Liberals in a different kind of trouble

[kimmy]

If you feel a tiny sense of dread before you open your credit-card statement each month, imagine how the Liberals are going to feel after the election:

Toronto Star: Liberal pocketbooks are gonna hurt.

he Liberals have depended on that subsidy more than the other mainstream parties, because the election laws — one of the legacy initiatives of former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien in 2003 — have eroded their traditional corporate financial base.

The rules slapped strict fundraising limits on the parties — $1,000 on contributions from unions and corporations and $5,000 on individuals — and in place gave the parties the annual $1.75-per-vote subsidy to make up for the financial hit they were going to have to take.

Under these new rules, the other parties, which are much better at gathering individual contributions, are, by comparison, thriving.

Exactly how much the Liberals have borrowed to fuel the current election fight remains a tightly guarded secret, yet it's rumoured to be about $33 million. (In 2004, they took out 13 different bank loans totalling some $34.82 million, according to Elections Canada.)

Traditionally, the party would pay off its debts using a combination of the money it has raised from individuals and corporations and the Elections Canada subsidy, which makes up the lion's share of the party's annual revenues. But that $9.1 million a year is based on the nearly five million votes cast for the Liberals in the 2004 election.

What if significantly fewer people vote Liberal on Monday, as the polls are foreshadowing? How will the party pay back its debts with a significantly smaller federal subsidy?

hmm.

-k

[August1991]

I liked the comment about the Liberal debt being a "tightly guarded" secret.

They can't do anything with any degree of transparency.

Incidentally, Quebec electoral legislation brought in by Rene Levesque (and which Harper always refers to in Quebec) forbids all corporate and union donations, restricts the size of individual donations but offers no per vote subsidy.

Harper has suggested he might go to that Quebec formula which would be devastating for the Liberals (and the BQ) since they rely heavily on the $1.75 subsidy.

Coyne has suggested that the Tories won't change the legislation because they want the "progressive, left" vote to stay split.

[shoop]

This election is starting to look more and more like 1984.

The huge losses they will face will be a devastating blow to the Liberals that forces them to rebuild.

Paul Martin has left the party bankrupt, both financially and ideologically.

The Liberals will be able to rebuild but they first have to heed this advice.

"The Liberal Party must change itself, not just exchange its leader."

That process of change will give the Conservatives a full term as a majority government to show what they can do with power. If they don't f*ck it up they can probably get two terms out of the deal...

[Shakeyhands]

Boy does this sound like the same Republican plan.... The poor Liberal party and the poor Democrates... oh dear, such disarray.

[shoop]

et tu Shakey?

You can usualy be counted to add *something* to the quality of the discussion.

But this post was just sad and typical of the dying deaths of this version of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Arrogant. Belittling the proletariat that doesn't see the wisdom of voting Liberal. Invoke the spectre of the Republicans apropos of nothing.

Come on man. You are better than this.

Boy does this sound like the same Republican plan.... The poor Liberal party and the poor Democrates... oh dear, such disarray.

[kimmy]

Boy does this sound like the same Republican plan.... The poor Liberal party and the poor Democrates... oh dear, such disarray.

What's being said that you object to?

I don't think the article is part of some big rightwing conspiracy: this story comes from the Toronto Star, which is pleading for voters to support the Liberals one more time.

The Liberals' internal problems have been public knowledge for a long time, and this election has certainly made them all the more clear. Why is pointing them out some kind of underhanded "Rovian" tactic? Paul Martin's leadership, his lame-duck status, and the pending wars within the Liberal party to replace him are all factors that Canadians should contemplate before they cast their ballots.

The Liberals' financial problems are certainly interesting news, though not necessarily an election issue. What's wrong with taking a look at the potential impact of an election defeat on the party's financial situation? Canadians have a right to know that in the event of a Harper minority, the Liberal Party will not have the financial capacity of fighting another election any time soon, and as a result a Harper government will almost certainly last longer than Joe Clark's.

-k

[Hicksey]

Boy does this sound like the same Republican plan.... The poor Liberal party and the poor Democrates... oh dear, such disarray.

They are. Its just amazing. They make all kinds of noise in the press about judges and every other issue and when pressed can come up with nothing to back it up nor can they bring to the forefront any sort of coherent argument against Bush or even for their own ideas.

They really do need to start running themselves instead of being run by minority groups.

[fellowtraveller]

It gets worse.

The Liberals will be having a leadership campaign soon, which will suck up any extra dollars that may have gone to the Party, now being donated for several individual leadership bids. People might toss $100 towards the Liberals, but they are not gonna give the same money to both Frank McKenna and the Liberal Party.

On the same note, can anybody pleeeaasssse tell me if the Liberal Party has actually paid the $1.14 million they promised to repay over Adscam? Has a cheque to the Receiver General been written?