Edexcel Government & Politics - Unit 2 Governing the UK (09/06/16)

Reply 60

Vinidor

1

What is the difference between statute law and primary legislation?

Reply 61

xxvine

19

Original post by King Geedorah

Link 1: 40 Mark Qs
http://alevelpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/40-marks-2009-2015.pdf

Link 2: Source based Qs
http://alevelpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ALL-source-2009-2015.pdf

I hope this helps!

Some of those questions nice some horrible lol
I really hope we don't get an EU Qu for the constitution

Reply 62

xxvine

19

Original post by Vinidor

What is the difference between statute law and primary legislation?

Statue law are laws made in parliament
Basically acts such as the fixed term parliament act and the Scotland act 1998
It's the highest law in the UK

Primarily legislation? Is that like common law or
Something

Reply 63

jonnyiw

10

Original post by popcornjpg

also the Tories (and Labour 2001 - 2005 for that matter) have recently displayed authoritarian tendencies, so I reckon a good arguement to be made is that it would likely be of the same status as all other statutes and not even possess the semi-entrenched status of HRA. Dodgy Dave and Darth Vader (May) are definitely tired of the courts declaring their legislation incompatible so will definitely make their BBR more lenient

I think this is a really good point, you could use the snoopers charter and anti terror data collection from GCHQ to say that whilst the threat of terrorism exists there is a heightened need for a British Bill of Rights.

Reply 64

jonnyiw

10

Original post by Vinidor

What is the difference between statute law and primary legislation?

Believe they are they same, primary legislation means passed by parliament, and a statute law is also a statute made by parliament.

Reply 65

UKStudent17

4

What sort of topics/questions are you guys revising for Parliament? E.g. 'How effective is Parliament in scrutinising the executive?'

I'm going to go over:

- Key terms.
- Roles/Functions of Parliament, the HoC and the HoL.
- Ways in which Parliament scrutinises the executive. (E.g. DSCs, PMQs)
- How effective these methods are in scrutinising the executive.
- Should the HoC be reformed? Who's arguing for/against.
- Should the HoL be reformed? Who's arguing for/against.

Are these appropriate? Any other key topics to cover when revising this?

Reply 66

alevelpain

2

Hey amigos, back here again :tongue:

I think that somehow there'll be a question on now we have a majority? Bit coincidental how 2016 paper has a European question..they obviously want to stick to current topics to really separate people. Trying to think of how they'd work majority in though...maybe how powerful is the PM?

Reply 67

mollyadtr

15

Original post by Vinidor

What is the difference between statute law and primary legislation?

Statue law is a source of the constitution

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 68

mollyadtr

15

Original post by mollyadtr

Statue law is a source of the constitution

Posted from TSR Mobile

wait thinking of parliamentary statute oops my bad ignore me

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 69

alevelpain

2

Original post by mollyadtr

wait thinking of parliamentary statute oops my bad ignore me

Posted from TSR Mobile

No you were right, statue law is a source of the constitution (if constitutional in nature)

Reply 70

stratagems

9

All of the Unit 2 questions grouped together by topic. Good way of figuring out what's unlikely to be asked.

image1 (2).JPG96.5KB

image2 (3).JPG78.6KB

image3 (1).JPG104.2KB

image4 (1).JPG82.6KB

image5 (1).JPG106.8KB

Original post by mollyadtr

wait thinking of parliamentary statute oops my bad ignore me

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sorry for being annoying, but what was the year of the political review you posted pictures of with different constitutional reform? I have online access to it and would like to read it, thanks 😊

thanks

Reply 72

UKStudent17

4

Original post by alevelpain

Hey amigos, back here again :tongue:

I think that somehow there'll be a question on now we have a majority? Bit coincidental how 2016 paper has a European question..they obviously want to stick to current topics to really separate people. Trying to think of how they'd work majority in though...maybe how powerful is the PM?

That'd be a nice question.

They can word that question in so many ways. 'How powerful is the PM?', 'Are PMs becoming more powerful?', 'Have PMs become more powerful in recent years?', etc.

Preferably, if that question were to come up, I'd like it to be worded so it implies you talk about past PMs as well as David Cameron. That way you can refer to Thatcher being powerful until she was ousted by her party in 1990, or John Major not being powerful, Blair being powerful but his demise came mainly because of events (Iraq), Brown really not powerful, and Cameron not really powerful either, due to the suspension of 'CCR', Cabinet resignations (IDS), splits within the party over the EU, having a small majority of 12, political blunders like the Panama papers scandal.

Reply 73

alevelpain

2

Original post by UKStudent17

That'd be a nice question.

They can word that question in so many ways. 'How powerful is the PM?', 'Are PMs becoming more powerful?', 'Have PMs become more powerful in recent years?', etc.

Preferably, if that question were to come up, I'd like it to be worded so it implies you talk about past PMs as well as David Cameron. That way you can refer to Thatcher being powerful until she was ousted by her party in 1990, or John Major not being powerful, Blair being powerful but his demise came mainly because of events (Iraq), Brown really not powerful, and Cameron not really powerful either, due to the suspension of 'CCR', Cabinet resignations (IDS), splits within the party over the EU, having a small majority of 12, political blunders like the Panama papers scandal.

You could do one paragraph 'it's dependent on how the PM decides to rule' then go on to say, Callaghan was collegiate and seen as weak, Thatcher autocratic seen as strong etc

Reply 74

UKStudent17

4

Original post by alevelpain

You could do one paragraph 'it's dependent on how the PM decides to rule' then go on to say, Callaghan was collegiate and seen as weak, Thatcher autocratic seen as strong etc

I'd mention the factors which determine how powerful a PM is, such as personality, events, strength of the opposition, size of the majority, how submissive/powerful the Cabinet is, role of the media, powers at the PM's dispersal, etc. I'd probably throw these in the introduction, which typically turns into a huge topic sentence for me.

Then I'd just place them in context of the PMs we've had. Like you said, Thatcher was seen as strong because of her personality, weaknesses of Labour in the 1980s, etc. and so on.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 75

xxvine

19

Original post by alevelpain

You could do one paragraph 'it's dependent on how the PM decides to rule' then go on to say, Callaghan was collegiate and seen as weak, Thatcher autocratic seen as strong etc

So what would the for and against be

Reply 76

alevelpain

2

Original post by xxvine

So what would the for and against be

DOMINATE CABINET -> Controls cabinetcommittees, discussions, bilateral meetings, sofa government etc. manipulatingproceedings to want he wants also the timings of the meetings -> BLAIR

Looks like leader -> PM is the highestauthority -> seen as the spoke person by the media -> Cameron seen asPrime Ministerial -> considered to be the ‘chief’ policy maker -> policyneeds his approval before it is done, otherwise it cannot happen -> forexample, the NHS reforms would have had his approval

Power of patronage/royal prerogative ->this means that the PM can dismiss/appoint ministers -> Ken Clarke->means that cabinet ministers must obey if they are to keep their job -> alsoroyal prerogative means PM is in charge of foreign policy which makes him more powerful

The PM is primus inter pares -> he canbe limited and even removed by cabinet -> does not exert absolute rule over them -> Thatcher was removed from her party through the resignation of cabinet ministers and Major faced leadership contests for 3 years

The power is very dependent on the size of majority -> Cameron has had to scrap policy to make sure he doesn’t piss offhis party

The prime minister maynot enjoy a dominant personality and/or may lose the confidence of the mediaand the electorate -> heavily diminishes what they are able to do

Reply 77

mollyadtr

15

Original post by alevelpain

Sorry for being annoying, but what was the year of the political review you posted pictures of with different constitutional reform? I have online access to it and would like to read it, thanks 😊

thanks

The 2016 one :smile: