Election Financing

Well, if it is going to be a confidence vote let's be glad it is being proposed this early... within that ill-defined six month window that might allow for an alternative government to be formed rather than forcing a new election.

Albeit grudgingly, I have to admit that it is a really good trick... much better than holding up the House by just letting the division bells ring.

Actually I think the issue this is directed at is the bloc. If they hadn't reemerged during the election it would be harper majority. I have to say I truely do think cons are worse than libs. The libs wouldn't pull this shit. Yeah they lie and pander but this is evil. Might as well be a totalitarian regime in there. I am more than willing to go to the polls again. If harper destroyed only the bloc, he would have his majority. I think that is his plan, doing away the libs is just an added bonus.

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

They have said they are about smaller government. The only issue is they never completed that sentance"We want smaller governement, of the variety we don't like. And bigger government for that which we do." Military, money for corporation, intrusions into your social life(gotta love the anti terror bill). All the while death by a thousand cuts to what canadians love. Best of all being bad at management only serves their purpose. The more people that beome apathethic or inclined to get rid of government all together, just serves them more. Apathy, love it because cons alway get their vote out,  want to get rid of gov, welcome to the club [don't look at the fact we are the ones destroying it].

Win win. 

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

Thats just your imagination kicking up bogeymen BB. But we've been down that road enough times.

 I'm still waiting to see what Flaherty actually said, he should have delivered it about now. But I suppose whether or not its a confidence vote they could leave hanging a while.

In fact, they'll probably leave it hanging longer if they don't intend to make it a confidence vote. Drag out the drama as long as possible.

janfromthebruce wrote:

 Actually, I disagree with you jpj. Chretien did it to get rid of the influence of corporations/unions/lobbyist controling govt by their donations.

The Chretien screwed his own party because his party did not have people writing cheques rather it was corporations and lobbyists

The update did nothing but cuts...no stimulus...we just need to sit and wait. WOW LEADERSHIP!

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

CBC is also reporting the following very troubling aspect of the fiscal update:

Quote:

Hold wage increases to public servants, including MPs and senators, to
2.3 per cent for last year and 1.5 per cent for each of the next three
years; and bring in legislation to stop them from striking until
2010-11.

the only good part of the update is the fast tracking of infrastructure

Quote:

Infrastructure is an example of such worthwhile spending. Investment in infrastructure creates jobs for today and for the future. It creates essential links between communities and regions. Next year’s increase in infrastructure spending will be our largest, and will push the total amount to over $6 billion in stimulus to the economy. Our Government is committed to expediting our historic, $33-billion Building Canada plan to get projects moving as quickly as possible, in particular for the upcoming construction season. We will work with provinces and territories to identify a limited number of key infrastructure projects across Canada by January 2009. These investments will help keep Canada moving forward as the world economy slows.

Stock the coalition gov't argument is difficult to see happen even if -- and I  do not see her doing it -- but even if the GG allowed them to form a coalition govt.

How would Canadians react to teh Deputy PM being Mr. Duceppe?  Canadians would welcome Jack as Minister of Finance.

163 seats in the coalition government. Therefore a cabinet of 35 would be if divided by seat percentages with numbers rounded up

libs 77 seats or 47% of cabinet  16 seats in Cabinet

BQ 49 seats or 30% of Cabinet 10 seats

NDP 37 seats or 23% of Cabinet 8 seats in Cabinet

Would Jack accept 8 seats at the table? Which 8?

I just do not see this scenario playing out

Caissa wrote:

Cop out and nonsense Mad max. Do elaborate?

 

I support the current electoral funding through the public purse.

In Saint John, N.B. and NDP vote is only worth $1.95. They have no chance of winning. YMMV

There is nothing wrong with your position to support federal funding. But to suggest that your vote is worth nothing without it is an insult.  People work hard to spread a political parties values. For the party you mention, that hard work has translated into a seat in NewBrunswick. There is no seat that is untouchable. To suggest that a party is only of value because of the $1.95 per vote undermines the political value of the activists and mobilizers.  

 Who would have expected the NDP to win a seat in Quebec, Alberta, Newfoundland and virtually sweep all of Northern Ontario?  This had little to do with $1.95 and more to do with hard work and the climate of the electorate willingness and readiness for change. Many of those seats would have been considered a riding with "NO CHANCE OF WINNING".

Here is a riding in NB that anyone who can read a stat would say, my riding has "NO CHANCE OF WINNING"

Liberal
Doug Young
26,782
66.35
+14.60

    
Progressive Conservative
Luce-Andrée Gauthier
11,175
27.69
-15.04

    
New Democrat
Kim Gallant
2,406
5.96
+0.43

Except in the next election this happened.

PartyCandidateVotes%±%

    
New Democrat
Yvon Godin
21 113
40.53
+34.57

    
Liberal
Doug Young
18 421
35.36
-30.99

    
Progressive Conservative
Norma Landry
12 560
24.11
-3.58

No public purse required.

Is there a benefit to political parties via the public purse? Absolutely. Is it  the be all and end all of democracy? NO

Is the Harper Government being mean and devilish? I think so, and more importantly if they are more focused on this "game" then on the economy and there is nothing to offer Canadians before Christmas.... I don't think they have done anything other then poke the LPC in the eye.

I have heard nothing for Canadians, and if the parties go after the government over this issue, they could look more concerned about their "self interest" then about the fate of many Canadians in an economic downturn.

If you look at your riding a 16% starting point is better then the 5% starting point above.  Vote for what you believe in, and fight for what you believe.

Radical Marijuana
Michael Moffat
330
0.9

NDP-New Democratic Party
Tony Mowery
5,560
16.0

Green Party
Mike Richardson
1,888
5.4

Conservative
Rodney Weston
13,782
39.6

Liberal
Paul Zed
13,285
38.1

 What is a RADICAL Marijuana party? One that doesn't eat munchies?

Chester Drawers wrote:

Should the government continue with the $1.75 per vote subsidy?  Or should all political financing come from the party supporters?

I think that the subsidy should be dropped.  Only donations from party supporters, actual voters, should be allowed.

Wonderful idea. But why stop there. 

Let's get rid of this voting business altogether, and just say that the party that raises the most money wins. Think of all the money we'll save by not having to have one of those annoying elections.

madmax wrote:

While all parties benefit from the $1.95 I do not support it. I don't believe that political parties are in need of money as much as our health care system, or social services.

People can donate their money or time to a political party. 

Giving more money to the CPC just so they can have a huge war chest to thump the LPC with prior to the election cycle is a waste of tax money.

Why should a party like the LPC, which has governed Canada for the majority of its existance as a country, be inline for a handout. 

I also don't consider funding of political parties and essential service. Parties have managed to survive without the handout for over 100 years. 

The CCF existed long before this form of political welfare existed, and so did the NDP.

I wonder if the GP would exist or run those paper candidates in ridings as a source of revenue generation if it wasn't for the handout?  

This isn't about democracy. Those fringe parties, who people have the right to vote for, and independants, receive..... nothing. Therefore their vote is worth even less. It could well be considered a violation of political rights. It certainly isn't fair. To think we would give Separtists Millions of dollars that they can't raise on their own is rediculous. To think that we won't give Liberatarians are CAP monies for votes highlights that we support political welfare for separation but not for minority parties unable to get their voice out.

There is a reason for that. If over 1 million people voted for the BQ before giving them Millions of dollars, there is no reason to give the BQ money today.

And if people aren't mobilized or care enough to donate or vote for the CAP we seem quite happy in not letting them belly up to the trough.

Nearly half the public doesn't vote. Why should their tax money go to political parties of which none they support? Why should a tax paying CAP, Communist or Progressive, have their money giving to the Liberals, CPC, NDP?

A political party which cannot raise its own funds should recognise their state of affairs and rectify rather then rely on the public purse to fund their campaigns.

IMHO. 

 

 Now hold on, 

First of all, the Conservatives aren't getting
rid of public funding, they are getting rid of one of two types of
public funding - and the one where they don't have a huge advantage.
The rebate, where they enjoy the lion's share, isn't being challenged.

Secondly,
the idea behind it, is that it levels the playing field a bit. Parties
that champion the poor, can actually afford election signs, polling and
even TV commercials. We can pretend all we want that money doesn't
matter in politics, but we all know it does. 

Thirdly, the reason
that the CCF did well, was not because they raised hundreds of dollars
from millions of Canadians, it did well because it got large
contributions from unions and wealthy philanthropists - something that
can not happen now that we have limits on election donations.

Fourthly, you're presenting a false choice. We can have a fair electoral system and health care and education. 30 million is about a dollar from every person. It's not even close to the amount spent in Afghanistan, or the amount of money lost because we got rid of the GST. So, let's stop pretending this is some sort of deficit saving measure.

Fifthly, the fact that the elimination of the subsidy might result in the elimination of a political party you don't like really doesn't change the fact that levelling the playing field is a good thing to do.

Sixthly, given that it's clear that a party needs money to survive and even more money to compete, relying solely on individual contributions will result in political parties tilting more and more to the right as they chase the dollars of wealthy people. Do we really need a hundred dollar donation to be worth more than a dozen votes?

 Seventhly, I agree with you about independents getting money, but an oversight in the program, does not make the entire program obsolete or corrupt.

The simple fact is that we are putting all of our eggs in the basket of enough liberals voting no to bring down the government. 

What if 15 to 20 libs get diplomatic flu

libs vote against but guess what harper survives

I suspect the Liberals will show up, this isn't about a symbolic show of principle but actually an attack on them where it hurts.  And as if the Bloc are going to want to be in Cabinet, johnpauljones is really grasping at straws, their motivation for not wanting to see their primary source of funding disappear is pretty self evident and has nothing to do with cabinet positions..

melovesproles you are suggesting that the bq will kill the current government only to get their election funding back?

No if their is a coalition then the BQ and the NDP will demand power positions.

I think thats ridiculous, maybe the NDP will demand cabinet positions, but for the Bloc to suddenly want a seat at governing Canada would be a radical shift in their ideology and a contradiction of their whole raison d'etre.  And are you seriously suggesting that losing 90% of their entire funding wouldn't be a significant motivaton for the Bloc?

What part of not losing 90% of their funding isn't beneficial to the Bloc?  As its been pointed out in this thread and others, this would hurt the Bloc more than anyone by far.  You seem to be oblivious to this very straightforward fact. 

Obviously, they would also base their support on "Quebec's interests" but the idea that the Bloc wants or has ever wanted to govern Canada is absurd.

That's a good question but its let's not pretend the Bloc wants cabinet positions in the Canadian government.

Stockholm wrote:

Apparently, the Liberals, NDP AND BQ have all announced they will vote against this statement. That means we face three possibilities:

 

1. The Tories back down

2. Parliament is dissolved and we have a new election.

3. The three opposition parties ask the GG to let them forma coalition government

Another possibility is all the other parties oppose the bill in the media but not enough members show up during the vote to actually vote against - so it passes.

Stockholm wrote:

There are many models for how this might work. The BQ would almost certainly not accept any cabinet seats and would probably offer passive support from outside. the NDp might do the same.

remember that in Ontario in 1985 the Liberals had fewer seats than the Tories but formed a minority government on the basis of  support agreement with the NDP.

I would hope that the NDP would NOT act "like handmaids" and take cabinet seats. It's time for the NDP to show that they can "act in government" and this is the perfect opportunity to do so.

What is more worrying is that although the libs said they were against it, Dion played coy here: CBC news and said the following

However, Dion did not respond when asked whether a handful of his MPs might be absent for a vote on the update, a move that would give the government enough numbers to survive. In the last Parliament, the Liberals used the tactic several times to prevent triggering an election.

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

They irony is what duceppe said at the english language debates.  There is mad anger on the star and CBC boards over the blatant attack on working people and democracy.

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

ggs wrote:

So, if not fiscal prudence then what? The answer is simple. He wants to destroy the opposition parties. He doesn't just want a majority in the next election, he wants a permanent majority. He does not believe in democracy, he believes in power.

Exactly!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Chester,

First of all, generally a recession is not really the time to cut costs. Ever hear of 'pass the buck'? So, not really sure why Harper suddenly feels a need to reduce the budget.

Secondly, do you really think that $30 million is the most inefficient use of government money, or do you think Harper is just making a raw grasp at power? Geez, can you think ofanything else that could be eliminated that costs as much or more? Anything at all?

 1$ a person to help level the playing field in Canadian politics is not too much, particularly when the Conservatives know all too well that this is going to cripple the other parties.