Warren seems to have lost his edge. Could be Barney's revenge catching up with him.

He's forgotten the sequence goes, ready, aim, fire. You don't go off half-cocked, making accusations without taking the time to do your homework. At the rate he sues or threatens to sue people, you'd sorta think he's know that.

Congrats Stephen,

Very well written piece, I can hardly wait to see how Warren responds to being called Rich Uncle Pennybags. Very funny!

Warren who?

I don't think you're a hypocrite. You're a cuddly conservative. We all like you, but we think your CPC blog pals are all whack.

I don't understand how donations to the Laurier Club can be counted as donations to the Liberal Party without running afowl of the $1000 limit. If I gave $1000 to the Laurier Club, would I get a tax receipt for $1000? And, if I gave $1000 to the Laurier Club would any amount of it be called “club dues”? Any clarifications would be welcomed.

The Laurier Club to Elections Canada is just the enticing name high donors get to feel good about if they give the max $1100. In the Conservative Party it's called the “Leader's Circle”. It's just a name to encourage donations. It's not a separate legal entity according to Elections Canada.

Ah, foaming at the mouth. So some OTHER conservative bloggers are trying to make a story out of flawed EC data, and now you're saying Nuh-huh, I gave under $200, etc. How about this. This whole bit is a WEAK story to begin with. I like name-calling-out as much as the next guy, but this is getting embarrassing for all of us.

Great defense Stephen, Warren seems to be trying to DIVERT DIVERT DIVERT attention from CATSCAM CATSCAM CATSCAM!!!

And if the Laurier club is (by way of implication) likened to a fictional “First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence… Club” what does that make the CPC “Leader's Circle”? I would suggest either:

“The Lex Luther Committee of Fellows Dedicated to the Destruction of of the Environment”….

Or perhaps it's the “Neighbours and Friends of George W. Bush Club for Supporters of Hidden and Historic Structural Deficits”!

You should change the title of your post to “Backpeddling”.

It is rather juvenile to compare the donations of private citizens to that of leaders. (and incorrectly)
Leaders, should lead by example and if I saw that my leader was not donating to our cause, I also would consider the same behaviour.
Perhaps the master spin doctor, requires a spin doctor, of his own? Things aren't going so well.
Particularly when the spin doctor, thinks it's necessary, to compare apples with oranges.

Are donations under $200 really not reported, or is it optional or something? I see lots of them reported, at least under the Liberal categories. Did you get a tax receipt for your donation? I'm not questioning your claim to have donated. I accept your word, just as I accept the LPC's about Michael's donations.

I'm just confused as to what the reporting rules are. I made several donations, all under $200 (usually $25). All were tax receipted. Oddly though, only one shows up in the database for 08. There seems to be some real issues with the reliability of the EC DB, and I'd caution anyone from relying on the data too heavily to make claims about who has not donated.

If you donate >$200 in aggregate, all small donations are publicly disclosed. If I made 100 $5 donations, they'd be on the EC site. If I made one $199 donation it wouldn't. The median Conservative donor donates about $100 per year.

I agree. This is an attempt to change the channel from 1. Mr. Kinsella's faux pas and from 2. Mr. Ignatieff's “coupon” or “hall pass” to the 6 NL MPs.

Frankly, I don't care who donated how much to which party, as long as everything is above board and legal.

What I do care about is how much I donate to my party, and that I make sure that it continues to receive my support even though it may democratically adopt some policy I may not completely agree with.

In other words, I try not to be a fair weather friend. Time to give myself a pat on the back, maybe.

I think George W. Bush is no longer in power. You may want to check on that.

Human Rights Commission for defamation of character….

Even if that made sense, it wouldn't be funny.

If every Liberal party supporter sent one days coffee money once a year, the Liberal party would have plenty of money to spend.

Thanks tips.

But is a completely irrelevant fact…so what's your point?

Yes, it must be very difficult for those of you who get off on the iron-fisted rule of the authoritarian despot to even consider the notion of being representative…in a representative democracy, no less!

My dad can beat up your dad!

Michael wrote; “But what about your party,who wants to take away voices of ordinary folks who cannot afford to donate (students,people with low incomes) by eliminating public financing? I am a small donor to the P.C. party, I am in the category called “sustaining donor”. I also canvass and work on elections, at that time I see many students, and low income seniors working for the party in a volunteer, unpaid basis, I am sure other parties have low income volunteers. People who wish to be involved with politics can be in many ways besides writing a checque!

Mocking doesn't make it less true Stephen…no matter how many times you try it.

What does that have to do with the CPC trying silence poor people and kill off small parties?

It means that the new model should be that if you care for a party do more than vote for it. The poorest among us can volunteer too. Volunteerism isn't only for the rich.

I'm sure many do volunteer; I always did before I could afford donations. But that still doesn't address the fact that the CPC wants to take something away from those that have the least already. Period.

Yes, but should they be limited because they cannot afford to write the cheque?

Why would you want to treat people who cannot afford to give money like second class citizens by narrowing the scope of their ability to contribute?

As a professional fundraiser, I can tell you that there is a hard and fast rule that applies: “You cannot ask until you have given”. Ask anyone who has every worked on a charitable campaign. I wouldn't allow any of my solicitors to ask anyone for donations if they themselves haven't ponied up.

Therefore, I submit, MI shouldn't be asking anyone to support the Liberal Party until he has given himself.

Note the Toronto Star of May 23, 2007, “Tory Land Claims Contracts Patronage: Critics,” in which Kinsella was named as a Conservative-appointed Indian land claims negotiator, and paid rates for negotiators were estimated at up to $250 an hour.

Huge kudos, Mike W!

To anyone that even needs to ask that question, I scratch my head in disbelief.
A donation goes far beyond a tax receipt for those that believe in the values of their party. People power is worth much more than, $1100. or $ 1.95.
Having both in my party is worth gloating about and striving to improve.

Stephen, you say: “I suppose Warren might say that only those that cut big cheques are allowed to have a voice!”

But what about your party, who wants to take away the voice of ordinary folks who cannot afford to donate (students, people with low income) by eliminating public financing?

By eliminating the party financing, the CPC would effectively destroy the opportunity for the most underprivileged to make contributions the only way they can: through their vote.

Or perhaps the Conservative party doesn’t think people below the poverty line should have a voice?

Stephen, you say: “I suppose Warren might say that only those that cut big cheques are allowed to have a voice!”

But what about your party, who wants to take away the voice of ordinary folks who cannot afford to donate (students, people with low income) by eliminating public financing?

By eliminating the party financing, the CPC would effectively destroy the opportunity for the most underprivileged to make contributions the only way they can: through their vote.

Or perhaps the Conservative party doesn’t think people below the poverty line should have a voice?

Could there be a connection to the fact Liberals are not used to being called for donations because the Party relied on the big corporate donations? Jean Chretien changed all that.

Wonder if WK considers that “whack”?
BTW, he's been whack a few times of late himself.

Great post. I believe that the only thing that WK understands is ‘push back’ and you have just done it superbly.

You should have threatened to take him to the HRC for defamation of character as well. Now that would be fun. Cheers.

Great post. I believe that the only thing that WK understands is ‘push back’ and you have just done it superbly.

You should have threatened to take him to the HRC for defamation of character as well. Now that would be fun. Cheers.

Go to the Liberal Party website and click on donations

https://www.liberal.ca/laurier_e.aspx

Following are excerpts from the information on the Liberal Party website regarding the Laurier Club :

“With an annual donation of $1100 to the National Liberal Party, paid through monthly donations or a one time gift, donors achieve Laurier Club status”

“Laurier Club status does not apply to contributions made to local ridings, candidates, leadership and nomination contestants.”

“*Individuals 35 and under who provide a donation in the amount of $550 are eligible for Laurier Club status.”

“Please print and complete the donation form and mail it with your cheque or personal credit card information to :

Liberal Party of Canada
81 Metcalfe Street
Suite 400
Ottawa, ON K1P 6M8
Attention : Donations

Please make your cheque payable to the Liberal Party of Canada ”

Seems pretty clear to me. I guess either Warren has never donated enough to know how the process works.

Go to the Liberal Party website and click on donations

https://www.liberal.ca/laurier_e.aspx

Following are excerpts from the information on the Liberal Party website regarding the Laurier Club :

“With an annual donation of $1100 to the National Liberal Party, paid through monthly donations or a one time gift, donors achieve Laurier Club status”

“Laurier Club status does not apply to contributions made to local ridings, candidates, leadership and nomination contestants.”

“*Individuals 35 and under who provide a donation in the amount of $550 are eligible for Laurier Club status.”

“Please print and complete the donation form and mail it with your cheque or personal credit card information to :

Liberal Party of Canada
81 Metcalfe Street
Suite 400
Ottawa, ON K1P 6M8
Attention : Donations

Please make your cheque payable to the Liberal Party of Canada ”

Seems pretty clear to me. I guess either Warren has never donated enough to know how the process works.

Warren should go have some more BBQ Cat! He has the nerve to talk about anyone else’s 'big mouth' ???

If Warren Kinsella had ANY credibility left, and yes, at one point, I thought he had some somewhere… Well… he’s used it all up! Nice job Warren!

Hope you got your money’s worth, pal!

Michael;
The purpose of voting is not to send money to political parties.

Under the current system the “small parties” do not receive any money anyways. The notion that small parties benifit from this system is complete nonsense.In fact the opposite is true.

Independants do not receive money either. So, your logic implies that the those who cannot write a cheque get to donate only if they support one of 3 or 4 big parties.

Actually, no more difficult that spouting idiotic comments like “the iron-fisted rule of the authoritarian despot.”
Can we expect that next time you'll liken our PM to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot … ?

Maybe you should consider a career in Hollywood writing scripts for B movies?

OUCH!! Remember the good ol’ days when Warren was doin’ the slappin’ around….BJ and Hawkeye were always up to no good and getting Ranger tickets in Ottawa to see Gretzky was a big deal??
I’m going to quote one of the great poets of all time,…”Glory days…they’ll pass you by Glory days…in the wink of a young girls eye…Glory daaaay ay ay ays!” No one says it better then Bruuuuuuuuuce!

OUCH!! Remember the good ol’ days when Warren was doin’ the slappin’ around….BJ and Hawkeye were always up to no good and getting Ranger tickets in Ottawa to see Gretzky was a big deal??
I’m going to quote one of the great poets of all time,…”Glory days…they’ll pass you by Glory days…in the wink of a young girls eye…Glory daaaay ay ay ays!” No one says it better then Bruuuuuuuuuce!

Almost but not quite. Your Leader’s Circle is recognition of past donorship up to the max. The Laurier Club is an actual club within the Liberal Party. It is not a separate legal entity, you are right, but it does have a membership fee that is almost equal the maximum donation. So it is collected differently and, I believe, reported on differently, but the fee is still considered a donation so it counts toward the same maximum limit (i.e. you can’t joing the LC AND donate $1000 directly to the party). I understand reporting on this is different and so it may take EC longer to get the individual details up on the website. That is all.

You are also partially right but not fully right about the $200 limit. If you write a single cheque for $199, your name will not be reported. If you wrote a cheque for $199 and the next month for $10, the CPC would have to report that Stephen Taylor had donated $209. So, if your name is not showing, then either you must have donated less than $200 or the Conservative’s messed up (not at all an unlikely scenario) or the Conservatives are deliberately misreporting donations below $200 (given what we’ve seen from in-and-out and Cadman and past convention fee “mistakes”, equally just as likely).

Almost but not quite. Your Leader’s Circle is recognition of past donorship up to the max. The Laurier Club is an actual club within the Liberal Party. It is not a separate legal entity, you are right, but it does have a membership fee that is almost equal the maximum donation. So it is collected differently and, I believe, reported on differently, but the fee is still considered a donation so it counts toward the same maximum limit (i.e. you can’t joing the LC AND donate $1000 directly to the party). I understand reporting on this is different and so it may take EC longer to get the individual details up on the website. That is all.

You are also partially right but not fully right about the $200 limit. If you write a single cheque for $199, your name will not be reported. If you wrote a cheque for $199 and the next month for $10, the CPC would have to report that Stephen Taylor had donated $209. So, if your name is not showing, then either you must have donated less than $200 or the Conservative’s messed up (not at all an unlikely scenario) or the Conservatives are deliberately misreporting donations below $200 (given what we’ve seen from in-and-out and Cadman and past convention fee “mistakes”, equally just as likely).

As a non Conservative, that was a nice, accurate, and justified slap down of Klownsilla.

Membership to the Laurier Club, to which Warren refers, is $1,100 (https://www.liberal.ca/laurier_e.aspx).

Either Iggy paid the fee, in which case there would be a record to reflect that in the Elections Canada database, or he didn’t.

Either way, Warren is caught out in a lie. Either a) Iggy did not donate, as already reported or b) he did but the LPC is up to its all old games of playing monkeys with the books.

No matter how you polish that turd, not good optics for Iggy or the LPC.

As a non Conservative, that was a nice, accurate, and justified slap down of Klownsilla.

Membership to the Laurier Club, to which Warren refers, is $1,100 (https://www.liberal.ca/laurier_e.aspx).

Either Iggy paid the fee, in which case there would be a record to reflect that in the Elections Canada database, or he didn’t.

Either way, Warren is caught out in a lie. Either a) Iggy did not donate, as already reported or b) he did but the LPC is up to its all old games of playing monkeys with the books.

No matter how you polish that turd, not good optics for Iggy or the LPC.

Yeah, my victory fund contributions (10$ a month) don’t show up in the database…but a $50 one I gave to a leadership campaign does, so I’m not really sure how the rules work. Presumably all leadership donations are reported, but the party ones only are if they’re over $200.

At the same time, Ignatieff’s Laurier club donation should show up in the database for 2008. There’s obviously been a mix-up somewhere in all this, since I presume Warren’s info would be correct.

Yeah, my victory fund contributions (10$ a month) don’t show up in the database…but a $50 one I gave to a leadership campaign does, so I’m not really sure how the rules work. Presumably all leadership donations are reported, but the party ones only are if they’re over $200.

At the same time, Ignatieff’s Laurier club donation should show up in the database for 2008. There’s obviously been a mix-up somewhere in all this, since I presume Warren’s info would be correct.

A little reported fact is that the parliamentary budget officer has determined that Canada is actually in a structural SURPLUS of $6 billion a year.

Liz J: “You don't go off half-cocked, making accusations without taking the time to do your homework” … unless you're Warren Kinsella and a Liberal, both categories of which seem to think they can make it up as they go along. 'Used to be, but not now.

Mr. Kinsella's stuck in the past and stuck on stupid if he thinks he can do the same things he did when he was working for Chretien and get away with them. In case he hasn't noticed, things have changed, times have changed, Canada's government has changed.

Warren needs to wake up! His Natural Ruling Party is no longer the ruling party and the blogosphere is exposing a lot of the Liberal underbelly, to which he seems to be attached. I wonder how deep a hole Warren is going to dig for himself … all the way to China?

Stephen you are obviously viewed as a threat by Kinsella and “friends”, take it as a compliment and keep up the great work. Read the site everyday!!

“since I presume Warren’s info would be correct.” You presume much:)

Stephen, why would you waste your time responding to someone who is obviously trying to obfuscate the fact that they have presented themselves to the nation as a bigot live on video? Just leave it alone, don’t touch it for Christ’s sake and it will eventually crawl off and die somewhere. Cheers!

“since I presume Warren’s info would be correct.” You presume much:)

Stephen, why would you waste your time responding to someone who is obviously trying to obfuscate the fact that they have presented themselves to the nation as a bigot live on video? Just leave it alone, don’t touch it for Christ’s sake and it will eventually crawl off and die somewhere. Cheers!

You mean like some people's entitlements?

Nobody argued that it was the purpose for voting, David. But closing the option would still be prejudicial.

I understand that a certain percentage of the vote has to be achieved in order to qualify….but look at the Green party!

Yes, like the entitlements of Flaherty's friends, who benefited quite a bit from the last budget (Home Depot), and his untendered contracts, and his ethanol plant, and his phantom train….ooohhh, and let's not forget in-and-out.

Do mean, those kind of entitlements?

A new Green Party would be at a disadvantage because it never ran in an election. Why give the advantage to “establishment” parties like the May Greens?

Robert,
What will you whine about when that happens…it is underway. And by the way do live in the west where over 80% of Harper's money comes from via the tithing manning set up years ago.

The Liberals have work to do in the party financing area but it is well underway and will be very successful.

Do you have any metrics on that claim or is it wishful thinking?

Geeze, Michael, you're having a busy time playing defense on this thread.

Pardon me while I borrow a term from one of your fellow Liberals, you seem to be all whack.

In the ridings I'm close to there has been an average incerease of 50% with new checkmate donors. I would tell you more accurate numers but would have to shoot you after and I'd rather wait until your party is in opposiiton later this yea.

Iggy's new fundraiser is still getting his mind around the situation but will have a full strategy up and running soon

Terry, you predicted a Liberal victory during the last election before they recorded an all-time low in pop support!

You're right. I under estimated the effects of dirty politics and attack ads on the leader of the party. The fact is that Harper has mnore dirt on him now as well as a a very determined and bright opponent so the attack ads will be thrown in his face.
If you wer earound years ago you would note I forecast Mulroney's demise and Chretien's ascension to long terms of power. I see that coming again because the Tories have screwed the economy royally and will pay the price for that later this year.

A new Green Party? You're really stretching there mate.

Let's face facts; the more important facts. This move would diminish the ability of people, who cannot afford to donate money, to contribute financially in some small way to their choice of party in the only they are able…by voting.

Nothing you or anyone else has said changes that fact, no matter how hard you try to deflect it.

Which goes back to my original response.

Do the Conservatives believe underprivileged people, who cannot afford to donate, should have less of a voice?

It seems to me that, since this is a Conservative blog and all, I'm playing offense…not defense.

Terry1,says

“where over 80% of Harper's money comes from via the tithing manning set up years ago.”

Can you please provide proof?

Thank you.

Screwed the economy? Canada is best positioned among the G8 as the world goes into recession.

Canada's economy doesn't exist in a vacuum but what could be done was mostly done and we're in a good position as a result. We're going to have a $34 B deficit this year, what has the US projected so far? Certainly much greater than a factor of 10.

I mean “a new green party” as any new party to want to compete on the scene. $1.95 per vote biases the election towards parties that have already competed.

So you are advocating for a new type of funding for even smaller parties, Stephen?

Donations through personal choice. Let parties survive based on their appeal to their base.

Michael Ignatieff has donated through the Laurier Club in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Both Michael and his wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar, have donated the maximum amount to the Michael Ignatieff campaign in 2009. And, in 2007, Zsuzsanna donated $1,000 to Michael’s riding and $1,000 to the Liberal Party.

Did you miss this?

Michael Ignatieff has donated through the Laurier Club in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Both Michael and his wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar, have donated the maximum amount to the Michael Ignatieff campaign in 2009. And, in 2007, Zsuzsanna donated $1,000 to Michael’s riding and $1,000 to the Liberal Party.

Did you miss this?

A more well known fact is that 76% of infrastructure funding is going to the 45% of ridings that are Conservative!

Shock!

A more well known fact is that 76% of infrastructure funding is going to the 45% of ridings that are Conservative!

Shock!

Firstly, let me say I generally agree our economy is in better shape than most going into a deepening recession as a result of the hard work done by the preceeding Liberal governments of Chretien and Martin.

Where I beg to differ is that Canada did not do what was necessary to prepare for this period of uncertainty over the last 18 months or so. The cuts in GST were most unproductive and remain so as they have done nothing but comply with the wishes of fiscal conservatives from the reform wing of the party better known as the Canadian “Bushites”. An income tax cut instead would have gone straight into peoples pockets at payday and most of it would have found its way back to the treasury in the form of increased spending or personal debt reduction that would have better cushioned this uncertain period.
However, my view and that of most pragmatic economists, is that no tax cuts should have occured in this period as “most” practical people saw this storm coming and there was need for the government to keep its powder dry. Populists can't do that obviously and these guys have driven our economy into a deficit even before the real economic storm hits. Most economists are also giving failing grades to the recent budget in tha tthe money is not going to productive needs in the economy. Instead of home improvement tax cuts why not direct the money to the auto industry and give tax credits towards the purchase of Canadian or NA built cars with Canadian content in them.

So please don't preach the economy here. Your party is reckless and way too populist on that score.

As for Warren Kinsella, I hope he contiunes to use his blog to take the cover off your blankets and show the hypocrisy of your words to the world.

As for Iggy, I see the fear in conservatives who actually got him appointed and who will soon be acclaimed leader by his party. He will not tolerate the crap and lies Harper spreads around like horse manure and Kinsella has been there before to help.

I do find reading your blog to be interesting and to see how misguided and mislead most right wing tories are. I pine for the days of PROGRESSIVE conservatism.

The The Liberal party will never achieve the same success in raising money as the Conservative party because of one simple fact. The Conservative philosophy is “What can I do for my party”. The Liberal philosophy is “ What can my party do for me”. It is the give me, give me; take take attitude that will always hold the left back. This applies to money and other forms of support. Period.

The The Liberal party will never achieve the same success in raising money as the Conservative party because of one simple fact. The Conservative philosophy is “What can I do for my party”. The Liberal philosophy is “ What can my party do for me”. It is the give me, give me; take take attitude that will always hold the left back. This applies to money and other forms of support. Period.

Stephen, you rock.

Right, coming from a whack that says a lot…

/:T

That you comment was irrelevant and a waste of Internet space.

You think very highly of yourself, don't you Michael. There is nothing true about what you say, another Liberal delusional. Sad.

Everyone play nice

I would like to remind terry1 that the alternative that was offered just 3 months ago was the “Greenshift”. That was a document that didn’t see this economic downturn either. It was rejected by not just Canadians but many Liberal MP’s.

If tax cuts were so wrong and so damaging then why did Libs. support them 18 months ago and why do they support them now?

While it is clear Iggy is a better candidate than Dion,I don’t see sweeping broad support for him either. Iggy will tolerate any and all “crap” until and only if he and the Libs. see that the polls are in their favour. I suspect that their genuine confidence has somewhat eroded.

How can Harper be so far ahead with all of the bad news piling on? If the recession is quite short and presumably we all hope it is, their will be panic in the Lib party to defeat this gov’t to fight an election while things are still tough for ordinary folk.

There are still difficulties for the Libs. even in this scenario. Will the other parties support the Libs in forcing an election at the right time? Remember that they will argue that Ignatieff has betrayed them and that his signature is worthless.Will the Libs , for the 7th or 8th consecutive election insist that only they can deliver Universal daycare? What will their next global warming fighting initiative look like or will they abandon all of that nonsense altogether? Will they run a campaign on the premise that tax cuts are bad for lucky working folk?Will they get a plane with better bragging rights than that it can land in Cambridge Bay?

We shall see….

I would like to remind terry1 that the alternative that was offered just 3 months ago was the “Greenshift”. That was a document that didn’t see this economic downturn either. It was rejected by not just Canadians but many Liberal MP’s.

If tax cuts were so wrong and so damaging then why did Libs. support them 18 months ago and why do they support them now?

While it is clear Iggy is a better candidate than Dion,I don’t see sweeping broad support for him either. Iggy will tolerate any and all “crap” until and only if he and the Libs. see that the polls are in their favour. I suspect that their genuine confidence has somewhat eroded.

How can Harper be so far ahead with all of the bad news piling on? If the recession is quite short and presumably we all hope it is, their will be panic in the Lib party to defeat this gov’t to fight an election while things are still tough for ordinary folk.

