Poltical Party Welfare

Muddy · January 17, 2009

Why? It really changed nothing in that regard. What it did was take the larger parties out of the hands of the rich and the corporate world and place them into the hands of the public in terms of a funding model.

So you actually believe that a new party could rise without public money and challenge the status quo? Are you kidding me? Any new Party would have no chance at fighting those who are financed with tax payer funds. I have no problem keeping Corporate and Union and groups being banned from financing political partys. I believe if only individuals of voting age, were allowed to donate up to $1000.00 maximum we would not have all the dirt throwing unseemly advertising that we do. It is only the establishment that benafits from public money. Our democracy is being highjacked with our own tax dollars.

Smallc · January 18, 2009

Our democracy is being highjacked with our own tax dollars.

That's really nothing but an opinion. Reality is, fringe views don't fly in Canada. That's why we have two, prominent, very middle of the road parties (one to the left a bit [sometimes], and one to the right a bit). We do have other choices on the sideline, but they have never formed power and probably never will unless they move to the middle.

Muddy · January 18, 2009

That's really nothing but an opinion. Reality is, fringe views don't fly in Canada. That's why we have two, prominent, very middle of the road parties (one to the left a bit [sometimes], and one to the right a bit). We do have other choices on the sideline, but they have never formed power and probably never will unless they move to the middle.

Here is a what if ,that has historical precident behind it. What if the Liberals and conservatives morphed into one Party? They would hold the purse strings and would eliminate any chance of political competion. We would end up with but one party to vote for and if they were in anyway a benevolent Party would give us choice of more than one Party member to vote for. This is much like happened in Hitler`s Germany and Stalin`s Russia. Democracy is a very fragile idea that is not perfect but is better than any alternative ever designed by man.

Partys ,if they have the best interest of the people who they claim to serve would not be afraid of competition and that support come from those party members or those within the voting public who feel their donations are being well spent. Government financed Partys will continue to hold power and eliminating any chance of any other party rising to challenge.

Mr.Canada · January 18, 2009

Public money has no place in funding private political parties and needs to end.

Barts · January 18, 2009

Public money has no place in funding private political parties and needs to end.

Absolutely right. How is anyone, any corporation, or any union going to be able to buy politicians if the public funds them? Where's the democracy in that? Give me a country where politicians are for sale to the highest bidder.

Barts · January 18, 2009

... whereas the right are realists.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The "right" tends to be dogmatic and simplistic, while generally ignoring reality. The right is particularly adept at ignoring reality that conflicts with its dubious principles.

Wild Bill · January 18, 2009

Nothing could be further from the truth. The "right" tends to be dogmatic and simplistic, while generally ignoring reality. The right is particularly adept at ignoring reality that conflicts with its dubious principles.

I guess that's why the left seems to be predominately made up of engineers, technicians and such while the right is populated by actors sponsored by government grants, musicians like Bono and in the words of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "politicians, beauticians and telephone sanitizers".

I mean, that's what you meant, isn't it? The practical people are on the left and the simplistic folks on the right?

Only agreeing with you, mate!

Edited January 18, 2009 by Wild Bill

madmax · January 19, 2009

I'm only now a Liberal by default, and am throwing my energies into supporting Michael Ignatieff because he best represents my Red Tory views. NDP too far left...

I think you will be hard pressed to find these words said at any NDP convention. They are popular at Marxist-Lenninist and Communist Party events.

However these words come from you "Progressive Tory" now supporting the LPC.

It means I'm not just a member of the proletariat and I can use my $ 10.00 a month for bread.

Apparently you are not using your $10.00 for bread. You are giving $100 to the LPC.

For most people political contributions are not on their lists of priorities. I made my first ever political contribution this year. $ 100.00 to the Liberals (BTW money is coming in quite steadily for them now, or so I'm told by the local rep.) Still want the 1.95 in place because I know that most people can't do that. I won on a scratch ticket and was feeling particularly 'Iggy' that day.

You have made an excellent arguement to end political party funding... comrade.

madmax · January 19, 2009

No to using tax payers money for established partys!

Your argument about coalitions is out of touch with the reality of our political system with a very long tradition. Public monies to political parties doesn't create coalitions. Public monies to political parties takes general revenues and dispenses it to political parties. Don't blurr the issue, just because you have seen the potential for an alternative government, something that has existed both since and before confederation under our parlimentary system.

madmax · January 19, 2009

He removed the competition for all those leaning right of centre. Now all those Left of centre may have to unite, albeit temporarily, to break down the monopoly.

Harper has moved into the fiscally mushy middle. He is so far removed from fiscal reality that Iggy will look like a right winger compared to Harper.

What you call the left is asking for balanced budgets, yet the LPC believes in keynesian economic policy, which IMHO won't work or isn't large enough in scope, nor could it be, to change the economic direction of the country, while driving deep into debt.

Currently Harper is sharing the same economic policy of Bob Rae, who long ago disgraced the NDP with his Liberal Keynesian version of economic policy. He never realized, like Harper doesn't today, that the jobs loss isn't a just a layoff, it is an exodus. They leave and are not to return.

George Bush, Harper and Rae all are proven deficit hogs. And Iggy is pronouncing deficit spending.

By using OUR money, a mere $1.95 from our staggering tax burden, to ensure that any political Party with enough support can stand for US, is an investment.

Giving Millions of Dollars to the CPC, the LPC, the NDP and the GP doesn't stand for me. I stand up for me, and my political beliefs stand behind my vote, my activism and my contributions to a given political party.

The Right may be united but that doesn't mean that another Right Wing Party can't move up the ranks. ......, if they're not even allowed to express those views because Harper needs to convince Canadians that they DON'T HAVE THEM. That's Democracy?

How is giving them $1.95 democracy?

Maybe instead of tax breaks for political contributions, which give the wealthy more voice, we should eliminate them and instead make the subsidy $ 5.00 per vote

I have no problem with eliminating ALL tax breaks for political contributions. As for $5.00 per vote, I would rather see that money go towards health care.

madmax · January 19, 2009

I do donate the the party directly. I still want my vote to count.

Your vote does count. Just because it doesn't win, doesn't mean it doesn't count.

Their are ridings in the North of Ontario which fell to the NDP and The CPC. Of these 5 ridings, TWO of them had never voted anything other then LPC since confederation. It wasn't the $1.95 that made the change, it was that the North flatly rejected the Carbon Tax of the LPC.

There were independents that won their seats. They received NO $1.95 per vote, and I do not shed a tear to the LPC, CPC, NDP, and GP candidates and supporters who cry of unfairness and democracy, just because they want to keep their fingers in the cookie jar.

Mr.Canada · January 19, 2009

Absolutely right. How is anyone, any corporation, or any union going to be able to buy politicians if the public funds them? Where's the democracy in that? Give me a country where politicians are for sale to the highest bidder.

Quite impossible sir/madam. The donations are limited to personal donations of so much a year. It's important for the party supporters only to fund the party of their choice if they choose to do so. We're in a recession the belts must be tightened.

Smallc · January 19, 2009

Your vote does count. Just because it doesn't win, doesn't mean it doesn't count.

If my candidate loses, it doesn't count. With the $1.95 subsidy, it suddenly counts for something

Progressive Tory · January 19, 2009

I think you will be hard pressed to find these words said at any NDP convention. They are popular at Marxist-Lenninist and Communist Party events.
However these words come from you "Progressive Tory" now supporting the LPC.

Apparently you are not using your $10.00 for bread. You are giving $100 to the LPC.

You have made an excellent arguement to end political party funding... comrade.

If you had read the rest you'd know that it was meant to be tongue in cheek. The difference between workers in a Democracy and the Proletariat under Socialism, is that the former has options, while the latter's only option is a revolution.

Public support of political parties at the expense of carte blanche funding by interest groups is one of the most Democratic moves this country ever made.

I don't follow any leader or Party based on blind faith, and I don't as a rule donate money to them either. However, since Harper counted on the financial demise of the Liberals to quiet their constituents; I had to put my money where my mouth is, literally. I came into a bit of a winfall, so Democratically speaking, helped to take away a bit of Harper's power. Others may feel the same way, because I've been told that donations for them are pouring in. Harper's plan may have backfired in more ways than one.

madmax · January 19, 2009

If my candidate loses, it doesn't count. With the $1.95 subsidy, it suddenly counts for something

If your candidate doesn't win, your vote counts.

If your candidate wins, your vote counts.

Neither of those outcomes should determine the right of political parties to use Tax Payer money.

madmax · January 19, 2009

Public support of political parties at the expense of carte blanche funding by interest groups is one of the most Democratic moves this country ever made.

Public Monies to support Political Parties will always favour the government. I see no reason to give the Governing party more money from the coffers of the taxpayer.

No one is suggesting a change to the current restrictions on who can contribute or limits on how much.

Just a simple, let the money that we raise in taxes, go to the services that governments are to provide.

Political parties provide NO services.

Progressive Tory · January 19, 2009

Public Monies to support Political Parties will always favour the government. I see no reason to give the Governing party more money from the coffers of the taxpayer.
No one is suggesting a change to the current restrictions on who can contribute or limits on how much.

Just a simple, let the money that we raise in taxes, go to the services that governments are to provide.

Political parties provide NO services.

Public monies don't all go to the governing party. They also go to insure that we have an opposition - shadow cabinets to make sure they do their jobs.

If I was told that I could only advocate for one thing; be it a party, a leader, a candidate or a policy, my soapbox would have one four letter word: VOTE! It's the only way we can protect our democrary. If the Party that earns the most votes, gets the most subsidy; it's still democratic because the majority of votes is rewarded. However, it also means that our votes counted, regardless of whether we voted for that party or not.

You have to remember that taxpayers are already subsidizing, based on donations. For every $1,000.00 given, it costs taxpayers $ 750.00 We are subsidyzing those who have the 1,000.00 up front to give to their party. $ 1.95 seems like a very small sum compared to that, to help protect the democratic process. As one poster suggested, it works in the Conservatives favour if less voters show up; but certainly not in the country's.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Progressive Tory

madmax · January 20, 2009

Public monies don't all go to the governing party. They also go to insure that we have an opposition - shadow cabinets to make sure they do their jobs.

The $1.95 goes to political parties. If you remove this money, that there will still be opposition MPs and shadow cabinets.

If I was told that I could only advocate for one thing; be it a party, a leader, a candidate or a policy, my soapbox would have one four letter word: VOTE! It's the only way we can protect our democrary. If the Party that earns the most votes, gets the most subsidy; it's still democratic because the majority of votes is rewarded. However, it also means that our votes counted, regardless of whether we voted for that party or not.

THere is nothing democratic about spoon feeding tax payers monies to the party that receives the most votes.

Your vote counts for the party you vote for. $1.95 isn't going to change that.

You have to remember that taxpayers are already subsidizing, based on donations. For every $1,000.00 given, it costs taxpayers $ 750.00 We are subsidyzing those who have the 1,000.00 up front to give to their party.

I have no problem killing that tax break.

$ 1.95 seems like a very small sum compared to that, to help protect the democratic process. As one poster suggested, it works in the Conservatives favour if less voters show up; but certainly not in the country's.

The $1.95 is not protecting the democratic process. It is a handout to political parties. It is skewed so that the strong parties receive more money then the weaker parties. But all parties have their bellies up to the trough.

This fund was required because the LPC had a history of relying on Corporate donations and internal corrupt fundraising scams and direct theft from government coffers. ADSCAM.

