little coterie of special advisers, friends and a fewmotley millionaires. Even cabinet government is being destroyed beforeour eyes ... and just as in any other dictatorship, the whole systemdepends upon the fawning ambitions of underlings all jostling to becomethe next presidentsorry Prime Minister (quoted in Wintour, TheGuardian , 10 December 2001).

In the second Blair administration, the presidential argument became commoncurrency within the Labour movement at large. The allegation of presidentialismallowed dissenters like Andy Gilchrist, the general secretary of the Fire BrigadesUnion, to criticise the premiership without mentioning Blair by name:

The [New Labour] project created a presidential-style Prime Minister. Itcreated a huge and remote policy-making power base in Downing Street.Labours conference is sidelined and cabinet government was, at times,


6/21

296 MICHAEL FOLEY

abandoned. And the major current problemslike Iraq and Huttonlead back to all the presidents men ( Tribune , 26 September 2003).

Presidentialism had achieved the status of an encoded reference to an alleged sys-temic change in governance.

The customary precepts of the British political tradition and the governing premisesof the political system are usually characterised by a duality of outlooks. First, gov-ernment is regarded as collective in nature and operation. Secondly, political divi-sions, disputes and challenges are assumed to be constant and interminable. TheBlair premiership has given many indications of confounding these normallyentrenched properties. Exceptionally powerful Prime Ministers have existed in thepast but their pre-eminence has in the main been rationalised by the exceptional-ism of wartime conditions (e.g. David Lloyd-George and Winston Churchill). Fora leader to acquire such a widely acknowledged position of dominance duringunexceptional times constitutes a further assault upon the codes and protocols ofconstitutional normality. In such circumstances, critical observers readily resort tothe presidential epithet in order to depict and to dramatise such a leadership as

being aberrational, and even exotic, in nature. This was true during MargaretThatchers period as Prime Minister. Her force of personality and pervasive inu-ence in developing an individual agenda for reform within government generateda profusion of presidential accusations (Benn 1982; Holme 1987, 115; Jessop et al.1988, 83; Jones 1987, 8; Vincent 1987, 288).

The same ingredient of a perceived power shift to the centre under the auspices ofan activist Prime Minister has brought with it a comparable set of indictments in

respect of Tony Blairs premiership (Rees-Mogg, Sunday Times , 1 August 1999; Rees-Mogg, The Times , 17 July 2000; P. Riddell, The Times , 8 June 1998; P. Riddell, TheTimes, 22 February 1999). The attribution of a de facto presidency in such a par-liamentary and cabinet-based context is designed to operate as a normative deviceto convey the disturbing prospect of a powerful and elusive presence insinuatingitself within an unsuspecting body politic: President Blair has a suitably aliensound for British ears and captures his concentration of control (Cohen, New States-man , 6 May 2002). Far from being simply a scale of measurement, the allegationof presidential properties becomes a critique both of prime ministerial power andof the political myopia that fails to recognise its nature and its preponderance (Allen

2001; Norton 2003).

Strand 3: Dysfunctional GovernmentA third strand pertains to the issue of governance. The usage of presidentialism has

been instrumental in drawing critical attention to the issue of government perfor-mance and the machinery of administration. The deployment of the term imputescausality and culpability to the abnormality of an alleged presidential presence. Acase is built up through an aggregate of points ranging from the establishment ofan array of action agencies in Number 10 to Blairs attachment to bilateral meet-

ings with ministers, and from an explicitly reduced emphasis upon the cabinet tothe established priority of holistic government in which civil servants are encour-aged to work collectively across Whitehall departments, thereby giving emphasis


7/21


to interdependence, not independence (Bogdanor, Financial Times , 5 March 2002).In seeking greater integration, co-ordination and responsiveness within govern-ment, the Blair team has challenged established hierarchies, processes and con-ventions. In doing so, he has raised the stakes of the premiership in the allocationof responsibility and accountability (Kavanagh and Seldon 1999, ch. 10).

One feature in particular exemplies the spirit of the command and control pre-miership (Hennessy 1999; Hennessy, Daily Telegraph , 13 July 1999). This is Blairsstrategy of conspicuously adopting issues for special prime ministerial attentionand, as a consequence, directly intervening in departments with the purpose ofpursuing Number 10s stated priorities. Such levels of prime ministerial interest can

be effective in injecting a greater degree of urgency and focus within administra-tive structures. However, the drama of prime ministerial intervention can alsosignify a lack of progress and underline serious problems in the timetabling andpace of government delivery. Moreover, the need for Blair to become personally

involved in issues has tended to lead to further instances of prime ministerial incur-sion. By setting such a pattern of precedents, Blair has created the impression thatwhere no intervention is planned, or threatened, no prime ministerial interestexists with the result that the momentum for action in such an area is propor-tionately reduced. As one senior observer commented: things happen only whenMr Blair takes personal charge (Stephens, Financial Times , 16 November 2001). Asa consequence, the prime minister has been closely involved in an extraordinaryprofusion of issues (e.g. Northern Ireland, welfare reform, family policy, juveniledelinquency, education, planning, the foot and mouth crisis, the NHS, childpoverty, street crime, the future of Europe, the Sierra Leone crisis, Kosovo, the

Middle East, the plight of Africa and the war on terrorism). As a further conse-quence, Blair has been accused of eclecticism and an inevitable lack of followthrough.

