Flaherty to Slash Public Funding for Federal Parties
- Thread starter Vanni Fucci
- Start date
I agree completely. The liberal lackies on the board are just too pigheaded to understand a good thing when they see if.
What the Conservatives need to help them through this rough patch is a responsible adult as den mother. I see her tasks as follows:
1. Teach them to share their toys. Clearly the Conservatives want to be the only ones in Ottawa to solve the economic puzzle. But swallowing the pieces so that opposition hands can't touch them to help, or concealing them in their jumpers so that the public lacks confidence that they are capable of fitting the pieces together, is purely childish.
2. Teach them not to talk with their mouths full. When they're eating from full coffers, they wish to starve the opposition of funds. It seems the Conservative's ideal democracy is a one-party state!
3. Spoon feed them ideas. Bibs are required as ideas seem to dribble down their chins and make messes on the floor of the House.
4. Discipline them when they shout and throw tantrums. These children patently have not learnt to get along with others!
5. Change their diapers. What they are full of is just a whiff too obvious!
6. Tuck them in for a long nap! About four years sounds right!
1. Teach them to share their toys. Clearly the Conservatives want to be the only ones in Ottawa to solve the economic puzzle. But swallowing the pieces so that opposition hands can't touch them to help, or concealing them in their jumpers so that the public lacks confidence that they are capable of fitting the pieces together, is purely childish.
2. Teach them not to talk with their mouths full. When they're eating from full coffers, they wish to starve the opposition of funds. It seems the Conservative's ideal democracy is a one-party state!
3. Spoon feed them ideas. Bibs are required as ideas seem to dribble down their chins and make messes on the floor of the House.
4. Discipline them when they shout and throw tantrums. These children patently have not learnt to get along with others!
5. Change their diapers. What they are full of is just a whiff too obvious!
6. Tuck them in for a long nap! About four years sounds right!
The opposition has had the same opportunity as the Cons to fund-raise; obviously they have chosen not to but would rather suck at the government's tit.
Exactly!!!!
About time the political parties.....especially the Bloq!!! were pulled of the public teat.
I don't like my money going to the Liberals, or the NDP, but the idea I am supporting the BQ is so infinitely outrageous!
As for the yapping Libs and yammering Dippers here.....STFU and write a cheque for the party of your choice.....with the tax break, it only costs about 25% of the value of the cheque......
Put your money where your mouth is.....I have (as have many, many ex-Reformers) for years.
Last edited:
Tory partisanship creates toxic mood TheStar.com - Columnist - Tory partisanship creates toxic mood
November 28, 2008
Chantal Hébert
OTTAWA—The fiscal update and the attending measures brought forward by federal finance minister Jim Flaherty yesterday are a triumph of cutthroat politics over meaningful policy.
Stephen Harper's government cannot yet get its head around its next budget. It is reluctant to commit to a spending plan until it has had a chance to see which way the wind blows in Washington. Fair enough! There are valid reasons for the government to keep its powder dry.
In the absence of a definitive course from the new American administration, dealing with the crisis from Ottawa is a hit-and-miss affair. The situation is so fluid that the government twice had to adjust its numbers in the weeks leading to yesterday's statement. The capacity of the federal government to act as a buffer in a global storm is ultimately limited.
What is less understandable is the fact that the Conservatives are as eager to take steps to insulate themselves from the political damage of the economic crisis as they are reluctant to sketch out ways to insulate Canadians from its impact.
At an annual saving of less than $30 million, the decision to cut the public subsidies to the federal parties will have no impact on Canada's fiscal outlook. It will not save a single job or advance any economic agenda.
But it will give the Conservatives – as the party most adept at raising funds for its war chest – a significant advantage in the next campaign. And it will impoverish the democratic debate.
It would be easy to frame the move as just the latest Conservative strike on the Liberals. They are deep in debt and have yet to figure out how to get by without corporate donations. But if this comes to pass, the Green party will be a collateral victim of the decision. Without the modest subsidy that comes attached to every vote it earns, the fledging party will be relegated to obscurity.
Perhaps the biggest Conservative target is the Bloc Québécois.
More so than any other party, it has come to depend on the subsidies introduced by Jean Chrétien in the dying days of his tenure. Public funding to the Bloc routinely exceeds individual donations by a ratio of four or five to one.
A case could be made that, inasmuch as it provides the Bloc with the same funding as that afforded to parties that have to finance more expensive national campaigns, the current system is unfair. Or that it is time to wean the parties from direct government subsidies.
But that discussion belongs in a debate on electoral reform. By including the measure in a fiscal package and deeming it a matter of confidence, the Conservatives are giving the opposition the unpalatable choice of bringing down the government or allowing it unilaterally to tweak the election regimen to its advantage.
Conservative strategists are convinced that the opposition ultimately will find the optics of defeating the government over party financing unsustainable. They expect many Canadians to applaud the decision to cut off the oxygen of the sovereignist Bloc (although, eventually, there will be hell to pay in Quebec.)
But long before any of that happens, the first casualty of the Conservative manoeuvre will be goodwill in the House of Commons. Yesterday the government sacrificed it on the altar of partisan self-interest.
And with more (ideologically-driven?) cuts in the budget pipeline, the 40th Parliament, if it survives this first government-manufactured crisis, could quickly become even more toxic than its predecessors.
Toronto Star
November 28, 2008
Chantal Hébert
OTTAWA—The fiscal update and the attending measures brought forward by federal finance minister Jim Flaherty yesterday are a triumph of cutthroat politics over meaningful policy.
Stephen Harper's government cannot yet get its head around its next budget. It is reluctant to commit to a spending plan until it has had a chance to see which way the wind blows in Washington. Fair enough! There are valid reasons for the government to keep its powder dry.
In the absence of a definitive course from the new American administration, dealing with the crisis from Ottawa is a hit-and-miss affair. The situation is so fluid that the government twice had to adjust its numbers in the weeks leading to yesterday's statement. The capacity of the federal government to act as a buffer in a global storm is ultimately limited.
What is less understandable is the fact that the Conservatives are as eager to take steps to insulate themselves from the political damage of the economic crisis as they are reluctant to sketch out ways to insulate Canadians from its impact.
At an annual saving of less than $30 million, the decision to cut the public subsidies to the federal parties will have no impact on Canada's fiscal outlook. It will not save a single job or advance any economic agenda.
But it will give the Conservatives – as the party most adept at raising funds for its war chest – a significant advantage in the next campaign. And it will impoverish the democratic debate.
It would be easy to frame the move as just the latest Conservative strike on the Liberals. They are deep in debt and have yet to figure out how to get by without corporate donations. But if this comes to pass, the Green party will be a collateral victim of the decision. Without the modest subsidy that comes attached to every vote it earns, the fledging party will be relegated to obscurity.
Perhaps the biggest Conservative target is the Bloc Québécois.
More so than any other party, it has come to depend on the subsidies introduced by Jean Chrétien in the dying days of his tenure. Public funding to the Bloc routinely exceeds individual donations by a ratio of four or five to one.
A case could be made that, inasmuch as it provides the Bloc with the same funding as that afforded to parties that have to finance more expensive national campaigns, the current system is unfair. Or that it is time to wean the parties from direct government subsidies.
But that discussion belongs in a debate on electoral reform. By including the measure in a fiscal package and deeming it a matter of confidence, the Conservatives are giving the opposition the unpalatable choice of bringing down the government or allowing it unilaterally to tweak the election regimen to its advantage.
Conservative strategists are convinced that the opposition ultimately will find the optics of defeating the government over party financing unsustainable. They expect many Canadians to applaud the decision to cut off the oxygen of the sovereignist Bloc (although, eventually, there will be hell to pay in Quebec.)
But long before any of that happens, the first casualty of the Conservative manoeuvre will be goodwill in the House of Commons. Yesterday the government sacrificed it on the altar of partisan self-interest.
And with more (ideologically-driven?) cuts in the budget pipeline, the 40th Parliament, if it survives this first government-manufactured crisis, could quickly become even more toxic than its predecessors.
Toronto Star
Yeah, well, I understand the Liberal Party's problem......ever since Jean the Don got booted out they've lost access to the tens of millions they were stealing from the Canadian people......
So now they're talking coalition.....a good idea, and a perfectly legitimate.....except that it would have to include the BQ......
Outrageous!
So now they're talking coalition.....a good idea, and a perfectly legitimate.....except that it would have to include the BQ......
Outrageous!
Cuts wrong way to go - just ask PM TheStar.com - Columnist - Cuts wrong way to go - just ask PM
November 28, 2008
Thomas Walkom
Has Jim Flaherty met the new Stephen Harper? If the finance minister's economic update is any indication, the answer is no.
The Mark II version of Harper claims to no longer be a slave to Conservative balanced budget orthodoxy. In Peru last week, the Prime Minister talked of the need to take "unprecedented fiscal actions if necessary" to fight the global recession.
A day later, he eloquently and deliberately compared the current crisis to the 10-year-long Depression of the '30s, vowing that he would not make the same mistakes that governments made then by trying to balance the books at all costs at a time "when fiscal stimulus (raising spending or cutting taxes) was absolutely essential."
A day after that, he chided those who insist that deficits must be avoided at all costs and called for a "somewhat less simplistic view" of government finances.
And then he came home just in time to watch Simple Jim deliver the same old nostrums yesterday.
Harper says Canada is threatened by the kind of global economic collapse not seen since the `30s. Yet his finance minister predicts that this "technical recession" will be over by next April.
To read Flaherty's update is to weep. The economy is worsening. Tax revenues are falling off. Yet the government's response – contrary to Harper's words from the weekend – is to cut spending.
"We cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts in tougher times without looking in the mirror," Flaherty told the Commons.
This would be a noble sentiment if the point were indeed to have Canadians tighten their belts. But, as Harper seems to understand, when deflation threatens the world, the point is to ensure that people keep their belts loose.
Alas, Flaherty doesn't get it. Instead he pledges to cut program spending by $2 billion next year and sell $2.3 billion worth of assets – we've all seen that movie before. (The Mike Harris government in Ontario, of which Flaherty was a part, also tried to balance its budget by selling real estate. The court case regarding alleged corruption and fraud arising from these sales is still ongoing.)
As well, Flaherty plans to squeeze $600 million out of public service wages, suspend the right to strike for federal civil servants and throw a spanner in the pay equity program, which is designed to ensure women are paid the same as men for doing work of equal value.
Earlier this month, he announced he is cutting back by $2.4 billion next year the amount that Ottawa transfers to poorer provinces (including Ontario) under the federal equalization program.
In an effort to direct media and opposition attention away from the contradiction between his actions and Harper's words, Flaherty also formally announced the government's plan to scrap public subsidies that political parties get, based on the number of votes they receive at election-time.
The problems with this particular move are not so much economic as political – but that's a topic for another day. Given that Ottawa plans to spend about $248 billion next year, the finance minister's $7.3 billion worth of cutbacks are small beer. But as the Conservatives like to say, symbolism counts and leading by example is important.
And the example that cutback king Flaherty has offered the country – squeezing spending, cutting wages and reducing spending power – is precisely the wrong one for these times. That's not just what I think. If Harper meant what he said in Peru, it's what Flaherty's boss thinks too.
Toronto Star
Clearly they don't know what they are doing and lil' Jim can't make up his mind on whether we do or do not have a deficit.
November 28, 2008
Thomas Walkom
Has Jim Flaherty met the new Stephen Harper? If the finance minister's economic update is any indication, the answer is no.
The Mark II version of Harper claims to no longer be a slave to Conservative balanced budget orthodoxy. In Peru last week, the Prime Minister talked of the need to take "unprecedented fiscal actions if necessary" to fight the global recession.
A day later, he eloquently and deliberately compared the current crisis to the 10-year-long Depression of the '30s, vowing that he would not make the same mistakes that governments made then by trying to balance the books at all costs at a time "when fiscal stimulus (raising spending or cutting taxes) was absolutely essential."
A day after that, he chided those who insist that deficits must be avoided at all costs and called for a "somewhat less simplistic view" of government finances.
And then he came home just in time to watch Simple Jim deliver the same old nostrums yesterday.
Harper says Canada is threatened by the kind of global economic collapse not seen since the `30s. Yet his finance minister predicts that this "technical recession" will be over by next April.
To read Flaherty's update is to weep. The economy is worsening. Tax revenues are falling off. Yet the government's response – contrary to Harper's words from the weekend – is to cut spending.
"We cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts in tougher times without looking in the mirror," Flaherty told the Commons.
This would be a noble sentiment if the point were indeed to have Canadians tighten their belts. But, as Harper seems to understand, when deflation threatens the world, the point is to ensure that people keep their belts loose.
Alas, Flaherty doesn't get it. Instead he pledges to cut program spending by $2 billion next year and sell $2.3 billion worth of assets – we've all seen that movie before. (The Mike Harris government in Ontario, of which Flaherty was a part, also tried to balance its budget by selling real estate. The court case regarding alleged corruption and fraud arising from these sales is still ongoing.)
As well, Flaherty plans to squeeze $600 million out of public service wages, suspend the right to strike for federal civil servants and throw a spanner in the pay equity program, which is designed to ensure women are paid the same as men for doing work of equal value.
Earlier this month, he announced he is cutting back by $2.4 billion next year the amount that Ottawa transfers to poorer provinces (including Ontario) under the federal equalization program.
In an effort to direct media and opposition attention away from the contradiction between his actions and Harper's words, Flaherty also formally announced the government's plan to scrap public subsidies that political parties get, based on the number of votes they receive at election-time.
The problems with this particular move are not so much economic as political – but that's a topic for another day. Given that Ottawa plans to spend about $248 billion next year, the finance minister's $7.3 billion worth of cutbacks are small beer. But as the Conservatives like to say, symbolism counts and leading by example is important.
And the example that cutback king Flaherty has offered the country – squeezing spending, cutting wages and reducing spending power – is precisely the wrong one for these times. That's not just what I think. If Harper meant what he said in Peru, it's what Flaherty's boss thinks too.
Toronto Star
Clearly they don't know what they are doing and lil' Jim can't make up his mind on whether we do or do not have a deficit.
He's getting good at it, L.W. Slagging others while offering nothing but trollish crap in his posts, no humour, nothing but slag. Must be off the meds. Maybe no one paid him any attention when he was a widdle wisus.
Playing politics with a meltdown TheStar.com - Opinion - Playing politics with a meltdown
November 28, 2008
So much for the kinder, gentler Stephen Harper who appeared to emerge from the Oct. 14 federal election.
In post-election speeches and pronouncements, the Prime Minister struck a conciliatory tone and suggested he was willing to work together with the opposition parties to address the global economic crisis. But yesterday Harper and his Conservative government bared their partisan teeth with a measure that is designed to undermine the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals.
Under the camouflage of an economic statement, the government is proposing to eliminate public subsidies that help political parties offset their election campaign expenses. The subsidies, introduced by then prime minister Jean Chrétien in 2003, provide parties with $1.95 for every vote they received in the previous election. Similar subsidies are available in many other democratic countries. They help to level the political playing field.
Having finished on top in the October election, the Conservatives would be the biggest beneficiaries of the subsidy, to the tune of $10 million, compared to $7 million for the Liberals. But the Conservatives are much better than the Liberals at raising money privately, so they could withstand the elimination of the subsidy more easily. For the Liberals, the loss would be a devastating blow.
And the government's move confronts the Liberals with a dilemma: whether to join with the other opposition parties in the minority Parliament and defeat the measure when it comes forward for a vote, thereby forcing an election for which they are unprepared as they are in the middle of a leadership campaign, or to acquiesce and find themselves impoverished.
This political calculation would, of course, have been obvious to the governing Conservatives as they prepared their economic statement.
Unfortunately, addressing the global economic crisis seems to have been the last thing on the Conservatives' mind. Yesterday's statement contained some symbolic cuts in the perks and expenses of ministers and mandarins, and limits to the pay of MPs and public servants, along with some welcome moves on pensions.
But there were no significant new stimulative measures to counter the economic slowdown. We are told that these will come later in the annual budget, two months or more from now. That puts Canada out of sync with other major industrialized nations, almost all of which have already taken steps to stimulate their economies.
Harper and the Conservatives, it appears, would rather play politics than tackle the tough assignment of saving jobs and whole industries.
Toronto Star....yeah so, it's the paper I'm reading right now.
November 28, 2008
So much for the kinder, gentler Stephen Harper who appeared to emerge from the Oct. 14 federal election.
In post-election speeches and pronouncements, the Prime Minister struck a conciliatory tone and suggested he was willing to work together with the opposition parties to address the global economic crisis. But yesterday Harper and his Conservative government bared their partisan teeth with a measure that is designed to undermine the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals.
Under the camouflage of an economic statement, the government is proposing to eliminate public subsidies that help political parties offset their election campaign expenses. The subsidies, introduced by then prime minister Jean Chrétien in 2003, provide parties with $1.95 for every vote they received in the previous election. Similar subsidies are available in many other democratic countries. They help to level the political playing field.
Having finished on top in the October election, the Conservatives would be the biggest beneficiaries of the subsidy, to the tune of $10 million, compared to $7 million for the Liberals. But the Conservatives are much better than the Liberals at raising money privately, so they could withstand the elimination of the subsidy more easily. For the Liberals, the loss would be a devastating blow.
And the government's move confronts the Liberals with a dilemma: whether to join with the other opposition parties in the minority Parliament and defeat the measure when it comes forward for a vote, thereby forcing an election for which they are unprepared as they are in the middle of a leadership campaign, or to acquiesce and find themselves impoverished.
This political calculation would, of course, have been obvious to the governing Conservatives as they prepared their economic statement.
Unfortunately, addressing the global economic crisis seems to have been the last thing on the Conservatives' mind. Yesterday's statement contained some symbolic cuts in the perks and expenses of ministers and mandarins, and limits to the pay of MPs and public servants, along with some welcome moves on pensions.
But there were no significant new stimulative measures to counter the economic slowdown. We are told that these will come later in the annual budget, two months or more from now. That puts Canada out of sync with other major industrialized nations, almost all of which have already taken steps to stimulate their economies.
Harper and the Conservatives, it appears, would rather play politics than tackle the tough assignment of saving jobs and whole industries.
Toronto Star....yeah so, it's the paper I'm reading right now.
That, and they ought to quit bitching and learn something about political capital. I'm not talking about the conventional meaning of political capital, but we can plainly see that the investments the Conservative party has made in it's fund raising program has paid off handsomely.
Ranking past donors and new donors, data collection; it's a very effective marketing solution that benefits political parties, with the rules handed down during Chretien's tenure, and now with these new rules.
Best of luck BQ...and by that I mean you're going to need it :lol:
Chretien, Broadbent in Ottawa to talk coalition TheStar.com - Canada - Chretien, Broadbent in Ottawa to talk coalition
TANNIS TOOHEY/TORONTO STAR FILE
Former prime minister Jean Chretien is heading to Ottawa to talk coalition with the New Democrats.
November 28, 2008
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien and one-time NDP leader Ed Broadbent are planning to meet on Parliament Hill today to discuss the possibility of a coalition government.
A senior NDP official told The Canadian Press the talks began yesterday soon after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered an economic update that threatened to bankrupt the opposition parties.
The official said NDP Leader Jack Layton asked Broadbent to call Chrétien with the idea that the two elder statesmen could finesse a deal to defeat the minority Conservative government and form a coalition with support from the Bloc Quebecois.
The NDP and the Liberals together don't command a majority of the Commons seats.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says the two former leaders spoke at least four times.
The opposition parties all say Flaherty's mini-budget, which puts strict limits on federal spending, bans public-sector strikes through 2011 and denies federal parties $30 million in annual funding, is ideologically driven and offers no stimulus package to deal with the economic crisis.
It also contains a potentially lethal poison pill – a vow to scrap public subsidies for political parties that would financially cripple every party except the Tories.
Flaherty insisted the party financing changes are part of the fiscal framework and will be considered a matter of confidence in the Commons. He said an accompanying bill will be put to a vote on Monday.
The government's hard line set off another round of political chicken just five weeks after the Oct. 14 election returned Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power with a strengthened minority
The Liberals are taking the prospect of a coalition so seriously that some MPs are privately discussing ways to dump Stephane Dion as leader without waiting for their party's scheduled May 2 leadership vote.
Toronto Star
Uh oh, what have the Tories started....nice leadership in an economic crisis, no stimulous package, a PM and finance minister saying opposite things and an unessessary politcal jab in the economic statement.
It's about the economy stupid not school yard bullying.:roll:
Former prime minister Jean Chretien is heading to Ottawa to talk coalition with the New Democrats.
November 28, 2008
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien and one-time NDP leader Ed Broadbent are planning to meet on Parliament Hill today to discuss the possibility of a coalition government.
A senior NDP official told The Canadian Press the talks began yesterday soon after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered an economic update that threatened to bankrupt the opposition parties.
The official said NDP Leader Jack Layton asked Broadbent to call Chrétien with the idea that the two elder statesmen could finesse a deal to defeat the minority Conservative government and form a coalition with support from the Bloc Quebecois.
The NDP and the Liberals together don't command a majority of the Commons seats.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says the two former leaders spoke at least four times.
The opposition parties all say Flaherty's mini-budget, which puts strict limits on federal spending, bans public-sector strikes through 2011 and denies federal parties $30 million in annual funding, is ideologically driven and offers no stimulus package to deal with the economic crisis.
It also contains a potentially lethal poison pill – a vow to scrap public subsidies for political parties that would financially cripple every party except the Tories.
Flaherty insisted the party financing changes are part of the fiscal framework and will be considered a matter of confidence in the Commons. He said an accompanying bill will be put to a vote on Monday.
The government's hard line set off another round of political chicken just five weeks after the Oct. 14 election returned Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power with a strengthened minority
The Liberals are taking the prospect of a coalition so seriously that some MPs are privately discussing ways to dump Stephane Dion as leader without waiting for their party's scheduled May 2 leadership vote.
Toronto Star
Uh oh, what have the Tories started....nice leadership in an economic crisis, no stimulous package, a PM and finance minister saying opposite things and an unessessary politcal jab in the economic statement.
It's about the economy stupid not school yard bullying.:roll: