Carolyn Parrish comments

[Shawnski]

She definitely isn't a Martin lover.

"'Is it okay if we vote Tory, Carolyn?' Yeah, it's okay, I'm not running," she whispers.

Lots of other interesting comments.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=974089088220

[mykalberta]

Ah, this is the Liberals version of the Cattle Rancher from Lethbridge.

Oh how I wish I would actualy affect them - why cant stuff like this show up with like a week to go in the campaign like its going to for the PC.

MYK

[Cowperson]

What a strange woman. . . . . although candid.

Cowperson

[jimmy11]

You knnow what I was thinking the whole time reading this...how can Harper keep the momentum going until the end.

I have a bad feeling noone is really paying attention yet and no matter how much young families will like this stuff, do any of them even know about it.

I'm honestly thinking the Conservative could pull something off here if they can keep the message on their new policies, and if Harper manages not to screw up and say something that will alienate Ontario.

IMO opinion they have been killing the Liberals so far.

[mykalberta]

It wont be Harper that kills the PC, if it happens, it will happen (as I stated before) the week of the 16-20, some grainey video/audio will come out of some dude in Claresholm at a RCL (Legion) talking about god and waving a reform/PC flag and that will kill them - or King Ralph will open up his yap again.

Its what killed them the last election. No politician is actually going to do that, but what he will do is try to keep his base on his side until he can get power then shift to the middle and force his base for vote for him because they are so afraid of the other side.

Right now the Libs and PC economic platforms are so close together that Harper needed to do things that werent economically significant but more socially significant. The sports/gst/child care were perfect example, I do wish that they would have been kept on the back burner until the last few weeks or at least the debates.

Harper must succeed in the French debate by not attacking Martin or NDP, but Duceppe. He needs to show the differences in the way the PC and Libs would handle Quebec. The PC need to show that this separation shat is not to be tollerated - I personally think that the Clarity Act (while utterly useless btw - 50% + 1 wins in every democratic country no matter what the question) does nothing more than legitimize QC separation. He also needs to stress the PC of a more state-like system where the provinces have more control - that will appease alot of the soft QC Seps.

In the English debate Harper must attack, attack, attack, attack Martin. Ignore Duceppe and Layton, take the occasional jab but if Layton presses, turn and attack Martin. PC must also come up with a plan for continuing with Kyoto. So far the Libs really havent done anything - that will eliminate Kyoto from the debate. As per abortion, keep saying what he is saying, free vote, 1 vote, thats it. In a minority government the PC will lose (ensure its not a confidence motion) and that will put the debate and issue to an end once and for all.

There is still along way to go and never count out the Libs/Globe&Mail/Star/StrategicCouncil

MYK

[Shawnski]

David Kilgour takes a pretty good run at his former party too....

"I'm appalled by the way the Liberal campaign (is going) and the way Martin and (top aide Scott) Reid and so many of them are conducting themselves,'' Kilgour said in an interview Tuesday.

"Actually, I'm ashamed to have a been a part of them.''

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=...1685e7c4&k=757

[Flame On]

I wonder if he'd be saying any of this if his riding was more secure and he was running again.

[CaramonLS]

I hadn't heard that if your child is enrolled in sports programs, you get 600$ per year.

Wow that is a really great idea.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I wonder if he'd be saying any of this if his riding was more secure and he was running again.

As he is no longer a Liberal, me thinkst the answer to your question would be obvious.

In other news today, the Fibs might have uncovered some old news that could be troubling for Harper...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ion2006&no_ads=

But, in Quebec, they might have made another faux-pas.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ion2006&no_ads=

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

But, in Quebec, they might have made another faux-pas.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ion2006&no_ads=

I saw something about that on the TV yesterday. Sheesh, what a bunch of whiners. The Fiberals paid them for use of the set. What the hell did they expect they were going to do in there, practice improv?

I don't know if it's a faux pas or not. Could be. Of course they do seem to be getting an awful lot of mileage out of that one cheap commercial

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I saw something about that on the TV yesterday. Sheesh, what a bunch of whiners. The Fiberals paid them for use of the set. What the hell did they expect they were going to do in there, practice improv?

I don't know if it's a faux pas or not. Could be. Of course they do seem to be getting an awful lot of mileage out of that one cheap commercial

Set is one thing, theme is another. I think that is their beef.

Hell, maybe that would be like the Fibs renting the Bob and Doug Mackenzie set (and taken on their personas) for their "beer and popcorn" announcement!!! Bring out the Molson and Orville!!

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I hadn't heard that if your child is enrolled in sports programs, you get 600$ per year.

Wow that is a really great idea.

