Edexcel Government and Politics Unit 2 Exam 4th June 2015

What is it true we will not be able to retake if we do badly because the syllabus is changing?

What is it true we will not be able to retake if we do badly because the syllabus is changing?

What possible question could this be used for?

What key things do we need to know about the EU?

Conflict:

HRA - Judicial activism has led to an increase of litigation cases where individuals have used the HRA to appeal against infringement of their civil liberties based upon the Rule of Law and Natural Justice. Thus, judges cause the HRA as ammunition against the political institution. This 'right culture' has the potential to undermine parliamentary sovereignty and can threaten government policies and public projects. - Mohammed Jabar Ahmed, Belmarsh Case and the 3rd Runway and Heathrow.

Sentencing - The Home Office have interjected on sentencing issues, they feel there should be an introduction of legally binding minimum sentences - London Riots 2011. Chief Justice Lord Woolf feels that alternatives in such menial offences should be given instead. However, ultimately the Home Office prevailed and introduced guidelines under the Sentencing Council which judges are forced to abide by and follow when sentencing which may result in the 'miscarriage of justice'.

Legislation - Judges have complained that a number of legislative statues made by Parliament have encroached and infringed civil liberties and are contravening the HRA. Lord Hoffman who supports the casue of Amnesty International has complained that the Anti-Terror Act 2001 was intrusive. Lords Woolf and Bingham insisted that the Double Jeopardy Rule 2003 should be repealed as again a 'miscarriage of justice' may take place due to the rule of law being distorted after amendments were made to a second trial hearing. Politicians have said that judges and unelected and not accountable and therefore should not intervene on political issues - Abu Qatada extradition ruling.

No Conflict:

- HRA - HRA is not binding and therefore Parliament can repeal it and pass laws as they wish. It is merely a conventional and not enshrined, a 'declaration of incompatibility' must be made but this can be easily reverted by withdrawing from the ECHR. Parliament has ignored the ruling of the ECHR over Prisoner's Votes in 2005 and 2011, still insisting prisoners should be eliminated from the electoral system. The unelected and unaccountable nature of judges means that it can be said they do not reflect public opinion but Parliament does, therefore it is more democratic and legitimate that they should get the last say.

- Sovereignty - Parliament is sovereign (A.V Dicey's explanation in excellent, look it up). It can make or unmake any laws and grant and exercise any powers as no one can defy its legislation it is omnipotent and omnicompetent. Judges do not hold the ability to partake in 'pre-legislative reviews' and therefore are excluded from acting as an influence in the legislative process. If they feel a law is intrusive they can merely claim, Parliament can ultimately pass law as they rule supreme - DNA Retention and I.D Badges.

I hope this helps, it is a tricky question but 40 markers on the Judiciary tend to be on the same lines.

please don't tell me this is true...
learning the whole year again cannot be on the cards for me

Thats a horrible question?

Anyone got an essay plan with examples on to what extent does Parlient control executive power

high extent-

scrutinisation through lords

representation through parties in opposition as well as lords

low extent-

accountability through question time is weak / prerogative powers are not checked

poor legitimation due to FPTP and majority in govt (2015- Cons 36% vote 51% seats) - weak opposition / elective dictatorship

poor representation as Commons is disproportionately representative of class, gender, and ethnicity / FPTP distorts political opinion representation


-hope this helped-

It's not true, there will a special paper for everyone from this year for us to retake next year.

OKAAAAY...

I'm panicking about a possible question... What if a question comes up, just asking about the constitutional reform from Cameron and Clegg coalition?

Like "Assess the constitutional reforms made by the coalition government." What have they done except the Fixed Term Parliament Act? Because, all of the constitutional reforms post 1997 occurred in Blair and Brown.

HELPPP! :P

This could come up seeing at The Constitution will probably be the 40 Marker, AND, the coalition is now over, so...

-important:

function of legitimation - final decision-making body
provides balanced support and representation (socially and politically - Major) / cabinet dealignment may result in removal/resignation of PM (Thatcher over poll tax)

-unimportant:

spatial leadership / marginalization of cabinet / use of political advisors (Blair)
prerogative powers / foreign policy domination (Blair)

I've decided to just revise PM/Cabinet and Constitution.

How much of an idiot am I?

Is it likely that both PM power and Parliament will be in the 40 marker section?