There are what 34-35 million people in this country? Assuming 100% voter turnout (which lets get serious, is a pipe dream), the 2$ per vote subsidy can only ever reach a MAXIMUM of 70 million. This last election cost the public 300 million. The vote based subsidy isn't the only public funding of political campaigns, and we'd have to eliminate ALL public funding if we were to have set election dates because of the longer and consequently eventually terminally expensive campaigns that would result. Because even with the elimination of that 70 million, double the campaign length and that 70 million has been spent twice over + change + the original 230000000.
You're confusing cost of election with money spent by political parties on campaigns. Election cost is a fixed beast, and a necessary expenditure. Those costs will not be increased by fixed election dates.
The cost that will potentially increase is the cost to candidates to run their campaigns (longer campaign, higher cost). That cost right now is partially passed along to taxpayers through political party subsidies (in their various forms; the vote-based is only part of it). However, none of those subsidies take into account the length of the campaign. The cost to the taxpayer isn't affected by campaign length.
As for completely eliminating public funding, I disagree completely on this one. I think we have a certain responsibility, collectively, as a people to help fund additional democratic discourse. Mix in the fact that if we eliminate any and all public funding, then the parties that will be the most effective will be the parties that cater to the interests of the rich. How often to the ultra rich work in the interests of the entire country? Even if champion of the poor party A has an excellent fund raising structure, champion of the rich party B can have an EQUALLY good fund raising structure and make truckloads more money. This will create a serious economic bias in favor of the upper class into politics. That's why I think supplemental public funding of political parties is essential to a level playing field that opinions can be heard on.
As with my thoughts on the rational for eliminating the vote-based subsidy, this is your opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject (since we both have reasonable opinions on the subject).
Are you arguing that a government does not need to be honest with the citizens of a country merely because it probably won't break the system? The old "Harper Government" lied time an time again about where money was being spent, how much was being spent. They also blocked many access to information requests, even proroguing parliament to stop the release of the Afghan detainee documents.
Not unprecedented. Doesn't make it right, but this is not the first Canadian government to be less-than-forthcoming with information. Nowhere am I saying that any of this behaviour is justified; I'm merely pointing out that there is a lot of screaming going on about things that have been a feature of our political system since time immemorial.
And for those bemoaning the "costly and unnecessary" election, both times he prorogued parliament it resulted in the termination of a lot of pieces of legislature. Which meant that all the time and money spent on committees and research all went down the drain, merely to avoid having an election.
I'm not bemoaning the election as particularly costly or unnecessary, but I will point out that legislation dies on the order paper all the time. That's just a bad feature of our political system.
@MP-Ryan: before you drag up the old Liberals-did-it-first arguments, remember that when Jean Chretien prorogued parliament they had finished all the work for that session.
There was that nasty business of the sponsorship scandal report due out in 2002 that was delayed because Chretien specifically asked for prorogation to avoid it. But let's not stop there - prorogation of Parliament to avoid potential scandals is a grand old tradition going back to the time of Sir John A. MacDonald himself. Justified? Of course not. But Harper has grand company in the tradition, and to be outraged about his manipulation of our system and make excuses for all the previous bunch is hypocrisy of the highest order. I merely accept that so long as mechanisms of potential abuse exist in our system, politicians can be expected to utilize them. Don't like it? Cease the whining about Harper and push for systemic reform.
Also, you bring up the Liberals-did-it-first argument for the contempt of parliament. I've never heard of it so it would be nice if you'd explain the circumstances around it. Not all things are created equal.
No, I said the contempt of Parliament ruling only occurred because the Conservatives played the games that all political parties play, but in a minority situation. Let's be clear: the contempt of Parliament ruling is not just a result of the Bev Oda affair, but also the issue of refusal to disclose financing information on the crime legislation that was coming forward. The Oda mess never came to a formal contempt ruling against her, but the government was found to be in contempt over their failure to disclose the financial costs of the crime bills.
However, failure to disclose the cost of legislation is another handy tradition that
majority governments have gotten away with for ages (honestly, pick a majority session of Parliament and you'll find at least one instance - and yes, the Chretien Liberals did it too). The truly historic item at issue is this is the first time a
minority tried to get away with the same thing and got caught in the process. Put in perspective - that this is the same political gamesmanship that has gone on in this country for years - and the contempt ruling is a tired issue.
Wow, I sound really cynical.
Point is, I hear all kinds of arguments that the CPC is evil because of __________________ [fill in the blank]. However, nothing they've done is
new. It doesn't make it excusable, acceptable, or justified, but it makes it really difficult for me to be outraged because these things are a feature of our political system.
So, rather than engage in exercises of hyperbole proposing that thew Conservatives are the source of all evil in Canadian politics and have engaged in all kinds of unprecedented unethical action, I choose to acknowledge our history and exercise a little perspective. Our system permits [relatively minor] abuses. Always has. Instead of whining about the latest manifestation of them, I'd rather point out that they are really quite common and
advocate for reform of our political process.I only really disagree with you on the contextual significance of the points you raise, not their content.