The Rt Hon William Hague - GOV.UK GOV.UK The Rt Hon William Hague Contents Announcements Biography The Rt Hon William Hague MP was appointed First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons on 15 July 2014. He was elected to Parliament in 1989 as the Conservative MP for Richmond (Yorks). Previous roles in government Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict 2014 to 2015 How is the United States different from other countries?

United Kingdom (which colonized the US, and thus from which the tradition was adopted) the Philippines (which the US colonized) the Federated States of Micronesia (which used to be a territory of the US) and Mexico (which borders the US, and has a constitution heavily derived from the US one) The US cabinet member responsible for financial affairs is called the "Secretary of the Treasury" and leads the "Department of the Treasury." Most other nations call their equivalent official the "Minister of Finance" and their department the "Department of Finance." The US cabinet member responsible for international diplomacy is called the "Secretary of State" and leads the "Department of State." Most other nations call their equivalent official the "Minister of Foreign Affairs " and their department the "Department of Foreign Affairs." The title "Secretary of State" is a British term, and is used in UK and some other Commonwealth nations. In the UK, every cabinet secretary is formally called the "Secretary of State" as their full formal title, for example the "Secretary of State for Education" or "Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs." In casual language they are just referred to as the "Education Secretary" etc, however.

It's interesting to note that in the foreign language press American cabinet secretaries are usually referred to as "ministers." The Central Bank The central bank of the United States, which is the organ of government responsible for federal monetary policy, is known as the Federal Reserve of the United States. Most other countries call their central bank simply "The Bank of [Country]" for example, "The Bank of England," or "The Bank of Italy." It should be noted, however, that the title "Federal Reserve" was not the first choice, and was simply a name settled on after a lot of trial and error with creating a working central bank. Prior to the Federal Reserve's creation in 1916, the US central bank was called: The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) The Second Bank of the United States (1816-1836) The present head of United States central bank is known as the Chairman of the Board of Governors.

In most other countries this official goes by the title of "Governor of the Bank." In the US, however, every member of the Federal Reserve board of directors is given the title of "Governor." The Electoral College Almost all countries in the world with an executive, decision-making president allow the voters to elect him or her directly, in an open, nation-wide election. This happens in the US as well, of course, but the American system is distinct because of the presence of the United States Electoral College. The American electoral college is the closest thing to an American parliament, in the sense that it selects the head of government in a similar manner most parliaments select their nation's prime minister. Each state elects a certain number of members to the College, and the members assemble and collectively vote to choose the President of the United States. Of course, nowadays this is just a huge formality. They no longer even put the names of Electoral College candidates on the US ballots anymore. Americans just vote for their president, and the party whose candidate gets the most votes sends some figurehead delegates to symbolically cast their votes for the same person.

What makes the College controversial is the fact that there is always a narrow possibility that the formalities do not go quite as planned. Because the electoral college is a "first-past-the-post" state-based representative body, it is possible for a candidate to win the most seats despite winning only a minority of the popular vote. This is what happened in the 2000 election, when George W. Bush won the most seats but Al Gore got more of the popular vote. Anyway, the point is, no other country with a directly elected president has to go through such shenanigans. In countries like France, Finland, Ireland, and all of South America, the president is chosen solely on the basis of whoever wins the largest percentage of the popular vote, with no middleman. The closest equivalent occurs in some countries with figurehead presidents, like India, Germany, and Israel. In those cases the presidents are elected by the national parliament (sometimes along with state legislatures). But since their presidents are largely powerless nobodies, this is not of much practical relevance to the government. Acting / interim presidents Political leadership in the United States has been remarkably stable over the years, mostly because the US Presidency is such a well-designed and stable institution.

Once a president is elected, he's quite hard to get rid of until the next scheduled election rolls around. Impeachment is very complicated and has never been successfully attempted, and other than that, Congress and the cabinet don't really have many tricks at their disposal to depose the Head of State or force an emergency election. Of the 43 American presidents, only nine have not served at least one full term — that is, at least four years in office — and only one has resigned. That's almost an 80% success rate. Because of the rigidly defined terms and set election dates, there have not been very many "brief" presidencies. Only two presidents served for less than a year, and that's because they both died in office. Most other countries have far more leaders that served for such brief periods, especially in the 20th Century. In fact, when you look at many other official lists of national leaders, you often have to outright ignore half of them, because they're either "acting" or "interim" or "caretakers" or what have you. To put it another way, every US president has an official oil portrait hanging in the White House.

In many other countries, some presidents are considered insignificant enough to skip, because though they may have held the office briefly for some reason, "they don't really count." The United States constitution specifically allows for someone to "act" as President, during times in which the current present is incapacitated or otherwise unable to serve for a prolonged amount of time. Former Vice President Cheney and former Vice President Bush both served as acting president during their time in office, but in both cases they only held the position for less than a day. There is no constitutional mechanism to allow for an explicitly "interim" president, but theoretically it could still happen. Any non-vice president (ie: a house speaker or cabinet secretary) who automatically ascends to the presidency someday will likely be regarded as an interim American leader, because in all likelihood he won't have a long-term interest in keeping in the job. Gerald Ford probably would be considered an interim president had he not made a last-minute decision to run for office in 1974. NATION Landmass In 1959 Alaska became America's 49th state. Since then, the borders of the United States have been quite unusual.

While the American "mainland" remains one, giant cohesive blob of land from California to New York, there is also a large blob of land up north, bordering the nation of Canada and completely geographically isolated from the rest of the 50 states. Geographers call areas like Alaska "non-contiguous exclaves" and very few countries have such territories as part of their borders. Non-contiguous exclaves have historically tended to be invasions waiting to happen. After the first World War Poland was given a corridor of land which split Germany into two pieces. The Germans then invaded Poland to rectify the situation, and I forget what happened next. When Pakistan separated from India in 1947 the new country consisted of two parts, "West" Pakistan, and the much smaller province of "East" Pakistan. East Pakistan was entirely landlocked by India, and as a result when the East Pakistanis started pressing for independence, the Indian army invaded to help the province separate. Today it's the country of Bangladesh. Four other countries currently have broken-borders like the US. They are: Russia- the province of Kaliningrad has a full three countries between it and the Russian mainland.

East Timor- the East Timorese district of Oecussi is an exclave within the Indonesian half of the Timor island. Angola- the province of Cabinda is landlocked within the borders of the Republic of Congo. Azerbaijan- a corridor of Armenian territory splits the territory of Nakhichevan from the Azerbaijan mainland. I doubt the Canadians will ever invade Alaska, but I must say, I have heard a lot of grumblings over the years about how the state "should be ours...." The US State of Hawaii is also a bit unusual, but overall it's far less of an anomoly, as lots of countries have scattered island territories and possessions. The Name In the 2002 French film In Praise Of Love at one point a character rants that the United States of America is a country without a "real name." After all, the US is not the only country in "America," he notes. Technically all the citizens of all the countries in North and South America are "Americans" in some manner.

Likewise, for citizens of the USA to go around calling their country "the United States" makes little sense, as several other countries use "the United States" in their full titles as well — consider "the United States of Mexico" or "the United States of Brazil." In fact, one could just as accurately describe Brazil as being "the United States of America" with this logic. This is something of a semantics game, but it is a valid observation. There are very few countries in the world with a name as vague as the USA's. The United States never did create a new nationality for itself. Instead they just hijacked the term "American" for this purpose, a name which had always been (and to some extent still is) a very broad geographic description. Think of the Organization of American States, for instance. When you visit Latin American countries they often bitch about this matter, and refuse to call people from the US "Americans" out of protest, instead calling them things like "North Americans" or "United Statesians." Countries with similarly vague names include the Republic of South Africa, the Central African Republic, and the United Arab Emirates.

Like the US, these countries are named after political/geographic entities, and fail to create a specific nationality for their people as a result. One might include the United Kingdom in the list as well, but to be fair the country's full name is actually The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Capital District In most countries, the capital city is just that — a city that also happens to be the capital. But in the United States the situation is a bit weirder. The city of Washington is not part of any state in the union, rather it is the only city in a specially-created "District of Columbia," which is a unique political entity unto itself. The logic was that this was supposed to give the capital a sort of neutral status, because it would not "belong" to any one state. Nowadays a lot of people question this concept, however. The half-million residents of Washington, for example, largely get screwed by the deal.

