dialamah

In order for the family income splitting to be taken advantage of, one has to be partnered up and one has to be making a pretty good wage. Even if my boyfriend lived with me, we do not make enough to take advantage of income splitting - if I applied for it, we might get $75. My daughter is a single parent; income splitting does not help her. My son's children live with their mother; she has a partner who lives with her, but they together do not make enough money to benefit from income splitting. Harper's family income splitting is designed for a two-parent family, one of whom is making something like $30,000 more than the other. This supports the ideal "50s family" scenario, where mom doesn't work or works part-time and dad is the main breadwinner and brings home high wages. It doesn't work for single parents, couples who have roughly equal incomes or couples who's combined total is less than than $70,000.00 So, maybe you need to check your facts about exactly how 'great' this benefit is.

Cite, please. Else I'll assume this is not true.

What a dickhead thing to say. All my family nembers work, sometimes two jobs. Why are so many Conservatives so quick to assume that people who don't make scads of money don't work at all?

If our culture decides to legislate what women cannot wear, they are doing the same thing as countries such as Saudi Arabia do when they legislate what women can wear. If Saudi is an inferior country because it legislates what women can wear, then so would Canada be if it legislated what women cannot wear. Fortunately Canada hasn't done so, and I have high hopes it won't actually happen.

Income splitting doesn't help me, nor two thirds of other Canadians. Tax break does. The child benefit in Liberals platform helps 8 of my family members more than Harper's. Poochy, its unfortunate for you that Harper's boutique tax credits didn't help enough people, and that even people who benefited from them have been so turned off by his other policies that they're willing to give them up.

The government tries to impose an illegal ban on somebody and when they lose in court, twice, they start rhetoric about how they're going to change the law to ban the niqab during ceremony, and when they think they have support for that, they then offer to ban the niqab in public service and set up a Muslim-targetted tipline, but its Ishaq who is being divisive? And here I thought Conservatives felt it was important for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Guess not, eh? I can see why you don't like Sisi throwing people who are convicted of crime in Egypt back to a country where they hold citizenship; no doubt you only think thats ok if Canada does it. Just think... If Harper had lifted a finger to help Fahmy, he might have had a few more votes. But hey, it works for me if Fahmy helps rid us of Harper.

What about the people who have actually already had to relocate entire towns, due to warming? Or the ones who are trying to find a place to move too, before their communities disappear? These things have already happened, are happening. Does your careful scientific analysis take those real-life-happening-right-now facts into account, or do you disregard them as 'chicken little' nonsense as well? http://tcktcktck.org/2014/01/fijis-first-village-relocated-due-climate-change/ http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/remote-alaskan-village-may-need-to-be-relocated-due-to-climate-change/46174/ https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Resources/ARVIAT_CCAP_E http://climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-impact http://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2014/sep/15/climate-change-refugees-un-storms-natural-disasters-sea-levels-environment http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And yet, the "Left" seems to have done all right over the past 10 years ... I mean, it's not like they've all died out, left the country or become unemployed, given that the "Left" appears to be about 70% of the country. Maybe there's something else going on? Whether it's because its simply that Harper has overstayed his welcome, or for more ideological reasons, it seems that most people just don't want Harper and the Conservatives any longer.

Maybe you could restate this so it makes some sense in relation to my comment.

So. let's not even think about implementing policy that removes someone's right to religious freedom, to free choices about what they should wear, let's compromise and include these women and their families, let's accept them and respect their choices. Let's not incite persecution and violence by targeting a select group of people as being disrespectful, alien, wrong, misogynistic, "barbaric". Let's show them, through our actions, a better way.

Banning the niqab seems to be what this thread is about. As in "Even Muslim countries ban the niqab, why not Canada".

Conservatives vote Liberal

Or, I think it's wrong for any government to dictate what a woman can wear. Saudi Arabia is wrong for telling women they must wear a burka when they go out. France is wrong for telling women they must not wear a burka to go out. If Canada thinks it should go down the same road as France, I think that would be wrong.

France did it when they banned the niqab/burka. Some women in France now have to choose to either go out and risk being charged, or stay home where they are free to wear a niqab. Some people think Canada should do the same. I do not.

During his interview with Mansbridge, Trudeau said he was committed to transparency and openness in government. He said his father had started the trend to more control and secrecy and it seemed fitting that he (Justin) should be the one to reverse that. Hope he means it, but ultimately I agree with you - regardless of intention when campaigning, politicians realize they can't actually keep all those promises, whether due to unforseen circumstances or simply personal or political advantage.

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that raising someone from birth to adulthood wouldn't almost guarantee an adult who followed the cultural norms they were raised with?

Exactly my point, too. I'm glad we agree.

I agree; it would be much handier to disallow everyone who didn't agree with me to vote. I believe that would be Harper's entire plan, if he could manage it ... perhaps by sending people to the wrong place to vote or something.

When a culture implements public policy so that some people have to make a choice between working or not working, going to school or not going to school, being arrested or staying home based entirely on single item of clothing - that's inferior.

At the Liberal campaign office yesterday, I heard that they have lots of volunteers -- "People coming out of the woodwork" was how it was phrased. I've never volunteered before, and every other scrutineer (of any party) I talked to said it was their first time as well. Perhaps Harper's greatest legacy will be to get record numbers of voters out. To oust him, hopefully.

Thanks for the link. And, just as there are two intepretations of Harper's economic record (kept us whole; complete failure), I think there are two interpretations of this statement. (Idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about; growing the economy now will lead to balanced budgets further down the road). However, I would agree the statement is, at the very least, clumsy. Along the lines of Harper's "Old Stock" Canadians. Perfect opportunities for the opposing team to make fun of them.

I kept hearing this, but it's obviously part of a longer statement. It would be interesting to know what was said before and after, because in context it might make sense.

LOL. The conservative supporters on the FB conservatives page have that down to an art, "Harper is the BEST. God Bless you, Mr Harper. Only you can save Canada, PM Harper". It was like reading a church revival meeting - especially since the moderators take care to remove any even slightly negative remark and ban repeat offenders. (I know all parties do that, but the Libs/NDP didn't seem quite as rabid about it) But JT is good. I think he sounds too rehearsed on speeches but interacting directly with people, one-on-one, he seems exceedingly relaxed, warm and genuine. And I'm really tired of "the middle class and those working hard to join it ... ". The message is fine, but I wish they could find different wording.

What do you mean 'tough' enough? He seems to have come from third place to quite possibly first - despite everything Harper could throw at him, and being more or less dismissed by almost everyone early on. Mulcair, in possibly first place near the beginning, is now third. Harper is fighting hard with every trick in the book, and he doesn't seem to be gaining any ground ... that seems pretty "tough" to me.

In BC, the Liberal government has had three straight balanced budgets, our jobless rate is one of the 2 or 3 lowest in the land. Our credit rating is good. As far as I can tell, businesses seem to love BC. This is a LIBERAL government here. However, there is growing dismay because the government is not taking the needs of the less advantaged in BC seriously. It's not too much fun seeing constant news stories about homeless people, uptick in people using food banks, child poverty rates rising above the national average. They seem willing to sacrifice environment for economic advantage. This failure to take care of social issues as well as 'business' issues may cost the government the next election. My opinion is that its a mistake to decide that all Liberal governments are the same, or all NDP governments are the same whether its comparing province to province, federal to federal or province to federal. Too much relies on who is at the helm, and the world outside the current government's influence. It's for that reason I don't put much stock in the claims that Harper 'failed' in his economic leadership. We did come through 2008-2009 relatively unscathed, partly due to the current government's policy, but also partly due to what had gone on prior to his taking office. I vote against him because for me, economic policy/record is only part of the entire picture of what makes a good leader. It may take me some time to get the bad taste of Stephen Harper's government out of my mouth, but it would be stupid of me to assume a Conservative government at another time or place will be equally as objectionable.