Voters upset about cost of election?

[cybercoma]

A common theme I hear among people is that they're mad about an election being called so soon because of the expense. Has anyone else heard people talking with this line of thinking?

My take on it is that we were going to have an election either way, so arguing against the election because of cost is nonsense. It would have either been called this month or a month or two from now. Big deal.

[Slavik44]

A common theme I hear among people is that they're mad about an election being called so soon because of the expense.  Has anyone else heard people talking with this line of thinking?

My take on it is that we were going to have an election either way, so arguing against the election because of cost is nonsense.  It would have either been called this month or a month or two from now.  Big deal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am never bothered by such petty expesnes unless there is a violation of some principle. The way I see it is it can't cost me more than a couple bucks max, and I loose that in the couch cushins every day.

[The Honest Politician]

It is costing 200 million dollars, to basically punish the Liberals for stealing 140 million dollars. Now I feel robbed of $340 million.

It is a shame that a group of smart educated adults could not put aside party politics and work within the minority Govt for the betterment of Canada.

[shoop]

I think that most persuadables won't be inclined to go with one party or another over this issue. The NDs gave a proposal to move the election up five or six weeks from the Liberals preferred date. The Liberals said no. Noboby can really be *blamed* for the early election.

[wellandboy]

The 200 million is the cost of democracy; which we were going to get anyway if Paul Martin was to keep his promise of calling an election 30 days after Gomery. What should be considered an absolute waste of money is the Gomery Report itself, that at $80 million is exessive. An extension of the Auditor General's purview as well as keeping this a purely criminal investigation by the RCMP, OPP and Surete du Quebec would have yielded results at far less expense.

Ironically, for all the Liberals protestations about this election, it actually favours them financially. With the writ bridging two years corporate donations with their 75% write-off can be made in both '05 and '06. The NDP and Conservative base is more heavily supported by individual donations.

The current Liberal spin about the cost of this election is just that- spin. They have had no problem in wasting billions, ADscam, Gomery, HRDC, Gun Registry when it's in their interest. When it comes to the fundamentals of democracy, however, it's suddenly wasteful from their perspective. Ridiculous.

[shoop]

The Liberals have pretty much given up using the 'cost of the election' line. That or *NO* media is covering it, not even the fair and balanced CBC.

The current Liberal spin about the cost of this election is just that- spin. They have had no problem in wasting billions, ADscam, Gomery, HRDC, Gun Registry when it's in their interest. When it comes to the fundamentals of democracy, however, it's suddenly wasteful from their perspective. Ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

The 200 million is the cost of democracy; which we were going to get anyway if Paul Martin was to keep his promise of calling an election 30 days after Gomery. What should be considered an absolute waste of money is the Gomery Report itself, that at $80 million is exessive. An extension of the Auditor General's purview as well as keeping this a purely criminal investigation by the RCMP, OPP and Surete du Quebec would have yielded results at far less expense.

It's not over yet if Harper is elected. Didn't he promise to create a new bureaucracy, the Office of the Independent Special Prosector to decide on criminal prosecutions of those involved in adscam? Here's what he was quoted as saying in the Vancouver Sun, December 1, 2005: "The independent director of public prosecutions will decide on prosecutions arising from the sponsorship scandal." Now there's a great way to spend even more of our tax dollars and infringe on provincial jurisdiction.

Peter MacKay then contradicted what Harper had said. Furthermore, according to the Vancouver Sun, Harper's plan was condemned in Quebec because it would have the federal government infringing on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec's attorney journal is pursuing criminal charges against the main adscam characters and it's not clear what Harper's Special Prosecutor would do other than suck up more dollars. No surprise that MacKay contradicted Harper's ill-conceived plan. Confusion and disarray in CPC. No wonder CPC is not seen as a government-in-waiting by most Canadians.

[sharkman]

Not really Norm, in the CPC, the people are open minded enough to have differences of opinion. I'd rather have Harper in control of the purse strings than Martin any day. The Liberals, on the other hand forbid having free votes on things. I'm sure Harper could work somethng out with Quebec on this, they'd like to see the guilty Liberals punished too.

[normanchateau]

I'm sure Harper could work somethng out with Quebec on this, they'd like to see the guilty Liberals punished too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Quebec wants to see the guilty punished but despite that, it looks like approximately three times as many people in Quebec will vote for Martin as for Harper. Despite adscam, they reject both Harper and his party. It will be difficult for Quebec to negotiate with someone like Harper who has so little support or credibility in that province.

[sharkman]

Yes, well the Liberals have a lot more to lose in Quebec than the Conservatives, and by all accounts, they will disappear from Quebec(warning to Liberals, not really a Nazi like statement). Like I said earlier, second place is the first loser.

[normanchateau]

Yes, well the Liberals have a lot more to lose in Quebec than the Conservatives,

Yes the good news is that the CPC can only improve their fortunes in Quebec.

[southerncomfort]

Not really Norm, in the CPC, the people are open minded enough to have differences of opinion.  I'd rather have Harper in control of the purse strings than Martin any day.  The Liberals, on the other hand forbid having free votes on things.  I'm sure Harper could work somethng out with Quebec on this, they'd like to see the guilty Liberals punished too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed.

Most people have accepted the election fact and don't care. Actually most voters don't care much about any of the issues right now, but wait until after New Years, there'll be a big change and polls will start to move one way or another.

Quebec is a done deal for the B.Q.

[August1991]

Quebec's attorney journal is pursuing criminal charges against the main adscam characters and it's not clear what Harper's Special Prosecutor would do other than suck up more dollars.

That's false by implication. The RCMP (answerable to Anne McLellan, the federal Public Safety Minister) is currently conducting the investigation with a view to laying charges. If more charges are laid, then it will be up to Crown prosecutors to pursue them in court.

Several outlets today ran stories claiming that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was calling for a "special prosecutor" to handle federal corruption cases, a la the now largely abandon process in the United States. This enabled the Liberals to ridicule Harper for a) wanting his own Ken Starr to harass the Liberals the way Starr harassed Bill Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, and being in love with all things American.

It wasn't what Harper was asking for, at all.

A separate office of public prosecutions is common, particularly in the Commonwealth. The UK has one, so do Australia, Kenya, Ireland and even our own province of Nova Scotia. (Before any of you write to complain, I know Ireland is not a Commonwealth country.)

The concept is simple enough: Rather than trust prosecutions of federal crimes to lawyers who work under a cabinet minister, a director of public prosecutions would be (ideally) an officer of Parliament, accountable to the House of Commons rather than the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice. He or she would be appointed by the government, but like the auditor general, would thereafter be answerable only to Parliament. This would remove the possibility of political interference in who does -- or more likely who does not -- get charged with federal crimes.

Lorne Gunter, National Post

The $200 million cost of a federal election seems to come from the Elections Canada web site. It refers to the refunded costs to political parties and the cost of enumeration. Enumeration is now done on a permanent basis, whether an election occurs or not. OTOH, the cost of an election is well beyond the costs to Elections Canada.

BTW, $200 million is about $7 per Canadian, or the cost of a movie ticket.

[Yaro]

More reliable reports list the cost of a federal election at 300 million. However the cost of the election isn't really directly applicable, the cost of the difference between the normal length of a governing party and a forced election probably is so I suppose if the average government lasts 4 years (SWAG), and this government will last 2(just because I don’t care) then the cost would be about 150 million extra. Although I suppose that since the election will be in reality 3 months earlier then it would have been regardless the cost is more like 3/48 or about 7 million more then it would have been. Not really a significant cost addition.