Typical among them are claims that Blair picks up reforms and crusades, thendrops them again ... leaving only the faintest trace behind (McElvoy, The Inde-

pendent , 5 December 2001); that it is extremely difcult to interest the prime min-ister in the aftermath of anything because hes off on the next crusade (McElvoy,The Independent , 6 March 2002); and that he is habitually jumping from subject tosubject as they become more or less pressing rather than applying himself topushing through strategies to a conclusion (Rawnsley, The Observer , 11 November2001). To John Rentoul, Blairs energy and desire for control leads to an exces-sively managerial approach to government that risks a lack of clear direction anda tendency to strain for rhetorical effect (Rentoul 2001, 552, 546). Reecting uponher period in ofce, Mo Mowlam takes issue with the impatience, short-termism[and] knee-jerk reaction on the part of Number 10 that manifested itself in suddenand unheralded interventions: we didnt question the right of the PM to act as hedid ... but we didnt like the cavalier way it was done with complete disregard towhat was already going on in the department to tackle the problem (Mowlam2002a, 361, 317). A familiar theme of the administration, therefore, has been thatit suffers from prime ministerial micromanagement and overstretch:

Every area of government comes back to his, already overcrowded, desk... its bad for his ministers because it undermines their authority. Every


8/21

298 MICHAEL FOLEY

time Blair parachutes in, the not-so-subtle message is that the ministeralone is not up to the job. And its bad news for governance itself ... [T]hepress understands that really important initiatives are announced by thePrime Minister. Ideas unveiled by a humble minister are instantly seenas not that serious: if it really mattered, Tony would be doing it. More-over, Blair risks debasing his currency through overuse ( The Guardian , 24July 1999).

In addition to subverting and demoralising ministers, it is alleged that prime min-isterial activity on such a scale also compromises the functional integrity of policyformulation and implementation. The assertions are that Blairs intrusions have noorganising theme or strategy; that they reect organisational weakness and admin-istrative underperformance; that they are designed to provide evidence of govern-mental activity rather than achievement; that they represent solutions only in theform of media management; and that they militate against a considered and co-

ordinated response to identied problems (Franklin 2001; Jones 1999; Oborne1999; Rawnsley 2001; Toynbee and Walker 2001, ch. 11). The absence of an of-cial prime ministerial department gives additional force to these complaints. Itstrengthens the impression not only of prime ministerial overreach but of a pretexton the part of Number 10 to extend its leverage through other channels (e.g. newsmanagement) and other institutions of government (e.g. the Cabinet Ofce).

In these conditions, the presidential epithet is a highly appealing form of critique.It not only rationalises ministerial discomfort and frustration, but gives focus to themore generalised complaint over the strains caused by an aspiring chief executivetrying to operate within a compartmentalised structure of political and depart-mental hierarchies. As a consequence, the accusations of presidentialism investpolitical debate with notions of individual assertion and unwarranted power under-mining the administrative and professional integrity of government. This formu-laic indictment structured the rationale of Clare Shorts resignation from thegovernment in May 2003. To Short, the policy failure of the Iraq war was symp-tomatic of the governments general style of decision-making in which policy ini-tiatives were being driven through by individuals who were not accountable toparliament. She summed up the position as a systemic problem:

In the second term, the problem is centralisation of power into the hands

of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers whomake decisions in private without proper discussion ... there is no realcollective responsibility because there is no collective, just diktats infavour of increasingly badly thought through policy initiatives that comefrom on high ... we have the powers of a presidential-type system withthe automatic majority of a parliamentary system (Short 2003).

Strand 4: International IntoxicationBlairs cultivated identity with the national interest and with the course of British

foreign policy accounts for the fourth strand in this process of presidential critique.Within this sphere, Blair is not substantively different to his predecessors. PrimeMinisters are distinguished by their prerogative powers in the eld of foreign policy


9/21


and national security. A Prime Minister remains the chief agency of the crown inrelation to the defence of Britain and its security interests. The charge normallylodged against Blair in this area is that he has exploited the premierships discre-tionary licence in the international sphere to pursue a specic policy agenda andto enhance a political power base peculiar to himself and his agenda. Through hisleadership, Blair has set out to revive and to recalibrate a national identity basedupon the theme of modernisation and upon his vision of national ideals and moralresponsibilities. He has taken it upon himself to act both as an expositor of Britishvalues and as an exemplar of social solidarity through national appeal. Far fromconning himself to advancing his leadership as an expression of national com-munity, Blair has widened the remit to apply British traditions to the developmentof a new internationalism of humanitarian intervention and security assistance(Kampfner 2003). For a Labour prime minister, this outlook has little groundingin the partys classic themes of socialist construction, working-class struggle andclass division. Critics within his own party complain that Blairs foreign policyadventures demonstrate the presence of a moral compass far removed fromLabours traditional priorities.

It can be claimed that Blairs conspicuous presence in the sphere of foreign affairsis the result of a leader necessarily having to gravitate to an area rich in politicaland symbolic resources. International crises and major foreign policy decisionsprovide enormous potential for public mobilisation around a selected theme orcampaign. American presidents are persistently drawn to their internationalresponsibilities in order to recover some of the authority lost to internal politicalturmoil and to the tightening gridlock of checks and balances in respect to domes-

tic policy budgetary issues (Fisher 1995; Kernell 1997). A Prime Minister like TonyBlair is also aware of the way that appeals to national mission and security imper-atives can transcend normal political activity and raise the leader above the fray ofcentrifugal pluralismalbeit on a temporary basis (Rawnsley, The Observer , 7October 2001; Young, The Tablet , 13 October 2001). This kind of statecraft leads toevident irritation on the part of other political players in both the Labour party andthe opposition. It also generates criticism that Blair is exercising a level of personalautonomy that far exceeds the appropriate limits of an executive within a demo-cratic polity (Glover, Daily Mail , 8 January 2002; Harris, Daily Telegraph , 2 October2001; Jenkins, The Times , 7 November 2001; dAncona, Sunday Telegraph , 17

February 2002; Hughes, Daily Mail , 21 March 2002).In some respects, this criticism is unwarranted; rstly, because Blair is simply exer-cising the same prerogative powers of the crown that Prime Ministers have tradi-tionally used in areas related to national security (Hennessy 2000a, ch. 6; Lee 1995;Vincenzi 1998, chs. 3, 5, 6, 10); and, secondly, because such condemnation is inpart prompted by the Prime Ministers preferred strategy of popular outreach andpublic presentation. In other respects, the criticisms can seem more understand-able because of the way Blairs self-promoting dimensions of public leadership cangive the impression that prerogative powers are being ingested into the personalsphere of Blairs premiership, or at the very least that they are being used to drama-

tise and legitimise the prime ministers claims for constituting the authoritativesource of national will, moral authority and political direction. In raising the proleof the normally concealed ambiguities and immunities surrounding prerogative


10/21

300 MICHAEL FOLEY

powers, Blair has diminished their mystique and in doing so made himself morevulnerable to the charges of power maximisation and of fusing the national inter-est with his own political self-interest and policy priorities. In addition, consider-able evidence exists to suggest that on a personal basis, Blair has a markedpreference for foreign affairs and that this reects the subject areas rich potentialfor leadership discretion and assertion: he is in undisputed command and does nothave to share the limelight (Groom, Financial Times , 28 September 2001). If thepremiership can be characterised as a highly personalised ofce incorporatingclaims and requirements of individual leadership, then it is the area of foreignaffairs that tends to reveal to their fullest extent the personal drives, interests andpriorities of a Prime Minister like Tony Blair.

The Prime Ministers evident disposition to the pre-eminently presidential arena offoreign policy decision-making has given rise to considerable speculation regard-ing the discernible differences in Blairs behaviour and leadership philosophy.

When relating to international affairs, the Prime Minister slips more easily thanmost into the role. It plays to his natural political strengths. He understands theinterplays (Stephens, Financial Times , 31 May 2002). While cautious and indeci-sive in domestic politics, he presents himself as an audacious risk-taker in foreignpolicy: [H]e seems to be at his boldest when the outcome is most dangerous, mostin doubt and most outside his power to direct (Sieghart, The Times , 26 September2001). These inclinations elicit criticisms that he has a presidential preoccupationwith foreign affairs; that he is too often absent from the country pursuing inter-national agendas; that his new presidential style of government ... simply does notwork when he is out of the country (Brown, The Independent , 11 January 2002);

and that he allows domestic policy to be displaced in a zero-sum manner by inter-national priorities. In effect, he is accused of being too remote and too hierarchi-cal to be engaged in domestic policy: he does not give a damn about transport inBritain, complained Barbara Castle in December 2001. [H]es too busy looking atthe world panorama (quoted in Wintour, The Guardian , 10 December 2001).

This theme is given added impetus by Blairs conspicuous association with theUnited States and by his belief in its status as a model society and as a source ofworld leadership. An equally intimate association with George W. Bush has seam-lessly replaced his long-standing political relationship with Bill Clinton. In under-lining the existence of a close commonality of interests and in using his positionto give emphatic support to both presidents, Blair has often given the impressionof possessing a comparable leadership status to that of the presidency itself. Forexample, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on11 September 2001, Blair was the most decisive leader outside the United Statesin aligning himself to the American cause. His was the quickest, deepest and mostvisible commitment and, as a result, the British Prime Minister became closelyidentied with Washingtons policy of forming an international coalition againstterrorism.

In the Iraq War, Britain became the United States main coalition partner as a result

of Blairs personal and moral commitment to the cause of combating terrorism.Britains isolation within the international community reected the combative


11/21


detachment that Blair has often experienced in his own government and party.The fulsome praise that was directed towards Blair by the Bush administration wasimplicitly presidential in its references to personal courage, political determinationand visionary leadership. The celebration of Blair by the American media was moreexplicitly presidential in tone, recognising as it did the Prime Ministers public elo-quence in defence of the United States own legal and moral position. Blair waswidely viewed not only as one of President Bushs strategic advisers, but as a forcewithin Washington that could act as a counterweight to those urging a stronglyunilateralist approach to the crisis. When Blairs reputed inuence was combinedwith the prime ministers articulate grasp of global issues, and a public persona thatdrew 17 standing ovations in a keynote speech to a joint session of Congress inJuly 2003, the worlds press was drawn to the facility of presidential comparisons.Timothy Garton Ash concluded that Blairs exposition of a common Anglo/American political discourse was masterly in its design: small wonder manyAmericans think that Blair is the best president theyll never have ( The Guardian ,24 July 2003).

In Britain, this kind of association of ofces can easily be construed as a sign ofmisplaced pretension on the part of the Prime Minister. In effect, Tony Blairsproximity to President Bush and his war on terrorism could be interpreted asrepresenting the extent to which the Prime Minister would go in order to inatehis leadership to the point of a de facto presidential status. The rhetorical value ofthe presidential allusion attracted many on the left in particular. They saw in it anopportunity to conate opposition to the war on terror with the assertion of anexcessive American inuence upon British foreign policy through the agency of a

leadership duality comprising President George W. Bush and would-be presidentTony Blair (Wainwright 2002). To his critics in Britain, therefore, Blairs symbolicand substantive attachment to such self-evidently presidential gures as BillClinton and George W. Bush further enhanced the appeal of the president critique.Tony Blairs inclination for taking strong leadership positions in the area ofpolicy-making most closely related with presidential discretion allowed himself to

be characterised as a gure intent upon using foreign policy opportunities toenhance his leadership status beyond the normal boundaries of prime ministerialresponsibility.

