Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Yeah that could be a question, could also be
'Assess the significance of the Human Rights Act on political processes in the UK.' OR
'Should the UK introduce a ‘British bill of rights’?'

I hope your right mate with the predictions
Obviously your not god lol and they are predictions but really hope these are accurate

Reply 881

thesporkthief

Original post by Student 1305

how would you answer ' How effective are backbench MPs'?

Somebody posted this earlier on, I thought it was really helpful :smile:

Backbench MPs.docx14.5KB

Reply 882

efoulkes

apprently they've never asked constitution and parliament in the same section before, is this true???

Reply 883

xxvine

Original post by efoulkes

apprently they've never asked constitution and parliament in the same section before, is this true???

Yeah
It's a risk but doubt they will change now suddenly

Reply 884

popcornjpg

Original post by xxvine

I hope your right mate with the predictions
Obviously your not god lol and they are predictions but really hope these are accurate

tbh I don't think a british bill of rights question will come up as 25 marker, it may be a 10 marker, and if it is the 25 marker will be related to the HRA or civil liberties

if it comes up as a 25/40 marker I will eat a hat (that's two hats now)

Reply 885

popcornjpg

Original post by xxvine

Yeah
It's a risk but doubt they will change now suddenly

lol they might tho when you consider the **** they pulled with democracy

what if the examiners have just been planning, since the beginning of the specification, to **** everyone over by never putting constitution and parliament together and then do it one year to enjoy the horror

Reply 886

Foji

Original post by Tej98

You can talk about party discipline and whips whereby the whips control how MPs vote on key bills however since the 1970s MPs have started to become more independent in thinking. If MPs rebel against the government too many times they can have the whip withdrawn potentially meaning such individuals are expelled from their party. Good examples are the Euro-sceptic rebels in the 1992-97 government of John Major who defied the party line on numerous occasions and sat as independents until the whip was restored.

Party majority size is a crucial one. If a party has a landslide majority (such as with Blair in 1997 and Thatcher in 1983) then it is easier for governments to pass legislation through without hassle, even in spite of a small rebellion. However if it is tiny (e.g Major in 1992 or Cameron post 2015) then there is little space for error and ultimately parliament can end up deciding the fate of a government on an important piece of proposed legislation or decision. Rebels tend to outnumber the majority here therefore it is easier to defeat a government regularly. Coalitions tend to be more secure with the mix of idelogical compromises allowing a weaker whipping system and providing more free votes to govt backbenchers.

I completely understood your second point of party majority. But your first point is confusing sorry. If mp's rebel, they can have the whip withdrawn? Why would the whip get fired 0.0? And also how does this affect their relationship with parliament?

Reply 887

AllanSmith22

Original post by Student 1305

Don't give up! You can do this! I only started making notes yesterday and today and I'm just learning them as I go along - even I'm not too stressed :smile:

Just read over everything and go over the things you're really unsure of. Re write brief notes on uncertain topics and look through them. If you get frustrated, just leave your work and do something for 10 minutes and sit back down with a fresh mind :smile:

You'll do great, don't have this mind set while taking the exam because you won't perform to your best ability! I wish you all the best for tomorrow :smile:

thanks but most of our class including me didnt have unit 1 go brilliantly and we havent been taught unit 2 properly. havent revised properly either

Reply 888

AllanSmith22

my teacher told me we CAN retake and that the course isnt changing next year ? ive heard the opposite in this thread and i believe this thread more because hes a useless teacher that knows nothing

Reply 889

Hurbad

:'( how are you guys so calm after what happened in Unit 1?
i'm *****ing myself right now :frown:

Reply 890

popcornjpg

Original post by AllanSmith22

my teacher told me we CAN retake and that the course isnt changing next year ? ive heard the opposite in this thread and i believe this thread more because hes a useless teacher that knows nothing

ye u can retake but its still not good for uni I think

Reply 891

Hurbad

Original post by AllanSmith22

my teacher told me we CAN retake and that the course isnt changing next year ? ive heard the opposite in this thread and i believe this thread more because hes a useless teacher that knows nothing

My teacher said that its not changing and that Its going to be the same for another year.....

Reply 892

boringvoice

Stay positive people: focus on the future, not the past :smile:

Reply 893

Hurbad

Original post by AllanSmith22

my teacher told me we CAN retake and that the course isnt changing next year ? ive heard the opposite in this thread and i believe this thread more because hes a useless teacher that knows nothing

Mate thats nothing imagine being taught only 6 out of the 8 chapters in unit 1 & 2 ?
the election questioned looked easy but we never been taught :frown:

rip

Reply 894

jjbloomy

Original post by Student 1305

Thank you so much! how would you answer 'Has the UK Parliament become an irrelevant institution?' :smile:

Parliament was, and still is, an irrelevant institution to a large extent. Parliament is largely an irrelevant institution, because of the increasing transfer of power to other bodies, such as the EU, devolved assemblies and the ECHR problems of the democratic process, as well as low levels of trust of politicians and elitism. On the other hand, it can be argued that Parliament is still relevant, as in theory it is to be an ideal of Parliamentary democracy, they can call the government to account, and can create legislation, although these have a small effect on making it an irrelevant institution.

