Did the Conservative scam steal the election?
Tue, 2008-04-22 07:54
#1
Did the Conservative scam steal the election?
Tue, 2008-04-22 07:54
#2
The Globe and Mail says this kind of election spending did not change the result. I disagree. This is not just a question of over spending nationally by 6% this is a redirection of spending to the most critical areas from moribund local campaigns. The Conservatives used much of this money in Ontario.
This means in that province they did not overspend by only 6% the figure would be effectively much higher. If we assume that such overspending can change a result by up to 5.1% we would have the following Conservative ridings change hands:
ON Ancaster to Lib
ON Barrie to Lib
ON Burrlington to Lib
ON Glengarry P-R to Lib
ON Halton to Lib
ON Kitchener Conestoga to Lib
ON Northumberland to Lib
ON Oshawa to NDP
ON Ottawa Orleans to Lib
ON Parry Sound to Lib
ON Peterborough to Lib
ON St Catharines to Lib
ON Simcoe Grey to Lib
ON Whitby Oshawa to Lib
The standings in the House would have been
Cons 110 Lib 116 BQ NDP 30 IND 1
If you imagine the effect of this as wider than Ontario then the differences would have been:
Cons 102 Lib 119 BQ 55 NDP 31 Ind 1
The above comes from turning over the close Conservative wins (less than 5.1%). Of course this is a crude way of doing it as in some ridings the benefit of this over spending would have been greater perhaps turning over ridings that were not as close as this and in some of these cases the spending would have made no difference. Clearly however, you can see that only a small number of riding changes made the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative minority- basically the election was decided in the closest ten seats with tiny margins.
Consider the cost of advertising-- if it does not win votes the parties would not do it. I think it is fair to conclude the election was stolen if these allegations are true given how much money was spent and the amount of votes changed that would be required to change the election result.
It is telling that the Conservatives and many in the media are claiming this is an in-out issue -- about moving the money. In fact this is about a spending and claiming issue where money spent for one thing is claimed to be for another with two results: 1) the ability to spend more money on national campaigns than the other parties and 2) the ability to stick the taxpayers with a big bill that otherwise would not have been charged- This would have netted the Cons an extra $700,000 cash. This is what makes it different than simply transferring money from local to national or back - where it will be claimed as spent. It is not the transfer that is the problem it is the false claims that is causing this to be an allegation of fraud that could have been enough to steal an election. As long as people focus on the transfers of cash they miss the real fraud here- the transfers were to allow a fraud not for the purpose of shoring up a poor campaign.
Interestingly there are those who say this is not as big as the Liberal adscam. I don't get that argument: surely the Liberals stole a lot of money but was that worth more than control of the nation? The Liberals did not manage to steal an election with that scam- looks like the Cons did.
Scandal looks different dressed in blue.
I put this in a new thread to focus on the actual issue rather than the Mounties' raid which while it is nice TV, it will only be useful in so far as it can uncover more information about what happened-- I think we should address the raid and the scandal, particularly the question of whether it stole the election in two places...
[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]
Tue, 2008-04-22 07:58
#3
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b]Interestingly there are those who say this is not as big as the Liberal adscam. I don't get that argument: surely the Liberals stole a lot of money, but is that worth more than control of the nation? The Liberals did not manage to steal an election with that scam - looks like the Cons did.Scandal looks different dressed in blue.[/b]
I think they are equally bad. Given that Chretien was able to increase the number of Liberal seats in Quebec in 1997 and 2000, can we really say that it didn't have an impact on electoral outcomes.
Tue, 2008-04-22 08:01
#4
The Liberals, did not win that election by the number of seats that could have changed hands in adscam. I am not even sure if there really was enough direct effect to argue that it changed the results in Quebec.
Those elections were not as close as the last one and the money not as directly implicated with an election.
Don't get me wrong- I think the Liberals wear that scandal nicely- but it was not stealing an election and this looks like it was.
Tue, 2008-04-22 08:09
#5
Another related question-- If:
1) the Conservatives wear this as a big scandal and it looks like they may
2) the dirt at least reminds people of Liberal dirt so their traction out of this becomes limited
3) the province of Quebec is not thrilled with the BQ option and stays lukewarm in support for the BQ
How does this set up a national NDP campaign?
Managed properly this could look like the perfect storm.
I could see this helping both the NDP and to some degree the Greens-- if this story went the distance could we end up somewhere around this:
NDP, Cons, Liberals all around 25% and the Greens around 10-15% and the BQ around 10%?
Wouldn't that be an interesting parliament?
[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]
Tue, 2008-04-22 08:14
#6
The next election like the previous ones since 1993 will be decided by votors in Ontario. It is unfortunate but true that the 108 seats in Ontario will determine who sits on the government side and if they will be a minority or majority government.
If we consider that both the libs and cons are equally tarnished. And if we assume that the NDP will run a good campaign in Ontario. And if we also assume that their are a number of vulnerable Lib and Con incumbants.
Then yes the door does seem to be open a bit in Ontairo.
But and here is the big but. Will the people of Ontario be sick of the libs and the cons and decide to go to the NDP?
Many in Ontario hate the libs, hate the cons and yes still harbour anger towards how bad bob's government really was.
What happens?
In spite of all of this I think the NDP pick up another 5 in Ontario and the Cons pick up another 8-10 in Ontario.
Tue, 2008-04-22 08:36
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[b]Interestingly there are those who say this is not as big as the Liberal adscam. I don't get that argument: surely the Liberals stole a lot of money but was that worth more than control of the nation? The Liberals did not manage to steal an election with that scam- looks like the Cons did.Scandal looks different dressed in blue.
I put this in a new thread to focus on the actual issue rather than the Mounties' raid which while it is nice TV, it will only be useful in so far as it can uncover more information about what happened-- I think we should address the raid and the scandal, particularly the question of whether it stole the election in two places...[/b]
Excellent expose sean
Tue, 2008-04-22 08:41
#8
I simply cannot see the cons making significant gains now-- in Quebec the ripest area for the pickings such a scandal cannot play well- if anything I see a BQ recovery there.
As far as Ontario- looking at the close ridings we see the Cons close to the opposition in 5 ridings only that they did not win last time. they are however vulnerable to the opposition in 14 close races. It would take a big bump to get them beyond these close races- I think they will have a hard time retaining the 14 close ones they now hold.
The NDP is within striking distance of one Con seat, 6 Liberal seats and are vulnerable in 4 but those are to Liberals not conservatives.
The Cons are quite far behind in the remaining seats so their best case scenario, unless their vote goes up a great deal, would be 5 more in Ontario but as I say they will have a battle to hold the ones they now have.
If I were calling right now I would project a gain for the opposition of at least 5 seats in Ontario with the Liberals taking an equal number from the Cons as they lose to the NDP.
If this scandal has legs I don't see the conservatives gaining anywhere. They would be lucky to hold the beachhead they have in Quebec and would lose perhaps 4 seats in Atlantic Canada another 3 in the west and 5 in Ontario. This would have them lose the election. The total vote swing would only need to be a couple percent away from them nationally to accomplish this.
Tue, 2008-04-22 09:42
#9
It will be interesting to see how the ballot question develops. If it is a simply do you like Harper then cons are toast.
If on the other hand it is do you like Dion more than Harper and trust him to be a better pm we could have problems.
I want to see the NDP pick up seats. But i am not sure that "Canadians" want Dion to be pm.
Liberals want Dion to go down in flames.
People could just vote against Dion and the result could be another Harper minority.
If it is another minority then Dion I think does not survive the leadership reveiw. This ensures that the Cons have another year to be in power while the libs pick a new leader.
Tue, 2008-04-22 09:55
#10
So if they falsely claimed $700,000 in reimbursements, does that not make a prima facie case of fraud?
(Allegedly) Defrauding the taxpayers to break election laws and steal a minority government. That doesn't look good for the Cons.
No wonder they are trying desperately to spin the case, and half the witnesses are stonewalling.
Tue, 2008-04-22 11:57
#11
quote:
So if they falsely claimed $700,000 in reimbursements, does that not make a prima facie case of fraud?
This is going to sound obscure, but [b]this[/b] is not fraudulent.
It is the riding associations that were claiming the rebates. And they could legitimately say they thought they were entitled to them.
And while the national party did set up the situation, they did not do it to get the rebates for the ridings- so there is no fraudeulant intent even there.
As far as the rebates go- they are simply dissalowed, and dissalowing expenses for rebates purposes is garden variety stuff.
Tue, 2008-04-22 11:57
#12
remind
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
[b]So if they falsely claimed $700,000 in reimbursements, does that not make a prima facie case of fraud?(Allegedly) Defrauding the taxpayers to break election laws and steal a minority government. That doesn't look good for the Cons.
No wonder they are trying desperately to spin the case, and half the witnesses are stonewalling.[/b]
yep, it is looking pretty damn serious, and we should all be putitng pressure on the media about this, and indeed telling everyone we know.
Tue, 2008-04-22 12:05
#13
The spurious claim of the $700,000 is certainly something to be talked up- and the media does mention it.
But like I said, it is not fraudulent, and to claim that it is will create distractions.
[Not that it cannot and should not be tarred as fraudulant along with everything else by simply associating them. It deserves to be. But calling on people to be [i]charged [/i] with fraud over this in particular, does not make ne sound credible.]
Tue, 2008-04-22 13:08
#14
I think there appears to be an attempt to deceive here for the purpose of a financial gain. I don't have a copy of the criminal code to review (I can check it later) but-- normally parties move money from a local to a national campaign to be used there not for the sole purpose of creating a false impression that it will be used there and back-door it back.
Further, while nobody is talking about this, there is another distinction in that they are alleged to have received the money *on the express condition* that they immediately return it which is quite different from getting it and then deciding if they wanted, as a local campaign, to buy in to a regional ad campaign. The decision to spend the money was not allowed by the local campaign and that might be a defining distinction more important than even the exact nature of the ad. If you do not have discretion then this is not an ad "authorized by" an agent for local campaign as they depicted. If what we are hearing is true these ads were authorized by the feds and imposed on the local campaigns who were told to go along with the fiction that they approved, authorized and made a decision to spend.
To me I suspect there is a clear fraudulent intent here when it comes to circumventing and hiding the circumventing of national spending limits. This was not as Van Loan suggested a national campaign template that local campaigns could, if they so chose, buy in to and benefit from but a national decision with national money where the local campaigns were merely instructed to hide as opposed to approve.
There may or may not be a fraudulent intent with respect to the refund claim itself. For that there would have to have been an acknowledgment that a local campaign has different spending rules including these refunds than a national campaign. I find that it would be a huge stretch to assume that they did not know this, that a part of the thinking did not include knowledge of that implication. I do not agree with KenS in that you need this benefit to be a purpose, all you need, I believe, is knowledge that you were doing it. Even that knowledge may not have to be that specific before the fact. For example, if they did not think of it when they started the scheme, at some point into it they must have known that these refund applications were going forward and were false. (Naturally since they were refused we would be talking about attempted fraud not actual since the claims were rejected. But they have continued to fight to get these claims honoured going so far as to sue for the refund.) If you go to steal a car that you think is worth less than $1000 but then find out later it a collector's item worth over $50,000 you are still on the hook fro grand theft even if you did not know the scope of the theft when you started or ever designed to steal it.
If the federal office knew about the claims, knew that they were illegal then it would appear that they were involved in a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer. I certainly hope that this will be considered and charges laid if appropriate. Naturally, we are only speaking of allegations here and the actual evidence may support some but not all allegations being made.
Tue, 2008-04-22 13:14
#15
Interestingly, Layton in an interview I saw was gunning mainly for the Cons and did not go after the Liberals. That would be a clever strategy since the Cons will do the attacking of the Liberals as this goes forward and the NDP would benefit off the message anyway. By focusing on the Cons we do not dilute the fact that this is a current scandal. In an election the message will be different - vote for us because they are both dirty, but right now the focus should be on this very serious allegation that the last election was not fought on a level playing field.
Tue, 2008-04-22 13:50
#16
With respect Sean, if I deconstruct your muddling about the riding rebates, I'll just make matters worse.
It's really pretty cut and dry. As I pointed out, in fact all parties on occassion do use in and out transactions. Not that most riding agents would know that, but it isn't unusual.
So the federal party tells them we do this, it's legal, and you get a rebate. Even if they have misgivings, they will be seen as having acted in good faith. [And a great many did agree with Elections Canada when it was pointed out to them this wasn't on.]
There is absolutely no question that as a group the riding campaign agents did nothing wrong or even untoward.
Looking at the national campaign: the dangling of the rebates as bait to get the campaigns involved was certainly slimy. But the fraudulant intenty is in the role this played in the larger scheme to cirumvent national spending limits.
If you want to get technical, you can call the national campaign setting up for the bogus expenses a fraudulent attempt to get rebates. But it is definitely a distraction. In the first place, fraudulent intent to do that is not that easy to establish. In the second place- the fines for all of these- even the biggie of circumventing spending limits are very small. The fines aren't the point- the case for fraud in exceeding the spending limits is much clearer and far more important.
What is the problem with just talking up bilking the taxpayers, and talking about it with the fraud case that IS being pursued?
If people try to charge the Cons with this specific fraud to, it will just further muddy the waters. There is good reason Elections Canada won't be going there. And even better reason for us to leave it as a story of bilking taxpayers, and you can call it fraudulent without an over the top demand that they be actually charged with fraud over this too.
If you call it fraud, no one is going to question that. But if you demand that people be charged with fraud for it you just call into question what exactly going on, when otherwise people would just accept that it is fraud if you say so, given the context.
Tue, 2008-04-22 15:48
#17
Well, we can hope that as the RCMP go through the files they find the note from Stevie telling the candidates that they can get away with it.
However this plays out, it looks pretty ugly and I hope it sticks to the Cons like crazy glue.
In the meantime, and in the smoke, watch for the Cons to implement some of their less palatable policies - especially the irrevocable ones (such as selling water or privatizing health, where all it takes is a precedent for NAFTA and WTO to kick in) - and especially if they think they'll be losing an election over this.
Tue, 2008-04-22 15:55
#18
I guess the real issue is will people care. Either Canadians will be shocked and run away from the cons in droves.
Or they will look at the cons and then look at the libs and say they are both crooks.
Either way I do not see an avalanche of votes going to the NDP.
Last time I looked one of the only things Canadians agreed to was that Dion was useless.
Harper was scary but not as scary as what Paul Martin suggested because well Dion has kept him in power.
Layton is great. has great policies but for some reason Canadians just can't get it into their thick thick thick skuls that he is PM material.
Therefore many Canadians will simply say Move on nothing to see!!!
Tue, 2008-04-22 19:27
#19
Miles I agree, this will only serve the cons for some twisted reason. They are telling their base(greedy fucks) that what they did was OK I know a few CPC supporters that think this is OK..why because all parties do it and it is only just that cons always pay less tax than regular folks(yes they are being taxed somehow?!?)They cons are muddying the water on anything they are weak, and always attacking the libs(yes we are bad but look at how bad THEY used to be) Their base is pretty rock solid around 20-25% so it wouldn't matter what they did as long as we support the troops and stay tough on crime and morality(hmmph less government eh!)Also they are being attacked by the big bad beaurucrats in Ottawa again [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
We need to run an accountability and transparnecy montage during the elections...I think the cons should get crushed by a good campaign. The cons haven't been in government and had to defend a record of inaction in long time. Should be interesting.
I believe there was intent as they are fighting tooth and nail on this. The public is so disinterested it is sickening. Apathy is aplenty and I think this plays into the cons hands as their people ALWAYS get out and vote. They just need to fool a few sheep and we wind up the scenario we are at right now. That being said, if the libs lose again(and we don't hold balance) look for the cons to have a virtual majority that will make what they have done so far seem like a walk in the park. Libs will have to hold another leadership campaign again have no funds, and will be afraid to send us to the polls again. This will be especially true if the cons use the "they pulled the election" shtick the libs used on us. Scary times indeed.
Wed, 2008-04-23 06:51
#20
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
[b]With respect Sean, if I deconstruct your muddling about the riding rebates, I'll just make matters worse.
[/b]
No, it is not respectful to insult someone's position and then say that you can't be bothered to frame an argument against it. I have seen you do this several times -- and this is not even the first time with me. It is lazy, annoying, not credible and supremely arrogant. This makes me less inclined to want to enter into a discussion with you that could end up with such a patronizing and content-free criticism. I am happy to debate, share and learn on this site but your posts at times seem to fall away from any of this. You ought not to be respected for saying someone is merely wrong, you know better and expect not get called upon it when you leave it with no further explanation than that. The first time you engaged in this tactic I let it go, but after seeing it become a repeating thing, I felt the need to call you out on this.
