On recipients

I don't agree with most of Tom Kent's piece on per-vote funding, as it seems to me that opposition parties making a case against a narrow-minded, anti-democratic government should see plenty of opportunity in defending a funding mechanism that promotes a broad set of democratic options. But Kent's suggestion for a competing set of reforms to party financing does look to be worth some further discussion:

The partial reform Mr. Harper proposes will still leave the parties with plenty of money, in the wrong place. That’s their headquarters, where it helps to concentrate dictatorial power in the hands of party leaders. Reform legislation should put it where it belongs, in the constituency associations of a party’s members.

Those are the heart of a party as a democratic organization. They are where its members discuss the shared attitudes to public policy that bring them together. After direct subsidies end, members’ contributions will be the main source of political finance. But the money doesn’t come from their pockets alone. Contributions are fostered by the lavish tax incentives through which the federal treasury will continue to provide some $20-million a year to the parties. It should go, with the money that comes from the members’ own pockets, where it belongs – to constituency associations. They can then decide how much to hand on to party headquarters. Legislation of that requirement would do much to restore democratic vitality to our dysfunctional politics.

Now, there's plenty about Kent's proposal that needs further clarification or discussion. It's not clear whether Kent is talking solely about the tax credit for party fund-raising, or actually looking to impose a requirement that funds be raised solely through riding associations. Moreover, there's no particular reason why per-vote funding itself couldn't be directed to ridings instead of or in addition to Kent's proposal. And any plan to direct money toward the constituency level would need to be paired with a prohibition on party-based restrictions on such funding.

But it's certainly worth considering whether our system should be designed to facilitate the type of local and dispersed decision-making that would come from putting money into EDAs' hands. And if the opposition parties are looking for additional ways to differentiate themselves from Harper hyper-centralized party structure, then the idea of decentralized funding and control of political parties would look like a promising one.

Equal time

As a counterpoint to Hassan Arif's column which I linked to yesterday, let's take a look at the strategic thinking behind the case for the Libs choosing to prop up Deceivin' Stephen once again. Here's Tom Kent:

Mr. Ignatieff can lay Liberal arrogance finally to rest. He can replace it by common sense. He has only to say, soon and firmly, that this is not the year for another election. We face prolonged uncertainty about jobs and incomes, about prices and savings. Adding political uncertainty to the mix could only worsen our economic troubles. A responsible opposition would recognize that, for the present, steadiness is more important than changing the government through the conflict of election campaigning.

Such a statement would not give Mr. Harper a blank cheque. Further outrages would compel the coalition to defeat the government. But short of those, it should be held accountable not through daily debate and polling, but after enough time for the people to remake their electoral assessment. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, will probe, question, suggest; and if the government nevertheless introduces measures that Liberals cannot support, they will as a party abstain.

So in the name of "steadiness" and avoiding an election, the Libs would leave in place a government which regularly pulls the pin on live grenades just to watch its opponents squirm, rather than replacing it with a coalition which can produce at least a year and a half of stable government.

And if the Cons once again go too far? Well, then the Libs can register their disagreement through the power of suggestion (maybe even going so far as to set down "markers" as to what policies they oppose?), while giving Stephen Harper what he wants whether or not it's in the best interest of the country.

Needless to say, it's a wonder nobody thought of this strategy sooner. If only Stephane Dion had that kind of foresight.

Let's give Kent this much: his column does perform a public service by highlighting just how thoroughly the Libs would have to disregard recent history in order to think they have anything to gain by propping up Harper at this point. But when it's made clear that a decision to pass the Cons' budget can only set the Libs up for even more embarrassment and irrelevance to come, it should be obvious how they should handle the budget vote.