Strand 5: Constitutional ImbalanceA number of features associated with the preceding strands contribute to, and ndanother outlet in, a fth theme. Here the implication is that the scale of Blairsinuence, presumption and ambition indicates the existence of an imbalance inthe British constitution. Given that the dening principle and litmus test of a con-stitution is the control achieved over executive power, Blairs accumulation ofleverage and his projected centrality to government suggest a signicant constitu-tional development. The British constitution has a reputation for assimilatingchange within a largely static framework of structural continuity, normative pre-

scription and internalised restraint. It is distinguished for its spontaneous exibil-ity, its adaptive capacity and its reliance upon tradition and convention. As a


12/21

302 MICHAEL FOLEY

consequence, it is also vulnerable to substantial yet unacknowledged change. In aconstitutional culture normally suffused in benign ambiguity, corporate negligenceand operational pragmatism, there is a corresponding inattentiveness within thepublic towards the distribution of institutional power.

Against such a background, Prime Ministers can be accused of exploiting the lackof constitutional fundamentalism for personal and political gain. Blair, more thanmost, has been criticised on these grounds. Peter Hennessy, for example, assertsthat Blairs excessive prime ministerial centralism ... cuts against the collectivegrain; that the prime minister has a ruthless disdain for traditional governmentalpractices; and that his view of the premiership does not accord with traditionalnotions of the constitutional limits of the job (Hennessy 2000a, 477, 515, 507).It is the reputed sweep of Blairs executive command that has in turn evokedcomplaints couched in terms of constitutional strain and even dysfunction. Forexample, William Rees-Mogg refers to the Downing Street presidency ...

prefer[ring] to have two weak and ineffective Houses of Parliament ( The Times , 12November 2001), while Tam Dalyell expresses the wish that Blair would realisethat we live in a parliamentary democracy ... and not a presidential system(Macleod, The Times , 7 June 2002). Bernard Crick concludes that [t]here is a con-stitutional crisis. We go forward to a de facto presidential system or we must go

back ( The Times , 4 March 2003).

The usage of presidential terminology in this context serves several purposes. In asystem of constitutional imprecision, references to an ofce which is palpablyoutside the British tradition can give focus to generalised concerns over the devel-opment of the premiership under Tony Blair. References to presidentialism suggestnot only an empirical measurement of pre-eminence, but also an actual constitu-tional condition. Following on from these premises, a de facto presidential frameof reference can provide an organising rationale in which individual complaintsrelating to Blair can be given an aggregate identity centring upon the notion of anunheralded and concealed constitutional transformation. Given that the presiden-tial allusion is often used to denote a scale of change that is exceptional, exotic andeven alien, the references to Blairs presidentialism normally carry heavy infer-ences of a constitution being subverted and of its checks and balances having failedto constrain the executive. These assertions can be highly circular in nature withconstitutional disarray being cited as both the cause and the effect of advancingpresidential prominence. Nevertheless, the circular properties of these argumentsdo not diminish their rhetorical effect of conveying constitutional development asa form of constitutional corruption and, therefore, as an inversion of evolutionaryprogression.

The presidential aphorism has an immediate accessibility in the sphere of consti-tutional development. It has a catch-all facility that offers a form of systemicexplanation mixed with an implied ethical componenti.e. a map for interpreta-tion and disapproval at one and the same time. Various phenomena such as themarginalisation of the Cabinet, the reduced signicance of Parliament, the onset

of monthly prime ministerial press conferences, the enhancement of the PrimeMinisters resources in policy advice and managerial co-ordination (e.g. PolicyDirectorate, Strategy Unit) as well as the increased usage of special advisers,


13/21


business personnel, focus groups and task forces have all been cited as constitut-ing evidence of a process of presidentialisation.

Even though the premiership continues to have no formal base as a departmentof state, it nevertheless attracts close critical comment because of its public repu-

tation as a pivotal centre of strategic overview and direction. The implication ofsuch critiques is one of a qualitatively different constitutional order that has beenintroduced surreptitiously without a clear recognition of its importance or itsimpact. To this extent, it is tantamount to a form of constitutional corruption interms of the conventional understanding of the British constitution. I think he isa presidential type, claimed Barbara Castle in 2001. He is not a democratic primeminister of the British type that were used to, having to work through Parliamentand cabinet (quoted in Wintour, The Guardian , 10 December 2001). References toa presidential style or manner, or even to an actual presidency, therefore, are warn-ings dressed as observations. They suggest a centre of power that is developing

beyond the remit of conventional constraints and which threatens to supersedethe established constitutional arrangements (Forsyth, Sunday Telegraph , 26 April1998).

The allusions to presidentialism not only provide an operational anchorage for cri-tiques of Blair and his government, but also suggest an expansionary development,the logic of which impels the premiership further and deeper into the core of theconstitution. The position is further compounded by the structural disarray occa-sioned by the New Labour commitment to constitutional reform. Blairs advocacyof a new consensus-based politics is particularly salient in this context. When it iscombined with New Labours projection of the premiership with an evocation ofnational symbolism, it opens up the interpretive possibility of an emergent primeministerial rolenamely that of acting as a centre of cohesion and stability duringan epoch of institutional change in which the structure of the state has been inthe process of being recongured (Morrison 2001; Oliver 2003). During this period,it has even been possible to speculate on the premierships potential for repre-senting an alternative focal point to that of the monarchy. In his rst administra-tion, Blair occasionally appeared to constitute a counterpoint to the negativeconnotations of the House of Windsor. In the second administration, Blairs presi-dentialism has increasingly been viewed as a sign of overextension. It is widelyargued that the prime minister is a presidentially minded leader longing to usurpthe Queens function (M. Riddell, The Observer , 5 May 2002; see also dAncona,Sunday Telegraph , 16 June 2002; Glover, Daily Mail , 6 June 2002).

