Evaluate The View That The Funding Of Political Parties In The UK Should Be Reformed.

Introduction

• Party funding has historically been used for advertising, social media, party campaigning etc.

• For the past decades there has been significant controversy over the funding of political parties

Paragraph Focus

• Para 1 = Potential for Corruption

• Para 2 = Influence of Elections/Party Systems

• Para 3 = Influence on Democracy

Para 1 = Weaker Argument: Shouldn’t Be Reformed

• eg. 2024 PM Kier Starmer received funding from Lord Waheed Ali for clothes for his wife, which gave him a security pass into No. 10 as well as influence over some party decisions

• this shows a strong reliance of parties on donations from rich businesses and individuals

• this means rich donors are able to buy political influence, which is highly undemocratic

• this may lead to parties increasingly ignoring the views of the electorate to satisfy the rich, therefore funding should be reformed

Para 1 = Stronger Argument: Should Be Reformed

• in 2024, for example, the Labour Party received around 11% of their total income from state funding and in 2021 the Electoral Commission fine Labour Together for failing to declare donations

• this shows that donations from wealthy individuals/corporations aren’t the only source of party funding in the UK and are regulated by the Electoral Commission

• this ensures that all large donations and loans are transparent and those who break the rules are held to account

• therefore, it can be argued that the extent of possible corruption could be overstated

Para 2 = Weaker Argument: Shouldn’t Be Reformed

• Labour Party received £58,628,000 in 2023, however this reflects the fact they also had the largest membership of any party (est. 370,000 members) as well as receiving contributions from trade unions

• this shows the current system of party funding can be seen as reflecting public support

• Labour and the Conservatives receive the most funding, but they also have by far the most support across the UK

• this shows that if state funding was introduced and determined based n how well a party did at the previous election, then it would do little to tackle the two party system

Para 2 = Stronger Argument: Should Be Reformed

• the current system of party funding favours the Labour and Conservative Parties, and upholds a two party system in the UK

• Labour and Conservatives receive a great deal more funding than minor parties

• in 2021, for example, received £45.5 mil, the Conservative Party received £31.7, whilst the highest amount of party funding was just£5.7 for the Liberal Democrats

• the high levels of funding received by Labour and the Conservatives allow them to greatly outstrip minor parties in term of spending in elections and advertising

• even the limited public funding currently available to parties in the UK upholds the two party system

• eg. Conservative party’s allocation was approx. £4 million (2024-25)

Para 3 = Weaker Argument: Shouldn’t Be Reformed

• it could be argued that the limited public funding currently available ensures that parties are independent from the state

• if a fully state funded system was introduce, it could isolate parties from the wishes of the public and their members, which could be seen as harming democracy

• it would also cost the state significant amount per year and many taxpayer likely wouldn’t want to fund parties they don’t support

Para 3 = Stronger Argument: Shouldn’t Be Reformed

• State funding would also allow parties and politicians to focus more on representing the public and government effectively, instead of spending time focusing on raising money, particularly before elections

• Politicians often host fundraising dinners and events in order to try and raise money for their party

• this can be seen as a distraction from representing the public effectively

• state funding would also prevent government from passing laws that seek to limit the funding of opposition political parties, as happened in the Trade Union Act 2016