Election 2015

[Fishbone Jones]

Both leaders have said they would keep income splitting for seniors, and Trudeau went as far as to assert that during the Maclean debate.

But really, I have no more interest in this discussion. Believe what you will.

That was quick. Thought you weren't talking about it anymore.

 

[Altair]

Very happy to be voting liberal for Mr Trudeaus attributes  ;D


I'm not surprised ...  :dunno:

There are many things I think about Stephen Harper and those who would even consider voting for him.

I usual try not to judge people on their choices however. But clearly I'm naive or terminally bloody foolish.

Maybe we can keep the political discourse here relatively high.

 

[Kirkhill]

How long does someone need to be out of his "lane" before skill fade shows?

How long does someone need to be a full-time nationally prominent politician before you acknowledge he is no longer middle class, and really has no clue what being middle class means in concrete terms unless he has been routinely shopping for groceries, living in a middle class neighbourhood, leading a middle class life.

My parents grew up working class, and sure as sh!t aren't working class anymore.  All of my grandparents grew up working poor, and two of them died very much middle class+.  People - especially reporters and political fartcatchers (well, forget them, it's what they do) - should stop peddling bullsh!t about how politicians' childhoods and upbringing are necessarily relevant to the pots and chickens they are promising today.

>I said it's a wash. Income splitting, tax cuts for middle class, 15 dollar a day daycare, means based UCCB, none is inherently superior to another.

Anything which leaves pure cash with no attachments in the pockets of families with children is superior to any targeted benefit.  Money for daycare, or tax credits for particular activities, are inherently inferior.  Someone has already cited relevant information; the LPC and NDP objection to income splitting is that it benefits people who already have some money.  But so too will their subsidized daycare plans.  The daycare scheme is critical to the NDP and LPC because each must win well in QC, and QC is starting to find its daycare scheme unaffordable.  QC wants more money from the RoC, and daycare is a vehicle to deliver it.  The NDP and LPC are hoping to create another net transfer into QC without RoC noticing.  So far the media are letting them get away with it.

Brad - based on my observations - largely from across the pond - the more radically left wing a politician is the more likely he has never had to work a day in his life.  And has never actually dealt with the consequences of their choices.  Corbyn is the latest to follow, after the Millibands, after the (Wedgewood) Benns.    Something to do with Fabian guilt?

 

[biernini]

Brad - based on my observations - largely from across the pond - the more radically left wing a politician is the more likely he has never had to work a day in his life.  And has never actually dealt with the consequences of their choices.  Corbyn is the latest to follow, after the Millibands, after the (Wedgewood) Benns.    Something to do with Fabian guilt?

Let's not kid ourselves and think that this is only a symptom of the left.  It's prevalent in all extremists who tend to think in black and white and have little to no experience with the thousands of greys of day-to-day life.  GW Bush and Stephen Harper are just as disconnected and removed from consequences as anyone you care to mention on the left.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his blog, David Akin, of Sun News, asks if the Trudeau "war-room" failed the leader:

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/when-a-war-room-fails-a-leader-trudeau-truthiness-and-the-economy/

When a war room fails a leader: Trudeau, truthiness and the economy

David Akin - September 14th, 2015

Last Friday, every newsroom and, one would assume, every campaign war room in the country, would have seen the following advisory from the Department of Finance:

                The Department of Finance will release the Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada at 9:00 a.m. ET on Monday, September 14, 2015.

    The Annual Financial Report summarizes the Government’s financial results for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015, including the budgetary balance. The Department is also
    releasing updated Fiscal Reference Tables, which provide annual data on the financial position of the federal, provincial-territorial and local governments.

And everyone who saw that would have immediately understood its importance. This Annual Financial Report (AFR), with numbers verified by the Auditor General of Canada, would tell us once and for all whether the Stephen Harper Conservatives ran their 7th consecutive deficit for the 12-month period ending on March 31, 2015 (known for the rest of this post as fiscal 2015 or FY15) or broke free and ran a surplus.

