Sunday, December 21, 2008

Speaking of Canadian Public Support

Harper's pet rationalization for trying to decapitate party subsidies, is this notion that the public strongly supports the measure. Nevermind, it's based on an after the fact poll, Harper now spins it all into him simply acting in the public's interest, a measure that reflects their wishes, during an economic slowdown.

I'm just curious if someone could commission a poll on this piece of spite, on my dime. You're own people say you did, it was entirely orchestrated and deliberate, anyone with common sense, who doesn't get a cheesy form Christmas card from Harper, knows it. And yet, Canadians are expected to foot the bill, so you can try and split hairs, because nobody challenges these Conservatives. Let's focus on the economy shall we and drop the frivilous lawsuits because the kids got caught in the cookie jar.

Yes, let's get some public feedback on this matter. I'm willing to bet people tell you, in overwhelming fashion, stop wasting our time and money, pony up and quit clogging the courts for an enternity. And, the KICKER, part of the reason for the legal action, you didn't get you PUBLIC PARTY FUNDING money back. Think about that full circle fact, there's a name for it.


Anonymous said...

My reaction is that if Harper actually believes that there is so much public support for eliminating the support for political parties - why didn't he put that into the Tory election platform in October as opposed to bringing it in out of the blue....and also if the public wanted to "decapitate" the opposition parties so badly, then why did Harper withdraw the proposal?

Steve V said...


Because he didn't have a platform, remember. Just a sweater, and something about the end of days in the form of carbon pricing.

Jeff said...

A recent pet peeve of mine is that "public funding of political parties" take at least three forms that I know of: 1) the $1.95 per vote subsidy that received so much attention recently, 2) the 75% of donations from individuals that the state coughs up in refunds and 3) the campaign expense refund that is handed back to candidates that win at least 10% of the vote in their ridings.

The Conservatives went after #1, the one that hurt the other parties the most. The shame here is that the media and the pollsters speak of #1 as if it is the only public subsidy. If we are going to talk about the benefits and evils of public subsidies, let's talk about all of them.

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to say here Steve...what does one have to do with the other? You are trying to mix two totally different things and make them the same.

Jeff, which party would of lost the most with the $1.95 cut in party funding? Think about extra money for those adds that liberals were whining that were paid for by the taxpayer for the last couple of years about Dion.

All parties have the same opportunity to raise money. In my opinion, the liberals missed one of their biggest opportunities to do that over this funding issue.

You have to make people want to give money...not whine because you are not getting any!

Jeff said...

As you say, Anon, "You have to make people want to give money". Agreed. But if I may whine a bit more: My point was that public funding of political parties happens in other ways. Why should financial backing (by donating) be worthy of public subsidy and political backing (by voting) be worth nothing? They both seem valid to me, and the vote subsidy gives a lot more people a say in how public funds are distributed than the donation subsidy, so it has that democratic advantage. It means that every vote counts.

It also helps to dull the advantage that people who can afford to donate lots of money to political parties have in the distribution of public funding.

And really, if the Conservatives are against public funding for political parties, they should make it their policy to eliminate all forms of subsidy, and not just the one that would financially cripple their opponents.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm....if it's so offensive to Harper, why did his party accept these funds for 5 years?

Harper is relying on the fact that Canadians just don't understand, and it works for him.

People like Andrew Coyne hate anything publically funded, yet his magazine and others accept public subsidies, for example. The Coyne's of Canada are helping Harper with their views - hypocrites all.

Canadians don't seem to understand that the $1.95 goes to the party "they voted for" - many believe it may go to parties that they don't vote for.

I think some truths have to be brought public - Harper is getting away with misinforming Joe Public - just like he did with our parliamentary system and the coalition issue.

Enough already - let's stop the BS.