While these claims may be exaggerated, they are representative of the anxiety andalarmism that often pervades the usage of the presidential term. In these circum-stances, the accusation of presidentialism is used in an attempt to arouse a height-ened sense of constitutional consciousness by inferring the presence of profoundchange with something substantial and valuable at stake. Its usage is designed torecongure governmental critique into a constitutional issue and to evoke a politi-cal reaction based upon an aroused sense that the constitution is in some way being

undermined, or even transformed, by stealth. The implication is by denition oneof executive usurpation and therefore of a constitution adapted out of recognitionand without challenge.


14/21

304 MICHAEL FOLEY

Strand 6: Americanised PoliticsThe inuence of the United States in the usage of a presidential medium of primeministerial critique is not conned to the allusions that are habitually made to theAmerican presidency. A sixth discernible strand takes the form of an alleged shift

in the general disposition of British politics towards a style more readily associatedwith the United States. Whether this is rooted in voter de-alignment, post-industrial issues, regional integration, neo-liberal orthodoxies, post-cold war atti-tudes, globalisation, constitutional restructuring or post-ideological politics, theconduct of politics has undergone a notable shift towards the managerial centre.High-prole leaders with publicised claims to leadership are very often the chiefmeans by which parties and their programmes attempt to differentiate themselvesfrom one another and establish a recognisable brand identity within an increas-ingly volatile electorate (Mughan 2000). The symbolic and substantive propertiesconnected to the persona of leaders have in many respects marginalised and even

displaced the traditional interplay of party programmes and identities. To a growingextent, party leaders and especially Prime Ministers appear to be operating withina separate domain that is characterised by the value of and need for leadership,and also by an implicit acknowledgement that it operates under different politicalrules (Foley 2002). These are seen to confound traditional agendas, strategies andrules of engagement. As a result, they are widely perceived to be perplexing andmercurial in nature, allowing prime ministers to occupy such exceptional andexclusive spaces that they warrant the term presidential as a mark of theirmystique.

Tony Blairs leadership typies this kind of politics. The marketing of New Labour,combined with the cultivation of Blairs appeal across different sectors, reects acarefully crafted campaign to capitalise upon the uidity of political forms andprocesses. As a consequence, Blair is often portrayed as a leader who does not breakrules so much as acts as if they are no longer in operation. Blairs ability to mergehis identity into the shifting currents of public concern, and to both break tradi-tions and disable opponents through the deployment of common-sense postureshave been recurrent themes in the political comment surrounding his premiership.

So procient has Blair been in maximising the possibility of a controlling coalitionthat he has been compared very closely to Bill Clinton. Both Blair and Clinton wereinstrumental in distancing themselves from the institutional bases and traditionalagendas of their respective parties. The two leaders both sought to accommodatethe centre left to the prevailing orthodoxy of low taxation levels, minimal ina-tion and restricted budget decits. President Clintons policy of triangulation pro-moted an eclectic blend of attachments to both left and right. He also had anextensive interest in a third-way posture towards public policy. Both these ele-ments found parallels in Blairs pragmatic synthesis of ideas and approaches thatwere designed to supersede the outmoded postures of the market economy and itssocialist alternative (Blair 1996a, 1998; Buchanan and Waller 2002; Driver andMartell 1998, chs. 5, 6). Through the agency of his own leadership, Blair sought

to imitate Clinton by adopting a nuanced political course that would avoid the con-ventional attachments of left and right, and create a radical alternative of newthinking divorced from prior orthodoxies (Gould 1998, chs. 57). The Labour


15/21


leaders emphasis upon unifying language and perception brought in its wake notonly the usage of capacious norms and mobilising themes, but also the assertionsthat through his approach it was possible to have radical reform, social cohesionand stable government.

Political and parliamentary traditionalists complained that Blair was offering aprospectus that was both false and unsustainable. New Labours detractors oftensealed their arguments with what they believed to be the clinching conclusionnamely that the Blair team had engaged in the effective Clintonisation of theLabour party. In relation to Clinton and Blair, there were striking similarities inthemes, in arguments, in particular policies, and in language (Fairclough 2000,70). David Marquand had no doubts over the identity of New Labours politicallineage: [T]he Blair government looks across the Atlantic for inspiration ... itsrhetoric is American; the intellectual inuences which have shaped its project areAmerican; its political style is American (Marquand 1998). Like Clinton, Blair

operated on the understanding that it was possible to have freedom and fairness,ambition and compassion, market dynamism and social justice, cohesion and exibility, individual opportunity and community solidarity. The impression gen-erated was that opposing themes could be fused together through goodwill and thekind of imaginative leadership that could elicit a binding social consensus. This isalso a signicant reason why Blairs leadership has been so sensitive to the require-ments of the mass media and why spin doctors have been so evident in the Labourgovernment (Jones 1999). It reects the debt to Clintonised politics in its relianceupon the medias power of image and information to construct political reality(Rustin, The Guardian , 18 November 1996).

The parallels between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair led the British Prime Minister to be accused of presidentialism through association and technique. But as Blair has become further established in the premiership, the characterisation has deepenedto one of presidentialism in political effect. The conditions in which Blair operatesas Prime Minister give impetus to the presidential designation because no otherterm seems more consistent with the extraordinary prole of political behaviourthat has accompanied Blairs premiership. For example, in contrast to cabinets inthe past, Blairs cabinets have in the main been distinguished by the palpableabsence of conspicuous divisions.

Labour cabinets in the past had been notorious for their levels of factionalism. APrime Minister like Harold Wilson had to expend considerable political resourcesin accommodating the segmented nature of the cabinet through intricate exercisesin balance, negotiation and multilateral deal-making with rivals and their respec-tive power bases. Under Blair the old rules of political engagement within theLabour party appear to have been superseded by a Prime Minister who has effec-tively combined personal ascendancy with policy consensus. Public disagreements,once acknowledged as an integral condition of Labour governments, have not beentolerated within the Blair premiership. Symptomatic of the change has been theonset of minimal cabinet meetings and a commensurate rise in bilateral discussions

between the Prime Minister and individual ministers, or small groups of ministersand ofcials. The gravitational force of the prime ministerial orbit has engenderedmostly coded references to an alleged diminution of the decision-making core


16/21

306 MICHAEL FOLEY

of the government. The reference with most purchase has been that of anAmericanisation in form and essence. Given Mr Blairs avowed attachment toAmerican principles and achievements, the presidential analogy has become a cri-tique of rst resort as it effectively correlates the suggestion of American meanswith the inference of a policy agenda prioritising American ends.

In this context, the references to presidentialism serve two purposes. They providea frame of reference, which offers some measure of intelligibility to an alteredpolitical context. At the same time, they are also strongly suggestive of a processof mutation and even of a bizarre deviation from political normality. The close rela-tionship of the presidential ofce with Americas national identity offers a set ofenriched inferences over the strength of Blairs attachment to a British identity.

Strand 7: Political PathologyA seventh and nal strand of presidential attribution in the structure of politicalargument is that which is used to suggest that a premiership is in a state of termi-nal decline. This reects the theme that presidentialism can be a two-way processof individual pre-eminence and personalised decline. The erosion of leadershipwithin a presidential system is marked both by a continuity of political prominenceand formal authority on the one hand, and a concurrent discontinuity of declin-ing leverage and legitimacy on the other. The presidential analogy in the Britishcontext has also been used to imply a growing disjunction between a superstruc-ture of prime ministerial status and an emergent substructure of diminished

momentum and individual isolation. Argument and controversy turn towards thecosts of such a disjunction between form and essence. As a consequence, presi-dentialism becomes associated more with political pathology than with executivevitality and administrative empowerment.

This element of presidential rhetoric places reliance upon a sense of hard realismin which the nature of prime ministerial predominance becomes subjected to amore sceptical assessment. The generic complexity and compartmentalisation ofgovernment, together with its power to resist or confound prime ministerialattempts to achieve central co-ordination (Norton 2000; Kavanagh and Richards2001; Flinders 2002) are given greater recognition as a corollary of a more realis-tic perspective of a prime ministers capacity to exert control over the machineryof government. Presidentialism in this guise becomes more analogous to the limi-tations of a Prime Minister set within a differentiated polity of multiple agencies,policy communities and issue networks intersected by a profusion of decentralisedcontingency relationships (Marsh and Rhodes 1992; Marsh, Richards and Smith2001; Rhodes 1997; Smith 1999). It is against such a background that a Prime Min-ister like Blair is increasingly seen as a crisis manager in the international sphere.This in turn underlines a presidential interpretation that correlates foreign policyinitiatives with a deep frustration over the inertial properties of domestic policy.During his second term, Blair has been depicted to a growing extent as a high

prole international leader. Nevertheless, his perceived presidential style hasincreasingly acted as a counterpoint in order to highlight the disarray of otheragendas. Blairs alleged presidentialism in this respect acts as a preface for com-


17/21


plaints on the grounds of a disengagement from the domestic agenda, an exces-sive detachment from his political base and a diminishing cadre of close advisersand personal aides. Allusions to a form of presidentialism in such circumstancescan, therefore, be used as both a reference, and a prescription, for decline.

For example, it has become commonplace for the Blair and Brown relationship to be described as a duality in which the former is classied as occupying a presi-dential role, while the latter is said to possess a prime ministerial status withinWhitehall (Naughtie 2001). In effect, Blairs presidentialism is used as a euphemismfor distance and remoteness. Browns prime ministerial attribution on the otherhand is associated with systemic Treasury power and a chief executives astutenessfor controlling agendas (e.g. the timing of the decision on whether or not to enterthe euro) and cultivating heartland constituencies (e.g., redistribution measures onpoverty reduction and social fairness; middle-class stealth taxes). The political sig-nicance of such a reputed bifurcation is reected in the fact that it is usually the

supporters of the Chancellor who employ it as a thinly veiled critique of the Blairpremiership. The characterisation draws effectively upon the notion of presiden-tial entropy in which the disconnection between form and substance widens withtime. The posited implication is one of a progressive deterioration that is asinevitable as it is almost invariably destructive in nature. The shift in the presi-dential analogy from a positive construction of strategic grandeur to a negativecomplaint over insularity and digression is encapsulated in Austin Mitchells publicappeal to Tony Blair to resign the leadership. Mitchell paid tribute to Blairsachievements but concluded that the Prime Minister had run out of mates,policies and time ... youve nothing new to offer apart from your role as world

crusader. In Mitchells view, the Labour party had now matured enough to with-stand Blairs departure: the nal stage of its maturity can only be the dismantlingof presidential leadership by clique ... and a return to team government ( New Statesman , 22 September 2003).

ConclusionNo discernible pattern of usage emerges from these seven strands. They areemployed selectively rather than in any aggregate formation. On some occasions,a single strand will be used to support a critique. At other times, an indictment will

be informed by several strands with no clear priority given to any one approach.This range of usage is consistent with the variation in the instrumental nature ofthe presidential attribution. The claim of presidentialism can, for example, be inter-preted as a euphemism, or as a metaphor, to open up the British premiership toother forms of complaint. On other occasions, the discussion of presidentialism can

be regarded as a direct and explicit accusation requiring responses in the terms inwhich the charges are made. References to presidentialism can also indicate a typeof default position affording a channel for generalised dissent that in most otherrespects lacks any precision or clear agenda. What is common to all these strategiesand to the eclectic combinations of supportive strands is an attempt to delegitimise

the Blair premiership and, in doing so, to reduce the reach of its inuence. Whetherthe attacks are implicit or explicit, they serve the same purpose of calling into ques-tion the legitimacy of leadership within the system. In using presidential terms of


18/21

308 MICHAEL FOLEY

reference to give emphasis to the question of the scale and nature of the Blair lead-ership, the objective is to make it into an issue and, thereby, into an object ofdisapproval.

