In theory it is thought that the UK Prime Minister has more power in domestic affairs and the president has more powers in foreign affairs. This to some extent is true, but with the changes in style of both the Prime Minister and President this is not always the case.

‘In terms of domestic policy the UK Prime Minister has more power’ because he is able to dominate his part, legislature and to an extent, the executive branch. He holds substantial power over his party machine and hasn’t got a clear separation of powers. As the head of the majority party in parliament he expects loyalty as a matter of course when forwarding legislation and because of this he has the power to pass laws almost with ease. A powerful Whip system contributes to maintaining his party loyalty. The president however, normally has to fight for his loyalty. In the US system loyalty is not guaranteed. Despite the success of presidents such as Roosevelt in maintaining party loyalty in congress, presidents such as Carter show that loyalty can be a struggle. Because of the loyalty the Prime minister is g

‘In terms of Foreign Policy, the US President has more power’ because of what he is expected to do. The President is expected to ‘defend the country during war-time and to keep it strong during peacetime’. Only the president can decide whether to use nuclear weapons or not. As the Foreign Policy Director, the constitution gives the President the power to appoint ambassadors, make treaties, and receive foreign diplomats. The Foreign Policy is also able to refuse to recognise a newly formed government, propose legislation dealings with foreign aid and other international activities, and make executive agreements with foreign leaders without senate approval.

‘In terms of domestic policy the UK Prime Minister has more power, in terms of Foreign policy the US President has more power’ is not as accurate as it is made out to be. It is true to say that the Prime minister is more dominant when it comes to domestic policy because of his role as a politician rather than that of a politician and that of representing the nation interests. The Prime minister is relived of such duties as to receiving ambassadors and dignitaries from abroad so he is able to concentrate his efforts on the domestic sides of things. Unlike the President, he is not limited as he is the most dominant figure in politics, and although he is first amongst equals in the cabinet, because of loyalty etc, it is not difficult to get laws passed though cabinet and into the commons, which again, he dominates because of the seats that the party would hold. The president on the other hand is restricted by the separations of powers and the ‘checks and balances’ system, which means the presidents, can find it difficult to get proposals enacted into law. IN the Area of Foreign policy however, with the changing role of the Prime Minister, both men are generally in charge of the direction of the Governments external relations and declare the tone of the nation foreign policy. But although the president is probably more dominate in the proceedings that that of the Prime minister they both have roughly the same amount of power, thus making the statement inaccurate. The President also faces limitations from the senate, as any treaty has to be approved by 2/3rds majority. However, in times of crisis the president can act quickly and it is his discussion on what to do, i.e. 9 11. So in reality, both dominate their fields, but when it comes to powe

Some topics in this essay:
Prime Minister, House Speaker, Chief Diplomat, Foreign Policy, Commons Prime, Chief Legislature, Unlike President, prime minister, George Bush, Policy President, According British, foreign policy, domestic policy, foreign policy president, policy president, uk prime, uk prime minister, domestic affairs, terms foreign policy, president hand, ‘in terms, terms domestic policy, chief diplomat, president power, prime minister power,