I've never liked the idea that the political parties should profit from citizens just "doing their duty".

So, election soon?
Who else will support this, other than conservatives and the principled liberal?

I think the NDP might just support it - they raise a good amount by themselves. It might give them a chance to overtake the Liberals.

If Harper tries to push this through we'll have an NDP-Bloc-Liberal coalition government by the end of the month.

Yes, because McClelland has been so accurate with his predictions so far. Ha!

Nice. Positive spin with taxpayers who hate to pay for what they don't support. Cripple Liberal finances as leadership campaigns (past and present) and past election campaign borrowing and loan to run the party last year eat ay at vastly reduced income. need funds and they lose caucus funding. Heaven! Bankrupt Bloc and Greens who seem to have exceedingly few people who willing donate money to them. Nirvana!

Great idea - this is going to hit the Liberal$ hard - first no $2 + billion dollar donations from numbered companies represented by major corporations to the Liberal$ and not the end to the vote subsidy.

Does this mean that Canada is once again in the hands of the people?

Stephen,

When I heard this today, I immediately thought back to your post discussing this obscene practice. I wonder, how many every day Canadians, understood the dollar amount of this gravy train. This is exciting for so many reasons but especially cutting off the Bloc from money from 9 provinces and the territiories. I hope it happens!
Cheers!

I have never agreed with this funding either...the sooner it is eliminated the better.

Excellent . I also hear the loans schem will also be outlawed.

I applaud the government if they do this. It is extremely offensive to me as a taxpayer that political parties have access to my wallet without having to earn it on the door step. Contributions should be voluntary.

Wow. My God.

Can this pass? Does he want to force an election?

This is tantmount to a declaration of war! It will bankrupt the BQ, Greens and possibly the Libs!

Well Jon, on any other day this would for sure result in an election. But I find it hard to believe that the liberals would be at all enthusiastic to go into another election with Dion as their leader, another $20 million election bill, all the while trying to borrow milions from banks that aren't lending.

Besides, the optics wouldn't be so good for them. A fourth election in four years. How do you justify going to the polls (again (and again (and again))) to the Canadian people. How do you tell them that $300 million should be spent on an election so the Liberals can keep their $7 million/year allowance courtesy of the Canadian tax payer during the worst economic forecast in a least a generation.

If I were the Liberals, I'd be worried. This scenario will no doubt put them between a rock and hard place. If they don't bring the house down these public financing changes will make their already dire financial predicament a lot worse. If they do bring the house down they'll be stuck with a $20 million bill that won't be easily remedied. If these changes do go forward, the Bloc Quebecois will fold and the Conservatives will be the net benefactors of it in Quebec. The greens will also likely fold or become greatly reduced in size. This will make it a whole lot harder for the liberals to win any kind of government, let alone a majority.

Remember, only 10 opposition MP's need to vote in favor, or 20 need to abstain for this to pass.

Like you said, it puts the opposition parties between a rock and a hard place; on the one hand, financially they cannot support the motion because it will cut so deeply into the funding on which they all depend to varying extents.

On the other hand, if they force an election, then Harper would be wise to frame the election as a referendum on political parties using taxpayer dollars to run their operations rather than donations by supporters. We can all imagine how that will turn out!

It's a shame the Tories didn't think of this before calling the last election; they could've gotten the opposition to call the election for them, and - with the election framed as a referendum on public political funding - we'd probably be being governed by a Tory majority right now.

Bottom line - the more I think about this, the more one word keeps popping into my head: CHECKMATE!

I think we may see the NDP support this... They have just as much interest in seeing the Liberals fall as the Conservatives do.
They also do CLAIM to be a "grass roots" party, and this would fit nicely into that mold...
All that being said, would anybody really trigger an election over this???

This is brilliant. I suspect the NDP will support it, because it increases their chances of climbing up the food chain from the 4th-party status.

I totally agree with this decision.

And an already pretty good day, just got better.

Gotta love PMSH!!!

Pat

Harper has made a huge miscalculation here. The three opposition parties are on teleconference tonight planning a coalition government.

This will be known as the biggest strategic blunder in Canadian politics.

Well Ted...

I can't wait for the LPC,NDP and BQ to try to force a coalition government over not getting enough of tax payers money in these economic times....

LMAO...

I don't think it's a strategic blunder. I can't see how the Lips, Dips, and Bloc can form a government together. First off, how would the Bloc justify their existence as a party if they join the Liberals? How would nationalist Liberals feel towards having separatists among their ranks. How would more centrist/conservative liberals feel working with the NDP. How would the NDP say they represent the little guy if they becoming the whipping boy for the Grits.

Any thoughts? They'll be a lot of moaning but in the end the changes will pass.

The Libs and NDP would never form a coalition with the BQ. Imagine the damage any party that allows separatists to actually be a part of the government would receive!

Will this gang of hacks ever do anything that isn't motivated by a desire to screw their opponents?

It is not enough that they won the election just over one month ago mocking the LIberals as the party that will bring back deficits, lying through their teeth as they were fully aware that their reckless spending had already put Canada in the red, now they are basically trying to undermine all political opposition.

Why don't they just declare a one party state?

Will the NDP support this? Here's your answer.

“This is huge. This is so audacious and outrageous,” said Pat Martin, an NDP MP from Winnipeg. “This means war.”

Checkmate....

"The three opposition parties are on teleconference tonight planning a coalition government."

I just heard the same rumour.

I love it. But remember that the Liberals are entitled to their entitlements. They won't love it.

It's some of the best news I have heard in a few days. Thank goodness for a responsible behaviour from the CPC.

The media and the public will eat this up. The sky is falling on the lousy opposition parties.

You are mischaracterizing Obama. The public financing model in the US is unworkable because it limits the total amount that you can spend, but your opponent can then opt out and outspend you. If there were hard spending limits in the US, the public financing model would be more attractive. Moreover, Obama has vowed to bring in reforms that would strengthen public financing laws. You are deliberately misrepresenting Obama's views on campaign financing to make your argument.

I honestly don't see how the parties will be able to officially oppose this. Parties absorbing millions of taxpayer dollars in tough economic times looks horrible to support, even if you use the 'democracy needs to be financially supported' argument. Secondly, they can't say the Conservatives are solely trying to destroy the Liberals, as the numbers prove that the Conservatives have the most to lose!

The parties will get their backbenchers to raise a fuss in the house and media, but ultimately will support it. It would be way worse in the public's eyes to not.

Yeah, Obama originally wanted to accept public financing - he and McCain both pledged to run their campaigns with the federal funding (and thus spending limits). Obama flip-flopped on that when he realized how much money he was raising in private and industry donations.

Yes, contrary to popular belief, Barack Obama is not the purest of pure goodness.

All parties must support such a measure to cut the cost of government in these trying times. The fact that fewer and fewer Canadians are showing up to vote, indicates they do not want to contribute their $1.95 to any party. Perhaps if the subsidy were eliminated, more Canadians would feel like voting knowing that their vote is not costing them $1.95.

Think outside the box, folks ... that's where you will find reality.

I laughed out loud when I heard about this. The devastation it will cause to the other parties! This handout is the only way they fund their office staff and media string-pullers. The Bloc will be toast. Brilliant.
On the other hand, it may encourage the Liberals to return to their evil old shakedown routine. For decades they financed the party by seeking bribes/protection money from the private sector. Company executives couldn't refuse when the local Liberal bagman came calling for cash; if you refused, the next time they are in power they make sure you suffer.
Still, I hope it happens.

Corporate donations are banned and individual donations are limited to just over $1000.

Actually this measure - $1.50 per vote - was brought in because corporate donations were banned and individuals were limited (by some guy name Chretien, I believe). Does Harper plan on going back then, to the old model? I mean if ifs really about "political party welfare" then I expect the government to rescind any regulations and laws that prevent parties from raising funds.

Right?

Glad to see you admit this is nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with trying to destroy the opposition. How very proto-fascist of you. Screw democracy if it means burying the Liberals eh?

Well, if the CPC can ignore Election's Canada rules when it comes to campign finance (In and Out anyone?) then so can the other parties.

Have fun and good luck, you are going to need it.

To be honest, most voters don't even know about the subsidy, so I doubt that is what is affecting their votes. What the biggest driving force behind voter apathy is simply that Canadian elections haven't been very competitive. The biggest single drop in turnout occurred between 1993 and 1997 - when everyone and their dog knew the liberals were going to be reelected, since neither the Reform or the Bloc had a chance in hell of getting a plurality. While turnout increased in 2006 a bit due to the idea we might have a change in governments, the latest low figure was driven by the fact everyone knew the Conservatives were going to get reelected, most likely with a minority. Hell, the papers were predicting this before the writs were even dropped!

When people know the outcome, they see their vote as useless and not worth the time and effort of casting.

But back to the topic at hand, I honestly believe that this is a master move by PMSH, and perhaps the final step in his master plan of eliminating the Liberals.

There's an old song called "Rumours are Flying", I'd like to dedicate it to Robert McClelland. Sometimes rumours stem from wishful thinking getting carried away.

This possible ending of campaign welfare is sure getting Opposition hackles up. Even the humble party of the kitchen table and we feel your pain, the NDP are yelping through the mouth of the verbose Pat Martin. It's a good hit on the Bloc, no way we should be forced to support a Separatist party.

This is a smart move on the part of our government. Opposition will oppose it at their peril, it's invoking the rock and the hard place scenario for all of them in these tough economic times.

To take away this sort of funding assumes that you will always have the upper hand in that this decision will benefit, but that's not always the case and the Cons will eventually get screwed by this. Dumb move. Just an attempt to snuff out Libs. Once Libs re-orient themselves for a grassroots fundraising campaign they will leave NDP and Cons in the dust. They've just never yet tried this method.

Two comments Stephen:
1. If you're comparing to Obama, don't forget their donation limits are obviously higher - so obviously easier to raise money. With our limits so low (which were reduced with the knowledge this subsidy was in exchange), to run an effective campaign will require many, many people to donate. I worry that this will severely limit the voices of those in the minority or on the fringes and automatically give major advantage to the sitting party. Just a concern.
2. Don't forget the biggest subsidy of all - tax receipts. Why is a tax deduction (which obviously costs the government) okay, but direct subsidies are not?

I support the move to reduce or eliminate taxpayer money per vote going to political parties as a temporary measure.
Please allow me to immodestly blow my own horn. I suggested exactly such a move at Joanne's blog on October 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2008/10/22/you-pick-...
[Glad to see members of the government reading and taking suggestions from the general public seriously ;-) ]

However, a couple of things should be pointed out:
1. Obama's campaign was not funded merely by small grassroots donations. He also received quite substantial donations from financiers like George Soros, and questions were raised about the legality of "untraceable donations" as well as individual donation limits being exceeded:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

2. The $1.95 per vote a party receives comes from votes cast in that particular party's favour. In other words, I am not involuntarily supporting the Bloc or the Greens, for example, with my vote (now worth $1.95 per year) but I AM supporting the party I vote for.

3. If changes are made to individual donation limits (now at $1100 per year), perhaps the tax credit accorded to such donations should be lowered. If I am not mistaken, a $100 donation now garners a $75 tax credit. Perhaps the tax credit should be lowered.

4. Donations from unions and corporations should not be reinstated.

Although I agree with the idea of cutting the subsidies, this move could be very dangerous. First, for some voters, the idea that, if their vote didn't get their candidate to win, at least their vote got their party some money. Second, none of the three opposition parties can afford this (maybe the NDP, but they've already come out firmly against it. Third, the opposition don't need to come together as a coalition government if the government falls on this vote...

They just need a legislative agenda, and right now, with the economic uncertainty, all they need to do is agree to put aside their differences and work on getting Canada through the crisis before going for an election. Michaelle Jean would have no choice but to agree to let them run the country by coalition rather than plunge the country into another election so soon past the old one.

If this is actually happening, I hope they get the support from another party to make it pass. The alternative is scary. And I hope that's not what they're banking on as a plan B, by letting the opposition take the blame for deficits, possible recession, or potential deflation. Not worth it.

yeah because private funding of government & party politics

WORKED SO WELL FOR AMERICANS & all the nations affected by Fort Benning's WHINSEC/School of the Americas.

ENJOY YOUR MILITARIZED OCCUPATIONS, RECESSION & SPP!

(jesus, where do these people come from? you'd think they'd never cracked a newspaper or investigative journalism book in their lives)

This move would be very popular with the majority of the voting public. The opposition parties will scream foul, naturally, and the liberal-lefty-loving media will of course fall over themselves to help them. The best part of this plan is it will end the absolutely ridiculous practice of Canadian taxpayers funding the Bloc Quebecios - a party that's only reason for being is dedicated to separating a major province from Canada. And the ever-whining, loud-mouth NDP should actually like this idea - they're own fund-raising has been steadily increasing, hasn't it? and they know this will handcuff the Liberals - so, the NDP should think this is a brilliant chance for them.

Please, Canadians taxpayers do not support the parties.

Voters of the parties do - who are taxpayers, yes.

But to alledge that those who vote Conservative, as an example, are supporting the Opposition is a blatant mispresentation of what actually happens. If I vote Conservative, my vote counts as $1.95 to the Conservatives.

If I vote Liberal, my vote counts as $1.95 to the Liberals.

IF the Conservatives were serious about working with parliament and ending the games of past (sure, tell me another one) they would separate this out from the budget.

Public Financing – An argument for democracy

Stephen Harper’s cynical plan to eliminate public financing will result in no less than the deterioration of Canadian democracy, particularly with respect to access and representation for the underprivileged and young voters.

Eliminating funding for political parties, which will ultimately result in the eradication (or in any case the severe hobbling) of a the smaller, though no less legitimate parties, is prejudicial and injurious both to the voters who choose to vote for those smaller parties, and to those parties which rely on a greater margin of supporters in demographics where financial support may not come as easily as it does for the more mainstream parties. This is no less than an absolute deterrent for new parties to form, and makes it virtually impossible for parties not in the mainstream to remain legitimate enough to add their perspectives, and the perspectives of their voting supporters, to the political discourse.

Why should someone who cannot afford to donate to their party of choice be now effectively disbarred from voting for that party, simply because that party is not in the mainstream and therefore cannot afford to keep up? The Green party, for example, draws a wider margin of its support from students and youth; a demographic most will agree are less able to afford political donations, particularly as they continue to be ignored by the Harper government. Would we not prefer to encourage young people to vote, rather than disenfranchising them by cynically reducing their political selection?

Public financing allows for added political options, and therefore greater choice and better representation in Canadian democracy. Harper’s scheme to eliminate such funding, which has little or nothing to do with fiscal restraint – his record shows no desire to restrain even the irresponsible spending by his own cabinet – is merely an attempt to restrain democracy itself. Of course, this should come as no surprise move from the party of the “In & Out” scheme, the Cadman Affair, NAFTAgate, and the numerous muzzled and fired public officials who dared to simply do their jobs.

Approve
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

"Why should someone who cannot afford to donate to their party of choice be now effectively disbarred from voting for that party."
While you raise some valid points, Michael, I disagree with this part of your post.

How are voters "disbarred from voting" because they cannot afford to donate to the party of their choice or because they may no longer receive the $1.95 per vote cast in their favour?
Does it mean that all previous votes cast were cast only by donors to party coffers?
And does it mean that prior to the new funding law introduced in 2003, every voter was "disbarred from voting" because political parties did not receive the $1.75 per vote cast in their favour?

Allow me to give you a personal example. I received the privilege of casting a vote back in 1983 when I became a Canadian citizen. I have been voting ever since, even though marginally interested in politics (until 2005).
Was there the same system of taxpayer funding for political parties during those years? No.
Was I "disbarred from voting" from 1983-2005? No.
Was I interested at that time to contribute/fund any party in particular? No.
Did my vote still count? Yes, it was my freely expressed voice.
I began donating to my party in 2005 to the party that best represents my ideas and values.
Is my vote any more significant now? NO.
It was valid then, it is just as valid now.

The difference, Gabby, was during that time, the parties had other fund raising options - corporate and union donations, third-party organizations and individual donations without a ceiling. None of these apply now and individuals are limited by law to $1275 per year.

If this was really about fiscal responsibility, why wouldn't the government also do the following:

1. Remove the restriction on individual amounts. What business is it of the government how much I wish to donate to any party?

2. Remove the ban on corporate, union and third party donations. If I don't like what these organizations do, its between myself and the organizations, not the business of the government.

3. Drop the tax credit for political donations. THAT would have a huge impact fiscally and it means that parties get to survive on donations alone, not subsidies (and make no mistake, this amounts to a subsidy to every party much larger than $1.90 vote).

Doing all of that would get ALL the public money out of supporting political parties altogether and each would, as people here keep saying, make the parties support themselves rather than be on "campaign welfare".

Why not? Why isn't Jim Flaherty proposing all of these?

Because #1 and #2 would benefit the Liberals and the NDP and #3 would hurt the Conservatives.

This is not about fiscal prudence or the principle of getting public money out of campaigns, its about using the coercive power of the state to benefit one party while punishing the others. Its a purely cynical partisan move meant to destroy the Liberal Party and weaken the Bloc, by means other than the ballot box.

Shame on the lot of you for supporting this undemocratic move. If Chretien had done this back in 2003 when eh introduced these reforms, you guys would be apoplectic about how terribly unfair it was. But as long as the CPC does it, its just fine.

How utterly mean-spirited and hypocritical.

Approve
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

This reply of mine to Mike seems to have gone astray. I don't know what happened to it ...

Mike, thank you for your response.

"1. Remove the restriction on individual amounts. What business is it of the government how much I wish to donate to any party?"
I am assuming by your posts that you hold "progressive" views (with a dash of libertarian attitude). I am thus surprised that you would not object to millionaires (yes, despite the economic situation, they still walk, or should I say ride, among us) being able to contribute a great deal of money to fund a political party or a candidate. Can you say "possibility of influence peddling"?

"2. Remove the ban on corporate, union and third party donations."
Your entire argument re: people now being "disbarred from voting" falls on this point.
I used to belong to a union here in Quebec that usually chose to support the Parti Quebecois.
• I was not given the option whether to belong to that union or not
• I was not given the option whether to pay the union dues or not
• I was not given the option whether to allow the union to speak on my behalf by supporting, via my union dues, a political party I did not personally support.
How is that system more democratic than the present system, in which union and corporate donations are banned?

"If I don't like what these organizations do, it’s between myself and the organizations, not the business of the government."
Sure, let a simple union member who never took out an active membership card (my way of not complying with the union), dare fight the union by myself. Does the word "blacklist" mean anything to you?

"3. Drop the tax credit for political donations."
I would have agreed with you on that until I read this part:
"Why isn't Jim Flaherty proposing all of these?
Because #1 and #2 would benefit the Liberals and the NDP and #3 would hurt the Conservatives."

What you seem to imply is that the only reason conservatives donate to the Conservative party is because they get a tax credit (not a tax REFUND as my local talk show guy was arguing today).
Maybe some do, and others don't.
I don't claim to know the motivation of my fellow conservatives.
But do you have any proof that Liberals and NDPers don't do the same thing, i.e. contribute only because they know they'll be getting a tax credit?
Or are all Liberal and NDP supporters so pure of heart, not subject to human temptations?

"If Chretien had done this back in 2003 when eh introduced these reforms, you guys would be apoplectic about how terribly unfair it was."
Actually, Chretien introduced new funding laws - no more union and no more corporate donations, and a ceiling of $5400 (initially proposed $10000 for individual donations, if memory serves).

It would be instructive, though, to review what happened when the legislation was first introduced by Chretien in February 2003:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03march/...
"... The bill comes as Chretien is in his last year of power, forced to step down after 10 years as prime minister by his party's own caucus, which by and large supports leadership contender and former finance minister Paul Martin. In the leadership race that is underway, Martin has been criticized for refusing to disclose many of his donors. Many view the legislative initiative as a way for the prime minister to focus attention on this aspect of his long-time rival's campaign.

"The appearance of this legislation at this time is too driven by internal Liberal politics and needs: the need of the Prime Minister to whitewash various scandals from his record before he retires; the need to deal with his leadership rival within the Liberal Party; and the need to deal with the bank debts of the Liberal Party itself," says Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Canadian Alliance Party.

While the three other opposition parties agree with the principles of the proposed law, and plan to support it, [then-Opposition Leader] *Harper argues that taxpayers should not be forced to further subsidize political parties.* "When the Liberal public relations rhetoric is set aside, the true nature of the bill is simply the replacement by the government of its addiction to large business and union donations with an addiction to taxpayer funding."

The prime minister will also have to contend with opposition within his own party. Liberal Party President Stephen LeDrew refers to the idea of banning corporate donors as "dumb as a bag of hammers," and some Liberal members of Parliament agree with this sentiment. But polls show strong public support for the corporate and union donation ban, and Chretien has announced that the vote on the bill will be a confidence vote, meaning that if it fails to pass, the government may fall. As a result, most Liberals are expected to vote in favor of it. ...”

So, is PM Harper now out to annihilate other parties? Or stifle democracy?
Nah hah! He was always opposed to taxpayer funding of political parties, even when he was in opposition.

Approve
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

Thank you for your response.

When I used the term "effectively" I meant it. Of course anyone will still be able to vote for whichever party they choose, but if financing is eliminated, so too will be a number of parties.

For example, a greater margin of Green party supporters are youth and students, less able and less likely to donate to their party of choice. Should the Green party become significantly diminished, or even destroyed, the choice to vote for them may become "effectively" diminished or destroyed along with it - because they will no longer exist.

I'm not here making a point for the Green party; I am simply saying that these measures will make it more difficult for smaller parties to survive, which in the end will narrow the scope of political discourse, and discourage many voters - like young voters - who will be presented with fewer choices.

I have 2 brief comments.
1) I believe this will be a money bill and therefore a confidence motion. Defeat triggers an election.
2) Stephen having been a Reformer we did not pass the hat, rather it was a Kentucky Fried Chicken bucket, it was a pay as you go thingy. It was also wonderful at the "town halls" saw Mr. Harper on a number of occasions, never imperious always humerous - absolutly contrary to the MSM portrail.

Win Win.....THe liberals and NDP would look real cute in a coalition gov't with the Bloc who loath the rest of this country. How would this new party govern after teh Bloc decided to seperate from teh country.

This move seems more to be out of desperation than anything else. With the conservatives at the helm of a period of rising government spending, missed opportunities and outright lies to Canadian about where and how they can save for their retirements (i.e. income trust flip-flopping). The Conservatives can see the writing on the wall and that they will be held accountable for current mismanagement. While the economy is slowing and jobs are being lost, is their first priority the investment in public infrastructure? Finding other revenue sources after their gutting of federal revenue streams? No - their first moves are not around how to govern better, but rather how they can make it harder for Canadians to choose someone else who will do a better job. It is incumbent on them as the government, for now, to focus on things that will truly help the people they represent. The $1.95/person isn't likely to do much for someone who just lost their job.

Steve is killing off Canadian democracy, and he's using his failed ecomic policies as insurance to do so.

I think this move by the Harper Conservative government is quite transparent: crush the opposition by letting them suffocate under their own debts. How can we honestly expect opposition parties to raise any significant amount of $ during a recession? Perhaps Harper should be focusing more on his Made-in-Ottawa deficit that's been created over the past 2 years, or the 200,000 manufacturing jobs that he's helped lose, rather than how to crush the wallet of his opponents.

This isn't a plan for democracy, it's Conservative damage patrol for Harper's terrible economic policy.

$2 so that opposing voices can be heard - That's what this is about, and it's those opposition voices that this move is trying to silence. A democracy is a system in which informed dissent and opposition is encouraged, so that debate can ensue and the best policies can be developed and initiated. In our economic system, opposition parties need that $2, because it allows their voices to be heard. Without it, we're going to be hearing nothing but the power of the Harper dictatorship becoming more firmly entranched in Ottawa.

I am listing to the news from Ottawa and am so depressed! I thought that the Harper government would be lacking in lots of domains but I thought that at the least they would have a reasonable policy on the economy. I watch the American markets and by extension the American plans for dealing with this crisis very carefully. I see them saying that immediate action is very important, I see the same in China, and even old staid Europe is getting off their butts and stimulating the economy. But here in Canada we are playing political games! Nothing serious.... we are in the worst crisis for 100 years and they are talking tonight about reducing their pay raise!??

The best thing that cutting campaign welfare is that it makes the parties come up with some reason to support them. The relatively low limits means that a lot of people have to support the concepts and their are is not enough influence provided by a $1000 donation to merit the assignment of a senate seat / judgeship or other tanglible benefits that have been bought in the past.

The great opportunity is that it forces the parties to stand for something that significant number of people feel strong enough to support with financial donations. The cult of personality takes a back seat to policy. The Liberals will have to change their focus to platform rather than who looks good facing off with Harper.

Harper is beyond brilliant. What a move.

Love the Liberals crying about mean-spirited PMSH and his desire to kick the Liberals when they're down.
I don't remember such comments coming from these people when that do-nothing Chretien didn't have another thought in his head aside from kicking the 'right' in the galloolies at every opportunity.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I saw a report that the rudderless Libs are looking to Chretien for advice. You can say a lot of negative things about the bugger, but he's not a wimp. He played hardball, and he was good at it. The best advice he could give to the Libs now is to shut up, grow up, stop whining, put a knife in Dion, and don't pick a wuss the next time.

As for the prospect of the Liberals getting into a coalition bed with the SEPARATISTS, that would be THE END of the party. Poof. Gone. Dead.

The LIBERALS IN BED WITH THE SEPARATISTS would drive a stake through their chests in Quebec and fortress Toronto. I wish they would do it, but there's no way in hell they will do anything but head for the lobby when the bells start to ring.

With all the predictions of the end of democracy in Canada without taxpayer subsidies how is it that the majority of Municipal candidates in Ontario manage to fundraise and run campaigns without any assistance?

This subsidy was put in place in 2004 by the Chretien led Liberals, who had a majority at the time. It was put in for one reason: The Liberals knew that Adscam would cause them to lose massive amounts of funding from donors, not to mention the massive amounts of funding from the Adscam-type deals themselves. How rotten is that? Now the Convervatives are being viciously attacked on all sides for wanting to remove the subsidy. How rotten is that?? I don't blame the NDP, Greens and Bloc for squawking about this, however the Liberal leadership should be ashamed of themselves. Again.

this is a garbage move. Many voters are not in a financial position to drop big money to support the party of their choice, however they do have the ability to vote for the party of their choice. This "welfare" as you call it helps to reduce strategic voting and allows voters to truly have a voice and vote for the party that they really support because they know that they will benefit financially from the vote.

I think it was a posting by Robert McClelland that said Lib-Bloc-NDP would form a coalition, as much as I hate the sound of it, he was right....but I do question the logic here......why not move the choice to the Income tax return and let me decide if I want my 1.95 per year going to a political party.

Also if this was the case why not bring in a law like Austrialia has and fine people that don't vote 100 dollars. Those that don't vote (the 100) would go in a kitty and be split amoungst all partys equally.

There is no wonder that conservatives are holding the very first place in this impromptu "pop chart", because, you know, in its etymology they have some relations with tin cans and all their preservatives properties. So they are maybe the hottest upcoming properties on the horizon… as The New Language of Politics used to say.