Whatsthatsmell?: Public Funding of Political Parties, Part 3

The previous screed was written pretty much on the spur of the moment yesterday, upon receipt of my MP's reply to me. That one was written with very little thought put into it, but upon reflection, I think I probably could have put different points in it.

I am refraining from reproducing the MP's reply which prompted that screed, 1) because he never gave his permission, and 2) I suspect I may have touched a nerve in my first note to him and his subsequent reaction has the potential to be construed as both defensive and antagonistic; and I doubt that was his intention.

I suspect that the issue of state funding for political parties is one of those Humans-are-from-Earth-Politicians-are-from-Pluto issues. They conflate what's good for them as being what's good for the electorate. And they cannot be further from the truth on this issue.

Once again, politics can learn a bit from business. A grand marketing plan may be able to convince people to change the brand of fertilizer they buy, temporarily, but at the end of the day, the consumer is still buying sh**. Essentially what's happening (if I may extend the analogy further) is that the parties are now fighting over market share among the dwindling 60 per cent of people who do garden. How about the growing number of people who don't?

I suspect you could sell that 40% a different product (and bring a goodly proportion of the gardening public with them). Why would they want to buy sh** when all they want is a decent patch of grass?

And the only reason one group's manure is selling more to the gardening public is because there have been a few production problems with the leading brand, not because of the inherent quality of the manure on offer from the competitor.

If you product doesn't sell, as the political parties' membership rolls tend to tell us, then change the product.