The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by hw1221
Restraints on the government power? And yeah the amount of examples you need to know makes it really hard.


Sorry that was badly worded... As in, any examples were judges were unable to uphold civil liberties, or an example where they aren't very powerful?
Hey guys!

For the Constitution section, on questions regarding the transfer of sovereignty could they ask us to specifically analyse the case of the EU? Or is it likely to be erosion/transfer of sovereignty in general?
Original post by MorganC1
Hey guys!

For the Constitution section, on questions regarding the transfer of sovereignty could they ask us to specifically analyse the case of the EU? Or is it likely to be erosion/transfer of sovereignty in general?


Constitution is highly likely to be a 40 marker, and I think it would be very unlikely that they base an entire question on the EU. I mean it's edexcel, so who knows, but we'll probably see an erosion of sovereignty with a nice lengthy paragraph with the EU as an example (:
Original post by hw1221
What examples would you use for the elected second chamber question?


Well for examples in favour of an elected chamber, it's quite limited, considering it doesn't currently exist, and its only a proposal. Examples for the reasons in favour of a non-elected (the current) chamber could be -

> Examples of expertise - Alan Sugar and Karen Bradey chosen to become peers due to their knowledge and experience in business.

> Examples for a potentially gridlocked elected chamber - gridlock has occurred in the USA on numerous occasions (both the upper and lower houses are elected in the USA) e.g. failure for both the Senate and House of Representatives to agree on a budget in 2013 meant that the government went into 'shut down' (effectively, the government had no funding temporarily)

> Examples of how an unelected chamber can effectively oppose and scrutinize the government - Government defeated over tax credit reforms in 2015; cuts to disability benefit defeated in 2016; Blair defeated over 300 times in the Lords from 1997-2007.

This is quite conceptual stuff, so examples are a little bit difficult tbh
Original post by Hurbad
Thats nothing imagine, fasting while doing an exam ?


you dont have to fast every day during ramadan you know that right ? you can do the days after. also im pretty sure politics is harder than fasting ...
Original post by DeafeningSilence
Constitution is highly likely to be a 40 marker, and I think it would be very unlikely that they base an entire question on the EU. I mean it's edexcel, so who knows, but we'll probably see an erosion of sovereignty with a nice lengthy paragraph with the EU as an example (:


Ah thank you so much! I feel confident on sovereignty but a 40 marker purely on the EU would be horrible:frown:
im not even bothering now. no point
Original post by AllanSmith22
im not even bothering now. no point


LMAO, Im just hoping the boundaries are low
anyone have an example of a successful select committee in scrutinising the govt? I've just got transport but it's a bit old, thanks
Original post by DeafeningSilence
Sorry that was badly worded... As in, any examples were judges were unable to uphold civil liberties, or an example where they aren't very powerful?


The only thing I could think of were that the terrorist suspects in the Belmarsh case were not protected straight away because the judiciary cannot be proactive in upholding civil liberties.
Original post by MorganC1
Ah thank you so much! I feel confident on sovereignty but a 40 marker purely on the EU would be horrible:frown:


I get what you mean, I'd expect to see questions that could easily lead to the EU, but it'd be awful if they did it soley on the topic. At least with the 25 marker in unit they also referenced devolution.
Original post by hw1221
The only thing I could think of were that the terrorist suspects in the Belmarsh case were not protected straight away because the judiciary cannot be proactive in upholding civil liberties.


Ahhh, thank you! I've got the prisoners voting example as well. If in doubt I'll just BS it I guess
What would you guys put as points to suggest insignificance with the Constitutional Reform Act and the establishment of a Supreme Court? I'm stuck on those. :s-smilie:
Original post by Jennifer Randall
How would I plan an answer for a wholly elected chamber?


(FOR)Increased representation -
Currently appointed; does not fulfillparliament's function of representing the electorate. Elected Lords would beable to express the views of the public more easily, as they have popularmandate backing them.

However - Lords is a revision chamber, not a representativeone. Does it need to represent the public?
+ Lords may become just as unrepresentative asthe Commons (e.g. does not resemble makeup of society; FPTP dis-proportionalityrepresents the electorate's votes etc.)
(FOR) Increased legitimacy -
Critiques and revisions the lords make will bemore legitimate, as it will have the 'consent' of the public. Lords currentlylacks legitimacy, thereby undermining parliament's functioning of creatinglegitimacy.

However - If the Lords are elected by FPTP, they may beheralded as equally illegitimate. A vote for both chambers may lead to apathyand a low turnout: lowering legitimacy anyway. Suggested: held every 10-20years instead
(FOR) Increased accountability -
Decisions currently unaccountable; elected peerscould be held to account.


(AGAINST) Parliamentary gridlock -
If the Lords and Commons have different partiesas a majority, it is unlikely that any legislation would be passed e.g.Labour-majority Lords would not wish to concede to a Conservative-majorityCommons. Fine balance currently exists within the non-majoritarian structure ofthe Lords.

However, if this is what the electorate want, then it is what the electoratewill get. Representation should come before the effectiveness of parliament (insome people's view)
(AGAINST) Influence of the whips -
Just as MPs in the Commons are reduced to 'lobbyfodder' by their whips, peers too may suffer this fate. This will reduce theLords current function of scrutinizing the government, as it will mean peerswill not be as 'independent' as they currently are (party affiliation and ties,plus influence of the whips, is limited in the Lords currently - elected peerswill be subjugated to their party's whips more easily)
(AGAINST) Lack of expertise -
Lords may become filled with career politicians,with little expertise outside of politics - would limit its function in scrutinizingand reviewing the government's work.

However, this is off the basis that peers will be selected forelection in the same way MPs are; expertise could be taken into considerationonce candidates are chosen.
Conclusion- Statement is false. Unelected peers serve their functionwithin parliament adequately - to scrutinise, not represent.
Original post by thesporkthief
x


you're a legend, thanks!
Original post by UKStudent17
What would you guys put as points to suggest insignificance with the Constitutional Reform Act and the establishment of a Supreme Court? I'm stuck on those. :s-smilie:


It was supposed to make it completely independent from politics however the pm still has a say on who to elect as judges so it didn't really work in a way


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mollyadtr
It was supposed to make it completely independent from politics however the pm still has a say on who to elect as judges so it didn't really work in a way


Posted from TSR Mobile

Could say taking power away from the PM from appointments is undemocratic since he is elected and accountable. Also i'll ask again, does anyone have any recent examples of select committee success in terms of scrutinising the government?
would we need to know the effectiveness of the HOL over the years eg how effective is the HOL
Also what are people predicting
how would people answer: To what extent can the Prime Minister control the Cabinet?

Anybody got notes or essay plans on that?
Original post by guppal21
how would people answer: To what extent can the Prime Minister control the Cabinet?

Anybody got notes or essay plans on that?


Yes the PM dominates cabinet

Control of Cabinet agenda: PM decides what is brought to the cabinet –however ministers can insist on an agenda item

Bilateral agreement:agreements made outside the cabinet(Blair sofa in his private office ‘sofa government’)

Patronage: have loyal as appointed by the PM. PM can reshuffle and demoting them

Collective responsibility:they have to tow the party line

Use of inner cabinets:very senior minister who are close to the PM. Members can control cabinet by determining policy among them. E.g The Quad.

No the PM doesn’t dominate cabinet

Cabinethas the power to overrule the prime minister. The prime minister must carry thecabinet with him or her.

Rulingparty can remove the PM must maintain support (not happened recently except pressureto resign put on Tony Blair in 2007)

Parliament can overrule prime minister by digging in its heels in opposition to a policy.

Electoratecan bring an end to PMs position want for re-election must takepublic opinion into account
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest