Skip to content
Paper 1 · UK Politics · Political Parties

Political parties

The UK calls itself a two-party system, and by seats it still is. By votes, 2024 told a different story: Labour won 411 seats on 33.7% of the vote - the lowest winning share in modern history - while Reform UK's 14.3% bought five seats. This walk-through covers what parties do and how they are paid for, the two-party system and the pressure on it, the minor parties, and the funding reform debate - then finishes with a worked 30-mark essay. Three short quizzes break the tour up.

Political parties are the machinery of UK representative democracy: they recruit and select candidates, fight elections, form governments and oppositions, and turn millions of individual preferences into a handful of programmes a voter can choose between. The spec (P1.2) asks four things of you: the functions and features of parties and how they are funded; the development of the three established parties; the importance of minor parties, with two studied in depth; and the party system debate - whether the UK is still a two-party system at all. The 2024 election sharpened every one of those debates, which is why this topic is one of the most live on Paper 1.

Part 1

What parties do - functions, features and funding

Scroll - each function lights with what it means and the evidence that tests it.

Spec point P1.2.1.a asks for the functions and features of parties in the UK's representative democracy. The standard list has five functions; each comes with a live debate about how well parties still perform it. Scroll through; the figure beside you holds the five function cards with the one you are reading lit.

Step 1

Five functions, one test

Representation, participation, recruitment, policy formulation and governing. For each one, learn the function, the evidence that parties still do it, and the evidence that they are doing it worse - that pairing is what the 30-marker rewards.

Step 2

Representation

Parties bundle interests and opinions into programmes voters can choose between.

A party offers a package: pick Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK or the Greens and you are choosing a whole direction for the country, not a single policy. The winning party then claims a mandate - the authority to carry out its manifesto. The test: with the two main parties' combined vote share falling to around 57% in 2024, the lowest in modern history, a growing share of voters feel represented by neither.

Step 3

Participation

Parties give citizens a route into politics - membership, campaigning, voting in leadership contests.

Joining a party is one of the spec's standard participation routes, and members now choose leaders: the 2022 Conservative leadership contest saw the membership pick Truss over Sunak by 81,326 votes to 60,399 - choosing the candidate who had lost among MPs. That is real power for ordinary members, and a structural division between MPs and members in one result. The counter: party membership is small relative to the electorate, so the participation parties offer is deep for a few rather than broad for the many.

Step 4

Recruitment of leaders

Parties select candidates, train politicians and supply every Prime Minister.

Every PM since 1945 has come from one of the two main parties - the 2022 Pearson mocks mark scheme uses exactly this point as evidence of two-party dominance. Parties screen candidates, build careers and supply ministers. The test: leadership churn. The Conservatives produced five Prime Ministers between 2016 and 2024, three removed by their own party - recruitment working, but discipline failing.

Step 5

Policy formulation

Parties write manifestos - the programmes that structure the whole election.

The manifesto is the contract: it defines the mandate, and the Salisbury Convention protects manifesto bills in the Lords. The test from the minor parties: policy agendas can now be set from outside. UKIP in 2015 won 12.6% of the vote and one seat, yet forced the EU referendum that reshaped British politics - policy formulation without office.

Step 6

Governing and opposition

The winning party governs; the second party becomes the official Opposition.

Westminster procedure is built around the government-versus-opposition binary - the Opposition gets Short money, opposition days and the right of reply. The test: from 2010-15 the UK was governed by a coalition, and after 2017 by a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP - the 2022 mocks mark scheme treats both as evidence that FPTP can no longer guarantee single-party rule.

The five functions of political parties.
RepresentationMandate
Does: bundles opinion into choosable programmes.
Test: two-party vote share down to 57% in 2024.
ParticipationMembers
Does: membership, campaigning, leadership votes.
Test: 2022 - members picked Truss over the MPs' choice.
RecruitmentLeaders
Does: every PM since 1945 from the two main parties.
Test: five Conservative PMs in eight years.
PolicyManifesto
Does: manifestos define the mandate.
Test: UKIP set the Brexit agenda with one seat.
GoverningOpposition
Does: government-vs-opposition binary runs Westminster.
Test: coalition 2010-15; DUP deal 2017.

P1.2.1.b adds the money question: how are parties funded, and what are the consequences? UK parties run on four main sources. Membership fees and small donations; large private donations from wealthy individuals, businesses and trade unions; Short money, the public grant that supports opposition parties in the Commons, with Cranborne money as its Lords equivalent; and state grants for policy development work. The regulatory framework is PPERA 2000 - the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act - which caps campaign spending, requires donations to be declared, and created the Electoral Commission to police it.

Why funding is a debate, not just a list. The 2023 Pearson mark scheme carries both sides. The case for reform: who funds a party is not known in full before an election; large donors can expect a return, which the mark scheme calls little more than basic bribery to get titles or policy options; and the current system suits the two largest parties, who can amass campaign millions that small and emerging parties cannot. The case against: PPERA already provides safeguards, caps and transparency; state funding would cost the taxpayer and require someone to decide who gets what; and parties funded by members and donors stay connected to wider society. The full debate, and the worked essay, are in Part 4.

Quick check - functions and funding

Mini-quiz: functions and funding
Three short questions on what you just read.
Question 1 of 0
Score: 0
Loading...
Part 2

The party system - two-party, multi-party, or both at once

Scroll - each stage of the argument lights with its evidence.

P1.2.4.a asks about the development of a multi-party system and its implications for government. The 2022 Pearson mocks mark scheme set the question directly - evaluate the view that the UK does not have a multi-party system - and its two columns are the debate you need. The honest answer is that the UK is two things at once: a two-party system by seats and executive power, and a multi-party system by votes, devolved government and agenda-setting. Scroll through the argument.

Step 1

One question, two true answers

By seats, Westminster is still a two-party legislature. By votes, 2024 was the most multi-party result in modern history. The strong essay holds both facts and explains the gap: the electoral system.

Step 2

The two-party case

The 2022 mocks mark scheme's agreement column - dominance by design.

The current electoral system works in the interests of two parties: FPTP rewards established support, and the vast number of safe seats locks the pattern in. Prime Ministers and governments have come from only two parties since 1945. From 1979-97 and 1997-2010, one party - let alone two - dominated the Commons. And the organisational point: the two main parties' finance, staff and mass organisational capacity is an asset no challenger can replicate. After 2024, Labour and the Conservatives still held 532 of 650 seats - over 80%.

Step 3

The multi-party case

The same mark scheme's disagreement column - dominance under strain.

Out of the four governments before 2024, two needed the support of other parties: the 2010-15 coalition and the 2017 confidence and supply agreement with the DUP - evidence that FPTP can no longer guarantee single-party rule. In the devolved regions, multi-party systems have operated for decades, produced by different voting systems. Other parties forge the big issues - Brexit, Scottish independence, the environment. And the SNP's breakthrough showed that major constitutional questions cannot be controlled by the two main parties.

Step 4

2024 - the gap between votes and seats

The most multi-party vote in modern history; a two-party Parliament anyway.

The numbers: Labour 33.7% and 411 seats (a 174-seat majority on a third of the vote); the Conservatives 23.7% and 121 seats; the Liberal Democrats 12.2% and 72 seats; Reform UK 14.3% and 5 seats; the Greens 6.7% and 4 seats; the SNP 2.5% and 9 seats. Reform's 14.3% was the biggest UK third-party vote share since the SDP-Liberal Alliance era, and the combined Conservative-plus-Labour share of around 57% was the lowest in modern history. The votes are dispersed; the seats are not. FPTP is what keeps the formal two-party label alive at Westminster.

Exam line: The UK is functionally multi-party masked by a two-party seat distribution.
Step 5

The devolved contrast

Different systems, different party systems - the mark scheme's own causal claim.

Under AMS and STV, the devolved chambers have been multi-party from the start: the SNP has governed Scotland since 2007, Plaid Cymru is a major force in Wales, and Sinn Fein has been the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly since 2022. The 2022 mocks mark scheme attributes the devolved multi-party systems directly to the different voting systems and grassroots political differences at regional level - which makes the party system question an electoral systems question in disguise.

Step 6

The implications for government

If multi-party voting continues under FPTP, three outcomes are possible: manufactured majorities like 2024, where a third of the votes delivers two-thirds of the seats; hung parliaments and deals like 2010 and 2017, when the vote splits the right way; or sudden landslide reversals, because a broad coalition of voters with soft commitment can dissolve as fast as it formed. The implications question is asking you to reason through that instability.

The party system debate.
Two-party caseSeats
Core: every PM since 1945; safe seats; resources.
2024: Lab + Con still 532 of 650 seats.
Multi-party caseStrain
Core: coalition 2010; DUP deal 2017; devolved systems.
Agenda: Brexit, independence, environment set outside.
2024 votesDispersed
Numbers: Reform 14.3% / 5 seats; Lab 33.7% / 411.
Share: Lab + Con around 57% - lowest in modern history.
Devolved contrastPR systems
Pattern: SNP governing Scotland since 2007; Sinn Fein largest in NI since 2022.
Cause: the voting systems, per the mark scheme.

Quick check - the party system

Mini-quiz: the party system
Four questions on the section you just read.
Question 1 of 0
Score: 0
Loading...
Part 3

The minor parties

Scroll - each party lights with its trajectory and what it proves.

P1.2.3 asks for the importance of other parties, with two studied in depth - Reform UK and the Greens are the most current pairing, with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Northern Ireland parties as the regional set. The thread running through all of them: minor-party significance has grown most where the rules permit it - devolved chambers under proportional systems, referendums and the agenda of the major parties - and least where FPTP suppresses it, the Commons seat count. Scroll through the cases.

Step 1

Four routes to significance

Seats at Westminster, government in the devolved nations, coalition bargaining power, and agenda-setting from outside. Each minor party is strong evidence for at least one route - learn which.

Step 2

The SNP - rise and fall

Won every Holyrood election 2007-24; 56 Westminster seats in 2015; collapsed to 9 in 2024.

The SNP is the strongest case of a minor party becoming a governing party - it has run Scotland since 2007, and its 2015 earthquake took 56 of Scotland's 59 Westminster seats. It put independence on the national agenda through the 2014 referendum and, after 2017, pushed Brexit's constitutional question into every Cabinet calculation. The fall matters as much: after Sturgeon's 2023 resignation and the Yousaf-Swinney transitions, the 2024 collapse handed Labour most of Scotland - proof that minor-party strength can be fragile too.

Step 3

Reform UK - votes without seats, influence anyway

Founded 2018 as the Brexit Party; 14.3% and 5 seats in 2024.

Reform's 2024 vote share was the biggest third-party share since the SDP era - converted by FPTP into five seats, including Clacton. The influence runs through the Conservative Party: Reform drew votes, ideas and then MPs from the Conservative right - Lee Anderson defected in March 2024, and a wave followed after the election, including Danny Kruger in September 2025 and Robert Jenrick, the runner-up to Badenoch in the 2024 leadership contest, in January 2026. A party can reshape its rival without ever sitting on the government benches.

Step 4

The Greens - the 2024 breakthrough

6.7% of the vote and four seats - their largest haul ever.

The Greens quadrupled their Commons presence in 2024: Carla Denyer (Bristol Central), Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley), Sian Berry (Brighton Pavilion) and Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire). Their longer influence is on the agenda - shifting Labour and Liberal Democrat environment policy - and in devolved politics, where Greens have held ministerial office in the Scottish Government. A strong P1.2.3.b in-depth choice alongside Reform UK.

Step 5

The Liberal Democrats - the coalition proof

23% and 57 seats in 2010; 72 seats in 2024 on 12.2%.

The 2010-15 coalition is the single most consequential episode in modern minor-party significance: a third party held ministerial office and set policy across the constitutional reform agenda - the AV referendum, fixed-term parliaments, Lords reform plans - plus tuition fees and NHS structure. No comparable episode exists in postwar Britain. In 2024 the party showed the other lesson: 72 seats on 12.2% of the vote, because concentrated support converts under FPTP where spread support does not.

Step 6

UKIP - the agenda-setting extreme

12.6% and one seat in 2015 - and the Brexit referendum anyway.

UKIP is the purest agenda-setting case: founded in 1993, it never came close to power, yet the fear of its popularity drove Cameron's referendum pledge - the 2024 Pearson mark scheme states the EU referendum was held to thwart UKIP. One seat, and the biggest constitutional change in a generation. When the minor parties question asks about significance, this is the example that breaks the seats-equals-significance assumption.

Step 7

The limits

Westminster remains a two-party legislature at executive level: no minor party has formed a government since 1922, government formation is still a Labour-or-Conservative question, and the 2010-15 coalition is the only postwar exception. FPTP under-rewards minor parties regardless of vote share - Reform's 14.3% for 5 seats proves it. Influence has grown everywhere except where executive power lives.

The minor parties and their routes to significance.
SNPGoverning party
Peak: 56 of 59 seats 2015; Scotland governed since 2007.
Fall: 9 seats in 2024 after the collapse.
Reform UKAgenda + defections
2024: 14.3%, 5 seats - biggest third-party share since the SDP era.
Pull: Anderson, Kruger, Jenrick defections.
GreensBreakthrough
2024: 6.7%, 4 seats - largest ever.
MPs: Denyer, Ramsay, Berry, Chowns.
Lib DemsCoalition proof
2010: 57 seats and ministerial office.
2024: 72 seats on 12.2% - concentration converts.
UKIPPure agenda
2015: 12.6%, one seat.
Effect: forced the EU referendum.

Quick check - the minor parties

Mini-quiz: the minor parties
Three questions on the section you just read.
Question 1 of 0
Score: 0
Loading...
Part 4

Into the exam - question approaches and a worked essay

How the topic is tested, with approaches to the recurring questions.

Political parties appears in Paper 1 as a 30-mark question - at Q1 with a source, or at Q2 as an essay. Both split AO1/AO2/AO3 at 10/10/10. The rules: two views weighed in a balanced way with a sustained line of argument; a one-sided answer is capped at Level 2. Structure by theme, not by party - a party-by-party tour is the inventory structure examiners mark down. Conclusions justify rather than summarise, and post-2024 evidence is what 2026 sittings are expected to carry.

Every political parties resource on Panther
This pack
The notes page is the lookup version of this walk-through. The quiz tests recall across functions, funding, the party system and the minor parties.
Adjacent packs
The major party divisions pack covers the established parties in depth; the predicted minor parties pack works the full 30-marker; the electoral systems pack explains the seat arithmetic.

Recurring 30-mark questions to practise.

30Evaluate the view that the UK does not have a multi-party system. (2022 mocks Q1a)

Approach: The Part 2 debate is the plan. Para 1 - the seats case: FPTP works in the interests of two parties, every PM since 1945, safe seats and organisational dominance, against the 2024 vote dispersal. Para 2 - the strain case: coalition 2010, the DUP deal 2017, and the devolved multi-party systems the mark scheme attributes to different voting systems. Para 3 - agenda-setting: Brexit, independence and the environment forged outside the two main parties. Judgement: multi-party by votes and agenda, two-party by seats and executive power - and say which test matters more for the question asked.

30Evaluate the view that the current system of party funding should be reformed. (2023 Q2b territory)

Approach: The worked essay below answers it in full - transparency, donor influence and the two-party advantage against the PPERA safeguards and the problems of state funding.

30Evaluate the view that minor parties play a more significant role than they did thirty years ago. (Predicted 2026 Q2a)

Approach: Anchor the comparison around the mid-1990s baseline, when minor parties were politically marginal. Para 1 - seats and office: the 2010-15 coalition (unique in postwar Britain), SNP government in Scotland since 2007, the 2024 results. Para 2 - agenda-setting: UKIP forcing the referendum, Reform reshaping the Conservative right. Para 3 - the limit: no minor party has formed a government since 1922 and FPTP still suppresses the seat count. Judgement: yes to a large extent - significance has grown most where the rules permit it. The full pack works this question end to end.

30Evaluate the view that political parties no longer perform their functions effectively.

Approach: Theme by function using the Part 1 pairings. Para 1 - representation: the mandate model against the 57% combined share of 2024. Para 2 - participation and recruitment: members choosing leaders (Truss 2022) against the smallness of memberships and the leadership churn. Para 3 - governing: the binary that still runs Westminster against the coalition and confidence-and-supply episodes. Judgement: parties still perform the functions no other body can - the question is how well, and 2024 says less well than at any point in modern history.

One worked essay

Evaluate the view that the current system of party funding should be reformed. (30 marks)
Line of argument: The funding system should be reformed. Transparency is incomplete, large donors can expect a return, and the current arrangements entrench the two largest parties - though full state funding brings problems of its own, so the reform case points at caps and transparency rather than wholesale replacement.
Paragraph One - Transparency and donor influence
  • The 2023 Pearson mark scheme's lead reform point: the funding of parties is never clear, and it is only after an election that parties reveal their funding sources in full. If we are to be a transparent representative democracy, voters should know who has financed the party they vote for - and whether its policies favour the backers rather than the wider public good. The donor problem compounds it: the mark scheme finds a clear correlation between giving a party funds and receiving personal benefits, and calls it little more than basic bribery to get titles or policy options.
  • ×The counter: PPERA 2000 already caps election spending, requires donations to be declared and created the Electoral Commission - the mark scheme's defence is that the Act functions well and introduced a good level of transparency.
  • Interim judgement: declaration after the fact is not transparency before the vote - the safeguards exist, but they answer a different question from the one voters need answered at the ballot box.
Paragraph Two - The two-party advantage
  • The current system suits the Conservative and Labour parties, who benefit from the status quo and have a vested interest in keeping it. Running a national campaign costs millions, and small and emerging parties cannot amass that wealth - which limits political choice and fair political competition. The 2024 election is the live illustration: Reform UK and the Greens fought national campaigns against two machines with organisational resources no challenger can replicate.
  • ×The counter from the same mark scheme: parties funded by membership and private donations benefit from the fairness of a free market in ideas - the current system encourages dynamism, where state funding may lead to complacency and would distance parties from wider society rather than connect them to it.
  • Interim judgement: a free market in ideas presumes a level starting line - when two competitors hold the accumulated resources of a century, the market argument defends the incumbents rather than the competition.
Paragraph Three - Is state funding the answer?
  • ×The strongest objections target the main reform proposal rather than the diagnosis. State funding would cost the taxpayer, and someone would have to decide what provision is cut to pay for it; it would require a vast and complex framework to administer, with judgements about what each party receives and how smaller parties are handled - the mark scheme concludes state funding is every bit as problematic as the current system.
  • But reform is wider than state funding: donation caps, stronger pre-election transparency and tighter enforcement address the diagnosis without the state-funding machinery - and the reviews that proposed capping individual donations have never been legislated, so the reform case has not been tried and found wanting; it has not been tried.
  • Interim judgement: the weaknesses of one remedy do not rescue the current system - the case for reform survives the case against state funding.

Judgement. The current system of party funding should be reformed. The defence rests on PPERA's safeguards and the costs of state funding, and both points are real - but neither answers the central charge: voters choose between parties without knowing who paid for them, donors can expect a return, and the two largest parties compete on a track they built for themselves. Reform means caps and pre-election transparency first, with state funding as the harder second question. A system that is merely better-policed than it was in 1999 is not the same as a fair one.

More practice on Panther

📖NotesSub-topic lookup version of this walk-through, one collapsible card per topic. 🧠MCQ quiz15 questions across functions, funding, the party system and the minor parties. 🏛️Major party divisions packConservative and Labour factions, leadership crises and the 2010-24 story. 📈Minor parties predicted packThe full 30-marker on minor-party significance, worked end to end.
Reference

Key terms - the political parties glossary

Open the glossary

Political party. An organisation that contests elections on a shared programme with the aim of winning office - distinct from a pressure group, which seeks influence rather than office.

Mandate. The authority a winning party claims to carry out its manifesto. The Salisbury Convention protects manifesto bills in the Lords.

Manifesto. The programme a party publishes before an election - the basis of the mandate and the contract voters judge a government against.

Two-party system. A system in which two parties dominate government and seats. By seats Westminster still is one: Labour and the Conservatives held 532 of 650 seats after 2024.

Multi-party system. A system in which several parties compete with a realistic role. The devolved chambers are multi-party; by votes, so was the 2024 general election.

Short money. Public funding for opposition parties in the Commons. Cranborne money is the Lords equivalent.

PPERA 2000. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act - spending caps, declared donations and the Electoral Commission.

State funding. The main reform proposal: public money for parties in place of private donations. Proposed by review, never legislated.

Minor party. A party outside the big two. The spec requires two studied in depth - Reform UK and the Greens are the most current pairing.

Reform UK. Founded 2018 as the Brexit Party; 14.3% and 5 seats in 2024 - the biggest third-party vote share since the SDP era - and the destination of a wave of Conservative defections.

The Greens 2024. 6.7% and four seats - Denyer, Ramsay, Berry, Chowns - their largest result ever.

SNP trajectory. Every Holyrood election won 2007-24; 56 Westminster seats in 2015; collapsed to 9 in 2024.

The 2010-15 coalition. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat government - the only postwar case of a third party holding ministerial office, and the strongest minor-party significance evidence.

Agenda-setting. Shaping what the major parties must respond to without holding office - UKIP and the EU referendum is the standard case.

Manufactured majority. A Commons majority far larger than the vote share behind it - 33.7% of votes becoming a 174-seat majority in 2024.