Good idea? Bad idea? What is it saying to have it or to get rid of it? If this was the Conservative's plan, why was it not part of their election platform or throne speach? What will the implications be for small parties (both possibilities)?
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think it was a very bad idea for the Conservatives to try to cancel this government funding without finding out how strongly the other parties were opposed to the idea. I don't think its a bad idea to cancel this funding. It would force all the parties to focus on grass-roots funding. On the other hand, without public funding, those parties which have a higher proportion of middle-class-to-wealthy constituants would have a monetary advantage compared to those parties which have a higher proportion of poor constituants.
I'd certainly rather the public funding than the old way, where corporations and unions provided most of the funding.
I'd be happy if they lowered the campaign spending limit, and tightened up rules on non-election advertising. We get so much junk from our MP (NDP) and last election the Conservatives practically papered the country with their pre-election Dion smearing - non of which counts towards election spending limits.
Correction: I should have typed: "I don't think its necessarily a bad idea to cancel this funding..." Necessarily! I'm neither strongly for or against it; but I would be generally against a decision of totally canceling all government funding of political parties.
I hadn't thought too much about it, and I'm not sure of the answer. I don't like that some candidates do better because they have the big corporations behind them, but I also don't know if I'd like a cap on candidates either. And that may not be what you're asking at all. ;)
The more I think about it (and I hadn't really thought about it before all of this happened) I think that I would like it if parties were only funded by public money. Campaigns would be smaller and parties wouldn't owe anything to companies or unions. I'm not sure how this would work with new parties before they could get any percentage of the vote but at least with this system the poor would have just as much of a contribution as the wealthy. Each person gets one vote and the money that would go to that party because of their vote- and I really like that concept.
Feel free to sign in or just comment as "anonymous." However, if you do comment as anonymous, please sign it with some name, number or symbol so that it is easier for everyone to keep the conversation players strait. Thanks!
"It's always safer for one's sanity when you only say what you would be willing to hear from someone with whom you disagree."
Purpose
The idea behind this site is that it will serve for a forum for a continuing discussion that has been occuring on several different websites. I've asked many roving questions and some friends have valiently been answering them over the past few months. This site will hopefully organize the conversation and allow others to participate. I recognize that some topics may not make a whole lot of sense, as there has been a significant amount of conversation up until now. Feel free to ask questions to clarify the ideas and history of the authors.
I reserve the right to moderate the discussion and delete any comments that are offensive. I will attempt to be in contact with the author prior to any action.
The goal is to inform and learn, not to attempt to change people's ideas.
I am a history lover, especially that of the average person at any point in time. While it is often easy to dismiss people that do not think as one does as "crazy," it is my hope and purpose to instead understand differing viewpoints than I hold, and therefore to have a greater grasp on events as they unfold. While it is not possible to interview people from the past, it is very possible to do so for the many different cultural groups that exist in our world today. Real people are much more interesting than a history textbook (as much as I love a good read!)
My viewpoint is not the purpose of this site, although undoubtibly I will have to explain where I come from as well. In fact, in the emails between friends, it has come to that point, so it will most likely be an early post. The hope, in that case, is that others who share my experience will aid me in explaining it!
6 comments:
I think it was a very bad idea for the Conservatives to try to cancel this government funding without finding out how strongly the other parties were opposed to the idea.
I don't think its a bad idea to cancel this funding. It would force all the parties to focus on grass-roots funding. On the other hand, without public funding, those parties which have a higher proportion of middle-class-to-wealthy constituants would have a monetary advantage compared to those parties which have a higher proportion of poor constituants.
I'd certainly rather the public funding than the old way, where corporations and unions provided most of the funding.
I'd be happy if they lowered the campaign spending limit, and tightened up rules on non-election advertising. We get so much junk from our MP (NDP) and last election the Conservatives practically papered the country with their pre-election Dion smearing - non of which counts towards election spending limits.
Correction:
I should have typed: "I don't think its necessarily a bad idea to cancel this funding..." Necessarily!
I'm neither strongly for or against it; but I would be generally against a decision of totally canceling all government funding of political parties.
I hadn't thought too much about it, and I'm not sure of the answer. I don't like that some candidates do better because they have the big corporations behind them, but I also don't know if I'd like a cap on candidates either. And that may not be what you're asking at all. ;)
The more I think about it (and I hadn't really thought about it before all of this happened) I think that I would like it if parties were only funded by public money. Campaigns would be smaller and parties wouldn't owe anything to companies or unions. I'm not sure how this would work with new parties before they could get any percentage of the vote but at least with this system the poor would have just as much of a contribution as the wealthy. Each person gets one vote and the money that would go to that party because of their vote- and I really like that concept.
Canada actually has very strong rules to limit corporate and union funding of political parties:
The maximum amount any union or corporation can give is only $1000.
Individuals can give up to $5000
(very strong compared to Australia where there is no limit on either individual or corporate funding to political parties).
(this is according to: www.democracywatch.com.au/countries
Post a Comment