Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
The structural differences between the Presidency and the PM seem rather obvious. The US has presidential system where the president is elected independently of the legislature. In the UK the PM is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons in a Parliamentary System. This make all the difference. The president is elected by the people, through the Electoral College, for a maximum of two terms. The president is entirely separate from the legislature and often has never been a member of it. The president’s cabinet is no more than an optional advisory group and has no decision-making powers.
In the UK, the office of prime minister is the first among equals with executive power divided between the prime minister and cabinet. The prime minister is not directly elected to the office and there is no limit on the length of time he or she may serve. The prime minister gains that office only by being the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons. The prime minister and cabinet together form a plural executive which is why the prime minister is described as ‘first among equals’. Therefore the UK has 'Cabinet Government' - the government being comprised of the PM and the Cabinet but in the USA the government is the president- the cabinet is there to assist and advise but they do not share power. The president’s cabinet exists as part of a singular executive. When the president sits alone in a room, the the supreme executive authority is present- this is only true in the UK when the PM sits with his cabinet. All executive power is vested in the president, none in the cabinet. The president does not have an entirely free hand in appointing cabinet officers, as they must be approved by a majority vote in the Senate.
US president
US president
Elected as president
Chief executive and head of state
Legislation: initiating and veto powers but is not party leader in Congress where his party may not be in control.
Appoints cabinet but subject to Senate confirmation.
Negotiates Treaties but subject to Senate confirmation
Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, but only Congress can declare war
Writes the budget but Congress has the 'power of the purse'.
Has a vice president
Has (large) Executive Office of the President
Has a variety of means to pursue policy unilaterally:-E.g executive orders, signing statements, etc.
Limited to two full terms in office
UK prime minister
UK prime minister
Elected as party leader
Head of government only. The Monarch is Head of State
Draws up government’s legislative programme with cabinet
Appoints cabinet (no confirmation)
Can use royal prerogative to declare war and deploy troops abroad but recently more subject to parliamentary approval
May appoint deputy prime minister
Has (small) Number 10 staff and Cabinet Office
More likely to pursue policy collectively, through either cabinet or cabinet committees
No term limits
■ When the president proposes legislation to Congress in the State of the Union Address, it is really no more than a wish list. But at least it is the president’s own speech. The British prime minister gets to write the speech but it is delivered by the monarch in what today is called the Queen’s Speech. But it’s a lot more than a wish list. It is the government’s ‘to do’ list for the coming year — a list of near certainties. Clearly the two offices are affected by the separation of powers structure in the United States and the fusion of powers structure in the United Kingdom.
■ Both the president and prime minister may submit their annual budgets to their respective legislatures. But in the United States this marks only the beginning of many months of bargaining during which the president may be defeated on many items. In the UK, the budget submitted is to all intents and purposes the budget that will be passed.
■ Both the president and the prime minister fulfil the role of chief executive — though the president does so as part of a singular executive, while the prime minister is, in theory at least, part of a collective executive. Again, structural differences mean differences of political outcome.
■ Both also get to appoint numerous executive branch officials, but unlike the president, the prime minister does not require anyone to confirm those appointments before they take effect. The British prime minister lacks some significant powers that the American president enjoys, and most of them are performed by the monarch:
■ The president can sign and veto legislation. In Britain that is the power of the monarch, though a monarch has not refused to sign a bill passed by Parliament since 1707 — 80 years before the US Constitution was conceived. The president appoints all federal judges, but in Britain the power to appoint judges was given in 2006 to the independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
■ The president has the power of pardon — a power reserved to the monarch in Britain.
■ Most importantly, the president is not only chief executive (head of government) but also head of state. In Britain the two roles are separated with the monarch fulfilling the head of state role. However, the prime minister enjoys certain roles and powers of their own:
■ Prime ministers play an important role in Parliament and none more so than in answering questions at their weekly half-hour Question Time. A prime minister’s ability to ‘stand and deliver’ at Prime Minister’s Question Time is vital to their survival. Presidents face no such ordeal.
■ Prime ministers also make occasional statements to Parliament, appear before the Commons’ Liaison Committee and occasionally lead in significant parliamentary debates. Again, the American president plays none of the equivalent roles.
■ The prime minister’s patronage also extends beyond executive branch appointments to such posts as the chairmanship of the BBC and Church of England bishops and archbishops, and recommending life peerages.
The president has no formal links with Congress. Indeed, his party may be in the minority in one or both houses. But the president’s continuance in office does not rely on him winning votes in Congress. There are no votes of confidence that could abruptly bring his administration to an end and precipitate new elections. Even were the president to be impeached, found guilty and removed from office, the vice president would step up and take over. The president lacks both the sticks and carrots that the British prime minister enjoys in controlling the legislature. Congress possesses some significant checks on the president. It can:
■ amend, block or reject the bills and budgets he proposes
■ override the presidential veto
■ reject appointments to the executive and the judiciary (Senate)
■ reject treaties (Senate)
It also possesses powers to hold the president accountable through investigation and impeachment of any executive branch official, including the president.
However, the prime minister are subject to checks and scrutiny by Parliament . The Prime ministers’ survival depends on both their maintaining their leadership position and their party maintaining its majority status. Parliament can scrutinise and check the actions of the executive. It can hold the prime minister and government to account through: Question Time; select committees; policy debates; early day motions; and votes of no confidence.
So while a president might dream of having the kind of dominance over Congress which a Pm has over Parliament they probably don't envy the ordeal of PMQs and the constant necessity to beware rivals and rebels within their party. Theresa May's experience as PM is unlikely to serve as an example of prime ministerial dominance.
The structural difference identified above result in the most stark contrast when it come to the cabinet. Illustrated by the famous occasion when President Lincoln took a vote in his cabinet in which he was in a minority of one. He promptly declared his vote to have won since after all he is the government. When the president is alone in a room - the whole executive could be said to be in that room. This means the culture of the core executive is quite different in the UK and USA. The cabinet is not the president's most useful tool, he is likely to depend far more closely on his advisers chosen without Senate approval in the Executive Office and White House Office. This inner circle has much more of the culture of a court where having the ear of the president is the source of the only real influence. In this inner circle the Chief of Staff acts as enforcer, gate keeper and trusted adviser. It is also a place where the president can be surrounded by people he trusts and has know for many years- even members of his family.
Traditionally Cabinet Government in the UK operated quite differently with the Cabinet, Cabinet Committees and the Cabinet Office providing the PM with the means of exerting control over the machinery of government, but there has been a steady increase in the number and importance of SPADs or special advisers who form a kind of Number 10 machine to the extent that comparisons are made with the White House in an on going debate about the extent of presidentialism in the role of the PM. However, the PMs cabinet are colleagues and rivals as well essential to the concept of collective responsibility. Trump's sacking of cabinet secretaries who displeased him was accomplished with no thought that they might go on to take his job, but this is always a consideration for a PM. As the resignation of Geoffrey Howe led to her fall from power and John Major's admission that his cabinet contained minsters he considered to be 'bastards' show a culture of rivalry and necessity to chose cabinet appointments with care that is alien to a US president. The rational choice model is useful in understanding appointments to the cabinet as neutralising rivals and satisfying party factions are matters of PM survival. Theresa May's appointment of Boris Johnson to her cabinet must have been accomplished through gritted teeth.
The president can nominate anyone to be in his cabinet as long as he feels they will be given Senate approval. Serving members of the legislature barred from serving in the cabinet but can always resign first. President decides frequency and regularity of meetings which tend to become fewer and more infrequent during the president's time in office. Cabinet members are mostly recruited for their policy specialisation: rarely do they move to a different department. Cabinet members are often strangers to the president. He or she arrive in office with no shadow cabinet and Cabinet meetings are often the only time some cabinet members see the president. However in the UK membership exclusive to members of Parliament. Prime ministers are obliged to maintain frequency and regularity of meetings and Cabinet members are usually policy generalists: hence cabinet reshuffles.
No prime minister could ignore the collective will of the cabinet the way an American president can, and hope to survive in office for very long. Both PM and President will find their office is shaped circumstances and their own personality. Although the structures are quite different both offices allow for considerable flexibility and the opportunity to shape it or fail to mange it. From Trump's chaotic White House to Reagan's afternoon naps or Carters workaholic schedule or Blair's control freakery or Thatcher's iron lady, the view of both office have been seen as presidential , imperial or imperilled. The concept of the imperial presidency dates from the early 1970s, and in Britain Lord Hailsham popularised the phrase ‘the elective dictatorship’ in 1976. The concepts of ‘presidential government’ and ‘prime ministerial government’ gave way to the ‘imperilled presidency’. And the idea of the British prime minister as an elective dictator seemed less convincing following the demise of Margaret Thatcher in 1990, and also of David Cameron or Theresa May.
Edexcel Question 2 (comparative Paper 3 2022)
Edexcel Question 2 (comparative Paper 3 2022)
Analyse how the US President could be considered to be less effective than the UK Prime Minister in achieving their legislative goals.
For students taking the Edexcel exam, this question should be quite straightforward. It is only worth 12 marks so 20 minutes should suffice.
THERE ARE NO AO3 MARKS. So there's no need to 'answer' the question by agreeing or disagreeing. Simply explain how US presidents find getting their legislative proposals through Congress harder than UK PMs find getting theirs through Parliament.
Use recent examples
Use and apply at least one comparative theory.
The structural comparative theory is useful in understanding how US presidents find achieving thier legislative programme harder than UK PMs because of the difference in the structure of the respective constitutions. The fusion of powers in the UK and the separation of powers in the US, Since the legislative and executive branches of the constitution are fused this allows UK PMs to use patronage, and makes the UK Prime Minister more effective at directly influencing individual members of Parliament than the US President over Congress
The rational comparative theory is useful because UK Prime Ministers are the leaders of the biggest party in Parliament, whereas the US President is an elected figurehead who may not have the same broad party support from elected officials which means it is in the rational self-interest for UK MPs who are in the government party to support the PM's legislative programme since this will make promotion to the government through patronage more likely. The US president has no ability to exert influence on Congress through patronage.
The cultural comparative theory is useful in explaining how UK PMs find achieving their legislative programme easier than US presidents since there is an expectation that MPs will act according to a mandate model of representation. An MP's party identity is much more likely to be stronger in the UK than for members of Congress who are likely to see their role as akin to the trustee model. This means that there tends to be broader support within the UK Parliament for the Prime Minister’s policy proposals amongst their own MPs in particular, whereas the US President must negotiate more with individual members of Congress and party leaders within each chamber
Recent examples:
Rishi Sunak's Rwanda Bill which ultimately passed easily after pressure from the whips. Biden's funding for Ukraine was stalled in the House of Representatives.
A rational comparison of the US and UK executive branches shows how much the personality of leaders shapes their approach. In the US, Trump’s aggressive leadership style involved frequent firings of cabinet members and advisers, with a self-focused approach to creating and announcing policy. Obama, on the other hand, had a more collaborative style, evident in his strong partnership with Vice President Joe Biden and his work with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on passing healthcare reforms. In the UK, prime ministers’ personalities also matter. Margaret Thatcher was known for dominating policy decisions and sometimes ignoring advice, such as over the poll tax. By contrast, David Cameron, Rishi Sunak, and Keir Starmer have taken a more team-oriented approach, working closely with their inner cabinets to shape policy.
In most cases, prime ministers and presidents act in ways they believe are sensible and serve their best interests. They often have personal projects that shape legislation, driven by their passions: Clinton and Obama focused on healthcare; George W. Bush prioritized education and national security; Trump pushed for building a wall to block illegal immigration. In the U.S., the president can nominate cabinet officers, but the Senate must confirm them, though rejections are rare. For example, Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy as Secretary of Health and Human Services in January 2025, and the Senate confirmed him in February 2025. Similarly, UK prime ministers appoint key figures, such as Keir Starmer naming Wes Streeting as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in July 2024. Leaders also pursue policies they think are both good for the country and for their popularity—though sometimes, as with Tony Blair’s stance on the ‘war on terror,’ they accept unpopularity for what they believe is right. When appointing to top positions, prime ministers may include rivals in their cabinet to bind them by collective responsibility, reducing their ability to cause harm—like Blair appointing Gordon Brown as Chancellor or Theresa May naming Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary.
The cultural history of the US and UK is key to understanding how their presidents and prime ministers act, as well as how accountable they are to their legislatures. The US presidency dates back to the nation’s founding after the War of Independence, while the role of prime minister developed gradually over centuries. The title is often credited, posthumously, to Sir Robert Walpole, First Lord of the Treasury from 1721 to 1742, though his position was very different from that of modern prime ministers. Traditionally, US political culture has shown a level of respect and idealism toward the president that UK prime ministers, who are not heads of state, do not enjoy—partly due to the American dream’s romanticism that anyone can become president. However, growing party polarization has shifted this broad respect toward a more partisan one, making it more like the UK’s political atmosphere. In both countries, cultural norms shape expectations of presidential and prime ministerial power. While leaders in both systems have occasionally pushed beyond these limits, it is generally disapproved of, with figures like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Boris Johnson facing criticism for overstepping. In the UK, collective responsibility remains a key cultural standard, and prime ministers who disregard it can expect significant pushback.
In both countries, the media tend to place significant emphasis on the views and opinions of the president and prime minister, which can either boost or damage their public image. The president often has an easier time delivering the executive’s message than the prime minister, whose cabinet tends to be more visible. Recently, both have turned to social media platforms like X, Instagram, and TikTok to speak directly to their electorates. This media focus can keep them in the spotlight and allow them to take credit for positive developments. On the flip side, the same cultural norms mean they can be harshly judged in the press when things go wrong. Boris Johnson, for example, faced intense backlash over his Covid-19 policies and the outrage sparked by his adviser Dominic Cummings breaking lockdown rules. Similarly, Joe Biden’s cognitive health has been closely scrutinized, with questions raised about his fitness for a second term, while Keir Starmer came under fire for alleged cronyism after accepting gifts from wealthy donors.
The executive branches of the US and UK differ structurally in many ways. In the US, the presidency grew out of the War of Independence and the later constitutional convention. George Washington was the first president, making Donald Trump the 47th. All executive power rests with the president, who is elected by the people through the Electoral College for up to eight years. While they take the title of party leader, it carries little weight, and the president is completely separate from the legislature, never having been part of it. Their cabinet serves only as an advisory group without decision-making authority. In the UK, executive power is shared between the monarch, the prime minister, and the cabinet. The prime minister isn’t directly elected, can serve indefinitely, and gets the role by leading the largest party in the House of Commons, also acting as its de facto leader. The prime minister and cabinet form a plural executive, with the prime minister seen as ‘first among equals,’ though in reality they hold more influence. These structural differences between presidential and parliamentary systems lead to distinct behaviors in each.
• In the UK, the prime minister must be a member of Parliament and usually leads a majority in the Commons, making it easier to pass legislation. In contrast, the separation of powers in the USA means the president cannot be a member of Congress, which often makes it harder to pass their desired laws. These differences are especially clear when it comes to passing a budget. A UK prime minister, working with the chancellor, can expect the budget to pass if the government holds a majority, while a US president may need to bargain and negotiate, especially if Congress is controlled by the opposition. This can lead to government shutdowns in the USA, something that doesn’t happen in the UK due to the prime minister’s structural advantage. However, prime ministers leading minority governments or with slim majorities can be much weaker, resembling a US president facing a divided government, as seen with Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson before the 2019 election. Overall, the singular executive system in the USA and the cabinet government in the UK create significant differences in how each leader operates.
• In the USA, the cabinet holds less status, and its members are not rivals to the president. Meetings occur at the president’s discretion and are overshadowed by the Executive Office of the President as a policy-making body. Cabinet members are treated as subordinates and generally defer to the president, with meetings often serving as simple check-ins rather than major decision-making events. In contrast, the UK cabinet operates very differently. While US presidents choose whomever they wish, UK prime ministers may need to appoint political rivals and, if wise, involve key members in decision-making. Although the prime minister leads discussions, they should expect debate and occasional opposition. For example, Gordon Brown as chancellor prevented Tony Blair from joining the euro, and Theresa May’s Brexit strategies faced resistance from her divided cabinet. In the US, the constitution shapes a hierarchy where cabinet members see themselves as subordinates, but in the UK, regular meetings and participation—especially from senior members—are expected. A loss of cabinet confidence, as seen with Margaret Thatcher and arguably Theresa May, can force a prime minister to resign. This is unlikely in the US, where the president’s position is far more secure. Differences in administrative support also lead to distinct behaviors in both systems.
• The president has the EXOP and a chief of staff to help shape policy and coordinate the executive branch’s actions. This often creates rivalry between the cabinet and EXOP over access to the president and influence on policy initiatives. Thanks to structural dominance, the president decides how to use these systems, whether skillfully and effectively (e.g., Obama and George W. Bush) or with missteps (e.g., Clinton and Trump), but ultimately the support is theirs to direct. In contrast, the prime minister’s policy unit is much smaller than the EXOP, and the cabinet’s structural importance means the prime minister cannot use it to dictate policy independently as a president might.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse