The grits are down a bit from last quarter and the Tories are down from record levels (thank you coalition), but the Tories are still out fundraising the grits 2.5:1. Tories raised $4.362 million, the grits $1.857 million, the NDP $595 thousand. The Tories raised millions during a recession. The NDP seem to be down a bit. Considering that the grits are still deeply in debt, this quarter is just a drop in the budget for them. Remember an election costs $20 million. I doubt the grits have paid off their $2 million loan from 2007 and their debt from the last election. The Tories had substantial reserves from last year. Its time to start using some this money to aggressively define iggy.I hope the ads start during the iggy Seinfeld convention.
29 comments:
Sorry Dr. Roy, but the Liberals have retired their debt.
Game on.
Oh, and they raised about $800,000 in the last quarter so they more than doubled their fundraising in this quarter, while the NDP dropped a lot and the CPC dropped a bit.
Not a bad start. Watch the numbers soar after the convention!
With sponsorship money?Your party's entire fundraising last year wouldn't have covered the debt.
They raised 2.3 million last quarter ted. They are down this quarter. Wishful thinking
Have the 2006 Lib leadership hopefulls paid off their debts yet Ted? Dion hasn't.
With $2 million in the bank, Libs still have to borrow $16 m for an election.
They will have to dip into that
$2m to answer the truth ads, coming their way.
Perhaps the Cons won't attack Iffy,
they will spend millions on positve ads about their accomplishments, and vision for Canada.
Maybe each Minister will be in an ad, with their perspectives.
"They raised 2.3 million last quarter ted. They are down this quarter."Sorry you are right. I meant to compare the same quarters, which is a better reflection of where things really stand because year-end donations tend to go way way up and can't really be compared to the first quarter of any year. (Just look at the Q4 numbers for all parties in every single year: they always jump and then drop hugely the next quarter.) Also because of the whole coalition/anti-democratic cancellation of Parliament thing in December which further makes 2008-Q4 an unuseful gauge of how much higher the Libs really are (a lot) and how much lower the Cons really are (a bit).
Here are the full stats.Libs: $846,129 (2008-Q1) to $1,831,843 (2009-Q1) = + $985,714
Cons: $4,954,550 (2008-Q1) to $4,361,540 (2009-Q1) = - $593,010
Perhaps equally concerning is that the number of donors has dropped off for the Cons year-over-year, while the number of donors for the Liberals has gone up considerably (15599 vs. 10435). Dollars are dollars, after all, while donors are voters.
In addition to the fact that the Liberals are debt free, this is great news for the Liberals and for Canada.
(BTW, the link in your comment seems broken.)
**Perhaps the Cons won't attack Iffy, they will spend millions on positve ads about their accomplishments, and vision for Canada. Maybe each Minister will be in an ad, with their perspectives.**
Even if they had an real accomplishments, it would be too out of character for them to go positive and you know it, wilson. And there is not a chance in this world Harper will share the spotlight. Like last time, like the Cons website, it will be all and only Harper all of the time. And you know that too. (In fact, and this is pure speculation so take it with a bucketful of salt, but I think that many cabinet ministers will get pissed off with this since many will face much tougher campaigns with a real opposition and will want or need more attention on themselves.)
Wasn't $1 million of that $1,831,843 raised one night, at an expense 'buy a dinner' event?
Can't have more than one of those per year, donors max out in one night.
Time will tell, time will tell.
I'm not sure, getting 1500 to a convention that anticipated 7000, is a big plume feather.
It could be that Conservatives like me, are watching the economy and have changed their payment process.
It could also be, that the LIEberals have peaked for donations.
It seems kind of wierd, that all of a sudden LIEberals support their party, financially.
I think it's time to cancel the tax payer subsidy!
Wilson: Yes, over $1 million was raised at one event, but I don't know how much of that is in the $1.8 amount for Q1 since much of that money would have been processed on the day of the event (like mine) which occurred in Q2.
Bec: I'll support cutting the tax payer subsidy as long as it is all taxpayer subsidies, including the 75% tax refund. Funny how the Conservatives, who benefit hugely from that subsidy, never talk about cutting that one.
''And there is not a chance in this world Harper will share the spotlight.''
Did you not notice that PMSH left his Minister of Health to handle all of the swine flu reports and conferences?
Sweet little rookie did one hell of a job too.
The Ministers have been taking the bulk of media spots since before the break.
Dion played the 'team',
Harper played the 'leader'.
Iffy plays the 'leader'.
Harper plays the 'team'.
Gawd you Libs are slow at catching on, it's all that frustration of hating a guy that keeps getting elected.
'Funny how the Conservatives, who benefit hugely from that subsidy, never talk about cutting that one.'
That's for the nearly 1000 candidates that don't win too.
If I understand the subsidy correctly.
If every party runs 308 candidates (+75 Bloc, ?Greens), and they each spend their max,
how do Conservatives benefit more than any other party?
Not sure what you are referring to in your last comment Wilson, but I am referring to the fact that I get a tax credit of up to 75% for every dollar I donate to a federal political party or riding. That is a subsidy that every taxpayer bears the burden of. The Conservatives rely on this subsidy to a far great extent than the others and so they won't touch this one. The subsidy they think will hurt the others more, well, sure, of course they are in favour of that.
Guess I didn't read you right. I was talking about the expense reimbursements the candidates get.
So I get a tax credit, meaning I pay less tax, and that hurts every Canadian taxpayer, how?
It means I have more money to spend on something else, which means my tax credit creates jobs.
If the LPC equaled CPC donations, then who's hurtin' who?
Ted
Lower taxes, means more personal wealth, which means more spending, which creates jobs, which creates more personal wealth, which creates jobs.
That's why
'we will have to raise taxes'
will sink the Good Ship Iffy.
So you donate $100 to the Cons. You get a tax credit for $75 meaning you only paid $25.
But the Cons got $100. Where do you think that $75 came from? From the taxpayer. It's a taxpayer subsidy even more than the other subsidy.
By your logic, if less money spent by you and me means jobs then you should be all in favour of the subsidy the Cons do attack because it means we keep even more in our pockets which must mean even more jobs. Right? Right? Exactly. Doesn't make sense.
Wilson
Ted
Lower taxes, means more personal wealth, which means more spending, which creates jobs, which creates more personal wealth, which creates jobs.
That's why
'we will have to raise taxes'
will sink the Good Ship Iffy.It is off topic and worthy of a discussion, but a growing debt and deficit cost more jobs. It is just money down the drain. Why are you in favour of that? Especially when much of Harper's increased debt will be going to the Chinese government bondholders?
Harper's debt?
That blame game is making the Liberals look foolish.
Canadianas are not that stupid.
The deficit spending is for 2 years ONLY.
Kevin Page said: Canada has a structural SURPLUS of $6 Billion, and the government will not create a structural deficit if there are no additional 'permanent' tax cuts or spending.
Even the most gloom and doom 'expert' predicts a turn around by 2010.
With the structural surplus, more employment and increased revenues, the deficit will turn to surplus in 3 years.
Then, the debt can be paid down once again. And at 1/4% compared to the high rates we were paying,
we should catch up quickly.
That's why the Liberal national daycare and other 'permanent' spending is at least a decade out there, unless taxes are raised to pay for it.
Bush said the same thing: don't worry be happy, the deficit will take care of itself and be gone in 4 years. Ooops.
No one should trust Harper's numbers or predictions, they have been consistently way off. Harper's record setting spending increases year after year since he got elected will not simply magically disappear. No economist thinks that there is any realistic scenario where this would happen without drastic program cuts and/or tax increases. It is pure mathematics, which is perhaps why it is so difficult for Conservatives to grasp.
'So you donate $100 to the Cons. You get a tax credit for $75 meaning you only paid $25.'
No, I paid $100 in support of the party I want running the country.
And because I pay taxes and don't live off of other peoples money, I get to pay a few bucks less taxes, for things like my share of the Chrysler loans.
It's my f'n money Ted!
Not the governments, and most certainly not other taxpayers.
I earned it.
So why are you asking other Canadians to subsidize your choice of party to support? Do what you want with your own money but why ask the rest of us to subsidize your choice?
Look this is really simple. Your $100 is after-tax money. If you choose to buy a stereo, you are out of pocket $100. If you choose instead to give that $100 to the Conservatives, then you are only out of pocket $25 and $75 of that donation comes from the rest of us Canadians.
That is the definition of a subsidy, of wealth transfer that conservatives normally oppose, except when it benefits them I guess. `Cause Harper sure won`t be touching that one because he benefits from this subsidy way more than the others.
