[baggyyo]

(Original post by Kardy)
That paper was so difficult !

Well i would have thought you found judiciary easy? You had an essay plan for it ready, right?
Which qns did you do?

[baggyyo]

(Original post by TOA7MURKLE)
Perfect same here, i also wrote about how some politicians in the cabinet like Theresa May was able to comment on a case relating to abu qatada (which i spelled wrong but my teacher said it would be alright) And Mosley how it breached his privacy and false detail etc

Ohh for the judiciary question or the importance of cabinet cause the theresa may applies to both right?

[TOA7MURKLE]

(Original post by baggyyo)
Ohh for the judiciary question or the importance of cabinet cause the theresa may applies to both right?

can apply to both but i used it for judicary 40 mark

[puchowsijk]

I'll be honest; I just thought it was a horrid paper. The questions were broad to the extent they threw me completely, and so I just wrote what I could with a complete lack of confidence. I have never felt like that before whilst writing a Politics essay (39/40 in my last one in timed conditions), but this exam just put me into depression afterwards.

I know I revised and have the notes and stress to prove it. I answered 1 and 4, but it was a complete panic.

I beg Edexcel not to be a evil nasty exam board and hike up the grade boundaries again; I can't afford a retake knowing university applications.

[JollyGreenAtheist]

Absolutely kicking myself.

I misread the 25 mk question on the constitution totally, and wrote an essay on codification. The 5 and 10 mark questions were fine though, and I think I wrote a good answer on the effectiveness of backbench MPs.

Anybody know if I can get a handful of nominal marks for the 25 mk-er, despite writing something largely irrelevant? I discussed a constitutional reform in great detail... just not one that the coalition had proposed .

Either way, I should be ok because I did well in January.

[TOA7MURKLE]

(Original post by TOA7MURKLE)
can apply to both but i used it for judicary 40 mark

It can apply for both yes, but i used it for judicary how it effects their judgements in terms of pressure

[Kardy]

(Original post by baggyyo)
Well i would have thought you found judiciary easy? You had an essay plan for it ready, right?
Which qns did you do?

I did constitution and judiciary. Yeah, the 40 marker wasn't too bad, but I hadn't revised civil liberties enough, and i wrote nothing about judicial reviews! But the 25 marker on the coalition I missed out waay too much. Only talked about bill of rights, house of lords and parliament reduction. Forgot about the EU lock and AV!

[TOA7MURKLE]

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
Absolutely kicking myself.

I misread the 25 mk question on the constitution totally, and wrote an essay on codification. The 5 and 10 mark questions were fine though, and I think I wrote a good answer on the effectiveness of backbench MPs.

Anybody know if I can get a handful of nominal marks for the 25 mk-er, despite writing something largely irrelevant? I discussed a constitutional reform in great detail... just not one that the coalition had proposed .

Either way, I should be ok because I did well in January.

looks like you got it completely wrong, the question was on the current coalition government as i remember. if you have descriptives written that are related to the coaliation then yes

[TOA7MURKLE]

(Original post by Kardy)
I did constitution and judiciary. Yeah, the 40 marker wasn't too bad, but I hadn't revised civil liberties enough, and i wrote nothing about judicial reviews! But the 25 marker on the coalition I missed out waay too much. Only talked about bill of rights, house of lords and parliament reduction. Forgot about the EU lock and AV!

On 25 marks i only wrote about, AV, Lords and commons and the NHS which was only 2 pages for me and i did not really argue much only for the AV referendum i did and talked about how expenses could go down with the commons and lord size reduces etc.

For 40 mark i wrote about independency as well and supreme court with other things next to it

[baggyyo]

(Original post by Kardy)
I did constitution and judiciary. Yeah, the 40 marker wasn't too bad, but I hadn't revised civil liberties enough, and i wrote nothing about judicial reviews! But the 25 marker on the coalition I missed out waay too much. Only talked about bill of rights, house of lords and parliament reduction. Forgot about the EU lock and AV!

Don't worry about it, it is the quality of your arguments so you do not have to say everything. For question 1 (cabinet) i think i could have had more but i didn't cuz you only need two for and two against with a conclusion to get high marks.

[lettucesoap]

(Original post by puchowsijk)
I'll be honest; I just thought it was a horrid paper. The questions were broad to the extent they threw me completely, and so I just wrote what I could with a complete lack of confidence. I have never felt like that before whilst writing a Politics essay (39/40 in my last one in timed conditions), but this exam just put me into depression afterwards.

I know I revised and have the notes and stress to prove it. I answered 1 and 4, but it was a complete panic.

I beg Edexcel not to be a evil nasty exam board and hike up the grade boundaries again; I can't afford a retake knowing university applications.

Completely agree, I did the same questions as you but ran out of time because the questions were so vague. I couldn't believe the cabinet question was a 25 mark.

Was it just me or was the 10 mark one on collective responsibility weird?? I had done a lot of revision for this exam, yet looking back I still have no idea why it's important other than showing unanimity and a strong face of government.. I could only think of why it's not important as so many ministers go against it..

[Mouth]

(Original post by lettucesoap)
Completely agree, I did the same questions as you but ran out of time because the questions were so vague. I couldn't believe the cabinet question was a 25 mark.

Was it just me or was the 10 mark one on collective responsibility weird?? I had done a lot of revision for this exam, yet looking back I still have no idea why it's important other than showing unanimity and a strong face of government.. I could only think of why it's not important as so many ministers go against it..

This. I literally had to drag that point out in to 3 separate paragraphs in an attempt to fool the examiner into thinking I had in depth knowledge...

[TOA7MURKLE]

(Original post by Mouth)
This. I literally had to drag that point out in to 3 separate paragraphs in an attempt to fool the examiner into thinking I had in depth knowledge...

quite similar to me i guess

[:)J]

how are you guys revising? Im doing both units are you guys doing essay models for each section? Theres so much!

[FullMetalX]

(Original post by Spunky_Monkey)
My teacher said that democratic deficit may be linked to it or probably more likely being linked to integration with the potential of fiscal harmonisation and all.

How could it be linked to the democratic deficit?

[TheThinWhiteDuke]

My teacher is adamant that the three 45 questions will be on the Supreme Court, the Presidency and the Constitution. If correct that would mean that two of the five 15-mark questions will be on Congress. Hope that helps people.

[Spunky_Monkey]

(Original post by FullMetalX)
How could it be linked to the democratic deficit?

The fact that Germany have taken the lead role in the Euro crisis and countries like greece have to just accepted it when they didn't vote for any of it. IMF ECB and European commission inside the greek govt as it stands atm. The rise in technocracies around European national governments. The switch in emphasis to the council and how europe is being held to account on a national level, i.e Francois Hollande being voted in, the whole Greek thing, Netherlands etc

[berryripple]

(Original post by Mouth)
This. I literally had to drag that point out in to 3 separate paragraphs in an attempt to fool the examiner into thinking I had in depth knowledge...

Exact same here haha, I blathered on about
- united front
- shows that ministers at least agree enough with the policy to agree with it publicly instead of resigning (weird point)
- gives confidence to media and public

Ew

[Palatial Veranda]

(Original post by lettucesoap)
Was it just me or was the 10 mark one on collective responsibility weird?? I had done a lot of revision for this exam, yet looking back I still have no idea why it's important other than showing unanimity and a strong face of government.. I could only think of why it's not important as so many ministers go against it..

Yeah I agree. This was a bit of a challenge.

I said how it was important in order to maintain an united front. I felt that I needed to write more I started banging on about how it promotes discipline within government etc. Mentioned how it is an important ministerial principle to ensure cohesion and made reference to Robin Cook not being able to buy into the idea over the Iraq war.

Basically all of the above refers to unanimity and strong face of government. I just tried to address the 'strong face of government' idea but in a way where I was breaking it up into individually distinguishable reasons.

[exe]

(Original post by TheThinWhiteDuke)
My teacher is adamant that the three 45 questions will be on the Supreme Court, the Presidency and the Constitution. If correct that would mean that two of the five 15-mark questions will be on Congress. Hope that helps people.

honestly, not really