04.01.2011 02:19 PM

Forgive me for saying I told you so, etc.

ButI told you so, etc.

Oh, and, by the way, he’s trying to change the channel.


  1. H Holmes says:

    We should have been out in front annoncing this as our issue as well.

    I still think the issue is a winner for liberals.

    We should and can raise more money.

    Plus we would look like the only other option to voters because we wouldn’t be linked to a hand outs.

    Lots of voters hate government subsidies going to political parties.

    • Thor says:

      Good move. It was good the first time and better now. I want to hear all party leader’s justifications for the subsidy. Game on.

      • Thor says:

        And, if I was in the war room with Tories, and I’m not, I would take ye old subsidy for parties and add it to one of conservative budget planks.

  2. JaneN says:

    H Holmes I don’t know why the Liberals should be on board wiwth Harper’s games. They could call him on his hypocrisy instead. Why does Harper want to keep what he even alluded to are “existing generous tax benefits from donations and election expenses?”
    He complains about voters “paying for parties they didn’t support” while at the same time wanting to keep subsidies that are actually a LOT WORSE in doing that.
    What’s a better subsidy taxpayers paying $600 for someone else’s $1000 donation or $2 for votes earned in an election?
    If you don’t have partisan blinders you know what’s more sensible (and actually taxpayers a little less) and more democratic.
    You could give Harper a little credit if he at least said he wanted to get rid of tax payer subsidies for donations too, but he wants to keep what suits him best.
    A total opportunist.

    • H Holmes says:

      I like that donations are tax deductable.
      It encourages people to be active in the political system, through donations, which brings them to meetings and political events and hopefully leads to more volunteerism.

      I hate the voter rule.
      It is undemocratic because it stifles debate, because now the party doesn’t have to listen to anyone, at least with donations both volunteers and donors have a voice.

      We won more elections under a system of tax deductable donations without voter subsidies than we are winning now,
      because the week parties of the left are being artificially propped up by the per voter donation rule.

      I just want the liberal party to win. The present formula works against them.

      • John B says:

        H Holmes you like tax deductible political donations most likely because you are probably among the few Canadians who benefit from it. Only about 40,000 Canadians donate, yet it takes up just as much taxpayers money if not more than the $2 per vote subsidy. Again, why should I foot $600 for a $1000 donation from someone who was going to do it anyway? Meanwhile an equivalent charitable donation gets far less back by comparison. Absolutely ridiculous. Those people are going to be donating $1000 anyway, so why should taxpayers foot $600 of the bill?

        “It encourages people to be active in the political system, through donations, which brings them to meetings and political events and hopefully leads to more volunteerism.”
        And knowing that your vote actually COUNTS (even in a no-win riding) towards helping the party you voted for doesn’t encourage people to be active in the political system? Take the per vote subsidy away and a vote in Alberta for a Liberal or even a Conservative in a place like Toronto Centre is literally worthless.

        “It is undemocratic because it stifles debate, because now the party doesn’t have to listen to anyone, at least with donations both volunteers and donors have a voice.”
        Nonsense, if they got no votes they’d have no subsidy money, so I would say it’s about as democratic as they come by definition. If they don’t listen to anybody surely they won’t be very popular and your subsidy will be very small.

        “We won more elections under a system of tax deductable donations without voter subsidies than we are winning now”
        Yeah largely with corpoarate money and very high individual donations. The Conservatives now fundraise about 4x as much as the Liberals on an annual basis. And they get it primarily from small donors. The Liberals are still very poor at getting large numbers of small donations.
        You are clearly a Tory not a Liberal, because your arguments are only favouring what Harper is arguing for today: keep wasteful subsidies for $1000 donations but eliminate a system where parties get money through votes EARNED through an election.

        • H Holmes says:

          Paul martin won a minority.

          How many elections did chretien win


          • John B says:

            “Paul martin won a minority. How many elections did chretien win? 3”
            The subsidy came into effect in 2003 right when Paul Martin became leader. Before that the Liberals relied almost entirely on corporate money and very large individual donations, alot of which was still in the bank for the 2004 election.

            You clearly don’t have the interests of the party at heart. Under the CURRENT system the Conservatives still have far more money in their coffers and have engaged in constant character assasination of two leaders now with that money. BOTH Dion and Igantieff had decent leads in the polls after becoming leader and then saw their numbers dramatically decline after Tory attacks. Dion never recovered, Iggy may, but still faces a tough hill to climb to overcome the gap in support those ads have made happen.

