Edexcel Government & Politics - Unit 1 06/06/16

Scroll to see replies

since we only need to answer two questions tomorrow, do you think i would be limiting myself if I only studied two topics from unit 1?

Sometimes you can get away with doing two if you know them well. The danger is that you may get a question for the 25 marker that you can't do on one of the topics you've done. Three would be ideal but since you don't have much time it might be worth the risk. Good luck! :smile:

Reply 1141

Nel97

Original post by IRoranth

Ohhhhh, I totally get you now! Thank you for explaining =)

The arguments on there own are enough (3 for and 3 against) for a 25 marker, don't worry :smile:

Just focus on learning them!

Reply 1142

Hiro2514

Original post by IRoranth

No, since that is what a lot of people are doing- just make sure you know them so much that you can say them in your sleep. Loool- I'm doing democracy and parties.

thank god loool and same here democracy and parties policies are my favourite

Reply 1143

IRoranth

Original post by mal100

thank god loool and same here democracy and parties policies are my favourite

what do you think's gonna come up in both? D:

Reply 1144

Hiro2514

Original post by ArcticSlayer

ohhh I'll try to cover as much as possible thanks !! good luck to you too xx

Reply 1145

Shaziye

Is anyone only revising 2 topics and not 3

Reply 1146

Hiro2514

Original post by IRoranth

what do you think's gonna come up in both? D:

referendum for democracy maybe?like cases for and against the future use of them or maybe a question on direct democracy?

aaand for parties I have a feeling they might ask us to talk about the different factions in the parties ?

Reply 1147

Sarpedon

No-one isn't doing democracy lol it's too easy to ignore.

Reply 1148

IRoranth

Original post by mal100

\

yesss, i think the same for parties, since last year it was divisions between the parties and not internal divisions- fingers crossed!

with democracy- I also unfortunately think direct democracy would come up- if it's referendums, though- thats okay!

Reply 1149

Nel97

Would anyone want a sample essay for a 25 marker direct democracy? :smile:

Reply 1150

IRoranth

Original post by Nel97

Would anyone want a sample essay for a 25 marker direct democracy? :smile:

meeee, i would love to get more points :biggrin:

Yes pleaseee

Original post by Nel97

Would anyone want a sample essay for a 25 marker direct democracy? :smile:

Yes please !!

Last man standing.

does anyone have an essay for a 25 marker direct democracy? thanksss.

...or not.

who's hoping for an essay on liberal democracy???

Reply 1157

Pokémontrainer

Hmm last woman standing. :tongue:

Reply 1158

Hiro2514

Original post by Pokémontrainer

Hmm last woman standing. :tongue:

nope

Reply 1159

Nel97

Assess the arguments in favour of the greater use of direct democracy in the UK (25)

Direct democracy is the purest form of democracy. This is by completed giving power to the people directly to make decisions which affects them. This could be completed by e-petitions or digital democracy. Ranging from tighter controls on immigration to the use of wild animals in circuses to banning Donald Trump from the UK. E-petitions allow the people to participate in politics. An example is dropping the NHS Reform Bill being legislated in 2012 obtaining 150,000 signatures by February 2012. This allows people to get involved in issues that they care passionately about and if there isn’t a petition,then people can make their own. When a petition gets 100,000 signatures, it must be debated within the House of Commons. However, this isn’t necessarily accessible to everyone. Not everybody has a computer or an internet connection.In addition to that, just like giving people the vote via internet. It could be fabricated. People can hack into another individuals computer and sign up for things that they do not want. Therefore, the greater use of direct democracy through e-petitions should be used sparingly and not to a greater extent due to the possible repercussions of further implementation.

Direct democracy will result in a better educated and politically informed society. When the people need to make a decision whether it was on the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum to the 2016 European Union referendum, the people will be better informed then they were before. This could be through televised debates involving politicians like David Cameron and Nigel Farage on ITV on 7^th of June 2016. It could be through politically campaigning on the streets by informing bystanders. Having said that, there is a lot of ill-informed information that can be disposed. For example, there were instances of ‘scare-mongering’ in the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014, in particular, about the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) leaving Scotland or that Scotland would not be able to participate in the 2016 Olympics in Rio. In addition, there are many issues that are too complex for people to understand such as the 1975 EEC referendum. Britain had only just joined the EEC and the consequences of leaving or staying were unknown, even to the extent of prime-minister Harold Wilson having an indecisive and ill-informed view. Therefore direct democracy will result in citizens being more informed in issues however there are the risks of potential scare-mongering and complexity that could change the outcome of the decision.

Direct democracy will make decisions more legitimate and people will accept them better. The UK has an excellent track record of accepting the decision when it is given to us to decide on. In some other countries there is anarchy and continued protests but in the UK it tends to end when the votes takes place. An example of this would be the Scottish Independence referendum of 2014 which got an outstanding 85% turnout and had the consent of the population to remain in the UK. On the other hand, not every referendum will have this turnout and voter fatigue would take place. Such as a decision would be illegitimate if the turnout was low such as the 1998 London Mayor referendum which only received 34% turnout. By increasing the use of referendums you could also change the entire issue of the referendum to the government of that day. Such as the 2004 North-East referendum was arguably voted ‘no’because of how unpopular the Tony Blair government had become at that point known as ‘the wobble’.

Direct democracy will reduce the likelihood of corruption.While the UK again, has a very low corruption rate in comparison to others like North Korea. It will remain that way if a greater use of direct democracy was implemented. This is because the people have the power have to go against every decision that the government proposes into law. An example of this could be that if greater use of direct democracy was in place, the students could have got the decision to increase tuition fees in the 2010 coalition government removed. Having said that, the people can do that anyway. The First-Past-The-Post electoral system allows the people to remove the government from power. For example, an unpopular Harold Macmillan resigned in 1963 and the Conservatives were removed from power in 1964 due to the Profumo affair. Another example would be the removal of Labour’s Harold Wilson due to the failure of the National Plan 1964. A more recent example would be Margaret Thatcher arguably being forced to resign because of the resentment of the poll-tax in which 20,000 protesters had stormed London in 1990. Therefore, increasing the use of direct democracy wouldn’t necessarily change anything in this aspect as people have the ability to do this anyway.

I deliberately left out the conclusion because I don't want to influence your judgement :wink: