Election Financing

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caissa

The parties competed in the election in good faith under a specific election financing law. To have one party turn around and change it is to say the least not cricket.

Mojoroad1

Looks like the Globe is saying it will be a confidence vote.

 

Quote:
Opposition parties denounced the proposal to end per-vote subsidies in the name of economic restraint as a partisan power play.

“They're using the update to hurt their rivals … it's playing Karl Rove politics – getting people upset against the political class generally,” said NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair, referring to a former adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush.

The Tories are expected to make it costly for rival parties to fight their proposal by introducing legislation to eliminate the subsidy, worth $1.95 per vote annually. The legislation is expected to be a money bill and therefore a confidence vote, which means defeating it could trigger another election. If this happened, the Tories could blame rival parties for refusing to make sacrifices.

 

I still can't link the article with the "link command" in safari for some reason, and the the URL will cause side scroll... but the article is linked right off the G&M  front page.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Well, if it is going to be a confidence vote let's be glad it is being proposed this early... within that ill-defined six month window that might allow for an alternative government to be formed rather than forcing a new election.

Albeit grudgingly, I have to admit that it is a really good trick... much better than holding up the House by just letting the division bells ring.

janfromthebruce

Working accord with 3 parties. And why wouldn't the Bloc seriously consider this? Think about it - 86% of their revenue is from this subsidy. 

And wrong or right, the NDP is in better shape financially than libs, Greens, and Bloc. NDP is the next party after the Cons who raises the most money from donors. 

The libs need to seriously consider their options here. 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

thorin_bane

Actually I think the issue this is directed at is the bloc. If they hadn't reemerged during the election it would be harper majority. I have to say I truely do think cons are worse than libs. The libs wouldn't pull this shit. Yeah they lie and pander but this is evil. Might as well be a totalitarian regime in there. I am more than willing to go to the polls again. If harper destroyed only the bloc, he would have his majority. I think that is his plan, doing away the libs is just an added bonus.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

kropotkin1951

I find the other part of this equation that was announced to be even more odious. The proposal not only calls for the elimination of the $1.95 but it also calls for reducing the MP's budgets. I know that in our riding the MP does not have enough money to hire sufficient staff to deal with federal issues under the current system. As the economy tanks and people begin to look to the government for help through EI or other programs there will be an increased demand on MP's services and their budgets will be cut. 

As for the finances I would not mind the $1.95 being removed if it also was coupled with a drastic reduction of the amount of money the political parties are allowed to spend on advertising and not just during the writ period. I haven't heard anything about the rebates to riding associations being included in this so I presume that the Conservatives at least understand that it will bankrupt many riding associations of all political stripes. Hurting the opposition is one thing shooting yourself in the foot is another.

___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny

thorin_bane

They have said they are about smaller government. The only issue is they never completed that sentance"We want smaller governement, of the variety we don't like. And bigger government for that which we do." Military, money for corporation, intrusions into your social life(gotta love the anti terror bill). All the while death by a thousand cuts to what canadians love. Best of all being bad at management only serves their purpose. The more people that beome apathethic or inclined to get rid of government all together, just serves them more. Apathy, love it because cons alway get their vote out,  want to get rid of gov, welcome to the club [don't look at the fact we are the ones destroying it].

Win win. 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Harper pulls this shit in a minority - imagine if the Cons had a majority!

KenS

Thats just your imagination kicking up bogeymen BB. But we've been down that road enough times.

 I'm still waiting to see what Flaherty actually said, he should have delivered it about now. But I suppose whether or not its a confidence vote they could leave hanging a while.

In fact, they'll probably leave it hanging longer if they don't intend to make it a confidence vote. Drag out the drama as long as possible.

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I find the other part of this equation that was announced to be even more odious. The proposal not only calls for the elimination of the $1.95 but it also calls for reducing the MP's budgets.

This is another torpedo aimed squarely at the Bloc.

With all the MPs staffers available during elections, plus the public funding, the BQ has been able to do fine without fundraising.... because they don't have that many campaigns to run.

So pull out the public funding, AND some of the riding staffing...

johnpauljones

janfromthebruce wrote:

 Actually, I disagree with you jpj. Chretien did it to get rid of the influence of corporations/unions/lobbyist controling govt by their donations.

