@ProkofievRules .. well the way it works is the parties get $2 per vote. so if noone supports them (with their votes) they dont get any funding its the most democratic way to help spread democracy (also removing this is not in harpers best interest it will probably result in left and left leaning to join forces a united centerleft u could call it and vote spliting helps the conservtives greatly) it lets the party recooperate some of the money spent during a campaign.
@shanebrp it helps the lower income donate to a party. i cant afford to donate money to a political party, so my vote even in a losing cause still has an effect. i dont know why anyone has a problem with this. its not your tax dollars going to 3 parties you dont support its your vote financialy supporting your party. lets be honest everyone pays taxes and everyone should vote so everyone would pay for their own $2 per vote
@BoredomCorner What would being convicted of a crime mean if the persons accusing you were also judge jury and executioner? The contempt charge is a farce, and this entire election is one big power grab by the left. Hopefully harper gets his razor thin majority, and we can finally get something done. Enough of this "Anyone But Conservatives" outlook. They're the only ones with any sort of a plan.
I'm not defending Harper, but I am defending the idea to change the public financing of political parties, we should be allowed to choose directly who that money goes to when we file our taxes and if no party deserves your ~$2 then you can have it sent to some charity instead.I also think the senate should be downsized to 2 elected officials per province, 1 per territory and their salaries and responsibilities and power dropped as well. Oh yea and senators should have no party affiliation.
@01NiCk01 this is $2 per vote so if no party deserves your vote/$2 logic would dictate that you wouldnt vote so no $2 for the party that you didnt vote for.
The thing that I hate the most is that almost everyone assumes that EVERYONE from Alberta supports Harper...which is definitively not the case....(myself included...)
I do agree that a lot of Alberta does vote conservative...but there is the minority that oppose him...the only problem is that other parties have given up on Alberta...during the election, there was hardly any non-conservatives that ran...
My last comments were meant to be responses to comments, but since I'm here one more time I'd like to share this:
"If women received the same salary as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education or union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then these womens annual family income would rise by $4,000, and poverty rates would be cut in half." - National Organization of Women, Facts about Pay Equity, 2002.
Conservative supporters like to make it sound like the other parties are panhandlers over this public funding, but the whole reason for it was so that the parties are not in the pockets of big corporations -- or big unions. Look at it this way, when you vote, you donate the price of a cup of good coffee to the party you voted for. You can donate more directly if you wish. Oh, and don't forget that at the same time Harper wanted to ditch equal pay for women. Neocon family values!
As if Harper did it to save money! He didn't mind costing taxpayers millions by stacking the senate with 18 new leeches. The only thing he cares about is getting a majority. Makes you wonder what he'd do if he got one, doesn't it? Hopefully we'll never find out.
First of all, I'm not 'your child', thank God! Secondly, with the ignorant name-calling it's not surprising that you support Harper. And lastly, I hope you enjoy watching Harper's political career sink into the sunset, little man.
Corporate funding was stopped in 2004, but as many more of their voters are extremely wealthy it amounts to much the same.
I am ashamed we have a prime minister who would deliberately mislead people and erode women's right to equal pay for equal work, a right which remains the number one goal of the women's movement. It is no wonder most women don't support him. The wage gap comes a cost to every economy. Harper either shows complete lack of understanding or his motives are very questionable.
@Jenchens Why should government have to enforce a law that private sector companies have realized 10+ years ago? Its redundant. The fact that woman are set to make up the majority of the workforce would mean that companies would.. *gasp* give woman equal pay and other such amenities.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"a move that would save $26 million" the conservatives would have taken the biggest financial hit from that one. Also, Barrack Obama just ran an entire campaign without a dime of taxpayer's money. Finally, although Harper IS taking moves to help the economy, there's not a whole lot the government can do, and I would rather they do nothing because it's the government that started this in the first place.
Obama is quoted as saying he strongly believes in public campaign funding as part of a healthy system of democracy.
"Control the money within the system, or money will control the system."
Harper attempted to erode women's right to pay equity, the number one goal of the women's rights movement. Symbolically terrible and economically senseless. The wage gap comes at a cost to the economy. Obama a long time champion of pay equity would never do this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wage gap and womens rights is kind of off topic. Everything I've heard "the chosen one" say involves a bigger government, and more taxes. He said his biggest worries are global warming and gun control, he's a fucking douchebag and you're an idiot for believing the rhetoric. Don't give me that "you're a racist" bullshit because I'm not, and you're actually being reverse racist, it's just as bad, I'm simply judging him by his actions, which is - he's an asshole.
Sorry I don't trust our government to spend $30 Billion on some "stimulus" package. Really how much of that do you think is going to benefit the average Canadian? It will benefit the rich and politically connected. You know for example the ones who OWN the huge construction companies that would get the massive contracts from this "stimulus" for instance.
What kills me is that so many Canadians are so disengaged that they don't even realize they actually AGREE the political party subsidy should be cut this way. Having no opposition would make this country...well, ALBERTA.
What's with the anger and the personal insult? A little defensive?
My only point is that a one party state is not good for democracy, not good for its citizens. And guess what, pointing that out is not a slam to Alberta. It's a fact that Alberta is without a strong opposition. It's a fact that the Alberta government would be more transparent and accountable with a strong opposition. Even THINKING supporters of the Alberta government acknowledge that. Maybe you should give thinking a try.
what was wrong with the state of Alberta last time u checked? what should people be held accountable for? economic welfare and progress? ur comment lacks sound logic and exudes self importance. U R NOT RICK MERCER. the situation is analogous to that of liberals dominating in big canadian cities. Do you think Harper reduced federal funding just for the opposition? No! his party is competent enough to raise their own funds. nothing undemocratic here, just impotent leaders and their parties.
Why is it that the liberals would be bankrupted if this funding were abolished? The only answer to that is no one wants to give them money.
As it stands my tax dollars go to fund at least 3 other parties that will never support, barring a total upheaval of their platform.
I don't like it.
ProkofievRules 10 months ago
@ProkofievRules .. well the way it works is the parties get $2 per vote. so if noone supports them (with their votes) they dont get any funding its the most democratic way to help spread democracy (also removing this is not in harpers best interest it will probably result in left and left leaning to join forces a united centerleft u could call it and vote spliting helps the conservtives greatly) it lets the party recooperate some of the money spent during a campaign.
part one of two
shanebrp 10 months ago 2
@shanebrp it helps the lower income donate to a party. i cant afford to donate money to a political party, so my vote even in a losing cause still has an effect. i dont know why anyone has a problem with this. its not your tax dollars going to 3 parties you dont support its your vote financialy supporting your party. lets be honest everyone pays taxes and everyone should vote so everyone would pay for their own $2 per vote
part 2 of 2
shanebrp 10 months ago 3
@ProkofievRules So you support a party that has no confidence, in the house?
BoredomCorner 10 months ago
@BoredomCorner What would being convicted of a crime mean if the persons accusing you were also judge jury and executioner? The contempt charge is a farce, and this entire election is one big power grab by the left. Hopefully harper gets his razor thin majority, and we can finally get something done. Enough of this "Anyone But Conservatives" outlook. They're the only ones with any sort of a plan.
ProkofievRules 10 months ago
if this guy has one funny bone on his body,i dont see it.makes me ashamed to be a real canadian sometimes.
1arcticcat1 11 months ago
@1arcticcat1 like people in your province are real canadians anyway. if it was up to you, we'd all be part of denmark.
FuriousRoellinghoff 10 months ago
well the liberals are no better none of them are they always pass laws that we never even heard they were going to pass and we never get to vote.
lucy9359 11 months ago
I'm not defending Harper, but I am defending the idea to change the public financing of political parties, we should be allowed to choose directly who that money goes to when we file our taxes and if no party deserves your ~$2 then you can have it sent to some charity instead.I also think the senate should be downsized to 2 elected officials per province, 1 per territory and their salaries and responsibilities and power dropped as well. Oh yea and senators should have no party affiliation.
01NiCk01 1 year ago
@01NiCk01 this is $2 per vote so if no party deserves your vote/$2 logic would dictate that you wouldnt vote so no $2 for the party that you didnt vote for.
shanebrp 10 months ago
Stephen Harper doesn't want democracy, he was absolute power!!
tonkz3 2 years ago 5
hmm mercer makes a good point... i'll still never vote NDP. Liberals...maybe when they're more realistic about multiculturalism and immigration.
kylejones7 2 years ago
Rick Mercer is amazing :)
The thing that I hate the most is that almost everyone assumes that EVERYONE from Alberta supports Harper...which is definitively not the case....(myself included...)
I do agree that a lot of Alberta does vote conservative...but there is the minority that oppose him...the only problem is that other parties have given up on Alberta...during the election, there was hardly any non-conservatives that ran...
youkaihime 3 years ago 8
My last comments were meant to be responses to comments, but since I'm here one more time I'd like to share this:
"If women received the same salary as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education or union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then these womens annual family income would rise by $4,000, and poverty rates would be cut in half." - National Organization of Women, Facts about Pay Equity, 2002.
