Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    Nooooo
    Then that's another prediction o ****


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I want to make my 40 mark essay into a cryptic **** you to Edexcel , start each sentence with a letter F , U , C. I like to think they'd work it out and be offended , because honestly , they are an evil exam board , not because of the exams but their company structure.

    Interesting fact about Major everybody ! He had a minority government in the last few weeks , 21 MPs resigned leaving a minority government for about 4 months.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelpain)
    Think that'll come up? I can only think of the FTPA which really limits the power of government, that's so hard and so specific. I guess you could do another one saying they're elected thus have a mandate to change the constitution but it's sketchy. Also, is the Snooper's charter an example of infringing civil liberties?
    Yeah those contemporary examples would really help, we did it in class and this was the essay plan my teacher gave us, there are probably more but at least it's a plan to work from?
    I'm in the background o **** don't mind me

    Name:  ImageUploadedByStudent Room1465389943.516253.jpg
Views: 109
Size:  110.9 KB


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cocapopsxx)
    i done PG's and parties. for Pg's i did 1 para of the 10 mark because i didn't know what to write lol and for parties i didnt have time to do the 25 mark just done 1 para and bullet pointed in brief so like the themes in the para if i were to finish it.
    so i have to make up it for unit 2. Jow many marks do u think i lost
    I don't think you would have lost that many marks, if you bulleted it showed what you would have done if you had time, I think they realise the time limit is really ****ing difficult to keep to, and if you did the pressure group essay I don't think you would loose as much as you'd think either bro


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missytwinpeaks)
    It won't let me open this! :'( if I give you my email would you please send it to me?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah of course


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have some good arguements/ examples for the codification debate?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    Yeah those contemporary examples would really help, we did it in class and this was the essay plan my teacher gave us, there are probably more but at least it's a plan to work from?
    I'm in the background o **** don't mind me

    Name:  ImageUploadedByStudent Room1465389943.516253.jpg
Views: 109
Size:  110.9 KB


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thank youuu
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hw1221)
    Does anyone have some good arguements/ examples for the codification debate?
    One commonly-cited advantage of a codified constitution is that it can limit the power of theexecutive. That the UK both has a system of parliamentary government and an uncodifiedconstitution means that governments can be extremely powerful. Lord Hailsham described thepower exercised by Prime Ministers as “elective dictatorship,” because with a parliamentary majorityit is usually possible for them to do as they please. And because the House of Commons canoverrule the House of Lords by invoking the Parliament Act, a majority in that chamber is all that’snecessary. This almost gives the government arbitrary power, because of the principle of thesovereignty of Parliament: whereas the institutions of government in most states have their powersdefined and limited by constitutions, Parliament is not legally restricted at all.

    As well as restricting the power of the executive, and indeed as part of doing so, a codifiedconstitution could also protect citizens’ rights. At the moment there is some protection, boththrough the Human Rights Act and because the UK is subject to the European Court ofHuman Rights, but a government supported by a majority in the House of Commons couldtheoretically repeal the Act and withdraw from the Convention in the admittedly unlikely event thatit wished to do so. A codified constitution, provided it was entrenched, and provided it contained astatement of rights, would be a stronger legal protection for those rights. In the USA, for example,which has a codified constitution, freedom of expression is secure: even if both Congress and thePresident wanted to restrict it they could not. Introducing a codified constitution could providesimilar protection in the UK.

    And a further problem with an uncodified constitution is that it can foster constitutional instability.Since 1997 governments have tended to meddle with the constitution, often for party politicaladvantage (such as the removal of most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords) or toresolve temporary issues (such as the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act). It could therefore be arguedthat this recent willingness to exploit the constitution’s flexibility supports the argument that theadvantages of a codified constitution (which could prevent such frequent changes) do nowoutweigh the disadvantages.

    However, recent constitutional reforms have actually reduced the powers of the executive, whichrather dents the argument that this is a reason to codify the constitution. Prime Ministers can nolonger choose a convenient moment to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, for instance.There is even already an element of entrenchment, with the European Union Act guaranteeing a referendum for any further transfer of powers to European institutions and the precedent of theAV referendum establishing the principle that significant constitutional change will need areferendum to approve it. This is not an absolute guarantee, but the opprobrium which would beheaped on governments which tried to sidestep these laws and conventions would be risking itsexistence. This has all diminished the "elective dictatorship" which Lord Hailsham complainedabout. So one of the supposed advantages of reform has already been achieved, suggesting thatactually the advantages of a codified constitution no longer outweigh the disadvantages.

    One of those disadvantages is that drawing up a codified constitution would be very difficult. Themajor political parties are divided over constitutional reform with the Conservatives broadlyopposed, the Liberal Democrats enthusiastic and Labour ambivalent, so the options areunappealing. It could emerge through compromise, perhaps devised by an all-party constitutionalconvention and requiring a referendum to ratify it ... but then the substance would be determinedless by principle than by what was politically expedient. Or it could be a partisan settlement,whether imposed by the current Coalition or by an alternative government ... but then such aconstitution might well be seen to lack legitimacy, and the political parties not in office when it wasestablished would probably seek to amend it. Such a situation would not be conducive toconstitutional stability, and it’s difficult to see an advantage which could outweigh this veryconsiderable disadvantage.

    A possible solution to this dilemma might be to codify the constitution exactly as it is, but thatwould raise further questions, such as that of entrenchment. Were the constitution to remainunentrenched the executive would remain over-mighty and able to trample on citizens’ rights andchange the constitution at will. But entrenching the constitution would damage one of its bestfeatures, which is that it is democratic. The doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament means that thewill of the people, as expressed by their democratically-elected representatives, prevails. Allowingunaccountable judges to overturn laws would be undemocratic, which is quite some disadvantage –and where this is already possible, in human rights law, it’s unpopular. The correspondingadvantage is that it might prevent governments from acting tyrannically, but governments in the UKhave shown no inclination to be tyrannical: indeed, recent constitutional reforms show just theopposite. This advantage to codifying the constitution, therefore, would be insignificant and clearlyoutweighed by the advantage.

    The traditional defence of the UK’s constitution is that while unusual and theoretically defective itworks effectively. In theory the UK’s current constitutional arrangements would allow a tyrant,once elected and supported by a majority in the House of Commons, to exercise arbitrary power.But in practice this does not happen (indeed, constitutional reforms since 1997 have tended toreduce rather than increase government power) and basing constitutional reform around theprinciple that it might is unreasonable. Until this threat becomes more substantial thedisadvantages of codification will continue to outweigh the advantages.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    I've got a PowerPoint if ya want it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I really need it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keirjohnharry)
    I want to make my 40 mark essay into a cryptic **** you to Edexcel , start each sentence with a letter F , U , C. I like to think they'd work it out and be offended , because honestly , they are an evil exam board , not because of the exams but their company structure.

    Interesting fact about Major everybody ! He had a minority government in the last few weeks , 21 MPs resigned leaving a minority government for about 4 months.
    That would be savage if you wrote that in the margins, and oh really? That kinda makes him an even more impressive leader


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    just posted a model answer for codification enjoy!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    Yeah of course


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    [email protected]

    Thank you!!!!!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaziye)
    I really need it
    i dont know which one you need so i just sent you all of them, tell me if you cant view them
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: pptx Topic 1 the constitution.pptx (372.8 KB, 62 views)
  2. File Type: pptx Topic 2 parliament.pptx (132.4 KB, 40 views)
  3. File Type: pptx topic 3 The Prime Minister and the Cabinet.pptx (138.8 KB, 36 views)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keirjohnharry)
    I want to make my 40 mark essay into a cryptic **** you to Edexcel , start each sentence with a letter F , U , C. I like to think they'd work it out and be offended , because honestly , they are an evil exam board , not because of the exams but their company structure.

    Interesting fact about Major everybody ! He had a minority government in the last few weeks , 21 MPs resigned leaving a minority government for about 4 months.
    I find Edexcel to be the harshest exam board as well
    Unit 1 this year was a joke tbh
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone got a list of all the potential questions that might come up so I can spot revise
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    Has anyone got a list of all the potential questions that might come up so I can spot revise
    youve been here the whole time dont you remember lol?!
    assessment of constitutional reform
    arguments for codification
    how does the constitution limit gov power
    the federal one we spoke about
    post 2010 successes or failures or or just reforms in general
    pm power, difference of how pms are more powerful than others,
    cabinet importance relevance today
    is parliament irrelevant/ does it fulfil its functions
    reform of parliament or hol alone
    if the hol should be fully elected
    how does parliament limit/scrutinise the government or hold them to account

    i might be missing some...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    Has anyone got a list of all the potential questions that might come up so I can spot revise
    Explain the main sources of prime ministerial power?
    Explain the main way in which prime ministerial leadership style can differ?
    How effective are the constraints on the prime ministers?
    Outline the political role of the judiciary?
    Identify the sources of the U.K. Constitution?
    Describe how Uk sovereignty has been affected by EU membership?
    Distinguish between parliamentary and presidential government?
    Explain the ways In which parliament might be described as representative?
    Explain the main differences of the functions and the composition of the HOC and HOL?

    I've got plans of the questions for all of them
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaziye)
    Explain the main sources of prime ministerial power?
    Explain the main way in which prime ministerial leadership style can differ?
    How effective are the constraints on the prime ministers?
    Outline the political role of the judiciary?
    Identify the sources of the U.K. Constitution?
    Describe how Uk sovereignty has been affected by EU membership?
    Distinguish between parliamentary and presidential government?
    Explain the ways In which parliament might be described as representative?
    Explain the main differences of the functions and the composition of the HOC and HOL?

    I've got plans of the questions for all of them
    Can I have the whole sovereignty one please
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    youve been here the whole time dont you remember lol?!
    assessment of constitutional reform
    arguments for codification
    how does the constitution limit gov power
    the federal one we spoke about
    post 2010 successes or failures or or just reforms in general
    pm power, difference of how pms are more powerful than others,
    cabinet importance relevance today
    is parliament irrelevant/ does it fulfil its functions
    reform of parliament or hol alone
    if the hol should be fully elected
    how does parliament limit/scrutinise the government or hold them to account

    i might be missing some...
    What would you write with constitution limit gov power?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    What would you write with constitution limit gov power?
    Into: 2 sides
    How does the constitution limit government?
    1: judicial review challenges government laws
    2: decentralisation via devolution
    3: decentralisation via the eu
    4: Legal sovereignty – parliament sovereignty
    5: Popular sovereignty – people - referendums
    How does it fail to limit government?
    1: lack of separation of power
    2: lack of entrenchment
    3: argue that more people vote against gov in elections so do they really have the legitimacy? or maybe even how the echr limits government
    Conclusion: not effective, electoral dictatorship
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: October 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.