In explaining the utility of the presidentialism claim as a political and rhetorical

device, it is evident that while it possesses several strengths, it is also characterised by signicant weaknesses. Its chief virtues are those of versatility and suggestive-ness. In fact, its very ambiguity as a category makes it a potent rhetorical device.The portmanteau character of presidentialism in this context of usage allows it to

become attached to a variety of political disquiet and dissent, while at the sametime giving the appearance of possessing focus and rationality. Whether it is usedto infer a temporary abnormality or a deepening condition, the presidential allu-sion succeeds in setting up the depiction of the prime minister as an object ofinated prominence solely in order to generate an anxiety over the political andconstitutional costs of such a process. Presidentialism offers a plausible framework

of estimation through which the phenomenon of the evolving premiership can be both gauged and condemned. Under the guise of representing a precise constitu-tional condition, the presidential reference has a promiscuous property that pro-vides access to anti-American prejudices; to notions of an alien presence or process;to resentment over new hierarchies; to concerns over governmental dysfunction;to irritation over the distractive elements of the grandiose and the trivial inherentin a personalised ofce; and to fears over the relationship between political lead-ership and democratic values.

The claim of presidentialism can be highly effective in characterising the promi-nence of Tony Blairs premiership in terms of a constitutional coup secured byevading traditional constraints, by exploiting the open-textured nature of consti-tutional conventions and by utilising the publics ambivalence towards constitu-tional issues. The emphasis upon a different constitutional order decisively depicted

by reference to a de facto presidential presence succeeds in drawing attention toits counterpointnamely the sense of something being lost rather than of some-thing being gained. The form of the reputed change, together with the apparentprocess of its inception, implicates a concealed yet systemic shift in governingarrangements. This notion of a concealed shift both elicits populist suspicions overself-aggrandising elitism and draws upon public dissatisfaction and even cynicismover contemporary politics.

The limitations of the presidential analogy or metaphor are equally noteworthy.For example, although the references to presidentialism rely for their effect upona sense of realism, they tend to assume what they are required to prove. Presi-dentialism is used as if it were a clearly dened state of existence that constitutesa precise frame of reference for analysis. However, a presidency is far from beingan objective entity susceptible to clear denition, or to a xed and bounded nature.In fact, the term presidential pertains to a variety of conditions. Even in the UnitedStates where the presidency is explicitly located within a historically establishedconstitution founded upon a single documentary base, it is accepted that the ofce

has an evolutionary character. It is seen as being dependent upon precedent, con-vention, contingency and an elusiveness that attends the possession of powersdrawn from executive prerogative. Given its problematic nature, the value of


19/21


presidentialism as an analytical and rhetorical instrument is limited by tautologi-cal aws. Just as premises and conclusions often appear to be indistinguishablefrom one another, so causes and effects can become interchangeable. Anindividual Prime Minister, for example, can be regarded as having introduced apresidential-style premiership to serve his or her own political interests, but forthe charge of presidentialism to have any purchase it is necessary to extrapolatethe effect into a systemic one. Nevertheless, in doing so, the individual ofce-holder can be reduced to that of merely an effect rather than an agency ofstructural change.

Other notable weaknesses include the indiscriminate way that presidentialism isused as a repository for almost any discernible change to the premiership; the con-fusion that is often evident over the extent to which presidentialism is seen as asign of political strength or weakness; and the difculties of evoking a republicanreaction to the executive power of a prime minister set against the continued pres-

ence of a constitutional monarchy. A limitation that warrants particular acknowl-edgement is the common disjunction that is made between, on the one hand, aclaim of fundamental change justifying a presidential depiction, and, on the otherhand, the assertion that a presidential premiership is necessarily a temporaryaberration. While using the presidential reference to portray a deep and systemictransformation, the solution often couched is one of an inevitable return to amore conventional structure of collective decision-making and accountability. Theinference is that because presidentialism is illegitimate it cannot persist. By thesame token, because the condition cannot be sustained then it is necessarily con-rmed as lacking legitimacy.

This disjunction is representative of a wider ambivalence over the charges ofpresidentialism. Notwithstanding the general absence of any dened sense of pre-scribed or expected reactions to such allegations, the accusation of presidentialismcan betray the presence of a mixed value judgement on the stated phenomena.For example, while the presidential allusion is customarily deployed as a device ofcondemnation, that indictment can be directed less to the features of presidential-ism and more to the fact that they have not been given formal recognitioni.e. itis not so much presidentialism per se that is the issue, but rather the way itsprocesses and reach have remained in the constitutional twilight (Mowlam 2002b).The thrust of such a proposition lies not in questioning the existence of a presi-dential dimension so much as in giving it appropriate recognition and attendingopenly to the challenges of having it legitimised and consciously curtailed (Allen2001, 52). Responses like these may well be disguised critiques, but they under-line the difculties of establishing a clear normative correlation to the empiricalclaims of presidentialism. In effect, presidentialism is not always construed as nec-essarily negative in nature and effect. As a consequence, its utility as an instru-ment of delegitimation is constrained by the ambivalence attached to its legitimacyas a political phenomenon.

About the AuthorProfessor Michael Foley , Department of International Politics, University of Wales, Penglais,Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3DA, email: [email protected]


20/21

310 MICHAEL FOLEY

BibliographyAllen, G. (2001) The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest About the UK Presidency (London: House of Commons).

Benn, T. (1982) Power, parliament and the people, New Socialist , September/October.

