I agree with most of what you say. I think the cuts that they have proposed is a step in the right direction. It cut more money for there party than the rest if I read the artical correctly.
In terms of the $1.95 per vote funding for federal parties, the main reason cutting this out can be popular with Canadians is that it would stop taxpayer dollars going to the Bloc Quebecois. That may be reasonable, but sometimes you have to accept a little bad for the greater good.
Consider this - $1.95 is per VOTE - with the low voter turnout, the money is less. Period. The 2008 election had the lowest voter turnout in history - less than 15 million Canadians voted. At $1.95 per vote, this saves the federal government less than $30 million. Considering the economic crisis, this is chump change.
Further, while there may be good reason to complain about the funding going to the Bloc, funding also goes to the Green Party - still a fringe party for the most part, but environmental issues are something that we need to consider. If the small amount of funding they get lets them - at least - promote their message, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. I will grant that some consider the environment a minor issue, and therefore believe that this is not a good reason to argue for the continuation of funding.
Finally, in terms of the Conservatives losing the most money from federal funding - that's true. BUT, their party currently has a surplus and could handle losing the money far more easily than any other party. Answer this truthfully - if the Conservative Party was in debt (yet still in power), do you think that they would have proposed eliminating this funding?
What needs to happen with our country is all parties need to put aside there agendas and try to fix this or at least put us facing the right direction. It seems the coalation is just interested in ousting the current government for persional gain and it has nothing to do with the people like they try to make us beleive.
Yes and no. Every party wants to be the ones in charge - the attempt by the coalition to attain power is just as desperate as Harper's suspension of parliament to keep power. At the same time, there is a sense that a party wants power because they honestly believe that they have the best vision for Canada. While the political quest for power definitely has selfish motives, that isn't the only motivation.
All parties need to work together and say is here are some IDEAS we have and not this is WHAT you must do and if you dont do them we will kick you out.
Mostly, yes. Unfortunately, the proposal to eliminate the per vote funding went against everything Harper campaigned about - cooperating for Canada. It was an attempt to essentially crush the Liberal Party - thereby allowing him to gain a strong majority in the next election. We've already seen how egotistical he can be with a minority - a Harper majority is scary. Much as the Chretien government, after far too many years facing a weak opposition, allowed arrogance to take over (resulting in things like Adscam), it wouldn't take long for Harper to become just as bad (and potentially worse). Canada has a history of PM's going off the deep end when they don't face a strong opposition - in only the last couple of decades we can consider Mulroney, Chretien - and, possibly, Harper.
The coalition was a pre-emptive strike - they weren't saying to the Conservatives "do this or we'll kick you out" - they were saying "if we don't stop you from wiping us out as a viable opposition, we won't even have the ability to offer ideas".
Was that a good enough reason to consider taking down the Conservative government - maybe. Really, the threat was enough - when Harper blinked, the coalition should have backed down and said - "okay, maybe now you'll cooperate as a minority government should, with a little give and take".
Bully tackics get people nowhere it just puts a wedge in where it's not needed at the moment.
Yes, but don't assume that the bully tactics were one sided. The proposal to eliminate the funding was the proverbial "kicking sand in the face of the weakling". It was mainly directed at the Liberals (a party in debt with one of the worst leaders in party history), and kicking them when they were down. Only bullys do that.
The coalition decided to gang up on the bully - but when the bully backed off and said he didn't want to fight anymore, the coalition becomes a bully when it chooses to fight anyway.
All I can say for sure is something needs to be done yesterday before we are to far gone and we loose everything.
Something has been done - whether the method of choosing Ignatieff was the best way is irrelevant - the man has said, "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition" - and that he won't promise to vote down a budget he hasn't had a chance to read. He's open to working things out.
Harper has also publicly said that he is willing to work with Ignatieff. Great - but if Harper wants to be serious, he needs to stop the Conservative attack machine from sending out fundraising letters questioning Ignatieff's legitimacy as Leader of the Opposition.
Really, the worst of this crisis is over.
