Must Mean Something...
We've read recently that Conservative support among the electorate has slipped somewhat, and that Liberal support has risen commensurately. From a mere month or so earlier when support for the Conservatives was heading toward majority territory were a vote to be called. Based on this Conservative-led government's steady hand and good performance with no real dips into scandal-territory so familiar under Liberal-led governments, one might expect the Conservatives to have fared better than that in popular opinion.
Perhaps there's more to the situation than reveals itself through polls resulting in those puzzling statistics. Take, for example, support where it seems to count; voters funding political parties. Canada's Tories come way out ahead of all other parties in the country. Even with the downturn in the economy, the Conservative Party has handily collected $17.6-million for 2009, surely equating with public trust and appreciation to some good degree?
Whereas, by comparison, the Liberal Party of Canada has managed to eke out contributions to the tune of $9.9-million. Not miserly by any means, but representing almost 50% less than what the Conservatives acquired. And look at the positively anaemic results for the NDP, with contributions of $3.9-million. All of that can be handily banked by the high-achieving-and-otherwise parties. But it's obvious which of them can afford to go all out on those proceeds.
And the Conservatives can be permitted a little chuckle of success out of the Federal Court ruling that the so-called in-and-out advertising purchase scheme in the 2006 general election has been deemed completely kosher. Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, in tight-tandem with the Liberals may think else-wise, but the judge claimed these expenses to be legitimate and within the bounds of correctness in transfer of money to local campaigns for purposes they may select.
Another Conservative-Elections Canada disagreement is fascinating with respect to the Tories returning almost $600,000 back to the taxpayers claiming that sum to be overpayment from Elections Canada as a rebate from the 2004 and 2006 general elections. Well, you just can't win for losing sometimes; even though the Conservatives felt the sum was a double subsidy; from both Elections Canada and Revenue Canada, Mr. Mayrand wanted nothing of it.
Mr. Mayrand is content with refusing those $600,000 mis-payments and placing a further burden on the taxpayer by actually appealing the decision with a judge ruling Elections Canada is obliged to accept that cheque. Begins to look like a vendetta of some substantial proportions between, of all things, Elections Canada and the Conservatives ... who just happen at this place in time to be the government.
Nicely enough for Liberals, preferential treatment appears to be the order of the day with Mr. Mayrand, who obligingly extended repay loans deadlines for those Liberal MPs who contested their party leadership in 2006 and who have experienced difficulties in paying back those loans.
So what's good for the gander means the other will get goosed. I'd call that perfectly foul.
Perhaps there's more to the situation than reveals itself through polls resulting in those puzzling statistics. Take, for example, support where it seems to count; voters funding political parties. Canada's Tories come way out ahead of all other parties in the country. Even with the downturn in the economy, the Conservative Party has handily collected $17.6-million for 2009, surely equating with public trust and appreciation to some good degree?
Whereas, by comparison, the Liberal Party of Canada has managed to eke out contributions to the tune of $9.9-million. Not miserly by any means, but representing almost 50% less than what the Conservatives acquired. And look at the positively anaemic results for the NDP, with contributions of $3.9-million. All of that can be handily banked by the high-achieving-and-otherwise parties. But it's obvious which of them can afford to go all out on those proceeds.
And the Conservatives can be permitted a little chuckle of success out of the Federal Court ruling that the so-called in-and-out advertising purchase scheme in the 2006 general election has been deemed completely kosher. Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, in tight-tandem with the Liberals may think else-wise, but the judge claimed these expenses to be legitimate and within the bounds of correctness in transfer of money to local campaigns for purposes they may select.
Another Conservative-Elections Canada disagreement is fascinating with respect to the Tories returning almost $600,000 back to the taxpayers claiming that sum to be overpayment from Elections Canada as a rebate from the 2004 and 2006 general elections. Well, you just can't win for losing sometimes; even though the Conservatives felt the sum was a double subsidy; from both Elections Canada and Revenue Canada, Mr. Mayrand wanted nothing of it.
Mr. Mayrand is content with refusing those $600,000 mis-payments and placing a further burden on the taxpayer by actually appealing the decision with a judge ruling Elections Canada is obliged to accept that cheque. Begins to look like a vendetta of some substantial proportions between, of all things, Elections Canada and the Conservatives ... who just happen at this place in time to be the government.
Nicely enough for Liberals, preferential treatment appears to be the order of the day with Mr. Mayrand, who obligingly extended repay loans deadlines for those Liberal MPs who contested their party leadership in 2006 and who have experienced difficulties in paying back those loans.
So what's good for the gander means the other will get goosed. I'd call that perfectly foul.
posted by Pieface | 5:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home