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").
I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) because in her point of view, MPs can deliver truthful promises through manifestos. They can also provide a right to speech to the public and that would draw people more closer to SJ's perspective.
The more loyal MPs are to the Parliament the better reputation the MP has as in future elections they can gain more support and votes from the public although it can be seen as biased.
Many people could argue against the idea of loyalty to your Parliament. They might think that votes for example could be cast unfairly which is agreed by Tom Harris.
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (3/10). You have some good ideas, like the idea that loyalty gives an MP a "better reputation". However, your explanation is quite short and vague. You say votes could be cast "unfairly" – what does that mean? To get higher marks, you need to explain
why.
Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of saying votes are 'unfair', explain the consequence: 'If an MP always follows the party line, they might ignore the specific problems in their local area (like a hospital closing), which is unfair to the people who voted for them.'"
Strengths
- Key Concept: You identified "Manifestos" as a key reason to trust parties.
- Consequence: You tried to link loyalty to winning future elections ("gain more support").
Targets
- Be Specific: When you say "unfairly", give an example. Unfair like how?
- Word Count: This is very short. You need to develop your points more.
I partially agree with Sarah Jenkins point this is because they deliver promises during an election, but they fail to realise that those promises wont be kept. This shows us that they should be loyal as many millions of people who trusted and voted for that party's vision for the country. This is why they need to be loyal as political parties are supposed to provide support to their party.
One reason on why I agree with Tom Harris point is because a political party wouldn't know a local issue e.g NHS running out of money. This would make an MP learn about local needs and their concerns. Another point is that MP also learn local needs through Community Engagement, as MP's main objective is to be a Persun of integrity free to vote according to their Conscience... Another point they are loyal to constituens is because there duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You make a really good point using a specific example: the "NHS running out of money". This shows you understand that party leaders in London might not know what is happening in a local hospital. This is exactly the kind of "local knowledge" point Harris is making.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned promises not being kept. Connect this to accountability: 'Jenkins argues MPs must follow the manifesto. However, if a party breaks its promises, an MP should be free to follow their conscience and protect their constituents, rather than blindly following a dishonest party.'"
Strengths
- Specific Examples: Using the "NHS running out of money" makes your argument much stronger and more real.
- Scepticism: You questioned whether parties actually keep their promises ("fail to realise that those promises wont be kept").
Targets
- Structure: Try to use paragraphs to separate your points about Jenkins and Harris clearly.
I agree with Tom Harris more as at the end of day the public have the ability to vote out MP's if they aren't going through with the manifesto it promised. However that doesn't I think Sarah Jenkins has bad points as by being loyal to your party means you are more likely to get things done...
One reason for that being loyal to your party constituents is better is because in a democratic country like the uk They hold the majority of the power For example, if your MP goes against what they said in their manifestos and disregard their constituents they will be voted out meaning they lose more power for their party, meaning you can't change any policy's and you are actually wose off than before.
However if aren't loyal to your party it will show that you are unstable and will struggle to change policys and making a weak goverment what harms everyone.
Quality of Evaluation
Mixed (5/10). You have some good thoughts, but your argument is a bit confused. You say you agree with Tom Harris (Constituents), but then you spend most of the essay explaining why Sarah Jenkins is right (weak government, losing power). Make sure your evidence matches your opinion!
Improved Evaluation:
"You argued that disloyalty causes 'weak government'. Compare this to Harris: 'While Jenkins worries about weak government, Harris argues that an MP who blindly follows the party ignores local people. A strong government is useless if it hurts the communities it is supposed to serve.'"
Strengths
- Consequences: You correctly identified that disloyalty leads to a "weak government" that "struggles to change policies".
- Accountability: You noted that the public can "vote out MPs", which is a key check on power.
Targets
- Clarity: Be careful not to contradict yourself. If you support Harris, you need to explain why the "local" argument is better than the "party" argument.
I agree with Tom Harris (TH). This is because he mentioned that MP's first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency, supporting the idea that MP's should only be loyal to their constituency at the ballot box. TH also mentions how if an Mp believed an Party Policy was going to harm their constituents, they have the moral obligation to oppose it. This also suggest that MPs shouldn't have to be loyal to their political party.
However, TH forgets to mention that an MP is seen as a vechile for a partys national platform, making it very important for loyalty being in the relationship to create a beter democracy. I also agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ). This is because she argued that an MP's duty is to support their party in parliment to deliver the promises made to the entire country during the election. She also mentioned a government cannot function if its MPs constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests, implying that loyalty is needed for a proper democracy...
Quality of Evaluation
Descriptive (5/10). You have selected excellent quotes and points from the text (AO2). You clearly understand what both Jenkins and Harris are saying. However, you are mostly
describing their views rather than evaluating them. You say "TH forgets to mention..." but you don't explain
why that matters.
Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of just saying 'TH forgets to mention', try weighing them up: 'Harris argues for moral obligation, but Jenkins argues for national stability. I believe Jenkins is right because if every MP just voted for their own local area, the government couldn't pass laws for the whole country, leading to chaos.'"
Strengths
- Understanding: You clearly understand the key terms like "vehicle for a party's national platform" and "moral obligation".
- Coverage: You covered both sides of the argument well.
Targets
- Make a Judgement: You said you agreed with Harris, then said you agreed with Jenkins. Which one is more important? You have to choose and explain why.
I agree with Sarah jenkins because when she said when voters elect an mp, they are primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands on. Sarah demonstrated how an mp work and what they do. However the Mp is the vehicle for that party's national platform. To do otherwise would be to betray the trust of the millions who voted for that party's vision for the country.
Whenever, governance requires discipline and cohesion A government cannot function if it... Sarah compsing how government function and how they take they decisions. Mp's constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests. For a government to pass it budget, reform public services, and manage the economy, it needs the reliable support of its MPs. An Mps who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability, which ultimately harms everyone.
I disagree with Tom Harris when he said an Mp's first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency. However this direct link between the representative and the represented is the Cornerstone of our democracy.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (6/10). You have a very clear argument for the Party side. You explain effectively that without loyalty, the government is "weak" and this "harms everyone". This is a good chain of reasoning (Consequence). You focus a lot on the text, but you are selecting the right parts to build your argument.
Improved Evaluation:
"You listed Harris's point about the 'cornerstone of democracy'. To get higher marks, you need to explain why that is wrong. 'Harris says local representation is the cornerstone of democracy, but I disagree. The real cornerstone is the national mandate given by millions of voters, which is more important than local issues.'"
Strengths
- Key Argument: You grasped the main point of Jenkins' argument: that disloyalty leads to "political instability" which hurts the whole country.
- Clarity: Your stance is very clear throughout.
Targets
- Critique the Other Side: You quoted Harris at the end but didn't explain why he is wrong. You need to say why the "direct link" is less important than the "party vision".
I agree With Tom Harris (TH) because it his points are move justablh and jairabh to people as an hol whol... One reason why you should be loyal to your constiuencys is because your repesnting the people that voted you not the people you work with. For examplh TH said 'Mp's first most important duty goes the people who elected them in their local constitunecy' This mean you should only do what you are elected fa to do and be peopl's voices
I also agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) because she also said some statment on praply how its better to be loyal to the Party as each me party has its own set of goals they want to follow plus they are independpent rather by their self. One argument that she said was 'Support their party in Parliment to deliver the promis made to the entrie country'. This shows that when they Preasent its not Only for the people its for the Others that are in the party. So she had a vaild reason.
Bub overall I agre with TH becaus he gives mor both sid answrs and the people are stronger as a whol and listen to other people rather tha doing whats best for the Party as they may argue with it some times.
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (4/10). You understand the main ideas: Harris is about "the people who voted for you" and Jenkins is about "promises made to the entire country". You have looked at both sides, which is good. However, your spelling makes it hard to understand your best points.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said MPs should focus on the people who voted for them, 'not the people you work with'. This is a good point about accountability. Phrase it like this: 'Harris is right because an MP's job depends on the voters. If they just please their colleagues in London but ignore their local area, they are failing their job description.'"
Strengths
- Understanding: You correctly understood that Jenkins thinks the party is stronger ("independpent rather by their self").
- Structure: You looked at Harris, then Jenkins, then a conclusion.
Targets
- Clarity: Your spelling ("justablh", "jairabh") makes it difficult to read your argument. Take time to check your words.
- Explain Why: You said Jenkins has a "valid reason", but didn't explain why Harris is better than her. Compare them directly.
I agree the most with Sarah Jenkins But Partially agree with Tom Harris (TH).
The reason as to why I agree with TH is because I think as an MP you shouid be loyal to your constituencies as they voted you to represent them so you should listen to them and be their MP's voice. The parties also need to fufil their manifestos or that risks their place as being elected.
'They are sent to Parliament to be the champion of their local area, to voice its specific concerns.' I really agree with this point because the people picked the specific MP to help them with their concerns, so if they don't fufil that and consistently ignore the people they will and should Be voted Out. These are the basics of democracy.
On the other hand, listening to SJ's point, if the MP's are not loyal to their parties they betray the trust of millions. I really like that point as it is their responsibility to do that as well as being loyal to their constituencies. I mostly agree with TH
Quality of Evaluation
Mixed (6/10). You make some strong points, especially about the "basics of democracy" (if you ignore voters, you get voted out). However, your argument is confusing. In the first line, you say you agree with **Jenkins**, but in the last line, you say you agree with **Harris**. You can't win an argument if you swap sides!
Improved Evaluation:
"You said: 'The parties also need to fulfil their manifestos or that risks their place as being elected.' This is a great evaluation point because it links Jenkins's argument (Manifestos) to Harris's argument (Accountability). It shows that both sides rely on keeping voters happy."
Strengths
- Consequences: You correctly identified that if MPs ignore local people, they "should be voted out". This is clear reasoning.
- Use of Text: You selected good quotes to support your points.
Targets
- Consistency: Decide who you agree with before you start writing. Don't change your mind at the end.
I agree with Tom Harris and he argues for Loyalty to Constituents, Sarah Jenkins makes good point but I agree with Tom Harris more. They are sent to parliment to stand up and speak for there community. Whether it's there needs of goods, services, protection, anything the mp should speak for them. An mp must also be a person of integrity, free to vote and judging what's best for there community.
Now the reason why I disagree with Sarah Jenkins is firstly opinions change staying loy to your party isn't easy a lot of opinions can change your mind of state, meaning staying loyal can always change.
staying loyal to your party instead of your constituents can be better because parliment is a place where you will get talked over, a lot of time get's wasted clearly and all your ideas won't be able to be said. Your part get's voted by millions of people and betraying your community says alot about your loyalty and profile.
Quality of Evaluation
Uneven (5/10). You have some good original thoughts. The idea that "parliament is a place where you will get talked over" is a really interesting way to support Jenkins (it implies that without a party, a single MP is weak). However, you framed this as an argument *against* Jenkins, which is confusing.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said staying loyal to the party is 'better because parliament is a place where you will get talked over'. This is actually a great argument for Sarah Jenkins! Phrase it like this: 'I agree with Jenkins because a single MP is weak. Without the party "team" behind them, they will just get talked over in Parliament and achieve nothing for their constituents.'"
Strengths
- Original Ideas: You thought about the reality of Parliament ("time gets wasted", "get talked over"). This is good AO3 (Evaluation).
- Moral Tone: "Betraying your community says a lot about your loyalty" is a strong closing statement.
Targets
- Link Ideas Properly: Make sure you know which argument supports which writer. The "strength in numbers" argument supports Jenkins, not Harris.
I agree with both parts, but lean towards Tom Harris (TH) although Sarah Jenkins (SJ) makes some strong points too.
Firstly, SJ says an MP's first duty is to 'support their party... to deliver the promises'. This is a good point because it's important for a party to fulfil their promises when they win an election to gain the trust of their constituents and make it likely for them to win a future election.
However, it is also important for an MP to appeal to the constituants' needs as TH says, 'otherwise they will, and should, be voted out'. This is important as it won't be the party voting, it will be the constituants therefore their opinions should be at the MP's best interest. TH also says the accountability... is the most powerful check... This is an excellent point as we live in a democracy, therefore, the people get the final word.
That being said, SJ makes a point that an MP not prioritising their constituency 'contributes to weak government'. This is a strong point that rebutts TH as although the people are a strong check... there are many roles played in parliament itself such as political parties... There is also the shadow cabinet which can scrutinise the government in power, therefore the MP must listen to their team to ensure coherence and stability.
Quality of Evaluation
Outstanding (9/10). This is a sophisticated answer. You don't just pick a side; you weigh them up against each other. Your use of "Own Knowledge" (referencing the Shadow Cabinet and Scrutiny) is excellent and shows you understand how Parliament actually works.
Improved Evaluation:
"You have hit almost all the marks. To get a perfect 10, explain the tension in the conclusion: 'Ultimately, while the Shadow Cabinet provides scrutiny (supporting Jenkins' need for unity), the primary check must be the voter. Therefore, Harris's argument for accountability is the most essential principle of democracy.'"
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Mentioning the "Shadow Cabinet" and "scrutiny" adds real depth to your answer.
- Chain of Reasoning: You linked "Broken Promises" -> "Lose Trust" -> "Lose Future Election". This is great logical flow.
Targets
- Conclusion: Your final sentence attempts to agree with both ("listening to both"). Try to be a bit braver—which one is more important when they clash?
I aggre more with Tom Harris argument against loyalty to the consituents. I say this because I agree that an Mp's should only soley focus on being the voice for their local area... Considering the UK is a democracy, the link between who is being represented and the representative is important. An Mp should not show loyalty and accountability to the party leaders but to the voters.
Tom Harris states that an Mp consistently ignoring the wishes of the local people, they will be voted out. This can only be prevented if an Mp's primary loyalty lies with the people they serve and those who votes.
While I don't completely disagree with Sarah's Jenkins argument... I disagree on the fact that an effective government should require discipline and cohesion. I believe that a government can run without having to use discipline and submitting to loyalty. However I do agree that for a government to reform public services and manage the economy, they need the reliability of the government and political party and the other Mp's.
Quality of Evaluation
Mixed (5/10). You have a clear argument for Harris. However, your critique of Jenkins is weak. You say, "I believe a government can run without discipline," but you don't explain
how. In reality, if 650 MPs all did what they wanted, no laws would ever get passed! You need to back up your beliefs with evidence.
Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of saying 'government can run without discipline', try this: 'Jenkins argues discipline is needed for strength. However, I believe that a government that listens to its people is stronger than one that just forces MPs to obey orders.'"
Strengths
- Clarity: You clearly explain that the "link" between voter and MP is the most important part of democracy.
