Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have any predictions on what is likely to come up? I'm sitting this for the 3rd time now :/ I think it is likely that they will ask about the House of Lords and whether or not it should be an elected chamber seeing as they haven't before now. Anyone else?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Im also doing this paper- Core Exec and Parliament topics.

    My teacher thinks its a safe bet that something at least on PM Power and the C. Service will come up purely because he knows the examiner (to an extent) and they seem to like these topics!

    He also predicted something about referendums would be on GOVP1 in January and I think it was so I reckon he may be right again!

    And I'd definitely be prepared for a House of Lords question, maybe linked to reform or maybe about how it is 'insignificant', where you could talk about how it is unelected etc !!


    That's my opinion!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also, any tips on 5 markers? seems stupid being the short ones but they're my downfall!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Any predictions for the constitution questions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matth95)
    Also, any tips on 5 markers? seems stupid being the short ones but they're my downfall!!
    You just need to define the term, explain it, give evidence and if possible relate it to the extract in some way :-)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you! Think it is the referring to extract I focus TOO hard on, I end up just quoting it basically haha!

    I haven't studied constitution at all so I would have no idea there!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matth95)
    Thank you! Think it is the referring to extract I focus TOO hard on, I end up just quoting it basically haha!

    I haven't studied constitution at all so I would have no idea there!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just make sure you refer to it or else you can capped at 1 mark. Usually the points are within the context. Pick them out and quote them to get 3 marks, and then explain how they link to the question for a further 2 marks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catherine_l95)
    Any predictions for the constitution questions?
    Maybe something on constitutional reform perhaps? Probably on criticisms of Blair's reforms (1997-2007), so things like how the enthusiasm for constitutional reform quickly began to fade after the landslide victory in '97, also how the reforms didn't address deeper concerns (they merely reshaped existing arrangements).

    I also think that a question along the lines of '"The UK should adopt a more rigid, codified constitution." Discuss'

    Does anyone have any tips for the Parliament topic and any guesses about what might come up?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Stressing way too much about this exam - feel like I don't know enough..
    Got a C (66) in it last time but need to to go up to at least a good B, preferably an A :/
    I'm also doing Parliament & The Core Executive. Any predictions on what might come up?

    I was thinking maybe something to do with ministers/civil servants for the 25 marker
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hi im sitting the exam tomorrow too and i've chosen to revise parliament the constitution and the judiciary. Just got a few questions...
    -Since the constitutional reform act 2005, does the Lord Chancellor still sit in the house of lords or has he had his legislative powers removed?
    -Why has the constitutional reform act increased the judiciary's independence?
    -Why would a codified constitution provide more protection for the rights of citizens than an uncodified one?

    Any help would be appreciated!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caitlin1996)
    hi im sitting the exam tomorrow too and i've chosen to revise parliament the constitution and the judiciary. Just got a few questions...
    -Since the constitutional reform act 2005, does the Lord Chancellor still sit in the house of lords or has he had his legislative powers removed?
    -Why has the constitutional reform act increased the judiciary's independence?
    -Why would a codified constitution provide more protection for the rights of citizens than an uncodified one?

    Any help would be appreciated!
    - The Lord Chancellor still sits in the House of Lords. They have however lost their speaking rights within the HoL, lost their position within the cabinet and is no longer the head of the Judiciary. They therefore hold largely ceremonial position to date.

    - The 2005 constitutional reform act lead to the HoL no longer being the head of the Judiciary. Instead, the Supreme court took it's position as the highest court in the UK. Also, the Independent Judicial Appointments Commission was set up to ensure the appointments to the judiciary were made independently from political interference.

    - A codified constitution will lead to clearer set of rights which enables stronger jurisdiction as the judges can protect these rights and liberties with more success as the conventions, statues and common laws will be laid out in a much more organised manner. The government will also have it's power limited due to the dual nature of a codified constitution as it is entrenched. This means the government will not be able to abuse it's power and endanger civil liberties.

    Hope these help!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I've been teaching myself this course. I've decided to focus my revision on The Constitution and Parliament.

    I feel so unprepared!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Henry.Lister)
    - The Lord Chancellor still sits in the House of Lords. They have however lost their speaking rights within the HoL, lost their position within the cabinet and is no longer the head of the Judiciary. They therefore hold largely ceremonial position to date.

    - The 2005 constitutional reform act lead to the HoL no longer being the head of the Judiciary. Instead, the Supreme court took it's position as the highest court in the UK. Also, the Independent Judicial Appointments Commission was set up to ensure the appointments to the judiciary were made independently from political interference.

    - A codified constitution will lead to clearer set of rights which enables stronger jurisdiction as the judges can protect these rights and liberties with more success as the conventions, statues and common laws will be laid out in a much more organised manner. The government will also have it's power limited due to the dual nature of a codified constitution as it is entrenched. This means the government will not be able to abuse it's power and endanger civil liberties.

    Hope these help!
    Thank you so much! Just one more question; what is a constitutional convention? Are they basically traditions? So, for example, Collective cabinet responsibility could be said to be a constitutional convention? And the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A constitutional convention is unwritten and cannot be enforced by the law courts. They are considered to be important and are therefore are binding in practice. The Salisbury Convention (Parl. don't obstruct the governing party's manifesto) is an example of this.

    Collective cabinet responsibility and the Pms prerogative powers are unwritten but can be enforced by law. These are called common law which I think you're referring to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I appear to be logged on my alt account from my phone but its Henry.Lister!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's really helpful thank you - I have done a bit of revision on the Salisbury convention and didnt totally understand why it was important but i see now, thanks!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Good luck to everyone!

    I'm personally wondering why there seems to be so much more content for core executive than for parliament!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do the core executive and multi level governance?

    Here's what I put for the 10 and 24 markers:

    Core executive

    This 10 marker was pretty tough...
    10 marker - cautious civil servants
    - Don't want to appear rushing important policy decisions
    - Don't want to appear too eager in case the minister feels they are trying to undermine them - referenced adversarial model

    25 marker - PM power
    - Ability - Blair and Thatcher were able politicans - Major wasn't (talked about democratic style was weak etc.)
    - Media - Some PMs (e.g. Blair) can create a good public image: gives them power - Counter argument: Some PMs can't (e.g. Major).
    - Majority - Blair and Thatcher had large majorities - Counter argument : Do not always have large majorities (e.g. callagahan)

    Multi level governance (very hard)
    10 marker - council power over services
    - Powerless: central govt can threaten default proceedings if councils aren't compliant (e.g.mNorwich City Council and right to buy 1980s)
    - Powerful: Some councils pursue left-wing agenda at local level (e.g. Municipal socialism).

    25 marker - How poweful is the european commission - hardest exam q i have ever attempted
    i mixed the european commission up with the council of ministers (will this matter?)
    -Very - make policy decisions - counter arg: Parliament can block legislation
    - Very - More member states has lessened individual states' voice - counter argument: EC can't control important policy areas (e.g. Taxation)
    - Very - supranationalist approach. If majority of members benefit from policies then those who don't seen as unlucky (weak point I know)


    Worried about the exam - what do you guys think of my points?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by specter.harvey)
    Did anyone do the core executive and multi level governance?

    Here's what I put for the 10 and 24 markers:

    Core executive

    This 10 marker was pretty tough...
    10 marker - cautious civil servants
    - Don't want to appear rushing important policy decisions
    - Don't want to appear too eager in case the minister feels they are trying to undermine them - referenced adversarial model

    25 marker - PM power
    - Ability - Blair and Thatcher were able politicans - Major wasn't (talked about democratic style was weak etc.)
    - Media - Some PMs (e.g. Blair) can create a good public image: gives them power - Counter argument: Some PMs can't (e.g. Major).
    - Majority - Blair and Thatcher had large majorities - Counter argument : Do not always have large majorities (e.g. callagahan)

    Multi level governance (very hard)
    10 marker - council power over services
    - Powerless: central govt can threaten default proceedings if councils aren't compliant (e.g.mNorwich City Council and right to buy 1980s)
    - Powerful: Some councils pursue left-wing agenda at local level (e.g. Municipal socialism).

    25 marker - How poweful is the european commission - hardest exam q i have ever attempted
    i mixed the european commission up with the council of ministers (will this matter?)
    -Very - make policy decisions - counter arg: Parliament can block legislation
    - Very - More member states has lessened individual states' voice - counter argument: EC can't control important policy areas (e.g. Taxation)
    - Very - supranationalist approach. If majority of members benefit from policies then those who don't seen as unlucky (weak point I know)


    Worried about the exam - what do you guys think of my points?
    Hi, i did the Core executive and british constitution.
    My core executive essay sounds very similiar to yours as i mentioned Thatcher, Major and Blair. I mentioned their use of their cabinets as well.
    For the 10 marker i did ok and the stuff you said, i thought the extract was quite useful too, but completely forgot about the adversial model etc.

    Who did british constitution and what did you put?
    Also would you say it was hard or easy in comparison to past papers? The people at my college thought it was hard, but I would say somewhere in the middle??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I done the Constitution and Core Executive topic.

    2 reasons Judges are looking for more human rights (Constitution 10 marker):
    - Current uncodified Constitution does not offer sufficient protection of our Human Rights. Even though New Labour introduced the Human Rights Act (1998) it did not sufficiently protect our human rights, and was a disappointing reform for many.
    - Judges seek a Bill of Human Rights to entrench our human rights so that they cannot be abused e.g detaining suspected terrorists.

