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

They'd just tell me that I can't enroll for Year 13. I'm fairly sure that I have to enroll on the same day that I get my results, so there's no room to do anything, really.

I just remembered that i wrote that Mps can issue a vote of no confidence to as a method of controlling the executive to some extent, is that correct?

guys if someone only talked about unmodified and codified, what is the highest they could get? for constitution

Depending on what other aspects you brought about like the judiciary , entrech , authorative...
I'd say about 20marks as you need to mention other constitutional reforms

I basically did codified/uncodified but I mentioned devolution really briefly. I didnt specify that it was codify I just said no we shouldn't because: Reforms could lead to a loss of our flexibility, and then two separate paragraphs on keeping the judges out of the political arena and how our constitution has worked for 100s of years as well as no widespread demand for reform. Then I countered with if we did reform the constitution, positive reforms could be: we could limit government (like the US Bill of Rights), entrench laws to prevent short term government changing them and if a reform was to be made of codification, then it could give citizens greater clarity. I came to a judgement in my conclusion. What is the maximum mark I can get?

Yup
Probs a C or D in that paper

Ah man that sucks. I'm wishing you the best you don't need all the stress


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yup - I only managed to write an intro + 1 paragraph 😭 But mentioned the bill of rights as it's comparable to the US' and thus constitutes a form of a written constitution re: citizens rights.

I'm a little bit baffled how I didn't even think about HoL reform yet everyone here did! 😳

I dunno how but I managed to decide that the executive and parliament are better guardians of civil liberties and rights than judges.. Why did it do that 😱

Unit 2 paper:

I utterly sure I've done the 1c) question wrong (to a certain degree) as I mentioned how the cabinet controls the PM, which with the executive being part of parliament, and themselves placing one another in check.......I suppose its not to bad? But wrong none the less. However the essay went something along the lines of:

1 - Government relies on their cabinet to maintain their strong position (Lancaster plot 2008), they can also encourage votes of no confidence (Hesseltine with Thatcher).

2- Prime minister is entering a more bilateral form of government, limiting how well the cabinet can place government in check (Tony Blairs sofa cabinet, fait accompli, Irag war 2003) Talking about the workings of Richard Crossman's Theory and Prime ministerial change.

3 - Backbench rebellions keep the executive in check (shops bill by Margaret Thatcher 1986, mentioning votes of no confidence, when MP are no longer satisfied with the government Callaghan over North Riots 1979)

4 - Party Loyalty contrary to the Burkean Notion, and so when there are backbench rebellions they're relatively ineffective, and rarely influence government. (Coalition government 239 backbench rebellions resulted in nothing really)

For my Constitution 40m:

(Thought this was a nice question, however ran out of time, so I could not provide a however paragraph for the codification paragraph)

1 - wrote about codification of the constitution, A.K.A The cabinet manual (Suggested to be introduced by Gordon Brown in 2009, in anticipation for a no majority government, set out clear rules and code of conduct for cabinet ministers. Was noted by constitutional expert Vernon Bagdanor as being an effective constitution)

2 - Didn't give a however point for this, as you're all most likely are, timing is the bane of all politics exams :/

3 - House of Lords, how they only managed to get rid of all but 92 Hereditary peers, following recommendations from the Wakeham commissions report in 2000, and the 2001 white paper + 2012 Liberal democrat recommendations. Meaning that government was unable to complete its manifesto promises, for a more socially representative second chamber, one of which could not effectively mirror the national interest.

4 - Such reforms have been dropped as they were seen to be unconstitutional, due to the severe changes to the lords in 1999, for them to be altered so is seen to be unconventional. Produced opposition from people such as Tony Benn, and Robin Cook. This is because the Hereditary peers were re-elected back into the Lords, was because they were seen to be a benefit to the lords, and so were then monitored by the independent parliamentary committee. Memo released in 2006, sated how government would not interfere with hereditary peers until 2050.

5 - Finally getting onto electoral reform, basically how it provides votes value are unequal, and so therefore does not uphold principle values of a liberal democracy, as it functions in the UK. Talked about the 1983 election, where although the SDP/liberal alliance achieved 22% of the vote they only managed to obtain 18 seats. Whereas Labour in the same election, obtained 28% of the vote and around 200 seats. This how voting power is purely dependant on who it is you vote for, as well as the concentration of voters for a particular party, where if you voted for labour your vote was 10 times more valuable.

