The shame and disgrace that is Stephen Harper

[Guest rattler]

You mean a politician shouldn't respect the just-expressed will of the people, or put country before party?

Have they ever???????

For example

Chretien invited to broker deal among Liberals: Source

Notion dismissed by leadership contenders, while NDP leader cancels travel plans

David Akin, Canwest News Service

Published: Thursday, November 27, 2008

OTTAWA - NDP Leader Jack Layton has cancelled weekend travel plans and former prime minister Jean Chretien has been called in to "broker" a quick end to the Liberal leadership race as Ottawa gears up for a confidence vote Monday that could end Prime Minister Stephen Harper's seven-week-old minority government.

Opposition parties are furious at Harper's attempts to cripple his opponents by eliminating a $30-million taxpayer subsidy paid to each political party.

With the first confidence motion in Harper's plan scheduled for Monday night, the three opposition parties - the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP - will spend the weekend trying to figure out their strategy.

Liberals have approached Jean Chretien to broker a deal between Leader Stephane Dion and the two leading leadership candidates - Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae - to lead the Liberals in a general election campaign, should it come to that, Canwest News Service has learned.

Layton was scheduled to give a major speech to a union group in Vancouver Friday but Canwest News Service has learned he will send his House leader, Libby Davies, in his stead so that he can stay in Ottawa to confer with his own advisers and, if need be, the leaders of the other two opposition parties.

Canwest News Service has also learned that some Liberals have approached Chretien to convene a meeting between Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and the two leading leadership candidates, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. Those Liberals want Chretien to broker a deal that would see a leader other than Dion who could lead the Liberals in a general election campaign should it come to that.

Representatives of both the Ignatieff and Rae campaigns quickly dismissed the suggestion that Chretien would or should convene such a meeting. One campaign official scoffed at the notion, calling it "preposterous." Still, the very fact that some Liberals are thinking along those lines underscores the peril facing Harper Monday.

On Monday, the House of Commons will deal with the first confidence matters stemming from the economic statement.

The statement contained no new spending initiatives to help boost Canada's sagging economy and that, opposition politicians say, is the real reason they are ready to vote against the plan when it is presented to Parliament.

"The onus now is really on Prime Minister Harper to consider his options, to consider his situation," said Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale. "He's put a so-called plan before Canadians this afternoon. It's not a plan to bolster the economy. It is a plan to hide a deficit. It's not acceptable and he should reconsider his position."

But the opposition is particularly vexed at the one tiny spending cut Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Thursday: A proposal to eliminate a taxpayer subsidy paid to each political party. Parties can receive a subsidy of $1.95 per year for each vote they receive in a general election. Though the Conservatives receive the biggest subsidy - about $10 million a year - because they won the most votes, that subsidy only accounts for about one-third of the party's annual revenue. For the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois, the subsidy amounts to about two-thirds of their annual revenues. The subsidy makes up about half of the NDP and Green party's annual revenue.

"Every modern democracy has an element of public support for political parties," said Rae. "The idea that this would now be destroyed by the action of one government attempting to take advantage of an economic crisis to somehow turn it to their own partisan advantage is disgraceful and for that alone this government just needs a wake-up call."

The prospect of losing such a significant source of revenue will be a powerful motivating force for the three otherwise disparate parties to come to some agreement on the possibility of forming a coalition government should they decide to defeat the Harper Conservatives on Monday's confidence motion.

Should Harper lose that or any future confidence vote, he would be obliged to inform Governor General Michaelle Jean that he has lost the support of the House of Commons. Usually, the Governor General's response in such a situation is to dissolve Parliament and call a general election. But she also has the option of inviting the leader of another party to form a government.

"I think that anyone who knows the Canadian constitutional system will be able to explain to you that long before talking about an election, if the government loses the confidence of Parliament, there are a lot of other things that will happen before we would have an election, especially so soon after the last one," said NDP MP Thomas Mulcair.

Political professionals of all stripes say that, given the fact that Parliament has had just eight sittings so far, she would almost certainly look to another party to form a government.

Canwest News Service has learned that preliminary discussions between the NDP and the Liberals at an adviser level are already underway although, officially, no leader, MP or senior adviser from one party is yet talking to counterparts from another party.

"The speculation about coalitions and constitutional prerogatives is very premature," Goodale said.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story....9a-d5bbacb1cc4a

[handyman]

What is this...the itchy and scratchy show?

[Guest rattler]

More like the bitchy and scratchy show.

[J.O.]

What is this...the itchy and scratchy show?

It goes along with the Gong Show that's happening in Ottawa. And so far, I'm pretty sure that all of the entertainers would get "gonged".

[YYC I/C]

Regardless of one's political views, I find it hard to believe that anybody would think what the Conservatives are doing is in the best interest of the country and democracy....it sure does look like a power grab.

At least Obama is putting a team together of the best men/women for the job regardless of party affiliation.

The cutting of subsidies for political parties would essentially cripple all parties except the Conservatives........it's just wrong and un-democratic.

I think we will see a coalition government formed very shortly.

[dagger]

Regardless of one's political views, I find it hard to believe that anybody would think what the Conservatives are doing is in the best interest of the country and democracy....it sure does look like a power grab.

At least Obama is putting a team together of the best men/women for the job regardless of party affiliation.

The cutting of subsidies for political parties would essentially cripple all parties except the Conservatives........it's just wrong and un-democratic.

I think we will see a coalition government formed very shortly.

More criticism of the Tories from... the National Post

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ty-funding.aspx

[dagger]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...8/BNStory/Front

The Globe and Mail editorial board tears Harper a second one...

By destabilizing their own government, the Conservatives have placed Canada at a competitive disadvantage against other states. Through gratuitous partisanship, they have turned an economic crisis into a political one.

They should withdraw their cynical attempt to rewrite election rules and concentrate on what matters: the world economic crisis.

[Steam Driven]

Let's continue giving the Bloc Quebecois a subsidy to tear the country apart. Let's keep funding a party that uses it's time in the house to enhance a minority position in the commons. A party that does not matter one iota to TROC... A party that by definition is ONLY concerned with one Province and anything that affects that Province and nothing else...

The Party's should WORK for their funding by fund raising and getting the support of the people they choose to represent. Not the public teat!

Let the Party's start talking to the people they wish to represent. Let the people of Canada vote with their pocket books in meeting halls across Canada...

We just might see some policy that does some good...

[Kip Powick]

As much as I'll probably get "flamed" for this statement I would dearly love to see just a two party system in Canada.

If we keep letting the tail wag the dog in this country we will soon have more parties springing up as we become a huge melting pot........... and once again the voting pond will become even more diluted.

[dagger]

Let's continue giving the Bloc Quebecois a subsidy to tear the country apart. Let's keep funding a party that uses it's time in the house to enhance a minority position in the commons. A party that does not matter one iota to TROC... A party that by definition is ONLY concerned with one Province and anything that affects that Province and nothing else...

The Party's should WORK for their funding by fund raising and getting the support of the people they choose to represent. Not the public teat!

Let the Party's start talking to the people they wish to represent. Let the people of Canada vote with their pocket books in meeting halls across Canada...

We just might see some policy that does some good...

Yes, let's go back to the old system of corporate bagmen.

Really, if you want a subscription-only party, the Tories should have run on that in the last election, made it a major issue in the last campaign.

But it's a trivial amount of dollars in the big picture. This is a power grab, nothing less, and frankly, as the Globe and Mail says, the government should get back to the real issue of the day and start serving the country's main interests.

[dagger]

As much as I'll probably get "flamed" for this statement I would dearly love to see just a two party system in Canada.

If we keep letting the tail wag the dog in this country we will soon have more parties springing up as we become a huge melting pot........... and once again the voting pond will become even more diluted.

I don't see the US system as any more desirable than others.

Most years, you get Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I think we can have a wider range of views than two official group thinks.

And Kip, we already are a melting pot and have been for 120 years. And millions of people have entered the country and in time embraced mainstream parties. With our first past the post system, it's hard to imagine a proliferation of political parties, and I happen to think that our voting pond is stronger today because of immigration, not diluted by it. But then again, immigration seems to be your pet hate.

[handyman]

As much as I'll probably get "flamed" for this statement I would dearly love to see just a two party system in Canada.

If we keep letting the tail wag the dog in this country we will soon have more parties springing up as we become a huge melting pot........... and once again the voting pond will become even more diluted.

I agree with you Kip.

A Right and a Wrong...I mean left...lol.

[Don Hudson]

Harper's actions today have removed all doubt about trust.

How fortunate for Canada that Harper did not obtain a majority.

Stephen Harper's article, "Rediscovering the Right Agenda", Report Magazine, June 2003, was posted on the Christian Coalition International (Canada) Inc website, Jan. 2006. The URL, www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html, is no longer available, but the article is from other sources:

Rediscovering The Right Agenda

June 2003

By Stephen Harper - Report Magazine

The Canadian Alliance leader outlines how social and economic conservatism must unite

After years of strategic drift, Harper positions the Alliance as an equal partnership of social and economic conservatism. This article is based on his remarks at the Civitas meeting in Toronto on April 25, 2003

The Canadian Alliance wrapped up its leadership race a little over one year ago. At the time, the chattering classes told us the race was about the so-called "unity" issue - the question of whether we should have one "conservative" party or two. But I asked the 100,000-plus members of our party a different question: do we actually stand for something, or don't we?

I posed this question because what Alliance members feared most was seeing our agenda slipping away. Simply put, our members worried less about having two so-called "conservative parties" than about having no conservative party at all.

I believe the majority of members supported my leadership bid for approaching the debate in these terms. My mandate as leader is therefore to ensure that the Alliance remains a strong and principled voice for conservatism in national politics.

OUR HISTORY AND THE OPTIONS TODAY

There are two ways conservatives can respond to the challenges faced at the national level. Our party has explored both over the years, in two important phases. These two phases were not "Reform" and "Alliance": they were not about name or organizational changes.

Rather, our party underwent one period in which it was policy-driven, and another period in which it was process-driven. In the policy-driven phase, the party emphasized what it stood for. It took stands on a litany of issues, from its fight against he Meech Lake/Charlottetown constitutional agenda, to the battle for deficit reduction, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. This was the period in which the party grew from nothing to become an important electoral and parliamentary force.

However, for the past half-decade or so, the party moved into a phase in which it emphasized process. Specifically, the party focused its energies on a process by which it could garner greater electoral success. This was called "coalition building." In practice, it involved disassembling the party's institutional structures in order to bring in new supporters from other entities. In terms of policy, conferences were held to create and sell a new "vision." In practice, this amounted largely to making existing policy stands vague or simply invisible. Whatever the electoral potential of this approach promised by the polls, the results were clearly going in the opposite direction.

Those two options still confront us today. One option is to work within an existing political party to create a conservative "coalition." In my judgement this option is the way to go, and the best vehicle to do it is the Canadian Alliance.

I also believe that a combination of existing political parties, such as the Alliance and the PCs, could potentially be an ever better vehicle. But that is not Joe Clark's opinion. It appears not to be Peter MacKay's. In fact, there is no guarantee or likelihood it will ever be the opinion of a federal PC leader. They seem to prefer to use the PC Party to build their own coalition.

While I may disagree with the Tories choice, it certainly makes more sense than the other option - to work outside both entities and, in the name of "uniting the right," to promote their mutual failure. To use George W. Bush's phrase, whatever your political objective or party, electoral success requires a "coalition of the willing" and nothing less.

THE CONSERVATIVE COALITION

Whatever attraction a coalition of parties may have, we need to concentrate on what is actually doable. That is, we need to form a coalition of voters and, to attract them, a coalition of ideas.

What is the "conservative coalition" of ideas? Actually, conservatism and conservative parties, as we've known them over the decades, have always been coalitions. Though these coalitions are complex and continually shifting, two distinctive elements have long been identifiable.

