Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


“In and out” electoral scheme explained easily.

Just a little follow up to my last blogpost done very early this AM: I sometime have gotten frustrated at the media explaining the Conservatives “in and out” electoral scheme as being “complex”.  This is the media narrative the Conservatives want and have been pushing themselves (in addition of course to the false statement that “other parties do it too”) in order to confuse the public.

Over at Impolitical, she explains very clearly in 2 sentences or less what the “In and Out” scheme is about:

…the federal Conservatives targeting unused local budgets across the country by moving funds in-and-out leads to additional untold millions in a national spending advantage for Conservatives. And that’s a violation of the equal playing field electoral rules we have.

That’s all there is to it. Very simple, and one the other parties should be pushing over and over again to the public. I believe one would call this the KISS explanation of “in and out”.

(The link inside her explanation, if you’re wondering, shows how they get that spending advantage. A tad longer, but worth reading).


7 comments to “In and out” electoral scheme explained easily.

  • Walkswithcoffee


    How quickly we forget. I spent two years explaining it to you (and its many facets) and you banded me from talking about it at Pro Blogs. It took you nearly three years to get it… so give the public a little time to hear the message: these guys are involved in advertising scams and money laundering.



  • Whooee! While it ain’t really too complicated, there’s an angle the Con’s are trying to promote that doesn’t wash. The idea that it is only a case of the CPC spending CPC money is not the whole story. The fact that the CPC candidates are claiming these as expenses gives them the right to be reimbursed for 60% from the public coffers. Therein lies the real fraud and therein lies the crux of the matter that will not play well with taxpayers.

    The idea of overspending is an ideological one. Granted, they did overspend and break rules. The claims for reimbursement of money not spent by local candidates is not an ideological matter. In-and-out is a case of out-and-out fraud.


  • Joseph

    Thanks for the post! That has bothered me from day one on this.

    It is not complicated, and those friends of mine who are even remotely engaged understand it. So I’ve often thought the wasted ink papers use to try to explain how “complicated” it is could instead be used to offer a sentence or two of explanation. They wouldn’t even have to change the flow of the article, just “snip” the “this is complicated” language with the replacement “here is what they did” explanation.

    Perhaps with the renewed attention, perhaps a few in the media might take that to heart. I’m sure there readers might want to understand better why the conservatives can’t be bothered to even try to explain themselves anymore.

  • slg

    I tend to wait until trials, committee hearings, etc. are complete and a judgment comes in before I would fully say anyone is guilty.

    That has now changed. I believe they are guilty because of their antics and shenanigans.

    If they were innocent, the wouldn’t need to do this.

    I think Harper and Putin have more in common than Harper and Bush.

  • The Tories are doing it again, according to CTV, four more witness’s did not show up (probably…. told not to)!
    They would not be guilty…would they……what are they afraid of ?

  • […] to an MP, reduces food inspections right before a major food quality scandal, and whose party breaks election campaign finance laws to bilk taxpayers out of close to $1M. It takes a lot of talent and connections to do all […]

  • […] be a new thing — for the Conservatives. They are used to having tax payers pay for their In-and-Out schemes, and for their MP propaganda mail-outs that don’t go to the correct […]

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.