Enough to own all podiums into eternity - Macleans.ca

Enough to own all podiums into eternity


The Liberals figure the Conservatives could save $1.2-billion if they cut advertising, consulting and polling expenditures back to pre-2006 levels and reduced cabinet back to 31 members.


Enough to own all podiums into eternity

  1. Yeah, we could have snowboarders and bobsledders run the government.

    • Yes, there's been enough mindlessness in this string of posts already.

    • So then is that a "please continue" from s_c_f on the Tory government's huge cabinet and advertising, consulting and polling spending that outstrips that of Jean Chretien?.

      If there's one thing Prime Minister Harper learned from Adscam it's how important it is for a government to spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on advertising, consulting and polling.

      • I'm not a fan of big government, especially big government programs. Polling and consulting seem to me to be things I'd like the government to do. Polling tells them what people want, and consulting is just normal business practice. Advertising, not so much. I'd like to see them kill the advertising.

        • Actually, advertising is very important, It would be wonderful if our elected officials could only dedicate themselves to do their job, but PR is almost as important, in this day and age is even more important with the world shrinking with all this technology.

  2. Isn't there still money missing from adscam ??

    Maybe we'd have enough money for own the podium then too.

    • LOL.. that was pretty quick. Usually it takes at least an hour before the "But what about Adscam" comments to come out. They must be touchy on this one.

      Tell you what, how about you worry about getting the money back from the Airbus thing first.

      • Documents show that this PMO spends less than Martin's.

        Can we get back the budget of Martin's PMO too? Or Chretien's cabinets in the later years ?

        Hypocrisy doesn't wear well.

        • So you absolutely refuse to look at what our gov't is doing today?


          Nice kneepads, btw.

        • Aha, the old Charmin' Ultra argument: less is more.

  3. Somehow, I don't think this is what the Tories were referring to when they talked about reducing the size of government over the next few years.

  4. Not often I agree with Liberals but I would be quite happy if they focused on this issue for a few weeks. Less consultants, less polls, would resonate with many people I think because we don't need to government to spend even $$$ on marketing. It would be nice change if all parties focused on governing instead of how to spin their inane and vacuous policies.

    • done right, polling and public consultation processes are still the most efficient methods of gathering mass opinion on what kinds of policies should be made a priority, and the appetite for change.

      Do they need to spend such exorbitant amounts? Probably not. But are they worthwhile? Done properly, absolutely yes.

      • Maybe we shouldn't be letting a political organization (the PMO) decide where and how to spend polling dollars. If they want data to help win elections, that's what the Tory warchest is for. If it is to help inform government policy, the results should be immediately published to the House of Commons. The PMO works for Parliament.

        • Well, if the party wants data, they have to pay for it with party money, and that's their business. But the surveys that ministries or departments pay for (with government funds) can almost always be requested through FOI by the public and data go through the department/ministry bureaucrats and into the Archives. MPs can easily access those survey data if they want it. In audit reports, you can usually find out how much each ministry and department spends on polling – and to which firms.

          Furthermore, government departments are not permitted to gather polling data on vote intent or political preferences – it compromises their independence, and it's unethical.

  5. How would the government know what to think if they didn't ask the people every time?

    • http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/stor

      MP Lunney has no time for church group 'bullies'
      The Daily News
      Published: Monday, February 22, 2010

      Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney says he won't be bullied into meeting a church group upset about federal funding cuts to international aid organization KAIROS.

      "The message is, don't try to intimidate your MP," he said.

      Lunney was responding to the concerns of Hans Kratz, chair of the Parksville-Qualicum KAIROS group, who says he has tried for months to arrange a meeting to no avail, calling the MP's behaviour "undemocratic."

      See also:


      • "don't try to intimidate your MP"

        Oh, that's just an invitation for fun…

  6. Does this mean the Liberals will put a cap on the number of cabinet ministers and the amount of advertising, etc. they will do after they are elected? Also, I would have to see this in their election platform with ways of holding them accountable. Perferably, some sort of recall!!

    • Dunno.. perhaps we should elect them and find out.

      • Isn't that the Liberals' slogan for the upcoming election campaign? Elect us first, and then we'll tell you what we're going to do.

        • Seems to work for Harper.

          • To be fair, it's not that he didn't tell us what he was going to do. It's that he neglected to mention that his campaign was an elaborate version of "Opposite Day"

        • In 2007, Parliament passed a law fixing federal election dates every four years and scheduling the next election date as October 19, 2009 . . .

          On August 27, 2008. Harper asked Governor General Michaëlle Jean to cancel her trip to the Paralympic Games in Beijing, adding fuel to speculation that the Prime Minister would seek a dissolution. On September 7, 2008 after much speculation, Harper asked the Governor General to call a federal election on October 14, 2008

          October 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

          Conservative party leader and current Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was questioned during last week's debates as to why his party hadn't released the details of their election platform.

      • We've done enough of that over the years, we don't need to elect them to find out.

  7. "The Liberals figure the Conservatives could save $1.2-billion if they …"

    Yeah, but those are LiberalDollars, not real, conservative dollars. "Figure", heh, doesn't exactly sound like audited GAAP stuff.

  8. If the Liberals ever get back into power they can practice what they preach. The hypocrites.

      • Actually, no. The very article that you link to states: "But the Liberal government of Jean Chretien spent much more than either [the Martin government or the Harper government] in fiscal 2003 — purchasing advertising worth $111-million. " So according to the numbers in the article, the Harper govt spent less than the Chretien government. Basically, gold goes to Chretien, silver to Harper, bronze to Martin. As an added bonus, unlike Chretien's gang, Harper's gang didn't turn around and steal that money and give it to their party.

        Nice selective use of quotation there.

        • Whoops – that's what I get for skimming the article. Your point is well-taken, I didn't realize that Martin had cut back so drastically from Chretien.

          BTW, it wasn't "selective quotation", that's not my style. I retyped the headline as it wasn't apparent from the URL.

        • yeah, there was more spending in 2003, but if I'm not mistaken, that was when the whole SARS thing was taking place. What exactly was happening in 2007?

  9. I watched Power & Politics and they had on a Nobel prize winner for economics and the guy said pretty much what McCallum said AND he said our success is because of our banking regulations – bingo ! Thank you Messrs. Chretien and Martin, it looks like your policy that Harper lobbied against and voted again and now you brag about is what truly helped us.

    Harper, be nice, be a gentleman and give credit where credit due.