Edexcel Government &amp; Politics - Unit 2 Governing the UK (09/06/16)

Original post by xxvine

Nooooo

Then that's another prediction o ****

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 781

username2480513

6

I want to make my 40 mark essay into a cryptic **** you to Edexcel , start each sentence with a letter F , U , C. I like to think they'd work it out and be offended , because honestly , they are an evil exam board , not because of the exams but their company structure.

Interesting fact about Major everybody ! He had a minority government in the last few weeks , 21 MPs resigned leaving a minority government for about 4 months.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 782

Original post by alevelpain

Think that'll come up? I can only think of the FTPA which really limits the power of government, that's so hard and so specific. I guess you could do another one saying they're elected thus have a mandate to change the constitution but it's sketchy. Also, is the Snooper's charter an example of infringing civil liberties?

Yeah those contemporary examples would really help, we did it in class and this was the essay plan my teacher gave us, there are probably more but at least it's a plan to work from?
I'm in the background o **** don't mind me

ImageUploadedByStudent Room1465389943.516253.jpg

ImageUploadedByStudent Room1465389943.516253.jpg

Reply 783

Original post by cocapopsxx

i done PG's and parties. for Pg's i did 1 para of the 10 mark because i didn't know what to write lol and for parties i didnt have time to do the 25 mark just done 1 para and bullet pointed in brief so like the themes in the para if i were to finish it.
so i have to make up it for unit 2. Jow many marks do u think i lost

I don't think you would have lost that many marks, if you bulleted it showed what you would have done if you had time, I think they realise the time limit is really ****ing difficult to keep to, and if you did the pressure group essay I don't think you would loose as much as you'd think either bro

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 784

Original post by missytwinpeaks

It won't let me open this! :'( if I give you my email would you please send it to me?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah of course :smile:

Reply 785

hw1221

14

Does anyone have some good arguements/ examples for the codification debate?

Reply 786

alevelpain

2

Original post by mollyadtr

Yeah those contemporary examples would really help, we did it in class and this was the essay plan my teacher gave us, there are probably more but at least it's a plan to work from?
I'm in the background o **** don't mind me

ImageUploadedByStudent Room1465389943.516253.jpg

Thank youuu

Reply 787

alevelpain

2

Original post by hw1221

Does anyone have some good arguements/ examples for the codification debate?

One commonly-cited advantage of a codified constitution is that it can limit the power of theexecutive. That the UK both has a system of parliamentary government and an uncodifiedconstitution means that governments can be extremely powerful. Lord Hailsham described thepower exercised by Prime Ministers as “elective dictatorship,” because with a parliamentary majorityit is usually possible for them to do as they please. And because the House of Commons canoverrule the House of Lords by invoking the Parliament Act, a majority in that chamber is all that’snecessary. This almost gives the government arbitrary power, because of the principle of thesovereignty of Parliament: whereas the institutions of government in most states have their powersdefined and limited by constitutions, Parliament is not legally restricted at all.

As well as restricting the power of the executive, and indeed as part of doing so, a codifiedconstitution could also protect citizens’ rights. At the moment there is some protection, boththrough the Human Rights Act and because the UK is subject to the European Court ofHuman Rights, but a government supported by a majority in the House of Commons couldtheoretically repeal the Act and withdraw from the Convention in the admittedly unlikely event thatit wished to do so. A codified constitution, provided it was entrenched, and provided it contained astatement of rights, would be a stronger legal protection for those rights. In the USA, for example,which has a codified constitution, freedom of expression is secure: even if both Congress and thePresident wanted to restrict it they could not. Introducing a codified constitution could providesimilar protection in the UK.

And a further problem with an uncodified constitution is that it can foster constitutional instability.Since 1997 governments have tended to meddle with the constitution, often for party politicaladvantage (such as the removal of most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords) or toresolve temporary issues (such as the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act). It could therefore be arguedthat this recent willingness to exploit the constitution’s flexibility supports the argument that theadvantages of a codified constitution (which could prevent such frequent changes) do nowoutweigh the disadvantages.

However, recent constitutional reforms have actually reduced the powers of the executive, whichrather dents the argument that this is a reason to codify the constitution. Prime Ministers can nolonger choose a convenient moment to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, for instance.There is even already an element of entrenchment, with the European Union Act guaranteeing a referendum for any further transfer of powers to European institutions and the precedent of theAV referendum establishing the principle that significant constitutional change will need areferendum to approve it. This is not an absolute guarantee, but the opprobrium which would beheaped on governments which tried to sidestep these laws and conventions would be risking itsexistence. This has all diminished the "elective dictatorship" which Lord Hailsham complainedabout. So one of the supposed advantages of reform has already been achieved, suggesting thatactually the advantages of a codified constitution no longer outweigh the disadvantages.

One of those disadvantages is that drawing up a codified constitution would be very difficult. Themajor political parties are divided over constitutional reform with the Conservatives broadlyopposed, the Liberal Democrats enthusiastic and Labour ambivalent, so the options areunappealing. It could emerge through compromise, perhaps devised by an all-party constitutionalconvention and requiring a referendum to ratify it ... but then the substance would be determinedless by principle than by what was politically expedient. Or it could be a partisan settlement,whether imposed by the current Coalition or by an alternative government ... but then such aconstitution might well be seen to lack legitimacy, and the political parties not in office when it wasestablished would probably seek to amend it. Such a situation would not be conducive toconstitutional stability, and it’s difficult to see an advantage which could outweigh this veryconsiderable disadvantage.

