Is Tony Blair more like a President than a Prime Minister
             In order to assess whether Tony Blair's leadership is more presidential than prime ministerial, one must first consider the significant differences between the presidential and Parliamentary regimes.
             The Presidential system of government is characterised by a constitutional separation of powers between the legislative (congress) and the executive (the Presidency). In Britain, however, the executive and legislative overlap. 'In theory, the US President exercises all of the prerogatives of the executive, and the British Prime Minister is obliged to share executive competencies. The US President (following advice from his staff and Cabinet) makes legislative recommendations to Congress, whereas the British Prime Minister (following consultations within the executive and having reached some form of collective agreement) issues legislative instructions to Parliament.'1
             The US constitution secures the Presidents position in office for a term of four years and they cannot be dismissed by congress (except through impeachment). However, 'looser party discipline means the President cannot regularly command Congressional support for his policies since their party may be in the minority in Congress. The British Prime Minister, in contrast, has relatively more power: provided the support of the majority party is sustained he or she leads both the executive and legislative arms of government.'2
             The prolific use of the term 'presidential' in relation to Tony Blair's leadership can be used in both senses of the word. Firstly, to express the magnitude of Blair's leadership, and secondly as a means of expressing a qualitative shift away from the more traditional British political process. 'The analogy comes in a variety of guises and contexts that are differently motivated, have different sources and implications, and are diffe...