Thursday, January 04, 2007

Understanding Harper's New Found Concern

The after-thought issue takes centerstage:
Environmental policy is both the top priority of Canadian voters and the subject of the most dissatisfaction with government performance, according to a new poll.

The survey by Decima Research, released Thursday to The Canadian Press as Prime Minister Stephen Harper was switching environment ministers, found the environment to be the most pressing preoccupation of Canadians, eclipsing health care, the Afghanistan conflict, taxes and the economy, among other areas.

Some 19 per cent of respondents said the environment was the issue that concerned them most personally, followed by health care at 13 per cent.

Since a similar Decima survey in September, mentions of the environment as the top issue have jumped 13 percentage points.

Even the base isn't impressed:
In Alberta, a Conservative party stronghold, 27 per cent said the government was doing a good job on the environment and 61 per cent said a poor job. Among Tory voters, 32 per cent approved of the government's environmental record.

Dion had a strong appearance today on CBC, effectively arguing that the newly found environmental concern of the Harper government was a by-product of vote potential, as opposed to conviction. Most of today's pundit talk centered around the idea that the Conservatives were caught off guard by the rise of the environment as a big issue with Canadians. This fact is obviously true, but it does demonstrate that the Conservatives lack any independent recognition of the problem, and are basically reacting, rather than leading. This absence of true conviction should be exploited by the opposition, because we are about to enter the public relations phase where the Conservatives paint themselves green, with simplistic rhetoric to sell. The motivation is political survival and this distinction is important.

Baird started his interview today predictably, blaming Liberal inaction, 13 years, blah, blah, blah. This line of criticism absolves the last year, not to mention conveniently doesn't address the fact that the Conservatives had no environmental platform for all those years. If the Liberal record was such a disgrace, where was your alternative, or was it that you just didn't care? If Baird tries to beat the tired horse, he needs the inexcusable incompetence thrown right back, with no apologies. Canadians are paying attention, the dodge and weave doesn't work forever, surely year two demands some accountability.

16 comments:

Scotian said...

*applause*

I think you are exactly right with this post of yours Steve both in terms of content and in terms of timing. This is something that needs driving home at every opportunity by every progressive Canadian across the board. Anything this CPC will do will ultimately be the minimum it figures necessary with an eye of slow rolling to stopping it down the road when the fickle mind of the public changes focus. Given the real need to develop environmentally sustainable economies for long term survival of our civilizations at the minimum and species at the maximum we cannot afford that mindset in charge for any significant period of time, two years is more than enough as it is. I would add that I am not just talking in terms of climate change environmental sustainability but also resource recycling and improved efficiency being necessary for long term viability as well cannot be ignored yet often is in the press to deal with the climate change issue which is the current closest one to tipping point status.

Baird is not someone chosen for his environmental background or his ability to research and master new areas but to be a partisan pit-bull. His so called success with the Accountability Act was thanks to the mutual interest between the Layton NDP and the CPC to stick it to the Libs and BQ so they essentially shut them out of the HoC end of the process in committee. This is not incidentally why there were so many basic spelling/grammatical errors that needed amending in the Senate version as well as on more substantive grounds of policy shut out from the Liberals in the Hoc. Other than that he has been unremarkable as President of the Treasury Board except in his position as the aforementioned partisan pit-bull. So it is clear that his shift to Environment is to deal with this issue on a rhetorical and not a substantial issue to strengthen the CPC's hand or at the minimum weaken the opposition's hand for using this as a weapon against the CPC in the next election.

We are no doubt going to be regaled with tales from Dion's time in the Environment Ministry and all that he was unable to accomplish in every question put to Baird in QP by any Liberal MP from now on. For a party that claimed to be the wave of the future though it spends a great deal of time revisiting the past in this manner and that has always had its pitfalls in politics before Harper's day and I fully expect will yet again. The problem they have with the Liberals is that Martin was the leader after Adscam had ended as an active program and called for the Gomery Inquiry which certainly did not do him nor the Libs any favours and cost them the government a year or so after calling it thanks in no small part to the drip drip drip of the Gomery Testimony and the Opposition's use of the media coverage of it. Dion is the leader after that whom has never been at all implicated in that mess and is now the second leader after the PM on whose watch it did happen under and this is over three years after that leader lost his position. Going that far in the past to paint the current Liberal party as corrupt and untrustworthy simply will not work anymore especially after the protracted leadership race of 2006 and the final result.

