The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Mars321


LOOOOL
Original post by alevelpain
I know :tongue: Conservatives believe that the original interpretation has now been perverted since they can't deport criminals who have a family, so now they want a bill of rights (the deportation is just one reason, but 'perversion of meaning' is why)


Ahhh yeah I get that, maybe they should have thought of that before when they had the chance to input 😉


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mars321


Absolute savage


Posted from TSR Mobile
What type of question about the British bill of rights could come up and how would I answer it?
Original post by jxssamy
how would you answer '"the uk constitution is no longer fit for purpose". discuss'?

say weakness of constitution + plus impacts of EU.
then could say however reforms since 1997 have made it fit for purpose
Reply 505
Avatar for 8600
8600
Heya guys, been lurking here for a while ...

2 questions: What do u think will be on each? Parliament/Judiciary ESSAY and Constitution/PM and Cabinet SOURCE? or vice versa..

Also 'How representative is Parliament?' - Is this asking all about the make up of Parliament - ethnicities, sexuality, gender, etc ? Or how it represents us as the people?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Mars321
What type of question about the British bill of rights could come up and how would I answer it?


It could be like 'to what extent is there a need for a British bill of rights' and you could argue for and against
Some against points could be the executive should not get I decide our right, echr is fine as our government can't manipulate it whereas if they had a British bir they could
It would be a question of would it be entrenched-guaranteed
Echr does a good job as it is humans are humans why is there a need for a specific British bor

For:
Could stop prisoners or terrorists from using the echr to get out of their sentence of deportation etc
We would be able to reform it
Supreme Court would be the highest court again
It would be something Brits would know

I don't know much else as I'm not doing judiciary but it's a start for you



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mars321
What type of question about the British bill of rights could come up and how would I answer it?


'Human rights is not functional - it should be replaced by a British Bill of Rights'
Do you agree?

1) Works against state interest -> deporting
2) Meaning of HR has been peverted - written 60 years ago
3) Allows too much judicial activism

Counter those points:
First point is dubious -> prevented Abu Qatada from being deported and being killed
Second point -> it is meant to be vague as society changes
Third point -> coined judicial activism but it's just judges holding govt to account -> need a separation of powers -> already for authoritarian rubbish happened like Terrorism act, don't need more
Original post by 8600
Heya guys, been lurking here for a while ...

2 questions: What do u think will be on each? Parliament/Judiciary ESSAY and Constitution/PM and Cabinet SOURCE? or vice versa..

Also 'How representative is Parliament?' - Is this asking all about the make up of Parliament - ethnicities, sexuality, gender, etc ? Or how it represents us as the people?


Look back on through the pages we've put down fully the predictions for pm parliament and cabinet but have no idea about the source as it depends on the source that's given!
Representative means both yeah including the commons and the lords
If you can't find the predictions I'll go back and sit down and write them after I have a shower


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mollyadtr
It could be like 'to what extent is there a need for a British bill of rights' and you could argue for and against
Some against points could be the executive should not get I decide our right, echr is fine as our government can't manipulate it whereas if they had a British bir they could
It would be a question of would it be entrenched-guaranteed
Echr does a good job as it is humans are humans why is there a need for a specific British bor

For:
Could stop prisoners or terrorists from using the echr to get out of their sentence of deportation etc
We would be able to reform it
Supreme Court would be the highest court again
It would be something Brits would know

I don't know much else as I'm not doing judiciary but it's a start for you



Posted from TSR Mobile

Thank you this is a life saver
Original post by alevelpain
'Human rights is not functional - it should be replaced by a British Bill of Rights'
Do you agree?

1) Works against state interest -> deporting
2) Meaning of HR has been peverted - written 60 years ago
3) Allows too much judicial activism

Counter those points:
First point is dubious -> prevented Abu Qatada from being deported and being killed
Second point -> it is meant to be vague as society changes
Third point -> coined judicial activism but it's just judges holding govt to account -> need a separation of powers -> already for authoritarian rubbish happened like Terrorism act, don't need more


These are some really good points btw are you studying judiciary if yes do have a recommended guideline as to what I should learn?
Anyone know some cases I should learn in order to do judiciary
Original post by Mars321
These are some really good points btw are you studying judiciary if yes do have a recommended guideline as to what I should learn?


How effectively are civil liberties protected was last years, so Human rights, how can judiciary check power of govt/conflict between judiciary and govt...I'd revise should judges be responsible for civil liberties just incase but those 4 definitely.
Original post by popcornjpg
anyone know of points to make saying that the judiciary is not independent? neutrality is easy, but I genuinely don't think there is anything to suggest the judiciary is not independent


The process of appointments still involves some input from both the prime minister and Lord Chancellor. They could still sway the decision of a judge to what suits them which effectively means that government is imposing on the judiciary.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Louise12307
The process of appointments still involves some input from both the prime minister and Lord Chancellor. They could still sway the decision of a judge to what suits them which effectively means that government is imposing on the judiciary.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Really? where is the input? we weren't taught this and I'm scared in case this comes up
Original post by alevelpain
I don't know just seems like repetition of last years question which was 'To what extent does Parliament remain sovereign' or something. For unitary constitution/federal that's just regarding devolution which just seems too narrow for a 40 mark question


i doubt that because that was the 25 marker in the 2015 paper..
Original post by mollyadtr
Wait what if we helped to write it in the first what is the point of writing a British bill of rights....it's almost like they're trying to fool us


Posted from TSR Mobile


The ECHR was brought in by the Council of Europe - which is NOT the European Union. We were a part of the CofE before we joined the European Economic Community (which later became the EU). The part about part of joining up meaning accepting the ECHR was brought in relatively recently, way after we were already a member.


Posted from TSR Mobile
how safe do you think it is to only learn two topics since i have a day to revise, is there any chance that constitution and parliament could be both source or both 40 markers?
Original post by afrosenju
how safe do you think it is to only learn two topics since i have a day to revise, is there any chance that constitution and parliament could be both source or both 40 markers?


not very safe, know someone who is resisting cause the two he studied for came up in the same section. judiciary is quite long so i advice to ignore that and study the other 3 :smile:
Original post by toniyasminn
not very safe, know someone who is resisting cause the two he studied for came up in the same section. judiciary is quite long so i advice to ignore that and study the other 3 :smile:


i guess but edexcel have never put parliament and constitution together in the same section, but they might do it for the lolz, im so screwed

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you