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").
To understand whether an MP's primary loyalty should be to their constituents or their political Party, we must understand that political parties provide essential support, Structure research and resources that allow an MP to work effectively.
Alternatively Constituents are the people who elected them in their local constituency. Therefore, I agree more with Tom Harris (TH) who argues for loyalty to Constituents. This is because without the People's votes they wouldn't have gotten in to their local constituency meaning that the primary focus should be to the constituents. Regardless, if the constituents aren't the Primary focus they have the power to vote them out if they feel their wishes aren't being heard or seen.
However, it could be argued that loyalty should be to the Party as said by Sarah Jenkins (SJ). This is due to the fact that to support their Party in Parliament to deliver the Promises made to the entire Country during the election should be the Primary duty. Despite this, I still believe that the MP should stay more loyal to Constituents as they have a moral obligation to not neglect the Same People who essentially voted them in and gave them Power.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You have a very clear and logical argument: MPs get their power from the voters, therefore they owe their loyalty to the voters. This is a strong Principle of Democracy argument. You also correctly identified that parties provide "resources", showing you considered both sides before deciding.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned the 'moral obligation'. Strengthen this by comparing it to the party: 'Jenkins argues for loyalty to the party manifesto. However, I believe the moral obligation to the specific people who gave you your job (the voters) is stronger than the obligation to a party leader in London.'"
Strengths
- Logic: "Without the people's votes they wouldn't have gotten in" — this is a simple but undeniable fact that supports your argument well.
- Balance: You acknowledged that parties provide "essential support", showing you read the text carefully.
Targets
- Word Count: You need to expand your points. Give an example of a "local wish" that might conflict with a "national promise" to show you understand the tension.
I agree with T.H (Tom harris) more than S.J (Sarah Jenkins) due to their point being stronger. Tom T.H shows his loyalty to constituents and states that the MP's 'parliament are the champion of the local area and the MP learns about local needs'. This is a good point as the MP's are elected to represent their local area and they should act with integrity and conscience and if they were not eligible enough to impress the constituents they wouldve gotten voted out.
On the other hand S.J believes that the MP's loyalty is based on their loyalty to the party as 'effective governance requires discipline and cohesion' and that 'An MP who constantly breaks ranks contributes to a weak government'. While this is a Somewhat strong point she has failed to include that Voters Choose an MP Mainly due to the promises on their Manifesto and that Mpis have a duty to help deliver national promises...
T.H believes that an MP's voice its specific concerns and to fight for his interests, this helps them get re-elected however if it wasn't the case that MPs weren't behaving loyal the MPs have the right to oppose parties policies that harm the community accountability that is to voters and not party leaders. Overall I believe T.H's point is stronger...
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You have some good ideas, especially about "re-election". However, you got a bit confused in the middle. You criticized Jenkins for "failing to include" that voters choose based on Manifestos. Actually, Jenkins
does say that (she says voters endorse the "party manifesto"). You accidentally used Jenkins's own argument to attack her!
Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of saying Jenkins 'failed to include' the manifesto, say: 'Jenkins is right that voters choose a manifesto. However, I disagree with her because sometimes a specific local issue (like saving a hospital) is more important to voters than the national manifesto.'"
Strengths
- Accountability: You correctly identified that if MPs aren't loyal to the locals, they won't get "re-elected".
- Use of Text: You selected good quotes ("champion of local area", "discipline and cohesion").
Targets
- Accuracy: Make sure you know exactly which writer argues what. Jenkins = Manifesto. Harris = Local Needs. Don't mix them up.
I agree with Tom Harris who argues for loyalty to constitutes because of their different roles they play. For example Mp's political party main piarity is to listen to the people that voted them and come aocess to their needs. The constituteats allows them to voice their concerns and fight for their interest. They loyalty to them would be good with them since the people are happy then with who are they voted for.
Whereas if the Mp's are loyal to their polictical party they dont have as much freedom. For Example, with their local party they are able to get selected whenev they want even if they dont want to. The people would obviously want the Mp they are voted for in the first place.
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (5/10). You have identified a key difference: Harris offers "freedom" to listen, whereas Jenkins (Party) restricts freedom. This is a valid point. However, saying "people are happy" is a bit too simple for a Year 9 Citizenship essay. You need to explain
why this matters for democracy.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said party loyalty means MPs 'don't have as much freedom'. Use the term 'Whip System' or 'Party Discipline'. 'If an MP has no freedom, they become just a robot for the party leader, rather than a human being representing their neighbours.'"
Strengths
- Core Concept: You understood that Party Loyalty restricts an MP's freedom.
- Clarity: It is clear which side you are on.
Targets
- Vocabulary: "Constituents" (not constitutes), "Priority" (not piarity).
- Elaboration: Explain why making people "happy" is important. (Because if they aren't happy, they will vote for someone else).
On one hand Sarah Jenkins (SJ) has first said that "effective government requires discipline and cohesion" this point is strong as it correctly highlights about the fact that having a loyal MP means that individuals that are seeking to be an MP is loyal and trustworthy rather than one seeking for Power. However what this point has to mention is that one may be loyal to ones party but still be corrupt mentally.
On the other hand Tom Harris (TH) says that loyalty must go to the constituents and one example is "an mp must be a person of intergrity" this point is strong as we can have the free to vote. Furthermore they also have a judgement of what is best for there community.
overall i agree with writer SJ as loyalty to the party should be Protized rather than your loyalty to
Quality of Evaluation
Mixed (5/10). You have an interesting idea about "mental corruption" - suggesting that just because someone is loyal to a party, it doesn't mean they are a good person. This is original thinking! However, your sentence trails off at the end, so you haven't finished your conclusion.
Improved Evaluation:
"Expand on the 'corrupt' point: 'Jenkins argues loyalty shows trustworthiness. However, I disagree. An MP might be loyal to a corrupt party leader just to get promoted. This is not true loyalty; it is selfishness.'"
Strengths
- Originality: Questioning the motives of "loyal" MPs (seeking power vs being trustworthy) is a good evaluative angle.
- Key Quotes: You used "discipline and cohesion" correctly.
Targets
- Finish the Essay: You stopped writing in the middle of your final sentence. Make sure you manage your time to finish.
- Grammar: "What this point has to mention" -> "What this point fails to mention".
On one hand, Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty if MPs to be primarily loyal to their political party. This is because She believes an mps first duty is support their party in parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country during the election. This point is mainly strong due to the fact that Mps are expected to stay true to their manisesto by the public.
However on the other hand, Tom Harris argues for loyalty to constituents, Tom Harris mainly argues this because they believe that an MPs first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local area this is because the fact that they were mostly voted to tend to the needs of people in the constituency. This is a strong point due Although I dont agree as much this point is still very strong because if an MP ignores the wishes of local people im then they will most likely be voted out.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You have correctly identified the main strength of each argument: Jenkins is strong because of the **Manifesto** (promises), and Harris is strong because of **Accountability** (getting voted out). You haven't clearly picked a winner yet, but you understand the debate well.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said 'I don't agree as much' with Harris. Explain why: 'Although Harris says MPs will be voted out, I think Jenkins is right because without the party manifesto, the voters wouldn't know what they were voting for in the first place.'"
Strengths
- Key Concepts: You correctly identified "Manifesto" and "Voted out" as the core arguments.
- Balance: You gave fair space to both sides.
Targets
- Comparison: You said both points are "strong". To get higher marks, you need to say which one is stronger and why.
Tom Harris mainly argues on how an MP should remain loyal to their constituencies rather than their party, he made a valid point stating 'An MP's most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency' the reason this is a strong arguement is because it emphasises the fact that if the people in their constituency did not vote them they would not be in the position of MP, so in order to repay them for voting for them they should stay loyal and voice the concerns of the public and fight for their interests.
However, Tom Harris also talks about 'If an MP consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favar of the party line, they will, and should, be voted out' This is a weak point as it fails to mention that not always what the people want is whats right for the constituency. For example, stricter border control, alot of workers from abroad are qualified for certain jobs that are not so popular so they fill in that gap, however, if we were to stop people from coming in then alot of these jobs would have no workers which could put nemerous amounts of business out of work.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (7/10). This is a very intelligent answer. You didn't just accept Harris's view that "the people are always right." You used a specific example (Immigration/Workers) to prove that sometimes constituents want things (like closed borders) that would actually
harm their own local businesses. This is high-level critical thinking.
Improved Evaluation:
"You argued that voters might be wrong. Use the term 'Populism' or 'National Interest'. 'Harris assumes local voters always know best. However, sometimes constituents want things (like strict border control) that would damage the economy. An MP should use their judgment to do what is right, not just what is popular.'"
Strengths
- Specific Example: Using "Border control" and "workers" to prove a point about the economy is excellent.
- Challenge: You were brave enough to argue that the voters might be wrong.
Targets
- Structure: You spent a lot of time on the critique of Harris. Make sure you also evaluate Jenkins's arguments about the party.
I agree more with Tom Harris (TH) who argues that an MP's primary loyalty should be to their constituents.
TH makes a strong point that MP are elected to represent the specific needs and concerns of their local area. He argues that the direct link between voters and their MP is the foundation of democracy... This is convincing because constituents vote for a person they trust to speak on their behalf, not just follow instructions from party leaders. He also argues that MPs must act with integrity and vote according to their conscience when party policies could harm their local area, such as closing a hospital. This is persuasive because it shows that blind loyalty to a party can negatively affect real people.
Although Sarah Jenkins (SJ) argues that loyalty to the party creates stability and allows government to function effectively, this is less convincing. While party unity is important, it should not come at the expense of local communities. An MP who always follows the party line risks ignoring the people who elected them.
Overall, TH presents the stronger argument because democracy works best when MPs prioritise the people they represent rather than party discipline.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). This is a very clearly written and well-structured answer. You successfully argued that "blind loyalty" is dangerous because it ignores the needs of "real people". Your conclusion perfectly summarizes the democratic principle at stake.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said party unity 'should not come at the expense of local communities'. Expand on this: 'Jenkins prioritises efficiency ("function effectively"), but Harris prioritises fairness. In a democracy, it is better to have a slower government that listens (Harris) than a fast government that ignores its citizens (Jenkins).'"
Strengths
- Clarity: Your writing is very smooth and easy to follow.
- Comparison: You weighed "Stability" (Jenkins) against "Representation" (Harris) and decided Representation was more important.
Targets
- Word Count: You are writing well, but try to add one more specific example (like the Immigration example in Candidate 82067) to push for top marks.
Firsty, Sarah Jenkins does introduce a very valid claim how Mps mainly endorse their political party and the manifesto it stands on which is true to a large extent however they then they go onto say how a governme 'cannot function if mps constantly break rank & vote on narrow, local interests'.
This statement doesn't acknowledge the fact that on of the jobs of an Mp is to represent their Constituency in order to help uphold democrcy within the country and also how Mps don't necessarily vote on 'narrow local interests' as this is also mainly something atonal for [dealt with] by local Councils.
This is very explaind very well via Tom Harris who also mentions how said direct link between the MPs and constituents is the Cornerstone of democracy which many people can agree on.
Furthermoe, SJ says that by using an Mp to account for local Constituents representation a 'betrayal' to th 'trust of millions' which is a very weak point as due to an MPs job of representing the constituency that voted them to abandon them would be more of undermine over them...
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). You made a brilliant point using "Own Knowledge": you pointed out that "Local Councils" deal with the really small local issues, so Jenkins is wrong to worry about MPs wasting time on them. This shows you understand the different layers of UK politics.
Improved Evaluation:
"You distinguished between MPs and Councils. Phrase it like this: 'Jenkins fears MPs will focus on "narrow" issues. However, this is invalid because Local Councils handle minor issues (like bins). MPs focus on how national laws affect their area, which is a vital part of democracy, not a distraction.'"
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Bringing in "Local Councils" to refute the "narrow interests" argument is a very smart move.
- Democracy: You constantly link back to what is required to "uphold democracy".
Targets
- Proofreading: "Atonal for" -> "dealt with". "Explaind" -> "explained". Check your spelling.
Initially I could agree with the writer Sarah Jenkins (SJ) who argues for loyalty towards the party as she makes very strong points. For example SJ says the MP should 'primarily endose a political party and the manifesto it stands on'. This is arguably a very good point because once a political party comes into power I know that they are obliged to follow their manifesto and set of aims they agree upon in order to ensure the people have elected a government that is loyal to their aims. Additionally SJ also says that not being loyal means the MP betrays the trust in millions who voted for the party. This is a powerful point as it considers that a political party who doesnt follow their exclaimed aims have a higher chance of reduced popularity amongst their people as it is a representation of undermining democracy.
On the other hand I could also agree with Tom Harris (TH) because he makes very considerate arguments towards the peoples intrests when it comes to an MPs loyalty. For example, they say that an MP must be 'the champion of the local area'... This is a good point as TH comes to a realisation that a good MP must also take into consideration of the issues in local areas and had it not been for the people, the MP wouldn't be in power in the first place.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You have a very balanced view. You explain clearly that if a party ignores its manifesto, it leads to "reduced popularity" and "undermines democracy". This shows you understand the contract between the voters and the party. You also recognize that without local voters, the MP "wouldn't be in power".
Improved Evaluation:
"You haven't picked a winner yet. Try this: 'While Jenkins is right about the manifesto, I ultimately agree with Harris. A manifesto is a broad promise, but a local MP is a specific protector. If a manifesto promise hurts a local town, the MP must protect their town first.'"
