points by BoxOfRain 3 days ago | 0 comments
I wonder what is causing the centralisation around the executive branch in Western democracies? While the US is the more extreme example of the phenomenon, in the UK power has been consolidating in Number 10 for decades and the PM role has become more presidential than tradition dictates; compare say Tony Blair who was a very personal leader with Clement Attlee whose leadership style was more collaborative. The two systems are very different constitutionally, so it feels like there's broader factors causing this.
[–] wat10000 3 days ago
[–] AngryData 3 days ago
Wealth is the problem. Wealth buys media, PR, and propaganda. Wealth buys positions of viable candidacy. No body even thinks it is remotely possible for some rando off the street to get elected to a federal office, not because they lack intelligence or policy or anything, entirely because they need massive amounts of wealth to even be seen over the cacophony of others backed by a million+ dollars worth of megaphones. But of course after these powerful and/or wealthy assholes gain position they need to hold it, and since they lack a backbone or coherent policy they just keep passing the buck to everyone else which eventually ends up in the executive's lap.
[–] pjc50 3 days ago
The UK is very good at getting rid of individual PMs. Larry the Downing Street cat has seen seven of them since 2011.
The PM has a lot of power, but is very dependent on MP support.
[–] BoxOfRain 3 days ago
I'd argue it's actually the Tories who are good at getting rid of individual PMs, the 1922 Committee gives their backbenchers a built-in regicide mechanism and the wider party has a culture of using it; even surviving the vote can hole a PM below the waterline. Labour leaders are harder to remove, Jeremy Corbyn for example survived his attempted deposition in 2016 and Reform's leadership entrenches the party leader further still. Having said that recent events support you more than me maybe, since Labour successfully deposed a sitting PM much in the same way the Tories repeatedly did.
Of course any PM still depends on Parliamentary support, by definition the Prime Minister is the one who can convince the monarch they can form a government which has the confidence of the House of Commons. My complaints of presidentialisation are more in the centralisation of power around Number 10, Blair was particularly known for it but it's been basically all of them in recent history.
It also seems to be a way for Congress to dodge responsibility. If you pass legislation to fix something by giving the president powers, you can claim credit. If it goes wrong, you can blame the president.