This was the idea that funding should be given to political partes in the following way. At each general election, in addition to a column for voters to choose a candidate to vote for Parliament, they would also have the option of assigning a small amount of public money, for example £3 per year until the next general election, each to a political party. This money would go directly to the local organisation of that party. Central party organisations could continue to receive money from donations, with stronger limits placed on these.

The arguments in favour of this are several:

1) It would encourage competitive politics across the country. At the moment, as one party builds up a stronghold in a constituency, it becomes harder and harder for the other parties to compete there, partly because of the reluctance of central party organisations to heavily fund campaigns they are unlikely to win. 

As an example of this - I live in Mole Valley, which is I think the 2nd strongest Tory seat in the country. The local CLP has effectively collapsed, contesting only one seat at the last local election. The year before that I and one other person printed a couple of hundred leaflets, which looked quite sad compared to, for example, the glossy high quality leaflets of UKIP. Direct funding could allow local parties like the one here to survive.

2)  It prevents many people from feeling that their vote is wasted. A voter might wish to cast their vote for an MP to the major party in their constituency they support the most, while giving their public money vote to a weaker party they support far more, so that they are able to actually support that party in a meaningful way through their ballot.

3) It sidesteps the disagreement between many people as to whether public money should fund parties or whether that is a waste of money that could better be spent elsewhere - all voters who wish to, and probably in practise a majority, will simply not vote to give "their" £3 per year to any party, keeping it in the public coffers.

4) It forces parties to take a positive approach to politics. Simply presenting the alternatives in a negative light may well persuade voters to vote for you, but it is unlikely to make many people wish to give them money.

So, that's the proposal and why I think it's a very good idea. I'd be keen to hear any thoughts anyone else has on it.

Here's the link to the report if you want to read it: 

http://www.makeitanissue.org.uk/Power%20to%20the%20People.pdf