Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Yes, it's noteworthy enough that Jack Layton is surging ahead as Canada's first choice for Prime Minister. But perhaps the most stunning news is that the first of those polls comes from Ipsos-Reid - the pollster which regularly places Conservative support (and one would think by association Stephen Harper's) higher than any other. And if even the most Con-friendly of polls is showing Layton ahead, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of the Cons getting any good news as the campaign winds down.

- Meanwhile, the party polling is looking no less promising for the NDP.

- John Duffy notes why the NDP's gains don't figure to be ending anytime soon:

There is no reason to believe...that this has to come to a halt. Fact: various polls are now showing the NDP eating not only into the Liberal vote (as in Ontario) but also into the Conservative vote pretty much everywhere outside the prairies. Analysis is catching up. Fact: the NDP surge is showing no sign of abating. Fact: The NDP has a great, upbeat "closer"-style spot on television right now, while the other parties have ads that are not resonating. Fact: The Conservative response, which would probably be impressive, is nowhere to be seen, plus they just lost one of their best strategy guys at the worst possible moment. Meanwhile, the Liberals are starting to fall off the coverage radar. Fact: earned media campaign coverage is about to go dark for the Royal Wedding and the final weekend.
...
I am seriously starting to wonder whether some sort of massive genie hasn't been let out of the bottle here. Mr. Harper has framed the campaign and its run-up as an anti-politics exercise. Putting words in the PM's mouth, I described his core pitch as being, "The heck with these elections we've all come to hate. Vote for a Harper majority and all this political crap gets out of your hair for four years." What appears to be happening here is that the anti-politics appeal has found its audience, and it's expression is "the heck with Harper and Ignatieff." The response seems not to have taken the form of Liberal voters sourly staying home and throwing the election to the Conservatives. Rather, it appears the anti-politician mood that the Prime Minister stoked has created an immense opening for Mr. Layton's positive, uplifting, take-a-chance-on-me offering.

- Douglas Bell rightly points out that the NDP's surge is based at least as much on the party's appeal to Canadian values as to any protest vote.

- And Bell also passes along Liam McHugh-Russell's end-of-campaign prediction:

I told you two weeks ago that the NDP would need just a glimmer of hope to finally take off, and now they've gotten it. They're finally heading toward their ceiling and that ceiling is high indeed: 130 per cent the height of the Conservatives or the Liberals. You want a seat count? NDP 115, Conservatives 110; Liberals 65; Bloc 18. In the end, politics is possible and suddenly, so are these results. Me, I am still rooting for the NDP because I believe they're serious about us having the Canada we already have, except better. But it's also very exciting that the result we do get five days from now will be determined by the question I said mattered when this whole thing started: whether Canadians believe it's possible for them to have the government they want. And it seems increasingly like they can – and that they will.

- Armine Yalnizyan offers a reminder of the Cons' choice to gut the long-form census - and points out the wide range of Canadians affected by their inexplicable disregard for thorough and accurate census data.

- Stephen Whitworth expresses some restrained displeasure with the Globe and Mail's train wreck of a Con endorsement.

- And finally, Les Perreaux debunks the efforts of political opponents and media alike to make an issue of the NDP's potential wave of new MPs.

There's the panic

Yes, it was probably inevitable that the Cons would notice that something was happening outside their campaign bubble and feel a need to lash out at it. But the timing and effect couldn't be worse for Stephen Harper and the Cons.

For all the talk about how campaigns can shift at the last minute, two of the most recent examples (the Cons' late-campaign swoons in 2004 and 2006) also serve as evidence of something else: when Harper ad-libs in trying to seal a campaign, he can be his own worst enemy. And there's plenty of reason to think that's happening one more time - with potentially even more significant consequences.

After all, Harper has spent the entire campaign trying to stay above or outside the fray, effectively portraying any discussion with or about other parties as being beneath him. But with Harper taking the lead role in attacking Layton now, he's giving up any pretense of appearing prime ministerial just at the point where he faces the most serious challenge for the position. (See Wells' Rule of Politics #4 as to why that's particularly dangerous.)

What's more, Harper's choice of attacks also looks to be counterintuitive (to be generous). In effect, Harper is challenging Layton on trust just as all indications suggest that Layton is opening up a wide lead on that point. And with Harper already seen as relatively untrustworthy, he may only cast more doubt on himself by forcing a collision with the positive impression Canadians have formed of Layton.

Of course, one can make the case that Harper didn't have a choice: it's probably too late to develop a brand-new ad campaign to have somebody else serve as the point person in attacking Layton, and the NDP surge certainly demanded that the Cons do something. But Harper's choice of responses may only end up confirming the public's impression that he's a major part of the problem that needs fixing.

New column day

Here, closing the federal election campaign with a bit more analysis and less advocacy than usual.

(For the astute pre-campaign observation mentioned in the column, see Alice's post.)

Open questions

Now that the NDP is reaching levels of popular support that make a change in government look highly plausible, it's about time to double back to some of the more serious questions about what Stephen Harper might seek to do to stay in power after an election that doesn't go his way.

If he's determined to cling to power and continues to believe that he can get away with absolutely any level of damage to Canada's democratic system that suits his purposes, Harper holds plenty of cards regardless of how Monday's vote actually turns out. He'll technically remain Prime Minister either until he resigns to create a vacancy in the office, or until a non-confidence vote is held. He can put off the latter possibility by refusing to allow Parliament to sit for up to twelve months from the date of the previous dissolution. (Indeed, I'm not entirely sure what the remedy would be if Harper were to breach even that minimal requirement.) And even if he allows a new government to be sworn in, he can prevent it from passing any legislation by continuing to whip his majority in the Senate.

So while I wouldn't expect an answer from Harper anytime soon, now would seem to be the time to start asking some pointed questions about what will happen if the election results aren't to the Cons' liking.

First, will Harper resign as Prime Minister if his party fails to secure the largest number of seats in the House of Commons? (Actually, this would seem to be something less than a clear requirement to the extent there's some prospect of his finding support among other parties - but if the answer is "no", then based on Harper's rhetoric about the most seats being the measure of victory then it makes for the first clear indication that all bets are off as to what he'll do to stay in power.)

Second, will Harper summon Parliament to meet at some point before the last possible moment - and allow it to vote on his Throne Speech - even if the likely result is a non-confidence vote against his government?

Third, does Harper plan to comply with the instructions of the Governor General rather than threatening to take a case "to the people" if his attempts to shut down democratic voting mechanisms are overruled?

And finally, if another government takes power, will Harper order his Senators to allow it to pass legislation which receives the approval of the House of Commons?

Needless to say, in any remotely functional democracy the answer should be a clear "yes" to the latter three questions. But there's plenty of reason for concern that Harper will see matters differently.

Update: Turns out I'm not the only one asking these types of questions, and Tom Flanagan offers some theories in response to John Duffy:

If a single party wins more seats than the Conservatives, I think Mr. Harper, based on his statements, will announce his resignation as prime minister. If the Conservatives win a plurality but not a majority, he will carry on as prime minister and try to bring in a budget fairly quickly. If he is defeated in the House, he could (1) offer his resignation as Prime Minister to the Governor General, thereby allowing the latter to ask the leader of the Opposition to form a government; (2) resign as PM and also as party leader, opening up the possibility that the Governor General might ask an interim Conservative leader chosen by caucus to form a government; (3) ask for another election, as Mackenzie King did in 1926. If the GG refused that request, I imagine Mr. Harper would then resign as King did, and the GG would try to find someone else to form a government. I don't foresee anyone challenging the GG's authority with an appeal to the Queen, or ruling by decree. I don't think we will reenact “State of Siege.”

Needless to say I'd hope he's right. But until Harper himself starts answering, there's still reason to wonder whether Flanagan is being optimistic based on the Harper he knew rather than the one who's already shut down Parliament once to avoid losing power.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- David Coletto of Abacus Data offers his theory for the NDP's surge in Quebec which has since spread to the rest of the country:

Has all the talk about coalitions at the start of the campaign actually laid a foundation for NDP growth in Quebec?

The BQ has clearly stated it won’t join in a formal coalition with any other parties. And no party has said it would want BQ members in cabinet. Perhaps Quebec voters have decided that although the BQ has done a good job at representing Quebec in the past, it really can’t prevent a Stephen Harper majority. In fact, voters may have figured out that by electing NDP MPs they can actually prevent a Harper minority – by giving the NDP enough seats in Quebec to form a working arrangement with the Liberals elected outside of Quebec.

Fewer BQ seats in Parliament means that the math becomes more palatable for Canadians because the real problem with coalitions was not the principle of a coalition but the idea of separatists holding a government hostage.
...
We found that in Quebec, when given the choice between a Conservative minority government and a coalition or agreement between the Liberals and NDP, 57% of Quebec respondents preferred a coalition while 29% preferred a Conservative minority. 14% were unsure.

An Angus Reid poll released today found that 61% of Quebec respondents believed that “The Conservative government has performed poorly, and does not deserve to form a government after the next election” – the highest percentage in Canada.

So what we may be seeing in Quebec, and the data backs up this argument, is that Quebecers have realized that they can prevent another Conservative government not by voting BQ, but by voting NDP. If this is true, what we could be witnessing is a collective decision to vote strategically from a large part of a provincial electorate.

- Toby Sanger notes that fair taxation of Canada'a financial sector could generate upwards of $10 billion per year in extra revenue - which would seem to make for a rather compelling contrast against the service cuts on offer from the Harper Cons.

- It shouldn't come as much surprise. But since I haven't yet seen anybody put the factors together, let's note how the regular polling as to which party is most trusted on health care may largely miss the point as to what position will actually sway votes:

Twenty-seven per cent of voters ranked the economy and job creation as the most important election issue, compared to 18 per cent who placed health care as the most important issue and 18 per cent who put government ethics and accountability at the top of the list, the survey suggests.
...
Of the voters who ranked health care as the most important issue, 87 per cent of the survey respondents said they were in favour of supporting medicare rather than having more privatization of medical care and services. Although Ottawa transfers billions of dollars annually to provincial governments for health care, the provinces have jurisdiction over delivery of health services.

Preference for supporting medicare over having more privatization was highest in the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. Fully 98 per cent of respondents in both regions said they want to support medicare over more privatization. In Ontario, of the medicare supporters who said the issue is the most important in the campaign, 90 per cent favoured medicare support over more privatization.

Given that the Cons are actively affirming their support for private health service delivery, that finding would seem to confirm that there's virtually no overlap between the relatively high number of voters listing the Cons as their first choice on health care (about 30 per cent in the polls linked above) and the voters who are actually motivated by the issue - while the NDP's position as the strongest advocate for public delivery has the potential to deliver a large number of votes.

- Dan Gardner points out that there's no reason why a minority government can't function under reasonable leadership - making the Cons' desperate plea for a majority into more of an admission of their own failings than a reasonable argument:

In the last Conservative budget, the gap between what the NDP asked for its support and what the Conservatives offered was tiny and so a new Conservative minority could make modest concessions to the NDP, pass the budget, and get on with governing. But Harper has already said his government will re-introduce the budget without changes, which suggests this simple bit of negotiation and compromise won’t happen. And we will get the instability the prime minister predicted.

Why? It’s not a defect inherent in minority government. Nor is it that the big three parties have irreconcilable visions and policies. In fact, the substantive disagreements between the parties are as small or smaller than they’ve ever been in modern times.

No, the problem is the leader.

Stephen Harper gambled everything on winning a majority. Now, after swearing that anything less would cause earth to shudder and sky to weep, it would be personally calamitous if a Conservative minority government functioned smoothly. Harper said there would be instability, damn it. And he will make sure of it.

- Finally, there's a new leader in race for the dubious honour of "most bizarre campaign coverage from a major media outlet": Tamsin McMahon's article which not only wastes readers' time with the question, "does the federal NDP actually want to be in power?", but manages to answer with something close to a "no".

They write letters

And if they aren't contributing to an NDP-led government, I heartily endorse the prospect that the Libs' top figures have plenty of time to keep right on writing open letters by this time next week.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Gilles Duceppe never saw it coming. Stephen Harper won't admit it's happening. But the NDP's surge to within striking distance of forming government is getting confirmed by poll after poll.

[Update: After poll.]
[Update II: After poll.]

- Naturally, Sun Media buries the results in a story about party mergers. But in case there's any doubt whether Canadians want Stephen Harper to plunge the country into a do-over election if he doesn't get the majority he's demanding, Canadians are saying otherwise even in an alternative based on the most Con-friendly framing possible:

If Conservative Leader Stephen Harper doesn't get the majority he's yearning for and the opposition parties gang up to replace him, the poll suggests 40% of Canadians would support a coalition government with the support of the Bloc.

But 28% would want another federal election, while 30% were non-committal.

Needless to say, the number of respondents supporting a coalition would figure to go even higher if (as seems entirely possible) the Bloc's support isn't needed. [Update: See e.g. the response to EKOS' less-slanted question.] Which means that the Cons would seem to have little choice but to pull out all the stops now - unless they have another plan to cling to power.

- James Bow chimes in on why the media's treatment of the NDP's newcomers to the political scene is off base:

(L)et me run two reads of this by you, and see what you think of each one:

Read One: NDP candidate works at a campus bar and has taken a vacation mid-campaign in Las Vegas.

Read Two: A single-mother working to raise her child, put her name forward as an NDP candidate knowing she would probably lose, booked an extra cheap vacation in Las Vegas weeks before the election was called and could not cancel the ticket.

