Conservatives Panic?

[M.Dancer]

Best PM Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Read and Rotate]

Canada (N=1,000, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)

Stephen Harper 36% (+2)

Jack Layton 17% (+1)

Stephane Dion 15% (NC)

Gilles Duceppe 5% (-2)

Elizabeth May 4% (-3)

None/ Unsure 23% (NC)

If I was a betting man I would be looking for good odds on a Harper Majority.

[Wild Bill]

The fact is, Wild Bill, "rage and resentment among a large and growing segment of the population, perhaps even a majority" doesn't matter unless those people are willing to organize and take overt action. That's my point. Public policy is not decided by public opinion or even what is the right thing to do. Public policy is decided by interest groups acquiring and applying power. That fact has been the political norm for all of human history.

And don't tell me that people aren't capable of fighting for the world they want. If you're not actively engaged in campaigns to have the issues of importance to you reflected in public policy, it's because you choose not to. And if you choose not to, why should anyone who is engaged care one whit about your concerns or opinions--you're a bystander who doesn't matter.

Ah Stephan, you're making my point for me! "...unless those people are willing to organize and take overt action." That's what happened with the Reform movement! That's what can happen again.

The key point to lobbyists is that they should not assume that because the "silent majority" appears to be sleeping they should never have to consider that someday it might wake up. Or if it did wake up, it might have a negative opinion of ALL lobby groups!

I don't know if you've noticed but there has been a noticeable change in public attitudes towards some sacred cows of even a decade ago. Many folks are championing the sealers and not the seals in Newfoundland. Greenpeace is considered by some to be more of a kneejerk religious movement than one founded on good eco-science.

People are daring not just to wear fur again but...seal fur!

The NDP has been shrinking these last few elections. Not all of its support has gone to the Greens, either.

Even the idea of Dion's NewGST and the carbon tax looks like a non-starter. 10 years ago I'd have bet that it would have been enthusiastically supported. Now it looks like most people think that "saving the planet" means taxed until they can't afford their mortgage or groceries.

Not everywhere of course and not 100% but still, trends have grown that are the direct result of the success of many lobby groups. You can argue about whether it's fair to blame this or that group but it doesn't matter. It's a perception and is not preception one of the core factors of politics?

It's too easy to go for the quick score in front of your nose. That shortsightedness is why countries like Japan blew old-fashioned American companies out of the water with cars and electronics.

Any pool player knows it's not just sinking the shot. It's leaving shape on the ball for the next one!

I think a lot of today's lobbyists would do well to practice some pool.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Stephen Best]

So you would have no problem with a Conrad Black spending all his money on third party ads to get someone elected.

I won't say it is a conflict of interest, but it is self serving for a paid propagandists to argue against a law that prevents special interest groups from exerting more influence than they have support. In the US lobby groups can make or break campaigns with their money spect on ads, ads that do not have to conform to any election law.....that is harmful to democracy.

The Canadian style prevents lobbyists and propagandists from unaccountable spending and backing one candidate over another and creates a level playing field so even extreme fringe parties like the Greens can compete. A system like the US has could have Monsanto spending millions of dollars on direct mail and ads to "inform" voters about the Greens irresponsible and dangerous policies....

So if you want an American system where someone like you can make money hand over fist shilling for some worthy cause, move there.

Again you don't understand the current election laws in Canada. They in fact make it easier to form a political party, but incredibly difficult after that to raise funds. So difficult in fact that the idea that a fringe party can form and grow--as the Reform Party once did--is no longer possible. I am a Chief Agent of a small federal party. If you want I could walk you -- section by section -- through the Election Act to show you why in today's legislative regime the Reform Party would be impossible.

I have no problem with Conrad Black spending money in elections. What I want is all points of view expressed in elections. The reason? I trust democracy and a well-informed electorate. If the progressive interest groups that I champion, in fact, have a constituency they will have no difficulty raising the funds necessary to compete in the marketplace of ideas, unless of course--as they do now--election laws make it impossible for them to do so.

Perhaps you think democracy is improved by censoring people and ideas you don't approve of, I don't.

[Wild Bill]

Again you don't understand the current election laws in Canada. They in fact make it easier to form a political party, but incredibly difficult after that to raise funds. So difficult in fact that the idea that a fringe party can form and grow--as the Reform Party once did--is no longer possible. I am a Chief Agent of a small federal party. If you want I could walk you -- section by section -- through the Election Act to show you why in today's legislative regime the Reform Party would be impossible.

