EDEXCEL

A Level Politics
Assessment Material

1
 Contents

Component 2 – UK Government
Edexcel endorsed Page 24
Unendorsed Page 34

2
Component 2 – UK Government

Spec Paper 1
This source contains adapted extracts from a Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report
called ‘Do we need a constitutional convention for the UK?’ and adapted data from the Office of
National Statistics (ONS). The report considered the implications of devolution on the UK, and in
particular on England, while the data relates to the number of representatives in each part of the UK.
• Many witnesses stated that a key issue with a UK-wide constitutional convention was that
the people of England, outside of London, are governed by Westminster, with little authority
to propose local solutions that benefit their own communities.
• Some argued that regional government was rejected because the English do not want
devolution. However, evidence suggested that the failure of regional government was less
because the English do not want devolution but in part because the Government of the day
had imposed an arbitrary regional structure, with few or no law-making powers. There is
clearly still disagreement on what form devolution would take.
• Dr Robin Wilson, an academic, suggested that an English Parliament would still not solve
the tensions caused by the asymmetrical nature of devolution:
• I don’t think you can solve the English question without regional devolution. If you had an
English Parliament it would hugely dominate UK governance, and that doesn’t seem to me
to be a feasible prospect. However, he added that it may be possible to find a model that
allowed English local authorities to devolve a range of powers, or not, according to local
wishes:
• It is our view that allowing councils to choose, or not choose, devolved powers from a
menu of options agreed between Councils in England and Government, would be the
preferred option for English devolution.

(Source: from www.publications.parliament.uk and www.ons.gov.uk/

peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/elector alstatisticsforuk/2015 – both used under
Open Parliament Licence v3.0)
Using the source, evaluate the view that the logical next step after devolution to Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland is the devolution of further power to England.
In your response you must:
• compare the different opinions in the source
• consider the view and the alternative view in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

3
This source contains adapted extracts from a report by the Political and Constitutional Reform
Committee called ‘The UK Constitution: a summary, with options for reforms’. The report considered
a variety of options for future constitutional reform. Also included is a critical commentary on the
report, which is an expert viewpoint on the effectiveness of the report.
CHAIR’S FOREWORD - The Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee of the House of
Commons, has spent the 2010-2015 Parliament looking at the path to possible codification of the
United Kingdom’s constitution.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS - Possible alternative 1: The Second Chamber shall be subordinate to the First
Chamber. It shall have [500] voting members, directly elected to represent in proportion the nations
and regions of the United Kingdom. Members shall be elected for a period of [fifteen] years and
[shall/shall not] be re-elected.

DEVOLVED GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONS, REGIONS AND LOCALITIES - Possible alternative: The
United Kingdom shall operate on the joint basis of union and devolution. Devolution in England shall
be to independent local government, which shall be assigned a proportion of national income tax.
THE JUDICIARY - Possible alternative: The judiciary shall have the power to strike down laws that are
inconsistent with the Constitution.
BILL OF RIGHTS
Possible alternatives
1: There shall be a Bill of Rights which sets out the rights to be protected and enforced within the
United Kingdom.
2: The following rights shall be available to all persons within the United Kingdom. These rights may
not be enforced by the courts, but instead shall be principles to guide the work of the Governments
and Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of the devolved assemblies.
Critical commentary
The report focuses on options for change without giving sufficient weight to the arguments that
significant reform has already been completed, providing a balance between change and continuity.
For example, the Human Rights Act allows for a declaration of incompatibility without harming
parliamentary sovereignty, whilst the reformed House of Lords retains its traditional non-elected
role but with a substantially reduced hereditary element. To argue that more should be done, simply
because it could be, fails to respect this appropriate balance.
(Source: taken from www.publications.parliament.uk – used under Open Parliament Licence v3.0
and critical commentary adapted by Adam Killeya)
Using the source, evaluate the view that Constitutional reforms in the UK since 1997 have been
weak, incomplete and require further change.
In your response you must:
• compare the different opinions in the source
• consider the view and the alternative view in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

Evaluate the argument that there are more advantages to having a codified constitution than remaining with
an uncodified constitution. In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the
study of Component 1: UK politics and core political ideas. You must consider this view and the alternative to
this view in a balanced way. (30)

Evaluate the view that the conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer adequately account for the
actions of ministers. In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK politics and core political ideas. You must consider this view and the alternative to this view
in a balanced way. (30)

4
Spec Paper 2
This source is adapted from an article ‘It’s good theatre, but what’s the point?’ in the Guardian
newspaper which examines the pros and cons of prime minister’s questions (PMQs). The source
considers the arguments for and against PMQs.
Nick Clegg told BBC Radio 5 Live that prime minister’s questions (PMQs) were ‘… ridiculous
and should be scrapped. They are an absolute farce.’ PMQs began life in 1961 as two weekly
15-minute sessions on Tuesdays and Thursdays, before Tony Blair replaced them with one
30-minute session on a Wednesday in 1997. This provides the scrutiny which is an essential
part of democracy. The main exchange between Corbyn and May lasts 10 minutes or so, as
the leader of the opposition only gets to ask six questions.
Even those 10 minutes are rarely enlightening, as the art of PMQs is to avoid
embarrassment. Frequently, this means answering a completely different question from the
one asked, or providing some accomplished waffle. Getting straight answers is almost
impossible. More effective scrutiny would arise from greater reliance on select committees,
the liaison committee, Westminster Hall debates and the greater use of parliamentary
petitions
PMQs could be improved. Banning backbenchers from shouting out would be a start.
Individually, MPs all say that the heckling is a bad thing, but put them in the House of
Commons together and they don’t seem to be able to help themselves. Bizarrely, having the
TV cameras in the Commons only encourages them to behave worse: so much for the
surveillance society.
Yet even in its current, deeply flawed format, PMQs are worth preserving. PMQs ensure that
the prime minister of the day has some command of all areas of policy and is held
accountable, at least partially, for them. There is nothing any prime minister would like
more than to get rid of PMQs. Even the most accomplished performers have dreaded them;
that alone should be reason enough for them to be retained. Without them, we lose a
fragment of our parliamentary democracy which makes us so distinct from other
democracies.
(Source: adapted from John Crace, The Guardian, 19 Jan 2015 at https://
www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015/jan/19/are-primeministers- questions-past-sell-by-date-as-nick-clegg-
argues)

Using the source, evaluate the view that Prime Ministers Questions should be abolished and
replaced by other forms of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.
In your response you must:
• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source
• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

5
These sources are adapted from newspaper articles following the High Court decision that the
executive does not have the power to trigger Article 50 (the process of leaving the European Union)
without the agreement of Parliament.
The press, MPs and public have every right to criticise the judges. This judicial decision is
wrong. This country is governed by the rule of law which is not the same as the rule of
judges; the judiciary interprets the law passed by Parliament, which is sovereign.
No one is challenging the independence of judges, but they made the wrong judgement in
this particular case, since the government was within its rights to use the Royal Prerogative.
In recent years, the advance of ‘judicial activism’ has made rulings against ministers
commonplace. If it is fine for the courts to reject unlawful executive action, criticising
ministers, they cannot expect to be immune from criticism themselves.
The decision to leave was made by voters in a referendum following an Act of Parliament. It
is therefore for the Government to fulfil their wishes. This is upholding parliamentary
sovereignty and it is not appropriate for judges to interfere.
(Source: adapted from ‘Judges should have stayed out of the Brexit process. It’s up to the Supreme Court to fix their
mistake.’ Telegraph View. 6 November 2016 • 10:00pm)

The criticisms of judges in this case are wrong and dangerous and an attempt to influence their
judicial independence through public pressure.
After the referendum the Brexiteers talked about using the Royal Prerogative, an ancient right that
kings and queens once used to by-pass Parliament.
Even Michael Gove, a leading Brexiteer, agreed that it was a good thing for Gina Miller to contest in
the High Court the constitutional pillar of parliamentary sovereignty. She claimed only Parliament
could take away rights that Parliament had itself granted in the 1972 Act that took Britain into what
is now the EU. The Supreme Court agreed.
Politicians and the media should support judges when they uphold the rule of law which is an
essential part of our unwritten constitution. This judgement also demonstrates the principle of
judicial independence, which is another important restraint on arbitrary government.
(Source: adapted from Yes-Brexit-not-mob-rule-GINA-MILLER-triggered-article-50-challenge-says-democracy-respected-
legal-certainty, by Gina Miller For The Mail On Sunday, published 4 December 2016)

Using the source, evaluate the view that judges should not exercise control over the power
of government
In your response you must:
• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source
• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

6
 (30)
Evaluate the extent to which the balance of power has shifted from the executive to
parliament in recent years.
In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way. (30)
Evaluate how far Parliament retains sole sovereignty within the UK political system.
In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.
(30)P
2019 Paper
EITHER 1 (a) This source has been adapted from the House of Lords Select Committee on the
Constitution report entitled ‘The Union and devolution’, published in 2016.

This report considered the effect of devolution on the United Kingdom and the Union. England,
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger united than apart. Yet today, the Union is
threatened by continuing demands for independence and also the tensions and inequalities created
as policies diverge between devolved bodies – over health, education or tax, for example.

Power has been devolved in an uneven way: a power-sharing executive, a national assembly or
parliament, a combined authority, or English Votes for English Laws. The cumulative impact of
devolution on the unity of the United Kingdom has not been properly considered. The benefits of
unity and the Union have been taken for granted. A coherent vision for the shape and structure of
the United Kingdom is required, without which there cannot be constitutional stability.

On the other hand, devolution has been achieved without undermining our unitary state and
without the need for federalism or codification of our constitution. The four nations are ‘stronger
together’, in a relationship of clear mutual respect. Although nationalism remains strong in the
devolved nations, devolution has satisfied some demands for self-government, avoiding a break-up
of the union. Policy divergences reflect local democracy and identities, while maintaining the
integrity of the United Kingdom. (Source: adapted from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/
ld201516/ldselect/ldconst/149/149.pdf)

Using the source, evaluate the view that devolution is in danger of undermining the unity of the
United Kingdom. (30)

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source

OR (b) This source is adapted from the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform
Committee report entitled the ‘Role and powers of the Prime Minister’ published in 2014.

This examines whether there is adequate public understanding and clarity about the Prime
Minister’s role and powers, and whether the checks and balances on those powers are sufficient.

7
Prime Ministers have significant powers of patronage such as appointing ministers. They set the
Cabinet agenda and are able to control the Cabinet - including deciding who chairs the most
important Cabinet committees. If a Prime Minister is an electoral asset, they are fairly secure in
office and, as long as they have the support of their closest allies in Cabinet and a large Commons
majority, they face very few limits to their power.

However, Prime Ministers cannot appoint whoever they want to Cabinet. They must reflect the
balance of party opinion and appoint the `big beasts’, as it’s better to have them `inside the tent
rather than outside’. Theresa May had to retain a balance of `Brexiteers’ and `Remainers’ in her
Cabinet, reflecting Conservative Party divisions.

Prime Ministers can be brought down by their party. Tony Blair was arguably forced to resign.
Margaret Thatcher resigned after losing the support of her Cabinet, when her ‘Poll Tax’ was rejected
by the public. Prime Ministers with small majorities, or no majority, cannot take Parliament for
granted. Theresa May avoided votes in Parliament which she expected to lose and the Commons
prevented Cameron from going to war over Syria. (Source: adapted from
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/351/351.pdf)

Using the source, evaluate the view that Prime Ministers have too much power.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source. (30

(a) Evaluate the view that membership of the EU undermined parliamentary sovereignty. In
your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK politics and core political ideas. You must consider this view and the
alternative to this view in a balanced way. (30)
(b) OR (b) Evaluate the view that although the House of Lords has less power than the House
of Commons, in practice it exerts more influence on government decisions. In your answer
you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of Component 1: UK
politics and core political ideas. You must consider this view and the alternative to this view
in a balanced way. (30)

8
Evaluate the extent to which the UK government’s control over Parliament has reduced in
recent years.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

2020 Paper

EITHER 1 (a) Source 1 considers the changing role of backbench MPs. It was written in 2019 when
Theresa May was still the Prime Minister.

Source 1

In the mid-20th century, most backbenchers loyally did whatever the front benchers told them to
do. Party loyalty was all important, and between 1945 and 1970 there were no government defeats
due to backbench rebellions. Recently, May’s government was defeated more often in the Commons
than Cameron’s, losing the vote on her ‘Brexit’ deal in January 2019 by 230 votes, after 118
Conservative MPs rebelled.

Backbenchers are asserting parliament’s sovereignty. Whips are weaker and MPs are more willing to
defy their party, claiming to ‘represent’ their constituents instead. Governments avoid defeats by
backing down - as May did over additional grammar schools. MPs increasingly use select
committees, urgent questions and the Backbench Business Committee to exert their influence.

9
However, MPs continue to undertake constituency work, holding regular surgeries, representing
their geographical area. They debate topical issues of the day. They act on constituents’ problems by
asking questions, writing to ministers, voting for new legislation where needed and legitimising
parliamentary decisions.

Some argue that Brexit is very much a ‘one-off’, with a deeply divided minority government and a
divided opposition. If so, government dominance may soon be restored. Or, alternatively, perhaps
things will never be the same again.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the principal role of backbench MPs is now to hold the
government to account. In your response you must: · compare and contrast different opinions in the
source · examine and debate these views in a balanced way · analyse and evaluate only the
information presented in the source. (30)

OR (b) Source 2 contains arguments for and against retaining our current constitutional
arrangements.

Source 2

Without entrenchment, it is too easy for a government with a simple majority to make significant
constitutional changes which may threaten our fundamental rights. Entrenchment would require a
written, codified constitution where constitutional changes would entail special procedures such as a
two thirds majority in parliament or a referendum.

Many of the fundamental principles of the UK’s political system exist in conventions, which are not
enforceable. Significant constitutional reforms were begun by the Blair government but these are
incomplete and we lack a comprehensive vision for the structure and rules of the political system.
With our hereditary head of state and an appointed second chamber, the UK is out of step with
other modern democracies.

However, we are regarded as one of the most democratic countries in the world. The constitution
has changed dramatically from an all-powerful monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with
parliamentary sovereignty. Much of our uncodified constitution has been written into our laws. Our
rights have been respected and updated by politicians and protected by an independent judiciary.
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that there is no higher ‘constitutional law’, and
that parliament can legislate to respond flexibly to threats, such as terrorism.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK’s constitution requires major change. In your
response you must:

· compare and contrast different opinions in the source

· examine and debate these views in a balanced way

· analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source. (30)

ND EITHER 2 (a) Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has too much influence over the
executive. In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study
of Component 1: UK politics and core political ideas. You must consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way. (30)

10
OR (b) Evaluate the view that since 2010 the UK has seen a return to cabinet government. In your
answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of Component 1: UK
politics and core political ideas. You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a
balanced way. (30)

Unendorsed
Evaluate the extent to which the UK government’s control over Parliament has reduced in
recent years.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

This source contains extracts from a briefing document entitled ‘Parliamentary Scrutiny of
Government’, published in 2015 by the institute of Government. This is an independent research
body concerned with the way in which government works.

Parliament has long played a central role in our system of government as the forum in which
government must explain itself and be held to account. The two House of Parliament fulfil
their scrutiny role through three key mechanisms: debate, questions and committees …
politicians have real opportunities to influence the government’s agenda. However, the fact
that parliamentary scrutiny us undertaken by politicians means that it is shaped by many
compromise the effectiveness of scrutiny. For example, a backbench government-party MP
might treat a minister gently in a select committee hearing or ask a helpful question at
Prime Minister’s Questions in order to enhance their own career prospects. More seriously,
they might ask a question to serve outside interests for personal gain …

The MPs who undertake scrutiny do so in their capacity as the democratically elected
representatives of the taxpayer and citizen. An awareness of this contributes legitimacy and
importance to the process. Parliamentary scrutiny is bolstered by certain powers (including
the power to send for ‘persons, papers and records’, which facilitates the gathering of
evidence) available by virtue of parliament’s role within the constitution (as a check on the
executive) …

11
Parliamentary scrutiny involves an accountability relationship: parliament can ‘require’ a
explanation from ministers of their performance, decisions and actions in relation to the
expenditure, administration o policy of government … however, the enforceability o the
‘right to ask questions’, which is generally understood as a key power of parliamentary
committees, is uncertain in practice.
(https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Parliamentary%20scrutiny%20briefing
%20note%20final.pdf [pp. 15-16]

Using the source, evaluate the view that parliament is effective in carrying out its work of
scrutinising the Government.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

If the UK constitution were codified, it would create a better understanding of the laws and
bodies that govern the country and the people in it. The confusion created by having many
different sources would be simplified and made much easier for ordinary people to
understand. Such a codified constitution would ensure rights and protections are
entrenched, unlike the current system which allows governments to make constitutional
reforms to suit them rather than the national interest. The process of creating a codified
constitution could well engage and enthuse the public, just as the issues over Scottish
independence and Brexit have done, boosting popular engagement and interest as well as
brining the UK into line with nearly all other modern democracies.

However, there is little popular desire for major constitutional change and the flexibility of
modern constitution has allowed the UK to modernise its systems much more easily than
other entrenched systems. The simple fact that British democracy continues to work
without major constitutional crisis show the strength of the system and that there is no
need to fix it. Furthermore, it is more democratic, allowing an elected body to adapt to
public ideas and get things done without being restrained by an over-powerful and
unaccountable judiciary. This makes the UK constitution something unique ad for which
many are proud. The case against a written constitution is that it is unnecessary, undesirable
and un-British.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK needs a codified constitution.

12
In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

Do we want representatives or delegates? Elections may hold figures accountable, but it

means they are subject to popular whims, reacting to the latest opinion polls, Twitter
tsunamis and even voters. Society is sometimes better served by people taking a more
measured, long-term view of the issues acting in the national interest rather than party
interest. It also means the whips have less power over the Lords, meaning they vote with
conviction rather than toeing the party line, as demonstrated by the defeat of the
government’s cuts to tax credits. More than anything, we need to determine the purpose of
a second chamber, before deciding who should sit in it.
(Source: adapted from an article defining the House of Lords)

Is the House of Lords value for money? Certainly not: the huge cost incurred by housing and
staffing chamber of 800 is ridiculous and an unnecessary cost to the taxpayer. While there
may be some hard-working peers. Many just take their payment and leave. Few of the 800
do much of anything, while the sight of Lord Lloyd-Webber flying in from his New York home
simply to vote to cut tax credits undermines every sensible notion of democracy. Some
Lords do not even pay tax in the UK while others are convicted criminals, who would be
barred from sitting in the Commons! With 34% of peers being from MPs and political staff,
the impression is that the Lords is a well-funded retirement home for the political
establishment. This is not what democracy looks like.
(Source: adapted from an article attacking the House of Lords)

Using the sources, evaluate the view that the House of Lords is in need of major reform.

In your response you must:

13
• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source
• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the devolution process has successfully enhanced democracy
in the UK.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the UK is now effectively a federal system.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK
democracy.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

14
Evaluate the extent to which Parliament is able effectively to call government to account.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the cabinet can shape policy and control the power of the
prime minister.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the limitations on the role of the prime minister will ultimately
outweigh the powers of the office.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the executive can control the UK Parliament.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the Supreme Court can protect human rights in the UK.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

15
It is often suggested that the reason the House of Commons has more status than the House
of Lords is because it I genuinely representative while the House of Lards certainly is not.
This is really for just one overwhelming reason: the Commons is elected but the Lords is not.
If we look more deeply, however, the assertion can be challenged.

The electoral system used for general elections ensures that the representation of parties In
the Commons is disproportionate. The parties with concentrated support – Labour,
Conservatives and Scottish Nationalist – have a disproportionally large representation, while
those with dispersed support, such as UKIP and the Liberal Democrats, are heavily under-
represented. It is also true that the House of Commons contains too few women (about a
quarter) and too few members of ethnic minorities in relation to the whole population.
Minorities find it difficult to gain representation in the House of Commons because the
party whips maintain such a tight grip on MPs.

The unelected, unaccountable House of Lords seems, at first sight, to be remarkably

undemocratic. However, it is undeniably true that the representation of parties in the Lords
is more accurate than it is in the Commons, with a large group of Liberal Democrats present
and some representation of small parties. The social make-up of the Lords is similar to that
of the Commons, too. But it is in the representation of minority interests that the Lords can
claim superiority. In debates and when scrutinising legislation, the much more independent
members of the House of Lords are very willing to put forward the interests of minorities to
a much greater degree than MPs in the Commons. Many peers have special expertise and
experience, qualities that make them uniquely qualified to represent such minorities.
(Source: Original Material)

16
Using the source, evaluate the respective claims of the two Houses of Parliament to be truly
representative institutions.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

There are a number of reasons why the introduction of a codified constitution remains an
objective of liberal-minded politicians and constitutional experts. Apart from the obvious
argument that the UK is out of step with virtually the whole of the rest of the democratic
world, there are a number of recent developments which have brought the issue to
prominence.

Above all, the devolution process has created a patchwork of overlapping and confusing
powers which are dispersed among the four nations of the UK and to the big cities and even
some geographical regions. It may, therefore, be time to codify the ways in which such
powers are distributed. In addition, the whole status of referendums (increasingly used)
needs to be clarified. Are they binding or are they not? On a broader level, we can ask the
question of whether it is realistic today to view the UK Parliament as sovereign, If it is not, in
reality, sovereign then we need to clarify where sovereignty lies. The return of sovereignty
after Brexit, too, presents a need to clarify this issue. There are also the older arguments
that the constitution should be codified to protect citizens’ rights more effectively and to
prevent the creeping increase in unchecked executive power.
Nevertheless, critics argue that these arguments are outweighed by other considerations.
We would, for example, be exchanging the known for the unknown, something that
conservatives are instinctively concerned about. Above all, however, it is the flexibility of the
UK’s ancient uncodified constitution that exercises the minds of such critics most vigorously.
‘We do not want,’ they argue, ‘to find ourselves in a position like that of the USA, where the
entrenched and codified constitution acts as a block on many important reforms such as
changes to the gun laws and socialised health care.’ Our flexible constitution, they add, is a
strength, not a weakness.
(Source: Original Material)

17
Using the source, evaluate the arguments for introducing a codified constitution of the UK.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

The experiences of two former UK prime ministers help us to understand both the strengths
and weaknesses of the office which they held.

