Evidence

For

All arguments are about influence and access.

• ‘Clean’ finance, regulating donations doesn’t work
  • Example 1: During Covid 19, 28 contacts worth £4.1 billion were awarded to companies with political connections to the Conservative party.
  • Example 2: Fifty-one contacts, worth £4 billion, went through the “VIP lane”, a vehicle through which suppliers were given priority, 24 of which, worth £1.7 billion, were referred by politicians from the Conservative party or offices
  • Example 3: Company in relation to Michelle Mone, Tony peer Baroness, ordered to repay £122 million for breaching a PPE contract during the Covid pandemic
  • Large donations = access + influence
• Donations in hospitality
  • Keir Starmer received approx. £13,000 of sports tickets and hospitality
    • additionally, approx. £16,000 of clothes from Lord Alli from before the election (early 2024, latest February)
• Levelling the playing field
  • 2019, the Conservatives had more donations than all other political parties combined
  • 2024, Labour had more donations than all other political parties
    • Overall donations have increased
• Focus on governing not financing
  • Short money - if one seat and 150,000+ votes or two seats

Against

• Undermines individual freedom
  • Giving money to a political party is a personal freedom
  • People earn money, they are entitled to spend it
  • One of Labour/Liberal Democrat’s biggest spenders is David Sainsbury
  • One of Conservatives biggest spenders is Lord Ashcroft
    • Once he began disagreeing with the party, he stopped donating (after Thatcher left)
• Wrong to ask parties to be funded by those that disagree with them
  • The money comes from tax payers
    • Do tax payers want their money going to parties they disagree with?
  • Compulsory funding of parties
  • Private organisations
• State funding makes party members less important
  • Parties instead become more reliant on state funding
  • Reduced legitimacy
  • Joining and being a member of a party is a form of political participation

%%

Conclusion Lesson Work

Format of Conclusion

1. One side of the argument
2. Other side of the argument
3. Reasoning why one argument is stronger than the other
4. Judgement

Example Conclusion

1. Without state funding of political parties, the political landscape is very unfair, with large donors being able to buy notable amounts of influence and access.
2. However, state funding would compromise on your personal freedoms by either (a) limiting how much a political party may take in donations or by (b) preventing them from taking in any donations at all.
3. However, without state funding the political landscape is much more distorted, with smaller political parties struggling to grow, or able to much more easily win against smaller parties.
4. Therefore, state funding political parties would be much more effective than not …

%%