Pressure Groups, Think Tanks and Lobbyists in UK Politics

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

• defines an insider group as having regular, recognised access to decision-makers.1 mark
• defines an outsider group as lacking that access, or choosing not to seek it.1 mark
• gives a correct real example of an insider group, e.g. the British Medical Association.1 mark
• gives a correct real example of an outsider group, e.g. Extinction Rebellion or Fathers4Justice.1 mark
• explains a genuine consequence of the distinction, e.g. that insider groups can negotiate directly while outsider groups rely on public and media pressure.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 resources matter most: well-funded insider groups such as the BMA can employ specialist staff and sustain long negotiations with government, giving them influence regardless of the government's initial sympathy.2 marks
• Case that resources matter most: large membership numbers and subscription income let groups such as the National Trust run sustained public campaigns that smaller, poorly funded groups cannot match.2 marks
• Case that resources matter most: professional lobbying firms and well-funded think tanks can shape the policy debate through sustained research output and media access.2 marks
• Case that government sympathy matters more: Stonewall's campaign for same-sex marriage succeeded once it aligned with a shift in wider public and then government opinion and the coalition government's own reform agenda, showing timing and sympathy mattering as much as resources.2 marks
• Case that government sympathy matters more: the well-resourced, large-scale Countryside Alliance campaign against the Hunting Act 2004 still failed, because the Labour government of the time was committed to the ban, showing resources alone did not secure success.2 marks
• Case that government sympathy matters more: outsider groups with comparatively few resources, such as early Extinction Rebellion campaigns, can still shift the political agenda if they generate enough public and media pressure that government feels it must respond.2 marks
• Balanced content: resources and government sympathy usually interact, since a well-resourced group is often better able to make its case at the moment government is already inclined to listen.2 marks
• A supported conclusion that weighs the Stonewall and Countryside Alliance examples against each other to state which factor mattered more, rather than asserting one side without reference to both.2 marks

Nothing ticked yet - 30 available