To a certain extent Parliament is an irrelevant institution as it has given a significant amount of power away to other bodies. These include the EU, in which any UK laws that conflict with EU laws are overridden by the EU; the same also applies with the ECHR. Parliament could choose to not implement EU law or ECHUR, but this could be more trouble than it is worth. An example of the EU is the Factortame case (1988), in which UK law regarding fishing rights breached EU laws, and were ultimately repealed. A case of conflict with the ECHR is the Belmarsh Prison case (2005) in which the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners without trial was incompatible with the ECHR. The fact that a law can straight away be deemed worthless due to incompatibility with the ECHR shows that the UK Parliament can be seen as becoming an irrelevant institution. Another way in which parliamentary power, or sovereignty, is transferred away, is through devolution, in which the Scottish Parliament, as well as the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies can create legislation on certain issues, tough as long as it does not conflict with EU, ECHR, as well as UK law, thus Parliament is largely an irrelevant institution.

However, Parliament is still somewhat relevant in a theoretical sense, in that it is suppose to act as a democratic and representative system. This is due to the fact that the House of Commons is an elected chamber, and the MPs that sit in the House of Commons represent their constituency, as well as adhere to their party policies. Through this, ideally, all citizens get a chance to participate in the democratic process and be represented in parliament. MPs will represent their constituents by voting in Parliament in the way their constituents want them to vote. For example, in December 2012 Labour MP Steve Reed, the Croydon North representative showed that Parliament is effective in carrying out its representative role as he said that he would listen to his constituents in his decision on whether to support British air strikes against Isis in Syria despite Jeremy Corbyn heavily opposing the air strikes. This therefore shows that to a certain extent Parliament is a relevant institution, to the very least relevant to those who close to participate and are eligible to vote.

Furthermore, it can be said that Parliament is no longer a relevant institution due to major problems within the system. FPTP fails to establish a reliable link between the proportion of votes won by parties and the proportion of the seats they gain. This happens because the system is primarily concerned with the election of individual members, not with the representation of political parties. An example of this is that it it possible with FPTP for the ‘wrong’ party to win an election. This is what happened in 1951, when the Conservatives formed a majority government but won fewer votes than Labour. This shows that to a certain extent Parliament can be seen as an irrelevant constitution as the system in which politicians get elected into Parliament can be seen to be disproportionate which can lead to the public not having a Parliament which represents them.

However, Parliament can hold the government to account and oppose the government. This is in effect, democracy in action, where the supposed will of the people is carried out, though sometimes MPs vote on Party principle, rather than on their constituents views. Either way, they can defy the government if they oppose the group they represent. An example of the government being defeated is the 2013 Military intervention in Syria, defeated 285-272, a very close result. David Cameron complied and respected the will of Parliament. Parliament also holds the government to account by scrutinising proposed legislation as well as having sessions in which the PM and minister answer questions. Therefore it can be assessed that in this regard Parliament can still be regarded as a relevant body.

Subsequently, there is a large amount of distrust in politicians, as well as elitism. This distrust has come from scandals, such as the expense scandals, false promises and parties that the people simply believe do not stand for them. Consequently it is to no surprise that elitism exists, a lot more than other European countries. Those from upper or middle class backgrounds tend to dominate Parliament, including Labour, traditionally the party of the working class. Recent figures have shown that over 30% of MPs went to Oxbridge. It is seen that there are hardly any parties that stand for the British working class and therefore there is underrepresentation in Parliament. The fact that only 29% of women make up Parliament also shows that there is a huge problem with representation, and if Parliament fails to represent the electorate than it poses the question as to how relevant it really is.

The magnitude, not just the frequency of these defeats is changing too. A good example is the case of a motion, not a Bill In 2013, constitution-changing precedent was set when Prime Minister David Cameron sought Parliament’s permission, in the form of a motion (that is, a non-binding vote) to order British military forces to attack Syria. Observers were agreed that David Cameron did not technically need Parliament’s support, but he felt that he needed the backing of the people’s representatives. The House of Commons voted against intervention, and the Prime Minister was forced to abandon his policy. For the first time, it was Parliament, not the Prime Minister, which was dictating Britain’s military policy. This point alone proves that Parliament is relevant: there are few bigger decisions made by a nation than on whether to engage in war, and it was Parliament, not the executive, that had the decisive say on the matter.

In conclusion, it can be said that Parliament is an irrelevant institution, mainly due to the fact that the EU and ECHR seems to take precedence over UK law and devolution has taken power away from Westminster. In theory it can be seen that Parliament is relevant as it is a body that was created to represent the people, but in modern day loyalty to the party leader more often than not means that representation can fall. Therefore, in reality it is becoming a irrelevant institution.

Reply 895

Tej98

Original post by Foji

If an MP defies the order line in a three-line whip (used during the second reading of important bills and decisions) then they have the whip withdrawn. A three line whip is usually a strict instruction to MPs to obey instructions and then to vote.This does not mean the whip is sacked but rather the MP in question is effectively expelled from the party and must sit as an independent (not affiliated to any party) until the whip can be brought back.

On 10th July 2012, 91 Tory MPs defied the whips and voted against reforming the House of Lords. This is a significant moment and can seriously undermine a government..

Reply 896

mollyadtr

Original post by popcornjpg

i actually wouldnt put it past them.... i think the majority of students end up doing those two units every year so they might wanna **** around a bit and make students actually have to choose a different one

Reply 897

jd_xox

Original post by jjbloomy

Yeah that could be a question, could also be
'Assess the significance of the Human Rights Act on political processes in the UK.' OR
'Should the UK introduce a ‘British bill of rights’?'

What points would I raise for the both of these?!!?!?