You don't/won't.

First, it's never been $600. Nice reporting.

What was promised is:

"A Conservative government will allow the parents of young people under 16 years old who register their children in organizations that promote physical fitness to claim a federal tax credit on registration fees to a maximum of $500 per year per child."

It sounds like "you get $500", it's being widely reported as "you get $500", and ol' straight shooter, bringing truth and dignity back to the office Harper is happy to let it go reported as such unless actually pressed on it, but in reality it is much less.

As reported here, what it really is is that if you spend money registering your kid for organised sports, you can take a tax deduction on the first $500. In reality it would come out to an $80 savings on you taxes.

[Zarathustra]

Parrish is quite the character.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Mike F

You don't/won't.

First, it's never been $600. Nice reporting.

What was promised is:

"A Conservative government will allow the parents of young people under 16 years old who register their children in organizations that promote physical fitness to claim a federal tax credit on registration fees to a maximum of $500 per year per child."

It sounds like "you get $500", it's being widely reported as "you get $500", and ol' straight shooter, bringing truth and dignity back to the office Harper is happy to let it go reported as such unless actually pressed on it, but in reality it is much less.

As reported here, what it really is is that if you spend money registering your kid for organised sports, you can take a tax deduction on the first $500. In reality it would come out to an $80 savings on you taxes.

They probably shouldn't have reported that then.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

As he is no longer a Liberal, me thinkst the answer to your question would be obvious.

Could be. Could also be sour grapes by an MP that is getting turfed (if indirectly) and is foisting the blame elsewhere. Also the answer to my question IMO is actually no. I don't think any MP that was good enough to retain their seat in their riding with their party (had they remained in that party) would lambaste that same party like he did.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Mike F

As reported here, what it really is is that if you spend money registering your kid for organised sports, you can take a tax deduction on the first $500. In reality it would come out to an $80 savings on you taxes.

In that article...

The Tories' promise of a $500 tax credit for families who enrol their children in organized sports will only return $80 at tax time, a campaign spokesman admitted last night.

One, that is an unnamed spokesman... why? Two, the position of the Tories says "Federal tax credit" (verbatim to what Harper said), which falls under the TD1 section which are direct credits. (They did not say "tax deduction".)

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/td1/td1-05e.pdf

Not saying you are wrong Mike, just there seems to be some miscommunication somewhere. Certainly interested in any further info on this one.


Edit.. wondering if the article is basing the premise on this portion...

Harper's promise is similar to a program enacted by Nova Scotia's government, which promised a $150 healthy living tax credit in the 2003 provincial campaign. However, by the time the program actually came to be implemented, the tax credit had become a tax deduction -- meaning parents didn't see the full $150 benefit.

If that were the case, I would be ticked at Harper for twisting a promise too. (not that it impacts me.) Be a straight shooter SH.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Could be. Could also be sour grapes by an MP that is getting turfed (if indirectly) and is foisting the blame elsewhere.

He QUIT the Liberal party. Did it during the last term.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

One, that is an unnamed spokesman... why? Two, the position of the Tories says "Federal tax credit" (verbatim to what Harper said), which falls under the TD1 section which are direct credits. (They did not say "tax deduction".)

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/td1/td1-05e.pdf

Not saying you are wrong Mike, just there seems to be some miscommunication somewhere. Certainly interested in any further info on this one.

Just a bit more from another article:

Meanwhile, the Tories' promised $500 sports tax credit would only return $80 at tax time, a spokesman for the Harper campaign admitted late Monday.

The credit would appear on individual tax forms in the same place where charitable donations are calculated, and the full amount wouldn't be deductible.

"The tax credit will mean a savings of $80 per year per child," William Stairs, a Harper spokesman, told reporters.

It's also questionable whether all parents would enjoy the benefits of Harper's proposed tax credit, because it would be non-refundable.

A non-refundable tax credit reduces what a person owes in income tax. But if the total credit is more than the amount of tax owed, the taxpayer doesn't receive a refund.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

One, that is an unnamed spokesman... why? Two, the position of the Tories says "Federal tax credit" (verbatim to what Harper said), which falls under the TD1 section which are direct credits. (They did not say "tax deduction".)

It could be an unnamed spokesman for no other reason than the reporter decided not to name the spokesman because it was unimportant.

In other news, the Yank bashing is taking an unexpected twist

The American ambassador tells Martin to back off, Harper tells him to butt out.

Speaking of, I saw Lou "Crank" Dobbs yesterday and he brought up Martin's US bashing and he said something like "it's refreshing to know that Canada's politicians are just as screwed up as ours".

[Shawnski]

Thanks Mike.