AS EVENTS over the last 12 months have demonstrated, there are many imperfections in our parliamentary democracy.

The MPs' expenses scandal left a nasty stench over the Palace of Westminster, one which lingers on as this parliament limps to a close.

With a General Election on the near-horizon, the issue of how political parties are funded has taken centre stage.

As we report today, the Tory campaign in Torbay, identified as a key marginal the party must win if they are to secure an overall majority and assume power, has already benefited from the fighting fund established by Lord Ashcroft, the ultra-wealthy deputy chairman of the Conservative party.

Lord Ashcroft's tax status has been the matter of much speculation ever since he was given a peerage at the start of the last decade.

The recent revelation that Lord Ashcroft is a 'non-dom', and therefore does not pay UK tax on all of his earnings, has called into question the probity of the arrangements by way of which the Tories' so-called war chest was established.

But it also seems that the Labour party has accepted donations from backers with similar non-dom status.

And in the run-up to the last General Election the Liberal Democrats received £2.4million from a donor who, it later transpired, was a fraudster.

In a democracy, an election should offer voters a free choice in a fair contest.

In an ideal world, voters would make informed choices based on a clear understanding of each of the candidates' positions on the most important issues of the day.

If huge disparities in resources available to candidates distorts that overall picture, it's not healthy. But just what is the alternative when it comes to funding?

One would be the public funding of all political parties — a level playing field once and for all.

But after the disgrace of the expenses scandal, is there really the appetite among the electorate for handing over even more taxpayers' cash to our MPs and wannabes?