to Westminster systems such as Australia, Britain, and Canada as well as West
European parliamentary systems. 2
Foley’s ( 2000 ) analysis of ‘‘spatial leadership’’ has proved inXuential. The phrase
refers to ‘‘the way in which political authority is protected and cultivated by the
creation of a sense of distance, and... detachment from government.’’ He sees
Margaret Thatcher as the pioneer in Britain. From the start, she was an outsider in
her own party with an unconventional political and policy agenda with populist
appeal. She became distanced from her own government, respected by the public
for her leadership while few supported her policies. Tony Blair dared to be Thatcher
and ‘‘raised the concept and application of spatial leadership to unprecedented
levels of development and sophistication’’ (Foley 2000 , 98 , 110 ). The key methods
are ‘‘going public,’’ or building support by appealing to the public over the heads of
government and entrenched interests, and ‘‘getting personal,’’ or using the media in
all its forms to build personal rapport with the public independent of party and
government. They are no longer leaders but ‘‘Xagships’’ (Foley 2000 ), dominating
the media coverage, waging permanent election campaigns, and exercising a major
inXuence over election results. The party remains under tight control and the
leader often reminds the party not only of their duty to the public but of his special
link with them. Indeed, Foley’s argument seems to be more about the changing role
of parties and party leadership than about prime ministers and cabinets.
Such presidential tales are not told of all prime ministers (see Hennessy 2000 ,
chapter 19 ). Of the twelve postwar British prime ministers, only three have
attracted the epithet ‘‘presidential’’—Harold Wilson ( 1964 – 70 ), Margaret Thatcher
( 1979 – 90 ), and Tony Blair ( 1997 onwards). And of these three, judgments about
their presidentialism varied while they were in oYce. It helps to distinguish
between the electoral, policy-making, and implementation arenas.
First, personalization is a prominent feature of media management and electio-
neering in Britain. If we must use presidential language, it is here in the electoral
and party arena that it is most apt. Wilson, Thatcher, and Blair wereWgureheads
(see for example Seymour-Ure 2003 ). Spatial leadership has arrived.
In the policy-making arena, there is some truth to the claim of a centralization of
policy-making on the prime minister’s oYce.However, for Australia, Canada, as well
as Britain, this claim applies to selected policy areas only, with the equally important
proviso that the prime minister’s attention is also selective. Thus, the continuous
reform of the British center speaks of the failure of coordination, not its success.
The prime minister’s inXuence is most constrained in the policy implementation
arena, so it is conspicuous for its absence in most accounts of presidentialism.
Here, other senior governmentWgures, ministers and their departments, and other
2 On the comparative analysis of Westminster systems see Campbell 1998 ; Foley 2000 ; Hargrove
2001 ; Savoie 1999 ; and Weller 1985. On the small Westminster systems of the PaciWc see Pattapan,
Wanna, and Weller 2005. For the equivalent debate in Canada see Punnett 1977 , ch. 1 ; and cf. Savoie
1999 with Bakvis 2000. For Australia, see Aulich and Wettenhall 2005 ; and Weller 1993.
328 r. a. w. rhodes