What are the functions of a political party?
Formulate policy. (Nowadays this role is often delegated to think tanks)
Contest elections
Educate the public and encourage political participation
Serve as a form of opposition and hold the government to account
Represent various groups in society
Failures in representation from the mainstream parties have led to the emergence of populist parties, like UKIP, who
focus on people’s fears and dissatisfactions. Their appeal is emotional and visceral, rather than intellectual.
We are also seeing the rise of ‘issue parties’ that represent a particular cause e.g the Green Party.
Party funding
Parties are funded by membership subscriptions (heavily declining in all major parties bar the SNP), individual
donations from supporters and fundraising events.
Funding of parties was regulated by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Stipulations included:
People not on the UK electoral roll could no longer make donations (to reduce foreign influence)
Limits were placed on how much could be spent on parliamentary elections
Donations over £500 had to be declared
The Conservatives, more so than anyone, attract large donations from wealthy individuals and businesses. Labour
has the biggest membership of any political party and also receive contributions from trade unions which make up
most of their income - 93% in 2019.
Should UK parties receive state funding? Yes:
Funding by large donors represent a hidden and unaccountable form of political influence. Donors may well expect
some kind of political return for their investment such as advantageous legislation. State funding would make politics
more transparent.
- Housing secretary Robert Jenrick sat next to Richard Desmond at a fundraising dinner. Jenrick then
proceeded to overrule the local authority and the government to allow the billionaire’s new property
venture to go ahead, a day before new infrastructure charges came into force. This saved Desmond a
potential £50 million tax bill and afterwards he donated money to the Tories. They were accused of “cash for
favours.” Similarly, Bernie Ecclestone donating to Labour and meeting with Blair.
- Donating to parties gives you access and influence. A £100,000 donation to the Conservatives gets you a
dinner with the Prime Minister. ‘The Leader’s group’, those who donate more than £50,000 annually receive
regular dinners and receptions with him and senior Tory ministers.
Would remove ‘Cash for honours’.
- Peter Cruddas donated over £3 million to the Conservatives and was awarded a peerage, donating £500,000
the same week. As a Lord, they also receive political influence.
It would reduce the huge financial advantage that large parties enjoy and give smaller parties and opportunity to
make progress, levelling the playing field. Private donations entrench the two-party system.
- Since 2001, Labour has accepted £294 million in donations, and the Tories £412 million. All 83 other
donation-receiving parties accepted just £167 million combined (Electoral Commission). It is no wonder
Labour and the Conservatives have been in power since 1935; others simply cannot compete with their
campaign budgets, and this leads to political stagnation. These two stifle any new parties from gaining
influence, restricting plurality and contributing to growing political apathy.
- Even between the two major parties lies extreme inequality. During the 2019 election campaign the
Conservatives accepted donations of £19.4 million: 394% more than Labour, who received £5.4 million.
No, the practicalities outweigh the democratic benefits:
, The taxpayer is unlikely to want to fund political parties, particularly those they ideologically oppose.
- There is already some state-funding: All the main parties receive funds from the electoral commission in
policy development grants. These are to hire advisors on policy and total just less than £2 million. In
addition, opposition parties in the House of Commons receive ‘Short money’ to facilitate their parliamentary
work, and opposition peers receive ‘Cranborne money’. This is distributed based on the number of seats you
have won, heavily favouring larger parties.
There is no clear or fair way to distribute funding.
- Allocating on past performances entrenches the same inequalities that private donations do, whilst
allocating funds relatively easily could lead to radical, populist parties gaining influence.
- There is also the issue of defining a political party. There are currently 349 registered in Great Britain, but the
state cannot afford to fund all of them. However, if new and smaller parties are excluded from state-funding
then they are even less likely to succeed than in the current arrangement.
Parties would lose independence due to new reliance on the state. It may lead to excessive state regulation of
parties.
Skim over: One-nation conservatism
A paternalistic approach adopted by Disraeli, Cameron and May. It wishes to preserve established institutions and
national unity, and believes that change should be organic rather than engineered. Principles include:
Maintaining order, authoritarian polices on law and order.
Support for tradition; opposition to reforms threatening traditional institutions (Monarchy, House of Lords
etc).
Fear of diversity, opposition to multiculturalism, immigration and ‘unconventional lifestyles’.
Society is a living organism that should develop naturally, without artificial intervention. Policies aim to
create a strong, united society and avoid social conflict.
Pragmatic rather than ideological responses to issues. Issues and policy should be judged on their own
individual merits.
Noblesse oblige - the idea that those of a higher social standing have a moral duty to help those of a lower
social standing. The wealthy should support the less privileged, but largely through the voluntary sector
rather than taxes which should be kept low.
Strong national interest in foreign policy.
Skim over: New Right conservatism (Thatcherism)
Neoliberal principles:
Low taxes, because high taxation is a disincentive to work and be productive.
Very limited welfare state as benefits create a dependency culture.
Mass privatisation of industry.
Anti-unionism as they are a barrier to economic development.
State disengagement from the economy ‘Laissez-faire’ to create free markets and competition.
Neoconservative principles:
Authoritarian state to maintain strong law and order. The stability of society is the most important thing.
Distrust of multi-national organisations like the EU or UN. National interest should always take priority.
Nationalism, believing that national pride and unification are the best ways to maintain a stable society. Seek
cultural homogeneity.
Maintaining strict traditional values and social order.
To what extent does the current conservative government reflect One-nation conservatism and
Thatcherism?
Economy
Formulate policy. (Nowadays this role is often delegated to think tanks)
Contest elections
Educate the public and encourage political participation
Serve as a form of opposition and hold the government to account
Represent various groups in society
Failures in representation from the mainstream parties have led to the emergence of populist parties, like UKIP, who
focus on people’s fears and dissatisfactions. Their appeal is emotional and visceral, rather than intellectual.
We are also seeing the rise of ‘issue parties’ that represent a particular cause e.g the Green Party.
Party funding
Parties are funded by membership subscriptions (heavily declining in all major parties bar the SNP), individual
donations from supporters and fundraising events.
Funding of parties was regulated by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Stipulations included:
People not on the UK electoral roll could no longer make donations (to reduce foreign influence)
Limits were placed on how much could be spent on parliamentary elections
Donations over £500 had to be declared
The Conservatives, more so than anyone, attract large donations from wealthy individuals and businesses. Labour
has the biggest membership of any political party and also receive contributions from trade unions which make up
most of their income - 93% in 2019.
Should UK parties receive state funding? Yes:
Funding by large donors represent a hidden and unaccountable form of political influence. Donors may well expect
some kind of political return for their investment such as advantageous legislation. State funding would make politics
more transparent.
- Housing secretary Robert Jenrick sat next to Richard Desmond at a fundraising dinner. Jenrick then
proceeded to overrule the local authority and the government to allow the billionaire’s new property
venture to go ahead, a day before new infrastructure charges came into force. This saved Desmond a
potential £50 million tax bill and afterwards he donated money to the Tories. They were accused of “cash for
favours.” Similarly, Bernie Ecclestone donating to Labour and meeting with Blair.
- Donating to parties gives you access and influence. A £100,000 donation to the Conservatives gets you a
dinner with the Prime Minister. ‘The Leader’s group’, those who donate more than £50,000 annually receive
regular dinners and receptions with him and senior Tory ministers.
Would remove ‘Cash for honours’.
- Peter Cruddas donated over £3 million to the Conservatives and was awarded a peerage, donating £500,000
the same week. As a Lord, they also receive political influence.
It would reduce the huge financial advantage that large parties enjoy and give smaller parties and opportunity to
make progress, levelling the playing field. Private donations entrench the two-party system.
- Since 2001, Labour has accepted £294 million in donations, and the Tories £412 million. All 83 other
donation-receiving parties accepted just £167 million combined (Electoral Commission). It is no wonder
Labour and the Conservatives have been in power since 1935; others simply cannot compete with their
campaign budgets, and this leads to political stagnation. These two stifle any new parties from gaining
influence, restricting plurality and contributing to growing political apathy.
- Even between the two major parties lies extreme inequality. During the 2019 election campaign the
Conservatives accepted donations of £19.4 million: 394% more than Labour, who received £5.4 million.
No, the practicalities outweigh the democratic benefits:
, The taxpayer is unlikely to want to fund political parties, particularly those they ideologically oppose.
- There is already some state-funding: All the main parties receive funds from the electoral commission in
policy development grants. These are to hire advisors on policy and total just less than £2 million. In
addition, opposition parties in the House of Commons receive ‘Short money’ to facilitate their parliamentary
work, and opposition peers receive ‘Cranborne money’. This is distributed based on the number of seats you
have won, heavily favouring larger parties.
There is no clear or fair way to distribute funding.
- Allocating on past performances entrenches the same inequalities that private donations do, whilst
allocating funds relatively easily could lead to radical, populist parties gaining influence.
- There is also the issue of defining a political party. There are currently 349 registered in Great Britain, but the
state cannot afford to fund all of them. However, if new and smaller parties are excluded from state-funding
then they are even less likely to succeed than in the current arrangement.
Parties would lose independence due to new reliance on the state. It may lead to excessive state regulation of
parties.
Skim over: One-nation conservatism
A paternalistic approach adopted by Disraeli, Cameron and May. It wishes to preserve established institutions and
national unity, and believes that change should be organic rather than engineered. Principles include:
Maintaining order, authoritarian polices on law and order.
Support for tradition; opposition to reforms threatening traditional institutions (Monarchy, House of Lords
etc).
Fear of diversity, opposition to multiculturalism, immigration and ‘unconventional lifestyles’.
Society is a living organism that should develop naturally, without artificial intervention. Policies aim to
create a strong, united society and avoid social conflict.
Pragmatic rather than ideological responses to issues. Issues and policy should be judged on their own
individual merits.
Noblesse oblige - the idea that those of a higher social standing have a moral duty to help those of a lower
social standing. The wealthy should support the less privileged, but largely through the voluntary sector
rather than taxes which should be kept low.
Strong national interest in foreign policy.
Skim over: New Right conservatism (Thatcherism)
Neoliberal principles:
Low taxes, because high taxation is a disincentive to work and be productive.
Very limited welfare state as benefits create a dependency culture.
Mass privatisation of industry.
Anti-unionism as they are a barrier to economic development.
State disengagement from the economy ‘Laissez-faire’ to create free markets and competition.
Neoconservative principles:
Authoritarian state to maintain strong law and order. The stability of society is the most important thing.
Distrust of multi-national organisations like the EU or UN. National interest should always take priority.
Nationalism, believing that national pride and unification are the best ways to maintain a stable society. Seek
cultural homogeneity.
Maintaining strict traditional values and social order.
To what extent does the current conservative government reflect One-nation conservatism and
Thatcherism?
Economy
