Iain Paterson suggests we fund political parties in proportion to the number of votes received at the last election, but to me that is a recipe for keeping larger parties in power (Letters, March 28).

A party that got a large number of votes last time would go into a new election with a clear financial advantage and new parties would get no funding. Tired old parties would get financial support but a new progressive and vigorous party would get nothing. If the funding comes from private donations that is fine but not if funding is from the public purse.

Presumably the Government got more votes than the opposition last time but it does not seem right that it should favour its own party or Coalition financially or in any other way.

Bob MacDougall (Letters, March 27) does not want any of his money to go to a party he does not support, but in a democracy we cannot avoid this. Funding has to take place before the election and we would not wish to waste money on frivolous candidates, which is why candidates who do not secure a quorum are financially penalised. That practice is not above criticism.

In the 1920s it was difficult for the Labour Party to gain most votes but eventually it did and had a sweeping victory in 1945 with modest Clement Attlee defeating Winston Churchill, the popular wartime premier who described Mr Attlee as having much to be modest about. The Attlee government's legacy is now the near sacrosanct National Health Service.

Political prediction is not easy. General elections should not be about who did best last time but preferably about who electors think will form the best government next time, but not all electors vote for that reason.

Chris Parton,

40 Bellshill Road, Uddingston.

In my view the state (ie the taxpayer) should provide only that funding necessary to organise and hold an election. The parties say they need to raise substantial funds to contest an election, but the problem then is the perception that large donations are made to seek influence for the donor on the policies of the recipient party.

One way to obviate or at least mitigate this perception would be to put no limit on the amount of donation a donor chooses to make once the election date is established. The proviso would be that all donations are made to or passed to a single fund from which they are distributed to all the parties participating in that election in amounts pro rata to the popular vote each party enjoyed at the previous election.

It would be interesting to see how much was donated under such arrangements.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View, Dunlop.