A possible solution to this dilemma might be to codify the constitution exactly as it is, but thatwould raise further questions, such as that of entrenchment. Were the constitution to remainunentrenched the executive would remain over-mighty and able to trample on citizens’ rights andchange the constitution at will. But entrenching the constitution would damage one of its bestfeatures, which is that it is democratic. The doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament means that thewill of the people, as expressed by their democratically-elected representatives, prevails. Allowingunaccountable judges to overturn laws would be undemocratic, which is quite some disadvantage –and where this is already possible, in human rights law, it’s unpopular. The correspondingadvantage is that it might prevent governments from acting tyrannically, but governments in the UKhave shown no inclination to be tyrannical: indeed, recent constitutional reforms show just theopposite. This advantage to codifying the constitution, therefore, would be insignificant and clearlyoutweighed by the advantage.

The traditional defence of the UK’s constitution is that while unusual and theoretically defective itworks effectively. In theory the UK’s current constitutional arrangements would allow a tyrant,once elected and supported by a majority in the House of Commons, to exercise arbitrary power.But in practice this does not happen (indeed, constitutional reforms since 1997 have tended toreduce rather than increase government power) and basing constitutional reform around theprinciple that it might is unreasonable. Until this threat becomes more substantial thedisadvantages of codification will continue to outweigh the advantages.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 788

Shaziye

14

Original post by mollyadtr

I've got a PowerPoint if ya want it

Posted from TSR Mobile

I really need it

Reply 789

Original post by keirjohnharry

I want to make my 40 mark essay into a cryptic **** you to Edexcel , start each sentence with a letter F , U , C. I like to think they'd work it out and be offended , because honestly , they are an evil exam board , not because of the exams but their company structure.

Interesting fact about Major everybody ! He had a minority government in the last few weeks , 21 MPs resigned leaving a minority government for about 4 months.

That would be savage if you wrote that in the margins, and oh really? That kinda makes him an even more impressive leader

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 790

alevelpain

2

just posted a model answer for codification enjoy!!

Reply 791

missytwinpeaks

12

Original post by mollyadtr

Yeah of course :smile:

[email protected]

Thank you!!!!!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 792

Topic 1 the constitution.pptx381.8KB

Original post by Shaziye

I really need it

i dont know which one you need so i just sent you all of them, tell me if you cant view them

Topic 2 parliament.pptx135.6KB

topic 3 The Prime Minister and the Cabinet.pptx142.1KB

Reply 793

Original post by keirjohnharry

I want to make my 40 mark essay into a cryptic **** you to Edexcel , start each sentence with a letter F , U , C. I like to think they'd work it out and be offended , because honestly , they are an evil exam board , not because of the exams but their company structure.

Interesting fact about Major everybody ! He had a minority government in the last few weeks , 21 MPs resigned leaving a minority government for about 4 months.

I find Edexcel to be the harshest exam board as well
Unit 1 this year was a joke tbh

Reply 794

Has anyone got a list of all the potential questions that might come up so I can spot revise

Reply 795

Original post by xxvine

Has anyone got a list of all the potential questions that might come up so I can spot revise

youve been here the whole time dont you remember lol?!
assessment of constitutional reform
arguments for codification
how does the constitution limit gov power
the federal one we spoke about
post 2010 successes or failures or or just reforms in general
pm power, difference of how pms are more powerful than others,
cabinet importance relevance today
is parliament irrelevant/ does it fulfil its functions
reform of parliament or hol alone
if the hol should be fully elected
how does parliament limit/scrutinise the government or hold them to account

i might be missing some...

Reply 796

Shaziye

14

Original post by xxvine

Has anyone got a list of all the potential questions that might come up so I can spot revise

Explain the main sources of prime ministerial power?
Explain the main way in which prime ministerial leadership style can differ?
How effective are the constraints on the prime ministers?
Outline the political role of the judiciary?
Identify the sources of the U.K. Constitution?
Describe how Uk sovereignty has been affected by EU membership?
Distinguish between parliamentary and presidential government?
Explain the ways In which parliament might be described as representative?
Explain the main differences of the functions and the composition of the HOC and HOL?

I've got plans of the questions for all of them

Reply 797

Original post by Shaziye

Explain the main sources of prime ministerial power?
Explain the main way in which prime ministerial leadership style can differ?
How effective are the constraints on the prime ministers?
Outline the political role of the judiciary?
Identify the sources of the U.K. Constitution?
Describe how Uk sovereignty has been affected by EU membership?
Distinguish between parliamentary and presidential government?
Explain the ways In which parliament might be described as representative?
Explain the main differences of the functions and the composition of the HOC and HOL?

I've got plans of the questions for all of them

Can I have the whole sovereignty one please

Reply 798

Original post by mollyadtr

youve been here the whole time dont you remember lol?!
assessment of constitutional reform
arguments for codification
how does the constitution limit gov power
the federal one we spoke about
post 2010 successes or failures or or just reforms in general
pm power, difference of how pms are more powerful than others,
cabinet importance relevance today
is parliament irrelevant/ does it fulfil its functions
reform of parliament or hol alone
if the hol should be fully elected
how does parliament limit/scrutinise the government or hold them to account

i might be missing some...

What would you write with constitution limit gov power?

Reply 799