Tell me: doesn’t read one sound a heck of a lot more sinister to you? Care to guess what certain media pundits and more than a few partisans chose to run with?
...
For today, I think it’s unfortunate that the media have chosen to report Ms. Brosseau’s situation in the most sinister way possible. It may make for good copy, but it does a disservice to dedicated individuals like Ms. Brosseau who believe enough in democracy to step forward and fight a campaign they believe they cannot win.

- It's great news to see a surge in turnout at the advance polls. But while I don't buy some of the absurd spin about it reflecting only campaign workers, I do have to wonder whether it reflects a conscious effort to turn out support early which might not be reflected in final voting numbers.

- Finally, Aaron Wherry nicely sums up the basic precondition for supporting the Harper Conservatives:

Stephen Harper seems to ask only that you disregard—or remain entirely unaware of—recent events, and bow in total deference to what he is saying to you now.

Never mind that two and a half years ago he had Parliament dissolved, flouting his own government’s apparently flimsy attempt to limit a Prime Minister’s ability to do so. Never mind that after that election—as a recession set in—he had Parliament prorogued so he might avoid defeat on an imminent confidence vote. Never mind that a year after that he had Parliament prorogued again—this time so he could have more time to have his picture taken watching hockey games with Wayne Gretzky—and that Canada was thus left without a functioning House of Commons for nearly three months as it proceeded with the aforementioned and still-fragile recovery.

Never mind that he is here now, campaigning for re-election, because last month his government became the first in the history of British democracy to be found in contempt of the House of Commons.

For all of these reasons and various other examples as well, Mr. Harper is often accused of abusing the institutions of Parliament, of disrespecting the formal levers of our democracy and of holding the House of Commons in disdain. And so here he stands in front of his fellow citizens and professes that there is no other place he’d rather be. It is as if he is taunting his detractors. Daring them to call him on it. Mocking their outrage.

He is not creating alternate realities, he is simply daring enough to breeze past any assertion of reality which does not serve his purposes. He is looking you in the eye, shrugging and moving on. He is entirely undaunted by his own record of words and actions.

On posturing

Sure, there have been a couple of responses already to corporate Canada's efforts to tell scary stories about a possible NDP government. But let's add one more to the list which seems to me to highlight how the NDP's cooperative approach to politics leaves absolutely no room for such fearmongering.

Over two years ago, word came out that the NDP was fact reaching out to Canada's financial sector in the course of developing its economic policies - and impressing a number of the people it consulted along the way:

(T)he NDP caucus has been calling on external advisors and allocating more resources to strengthening its research on financial policy.

"There as been an effort to expand the capacity of the caucus," says an aide, who points to meetings with outside economists such as Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada...

"I think you can see in Mulcair a fairly pragmatic approach to our issues. It is probably a more effective approach. I think he is on to something," says one bank lobbyist.

One former lobbyist still active on Bay Street says during meetings with senior party figures they had consistently shown themselves to be "thoughtful and backed up by good research, though we didn't always agree."

That's right: over a period of several years, the NDP has been talking with both outside experts and the financial sector - winning accolades for being "pragmatic" in its discussions generally, and having a position that was "thoughtful and backed up by good research" even where there was disagreement over the best possible policies.

And what's more, the above story came out in early January 2009, at a time when a coalition government including the NDP was still a real possibility. So one can't explain the difference between the message sent then and the fearmongering we're seeing now as being based on some sudden realization that the NDP might be close to power.

Which would seem to signal that any alarmism about what an NDP government might mean for the economy is more in the realm of utter fabrication than serious concern. Instead, the real problem for at least some interest groups seems to be that that the NDP's thoughtful policies might well catch on - and that serves as all the more reason for voters to be encouraged by the opportunity for change.

Subtle

Canada's corporate sector is officially launching CASH Care to try to wrest control over our health sector from anybody who doesn't put profits first. This might be just the right time to have the party that fought for universal health care in charge to fight back the tide.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Relaxed cats.

On clean campaigns

Sure, the NDP's opponents are salivating over what isn't yet known about the party's candidates and potential MPs in Quebec. But let's put that argument based on a lack of evidence into perspective.

After all, we're currently stuck with a micro-managing Prime Minister whose level of control putatively extends as far as running background checks on individuals entering his party's rallies. Yet his party's campaign has been derailed in just the last couple of days by revelations that they've appointed a fanatic who rants about "black shirts" and the "SS" to a gun advisory committee, their happy acceptance of campaign support from a dangerous offender and Paul Bernardo admirer, and the knowledge that a star candidate has been repudiated by her own family while gladly accepting an endorsement from one of the country's most notorious terrorist financiers. And that's to say nothing of the scandal-ridden staffers who have made regular appearances on the campaign trail.

