Of the two major Liberal leadership candidates, Jim Flaherty's proposal to eliminate the $1.95 per vote subsidy for the political parties will help Michael Ignatieff and hurt Bob Rae. Ignatieff, the centre candidate will be able to express disappointment in Flaherty's proposal, yet vote for Flaherty's Conservative budget. He'll also be able to say to his supporters that if elected prime minister, he will bring back the subsidy. Also, as the candidate of the centre, he will be better likely than Rae to solicit donations for the Liberal Party directly or indirectly from the business community. Rae, being further to the left, will have a harder time reaching out to the business community. Also, he probably won't get the support from people who currently vote for the NDP.
I think Michael Ignatieff will win the leadership of the Liberal Party on the first ballot. My advice for him is to start running against Stephen Harper now instead of in May.
Update:
Recommended Blogging Tory post for today: The View from the Right: Conservatives Wrong to Cut Party Funding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Pass this and it will only help Harper to a Majority though dirty tricks.
But replacing fair democracy with corrupt democracy will hurt every Canadian.
Hi, Socially Active,
I would love to keep the subsidy as it is fair for democracy. However, I wrote what I think will happen, not what I want to happen. Thanks for commenting.
There's a difference between what you consider "fair for democracy" (always a normative statement) and a proper reflection of the country's priorities.
When one considers the bill of $30 million, any progressive Canadian has to reconsider funding political parties that can't seem to fund themselves.
$30 million could prove to be quite the boon for programs such as affordable housing.
Of course, the subsidy cuts certainly do disproportionately harm parties supported by people who can't afford to support a party via donations. On that note, there's certainly a strong argument for maintaining the subsidies.
But it's hard to ignore the fact that the money could be better spent -- at least from an objective perspective.
You could consider that my $1.95 worth.
Post a Comment