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

Scroll to see replies

That is precisely what I did. I put weak protection of rights as an argument for reform, elective dictatorship as an argument for reform, effective government as an argument for no further reform, and history/tradition as an argument for no further reform.

I did the exact same! I hope its correct and will get a decent amount of marks

Reply 1441

xxvine

why didn't edexcel write 'uk'

how were we supposed to know what they were talking about lol?

Reply 1442

bendover1

Can someone please tell me what they wrote for the PM 25 marker.

Reply 1443

Hannaha124

Original post by xxvine

why didn't edexcel write 'uk'

how were we supposed to know what they were talking about lol?

Tbh the course is called the uk government and politics so... Also says so on the front of the paper

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1444

Louise12307

What a blessing of a paper. The questions were actually easy but masked by crappy wording! They really wanted to trip many up and admittedly I died inside when I first saw the constitution question but then realised I had written a 36/40 question on it a couple days ago.

I wrote about, gave examples for and evaluated:

> House of Lords reform
> Judiciary reform
> ECHR/HRA
> Devolution
> Fixed term parliaments

Managed to get 5 whopping paragraphs in there! Thank God.

Also my 25 marker for PM and Cabinet went alright once I figured it what it was bleddy asking me! Such a relief.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1445

markhama

For the first section i did the PM.

for the 25 marker i did 2 points for 2 against saying things like elective dictatorship for the pro side and for the against said there were effective checks and balances like HoLs and Judicial Reviews.

for the 40 marker i did judiciary and said they are best because they are neutral as a main point. I made 3 points on each side, i must have used the term 'ultra vires' about 10 times xD

Does this roughly sound right?

Reply 1446

Jennifer Randall

What kind of Mark do you think I will get for Parliament 25 marker

I wrote about Private members legislation and how it is drawn from a ballot and while govt adopts a full range of responsibility it gives opportunity for issues to be subjected to debate

Downside: not enough time dedicated
I mentioned the reforms of the HOL and the significance of them in recent years with the coalition government it granted them more freedom as they lacked a democratic mandate
And in 83,87,2001 they acted to bolster opposition where govt was strong

I mentioned PMQs but didn't know if they were relevant and the Belmarshcase and how there is less patronage in Parliament

Only mentioned Salisbury convention in my conclusion but mentioned Parliament acts

Is this good? I've been stressing

Reply 1447

Louise12307

Original post by Babs Posh

I think it was to what extent are PMs free from political constraint, something like that.

I totally ignored the source and just wrote my own answers :frown:

Does anybody know how many marks this would lose?

You don't need to reference the source in the 25 marker :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1448

bendover1

For the PM 25 marker.
I said the pm was in charge of the party direction, I talked about whips, uncodified constitution and that he gets to choose whose in his cabinet.
Then my points against were the lords, devolution, weak majority and i mentioned the Eu with judiciary but i am not sure if that was right.

Reply 1449

SlimShady96

Original post by Louise12307

I'm a bit confused, I recall that the question was about proposed reform not reforms that have already happened? Which seems to be what you've mentioned there

Reply 1450

Louise12307

For everyone worrying about the wording of the question, there was a past paper with essentially the same question just different wording.

It was "constitutional reform since 1997 hasn't gone far enough"

This one was essentially the same set up, minus the "1997". You were supposed give the arguments against further reform weighed against those that argue no further reform is needed. This involves mentioning different reforms/potentially attempts of such as HoL, BOR, codified constitution, constitutional reform act 2005, devolution, ftpa, HRA, electoral reform (AV).... Etc.

Codification sounds like a point you could have given but the essay was not solely on whether we should have a codified/uncodified constitution.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1451

Louise12307

Original post by Louise12307

For everyone worrying about the wording of the question, there was a past paper with essentially the same question just different wording.

It was "constitutional reform since 1997 hasn't gone far enough"

This one was essentially the same set up, minus the "1997". You were supposed give the arguments for further reform weighed against those that argue no further reform is needed. This involves mentioning different reforms/potentially attempts of such as HoL, BOR, codified constitution, constitutional reform act 2005, devolution, ftpa, HRA, electoral reform (AV).... Etc.

Codification sounds like a point you could have given but the essay was not solely on whether we should have a codified/uncodified constitution.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1452

UKStudent17

Original post by mollyadtr

Couldn't agree more

Posted from TSR Mobile

Nonsense! I'm sure you did better than you thought :smile:

Reply 1453

Adam_Budd

Original post by lulub47

I was so confused for the judiciary.. What did you put?

the way i read it was you had to put how they do and then how parliament do and micro analyse each point. For judiciary my points were:
The inclusion of the ECHR which courts can rule on with Belmarsh my example but they to micro i used that the arent binding on parliament so as Blair did following the ruling on the freezing of terrorist assets they can be overruled which shows little protection in reality.

Then the EU soci-economic rights protection which is sovereign following the factortame case. Then used Williams v British Airways to show how they used the EU to protect rights of the individual in terms of holiday payment. Then that this was almost unlimited in the ability to protect rights unless parliament use their power to leave the EU.

Finally the extension of judicial activism and judges such as Lords Woolf and Bingham who use their personal position to champion the rights of the individual in certain areas against the government. Also activism as with the High Court who ordered the release of expesnses files in 2009. However, sovereignty means that ministers are able to withstand these attempts etc.

Then for Parliament:
The House of Lords checks for protecting rights as they used against gov for Tax credit cuts and disability allowance cuts. Then micro with unelected so power is limited to be fully protecting rights.

The commons and the continued activism of back benchers and opposition as they had used when Sunday Trading changes were revoked as it was believed to go against the rights of wokers. Then micro was that this often depends on the size of the majority. Blair went 8 years without losing a vote in the Commons after 1997 and this was at a time of increasing restrictions to rights for anti-terror purposes suggesting that Parliament fails in this area quite often.

Reply 1454

stratagems

Argh, guys, did anyone else run out of time? I only managed to get into the intro + first paragraph for the last 40 mark question! :frown:

Any advice?

Is it better to answer the 25/40 marker (whatever it is) questions first?

Reply 1455

Louise12307

Original post by SlimShady96

I'm a bit confused, I recall that the question was about proposed reform not reforms that have already happened? Which seems to be what you've mentioned there

The question was "the arguments for further constitutional reform are more convincing than those against". Discuss.

The arguments for further constitutional reform involve mentioning current ones. For example:

In 1998, devolution allowed for governments/assemblies to be set up in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Supporters of this reform highlight the powers that were allocated such as the ability for Scotland to vary income tax levels by 3% either side of the level in London. Powers such as these have arguably allowed for a more democratic system, bringing the decisions closer to the people. Therefore, many argue that further reform is not needed.
However, many disagree. The SNP argue for full Scottish independence and many nationalists argue that Westminster desires to hold all the power.
That said, a referendum in 2014 for Scottish independence returned a "no" result despite a high turnout (over 80%). In light of this, it can be concluded that the regional public are satisfied with the current level of reform.

See?

Posted from TSR Mobile