Ted Byfield labelled these factions "neo-con" and "theo-con." More commonly, they are known simply as economic conservatives and social conservatives. Properly speaking, they are called classical or enlightenment liberalism and classical or Burkean conservatism.

The one called "economic conservatism" does indeed come from classical liberalism. Its primary value is individual freedom, and to that end it stresses private enterprise, free trade, religious toleration, limited government and the rule of law.

The other philosophy is Burkean conservatism. Its primary value is social order. It stresses respect for customs and traditions (religious traditions above all), voluntary association, and personal self-restraint reinforced by moral and legal sanctions on behaviour.

The essence of this conservatism is, according to Russell Kirk, "the preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors: they are dubious of wholesale alteration. They think society is a spiritual reality, possessing an eternal life but a delicate constitution: it cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine."

In the 19th century, these two political philosophies, classical liberalism and Burkean conservatism, formed the basis for distinct political parties that opposed one another. On the one side was a liberal party in the classical sense - rationalist, anticlerical but not anti-religious, free-trading, often republican and usually internationalist. On the other side was an older conservative party - traditionalist, explicitly or implicitly denominational, economically protectionist, usually monarchist, and nationalistic.

In the 20th century, these opposing forces came together as a result of two different forces: resistance to a common enemy, and commitment to ideas widely shared.

The common enemy was the rise of radical socialism in its various forms. In this context, Burkean conservatives and classical liberals discovered a commitment to a core of common ideas. Both groups favoured private property, small government and reliance on civil society rather than the state to resolve social dilemmas and to create social process. Domestically, both groups resisted those who stood for public ownership, government interventionism, egalitarian redistribution and state sponsorship of secular humanist values. Internationally, they stood unequivocally against external enemies - fascism, communism and socialist totalitarianism in all its forms.

THE VICTORY AND DECLINE OF CONSERVATISM

For decades, conservative parties were successful, often dominant, coalitions in western democracies. But conservatism has been in trouble in recent years. Partisan success has been much less common. In some countries, the traditional conservative coalition even appears to have broken down.

The irony is that these hard times have fallen on the heels of perhaps the most successful period in democratic conservatism's history - the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions. I believe that it is this very success that is at the heart of the current difficulties.

The Reagan-Thatcher revolution was so successful that it permanently undermined the traditional social-democratic/left-liberal consensus in a number of democratic countries. It worked domestically to undermine the left-liberal or social-democratic consensus, causing those parties to simply stop fighting and adopt much of the winning conservative agenda. Socialists and liberals began to stand for balanced budgeting, the superiority of markets, welfare reversal, free trade and some privatization. At the same time, the fall of the Berlin Wall signalled the collapse of Soviet Communism as a driving world force, depriving conservatives of all shares of a common external enemy.

It is critical we realize that this breakdown is not a fundamental incompatibility between "neo-cons" and "theo-cons," between economic and social conservatism. Even in the worst-case example, Canada's Mulroney coalition did not break up because of divisions between these groups. Rather, it broke up over regional and constitutional questions, and the abandonment of both forms of conservatism. In fact, the strongest economic and social conservatives both found homes within the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties.

The truth is that strong economic and social conservatives are more often than not the same people, and not without reason. Except at the extremes of libertarianism and theocracy, the philosophical fusion has become deep and wide-spread. Social conservatives more often than not demand the government stop intervening in individual decisions, just as classical liberals often point to the religious roots of their focus on the individual. As the American humourist P.J. O'Rourke observed, "the great religions teach salvation as an individual matter. There are no group discounts in the ten commandments, Christ was not a committee, and Allah does not welcome believers into paradise saying, 'you weren't much good yourself, but you were standing near some good people.'"

O'Rourke also summarized the moral and civilizing importance of markets by reminding us that "the rise of private enterprise and trade provided a means of achieving wealth and autonomy other than by killing people with broadswords." Private enterprise and trade, as Adam Smith pointed out, can turn individual selfishness into useful social outcomes. In fact, the founder of classical liberal economics came to his theories as much by his study of moral philosophy as anything else.

A NEW CHALLENGE AND A NEW RESPONSE

What this means for conservatives today is that we must rediscover the common cause and orient our coalition to the nature of the post-Cold-War world.

The real enemy is no longer socialism. Socialism as a true economic program and motivating faith is dead. Yes, there are still lots of statist economic policies and people dependent on big government. But the modern left-liberal economic philosophy has become corporatism. Corporatism is the use of private ownership and markets for state-directed objectives. Its tools are subsidization, public/private partnerships and state investment funds. It is often bad policy, but it is less clearly different from conventional conservative economics than any genuine socialism.

The real challenge is therefore not economic, but the social agenda of the modern Left. Its system of moral relativism, moral neutrality and moral equivalency is beginning to dominate its intellectual debate and public-policy objectives.

The clearest recent evidence of this phenomenon is seen in international affairs in the emerging post-Cold-War world - most obviously in the response of modern liberals to the war on terrorism. There is no doubt about the technical capacity of our society to fight this war. What is evident is the lack of desire of the modern liberals to fight, and even more, the striking hope on the Left that we actually lose.

You can see this if you pay close attention to the response to the war in Iraq from our own federal Liberals and their cheerleaders in the media and the universities. They argue one day that there are no weapons of mass destruction, yet warn that such weapons might be used. They tell us the war was immoral, then moral but impractical, then practical but unjustified. They argue simultaneously that the war can't be won, that it is too easy for the coalition to win and that victory cannot be sustained anyway. Most striking was their obvious glumness at the fall of Baghdad. But even previous to that were the dark suggestions on the anniversary of September 11 (hinted at even by our own prime minister) that "we deserved it."

This is particularly striking given the nature of the enemy here, the bin Ladens and the Husseins, individuals who embody in the extreme everything the Left purports to oppose - fundamentalism, fascistic nationalism, misogyny, bigotry.

Conservatives need to reassess our understanding of the modern Left. It has moved beyond old socialistic morality or even moral relativism to something much darker. It has become a moral nihilism - the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic western civilization.

This descent into nihilism should not be surprising because moral relativism simply cannot be sustained as a guiding philosophy. It leads to silliness such as moral neutrality on the use of marijuana or harder drugs mixed with its random moral crusades on tobacco. It explains the lack of moral censure on personal foibles of all kinds, extenuating even criminal behaviour with moral outrage at bourgeois society, which is then tangentially blamed for deviant behaviour. On the moral standing of the person, it leads to views ranging from radical responsibility-free individualism, to tribalism in the form of group rights.

Conservatives have focused on the inconsistency in all of this. Yet it is actually disturbingly consistent. It is a rebellion against all forms of social norm and moral tradition in every aspect of life. The logical end of this thinking is the actual banning of conservative views, which some legislators and "rights" commissions openly contemplate.

In this environment, serious conservative parties simply cannot shy away from values questions. On a wide range of public-policy questions, including foreign affairs and defence, criminal justice and corrections, family and child care, and healthcare and social services, social values are increasingly the really big issues.

Take taxation, for example. There are real limits to tax-cutting if conservatives cannot dispute anything about how or why a government actually does what it does. If conservatives accept all legislated social liberalism with balanced budgets and corporate grants - as do some in the business community - then there really are no differences between a conservative and a Paul Martin.

There is, of course, much more to be done in economic policy. We do need deeper and broader tax cuts, further reductions in debt, further deregulation and privatization, and especially the elimination of corporate subsidies and industrial-development schemes. In large measure, however, the public arguments for doing so have already been won. Conservatives have to more than modern liberals in a hurry.

The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values, so conservatives must do the same.

REVISING THE AGENDA

This is not as difficult as it sounds. It does not require a radical redefinition of conservatism, but rather a shifting of the balance between the economic and social conservative sides that have always been there.

In particular, Canadian conservatives need to rediscover the virtues of Burkean conservatism as a key component of that balance. Rediscovering this agenda, to paraphrase Ted Byfield, means not just worrying about what the state costs, but also worrying about what the state values.

For example, we need to rediscover Burkean or social conservatism because a growing body of evidence points to the damage the welfare state is having on our most important institutions, particularly the family. Conservatives have to give much higher place to confronting threats posed by modern liberals to this building block of our society.

Take, for example, the debate over the rights of parents to discipline their children - the so-called spanking debate. Of course, there are legitimate limits to the use of force by parents - limits outlined in the Criminal Code. Yet the most recent Liberal Throne Speech, as part of its "children's agenda," hinted at more government interference in the family. We saw the capacity for this abuse of power in the events that took place in Aylmer, Ont. Children there were seized for no reason other than the state disagreed with the religious views of their parents. No conservative can support this kind of intrusion, and conservatives have an obligation to speak forcefully against such acts.

This same argument applies equally to a range of issues involving the family (all omitted from the Throne Speech), such as banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda.

We also need to rediscover Burkean conservatism because the emerging debates on foreign affairs should be fought on moral grounds. Current challenges in dealing with terrorism and its sponsors, as well as the emerging debate on the goals of the U.S. as the sole superpower, will be well served by conservative insights on preserving historic values and moral insights on right and wrong. As we have seen in recent months, these are debates where modern liberals (with the exception of Tony Blair) have no answers: they are trapped in their framework of moral neutrality, moral relativism and moral equivalence.

But conservatives should have answers. We understand, however imperfectly, the concept of morality, the notion that moral rules form a chain of right and duty, and that politics is a moral affair. We understand that the great geopolitical battles against modern tyrants and threats are battles over values. We can disagree vehemently with the values of our civilization's opponents, but that does not deny the validity of the cause in their eyes. Without clear values ourselves, our side has no purpose, no meaning, no chance of success.

Conservatives must take the moral stand, with our allies, in favour of the fundamental values of our society, including democracy, free enterprise and individual freedom. This moral stand should not just give us the right to stand with our allies, but the duty to do so and the responsibility to put "hard power" behind our international commitments.

SOME CAUTIONS FOR POLITICAL SUCCESS

Rebalancing the conservative agenda will require careful political judgment. First, the issues must be chosen carefully. For example, the social conservative issues we choose should not be denominational, but should unite social conservatives of different denominations and even different faiths. It also helps when social conservative concerns overlap those of people with a more libertarian orientation.

Second, we must realize that real gains are inevitably incremental. This, in my experience, is harder for social conservatives than for economic conservatives. The explicitly moral orientation of social conservatives makes it difficult for many to accept the incremental approach. Yet, in democratic politics, any other approach will certainly fail. We should never accept the standard of just being "better than the Liberals" - people who advocate that standard seldom achieve it - but conservatives should be satisfied if the agenda is moving in the right direction, even if slowly.

Third, rebalancing means there will be changes to the composition of the conservative coalition. We may not have all the same people we have had in the past. The new liberal corporatist agenda will appeal to some in the business community. We may lose some old "conservatives," Red Tories like the David Orchards or the Joe Clarks.

This is not all bad. A more coherent coalition can take strong positions it wouldn't otherwise be able to take - as the Alliance alone was able to do during the Iraq war. More importantly, a new approach can draw in new people. Many traditional Liberal voters, especially those from key ethnic and immigrant communities, will be attracted to a party with strong traditional views of values and family. This is similar to the phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrats" in the United States, who were so important in the development of that conservative coalition.

CONCLUSION

To be successful as a conservative party - indeed, to have any success at all - the Canadian Alliance must be driven primarily by policy, not by process. I have written many times that the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance made gains in the past by taking principled conservative stands on the issues of the day. I believe our party has been doing that under my leadership on a range of issues - from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to defence and foreign policy, taxes and spending, childcare and criminal justice, healthcare reform, and even on environmental matters like the Kyoto accord.

The rediscovery of the conservative agenda requires us to maintain the coalition of ideas that is the heritage of enlightenment liberalism and Burkean conservatism. Yet contemporary reality requires us to re-emphasize the Burkean tradition as a key part of our conservative agenda. In other words, while retaining a focus on economic issues, we must give greater place to social values and social conservatism, broadly defined and properly understood.