I have no problem with Conrad Black spending money in elections. What I want is all points of view expressed in elections. The reason? I trust democracy and a well-informed electorate. If the progressive interest groups that I champion, in fact, have a constituency they will have no difficulty raising the funds necessary to compete in the marketplace of ideas, unless of course--as they do now--election laws make it impossible for them to do so.

Perhaps you think democracy is improved by censoring people and ideas you don't approve of, I don't.

Your experience might give you a better perspective on the new laws, Stephen. I admit I'm not up on them other than what I've gleaned from the media.

My gleanings gave me the impression that the new laws require parties to depend far more on smaller personal donations and much less on large corporate or lobby group ones.

Is this untrue?

Reform built its huge election war chests almost entirely by passing a KFC bucket at public meetings and by individual membership/donation drives. The new Tories have inherited that legacy. They receive very little in comparison to corporate donations.

The Liberals of course relied on those big corporate cheques for generations and have almost no "grassroots" base of funding at all, which is perhaps the main reason they are in such dire financial straits at the moment.

Is my impression mistaken? Do the new laws work in a different manner?

I'd appreciate the "edification"!

[Stephen Best]

My gleanings gave me the impression that the new laws require parties to depend far more on smaller personal donations and much less on large corporate or lobby group ones.

...

Reform built its huge election war chests almost entirely by passing a KFC bucket at public meetings and by individual membership/donation drives. The new Tories have inherited that legacy. They receive very little in comparison to corporate donations.

The Liberals of course relied on those big corporate cheques for generations and have almost no "grassroots" base of funding at all, which is perhaps the main reason they are in such dire financial straits at the moment.

Is my impression mistaken? Do the new laws work in a different manner?

I'd appreciate the "edification"!

You're exactly right, with some caveats. Reform relied on the old Progressive Conservative party membership list. And it was able to use direct mail -- at $500-$1000/M--to contact tens of thousands of old PC supporters.

Under today's regime, where donations are limited to a little more than $1,000 per year, how does a new party with no money raise the seed money necessary to promote itself and grow? The truth is it can't. Let's assume you need, $100,000 to launch a membership drive (that's a mailing of about 100,000 which will net possibly 200 donors, if you're lucky), you need to find 100 people to give you $1,000 each or 200 to give you $500 each and so on. Where do you get the money to find the 100 people or 200 people? Where do you get the money to pay the many thousands of dollars you'll need for the legally required audit to account for the funds and send out official receipts? If you've ever tried to raise funds for a new political party or organization with no existing membership, you'll know that getting a 100 people to give you $1,000 each approaches impossibility.

In the past parties were built on a few major donors, sometimes business or unions or simply wealthy people who cared about causes providing the seed money. Those days are gone, and with them the possibility of smaller parties becoming competitive.

Having said there are loop holes in the Act that could be used to build a new party, and delay registration until the necessary capital was raised from wealthy donors, but the Conservatives are hoping to shut that opening down.

[Wild Bill]

You're exactly right, with some caveats. Reform relied on the old Progressive Conservative party membership list. And it was able to use direct mail -- at $500-$1000/M--to contact tens of thousands of old PC supporters.

Under today's regime, where donations are limited to a little more than $1,000 per year, how does a new party with no money raise the seed money necessary to promote itself and grow? The truth is it can't. Let's assume you need, $100,000 to launch a membership drive (that's a mailing of about 100,000 which will net possibly 200 donors, if you're lucky), you need to find 100 people to give you $1,000 each or 200 to give you $500 each and so on. Where do you get the money to find the 100 people or 200 people? Where do you get the money to pay the many thousands of dollars you'll need for the legally required audit to account for the funds and send out official receipts? If you've ever tried to raise funds for a new political party or organization with no existing membership, you'll know that getting a 100 people to give you $1,000 each approaches impossibility.

In the past parties were built on a few major donors, sometimes business or unions or simply wealthy people who cared about causes providing the seed money. Those days are gone, and with them the possibility of smaller parties becoming competitive.

Having said there are loop holes in the Act that could be used to build a new party, and delay registration until the necessary capital was raised from wealthy donors, but the Conservatives are hoping to shut that opening down.

Are those days really completely gone? Or is it more a question of WHO is asking for the money?

I witnessed a LOT of very ordinary folks donating several hundred dollars each year to my Reform riding. Reform was closer to mainstream values than perhaps some of the other parties that also tried to become established. It was much easier to get money to force more representation in Ottawa and an end to deficit spending than to demand that sealers stop sealing or that marijuana be legalized.

As for "angels" who provide seed money, again I think there are a LOT more of those around today than you might think. Again, it all depends on how mainstream is your political platform.

[Stephen Best]

As for "angels" who provide seed money, again I think there are a LOT more of those around today than you might think. Again, it all depends on how mainstream is your political platform.

And none of the "angels" can give more than about $1,100 a year to a political party, unlike in the Reform days. If you doubt what I'm saying look at the financial returns of the various smaller parties. They're online at the Election Canada website. Then ask yourself why they can't raise funds. The answer is because they are in a Catch 22 of not being able to amass the necessary working capital needed to finance a fund raising/membership acquisition campaign. The current election law, thanks to Harper and Chretien, is killing democracy in Canada, making it the preserve of the 4 major parties. Even the Greens are finding it hard to breakthrough because of the funding rules.

[Wild Bill]

And none of the "angels" can give more than about $1,100 a year to a political party, unlike in the Reform days. If you doubt what I'm saying look at the financial returns of the various smaller parties. They're online at the Election Canada website. Then ask yourself why they can't raise funds. The answer is because they are in a Catch 22 of not being able to amass the necessary working capital needed to finance a fund raising/membership acquisition campaign. The current election law, thanks to Harper and Chretien, is killing democracy in Canada, making it the preserve of the 4 major parties. Even the Greens are finding it hard to breakthrough because of the funding rules.

Let me put it more plainly for you, Stephen:

Does the fact that a party platform may be for more "fringe" type values make it much harder to raise money?

Would people shell out more easily for a new Reform Party than for a Christian Heritage Party or a "Save the Unborn Baby Whales from Drunk Drivers and Abortionists" type party?

Surely you don't maintain that the appeal of ANY new party is equal!

[AngusThermopyle]

"Save the Unborn Baby Whales from Drunk Drivers and Abortionists" type party?

Where can I sign up for those guys!

Thats my kind of party. All they'd have to do would be to promise every house hold in Canada a free four slice toaster (enhanced communication ya know) if elected and they'd be perfect.

[Stephen Best]

Surely you don't maintain that the appeal of ANY new party is equal!

Of course not. Some issues attract a larger constituency than others. That's obvious. But even within constituencies, there's competition among interest groups for support.

[Wild Bill]

Of course not. Some issues attract a larger constituency than others. That's obvious. But even within constituencies, there's competition among interest groups for support.

Very well, then I suggest that maybe part of the problem you've experienced in getting sufficient donations is because you are representing causes that don't have sufficient popular appeal.

This is not a problem with our donation laws. It is actually a true expression of populist democracy.

If you don't like the show, you don't have to buy a ticket!

[Wild Bill]

Where can I sign up for those guys!

Thats my kind of party. All they'd have to do would be to promise every house hold in Canada a free four slice toaster (enhanced communication ya know) if elected and they'd be perfect.

It's from a refrigerator magnet I had for years until it became too worn to be useful. The actual message was:

"Save the Unborn Baby Whales from Drunk Drivers and Nuclear War!"

I had it from the 80's and it was one of my most prized "smart ass" possessions, along with a bumper sticker that said "Don't Vote! You'll only encourage them!"

[Stephen Best]

Very well, then I suggest that maybe part of the problem you've experienced in getting sufficient donations is because you are representing causes that don't have sufficient popular appeal.

This is not a problem with our donation laws. It is actually a true expression of populist democracy.

If you don't like the show, you don't have to buy a ticket!

Remind me, did I say somewhere that I wasn't raising the necessary funds? If memory serves, I spoke in general about the effects of the law and referred you to Elections Canada. You would be wrong to extrapolate that to my fund raising successes.

As for your assertion that "This is not a problem with our donation laws. It is actually a true expression of populist democracy", you know not of what you speak. Get back to me when you've actually raised $1 million under the existing Election Act, then we can have a meaningful discussion between two informed people. This is not about opinion, but about reality.

[Stephen Best]

It's from a refrigerator magnet I had for years until it became too worn to be useful. The actual message was:

"Save the Unborn Baby Whales from Drunk Drivers and Nuclear War!"

I had it from the 80's and it was one of my most prized "smart ass" possessions, along with a bumper sticker that said "Don't Vote! You'll only encourage them!"

What those magnets actually said was "Nuke a Gay Baby Whale for Christ!"

[normanchateau]

Stephen Harper "absolutely wants to call an election" this fall, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said after meeting with the Prime Minister on Friday, August 29th:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/29/...er-duceppe.html

[margrace]

Has Harper decided to cut and run after the news today that they were laying off meat inspectors, remember Walkerton?

[normanchateau]

Has Harper decided to cut and run after the news today that they were laying off meat inspectors, remember Walkerton?

