Per vote subsidy gone next election!

[Alta4ever]

Sure doesn't sound to me like any of the money was going back to the tax payer.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100129/GST_Elections_100129/20100129?hub=QPeriod

Elections Canada will loose the appeal.

[KeyStone]

The Tories plan to use the cancel per vote subsidy as a plank of their next election campaign. This is great and was very popular with Canadians across the board. This is awesome, finally the Tories doing something great and worthwhile. I truly hope they do keep this promise. The NDP, BQ and Liberals will all be crippled. The BQ may not even survive at all which would be wonderful for Canada. I don't see why they don't just outlaw the BQ and mvoe on but that's for another topic.

Since we're so concerned about easing the burden to taxpayers, why don't we get rid of the rebate program that gives donors up to 75% of their donation back to them?

You see, the Tories know that they benefit in greater proportion from the rebate program, than the $1.95 per vote. This is obvious Partisan politics looking at economically crippling the other parties.

The whole idea of the per vote funding was to ensure that political parties that represented got adequate funding without having to be beholden to special interests. The $30 million per year to ensure better participatory democracy is a small price to pay.

Let's stop pretending that the Conservatives are the slightest bit fiscally responsible. They've saddled Canada with a $50 billion dollar deficit in their tiny term in office, after years and years of Liberal governments whittling down the debt.

[Wild Bill]

The Opposition supporters can say what they like but it still boils down to the plain and simple fact that Conservative supporters will shell out from their own pocket for what they perceive as a more positive government.

Supporters of other parties obviously would rather wait for their party to give money to THEM!

Different philosophies of life, I guess.

[ToadBrother]

The Opposition supporters can say what they like but it still boils down to the plain and simple fact that Conservative supporters will shell out from their own pocket for what they perceive as a more positive government.

Supporters of other parties obviously would rather wait for their party to give money to THEM!

Different philosophies of life, I guess.

What it boils down to, whether it's direct subsidies or slightly more secretive subsidies, all the parties enjoy far too much leverage and far too sweet milk from the taxpayer's teat.

[nicky10013]

I'm thinking more the point is to start fixing the real problem with our democracy, political parties with a leadership that basically treats elected representatives like puppets. If I had my way, I'd reward MPs every time they ignored their caucus and their leader.

I'd say participation is a bigger problem. The more people you have in the process the more checks you place on party leaders. The solution can't be "well, lets punish the people who give 10 bucks a year." With a mentality like that, you'll only entrench party bureaucrats further.

[nicky10013]

The Opposition supporters can say what they like but it still boils down to the plain and simple fact that Conservative supporters will shell out from their own pocket for what they perceive as a more positive government.

Supporters of other parties obviously would rather wait for their party to give money to THEM!

Different philosophies of life, I guess.

Ahhhhhhh, so everyone who doesn't vote conservative is on welfare. I get how it works now. Give yourself a pat on the back, quite a deduction you made there.

[M.Dancer]

Ahhhhhhh, so everyone who doesn't vote conservative is on welfare. I get how it works now. Give yourself a pat on the back, quite a deduction you made there.

Give yourself a pat too. Nicky made a strawman!

[nicky10013]

What it boils down to, whether it's direct subsidies or slightly more secretive subsidies, all the parties enjoy far too much leverage and far too sweet milk from the taxpayer's teat.

Who would you rather see the money come from? As I mentioned before, you can't just cut it off. It would make the system uncompetitive and competition in democracy is a necessity. The only other solution, a solution which no one has dared address, is to allow large donations from corporations and unions. Compared to that, the subsidy looks great.

I ask again, why is 1.75 per vote too much to pay for the maintenance of democracy? I don't get it.

[Alta4ever]

Ahhhhhhh, so everyone who doesn't vote conservative is on welfare. I get how it works now. Give yourself a pat on the back, quite a deduction you made there.

Nothing at all was said about people on welfare, you brought it up, WHY?

[nicky10013]

Nothing at all was said about people on welfare, you brought it up, WHY?

