Liberals Can Expect Substantive Leadership Race

With the Liberal leadership race taking shape (Marc Garneau set to announce today), it is becoming apparent, this exercise will be anything but a beauty contest.  One of the criticisms of the NDP leadership race was the "agreeable" factor, apart from Cullen's co-operation idea, there was little divergence of opinion which didn't lend itself to much spirited debate.  Not necessarily a criticism, one could argue Dippers simply know who they are, hence the general unanimity, but in terms of contrast and colour, a pretty benign affair.  However, a review of some early policy positions taken in this Liberal leadership almost guarantees conflicting directions, which should provide substantive debate.

Whether it be Trudeau's somewhat controversial stance on foreign ownership, Murray reintroducing the carbon tax into the mix, as well as the complex arguments around political co-operation, or Hall Findlay's views on supply management, it all congeals into a fairly volatile mix, with much more to come one suspects.  Anyone predicting reaffirmation debates is deluding themselves, the stage is now set for Liberals to partake in a philosophical discussion, that could lead to very divergent paths.  Candidates will be put through their paces, as ideas are challenged, "sacred cows" put up for slaugher, there is the potential to get well beyond platitudes, into the policy weeds that Liberals really need to examine on the "renewal" path. 

Garneau is a man of substance, Murray has staked out some interesting ground, Hall Findlay promises policy planks on an almost weekly basis and Trudeau has given early indications that there is vision beyond the superficial distractions.  Obviously, Justin is the hands down front runner, but the lay of the land suggests he will be put through is paces, divergent positions will demand forceful debate and compelling counters.  There is no leadership cake walk on the horizon, at least in terms of the process.

People were worried if Liberals would actually have an interesting leadership race.  Early indications are shaping up to suggest a very compelling debate about ideas and directions, formidable candidates and divergent paths.  Liberals need a substantive debate, it would appear we are about to have one....

By-Election Breakdown

- It is up for fair debate whether or not the Trudeau/McGuinty comments cost the Liberal Party the Calgary Center seat.  There is no question Liberals had wind at their back last week, only to hit a brick wall with the damaging quotes.  We will never know the true impact, but with such a slight margin of victory- as well as evidence of a Green uptick in the wake- my opinion is that we had the opportunity and blew it.  That a Liberal victory would have been historic, potentially recalibrating potentials and assumptions, all the more hard to swallow.

-Newly minted Liberal leadership contender Joyce Murray enjoys powerful practical application to support her call for co-operation between the opposition parties.   The Conservatives held Calgary Center by 4.2%, despite the Liberals and Greens combining for 58% of the vote, a fact which should provide sober consideration.  If Stephane Dion can give a speech at a Green Party convention, one has to wonder what all the fuss is really about, once we become colour blind.  I look forward to Murray interjecting the topic into the Liberal leadership race, and hope we examine without the kneejerk reactions, because Stephen Harper is smiling, a shit kicking grin in fact.

-The Green Party are fast becoming a legitimate option in Canadian politics.  In two of the by-elections they were formidable, and came within a whisker of winning another seat.  The biggest hurdle for an upstart party is the credibility gap, the Greens should be encouraged with last night, because by any definition they were real players.  As an aside,  combining all the by-election results,  Greens averaged over 21%  support, as did the Liberals, and the NDP 23%, a testament to how well the party performed.

-Despite almost unprecedented attention, turnout continues to be an issue in Canadian politics, a fact that should be of grave concern to everyone.  Canadians are largely indifferent, apathetic and disengaged, 29% turnout in Calgary, with all the controversy and talk of razor thin results, is downright pathetic and disheartening.  Poor turnout works for the Conservatives most of all, as they do better with the dependable, older voter, which becomes more accentuated with dismal turnout.

"Opposition" Needs To Get Its Shit Together

How long will the same depressing theme emerge before somebody advocates FORMAL co-operation, "merger", "non aggression pact" between the opposition?  Another Nanos poll out today reinforces the macro problem, currently manifesting itself in Calgary Center.  Vote splitting is Stephen Harper's best friend, recent polling must make the PMO simply giddy.  Why then would the "opposition" continue on with their narrow tribalism, knowing full well their chief adversary LOVES the status quo?

Joan Crockatt has run a brutal campaign in this by-election.  The only saving grace for the Conservatives in Calgary Center is that opposition remains divided, this reality blunting full impact.  What we are witnessing in this riding is another glaring example of the opposition to Harper voluntarily handicapping itself in the name of tribal pursuit.  Of course there are differences between the various opposition parties, but put side by side with the chasm between themselves and the Conservatives, the inability to find some common understanding is philosophically suspect.

The majority of Canadians don't care about your team, they aren't invested in partisan pissing matches, in fact partisanship is waning within the greater society.   What is true, what we call the "center" in Canadian politics is nothing more than a recognition of where society sits, it shifts, partisans react to it, and truth be told no party can achieve power without mirroring it. 

With full knowledge that moderation is the only path to power, pure ideology is irrelevant, a domain largely reserved to the faithful.  Compromise is a must, and it provides curious bastardizations for partisans, in that they can call still themselves "left wing" and support a center right Gary Doer, just because he carries an orange banner.  You can slag a Dalton McGuinty, yet cheer a Darrell Dexter, even though the policies are largely similar, simply because of the tribal considerations.  You can bash a former NDP Premier, yet support a former Liberal cabinet minister- who places himself inside a boardroom, akin to a CEO, in his first advertisement- just because he's YOUR guy.  You can bash the Liberals on takeovers, yet turn a blind eye to changing opposition to trade deals, because it's your team and that's all that matters.  What is also true, the greater populous could care less about the philosophical pretzels partisans turn ourselves into to, they just want solutions and visions.

The polling is clear, in the absence of a complete Liberal meltdown, the NDP will be hard pressed to defeat the Conservatives.  The polls also show that under optimal conditions the Liberals actually have a chance, but put into the realm of probabilities, you are right back at another probable Harper mandate. 

The Conservatives have a 30-35% base of support that is unwavering, dependable and committed to vote.  Within the current political makeup, this government need not appeal to much beyond this base, secure in the knowledge two thirds of us are relatively irrelevant to their personal fortunes.  This reality creates a narrowly focused government, one that fails to achieve consensus, or even cares for that matter.  A divided opposition not only secures power, it also dictates how that power is yielded and notions of true democracy suffer as a result.

Liberals and the NDP, as well as Greens, can dream about ideal scenarios that bring them to power.  There are real avenues to power, but there are also many more practical outcomes that deliver nothing to either, except another mandate for this government, despite a vast majority wishing their ouster.  There is something fundamentally wrong with the current state of Canadian politics, and once we dispense with ego and sporting interests, understand that the path to power for all opposition parties is staking moderate ground, the notions of co-operation become not just desirable but entirely logical.

Calgary By-Election Has National Consequence

What is currently happening in Calgary Center is nothing new, in fact we are simply witnessing a tried and true Conservative election tactic.  Joan Crockatt is skipping debates, just like pretty much every Conservative candidate has in recent elections.  Perhaps the only difference, FINALLY someone- namely the popular mayor of Calgary- has cried foul and drawn much needed attention to an issue which truly impacts our democratic process.  The resulting controversy has morphed a sleepy by-election in the strongest of Conservative strongholds into a referendum on accountability and our political debate.

This by-election will have profound national implications.  One could argue, even a close result could reset certain assumptions.   But, an outright upset in fortress Calgary, would rewrite the Conservative political playbook, to the betterment of democracy.  Should we see Crockatt lose or win by a whisker, the Conservatives will be forced to rethink the standard practice of having their candidates shun most debates, participating in the bare minimum, secure in the knowledge that the practice has little real impact on voting preference.  If Crockatt wins handily, cynical Conservatives will fall back on the idea that controversy is inflated, social media kerfuffle doesn't equate to real world consequence.

Debates are a primary vehicle to put candidates through their paces, articulate their philosophy and see how they perform relative to their opponents.  Having attended many of these local debates- particularly ones with specific focus- you realize the inherent substance, people are forced to go beyond platitudes and talking points, at least if they wish to be effective in swaying voters.  Whether these debates have real impact- outside of mostly engaged voters who actually attend- is debatable, and herein lies the potential importance of the Calgary Center result.  Voters there have the opportunity to reject a playbook which actually gives the finger to accountability, further computes relative apathy and assumes the process can be manipulated with little impact. 

If Crockatt actually manages to blow Calgary Center, voters will have fundamentally altered what is acceptable and expected from our political candidates.  Not only will Calgary Center voters do their riding a favour, but impact the entire democratic process in this country, in a way that is clearly positive, if you actually believe accountability SHOULD be a given.

Why Merge?

Because graphs don't lie:

 



 

 

  

Trudeau Brings Liberals Up To Speed

If Justin Trudeau becomes Liberal leader, the party will finally return to sensibility on marijuana.  Further, Liberals will actually offer a truly progressive vision of ultimate legalization, never mind decriminalization.  Fact is, the Canadian public is way ahead of the politicians on marijuana, so both on liberal principles AND electoral upside, Trudeau makes complete sense:

“I think we have to recognize first and foremost that the war on drugs, as it exists right now, doesn’t work,” said Trudeau, adding that the current system puts criminal records on Canadians who consume the drug, while also allowing criminal organizations to profit from the prohibition.

“So I am a huge supporter of decriminalization.”

However, Trudeau added that the next step to look at would be legalization. This would take marijuana profits away from criminal organizations and allow the government to tax and regulate the drug.

Trudeau added that regulating the drug would mean keeping it away from children, since individuals would have to demonstrate ID before purchasing marijuana.

“(Because) you guys aren’t allowed to buy cigarettes or booze either. Because it’s not good for you,” he added.

The last national poll on marijuana found two thirds of Canadians support decriminalization of marijuana, highlighting that we are ready for the political conversation.  As well, when you consider where the Liberals need to "grow" to become relevant again, the fact that 75% of British Columbians support outright legalization, the same direction alluded to by Trudeau, you have a political home run.  Cynics will scoff that people won't vote based on marijuana, and while that may be true, a progressive stance does help give the Liberal Party shape, identity, not to mention ink.  Factor in a NDP lead Mulcair and their tentative position, I see opportunity, beyond the simple practicalities.

The public is ready, there is an economic/tax argument to be made, Trudeau's stance brings the Liberals up to speed.  With recent votes in the United States, there is the additional legitimacy that counters the usual fears of American reprisals.  It is nice to see Trudeau not only supporting decriminalization, but go further and make the argument that outright legalization is the practical end game.

Real Deal

If anyone doubts Barack Obama is a politician for all the right reasons, this video should clear that up.  The real deal:

 

 

You're lucky to have him America.

Voters Are Superficial

Every election, there is the requisite story wherein the journalist speaks to voters to ascertain what issues are important to them.  Normally this exercise confirms that we voters are sophisticated, this perception furthered by the other election novelty staple, the "focus group" segment.  While it is true that many of us do vote based on a series of issue based considerations, the SAD reality is political consideration just isn't that deep, in fact it's painfully superficial and fickle.

The latest federal polls are stunning in one sense, not so much when one considers the political landscape.  With the addition of one prominent face to the brand, the Liberals go from afterthought, a media death watch, to juggernaut, even the absurd prospect of a majority government.  Nobody knows a single real policy, nobody has crunched any numbers, nobody knows anything but lineage and hair, and yet....  

In reality, not particularly surprising the latest batch of polls.  After all, this is a country that just saw the "orange wave" roll across a province despite candidates not even in their bloody ridings, despite no real digestion of anything beyond the proverbial CHANGE mantra.  Everyone else has screwed it up, this guy with the mustache is likable, lets give him the keys.  Sad, overly simplistic, but almost entirely true.

Policy is important, but really it is just some concrete backdrop to basic appeal and resonance.  Liberals have confronted the perception wall with past leaders, no matter what we were armed with, it mattered not without a compelling figurehead.   One important caveat, if the electorate is so fed up with the current regime then a stiff can lead his party to power (you do the math).

This Trudeau wave may well be temporary, but it is still quite instructive in understanding just how easily wide swaths of voters can move, given the most basic of considerations.  The results also suggest that should Trudeau manage to stay within the lines, develop some basic slogan talking points on a host of issues, the Liberals can benefit from a largely shallow electorate.  Factor in a conduit that lacks focus and sustained depth on any issue, it all congeals into a pretty pedestrian political landscape that caters and rewards buzzwords, soundbites and photogenic appeal.

The latest "seismic" change in Canadian politic is further illustration that those of us politically engaged forever over analyze, which prevents a true understanding of the "real world" as it stands.  Fact is voters are pretty darn superficial, let us proceed with that knowledge.

The Messiah Cometh

When the latest Nanos poll came out showing a resurgent Liberal Party, it showed a strong uptick in Ontario and British Columbia.  Strangely absent from the Nanos Trudeaumania party was Quebec- numbers essentially flat -which I found a little odd to be honest.  However, along comes the Quebec "gold standard" poll CROP and we see the Trudeau effect, the Liberals stunningly surge to first place in the province:

Justin Trudeau led Liberals emerge from the abyss it reached the last federal election. At 36%, he would arrive first in Quebec, the NDP (30%), the Bloc Quebecois (19%) and the Conservative Party (11%).
 

