In terms of domestic policy the UK Prime Minister has more power, in terms of Foreign policy the US President has more power. How accurate is this?
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 guaranteed, this will help him create policies in domestic affairs easier and also he will have full support behind him.
The British Prime Minister has a more direct control over the legislative process than the US president, which on the other hand is limited due to the US system having separate powers. This in tern means that the president doesn't have as much authority in things such as domestic affairs. The president's position of supremacy in domestic politics lies in his title of Chief Legislature, which is in fact one of many titles he holds. Despite this the president is somewhat removed from the legislation of policy. In fact in some cases, such as budgetary bills in the US, the President is not even the