These are the two passages you were given in the exam. The key arguments are highlighted so you can see the full range of points available to you. After the passages, there is a list of own knowledge ideas that could have strengthened your answer.
Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to the Party
When voters elect an MP, they are primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands on. The MP is the vehicle for that party's national platform. Therefore, their first duty is to support their party in Parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country during the election. To do otherwise would be to betray the trust of the millions who voted for that party's vision for the country.
Effective governance requires discipline and cohesion. A government cannot function if its MPs constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests. For a government to pass its budget, reform public services, and manage the economy, it needs the reliable support of its MPs. An MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability, which ultimately harms everyone.
Furthermore, political parties provide the essential support structure, research, and resources that allow an MP to work effectively. Acting as a lone wolf is rarely effective. By working as part of a united team, an MP has a far greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change, both locally and nationally. Loyalty to the party is not a betrayal of constituents; it is the most practical way to serve them.
Tom Harris argues for Loyalty to Constituents
An MP's first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency. They are sent to Parliament to be the champion of their local area, to voice its specific concerns and to fight for its interests. This direct link between the representative and the represented is the cornerstone of our democracy. An MP learns about these local needs through surgeries and community engagement, not from party headquarters in London.
An MP must also be a person of integrity, free to vote according to their conscience and their judgement of what is best for their community. If they believe a party policy will harm their constituents – such as closing a local hospital – they have a moral obligation to oppose it. History is filled with brave independent-minded MPs who stood up to their party on matters of principle, and they are rightly celebrated for it.
Ultimately, MPs are accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters in their constituency at the ballot box. If an MP consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favour of the party line, they will, and should, be voted out. This accountability is the most powerful check on political power we have, and it only works if the MP's primary loyalty is to the people they serve.
💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used
These are things from outside the source that would have pushed your answer into the top marks. You didn't need to know all of these — even one or two would have made a difference.
-
The whip system: In Parliament, each party has "whips" — senior MPs whose job is to make sure their party's MPs vote the way the party wants. Sometimes this pressure is very strong. You could argue that this system already forces MPs to follow the party line, so they need the freedom to rebel when it really matters for their local area.
-
MPs who rebelled and were proved right: In 2003, many Labour MPs voted against their own party and the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) over the Iraq War. At the time they were criticised, but later many people agreed they were right. This shows that going against your party can sometimes be the braver and better choice.
-
Coalitions and minority governments: After the 2010 election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government. This shows that even when a party doesn't have full control, government can still work — so Jenkins's argument that breaking ranks always causes "instability" doesn't always hold up.
-
Real local issues vs national policy: You could have used specific examples of local issues that clash with what the national party wants — like a hospital being closed, a school losing funding, a local bus route being cut, or a food bank being shut down. These show why an MP might need to put their constituency first.
-
The idea that MPs should use their own judgement: There is a long-standing idea in British politics that an MP is not just a messenger who does whatever voters or the party tell them. Instead, they are elected to use their own thinking and make decisions they believe are right — even if that means disagreeing with the party. You could argue this supports Harris's point about integrity and conscience.
-
Independent MPs: Some MPs leave their party (or are thrown out) and sit as independents. They can still represent their local area and vote freely, but they lose party resources and support. This is useful for evaluating Jenkins's argument that the party provides essential resources.
-
Government majority: A government needs more than half of MPs to vote with them to pass laws (this is called a "majority"). If too many MPs rebel, the government loses votes and can't get anything done. You could use this to support Jenkins — or to challenge her by pointing out that a few rebels don't always cause collapse.
-
Smaller vs larger parties: In a large party like the Conservatives or Labour, one MP rebelling is less noticeable. In a smaller party like the Green Party or Reform UK, every MP matters more, so there is more pressure to stay loyal. This adds nuance to the debate.
Word Count: 335 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)
I agree more with Tom Harris's argument that an MP's primary loyalty should be to their constituents, although Sarah Jenkins raises important points about the need for party discipline.
Jenkins argues that voters are 'primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands on', making the MP a 'vehicle' for delivering national promises. There is some truth to this; governments do need a reliable majority to pass legislation such as the annual budget. However, this view reduces MPs to lobby fodder. The whip system already pressures MPs to follow the party line, and when this goes too far it stifles genuine debate in Parliament. Jenkins's claim that breaking ranks leads to 'political instability' is overstated; minority governments and coalitions, such as the 2010 Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, have still governed effectively.
Conversely, Harris argues that an MP's 'first and most important duty is to the people who elected them', acting as a 'champion of their local area'. I find this more convincing because there is a long-standing principle in British politics that an MP is not simply a messenger for their party — they are elected to use their own judgement and stand up for what they believe is right, even if the party disagrees. Harris is right that an MP who learns about local needs through 'surgeries and community engagement' is better placed than party headquarters to judge what is best for an area. A party leader in Westminster cannot fully understand the impact of closing a local hospital or cutting a bus route; only the local MP can.
Jenkins also claims that 'acting as a lone wolf is rarely effective' and that the party provides essential resources. Yet history shows otherwise. MPs who defied their party over the Iraq War in 2003 were later vindicated by public opinion, proving that principled rebellion can be more effective than blind loyalty. As Harris argues, MPs are ultimately 'accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters', and this accountability is democracy's most powerful safeguard.
Ultimately, party unity matters, but it must never override an MP's duty to represent the people who put them in Parliament.
Quality of Evaluation
Excellent. The evaluation is sustained throughout. The student analysed 2–3 key points from each writer (manifesto mandate, party discipline, local representation, accountability). Arguments were not merely stated but weighed against each other (e.g., "Jenkins's claim that breaking ranks leads to 'political instability' is overstated"). Crucially, own knowledge was used to strengthen analysis: the whip system, the 2010 coalition, the principle that MPs should use their own independent judgement, local service examples, and the Iraq War rebellion all go beyond the source text and demonstrate top-level understanding.
Strengths
- Clear, sustained line of reasoning with a firm overall judgement.
- Integrated quotes from both writers throughout.
- Nuanced concession to the opposing side before rejecting it.
- Own knowledge used five times to add depth beyond the source material.
Targets
- Maintain this high standard by incorporating even more precise political vocabulary (e.g., "parliamentary sovereignty", "representative democracy").
Sarah Jenkins argues loyalty to their political party stating that MPs should always be loyal to their political party. She makes valid points like how governance requires disipline and cohesion to mandate a country. this is a valid point because Prime ministers are not saverfish [selfish?] as they need cohesion within their political parts in order to make new rules and desicscions (representative democracy).
A disadvanatge with what she states is she fails to mention that is a mp is always loyal to their political party and never challenges the leaders decisions in that Party, it becomes a echo-chamber where no constructive criticism is given or taken in. This maks a political party seem strong in the eyes of the public but fails when it comes to maintaining checks and balances. Scrutineyz is key in a political grap.
On the other hand, Tom harris argues for Loyalty to Constituents... A positive to this point is this promotes strong community trust and cohesion between the mp' and its consituents... These can be strengthed by community interactions like surgeries and hustings.
A negative with his point is this can often clash with the ideals of the political party which may lead to less political discipline and cohesion, in turn making the party weaker.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You introduced the concept of an **"Echo Chamber"**. This is a brilliant critique. You argued that if MPs never challenge their leader, mistakes happen because there is no "constructive criticism". This shows deep understanding of why blind loyalty is dangerous.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'Scrutiny is key'. Expand this: 'Jenkins wants discipline, but too much discipline destroys scrutiny. If MPs are just "yes-men" in an echo chamber, the government makes bad decisions. Therefore, Harris's independence is actually healthy for the government.'"
Strengths
- Key Concept: The "Echo Chamber" critique is excellent.
- Checks and Balances: You correctly identified that loyalty can undermine the checks on power.
Targets
- Spelling: "Scrutineyz" (Scrutiny), "Desicscions" (Decisions). Take care with your writing.
Although the whole idea of how and who an Mp should prioritise is a big debate, I agree to a large extent with Tom Harris (TH) that the Mp should mainly focus on the loyalty to constituents. To begin with, Tom Harris (TH) believes that an Mp should focus on their duty to prioritise the 'people who elected them'... This is a strong argvement as the formal Uk electoral system is representative democracy in which the people vote for a representative, which is correct. through hosting hustings, people are able to voice their opinions... which is a form of indirect action, which creates convience...
On the other hand, Sarah Jenkins believes that Mps should argue for loyalty to the Party... This is a invalid arguement as Sarah Jenkins (SJ) needs to realize that they just shouldn't focus on manifesto, but to understand how it will impact the people. Furthermore, she states how 'an Mp who prioritises their consistency over the party line contributes to weak government'. This is clearly wrong as it symbolises integrity instead...
He states how Mps are able to 'free to vote according to their conscience'. This is an excellent point as it illustrates how Mps are able to Scrutinise the government/political party in power which links to rule of law, how 'no one is above the law'.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You use very strong Citizenship terminology: "Representative Democracy", "Indirect Action", and "Rule of Law". Connecting an MP's conscience to the Rule of Law (scrutinizing power) is a high-level point. You dismiss Jenkins as "clearly wrong", which is a bit strong, but your reasoning is sound.
Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of saying Jenkins is 'invalid', say: 'Jenkins prioritises the manifesto, but this is flawed. In a Representative Democracy, the MP represents the people, not just a piece of paper. Therefore, human impact matters more than party promises.'"
Strengths
- Vocabulary: "Representative Democracy", "Indirect Action", "Rule of Law". Excellent subject knowledge.
- Scrutiny: You correctly identified that independent MPs help scrutinize the government.
Targets
- Tone: Avoid saying an argument is "invalid" or "clearly wrong". Say it is "less convincing" or "flawed".
Tom Harris (TM) argues for loyalty to constituents and I completely agree. This is because due to Our voting systm (First post the post) cities are voting who they believe should be representing their constiuency. A role like this is not only extemly important but also fundamental for our democracy. Relating if they believe a political party will harm their constituency - such as closing a local hospital or shutting down a local shopping which would cause potential mental health isses as families wouldn't be able to recieve the healthcare they need or just the joy of a child running down aisles in a supermarket.
I believe the Mp has a moral obligation to oppose it. This could potentially even lead to the Mps loyalty being questioned leading to them being voted out of power...
However Sarah Jenkins (SJ) argues against this point and believes Mps should have loyalty to their party... Adding on to this the voting system (FPTP) contradicts this overall point as citizens having a say in the consiuency does not lead to political instability and a weak governemnt as if this was true we would vote under proportional repersentation.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). This is a sophisticated answer. You use the voting system (**First Past The Post**) to destroy Jenkins's argument. You argue that because we use FPTP (local voting), the system is
designed for local representation, not national instability. This is excellent analysis. Your specific examples (hospital/shopping) add emotional weight.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'dethrone them'. Use formal language: 'The voters have the ultimate sanction. Because of First Past The Post, if an MP ignores their local area to please the party, the locals can remove them. This accountability proves Harris is right.'"
Strengths
- Context: Using "FPTP" vs "Proportional Representation" to explain why local loyalty matters is Level 4 thinking.
- Specifics: "Closing a local shopping centre" makes the harm to the community feel real.
Targets
- Clarity: Your sentences are very long. Try to use full stops to break up your ideas so they punch harder.
I agree Tom / Honor Harris more because as a responsibility of Being a member of parliament is to voice specfic concerns concerns from your those constituency for example An mp learns about the local needs through surgeries and community engagement Instead of to understand the demands of the public. This is key because It allows mps to know what they have to do
However Sarah Jenkins makes a valid point about How An mp who pritis prioritises their constituency rather than the party line contributes to a weak government and political instability but is an mp consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favour of the party line leads to the population of the constituency could possibly lead to them being voted out due to th because they aren't taking responsibility upon
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (4/10). You have identified the key mechanisms: "Surgeries" (how MPs learn) and "Voted out" (what happens if they ignore people). You understand the text. However, your writing is a bit messy (sentences trailing off), which makes your argument hard to follow.
Improved Evaluation:
"Finish your point about instability: 'Jenkins warns about weak government. However, I believe that an MP who ignores their voters creates a worse problem: they lose their job. Therefore, loyalty to the voter is essential for the MP's survival.'"
Strengths
- Key Terms: You correctly identified "surgeries" and "community engagement".
Targets
- Proofreading: "Tom/Honor Harris"? Check the names carefully.
- Completion: Finish your sentences. "Taking responsibility upon..." upon what?
Should an mp primary loyalty be to their consitues or their politicl party. This question remains a etot debate because on the one hand some may say that This because "when voter select an mp they are primarily endorsing a political party" since its only right that the decision should be prioritized.
However on the other hand some may argue that an "Mps first and most importat duty is the people who elected them in their local consituency".
Although this is a good argument Sarah fails to consider that always following decions from people within a consitucncy may cause the Mp to miss out on the bigger decison and can pettenliuly form an echo chember around the MP. In Conclusion loyalty to the party woul be better.
Quality of Evaluation
Mixed (5/10). You have a unique and interesting point at the end. Usually, people say the
party is an "echo chamber", but you argued that listening only to
locals is an echo chamber that makes MPs miss the "bigger decisions". This is a clever critique of localism.