Meanwhile, from the party which is expected to crumble under scrutiny, the closest there is to that type of story is...idle speculation from other parties' spinmeisters.

Lest there be any doubt, I'm not a huge fan of gotcha politics in any event. But for anybody making a remotely rational comparison between the NDP and its rivals in this campaign, it's Jack Layton and company who have done the best job of avoiding any impropriety or perception thereof.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- Yes, the top story in EKOS' polling update is that the NDP's vote has stabilized in a solid second place nationally. But while not much has changed from the weekend's results, let's note that there is one interesting difference: the NDP managed to pick up even more ground in possible second-choice support, giving it a stunning 54.4% of voters rating the party as their first or second choice.

And based on the campaign so far, there's little reason to think that at least a few more of those potential supporters won't turn into actual ones by election day. (Needless to say, this includes the brouhaha over potentially revisiting Canada's constitution at some point in the future - which was apparently never seen as a big enough deal to interfere with Stephen Harper's path to power.)

- Meanwhile, Bruce Anderson explains why the NDP may have managed to catch its opponents by surprise:

(I)n my view a lot of people who aren't normally consumed with politics are looking at the NDP with fresh eyes, as it occupies centre stage in the last days of this election campaign. What do they perceive?

First, a leader with a passionate, friendly, easy manner. A guy who knows his way around a Tim Hortons and looks like he would draw a crowd to his table over a double-double.

They’d hear him say politics has too much mud-slinging and not enough progress on things that count for average folks. They’d listen to him go on about wanting to work with other people and parties, about hiring more doctors and nurses, “rewarding job creators,” “strengthening your pension” and “making your life a little more affordable.” The language is not that of class warfare, and the goals don’t sound weirdly utopian. These voters might compare Mr. Layton’s pitch with the urgings of Stephen Harper to avoid a coalition, to cut taxes, to strengthen law and order. Or the entreaties of Michael Ignatieff to rise up in defense of our democracy. The NDP themes might well compare favourably, as far as themes go.

- The Star rightly notes that a non-vote effectively serves as a vote for both the status quo and vote suppression, both of which play entirely into the Cons' hands:

This time, too, apathy is likely to amount to a vote by default for the Conservatives. That’s because large numbers of disengaged and alienated voters lean to Jack Layton’s New Democrats or to the Liberals. Those who opt not to vote risk becoming enablers of the Conservative victory that Harper claims is in the bag.

After five years of hyperpartisan, divisive minority government, the last thing Canadians need is to end up with a Tory majority by default because people couldn’t be bothered to turn out. As Harper himself observed on the weekend, “voters are never supposed to give absolute trust to anybody.”
...
The Conservatives don’t deserve to coast home again on a wave of voter apathy. Canadians should rouse themselves on Monday to cast judgment on Harper’s governance since 2006, and on the opposition parties’ competing visions. The country’s future is worth that much.

- But fortunately, there's little reason to think the Cons will get what they're after. And in the latest sign of desperation, Saskatchewan's Cons have followed up on their vacant house strategy with a short-lived attempt to use Saskatchewan's legislative buildings as a billboard.

On broken links

So far, the Cons have stayed remarkably quiet about the NDP's national surge, following up on their first weak response with a single ad attacking the NDP only as a secondary part of the usual "higher taxes" line against the Ignatieff Libs. But while the Libs' responses look to have failed mostly because they come out of nowhere, the biggest problem for the Cons may be that their attack on the NDP is so similar to an existing message linked to the Libs.

Obviously the Cons are well aware that an attack needs some time to sink in, and that it only figures to work if voters link a particular leader they might be considering to the attack when they vote. (Otherwise, their years of direct shots at the Libs' leaders would figure to have been a waste of money.)

But having so deliberately branded Michael Ignatieff with the "higher taxes" label over a period of years in the general public, the Cons figure to have an awfully tough time suddenly transferring that same label to Layton in the last week of the campaign. Which may reflect another area where the Cons' bubble might have caused them to miss what's happening in the country at large: while they've used the "higher taxes line as a talking point dealing with the NDP in what might be seen as inside-baseball conversations in Parliament and on talk shows, they haven't done anything to reach a broader audience.

And what's more, the job is made all the more difficult by the fact that they're still trying to include Ignatieff in their ads, serving only to dilute the message even more. Which means that the chances of the Cons being able to suddenly attach a negative to a leader whose reputation has been carefully built over nearly a decade look to be rather slim.

