A little bit of this, and a little bit of that…

The Liberals have been fairly silent again today. Once again, Harper’s pushing everyone else to the back pages:

• As we pointed out a while ago, income splitting is in the CPC’s future. I’m going to have to get a spouse.
• The CPC also wants to dole out money for you to become a baby-maker. I love money. I love money way better than I love the government setting up daycare franchises. But, hey, that’s just me.
• Layton loves private health care. Whoda thunk it? (And yeah, I know, I’m way behind the ball on this. Exams and stuff. Life isn’t all fun and games, you know.)
• And then, you know, we had some Nazis in Quebec or something.

I guess that’s about it. Oh, one other thing: that Strategic Counsel poll makes no sense. None. Two off-the-cuff, utterly uninformed guesses: No one’s paying atention yet. The margin of error is unusually large.

Speaking of which, everybody remember: the SES nightly tracking poll is now released SEVEN days a week, at 2pm every day. And it is like crack.

But who likes polls anyway?

Ah, Buzz…

you’re a fuckface.

GST Cut

Well, I suppose this will be marked as the first major policy announcement of the campaign. And so early (in the morning; it’s 930am, and I’m already out of the loop)!

A cut of the GST to 5% by the CPC.

We’ll see how this one turns out. I suspect it will be popular with the voting public. My economics undergrad education instilled in me a deep love for consumption taxes, but I plan on being filthy stinking rich and buying a lot of shit… so I’m torn about this move. You have to take what you can get, I suppose, and I somehow doubt that we’re going to see promises to cut the highest marginal income tax rate from any of the parties.

As real economists start to bitch and whine about the move, I’ll update this post. Later, skaters.

Update: Ah, both economists AND pollsters weigh in in one handy-dandy article. And that’s just the kind of shit I aim to bring you, the reader (not plural, b/c I’m not sure anyone actually reads this).

Four debates

Winners: Harper and Layton.  Mostly Harper.  I always get the feeling that Layton’s a bit of a used-car salesman.  But what do I know?  Apparently pudgy, white, upper-middle-class kids aren’t in touch with the common man because, if I recall correctly, Canadians seemed pretty “jiggy” with Layton’s performance during 2004’s debates.

Loser: Martin.  This guy sucks at debating.  No joke.

Biggest losers: The public, who will be really pissed when debate 4 pre-empts Corner Gas on CTV…  or something.

Tailings

• The CP continues is terrible political writing with this opener: “The Ghost of Campaigns Past has returned to haunt Prime Minister Paul Martin as he attempts to put the sponsorship scandal behind him and win back voters in Quebec.” Yes, Jean Chretien has re-started his lawsuit against Gomery.
• The RCMP is going to be investigating rumours about leaks to certain favoured investment-type people in advance of the Finance Minister’s announcement on income trusts.

And, just because I have nothing else to say, CTV’s Election Blog is actually starting to prove worthwhile reading this campaign.  Headlines right now include such gems as: The Battle in Quebec — for Ontario; Where the Leaders Are; and a take on the federal election from Clinton’s speechwriter.

Today’s Front Pages

Looks like yesterday’s issue was same-sex marriage.

Broadsheets are so pretty.

Harper on SSM

Stephen Harper was on Mike Duffy Live over on CTV tonight. Of course, the topic was Harper’s statements about same-sex marriage.

What’s the plan? A Conservative government will introduce a motion asking whether the House is interested in changing the definition of marriage. If the motion is defeated, there will be no further action. The law will not be retroactive.

What about the notwithstanding clause? Mike Duffy said something like, “Well, you’ll have to use the notwithstanding clause because of the Supreme Court ruling on the issue.”

Warning… Rambling Aside: Fuck. I don’t care what you think about same-sex marriage. Can we at least, for the sake of having a real debate about the need to use s. 33 to halt same-sex marriage, get on the same fucking page? Mike Duffy and all these ham-fisted CP reporters can read, but apparently they choose not to: GO READ THE STUPID REFERENCE. The reference does NOT rule that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. And so when lazy fucks like our buddy O’Hanlon (who is, incidentally, the freaking Ottawa News Editor) say things like, “But [Harper] didn’t explain how he would ban same-sex unions, given that the Supreme Court has indicated the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional,” they are being disingenuous or retarded or both. The Supreme Court held that:

1. The definition of marriage can only be legislated by Parliament.
2. Same-sex marriage is consistent with the Charter.
3. The freedom of religion guarantee in the Charter is (probably) broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the State to perform same-sex marriages with which they disagree.
4. As for question 4, regarding the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage: and I quote, “it would be unwise and inappropriate to answer the question.”

Yes, cases in some provinces have ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Yes, if Harper re-legislates the traditional definition of marriage, he will have some kind of trouble with these prior provincial rulings. But let us stop implying that the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada or that the ability to stop same-sex marriage in provinces whose provincial courts haven’t yet weighed in on the issue isn’t available to Mr. Harper without invoking s. 33.

We are all educated adults. We can, at the very least, frame the scope of the issue before us properly, no?

- Rant Off -

Harper brushed him off and, correctly, stated that Duffy is full of shit about what the SCC said. Duffy quickly changed topics.
Why introduce it today? Harper said, “I was asked; and it’s no surprise. This has been our policy for some time.”

Duffy wrapped up by promising to stop beating a dead horse trying to discover the strategic value of the decision to talk about same-sex marriage on the first day of the campaign.

And that’s it.

Update later: By the way, can anyone tell me WHY he came out with this right away instead of ignoring the question (if it was a question that was actually put to him?)  Where’s the upside?

I see that the front page of the Liberal website is already all over his ass on this.  Not particularly surprising either.

I guess it is a 56 day campaign.  That Charter graphic might get a little old by day 30?  Maybe?

Anyways, I think the Liberals come out on top in Day 1.

Oh, and about that 56 day campaign…

From the CP:

Martin said Canadians will need the extra time to “debate the national issues and to absorb and to hear what the leaders” have to say about them.Liberals believe a longer campaign offers at least two strategic advantages.

They think it allows additional time for more militant right-wing Conservatives to torpedo their own campaign with inflammatory remarks on subjects such as gay rights and abortion.

Liberals also believe their boss is a better campaigner than Harper.

For Liberals, issue No. 1 in this campaign will be the strong economy. They believe low unemployment, low interest rates, and sound federal balance sheets are a counter-argument to the suggestion it’s time to change the government.

They also hope to turn the Charter of Rights into a campaign issue again. Harper helped them on that score when he voluntarily waded into the same-sex marriage debate Tuesday.

Without any prompting, Harper reiterated his willingness to hold a free vote on overturning the government’s landmark same-sex legislation. The Liberals quickly pointed out that such a willingness also means Harper could become the first prime minister ever to use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override legally declared personal rights.

This one’s going to be a keeper, folks.

Harper’s biggest mis-step of the campaign will not have been mentioning the free-vote on same-sex marriage unless he refuses to deal with the issue of s. 33 head-on.  My money’s on the fact that he will.  So, once again, we’ll have one leader insisting that s. 33 will have to be used, but not really explaining why; and we’ll have another leader insisting that s. 33 will not have to be used, but not really explaining why.  And in the end, the guy saying that s. 33 will have to be used wins that battle because, well, it just sounds more intuitive and, frankly, a little more frightening.
Maybe one day, if you’re all very good, I’ll post a paper that I’ve written on the politics behind the uses and near-uses of s. 33 that have occurred so far  in English Canada.  But only if you’re good, and only if I get a good mark.

Here we go!

Vote tonight.  And then…  the campaign.

[h/t Bourque.  And it's a good article, damnit.]

Ignatieff, Etobicoke–Lakeshore, and the pissed off Ukrainian Lobby.

Canadian politics is often so absurd that it’s self-parodying.

Michael Ignatieff is reportedly going to run in Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Ukrainians are very, very mad. Hah!

Daifallah has some more on this development.

An update: This certainly has exploded across the blogs.  Warren Kinsella has the text of a very intriguing press release from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.  And Colby Cosh posts an excerpt that illustrates very prettily just what these Ukrainian dissidents are complaining about.  Both very interesting indeed.

New Poll – Desire for Change

Hm.  Intriguing.

Remains of the day…

• That non-confidence motion has been tabled in the House.
• Michael Ignatieff is running (the comments thread is worth checking out)?

And with that, I guess we’re off!