Improved Evaluation:
"Expand on the 'bigger decisions': 'Harris wants MPs to focus on locals. However, this creates "tunnel vision". If MPs only look at local issues, they ignore massive national problems (like the economy), which hurts everyone in the long run. Therefore, Jenkins is right.'"
Strengths
- Original Critique: Arguing that local loyalty creates an "echo chamber" is a very smart flip of the usual argument.
Targets
- Word Count: This is too short. You need to develop your points with more explanation.
- Spelling: "Etot" (Hot?), "Pettenliuly" (Potentially).
Sarch Jenkins belive tha MP shoud stas loyal to there party Ideological... Sarah Jenkins a to Parliment deliver Promise to entire contry to ensure with ther perts... me have abetter chance is Party stas loyal can voice there oplnens more practical
Tom harris argues for Consituencs belive Should stas the duto sericss as llness there local Puti constiancs that vote for them... mp Learn S cre comncits ensgament as a MP must be sone with intergits Free to accoding con sciance and ther that mp have the Free crilid to ate discares
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (3/10). You have tried to use some big words like "Ideological" and "Conscience", which is good. You understand that Jenkins wants to deliver promises to the "entire country" and Harris wants to listen to "local" people. However, your spelling makes it very hard to read your argument.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'conscience'. A good sentence would be: 'I agree with Harris because an MP must vote with their conscience. If the party asks them to do something wrong, they must have the freedom to say no.'"
Strengths
- Key Words: You picked out "Ideological", "Promise", and "Practical".
Targets
- Spelling: "Oplnens" (Opinions), "Intergits" (Integrity). Take your time to write clearly so the examiner can give you marks.
Surah Jenkins believes an mps primary loyalty should be to thier party rather than thier constituency as this may lead to intense backlash and the loss and betrayel of the millions who voted for that party.
Tom harris belves An mps Most importer duty is to the people who elected them in thier local constituency. In (TH) opinion the people who elected you should be the primary focus as those people often deal with the same issues as them.
personaly I agree with (SJ) as not helping the contry and only focusing on your own area is a extremly selfish and bias thing to do It will also hurt your social perception and result in Mass loss of trust This will negatively effect you and you political party.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You have a very strong opinion: that focusing only on your local area is "selfish". This is a great evaluation point because it looks at the morality of the decision. You argue that ignoring the "country" to help "your own area" is wrong.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said local focus is 'selfish'. Expand this: 'Harris argues for the local area, but this is selfish. An MP should care about the whole country. If every MP only fought for their own town, the country would be divided and weak.'"
Strengths
- Strong Opinion: You aren't afraid to say that Harris's view is "selfish".
- Consequences: You noted that selfishness leads to "backlash" and "loss of trust".
Targets
- Word Count: You need to write more. Give an example of a "selfish" local decision (e.g., stopping a national railway being built).
I agree more with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) as she uses clear evidence... She also shows how instability can happen by an MP who prioritizes their constituency over the Party line Which harms everyone as it can lees to a break down in systems. Loyalty of to party from an mp can not only be seen as betrayed but also foolishness of constituents. This means that prioritising a political party is seen as loyalty.
However SJ fails to explain how loyalty to party can eventually lead to a downfall for eg. if the party loses.
Unlike Tom Harris (TH) who argues that an MP should be a person of Integrity who can vote freely according to their Conscience meaning they can make their own decisions. He also says that an MP who constantly ignores the wishes of local people in favour of prioritising the Party line Should defintely be voted out.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You have a clear structure. Your critique of Jenkins ("fails to explain... downfall if the party loses") is a good attempt at evaluation, though you could explain it more. If a party loses, why is loyalty bad? (Because you backed the wrong horse!). Your summary of Harris is accurate.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'downfall'. Explain this: 'Jenkins argues for blind loyalty. However, if the party becomes corrupt or unpopular, a loyal MP will go down with the ship. Therefore, Harris's independence is safer for the MP's career.'"
Strengths
- Key Terms: You used "Instability" and "Integrity" correctly.
- Structure: You clearly separated your agreement with Jenkins and your summary of Harris.
Targets
- Conclusion: You didn't finish with a clear "Winner". You agreed with Jenkins at the start, but gave Harris the last word. Who wins?
I agree with Tom harris the most because he brings up a great point and Speaks about an MP's first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency
Quality of Evaluation
Minimal (1/10). You have written one sentence which mostly just copies the text. You need to explain
why you agree. Why is the local duty more important than the national duty?
