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

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ANY PREDICTIONS PLEASE ????? Legit s******* myself
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    TWE does the UK government operate using a cabinet government?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Praying for a question like 'the commons performs its functions well' discuss' or something like that
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What would your points be for how effective is parliament
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by popcornjpg)
    wouldnt ask that because there isnt enough to talk about.

    if its civil liberties, and its unlikely because it was last year, it will be something about whether ministers or judges should protect them.

    i predicted for judiciary it will either be power or neutrality/independence
    God please let there be a question on neutrality/independence.

    How would you answer "should ministers or judges protect civil liberties?"

    Would it be like:

    > judges are unelected so are unaccountable whereas ministers are essentially elected and are better placed to protect our liberties (proposals of a British B.O.R rather than ECHR to draw up rights on the govs terms, not an external court)
    - however, gov ministers are still appointed by the PM, so the extent to which we directly elect them is limited

    >judges are more independent due to recent constitutional reforms (explain these) so are better placed to protect civil liberties whereas ministers are politically partisan. This can have an effect on the extent to which they uphold civil liberties (talk about sentencing debates)

    >judges are able to uphold the ECHR in courts and so can go against the will of gov if necessary (ex: Freezing suspected terrorist assets)
    > however, parliament is sovereign and so has the last say, often highlighted after a declaration of incompatibility or when judges rule that the gov is acting ultra vires. This is because they often pass legislation shortly after to achieve their aims (Terrorist-Assets Freezing Act 2011)

    >ministers are often held by collective responsibility which often has internal disagreements but they are forced to accept the decisions made in cabinet or resign. Decisions are often made outside of cabinet now so the level of influence cabinet ministers have is questionable now. Therefore if there was a case of rights/policy in there area to decide upon would it just be the "rubber stamp of approval"?
    ALSO cannot break the subjudice rule lest they be charged with contempt of court. This removes influence on judges from ministers during cases and so judges in a better place to protect our liberties
    > however ministers have begun to break the principle of collective responsibility (e.g. During the coalition) so may speak out on human rights as it is an important issue.

    Okay I am lost on other points



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=UKStudent17;65590471]
    (Original post by xxvine)

    You would, I imagine. It'd probably be to do with the effectiveness, so give two sides to them. For example, backbench rebellions are effective in giving a direct message to the government that what they're doing isn't popular, and in many cases forces them to revise their legislation. However, they're also an ineffective method because most of the time, MPs vote with the party because of the whip system, thus showing that personal beliefs tend to be overruled by the agendas of the government, which subsequently enhances the power of the executive.
    What would you say about pmqs being effective
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    What would your points be for how effective is parliament
    Basically just its functions and limitations again theyre all practically the same question just worded differently


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    What would your points be for how effective is parliament
    You'd talk about its functions, eg scrutiny, accountability, representation, debating, legislating etc and assess them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=xxvine;65590551]
    (Original post by UKStudent17)
    What would you say about pmqs being effective
    allows for MPs to ask free questions, essentially just a scrutiny session, televised therefore constituents can view, however it's more parliamentary theatre than actual scrutiny
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    i know im going through it right now! if i didnt have the politics review article about post 10 reforms i would be screwed
    Read about John Major! Black Wednesday , Maastricht Rebels , Michael Portillo etc etc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=xxvine;65590159]
    (Original post by UKStudent17)
    For 'checking executive power', I have:

    -> Question Time. (E.g. PMQs, Ministerial Question Time)
    -> House of Lords. (E.g. Tax Credit Reforms rejected)
    -> Committees. (E.g. Health Committee)
    -> Legislative Powers (E.g. Vote of no confidence)
    -> Backbench Rebellions. (E.g. Gay Marriage; 134 Tories rebelled)

    Would these be any good? I've always assumed 'checking' essentially means 'controlling' executive power.

    Also, Sarah Wolloston MP (Chair of the Health Committee) defected from the Leave campaign and is now with Remain. Could we add that in to any topics/questions?[/bQUOTE]
    Do you do a two sided argument?
    Perhaps you could say how each way of holding the government to account is effective and ineffective? Or you could split them into wholly effective and ineffective methods? idk
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    for judiciary they're going to ask about its neutrality and independence
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    need to know the success and failure of each constitutional reform since 1997 with a specific focus on reforms since 2010.

    anybody?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=LennyBicknel;65590711]
    (Original post by xxvine)

    Perhaps you could say how each way of holding the government to account is effective and ineffective? Or you could split them into wholly effective and ineffective methods? idk
    I would give the counter points to suggest they are ineffective.

    1) Question Time - Often leads to 'punch and judy politics', ineffective questions, limited time means not every MP can have their say. Allows the government to operate with limited accountability.

    2) House of Lords - Possesses no legitimacy because they're unelected, most of the time they abide by the Salisbury Convention and don't oppose legislation passed through the Commons.

    3) Committees - The work of committees is often ignored due to a lack of publicity and time, therefore MPs are reluctant to listen.

    4) Legislative Powers - In times of a huge government majority (E.g. Thatcher 1983; 144 seat majority), the opposition is essentially powerless to prevent government legislation from being passed, etc.

    5) Backbench Rebellions - Most MPs just abide by the government agenda and vote with them, as opposed to going against the whip. Shows that personal interests are mostly overruled by the agendas of the government. Party disunity and rebellion in other parties can inadvertently enhance the power of the executive by crippling the power of opposition.

    Tell me if I'm wrong/not making sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    does anyone have any up to date (as in, in the last two to three years) judiciary examples? i've got plenty of AO1 for judiciary, but it's all relatively out-dated...

    (sorry if this is already somewhere in the post, but i don't have the time to look through all 60 pages rn )
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethipayne)
    does anyone have any up to date (as in, in the last two to three years) judiciary examples? i've got plenty of AO1 for judiciary, but it's all relatively out-dated...

    (sorry if this is already somewhere in the post, but i don't have the time to look through all 60 pages rn )
    Yes someone please give examples of judges being independent from a politician, or where sub judice has been broken please!!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hefty11)
    need to know the success and failure of each constitutional reform since 1997 with a specific focus on reforms since 2010.

    anybody?
    successes:
    hra 1998
    foi 2000
    elected mayors
    reform of judiciary - constitutional reform act 2005 - introduction of supreme courty
    fixed term parliament 2011
    recall 2015
    further devolution powers granted to scotland and wales 2011/12
    statutory register of lobbyists act 2014

    failures:
    electoral reform - democratisation
    AV referendum 2011
    hol reform removal of all but 92 hereditary peers
    elected second chamber: lords reform bill withdrawn 2012
    deduction of commons to 600mps - gerry mandering 2013
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=UKStudent17;65590841]
    (Original post by LennyBicknel)

    I would give the counter points to suggest they are ineffective.

    1) Question Time - Often leads to 'punch and judy politics', ineffective questions, limited time means not every MP can have their say. Allows the government to operate with limited accountability.

    2) House of Lords - Possesses no legitimacy because they're unelected, most of the time they abide by the Salisbury Convention and don't oppose legislation passed through the Commons.

    3) Committees - The work of committees is often ignored due to a lack of publicity and time, therefore MPs are reluctant to listen.

    4) Legislative Powers - In times of a huge government majority (E.g. Thatcher 1983; 144 seat majority), the opposition is essentially powerless to prevent government legislation from being passed, etc.

    5) Backbench Rebellions - Most MPs just abide by the government agenda and vote with them, as opposed to going against the whip. Shows that personal interests are mostly overruled by the agendas of the government. Party disunity and rebellion in other parties can inadvertently enhance the power of the executive by crippling the power of opposition.

    Tell me if I'm wrong/not making sense.
    Sounds good. Remind me what the Salisbury convention is - I can't remember :P is that the one where the Lords shouldn't block money or manifesto bills?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This thread has been a god send! Hope we all do well.....

    I also Edexcel are much nicer this time.....part of me thinks the paper might be nicer than Unit 1....another part of me is not holding my breath
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hefty11)
    need to know the success and failure of each constitutional reform since 1997 with a specific focus on reforms since 2010.

    anybody?
    how will we have time to write about like all 9 reforms? can somebody explain?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

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
Which is the best season?

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.