For someone who just recently was soliciting greater co-operation of all parties in the Commons — vowing that “We are not seeking confrontation in areas that are secondary to the economic focus of this government” — yesterday’s promise to terminate the $30-million public subsidy to the country’s political parties seems like a rather odd way of going about things.
The cut will have almost no appreciable impact on the government’s balance sheet of course — it’s almost purely symbolic. At worst, it may even be an opportunistic gambit to stifle opposition by choking off the life support system of Stephen Harper’s rivals, for while the Conservatives will most certainly take the biggest hit, passing up approximately $10 million dollars in public funding, the net effect will be less immediately significant for them, as this amount only represents 37% of their income and it’s understood that their war chest is still presently flush with money. For the other parties however that are currently mired in debt and struggling to recover from the last (utterly pointless and arguably illegal) election and generally rely more heavily on the public financing system for their funding (the Liberals and NDP, for example, depend on this source of income to the tune of 63% and 57% of their budgets, respectively), changing the rules of the game at this critical juncture could be devastating — at least in the short term. It may even be fatal.
I suppose it could be argued that this move may provide the Liberals and others with the incentive needed to jump-start their moribund fundraising efforts, but as we’re on the verge of heading into a full-blown recession with many people soon to be facing the dole or at the very least tightening their belts, that argument doesn’t hold a lot of water. It’s highly doubtful there will be any great outpouring of cash from small donors over the next year or so — if anything, all the parties will be fortunate to maintain this year’s level of contributions from their respective bases. In the case of the Liberals, this will push them even deeper into a deficit from which they’ll be hard pressed to recover. Not to mention the obvious fact that this cunning maneuver will effectively prevent them from mounting any kind of a challenge to the government in the meantime… which is perhaps an academic point in any case given that they’re also involved in another useless, internecine “leadership” battle that will drag on until almost the middle of next year.
Sad days for Liberals.
Update: As if there was any doubt about the matter:
In this, the Conservatives aim to level a strategic blow to the Liberals as Conservative fundraising efforts — rooted in the Reform tradition of passing the hat in legion halls and church basements — has remained strong. Buoyed by detailed supporter databases, the party is set to compete on an advantageous — despite it’s now mutually diminished — footing with other parties. The Liberal Party still has not mastered grassroots fundraising and with an expensive year ahead with another leadership convention, Liberals will need to determine how to appeal (and fast) if they are to survive as a viable organization.
Time for the Libs, Greens, NDP and Bloc to vote Harper and his incompetent wrecking crew out of office at the first available opportunity and form a progressive coalition government.
Update2: A rather bleak assessment of the Liberals’ prospects. I dare say that it isn’t anything some of us don’t already reluctantly concur with.
Update3: Dan Arnold (“Calgary Grit”) proposes what I’d suggest is a ridiculously long transition period. Ten years? Give me a break. How about one year at a minimum and two at a maximum? That seems eminently fair to me. But then, this isn’t about “fairness” is it? It’s about destroying the LPC.
Update4: Steve V is waging a rather valiant effort over here to arrive at some kind of sensible position on this issue.
Well, if the Conservatives can ignore election Canada finance rules when it is convenient for them (hello In and Out Scandal), then so should the other parties. Start taking big donations from individuals, corporations and unions again.
If the CPC want’s to play hard ball, play fucking hard ball right back.
It will be amusing to watch the CPC and their supporters cry about the rule of law and obeying Elections Canada when they haven’t done it for over 3 years.
This move is anti-democratic and smacks of a proto-fascist consolidation of power by one party.
Even as a libertarian that no longer votes, I say not in my Canada.
This is perhaps the most cynical move I have seen in my lifetime ….
Time to have Harper arrested for attempting to bribe Chuck Cadman.
…*sigh*
Pingback: » “In this, the Conservatives aim to level a strategic blow to the Liberals”. Scott’s DiaTribes: My personal opinions on social and political issues from a progressive standpoint.
I’m not sure the Green vote in particularily crucial in this case.
True enough.
Here’s the clincher:
Will Harper likewise withhold the huge tax credit given to those who donate to political parties? That’s a huge “subsidy” as well — one that benefits the Conservatives the most.
The first $400 donated results in the feds reimbursing $300 (75%). The next $350 reimburses 50% ($175), and the next $525 reimburses 33.33% for $175.
