It's undemocratic because the extra funding was brought in to replace losses that would be seen when they placed limits on contributions to political parties. Even more so because it hurts the opposition parties to the extent of limiting their competition to Harper. The change at the least does not produce any positive effect on the election process and as far as saving money, $30 million is a drop in the bucket compared to savings that could possibly be found elsewhere.
It's win-win for the Conservatives. If it passes, he has a better chance of winning the next election and possibly bankrupting the Liberal Party. If it's defeated, he tries for a majority and the opposition is blamed for an election nobody wants. The one way he could lose is from lying about the recession and his intention to have a deficit and the fact that he hasn't really done much to help the economy. If anything he's made it worse according to one report I read.
It's undemocratic because the extra funding was brought in to replace losses that would be seen when they placed limits on contributions to political parties.
But under the proposed changes, everyone will have to abide by the same rules. It's not like there will be one set of rules for the Conservatives and another set for everyone else.
The way I see it, when Chretien was in power he played the right for chumps all the time because, between the Reform Party, the Tories and the United Altnernative(s) they couldn't get their act together. How is this any different? The Liberals are down, and Harper is kicking them. Any politician worth his salt would do the same. For what it's worth, the NDP has done a good job raising money from individuals - losing the public funding will hurt them, but it's not going to cripple them the way it will the rest of the opposition
( ... )
When political parties get money by relying on people to donate it, the people with the most money get the most say. Corporations get the most say of all. And the result is the United States.
When political parties get money on the basis of how many people vote for them, then it benefits them to try to represent the interests of a larger number of people, regardless of whether or not those people have money. And the result is Canada. Would you really prefer to be governed by a United States-style government instead?
As long as there's a cap on individual donations that's somewhere in the neighbourhood of, say, $1000 (the cap here is actually $1100), and as long as there are laws preventing corporations, unions and other non-people from making donations to political parties (and we also have those), I'm ok with getting rid of publicly-subsidized political parties, yeah.
Right now we have not one, not two, not three, but four political parties that to the left of centre on the spectrum and bleed votes and money from each other. This change will hurt them all in the short-term, but help the left boil itself down into one or two parties that can actually win government in the long-term. Also right now we have a federal political party whose sole raison d'être is the breakup of the country, and they get 83% of their annual budget from the federal taxpayer. That last thing
Given the other laws and other circumstances in this country right now, I don't think that repealing the funding is going to lead us towards the Republicrats anytime soon.
And really, why should any of us be handing over money (without a choice) to Elizabeth May who couldn't win a seat or Gilles Duceppe? If their policies speak to Canadians, let those Canadians donate money to them.
I think the real problem is not that we're funding a party with no seats, but rather that a party with 6.8% of the popular vote has no seats. I'm not saying that the Greens should necessarily have the twenty or so seats that make up 6.8% of the house, but no seats at all?
I, too, would like to see the Bloc fall, but I want it to happen because the people of Quebec wake up, not because the government has suddenly pulled most of its funding out from under its feet.
ight now we have a federal political party whose sole raison d'être is the breakup of the country,
Josh don't play stupid dumbass federalist anglo. It doesn't suit you. You know perfectly well that is not the sole reason they exist. Whether or not Quebec ever leaves is irrelevant to them. They are there to advocate QC interests since they felt no one else was doing so, particularly in the Mulroney era.
I'm really honestly appalled you'd make such an asininely simplistic statement.
I do stand by my comment though. What I mean is that the only thing that distinguishes a Bloc MP from Thomas Mulcair is that they want out of the country. And why should a taxpayer in Fredericton or Fort St. John be forced to have anything to do with that?
If Quebecers want the Bloc, let them pay for it. And if Alberta wants the Tories, they can step up. (Except oh, that's right - they do. And I don't deny that I'm getting more conservative on some things as I get older, by the way.)
What I mean is that the only thing that distinguishes a Bloc MP from Thomas Mulcair is that they want out of the country.
No, they put QC interests first. Whether or not QC separates is irrelevant to the Bloq. They don't advocate for it. Which is why they win like gangbusters here and yet hrm we still don't separate.
I think Harper will back off.
BTW I am not saying I entirely disagree with the system, what bothers me is his timing. You don't bring up an election that was against his own damn law to begin with, then kick the shit out of everyone, then take the money they were all counting on to pay for it away as some sort of stomp to the head after they're already down. Classless.
My husband strongly bets that if he sticks to his guns on this he will essentially pull a Joe Clark. Now wouldn't that be funny if Dion ended up pulling a Trudeau? :-P
No, they put QC interests first. Whether or not QC separates is irrelevant to the Bloq. They don't advocate for it. Which is why they win like gangbusters here and yet hrm we still don't separate.
I think Mulclair puts federal NDP politics and priorities first :-P
Anyway this whole debate to me goes back to it is not the Bloq's fault if no one is voting for the Greens or not giving Harper or Dion or Layton a majority. It's those parties' faults for not winning over their voters. You don't whine your opponent won if you lost, you figure out how to win.
It's win-win for the Conservatives. If it passes, he has a better chance of winning the next election and possibly bankrupting the Liberal Party. If it's defeated, he tries for a majority and the opposition is blamed for an election nobody wants. The one way he could lose is from lying about the recession and his intention to have a deficit and the fact that he hasn't really done much to help the economy. If anything he's made it worse according to one report I read.
Reply
But under the proposed changes, everyone will have to abide by the same rules. It's not like there will be one set of rules for the Conservatives and another set for everyone else.
The way I see it, when Chretien was in power he played the right for chumps all the time because, between the Reform Party, the Tories and the United Altnernative(s) they couldn't get their act together. How is this any different? The Liberals are down, and Harper is kicking them. Any politician worth his salt would do the same. For what it's worth, the NDP has done a good job raising money from individuals - losing the public funding will hurt them, but it's not going to cripple them the way it will the rest of the opposition ( ... )
Reply
When political parties get money on the basis of how many people vote for them, then it benefits them to try to represent the interests of a larger number of people, regardless of whether or not those people have money. And the result is Canada. Would you really prefer to be governed by a United States-style government instead?
Reply
Right now we have not one, not two, not three, but four political parties that to the left of centre on the spectrum and bleed votes and money from each other. This change will hurt them all in the short-term, but help the left boil itself down into one or two parties that can actually win government in the long-term. Also right now we have a federal political party whose sole raison d'être is the breakup of the country, and they get 83% of their annual budget from the federal taxpayer. That last thing
Given the other laws and other circumstances in this country right now, I don't think that repealing the funding is going to lead us towards the Republicrats anytime soon.
Reply
Reply
I think the real problem is not that we're funding a party with no seats, but rather that a party with 6.8% of the popular vote has no seats. I'm not saying that the Greens should necessarily have the twenty or so seats that make up 6.8% of the house, but no seats at all?
I, too, would like to see the Bloc fall, but I want it to happen because the people of Quebec wake up, not because the government has suddenly pulled most of its funding out from under its feet.
Reply
Josh don't play stupid dumbass federalist anglo. It doesn't suit you. You know perfectly well that is not the sole reason they exist. Whether or not Quebec ever leaves is irrelevant to them. They are there to advocate QC interests since they felt no one else was doing so, particularly in the Mulroney era.
I'm really honestly appalled you'd make such an asininely simplistic statement.
Reply
Reply
If Quebecers want the Bloc, let them pay for it. And if Alberta wants the Tories, they can step up. (Except oh, that's right - they do. And I don't deny that I'm getting more conservative on some things as I get older, by the way.)
Reply
No, they put QC interests first. Whether or not QC separates is irrelevant to the Bloq. They don't advocate for it. Which is why they win like gangbusters here and yet hrm we still don't separate.
I think Harper will back off.
BTW I am not saying I entirely disagree with the system, what bothers me is his timing. You don't bring up an election that was against his own damn law to begin with, then kick the shit out of everyone, then take the money they were all counting on to pay for it away as some sort of stomp to the head after they're already down. Classless.
My husband strongly bets that if he sticks to his guns on this he will essentially pull a Joe Clark. Now wouldn't that be funny if Dion ended up pulling a Trudeau? :-P
Reply
Thomas Mulcair doesn't put QC interests first?
Also, since when is politics about being classy?
Reply
Anyway this whole debate to me goes back to it is not the Bloq's fault if no one is voting for the Greens or not giving Harper or Dion or Layton a majority. It's those parties' faults for not winning over their voters. You don't whine your opponent won if you lost, you figure out how to win.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment