Monday, October 03, 2011

Ending electoral welfare

This makes me very happy and not only because it will stick the knife deeper into tHe entitled grits. If a political party can't raise money, why should it get state money. The grits have had years to learn how to do grassroots fundraising. The real problem is the grits have lost any connection to their grass roots.

OTTAWA — The Harper government will introduce legislation Tuesday to scrap direct taxpayer subsidies for federal political parties over three years, Postmedia News has learned.

The move eventually will save nearly $30 million annually for the federal treasury, but could cause critical financial shortfalls for many of the parties — particularly the opposition parties which have come to rely on the government subsidies for a large portion of their annual funding.

Ultimately, it will mean all parties will have to become much more aggressive and sophisticated in persuading Canadians to make their own donations.

The measure to kill public subsidies, which were first introduced by the Chretien government in 2003, will be contained in a bill which implements a variety of initiatives from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's June 6 budget.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the pledge to scrap the subsidies during the spring election, and the governing Conservatives are framing the action as necessary to bring greater political integrity to the system and treat taxpayers' dollars with greater care.


Anonymous said...

You seem to be a shot sighted person. Today's Grits are tomorrow's Conservatives.

The country has in no way turned blue. It's a blip in time.

Must be hard to be so hateful

Frances said...

Nonny - regardless of which party you vote for, why should it be subsidized by we the taxpayer. If supporters of any particular party don't care enough to reach into their pockets, then tough.

The Liberals are in the peculiar position of having been kneecapped by one of their own - M. Chretien. He introduced the legislation which cut off their chief source of funding - corporations - and they haven't been able to persuade the ordinary Liberal voter to take up the slack. The Conservatives have benefitted from the Reform attitude towards party funds where supporters tended more to back up support with money.

Platty said...

Right nonny, and Warren Kinsella is a brialliant strategist...

Not only is the country turning Blue, the Conservative Party of Canada is also replacing the Liberals as Canada's natural governing party. \\ Deal with it.

No haters here nonny, we love our majority Conservative government.


Anonymous said...

Platty? Harper shall reign forever.The tar sands will never dry up and the Oilers will win another Stanley Cup.

Yawn. Cons have had a great run but this too shall pass.

Platty said...

Ah yes, the ignorance of the nonny's, the correct term is Oil Sands, tar sands is a term for environuts who have already lost the argument. Everyday that the Conservatives and PM Stephen Harper are in power is another day of making the loony left just a little more loony, and that's a good thing.

And yes, the Oil will win another Stanley Cup, I'll give you a pass on this one though, I have yet to meet someone from the left with the ability to look to the future with any clarity.


Ted Betts said...

"If a political party can't raise money, why should it get state money."

I don't believe you mean that for a minute. You are either being dishonest with us or with yourself.

If you really meant that, you would be more upset with the Harper Conservatives and their "entitled to their entitlements and taxpayer subsidies".

You don't like the per vote subsidy. Fair enough. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to the many other taxpayer subsidies that the Conservatives won't touch because they depend on them. That's MY money.

* the tax credit subsidy is far worse than the per vote subsidy in EVERY way: far more expensive, FAR less democratic, hurts charities, means non-Canservatives are subsidizing Conservatives, but (surprise surprise surprise) it benefits the Cons more than any other party.

* the expenses rebate (the taxpayer entitlement the Cons are fighting criminal charges over in court and losing). Even forgetting the fact that the Cons are facing criminal charges for breaking the law on this, does it make any sense to have a system that allows a politician to spend my money and then get most of it back, again from taxpayer dollars? Again this is more expensive than the per vote subsidy and again the Cons have abused this taxpayer funded entitlement far far more than others and again you won't hear a peep about it by the Cons.

* About 80% of Conservative funds comes from the taxpayer subsidies, compared to about 69% for Liberals.

* The Conservatives cost taxpayers $8.11 per vote, Liberals $7.75 per vote.

* Tories took in $54.4 million in 2009, only $10.5 million of that was from actual donors (after tax credits)

* And here's the real killer: while only 36% of voting Canadians (and only 22% of eligible voters) supported the Conservatives in the last election, the CONSERVATIVE PARTY RECEIVED 44% OF ALL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES. Total taxpayer subsidies was approximately $100 million. The Liberals received only 28% of all taxpayer subsidies, which is more in line with their 30% of the vote; the NDP got 20% of the subsidies; the Bloc got 8%.

The list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that the Cons are the most subsidized party BY FAR. And they are absolute self-serving hypocrites that care not one single bit about OUR money. That's actually no true: they care very much about OUR money: they want as much of it as they possibly can so they keep themselves in power (and fly around on fishing trips using emergency rescue helicopters, get VIP tickets to hockey games, get gold embossed business cards, pass slush fund money around to their Muskoko friends, etc).

If you think you got something better than Chretien, think again. You got Chretien without any scruples or fiscal discipline.

I Support Lord Black