Liberal's debt woe

[betsy]

Someone mentioned the Liberal Party is in debt by 1.9 mil. Warren Kinsella said that the decimal point on that figure is off a bit. He figures they're in debt by at least 20 mil.

There is a long list of names for leadership possibles, but Kinsella said you'll see that list shrink fast when they realize the burden of this debt. They need to raise money to pay that....and to finance the next election campaign. The new Accountability act will not help matters when it comes to donations.

Strange, that while listening I sort of wondered if this was the reason behind the "win-at-all-cost" desperation of the Liberals.

One of the names on the list publicly announced on Mike Duffy that definitely he is not running. I didn't get his name though.

[Boru]

Someone mentioned the Liberal Party is in debt by 1.9 mil. Warren Kinsella said that the decimal point on that figure is off a bit. He figures they're in debt by at least 20 mil.

There is a long list of names for leadership possibles, but Kinsella said you'll see that list shrink fast when they realize the burden of this debt. They need to raise money to pay that....and to finance the next election campaign. The new Accountability act will not help matters when it comes to donations.

Strange, that while listening I sort of wondered if this was the reason behind the "win-at-all-cost" desperation of the Liberals.

One of the names on the list publicly announced on Mike Duffy that definitely he is not running. I didn't get his name though.

You may be thinking of John Manley.

[August1991]

Someone mentioned the Liberal Party is in debt by 1.9 mil. Warren Kinsella said that the decimal point on that figure is off a bit. He figures they're in debt by at least 20 mil.

There is a long list of names for leadership possibles, but Kinsella said you'll see that list shrink fast when they realize the burden of this debt. They need to raise money to pay that....and to finance the next election campaign. The new Accountability act will not help matters when it comes to donations.

Strange, that while listening I sort of wondered if this was the reason behind the "win-at-all-cost" desperation of the Liberals.

One of the names on the list publicly announced on Mike Duffy that definitely he is not running. I didn't get his name though.

Uh, the latest I heard was that the Liberal Party debt is around $5 million, much less than the feared $20 million or so. Given the Liberal popular vote in the election, this dcebt will not be a problem.

Everyone is talking about a Conservative victory when the Tories have a weak minority government. They won about 25 seats more than last time out. And this, despite a terrible Liberal campaign and an internal civil war.

As to Kinsella, it would be nice to think that his kind of tactics were now in the past. But I don't think Harper won because the Canadian political game has changed. Next time out, Kinsella and his type will be working for the Liberals and they'll do a royal job on Harper and the Tories. And it'll work.

[tml12]

Someone mentioned the Liberal Party is in debt by 1.9 mil. Warren Kinsella said that the decimal point on that figure is off a bit. He figures they're in debt by at least 20 mil.

There is a long list of names for leadership possibles, but Kinsella said you'll see that list shrink fast when they realize the burden of this debt. They need to raise money to pay that....and to finance the next election campaign. The new Accountability act will not help matters when it comes to donations.

Strange, that while listening I sort of wondered if this was the reason behind the "win-at-all-cost" desperation of the Liberals.

One of the names on the list publicly announced on Mike Duffy that definitely he is not running. I didn't get his name though.

Uh, the latest I heard was that the Liberal Party debt is around $5 million, much less than the feared $20 million or so. Given the Liberal popular vote in the election, this dcebt will not be a problem.

Everyone is talking about a Conservative victory when the Tories have a weak minority government. They won about 25 seats more than last time out. And this, despite a terrible Liberal campaign and an internal civil war.

As to Kinsella, it would be nice to think that his kind of tactics were now in the past. But I don't think Harper won because the Canadian political game has changed. Next time out, Kinsella and his type will be working for the Liberals and they'll do a royal job on Harper and the Tories. And it'll work.

The Liberal brand is worth more than the debt.

[shoop]

Hmmm, let's look at this. (According to Elections Canada reports.)

The Liberals were $34 Million in debt at the end of 2004. They raised about $1.5 Million in the first quarter of 2005. So in the last 9 months where do we think the Liberals fortunes have gone.

Nine months ago they were in the hole *at least* $32 Million, In the interim they ran a losing, expensive, *national* campaign.

Based on that alone I am more likely to believe the actual debt figure is closer to $20 Million than $5 Million.

Then again if you have any *proof* to support your claim August. Yeah, what are the odds ...

Uh, the latest I heard was that the Liberal Party debt is around $5 million, much less than the feared $20 million or so. Given the Liberal popular vote in the election, this dcebt will not be a problem.

[August1991]

This was my source, for what it's worth:

January 28, 2006 - Here are the highlights of what took place on the Liberal national executive's conference call that occurred on Thursday:

° Paul Martin participated in the discussion

° David Herle accepted blame for the failure of the campaign

° The party is about $4-5 million in debt, a figure that is far lower than most were expecting

° Tom Axworthy has been tasked with writing a post-mortem report on how the campaign went so terribly wrong

° The outgoing caucus and cabinet will meet for the last time next week

° The following week, the new caucus will assemble and choose an interim leader. The early favourite still remains Bill Graham

° The party is obligated to hold a biennial convention (which is separate from the leadership convention) by the spring of 2007

° Most agreed that a leadership convention will likely have to take place in the late fall or in early 2007

....

Some Liberal Blog

I like tml's comment though: The Liberal brand name is worth more than the debt.

Since government financing is based on popular votes, and since the Liberals did reasonably well in the election, there will be money coming in. In addition, the Liberals have to set up schemes to raise funds from individuals. With a new leader, this will be easier and it will also be a good thing.

[geoffrey]

Hmmm, let's look at this. (According to Elections Canada reports.)

The Liberals were $34 Million in debt at the end of 2004. They raised about $1.5 Million in the first quarter of 2005. So in the last 9 months where do we think the Liberals fortunes have gone.

Nine months ago they were in the hole *at least* $32 Million, In the interim they ran a losing, expensive, *national* campaign.

Based on that alone I am more likely to believe the actual debt figure is closer to $20 Million than $5 Million.

Then again if you have any *proof* to support your claim August. Yeah, what are the odds ...

Uh, the latest I heard was that the Liberal Party debt is around $5 million, much less than the feared $20 million or so. Given the Liberal popular vote in the election, this dcebt will not be a problem.

Shoops right, its at $34mil prior to the election.

If the Conservatives manage to pass the ban on corporate and union financing and set the limit for donations at $1000, the Liberals could be put forever in debt. Most Conservative donations are under $100 where as the average liberal donation is considerably higher, banning and limiting these donations puts another nail in the coffin.

[Hicksey]

Hmmm, let's look at this. (According to Elections Canada reports.)

The Liberals were $34 Million in debt at the end of 2004. They raised about $1.5 Million in the first quarter of 2005. So in the last 9 months where do we think the Liberals fortunes have gone.

Nine months ago they were in the hole *at least* $32 Million, In the interim they ran a losing, expensive, *national* campaign.

Based on that alone I am more likely to believe the actual debt figure is closer to $20 Million than $5 Million.

Then again if you have any *proof* to support your claim August. Yeah, what are the odds ...

Uh, the latest I heard was that the Liberal Party debt is around $5 million, much less than the feared $20 million or so. Given the Liberal popular vote in the election, this dcebt will not be a problem.

Shoops right, its at $34mil prior to the election.

If the Conservatives manage to pass the ban on corporate and union financing and set the limit for donations at $1000, the Liberals could be put forever in debt. Most Conservative donations are under $100 where as the average liberal donation is considerably higher, banning and limiting these donations puts another nail in the coffin.

I think that only personal donations should be allowed. No businesses/lobbyists should be able to support politics. If business owners want to support their parties donate at home or volunteer to help get out their party's vote.

[shoop]

There is some merit in TML's comment about the Liberal brand. However, when businesses talk about brand value they are talking in terms of a commodity that can be bought and sold. You cannot buy or sell a party name in Canada.

The Liberals ability to raise cash has fallen precipitously.

I really do question this $4-5 Million dollar figure for a number of reasons.

