Party Funding

Question 1

For party funding
Should be state funded

Answer 1

Gives smaller parties a chance to win-> higher budget-> better quality campaigns-> compete efficiently
2015 snp got 1.1 in state funding and were able to increase their budget so won 56/59 seats in Scotland

Question 2

Against state funding
UNN

Answer 2

Promotes unfairness-> larger parties get more funding based on previous wins-> unhealthy democracy due to lack of representation as smaller parties cannot compete efficiently
2015 cons got 4.3 million in state funding and won that election with 331 seats

Question 3

Should be state funded’
Scandals

Answer 3

State funding is the best way to fund parties as public funding can increase the likelyhood of scandals as people will demand a policy beneficial to them but harmful to the public
1997 eccelstone scandal when he bribed labour to allow tobacco advertisement on sports even though it was highlighted in the manifesto that they would ban it

Question 4

Should not be state funded but public funded

Answer 4

Allows people to show support and even ask for good policies that are accepted by the public-> good for democracy as it could increase voter engagement
2019 cons got 18,5 million from individual donations

Question 5

Should be state funded
Democracy

Answer 5

Parties play a big role in representative democracy so should be state funded
Parties provide voters with choices
At least 50% of voting population align to one party-> due to state funding which allows each party to compete effectively

Question 6

Should not be funded at all
Independence

Answer 6

Funding reduces independence of parties and they soon start to rely on funding rather than coming up with the money themselves
2024 labour made 40million from funding and won the election with 411 seats, they couldn’t have won that election if not for funding