Doth Do Protest Too Much
The Tories proposal to slash funding to political parties has touched off a small firestorm.
Presently, a political party gets $1.95 in public funds for every vote it receives in the federal election.
Here’s 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
In 2007, the Conservative Party received just 37 per cent of its funding from the public subsidy. The Bloc Quebecois receives 86 per cent, Green Party 65 per cent, Liberals 63 per cent, and 57 per cent for the NDP.
Opposition MPs slammed the proposed Conservative legislation as a cynical move intended to weaken other parties.
“Instead of an immediate stimulus package to attack the recession, this government is apparently going to attack democracy,” said Layton during question period Thursday afternoon.
“I’m asking the Prime Minister, how such an attack is going to create one job or protect one pension? Why are they protecting the Conservative party?”
How about this Jack:
By making the parties pay their own way, they’ll need to be more responsive to the Canadian public. Relying on public donations is the best way for a party to stay accountable to the people. Look to your friend Obama for an example.
It also is a litmus test of sorts to make sure the party even belongs in the electoral process.
Take the Bloc for instance.
We are paying for a party, that is essentially traitors, by force. If the voters really want this party, have them pony up.
Goodbye Bloc.
Also, by limiting political donations to a max of $1,000-$2,000 would prevent parties from becoming beholden to special interest groups.
Ahh.. there lies the rub. This would mean that large unions, lobbyists, and business couldn’t control a party’s agenda.
The truth unfolds…
November 28th, 2008 at 7:15 am
To what extent would this treasonous coalition be willing to cave into the separatist’s demands pursuant to a much more powerful Quebec fed with Canadian tax dollars?
How big of a deficit would the Marxist Morons demand to satisfy there union bosses’ excessive, mostly wasteful, spending?
November 28th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I have to say that I agree with the basic principles of transparency and the comment made by machiavelli.
As a proud conservative supporter i am fairly convinced that this is not an actual proposal that the tories are willing to put forth, because let’s face it, the money saved would be immaterial to the ‘economic crisis’. I also believe that those of us smart enough to believe in the tories are smart enough to know that even if the government did nothing eventually the economy would get going on its own. this is just another cycle.
I think that this is a shrewd tactical move on harper’s part to test the political waters. Remember a few weeks ago when the liberals just about threw a hissy fit at the mere mention of a coalition, my how there song and dance has changed. They like to call harper a self serving political opportunist, hey kettle… your black.
If this proposal were to move forward i think it would lead to a decrease in the transparency of the large parties long term. Kazze is quick to point out that jack’s hero obama successfully (sic?) turned down public funds. The truth is, obama’s government system lends itself to a more laissez faire fundraising approach because they do not exist in a parliamentary system. Let’s be honest, cutting public funding would only leave room for the two major parties in our system. There is not enough checks and balances in our system to handle only two parties, corruption would be rampant. The only way it would work is with a complete change in our democracy, if that is where harper wants to go I say go nuts, but leave the public funding in place until after the change.
Sorry about grammar and run ons