Of course, the Cons are presumably hoping that some combination of "coalition" messaging and general visual association between Layton and Ignatieff will be enough to make the charge stick. But there's a real possibility that the Cons have indeed been too cute by half in hoping that relentless attacks on the Libs would clear the field entirely - and we're just now starting to see panic set in on their side as well now that the orange wave is submerging their hopes for a majority.

Scrambling

Call it a crazy hunch, but I'm guessing this is another rather bad sign for the Libs:

When the campaign began last month, the Liberals had prepared a strategy to roll out their ads in four phases – the first was to introduce Mr. Ignatieff, the rookie leader, to Canadians; the second phase was to promote the platform. The party launched a couple of attack ads in the third phase. Phase four was to be aimed at trying to get out the vote – it seems now, however, the Liberals have abandoned that plan as they drive toward May 2.

Which is telling in a couple of ways.

First, there's the fact that the Libs - who have bragged for ages about how they're so much better organized with Michael Ignatieff and Peter Donolo in charge than under previous structures - have officially reached the point of having to throw out the playbook they'd developed before the campaign. Instead, they're truly "making it up as they go along" for lack of any plan to deal with how the campaign has developed.

But perhaps more interestingly, it makes clear that the Libs don't see a get-out-the-vote message as a winner for them anymore - highlighting the fact that to the extent anybody new is going to be drawn into the election campaign, it's the NDP that figures to benefit.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The NDP has unveiled another positive ad to keep up its momentum over the last week of the federal election campaign:



- And in case we needed a reminder why a more honest and positive brand of politics would be such a radical departure from what we have now, the first appointee to the Cons' Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is saying publicly that the office was a wasteful and politically-motivated sham.

- Likewise, it may be news that yet another of the Cons' environmental plans is designed to be as expensive and ineffective as possible. But there's no reason to be the least bit surprised based on their track record.

- And one more to file under "what needs changing", as the latest reality check on the cost of F-35s looks mostly to confirm what should already have been obvious about the Cons' unwillingness to acknowledge what a new fleet of sole-sourced fighter jets would cost.

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan points out how the Cons' tax slashing has been pitched as being directed at the middle class even while its benefits are felt almost exclusively at the top:

Where’s the real middle? There are many ways to measure it, but let’s keep it simple: the dead centre of the income distribution -median income. Half of Canadian households have more, and half of Canadian households make do with less. In 2008, median after-tax household income of Canadians was $48,500 ($55,000 before taxes).
...
Both the Liberals and the NDP address poverty and decry growing income inequality. Harper’s Conservatives do not. They all claim to introduce measures to ease pressures on average families, but Harper’s proposals actually worsen income disparities and do almost nothing of substance for those truly in the middle.

Take income splitting for young families -a promise that comes with a $2.5-billion price tag. The Harper team touts average savings of $1,300 per family. But a 2006 Library of Parliament assessment showed only 8% trickles down to half of Canada’s young families, those with incomes under $60,000. Most goes to the rich, nothing goes to the poorest -single parents have no incomes to split. (One in five families raising children are headed by single parents. They have the highest poverty rate of any group in Canada.)

It’s the same with elderly benefits. Harper promises modest improvements to Guaranteed Income Supplements, worth $300-million. But his pension splitting scheme, introduced in 2007, costs the public purse over $920-million. The elderly living on incomes under $30,000 get 6% of that. They make up 40% of seniors’ households. None gets to the poorest seniors, mostly women living alone.

Then there’s the Tax Free Savings Account. Introduced in January 2009 -at the height of the recession, when every other govern-ment across the globe was trying to stimulate spending, not saving. Harper now promises to double the maximum contribution, from $5,000 to $10,000.

It’s pitched as something that’s good for everyone, with a whopping price-tag of over $6-billion a year upon full implementation. But in 2008, before the recession hit, half of Canadians made less than $25,400 after tax. Try taking $10,000 out of that. But their incomes, along with those of every other Canadian, are enhanced by the public health care, public transit and other public services (clean water, bridges and roads, education and more) that taxes support.

On choices

A couple of Lib stalwarts are already starting the conversation about what that party figures to do if faced with the choice of supporting either the Cons or the NDP as Canada's government. And without getting too far ahead of ourselves, we definitely shouldn't take for granted that the Libs will support an NDP effort to replace Harper - though there's one easy step the NDP can take to significantly swing their decision.

To start off with, I don't think there's much doubt that at least part of the Libs' braintrust will insist on sticking to its current plan of doing nothing to suggest the NDP might be of use to anybody based on the hope that it'll go away on its own.

To the extent the Libs are more concerned about their party brand than their ability to accomplish anything useful in public life, there's at least some argument to be made for that view. And I'd fully expect the Cons to take up that message at every available opportunity to the extent they don't want to give an inch on either policy or cabinet posts.

Of course, that list of non-negotiable items from the Cons hints at the options available to the NDP. But the Libs figure to be a relatively difficult party to win over in terms of policy.

Yes, some Lib MPs will genuinely want to see a progressive alternative replace the Harper Cons, and an NDP government would likely be willing to implement some of the Libs' core platform planks if that's the price of their support. But I'm not sure anybody thinks the Libs as a whole are so attached to any policies as to make those the deciding factor.

But that leaves the area where there's the most room for discussion.

After all, the Libs' late-campaign attack on the NDP has included an attempt to paint their own experience as a major selling point. And that leaves the door open for Jack Layton to say that while he fully intends to follow through on changing Ottawa, he'll be glad to see the Libs use their experience for the good of the country under a coalition government.

That may make for a rather compelling opportunity not just for Michael Ignatieff himself, but also for the Bob Raes, John McCallums and Carolyn Bennetts of the party who surely figured they'd be headed for senior cabinet posts rather than third-party status. And younger Lib members who haven't yet had a chance to serve as parliamentary secretaries might also see more of an opportunity than they'd ever receive as long as the Harper Cons are in power.

So if yesterday's EKOS results reflect where the campaign is going, I'd fully expect the battle among the Libs to be less an issue of red versus blue, and more a question of strategists versus MPs (to say nothing of a substantial part of the party's base). And considering what the strategists have accomplished in the last four election cycles, the Libs would be well advised to be skeptical that they should carry the day this time.

Coming together

Sure, it's great enough news that EKOS' latest shows the NDP all alone in second place, and with the most potential for growth of any party in terms of second-choice support. (Which in turn fits with the other polls released today showing the NDP in at worst a dead heat for second place.)

But perhaps the most striking news is the lowest showing for the Cons in any poll I can recall seeing this election campaign. With Harper polling at only 33.7% and sinking, the NDP looks to be well within striking distance of first place with plenty of time left in the campaign. And that means that the sometimes-divergent goals of stopping a Harper majority, replacing the Cons outright, and voting on principle all figure to lead to the exact same end result as the campaign enters its home stretch.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Murray Dobbin rightly notes that the main effect of the NDP's surge looks to be to bring our political system more in line with the values of Canadians:

If the NDP surge is real, it may represent the breaking of an historic contradiction in Canadian politics. One of the largely unspoken features of Canadian political culture is the gap between the majority's stated social and community values and their voting patterns. The CBC's fatally flawed Vote Compass notwithstanding (it's virtually impossible to get a result suggesting your values line up with the NDP), years of polling and focus groups suggest that if there was a direct line between voting and values, the NDP would win every election, hands down.

Even though the NDP is skittish when it comes to talking about tax increases (rightfully anticipating a firestorm of media attacks), the fact is Canadians say they would support tax increases if they could be assured the money would be spent on things they want. And the things they want are, of course, essentially the list of things the NDP has always run on: Medicare, affordable post-secondary education, generous social assistance, human rights, genuine EI, eliminating poverty. You know the list -- if you are part of the 70 per cent majority, it is your list, too.

- Meanwhile, Ian Capstick has some simple suggestions to make sure the NDP wave keeps rising until election day.

- I suppose it shouldn't come as much surprise that the closest anybody has come to criticizing the NDP's answers to questions on its platform is to suggest that it would somehow be better off pretending that it doesn't matter whether policy proposals are affordable. But Boris points out that the NDP's stance really amounts to nothing more than treating Canadian voters like responsible adults - which makes for a particularly nice contrast after the Cons' 2008 "never a recession! never a deficit" nonsense.

- Finally, David Climenhaga notes that the CBC ranks near the top of the list of Canadian institutions which figure to be on the chopping block - and that at least one Con backbencher who reliably sticks to the party line is making that explicit on the campaign trail.

On last gasps

I'll give the Libs this much: at the very least their latest attempt to counter the NDP's national surge might make a bit more sense than their previous one. But that's only true if one assumes that they see their numbers diving and the NDP's soaring as the campaign reaches its conclusion.

After all, as John Ibbitson notes, the latest ad doesn't make a lick of sense in trying to tie the NDP and Cons together in terms of policy. But that leaves one area where one might try to find a perceived uniformity of interest between the two. And the Libs are quite explicit about what they see as being the major similarity: both voted to bring down Paul Martin's Lib government in 2005.

Now, for anybody looking at the situation remotely reasonably that criticism doesn't figure to get very far. After all, it was thoroughly debunked from the beginning, and figures to be less and less relevant to most voters as Canada's political debate has moved in different directions since then.

But there's one group of voters which does figure to be motivated by an appeal to the Libs' continuing sense of entitlement to have held office at all times even since their 2006 election defeat. The ad will speak directly to the Libs' inner core, which may well have carried a grudge for over five years which can now give rise to some amount of additional motivation once it's activated through an election ad.

Here's the catch, though. While it works well on a purely tribal basis for stalwart Lib supporters, the ad also serves to exclude anybody who's so much as considered the possibility that the Libs shouldn't expect to be Canada's default government. And yet the Libs are using a broadcast medium which will put the ad in front of those voters in addition to the base they're seeking to reach.

Which looks to me like a signal that the Libs see a real possibility that a Layton wave will wipe them out across the country - and are thus pulling out all the stops to try to keep the top tier of party diehards in the fold, even at the expense of looking both insulting and incoherent to swing voters. And if the Libs are indeed in such dire straits that they need to advertise to reach their strongest supporters, then there figures to be a strong chance that the NDP can pull enough softer support away to present a serious challenge to Stephen Harper's stay in power.

Monday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Brian Topp sums up the choices facing Canadian voters as the election campaign winds down to its final week:

Anything can happen in politics. But what we may be in for in the last week of this campaign is the unusual sight of three leaders – Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, and Mr. Duceppe – focused on attacking the NDP.

And the increasingly familiar sight of Jack Layton shrugging off these attacks, and offering Canadians something they are clearly looking for – some hope, some optimism, some unity, some relief from angry and divisive politics.

A choice between three angry, threatened men and a relaxed, smiling, positive national leader – in some ways, the only real national leader running in this election.

As I was saying a few weeks ago, this might just work out surprisingly well.

- James Laxer notes the absurdity of Stephen Harper trying to run on national unity even as he deliberately inflames regional tensions:

Now we’ve seen everything---Stephen Harper, who only a few years ago counseled Albertans to build “firewalls” around their province to protect it from Canada, has proclaimed himself the indispensable champion of national unity. Without him at the helm of a majority government, this one-time quasi-Alberta separatist would have us believe there will be no one to protect the country from a new round of sovereignist upheaval in Quebec.

In fact, I’d be surprised if Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois didn't regard a Harper majority government as one of the essential “winning conditions” for a sovereignty referendum should she succeed in becoming premier of Quebec in the next provincial election.
...
Nothing would fire up the engines of the aging Quebec sovereignists more than a Harper majority. They would make the case that Harper’s Canada is remote from Quebec and everything the Quebecois aspire to.
...
The truly hopeful development in Quebec during this election campaign has been the stunning rise in Jack Layton’s standing in the province.

For six federal election campaigns in a row, the Bloc Quebecois has been dominant in Quebec. Now the Quebecois are turning in huge numbers to the NDP, embracing a progressive federalist party that could give them a voice in governing the country. Layton’s breakthrough in Quebec has the potential to change the landscape of Canadian politics.

- Miss Vicky fact-checks Kathleen Petty's attempt to paint a national childcare program as unaffordable.

- And finally, Erin points out why the Cons' wanton tax slashing figures to do plenty of damage on the provincial level in addition to limiting the ability of the federal government to act:

Provincial income tax generally applies to income as defined by federal tax rules. Shifting income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket or into a TFSA reduces both federal and provincial revenues.

It would be constitutionally possible, but practically difficult, for provinces to disallow income splitting for provincial tax purposes or to tax investment gains realized inside TFSAs. Provincial governments would not be obliged to create provincial credits for fitness and arts spending eligible for the promised federal credits. However, provinces set a precedent of doing so with the children’s fitness credit.
...
The additional cost of doubling the (TFSA) threshold would be below $3 billion because fewer people could afford to contribute $10,000. However, the three Conservative promises could easily punch a $5-billion hole in the federal budget.

How much would they cost the provinces? Provincial income tax generates about two-thirds as much revenue as federal income tax.

Top marginal rates are especially important for income splitting and TFSAs, which disproportionately benefit high-income Canadians. Outside of Quebec, top provincial tax rates are about half of the top federal rate.

The upshot is that federal Conservative promises could easily reduce combined provincial tax revenues by between $2 billion and $3 billion per year.