Collapse of Conservative Party a blessing in disguise?

[Smallc]

If they'd ever taken power, can you imagine Iggy presiding over a cabinet with Bob Rae, Jack Layton, and Ralph Goodale in it?

I'm not a fan of Jack Layton, but what about it? Big deal.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not questioning your assessment of Harper's motives;he does come across more as a self-interested political tactician that a representative of the people. His intentions aside though, I still liked his idea of cutting subsidies to political parties.

The 1.95 vote subsidy is the most democratic way for political parties to be funded. If anything the income tax deduction for donations should be taken away, as that gives the parties that represent the interests of the rich, a huge advantage. The only funding parties should be allowed is the vote subsidy, donations of any kind should be banned before the vote subsidy. This way parties that best represent the wishes of the most voters would be rewarded by having the most money to campaign with, instead of the party whose policies best reflect the wishes of those with the most money to donate.

[Machjo]

In order to get those subsidies, the parties have to earn the votes of the people. That's not anywhere close to a free lunch.

Then instead of giving the money to the party, how about giving it to the MP. After all, it's the MP and not the party that won the riding, correct? This would also make MPs more independent of the Party.

[Machjo]

The 1.95 vote subsidy is the most democratic way for political parties to be funded. If anything the income tax deduction for donations should be taken away, as that gives the parties that represent the interests of the rich, a huge advantage. The only funding parties should be allowed is the vote subsidy, donations of any kind should be banned before the vote subsidy. This way parties that best represent the wishes of the most voters would be rewarded by having the most money to campaign with, instead of the party whose policies best reflect the wishes of those with the most money to donate.

Again, if that's the way you look at it, then give it to the MP, not the party.

[ToadBrother]

Again, I don't see why a political party is a necessary component of democracy.

Because of human nature. Politics is all about alliances. In the pre-party days of our system (that is to say, in the days before the rise of formalized, organized parties), alliances tended to be more shortlived, or often very narrowly focused. Still, the fact is that like-minded individuals tended to group together around a particularly charismatic or well respected individual who would become leader.

George Washington warned against political parties in his final speech as President, but admitted it was likely inevitable. Even in one party states where there's any kind of meaningful legislative assembly you find informal alliances of some kind.

Nunavut is a non-partisan democratic system, and it's just as democratic as any other as far as I can tell, if not more so.

Nunavut has a population of 32,000 people, spread out over 800,000 square miles. It takes a helluva lot of money just to make an kind of legislative body work. There are 19 (according to Wikipedia) members in its legislature. You can't possibly map the dynamic of that kind of a legislature to one with 300+ members representing 34 million people.

Edited January 31, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DrGreenthumb]

Again, if that's the way you look at it, then give it to the MP, not the party.

Even still political donations to the MP should only come per vote. Allowing the rich to buy their way into power still screws over the poor and working class every time. That is why very strict spending limits must be adhered to in an election campaign and why the Conservative "in and out" election finance fraud scheme is so abhorrent. The Conservatives in essence bought their way into power by contravening the spending limits in the federal campaign. One more of many reasons they are in power illigitamitely

[wyly]

And, when a depression is going on, its nice to have someone with some proven judgement in the top job.

proven judgement? this the economic genius that said we weren't going into a recession just be fore the banking collapse, how is it he was the only person who didn't see this coming...and that Canada would post a slight surplus in 2009 ... ya great proven judgement there...

[Machjo]

Even still political donations to the MP should only come per vote. Allowing the rich to buy their way into power still screws over the poor and working class every time. That is why very strict spending limits must be adhered to in an election campaign and why the Conservative "in and out" election finance fraud scheme is so abhorrent. The Conservatives in essence bought their way into power by contravening the spending limits in the federal campaign. One more of many reasons they are in power illigitamitely

This is ridiculous. Regardless of what rules we abide by, the government should not be giving one red cent to any party. I'm not a member of any party myself and so why should my tax dollars be going towards sustaining them? If anything, I find that such spending limits my candidate options in elections. There was not one independent candidate in my riding last election. And the notion that increased funding automatically guarantees a party a seat is blatantly false. I almost voted for the Green Party candidate last election (though I handed in a blank ballot at the last minute because I simply could not make up my mind, and perhaps because I was in too picky a mood at the time to, but what's done is done), and now you're not going to tell me that that was because the Green Party was the best-financed party in my riding are you? Quite honestly, party spending has little impact on who I'll vote for. I want to see substance, not glitz, and money just can't buy that.

Just look at the independent MP in the House right now. Apparently he's the cheapest MP around when it comes to running campaigns, and yet he's won a few consecutive elections already!

I can't imagine that glitz alone will win a party many seats.

[capricorn]

proven judgement? this the economic genius that said we weren't going into a recession just be fore the banking collapse, how is it he was the only person who didn't see this coming...and that Canada would post a slight surplus in 2009 ... ya great proven judgement there...

And don't you just love the proven judgment of the Liberals who called for even more stimulus spending than the Conservatives? For gawd's sake, the Liberals, those masterful slayers of deficits at the expense of raiding the EI fund and slashing transfers to the provinces, they and they alone can be prudent and competent managers of the public purse. BARF!

[August1991]

I have not read through this thread so perhaps I am jumping into the deep end. To quote Pope, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." And to quote again, given the thread's title, my first instinct was to quote Twain: "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." The federal Conservative Party may have changed its name in the past few centuries but predictions of its demise seem exaggerated. [As an aside, I would bet less on the survival of the federal Liberal Party.]

This is ridiculous. Regardless of what rules we abide by, the government should not be giving one red cent to any party.