Donating the max of $1275 results in the feds reimbursing the donor one-half of the amount: $650.
The actual tax form is here:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5000-d1/5000-d1-07e.pdf
Right now, I can use my vote to allocate just under $2/year to the party I vote for. Using the political donation tax credit, I can choose to allocate up to $650 of taxpayers’ money per year to a political party.
This donor tax credit, however, is of little to no benefit to those with low incomes as it is a non-refundable tax credit (you have to pay federal income tax to collect it) — not that low income persons can really afford to donate money to political parties that easily anyway.
With the current system, at least there’s some democratic relationship between how many votes a party got and its funding.
If Flaherty does not introduce measures to withhold the tax credit, then it will be clear that the only intention here is to hobble the opposition parties.
This is another example of incremental change by the Conservatives. A few years ago, they reduce the maximum contribution limit because the Liberals were on average raising funds from a smaller number of large donors, while the Conservatives were raising theirs mostly from a large number of small donors. The Conservatives changed the law to drastically reduce contribution limits, favouring their funding model and hurting the opposition.
And hurt it did.
Well, they are at it again, all under the guise of somehow helping our economy, which actually can’t be true, because cutting spending right now will do nothing. And since Harper is doing nothing until next year in the way of economic stimulus, these cuts won’t do anything economically positive.
Harper has been a failure in the two areas which matter the most: the environmental and economic files — which, to me, are completely intertwined.
I want Harper out. Now. As this is to be a confidence vote, here’s the chance.
This would not mean that we’d have another meaningless election. No. The opposition would have the full right to first approach the Governor General and ask to form the next government without an election. I can’t imagine the GG not at least letting the Liberals try.
All that the Liberals have to say in Parliament is that Harper’s lack of economic policy is a failure (a clear truth), and that Canada does not have the luxury to wait until the next budget to take action in what is a global crisis.
This entire Conservative-fabricated confrontation over political funding would be buried in the cacophony.
[I think this will now be a blog post too...
]
Re update:
The Liberal Party still has not mastered grassroots fundraising…
They’ve also not had the chance to co-opt public resources to shovel out Conservative propaganda in any myriad ways the Harpies have done over the last three years, which the Harrasites did during their reign.
Little amoral shits…er…political entrepreneurs…like Stephen Taylor (a Jack Abramoff en herbe)….need to be reminded of this.
You’ve got to hand it to Taylor, though for mastering the language of ideological certitude. It sounds robotic and dull-witted (and it is…profoundly so), but it does serve the purpose of crafting messages that communicate clarity, sincerity, discipline, conviction, unambiguity and inevitability.
I just find it odd that as these neoconservative propaganda techniques have finally lost their power in the place they first took hold, they’re making a last stand, here in Canada.
We don’t deserve this; we didn’t vote for it, and most of us oppose it.
“We don’t deserve this; we didn’t vote for it, and most of us oppose it.”
It’s the nature of the beast, Ti. When was the last time at least 51% of the elctorate didn’t vote for parties in opposition to the government? Why is it suddenly a democratic crisis now that it’s you who doesn’t care for the party that scratched out a government?
And, more to the point, if your tens of millions of Liberal supporters can’t be bothered to donate $1.50 a year to the party they support then the whole lot of you, in fact, DO deserve the resulting Harperocracy.
My, my, we don’t deserve it and we didn’t vote for – uh, huh – well, you didn’t refuse it either.
Boy, Layton has sure been manipulated by Harper again. Both trying to destroy the Liberal Party and Harper stabs Layton in the back.
Ben — You have a point as far as that goes. The Liberals have had years to get their fundraising act together and have obviously failed quite miserably. That said, it’s still an awfully cynical move by Harper. At the least, I feel their should have been public hearings on the matter as it’s something that effects all voters. Also, there should have been a time frame sufficient to allow the parties to adjust their funding models accordingly. If the proposed cut applies to public funds that would have been paid from the last election, that seems quite illegitimate to me.
Oh well. We’ll just have to adapt and move on. It’s hardly the end of the world.
Come on Harper put your blue sweater back on.
We’ll just have to adapt and move on
Yes, by ignoring the law on this. The gloves are off kiddies. Get and take money from anywhere you can get it. Harper really isn’t going to like that.
It’s the nature of the beast, Ti. When was the last time at least 51% of the elctorate didn’t vote for parties in opposition to the government? Why is it suddenly a democratic crisis now that it’s you who doesn’t care for the party that scratched out a government?
I’m not 20 years old, Ben. I’ve been lamenting the crisis in democracy for over two decades now, so please don’t try to imply that this is purely a partisan issue with me.
It’s so cute when the young try to explain “the facts of life” to me. It’s endearing.
And by the way, this…
And, more to the point, if your tens of millions of Liberal supporters can’t be bothered to donate $1.50 a year to the party they support then the whole lot of you, in fact, DO deserve the resulting Harperocracy.
…pretty much sums up all Conservatives really want from the Government: that they *stick it* to everyone else.
It’s bizarre when it comes from 20 year old university students who haven’t started working or paying taxes or confronting any of the challenges or responsibilities of adult life, but does show the crisis of socialisation and education that has beset our society.
People like Ben think they’re smart. When I was his age, I at least knew one thing…that I knew nothing at all.
Mike — It’s kind of funny that all the Conservatives jumping for joy at the end of “welfare” for “poorly run” political parties (i.e., the Liberals) aren’t a little more concerned about the tax credit for donations. I don’t see how a measly $1.95 per vote that goes directly to whatever party you happened to vote for is “welfare”…
Can someone explain that one to me?
“I’m not 20 years old, Ben. I’ve been lamenting the crisis in democracy for over two decades now, so please don’t try to imply that this is purely a partisan issue with me.”
Dreadfully sorry for the confusion, Ti. I’ll try to familiarize myself with you’re well documented 20 year history of topical laments before I contradict you in the future.
“It’s so cute when the young try to explain ‘the facts of life’to me. It’s endearing.”
And thank you, wise old sage, for sharing your timeless politcal wisdom with a mere worm such as myself. You are truly a beacon of inspiration in these dark times.
I’m going to have to agree with Mike, and suggest the all other parties ignore the law…ignore all ethics, in fact. If anything it’ll keep the Harpies bogged down in witch-hunting and scandal, which is what they, or more profoundly, their mouth-breathing supporters, prefer doing anyway.
“People like Ben think they’re smart. When I was his age, I at least knew one thing…that I knew nothing at all.”
Brilliant. I must write that one down…
Ben…if I want a response I’d expect from a sassy 13 year old girl, I’ll talk to my daughter.
Ben — Actually, the sobering realization of being utterly clueless is more generally something that comes to us with age and is something imagined in hindsight. At the time, we all think we’re absolutely brilliant, shiny creatures filled with marvelous insights and philosophical revelations.
So it is kind of cute in that respect. I mean that genuinely, by the way. There’s a charming naiveté involved… Where it sometimes goes wrong is when the presumptuousness gets ahead of itself and oversteps its ability to speak authoritatively about various issues.
At the time, we all think we’re absolutely brilliant, shiny creatures filled with marvelous insights and philosophical revelations.
I have to say, I didn’t have a youth like that.
What can I say? Mine was quite Wildean.
A happy medium between “know nothing at all” and “absolutely brilliant” seems reasonable. Operating from either assumption seems like a non-starter to my youthful naiveté. This isn’t rocket science; an ounce of common sense seems like a good start.
Thanks for the different perspective though, RT.
You can’t be Wildean in the wilds of Northern Ontario. It’s just not conducive to that sort of eccentricity and free spirit. Unless you count driving a ski-doo drunk…which remains my favourite winter activity…as long as you stay sober enough to avoid the frozen lakes.
By the way, I was a little condescending with Ben (and not avuncular like you) because I’ve run into him before. Another precocious Tory Tot explaining the facts of life to us stupid Liberals.
Ben — I’m all about “happy mediums” these days.
There’s far too much extremism and radical emotionalism in the political sphere as a rule. I just seem to have a difficult time getting all that worked up about this stuff. Much of it is silly, crass and vulgar.
It’s amazing that we are now facing a Conservative deficit and all Harper can do is look for a way cause conflict and undermine democracy.
I wonder if Captain fucknuts will also remove the tax credits when individuals contribute to political parties…
Ti-Guy — I can appreciate that. By contrast, Victoria is quite conducive to this sort of thing. Or at least, it was… back in the day. I was infatuated with a decadent, amoral, Fin de siècle sensibility…which seemed appropriate then. Of course it was completely insular, narcissistic and self-involved. Then reality intruded, as it always does and rudely shattered that illusion
CWTF — Yes, let’s focus in on that. If the Cons want to pull the public financing rug out from political parties, fine… then let’s withdraw the tax credit too and we’ll all be playing on a level field with no public monies involved at all.
I just find this cut absurd coming on the heels of a useless 300 million-dollar election.
If the Harpies had wanted fiscal prudence, they should have started with that.
If the Harpies had wanted fiscal prudence, they should have started with that.
Have they ever even demonstrated any? Connies are just pigs at a trough with sycophant backers…
“I just find this cut absurd coming on the heels of a useless 300 million-dollar election.”
Never quite understood that line. Certainly, the decision by Harper to call the election when he did violated his earlier fixed-election-date promise and is therefore indefensible. But when we have an election has no impact on how much it will cost, so that 300 million would have been spent eventually. It’s like everyone suddenly realizes that elections cost money when it’s a Conservative who calls one.
Nice try, but no sale on that one.
We all know how much elections cost — this isn’t some new revelation. It’s approx. $10 for each man, woman and child… always has been.
This one however seemed especially opportunistic and purposeless because… well, it was!
Harper couldn’t even be bothered to put forward a platform until the end of the campaign and it was a frivolous afterthought. What was the need for this election? The “dysfunctional” parliament…. Give me a break.
Nice try, but no sale on that one.
We all know how much elections cost — this isn’t some new revelation. It’s approx. $10 for each man, woman and child… always has been.
This one however seemed especially opportunistic and purposeless because… well, it was!
Harper couldn’t even be bothered to put forward a platform until the end of the campaign and it was a frivolous afterthought. What was the need for this election? The “dysfunctional” parliament…. Give me a break.
I have to say I am pretty happy with this move. Political parties should be funded by the citizens that support them. I never liked the idea of any of my tax dollars being used to fund the Bloc.
I guess the Liberals would have been wise to spend more time cultivating their grassroots instead of pandering to the big corporate players like Power Corp, huh? Even the NDP has a better fund raising machine than the LPC. Nothing was stopping the LPC from building their own grassroots fundraising juggernaut…why didn’t they?
I would suggest that the donation maximum be raised to perhaps $2000, but other than that, I am A-OK with this, and I suspect that the vast majority of Canadians are good with it as well.
If the end result is the collapse of the LPC, then I would say they are a victim of their own inefficiency.
On the subject of a coalition government, I do not believe that most Canadians would be tolerant of one that included the Bloc. And considering that it would take all three parties to outnumber the Cons, I consider it a non-starter.
Potentially, this is a good thing for the Liberal Party, it will force them to engage their grassroots members…something they are currently terrible at, IMO.
Jim — Explain to me how YOUR tax dollars are being spent when I vote for a party and MY $1.95 of tax money goes to the party I voted for.
Fair enough, left me rephrase. I have a problem with ANY tax dollars funding the Bloc. In fact I have a problem with the Bloc even being allowed into the HoC. They are not a national party.
And another thing…
On the subject of a coalition government, I do not believe that most Canadians would be tolerant of one that included the Bloc. And considering that it would take all three parties to outnumber the Cons, I consider it a non-starter.
A) What’s your “belief” regarding this presumed intolerance based on? Magic stuff? Things you just made up?
B) The Bloc consistently scores favourably with “liberal” voters in the ROC notwithstanding their ostensible position of opting out of the country.
C) Yes, it will likely have the effect of putting the Liberals’ feet to the fire in terms of fundraising. And who knows… maybe they’ll now actually be able to out-raise the Conservatives. Wouldn’t that be a sweet outcome? A classic case of unintended consequences.
Jim — The BQ has a valid (albeit somewhat quirky) position in parliament and they quite effectively represent the interests of their constituents. I should also be said that they consistently speak “truth to power” on behalf of many “liberals” across the country who can’t actually vote for them and have no vested interest in their agenda. It’s kind of a complex relationship but one that’s not incompatible.
My belief is based on the same thing most of your views come from…my belief. Do you honestly think Canadians west of Ontario would support the Bloc in a coalition government? If you do then *I believe* you are deluded.
Perhaps in the circles you frequent the Bloc is looked upon favourably, but my existence is ,*I believe*, closer to the average working Canadian than yours and we don’t care much for a party whose sole reason to exist, is the destruction of Canada. As an aside, I kinda like Duceppe. If he wasn’t a traitor, I think he could go far in Canadian politics.
I really do think it will have the effect of driving home to the Libs, the realization that they connot survive without the support of their grassroots…including those outside the GTA. You are part of dwindling number of people who identify themselves as a western federal Liberal supporter. The Libs need to stem that hemorrhage, quickly.
Granted, it’s just anecdotal observations over the past 10 years or so amongst a wide variety of people of different political persuasions. But you could be right. It would be interesting to see some polling on the issue.
And yes, I could well be part of a “dwindling number of people” in terms of identifying myself as a Liberal.
Unlike the “Conservatives” that pulled in a whopping 37.63% of popular support in the last election… (By my math, that means 62.37% of people voted AGAINST Team Harper).
And we’ll see how that rather feeble number holds up during the upcoming recession, won’t we. “Tory times are hard times” goes the old expression. Deficits, program cuts, unemployment, general hardship… good luck with that.
Yes, and the Liberals captured only 26.2% of the popular vote, so by my math, 73.8% percent of Canadians voted against Team Dion. I really don’t know why the left continues to bleat on with that number. Then the reasoning becomes “well, if the left united we would have a bigger percentage of the popular vote”.
Let me fill you in on some political reality…you are a pretty smart guy and are probably aware of this already, but the Dippers hate the Libs and the Greens are way too right wing for the Dippers. Funny, in all this talk of a coalition government, 90% of it seems to come from the Libs. The NDP certainly doesn’t seem to want it.
And in this instance and time in history, I don’t think the analogy that “tory times are tough times” holds any water. The tories are no more responsible for the worlds financial situation than you or I. Besides, you may accuse me of being blind, but the financial situation in Canada really doesn’t seem so bleak. I am doing pretty well and most of the folks I associate with are not feeling much effect either.
I think the media really needs to lighten up on the doom and gloom though. Retail sales are doing OK, car sales are up and other indicators point to Canada weathering the storm quite well, yet such stories tend to be very short, yet the dire predictions rather than the hard numbers continue to dominate. Disgraceful fear mongering from the media really, but if it bleeds, it leads.
Gee, how did Harper do in Quebec after his 3 billion $ bribe?
Has anyone seen Fortier after he was severely trounced in his “riding”?
The problem with a tax deduction for political donations is that it lets the rich give to their party (and get the spoils when their party wins) and my tax dollars are subsidizing that….
The Connies kept on telling us that the “economics are sound” – so why even help the banks? Why are we in a recession? Maybe we should cut in military spending – it’s mostly a fucking waste of money.
Yes, and the Liberals captured only 26.2% of the popular vote, so by my math, 73.8% percent of Canadians voted against Team Dion.
Well, at least we know Jim can work a calculator.
The Bloc consistently scores favourably with “liberal” voters in the ROC notwithstanding their ostensible position of opting out of the country.
Where the heck did you get this factoid? The Journal of Irreproducible Results?
Where the heck did you get this factoid? The Journal of Irreproducible Results?
Yep, straight from CTV and The Globe & Mail.
It’s a cute throwaway article, but you have to admit that after a decade of no real progress on the whole separation thing for Quebec, the Bloc doesn’t seem that much of a threat (but then that’s how they usually get you, by appearing harmless).
For me, no party that appeals to a region (vote for us ’cause we’re the home team) gets my support.
Sharon — Thanks for that. I suspected it was more than my wild imagination. Moebius and others may be rather incredulous about that, but it’s a sentiment that I’ve heard coming from people of all stripes for years… even in Alberta!
No problem. There are some people who have warmed up to him. Honestly, if they dropped the separtist plank… well, it would be interesting to see what would happen.
Hey, here in Alberta there are some of us who have actually considered seeking the Bloc nomination in our riding.
The tories are no more responsible for the worlds financial situation than you or I. Besides, you may accuse me of being blind, but the financial situation in Canada really doesn’t seem so bleak. I am doing pretty well and most of the folks I associate with are not feeling much effect either.
Well, there have been people in the auto industry like the people employed by Magna in Newmarket who have been effected by the slowdown. Even though they may be so far removed from ourselves, we should have compassion for them, or else we become like the people George Orwell describes here….
“And what voices! A sort of over-fedness, a fatuous self-confidence, a constant bah-bahing of laughter about nothing, above all a sort of heaviness & richness combined with a fundamental ill-will — people, who one instinctively feels, without even being able to see them, are the enemies of anything intelligent or sensitive or beautiful”
As for whether the Tories are responsible for the global meltdown — they’re not, but they are responsible for the books and the government’s reaction to the economy right now in Canada. There wouldn’t have been a scramble to balance the budget if they hadn’t been so quick to cut. The slow down in the economy in 2001 didn’t hurt the federal government’s books because of the contingency fund. Cuts in taxes like the GST(hilarious watching shopper’s indifferent reaction to a 1% decrease in price for goods) probably haven’t helped in this regard. If they were aiming for a government budget that would be balanced only during times of economy growth… what were they thinking would happen during a collapse?
Another point about what the Conservatives could do during this time — John Lipsky, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund (yeah, take his points with a grain of salt), noted that: “More broadly, our research suggests that global fiscal stimulus on the order of 2 percent of GDP is justified. Moreover, fiscal policy action would be more effective if it were implemented in key trading partner countries more or less simultaneously. That said, fiscal action may not be advisable in countries with greater vulnerabilities, or those where debt sustainability is a major concern. Thus, countries with the strongest fiscal policy frameworks, those best able to finance new fiscal efforts, and those with clearly sustainable debt positions should take the lead.” Might be nationalism, but his description of countries that should take the lead… that sounds like Canada.
It’s a theory… but then so is the idea that doing nothing will allow the economy to recover.
Jim — Let me fill you in on some political reality…the Dippers hate the Libs and the Greens are way too right wing for the Dippers. Funny, in all this talk of a coalition government, 90% of it seems to come from the Libs. The NDP certainly doesn’t seem to want it.
Perhaps. But let me fill you in on some “political reality”… Here in B.C., many “liberals” (those who can be roughly described as “left” in their political orientation) regularly pivot between supporting the NDP provincially and the Liberals federally, so the entrenched animosity that you speak of is much less evident. There are a lot of crossed paths here between the NDP, Greens and Liberals (Briony Penn, the Liberal candidate running against Gary Lunn locally, for example was a former Green Party activist… and Ujjal Dosanjh was, of course, a former NDP premier)
And in this instance and time in history, I don’t think the analogy that “tory times are tough times” holds any water. The tories are no more responsible for the worlds financial situation than you or I. Besides, you may accuse me of being blind, but the financial situation in Canada really doesn’t seem so bleak. I am doing pretty well and most of the folks I associate with are not feeling much effect either.
Goody for you and the folks you associate with. I presume that you don’t own a home or for that matter hold any stocks or mutual funds, otherwise you might have seen a great erosion in your investments and may not feel so sanguine about things. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Conservative government is responsible for the world’s financial situation (although it could be argued that the policies of so-called “conservatives” in the U.S. have precipitated the current madness in the markets), but here in Canada they are guilty of recklessly overspending and frittering away a massive surplus for the sake of some boneheaded ideological reasons (e.g., cuts to the GST that every economist said was just plain stupid).
I think the media really needs to lighten up on the doom and gloom though. Retail sales are doing OK, car sales are up and other indicators point to Canada weathering the storm quite well, yet such stories tend to be very short, yet the dire predictions rather than the hard numbers continue to dominate. Disgraceful fear mongering from the media really, but if it bleeds, it leads.
Yes, car sales in Canada were up 1.5% from last year, mainly due to significant price reductions, but I could throw out a bunch of indicators that point to downturn. For example StatCan’s Couriers and Messengers Services Price Index decreased 1.8% from last month. Durable goods orders have dropped significantly in the U.S. for October and the effects of that will be felt here in the next few months. Is there some “fear mongering” in the media? Well, perhaps… but your own Dear Leader has said that we’re in the midst of “tough times” (the premise by which he got Federal employees to settle an outstanding wage dispute).
What a mess!
Harper is fishing with a grappling hook and all three parties are jumping to impale themselves on said hook.
Smart, …not really.
They all scream “lack of stimulus” and only in their little girl voice, talk about their ox being gored.
But if Harper pulls this lever, or that lever, and the opposition parties switch sides, they look to be seen in the light of the naked and the greedy.
If they stand their ground and pretend to have principles, they either a) plunge this country into an election or b) cause a constitutional crisis for the GG to solve.
a) election, yippee! all because the opposition either refused to wait until the US had determined what the rest of the continent was going to do, or because they are naked and greedy.
b) A Prime Minister from a party that is turfing him, along with our good friends in the party that wants to split up Canada and our good friends from the politburo.
What a mess.
What do you think would be good for Canadians, Tomm? I mean the faux-Canadians who live all over the place, not the real ones, who live in Alberta.
Ti-Guy,
You said:
“…What do you think would be good for Canadians, Tomm?”
That is the rub. Harper absolutely jumped in with both feet. He put in a big fat poison pill that is apparently too poisonous to be supported.
I don’t know what will happen and yes, Harper caused the domino’s to fall.
I do however think that the other parties during an election campaign will need huge help from the media to withstand the public backlash caused by their bringing down the government for partisan reasons during an economic crisis. How do they explain it to a guy who isn’t engaged with who gets public funds and why it’s so important that the public pay the parties to compete?
If they form a coalition government, it will be worth watching. Prime Minister Dion? or is that Ignatieff? Rae? Layton? Duceppe?
Visions of sugar plums are dancing in my head.
What would be good for Canada is for either the other parties to back down or for Harper to compromise with a $1 drop per vote or some such other suggestion.
Harper should NOT announce any economic stimulus unless the Canadian economy is flat on its back, or until Obama and Harper get a chance to do it together.
Jim,
Political parties should be funded by the citizens that support them
Excellent. I agree.
So then you’ll be writing your MP and Minister Flaherty and demand he also get rid of the tax credit for political contributions too then right? I mean, if your average CPC supporter donates $100 and gets $75 of it back as a tax credit, then the Government of Canada is essentially subsidizing 75% of the CPC coffers right?
Can’t have that. Political parties should be funded by the citizens that support them, not the government.
Right?
Witness the brilliance of this:
“Harper should NOT announce any economic stimulus unless the Canadian economy is flat on its back.”
Excuse me Tomm, but how many BILLIONS of OUR dollars has the government already provided to backstop the banks?
And now we’re quibbling over $30 million in public financing of elections?
I do however think that the other parties during an election campaign will need huge help from the media to withstand the public backlash caused by their bringing down the government for partisan reasons during an economic crisis.
You really are a piece of Albertan shit. Who exactly here is bringing down the government for partisan reasons, you redneck?
Anyway, it’s probab,hy not going to result in the constitutional crisis you Albertan rednecks have been praying for for so long.
Can we hand over Alberta to Wyoming already?
And furthermore… So you want the patient to essentially be dead before jolting it back to life? That’s “conservative” healthcare for you, I guess.
By the way, Tomm… How’s that whole supporting budding democracies around the world and intervening in the affairs of foreign countries, waging wars all over the place thing coming along? I ask because I believe that’s a rather expensive venture. But you know… we most certainly wouldn’t want to “announce any economic stimulus unless the Canadian economy is flat on its back.” Oh heavens no… couldn’t do THAT!
RT,
Not quite so fast.
We’re not talking the $30M for the parties but the “economic stimulus” that the opposition parties is crying is nowhere to be seen. You know, the 10% of the american stimulus package? The one that is suppose to be over 1% of our GDP? The $10-20Billion package that Harper should not proceed with until he and Obama get together.
The Opposition is using faux outrage over the lack of stimulus as a slight of hand gesture to avoid talking about the real problem and that is Flaherty killing the goose that is laying the Liberal and Bloc’s golden eggs.
For you to call that brilliant is probably a little mis-leading. It is more accurate to call it “nasty”.
Well, I see Tomm’s gone back to lying. How very Albertan.
Ti-Guy,
You are enjoying this aren’t you?
You said:
“…You really are a piece of Albertan shit. Who exactly here is bringing down the government for partisan reasons, you redneck?”
I’m saddened that my cuzin from Ontario is calling me names. I still love you, …so there!
Let’s be clear about this… if the opposition votes down the economic update, they are voting down the government in a confidence motion. They will have brought down the government. For you to pretend that the government brought itself down requires you to begin inhaling. Also, for the “journalists” to go on a bit of a propaganda tour of Canadian TV, radio and print media.
