role of political parties, party funding, multi-party system

Functions of political parties

\
* **representation:** bridge to gov, represent shared set of beliefs.
* **recruitment of** **leaders:** parties supply leading politicians in liberal democratic systems.
* gov**ernment:** exert discipline on national/local scale, their manifesto is expected to be implemented, PM who loses confidence can be removed.
* **official Op:** act as alt gov, hold PM to account
* **policy formulation:** parties offer choice in manifestos- must be broadly accepted by part members, gov can claim they have secured mandate to implement manifesto.
* **participation & mobilisation:** political parties have local orgs in every constituency to give a voice to their constituents, offer participation via voting/joining party, parties can rep classes/ethnic groups/regions/economic interest.

Funding & controversy

both parties criticised for being to financial dependent on single source of funding- likely to have strong political influence over gov: Labour accused of favouring WC (bulk funding from TUs), Tories too ‘boss-orientated’ (bulk funding from big business).

* accused of offering political honours e.g place in HOL to top donors- corrupt
* Lib Dems accuse that money can ‘buy elections’, unable to compete with big 2, lacked funding to raise public profile, argued lack of funding deprived electorate real choice- (1997 GE spent: C £28mil, L £26mil, LD £2mil)
* Neil committee set up to investigate party funding after widespread sleaze in late 1990s.

financial scandals case studies

**Blair & Ecclestone:** Blair criticised for Ecclestone’s £1mil donation to Labour, allegedly involved in delay in Tobacco ad bans in F1 racing, money returned.

**cash for questions 1994:** journalist from Sunday Times approached MPs to submit Qs in parliament in exchange for cash e.g for £1k Tory MP Tredinnick asked a q about the NHS’s use of a fictious drug.

Parties **should** receive more public funding

* Parties play important role in representative democracy, they deserve public funding
* would remove great disparity in resources available to different sized parties.
* If the state matched donations by party members, might encourage public participation/membership may increase.
* would curb possibility of corruption within the system (reduce possible influence of private bodies/individuals on party policy)

Parties **Should not** receive more public funding

* Increased state funding could lead to calls of greater state regulation, reducing parties' independence.
* hard to decide amount of support needed for party to qualify for funding.
* Public funding could isolate parties from the wishes of the voters.
* Taxpayers would resent the compulsory contributions to parties they disapprove.
* Taxation would rise.

4 types of party systems (westminister model)

* **1-party dominant,** 1 party has a chance of holding power
* **2 party,** 2 parties monopolise/compete at elections.
* **Westminister mode**l, in **post war era labour & tories dominated 91% of votes/98% seats in HOC**, system upheld by **FPTP**.
* **2.5 party,** 2 main parties challenged by growth of smaller party
* coalition 2017/2010- hung parliaments.
* **multi-party,** num of parties contend for gov- coalitions norm.
* devolved assemblies, use more proportional electoral systems, increases rep