- Concession: You admit at the end that reforming public services does require reliability, which shows you are thinking about both sides.
Targets
- Justify your claims: If you make a bold claim (like "discipline isn't needed"), you must give a reason or an example to support it.
After looking at both sides of the argument, I agree more with Tom Harris. This is because he states 'An MPs first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency'. I think this is a good point because MPs I know that MPs are elected to represent the people.
On the other hand Sarah Jenkins states 'Their first duty... An MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak gaverment' I think this is a weak point because the principle democratic countries are meant to represent the people fairly.
Another reason why I agree with Tom Harris because he states 'An MP must also be a person of integrity'. I think this is a good point because if our MPs were are not showing values of integrity then these would be more bias towards one particular side. In conclusion, I agree more with Tom Harris because he demonstrates core valves of equality for the people.
Quality of Evaluation
Competent (6/10). You have a clear structure. Your point about "integrity" preventing "bias" is a good one. You effectively argued that Jenkins' worry about "weak government" isn't as important as the democratic principle of "fairness".
Improved Evaluation:
"You said Jenkins has a 'weak point'. Explain why in more detail: 'Jenkins worries about "weak government", but a government that ignores its people is not strong, it is undemocratic. Therefore, Harris's focus on representation is more important than Jenkins's focus on speed.'"
Strengths
- Core Principles: You focused on "Democratic Principles" and "Equality", which shows you understand the big picture.
- Clarity: Your argument flows logically from Point -> Evidence -> Explanation.
Targets
- Develop the 'Bias' point: You mentioned bias. Explain who they would be biased towards? (e.g., "They might be biased towards their rich party donors instead of the local people").
I particuly agree with Tom Harrises argement for loyalty to constituncys... Because they say that if an MP keeps on ignoring the wishes of local people and keeps choosing the party they work for, they will Be voted out. This is a good point in my opinion as it heylighters how damaging it can be to ignore the wishes of local people saying that you'll be Booted out which wouldn't be good for the MP...
However what this point fails to Acknowledge is that for parliment to work they need to be focosing on things that affect the whole country instead of focusing on a mutch Smaller local area. This MP's being loyal to their local area makes it a higher chance they will be booted again.
The reason in why i don't fully agree with Tom Harrises argement is that Sarah Jenkins also makes some good points for example She says that an MP's Job is to endorse a politized party and the Manifesto it Stands on... This is a good point as it covers Tom harrises flaw in his point Since for parliment to work MP's Should focus on the bigger isuses.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You did something very clever here: you identified a flaw in Harris's argument (that focusing on small areas ignores the whole country) and used Jenkins to fix it. This is called "Synthesis" and is a high-level skill.
Improved Evaluation:
"Refine your point about the 'whole country': 'Harris argues for local focus, but this is narrow-minded. As Jenkins suggests, if every MP only looked at their small area, we would never solve big national problems like the economy or war.'"
Strengths
- Comparison: You explicitly stated that Jenkins "covers Tom Harris's flaw". This is excellent comparative evaluation.
- Big Picture: You understand that Parliament has to deal with "bigger issues" than just local ones.
Targets
- Spelling: "Particuly" (Particularly), "Heylighters" (Highlights), "Politized" (Political). Watch your spelling.
I agree most with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) on that an MP's primary loyalty should be to their party. When SJ says 'a government cannot function if its MPs constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests', she makes a great point as she's saying that a government cannot serve the people if the MPs... constantly turn their backs on it...
The idea is that the government would not be able to pass laws which would probably be in the public's aid and interest - if it does not have a loyal majority. A government which is politically dead locked would be unable to make due on their promises to the people - as the PM and their Secretaries of State are all MPs - and defeat their premise, which would certainly be detrimental to the country.
SJ also makes another great point when she says 'By working as part of a team an MP has a far greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change'... MPs who try and work independently have a much harder time, because they do not have fellow MPs who could provide support or the party's aid...
However, Tom Harris (TH) also makes a good point... when he says 'An MP must be a person of integrity free to vote according to their conscience and their judgement'. He's saying that MPs are sovereign people, and democratically elected to vote based on their judgement... which is a feature of democracy.
Quality of Evaluation
Outstanding (9/10). This is a superb answer. You used excellent "Own Knowledge" terms like "Deadlocked", "Loyal Majority", and "Secretaries of State" to explain
why Jenkins is right. You clearly understand how Parliament actually works.
Improved Evaluation:
"You have hit almost all the marks. To get a perfect 10, compare the two sides in the conclusion: 'Ultimately, while Harris's call for integrity is noble, Jenkins is more practical. Without the machinery of a party, an MP is powerless to change laws, making loyalty the most effective way to serve.'"
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Mentions of "Deadlock" and the "PM/Secretaries of State" show high-level understanding.
- Practicality: You argued that "Lone Wolf" MPs struggle to get things done. This is a very mature political point.
Targets
- Conclusion: You covered both sides well, but ensure you have a final sentence that explicitly states why Jenkins wins the argument overall.
Sarah Jenkins argues that MPs have an obligation to serve their political party before all else. She makes a good point as an MPs political party is a vehicle for an MPs journey as it allows them to work with eachother giving them a greater chance of success.
All MPs from a political party represent different consituenceys, Meaning if all MPs attempted to be loyal to their constituency's rather than their political party then it would cause a clash in ideals as different local areas will require different forms of aid. If the MP's within a political party are all in disagreement with eachother then it will harm the functionality of parliament, ultimatley impacting the entire country.
However what the point doesn't consider is the moral obligations that MPs would have to their consituencies. MPs commonly grow up in or have an attatchment to the area they represent, due to this MPs would feel obliged to serve their community... and not pass a policy that would harm their community such as closing a local leasure center...
However what Tom Harris doesn't consider is that if MPs constantly prioritise their own communities it will cause conflict within the political party, slowing down the decision making process and in turn harming the whole country.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). You have identified a crucial problem with Harris's view: the "clash of ideals". You correctly argue that if everyone fights for their own corner, the government "slows down" and nothing gets done. This is a very sophisticated critique of localism.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned the 'vehicle' analogy. Expand this: 'Jenkins argues the party is a vehicle. This is convincing because a vehicle needs a driver (the leader) and a direction (the manifesto). If every passenger (MP) tries to steer the car a different way, the vehicle crashes.'"
Strengths
- Consequences: You explained clearly that prioritizing local issues leads to "disagreement" and harms "functionality".
- Empathy: You recognized that MPs often "grow up" in their area, making the moral obligation very real.
Targets
- Word Choice: "Clash in ideals" is good, but "Gridlock" is the specific political term for when a government can't make decisions.
Overall I agree mosbly with TOM Harris (TH) However saran jenkins (sj) also has good points aswell But overly TH has More points. Great I agree een with as MP's are choosen by the people and with out the people they wouldent of be choosen...
However an MPs whole purpose is to Support their party and to delier the promes made to the en tire country. Also a goverment cannot funca if the MPs constly break ranks to vote on narrow local interests.
However If One MP consly doesnt listen to the demnds they would be voted out. Also it is trur there hav ben Meny brave Independent Mindd MPs who stod up to thir party as matters of principle and they are celebrated forit. Also the Whole point a our MP is supposed be he a voice of their areas.
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (4/10). You have picked out the key points: MPs are "chosen by the people" and "brave independent MPs" are celebrated. You clearly understand the text. However, your spelling makes it hard to read, and you tend to list points rather than comparing them.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'brave independent MPs'. Explain why they are brave: 'Harris mentions brave MPs who stood up to their party. This proves that an MP's conscience is more important than their career. If an MP supports a bad policy just to be loyal, they are a coward, not a representative.'"
Strengths
- Key Phrases: You correctly identified "break ranks" and "brave independent minded MPs".
- Democracy: You understood that "without the people they wouldn't be chosen".
Targets
- Spelling: "Mosbly" (Mostly), "Promes" (Promises), "Funca" (Function). Please check your work carefully.
- Explain Why: Don't just say "TH has more points". Say why those points are stronger.
I Partially agree with Tom Harris (TH) point, which argues for loyalty to the party. I think this because when people elect an MP its because they think that MP is most suitable for their constituency, and by doing for a party it could have different views to the constituent, which could break their trust and dissatisfy the people.
TH has a good point where he says 'An MP must also be a person of integrity' as if they are following what the party wants and not the people care then really a suitable MP for the Constituency?
However, TH has a weak point where he says 'history is filled with brave independent-minded MPs who stood up to their party' as some men disagree cant say Certain MPs have not done that, and as an MP you really should.
Quality of Evaluation
Mixed (5/10). You make a strong point about "breaking trust" — if an MP acts differently to how they promised, the people will be dissatisfied. However, your first sentence is confusing: you say you agree with Tom Harris, but then say he argues for "loyalty to the party" (which is actually Sarah Jenkins' view). Be careful not to mix them up!
Improved Evaluation:
"You asked if they are 'really a suitable MP'. Make this a statement: 'If an MP ignores the people to follow the party, they are not suitable for the job. Loyalty to the party is useless if the MP loses the trust of the very people who gave them the job.'"
Strengths
- Concept of Trust: You correctly identified that going against the constituency "breaks trust".
- Questioning: You asked a good rhetorical question ("is he really a suitable MP?").
Targets
- Accuracy: Check which writer says what. Tom Harris argues for the *Constituents*, not the *Party*.
- Clarity: The last paragraph was hard to read. Try to write shorter, simpler sentences to make your point clear.
On the point on whether an Mp's loyalty should be to their constituents or political party is a tough topic which has many sides such as the fact you should be loyal to who votes you into power or you may lose votes in the next election however the loyalty to political parties are more important as they represent everybodys views and affect everybody not just a select amount.
On the one hand, Sarah Jenkins (S.J) makes a credible argument. She says loyalty to your constituency rather than your political party would 'betray the trust of millions.' This is credible as there are millions of people who vote because they want things to be changed and if an Mp favours their constituency over millions of others it could cause harm to everyone. However what this person has forgotten to mention is that if an Mp dosent follow promises made in a manifesto they may not be voted in parliament leaving the overall party in a bad position...
On the other hand, Tom Harris (T.H) says that Mp's should be loyal to their own constituencys as they know them best and know what needs to change... However what T.H has forgotten to mention is a political party must have a majority so atleast 326 seats. If all MP's are looking out for their constituencies rather than the country as a whole there will be many diffrent opinions and conflict between the party which leads to slower decision making and instability which could affect the wider population so i agree more with S.J.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). You have included excellent "Own Knowledge" by mentioning the specific number of seats needed for a majority (**326**). This proves you understand the system. You also correctly argued that if everyone looks out for themselves, decision-making becomes "slower" (instability).
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'slower decision making'. Use the political term: 'Harris's approach could lead to gridlock. If MPs only care about their local area, the government cannot pass laws to help the whole country (like the 326 seats needed), making the country weak.'"
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Mentioning "326 seats" is a Level 4 skill. Well done.
- Consequences: You explained that prioritizing local issues leads to "conflict" and harms the "wider population".
Targets
- Structure: Try to break your answer into smaller paragraphs so it is easier to read.
While both Sarah Jenkins (SJ) and Tom Harris (TH) have strong arguements, I agree more with TH because he expresses the importance of having a good reputation with constituents...
For example, TH states that an MPs most important objective is to voice the concerns of their local area and to fight for its interests. This is a strong point because voicing the views of the people through an elected representative is one of the core principles of a representative democracy.
Furthermore, TH accentuates this point where when he states 'Ultimately, MPs are not accountable to party leaders, but to voters in their constituency at the ballot box'. This is another strong point because it accurately mentions the fact that only voters can elect the next MP for their constituencies. This shows that loyalty to constituents will raise the chances of an MP getting re-elected, preserving their power and strengthening their democratic mandate.
However, it can also be argued that citizens vote for their political parties presented political parties, instead of individual MPs.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). Your language is very sophisticated ("accentuates", "preserving their power", "democratic mandate"). You argue very clearly that an MP's job depends on the voters, so loyalty to them is logical. You also acknowledged the counter-argument at the end.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'democratic mandate'. Explain this simply to get top marks: 'Harris is right because the MP gets their power from the voters, not the party leader. If they ignore the voters, they lose their right (mandate) to speak for them.'"
Strengths
- Vocabulary: Using terms like "representative democracy" and "democratic mandate" shows high-level understanding.
- Logic: You clearly explained that loyalty to voters = re-election = keeping power.
Targets
- Develop the Counter-Argument: You mentioned that people vote for "parties" at the end. Expand on this—does this mean Jenkins is actually right? Why is Harris still better?
I agree with Sarah jenkins Point where she argues for the loyalty of the party as it means Mps work and represent the party they believe in rather than those they dont. For example when voters vote for MP's they are voting mainly for a Political Party and the manyestos it stands on...
Governments need the ability to represent how majority of the people think instead of how an area thinks in order to keep things as fair and unbiased as possible. If an Mp switches views based on the areas Change in views its shows that instead of attempting to protect the views of the nation they'd rather protect the views of there area. The lone Alpha wolf dynamic isn't effective. overall I think this is a good point because it shows that when an Mp is loyal to there party they are protecting and representing the views of the nation rather than a minorit.
On the Other hand I also agree with Tom Harris point that MP's Shall be loyal to constituencies because of First past the post. FPP is a voting System in Which the nation is Split into Constituences and whoever wins the Most constituncies wins the election. MP's are there in order to represent the views of THERE AREA not anything else. If an mp is loyal to the party rather than the people it makes parliment biase as Rather than the peoples views being represented it's the views of those In power.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (6/10). The phrase "The lone Alpha wolf dynamic isn't effective" is brilliant! It perfectly captures Jenkins's point that an MP on their own is weak. You also brought in "First Past The Post" (FPTP) to explain why Harris is right. However, you seem to swap sides at the end.
Improved Evaluation:
"You criticized the 'lone wolf'. Compare this to Harris: 'Harris argues for independent MPs, but as Jenkins suggests, a "lone wolf" MP cannot pass laws or change anything. Therefore, sticking with the "pack" (the party) is the only way to actually help people.'"
Strengths
- Metaphor: The "Alpha wolf" comment shows you really understand the idea of "strength in numbers".
- Context: Referring to "First Past The Post" shows good own knowledge.
Targets
- Clarity: "Make parliament biase" - try to explain this more clearly. "It makes parliament ignore local needs in favor of the Prime Minister's wishes."
I agree with Tom Harris (TH) and how MP's should be loyal to their constituents, as with the FPTP electoral system, constituencie vote as a whole, meaning the elected MP represents everyone in that constituency so he/she should be legal [loyal] to their constituents... TH Supports this point by Stating that "MP's are sent to parliament to be the champion of their local area". This is a Strong point as it directly represents the FPTP system of the UK which lets constituencies vote for a Singular person to represent them in parliamt.
Even though I disagree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ), she/he has made some good points such as that "When voters elect an MP, they are primarily endorsing the political parties manifesto." This is a strong point... so if an MP does not take that manifesto into account, and is not loyal to the party, then the constituents are going to be being misrepresented by the MP and party leading to a weak political party in that area due to the people not recieving their list of promises. This undermines the UK's system of democracy, as a key value of democracy is for people to be represented, and when the manifesto is not granted, people are not represented.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You consistently link your arguments back to the
voting system (First Past The Post) and the concept of
Democracy. This is high-level evaluation because you are looking at the "rules of the game". You argue that breaking promises "undermines the UK's system of democracy", which is a very strong point.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'misrepresented'. Push this further: 'Jenkins argues for party loyalty, but I disagree. If an MP ignores their local voters to please the party leader, they are effectively silencing their constituents. In a democracy, the voter's voice must come first.'"
Strengths
- Context: You used "FPTP" (First Past The Post) correctly to explain why local representation matters.
- Logic: You explained that if a manifesto isn't followed, people are "misrepresented".
Targets
- Conclusion: You ended with "I agree with TH", but didn't summarize why Harris outweighed Jenkins's strong point about the manifesto. Add a final weighing-up sentence.
I partially agree with Tom Harris (TH) as rather than Sarah Jenkins (SJ) due to the facts that She makes some good points for example that as an MP you primarily endorse the political party that you are part of and their manifesto which is a list of promises the MP as a member of that party agrees to and that if their party is elected they will carry out.
However I know that in the FPTP system the votes only dont matter based on total number but are done in constituencies for seats and if the people in the MP's constituency voted them into Parliament then they should be voicing their opinions and not that of the party. TH says that Mp's are not accountable to party leaders but the voters in their constituency at the ballot box. Also if an MP is not prioritising the needs of local people they will be voted out and this is the most powerful check on political power.
However SJ says that being part of a political party is an 'essential' support structure this is a good point as change cannot be made by only a single person and the party has the financial backing and publicity to be able to influence policy.
Quality of Evaluation
Good (6/10). You included some really clever "Own Knowledge" at the end: citing "financial backing" and "publicity" explains
why an MP needs a party (they can't afford to run alone!). This is a great practical point. You also used "FPTP" correctly to explain why local votes matter.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said a single person cannot make change. Make this a comparison: 'Harris argues for independent MPs, but Jenkins is more realistic. Without the money and publicity of a big party, an independent MP is invisible and cannot actually help their constituents.'"
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Mentioning "financial backing" is a very smart point that wasn't in the text.
- Context: You understand that under FPTP, it is the local people who give the MP their seat.
Targets
- Sentence Structure: Your first sentence was extremely long and a bit confusing. Try to split it into two: "I agree with Harris. However, Jenkins makes a valid point about manifestos."
I Partially agree With both arguments as they both have Strong Points for example Sarah Jenkins (SJ) States that if you really want to be Part of the government you need to be discipline She also mentions the fact a government cannot Sanction if their MP's are Constantly breaking down SJ also say's loyalty to the Party is not betrayel.
Whereas Tom Harris (TH) mentions that An an MP Must be a Person of integrity and is an MP consistently ignores the wishes of the local People they Should be voted out and Statises show is MP's do not act fast enough Society could get more and more worse which could start another referendum this is why MP's need to start hearing the People of their community more so they can easily find their needs and wants this is why I partially agree with both sides of the argument.
Quality of Evaluation
Basic (5/10). You have identified the key words ("discipline", "integrity"). You also tried to bring in outside context (referendums/statistics), which is good, although "statistics show society could get worse" is a bit vague. You need to explain
why ignoring people makes society worse.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned a 'referendum'. A better way to say this is: 'If MPs ignore the people (as Jenkins suggests), the public will become angry and distrust the system, potentially leading to instability or protests. Therefore, Harris's listening approach prevents this unrest.'"
Strengths
- Key Concepts: You picked out "discipline" and "sanction" correctly.
- Consequences: You understand that if MPs don't listen, "society could get worse" (instability).
Targets
- Clarity: "Breaking down" isn't quite right - the text says "breaking ranks" (disobeying). Also, try to avoid "more and more worse".
Indeed both sides bring strong and effective arguments that back Point. with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) emphasising her view on how MPs should have loyalty to their Party as when an MP is elected their Primary job is to endorse a Political Party and the manifesto it stands on. Whereas Tom Harris (TH) exclaimes that the MPs most important duty is to the People who elected them.
Therefore I Personally agree with TH as his Point stands for the vein of the People as an MP is a direct link between the represative and the represted as in a democratic country like the UK the Governments main Priority is to ensure their country is happy and that they can Provide Basi basic necessaties for the People.
