Flaherty to slash public funding for federal parties

[jdobbin]

So why can't they teach their party how to do this?

It really wasn't in Ignatieff's or Rae's interest to lend Dion a hand.

Probably true. No, certainly true. Just like the only reason Chretien brought in this law was to screw Martin. But i don't care why they were done. They make sense from a democratic standpoint. No ordinary person can donate $5,000 to a political party. Only the rich can. More to the point, that high an amount calls in favours and it makes it much easier to get around limits. We've often seen, for example, in the past, how all the leading officers of a corporation and their spouses, would donate thousands to a party - well, to your party - as individuals in order to get around limits. So you have the ABC Corp president and his wife and son all donating $5,000, along with the three VPs and their wives, and you've got a sizeable favour owed to them in the near future, to be paid back through action on a bill or policy which will profit them.

Seems to me that the Tories had more large donors in the $5000 range at the time they ran against Martin in 2006. As a percentage, the Liberals had more of the overall large donors. When Harper made the change, he knew the Liberals would take the biggest hit because they lacked a larger small donor base.

But then you knew that.

Uh huh, and I'm betting that this proposed spending limit would not limit the Liberals with their small donation base, but would limit the Tories, who get a lot more money, right? I think it's more fair to say that a party can raise whatever it can from its members and from Canadians in the form of small, individual donations, than that we'll limit the Tories to what the Liberals can raise and spend - because the Liberals don't know how to raise money.

I expect that the Tories will be more interested in spending limits when the Liberals are able to raise money from small donors in a big way.

Then let them.

I'm sure they will.

However, the government has now shown where there priorities are which is to lose the confidence of the House by being hyperpartisan and by not concentrating on meaningful economic moves to overcome what the OECD says will be an awful year and a half or so.

Canadian Press says Tories were stunned that their brinkmanship has led to this. They figured they would bide their time, introduce a do nothing but poisonous economic update, shout cowards across the floor of the House and look to the U.S. for what to do on the economy.

Canada doesn't have to wait that long. If the Opposition can agree on a stimulus, they can ask the Governor General to let them form a government.

At this point, I expect Harper was readying an election call before the Liberals chose a new leader so there really isn't any downside in the short term to removing the government before that for the Liberals.

[Argus]

Not to mention the elimination of the right to strike by federal employees. Can they even do that?

Of course. Your own Liberal party did it before.

[jdobbin]

Uhm, the party leader is supposed to have enormous influence on the party. Just because your party leader doesn't have any influence on his party don't try to pretend that's normal.

You'll note I said undue influence and it happens moreso when in government. Harper himself was facing a growing movement to remove him up to six months before the last election.

The Tories are not the only ones who have had this happen when they achieve. More and more power is being placed in the first minister's hands and they are able to use government finances to build an army around them that is not only interested in governance but to shut down any opposition to the leader even from the party itself.

[Argus]

Talking about government programs, Flaherty announced they're planning to cut another $15 Billions on those, no mention which ones in the next 3 years; what do you think will get on the chopping block first I say health care and food inspection; best way to depopulate as food is getting rare in the world... and so is pension funds... therefore eliminating the poor, the sick and the old in one large swoop.

I have to observe that it's always a race to the bottom of the stupidity well whenever you and DrGreenthumb post on the same topic - but you invaraiably manage to get there first.

[Argus]

If the BQ really get 80% of their financing from this then this would be a great idea for really putting a spike in their spokes. The Liberals should be all in favour of this, because once they get their act together and start raising funds properly they and the Tories will have a much better chance of shunting the BQ aside.

[cybercoma]

If the BQ really get 80% of their financing from this then this would be a great idea for really putting a spike in their spokes. The Liberals should be all in favour of this, because once they get their act together and start raising funds properly they and the Tories will have a much better chance of shunting the BQ aside.

This point should be enough reason for everyone outside Quebec to support this decision.

[jdobbin]

If the BQ really get 80% of their financing from this then this would be a great idea for really putting a spike in their spokes. The Liberals should be all in favour of this, because once they get their act together and start raising funds properly they and the Tories will have a much better chance of shunting the BQ aside.

The problem is that the Tories intend to use this decision to hurt all the parties now and then call a snap election in the next months anyway. The Liberals wisely figure that there is more of the same aimed at hurting them before they get a new leader and the Tories have left themselves vulnerable on the economy. Better to get it over with now if Harper really intends to call an election or play the brinkmanship game from now till May while shouting coward and laughing their asses off from the government benches.

The constitutional authority is in place for the Opposition to remove the government if they have lost confidence in their priorities. Harper has basically said they will wait several months even though the OECD says that Canada is in recession now.

[cybercoma]

The problem is that the Tories intend to use this decision to hurt all the parties now and then call a snap election in the next months anyway.

Or they could be looking at every way possible to save the taxpayers money, rather than running deficits. They were talking about liquidating assets last week. Saying their intention is to hurt the other parties is a pretty slanted way of looking at it.

[jdobbin]

Or they could be looking at every way possible to save the taxpayers money, rather than running deficits. They were talking about liquidating assets last week. Saying their intention is to hurt the other parties is a pretty slanted way of looking at it.

They backed away from that liquidating assets like it was scalding water. Harper said it was no time for a firesale and he was right.

If Harper really intended to save money, he would have reduced the size of his cabinet. $30 million increase in cabinet versus $30 taken off from party supports. Yup, that is how it is slanted. Where is the savings?

In any event, this is about brinkmanship and playing for time. It shows the Tories are prepared to play games and their call for a less poisonous atmosphere is a joke. They want an election before six months are over but want to make sure the Opposition is crippled first. Well, I don't think they saw this coming. The Liberals seem to have grown some large balls and the Constitution is on their side if they want to remove the government for confidence.

And it won't be just for election financing. It will be for making it a priority over the seriously dealing with the economy in the economic statement.

[fairvotecanada]

I have to observe that it's always a race to the bottom of the stupidity well whenever you and DrGreenthumb post on the same topic - but you invaraiably manage to get there first.

So was I so stupid in my prediction that Canada was going to get hit by the credit crunch a month or so after the election and am I still stupid to say that this is the Next Great Depression coming up in March or maybe before?

I have listened, I have searched, I have warned all of you that Harper is our own little dictator; are you still denying there is a problem with our economy?

I am already eating at the Union Gospel Mission and using the food bank; I know that I am on the chopping block. But do you still believe that oil will feed you until you die and then feed your kids, or are you seeing the price affect your income one way or the other?

Oil/gas does not affect me as much, as I do not drive or own a car, and being a person living with handicap in BC it has no chance to feed me at all. Will your rent or house payment get any lower when your paycheck get cut? As mine did not, it is nice to be catered to by the likes of Harper when you are in his "revenue" column, but quite different to be in the "cost" column as he always find a way to cut those who are.

What makes you so sure that the secret agenda is not to depopulate?

The bears are coming into cities because food is scarce all over...

[M.Dancer]

So was I so stupid in my prediction that Canada was going to get hit by the credit crunch a month or so after the election and am I still stupid to say that this is the Next Great Depression coming up in March or maybe before?

Probably....the credit crunch was predicted over a year ago so your prediction is somewhat late and less than startling and the next great depression is still not on the horizon.

The Coming Credit Crunch

March 25th, 2007Robert McHugh, Ph.D.

We believe a credit crunch is underway. It started with the housing slowdown, which resulted in deteriorating real estate prices (collateral values), is now fed by adjustable rate mortgages resetting higher, that make it difficult for many homeowners to make payments on time. Without rising values, refinancing isn't an option, resale isn't an option (folks owe more than they can get, net of real estate sales commissions and taxes), and so they are forced to hand lenders the keys.

.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/mchugh032407.html

[White Doors]

So was I so stupid in my prediction that Canada was going to get hit by the credit crunch a month or so after the election and am I still stupid to say that this is the Next Great Depression coming up in March or maybe before?

I have listened, I have searched, I have warned all of you that Harper is our own little dictator; are you still denying there is a problem with our economy?

I am already eating at the Union Gospel Mission and using the food bank; I know that I am on the chopping block. But do you still believe that oil will feed you until you die and then feed your kids, or are you seeing the price affect your income one way or the other?