Strengths
- Vocabulary: "Undermining democracy", "Obliged to follow". Good use of terminology.
- Understanding: You clearly understand that both sides have a valid claim to "loyalty".
Targets
- Conclusion: You sat on the fence ("I could agree with... I could also agree with..."). You must jump off the fence and tell me which one is better!
I agree more with Tom Harris (T.H.) as he makes strong points that like MP's 'most important duty is to the people' which is true as it is the people who put the MP into a position of power... and it be people through checks and balances like through social medias and protest can scrutinise these MP's if their behaviour is reprehensible and could Vote out said MP.
On the other hand, Sarah Jenkins (S.J.) argues for loyalty towards the party as voters mainly vote for a party due to their political Ideas and not due to MPs however what this arguement ignores is that voters can easily be swayed by charismatic MPs as many are not politically educated and will only Vote for people who are good at speaking and whose Ideas align with theirs and not because of political party Idea as they may not know them or care for them.
S.J. also mentioned that a 'Government cannot Function if its MP constantly breaks ranks... however a weakness to this arguement is that Voter like when people in power helps the common person as it Shows they are not ignorant to local issues and also humanise these people in power.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). You have a very cynical but clever argument: you attack Jenkins' idea that people vote for "Manifestos". You argue that actually, many voters are "not politically educated" and just vote for "charismatic" people. This is a fascinating critique of the mandate theory. You also brought in "social media" as a modern check on power.
Improved Evaluation:
"You argued that voters aren't educated on manifestos. Phrase this as a critique of Jenkins: 'Jenkins assumes voters read manifestos. In reality, many vote for the individual MP's personality. Therefore, the MP has a personal mandate to lead, not just a party mandate to follow orders.'"
Strengths
- Original Critique: Challenging whether voters actually care about the "party ideas" vs the "charismatic MP" is very high-level evaluation.
- Modern Context: Mentioning "social media" and "protests" brings the answer up to date.
Targets
- Spelling: "Reprehensible" is a great word (and spelled correctly!), but check "arguement" (argument) and "medias" (media).
MPs primary loyalty should undeniably be to their constituents, the electorate since the 'representation' is the most fundamental tenet of a democracy - etymologically meaning the rule of the people. Therefore popular representation must take priority over party dogma. This can be seen in Harris' statement that MPs are accountable not to party leaders but to the voters in their constituency...
In this case the central government will be weaker, may become somewhat weak and ineffective but such a government some may say that this is known as MPs need to be accountable to party leaders but that they have political affiliation in order to represent the political will of the people as they vote during an election.
People may say loyalty should lie in their party above constituents... this is seen under Jenkins' claim... What Jenkins has not acknowledged is that this may undermine representative democracy if, for example, the government decided to commission some pollution creating industries in certain areas. This would mean that their representative would not defend their electorate if such things happened, betraying their trust.
If they always do vote for their party wishes, it could increase the predictability of parliament when debating law/policy. It can also reduce the chance of a hung parliament.
Quality of Evaluation
Outstanding (9/10). Your vocabulary is excellent ("etymologically", "dogma", "tenet"). You used a hypothetical scenario ("pollution creating industries") to prove exactly
why an MP needs to fight their own party. You also brought in "hung parliament" as a risk of Harris's view, showing you can evaluate both sides.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'party dogma'. This is a great phrase. 'Harris argues for representation, whereas Jenkins argues for dogma (blind belief). In a democracy, an MP must think for themselves. If they ignore a local disaster (like pollution) just to follow dogma, they are failing their duty.'"
Strengths
- Vocabulary: "Etymologically", "Dogma", "Undeniably". This is A-Level standard writing.
- Scenarios: The "pollution" example is a perfect way to show why local loyalty matters more than national loyalty.
Targets
- Clarity: Your middle paragraph ("In this case the central government...") got a little bit tangled. Keep your sentences shorter to make your complex ideas clearer.
Despite the strong and justfied opinions made by Sarah Jenkins (S.J) about support, trust, discipline and unity regarding an MPs loyalty to their party, I agree mostly with Tom Harris (T.H) as they talked about morals, accountability and representation...
Firstly, T.H argues that the MPs 'first and most important duty is to the people who elected them' and to be a 'champion of the local area'. This suggests that the MP should stay vigilant towards their voters which is a very good point as it gives the idea of reparations towards the public voters which ensures that they feel acknowledged...
T.H also says that 'an MP must also be a person of integrity'... having citizens and voters reflect their opinions on their local MP through surgeries and community engagement is, what I believe, to be the best form of checks to power...
However, some may argue that loyalty to the party is more important and agree with S.J due to her opinions of support and unity... However, I view this as a bad form of support as if these MPs rely on their parties, they will be stuck in an echo chamber which may lead them to stagnate and be unable to adapt to societal crises as they would have no new ideas or beliefs in contrast to if these MPs stayed loyal to constituencies...
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). You introduced the concept of an **"Echo Chamber"**. This is a brilliant critique of political parties. You argued that if MPs only listen to their party, they "stagnate" (stop growing) and can't solve crises. This is a very high-level reason to support Harris.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'reparations'. I think you meant 'respect' or 'obligation'. 'Harris suggests an obligation to the voter. This is crucial because without regular input from local people (surgeries), MPs in London become detached from reality.'"
Strengths
- Key Concept: The "Echo Chamber" critique is excellent. It explains why party loyalty can be dangerous.
- Structure: You acknowledged Jenkins' points ("support and unity") before dismantling them.
Targets
- Vocabulary: "Reparations" usually means paying money for past wrongs. I think you meant "Representation" or "Reciprocity".
One reason why I agree with Tom Harris (TH) as it states it's his 'moral obligation to oppose ideas and laws'... I agree with this as the main reason for voting for an MP is as they know they'd do any thing in their power to make the citizens that voted for them to be happy and not regret voting for them if they are going to ignore you and exploit you into becoming a exclusive member of parliment.
However, one could also diag For citizens to express their views they extend sugeries that allow local voters to engage with voters and understand real local problems for example, needing and building a libary to improve their studies which all rely on the MP. This a amazing point as it expresses UK's democracy...
On the other hand, Sarah Jenkins (SJ) believing it must 'stand on the manifesto'. A manifesto is a list of ideas that the party intend to do. For example a political party may state they will try their absolute hardest to lower taxes (they don't have to do this by law, but will lose trust of voters next general elections and most likely not gain the same vote). This is a bad point as voters will look at these manifestos and decide if these ideas align with their personal and individual belief...
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You used a great specific example: "building a library". This brings the abstract idea of "local needs" to life. You also correctly identified that while parties
promise lower taxes in manifestos, they "don't have to do this by law", which leads to lost trust.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said MPs 'exploit you into becoming an exclusive member'. Phrase this clearly: 'If an MP uses the voters to get elected but then ignores them to climb the party ladder, they are exploiting the public trust. Therefore, Harris's focus on integrity is essential.'"
Strengths
- Specific Example: The "Library" example is excellent because it's a real local issue that a national party might not care about.
- Accountability: You noted that breaking manifesto promises leads to losing votes.
Targets
- Proofreading: "Diag" (Argue?), "Libary" (Library), "Sugeries" (Surgeries). Check your spelling.
Both writers make strong points... I agree with Tom Haris (TH) and loyalty to the constituents to an extent.
One reason I agree with TH is because of his clear points such as 'An MPs first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency'. This is a strong point as I know scince the UK is a democracy, the votes and opinions of the people are the building blocks and foundation to our government. this is also supported by the magna carta, stating no one is above the law. The second an MP gives its loyalty to a party and not the constituents, they are violating a democratic choice, ultumatley not taking in account that the peoples vote and outcome of their vote must be protected.
However some may say that an MP should focus on their party and that in doing so, they can help not just on constituency, but all 650 constiturucys. This is a weak and not planned argument as it does not take in account of that there are different situations. For example, some constituencys may have different problems compared to others. Some way need more funding compared to others...
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). Mentioning the **Magna Carta** is fantastic Own Knowledge, showing you understand the history of the rule of law. You also made a very practical point about the "650 constituencies" — you argued that because every area is different (different funding needs), a "one size fits all" party policy won't work. This effectively refutes Jenkins.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said Jenkins' argument is 'weak and not planned'. Be more precise: 'Jenkins assumes all constituencies are the same. However, the needs of a coastal town are different to a city. Therefore, a national party policy might help one area but hurt another, proving Harris's need for local champions.'"
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Referencing "Magna Carta" and the number of constituencies (650) adds authority to your answer.
- Local Variance: You correctly identified that different areas have different problems, so a national party cannot fix everything.
Targets
- Phrasing: "The second an MP gives loyalty... they are violating a democratic choice." This is a bit strong. Try "When an MP prioritizes the party over the people, they undermine the democratic mandate."
