How would you guys answer the executive question- "why are some PMs more powerful than others?"
I also have a feeling this would come up, because they're trying to change up the questions from just being how powerful is PM, how far is PM presidential, how powerful is cabinet, etc.
That Corbyn question would be great, another question for Democracy in the 10 marker might be arguments against lowering the voting age/arguments against making voting compulsary
That Corbyn question would be great, another question for Democracy in the 10 marker might be arguments against lowering the voting age/arguments against making voting compulsary
How would you guys answer the executive question- "why are some PMs more powerful than others?"
I also have a feeling this would come up, because they're trying to change up the questions from just being how powerful is PM, how far is PM presidential, how powerful is cabinet, etc.
So yeah, how would y'all answer this Q, thanks
You could probably answer it in a similar way to the presidential, just talk about how context and circumstance always affects how powerful a pm can be, for example uhhh Brown couldn't exercise as much power as Blair as he was unelected and therefore didn't have a mandate from the public and if he tried to exert the power upon the party they probably wouldn't take it...unlike Blair who considered him self to have a personal mandate and pretty much had no bad contextual factors so he was able to exercise such great power as no one would challenge him about it due to his large majority... Ya know something like that? Not just context but yeah that's a start
You could probably answer it in a similar way to the presidential, just talk about how context and circumstance always affects how powerful a pm can be, for example uhhh Brown couldn't exercise as much power as Blair as he was unelected and therefore didn't have a mandate from the public and if he tried to exert the power upon the party they probably wouldn't take it...unlike Blair who considered him self to have a personal mandate and pretty much had no bad contextual factors so he was able to exercise such great power as no one would challenge him about it due to his large majority... Ya know something like that? Not just context but yeah that's a start
I hope they don't make it really contemporary like about the eu wise, if they ask what will happen to the uk after the referendum the possibilities are endless
I hope they don't make it really contemporary like about the eu wise, if they ask what will happen to the uk after the referendum the possibilities are endless
Hi guys, basically I need your help in marking this question that my teacher gave us. (It's a hypothetical 40 mark question that has come up as a 25 mark before) I went to my teacher a few times with this and she never marked it/gave it back and I don't know how to mark it since it's only a predicted question. It's on the PM and Cabinet chapter in Unit 2. I've also inserted the (25) mark scheme to get an idea.
Hi guys, basically I need your help in marking this question that my teacher gave us. (It's a hypothetical 40 mark question that has come up as a 25 mark before) I went to my teacher a few times with this and she never marked it/gave it back and I don't know how to mark it since it's only a predicted question. It's on the PM and Cabinet chapter in Unit 2. I've also inserted the (25) mark scheme to get an idea.
I'm not going to give a mark for this (as I have no idea how marking works), but I just wanna try to give some pointers and corrections in the essay.
Firstly, you mention how the cabinet approves legislation proposed by parliament - this is mostly incorrect. It's the other way around. The 'executive' (i.e. the cabinet + pm) proposes legislation (from its manifesto, usually), and it is then parliament which then 'approves' it via voting upon it. Only rarely does parliament itself propose legislation (called private members bills), as executive legislation takes priority.
I'm not too sure about your paragraph about PM's and their personality. There's quite a lot of assumptions in it (e.g. Thatcher was charismatic only because of her large majority) and you don't have a constant line of argument in it - you start talking about how their personality affects how power is 'brought upon them', then you go on to talk about how their personality is determined by their majority etc. It just doesn't feel that consistent.
I think you certainly need to mention, in connection with your Thatcher paragraph, how parliament is capable of tacking down the PM (via a vote of no confidence or leadership contest (which is exactly what happened with Thatcher)), thereby suggesting that parliament ultimately restrains the growth of prime ministerial power.
There is more I could say but I don't want to bore you. It's a good essay - you cover a wide range of points, and come to a reasoned conclusion, but in areas I feel that your evidence is somewhat generalised and filled with assumptions, and that the point you raise doesn't necessarily link to the question. Make sure at the end of every paragraph you answer the question in relation to the point you just raised (e.g. "Therefore, it can be viewed that the PMs decreased relationship and reliance on the cabinet suggests a large growth in Prime Ministerial powers, as they have become increasingly independent").