Even though SJ does bring a true argument I dissagred as she makes it seem as MPs we honour individuals who only do what favours them rather than the country. Furthermore not all Partys follow what they say in their manifesto which somewhat makes SJs stating Point useless. I further agree with TH as he explains how MPs are accountable not to Party leaders, but to the voters...
Quality of Evaluation
Good (7/10). You have a very sharp critique of Jenkins: you argue that because parties often break their promises ("not all parties follow what they say"), Jenkins' argument about manifestos is "useless". This is excellent evaluation because you are attacking the
reliability of the source's main point.
Improved Evaluation:
"You said Jenkins' point is 'useless'. Make this sound more formal: 'Jenkins claims MPs must deliver the manifesto. However, in reality, parties often break these promises. Therefore, blind loyalty to a dishonest party is wrong, and Harris's call for integrity is more important.'"
Strengths
- Critical Thinking: Questioning whether parties actually keep their promises is a great way to evaluate the text.
- Democracy: You correctly identified the MP as the "direct link" between the people and power.
Targets
- Proofreading: "Exclaimes", "represative", "dissagred". A quick check of spelling would make this answer even better.
This is a very complex argument as it is very important that in a democracy the people are represented however sometimes in order for government to move forward many things have to disregard the individual beliefs of citizens therefore I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) that it is more important for MPs to hold loyalty to their Party.
SJ states that an MP's role is to support their political party and the manifesto should be taken out in order to deliver promises made to the country. This is a very strong point as it states that MPs should uphold the reputation of their party by taking their citizens into consideration while also prioritising the stability of their party.
SJ also states that for a party to move forward it is important MPs do not constantly break ranks to vote on narrow interests. I believe everyone should agree with this statement as if MPs are constantly focusing on matters that affect a small group of constituents, there are less hands on deck looking for the wider population. Citizens voted to be represented but how can that be done when MP's spend so long on small constituencies instead of aiming to please the wider population.
Tom Harris (TH) does state that MP's should have the moral obligation to oppose any party policy that may harm its constituents however this fails to consider that most MPs in a specific party are part of the same echo-chamber and share similar views. It would go against the personal morals of an MP to oppose policies put in place by the party as that is like having an untrustworthy whistleblower in the party.
Quality of Evaluation
Strong (8/10). You have a very sophisticated argument for the "Wider Population". The phrase "less hands on deck looking for the wider population" is brilliant—it explains exactly why focusing on local issues (Harris) can actually hurt the country. You also used the term "echo chamber" correctly to criticize the idea of independent MPs.
Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned the 'wider population'. This is the concept of the 'National Interest'. 'Harris focuses on the local, but Jenkins focuses on the National Interest. I agree with Jenkins because a government must solve big problems (like the economy) for everyone, not just fix potholes for a few.'"
Strengths
- Metaphor: "Less hands on deck" is a great way to describe the inefficiency of localism.
- Perspective: You successfully argued that the "Wider Population" is more important than "small constituencies".
Targets
- Clarity on 'Echo Chamber': You said most MPs are in an echo chamber so wouldn't oppose policy. Be careful—Harris is arguing they should oppose it if it's bad.
Firstly, Sarah Jenkins has a strong point in saying that a government cannot function if its MPs constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests. This is because the MPs are the main representatives of a political party. If they were to constantly abandon their duties for their party to focus on smaller scale problems, it would be unfair to the many people who voted for that party as the promises made on their manifestos would be much less likely be achieved. The MPs would essentially be compromising promises made to the the wider population of England to focus on smaller issues which don't affect nearly as many people. This could have many knock on effects such as a decrease in voter turnout due to people believing that there's no point in voting if nothing changes.
However, whilst this is a strong point, it fails to realise that there will always be checks and balances which MPs are fully aware of...
Secondly, Tom Harris has a weak point in saying that accountability to their constituency is the most powerful check on political power we have. Whilst this has some elements of truth and credibility, it could easily be countered with the many other checks and balances we have in this country, e.g. the executive, judiciary and legislature checking eachother's power while being independent.
Quality of Evaluation
Outstanding (9/10). This is a Grade 9 level answer. You used **Own Knowledge** regarding the **Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature** to refute Harris's claim that voters are the "only check". This is brilliant. You also correctly argued that ignoring the national manifesto leads to "voter apathy" (low turnout).
Improved Evaluation:
"You have effectively destroyed Harris's main argument using your knowledge of the constitution. To get a perfect 10, simply link this back to the question: 'Because the Judiciary and Legislature already check the government's power, Harris's demand for local rebellion is unnecessary. Therefore, Jenkins's focus on getting things done is the priority.'"
Strengths
- High-Level Own Knowledge: Mentioning the "Executive, Judiciary and Legislature" shows you are working far above the standard level.
- Consequences: You linked "broken promises" to "decreased voter turnout". This is excellent political analysis.
Targets
- Word Count: You wrote a great answer, but keep an eye on the time. You want to make sure you cover these great points for every question.