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

I thought the 10 markers were alright.

For the democracy one, I just put:
- compulsory voting would increase turnouts to make the government more legitimate, like in Australia they had a 93% turnout from it and ours is only 66%
- voting could be regarded as a civic duty, like jury duty, and thus made compulsory
- compulsory voting would encourage participation from groups like under 24 year olds, who don't normally vote, therefore making the government more representative of society

But, I found the pressure groups one really hard, I said:
- Being an outsider could lead groups to resort to illegal action
- Groups that lack financial power may resort to illegal action in order to gain publicity
- But then I couldn't really think of a third one... So I put, groups may grow frustrated with the government, and therefore resort to illegal action, and used the example of Fathers4Justice plotting to kidnap Blair's son in 2006

How do you think I did?

Your first point for democracy is correct, second one I wouldn't give marks for and the third one needs more expansion; how would making under 24s voting make the government more representative specifically?

First two PG's points are correct but publicity and financial power could have been seperated but probably still good enough. Third one might be correct not sure/

I answered that question but I argued yes they are still traditional because of the rise of corbynism. I gave 3 arguments for and 2 against

For the pressure group 10 marker, I talked about:

1) Being an 'outsider' group may lead to illegal methods.
2) All other [legal] alternatives tried and failed.
3) Illegal methods can in some ways be more effective in gaining media attention and publicity.

Examples I used: Fathers4Justice and the ALF (Animal Liberation Front)

I thought the 10 markers were alright.

For the democracy one, I just put:
- compulsory voting would increase turnouts to make the government more legitimate, like in Australia they had a 93% turnout from it and ours is only 66%
- voting could be regarded as a civic duty, like jury duty, and thus made compulsory
- compulsory voting would encourage participation from groups like under 24 year olds, who don't normally vote, therefore making the government more representative of society

But, I found the pressure groups one really hard, I said:
- Being an outsider could lead groups to resort to illegal action
- Groups that lack financial power may resort to illegal action in order to gain publicity
- But then I couldn't really think of a third one... So I put, groups may grow frustrated with the government, and therefore resort to illegal action, and used the example of Fathers4Justice plotting to kidnap Blair's son in 2006

How do you think I did?

was I right to write about the west Lothian question in the democracy 25 marker ?

Your first point for democracy is correct, second one I wouldn't give marks for and the third one needs more expansion; how would making under 24s voting make the government more representative specifically?

First two PG's points are correct but publicity and financial power could have been seperated but probably still good enough. Third one might be correct not sure/

What did you guys put for the 25 Marker for democracy?

I talked about how there's a low turnout for the elections of EU institutions, which can hinder democracy. However as Parliament's sovereignty overrides this.
I also talked about devolution Is good because it creates a more efficient representation.

I'm sure you did better than you think! Which topics did you go for?

I hope so, because I just can't think of anything positive about that exam haha!

I went for elections and pressure groups, we weren't taught about parties so avoided that and the democracy 25 marker looked horrendous

What did you go for?

Exam went alright I think. I had difficulty thinking of three reasons for making voting compulsory, but I did it in the end.

I remember that I also had difficulty with the democracy 5 marker. I've heard of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary government, but not Parliamentary democracy. So I basically just fused Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary government. I said about Parliament being supreme and all that, that people should participate, and that the government was drawn from Parliament. I know that that the question only asked for two, but I figured that they wouldn't take marks away if I did more.

The democracy 25 marker I found unconventional, nothing like any of the past papers. I wrote about how EU membership affected sovereignty, civil liberties, and how it contributed to political strife. For devolution, I talked about sovereignty and how it made people in the specific regions feel more represented, which makes them support the political system more.

I get extra time, but even I felt really pressed for time. How did the rest of you guys find the time?

Pretty horrible for me, to be honest. It's literally a mark a minute, so there's no time to consider questions, make a plan, maybe even check your answers at the end and correct anything. I'm surprised I even finished all my questions, by no means to the standard I wanted them to be though. My (25) marker on pressure groups had to be rushed; my points suggesting power is in decline were, at most, 4-5 lines long.

How much extra time did you receive, out of interest?

Do you guys think boundaries will go down??

Guys fasting and doing exams I can only pray for the grade boundaries to be low

Here's plan for the question:


« IsLabour returning to its Socialist roots ? »


YES –Equality : Rich should be taxed the most, the poor theleast :
-Labourintroduced MINIMUM WAGE
-suppportreintrodicuing 50p tax fot those earning +£100,000/year
-Againstcuts to tax credits done by the Tory gov. and voted against thecut of the EMA in 2011.

NO –Nothing wrong with getting rich, as long as there is equality ofopportunity ;
-povertygap grew under Blair/Brown + Brown abolished 10p rate of tax poorest paying + taxes
-EdBalls shadow chancellor announced « Labour not to reverse cutsby coalition »


YES - Active rôle of the state :
-Under Blair, massive inscrease of state spending from £2000 in1997 to £5000 in 2007 per student.
-Brown Gov nationalised failing banks (NORHERN ROCK/RBS)
-Corbyn announced nationalisation of Railway

NO – A mixed ecnonomy : Labour did NOT reverse Thatcherprivatisation scheme when in gov.
-Brown privatised the Tote
-introduced academies in 2000

YES – Internationalism :
-Brown promoted the cause of poverty in the world, and recentlythe US
+ campaingned for more money to fight Malaria
-Also supported Make Poverty History (taking insider status)
-Corbyn and Miliband URGED party to vote against action in Syriain 2015
promoting UN action + Corbyn believes in disarmement

NO – Humanitarian interventionn sometimes necessary, w/ or w/outinternational support :
-Diplomacy does not always work ; Blair launched Iraq War in2004 despite objection of international community
-Miliband supported though actioons against ISIS
-More than 60 Labour MPs to vote FOR the military action,including Shadow Foreign Secretary Benn

25%, so an extra 20 minutes.

I also use a word processor, and I was so pressed for time that for one of the questions I think I had to just copy and paste my introduction as my conclusion, and add 'In conclusion...' at the beginning of it.

You didn't make the mistake and say the ECHR ( and thus HRA ) is part of the EU did you? I know many people who fell in that trap. Interesting comment about MEPs being able to argue for Britain on a bigger platform, I've always been critical of that point due to EU parliament being split via party not country. Regardless, good answer