babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Harper calls for end of per-vote subsidy
April 3, 2011 - 1:12pm
*
Good responses from Layton and Duceppe:
I had heard Layton's response and also thought it was very good.
Thanks for posting Duceppe's.
This will be a difficult issue for them, I think, unless they take it on very very aggressively - by telling the truth about whose interests Harper serves.
They should ask if mr harper would end ALL public monies including the huge amount that goes to cons in the form of tax credits from donations.
I especially like that he called him "that guy". All the respect he deserves, IMO.
Duceppe, as leader of an 85% federally-financed separatist party, definitely has every incentive to come out swinging.
And he collects a federal salary! I think you're onto something there, ygtbk. Now all we need is some enterprising journalist to spot some Bloc members on Parliament Hill! It's got the makings of a sponsorship scandal all right.
Funded based on the percentage of votes from their consiituents, whom, last time I checked paid taxes and had the right to elect and financially support whomever they want to represent them in parliament.
On the other hand, maybe you'd prefer a sovereigntist tax revolt, if we're working on the assumption that it is all "federalist money"
That's the sort of argument I expect from that guy.... I mean our dear leader.
I thought both responses were excellent. Yeah, back to the good old days of big money and those with deep pockes ensuring that their special interest, always remains in power. WTG Jack & Gilles!
I don't have an issue with Bloc MP's being funded by their constituents. But I'd really be surprised to see a sovereigntist tax revolt, given the way that equalization works.
My point (which I'm sure that both you and Unionist understand) is that this is not an issue where Duceppe has any credibility - his party gets the most relative benefit from the per vote subsidy, so obviously he'll defend it. This is independent of any actual merits of the scheme and makes him look self-interested at best.
I disagree, and I'm not sure what you mean. Whether he benefits or not is a separate issue from whether it is a good sytem or not.
And they receive their share according to the votes they received, just like everyone else (which would mean the Conservatives got the most, no?) And while the money may be administered by the federal government it is taxpayers money - federalist AND sovereigntist taxpayers.
My point is that Layton can make the case more effectively than either Duceppe or Ignatieff, since the NDP has done a relatively better job of weaning itself from union donations than the Liberals have of weaning themselves from corporate donations, and since the Bloc is mostly funded by the federal government. And that does not play well in the ROC, regardless of how it plays in Quebec.
And the NDP has tried hard to lobby our corrupt stooges into fullfilling their obligations to the United Nations Convention against Corruption and other international standards for federal Government.
It's all been in vain though. Our stooges are having none of the NDP's talk about de-corrupting the system.
OK, but people who are the ones being burned are usually the first ones to cry out, no? Does it make sense to support an attack on democracy on some sort of principle that only disinterested parties have the right to complain?
I think this is the way Harper has successfully been spinning it as well, like "Oh of course they'll complain, they desperately need that money, but no one else is complaining, so lets cut 'em off..." I'm not saying that you're coming from the same place as Harper, this is certainly an easy way to attack their reaction, but like the other posters said we have to look at this bigger picture of what system is the fairest for party funding.
Its actually not a difficult issue for anybody.
Layton and Duceppe's replies play to their bases, like Harper's poke plays to his. In all cases the positioning is unlikely to matter one way or another with voters who are in play.
These two GM articles need a little threshing out.
Relative to other parties, more people with disposable income donate to the Conservatives. People with little to gain from tax credits/deductions, and food to put on the table, aren't likely to donate.
Could the Cons bring in corporate donations again, on top of scrapping the vote subsidy?
This is a thoughtful response. However, the idea that something that Jean Chretien thought up in 2003 in response to AdScam is fundamental to democracy is not very convincing.
I should think green supporters and those who vote for smaller parties might take it very seriously.
And who thought it up in response to what doesn't discredit the argument anymore than the fact that it might be made by someone who benefits from it (and that would be ALL politicians). Never voted for the man, but even I can think of one or two good decisions Jean Chretien made in his tenure.
I think it is a good idea, and given that our taxes already go to hold the election I think using a proportiional system to lend a bit of financial to offset those with deep pockets is a good idea.
I would think also that the Liberals were counting on always receiving a disproportionate share of strategic votes from both the left and right.
Hey 6079, it's actually possible that ygbtk doesn't get it. I thought I'd make a little joke about Duceppe being on a "federal" salary and Bloc members being spotted on Parliament Hill, but ygbtk still seem to think that there's something odd about elected representatives being treated equally under the campaign contribution law even though they don't think much of federalism.
This is a mantra we expect to hear from Harper as he pursues his aim of putting financing back in the hands of the oil barons. I didn't expect to hear it here.
@ Unionist
Plus I think the only time the opposition leaders go into a back room to divvy up who is going to do what is at budget time.
Deciding who will come off best delivering the message? Don't think so.
@ Unionist: I did in fact get your little joke.
I haven't seen anyone advocating an increase in the individual contribution limit, or a return to federal corporate donations, so I don't think that "putting financing back in the hands of the oil barons" is a good description of anyone's position.
More generally, the per vote funding formula could be modified or reduced, rather than eliminated, and Duff Conacher has a modest proposal over at www.dwatch.ca
[edited]
That's true - no one is advocating that.
http://rabble.ca/comment/1236510/p-margin-bottom-008in
It really Boils Down to A Vote For the Greens is inadvertently a vote for the Conservatives,remember the party's Percentages in the running, splitting up the opposition toward the
Conservatives in the first past the peg electoral system operating this May 2011 Election.
Ultimately will result in the the demise of Democracy as Canada knew it.
Subsidies per vote is an excellent idea that should be upheld. If parties are to lose subsidies, it should be the canceling of the tax credit that goes with political donations.
The public subsidies help the parties be more independent of private donations, which makes corruption less likely because the parties don't need to seek rich patrons to get funded. It also means that parties are better off trying to appeal to the majority of people, mostly moderates, instead of having to galvanize a militant base that wants to drag the party in a more radical direction.
So the vote subsidy is a barrier against corruption and against the radicalization of parties. It must survive for the sake of democracy.
Sorry to be contrary since everyone seems to like Layton and Duceppe's responses-- I thought they were both weak and poor.
Both of them allowed Harper away with setting the terms for the discussion and failed to call Harper out on a lie.
Harper said he was ending public financing of political parties because people should not have to pay for someone else's choice.
The correct response would have been to say that:
Harper is not proposing to remove public finance at all since we have a 75% subsidy for political donations being done through taxes. In other words one guy gives $25 to support his choice and the rest of the tax payers have to pony up a further $75 to support that person's choice. The per person subsidy is equal to all Canadians who vote regardless of their finances rather than tilting all the money to the people with the money to donate. At a time when barely over half of Canadians vote voting is an activity that ought to be rewarded the buying of disproportionate influence with other people's money is not. If you truly believe that having to support another person's choice is offensive then the per vote subsidy is the better of the two public finance options. The PM is lying when he says he is removing public financing of political parties if he is leaving that three-to-one tax credit subsidy. The PM is saying only the opinions of people who have money should be considered and ordinary voters should not.
This should be an issue the opposition could win on but timid responses and those that miss the point like these are helping Harper. Harper is turning Canadians against the public finance of political parties pretending that he is proposing to eliminate it and the opposition is fighting on that lie rather than pointing out that it is a lie. The climate right now is if the opposition fights this issue on Harper's ground they will lose-- only when they point out that all parties are proposing some kind of public finance will we be able to ask which is the best form of public finance, the fairest etc. Phrased like a debate over the elimination of public finance, the democracy arguments will lose. When people realize that everyone is supporting some kind of public finance, they could win -- perhaps easily.
I am frustrated by the less than great communications from all the opposition parties in the last while.
Nobody called Harper on his lie about the BQ being in the coalition -- the theoretical arguments about coalitions being good or not have nothing to do with where the voters are-- they are afraid of the BQ in government. The opposition should have taken out an ad paid for together saying Harper was lying. That would have put the issue to bed-- instead they debated about whether or not he was hypocritical since he also had explored coalition. Useful, but not the only thing they should have done. You want to defeat Harper-- brand him a liar-- call all the lies.
This month the opposition has to have better than second-rate communications and I'm afraid to say they are falling down -- all of them -- on understanding what the issue is in the public mind while they fight the specific words of the government.
All of them should start with a realization that the Cons are running a highly emotional campaign that is designed to appeal to people's hearts, dreams, fears (especially), pride etc. They cannot win trying to counter this with logic-- they need to break down what the Cons are selling emotionally and counter that rather than fight what is really minutia. And if they got all that -- they would realize this is an election that should have been thought on ethics not policies-- it is truly remarkable how the opposition is going to the wrong communications strategies-- all of them.
Exactly seans and I have been harping on this for 2 years.
So if someone said, straight up, that they wanted to modify the per-vote subsidy formula (a la Duff Conacher's suggestions, for example), would that be a legitimate topic of discussion? Or would that be somehow misleading?
I want the donation subsidy gone. That is the subsidy that asks people who don't even vote to forfeit their taxes to an election they don't believe in or want. If we are being honest about it.
What people who don't vote fail to see is that they are disempowering themselves.
Imagine what would happen if all those eligible to vote, but who don't, voted - and they all voted for the NDP or Marxist Party of Canada or for the Greens or whatever party most closely matches their political and/or ethical/moral values.
Whenever I hear someone who didn't vote bitch about the way things are, I ask them what they are doing to change things.
Not voting is a fatalistic self-fulfilling prophesy.
Could be discussed-- although I don't like the proposal either to weaken the per vote subsidy or to punish the BQ by giving them less simply because they operate in one province only. The latter would be both unfair and provocative-- why should someone in Quebec have less value to their vote than me?
Why not reduce the public finance by reducing either the percentage or amount of the tax credit?