‹ All questionsPaper 2 · 2020 · 30 marks
Using Source 2, evaluate the view that the UK's constitution requires major change.
Constitution
Source
Source 2 contains arguments for and against retaining the UK's current constitutional arrangements.
The case that the constitution requires major change
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 an overarching 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.
The case that the constitution works as it is
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.
Mark scheme: agreement
AO1: The source shows big differences between the income of the top two parties and the rest. State funding would provide a base of fairness in a open market forum.
AO2: This would fund parties on a more equal basis and encourage politicians to concentrate on their voters not donors. The SNP who contest only 10% of the seats have a disproportionate income stream.
AO3: We can conclude that state funding is preferable to some parties doing better because they can raise more money.
AO1: The current system lacks transparency, as the source says that details of donations arising after the election has taken place.
AO2: Private donations may mean that certain sectors of society or rich individuals can have a disproportionate influence on the elections, which is largely hidden from the electorate.
AO3: The view that political parties can be bought distorts and undermines the democratic process.
AO1: As the source argues, the increase to taxes would only be very slight for state funding to be established.
AO2: The UK could afford this amount to ensure corruption is avoided.
AO3: We can reach the verdict that establishing a fair democracy is a price well worth paying.
Mark scheme: disagreement
AO1: The source shows that state funding is not necessary as the current system works.
AO2: The two main parties are funded in proportion to their popularity in the polls.
AO3: We can conclude that the current system works and change to state funding would be unpopular.
AO1: The source shows that the Labour Party model, high membership leading to high income, is an excellent model for a democracy.
AO2: By encouraging people to join a party by charging lower membership fees, democracy can be reinvigorated, without state funding.
AO3: We can conclude that raising funds via increased membership and political momentum is preferable to state funding.
AO1: The source suggests that state funding is not necessary as it is possible to be electorally successful without high levels of funding.
AO2: Political parties with limited funding have made a major difference to UK politics such as UKIP and the Green Party.
AO3: Success in elections we can conclude is not just about money but talent and capturing the public's mood. We can make a judgement that income does not mean votes are bought but that supporters contribute because they agree with the political party.