Machjo, the "government" does not give money to political parties. Taxpayers give money to political parties. At issue is how to decide which party gets how much.

It strikes me that letting voters decide which party should get the money is, ahem, democratic. At the moment in Canada, if you vote for a federal party, and the party receives more than 5% of the overall vote, you have in effect given $1.95 each year to the party of your choice.

I happen to think that that is a good idea. Indeed, I would carry the same idea to a more radical extreme.

Give or take a few billion, the federal State spends about $240 billion every year. There are about 24 million registered voters in Canada. I propose that we give each political party $10,000 annually for each vote. Let the political party decide how the federal government can spend "its" money.

Maybe Canadians would vote more carefully if they knew that their individual vote was worth $10,000.

Edited February 1, 2010 by August1991

[DrGreenthumb]

This is ridiculous. Regardless of what rules we abide by, the government should not be giving one red cent to any party. I'm not a member of any party myself and so why should my tax dollars be going towards sustaining them? If anything, I find that such spending limits my candidate options in elections. There was not one independent candidate in my riding last election. And the notion that increased funding automatically guarantees a party a seat is blatantly false. I almost voted for the Green Party candidate last election (though I handed in a blank ballot at the last minute because I simply could not make up my mind, and perhaps because I was in too picky a mood at the time to, but what's done is done), and now you're not going to tell me that that was because the Green Party was the best-financed party in my riding are you? Quite honestly, party spending has little impact on who I'll vote for. I want to see substance, not glitz, and money just can't buy that.

Just look at the independent MP in the House right now. Apparently he's the cheapest MP around when it comes to running campaigns, and yet he's won a few consecutive elections already!

I can't imagine that glitz alone will win a party many seats.

Its not ridiculous, and your own example does not even apply since you didn't vote for the greens, you turned in a blank ballot. As for the independant, he didn't get elected the first time as an independant. He made a name for himself by taking a stand against his own party in favour of following his constituents wishes. That is why he gets re-elected without having to spend a fortune in advertising. The ammount you spend in an election campaign DOES have a direct impact on the number of voters you will reach, and stats show that the party with the most to spend usually wins. The green party candidate was probably NOT the best financed and that probably played a part in why he didn't win, in fact you did not even vote for him.

If you are going to try to make the point that money doesn't matter you should probably use a candidate that won even though he spent less not a candidate that spent less and lost.

[capricorn]

Maybe Canadians would vote more carefully if they knew that their individual vote was worth $10,000.

Also, Canadians would vote more carefully if they had to write one cheque per year to pay their income taxes instead of monthly, bi-monthly or weekly deductions from their income.

[wyly]

And don't you just love the proven judgment of the Liberals who called for even more stimulus spending than the Conservatives? For gawd's sake, the Liberals, those masterful slayers of deficits at the expense of raiding the EI fund and slashing transfers to the provinces, they and they alone can be prudent and competent managers of the public purse. BARF!

from a prediction of a small surplus to largest deficit in our history in nine(?) months...the myth that conservatives are the better financial managers has been destroyed, from the Devine government that nearly bankrupt Sask, the Klein and Stelmach governments of Alberta and now the harper incompetence, I think we can safely lay to rest the myth of conservative financial ability...

[capricorn]

from a prediction of a small surplus to largest deficit in our history in nine(?) months...

Yes, the prediction was certainly off the mark but that's old news. Now, action that is measurable is what counts. I'm more interested in how the Liberals egged the Conservatives on to spend more and now wail at the deficit. What is Harper's plan to get us out of this deficit? Let's hear how Harper intends to, as Ignatieff put it, "dig this car out of the ditch". Then, let's see if the Liberals have better ideas. The Liberals are already in an internal fight over whether the party stands for a tax increase while the Conservatives have said there will be no tax increase. There's a start.

the myth that conservatives are the better financial managers has been destroyed, from the Devine government that nearly bankrupt Sask, the Klein and Stelmach governments of Alberta and now the harper incompetence, I think we can safely lay to rest the myth of conservative financial ability...

I have little knowledge of those provinces' fiscal histories. I do know though that provincial parties with the same name as federal parties are not always synonymous with the policies they advocate. As an Ontarian, I'm fully concentrated on McGuinty's antics and there's plenty there to keep one busy.

If you want to rely on myths wyly, go right ahead. I look for results in the here and now.

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes, the prediction was certainly off the mark but that's old news. Now, action that is measurable is what counts. I'm more interested in how the Liberals egged the Conservatives on to spend more and now wail at the deficit. What is Harper's plan to get us out of this deficit? Let's hear how Harper intends to, as Ignatieff put it, "dig this car out of the ditch". Then, let's see if the Liberals have better ideas. The Liberals are already in an internal fight over whether the party stands for a tax increase while the Conservatives have said there will be no tax increase. There's a start.

I have little knowledge of those provinces' fiscal histories. I do know though that provincial parties with the same name as federal parties are not always synonymous with the policies they advocate. As an Ontarian, I'm fully concentrated on McGuinty's antics and there's plenty there to keep one busy.

If you want to rely on myths wyly, go right ahead. I look for results in the here and now.

Putting the GST back up to 7% would be a good start. Harper/Flaherty are proven incompetants on the economy and fiscal management. They are either completely incompetant or complete liars, take your pick. Everyone else saw the economic downturn coming except Harper/Flaherty, if you believe that Harper was being truthful in the last leadership debate. Even the NDP and Jack Layton saw the downturn coming and tried to tell Harper in the debate. You Cons always try to put down the NDP on fiscal responsibility, but at least Jack could read the economy better than you supposed economist Prime Minister.

[Mr.Canada]

You're dreaming. You're getting us mixed up with the Liberals.