I very rarely agree with Libluvin' Jeffery Simpson but this I agree on, to scrap the public funding of political parties.
It would hurt the Liberals and the Bloc the most, because they are not very good at fundraising. They haven't really had to. The Liberals in the past has relied on large corporate donations and that is not allowed anymore under the Accountability Act which was implemented after the Conservatives took office in 2006. The Bloc are just lazy, it's just more money they suck out of ROC. The Conservatives and NDP have better fundraising skills so it wouldn't them as badly.
The Conservative government tried to put an end of that public funding in 2008 when the opposition got into a hissy fit. Then you had the attempt of the coalition of losers trying to overthrow a duly elected government that was just weeks old. I believe the Conservatives used the proposal to smoke the losers out.
Why should you or I be forced give money to parties whose ideologies and policies I don't agree with? Because that's what it is, it's forced donations. It's nothing but distribution of wealth. It doesn't make sense.
End the thing, increase the personal limit from $1100 to I would say maybe $3500 a year. Then if you like a particular party then support it with your wallet not mine.
I say to PM Harper and Minister Jim Flaherty, bring it back. Include it in the next budget and let the chips fall where they may. If the opposition vote the government down on that, so be it. I'm sure the Conservatives would love to campaign on that issue. The opposition I think would have trouble knocking on doors explaining away why the taxpayer should be forced to fund parties they don't agree with.
I agree, but the personal limit should be increased to 5,000 per year.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on another note, the political parties should strive to hold conventions every year to increase exposure and enthusiasm, similar to the UK's party conference season. Now with online tools, many party members can participate making the need for extensive travel less of an issue.
Or even better, a primary system like the USA to elect candidates and encourage more party membership. The Brits are discussion coming up with a form of this.
Michael C
Simpson suggests it goes into the 2011 budget,
ReplyDeletewell, we all know the budget won't pass.
Put it into a stand alone package of taxpayer subsidies Flaherty wants to cut,
or keep it for the election campaign.
I agree, why must I support a marist like duceppe who own goal is to take money from the ROC or to a socialist like NDP that pretends that they care about 'women' but refuse to vote on bills that concerns them.
ReplyDeleteWhy should I support the Liberals when they have no troubles getting 'free' advertising and campaigning from the National Medias.
Why should I subsidize the Coalition parties that went against us to try unseat a sitting PMSH.
Why should I subsidize the LPOC that stole from me you canada.
frmgrl, when the PM brought in this idea- the media like Jeffery should have stood by the PM on this but didn't- nor has he bothered to slam any of them with this question "why must canadians subsidize a party that they don't even vote for."
frmgrl isn't it ironic that the NDP that constantly shouts for the 'little guy', the poor, the women, don't seem to stand for them far less vote for them- the subsidy is one them- right? why should the little guy pay four times(1.95 each) when their choice is for one party - I thought that NDP and others would have instantly be in agreement but I take it that they are not -in the 'little guy'.
Put it into a stand alone package of taxpayer subsidies Flaherty wants to cut,
ReplyDeleteor keep it for the election campaign.
You might have a point there,wilson. The opposition would either have to put up or shut up.
frmgrl, when the PM brought in this idea- the media like Jeffery should have stood by the PM on this but didn't- nor has he bothered to slam any of them with this question "why must canadians subsidize a party that they don't even vote for."
ReplyDeleteI agree Simpson should have stood by the PM back then. The PM sure could have used his support on that front. He's kinda late to the party. I think he's nothing but a Liberal hack but I this is the only thing I agree with him on though.
I don't agree with putting it in the budget. PM Harper has already said that he would "revisit" this issue in the next election campaign. I take this to mean that it will be part of our platform, and not in any budget (or economic update)
ReplyDeleteThe other consideration is that we don't want to give the Opps any extra talking points about the next election being Harper's fault.
Just keep playing things relatively straight, sticking to big ticket issues. For example, the next cut in corporate taxes is set to kick in on Jan 1. The Libs pretty well HAVE to vote against that, or lose a ton more of credibility.
Just bring up the $1.95 per vote subsidy DURING the campaign. I like hardball as much as the next guy, but it can easily backfire, eespecially with the media reinforcing the Libs talking points.
Just bring up the $1.95 per vote subsidy DURING the campaign. I like hardball as much as the next guy, but it can easily backfire, eespecially with the media reinforcing the Libs talking points.
ReplyDeleteYou could be right,CJ. In the budget,it could backfire. The media and talking points. I hadn't thought of that angle. Thanks for pointing that out it's something to think about.
I'm glad it will be a part of the campaign platform. I think many voters will support it.
The Conservatives can point out how much has been given by the taxpayer over the last ten years in the Political Party Welfare.
ReplyDeleteThey can state they will take the biggest HIT and each political party will have to tighten their own belts as families have during the recession.
On a campaign trail LGR-Political Party welfare is a gift that keeps giving in many communities. Once it is gone the CPC can't beat the opposition parties over the head with it.
They may have to wait until their majority unless they want to risk an election.
Yes and ASAP. But I don't want to see high individual contributions either or rich individuals will be buying elections more than they are now. (real conservative)
ReplyDeleteGive your heads a shake people. No one is funding anyone elses party. When I vote, $1.95 of my taxes eventually end up in my party's coffers. When someone in Quebec votes Bloc, or in B.C. votes Green, $1.95 of their tax dollars end up in those partys. Bloc voters and Green voters are Canadian citizens like the rest of us and deserve the same rights and treatment. Would you rather go back to the days when big business, or big unions, or big pressure groups "fund" (read buy), the political partys here like they do in the U.S? Give your head a shake.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what Anonymous said. Public funding of political parties allow each individual Canadian elector to provide support (1.95$) to HIS party of choice when he or she vote. Saying otherwise (ex: the Bloc or the Green gets money from all Canadians) is factually and intellectually dishonest - Read the Canadian Election Act for God's sake!. As a true democrat who very much want to keep both unions and big businesses OUT of the political arena, I honestly do not see how we could have a better system in place. Lastly, with regards to winning more seat, be it in BC, Ontario or Quebec, there is a very easy way to do that : Good Policy - Less Ideology
ReplyDeleteLastly, with regards to winning more seat, be it in BC, Ontario or Quebec, there is a very easy way to do that : Good Policy - Less Ideology
ReplyDeleteI agree. This country I believe is more to the center. Good pragmatic policy that takes into account the basic needs of the country whether it be public security,or trade etc. but not social engineering. I do not want anymore social welfare programs infact we should scrap a good majority of them.