''No one should trust Harper's numbers or predictions, they have been consistently way off. ''
Name me ONE economist/expert/organization who has not changed his/her prediction from October 2008 to March 2009.
Mainly because Obama is not getting the job done as well and fast as the world expected.
The coalition of losers wanted $30Billion, in December,
in April both Iffy and Jack were calling for a SECOND stimulus package,
the first one wasn't enough (even tho it was more than they first asked for).
They didn't get it right the first time around,
their predictions were off, even tho they had all that free expert advice Ted?
Your guy writes book, gives seminars on human rights.
Iffy is way out of his league here,
and will sit it out in opposition until there is money once again, to spend.
And maybe you are missing the almost daily articles on one group or the other crying about getting their funds cut.
Spending cuts are on going.
'and $75 of that donation comes from the rest of us Canadians'
No it doesn't Ted.
Because it was never your money to start with.
Do you begrudge a mechanic getting a tool tax credit?
Do you begrudge a parents getting a child tax credit?
Or a person getting a disability credit?
Or a worker getting a northern allowance tax credit?
Or a family getting a relocation tax credit?
When you fill in your tax return Ted, do you not take every tax credit you can?
How dare you!! That's everyone elses money, don't you know.
That's some clever accounting you have going on there Wilson.
When you get a $75 refund, that is so the tax payers can subsidize a political party. You get that right?: you pay $25, the rest of us pay $75, and Harper gets $100.
Or maybe you do not understand that the refund comes out of the money the government has collected in taxes, which would be the same place those other political party subsidies come from.
Now, you are the one who claims taxpayers should not be subsidizing political parties, so why would you oppose removing this tax credit?
I too hope the ads won't be just attack ads on Iggy. Show some of the international conferences that Harper has attended and praise by other leaders and foreign journalists for his initiatives and leadership.
Show the part of the New Year's end-of-year interview where he told us we would have to tighten our belts.
And please get better ads for Quebec (younger, more stylish)!
"Name me ONE economist/expert/organization who has not changed his/her prediction from October 2008 to March 2009."Exactly, Wilson. I'm glad you agree with me. No one is getting it right. Which means Harper's numbers - which have been consistently more wrong than those of real economists and are way way more optimistic than everyone else, including the IMF and the Bank of Canada and every Canadian bank and his own budget chief - cannot and should not be relied upon.
In other words, Harper's assumption that the deficit will just take care of itself and he doesn't have to make difficult decisions like a real leader is dangerous for our economy.
I'm glad we agree on that.
Do you begrudge a mechanic getting a tool tax credit?
Do you begrudge a parents getting a child tax credit?
Or a person getting a disability credit?
Or a worker getting a northern allowance tax credit?
Or a family getting a relocation tax credit?It is encouraging that so many conservatives are coming over to our way of thinking, that the state has some role in the affairs of the economy and our lives.
These are all subsidies, Wilson. Do I like all of them? Not necessarily, but I accept that government policy to pool our funds collectively for greater good is a valid and good use of government. I'm glad you are coming around to our way of thinking.
And I don't necessarily disapprove of the political donation tax subsidy Harper won't attack. I think it encourages participation in our political system and money is needed for parties to develop good policy and do the good research necessary for good policy (not that the Cons care about that as we know from Ian Brodie who admitted good policy didn't matter to the Cons, only what would get them votes).
It is a subsidy though. That's the point. And if the Cons (and you) want to attack political subsidies, or to put it more accurately try to use one type of political subsidy for the sole purpose of scoring political points against the other parties, then try to be honest and consistent about it.
Can play with all the numbers you want folks, but the real story is the Liberals have momentum.
And, Harper purposely blew money to try to crush the Liberals leaving nothing to work during the crisis. Harper has been the biggest spending PM in history.
By the way, I wouldn't take too much stock in Dr. Roy or Wilson - they are extreme partisans and will only look at things negatively. C'mon, Dr. Roy believes Ann Coulter (amazing, since she is a chronic partisan and liar).
So, really, can you take a guy who believes the likes of Coulter seriously? NO!
Lyn
When confronted with reasonable answers, Wilson disappears to the safe confines of Joanne's Journey to dole out more blue kool-aid.
Post a Comment