You'd need 177 UMS to get an A, 180 to get an A*. Raw mark to UMS conversion varies each year, but that's roughly 57-61ish out of 90 that you need in each paper.

Did you do a module in January or both in the Summer?

Yeah, that one was good, but I didn't feel like I could remember enough to answer it, so did the others instead.

How do you think it went?

Yes, I incorporated a lot of the other factions within the party, to show that I believed they were dominating

Nottingham hopefully.

I'm doing both history and politics in addition to an Access course.

I done the Constitution and Core Executive topic.

2 reasons Judges are looking for more human rights (Constitution 10 marker):
- Current uncodified Constitution does not offer sufficient protection of our Human Rights. Even though New Labour introduced the Human Rights Act (1998) it did not sufficiently protect our human rights, and was a disappointing reform for many.
- Judges seek a Bill of Human Rights to entrench our human rights so that they cannot be abused e.g detaining suspected terrorists.

The sources of the current British Constitution offers both stability and flexibility (Constitution 25 marker):
- Introduction: Explained roles of constitutions and described the British Constitution as uncodified, flexible and unitary.
- Statute Law, the supreme source of the British Constitution offers flexibility as it allows our constitution to remain up-to-date, relevant and modern. Our constitution can move with the times and adapt to changing situations and our multicultural society. Used the 1996 Dunblane Massacre as an example where an Act of Parliament was passed banning firearms. This proves that statute law, the main source of the British constitution provides us with flexibility.
- Conventions and Authoritative Works provide us with stability. Conventions mean that old traditions can be dropped and new ones can be adopted, e.g collective cabinet responsibility. Sometimes in times of struggle and hardship the government must adapt to remain stable, for example the civil unrest during Thatcher's premiership was countered by the ability to lead a more presidential government with her often determining the outcome of cabinet meetings before she even entered the room. Therefore conventions gave room for the government to adapt, providing flexibility and also the power to remain stable. Authoritative works also help the government remain stable as A.V. Dicey's 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution (1885)' ensures all citizens have the right to a trial before punishment, and that all citizens also are treat equally and everyone in society is subject to the same justice. This helps maintain stability in our society and government.
- EU Law and Treaties can make our constitution rigid. European Communities Act (1972) which incorporated the Treaty of Rome (1952) meant EU Law took precedence over our own UK Law. Therefore parliamentary sovereignty is undermined and we only have the ability to control UK law, not EU Law which takes precedence and questions the primacy of statute. Although we can pass statute to repeal the European Communities Act, it would be very difficult with many implications.
- Authoritative works have persuasive authority only and can be ignored. They are not the main part of our constitution and are only included as they have been for many centuries. Although this could be dropped therefore preventing destabilizing government. Also, statute law can make and unmake any laws meaning it can create confusion which is not helpful for a stable society.
- Conclusion: Although there are valid arguments for both sides, I believe that the current constitution does offer us both flexibility and stability. Although adopting a codified constitution which would provide us with entrenched provisions which would increase stability, it would hugely decrease flexibility making it extremely rigid. Therefore the question is raised - if something isn't broke, why fix it?

Reasons for cautious civil servants (Core Executive 10 marker):
- Radical ministers can come in with extreme policies. This can cause caution and apprehension between civil servants, as they have a degree of permanence. This means that as ministers come and go, they become knowledgeable of their department and have a degree of specialism which ministers lack. Therefore they can spot where policy will fail and where ministers are too extreme which can cause caution. This then creates the adversial model in governmental departments which further increases caution. (Only got 1 reason down here, was running out of time and wanted to have enough time to fully complete the essay)

'The office of the Prime Minister is what the holder chooses and is able to make of it' Discuss (Core Executive 25 Marker):
- Introduction: Discussed how the Prime Minister had various powers and constraints when performing their role and talked about the main jobs of the Prime Minister.
- Power - Patronage: Prime Ministers have power of patronage, giving them free reign to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers, and select peers by exercising the powers of royal prerogative. Therefore, Prime Ministers have a great power over the selection of his ministers and therefore the Prime Minister's cabinet is completely up to him which means the Prime Minister's office and people surrounding him is completely what he chooses.
- Power - Cabinet: The Prime Minister reserves the right to determine cabinet meeting lengths and frequency, along with the topic and tone of the meeting. For example, Tony Blair's decreased frequency and length, of one lasting just 30 minutes - possibly the shortest ever. Compared to Major's lengthy meetings as he wished to unify his party over the divides caused by the euro. Therefore the Prime Minister can change and adapt his Cabinet Meetings and agenda completely and at his free will depending on how he sees best fit.
- Power - Parliament: The Prime Minister, presuming he/she has achieved a majority government as opposed to a coalition, is able to command the house. He can push through whatever policies he wants. For example, the New Labour landslide victory with a 179 seat majority meant Blair could 'rail-road' policies through, including his devolution and House of Lords reform. Mentioned the House Of Lords Act (1999) and the Constitutional Reform Act (2005). This shows the Prime Minister is free to choose which policies he pleases as long as he commands the majority.
- Constraint - Party: The leader must keep the support of their backbenchers otherwise it will lead to downfall in the party. This can mean that although the leader can choose what policy he wishes, and can three-line whip it if they really want it pushed through, he could lose the support of their backbenchers and lead to disarray in the country. For example, Thatcher loss of power in 1990 after she lost the support of her backbenchers which lead to her leadership challenge from Michael Heseltine. An example of backbenchers causing trouble would be the recent Gay Marriage Bill where Tory backbenchers attempting to introduce various amendments, but were eventually rejected.
- Contraint - Public: To have a long term in office the Prime Minister must retain the faith and support of the public, otherwise they could suffer defeats in by-elections and local elections throughout the term. Then when the next General Election comes up they may not get back into power, so although the Prime Minister can do what they wish during their term in office, they will most likely not be re-elected should they put in any extreme policies. For example, the 2010 Election, where Labour lost as the public had lost faith in Labour's handling of the economy, but clearly the necessary support wasn't there for the Conservatives otherwise they'd have achieved a full majority.
- Conclusion: I agree the Prime Minister can do what he chooses whilst in government and can make of his office what he will, although by putting in too many radical policies it will simply lead to a short term. Therefore, whilst the Prime Minister does have the ability to do what he chooses, it may not be very wise all of the time.

Overall I thought some questions were rather difficult, timing really let me down for this paper. There was a lot more I wanted to write in all of my questions really, but the time just went so fast. At least it's finished now though :)

Yep I also spoke about mandate theory and how it's not always adhered to as well as resemblance, did a bit on negatives of majoritarianism with 'tyranny of the majority' and that, I didn't actually mention Switzerland (used athenian system as a contrast) although I did discuss the benefits of direct democracy as a counter (e-petitions, referendums)

I did the environment. The 10 marker was ok, but I thought the 30 marker was a little random :/

How did everyone find the 4c today???? I thought it was a fairly reasonable paper. OMG had been dreading this forever 3c went HORRIBLE but in hindsight it probs wasn't that bad my brain just decided to stop working lol :(

I am on AQA, cheers for the advice it is much clearer than my teachers :)

How many examples and synoptic links would you include?

I think I probably mentioned other PMs in passing like the strengths of Thatcher and the need for cabinet support, and Major and Brown as examples of weak personalities and weak leaders, (my strengths arguments were more ways that the coalition hadn't effected PM power and that this more dependent on the individual....woops) but I didn't go into any great depth. As long as you used examples of some sort you should be fine :)

This the American politics one? If so, Is the 4A exam the one on the 3 branches of power and the constitution? Again, If so, for the 15 markers, aim for 4 well-expanded points and always start with a brief paragraph on what the constitution states, eg 'The president's powers are laid out in Article 2 [I think!] of the constitution, and one such power is <the piece in question>'

Don't include anything on the constitution in the Unit 3 resit though, obviously.

Important to remember, in the 45 markers especially, always link back to the question after every point for or against, eg 'however, only Congress have the power to declare war, so this is a effective check on the President's powers as he can only ask or persuade them to consider it. Congress can however grant 6 month conditional deployments which are a way around officially declaring war'

Hope I've got the right exam!

omggggg ! i also thought it was just the strengths of the constitution :confused:

the recent abu qatada fiasco would be a v good one although may be slightly controversial

I hope the essay question will be how effective is PLT in carrying out his function. Please help guys

all the plans have disappeared from Dropbox. Can you re-upload them?

Ok, maybe that's not in the topics I've been revising ;) What topic is that? :)

This is where I'm confused. I thought the HRA brought the ECHR into UK law. Therefore if the HRA is not binding on Parliament then why can they not deport Abu Qatada.

You say we have to pull out of the ECHR but why if it's not binding on the UK?

I would be very grateful if somebody could let me know what the Unit2 questions were in January 2013!!!