PRESIDENCY ESSAY PLANS
SECTION A:
Examine the ways in which the roles of the US President and the UK Prime Minister are different.
(oct 2020)
-The US President has a more dominant role of being the head of state and head of government,
whilst PM has the role of being ‘primus inter pares’ (first amongst equals) amongst the Executive,
whilst the monarch is the head of state.
-Pres has a more entrenched role in the legislative role of the US , which can be specifiacally seen
through the power of veto, whereas PM does not have a direct say in the outcome of a law as
parliament is sovereign, and there is no equivalent of a veto in the UK
-Both the US President and the UK Prime Minister make appointments to the Cabinet, but only the
US president is required by the Constitution to seek approval of his appointments. E.g. Rishi Sunak
and DAVID CAMERON SERVING AS FOREIGN SECREATARY APPOINTED IN 2023
Examine the ability of the UK Prime Minister and US President to achieve their policy aims
Both require some sort of party unity in order to achieve their policy aims. In the UK, the Prime
Minister requires there to be party unity, in order to prevent rebellion within the party which can
hinder the PM’s agenda. This is usually done through part whips. Similarlly, in the US, the Pres
needs the support of both the House and Senate to pass legislation. If the houses are controlled by
different parties or if thre is sinficant opposition within the Pres’s party then problems arise. For
instance, when Obama came to power in 2008, the Houses were dominated by the Democrats,
which perhaps shows why his policy aim of healthcare reform through the ‘Affordable Care Act’
2010 was achieved.
The Supreme Court plays a key role in the way that the PM and Pres achieve their policy aims, due
to the power of judicial review. For instance, in the UK, the SC is given the power to issue a
declaration of incompatibility with the HRA (for a law). Similarly, in the US, the SC is given the
power of interpretations through judicial review (Established in Madbury v Madison) in the
Constitution. However, this can impact policy achievement by ruling on the constitutionality fo laws
and executive actions, potentially blicking presidential initiatives.
However there are systemic differences set in place. The parlimanetary system of the UK tends to
facilitate a more direct control over the legislative process for the PM, assuming they command a
moajoirty in the HOC. In contrast, the US Pres often faces more obstacles in achieving policy aims
due to the separation of powers and the need for bipartisanship in a divided Congress.
SECTION B:
Analyse how the US President could be considered to be less effective than the UK Prime Minister in
achieving their legislative goals [2022]
However there are systemic differences set in place. The parlimanetary system of the UK tends to
facilitate a more direct control over the legislative process for the PM, assuming they command a
moajoirty in the HOC. In contrast, the US Pres often faces more obstacles in achieving policy aims
due to the separation of powers and the need for bipartisanship in a divided Congress. (structural
theory due to political institutions and their role in the legislative process)
In the UK, the PM can make appointments to their Cabinet and HOL, which in turns facilitates
decision making due to having cabinet ministers and lords that are likely to further the agenda of
the PM-power of patronage e.g. David Cameron and Rishi Sunak. On the other hand, the US Pres
does not make appointments to the elected Chambers. This leaves decision making harder, as
, parties in both Houses are notgureanteed to be united, hence limiting the Pres power as most
would lead to gridlock or blocking. (structureal approach due to the elected nature of Congress.
UK POWER OF PERSUASION IS MORE EFFECTIVE DIRECTLY WITHIN PARLIAMENT THAN IN THE US
WITH CONGRESS. (structural approach due to institutions)
Analyse how the role and powers of the US President and the UK Prime Minister are similar [2023]
SIMILAR DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME!!!!!!
Both obtain the role of a ‘Commander-in-Chief’ though in the US the President is Commander-in-
Chief of the US Armed Forces according to its entrenched Constitution. In the UK, the PM is a
Commander-in-Chief through the royal prerogative powers. Same role but makes it similar due to
how the power is upheld. The royal prerogative power does not require Parliamentary authority,
despite Parliament’s sovereignty, though in the US, Congress has the power to declare war and the
‘power of the purse’ which perhaps undermines the Pres CIC power. (Cultural)
Both have a speech that outlines their legislative agenda for their term in power. In the UK, the PM
draws up the legislatice agenda and writes the Queen’s speech of the year. In the US, the Pres
delivers the State of The Union Address which serves as the legislative agenda, but has no power
to force it through Congress. In the UK, the PM tends to facilitate a more direct control over the
legislative process. (Cultural)
They both have a say in their Cabinet appointments, though overpowered by the UK. In the UK,
PM chooses cabinet through appointments and from there can use powers of patronage. In the US,
the PM nominates appointments in the Cabinet, but cannot have members of Congress in his
Cabinet, despite in the UK MPs can be in the Cabinet. (cultural, UK- chosen on a basis that they are
in either chamber of Parliament)
Analyse the differences between the Constitutional powers of the US President and the UK Prime
Minister
The Constitutional powers of the US President allow him to veto bills introduced by Congress.
Donal Trump during his presidency used the power of the veto 10 times. However, with regard to
Legislative Constitutional powers of the US President, they do not allow him to have a direct role in
legislation through the power of a veto. Parliament is sovereign in the UK. (Structural-
Constitution)
The US Constitution is an entrenched and codified constitution so it has enumerated powers which
the US President can directly access and use without scrutiny. One example of this is the power of
being the Commander-in-Chief which allows him to defend the US in a state of national
emergency. For instance, this can be seen when George W Bush took the role of a Commander-in-
Chief during the 9/11 attacks which in turn had a massive improvement in his approval ratings.
Furthermore, Obama used air strikes in Syria and Iraq in 2014 which in turn hindered his popularity
levels. Meanwhile, in the UK the Constitution is unentrenched and uncodified so most powers are
implied. The royal prerogative power under Constitutional law arguably gives the power to the