            So what you want to is to have a system where the gap is even WIDER in finances and where the Conservatives have 4 TIMES as much money in their coffers as the Liberals from the get go. Even if you believe in the Liberal’s ability to close that gap despite their inability to do so over 8 years and 3 leaders, it’s a HUGE gap to overcome. I find it very hard to believe that you would WANT the Conservatives to have such a huge financial advantage.

            The per vote subsidy is the MAIN thing that has allowed the Liberals to spend the maximum in the past few campaigns and that is a FACT!

            So if you really do want the party to win elections then well you should be supporing this subsidy. It is a hell of a lot more democratic than the tax credits for donations (that are inexcusably dramatically larger than those for charities) to boot.

            So it’s the right thing to do to support the continued subsidies to ensure Canadians still have vibrant parties to represent them (and not just one financial viable party), but it’s also something all partisan Liberals should want as well.

          • H Holmes says:

            That is incorrect.
            The liberals raised more than 9 million and the subsidy was only 7.25 million.

            We could easily raise more, but there are lots of people that think the subsidy is enough.

            Over half of the election is paid with donations and wit more money donated we would even be more competitive.
            We don’t need the subsidy, but lots of people like to use it as a crouch so they don’t have to donate. Which is really hurting the party.

            Even a 25 dollar donation will go along way to stop Harper.

        • H Holmes says:

          I also donate a lot of time and money to the liberal party.

          I believe and want them to win.

          I am not rich, but I can find 1000 to help make an election win possible.

          I know there lots of others that want to help out.
          Hopefully you are 1 too.

          But if you aren’t giving either than I have no time for your complaints.

  3. Old Ed says:

    The subsidy was meant to even the playing field among all parties. In return for the subisidy, the contribution limit was seriously reduced. To be fair, if the subsidy is phased out, increased contribution limits for party supporters should be phased in. I doubt Harper will be fair however, because an increased contribution limit would most likely offer the most benefit to the Liberals, who have traditionally relied on fewer but larger donations than the other parties.

  4. Dan says:

    Not a real bold prediction but I’ll still give you credit for putting it out there.

  5. fritz says:

    The Tories said they would campaign on the issue of election subsidies in this election some time ago. So when they put elimination of election subsidies in a budget the opposition couldn’t say they never campaigned on the issue.
    If they get their majority you can count on it being a top priority. Even with a minority it will be in their first budget which would force the issue and cause the opposition to defeat the government.

    This would either force yet another election or have the Liberals take over with the support of the other opposition parties (not in a coalition) if the GG said he preferred that option.

    That’s how I think it would play out anyway.

  6. intrep says:

    Finally!!! I don’t want one more penny of my taxes going to pay for a Party that wants to break up Canada.

    • Old Ed says:

      You are referring to the CPC I presume.

    • James Bow says:

      Your taxes don’t. If you don’t want your $2 going to the BQ, then don’t vote BQ. If you don’t want your $2 going to any party, don’t vote, or spoil your ballot.

      And, if you don’t want any tax advantages going to any of the parties, then seriously consider campaigning not only having the per-vote subsidy dropped, but also the tax credits. Political parties like the BQ are treated better than charitable organizations, and that money comes straight from the taxpayers.

      So, if you’re going to end one, end the other. But, strangely enough, Harper isn’t promising to do that…

      • Jason Hickman says:

        James, speaking just for myself alone, I’d be happy to get rid of both the public subsidy and the tax credit regime for donations. But I don’t see any party agreeing with that.

        Of the two options, I prefer the tax credit. First, it applies only if one chooses to donate – it’s not something that’s automatically applied just because I choose to exercise my right to vote. Second, what if one votes for Party A, but then would prefer to support Party B or C? We know that when we vote we’re “locked in” to the MP who wins until the next election (barring death, resignation, etc) but that’s a direct consequence of voting; donations aren’t the same. But under our current system, Party A gets my money, however slight, regardless until after the next election. Third and last, the tax credit system lets me support any party I choose, and get the benefit – if one chooses to donate to the CHP, the Marxists, or whomever in between, one gets the tax credit. My understanding is that the per-vote subsidy only applies if a party meets a certain threshold so in that sense, it’s not fair to smaller *or* newer parties. If anything, it protects established parties who are funded on past performance rather than current intentions of donors.

        • James Bow says:

          Regarding the last part, I believe the threshold was struck down, and all parties, no matter how small, get a per-vote subsidy.

          It would be nice to see that applied to independent candidates, reducing the blow of the $1000 application fee a vote at a time.

    • MJH says:

      Taxpayers funding the Bloc traitors makes us a laughing stock. Stop the madness.

  7. MJH says:

    Harper should not debate Ignatieff 1 on 1. Strategically he has everthing to lose and nothing to gain. He is leading the polls by 8 to 10 points and his advisors would be crazy to put him at risk.

    • trollseeker says:

      his smart advisors have put the idea out there.. now they are chickens and are backing out Are the Conservatives scared of Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada? It seems as if they are?

  8. Cat says:

    If it’s going to save us some cash – why not? Let the parties stand on their own support base and the donations that come from that.
    By the way that Lady the the Bulldozer story Iggy’s telling is getting old. Actually, there’s plenty in all the leaders material that could use a refresher.

  9. John B says:

    Yeah Cat it saves us as much money as the INCREASED COST of the Conservatives’ idiotic decision to do away with the long-form census, so the Conservatives have no lessons to teach us about saving money.
    And why does Harper want to keep taxpayers on the hook for $1000 donations? You are footing $600 of the bill for that donation. Why doesn’t Harper care? Those tax credits cost as much if not more than the $2 per vote subsidy.
    Oh that’s right because he only wants to serve his own interests.
    And since when is votes earned in an election not standing on your own support base Cat? If you support a party now you know that it will give them $2, that makes votes count no matter where people live. But a democratic system of subsidies based on the votes of millions of Canadians doesn’t suit Harper, only one that favours the only 40,000 or so people who donate to political parties in Canada does.

  10. fritz says:

    I think giving a grant to a party based on a vote for that party is a great idea; its democratic. I know you think having the rich support the CPC is the way to go; but me, not so much. Luckily, unless Harper gets his majority and bans elections, we have the system I like. Hopefully after the election we will still have the fair system I like.

    • Namesake says:

      More disingenuous claptrap.

      That’s a ‘tough love’ argument imported from the nonprofit sector regarding advocacy organizations, where it’s sometimes forwarded by tenured professors, on, um, government salaries, but more often, by Conservative concern trolls pretending they want those org’s to be independent & effective, whereas what they really want id for them to a) not get any taxpayer money, & b) not even exist, since they’re usually trying to get the gov’t to spend more money on something.

      But it doesn’t apply with any credibility here since:
      – it only really has bite for DISCRETIONARY gov’t spending which can be cut off on a whim (as with KAIROS), which can cow NGOs into remaining silent about stupid or harmful govt policy — not for a legislated funding formula that the gov’t of the day can’t tamper with; and,
      – it’s pretty laughable to claim that the vote subsidies have made the other parties into lapdogs of the ruling party and is thus an affront to democracy considering that THEY JUST DEFEATED YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR ITS CONTEMPT OF DEMOCRACY.

      So, they did their job of holding the gov’t to account, with the taxpayer’s support. And the CPC’s response? To cut their budget in half, as they did with the PBO, to try to cripple their effectiveness.

      Sheer Harpocrisy.

  11. JH says:

    I think the real issue, though in many cases not discussed, is that folks just have a gut feeling they don’t want their taxpayers money to be the major portion of the Bloc’s budget. Most feel there is just something intrinsically wrong with paying the bills for a party dedicated to breaking up the country. It’s my understanding that the Liberals and the NDP are in the process of putting together the same system that has made the CPC so successful in raising money. Given a 3 year lead time, what is the problem with removing the subsidy?

  12. Curt says:

    You people that think you should be entitled to a $2:00 donation to your political party must be braiwashed to a serious degree. Why should you be financially rewarded for voting? We are not some banana republic. I was taught that a voting was a democratic right and that you vote because a political party was expounding on a concept you believe in. If you really believe in their ideology then support them with a financial donation from your own pocket. Everything else is just nonsense. Warren that goes for you too.

  13. Curt says:

    Sorry about the grammer and spelling.

  14. Namesake says:

    Except that same argument also applies to all the electoral rebates that the national parties and individual ridings get if they attain at least 10% of the votes (which the CPC sued Elections Canada for on the amounts they overspent): about 60% of all the money they spent goes back to the riding for the next time, even if the Parties or MPs or replacement candidates are all pariahs later (unless of course the riding association ha! sends it back, as in Helena Guergis’ case). Shall we abolish them, then, too?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *