I may have to start liking Harper.... I wonder if they looked at the books, said how much do WE need to pay off the campaign debts, then said OK lets cut it that much.

There was a lot of talk about doing something like this at the winnipeg convention (okay I talked alot about it...).

I am ecstatic that it is being done. I have long felt that Jean Chretien's motivation for bringing in party funding wasn't to screw Paul Martin but rather to turn political partys into simply another wing of the civil service - that they become government employees dependent upon government funds. Other then the CP the parties largely did become exactly that. (in the first six months of this year the BQ raised 75,000 and recieved 3.5 million in federal funds.

JC was, when you look at his career someone who was a politician acting as a civil servant - mostly devoid of any policy or philosophy other than a cold-blooded desire to get and retain power. After his time as PM he was asked what his greatest acheivement was - he replied that it was being PM for ten years. No specifc policy or program just that he was able to be in power in charge for a decade. Pathetic.

Lessee if the Libs have no money to fight any election Harper has a majority no? Gotta love it!

Ian V:

The CP has no campaign debt - it is, if memory serves, 8 million in the black.

Gotta love the CTV. It's not a reduction, not a cut, rather, it's a slash.

This "neutral" "professional" journalism can only mean one thing: it's going to hurt the Liberals. When a Liberal bleeds, thank goodness we have our media to say "ouch" on their behalf.

Where will the lying jackal get his breast milk from now? It gets cold in the winter.

Well, if its good for my country then I am willing to see my party get less than before. This is no time to be "aat the trough" after all. (tongue back in its regular place)/

I think it especially delicious the BQ really gets nailed in the nads over this one!

Stephen, you magnificent bastard.

The most interesting fact for me in this article was that the Bloc gets 86% of their funding from public tax dollars!

Unbelievable.

Since no matter what he does, some sock-puppet in the Lame Stream Media will call him "nasty" (oh my!), I say "rip their lungs out, Stephen, and then mail 'em back to them in twenty pickle jars."

Let's see how much support the various parties really have from the Canadian public.

Garth

BQ accuses Tories of engaging in political blackmail

From the October 9th, 2008 National Post.

Can you say payback? Pain is the feeling you get when you slide down a huge razorblade on your genitals and then fall into a bottle of iodine.

Hope Gilles knows the backstroke.

And CTV might want to hire some proofreaders along with unbiased headline writers, Shaken:
"'...we're wiling to do our share as far as restricting and looking at what can be done with MPs' salaries.'

But other opposition members also said the Conservatives should reign in their own spending,..."

And, On Topic, oh, no--the Grits and Dips will actually have to raise money from the peons! Oh, sad day!

Yes indeed it's a move designed to show that in some small part the government of the day is showing restaint. I feel however that this restraint should be extended further with a freeze, if not a reduction, in funding allocations to the Corpse.

bverwey

"Grits and Dips will actually have to raise money from the peons"

Like the Canadian Auto Workers?

yes. they can buy their own drums. i have no interest in funding ideas contrary to the ideas i support. and the real cost in dollars is nil when compared to the distortions created by this "entitlement" scheme.

from the percentages shown it looks as if the bloc will now need to get off the porch and run with the big dogs if they expect to make it to ottawa.

TJ:

If you add in the salaries (and ultimately pensions) that Bloc MPs are getting from the Canaadian public, their public funding's more like 99.9%, give or take.

We're the only country in the world that subsidizes treason.  So far, anyways...

One of those horns and dilema things for the opposition. They have fight the contradiction of this first before they go around claiming governments arent helping people....you are left with Macallum bleating for a reduction in cabinet ministers and refer to himself as an underling....hmmm wonder if he sad the same things when he was a big wig at Royal and he got bonuses and "underlings" got fired.

JM hardly makes a good underpriveledged kid.

Question is will the NDP support the motion. Does Jack have it in him to skin the Liberals. Come on Jack, you'll look evil but you know you want to do it! Side benefit of squeezing the Blocheads and Greens as well. Come on Jack, its the right thing for your party, Do it!

$1100.00 from me..$1100.00 from the hubby...get the kids on board...yea, they'll be fine! Sweet Stephen, you are the MAN!

Incremental Conservativism.

Nice comments, gord tulk. But just watch, none of the opposition parties will go for it; they'll all scream.

Incredible how the Bloc milks the Canadian taxpayer, to actually fund their separatiste party, their MPs and their desired pensions-for-life.

How will the opposition wriggle out of this? They rely on the money. They'll probably say that the 'vote' is actually also a donation by the voter of 1.95 per vote. The fact that it comes from taxes rather than from the submitted cheque of 1.95 by the voter will be glossed over. This then requires asking: do all people who vote also pay taxes? Since this is not the case, then...

TJ You have it right.

It is shocking, "shocking I tell you" that the Bloc Quebecois gets so much of a subsidy to undermine our nationhood.

We the conservative party of Canada will donate 10 million dollars to Canada in these tough economic times. We challenge all other parties to meet or beat us... okay, at least try to come close...

crickets...

Let the whining begin...

I like it.

especially Bob Rae's reaction... that just means it's correct all over.

"They're going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. This is not the way to behave in a democracy," Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae told CTV News.

Strap on the rubber underwear, Bob.

"For the smaller parties, this public funding is what allows us to participate fully in democracy," said New Democrat MP Pat Martin.

The tanker truck full of government breast milk has suffered a flat tire, Pat.

Yes, gotta love it. The Conservatives are, after all, giving up more money than anyone else. Now how can anyone complain about that? Is there a troll out there, a member of one of those parties that claims to represent "the people" who can complain now that his/her party's funding will be provided by "the people" directly? Would that be anything to be afraid of? LOL.

This is the fundamental difference between a conservatives and liberals/progressives. The progressives will talk and talk about their beliefs and their Utopian dreams, whereas conservatives will actually put their money where their mouth is.

Well ratspit...time to find out if the sixty two percent who voted for other than the government step up to the plate on this one.I,for one,am going to enjoy watching the Liberals and Bloc go bonkers over this...then bankrupt.

Maybe Mr. Harper can work something out with the opposition whereby they get some of the funding back -- say 0.1 percent -- for every day they stop faking outrage every ten seconds in the HOC.

I love this move.I hated paying a tax to vote,and that is exactly what this is. When Chretien first implemented this sheme the liberals were the ones to benefit the most thereby ensuring they always had the largest taxpayer funded warchest and financial edge. Times have changed,yer they have. Hopefully by this time tomorrow Lizzie will have weighed in on the issue.Her howling and schreeching will be a joy to behold.Her base support,students and their mentors,will be spewing bile throughout the halls and cafeterias of our institutes of higher learning....Except for Queens,of course.

Time for the politicians to tighten their belts, just like the rest of us.

Really now, if you bothered to vote, couldn't you also kick in $1.95 to your party? Jeeeeez, get a clue.

Its a spending bill- even though it is a cut in spending that means it is an automatic confidence vote - Right? Oh man, I hope it is a confidence vote.

Now that my friends is how chess is played.

I expect Craig Oliver to start whining about how unfair it is for the opposition parties to have to run against someone smarter than they are.

Magnificent. Utterly magnificent. The opposition parties have no leverage on this one, there is absolutely no way they can spin this in their favor.

Harper is brilliant. The Libs can't afford to go along with this, yet can't afford to defeat the Tories on it and have to pay for another election. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

While you're at it up there stopping the subsidy for speech... why don't you stop the muzzle on free spech while you're able called the CHRC?

Encore! Encore!

I'm going offside on this one. I don't support this measure passing.

I don't want a country where money can buy elections. That would help to realize Mencken's adage that "Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods." If people get too cynical about paying money to get their guy elected, they are more likely to view that money as an investment, not a gift. The best way to make money a non-issue is to limit what parties can spend and ensure that major parties don't struggle to raise that maximum.

Cretien's solution looks pretty close to ideal.
1. No one person is allowed to donate enough money to make a significant difference to an election.
2. Personal donations are multiplied (5x) through tax credits, ensuring a lot of money comes from people who actively support the party.
3. A significant war chest can be raised just by attracting votes.

Remember, the system you build when you are in government is the system you get when you are out.

Ditto to that, Bobbi.

TO get an idea as to how this is going to turn the LP candidates inside out look over on Warren Kinsella's site where he cannot even bring himself actually mention it directly but tries to createsspin on tangential issues. That is a real 'tell' IMO that the liberals are going to have all kinds of trouble criticizing this one. Especially if they are standing arm in arm with the BQ insisting that their subsidies be retained. (I repeat, the BQ fundraised 75000 in the first 6 months of this year while getting 3.5 million in federal funding.)

"Its a spending bill- even though it is a cut in spending that means it is an automatic confidence vote - Right? Oh man, I hope it is a confidence vote."

Right -- it will definitely be a confidence motion. There's no chance that the opposition parties will combine to defeat the govt. on this and put us into another election. Apart from the problem of timing -- so soon after the last one -- the optics would be absolutely terrible for the Liberals and NDP especially).

As for the path that the Senate will take when the bill reaches them ....

While I don't support this measure passing, that's not to say I don't support this measure.

Let the government pile in all sorts of other necessary, painful spending cuts, both significant and symbolic. Then let the opposition parties spend all their vitriol on preserving party funding and let this be the item that gets negotiated away.

Over at the cbc.ca site the lefties are very unhappy. You have to go through 7 pages of the most recommended comments to find one that supports Harper. The usual drift is that this will kill democracy,and that the conservatives will be run by the 'corporations',and the always present 'neo-con' slurs.Too bad that these people don't stop and think.Harper greatly reduced corporate donations,and this voting tax has only been in effect for 6 years.So much for either of their arguments,all emotion and no thought.

pete e: I reiterate my comments above:

direct government funding of parties makes them an extension of the civil service. Take a look at the carpetbaggers running the green party - they have no interest in actually electing someone, they just want to get 5 to 9 percent of the vote and the subsidy that comes with it so they can build their own little bureaucratic castle in Ottawa.

Please scrap all funding for the gun registry and let that mess die a final long called for death along with the new budget.

Hey, a guy can wish.

Now what would make it even more delicious is if the funding changes happen immediately. All of the parties were due to get their annual cheques January 1st.

Stephen Harper as the Opposition's Scrooge... PERFECT.

Wallyj:

Re: corporate donations

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty-sure that they are now not allowed at all.

ET said: "This then requires asking: do all people who vote also pay taxes? Since this is not the case, then..."

Cogito, ergo uh-oh?

(apologies to Descartes)

I hated this funding the day it was instituted, as, political parties became de facto beggars of government funding. terrible policy, and a terrible example to set, that if politicians could be on the dole, why shouldn't every Canadian? if I can criticize, Harper didn't go far enough, and just wipe it out entirely, Moonbat May be damned

pete e 12:13am

nobody asked me if i thought $$$ funding per vote was a good idea when it was implemented. AND i consider any donation to the political party of my choice an investment in my country. you support your political party and i'll support mine. if we support the same party - all the better, but do not ask me to consider supporting liberals, separatists, eco_foaming_greens, socialists or communists any longer.

i appreciate mr.harper's thinking on this very much - and thankfully, it seems that in the very near future we will all have more of a choice in where gifts go. this is a definite improvement over yesterday.

corporations cannot influence elections the way they did in the past. it was mr.harper's government that introduced the legislation and for a little bit of trivia - it was probably the one real contribution the separatists made to the country - the federal law that regulates funding political parties and election campaigns was modelled on the provincial legislation enacted by the parti quebecois under rene levesque.

Good move PMSH. So far you and your party are doing well and still relating to the ordinary Canadian. Keep hammering it home even if you have to use a 16lb sledge hammer. Sometimes you have to use the big tool to get the point home through their thick skulls. Especially Jack Layton. Make him whine like a little gnat.

I especially liked the stunned look on Bob Ray's face when he said "This is not the way to act in a democracy."

I expected him to continue whining "It's not fair if we can't force taxpayers to support the losers!"

It's not often I get a laugh from CTV news. Good for Harper. Now for the bureaucracy.

The single problem with limiting campaign contributions and spending is that to get your name before the electorate, you must already have your name out to the electorate!
Anyone trying to start a new party is hamstrung by a lack of money. Incumbents will always get "free" media coverage because they are the incumbent ie. the local media should report what the local MP says as it rightfully is news. An unknown candidate will be ignored and cannot buy media coverage because of funding limits and campaign spending limits.

pete e: "I don't want a country where money can buy elections."

Money can't buy elections. The Charlottetown Accord referendum proved that, where the Yes side outspent the No by 12-1 and still lost (thank God, or the country would have been toast by now).

"'They're going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. This is not the way to behave in a democracy,' Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae told CTV News."

Yeah, it is. Democracy is about electing governments from among the parties that spring up and that get voluntary support from the electorate. It isn't about taking money from all taxpayers just because you think you want to get elected and think you are better than everyone else.

"'For the smaller parties, this public funding is what allows us to participate fully in democracy,' said New Democrat MP Pat Martin."

So why don't the Libertarians, Christian Heritage parties etc. get public funding? They barely get to participate at all, let alone "fully". What's with the arbitrary vote percentage cutoff? Why not pay $1.95 per vote, period?

Would the election take place before or after the Liberal Leadership convention? Would Dion get to lead the Libranos into another election...? Stay, Stephane, stay! On another note from the article, I think Harper intentionally bloated the incoming cabinet so that he could shuffle and shrink it at an opportune time. Parliamentary chess at its finest!

Johnnyonline said:
"corporations cannot influence elections the way they did in the past"
...until they get creative. Weren't you watching that Obama thing down south? Granted Corporate/union influence is harder now and for that I am grateful.

nv53 said:
"Money can't buy elections."
True, message matters AND money matters. A clever, popular start-up's best hope is 10% vote and/or 2 seats in a single election (think Reform). To win, you need to be in the ballpark financially (to have, say, 1/3 the money of the wealthiest party.)

It's in our long-term interest not to hobble startup parties with a viable platform . (And it's in our short-term interest not to hobble small parties with a non-viable platform :)

pete e,

Somebody mentioned that the policy has been in place for 6 years. So your example of the Reform Party doesn't make sense. If anything it proves that if a startup party has enough followers (which in turn provides financial backing from within)then it would be able to make it to Ottawa on its own momentum--without the requirement of gov't monies.

favill

Bob Rae: "They're going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO BEHAVE IN A DEMOCRACY [my emphasis]."

Well, Bobo should know how not to behave in a democracy, but in this case he's dead wrong.

This is EXACTLY the way to behave in a democracy: Save the taxpayers money that shouldn't be paid to the political parties in the first place. You want a real democracy, Bobo, where political parties (and hacks) aren't constantly guzzling at the public trough?

Then, this is it: Make political parties (all FIVE of them in Canada) raise their own funds. If Canadians think what they're offering is relevant and good for the country, they'll pony up the funds.

That's democracy.

As for pete e's statement: ""I don't want a country where money can buy elections." ARE YOU KIDDING? That describes Canada under the Librano$. The fact that political parties like the Greens and the BQ are almost solely propped up by public monies, making it difficult for any party to gain a majority in the HOC, actually cripples our democracy.

I say to PMSH "Bring it on." Let these whining pigs at the trough find their own food. I'm tired of feeding the whole darned bunch of them.

But we are entitled to our entitlements! - It looks good on 'em!

I have some misgivings on this one. A reduction in public subsidies is sound policy but what of the ramifications? A bankrupt LPC? The PM's move may create such vitriol in the left that, collectively, they may rise up en masse and defeat us. Not an entirely implausible scenario given their very political lives are at stake.

And $30,000,000 in savings. Really? That's the equivalent of one oral discharge into a spittoon. Notwithstanding the fact that Canada's economy is relatively well grounded, the gloabl economy could be headed towards a meltdown and PMSH moves to cut public subsidies? Gimme a break. Hardball politics for sure but I don't like it. A pure salute to optics for sure.

I'll now remove my shirt and tie myself up to the grating to receive my lashes. But please keep it under a 100. ;-)

Smooth move PM Harper.Look for my cheque in the mail.Let the bums pay their own way I say.

PhilM is right on the money. The CP will benefit in the short term but the backlash will come back and bite PMSH in the ass big time. For every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction except in the case of politics when the reaction can be much greater than action that caused it.

Trying to obliterate your competition in one move will cause them to strengthen. A better way is to starve them out slowly. This will cause them either not see it coming or to make one bad move after another, eventually leading to a permanent demise.

Anybody seen a name of an actual person associated with this other than "senior officials"? Or is it an election style trial balloon designed to make the opposition parties howl for no reason and make themselves look petty and selfish?

Anybody seen a name of an actual person associated with this other than "senior officials"? Or is it an election style trial balloon designed to make the opposition parties howl for no reason and make themselves look petty and selfish?

It is a great move. It leaves the government pinned. If they refuse to go along they will force an election that they can not afford. If they go along they will lose money they can not afford. The only way to save themselves might be to make a deal that allows them to survive. Perhaps by agreeing to pass a stack of legislation unhindered and unamended through the Parliament and Senate.

It wont pass but the opposition will be made to look like the fools they are. This is all being filmed for the next set of election commercials.

"In uncertain times Canadians save, they postpone and they forgoe. Some parents put off music lessons, others...go without dinner.

Canada's opposition parties continue to take government subsidies, fly business class, have catered buffets and private massage. The only belt tightening is from an expanding waisline.

Someone is out of step with the times."

Errr...leaves the opposition parties pinned

"It wont pass but the opposition will be made to look like the fools they are. This is all being filmed for the next set of election commercial"

BINGO !!

Fish, barrel, shoot.

Oh Poor Me, Cry Me Another Song.

Yesterday we seen a clip on Davies & Dusanjh crying the BLUE'S because they might have to Fly Economy.
Today there was a clip on the Perks the MP's get, From free Meals To Massage's
Where your socialist Now! They are the ones Yelling at the Govt to do something because of the Economic Crisis But will they Give up any Perks NO all they want to do is Complain Howmany Cabinet Ministers are in Limos.
Typical Response from the Left, Do as I say Not as i Do.
I hope this Taxpayer Gift to the Political Parties is Gone forever.
BTW I would like to Know Which Party & when this started?
Anyone?

Konichiwa May-San, Layton-San, Dion-San, Duceppe-San. Your rebellion has failed. Do you prefer financial or political seppuku? I shall show you the correct method for the first cut.
Thank you gracious Lord Harper-Sama.
We the Liberal Party choose financial seppuku.
We the NDP -- political.
We the Block -- political.
We the Greens shall accept the choice of the others.
Very good, then let us unsheath our budgetary swords that in the hope of our political rebirth we may show the Canadian people how political parties die honorably.

The biggest Joke of All is that the taxpayers of Canada give a Gift to a Political Party that only runs Canidates in 1 province & they want to break up the Country. And on top of that We the Taxpayer give a gift to another Political Party that dont even have Representation in the HOC.
Good Riddance Finaly a PM with the Balls to Take action When the Taxpayers the ones that pay their wages are taking a hit.

Bob Rae: "They're going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO BEHAVE IN A DEMOCRACY"

What else can you expect from a silk stocking closet communist?

The oppoition parties might just find they dont have any support for this position.

Sure Canadians want a fair fight in an election but they dont like being taken for patsies. In a weird way the cons may actually be helping the opposition parites end their addiction.

I think Pat Martin may have spoken out of turn...no shock there....it is in the Dippers best interest to go along with this. It will kill the Greens and kill the Libs and stick a fork in the BQ where the Dippers can pick up votes.

I think nasty Jack will show up and decide that this should be done....Does harper need to shine the silverware for Layton as well....my goodness this is best thing for the DIPS....not doing it means they deserve the status as perpetual also rans.

“I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.”

Milton Friedman

Elections became just another way these scumbgs feathered their nests with our money.
There was an incentive to vote against the government and throw our country into an unneeded and wasteful election.
Canadians deem that the block be given 75,000 dollars not 3.5 million.
Now maybe these politicos will be forced to do something instead of creating over the top false outrage at every little thing.
Al a Boob Ray's, hissy fit.

Good.

Voting should come from the will to have a particular MP elected to provide the voice in Ottawa for a segment of Canadians.

It was very sneaky for the former government to bring in a financial bonus based on that vote, not for the people they represent, but for themselves.

It's actually a fascinating process to watch.

First, we acknowledge that it was Chretien who set this up when he stopped the large (multithousands) corporate and individual donations to political parties. These big corporate donations and wealthy individual donations (all with generous tax reductions which meant that the taxpayer WAS in effect subsidizing the parties) were the basis of the Liberal financial power. Chretien removed this elite niche of funders. Harper further reduced individual donations to the current level of 1,100 per individual per year.

Chretien instead set up the taxpayer funding of a per-vote subsidy. Remember, the corporate and individual donations were given substantial tax reductions so, in effect, the taxpayer was heavily subsidizing the Party. BUT, BUT...without voting for that party. So, it was a strategy that forced the taxpayer to subsidize a party he didn't want.

And another But, But..is that the Liberals, as the party of the elite, always ignored the peasants on the street and hobnobbed only with the wealthy and privileged.

And the Bloc? Quebecers are not known for their personal involvement; they expect The Government, and especially the federal govt, to pay for everything. So, they didn't have much of a donation pool right from the start.

Chretien's tactic was 'if you voted for the party, your taxes will go towards the party'.

What if you don't pay any taxes? That means that someone else is paying your shot. So, we are back to the original system, where taxpayers are paying for parties that they did not vote for.

Chretien's original intention, of course, was to cripple the Liberal Party, so that it would be part of his legacy that - after him - there was nothing. That's his narcissism speaking.

But now? All the parties will scream. If they are seen by the public as 'living off the trough', that's bad optics. None of them, except for the CBC, have much financial support by the public. Hmm, aren't leftists, so many of whom are in govt jobs - aren't they willing to donate to their political parties? No? Why not? They get it back in their tax refunds!!!

We must know that none of them could afford to incite an election over their assumed 'entitlements' to the taxpayers' money.

The opposition can't coalesce and ask to form the govt - not over their assumed entitlements to the taxpayers' money.

So, will they pass it? And then, plot with the Liberal dominated Senate to refuse it? That would give Harper more proof to kick out the Senate, as blocking the Will of Parliament.

Or will the NDP support the CPC while the Liberals and Bloc refuse?

Heck, what a chess game. Played by a master.

To hear Bob Rae being so offended because of financial cut backs in these challenging times and when even unions are being asked to cut back only tells Canadians and Liberal leadership voters that Rae has not learned a dam thing from his disasterous days as Ontario Premier when he thought to spend your way out of a recession was the way to go.
He is misleading Canadians when he says he learned his lesson when he was Premier - unless he now believes that everybody should cut back but himself and his chosen ones.

"Will the prime minister reduce his cabinet to a sensible level?" - Wayne Easter

I really hate it when I start my day by agreeing with a Lib but I can take heart from it only being partial agreement - 26 is still too many to be a sensible level.

Oh the weeping and wailing from the Opposition, snared by Harper, so delicious!
They're all between a rock and a hard place on this one and they look good in this proverbial place.

The funniest is the hooting from the verbose, sarcastic Pat Martin of the kitchen table party, among first out of the gate.

The best is the Bloc will be getting their nuts in the mousetrap and it's long overdue. Why should we in the ROC subsidize a group of Blocheads out to separate from the Country.

Any single individual, or incorporated entity, like a union, association, corporation, NGO, CBO can make a donation to a federal political party that is limited to $1100 in a single tax year. In fact, if the donation exceeds that amount, it must be refunded to the donor, during the tax year it is collected. A party may not take donations for next year's tax calendar during this year's calendar.
Thank you JC fop this great policy.
The CPC is not controlled by corporations; it is financed by thousands of people across this country that ponies up $550/avg each, every year because they believe in a vision that CPC represents.
This donation, by the way, is already partially funded by the tax payer. There is a large TAX CREDIT applied to every dollar raised from tax payers.
I’m guessing the tax credit stays. And all the other parties are welcome to use the tax credit to create revenue for their own internal and election operations.

I will be donating to the CPC for the first time this year if this passes. I think a facebook campaign should be started to support this move and to support the CPC even more to make up for the funding and to suck it away from the LPC and BQ even more.

Political parties wouldn't need as much money if we had intelligent and unbiased news media.

This could drive the Bloc to suport the NDP and the Libs in a minority coalitin of the left.

A very smart move, by our P M, hard to believe that 86% of the BQ's funding comes from us, as for the rest "root hog or die"
Cheers Bubba

Comment of the Day goes to ET (so far)

Heck, What a Chess Game. played by a master

Bang On ET Bang on.

Kate this topic should be moved up, this baby is going to be the talk of the Coffee Shops for days.
Man iam going to be on CPAC today at 4 for sure & i hope the Camera's pan the Opposition Bench's.
Now i Know Turkeys can Fly, Cause the opposition will be just flapping. The Scrums after will be something else, Oh the Agony of it All.

So Bob say's this is not the way to behave in a democracy. What a load of BS.

For any of you who are against this move, please explain how the parties raised money before Cretin's hand dipped into the pot?

*crickets*

My thoughts exactly.

I believe this proves that the Liberals saw the downward trend back in the 1990's in funding from grass roots donations. So Cretin found a clever way to keep the war chest full without that support. Party of the people my ass.

I hear a death knell. Or should I say: "THEY" hear a death knell.

So, according to Deceivin' Stephen and Deficit Jim...

- economic stimulus to businesses and Canadian workers... can wait

- making a decision one way or the other about bailling out the auto sector... can wait

- balanced budgets (and avoiding the payment of interest to foreign investors)... can wait

- cutting spending for luxury flights to cabinet members... can wait

... but the one thing the Conservatives find they can do is practice transparent petty partisanship to change the rules of Canadian electoral democracy, once again, in their favour.

If this was part of a larger economic plan, maybe you could convince Canadians that this is about the economy and not simply about sticking it to the opposition. I actually don't like the subsidy.

But does Deceivin' Stephen really think that Canadians are so dumb they won't see this as a transparent petty partisan distraction from dealing with the real issues of the economy.

As the Liberals found out in 2006 and Deceivin' Stephen will find out in 2009, Canadians aren't so dumb as he thinks we are.

THANK YOU!

That friends, is conservatism in action.

Poor Ted, desperation has reached epic proportions.

The only thing Canadians will remember will be form the endless clips of Ujjal whining on about having to fly economy and Boob Rae saying it is not democratic.

The more the opposition complains, the better it works for PMSH.

Harper has skewered the opposition, put them on a really hot BBQ and then turned up the head and slowed down the rotation speed.

What a delicious meal he is cooking up.

Ted:

So, Harper somehow caused these ‘real issues of the economy.'

You figure Canada's going to have a deficit?

Just listen to the screaming as more and more money is left in the hands of the taxpayer.

The screaming sound you'll hear will be from the people who figure they know how to spend your money better than you can.

I'm just going to sit back and watch the fun, while enjoying the money I worked hard to get.

Any questions?

"Harper has skewered the opposition, put them on a really hot BBQ and then turned up the head and slowed down the rotation speed."

Exactly, Fred. Canadians will see right through this transparent attempt. Deceivin' Stephen has shown he cares about one thing and one thing only: screwing the Liberals. All the "we have to make Parliament work", "we need to work together for Canadians" is all BS.

The problem for him is that Canadians don't want any more of this partisan BS and that's all that Deceivin' Stephen and Deficit Jim have to offer.

Ted, how do you stimulate business, bail out the auto sector and balance the budget, all at the same time? I like the belt tightening optics of the funding cuts. I expect other measures will be introduced on a timely and thoughtful basis.

I am still giggling at this cut. If, this means the end of the Bloc and the Green party, yahoo! To fund a party with taxpayers dollars that wants to separate from Canada, this is way over due. If it means that we will no longer have a party that pulls 8-9% of the vote away from the core parties, good, (maybe, Lizzy with have to take the bus next time). Let the Liberal's elect another academic, look what Dion couldn't accomplish. I was so proud of PM Harper at the APEX summit last weekend, Canada has a leader finally that the rest of the world respects. With this move, maybe now the rest of Canada will support the best Prime Minister this country has had in a very long time! This is like watching a Chess Master, taking out the opposition's "pawns" one at a time. Check, Mate.

Another poll gone horribly wrong at CTV

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?Results&id=111736&pollid=111736&tf=ctv/generic/hubs/ctvNewsSub.html&cf=ctv/generic/hubs/ctvNews.cfg&hub=TopStories&subhub=VoteResult

Ha. Steve you magnificent bastard.

Hey Ted,

Perhaps being a lawyer, you only know how to count the 28 hours a day you get to bill your clients.

For those of us who can count, the government has put up $100,000,000,000 (so far) PLUS a plan to guarantee interbank lending. Given our population is approx 1/10th the size of the US (and our banks aren't even bankrupt,) that's the equivalent of a TRILLION put up by the US (where their banks are bankrupt.)

As for the automakers, I notice the US put them off as well. First and foremost, it would only make sense to a liberal/dipper/lawyer to throw good money after bad. Either the Detroit 3 AND their unions agree to completely restructure, AND the US bails out their side, OR there is no point in the Canadian government acting at all. So yes, auto bailouts can wait. Preferably forever.

As for balanced budgets, I'm sure Harper would like to balance the budget by slashing spending but that's not what you do to stimulate the economy in a crisis. Your points are contradictory.

Cutting spending for flights is happening. So no wait.

It seems the only thing you have is bitterness that your party is bankrupt because all of its lawyer supporters refuse to give their own money to fund them. No, you lot expect the rest of us to do that for you. So your quip that you are "against" the handout is put up against your more-than-usual hostility to Harper and I'm going to say you aren't being entirely honest.

As for the odds the handout will go, it's one hell of a risk for Harper. The left's need for other people's money may be the only thing that gets them all to cooperate enough to form a coalition which would take Harper off the PM's seat. The Bloc wouldn't work with the Libs for any other reason. Given the GG is a CBC lefty, I can see it happening.

As a side note, it seems the "death of democracy" is when the leftards don't get their own way. Just like a "stolen" election is one where they lose. Fricken arseholes.

Ted better have a look at that poll on ctv.ca
Looks like the Public that you think will backlash the PM don't agree with you

Now this is What Canadians Want

I wonder, does the $1.95 per vote have anything to do with falling voter turnout? This is a question I have never heard asked.

Also, why to folks like Ted come up with these stupid names - deceivin' Steven? Almost as funny as lyin' Brian. Of course I do remember more witty ones from many years ago such as Ed Bentbroadly but I digress. Perhaps we should have a little contest and think up some fun names for the leaders of the Crying Opposition. Taliban Jack is taken.

I dunno Warwick, seems to me a heck of a lot of Canadians are at least just as likely to say 'We're all suffering here, and your first major act is to carry on with more of the same stupid partisan crap? This is why we gave you a minority again. None of you can be trusted to think first about Canadians, only yourselves.'

No Ted,

What it seems like is the Liberals and most of the media are simply unaware or deliberately lying about the 100 BILLION already allocated, on top of the other simulative measures taken and on the boards. Like multiple (and significant) drops in interest rates, acceleration of infrastructure spending, guarantees for interbank lending to increase liquidity...

Action still counts if the libs and journalists ignore it. Just cause you pretend it didn't happen, doesn't mean your invented reality becomes real.

It seems to me like the partisan lies and rhetoric is going mostly in the other direction. The Tories are losing the most money in those cuts. So quit whining.

Harper can both deal with the economy AND bankrupt his rivals at the same time. Besides, the libs spent more than they could afford (as usual,) and put themselves in the mess they are in. It's not the taxpayers responsibility to pay for them. They've had some time to figure out how to fundraise beyond Power Corp and the Bank CEO's.

I wouldn't put leaving more money in the hands of hard-working Canadians ‘the same stupid partisan crap,' but them I'm not ted.

We now know that the Liberals talking point is deficit, deficit, deficit, etc.

We also know Ralph Goodale criticized the current government for increasing spending at an alarming rate less than a month ago.

We'll see how Ralphie will vote to spare hard-working Canadian taxpayers an even higher burden to bail out corporate welfare bums.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

I think I may have changed my mind about donating to the CPC before Section 13 is tossed.

Go, Stephen, go!

Whats the big deal if the subsidies go away, surely its not that hard to ask each of your supporters to give up a single X-large double double every time they vote.

If people truly believed in the party they are supporting tossing a couple bucks in the every few years is no big deal, but the vast majority of the population votes based on "meh its not great but what can you do". Come up with a platform people get excited about and the money flows, from the people.

To Ted:
-Do you believe that any canadian government action can effect the course of the global economic crisis?
-Any thing Canada does concerning the auto sector is meaningless until the Americans move first.
-I'd love to see a balanced budget, but of course that means CUTS, which I'd support but sadly it wont happen. And of course the current budget is still in effect and not in deficit. I assume you've bought your Canadian savings bond's to reduce the debt ownership by foreign owners.
- I think all MP's should take the bus to and from Ottawa, it would reduce their desire to be there.

All the whining about how "this is not how democeracy works" is just plain juvenile. Even my 7 year old granddaughter knows that to get paid, she has to work. Simply handing out money bcause SOMEONE ELSE, the voter, showed for work is bullscat. It's not like this has been a long standing tradition! Six years kids.
To be shelling out my money to treasonists, communists and crooks really gets on my nerves. You children in opposition want to get paid? Get to freeking work and raise the money yourselves!
The difference between parliament and kindergarten? Adult supervision.

thought fisher was good! now harper wow !!!!
CHECKMATE. the other pete

I notice that ted is not suggesting that the Liberals return the many millions (over 40 million) that they stole from the Canadian taxpayer in Adscam. That would certainly help the economy.

And ted is ignoring that the reason the Liberals 'balanced' the budget was because, first, they overtaxed Canadians, leaving them dependent on government handouts (in return for their faithful votes, eh ted..heh heh, that's called bribery. Or better, extortion).

And the Liberals offloaded most costs on to the provinces, who offloaded it on to the municipalities.

