Reforming Party funding/ introducing state funding

arguments for state funding

Reduce electoral advantage of larger parties, leading to pluralism rather than elitism

Help end forms of financial corruption

Remove the possibility of hidden / secret influence in parties

Encourage the emergence of new parties leading to a more pluralist democracy.

arguments against state funding

It would be too difficult to agree on how distribute state funding.

State funding would be unpopular with the public, regarded as inappropriate use of tax payers’ money for private organisations

New regulations and legislation have largely solved this problem.

Counter-productive to democracy – leading to excessive state control of parties

Reform would reduce financial advantage of larger parties at elections, allowing smaller parties to compete on a level-playing field.

Conservative and Labour dominate elections – perception of elitism; allow parties to fight campaigns in all seats not prioritising marginal seats. 

Smaller parties often use loans that can put their long-term viability in jeopardy.

2019 – Conservatives and Labour received 80% of private donations to all parties, they also win 80% of seats. 

In the final month before the 2024 election, Labour received almost £10m – twice as much as all the other parties combined. 

strong correlation between party funding and election success.

counter-argument against state funding - how to work out amount each party got, already policies in place

limited agreement how distribute state funding. 

Funding based on previous election results would only maintain the existing inequality between parties, preventing new parties from breaking through.

If funding was based on votes, fringe or extremist parties may be eligible for public (tax-payers’) money.

Spending limits already exist in elections –PPERA: £30’000 per constituency; across 650 seats would be £20million total spend limit - this is of little use to parties with limited funds.

Short money is already provided for opposition – hence Labour’s higher income compared to Conservative 2010-present

Would end forms of financial corruption

Some donors give money in the expectation of being granted a peerage or access to decision makers -  known as ‘Cash for Honours’ - a famous scandal 2006-7 - “loans for lordships”

OXFORD UNIVERSITY have also estimated that from 2005-2014, 92 of those appointed to the Lords between them donated almost £34 MILLION to political parties.  Cameron awarded 13 peerages to Conservative Party donors in 2016.

The Guardian reported in 2022 that 1 in 10 Tory peers have donated more than £100K each to the party,

• restore confidence in the system

Lod Alli donated large amounts to Labour party - suggesting corruption bias

counter to financial corruption - not good use of states resources

Parties are private organisation not parts of the state

State funding would be an inappropriate use of tax payers’ money.

 In a “cost of living crisis”  taxpayers would object to money being diverted from NHS, Schools and Welfare, to finance parties and politicians. 

In a liberal society, individuals are free to spend their money as they see fit.  Donations are a matter of personal choice. –

State funding would encourage the emergence of new parties leading to amore pluralist democracy.

Parties play a key function in a democracy, by recruiting candidates, developing policies and informing public debate; properly funding this would enhance participation.

This could include new parties, with a wider range of people able to enter politics, making Parliament more diverse. increasing representation

With membership declining parties are struggling to survive financially. Secure public funding would allow the parties to plan their activities over the long-term and give more job security to staff

Improving democracy in the UK

However (more parties) counter-productive

Excessive state control of parties which is not in the interests of democracy. 

State control would effectively mean that government would hold financial power over its political rivals, potentially, limiting flow of money.

Increasing corruption in politics

In 2010, Cameron argued that Short Money should be reduced due to the ongoing financial crisis

– This would have disproportionately affected Labour as the Official Opposition, weakening its ability to hold the government to account.

Weakening democracy in the uk