State Funding: Essay Flashcards
evaluate the extent to which state funding of political parties would increase the health of democracy
how are political parties currently funded? what is the debate surrounding state funding?
political parties in the UK are currently funded mainly by donations and membership subscriptions, although they do receive some state funding
there are many arguments as to why state funding of political parties would either increase or decrease the health of democracy in the UK
for example, those in favour of state funding may argue that political parties deserve it since they play such a significant role in our democracy
on the other hand, those against state funding may argue that it will only make parties more overly independent, so much so that they won’t feel the need to appeal to voters anymore
in what ways is the UK behind other countries in terms of state funding?
the UK is one of the only ‘old’ EU states that doesn’t provide significant state funding for political parties, they provide less than 25%
where is there current state funding of political parties in the UK?
parties do receive some state funding such as PDGs (Policy Development Grants) from the Electoral Commission of up to £2 million
‘Short money’ which is funding for opposition parties in the Commons and ‘Cranbourne Money’ which is funding for opposition parties in the House of Lords
arguments for state funding: PARTIES ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
parties form an “essential part of the democratic system” and the vital roles they play in our democracy require money and funding
parties develop key policies, recruit future representatives and leaders, provide wide representation for all sections of society and ensure everyone’s views are heard
they also provide a stable government because if parties didn’t exist then the House of Commons would essentially be a gathering of individuals driven by their own personal goals and ambitions, with the needs and views of the people being ignored and unrepresented
these roles form the basis of what democracy is and reinforce the principle of government by the people
as a result, it’s argued that because of these vital roles, they deserve state funding to achieve these aims and therefore increase the health of our democracy
arguments against state funding: PARTIES WOULD BECOME INSULATED AND DETACHED FROM THE PUBLIC
if parties depend so heavily on state funding they would become even more insulated from any need to engage with their grassroots
to put it more simply, this means that they may ignore voters and won’t need to tailor their policies to appeal to those voters as they won’t be relying on membership subscriptions for funding
for example, a huge amount of Labour support is from trade unions and in 2016 Labour received around 45% of its funding from those unions alone, but state funding would reduce the power and influence of groups like that and put parties above social interests
unfortunately, it may lead to parties becoming overly independent and this independence poses a risk of parties becoming out of touch with issues that need addressing due to the fact that they don’t need to maintain a relationship with voters or even listen to what trade unions or pressure groups have to say
on the whole, it can isolate the public which will weaken the pillars of society and decrease the health of democracy
arguments for state funding: PARTIES WOULD BE FREE FROM OUTSIDE INFLUENCE
state funding means that parties are theoretically free from outside influence and will be able to focus on long term planning without being dependent on other contributions
in other words, they will focus solely on their constituents and not on keeping potential donors on their side or being heavily influenced by those donors
in the 1970s, Swedish parties entered into an agreement to stop accepting private donations and Canada also introduced state funding and banned company donations
this is because large parties have been accused of offering political honours such as positions in the House of Lords, knighthoods and peerages to their most generous benefactors – this is often known as ‘cash for honours’
private donations and funding from major donors such as businesses and wealthy individuals will mean the wealthiest can purchase influence over the government and encourage them to change their policies to their advantage, this may mean parties are not representing the interests of the people but actually the interests of the rich
arguments for state funding: PARTIES WOULD BE FREE FROM OUTSIDE INFLUENCE
(the Bernie Ecclestone case)
take the case of Bernie Ecclestone (the man in charge of Formula 1) who donated £1 million to the Labour party and months later, Tony Blair changed the government policy and delayed the introduction of the ban on tobacco and cigarette advertising at Formula 1
state funding would ensure that this type of outside influence could not occur, or at least be significantly reduced
it would reduce the corrupt influence of wealthy individuals on party policy and the idea that power can be purchased, therefore increasing the health of democracy as policy would be in the interests of the general public
arguments against state funding: DECREASES INDEPENDENCE OF PARTIES AND LEADS TO INCREASED REGULATION
where public money goes, demands for regulation invariably follow and parties may be seen as public property that will be controlled if they’re funded by the state
this could lead to excessive party regulation and a lack of independence
taxpayers should not have to fund parties that they oppose or disagree with, for example, if extreme left or right-wing parties get state funding then this will be very criticised
this would decrease the health of democracy because democracy should be free and fair, parties shouldn’t be public property as there should be freedom of speech and a range of choice for everyone
arguments for state funding: WOULD REDUCE THE FUNDING IMBALANCES BETWEEN PARTIES AND HELP SMALLER PARTIES MAKE PROGRESS
state funding means that small parties such as the Green Party will still receive a lot of money
for example, in Canada, the Green Party received $1.9 million, reflecting their increasing level of popular support rather than how many seats they win in elections
this is particularly valuable for the UK, in which the FPTP system means that the number of seats a party wins is not equal to the number of votes they get
it would, therefore, reduce the stark difference in financial resources available to different sized parties and encourage equal financial footing
allowing more parties, especially smaller ones, to have the funds needed to effectively gain more political influence, have the chance to make political progress and have their views heard would increase the health of democracy because those views will be effectively represented in parliament
arguments against state funding: SMALL PARTIES WILL STILL REMAIN AT A FINANCIAL DISADVANTAGE
state funding actually means that small parties do not get as much funding as larger parties and will remain at a financial disadvantage while large ones will still have the huge advantage they’ve always had
for example, in Germany, funds are distributed based on membership subscriptions and if state funding will be based on membership and previous electoral performance in the UK, then parties will still have unequal resources
small parties won’t be able to make progress and large parties will remain dominant, meaning that state funding would decrease the health of democracy because it promotes political inequality