You get it? That's the Liberal style of running an economy. You overtax, you make people dependent on govt handouts in return for their votes, you offload programs and costs to the provinces. Oh, and you get your party donations from big corporations and business, and you give them substantial tax refunds (more costs to the taxpayer). That's The Liberal Way.

No, ted, Harper isn't to blame for the current global economic crisis. Neither, sigh, is Bush. There's an enormous tectonic economic shift going on globally, as new economies enter the middle class market, such as India and China. There's lots of other things going on, and you may admire the Greatness of Harper and/or Bush, but it's beyond their capacities to cause such a global shift.

So, you don't 'stimulate' a tectonic shift. You acknowledge it and restructure your own economy to participate in the new one. That means that Canadians will have to do something they've never done - be competitive in the world market. So far, all they've ever done is sell all products to the American consumer.

But why should the American people always purchase 'Canada'? Why not from India, China, Mexico - and places where the products are the same but cheaper? Why should Canada expect the US to support the Canadian Welfare State - as Quebec expects the ROC to support it? Hmmm?

Why should the taxpayer bail out the Union-bloated auto industries? Tell us why, ted. Tell us how the unions have increased costs to the extent that people can't afford these cars; and these N. American auto industries can't afford to produce low cost cheap cars that people will buy. Because their labour costs, no matter how small the car, remain the same. HIGH. And you can only produce so many cars-an-hour.

So, producing a small cheap car, can't be done here. Because of the labour costs - those wages, those vacations, those sick days, those pensions, those benefits, those entitlements that have made union employees an elitist group in our country.

As for political parties, let supporters 'support'. Remember, their donations are heavily refundable in one's income tax - it's about 80% refundable. So, send your 500 odd dollars to your Liberal Party, ted, and get 400 back! From other taxpayers! Support your Party!

To be honest Kate, I was actually impressed by some of the comments on the libblogs. Looks like quite a few libs are in favor of ending public financing and think that inability of the liberal party to raise money from private donations is...well...the fault of the liberal party. Who would've thought?

Four "leftist" parties being kept alive artificially by a sort of special welfare...

and one "right wing" party which earns most of its money honestly.

Why am I not surprised ?...

Sorry Ted, but you have a tragic misunderstanding of Canadians - no surprise being a Liberal.

There is nothing Canadians like better - well maybe watching Team Canada beating the US in hockey - than to watch our political class, our intellectual superiors, our self styled tall forehead crowd, get roasted on the giant public spit. Those who believe they are entitled to their entitlements, who resent giving up their lip lock on the public teat, who believe they are owed a fine living at taxpayers expense - a rather excellent description of the LPC if I do say so, are the ones we like to watch turn & burn.

The self righteous Liberals, who look so good with a giant apple in their gob going round and round as the heat is turned up, are the shadenfruede of the Tim Horton's Canadian Class.

Simply delicious.

It's kind of funny, all of this moaning and groaning from people saying things like "this is the end of democracy" or "Stephen Harper is well on his way to becoming a dictator" etc. All the while, the only thing that these same people have to do is give their $1.95 to the political party of their choice. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

What I'm loving right now is the fallout. Axing political party welfare is an absolutely brilliant idea, so the best the opposition can come up with is "address the real problems; ignore the man behind the curtain (stealing money) and do for us what the US has done for their people".

The irony is delicious. Are these the same folks who railed against all things American? Aren't we supposed to come up with our own ideas instead of being __________, (R)'s lapdog? Now we're being told we aren't cooperating enough - or fast enough - with Barry O'Bama. After all, they're our largest trading partner, we need to have close ties with them, they're our brothers...

It's hard to see one's hypocrisy when one's lips are firmly attached to another's buttocks, I suppose.

Rae Daze... reprise.

Poor Ted, he's showing signs of stress, no wonder.
Trying to blame the Global economic crisis on the Harper Conservatives is telling us just how bankrupt in every sense of the word you and your Liberals are. Go back to the drawing board and morph into reality.
Also, since when is politics not partisan?

It's going to be especially fun to see the squirming body language from Ralphy Goodale on this one. He'll be screwing his ass right off the stool on MDL and Newman. Watch for it.

andycanuck 1015 - GREAT CATCHES - TOO FUNNY for words!~~

Anyone heard from Iggy on this yet?

Canadians ( maybe even some political pundits) will find it strange, that Barack Obama refused to accept any public funding for his political campaign, but his followers here in Canada, mostly comprising the left of the political spectrum, who adopted Obama as their political guru and leader, have gone into a frenzy and thrown a tantrum, at a suggestion that the Canadian taxpayer fund less of their political spending, particularly in these trying economic times, which require special consideration and sacrifice, by everyone including politicians.
Is the love affair of the lefties with Obama fading fast?

Squealing from the soon to be empty trough in the name of democracy looks good on Bob Rae! How are the Liberals going to fight while they continue to sit on their hands? Checkmate, Mr. Harper!

They had better put Ralph Goodale behind an inch of plexiglass on TV because this time he's gonna blow that aneurysm in his brain. I thought he was more relaxed lately, but the fun is just beginning! Mike Duffy is going to have his hands full tonight....

I just watched Fife reporting on this a ctv.ca
He notes: That we are Not talking about a one time shot of $30mill. this is 30Million a Year! So if we went say 4yrs before another Election the Liberals for example stand to lose 30.8 Million which translates to 67% of their income for the party.
Of course the Conservatives stand to lose 40Mill but this only translates to 27% of their income.

So when you look at this in the long run & since the Liberals want a Bailout for the Auto Industry! Well there's the Money.

"Grits and Dips will actually have to raise money from the peons"..... Hannibal

ROFL.... they'll will have to put on an extra mime show to raise money

"... but the one thing the Conservatives find they can do is practice transparent petty partisanship to change the rules of Canadian electoral democracy, once again, in their favour."

---Ted

Or you could say the present system favors EVERYONE BUT the Conservatives...

which would be more accurate.

Finally!!!!!! A govt with the stones to go after section 13 of the CHRA,the pork in the CBC, the perks for MP's,and the forced support of parties I loathe with my tax dollars. To Rae, Iggy, Bloc head and the moustache...."OInk Oink, Squeal squeal" Go Harper!!!!!!

At crfa.com radio in Ottawa the web poll is 84.6% in favour, 14.4 against.

At ctv.ca the web poll is 81% (3752) in favour to 19% (865) against.

I wonder if the opposition parties will change their tune once a few internal polls are taken?

I'll toot my own horn a bit here. Back when the pundits were saying that Harper failed to achieve his goal of a majority, my thought was that the very worst thing for the opposition would be a Harper minority - so that would have been his real goal. This was move 2 in Harper's plan. Move 1 was securing a minority. Looking forward to moves 3,4,5...

My theory was as follows:

I do not believe that Harper was gunning for a majority. He got exactly what he was shooting for which is a strong minority and second mandate.

Harper is no dummy. He will have been looking for the maximum bang for his buck and a majority was not it.

While a majority would have guaranteed Harper the ability to pass any legislation he wanted, it would have allowed the opposition - particularly
the Liberals - to establish the national narrative against the Conservatives
for the next 4 years (amplified by a helpful MSM) and to be able back that narrative up by showing up in full force and voting against every peice of
Tory legislation.

There would be no chance of toppling a majority govt, so the Libs would happily rebuild and refill their empty coffers.

Their rhetoric, which they would be able to stand behind and would resonate with disaffected Lib supporters, would give them a strong rallying and
rebuilding point.

So a Harper majority would seem to me to most benefit the Liberals - and I don't think Harper is that stupid.

A strong minority ensures means a renewed mandate, but it also means that the Libs will held accountable for their votes in Parliament.

Should they choose to oppose Tory legislation it will come with a steep price - another election that the broke Libs simply cannot afford. Think
this campaign was bad for the Libs, imagine the next one fought with essentially zero dollars.

So they now have no choice but to support every single peice of Tory legislation,or face certain ruin. In doing so they will lose what little
support and credibility they currently have - bit by humiliating bit.

Doesn't that sound like a much more effective plan to:

1) advance a Conservative agenda, and

2) to destroy the current LPC, which will virtually guarantee a Conservative
Majority next election.

The above could not be accomplished with Majority, only with a strong minority.

Harper never did talk about a majority, but he sure was happy to let the opposition and media scare the voters from allowing that to happen. Also happy to have the opposition spend every cent they had trying to stop it.

In the end he forced everybody to overplay their hands and help him get exactly what he wanted in the first place - the ability to govern
unobstructed and a tighter noose around the oppositions (particularly the
Libs) neck.

Ted

you are a true liberal

you TRY to talk down to the participants in here, all the while demonstrating your ignorance of the general naunce in here, how typically lawyerly of you

FYI; the governments of late tend to politic ALL the time, it's about time they (including the opposition) they govern

now as to Harper's latest "move", it simply demonstrates that he is a master tactician. I would rather have him govern (even tho I do not agree with all his policies) than some academic or lawyer, who tend to be totally out of touch with the electorate

The events of the US election campaign made the timing just right for Harper. It's not only the fact that Obama turned down public campaign financing and raised an unprecedented amount of private cash, in large part from millions of small contributions -- the "grassroots," if you will. It's especially that all four of the Canadian opposition leaders have been practising blind hero-worship towards Obama for ages now. I expect that Harper is going to raise the example of the saviour Obama when he talks about this proposal in order to give it special context and impact -- "you like Obama so much, you believe in hope and change, then here's some change you can believe in. If it was good enough for the Messiah, it should be good enough for you."

Well, he might not put it quite that way, but I really don't think Harper's going to let this parallel slip by without drawing attention to it.

The Bloc got 26.5% of the vote of the Conservatives in the last election. In 2007 the Conservatives had $17 million donated to them voluntarily. The Bloc raised $.4 million in the same time frame. If the Bloc voters are committed to the party, contributions at the same level of the Conservatives would be $4.5 million. Currently they are scheduled to get $2.6 million per year based on the last election result. If (and it is a big if!) the Bloc can build 1/2 the support as the Conservatives for donations, they can remain viable political party for a long time. Personally I don't think they can.

Funny how Grits have an immediate "emergency meeting" when their (only) funding gets cut off. Have they presented any cogent policy ideas to deal with the present economic uncertainty, rather than rhetoric about taking action?

Perhaps they should hold an emergency meeting to assess different policy options, then present them in parliament. Instead they want to gnash their teeth over the Tory "pathetic" attempt to "undermine democracy."

Does Harper want to destroy the LPC? It's a compelling argument, he replaces them ideologically, replaces them as government, then replaces them as the natural governing party.

To some it makes sense; I'm not so sure. I always thought this $1.95 per voter per year idea was top down stupidity. The fact is this replaced corporate and union contributions. Perhaps the Harper government could restore those type of contributions, albeit with strict limits.

OTOH, if Harper is playing the Grits, he's doing a great job, and given the behaviour of past Liberal governments WRT opposition, it's deliciously ironic.

I hear some see this as a chance for opposition parties to seize party through GG. The media is wrong, the Tories don't need the support of another party, just some of their members.

Imagine Grits, Bloc (especially hypocritical), and Dippers (Greens don't count) going back to electorate, at $300 million, for entitlement to their entitlements.

Maybe Harper is laughing his a** off at them, but he'll never admit it. Once again, he has outflanked the opposition.

Cross-posted at Jay Currie ...

I do believe Stevie really should be going for a two’fer here - doubling down on the political parties funding elimination by throwing in the $25 million or so annually wasted on the CHRC/T.
Leftist heads will not explode; they’ll vapourize.
Ah, the image of all those little mushroom clouds - on the streets, spontaneously, in Canada.

I think that the various banks and corporations that used to be shook down by the parties before and during election cycles - have become alot happier those special fundraising messages don't come as much or for as much as before.

'You know Harry, a large contribution would be seen very gratefully by the Party, and by the way, if you decide to move up to Diamond level donor this year, I know our leader is hosting a special event in several months, and he is always seeking input on policy matters...."

I can't see how a company would miss that kind of crap.

And I don't see how the voters will either. Or at least, me.

It takes a special kind of immaturity to look at an economic crisis - one that has people worried about their jobs and their homes and their life savings - and consider only how it might be turned to your advantage. But then, for all his ideological roots, Harper has demonsrated time and again that nothing interests him so much as cementing his hold on power. He may have evolved in terms of openness to pragmatic policies when they suit his political interests. But this is a leader who very clearly sees politics as a game, and who sees government - rather than what you do with it - as the ultimate victory.

You could say the same thing, to somewhat lesser degrees, about many who've come before him - not least Jean Chretien. But even Chretien, who clearly enjoyed elections more than he enjoyed actually governing, never devoted his time in office to rigging the rules to ensure that he'd win the next campaign, and the one after that - something he could have done rather easily, with a majority government and a divided opposition. And it's hard to imagine him - or Brian Mulroney, or Pierre Trudeau, or any other prime minister of any signficance - looking at a fiscal update in the middle of an economic meltdown as a chance to put the boots to his opponents.

The link was dropped: here it is.

Layton is blowing a gasket in QP, the govt is destroying democracy blah blah blah, wont help the forest, auto ind.Blah blah blah wont help, wont help, when people are losing their jobs, Wont help & will Jack Help by agreeing to a loss of monies to their Own coffers courtesy of the Taxpayes, No No No No.
And he will not say where he expects the moneies to come from for a stimulis package.
Also took a trip over to the good ol' G&M on this issue, Man are the left up in arms in the comments.
Damn i wish this had come up in the election.

BryanR: Harper was too busy telling us that the economic fundamentals were fine, that there would be no recession and that the Conservatives would never allow a deficit.

What leadership, eh? Deceivin' Stephen indeed.

I give an automatic donation of $25 per month to the Conserevatives, I support this new party even though I detested the Liberal Lite Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark's PC's and tore up my membership card.
Hundreds of thousands of little guys like me believe that you should put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, however small. That is also, I believe, how Obama raised $600 million.

Are the Liberals, NDP, BLOC and Greens going to openly admit that their supporters are so laisez faire that they would not personally support them except for rhetoric?

Are the Greens going to admit that they are not a political movement but rather a special interest group who use the election as a fundraising tool?

The debate will be telling won't it?

"This is why we gave you a minority again"

I don't know how many more times I can see this stupidity repeated before I have to chisel a hole in my skull to relieve the pressure.

There is no "we". None at all. The Canadian electorate is not comprised of a lump of votes that's portioned out like birthday cake according to the whim of some voter hivemind. Frankly, you can take your vote and shove it up your arse, for all I care. My vote is cast for the party I think should be in charge.

no, ted, Radwanski's comments are illogical and unsubstantiated.

You'll notice that in the two paragraphs you provided, that he gives his conclusions but no reasons for his description of Harper or Chretien. That lack means that his opinions, unsubstantiated, might, just might, be invalid. And you know what? They are invalid!

His view of Chretien as not rigging the rules is hogwash. That's precisely what Chretien did by cutting off Liberal union and corporate funding so that they wouldn't have the funds for the next elections - after His Imperial Regime was Over. Oh, and should we mention Adscam and its rigging of the taxpayer money? Hmmm?

I have a different opinion of Harper, based on what he has accomplished ...Radwanski and you both ignore accomplishments. Why? But I applaud Harper's tax reductions, both individual, sales and corporate, his family focused tax system and benefits, his programs for developing small and medium size businesses - the mainstay of the Canadian economy, his transportation, environmental, clean water programs, his focus on the North, his committment to Afghanistan's freedom, his restructing of the immigration program to focus on integration and so on.

No, contrary to Radwanski's suggestion, I do not think that our govt should again allow corporate and union donations. Speaking of democracy, it is extremely undemocratic for the dues of union workers to be spent, by their Executive, as that executive wishes.

Party donations should be given by and only by the individual, and should be capped. After all, if the socialists are the majority in Canada, and they are..then, why the heck don't their followers support them?

Oh, I know. It's because socialists, who see themselves as The Elite, who alone know what is right for the masses, are misers. Real entrenched misers. They think that Rich People, who are always 'in trade' (what 18th century snobs socialists are!)must be reduced by high taxes. These taxes will then, supposedly, go to support the 'poor'.

Sure. Socialists are also always found in govt funded jobs - secure, benefits, pensions. They are the administrators of social services, taking up 80% of the funds, leaving a pittance for the really needy. And socialists are famed for their tight purses, for their refusal to give to charity. Or to their political party. They think the Rich (again, those 'sniff' people in 'trades') ought to pay.

Andrew Coyne has a blog post in Macleans. He's all in favour of cutting these political parties off the public dole. As he says it is entirely in the power of each political party to do exactly what the Conservatives did, and build up a grassroots funding of and by individuals. So, why won't they do this?

Please tell us, ted. Oh, and you haven't answered any of my other questions. When will the Liberals repay the 40 million plus from Adscam? Oh, and why can't the Liberals get their socialist followers to chip in - even with 20.00 per person? Hmmm?

Let's sell the CBC too! And while we are at it, how much dough can we save by closing down the useless Senate? And do we really need 308 MPs? Hell no. Come on folks, if we all put our minds to it, just imagine how much wasted spending we can recoup! Maybe we could start a contest for best cost saving ideas? I like that...

One more thought,

When this comes to a vote in the HOC, a mysterious sickness will come down in Ottawa affecting 5 Liberal MPs, 4 Bloc MPs, and 3 NDP MPs on the day of the vote. The vote will pass by 1 vote and the all opposition parties can claim they voted against it.

Ted,

Adam is a liberal shill. Worse still for the idiocy of the second paragraph you quote.

Chretien did NOTHING but plot. He plotted elections, he plotted his rivals destruction (and his ban on corp, union, and large donations was for that reason alone,) he plotted against Day (if Harper would have called an election as soon after the lib leader was chosen you lot would have thrown a fit,) he plotted 24/7. All he did was rig the rules. He closed down inquiries when they looked too closely at him...

You are dumb enough to post that G&M imbecile's garbage like it makes your point??

We aren't idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty. You can't talk horse***t to us and call it a sandwich.

Well, Ted, you've linked to an article by Adam Radwanski in the G&M, a former Pres. of the Young Liberals. And that proves exactly ... what?

Anyway, you neglected to quote as well the following from that same article:

"The problem for the opposition is that it won't be difficult for the Tories to spin their outrage with the proposed elimination of public funding as the naked self-interest of people reliant on the public purse."

What Radwanski fails to explain is why it won't be difficult for the Tories to "spin" this outrage -- because it's justified. The Liberals don't have any high principles in mind over this, notwithstanding Rae's blather about democracy, which the Libs have so often thumbed their nose at in the past decade. No, it simply comes down to the fact that they're terrified about their existence and survival.

In all seriousness, Harper may be doing them a favour. If this doesn't light a fire under their potential financial supporters, nothing will. And if it doesn't, the party will deserve to die.

qwerty1:

How they vote will be interesting now that Jacko has spoken emphatically against the cut. By letting it pass the LP and especially SD may be voting themselves into bankruptcy. Voting against it and triggering an election is much higher risk and for SD could be his only salvation.

Has SD spoken on the issue yet BTW?

By being conspicuously "sick" may even be more harmful than flat-out abstaining AND it runs the risk that a couple of tories get a sudden bout of the flu...

Message to all those that voted against PMSH.
It does not even cost you a stamp to mail a letter to your MP. Include a toonie in the letter, with instructions to give it to the party.
Problem solved of the 1.95/vote loss.
Time for you non conservative voters to put your money where your mouth is.
Of course you could also ask your MP to make public the amount he/she receives.

It's unclear how the Green Party would be able to stage an effective cross-country campaign without the money, especially since they were unable to elect a single MP to Parliament.

However, what is clear is that the Green Party received money, didn't stage a cross-country campaign, effective or not, and still didn't elect a single MP.

Don't slash the funding, cancel it outright.

Exactly, warwick. All Chretien ever did was plot and manipulate. For his own singular agenda of Power. He had no interest in the well-being of Canada or Canadians.

What was his answer to mad cow disease? He had a photo of himself eating beef.
His answer to SARS? He had his cabinet flown to Toronto, at taxpayer expense, to have dinner in Toronto - another photo-op.
His answer to problems? Propaganda against the Americans, including his shameful handling of the softwood lumber dispute.

Again, ted, tell us what you think should be done. Why should we taxpayers fund these political parties, including the Bloc and the Greens, rather than have that money put to use in building roads and etc?

Why shouldn't political parties get their money from their supporters? The Conservative Party gets its money from support as low as 10.00 per month, or even just once, from individuals. Why can't the other parties do this? There are more socialists than conservatives!

Why doesn't the Liberal Party, or the NDP or the Bloc, if they are enraged by the current economic situation - why don't they come up with a plan? Why just rant and rail? After all, that's easy to do - rant and rail.

Again, ted, you haven't explained what you think of the Liberal economic strategy, which was to overtax Canadians, - that's how they got their surplus. And offload programs on to the provinces - that's how they kept their surplus. And then, use the money to bribe voters to vote for them.

Do you think that the Liberal Economic Way is ethical, ted? Do you?

Harper cuts taxes - why should a govt amass such huge surpluses? He doesn't offload programs to the provinces; he offloads power to the provinces, so they can make local decisions for local requirements. He pays down the debt, something the Liberals ignored. What's wrong with that? No, Harper hasn't run up a decifit; he may have to, because of the global shift.

Strange, ted, you don't acknowledge this global change; you don't acknowledge that Canada can't continue to operate in the Old Liberal Way, which is to simply manufacture goods and ship them to the American consumer. That includes cars, which the unions have removed from the economy. Comments on unions?

Well boo hoo hoo.

Historically, Reform/Alliance/CPC drew almost most of its funding from party members, $50 or $100 at a pop, whereas the Liberals relied mainly on corporate Canada for support. Jean Cretien threw a wrench in the works with his deathbed electoral reforms which cut his party off from its normal source of income (thus skewering Paul Martin) while establishing public financing as a consolation prize.

Tapping public money to finance political parties is disgraceful. When I first ran (successfully) for Parliament as a Reformer in 1993, my party was penniless, and I had to raise my $60,000 campaign budget entirely at the constituency level. My supporters set up booths at every sports day and rodeo, and when I went door knocking, I always had a membership/receipt book in hand. We pulled it off.

Under the present setup, all of my openents would have had access to the big trough in Ottawa but I, as the new kid on the block, wouldn't have been elligible for a dime. I wouldn't have had a chance. Would that have been democratic?

Quit your whining Pat Martin, get off of your duff and do a little fund raising. If your support is solid, you'll have no problem. If not --- tough.

What tax did Chretien introduce, ET? He was actually the first PM since who knows when (possibly ever) to not raise taxes but lower taxes.