 

The Chretien screwed his own party because his party did not have people writing cheques rather it was corporations and lobbyists

johnpauljones

Caissa wrote:
The parties competed in the election in good faith under a specific election financing law. To have one party turn around and change it is to say the least not cricket.

 

Like what Chretien did when he changed the rules a couple of years ago?  Sorry rules change all the time after elections, ridings change etc.

I wish that when Chretien made his change he would have killed all public financing at that time. So today would not be necessary

thorin_bane

The update did nothing but cuts...no stimulus...we just need to sit and wait. WOW LEADERSHIP!

 

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

Darwin OConnor

According to the CBC they plan to "Eliminate the $1.75 per vote subsidy to support political parties that
receive more than 2 per cent of the vote, staring April 2009."

That is 5 months from now, probably 2 quarterly payment. Even if you don't agree with the funding, it isn't enough time for the opposition parties to absorb a more then 50% cut in funding and remain solvent.

The Bish

CBC is also reporting the following very troubling aspect of the fiscal update:

Quote:
Hold wage increases to public servants, including MPs and senators, to
2.3 per cent for last year and 1.5 per cent for each of the next three
years; and bring in legislation to stop them from striking until
2010-11
.

johnpauljones

the only good part of the update is the fast tracking of infrastructure

 

Quote:

Infrastructure is an example of such worthwhile spending. Investment in infrastructure creates jobs for today and for the future. It creates essential links between communities and regions. Next year’s increase in infrastructure spending will be our largest, and will push the total amount to over $6 billion in stimulus to the economy. Our Government is committed to expediting our historic, $33-billion Building Canada plan to get projects moving as quickly as possible, in particular for the upcoming construction season. We will work with provinces and territories to identify a limited number of key infrastructure projects across Canada by January 2009. These investments will help keep Canada moving forward as the world economy slows.

johnpauljones

the only good part of the update is the fast tracking of infrastructure

 

Quote:

Infrastructure is an example of such worthwhile spending. Investment in infrastructure creates jobs for today and for the future. It creates essential links between communities and regions. Next year’s increase in infrastructure spending will be our largest, and will push the total amount to over $6 billion in stimulus to the economy. Our Government is committed to expediting our historic, $33-billion Building Canada plan to get projects moving as quickly as possible, in particular for the upcoming construction season. We will work with provinces and territories to identify a limited number of key infrastructure projects across Canada by January 2009. These investments will help keep Canada moving forward as the world economy slows.

Stockholm

Apparently, the Liberals, NDP AND BQ have all announced they will vote against this statement. That means we face three possibilities:

 

1. The Tories back down

2. Parliament is dissolved and we have a new election.

3. The three opposition parties ask the GG to let them forma coalition government

johnpauljones

Stock the coalition gov't argument is difficult to see happen even if -- and I  do not see her doing it -- but even if the GG allowed them to form a coalition govt.

How would Canadians react to teh Deputy PM being Mr. Duceppe?  Canadians would welcome Jack as Minister of Finance.

 

163 seats in the coalition government. Therefore a cabinet of 35 would be if divided by seat percentages with numbers rounded up

 

libs 77 seats or 47% of cabinet  16 seats in Cabinet

BQ 49 seats or 30% of Cabinet 10 seats

NDP 37 seats or 23% of Cabinet 8 seats in Cabinet

 

Would Jack accept 8 seats at the table? Which 8?

 

I just do not see this scenario playing out

Stockholm

There are many models for how this might work. The BQ would almost certainly not accept any cabinet seats and would probably offer passive support from outside. the NDp might do the same.

remember that in Ontario in 1985 the Liberals had fewer seats than the Tories but formed a minority government on the basis of  support agreement with the NDP.

madmax

Caissa wrote:

Cop out and nonsense Mad max. Do elaborate?

 

I support the current electoral funding through the public purse.

In Saint John, N.B. and NDP vote is only worth $1.95. They have no chance of winning. YMMV

There is nothing wrong with your position to support federal funding. But to suggest that your vote is worth nothing without it is an insult.  People work hard to spread a political parties values. For the party you mention, that hard work has translated into a seat in NewBrunswick. There is no seat that is untouchable. To suggest that a party is only of value because of the $1.95 per vote undermines the political value of the activists and mobilizers.  

 Who would have expected the NDP to win a seat in Quebec, Alberta, Newfoundland and virtually sweep all of Northern Ontario?  This had little to do with $1.95 and more to do with hard work and the climate of the electorate willingness and readiness for change. Many of those seats would have been considered a riding with "NO CHANCE OF WINNING".

Here is a riding in NB that anyone who can read a stat would say, my riding has "NO CHANCE OF WINNING"

 

Liberal
Doug Young
26,782
66.35
+14.60

    
Progressive Conservative
Luce-Andrée Gauthier
11,175
27.69
-15.04

    
New Democrat
Kim Gallant
2,406
5.96
+0.43

 

Except in the next election this happened.

PartyCandidateVotes%±%

    
New Democrat
Yvon Godin
21 113
40.53
+34.57

    
Liberal
Doug Young
18 421
35.36
-30.99

    
Progressive Conservative
Norma Landry
12 560
24.11
-3.58

 

No public purse required.

 

Is there a benefit to political parties via the public purse? Absolutely. Is it  the be all and end all of democracy? NO

Is the Harper Government being mean and devilish? I think so, and more importantly if they are more focused on this "game" then on the economy and there is nothing to offer Canadians before Christmas.... I don't think they have done anything other then poke the LPC in the eye.

I have heard nothing for Canadians, and if the parties go after the government over this issue, they could look more concerned about their "self interest" then about the fate of many Canadians in an economic downturn.

If you look at your riding a 16% starting point is better then the 5% starting point above.  Vote for what you believe in, and fight for what you believe.

 

 

Radical Marijuana
Michael Moffat
330
0.9
0.9%

NDP-New Democratic Party
Tony Mowery
5,560
16.0
16.0%

Green Party
Mike Richardson
1,888
5.4
5.4%

Conservative
Rodney Weston
13,782
39.6
39.6%

Liberal
Paul Zed
13,285
38.1
38.1%

 What is a RADICAL Marijuana party? One that doesn't eat munchies?

 

madmax

Stockholm wrote:

Apparently, the Liberals, NDP AND BQ have all announced they will vote against this statement. That means we face three possibilities:

 

1. The Tories back down

2. Parliament is dissolved and we have a new election.

3. The three opposition parties ask the GG to let them forma coalition government

The opposition parties need to come up with an economic plan.  

A bold one Cool

 

 

KeyStone

Chester Drawers wrote:

Should the government continue with the $1.75 per vote subsidy?  Or should all political financing come from the party supporters?

I think that the subsidy should be dropped.  Only donations from party supporters, actual voters, should be allowed.

 

Wonderful idea. But why stop there. 

Let's get rid of this voting business altogether, and just say that the party that raises the most money wins. Think of all the money we'll save by not having to have one of those annoying elections.

aka Mycroft

So a government that just spent $300 million on an unnecessary early election wants to save money by cutting $30 million in funding to political parties - a move that would put the Conservative Party at a distict advantage?

So much for the new post-partisan Stephen Harper.

KeyStone

madmax wrote:

While all parties benefit from the $1.95 I do not support it. I don't believe that political parties are in need of money as much as our health care system, or social services.

People can donate their money or time to a political party. 

Giving more money to the CPC just so they can have a huge war chest to thump the LPC with prior to the election cycle is a waste of tax money.

Why should a party like the LPC, which has governed Canada for the majority of its existance as a country, be inline for a handout. 

I also don't consider funding of political parties and essential service. Parties have managed to survive without the handout for over 100 years. 

The CCF existed long before this form of political welfare existed, and so did the NDP.

I wonder if the GP would exist or run those paper candidates in ridings as a source of revenue generation if it wasn't for the handout?  

This isn't about democracy. Those fringe parties, who people have the right to vote for, and independants, receive..... nothing. Therefore their vote is worth even less. It could well be considered a violation of political rights. It certainly isn't fair. To think we would give Separtists Millions of dollars that they can't raise on their own is rediculous. To think that we won't give Liberatarians are CAP monies for votes highlights that we support political welfare for separation but not for minority parties unable to get their voice out.

There is a reason for that. If over 1 million people voted for the BQ before giving them Millions of dollars, there is no reason to give the BQ money today.

And if people aren't mobilized or care enough to donate or vote for the CAP we seem quite happy in not letting them belly up to the trough.

Nearly half the public doesn't vote. Why should their tax money go to political parties of which none they support? Why should a tax paying CAP, Communist or Progressive, have their money giving to the Liberals, CPC, NDP?

A political party which cannot raise its own funds should recognise their state of affairs and rectify rather then rely on the public purse to fund their campaigns.

IMHO. 

 

 

 Now hold on, 

First of all, the Conservatives aren't getting
rid of public funding, they are getting rid of one of two types of
public funding - and the one where they don't have a huge advantage.
The rebate, where they enjoy the lion's share, isn't being challenged.

Secondly,
the idea behind it, is that it levels the playing field a bit. Parties
that champion the poor, can actually afford election signs, polling and
even TV commercials. We can pretend all we want that money doesn't
matter in politics, but we all know it does. 

Thirdly, the reason
that the CCF did well, was not because they raised hundreds of dollars
from millions of Canadians, it did well because it got large
contributions from unions and wealthy philanthropists - something that
can not happen now that we have limits on election donations.

Fourthly, you're presenting a false choice. We can have a fair electoral system and health care and education. 30 million is about a dollar from every person. It's not even close to the amount spent in Afghanistan, or the amount of money lost because we got rid of the GST. So, let's stop pretending this is some sort of deficit saving measure.

Fifthly, the fact that the elimination of the subsidy might result in the elimination of a political party you don't like really doesn't change the fact that levelling the playing field is a good thing to do.

Sixthly, given that it's clear that a party needs money to survive and even more money to compete, relying solely on individual contributions will result in political parties tilting more and more to the right as they chase the dollars of wealthy people. Do we really need a hundred dollar donation to be worth more than a dozen votes?

 Seventhly, I agree with you about independents getting money, but an oversight in the program, does not make the entire program obsolete or corrupt.

KenS

We've been over this before in other threads, but the opposition parties don't need any kind of agreement. Nobody knows for sure of course, but precedents point to this soon after the election the GG simply asking Dion to form a government. There may be some standard applied, but no requirement of a formal agreement, let alone coalition.

 

Six months from now it would not be good enough for the NDP and Bloc to say they will not defeat the government, but right now that should suffice.

Again, no one knows for sure. But that Dion would simply be asked to govern, is at the very least too likely an outcome for the Conservatives to be going into this not being well aware where it may lead.

What I'm still not convinced of is whether Harper Crew really intends to include this under a confidence motion vote. There may yet be some fancy dancing that they have planned all along.

 On the other hand, they may think its just peachy if Dion governs right now.... for as long as he lasts.

miles

The simple fact is that we are putting all of our eggs in the basket of enough liberals voting no to bring down the government. 

 

What if 15 to 20 libs get diplomatic flu

 

libs vote against but guess what harper survives

madmax

From what I am aware, the CPC is not going to back down on this issue. If the result is that they have lost control to a coalition because of a hamfisted attack on the LPC, then the sillier it gets for them. They should be focused on the economy.  The CPC aren't going to change, and pettiness appears to be a way of life for a Harper lead government.

In the meantime,  the Green Party has issued emails to their members to "protect democracy", so this is really, really affecting a party which has "No seats" in the house and can't vote on anything.

It actually sounds absurd, when you think about it. Protect democracy, we don't have a seat in the house? Which IMHO means they are another group that is not thinking about the economy, but merely about themselves.

melovesproles

I suspect the Liberals will show up, this isn't about a symbolic show of principle but actually an attack on them where it hurts.  And as if the Bloc are going to want to be in Cabinet, johnpauljones is really grasping at straws, their motivation for not wanting to see their primary source of funding disappear is pretty self evident and has nothing to do with cabinet positions..

miles

melovesproles you are suggesting that the bq will kill the current government only to get their election funding back?

 

No if their is a coalition then the BQ and the NDP will demand power positions.

 

 

miles

melovesproles you are suggesting that the bq will kill the current government only to get their election funding back?

 

No if their is a coalition then the BQ and the NDP will demand power positions.

 

 

ggs

"Should the government continue with the $1.75 per vote subsidy?  Or should all political financing come from the party supporters?

 I think that the subsidy should be dropped.  Only donations from party supporters, actual voters, should be allowed. "

 The party who's backers have the deapest pockets win. The whole idea of public funding was to reduce the domination of the system by rich and powerful lobby groups and special interests.

 If Harper was truly serious about fiscal prudence, why would he have the largest PMO in history? If Harper was truly serious about fiscal prudence, why would he increase his cabinet by 16 members? Combined, these measures basically consume all of the money he saves by eliminating public funding.

So, if not fiscal prudence then what? The answer is simple. He wants to destroy the opposition parties. He doesn't just want a majority in the next election, he wants a permanent majority. He does not believe in democracy, he believes in power.

melovesproles

I think thats ridiculous, maybe the NDP will demand cabinet positions, but for the Bloc to suddenly want a seat at governing Canada would be a radical shift in their ideology and a contradiction of their whole raison d'etre.  And are you seriously suggesting that losing 90% of their entire funding wouldn't be a significant motivaton for the Bloc?

miles

I am saying that in politics you do not do something to help your enemy without getting anything in return.

 

If the BQ does not get a position at the table then very simply what do they get? How do they ensure that the libs do what they want?

 

No for the BQ to go to the dance they will want to get some after

melovesproles

What part of not losing 90% of their funding isn't beneficial to the Bloc?  As its been pointed out in this thread and others, this would hurt the Bloc more than anyone by far.  You seem to be oblivious to this very straightforward fact. 

Obviously, they would also base their support on "Quebec's interests" but the idea that the Bloc wants or has ever wanted to govern Canada is absurd.

miles

sure they get their funding great. Now what? the BQ has opposed the majority of the policies promoted by the libs.

 

so what do they ask for next? or do they kill the libs in 1 month? 2?

 

The libs need the bq more than the bq needs the libs

 

libs and npd = minority

 

bq plus cons = majority

 

so how do the libs keep the bq votes?

melovesproles

That's a good question but its let's not pretend the Bloc wants cabinet positions in the Canadian government.

Wilf Day

The Bloc does not yet want to be in cabinet. Duceppe can maybe see that coming in a year or so, but it would give Bloc voters whiplash to do that right away.

So we are talking about an Liberal-NDP coalition with a "supply and confidence agreement" with the Bloc. The "labour agenda" would make up a large part of the "supply and confidence agreement."

Don't know whether it will happen, but if it doesn't now, when will it ever?

 

Refuge Refuge's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Apparently, the Liberals, NDP AND BQ have all announced they will vote against this statement. That means we face three possibilities:

 

1. The Tories back down

2. Parliament is dissolved and we have a new election.

3. The three opposition parties ask the GG to let them forma coalition government

 

Another possibility is all the other parties oppose the bill in the media but not enough members show up during the vote to actually vote against - so it passes.

ottawaobserver

Also, the Bloc might have made a strategic decision to live off the public funding and leave the fund-raising room to the PQ.  But they do have a good riding organization, so there's no reason to believe they couldn't ramp up again if required.

But I must say, I watched those speeches, and watched the interaction between the Bloc and NDP members on TV this afternoon, and I'd say it looks for all the world like they've found enough common ground to try and pull something off.

And I agree with Chantal Hebert on the panel tonight ... it's gone well beyond the political party funding now, and merely retracting that part, even if the Conservatives start to realize just what they stirred up here, will not put the genie back in the bottle now.  They made people ask: if he tries this now, what will he try next.  And if we don't take him down now, we won't be able to later.

It's as many people said during the campaign ... the election was not the time for talking coalitions ... but perhaps now is.

janfromthebruce

Stockholm wrote:

There are many models for how this might work. The BQ would almost certainly not accept any cabinet seats and would probably offer passive support from outside. the NDp might do the same.

remember that in Ontario in 1985 the Liberals had fewer seats than the Tories but formed a minority government on the basis of  support agreement with the NDP.

I would hope that the NDP would NOT act "like handmaids" and take cabinet seats. It's time for the NDP to show that they can "act in government" and this is the perfect opportunity to do so.

