212 Replies to “Say What You Like About Harper (Bumped)”

  1. 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

  2. I think I may have changed my mind about donating to the CPC before Section 13 is tossed.
    Go, Stephen, go!

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  6. 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!

  7. 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?

  8. 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 ?…

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  13. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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….

  18. 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.

  19. “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

  20. “… 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.

  21. 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!!!!!!

  22. 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?

  23. 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.

  24. 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

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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?

  35. “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.

  36. 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?

  37. 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…

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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…

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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?

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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”.

  48. 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.

  49. 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???

  50. 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation