Using recent events in A Level Politics: Theresa May and presidentialism

Theresa May as Prime Minister: What are the key events?

On 24^th June 2016, David Cameron resigned as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister. He was succeeded by Theresa May. Perhaps May’s most significant actions as PM relate to her intention to take the UK out of the EU. In March, she signed the letter to the EU triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and beginning the Brexit process. In January 2017, May was the first foreign leader to meet Donald Trump after his inauguration as President. A dramatic turning point in May’s premiership was the election on 8^th June, 2017. May had previously declared that she would not call an early election, but changed her mind. Despite beginning the campaign ahead in the polls, May’s Conservative Party lost its majority in the election. May’s speech at the Tory Conference, in October 2017 was deemed disastrous by media commentators.

Theresa May as Prime Minister: How is it relevant to A-Level Politics?

Presidentialism

AQA paper 1: The government and politics of the UK

• The government of the UK
• The prime minister and cabinet

Edexcel component 2: UK government and non-core political ideas

• UK government
• Prime Minister and executive

Sample question: To what extent does the Prime Minister of the UK exercise presidential power?

The way May assumed the premiership did not put her in an ideal position to act presidentially. The incumbent Prime Minister stood down as leader of his party; May then won a leadership contest in the Conservative Party, which already held a parliamentary majority. She thus became PM without leading her party in a general election, so had no personal mandate – the fact that the presidents of countries like France and the USA are directly elected is a key source of their authority. Moreover, whereas presidents in the USA have great control over their cabinets, May’s Cabinet appointments were constrained by both the potential dangers of excluding powerful figures, and the need to balance Brexiteers with Remain supporters. She was not, therefore, obviously in a position to be a particularly presidential PM. However, between her assumption of the office of Prime Minister and the election in 2017, May arguably adopted a very presidential style. This may have been because, although she lacked a mandate personally, the referendum vote to leave the EU meant that she had a popular mandate for her central policy. Although the letter to the EU that triggered Article 50 was the result of a parliamentary vote, newspaper images showing May signing it alone behind her desk were reminiscent of those of a US President. May’s highly publicised meeting with Donald Trump, shortly after his inauguration as President of the United States, was perhaps intended to portray a personal relationship with the most powerful man in the world, implying equal personal status. May also followed the practice of presidents in various countries by relying heavily on a personally appointed staff of special advisers. Her joint chiefs-of-staff, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, were reputed to have considerable power and served at Mrs May’s pleasure. When the election campaign began, May’s presidentialism increased dramatically. Despite the fact that voters in the UK elect constituency representatives, rather than directly electing a national leader, May treated the election as if it were a presidential contest between herself and Jeremy Corbyn: she repeatedly encouraged votes ‘for me and my team’, and the central Tory slogan was ‘strong and stable leadership’. The Tory manifesto was drafted by May’s private staff, then circulated to cabinet colleagues once completed. Until June 8^th, therefore, much of May’s behaviour may be described as ‘presidential’. However, there is evidence of a backlash against May’s presidentialism. After her visit to meet Donald Trump, May was criticised for not challenging the misogynistic attitude that had become apparent during his campaign. This raised questions over whether May was a national figurehead who could work with powerful leaders on equal terms. During the election campaign, May’s presidentialism was hampered by a growing impression that she was cold and emotionless. Whereas presidents win their personal authority through charisma, May began to be portrayed in the media as the ‘Maybot’. Moreover, the Conservatives’ loss of seats in the election may be viewed as a sign that UK voters disapproved of a campaign that placed so much emphasis on the leader. The outcome seemed to deny May the personal mandate she had desired. Having called an election specifically for the purpose of increasing her majority, only for the existing majority to be lost, was a major embarrassment. Hill and Timothy were sacked after the election, and May adopted a much more conciliatory style, having lost any chance of claiming authority akin to that of a president. At the party conference in October, May felt obliged to apologise for a campaign that was ‘too presidential’. In stark contrast to presidents, who are elected personally and therefore irremovable figureheads, May was at the mercy of her party, her attempt to act presidentially having backfired. The speech at the Conservative Party conference seemed symbolic of May’s loss of any ‘presidential’ status. The personal leadership of a president is often linked to the ability to captivate, inspire, and rouse crowds at events surrounded by a certain degree of pomp. May’s speech was first interrupted by a protester, who irreverently handed her a mocked up P45, as though making clear her failure to command respect. A coughing fit that ensued shortly after, forcing May to break the flow of her speech, made commanding her audience impossible. When the letters on the backdrop behind May began to fall down one by one, it seemed to highlight the lack of any presidential prestige.