This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Edexcel Politics Unit 2

chloeeee!

Okay now it's after midnight...how did everyone find yesterday's exam?

Reply 1

jamz0770

15

I thought it was alright, not too bad. Constitution question was easy. Parliaments control on Executive power was a bit harder but still easy :smile:

How did you find it?

Reply 2

chloeeee!

OP

i did those questions aswell and yeah the constitution question was easy but i'm not sure if i wrote the right kind of thing for the parliament question..was talking about DSCs relevant?

Reply 3

curly_wurly

I did the constitution question which went pretty well, but my parliament essay could have been better =/

Reply 4

jamz0770

15

chloeeee!

i did those questions aswell and yeah the constitution question was easy but i'm not sure if i wrote the right kind of thing for the parliament question..was talking about DSCs relevant?

At risk of sounding stupid; What do you mean DSC's?

My only problem is that on the constitution question it asked for b) The advantages of a codified constitution, which I found fine. Just a one sided argumet thing.

Part c) asked for the disadvantages of a codified, I did mention these but concentrated equally if not more so on the advantages of an uncodified constitution.

Reply 5

metro2610

10

jamz0770

At risk of sounding stupid; What do you mean DSC's?

My only problem is that on the constitution question it asked for b) The advantages of a codified constitution, which I found fine. Just a one sided argumet thing.

Part c) asked for the disadvantages of a codified, I did mention these but concentrated equally if not more so on the advantages of an uncodified constitution.

Bit weird though because it asked you to make a case against constitutional reform. Felt dodgy leaving out the argument for, and sort of making it one sided.

Reply 6

chloeeee!

OP

jamz0770

At risk of sounding stupid; What do you mean DSC's?

My only problem is that on the constitution question it asked for b) The advantages of a codified constitution, which I found fine. Just a one sided argumet thing.

Part c) asked for the disadvantages of a codified, I did mention these but concentrated equally if not more so on the advantages of an uncodified constitution.

DSCs = departmental select committees

Reply 7

acidicgirl

3

metro2610

Bit weird though because it asked you to make a case against constitutional reform. Felt dodgy leaving out the argument for, and sort of making it one sided.

Make out a case against....giving arguments for would simply be the opposite of what the question asked. Of course, a bit of balance wouldn't hurt, but a straight 50/50 ratio of for and against probably wasn't what the question was after.

Reply 8

curly_wurly

chloeeee!

DSCs = departmental select committees

I wrote about select committees, the vote of no confidence, prime minister's question times, checks and balances, HOL and then stupidly wrote how the cabinet keeps the prime minister in check from making government a prime ministerial government - I don't think I'll get any marks for that but hopefully won't lose any too!

Reply 9

acidicgirl

3

chloeeee!

DSCs = departmental select committees

Yes that's one of the many ways in which parliament can scrutinise the executive. From the top of my head I mentioned things like:

-Select committees
-Standing committees
-House of Lords delaying power (to for further debates, examples of hunting with dogs act and 90 day detention)
-Ministers question
- Prime Minister's question
- Floor debates
-Edit: Also the vote of no confidence in 1979 as mentioned above, Thatcher was able to bring down the govt with a majority of 1.

- Presidential style leadership means that executive power has been increasing rapidly whilst parliament has suffered (Thatcher and Blair as examples)
- Chilcot inquiry found that Blair could have well comitted Britain to war in a meeting with Bush, whilst the debate had not even started in Parliament.
- CABINET committees - the contents of these are not in the public domain so it is hard for parliament to scrutinise them
- Select committees, whilst influential, cannot exert any real power on the executive
- House of lords are unelected so their influence is limited.
- FPTP system ensures winning party gains huge parliamentary majorities so they can in effect dominate parliament -> elective dictatorship.

I hope these are right, I spent 20 mins on it instead of 40!

Reply 10

username381250

16

I did question one and four. Good paper though. :smile:

Reply 11

Delight :)

12

I hated it, I know it was quite easy, but my memory just went blank, fet like crying after.
I am quite upset because this is one of my favorite Subjects and I have not done as well I as could have :frown:

Just got to keep on praying..

Reply 12

stefanunited

I felt the exam was quite good. I did better than I thought I would. Unfortunately I didn't go over the constitution enough as it came up the year before so didn't do as well as I wanted on question 1 but question 3 went very well :biggrin:

I forgot to put in "parliament controls the executive because it is illegal to die in parliament." Would have been a classic :P

Reply 13

TWF

13

acidicgirl

Yes that's one of the many ways in which parliament can scrutinise the executive. From the top of my head I mentioned things like:

-Select committees
-Standing committees
-House of Lords delaying power (to for further debates, examples of hunting with dogs act and 90 day detention)
-Ministers question
- Prime Minister's question
- Floor debates
-Edit: Also the vote of no confidence in 1979 as mentioned above, Thatcher was able to bring down the govt with a majority of 1.

- Presidential style leadership means that executive power has been increasing rapidly whilst parliament has suffered (Thatcher and Blair as examples)
- Chilcot inquiry found that Blair could have well comitted Britain to war in a meeting with Bush, whilst the debate had not even started in Parliament.
- CABINET committees - the contents of these are not in the public domain so it is hard for parliament to scrutinise them
- Select committees, whilst influential, cannot exert any real power on the executive
- House of lords are unelected so their influence is limited.
- FPTP system ensures winning party gains huge parliamentary majorities so they can in effect dominate parliament -> elective dictatorship.

I hope these are right, I spent 20 mins on it instead of 40!

I talked about 3 things, flowing to a final conclusion.
-House of lords, strengths and weaknesses
-Select comittees strengths and weaknesses
-Opposition to government in the commons weaknesses
-How recent governments have been overpowering, e.g. Tony Blair with Iraq etc
-Final conclusion, parliament does not keep a tight enough lock on government action

Went pretty well tbh

Reply 14

abrarda1

Hey for Question 3 how many points did everyone include for each side of the argument? Also did anyone else talk about the whipping system?? or is that not correct? :confused:

Thanks in advance?

Reply 15

jamz0770

15

abrarda1

Hey for Question 3 how many points did everyone include for each side of the argument? Also did anyone else talk about the whipping system?? or is that not correct? :confused:

Thanks in advance?

You could talk as the whip system as a reason parliament does not control much of the executives power because most MP's vote on party lines which is dictated by the PM and his cabinet meaning they will vote as the executive want as they dont want to upset them and ruin their chances of progressing upwards in the party.

I didnt mention it (not enough time) but it is correct to do so yes.

Reply 16

abrarda1

ah thats good. Thanks! It's seems to have gone better than i thought now :smile:

Reply 17

dbstar

Does anyone remember question 1c in full, did it require an answer "analysing" both sides of the argument against adopting a codified constitution. Or was it simply, write out the reasons against and evaluate as you go along???

Reply 18

jamz0770

15

dbstar

Does anyone remember question 1c in full, did it require an answer "analysing" both sides of the argument against adopting a codified constitution. Or was it simply, write out the reasons against and evaluate as you go along???

I cant remember it exactly but it was definately a one sided job. A little bit of argument for wouldnt mean the end of the world but anymore would have been pointless and gained few if any marks. An evaluation at the end should have possibly included both sides. As well as the argument against a codified constitution you could have included some arguments for a uncodified constitutio which is effectively putting an argument against a codified one with the point that what we have functions well already.

Reply 19

AGM

10

Wow, lots of people did Parliament apparently... I did Judiciary :smile:

which I thought was a nice little question, the Parliament one looked harder... and also I didn't revise parliament :biggrin:

Edexcel Politics Unit 2

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you