Tosser-ism

P0litical philosophy must have skipped a few beats since I studied it at university.

The latest initiative from the Conservatives is the latest in a line of increasingly bizarre headline grabbing stunts. Personal debt is a serious issue - why is bluffing a piece of pop culture going to be a sensible solution to it?

This is hardly Thatcherism, and as the embracing of Polly Toynbee showed it's not even Blairism. Whilst I appreciate an image makeover is overdue for the Tories, surely the goal should be to paint the Tories as a government in waiting, rather than accusing the great British public of being wankers-in-disguise?

Talking of personal debt - the latest proposals for governing party finances have hit some turbulence. Labour's ridiculous ideas for giving yet more taxpayers money to themselves have rightly been ridiculed. But imagine my horror when this piece of rubbish turned up on ConHome.

Michael Ashcroft proposed that perhaps private individuals might be allowed to spend their money how they see fit, (a preferred option to Cameron's artificial £50k limits in return for more govt. spending). Tim Montgomery was soon on the ball, declaring that

'both the Ashcroft and Cameron prescriptions risk separating political parties
from the concerns of individual voters. If parties can get their money
from big business or big government they won't be forced to return to retail
politics and grassroots funding.'

Retail politics? The concerns of individual voters? How exactly will that pay for multi-million pound election campaigns?

The current rules for engaging voters do not allow for a true engagement with individual voters - hence the explosion in the blogosphere which helps fill the gap left by the regulation of party communication (no TV ads etc.). Whilst Cameron's latest stunts may have disorientated commentators, surely a grassroots organisation should appreciate that restricting individual freedom is a fundamentally un-Conservative idea.

Let people, organisations and businesses donate as much as they want of their own money. If the voters don't like it, or suspect that foul play is involved they can vote with their feet.