Oil/gas does not affect me as much, as I do not drive or own a car, and being a person living with handicap in BC it has no chance to feed me at all. Will your rent or house payment get any lower when your paycheck get cut? As mine did not, it is nice to be catered to by the likes of Harper when you are in his "revenue" column, but quite different to be in the "cost" column as he always find a way to cut those who are.

What makes you so sure that the secret agenda is not to depopulate?

The bears are coming into cities because food is scarce all over...

What the F?

Holy smokes.

[Wild Bill]

In any event, this is about brinkmanship and playing for time. It shows the Tories are prepared to play games and their call for a less poisonous atmosphere is a joke. They want an election before six months are over but want to make sure the Opposition is crippled first. Well, I don't think they saw this coming. The Liberals seem to have grown some large balls and the Constitution is on their side if they want to remove the government for confidence.

Brinksmanship? Jdobbin, didn't you notice that the Opposition is NOT intending to bring down the Tories in order for the people do have another choice by means of an election?

No! Their intention is to put the Liberals in power by means of a coalition technicality!

If the Governor General allows this then in my eyes in Canada democracy will be well and truly dead!

If the people don't want another election so quickly after the last one then at least they would have the opportunity to punish the Tories for causing it to happen. If they lose respect for the Opposition parties for seizing power with no election then perhaps there would be a similar price to be paid next election.

I'm betting that when the average Canadian realizes that the Opposition parties rely so heavily on public moneys because they can't get enough support from the average Canadian they will become totally disgusted with them!

Many here might not believe this but I could at times see the day when once again I would vote Liberal, depending on who was running their show. If they try to seize power with a coalition coup I would be so disgusted and enraged that I could never see voting for them again!

When you take away the people's right to choose then you take away democracy, IMHO. And let no one make the claim that the majority of voters did not vote for Harper so therefore the Liberals can assume that the majority of Canadians support THEM! That's totally illogical. You could use the same argument to put Duceppe in as PM!

I have to say that this proposed ploy is the most disgusting political move I have ever seen in my entire life! It doesn't just take the cake, it takes the entire bakery!

Bringing down Harper is one thing. Denying the people an election to grab power is quite another.

[capricorn]

I have to say that this proposed ploy is the most disgusting political move I have ever seen in my entire life! It doesn't just take the cake, it takes the entire bakery!

Bringing down Harper is one thing. Denying the people an election to grab power is quite another.

What this amounts to is plotting a "coup" against the ruling government. When this happens in other countries, it is denounced.

And look who's orchestrating the coup. Jean Chretien and Ed Broadbent. Yeesh!

[madmax]

Brinksmanship?

If the people don't want another election so quickly after the last one then at least they would have the opportunity to punish the Tories for causing it to happen. If they lose respect for the Opposition parties for seizing power with no election then perhaps there would be a similar price to be paid next election.

I'm betting that when the average Canadian realizes that the Opposition parties rely so heavily on public moneys because they can't get enough support from the average Canadian they will become totally disgusted with them!

This has become game of brinksmanship. The CPC are in a minority government, and Mr. Harper may have taken counting lessons from Joe Clark. If you are going to propose something, and you want it to pass, you need to find a dancing partner or force the opposition to back down. The latter was successful in the last term. However, since the parties are taking this action as an attack vs a reform, Harper may have made a grave error in judgement, that could, beyond all reasonable possibilities, lead to a united coalition government. He could well have overplayed his hand. However, you are correct that the public might be disgusted with political parties at the trough, but overlook something not always obvious to political hacks. The public is often disgusted by our political parties and politicians. So, this is business as usual in parliment and the public won't care, unless their is an election..(They didn't want the last one and were disgusted), and quite frankly, the government wasted $300million to prove nothing. The election will not help the economy, nor did the last one, and people will be happy to see cooperation in government as long as they don't go back to the polls.

The backroom talk is still serious.....Will Harper and Flaherty back down????? This is definitely brinksmanship, and the opposition .....well I can't see it happening........but the opposition should they actually workout a deal save the public from another wasteful election. People recognise that Harper called an unnecessary and wastefull election, and parliment is much the same as before.

People want to see the dysfunctional parliment functional before any election is called. If the coalition provides that stability..... then so be it. Federal Funding changes will have to wait for a time when their is more support for it in the house.

This is democracy.

[Smallc]

Of course. Your own Liberal party did it before.

That doesn't make it any better and is simply deplorable. In fact, I would say that it might be constitutionally impossible to ban under section 2 of the charter.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Smallc

[Argus]

The problem is that the Tories intend to use this decision to hurt all the parties now and then call a snap election in the next months anyway.

I think that if he called an election that quick he would be punished by voters. The only people who can force an election are the united opposition.

The constitutional authority is in place for the Opposition to remove the government if they have lost confidence in their priorities. Harper has basically said they will wait several months even though the OECD says that Canada is in recession now.

A few months? So what? Any spending "incentives" to boost the economy would take many months to roll out and many months to have the slightest impact anyway. Would it make you feel better if they announced something now, even though it won't actually be rolled out until April? Because I absolutely guarantee that nothing the opposition-turned-government announces will be rolled out before April at the very earliest, and most likely not until considerably later.

[Alta4ever]

Harper wants to take away the public money going towards each vote because he wants to disable his opposition's financing. Jean Cretien put a stop to large donations influencing government long ago by limiting financial contributions and offering so much public money per vote instead. In other words, the NDP or Reform Party would get $1.95 of tax-payer money for every vote it received in an election. This was a great democratic move and gave an incentive for people to vote!

The savings from cancelling this are MINIMAL for Canada but VERY BENEFICIAL for the government in power. The old Tory Party couldn't afford itself anymore once Cretien changed the financing rules. Harper's trying to devolve and dissolve that so that he ALWAYS has the most money come election time.

If Harper's going to take advantage of the times and be petty by concentrating on political targets instead of making the moves most Canadians need right now, I hope he's politically destroyed soon and the Opposition forms a government instead. Far too much credit has been given to these Mike Harrisites already.

You know what great incentive to vote is....THE RIGHT TO VOTE. There is nothing beneficial about spending hard earned Canadians tax monies on poltical party welfare when they should be able to fundraise from their party base stop being lazy and fundraise.

[Argus]

Brinksmanship? Jdobbin, didn't you notice that the Opposition is NOT intending to bring down the Tories in order for the people do have another choice by means of an election?

No! Their intention is to put the Liberals in power by means of a coalition technicality!

If the Governor General allows this then in my eyes in Canada democracy will be well and truly dead!

No, it's quite legal. Coallitions are not unknown even in Canada. In fact, they're the rule elsewhere.

Their defining characteristic, however, is instability, and massive compromises, which invariably lead to lousy, indecisive government.

What would a Liberal/NDp/BQ government look like?

The NDP would insist on removing the Tory party's tax breaks for big business for one - which the Liberals support. That would be damaging to the economy, and especially to the Finance industry, which is on shaky grounds around the world. The BQ would insist on massive subsidies for its aerospace industry, and more money to Quebec in transfers. The Liberals, of course, don't really care about anything but getting into power and back into the trough. We could expect, though, that a major priority of such a government would be some form of the Green Plan, with heavy taxation on oil and gas, and some kind of major tax on manufacturing and the resource sector because of their pollution.

The good news for the Tories is all that would likely exacorbate the economic situation. In addition, of course, whatever deficit the Tories might have run will be about five to ten times greater under such a coallition, with each partner requiring the ability to hold up some big, expensive program as their success. All of which could quite likely result in a massive tory majority come next election - which is unlikely to be long in coming since those three aren't likely to be able to cooperate for long.

[Smallc]

Changed his mind I guess:

CBC

[Alta4ever]

Talking about government programs, Flaherty announced they're planning to cut another $15 Billions on those, no mention which ones in the next 3 years; what do you think will get on the chopping block first I say health care and food inspection; best way to depopulate as food is getting rare in the world... and so is pension funds... therefore eliminating the poor, the sick and the old in one large swoop.

