The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SlimShady96
So for the 40 marker I did:

1) Arguement for adopting a codified constitution.
2) Arguement for keeping the constitution uncodified.
3) Arguement for and against making the House of Lords fully/ partially elected.
4) Arguements for and against leaving the EU.
Conclusion - some reforms are more convincing than others.
(Could have also done electoral reform)

For the Parliamnt 25 marker I did:

1) House of Lords controls/ checks the executive in the legislative process.
2) Back bench rebellions.
3) Vote of no confidence.

Conclusion - HoL the only really effective control on the exec.

(Mentioned PMQs somewhere but could have done a paragraph on that too)

That's how I did it what do you think?


Surprisingly for the 40 marker I wrote the same points as you lol
Original post by Louise12307
Its about arguments for/against further reform. Then after you have made the arguments, you discuss which one is the most convincing in the conclusion. Which is what I did.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Getting a bit sassy they're just giving their opinion?
Original post by Ringles
Getting a bit sassy they're just giving their opinion?


I didn't have any intention of coming off as sassy, so I apologise if that's how it came off! However, that was your interpretation, not my intention. Nothing about my reply was sassy or intended to be :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile
OMG am i the only one who only wrote about codified and unmodified constitution. the question was VERY vague, I must say.
Original post by toniyasminn
OMG am i the only one who only wrote about codified and unmodified constitution. the question was VERY vague, I must say.


Don't worry you're not the only one and you wouldn't be wrong either. I've seen lots of posts where people have written about uncodified vs. uncodified. You'll be fine!
Can anyone outline what should of been written for the 10 marker on the prime minister in relation to the source?
Original post by Ringles
Getting a bit sassy they're just giving their opinion?


Also, I feel I'm being slightly misunderstood. I talked about BOR, possible elected judges, Scottish independence, elected/partially elected lords and countered these. I wasn't just talking about past reforms.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Grade boundaries?

Also how many marks do you'd think I'd lose roughly if I ...
...only did intro, 2 paragraphs, and conclusion for 25 marker and...
...didn't write to what extent the judiciary was better than the executive and houses of parliament at protecting civil liberties and human rights, only wrote 4 paragraphs and didn't write a conclusion?
Original post by anon326589
Grade boundaries?

Also how many marks do you'd think I'd lose roughly if I ...
...only did intro, 2 paragraphs, and conclusion for 25 marker and...
...didn't write to what extent the judiciary was better than the executive and houses of parliament at protecting civil liberties and human rights, only wrote 4 paragraphs and didn't write a conclusion?


16-18/25

25-28/40

:frown: sorry to say, but the conclusion is one of the most important things in a 40 marker
For Constitution 40 marker did anyone talk about reforming and replacing the HRA in favour of a British Bill of Rights? I also did further Lords reform to a wholly elected second chamber, and analysing more devolution to Scotland and Wales, 'DevoMax' if you will.
I'm quite surprised that I haven't come across anyone that talked about the EU in the constitution question. I feel as though they left the question deliberately open due to this particular issue.
(edited 7 years ago)
What did you guys include in your conclusion for the reform 40m, i felt mine was quite useless as i only summarised the points?
I started my part (b) answer on the continuation of part (a) but I later noticed it and crossed out "part (a) continued" and wrote "part (b)".. Will that be fine? :confused:
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 dedicatedI 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
Original post by hbaig27
What did you guys include in your conclusion for the reform 40m, i felt mine was quite useless as i only summarised the points?

I concluded that proposed reforms such as EU membership and to a certain extent adopting a codified constitution are convincing than others such as making HoL elected.
Original post by AhsanIqbal14
Surprisingly for the 40 marker I wrote the same points as you lol


Okay so I ****ed up parliament because I got confused about the questions I did paragraphs for debates, written questions and PMQT

How screwed am I 😂
How vital are examples for the 40m, my points and development were solid but i lacked examples, i still used a few but not a lot.
What did people write for the Judiciary 40 marker? I don't think many people did it and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing
Can someone have a look at my answers? XD I would be grateful. I did the Parliament and Judiciary questions

1a) Explained: Legislative, Select, Back Bench Business Committee
1b) talked about legislative, select and liason (pros and cons for both)
1c)
Paragraph 1; MQ'S + PMQ'S
Paragraph 2 - Opposition days
Paragraph 3- HoL (this was really lengthy and I wrote almost 2 pages on it)
Paragraph 4- Size of the Majority for the Executive and Jones' Elastic Band Theory

Judiciary

Paragraph 1 - Talked about independence e,g, Creation of JAC, Consolidated Fund (actually thinking about it I might not have written this... I was certainly thinking about it when writing the essay though!!), separation of powers
Paragraph 2 - Talked about neutrality; impartial view; e.g. Abu Qatada, Ponting 1985
Paragraph 3 - Talked about why they might be biased - e.g. Hutton Inquiry 2003; Griffiths Thesis; social composition for judiciary vs social composition in Hoc and HoL
Paragaph 4 - Talked about the threat of judicial tyranny as they are unelected. Also mentioned the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 as an example of the HoC restraining the HoL as the HoL is an unelected chamber

Conclusion - concluded but then agreed that judges are better protectors of civil liberties because that is what they are elected for. Also mentioned the conflict of interest between protecting the state and protecting civil liberties which is why politicians cannot be better protectors of civil liberties.

I think I remembered everything
Anyone have a link to the unofficial markscheme??

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you