Since they do not legally live in any state they do not get to elect any members of Congress (instead they get to elect one hack "delegate" who has no voting powers, and can only watch).They still get taxed and governed by the federal government though, which has prompted them to bring back "no taxation without representation!" as a rebellious rallying cry. Only a few countries have copied the idea of creating a federal district for their capital city: Country Capital District Yes These cities share some of DC's problems, in that many of their local concerns are jointly managed by the federal government and their own weak, elected municipal (or in the Indian and Australian cases, state) style government. As you can see from the chart above, however, DC is the only capital district where citizens are not given any voting members in the national legislature. SYMBOLS Coat of Arms The United States lacks a formal coat of arms, which is unusual for a western nation (but increasingly less unusual, globally). The "Great Seal of the United States" is most often used as an equivalent of a coat of arms when necessary, such as on the cover of US passports.

National Anthem The American national anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner, is somewhat unusual by today's standards in that it does not explicitly mention the "United States" or "America" anywhere in the lyrics. Most contemporary anthems do mention the country name, but this is largely because most nations are young, and only wrote their anthems in the last few decades. Older countries tend to have more historical anthems that don't conform to the sort of "Oh, Country X, how we love thee" style that is now so prevalent. Along with the US, other notable countries that don't mention the country's name anywhere in the anthem include the United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden, Spain, and Holland. Official Language Though most Americans speak English as their sole language, the American government in its long history has never bothered to make English the official language of the country. Almost all countries in the world have at least one official language, which in turn serves as the language the government is mandated to provide services to its citizens in. In the US, by contrast, the federal government will provide various services in dozens of different languages, should they be requested. The only other countries without an official language are the UK, Australia, and Sweden.

Abstract noun parties America's two major political parties are named after abstract nouns, and not specific ideologies. The Republican Party is not called the "Conservative Party" for example, nor are the Democrats called the "Liberal Party." Among mature democracies this is a bit unusual, as most countries generally give their parties ideological names, using terms like "liberal" "conservative" and "socialist" to indicate to voters where they stand. The reason why the two main parties in the US lack such qualifiers in their names is basically because they are very old. They originally arose as catch-all coalition parties in the early 19th Century, when partisanship was more about strategy and simply winning elections than conforming to any consistant set of ideological values. Most political parties elsewhere in the world arose much later, however, often in the post WWI-ea. At that time the polarization between liberals, conservatives, etc was very intense, so it only made political sense to explicitly ally with one side over the other.

Here are the main parties in some of the world's main western democracies, it's usually pretty easy to tell where they stand on the issues from their names: Country Social Democrats Moderate Coalition Party My suggestion is for the Republicans to switch their name to "Party for a Conservative Republic" and the Democrats can be the "Liberal-Democratic Party." FOREIGN POLICY Nucelar war The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons for war purposes. Other countries have developed nukes and blown them up for tests, but the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II remain the only instances of such weapons actually being used against people. Treaties As many internationalists in both the US and elsewhere never tire of pointing out, the government United States often takes radically un-mainstream positions when it comes to ratifying international treaties. The two most glaring examples: The United States is the only country in the world that has not ratified the the Convention on the Rights of the Child The United States is one of 10 countries that has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the only western nation to not do so.

Things that used to be unusual, but less so now Presidency The United States was the first country to use the title of "President" for its head of state. Now the majority of the world's countries use the title. Indeed, every single republic in the world uses the name, even dictatorships. For a while other countries tried using titles like "Director of the Republic" or simply "Head of State of the Republic" but now unless a country has a king, it will have a president of some form. Money color For a long time American currency was known for only appearing in one color- green. Most other countries color-code different denominations, or simply use money that features multiple colors on individual bills. The greenness of American money has its roots in the 19th Century. At the time green dye was rare, and thus considered difficult for counterfeiters to obtain. This bit of American uniqueness is now slowly being phased out, however, as new US bills introduced in the early 2000's now include multi-colored inks to help differentiate bills. Decimalized currency Today, most of us take the existence of decimalized currency for granted.