Supporters of other parties obviously would rather wait for their party to give money to THEM!

If that isn't a jab at people on welfare, I don't know what is. Perhaps you should bone up on your literary comprehension skills.

[nicky10013]

Elections Canada will loose the appeal.

How does that matter? You claimed that the CPC wanted the money to go back to Canadians. Didn't happen that way.

[M.Dancer]

If that isn't a jab at people on welfare, I don't know what is. Perhaps you should bone up on your literary comprehension skills.

Bigger strawmen it seems are made with shovels.

In Nickys world, Government cash only comes in the form of welfare.

So Nicky, The Conservative Goverment cut over 48 Million dollars to arts funding. Presumably they art Community would prefer their funding restored.

Do you wish to go on record saying that th arts community is on welfare?

[nicky10013]

Bigger strawmen it seems are made with shovels.

In Nickys world, Government cash only comes in the form of welfare.

So Nicky, The Conservative Goverment cut over 48 Million dollars to arts funding. Presumably they art Community would prefer their funding restored.

Do you wish to go on record saying that th arts community is on welfare?

Aren't my words at all. They were wild bill's.

[Alta4ever]

Who would you rather see the money come from? As I mentioned before, you can't just cut it off. It would make the system uncompetitive and competition in democracy is a necessity. The only other solution, a solution which no one has dared address, is to allow large donations from corporations and unions. Compared to that, the subsidy looks great.

I ask again, why is 1.75 per vote too much to pay for the maintenance of democracy? I don't get it.

Why does the money have to come from corporations and unions? Why can't the small donations be made from there large base of support?

Why is it the conservative party can raise more in a year then all of the other parties combined, yet only enjoy about 34% of the popular support? Surely the liberals with almost 30% support should only have a discrepancy in the amount raised of 4%, and the NDP who are sitting around 15% less then conservatives in popular support should be fundraising only 15% less then the conservatives. Why the huge discrepancy in fundraising numbers? Why can't the liberals and the NDPs do the same? It's no secret lots of 10 to 20 dollar donations from a large portion of the base of support for the party. Why is this concept lost on you?

[Alta4ever]

How does that matter? You claimed that the CPC wanted the money to go back to Canadians. Didn't happen that way.

It will go back, but its funny that elections Canada is getting in the way isn't it. Why would they want to force a political party to keep a tax rebate it isn't entitled to?

[nicky10013]

Why does the money have to come from corporations and unions? Why can't the small donations be made from there large base of support?

Why is it the conservative party can raise more in a year then all of the other parties combined, yet only enjoy about 34% of the popular support? Surely the liberals with almost 30% support should only have a discrepancy in the amount raised of 4%, and the NDP who are sitting around 15% less then conservatives in popular support should be fundraising only 15% less then the conservatives. Why the huge discrepancy in fundraising numbers? Why can't the liberals and the NDPs do the same? It's no secret lots of 10 to 20 dollar donations from a large portion of the base of support for the party. Why is this concept lost on you?

It doesn't matter how many small donations the party recieves. The state of party fundraising, though not lost on me, is but a small issue in terms of how we gauge the effectiveness of our democracy.

Undoubtedly, cutting the subsidy without allowing additional sources of revenues in other areas (corporations and unions) would lead to the inability for the opposition to be effective. There can be no mistaking that.

So, what you're saying is that we should allow that situation? You're for the gutting and possible bankruptcy of opposition parties?

[Alta4ever]

If that isn't a jab at people on welfare, I don't know what is. Perhaps you should bone up on your literary comprehension skills.

It was not a jab at people on welfare. That is your fabrication, why do insist upon something that just isn't there?

[M.Dancer]

Ahhhhhhh, so everyone who doesn't vote conservative is on welfare. I get how it works now. Give yourself a pat on the back, quite a deduction you made there.

Aren't my words at all. They were wild bill's.

actually they are your words that you clumsily tried to put in Wild Bills mouth.

Unless of course you will acknowledge that government funding is pervasive and many would wish that the Tory cuts were reversed, conceding Bill's point and withdrawing your strawman.

[nicky10013]

actually they are your words that you clumsily tried to put in Wild Bills mouth.

Unless of course you will acknowledge that government funding is pervasive and many would wish that the Tory cuts were reversed, conceding Bill's point and withdrawing your strawman.

I didn't put anything into anyone's mouth.

[M.Dancer]

I didn't put anything into anyone's mouth.

So you are going to stick with the your strawman that Bill suggested the other party's supporters on are welfare?

How little of you...

[Alta4ever]

It doesn't matter how many small donations the party recieves. The state of party fundraising, though not lost on me, is but a small issue in terms of how we gauge the effectiveness of our democracy.

Undoubtedly, cutting the subsidy without allowing additional sources of revenues in other areas (corporations and unions) would lead to the inability for the opposition to be effective. There can be no mistaking that.

So, what you're saying is that we should allow that situation? You're for the gutting and possible bankruptcy of opposition parties?

Why not just increase the amount people are allow to donate per person to 2200?

I think the opposition parties need to stop relying on government for money and start asking their supporters to properly fund them.

As I pointed out in my last post the Conservatives are good at fundraising and draw a lot of small donations. For only receiving 34-37% support they out fund raise the other parties combined. There should not be a big discrepancy. The Liberal party which is only 4-8% points behind the tories in popular support should be able to fund raise close to the same from its base, but it doesn't. The tax payer should not have to make up for the inablity of the liberal or the NDP parties to figure out how to effective fundraise from their base.

[DrGreenthumb]

Why not just increase the amount people are allow to donate per person to 2200?

I think the opposition parties need to stop relying on government for money and start asking their supporters to properly fund them.

As I pointed out in my last post the Conservatives are good at fundraising and draw a lot of small donations. For only receiving 34-37% support they out fund raise the other parties combined. There should not be a big discrepancy. The Liberal party which is only 4-8% points behind the tories in popular support should be able to fund raise close to the same from its base, but it doesn't. The tax payer should not have to make up for the inablity of the liberal or the NDP parties to figure out how to effective fundraise from their base.

As has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, CPC supporters tend to be in the highest income bracket so they have the most available cash to donate. Couple that with the fact that they can deduct 75% of the donation and direct it to the Conservative party instead of the Canadian government and its quite obvious why the Conservatives can raise more. That is why Harper will not cut the really offensive "political party welfare" that is the tax deduction. The per vote subsidy is a lot more democratic way to fund the parties than giving such an advantage to the group that caters to the Canadians that already have the most money, and the highest standard of living. IN fact the per vote subsidy should be raised and the political donations outlawed. Stop letting the rich buy the government that bests suits their own needs.

[Alta4ever]

As has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, CPC supporters tend to be in the highest income bracket so they have the most available cash to donate.

BS

Most CPC supporters are not in the highest income bracket that is a lie, but I would love to see you try to substantiate that claim.

As has been pointed out to you many times already most donations to the cpc are 10 dollars a month. The average yearly donation to the CPC is in the 120-130 dollar range.

[Alta4ever]

Couple that with the fact that they can deduct 75% of the donation and direct it to the Conservative party instead of the Canadian government and its quite obvious why the Conservatives can raise more. That is why Harper will not cut the really offensive "political party welfare" that is the tax deduction.

I'm up for cutting this too.

[Alta4ever]

The per vote subsidy is a lot more democratic way to fund the parties than giving such an advantage to the group that caters to the Canadians that already have the most money, and the highest standard of living. IN fact the per vote subsidy should be raised and the political donations outlawed. Stop letting the rich buy the government that bests suits their own needs.

The rest of this is nonsense, giving political parties money doesn't make anything more democratic.

Quit living in your fallacy the rich don't buy government in this, only indiviuals are allowed to donate, and only to a limit of 1100 to party. It is the average everyday Canadian that decides the government, in this country.