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

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Babs Posh)
    Haha thanks! I did the judiciary one, although could have easily gone for the Constitution one - they were nice questions!

    Did yours go well?
    Yeah both nice, I saw constitutional reform and I was so happy lol. It's so stretched for time though, I couldn't do the 10 marker properly so hard with time
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andrewdwilliams)
    That is precisely what I did. I put weak protection of rights as an argument for reform, elective dictatorship as an argument for reform, effective government as an argument for no further reform, and history/tradition as an argument for no further reform.
    I did the exact same! I hope its correct and will get a decent amount of marks
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    why didn't edexcel write 'uk'

    how were we supposed to know what they were talking about lol?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please tell me what they wrote for the PM 25 marker.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    why didn't edexcel write 'uk'

    how were we supposed to know what they were talking about lol?
    Tbh the course is called the uk government and politics so... Also says so on the front of the paper


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What a blessing of a paper. The questions were actually easy but masked by crappy wording! They really wanted to trip many up and admittedly I died inside when I first saw the constitution question but then realised I had written a 36/40 question on it a couple days ago.

    I wrote about, gave examples for and evaluated:

    > House of Lords reform
    > Judiciary reform
    > ECHR/HRA
    > Devolution
    > Fixed term parliaments

    Managed to get 5 whopping paragraphs in there! Thank God.


    Also my 25 marker for PM and Cabinet went alright once I figured it what it was bleddy asking me! Such a relief.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For the first section i did the PM.

    for the 25 marker i did 2 points for 2 against saying things like elective dictatorship for the pro side and for the against said there were effective checks and balances like HoLs and Judicial Reviews.

    for the 40 marker i did judiciary and said they are best because they are neutral as a main point. I made 3 points on each side, i must have used the term 'ultra vires' about 10 times xD

    Does this roughly sound right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What kind of Mark do you think I will get for Parliament 25 marker


    I wrote about Private members legislation and how it is drawn from a ballot and while govt adopts a full range of responsibility it gives opportunity for issues to be subjected to debate

    Downside: not enough time dedicated
    I mentioned the reforms of the HOL and the significance of them in recent years with the coalition government it granted them more freedom as they lacked a democratic mandate
    And in 83,87,2001 they acted to bolster opposition where govt was strong


    I mentioned PMQs but didn't know if they were relevant and the Belmarshcase and how there is less patronage in Parliament


    Only mentioned Salisbury convention in my conclusion but mentioned Parliament acts

    Is this good? I've been stressing
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Babs Posh)
    I think it was to what extent are PMs free from political constraint, something like that.

    I totally ignored the source and just wrote my own answers Does anybody know how many marks this would lose?
    You don't need to reference the source in the 25 marker


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For the PM 25 marker.
    I said the pm was in charge of the party direction, I talked about whips, uncodified constitution and that he gets to choose whose in his cabinet.
    Then my points against were the lords, devolution, weak majority and i mentioned the Eu with judiciary but i am not sure if that was right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For everyone worrying about the wording of the question, there was a past paper with essentially the same question just different wording.

    It was "constitutional reform since 1997 hasn't gone far enough"

    This one was essentially the same set up, minus the "1997". You were supposed give the arguments against further reform weighed against those that argue no further reform is needed. This involves mentioning different reforms/potentially attempts of such as HoL, BOR, codified constitution, constitutional reform act 2005, devolution, ftpa, HRA, electoral reform (AV).... Etc.

    Codification sounds like a point you could have given but the essay was not solely on whether we should have a codified/uncodified constitution.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    What a blessing of a paper. The questions were actually easy but masked by crappy wording! They really wanted to trip many up and admittedly I died inside when I first saw the constitution question but then realised I had written a 36/40 question on it a couple days ago.

    I wrote about, gave examples for and evaluated:

    > House of Lords reform
    > Judiciary reform
    > ECHR/HRA
    > Devolution
    > Fixed term parliaments

    Managed to get 5 whopping paragraphs in there! Thank God.


    Also my 25 marker for PM and Cabinet went alright once I figured it what it was bleddy asking me! Such a relief.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm a bit confused, I recall that the question was about proposed reform not reforms that have already happened? Which seems to be what you've mentioned there
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    For everyone worrying about the wording of the question, there was a past paper with essentially the same question just different wording.

    It was "constitutional reform since 1997 hasn't gone far enough"

    This one was essentially the same set up, minus the "1997". You were supposed give the arguments for further reform weighed against those that argue no further reform is needed. This involves mentioning different reforms/potentially attempts of such as HoL, BOR, codified constitution, constitutional reform act 2005, devolution, ftpa, HRA, electoral reform (AV).... Etc.

    Codification sounds like a point you could have given but the essay was not solely on whether we should have a codified/uncodified constitution.


    Posted from TSR Mobile



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    Couldn't agree more


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nonsense! I'm sure you did better than you thought
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lulub47)
    I was so confused for the judiciary.. What did you put?
    the way i read it was you had to put how they do and then how parliament do and micro analyse each point. For judiciary my points were:
    The inclusion of the ECHR which courts can rule on with Belmarsh my example but they to micro i used that the arent binding on parliament so as Blair did following the ruling on the freezing of terrorist assets they can be overruled which shows little protection in reality.

    Then the EU soci-economic rights protection which is sovereign following the factortame case. Then used Williams v British Airways to show how they used the EU to protect rights of the individual in terms of holiday payment. Then that this was almost unlimited in the ability to protect rights unless parliament use their power to leave the EU.

    Finally the extension of judicial activism and judges such as Lords Woolf and Bingham who use their personal position to champion the rights of the individual in certain areas against the government. Also activism as with the High Court who ordered the release of expesnses files in 2009. However, sovereignty means that ministers are able to withstand these attempts etc.

    Then for Parliament:
    The House of Lords checks for protecting rights as they used against gov for Tax credit cuts and disability allowance cuts. Then micro with unelected so power is limited to be fully protecting rights.

    The commons and the continued activism of back benchers and opposition as they had used when Sunday Trading changes were revoked as it was believed to go against the rights of wokers. Then micro was that this often depends on the size of the majority. Blair went 8 years without losing a vote in the Commons after 1997 and this was at a time of increasing restrictions to rights for anti-terror purposes suggesting that Parliament fails in this area quite often.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Argh, guys, did anyone else run out of time? I only managed to get into the intro + first paragraph for the last 40 mark question! Any advice?

    Is it better to answer the 25/40 marker (whatever it is) questions first?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlimShady96)
    I'm a bit confused, I recall that the question was about proposed reform not reforms that have already happened? Which seems to be what you've mentioned there
    The question was "the arguments for further constitutional reform are more convincing than those against". Discuss.

    The arguments for further constitutional reform involve mentioning current ones. For example:

    In 1998, devolution allowed for governments/assemblies to be set up in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Supporters of this reform highlight the powers that were allocated such as the ability for Scotland to vary income tax levels by 3% either side of the level in London. Powers such as these have arguably allowed for a more democratic system, bringing the decisions closer to the people. Therefore, many argue that further reform is not needed.
    However, many disagree. The SNP argue for full Scottish independence and many nationalists argue that Westminster desires to hold all the power.
    That said, a referendum in 2014 for Scottish independence returned a "no" result despite a high turnout (over 80%). In light of this, it can be concluded that the regional public are satisfied with the current level of reform.



    See?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UKStudent17)
    Nonsense! I'm sure you did better than you thought
    Let's just hope!! How did you find it?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the more i read the thread the more stupid i feel lol
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hannaha124)
    Tbh the course is called the uk government and politics so... Also says so on the front of the paper


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    nerves and all

    no need to be cheeky
 
 
 
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.