Laurier Club membership has its privileges. Usually one or two cocktail parties a year. A private reception at most conventions. You know, that sort of thing. It's a club that invokes the elite, dedicated members of the party to join and costs $1100 per year, effectively tapping out any further donations to any other party function.
What your membership to this elite club doesn't include however is your membership fee into the party. So, effectively, you give money to the max to the Liberal Party of Canada but it doesn't give you a membership to the party.
Conversely, if you join the Chequemate program of the party for $20 per month, you are automatically renewed as a member every year. So, you can give $240 a year and be a member of the party automatically, or you can give $1100 to the party and not be a member at all.
I think I'll cancel my LAURIER Membership today.
12 comments:
Some of us don't wish to be members of the Liberal Party of Canada, thank you very much.
Some of us as in Laurier Club members or some of as in you the general public.
LC member. My initial concern when joining the organ two years ago May was my assumption that you would automatically be included in party membership, which I didn't want. I'm a financial freelancer who began supporting the LPC upon discovering Harper's evangelical christian leanings. I was also a strong supporter of Stephan Dion's leadership and his vision for the country. I remain a member now as an observer of Ignatieff, but he is on a leash of the shortish variety.
Iggy's failure to do anything on EI has left this temporarily unemployed blogger in the lurch so I am returning the favour this year. My membership has not been renewed and my donations have been stopped. His future actions will determine whether I will vote for him or not.
The process for Unemployment Insurance wasn't changed under Chretien or Martin, including times when we had more unemployed and including times when we had surpluses.
If this is a matter of principle, why did you not leave the party then? Or more to the point, even though we made things a heck of a lot better for Canadians by reducing unemployment to record lows, there were still over 6.5% of the workforce without a job. Were those unemployed not important? Are the unemployed only important when Ignatieff is leader of the party? Did you not care for these unemployed Canadians before now?
I totally understand the economic issue facing unemployed Canadians. But this has been an issue for long before Ignatieff became leader and this budget was introduced, and yet it only becomes an issue when Ignatieff becomes leader? Yeah right it's a matter of principle.
The process for Unemployment Insurance wasn't changed under Chretien or Martin, including times when we had more unemployed and including times when we had surpluses.
If this is a matter of principle, why did you not leave the party then? Or more to the point, even though we made things a heck of a lot better for Canadians by reducing unemployment to record lows, there were still over 6.5% of the workforce without a job. Were those unemployed not important? Are the unemployed only important when Ignatieff is leader of the party? Did you not care for these unemployed Canadians before now?
I totally understand the economic issue facing unemployed Canadians. But this has been an issue for long before Ignatieff became leader and this budget was introduced, and yet it only becomes an issue when Ignatieff becomes leader? Yeah right it's a matter of principle.
James, wouldn't this be a throwback to when membership was controlled at the PTA level? I'd think that's why chequemate, which I think is an LPCO program (we called it something different in BC), could include a comp membership but Laurier Club (which is run by LPC) could not.
However, with the changes around national membership made at the last convention, including a comp membership with Laurier Club is a very good idea, and one that is not feasible. Perhaps you should suggest it to the LC people? Maybe it's just never occurred to them,
Sorry, should have said one that is NOW feasible.
Why are we charging for memberships? People dont want to be a member of the party right now and that is a bigger issue than anything else. There is no incentive to join - in fact there is a cost! What message does that send to the Canadian people about being a big tent party. We have a non-existent membership base and none of them want to donate to our party... this is a major issue. WE MUST re-engage our membership. People in this party must let go of their egos and be bold enough to empower their members and give them a stake in the party.
People are not going to want to donate if they dont even see the value in being members. I think that the real value of membership is the fact they will become members - they will feel valued and respected and will want to donate. Lets encourage Canadians to join our Party... I ask, why isn't membership to the Liberal Party free?
Dion didn't get the job done on Party membership.
Old school liberal.
The answer to your question is that I am not as old as you. During the 90's I was a university student and hated all political parties because they seem to think students and people under 30 aren't worth the effort as they clawed back grants, allowed tuition to rise, and forced everyone into student loan debt.
I have only become political in the last 6 years, mainly due to same sex marriage. I've stayed in the loop since then and liked where the party was going , ie caring for people once again.
Iggy has shown that he's taking the party to the right where business rules and people are left out to dry.
Mr Ignatieff himself expressed concern over the EI system but when it came to the budget where he could put his words into action, he forgot all those people in the pursuit of power. And he didn't support an amendment from other parties that would have done what he said needed to be done.
He failed.
I guess that is what I don't understand Jay. Dion also did nothing for EI.
If you had become unemployed a year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago, you would be in exactly the same position. Over 6.5% of Canadians have been unemployed at all times - were Chretien, Martin and Dion "leaving them in the lurch"? If not, then why single out the Liberals now?
You blame Iggy for "leaving you in the lurch" but it seems to me that it is Dion who "left you in the lurch" if you follow your line of reasoning because nothing in this budget will become effective until the spring - the wheels of government don't work that fast.
More importantly, if the Liberals did introduce some unemployment insurance now, then any additional unemployment money would not be in place until the summer or fall.
I truly sympathize with your employment situation. But I truly do not understand why you would blame Ignatieff for something that you praise Dion for. Makes no sense.
Post a Comment