That is to say, a currency in which 100 somethings (say, cents) add up to make a larger thing (say, a dollar). This was not always the case though. Many countries originally had currencies which used bizarre and arbitrary fractions as their basis. The English Pound was the most infamous (and long-lived) example. Unlike today, where one pound is worth 100 pence, until 1971 one pound was worth 20 shillings, with each shilling being worth 12 pence (and each pence being two half-pence). The numbers were rather arbitrary and confusing, hence why they were changed. It's debated as to whether or not the US was the first country to introduce decimalized currency; some accounts give Russia credit with this. Regardless, the United States was certainly one of the first nations to do so, and helped popularize the practice. Thomas Jefferson had been a big proponent of decimalization , and on his urging the US dollar was decimalized in 1792. Today every country except Mauritania, Japan, and Madagascar use the American-style 100 small = 1 large formula for their currency.

Metric System Officially, the United States is one of only three countries (Liberia and Burma being the other two) that has not officially switched to the metric system. The US uses the "customary system" which is also known as the "English" or "Imperial" system, because it has its roots in the UK. Of course, Americans are not simply backwater kooks stubbornly clinging to an archaic system the rest of the planet has completely discarded. The custom/imperial system actually continues to thrive in defacto use all over the world, as in many cases countries only formally adopted the metric system in the last 20 years. Contrary to popular misconception, however, the United States Federal government is officially pro-Metric, and it is still official US policy to eventually switch. Implementation of the system has been at a snail's pace, however. Consumer products in the United States are labeled in metric, and American scientists no longer use the imperial system in research. Overall, America has made considerable progress in making Metric volume and distance measurements fairly mainstream. The Anglican Church 39 countries in the world are home to a branch of the Anglican Church.

Unsurprisingly, almost all of them are countries with a history of colonization by the British Empire. Some find it unusual that the US branch of the church uses the title "Episcopalian" instead of "Anglican" to describe itself. The reasons for this originally stemmed from the aftermath of the Revolution, in which the American branch of the church aggressively sought to separate itself from the authority of London. Nowadays, all Anglican churches, or "provinces" as they are known, are independent from the authority of London, and are only allied to one another in a symbolic commonwealth. Titles wise, the US church is not that distinct as we can see from this chart: NAMES OF ANGLICAN CHURCHES AROUND THE WORLD "The Anglican Church of..." Contrasts between American and British political systems Style Of Politics INTRODUCTION Elsewhere on this web site, I have outlined in some detail explanations of both the American political system [ click here ] and the British political system [ click here ]. As someone who is intensely interested in politics generally, and British and American politics most especially, I am fascinated by the many differences between the political scenes on the two sides of the Atlantic.

Inevitably, I am oversimplifying somewhat, but the following differences strike me as instructive. THE CONSTITUTION Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the American and British political systems is the constitution - or the lack of one. The United States has a written constitution as does the vast majority of nation states. The UK does not have a single document called the constitution but instead its constitutional provisions are scattered over various Acts of Parliament. The American constitution is hard to change and, in current political circumstances, perhaps impossible to change in any meaningful respect. The Equal Rights Amendment - which sought to provide equal rights for women - failed and there has been no succesful amendment of the US Constitution - except for one technical measure - since 1971. What for practical purposes constitutes the British Constitution - various Acts of Parliament - can be changed by a simple majority in the legislature. For instance, the current Coalition Government introduced fixed terms for the House fo Commons by passing the necessary legislation. In the United States, political discourse frequently makes reference to the constitution - typically Republicans arguing that Democratic initiatives are 'unconstitutional'.