Who is Jonathan Ross (whose blog August1991 linked to)?

Why is he posting information like this?

I just cannot see how the Liberal's debt is only $4-5 Million...

I like tml's comment though: The Liberal brand name is worth more than the debt.

Since government financing is based on popular votes, and since the Liberals did reasonably well in the election, there will be money coming in. In addition, the Liberals have to set up schemes to raise funds from individuals. With a new leader, this will be easier and it will also be a good thing.

[tml12]

There is some merit in TML's comment about the Liberal brand. However, when businesses talk about brand value they are talking in terms of a commodity that can be bought and sold. You cannot buy or sell a party name in Canada.

The Liberals ability to raise cash has fallen precipitously.

I really do question this $4-5 Million dollar figure for a number of reasons.

Who is Jonathan Ross (whose blog August1991 linked to)?

Why is he posting information like this?

I just cannot see how the Liberal's debt is only $4-5 Million...

I like tml's comment though: The Liberal brand name is worth more than the debt.

Since government financing is based on popular votes, and since the Liberals did reasonably well in the election, there will be money coming in. In addition, the Liberals have to set up schemes to raise funds from individuals. With a new leader, this will be easier and it will also be a good thing.

You're right Shoop.

But the Liberals are: (and I mean/say this sadly)

1) The party with the most urban support in a country that is primarily urban.

2) The only political party in Canada that is an established catch-all party that focuses on the "radical middle."

3) The only party in Canada that has the benefit of the doubt and only seems to lose when voters tire of their corruption.

Your economic facts aren't wrong...but with the Liberals still 3-4 points give or take the margin or error out of power after all the scandal, I still say the party can sell.

[shoop]

Canada is only *primarily* urban if you count Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Ottawa and Quebec City.

The Conservatives won the most seats of anybody in each of those cities.

Urban Canada is more than Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

But the Liberals are: (and I mean/say this sadly)

1) The party with the most urban support in a country that is primarily urban.

[geoffrey]

Canada is only *primarily* urban if you count Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Ottawa and Quebec City.

The Conservatives won the most seats of anybody in each of those cities.

Urban Canada is more than Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

But the Liberals are: (and I mean/say this sadly)

1) The party with the most urban support in a country that is primarily urban.

I still don't know if the Conservatives won a majority of those urban seats though. Remember, Toronto by itself has 22 seats I think? (Thats only enough for 2.2 mil people so I think thats about right). Calgary has 8. We'd need 3 Calgarys to match Toronto...

[shoop]

Let's take the group of big *but not big three* Canadian cities.

Calgary - 8 CPC

Edmonton - 8 CPC

Halifax - 3 CPC, 2 Liberal, 2 NDP

Ottawa - 5 CPC, 2 Liberal, 1 NDP

Winnipeg - 3 CPC, 2 Liberal, 3 NDP

Total 31 CPC 6 Liberal 8 NDP

Big three

Montreal - 11 Liberal, 7 Bloc

Toronto - 20 Liberal, 3 NDP

Vancouver - 4 Liberal, NDP

Total 35 Liberal 0 CPC 6 NDP, 7 Bloc

True they *technically* have the most urban support, but just barely and far from enought to make up their big deficit in the sticks...

I still don't know if the Conservatives won a majority of those urban seats though. Remember, Toronto by itself has 22 seats I think? (Thats only enough for 2.2 mil people so I think thats about right). Calgary has 8. We'd need 3 Calgarys to match Toronto...

[geoffrey]

Agreed shoop. Maybe we can seperate normal urban from crazy liberal socialist urban (ie. ultra-multicultural urban)?

[shoop]

I definitely think it doesn't leave the Liberals much room for growth. They have pretty much as big a chunk of the big three cities as they could hope for.

1/3 of their MPs are from three cities. Shrewd Conservative policy would be to run a quiet, efficient Federal Government while appealing directly to voters in these three cities. That alone could win them a majority next time around.

Agreed shoop. Maybe we can seperate normal urban from crazy liberal socialist urban (ie. ultra-multicultural urban)?