• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

With reference to items D and E and other information compare and contrast the power of cabinet in the UK and the USA.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

With reference to items D and E and other information compare and contrast the power of cabinet in the UK and the USA. In the USA the cabinet is not very important-they are not really leaders but are seen to be Presidential assistants. Source D states that Lincoln was famous for saying "Seven nays and One aye, the aye has it" this shows that the US has a single executive and cabinet which is subordinate to the President. However Colin Powell is a very powerful Secretary of State showing that cabinet members with experience can influence policy. In the UK cabinet would be seen as a much more important body to the PM is primus inter pares and cabinet consensus is required. Thatcher was able to undermine this however "she enhanced the informal structure and downgraded the formal structure." (Source E) This allowed her to gain much more power for herself with "pre-cooked" policies and perhaps her cabinet had the same powers as the US cabinet. ...read more.

Middle

with a fixed term the President can not be overthrown by a subordinate cabinet but the PM has no fixed term and can indeed be overthrown by cabinet because they aren't elected by the people as PM. However a PM in circumstances can pick a weak cabinet with Thatcher she chose "yes-men" and because of a divided opposition was able to make cabinet subordinate to her. The power of cabinet then would seem to have been on a par to the US cabinet but she was finally overthrown by her cabinet which possibly shows that the UK cabinet is more powerful than the US cabinet. In the US the President will aim to have an experienced cabinet for a good image and reward those who helped him to get elected. These people from the outside would seem to have considerable power as they could provide the funds for a president seeking re-election. ...read more.

Conclusion

What about Major whose cabinet had more power and was consultative as he was not the same driving force. The cabinet could have less power because there are limitations on choice in the US. Members of Congress are not prepared to give up powerful legislature positions for an executive job- this could mean that you don't have the best people doing the job so a President is less likely to give his President more power. In the UK the PM has a wide choice it is seen as a more prestigious and powerful position than in the UK and is perhaps another reason cabinet is more powerful here than in the US. In conclusion it would appear that the UK cabinet is a more powerful body than the US cabinet due to the fact the President is a singular executive and the UK is supposed to be a collective executive but under Blair it would appear the executive is becoming more singular and power in the UK would decrease to the level in the US. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Compare and contrast the extent to which the Cabinet has an important part to ...

    The U.S. Executive due to it been singular in nature, means the President is responsible for decisions and policy, including the executives role in legislation making. However infact the President is not suppose to have any role in legislation as "all legislative powers" were given to the Congress in Article

  2. 'The President faces considerable constraints in domestic policy in comparison to the UK Prime ...

    This means that the Party can fuse together and act as a united group. The PM can use his whips to threaten and offer patronage to MPs, in order to persuade them to vote in favour of his/her decisions (Thatcher sacked Michael Hesseltine for voting against her on the Single European Act.)

  1. presidential power how far does it go

    In fact, in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, the plaintiff was found to be entitled to due process, specifically in contesting neutral decision status before a neutral decision maker. Perhaps the most obvious accusation arises from the suspension of the writ

  2. Ethnic minorities in the USA

    Voter turnout in many elections is not particularly high, usually below 60%. This improved in the 2008 election when around 62% of eligible voters turned out to vote. It was predicted that due the historical significance of the 2008 election there would be a huge voter turnout, but this did not happen.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work