There are still difficulties for the Libs. even in this scenario. Will the other parties support the Libs in forcing an election at the right time? Remember that they will argue that Ignatieff has betrayed them and that his signature is worthless.Will the Libs , for the 7th or 8th consecutive election insist that only they can deliver Universal daycare? What will their next global warming fighting initiative look like or will they abandon all of that nonsense altogether? Will they run a campaign on the premise that tax cuts are bad for lucky working folk?Will they get a plane with better bragging rights than that it can land in Cambridge Bay?

We shall see….

robert, I disagree totally. Most Liberals have always givren of their time and money when not much was needed because the Coporate donation route worked just fine along with the Laurier Club and local riding donations. Our local riding currently has enought miney to fight the next election and to help out the national party once the legalities are sorted out.

Iggy knows his job is to raise awareness of the party and to raise money. He is off to a very good start thanks to the deep distrust of Harper more and more people are showing.

The dynamics have changed and the party has changed with them.

That's complete B.S. Of the Billions promised, only 20% is out…of that amount, 80% is in Conservative ridings….which make up only 45% of ridings in Canada.

There are huge infrastructure costs in the cities as well. It isn't one bridge; it's dozens.

I'm not the one calling myself “Capital C”. Now that's narcissism if I ever saw it!

The other parties will have to take down the government too…or else they are hypocritically “propping up” the government themselves, aren't they?

Only the Liberal party is voting with the government these days

Liberal surpluses came from better management of the economy.

Chretien had money for a unity fund that got abused by some greedy people.

The EI fund issue is simply bookkeeping stuff and it did go towards their surpluses. But as usual tories never read the fine print. The money was still earmarked for the EI fund.

Liberals never overtaxed except to get rid of Mulroney's attack on the national bank accounts and normalize revenues and expenses.

Chretien saw the changes needed in election financing and did what I think was the right thing. Harper played politics with it and tightend up the law to further punish the liberals. His motivation had nothing to do with a better democracy which is one of the reasons he needs to go.

I will say it again. Harper is a pathlogical liar who will say and do anything to stay in power.

Where did the liberal surpluses come from? Would you know?
Chretien had a few million to toss to the wind to buy Quebec votes, remember that?

Would the dipping into EI funds have been a big boost for their surplus?

Remember, government surpluses come from taxation and the Liberals were very good at overtaxing to spend on their friends and anything else that would keep them in power.

Chretien then took his Liberals out of business to the point of bankruptcy, The fat cats and corporations can’t feed the Liberal Kitty and the ordinary Liberal ‘supporters” are not accustomed to donating, they never were counted on to keep the Liberal coffers stuffed.

Where did the liberal surpluses come from? Would you know?
Chretien had a few million to toss to the wind to buy Quebec votes, remember that?

Would the dipping into EI funds have been a big boost for their surplus?

Remember, government surpluses come from taxation and the Liberals were very good at overtaxing to spend on their friends and anything else that would keep them in power.

Chretien then took his Liberals out of business to the point of bankruptcy, The fat cats and corporations can’t feed the Liberal Kitty and the ordinary Liberal ‘supporters” are not accustomed to donating, they never were counted on to keep the Liberal coffers stuffed.

David, Dion clearly stated that the green shift would be revenue neutral and would not burden the economy. he said it many times in many different ways.

The libs did not in reality support the GST cut but obviously did not have the firepower to resist at the time. Things are changing and Liberal priorities will get done with or without Harper in power. Hopefully it will be afte rhes gone later this year.

Harper is far from being way ahead. His personal ratings have plummeted and his party's will do the same soon enough. They will wear this economy in the voting booth.

No, I didn't miss this. the Laurier Club is a giving club, nothing more, nothing less. Every policial party has them, most major charities do too they are usually called 'leadership circles'. It doesn't negate the need for a charitable receipt issed by CRA to Michael, nor does it bypass EC listings. A personal donation is a personal donation no matter what 'giving club level' and special stationery it buys. One does not give 'through' the club, as then the 'club' would have the charitible credit and that goes completely against CRA rules and I would expect LPC to have their charitable status removed. One gives to the legal charitible entity as an individual and then the entity (in this case the LPC) calls you a club member.

terry1;
I'll give you credit for one thing. It takes a lot of kahonies's to defend Dion. He proved to be a bitter stubborn self absorbed individual who was completely out of touch with reality. Both arrogant and weak;not a great combonation.

You say Liberal priorities will get done. How? We don't yet even know what they are.With no leadership race and no policy convention it will be yet again a series of commitments that will be drummed up by only a handful of Iggy advisors. This will be trumpeted as yet again a bold new vision for a great country moving forward, blah ,blah.

The Libs are driven only by polls. If the polls show Canadians concerned about jobs the Libs will abandon health care ,the environment as priorities and take up the new cause.Nothing else matters.

I haven’t even looked at any of the numbers, but I’ll bet you it costs more to build a highway from Edmonton to Calgary, than to build a bridge in Montreal. Dividing infrastructure spending based upon local population is a silly proposal. Money should go where it will have the most impact, regardless of how many conservatives or liberals live there.

I haven’t even looked at any of the numbers, but I’ll bet you it costs more to build a highway from Edmonton to Calgary, than to build a bridge in Montreal. Dividing infrastructure spending based upon local population is a silly proposal. Money should go where it will have the most impact, regardless of how many conservatives or liberals live there.

Warren has jumped the shark. He’s done. Actually, it’s worse…he’s now a liability.

Warren has jumped the shark. He’s done. Actually, it’s worse…he’s now a liability.

Bravo Stephen…Stick it to Warren. I enjoyed reading this a lot. Perhaps Warren should look in the mirror for hypocrisy. But being a “yes man” to the Liberals must take up too much of his time.
Also like to add that it's the 200 dollars or less crowd are the base and engine of the Conservatives. Shows how out of touch the Liberals ..STILL are. Once again…great job Stephen.

That's a pretty serious label to be putting on the Prime Minister of the country. How would you be able to back that one up?

How did Mr Harper “tighten up the law to punish the Liberals? Explain that one please.

Did he not blantly lie about the income trust tax? did he notbreak hs own law and call an election tweo years early? did he not tell us there was no deficit when he gave us the so called economic update in November. In actual fact they wer ein deficit then and knew it as subsequent disclosures have shown.

He reduced the amount of certain donations from $5000 to $1000 thus further destabilizing the Liberal donation base.

Tell you what. Lets wait 6 months. That's a long time in politics. We'll see what the numbers are then.

I see Warren is now also trying to play art critic to Bourque.

A rather amusing stance for a punk rock wannabee who would be lucky to win a muscial talent competetion over a drunkard with dry heaves.

I see Warren is now also trying to play art critic to Bourque.

A rather amusing stance for a punk rock wannabee who would be lucky to win a muscial talent competetion over a drunkard with dry heaves.

Michael,

I assume Capital C is a reference to being a large C Conservative. I think you'll cover that next year in your grade 9 civics class… I also assume you're from Ontario?

…”since I presume Warren's info would be correct.”

Isn't the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Duh, ya think Jon? I would never have guessed.

Technically, either Michael Ignatieff or Warren Kinsella could have donated as much as $800 to the Liberal Party in 2008 and not shown up in the quarterly filings, Stephen. Similarly you could have donated as much as $800 to your party of choice and been invisible.

Here’s how: contributors don’t have to be named in the quarterly filings unless the sum of their donations in that quarter exceeded $200. However, they will show up in the ANNUAL filings if the sum of their donations over the year exceeded $200. Summing across the year will see many more names included than merely summing across the quarter.

So, it’s conceivable that some of the names in Warren’s post will appear in the annual filings, along with his own name and that of his leader. Those annual reports aren’t publicly available until shortly after they’re due (the end of June).

As I explained in a recent post at the Pundits’ Guide, the whole is different than the sum of the quarters in those party reports. It’s just the way they implemented that $200 reporting threshold.

Technically, either Michael Ignatieff or Warren Kinsella could have donated as much as $800 to the Liberal Party in 2008 and not shown up in the quarterly filings, Stephen. Similarly you could have donated as much as $800 to your party of choice and been invisible.

Here’s how: contributors don’t have to be named in the quarterly filings unless the sum of their donations in that quarter exceeded $200. However, they will show up in the ANNUAL filings if the sum of their donations over the year exceeded $200. Summing across the year will see many more names included than merely summing across the quarter.

So, it’s conceivable that some of the names in Warren’s post will appear in the annual filings, along with his own name and that of his leader. Those annual reports aren’t publicly available until shortly after they’re due (the end of June).

As I explained in a recent post at the Pundits’ Guide, the whole is different than the sum of the quarters in those party reports. It’s just the way they implemented that $200 reporting threshold.

He also deliberately mislead Canadians calling the coalition undemocratic knowing full well it wasn't, and what is worse he himself was ready to form an alliance with the bloc in 2004, the party he literally demonized to deflect attention from himself. Are these the actions of an ethical man?

People have increasingly become more aware of how the parliamentary system works and not so easily duped, and what is more they realize they have were purposely mislead. Even before Christmas the Angus Reid said he was seen as the least trustworthy and honest leader. The Ekos in the month before budget day said more Canadians would support the coalition over the conservatives given the choice.

It was unethical to try to cut public funding especially in such a manner. Even Obama who had the luxury of turning it down said he strongly believed in it as part of healthy democracy. If you don't control the money within the system, money will control the system. That thought may appeal to some, but it wouldn't be democratic.

Mr. Harper has alienated women across this country.

Today in the United States President Obama tells us how proud he was to sign The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act which focuses on pay equity for women, and makes it easier for them to fight discrimination.

Meanwhile here in Canada Prime Minister Harper has done the opposite, and has restricted women's access to the court despite public uproar. Some even describe the language in the current budget as Orwellian.

We are told it is to put pay equity back in the hands of the unions where it belongs, but not every woman is in a union. We are also told there is a problem with long waits for trials. If so this should be addressed, but two wrongs do not make a right. It also misses the point.

The wage gap only hurts the economy. With equal pay for work of equal value the top goal of the women's rights movement this is not only a symbolically terrible thing to do, and a horrible message to send the women of Canada, but it is also economically senseless.

The CCPA (an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice) produced an e-book called the Harper Record. (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/reports/2008/0…) The lengthy section on 'Women's Equality and Human Rights' concludes:

“Under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, women in Canada are witnessing a steady encroachment on the hard-won and still fragile equality rights for which they have fought long and hard.”

Can anyone explain why the word “equality” was removed from the mandate for the Status of Women's Council, and why this erosion of women's rights in Canada?

What would Nellie McClung say about this?

What would she say about national child care being blocked by the conservatives? Estimates show it could return as much as seven dollars for every dollar invested in our children and have other benefits such as reduced crime and poverty for future generations.

And meanwhile conservatives on average can more easily afford to send many, many, many times as much.
There are families that can barely afford milk for their children, or maybe they could if they could afford day care.

Who will rid us of this meddlesome menace?

Warren Kinsella's way past his sell-by date. Going cheap … get him off the shelf!!!

There are many leaders in the G7 who would be happy to “wear” the Canadian economy right now. It's so damned dumbfounding to have people of any political bent tearing down the Canadian government, playing politics instead of working together and giving credit where it's due. The Harper government consulted many in their quest to do what's best in this period.

It's really amusing tho hear Liberals ranting on about how they could do better and criticizing the government while they stand and support the budget. That of course has nothing to do with what's best for the country, it's all about the Liberals being in a state of flux with an embryonic leader in training.
He proved he needs more time with his handling of the Newfoundland MP's.

This GLOBAL economic crisis was not caused by the Harper government but obviously we will be affected by it. Mr. Harper has the support of MOST Canadians at this time and for very obvious reasons.

Liz J….take off your blinders. harper does not have the support of “MOST” Canadians. In the polls I've read his personal numbers are now below those of IGGY. His party is at a soft 37% and sliding as best I can see.

The Liberals handed them a huge surplus that was rainy day money and thye used it to bribe their tribal followers. The GST cut turns out to be more stupid in light of ther current crisis and shortens the strings they can pull to help out the economy.

This government is a walking disaster in economic management.

Stephen, how come the comments aren't in order? I just posted a comment a few hours ago and had to scroll up into the “two days ago” posts to find it.

Comments used to be posted in the order in which they were received, which made your site much easier to read. Now, it's all a jumble. Could you please return your comments' section to the orderly place it once used to be?

Thanks!!

If you reply to a specific sub-thread, it will post there. The comments are threaded not linear.

O/T

I'm with batb about the order of comments, Stephen. Threaded maybe, but annoying to check whether one's comment has appeared or not, which most commenters I would wager are interested in checking. Also, the threading keeps reducing the space for subsequent comments – not visually appealing. I also miss the format of dating comments, giving the exact time and date a comment was posted.

I know – picky, picky …

ST: “If you reply to a specific sub-thread, it will post there. The comments are threaded not linear.”

Thanks for your response, but I don’t have to like it, do I? I don’t! It’s taken the fun out of reading your blog… ;-(

Boo hoo.

ST: “If you reply to a specific sub-thread, it will post there. The comments are threaded not linear.”

Thanks for your response, but I don’t have to like it, do I? I don’t! It’s taken the fun out of reading your blog… ;-(

Boo hoo.

canadian mom has hit the nail on the head with her exposee of the nastiness this government displays.

“EI fund issue is simply bookkeeping stuff”, you better believe it is, not the regular kind of bookkeeping stuff either.

Something you might like to read for a little broader insight into the Liberal state of affairs is in the Toronto Star, a column by Angelo Perichilli, “Humpty Dumpty's lesson for Ignatieff”. Link on Bourque.com.

Read and report back to us. I could write exactly what you're retort will be but will await for your's with baited breath.

You are so lucky to live in this democracy an be allowed to make such spurious accusations against the Prime Minister of the Country.

You could take a cue from John Manley who is a class act and shows respect for the PM and the Office. He wouldn't endorse your disrespectful diatribe.

Hate to say this but Kim Shelia just won. No one is talking about his rascist sexist statements any more!
Pretty crafty cat, that Kim Shelia.

Canadian mom…great post and great dagger to the heart of this most terrible leader of our country. He needs to go and go fast.

Canadian mom…great post and great dagger to the heart of this most terrible leader of our country. He needs to go and go fast.

Mom….Great post and good analysis on the beast that is Harper.

Mom….Great post and good analysis on the beast that is Harper.

Mom….Great post and good analysis on the beast that is Harper.

Angelo is an underachieving reporter. He is trying to build a name for himself outside the Italian paper he edits. I read his garbage in Italian also.

I am very lucky to live in this democracy and that's the best reason I can think of to want Harper gone.

I want to stay lucky.

He destroyed a decent man in Dion with his attack ads which bordered on slander so anything that comes Harpers way in terms of political heat is fine with me and he is currently in self destruct mode.

Iggy will not be his patsy and the dictator already knows that. He also knows he destroyed his future hold on power in November.

John Manley is a class act and while has done stuff for the government he has never ever commented on whether he supports Harper or not. He will most likely be a delegate to the Liiberal convention in April as well

Frankly this discussion is boring. Who cares if Iggy donated or not to the Liberal Party? Who cares if Kinsella or Taylor is paid or not?

What people care about is who can be trusted to report the facts or give fact based opinions.

What is Iggy's position on the Ukraine? What is Harper's? Let's talk policies not gossip.

Terry,

Liberal$ under Cretin achieved surpluses due to overtaxation and inactivity. They also presided over a little something called the 'Sponsorship scandal' – do some reading on this before trying to trumpet their economic record.

Harper's plugging of the income tax loophole was a good thing for the economy. It makes no sense to incent all Canadian companies to turn into income-generating vehicles.

The 'Liberal donation base' largely doesn't exist – it used to be made up of a mysterious numbered company who donated billions of dollars to the party.

Terry – your prediction of a Dion – Liberal victory last election made you look a pretty silly, but these comments have confirmed it for me – you are really just trying to make us all laugh, right?! You don't really believe what you write, right?

Liz J…where's ther pap. Instead of whining baout my posts at least answer them in some manner of intelligent discourse.

I ahve never dsaid the libsd were perfect. I keep my mind open and you should try the same sometime. I know why I detest Harper, having stated why openly many many times, and I will be proven correct and in fact am in the process of that happening.

The all time low is your cintinued support of a man who will go down as possibly the worst economic manager of all time. He sold his conservative soul to stay in power and you continue to support him….tells me a lot about you I guess.

Harper has plugged nothing and has created a huge deficit from whch we may not recover for a generation. The rest of your stuff about the past Lib government is stuff you read on blogging tories or some such Tory brainwashing vehicle.

Terry – worst economic manager of all time? Is that like your projection of a Dion victory last election? Take a break for a bit and go get some fresh air – you are not making a lot of sense..

Listren, you know and I know the only reason harper waon that election is because he broke his own law in order to catch the opposition off bgurad and that he did. But, it won't happen again and he's now as good as gone.

Looking at simple percentages is completely disingenouous.

Fact. Almost every bit of food you consume, probably needs to travel through a CPC riding at some point before it gets to you.

Fact. Almost none of the food I consume travels through a LPC or NDP riding.

“Fair” Conclusion: Almost all the infrastructure spending should go to CPC ridings.

See? I can be just as disingenuous as you.

Jeez, warren is such a complete douchebag.

Jeez, warren is such a complete douchebag.

Jeez, warren is such a complete douchebag.

It would seem the Bourque Newswatch is loaded with supporters of the Tory Party and thats allowable as long as we know where they are coming from. To me it has been much more noticeable in the last few years. Canadians are fortunate in having leaders like Harper and Ignatieff as we will decide who we believe can lead better than the other. Thats why we have election campaigns and the Spinners will spin and the voters decide.

Wow, what pap. You continue down the same path. EVERYONE else is wrong, even having a difference of opinion is wrong.
You’re slagging everyone who dares utter a word against your assumed perfection of all things Liberal.

You could be in for a great disappointments down the road with such an attitude.

Attacking the messenger because he’s too close to the truth?

You’ve struck an all time low . You’re condescending attitude is tiresome and frankly quite sickening.

Wow, what pap. You continue down the same path. EVERYONE else is wrong, even having a difference of opinion is wrong.
You’re slagging everyone who dares utter a word against your assumed perfection of all things Liberal.

You could be in for a great disappointments down the road with such an attitude.

Attacking the messenger because he’s too close to the truth?

You’ve struck an all time low . You’re condescending attitude is tiresome and frankly quite sickening.

Wow, what pap. You continue down the same path. EVERYONE else is wrong, even having a difference of opinion is wrong.
You’re slagging everyone who dares utter a word against your assumed perfection of all things Liberal.

You could be in for a great disappointments down the road with such an attitude.

Attacking the messenger because he’s too close to the truth?

You’ve struck an all time low . You’re condescending attitude is tiresome and frankly quite sickening.

Stop being a dork Taylor. Who cares who gives to who. You say you do but in the final analysis we have to take your word for it.

Stop being a dork Taylor. Who cares who gives to who. You say you do but in the final analysis we have to take your word for it.

Stop being a dork Taylor. Who cares who gives to who. You say you do but in the final analysis we have to take your word for it.

This is typical of Warrrrrr – stupidly, Iggy doesn’t appear to realise or understand that the people of Canada and the gLiberal party in particular, are tired of Kinsella and his ilk – you might include the ‘old boys’ and terrorist supporters amongst them.

This is typical of Warrrrrr – stupidly, Iggy doesn’t appear to realise or understand that the people of Canada and the gLiberal party in particular, are tired of Kinsella and his ilk – you might include the ‘old boys’ and terrorist supporters amongst them.

This is typical of Warrrrrr – stupidly, Iggy doesn’t appear to realise or understand that the people of Canada and the gLiberal party in particular, are tired of Kinsella and his ilk – you might include the ‘old boys’ and terrorist supporters amongst them.

Terry – catch them off guard? He was talking about the disfunctional parliament for weeks! No leader in our history more deliberately showed his hand. This was not Cretin vs. Stockwell Day of a few elections ago.

The reason Harper won the election is because he got WAY more votes than the Liberal$. He got more votes in Ontario than the Liberal$, he attracted more women voters, he attracted more minority voters.

Just sit back and relax over there Terry – your in good hands with Harper.

Terry – catch them off guard? He was talking about the disfunctional parliament for weeks! No leader in our history more deliberately showed his hand. This was not Cretin vs. Stockwell Day of a few elections ago.

The reason Harper won the election is because he got WAY more votes than the Liberal$. He got more votes in Ontario than the Liberal$, he attracted more women voters, he attracted more minority voters.

Just sit back and relax over there Terry – your in good hands with Harper.

Terry – catch them off guard? He was talking about the disfunctional parliament for weeks! No leader in our history more deliberately showed his hand. This was not Cretin vs. Stockwell Day of a few elections ago.

The reason Harper won the election is because he got WAY more votes than the Liberal$. He got more votes in Ontario than the Liberal$, he attracted more women voters, he attracted more minority voters.

Just sit back and relax over there Terry – your in good hands with Harper.

The “We”. Uh-oh, he's pretending people have his back..the chatter at Brixton's has Iggy looking for new war-rom help. The guy makes Scott Reid look like a rock-star.

I was included in that list too but I never criticized Iggy for his lack of donations. Should I pull a Kinsella and sue for libel? No – I’m not that petty and childish (oh no – I called him petty and childish – he’ll probably sue me now).

I was included in that list too but I never criticized Iggy for his lack of donations. Should I pull a Kinsella and sue for libel? No – I’m not that petty and childish (oh no – I called him petty and childish – he’ll probably sue me now).

I was included in that list too but I never criticized Iggy for his lack of donations. Should I pull a Kinsella and sue for libel? No – I’m not that petty and childish (oh no – I called him petty and childish – he’ll probably sue me now).

Maybe that is the fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals promised for 3 elections to put a National day care system in place and never did a thing. Then they had the gall to criticise Harper for making sure families got $100 per month per child – missing the fact that it was $100 more than they had managed to get out despite their promises. Moreover, when my wife and I had our child, for some reason, it never dawned on me that the state should pay to look after him. That too is a Liberal concept.
Iggy blew it ten mintues after they appointed him without an election – eh could actually bring himself to say whether he supported the Coalition trying to overthrown the last election or not, hedging like any good Liberal becuase lying is and has been in their DNA ever since Trudeau campaigned against the wage and price control and then imposed them once he won the election. Voting Liberal is an act of treason – not provable perhaps (thank god for the secret ballot) but morally the same thing. Spending a night in a room full of Liberals should make any person with integrity want a shower.

Dear Stephen Taylor, you are my hero.

Canadian mom has learned his/her talking points well. (S)he posted the very same points under a similar name (mom 101) on an entirely different topic over at the CBC site. Keep spreading the manure; we'll see how your garden grows.

Hey…. Guess what.

Nobody cares.

Speaking of misfires, how about gossip columnists in the MSM like Don Martin insinuating the PM is about to call it quits?

Are we going to let that stuff pass without a challenge?

Today Kinsella misfires again. He is now advocating that a minister in the Ontairo Government get involved in the day to day news operations or TVO… censorship in the worst form… Kinsella has lost it.

“According to her web site, “Five Feet of Fury” is on TVO tonight – and, I presume, she's getting paid to be there.

Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about Kathy Shaidle getting provincial tax dollars, however small, to spew her venom. … I hope to hear from them, and the Ministry responsible for TVO, later on today. “

thanks..

Exclusive! Without a Trace’s RS tied the knot with Eric Winter in a star-studded seaside wedding—and of course, OK

free dating sites

I love it when people come together and share
opinions, great blog, keep it up.
datingsite