Evaluate the case for introducing complete state funding of parties Flashcards
Introduction - Themes
Buying the Election
Influence
Fundraising
Introduction - Argument
State funding should not be introduced as it would not solve the problem of having a two-party system with greater resources as that is a result of the First-Past-the-Post system
Buy the Election - Disagree - Examples
In 2000, the Election and Referendum Act was passed - this put election spending at £30,000 per constituency. Spending was clearly seen as an issue
In subsequent elections, the Conservatives sent battle buses from other constituencies to marginal ones, spending more money, but not technically breaking the rules
Buy the Election - Disagree - Point
There is a fear that the richer parties, Labour and the Conservatives, have so much money that they can implement a much stronger campaign to win elections. State funding would reduce this fear
Buy the Election - Agree - Point
State funding would not necessarily help as it is not always the richest party that win the general election. State funding would also reduce the transparency that we have today
Buy the Election - Agree - Examples
Labour was the richest party in 2017, with their income standing at £45,667,000, despite this Labour still lost the 2017 general election
After the Election and Referendum Act, Labour began to accept loans rather than donations - these did not have to be decaled and were a way of side stepping the rules
Influence - Disagree - Point
The most compelling argument that state funding should be introduced is the influence those giving large donation to the major parties will have once they are in power
Influence - Disagree - Examples
Since 2012, the Conservative Party have recieved £1.7m from the wife of Vladmir Chernukin who was sacked as Finance Minister by Putin
The Guardian found that 1 in 10 Tory peers have given more than £100,000 to the Conservative Party - Cash for Peerages
Influence - Agree - Point
Once again, the issue is not as pivotal as it first seems - there is a good level of transparency by the parties and they release their donors after the election - when it matters
Influence - Agree - Examples
In 1997, Ecclestone gave £1m to the Labour Party and as a result F1 was not included in the ban on advertising tobacco, however, people speculated this was why and F1 was eventually added to the ban
Despite the Conservatives receiving donations from oligarchs the government still took the decision to freeze their assets after Russian went into Ukraine.
Fundraising - Disagree - Point
It can be said that due to the size of major parties, the Conservatives and Labour, they benefit much greater than the minority parties and these differences then play out in the general election results
Fundraising - Disagree - Examples
The SNP has 104,000 members which is not a lot less than the Conservative party at 172,000, yet the SNP only raised £24,000 in the 2019 general election while the Conservatives raised £19m
These discrepancies can be related to the election outcome - the SNP only has 48 seats, while the Conservatives have 365
Fundraising - Agree - Point
State Funding would not actually solve the issue of smaller parties gaining fewer seats, this is a result of First-Past-the-Post. It would actually create more problems as it would discourage the major parties from fundraising
Fundraising - Agree - Examples
Both the Conservatives and Labour have to fundraise - the Conservatives hold their infamous Black and White Ball, and Labour under Corbyn introduced £3 membership
Any proposals for state funding distributed it based on election results - the Christopher Kelley proposal gave each party £3 per vote. Conservatives and Labour would still get more funding
