Election 2015

[Jed]

Hey Altair, Did you ever listen to Tom T. Hall's song 'Faster horses, younger women and more money' ?

 

[Good2Golf]

Using taxpayer dollars for economic action plan ads that might as well have CPC logos all over it.

Like one of Trudeau's senior advisors does with Ontario citizens' taxes?

 

[PuckChaser]

Like one of Trudeau's senior advisors does with Ontario citizens' taxes?

Or these people, who Trudeau thinks are sound fiscal managers of Ontario: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-gas-plants-scandal-everything-you-need-to-know/article23668386/

 

[Rifleman62]

"how shockingly inexperienced Trudeau Obama is for someone seeking to lead our country."

 

[Remius]

To be fair Altair has some valid points.  Partisan feelings tends to blind some on all sides.

The CPC has made mistakes this campaign.  So some of this current situation is of their own doing. 

1. They are tired and frankly uninspiring.  This is normal after 10 years.  I agree with Mr. Campbell that the party needs renewing.

2. They have an incumbent issue in that many familiar names are not running this time. 

3. They are hiding their candidates.  When you have the problem listed in point 2, hiding your newer faces makes it hard for the electorate to connect.  Take the NCR.  Abdi, Balkison, Wang.  Nobody knows who they are because they haven't been speaking, giving interviews or participating in local debates.  This is playing the same way elsewhere.

4. They did too good a job attacking Trudeau.  They've been doing it since he became leader.  Expectations were very low.  Trudeau not only entered the campaign prepared he came in on the offensive.  The Trudeau in this campaign is not the same one from a year ago.  He was underestimated by both Harper and Mulcair (Mulcair said he would wipe the floor with him, clearly he hasn't.)

5. They were and are still hoping for a vote split.  It is looking like that isn't going to happen and they don't really have another plan in case someone took a significant lead or drop.

6. Long campaign.  This is probably the biggest mistake.  While strategically, trying to outspend their opponents might have seemed like a good idea, it unfortunately didn't take into account the electorate getting sick of the campaign.  When people are sick of something, the prospect of change becomes more appealing.  Plus the Liberals and NDP kept their powder dry until it counted. It also gave a lot of time for everyone and their uncle to attack them.

7. Marginalising certain groups.  I get that.  Some groups or sections of the electorate will never vote CPC.  So why even try to cater to them. CPC policies and politics are aimed specifically at their base and other groups that share their values.  So nothing for youth who traditionally don't vote, nothing for Atlantic Canada, nothing for certain ethnic groups or rather policies to appeal to certain groups at the expense of others.  This works well when you have a split electorate but when something like ABC takes form, and people might vote strategically, this plan doesn't work so well.

8. Boycotting the consortium debates.  I think it was a mistake.  Stephen Harper in my view performed well in the debates. Sadly no one saw them. The consortium debates would have garnered more attention.

9. The contrast between The leaders.  I think Trudeau is the only one who got it right. He is front and centre in most of his ads.  While he attacks he also presents what he will do (even if it is light).  the ads cater to his stronger qualities.  Stephen Harper waited to long to be front and centre. His ads were actors or scripted supporters and mostly attack and nothing real to offer.  Mulcair should have stayed off the air as he comes across creepy and should have had more generic ads.

This last week is reeking of desperation. The attack ads are bordering on the ridiculous.  The cash machine gig is in my mind silly.  And I'm not sure that the Fords was such a good idea. 

So yes.  While there are many factors that have led to where we are, the CPC has its share of the blame.

Of course Election Day and jittery voters may change all of this.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Responding to every question in question period with canned talking points.
Negative, personal and dishonest political advertising.
Complete disregard for the media.
Closed, secretive style of government.
Using taxpayer dollars for economic action plan ads that might as well have CPC logos all over it.
The muzzling of scientists
The cold calculated courting of 40 percent of Canadians that gets them the majorities they want while completing disregarding the other 60 percent of Canadians.

I suppose in a way it makes sense.  You read and hear about these things: the outbursts of temper in private that un-nerve most staffers and leave the unhardened ones near or in tears; the tight control on access granted to media; the constant on-message discipline; the demand for unwavering personal loyalty; the constant repetition of talking points; the impression that rules are for others and disregard for customary government practices; the stonewalling and denial of the least sign of impropriety let alone potential genuine corruption or illegality; treatment of people who support other parties as if they are an "enemy"; the wooden public persona; careful guarding and hoarding and obfuscation of information that might shed some truths; a closed and secretive nature about everything; etc.

And yet in spite of all that, in the primary and general most progressives and a large number of centrists are going to pull the lever for Hillary, which says something about the ethics and motives of all of those voters.

I don't believe the explanations of anyone who climbs on the high horse to denounce Harper's character flaws and use those to rationalize a voting choice.  Adrian Dix should never have been elected party leader if the same flaws and hypocrisies did not exist in all factions.  ABC is a collective temper tantrum organized and fanned by people angry that Harper united the right; angry that he bumped out Paul Martin and two more leaders; angry that he defeated the coalition-that-could-not-be; angry that he won a majority; but mostly: angry that he took away a bunch of rice bowls.

The LPC are off to a fine premature start - they'll meet with (private) industry figures to start planning some energy policy, but won't meet with the (public) PCO to go over the TPP.

 

[Altair]

I suppose in a way it makes sense.  You read and hear about these things: the outbursts of temper in private that un-nerve most staffers and leave the unhardened ones near or in tears; the tight control on access granted to media; the constant on-message discipline; the demand for unwavering personal loyalty; the constant repetition of talking points; the impression that rules are for others and disregard for customary government practices; the stonewalling and denial of the least sign of impropriety let alone potential genuine corruption or illegality; treatment of people who support other parties as if they are an "enemy"; the wooden public persona; careful guarding and hoarding and obfuscation of information that might shed some truths; a closed and secretive nature about everything; etc.

And yet in spite of all that, in the primary and general most progressives and a large number of centrists are going to pull the lever for Hillary, which says something about the ethics and motives of all of those voters.

I don't believe the explanations of anyone who climbs on the high horse to denounce Harper's character flaws and use those to rationalize a voting choice.  Adrian Dix should never have been elected party leader if the same flaws and hypocrisies did not exist in all factions.  ABC is a collective temper tantrum organized and fanned by people angry that Harper united the right; angry that he bumped out Paul Martin and two more leaders; angry that he defeated the coalition-that-could-not-be; angry that he won a majority; but mostly: angry that he took away a bunch of rice bowls.

The LPC are off to a fine premature start - they'll meet with (private) industry figures to start planning some energy policy, but won't meet with the (public) PCO to go over the TPP.

If it makes you feel any better I hate Hillary Clinton. She's everything I hate in a politician.

I'm not angry because harper took away my rice bowl. In fact, if the CPC had a more inclusive man or woman at the helm, less divisive leader, the LPC and CPC platforms would be a toss up for me. There are some thing I like in both.

But when you cannot stand the man who leads the party for the reasons I have stated earlier, I become part of the ABC and my choices are NDP or LPC.

Looking at the platforms, I much prefer LPC.

My hope is that if the CPC loses on election day, they take some time and reflect on what went wrong. Work on improving. What I hope they do not do is what you and a bunch of others are doing. Blaming external forces for this. The media is not to blame, the electorate is not stupid and ignorant, this isn't a massive temper tantrum.

The CPC needs to have a aar and figure out that the vision of Canada that they offered isn't resonating with Canadians.

 

[jollyjacktar]

If it makes you feel any better I hate Hillary Clinton. She's everything I hate in a politician.

I'm not angry because harper took away my rice bowl. In fact, if the CPC had a more inclusive man or woman at the helm, less divisive leader, the LPC and CPC platforms would be a toss up for me. There are some thing I like in both.

But when you cannot stand the man who leads the party for the reasons I have stated earlier, I become part of the ABC and my choices are NDP or LPC.

Looking at the platforms, I much prefer LPC.

My hope is that if the CPC loses on election day, they take some time and reflect on what went wrong. Work on improving. What I hope they do not do is what you and a bunch of others are doing. Blaming external forces for this. The media is not to blame, the electorate is not stupid and ignorant, this isn't a massive temper tantrum.

The CPC needs to have a aar and figure out that the vision of Canada that they offered isn't resonating with some Canadians.
[/quote ]

FTFY  I'm a Canadian, their vision suits me more than the others overall.

 

[TwoTonShackle]

If it makes you feel any better I hate Hillary Clinton. She's everything I hate in a politician.

I'm not angry because harper took away my rice bowl. In fact, if the CPC had a more inclusive man or woman at the helm, less divisive leader, the LPC and CPC platforms would be a toss up for me. There are some thing I like in both.

