Ok, enough is enough. Harper wants the ability to claim he's not making big spending promises but the opposition parties are, so he's saying the mysterious 1.9 billion dollar homelessness funding announcement is a government commitment, not a new spending promise.

According to reports, this funding decision was made just prior to the election. Harper's making the case so he can avoid adding it to his campaign promises total. Its a sham in two ways, because firstly its just a funding promise, not a firm budget item. Secondly a raft of announcements were made just before the election and those dollars must be considered part of Harper's campaign pledges. Want proof? Check the government record of spending promises in any average August and compare that record to this August and early September and you'll see what I mean. This promise was obviously held back for use during the campaign.

If it looks and walks like a duck...

Update: On Mike Duffy live a family touched by the listeriosis contamination at Maple Leaf foods weighs in on Ritz, saying they don't feel a man like Ritz is capable of looking after Canadians. Asked by Duffy if Ritz should be fired, Lionel Avon's wife Leona responds without hesitation "Yes I do".

Ritz's cracker crumbles: Our Agriculture Minister, the Conservative MP Gerry Ritz gets notoriety for insulting the families who have had loved ones get sick and die due to listeriosis contamination in our food system. Seventeen deaths have so far been attributed to the outbreak.

This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts. Conservative Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz

Ritz should be fired for his insulting and callous treatment of the issue, as its clear he was more worried about how the deaths would affect the upcoming Conservative election campaign than he was worried about people dying from eating compromised food ("Are there any more bombs out there?" - Ritz).

Ritz should also be under the spotlight for following in former ag minister Chuck Strahl's shoes as both have been relentlessly attacking through undemocratic means the Canadian Wheat Board.

From bombs to bongs, the NDP have a dreadful day when the story breaks that Dana Larsen, their candidate for West-Vancouver Sunshine Coast, can be seen on video smoking marijuana and doing LSD and DMT. And driving under the influence.

The debate over legalization of marijuana is a legitimate one, but the reality of the day is that it, as well as LSD and DMT, are controlled substances and what their now former candidate was doing is patently illegal.

I'm starting to hallucinate a bit and that's kind of fun dropped NDP candidate Dana Larsen

Layton doesn't do himself any favours in his handling of the case. Its the leader who ultimately is responsible for the nomination of each candidate yet Layton refused to accept his responsibility and passed the buck stating "He's obviously taken the decision that he's not a suitable candidate and we accepted that". Larsen, who formerly ran for the Marijuana Party, is not a credible mainstream candidate for a party whose leader has aspirations of being Prime Minister one day.

Die hard Dippers might not like this but if they want to be taken seriously as a party they should not be promoting candidates that willingly break the law not to mention show little display of common sense. You want to remain a protest party forever? Then stay on this track. Can't find anyone better to run in an un-winnable riding? Then don't run one at all.

I happen to think there are quite a few excellent NDP MP's and candidates who are quite prepared to work within the system as it is in order to change the system. Nominating a self-admitted criminal demeans the efforts of the rest of your team.

Its no secret - long time readers know I regard Harper as the most dangerous politician in the country and that I lament the passing of the Progressive Conservative party. The fundamental difference between the two is the PC Party was strongly pro-federalism and fundamentally centrist and moderate at its core.

The Conservative party believes in a different view of federalism where the central government is made to be as weak as possible, and their overall approach is only centrist and moderate in a superficial sense designed to last only for electoral purposes. Once a majority is in Harper's hand, we can look forward to decidedly radical change.

So its clear I can't support the CPC while Harper and his cronies are at the helm. Yet I won't poke only at them. Last week I indicated it was time to talk about Layton and the NDP so without further adieu...

You'll forgive me for critiquing Layton first through my jaded Harper lends but its true: my principal issue with Layton is he is so fixated on trying to help Stephen Harper destroy the Liberal Party that he's perfectly willing to sell his soul to the devil (yes, that would be Harper) damn the repercussions.

Sure, I realize Layton's strategy isn't a one-election gambit. But really, does he believe the Liberals won't come back stronger next time? It will happen. In the meantime I shudder to think that an effective Layton campaign might gain him a marginal number of additional seats yet lose the country to a Harper majority.

Still, this fixation of mine with Layton's short term / long term strategy aside, my real issue with the federal (and provincial) NDP is their climate change policy. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. Dan Garner, Ottawa Citizen

When Layton talks about "big polluters" he conveniently leaves out one of the largest... you and me. Avoiding talking about our own personal responsibility is a populist tactic that Harper employs. I'd hoped Jack was above that.

I'm all in favour of higher fuel costs and carbon taxes, seeing both as a necessary component of a workable greenhouse gas / migration away from fossil fuel strategy. We have to change our behaviour. If one really believes that climate change is a pressing serious global issue then one's politics will be informed by that belief. The NDP plan for the environment is only a start because it doesn't focus attention on personal responsibility and in that manner their plan is as bad as the flunking Conservative plan.

Here the Green and Liberal party policies make more sense. They are both designed as if they really believe it. Layton goes part way there while the Conservative plan goes nowhere. The Sierra Club has done a platform review (PDF) of the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal, and New Democrat parties. All parties get a passing grade except for the Conservatives who flunk right out with an F.

At this point in the election the environment isn't getting the prominence it should, thanks in no small part by the ruthlessly brilliant (and un-Canadian in my opinion) Conservative stream of attacks designed to cut that leg out from under Dion. Had the NDP also joined the carbon tax bandwagon, this would have pushed Harper into a corner. However I think Ms. May stands a chance at turning the page back to environmental issues.

If that does happen, both Harper and Layton have something to fear. Provincial NDP leader Carole James also has, quite wrongly in my opinion, put a lot on the line in opposing Gordon Campbell's carbon tax.

Eventually all modern economies in all jurisdictions will end up putting a real price on carbon. Even Stephen Harper will be forced to deal with this at some point. Any leader that says they will not put a price on carbon is woefully uninformed or lying. They all know they need to do it, that international pressure will one day force their hand. Best be honest with people now and get going.

Yes, I realize being honest with people is frequently a losing electoral strategy. Still, as inept a campaigner as Dion appears to be, I give him high marks for being committed enough to the issue that he's doing the impossible: trying to sell during a highly competitive election a difficult to understand policy that includes the word "tax". Maybe an advertisement of some regular folks having a coffee in a doughnut shop, calculating their Green Shift tax savings on an envelope... might make more headway with the average voter.

On the subject of energy taxation, the following article by Dan Garner, published today in the Ottawa Citizen, is a worthy read. Please go on past this excerpt:

Harper economics: Stephen Harper has a masters degree in economics. He is conservative. He says he understands how markets function and he prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

Gregory Mankiw is a professor at Harvard University and a world-renowned economist. He was chairman of U.S. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Mankiw definitely understands how markets function and he, too, prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. More >