Besides the fact that the UK does not have a constitution as such, it is rare for British politicians to argue that the actions or proposals of their opponents are illegal or ultra vires. A defining feature of the American constitution is the strict separation of the powers of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The British political system has no such formal separation of the powers - indeed one person is actually a member of all three arms of government, since the Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet (the executive), a member of the House of Commons of the House of Lords (the legislature) and the head of the legal system (the judiciary). In the United States, because of the separation of the powers, no Cabinet member is allowed to be a member of the Congress. In Britain, every Government Minister must be a member of one of the two Houses of Parliament and, if he or she is not already in the Parliament, then he or she is made a peer (that is, a member of the House of Lords).

Although the American political system has a strict 'separation of the powers' meaning that nobody can be a member of more than one of the three arms of government, members of the Supreme Court (the judiciary) are nominated by one of the other arms of government (the President) and approved by one part of another arm of government (the Senate which is part of the legislature). In the UK, almost all members of the upper chamber of the legislature (the House of Lords) are effectively chosen by the political party leaders in the lower chamber of the legislature (the House of Commons). THE EXECUTIVE The most obvious - and certainly the most visible - of the differences between the American and British political systems is that the USA is a presidential system, with the apex of power in a directly-elected President, whereas the UK is a parliamentary system, with the Prime Minister holding office and power only so long as he or she commands a majority of votes in the House of Commons. In theory then, the American President has much more power than the British Prime Minister - he is the commander-in-chief and has the power to issue executive orders which have the full force of law.

However, the constitutional system of 'checks and balances' seriously circumscribes the power of the US President who often finds it really difficult to push legislation through Congress. By contrast, a British Prime Minister usually heads a government with a majority of seats in the House of Commons and the ability to pass almost any legislation that he wishes. In the United States, the transition period between the election of a new president and that person's inaugration is two and half months. In Britain, the changeover of Prime Ministers is virtually immediate - within hours of the election result, one person leaves 10 Downing Street and within the following hour the successor enters it. In the US, government is highly partisan with the President appointing to the executive colleagues who are almost exclusively from within his own party. In the UK, government is normally equally partisan with all Ministers coming from the governing party but, in 2010, exceptionally the Conservatives were required to go into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and grant them 17 ministerial positions. The American Cabinet is appointed by the President but he does not chair it or even attend it. The British Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister who normally attends and chairs every meeting.

The size of the American Cabinet is fixed: it is the Vice-President plus all the heads of the executive departments making a total of 16. The size of the British Cabinet varies: it is whatever size the Prime Minister wants it to be which is normally around 18, sometimes with a small number of additional Ministers who are not actual members but who are invited to attend on a regular basis. The American Cabinet meets at irregular intervals and acts as adviser to the President. The British Cabinet meets once a week and formally takes decisions, usually by consensus under the guidance of the Prime Minister. In the United States, the incoming President and his aides make a total of around 7,000 political appointments. In Britain, the Prime Minister appoints around 100 members of the Government and members of the Cabinet each appoint a couple of Special Advisers, so the total number of political appointments is around 150. In the United States, all the most senior appointments are subject to confirmation hearings and votes in the Senate. In Britain, there is no procedural method of challenging the appointment of a particular Minister although, in theory, the Opposition could move a vote of no confidence in the appropriate House of Parliament.

In the USA, after the Vice-President the Secretary of State is the most senior member of the Cabinet and in many countries would be known as the Foreign Secretary. In Britain, the political head of each Government Department is called Secretary of State and so almost every member of the Cabinet is a Secretary of State. In the United States, the incoming President's inaugural address is a highly public and prestigious affair. In Britain, the new Prime Minister simply sets out his or her vision for the country in a speech to the House of Commons on the subject of the Queen's Speech which opens the new session of Parliament. In the United States, the President each year gives a high-profile 'State of the Union Address'. In Britain, there is no equivalent occasion, the nearest event being the Prime Minister's introduction to the Government's legislative intentions for the next year or so after the State Opening of Parliament each session. As a result of the separation of the powers, the US President does not attend or address Congress except for the annual 'State of the Union Address'.

Since there is no separation of the powers in the UK system, the Prime Minister is a member of one of the Houses of Parliament - these days, invariably the House of Commons - and regularly addresses the Commons, most notably once a week for Prime Minister's Question Time (PMQ). When the President addresses Congress, he is given a respectful hearing. When the Prime Minister addresses Pariament, he is barracked and interrupted and Prime Minister's Question Time in particular is a gladitorial affair. THE LEGISLATURE In the USA, both houses of the legislature - the Senate and the House of Representatives - are directly elected. In the UK, the House of Commons is directly elected, but the House of Lords is largely appointed (making it unique in the democratic world). In the States, as a consequence of the separation of the powers, all legislation is introduced by a member of Congress, so even the signature legislation attributed to President Obama on healthcare reform was actually introduced by a Congressman (Democratic member of the House of Representatives Charles Rangel).

In total contrast, almost all legislation in Britain is introduced by the Government with only a very small number of Bills - usually on social issues with minimal implications for the public purse - introduced by individual Members of Parliament (they are called Private Members' Bills). Senate rules permit what is called a filibuster when a senator, or a series of senators, can speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators, if all 100 seats are filled) brings debate to a close by invoking what is called cloture (taken from the French term for closure). There is no equivalent provision for preventing filibustering in either House of the British Parliament but filibustering is rare. In both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the majority party chairs all committees which have considerable power. In the two chambers of the British legislature, committee chairperships are allocated between the different parties, roughly in proportion to the size of the party in the House, and the committees are much less powerful than in the US Congress. In the House of Representatives, the Speaker - chosen by the members of the largest party - has considerable power and acts in a highly partisan fashion.

In the House of Commons, the Speaker - chosen by the whole House - only has procedural responsibilities and acts in a non-partisan manner (usually he is not opposed in a General Election). THE JUDICIARY In America, the Supreme Court is an intensely political institution - its members are appointed by the President on a partisan basis and its decisions are often highly political and highly controversial. By contrast, in Britain the Supreme Court is not appointed on a political basis and, like all British courts, avoids making decisions which it regards as proper to politicians and Parliament. POLITICAL PARTIES In the the USA, the Republicans are the Right of Centre party and the Democrats are the Left of Centre party. In the UK, the Conservatives are the Right of Centre party and Labour is the Left of Centre party. However, the 'centre' in American political is markedly to the Right of the 'centre' in British or most of European politics. This means that the policies espoused by Tea Party candidates would not be supported by any political party in Britain, while the policies supported by an American politician like Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, would be mainstream in the British Labour Party.

In the USA, there is no centre party in this sense of one positioned politically between the Republicans and the Democrats. In Britain, there is a Liberal Democrat Party which ideologically sees itself as between Conservative and Labour. In the USA, there are only two parties represented in Congress and both are federal parties; there is no political party that only seeks votes in one state or a selection of states. In the UK, as well as political parties that seek votes throughout the entire country, there are nationalist political parties that field candidates only in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. In the United States, the Democratic and Republican Parties absolutely dominate federal and state elections with independents securing only small proportions of the vote. In the United Kingdom, the two main political parties - Conservative and Labour - win a smaller and declining share of the total vote, with a growing share being taken by the likes of the Liberal Democrat Party and the UK Independence Party at national level and by the likes of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist Parties at the devolved level. In American politics, the two main political parties are loose coalitions with individual candidates or Congressmen adopting varying positions on many issues (although, in recent years, the Tea Party movement has forced Republican politicians to proclaim more consistently conservative positions).

In British politics, all political parties have much tighter rein on the policies promoted by candidates and the voting by elected representatives. (In the House of Commons, each week a 'whip' is issued which sets out how the Member of Parliament should vote on each major issue before the legislature that week). The major parties in the USA have a large-scale congress every four years to choose their candidate for the forthcoming presidential election and ostensibly determine the policy platform of that candidate. All the political parties in the UK hold annual conferences where they debate the policy positions to be adopted by the party, but these conferences do not choose the party leader (which is done through a separate and broader process varying from party to party). In illustrations and promotional material, the Democratic Party is often represented as a donkey, while the Republican Party is featured as an elephant - symbols that date back to the 1870s. British political parties regularly change their symbols and very few electors have any idea what they are. ELECTIONS AND CAMPAIGNS In the USA, the term of a President, Senator or Congressman is known precisely as four years, six years and two years respectively and the dates of the elections are fixed.

