The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[GAP]

It's far and away better than the alternatives offered by the opposition parties en masse.....

 

[GAP]

Harper unveils Tory platform in Toronto

Video Link

 

[ModlrMike]

So at the end of the day our choices boil down to the following:

Two professional academics (Dion, Layton), a lawyer (May), or an economist (Harper). With global financial challenges facing us, I know who I would choose.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Polls again.

--------------------

Ekos says:

Tories retain significant lead

BQ: 10% (NC from the 6 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 34% (-1 “ )
Greens: 11% (+1 “ )
Libs: 25% (NC “ )
NDP: 20% (+1 “ )

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives at 31, Gap Narrows to 5 Points

BQ: 8% (NC from the 6 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 31% (-1 “ )
Greens: 13%  (+1 “ )
Libs: 26% (+1 “ )
NDP: 21% (NC “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

Election race tightens

BQ: 11% (+1 from the 6 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 34% (NC “ )
Greens: 6% (-1 “ )
Libs: 31% (+1 “ )
NDP: 18% (-1 “ )

--------------------

These kinds of small changes – not statistically significant – mean that the race remains stalled. The Conservatives have somewhere between 28 and 37%; the Liberals are somewhere between 22 and 34% and the NDP are somewhere between 15 and 24%. All that means:

• We’re likely to have a Conservative minority government again and it might be smaller than today. But, we still might get a very bare Conservative majority;

• The Liberals may “win” by having more seats than they do today. But, it is equally likely that the Liberals will fall to 40± seats; and

• The NDP might actually beat the Liberals in the seat count and become the official opposition. But, it is more likely that they will remain mired in 3rd place. 

 

[Rodahn]

So at the end of the day our choices boil down to the following:

Two professional academics (Dion, Layton), a lawyer (May), or an economist (Harper). With global financial challenges facing us, I know who I would choose.

Hard to argue with the cognizant facts that the countries that have implemented the green shift (Sweden and Denmark, 44 & 43% economic growth respectively) tax have shown significant growth economic since doing so. As have other European union countries.

If the green shift is being used simply as a tax grab then yes I oppose it, however if it causes our lifestyle to wake up, then I for one would be for it, given the neutral tax benefit.

Bottom line, this ain't the 50/60's anymore, and this is the only planet we currently have. We as the dominant species have to look after it, 'cause we got no where else to go.

To bury ones head in the sand (when other economists disagree) with the current economic landscape is inane in my opinion.

 

[GAP]

I still wander away from all these polls with the feeling that there is much, much more support for the conservatives than is showing up in the polls...

 

[Rodahn]

I still wander away from all these polls with the feeling that there is much, much more support for the conservatives than is showing up in the polls...

I'm not so sure about this at the moment, given the current economic climate in Ontario and Quebec... Mr. Harper appears to have disenfranchised them.

 

[ModlrMike]

Hard to argue with the cognizant facts that the countries that have implemented the green shift (Sweden and Denmark, 44 & 43% economic growth respectively) tax have shown significant growth economic since doing so. As have other European union countries.

Yes, but Sweden and Denmark would fit in the palm of your hand. Canada's challenge is our diverse geography. It takes a great deal of energy to move people and material across this land of ours. Not that I disagree with your later statements, just that using these countries as an example is a little unjust.

If the green shift is being used simply as a tax grab then yes I oppose it, however if it causes our lifestyle to wake up, then I for one would be for it, given the neutral tax benefit.

Therein lies the flaw in the plan. The Liberals in their own material expect to generate 40B in tax revenue, but refund only 26B. Where is the other 14B going?

What I would rather see than a tax are tax breaks for green initiatives. The breaks could be offered to both business and individuals so that any investment in green technology results in some form of tax reduction. For example, a company could install 100K worth of pollution control measures, and receive a 100K tax deduction. An individual can spend 6K on new, energy efficient windows and get a 6K tax deduction. I think that any measure that is all stick and no carrot is destined for failure.

To bury ones head in the sand (when other economists disagree) with the current economic landscape is inane in my opinion.

