Conservative Majority

Molly · May 5, 2011

I`m wondering how long it will take for a "private member" bill restricting access to abortion.

Not very darned long, I bet. The arrogant ones will hope to have the poop disperse before the next election. (Fat chance.)

capricorn · May 5, 2011

Why not eliminate it entirely, I don't really see this as all that different from the direct vote subsidy.

Don't get me wrong. I would be in favour of eliminating it altogether since by not paying out a tax credit, more money would make its way to the Treasury to pay for our government programs. By reducing it first from 75 to 50%, contributions to political parties would probably remain stable thereby benefiting the smaller parties and those who don't fundraise adequately. An analysis could be then done as to how the reduction of the tax credit affected donations to parties. It would also provide time for parties to hone their fundraising apparatus before cutting it further.

capricorn · May 5, 2011

I would think that it (rather than the direct vote subsidy) is the place to start!

No more tax deduction. If you are going to give money to a political party, let it at least be your own money, and not mine.

Agree entirely. We want government revenue to go up, not down.

icman · May 5, 2011

I would think that it (rather than the direct vote subsidy) is the place to start!

No more tax deduction. If you are going to give money to a political party, let it at least be your own money, and not mine.

This direction makes it more likely that rich people will control the national debate, and people without means will lose their voice. Votes are the key to winning power, but the powerful know that money buys votes. And I am not talking about directly moving money to groups to gain their support. I am talking about who can spend the most on marketing. Whoever can spend more on marketing is more likely to win elections. This is a fact.

It is also true that while voters pick representatives, money, power and influence selects the candidate roster from which voters must choose. Control the candidate selections, control the vote.

Democracy is supposed to allow everyone a say in government (at least as I understand democracy) - we should be finding ways to ensure that everyone has a voice, not using costs as an excuse to put even more power into the hands of the elite few.

Dave_ON · May 5, 2011

I`m wondering how long it will take for a "private member" bill restricting access to abortion.

Not very darned long, I bet. The arrogant ones will hope to have the poop disperse before the next election. (Fat chance.)

Do you think so? I'm fairly certain that Mr. Harper and CPC would not allow a free vote on such a contentious matter. A savvy politician and Harper certainly is one, would avoid this like the plague. Same with reopening the gay marriage debate. I'm fairly certain he has enough non-hot button easy win issues to keep him busy. I'm certain he'll come up with a number of additional do nothing electoral reforms like the "four year election law". This I will be interested to see if Mr. Harper abides by if the polls are not particularly favorable 4 years hence, or if he feels he can win another majority earlier will he call a snap election. Ahh the more things change the more they stay the same.

Dave_ON · May 5, 2011

This direction makes it more likely that rich people will control the national debate, and people without means will lose their voice. Votes are the key to winning power, but the powerful know that money buys votes. And I am not talking about directly moving money to groups to gain their support. I am talking about who can spend the most on marketing. Whoever can spend more on marketing is more likely to win elections. This is a fact.

It is also true that while voters pick representatives, money, power and influence selects the candidate roster from which voters must choose. Control the candidate selections, control the vote.

Democracy is supposed to allow everyone a say in government (at least as I understand democracy) - we should be finding ways to ensure that everyone has a voice, not using costs as an excuse to put even more power into the hands of the elite few.

I understand what you are saying but I think the "some people can't afford it" is somewhat of a fallacy. The CPC has excellent fund raising techniques, but their supporters aren't all wealthy oil tycoons. They have many average hard working Canadians supporting them.

My mother is a staunch conservative, and while she is certainly not poor, she always put money aside, even when times were tough to give to her church and make a political donation. She always said, something worth believing in is worth paying for. That always stuck with me. Now my problem of course is I've yet to find a party that I feel warrants my financial support, but if I find it, I would certainly pony up the cash. It has been since 2004 that I've made any type of political contribution, with the equal marriage debate put to rest I haven't felt particularly compelled to make a donation.

The truth is there are many who can afford to give something to a cause they believe in but do not. I think that subsidizing votes is one of the main factors as to why the BLOC held the balance of power for the better part of 2 decades. Subsidies allowed separatists to drain federal funds for regional interests. The parties are able to garner their own financial support, the NDP has huge union backing, and they certainly champion the poor. The parties will adjust, and you're right their may be fewer options but at the same time, this means the options we have will carry a broader range of support, and therefore have a broader agenda.

Many criticized the LPC as having no convictions, this is not true, the problem was they had too many, and they were too broad a party. After all they had to fill part of the void left by the destruction of the PCs. That coupled with the fact that lack of competition allowed corruption to seep in unchecked. This is my fear for the CPC also, they're quick to criticize the liberals out of one side of their mouth and do exactly as they did out of the other.