Sorry Ted i was over at cpac watching the cryfest
Ted say all you want about what the PM said during an Election, If this country is going into a period of Economic uncertainty We need a Government & a PM that is showing leadership, A PM that is going to grab the Bull by the Horns & lead this country threw some tough times And when canadians are suffering the most they need to see this from our leaders. Not reports of How Much a Political Party took in from Taxpayers wallets after an election. And ted looking at recent polls on this issue looks like "This is What Canadians Want"
Canadians have had enough, they are fed up at the Politicians & bcrats sucking off the teet of the land while they, the people! the taxpayer! has to tighten one's own belt to stay afloat. Yes ted PM Harper is here to stay & the Entitled to their Entitlements are being banished. Kinda sucks dont it ted when you see the free ride courtesy the taxpayer ending, Kinda irritates the liberal minded slogan "Do as I say Not as I do" because its soon to be "you will do as I, the people say".

Coyne, correct as usual...

Getting politics off the dole
By Andrew Coyne - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - 99 Comments

We’ll see about the deficit later, but for now this is fantastic news:

(snip)...I don’t care what their motivations are: it’s the right thing to do. The public subsidy came in with the Chretien campaign finance reforms in 2003. But it was entirely contrary in spirit. The point of the restrictions on corporate and union donations was that elections should be a matter between the candidates and the voters. Corporations and unions don’t get extra votes in the ballot box, and shouldn’t get extra voice in the fund-raising contest. Nor should corporate and union leaders be able to donate other people’s money on their behalf. Whether to contribute to a political party, and how much, and to whom, should be a private, personal matter — voluntary, individual decisions.

The $1.95 “allowance” violated every one of those principles. By abolishing it, the Tories are finishing the job Chretien started, of creating a truly citizen-based campaign finance system. Or not quite: even without this particular subsidy, the parties would still benefit from the hefty tax credit on political donations (the formal beneficiary is the donor, but in practice the incidence is shared), while candidates would still have their expenses partially reimbursed. But it’s certainly a big step in the right direction.

Ignore the howls of the opposition. It is entirely within their power to do as the Tories have done, and develop a large base of individual contributors. Absolutely nothing is stopping them. Weren’t we all just worshipping at Obama’s shrine? Isn’t that what he did?

Ignore, too, the complaint that somehow this cripples the political process. Much of the subsidy we have been paying these people goes to the very things that are currently poisoning the political process: over-priced strategists and attack ads, push polls and focus groups. Who needs it?

Still not convinced? Two words: Bloc Québécois. Look at the numbers above. We, the taxpayers of Canada, are underwriting 86% of the expenses of a party whose sole raison d’etre is the destruction of the country. Let them work their treason on their own dime.

Why should we taxpayers fund these political parties

Why should we taxpayers fund freeloading farmers, ET, rather than have that money building roads etc??? Huh, ET, tell us, why???

Actually, no, Bryan. As I noted above, I think this is good general policy. But it's not about policy for Harper. As many many supporters have pointed out here, Harper's move is good tactics, good strategy. When the country wants some economic leadership and Parliament working together, what is Harper's first move? Stick it to the other parties. With him, it's all about screwing the Liberals and not about governing.

If Deceivin' Stephen and Deficit Jim had shown any iota of economic leadership:

- they would not have shattered spending records over the last two years just to buy votes with our money
- they would not have shattering spending records on polling
- they would not have lied to us about the deficit or the coming recession
- they would not have made reckless promises like promising not to tax income trusts that resulted in losses of millions and millions to seniors and others
- they would not have chewed through the Contingency Fund designed to avoid just the kind of deficit Deceivin' Stephen has created
- they would not have been jetting around to second homes on our dime or been taking limos to arts awards ceremonies
- they would not be starting up their own sponsorship programs (and sending secret internal memos to caucus members asking who the money should go to before the program was public), etc. etc. etc.

The Right Honourable Stephen Brian Jean Harper may be a clever tactician, Bryan, but he is no leader.

The time is probably good enough for Iggy to demure on denouncing this, aim for the top job, and reconfigure the Libranos to the right.

That's where their largest problem is - they've moved too far left for mainstream Canadian support.

Maybe that's why the Iggster is sitting on his tongue.

ted, do you remember Chretien getting into power by his campaign promise of repealing the GST? And then, heh, not repealing it but keeping it? Hmmm?

Harper reduced corporate income tax from 22.12% to 15% by 2012, reduced small business from 12 t0 11 in 2008, set up a capital gains exemption increase for small business from 500,000 to 750,000, the first increase in about 20 years, plus all his new 'working families' benefits, of child tax credits, eliminating RESP limit, eliminating the tax on elementary and secondary school scholarships, public transit credits on and on.

The Liberals did none of this. They simply taxed and taxed. Kept the surpluses, not to pay down the debt, as Harper did, but to bribe ethnic groups and other groups in return for votes. Offloaded costs of programs on to the provinces.

Again, why can't individuals give 10.00 a year to their political party, as do the Conservative donors? Or, even, just that incredible 2.00? Why can't they do it? Why does the Canadian taxpayer have to pay for this?

Think what the govt could do with this 30 million? Why don't the other parties give it up as part of their contribution to the economic crisis?

Sorry Ted i dont know where you got that one about Chretian Lowering Taxes, I sure remember my taxes, UI going Up Not Down & besides Ted lets take another trip down memory lane there. Was it not Chretian that abolished the GST Oh sorry ted got that wrong He Promised to abolish the gst. Good gawd ted, sheila Copps even promised to resign if they did not, Ya she resigned all right long enough to run in a By-Election at a cost of how much? to taxpayers only to win that by-election & did they abolish the gst & did shiela go into caucas pushing for this. NO Ted remember all that was, just another pull the wool over the taxpayer as long as they got Elected, Now that Ted what was the word you used in ref to PM Harper? Deceive! Ya the liberals were Pro's at that!

Posted by: manny at November 27, 2008 4:36 PM

You didn't answer the question bub.

Nor did you, BUB.

Sorry Ted have to disagree with you again, Iam more confident with PM Stephen Harper then any other party leader in the current house. And i would say alot more Canadians are today then ever before.
Lets agree on one thing though ted, lets wait & see whats happens today & look at the Publics Opinion friday of this decision.
Besides i gotta go, days over & the tires calls will start again friday as we are expecting snow.
take care all carefull drive Home, you too ted.

Why can't freeloading farmers give up their swill as part of >em>their contribution to the economic crisis, huh ET, why can't they???

ET: You are avoiding the question so I'll ask it again.

What tax did the Liberals introduce?

They cut personal income taxes and corporate taxes, about $1.8 billion in the 2002/2003 budget, increased the personal exemption amounts that the Progressive Conservatives had frozen, and were the first government in the G8 to pay down the debt. In fact, 90% of the Liberal surplus went to paying down debt or tax cuts.

Again, what tax did the Liberals add?

Simple question. Please answer.

Bryan said: "Iam more confident with PM Stephen Harper then any other party leader in the current house. And i would say alot more Canadians are today then ever before."

Curious then that the Conservatives are down in the polls and that they had less voter support (in absolute numbers) in this election than in 2006.

I don't have a problem with your statement though about having more confidence in Harper. I'm sure he's obviously pleased to have your automatical support no matter who is in opposition or no matter what he does. It is obviously an individual choice to say he is a better leader than anyone else in Parliament, but don't try to claim that "better leader" means he is a good leader. As I pointed out above, with those kind of decisions, he clearly is not a good fiscal manager of our finances or a good economic leader.

manny, could you first explain your adjective of 'freeloading' as applied to farmers? Thanks.

hardboiled - thanks for providing us with Coyne's excellent column.

By the way, ted, why do you trivialize and denigrate a discussion by your name-calling of Harper? That's rather juvenile. Can we discuss the issue without resorting to insults?

Now, when you accuse someone of lying, you have to provide evidence that the individual knew that X-was A, and that this same individual declared instead that X-was B. You have no evidence that Harper knew in advance about the 'coming recession' or the 'coming deficit' (neither of which have occurred yet). You, as a lawyer, ought to be clear about your terms and your evidence.

As for taxing income trusts, you know, or ought to know, that this became necessary because of all the banks and other institutions that were moving into this very handy tax dodge. The Liberals were on the cusp of doing so, but, being Liberal, didn't do it because of their fears of voter anger...A Liberal always has one eye on the vote.
Harper did it, losing votes, because it was necessary. Otherwise, the tax loss would have had to be made up by individuals.

What Contingency Fund? Please explain. Do you mean paying down the debt?

The jets and limosines, long enjoyed by Liberals, have been curtailed. Remember Dingwall who insisted he was 'entitled to his entitlements'. Does that satisfy you? Oh, and ted, you still haven't mentioned a word about the Liberals paying back the taxpayer for Adscam.

I think you'd better provide some evidence for you claim that the Conservative Party is engaged in 'their own sponsorship program'. Otherwise, it's libel.

Now, ted, what's your suggestion as to how the govt ought to deal with this current, complex, multifaceted economic crisis? Kindly remember that it isn't ONE issue, but many.

There's the 'tectonic shift' in both production and consumption, as the emerging economies move into the middle class and costs of production rise as well as a focus on increased consumption by these economies.

There's the threshold limit where the union-driven costs of manufacturing have gone beyond the consumption capacity of N. American consumers. No-one can afford to purchase a N. American car and those companies can't afford to make even a low cost car because employee costs are so high.

There's the shift from raw resource production in Canada as these resources dry up.

There's the fact that Canada developed itself as a mono-economy, focused only on producing goods for one consumer, the US, and refusing to make its products competitive in the world market. With the availability of goods to the Americans and others, from other markets, why should people purchase Canadian goods?

So, it's bad economics to simply throw our tax money into sustaining The Old Way. We have to develop NEW economic and production methods. If we aren't willing to do that...and pumping money into the auto industry or forest industry won't change the structure...

Harper is waiting to see what the US will do with its auto industry - and he's right to do that, since both are connected. He's waiting to see what happens with liquidity in the financial sector as well. Or do you prefer a 'plan' (heh) that consists only of flinging money at the factory?

That's what the Liberal strategy has always been. To ignore the infrastructure. Always ignore the infrastructure. And just tax, and fling that surplus to prop up businesses (Bombardier and others); or make-work projects (the gun registry) or other make-work projects. All useless in themselves, all sustained only by taxing Alberta and Ontario. No attention to the real situation, the economic infrastructure. Is that your kind of govt, ted?

Ted: "they would not have chewed through the Contingency Fund designed to avoid just the kind of deficit Deceivin' Stephen has created."

Hmmm, Harper has created the deficit. First, until we here the opposite, the govt. isn't in deficit; anything to the contrary right now is speculation based on certain assumptions that may or may not come true. As for his having created the deficit (which hasn't yet come to pass), it's true that he has spent far more than he should have, though it's also true that his govt. probably would have fallen if it had shut the financial spout that was aimed at so many special interests. But it's also true that Paul Martin's govt. spent at an even higher rate, so if the country finds itself in a deficit that it could have avoided, the blame can be spread around both CPC and Lib govts.

But if a deficit occurs and it turns out to be 10, 15 or 20 billion, how could the 3 billion contingency reserve have kept us out of it? That reserve is simply a Liberal talking point. In any case, far from blowing this reserve, the Conservatives simply applied it to the debt at the end of every fiscal year.

To your credit, Ted, you didn't suggest that the Conservatives got us into trouble by cutting the GST. God that's a stupid argument.

Did anyone else see Robert Fife refer to PMSH as "Putin minus the bullets to the head" or something like that? Someone needs to get that video- I think CTV pulled it.

I just upped my donation from 20 to 30 dollars per month to the Conservative Party of Canada!! I just love that guy Harper.

You are just mean. Do you realize the Communist Party may have to go back to using his girlfriend's phone? Liz May won't be able to afford to get to the microphone? The Liberals will learn grass roots don't grow worth a damn on asphalt? You are just mean. Don't worry about Jack, he will do ok. He may even support it to get official opposition or the others will be bribed for legislation passage. I'm so mean.

Ted: "The Right Honourable Stephen ... Harper may be a clever tactician, Bryan, but he is no leader."

I think he's a fantastic leader. He's got integrity, smarts, courage, and balls.

As far as Librano "leaders"? PET, who swung both ways, and put Canada on the long, painful road to socialism; Chretien, le p'tit gars de Shawinigan who robbed Canadians blind; Martin, who didn't know his *ss from a tea kettle and simply petered out in 2006--all their strings pulled by the Demarais at Power Corps (and Mo Strong).

No thanks. With those guys at the helm, I guess Liberals wouldn't know a leader if ... his name was Stephen Harper.

ET:

Still avoiding the question, I see. I understand your problem: you accuse the Liberals of being taxers when in fact they didn't increase any taxes at all and you know it. In fact, they cut taxes.

Now as far as the rest of your nonsense, please keep up with current events.

Harper told us in the middle of October that there would be no deficit and Flaherty repeated this after the election. A multi-billion dollar deficit does not just suddenly appear, as Harper and Flaherty would have us believe. Harper's own budget chief announced that Harper's spending policies made the coming deficit inevitable. The report was being worked on and discussed for months. These things don't just happen. If you want to bury your head in the sand that's up to you.

As for taxing income trusts, you have a hard time with reading comprehension I know, so I'll restate what I said. Taxing income trusts was not the criticism; it was recklessly promising never to tax them in the first place. A good economic leader doesn't act so recklessly. Harper made a bad problem worse because seniors and income trusts believed him. That is very bad economic leadership.

What Contingency Fund? Oh please, ET, read the news once in a while. While the Liberals were paying down the debt and cutting taxes, they also built up a reserve fund in order to ensure that we never faced a deficit again and never had to rely on foreign investors for our budget. Harper has blown through that in his record-breaking spending sprees. That is very very bad economic leadership.

The jets and limosines, long enjoyed by Liberals, have been curtailed. Except we only this week got a report of cabinet ministers being jetted off in luxury to their second homes at taxpayer expense, ET. Only NOW that they've been caught out do they promise to tighten their belts.

I think you'd better provide some evidence for you claim that the Conservative Party is engaged in 'their own sponsorship program'. Again, ET, do you ever read anything but SDA for your news? Google "Bev Oda" and "sponsorship program" or check out this article: http://tinyurl.com/5gbo4b. That's just bad economic and fiscal leadership.

How do you jive your 'tectonic shift' with the comments of Deceivin' Stephen about the "fundamentals of the economy are fine", nothing drastic needs to be done or needs to be changed in government action? How do you jive your 'tectonic shift' with comments from the government that this economic crisis has come upon us suddently and rapidly? If it was a tectonic shift, then he should have been planning for it. That is very very very bad economic leadership.

Now, I've courteously applied myself to your comments on my assertions.

Could you please answer the one single question I've asked about your assertions: what taxes did the Liberals raise or introduce? I'm still eagerly waiting for your reply, ET.

ted, the Liberals 'balanced their books' by both their high taxes, and their offloading programs to the provinces.

The fact that Chretien didn't introduce new taxes is irrelevant, ted; (oh, wait, what about pension deductions?)The fact that everyone had to pay 70%more to qualify for the CPP. Heh, he got away with not calling it a 'tax increase' but an increased pension contribution. But it goes into the govt coffers.
Oh, and employer-paid insurance became taxable. Capital gains tax exemption gone. Air transportation tax went up. Fees for national parks, food inspections etc etc..all went up. Not called 'taxes' but 'costs.

Oh, and Chretien borrowed money, increasing the national debt by over 100 billion in his first term in office.

the fact that he kept the GST after promising to drop it; that he offloaded costs to the provinces as a means of gaining a surplus, and that he didn't return this money to the people, but used it for 'bribe and vote' strategies, is his legacy.

what are the odds Citoyen Dion happens to have both thumbs up his a$$ when the vote comes?

OTTAWA — All three opposition parties say they’ll vote against the minority Conservative government’s fiscal update — raising the spectre of a showdown that could lead to yet another federal election.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois say they can’t support the plan because it offers no stimulus package to deal with the economic crisis.

The fiscal update is a confidence measure that must pass or the government will fall.

However, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion did not respond when asked if a handful of his MPs might be absent for a vote on the update, allowing the government survive.

Ted: "While the Liberals were paying down the debt and cutting taxes, they also built up a reserve fund in order to ensure that we never faced a deficit again and never had to rely on foreign investors for our budget. Harper has blown through that in his record-breaking spending sprees."

Actually, it's incorrect to say that Harper's spending spree has been "record-breaking." It hasn't been good, but the record for year-over-year spending increase belongs to Paul Martin in his final year as PM.

As for Stephen Harper "blowing through" the 3-billion contingency reserve, what he did was apply *all* end-of-year surpluses towards the accumulated debt.

Finally, it's pretty naive to think that a 3-billion dollar annual reserve (not compounded year after year) would "ensure that we never faced a deficit again." As I said earlier, that's just a Liberal talking-point.

The fact that Chretien didn't introduce new taxes is irrelevant

When you accuse him of increasing taxes, yeah, it is kind of important and relevant, ET.

You've shown us you don't read much, that you don't comprehend what little you read and now that you don't understand your own argument, ET.

I'm heading home now. Thank you for the laugh. I'm still chuckling. Oh, I wish there were more conservatives who thought like you do, ET.

Does anyone actually believe we will have an election over this economic update? What a laugh? It's almost as funny as the opposition seizing control of parliament, such as was done in 1985 by NDP/Liberal minority agreement.

Harper needs something like 13 votes to go his way, or not vote at all. That's what will happen. The Liberals would have to go into another election with Dion as leader, and explaining to Canadians that they are trying to preserve their $ for votes, or worse still, telling us what they would do instead.

What the Bloc and Dippers think what should be done is irrelevant. In the extremely unlikely event of an election in 09, actual policies would have to be proposed, rather than "do something."

It would be a referendum of whether you believe in limited government helping or massive government intervention into things like infrastructure (which takes months/years to take effect). Remember the last infrastructure program of buying flags, roads to nowhere, and basically wasting $6B.

The whole thing is a joke, really. Grits are blowing steam, and seem more like a bunch of whining pigs, determined to keep their snouts in the trough.

Oh yes, the electorate would love that. Does the LPC actually have a death wish. It's arguably possible Tories are playing politics right now; if they are opposition are going for it hook, line and sinker.

Augueing with "Ted and Manney" is like talking to a child about touching a hot stove. They never learn unless they get burnt. Sometimes it takes a child several times to learn. "Ted and Manney" are like "Obtuse" children, they just never learn. Nannies, big government, instatutions, sucking off government program teats, being controlled and just plain whinners.

"TED", you never let the Conservatives any minority, PMSH earned that right by bieng smarter than your HERO Dion. Suck it up princess and put your big girl panties on. Take off your "rose coloured glasses, look out the front window. You may get brave enough to actually venture outside "grasshopper" and open the gate and step out on the sidewalk. Be carful "grasshopper", us Conservatives have layed traps of "dog poo" for all you Lieberals to step in.

one thing of interest, semi related.

How many days after the election has it been? Where Mr. Dion's great plan to save the nation during this economic crisis?

I mean, sure he's not the PM but he promised a plan PDQ. You would think he would at least have a brain storm chart filled with good ideas and perhaps even an opening paragraph to the study?
Actual nuts and bolts not just the bulleted points:
a) save economy
b) save auto sector
c) save lumber
d) raise government spending
e) cut taxes
f) do all the above with balance "magic" budget ledger

there's only two possible reasons we haven't seen any useful input from the leader of the opposition: 1) their only plan was to start working on a plan by forming a plan planing group once elected. Or 2) they have the silver built solution and rather then help the nation they are keeping it secret just to stick it to the PM.

What do you think is more likely?

MJ:

Yes, it was Liberal thinking at the time to think that no Prime Minister in their right would spend the way Harper spent. Martin did not spend more. He unwisely promised to spend a whack of dough in leading up t the 2006 election but even those promises (which obviously he did not implement) did not amount to as much as what Harper has ACTUALLY spent.

Harper has broken the record in year-over-year spending increases. That is a fact. And that PLUS the shortsighted gimmicky tax cuts (while increasing income taxes to pay for it) PLUS eating through the Contingency Fund is why we are headed into a deficit. It's the combination of all of this that highlights what a bad fiscal manager Deceivin' Stephen and Deficit Jim are.

I believe that governments actually do NOT have a great ability to affect the economy positively over the long haul, but they are 100% responsible for their own budget and fiscal position. When the mortgage and housing and credit markets start taking a sharp nosedive, as they did starting in the summer of 2006, and your own budget and economic advisors are telling you that worse is to come and the dominoes are just starting to fall, Harper fiscal policies were incredibly irresponsible and very bad economic leadership.

MJ:

Yes, it was Liberal thinking at the time to think that no Prime Minister in their right would spend the way Harper spent. Martin did not spend more. He unwisely promised to spend a whack of dough in leading up t the 2006 election but even those promises (which obviously he did not implement) did not amount to as much as what Harper has ACTUALLY spent.

Harper has broken the record in year-over-year spending increases. That is a fact. And that PLUS the shortsighted gimmicky tax cuts (while increasing income taxes to pay for it) PLUS eating through the Contingency Fund is why we are headed into a deficit. It's the combination of all of this that highlights what a bad fiscal manager Deceivin' Stephen and Deficit Jim are.

I believe that governments actually do NOT have a great ability to affect the economy positively over the long haul, but they are 100% responsible for their own budget and fiscal position. When the mortgage and housing and credit markets start taking a sharp nosedive, as they did starting in the summer of 2006, and your own budget and economic advisors are telling you that worse is to come and the dominoes are just starting to fall, Harper fiscal policies were incredibly irresponsible and very bad economic leadership.

"Again, what tax did the Liberals add?"

It's not so much about what they did above the table, Ted. Under the table they stole millions and boondoggled billions of taxpayer money.

But then that's how criminals behave isn't it?

"Curious then that the Conservatives are down in the polls and that they had less voter support (in absolute numbers) in this election than in 2006."

And the Liberals? The worst showing since Turner.

But then Ted, you already knew this. But rather than calling you a deceiver, I'll call you an outright liar.

The Conservatives had a higher percentage of women voting for them than the Liberals. The Conservatives had the best percentage gain in the popular vote versus competition +1.43% vs. Liberals –3.93%, Bloc –0.49% and NDP +0.49%

Oh, and Nanos had this to say:

“Harper and the Conservatives can rightly claim victory. They increased the numbers of seats in the House of Commons and improved their showing in battleground Ontario where they surpassed the Liberals in popular support for the first time in 20 years.”

You and your loser party of criminals? Right where they should be. Staring into the abyss.

ted - I never said that Chretien introduced a new tax; so don't say that I accused him of such.

I said he overtaxed and that's hardly disputable. he kept the old ones; including lying about his campaign promise of dropping the GST; he increased other taxes (not new ones; but increases); I've listed some.

So, what's your point?

And, what are your suggestions for an economic lifesaver for the nation? You are certainly eager to criticize but don't offer any suggestions.

Oh come on now folks Ted is just upset. You see during Ted's halcyon days the Liberals used to hand out money in brown paper bags but with Harper's intent they won't even be able to afford a brown paper bag.

This poll though probably not definite. Made my day. I mean do we really want half a billion spent like in the US on elections in a Country with less of a population than California? Frankly our Politicians aren’t worth that much.
Its a smart political move because only the politico's are hurt this time, instead of the tax payer buggered by the the usual Liberal gambit to up their pay checks or scam an ele4ction on our dime. They where the inventers of this. Let them eat the pie they made.

This poll though probably not definite. Made my day. I mean do we really want half a billion spent like in the US on elections in a Country with less of a population than California? Frankly our Politicians aren’t worth that much.
Its a smart political move because only the politico's are hurt this time, instead of the tax payer buggered by the the usual Liberal gambit to up their pay checks or scam an ele4ction on our dime. They where the inventers of this. Let them eat the pie they made.

Sorry, must have pushed the button twice.

It's unclear how the Green Party would be able to stage an effective cross-country campaign without the money, especially since they were unable to elect a single MP to Parliament.

It's pretty simple. They won't be able to.
They'll have to build the party the old fashioned way. Sell some memberships, collect some donations. Run in only a few ridings where your issues resonate and the sitting member isn't strong. (The Deputy Prime Ministers riding is NOT a good choice.) Win a couple of seats, repeat as necessary.

If you can't do any of these things, you are not a real party, the tax payer owes you nothing!

Of interest - how *do* democracies behave wrt funding of political parties?

http://www.idea.int/publications/funding_parties/index.cfm

Can't understand how some of you constantly try and reason with the trolls here, you waste too much effort in trying to educate them and it must be apparent that they are beyond redemption. Anyone who cannot see the intrinsic logic of political parties being supported by donations from their supporters has been drinking the 'fool-ade' for so long that their brains have turned to mush. Harper has virtually eliminated the Bloc and the Greens from the political scene. We now have a three party country with the libs/dips on the left. The next election whenever it comes will be a watershed moment because most of the readers here and most Canadians understand there never was and never will be a free lunch, you get what you work for and if you expect something for nothing all you get is more 'fool-ade'

Manny: Until now I have always skipped over your drivel but in reply to your question -

"Why should we taxpayers fund freeloading farmers, ET, rather than have that money building roads etc??? Huh, ET, tell us, why???"

A big reason the taxpayers fund the farmers is to ensure a safer food supply than the alternative would give us. I am sure we could get cheap food supplies from China but before I would consume a lot of what they produce, I would like you to try it first.

An advertisement for 'Drink Malamine" doesn't sound as good as 'Drink Milk'.

Millions of people have starved in the past and are starving now in countries that could have produced more than enough food to feed themselves - Russia, China, a bunch of African countries. If we were to let the farms go back to natural prairie or bush, where do we get our food from? Not only that but if we wanted fresh meat we would have to go hunting and kill it ourselves. Are you promoting the killing of bunnies and bambies?

I can't believe you would promote the building of more roads which leads to more autos which leads to more CO2 - are you promoting global warming? or are you a denier?

Better watch out or you will have to turn in your tinfoil hat.

Now - "Why should we taxpayers fund these political parties?"

So can anyone tell me...Do the CTV polls automatically close down once over 75% vote against the socialist agenda??

Far as I am concerned the CBFC and those poxy media whores at the CTV are made from the same pile of Tranna bullchit. Thank gawd for cable and the internet.

ted

ET has answered your questions several times, but you appear to have a comprehention problem, so let me simplify things for you

the liberals DOWN loaded many things to the provence, thus they did less with your tax dollars but kept collecting the same amount, now that IS a tax increase

same as if an employee's hours are cut but their paycheque remains the same, they effectively recieved a hourly pay increase

CAPICE?????

The liberals have been social engineering their own demise.
Liberal supporters expect the government and the party to look after them, they don't believe in donating or volunteering unless there is something in it for them.

We should take up a peso collection and toss it on the front steps Stornoway, then we could yell "SCRAMBLE" and take lots of pictures....

Don Martin suggests "the public outrage at a election-triggering stunt perpetrated by the prime minister would unleash a backlash of historic proportions - and the reaction would be angriest in Quebec", but the CTV poll (80% in favour of cutting direct taxpayer funding) suggest there is support. My favourite part of Don Martin's comment is this, though, "Political parties hooked on taxpayer subsidies for their lifeblood will suffer catastrophic withdrawal from the public purse if this proposal goes ahead". Kind of says it all, doesn't it? And he's writing against the idea?

Gosh, Kate, yet ANOTHER CTV poll "gone horribly wrong":

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?Results&id=111875&pollid=111875&tf=ctv%2Fgeneric%2Fhubs%2FctvNewsSub.html&cf=ctv%2Fgeneric%2Fhubs%2FctvNews.cfg&hub=TopStories&subhub=VoteResult

The Conservative government is holding off on an economic stimulus package. What do you think of this strategy?


Wait to see what happens 2395 votes (65 %)

Economy needs it now 1264 votes (35 %)


Total Votes: 3659

I have been following comments, columns, and news heads for the last few hours, and I agree with the consensus that Harper has played a bold strategic move today and has in effect check-mated the opposition. However another thought has occurred to me while considering the ramifications we will witness over the next while. We all know that Harper is great strategist and thinks many moves ahead of the opposition, surely he must have several other moves he wants to play? This one results in a lot of noise, and has some risk, but what about his next alternatives? I have no doubt he has something in mind, if he finds that the opposition is united, what else does he get in return for not pushing it? Then again, what manoeuvrer is in his plans, that this actions sets up? True senate changes?.. as I said who knows, but you can bet he is already 6 months ahead of everyone else in Parliament, and nothing he initiates is linear. As others have said "He is a political/economic chess master".

Marmot Days - Victoria opined: "I have no doubt he has something in mind, if he finds that the opposition is united, what else does he get in return for not pushing it?"

I think he's going to ban the wearing of underwear by all males in the House of Commons which should shorten committee meetings considerably. It should also result in an increase in ointment in their flys.

No need to thank me. All in a days work.

Got up early the other morning to hear Preston Manning speak at the municipal convention in Winnipeg. It brought back a few pleasant memories of the good old days of Reform prior to the election disappointment of 1997. Like Lee at 4:14 I was with the Reform campaign in 1993 and basically had much the same experience with fund raising. No big donors, just lots of canvassing. We'd get the corporate donor lists from the Libs and PCs and shake our heads at what they were getting compared to us.
In those days Reform fund raisers played up the tax deductibility of personal donations as a means to encourage higher amounts. There was nothing wrong with doing that but the end result was that the Canadian taxpayers were subsidizing the political process, big time. I considered that to be contrary to Reform's basic message of fiscal responsibility. I therefore maintained my habit of not claiming my contributions at tax time.
When Chretien changed the system from indirect to direct subsidy he simply guaranteed all of the parties a revenue stream based on their vote count. It is the removal of this revenue stream that outrages the opposition. They have become rather lazy and developed a culture of entitlement. As far as I'm concerned, if they have grassroots financial support, then hey, "no problem" (right Preston?). If not then they can either get out and raise their own funding or go out of business, it's a simple equation._

ET- Freeloading--Living on other peoples hard work and money. Per capita cost for the CBC-about $30.00. Per capita costs for farm subsidies in SK-about $400.00. The per capita cost for what you're whining about, what, two bits? Puts things in perspective, don't it?

manny, no, your opinion that farmers are 'freeloaders' (using your definition of living on other people's work and money) is invalid.

Farmers work. Very hard. I bet you don't understand where your food comes from. It comes from farmers. From their work and money. The farm business in Saskatchewan is worth over 6 billion per year. Subsidies, which enable farmers to update equipment, obtain low cost loans, aren't in lieu of work; they enable work. I bet you don't know that.

Have fun with your ignorance, manny.

ET, would that I, or anyone, could enjoy ignorance as much as you clearly do. Pantload Steve Harper would make it illegal.
Auto workers work...very hard.
CBC employees work...very hard.
Millions of Canadians work...very hard.
I guess anyone who works hard should be subsidized in ET's "free market, conservative" universe.

BTW, ET, I know more farmers, and more about farming than you ever will. And I know a lot of farmers who haven't the slightest acquaintance with hard work.

"CBC employees work...very hard."

"I know more farmers, and more about farming than you ever will. And I know a lot of farmers who haven't the slightest acquaintance with hard work"

Thanks manny.

richfisher, yer welcome.
Grain farmers "work", at best 2 months out of the year. Quadding,skidooing, goin' south, going for coffee, and bitching and moaning don't qualify as work, let alone hard work.

"Auto workers work...very hard."

So hard in fact they deserve more pay then teachers, nurses, paramedics, police officers... None of which work hard, or require more then knowing "righty tighty"

The amount of pay isn't proportional to the "hardness" of the work. Rather to the value of the work. If your job requires little or no: skill, education, training, capital, land, investment or brain power, odds are if you making more then $10/hour your over paid.

I have no sympathy for anyone who find themselves without a job having no marketable skills. If your only marketable skill is that you held your last job for as long as you did, you deserve exactly what you get. And as a tax payer who funded all the advantages (education, infrastructure, health care) bestowed upon you up to this point in your life I hope the dog food tastes good.

Awww, the pantload blinked. Too bad.

Stay tuned as Stephen's Blogging Brownshirts, having until now squealed with glee over Stephen's impressive political acumen, will now hold up this latest development as proof of Stephen's maturity and leadership.
You know it's coming.

Sadly, yes, CC.

"...Per capita cost for the CBC-about $30.00. Per capita costs for farm subsidies in SK-about $400.00.

I'm not in Sask but...

I'd rather pay $400 for food producers than pay $30 for a brain washing machine that is the CBC.

We all need food to stay alive, no one needs the CBC ...well..except the liberal party.

"...CBC employees work...very hard."

The few hours they actually work in a week ( and are over paid for ),they work hard at spinning news, distorting news into anti-conservative, anti-Christian, anti-USA,etcc... brain-washing propaganda.

and they work hard at keeping a straight face while lying through their teeth telling us all that garbage.

Scratch a Con, find a hypocrite, like friend, or ET, or any denizen of the small dead nation.

I'd rather my $400.00 goes to the Flat Earth Society than one thin dime to a freeloading, Con voting farmer.

"I'd rather my $400.00 goes to the Flat Earth Society than one thin dime to a freeloading, Con voting farmer."

And there you have it folks. Government spending should be based on voting preference.

manny - because you say that you know a lot, doesn't mean a thing. Self-description is, well, it's useless because it has no objective reference scale.

Grain farmers work only two months out of the twelve? No kidding. Prove it.

Now, you still haven't substantiated your claim that farmers are freeloaders. Try again. And your personal views don't count; you have to provide objective evidence. Do you know what that means?

ET, I didn't say I knew a lot, only that objectively I know more than you ever will, which isn't saying much.
Grain farmers work 2 months out of the year? I was being generous. It's called seeding and harvest. Prove it isn't so.
$5 billion taxpayer dollars go to farm subsidies year after year after year uncounted. What more substantiation do you require?

"Grain farmers work 2 months out of the year? I was being generous. It's called seeding and harvest. Prove it isn't so."

This statement in itself should indicate that any attempts at rational debate with this ignorant dufus are simply exercises in futility.

Manny hasn't spent much time around a farm.