Playing chess while everyone else plays checkers
It's cut-throat, it's conniving, it's Machiavellian, it's underhanded. It's being done for no reason other than crass political gains.
And it's absolutely brilliant politics. Absolutely brilliant.
Right after the election. Dressed up in the cloak of self-sacrifice during tough economic times. Bundled with MP pay cuts and a slew of other symbolic, and popular, moves.
How can the opposition vote against it? Then again, given the stakes, how can they not?
Things...just...got...interesting...
And it's absolutely brilliant politics. Absolutely brilliant.
Symbolic cuts to politicians' perks, temporary relief for pension plans and a political grenade – ending the $30-million public subsidy to parties – are expected highlights of Thursday federal economic statement.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will ask the five political parties to give up the $1.95-per-vote subsidy that parties need to pay for staff and expenses.
Right after the election. Dressed up in the cloak of self-sacrifice during tough economic times. Bundled with MP pay cuts and a slew of other symbolic, and popular, moves.
How can the opposition vote against it? Then again, given the stakes, how can they not?
Things...just...got...interesting...
posted by calgarygrit at
11:57 p.m.
63 Comments:
This has Tom Flanagan written all over it.
By
Anonymous, at 12:18 a.m.
Stephane Dion for PM.
By
James Curran, at 12:18 a.m.
I smell an election. Even if the Liberals take a bath in the second election in a matter of months, their survival as a party depends on this not coming to pass.
By
Anonymous, at 12:20 a.m.
Wow.
I usually try to stay focused on solutions and policy and I try to turn my nose up at politics. But wow - I have to agree, with no small amount of admiration, that this is brilliant.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:25 a.m.
Agreed re: Flanagan.
Just another step in Flanagan's plan to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada.
By
calgarygrit, at 12:31 a.m.
This might be too clever by half. Lest we forget, the Conservatives are the biggest benefactor of this subsidy.
And we Liberals have shown an ability to operate without it in the past.
Personally, in the long run, I think it hurts the NDP and Greens more than the Liberals, and that helps the Liberals in the long run.
And yes, I'm well aware the NDP out-fundraised us most of last year.
By
Corey Hogan, at 12:52 a.m.
Well maybe I am just too naive, but is it not possible that people will see this as an attempt to stifle democracy by ensuring only one party is financially solvent? Don't all the opposition parties need that payment to help pay off the election costs?
And is it not also possible that if this actually goes to a vote and is defeated the GG will agree this is not the time to send this country back into an election and go to the LPC to form government?
Personally, I suspect Harper has no intention of actually sending this to a vote. He just wants to be able to say the opposition should not be complaining about his economic plan when they are prepared to survive on tax dollars. That way he gets to have his cake (the subsidy) and eat it too.
Now that is clever.
By
Gayle, at 1:05 a.m.
Hey! I used Machiavellian to describe it as well! Imagine that.
I agree, things just got very interesting.
By
Raphael Alexander, at 1:15 a.m.
The view through the looking glass shows the red knight faltering and his king forced to resign as checkmate was inevitable.
By
Tim, at 1:28 a.m.
Can't Olivia Chow just amend the econ update and have her amended version go up for debate. That seems to be the logical route to embarass the cons from holding the election.
Also, ad in place of the funding per votes cuts, selling the PM's vacation house, and selling the limosouine fleet. That would save more me thinks.
By
kenlister1, at 1:38 a.m.
Hey, what is that sound?
It is the sound of the LPC's back being snapped!
Oh happy days!
Master stroke CPC!
By
Anonymous, at 1:57 a.m.
An economic update that would require changes to legislation?
It's hot air. Can't go forward without a ways & means motion, can't go forward without passing the senate.
Basically, this is just something to get the chattering classes to start concentration on potential games playing and take their eyes off of Flaherty's dismantling of Canada's public institutions.
By
Anonymous, at 2:24 a.m.
I agree, this is degrees of nastiness that is meant to look fiscally necessary. Where was this interest in the bottom line when they were lining our streets with 10-percenters this past summer? Or when he blatantly broke his own election law to toss off #300million of our own dollars? Never mind his cavalier 'who me, worry?' spending of the $3b rainy-day fund?
But I don't think we should sweat this. The Liberal party and NdP know what they need to do, short term and long term (guess that applies to the greens, but they, like the Bloc, will have the lowest distance to grow and at least an invigorated and angry membership). First, talk. Liberals need to not overreact, but instead hit back with a logistical proposal that would save the federal gov't so many $s. See if the CONs bite. But at the same time be firm and show that Prime Minister Dion still has a refreshingly honest ring to it. And again, talk to Jack and Gilles. Show a united front. But most of all, keep up the hammering of the hypocritical Harperites.
By
burlivespipe, at 2:43 a.m.
Count me in among those who believe this is move extremely well played.
If nothing else, the particularly bitter tone of the opposition verifies how potentially devastating this is and how helpless they feel in stopping it.
PS - Calgary Grit, I like your site and you seem a reasonably objective guy. I hope you don't mind this ex Liberal participating from time to time.
By
Anonymous, at 3:10 a.m.
Removing campaign funding combined with abuse of election spending
rules, Harper's in/out election spending fraud, destroys the ability
of political parties to compete fairly. And will destroy our fair
democracy and replace it with a corrupted democracy which is hardly
democratic.
Sensible political interests which attract the majority of common
people will not win in Flaherty's, Harper's path to corruption.
Instead political interest which make the rich richer will win because
they pay for the Party election campaign expenses. If anything the
current system does not reward sensible political interests which
attract the majority of common people enough.
This is a path to economic and political corruption which will end in
Canada's destruction.
By
tdwebste, at 5:31 a.m.
Does Prime Minister Dion still hand over the top chair to a new leader in May?
By
Anonymous, at 6:43 a.m.
I guess it's a bit much to ask that the Conservatives spend a small amount of time actually governing our country instead of wasting EVERY WAKING MINUTE playing crass politics in their cynical quest for a majority... brilliant... try disgusting... politics at its worst.
By
MERBOY, at 8:13 a.m.
This would not hurt the Liberals as much as the Bloc, who get 83% of their funding from this program. The LPC are going through a rough period now, but once (if?) they get a decent leader who looks like he might have a shot at winning, money will start pouring in.
The Bloc on the other hand would be badly hurt because no one votes for the Bloc out of love, but because they do not like the other parties. So people might vote for them, but they are not enthusiastic enough to actually donate money.
By
Victor Tremblay, at 9:09 a.m.
Thinking it over, I suspect Harper will back down on this one. I tend to agree with Gayle above, that this may just be to get the opposition to look bad.
By
calgarygrit, at 9:11 a.m.
Something tells me that Chretian is having a giggles fit right now!The last great liberal stategist,lol.
By
Anonymous, at 9:49 a.m.
shades of the afghanistan vote
Dion's solution was to raise the GST
Harper's plan to leave the senate empty also saves money.
By
Unknown, at 10:16 a.m.
art said...
"Harper's plan to leave the senate empty also saves money."
So leaving things as they are is a "plan" ?
By
MERBOY, at 10:18 a.m.
So a foolish GST cut costs Ottawa billions without encouraging any new growth. Then, faced with a policy-driven fiscal deficit, the response is some symbolic cuts that will save millions.
Fiscal policy is always political, but this seems a bit much.
By
Anonymous, at 11:00 a.m.
What about the opposition parties voting against it and agreeing, in principle, to support Stephane Dion as Prime Minister?
And, maybe that's not such a bad thing for Harper, since it gives them some of the blame for the bad economy, and he waxes the floor with Ignatieff in 8 months anyways.
By
Anonymous, at 11:18 a.m.
This is a path to economic and political corruption which will end in Canada's destruction.
Riiiiiiiight.
By
sir john a., at 12:10 p.m.
The most overused term in Canadian politics today is, ahem,
"Too clever by half."
Please, for the love of God - can't we ban its use?
By
Sean Cummings, at 12:17 p.m.
By keeping the Chretien rules against corporate and union donations and by dropping the per vote amount, parties will essentially have to grow a membership and donor base to survive.
The question Liberals need to ask ourselves is why the Tories have been able to create a grassroots network of SMALL donors, while in the 5 years since the rules change we are still scrambling. If Canada really is a center-left nation (which I believe it is) than why won't the centre left voter actually write a cheque for $50 like the Tory will?
Maybe the centre-left in this country needs 10 years of a Harper majority to make them realize that you can't sit on your hands and complain about Harper/Bush, you need to cough up some money and some time to get things done.
By
Brent Neill, at 12:27 p.m.
Sorry Gayle,
But this:
"this as an attempt to stifle democracy by ensuring only one party is financially solvent"
is over the top, to be polite.
1) Try not to accuse people of "attempting to stifle democracy". You are saying that we Tories aren't democrats? Really?
2) But forget point one. The Tory government can't ENSURE that Liberals are financially insolvent. Liberal supporters, who don't cough up dough to support the Grits, are the only ones who can ENSURE insolvency.
By
Tarkwell Robotico, at 12:41 p.m.
Local Grit
I believe you are correct in asking where the individual contributor is.
The first thing that went through my head when I read about this move was. "oh" I guess I better get the chequebook out and contribute to the CPC to help them with that shortfall.
the second thought was "this will kill the BQ" and about time.
By
Jim Rieder, at 12:46 p.m.
Obama refused public funding and PAC money, and it didn;t hurt him.
Harper is forcing the Liberals to confront the fact that they have to reconnect with and grow their base.
The Liberal Party shouldn;t be a Forest Hill-Rosedale-Westmount club funded by the government.
This also opens up Quebec for a mano-a-mano confrontation between the Liberals and the Conservatives as it takes government funding away from the BQ.
One should look at the opportunity this creates for renewal and breaking the political deadlock in Canada.
By
whyshouldIsellyourwheat, at 1:10 p.m.
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
wilson, at 1:22 p.m.
Gayle says:
'but is it not possible that people will see this as an attempt to stifle democracy by ensuring only one party is financially solvent'
Stifle democracy?
Do the Christian Heritage party and MaryJ party get taxpayer $1.98 per vote?
No....where's the democracy in that?
''And is it not also possible that if this actually goes to a vote and is defeated the GG will agree this is not the time to send this country back into an election and go to the LPC to form government?''
Just who do you think the GG represents, The Liberal Party of Toronto?
Is Liberal entitlement THAT deeply felt that they think the GG will grant their 'wish' when Canadians wouldn't????
Perhaps the GG will first ask the PEOPLE of
BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and 3 Territories if they would be happy having only 8% of the MPs in parliament representing ALL OF THEM.
Cons also hold 48% of the seats in Ontario.
Grow up Liberals, you lost, again.
Go out and raise some funds for that very expensive leadership convention.
By
wilson, at 1:22 p.m.
This is just awesome, and the damage it is doing to liberal partisan's sanity is astounding. No one feels bad for politicians, and cutting government funding for politicians always sells.
Screaming about how "unfair" this is sounds like a repeat of Dion's best moments in Parliament. You'd think that people would have learned from the merciless ads. We're just blessed with incompetent opponents.
I am truly shocked at the incapability of the LPC to build a fundraising arm. I think it stems from the structure of the party and how membership has been actively discouraged as a way of controlling nominations. The drawbacks of emulating the worst parts of one-party tyrannies are now becoming apparent.
The fun thing is that this will destroy three truly evil parties is a bonus. It will be healthy for the country to have parties that are responsive to individuals. It will also be healthy for the parties that come out of this, having an engaged and committed base that avoids years long civil wars amongst the "elite".
By
Hey, at 1:44 p.m.
Chucker is too polite - Gayle is a clueless half-wit on her best day. I don't mind the $1.98-per-vote measure myself, it's got some attractive features to me, but this would in no way "stifle democracy". Mind you, Gayle's only concept of democracy is all Liberals, all the time, and much as I like LeBlanc and Rae, that's just not how any country should work.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 1:49 p.m.
Coyne said it best:
"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."
This subsidy cut is an improvement to our democracy and if a Liberal were suggesting it the Lib hacks on here would be praising it.
By
Anonymous, at 2:17 p.m.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the difficulty of the liberals to build a funding arm is because the party is in the centre, and not based on opposition.
It's pretty easy to get people to donate to "help the struggle against the corporate fascists who want to oppress the working man" or "help the struggle against the liberal elite who want to oppress the taxpayer"
When you're running in the centre, however, attempts to demonize one side or the other risks alienating some of your own supporters as well.
And I'm not even going to get into how the conservative party spent government money for party purposes (ten percenters, massive polling increases) thus spending the bank that the liberals had accumulated by spending their time in government, well, governing.. rather than concentrating on getting donations.
However, what I will get into is this idea that monetary support=popular support, and so if the Liberals can't get monetary support, it means their ideas aren't popular.
If you really buy into that notion, then what you're buying into is that we should choose our governments by auction, with the party that can bid the highest getting in. Private money should have *no* place in public politics. Politics shouldn't be about who can hire the best telemarketers, but who can come up with the best ideas.
Campaigns should be done through legislation and public funding.
And that all said, this whole thing is *still* about trying to distract attention from Deficit Jim's announcement of a deficit this year.
By
Anonymous, at 2:18 p.m.
"When you're running in the centre, however, attempts to demonize one side or the other risks alienating some of your own supporters as well."
Too true. Liberals are not very familiar with the demonization technique.
And a carbon tax was truly a centrist policy.
By
Anonymous, at 2:22 p.m.
Well, this is some Robert Mugabe shit right here. Change the financing system so that opposition parties have to rely on public financing, and then remove the public financing? Setting up the rules, then pulling them out from under the other parties because they aren't in government and it'll give you majorities in perpetuity?
That's not "interesting". That's nauseating. And so are the mouthbreathers here supporting it.
(And yes, Chucker, that includes you. Yes, this in indeed an attempt to stifle democracy, because it's a change that obviously and uniquely benefits the government of the day. It's odious. Full stop.)
By
Demosthenes, at 2:29 p.m.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people. Watching you writhe on the floor before the final death blow has been interesting for sure. You've been blue shafted. Enjoy it. Natural... governing... party... The further you're kept away from the trough the better. You can't just steal the money to save the party this time guys.
By
Anonymous, at 2:41 p.m.
Except for the revisionism.
Tories didn't change the financing rules. Liberals did.
So, if you are experiencing nauseau, my old greek friend, perhaps some grounding in reality is the cure.
By
Tarkwell Robotico, at 2:43 p.m.
This may be a bit of an aside, but is anyone else surprised the Bloc sucks so much at raising money?
More than any other party, they should have supporters who truly care about the issue their party is fighting for. Yet they won't even give them 50$ to help the cause?
By
calgarygrit, at 3:32 p.m.
Sorry Chucker, but you're wrong, and I'm going to have to make a stand with Demosthenes on this one, for he is exactly right: there is, quite literally, no longer any real or discernable difference between Robert Mugabe and Stephen Harper. Forget about recruiting Louise Arbour to run for the Liberals - right now, the best thing she can do for Canada (and Canadians) (including Torontonians) is to put Harper on full, public trial for crimes against humanity, and it is my sincerest hope that she will do just that. This trampling of the nation's democracy cannot, and must not, be allowed to stand.
NO CANADIAN ROBERT MUGABE! OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 3:33 p.m.
Yeah actually, the Bloc numbers blew me away... I figured they more than anyone would have fistfuls of private contributions!
Honestly, that 86% number made me lean towards getting rid of the $1.95 -- speaking of trampling on democracy, let's starve those idiots pronto.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 3:36 p.m.
Tories didn't change the financing rules. Liberals did.
Don't let the facts get in Demosthenes' way now...
