Crisis in Canada

[Crazed Rabbit]

Public Funding for campaigns is what ensures that those who vote for a third party can have their voice heard - without this public financing there would be no way for these minor parties to get their message out.

There's plenty of ways for groups to get their message out - the taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the aspirations of politicians. It is only a way for parties that can't find support among people to get money.

And this whole thing is just a power grab - the coalition groups' excuse that they think the budget doesn't deal with the economic situation enough is a load of lies. They saw an opportunity and filled the air with hysterics about the budget.

CR

[CountArach]

There's plenty of ways for groups to get their message out - the taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the aspirations of politicians. It is only a way for parties that can't find support among people to get money.

That's why they require 3% of the vote.

Elections are in the public interest, so people should pay for them. If you combine it with bans on various political donations you also curb the influence of business, unions and other special interest groups.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There's plenty of ways for groups to get their message out - the taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the aspirations of politicians. It is only a way for parties that can't find support among people to get money.

And this whole thing is just a power grab - the coalition groups' excuse that they think the budget doesn't deal with the economic situation enough is a load of lies. They saw an opportunity and filled the air with hysterics about the budget.

QFT. Even some backbenchers in the coalition parties have been grumbling about it. The Liberals stated during the election that they would never form a coalition with the NDP because of economic policy. The whole seperatist angle is almost unthinkable. How you could paint it as anything but a power bid without regurgitating coalition rhethoric is beyond me.

There are quite a few former Liberal voters who would vote Conservative in another election because of this. According to Canada.com in an article posted today, the Conservatives would have 46% of the vote if an election were held today, and that's probably a solid majority in seats. Almost 70% approved the prorogation, and about 60% believe that the Tories would be the best managers of the economy. Only 37% of Canadians favour the idea of a coalition, and the highest portion of that (50% support) comes from Quebec, mostly people who would vote Bloc.

Elections are in the public interest, so people should pay for them.

Paying for the elections and paying for the politicians to win them are two entirely different things. You should be forced to do the first, but not the second.

If you combine it with bans on various political donations you also curb the influence of business, unions and other special interest groups.

Harper did curb the influence of business, unions, and other special interest groups - I've been saying that for how many posts?

If it is anything like the system we have down here (Which it is by the sounds of it) then the left-wing minor parties, which have no major source of fund raising (Except Unions which are usually attached to one of the larger parties), are reliant entirely upon public funds.

Then perhaps the left wing parties should appeal to their voter base for funds? I mean, you have voters who want to redistribute wealth, so ask for them to redistribute a little more your way.

[CountArach]

Paying for the elections and paying for the politicians to win them are two entirely different things. You should be forced to do the first, but not the second.

The parties are running to give the people a choice beyond two polarising options - they need these funds.

Harper did curb the influence of business, unions, and other special interest groups - I've been saying that for how many posts?

Did I ever disagree with you...? I'm simply stating this is the best way to do it.

Then perhaps the left wing parties should appeal to their voter base for funds? I mean, you have voters who want to redistribute wealth, so ask for them to redistribute a little more your way.

You know damn well that isn't possible.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The parties are running to give the people a choice beyond two polarising options - they need these funds.

The two polarising options are getting the most money out of this deal.

You know damn well that isn't possible.

Why? Because their voters aren't sold enough on their policy? Because they're not willing enough to give? If the Conservatives can get private donations from such a wide support base, maybe the NDP should give it a try as well. Surely they could raise quite a few dollars in Toronto.

[CountArach]

Why? Because their voters aren't sold enough on their policy? Because they're not willing enough to give? If the Conservatives can get private donations from such a wide support base, maybe the NDP should give it a try as well. Surely they could raise quite a few dollars in Toronto.

I don't know the specific circumstances but the fact is that the left-wing parties are more likely to rely ont eh working class, who haven't got the money to donate to political parties and campaigns.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't know the specific circumstances but the fact is that the left-wing parties are more likely to rely ont eh working class, who haven't got the money to donate to political parties and campaigns.

That doesn't explain why the Conservatives have a very wide donation base, including working class. Some of the poorest areas of rural Ontario vote overwhelmingly Conservative, as well as some of the richest areas of Alberta. That's what you call a large support base.

[Xiahou]

I don't know the specific circumstances but the fact is that the left-wing parties are more likely to rely ont eh working class, who haven't got the money to donate to political parties and campaigns.

Tell that to Obama. He raised 3/4 of a billion dollars during a recession.

If people like what youre selling, they'll donate.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's why they require 3% of the vote.

Elections are in the public interest, so people should pay for them. If you combine it with bans on various political donations you also curb the influence of business, unions and other special interest groups.

Oh my, that is rich.

Eventually I think you'll become more cynical of government actions.

So much of the laws written to 'curb the influence of money in politics' are nothing more than incumbent protection laws.

In the US, all these laws simply make it easier for incumbent politicians to retain their offices by making it much more difficult for opponents to raise money. The numerous regulations simply make it very difficult for anyone without a team of lawyers to run.

And does it keep that nasty money out? No, absolutely not. The people and money find a way, like '527' groups in the US - moveon.org, for example.

The only real effect is the exact opposite of what you claim to desire - new parties and people find it very difficult to get started. The established political parties find it easier to stay in power.

I don't know the specific circumstances but the fact is that the left-wing parties are more likely to rely ont eh working class, who haven't got the money to donate to political parties and campaigns.

This from someone who claimed to have paid attention to the US elections.

CR

[CountArach]

Oh my, that is rich.

Eventually I think you'll become more cynical of government actions.

So much of the laws written to 'curb the influence of money in politics' are nothing more than incumbent protection laws.

I know and I agree. This is one exception if it is done correctly.

In the US, all these laws simply make it easier for incumbent politicians to retain their offices by making it much more difficult for opponents to raise money. The numerous regulations simply make it very difficult for anyone without a team of lawyers to run.

And does it keep that nasty money out? No, absolutely not. The people and money find a way, like '527' groups in the US - moveon.org, for example.

It was not done correctly.

This from someone who claimed to have paid attention to the US elections.

CR

Excuse me while I get over the idea that you think Obama is left-wing...

[Goofball]

There's plenty of ways for groups to get their message out - the taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the aspirations of politicians. It is only a way for parties that can't find support among people to get money.

And this whole thing is just a power grab - the coalition groups' excuse that they think the budget doesn't deal with the economic situation enough is a load of lies. They saw an opportunity and filled the air with hysterics about the budget.

CR

CR, sometimes you're my favorite guy in the org. Very well said...