Evaluate the view that parties should have state funding.

Thesis Point 1 : fairer for minority parties

With state funding, better representation of niche topics that are sometimes ignored. For example, the 2019 general election, the greens received over 800,000 votes but secured only one seat. parties would have the financial means to run more effective campaigns, raise awareness about critical issues, and compete on a more level playing field. Main problem is FPTP

Anti Thesis Point 1 : Can benefit radical parties

don’t have success in elections due to dispersed support instead of centralised support. For example, in 2015 BNP got 850,000 votes but 0 votes. This can also be attributed to the disparity of funding. If, these parties were to get similar funding and resources as major parties their seats would evidently increase which would be detrimental to having moderate politics in the country. Moreover, the fact that taxpayer's money would be spread indiscriminately undermines the sole premise of democracy regarding voters getting a choice for who they want to support.

Thesis Point 2: It’s evident there is corruption.

Would improve democracy in the UK as it stops the overrepresentation of wealthy donors and makes politics more collective representative of the electorate. In 1999, the head of F1, Bernie Ecclestone gave £1 million to the Labour parties to bypass tobacco adverts EU restrictions.

Anti Thesis Point 2 : There’s already a system to remove corruption

PPERA in 2000 put a £30K limit on constituencies. PPEA enabled the Electoral Commission to investigate and fine parties who broke the rules of the PPERA. PPEA also limits donations allowed from non-UK residents and reduces the amount at which donations need to be made public by parties. This regulation along with the PPERA make party funding a more collective and transparent procedure as the use of the electoral commission brings a sense of accountability and scrutiny to party funding.

Thesis Point 3 - makes campaigns more efficient

State funding for political parties could make campaigning more efficient by freeing parties from the time and effort spent on fundraising, allowing them to focus on research, voter analysis, and policy development. It would also create a fairer system by reducing financial pressures

Anti-Thesis Point 3 - it removes the personal element between parliament and the electorate

However, critics argue that state funding would weaken the democratic link between parties and voters, as parties would no longer rely on public donations or grassroots support. This could reduce accountability, encourage complacency, and distance politicians from the electorate.