Here is what I have done I have emailed the parliament maybe you could also follow the lead if you at all care for this country:

I want to denounce our PM for being a dictator and proving it; for being

a traitor to my country and democracy if he does take the money assigned

to the opposition party(s) as these are what 62% of Canada have voted for

and he would be denying us all Canadian a fair representation by doing

so.

Can he really do that without asking the people first?

Can he not take a percentage of his salary and give it back to Canada?

Can he not remove a few like the last extra 6 ministers he created seat

for?

Those are all things he could do without hurting democracy and/or Canada

while saving a lot of money and tightening his belt.

When is the PM going to create green jobs as Canadian want? When is the

PM going to create affordable housing program?

When is the PM going to provide a stimulus package for Canadian?

Why doesn't the PM get rid of the massage parlor employees and turn down

the heat at the Parliament?

Why doesn't he ask for a vote of all MPs to decrease salaries by ten

percent?

Is he just waiting for people to die?

Is he planning on shipping the poor on an island for the Olympic if they

survive (as this is still not guarantee)?

Is PM 'Harper' depopulation not already on the way?

How about creating a food-stamp program for the poor and low-wage worker?

Please stop the Dictatorship from taking place.

Sent to: [email protected].

Wow.........you've got problems. There are so many problems in your thought process and what you want, i doubt you'll get anything more back from an MP then the canned thank you for you concern letter.

1. What you accuse Harper of you haven't proven, the man loves his country as much as you or I, he has acted within the laws of and guildlines of what a PM can do. Treason really just beacuse he wants parties funded by donar money instead of the public purse what a stretch.

Also remember more then 62% voted against the liberals, more than 62% voted against the NDP, a heck of lot more than 62% voted against the Greens. So this larguement is flawed. Again no arguement, and a bit of a stretch.

Yes yes the conservatives can intoroduce legislation, if the opposition doesn't like it then we can go into another election over and the people will decide the issue.

How much do you think a PM makes, I can tell you its no where near 30,000,0000.

Extra cabinate, well how should any of us know government hasn't been given a chance ot really operate yet.

Stimulus? Why? We aren't into a deep recession, why spend money now if maybe we really don't need to. Or do you like to waste money on giving to big corporations who don't need a hand out. We are not the US, when the effects of what the recession (yes it will be a recession) hit then the proper action should be taken. Not the over panicked chicken little BS you seem to like.

Is he waiting for people to die? This a little extreme don't you think? Do you really think that he is an incompationate man? Pulkl you head out and stop listening ot the retortic. The conservatives care, I care. So on this point get bent.

Look into the history of food stamp programs they were discontinued by the left because the liberals thought that they were against a person human rights, and now we issue a cheque to people instead of food stmaps.

[Vancouver King]

So Harper has removed the controversial vote subsidy from Monday's vote. Will this strategic backpedal now be enough? Reports have it former PM Chretien is meeting Ed Broadbent to smooth out details of a Liberal/NDP coalition with Bloc support.

Could Harper's failed attempt to annhilate parliamentary opposition morph into his own defeat in the Commons with his political victims then setting the timetable and agenda? There is a 'enough is enough' finality in opposition reaction to the latest Tory scheme of sacrificing the national good for more narrow partisan advantage.

[Smallc]

So Harper has removed the controversial vote subsidy from Monday's vote. Will this strategic backpedal now be enough?

I doesn't think so.

[Smallc]

Flaherty is talking right now. He seems nervous. He's stumbling and his voice is shaking. I think they may end up backing down further from their position.

[drewski]

So Harper has removed the controversial vote subsidy from Monday's vote. Will this strategic backpedal now be enough? Reports have it former PM Chretien is meeting Ed Broadbent to smooth out details of a Liberal/NDP coalition with Bloc support.

Could Harper's failed attempt to annhilate parliamentary opposition morph into his own defeat in the Commons with his political victims then setting the timetable and agenda? There is a 'enough is enough' finality in opposition reaction to the latest Tory scheme of sacrificing the national good for more narrow partisan advantage.

I hope not. There were plenty of other items in the ES that were intolerable, ie the removal of the right to strike, the removal of the ability for women to fight for their rights and the imaginary asset sales