Shakeyhands · May 5, 2011

It started out as a reward for good behavior, and an acknowledgement that a prisoner had made great strides at rehabilitating himself. It became a budget saving measure.

http://www.pbc-clcc.gc.ca/parle/parle-eng.shtml

Read. Learn.

Battletoads · May 5, 2011

I think that subsidizing votes is one of the main factors as to why the BLOC held the balance of power for the better part of 2 decades. Subsidies allowed separatists to drain federal funds for regional interests.

Subsidies were brought in by the outgoing Chretien government, they have not existed for two decades.

Scotty · May 7, 2011

http://www.pbc-clcc.gc.ca/parle/parle-eng.shtml

Read. Learn.

Read what? Read bullshit? "allows the offender to serve the balance of their sentence outside"

Serve their sentence outside? Exactly how do you serve a sentence when you're at home, going to bars, going to the beach and having fun partying?

We have a 37% recidivism rate. Seems to me that locking people up, setting them free, then arresting and locking them up again is a costly exercise.

Bonam · May 7, 2011

This direction makes it more likely that rich people will control the national debate, and people without means will lose their voice. Votes are the key to winning power, but the powerful know that money buys votes. And I am not talking about directly moving money to groups to gain their support. I am talking about who can spend the most on marketing. Whoever can spend more on marketing is more likely to win elections. This is a fact.

I'm not sure how much of a fact this is in Canada. The NDP going into this last election had less money, less MPs, and less media attention than the other parties. And, many of their individual candidates in Quebec spent little/no money/time on marketing or campaigning in any way. And yet, they won stunning victories there.

I think most of the stuff political parties spend tons of money on: TV ads and signs, has very very little effect. The way they are portrayed in the media (for free) has a much bigger effect, as does free (or nearly free) online communication.

Moonbox · May 10, 2011

I think it's kind of silly to say that election spending has little impact on the outcome. Regardless of whether or not you have a good message, if nobody hears it nobody will acknowledge it.

For the other parties to compete they'll simply have to get their supporters to fork up some dough like the Tories do. Put your money where your mouth is or don't cry about the results. The contribution limit is $1000 so the bulk of fundraising dollars is NOT coming from wealthy health care haters. It's coming from everyone that supports the conservatives.

Molly · May 10, 2011

I think it's kind of silly to say that election spending has little impact on the outcome. Regardless of whether or not you have a good message, if nobody hears it nobody will acknowledge it.

For the other parties to compete they'll simply have to get their supporters to fork up some dough like the Tories do. Put your money where your mouth is or don't cry about the results. The contribution limit is $1000 so the bulk of fundraising dollars is NOT coming from wealthy health care haters. It's coming from everyone that supports the conservatives.

It is disingenuous to suggest that 'those who can cough up $1000 without it causing hardship' are not, overall, more well-to-do than others (most).

In our area, unemployment remains very close to 9% even now that so many have run out of ei benefits and been removed from the lists of employables, and even though so many who do have a job have not recovered the wage cuts from our most excellect buy opportunity of a couple of years ago. The number who can come up with money for a political donation is much reduced from that few years ago, and the number who get the benefit of an extremely, extremely generous tax deduction for making such a donation is even smaller.

While yes, the Conservatives are very good at passing the hat, they are also panhnadling from an interest group with the greatest capacity to throw something in it, and who, in return, recieve the maximum refund.

Molly · May 10, 2011

The chopping block, though.... This thread is an attempt to anticipate the national piolicies that we have pre-endorsed.

I point to two items in the morning news:

The first is the NB farmer being held Lebanon on an Interpol warrant originating in Algeria. Even while Lebanon wonders why the Canadian government is making no move to take this prisoner off their hands, our own government is wringing hands and claiming that there's just nothing they can do.

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/newstoday/article/1404994

The other is the record-setting price of gas, even as the value of a barrel of oil is down, and falling. The 'c' word, 'collusion', appears to be the likliest explanation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/10/gasoline-price.html

This is going to be an interesting 4 years... we have chosen to 'live in interesting times'.

Smallc · May 10, 2011

The other is the record-setting price of gas, even as the value of a barrel of oil is down, and falling.

This is what people don't get. Gasoline is a speculative commodity, just like oil. There is a base set by the price of oil, but after that, it's up to the speculators...and they're really speculating right now.

KeyStone · May 10, 2011

"I for one will be interested to see how the Tory/NDP support firms up and takes shape. "

You're kidding right?

He doesn't give a flying flip what the NDP think.

He has a majority now, and can do what he likes.

He keeps his party members in line. If that isn't enough, he' also stacked the Senate full of patronage appointments.

It was OK having a minority, where if he went too far, the opposition would band together and deny him.

Now, he can do whatever he likes. He doesn't even have to take questions from the opposition.

The only positives about the next four years are:

He'll have no excuses for making those long awaited senate changes, he has so long talked about.

We'll see the real Harper, and in four years we'll decide if that's what we want.

My fear is about the changes he makes to favour the Conservatives going forward - things like removing the $1.95 election financing. Currently, if someone gives $100 to a party, the government gives an extra $300 to the party, but no one thinks that needs to go?

Molly · May 10, 2011

This is what people don't get. Gasoline is a speculative commodity, just like oil. There is a base set by the price of oil, but after that, it's up to the speculators...and they're really speculating right now.

Speculating in an odd sort of unison than never leads to a punitive bubble-burst, as they have done for quite some time, and to great profit....

Posc Student · May 10, 2011

I think there is enough normal people elected within the CPC that a majority government won't be too bad.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Posc Student

fellowtraveller · May 10, 2011

While yes, the Conservatives are very good at passing the hat, they are also panhnadling from an interest group with the greatest capacity to throw something in it, and who, in return, recieve the maximum refund.

And the labour movement excells at pressuring members to vote and contribute to the NDP. And of course virtually every union member has a huge and unfair advantage- they have a job to fund that contribution. They also get tax breaks available to every Canadian who chooses to contribute.

fellowtraveller · May 10, 2011

"I for one will be interested to see how the Tory/NDP support firms up and takes shape. "

You're kidding right?

He doesn't give a flying flip what the NDP think.

He has a majority now, and can do what he likes.

He keeps his party members in line. If that isn't enough, he' also stacked the Senate full of patronage appointments.

It was OK having a minority, where if he went too far, the opposition would band together and deny him.

Now, he can do whatever he likes. He doesn't even have to take questions from the opposition.

The only positives about the next four years are:

He'll have no excuses for making those long awaited senate changes, he has so long talked about.

We'll see the real Harper, and in four years we'll decide if that's what we want.

My fear is about the changes he makes to favour the Conservatives going forward - things like removing the $1.95 election financing. Currently, if someone gives $100 to a party, the government gives an extra $300 to the party, but no one thinks that needs to go?

Yeah, kind of reminds me of 13 years worth of Chretien.

I know you were equally outraged then too.

RNG · May 10, 2011

This is what people don't get. Gasoline is a speculative commodity, just like oil. There is a base set by the price of oil, but after that, it's up to the speculators...and they're really speculating right now.

I remember at least three Canadian Government official investigations into why gasoline is "too expensive" and non of them found any evidence of manipulation. It was supply and demand. Obama is currently doing the same in the US as a sop to the electorate and I'd be willing to bet that the same conclusion will be reached by his experts.

Molly · May 10, 2011

I remember at least three Canadian Government official investigations into why gasoline is "too expensive" and non of them found any evidence of manipulation. It was supply and demand. Obama is currently doing the same in the US as a sop to the electorate and I'd be willing to bet that the same conclusion will be reached by his experts.

OJ was found innocent, too.

RNG · May 10, 2011

OJ was found innocent, too.

Only half the time. We're at 100% on this one.

bloodyminded · May 11, 2011

Speculating in an odd sort of unison than never leads to a punitive bubble-burst, as they have done for quite some time, and to great profit....

In my old days as a WalMart employee, it was well-noted how the time-clock computer errors always resulted in underpayments, and never accidentally overpaid....

bush_cheney2004 · May 11, 2011

OJ was found innocent, too.

OJ was found not guilty....big legal difference.

Dave_ON · May 11, 2011

"I for one will be interested to see how the Tory/NDP support firms up and takes shape. "

You're kidding right?

He doesn't give a flying flip what the NDP think.

He has a majority now, and can do what he likes.

I wasn't referring to what the CPC will do, I was more specifically referring to CPC/NDP voter support and how it will firm up, or if it was a one time electoral anomaly. Is the NDP support extremely soft, which it appears it is given some of the MPs that got elected. How firm is the CPC support, again not very, many of the Ontario wins were vote splits between the NDP and the LPC. If one of those parties is no longer a factor in the next election, I would suspect many of the close Ontario calls would go to either the LPC or the NDP.

Two possibilities as I see it, the NDP will become the casualties of their own success, having grown too large too quickly, and not really being tooled for official opposition status and all the benefits and pitfalls that come with that. ie. greater media exposure, warts and all. They will then do very poorly in the next election and many votes will revert to the LPC as the only CPC alternative, provided they can actually get their act together by then. Or the NDP will rise to the occasion and be that much stronger in the next election and the LPC will still be relatively ineffectual.

I'd be sincerely surprised to see the CPC gain additional support over the next four years, then again they need only maintain their current level and hope that the vote splits continue between the LPC and the CPC. It's funny, many CPC supporters are celebrating, prematurely imnho, the demise of the LPC. The reality is, if that is indeed the case, this means we're back to essentially a two party system, which will only in the long run hurt the CPC as a large block of voters vacillate between the two.