Knowing that there free ride was over, the LPC needed to change the system yet find another way into the taxpayers pocket.

For a party with a 100 year history of governing, they should be able to raise their own funds and campaign.

Political Parties must be kept the furtherest away from the public trough.

Mr.Canada · January 20, 2009

madmax and I are in complete agreement on this. Well said max.

madmax · January 26, 2009

Bump

An election may be on the horizon ...... and this could be a hot topic.

It is one that resonates with the general Canadian Public.

Alta4ever · January 26, 2009

Bump
An election may be on the horizon ...... and this could be a hot topic.

It is one that resonates with the general Canadian Public.

Wish we had gone in Dec.

ToadBrother · January 26, 2009

Bump
An election may be on the horizon ...... and this could be a hot topic.

It is one that resonates with the general Canadian Public.

I'd like to propose removal of tax credits for political donations and make all political parties pay taxes just like they were private companies. Nothing would satisfy me more than Harper coming out of an $800 a plate fundraiser and then having to fork 20% or 30% to the taxpayer.

Edited January 26, 2009 by ToadBrother

madmax · January 26, 2009

I'd like to propose removal of tax credits for political donations and make all political parties pay taxes just like they were private companies. Nothing would satisfy me more than Harper coming out of an $800 a plate fundraiser and then having to fork 20% or 30% to the taxpayer.

I prefer your suggestion. $160 to $240 going to the public purse on $800 contributed to the political party. At least they are putting into the public purse instead of taking from it.

Of course the day this will happen is the day pigs fly. But I would love to see it.

Progressive Tory · January 26, 2009

The $1.95 is not protecting the democratic process. It is a handout to political parties. It is skewed so that the strong parties receive more money then the weaker parties. But all parties have their bellies up to the trough.

There is something that many of you are overlooking here. Why was this made such a public issue? Let's look at the last Conservative Convention and their economic update, shall we.

"On Saturday morning, delegates learned the party is in robust financial health. The head of the federal Conservative fundraising machine said the party will soon be debt-free and have cash in hand once $10-million in Elections Canada rebates are returned to the party following last month's election victory."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostrecom

So why a week and half later did Harper risk the 10 million that was going to get them out of debt and give them cash in hand? He knew he wouldn't have to. He had no intention of taking it away but knew that the opposition would react. They did. It became the biggest issue in the update, concealing what should have been the biggest issue in the update. The fact that we were already in a deficit buried in the 'proposed' selling off of Canadian assets.

Why would they cave so quickly? Come on. When does Harper cave as quickly as he did over this isssue? Very clever. The news of the day was 'political welfare' and the media ran with it. We've become a nation of pawns waiting for cheap political tricks and media spin to do our thinking for us.

You won't get Harper to take away that $ 1.95 for anything. His party would throw him out so fast his head would spin. He knew what he was doing. Sadly, you didn't.

The Conservatives will not slit their own throats; not intentionally anyway.

waldo · January 26, 2009

So why a week and half later did Harper risk the 10 million that was going to get them out of debt and give them cash in hand? He knew he wouldn't have to. He had no intention of taking it away but knew that the opposition would react. They did. It became the biggest issue in the update, concealing what should have been the biggest issue in the update. The fact that we were already in a deficit buried in the 'proposed' selling off of Canadian assets.
Why would they cave so quickly? Come on. When does Harper cave as quickly as he did over this isssue? Very clever. The news of the day was 'political welfare' and the media ran with it. We've become a nation of pawns waiting for cheap political tricks and media spin to do our thinking for us.

You won't get Harper to take away that $ 1.95 for anything. His party would throw him out so fast his head would spin. He knew what he was doing. Sadly, you didn't.

wag the dog? Are the CONS that cagey/manipulative - say it ain't so!

such an overblown trumped up piece of minutia by the "how dare they use my $1.95 tax dollar for a party I don't support" gang - aided and abetted by a lack of investigative journalism (see weak mainstream media)