Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Thought I would make one of these.

    How many modules are you guys revising? I am thinking 6 (3 from each module) and also how much is everyone revising Brexit, because it could be a 25 or 40 marker for pretty much every question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Could they really ask us about brexit though??! If it's no where in the textbook then how is it fair to give a 25 or 40 marker on it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SELLYG)
    Could they really ask us about brexit though??! If it's no where in the textbook then how is it fair to give a 25 or 40 marker on it?
    We are required to be taught by our teaches about recent political events. In theory the exam could be on anything that happens 5 minutes before we walk into the exam hall. It's unlikely though as they have to write the exam paper.

    Under consititution mainly I think and also democracy Brexit will 100% come up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can you predict a question? :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt they'd ask a question specifically on Brexit, but rather a question in which you can incorporate Brexit. Anyone have any guesses to what the 40 mark might be?
    I reckon the 40 mark might be about constitutional reform or the location of sovereignty and possibly a power of judges question, linking to the Brexit judicial review.
    Also I'm revising elections and pressure groups in depth, skimming through democracy and ignoring parties for Unit 1. I'm revising all four, just in case, for Unit 2.

    If anyone is confused on sovereignty linked to Brexit, I found a really good article that might help.
    http://www.economist.com/news/britai...ng-sovereignty
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mnemosyne.)
    I doubt they'd ask a question specifically on Brexit, but rather a question in which you can incorporate Brexit. Anyone have any guesses to what the 40 mark might be?
    I reckon the 40 mark might be about constitutional reform or the location of sovereignty and possibly a power of judges question, linking to the Brexit judicial review.
    Also I'm revising elections and pressure groups in depth, skimming through democracy and ignoring parties for Unit 1. I'm revising all four, just in case, for Unit 2.

    If anyone is confused on sovereignty linked to Brexit, I found a really good article that might help.
    http://www.economist.com/news/britai...ng-sovereignty
    Yeah im skipping Political Parties for Unit 1. But im skipping parliament for unit 2 and just doing 3. It is risky, but if i do the other 3 in depth i may get away with it. I think a question especially a 25 mark one where you have the source for unit 2, may be something like to what extent will leaving the EU change the debate for a British bill of rights. It's likely because when the coaltion government was formed, there were questions about that.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Anybody got any good notes on the judiciary? My teacher has raced over the topic, having spent weeks and weeks on parties, and it's by far my weakest. She's skipped over large portions of the spec and my revision books aren't too good in my opinion. Any help is appreciated!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aear)
    Anybody got any good notes on the judiciary? My teacher has raced over the topic, having spent weeks and weeks on parties, and it's by far my weakest. She's skipped over large portions of the spec and my revision books aren't too good in my opinion. Any help is appreciated!
    Judiciary is the shortest and the easiest topic! Here are a few notes to help you:


    Key Concepts



    • Judiciary: A process whereby the courts review decisions by the state or any public body in relation to its citizens. Where a review finds that a citizen has not been treated fairly, or that their rights have been abused, or that a public body has exceeded its legal powers, the court may set aside the decision.
    • Judicial Independence: The principle that members of the judiciary should retain independence from any influence by government or parties or other political movements.
    • Judicial Neutrality: The principle that members of the judiciary should avoid allowing their political ideas to affect their decisions in cases. It also implies that judges should not show any systematic bias towards or against any groups in society.
    • Civil liberty / Civil liberties: The rights and freedoms that citizens enjoy in relation to the state and its laws. These include, for example, the right of all to vote or to stand for office, freedom of expressions, freedom of association and the right to a fair trial.
    • Judicial Review: A process whereby the courts review decisions by the state or any public body in relation to its citizens. Where a review finds that a citizen has not been treated fairly, or that their rights have been abused, or that a public body has exceeded it’s legal powers, the court may set aside the decision.
    • Rule of Law: Constitutional and legal principle that all should be treated equally under the law and that the government itself must be subject to law and should not act outside the law.



    For Neutrality

    • An increasingly large number of judgements in recent years have fallen in favour of individuals and minorities against the government. Indeed, in the mid 1990s, conservative home secretary Michael Howard lost a string of judicial review cases brought against him by prisoners in custody who claimed his prison regime abused their rights.
    • The mental Health act and Belmarsh cases, are also evidence of changing attitude of the Judiciary.
    • The implementation of the Human Rights Act in 2000 has given further ammunition for judges to use against the power of the state in favour of individual rights. Indeed, so active have the judges been in this area that conservative politicians have begun to talk of repealing the HRA and the Labour government has spoken of amending parts of it. The old charge the judiciary normally favours the powers of the state against individuals seems no longer to be true. Indeed, the situation seems to have been largely reversed.
    • The social composition of the Judiciary has changed little. As we saw above, the Supreme Court comes from a narrow social base. Nevertheless, there has been a succession of independent-minded, ‘liberal’ judges appointed to senior positions. Lords Woolf, Hoffman and Bingham are good recent examples. These individuals have been quick to criticise government for threatening civil liberties. When the senior judges are being criticised by politicians from both main parties, it suggests they may have been largely neutral. The early evidence from the supreme Court is that it is likely to show itself to be fully independent and therefore neutral. It is as ready as ever to challenge governmental power when it feels citizens’ rights are under threat of when the behaviour of government is likely to discriminate against any group in society.