Once you inhale, I think you need to hold it in a minute.
Tomm — Sorry, but I think you have things completely backwards and muddled.
There are two problems here:
1) The “stimulus” that’s being delayed until sometime next year… Well, we can argue about the timing of that. Maybe it’s prudent to hold off, although I’d argue that the government should be more proactive. There’s a lot of infrastructure spending that’s in the pipeline, for example that could be rolled out now along with a positive communications message… instead, the Conservatives are clamming up.
2) Public funding of elections. There’s absolutely no need for this measure at the moment. It serves only one purpose, and that’s the partisan gain of the Conservatives.
I’d suggest that what the Conservatives are doing now is both counterproductive and destructive.
RT,
You want Harper to announce economic stimulus right now, today? That would be so great. For Harper or Flaherty to announce billions and billions of dollars going …
to whom exactly? Do you want the car companies to get it? The banks? How about committing to over-priced infrastructure projects in the big cities?
Why don’t we wait to see what Obama does before we decide where to sprinkle tens of billions of tax payers dollars?
Perhaps that is just too rational for the end of November, you’d rather see a Christmas election?
RT,
Re: your comment at 8:29.
We’re on the same track.
The partisanship of stripping the taxpayer dollars away from parties is unquestioned. Its effect looks to have devastating consequences on two parties, both of whom are the biggest problem for the Tories. Unless of course there is a funding backlash where people open their wallets to the poor Liberals and Blocheads.
You are enjoying this aren’t you?
Yes.
For you to pretend that the government brought itself down requires you to begin inhaling…
Don’t be so stupid. The Harpies don’t have to do what they’re planning. In fact, Paul Well’s believes they’ll back down.
But the scars will remain.
Excuse me, Tomm… I failed to see your “faux outrage” when Flaherty “sprinkled” $20 billion on the banks last month. Did I miss that? Maybe you can point me to where you were agitated in the least bit about that.
RT,
You are missing my entire point, but that’s OK, I’ll answer your question.
My understanding is that the $20B wasn’t given to the banks but was to be repayed. And quite frankly, my views on its value are not informed since I have no idea whether the credit crunch can be alleviated with that sort of leverage, or whether it is a wasted effort.
The “faux” outrage is related to Brison and Ignatieff and Layton and Duceppe being outraged that there was not a bold stimulus plan. They likely know that it would be less effective today then it will once we see the new US government’s reaction and we work with them to maximize value and minimize cost.
They are pretending that this is the hill they are prepared to die on, when in face the only hill they are prepared to die on is one of naked self interest.
Ti-Guy,
Oh yes, there may be backing down, in fact that is certainly one of the levers Harper has at his disposal.
I did read Wells and the many comments, including yours.
Now that Harper has gotten his reaction, he can now do several things that can further twist the knife or force the Liberal’s to dance a jig. The Liberal’s have to decide how principled they are prepared to appear, if Harper offers options.
No wonder Alberta has such high rate of homicide.
My understanding is that the $20B wasn’t given to the banks but was to be repayed.
So you have no problem with that “loan” but not with bridge financing for the automakers… Okay, glad we could clear that up.
They likely know that it would be less effective today then it will once we see the new US government’s reaction and we work with them to maximize value and minimize cost.
Translation: Do nothing and ride the coat tails of an anticipated US recovery. All the while waiting for the economy to be “flat on its back” in the meantime… Brilliant!
As for “naked self interest” you’re being mighty selective and monstrously hypocritical when it comes to that.
Oh, and how is that nation-building around the world thing coming along, by the way…? You failed to answer that question. It was SOOOOO important to Conservatives last year and now… Meh, not so much.
he can now do several things that can further twist the knife or force the Liberal’s to dance a jig.
I mean, this how Albertans think…twist the knife into someone or force them to perform like circus animals.
What is wrong with Albertans? Why are they so depraved? Why do they kill each other at a higher rate than other Canadians?
Ti-Guy — That does seem to demonstrate a lot of inner perversion, doesn’t it?
“Can we hand over Alberta to Wyoming already?”
Yes, so long as Edmonton and Jasper stay in Calgary.
Don’t worry, the Harperites in both places will move to Calgary and Banff.