Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Nothing seems to rile up the masses more than these two topics. As a result you can only talk about either in here. this forum will not be moderated, however if it gets really ugly you can report a post

Moderator: Referees

Kanga-Kucha
Superstar
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Georgia (Originally from Australia)
Contact:

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Kanga-Kucha » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:15 pm

how bout we just fix it, one dollar to each party for every vote they get, not just the top 20 precent, but all the votes they receve?
GO BOMBERS AND WINNIPEG JETS!!!
EPTC RKBC COA
Got EVS?

User avatar
Terencius1
All Star
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:16 pm
Favourite Team: Saskatchewan Roughriders

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Terencius1 » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:15 pm

Lerriuqs wrote:
Kanga-Kucha wrote:
Lerriuqs wrote:
Ron wrote:Here's how I see things "Blame" wise.

1. Jack Layton. Bob Rae. I have little doubt this deal was born here. Rae kinda did something like this to oust the Conservatives in Ontario (deal with Peterson) and is doing it again. Layton is the weasel he always was from his local Toronto days.

2. Harper. That man may be smart ... but he too smart. He has no "street sense" and misreads the populations mood. Calling unwanted elections claiming the Hill was broken while now claiming he can make it work?? The opposition now using his own reasons for the last election against him ... fueling separation fears to remain in power, etc. He needs to take a PR course or something. Oh ... and cutting off their money. What would the outrage be if the roles were reversed and Chretien did it to the Reform party years ago? You know ... when the Libs were the rich one's.

3. Dion. This stooge will do anything to get him name in the history books. He's nothing but a pawn yet acts like he's Captain Canada out to save the nation. No character. His blame would be higher if he had anything to do with this.

4. Iggy. I really get the sense that Iggy doesn't like what's going on but as you say ... has to go along to get along. He's the Liberal who left a door of hope open that Harper will to do the right thing in January while others were hard lining it.

5. Duceppe. I have zero blame for him. He's doing exactly what we would expect him to do. Get Quebec a bigger voice. (Not necessarily separation.)

The next 6 weeks will be interesting. I'll be watching to see how Rae and Iggy handle themselves and totally ignore Dion. Dion is the "throw the stick for the media dogs" guy and will be forefront in the news. :canada:
I think you make some great points though I disagree on the funding thing - that's very new it only came to play after the sponsorship scandal. The Reform/new Conservatives have always been very good at fundraising. The Liberals since their self-imposed restrictions as well as the other parties? Not so much...

thats cuz our base doesnt hav as much money as the consevatives.
I don't buy that for a second - as an example, there are many LIberals and their supporters that are very well-heeled...And the NDP has the support of unions - many of who are very overpaid for the work they do...

Ah yes, yer wrong, Under the New policitcal party financing rules, BOTH CORPORATE AND UNION CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

Liberals may be well heeled but, they don't contribute to the Liberals. The liberal Party in the past relied More and more on Corporate contributions. Now, under New rules They raised less money than the NDP.( Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch), but I digress.

Lerriuqs
Legend
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:47 pm

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Lerriuqs » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:45 am

Terencius1 wrote:
Lerriuqs wrote:
Kanga-Kucha wrote:
Lerriuqs wrote:
Ron wrote:Here's how I see things "Blame" wise.

1. Jack Layton. Bob Rae. I have little doubt this deal was born here. Rae kinda did something like this to oust the Conservatives in Ontario (deal with Peterson) and is doing it again. Layton is the weasel he always was from his local Toronto days.

2. Harper. That man may be smart ... but he too smart. He has no "street sense" and misreads the populations mood. Calling unwanted elections claiming the Hill was broken while now claiming he can make it work?? The opposition now using his own reasons for the last election against him ... fueling separation fears to remain in power, etc. He needs to take a PR course or something. Oh ... and cutting off their money. What would the outrage be if the roles were reversed and Chretien did it to the Reform party years ago? You know ... when the Libs were the rich one's.

3. Dion. This stooge will do anything to get him name in the history books. He's nothing but a pawn yet acts like he's Captain Canada out to save the nation. No character. His blame would be higher if he had anything to do with this.

4. Iggy. I really get the sense that Iggy doesn't like what's going on but as you say ... has to go along to get along. He's the Liberal who left a door of hope open that Harper will to do the right thing in January while others were hard lining it.

5. Duceppe. I have zero blame for him. He's doing exactly what we would expect him to do. Get Quebec a bigger voice. (Not necessarily separation.)

The next 6 weeks will be interesting. I'll be watching to see how Rae and Iggy handle themselves and totally ignore Dion. Dion is the "throw the stick for the media dogs" guy and will be forefront in the news. :canada:
I think you make some great points though I disagree on the funding thing - that's very new it only came to play after the sponsorship scandal. The Reform/new Conservatives have always been very good at fundraising. The Liberals since their self-imposed restrictions as well as the other parties? Not so much...

thats cuz our base doesnt hav as much money as the consevatives.
I don't buy that for a second - as an example, there are many LIberals and their supporters that are very well-heeled...And the NDP has the support of unions - many of who are very overpaid for the work they do...

Ah yes, yer wrong, Under the New policitcal party financing rules, BOTH CORPORATE AND UNION CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

Liberals may be well heeled but, they don't contribute to the Liberals. The liberal Party in the past relied More and more on Corporate contributions. Now, under New rules They raised less money than the NDP.( Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch), but I digress.
:roll: Please. I know that unions can't contribute, but their workers can. The Liberals and NDP are relying on the public teat to continue going. But somehow that's the Conservative's fault because they've organized their fundraising very well...

Bastinado
Superstar
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:37 pm

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Bastinado » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:26 am

This is the way I look at it Lerriuqs. Traditionally, Conservative supporters are higher income earnings compared to the supporters of there more left leaning counterparts (I assume we can agree on that?). So let's say the Conservatives get 50,000 people to contribute, and the NDP and Liberals aslo get 50,000. The Conservatives supporters will be able to give more, maybe on average $100 per person, meanwhile NDP and Liberals get $75 per person. That's $1.25 Million, which could be the difference in a close election. Now deducing from that... one could conclude that those who are richer have more of a say in an election, no?
MY CFL INCLUDES THE OTTAWA RENEGADES!

User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Superstar
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:36 pm
Location: Port Moody - BC

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Sir Purrcival » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:12 am

What is also means is when the new funding rules where brought in, it hurt some parties more than others. Corporate Canada had many years of relative prosperity under the Liberals in comparison to the way things where when Mr. Mulroney left the hill. Their donations reflected that. The Conservative/Reform/Alliance whatevers had to basically start from Grassroots much more recently in history and still have that base. Couple it as well with some very lucrative times out West where their power structure is largely located and you get them doing much better than the others in fund raising The rules needed to be changed and that was a positive thing after the various scandals that the last few Federal Govts have been accused of (Going right back to Airbus). It is also true to say that those changes hit both the Liberals and the NDP much harder than than the Conservatives by the very nature of where their funding was coming from. In time, things will equalize and adjust but we will see how lucrative the Conservative coffers remain as the economic times continue to be hard. I think that they may find the well drying up somewhat. Say what you want about the Liberals but when they did make those changes, they hurt themselves in the process. They tried to find a way to not completely kneecap themselves (understandable) and that benefited other parties like the NDP and the Bloc as well. They may have done it for self-serving reasons but giving something to others so that you can give to yourself as well seems much better than taking it away from others because you can afford to go without (ala the CPC).
Lest We Forget!

Lerriuqs
Legend
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:47 pm

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Lerriuqs » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:01 am

Bastinado wrote:This is the way I look at it Lerriuqs. Traditionally, Conservative supporters are higher income earnings compared to the supporters of there more left leaning counterparts (I assume we can agree on that?). So let's say the Conservatives get 50,000 people to contribute, and the NDP and Liberals aslo get 50,000. The Conservatives supporters will be able to give more, maybe on average $100 per person, meanwhile NDP and Liberals get $75 per person. That's $1.25 Million, which could be the difference in a close election. Now deducing from that... one could conclude that those who are richer have more of a say in an election, no?
Currently though the difference is much bigger than that and it's because the Conservatives are good at fundraising. The rest? Not so much...Also, by doing away with the Gov't handout, you take away an advantage from the ruling party - which is getting an advantage each election it wins as a result.

Bastinado
Superstar
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:37 pm

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Bastinado » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:16 pm

Lerriuqs wrote:
Bastinado wrote:This is the way I look at it Lerriuqs. Traditionally, Conservative supporters are higher income earnings compared to the supporters of there more left leaning counterparts (I assume we can agree on that?). So let's say the Conservatives get 50,000 people to contribute, and the NDP and Liberals aslo get 50,000. The Conservatives supporters will be able to give more, maybe on average $100 per person, meanwhile NDP and Liberals get $75 per person. That's $1.25 Million, which could be the difference in a close election. Now deducing from that... one could conclude that those who are richer have more of a say in an election, no?
Currently though the difference is much bigger than that and it's because the Conservatives are good at fundraising. The rest? Not so much...Also, by doing away with the Gov't handout, you take away an advantage from the ruling party - which is getting an advantage each election it wins as a result.
The ruling party already has an advantage... they would have (or at least should have received more votes).
MY CFL INCLUDES THE OTTAWA RENEGADES!

Kanga-Kucha
Superstar
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Georgia (Originally from Australia)
Contact:

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Kanga-Kucha » Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:49 pm

we mite see more party meagers in the future it seems, which imo is a good thing as long as we hav two stong left and right parties, and at least one thrid party in the pariment.

2 cents from mr. Ovious.
GO BOMBERS AND WINNIPEG JETS!!!
EPTC RKBC COA
Got EVS?

