A2 Edexcel 3A uk political issues

Yes I'm doing this tomorrow. So far I've only nailed the Economy.

Does anyone have the past paper questions from Jan + June 2009, June 2010 and Jan 2011? I have the rest from 2005 and questions on the economy have centred on the following:

Consensus on economic policy (Labour, Tories – especially under Cameron, Lib Dems)

New Labour/Post 1997 economic policy – the third way

Policies for economic stability/growth - analysis of their effectiveness

Ways in which economic inequality/poverty has been tackled by new labour

Stances on Taxation




Clearly the credit crunch means they have a lot of things to ask which is more recent, but I've not seen the last few papers to see what kind of questions they're asking. Anyone have them??

Not sure what year's these questions are from but it is in a pack that my teacher gave me:

"How similar and Labour and Conservative tax policies" (15)
"Explain the strategies adopted by governments since 1997 to reduce unemployment" (15)
"'The Labour government's response to the economic crisis of 2008 was reckless and irresponsible' discuss" (45)
"To what extent have government policies since 1997 contributed to the recent economic recession" (45)

Hope they help it is all I have to be honest!

I have the questions, I'll write them up later after I've done some more revision

See, I just do not see how you could write a 45 marker on this.

Basically Labour returned to Keynesianism and it didn't work particularly well, what more is there to say ?

See, I just do not see how you could write a 45 marker on this.

Basically Labour returned to Keynesianism and it didn't work particularly well, what more is there to say ?

Well it is your lucky day! I have the mark scheme as well :P It says:

Labour's approach to the very sharp downturn of 2008-9 was a largely Keynesian one. They spent very heavily to save the financial institutions on the point of collapse, followed be a massive stimulus package and VAT reductions to stimulate demand, as well as specific programmes of support for key sectors, such as the scrappage scheme for the car industry. Keynesian's believe this will stimulate growth allowing the economy to emerge from recession, and would preserve jobs and services - thus protecting both economic growth and people's livelihoods.
Others, for instance, the initial Liberal Democrat position was, broadly supported the Keynesian approach as responsible, but would have gone further in response to the initial crisis affecting the banking sector, taking into public ownership the institutions that were insolvent.

More neo-liberal positions, such as that on many Conservatives, initially supported the financial support and stimulus package to save the banking sector, but then offered a critique arguing that high levels of government spending were creating a budget deficit that is now a huge burden on present and subsequent generations. They believe that a more responsible approach is reducing public spending and lowering taxes, and these are more likely to deliver an economic revival, a reduced deficit and lower debt burden.
Some neo-liberals believe that the failed banks should have been allowed to collapse, thus allowing much reduced borrowing by the government and ultimately creating a more competitive financial sector. Opponents of this would identify the damage this would have caused to individuals and businesses as reckless and irresponsible.

Well that is the sort of bones of what you would say!

But I agree to get 45 marks on that does seem a bit much :\

Both sides...what did work well and what didn't with examples for each each one.

Banking recapitalisation.
Nationalisation of Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley and part nationalisation of RBS and the Lloyds group.

These did save the financial sector from total collapse. HBOS was 24 hours from collapse but due to the steps taken, it was saved. However, it has led to massive national debt which the Tory government is now trying to rectify through spending cuts. Therefore the labour govt's steps were incredibly reckless as they banked on the economy growing again to pay back the debt. Three years on and the economy is still flatlining.

Measures to get the economy moving, such as spending on large capital projects. They have reached agreements with the major banks to get lending to small businesses again. With a huge deficit (income greater than spending) it was stupid of Brown, Darling and co to promise money for big projects. Remember the note left in the treasury..."sorry, there's no money left."


Measures to resuce the housing market were very effective, with a 25% drop reversed within a year. The main measure was the Support for Mortgage interest scheme. The govt also effectively forced the nationalised lenders to relax repocessions. You could say this was reckless in that the British housing market was heating up and needed a correction (as pointed out by Vince Cable). A recorrection therefore wouldn't have been so bad and could have actually favoured First time buyers trying to get on the property ladder. You can use the examples of the US, Ireland and Spain where they had similar property booms and then massive collapses. Maybe Labour should have let market forces take their natural paths.

There are many more steps which you can argue about. The main thing to do is to PEE all over your paper

Well it is your lucky day! I have the mark scheme as well :P It says:

Labour's approach to the very sharp downturn of 2008-9 was a largely Keynesian one. They spent very heavily to save the financial institutions on the point of collapse, followed be a massive stimulus package and VAT reductions to stimulate demand, as well as specific programmes of support for key sectors, such as the scrappage scheme for the car industry. Keynesian's believe this will stimulate growth allowing the economy to emerge from recession, and would preserve jobs and services - thus protecting both economic growth and people's livelihoods.
Others, for instance, the initial Liberal Democrat position was, broadly supported the Keynesian approach as responsible, but would have gone further in response to the initial crisis affecting the banking sector, taking into public ownership the institutions that were insolvent.

More neo-liberal positions, such as that on many Conservatives, initially supported the financial support and stimulus package to save the banking sector, but then offered a critique arguing that high levels of government spending were creating a budget deficit that is now a huge burden on present and subsequent generations. They believe that a more responsible approach is reducing public spending and lowering taxes, and these are more likely to deliver an economic revival, a reduced deficit and lower debt burden.
Some neo-liberals believe that the failed banks should have been allowed to collapse, thus allowing much reduced borrowing by the government and ultimately creating a more competitive financial sector. Opponents of this would identify the damage this would have caused to individuals and businesses as reckless and irresponsible.

Well that is the sort of bones of what you would say!

But I agree to get 45 marks on that does seem a bit much :\

You've put me to shame . I could kiss you X < there you go .

Also, surely I cannot be the only person who has swept Environmental Policy under the rug (just like the political parties) so to speak?

Mainly concentrating on the other three topics, although I will probably look over aviation and the main international summit meetings etc.

You've put me to shame . I could kiss you X < there you go .

Also, surely I cannot be the only person who has swept Environmental Policy under the rug (just like the political parties) so to speak?

Mainly concentrating on the other three topics, although I will probably look over aviation and the main international summit meetings etc.

I'm tempted to do that but the environment in January came up on both the 15 and 45 markers, which tripped up my whole class!

But yeah to be fair I am going to just focus on the other three and then look at the environment on the bus into college!

I can't ignore environment because they didn't teach us economics

But surely they could have still avoided it though? Just means that they had less choice.

I got bored :P

don't have 2011 sorry

June 2010

JAN 2010

You would imagine but none of them wanted to do the economy which came up in both as well (I think!) and so had no choice of the 45 marker.

As for not getting taught the economics bit I would be seriously gutted on that, but I am a little nerdy and enjoy arguing over economic policy :P