Democracy in this country would have changed forever, yeah; fewer election signs, fewer TV ads, fewer campaign mailouts, political parties actually forced to cut their costs... it would have been horrible. We might have been overrun by the treeees!
I'm no Harper fan, and the motives behind the funding cuts were sadly all too partisan, but I think that basically, they're a good idea. Political parties aren't government entities or agencies; they're supposedly groups of private citizens organized to promote a shared political agenda, and as such, I can't really see why any sort of government subsidy to them is justified.
Actually, the reason the subsidy was instituted was to prevent parties from relying on donations from big business to fund themselves, which would make them beholden to big companies when they govern. If they're receiving money based on votes, the citizens actually have a direct impact on how much money they get, without ever having to join or contribute to the party.
We can get to the same result by barring corporate donations and putting a low cap on personal donations. Quite frankly, I think that doing so would shift the balance of power in the parties to the ridings; it'd give the candidates an incenstive to get a little closer to their constituents. And as I've said elsewhere, it'd cut down on the TV ads and election placards.
And I think that allowing citizens to impact party funding by supporting the ones they favour is preferable. The thought of our tax dollars going to the Bloc cheeses me off.
The barring corporate donations and low caps on personal donations is a great idea. I'd vote for that. I'd support that. But Harper wasn't suggesting we replace the system. He was suggesting that we eliminate the system we have to score himself some points and cripple his enemies. It backfired.
Funny you should mention the Bloc. For one thing, they've been a party in government for many years now. They don't seem to be going away, and they also seem to be working for their constituents, which is frankly their job. I disagree with them on several core points of their policy (to say the least), but this $2-per-vote system is at least fair in that -- it gives money even to the parties I don't like, proportional to their support in the country.
And frankly right now I have more respect for the Bloc and for Duceppe than I have for the Conservative party and Harper. So much more, in fact, and so angry am I that Harper is such a megalomaniacal dog turd, that I am going to be giving money to every major political party come next election, INCLUDING the Bloc and EXCLUDING the Conservatives. Apparently they don't want my money, they certainly don't want my vote, and they won't be getting either.
The barring corporate donations and low caps on personal donations is a great idea. I'd vote for that. I'd support that. But Harper wasn't suggesting we replace the system. He was suggesting that we eliminate the system we have to score himself some points and cripple his enemies. It backfired.
Yup; IMHO, it was a reform that was being made for entirely the wrong reasons, and transparently so. Harper should maybe have remembered that he was elected to govern, not destroy his enemies, crush them beneath his heel, and burn their castles to the ground.
I could see donating to the Liberals and Greens and NDP, but do you have to give to the Bloc too? I mean, the Conservatives are right-wing jerks, but they're not ethnic nationalists and they're really just a little farther to the right than the Liberals used to be, and not dedicated to blowing up the country...
Harper should maybe have remembered that he was elected to govern, not destroy his enemies, crush them beneath his heel, and burn their castles to the ground.
Separatism is low-priority and unpopular in Quebec just at the moment. I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings. If that flares up again I might reconsider my decision. However, right now were there only two names on my ballot, one Bloc and the other Conservative, I would vote Bloc in an instant and feel I made the right choice.
The person most dedicated to blowing up the country right now is named Stephen Harper, and he happens to be PM.
I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings.
They just have gotten somewhere. The new coalition will be completely dependent on their support. If it goes through, it completely undermines the idea that a vote for the Bloc is a wasted vote, because it shows that they CAN affect government substantially.
I think it's a very, VERY bad idea to think that separatism is no longer a threat. Isn't that what people said in 1982? Weren't the Liberals confident that they'd win the 1995 Referendum, just before they came within 0.6 percent of losing it?
Please point to me where I said in that last post that separatism is no longer a threat, and that the Bloc do not affect government, or that a Bloc vote is a wasted vote.
I said that separatism is currently unpopular, and that I would vote for a Bloc candidate over a Conservative if those were my only choices.
Please point to me where I said in that last post that separatism is no longer a threat
Isn't that implicit in what you said? Surely you wouldn't vote for the Bloc if you expect separatism to flare up shortly thereafter.
The part about the Bloc not affecting gov't and thus being a wasted vote is not something you said, but rather the common refrain that the other parties have been using to dissuade Quebeckers from voting Bloc. The BQ can never form a government, so what's the point? And with this coalition, that argument will be severely undermined.
Separatism is low-priority and unpopular in Quebec just at the moment. I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings. If that flares up again I might reconsider my decision.
Note the last sentence.
So no, I wouldn't vote for the Bloc if I expected separatism to flare up shortly thereafter. As I've said before, separatism is not popular right now. That could change, at which point my opinions on the party would change.
'No longer a threat' implies to me that I think separatism is completely dead, which I don't. Nor did I say that. Nor am I likely to.
Except that the Parti Québécois has been banging the drums of separation practically since the provincial election began, and even more so in the last few days.
It's a little alarming, given how much yet another debate/referendum/debacle would cost...
The person most dedicated to blowing up the country right now is named
It's a sad statement on both Canadian and Québec politics (far worse than other countries I have spent time in) that so much of the 'debate' on policy takes the form of demonizing those we disagree with and impugning their motives rather than just debating the merits of their policy proposals.
The disappointment of that is quite poignant right now where the whole affair in Ottawa has come down to some politicians not only don't like one proposal that some others have made but actually refuse to a) debate it and b) accept it being retracted.
It's a great way to avoid discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the proposed changes to collective bargaining law (also retracted), pension and rrsp changes and the accelerated infrastructure spending....
Be nice if one day in the future our members of parliament start speaking (of course they would need to listen to the public too)....
The barring corporate donations and low caps on personal donations is a great idea. I'd vote for that. I'd support that. But Harper wasn't suggesting we replace the system. He was suggesting that we eliminate the system we have
Umm, that's already been done...Chrétien banned corporate donations and Harper cut the maximum personal donation to $1000 per year (which while more than a lot of us could afford to give, ensures that those who would pay 10 or 100 k can't). So really taking out one of the multiple subsidies (whether in favour of it or not) is really a modification to a system that's been in place for about 5 years, rather than eliminating it.
To add to the above, the $1.95/vote was intended to soften the consequences of the first-past-the-post system. If you live in a riding where the outcome is a foregone conclusions (such as yours) you can at least know that your vote has sent a little cash toward your favoured party. The hope was that this would get more people to the polls and increase voter interest.
And what's wrong with me simply donating to the Greens if I see fit to do so (and frankly, after May's shooting the party in the foot this last election, I'm not sure they deserve my cash)?
Poverty on the part of individuals is a bad thing; I'm not so sure that that's the case for political parties.
And as for the consequences of the first-past-the-post system, if the system gives more money to the winning party, I'm actually kind of inclined to think that it advantages the winning party more than anything else. Wasn't this instituted by the Liberals during the Chretien-Martin era?
The system gives more money to the popular party, which may not be the same as the winning party.
May may have shot her party in the foot in the last election, but if she takes a senate seat in this kerfuffle she will have given it the coup de grace.
And, finally, if you don't want government money going to the parties, should political donations be tax deductable?
The system gives more money to the popular party, which may not be the same as the winning party.
True that. Still, most of the time it'll advantage the winning party...
And as for donations being tax deductible, there's a difference between providing an incentive to donate as opposed to donating for us. Donating to political parties is a worthy thing to do and should be encouraged. But tax deductions are a concession of revenue, not a direct subsidy; the government is simply bleeding us less if we donate. There's a difference between taking our money and providing it as a subsidy to the parties and not actually taking it from us so we can donate it ourselves.
Yes, but that presumes that voters have enough income to benefit from the tax deduction, and/or are able to afford the donation, and are aware enough to realize that they get a tax credit for donating. None of these things will necessarily be the case. And it isn't unreasonable to assume that if you *did* donate, you'd give at least $2/year to the party you voted for. It's not as though the parties are getting $100 per year per vote.
(And here I am standing up for the proletariat, when I'm one of the more conservative people on mousme's Friends list!)
I'm not sure that the poverty of some of my fellow citizens really justifies the subsidy. I'm having a hard time framing an argument to the effect that we all have the right to donate equal amounts to the political party of our choice, regardless of income.
And, finally, if you don't want government money going to the parties, should political donations be tax deductable?
That's actually one of the points that was brought up when the subsidy was still an issue. The tax deductions (apparently) represent a whole lot more money than the subsidy, so if they were serious they should have gone for the deductions instead.
Video is here. It's on the sidebar, on the second page, marked "News Desk". (I can't figure out how to do a direct link, and it seems to not be on YouTube, at least not that I can find.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 01:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 01:30 pm (UTC)I'm no Harper fan, and the motives behind the funding cuts were sadly all too partisan, but I think that basically, they're a good idea. Political parties aren't government entities or agencies; they're supposedly groups of private citizens organized to promote a shared political agenda, and as such, I can't really see why any sort of government subsidy to them is justified.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 02:37 pm (UTC)So it is justified. And for my part, worth my $2.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:08 pm (UTC)And I think that allowing citizens to impact party funding by supporting the ones they favour is preferable. The thought of our tax dollars going to the Bloc cheeses me off.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:21 pm (UTC)Funny you should mention the Bloc. For one thing, they've been a party in government for many years now. They don't seem to be going away, and they also seem to be working for their constituents, which is frankly their job. I disagree with them on several core points of their policy (to say the least), but this $2-per-vote system is at least fair in that -- it gives money even to the parties I don't like, proportional to their support in the country.
And frankly right now I have more respect for the Bloc and for Duceppe than I have for the Conservative party and Harper. So much more, in fact, and so angry am I that Harper is such a megalomaniacal dog turd, that I am going to be giving money to every major political party come next election, INCLUDING the Bloc and EXCLUDING the Conservatives. Apparently they don't want my money, they certainly don't want my vote, and they won't be getting either.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:34 pm (UTC)Yup; IMHO, it was a reform that was being made for entirely the wrong reasons, and transparently so. Harper should maybe have remembered that he was elected to govern, not destroy his enemies, crush them beneath his heel, and burn their castles to the ground.
I could see donating to the Liberals and Greens and NDP, but do you have to give to the Bloc too? I mean, the Conservatives are right-wing jerks, but they're not ethnic nationalists and they're really just a little farther to the right than the Liberals used to be, and not dedicated to blowing up the country...
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:42 pm (UTC)And to hear the lamentation of their women (or other consorts, I suppose, since this is Canada after all).
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:49 pm (UTC)The person most dedicated to blowing up the country right now is named Stephen Harper, and he happens to be PM.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 04:10 pm (UTC)They just have gotten somewhere. The new coalition will be completely dependent on their support. If it goes through, it completely undermines the idea that a vote for the Bloc is a wasted vote, because it shows that they CAN affect government substantially.
I think it's a very, VERY bad idea to think that separatism is no longer a threat. Isn't that what people said in 1982? Weren't the Liberals confident that they'd win the 1995 Referendum, just before they came within 0.6 percent of losing it?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 04:27 pm (UTC)I said that separatism is currently unpopular, and that I would vote for a Bloc candidate over a Conservative if those were my only choices.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 04:45 pm (UTC)Isn't that implicit in what you said? Surely you wouldn't vote for the Bloc if you expect separatism to flare up shortly thereafter.
The part about the Bloc not affecting gov't and thus being a wasted vote is not something you said, but rather the common refrain that the other parties have been using to dissuade Quebeckers from voting Bloc. The BQ can never form a government, so what's the point? And with this coalition, that argument will be severely undermined.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 05:10 pm (UTC)Separatism is low-priority and unpopular in Quebec just at the moment. I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings. If that flares up again I might reconsider my decision.
Note the last sentence.
So no, I wouldn't vote for the Bloc if I expected separatism to flare up shortly thereafter. As I've said before, separatism is not popular right now. That could change, at which point my opinions on the party would change.
'No longer a threat' implies to me that I think separatism is completely dead, which I don't. Nor did I say that. Nor am I likely to.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 05:06 pm (UTC)It's a little alarming, given how much yet another debate/referendum/debacle would cost...
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-04 03:16 am (UTC)It's a sad statement on both Canadian and Québec politics (far worse than other countries I have spent time in) that so much of the 'debate' on policy takes the form of demonizing those we disagree with and impugning their motives rather than just debating the merits of their policy proposals.
The disappointment of that is quite poignant right now where the whole affair in Ottawa has come down to some politicians not only don't like one proposal that some others have made but actually refuse to a) debate it and b) accept it being retracted.
It's a great way to avoid discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the proposed changes to collective bargaining law (also retracted), pension and rrsp changes and the accelerated infrastructure spending....
Be nice if one day in the future our members of parliament start speaking (of course they would need to listen to the public too)....
no subject
Date: 2008-12-04 03:09 am (UTC)Umm, that's already been done...Chrétien banned corporate donations and Harper cut the maximum personal donation to $1000 per year (which while more than a lot of us could afford to give, ensures that those who would pay 10 or 100 k can't). So really taking out one of the multiple subsidies (whether in favour of it or not) is really a modification to a system that's been in place for about 5 years, rather than eliminating it.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:10 pm (UTC)Poverty on the part of individuals is a bad thing; I'm not so sure that that's the case for political parties.
And as for the consequences of the first-past-the-post system, if the system gives more money to the winning party, I'm actually kind of inclined to think that it advantages the winning party more than anything else. Wasn't this instituted by the Liberals during the Chretien-Martin era?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:30 pm (UTC)May may have shot her party in the foot in the last election, but if she takes a senate seat in this kerfuffle she will have given it the coup de grace.
And, finally, if you don't want government money going to the parties, should political donations be tax deductable?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:38 pm (UTC)True that. Still, most of the time it'll advantage the winning party...
And as for donations being tax deductible, there's a difference between providing an incentive to donate as opposed to donating for us. Donating to political parties is a worthy thing to do and should be encouraged. But tax deductions are a concession of revenue, not a direct subsidy; the government is simply bleeding us less if we donate. There's a difference between taking our money and providing it as a subsidy to the parties and not actually taking it from us so we can donate it ourselves.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:58 pm (UTC)(And here I am standing up for the proletariat, when I'm one of the more conservative people on
no subject
Date: 2008-12-04 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:51 pm (UTC)That's actually one of the points that was brought up when the subsidy was still an issue. The tax deductions (apparently) represent a whole lot more money than the subsidy, so if they were serious they should have gone for the deductions instead.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 08:27 pm (UTC)If you donate $100 to a political party, you get $75 off your tax bill federally. Seriously. It's like you're donating only $25.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 02:59 pm (UTC)The word I've seen elsewhere is "pilloried".
Video is here. It's on the sidebar, on the second page, marked "News Desk". (I can't figure out how to do a direct link, and it seems to not be on YouTube, at least not that I can find.)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 09:44 pm (UTC)