That's a silly thing to say. Based on what evidence? Or are you just using the royal "we" here?
You must have pretty bad allergies.
That's not what "agoraphobic" means. More like "afraid of wide open spaces".
It's ironic that you claimed Canadians are more agoraphobic considering that our country has so many vast, open spaces. Canada must be an agoraphobe's nightmare.
No, we haven't.
Also, seriously? Agoraphobic?
I didn't read it as any kind of criticism. I'm just expanding, clumsily, on my commenting philosophy.
I get a lot of enjoyment out of sharing my views with fellow interested and engaged citizens. I do this because it's fun. I'm not too worried if I invest time in a comment that gets ignored and thumbed down, because such is life. It's important to approach things philosophically and be patient with people.
By the way, I should mention that I really enjoy reading your comments, despite the fact that you're from Edmonton and I'm from your superior neighbour to the south. ;-)
Personally, my time is limited, and I'm not always able to respond as much as I'd like because I'm too busy with other stuff. Sometimes I just thumb a reply up and respectfully let it stand on its own, as the natural end to the thread—the final word.
I don't share your desire to "cripple the parties financially". To me, the whole concept of financially crippling political parties is undemocratic.
I think an overall cap is undemocratic. Political parties are a fundamental component of our democracy. Why should we be in the business of denying Canadians the right to contribute $50 (or even $1000) to a political party they support, just because some artificial limit has been reached?
I think the best approach is to wean the parties off the subsidy gradually, by reducing the subsidy every year for the next four years. This gives all parties time to adjust.
I don't think that corporations should fund political parties, either. I think that citizens should contribute, within the limits of donation caps that make it impossible for individual donors to have much influence.
Ideally, I'd prefer a totally non-subsidized version of the current system, with caps that are somewhat higher to compensate for the loss of the per-vote subsidy and the tax credit.