So you have raised a very important point with this post of yours Steve and one I think needs to be shouted from progressive rooftops everywhere. Good job.

Steve V said...

"Anything this CPC will do will ultimately be the minimum it figures necessary"

Political calculation. Harper will make concessions so he can neutralize the issue heading into the election.

One point that gets lost today, more time wasted. A new minister, who now has to get up to speed, on a file that demands fast action. When Harper speaks of the importance, someone should ask why it took a year to get someone "with experience" into the portfolio.


"His so called success with the Accountability Act was thanks to the mutual interest between the Layton NDP and the CPC to stick it to the Libs and BQ so they essentially shut them out of the HoC end of the process in committee."

Exactly.

Olaf said...

Steve,

I also agree that Harpers turnaround is completely the result of the hitherto non-existent public pressure... but I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing. If you think any politician would or should put time and effort into issues which aren't of relatively high importance to Canadians, well, you should vote NDP, and resign yourself to supporting a party which will never get a great deal of support.

For the past 10 years or so, Canadians didn't give a shit about the environment let alone greenhouse gas emissions, and the Liberal record reflects this. They recognized the science behind global warming (one would assume it is the reason they signed Kyoto), but they felt no pressure to actually do anything about it, so they didn't. It's just the way things work. If the public cares in great numbers, so will the politicians. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

Another example: Paul Martin actually voted against same sex marriage in 2003. Then, as the public mood shifted, he became its most ardent supporter. It was the right move politically and it reflected the wishes of Canadian citizens, even if Paul Martin wasn't the constant defender of same sex marriage that he framed himself as.

Whether Harper is passionate about the environment or not, isn't really the point. The point is whether he is able to bring in serious legislation which addresses the issue (which he has so far failed to do).

I mean you act as if Stephen Harper is the only politician who makes decisions based on vote potential alone.

ottlib said...

"One point that gets lost today, more time wasted. A new minister, who now has to get up to speed, on a file that demands fast action."

That is not his function. Mr. Baird is there to deflect criticism and to insulate the Conservatives from climate change as an election issue.

Since the election will probably take place sometime in the next 3-6 months Mr. Baird is not expected to come up with any grand environmental policies.

I am having some difficulty trying to figure this strategy out. Spending the next few months pointing fingers at the Liberals AFTER they tabled the DOA Clean Air Act seems very risky to me. I believe Canadians are expecting the government to actually take real action on climate change.

So either I just cannot see how this works for the Conservatives (which is very possible) or Stephen Harper has demonstrated once again that he really does not believe in global warming and therefore does not care about it.

Either way it will be very interesting to see how Canadians will react to our new Environment Minister and it will be interesting to see how the new Leader of the Opposition will deal with the new minister.

Scotian said...

Olaf:

Paul Martin did not shift so much from public mood shift as he did from the recognition of the several Provincial Supreme Court rulings that made it a Charter issue in reality and not just in theory. So I don't think you can fairly use that example in comparison with what appears to be the shift by Harper (assuming it is a real one and not a perfunctory for appearances and votes sake only shift) on the issue of the environment.

Steve V:

You raise yet another good point in terms of the time lost in this Minister getting up to speed added onto the time wasted with the prior Minister who clearly was not up to the job given her performance and repeated need for revisions to her so called facts when testifying to Parliamentary committees. My problems with Ambrose's competence comes from how poorly she executed her job in such matters and not based on the Hot Air Act she put forward to die on arrival until Layton gave it a hail Mary breath of life which I chalk up to Harper himself given the tight manner he runs the CPC and this government. I expect Baird to at least be better prepared with his attacks when he tries to pass them off as more than they truly are, Ambrose's were quite pathetic indeed almost pitiable in their obviousness I thought.

Steve V said...

olaf

Fair points. There are plenty of examples where public sentiment drives policy, although I think the Martin reference on same-sex marriage was mostly a reaction to judicial opinion, as opposed to appeasing the electorate. The problem I have with formulating policy based soley on political calculation, you often make decisions based on neutralizing, rather than sound conviction. Does Harper want to curb global warming, or does he want to win re-election? The answer influences the ultimate policy.

I'm not naive enough to suggest Harper is the only one who acts based on calculation, but the degree to which this government operates like a marketing outfit is unprecedented in Canadian politics.

ottlib

"Spending the next few months pointing fingers at the Liberals AFTER they tabled the DOA Clean Air Act seems very risky to me. I believe Canadians are expecting the government to actually take real action on climate change."

I see the Conservatives cutting a deal with the NDP. If Layton walks away, then the Conservatives have nothing to present in the next election, which is certain death, given that Dion, Layton and May will crucify him. We are actually poised for this to be the election issue, I can't see Harper leaving such a gaping hole heading to the polls. Hopefully, Layton sees the folly and leaves Harper out to dry.

Olaf said...

Scotian,

Actually, the public mood shifted a great deal between the time Martin voted against the same sex marriage bill in 2003 and the time he tabled a similar one in parliament.

And is the fact that he only changed his mind when it would have likely been deemed illegal not to, more honourable or principled than changing ones mind as a result of shifting public mood?

I'd say that Paul Martin's decision was made for him by the courts, against his original wishes. At least Harper isn't being forced into it legally.

Anonymous said...

It could be about winning the 10-second QP snippet on tv, with Baird's brimming verbosity a potential winner. But there's also the rumour that in some committees, Baird has built up a good rapport with a few NdPers like Pat Martin and Judy W... I haven't seen the NdPs reaction to these appointments so I could be completely off base, but behind the curtain this could be one of the things they were wishing for -- someone who will continuously turn each question into a reflection on what the past gov't didn't do, while also projecting a purely offensive, stone-age agenda. And what's good for the NdP these days is also good for the Cons.
That is when you consider the urban ridings where there is little chance for Harpor's soldiers, he can split the vote and at least, if forced into an election, hold onto his support and pick up a few more on the fringes.

Scotian said...

"I'd say that Paul Martin's decision was made for him by the courts, against his original wishes. At least Harper isn't being forced into it legally."

11:02 PM, January 04, 2007

That is the point Olaf, you appear to be missing that. Martin changed his position/opinion in the acceptance of legal recognition he did not personally support as any representative of the body which creates laws should be doing. It was not out of a need to gain political brownie points because it appeared to be becoming a dominant issue even an election issue. What Harper appears to be doing though is shifting out of a recognition to not do so will not only hurt his chances for increasing his seat count but quite likely drive him and his party from power. That makes it out of expediency first and not because of any legal compulsion.

I find it puzzling that you can write and think as well as you have to the point that I from time to time lurk at your blog and find it worth the time yet manage to argue against something and then underscore the point in the same short comment as you just did. My point was that Martin's shift was out of legal recognition more than out of political calculation and therefore is not a comparable example with Harper's current shifting on the environment issue. You point out yourself that Martin is legally compelled and that is why he did it instead of doing so for more crass reasons in the part I quote yet you used it in the comparison with Harper without appearing to see why it's not a reasonable usage. Harper is under no legal compulsion as you recognize while Martin clearly was as you also recognize and you don't even think that is sufficient difference as to make the comparison invalid...why exactly?

I'm sorry Olaf but I find your answer instead of your more usual illuminating your line of thinking for me only further obfuscated it. I hope I have been able to more fully point out to you in this post why I think you are not making a reasonable comparison with Martin and SSM and Harper on environment.

wayward son said...

"I see the Conservatives cutting a deal with the NDP. If Layton walks away, then the Conservatives have nothing to present in the next election, which is certain death, given that Dion, Layton and May will crucify him. We are actually poised for this to be the election issue, I can't see Harper leaving such a gaping hole heading to the polls. Hopefully, Layton sees the folly and leaves Harper out to dry."

I don't see a deal with a NDP being struck. I see continued slow negotiation between the Conservatives and the NDP leaving the Conservatives being able to say that they "have been working with the NDP" to bring forward positive environmental legislation. That should be enough to confuse the public. The Conservatives need the NDP support on this file to improve their image. The NDP (now) needs to continue working with the Conservatives because they are afraid that if they walk away and bitch about the Conservatives that will bring votes back to the Liberals from the Conservatives which will cut down on the NDP seat count.

The Conservatives can use the "partnership" with the NDP along with attacking the poor Liberal record on the environment to turn what was their biggest negative with the public into a non-issue. All without having to do anything.

The NDP will attack the Liberals on their poor environmental record while using kids gloves with the Conservatives in the hopes of shifting votes away from the Liberals and increasing the NDP seat count (while at the same time increasing the Conservative seat count, but they don't seem to care about that anymore). I would like to see them return to positive messages, but I have a feeling that they will be very negative in the next election (at least if the LNC by-election is anything to go by).

The Liberals will have to go positive and propose new solutions to the climate change problems. The questions will be can the Liberals come up with those solutions and if so will those solutions be heard over all the negativity.

The Greens will not be part of the debate.

The bizarre and unfortunate thing about if the environment issue is still number one with Canadians during an election is that all 5 major parties will say that they are savior and try to show how the other parties are aweful on this issue. It will turn into such a circus that Canadians will say fuck it, and the environment will fall off the radar screens again.

Olaf said...

Scotian,

Martin changed his position/opinion in the acceptance of legal recognition he did not personally support as any representative of the body which creates laws should be doing.

The Supreme Court didn't say he had to change the law, and they certainly didn't mandate that he grandstand around the issue as if it was his baby from the get go.

How same sex marriage became a charter right between 2003 and 2005, I'll never know. Some provincial courts may have ruled on it in this period, but that is the recognition, not the creation, of a charter right.

The point is that as the public mood changed, and as it became clear that he could use his new found position as "defender of the Charter" to beat Harper with a cudgel, he did. He made the right decision according to the shifting mood and the wishes of the courts - however, how he went about it was nothing if not politically calculating, as much as you'd like to think it wasn't.

Here's an example that might clarify: in the Chaoulli ruling, the Supreme Court said that restrictions on private care are unconstitutional where timely service isn't provided in the public system. However, soon there after, Martin came out and said that he would oppose the provision of private care in any circumstance (which, one would assume, would include circumstances where it may be deemed unconstitutional to do so). Thus, he didn't jump all over this Charter ruling? Why not? Why didn't he make the option for private health care his pet issue for the election? I wonder.

It was not out of a need to gain political brownie points because it appeared to be becoming a dominant issue even an election issue.

Right, it was just incidental that the issue allowed him to somewhat disingenuously paint Harper as the evil social conservative hell bent on depriving you of your charter rights. That worked out quite nicely, didn't it?

Harper is under no legal compulsion as you recognize while Martin clearly was as you also recognize and you don't even think that is sufficient difference as to make the comparison invalid...why exactly?

The very fact that Harper brought in a vote against same sex marriage shows that there is no rigid legal compulsion, yet. Some provincial courts have ruled on it, and have said that in many of the provinces, a "traditional" definition would be invalid.

All told, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court of Canada would likely rule it invalid as well, which is what I meant by "the courts made the decision for Martin". But that isn't guaranteed. Indeed, the lower court rulings could possibly be overturned.

Simply, it is no coincidence that Martin was against gay marriage when the majority of the country was against it, and was for gay marriage when the majority of the country was for it.

My point was that politicians react to the public. Both Harper and Martin were reacting to outside forces not of their own internal conscience, and the positions taken by both of them were the politically popular decisions at the time, which, call me crazy, I think factored into their decision making.

You can feel free to think that "crass" politics had absolutely nothing to do with Martins shifting positions on gay marriage if you like. And if the analogy bothers you so much, I'll retract it. I agree it's not the most precise comparison ever made. I didn't think it was going to get raked over the coals. But, it's always good to keep me honest.

Scotian said...

Olaf:

Some Provincial courts have ruled on it?!? Try every Provincial Supreme Court save Alberta and PEI all under the same grounds in the Charter and all the Provincial governments stopped appealing it because of how clear it was that this was going to be the final result if taken to the SCC. Why are you downplaying the number and significance of both the number of Provincial Supreme Courts as well as the remarkable commonality within each Court's rulings as for the basis of legalizing SSM as a Charter right?