Blair, T. (1996a) New Britain: My Vision of a Young Country (London: Fourth Estate).

Blair, T. (1996b) Leaders speech to the Labour Party Conference, 2 September.Blair, T. (1998) The Third Way: New Politics for the New Century , Fabian Pamphlet No.588, September.

Buchanan, I. and Waller, D. (2002) The Americanization of Tony Blair, paper presented to the PSAAmerican Politics Group Conference, 35 January.

Driver, S. and Martell, L. (1998) New Labour: Politics After Thatcherism (Cambridge: Polity).

Fairclough, N. (2000) New Labour, New Language ? (London: Routledge).

Fisher, L. (1995) Presidential War Power (Lawrence: University Press of Kentucky).

Flinders, M. (2002) Governance in Whitehall, Public Administration , 80:1, 5175.

Foley, M. (1993) The Rise of British Presidency (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

Foley, M. (2000) The British Presidency: Tony Blair and the Politics of Public Leadership (Manchester:

Manchester University Press).Foley, M. (2002) John Major, Tony Blair and a Conict of Leadership (Manchester: Manchester University

Press).

Franklin, B. (2001) The hand of history: New Labour, news management and governance, in S. Ludlamand M. J. Smith (eds), New Labour in Government (Basingstoke: Macmillan), 130144.

Gould, P. (1998) The Unnished Revolution: How the Modernisers Saved the Labour Party (London: LittleBrown).

Hargrove, E. C. (2001), The presidency and the prime ministership as institutions: an American per-spective, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations , 3:1, 4970.

Heffernan, R. (2003) Prime ministerial predominance? Core executive politics in the UK, The BritishJournal of Politics & International Relations , 5:3, 347372.

Hennessy, P. (1999) The Blair Centre: A Question of Command and Control? (London: Public ManagementFoundation).

Hennessy, P. (2000a) The Prime Minister: The Ofce and its Holders Since 1945 (London: Allen Lane).

Hennessy, P. (2000b) The Blair style and the requirements of twenty-rst century premiership, Political Quarterly , 71:4, 386395.

Holme, R. (1987) The Peoples Kingdom (London: Bodley Head).

Jessop, B., Bonnett, K., Bromley, S. and Ling, T. (1988) Thatcherism: A Tale of Two Nations (Oxford: Polity).

Jones, G. W. (1987) Cabinet government and Mrs Thatcher, Contemporary Record , 1:3, 812.

Jones, N. (1999) Sultans of Spin: The Media and the New Labour Government (London: Victor Gollanz).

Kampfner, J. (2003) Blairs Wars (London: Free Press).

Kavanagh, D. (2001) New Labour, new millennium, new premiership, in A. Seldon (ed), The Blair Effect (London: Little, Brown & Co), 320.

Kavanagh, D. and Richards, D. (2001) Departmentalism and joined-up government: back to the future?,Parliamentary Affairs , 54:1, 118.

Kavanagh, D. and Seldon, A. (1999) The Powers Behind the Prime Minister: The Hidden Inuence of Number Ten (London: HarperCollins).

Kernell, S. (1997) Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership (3rd edn) (Washington, DC:Congressional Quarterly Press).

Lee, J. M. (1995) The prime minister and International Relations, in D. Shell and R. Hodder-Williams(eds), Churchill to Major: The British Prime Ministership since 1945 (London: Hurst), 200224.

Lijphart, A. (ed) (1992) Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Marquand, D. (1998) The Blair paradox, Prospect , May.

Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. A. W. (eds) (1992) Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford: Clarendon).

Marsh, D., Richards, D. and Smith, M. J. (2001) Changing Patterns of Governance in the United Kingdom:Reinventing Whitehall? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).


21/21


Morrison, J. (2001) Reforming Britain: New Labour, New Constitution? (London: Reuters).

Mowlam, M. (2002a) Momentum: The Struggle for Peace, Politics and the People (London: Hodder andStoughton).

Mowlam, M. (2002b) Mo MowlamInside New Labour , Channel Four broadcast, 5 May.

Mughan, A. (2000) Media and the Presidentialisation of Parliamentary Elections (Houndmills: Palgrave).

Naughtie, J. (2001) The Rivals: The Intimate Story of a Political Marriage (London: Fourth Estate).

Norton, P. (2000) Barons in shrinking kingdoms: senior ministers in British government, in R. A. W.Rhodes (ed), Transforming British Government Volume 2: Changing Roles and Relationships (Basingstoke:Palgrave), 101124.

Norton, P. (2003) The presidentialisation of British politics, Government and Opposition , 38:2, 274278.

Oborne, P. (1999) Alastair Campbell: New Labour and the Art of Media Management (London: Aurum).

Oliver, D. (2003) Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Rawnsley, A. (2001) Servants of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour (rev edn) (London: Penguin).

Rentoul, J. (2001) Tony Blair: Prime Minister (London: Little Brown).

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reexivity and Accountabil-

ity (Buckingham: Open University Press).Riddell, P. (2000) Parliament under Blair (London: Politicos).

Routledge, P. (1998) Gordon Brown: The Biography (London: Pocket Books).

Short, C. (2003) HC Debates, Col 38, 12 May.

Smith, M. J. (1999) The Core Executive in Britain (Basingstoke: Macmillan).

Toynbee, P. and Walker, D. (2001) Did Things Get Better?: An Audit of Labours Successes and Failures (London:Penguin).

Vincent, J. (1987) The Thatcher governments, 19791987, in P. Hennessy and A. Seldon (eds), RulingPerformance: British Governments from Attlee to Thatcher (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Vincenzi, C. (1998) Crown Powers, Subjects and Citizens (London: Pinter).

Wainwright, H. (2002) Mapping power, Red Pepper , 93 (February).

Documents

Modern Britain Pre Reading