Feds to cut subsidies

[Topaz]

The Tories are all set to cut the subsidies for political parties, saving about 27 Million yearly and will help their own party stay in the number one party position. The lest the Tories could do to make it more fair to the other parties is the raise the ceiling contributions one can make. Who said the Tories are fair and they have said they won't raise the ceiling. So now that the Tories think its unfair for the tax payer to pay for these subsidies, can the tax payer get another break and the MP's pay $4 of the $5 that goes to their pensions? I think its time they pay more of their pensions like everyone else does. http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/539439--dropping-per-vote-subsidies-fraught-with-problems

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The Tories are all set to cut the subsidies for political parties, saving about 27 Million yearly and will help their own party stay in the number one party position. The lest the Tories could do to make it more fair to the other parties is the raise the ceiling contributions one can make. Who said the Tories are fair and they have said they won't raise the ceiling. So now that the Tories think its unfair for the tax payer to pay for these subsidies, can the tax payer get another break and the MP's pay $4 of the $5 that goes to their pensions? I think its time they pay more of their pensions like everyone else does. http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/539439--dropping-per-vote-subsidies-fraught-with-problems

They need to drop tax breaks for political donations. Doesn't that "cost" tax payers more money than the subsidy? But that would target the advantage of Conservatives... so of course they won't.

If they really want to cut subsidies, how about starting with the oil industry... You know, the industry that is making record profits? How about removing farming subsidies for large scale factory farm corporations?

Edited May 30, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Tilter]

The Tories are all set to cut the subsidies for political parties, saving about 27 Million yearly and will help their own party stay in the number one party position. The lest the Tories could do to make it more fair to the other parties is the raise the ceiling contributions one can make. Who said the Tories are fair and they have said they won't raise the ceiling. So now that the Tories think its unfair for the tax payer to pay for these subsidies, can the tax payer get another break and the MP's pay $4 of the $5 that goes to their pensions? I think its time they pay more of their pensions like everyone else does. http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/539439--dropping-per-vote-subsidies-fraught-with-problems

Get serious--- that's a one way street

[Topaz]

It wouldn't look so bad if all the parties started at the same level moneywise or since the Tories don't NEED the help let them bow out.

[Keepitsimple]

Good article from Tom Flanagan:

.............The 2011 election showed there is not enough political space, as the NDP surge brought about a majority Conservative government by defeating Liberals in Ontario. The 2015 election will show that there is not enough financial room, either.

After 2015, these parties will have to become more realistic about the Conservative nightmare they face – a well-funded, cohesive party of the centre-right, commanding about 40 per cent of the popular vote. In our first-past-the-post electoral system, such a party wins every time against three underfunded, bickering opponents running against each other to determine who will become the Official Opposition. There will have to be a merger, an electoral coalition or the elimination of one or more of these parties if the centre-left ever hopes to win again.

Mr. Harper is doing the Liberals, NDP, and Greens a favour by cutting off their lolly. If he were as Machiavellian as his critics allege, he would keep the allowances in place, thus encouraging the centre-left parties to remain separate. Ending the allowances is in the long-term self-interest of these parties (or at least of their supporters), because it will drive them to co-operate in order to compete with the Conservative juggernaut.

The Conservatives should erect a monument to Jean Chrétien for his 2003 party-funding reforms, which took away the Liberals’ long-standing advantage in corporate fundraising. Some day, the three parties of the centre-left will want to erect a monument to Mr. Harper for pushing them to harmonize their efforts.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/some-day-the-opposition-will-thank-mr-harper/article2040277/

[Shwa]

Mr. Harper is doing the Liberals, NDP, and Greens a favour by cutting off their lolly. If he were as Machiavellian as his critics allege, he would keep the allowances in place, thus encouraging the centre-left parties to remain separate.

This is excellent since it points out the ultimate altruisitic motives behind the CPC policy when everyone is accusing them of being the bad guys. (and gals)

[Wild Bill]

It wouldn't look so bad if all the parties started at the same level moneywise or since the Tories don't NEED the help let them bow out.

They DID all start at the same level, Topaz. They all started with nothing!

Reform pioneered the way of soliciting donations from ordinary joes and the CPC inherited their system. The Liberals and the NDP are suffering because they can no longer accept huge payments from big business or unions. They have never learned how to get money from ordinary folks and now have to play catch up.

[punked]

They DID all start at the same level, Topaz. They all started with nothing!

Reform pioneered the way of soliciting donations from ordinary joes and the CPC inherited their system. The Liberals and the NDP are suffering because they can no longer accept huge payments from big business or unions. They have never learned how to get money from ordinary folks and now have to play catch up.

Someone is the most misinformed person on the block. The NDP raise more money now then they ever did with Union donations. So please don't lump us in with the Liberals. 60% of money the NDP has is raised money, they will be fine.

[CPCFTW]

Someone is the most misinformed person on the block. The NDP raise more money now then they ever did with Union donations. So please don't lump us in with the Liberals. 60% of money the NDP has is raised money, they will be fine.

They better hope that 60% funding is enough to convince the 75% of Canada outside of Quebec who didn't vote for them that they aren't a joke party now that they are in the spotlight.

[punked]

They better hope that 60% funding is enough to convince the 75% of Canada outside of Quebec who didn't vote for them that they aren't a joke party now that they are in the spotlight.

Can't see why it wouldn't be. They spent next to nothing inside Quebec and convinced a hell of a lot of people. Ideas are bigger then money and the NDP has a lot of them, most of which when they are given a soap box play very well in Canada. Might be why they were only 9 points behind the Cons this election.

[CPCFTW]

Can't see why it wouldn't be. They spent next to nothing inside Quebec and convinced a hell of a lot of people. Ideas are bigger then money and the NDP has a lot of them, most of which when they are given a soap box play very well in Canada. Might be why they were only 9 points behind the Cons this election.

Yup just like the BQ convinced a hell of a lot of Quebecers to vote for them. How well do you think they could replicate that success outside of Quebec?

[punked]

Yup just like the BQ convinced a hell of a lot of Quebecers to vote for them. How well do you think they could replicate that success outside of Quebec?

I don't know they were never a national party, with a national history, or a nation base. Maybe you can make some more dumb comparisons and use some more faulty logic.

I'll tell you what though King would be your only comparison really for this situation and we did quite well in the 1935 election after winning a majority ONLY in Quebec in 1930. He also had less money behind him then a sitting Conservative PM but pulled off the election anyway.

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[August1991]

This is excellent since it points out the ultimate altruisitic motives behind the CPC policy when everyone is accusing them of being the bad guys. (and gals)

Shwa, I tend to agree with Flanagan's argument but it is more thought-provoking when applied in other areas.

If these subsidies are bad for some political parties, think of how other organizations dependent on taxpayer subsidies are also affected.

It is interesting that the two political parties (Liberals and Bloc) most dependent on taxpayer subsidies were also the two parties who suffered most in the past election, largely because they were disconnected from ordinary voters.

----

Government money is seductive. It seems to solve problems but the danger is that it leads to the great disconnect of all socialist experiments: the money coming in is not connected to the money going out.

Edited June 1, 2011 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

Government money is seductive. It seems to solve problems but the danger is that it leads to the great disconnect of all socialist experiments: the money coming in is not connected to the money going out.

Which demonstrates that Margaret Thatcher was pretty accurate when she said - to paraphrase:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"

Socialists, and lets face it, that's the traditional NDP - are all for redistributing wealth but are opposed to all the modern levers that are needed to create wealth. But in a free society like Canada, where you can "throw the bums out", people with some money will eventually resist giving most of it away to those who have less. Socialism has a history of sinking everyone to the lowest common denominator. That reality is why Canadians will never let its government veer too far Left - and its why the NDP must change, now that the light is shining on their principles and policies.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Shwa]

Which demonstrates that Margaret Thatcher was pretty accurate when she said - to paraphrase:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"

Yeah and I mean, above it all there was Stephen Harper bailing out those auto-manufacturers and dropping millions into local infrastructure programs last year. What the HELL was he thinking? Damned socialist CPC'ers.

[Shwa]

Shwa, I tend to agree with Flanagan's argument but it is more thought-provoking when applied in other areas.

The per-vote subsidy was introduced to replace the reliance of political parties and candidates on corporate, union, and wealthy donors in order to reduce the political influence of such donors.

Do you disagree with this statement?

[bloodyminded]

Yeah and I mean, above it all there was Stephen Harper bailing out those auto-manufacturers and dropping millions into local infrastructure programs last year. What the HELL was he thinking? Damned socialist CPC'ers.

That's not "socialism" but....uh...oh, yeah: "incentives."

It's like the tale (probably apocryphal) about Snoop Dogg getting caught shoplifting: "It's not stealing, it's sampling!"