6- The result of the AV referendum from a "No" vote, suggests that there is little appetite for electoral reform, with 72% no majority. Despite the 42% turnout, government is in no doubt that electoral reform is not within the public interest. if government was to overall this decision, it would be seen to be undemocratic, and could be seen to undermine government power. (Talked about Callaghan refusing the Scotland Assembly majority in 1979, could be said to be significant in providing disillusionment in the party, and ultimately his vote of no confidence later in the same year).

Conclusion- basically is just further developments into electoral reform a more representative and democratic UK system, is not foreseeable (roughly)

This is just a rough sort of draft, there is missing info-facts etc. But tell me what you think, and what one could get for it....Many thanks

I just remembered that i wrote that Mps can issue a vote of no confidence to as a method of controlling the executive to some extent, is that correct?

I think I forgot to write what question I was doing for the second half of the exam - will this affect my grade?

I feel that I'm also in the same position as you! Don't worry though, I assume this happens quite often and the examiners will be able to read your work and hopefully be able to tell which question you chose. I think the only reason they have it is too enable the examiners to quickly know which markscheme they should refer to. It'll be fine don't worry


Posted from TSR Mobile

Unit 2 paper:

I utterly sure I've done the 1c) question wrong (to a certain degree) as I mentioned how the cabinet controls the PM, which with the executive being part of parliament, and themselves placing one another in check.......I suppose its not to bad? But wrong none the less. However the essay went something along the lines of:

1 - Government relies on their cabinet to maintain their strong position (Lancaster plot 2008), they can also encourage votes of no confidence (Hesseltine with Thatcher).

2- Prime minister is entering a more bilateral form of government, limiting how well the cabinet can place government in check (Tony Blairs sofa cabinet, fait accompli, Irag war 2003) Talking about the workings of Richard Crossman's Theory and Prime ministerial change.

3 - Backbench rebellions keep the executive in check (shops bill by Margaret Thatcher 1986, mentioning votes of no confidence, when MP are no longer satisfied with the government Callaghan over North Riots 1979)

4 - Party Loyalty contrary to the Burkean Notion, and so when there are backbench rebellions they're relatively ineffective, and rarely influence government. (Coalition government 239 backbench rebellions resulted in nothing really)

For my Constitution 40m:

(Thought this was a nice question, however ran out of time, so I could not provide a however paragraph for the codification paragraph)

1 - wrote about codification of the constitution, A.K.A The cabinet manual (Suggested to be introduced by Gordon Brown in 2009, in anticipation for a no majority government, set out clear rules and code of conduct for cabinet ministers. Was noted by constitutional expert Vernon Bagdanor as being an effective constitution)

2 - Didn't give a however point for this, as you're all most likely are, timing is the bane of all politics exams :/

3 - House of Lords, how they only managed to get rid of all but 92 Hereditary peers, following recommendations from the Wakeham commissions report in 2000, and the 2001 white paper + 2012 Liberal democrat recommendations. Meaning that government was unable to complete its manifesto promises, for a more socially representative second chamber, one of which could not effectively mirror the national interest.

4 - Such reforms have been dropped as they were seen to be unconstitutional, due to the severe changes to the lords in 1999, for them to be altered so is seen to be unconventional. Produced opposition from people such as Tony Benn, and Robin Cook. This is because the Hereditary peers were re-elected back into the Lords, was because they were seen to be a benefit to the lords, and so were then monitored by the independent parliamentary committee. Memo released in 2006, sated how government would not interfere with hereditary peers until 2050.

5 - Finally getting onto electoral reform, basically how it provides votes value are unequal, and so therefore does not uphold principle values of a liberal democracy, as it functions in the UK. Talked about the 1983 election, where although the SDP/liberal alliance achieved 22% of the vote they only managed to obtain 18 seats. Whereas Labour in the same election, obtained 28% of the vote and around 200 seats. This how voting power is purely dependant on who it is you vote for, as well as the concentration of voters for a particular party, where if you voted for labour your vote was 10 times more valuable.

6- The result of the AV referendum from a "No" vote, suggests that there is little appetite for electoral reform, with 72% no majority. Despite the 42% turnout, government is in no doubt that electoral reform is not within the public interest. if government was to overall this decision, it would be seen to be undemocratic, and could be seen to undermine government power. (Talked about Callaghan refusing the Scotland Assembly majority in 1979, could be said to be significant in providing disillusionment in the party, and ultimately his vote of no confidence later in the same year).

Conclusion- basically is just further developments into electoral reform a more representative and democratic UK system, is not foreseeable (roughly)

This is just a rough sort of draft, there is missing info-facts etc. But tell me what you think, and what one could get for it....Many thanks