- Jeremy: 52%. Bare pass, but I would like to refer.
- Owen: 48%. Fail (condonable or may re-submit).
Jeremy's piece was well-written, if a little over-wrought. His enthusiasm comes across well. Lacks detail and credibility in many areas. Does not address the parliamentary dimension in a satisfactory way, nor his weakness in managing resources. I would normally suggest a meeting with colleagues, but I understand the candidate is rarely on campus.
Grammar 3/5, Logical Flow 4/5, Strategy 5/10, Sources 1/5. Total 13/25
Owen. We are grateful for this late submission. However, it seems ill-prepared, and the style is dominated by isolated phrases rather than complete sentences. I suspect the author is relying on rushed notes (which might work in the context of an oral exam) instead of a deep study of the subject matter. The strategy is adequate, in that it specifically mentions the next general election, as opposed to a distant future. It is lacking in details.
Please see me before the final deadline for a list of minor amendments.
Grammar 2/5, Logical Flow 3/5, Strategy 6/10, Sources 1/5. Total 12/25
(Note: MW received emails from the UK Labour Party leadership candidates in August).