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.

Counter-point 1 - disagreement current system is excellent model for democracy - - source shows: 2018 Labour party model has high income which corresponds to high membership -party funds correspond to popularity = legitimate democracy -encouraging people to join party by charging lower membership fees, democracy can be revived without state funding -e.g. Labour membership standard rate 2021 = £4.21 per month = 512,000 members + Conservatives lowered membership fees to £2.09pm in 2021 membership risen from 124,000 in 2018 to 200,000. -raising funds via low membership fees creates political momentum = a preferable system to state funding as state funding citizens paying for a range of parties whereas member fees allow to support party they desire in government = increasing democracy Counter-point 2 - disagreement state funding not needed as possible to be elected without high funding - -look at income + membership data, state funding not necessary to boost minority parties onto even playing field. -political parties with limited funding have made major difference to election outcomes -e.g. 2019 SNP won 48 seats with donations reaching £25,000. - success in elections not about money but often other factors such as gaging mood of electorate + having a loyal voting block like SNP. therefore state funding not requi