7

Andrew Coyne on Harper’s bubble campaign

Your daily campaign minute from Maclean’s columnists


 


 
Filed under:

Andrew Coyne on Harper’s bubble campaign

  1. Fully agree AC, except…it isn't a constitutional right to attend ok, but neither is it a wholy privately funded function either. Lots of my and your tax dollars in there[ hopefully lots more of yours then mine] I'm surprised at you. Limiting acess to the PM is not ok on any grounds other then security and obviously obnoxious and politically motivated grounds.
    What are the chances SH will take your advise? 50/50…75/25…99/01 ?…toughie.

  2. Fully agree AC, except…it isn't a constitutional right to attend ok, but neither is it a wholy privately funded function either. Lots of my and your tax dollars in there[ hopefully lots more of yours then mine] I'm surprised at you. Limiting acess to the PM is not ok on any grounds other then security and obviously obnoxious and politically motivated grounds.
    What are the chances SH will take your advise? 50/50…75/25…99/01 ?…toughie.

    • There won't be any tax-dollars in there if the Tories get their majority and scrape political party subsidies.

      • Wrong: Harper is talking about removing the vote subsidy, not the election donation tax credit, or the broadcast subsidy for ads and inclusion in the televised "debates".

  3. There won't be any tax-dollars in there if the Tories get their majority and scrape political party subsidies.

  4. Not true. There are party expense write offs, donation credit $, all sorts.

    Hope you weren't implying that if all the public money were taken out, that would make it ok to keep non supporters strictly out side the wire.

  5. Wrong: Harper is talking about removing the vote subsidy, not the election donation tax credit, or the broadcast subsidy for ads and inclusion in the televised "debates".

Sign in to comment.