Without Trudeau the Liberals are at 20%, an uptick from past polling, but he brings an additional 16% when his name is attached to the brand.  What is perhaps most concerning for the NDP, Justin isn't an unknown in the province, the same previous arguments I made for Liberal concern with Mulcair's popularity can be applied here.  In other words, shiny new toy doesn't quite digest where Trudeau may stand in his home province, Quebecers know him, they know him well.  A snapshot in time, many assumptions made, Trudeau isn't leader of anything at the moment, but still, the polls do show Justin is a potential game changer in every sense of the word.

The three most important provinces in the next election are unquestionably Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.  The fact that we now see interesting evidence of a Liberal wave in all these provinces, simply seismic.   These numbers will only solidify Trudeau and bring more support within Liberal ranks, everyone loves a messiah!  For other leadership contenders, the gradient gets more daunting, the perception becomes reality, Trudeau is a rock star.

Be afraid.

Ontario's Prorogation Stench

As the dust settles on McGuinty's shocking resignation announcement, the pungent stench of his prorogation decision remains.  It is unclear if there are long term ramifications for a clearly unpopular move, particularly with a new leader coming, the Liberals may be able to bookend the whole affair.  That said, with many potential successors defending the decision, this prorogation could haunt the Liberals moving forward.

About the only notable Liberal I've heard come out strongly against this unnecessary prorogation is Gerard Kennedy.  I've heard a few commentators float cynical motivations, but let's not forget this is the same person who went to Bob Rae during the 11th hour when everyone knew Ignatieff had it game, set and match, only because he felt democratic expression was a casualty.  In other words, Gerard Kennedy tends to lead with his principles first, political calculations second, I take his words as sincere concern.  Within that vein, the fact Kennedy remains a lonely voice questioning the wisdom, disappointing, considering many Liberals went apocalyptic (self included) when other governments have abused prorogation.

Liberals can split hairs and offer various justifications to distinguish this particular prorogation.  Of course each instance is unique, and perhaps in terms of degree the Harper Conservatives have no peer.  However, there are some fundamental points that remain, the same ones federal Liberals RAN on in the last election, the same basic tenets we got red faced about when our political rival shut down the democratic process.

McGuinty's decision reduces the Ontario Legislature to a body which serves at his whim, forever secondary to the personal machinations and political ambitions of the Premier.  Perhaps the system is set up as such, but the way government's now use prorogation a complete bastardization of original intent.  The work done in Committee's, the policies debated, the laws working through the process, all these things are BIGGER than the Premier.  Ontarians have elected representatives who are now rendered impotent and irrelevant because a man took a walk in the snow and sees no political advantage to let democracy breathe.  How can any democrat remain silent on this front, how can we rationalize further decay that confronts notions of egalatarianism and confronts the people's voice?

McGuinty made a very astute and sound decision to resign at this time, there is no question in my mind his regime was past its best before date.  There are many things the McGuinty government did that people can be proud of, but all that is sullied with this final decision.  McGuinty leaves with an air of arrogance, real or perceived irrelevant, prorogation roundly unpopular.  McGuinty has given rivals the high ground, while simultaneously leaving other members of his government offering the lamest of excuses to justify.  As well, federal Liberals are left running for the exits, not wanting to confront the naked hypocrisy that surely exists the moment they comment on this particular prorogation.  I can only imagine the contortions the next time Harper prorogues, neutered Liberals are lost.  In fact, this whole affair makes one wonder just what all the kerfuffle was about, all the speeches, the indignation, the holier than thou rants about supremacy of Parliament, the people's will, the business of the nation, blah, blah, blah.

In the final analysis, the selective outrage is perhaps instructive when trying to ascertain why Liberals currently sit where we do....

Debate Thoughts

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” Obama

McGuinty OUT

I'll simply go back to my post this time last year, that was openly ridiculed.  Knowing when to leave, on  your own terms, appreciating the true landscape, is a rare trait:

McGuinty Should Step Aside




.

Pay Little Attention To The Pundits On Trudeau

Well not all of the pundits- some actually have a healthy nose for the street- but in general the commentary is self indulgent blather that offers little in the way of true guidance as to ultimate success or failure.