What is more worrying is that although the libs said they were against it, Dion played coy here: CBC news and said the following

However, Dion did not respond when asked whether a handful of his MPs might be absent for a vote on the update, a move that would give the government enough numbers to survive. In the last Parliament, the Liberals used the tactic several times to prevent triggering an election.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

janfromthebruce

And I am with Ottawa Observer on this.This train has left the station. And it is about power sharing. Libs need to give up their dream/myth of thinking the other opposition parties are their as their handmaids, and sharing power, means sharing cabinet positions. Think about it this way. Libs have 77 seats, Bloc have 49, and the NDP have 37. Depending what the Bloc wants out of the menage-et-tois, the cabinet positions should be split proportionally. If it's just libs and NDP it works out that in a cabinet of 30 the NDP gets 10 positions. 

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

thorin_bane

They irony is what duceppe said at the english language debates.  There is mad anger on the star and CBC boards over the blatant attack on working people and democracy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

janfromthebruce

thorin_bane wrote:

They irony is what duceppe said at the english language debates.  There is mad anger on the star and CBC boards over the blatant attack on working people and democracy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

Thorin_ban, you mean when Duceppe said that there is only going to be one elected PM and that means that at least 3 of you are going to lose? 

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

remind remind's picture

ggs wrote:
So, if not fiscal prudence then what? The answer is simple. He wants to destroy the opposition parties. He doesn't just want a majority in the next election, he wants a permanent majority. He does not believe in democracy, he believes in power.

Exactly!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Chester Drawers

KenS wrote:
Will we ever hear from Chester Drawers again?

 Right here Ken.

How will the opposition spin this?  We are entitled to our entitlements. 

 The symbolism on this is important.  If we Canadians are going to feel the effects of the world economic flu and have to swallow bitter pills, then everyone has to share the medicine. 

 

Just as I fund my favorite charities, I fund the political party of my choice.  The 100 bucks I give them every year costs me $25 after I get my political donation refund. 

 

Everyone who strongly supports a political ideal needs to buck up.  $10 here and $10 there adds up.  It is up to individuals to determine if something is worth the financial expense.  But alas the instant gratification syndrome that plagues our society prevents many from donating because they feel there is no immediate benefit to me.

KeyStone

Chester,

First of all, generally a recession is not really the time to cut costs. Ever hear of 'pass the buck'? So, not really sure why Harper suddenly feels a need to reduce the budget.

Secondly, do you really think that $30 million is the most inefficient use of government money, or do you think Harper is just making a raw grasp at power? Geez, can you think ofanything else that could be eliminated that costs as much or more? Anything at all?

 1$ a person to help level the playing field in Canadian politics is not too much, particularly when the Conservatives know all too well that this is going to cripple the other parties. 

Chester Drawers

Yes there are many places to cut $30 million here and there.  The point is that every little bit helps.  Just as a $10 donation helps the political party, every little bit helps.

 

Exactly how does this subsidy level the playing field?  Every political party has a membership list, current and past members plus a list of identified voters.  The party should mine these people for funds.  If a political party can not get their so called supporters to cough up a few bucks, then they need to find out why this is and change their platform to attract the funds. People will not change, but political parties can. Wink

 

I stopped funding one political party in 1987 because they no longer reflected my views.  I gave my money to a new grass roots party in 1988 as it better represented the majority of my views.  The former party asked me why I stopped giving and I told them why.  They were arrogent and assumed that the flock would eventually come home. Look at what happened to them in the 1993 election.  Money talks, even the 10 bucks.

Chester Drawers

Keystone you said;

First of all, generally a recession is not really the time to cut costs. Ever hear of 'pass the buck'? So, not really sure why Harper suddenly feels a need to reduce the budget.

 

This is the exact time to reduce spending on luxuries and keep spending of the essentials.

 

Look at your situation, I will assume that you come from a duel income household like 70% of the rest of us.  One of you loses your job or has reduced earnings. What do you cut?  The government is no different.  You will make priorities, essentials like food, transportation, shelter, utilities etc.  You would most likely reduce expenditures on dining out, recreational activities, maybe delay the holiday etc.

 

Then when times are good again spend a little more on the luxuries.

remind remind's picture

Oh but chesterdrawers, you seem to think the CONservative party today is the same as the conservative party of old, you even claim their actions as your party's own. Can one say hyprocrit loud enough? Or even perhaps cognative dissonance.

Glad to see next week when your party is out of power. They gambled and will lose.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Pages

Topic locked