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 3:36 p.m.
Apparently democracy did not exist in Canada before 2003, it's a wonder how we got on.
By
Anonymous, at 4:10 p.m.
When Demosthenes evokes Robert Mugabe, you know Harper has won.
Cry me a river, Demos.
There's no compelling reason why I should finance any political party's existence.
If they can't raise enough money, too bad for them. THAT'S democracy.
By
sir john a., at 5:18 p.m.
Maybe some of you have forgotten that when the liberals changed the rules, they gave the parties time to adapt.
Changing the rules effective immediately, when everyone knows the results will be to nearly bankrupt (or actually bankrupt) all three opposition parties, making it difficult for them to, you know, oppose, and, you know, finance an election, will have the effect of stifling democracy.
And if you have to call me names to make your point, then maybe you should go back and consider whether you had a point in the first place.
By
Gayle, at 5:20 p.m.
"There's no compelling reason why I should finance any political party's existence."
I am glad you feel this way. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the taxpayer finances the political parties through the very generous tax refund they get for political donations (I believe it is up to half the amount donated).
I hope you will call your MP immediately and demand this refund be revoked.
By
Gayle, at 5:23 p.m.
Oh Gayle, no one has to call you names -- it's just my inner Eddie Murphy coming out to express himself. Besides, whenever my mom called my dad a clueless half-wit, she meant it as a term of endearment. I think.
But now that you mention the nightmare scenario of all three opposition parties going under* and the Conservatives establishing total tyrannical control over Parliament, it does give me pause. I suppose you're right -- Canadians really would sit back and allow their democratic freedom to be walked over by a handful of legislators without any artillery.
I mean, say whatever you want -- it's your freedom of expression. But Barack Obama didn't get elected running around gasping in a panic about Bush ruining the world (now there's irony for ya). I just tire of your negativity!
Don't get me wrong -- you're no Demosthenes, of course.
*I, of course, refer to the LPC, NDP and GPC, as I welcome the destruction of the time-wasting BQ
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 6:37 p.m.
You know what Gayle, I take a lot of that back.
I just had an interesting experience reading over comments on another site, which made the same points as you do, in different words, and it made me realize that, while I think you exaggerate and hyperbolize, it's just the way you express yourself, and probably you're the same way describing a gloomy rainshower or an unsatisfactory meal or a bad day at work.
I can't accept that Demosthenes can possibly believe there's any real, valid comparison between Robert Mugabe and Stephen Harper. I tend to put you in the same boat, but to be honest, that other commenter made me think that you might be more sincere and earnest in your expressions than I give you credit for. I tend to interpret you as an angry exagerrator like Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, and maybe I'm wrong in that interpretation.
I'll try to look harder beyond your personal choices of expression in the future, Gayle.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 6:58 p.m.
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Gayle, at 6:58 p.m.
Oh, and also: if my interpretation of your self-expression is incorrect, then I apologize and am sorry.
Jason
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 6:59 p.m.
Well.
I spent a while composing my own post there, and then had to delete it after reading yours.
So all I will say is that the comment I originally posted posed a question - one that asked how the public would perceive this as opposed to a comment about what this means.
By
Gayle, at 7:03 p.m.
And apology accepted.
Peace.
By
Gayle, at 7:04 p.m.
Gayle, I only wrote that post in order to ruin yours to make you delete it -- it's all part of my evil plan, bwuahhahaha!!!
Just kidding. :D
Thanks for accepting my apology!
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:07 p.m.
This adjustment is just so unfair for the Liberald Party, I mean they were used to existing on kick backs for government contracts back in the 50s and 60s and then those slowly went out of style as people tired of Tamany Hall style politics. They had to make this terribly difficult adjustment to mere influence peddling in accepting large donations from the same corporations that used to give them a kick back for "the opportunity to spend an evening with _____". Although evidently kick backs never went out of style in the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party until some time circa 2000.
Chretien being on his way out the door decided the corporate donors that had provided the Paul Martin Leadership warchest were a negative influence on the politics of the nation. Good decision for the wrong reason but it happened. Hence the Liberals no longer able to snuggle up with big business turned to the public trough and didn't really adjust to the idea that beyond public money individual donors were the new currency of political finance.
Now they might actually have to pull their collective snout out of the government trough and fundraise? Rely on their members to care and donate money to the cause as opposed to being a government subsidized vehicle for petty grievance mongering and sundry government funded special interests? That just doesn't sound like the Liberal Party does it?
Paying attention to the citizens of Canada or their own members has never been a strength, rather its been a vehicle for elitist eastern media and business interests. To paraphrase the division of Poland "a political party that can't sustain itself by the financial support of its members doesn't deserve to exist". If you support the Liberals or any other party stop whining and write them a check.
I'm happy to put my money where my political mouth is and send a few bucks our modern Machiavelli's way.
By
Chris, at 9:40 p.m.
If the Conservatives were serious they would probably slash the tax credits individuals get when they donate to a political party... oh wait that would affect the party with the highest % of money from donations... can anyone guess which party that might be?
By
MERBOY, at 9:44 p.m.
Great comments thread. Good points from both sides. I'm a Conservative, but I also found that this removal of public funds for the political parties a bit too partisan AT THIS TIME. However, it did raise the question:
Why is it so difficult for the opposition parties to raise money? The CPC seems to have no trouble at all raising donations from it's supporters. There is a limit to the maximum each individual can donate per year. Unions and corporations are excluded. It may well be true that more wealthy donors are giving the maximum, but there are wealthy donors in the Liberal camp as well.
If you think about it this way, less than $2.00 is all each voter 'donates' however willingly, wouldn't it make sense if all the party's geared their fund raising campaigns to ask for small donations from more people? I've been asked to donate hundreds of dollars or more from the Conservative's fund raising drives. If they asked me instead, to contribute $5-$25 I might have donated some.
It strikes me as very pathetic that the opposition didn't see the 'optics' from a taxpayer's perspective. The CBC and CTV both had on-line polls that showed a huge majority of Canadians opposed the public financing scheme.
Offer ideas and policies that people like (or in the case of the LPC, a leader they can support) and they will get the average citizen to write a cheque. It isn't rocket science. No ideas, no plan, no policies, and stand-for-nothing Liberal ideology is what has got the LPC in the mess they are in. The taxpayer is also a voter. This last election was the litmus test of what I'm saying. The people spoke! They rejected Liberal policy, and rejected the leader.
Another point I want to remind you of. Who stands to lose the most money here? The Conservative party, to the tune of almost 10 million dollars.
Who is the biggest benefactor? BQ and Libs.
Who is crying the loudest?
Yes, this is petty partisanship on the point of the CPC, and yes, it is ill-timed. But the cat is out of the bag now. Taxpayers are gonna be thinking about this issue and as the polls on CBC and CTV have shown, they don't like it. This issue is not going away in the minds of Canadians. The longer they think about it, the less support public this subsidy is gonna have.
This truly is a wake-up call for the opposition party's. It may not come to a head now, but it's coming. Heed it or be abandoned.
Harper, love him or hate him, has pulled your pants down in gym class in front of the cheer leaders. You have been exposed, embarrassed, and no amount of deflecting the 'smallness' of your objections is going to resonate with the voters.
This financial statement yesterday was a way for the government to 'lead by example' in the eyes of Canadians who are very frightened by the future. By making Government and politicians share the pain was a brilliant move to let Canadians SEE that they are not alone. Politicians riding high on the hog with their perks and entitlements while the rest of us face lay-offs, does not sit well. Bad optics, indeed.
The opposition parties missed an opportunity here. They didn't think before they opened their mouths. Instead of agreeing with the policy, but disagreeing with the 'lack of a stimulus', they would have scored some much need good-will from the electorate based on a principled position, rather than an 'entitled to our entitlements' position.
BTW, the coalition-thing is a non-starter. A smaller minority coalition, (114 vs. 143) excluding the BQ is NEVER gonna pass the smell test from the GG. Unless the BQ is a full partner, a non-confidence vote is gonna blow up in the LPC/NDP faces. They will face the wrath of the public over a petty and misguided attempt to hold onto perks and pork, viv-a vis the public funds, while the rest of us struggle. Now that Steve-O has withdrawn that part of the bill, the opposition is in a tough bind. As a great Canadian leader once said: "Fish or cut bait"
Good luck with that.
By
arctic_front, at 6:53 p.m.
Oh, forgot to say:
Who in their right mind thinks the LPC is a 'centrist' party?
That is the funniest thing I've read in years. The difference between the LPC and the NDP is gotten so slight, they may as well merge into one party.
The LPC hasn't been a centrist party for a very long time. If maybe they were indeed, as centrist party, they might actually be the governing party now. Ignore your base at your peril. Party donation levels scream this point home loud and clear.
By
arctic_front, at 7:02 p.m.
RE: arctic_front
"Who is the biggest benefactor? BQ and Libs. Who is crying the loudest?"
I'm sure if the roles were reversed and it was the Liberal party gutting the entire opposition the Conservatives and their principles would be as they are now.
"It strikes me as very pathetic that the opposition didn't see the 'optics' from a taxpayer's perspective. The CBC and CTV both had on-line polls that showed a huge majority of Canadians opposed the public financing scheme."
We all know that online polls are highly scientific... I'm probably the only person out there who voted multiple times.
As for the taxpayer perspective... I think people might see this issue as less partisan if the Conservatives cut ALL public party financing instead of just the aspect that coincidentally would help them most... but nice try I'm sure.
"This financial statement yesterday was a way for the government to 'lead by example' in the eyes of Canadians who are very frightened by the future."
Yes partisan cuts that if anything would lead to job losses are absolutely what Canadians want from their government during a financial crisis.
"By making Government and politicians share the pain was a brilliant move to let Canadians SEE that they are not alone."
Right... cuts scheduled to take place 5 months from now will definitely have a huge impact on a recession that might end as early as the middle of next year.
"Politicians riding high on the hog with their perks and entitlements while the rest of us face lay-offs, does not sit well. Bad optics, indeed."
Increasing the size of your cabinet while the rest of us face lay-offs does sit well of course.
Yes I'm sure slashing more than 50% of the money opposition parties have would only result in "perks" getting cut.
"The opposition parties missed an opportunity here. They didn't think before they opened their mouths. Instead of agreeing with the policy, but disagreeing with the 'lack of a stimulus', they would have scored some much need good-will from the electorate based on a principled position, rather than an 'entitled to our entitlements' position."
Yeah that's probably why so many people in the media that supported Harper's re election were TRASHING this part of the proposal... it's all a Liberal conspiracy to keep the poor innocent Conservative party out of a majority government.
By
MERBOY, at 7:24 p.m.
BoGreen, you're a pretentious douche.
By
Anonymous, at 9:06 a.m.
2015-12-22keyun
uggs boots for women
adidas originals store
michael kors outlet clearance
north face jackets
ugg boots
jordan shoes
ray-ban sunglasses
nike air max uk
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet stores
marc jacobs outlet
ugg boots
michael kors outlet
cheap ugg boots
prada handbags
canada goose jackets
ugg boots on sale
louis vuitton purses
ugg australia
gucci handbags
kids lebron shoes
michael kors outlet online
timberlands
adidas superstar shoes
uggs outlet
louis vuitton purses
beats by dre
michael kors outlet
canada goose
ray bans
nike running shoes for men
canada goose sale
cheap rolex watches
ugg outlet
michael kors outlet sale
discount jordans
oakley store
hollister
uggs sale
jordan 11 concord
By
柯云, at 8:15 p.m.
zzzzz2018.11.20
nike tn
christian louboutin shoes
ralph lauren polo
kate spade
fitflops clearance
supreme clothing
louboutin shoes
ugg boots clearance
coach outlet online
coach factory outlet
By
5689, at 9:44 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home