NationStates Jolt Archive

I should probably say 'Flaherty's Divisive Plan', but we all know Harper's the man at the helm.

"Flaherty to axe subsidies to political parties in fiscal update: sources"


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/26/update-subsidy.html

Parties currently receive $1.95 for every vote they receive in a federal election, provided they win at least two per cent of the nationwide popular vote. The annual subsidy is used to pay for staff and expenses.

On the surface, it would appear Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have the most to lose if subsidies were cut because they garnered the most votes in the October election. The Conservatives earned $10 million in subsidies, compared to $7.7 million for the Liberals, $4.9 million for the NDP, $2.6 million for the Bloc Québécois and $1.8 million for the Greens.

But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party's total revenues.

By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals' funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc's, 57 per cent of the NDP's and 65 per cent of the Greens'.

I honestly can't imagine that the Conservatives think that the opposition parties would support this. So I can't imagine it will be included in any sort of confidence vote, so what's it all about? Cementing their political base?

Frankly, Canadians who believe in political pluralism should be outraged by this.

I'm not so concerned with the reduction in funding to the parties.

I'm more concerned about how the fiscal policy may affect social spending. Flaherty's cuts also include making it illegal for public workers to strike and letting companies pay women less than they pay men.

I tire of this meme where we are supposed to work for the economy, instead of having it work for us.

I love your threads, Mike.

Harper has slashed all sorts of funding to programs that would directly threaten his party. In that sense, he's a fucking brilliant strategist. Before this, I'd say his best move was killing the court challenges program (http://www.ccppcj.ca/), which funded interveners, and entire cases brought against the government. He also cut funding to aboriginal organisations that were devoted to land claims. Everyone is so desperately looking for alternative forms of funding now, that they don't have time to really form an effective opposition front.

This last move is absolutely beautiful, in the pure Machiavellian sense. The Greens in particular, receiving 6% of the overall vote, but not a single seat, were counting heavily on these subsidies. I have to disagree with GoG on this...I think it's particularly worrisome. The Greens and the NDPs simply do not have the same ability to raise funds as the 'big two'...I was shocked actually to see how heavily the Bloc relies on subsidies as well. It has been difficult enough for 'third parties' to mount an effective opposition even with full funding...to me, this is how Harper deals with his inability to get a majority...by squeezing the other parties out. A lot of those social programs you're worried about losing will be lost a lot more easily without an effective opposition making it politically unpleasant.

Once again, I have to give Harper credit. The man has fists of iron and the will to use them. You watch...the Senate is set to have at least 17 seats open in the near future...he can either stack the Senate with Conservatives...or he can pull another brilliant move and seriously start agitating for the dissolution of the Senate...which might be enough to get the West behind him even more than they are now.

I dare say that I'm shocked that parties that don't manage to receive 2% of the vote don't get subsidized. I mean, the only reason the neo-nazi NPD isn't receiving federal funds in Germany is because they embezzled them.

I have to agree with previous statements and give this minister credit for a brilliantly orchestrated coup.

In just one move he could eliminate all of the opposition parties in Canada and put his party in power for a very long time.

Shame as this system looks like an extremely good idea to me, allot money according to the number of votes stopping any party from being absolutely dependant on the private sector for it's funding as they are here in the UK, which just seems to result in parties all saying the same thing as they compete for the funds of the rich as much as for the votes of the poor, if anything it could do with an extension to $2.50 and a cap on private donations of say 10,000. this system I assume must lower any membership contribution to a political party making them more available to the poor.

but such a fair system must be removed, for the public's good of course.

I hope somebody shoots him

This last move is absolutely beautiful, in the pure Machiavellian sense. The Greens in particular, receiving 6% of the overall vote, but not a single seat, were counting heavily on these subsidies. I have to disagree with GoG on this...I think it's particularly worrisome. The Greens and the NDPs simply do not have the same ability to raise funds as the 'big two'...

Actually, the Liberals haven't done too well by the new rules, either. Before the subsidies they relied heavily on large corporate donations. The Conservatives inherited a strong grassroots fundraising machine from the Reform Party, which has allowed them to adapt quite well to the new system, whereas the Liberals are foundering.

The surest way for the Tories to resolve this crisis is to relax rules on corporate donations again. With the Bay Street spigot back open, the Liberals, particularly the Martin/Ignatieff faction that would *dearly* love to unravel Chretien's legacy legislation, will be loath to defend the subsidy system. Meanwhile the Tories will be able to work both sides of the street rather well, collecting grassroots and corporate donations. Everybody wins--except the NDP, the Greens, ordinary Canadians, and democracy.

I hope somebody shoots him

Don't be ridiculous, this is Canada. The most we've ever done is shoved a pie in the face of an unpopular politican.