There's an old saying that if you put 6 economists in a room they'll generate 7 opinions. My recollection is that 3 banks said recession,  and 3 said downturn. Which side do you think the media focused on. Personally, I agree with Mr Harper. I think that our banks are reasonably protected from the mortgage problems of the US. I also think that given the government's positive balance sheet and steady financial policy will insulate us from the worst of the damage. What I'm seeing is a panicked sell-off. My advice would be to buy some of those shares now... they're on sale! We all know that the markets go down much less frequently than they go up, and that the losses of yesterday will more than be made up tomorrow. When the dust settles, those that held their investments will likely be better off because they will have taken the opportunity to acquire more equity at a discount.


Edit for clarity.

 

[Rodahn]

Therein lies the flaw in the plan. The Liberals in their own material expect to generate 40B in tax revenue, but refund only 26B. Where is the other 14B going?

May I ask where you get your figures from?

 

[a_majoor]

Hard to argue with the cognizant facts that the countries that have implemented the green shift (Sweden and Denmark, 44 & 43% economic growth respectively) tax have shown significant growth economic since doing so. As have other European union countries.

The European tax model is a VAT or sales tax that puts the costs directly to the end consumer, while the "Green Shaft Shift" is directed at producers (who of course can choose not to produce in Canada), and is also designed to appeal to regional voting blocks (i.e stick it to Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are Liberal deserts, in order to buy votes in Ontario and Quebec).

The other thing which differentiates the two models is the "Green Shaft Shift" siphons monies out of the productive economy and channels it to welfare ('social programs') which consume wealth rather than create it. The Nordic nations are generally using their tax receipts to invest and create real assets (think of a "sovereign wealth fund"), and ultimately reducing taxes as their governments earn income from these assets.

 

[ModlrMike]

May I ask where you get your figures from?

Well, I'll admit I can't attribute my comment to a source. None the less, they've already dipped into the tax revenue to fund social programmes.

 

[YZT580]

Before you jump on the green band wagon take a real good look at Germany.  They claim that they have created thousands of green jobs but in actuality, their industries are exiting in droves and the jobs created are on life support by the government.  They cannot stand on their own.  Electricity is about to go through the roof in any country that cannot count on either water or nuclear.  The economics of green is simple: transfer the factories to a 3rd world country i.e. China or pay Angola billions in credits to enable current production to continue.  Europe is about to feel a real big hurt and it can be greatly attributed to green.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A carbon tax, the core of Dion’s Green Shaft Shift, is a consumption tax and, therefore, is a good thing IF:

• It applies to all carbon emissions; and

• It is applied, à la the GST, at every step of the process including at the pump and home heating fuel tank – and refunded to the intermediate ‘processors,’ again à la the GST.

The Liberal Green Shaft Shift meets neither of those conditions. It is a bad thing.

 

[Rodahn]

Well, I'll admit I can't attribute my comment to a source. None the less, they've already dipped into the tax revenue to fund social programmes.

And where does any government get the funding for social programs?

 

[Edward Campbell]

And still more polls:

--------------------

Angus Reid says:

Tories Outside Majority Territory as Liberals Leave NDP Behind

BQ: 9%
Cons: 35%
Greens: 10%  =>  no recent Angus Reid polls to show trends
Libs: 27%
NDP: 18%

--------------------


Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives at 31, Gap is 4 points

BQ: 8% (NC from the 7 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 31% (NC “ )
Greens: 12% (-1 “ )
Libs: 27% (+1 “ )
NDP: 20% (-1 “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

Election race remains close, Tory lead holds at 4 points

BQ: 7% (-4 from the 7 Oct 08 result)
Cons: 33% (-1% “ )
Greens: 11% (+5 “ )
Libs: 29% (-2% “ )
NDP: 20% (+2 %)

--------------------


I may have messed up the Nanos figures yesterday – that would explain the turbulence in the BQ and Green numbers.

Overall: Harper is either stalled, deep in minority territory, or is actually losing ground as Canadians are reminded of how much they dislike him.

Being “liked” is a funny thing.

Canadians hardly knew King – communications were poor and slow. What they knew they didn’t much like but they kept voting for him. Canadians liked St Laurent – he ushered in the age of mass media – and they re-elected him a couple of times. Canadians liked Diefenbaker – until they got to know him. Canadians also liked Pearson – but they never gave him a majority government. Maybe it was more respect that affection. Canadians loved Trudeau and, simultaneously hated him – but here was no real affection, not à la St Laurent and Pearson. Canadians disliked Mulroney. They liked Chrétien. Canadians dislike Harper.

