AS AQA GOVP2 May 23rd 2013

Hey,

Did anyone do Constitution and Parliament :-)?

For the 10 mark parliament what did people put for legitimacy of public policy?

How did people find the select committee question, half my class didn't know what it was and left the exam early!

Woo that's a relief haha someone else. Yeah I also mentioned Abu Qatada Teresa May conflict etc. so seems okay hopefully!

I'm exactly the same, I wasn't totally sure what that 10 mark parliament was asking. I talked about referendums and how the yes votes led to scotland and wales acts for legitimate devolution etc. and the legislative process. didn't really spend long because I knew I had so much to write for the select committee question!

I know the 25 constitution marker was massive! I thought omg how am i going to get through analysing every single source? I wouldn't worry about missing judicial out because it was impossible to include them all. I analysed Acts, Judicial Precedent, Major Documents but completely missed out Royal Prerogative because I simply didn't have time. I think I brought a little bit of EU in Precedent but I found this question so time consuming.

Free vote question I left till last and think I wrote about 3 sentances. Completely took a guess with the gay marriage bill being a free vote as my example, thankfully googled it afterwards to find out it was!

What did you actually write for select committees? I think I came to a conclusion that yes they were effective, but being the most effective way (as said in the question) of scrutinising the executive was untrue.

I'm so bad at recalling what I wrote but I'll give it a shot:

- After the Wright Reforms backbenchers role increased which led to the increasing importance of select committees - higher pay etc. (introduction basically)

- The fact that select committees have summoning powers for people they want to hear evidence from
//Counter Argument - when they summoned the CeO of Kraft about Cadbury takeover she refused to come and there was nothing they could do about it

- They hold departments to account ... Micheal Gove U-Turn on GCSE Reform, George Osbourne Pasty Tax Reform U-Turn .... Constitution Unit saying that civil service now think 'what would this look like in front of a select committee'
//Counter Argument - government still manage to pass the majority of legislation of which many has been unpopular, public sector cuts, uni fees etc.

- Elected via secret ballot so avoid the over-representation created by FPTP and thus go into greater and deeper scrutiny of the executive
//Counter Argument - MPs role in select committees takes them from the floor of the house where they miss other valuable opportunities of scrutiny like PMQT and Minsters QT.

- Gives backbenchers a prominent role even without a front bench position - E.G. margaret hodge and all the tax evasion stuff... now she has more power to scrutinise

- Then looked at other factors.. The media and pressure group action still having a large account and generally, that the majority government control time agenda and information flow in the HoC (although at this point I was scribbling because it was so close to the end of the exam!!)

- Concluded that they are becoming increasingly effective, but to say they were the most effective was not true from the analysis.

What did you write? After discussing with my class afterwards, we all seemed to take quite different routes but all seemed legitimate answers.

haha it's always such a relief when someone has done the same as you! And yeah that sounds good! Including referendum was a good idea! haha nice guess! That 25 marker was definitely quite a long one!I had to make sure I stuck to my timing otherwise I probably could've written another couple of pages! I missed out royal prerogative too and only briefly touched on common law because there was just so much to talk about! and select committees went like thi:

Intro; definition of select committees, accountability+scrutiny and composition of select committees
Yes effective;
e.g. can question ministers, civil servants etc and can ask for permission for restrictive documents
members gain more expertise in the matter
often will compromise party lines so there's an unanimous report which is likely to bring more weight - cause worries for whips
example of success was the BSkyB case which resulted in Leveson Inquiry due to public outcry etc

not effective;
government doesn't have to accept recommendations
poor funding and resources
civil servants are prone to not turning up/speaking unless their minister allows it

then other factors e.g. opposition and parliamentary questions and 'yahboo' politics ! I also briefly mentioned House of Lords select committees.

I concluded that select committees were effective if there is a large amount of media influence as it pressurises the government if the electorate is wanting it...something along those lines!

What did you say the composition was, the text book states it is appointed by the whips??? But it's changed apparently

I did these, I thought the constitution was great and really liked it.

I hated the legitimacy of public policy, me and the other people I spoke to weren't really sure what that even meant :/ We all took it as legislation but looking back on it after the exam realised that was completely wrong...

The select committee one was okay, I talked about their increased use and some functions. I don't actually know that much about select committees so that was pretty hard. It was easy to bring in other methods of scrutiny though to compare it to so I hopefully made up the marks there.

On the whole though it wasn't a great exam I'm glad that it wasn't that important to me as I've already sat it (twice!) and got a high B. it was definitely one of the worse unit 2 papers though, especially if like me you haven't studied the unit recently because unlike A2 it's more dependent on in depth technical knowledge rather than relevant examples.

haha it's always such a relief when someone has done the same as you! And yeah that sounds good! Including referendum was a good idea! haha nice guess! That 25 marker was definitely quite a long one!I had to make sure I stuck to my timing otherwise I probably could've written another couple of pages! I missed out royal prerogative too and only briefly touched on common law because there was just so much to talk about! and select committees went like this:

Intro; definition of select committees, accountability+scrutiny and composition of select committees
Yes effective;
e.g. can question ministers, civil servants etc and can ask for permission for restrictive documents
members gain more expertise in the matter
often will compromise party lines so there's an unanimous report which is likely to bring more weight - cause worries for whips
example of success was the BSkyB case which resulted in Leveson Inquiry due to public outcry etc

not effective;
government doesn't have to accept recommendations
poor funding and resources
civil servants are prone to not turning up/speaking unless their minister allows it

then other factors e.g. opposition and parliamentary questions and 'yahboo' politics ! I also briefly mentioned House of Lords select committees.

I concluded that select committees were effective if there is a large amount of media influence as it pressurises the government if the electorate is wanting it...something along those lines!

Wow you talked a lot about select committees. I literally did what they are, how they are and aren't effective then moved on to the other scrutiny methods and did the same until reaching the conclusion a good 20 minutes later that although they are an effective method they are not the most as they are equally as good methods and that an eclectical mix would be best, but your sounds fortified with brilliant examples!



Posted from TSR Mobile

Made up of 11-14 MPs which represents the party balance in the House of Commons yeah it's no longer done by whips - by secret ballot now

I said the fact that a government will have the most seats(through fusion) they could in theory dominate the commitee, thus possibly making scrutiny docile through party loyalty and compared this to powerful select committees in the USA where there is a separation of power, making their power more effective through the equal status of the legislature and executive, courtsey of the AQA text book. I may have got the bit about the whipps wrong but can they still influence those that stand for election, or those on the committees?

Sounds good to me!

I done the Constitution and Core Executive topic.

2 reasons Judges are looking for more human rights (Constitution 10 marker):
- Current uncodified Constitution does not offer sufficient protection of our Human Rights. Even though New Labour introduced the Human Rights Act (1998) it did not sufficiently protect our human rights, and was a disappointing reform for many.
- Judges seek a Bill of Human Rights to entrench our human rights so that they cannot be abused e.g detaining suspected terrorists.

The sources of the current British Constitution offers both stability and flexibility (Constitution 25 marker):
- Introduction: Explained roles of constitutions and described the British Constitution as uncodified, flexible and unitary.
- Statute Law, the supreme source of the British Constitution offers flexibility as it allows our constitution to remain up-to-date, relevant and modern. Our constitution can move with the times and adapt to changing situations and our multicultural society. Used the 1996 Dunblane Massacre as an example where an Act of Parliament was passed banning firearms. This proves that statute law, the main source of the British constitution provides us with flexibility.
- Conventions and Authoritative Works provide us with stability. Conventions mean that old traditions can be dropped and new ones can be adopted, e.g collective cabinet responsibility. Sometimes in times of struggle and hardship the government must adapt to remain stable, for example the civil unrest during Thatcher's premiership was countered by the ability to lead a more presidential government with her often determining the outcome of cabinet meetings before she even entered the room. Therefore conventions gave room for the government to adapt, providing flexibility and also the power to remain stable. Authoritative works also help the government remain stable as A.V. Dicey's 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution (1885)' ensures all citizens have the right to a trial before punishment, and that all citizens also are treat equally and everyone in society is subject to the same justice. This helps maintain stability in our society and government.
- EU Law and Treaties can make our constitution rigid. European Communities Act (1972) which incorporated the Treaty of Rome (1952) meant EU Law took precedence over our own UK Law. Therefore parliamentary sovereignty is undermined and we only have the ability to control UK law, not EU Law which takes precedence and questions the primacy of statute. Although we can pass statute to repeal the European Communities Act, it would be very difficult with many implications.
- Authoritative works have persuasive authority only and can be ignored. They are not the main part of our constitution and are only included as they have been for many centuries. Although this could be dropped therefore preventing destabilizing government. Also, statute law can make and unmake any laws meaning it can create confusion which is not helpful for a stable society.
- Conclusion: Although there are valid arguments for both sides, I believe that the current constitution does offer us both flexibility and stability. Although adopting a codified constitution which would provide us with entrenched provisions which would increase stability, it would hugely decrease flexibility making it extremely rigid. Therefore the question is raised - if something isn't broke, why fix it?

Reasons for cautious civil servants (Core Executive 10 marker):
- Radical ministers can come in with extreme policies. This can cause caution and apprehension between civil servants, as they have a degree of permanence. This means that as ministers come and go, they become knowledgeable of their department and have a degree of specialism which ministers lack. Therefore they can spot where policy will fail and where ministers are too extreme which can cause caution. This then creates the adversial model in governmental departments which further increases caution. (Only got 1 reason down here, was running out of time and wanted to have enough time to fully complete the essay)

'The office of the Prime Minister is what the holder chooses and is able to make of it' Discuss (Core Executive 25 Marker):
- Introduction: Discussed how the Prime Minister had various powers and constraints when performing their role and talked about the main jobs of the Prime Minister.
- Power - Patronage: Prime Ministers have power of patronage, giving them free reign to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers, and select peers by exercising the powers of royal prerogative. Therefore, Prime Ministers have a great power over the selection of his ministers and therefore the Prime Minister's cabinet is completely up to him which means the Prime Minister's office and people surrounding him is completely what he chooses.
- Power - Cabinet: The Prime Minister reserves the right to determine cabinet meeting lengths and frequency, along with the topic and tone of the meeting. For example, Tony Blair's decreased frequency and length, of one lasting just 30 minutes - possibly the shortest ever. Compared to Major's lengthy meetings as he wished to unify his party over the divides caused by the euro. Therefore the Prime Minister can change and adapt his Cabinet Meetings and agenda completely and at his free will depending on how he sees best fit.
- Power - Parliament: The Prime Minister, presuming he/she has achieved a majority government as opposed to a coalition, is able to command the house. He can push through whatever policies he wants. For example, the New Labour landslide victory with a 179 seat majority meant Blair could 'rail-road' policies through, including his devolution and House of Lords reform. Mentioned the House Of Lords Act (1999) and the Constitutional Reform Act (2005). This shows the Prime Minister is free to choose which policies he pleases as long as he commands the majority.
- Constraint - Party: The leader must keep the support of their backbenchers otherwise it will lead to downfall in the party. This can mean that although the leader can choose what policy he wishes, and can three-line whip it if they really want it pushed through, he could lose the support of their backbenchers and lead to disarray in the country. For example, Thatcher loss of power in 1990 after she lost the support of her backbenchers which lead to her leadership challenge from Michael Heseltine. An example of backbenchers causing trouble would be the recent Gay Marriage Bill where Tory backbenchers attempting to introduce various amendments, but were eventually rejected.
- Contraint - Public: To have a long term in office the Prime Minister must retain the faith and support of the public, otherwise they could suffer defeats in by-elections and local elections throughout the term. Then when the next General Election comes up they may not get back into power, so although the Prime Minister can do what they wish during their term in office, they will most likely not be re-elected should they put in any extreme policies. For example, the 2010 Election, where Labour lost as the public had lost faith in Labour's handling of the economy, but clearly the necessary support wasn't there for the Conservatives otherwise they'd have achieved a full majority.
- Conclusion: I agree the Prime Minister can do what he chooses whilst in government and can make of his office what he will, although by putting in too many radical policies it will simply lead to a short term. Therefore, whilst the Prime Minister does have the ability to do what he chooses, it may not be very wise all of the time.

Overall I thought some questions were rather difficult, timing really let me down for this paper. There was a lot more I wanted to write in all of my questions really, but the time just went so fast. At least it's finished now though

I done the Constitution and Core Executive topic.

2 reasons Judges are looking for more human rights (Constitution 10 marker):
- Current uncodified Constitution does not offer sufficient protection of our Human Rights. Even though New Labour introduced the Human Rights Act (1998) it did not sufficiently protect our human rights, and was a disappointing reform for many.
- Judges seek a Bill of Human Rights to entrench our human rights so that they cannot be abused e.g detaining suspected terrorists.