    Against

    • Judges come from a narrow social and professional background. The majority are from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They are almost exclusively male except for Lady Hale and have mostly been educated at independent schools and often graduated from Oxford and Cambridge.
    • Up to the 1990s there was a good deal of evidence to suggest the background of senior judges did affect their outlook. During the 1980’s there had been a succession of cases concerning trade union rights and activities, conflicts between central and local government, and issues about the powers of police where judgements seemed to run consistently in favour of the centralised state.
    • Many of the senior judges also have seats in the House of Lords. Up to the late 1990s this was a particularly conservative institution and the judges arguably influenced by their colleagues. The first Supreme Court which began work in 2009 certainly did not appear to be reasonably balanced in a social sense. Of its 12 members, all but one were educated at Oxford or Cambridge universities. Eleven were male and the average age was 68. The new court this looks very conservative and from a narrow social base and can’t represent the interests of the people.
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I have been revisimg thorughout the year so im revising all 4 from each unit
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My teachers been MIA for months so she told us to forget judiciary and political parties 😭 tell me, what do you believe is the best way to revise govpol? I'm just revising a topic, and then answering exam questions but I'm not 100% sure if that's the best way.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing 3 from each because that's what we were taught.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SELLYG)
    My teachers been MIA for months so she told us to forget judiciary and political parties 😭 tell me, what do you believe is the best way to revise govpol? I'm just revising a topic, and then answering exam questions but I'm not 100% sure if that's the best way.
    Same technique but I'm making plans for essay questions and using 5 and 10 markers to test knowledge
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SELLYG)
    Could they really ask us about brexit though??! If it's no where in the textbook then how is it fair to give a 25 or 40 marker on it?
    Yes. You need to be up to date, a lot of the textbook is historical so you've gotta dig into recent news.

    (Original post by JaqenH'gar)
    We are required to be taught by our teaches about recent political events. In theory the exam could be on anything that happens 5 minutes before we walk into the exam hall. It's unlikely though as they have to write the exam paper.

    Under consititution mainly I think and also democracy Brexit will 100% come up.
    The exam paper was written around a year ago and exam questions are never specifically about an event. At most, it would be about a hypothetical event like - "what would the impact of leaving the EU be on UK sovereignty?".

    (Original post by JaqenH'gar)
    Yeah im skipping Political Parties for Unit 1. But im skipping parliament for unit 2 and just doing 3. It is risky, but if i do the other 3 in depth i may get away with it. I think a question especially a 25 mark one where you have the source for unit 2, may be something like to what extent will leaving the EU change the debate for a British bill of rights. It's likely because when the coaltion government was formed, there were questions about that.
    Skipping parliament is an awful idea, if you're going to skip one from unit 2 - judiciary is best as most skip that.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JaqenH'gar)
    Judiciary is the shortest and the easiest topic! Here are a few notes to help you:


    Key Concepts



    • Judiciary: A process whereby the courts review decisions by the state or any public body in relation to its citizens. Where a review finds that a citizen has not been treated fairly, or that their rights have been abused, or that a public body has exceeded its legal powers, the court may set aside the decision.
    • Judicial Independence: The principle that members of the judiciary should retain independence from any influence by government or parties or other political movements.
    • Judicial Neutrality: The principle that members of the judiciary should avoid allowing their political ideas to affect their decisions in cases. It also implies that judges should not show any systematic bias towards or against any groups in society.
    • Civil liberty / Civil liberties: The rights and freedoms that citizens enjoy in relation to the state and its laws. These include, for example, the right of all to vote or to stand for office, freedom of expressions, freedom of association and the right to a fair trial.
    • Judicial Review: A process whereby the courts review decisions by the state or any public body in relation to its citizens. Where a review finds that a citizen has not been treated fairly, or that their rights have been abused, or that a public body has exceeded it’s legal powers, the court may set aside the decision.
    • Rule of Law: Constitutional and legal principle that all should be treated equally under the law and that the government itself must be subject to law and should not act outside the law.



    For Neutrality

    • An increasingly large number of judgements in recent years have fallen in favour of individuals and minorities against the government. Indeed, in the mid 1990s, conservative home secretary Michael Howard lost a string of judicial review cases brought against him by prisoners in custody who claimed his prison regime abused their rights.
    • The mental Health act and Belmarsh cases, are also evidence of changing attitude of the Judiciary.
    • The implementation of the Human Rights Act in 2000 has given further ammunition for judges to use against the power of the state in favour of individual rights. Indeed, so active have the judges been in this area that conservative politicians have begun to talk of repealing the HRA and the Labour government has spoken of amending parts of it. The old charge the judiciary normally favours the powers of the state against individuals seems no longer to be true. Indeed, the situation seems to have been largely reversed.
    • The social composition of the Judiciary has changed little. As we saw above, the Supreme Court comes from a narrow social base. Nevertheless, there has been a succession of independent-minded, ‘liberal’ judges appointed to senior positions. Lords Woolf, Hoffman and Bingham are good recent examples. These individuals have been quick to criticise government for threatening civil liberties. When the senior judges are being criticised by politicians from both main parties, it suggests they may have been largely neutral. The early evidence from the supreme Court is that it is likely to show itself to be fully independent and therefore neutral. It is as ready as ever to challenge governmental power when it feels citizens’ rights are under threat of when the behaviour of government is likely to discriminate against any group in society.


    Against

    • Judges come from a narrow social and professional background. The majority are from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They are almost exclusively male except for Lady Hale and have mostly been educated at independent schools and often graduated from Oxford and Cambridge.
    • Up to the 1990s there was a good deal of evidence to suggest the background of senior judges did affect their outlook. During the 1980’s there had been a succession of cases concerning trade union rights and activities, conflicts between central and local government, and issues about the powers of police where judgements seemed to run consistently in favour of the centralised state.
    • Many of the senior judges also have seats in the House of Lords. Up to the late 1990s this was a particularly conservative institution and the judges arguably influenced by their colleagues. The first Supreme Court which began work in 2009 certainly did not appear to be reasonably balanced in a social sense. Of its 12 members, all but one were educated at Oxford or Cambridge universities. Eleven were male and the average age was 68. The new court this looks very conservative and from a narrow social base and can’t represent the interests of the people.
    Thanks very much! Do you have anything on the powers of the judiciary? I understand that it can't strike down laws because it would threaten Parliamentary sovereignty, but what about with the executive? Can the judiciary override the government? Take the case about who has the right to trigger Article 50, the High Court (I think it was them? Correct me if I am wrong) ruled that Parliament must trigger Article 50, but was it a compulsory ruling because it was brought by and was against the government? Could they have theoretically ignored it, or was it obligatory, unlike it would be against Parliament? This is one pretty big thing by teacher has missed (along with a large chunk of the topic as well) and I can't find out.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    From what my teachers have told me, they won't ask you anything that's not on the syllabus and thus you won't get a question about Brexit. However, if you can integrate Brexit in to a question e.g. a question on sovereignty in the constitution question, it would look impressive and gain you marks. But it's by no means a requirement and you can get that A* without it.
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    With the EU referendum i think the democracy 25marker will be like "should we use direct democracy more"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aear)
    Thanks very much! Do you have anything on the powers of the judiciary? I understand that it can't strike down laws because it would threaten Parliamentary sovereignty, but what about with the executive? Can the judiciary override the government? Take the case about who has the right to trigger Article 50, the High Court (I think it was them? Correct me if I am wrong) ruled that Parliament must trigger Article 50, but was it a compulsory ruling because it was brought by and was against the government? Could they have theoretically ignored it, or was it obligatory, unlike it would be against Parliament? This is one pretty big thing by teacher has missed (along with a large chunk of the topic as well) and I can't find out.
    Parliament is sovereign it cannot be overruled by the Judiciary. Parliament is the source of all political authority in the UK. Even if the judges believed it infringed the Human Rights act they cannot overturn a statute passed by Parliament.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JaqenH'gar)
    Parliament is sovereign it cannot be overruled by the Judiciary. Parliament is the source of all political authority in the UK. Even if the judges believed it infringed the Human Rights act they cannot overturn a statute passed by Parliament.
    I understand that, in relation to the legislature, but not to the executive, the government. Do they have the same privilege of freedom from judicial review as Parliament, can they ignore the ruling of a judge if they want to?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aear)
    I understand that, in relation to the legislature, but not to the executive, the government. Do they have the same privilege of freedom from judicial review as Parliament, can they ignore the ruling of a judge if they want to?
    In theory, the executive and Judiciary should be kept entirely separate. This also implies that government should not interfere with judicial independence, while at the same time judges would remain totally aloof from political issues. In recent years, this reciprocal agreement has broken down over issues such as terrorism measures.

    It is the duty of all such courts, including the UK Supreme Court, to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR; so far as it is possible to do so. If the court decides it is not possible to interpret legislation so that it is compatible with the convention it will issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’.

    Although a declaration of incompatibility does not place any legal obligation on the government to amend or repeal legislation, it sends a clear message to legislators that they could change the law to make it compatible with the human rights set out in the Convention
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Yes. You need to be up to date, a lot of the textbook is historical so you've gotta dig into recent news.



    The exam paper was written around a year ago and exam questions are never specifically about an event. At most, it would be about a hypothetical event like - "what would the impact of leaving the EU be on UK sovereignty?".



    Skipping parliament is an awful idea, if you're going to skip one from unit 2 - judiciary is best as most skip that.
    I'm not sure why but I have almost no notes for Parliament. So im stuck with judiciary.
 
 
 

3,224

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.