In the UK, the term of members of the House of Commons - and therefore of the Government - is legally a maximum of five years but traditionally a Prime Minister could call a general election whenever he or she wished and it has been considered 'cowardly' to wait the full five years and so the election has been more typically after around four years. However, the current Coalition Government has enacted legislation to provide for a fixed five-year term except for special circumstances. Candidates for the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives - plus a host of other positions below federal level - in the US political system are chosen by a system of primaries in which (usually) all registered Democratic and Republican voters participate in the choice of the candidate for 'their' party in the main election. Britain does not have a system of primaries and the selection of candidates is normally confined to actual members of the relevant political party in the constituency in question. The filling of vacancies varies between and within the two political systems. The US Constitution states that special elections will be held to fill vacant Senate seats, but that state legislatures may empower the governor of the state to fill the seat by an appointment between the time that it becomes vacant and the time that the winner of the special election is certified.

Most states allow the governors to pick the replacement who serves until the next general election when the voters decide who will serve the remainder of the term. Several states, however, require that a special election be held with the governor certifying the winner as the Senate member. By contrast, the Constitution requires that governors call special elections to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives. They are usually held within three-six months of a vacancy because the entire election process must be followed: nominating conventions or primary elections plus a general election. In the UK, vacancies in the House of Commons are filled by a by-election in the relevant constituency which is usually held within three or four months. Since members of the House of Lords were not elected in the first place, there is no by-election when a peer resigns or dies. The American general election effectively lasts almost two years, starting with the declaration of candidates for the primaries. The British general election lasts around four weeks. American elections depend on vast sums to purchase broadcasting time. Parties and candidates in British elections cannot buy broadcasting time. As a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, effectively there are no limitations on expenditure in American political elections. There are statutory limitations on expenditure for all elections in the UK.

In the States, almost 40 million television viewers watched the Convention speeches of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in 2008. No party conference speech in Britain would attract more than a few million. American presidential candidates have been taking part in televised debates since 1960. British political leaders only agreed to televised debates for the first time in the General Election of 2010. The first televised debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 attracted almost 70 million viewers. Even allowing for the difference in population, the televised debates between the British party leaders do not attract the same level of interest. In an American presidential election, turnout is typically around 50% (although in the 2008 election it was over 60%) and, in the case of mid-term Congressional elections, turnout typically falls to around 40%. In the UK, turnout in General Elections used to be around 75% but more recently has fallen to around 60%. In the USA, blue signifies states held by the Democratic Party, the more left-wing. In the UK, blue identifies the Conservative Party, the more right-wing.

In the USA, red signifies states held by the Republican Party, the more right-wing. In the UK, red identifies the Labour Party, the more left-wing. In an American general election, the states that might go to one party or the other are known as 'purple states' or 'swing states' or simply 'competitive'. In a British general election, constituencies that might go to one party or another are called 'marginal constituencies' (where three parties are each in contention - which is not unknown - it is called 'a three-way marginal'). American elections are often so raw and vitriolic that candidates make spurious claims about themselves or their opponents that need to be analysed for the truth and whole web sites are devoted to fact checking. While British politicians are certainly not beyond exaggeration or obfuscation, they are rarely guilty of the blatant truth-twisting that one sadly sees in the US. American elections routinely involve attack advertisements which denigrate one's opponent in highly personal terms and even presidentual primaries can involve sharply derogatory remarks about one's opponent in the same party (witness the Republican primaries of 2016).

It is unusual for election material in Britain to attack an opponent in personal terms and virtually unknown in televsion broadcasts (although a recent - and widely condemned - exception was in the London Mayor elections of 2016 when the Conservative candidate highlighted the religion of his Labour opponent). In the United States, certain families have provided a number of very promiment politicians: such as the Kennedys and Clintons for the Democrats and the Bushs for the Republicans. Furthermore a significant number of members of Congress are relatives of someone who has previously served in Congress or high office. Name recognotion is very important in American elections. By contrast, in Britain sons (and sometimes daughters) have followed fathers (or even mothers) into the House of Commons but less frequently and less prominently than is the case in the USA. In British elections, the party is usually much more important than the individual. STYLE OF POLITICS In America, the term 'conservative' means really right-wing, especially on social issues. In Britain the name 'Conservative' means mainstream right-wing, especially on economic issues. In America, the term 'liberal' generally means quite left-wing. In Britain, the name 'Liberal' means broadly centrist.

In the States, it is considered necessary for a politician to emphasize their patriotism. In Britain, it is assumed that anyone who wants to run for national office cares for his or her country. In the United States, the flag holds special place in the political heart of the nation, people sing to it while placing a hand over their heart, and many people would like to make burning it a criminal offence. In Britain the flag is rarely prominent at political events. In the United States, since 9/11 most politicians wear a pin depicting the stars and stripes. In Britain, no politician would wear a badge displaying the union jack. So many political speeches in the US include the phrase "my fellow Americans". In British political terminology, there is simply no equivalent phrase. In the States, virtually every political speech seems to mention God, especially in the final call "God bless America". In Britain, no politician mentions God and none would think of inviting Him to show a special preference for his or her nation state. In the US, politicians frequently refer to their position on social issues like abortion and homosexuality. A British politician would think it unnecessary and inappropriate to talk about such issues unless asked.

In the US, politicians constantly talk about the problems and the aspirations of the middle class. In the UK, politicians tend to talk more about the needs of the working class. They mean something similar but the language is different because the perceptions are different. In America, the working class is seen as the poor and most citizens perceive themselves as middle-class or aspiring to be so. In Britain, the middle-class is seen as a comfortable minority with the majority of the population perceiving themselves as working class. Although taxes are never popular, the issue of taxation is much more emotive in American politics than in British (or European) politics and the terms of debate on taxation are much more hostile. The United States was born in a revolt against paying taxes and many Republicans are against any tax increases and believe that low taxation stimulates economic growth, whereas many British (and European) politicians see taxation as a social instrument as well as a fiscal one with the power to bring about redistribution in society. American political speeches do not tend to make much use of facts and figures (those of former President Clinton tend to be an exception) but appeal more to broad values which do not lend themselves to quantification.

Many British political speeches focus on practical issues and use figures to highlight problems and make comparisons with the policies or the performance of one's opponents. In the States, there are currently some outstanding political speakers, led by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. In Britain, there is no politician who can be so inspirational, although Tony Blair at his best came close (but he's gone). On the other hand, British politicians tend to be better debaters because of the more confrontational style of discussion in the House of Commons, especially Prime Minister's Questions. In US political theory and discourse, there is a notion called 'American exceptionalism'. There are several versions of this nebulous concept, perhaps the most common being that the United States has a special 'superiority' in the world because of its history, size, wealth and global dominance plus the 'sophistication' of its constitution and power of its values such as individualism, innovation and entrepreneurship. Many American politicians refer to the USA being "the greatest country on earth" or even "the greatest nation in history".

Although Britain fairly recently ruled over the largest empire in world history and has other claims to 'greatness' - not least its political system and cultural reach - there is no concept in British political discourse which compares to 'American exceptionalism'. ROGER DARLINGTON Last modified on 17 May 2016 If you would like to comment on this essay e-mail me If you would like me to speak on this subject contact me Search Corporation , LLC and Business Entity Home Search Corporation , LLC and Business Entity A Secretary of State in the United States is a senior official who is associated with the foreign affairs. He or she is however a representative for every state in the United States of America. Each of the Secretary of State is considered equivalent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the US Government. A Secretary of State is generally abbreviated and is referred to as the SOS. The SOS of the United States of America is one of the four main cabinet members. Several corporate entities are registered with the office of the SOS of each state. Use this website to obtain the guidelines on how to retrieve details of any registered corporate entity. Click on the state in which you want to check the details of a particular corporate business entity.

You will be directed to a step-by-step guide that will assist you on how to search for a particular corporate entity in the website for that state.

Question: Which US government official is the equivalent of the British Foreign Secretary?
Answer: Secretary of State