Conservatives To Slash Federal Funding of Political Parties [Update-CPC backs down]

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The system the Liberals put in place costs $1 per taxpayer per year so that the playing field is more level. The one the Conservatives are putting in place is saying that I have to stop making my car payments if I want as much as say as Gaelen Weston in this democracy.

As for the $500, I give far more than that to United Way, Amnesty and Foster Parents Plan. If the Conservatives go ahead with this, I most assuradly be stopping those contributions and maxing out my political contributions. I'd much rather give my $1 and continue giving to charities, but the Conservatives are forcing my hand here.... if I want to have as much say as the wealthy I have to give up those things.

As for Obama - the vast, vast majority of his money came from people giving under $200. Which is what I said earlier in this thread. If the Conservatives want to do this then they should lower the $1,100 and make it a total. You can only give $200 MAX to political parties IN TOTAL. That is a reasonable amount that even Joe the shelf-stocker might be able to come up with and we don't have the wealthy controlling the system.

That's the way it works and I can assure you that most people are giving far, far under the maximum donation of $1100.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I disagree. As does John McCain who went with public money to finance his campaign. The whole McCain-Feingold bill was to stop the wealthy from hijacking the electoral system in the United States. Here the Conservatives have decided to hand the system back to the wealthy. Which is absolutely no surprise whatsoever.

Just like it was no surprise that the liberals put this in place back when they had a majority and benefit from it the most. This was a way for the liberals to force contributions that they otherwise would not have received, lining their pockets with taxpayers money. No agenda there. And how does taking this away really give that much new power to the wealthy? This doesn't change the rules for donating to a party. The wealthy were still donating just as much before, there just aren't extra perks from the government, which never should have been there in the first place.

[ikaris]

If a policy like this were to be implemented, then I would expect that there would be strict limiting put on private funding as well?

Just some perspective here; the $28 million that the conservatives are proposing to be cut is makes up about 0.01% of the total $245 billion annual budget. If the conservatives were actually serious about cutting the budget for non-political reasons, why don't we look at some of these other costs as well?

From the 2008 budget as an example:

- Providing $66 million over two years to set up the regulatory framework for industrial air emissions. Seriously? It costs $33 million per year to do this?

- Providing $25 million to help make the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Torch Relays a symbol of community and national pride. Torch relays cost $25 million?

- Setting aside $400 million for a Police Officers Recruitment Fund to encourage provinces and territories to recruit 2,500 new front-line police officers. I think that this is too much.

- Delivering on our promise to double international assistance to $5 billion by 2010–11. Maybe some room here to trim?

- Providing an additional $100 million for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, bringing Canada’s total projected Afghan aid program to $280 million in 2008–09. This is working great.

- Committing $75 million over two years to ensure the Canada Border Services Agency has the resources it needs to effectively manage the border. We do have such a porous border with those damn illegal US immigrants.

This is nothing but a pathetic political stunt that is designed to clearly benefit the conservatives only.

Currently the limit is $1000 a year per person with donations from corporations and unions being banned. I would hypothesize that the reason that the conservatives have such great private funding is because that people on the higher end of the income scale tend to donate there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in that same scale and I don't donate to the conservatives, but I still stand by my hypothesis. My belief is that the political process should not be severely influenced by money; it should be based on votes only and funding should be based on how many votes you got in the last election. I think private funding should be completely banned.

Democracy is not supposed to be influenced by money.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by fotze

I
I would be all for a maximum of $200 donated politically.

That's probably the best idea if we wanted something closer to democratic equality.

The type of people who can and do donate upwards of $1,100 to political parties are also the kind of people who are not going to miss the money at all, and I would be willing to bet that parties like the NDP and Greens have far fewer of those types supporting them than the Conservatives and Liberals, so removing the amount of funding for parties does put more power in the hands of people with deep pockets... I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.

Of course, politics has ALWAYS been about dollars and it has always been an elitists game (how many middle class PMs have we had?)... I think most, if not all of our PMs are either of British/Scottish/Irish or French decent (the main colonila ethnic groups), and they all come come from blue blood. It was very telling during the last big election when Harper, Martin, and Layton all had to throw tidbits during their speeches that emphasized their lineages to particular east coast families... It's probably the main reason why the Liberals opted for Dion when they could have asked Ignatieff... but I digress. I guess the only point I have is that I believe this does make poltics more elitist, but it has always been that way anyway.

[Devils'Advocate]

It looks like all 3 opposition parties (including the NDP that would benefit) are opposing this motion and as it is a budgetary update, it is a confidence motion. Back to the polls we go?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The reason the Liberals put this change in was because they felt that the wealthy and big corporations had far too much say in the political process. I think $1,100 per year is far too much. I can't afford $1,100 per year... I give the NDP $20/month = $240. Someone out there has 4x as much say as I do. This program was put in place to level the playing field. I can understand the Conservatives wanting to make this a plutocracy. I can even understand the members of this forum wanting a plutocracy. I just believe that it is bad for Canada.

Yeah, I am quite certain that the Chretien Liberals had the best interests of Canadians at heart. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that at the time, they benefited far more than anyone else.

[metallicat]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...on-period.html

"There are a lot of other things that will happen before we would have an election, especially so soon after the last one," Mulcair said.

Among other options, the opposition parties could try to form a coalition government or reach agreement to give the Liberals, who came second in the Oct. 14 election, a chance to govern.

But Liberal MP Scott Brison told CBC News parliamentary editor Don Newman that any talk of a coalition government is "premature," because opposition parties were surprised by "how bad" Flaherty's update was.

"These are pretty early days," he said "Today ought to have been about people, not politics, but about people who are losing their jobs."

How in the hell, could Stephane Dion be allowed to form a government, when he has already stated he is stepping down?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...on-period.html



How in the hell, could Stephane Dion be allowed to form a government, when he has already stated he is stepping down?

Who was PM from Feb 1993 to June 1993?

[metallicat]

Well you have the dates wrong, and Kim Campbell became Prime Minister while her party was still in power. The Canadian people recently elected a conservative government by quite a wide margin. I don't think people want a Liberal government right now, or it would have voted for one.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The system the Liberals put in place costs $1 per taxpayer per year so that the playing field is more level. The one the Conservatives are putting in place is saying that I have to stop making my car payments if I want as much as say as Gaelen Weston in this democracy.

As for the $500, I give far more than that to United Way, Amnesty and Foster Parents Plan. If the Conservatives go ahead with this, I most assuradly be stopping those contributions and maxing out my political contributions. I'd much rather give my $1 and continue giving to charities, but the Conservatives are forcing my hand here.... if I want to have as much say as the wealthy I have to give up those things.

Oh please, stop fooling yourself. Gaelen Weston had more say than you did under the old system. Yes, your party got $1 for your vote. So did his. And he probably gave to the max last year while you didn't. The only thing that's changed is that neither party will get their $1/vote money. The money for every vote scheme gave everyone a false sense that their dollar made a difference. In the end it didn't as the rich will always control the government anyways.

The best part of this is that it will stop the fringe parties from benefitting on a protest vote. Too many people voted for the Greens in the last election as a protest when they wouldn't normally have voted for them.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Well you have the dates wrong, and Kim Campbell became Prime Minister while her party was still in power. The Canadian people recently elected a conservative government by quite a wide margin. I don't think people want a Liberal government right now, or it would have voted for one.

Pretty sure I have the dates right, actually.

The Canadian people want a government that works. And yes, they didn't vote Liberal. If a coalition were to come to be, it would not be a Liberal government. It would be a coalition government with Stephane Dion, by virtue of being the leader of the biggest party in the coalition, as leader of the coalition, Prime Minister of Canada.

[metallicat]

She was Prime Minister from June until November.

And the CPC government has proven it has, and can work. No reason why it can't this time either, and an issue like this should not be able to topple the government. Regardless, the article says Dion remained silent when asked if some MPs would be absent for the vote. That is probably what will happen.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Pretty sure I have the dates right, actually.

The Canadian people want a government that works. And yes, they didn't vote Liberal. If a coalition were to come to be, it would not be a Liberal government. It would be a coalition government with Stephane Dion, by virtue of being the leader of the biggest party in the coalition, as leader of the coalition, Prime Minister of Canada.

An NDP/BLoc/Lib coalition with an outgoing Liberal leader as Prime Minister would be utter chaos and would throw the House into total anarchy and maybe force an election that Canadians do not want.

The NDP will support this when it comes down to it. It really will have no impact upon their future.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

She was Prime Minister from June until November.

LOL what?

What does that have to do with anything?

Here's a hint, I don't need to be given history lessons on Canadian politics.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

An NDP/BLoc/Lib coalition with an outgoing Liberal leader as Prime Minister would be utter chaos and would throw the House into total anarchy and maybe force an election that Canadians do not want.

The NDP will support this when it comes down to it. It really will have no impact upon their future.

I don't know. For me it's a total unknown. I can see it being a total mess, I can see it working reasonably well.

As for the NDP, what makes you so sure they want to prop up the Tories? They would have a big voice within a left wing coalition. This is just me thinking out loud right now...this stuff is totally foreign to me (and to most others I would imagine).

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by evman150

LOL what?

What does that have to do with anything?

Here's a hint, I don't need to be given history lessons on Canadian politics.

You are the one that brought up Kim Campbells reign from Feb-June, all I said is that she wasn't PM during that period.

That's not even the point anyways, all I'm saying is that the CPC shouldn't be toppled over this issue.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

You are the one that brought up Kim Campbells reign from Feb-June, all I said is that she wasn't PM during that period.

Can you show me where I said that?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

I don't know. For me it's a total unknown. I can see it being a total mess, I can see it working reasonably well.

As for the NDP, what makes you so sure they want to prop up the Tories? They would have a big voice within a left wing coalition. This is just me thinking out loud right now...this stuff is totally foreign to me (and to most others I would imagine).

They do very well without the per vote subsidy. As well, supporting this motion would stick a big knife in the Liberals' back. Talk to anyone in the upper echelons of the NDP (I've had a few opportunities) and they will tell you that their goal is to supplant the Liberals as the official left party in the country. Really unlikely, but that is what they are gunning for.

[metallicat]

LOL, forget it. If you weren't talking about Kim Campbell, I have no idea why you even brought up those 5 months.

[Caged Great]

Well, If the NDP Liberals and Bloc form a coalition government, then at least 60% of Canadians will be happy, myself included.