Solving Nothing

I'm basically a Quebec fiscal imbalance denier, so I'm not particularly impressed when the federal government advocates a mirage to score political points. Certain provinces do get a disporportionate share of the pie, as a function of population. Ontario can make a strong statistical case that it receives less funding for social programs on a per-capita basis. Quebec on the other hand, and I'm not trying to make this a wedge issue, has little empirical evidence to support their thesis.

There was a great presentation made to the House of Commons on fiscal imbalance, that shows, using real information, that Quebec's complaints aren't supported by hard facts. If you have a moment, take a quick read and you will see that Quebec does very well, relative to others, thank-you very much. An idea inspired by Bernard Landry, which found a voice through the narrow interest of provincial concerns, proving the theory, the squeaky wheel gets the oil:

In summary, the evidence, whether in terms of relative debt burden, fiscal capacity, downloading, own-source revenues, or own-source revenue growth, that there is a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, is weak. Provinces have cut their taxes over the past few years, and presumably are equally free to raise them again if they wish to take the political heat for doing so. The fact that Ottawa has been a better fiscal manager of its resources than many of the provinces is not an argument for transferring the results of that superior fiscal discipline to the provinces, just as the fact that Ottawa’s fiscal burden may be too high is not an argument for giving some of those tax resources to the provinces. The provinces have the means to fix their fiscal problems, and we see little reason why Ottawa should do the job for them.

What bothers me today, now we have Jean Charest announcing a whole new round of taxcuts for Quebecers, in light of the federal budget:

Liberal Premier Jean Charest says he'll give Quebecers tax cuts with some of the money the province received in the federal budget.
Charest said Tuesday in Montreal the $700 million in income tax cuts will take effect next Jan. 1 and will be on top of the $250 million in reductions already announced in the Liberals' February budget.

The Center for Policy Alternatives agrees on taxes:

provincial governments themselves deserve much of the blame for their current fiscal challenges due to tax cuts over the past decade. The lost revenue to provincial treasuries from personal and corporate tax cuts is estimated to be as much as $30 billion per year, an amount that dwarfs the original loss of federal transfers in the mid-1990s.

Charest prefers to win over voters with cash, as opposed to investing in all the programs that Quebecers often complain are under-funded by Ottawa. If the provincial governments want to constantly reduce taxes, relative to other jurisdications, then it counters the argument that they desperately need more money. The federal government is effectively subsidizing bad fiscal management on the part of provinces, and Charest proves this fact in spades today.

Let us all remember this taxcut, because we surely will hear new cries in a few months about federal surpluses and disparity. The federal Liberals were guilty of cutting transfers, but this was a function of MASSIVE debt, and the situation was objectively resolved in the last years. If the federal government still enjoys a large surplus that doesn't translate into an imbalance, it just means the wrong level of government is giving tax relief in my view.

Next year, when Jean Charest, if re-elected, posts a meager surplus or minor deficit, faces a critical shortage in an area of provincial jurisdiction, he better not put his hand out and pick the easy target, what he should do is look in the mirror.

Tories Endorse "Carrot And Stick"

My favorite item in the budget, something which I had previously endorsed, offers the dreaded "carrot and stick" approach to reducing automobile emissions:

Gas guzzlers will be dinged with a new tax of up to $4,000, fuel-efficient cars will get a rebate worth up to $2,000 and old wrecks will be offered a short-cut to the junkyard, under today's federal budget.

The boldest initiative is probably the system of car rebates and taxes, which unabashedly uses the tax system to influence consumer behaviour, something that environmentalists have long advocated.

Although most provinces have rebate programs for fuel-efficient cars, only Ontario has a tax on gas guzzlers. The federal Liberals never dared to implement such a system although it was carefully considered. It will likely meet fierce disapproval from the Ontario-based auto industry.

Finance Department officials say the rebates and levies will basically cancel each other out, leaving the government with the same amount of revenue as before. But they acknowledge there are no studies to prove that the tax changes will actually influence buying patterns.

A revenue neutral, tax and rebate system, to entice compliance and reduce emissions- where have I heard this philosophy before? This is a great idea, partisanship aside. When you couple these rebates with provincial ones, like the proposed 2000 dollar PST cut for hybrids in British Columbia, you have a very attractive incentive. You also have a powerful deterent, with sizable TAXES for polluting behavior.

The fact the Conservatives have endorsed the carrot and stick approach, which will impact industry, particularly domestic automakers, is a complete departure from all the rhetoric. Flaherty's announcement endorses the tenet of cost attached to pollution. This sort of initiative is exactly the kind of logic that environmentalists have long argued. It begs the question, if the Conservative endorse this philosophy as it relates to consumers, why all the resistence to the same approach with industry?

Interesting Quebec Poll

Given the party polling numbers, this finding by SES is somewhat surprising:

Liberal leader Jean Charest inspires the most confidence among Quebecers and is seen as the best person to defend Quebec's interests in Ottawa, an SES Research poll shows. Results show 41 per cent of Quebecers feel Charest would best ensure Quebec receives its fair share from the federal government, compared with 28 per cent for Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair and 13 per cent for Action democratique leader Mario Dumont.

Charest enjoys quite a gap, on a crucial question, which might translate into some last minute sway towards the Liberals. The sovereignists always lay claim to defending Quebec's interests, and Dumont has even poked fun at Charest's popularity outside Quebec. The fact that Dumont is well behind on this measure reaffirms the soft support argument.

You could speculate the budget will play into this apparent Charest strength. With the PQ on board, Charest faces little criticism on Harper delivering. Charest now has a powerful argument for federalism, and I hope he makes the point that the PQ's combative stance would have never delivered. A spirit of co-operation doesn't sell out Quebec's interests and Charest should take some comfort that Quebec's see this as strength.

Embarrassing

Partisanship aside, is it too much to ask to be able to listen to the Finance Minister deliver the budget?? The only network to carry the speech is the CBC (plus the underline "Liberals and NDP don't support budget", while CTV is off on the "breaking news" angle, as well as Global. Why can't we carry the budget, then speculate? What is happening makes the actual budget a sideshow, I can't even digest what is offered through all the noise. This coverage is embarrassing.

I realize we live in nano-second world, but is it possible for the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to wait with there verdict until Canadians know what they are rejecting. What is the hurry, can't we listen and then the REJECTION might make some sense? I'm not even sure what we are rejecting, because I HAVEN'T HEARD THE BUDGET. Cool your jets everyone!

Maybe next time, the government can just do a press release with the budget details and forget anything formal in the House of Commons. Apparently Flaherty's speech is irrelevant, minds are decided, the election looms. Every player, the media, should be ashamed at all this hyper-politicism of an important announcement. Let Flaherty make his speech, allow us to process for a second, then on with the show. Geez.

"Fairweather Friends"

I believe this at my core, Stephen Harper is clueless when it comes to Canada's role in the world, and suffers from delusions of grandeur. Listening to his speech last night, I literally cringed when the subject turned to foreign affairs. Harper has this warped sense that Canada was a nobody on the world stage, and he has made it a priority to assert Canadian influence- "bring back credibility". What is Harper talking about?

Reality check, Canada is a marginal middle power, who best leverages influence through diplomacy. What is interesting about Harper, he directly ties Canada's international role to military power. Beefing up the military somehow leads to increased stature in the world. Pleeeze! For arguments sake, let's say Canada tripled it's military expenditure, do you really think the rest of the world would notice? Canada will never be a military power, relative to others, so don't even bother in my estimation. That doesn't equate to no military, or an ineffective force, but don't kid yourself into thinking we will have any increased stature through force. As a matter of fact, you could argue the more pro-active our military, the more damage we do to Canada's legitimate reputation as an honest broker. I honestly think Harper would love to have one of those military parades, where he stands on Parliament Hill, as the missiles and tanks roll by, to demonstrate some warped sense of purpose.

What is particularly offensive about the Harper rhetoric, his continued veil reference to "fairweather friends". Clearly a shot at the former government's tensions with Washington, Harper acts as though the cool relationship was Canada's fault, and he will atone. Someone should call Harper when makes this point, because it essentially boils down to Iraq. Canada didn't stand by its friend in need, Canada took a pass. I'm sure the vast majority of Canadians don't see it that way, and I would argue Chretien's refusal was his proudest moment. If you want to see "fairweather", do a timeline of the Harper commentary on Iraq as the years have passed.

If relationships with Washington were frosty, it was mainly a function of a arrogant, doesn't play well with others, American regime, the most unpopular administration in history. Standing up to unfair trade practices, misguided wars and a general unilateral approach isn't something Canada needs to correct. Harper uses wedge rhetoric to paint a dishonest account, or alternatively, he reveals the fact that he is Bush's ideological twin. An inability to find common ground with American neocons is a badge of honor in my view, and I'm sure most Canadians are sympathetic to the challenges of dealing with bent ideologues.

The more Harper speaks, the more convinced I am that Harper doesn't understand Canada's role in the world. The more Harper speaks, the more Canadians should see how disasterous a Conservative government would have been in the aftermath of 9/11. Just imagine where Canada would be, had Harper been at the helm in the spring of 2002, just imagine. Stephen Harper has a simplistic view of the world, that shows no relationship to reality, and is frankly dangerous.

"Hard Working People"

Sweating like a spent sumo wrestler, Prime Minister Harper made the following comment:

"Never lose sight of what we are and who we serve: Canadian families and Canadian taxpayers," he told them in Toronto on Saturday.

He described them as "hard-working people who didn't have the time to stage protests"

I agree, real people don't have time for protests, only the lazy fringe:

Don't you have crops to sow?:

Look at this group of slackers, speaking up for democracy in Vancouver/Kingsway:

Slacking knows no bounds, look at this group of teachers out front of Alberta's legislation. Recess is over hippies:

It's our land now, get over it and get a job:

The other side, doesn't anyone work in Caledonia?:

Notice the tie, get back to the office and be productive:

Conservative MP Jason Kenney speaking at a National Council of Resistance of Iran rally:


Stephen Harper, champion of the passive indifferent.

MacKay Vs May

You can't say Elizabeth May isn't gutsy:

Green party Leader Elizabeth May will run against Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay in his Nova Scotia riding in the next federal election, the CBC has learned.

May is expected to make her official announcement on Sunday in Antigonish, N.S.

There has been speculation in the last two or three weeks that the Greens have been talking to the Liberals on ways to unseat the Conservatives in Central Nova.

CBC Parliamentary Bureau Chief Keith Boag said the Liberals he talked to are neither confirming nor denying the reports.

A tall order to unseat a high-profile minister, considering the almost non-existent Green vote in the last election. Also interesting, the Liberals finished a distant third in the riding, which means any agreement to work with the Greens isn't an easy sell.

I love May's decision for a number of reasons. First, it shows that May isn't afraid to earn a seat in the House, in fact her odds are long. This move will force MacKay to fiercely defend his seat, and the Conservatives may have to spend resources and time on what had to be considered an easy hold riding. We now have a high-profile battle, which the media will key in on, assuring a pointed discussion on the environment.

I suppose the move could backfire if there appears to be overt co-operation with the Liberals, but the risk is offset if it means a possible upset victory. You have to admire May's fearless decision, and voters may reward her for taking the challenge, when easier options were available.

Spin

H/T Scott Tribe

It what classifies for the, "most misleading headline category", this beauty from NP: "Good-news budget could push Tories into majority territory". The funny part, the headline isn't based on speculation but polling:

Bricker said with the Conservatives at 36 per cent in national support in the latest poll, all Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Tories require are six additional percentage points to put them into a majority government situation.

Since the Liberals hold 34 per cent in the same survey, up two points from the beginning of the month, attracting one-third of their vote with the budget would give the Tories 46 per cent and a landslide victory.

The poll, which was conducted between March 13-15 with a random sample of 1,000 adults via telephone interviews, also showed the NDP at 12 per cent in national support, the Greens at eight per cent and the Bloc Quebecois at nine per cent.

In Quebec, which is embroiled in a tight three-party provincial election race, the Liberals, at 27 per cent, remain the federalist alternative to the Bloc, at 33 percent, while the Conservatives are up one percentage point to 22 per cent.

In Ontario, the Grits and the Tories are in a virtual tie, with 39 per cent and 38 per cent support respectively, while the NDP has 12 per cent and the Greens hold nine per cent.

Bricker said the worst news for the Conservatives in the poll is the Liberal lead in coastline provinces, jumping up 10 points to 35 per cent in British Columbia, and eight points to 47 per cent in Atlantic Canada. The Tories, meanwhile, are down four points to 34 per cent support in B.C. and nine points in Atlantic Canada to 39 per cent.

Big gains in British Columbia, the Liberals up nationally since the last Ipsos poll, while the Conservatives remain where they were. Sounds like a majority too me?? The poll is a deadheat, but if you want to use the last election as backdrop, Harper is still in fragile minority terrority, while the Liberals are up. How anyone can use this poll as pretext to majority, despite the budget, is an exercise in seismic spin. Nice try.

Taxes?

The Tories are HOWLING, but the cries ring hollow. We now have a situation where all three opposition parties, plus the Green Party, essentially agree on the right path to reduce emissions. The experts are on board, the only dissent seems to come from big oil and their caretakers. Let's talk taxes.

The government receives revenue through taxing its citizens. By extension, any government initiative is supported through those taxes. You could argue the Tory santa claus routine on the environment essentially puts the tax burden on ordinary Canadians- classic big government. The public sector bailing out the private sector, and a very profitable one at that. Why should taxpayers pay for the reckless approach of industry? The Tories seem to rail against the idea of responsibility.

Critics argue that any "tax" on industry will simply be transferred to the consumer price, and invariably we pay anyways. The problem with this logic, Dion's clever plan is more a savings account, than an actual tax grab. The rules are clear, clean up your act and you can make a withdrawal, do nothing and the nest egg grows. Industry has options, industry can react with full knowledge that effort will be rewarded. The Conservatives give little credit to industry, their HOWLS suggest an inability to be pro-active and evolve. The private sector is constantly forced to react to a changing marketplace, and rarely does the government intercede. What is wrong with a system that rewards innovation?

Despite the HOWLs from the oil industry, we already know that the initial price tag will only be approximately 1 dollar per barrel, which at present represents less than 2% of the price. How that translates into "the biggest tax grab" in history is curious at best. Even if the cost is passed on, it seems a reasonable sum in the grand scheme- after all, everyone must take responsibility. It is simply counter-intuitive to argue you can reduce emissions substantially at no cost. Please find one example where this logic applies to the real world.

Dion has offered a serious plan, if there is a tax, its permanence is at the discretion of industry. Options exist, but the onus is where it should be, with those responsible. The Conservative response, Canadians should foot the bill, while profits continue to soar. Let's keep it real, these aren't marginal players we are talking about, these are the fattest cats in the global economy. If, as a result, of this scheme, "investment" in Canada is slowed, as is argued, that is hardly apocalyptic, given the untenable expansion at present. Is it really disaster if the oil patch only doubles output in the next ten years, as opposed to the three or four fold commitments? Isn't that a situation that still provides substantial growth, which will keep the economy humming? People should stop with the inflammatory scenarios, because the bottomline remains, others still need the oil- it's not a luxury.

A temporary tax, with a full rebate available, pushing innovation and technological advances, all the while curbing our emissions and dealing with the problem. It's all good from here.

We Have A Pulse

For the first time since Dion was elected leader, we are starting to get some sense of cohesion and direction. Fair to absolve much of the initial confusion as simply a function of newness, but that reality has clearly come at a cost. Liberals needed a week, that in some ways suggests a turning point.

I have read some disagreement on the merits of delivering policy prior to an election. I think it important to be pragmatic, and not fall back on the conventional wisdom of holding your cards for maximum input. Objectively, Dion was in some serious trouble, and the immediate concerns should outweigh the more strategic approach. In other words, Dion desperately needed to put his stamp on a few issues, in a substantive way. An election is not a certainty, it is important to deal with the known, and we already know the attack lines.

Dion's crime proposals received generally favorable coverage. Apart from the actual policy, it allowed for something else to digest besides broken english and weak leadership, which had almost become obsessive. Banter between Harper and Dion puts the focus on the issue, and I would argue Dion garnered some credibility that was lacking.

Today's announcement illustrated that the Liberal strategists are thinking. Overall, today's environmental plan was ambitious, aggressive and allows for some contrast with the looming Conservative legislation. Pure speculation, but I think this announcement was predicated on some knowledge of what exactly the Tories will be proposing. Delivering the Liberal position first, prior to the budget, is sound in my view, because now we have a situation where we can do more than criticize. The Conservative plan will be received, as it relates to the Liberal plan, which allows us to possibly steal any momentum. Harper will have a harder time with intensity targets, when there is another plan for environmentalists to rally around. In addition, and I think this a stroke of genius, the Liberal plan relies on the private sector to foot the bill, while the Conservatives so far have used taxpayer money. Big government vs the market, interesting where both parties may fall.

Within the context of the policy initiatives, Liberals have the added bonus of confirmation that poll slippage has ended, which helps generate a new news cycle. The stabilizing landscape allows for some optimism, while simultaneously blunting the perceived Harper momentum. A lot of people debate the importance of polls, but I think they shape the media mindset, which trickles through our newscasts. The level at which people pay attention is a valid debate, but most people do pick up things here and there, which is why constant the tone of coverage has a general effect.

It's only one week, but this week was the first time that it appeared someone was minding the store, there was the appearance of thoughtful strategy, with the requisite meat on bones.

New Poll

The bleeding has stopped:

When respondents were asked who they would vote for today, the results showed little difference from about a month ago (percentage-point change from a Feb. 15-18 poll in brackets):


Liberals: 31 per cent (+ 2)
Conservatives: 36 per cent (+ 2)
NDP: 15 per cent (+ 1)
Bloc Quebecois: 9 (- 2)
Green Party: 10 (- 2)

Quebec:

Liberals: 22 per cent (none)
Conservatives: 26 per cent (+ 8 per cent)
NDP: 9 per cent (+ 1)
Bloc Quebecois: 36 per cent (- 7)
Green Party: 7 per cent (- 2)

Ontario:

Liberals: 41 per cent (+ 2)
Conservatives: 34 per cent (none)
NDP: 15 per cent (+ 1)
Bloc Quebecois: N/A
Green Party: 10 per cent (- 3)

The Quebec numbers are concerning, but Gregg admits a high margin of error. This may be based on bias, but I'm not trusting any results while the election is taking place- these results may simply be a function of the volatile provincial situation.

The good news for Liberals, Strategic Counsel has a healthy lead in Ontario, which is critical, for obvious reasons.

It would appear the polling numbers have calmed down, which is relevant in terms of perception. No more stories about Dion plummeting, these stabilized results should allow for reasonable analysis, maybe, dare I say it, some EVEN coverage.

You would expect Harper to receive some benefit from the santa claus routine, the fact that the numbers are largely stagnant is a net negative for the Conservative. Gregg spins these results as tempting for Harper to call an election:

"If I was Stephen Harper looking at this, I'd say, 'I still have some work to do, but you know what? I can't do worse than 2006,'" said Gregg.


"He's recovered the ground he's lost post-Afghanistan, same-sex-marriage, I-won't-do-Kyoto, in the province of Quebec. All those seats we'd anticipated he might lose are now back in the win column."

I don't see the optimism in these numbers, it looks like Dion has weathered the storm and the Tories aren't moving. The numbers are too close for anyone to be particularly optimistic.

Easy Mr. Baird

You can't fault John Baird for his ambition:

Ahead of a three-day summit of G8 countries on climate change, Environment Minister John Baird says he hopes Canada will help spearhead a number of environmental initiatives that go beyond the scope of the Kyoto Protocol.

"Canada is taking significant action in a variety of areas to tackle greenhouse gas emissions," he told CBC News before the summit, which begins Friday in Potsdam, Germany.

"We want to be part of, and provide leadership around the world for, negotiation of a new pact that will go farther than Kyoto in the years ahead."

Let's start with repairing our damaged reputation on the international stage, before we have the audacity to lecture the world. Establish some credibility, go beyond the embarrassing sideshow on display in Nairobi and elsewhere, and I would be happy. If no one shakes their head while Baird speaks, consider his visit a success.

Maybe when our emissions targets match many of the aggressive measures coming from other countries, then Mr. Baird can lead the charge to fight global warming. However, at the moment, Baird would appear like a drunk pontificating about moderation and self-control. Easy Mr. Baird, baby steps- dig yourself out of the hole before you climb the moral mountain.

Harper Outwit's Himself?

Conventional wisdom assumes Stephen Harper is a strategic master. I don’t disagree with the assessment on some levels, although I do think Harper’s “two moves ahead” mentality has a tendency to backfire. Case in point, Harper’s desire to divide the political left.

There is no question that Harper has gone to great lengths to paint the NDP in a different light than the Liberals. You can find numerous comments, wherein Harper admonishes the Liberals on a particular issue, while concurrently praising the NDP for their constructive input. The Liberals have no desire to get things done, constantly playing partisan politics, while the NDP makes concrete contributions.

This differentiation is clearly by design. Harper attempts to prop up the NDP with his comments, and in effect, make them look relevant. A strong NDP serves Harper’s interests, because theoretically that divides the anti-Harper vote. However, given the NDP’s poor showing in the polls, you would have to conclude that Harper’s strategy has been a failure, in fact, his tactics may have hurt the NDP. Harper’s approach has given the appearance of co-operation, which is a risky proposition for the NDP. You could argue that Harper’s indirect courting of Layton has actually hurt his chances come election time. A weakened NDP is a dangerous part of the majority equation.

Another area where Harper may have out strategized himself is in the area of the environment. Harper’s recent green binge has been effective in neutralizing the environment as a partisan issue. This is just a theory, but let’s say the environment is on the back-burner come the election, as a result of the Harper greenery. Does this fact potentially weaken the Green Party? If the environment isn’t a red hot issue, it stands to reason that soft Green supporters might not be compelled to vote for the party. Again, I would assume that a strong Green vote actually helps Harper, in further dividing the center-left pie, allowing him to win seats with marginal support. If the Greens are less of a factor, as a result of Harper’s recent moves, is he in fact hurting his electoral chances? I think it reasonable to assume that this is a possibility.

The great strategist might be missing some other factors as he fixates on his primary goal.

Overkill

Another day, another announcement, all part of the Harper environmental blitz. Who is this guy?


Don't get me wrong, much of the blitz is objectively good news. Okay, Harper has stole every idea available, but it's hard to argue the substance. What next? I'm half expecting to read in tomorrow's paper that Harper has chained himself to a tree, to prevent the logging of an environmentally sensitive tract of land. Will the Prime Minister be biking to the House of Commons when parliament reconvenes?

There is no historical precedent for the apparent Harper epiphany. When has a politician gone from such complete indifference, to tossing around massive expenditures as though driven by a passionate cause? You almost believe the guy, almost.

Here's the problem? Despite some solid announcements, and more to come, like the rumored rebate on hybrid cars, it's really hard to give Harper credit. I suppose if political calculation is your measure, you have to tip your hand to the onslaught, but that is hardly a worthy motivation. What we are witnessing is sensory overkill. Harper is dazzling us with announcement after announcement, from every geographical location imaginable, to paint the sky green. All the right moves, for all the wrong reasons.

I can't wait for the next photo-op, wherein Harper enters upstream, gently navigating his cedar canoe down a shallow riffle, whilst singing to a lonely woodchuck in the canopy.

Dion Enters The Playing Field

Dion gets into the game, with sound policy on crime:

• More money for provinces to hire municipal police officers.

• An extra $200 million for the RCMP to hire 400 officers as part of a new "rapid enforcement team" to fight gangs and gun activity, organized crime and drug trafficking.

• Reverse-onus bail hearings for people arrested on gun crime, which would require the arrested to justify their release on bail.

• Tougher laws to protect children from being lured by Internet-based predators and to make it harder for criminals to commit identity theft.

• Setting up a fund to help improve security at places of worship for "at-risk communities."

These policy announcements send a clear signal that the Liberals recognize the need to address gun violence, which is a hot button issue that Harper has wedged to great effect. On this particular file, Liberals don’t need to own the issue, they only need to negate it as a Harper attack line.

It is nice to see Dion release some specifics, because it helps put some definition to his reign, which has been a weakness to date. These are serious proposals, particularly the endorsement of the Conservatives reverse-onus idea- is shows some level of co-operation and adds a non-partisan flavor to the Liberal policy.

I know there has been much discussion about whether or not Dion should release policy now, or wait until the election. I would argue for the middle-ground, don’t release a full platform, but throw out some positions now, as a function of Dion’s perceived weaknesses. You can’t allow the Conservatives to define Dion without some response, and policy is one way to articulate vision. Pragmatism demands the Liberals address the now, because this is critical in setting up Dion’s chances come the election. Having said that, there must be a balance and Dion should have lots of announcements at his disposal come the campaign.

I would characterize Dion’s announcement today as exactly what the doctor ordered. Address a sore spot, show leadership and put the ball back in the Conservative’s court.

Is The NDP In Big Trouble?

Any objective reading of the current political landscape suggests BIG problems for the NDP. I've noticed recently that Layton and the NDP are almost invisible on the national stage, it's as though they aren't part of the conversation. This predicament is especially relevant, given the current minority parliament, which effectively gives the NDP the balance of power. You would think Layton would be front and center, enjoying a great deal of face time. Instead, Layton seems lost in the political wilderness, an afterthought. A major announcement, in the heart of NDP friendly Toronto, to announce his budget demands reveals the following:

the assembled media horde in its entirety included the following: one (1) TV cameraman; one (1) girl from a local radio station; and one (1) reporter from a national magazine...

Not unreasonably, it was decided that Layton would wait a little longer before speaking - the time allowing, hopefully, for more cameras and microphones to arrive.

Finally, about 20 minutes past 11:00, the media contingent steady at three, Layton decided to get this over with...

These sorts of orchestrated events are awkward at the best of times. But there is perhaps nothing more uncomfortable than watching a man of conviction plead a seemingly important message to an audience of three (most of whom aren't all that interested in what he has to say to begin with). On this ugly morning it seemed almost dehumanizing. One had to fight the urge to give Layton a hug.

A pathetic turnout, by any one's definition and clearly disheartening. Incidents like the above may explain why Layton has looked decidedly sullen and down in recent interviews.

Lost in the "Dion is falling" poll-inspired talk, are the abysmal, consistent, NDP numbers. Those results are in the official party status realm, a thought almost unthinkable just a few months ago. What went wrong, and is it temporary?

There is no question the NDP has suffered during the environment debate. Despite the most progressive environmental agenda, the NDP has failed to benefit from rise of the issue. In fact, the environment has been a setback, as other parties steal the NDP thunder, while the Greens siphon votes. The environment has always been a central NDP plank, and frankly it was the main reason why I voted for them last election, so any permanent erosion on this file is a major blow.

I really believe the NDP is at a historic crossroads, and I think party insiders recognize this fact. If the NDP fails to rally, the next election could be an ugly affair. I'm not suggesting extinction, but real relevance lost. It will be hard for Layton to make the important distinctions, that normally give the NDP political room, now that we have a left-leaning Liberal leader and a feisty May.

Down in the polls, squeezed from all sides, and nobody seems to care.

UPDATE

NDP MP Pat Martin expressing concern:.

NDP MP Pat Martin says his party must make significant gains in the next federal election or be forced to admit it may never be anything more than a fringe player and end its 46-year existence. Despite a recent rise in fortunes for the NDP, the Winnipeg MP admitted his party has led a tenuous existence, allowing bold policies -- such as calling for free first degrees for college and university students -- to be hidden behind timid language. "So, the result has been to bore people into some kind of a stupor where nobody has any idea what we stand for anymore." A poor electoral result could leave the NDP with few options, Mr. Martin said, including, in the case of a minority government, a merger or coalition with the Liberals.

Gorementum

Are you sure you don't want to run for President?:

Support for potential 2008 Democratic presidential nominees, among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote.

Mar. Feb. Jan.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
36% 40% 29%

Barack Obama
22% 21% 18%

Al Gore
18% 14% 11%

John Edwards
9% 13% 13%

That is some serious mo for Gore, which will only intensify the draft Gore movement. Hillary looks anything but a sure thing, and Obama is a wildcard at this point. Just imagine if Gore were to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Those are impressive numbers, by any measure, given the current scenario. You would have to think there is some temptation, despite the consistent NO's.

Message Control

This is the week that Conservatives gather to "prepare" for the election they don't want:

Hundreds of federal Conservative candidates and campaign workers will converge on a Toronto convention centre this week for a political boot camp designed to prepare them for the next election.

Over three days of activities starting Friday at the Toronto Congress Centre, candidates will be drilled in everything from the basics of door-to-door canvassing to the art of delivering the pithy sound bite.

Party operatives will get crash courses in get-out-the-vote techniques and the Conservatives' sophisticated database program for pinpointing voter categories..

At the training conference, candidates will likely learn some of the techniques that served the party well in the last election, such as the e-mailing of daily talking points to candidates' BlackBerries each morning

Some of the other items on the agenda:

-the party will hire groups of ethnics, that will travel with candidates to campaign events to mitigate the "white out" effect and give the false impression that the party has made inroads with minorities.

-candidates will train in the use of wireless earpiece devices, allowing PMSH to directly feed lines, ensuring a tight message.

-all media inquires should be answered with the following responses, with the exception of The National Post or Sun Media:

-unavailable for comment
-scheduling conflict
-we'll get back to you

-each candidate will be fitted for an ankle bracelet that emits a small electrical charge everytime someone begins to speak freely.

-as part of the Tory commitment to reduce the tax burden, the budget will include a new fund that will allow candidates to directly give residents 50 dollars during door to door campaigning. Candidates will have the flexibility to give more if the person is undecided or a soccer mom.

-no candidate will complete a sentence without blaming the Liberals and/or referencing their 13 years in power.

-training in baby holding, to avoid incidents such as this:

And you thought the last Tory campaign was slick.

Fishy

Have you seen the television ads from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association? The ads go to great pains to paint Stephen Harper as Mr. GREEN, in a way that smells partisan. You be the judge if this smells fishy:

Phil von Finckenstein:

He’s a public relations consultant who in addition to working with the CFRA also works with the Fraser Institute; a well known rightwing astroturf organization. He was also Conservative MP Stockwell Day’s Director of Communications during the Alliance phase of the party.

Mr. von Finckenstein was formerly Director of Communications for the Leader of the Opposition and the Canadian Alliance. He also served as the Senior Media Officer for Preston Manning, MP, and distinguished himself in senior positions in two federal election campaigns.

Kory Teneycke:

Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor admits that the Executive Director of the CFRA, Kory Teneycke is a friend of his..

The CRFA is a non-profit organization, that receives funding from other companies and organizations, including Shell Canada and Sunoco. A full membership in the organization costs 75 thousand. It is natural to assume the funding for the television ads comes from the membership contributions.

The Conservative Accountability Act:

a ban on contributions from corporations, unions and organizations to parties and candidates- Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups may not make political contributions.

Impose a complete ban on contributions by corporations, unions, and organizations

These ads are political propaganda in my view, the message of clean fuels is the front to make Harper look like the environmental champion. When you consider who operates within the CRFA, can it be construed that corporations are making donations to a political party, via a third-party, which itself is making the donation. In other words, have the Conservatives found a clever way to circumvent their own legislation, which is supposed to eliminate contributions from organizations and corporations. If you watch the ads, the odor is suspicious to say the least. Are these ads fair ball? Is the CRFA laundering political contributions?

Good News, Bad News

First, the bad news:

Stephen Harper maintains a large advantage as the preferred head of government in Canada, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 35 per cent of respondents think Harper would make the best prime minister, while 19 per cent choose Liberal leader Stéphane Dion.

The numbers show that, after four months on the job, the Liberal leader is losing the battle to earn the confidence of Canadians. Only 9% say their opinion of Dion has improved over the course of the past month, and 29% say their views have actually worsened.

The good news:

Mr. Harper, on the other hand, appears to be treading water with 21% expressing a more positive opinion of the Prime Minister, and 22% echoing negative views.

Do you approve or disapprove of Stephen Harper’s performance as prime minister?

Approve
37%
Disapprove
41%
Not sure
22%

The fact that Dion's numbers are still dropping, even when compared with the abysmal numbers in the previous poll is quite concerning. There is little doubt that Dion has a great deal of work to do in convincing Canadians that he is ready to the lead the country. However, Dion is the new actor, which allows for the argument that his condition can improve. Canadians don't really know Dion and that means there is still opportunity to reverse these trends.

Where Liberals can take great solace, Harper hasn't really benefited from the new leaders early troubles. Harper has a higher disapproval rating than approval, despite the fact most Canadians believe the country is headed in the right direction. Canadians opinion of Harper hasn't improved, which is curious, given Dion's apparent "weakness"- this suggests real hesitation.

It may be a stretch to spin these findings as opportunity for the Liberals, but I think that fair. There are many tools available to Liberal strategists to improve Dion's image, these people aren't inept, now they know the challenges. If you use historical context, Dion's predicament is nothing extraordinary. For arguments sake you can see scenarios where Dion turns it around.

With Harper, I'm not sure there is much more opportunity, unless of course he has another 15-20 billion to throw around. Stuck is the best word to describe Harper's situation, and his high negatives suggest potential erosion if Dion is effective. Harper should be benefiting from Dion's troubles, that is the expected result. The fact that Harper is largely stalled, seems to have a natural ceiling, is something we can exploit.

What about Liblogs?

I am not attacking Jason Cherniak, these are just suggestions. Liblogs is Jason's site, but really it a collective of engaged Liberals with an opinion. Liblogs prospers, not because of an individual, but because of the contributions from all its members.