Laying off meat inspectors is old news. Last spring, a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) scientist released a confidential document that the government would lay off certain meat inspectors and leave it to producers to inspect their own meat. Harper responded to this by having the scientist fired. Harper does not like whistle blowers though as leader of the opposition, he loved them.

Remember Allan Cutler? Whether or not you remember him, you'll like what whistle blower and former Conservative candidate Allan Cutler has to say about Harper's firing of the CFIA scientist:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...TOCK26/TPStory/

You can be certain now that Harper won't dare act upon the recommendations of the confidential document. He or one of his lackies will now claim that they never planned to act upon them.

[Wild Bill]

What those magnets actually said was "Nuke a Gay Baby Whale for Christ!"

Not mine! You could not possibly have been more wrong. I have gay friends. We are close, even if they don't always buy their fair share of the beer. Some are even Liberals but I try not to hold it against them. Some may be Christians. I would never ask if they are because I'm afraid they might tell me!

I love babies and am fascinated by whales. I really have only one prejudice that I am aware of - country music!

I don't mind traditional country, with dulcimers and fiddles and everyone having a footstompin' good time. I also can appreciate it when Willie Nelson tells a story. Gordon Lightfoot and Stompin' Tom are both heroes of mine.

I just can't hack those whining cowboys and truck drivers! And folk singers who sing through their nose hoping their songs will then sell better as "New Country! The amazing new music genre from K-Tel!"

So don't try to tell me what my magnets say. That's personal! Otherwise I'll demand to know what you and your toaster have been talking about!

[M.Dancer]

You're exactly right, with some caveats. Reform relied on the old Progressive Conservative party membership list. And it was able to use direct mail -- at $500-$1000/M--to contact tens of thousands of old PC supporters.

I would say you are in error here. No one pays $500 TO A $1000 PER 1000. Not unless each piece contained a gift certificate.

I got a DM peice from pamper last week. It had a training diaper in it and the postage was around 1.50. That's today's rate. Back when Rpeston was rounding up the lambs a bulk mail rate of .30 cents would be more accurate for a simple tract.

Edited August 30, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Born Free]

Has Harper decided to cut and run after the news today that they were laying off meat inspectors, remember Walkerton?

You can be assured that no meat inspectors were laid off in Walkerton.

[Wilber]

The only one I remember was "Nuke a baby whale for Jesus".

[Oleg Bach]

The only one I remember was "Nuke a baby whale for Jesus".

That's funny! Now..where the hell did you get that quote? Kind of reminds me of how you get 20 dead babies off a truck? - with a pitch fork ----my marose and mischievious adult daughter - revamped that joke by saying - how do you get 20 LIVE babies off a truck.... a little dark today are we?

[Stephen Best]

I would say you are in error here. No one pays $500 TO A $1000 PER 1000. Not unless each piece contained a gift certificate.

I got a DM peice from pamper last week. It had a training diaper in it and the postage was around 1.50. That's today's rate. Back when Rpeston was rounding up the lambs a bulk mail rate of .30 cents would be more accurate for a simple tract.

Your comment is so uninformed it makes wonder about your other views. Get back to me with a valid response about direct mail costs (if that's what you want to talk about) when you've prepared a budget for a 100,000 mail drop that includes: production and design; list selection; data management (de-dupe, merge/purge, postal code sort, etc.); printing a 4 page letter, outer envelope, BRE, coupon, and flyer; lettershop service; and postage (use the lowest rate of $360/M if you like.)

Now give me your under $500/M budget. As for your Pamper diaper that you got last week, use it for your opinions on direct mail.

[Wild Bill]

Your comment is so uninformed it makes wonder about your other views. Get back to me with a valid response about direct mail costs (if that's what you want to talk about) when you've prepared a budget for a 100,000 mail drop that includes: production and design; list selection; data management (de-dupe, merge/purge, postal code sort, etc.); printing a 4 page letter, outer envelope, BRE, coupon, and flyer; lettershop service; and postage (use the lowest rate of $360/M if you like.)

Now give me your under $500/M budget. As for your Pamper diaper that you got last week, use it for your opinions on direct mail.

Stephen, you might want to tone down the sarcasm. You're starting to sound like a refugee from "rubble.ca".

Have you seen the thread about "Leftwing Folks" are "bullies"?

[margrace]

Stephen, you might want to tone down the sarcasm. You're starting to sound like a refugee from "rubble.ca".

Have you seen the thread about "Leftwing Folks" are "bullies"?

Why don't you say that to M. Dancer and Bush/Cheney