Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The case for the vote subsidy

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, January 14, 2011 11:30am - 303 Comments

Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton argue in favour of the $2 per vote party subsidy.

But Ignatieff said the Liberals support the subsidies as a strong way to sustain democracy. ”We’ve got a political system that is by international standards cheap, democratic and open,” he said. He said that if public subsidies are banned, “then little by little the big money comes back into politics.”

“Jean Chretien started to walk the big money out of politics. You cut public subsidy, you walk the big money back in. We think it’s the wrong way to go and if you want to know why it’s the wrong way to go, look south of the border.”

Layton was equally supporting of the subsidies. “A key element of democratic reform was to make sure that political parties represent the ideas of Canadians and can have their ideas considered in the public discourse.” Ending the subsidies would have dire consequences, warned Layton. “You’re going to end up with those who are able to ante up the bucks getting heard. And that is not democratic. It’s not right.”

Tags: campaign financing, election, Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, vote subsidy, voting

More by Aaron Wherry

JamesHalifax

gottabesaid and MostlyCivil.

The Gomery commission had a very specific mandate (thank you former LIBERAL PM) that was specifially spelled out to ENSURE no Liberal MP's wore it.

I think if you took a poll in Quebec about the belief of Liberal MP's being corrupt……you would see I'm one of many.

Here's the thing about Liberal corruption guys………..everyone knows they do it, and have done it….the Liberals themselves know everyone knows they do it, and have done it……….but the Liberals rely on the willfully blind and ignorant (such as yourselves) to allow them to continue doing it.

Viscious cycle eh?

Remember, we don't know the names of who was involved in the theft, but we do know they are Liberals and LIberal henchman. The missing $40 million is the proof. If it wasn't stolen…then where is it?

gottabesaid

"everyone knows they do it, and have done it"

The Liberals are stealing as we speak? Proof please.

MostlyCivil

Willfully blind? I only asked for proof.

You're being willfully disingenuous.

TimesArrow

Conjecture without credible evidence is worthless, so's this post.

Thwim

And there was no need to rush a treaty at a cost of a billion dollars so near the end of the resolution of the dispute. That's four times, by the way, the entire amount alloted to the sponsorship program. Four times the absolute max that you can scream AdScam about.
Healthcare Insider

I think Mr. Harper knows something – that even if his supporters didn't get back 75% of their donation in a tax credit, they would still donate to keep him flush. If you guys love your liberal and NDP parties as much as your loyal blogging seems to indicate, it is time to dig into your pockets and "show them the money".
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

What better way to put the vote subsidy to the democratic test than to, wait for it, have a democratic election to decide the matter? Or doesn't that kind of democracy matter to Jacko and Iggy?

It's funny how so much of what the left believes is good for people doesn't actually involve their say in it.

TimesArrow

I agree. That would be an improvement on trying to slip it into a FU as a poision pill – an unmandated one at that. Funny that Harper didn't feel compelled to make it an election issue last time – It's funny how so much of what the right believes is good for people doesn't actually involve their say in it

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

So you agree that it's now a good thing to be put in front of voters in a democratic election?

TimesArrow

Sure. Do i have any confidence that it will be framed in such a way that we will have an informed debate, one in which the public understands the consequences of cutting the voter sub – not much.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

In other words, you have no faith in the democratic process, and are wary of having to engage in it. That's interesting.
TimesArrow

No, that's not what i said. I have little fair this govt is interested in debating this question honestly – it'll probably just be more of the good politics over good policy we have seen so much of from this minority govt. Perhaps it's fair to say neither are the opposition, since they depend on the per vote sub the most?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

So voters are too stupid to see through dishonest arguments now? Or is it that they dare to disagree with you on this issue, and that's what you don't like? But I thank God that that's what democracy is all about: people can disagree, and other people can win from time to time.
TimesArrow

I did say i would be content to see it as an election question despite missgivings – but carry on distorting motive and misconstruing intentionally – it's what you do best.
EeeOar

Now you're getting the hang of it. ;-)
TimesArrow

LOL…thanks.I think he's off my tail – for now anyway. :)
EeeOar

Regarding an election or "ballot" question….I sometimes wonder about the merits of having a handful of referendum type questions on ballots (at all three levels of gov, but specifically federal). I realize that that would be a system that could go awry quite easily, but somewhere in the public policy world I'm sure that there are some clever people that could devise a system that could work.

Then, by all means as well as asking us to vote for our MP, ask us about the per vote subsidy and even the census!!
Mike T.

I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that many people don't pay a lot of attention and that sometimes party's craft disingenuous , short messages hoping that that is all the people will take away from debate.

Funny, but I'm pretty sure you believe taht too.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

No, I don't think "there's a lot to be said for the idea" that we should resent or dismiss the wisdom of voters.

sourstud

No, a party must receive 2% of the national vote to qualify. It took the Greens years to crack that barrier, and I wouldn't even qualify them as a "small party".
sourstud

Go to the right cafe for that daily latte, and they'll give you free internet access. Use said internet access to VOIP whatever phone calls you need to make.
sourstud

If this is one of "the issues" in the next campaign, I will all but guarantee a Harper majority.

1) Most Canadian voters who are not married to a single party will agree with eliminating any public funding of political parties. Most Canadians do not view a system that entrenches established political parties at the expense of up and coming political parties "as a strong way to sustain democracy".

2) The last time the government tried to eliminate the vote tax, the opposition parties attempted to form the dreaded coalition government. This lead to record-high polling numbers for the Conservatives. With the NDP and Liberals both supporting the status quo, Harper will be banging this drum all election long.

TimesArrow

A few non sequturs in there, no?

1] Why would folks who are not commited to a single party coalesce around this issue particularly – surely you mean conservative supporters? Besides, since 64% of the voting public doesn't vote conservative the vote would likely be much closer then you suggest.

2] You're conflating the voter sub with the attempted imposition of Dion as PM – big stretch.

TimesArrow

..edit….you're conflating the voter sub, as a reason for the govt's high polling numbers, with the attempted imposition of Dion as PM – the real reason for the high numbers.

TimesArrow

Ah i see folks are assuming i'm making the claim that all 64% opposed to Harper are voting enmasse – not so, just in the aggregate.

Mr Irrelevant

The biggest problem the opposition parties will have in selling their position on this is it is awfully hard for a politician to sound convincing to swing voters when he's demanding money from them. The preferred ground for every party is to tell swing voters how they are going to take money from non-swing voters and give it to them.

Mr Irrelevant

I'll also add that in a political climate that has been very bad for incumbents, this is a way for a guy who's been PM for 5 years to set himself up as the outsider and a couple of guys who have never even served in Cabinet before as the bums who need to be thrown out. In this as in all things he has had a great deal of help from his opponents, as the Liberal "story" continues to be that the Harper government is some alien creation that is taking the real Canada and turning it into something weird and scary, and that the only way rightful balance can be restored to the universe is to bring back the once and forever guardians of the true Canada. They're the natural government, but they've misplaced their key to the office and need some help jimmying the lock. This is exactly the wrong way for an opposition party to gain support in what should be favourable climate.

Crit_Reasoning

An excellent point, skillfully expressed.
TimesArrow

Sorry, i can't buy Harper convincing Canadians he's the outsider anymore – that ship has sailed in 06. Now he's the guy with a record. It'll be hard, not to mention incongruous, to sell yourself both as a steady hand at the tiller and a Quixote like figure tilting at liberal windmills.
Agreed though, the libs need to cast doubt on the tory future rather than just a rosy nostalgic afterglow on the liberal past. The libs should remember Trudeau's definition of liberalism as an ethos that acknowledes the value of the past, but knows the future is more important – there are some signs Ignatieff is beginning to realise this at last.

madeyoulook

Indeed he is not the outsider anymore.

But he will have the ability, as the poorly named Mr Irrelevant points out, to CAST HIMSELF as the outsider, going to war against the fat cat elite political class, with the per-vote subsidy battle.

His continued narrative as "the outsider" is also helped a bit by the last five years of minority government situation. "We are doing our best to improve Canada but we are nowhere near finished working for Canadians in this struggle, because we will need a majority to get all of your priorities accomplished," or something like that.
Timesarrow

Belatedly i get the point. But i think my point still holds. He may well cast himself as a guy with an unfinished mission; however, he does now have a record. Will enough people remember the prorogations, the detainee fandango, the rolling up of the LF census, the…
I guess we'll see. The opposition do have room to frame him in return, it's not like they're destined to become deer caught in the headlights.

EeeOar

OK, I do appreciate your call for accuracy, and I'm also glad that you replaced honesty with accuracy. I'm sure that Thwim completely understands the impact of our skewed income tax system, but she(?) specifically chose to aggregate all taxpayers who vote and to aggregate all taxpayers who vote and contribute to a party etc, so as to focus on the fairness of the vote subsidy versus the fairness of the tax credit.

IMHO, your call to be more accurate vis a vis recognizing our skewed income tax system would only muddy the debate rather than add any helpful distinctions.

In the bigger picture I have no problem with a gentle nudge now and then to remind us all that higher income folks are paying a larger share for ALL tax funded programs.

Flat tax is what I consider to be the technically accurate name for what used to be called a head tax – each taxpayer must contribute the same absolute, regardless of actual income. It's a quibble I have when people talk about eliminating the tax brackets that we currently have to replace them with a single rate tax – a single rate tax is not technically a flat tax. Btw, if we went to a flat tax (my definition) system in Canada the fee would be about $4500 per adult. (I'll allow kids to grow-up for "free".) :-)
gottabesaid

Cost to keep $2 per vote subsidy: $27 million

Cost for additional publicity for the National Household Survey, the replacement for the long-form census, that won't work: $25-30 million.

So, $27 million to level the democratic playing field, or $25- $30 million to be flushed down the toilet? Hmmmm. Which one of the two above expenditures is more offensive?
anon

Why do Canadiaan Tax payers pay a subsidy to a separatist party, are you Canuk to polite to say no-way.
John_Edgar

What do the two things have to do with each other? I'm against replacing the long-form census with the National Household Survey and I'm against the vote subsidy as well.

Nor do I see the vote subsidy as "leveling the democratic playing field". I also really dislike the way that people throw around the word democratic (mainly referring to Jack Layton here, not your post).
madeyoulook

What's so level about throwing gobs of cash at a party unwilling to put much effort into having its supporters support it?
McC_

And imagine, a "conservative" party is legal too, and don't get me started on the "social democrats." Would you believe that it's even legal to call yourself a "Liberal" in Canada? Imagine someone did that in the U.S.? whoo-ah, we sure are spineless the way we let people practice their freedoms of conscience and association here. Take off anon.
AT1

As long as a party get votes, over a certain percentage, they are entitled the subsidy. Even Bloc supporters pay taxes, believe it or not.
gottabesaid

The only argument put forward by the government (that I am aware of) is that we need to end the per-vote subsidy because this is a 'time of restraint'. The words of the finance minister were: "We cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts during tougher times without looking in the mirror. Canadians have a right to look to government as an example. We have a responsibility to show restraint and respect for their money. Canadians’ tax dollars are precious. They must not be spent frivolously or without regard to where they came from. "

Seems disingenuous to me to cry 'fiscal restraint' and eliminate the subsidy, then turn around and literally flush the equivalent amount of money right down the toilet. I'm simply pointing out that the 'fiscal restraint' excuse is a pretty convenient one.
madeyoulook

Fiscal restraint is a good reason to do this AND to stop flushing elsewhere. But you referenced "a level democratic playing field" as justification for this involuntary transfer from taxpayers to parties. I repeat my Q to you to please explain how you see this as anything close to that.
John_Edgar

I'd agree with that, although I'd also say that the NDP and Liberal reasons for keeping it are just as disingenuous. The Conservatives want to get rid of it because the other parties rely on it to a much greater extent than they do, the other parties want to keep it for the same reasons. None of them are doing this out of any kind of democratic principle.

You almost sound as if you think the Conservatives should be making policy that actually benefits Canadian society rather than what (they think) is best for the Conservative party. As far as I can tell none of our major political parties do that!
gottabesaid

Well, I do think getting rid of the subsidy tilts the balance toward those parties that have well-heeled supporters, and the subsidy encourages voter participation. That said, I understand the reasons for getting rid of it. And, now that the other parties have notice of this change, I don't have much sympathy for those parties which haven't figured out yet how they're going to ween themselves off the subsidy. Regardless, there's an honest-to-goodness debate on this question, and compelling arguments can be made for either keeping it or getting rid of it. But, the Conservatives say they deemed it to be too much of a drain on the coffers of the country, so they proposed getting rid of it.

No such honest-to-goodness debate on the NHS exists. There's no question it will be useless, and it will be a waste of money. And yet, scribble scribble, here's your cheque for $30 million.

I get that you don't support the PVS, and I understand why… but doesn't the rhetorical disconnect on the 'fiscal restraint' theme irk you? A little?
TimesArrow

Because the vote sub is an incentive for parties[ ROC anyway] to run candidates in all ridings – in effect to chase votes [and the sub]. It is also proportional, it reflects how people actually cast their votes. I know it's involuntary contribution from those tax payers who don't vote – but so what! They should vote. Besides all the other political subs are also involuntary contributions – i don't see Harper chasing them.
Mike T.

Chretien probably did it out of principle, although he arranged the amounts so that the party that ended up with the same $$ was the Liberals.
hollinm

However, the Bloc has an advantage. The per vote subsidy given to the other parties needs to finance campaigns in 308 ridings. The Bloc only needs to focus on Quebec and its 75 ridings. As well, the Bloc does little fundraising in Quebec. They leave the donations for the PQ and rely on the per vote subsidy.

I assume that Bloc supporters are not happy financing parties who they do not support in the rest of Canada as well.
EeeOar

Not quite right….

The BQ receives roughly $2.5 million per year, ostensibly to pander to 75 Quebec ridings ($33K / riding). By comparison, the CPC gets about $10.0 million per year, ostensibly to pander 308 ridings ($33K / riding). So really the BQ has no financial advantage over the CPC.

It is actually the other three parties who do rather poorly with the Liberals receiving $23K/riding, the NDP gets $16K/riding and the poor old Greens get a miserly $6K/riding.
sourstud

Ha! Chretien and principle in the same sentence! The only principle he was following was the principle of screwing Paul Martin.
TimesArrow

Presumably the bloq incur less expenses than the CPC?
EeeOar

Not sure…how do you mean?