Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Party funding
- Traditional sources
- Membership subscriptions
- Until 1990's
- Trade unions and
affiliated organisations for
Labour
- Wealthy business
interests for Tories
- Changing basis
of party funding
- Less members -
adverse impact on party
finances
- Reduction in TU
influence under
Kinnock, Blair and
Smith resulted in
falling revenues
- As a result, donations
from wealthy individuals
- Ecclestone
and Lord
Sainsbury
for Labour
- Sir Paul Getty
and Wheeler for
the
Conservatives
- Speculation that
money can 'buy
influence'
- 1997 Ecclestone's
£1mil donation to
Labour delayed
introduction of the ban
on tobacco advertising
in Formula 1
- Political Parties, Elections and
Referendum (PPER) Act
- 2000
- Limits party
spending in
general election
campaigns (£30,
000 per
constituency)
- Parties publicly
declare donations
over £5, 000
- Change perception of political
parties being 'for sale'
- Despite this, political
party donations
totalled £39.9 mil in
2012
- Loans for
peerages scandal
- Labour encouraged
supporters to offer
the party long-term,
low-interest loans
instead of donations
- The Philips Report
- Two reports followed these events
- 2006 Party Funding
produced by the
Constitutional Affairs
Select Committee
- Philips Report
- Both conclude that greater state
funding for parties was a way
forward
- Suggested the
'pence-per-member'
funding formula
- Should parties
be state funded?
- For
- If not funded by
taxpayers, they'll be
funded by interest
groups
- Allows politicians to
focus on
representing their
constituencies
- Smaller
parties
could
compete
on an
equal
financial
footing
- Against
- Politicians
could
become
isolated - it
is beneficial
that interest
groups are
at the heart
of
government
- Not air to pay for
parties one
doesn't support
- Parties will have
unequal resources
if finances are
changed in this way