A diverse, transparent and unrestricted party political system with low barriers to entry and an equal playing field for all is an important precursor for real democracy. In order for parties to get their message and identity out, they need money. Either they all rely wholly on membership fees and voluntary donations - which, if unrestricted, will give the party that offers most to the oligopolistic multinational corporates a clear advantage over all the rest - or an element of tax funding is applied, and / or caps or restrictions on donations to prevent parliament being 'bought'. So far, I think, few would argue with the foregoing.
Any tax funding must also recognise the right of those unwilling under any circumstances to contribute to political parties - 'not in my name'. Thus any tax subsidy must be individual, positive and confidential. There are only two ways of doing this;
1. A £1 - for - £1 tax-match for donations up to a maximum limit for individual donations
2. A separate funding ballot at general elections to 'vote' say £3 to the party of choice, or to 'vote' nothing at all to any of them, the recipient party not having to be the one for which an electoral vote is cast
Why both Hayden Phillips' and Christopher Kelly's proposals are corrupting and antidemocratic is because both refuse to recognise the second option; both want to restrict the pot to the 'big three', therefore establishing permanent incumbency and status as 'parties of State'.