Don't be ridiculous, this is Canada. The most we've ever done is shoved a pie in the face of an unpopular politican.

What about D'Arcy McGee? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_D'Arcy_McGee)

Don't be ridiculous, this is Canada. The most we've ever done is shoved a pie in the face of an unpopular politican.

Which, may I note, is ten times better. I'm sure LG would agree.:D

What about D'Arcy McGee? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_D'Arcy_McGee)

Balanced things out for the hanging of Riel.

Actually, the Liberals haven't done too well by the new rules, either. Before the subsidies they relied heavily on large corporate donations. The Conservatives inherited a strong grassroots fundraising machine from the Reform Party, which has allowed them to adapt quite well to the new system, whereas the Liberals are foundering.

The surest way for the Tories to resolve this crisis is to relax rules on corporate donations again. With the Bay Street spigot back open, the Liberals, particularly the Martin/Ignatieff faction that would *dearly* love to unravel Chretien's legacy legislation, will be loath to defend the subsidy system. Meanwhile the Tories will be able to work both sides of the street rather well, collecting grassroots and corporate donations. Everybody wins--except the NDP, the Greens, ordinary Canadians, and democracy.

But wait, the Liberals wouldn't sell out their ideals just to grasp at power once more!

we're fuct.

Balanced things out for the hanging of Riel.

Touché.

But wait, the Liberals wouldn't sell out their ideals just to grasp at power once more!

we're fuct.

The Liberals have ideals? :eek2:

The Liberals have ideals? :eek2:

Only if it will elect them. :wink:

Well, they backed off (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5j-vaw1H_MNCsBEEmjJaOuSu_dRSQ) from cutting the vote subsidy.

I wonder if the cuts to social spending are still on the table?

I hope somebody shoots him
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive1.jpg

...

Anyway, as for the subject at hand, I agree with Neesika, while I don't know much about the examples he/she gave, I too get the impression from some of Harper's policies (like with 'controlling' which questions the press can publicly ask him, IIRC) that he's using his power to gain more power. Though the same can be said of almost any politician, I guess; I've heard of MPs voting to give THEMSELVES a raise; what other jobs can you think of where people get to give THEMSELES a raise?

It also seems that the opposition are still going to defeat it.

*oh snip*
Unless I'm very much mistaken, Ebaum's World was amongst the list of things to never link...

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Ebaum's World was amongst the list of things to never link...
What list are you talking about?

Vote it down, I could see a coalition working if they actually listen to Canadians.

Harper is apparently trying to unite the left.

Against him.

What list are you talking about?
* Links to other games (particularly web-based ones) are prohibited. as are links (of any sort, including images) to websites such as ebaumsworld, newgrounds, rotten, etc...From here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9648084&postcount=11)
Some generally unacceptable popular sites include ebaumsworld, albinoblacksheep, plasticnipple, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Fred Phelps' godhates<group> hate-mongering sites.
Or here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3)

Harper is apparently trying to unite the left.

Against him.

If that's what it takes the left to get their collective shit together, then *golf clap*.

If that's what it takes the left to get their collective shit together, then *golf clap*.

I can see them making a coalition only if the budget fails and it's either a coalition or an election.

Who would lead?

I'd give it to Layton as the deputy PM, while the Liberals decide who would lead them and subsequently the government.

I can see them making a coalition only if the budget fails and it's either a coalition or an election.

Who would lead?

Oooh, good question...obviously not Duceppe. I'd like to think that they'd chose May, because she's got a level head on her, and she's not a bulldog like Layton...if Ignatieff ends up heading the Grits, he's going to want it, but he's about as personable as a wallstreet banker in a homeless shelter. If Rae takes the Libs, Layton will just outmoustache him into submission.

I want May, but I think everyone will have to sit on Layton if it's going to be anyone but him.

Oooh, good question...obviously not Duceppe. I'd like to think that they'd chose May, because she's got a level head on her, and she's not a bulldog like Layton...if Ignatieff ends up heading the Grits, he's going to want it, but he's about as personable as a wallstreet banker in a homeless shelter. If Rae takes the Libs, Layton will just outmoustache him into submission.

I want May, but I think everyone will have to sit on Layton if it's going to be anyone but him.

May would be weird and improbable and an awesome coalition leader.

If that's what it takes the left to get their collective shit together, then *golf clap*.

Yeah and if the left uniteds into one party like the right did and then the Liberals "elements" start to take control over the new Left party like the Reform party is doing to the Conseratives Party,then we end up with a two party system like the States. Two partys that muscle out anyobody else.

Not to forget the Conseratives are becoming more and more righter as the day goes by. These guys need to be defeated and quickly. Those frankly the Liberals need a Obama or someone who at least has a decent vision to take the party in a new direction(to the center again) and clean out the flith in it. While the NDP needs to start gaining governemnt experience if they form that coloaitlion government.



*Misses Dion* :(

I love your threads, Mike.

Well, there's just not enough Canuckery around here, so where there's a void, I'll fill it.

What's most disturbing to me, was the results of the poll on the link I posted. I was surprised that 70% of respondents thought that elimination of government subsidies was a good thing, and not just an attack on the opposition parties.

This is pure Harper partisanship. I think he's got a big chip on his shoulder leftover from the Liberal Majority days, and he wants to see the Liberals as shattered as the PC's once were. (Not to mention weaken 3rd parties to the point of impotence.)

Let's suppose the government falls, and a coallition steps in. How acceptable is this going to be to the general public? Particularly if Dion is the interim leader, and then the Liberal Party decides who's going to be the next PM? It'll be Kim Campbell Syndrome all over again. And I can imagine a huge public backlash after a few years of recession and a huge Conservative return in the future.

If a Coalition government did step in, we might very well see some political reform however, or at least an attempt to do so on the Proportional Representation side. I just can't imagine unanimity from the provinces for the needed reforms.

Well, there's just not enough Canuckery around here, so where there's a void, I'll fill it.

What's most disturbing to me, was the results of the poll on the link I posted. I was surprised that 70% of respondents thought that elimination of government subsidies was a good thing, and not just an attack on the opposition parties.

This is pure Harper partisanship. I think he's got a big chip on his shoulder leftover from the Liberal Majority days, and he wants to see the Liberals as shattered as the PC's once were. (Not to mention weaken 3rd parties to the point of impotence.)

Let's suppose the government falls, and a coallition steps in. How acceptable is this going to be to the general public? Particularly if Dion is the interim leader, and then the Liberal Party decides who's going to be the next PM? It'll be Kim Campbell Syndrome all over again. And I can imagine a huge public backlash after a few years of recession and a huge Conservative return in the future.

If a Coalition government did step in, we might very well see some political reform however, or at least an attempt to do so on the Proportional Representation side. I just can't imagine unanimity from the provinces for the needed reforms.

A lot of your mystery result in terms of the Poll probably comes from people who live in countries that don't subsidize their political parties.

What did Canada have, what did Canada DO, before Canada provided money to their political parties?

(and is it really a fair thing, to make an NLP or Liberal pay the salary for the Tory equivalent of an ad-man for the Tories?)

Sure, it's a crass attack on opposition parties-when are procedural or elections-money laws ever NOT? It could be said that the failure of Greens, NDP and other minority parties to get their supporters to vote via pocketbook indicates non-viability on the national stage, and that non-viability might have been corrected (read:they might've started listening to their neighbours, family, and such more often) were it not for an artificial 'prop' keeping their party afloat and party-officials paid.

If people won't knock on doors for you, won't contribute to you, they probably aren't going to vote for your candidate-making people pay your candidate's campaign costs strikes me as being somewhat anti-democratic AND unfair.

It doesn't make what Harper et. al are doing NOT a crass attack on their opponents, but it doesn't mean they don't have a point.

Notably, Obama won in the U.S. by disdaining public financing.

A lot of your mystery result in terms of the Poll probably comes from people who live in countries that don't subsidize their political parties.

What did Canada have, what did Canada DO, before Canada provided money to their political parties?

(and is it really a fair thing, to make an NLP or Liberal pay the salary for the Tory equivalent of an ad-man for the Tories?)

Sure, it's a crass attack on opposition parties-when are procedural or elections-money laws ever NOT? It could be said that the failure of Greens, NDP and other minority parties to get their supporters to vote via pocketbook indicates non-viability on the national stage, and that non-viability might have been corrected (read:they might've started listening to their neighbours, family, and such more often) were it not for an artificial 'prop' keeping their party afloat and party-officials paid.

If people won't knock on doors for you, won't contribute to you, they probably aren't going to vote for your candidate-making people pay your candidate's campaign costs strikes me as being somewhat anti-democratic AND unfair.

It doesn't make what Harper et. al are doing NOT a crass attack on their opponents, but it doesn't mean they don't have a point.

Notably, Obama won in the U.S. by disdaining public financing.

I don't really buy that line of reasoning, although I see its appeal. As far as deciding where your tax dollars go, I can't imagine a more egalitarian system. Your vote, while possibly not electing someone in your riding, is still worth something on the national stage. It's worth the same regardless of who you vote for. It means that you can contribute, through a public tax scheme, to the financial well-being of your party of choice, regardless of your financial position. The whole idea of public subsidies is to get away from shadowy puppet masters with deep pockets. At least this way, there's some sort of proportional representation.

