- Is the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the
- How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the
- Given a choice between serving as the president of the
Friday, October 23, 2015
Blog Discussion Group Six
Blog post due at 11:55pm on October 27 and comment due at 11:55pm on October 30.
Britain
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteGiven a choice between the two, I would choose to serve as president of the United States. The president is primarily responsible for the interests of the American People, while the prime minister reports to parliament, rather than the people directly. If I were a leader, I would prefer to take into account the people's concerns rather than the will of the legislative body.
What if the parliament is corrupt or misrepresentative of the people? I would rather not be put in that position. As a president, if I did a good job of serving the American people, they will reelect me for another term. Furthermore, I feel like a prime minister may be more subject to coercion behind closed doors. Members of parliament who hold lots of political power could meet with the Prime Minister and privately coerce me to promote their own agenda. Of course, this sort of danger would still be present in the presidential system. But I think it would be less likely in a system in which the executive branch is primarily held responsible by the people.
I agree with the reasons that you gave for serving as U.S. president rather than the prime minister but some of the things that the US president has do deal with makes me want to take on the responsibility of rather serving as prime minister.
DeleteThe president of the U.S. has to go through months of battling back and forth between the house and the senate to get simple things done. There is a lot of grid lock in Washington, D.C. The prime minister serves as the head of parliament, which is the ruling party of parliament. The Prime Minister get statues passed quicker. He is also working in the interest of the people. The prime minister has to have meetings with the queen on a weekly basis but he doesn't go through the headaches that the president of the U.S. has to go through. In my opinion anyone that serves as head of state or government doesn't have to tolerate corruption because they have the power to stop it, rather it be from the president's end, and getting the justice department involved or just do what the prime minister has the power to do and remove them from office. The only reason I would not want to serve as prime minister is because they could remove me because of low public opinion. I would rather have the prime minister serve in terms so I could have a chance to turn things around rather then be replace for lack of giving me a chance.
I think serving as a Prime Minister would be easier since they mainly have to answer to Parliament. A president has to answer to both Congress and the American public. If the American public is unhappy with government, they tend to blame the president more than Congress. Since the Prime Minister is essentially an extension of parliament, the British public is more likely to blame parliament. I don't think I'd like having too much power, therefore I'd prefer to be prime minister than president.
DeleteHow does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteBritain's prime minister and President of the United States represent the executive branches of their respective governments. However, they are actually very different in terms of the scope of their powers. One distinction to be made between the two is found in their roles in making legislation and policy. For the president, Congress drafts a bill that he can then either sign into law or veto and send back to Congress. However, in the parliamentary system, Parliament may pass an act, but they have little actual say in how the policy is actually drafted. That power falls to the Prime Minister, and his Cabinet and cabinet committees - which he handpicks himself. This gives the Prime Minister a measure of power that the president does not have. It allows him to surround himself with people (often his own party members) who already agree with his views, so that policy can be drafted the way he wants. Prime Ministers such as Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher went so far as to include a very small network of political allies in their Cabinet meetings and decision-making process. This power allows legislation to be passed and enacted without the typical Washington-style deadlock that the President often faces.
However, the Prime Minister takes a risk whenever he acts too unilaterally. These small, one-sided Cabinet meetings were ultimately the demise of Margaret Thatcher, resulting in her removal as Prime Minister. Since a vote of no-confidence is equally as rare as a presidential impeachment, the only real check on the Prime Minister's power is the relationship he shares with his Cabinet and cabinet committees - a relationship of collective responsibility. And when the scope of said responsibility is narrowed too much, the Prime Minister often finds himself with no support and forced to step down.
It is very interesting to see such a distinct difference between powers held by these top political figures such as the one you highlighted. It seems that in comparison to the U.S., Britain has a much easier time getting legislation passed, largely in part I would guess to the point that you highlighted. Having direct influence over those around you and the direction that is taken when policy is being drafted is a huge advantage that the prime minister would have over the U.S. President. This would seemingly eliminate a lot of political gridlock that occurs here in the states, and open the doors for more flexibility and efficiency.
DeleteThatcher is a great example of a strong, conservative leader that Britain no doubt needed at the time. She is also a strong example of how a tight circle can be both a positive and a negative. Keeping the circle around you small and tight can allow for improved effectiveness and less room for debate when in policy discussion, but does freeze out a large part of the parliament and could easily create enemies. That was the case with Thatcher ultimately, as she led such a small circle that people within her own party became frustrated and broke off, leading to her resignation in 1990.
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Brittan, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe President of America is presented as the world’s most powerful person. He is the most powerful politician in any world democratic nations. He have powers for as executive, legislative, financial, judicial and diplomatic. He has the power to appoint Chief Justice and the Judges of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court.
The Prime Minister is also a powerful person. He is elected by the legislative a Member of Parliament and the head of his party. He always commands support of parliament and the power to push through legislation. The Prime Minister has the ability to influence the judicial branch. Because he controls the majority if things goes wrong he is held accountable. If things goes well then he gets the praise. His election are not fixed. He has the power to set the timing for a general election for his benefits.
They both have control and power of their executive branches to appoint and terminate cabinet members. However the legislative and judicial powers are different. The federal structure of America has restraints on the power of the president versus the British Prime Minister does not. The powers of congress and the Supreme Court are used to balance the power of the president while his time in office. The Constitution of America has constraints on what the president can and cannot do. The Prime Minster has no restrictions.
Given a choice I would serve as President of the United States. The President holds a respectable title. The president has enormous authority and power and he is the main figurehead of the American political structure. Whatever the presidents says or does is recorded around the nation. To fight the president you fighting all of America and what the nations stands for. The Prime Minister does not have the same international standing as the President. The President is the head of the state and government and the Prime Minister is only the head government. The President serves a 4 year term and the Prime Minster serves a 5 year term. The Prime Minister can be relieved of his duties of anytime if he does not get the support of his party in the house. The Prime Minister has to answer to legislative and accountable to the House of Commons. The President is not responsible to the legislative for his actions, conducts and policies. The president position is more secure and the only way he be removed for misconduct is to be impeached and that is very hard to do.
I find it admirable that you chose to answer this question because it is a difficult one to answer. Admittedly, I opted to blog about another topic when I couldn't reach a decision.
DeleteThe U.S. President has job security (as long as he doesn’t commit treason) and as you said, “has enormous authority and power”. In making your decision, was culture a factor? Specifically, did you consider the cultural difficulties the American President faces? For instance, Americans tend to distrust all politicians including the President. This coupled with free speech lends to continuous scrutiny and criticism of the President. Add in the constitutional restraints and this must be a very frustrating job.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister has less constitutional restraints and is more productive in enacting/revising laws in that he/she has more autonomy to do so. But, the Prime Minister lacks job security. With that said, I am still at an impasse and unable to make this choice. But, Sharon, you made many good points. Thank you. : )
Both the prime minister and the U.S. president are heads of their respective government. In Britain, the prime minister is not the head of state. Instead, that is delegated to the Queen of England. This title for Britain is mostly just symbolic. In the U.S., the president is both head of state and head of government.
ReplyDeleteWhile the U.S. president has to answer to the public and, on a smaller scale, to their party, the British prime minister has to appease the party. In Britain, parties decide who the prime minister will be. In the U.S., the parties have much less influence in determining the president, therefore increasing the power of the president to act outside the party platform. The British prime minister’s power is also lessened due to the fusion of powers on the national level. Even a strong prime minister who can influence the cabinet still has less power than a president with a separation of powers. If a prime minister does not listen to their cabinet and party, they can be ousted quickly by party members.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteIn the USA, people vote for the person they want to be president. They do this by picking the members of an electoral college that formally appoints him or her. In the UK, people vote for MPs who support a political party, the leader of the party with most MPs then becomes the prime minister.
That means the president can make decisions on their own because people have voted for them personally, whereas the prime minister is expected to discuss things with other ministers and MPs from their party.
The prime minister picks their cabinet from Members of Parliament. The president can pick anyone they like (as long as they are approved by the US Senate).
That means they can pack it full of people who will support their policies, giving them a lot more strength when making decisions.
The president is also the USA's head of state, in the UK that job is done by The Queen.
The general powers exercised by a British Prime Minister include:
• The power to appoint, reshuffle or dismiss cabinet ministers
• The power to create new peers to the House of Lords
• The power to give out honors
• The power to appoint top civil servants, ambassadors, bishops and judges
• The power to determine government business and Cabinet
discussions/agendas
• The power to withhold information from the Houses of Parliament if deemed
necessary
• The power to use the media via a lobby system
• The power to terminate the life of a government and call a general election
If I had to chose between the two positions of office, I would much rather serve as the president of the U.S. not only because it is clearly an attractive position in terms of political power throughout the world, but also because the level of impact that an individual who uses the power equal to that of the U.S. president is more capable of making a direct impact on the lives of the citizens within our sovereign nation as well as holding the unique position to affect global politics. While one could easily make the argument that today’s presidents are, for all intents and purposes, puppets who are beholden to the will of their corporate sponsors and the superpack interest groups that fund their election campaigns; this argument in turn could easily be said about the prime minister of Great Britain has equally abhorrent obstacles to overcome such as issues concerning the stagnation of policy changes within parliament or facing constant scrutiny from the parliament and voting body. The president’s “contract” to serve for a fixed term gives a period of time that can be subjectively deemed worth more from an impact perspective versus the concept that a prime minister can only hold office for as long as the voters and the parliament deem necessary. From a functional standpoint, while prime ministers have a more direct ability to influence policies within their government, the question remains, how long will their political positions remain the prevailing force within the parliament. In contrast, while policy decisions by a president will take a longer time to gain approval and form themselves into laws through the congress and the house of representatives, once approved by the majority of the legislative body, the specific policies will be held in place for however long the president continues to hold office, there is no lingering confidence relationship being held over the head of the policymakers.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that being the president would carry more benefits. Specifically the contractual term that is set when taking office as the president. I think that this would be a benefit because you don't have to worry that the first time you make a decision that people may not like, you are not going to be removed from office. You have a chance to perhaps repair the mistake that was made or show the people that long term positive effects that a change can have for the people.
DeleteI do like though that you have commented on several of the concepts that really worry me about government in general. It seems that many of the figures in office that are "puppets" to people that will donate to their campaigns. Government officials can be bought off to perhaps push policies for certain group that contribute to corporations that is favored by that official.
It seems to me that the system is no longer in it to push the opinions of the people but to push the opinions of who has the most money to offer.
I agree and like your opinions about the Prime Minister and to some extent the President being a symbolic figure. Granted the President is not simply a figure and is important part of policy making in the United States, that contrast to the Prime Minister of Britain is completely different. We see the desire to uphold tradition in a different light in England than in the United States, the Prime Minister is not very influential but is important to their government and their people in the facet of tradition almost as much as our President is necessary for the government to function.
DeleteGiven a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI would prefer to be the prime minister of Great Britain, because of the position’s vast abilities and increased window to get things done within the scope of their government. The prime minister can directly affect the cabinet by appointing, reshuffling duties, or dismissing members as well as creating new peers in the House of Lords. That in-of itself showcases the influence that the prime minister has on the overall operation of the British parliamentary system. The prime minister also has the ability to appoint top civil servants, ambassadors and judges, as well as bishops. Another very important power is the power to determine government business the daily agenda within the cabinet. This ability directly influences what POTENTIALLY could be done within the legislature, alone giving the prime minister more ability than the President of the U.S.
An interesting element of the Parliamentary system in Britain is the fusion of power and shared origin shared by the various bodies within the government. Players within the Parliament include the prime minister, cabinet, cabinet committees, as the House of Commons and House of Lords. These various positions and groups lean on one another for survival and must exist as a cohesive unit to ensure a successfully ran government. This pressure removes many political gridlocks and opens up the system to get more things accomplished in a more efficient manner. Being a large figure within a system that allows for things to operate more smoothly would be very attractive when choosing between the prime minister position and the president of the United States.
Id have to agree if it were to pursue leadership for the power, I'd definitely choose the prime minister over the presidency.
DeleteThe prime minister had defined much more say control and ability them that of the president.
However, becuase of this fact I am not entirely sure that I want to live under this type of rule with out the cheek a and balances that we have with the presidency. In my opinion it is scary to think that one person could be be granted so much power without necessarily anyone to question or be able to,answer to or advise to why the decide is needed or necessary. This does however come with pros and cons. I am inclined to believe the old cliche that two heads are better than one so the consensus of the many is most like better than the choice of just one. So yes in pursuit of power id definitely want to be prime minister but living as a citizen user this type of power would concern me greatly.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing the power of the Prime Minister to that of the U.S. President, we must consider power in foreign and domestic affairs. The U.S. President has more power in foreign affairs than the Prime Minister. While the British Prime Minister has more domestic power than the U.S. President.
Globally, within democratic states, political power is driven by size and strength of both economy and military. The stronger the economy and military, the more political power a country holds. Comparatively, Great Britain has a weaker military and less powerful economic standing than the U.S. Whereas, the U.S. has the most modern military force and one of the world’s largest economies. Therefore, when it comes to foreign affairs, the U.S. is more powerful; the U.S. President is more powerful than the Prime Minister.
On the contrary, when considering domestic power, the Prime Minister is more powerful than the U.S. President. The Prime Minister can push through domestic legislation because he is both Prime Minister and party leader. The constitutional restraints that are on the U.S. President do not exist in Britain. The president can veto a bill from Congress but overuse of this can devalue the presidential position and the U.S. political structure. In Britain, only the Queen can stop a bill from becoming law under the current political set-up. If the Prime Minister has a large parliamentary majority, then he has immense domestic powers with far less restrictions placed on him than the U.S. President.
I like that your post covered the fact that just because the Prime Minister seems to have less power and hold more of a "puppet" like seat, they still have different abilities due to the structure of their constitutions and legislative style. I also like that you pointed out how the important difference comes in the President's ability to veto and the Prime Minister's ability to have equal power depending on his favor from the parliament itself.
