Evaluate The View That The Funding Of Parties Should Be Reformed

Question 1

P1: Agree Party Funding’s Undue Influence Tory

Answer 1

1. In 2023, received £44.5M from donations. £20M came from 2 people. First £10M from Tory peer John Sainsbury in his will. Second from Frank Hester who gave £5 million personally and another £5M through his firm, The Phoenix Partnership.
2. Russian influence. When BJ was in power £2M was linked to Russia. Raised major security concerns. Evgeny Lebedev was made a peer by BJ.
3. Ts did not implement any of the 21 recommendations of the Russia Report, which discovered widespread attempts by Russia to try and influence voters in the Brexit referendum.

Question 2

P1: Agree Undue Influence Labour

Answer 2

1. 1. In 2023, they received £21.5 from donations. Only £5.9M came from trade unions. £14.5M from companies and individuals (more than in KS’ 3 years combined). Trying to be more pro-business.
2. Gary Lubner (£4.6M) and David Sainsbury (£3.1M). GL CEO of Belron and S was a big donor under Blair but stopped under Corbyn.
3. Summer of 24 ‘freebiegate’. Freedom of Info requests showed KS had accepted substantial gifts from Alli, including eyewear and clothing valued at over £16,000.
4. Post Labour victory unelected Alli was granted a temporary security pass to Downing Street, which he used organise a post-election event and allegedly advise on public appointments.

Question 3

P1: Undue Influence Disagree

Answer 3

1. Donations are not the only source of funding. There are membership subscriptions, trade unions and some public funding.
2. Labour in 23/24, 13% of their income from state funding available to the opposition and 10% from trade unions and significant funding from their 370,000 members.
3. Donations are reported t the Electoral Commission, ensures all large donations and loans are transparent and come from people on the electoral roll.
4. Parties are mandated to ensure their donations come from permissible sources and to report to the EC any that don’t.

Question 4

P2: Agree Holds up the 2 party system

Answer 4

1. L and C receive a lot more funding than the other parties. L got £58,628,000 and C got £59,361,000. Next highest got LD and got only £8,069,285.
2. Outstrip minor parties in terms on spending on fighting elections, hiring staff and spending money on advertising.
3. Even limited public funded upholds the 2 party system. Short money makes up the vast amount of public funding and is only available to opposition parties that have either won 2 seats in the HoC and more than 150,000 votes in total from all seats contested.
4. Favours parties who already succeed under FPTP.

Question 5

P2: Disagree Party Funding Reflects Public Support

Answer 5

1. L and C have the most funding, but they by far have the most support across the UK.
2. Labour received £58,628,000 in 2023, had the largest membership of any party with estimated 370,000 members. Lots of contributions from trade unions like GMB and UNITE that represent lots of voters.
3. If state funding was introduced and determined based on how well a party did, it will do little to tackle the 2 party system.
4. Reform UK did have significant success in party funding since the 2024 election. In Dec 24, hired billionaire Nick Candy as their treasurer and donated £1M. Dominance of the 2 party system is eroding.

Question 6

P3: Essential to upholding effective democracy, they should have stable and effective state funding.

Answer 6

1. This could be overseen by the Electoral Commission, matching small donations from members of the public. Funding is democratic and isn’t manipulated.
2. State funding would also allow parties and politicians to focus more on representing the public effectively instead on raising money. Politicians often host fundraising dinners to raise money, can be seen as a distraction.
3. State funding would also stop the government from stopping the opposition’s funding. Trade Union Act 2016. Obliging new trade union members to choose whether they wanted to opt into making payments towards political influence, rather than being automatically opted in

Question 7

P3: Disagree no state funding

Answer 7

1. Ensures the parties are independent from the state, limited state funding ensures that.
2. If a fully, state funded system was introduced, it could isolate parties from the wishes of the public, could be harming democracy.
3. It would also cost the state a lot of money per year, taxpayers wouldn’t want to fund parties they don’t support. They don’t trust politicians in power, in the case following Partygate.