Eight years ago, I wrote that the Reform Party had to become the principal force in the democratic Right in Canadian politics by adapting contemporary issues to a new conservatism. This remains the essential task of the Canadian Alliance - to unify conservatives in a broad coalition of conservative ideas.

[Guest craigfin]

How I love that cynicism is alive and well. I, for one, do not wish to have my tax dollars spent supporting any political activity whatsoever. It is particularly galling to fund the Bloc's agenda. We also fund Ellie May's crusade to the tune of 4 million dollars (yet she doesn't have a seat in Parliament). Methinks that Mr. Harper has merely taken a page from the Natural Governing Party's play book and turned the tables on them at a particularly vulnerable time. One of the original authors of that play book and a great Canadian Liberal, Sir Wilfred Laurier said "It's not enough to have principles, we must have organization also. Organization without principles may often win." Politicians may have to return to the tried and true methods of Canadian democracy but Sir Wilfred also cautioned against the most natural of their inclinations - "It's bad to buy votes unless you need them."

Ambrose Bierce's infamous Dictionary contains this entry "POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."

[Kip Powick]

I don't see the US system as any more desirable than others.

Well there is the difference Dagger, I do. The votes are split all over the place and when we are faced with a crisis all the parties base their primary goal only on what is only good for them and we are faced with a bunch of individuals who tie the business of governing up fighting for themselves.

Two party system means we have a party in power and whether we like it or not, they carry the ball. If the majority of citizens don't like the ruling party, they wait and give them the boot, visa-vie the USA.

We're stuck with a lame duck, ineffective government, costing us millions with their inept attempt to rule without loosing their power...visa vie Harper.

Re-immigration…your comment with respect to me having a hate on for immigration merely confirms that your arrogance is only surpassed by your “ I am right and if you don’t agree with me… you are wrong ” attitude on almost every subject.

My stepfather immigrated to this country, as did my mother, so get off your high horse and before jumping to conclusions perhaps you should garner more information as to what an individual means when making any statement about any subject...especially in this written electronic format.

While I find your diatribe entertaining you should strive to be more civil in your approach to discussions and entertain the thought that you are NOT always right and making demeaning comments to anyone certainly does not buttress your comments, or opinions..

[Homerun]

Power grab, ya right. The Conservatives stand to lose by far the most cash of all the political parties.

[Guest rattler]

I also agree that this is a naked powergrab but continue to be surprised that anyone would think the other parties would not do the same if they could.

[Mitch Cronin]

Wow... Some people's unwavering support for the Conservatives every move even continues when they know they're wrong!? Amazing.

I'd expect intelligent people to be more circumspect, and those who believe in a democracy to be more critical, ...but what do I know?... Maybe it is ok for the ruling Overlords to rig the system in their favour?

[Steam Driven]

A cannibal was walking through the jungle and came upon a restaurant, The Laughing Cannibal, owned and operated by a fellow cannibal.

He was feeling a little peckish, so he walked in, sat down and looked over the menu ...

Raw Tourist - $5.00

Broiled Missionary - $10.00

Fried Explorer - $15.00

Baked Liberal - $100.00

Grilled Conservative - $100.00

The cannibal called over the waiter and asked, "Why is there such a huge price difference for the politicians?"

The waiter replied, "Have you ever tried to clean one? They're so full of sh!t, it takes all morning!"

[mrlupin]

Let's continue giving the Bloc Quebecois a subsidy to tear the country apart. Let's keep funding a party that uses it's time in the house to enhance a minority position in the commons. A party that does not matter one iota to TROC... A party that by definition is ONLY concerned with one Province and anything that affects that Province and nothing else...

The Party's should WORK for their funding by fund raising and getting the support of the people they choose to represent. Not the public teat!

Let the Party's start talking to the people they wish to represent. Let the people of Canada vote with their pocket books in meeting halls across Canada...

We just might see some policy that does some good...

What a strange view....

The Québec people pay taxes, why shouldn't they be represented? If they choose to support a party which in their opinion, is better to represent them, why is it wrong to fund that party? Should political parties be screened to see if their ideas and projects are compatible with your views? As for working for their funding.... the financial barriers to form a party and have it emerge as a palatable alternative are huge... The present system gives grass roots organizations a chance to emerge.

Is it because you don't support a party that it should not get funding? 30 million is a small amount of money at the federal level. The system the Conservatives want to eliminate, makes everyone's vote count. It funds the party you voted for and allows them to better organize for the next election. It actually makes people vote for the party they want to support instead of a strategic vote to bloc the party they don't want to see elected.

I have been voting Green the last 2 elections. I look forward to that party building strength and size. The Greens got 6.8% of the popular vote at the last election.... the conservatives got 37.6%. A purely proportional system would see 21 seats go to the Green party and 116 to the conservatives. We don't have such a system... at least the funding system in place assures the possibility of a party building itself up and getting some space in the medias to promote and develop itself.

[Steam Driven]

Yes, let's go back to the old system of corporate bagmen.

But it's a trivial amount of dollars in the big picture. This is a power grab, nothing less, and frankly, as the Globe and Mail says, the government should get back to the real issue of the day and start serving the country's main interests.

No the system of Corporate Bagmen and Pizza Parlors was the Liberal way of funding the Party...

Look who's talking about "trivial" amounts of money now... What do you propose Mr. Dagger? Grab the snow shovel and just start shoveling money everywhere?

How about cutting now? How about showing the Canadian people that their money will stay within the programmes they expect and not finance party's that they did not vote for... The Bloc and the Greens come to mind... Taxpayer's money will not fund ideologies that many find reprehensible.

The Conservatives stand to lose $9 MILLION from this action. That is not chump change. Added to the $6 Million the Liberals might have received it's a fair chunk of change...

A Million here a Million there, pretty soon you're talking real money...

More than a few editorials have counseled waiting and not "Doing something right now!"...

Wait for Spring - Don't do it Now.

[Steam Driven]

What a strange view....

The Québec people pay taxes, why shouldn't they be represented? If they choose to support a party which in their opinion, is better to represent them, why is it wrong to fund that party? Should political parties be screened to see if their ideas and projects are compatible with your views? As for working for their funding.... the financial barriers to form a party and have it emerge as a palatable alternative are huge... The present system gives grass roots organizations a chance to emerge.

Not compatible with my views, but how about the views as laid out in the Constitution and the rules of the House of Parliament? To Govern the Country, not as the Constitution of the Bloc States ,

"The party was initially intended to be temporary, and was given the goal of the promotion of sovereignty at the federal level. The party aimed to disband following a successful referendum on sovereignty."

A party not acting in the best interests of Canada but to disband the Country and the House of Parliament in which it sits.

The People of Quebec have spoken on the subject of Sovereignty and have said No. The "Raison de Etre" of the Bloc would seem to be null and void.

Is it because you don't support a party that it should not get funding? The system the Conservatives want to eliminate, makes everyone's vote count. It funds the party you voted for and allows them to better organize for the next election. It actually makes people vote for the party they want to support instead of a strategic vote to bloc the party they don't want to see elected.

I don't support that Party, why should a portion of my money fund the Party that I do not share views goals or aspirations?

30 million is a small amount of money at the federal level.

Again the comment on the small amount of money... $30 Million... You don't think that would help an infrastructure project in you town? How much would a new ice rink or community centre cost?

[Mitch Cronin]

You'll never convince me 30 million is chump change, but still, any change in that funding structure needs to be seen as fair to all.

Eric, you make some good arguments, but how are the people of Quebec not represented without the Bloc? They're represented by the MP's they elect. ...the same as in all the rest of the country. No other provinces have a federal party, and why should they? That's federal government, the government of Canada, in whole, not any single part only.

[deicer]

Maybe a little levity is needed.....

[Homerun]

Mitch, it is fair for all. Everyone is governed by the same rules. If the Conservatives were cutting it for everyone but themselves, which one might think is happening judging by the squawking on here, then I would agree with you.