Political Parties Flashcards
Using Source 2, evaluate the view that state funding of political parties would be preferable to a situation in which a party can win a general election because it has more members and income than other parties.
Intro:
1: It would reduce influence of wealthy donors so reduce corruption. Also may curb the undemocratic activity of private backers (“cash for honours”).
Example: Tory donor Lubov Chemukhin, whose husband was associated with Vladimir Putin, paid £1.7 million to Conservative party and enjoyed personal meetings with the last three Conservative prime minister.
Example: Ecclestone Affair 1997 = £1 million donation appeared to influence the Labour government policy on banning tobacco advertising as once it had won office Labour initially exempted Formula 1 from this ban – difficult to claim there was no political advantage.
However: no guarantee it would end corruption as wealthy individuals would seek other ways to influence e.g., Lobbying
2: Improve performance of parties, concentrate on roles rather than wasting time and energy on fund raising, , less dependent on vested interest and allows them to be more responsive to views of party members and voters, more democratically responsive.
However: there would be no incentive for parties funded by taxpayer to seek new members so you could say it would be less representative as fewer members means less input of members, reduce the independence of parties.
Reduce parties’ independence, becoming a state machine, as well as it calls for greater state regulation.
Example: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000 imposed overall limits on party spending, make parties less reliant on wealthy individual backers.
3: State funding would make ‘general elections a contest between equals ‘according to the source. It would make funding of political parties more proportional therefore fairer. Level playing field by getting rid of unfair advantages.
However: Just because a party receives more funding doesn’t mean it will win.
Example: Labour in 2017 had most funding didn’t win therefore making funding fairer doesn’t mean parties have a higher chance of winning.
Conclusion: would be preferable because: reduced corruption, reduced power of members and generally more equal funding.
But, there are still limitations that need to be solved: other ways of corruption e.g., lobbying, lack of incentive for parties to seek new members.
“The influence of the media is the most important factor that determines the success of political parties.” Evaluate.
Intro: While the influence of the media can have a sizeable impact on election results, the extent to which can drastically change the outcome is limited.
1: the media is effective as it can be a major tool in crafting an image of politicians and campaigns.
Example: Labour employed aggressive advertising in the 2017 general election online aimed at youth voters, which saw greater success for Labour in this demographic.
Example: The success of Nick Clegg in the debates, running up to the 2010 elections are seen by many as giving the Lib Dems the support to deny the Conservatives a majority.
However: Shouldn’t be overstated.
Example: Nick Clegg’s performance may have been impressive but the Lib Dems actually lost 5 seats in the 2015 election.
Example: In the 2017 election, 4 out the 6 most popular daily newspaper publications supported the tories but they still failed to maintain their majority.
2: Heavily divided parties do not tend to perform well in elections.
Example: The loss by the Conservatives in the 1997 election can mainly be attributed to the divided nature of the Conservative party, especially on Europe.
Example: By contrast, Tony Blair had united Labour under the banner of New-Labour, which proved to be an election winning-machine.
However: parties have been able to gain electoral success despite disunity.
Example: Jeremy Corbyn was widely unpopular with his party prior to the 2017 elections, he lost a motion of no confidence 172-40. This reflected divisons in Labour between the centre and the centre-left. Despite this he managed to gain the largest increase in vote share since 1945.
3: Voter’s overwhelming flock to parties who show strong leadership, with a clear sense of direction.
Example: Labour were punished in the 1979 election, where James Callaghan’s government were seen as week and at the mercy of the over-mighty trade unions. While Margaret Thatcher was not personally popular, she managed to capitalise on her strong image of fighting against trade union power.
Example: Nigel Farages’ personality is often seen as a major reason he was able to bring his only 6 week-old party to electoral success in the 2019 EU elections,, winning over 1/3rd of the UK’s 79 seats.
Example: The great recession in 2008-2009, which happened under the Brown ministry gave voter’s the impression of financial mismanagement, leading to the end the 13-year Labour rule.
Conclusion: the influence of a party’s leadership holds the greatest influence in comparison to the media and the unity of a party, especially as unity is heavily reliant on the leader as well.
