Stephen Harper Loses Insider Oops!

Molly · January 16, 2009

I wonder how much the 75% tax credit on political donations costs us, and how much of that cost is incurred through donations to the Conservatives.

I was never very comfortable with that one. It seems to me that if you are giving money to a political party, it should at least be your own money, and not that of the taxpayers.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Molly

jdobbin · January 16, 2009

Political parties are just leaches on the taxpayer.

If you are honest, then eliminate the personal income tax deduction for political parties too.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

If you are honest, then eliminate the personal income tax deduction for political parties too.

If it were me I would, there would be no deductions from personal income taxes, no 1.75, no return for campaigns. The same donation limit we have today but i would allow corperations and business to donate to that same limit and personal contributions.

The tax payer has no business subisdizing any political party.

jdobbin · January 16, 2009

The tax payer has no business subisdizing any political party.

Until Harper does that for all, he should do it for none unless he is willing to raise the amount of money someone can donate. At the moment, it barely covers the cost of attending a convention.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

Until Harper does that for all, he should do it for none unless he is willing to raise the amount of money someone can donate. At the moment, it barely covers the cost of attending a convention.

Are big ornate conventions really required? Should the party pay for people to attend? Its called mind your pennies. I have yet to see a convention that has costs more than 2200 for entrance to it (1100 federal level, 1100 eda level).

jdobbin · January 16, 2009

Are big ornate conventions really required? Should the party pay for people to attend? Its called mind your pennies. I have yet to see a convention that has costs more than 2200 for entrance to it (1100 federal level, 1100 eda level).

You don't need a big convention to go over the limit. If you have an election and a convention in the same year, you go over the limit easily. It is why so many Tory convention goers did not pay to go the convention. I am dubious about this donation to a member so they can attend free. It is the same issue of transferring money back and forth that Elections Canada has gone to court over.

Much easier to just raise the donation limit to what it was in 2006. That is a good individual amount to cap off at. It is hardly big corporate money.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

You don't need a big convention to go over the limit. If you have an election and a convention in the same year, you go over the limit easily. It is why so many Tory convention goers did not pay to go the convention. I am dubious about this donation to a member so they can attend free. It is the same issue of transferring money back and forth that Elections Canada has gone to court over.
Much easier to just raise the donation limit to what it was in 2006. That is a good individual amount to cap off at. It is hardly big corporate money.

2200 is plenty, the parties would just have to learn how to live within their means, and not fly back and forth across the country a dozen times during an election.

jdobbin · January 16, 2009

2200 is plenty, the parties would just have to learn how to live within their means, and not fly back and forth across the country a dozen times during an election.

I'm sorry. That is just ridiculous. if you are in some of the giant ridings in Canada, you can easily go over the limit personally in transport, phone and office costs.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

I'm sorry. That is just ridiculous. if you are in some of the giant ridings in Canada, you can easily go over the limit personally in transport, phone and office costs.

Really personal transport for a campaign exceeds that? Not the campaign numbers I have seen. There is a lot of extravigant spending in campaigns. The major cost is adverstising. The 2,200 a year is plenty. How was all of this done before big budgets and airtravel?

tango · January 16, 2009

"Newly minted Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has snagged a senior adviser right out from under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nose.
"While secrecy oaths will prohibit him from divulging any confidential information in his new role in the Opposition leader's office, he will take with him an in-depth knowledge of the way government works. Of more particular interest to Liberals, he'll bring an insider's view of the Harper regime's style and operations."

This is going to be very interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/14/...tieff-chan.html

Ignarper, Hartieff, two talking heads, one ideology.

It makes no difference. They are just juvenile thinkers stealing each other's marbles.

It has nothing to do with the real world of human beings.

Progressive Tory · January 16, 2009

So elimanting a portion of the political welfare was an attack on national unity. I'm not sure what world you live in.... Very few Albertans would have supported a CPC/NDP/bloc coalition. No mutual support contract was ever signed was there? There was no attack on national unity I am not sure where you get this from. Government had not even sat yet in the house the coalition was dreamed up right after election. Any national unity crisis that you may be talking about was all the seperatism talk in the west that ensued once the coalition was disclosed to us.

No. The National Unity attack was launched by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives when they ran around with their 'separatist' and 'socialist' campaign to turn public support against the idea of a Coalition gov't. Instigating a renewed hatred for Quebec from the West, is a very poor way for any elected official to act, let alone a PRIME MINISTER.

However, in 2004, Stephen Harper himself went to the Governor General with a signed Coalition between himself, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, to oust Paul Martin. This was at the throne speech. My question is just whether or not the West would have supported him being named PM then, grabbing power without an election. I already know how they felt in 2008.

Progressive Tory · January 16, 2009

So PT were you ever a Joe clark, Mulrooney, or Jean Charest suppporter?

I voted for Joe Clark (helped with Flora MacDonald's local campaign), Mulroney the first time but not the second (I was disgusted). Jean Charest? I'm from Ontario so don't think I ever had the chance to vote him.

fellowtraveller · January 16, 2009

The National Unity attack was launched by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives when they ran around with their 'separatist' and 'socialist' campaign to turn public support against the idea of a Coalition gov't.

Actually, this was extremely easy, there was no need to 'turn' anybody.

LOsers just cannot accept that they have lost. Canadians did not and do not support the coalition because it was both the wrong thing to do and the wrong time to do it. Obviously.

Why is this hard for you to understand?

Here is just one of many reasons why:

The great minds of the Bloc Torontois mulled over their choices for leader of their coalition and came up with Stephan Dion. This was the best they had to offer?

Progressive Tory · January 16, 2009

Actually, this was extremely easy, there was no need to 'turn' anybody.
LOsers just cannot accept that they have lost. Canadians did not and do not support the coalition because it was both the wrong thing to do and the wrong time to do it. Obviously.

Why is this hard for you to understand?

Here is just one of many reasons why:

The great minds of the Bloc Torontois mulled over their choices for leader of their coalition and came up with Stephan Dion. This was the best they had to offer?

OK. So it was just Stephane Dion that was the problem. My mistake. But wait. He's NOT a separatist. In fact, he wrote the Clarity Act. This would have been so much better for Harper just to say it was Stephane Dion.

Why lie? "This government will stand against the separatist coalition!' screamed Harper during Question Period. "They must walk away from this deal with Jacques Parizeau and the separatists! The word 'separatists' came out of the mouths of every Tory MP who rose to speak and the term continued outside of the House, where the tense atmosphere continued. So what changed from 2004 when Harper's Coalition included the Bloc?

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_29767.aspx

Why Lie? "They want to take power without an election"

Why Lie? "There were no Canadian flags during the Coalition signing." http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...n-photo-op.aspx

And while we're on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj1KM5ZaXQA...feature=related

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/...-broadbent.html

My whole point is hypocrisy and when he tells that first lie, how can we trust him on anything? In fact, why launch the whole ugly separatist and socialist campaign at all? Why not just say; this is not the time?

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

I voted for Joe Clark (helped with Flora MacDonald's local campaign), Mulroney the first time but not the second (I was disgusted). Jean Charest? I'm from Ontario so don't think I ever had the chance to vote him.

Jean Charest vied for leadership of the PC party in the 90's between him and Joe Clark. BTW Joe clark is thought of very poorly out this way.

There was no CPC campaigning about the caolition here, the minute it hit the news people were pissed. The talk of seperation started the next day, there was no campaigning, the idea of and the words that Jack used see the signature were enough to creat the crisis in the west. It was all the coalitions doing, if they hadn't have tried this bloodless coup then the crisis never would have happened. But don't take my word for it you live in the center of the universe and you people know everything.

Progressive Tory · January 16, 2009

Jean Charest vied for leadership of the PC party in the 90's between him and Joe Clark. BTW Joe clark is thought of very poorly out this way.
There was no CPC campaigning about the caolition here, the minute it hit the news people were pissed. The talk of seperation started the next day, there was no campaigning, the idea of and the words that Jack used see the signature were enough to creat the crisis in the west. It was all the coalitions doing, if they hadn't have tried this bloodless coup then the crisis never would have happened. But don't take my word for it you live in the center of the universe and you people know everything.

We'll have to agree to disagree. When news of this Coalition hit the public, it was not only the West wondering what was going on. Then we were hit with the 'Separatist' thing and still wondered what was going on. The Dion factor was a big issue then across the country. So was the fear that somehow the Opposition had just decided to tear the country apart.

Then the dust settled and when it became clear that it was an entirely legal thing to do, some changed their minds, while others still wondered if it was ethical.

Then Harper's Coaltion letter surfaced and his taped speech, and frankly he looked like an idiot. However, right across the country people are still only lukewarm to a Coaltion, though it's 63% in favour in Quebec and 65% against in Alberta. (49% against nationwide) It's not an Alberta/Quebec issue but was made one when the first 'Separatist' was screamed out by the Prime Minister.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

We'll have to agree to disagree. When news of this Coalition hit the public, it was not only the West wondering what was going on. Then we were hit with the 'Separatist' thing and still wondered what was going on. The Dion factor was a big issue then across the country. So was the fear that somehow the Opposition had just decided to tear the country apart.
Then the dust settled and when it became clear that it was an entirely legal thing to do, some changed their minds, while others still wondered if it was ethical.

Then Harper's Coaltion letter surfaced and his taped speech, and frankly he looked like an idiot. However, right across the country people are still only lukewarm to a Coaltion, though it's 63% in favour in Quebec and 65% against in Alberta. (49% against nationwide) It's not an Alberta/Quebec issue but was made one when the first 'Separatist' was screamed out by the Prime Minister.

Just because something is legal to do doesn't always make it right. We just had an election and the coalition was negociated before parliment even had a chance to sit, Layton started this with the bloc right after election night, when the liberals entitlements were threated they came on board. Both Jack and Dion have looked very bad in the fall out. It was all about their grasp at power.

Progressive Tory · January 17, 2009

Just because something is legal to do doesn't always make it right. We just had an election and the coalition was negociated before parliment even had a chance to sit, Layton started this with the bloc right after election night, when the liberals entitlements were threated they came on board. Both Jack and Dion have looked very bad in the fall out. It was all about their grasp at power.

Harper's 2004 Coalition was formed at the throne speech - planned beforehand. We had JUST HAD AN ELECTION. At least this Coalition waited until Parliament sat.

Alta4ever · January 17, 2009

Harper's 2004 Coalition was formed at the throne speech - planned beforehand. We had JUST HAD AN ELECTION. At least this Coalition waited until Parliament sat.

Do you have a copy of a signed accord?

Progressive Tory · January 17, 2009

Jean Charest vied for leadership of the PC party in the 90's between him and Joe Clark. BTW Joe clark is thought of very poorly out this way.
There was no CPC campaigning about the caolition here, the minute it hit the news people were pissed. The talk of seperation started the next day, there was no campaigning, the idea of and the words that Jack used see the signature were enough to creat the crisis in the west. It was all the coalitions doing, if they hadn't have tried this bloodless coup then the crisis never would have happened. But don't take my word for it you live in the center of the universe and you people know everything.

I didn't know Joe Clark was not respected by the West. I thought he was OK. I was a diehard Tory then and our local PC was Flora MacDonald, and to this day her record still stands. She was incredible. I also voted for Kim Campbell. I wish she could have stuck around a bit longer.

As far as Charest goes, I never paid money for memberships or ever donated to the Party. I was raising three kids then and had other priorities. I volunteered my time though. Charest would have been an OK leader.

jdobbin · January 17, 2009

Do you have a copy of a signed accord?

Are you denying that Harper signed something in 2004 and sent it to the Governor General?

Edited January 17, 2009 by jdobbin

Alta4ever · January 17, 2009

Are you denying that Harper signed something in 2004 and sent it to the Governor General?

Nope, but I didn't see a formal agreement or accord with 2 other parties did you? Did you see an agreement to give senate seats to Bloc members. I didn't. Harper didn't have a colaition government in waiting did he?

Laytons coalition sure did.

jdobbin · January 17, 2009

Nope, but I didn't see a formal agreement or accord with 2 other parties did you?

Actually, I did. It was posted in the Globe and Mail. The link has been here many times.

So, Harper never, ever signed a letter to the Governor General with the BQ and NDP? You are saying it is a complete fiction. Never happened.

Keepitsimple · January 17, 2009

Actually, I did. It was posted in the Globe and Mail. The link has been here many times.
So, Harper never, ever signed a letter to the Governor General with the BQ and NDP? You are saying it is a complete fiction. Never happened.

It's one thing to sign a letter to the GG asking her to consider asking the opposition parties for alternatives prior to calling an election. It's another thing altogether to have a written agreement on HOW they will work together - who gets what posts and how their policies will intertwine. And Dobbin....if you can find any written agreement between the Liberals/NDP and the Bloc that at least gives us an idea what the Bloc expects, I'd appreciate you pointing me to it. The Bloc would not support a Federalist alternative for 18 months for nothing....yet I've never seen any agreement....only a verbal "We'll vote in favour as long as it meets the interests of Quebec". If that doesn't scare people, I don't know what would.

jdobbin · January 17, 2009

And Dobbin....if you can find any written agreement between the Liberals/NDP and the Bloc that at least gives us an idea what the Bloc expects, I'd appreciate you pointing me to it. The Bloc would not support a Federalist alternative for 18 months for nothing....yet I've never seen any agreement....only a verbal "We'll vote in favour as long as it meets the interests of Quebec". If that doesn't scare people, I don't know what would.

I wonder what Harper was thinking then when he signed the agreement with the BQ back in 2004. Why ask to be considered if it meant working with a collation with the BQ?