The first was Tony Blair, who took office in 1997 after winning a landslide victory in the
general election. Blair was one of the inspirations behind the New Labour movement that
dominate politics for ten years. He led a cohort of politicians, including Gordon Brown,
Robin Cook and Peter Mandelson, who shared the same political vision. His government,
using its massive parliamentary majority, was able to implement a programme of
constitutional reform and to shift large proportions of the state’s resources towards health
and education provision. Blair and his predecessor John Smith, had been able to defeat the
left wing of the Labour Party and so moved Labour Party politics closer to the centre of the
political spectrum. Blair was a dominant politician in other senses of the words, too. He was
viewed as charismatic and enjoyed a positive media image, at least until he led the UK into a
disastrous conflict in Iraq.

By contrast, his successor Gordan Brown, who took over in 2007, was unable to dominate in
the same way. Brown was certainly not as charismatic as Blair and although Labour enjoyed
a comfortable parliamentary majority after 2005, this was not a decisive as Blair’s two three-
digit majorities. As time went by, too, it was clear that the Labour Party was now divided
between those who continued support Blair’s vision and those who followed Brown’s more
left-wing ideas and his growing Euroscepticism. But it was perhaps the financial crisis that
overwhelmed the Western world in 2008 that did most to derail Brown’s premiership.
Though this crisis was not of his making, Brown was often blamed for the aftermath, which
involved a huge growth in the national debt and a long period of economic austerity.

18
Brown and Blair did have one feature in common. This was that they lost power largely
because of external events – the Iraq war in Blair’s case and the financial crisis in Brown’s.
This may lead us to the conclusion that, however, popular or unpopular a prime minister
may be in the short term, in the long term their power depends on factors beyond their
control.
(Source: Original Material)

Using the source evaluate the extent to which prime ministers are able to dominate the
political system.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which Parliament remains sovereign.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate how far reforms since 1997 have made Parliament a more democratic institution.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate how far constitutional reforms since 1997 have undermined the power of
Parliament.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

19
 (30)

In bringing her case against the government, Ms Miller claimed that ‘no prime minister can
expect to be unanswerable’, a view upheld by the Supreme Court, which has ruled that
Parliament, not the PM, must take responsibility for triggering Article 50. Ms Miller said:
‘Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only Parliament can take them
away. No prime minister., no government can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged.
Parliament alone is sovereign. My motivation was upholding our constitutional law and
ensuring that a government can’t put themselves above the law. I’m sure that everyone
would agree it is only right that Parliament mow votes’.
(Source: adapted from a report over the Miller case, 2017)

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (2010) states that: ‘The minister of the civil
service has the power to manage the civil service.’ This is just one of the many legally
recognised powers held by the PM and recognised by statute laws. However, the most
prominent powers of a PM are the they hold from the monarch and there is no statutory
law or regulation of these powers. In essence, when it comes to powers under the royal
prerogative, the PM can essentially do as they please.
(Source: adapted from an account of the PM’s powers)

Using the sources, evaluate the view that prime ministers have become too powerful in
recent years.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

20
• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

The decision by the UK to leave the European Union by 2019 is probably the most significant
constitutional development in the UK for centuries. The treaties of the EU, notably of Rome
and Maastricht, gradually drained sovereignty away from the UK and brought UK
government and politics increasingly under the control of Brussels. The position of the
European Court of Justice was especially controversial as it frequently made judgements
that forced the UK government to adopt practices it has previously resisted. There was also
disquiet over the role of Brussels bureaucrats who are neither elected nor accountable and
yet appeared to be making policy. The sovereignty of Parliament seemed to have gone out
of the window. Fortunately, this applied only to those areas of policy that had been
transferred to Brussels in the treaties. It has to be said that large areas of policy have always
remained within the control of UK government and Parliament.

Outside the EU the UK will regain all its sovereignty and the Supreme Court will once again
be the highest court of appeal. The UK Parliament will no longer have to consider the
European dimension when passing legislation. Meanwhile, civil servants and other policy
makers will no longer be able to contribute to European legislation. All this however
depends upon the nature of any agreement that the UK government may make with the EU
after departure in March 2019.
(Source: Original Material)

Using the source, explain the constitutional impact of the UK leaving the European Union.

In your response you must:

21
• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source
• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the executive has become less powerful in relation to
Parliament.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate how far the power of the executive has been undermined by constitutional reforms
since 1997.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate how far the judiciary is the right body to protect civil liberties.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

22
Evaluate the extent to which the EU has impacted UK institutions.

In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas and consider this view and the alternative
to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

‘The European Court of Human Rights exceeds its legitimate powers, usurps the role of
politicians and undermines the democratic process.’

