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

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kristoberg)
    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
    Similar to yours but instead of saying Lib dems 28% i said it takes 115,000 votes to elect a lib dem and it takes 32,000 to elect a labour or mp lol

    I just stated constitutional reforms or attempted ones then argued how its favourable to further it and then how its unfavourable and that its current state is beneficial

    You couldve said it stops judicial tyranny for against in your first point.
    Offline

    2
    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?
    Yeah


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaillxx)
    I think I forgot to write what question I was doing for the second half of the exam - will this affect my grade?
    I feel that I'm also in the same position as you! Don't worry though, I assume this happens quite often and the examiners will be able to read your work and hopefully be able to tell which question you chose. I think the only reason they have it is too enable the examiners to quickly know which markscheme they should refer to. It'll be fine don't worry


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hannaha124)
    I feel that I'm also in the same position as you! Don't worry though, I assume this happens quite often and the examiners will be able to read your work and hopefully be able to tell which question you chose. I think the only reason they have it is too enable the examiners to quickly know which markscheme they should refer to. It'll be fine don't worry


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    good advice
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kristoberg)
    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
    omg you did brilliantly. overall out of 80 im sure you woukd get about a 40-50 depending on ur other answers which is good since above around 58 is an A.
    well done
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AhsanIqbal14)
    Wasn't the question assess the means by which Parliament controls the executive?
    I think so.

    No biggie though, because government = executive. I used the two terms interchangeably in my essay.
    Offline

    3
    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 😱
    Don't worry, there is no 'right' conclusion. It would be fine as long as you justified it with something like the democratic mandate that they have, or how they've been good guardians of civil liberties in some cases where they've introduced legislation like the Freedom of Information Act.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    I spent the first 5 minutes just choosing what questions to do. I started with the 40 mark Judiciary. I talked about their independence and neutrality, the Human Rights Act being a tool for them to use, and the poor track record of politicians in protecting civil liberties. On the other side I wrote about how judges are unelected and unaccountable, how they don't take account of public opinion, how Parliament is sovereign and the Human Rights Act is not entrenched and the decisions the judges come to do not bind the government or Parliament, and that judges cannot undertake pre-legislative review.

    I did the Section A question on Parliament, but I wish I had done it on the PM instead. The 5 mark was all well and good, but I really quite struggled with the 10 mark on the effectiveness of the Commons committees. It was relating it to the Source that I found difficult. I talked about how the chairs are elected by their peers and so are independent, how some of the reports have resulted in changes and have been influential, like that one about phone hacking they talked about, and that the reports of the committees are not actually binding.

    The 25 mark was really bad for me. I didn't really know where I was going, and the structure was a bit dodgy. I talked about the domination of Parliament by the governing party and the whips, resulting in the largely futile debates on legislation, the failings of questions to ministers, the lack of financial control, the weakness of the threat of a vote of no confidence, and how the Lords can only block legislation for one year, and that their amendments do not have to be accepted.

    Thoughts?
    Any idea on how I've done?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone watch the Buzzfeed EU debates on Facebook today?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But the question was about constitutional reform not constitutional reformS. The use of the singular would suggest to me that it is asking about reforming the constitution not making reforms to elements of it. Therefore codified/uncodiefied works
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    Anyone watch the Buzzfeed EU debates on Facebook today?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    no why whats happened?? i do not want the leave campaign to win
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous789)
    no why whats happened?? i do not want the leave campaign to win
    They're on the Buzzfeed UK Facebook page!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I just watched the Victoria Derby-whoever EU debate on catch-up. Really proud of the arguments for Remain. They were strong and largely factual and logical. Disappointed however in the fact that they did a better job than the so-called lead representatives of the Remain campaign. Excluding Sturgeon, she was alright really.

    Honestly Dodgy Dave does about a good job at debating as a wet blanket. Couldn't have anyone worse fighting our corner. I suppose Farage on the other side balances it out, though.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    I just watched the Victoria Derby-whoever EU debate on catch-up. Really proud of the arguments for Remain. They were strong and largely factual and logical. Disappointed however in the fact that they did a better job than the so-called lead representatives of the Remain campaign. Excluding Sturgeon, she was alright really.

    Honestly Dodgy Dave does about a good job at debating as a wet blanket. Couldn't have anyone worse fighting our corner. I suppose Farage on the other side balances it out, though.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nooo way, remain embarrassed themselves and got destroyed debate wise. Man I hate Angela eagle, wanted to run on that stage and drop kick her in the face
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnpap)
    But the question was about constitutional reform not constitutional reformS. The use of the singular would suggest to me that it is asking about reforming the constitution not making reforms to elements of it. Therefore codified/uncodiefied works
    Yeah it does but further constitutional reform refers to proposed or already reformed aspects of the constitution and how furthering it may be more favourable so codification does come into it as it was proposed by Brown and Nick Clegg but were abandoned......... then you could say that the UNCODIFIED constitution of the UK is more favourable and it stood the test of time ..... meaning further constitution is irrelevant and unfavourable
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlimShady96)
    Nooo way, remain embarrassed themselves and got destroyed debate wise. Man I hate Angela eagle, wanted to run on that stage and drop kick her in the face
    I'm talking about Victoria Derbyshire debate. It was members of the public debating + a couple of lowerscale MPs/MEPs. Angela Eagle wasn't even there.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    guys stop worrying about what points you got and what you did not. Structure, grammar, the way your answer the question all plays a large factor.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigpaddy27)
    guys stop worrying about what points you got and what you did not. Structure, grammar, the way your answer the question all plays a large factor.
    Have an amazing structure with the wrong points = fail


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As long as you have done at least a paragraph on each side of the arguement and a conclusion you should be fine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foji)
    Have an amazing structure with the wrong points = fail


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Good one smart a**, I was not implying that. I was saying how the structure of the essay etc also plays a factor in the final grade.
 
 
 
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.