All my point was that one cannot compare the two events and you still have failed to show that these two events are similar enough to make comparison reasonable despite the clear evidence of major legal shifts on one issue forcing the hand of one PM while there is ZERO legal pressure forcing the hand of the other. That is why the comparison was inaccurate and unfair and you still have not made a reasonable case for why they are.

Was there political advantage in using this reality against the CPC by being the defender of the Charter? Of course and I never said there was not. My point though was that Martin changed positions as a result of legal pressures making his former position untenable whereas the only pressure on Harper to change positions on climate change/environment's importance is purely the political calculation that to not do so will severely hurt the political chances of the CPC retaining government let alone increasing their seat count to a majority. Which means there are two distinctly different sets of pressures going on here and that it is Harper's which is the most clearly rooted/based SOLELY on political expediency. That is why these two examples are not comparable as you have tried to make them.

Keep in mind that difference when you again try to tell me I am wrong because it is that fundamental difference between the two circumstances that is at issue and not how Martin dealt with court results on other issues like health care which are a smokescreen for what is under discussion. My sole point in starting this was to state that your comparison of Martin's position change on SSM versus Harper's on environment are not sufficiently similar to make it a reasonable comparison/justification for Harper's defence since one had significant legal pressures behind it whereas the other does not and is totally driven by political calculus. That is the point and you still have not shown why I am wrong in this.

Olaf said...

Scotian,

My sole point in starting this was to state that your comparison of Martin's position change on SSM versus Harper's on environment are not sufficiently similar to make it a reasonable comparison/ justification for Harper's defence since one had significant legal pressures behind it whereas the other does not and is totally driven by political calculus.

Ok. That's fine. If you don't want to accept the analogy, I won't try to force you.

I'm not sure who really gets to define exactly how similar analogies have to be in order to be considered "sufficiently similar", but assuming you get to define it, than I agree, it was a flawed analogy.

Therefore, by your definition, and to my undying embarrassment, the analogy wasn't similar enough to be considered "sufficiently similar", and therefore was inexcusably invalid.

Phewf, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Scotian said...

Olaf:

You were the one that decided this was a fair comparison, I pointed out a significant difference between the two scenarios (legal compulsions involved versus zero legal compulsions involved) to show why it was a poor comparison. You are trying to compare a shift Harper makes on the environment necessitated solely by the recognition of its increased importance as an election issue with a shift forced upon Martin by 8 Provincial Supreme Courts decisions more than any overriding call in the public that this owuld be an election issue if Martin did not. If Harper was under some sort of legal pressure or Martin was not then the comparison of the two would be reasonable. That was the point.

You were the one that made the initial comparison despite this inherent and rather fundamental difference making it an apples to oranges kind of comparison to an apples to apples kind of one and I called you on it. You have tried first to show that I was wrong and in the process actually underscored my point and now you finally concede the point thinking it was nothing worth arguing in the first place. Could that be because you are forced to concede I had a point?

Look Olaf, I like your writing most of the time even when I disagree with you, which is why I tried to treat this issue in a civil/polite manner. All I was saying this was a bad comparison, I explained why, and your responses did not refute my reasoning. Martin changed position on SSM primarily because of the change in legal status whereas Harper changing on the environment is clearly solely motivated by political necessity. Therefore one can not reasonably use the SSM example of Martin's to neither equate nor justify any decision of Harper to change his position on the environment. Incidentally, it is not by my definition that these were not fair comparisons but the actual facts of the matter, so trying to make it like this was some sort of figment of my imagination or a point unworthy of taking seriously does not speak well of your underlying understanding of facts and how situations must have a certain basic similarity in basic respects to be a fair comparison and that this one was clearly outside of that degree of commonality.

Olaf said...

Scotian,

All I was saying this was a bad comparison, I explained why, and your responses did not refute my reasoning.

Not to your standards, anyways. I understand your point: there are differences in the two situations and thus, the comparison is not "sufficiently similar" to constitute a valid analogy. I get it.

I conceded that the analogy was not precise. Personally, I think that both Harper and Martin were making political calculations based on political expediency, even if other considerations came into play for both of them. I think that both considered the shifting public mood in making their decisions. The degree to which each took into consideration public opinion, we don't really know.

You, aided by your unique ability to read minds, have deemed that in making his decision, Martin did not react to shifting public opinion whatsoever, and his decision was based only on court rulings, even though the Supreme Court did not declare the traditional definition unconstitutional.

My point is, you're speculating that shifting public opinion did not factor into his decision. Likewise, I am speculating that shifting public opinion did factor into his decision to "defend the charter" by introducing SSM legislation in 2005, just as it played a significant role in his decision to NOT "defend the charter" if it conflicted with legislation prohibiting private health care. One is politically viable, the other isn't.

In my opinion, Martin thought he could fight an election claiming that the Conservatives were against charter rights when it came to same sex marriage. Hence, it was to some degree a political calculation.

By your line of reasoning, you'd have to believe that if public opinion on same sex marriage was strongly against it (say, 20% for, and 80% strongly against), Martin would have still tabled legislation on the issue. If you think that because of the legal considerations, Martin would have made it an election issue, even with 80% of Canadians strongly behind Harper's position, I think you're mistaken. However, if it was based purely on legal imperatives, he would have.

Hence, he took public opinion into consideration. Hence, both Harper and Martin made their decisions, to some degree or another, based on political expediency. Hence, to some degree, it's an apt analogy.

Martin was not legally compelled to table legislation by either the Supreme Court or the lower court rulings. He could have merely declined to table any legislation whatsoever, citing the fact that 90% of gay Canadians already had the ability to marry. If public opinion wasn't behind him, and if he didn't see it as a wedge issue pushing Harper out of urban areas and making him look "scary" and like a "red neck", he wouldn't have tabled any legislation, is my guess.

In short, neither of us know why or what factors were the driving force behind Paul Martin's decision. We can both speculate, and we will both have difficulty convincing the other that they're wrong.

Furthermore, we don't know what came into play for Harper in making his decision to shift towards a more robust environmental policy. Perhaps it had less to do with public opinion polls, and more to do with long term economic imperatives, as highlighted by the Stern report.

There are always a number of factors which come into political decision making, and we can speculate on which are the most salient, however we don't know for sure.

Therefore, as strongly as you feel about this particular analogy, you can't "prove" me wrong. You can speculate on the motivations of the politicians, but you don't know for sure. You can, based on your speculation, draw the conclusion that Harpers decision was based 100% on crass political calculation, where Martins decision was based on 100% on legal imperatives, and that regardless of public support, he would have made the same decision.

As such, you can feel free to declare my analogy not just imperfect or imprecise, as I've granted before, but completely invalid. That's fine. I disagree.

so trying to make it like this was some sort of figment of my imagination or a point unworthy of taking seriously does not speak well of your underlying understanding of facts and how situations must have a certain basic similarity in basic respects to be a fair comparison and that this one was clearly outside of that degree of commonality.

By your definition of the proper degree of commonality, of course. And I don't think it was a figment of your imagination, I just disagree on what Martin's motivations may have been.

But if you're looking to prove me wrong, based on your speculation of what factors were most salient in their respective decision making processes, and your definition of what constitutes a degree of commonality required for a valid if imprecise analogy, I think you're wasting your time. And if you're so adamantly opposed to my analogy for my own benefit, I know you're wasting your time.

Simply, I granted that the analogy wasn't terribly precise. I granted that there were a number of different factors which informed the decisions of both politicians. I'll even grant that I could be wrong, and that Martin did make his decision based completely on legal considerations, and Harper did base his decision based completely on political expediency, and thus, that my analogy could be outside of the necessary degree of commonality to justify an analogy (even by my definition of required commonality!).

Will you grant that there is a possibility that you might be wrong? That, however unlikely, Martin may have decided to table legislation on same sex marriage because he saw it as the politically expedient decision to make? Will you admit that you don't know exactly to what degree different factors influenced their decisions? And therefore, will you admit that my analogy could, conceivably, be reasonable and within the degree of commonality necessary for a valid analogy?

Ok, I'm done. Good chat Scotian, even if it was altogether unimportant. Regards.

I doubt Steve is still paying attention to our ramblings, but if so, sorry to hijack the thread, Steve.

Steve V said...

"I doubt Steve is still paying attention to our ramblings, but if so, sorry to hijack the thread, Steve."

Ramble away, it's an interesting discussion :)