Thursday, November 27, 2008

Flaherty Stiffs The Green Party

...among others:

Under the new proposal [to cut party budgets], this is how much the parties stand to lose:

Conservatives: $10 million
Liberals: $7.7 million
NDP: $4.9 million
Bloc Quebecois: $2.6 million
Green Party: $1.8 million


A burgeoning political organization like the Green Party depends heavily on taxpayers' money. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was able to greatly increase her profile in the recent election through cross-country advertising.

It's unclear how the Greens would be able to stage an effective campaign without that money, especially since they were unable to elect a single MP to Parliament.

I'm not quite sure how worried to be about this. I don't really follow the procedural niceties of parliament, but one of CG's commentors writes:

An economic update that would require changes to legislation?

It's hot air. Can't go forward without a ways & means motion, can't go forward without passing the senate.

And if this is really the case, if the move is "merely symbolic", then frankly I don't see it as being particularly clever symbolism either. I can already hear the cries of "Its an attack on our culture!" in Quebec, and you can make the case that it is a raw and ugly attempt to kill the environmental movement in the ROC.

It should also be pretty obvious to everyone that its an attempt to turn the channel on a possible 46 Billion dollar deficit, though it will do absolutely nothing to stem the red ink tide. Opportunism this rank is never good politics.

12 comments:

The Right is Where it's At said...

Mr.Murphy if this is going to then I say to it,"It's about time!"

Why should we be forced by the government to subsidize a political party in which we don't agree with them? This in my opinion is crazy.

Example why should someone on the west cost who loves this country with all their fiber should be forced to subsidize the separatist Bloc with his/her hard earned tax dollars? Where the purpose of the Bloc is to break up this country.Does this really make any sense?

We are not talking about helping people with government programs here,this is about using our tax dollars to subsidize political parties.

If the government goes ahead with this I personalty don't see how any opposition parties can effectively fight an election over it. In my opinion there would be a big backlash from the voters who would see this as greed for the opposition parties especially when the Conservatives would stand to lose the most that is $10 million.

The Right is Where it's At said...

Correction:

I meant to say:

"Mr.Murphy if this is going to HAPPEN then I say to it,"It's about time!"

Not:

"Mr.Murphy if this is going to then I say to it,"It's about time!"

Also I meant to say:

"Why should we be forced by the government to subsidize a political party in which we don't agree with them? In my opinion THIS is crazy."

Not:

"Why should we be forced by the government to subsidize a political party in which we don't agree with them? This in my opinion is crazy."

MERBOY said...

RE: The Right is Where it's At

"Why should we be forced by the government to subsidize a political party in which we don't agree with them? This in my opinion is crazy."

In which "we" don't agree ???

Buddy the subsidy is based on votes earned... if "we" don't agree with them "we" won't vote for them and then there wouldn't be a subsidy.

Ti-Guy said...

Oh Gawd...TRIWIA's here.

Kill it. Kill it now!

lance said...

Merboy, two cracks in your logic.

1. Voter != taxpayer.

2. 'if "we" don't agree with them "we" won't vote for them and then there wouldn't be a subsidy.'
is functionally equivalent to:
'if "we don't agree with them "we" won't donate to them.' The difference being that it removes two middle layers, the taxpayer and the gov't.

Hugs and Kisses, Tigger!

Cheers,
lance

MERBOY said...

RE: lance

"Voter != taxpayer."

By that logic non taxpayers shouldn't get to vote at all... you could say the exact same thing about them having an opinion on any government policy.

'if "we" don't agree with them "we" won't vote for them and then there wouldn't be a subsidy.'
is functionally equivalent to: 'if "we don't agree with them "we" won't donate to them.' The difference being that it removes two middle layers, the taxpayer and the gov't.

"We" all benefit when ideas that appeal to large groups are funded.

Low income people are less likely to donate to charities because they don't have as much disposable income... I'm sure they're even less likely to donate to political parties.

If the Conservatives actually want to reduce the subsidy without the crass politics they could easily remove the partisan advantage by slowly phasing it out... but since their top priority has always been raising their political profile I doubt we'll see that.

lance said...

Merboy said, "By that logic non taxpayers shouldn't get to vote at all... you could say the exact same thing about them having an opinion on any government policy."

I wasn't trying to say non-taxpayers shouldn't vote. I was saying that while all taxpayers are voters, not all voters are taxpayers. (!= is programmer speak for not-equal, my apologies for trade-speak)

That fact completely kills the idea of "who you vote for gets your $1.95" meme that's going around.

I am curious about your poor-people don't donate statement.

2007:
CPC avg. donation $160
LPC avg. donation $191
NDP avg. donation $170
(source: Elections Canada)

Basically, the poor people are already donating . . . just not to the LPC.

Cheers,
lance

MERBOY said...

RE: lance

"I wasn't trying to say non-taxpayers shouldn't vote. I was saying that while all taxpayers are voters, not all voters are taxpayers. (!= is programmer speak for not-equal, my apologies for trade-speak)"

"That fact completely kills the idea of "who you vote for gets your $1.95" meme that's going around."

So what you're saying is as a taxpayer say $1.95 of your money goes to the party you selected and $0.20 (I'm totally guessing with this number) goes to paying for all the votes made by non tax payers?

Yeah I still totally don't have an issue with that... some of my money funds the Conservative party... I'm ok with that because though I disagree with pretty much everything the Conservative party stands for at the moment... I think that parties who earn significant votes in an election deserve funding and I think we all benefit when real ideas are debated from all sides.

"I am curious about your poor-people don't donate statement."

2007:
CPC avg. donation $160
LPC avg. donation $191
NDP avg. donation $170
(source: Elections Canada)

"Basically, the poor people are already donating . . . just not to the LPC."

I'm not sure how you think those stats serve your argument... I'm pretty sure these numbers don't somehow include people who would donate to a given party but can't afford to.

lance said...

Merboy said, "So what you're saying is as a taxpayer say $1.95 of your money goes to the party you selected and $0.20 (I'm totally guessing with this number) goes to paying for all the votes made by non tax payers?"

You don't, Conservatives do. A difference in ideology doesn't an attack on democracy make.

I'm fairly certain that the Libertarian party (whom I voted for), the Christian Heritage Party, the Marijuanna Party and the rest of the "Others" have no problem with this. They all got votes but no money from the public purse. Add another 10 cents or so on to your total for those taxpaying voters.

Forcing reliance on donations evens the playing field for everyone.

Re: the 2007 donation stats not proving any point.

You're right it doesn't, however it belies the idea that the poor can't donate. All parties have monthly contribution gigs now. The Victory Fund is the Liberals latest. 10/mth minimum and it's only 16/mth to meet their avg donation from last year.

Cheers,
lance

MERBOY said...

RE: lance said

"You don't, Conservatives do. A difference in ideology doesn't an attack on democracy make."

I don't for a second believe that every single person who voted Conservative agrees with this proposal... this isn't the US... many Canadians have voted for more than one party over the years, I know I have... also... even if every Conservative voter did agree with this proposal... the majority of people did not vote Conservative in the election.

"I'm fairly certain that the Libertarian party (whom I voted for), the Christian Heritage Party, the Marijuanna Party and the rest of the "Others" have no problem with this. They all got votes but no money from the public purse."

If you can't convince a large number of people to vote for your party then you don't deserve public funding... this isn't about funding EVERY idea that anyone believes in... but ideas that are supported by a significant number of voters.

"Add another 10 cents or so on to your total for those taxpaying voters."

Adding and removing money from a totally guessed amount is STUPID.

"Forcing reliance on donations evens the playing field for everyone."

If you ignore the fringe parties... and I do... the current playing field is already level.

"Re: the 2007 donation stats not proving any point."

"You're right it doesn't, however it belies the idea that the poor can't donate. All parties have monthly contribution gigs now. The Victory Fund is the Liberals latest. 10/mth minimum and it's only 16/mth to meet their avg donation from last year."

I have a friend that can't afford a bus pass in this city... sorry but your argument still doesn't hold any water... there are plenty of people who do not have ANY extra money to donate... even $10 per month.

lance said...

"If you can't convince a large number of people to vote for your party then you don't deserve public funding... this isn't about funding EVERY idea that anyone believes in... but ideas that are supported by a significant number of voters."

Merboy, I give up. That last one of yours quoted above went beyond stupid given the context of our debate.

It's a little obvious that to you, this isn't about funding for political parties. For you this is about funding for the Liberal party. IOW's I'm wasting my energy. Lord knows, convincing a Liberal that they aren't entitled to tax-payer money is as difficult as walking to the Moon.

Catcha in another thread.

Cheers,
lance

MERBOY said...

RE: lance

"It's a little obvious that to you, this isn't about funding for political parties. For you this is about funding for the Liberal party."

Right... and the fact that it will have a huge impact on ALL opposition parties... you're right... that doesn't bother me at all... funny how I voted Green for the last election... guess I am the Liberal partisan that you think I am.

"IOW's I'm wasting my energy. Lord knows, convincing a Liberal that they aren't entitled to tax-payer money is as difficult as walking to the Moon."

I think it's just RICH that Conservatives are trying to paint this cut as anything but crass politics... hey if it's all about removing public funding... why not remove the tax credits that individuals get when they donate... oh yeah cuz it would affect the Conservatives more than the other parties... principles... what are those?