‘The Strasbourg court…has become the international flag-bearer for judge-made

fundamental law extending well beyond the text which it is changed with applying. It has
over many years declared itself entitled to treat the [European Convention on Human
Rights] as what it calls a “living instrument”.’

The right to a private life, a right originally ‘devised as a protection against the surveillance
state by totalitarian governments’ now extends ‘to cover the legal status of illegitimate
children, immigration and deportation, extradition, aspects of criminal sentencing, abortion,
homosexuality, assisted suicide, child abduction, the law of landlord and tenant, and a great
deal else besides.’
(Source: adapted from a public speech by the Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption)

One of the European Conventions on Human Rights’ early architects was that most British
politicians, Winston Churchill, so to say it is ‘un-British’ is a nonsense. To replace the Human
Rights Act with a British bill of rights would serve no purpose other than to remove the
scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights, leaving UK citizens to the mercy of the UK
government that judges have little power over. It was the European courts that allowed the
Sunday Times to report thalidomide scandal: the European courts that overruled a UK
court’s defence of a step-father who was regularly beating a child: the European Court who
struck down Northern Ireland’s criminalisation of homosexuality in 1981: the European
courts that ended the British government’s effective use of torture against IRA members in
the 1970s. Without the European courts, who knows how many abuses may have been
ignored? As Bella Sankey, policy director for Liberty, has said: Britain founded [the

23
Convention], it is the most successful system for the enforcement of human rights in the
history of the worlds, and every day it helps bring freedom, justice and the rule of law to
820 million people.’
(Source: adapted from an article about the role of the ECHR)

Using the sources, evaluate the view that the European Court of Human Rights undermines
democracy in the UK.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way
• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
(30)

Component 1 – Core Political Ideas

Edexcel endorsed

To what extent do modern and classical liberals agree over the role of the state?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent are different socialists committed to ‘equality of outcome’?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent are the views of One Nation conservatives on the economy consistent with
those of the New Right?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

24
To what extent do conservatives have a common view of human nature?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do different conservatives agree on the importance of paternalism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent is there agreement between classical and modern liberals?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do different socialists agree over the role of the state?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

Unendorsed

To what extent have modern liberals abandoned individualism and embraced collectivism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent does modern liberalism depart from the ideas of classical liberalism?

25
You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent are conservatives pragmatic?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do conservatives differ over the role of the state?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do socialists agree on both the means and ends of socialism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent are socialists committed to the abolition of capitalism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do modern and classical liberals agree over the nature of the state?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent can liberalism be reconciled with collectivism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

26
 (24)

To what extent is conservatism a philosophy of imperfection?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent is conservatism coherent ideology?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent are socialists committed to equality of outcome?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

‘Socialists have disagreed over means rather than ends.’ To what extent is this true?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do liberals disagree over the role of the state?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do liberals support equality?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

27
To what extent have modern liberals abandoned the concept of negative liberty in favour of the
concept of positive liberty?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do conservatives agree about human nature?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do conservatives disagree about the state’s role in the economy?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do conservatives agree on pragmatism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent is socialism committed to collectivism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent is socialism committed to equality?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do socialists disagree about the economy?

28
You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

Component 2 – Non-core Political Ideas

Edexcel endorsed

To what extent is the disagreement within feminism about the nature of men and women
significant to this political idea?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists disagree about the role of the state?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists agree that gender distinctions are based on human nature?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

29
 (24)

To what extent is feminism more divided than united?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists agree that the personal is political?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists identify patriarchy as a natural aspect of human nature?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

Unendorsed

To what extent is equality rather than difference the goal of feminism?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists agree that ‘the personal is political’?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
both sides in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do radical feminists criticise liberal feminists?

30
You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists believe that patriarchy is essentially an economically based

issue?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists agree on sex and gender?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists agree over the concept of patriarchy?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

To what extent do feminists agree that the personal is political?

You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider
any differing views in a balanced way.

(24)

Component 3B – Global Politics

Edexcel Endorsed
Examine the criticisms that have been made of both the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank.
(12)

Examine the effectiveness of both the international courts and tribunals in protecting
human rights.
(12)

31
Examine the factors that account for the increased use of soft rather than hard power in
global politics.
(12)

Examine the main controversies relating to the UN Security Council and the UN General
Assembly.
(12)

Analyse the divisions regarding human nature that exist between realism and liberals.

In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas.
(12)

Analyse the explanations of global politics provided by the anarchical society theory.

