AQA AS Politics GovP2 09/06/16 Official Thread

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120

username1344042

Can someone tell me why a codified constitution would equate to a separation of powers please!!!

Reply 121

Sabnamraii

Original post by olmyster911

Rise of judicial activism to counter ministers criticising judicial decisions, e.g. Lord Neuberger calling Theresa May's comments on a court decision "inappropriate" in 2013

Judges are also commenting on policy more, e.g. Lord Woolf criticised the CRA 2005 publicly

----

Flip side, the CRA 2005 removed the Lord Chancellory from the Lords and reduced appointment power so it rests in the Judicial Appointment Commission

Judges are paid independently through the Consolidated Fund although their pensions were still cut in 2013

:smile:

Thank you!! I feel a lot less stressed out than I did a moment ago...
:smile:

Reply 122

username1344042

Original post by Sabnamraii

Thank you!! I feel a lot less stressed out than I did a moment ago...
:smile:

Good! It's revision for me too :tongue:

Reply 123

BirdIsWord

Original post by Sademajek

Thanks! what mark would you give it as it is?

You should send it to a teacher to check, not me, I have bad judgement

Reply 124

sazriah

does anyone have an example for a select committee inquiry that has successfully scrutinized the government?

please.. really struggling with this

Reply 125

BirdIsWord

Just woke up. Time for the all nighter <3

Reply 126

Sabnamraii

Original post by sazriah

does anyone have an example for a select committee inquiry that has successfully scrutinized the government?

please.. really struggling with this

Well you could mention how the committee report regarding the Belmarsh Case 2004 where terrorist suspects were charged without trial led to the amendments on the Anti Terrorism Act 2001- during a practice mock paper and an essay my teacher commented that it was a good example so I guess you could mention this?
I'm sorry if it wasn't quite what you were looking for 😅

ahh thanks so much

what grade would you give this?
Sources of the British constitution gives both stability and flexibility?
The British constitution is said to be unmodified as it draws from several different sources those being, Conventions, statute laws, authoritative documents, common law and EU laws and treaties, rather than being in a single authoritative document like a codified constitution would require, as laws entrenched in codifies countries like America, which is thought to bring more stability.However the sources of the uk constitution undoubtedly makes it more stable and flexible.

One of the sources that perhaps brings the most stability is statute laws. This is because they are written laws passed by an act of parliament which is sovereign, and also enforceable in courts the 1198 Human rights act , devolution and the 2014 House of Lords act are an example of this. However these acts are repealable as they can be quite easily changed by a majority in parliament which also shows flexibility, which is definitely needed in a constitution in order to reflect changes in society socially and politically. For example the 1996 Dunblane massacre called for an immediate act of parliament to ban the possession of armed hand guns, which in a rigid constitution would be hard to do for example the USA have been trying to change the 2nd amendment for years with no prevail, this suggests that uk sources do indeed bring stability and flexibility.

European laws and treaties also give stability, rather than flexibility as its laws are established among 27 other countries and its laws precede over British laws for example, laws from the european convention of human rights like article to right to live, shows its stability. However because of the precedence of eu laws over british laws, it questions its stability as the British people cannot be sure that their rights are safeguarded against the power of the eu, this is demonstrated in the factor tame case where the uk merchant act was put aside as it said to have discriminated against the spanish fisherman.

Conventions also give the constitution stability and flexibility as they evolve over time and need no process of legislation to be amended for example the salsbury seemed to have been over turn as the HoL blocked the cutting of tax credits in 2015, which George osbourne said had 'broken a convention', which also suggests that its flexibility is not a good thing as it blurs the line of what powers, like the HoL have. However can be seen as a good thing because it brings another element of scrutiny. Nonetheless this is also the case for authoritative works as it also brings a sense of stability and flexibility as it is recognised by many like AV Diceys'introduction to the study of the law of the constitution' which is the closest written account of how the constitution actually works.Finally common law is also a source that brings stability and flexibility as laws are formed on the basis of precedents set in previous cases which suggest that the law is adaptable, giving it a flexible nature

In conclusion it is accurate to say that the sources of the constitution gives both stability and flexibility, as an unmodified costituion as it easy adapts to the changes in society, and has been this way fro centuries so as john major said 'if its not broke don't fix it' suggesting that even to this day the constitution is what is was supposed to be.

Reply 129

Warriner4

Original post by Sabnamraii

Can someone please help me with the judiciary. How has the judiciary become more politicised? It would be really helpful if you included 2 points for and against with examples!

One way the introduction of the human rights act 1998 has brought judges rulings into the political arena, and since the European convention of human rights act 1950 ( European law ) was replaced with the HRA. The Supreme Court acts as the final court of the appeal after the CRA 2005 reforms under Blair, therefore whatever judges rule on human rights appeal cases it will be checked by parliament.

Another way is the Lord Chancellor, the director of the CPS and the attorney general all sit in on cabinet meetings, therefore they are capable to make suggestions and be fully involved with cabinet discussions.

Lord chancellor's senior appointments role has been stripped away from them in order to reduce secret soundings, however there is still only 1 woman justice.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 130

Warriner4

Original post by sazriah

does anyone have an example for a select committee inquiry that has successfully scrutinized the government?

please.. really struggling with this

Home affairs committee in 2006. It was about Tony Blair's idea to detain terror suspects for 99 days whereby he nearly had a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons. The lords also blocked this however the select committee suggested 28 days instead of 99 days which was accepted by both houses.

You could also say the phone hacking scandal with Rupert and James Murdoch in 2011- that was successful in where they exposed governments relationship with government.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 131

sazriah

Original post by Warriner4

really helpful, thanks :smile:

Reply 132

Sademajek

stuck on this Help! Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, outline the ways in which Parliamentlegitimises public policies

Reply 133

Stress head-_-

Predictions for PM and Core Executive??

Reply 134

BirdIsWord

Original post by olmyster911

Can someone tell me why a codified constitution would equate to a separation of powers please!!!

Because a codified constitution would clearly lay out the responsibility of each branch of government and establish a system of checks and balances, by saying the relationship of each branch with the others.
Also would likely lead to a separation of personnel

Reply 135

HarryDavis

How likely is a 5/10 marker being on bureaucracy? If so, what would be an exemplar answer?
(For example, define bureaucracy)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 136

lascelles101

Original post by sazriah

can anyone explain the difference between parliamentary sovereignty and political sovereignty?

political sovereignty is where people who ultimate power as we can vote parliament out, whereas parliamentary soveightry is where parliament has all power as they make law and it cannot bind and future parliaments