Canada's Opposition Parties Vow to Bring Down Government, 1 month into its term...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Shocking, I know! But they don't go up to convention halls and offer them "12.5% of our total funds" for the hall, they offer, say, $20,000. Real money! Not percentages of total funds, which is why the "BUT THE PERCENTAGESS!!" argument is for the math-challenged.

Christ almighty Asher. You're not this stupid. If you don't understand my point go do some research on the party finances then come back when you know wtf is going on. You claim I am pedantic so I will choose not to educate you. Do it yourself.

Care to explain why the other parties cannot?

Because they are hopelessly pathetic. I already said I like the idea of removing the subsidies. I just think it it pretty dumb for a minority government to try to pull this without having, at a bare minimum, some public discussion/debate about it beforehand. To pull it out immediately following an election when you know it will cripple the opposition is just plain stupid when you need at least one of the opposition parties to support you.

You on the other hand are arguing the opposition should walk off the cliff rather than oppose this.


edit - correct typo

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil

Because the are hopelessly pathetic.

Hopelessly pathetic parties should not be in power.

I see a plan that benefits Canada.

You on the other hand are arguing the opposition should walk off the cliff rather than oppose this.

I am suggesting they become competent. Why is that so hard? There are all sorts of terrific models they can adopt to gain grassroots support. If everyone is so pissed off with the Harper government like you pretend, it should be trivially easy to obtain donations to help defeat them. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be running the country and they DESERVE to be killed off as parties until a competent party replaces them.

[Wezil]

Agreed. Even more pathetic are governing parties that allow it to happen.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Agreed. Even more pathetic are governing parties that allow it to happen.

Allow what to happen? "Survival of the fittest" in Canadian politics, which is famous for allowing bumbling idiots into positions of great power?

Sounds like a competent party to me.

[KrazyHorse]

This whole thread is boring.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

I am suggesting they become competent.

After they are dead? Good trick. The Greens could be wiped out by such a change.

If everyone is so pissed off with the Harper government like you pretend, it should be trivially easy to obtain donations to help defeat them. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be running the country and they DESERVE to be killed off as parties until a competent party replaces them.

Not "everyone". Most voted against him however.

As to the rest - Read the Globe piece again. A viable opposition is essential to a healthy democracy. You propose killing the opposition (or self sacrifice by supporting the change as you argue they should) and running as a one party state. I know you are from Alberta where that is the norm but the rest of us would like an option or two.

The sensible approach is to leave this matter to a later date when it can be more fully considered while we concentrate on working together (as Harper said he wanted to) on more important issues.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
After they are dead? Good trick. The Greens could be wiped out by such a change.

Then the Liberals should be welcoming this with open arms.

Why would they get wiped out? Are the MPs not collecting salaries or something?

Why can't they raise money? If they can't convince people to give them money, how are they to convince voters to let them run the country?

Not "everyone". Most voted against him however.

As to the rest - Read the Globe piece again. A viable opposition is essential to a healthy democracy.

I agree. But as this election has showed us, THERE IS NO VIABLE OPPOSITION.

This is the fault of the opposition, not the conservatives.

The other parties are hopelessly inept and you expect us, as the taxpayers, to keep handing them money to waste on conventions that somehow end up with STEPHANE DION being elected leader of the party? And then you expect us to pay for their god-awful TV ads that spew nothing but lies and "HARPER = BUSH" bullcrap? Why?

Giving them public money like this just makes them LAZY. Public funding doesn't make them competent, forcing them to get their ass in gear just might...

I know you are from Alberta where that is the norm but the rest of us would like an option or two.

Okay, i've put up enough of your rhetoric. Start coughing up the facts.

- Show me why all of the parties except the conservatives are going to go belly up without public funding.
- Explain to me how if most Canadians hate Harper, and if most Canadians want him out of office, why the other parties can't collect their money. Especially after all of the faux-outrage about this policy, they should be having money flying in their windows with gold bows on it.

The simple facts are this is money the parties use for ad campaigns (and as the election showed us, all they do is lie, slime, and smear -- so less is good here) and perhaps some reasonable party conventions rather than multi-day Arena-filling bull**** they have now...

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This whole thread is boring.

It's boring because it's all rhetoric. Everyone is cheering that the sky is falling and it'll be a one-party system without rationalizing it or backing it up. It's time for the critics to put up or shut up.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Okay, i've put up enough of your rhetoric. Start coughing up the facts.

I already told you. This is your job to educate yourself on these subsidies and what effect removing them will have. The party finances are public record. This was your side issue and I have no intention on wasting time proving the obvious.

I already said (three times now?) I agree with the idea of removing them. The argument you chose was whether the reaction to this proposal was the fault of those hurt or the ones doing the hurting. This crisis was brought on by the Conservatives no matter how desperately you try to spin it otherwise.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
I already told you. This is your job to educate yourself on these subsidies and what effect removing them will have.

Fail

You make the assertion that removing public subsidies will eradicate the other parties, then you get to back it up.

[Wezil]

The Conservatives are poised to eliminate the public subsidies that Canada's five major political parties receive, a move that would save $30 million a year but could cripple the opposition.

Sources told CBC News and other media outlets Wednesday that the subsidy cut is one of the key elements of the fiscal update that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will present Thursday in Ottawa.

Parties currently receive $1.95 for every vote they receive in a federal election, provided they win at least two per cent of the nationwide popular vote. The annual subsidy is used to pay for staff and expenses.

On the surface, it would appear Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have the most to lose if subsidies were cut because they garnered the most votes in the October election. The Conservatives earned $10 million in subsidies, compared to $7.7 million for the Liberals, $4.9 million for the NDP, $2.6 million for the Bloc Québécois and $1.8 million for the Greens.

But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party's total revenues.

By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals' funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc's, 57 per cent of the NDP's and 65 per cent of the Greens'.
...

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/11/26/update-subsidy.html

Will you concede the point already?

[Asher]

No, because all that shows is the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, etc have not had to do a whole lot of private fundraising due to the public fundraising.

You have not at all proved that the lack of subsidies will sink these parties -- it doesn't even make sense logically. Even if the parties had $0, why would they cease to exist? You're fearmongering with bull****.

Additionally, you make the assumption it's impossible for the Liberals, NDP, and Greens to increase how much they fundraise when public drying drys up. A terrible assumption, IMO.

[Wezil]

Alright Asher. I'm tired of playing this game. My point is made. I'll let the thread speak for itself on this issue.

[Asher]

In summary:

- The lack of public funding will KILL THE PARTIES, though no one has demonstrated that this is the case and it doesn't even make sense.
- Without public funding, the opposition parties will not at all increase their fundraising efforts even though apparently most of the country wants Harper out of power (they apparently don't care enough to donate a dime to the Liberals, NDP, Greens, or Bloc)
- The conservatives are actually losing more money than the other parties here, which actually puts the spending amounts of all parties closer together (the old public funding system gave an advantage to incumbent parties since the money they get for election advertising, etc is proportional to how many votes they had last time).

In summary, you've said and done nothing to support your rhetoric which doesn't even hold up to basic analysis. You then fled the thread when asked to back it up.

[Wezil]

In summary, you've said and done nothing to support your rhetoric which doesn't even hold up to basic analysis. You then fled the thread when asked to back it up.

I haven't fled anywhere. I'm done arguing whether or not this move would cripple the opposition parties more than the conservatives. I'm open for further discussion on other issues.

I was never under any mistaken belief I would convince you of anything Asher. I'd be shocked to see you admit you were mistaken about anything. It's not in your nature.

The debate was never for that purpose. Those reading the debate can draw their own conclusions. They (for the most part) will be open to persuasion. I think my argument stands up.