Hey, Gilles, Jack, Michael: wanna try that again?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will campaign in the next election to kill direct public financing for political parties, which last year cost taxpayers $27-million.
Never the shrinking violet. Score one for the PM.
Atta boy Stevie, go get ’em. Make ’em pay their own way. Put up or shut up.
Timing is everything.
There are actually people who think we should give pay-outs to other parties. It’s more stabilising that way.
I would rather have my money back.
Just about perfect timing too. Also, Ezra floated this idea just a few days ago.
Let the games begin!
Good idea,Mr.Harper.
It’s bad enough many MP’s don’t earn their salaries, but when the Party they serve instead of the people has become a welfare bum by any other name,that’s too much!
I resent every nickel of my taxes that goes to the Bloc,NDP,and Greens,the LPC and CPC, not so much,as they at least are proponents of capitalism for the most part.
I would like the tax break/subsidy removed too. And all
limits to personal contributions removed. And no loans. And for all donations to be made electronically and donors and the donations published instantly on a public website for all to see.
But this cancellation of public financing is a good first step.
Who really thought that this wouldn’t be on the table again?
Gord Tulk – Do you think that Paul Desmarais is different than Power Corp?
That and the CBC.
Harper moved his pawn in a strange way in 2008, causing all the experts to doubt his competence. Now that little pawn has been promoted to win the game (election) for Harper. Once again showing that Harper is playing chess while Ignatief plays checkers.
This is what we should be hearing from Conservatives. I wish them God speed in their efforts.
This is exactly what I like to hear from Conservatives. It makes them look petty, spiteful and stupid!
This structured funding of all political parties, not only ensures a healthy democracy, but costs a mere $27,000,000.oo per election, and in the past year Harper and Flaherty have cost Canadians an average of $103,000,000.oo a Day in Deficits. Do the math.
Stalin would approve of such a scheme, but Canada will not. Not by a long shot. This is just harper trying to ensure an election will occur this year.
Yeah, it is stupid and incideously Rovian, but hey that is exactly what I like about it. It shows Harper’s total lack of scruples.
I do not suppose that anyone else on this board will be able to see that though. I have seen nothing but praise for the idiot since I have been reading this blog for the last few years. Don’t let math and common sense change any of that. Hell I know a lot of people who read this blog and never say a word. They read it to see how scycophantic it’s readers tend to be!
Good luck with your little love fest and remember, 34% is not a majority. And this is not Diefenbaker’s Progreesive Conservatives any more. Joe Clark is still around though and he thinks that this is a very Rovian tactic by a very nasty prime Minister!
Kim Leaman >
Yikes, no need to drown your kittens over it!
Send your own $$ to your pinko pals, Kim Leaman! Most people that I know do not like the Bloc and resent paying them to enable them to spout their separatist rhetoric and blackmail on the public dime. Why should we pay to vote? If I wish to support some organization/political party with my time or $$, I will volunteer my time or my money.
Kim Leaman = Are you typing with one hand?
@Kim: Rovian? Yup. It’s all BOOOOSH’s fault!
Soooo..you’d be in favor of just privatizing the CBC, then? After all, they use 37 times MORE than the subsidy for political parties…
“Stalin would approve of such a scheme….”
Yeszz, Kim, Stalin would have approved of a plan to cut one particular portion of government funding to anti-Stalinist parties while still allowing them a full measure of donor tax credits as well as hefty campaign reimbursements – particularly if they were regional secessionist parties like the BQ – for example, who receive fully 95 percent of their funding through taxpayer subsidization, mostly from the people who wish for their regions to remain part of the country.
The parallels between Stephen Harper and Josef Stalin are, as you correctly type, striking – eerie, even, when you’re typing them out.
More, please, Kim. If you keep it up, you will change our minds.
Kim – you CAN put your money where your mouth is. I support my party of choice and resent having to support a party that can’t support itself (BQ).
So its “put your money where your mouth is”, is it? OK then no more tax break on contributions, this costs exponentially more than the $1.95 vote subsidy. I mean it is all about fiscal prudence for Steve and the Harpercons isn’t it?
I am sure we will see a precipitous drop in contributions to the so-called Conservatives then. Thats why Steve is only attacking the subsidy, and regularly using his office and government resources for fund raising.
“I am sure we will see a precipitous drop in contributions to the so-called Conservatives then.”
Jim Mitchell
The drop would be proportionally equal across all political parties. Being that the Conservatives are the most successful in collecting donations they would still be on top in the end…So try again Jimmy boy.
Pissed off that you are going to have to donate to your favorite lefty, so far state dependent party there Mitchell…
I`m proud to say that I participated in a volunteer Conservative members group session here in London a couple months or so ago and I convinced my group to put the elimination of state pay per vote travesty on top of our list of issues.
If you are really serious about politics you will make donations and volunteer your time (Deductible or not)…I`m sick of the soccer moms who never pay attention to what`s going on and then because of a few strategic emotionally charged buzz words, slogans and catch phrases during an election campaign; in the media, payed with tax dollars, they claim to be well informed and can go vote.
It`s the same type of people who claim they are religious or spiritual because they go to the Christmas and Easter mass only during the course of a year.
Politics and elections should be for serious patriotic people only…The rest of you should just stick to continue perpetually entertaining yourselves.
I’d say that an important result would be the disappearance of the Bloc – that travesty on our democratic system. The Bloc, a so-called federal party, whose members are elected within only one province but who have voting rights over issues concerning the entire nation, is undemocratic. And, it is almost entirely supported by the Canadian taxpayer – those people who are unable to vote for the Bloc!
Kim – the problem with your statement is that it is not an argument; that is, you provide us with your opinions but provide us with no evidence or reasons for your opinions.
To declare: ‘the structured funding of all political parties ensures a healthy democracy’ is a conclusion. An opinion. What is missing is WHY you think this to be the case.
Why should the taxpayer’s money go to support a political view with which they disagree? Why shouldn’t those who support that view, fund that party?
To declare that funding all these parties would cost X-amount – and then, to declare that ‘Harper and Flaherty’ cost Y amount is a false analogy. There is not only no valid comparison between funding political parties with a few thousand members in total and running a country of 33 million. Why are you setting up such an invalid comparison?
Then, you are on to not only another false analogy but, a perjorative colouring of that analogy, by attempting to describe defunding of political parties as ‘Stalinesque’. Again – an opinion. WHY do you come to this conclusion? What are your reasons?
And the inevitable ‘it’s American style’ is another irrelevant tactic. That’s just a smear not a valid argument.
And then, on to your smear of this blog’s readers, whose criticism of your opinions and their lack of substance – you try to defend yourself against by telling us we are too dumb to comprehend you. Heh.
Prove it. We do understand that you have no argument. Just writing opinions and making false analogies and smearing opponents isn’t an argument.
And your comment about ‘all those who say nothing here but who disagree with you’ is, of course, unprovable. And therefore, yet another invalid tactic.
My suggestion to you is that, to write on this blog, you ought to be able to provide a valid argument. That is -one that is supported by factual evidence, held together by logic, and open to debate. Can you do that?
With his left hand Harper may be will kill $27 million expense, but with his right hand he will spend 1000x more on corporate welfare. Been there done that with SOW and GM bailout. Boo.
Well whoop twang!
27 million!!!
Some day, probably not in my lifetime, there will be some actual conservatives in a party with a name along those lines.
“We’ll direct that $27 millions to care for sick puppies, help find lost children, and protect unicorn habitat. Jack and Michael, what did you want to do with it?”
“I have seen nothing but praise for the idiot since I have been reading this blog for the last few years.”
Then you haven’t been reading very closely Kim.
@Jim:
Personally, I would do away with tax breaks, subsidies and all other forms of government funding for political donations, corporations, NGOs, tuition, television, garbage collection, etc., etc.
But then I’m relatively conservative, not Conservative, whereas the Conservatives are often more Conservative than conservative.
This subsidy for political parties is like the automatic deduction of union dues. For those that receive it, it makes complete sense.
When I was organizing for the CPC we received more money on this particular subsidy than we spent on a campaign (If the parlimentary term ran 2 years). This subsidy simply allows political parties to ignore the grassroots by not having to listen to local constituency orgs. These orgs historically raised money and volunteered their time to produce winning campaigns. This money allows a party elite to dictate who runs and what they can debate or publically discuss. Very undemocratic!
After an election campaign I had a coffee with a very disheartened NDP organizer. He was admiring our CPC org that had returned our candidate for the 4th consecutive time. ‘You have such a strong group, we cannot get volunteers, donations or quality candidates. It hasn’t been this bad in over 30 years’. I couldn’t help but suggest he question their message.:)
I thought this 2 years ago when it first came up and I still think it today – PMSH should have announced that effective today, the CPC will no longer take the $2 per vote.
As the CPC does well at fund-raising, they’d still have plenty of money and the other parties would be shown to be the money-grubbing losers that they are.
ct- excellent points. That’s exactly right. This subsidy is actually extremely undemocratic for it sets up the party elite in full control – they can ignore the grassroots completely because they don’t have to listen to them, plan policies for them and thus – be accountable to the people.
That’s the point about the Bloc. It is a detached elitist set, isolated from the grassroots people of Quebec, who do not fiscally support them. The Bloc MPs are quite amenable to their salaries and pensions from the Canadian taxpayer. If that subsidy were removed, the Bloc would be bankrupt. Quebecers vote for the Bloc as a default party; because it represents Quebec alone. They don’t vote for its separatiste policy. And they certainly don’t fund it.
I LUV IT!
RHTT nails it!
I’d like to suggest a campaign slogan for Kim and her party(ies) of choice.
‘We’re Entitled to our Entitlements’
Wanna talk Petty Kimmy how about criminalizing the long form census. Been over to CBC lately buttercup a woman has been found guilty of refusing to give the feds information to give to private interprises ala leftwing activists wanna talk about petty? The CHRC gave a killer 10 smackarroos cause he had to stand up and say “Here”. Hon, the left invented petty, but we’re learning from ya fast have no fear.
Good for Harper, it’s nothing short of taxpayer welfare for politicians.
“That’s the point about the Bloc. It is a detached elitist set, isolated from the grassroots people of Quebec, who do not fiscally support them. The Bloc MPs are quite amenable to their salaries and pensions from the Canadian taxpayer. If that subsidy were removed, the Bloc would be bankrupt. Quebecers vote for the Bloc as a default party; because it represents Quebec alone. They don’t vote for its separatiste policy. And they certainly don’t fund it.”
ET
And that’s what I said at our Conservative policies meeting: “The Bloc and the Greens would disappear into irrelevant oblivion and the NDP might finally just give up and merge with the Liberals”
The Bloc wears it’s name well…They have successfully ‘blocked’ Quebec from moving ahead for years now…Just ask it’s creator; Lucien Bouchard.
http://ipolitics.ca/2011/01/10/ten-years-after-bouchard-quit-wheres-quebec-sovereignty-now/
Quebec’s youth, who are more worldly in their social interactions and cultural tastes than just a generation or two ago are not interested any more in independence or at least, they seem to better understand that if your are going to fly with your own wings, you must stop being nanny state dependent. They also want to learn english so they can better play those video games and they want to understand an english movie without voice translation too ;-).
What the Quebec youth wants are oppertunities for jobs, better jobs, wealth creation instead of theft and redistribution…And they are not finding this in Quebec. This creates other frictions, enough to create a movement:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/25/tasha-kheiriddin-quebecs-surprise-common-sense-revolutionary/#more-15882
Hope this movement grows because their parent’s separatist movement is old and just about dead, except in the ultra left wing french media and Ottawa funded Bloc Quebecois.
The public subsidy for Political Parties is cover for the Progressive Left’s most dirty little secret: that the grassroots support for their parties is all but non existent; that they are in fact: AstroTurfers.
Good for Harper! I have always thought this subsidy was just a money grab. Why should any citizen support a party whose platforms and ideas are in direct opposition to their own? It brings to mind the Bloc and its head.
honourable terry – exactly, Bouchard’s excellent 2005 Manifesto commentary on Quebec (and the Bloc) warned Quebec about its isolationism, and its refusal to move out of economic dependency.
Quebec is economically (and politically)dependent on the Rest of Canada; it cannot itself fund its own massive social programs and bloated bureaucracy and relies on the ROC for that funding. And it can’t fund its political party, the Bloc which relies, as well, on the ROC. Incredible.
At the same time, it refuses to reduce its welfare state mode and puts constant road-blocks in its people’s ability to constructively participate in the global economy. This includes trying to prevent the youth from learning English, to preventing entrepreneurship by the dominant power of The Unions, to its high taxes – leading to a huge black market economy.
Hey – why hasn’t Kim come on and justified his/her opinions? Is it the same old thing – where a leftist comes to a blog with a full set of ungrounded opinions and when called to account, disappears?
The $2. per vote subsidy was put in place to replace the elimination of Corporate and Union donations. The idea was that this would give everyone a voice ( rich and poor ) and so that political parties would not be dependant and therefore beholden to Corporations or Unions. The personal limit used to be 5000. but Harper dropped it down to 1100.
The $2. per vote does not go to the Bloc if you didn’t vote for the Bloc. It goes to the party you voted for. If your neighbour voted NDP then the NDP gets $2. It’s perfectly democratic. 1 vote=1 subsidy to the party of your choice. It supports our democracy in a small way thru proportional representation.
This chart ( a year or so old ) shows how much of a parties funds are related to the subsidy. The Conservative Party relies on it the least while the Bloc relies on it most. However, the Bloc does not rely on it for 95% as some have suggested. It looks like about 65-70%. It takes into consideration all forms of funding.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/expanding-the-debate-on-party-financing/article1670270/
I honestly don’t think the Conservatives would present this as part of their election platform if they didn’t know that it would hurt other parties financially more than them.
After all, there are a lot of people in Canada who vote but do not have the means to donate or financially support the party of their choice. This subsidy is the only way their voices are heard and they can financially support the party of their choice( other than doing volunteer work ). It wouldn’t surprise me if many of those poorer voters support other parties than the Conservatives.
I don’t have figures to back me up but it wouldn’t surprise me if the tax deductions for donating far exceed the $2. per vote subsidy. That’s a big expense to the tax payer too.
While taking away that tax deduction would affect all parties, it would hurt the Conservatives the most since they rely on those individual donations the most.
Sometimes when you present an idea that benefits you the most, for short term gain, it can come back to haunt you later. Remember when the Conservatives were pretty well wiped off the political landscape in Canada? They got 2 million votes but only secured 2 seats because of our first past the post system. That was a time when Corporate and Union donations were allowed. But what if, as Harper is suggesting, if Corporate and Union votes weren’t allowed, personal donations were limited to 1100. and there were no vote subsidies?. Would the party have had the funds to regroup and come back to fight again another day? They weren’t particularily popular. Could they survive on only personal donations?
I don’t have a problem with it. I’d rather our system support democracy for all people ( rich and poor ) rather than just give representation to those that have money to donate. Giving $2. per vote is very democratic. It supports parties in exact proportion to what the voters support. If you don’t vote, they aren’t supported.
I’d also rather our politicans spend most of their time working for us and developing better policies and less time fund raising.
“Giving $2. per vote is very democratic. It supports parties in exact proportion to what the voters support.”
See that’s what I have a problem with personally. It goes to the party rather than the individual I voted for. Democracy is not supposed to be about supporting parties, it’s supposed to (at least in part) be about supporting the candidate in your constituancy who you think could work the best for your constituancy.
As ct said “This money allows a party elite to dictate who runs and what they can debate or publically discuss” I would add that it further forces MPs to vote along party lines, and reduces cooperation between parties for the very same reasons. You can’t argue with your party leaders anymore or you’re out.
Posted by Les:
“The $2. per vote subsidy was put in place to replace the elimination of Corporate and Union donations. The idea was that this would give everyone a voice ( rich and poor ) and so that political parties would not be dependant and therefore beholden to Corporations or Unions. The personal limit used to be 5000. but Harper dropped it down to 1100.”
Sorry, I don’t see a problem with dropping the donation limit to a smaller amount, it makes it tougher to ‘cheat’ IMO and it’s equal for all parties anyway.
“The $2. per vote does not go to the Bloc if you didn’t vote for the Bloc. It goes to the party you voted for. If your neighbour voted NDP then the NDP gets $2. It’s perfectly democratic. 1 vote=1 subsidy to the party of your choice. It supports our democracy in a small way thru proportional representation.”
I don’t think anyone here misunderstood that the 2$ goes to the party one voted for…D’uh.
“I honestly don’t think the Conservatives would present this as part of their election platform if they didn’t know that it would hurt other parties financially more than them.”
Your view is pure socialism…Because the Conservative machine worked hard to create an efficient and sucessfull private fundraising apparatus, you scream “Not fair!”
“After all, there are a lot of people in Canada who vote but do not have the means to donate or financially support the party of their choice.”
B.S. This is Canada, not Haiti. If you can afford a $2 coffee at Tim Horton’s you can afford to give $2 to your party of choice. A donation is a donation.
“This subsidy is the only way their voices are heard and they can financially support the party of their choice( other than doing volunteer work ). It wouldn’t surprise me if many of those poorer voters support other parties than the Conservatives.”
Are you kidding! Their voices are constantly heard, amplified and their plight constantly exagerated by the main stream media and is probably the main reason why the Conservatives became so successful in private fundraising in the first place.
“While taking away that tax deduction would affect all parties, it would hurt the Conservatives the most since they rely on those individual donations the most.”
NOT!…It would proportionally be fair and again, currently, the Conservatives have the best (Private) fundraising system so until the others catch up they would still be raising more private donations.
“Sometimes when you present an idea that benefits you the most, for short term gain, it can come back to haunt you later. Remember when the Conservatives were pretty well wiped off the political landscape in Canada? They got 2 million votes but only secured 2 seats because of our first past the post system. That was a time when Corporate and Union donations were allowed. But what if, as Harper is suggesting, if Corporate and Union votes weren’t allowed, personal donations were limited to 1100. and there were no vote subsidies?. Would the party have had the funds to regroup and come back to fight again another day? They weren’t particularily popular. Could they survive on only personal donations?”
I guess in your own view that was not fair for the Conservatives back then, was it?
Harper and McKay joined the fragmented Con parties, then from shear populace revolt were successful in their fundraising. The Conservatives of today are far more grassroots than the others. It was the corrupt Liberals who had the most success with union and corporate donations, not the Cons.
“I don’t have a problem with it. I’d rather our system support democracy for all people ( rich and poor ) rather than just give representation to those that have money to donate. Giving $2. per vote is very democratic. It supports parties in exact proportion to what the voters support. If you don’t vote, they aren’t supported.”
Sorry, not logical…You will participate and be interested in democracy far more if you donate your time or money to a party rather than have the “Universal political party care” you promote…Again, the Conservatives raised from their own ashes with a grassroots that had enough…If your argument is right, the Bloc and Greens and NDP might suffer in the near future but if enough Canucks are fed up down the road, they might organise behind their party, just like the Cons did, No?
“I’d also rather our politicans spend most of their time working for us and developing better policies and less time fund raising.”
Exactly, when you rely on grassroots for your survival, you will make more effort to listen to the hand that feeds you. Ottawa coffers have no face, Joe the plumber and Ann the hairdresser do.
Kim Leaman is a tax payer leeching Money for nothing censoring communist.
‘The $2. per vote does not go to the Bloc if you didn’t vote for the Bloc. It goes to the party you voted for. If your neighbour voted NDP then the NDP gets $2. It’s perfectly democratic. 1 vote=1 subsidy to the party of your choice. It supports our democracy in a small way thru proportional representation.’
Utter Bull iSht!
Those ‘poor’ people you refer to do not pay an equal share of the countries tax burden(or any taxes at all) by any measure; therefore, those that do pay taxes are IN FACT subsidizing the votes of those that do not pay their share, regardless of which political party they support. Furthermore, your pathetic shot at First Past the Post and warm comments towards Proportional Representation betrays your true thoughts and motivations on all things political. You understand fully that the percentage of the total vote does not accurately represent the wishes of ANY constituency; yet, you wish to exercise DISPROPORTIONATE might in individual constituencies based on support hundreds if not thousands of miles away. We do not vote as one national voting block, we vote as constituent of a particular geographically defined area. The bottom-line is, support for your NON Democratic Proportional Representation model is miles long, but less than inches thick. The same can be said for your Progressive agenda. Quite frankly, it’s absolutely disgusting that you and your ilk would wish to impose your tyrannical wishes against the will of those in your constituency. Someone in Saskatchewan doesn’t (thankfully) and should not have to consider what someone 1000s miles away wishes their MP’s stance to be on any particular issue.
This idea was Chretians.His next goal was to prohibit all non govt funding for political parties as this is what they did in the countries that he admired so isolating the ruling class from the populace.
I don’t know what affect taking away the subsidy will actually have, but if the intent is to cripple the Bloc and increase Federalist support in Quebec, that support might go to the Liberals rather than to the Conservatives.
Les – I have some problems with your argument.
You state that the taxpayer giving approx. $2.00 per vote is an act of democracy and that your $2.00 goes only to the party that you voted for. No. It most certainly DOES go to the party that I didn’t vote for. It goes to ALL the parties. That’s $8.00.
The total amount that each party gets is based on the number of votes they received. This total sum comes from all the taxpayers. So, if it’s 25 million in total (let’s just use that sum for argument)..then, this total sum comes from ALL collective taxpayers. It is then apportioned to each political party.
I don’t agree that it’s democratic for the taxpayer to support all four parties when he only supports one. Why should he be obliged to support all of them?
As for your class-based argument that a ‘lot of people don’t have the money’ – this is a weak argument. You can donate your time as a volunteer handing out pamphlets. You can give a total donation of $5.00 – and I assure you, there are a lot of such donations.
As for this subsidy – it was Chretien’s idea. Oh, and remember that the Liberals used the taxpayer to subsidize their re-election campaign in Quebec; that’s called the Sponsorship Scandal. They’ve never repaid the money.
As for the Quebec vote going to the Liberals rather than the Conservatives – so what? The actual disgrace in this ‘Bloc situation’ is that we have a political party in a federal parliament whose members are not voted in by a federal party; and – no-one outside of Quebec can be a Bloc MP. The party is effectively unaccountable to the people of Canada.
And finally, proportional repesentation is a deeply undemocratic policy. It effectively isolates the MP from the grassroots for they are chosen, not by the electorate, but by a political party elite. They become isolated from the electorate and beholden to that unelected party elite. Extremely undemocratic.
I can assure Terry Tory et al that I do participate and at a much higher level than most could hope to. Look at the list of candidates for the riding of Vancouver Island North for the January 2006 election. This act was the culmination of 30 years of “participation and donation”. Your apology is accepted in advance.
Now if you would just stop picking the pockets of taxpayers everytime you contribute to your candidate of choice.
ET
It’s $2. per vote going to the party that got the vote. $1.95 actually. So unless you voted 4 times, it’s $2.00.
Yes, the money they receive comes from the collective pool of all taxpayers, but so does the tax rebate that you get when you donate. Using your argument, why should I, as a taxpayer, reimburse you for your political contribution to a party if I didn’t support that party?
I did point out that they could donate their time and do volunteer work. If they can only donate $2. or $5.00 then they probably don’t get a tax receipt. Especially if it’s a one time cash donation. I believe it has to be over $20. If you donate monthly ( like thru your credit card ) and the total for the year is more than $20., then they’ll combine it and issue you a tax receipt.
No Les, you don’t get it.
The tax rebate does not come from all the taxpayers. You get the rebate deducted from your own personal taxes. If you didn’t donate, you don’t get the rebate deduction from your taxes. Nothing to do with the ‘collective’.
The payment to the political parties does not come from your personal taxes. The govt does not know whether or not you voted..but it still uses your tax money for funding the political parties.
It even pays those political parties ‘their sum’ if you didn’t pay any income taxes – and yet you voted!!!
The govt does not know for whom you voted IF you voted. It simply collects ALL taxes, and takes the sum allotted to each party and pays them.
So – whether you pay taxes and don’t vote; whether you pay no taxes and vote; …the political parties get their money from the collective taxpayer. This is not democracy.
As for giving $5.00 to a political party – the donation sum is not the point nor is the rebate the point. What is at issue is the fact that such a specific donation is carried out by the WILL of the individual..not the government.
I am trying to understand the pro’s and con’s of the subsidy ET.
Here’s a recent paper by the University of Calgary – Political Science Division. If you’re interested in reading it.
http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/files/publicpolicy/Flanagan%20&%20Coletto%20ONLINE%203.pdf
If a candidate wants my money, he needs to ask for it, not get it automatically. That isn’t democratic. It’s theft under the guise of stability.
Yes yes yes yes yes. Thank you Mr. Harper.
If you can be bothered to go vote, why can’t you be bothered to give your $2? Sheesh, it’s about time. If you care enough about your party, why don’t you care to give to it?
You have to understand that at a certain level, taxation is theft. Yes, theft. And although I can accept paying for roads I won’t use, I don’t accept paying for a party I don’t support.
Thanks for the link, Les. I respect Flanagan but see his outline as, perhaps quite properly, descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, the debate is open.
I’m against the taxpayer subsidies for the basic reason that although they do give a nod to electoral support in that the party receives funding per vote – they generalize that funding to the whole taxpayer community: voters and non-voters, and reject party commitment linked to a voter/payer.
I’m viewing a political party as, not a necessary agent of government, …in which case the party would be deemed to have a RIGHT to sit in the House and to be funded…but solely and only as a representative of the people.
As a representative of the people, this moves their existence back to WILL of the people. And removes it from the legislature. If the people do not want that party to sit in the legislature, then, they should not fund it.
I’d support a taxpayer check-off system. I’d also support higher individual donation amounts permitted. I certainly totally reject donations from unions – for that negates the WILL of the workers in that union and expresses only the will of the union executive.
If political parties have to ‘tighten their belts’ – then, let them tighten them. There is no inherent right for them to exist, to sit in the House, to be funded by the taxpayers. Their task is to present a set of policies and programs to the electorate; if that electorate likes them – then, they can fund them or work to get their representatives elected.
And if a party can’t be organised enough to raise it’s own money, why should they be considered qualified to run the country?