I agree with Tom Harris that MP's should be loyal to their constituencies. For example, Harris mentions that 'an important duty is the people who elected them in their local constituency'. This is a good point as it is an example of the people taking indirect political action. Which is when members of the public vote to make a change. This means MP's would be obliged to be loyal to their constituency.
In addition to this, Harris makes another point that 'an MP learrns these local needs through community engagement', which is true as MPs can gain expertise in their area by going to, for example, youth clubs.
I disagree with Sarah Jenkins because she makes a point that 'an Mp has a far greater chance influencing policy' which is true to an extent, but fails to mention how MPs can attend and go to council meetings which requires MPs to be loyal to their consituency.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You used good terminology ("indirect political action") and gave concrete examples of how MPs work ("youth clubs", "council meetings"). This shows you understand the practical side of being an MP. However, your critique of Jenkins is a bit weak — going to a council meeting doesn't necessarily help an MP change
national laws in Parliament.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said Jenkins 'fails to mention council meetings'. A better critique would be: 'Jenkins argues parties have more influence. However, local influence matters too. By attending youth clubs and council meetings (as Harris suggests), an MP can fix local problems directly, even without the party's help.'"
Strengths
- Key Terminology: "Indirect political action" is a great term to use when describing voting.
- Practical Examples: Mentioning "youth clubs" shows you know what community engagement looks like.
Targets
- Link to Power: Explain how going to a youth club helps the MP vote in Parliament. (It gives them the knowledge to vote wisely).
Both Sarah Jenkins and tom harris argue good points... For example Sarah Jenkins argues that an effective government requires discipline and cohesion whereas tom Harris argues an mp' most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local consistency which is understandable as he blantantly points out the main focus. I agree to a certain extent with Tom Harris.
For example, Mps are not accountable to party leaders but to the votes in their constituency at the ballot box. What (TH) does well is point out the key factors on what Mps should be focusing on. He also states 'the mps primarily loyalty is to the people they serve' however albeit the benefit through of us we feel that a government may not be able to function if they constantly break ranks to focus on local interests. Which could ultimately lead the country down a spirall.
(SJ) argues that if it wasn't for political parties Mps may not be able to work as effectively. What (SJ) doesn't think about is the Community and local Areas. You don't need highly educated people to do all the work so a Country functions, the voice of all matters and always Should.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You show very good balance here. You agree with Harris, but you honestly admit that Jenkins has a point: if everyone breaks ranks, the country could "spiral" downwards. Admitting the other side has a good point makes your own argument stronger because it shows you are being fair.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said the country might 'spiral'. Use more formal political language: 'I agree with Harris, but I acknowledge Jenkins's warning. If every MP ignored the party, we might have political instability or gridlock, where no laws get passed.'"
Strengths
- Concession: You admitted that without discipline, the government might not "function". This is high-level evaluation.
- Clarity: You clearly identified that MPs answer to the "ballot box".
Targets
- Spelling: "Constituency" (consistency), "Blatantly" (blantantly), "Spiral" (spirall).
Both writers make palpable points with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) arguing an MP's primary loyalty should be to their political party. SJ goes on to say 'To do otherwise would be to betray the trust of the millions who voted for that party's vision for the country' however this point is easily refuted by the fact that it wasn't millions of people who voted that MP but the few in the MPs local constituency who voted him in and his interests should lie with the Party of course, but more so towards those who actually put their trust in and voted for him (the local constituency).
SJ then makes a brilliant point based on cohesion, stating that 'A government cannot function if its MP constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests'. this is such a good point due to the fact it already takes a lot of time to vote on policies so with an MP with diverted interests this process would take even longer turning the entire democratic process ineffective.
On the other hand, Tom Harris (TH) argues that an MP is 'sent to Parliament to be the champion of their local area'... this is the direct link between the representative and the represented and the cornerstone of our democracy meaning if this process isn't upheld the entire democratic process is once again made ineffective and those in the local constituency voting for the MP will be increasingly low.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). This is a very logical answer. Your critique of Jenkins is excellent: you point out that while "millions" vote for a party, only the local people voted for
that specific MP. This destroys Jenkins's argument about "betrayal". You also correctly noted that if MPs argue too much, the democratic process becomes "ineffective" (slow).
Improved Evaluation:
"You argued that local people 'actually put their trust in him'. Expand this: 'Jenkins claims national loyalty is key, but she forgets that under our voting system, an MP has no job without their local voters. Therefore, the local contract must come before the national one.'"
Strengths
- Logical Attack: You spotted the flaw in Jenkins' argument about who actually votes for the MP.
- Efficiency: You recognized that if everyone "diverts interest", parliament takes too long to pass laws.
Targets
- Conclusion: You ended abruptly ("through the ineffective"). Make sure you finish your final thought to get full marks.
I agree with Tom Harris because An MP's first and most Important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency this point that T.H.
Quality of Evaluation
Minimal (1/10). You have stated an opinion, which is a start, but you haven't written an essay. You simply copied one sentence from Tom Harris. To get marks, you need to explain
why you agree, and you need to look at the other side (Sarah Jenkins) too.
Improved Evaluation:
"You agreed with Harris. Now add the 'Because': 'I agree with Harris because if an MP ignores the local people, they are not doing the job they were elected to do. It is unfair to ignore the people who gave you power.'"
Strengths
- Selection: You picked the most important quote from Harris.
Targets
- Effort: You must write much more. Aim for at least 3 paragraphs: one for Harris, one for Jenkins, and a conclusion.
I agree with Sarah Jenkins since you shoul be loyal to the party your in. Since the MPs are important and have power loyalty to their party will give their party a great advantage
Quality of Evaluation
Minimal (2/10). You have given a reason ("give their party a great advantage"), which puts you slightly ahead of a student who just copies the text. However, this is far too short. Why is it good for a party to have an advantage? Does that help the country?
Improved Evaluation:
"Expand your point: 'Loyalty gives the party an advantage because it allows them to pass laws quickly. If MPs are loyal (as Jenkins says), the government is strong and can deliver its promises to the country.'"
Strengths
- Reasoning: You gave a reason for your opinion ("great advantage"), which shows you are thinking.
Targets
- Development: You need to discuss the other side. Why might someone agree with Tom Harris? What is the risk of giving the party too much power?
I wholeheartedly agree that an MP's primary loyalty should be towards its constituents. This is people the constituency vote for the mp to be appointed. They are responsible for the needs and wants of there constituents. They have to voice specific concerns and to fight for its intrests. Tom harris argues that if a mp bekeves a party policy will harm their constituents - such as closing a local hospital - they have a moral obligation to oppose the policy.
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 constituent - such as closing a local hospital - they have a moral obligation to oppose it. History is filled with brave independante-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 ballont box. If an Mp consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favour of the party line, they will, and should, be voted out.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). You have a very clear argument based on **Accountability**. You explain clearly that if an MP ignores the people ("party line"), they will be "voted out". This is the fundamental check in a democracy. You also used the "Hospital" example well to show why moral obligation matters.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'moral obligation'. Compare this to Jenkins: 'Jenkins argues for party discipline. However, if that discipline forces an MP to close a local hospital, it becomes immoral. Therefore, Harris is right: an MP's conscience must be the final judge.'"
Strengths
- Clarity: Your writing is very persuasive and clear.
- Key Concepts: You correctly identified "Accountability" and the "Ballot Box" as the most important factors.
Targets
- Structure: You repeated the section about the hospital and moral obligation twice. In an exam, try not to repeat yourself so you have time to make new points.
I strongly agree with Saran Jenkins arguement as it maintains a strong arguement that states in order For an mp to uphold their promises from election they need the guidance of one party which manifesto aligns with the promises made by the mp.
Within SJs arguement she states "voters elect an MP, therefore are primarily endorsing a political party". By doing so, SJ highlights the one key aspect of an election which is the manifesto... this is a strong arguement as the fundamental basis of an MPs election is their parties manifesto which states their future plans for their term in government. Additionaly, SJ highlights that if an mp disassociated from its party it would betray the democratic voter.
Alternativley Harris argues that an MP's first and most important duty is to the people who elected them. This is somewhat strong as an mp promotes themselvs not only as a representative but also an individual. However this is also flawed as a voter mostly votes on the values that an mp represents. For example people in working class enviroments would be most likley to vote for an mp who represents the labour values.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You have a very sophisticated argument against Harris. You argue that voters choose "Values" (like Labour values) rather than just the "Individual". This attacks Harris's idea that the MP is a "local champion" by suggesting they are actually just a symbol of the party.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said Harris's point is 'flawed'. Expand on this: 'Harris argues MPs are individuals. However, in reality, most people vote for the party label (e.g. Labour/Conservative), not the person. Therefore, if an MP abandons the party, they are actually betraying the voters' true intention.'"
Strengths
- Concept: You understand that the "Manifesto" is the "fundamental basis" of the election.
- Context: Using "working class environments" and "Labour values" as an example gives your answer real-world weight.
Targets
- Spelling: "Arguement" (Argument), "Alternativley" (Alternatively).
I Strongly agree with Tom Harris (TH) to be loyal to constituents (those who elected them in their local constituency). This is because, I believe without their votes in the election the MP's position wouldn't have been guaranteed and therefore they should prioritise them before the Party.
I am Strongly sided with TH that MP's primary loyalty is to their constituents because of promises and propositions made between them. For Example, before an MP gets elected for they must have a manifesto which is a range of beliefs or changes that may occur with them in power and so these manifesto's may be related to what the public derice [desire]. As well as that Therefore, if some of their manifesto's are not met, then they have a higher chance as said of being 'voted out'.
Furthermore, an MP's loyalty doesn't ultimately lie within their party because 'they have a moral obligation to oppose it', which therefore shows they don't have to demonstrate any loyalty towards their party. This means that they don't have to ultimately be under the influence of their political party, otherwise if they did then they would be lacking autonomy.
Therefore, I entirely disagree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) because I don't believe loyalty is owed to the political party as it would mean losing the support of tons of the public who most voted for them.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You use the word **"Autonomy"** (freedom to make your own choices). This is a Level 4 concept. You argue that if an MP blindly follows the party, they lack autonomy, which makes them a bad representative. You also clearly link the "Manifesto" to what the "public desire", showing that the contract is with the people, not the party.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'lacking autonomy'. Explain why this is bad: 'Jenkins argues for discipline, but total discipline removes an MP's autonomy. If an MP cannot think for themselves, they are useless to their local constituents who need a champion, not a puppet.'"
Strengths
- Vocabulary: "Autonomy", "Propositions", "Guaranteed". Good use of language.
- Logic: You successfully argued that without the voters, the MP has no job, so the voters must come first.
Targets
- Phrasing: "Tons of the public" is a bit informal. Try "the majority of the electorate".
I agree with Tom Harris and having loyalty to constituents. This is because people shouldn't be loyal to a party that don't help benefit them. Showing loyalty to parties and not people who voted shows greed and showing they are held accountable.
Giving loyalty to parties and not constitues is a use of indirect action being a persuaded but no action involved.
One weakness in this arguement is that other parties are oppositions meaning the aren't in power. parliament can also hold the government accountable as they are limiting exective power. However Sarah makes good points as Mp's have support which can help make a better parliament for the people.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You have some very advanced ideas here. You mention **"Executive Power"** and the **"Opposition"**, which shows you have good Own Knowledge of how Parliament works. You argue that Parliament holds the government accountable. However, your point about "indirect action" is a little unclear.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'limiting executive power'. This is excellent. 'Harris argues for independent MPs. This is vital because if all MPs just obey the party leader (the Executive), nobody is there to limit their power. Independent MPs are a necessary check on the government.'"
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Mentioning "Opposition" and "Executive Power" is very impressive for Year 9.
- Moral Stance: You argue that ignoring voters shows "greed".
Targets
- Clarity: "A use of indirect action being a persuaded but no action involved" - this sentence doesn't make sense. Try to keep your sentences simple.
Although both parties have two valubale points about weather Mp's should be loyal to their constituents or their political party, Sarah Jenkins spesifises that Mp's should be loyal to their political party as they contribute more than an Mp who rather focous on their counstitutiy.
An Mp who priotises their political party helps the goverment improve the overall intrest of the people. Although this does somewhat improve the intrest of some people, Many areas get overlooked which makes them less encouraged to vote as their quality of life does not change which makes their votes seem uncounted.
Also Although Sarahs Jenkins point is valueable I personally agree with Tom Harris more, this is because Mps are selected by people in an area to voice their concerns and to improve the local intrest. An Mp who prioritises their coustitues over political parties make people who live in the area More likley to vote at elections because they know their local intrest will be heard. An Mp who listens to their constitutes brings more people to their community promoting community cohesion and community engagment.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You have a very strong argument about **political engagement**. You argue that if people feel "overlooked", they stop voting ("less encouraged to vote"). This is a great point because it links MP loyalty directly to the health of democracy. If MPs ignore locals, democracy dies.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said people feel 'overlooked'. Expand this: 'Jenkins focuses on the "overall interest", but this often means ignoring poorer or smaller areas. Harris is right because if people feel ignored by national parties, they stop voting, which damages democracy.'"
Strengths
- Consequences: You correctly identified that ignoring local issues leads to lower voter turnout.
- Community Cohesion: You linked Harris's approach to building a stronger community.
Targets
- Spelling: "Spesifises" (Specifies), "Weather" (Whether), "Counstitutiy" (Constituency).