But when you cannot stand the man who leads the party for the reasons I have stated earlier, I become part of the ABC and my choices are NDP or LPC.

Looking at the platforms, I much prefer LPC.

My hope is that if the CPC loses on election day, they take some time and reflect on what went wrong. Work on improving. What I hope they do not do is what you and a bunch of others are doing. Blaming external forces for this. The media is not to blame, the electorate is not stupid and ignorant, this isn't a massive temper tantrum.

The CPC needs to have a aar and figure out that the vision of Canada that they offered isn't resonating with most Canadians.
[/quote ]

FTFY x2  I'm a Canadian, their vision suits me more than the others overall.

 

[Altair]

^^^^That guy.

 

[Lumber]

9. The contrast between The leaders.  I think Trudeau is the only one who got it right. He is front and centre in most of his ads.  While he attacks he also presents what he will do (even if it is light).  the ads cater to his stronger qualities.  Stephen Harper waited to long to be front and centre. His ads were actors or scripted supporters and mostly attack and nothing real to offer.  Mulcair should have stayed off the air as he comes across creepy and should have had more generic ads.

I don't have cable, so I only get political ads over the radio. However, I was actually very pleased with Steven Harper's daily radio ads. He'd have a new one everyday, and I felt they were very candid and honest. Most refreshingly, they were not attack ads in any way.

 

[observor 69]

Lynton Crosby ditches Harper's flailing campaign

By Fram Dinshaw in News, Politics | October 15th 2015

Australian master strategist Lynton Crosby has reportedly abandoned Stephen Harper's campaign, just four days before Canadians choose their next government, according to a ThinkPol report.

Crosby's apparent departure could not have come at a worse time for Harper, who is falling behind in the polls to Justin Trudeau's Liberals. The prime minister is facing widespread criticism for for speaking at a Toronto rally on Tuesday with scandal-plagued ex-Toronto mayor Rob Ford in attendance, who has previously admitted using illegal drugs including crack.

But Crosby's business partner, Mark Textor, has recently been ramping up efforts to distance his partner from Harper's campaign, a full month after reports that Crosby was hired by the Conservatives.

At time of writing, Crosby's supposed whereabouts could not be confirmed by those in the know, but Twitter users have already swung into action, many of whom are mocking both Crosby and Harper online under the #notincanada hashtag.

However, this hashtag was set up by Textor to demonstrate that the strategist was not physically in Canada during the election, showcasing him admiring landscapes or biking and not helping Harper. When Maclean's asked what Crosby's role on the Conservative campaign was, Textor replied, "Nothing."

Right-leaning British blogger Paul Staines, who has written about Crosby under the name Guido Fawkes, told National Observer that he had "no insight" about the strategist's latest activities.

Some suggest that Crosby left Harper's campaign after becoming upset over the prime minister's decision to seek backing from both Rob Ford and his brother Doug, widely seen as a last-ditch gambit to retain power.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/10/15/news/lynton-crosby-ditches-harpers-flailing-campaign

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's all take a deep breath here and relax.  The election hasn't even happened yet and some of you are already feeling defeated. 

Polling doesn't mean anything, its only uses are swaying public opinion and getting different media outlets airtime.  An election isn't a baseball game, it's a one off event, so I'd wager that stats don't really matter that much and we may be very surprised come election night. 

Every political party has a fairly solid base they are working from so the election will be close but nothing is out of the realm of possibility, even someone getting a majority, despite what the pollsters say.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two Globe and Mail journalists speculate on what some of the fiscal outcomes might be like IF (you're right Drew, It ain't over till it's over) the Liberals win, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/what-the-liberals-economic-plan-would-mean-for-canada/article26838610/

What a Liberal victory would mean for Canada's economic policies

BILL CURRY AND BARRIE MCKENNA
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Oct. 15, 2015

The federal government’s economic policy priorities are in line for a significant shakeup should current polling trends hold through to voting day.

From a policy perspective, a Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau would represent a more interventionist federal government on economic matters, particularly in areas such as infrastructure, pensions, the environment and balanced budgets. And some key questions have remained unanswered by the party, including how a Liberal government would respond to provincial calls for more generous health-care transfers.

The Liberal Party’s rise in national polls appears to have continued through the Thanksgiving weekend and is now at 37.1-per-cent support as of Oct. 14, according to nightly tracking by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail and CTV.

Support for the Liberals is up 3.6 percentage points from a week ago and it has continued to rise after the long weekend, which pollsters had said would be a key moment for Canadians to solidify their voting intentions after discussing politics with family and friends.

In contrast, Conservative support has slipped 2.2 percentage points to 29.4 per cent over the past week. The NDP’s downward slide appears to have levelled off. The party now has 23.7 per cent support, down 0.5 percentage points from a week ago. The margin of error for the survey of 1,200 respondents is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Infrastructure

The centrepiece of the Liberals’ economic plan is a pledge to fund up to $5-billion a year in additional infrastructure spending by running budget deficits over the next three years. In essence, a Trudeau government would borrow more money to pay for such things as roads, bridges, seniors’ homes and flood-control systems.

The Liberals argue that now is the time to invest because interest rates are low, the economy is slow and the country badly needs to upgrade aging infrastructure.

The downside is that the federal budget, now balanced, would return to deficit. The Liberals acknowledge they would run “modest” deficits of nearly $10-billion in the first two years, and then return to balance in 2019-20. While the extra spending would add to the federal debt load, Mr. Trudeau insists a growing economy will keep the debt-to-GDP – a key measure of the government’s ability to manage debt – on a downward trajectory.

But critics say the money wouldn’t come fast enough to lift the economy, would plunge Ottawa back into chronic deficits and will make future tax cuts less likely. There are also worries that money would be wasted on poorly conceived projects, including what the Liberals loosely define as “social” and “green” infrastructure.

Yet, there are plenty of sound reasons for governments to invest in infrastructure. Every dollar invested in roads or bridges typically has a multiplier effect, generating more than that in economic growth.

And most economists agree that Ottawa can afford to borrow and spend more, at least in the short term. A deficit of roughly $10-billion represents just 3 per cent of the federal budget and 0.5 per cent of GDP.

Taxation

Liberal campaign ads regularly feature Mr. Trudeau promising to raise taxes on the top 1 per cent to cut taxes for the middle class. In practice, this would mean a new federal tax bracket of 33 per cent on income above $200,000, up from 29 per cent.

The cut would be on income earned between $44,701 and $89,401, which would drop from 22 per cent to 20.5 per cent. This would also benefit Canadians who earn more than $89,401, but Mr. Trudeau has declined to answer questions as to how he defined the term middle class.

The Liberals argue these two changes will be revenue neutral. The tax hike would raise $3-billion in federal revenue and the cut would reduce revenue by $3-billion. Critics have cautioned that tax-the-rich policies have a history of failing to raise as much money as expected.

Britain adopted a similar tax hike in 2010, but later reversed it in 2012. A government report said “the underlying behavioural response was greater than estimated,” meaning high-income taxpayers found creative ways to avoid paying the higher tax.

The Liberals acknowledge this could be a problem. The platform includes a reduction of $600-million a year in expected revenue as a “prudence” measure to cover tax avoidance, but there are questions as to whether that adjustment is enough. The party also promises to boost tax enforcement.

Some economists have expressed concern with the psychological effect of a higher-than-50 per cent combined federal-provincial top income-tax rate, which is a measure used for international tax-competitiveness comparisons.

With a new higher federal bracket, the combined top tax rate would climb to 58.75 per cent in New Brunswick, 54 per cent in Nova Scotia, 53.53 in Ontario and 53.3 per cent in Quebec.

To be announced

One of the most obvious flaws of the Liberal economic plan is that some key initiatives aren’t fully priced out, or require negotiating with provinces and territories, which seldom agree on anything.

The most obvious example is the promise to create “a strong and stable” pension program. An improved Canada Pension Plan is a worthy goal, given that many Canadians don’t have workplace pensions or enough savings to maintain their current standard of living when they quit working. Yet, experts disagree on whether an across-the-board increase is needed or something more targeted.

There are scant details in the Liberal platform. The presumption is that an “enhanced” CPP would be paid for via higher employee and employer contributions. A similar plan proposed in Ontario has been sharply criticized by business groups and the federal Conservatives as a job-killing payroll tax. Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne now says she would drop her plan, slated to begin in 2017, if a federal government led by Mr. Trudeau pursued a national plan.

Perhaps the largest hole in the Liberal economic plan involves how Ottawa would pay for promised health-care improvements. Here, too, Mr. Trudeau leaves a lot up to the willingness of the provinces to play ball.

