Election 2015

[Scott]

So this:

Maybe we can keep the political discourse here relatively high.

Is followed by this:

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

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

Care to explain this one, bubs?

Scott
Staff

 

[Kirkhill]

So this:

Is followed by this:

Care to explain this one, bubs?

Scott
Staff

Scott - let him rest.

 

[Remius]

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.

I'm on the same page as you.  And likely will not vote in advance polling due to this.  The NDP was starting to look like a government in waiting but then went full retard on spending promises I doubt they can keep without sending us into an economic downspin.  The Liberals, started to make me look at them twice when they started with the whole green energy thing, which was a key reason why I voted against the provincial counterparts.  I don't trust teh conservatives on some of the issues that matter to me, and despite not being a "Harper Hater", it's his many MPs I have an issue with.  All three main parties have given me plenty of reasons not to vote for them and very few reasons to actually vote for them. 

This will likely be a choice based on candidates for me.  Likely the incumbent candidate for me.

 

[Kilo_302]

>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.

Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual? What exactly, is intolerant about examining a politician's religious beliefs and how they might influence policy? The question as to why our government seemingly wants LESS data upon which to base policy is an important one, and this article makes considerable strides towards answering it.

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.

I'm not seeing the "hate" in this piece. But I WOULD invite you to become familiar with the beliefs of the church that Harper belongs too. THAT is some hate.

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

Why don't you read the article and debate the points the author is making? This is election is important, and I fail to see how the rather extreme religious beliefs of our PM shouldn't factor in the discussion. Whatever you think about environmental science, our government has cut funding to science across the board. Last I checked, science wasn't a political football. Though facts DO have an inherent liberal bias.

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

Cheers
Larry

There is a definite left wing bias in Rabble and Tyee. BUT there is a difference between them and the likes of Fox News. Fox is regularly busted for dishonest reporting and getting facts wrong. Rabble is a collection site that often features columns from reputable papers and other outlets. So does Tyee. If you see issues with the facts as the author is presenting them, enlighten us. I'll be the first to admit this piece is gunning for Harper. But shouldn't the  "mainstream" and "reputable" media be held to account for NOT reporting on what should be a relatively important story? Don't you care that our PM might believe in the "end of days?" This is important.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Day after tomorrow is Labour Day, soon, sometime after Labour Day, the polls will actually start to matter.

That being said, here is David Akin's latest Predictionator:

And here is an updated Predictionator from David Akin:

The race is getting closer ...

 

[Old Sweat]

And mostly prominent old guard NDP have just issued a manifesto sponsored by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis that pretty well shoots down Mr Mulcair's attempt to move the party to the centre. This report by Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press (original can be found at National Newswatch) is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of capitalist economy
By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Sep 15 2015Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email
OTTAWA — Just as Tom Mulcair attempts to convince Canadians that the NDP is a safe, moderate choice in the Oct. 19 election, some of his party's highest profile supporters are issuing a manifesto calling for a radical restructuring of the country's economy.

The "leap manifesto," signed by more than 100 actors, musicians, labour unions, aboriginal leaders, environmentalists and other activists, aims to pressure the next federal government to wean Canada entirely off fossil fuels in as little as 20 years and, in the process, upend the capitalist system on which the economy is based.

The drivers of the manifesto are best-selling author Naomi Klein and her husband Avi Lewis. It echoes the theme of Klein's latest book: "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate," which was turned into a documentary of the same name, directed by Lewis.

Today's release of the manifesto coincides with the debut of the documentary over the weekend at the Toronto International Film Festival.

The dramatic transformation envisioned in the manifesto is in stark contrast to the pragmatic platform Mulcair is offering: balanced budgets, an openness to free trade deals, sustainable development of Alberta's oil sands, no tax hikes except for a "slight and graduated" increase in the corporate tax rate.

Yet among the celebrity signatories are a number of prominent NDP supporters, including former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, father of Avi, who gave a rousing introduction for Mulcair at a campaign event in Toronto last month.

Others signatories who've declared their NDP sympathies include pop duo Tegan and Sara, singer-songwriter Leslie Feist, Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuf and Paul Moist, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Stephen Lewis doesn't see his support for Mulcair as inconsistent with the manifesto, which he notes is also signed by people from other parties, including Roy McMurtry, a former Ontario chief justice and one-time provincial Conservative cabinet minister.

"For the New Democrats, it's an extension of the kinds of things they've been talking about," Lewis said in an interview.

"When Tom Mulcair talks about climate change and the importance of dealing with global warming in Canada and internationally, this is an extension — admittedly a dramatic and vivid extension — of the kinds of things that many of us yearn for."

Starting with the premise that Canada's record on climate change is "a crime against humanity's future," the manifesto argues the country needs to make the leap from fossil fuel dependence to getting 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources — a feat it maintains is feasible within two decades.

This means adopting a new "iron law" of energy development: "If you wouldn't want it in your backyard, then it doesn't belong in anyone's backyard," to be applied equally to pipelines, fracking, increased oil tanker traffic and Canadian-owned mining projects abroad.

In the process, the manifesto envisions a transformation of the entire capitalist system into a Utopia in which the economy is "in balance with the earth's limits," jobs "are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality," agriculture is "far more localized and ecologically based," and low-carbon sectors of the economy, like caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media, flourish.

The signatories declare their belief in "energy democracy," in which energy sources are collectively controlled by communities, rather than "profit-gouging" private companies.

They call for an end to "all corporate trade deals" that interfere with attempts to build local economies and regulate corporations.

In contrast to Mulcair's insistence that running deficits puts an unfair economic burden on future generations, the signatories declare that "austerity — which has systematically attacked low-carbon sectors like education and health care, while starving public transit and forcing reckless energy privatizations — is a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth."

The signatories assert that the money to pay for the transformation they envision is readily available. All it requires is for the federal government to end fossil fuel subsidies, cut military spending and impose financial transaction taxes, increased resource royalties and higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

Other manifesto signatories include actors Ellen Page, Rachel McAdams, Sarah Polley, Pamela Anderson and Donald Sutherland, singers Bruce Cockburn, Neil Young, Gord Downie, Sarah Harmer and Leonard Cohen, novelists Michael Ondaatje and Joseph Boyden, environmentalist David Suzuki, anti-free trade activist Maude Barlow, artist Robert Bateman and film director Patricia Rozema.

Joan Bryden , The Canadian Press

 

[ModlrMike]

Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of capitalist economy

I read that this morning.  :facepalm: is all I have to say. I'm sure this is the "loony left" base of the NDP that Mr Campbell was talking about.

Now, from the never say never category:

Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau confirm participation in Munk Debates

op:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual?

It's a bullsh!t article which relies chiefly on one common rhetorical tool: persuade the reader to impute unfavourable characteristics by association.

Example: the article discusses Mr Pew at length, and then jumps to this: "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."

The writer invites the reader to assign to Mr Harper the actions and beliefs of a third party (some of the claims are merely hearsay).  Do you see it?  Do you understand that people can share some things in common without sharing everything in common?

Example: the article discusses another third party's characterization of Harper as "the devout evangelical Christian prime minister".  That is someone else's opinion, not a fact.

Example: the article discusses end-times theology of some groups in Israel and the US, and then again tries to slide Harper into the mix.

Here is a simple question: Barack Obama is either a disciple of Jeremiah Wright and the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright by virtue of attending the latter's church, or he is not.  If he is not, can you explain why?  Because if you choose "not" and can explain why, you can probably identity the parts of the piece that are neither factual nor logically coherent.

>I'm not seeing the "hate" in this piece.

It's a passive-aggressive hit job.  Understand: when a person says - in essence - "Fu<k X", I take it as an affront if I am a supporter of "X".  I am not fooled by passive phrasing of "Fu<k X", and I do not accept, "Oh, but I didn't mean you" as an escape clause.  I've never had to push anyone's buttons very hard to get from "Fu<k X", to "Fu<k you, too".

 

[Jed]

>Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual?

It's a bullsh!t article which relies chiefly on one common rhetorical tool: persuade the reader to impute unfavourable characteristics by association.

Example: the article discusses Mr Pew at length, and then jumps to this: "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."

The writer invites the reader to assign to Mr Harper the actions and beliefs of a third party (some of the claims are merely hearsay).  Do you see it?  Do you understand that people can share some things in common without sharing everything in common?

Example: the article discusses another third party's characterization of Harper as "the devout evangelical Christian prime minister".  That is someone else's opinion, not a fact.

Example: the article discusses end-times theology of some groups in Israel and the US, and then again tries to slide Harper into the mix.

Here is a simple question: Barack Obama is either a disciple of Jeremiah Wright and the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright by virtue of attending the latter's church, or he is not.  If he is not, can you explain why?  Because if you choose "not" and can explain why, you can probably identity the parts of the piece that are neither factual nor logically coherent.

>I'm not seeing the "hate" in this piece.

It's a passive-aggressive hit job.  Understand: when a person says - in essence - "Fu<k X", I take it as an affront if I am a supporter of "X".  I am not fooled by passive phrasing of "Fu<k X", and I do not accept, "Oh, but I didn't mean you" as an escape clause.  I've never had to push anyone's buttons very hard to get from "Fu<k X", to "Fu<k you, too".

Thank you Brad for putting words to my thoughts when I read such drivel as this a fore mentioned article.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This Federal Court of Appeal ruling appears to be another loss for the Conservatives but, in fact, it's a political win because parts of the Conservative base have been wavering, I'm guessing, over a range of issues (Duffy, the economy, refugees) but many will now come back into the fold because this issue ~ the line between personal privacy (a right, in my opinion) and public participation (a duty) ~ matters to a lot of them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The "leap manifesto"

There is stupid and foolish, and then there is the Really Big Stupid and Foolish. 

I invite all supporters of the "leap manifesto" to move into an urban high-rise and remain there while we make the transition.  When the food riots begin and the mobs start sacking everything in sight for firewood, I invite them to become the first to kill themselves so that there will be a little more to share among those who had no hand in the decision to condemn everyone.

 

[Remius]

Another candidate dropped over online comments...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-blair-dale-newfoundland-cpc-1.3229260

We're going to need a thread just to track these lol.

 

[cupper]

I read the article and took it with a grain of salt. I cannot comment on the validity of the writer's comments, as I have not looked into Harper's religious background. Frankly I couldn't give the south end of a north facing rat whether he's Evangelical Christian, Catholic, Closet Muslim or a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He keeps his religious views private.

But many of the things the writer opines (yes, that's why it is found in the opinion section) can be explained by other stances that Harper has more fully expressed. The staunch Pro Israel / Anti Palestinian stance could be credited to the stance on terrorism Harper has taken. Same with the examples listed about Bill C-51.

What I have found interesting in contrasting views between Canada and the US since moving south is the difference in the view and approach to Separation of Church and State. In the US it is an explicit part of the Constitution, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. In Canada it is not. However, it seems to be a constant issue in politics and society in general down here, where as Canadians don't generally wear their religious affiliation of their sleeve along with their politics. We seem to have found the balance unlike our neighbors to the south.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And mostly prominent old guard NDP have just issued a manifesto sponsored by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis that pretty well shoots down Mr Mulcair's attempt to move the party to the centre. This report by Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press (original can be found at National Newswatch) is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of capitalist economy
By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Sep 15 2015Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email
OTTAWA — Just as Tom Mulcair attempts to convince Canadians that the NDP is a safe, moderate choice in the Oct. 19 election, some of his party's highest profile supporters are issuing a manifesto calling for a radical restructuring of the country's economy.

The "leap manifesto," signed by more than 100 actors, musicians, labour unions, aboriginal leaders, environmentalists and other activists, aims to pressure the next federal government to wean Canada entirely off fossil fuels in as little as 20 years and, in the process, upend the capitalist system on which the economy is based.

The drivers of the manifesto are best-selling author Naomi Klein and her husband Avi Lewis. It echoes the theme of Klein's latest book: "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate," which was turned into a documentary of the same name, directed by Lewis.

Today's release of the manifesto coincides with the debut of the documentary over the weekend at the Toronto International Film Festival.

The dramatic transformation envisioned in the manifesto is in stark contrast to the pragmatic platform Mulcair is offering: balanced budgets, an openness to free trade deals, sustainable development of Alberta's oil sands, no tax hikes except for a "slight and graduated" increase in the corporate tax rate.

Yet among the celebrity signatories are a number of prominent NDP supporters, including former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, father of Avi, who gave a rousing introduction for Mulcair at a campaign event in Toronto last month.

Others signatories who've declared their NDP sympathies include pop duo Tegan and Sara, singer-songwriter Leslie Feist, Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuf and Paul Moist, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Stephen Lewis doesn't see his support for Mulcair as inconsistent with the manifesto, which he notes is also signed by people from other parties, including Roy McMurtry, a former Ontario chief justice and one-time provincial Conservative cabinet minister.

"For the New Democrats, it's an extension of the kinds of things they've been talking about," Lewis said in an interview.

"When Tom Mulcair talks about climate change and the importance of dealing with global warming in Canada and internationally, this is an extension — admittedly a dramatic and vivid extension — of the kinds of things that many of us yearn for."

Starting with the premise that Canada's record on climate change is "a crime against humanity's future," the manifesto argues the country needs to make the leap from fossil fuel dependence to getting 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources — a feat it maintains is feasible within two decades.

This means adopting a new "iron law" of energy development: "If you wouldn't want it in your backyard, then it doesn't belong in anyone's backyard," to be applied equally to pipelines, fracking, increased oil tanker traffic and Canadian-owned mining projects abroad.

In the process, the manifesto envisions a transformation of the entire capitalist system into a Utopia in which the economy is "in balance with the earth's limits," jobs "are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality," agriculture is "far more localized and ecologically based," and low-carbon sectors of the economy, like caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media, flourish.

The signatories declare their belief in "energy democracy," in which energy sources are collectively controlled by communities, rather than "profit-gouging" private companies.

They call for an end to "all corporate trade deals" that interfere with attempts to build local economies and regulate corporations.

In contrast to Mulcair's insistence that running deficits puts an unfair economic burden on future generations, the signatories declare that "austerity — which has systematically attacked low-carbon sectors like education and health care, while starving public transit and forcing reckless energy privatizations — is a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth."

The signatories assert that the money to pay for the transformation they envision is readily available. All it requires is for the federal government to end fossil fuel subsidies, cut military spending and impose financial transaction taxes, increased resource royalties and higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

Other manifesto signatories include actors Ellen Page, Rachel McAdams, Sarah Polley, Pamela Anderson and Donald Sutherland, singers Bruce Cockburn, Neil Young, Gord Downie, Sarah Harmer and Leonard Cohen, novelists Michael Ondaatje and Joseph Boyden, environmentalist David Suzuki, anti-free trade activist Maude Barlow, artist Robert Bateman and film director Patricia Rozema.

Joan Bryden , The Canadian Press

There is a video and more on rabble.ca's website ... it is astonishing in the depths of its economic ignorance. I'm sure these people are sincere, but they are completely divorced from reality ...  :facepalm:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

>The "leap manifesto"

There is stupid and foolish, and then there is the Really Big Stupid and Foolish. 

I invite all supporters of the "leap manifesto" to move into an urban high-rise and remain there while we make the transition.  When the food riots begin and the mobs start sacking everything in sight for firewood, I invite them to become the first to kill themselves so that there will be a little more to share among those who had no hand in the decision to condemn everyone.

If the NDP is elected I plan on stocking up on good toilet paper, seems to be one of the first things that disappears in a utopia  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here is an updated Predictionator from David Akin:

The race is getting closer ...

The Liberals see hope in sever al ridings.

I have said, several times, that I believe the Paul Dewar is very likely to be re-elected here in my own riding of Ottawa centre, but the LPC candidate, Catherine McKenna, does have a chance and this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen examines her chances:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reevely-why-liberals-say-they-think-they-can-win-ottawa-centre

Why Liberals (say they) think they can win Ottawa Centre

DAVID REEVELY

Published on: September 14, 2015

New Democratic Party incumbent Paul Dewar has won elections in Ottawa Centre three times in a row, by increasing margins — including with a majority of the vote in 2011. He’s been front and centre in his party’s talk about the refugee crisis, he’s visible locally, his party’s in contention to form the government for the first time ever: all that together has led me to write that his seat is safe unless he bites a baby.

This understandably annoys people who are running against him, who don’t like to see their chances written off before voting day. Dewar’s Liberal challenger Catherine McKenna, in particular, says she does indeed stand a solid chance of defeating Dewar, and other Liberals have argued the same thing.

Catherine McKenna, the Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre, holds a new pair of red sneakers as she speaks during a campaign launch rally outside her campaign headquarters on
Somerset St. W. in Ottawa, Sunday, August 2, 2015. McKenna's rally was held just hours after Prime Minister Harper triggered the official start of October 19 election campaign.
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Mike Carroccetto / Ottawa Citizen MIKE CARROCCETTO
Last election, a historically terrible one for the Liberals, candidate Scott Bradley came third. I still think the fundamentals favour Dewar pretty heavily, but here are the elements of the Liberal argument as I understand them.

First, Ottawa Centre has a long history of Liberal representation. Mac Harb was the last in a long line of Liberal members of Parliament representing the same general geographic area going back to the 1960s, with only occasional interruptions. Provincially, Liberal Yasir Naqvi has a lock on it and Richard Patten did before him. The fact Naqvi is Ottawa Centre’s provincial representative at the same time as Dewar is its federal MP demonstrates that the riding isn’t inherently New Democrat territory despite Dewar’s repeated wins; voters there are willing to vote Liberal.

McKenna has been campaigning for many months. She’s not just a ceremonial candidate, carrying the banner for her party. Besides being an actual person of accomplishment and substance, she’s putting in the work. I haven’t walked every street in Ottawa Centre myself, but it’s true that she’s competitive in the sign war — which is, so far, being fought only on private lawns and those are the ones that count. She’s also been active with local policy announcements, and claims to be one of the top fundraisers among Liberal candidates across the country.

Finally, as one of her campaign people put it to me today, whatever the New Democrats’ national poll numbers are, they aren’t doing brilliantly in Ontario. When the Liberals are 15 points ahead of the New Democrats in Ontario, apparently, that’s about the point where we can think of Ottawa Centre being in play. There isn’t a ton of province-level polling out there, but Nanos Research in particular has found gaps of 15, 18, even 21 points in the Liberals’ favour. Those Liberal polling leads are based on small sample sizes and they aren’t steady, but I can certainly see why they give a local campaign hope.

The Liberals have a good many viable, attractive, solid candidates in ridings across Canada. They also have some flakes ... starting, in my opinion, with the parry's leader.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder where the NDP's "star" candidate Linda McQuaig stands on the "Leap Manifesto." It strike me as the sort of nonsense that she very often spouts. The big saving grace of Ms McQuaig's candidacy is that she might beat Liberal "star" (and even bigger flake) Chrystia Freeland in the (rather posh) riding of University-Rosedale.

 

[suffolkowner]

But ERC that's the rub isn't it. What is a good candidate? What is a good party leader? What are these qualifications? How are they measured?

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on the Conservative campaign strategy for this phase of the operation in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/conservatives-aim-to-redirect-voters-attention-with-focus-on-economy/article26349820/

Conservatives aim to redirect voters’ attention with focus on economy

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
The Globe and Mail

Last updated Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2015

This is Act Two of the Conservative campaign, and Stephen Harper’s team is back to the core message, now with an alarm-bell tone. “Protect Our Economy,” say the new campaign signs now being waved behind the Tory Leader.

After six weeks of being knocked out of his comfort zone by Mike Duffy’s trial, the Syrian refugee crisis and infighting over a faltering campaign, the Conservative reboot is refocusing Mr. Harper on economic fundamentalism: low taxes, balanced budgets and dire warnings that the other parties will drive the economy into the abyss.

It’s a two-part manoeuvre. The Conservatives are trying to turn the page on the Syrian refugee crisis controversy by announcing additional measures – on Saturday, they said Ottawa would match $100-million in private relief donations – and are now amping up rhetoric on the economy to try to move the narrative back to what they consider their terms.

One catch is that it’s no longer clear the economy is an issue on which Mr. Harper has an edge with voters. But he’s definitely hoping to turn the campaign back to that channel. And this may be the right week.

On Monday, the government will release figures for the 2014-15 fiscal year that ended in March. And there might be a surprise: Some economists believe that instead of the tiny, $2-billion deficit the government projected in April, final figures will show a tiny surplus. That matters little to the economy, but a lot to Mr. Harper’s bragging rights.

On Thursday, all three major party leaders stop in Calgary for a debate on the economy hosted by The Globe and Mail. The leaders will jockey for an edge before that head-on clash on the issue voters rank at the top of their concerns.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, for example, will move before the debate to unveil his fiscal plan – the costing of the party’s promises and revenue measures to pay for them. That’s intended to blunt a key attack against the NDP: that New Democrats can’t fulfill spending promises such as subsidized child care, increased transit spending and expanded seniors health care, all while balancing the budget.

To pull it off, the NDP platform is to be phased in over years: The child-care plan, for example, would not be fully in effect for eight years. And the party will also propose a corporate-tax hike to be detailed this week.

For Mr. Harper, that topic is better than what he’s faced. The barrage of questions on Canada’s slow response to Syrian refugees pushed his party lower in the polls when voters judged him short of compassion. His support has rebounded since, according to Nanos Research, and the Tories are back in the midst of a three-way statistical tie. But it’s still a defensive issue for Mr. Harper: His core supporters don’t demand action to help refugees, but some soft Tories and swing voters do.

Instead, this week, he gets to talk about his issue, the economy, and on his turf, in Calgary. But his economic brand isn’t what it used to be. Slow growth and technical recession have taken a toll. A Nanos poll three weeks ago found 28 per cent believed Mr. Harper’s re-election would be good for the economy – less than Mr. Mulcair or Mr. Trudeau. Those are his supporters. But he needs swing voters, too.

On Sunday, Mr. Harper’s speech in Stittsville, Ont., was about the economy and nothing else – low taxes, balanced budgets and warnings that other parties will cost you money, and maybe your job. The NDP, he said, will build up debt. But Mr. Mulcair says he will balance budgets and won’t increase personal taxes. On Sunday, Mr. Harper said his party would cut the small-business tax rate to 9 per cent from 11 per cent. The NDP made that promise months ago.

Mr. Trudeau has challenged Mr. Harper in another way, arguing growth is the immediate issue, not balancing the books. By stating he’d run deficits for three years, the Liberal Leader has been able to promise expanded infrastructure spending, and while he’d raise taxes on high-income earners, he promises a tax cut for most.

Mr. Harper’s message is that the choice is “stark” – but on some economic points, at least, the other parties have crowded his turf. Still, it’s the turf he wants to fight on, after weeks of unpleasant terrain.

I remain convinced that the economy and fiscal policy is the "key terrain" for the Conservatives. This is where they can win despite Canadians broadly held dislike for Prime Minister Harper and many of his decisions, especially about people, like Senator Duffy.

For good reasons (or ill) Canadians fear the deficits M Trudeau promises and, now, the "Leap Manifesto" will give them reasons to have second thoughts about the NDP. It's a good time for the CPC to "change the channel."

 

[a_majoor]

Things like the Leap Manifesto are simply extentions of the sort of thinking that says we can "tax the rich". The people who signed the manifesto or support it are insulated from the "real world" and generally live in relative ease and comfort (usually at the taxpayer's expense) and have no conception of what it takes to make or earn that money in the first place.

The "helping the middle class by taxing the rich" mantra is similar if even more dishonest; which social and political "class" is has the ability, means and incentives to shelter their wealth? Since much wealth is in the form of accumulated assets, it is not as much on the tax deparment's radar as earned income (which is much harder to shelter, especially if you don't have a lot to begin with). Trust fund kids and silk stocking socialists simply don't encounter these issues in life, but can count on the poor to be eager to support the idea of punative taxes to fund "freestuff". Since spending (the true source of the problem) is not coming down and the "rich" can evade higher taxes, who does the burden fall upon....?