Subsidies look bad and will be exploited by the opposition

This bill may not restore the public's trust in government as much as hoped. We are already seeing headlines in the news and on social media that point out that the subsidies constitute a broken election promise, quoting a Horgan campaign speech in which he promised that subsidies would not be needed. It has also been implied that the provision is payback to the Green Party for the Confidence and Supply Agreement (quoting subsidy amounts that make it clear that the Green Party's annual subsidy is a much larger percentage of their total fundraising amount for the 2017 election, than is the case for the Liberals or the NDP). There is also a widely expressed distaste for using public money to support political parties at all. Overall, I'm afraid it's going to take a huge amount of education, explaining, and counterarguments to the naysayers to prevent this much-needed reform from turning into a serious political liability to haunt the NDP and Greens in the 2021 election.

Official response from submitted

Hello Bill, 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. We agree that the bill will take a large amount of explaining for all BC residents  truly understand the bills intentions. The Green Caucus is committed to keeping supporters informed every step of the way.


How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Kelsey Reid
    responded with submitted 2017-10-13 12:54:47 -0700
  • Bob Reckhow
    published this page in Ban big money bill 2017-09-21 20:08:32 -0700
Donate Get Involved