Why draw the line at campaign financing? What about politician salaries? Maybe Harper's salary should come from CPC supporters only? Public financing in exchange for campaign finance limits on individual contributions is completely reasonable.

I don't really buy that line of reasoning, although I see its appeal. As far as deciding where your tax dollars go, I can't imagine a more egalitarian system. Your vote, while possibly not electing someone in your riding, is still worth something on the national stage. It's worth the same regardless of who you vote for. It means that you can contribute, through a public tax scheme, to the financial well-being of your party of choice, regardless of your financial position. The whole idea of public subsidies is to get away from shadowy puppet masters with deep pockets. At least this way, there's some sort of proportional representation.

Why draw the line at campaign financing? What about politician salaries? Maybe Harper's salary should come from CPC supporters only? Public financing in exchange for campaign finance limits on individual contributions is completely reasonable.


Yeah excatly. I mean why else would anybody vote for the Green Party...?:P

I don't really buy that line of reasoning, although I see its appeal. As far as deciding where your tax dollars go, I can't imagine a more egalitarian system. Your vote, while possibly not electing someone in your riding, is still worth something on the national stage. It's worth the same regardless of who you vote for. It means that you can contribute, through a public tax scheme, to the financial well-being of your party of choice, regardless of your financial position. The whole idea of public subsidies is to get away from shadowy puppet masters with deep pockets. At least this way, there's some sort of proportional representation.

Why draw the line at campaign financing? What about politician salaries? Maybe Harper's salary should come from CPC supporters only? Public financing in exchange for campaign finance limits on individual contributions is completely reasonable.

Public Financing results in...what? Do you really think someone NEEDS a bribe to run for office? That there NEEDS to be a trade-off involving other-people's Money?

Limit the financing. Limit it to what can be raised "Locally" for MP's, and cut out the bundlers and the party handlers. Make it an "Ejection from office" event for a candidate to be caught accepting money from outside his district/riding, and put a ten-year 'conflict of interest' moratorium on Lobbying for Pols that leave office.

Base their Salary on the average of what the people they purport to represent make, and set the calculations to slice off the top and bottom 5% when averaging. Take that number, add fifty percent, that's what an MP should be making-and what kind of benefits he should enjoy from the office he or she holds.

There is no pressing NEED for Parties to be paid by the government AT ALL. There's a powerful "Want", just as there are (in the U.S.) corporations who "Want" to be floated billions upon billions in bailouts for their own mismanagement. If a Political group MIS-Manages the country into hard times, does it make SENSE to finance them with public moneys?

Limit the financing. Limit it to what can be raised "Locally" for MP's, and cut out the bundlers and the party handlers. Make it an "Ejection from office" event for a candidate to be caught accepting money from outside his district/riding, and put a ten-year 'conflict of interest' moratorium on Lobbying for Pols that leave office.

Base their Salary on the average of what the people they purport to represent make, and set the calculations to slice off the top and bottom 5% when averaging. Take that number, add fifty percent, that's what an MP should be making-and what kind of benefits he should enjoy from the office he or she holds.


And who's going to do that? The party in power? Harper? The Liberals? I don't think so ...

Public Financing results in...what? Do you really think someone NEEDS a bribe to run for office? That there NEEDS to be a trade-off involving other-people's Money?

Limit the financing. Limit it to what can be raised "Locally" for MP's, and cut out the bundlers and the party handlers. Make it an "Ejection from office" event for a candidate to be caught accepting money from outside his district/riding, and put a ten-year 'conflict of interest' moratorium on Lobbying for Pols that leave office.

Base their Salary on the average of what the people they purport to represent make, and set the calculations to slice off the top and bottom 5% when averaging. Take that number, add fifty percent, that's what an MP should be making-and what kind of benefits he should enjoy from the office he or she holds.

There is no pressing NEED for Parties to be paid by the government AT ALL. There's a powerful "Want", just as there are (in the U.S.) corporations who "Want" to be floated billions upon billions in bailouts for their own mismanagement. If a Political group MIS-Manages the country into hard times, does it make SENSE to finance them with public moneys?

This isn't comparable to Wall Street bailouts, at all. This is about campaign finance reform. Are there prefferable methods to public subsidies? Possibly. But one can't argue that the current method is somehow undemocratic. By delegating a dollar amount per vote, it's decidedly democratic. I can't imagine many other features in the public sphere where tax-payers get to decide how their tax dollars are spent. It's also decidedly better than the previous system, where politicians were purchased by large corporations and banks.

The National Parties NEED money to run an effective campaign. Does it have to be from the public purse? No. But the current system isn't particularly unfair either.