US President Vs. UK Prime Minister domestic powers
Alacombre
08-03-2005, 00:54
It has emerged to me rescently that despite the seperation of powers Bush is becoming increasing powerful within the white house. Tony Blair has almost an unparralleled amount of power at home, however, what are the main differences between the two?
From agenda setting, to powers of patrionage, to minutes, cabinets and committees..
Ideas?
Alacombre
08-03-2005, 19:23
Anybody?
It has emerged to me rescently that despite the seperation of powers Bush is becoming increasing powerful within the white house. Tony Blair has almost an unparralleled amount of power at home, however, what are the main differences between the two?
From agenda setting, to powers of patrionage, to minutes, cabinets and committees..
Ideas?
The PM has always had more domestic power and potential than a US president.
whats the seperation of powers?
BLARGistania
08-03-2005, 20:14
President:
Enforces laws (prime duty)
Cheif Commander of the armed forces
signs bills into law
appoints judges
signs treaties (needs congressional approval)
declares governemntal policy (direction-wise)
meets with foreign dignitaries
tries to sway popular opinion
as far as I understand
Prime Minister:
signs laws into affect
head of parliament
head of majority party
leader of the cabinet
director of the military
sways popular opinion
directs party policy
unifies party
did I miss any for our UK/ other Parliamentary system friends?
EDIT: seperation of powers is an idea in the US government where responsability to run government is divided between three branches. Executive (pres.) enforces laws, Legislative (congress) makes laws, judicial (courts) interpret laws. The idea is that all three branches share power in government responsability and check and balance each other so one branch doesn't obtain too much power.
Prime Minister:
signs laws into affect
nope, the Monarch does that
EDIT: seperation of powers is an idea in the US government where responsability to run government is divided between three branches. Executive (pres.) enforces laws, Legislative (congress) makes laws, judicial (courts) interpret laws. The idea is that all three branches share power in government responsability and check and balance each other so one branch doesn't obtain too much power.
ah ok...as far as i can make out, the UK has that too, just without the fancy name
Communiseria
08-03-2005, 20:25
they both suck
tic tacs rule
end of argument
Praetonia
08-03-2005, 20:28
A constant mistake people make... the US President is the executive branch, a British Prime Minister is the head of the legislative branch. Therefore:
1) HM Queen Elizabeth II = Bush
2) Tony Blair = Whoever your Congressional Speaker (Majority Leader??) is.
Praetonia
08-03-2005, 20:32
Prime Minister:
signs laws into affect
Nope, HM the Queen does that.
director of the military
Again, it's the Queen.
directs party policy
In theory, no, the party as a whole decides policy, and the party can replace the PM is it so chooses. This happened to Thatcher over the Poll Tax issue, when the Conservative Party realised it was unelectable with Maggie as potential PM. She never actually lost a general election. Of course, the PM has a hell of a lot of influence and power in this regard, so long as he doesnt overstep the mark.
EL CID THE HERO
08-03-2005, 20:38
ah ok...as far as i can make out, the UK has that too, just without the fancy name
not entirely
the lord chancellor is in the cabinet (executive)
is speaker in the lords (legislature)
and Is the chief judge in the land
he is therefor in all 3
Again, it's the Queen
the Queen isnt head of parliament, head of majority party or leader of the cabinet
Cotton and Wilkinson
08-03-2005, 20:46
Difference is, we knew G. Dubya was a twat. Some of us were fooled into thinking Blair was a labour politician...how wrong we were. There's no difference, both neo-cons and the sooner we're rid of them the better. :mad:
the queen signs laws but if she didn't sign them the government would probably overthrow her, the queen is not a major authority in britain any more. if you look at it like a ship, then the queen is the mast-head, but the PM is the captain. Also the queen leads the military and the church of england. plus if we wanted to go to war with anyone we would need the queens permission, but again if she didn't agree the government would probably overthrow her.
Praetonia
08-03-2005, 20:52
'Ysee, it isn't true. Without, you know, the rest of Parliament Blair actually has NO power. That's clear from the recent anti-terror police state creating laws, which were almost defeated in their second reading, with a government majority of just 14 votes, and 17 Liberal Democrat MPs not in attendance.
the Queen isnt head of parliament, head of majority party or leader of the cabinet
M'yes, I only meant "director of the military". I've editted my post.
Yaga-Shura-Field
08-03-2005, 20:53
Quote:"if we wanted to go to war with anyone we would need the queens permission"
No we wouldn't. The PM takes sole responsibility for declarations of war.
Quote:"if we wanted to go to war with anyone we would need the queens permission"
No we wouldn't. The PM takes sole responsibility for declarations of war.
declaration of war is a Royal Prerogative, the PM asks the Queen to do it, and the Queen obliges.
the Queen can technically do a whole host of things, like dissolving Parliament. which is what the does before a general election
New British Glory
08-03-2005, 22:47
nope, the Monarch does that
ah ok...as far as i can make out, the UK has that too, just without the fancy name
I can tell you that the UK does not have the seperation of powers in effect - why?
The theory of the seperation of powers states that there should be three completely seperate arms of state that are all independent - the judicary (judges), the legislative (e.g. House of Commons) and the executive (usually a President)
In Britain: The Lord Chancellor (currently Lord Falconer) is head of the judicary. However he is also a junior member of the executive and a speaker in the legislative (House of Lords). This means he is appointed politically and so is dependant on Blair and therefore could show political bias as to which judges get promoted etc etc. The Lord Chancellor also sits in the Lords where he is supposed to act as the government speaker and introduces all their legislation in there. how can he be independant when he is intoducing and advocating Labour (or whatever party is in power) policy?
And yes the Prime Minister does not sign legislation into effect - in fact he has remarkably little to do in that regard apart from advocating his own legislation as it passed through the legislative and disciplining his party so that it may pass. The monarch grants her/his assent in the final stage but since 1977 it is no longer neccessary that the monarch even sees the law in order to give it assent.
Alacombre
09-03-2005, 01:34
Do you think that Bush has in effect eradictaed some of the Seperation of powers?
New British Glory
09-03-2005, 01:37
Do you think that Bush has in effect eradictaed some of the Seperation of powers?
Cant say, dont know enough about the American system.
The problem is always the same with democracies. You see they work well when there is a close majority because then they have to pay attention to the legislative and every vote counts. But when you have a massive three figure majority like Blair, it is quite close to a dictatorship because the Prime Minister can ignore everyone apart from his own party.