    The sources of the current British Constitution offers both stability and flexibility (Constitution 25 marker):
    - Introduction: Explained roles of constitutions and described the British Constitution as uncodified, flexible and unitary.
    - Statute Law, the supreme source of the British Constitution offers flexibility as it allows our constitution to remain up-to-date, relevant and modern. Our constitution can move with the times and adapt to changing situations and our multicultural society. Used the 1996 Dunblane Massacre as an example where an Act of Parliament was passed banning firearms. This proves that statute law, the main source of the British constitution provides us with flexibility.
    - Conventions and Authoritative Works provide us with stability. Conventions mean that old traditions can be dropped and new ones can be adopted, e.g collective cabinet responsibility. Sometimes in times of struggle and hardship the government must adapt to remain stable, for example the civil unrest during Thatcher's premiership was countered by the ability to lead a more presidential government with her often determining the outcome of cabinet meetings before she even entered the room. Therefore conventions gave room for the government to adapt, providing flexibility and also the power to remain stable. Authoritative works also help the government remain stable as A.V. Dicey's 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution (1885)' ensures all citizens have the right to a trial before punishment, and that all citizens also are treat equally and everyone in society is subject to the same justice. This helps maintain stability in our society and government.
    - EU Law and Treaties can make our constitution rigid. European Communities Act (1972) which incorporated the Treaty of Rome (1952) meant EU Law took precedence over our own UK Law. Therefore parliamentary sovereignty is undermined and we only have the ability to control UK law, not EU Law which takes precedence and questions the primacy of statute. Although we can pass statute to repeal the European Communities Act, it would be very difficult with many implications.
    - Authoritative works have persuasive authority only and can be ignored. They are not the main part of our constitution and are only included as they have been for many centuries. Although this could be dropped therefore preventing destabilizing government. Also, statute law can make and unmake any laws meaning it can create confusion which is not helpful for a stable society.
    - Conclusion: Although there are valid arguments for both sides, I believe that the current constitution does offer us both flexibility and stability. Although adopting a codified constitution which would provide us with entrenched provisions which would increase stability, it would hugely decrease flexibility making it extremely rigid. Therefore the question is raised - if something isn't broke, why fix it?

    Reasons for cautious civil servants (Core Executive 10 marker):
    - Radical ministers can come in with extreme policies. This can cause caution and apprehension between civil servants, as they have a degree of permanence. This means that as ministers come and go, they become knowledgeable of their department and have a degree of specialism which ministers lack. Therefore they can spot where policy will fail and where ministers are too extreme which can cause caution. This then creates the adversial model in governmental departments which further increases caution. (Only got 1 reason down here, was running out of time and wanted to have enough time to fully complete the essay)

    'The office of the Prime Minister is what the holder chooses and is able to make of it' Discuss (Core Executive 25 Marker):
    - Introduction: Discussed how the Prime Minister had various powers and constraints when performing their role and talked about the main jobs of the Prime Minister.
    - Power - Patronage: Prime Ministers have power of patronage, giving them free reign to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers, and select peers by exercising the powers of royal prerogative. Therefore, Prime Ministers have a great power over the selection of his ministers and therefore the Prime Minister's cabinet is completely up to him which means the Prime Minister's office and people surrounding him is completely what he chooses.
    - Power - Cabinet: The Prime Minister reserves the right to determine cabinet meeting lengths and frequency, along with the topic and tone of the meeting. For example, Tony Blair's decreased frequency and length, of one lasting just 30 minutes - possibly the shortest ever. Compared to Major's lengthy meetings as he wished to unify his party over the divides caused by the euro. Therefore the Prime Minister can change and adapt his Cabinet Meetings and agenda completely and at his free will depending on how he sees best fit.
    - Power - Parliament: The Prime Minister, presuming he/she has achieved a majority government as opposed to a coalition, is able to command the house. He can push through whatever policies he wants. For example, the New Labour landslide victory with a 179 seat majority meant Blair could 'rail-road' policies through, including his devolution and House of Lords reform. Mentioned the House Of Lords Act (1999) and the Constitutional Reform Act (2005). This shows the Prime Minister is free to choose which policies he pleases as long as he commands the majority.
    - Constraint - Party: The leader must keep the support of their backbenchers otherwise it will lead to downfall in the party. This can mean that although the leader can choose what policy he wishes, and can three-line whip it if they really want it pushed through, he could lose the support of their backbenchers and lead to disarray in the country. For example, Thatcher loss of power in 1990 after she lost the support of her backbenchers which lead to her leadership challenge from Michael Heseltine. An example of backbenchers causing trouble would be the recent Gay Marriage Bill where Tory backbenchers attempting to introduce various amendments, but were eventually rejected.
    - Contraint - Public: To have a long term in office the Prime Minister must retain the faith and support of the public, otherwise they could suffer defeats in by-elections and local elections throughout the term. Then when the next General Election comes up they may not get back into power, so although the Prime Minister can do what they wish during their term in office, they will most likely not be re-elected should they put in any extreme policies. For example, the 2010 Election, where Labour lost as the public had lost faith in Labour's handling of the economy, but clearly the necessary support wasn't there for the Conservatives otherwise they'd have achieved a full majority.
    - Conclusion: I agree the Prime Minister can do what he chooses whilst in government and can make of his office what he will, although by putting in too many radical policies it will simply lead to a short term. Therefore, whilst the Prime Minister does have the ability to do what he chooses, it may not be very wise all of the time.

    Overall I thought some questions were rather difficult, timing really let me down for this paper. There was a lot more I wanted to write in all of my questions really, but the time just went so fast. At least it's finished now though
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 3, 2014

1,118

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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

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