Election Financing

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chester Drawers

Remind, can't sleep either. 

 

Actually yes I do think they are the conservatives of old. 

 

The current version is not the fiscally conservative agenda that I would like to see.  However they are all that is available to me.  I was not infavor of the merger that brought them about.  I have decided to take on a more active role on the local EDA to push the fiscal agenda I believe in.  As for the social agenda, I could care less who marries who and if a woman wants to have an abortion, I as a man should have no say on that.  That is between her, her doctor and her maker.  You wanna smoke dope or do harder drugs go ahead, just do not steal from me to feed your habit, and I should not have to fund your rehab either.

 

This is a land of great opportunity, instead of whining that your glass is half empty, think of it as half full and how do I fill it up.

 

Next week will come and go and be as this week.  Nothing will change except the subsidy will be gone.  And if the conservatives move to the opposition side that will not be the end of the world either. Because out of the ashes will rise the Phoenix in the election 6 monthes from now.

thorin_bane

Wow cons can't be that stupid can they...YEP Brinksmanship won't work this time. Harper would lose an election if it was held today. He has lied so much and been caught so many times, no one can believe what he says. Here is an economist that knows nothing about the economy. I guess he keeps his eyes on wallstreet where he gets his marching orders from. Makes it easier than paying attentino to what is going on at home. Hence all the trips around the world, plus the bloated cabinet. What was that you said about being fiscally responsible. Actually you are right these are the conservatives of old, malroney and harris must be pleased at the padwon.

The power of the dark side is strong in this one.

BTW remind lives out west...do you go to bed at 10:00 like a good little conservative?

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

jrootham

The more fundraising a political party is required to do, the more likely it is to be corrupt.  CF the US Senate.

Let's see, which politician in Canadian history got blamed for trying to balance a budget at the beginning of a recession?  I believe that would be RB Bennet.  Does Harper really want that reputation?  Announcing that it is time to run a deficit and then putting out a spin financial statement that claims it is trying to avoid a deficit (even if there is one already) suggests to me that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I think doing that blatantly is traditionally thought to be a risky political strategy.

 

Policywonk

Just to be clear, the subsidy was originally proposed to be $1.50 per vote; it was raised to $1.75 before the legislation was passed so that it would replace the Liberal's corporate donations, and eventually to the current $1.95. I was listening to a representative of Democracy Watch on As it Happens tonight and he was suggesting the Conservatives could have gotten away with cutting it back to $0.95 rather than eliminating it (indeed he was in support of cutting it back), but the measure is part of an economic update the opposition Parties are also opposed to.

Parkdale High Park

jrootham,

 In the US senate, election financing is entirely unrestricted, whereas in Canada there are strict caps on donations, which inherently limit corruption. Nobody is going to be able to buy a politician's support on something for $1,100. More to the point, there are structural reasons why congress has problems with influence peddling - they have weak party discipline, so often close votes can happen even if one party is clearly in the majority. By contrast, strict party discipline and centralized party fundraising prevent that kind of corruption (Canadian corruption is much more commonly about misappropriation of government funds by ministers, etc.). 

 It also isn't 100% clear to me that this change would create an unlevel playing field. Last election each party was able to borrow enough money to spend up to the maximum.

That said, my preference is no restrictions whatsoever on financing, except that all donations be

1. anonymous

2. lumped together in one cheque to political parties at the end of each quarter (or sooner if an election is called)

The real case against ending the public subsidy is that political parties with money ARE a public good. The government has no problem running million dollar ad campaigns to tell us we should drink milk - why should it have problems funding the organizations that inform Canadians about much more important things? Campaigns without money mean less informed voters and lower voter turnout. Finally, capping spending at 1100 plus eliminating the subsidy gives undue influence to some groups of Canadians, namely, those best able to organize large numbers of not necessarily rich people (eg. the religious right).  

Fidel

Parkdale High Park wrote:
  By contrast, strict party discipline and centralized party fundraising prevent that kind of corruption (Canadian corruption is much more commonly about misappropriation of government funds by ministers, etc.). 

And we've had Washington style lobbying in Ottawa since Brian Mulroney.

Democracy Watch says:

Quote:

For the past 140 years, since Canada became a nation, politicians and government officials have been playing a sort of shell game by sometimes strengthening laws, but then weakening enforcement, or strengthening enforcement at the same time as creating loopholes in laws, and in almost every case penalties have remained too weak to discourage violations.

While governments and corporations do bad things for many reasons, often it is because they are operating in bad ways.  Especially when governments operate in bad ways, they usually do not require corporations to act in good ways (because they make secret deals behind closed doors with corporate lobbyists).

 

janfromthebruce

Parkdale High Park wrote:

jrootham
Finally, capping spending at 1100 plus eliminating the subsidy gives undue influence to some groups of Canadians, namely, those best able to organize large numbers of not necessarily rich people (eg. the religious right).

And think tanks that are funded by rich groups pretending to be non-partisan, and other very "special interest groups".

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

laytonsucks

LAYTON SUCKS COCK>>>DION COCK!

laytonsucks

LAYTON SUCKS COCK>>>DION COCK!

Caissa

When did Baird sign up?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
janfromthebruce

 Troll alert, troll alert. P.S. and after the ban, can we please get rid of those posts - they are disgusting.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

janfromthebruce

aka Mycroft wrote:

Harper's playing a game of brinksmanship. His problem is he's too clever by half and too full of hubris. Negotiations can take on a life of their own and if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are able to work out a coalition/accord deal where the parties agree to some sort of Liberal or Liberal/NDP coalition government for a year which the Bloc agrees to support from the outside then the three parties could decided to go ahead even if Harper backs down on Monday. The major stumbling block previously to the concept of a Liberal or Liberal-NDP minority displacing the Tories was tee Bloc as any condition the BQ would have had would be too much for any federalist party to agree to. But with a proposal from the Tories that would kneecap the Bloc by wiping out 90% of their funds, Duceppe and co are highly motivated to agree to an alternate government with a minimum of fuss. And even if Harper backs down he's shown himself too dangerous to keep in power.

I would not be surprised to see an agreement emerge for a Liberal/NDP coalition government with Bloc support and a caretaker PM such as McCullum or Goodale. The big issue will be how to handle the Liberal leadership convention. Can the NDP and BQ agree carte blanche that the PM's role will automatically go to whoever the Liberals choose in May? Will they insist that the caretaker remain PM until the end of the agreement and that new Liberal leader will have to wait until a new election before possibly becoming PM? Will two of the three contenders (likely Rae and LeBlanc) agree now to put aside their asperations and allow someone else (likely Ignatieff) to become Liberal leader and PM immediately with the agreement of caucus and the Liberal executive and without a Liberal convention? (I can see the NDP agreeing to an Iggy as PM but balking at Rae)

Rae has already agreed to support whatever the lib executive decide. Smile

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

madmax

Rae is toast. That means if they support Ignatieff, who he said he would support, then Raes Leadership aspirations are over. Besides who on earth could see Rae governing anyone through a Recession?

 

Jack Layton should hold the reigns, as he provides more stability in Leadership then anyone in the Liberal Party. Obviously for the BQ this is about survival.

Mr Harper is indeed too clever by half. He has no abilty to work with others. I have yet to see a more controlling yet hamfisted negotiator. He isn't as good as advertised, and what this has done is sent a message to the opposition of how he would govern in a Majority.

The NDP needs to come to the table with a Bold fiscal stimulus plan. The Liberals just need to survive. This party is in bad shape.

What I find interesting, is how many Liberals don't want Dion as Leader should a coalition be formed. They are calling him weak.....

What is important is that Harper has turned his back on working with Parliment this term. He has no focus on the economy and Flaherty is no more competent today then he was last summer. Should a coalition occur it needs to be seemless to the voting public and the public needs to be reassured that our economy is being put forward first.

Too many people are losing and going to lose their jobs while the CPC continues to try to bleed the LPC, BQ and GP dry.

Stockholm

Needless to say, if Rae were to be Liberal leader - any chance of an NDP/Liberal agreement or coalition or whatever would go out the window. Rae is so consumed with really vindictive personal hate towards anyone and anything in his former party (and the feelings are mutual) that you could never even have the two parties in the same room with him as leader.

aka Mycroft

Harper's playing a game of brinksmanship. His problem is he's too clever by half and too full of hubris. Negotiations can take on a life of their own and if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are able to work out a coalition/accord deal where the parties agree to some sort of Liberal or Liberal/NDP coalition government for a year which the Bloc agrees to support from the outside then the three parties could decide to go ahead even if Harper backs down on Monday. The major stumbling block previously to the concept of a Liberal or Liberal-NDP minority displacing the Tories was tee Bloc as any condition the BQ would have had would be too much for any federalist party to agree to. But with a proposal from the Tories that would kneecap the Bloc by wiping out 90% of their funds, Duceppe and co are highly motivated to agree to an alternate government with a minimum of fuss. And even if Harper backs down he's shown himself too dangerous to keep in power.

I would not be surprised to see an agreement emerge for a Liberal/NDP coalition government with Bloc support and a caretaker PM such as McCallum or Goodale. The big issue will be how to handle the Liberal leadership convention. Can the NDP and BQ agree carte blanche that the PM's role will automatically go to whoever the Liberals choose in May? Will they insist that the caretaker remain PM until the end of the agreement and that new Liberal leader will have to wait until a new election before possibly becoming PM? Will two of the three contenders (likely Rae and LeBlanc) agree now to put aside their asperations and allow someone else (likely Ignatieff) to become Liberal leader and PM immediately with the agreement of caucus and the Liberal executive and without a Liberal convention? (I can see the NDP agreeing to an Iggy as PM but balking at Rae)

Chester Drawers

Word from the host of a western talkradio show is that the Conservatives will separate out the election funding portion of the fiscal statement and be a stand alone bill.

 

This will now be interesting.  Will the opposition still vote against the fiscal statement and how will they vote on the election financing bill?

 

This will surely put the opposition in a very difficult position.  They will have to vote yay on the election financing as they all stated that that was not the reason for voting against the fiscal statement.

 

So this is how I see it playing out.  The election funding will be voted on first.  Then they will vote on the fiscal statement.  Then the true colors on the real reasons for the anger will be revealed.

Left J.A.B.

Too late to put this horse back in the barn.  Harper has been too clever by half.  (There I had my chance to say it)

 

Na Na Na  Hey Hey Goodbye!

Refuge Refuge's picture

680 News is reporting the oppisition parties still plan to oppose based on no stimulus package.

The Bish

I posted this in the other topic, but the CBC is reporting that the Liberals are going to introduce a non-confidence motion on Monday, and that there is a tentative deal in place to have a coalition government with Dion as PM.

Michelle

Since this has moved into a discussion about a coalition, and this is a long thread, I'll close this and let everyone continue in whichever coalition thread is active now.

madmax

Dion as PM???? No thanks!!!

Pages

Topic locked