state funding

• Encourages equality, transparency and participation
• For (transparency) - would end opportunities for the corrupt use of donations
• For (transparency) - would end "hidden" forms of influence
• For (transparency) - parties being able to be "bought" corrupts the intergrity of democracy - interests of wealthy individuals and big business have disproportionate influence
• For (equality) - huge disparity between incomes of two main parties -> £10,000,000
• For (equality) - establishing greater financial equity would encourage parties to focus on voters and supporters rather than doners
• For (equality) - parity of income would ensure no party has unfair advantage when campaigning
• For (political impact) - would require a very small increase in taxation which the UK can afford , a price worth paying to ensure a fairer democracy
• Against (transparency) - Labour's approach by using subscription fees seems an exemplar model
• Against (transparency) - Labour decreasing membership fees to increase members shows how participative democracy can be revived without state funding
• Against (equality) - current system is working preferably -> makes sense that the two main parties would have the biggest income as they have the biggest voters. 2019 Conservatives had £67,000,000 and Labour £57,000,000
• Against (equality) - higher income reflects electoral popularity so state funding would be unpopular with the majority of voters who suport Labour or Conservative
• Against (political impact) - parties with low incomes and membership have had significant impact

  • UKip forced Conservatives to have an in/out referendum yet had 29,000 members in 2019
  • Green party put the environment on the political agenda yet had 49,0000 members in 2019
• Against (political impact) - influence is not all about funds but also the ability to articulate popular concerns
• Against (political impact) - tax payers may not be happy paying more to fund "private" institutions
• Against (political impact) - hard to allocate funds, if it is based on past performance then the bigger parties will be allocated more, defeating the purpose
• Against (political impact) - could prelude excessive state intervention as parties lose independence and are organs of the state