A proposal to cut prescription drug costs depends on working with the provinces.

The platform is silent on the larger question of whether a Liberal government would stick to the Conservatives’ decision to cap health transfers to the provinces at the rate of economic growth. Health costs, which gobble up roughly half of provincial spending, are rising at roughly three times the rate of economic growth now, and the provinces will eventually look to Ottawa for more.

Similarly, climate change will be one of the most immediate policy concerns for whoever becomes prime minister after Oct. 19, given that world leaders will meet in Paris in early December for a key United Nations conference on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Unlike the Conservatives and the NDP, the Liberals have not said what targets they would propose at the conference. Mr. Trudeau said he would propose a plan and targets based on consultations with the provinces that build on policies that they are already pursuing to put a price on carbon emissions.

Working with the NDP

Should the Liberals form a minority government, they would most likely require the support of the NDP to win confidence votes. The NDP will expect to see some of its policies implemented in exchange.

The economic platforms of the two parties have significant overlap in terms of priorities, such as expanding the Canada Pension Plan, maintaining the age for qualifying for Old Age Security at 65, cutting the small-business tax rate from 11 per cent to 9 per cent, spending more on infrastructure and working with the provinces on a more aggressive approach to climate change.

One of the most challenging points of difference would be on trade. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is highly critical of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, while Mr. Trudeau has said his party is pro-trade and would submit the deal to a vote in Parliament.

Of course, Messers Curry and McKenna assume that the Liberals plan to actually keep most of their promises ... my own, personal political memory, which goes back over a half century, says that's highly unlikely ... even prime ministers, like Diefenbaker and Mulroney, who won HUGE, historic majorities, and those like Jean Chrétien who won majority after majority kept relatively few election promises. Expecting M Trudeau to be any different is to assume that he will bring us roses and lollipops flavoured with unicorn farts.

If (still a Great BIG IF) M Trudeau wins a majority he will have to contend with a caucus that is all over the map from fiscal conservatives, like Scott Brison, through silk stocking socialists, like himself, to socialite Manhattan Rosedale Marxists like Chrystia Freeland, and with a civil service that is conservative, which is to say cautious, in matters of economic and foreign policy and very progressive in social and legal matters.

If he wins a minority then he must, of course, barter for support from (most likely) the NDP or (less likely, but quite possible on e.g. the TPP) the CPC.

My guess, IF M Trudeau wins:

    1. The TPP gets agreed ~ the civil service Mandarins are, overwhelmingly, free traders. His own party's senior hierarchy is much the same;

    2. the F-35 gets cancelled ~ just like the EH-101 that Prime Minister Chrétien cancelled in 1993, keeping a visible campaign promise (one about which almost no one cared but one about which he could say:  "promise made, promise kept");

    3. The HST/GST stays the same. The TFSA contribution limits are rolled back. Some minor changes are made to both some tax brackets and to some of the boutique tax breaks Prime Minister Harper has introduced;

    4. We stay "engaged" in the Middle East, for good or ill, much as now ~ CF-18s bombing and, broadly, solid, but less vocal and/or visible, support for Israel; and

    5. The defence budget stagnates.

 

[Lumber]

My guess, IF M Trudeau wins:

    1. The TPP gets agreed ~ the civil service Mandarins are, overwhelmingly, free traders. His own party's senior hierarchy is much the same;

    2. the F-35 gets cancelled ~ just like the EH-101 that Prime Minister Chrétien cancelled in 1993, keeping a visible campaign promise (one about which almost no one cared but one about which he could say:  "promise made, promise kept");

    3. The HST/GST stays the same. The TFSA contribution limits are rolled back. Some minor changes are made to both some tax brackets and to some of the boutique tax breaks Prime Minister Harper has introduced;

    4. We stay "engaged" in the Middle East, for good or ill, much as now ~ CF-18s bombing and, broadly, solid, but less vocal and/or visible, support for Israel; and

    5. The defence budget stagnates.

So my day to day life is going remain essentially the same and I won't practically notice that the governing party has changed?

Gosh I love living in Canada.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's all take a deep breath here and relax.  The election hasn't even happened yet and some of you are already feeling defeated. 

Polling doesn't mean anything, its only uses are swaying public opinion and getting different media outlets airtime.  An election isn't a baseball game, it's a one off event, so I'd wager that stats don't really matter that much and we may be very surprised come election night. 

Every political party has a fairly solid base they are working from so the election will be close but nothing is out of the realm of possibility, even someone getting a majority, despite what the pollsters say.

Another Ekos poll, showing a slight, marginal, tightening of the race:

Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/marginally-significant-narrowing-of-liberal-lead/

 

[Edward Campbell]

As expected, Canada's largest and arguably most influential newspaper, the Toronto Star, has endorsed Justin Trudeau as their choice to be our next prime minister.

The Star says, "Canadians are a decent, progressive people who deserve a decent, progressive government that holds out the prospect of a better and more constructive future. [and] Fortunately, when they go to the polls on Oct. 19 voters will be able to choose a strong, hopeful alternative to the Harper Conservatives: Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party. They have crafted an alternative vision for the country that deserves the support of those who believe Canada can be more generous, more ambitious and more successful."

The endorsements will be coming thick and fast now, and they will not all be for M Trudeau. The Edmonton Journal, for example, says that "The choice, still, is Harper" in an editorial that goes on to say, "the bottom line remains the bottom line [and, therefore] Now more than ever, we need a “moderate and sensible” economic plan for Canada, which is what Harper’s Tories have promised, and delivered, for the last 10 years. And why we are endorsing them again in 2015."

 

[Edward Campbell]

The endorsements will be coming thick and fast now, and they will not all be for M Trudeau. The Edmonton Journal, for example, says that "The choice, still, is Harper" in an editorial that goes on to say, "the bottom line remains the bottom line [and, therefore] Now more than ever, we need a “moderate and sensible” economic plan for Canada, which is what Harper’s Tories have promised, and delivered, for the last 10 years. And why we are endorsing them again in 2015."

And, of local interest to me, the Ottawa Citizen also endorses Ptime Minister harpewr Conservatives, despite polling that indicates that Ottawans really want change.

I, pretty much, share the Citizen's view when its editorial says:

    "There is a lot to be unhappy about, after nine years of Harper rule. He has picked political fights with major pillars of our democratic system – Elections Canada, the judiciary, officers of parliament – for no obvious reason
      apart from the fact that they appear to stand in his way. Under his watch there were unreasonably high levels of moral and even criminal corruption among some of those closest to him. He has indulged his MPs in their quest to make
      a mockery of Question Period.

      Nevertheless, there are two serious issues facing Canada right now: Ongoing economic uncertainty, and an increasingly unstable situation in the Middle East. In the face of the worst economic downturn in a generation, Harper has made
      sure that Canada remains on secure economic footing, something both his opponents’ plans put at risk. When it comes to confronting ISIL and the threat of global terror more generally, only the Conservatives are prepared to treat the
      matter with the strength of conviction it deserves.

      When you look at the Conservatives’ record, it is clear that the problem is not with their actual agenda, but with the manner in which they have chosen to go about implementing it. Strip away the hard partisanship and chip-on-the-shoulder
      populism, what remains is a government that has presided over a prosperous and united Canada in the face of powerful countervailing forces. For this alone, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives deserve to be returned to power
      on October 19."

 

[Good2Golf]

Conduct, not content...absolutely.  :nod:

Maybe the Citizen will keep real-time track of how many promises JT, if elected, breaks?

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin, Sun News, has a new Predictionator ...

   

          ... which is pretty consistent with everyone else, but he cautions that:

          "... a lot of little things could move this way and that way in regions across the country where the outcome is still very much in doubt. And even tiny moves of voter sentiment in, say the Lower Mainland in British Columbia,
          could make a big difference in terms of who the Official Opposition is and maybe even which party forms the government. And then there’s the voter turnout story. Younger voters — who don’t vote — love the Liberals.
          Older voters — who do vote — love the Conservatives. If voter turnout is down among older voters and voter turnout improves with the under-35 crowd well then …

          So that’s Predictionator’s view. Many of the country’s newspapers have other views.

          The national editorial for my chain, Sun Media,  endorses the Conservatives:

              "We urge you to vote for the leader and party you believe is best qualified to lead Canada.

                On that basis, we endorse Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

                Harper successfully led Canada through the worst recession since the Great Depression, emerging in better shape than almost any other developed country."

          The Ottawa Citizen today also endorses Harper . . .

          … as does the Vancouver Sun.

          … and the Edmonton Journal."