DeleteHow does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteThere are MANY powers of both the prime minister and the U.S. President. Both share the common power of being able to appoint and dismiss members of government. For example, the prime minister can appoint or dismiss members of the government, Cabinet members, and Cabinet ministers. The president nominates federal judges for Senate confirmation, appoints US district court judges, appoints top officials for all of the federal agencies, and appoints his staff of aides, advisers, and assistants. The prime minister is the public face and voice of Her Majesty's government while the U.S. president is the face of foreign nation relations.
The prime minister is the head of the UK governments and responsible for the policies and decisions of the government. The prime minister also oversees the operation of the civil service and government agencies and is the principle government figure in the House of Commons. The prime minister commands the majority in the House of Commons and has the power of both the legislative and the executive powers holding the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and the Minister of the Civil Service and leading the Cabinet by controlling its agenda.
The U.S. president has implied powers and is also granted powers through acts of Congress. The president has the power to sign or veto legislation, ask for written opinion of his Cabinet, prepare the budget for Congress approval, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves or pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and can issue executive orders. The president can call the National Guard into federal service in times of need and manages national affairs and workings of the federal government.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. President?
ReplyDeleteThe power of the U.S. President is very much different from the power of the Prime Minister. The prime minister is head of the state where as the President is head of the government and state. The prime minister gets the agenda for what is going on with the government agenda for the day. He discusses what is going to be the topic for the day's discussions. The Prime Minister is head of the political party that has the most votes and in turn he or she has the final say on the laws and statues that has to be passed. The prime minister has the power to appoint and dismiss members of cabinet. He can also appoint bishops and judges. Even though the prime minister has a lot of power it can be cut short because he can be removed from that position because of low public opinion. He has to meet with the queen on a weekly basis to discuss matters. Even though the queen is a symbolic representation of unity of the country she still has a right to voice her opinion about what is going on in the country. So if the queen has an issue about the passed laws and statues it would be in the prime ministers best interest to abide by the queen opinions.
On the other hand the president of the United States is head of the government and the state. He has the final word on the laws that are passed. If a bill is passed in the house and senate he can veto the bill and the bill either goes back to be revised and then re voted on or the bill is dead. Once the presidents signs something into law it can only be undone if it is declared by the supreme court that it is unconstitutional. The president has a fixed term and he can not be removed because of public opinion. He has to go through a process of being impeached which takes congress to vote and a certain amount of votes has to be accumulated for that to happen. That process has not happened to much in the history of the U.S. He is commander in chief of our armed forces. He is the top dog during war time. With help from his advisors he makes the decisions on commanding the troops. Usually when things go wrong in the country or during war time people blame him because the buck stops with him. He appoints judges to a life position of the supreme court. He also appoints members of his cabinet but that only lasts as long as he is president usually for either four or eight years. If he sees fit, during his term in office, he can replace members of his cabinet. The president does not have the power to get things done in a quick matter like the prime minister does because there is a serious of check and balance that has to be done in order to get things accomplished. The prime minister does not have that problem because the executive and the legislative branches are fused together and the party with the most votes has the power and he is head of that party.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president.
ReplyDeleteWell the president of the united states is considered to be the most powerful person in the world but but really he is not. His power is limited and restricted by the congress and the courts. He is confined by the Constitution and the judges that interpret these written laws and is unable to edit amend or change these laws or any laws with out the consent of congress. Britain prime minister on the other hand doesn't have the checks and balances that the presidents does the Prime minster has autonomy in many areas. to begin with, Britain does not have a written constitution to govern , limit or dictate define or as foundation for there rights and or laws. Also like the president of the united states the Prime Minister can appoint , restaff and dismiss cabinet members. they can create new peers to the house of lords and to give out honors. he or she can appoints civil servants ambassadors, bishops and judges . The prime minister can withhold information they see fit from the Parliament and use the media via lobby system and finally has the power to terminate the life of a government and call a general election.
So it would seem from the list of powers granted the prime minister by far has more power and authority or overall freedoms to run the government as they see fit with out many restraints or persons or other branches to contend or answer to.
Power is the ability to do something or act in a particular way. The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. How does the power of the Prime Minister compare with that of the US President? They are both chief executives. Head of policy implementations within their countries. Both are head of government and they have power in domestic affairs. In my opinion they only compare in job titles. Their job descriptions are different. For example, they both have control and power of their executive branches to appoint and terminate cabinet members. However the legislative and judicial powers are different. The federal structure of America has restraints on the power of the president versus the British Prime Minister does not. The powers of congress and the Supreme Court are used to balance the power of the president while his time in office. The Constitution of America has constraints on what the president can and cannot do. The Prime Minster has no restrictions. The Prime Minister has to answer to legislative and be accountable to the House of Commons. He can be relieved of his duties of anytime if he does not get the support of his party in the house. The President is not responsible to the legislative for his actions, conducts and policies. The president position is more secure and the only way he be removed for misconduct is to be impeached and that is very hard to do. So it’s really hard to say how they compare.
Delete