2) Political party

Should Uk introduce state funding

To increase democracy

In the 2024 UK General Election, the Labour Party received over £9.5 million in donations, surpassing all other parties combined. This massive financial backing, including a £2.5 million contribution from Lord David Sainsbury, enabled Labour to outspend its rivals on advertising and campaign resources. Conversely, the Conservative Party’s donations plummeted to just under £1.9 million, a significant drop from the £19 million they received in 2019 .

Despite Labour securing 33.7% of the vote, they won 412 seats, while Reform UK, with 14.3% of the vote, secured only five seats . This disparity highlights the disproportionate nature of the UK’s First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system, where financial resources and vote distribution can significantly impact electoral outcomes.

Therefore, introducing state funding for political parties, allocated based on objective criteria such as vote share, could help level the playing field. This approach would reduce reliance on private wealth, provide smaller or newer parties with a fairer chance, and support greater democratic pluralism and genuine voter choice.

For No party funding

Decrease democracy

State funding of political parties, if allocated based on past electoral performance and seat numbers, could unintentionally entrench the dominance of the two main parties—Labour and the Conservatives—while disadvantaging smaller or emerging parties. Under the UK’s majoritarian First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system, larger parties already benefit disproportionately in terms of seats won compared to their vote share. For instance, in the 2024 General Election, Labour secured 33.7% of the vote but won 412 seats, while Reform UK, despite receiving 14.3% of the vote, managed to secure only five seats. This imbalance, a result of the “winner’s bonus” inherent in FPTP, highlights how tying public funding to seat numbers would overwhelmingly benefit dominant parties. Rather than promoting fairness, such a funding model would reinforce the two-party system, discourage political diversity, and reduce meaningful voter choice. To support a more representative democracy, any state funding system must be based on vote share rather than seat count, making it more complicated and undemocratic if state funding is introduced.

Want state funding

Funding polices

State funding promotes professional, evidence-based policy-making by providing political parties with neutral public grants, reducing their reliance on private donors who may seek to influence policy in self-serving ways. A key example of this is the Policy Development Grant (PDG), which supports parties in formulating a well rounded and costed policy proposals. In 2023, the Labour Party received over £2.7 million through PDG schemes, which helped fund the development of detailed green investment plans and NHS recruitment strategies. These policies were widely seen as technocratic and issue-focused, rather than shaped by donor interests. By enabling parties to prioritise the public good over private influence, state funding supports the creation of thoughtful, evidence-led policy platforms. Ultimately, this approach strengthens the quality of democratic debate and helps fulfil the principle of pluralist democracy, where a range of perspectives can be represented fairly and without financial bias

No state funding

Funding polices

While public funding can help parties develop well-researched and expert-driven policies, some critics say it can also make them less focused on what voters actually want. For example, in 2023, Labour used over £2.7 million from a public grant to create its green investment plan. However, the plan was seen by some as too technical and not clearly explained to key working-class voters, especially in former industrial areas. This may have contributed to a backlash in those regions. Critics argue that when parties get guaranteed public money, they might focus more on pleasing experts and think tanks instead of the general public. On the other hand, private donations depend more on how popular a party’s ideas are with supporters, which can encourage parties to stay in touch with voter concerns. If parties rely too much on state funding, they may stop listening to their members and drift away from public opinion. In the end, while public funding has benefits, some believe that private donations can help keep parties more connected to the people they represent.

Want state funding

Reduce Corruption of wealthy donors

While the Electoral Commission makes sure that political donations are legal and come from approved UK-based sources, recent events have raised serious concerns about how much influence wealthy donors can have. In 2023, businessman Frank Hester gave £5 million personally and another £5 million through his company, The Phoenix Partnership, making him one of the biggest donors in Conservative Party history. His company had received £135 million in NHS contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2024, Hester was reported to had made racist comments about a black MP Abbott in 2019, like “hating all black woman.” Despite these comments he didn’t face any real consequences, showing how private donors held accountable for their actions. Some people also worry that his large donation may have influenced the party’s focus on digital health and AI—areas where Hester’s business could benefit. This example shows how wealthy donors can use their money to push their own interests, even if their behavior is harmful. In contrast, state funding gives parties money from public sources, which helps keep them accountable and focused on the public good, not private gain.

No state funding

Explains how private funding is good.

Private funding can improve political independence by enabling parties to operate without relying on state resources, allowing them to take bold or unconventional positions without fearing financial repercussions from government bodies. For instance, Reform UK, under the leadership of Nigel Farage, has significantly benefited from private donations. In a single week during the 2024 General Election campaign, the party raised approximately nearly £600,000, including a £200,000 contribution from businessman . Such financial backing allowed Reform UK to promote policies like accepting cryptocurrency donations and proposing a crypto-friendly finance bill, positions that might not align with mainstream political ideas. This independence from state funding sources enabled the party to pursue its unique vision without external constraints/ struggle. In conclusion, private donations can empower political parties to maintain autonomy, introduce unique ideas, and represent diverse viewpoints, thereby enriching/increasing the democratic process.

is conservative more New Right or One nation

or it would say if conservatives are divided.

intro- conservative are more new right

Conservative are more new right

Firstly, you could say that the conservatives are more new right due to the economic policy as in the 2010 Conservative manifesto, David Cameron promised that the NHS budget would be protected and even increased, meaning it would not face the same cuts as other areas during the time of finical struggle . This showed a One-Nation Conservative approach, which believes that everyone should have access to healthcare based on need, not on how much money they have. One-Nation Conservatives, like Disraeli in the past, worried about a society divided between the rich and the poor. Supporting a free and universal NHS helps keep the country more united. By protecting the NHS during a time of economic crisis, Cameron took a practical approach, choosing to support what many see as the most important service for people’s health and wellbeing. In the end, this showed that the Conservatives were willing to support a strong welfare state when it was important for the whole country.

Conservatives are more New right

economic polices

Even though the 2010 Conservative manifesto promised to protect NHS spending, the NHS still came under pressure. The small increases in funding didn’t keep up with the fast-growing demand for services, so the NHS continued to struggle. At the same time, the government passed the Health and Social Care Act in 2012, which allowed private companies to bid for for NHS contracts. This showed the influence of free-market thinking, a key idea of the New Right. The New Right believes that bringing in competition makes public services like healthcare more efficient. It also helped the government defend its austerity cuts, as they could claim they were still looking after the public by protecting the NHS while cutting other areas. In the end, although the Conservatives seemed to support the NHS like One-Nation Conservatives, they also followed New Right ideas by using market competition and reducing overall public spending.

Angst conservative are more One nation

Welfare policy

In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Conservative government led by Boris Johnson, with Rishi Sunak as Chancellor, started the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, also called the furlough scheme. This plan allowed the government to pay up to 80% of people’s wages (up to £2,500 a month) to stop large numbers of people from losing their jobs and to protect the economy. Over 11 million people got help from this scheme, including many low-paid workers in areas like hospitality, retail, and self-employment. This showed a caring approach where the government stepped in to help those most in need. It followed the idea that those in power have a duty to look after people who are struggling. The furlough scheme matched the beliefs of One-Nation Conservatism, where the government plays a helpful role in keeping society together. In the end, this showed that the Conservatives were willing to support people through difficult times by using government action to protect jobs and families.

Conservative are more New Right

Welfare policy

The 2020 COVID furlough scheme was only meant to be temporary and was mainly used to keep the economy stable, not to make long-term changes to the welfare system. After the worst of the crisis was over, the Conservative government quickly went back to talking about “fiscal responsibility” and started cutting other types of support—such as ending the extra £20 a week given through Universal Credit. While the furlough scheme helped many people, it left out others in insecure jobs, like freelancers or people who had just started work. Only workers who were on PAYE (pay-as-you-earn tax) before a certain date were allowed to get help. This unfairness showed a lack of social justice and went against the One-Nation idea of treating everyone equally. Instead, it matched New Right ideas, which support limited government help and focus on saving money. In the end, even though the furlough scheme looked caring at first, its limits and the return to strict spending cuts showed the government was more influenced by New Right thinking than by true One-Nation beliefs.

Conservative are more One Nation

Foreign polices

The Rwanda scheme, introduced in 2022 and mentioned in the Conservative manifesto, was part of the government’s plan to deal with illegal immigration. It was linked to Rishi Sunak’s promise to “stop the boats.” The plan was to send certain asylum seekers—those who arrived in the UK through illegal routes, like crossing the English Channel—to Rwanda. Their asylum claims would be looked at there, and if accepted, they would live in Rwanda permanently. The UK has already spent over £500 million on this scheme. The government said it was a caring response to a broken immigration system. The goal was to stop dangerous boat journeys, protect people from being used by smugglers, and reduce pressure on housing and local services. Rishi Sunak said the scheme was about “fairness”, which links to One-Nation Conservative ideas like fairness, safety, and social stability. In conclusion, although the Rwanda scheme focused on tough immigration control, the way it was explained also showed One-Nation beliefs, with a focus on protecting people and keeping society fair and stable.

Conservatives are more New Right

Foreign polices

The 2022 Rwanda scheme did not include long-term support for asylum seekers in the UK. Instead of giving them housing or helping them settle into British society, the government chose to send them to another country. This showed the UK was handing over its responsibility to Rwanda, which fits with New Right ideas. These include strong control over borders, reducing the number of people who get government help, and making the state smaller. Even when the UK Supreme Court warned that the scheme could lead to unfair or harmful treatment of migrants, the government still wanted to go ahead. It also tried to avoid following rules from international organisations like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations, which shows the New Right’s dislike of global institutions. In conclusion, while the Rwanda plan was said to be about fixing the immigration system, its harsh approach, lack of care for migrants, and rejection of international rules showed that it followed New Right thinking more than a caring or balanced approach.

evaluate if labor is new labor or old labor

More old than new labor

economy

The Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto reflects Old Labour values, with a focus on public services being run by the government, not for profit. Key pledges include nationalising the railways and creating a publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, as part of the £8.3 billion Green Prosperity Plan. The 2024 budget also boosts public spending, with extra funding for the NHS, schools, and 13,000 more police and support workers—highlighting Labour’s commitment to government-funded services for all.

Another major policy is a change to tax rules starting in April 2026. Agricultural and business property relief will only give full tax relief on the first £1 million. Anything above that will be taxed at 20%. This is meant to take more money from the rich and use it to pay for public services—a classic Old Labour goal of redistributing wealth. However, many people worry that this could hurt family-run farms. These farms are often passed down through generations, and the extra tax could make it hard for the next generation to keep farming. This might stop farmers from investing in their land and equipment in the future. In conclusion, while Labour’s plans follow traditional values of public ownership and fairer wealth distribution, they may also create problems for important industries like farming, showing the need to balance fairness with practical impacts.

More New labor (third way)

economy

Labour’s 2024 manifesto, led by Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, shows a clear move away from the high-tax, high-spending approach seen under Jeremy Corbyn. Instead, Labour now promises not to raise Income Tax, VAT, or Corporation Tax (which will stay at 25% for the rest of this parliament). This shows a more business-friendly attitude and a stronger support for capitalism. Rather than taxing workers or companies more, Labour plans to raise money by removing the VAT exemption for private schools, which is seen as a fairer option. The Green Prosperity Plan, focused on public energy company GB Energy, has also been scaled back. Instead of spending £28 billion a year, Labour is now being more careful with borrowing and debt, similar to the New Labour years under Tony Blair. The plan now focuses on creating jobs, encouraging private investment, and using green innovation to grow the economy—ideas linked to New Labour’s “Third Way” approach, which used the market to reach progressive goals. Therefore that Labour now supports a pro-market model where inequality is accepted if it brings growth and stability rather than just increasing taxation to combat inequality.

Labor is more Old Labour

Welfare polices

Labour’s 2024 manifesto includes several key policies that reflect a return to Old Labour values, especially in areas like health and education. The party pledged an extra £6 billion a year for the NHS, committed to ending private sector involvement in core NHS services, and promised to cut waiting times by hiring more than 10,00+ new staff. It also plans to bring more control of the NHS back under the Department of Health by reducing the role of NHS England, reinforcing the idea of the NHS as a fully public, state-run service—free and universal. In education, Labour promised universal free breakfast clubs for all primary school children in England, a non-means-tested policy that supports all families and promotes equality, showing strong state involvement. Additionally, Labour raised the National Minimum Wage to £12.21 for those aged 21 and over, aiming to support working people. These policies highlight Labour’s renewed focus on public ownership, universal services, and reducing inequality, marking a clear return to Old Labour principles.

Labor is more New labour

Welfare polices

Labour’s 2024 plans mix traditional values with a more modern and practical approach. While they are putting more money into the NHS, they also want it to run better by using things like digital tools, performance targets, and focusing on “value for money.” The aim is to cut waiting times and improve results, not just spend for the sake of it—an idea similar to what New Labour did under Tony Blair. By giving ministers more control over NHS England, Labour also wants clearer accountability, so it’s easier to see who is responsible if things go wrong. In schools, the promise of free breakfast clubs for all primary pupils is like Blair’s ‘Sure Start’ and ‘Education Action Zones’—meant to help all children succeed and boost future productivity, not just offer short-term support. However, Labour is also being more careful with benefits and welfare spending, for example by reviewing things like the Winter Fuel Allowance. This shows they want to manage public money wisely, but it could upset some older voters who rely on those benefits. In conclusion, Labour’s 2024 approach tries to balance fairness and support for public services with smart spending and practical reforms—blending Old Labour values with New Labour-style thinking.

More old labour

foreign policies

Labour’s views on foreign policy and defence in 2024 show a mix of old beliefs and modern thinking. In the past, Old Labour supported peace and disarmament. For example, the 1983 Labour manifesto under Michael Foot promised to get rid of nuclear weapons and scrap Trident. Jeremy Corbyn also had strong anti-war views and was critical of the EU, saying it lacked democracy and fairness, even though he didn’t support Brexit. Today, Keir Starmer takes a more balanced approach. He supports helping Ukraine with military aid but also talks about the importance of finding peaceful solutions. This continues the Old Labour tradition of choosing peace first, like leaders such as Tony Benn, who believed war should only be a last resort. Starmer’s support for Ukraine is based on ideas like respecting international law, defending countries’ rights to be independent, and standing against imperialism. He sees Russia’s actions not just as a threat to the West, but as breaking international rules. In conclusion, Labour’s foreign policy today still values peace and fairness, but also takes a more realistic and responsible role in global issues.

Labour is more New Labour

Keir Starmer has shown strong support for NATO and Britain’s allies, especially after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. In Labour’s 2024 manifesto, the party promised to raise defence spending to 2.5% of the country’s income—more than NATO’s 2% minimum—and also backed keeping Trident, the UK’s nuclear weapons system. This shows a more patriotic and security-focused approach. Starmer has continued funding support for Ukraine and met with President Zelensky to show Labour’s commitment. At the London Summit, which he hosted, Starmer shared a four-point plan to help protect Ukraine and support its independence. This included keeping up military aid and making sure any future peace deal includes Ukraine and protects its safety. He also announced £1.6 billion in funding to help Ukraine buy over 5,000 air defence missiles. Overall, Starmer’s strong defence plans are very different from Old Labour’s past views. Under leaders like Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was more focused on peace deals and getting rid of nuclear weapons , rather than supporting military action.

conclusion, whether lab is either more new labour or old labour

To sum up, the current Labour Party is no longer strongly shaped by Old Labour ideas. This can be seen in its careful and centre-ground approach to the economy, its tougher stance on crime, more limited welfare policies, and its strong support for defence and international partnerships. Like New Labour, the party is trying to win support from middle-class voters by moving closer to the political centre. In the past, Old Labour had more radical ideas, especially about public ownership, taxes, and national control. Today’s Labour focuses more on stability, sensible spending, and realistic goals. So, it’s clear that the party now follows New Labour thinking more than Old Labour traditions.

ETVT UK = TWO-PARTY

SYSETM / Labour and Conservative Parties are the only parties that matter In UK

Politics / minor political parties are having an increasing impact on

UK politics

intro:

Since the end of World War II, the Labour and Conservative parties have mostly controlled UK politics, making it a two-party system. However, in recent years, especially in the 2024 General Election, smaller parties have started to gain more support and win more seats. This has led some people to wonder if the UK is still a two-party system or if it is changing. This essay will look at how elections work, how decisions are made in government, and how the media affects what people think about the main and smaller parties.

1) Elections

Two party system

In the 2024 General Election, Labour won 34% of the vote but secured 412 seats, giving them a large majority of 172 in the House of Commons. In contrast, Reform UK gained 14% of the vote, becoming the third-largest party by vote share, yet only won 5 seats (now reduced to 4). This highlights the “winner’s bonus” effect of the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system, where seats are not fairly matched to vote share. FPTP tends to favour larger parties, making it very difficult for smaller or newer parties to gain seats, even if they have strong public support. This system limits the range of political views represented in Parliament and can leave voters feeling unheard, leading to many wasted votes and reducing trust in the overall result. Overall, while smaller parties like Reform Uk are gaining attention, the FPTP system continues to support a two-party structure, making it hard for others to break through.

1) counterpoint uk is more multi party system now

Election

Although Labour won a majority in the 2024 General Election with 412 seats, this was based on just 33.7% of the vote—a sharp contrast to the 59% of seats gained. While it may appear to be a landslide victory, Labour’s vote share was actually the lowest ever for a majority government in UK history. In fact, 80% of the electorate did not vote for Labour, showing a large space for other parties to grow. Together, Labour and the Conservatives received only 57.4% of the vote, a noticeable drop from past elections and a clear sign that voters are looking for alternatives. One example is Reform UK, a minor party that grew significantly, taking much of its vote share from the Conservatives. The Tories dropped to just 121 seats and 23.7% of the vote, while Reform rose from 2% in 2019 to 14.3% in 2024, positioning itself as an alternative right-wing option. Reform’s rising popularity was also reflected in the May 2025 by-elections, where it gained 617 local council seats, which previously leaned Labour. This growing support challenges the idea that politics in the UK is just a “two-horse race,” as Labour claimed at the time. Overall, while the two main parties still dominate in Parliament due to the electoral system, rising support for Reform and other smaller parties shows clear signs of a shift toward a more multi-party political landscape.

2) for a Two party system

Government polices

In the UK, the power to implement policy lies mainly with the governing party, which is almost always either Labour or the Conservatives. For example, Labour’s Green Jobs Initiative, which promised large-scale investment in renewable energy and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, was a key part of their manifesto and was pushed through Parliament thanks to their majority. Only a major party like Labour had the parliamentary numbers and executive power to deliver such a large national programme. Similarly, between 2016 and 2020, the Conservative governments led by Theresa May and Boris Johnson were responsible for negotiating and delivering Brexit. Despite facing internal disagreements, it was Conservative MPs who ultimately passed the necessary legislation, especially after Johnson’s 2019 election win, gave him a strong mandate to “Get Brexit Done.” In contrast, minor parties like the Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Greens, who opposed Brexit, had very little influence on the final outcome and were largely sidelined in the decision-making process. Overall, this shows that real policy power remains firmly in the hands of the two main parties, reinforcing the dominance of the two-party system in UK politics.

2)counterpoint for a multi party system

policies in government

Minor parties often don’t have the power to pass laws directly, but they can still influence the policies of larger parties. For example, Labour’s Green Jobs Initiative was shaped in part by the Green Party’s rising support and pressure from environmental campaign groups. From 2020 onwards, the Green Party steadily increased its national vote share, reaching a record 6.4% in 2024. As a result, Labour was pushed to strengthen its climate policies, such as committing to ban new oil and gas exploration—something not in their original plans. This shows that even without winning many seats, minor parties can have a real impact on policy. Similarly, in the case of Brexit, Nigel Farage and UKIP (and later the Brexit Party) played a big role in shaping Conservative policy. UKIP’s rise pressured David Cameron into calling the Brexit referendum, and by 2019, the Brexit Party had become strong enough to push the Conservatives toward a more right-wing, populist position under Boris Johnson. If the Tories hadn’t shifted their stance to support a hard Brexit, they could have lost key voters to the Brexit Party and possibly the election itself. Overall, while the two main parties still dominate UK politics, the influence of minor parties is growing, showing signs of more multi-party competition shaping political decisions from behind the scenes.

3) two party system

Media

Traditional media, including broadcast and print, continues to frame UK elections as a contest between just two main parties. For example, during the 2024 General Election, major coverage often presented the race as a ‘two-horse’ competition between Labour’s Keir Starmer and the Conservatives’ Rishi Sunak. The BBC’s leaders’ debate initially to only included these two, and media discussions regularly referred to the “next Prime Minister” as either Starmer or Sunak—despite minor parties collectively gaining over 40% of the total vote. Major newspapers such as The Times, The Daily Mail, and The Telegraph also centred their election coverage on Labour’s economic plans and Conservative immigration policies, while giving very limited and often dismissive attention to smaller parties like the Greens, Reform UK, or the Liberal Democrats. This kind of media framing reinforces the idea that only the two main parties are serious contenders, which limits public awareness of other political choices and makes it harder for smaller parties to be seen as credible alternatives. Overall, traditional media plays a key role in maintaining the image of a two-party system, even as public support becomes more divided.

3)counterpoint multi party system

Media

Alternative and new media platforms, especially social media, have changed how political parties communicate with the public and allowed smaller parties to gain more attention. In the 2024 General Election, the Conservative Party lost significant support in part due to repeated scandals, such as Partygate, which were widely shared and criticised online. In contrast, Nigel Farage and Reform UK used platforms like GB News and TalkTV to gain visibility, with Farage often making headlines for his strong views on immigration and Brexit. The Liberal Democrats also benefited from creative use of social media, with leader Ed Davey’s stunt-based campaign—including viral moments like falling off a paddleboard and riding rollercoasters—helping to keep the party in the spotlight and contributing to their best election result since 2005, with 72 seats. These examples show that public access to political information has shifted, giving minor parties more power to shape the conversation and reach new audiences. Especially among younger voters who rely more on social media, this has created a more pluralistic political environment, at least in terms of communication, even if the two-party system still dominates in Parliament.