Harper vows to kill political party subsidies if given majority

[Bryan]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/01/harper-vows-to-kill-political-party-subsidies-if-given-majority

“I’ve wanted to change this, but we’re very clear: unless we have a majority government, we’ll never attempt to change it, because we know that in a minority government you could never move this forward.

The subsidies were intended to offset a ban on corporate and union donations to parties. The subsidies have done more than that, increasing the revenue available to the parties by about 50% compared with corporate and union donations,

Now this is more like it. I like two parts of it:

1) the removal of the subsidy will force all parties to do a better job of connecting with their grassroots. Taxpayers shouldn't have to prop up a party that can't get enough support on it's own. Hopefully this is just the first step in scaling back the other subsidies that political parties get (election reimbursements, etc).

2) I really think the "if we get a majority" qualifier is a smart one. Not just because the opposition has already shown its card on this matter, but also that it makes it clear which things he's just going to do, and which things he only could get done if the opposition wasn't constantly shutting down conservative policies. I'd like him to keep two list going forward "what we'll do with a majority" and "what we'll introduce anyway".

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bryan

[cybercoma]

Step 1: Get majority

Step 2: Remove Party subsidies

Step 3: Re-instate Corporate Donations

Step 4: Laugh all the way to the bank as the parties looking out for the poor and middle-class suffer

Edited April 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

Step 1: Get majority

Step 2: Remove Party subsidies

Step 3: Re-instate Corporate Donations

Step 4: Laugh all the way to the bank as the parties looking out for the poor and middle-class suffer

NO! Keep the corporate donations out of it. Harper won't want them anyway, because they were the biggest advantage that the Liberals and NDP had over the right leaning parties.

[M.Dancer]

Step 1: Get majority Yes

Step 2: Remove Party subsidies Better

Step 3: Re-instate Corporate Donations He didn't say that and only the Liberals would want it

Step 4: Laugh all the way to the bank as the parties looking out for the poor and middle-class suffer

har!

[WWWTT]

har!

Ok here's my take on this subject.

Trying to save the tax payers money is a good thing.

Trying to legislate yourself an advantage over others is discrimination.

But having said that lets not forget about trying to save taxpayers money!

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

1) the removal of the subsidy will force all parties to do a better job of connecting with their grassroots. Taxpayers shouldn't have to prop up a party that can't get enough support on it's own. Hopefully this is just the first step in scaling back the other subsidies that political parties get (election reimbursements, etc).

2) I really think the "if we get a majority" qualifier is a smart one. Not just because the opposition has already shown its card on this matter, but also that it makes it clear which things he's just going to do, and which things he only could get done if the opposition wasn't constantly shutting down conservative policies. I'd like him to keep two list going forward "what we'll do with a majority" and "what we'll introduce anyway".

Doesn't go far enough. We should be taxing political parties and removing tax credits for donating to them. Otherwise parties are still leaches on the system. I say a marginal rate of 99%. Leave them a penny on the dollar to print signs with.

Edited April 1, 2011 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

"This enormous cheque that keeps piling into parties ever month whether they raise any money or not that means we're constantly having campaigns, the war chests are always full for another campaign," the Conservative leader said. "You lose one, immediately in come the cheques, you're ready for the next one even if you didn't raise a dime."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/harper-promises-hell-cut-party-subsidies---only-if-he-gets-a-majority-119063384.html

The concept of opposition parties wanting to protect the subsidy-per vote tax grab is well understood. It ensures you don't have to bust your ass prying donations from supporters. The party that stands to lose the most from this cash cow is the Conservative party, yet they're willing to do without. If parties can't get their fundraising act together in a three year transition phase they can take a flying leap.

[Scotty]

Step 1: Get majority

Step 2: Remove Party subsidies

Step 3: Re-instate Corporate Donations

Step 4: Laugh all the way to the bank as the parties looking out for the poor and middle-class suffer

Except that for the last thirty years the lions share, by far, of corporate donations went to the Liberal Party. It is the elimination of corporate and high dollar donations which has put them into such a monetary bind.

To be blunt, no matter what you've always assumed, the rich have long supported the Liberals, not the Tories.

[scribblet]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/01/harper-vows-to-kill-political-party-subsidies-if-given-majority

And rightly so...

[capricorn]

Ignatieff responds to Harper's plan to kill political party welfare payments.

Ignatieff said the current system of subsidies is economical and creates a level playing field for all parties.

“If he wants to attack it, he will face the resistance of all parties,” he told reporters in London, Ont.

“This is a matter of principle. Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country? I don’t think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy,” he said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/967482--harper-says-he-s-willing-to-talk-about-his-push-to-eliminate-political-subsidies?bn=1

I fail to see what this has to do with defending Canadian democracy. Does he really think the per vote subsidy belongs right up there with other components that form the bedrock of our democracy, like voting and freedom of speech? And what "big money" is he talking about?

On another thread, a Liberal supporter crowed that the Liberals raised $1M from donors in a matter of days. That's good and hopefully more Liberal supporters will open their wallets.

Ignatieff should come out in favour of this proposal and work on the details of its implementation. Otherwise he's just acknowledging that the Liberals cannot compete in the political arena without taxpayer support.

[ToadBrother]

Ignatieff should come out in favour of this proposal and work on the details of its implementation. Otherwise he's just acknowledging that the Liberals cannot compete in the political arena without taxpayer support.

I would start with eliminating all tax credits for political donations. That would level the playing field, and save taxpayers a huge amount of real subsidy to the political parties.

[capricorn]

I would start with eliminating all tax credits for political donations. That would level the playing field, and save taxpayers a huge amount of real subsidy to the political parties.

I second that.

[dre]

Terrible idea. Elections SHOULD be publically funded.

[capricorn]

Terrible idea. Elections SHOULD be publically funded.

They are dre, to the tune of 3 to 4 million bucks a pop. We're not talking about funding the elections, we're talking about the per-vote subsidies and tax deductions for donations to political parties. Different issues.

Edited April 2, 2011 by capricorn

[YEGmann]

Terrible idea. Elections SHOULD be publically funded.

Elections - yes.

Political parties - no.

[ToadBrother]

Elections - yes.

Political parties - no.

So there should be no loss of government revenues to support parties, right?

[WWWTT]

Elections - yes.

Political parties - no.

This is an excellent concept that I have tinkered with on another forum.

Political parties have long suffocated and poisened both houses of parliament.

If you take the party out of politics I believe the end result would be more fair and less biased such as the supreme court of Canada and other federal courts in Canada(I am not saying that these institutions are free of problems,just less problems).

I will give this some thought and try to properly articulate a related thread.

WWWTT

[YEGmann]

IMHO - No.

[ToadBrother]

This is an excellent concept that I have tinkered with on another forum.

Political parties have long suffocated and poisened both houses of parliament.

If you take the party out of politics I believe the end result would be more fair and less biased such as the supreme court of Canada and other federal courts in Canada(I am not saying that these institutions are free of problems,just less problems).

I will give this some thought and try to properly articulate a related thread.

WWWTT

You'll never pull parties out of politics. Whether you call them factions, or movements, or alliances, they've been a part of Parliament for centuries. I just don't see why the taxpayer should subsidize what amounts to a ball and chain around individual MPs. If that's the way they want to behave, don't encourage giving money to them.

[Battletoads]

Seems like these subsidies are a small price to pay for a strong democracy.

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper will start with removing the public subsidies. But i would predict he would likely also want to increase the limit of private non-corporate donations. This is in the interest of the Cons, as is the removal of subsidies, because the Cons receive significantly more private donations than the other parties.

This is a move purely for political gains for Harper/CPC.

I favour some public subsidies because it takes some of the influence of money lobbying out of federal politics.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm against this idea, only for the reason that this system allows small parties with good ideas to get a foothold. I didn't realize that it increased the fund available to parties though.

I'm against TV ads in all forms. I think the parties should voluntarily withdraw from having them. Maybe cutting the subsidy back a little wouldn't be a bad idea.

And I'm glad to see an "idea" out there being discussed, but - again - this is such a small drop in the bucket we're talking about in terms of the whole budget.

[Triple M]

On subsidies maybe there should be some kind of threshold where funding will no longer be received. For example parties like the CPC, libs and NDP get enough from fundraisers that they shouldn't also get subsidies. While Parties that don't reach the threshold in fund raising like the Bloc and Greens, other fringe parties will still receive the per vote subsidy.

Nobody here wants to silence democratic parties and I feel that is probably the best approach to saving tax payers money while still giving fringe parties the support they need

[Smallc]

On subsidies maybe there should be some kind of threshold where funding will no longer be received. For example parties like the CPC, libs and NDP get enough from fundraisers that they shouldn't also get subsidies. While Parties that don't reach the threshold in fund raising like the Bloc and Greens, other fringe parties will still receive the per vote subsidy.

I completely disagree. This gives money to parties who don't have popular appeal, and doesn't give money to parties that do. That's why there's a lower threshold limit, something that I agree.

[Pliny]

Yay! Hope he gets a majority.