Here is what we know to date, much of it instructive moving forward.  As  Susan Delacourt points out, the hyper coverage surrounding Trudeau isn't media driven, it's audience driven, Justin sells copy.  This acknowledgement is of no surprise, particularly for Liberals who have used Trudeau as a primary fundraising vehicle for some time now, Justin brings in the people.  Further evidence of this fact this week, the Trudeau campaign roll out has featured packed houses and overflow crowds.

There is a unique attractive quality to Trudeau which conventional wisdom doesn't quite compute when opining about "must do's".  In other words, talk of "coronations", "messiahs" hurting Liberal fortunes are really irrelevant, Canadians ultimately could care less about process, so long as they find the end product attractive.  Truth be told, most Canadians aren't intimately knowledgeable about past Liberal transgressions, put a fresh coat of paint on and a new face with appeal, nobody will devote ten seconds to discussion about a short circuited leadership.   The leadership race is important because we deserve a healthy debate about ideas, we deserve to see Justin put through his paces and ascertain fitness. But, ultimately, when the dust settles, it will matter not to the general public how we arrived at "Liberal leader Justin Trudeau" when it comes time to vote in a general election.

Quite a bit of surprise at a poll yesterday which shows the Liberals under Trudeau rocketing to 36% support nationally, even more double takes at the Liberals over 40% in Quebec.  Anyone expressing shock has failed to acknowledge a core underlying narrative in Canadian politics, one that has existed for years.  Canadians YEARN for something different, we CRAVE anything that resembles a departure from politics as usual, our INDIFFERENCE is really a testament to DISGUST.  Within that vein, I am not surprised in the least Trudeau fires up Liberal numbers, particularly in Quebec have we not just seen how the electorate desires a changed landscape?   Perhaps we can argue an empty vessel at this point, we can scoff at superficial reactions, but to do so forgets other "waves" and the simple mechanics that create them.  In other words, let us not get lost in advice from the political class, it rarely sees any swell coming because it is detached from the subject matter.

Nobody knows if Justin thrives or dives, he will be the master of his own destiny.  That said, it is important to pierce through the likely daily dissection of every machination, there are underlying drivers which will trump over reactions and irrelevant concerns.  The Canadian political climate is ripe for a new movement, particularly younger demographics, the current malaise a testament to a failed status quo.  Should people find something to cling to, under the added bonus banner of good looks and charisma, so be it, it surely wouldn't be the first time such a manifestation has brought electoral success.

Trudeau Swims Into A Superficial World

Much of the Justin Trudeau chatter amongst the "political class" is focused on the style vs substance question, pretty hair meets concrete policy.  While I completely agree that Trudeau must demonstrate some policy chops- particularly on the economy- I find the discussion a bit detached from reality, even more curious given past experience.

Begin with a simple fact: Canadian politics are as deep as a bird bath, packaging trumps substance every single time.  Political geeks may yearn for depth, but what is presented to ordinary Canadians by political parties and the media that covers is largely simplistic, superficial, soundbite, catchphrase TRIPE.  To then demand serious policy wonk articulation from Trudeau is to forget the current climate, which is why I find the "bar" being set for success an esoteric discussion, with little relevance to real world Canadians.

Trudeau must articulate a vision for Canada, Trudeau must have an economic agenda that comes with appeal, Trudeau must look competent and display leadership qualities.  Beyond these generalizations, perhaps superseding, Trudeau must be packaged and sold, like a commodity.   Today, I hear soundbites from Trudeau's speech last night, a snappy line all that is required to convey a positive tone.  Trudeau loves Canada, delivered with authenticity, right there a passing grade for an introductory speech, if one incorporates all the other intangibles that make Justin attractive.   The Conservatives have mastered the 5 second soundbite, facts and stats secondary, so why then do pundits look for something deeper when analyzing Trudeau's "challenges"?

We currently have a government in power that has ran on a couple banner ideas, marketed like a product, tight messaging, repetitive themes, all within the domain of that film that resides at the top of any pond.  Nobody gets their hair wet in Canadian politics, in fact it is dangerous to offer in depth policy, it allows for retort, attacks, much better to run on hope and slick packaging.  Again, we political geeks may hunger for more, but the reality is all this talk about Trudeau needing to display great policy depth is pure bunk, cobble together a generalized vision, offer up some detail in a "red book" and sell it.

Above all, whether Trudeau succeeds or fails will depend on his ability to CONNECT.  Within that reality, how the Liberal team sells the man, how it packages the general vision, how it creates a constituency that ultimately brings success, both in terms of leadership and potentially beyond.  If Canadians like Justin, it will be more important than deep intellectual arguments concerning substance.  Not a statement on right or wrong, just a recognition of the modern political machine, which also understands there is much to "work with" with Justin Trudeau.

Ottawa Is A Disgrace

The current carbon tax "debate" in Parliament is absolutely pathetic, an embarrassing display, which serves to highlight why Canadians have tuned out to the utterly useless machinations of Ottawa.  Excellent Simpson column which details the Conservative hypocrisy, but alas just another call to accountability that will be completely ignored.  Truth be told, unless media puts front page banners that read "CONSERVATIVES LYING TO CANADIANS" in obscene font, nothing will change, even then I wonder.  The Conservatives have cracked the code, successfully imputed voter disinterest and realized you can say anything, with little consequence.  Worse still, downright lying has political upside, it works to advantage.

Currently we have certain rules that govern Parliamentary "conduct", but we lack a full on Code of Ethics.  It is becoming increasingly clear that we need some measure of accountability that sanctions claims that have no basis in truth.  There should be some provision that demands,at the very least, any argument put forth have a factual basis.   Beyond points of view, differing interpretations of statistics, certain beliefs, something that address downright FABRICATIONS that mislead Canadians.  We have laws regarding all kinds of disinformation, whether it be advertising claims or personal liability, boldly lying and making outlandish baseless allegations aren't sanctioned by society.  Why then is our Parliamentary system below this standard, why is a body that is supposedly a place of such high standards a laggard in terms of certain accountability?

I can barely stomach following Ottawa anymore- and I'm a politically junkie- so turned off by the back and forth bullshit, it's maddening, exhausting and frankly not worth the time.  It hasn't "always been this way" in Ottawa, unless one lacks any capacity for notions of degree, emphasis, frequency, the shrug of the shoulders mentality part of the problem.  We need real accountability measures that ELEVATE this cesspool, regain some confidence with Canadians, a regime that forces logical debates, rather than one that actually rewards dishonesty.

Everyone agrees, this "carbon tax" debate is an utter farce.  Rather than fall back on simplistic notions that voters must hold to account, we have our say, some recognition that politicians have GAMED a busy electorate, who simply doesn't have the time to babysit, nor inclined to care, given the absurdities on display daily.  No, we need a strict Code of Ethics that comes with real consequences, we deserve something better than current reality.  People of all political stripes should want higher standards, let us debate on merit, rather than a conversation none of us would tolerate in our own homes, workplace, circle of friends.  The reality right now is simply intolerable, more correctly disturbing.

UPDATE

Must be disgusted DAY



.

Liberals Should Revisit Carbon Tax

Almost absurd to even suggest, given the Conservatives are currently accusing the NDP of advocating, even though the party doesn't support a carbon tax, a testament to how some see the mere mention as politically advantageous.  However, if one delves deep into the problems that have plagued the Liberal Party of Canada, a "rethink" on abandoning the carbon tax idea is warranted.

In an effort to be all things to everyone, the Liberals have ended up being no things to nobody.  Other parties take strong stances, and while they alienate, they also build up a core, devoted base.  In addition, there is a certain authenticity in the idea of standing behind a principle.   For instance, the NDP and Conservatives both hold certain ideals that don't necessarily translate to majority support, and yet they have cobbled together formidable coalitions.   What is the Liberal constituent?  More and more, a wishy washy "middle" ground, which is entirely practical but hardly conveys any moxy or distinguishing quality.

The carbon tax is sound economic and environmental policy. The carbon tax has already been implemented successfully in Canada.  The carbon tax has the support of the very people that will be most affected, the oil and gas industry.   Most of all, support of a carbon tax is a philosophical commitment that speaks to a core commitment, across a host of files.  

As well, a carbon tax is considered politically toxic given what happened to the Liberals in 2008, and for that reason complete taboo.   The mere mention of the word within Liberal circles sends us scrambling for the exits, we can't distance ourselves fast enough.   That said, the party is still associated with the Liberals, mention carbon tax and you immediately make the connection.  With this reality in mind, when Liberals pledge they no longer support what they previously did- with passion I might add- it rings hollow, people assume we are still "closet" carbon tax proponents.   So, we have a double negative, the spectre of underlying support, as well as the perception that we don't stand for anything, afraid to stick our necks out, cowering in the face of controversy.  Herein lies the entire problem with the good ship Liberal.

If you want to deal with GHG's, then a carbon tax is an effective way to curb emissions, as well as reward cleaner energy sources, it is a transformational regime.  Rather than retreat in the name of political expediency, a fighting party doubles down on an idea that speaks to conviction.  In addition, given current humble realities, the Liberals are "free" in a sense to redefine their constituency and stand firm.  I will always find it amusing that we Liberals can champion a key policy with committed zeal, then suddenly turn our backs in the name of fear and calculations.  Did we really believe in a carbon tax?  Did we knock on doors and emotionally defend the idea in the name of conviction, what we felt was right for the economy and society?  If you answered yes, then that is the bottom line and we should continue the fight, because we believe it is just and necessary.   This isn't to dismiss the very real problems with easy "TAX, TAX, TAX" soundbites, only that it comes down to a question of policy convenience or real commitment.

I'd rather go down fighting for true ideals, then devote myself to some party of appeasement, reactive rather than steadfast.  If the carbon tax is something you genuinely support, if it addresses certain core problems in the most effective way, then you don't abandon in the name of political calculation, you plant your feet and stand firm.  If that is the Liberal attitude, I assure we will be ultimately rewarded, because in the end we will be a party with a clear identity and purpose.

This is one Liberal that still PROUDLY supports a carbon tax and will welcome any leadership candidate that has the stones to push the discussion.

Desperate Romney Cements "Not Ready For Prime Time"

Below Mitt Romney waves goodbye to The White House:



There are certain moments in a campaign that speak to character, fitness and above all judgement.  The manner in which the Romney "team" has chosen to react to the events in Libya illustrate with almost perfect clarity why he will never become President.

Trudeau Isn't A Lock

Will Justin be incredibly formidable and the immediate front runner? Does Trudeau have the capacity to suck up all the oxygen in the room? Will the media fixate on every machination, amplifying any support and creating a "and the rest" flavour to the leadership race?  You can answer yes to all questions and still argue that Justin Trudeau is anything but a lock to win the Liberal leadership. 

I note certain pundits who are routinely wrong (and yet still opine with unwarranted swagger)  have already declared the race over before it starts.  Given past track records, these assertions only confirm what we already know,  namely having a column and having a clue aren't necessarily one in the same.  This amusing "will they ever learn" dynamic aside, one of the cardinal rules in politics, there are no sure things, particularly when it comes to a contest of such length, with so many variables.

I believe Justin will be the front runner in the Liberal leadership, everyone can agree on this point.  However, in many respects the leadership will act as prolonged test, wherein everyone scrutinizes every development, stumbles highlighted and ABOVE all an intense desire to actually have a RACE.  What this reality means, the same people who are coronating now will TURN hard on Trudeau at first opportunity, tear down, dissect, essentially act as a well paid negative ad campaign.  It happens every time, build you up, tear you down, then perhaps a rehabilitation should a race actually emerge.  An astute observation from Rob Silver: 

 “I have a funny feeling that the two opposition parties and the media won’t allow it to be a cakewalk, regardless of who else is running,” he said.

Cakewalks are boring, we want a race dammit and should Trudeau look insurmountable, expect every effort to undo that momentum.  Factor in the reality that Justin speaks his mind, I expect plenty of fodder and exaggeration when the inevitable turn comes from the same people who have already warmed the throne.  In many ways coverage of leadership races is more a study of human nature than a debate about ideas.

If the race evolves into a test of leadership, wherein the assumptions are made with Trudeau and were merely watch, put him through his chops, ascertain if the "meddle" is apparent, then we still have a contest.  Within this angle, whomever emerges as primary challenger will be poised correctly should things snowball and Liberals, supporters have concerns about fitness and performance.  To a lesser degree, the 2006 leadership run of Michael Ignatieff serves as an example of why the RACE itself is key, early assumptions just that.

Trudeau is a force, Trudeau has the je ne sais quoi, people will fawn, his light will shine brightest, all realities moving forward.  Another reality, anybody who thinks this race is a lock, at this stage, isn't a very good student of politics or history.

Obama Receives The "Bounce"

I'm not sure what is worse news for Republicans, the fact their convention delivered ZIP in the way of bounce for Romney, or what appears to be a marked uptick for Obama after a very successful Democratic convention.  Given Romney needed to "sell" himself to Americans, "appear human", that the GOP convention failed to move numbers at all is probably the more concerning. Convention bounces are normal, and for the challenger, conventions offer one of the pivotal moments to "connect".  It would appear, as the dust settles, Obama will be the only receiving a bounce, now it's just a question of degree.

Prior to the start of the Dem convention, the right leaning Rasmussen had Romney with a one point edge.  Compared with other polls, you routinely see Rasmussen with a decided GOP lean, it's been that way for years.  What is instructive isn't the lean, but the comparison over time within a certain methodology.  This morning we received the first full post-convention rolling poll from Rasmussen and it shows a 4 point Obama lead, astronomical by their standards, a full 5 point change since the convention began. 

Gallup, which tends to be more in line with other polling runs a 7 day rolling poll, so we still haven't gauged the full impact of the convention.  Using yesterday's release though, we see a marked uptick for Obama, now 4 points, with still more bounce digestion to come in subsequent days.  As well- and perhaps more telling- Obama's approval ratings have now shot up to 52%, the highest level he has enjoyed since after the Bin Laden raid, a spike worthy of consideration.   The Ipsos firm also shows a favorable Obama move, it is fair to say the bounce is real and outside any margin of error.

Perhaps a good time to consider Kinsella's scathing column on the fixation of polls.  Kinsella is spot on with many of criticisms.  However there is still room to "gauge" with some sense of confidence if one confines themselves to trend moves within a certain poll, merely as validation of move, not necessarily confirmation of actual voter intent.  Within that characterization we can ascertain things such as "bounce", fairly conclude the Democratic convention went well for Obama and he is benefiting.  That doesn't mean Obama is in the clear, that most certainly doesn't address the fickleness of soft support (for my money where pollsters get burned bad), but it does give us a sense of a moment in time.

Forgetting the polls, I did predict a Obama bounce the last night of the campaign, based on my perceptions of that convention.  Night one, you had Michelle get RAVE reviews from all quarters, a terrific tone set.  The second night, Clinton delivered an incredibly effective defence of Obama, everyone agrees his speech was a rousing success.  The last night Obama once again reinforced his reputation as an amazing orator, so it is hardly surprising to assume an impact.  Factor in very good ratings relative to the GOP, and we expect some bounce.

The GOP convention didn't move numbers, any positive impact to Romney's reputations was minimal, he now looks to the debates for the next "big" opportunity.  The Dem convention delivered as intended, so the GOP failure is that much more pronounced, no counter effect present, no "saw off" when the dust settles.

Conventions over, advantage Barack.

Quebec Election: Best Case Scenario

If you accept the premise that governments have a shelf life, then last night's result in Quebec represents the best case scenario for the "rest of Canada".  Leaders rarely volunteer retirement, fact is the attachment to power means most are forced out rather than taking the graceful exit route.  With that reality in mind, the Quebec Liberals survived- they can now cleanse and retool- while the Parti Quebocois operates under a very tight leash, with an entirely underwhelming mandate.

Quebecers clearly wanted change, but it is very telling that despite this sentiment the PQ couldn't manage a third of the vote, less than 1% more than the Liberals, only 4 seats ahead.  If the Jean Charest Liberals are tired and spent, then the Parti Quebecois looks decidedly stale as a favorable option.  

Marois has no mandate to push ahead with a referendum, never mind force legislation that leads to a less inclusive Quebec.  In fact, the PQ faces a solid majority who will block any intimation, both in terms of seat count and the clear raw vote message sent by voters.  Plow ahead on sovereignty at your own peril, there is no appetite for the PQ road map. 

The Quebec Liberals were never going to reign forever, the natural flip was inevitable.  That said, this "change" is very much a paper tiger, a precarious mandate that will blunt a sizable lurch.  Charest lost his seat, further he has lost the confidence of the electorate, the Quebec Liberals need some fresh faces to appear a viable option again.  The good news, the Liberals remain a large presence, the road back less daunting that could otherwise be expected.  As well, federalist forces dwarfed the separatist options, this result is anything but a alarming result for Canadian unity.  You could well posit the PQ's unyielding commitment to a referendum nobody wants is what prevented a much larger victory, as well as more pronounced defeat for the Charest Liberals.

Obviously, any PQ government is not "good news" in the wider sense.  However, under the circumstances, with an eye to historical context, the nature of government, the ebb and flow under the guise of "change", last night represents a fairly solid result for the Canadian federation.   There will be plenty of bluster and provocation from the PQ, but little in the way of concrete erosion under this current configuration.