In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas.
(12)

Evaluate the extent to which cultural globalisation has had a greater impact on
the world than any other form of globalisation.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the European Union (EU) has been a model for regionalism
around the world.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the rise of other states has diminished the US as the global
hegemonic power.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30)

Evaluate the view that state sovereignty has been eroded by different regional
organisations.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30)

32
Evaluate the view that global order is significantly affected by the nature of government in
different types of state.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30)

Evaluate the view that global governance has been more effective in addressing economic
issues rather than human rights issues.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30)

Unendorsed

C3.6 Comparative Theories

Examine the validity of the argument that a balance of power creates order in global
politics.
(12)

Examine the criticisms that have been made of Francis Fukuyama’s views in his book The
End of History and the Last Man.
(12)

Examine the arguments that support Francis Fukuyama’s views in his book The End of
History and the Last Man.
(12)

Evaluate the extent to which contemporary world order tends towards anarchy and chaos.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which war and international conflict are inevitable features of global
politics
(30)

33
Evaluate the divisions regarding human nature that exist between liberals and realists.
(30)

C3.1 The state and globalisation

Examine the difference between economic globalisation and political globalisation
(12)

Examine the effectiveness of the international courts and tribunals in protecting human
rights.
(12)

Examine how successful humanitarian interventions have been in achieving their objectives.
(12)

Examine the view that cultural globalisation is creating a monoculture.

(12)

Examine why economic globalisation is so controversial.

(12)

Evaluate the extent to which cultural globalisation has had a greater impact on the world
than any other form of globalisation.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which economic globalisation has benefited the world’s poor.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which human rights-based law has challenged the principle that
states determine the human rights of their citizens.
(30)

Evaluate the validity of the view that ‘The nation-state remains the key player in global
politics’.
(30)

Evaluate why and in what ways there has been a growing opposition to globalisation.
(30)

C3.2 GG: Political

Examine the effectiveness of the United Nations in international peacekeeping.
(12)

34
Examine the difference between current NATO operations and its funding objectives
(12)

Evaluate the extent to which the United Nations has been successful in achieving its
founding objectives.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which NATO is still relevant and useful.

(30)

Evaluate whether the UN Security Council is still fit for purpose.

(30)

C3.2 GG: Economic

Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the International Monetary Fund.
(12)

Examine the extent to which the World Trade Organisation is no longer fit for purpose.
(12)

Examine the claim that the G7/8 and G20 are more effective than formal international
governmental organisation.
(12)

Evaluate the extent to which economic global governance is failing when it is needed most.
(30)

Evaluate the claim that there is a link between globalisation and poverty.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which nation-states are better able than other actors in global politics
to solve challenges of economic globalisation.
(30)

C3.3 GG: Human Rights

Examine why the idea of an international standard of human rights is so controversial.
(12)

Examine the tensions between human rights and state sovereignty.

(12)

Examine how effective international courts are in upholding global standards of justice.

35
 (12)

Examine why humanitarian intervention occurs in some cases but not in others.
(12)

Examine circumstances in which humanitarian intervention might be regarded as justifiable.

(12)

Evaluate the extent to which universal human rights have become more important in global
politics.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which humanitarian intervention is an abandoned project.

(30)

Evaluate the validity of the view that ‘International law will always be undermined by state
sovereignty’.
(30)

Evaluate why some humanitarian interventions are more successful than others.
(30)

Evaluate the view that ‘the concept of human rights is a form of Western cultural
imperialism’.
(30)

3.4 GG: Environmental

Examine the main factors that prevent states from cooperating over climate change.
(12)

Examine why ‘shallow’ ecology strategies have been adopted more often than ‘deep’
ecology strategies.
(12)

Examine implications of the idea of ‘sustainable development’.

(12)

Evaluate the view that ‘It is fair and legitimate for developed states to bear the greatest
burden in tackling climate change’.
(30)

36
Evaluate the view that ‘Climate change will never be reduced without state and non-state
actors being forced to take action’.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which international action on climate change has been blocked by
conflict between developed and developing states.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the environment remains a prominent global issue.
(30)

Evaluate the view that ‘International conferences on climate change are doomed to
disappoint’.
(30)

C3.5 Power and Developments

Examine the view that unipolarity encourages global stability.
(12)

Examine the main differences between the liberal and realist approaches to global politics.
(12)

Examine the view that hard power represents the main currency of international politics.
(12)

Examine the implications of emerging powers for world politics.

(12)

Evaluate the extent to which the USA can still claim global hegemonic status.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which multipolarity encourages peace and stability in the
international order.
(30)

Evaluate the extent to which China can now be viewed as a superpower.

(30)

Facebook Group Q’s

37
Evaluate the case for introducing the state funding of political parties.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

Evaluate the extent to which the wider use of referendums would improve representative
democracy in the UK?

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

(30)

38