The next time you chose to say in effect there is something wrong with another's post but you are too good to take the trouble to explain it and the people here are so beneath you that they won't understand your incredible magnificent intelligence, I'll just ignore you. KenS, you often write some very intelligent things here but once in a while your arrogance gets the better of you.
Wed, 2008-04-23 07:40
#21
Sean who do you think wins from this? The Libs? The NDP? The Greens? No one?
You see if this has legs then we could assume that it hurts the cons.
Therefore who does it help?
If the election where held on this issue alone who wins?
I agree with Miles that libs cons same story both greedy both either break laws or tip toe up close and personal with the line in the sand. No real difference and all expect them to do this.
So who wins?
Wed, 2008-04-23 08:57
#22
Who wins? Everyone but the Cons but to different degrees.
Any Con loss of support will benefit the Liberals somewhat but because they have had a recent scandal that this will remind people of the benefit will not be as great. A general movement even direct from the Cons to the NDP or Greens would help the Liberals if it meant their second place seats went into first place.
The NDP has been pushing for many reforms and on ethics are the most trusted-- I suspect the NDP's benefits would be disproportionate. In Liberal NDP races the NDP would definitely be the beneficiary of ethics being a ballot question.
The Greens would also benefit as well as they are also a potential place for protest votes to go - particularly the vote of those who support the Cons who would never consider the Liberals or NDP although the Greens have limited organization to benefit from this.
In Quebec, the BQ would definitely gain -- ethics are a big issue there after the Liberal scandal and the fact that spending room was diverted from local campaigns in Quebec to elsewhere won't play well if it gets picked up. This may be what the BQ was looking for giving people a reason to support them other than sovereignty which is not playing well now. I do think the stories of a BQ collapse have been overrated for some time anyway.
In short this is a benefit to all but tailor made for the NDP who would likely gain the most both in votes and an increased chance at a balance of power scenario.
[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]
Wed, 2008-04-23 10:51
#23
So you would rather have a right wing liberal government than the right wing cons government?
To me it is the same right wing government.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:49
#24
The Liberals have shown that when they are in a minority situation and the NDP has a gun to their heads they actually are better. This is the situation I would prefer as the best compromise if I can't have an NDP government which I would prefer.
I don't see this as black and white. The Cons *are* worse than most Liberals in many areas. This does not mean the Liberals are not dangerous but sometimes you can work with them. They are also more inclined to adopt policies we put forward (with enough pressure) and the country needs some of those right now.
Wed, 2008-04-23 11:57
#25
Acutally I think that the worse governments in the history of Canada have not been those led by cons. Rather it is the failure of the libs to lead a proper progressive government.
Canada falls for it each and every time. Pearson, Trudeau,Chretien and Martin -- and I have full confidence that Dion will also do this -- have all talked a good game but been miserable leaders who have hurt the people of canada more than helped them.
A strong NDP is required but it is more important for us to see the libs as what they are.
Terrible liars and cheats
Wed, 2008-04-23 12:04
#26
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
The only good Liberal governments have been [b]minority[/b] Liberal governments.
That said, within that boundary, there [i]have been[/i] good Liberal governments.
Witness the current Conservative minority government: There are [b]no[/b] good Conservative governments.
Wed, 2008-04-23 12:05
#27
I don't disagree- but practically speaking we have more leverage with the Liberals.
The goal is to elect enough NDP MPs to either win or influence the government. But the Cons would do business with anyone else rather than the NDP on most things. The Liberals on their own are bad but they can be made to do good things...
Wed, 2008-04-23 12:06
#28
quote:
The next time you chose to say in effect there is something wrong with another's post but you are too good to take the trouble to explain it and the people here are so beneath you that they won't understand your incredible magnificent intelligence, I'll just ignore you. KenS, you often write some very intelligent things here but once in a while your arrogance gets the better of you.
Point taken about the tactlessness. But it wasn't that I couldn't be bothered. I thought you had added complications [for reasons I couldn't grasp] to something that was simple. I was and did answer what you said- I literally meant as I said that if I was to address what you said point by point, it would be a hopeless muddle.
One of the problems of online communication is that you don't always know when you are being cryptic and /or curt.