In Budget 2015, the Conservatives themselves said FY15 would be the last of a string of deficit budgets and did not commit to being out of deficit until the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, 2016 (and shall be referred to as fiscal 2016 or FY16). Their political opponents have been saying all campaign long that FY15 would be a deficit. But many independent observers thought that FY15 would show a small surplus.

So everyone knows this scorecard is to be made public at 9 ET.  Every major newsroom in the country (including mine) was offered a chance to get a copy of the report at 8 ET on the condition we would not broadcast or publish details until 9 ET. I was one of those journalists that agreed to this routine embargo condition and accepted the report.

Nonetheless, the Liberal campaign — which did not get an embargoed copy — scheduled its leader, Justin Trudeau to make an announcement on support for seniors at 8:30 ET on Monday morning, 30 minutes before the release of the Annual Financial Report (AFR). Trudeau’s announcement was made in Toronto in front of a seniors advocacy group. The announcement itself took only a few minutes but then, rather than immediately take questions from reporters, Trudeau played host to a town hall-style Q & A from the assembled seniors. The clock, meanwhile, ticked toward 9 ET.

At 9 ET, Trudeau was still talking to the seniors. A few minutes after 9, he invited questions from the media. The very first question, not surprisingly, was about the information that every reporter had had in front of them for an hour but which neither Trudeau nor any of his advisors had seen:

REPORTER: "You spent a lot of time attacking Mr. Harper on his economic record. Numbers just released by the Department of Finance about 15 minutes ago show that there was a $1.9 billion surplus posted in 2014-2015. So that basically balances the books a full year ahead of schedule. Given these new numbers, can you still say that Mr. Harper is a poor money manager and how do these numbers affect your own timeline? Because you have said that you won’t balance the books until 2019?"

Trudeau should never have been put in this position. His first media availability Monday should have been scheduled until later in the day so that he could have read and been briefed on the report.  Or Trudeau should have finished with reporters questions before the 9 ET release of the “surprise surplus.” Or he should have simply told reporters he would answer questions about this major budget document which he had not yet read later in the day.

Instead, he plunged right in — with disastrous results, considering he’ll be in a leaders’ debate on the economy in three days.

TRUDEAU: "First of all, let’s remind everyone accord to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, according to a wide range of experts, we are in deficit right now …"

Trudeau here is referring to a July 2015 report from the Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO report is about the cvrrent fiscal year, FY16, but Trudeau was asked about FY15 and the fact that the government was in surplus in 2015. In any event, the PBO report from July 2015 is an estimate, an estimate based on a series of assumptions about future GDP growth, about future oil prices. Since it is an estimate it is, by definition, not fact. And some of those GDP and oil price estimates have changed since that PBO report was prepared.  In any event, the Budget 2015  numbers from the Department of Finance predicted a surplus for FY16. In PBO vs Finance Canada, it’s certainly not a slam dunk that PBO is always right.

"… Mr. Harper has put us in deficit this year…"

Absolutely false. So far this year — FY16 — we have data from three months or the first quarter. After three months, we are in surplus to the tune of $5 billion. A good chunk of that surplus — $2.1 billion — is the result of a one-time gain Canada made when it sold its stake in General Motors. But the rest is the result, as Finance said when it released the numbers for June, of increased revenues. We still have a ways to go but, at least so far, we are in surplus, not deficit. Trudeau continued …

"As for last year’s numbers, we know—and we saw Mr. Harper under-spending and making cuts to veterans affairs…"

Nope. Wrong. Look to the table at page 16 of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government of Canada [PDF] — a document which the Auditor General has verified — and you’ll see that the Department of Veterans Affairs spent $121 million more in FY15 than FY14, an increase of 13.5%.

"…to aboriginal affairs…"

Wrong again. Page 16 again. Aboriginal Affairs spent a whopping $1.986 billion — billion, with a ‘b’ — more in FY15 than it spent in FY14. That was an increase of nearly 30%.

"… to seniors…"

Strike three.  I’ll quote from the AFR (p. 19): “Elderly benefits consist of Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance payments. Total benefits were up $2.3 billion, or 5.5 per cent, in 2014–15, reflecting growth in the elderly population and changes in consumer prices, to which benefits are fully indexed. The increase in elderly benefits also reflects the accrual of retroactive payments.”

"… in the billions of dollars to that he could balance the books in time for his election. it was a political goal that actually has helped us slide into the recession…"

There is no economist anywhere that has concluded the actions or inactions of the federal government caused two successive quarters of negative GDP growth, the narrowest of definitions of recession. Moreover, as consumer demand remained strong in the first half of the year and employment growth was also strong in the first half, the consensus view of most economists is that Canada was never in a recession. In any event: A sitting prime minister puts the country in recession so he can get credit for balancing the budget? After running six deficits that were incurred to pull us out of recession? Does that even make sense?

"… that Canada is the only G7  country in [recession] right now …"

Let’s call this one a “Likely Wrong” again. I don’t know how every other G7 country is doing but Canada was in that narrow technical recession from January through to May. In June, the month for which we have the most recent data, the economy grew 0.5%.  There is no economist I am aware of predicting negative growth for the current quarter or for the rest of the year. Now, most are predicting “sluggish” growth but growth is growth. The Bank of Canada said in July growth should be about 1 % this year.  So while only a handful would say we were in a shallow technical recession earlier this year, there ain’t any I know of to say we’re still in recession.

"… but our economic platform to invest in canada, to invest in the future is not based on the past few bad months that Mr. Harper has had. it’s about the past bad ten years that Mr. harper has put forward. Canadians I’ve talked to across this country recognize that we need investment in housing, in public transit. in growing the economy. Because Mr. Harper has been unable to create that growth. and we are committed to balancing the budget in 2019 —"

The budget is balanced right now. And two of his political opponents believe it should stay balanced.

"… and we will do that be being fiscally responsible and by growing the economy to the kind of investments in jobs and in Canadians that we need. We are the party that is telling Canadians the truth about the economy."

Truth about the economy? The truth is we a) ran a surplus in FY15 b) are in surplus after the first quarter of FY16 and c) spending by Ottawa on veterans, aboriginal affairs, and seniors increased in 2015 in absolute and relative terms compared to 2015.

A war room forewarned — as it was on Friday — should be forearmed. On a day when everyone and their uncle knew the big deal would be surplus or deficit, the Liberals sent their leader unprepared. And then it failed to follow up later in the day in any substantive way to challenge the numbers or the economic record of the incumbent they’re trying to beat.

So we have a young man ~ a nice young man, I hasten to add ~ who has been sent out "unarmed," in terms of talking points, by a "war room" that is, largely I think, staffed with veterans of the Kathleen Wynne campaigns (not amateurs). That war room must have known that the Department of Finance report would dominate the news, one way or another. So my question is: why did they let M Trudeau down? Are they, despite their fearsome reputation based on their success in Ontario, rank amateurs? Or did M Trudeau choose to ignore them?  Or did M Trudeau and his team decide that he is not intellectually "up" to handling a complex shift in message?

And, another question: will Team Trudeau start, now, to tell the truth about spending on veterans, aboriginals and seniors? Or, will they just continue to lie because they believe enough Canadians are stupid enough?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail's elections newsletter (sent ot subscribers by e-mail), are John Ibbitson's thoughts on the state of Prime Minister Harper's campaign:

Harper took a hit but still has a shot

CAMPAIGN NOTEBOOK

By JOHN IBBITSON (@JohnIbbitson)

After a perfectly dismal six weeks, the Conservatives are looking to reboot their election campaign. And you know what? They might succeed.

Having launched the election in August, Stephen Harper proceeded to underperform in the first leaders’ debate, face endless questions from reporters about who knew what in the Mike Duffy affair, fend off accusations that he had led the country into a surprise recession and mishandle – or so it seemed – the issue of Syrian refugees. The Conservatives fell into third place in the polls, albeit by only a point or two.

But the Mike Duffy affair has receded into the background. Recession or no, the Tories are always happy to talk about the economy, as their latest ads suggest.

We may be starting to see the first signs of a reaction from voters who aren’t sure it’s a good idea, as the NDP and Liberals demand, for Canada to rush through security checks in order to bring in far more refugees from Syria than most other anglosphere countries are taking.

And Mr. Harper will have a second crack at his opponents Thursday, when The Globe and Mail hosts a national leaders’ debate on the economy.

The latest Nanos numbers have the race back to a three-way tie. Hardly reason for champagne corks to pop in the Tory war room, but a distinct improvement from a week ago. Stay tuned.

DAILY TRACKING FROM NANOS RESEARCH

Nik Nanos: “Three-way tie continues for fourth night of tracking.”

    Conservatives: 30.2 per cent (up 4.0 from last week)
    NDP:                31.3 per cent (down 1.4 from last week)
    Liberals:          30.3 per cent (down 0.5 from last week)
    Green:              4.3 per cent (down 1.7 from last week)
    Bloc:                2.6 per cent (down 1.1 from last week)
The margin of error is 2.8 points.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Uh oh, I suspect CPC fortunes are looking up if even Lawrence Martin, dean of the Harper Haters™ is worried, as he appears to be in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-tories-may-have-been-down-but-theyre-not-out/article26361236/

The Tories may have been down, but they’re not out

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2015

Beware of conventional wisdom. The prevailing prattle has it that the Conservatives are doing dismally this election season, when in fact they have lost no ground since their campaign began. The latest supposition was that they would take a hit in opinion polls from the Syrian refugee crisis. They haven’t.

They have gone through all kinds of adversity, from revelations at the Duffy trial to the resignation of candidates – the crank caller and that other charm-school dropout, the urinator – and still their support holds.

The Tories aren’t toast. It’s the progressive parties who need worry about getting burned. Talk to liberally minded voters and you can sense fear and frustration growing. The Liberals and the New Democratic Party are backed by close to two-thirds of the Canadian electorate. But there’s a strong chance they’ll lose because they divide up that support in equal measure. That is precisely the formula Stephen Harper’s Conservatives need to win.

There are reasons for the potentially lethal split on the opposition side. One is that with the New Democrats having moved to the centre, particularly on economic policy, they and the Grits inhabit the same precinct. They’re difficult to differentiate. It’s Tweedledee and Tweedledum and from an electoral perspective, is it ever dumb.

For progressives, it invites a cursed-case scenario in which the Harper party can be re-elected with about 33 per cent of the vote. Should this happen, the bitterness on the centre-left will be palpable. Several Canadian elections have been won with percentages in the 30s before, but on those occasions the divide was usually between Liberals and more like-minded Progressive Conservatives. The latter lacked the zealotry of the current Harper bunch. There wasn’t the polarization.

The refugee crisis offers a good example of progressives’ frustration. They assumed the issue was hurting the Harper party. But the Tories’ stance against a major increase in refugee intake has the backing of more than one-third of the population. That’s all they need. Given the electoral math, given our democracy’s deformities, the Tories can bring in policies that 65 per cent of Canadians oppose and still be popping champagne corks.

When they kicked off their campaign in early August, the Conservatives trailed the NDP. Now they’ve caught them. If the Tories can do this with their what-else-can-go-wrong campaign, what might happen if they start getting things right? It’s a safe bet they’ll do better in the second half of the campaign. It’s a safe bet the Liberals and the New Democrats will continue beating each other up despite their many parallel positions.

With a virtual three-way tie at the top, the progressives need one of their parties to break away. If their combined 60-per-cent support were split 40-20, the Tories would be doomed. But such a separation is unlikely to happen. One of the parties’ support would have to collapse. The NDP is rock solid in Quebec and strong in British Columbia. The Liberals have seen momentum move in their direction since the campaign began.

Many see hope in strategic voting by supporters of the two opposition parties; that in the closing days, voters will rush to whichever party has the best chance of dethroning Mr. Harper. That’s a lot more complicated and unlikely than it sounds.

More bad news for progressives is Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s stated opposition to forming a coalition. That diminishes the chances of a quick overthrow of a Harper government, should it form a minority.

Many scenarios are possible with such a minority. Progressives would hope that it would be defeated in due course on a confidence vote and power then handed over to them. But there’s no guarantee the Governor-General would do that. Mr. Harper would likely ask for another election – and not since 1925 has a governor-general rebuffed the wishes of a prime minister on a major initiative.

All said, the malfunctioning Tories are functioning well enough to win. A large majority of Canadians, pollsters report, want change. But the way our system works, what the majority wants doesn’t determine outcomes.

Of course, being Lawrence Martin, he has to repeat the old "majority" lie. It's true that a majority, by recent polling, wants someone other than Prime Minister Harper to be elected, but there is no majority in favour of either M Mulcair or M Trudeau, both, in fact, are (statistically) tied with the prime minister in support). In truth, about 90% of Canadians want, in about equal measure, one of Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and/or Justin Trudeau to lead the government.

 

[Kilo_302]

Interesting piece about Harper's religious beliefs the role they place in his policies. His church is, shall we say, less than rational on most issues.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/09/14/Covert-Evangelism-Stephen-Harper/

'Smartest evangelical politician'

For starters, Christianity Today pegged Harper as "The Smartest Evangelical Politician You Never Heard Of" in 2006.

Harper had a secret formula for not being likened to George W. Bush or Sarah Palin, said the magazine. It included "keeping his God talk below the media radar." And Harper has maintained that discipline.

Next comes the union made by Big Oil and right-wing evangelicals in Alberta. When the Petroleum Belt linked to the Bible Belt more than 50 years ago, the province forged a unique Republican-style political culture.

In fact, Harper's views draw upon and are part of a tradition that goes back to Ernest Manning and Sunoco president J. Howard Pew of oilsands fame.

In the 1960s both men shared Protestant evangelical views and even vacationed together in Jasper every summer.

When Pew, the American equivalent of a Saudi sheik in terms of wealth and power, encountered resistance to his bold bitumen mining plans in Fort McMurray (conventional oil drillers feared the project could tank oil prices), he had a talk with his pal, premier Ernest Manning.

Shortly afterwards, the government smoothed things over and approved the first oilsands project in 1964. Pew then helped to fund Manning's popular radio show Back to the Bible Hour.

Pew's deep pockets also extended to conservative political lobbying. He helped to finance the far-right John Birch Society as well as the American Enterprise Institute, where Republican speech writer David Frum later worked for a number of years.

Pew also cultivated the famous evangelical energy of Billy Graham. To Pew, Manning and Graham, the Great Canadian Oil Sands Project represented a triumph of the evangelical Protestant spirit as well as "the right to extract all of the bountiful gifts of the great Creator and in ways that affirm their dominion over the earth," writes Darren Dochuk in his marvellous historical account, American Evangelicals and the 1960s.

So Harper's low-key Christian fundamentalism (he doesn't discuss his religion in public) is not some inconsequential belief system but remains part of an ongoing Alberta political legacy where, as one U.S. scholar put it, "the forces of oil and evangelism have had a longer and more entwined relationship" than Ottawa journalists have ever reported.

Israel as keystone

The Israeli press understands Canada's new religious reality. During Harper's celebrated state visit to Israel in 2014 the local press published an analysis noting that views of "the devout evangelical Christian prime minister" probably played a key role in Canada's new strategic union with the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Under Netanyahu, anti-Arab harassment and hatefulness have reached dangerous heights. Even the conservative Israeli president Ruvi Rivlin has despaired about the racism, extremism and "thuggishness that has permeated the national dialogue" in Israel.

A 2012 poll showed that one-third of Israelis don't think that its two million Arab citizens should have the right to vote, and half would strip their citizenship rights. Many citizens now believe that Israel's democracy, in which right-wing Orthodox Jews hold increasing sway, is sick.

But that's not what Canadians now hear from their evangelical prime minister. His government has declared a "zero tolerance" approach towards groups that support boycotting Israel to protest its dealings with Palestinians, conflating criticism of state policies with "anti-Semitism." That meant the Canadian government has identified as enemies such boycott backers as the United Church of Canada, Canadian Quakers, labour and student groups.

KAIROS, a Christian foreign aid group, was "defunded" by the Harper government in 2009 for criticizing Israel, according to then immigration minister Jason Kenney. That startling admission, notes McDonald in her book, demonstrated that "some expressions of Christianity were acceptable and others were not" in Harper's theo-con Canada.

The evangelization of Canada's Israeli foreign policy (previous governments held balanced views that recognized the plight of the Palestinians) began promptly in 2006.

Since then Harper has constantly attacked Israel's enemies and backed every military operation. His government routinely describes the killing of Israel soldiers as "appalling." Yet the Harper government has not once used that adjective to describe the impact of residential schools on First Nations or the startling number of murdered or missing Aboriginal women in Canada.

So why has Harper become Israel's "staunchest supporter?" asked the Times of Israel when our PM visited the country in January 2014. "Harper is Canada's first evangelical prime minister in 50 years, and most observers accept that his faith plays some role in his support for Israel," explained its Toronto-based contributor.

Citing McDonald's book, the column added that Harper has backed Israel with such fervour that some scholars and diplomats "rank it as the most dramatic shift in the history of postwar Canadian foreign policy."

Who's on board

Other evangelical politicians saluted Harper's rapturous visit. Sarah Palin, for example, tweeted: "Thank you to our good neighbors led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for their exemplary support of our friend Israel. It's wise and prudent for Canada and America to stand together against evil that would seek to destroy Israel."

So religion not only powerfully influences domestic policy in Canada, it has also radically reshaped the nation's foreign policy in a direction more in tune with the U.S. administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Both men courted the evangelical vote and both acted as fervent supporters for Israel.

The composition of Harper's delegation to Israel also spoke volumes about his beliefs and Ottawa's new directions. It included 21 rabbis and more than 56 representatives from various Zionist lobbying groups (including the Canadian chapter of the militant Jewish Defense League, a "violent extremist" organization according to the FBI in the United States, where it is outlawed.)

Representatives from evangelical Christian groups also joined the "historic" pilgrimage but hardly any came from mainline churches. The select group included Harper's own church the Christian and Missionary Alliance of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Trinity Bible Church, Crossroads Christian Communications and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada.

Many hold extreme views. The Ontario-based Crossroads Christian Communications has described homosexuality as a "perversion" and a "sin." It received $544,813 in funding from the Harper government for foreign aid work in Uganda, prompting a public uproar.

Former Tory cabinet minister Stockwell Day, another Pentecostal and former Alberta and Tory politician, also joined the delegation. Day sits on the board of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), one of the most powerful pro-Israel lobbying groups in Canada.

Awaiting Armageddon

The visit and its photo-ops were sure to appeal to evangelicals who believe that Israel is a nation chosen by God to play a special role in history based on their Americanized reading of the Bible.

Some Christian Zionists argue that Israel must be defended at all costs so that the end of the world unfolds as Biblically foretold. Without an intact Israel, goes the theology, there can't be an Armageddon.

Many of these Christian Zionists are dispensationalists who believe that if Israel gets into a huge battle with the Arab states, the destruction might actually invite the second coming of Christ. (Only about a third of U.S. evangelicals are dispensationalists and many belong to John Hagee's Christians United For Israel.)

Such novel beliefs oddly make both the state of Israel and the Jewish people players in an end times theology largely espoused by white evangelical churches in the United States.

