topic 2- political parties Flashcards
(37 cards)
what are functions of a political party?
parties function to represent their members and support and promote their interests. they have a role to represent the views and beliefs of large sections of society and to act in their interests, they engage and asist participation in society including elections
how do political parties differ to pressure groups?
they field candidates across all elections. their aim is to achieve power and govern affairs of the state.
how are some political groups funded?
-big business donors,
-pressure groups
membership fees
what is a rule on political donations parties accept?
Parties, elections and referendum act 2000 sets out donations above £500 as a good or service given to a part without charge
from 2024 only donations above £11,180 have to be reported,rising from 7,500 in 2023
who can political parties accept donations from?
Individuals registered on UK electoral register
UK registered unincorporated associations
UK registered companies
carry on businesses in UK
who are two of the biggest Conservative party donors?
traditionally, cons are funded by private business donors
ex: Frank Hester and his TPP company was the biggest ever donors for the conservatives election campaign , giving 15m.
there were demands to pay this money back after Hester racially discriminated and made abhorred remarks about Abbott saying looking at her made you want to ‘hate all black women
ex: Mohamad Mansour gave 5m to cons . since 2015 he has payed 750k, or 250k yearly to the tory party.
who are two of the biggest Labour donors?
they generate substantial income from trade unions bringing 7m from them between 2023-24.
ex: unit, GMB, unison contribute 1m yearly.
under blair and new labour received large centrist and left-centre.
ex: David Sainsbury has given 5m under STarmer. donated to Blair, and £8M to the lib-dems.
ex: Fran Perrin gave 2m under starmer and 1m in 2025
ex: Dale Vince gave 1.6m in 2025.
these donations have received backlash with vince bankrolling JUSTSTOPOIL and coming under attack from the tories as an ECO ZEALOT.
ex: FREEBIEGATE: Waheed Ali is also a regular labour donor peer and was rewarded with a security pass to downing street causing controversy as it was not a normal non-mp pass. many called it ‘passes for glasses’ event as he had also given starmer 3K in glasses funds, and personal gifts that would not benefit the party in any way. as this was blatant lobbying which was hidden, its reduced the public trust in labour and kier starmers leadership and legitimacy.
what was freebiegate?
ex: FREEBIEGATE: Waheed Ali is also a regular labour donor peer and was rewarded with a security pass to downing street causing controversy as it was not a normal non-mp pass. many called it ‘passes for glasses’ event as he had also given starmer 3K in glasses funds, and personal gifts that would not benefit the party in any way. as this was blatant lobbying which was hidden, its reduced the public trust in labour and kier starmers leadership and legitimacy.
Should parties be funded y the state?
(all views yes )
yes- play an important role in democracy so they deserve funding. this could also enhance democracy and trust in parties, as money is ethically sourced, and not from any big organisations or individuals who ma be able to sway parties or governments into adopting policies which favour them. 75% of the public have a distrust in donors and believe they have too much influence on political parties. this can be seen in waheed ali’s influence on starmer.
yes- era of mass party membership has ended since people no longer strongly identify with any political parties(political dealingment) so parties cannot use membership fees to fund campaigns and therefore rely on donors which cpuld cause undemocratic outcomes. public funding would allow parties to plan activites and secrue job secuirty to staff.
yes- labour could become less dependent on trae unions so trade unions no longer have to support labour policies they do not agree with. for example keir starmers gov is more centrist rather than trade unions traditionally left wing values.
yes- state funding limtis the amount a party can spend in an election making the distribution of resources and information fairer, allowing for more equality. this could be a breakthrough for smaller parties which find it harder to keep up with the two dominant parties historically. however, due to labour and conservatives wide spread audience this can still prove to be difficult
should parties be state funded?
yes- donors
yes- play an important role in democracy so they deserve funding. this could also enhance democracy and trust in parties, as money is ethically sourced, and not from any big organisations or individuals who ma be able to sway parties or governments into adopting policies which favour them. 75% of the public have a distrust in donors and believe they have too much influence on political parties. this can be seen in waheed ali’s influence on starmer.
should parties be state funded?
yes- mass mebership
yes- era of mass party membership has ended since people no longer strongly identify with any political parties(political dealingment) so parties cannot use membership fees to fund campaigns and therefore rely on donors which cpuld cause undemocratic outcomes. public funding would allow parties to plan activites and secrue job secuirty to staff.
should parties be state funded?
yes- trade unions (lab)
yes- labour could become less dependent on trade unions so trade unions no longer have to support labour policies they do not agree with. for example keir starmers gov is more centrist rather than trade unions traditionally left wing values. under corbyn 90% of funding was form TU while under starmer 60% is. however they have restircted funding like UNITE as they no longer support the new labour ideology
many oppose TU as it presents the sectional interest within society and that labour will therefore be strongly influenced by TU.
should parties be state funded ?
yes- limits
yes- state funding limtis the amount a party can spend in an election making the distribution of resources and information fairer, allowing for more equality. this could be a breakthrough for smaller parties which find it harder to keep up with the two dominant parties historically. however, due to labour and conservatives wide spread audience this can still prove to be difficult
ex: green party has 3 seats 2024 and reform 5 so they clearly have influence on the political spectrum, but due to their small membership, and limited public knowledge, the political sphere has been continuously dominated by laboru and cons
should parties be given state funding?
no- all reasons
no- the argument that smaller parties may be able to have a breakthrough is out of touch and innorect. there is also no proof to suggest this is a fact of state funding were to be allocated. due to the existing vote share belonging to the two dominant parties, and the majority of the seats in parliament, it is unlikely that a singular future campaign, if it were state funded, would allow for smaller parties like reform and green to have a major breakthrough.this is further evident in the electoral system FPTP. the lack of concentrated votes for smaller parties, means this disparity will take a long time to tackle, and by allocating all the same equal funds to each party, this will not be fixed.
no- it is unpopular and upsetting for the people if their funds go to extremist parties which on the whole they may oppose, and not support. there could be a scheme to allow for your money to go to one party, but even then unequal tax cuts would make this system unfair, and confusing for a simplistic society which prefers an easier route. additional tax charges amongst income tax and land tax etc is also unfavourable amongst the people and may cause even more political dealignment and deepen the participation crisis. therefore, no party would want to implement such a policy wherein it could cause any negative press to arise.
no- just because there will be state funding it does not guarantee that wealthy donors will be inaccessible in a corrupt system. they will still be able to donate and somehow find leeway.
no- state funding for parties may stay inconsistent with inflation and the changes with political parties in government. there will be increased calls for regulation of what money is spent and parties will become more dependant on the state, which may cost the taxpayer more. furthermore, the government will be able to constantly change the amount of funds allocated each time and this will drive deeper discontent and it will be time-consuming.
no- there is no guarantee state spending can enhance democracy, as each party allocates its funds for campaigns differently. some may spend it on exposing new secrets and stories, some may spend it on advertising and these activities will cause unrest and distrust amongst the electoral base.
should parties be allocated state funding?
no- smaller parties breakthrough
no- the argument that smaller parties may be able to have a breakthrough is out of touch and innorect. there is also no proof to suggest this is a fact of state funding were to be allocated. due to the existing vote share belonging to the two dominant parties, and the majority of the seats in parliament, it is unlikely that a singular future campaign, if it were state funded, would allow for smaller parties like reform and green to have a major breakthrough.this is further evident in the electoral system FPTP. the lack of concentrated votes for smaller parties, means this disparity will take a long time to tackle, and by allocating all the same equal funds to each party, this will not be fixed.
should parties be allocated state funding?
no- extremist party discontent
no- it is unpopular and upsetting for the people if their funds go to extremist parties which on the whole they may oppose, and not support. there could be a scheme to allow for your money to go to one party, but even then unequal tax cuts would make this system unfair, and confusing for a simplistic society which prefers an easier route. additional tax charges amongst income tax and land tax etc is also unfavourable amongst the people and may cause even more political dealignment and deepen the participation crisis. therefore, no party would want to implement such a policy wherein it could cause any negative press to arise.
should parties be allocated state funding?
no- donors no guarantee
o- just because there will be state funding it does not guarantee that wealthy donors will be inaccessible in a corrupt system. they will still be able to donate and somehow find leeway.
should parties be allocated state funding?
no- regulation and changes
no- state funding for parties may stay inconsistent with inflation and the changes with political parties in government. there will be increased calls for regulation of what money is spent and parties will become more dependant on the state, which may cost the taxpayer more. furthermore, the government will be able to constantly change the amount of funds allocated each time and this will drive deeper discontent and it will be time-consuming.
should parties be allocated state funding?
no- democracy enhancement
no- there is no guarantee state spending can enhance democracy, as each party allocates its funds for campaigns differently. some may spend it on exposing new secrets and stories, some may spend it on advertising and these activities will cause unrest and distrust amongst the electoral base.
membership fees issues
membership for labour and conservatives has fallen to 130,000 and is unreliable.
it can also cause parties to move towards the extremist views and policies if they rely on this as the sole source or the most influential source of funding in politics.
peter cruddas donor for conservatives
one issue with donors is that they may be acting in their own interests. for example, cruddas received a seat in HOL after donating 3m to johnsons conservative party.
what is an issue with fundraising events for poltiical parties?
CONSERVATIVE SCANDAL
cash for access scandal has suggested that donors bid large amounts in these fundraising auctions for meetings with ministers which gives access directly to those in political power. between 2010-19 130m donations have been given to the party in these fundraisers. this is undemocratic and unfair, as this could shape party policies.
there have been many ways people try to shape policies : (that guy who was paid 60k for this company i forgot the name)
what is one possible way to restrict party funding?
-placing caps
for- setting a cap of ex500 or lower means parties with rich supporters no longer have a large advantage and this could widen the basis of support in society, for that party to become successful, meaning they would have tow ork hard to have a basis of support. this will also engage and reduce political apathy and disengagement, by encouraging more ‘ordinary’ people to take part where the playing field is leveled
against- this would mainly affect cons and would be seen as a party attack.
what is one possible way to restrict party funding?
- restrictions per campaign election
for- there are local limits per constituency on spending to prevent richer parties gaining an advantage. most parties rely on local volunteers to help campaign. if national campaigning were limited too this would make it even fairer
against- hard to enforec and there are ways around this. parties could campaign before elections given they had the funds.
