Friday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Paul Wells sifts through the latest Abacus polling on Canada's political parties:

The Conservatives do not lead only in feel-good perceptions. Respondents thought the Conservatives, more than Liberals or New Democrats, are “extreme” and “out of touch with ordinary people.” It hardly needs saying that Harper continues to divide the country. But enough of the division benefits the Conservatives to leave Harper in the catbird seat.

Abacus found Canadians have less trouble agreeing about the Liberals. When comparing the three parties, respondents were least likely to agree that Michael Ignatieff’s party “keeps its promises,” “understands the problems facing Canada,” “looks after the interests of people like me,” “defends the interests of people in my province,” “has a good team of leaders,” “stands for clear principles,” “has sensible policies,” or is “professional in its approach.”

But look on the bright side. The Liberals did not finish behind the Conservatives and New Democrats on every measure. Among the three parties, respondents were likeliest to agree it’s the Liberals who are “divided” and “will promise anything to win votes.”

These are the results Ignatieff obtains after a full year with a senior political staff Ottawa reporters like. It follows his long summer bus tour and the uniformly positive reviews that came with it. It comes after Harper prorogued Parliament, gutted the long-form census, turned summit-time Toronto into one big riot and flip-flopped on ending the Afghanistan deployment.

After all that, Canadians give Harper’s party the edge on reliability, pertinence and competence. After the Conservatives, on these same questions, they almost always prefer Jack Layton’s NDP to Ignatieff’s Liberals.

- Meanwhile, Dan Gardner hints at what's sure to be a winning message for the Harper Cons: "Not Quite as Crazy as the Tea Party". Though I do have to wonder whether even that is more a matter of simply not having pushed public opinion far enough to be able to speak their minds.

- But in case you need ten more reasons to vote against the Harper Cons, Kathleen O'Hara provides them.

- And finally, Susan Riley nicely counters the latest set of corporate-tax-cut spin:

It is hard to see how a few points shaved off corporate tax rates is going to produce a surge of well-paying, stable jobs; the details are still hazy. But, after government stimulus spending ends this year, the private sector, invigorated by its declining tax load, is apparently going to take up the slack. Despite such rosy projections, many Canadians are deeply uneasy about prospects for themselves and their children in coming months -- and no wonder.

True, very high corporate tax rates can discourage investment -- but, compared to the rest of the G7 and to our southern neighbours, Canadian rates are relatively low. Nor, as Ireland's sorry example underscores, are low business taxes a guarantee of lasting economic success.

Such contradictions -- and the fact that tax rates are only one of many factors influencing economic success -- are rarely the focus of serious scrutiny. Three decades of unrelenting neo-conservative preaching have turned taxes into a dirty word, as left-leaning economist Hugh Mackenzie says, "to the point where even governments don't defend government."
...
(I)t is the now-entrenched notion that corporate high-rollers have to be bribed with astronomical benefits and generous tax treatment to stay with the company, stay in Canada, keep working those long hours and creating jobs that is most questionable -- especially since their huge bonuses are increasingly unconnected to the actual performance of a company. This argument betrays a pinched, negative view of human nature.