A funny take on things from the CFP.

-----------------------------------

Jack Layton must resign
By Arthur Weinreb Monday, December 8, 2008
Canadian Free Press

The main argument in favour of the Coalition of the Chilling that is attempting to replace the government of Stephen Harper is that the current government is not democratic. The argument goes that as more Canadians voted against the Conservatives than voted for them, the party has no real mandate to govern Canada. To allow the Conservatives to continue to rule is somehow undemocratic and unfair to the citizens of the country.

Okay, so let’s go with that; democracy dictates that in order for a government (either a single party or a coalition) to be legitimate, they must have the support of 50% plus 1 of the voters. If they don’t, then even if they have the legal authority they lack the moral authority to govern Canada. But if that is the theory, there is no reason why it should only be applied to the country as a whole.

The moving force behind the forming of the coalition was Jack Layton, although he is currently being shoved into the background by trailing Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae. After being tipped by a CFP reader, it has come to our attention that Jack Layton is the only leader of a federal political party with members sitting in the House of Commons who did not garner 50% of the votes in his own riding.

According to Elections Canada, in the election that was held on October 14, 45,578 votes were cast in the riding of Toronto-Danforth. One hundred and ninety-one of these ballots were rejected for a total of 45,387 valid votes. Of that number, Jack Layton received 20,323 or 44.8% of the total. In other words more people voted against Layton (25,064) than voted for him (20,323). So where exactly did Jack Layton get the mandate to represent the good people of Toronto-Danforth in the House of Commons?

None of the other party leaders failed to get the support of at least half of their constituents. Stephen Harper (73.0%), Stéphane Dion (61.7%) and Gilles Duceppe (50.2%) all won their seats democratically. Not so Jack Layton.

Even Jack can’t have it both ways. If the Conservatives are illegitimate because 62.4% of Canadians didn’t vote for them, then Layton is the illegitimate MP for the riding of Toronto-Danforth because 53.2% of voters voted against him. Either getting less than 50% of the votes is sufficient or it’s not. If Jack Layton actually believes that the Harper government must go because a majority of people didn’t vote for them, then he must do the honourable thing and resign his seat in the House of Commons.

For those who truly believe in democracy and the principle that the will of the people should be followed, call or write Jack. Tell him that he must resign his seat immediately. He has no mandate from the voters of Toronto-Danforth to represent them. Tell him he must listen to his constituents.

Jack Layton: laytoj@parl.gc.ca
(613) 947-0867

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 12-09-2008).]

Patric, I'm not so sure it's just arrogance that drives Stephen Harper. The cutting of government funding of political parties was in part an attempt to block opposition parties from bailing themselves out of their financial difficulties at taxpayer expense. If political parties can't raise enough financial support amoung the citizens of the country they want to govern, just how much support do they have? It's one thing to claim you represent the majority of Canadians, but votes are cast with contributions as well as ballots. The NDP has the support of big unions, they have access to as much money as big business. If you stop giving tax writeoffs for political contributions you'll really find out who the people support. Open books and public disclosure of all contributions would work as well as government funding of parties, if you have to explain where the money for every expense came from it's a lot harder to hide cash donations. The Coalition should have kept their plans quiet until the non-confidence vote, then offered an alternative to the GG when PM Harper moved to dissolve Parliament, but they were afraid that wouldn't work and they would face an election they couldn't afford so they tried to bluff their way into power.

quote Originally posted by Grandaddy84SE: Patric, I'm not so sure it's just arrogance that drives Stephen Harper. The cutting of government funding of political parties was in part an attempt to block opposition parties from bailing themselves out of their financial difficulties at taxpayer expense. If political parties can't raise enough financial support amoung the citizens of the country they want to govern, just how much support do they have? It's one thing to claim you represent the majority of Canadians, but votes are cast with contributions as well as ballots.

Agreed. If a party can't raise money from members/contributions - maybe THAT should tell them something.

The Bloc HAS no monetary support. Pretty much ALL their funding comes from the Canadian taxpayer in the form of that subsidy. Meanwhile, they are a party whole sole purpose is to break up the country (or suck as much cash out as possible "to stay").

Only in Canada

quote Originally posted by Grandaddy84SE: Patric, I'm not so sure it's just arrogance that drives Stephen Harper. The cutting of government funding of political parties was in part an attempt to block opposition parties from bailing themselves out of their financial difficulties at taxpayer expense.

Well Grandaddy, if it’s not “arrogance” that drives Stephan Harper, then it must be downright stupidity. How on earth did he think that cutting funding to political parties would ever pass a vote in Parliament? Did he suddenly “forget” that he’s leading a minority government?

No, I don’t think Stephan Harper is quite that stupid. That only leaves arrogance as his prime motivation. He’s obviously well aware of the debt the Liberal party is in after the last federal election, and it seems to me he was hoping to rub the Liberals nose in it a bit.

Fun and games, it’s all fun and games...

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Well Grandaddy, if it’s not “arrogance” that drives Stephan Harper, then it must be downright stupidity. How on earth did he think that cutting funding to political parties would ever pass a vote in Parliament? Did he suddenly “forget” that he’s leading a minority government? No, I don’t think Stephan Harper is quite that stupid. That only leaves arrogance as his prime motivation. He’s obviously well aware of the debt the Liberal party is in after the last federal election, and it seems to me he was hoping to rub the Liberals nose in it a bit. Fun and games, it’s all fun and games...

It's not called arrogance, its called common sense. Why the heck should tax payers have to foot the bill for our political parties? If you recall, this $1.95 subsidy didn't exist until Chretien introduced it in 2002, and thanks to this genius policy of his, the Bloc Quebecois has never enjoyed such overflowing coffers as they have today. If the coalition parties represent the majority of Canadians, why do you feel that this majority are unable to financially back them through their donations? The Conservative grassroots never have had issues with donating money to the party, why does the political left seem to feel we should also have to pay to fund their socialist agendas? I know the left likes to always say the Conservatives are in the back pocket of Big Business, but if you look at the breakdown of donations to the various parties, you will see that the NDP and Liberal enjoy far more support from big business, lobbyists, and of course their friends in the unions, all who are looking for the favor of the parties shoud they get elected. In contrast, the Conservative fuel their campaign machine on a number of much smaller donations. For christs sake, its $1.95 a YEAR! Surely you guys on the left can give up your StarBucks for a day and send the money to your party of choice instead of relying on the rest of us taxpayers to keep your parties afloat. Put your money where your mouth is, and start to show your support through you wallet like us Conservatives have for years.

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: It's not called arrogance, its called common sense.

...

It's "common sense" for a minority government to try and float a bill through Parliament that will obviously only piss off the opposition?

Okay fine...

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: In contrast, the Conservative fuel their campaign machine on a number of much smaller donations. For christs sake, its $1.95 a YEAR! Surely you guys on the left can give up your StarBucks for a day and send the money to your party of choice instead of relying on the rest of us taxpayers to keep your parties afloat. Put your money where your mouth is, and start to show your support through you wallet like us Conservatives have for years.

Here are the estimated subsidies each party received in the 12 months prior to Sept. 30, 2008:

Conservatives: $10.5 million
Liberals: $8.75 million
NDP: $5.06 million
Bloc Quebecois: $3.03 million
Green party: $1.3 million

Fundraising

If the public subsidy is eliminated, political parties will have to rely on their own fundraising to pay for party expenses and election campaigns. Here is what each party raised in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30:

Conservatives: $19.7 million
Liberals: $5.6 million
NDP: $5.1 million
Green party: $1.5 million
Bloc Quebecois: $861,000


You are right that the Conservatives fund raise very well seeing as how they have 4 times as much funding as any other party.

I would like to see a breakdown because it does suggest that the Conservatives have big business behind them, however I do not know that to be fact so I will not label them as so.

I also see why the other parties are upset, the Conservatives are much better situated to do without the subsidy ( even though they do benefit the most from it dollar wise).

The subsidy actually makes sense to me, as it is based on votes cast as I understand it, thereby attempting to take away the influence of big business and lobbyists. I would fear that without it our political system may end up a 2 party system like the U.S., which really seems to be influenced by lobbyists and big business.

Also I think most of us agree that the Canadian Parliament should not tolerate a separatist party in their midst using federal dollars to further their own agenda.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-09-2008).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Here are the estimated subsidies each party received in the 12 months prior to Sept. 30, 2008: You are right that the Conservatives fund raise very well seeing as how they have 4 times as much funding as any other party.

The Liberals changed the funding rules and added the taxpayer subsidy under P.M. Jean Cretien. They eliminated business and union donations (no longer allowed). Only personal donations are now accepted and those are limited to $1100 per person.

quote Originally posted by newf: Also I think most of us agree that the Canadian Parliament should not tolerate a separatist party in their midst using federal dollars to further their own agenda.

Yeah, I gotta agree that this seems rather screwy.

I just hope than when BC decides to go our own way that we might also benefit from those same federal dollars.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: ... It's "common sense" for a minority government to try and float a bill through Parliament that will obviously only piss off the opposition? Okay fine...

It IS, if the hidden game plan is to force a new election, with the funding issue as the main agenda, which would likely give Harper the majority he wants. The guy aint stupid, he know how to play the taxpayers.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: It IS, if the hidden game plan is to force a new election, with the funding issue as the main agenda, which would likely give Harper the majority he wants.

...

If public funding for political parties ever becomes the "main agenda" in any future federal election, I'd say we've then got our country's priorities totally messed up for sure.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: ... If public funding for political parties ever becomes the "main agenda" in any future federal election, I'd say we've then got our country's priorities totally messed up for sure.

It's not about it being the "main agenda" it's about showing the people what the left is really about. They're in it for themselves. Country be damned. Here, in the States and everywhere else. Who hurts the most from cutting public funding? That's right, the left. The agenda is really "choose someone to govern the country". In the end, Harper is on the way up, NOT the way down like Dion, Jack and Gilles would have you believe. Iggy and Harper are closer in ideology than you think. This may end up working out well for the country.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: ...it's about showing the people what the left is really about. They're in it for themselves. Country be damned.

Empty rhetoric like this is what makes political discussions a complete waste of time and effort.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Empty rhetoric like this is what makes political discussions a complete waste of time and effort.

Yet you're still here.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Yet you're still here.

Yes, despite your posts.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: ... If public funding for political parties ever becomes the "main agenda" in any future federal election, I'd say we've then got our country's priorities totally messed up for sure.

LOL, you are missing the tactic behind the "agenda"

Harper couldnt get enough SUPPORT for a majority....BUT, he can turn enough of the libs, NDP's , greens <hehehe> block's ect AGAINST their own parties to gain that majority, simply by making the funding issue overblown.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Harper couldnt get enough SUPPORT for a majority....BUT, he can turn enough of the libs, NDP's , greens <hehehe> block's ect AGAINST their own parties to gain that majority, simply by making the funding issue overblown.

Perhaps, or possibly you're giving Harper way too much credit. We'll see.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Fun and games, it’s all fun and games...

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-10-2008).]