Gerry
Champion
Posts: 3725
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Gerry » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:03 am

Bastinado wrote:This is the way I look at it Lerriuqs. Traditionally, Conservative supporters are higher income earnings compared to the supporters of there more left leaning counterparts (I assume we can agree on that?). So let's say the Conservatives get 50,000 people to contribute, and the NDP and Liberals aslo get 50,000. The Conservatives supporters will be able to give more, maybe on average $100 per person, meanwhile NDP and Liberals get $75 per person. That's $1.25 Million, which could be the difference in a close election. Now deducing from that... one could conclude that those who are richer have more of a say in an election, no?
Perhaps I'm reading more into this than you intended, but is there something wrong with those who are richer having more of an influence in an election?

I don't see that as being a problem, or something that we need to attempt to mitigate to any great degree.

Lerriuqs
Legend
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:47 pm

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Lerriuqs » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:25 am

Bastinado wrote:This is the way I look at it Lerriuqs. Traditionally, Conservative supporters are higher income earnings compared to the supporters of there more left leaning counterparts (I assume we can agree on that?). So let's say the Conservatives get 50,000 people to contribute, and the NDP and Liberals aslo get 50,000. The Conservatives supporters will be able to give more, maybe on average $100 per person, meanwhile NDP and Liberals get $75 per person. That's $1.25 Million, which could be the difference in a close election. Now deducing from that... one could conclude that those who are richer have more of a say in an election, no?
Y'know, thinking about this more - I'm not sure I agree with the argument at all. Maybe for the NDP and Green Party, this might fly, but not for the liberals. Their funding prior to this structure came primarily from corporations. And if corporations are giving funding, there should still be relatively high income earners involved - if not, why were the corporations giving funds in the first place??

Also even if you use that argument when you break it down by riding - which is a factor in this, you're talking $4,000 a riding - so depending on how the money is used, it could make no difference.

I also disagree with the concept that the rich would have more say in the vote - with the current limits in place - how much influence is $1,000 going to buy you. If you're only one contributing? A lot - if you're one of 50,000 - not so much...

Lerriuqs
Legend
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:47 pm

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Lerriuqs » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:27 am

Gerry wrote:
Bastinado wrote:This is the way I look at it Lerriuqs. Traditionally, Conservative supporters are higher income earnings compared to the supporters of there more left leaning counterparts (I assume we can agree on that?). So let's say the Conservatives get 50,000 people to contribute, and the NDP and Liberals aslo get 50,000. The Conservatives supporters will be able to give more, maybe on average $100 per person, meanwhile NDP and Liberals get $75 per person. That's $1.25 Million, which could be the difference in a close election. Now deducing from that... one could conclude that those who are richer have more of a say in an election, no?
Perhaps I'm reading more into this than you intended, but is there something wrong with those who are richer having more of an influence in an election?

I don't see that as being a problem, or something that we need to attempt to mitigate to any great degree.
As long as they can't control the results, I don't see the harm. If the less-rich have a problem with it - speak with your ballot...There's always less richer people and more less rich - I hesitate to use the word poor because of the middle class like me - not rich but definitely not poor...

User avatar
Catssuck
Champion
Posts: 3850
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:19 pm
Favourite Team: Toronto Argonauts
Location: Oakville(Home)/Chandos Lake(Cottage)
Contact:

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Catssuck » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:39 pm

Kanga-Kucha wrote:we mite see more party meagers in the future it seems, which imo is a good thing as long as we hav two stong left and right parties, and at least one thrid party in the pariment.

2 cents from mr. Ovious.
gvsakudciiudhciu iudhiuh9iwd9i uduoieud0i diwuedpuodu udsahcisadciu bcduccvwadhcvsadc jd dsafdoiusdoisOI JADSOJADODSP
On July 13th 2007 Cossack wrote: I agree with the Argo fan.
Thanks for finally coming around Terry - the Ticats do suck.

Kanga-Kucha
Superstar
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Georgia (Originally from Australia)
Contact:

Re: Check this out - Harper would have done it too.

Post by Kanga-Kucha » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:22 pm

Catssuck wrote:
Kanga-Kucha wrote:we mite see more party meagers in the future it seems, which imo is a good thing as long as we hav two stong left and right parties, and at least one thrid party in the pariment.

2 cents from mr. Ovious.
gvsakudciiudhciu iudhiuh9iwd9i uduoieud0i diwuedpuodu udsahcisadciu bcduccvwadhcvsadc jd dsafdoiusdoisOI JADSOJADODSP
say again mate, i dont understand.

but here is one fact that leds me to such a conclusion.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TVNewsAt11
Conservatives: $10 million
Liberals: $7.7 million
NDP: $4.9 million
Bloc Quebecois: $2.6 million
Green Party: $1.8 million

Bloc Quebecois: 86 per cent
Green Party: 65 per cent
Liberals: 63 per cent
NDP: 57 per cent
Conservatives: 37 per cent
so if the plan to cut off federal funding to parties goes thur, most will lose more than half of there revenew, leading them to look into other ways to raise money, which there arent too many options, so a merger idea will not be a bad idea, especailly given if the left has another bad election (imo the Liberals are the new progressive consevative party, and NDP is the roughy the new canadian alliance). Even if the federal money is not cut, thats a dangerous amount of federal funds to rely on.
GO BOMBERS AND WINNIPEG JETS!!!
EPTC RKBC COA
Got EVS?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest