Poltical Party Welfare

[jdobbin]

I've mentioned in the past that Harper might find a wedge issue that the public will support, but that the opposition will be forced to vote down. This could be it, and it would be easy to promote it in such a way that the opposition looks really bad for voting against it.

Let it happen. I think the Liberals and other parties should offload their polling and other party functions to foundations and solicit union and corporate donations.

[jdobbin]

Plus the fact that Dion would still be Liberal leader. But wait. Apparently Dion is scoring higher popularity numbers than Iggy, Rae and Dom. I don't doubt there are many Liberal supporters who think the Liberals could actually win an election if it was held today. I suppose there's nothing like the power of positive thinking.

So you think Harper will call an election now?

[jdobbin]

Let's suppose the opposition brings down the government in the next few weeks. Now that this proposition has seen the light of day, the majority of Canadians will want to see it passed by whoever forms the next government. IOW, the seed has been planted.

The Opposition won't bring down the government but if the government funding is reduced, the Opposition may introduce a amendment to increase individual donations to the pre-2006 numbers. Do you think the Harper government would reject parties funding themselves?

[August1991]

Political Welfare is an "Undeserved Handout" and I am sick to my stomach that the Green Party, with thoughts such as yours, could ever envisions yourselves more needy then people on welfare.

For you to suggest that others less well off then yourself are underserved while you need a government handout so that GP can have Convention Money.

What a pathetic disgrace.

This is why we shouldn't fund political parties. For arrogance like this.

If this is welfare, it's a curious version. I would rather call it charity. If I vote for a political party, I choose to give it $1.95 (of my money) each year for the life of the parliament. I suppose we could change the rules slightly and if I chose "none of the above", I could receive a $1.95 refund on my income tax statement.

I generally like this $1.95 idea. If several hundred thousand Canadians vote for the Green Party, then it seems that it is popular. If you like this idea of democracy, then you should favour popular decisions. This one has the merit that the subsidy is determined precisely by popular support.

40% of the people don't vote because we have one of the least democratic most ridiculous voting systems in the world. I've been to and voted in countries which have proportional representation systems and the interest in politics is far greater than I've ever seen in Canada. Every single election I've voted in Canada has been a throw-away vote for me yet I still go. I'm not surprised people don't care when they are disenfranchised to such an extent.

That viewpoint is remarkably naive and not borne out by evidence.

In a system of PR, one individual's vote is just as pointless as in FPTP.

It is precisely a system of $1.95 subsidy (welfare) which makes one person's vote in fact worth something.

-----

There is a debate above about spending caps vs. donation limits. I tend to agree with Bluegreen that donation limits are more enforceable. Barack Obama's campaign (and the Tories/Reform) show that the Internet has changed campaign finance. The best strategy is to raise alot of money through small donations. The $1.95 system amounts to this.

Personally, I don't see why political parties need to spend so much money on a campaign.

With the internet, how hard is it to post your platform, press releases etc. on the internet, and for voters to do a little of their own research and actually read those platforms and base their decision on that?

Political parties have to spend alot of money in campaign for the same reason that some people have to wear expensive clothes - to show the money. In the case of politics, it shows in part their popularity.

gc1765, you do raise a good point though. The $1.95 system shows how popular a political party was in the last election, not it's current popularity.

-----

With all this said, Harper seems to have thrown some popcorn among the monkeys. This will keep pundits and politcos busy for the next few months or so.

[madmax]

If this is welfare, it's a curious version. I would rather call it charity. If I vote for a political party, I choose to give it $1.95 (of my money) each year for the life of the parliament. I suppose we could change the rules slightly and if I chose "none of the above", I could receive a $1.95 refund on my income tax statement.

I generally like this $1.95 idea. If several hundred thousand Canadians vote for the Green Party, then it seems that it is popular. If you like this idea of democracy, then you should favour popular decisions. This one has the merit that the subsidy is determined precisely by popular support.

That viewpoint is remarkably naive and not borne out by evidence.

In a system of PR, one individual's vote is just as pointless as in FPTP.

It is precisely a system of $1.95 subsidy (welfare) which makes one person's vote in fact worth something.

-----

There is a debate above about spending caps vs. donation limits. I tend to agree with Bluegreen that donation limits are more enforceable. Barack Obama's campaign (and the Tories/Reform) show that the Internet has changed campaign finance. The best strategy is to raise alot of money through small donations. The $1.95 system amounts to this.

Political parties have to spend alot of money in campaign for the same reason that some people have to wear expensive clothes - to show the money. In the case of politics, it shows in part their popularity.

gc1765, you do raise a good point though. The $1.95 system shows how popular a political party was in the last election, not it's current popularity.

-----

With all this said, Harper seems to have thrown some popcorn among the monkeys. This will keep pundits and politcos busy for the next few months or so.

Your vote is the most important thing you can give. People fight for the right to vote. No vote is ever wasted. I don't agree with the whiners who say their vote was wasted and I support PR over FPTP. Political parties alway follow which party has momentum in attracting votes.

If your support your party enough to vote for it, walk in and give them $1.95 and buy a round of coffee and donuts for the workers if you have extra cash.

Political parties last over 100 years without a handout.

The process is also descriminatory. A person who votes CAP or Progressive is by your definition a lessor citizen, because according to you, the only thing that makes your vote important is the $1.95.

I say that is bollocks.

At least you vote, and if you are going to suggest that should the $1.95 be removed you will not vote, I would doubt that very much.

[M.Dancer]

Bye Bye party welfare...bye bye insignificant fringe parties...

The Tories are expected to make it costly for rival parties to fight their proposal by introducing legislation to eliminate the subsidy, worth $1.95 per vote annually. The legislation is expected to be a money bill and therefore a confidence vote, which means defeating it could trigger another election. If this happened, the Tories could blame rival parties for refusing to make sacrifices.

“We will see who wants to lead by example,” Conservative government House Leader Jay Hill told MPs in the House of Commons yesterday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

[capricorn]

With all this said, Harper seems to have thrown some popcorn among the monkeys. This will keep pundits and politcos busy for the next few months or so.

The issue of subsidies to political parties is pretty simple and one that average Canadians can understand and take a stand on. On the other hand, matters concerning the ills of the economy and what the government intends to do about it is not so simple. There are so many diverse opinions out there, what and who are we to believe?

Eliminating subsides to political parties would result in saving millions annually. This is a concept Canadians understand perfectly regardless of how the opposition spins it.

[jdobbin]

Eliminating subsides to political parties would result in saving millions annually. This is a concept Canadians understand perfectly regardless of how the opposition spins it.

End them then but I suspect that cooperation in Parliament end as well.

[Oleg Bach]

The issue of subsidies to political parties is pretty simple and one that average Canadians can understand and take a stand on. On the other hand, matters concerning the ills of the economy and what the government intends to do about it is not so simple. There are so many diverse opinions out there, what and who are we to believe?

Eliminating subsides to political parties would result in saving millions annually. This is a concept Canadians understand perfectly regardless of how the opposition spins it.

It would eventually destroy the liberal party. Liberals really don't like to put their money where there mouth is. They talk a blue streak about freedom and choice and equality...seeing money makes all equal - The little power mongering liberals will refuse to empower others and by doing so dis-empower themselves. They are like the freaks that complain about the autrocity that is homelessness and will gentrify a neighbour hood but will say in private "If we could only get rid of that strip joint on the corner and kill all the drug addicts and poor. Looks good on them...I hope they finally have to contribute to society instead of sucking the life blood out.

[madmax]

Bump

Just to keep this honest.

Might need $1.95 to hand out to get more votes here. Come on Maple Leaf Web posters. Get out the vote.

[Alta4ever]

Bump

Just to keep this honest.

Might need $1.95 to hand out to get more votes here. Come on Maple Leaf Web posters. Get out the vote.

Hey we're up to 25 doing good.

[madmax]

Hey we're up to 25 doing good.

Yup 25 is good, but my poll regarding a coalition is up to 22 already

The irony being that there is less support here for the removal of public financing ..... by one measely vote, and yet their is more support for Harper in my poll vs a new coalition leader.

[madmax]

Hey we're up to 25 doing good.

Well the coalition thread is now at 28.....

With regards to your thread poll.

I think you won the battle and Harper lost the war if all the media hype is true.

[Alta4ever]

Well the coalition thread is now at 28.....

With regards to your thread poll.

I think you won the battle and Harper lost the war if all the media hype is true.

No the real war has just begun, we have hit a historic tipping point in Canadian politics, watch things change, as people see the chicken littles of Canadian politics, (if there is a coalition gov.) scurry gab for their entitlements, and unable to change consumer confidence run up a deficit with unneeded government spending and huge tax increases to try to pay for it. The battle for Canada has just begun, and the outcome maybe several new nations in the world.

[Smallc]

The battle for Canada has just begun, and the outcome maybe several new nations in the world.

Oh please.

[Alta4ever]

Oh please.

There are a great many in this land that have been alienated and selling out to seperatisits for power will produce a lot of venom.

[Oleg Bach]

No the real war has just begun, we have hit a historic tipping point in Canadian politics, watch things change, as people see the chicken littles of Canadian politics, (if there is a coalition gov.) scurry gab for their entitlements, and unable to change consumer confidence run up a deficit with unneeded government spending and huge tax increases to try to pay for it. The battle for Canada has just begun, and the outcome maybe several new nations in the world.

Wonder what the Americans are thinking as we destroy our selves...This would be like Washington coming apart at the seams. Better watch out for the opportunists to the south..we are getting to look like a pack of starving fighting dogs...they may come in and eat what's left over after the foolishness.

[Shakeyhands]

Can someone explain to me why this is a big deal? If you don't want the bloc to get $1.95, don't vote for them. Or look at it this way, it's my $1.95 of tax money, not yours.

[Alta4ever]

Can someone explain to me why this is a big deal? If you don't want the bloc to get $1.95, don't vote for them. Or look at it this way, it's my $1.95 of tax money, not yours.

Thats off the table now anyway, what we are seeing now is the opposition selling out the country to the bloc for a taste of power.

[Oleg Bach]

Thats off the table now anyway, what we are seeing now is the opposition selling out the country to the bloc for a taste of power.

Money with out purpose is useless - power for powers sake without purpose is also useless. To sell out the country to the bloc would be fine if they were the country - apparently they might just become that...Two choices - sell out to the French or sell out to the Americans.

[Alta4ever]

Wonder what the Americans are thinking as we destroy our selves...This would be like Washington coming apart at the seams. Better watch out for the opportunists to the south..we are getting to look like a pack of starving fighting dogs...they may come in and eat what's left over after the foolishness.

Aside form a few of the truely informed, they propbably have no clue or care to. Depending on the out come I would imagine that feeler or two would go out though to the energy rich provinces, just for the energy reserves, if things got bad enough.

[Oleg Bach]

Thats off the table now anyway, what we are seeing now is the opposition selling out the country to the bloc for a taste of power.

Money with out purpose is useless - power for powers sake without purpose is also useless. To sell out the country to the bloc would be fine if they were the country - apparently they might just become that...Two choices - sell out to the French or sell out to the Americans.

[Smallc]

There are a great many in this land that have been alienated and selling out to seperatisits for power will produce a lot of venom.

The country won't come apart because of something that's written into the constitution.

[Shakeyhands]

Thats off the table now anyway, what we are seeing now is the opposition selling out the country to the bloc for a taste of power.

Well no, I believe the whole argument was despite what Harper was saying, Flaherty was doin the opposite. In fact, Flaherty was announcing just about the same 'stimulus' program as he did when he was Harris' golden child, and look how that worked.

[Alta4ever]

Money with out purpose is useless - power for powers sake without purpose is also useless. To sell out the country to the bloc would be fine if they were the country - apparently they might just become that...Two choices - sell out to the French or sell out to the Americans.

The bloc would have a hefty price tag for them to support the coalition, after the defeat of this bill what else would be in for them, why hold up the coalition.