Party Funding, Internal Factions and Political Consensus in the UK

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• defines a party faction as a group sharing a particular ideological position within a wider party.1 mark
• names a correct, real example of a faction or factional divide, e.g. within the Labour Party or the Conservative Party.1 mark
• explains one effect factionalism can have, e.g. difficulty agreeing a unified policy position.1 mark
• explains a further effect, e.g. that visible internal division can affect how a party appears to voters.1 mark
• links the example specifically to the effect described, rather than describing the faction alone.1 mark
• expresses the explanation clearly using accurate terminology.1 mark

Nothing ticked yet - 6 available

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• The introduction sets out a clear thesis that directly answers the question, and this thesis is sustained throughout. Each of the three main paragraphs presents a genuine two-sided debate, a point and a counterpoint, with accurate and detailed knowledge, and reaches a supported judgement. The conclusion follows logically from the three paragraph judgements rather than simply restating them. Analysis and evaluation are consistently strong throughout.3 marks
• A clear thesis is stated in the introduction and mostly sustained. Most paragraphs present both sides of the debate with generally accurate, relevant knowledge, though depth or balance may be uneven in one paragraph. Judgements are present in most paragraphs and the conclusion broadly follows from them.3 marks
• A thesis is attempted but may be unclear or only partly sustained across the essay. At least one paragraph is one-sided rather than presenting a genuine debate, which limits the level the answer can reach even where the knowledge shown is accurate. Judgements are inconsistent between paragraphs.2 marks
• Limited or generalised knowledge with little clear structure. Paragraphs tend to describe rather than debate the question, with few or no explicit judgements, and the response may drift away from the question set.2 marks
• Very limited, largely inaccurate or irrelevant knowledge. No clear thesis, paragraph structure or judgement is offered.2 marks
• No relevant content, or the response does not engage with the question.2 marks
• Case that large donations do harm: critics argue substantial donations from wealthy individuals or organisations to a party create at least the appearance of undue access or influence over policy, undermining equal citizenship.2 marks
• Case that large donations do harm: unequal funding between parties can create an uneven playing field in campaign spending, potentially affecting the fairness of elections.2 marks
• Case that large donations do harm: reliance on a small number of large donors can be seen as less democratic than funding drawn from a broad, mass membership, since it concentrates influence in fewer hands.2 marks
• Case that large donations do not do, or do less, harm: donations are already regulated and made public through the Electoral Commission, giving voters and the media the information to scrutinise and challenge any donor with unusual influence.2 marks
• Case that large donations do not do, or do less, harm: full state funding would use taxpayers' money to support parties, including smaller or fringe parties some taxpayers may strongly oppose, which critics see as its own democratic problem.2 marks
• Case that large donations do not do, or do less, harm: private donations, including from trade unions or party members, are also a form of voluntary civic participation and can be seen as an expression of genuine support rather than only as an attempt to buy influence.2 marks
• Balanced content: both major parties currently rely on concentrated funding sources, large individual and business donors for the Conservatives, and affiliated trade unions for Labour, so the concern about concentrated influence is not confined to one party's funding model.2 marks
• A supported conclusion that weighs the transparency and voluntary nature of the current donor-based system against the case for state funding as a way of reducing concentrated influence, rather than asserting one side without reference to both.2 marks

Nothing ticked yet - 30 available