Improved Evaluation:
"Add the 'because': 'I agree with Harris because if an MP ignores the local people, they are betraying the voters who gave them power. A party in London doesn't know what the local town needs.'"
Strengths
- Identification: You identified Harris's main point correctly.
Targets
- Effort: You must write an essay, not just a sentence. Compare Harris to Jenkins.
Out of both arguments, I agree more with Sarah Jenkins as because She Tom harris because he gives abetter explanation and sounds more convincing of what an MP can do.
For example he states that if a hospital was to be closed down, an MP has a moral obligation to oppose it. This is one reason why I agree as opposing the idea to close down a hospital may mean more lives can be saved.
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (4/10). You got a bit confused with the names at the start ("Sarah Jenkins as because She Tom Harris"), but once you focused on the example, you made a good point. You explained the
consequence of the argument: opposing a hospital closure = saving lives. This is valid evaluation.
Improved Evaluation:
"You linked the hospital to saving lives. Compare this to Jenkins: 'Jenkins argues for party loyalty, but if a party wants to close a hospital, loyalty is dangerous. Harris is right because an MP's moral duty to save lives is more important than obeying a party leader.'"
Strengths
- Specific Example: You focused on the "Hospital" example, which makes the problem real.
- Consequence: You correctly identified that the result of Harris's view is "lives saved".
Targets
- Planning: Take a moment to check which name belongs to which argument before you start writing.
I agree with Jenkins Because she is explaining on how they present the politics, she clearly explans the pros and the cons, when the voters Select a represenive to Be elected, they obviously Play an big role, throughout, It is not jushiable if the MP does not serve their purpose when the Parties Should be facing Alot of effection [affection/attention?].
At a certain extent I agree with Tom Harris, the people Should be able to have their opinions Shared and taken into reconsideration, their intrests Should be taken Action, they Are capable of creating change...
Therefore, the MP Should not be a form of censorship and priortise democracy whatsoever the wishes of the people Should not be left there to feel invalidated, they Already have high positioning so they should use their power wisely, not taking advantage of their Social position furthermore, the Mp Should not Be Betraying their people, Loyalty to the party is a huge Betrayal of the citizens. The rule of law does play an Factor in this however.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You used some very strong words: "Censorship" and "Invalidated". This is great evaluation. You argued that if an MP ignores the people to please the party, they are effectively
censoring the public. This is a powerful point about democracy.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said an MP shouldn't be 'a form of censorship'. Explain this: 'If an MP votes with their party instead of their people, they are silencing (censoring) the very people who voted for them. This makes the voters feel invalidated and destroys trust in the system.'"
Strengths
- Key Concepts: Using "Censorship" to describe what happens when an MP ignores voters is a very creative and accurate idea.
- Rule of Law: You mentioned the "Rule of Law" at the end, which shows good subject knowledge.
Targets
- Clarity: Some sentences are hard to follow ("facing Alot of effection"). Try to keep your sentences simpler to make your point clear.
Where an Mps primary loyalty be to their constituant or their poltical party is a good debate...
For example one of the writer, Tom Harris claims 'Mps first and most importanr duty is to the people who elected them' the strength with view is that people who live in the local ariya a say to what happening to the community and Mp is supposed to represent the people in parliament. This This flaws with this is that political parties provide the essential Support structure, resourc and resources that allow an mp to work effectively.
That on the other hand Sarah Jenkins says that the MP is 'Vehicle for the party national platform'. The strength with Argument it show rationality which makes it that mps Should be tools instructed on Serving the mind and wants
finally I think Both sides made a both persasues [persuasive] argument but at the end the main role of an mp is to be peoples mouthpiece in parliament.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). The word "Mouthpiece" in your conclusion is excellent. It perfectly summarizes the role of an MP according to Harris. You also correctly identified that the "resources" provided by the party are a strength of Jenkins's argument.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said the MP is a 'mouthpiece'. Expand on this: 'Jenkins argues the MP is a "vehicle" for the party, but Harris argues they are a "mouthpiece" for the people. I agree with Harris because a vehicle just follows a map, but a mouthpiece speaks for those who cannot be heard.'"
Strengths
- Metaphor: Describing the MP as a "Mouthpiece" is a Level 4 evaluative skill.
- Comparison: You weighed the "resources" of the party against the "representation" of the people.
Targets
- Spelling: "Ariya" (Area), "Persasues" (Persuasive). Be careful with your spelling.
I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) due to her very appropriate use of wording and her facutal statements which makes it clear to any individual on why an MP's primary loyalty Should be to the Party.