Several years ago Timothy Webber, a U.S. evangelical scholar, explained this extraordinary theology to journalist Bill Moyers:

"Without Israel in the land, there can be none of the other events prophesied in the Bible. There can be no rise of Anti-Christ. There can be no rebuilding of the Temple. There can be no Battle of Armageddon. And there can be no second coming of Jesus Christ. So everything is riding on the Jews, getting them there and keeping them there in the Holy Land."

U.S. evangelist Jerry Falwell typically proclaimed in 1981: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel."

The founder of the Harper's chosen Christian and Missionary Alliance church certainly leaned towards dispensationalism. Given his church's own website lists as a core belief that the end of the world is nigh, Harper himself may be a dispensationalist. No Ottawa journalist has asked him. (It's unlikely the smartest evangelical politician you never heard of would answer the question.)

But Canada's foreign policy in the Middle East can sound a lot like dispensationalism. Defending Israel wasn't just the right thing to do, Harper preached to Israel's parliament in 2014. "Through fire and water, Canada will stand with you," he thundered in closing his speech.

Onward Christian voters?

Canada's evangelical Christians are highly organized, well-funded, strongly disciplined and much more prone to vote than other Canadians. Yet it would be a mistake to assume that all of Canada's three million evangelicals agree with Harper's policies or the way he has exercised power.

Many, for example, find his refusal to address climate change a matter of moral outrage.

Contrast Harper's studied intransigence on the subject with the sentiments of Richard Cizik's New Evangelical Partnership:

"Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God Himself."

The great issue here is deception. Harper has inserted an agenda into the life of the nation without a full declaration or any transparency. He pretends to be a boring centrist when in reality he represents, in many cases, the views of an extreme religious minority.

Despite the denials of some Ottawa journalists, the evidence that Harper's evangelical views have greatly influenced Canadian foreign and domestic policy are now overwhelming.

Religion explains why Harper appointed a creationist, Gary Goodyear, as science minister in 2009; why the party employs Arthur Hamilton, as its hard-nosed lawyer (he's an evangelical too and a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance); why Conservative MP Wai Young would defend the government's highly controversial spying legislation, Bill C-51, by saying it reflects the teachings of Jesus; and why Canada's new relationship with Israel dominates what's left of the country's shredded foreign policy.

It also explains why Harper would abolish the role of science advisor in the federal government only to open an Office of Religious Freedom under the department of Foreign Affairs with an annual $5-million budget. Why? Because millions of suburban white evangelical Christians consider religious freedom a more vital issue than same-sex marriage or climate change.

While such gestures helped pull evangelicals into Harper's coalition (a 2011 poll found Conservatives attract 50 per cent of regular churchgoers), Harper now faces some backlash from some of the most ardent "theo-cons" he's wooed. Many evangelicals today feel that Harper has not gone far enough. Many regard the man more as a political opportunist than as a true believer.

Of approximately 30 evangelical MPs that followed Harper into power in 2006, most have stepped down for this election. One, James Lunney, even resigned from the party to run as an independent member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Alberni.

Lunney did so as he called critics of creationism "social bigots," and railed against what he describes as "deliberate attempts to suppress a Christian worldview from professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine and academia."

'Faith as an opportunity'

Harper, who prefers to let his policies do the talking when trying to connect with Christian fundamentalist voters, probably was not sorry to see Lunney go. Lunney's forthright expression of his beliefs made him a liability to Harper's overall re-election strategy.

Indeed, the subversive nature of Harper's religious agenda may be a factor in his party's obsession with media control and secrecy, and why less than five per cent of Conservative candidates now agree to interviews with reporters. Harper wants the evangelist vote, but he also wants voters who are made uneasy by Christian fundamentalist social views and apocalyptic yearnings.

Although Harper remains most comfortable with the worldview of evangelicals, says Marci McDonald, he is probably more of a political opportunist than a true believer.

"Harper uses faith as an opportunity politically to build a base that he saw working in the United States with the Republicans," McDonald told The Tyee. "And he has got a lot of vocal support from the States to build that base."

Whether Harper lets evangelism be his guide because of his faith-filled heart or his strategy-spinning head matters little. In the process he has demolished science libraries and environmental science funding; defunded women's groups and Christian groups that don't speak in evangelical tongues; and concocted a "values-based" foreign policy that puts Israel first.

Many Christians (and I'm one of them) find this undeclared agenda not only abhorrent but also fundamentally anti-Christian. The great Protestant philosopher, Jacques Ellul, believed "Christian faith tells us that we should live, not how we should live."

Ellul read the Bible as "antipolitical" in the sense that Jesus regards political power as idolatrous. "Christianity offers no justification for political power; on the contrary, it radically questions it," explained Ellul.

That is hardly the theology of Stephen Harper, who has reshaped the Canadian government in service of a covert evangelical mission. [Tyee]

 

[Edward Campbell]

Rational is not an adjective one ought to apply to the word religion ... any religion or any denomination thereof.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, there is one more opportunity to attack M Trudeau and, maybe indirectly, M Mulcair, too: the foreign policy debate hosted by the Munk Centre is in danger because, in my opinion, "Team Trudeau" is afraid to put M Trudeau up against Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair in an unscripted debate, because he's "Just Not Ready."

Further, as an aside, M Mulcair would like to focus on anything but foreign policy because it's not a strong suit for the NDP, he's afraid, of stirring up the NDP's loony left base.

But, now, CBC News Alerts has Tweeted that "#TomMulcair will participate in #MunkDebate. Had raised questions about whether Thursday's debate was fully bilingual." That suggests that M Trudeau's team is still frightened of the idea of an unscripted debate on an issue about which M Trudeau is ignorant. I think a one-on-one debate on foreign policy between prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair would be interesting and informative for Canadians. I think adding Justin Trudeau to the debate is about on a par with adding Elizabeth May: neither is consequential.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think adding Justin Trudeau to the debate is about on a par with adding Elizabeth May: neither is consequential.

Perhaps, but it could be entertaining.

 

[cupper]

Perhaps, but it could be entertaining.

Entertainment and ratings.

That's the real reason Trump is in the US debates, not this leading in the polls BS. :nod:

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Always nice to get Hitler's opinion.  He thinks his socialist buddies, Mulcair and Trudeau, are blowing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-F201REWU

 

[Jed]

Always nice to get Hitler's opinion.  He thinks his socialist buddies, Mulcair and Trudeau, are blowing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-F201REWU

Hilarious!

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Interesting Horsesh!t piece about Harper's religious beliefs the role they place in his policies.

More hand-waving, and bigoted intolerant insulting hand-waving at that.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

>Interesting Horsesh!t piece about Harper's religious beliefs the role they place in his policies.

More hand-waving, and bigoted intolerant insulting hand-waving at that.

Yes, I wonder where Kilo_302 found such intolerant hateful stuff.  Isn't this something the Human Rights Commission should have a look at?  I guess not, it's run of the mill socialist hate.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, I wonder where Kilo_302 found such intolerant hateful stuff.  Isn't this something the Human Rights Commission should have a look at?  I guess not, it's run of the mill socialist hate.

There's a reason why that member is on my ignore list and shall remain so.

 

[larry Strong]

Yes, I wonder where Kilo_302 found such intolerant hateful stuff.  Isn't this something the Human Rights Commission should have a look at?  I guess not, it's run of the mill socialist hate.

The Tyee, Rabble.ca......same O\same O drivel as The Rebel and Fox News

Cheers
Larry

 

[Altair]

I see the CPC circle... love.... has started.

I'll just bow out and let you gents enjoy. :nod:

 

[suffolkowner]

I still think the Conservatives/Harper have the inside track on a minority government. The Syria question and budget are strong points in their favour. For myself I have not decided who I will vote for yet. There has been nothing brought forward by anyone that impresses me. I have read nothing that impresses me about my local candidates, and having not met them in person?? I have never been undecided this late in the game. I blame this on poor policy formations. A Conservative party that is not conservative. A Liberal party that is not liberal and well the NDP, not sure what they are.