Jenchens 3 years ago 6
@Jenchens that is speculation from 8 years ago based on research from god knows when
pharaoh11689 2 years ago
Conservative supporters like to make it sound like the other parties are panhandlers over this public funding, but the whole reason for it was so that the parties are not in the pockets of big corporations -- or big unions. Look at it this way, when you vote, you donate the price of a cup of good coffee to the party you voted for. You can donate more directly if you wish. Oh, and don't forget that at the same time Harper wanted to ditch equal pay for women. Neocon family values!
Clothos60 3 years ago 18
As if Harper did it to save money! He didn't mind costing taxpayers millions by stacking the senate with 18 new leeches. The only thing he cares about is getting a majority. Makes you wonder what he'd do if he got one, doesn't it? Hopefully we'll never find out.
NoMajorityForSteve 3 years ago 26
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Retard alert. Oh dear my child you have a lot of learning to do yet.
Xyno1100 2 years ago
First of all, I'm not 'your child', thank God! Secondly, with the ignorant name-calling it's not surprising that you support Harper. And lastly, I hope you enjoy watching Harper's political career sink into the sunset, little man.
NoMajorityForSteve 2 years ago 10
Corporate funding was stopped in 2004, but as many more of their voters are extremely wealthy it amounts to much the same.
I am ashamed we have a prime minister who would deliberately mislead people and erode women's right to equal pay for equal work, a right which remains the number one goal of the women's movement. It is no wonder most women don't support him. The wage gap comes a cost to every economy. Harper either shows complete lack of understanding or his motives are very questionable.
Jenchens 3 years ago 9
@Jenchens Why should government have to enforce a law that private sector companies have realized 10+ years ago? Its redundant. The fact that woman are set to make up the majority of the workforce would mean that companies would.. *gasp* give woman equal pay and other such amenities.
Zombie1Boy 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"a move that would save $26 million" the conservatives would have taken the biggest financial hit from that one. Also, Barrack Obama just ran an entire campaign without a dime of taxpayer's money. Finally, although Harper IS taking moves to help the economy, there's not a whole lot the government can do, and I would rather they do nothing because it's the government that started this in the first place.
quuaa1 3 years ago
It would have given them an advantage.
Obama is quoted as saying he strongly believes in public campaign funding as part of a healthy system of democracy.
"Control the money within the system, or money will control the system."
Harper attempted to erode women's right to pay equity, the number one goal of the women's rights movement. Symbolically terrible and economically senseless. The wage gap comes at a cost to the economy. Obama a long time champion of pay equity would never do this.
Jenchens 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wage gap and womens rights is kind of off topic. Everything I've heard "the chosen one" say involves a bigger government, and more taxes. He said his biggest worries are global warming and gun control, he's a fucking douchebag and you're an idiot for believing the rhetoric. Don't give me that "you're a racist" bullshit because I'm not, and you're actually being reverse racist, it's just as bad, I'm simply judging him by his actions, which is - he's an asshole.
quuaa1 3 years ago
Sorry I don't trust our government to spend $30 Billion on some "stimulus" package. Really how much of that do you think is going to benefit the average Canadian? It will benefit the rich and politically connected. You know for example the ones who OWN the huge construction companies that would get the massive contracts from this "stimulus" for instance.
fatmoleman 3 years ago 4
Rick always puts things forward in the most efficient way of ranting.
Bl4zz3r 3 years ago 8
Ahem to that. Cooperation all the way!!!!!
justjokingyall 3 years ago 2
Why does Harper make me believe all conspiracy theories about the New World Order.
hollygolightly66 3 years ago 4
What kills me is that so many Canadians are so disengaged that they don't even realize they actually AGREE the political party subsidy should be cut this way. Having no opposition would make this country...well, ALBERTA.
cdntothecore 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you will be lucky if this country were made like well.. ALBERTA. Ignorant fool.
accordeonist 3 years ago
What's with the anger and the personal insult? A little defensive?
My only point is that a one party state is not good for democracy, not good for its citizens. And guess what, pointing that out is not a slam to Alberta. It's a fact that Alberta is without a strong opposition. It's a fact that the Alberta government would be more transparent and accountable with a strong opposition. Even THINKING supporters of the Alberta government acknowledge that. Maybe you should give thinking a try.
cdntothecore 3 years ago
what was wrong with the state of Alberta last time u checked? what should people be held accountable for? economic welfare and progress? ur comment lacks sound logic and exudes self importance. U R NOT RICK MERCER. the situation is analogous to that of liberals dominating in big canadian cities. Do you think Harper reduced federal funding just for the opposition? No! his party is competent enough to raise their own funds. nothing undemocratic here, just impotent leaders and their parties.
accordeonist 3 years ago
Rick Mercer is my political hero...
thenamesbanana 3 years ago 7
Harper is a self serving douche bag.
kelseywall 3 years ago 10
Rick Mercer is the best!
PantaroParatroopa 3 years ago 7