...and

4) Isn't it true that the Tory's try at repealing public funding of parties and election campaigns was a cynical attempt to cripple the opposition parties?

Yes

Buy more advertising: Yes. Influence more voters: Only if the message is in line with what those voters believe. No amount of messaging would appear to be capable of, for example, persuading Novo to vote for that nice Mr. Harper

I don't know. It would depend upon the message being put forward. See the second part of the answer to 2

Shouldn't it be Tories' or is Mr. Haper really the only one?

Gutter journalism: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17901301.html

She's a damn furrener, that Mrs Iggy. Shouldn't be allowed. Send 'em all home. Etc.

Yes, it should, thank you. But shouldn't it be "Harper"?

And your answer to the question is...?

Jeez, you can rely on the Sun to find the moral low ground, can't you?

Sh*t, *****, bug*er, w*nk, p*ss. I had Novo on the ropes only for him to be saved by the bell.

The answer is, of course, Yes

And? Pressumably it was introduced by a liberal majority government in a cynical attempt to use the taxpayer to offset the liberal party failure to attract sufficient funding.

Gobsmacked. welcome back from the Darkside.

My friend, that's not even funny. Please look south to discover what happens to a political system which fails to regulate corporate financing of election campaigns.

The public funding introduced by the Chretien government was likely its single most important contribution to the maintenance of a semblance of democracy in Canada.

And yes, I do feel that strongly about it.

I do believe that is a bit strong; I am not on any side even though I live in Alberta.


Which corporations did Obama whore himself to, which did Clinton or does this only apply to right wing Presidents?

As I have said before, anyone that looks to the south of Canada to gain insight as to how things should be done is nuts.

No idea on Obama or Clinton, but certainly the democrats down there are in general no better than the Repugnants at the congressional and senatorial levels.

So, despite your sidelessness, we agree that Harper is nuts.

Do all parties that receive votes receive the money or is it just a select few? Was it St Cretien who introduced it?

There are other ways to regulate corporate donations it doesn't have to be taxpayer funding.

How are union donations treated in Canada? Are they considered a single donation from each union or multiple small donations from each member. Does each member have to give their consent to a political donation. The self interest of a union donation is no less blatent than that of a corporate donation.

In the USA the corporations hedge their bets by contributing to both parties so it doesn't matter who wins - don't they?

Yes. There may be some threshold number of ridings in which candidates are named, but I don't think so. I'd have to google.

Yes, it was Jean Chretien, who indeed had a Catholic upbringing, but has not yet been beatified.

Yes there are. On Iain's island I believe it would be small (how small, I wonder?) contributions from private individuals. Under Canadian law the limit is $1000. Which group of punters can more afford to cough up $1000 do you think?

Under Canadian law corporations and unions are treated exactly the same in this respect.

I wouldn't be surprised. The system down there is totally corrupt.

Edit: Since there is clearly a lot of ignorance on this subject among recent immigrants, here is a link to a cbc backgrounder on the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cd...ributions.html

If all his ideas come from the US, of course he is. I have no idea.

So let me get this right. After completely stuffing the conservatives in the early 90s the liberals with a massive majority thought that democracy was under threat so legalised taxpayer funding of politics.

He'd get beatified in Alberta alright.