iaink

Eh, you've lost me?

The electorate is mostly made up of sheeple. Are you naive enough to suggest that corporations are not making donations in the expectation that there will be some return on their investment. Its also naive to think that election results are not heavily influenced by campaign budget levels. Its a travesty of democracy that big business can buy itself influence in this way.

Corporations dont vote so should not be funding party politics. If individuals in favour of corporate big businesses interests want to fund a particular party then let them, just as individuals who have different ideas can fund parties that promote those instead.

At least that way there is a level playing field where the number of people who support a particular party is largely proportional to the campaign budget of each party. Similar to funding per vote, but without the need of taxpayer funding to ensure that everyone has funding proportional to their support base.

At best corporate funding will always lead to the suspicion of buying favour with the politicians, and that in itself is a bad result for democracy.

iaink

Oh yes, I can see that now youve spelled it out. I knew I was pissed off about it at the time anyway

Novocastrian

Finally! I was getting worried about you.

I know I'm much older than you are, but early onset Alzheimer's is always on the cards.

iaink

I'm touched by your concern

Im still not buying that the stimulus package was entirely pushed into the budget by the liberals/ NDP. To me the statement seems to concede that something extra might well be necessary.

It seems to me that perhaps it may have been politically expedient at the time to avoid going straight back on all the "Its OK, the economy will be OK, no need to run a deficit " talk of the campaign trail immediately upon forming the government, but the door was certainly left open to allow additional spending and a defect after electoral amnesia set in some.

jimf

What trend have you spotted?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/cv11-poll-tracker/

I'm not sure how important these national percentages are - the election will be decided in about 30 seats.

Novocastrian

Ok. I'll go this far. Despite all his faults and his intimate connection to the Mike Harris Ontario government, Jim Flaherty is not a fool.

In the 2008 statement, he was very clearly following orders from Harper and the PMO. There may well have been heated discussions in Cabinet about the result of such blatant arrogance and it may well be that the actual budget was more along the lines of what Flaherty would have wanted in the first place.

We'll never know until the memoirs come out.

Novocastrian

Personally none at all. But I was watching Power & Politics a while ago and it was reported that in BC, Ontario and Quebec the Liberals are making up ground rather quickly.

It's only a couple of polls, so don't shoot the messenger please.

Lord Vader

In the fall of 2008 the conservatives message was that they were not going to panic and jump the gun. They warned about deficit spending due to the global economic downturn and wanted to see how the international players (ie, our continental neighbors) were going to react and then set spending targets and strategy accordingly. You may recall several international group (G8, G20, etc) meetings that took place about a concerted international spending initiative. It had nothing to do with the NDP or liberals. I swear the same people who are giving credit to the opposition for spending to save the economy are the same ones blaming the conservatives for the deficit,,,,muppets.

Novocastrian

I certainly recall the one in Toronto for which we, the taxpayers, had to fork out $1 billion and at which nothing was achieved.

It may be of interest to some that the elimination of public funding based on $1.95 a vote would "save" about $27 million, or about 300 times less per year than was wasted on that event in a couple of days. It would take until 2310 to recoup the waste.

Fiscal prudence? I don't think so.

Lord Vader

And here I thought you would have applauded the g20 creating so much government spending in your city.

Almost Canadian

I thought that I had explained this upthread.

If the politicians that the nasty corps wish to support wish to put forward policies in the corps interest they can only be implemented if sufficient politicians are returned. If those policies are adverse to the interests of those that return those politicians why do those voters vote for them?

I accept that corps donate to further their own interests but that doesn't explain why non corps vote for those policies. Are either of you able to explain that to me?

Either it is because the policies align with those of the voters (in which case what is the problem?) or there is some mysterious reason why the voters choose to vote for policies adverse to their interests.

Novocastrian

It's hard to believe that you're serious in asking for an explanation of this bit of convoluted thinking, but here goes anyway.

Corporations (and others perhaps) used to be able to make large, private, secret donations to the party of their choice.

The party could then buy more eyeballs at election time.

If this had the intended result of acquiring more votes then the contributors would be rewarded by the resulting government.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the parties say they're going to do.

dbd33

People, I would say especially in North America, routinely vote against their interests, if this were not the case Conservative or Republican parties would not gain office. It's the nature of an aspirational society that many poor or middle income people think they will eventually become one of the few rich and it's with eventual self-interest in mind that they elect administrations that favour the rich.

Conversely, the rich, Billy Bragg for example, sometimes vote against their interests by supporting parties favouring high taxation. This is called "principle".

Almost Canadian

I note that you have failed to explain it to a simpleton as you appear to believe I am.

You appear to suggest that, despite being hoodwinked time after time, the voters continue to vote for those that are putting forward policies adverse to their interests.

Almost Canadian

So, in essence, the electorate gets what it wants. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?