The sources of the current British Constitution offers both stability and flexibility (Constitution 25 marker):
- Introduction: Explained roles of constitutions and described the British Constitution as uncodified, flexible and unitary.
- Statute Law, the supreme source of the British Constitution offers flexibility as it allows our constitution to remain up-to-date, relevant and modern. Our constitution can move with the times and adapt to changing situations and our multicultural society. Used the 1996 Dunblane Massacre as an example where an Act of Parliament was passed banning firearms. This proves that statute law, the main source of the British constitution provides us with flexibility.
- Conventions and Authoritative Works provide us with stability. Conventions mean that old traditions can be dropped and new ones can be adopted, e.g collective cabinet responsibility. Sometimes in times of struggle and hardship the government must adapt to remain stable, for example the civil unrest during Thatcher's premiership was countered by the ability to lead a more presidential government with her often determining the outcome of cabinet meetings before she even entered the room. Therefore conventions gave room for the government to adapt, providing flexibility and also the power to remain stable. Authoritative works also help the government remain stable as A.V. Dicey's 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution (1885)' ensures all citizens have the right to a trial before punishment, and that all citizens also are treat equally and everyone in society is subject to the same justice. This helps maintain stability in our society and government.
- EU Law and Treaties can make our constitution rigid. European Communities Act (1972) which incorporated the Treaty of Rome (1952) meant EU Law took precedence over our own UK Law. Therefore parliamentary sovereignty is undermined and we only have the ability to control UK law, not EU Law which takes precedence and questions the primacy of statute. Although we can pass statute to repeal the European Communities Act, it would be very difficult with many implications.
- Authoritative works have persuasive authority only and can be ignored. They are not the main part of our constitution and are only included as they have been for many centuries. Although this could be dropped therefore preventing destabilizing government. Also, statute law can make and unmake any laws meaning it can create confusion which is not helpful for a stable society.
- Conclusion: Although there are valid arguments for both sides, I believe that the current constitution does offer us both flexibility and stability. Although adopting a codified constitution which would provide us with entrenched provisions which would increase stability, it would hugely decrease flexibility making it extremely rigid. Therefore the question is raised - if something isn't broke, why fix it?

Reasons for cautious civil servants (Core Executive 10 marker):
- Radical ministers can come in with extreme policies. This can cause caution and apprehension between civil servants, as they have a degree of permanence. This means that as ministers come and go, they become knowledgeable of their department and have a degree of specialism which ministers lack. Therefore they can spot where policy will fail and where ministers are too extreme which can cause caution. This then creates the adversial model in governmental departments which further increases caution. (Only got 1 reason down here, was running out of time and wanted to have enough time to fully complete the essay)

'The office of the Prime Minister is what the holder chooses and is able to make of it' Discuss (Core Executive 25 Marker):
- Introduction: Discussed how the Prime Minister had various powers and constraints when performing their role and talked about the main jobs of the Prime Minister.
- Power - Patronage: Prime Ministers have power of patronage, giving them free reign to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers, and select peers by exercising the powers of royal prerogative. Therefore, Prime Ministers have a great power over the selection of his ministers and therefore the Prime Minister's cabinet is completely up to him which means the Prime Minister's office and people surrounding him is completely what he chooses.
- Power - Cabinet: The Prime Minister reserves the right to determine cabinet meeting lengths and frequency, along with the topic and tone of the meeting. For example, Tony Blair's decreased frequency and length, of one lasting just 30 minutes - possibly the shortest ever. Compared to Major's lengthy meetings as he wished to unify his party over the divides caused by the euro. Therefore the Prime Minister can change and adapt his Cabinet Meetings and agenda completely and at his free will depending on how he sees best fit.
- Power - Parliament: The Prime Minister, presuming he/she has achieved a majority government as opposed to a coalition, is able to command the house. He can push through whatever policies he wants. For example, the New Labour landslide victory with a 179 seat majority meant Blair could 'rail-road' policies through, including his devolution and House of Lords reform. Mentioned the House Of Lords Act (1999) and the Constitutional Reform Act (2005). This shows the Prime Minister is free to choose which policies he pleases as long as he commands the majority.
- Constraint - Party: The leader must keep the support of their backbenchers otherwise it will lead to downfall in the party. This can mean that although the leader can choose what policy he wishes, and can three-line whip it if they really want it pushed through, he could lose the support of their backbenchers and lead to disarray in the country. For example, Thatcher loss of power in 1990 after she lost the support of her backbenchers which lead to her leadership challenge from Michael Heseltine. An example of backbenchers causing trouble would be the recent Gay Marriage Bill where Tory backbenchers attempting to introduce various amendments, but were eventually rejected.
- Contraint - Public: To have a long term in office the Prime Minister must retain the faith and support of the public, otherwise they could suffer defeats in by-elections and local elections throughout the term. Then when the next General Election comes up they may not get back into power, so although the Prime Minister can do what they wish during their term in office, they will most likely not be re-elected should they put in any extreme policies. For example, the 2010 Election, where Labour lost as the public had lost faith in Labour's handling of the economy, but clearly the necessary support wasn't there for the Conservatives otherwise they'd have achieved a full majority.
- Conclusion: I agree the Prime Minister can do what he chooses whilst in government and can make of his office what he will, although by putting in too many radical policies it will simply lead to a short term. Therefore, whilst the Prime Minister does have the ability to do what he chooses, it may not be very wise all of the time.

Overall I thought some questions were rather difficult, timing really let me down for this paper. There was a lot more I wanted to write in all of my questions really, but the time just went so fast. At least it's finished now though