 

[ModlrMike]

And where does any government get the funding for social programs?

Yes, from tax revenues, however it is bad finance to fund programs from a tax that is designed to decrease as time goes on. If the Green Shaft Shift tax is successful in reducing carbon emissions, then it will have the net effect of reducing the income it returns to the government. In addition, we were promised the tax would be revenue neutral. I am presuming that most of us infer that to mean that as much tax will be refunded to consumers as is collected from polluters. My other problems stem from the obvious requirement to increase bureaucracy in order to administer and control this money flowing from one hand to the other. Where is the funding for that coming from?

 

[a_majoor]

Yes, from tax revenues, however it is bad finance to fund programs from a tax that is designed to decrease as time goes on. If the Green Shaft Shift tax is successful in reducing carbon emissions, then it will have the net effect of reducing the income it returns to the government. In addition, we were promised the tax would be revenue neutral. I am presuming that most of us infer that to mean that as much tax will be refunded to consumers as is collected from polluters. My other problems stem from the obvious requirement to increase bureaucracy in order to administer and control this money flowing from one hand to the other. Where is the funding for that coming from?

Stop that; you're using logic and facts again. This is not permitted when discussing "Progressive" ideas. You have been warned

 

[a_majoor]

We have seen various artist screaming "censorship", and it is true....

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=011a1893-ae23-4af4-ba0c-59ff265a5ee3

Artists themselves are the real 'censors'
Peer review groups that dole out arts grants keep things in the family

LICIA CORBELLA
CanWest News Service

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Independent filmmaker Garth Pritchard is having some fun dreaming up gag titles for his next documentary on Canada's troops in Afghanistan. So far he's had to find his own funding, but other Canadian filmmakers making soft porn seem to be getting government grants.

"Maybe if I called my next film Red Light Districts of Kabul or Young Soldiers F-ing, I could get a government grant," jokes Pritchard, referring to films that received taxpayer funding entitled Red Light Districts of the World, where viewers are treated to the spectacle of prostitutes shooting bananas from between their legs, and Young People F---ing. And while Pritchard chuckles at his own joke, the reality of what he's saying is not funny.

Arts funding has become a huge federal election issue, particularly in Quebec. Artists and opposition politicians have been attacking Prime Minister Stephen Harper for cutting arts and culture funding, despite increases for the major arts agencies.

The artists and the politicians say the Harper government is "censoring artists" by cutting $45 million from some programs. Obviously, not funding something is not censorship. The artist is free to find another donor and create art.

But if cutting off or not providing public funding is their definition of censorship, let's use it. What none of these artists ever mention is that perhaps the biggest censors of all are the "artists" who dole out taxpayers' money.

What most Canadians don't recognize is that many government grant decisions are made by artists who sit on various boards. For instance, in the case of the Canada Council for the Arts, grant decisions are peer-reviewed, which means incestuous relationships often develop between grant clients. One peer doesn't want to turn down John's wonky idea because John might be sitting in judgment the next year. So there is a tendency for outsiders like Pritchard who don't fit the artsy template to get excluded.

I met Pritchard in December 2003 in Kabul, surrounded by children in a squalid internally displaced persons' camp. Over almost two weeks, as I patrolled with Canadian troops or watched them build schools or deliver food, I kept running into Pritchard, who despite his imposing frame, melted into the background, quietly recording our troops in Afghanistan.

Pritchard, a former Gazette photographer, was there thanks to the funding of an exemplary and wealthy Calgary family that felt recording this important part of Canada's history was vital. Why did he have to get funding from a private patron and not any of the taxpayer-funded programs designed to help Canadians tell Canadian stories to Canadians?

Perhaps Pritchard's documentaries shed too positive a light on our mission in Afghanistan. Or, perhaps, they're just not kinky enough. One can only speculate.

Despite being "censored," Pritchard has produced three documentaries - Waging Peace, Friendly Fire and Chasing Shadows - from his five lengthy trips to Afghanistan.

"I've applied to almost every film fund out there," Pritchard says. "So who are the real censors? It's not Stephen Harper."

Only the History Channel has aired Pritchard's documentaries, but it didn't pay anywhere near enough to cover even the cost of his trip.

However, Canadians lucky enough to visit the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa have seen vignettes of Pritchard's documentaries in an exhibit called Afghanistan: A Glimpse of War, which also included photographs by Stephen Thorne, a Canadian photojournalist.

Dean Oliver, director of research and exhibitions at the museum, said the exhibit has been the institution's most popular one in recent history and will soon go on the road, first heading east to Newfoundland.

"The exhibit exceeded by a very wide margin what anybody thought we would get in terms of public interest," said Oliver, adding some of Pritchard's coverage is "very, very, touching and moving."

In other words, there is a thirst for this kind of storytelling that includes showing Afghan women risking their lives voting for the first time, while being protected by Canadian troops, or coverage of Canadian medics tending to a young boy who was badly burned in his family's home near Kandahar following a cooking stove explosion. All the little boy asked for after his pain was eased was for was a ballpoint pen. He died with it clutched in his tiny fist.

Why won't Canada's cultural community fund these documentaries? Ultimately, it comes down to this. These artists don't actually object to what they call "censorship" at all as long as they're the ones doing the "censoring." And they are.

That's why Pritchard can't get any cultural funding. He's just not kinky enough. It's time he sexed up his topic.

Maybe Babes in Burkas would get the cash flowing.
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008

We can fight the censors by making donations to Garth, or better yet, demanding these documentaries be shown on "public" channels like CBC and TVO, and buying the DVD's if they exist. It is long past time that a supposedly mature and profitable industry (claimed revenues @ $8 billion) is taken off the public funding trough, and artists could be able to appeal to a wide range of potential patrons, not just their buddies and bureaucrats.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and mail is an uncharacteristically optimistic look at Tory fortunes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081008.welxnanalysis09/BNStory/politics/home

How Harper can stay the course and prevail

BRIAN LAGHI AND CAMPBELL CLARK

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
October 8, 2008 at 9:54 PM EDT

OTTAWA — It's ironic that the politician who prides himself on controlling the political agenda would be relying on something as volatile as the current financial markets to stabilize his election campaign. But even Stephen Harper's supporters say their leader faces limited options in dealing with the financial crisis and needs a little luck from the unpredictable TSX to get back his political groove.

Prevented from taking significant economic action by his repeated insistence that he's on the right path, Mr. Harper must hope that the market will deliver two days of relative calm before the weekend and soothe the nerves of Canadians anxious about their savings, home values and jobs. That may provide the kind of respite Mr. Harper needs from the battering he's faced this past week and take the edge off the recent momentum enjoyed by Stéphane Dion, underlined Wednesday by one of the Liberal Leader's best speeches of the campaign.

Senior Tories say they don't believe the Conservative Leader can completely change his strategy because to do so would repudiate his recent efforts to cast Mr. Dion as a panicky spender. Their best bet, said one Tory insider, is to hope for a relatively stable few days, followed by the calm of Thanksgiving. Under that scenario, Canadians would turn their minds to whom they believe would be the best prime minister and choose Mr. Harper.

“The market has to stay calm,” the senior Conservative said. “Harper is not in a position all of a sudden to be irresponsible with his rhetoric, and he shouldn't. We're not electing Oprah prime minister.”

But even if the market behaves, the next five days will bring several events that could have a significant effect on the vote.

On Thursday, Canada's new parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, is to release his report on the costs of the Afghanistan war. A big price tag for the military effort could cause a bump in the campaign, especially in Quebec, where the mission is unpopular. It could be a headache not just for the Conservatives, but also the Liberals, who initiated Canada's mission in Kandahar and backed its extension in Parliament.

A high price tag – the NDP estimates it will be more than $10-billion since 2001 – could be a boon for the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, who have called for Canada's immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. They could tie the military effort to the Canadian economy and argue that it's not worth the cost.

“It's extremely important, particularly when we're in the economic waters we're in now and will be navigating in the next months or years,” said Ottawa New Democrat MP Paul Dewar.

On Friday, the government is to release new job figures. Significant job growth would be an opportunity for Mr. Harper to crow that the Canadian economy is more resilient than the opposition has claimed, but losses would only fuel his troubles.

TD economist Pascal Gauthier said his firm is forecasting modest growth of 15,000 jobs in September, perhaps fuelled by the public-sector. Looking forward, however, Canada could post job losses in future months.

As the weekend nears, the political parties will have to finalize their last-ditch ad campaigns, as most try to spend every remaining dollar of their spending limit reaching Canadians enjoying the weekend. One Tory said his party would try to bridge back to Mr. Dion's plans for a carbon tax under the Green Shift policy.

Tories are also buoyed by the fact that NDP Leader Jack Layton appears to be spending a significant amount of time trying to poach Liberal seats and are watching closely to see if Mr. Layton campaigns in ridings he feels he can steal from the Liberals.

Finally, the parties will have to deal with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's advocacy of limited strategic voting to defeat the Conservatives.  She said Wednesday that Canadians should think hard about the opportunity to unseat Mr. Harper and instead make Mr. Dion the minority prime minister, with Green MPs in the Commons.

Kevin Page’s report may also be an opportunity for Harper to argue that he has been moving away from the old, Liberal systems of bookkeeping and towards a modern, businesslike accounting system.

The Tory challenge is:

• ‘Soften’ Harper’s uncaring image – it cannot be replaced because he is who he is, and Canadians know it – but here is more to the man that just the fellow whose only ‘programme’ for about-to-be unemployed Canadians is “buy low, while the market’s down;”

• Emphasize the risks inherent in Dion’s plans – ignore Layton, he’s an ally right now;

• Remind Torontonians and Vancouverites that gunfights on their streets are all too prevalent.

It’s late; but not too late, perhaps ...

 

[GAP]

National Post Editorial Board: A Conservative majority serves Canada's needs
Posted: October 08, 2008, 9:30 AM by Kelly McParland Editorial, Full Comment, canadian election
Article Link

Last month, Stéphane Dion called the upcoming federal election “among the most important in the history of our country.” He may be right. Next week’s vote will determine whether Canada’s tax system is overhauled through the imposition of a massive levy on carbon-based fuels; the nature of our continuing presence in Afghanistan; and how our government will respond to the historic meltdown unfolding in financial markets. Faced with these high stakes, we believe, Canada would be best served if Stephen Harper’s Conservative government were to receive a second mandate, this time in majority form.

We have no illusions that Mr. Harper’s government has been perfect. It’s decision to tax income trusts, in particular, stands as a bald-faced betrayal of its earlier promise on the issue. Moreover, Mr. Harper did not make any serious attempt to clean up some of the more appalling residue left behind by previous governments -- the gun registry, the gag law, Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. We also have been disillusioned by the Conservatives’ continual spending increases, Mr. Harper’s flouting of his own fixed election date, and the petty, partisan spirit that often has pervaded Parliament under the Tories’ watch.

But given the huge range of other activities undertaken in the course of leading Canada, it must be said that Mr. Harper has governed the country well overall. He has stuck by Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, provided sound stewardship for the economy (notwithstanding the inevitable buffeting we are now taking thanks to Wall Street’s meltdown), managed the Quebec file well, returned Canada-U.S. relations to their normal level of amity, lowered taxes, and implemented a number of welcome tweaks to our criminal justice system.

Most importantly of all, Mr. Harper has avoided the temptation to impose any large-scale Trudeauvian social-engineering schemes on the country, of the type the Liberals seem to cook up every few years. Yesterday’s Tory platform, largely a rehash of previous announcements, is admirable stingy. It contains no multi-billion-dollar pharmacare program, no federally micromanaged daycare, no new National Energy Program. And for that, Canadians should be thankful.

This brings us to the main reason why we cannot endorse the Liberals. Putting aside Stéphane Dion’s reflexive leftward tilt on everything from foreign affairs to social issues, his “Green Shift” carbon-tax scheme is, by itself, enough to persuade us that he is the wrong man to be running this country. As our banking and financial-services sectors become strained by the worldwide credit crunch, this country is increasingly dependant on our oil and gas sector to sustain us through rough waters. Yet these are exactly the industries Mr. Dion wants to soak.

We also are not impressed by Mr. Dion’s plan -- and general attitude -- in regard to Canada’s economic challenges. In recent days, he truly has sounded like a hysteric, trying to convince Canadians that our relatively sound economy is on the brink of a cataclysmic depression. There is no evidence of this: Indeed, the latest economic numbers on jobs and growth are excellent. And as a stack of reports from our major banks attest, the fundamentals of our real estate market bear no comparison to America’s sub-prime mess. Indeed, the only thing that could tip this country into full-blown depression is wide-scale investor panic of the type Mr. Dion seems intent on fomenting.
More on link