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

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stratagems)
    I liked the question and it would have been my go to had it not been for the fact tha remembering key judicial decisions was a pain in the arse haha.
    With the constitution, you don't really have to remember date of xyz, but now I'm confused if I even understood the question correctly like others here 😳, so you probably made the right decision!
    I didn't put many judicial decisions in mine, I talked mostly about if they are neutral and independent and then went and did the same with both the executive and then parliament, assessing both. I think my conclusion was that although the executive can actually amend legislation to prevent any infringement of civil liberties and rights, the best branch for the job is the judiciary because of their increasing liberal standpoint and tyranny of the minority etc. - very different from what I've seen other people write for that question on here but oh well haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did people write for the PM 25 marker?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by history master)
    What did people write for the PM 25 marker?

    Just about managed to finish my essay on PM but wrote about the following:

    Para 1-PM is free from political constraint if they have support of their party. Talked about electoral liability, elasticity theory, etc in regards to Blair. Discussed Major and his weakened authority by rebels, etc.
    Para 2-PM not free from political constraint depending on size of majority. Talked about landslides had by Blair and Thatcher, passing of bills such as on foundation hospitals and tuition fees. Cameron will face less well with a mere majority of 12.
    Para 3-PM not free from political constraints owing to coalition. Discussed the sharing of power in terms of decision making, legislation in regards to Con-Lib Dem coalition. Also mentioned confidence and supply arrangement criteria which may pressurise PM e.g Major and Ulster Unionists in 1997
    Para 4-PM free from political constraint on account of their personality. Should be able to dominate and their personality reflects on their leadership. Discussed Blair being statesman-like and able to get his way, e.g Millenium a Dome in 1997. Major and Heath acted as peace brokers in their cabinet, the former containing some of his deadliest enemies not out of choice but out of decision to reassert authority.Conclusion-summed up above points and came to the conclusion that the PM is generally never free from constraint due to cabinet and parliament in the end.

    Hope this helps you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    Yeah I get that, it's really stressful, what would even happen if you didn't get into the next year will they literally tell you to go somewhere else? That just seems so mad to me especially when you're starting the course in a couple of weeks tjme

    Yeah I know me too, I only do 3 a levels and if I probably don't pass next year no unis will accept me, let's just hope for the best...for both of our sales!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They'd just tell me that I can't enroll for Year 13. I'm fairly sure that I have to enroll on the same day that I get my results, so there's no room to do anything, really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I just remembered that i wrote that Mps can issue a vote of no confidence to as a method of controlling the executive to some extent, is that correct?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UKStudent17)
    They'd just tell me that I can't enroll for Year 13. I'm fairly sure that I have to enroll on the same day that I get my results, so there's no room to do anything, really.
    Ah man that sucks. I'm wishing you the best you don't need all the stress


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    guys if someone only talked about unmodified and codified, what is the highest they could get? for constitution
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ashc014)
    I just remembered that i wrote that Mps can issue a vote of no confidence to as a method of controlling the executive to some extent, is that correct?
    Perfect!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toniyasminn)
    guys if someone only talked about unmodified and codified, what is the highest they could get? for constitution
    Depending on what other aspects you brought about like the judiciary , entrech , authorative...
    I'd say about 20marks as you need to mention other constitutional reforms
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hurbad)
    Depending on what other aspects you brought about like the judiciary , entrech , authorative...
    I'd say about 20marks as you need to mention other constitutional reforms
    Yup
    Probs a C or D in that paper
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I basically did codified/uncodified but I mentioned devolution really briefly. I didnt specify that it was codify I just said no we shouldn't because: Reforms could lead to a loss of our flexibility, and then two separate paragraphs on keeping the judges out of the political arena and how our constitution has worked for 100s of years as well as no widespread demand for reform. Then I countered with if we did reform the constitution, positive reforms could be: we could limit government (like the US Bill of Rights), entrench laws to prevent short term government changing them and if a reform was to be made of codification, then it could give citizens greater clarity. I came to a judgement in my conclusion. What is the maximum mark I can get?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danimillie)
    I basically did codified/uncodified but I mentioned devolution really briefly. I didnt specify that it was codify I just said no we shouldn't because: Reforms could lead to a loss of our flexibility, and then two separate paragraphs on keeping the judges out of the political arena and how our constitution has worked for 100s of years as well as no widespread demand for reform. Then I countered with if we did reform the constitution, positive reforms could be: we could limit government (like the US Bill of Rights), entrench laws to prevent short term government changing them and if a reform was to be made of codification, then it could give citizens greater clarity. I came to a judgement in my conclusion. What is the maximum mark I can get?
    20+
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    Yup
    Probs a C or D in that paper
    Dont worry you're going to pass
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For constitutional reforms i wrote and agreed with the statement that arguments in favour were more considering and wrote the following points;

    1) Devolution and spoke about Scotland wales northen Ireland london mayoral bristol, liverpool and manchester

    2) eu membership and spoke about the demand for reform through the public asking and high profile groups such as the gang of six emerging

    3) house of lords, its flawed and unlegitimate chamber and how there's always been reform attemps to it

    4) flawed electoral system producing wasted votes and unrepresentative

    With these 4 i countered properly and wrote about 6 pages with literally knoweldge up untill today, do you think I would gain 30+?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollyadtr)
    Ah man that sucks. I'm wishing you the best you don't need all the stress


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thank you. I hope you do well too!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think I forgot to write what question I was doing for the second half of the exam - will this affect my grade?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stratagems)
    Yup - I only managed to write an intro + 1 paragraph 😭 But mentioned the bill of rights as it's comparable to the US' and thus constitutes a form of a written constitution re: citizens rights.

    I'm a little bit baffled how I didn't even think about HoL reform yet everyone here did! 😳
    That's a shame about your timing I made sure I did the 40 marker first so I didn't get bogged down in the Source question- I'm sure you did fine

    Yes same, I talked about the US Supreme Court and how its created politicised and overpowered unelected, unaccountable judges so we should keep the HRA.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno how but I managed to decide that the executive and parliament are better guardians of civil liberties and rights than judges.. Why did it do that 😱
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unit 2 paper:

    I utterly sure I've done the 1c) question wrong (to a certain degree) as I mentioned how the cabinet controls the PM, which with the executive being part of parliament, and themselves placing one another in check.......I suppose its not to bad? But wrong none the less. However the essay went something along the lines of:

    1 - Government relies on their cabinet to maintain their strong position (Lancaster plot 2008), they can also encourage votes of no confidence (Hesseltine with Thatcher).

    2- Prime minister is entering a more bilateral form of government, limiting how well the cabinet can place government in check (Tony Blairs sofa cabinet, fait accompli, Irag war 2003) Talking about the workings of Richard Crossman's Theory and Prime ministerial change.

    3 - Backbench rebellions keep the executive in check (shops bill by Margaret Thatcher 1986, mentioning votes of no confidence, when MP are no longer satisfied with the government Callaghan over North Riots 1979)

    4 - Party Loyalty contrary to the Burkean Notion, and so when there are backbench rebellions they're relatively ineffective, and rarely influence government. (Coalition government 239 backbench rebellions resulted in nothing really)

    For my Constitution 40m:

    (Thought this was a nice question, however ran out of time, so I could not provide a however paragraph for the codification paragraph)

    1 - wrote about codification of the constitution, A.K.A The cabinet manual (Suggested to be introduced by Gordon Brown in 2009, in anticipation for a no majority government, set out clear rules and code of conduct for cabinet ministers. Was noted by constitutional expert Vernon Bagdanor as being an effective constitution)

    2 - Didn't give a however point for this, as you're all most likely are, timing is the bane of all politics exams :/

    3 - House of Lords, how they only managed to get rid of all but 92 Hereditary peers, following recommendations from the Wakeham commissions report in 2000, and the 2001 white paper + 2012 Liberal democrat recommendations. Meaning that government was unable to complete its manifesto promises, for a more socially representative second chamber, one of which could not effectively mirror the national interest.

    4 - Such reforms have been dropped as they were seen to be unconstitutional, due to the severe changes to the lords in 1999, for them to be altered so is seen to be unconventional. Produced opposition from people such as Tony Benn, and Robin Cook. This is because the Hereditary peers were re-elected back into the Lords, was because they were seen to be a benefit to the lords, and so were then monitored by the independent parliamentary committee. Memo released in 2006, sated how government would not interfere with hereditary peers until 2050.

    5 - Finally getting onto electoral reform, basically how it provides votes value are unequal, and so therefore does not uphold principle values of a liberal democracy, as it functions in the UK. Talked about the 1983 election, where although the SDP/liberal alliance achieved 22% of the vote they only managed to obtain 18 seats. Whereas Labour in the same election, obtained 28% of the vote and around 200 seats. This how voting power is purely dependant on who it is you vote for, as well as the concentration of voters for a particular party, where if you voted for labour your vote was 10 times more valuable.

    6- The result of the AV referendum from a "No" vote, suggests that there is little appetite for electoral reform, with 72% no majority. Despite the 42% turnout, government is in no doubt that electoral reform is not within the public interest. if government was to overall this decision, it would be seen to be undemocratic, and could be seen to undermine government power. (Talked about Callaghan refusing the Scotland Assembly majority in 1979, could be said to be significant in providing disillusionment in the party, and ultimately his vote of no confidence later in the same year).

    Conclusion- basically is just further developments into electoral reform a more representative and democratic UK system, is not foreseeable (roughly)

    This is just a rough sort of draft, there is missing info-facts etc. But tell me what you think, and what one could get for it....Many thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lulub47)
    I dunno how but I managed to decide that the executive and parliament are better guardians of civil liberties and rights than judges.. Why did it do that 😱
    Haha I came to that conclusion too, as long as you justified it I wouldnt worry 😂😂
 
 
 
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
Do you think sex education should be compulsory in schools?

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.