Conservative Home's debate blogs


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Punters raise prospect of Andrew Lansley candidacy | Main | Michael Howard - and grassroots members - "dealt humiliating blow" »


Michael McGowan

I think the public will draw its own conclusions about the Tories' willingness to engage with the 21st Century if they end up being the only major party in this country whose ordinary members have no significant direct say in the choice of Party leader.

Tom Greeves

How utterly fatuous to have a spending limit for candidates. It is redolent of the worst of sort of anti-business carping that the campaign finance reform lobby indulges in across the pond in the United States.

Perish the thought the candidates should be encouraged to establish support and to set out their stalls in the media.

I appreciate that few people are likely to agree with me on this one ... !


I agree with you, Tom. It's wrong to limit campaign spending. But then everything is being organised by the party to hinder Davis and help Cameron.


The democratic way of regulating the funding would be to impose a limit on how much an individual can give (say of 200 pounds) but allow as many UK citizens as wish to, to give up to that amount.

David Davis would do well from such a set up - given the enthusiasm for him amongst the rank-and-file.

Dave J

Editor, donation caps are just as stupid and needless as spending caps. I've seen a variety of campaign finance laws in action at both the federal leval and in multiple states here in the US, and without fail, all they do is encourage creative accounting and undermine real transparency. The ONLY campaign finance law should be to require full public disclosure.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home


  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below: