AO1: The funding of political parties is never clear, it is not known who backs any party in detail before elections. AO2: It is only after an election that parties reveal in full their sources of funding and where it has originated. If we are to be a transparent representative democracy then when we cast our vote, we should know who has financed the party we vote for and if the policies it promotes favour the backers of the party as opposed to the wider public good. AO3: We can conclude that reform is required and this can only be solved with state funding. AO1: The current funding system is unfair as it favours wealthy individuals who can donate large sums to a party and expect some form of return. AO2: It is often the wealthy and powerful who make their voice heard in society and policies emerge from the established parties to please this sector. The less affluent in society are ignored with less input into policy options. There is a clear correlation between giving a party funds and receiving personal benefits. AO3: We can easily reach a verdict that this is little more than basic bribery to get titles or policy options. AO1: The current funding suits the largest two parties, the Conservative and Labour parties, who benefit from the status quo. AO2: The two main parties benefit most from the current system of funding and as such have a vested interest not to dismantle this system. To run a national campaign costs millions of pounds, small and emerging parties cannot amass this wealth. AO3: We can conclude that this limits political choice and fair political competition. AO1: Parties other than Labour or Conservative struggle to compete fairly on even terms and they face a huge disadvantage. The answer to this is state funding for all who contest elections. AO2: Emerging and minor parties cannot compete on equal terms with the Labour and Conservative parties. The organisation these two established parties have cannot be replicated and it limits other parties and creates a huge imbalance. AO3: If the battle to win the electorates vote is unfair, we could assert that the outcome of the election is equally unfair.

AO1: The changes and reforms introduced by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 (updated in 2009) provide enough safeguards to make the issue of party funding secure and any further reform unnecessary. AO2: The 2000/2009 Act introduced a range of safeguards to monitor spending in elections, capping amounts allowed and ensuring transparency to those who provide funds Little other reform is required, and the Act removed all potential dangers that existed. AO3: We can conclude that the Act functions well and has introduced a good level of transparency. AO1: If state funding was introduced, it would cost the taxpayer – and mean that other government provision or public services would be cut. AO2: Democracy, elections, and political parties in the UK have functioned well without the need for state funding. Who would decide what provision to be cut to allow this to take place? AO3: We can reach a verdict that it will raise taxes or that other government services will be cut to make way for a system which the public have not significantly called for. AO1: State funding would require a vast and complex framework to monitor and administer in addition to the financial cost. AO2: State funding requires for others to make judgments of what level of funding parties will receive, who decides the amount and how do we manage smaller parties? AO3: We can conclude that state funding is every bit as problematic as the current system. AO1: Parties funded by membership and private donations benefit from the fairness of a free market in ideas and policy, it develops new ideas and keeps political parties competitive. AO2: The current system of funding encourages dynamism from parties, state funding may lead to complacency. State funding would limit the link of political parties with wider society. Rather than bringing the political parties closer to the public it would actually distance them more from it. AO3: we can conclude that the current system promotes positive relationships between parties and the public.