For example SJ mentions 'how a government cannot function if its Mps constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests... and for a government to Pass its budget, reform Public Services, and manage the economy, it needs the reliable Support of its Mps. An mp who Prioritises their consitituency over the Party line contributes to weak government and Political instability, which ultimatley harms everyone'.
Which legitmately explores how the Party is better due to her Precise wording when describing her opinion and how rationaising the consistency over the party makes the Government stable to imporce [enforce?] and contributes to a weak government effecting everyone in the near future.
However Tom harris also adds significant Points worth mentioning Such as 'An MP's first and most important duty is to the...
Quality of Evaluation
Descriptive (5/10). You spend a lot of time talking about Jenkins's "appropriate use of wording" and "factual statements". This is analyzing the
writing style, but for this exam, you need to analyze the
argument. Is she right? Why? You did correctly identify that disloyalty causes "weak government", which is a good point.
Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of saying 'her wording is precise', say: 'Jenkins argues that localism causes "weak government". I agree with this because if MPs only care about their own town, the government cannot pass budgets or fix the economy, which hurts the whole country.'"
Strengths
- Key Quote: You selected the most important section on "weak government" and "political instability".
Targets
- Focus on Logic, not Style: Don't talk about how well the text is written ("precise wording"). Talk about whether the ideas are true or false.
Personally I partially agree with Tom Harrises argument. This is because he makes valid and understandable points that Sarah Jenkins doesn't really make. For examPle (TH) talks about how an MP should be a person with integrity... This is a valid point because locals and society want MP's that know their role as a member of Parliament. Another reason I agree with Tom Harris is because he states "MP's are accountable not to Party leaders but to voters in their constituency". I agree with this Statement because Mps should be accuntable to localls votes not a Party leader.
On the other hand, I also partially agree with Sarah Jenkins argument because She states "Loyalty to the Party is not a betray of constiguents; It is the most Practical way to Serve them". I agree with this because the party should Still be Prioritised and respected since they also have a role to Society...
I also agree with (SJ) when She says "Effective governance requires discipline and cohesion". I agree because without a disciplined governance they wouldn't be ambiticis and trust worthy. Overall I mostly agree with Tom Harris for his understandable arguments.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You have a balanced view. You agree with Harris about "accountability" (voters are the boss), but you also admit Jenkins is right about "discipline". Recognizing that a government needs discipline to be "trustworthy" is a good evaluative point.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said 'without discipline they wouldn't be trustworthy'. Expand this: 'Jenkins is right that discipline is needed. If a party is chaotic and fighting itself, the public loses trust. Therefore, some party loyalty is necessary for a government to actually work.'"
Strengths
- Balance: You gave credit to both sides ("partially agree" with both), which shows you are weighing the arguments.
- Key Concepts: You correctly identified "Integrity" and "Discipline" as the main values.
Targets
- Explain 'Why': You often say "I agree because this is a valid point". Try to say why it is valid. (e.g., "It is valid because without local accountability, democracy fails").
I agree with Sarah, because she argues for loyalty to the party. A piece of evidence would be "their duty is to support their party in parliment to deliver the promises made to the entire country during the election" This there proves why we should be loyalty to the party. Because if theyré putting their party before themselves that shows how endured and eager they are to win in every situation.
As it says, furthermore political parties provide the essential support structure, that research and resoures that allow an MP to work effectively" This implies they are giving values and key features of political parties such as (pp) provide the external support, strucure, research. Which the public could look out for. Sarah also says "an mp has far greater chance of influencing policy and achievering positive change both locally and nationally." This tells us how this can be beneficial in the both locally and a nationally way.
However Tom Haris agues for loyalty to constituents, And asus 'An MP must also be a person for integrity... This infer that he's giving positive altonves [alternatives?] of constituents.
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (4/10). You have done a good job of finding the quotes (AO2). You clearly understand what Jenkins is saying. However, you are mostly just repeating her words ("This implies...", "This tells us..."). You need to explain
why she is right. Why is "influencing policy" better than "integrity"?
Improved Evaluation:
"You said Jenkins shows 'how eager they are to win'. Compare this to Harris: 'Jenkins argues that loyalty helps the party win. However, Harris argues that an MP's job isn't just to win, but to have integrity. Winning is useless if you ignore the people you represent.'"
Strengths
- Evidence: You used plenty of quotes from the text to support your points.
- Understanding: You correctly understood that parties provide "support structures" and "resources".
Targets
- Evaluation vs Description: Don't just tell me what the writer said. Tell me if they are right or wrong, and why.