The last week highlights several problems with the current set-up. What if a Liblogger makes statements which could be construed as offensive and "indefensible"? I admit a certain discomfort in having one individual determine what is acceptable, far too subjective for my tastes. In other words, isn't it time for Liblogs to evolve into a group that isn't quite so hierarchial? There is a certain irony in providing a medium that speaks to egalitarianism, yet it is run like a monarchy. Is Liblogs a personal vehicle to advance one's interests, or is it truly a progressive entity?

Liblogs needs a constitution, to determine certain boundaries. This constitution should be developed by the members, with a voting mechanism. There should be a group of moderators to better reflect the totality of the membership. A sense that Liblogs is "our" site, even though it is run by one individual. Afterall, without the members, Liblogs is nothing. Liblogs should remain independent from the party appartus, to ensure a free dialogue, that doesn't require censorship to appease a politically correct head office.

In defense of Jason, he allows many, many posts which directly criticize his opinions, so there is little sense that bloggers must hold their tongues. However, there is the impression in the MSM and beyond, that Jason is Liblogs- the online voice for Liberals. Is this fair, given the fact that many in the online community don't share his opinions? Is Liblogs set up in such a way that other voices are stifled by the dominance of the "leader"? Is this a system by design, if so, hardly progressive in nature? Do I, as a blogger, have any say in Liblogs, or am I simply grateful that Jason allows me to post at "his" place?

What I am getting at, we have an opportunity to evolve Liblogs and make it about Liberals, instead of one person, as it often becomes. I would appreciate any feedback.

Harper Fails To Connect

Interesting poll that details Canadians impressions of Stephen Harper. I read the results below as a serious challenge for Harper:

a new Ipsos-Reid survey conducted for CanWest/Global Television says that after more than a year in power, 65 per cent of Canadians say they do not feel they know Mr. Harper better as a person than when he became prime minister.

"He is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma, wrapped inside a riddle," is how Darrell Bricker, president of the polling firm, portrayed Canadians' view of Mr. Harper.

Women in particular see him as a mystery man, according to the survey, which found that 72 per cent of women, compared to 59 per cent of men, reported feeling they did not know Mr. Harper any better now than when he won the election last year.

"It's clear Mr. Harper has difficulty with women," Mr. Bricker said, citing other polls that have pointed to Mr. Harper's gender gap. "When you ask people whether or not they have a positive or negative view of him, the most negative are women, and they are intensely negative."

The survey also found 61 per cent of Canadians say their trust in Mr. Harper has not changed since he was elected. Fourteen per cent said it had increased and 23 per cent said it had decreased.

Conservatives often say the "hidden agenda" angle won't fly as a Liberal argument. These findings suggest the argument is alive and well:

Mr. Bricker traced doubts about Mr. Harper to his inability so far to erase questions about whether he is being upfront about his agenda for the country.

"With Harper, the not knowing him always leads people into the impression that he may have a hidden agenda," Mr. Bricker said. "He hasn't been able to fill in those blanks. And because he hasn't filled it in, the lingering impression is that he has some sort of hidden agenda."

Mr. Bricker said Mr. Harper's "mystery man" status is a political handicap. "For all those who think this is going to be a cakewalk for Stephen Harper in the next election campaign, this should be a big yellow light."

After a full year in office, you would think Canadians would have a better understanding of what Harper is really about. The apprehension, and the confusion, serve as proof that Canadians haven't yet embraced our Prime Minister or his policies. This reality leaves an opening for those that suggest we haven't yet seen the real Harper- a powerful check on majority talk.

I would speculate that these findings are a function of Harper's hyper-politicism. There have been other polls, particularly on the environment, that show Canadians believe the policies are driven by politics, as opposed to conviction. Canadians often agree with the direction, but question the motivation. This situation may explain why they don't quite trust Harper, the rhetoric has a hollow quality that people have picked up on.

Dion strategists should see opportunity in Harper's failure to really connect. Dion's faults have been well documented, but his inherent strength is his genuine character and almost apolitical candor. Highlighting these attributes may provide an interesting contrast to the "mystery man". With Dion you get what you see, with Harper you get what you want to hear. For all the Tory effort to define Dion, it would appear the Prime Minister is still workable clay. Liberals can still work the pottery wheel and do some shaping. Conclusions, no sale yet.

National Post: The Earth Is Flat

Just imagine if The National Post was your main source for information (what a scary concept). It has become clear, if you are part of the lunatic fringe that still resists the overwhelming science on global warming, this is your paper. If you want to bury your head in the sand and find every possible theory to distract from human impact, get a subscription, it's a good read. You won't find the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of scientific papers or opinions released, that suggest a problem. Nope, The National Post will scour the globe for you, and publish anything that counters the rational facts. Today, part thirteen, yes quite a series, "The Deniers". Only 2487 scientists to go and we could see the deniers series rival The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's firm conclusions.

I'm not suggesting we completely repress the "deniers". What I do find troubling, The National Post seems to have an agenda here, wherein they disporportionately give coverage to a MINIMAL viewpoint. The question becomes, why is this paper so determined to undermine the scientific evidence, and provide cover for a lack of action on a real problem? Why is it always the Post that argues against the negative consequences of global warming?

The sad part, people read this crap and take it as fact. The issue is presented as though confused, when a statistical measurement shows no real argument at all. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find some study that showed broccoli can kill me too, but I prefer the rational realm, where most of the science lives. The National Post is "deniers" headquarters, polluting the waters to support its narrow agenda, which I don't quite understand.

Harper's Bad Math

Stephen Harper is touring the country, handing out money for greenhouse gas emission, as part of the ecoTrust initiative. Yesterday, Alberta received 156 million, prior to that Quebec received 350 million, Ontario 586 million. It would appear the government is offering the money as a function of population. If the goal is too reduce greenhouse gases, then Alberta is getting the relative shaft. The following chart should be the guide, in deciding allocation:



Alberta should get 450 million, while Quebec should receive around 180 million. In other words, a region that has disporportionate emissions, should receive a higher share of the funding. Contributions based on population is the easy way out, but it isn't necessarily the best course. Is the concern vote potential or real reductions?

Everyone acknowledges Alberta's "special" needs. What better way for the federal government to show Albertans that the entire country wants to help than a substantial investment? Given the challenges, the amount of money offered is inadequate, especially when compared to what was offered Quebec. Imagine if the Liberals cut the pie in such a way?

First Time For Everything

The above photo is Rona Ambrose speaking today at Stephen Harper's Ecotrust announcment in Edmonton. This event constitutes the first time Ambrose has been allowed to speak at an event, on the environment, with Harper in attendance. And we thought Intergovernmental Affairs was a demotion.

Don't Let The Facts Get In The Way

What a funny headline-

"Stock deals rattle Obama-Claims he was not aware of shares in firms backed by political donors"

Barack Obama, who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has been forced to defend some curious stock purchases in companies that were backed by some of his top political donors.

The article, like all the others I have seen on this "story" give all the questionable details, then halfway through admit the following:

He lost $13,000 on the sale and there is no evidence that either AVI, or the other company, SkyTerra Communications, benefited in any way from Obama.

No evidence? Lost money? And, why are we reporting nothingness? Obama isn't "claiming" anything, in reality others are "reaching". The sad part, the pinnacle of American journalism, The New York Times, decided that speculation with no underpinning whatsoever, was sound basis for a lead story, that was bound to reverberate. Imagine if Obama broke even, or made 10 bucks? What a waste of Time.

New Decima Poll

A new Decima poll:

A new poll suggests the federal Conservatives have regained support among women and city-dwellers, crucial demographic groups that are key to any hope of a Tory majority.

The Decima survey, provided to The Canadian Press, suggests the trend is the reason for the Conservatives' six percentage point lead nationally over the Liberals – 35 to 29.

There is one huge silver lining for the Liberals though – they are way ahead of the Tories in Quebec, in a virtual tie with the Bloc Quebecois.

The poll, conducted last weekend, placed the NDP at 15 per cent, the Green party at 11, and the Bloc Quebecois at seven.

The most obvious one is that the Tory momentum may be levelling off. The governing party had been on a surge since January and had rocketed to a nine-point lead in a Decima survey last week.

The new numbers show the Tories with a smaller lead and leaves them well shy of the support level they would need for a majority government.

The second Liberal bright spot is Quebec. Not since the sponsorship scandal exploded three years ago has the Liberal party seen such a promising score in the seat-rich province.

The Liberals lagged just two percentage points – a statistical dead heat – behind the Bloc Quebecois. The long-dominant Bloc was at 31 per cent in the province, while the Liberals were at 29 and the Tories were well back at 17.

In Ontario, the Tories held on to their advantage, leading the Liberals 37 per cent to 32 per cent. The NDP and Green party were tied at 14 per cent.

There were few bright spots for the NDP.

Last week's Decima numbers had the Conservatives at 36%, the Liberals at 27%- translation the bleeding has stopped. The good news, the Liberals are up a full 6% in Quebec, nipping at the BQ heels. It would appear lying ads have failed, and the election is actually benefiting the Liberals, much to Harper's dismay.

The Ontario numbers are bad news, and the pattern is consistent. Decima seems to give the Greens high percentages, and it is quite relevant that they tie the NDP in Ontario. This condition should give Liberals some comfort, as voters oscillate on the center-left, come election time there should be some leakage back to the Liberals.

Conclusion, Liberals have already hit bottom.

Harper Winning The Environment Battle?

I’ve always thought the environment was the Harper achilles heel. Of all the issues, it seemed the environment was where the opposition could make the strongest counter. If you look at the Liberal leadership, and the focus on the environment, it would seem the party had decided that it would be the key issue as well. Dion rode the green wave and everyone concluded that he would be able to exploit the issue to the Liberals advantage.

Fast forward to the present, it looks more and more that Harper has successfully negated the perceived weakness. A series of announcements, substantial money to the provinces, looming federal action on emission targets, a concerted effort to undermine the Kyoto arguments, all have mixed together to make the denier look the doer. I’m not arguing the fine points, and I’m still not convinced the eventual federal legislation will be adequate, but it does appear that Harper has changed the perception somewhat.

The Conservatives don’t need to drape themselves in green, they only need to create the impression that they are moving on the file in a concrete way. In other words, take the environment off the table as a point of attack. If you look at where we are now, as opposed to the Ambrose reign, it is hard not to think the Conservatives haven’t achieved their goal.

As an added bonus to Conservative fortunes, Dion’s perceived strength looks less and less formidable. It is noteworthy that Dion is actually on the defensive now, as opposed to hammering the “inept” Tories. Fortunes have changed since the convention, the Conservative weakness is no longer glaring and the Dion bloom has definitely come off the rose. A draw is a win every time, on this issue, for Harper. Maybe not mission accomplished, but clearly trending in the right direction for Harper’s perceived achilles heel.

Amazing

I can't think of another word to describe a bank advocating taxation. In what amounts to a complete endorsement of Ignatieff's environmental agenda, a "revenue-neutral", "carrot and stick approach", the TD bank offers the following:

Economists from one of Canada's big banks have thrown their support behind taxing industries and consumers who contribute to global warming, saying that government needs to attach a cost to pollution if any fundamental progress is to be made.

In a report released today by the TD Bank, economists argued that industry and consumers will not change their behaviour as long as it's cheap to pollute. They advocate a policy that combines emissions regulations, taxes, subsidies and a trading system for emissions credits – a varied approach they say would mitigate the impact on the economy.

But Drummond says taxing those who actually pollute creates an incentive to change behaviour.

He suggests that the tax should be applied when the pollution is created. Thus, the consumer would pay for car pollution, and industry would pay for pollution associated with the production process.

The revenues would be shifted into cutting taxes in other areas or to finance subsidies that further help the environment.

"You'd recycle every single cent," said Drummond.

The fact that a bank, which relies on economic growth, shows support for a carbon tax makes all the arguments about "economic ruin" all the more ridiculous. The TD's position is completely counter-intuitive, taxes are a drain on the economy. One, the problem must be quite serious. Two, the bank must acknowledge the long term economic impact if we do nothing. Three, there is a way to tax pollution and maintain economic growth.

Put that in your denier hat and smoke it. Who knew, the TD bank, an group of environmental activists, with no understanding of the economy. A good day indeed.

Tough On Facts

I post the above cartoon, because I think it representative of public perception. The problem for Liberals, Harper has embraced a tough on crime philosophy, while concurrently arguing that others are weak. Most of the rhetoric is pure smoke and mirrors, but it relies on the exaggerated media coverage to tap into the sentiment that crime is rampant. If you ask Canadians if crime is on the rise, I suspect a clear YES, despite the facts.

The good news, statistics don't support the Tory thesis on crime. It is imperative that Liberals make the case, the Harper approach is akin to American style justice. Do we need super jails? Point to the fact that foreign delegations often visit Canada to see our penal system, our methods of rehabilitation, the way in which we house criminals. Why would other countries want to learn from Canada if the system is so flawed? Are there any Canadians impressed with the American approach to justice, has that resulted in safer communities?

Liberals lost the issue when Martin made a fool of himself during the last election. No sense of conviction, just pure calculation, to look tough on crime. What Dion needs to do is demonstrate areas where the Liberal Party genuinely supports tougher measures, while casting the Harper fixation as over the top. Call out the media, ask the questions about sensationalizing, armed with the facts? In other words make the conversation a more detailed discussion, as opposed to the simple sound bites, which Harper owns. If we challenge the media, they will be forced to respond and/or acknowledge the disparity between the Tory rhetoric and the statistics. It really is our only hope to get into the game on this issue, because essentially Harper now stands alone.

Interesting Harper Quotes

The following quotes might be of interest, come election time, in the province of Quebec. Stephen Harper:

"Obviously, given the ethnic and sociocultural make-up of modern Quebec society, only the pure laine Quebecois could arguably be considered a people," Harper, who was then the Reform Party MP for Calgary West, told the House of Commons on Dec. 11, 1995, during a debate on Quebec's right to self-determination.

"While they constitute a majority of the Quebec population, they do not constitute a majority in each region of Quebec. This produces a curious result, that if the Quebecois pure laine are a people and if they have a right to secede, they could not claim the right to territorial integrity."

"If the strict definition of the word people is applied, only the aboriginal people in the North would likely qualify. This is clearly not in the interest of sovereignists and quite probably the reason why the Belanger-Campeau commission did not explore the point further."

The above is something Dion could use to great effect. Repeatedly ask if Harper still believes Quebec is divisible.

I was thinking this today, what are the Tories planning for Dion come election time, in his home province? Apart from the attack ads, the Conservatives haven't really tipped their hands on the strategy. I expect they will try to paint Dion as a stubborn federalist, out of touch with the majority of Quebecers. Quotes and the past will clearly be brought up, in an attempt to put Dion on the defensive. If that is the case, Liberals can't fall into the trap, and the above quotes serve as excellent fodder to cut Harper off at the knees.

Dion is at his best when he is posing the questions, on ground of his choosing, as he demonstrated during the Quebec battles. I would put the above into the file, because Harper's ambiguity when it comes to Quebec must be defined, and the glare of an election won't allow for convenient sidesteps.

Hordes Of Polar Bears

Why is it always The National Post that seems to present the "other side" to the global warming debate? Today's offering, "Polar Bears, Much Ado About Nothing". Don Martin:

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

Far be it for me to act as a climate- change denier, but that's hardly overwhelming proof of a species in peril in Canada, which claims roughly two thirds of the world's polar bear population.

Reading international coverage of the bear, it's obvious Canada has become home to the official poster species for extinction by climate change.

Everywhere you look, the "doomed" polar bear's story is illustrated...

But while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has embraced the religion of climate change and vows to combat it with billions of new dollars, the bear facts suggest the challenge facing our great white symbol may be more about too many bears than too little ice.

The "bear facts", case closed. Mr. Martin jumps all over the population numbers, but fails to present any context. If you want information on polar bear populations, it might be a good idea to ask someone like Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. Do we listen to Mr. Martin, who's only exposure to polar bears was a half hour show on Discovery, that he watched one time, while home with the flu, or do we take our cues from the experts? I choose the latter:

The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.

The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess—there is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting,self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.

After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased— there is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster.

The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears—the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview. Sea ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere. Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.

Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.

It's fine for The National Post to publish the polar bear number findings. What is intellectually dishonest, and a glaring example of an agenda, is arguing there are "too many bears". One thing The National Post isn't is "ignorant", they know exactly what they are doing.

Kumbaya

As a staunch federalist, maybe my bias gets the better of me, but the utter nonsense spewed by the BQ is hard to take:

Andre Boisclair is planning to seek international support for an independent Quebec right away - even before a third referendum would be held - if his Parti Quebecois wins the March 26 provincial election.
Boisclair said Tuesday he doesn't plan to wait for the referendum itself or eventual negotiations with the federal government if the sovereigntist forces were to win an independence vote. "The message will be clear and it will be well conveyed to the international community," Boisclair told a news conference, he said, adding he would start the process right after gaining power.

Nothing says "clarity" like two failed referendums. How can Boisclair reach out to foreign countries, when he hasn't first "consulted" with Quebecers? As far as the international community should be concerned, apart from some mischevious French politicians, Quebecers have rejected sovereignty. That's the record, that's democracy.

Sure:

The PQ leader also said he envisions an orderly transition to a sovereign Quebec.

"I am not at all worried about the day after a referendum," he said.

Well, what else can he say really. I wonder if he actually believes it? Sometimes I wish we could fast-forward to a year after a YES vote, just so everyone could see the orderly, good-natured transition, that defies all historical precedent. Kumbaya, Kumbaya.

Thanks For Clarifying

Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair, offers a revealing admission:

“Quebec sovereignty would not make the trees grow faster,” Boisclair said,

I'm inclined to disagree, because it is common knowledge that sovereignty is a utopian existence, that shows no relationship to the natural world as we know it. I might add, horseshit is often used to enhance soil composition, so it follows that PQ rhetoric could be used, to in fact, help trees "grow faster".

They Like Us, They Really Like Us

Canada, the image superpower:

LONDON – Israel, Iran and the United States were the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.

The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries – Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela – as having a positive or negative influence on the world.

Israel was viewed negatively by 56 per cent of respondents and positively by 17 per cent; for Iran, the figures were 54 per cent and 18 per cent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 per cent citing it as a bad influence and 30 per cent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 per cent and positively by 19 per cent.

Canada had the most positive rating in the survey, with 54 per cent viewing it positively and 14 per cent negatively. It was followed by Japan and France.

"It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the pursuit of military power," said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the research along with pollster GlobeScan.

"Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like France and Japan and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively," he added.

Harper would have us believe that Canada doesn't register on the radar, with his constant, confusing, "Canada's back" rhetoric when he speaks of foreign affairs. The above findings serve as further proof that Canada already has a reputation, one we should be proud of, and certainly one that doesn't require a more "assertive" posture.

Questioning The Strategy

I have to admit, I don't quite understand some of the logic articulated by Gerard Kennedy:

For many Liberals, the tour comes not a moment too soon. They've been fretting privately that Dion is wasting his time in the Commons' daily question period, where he's ill-suited to deliver the required 30-second bursts of hyper-partisanship.

"The attack mode is not one that I think is naturally suited to him or his personality or the mission-driven politician that he is," acknowledges Gerard Kennedy, Dion's election readiness adviser.

"He's a man of great conviction but we think it's better that he be presenting those convictions."

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that Dion is touring the country, showing Canadians a different side of him, one that he generally excels at. What I do find troubling, you can't accept the premise that Dion isn't suited to Question Period. While QP is largely a sideshow, a leader can't survive if he doesn't manage a way to be effective in the House of Commons. For better or worse, that is the arena that would-be Prime Ministers must navigate.

Instead of admitting that Dion isn't really suited to that environment, I think it much better to find a way to blend Dion's strengths within the dynamics of QP. Stop reading from a script like a bad actor, ad-lib, allow for a more natural exchange. Whatever, but don't cede parliament, as though Dion has a handicap. In addition, if anyone is worried about Ignatieff or others outshining Dion, an absent leader in QP is a sure fired way to ignite more controversy. Just imagine the spectacle of Ignatieff leading the charge, while Dion is absent, consulting with rank and file. Those that think Dion should spend less time in the House of Commons don't have a good grasp of optics in my view.

Kennedy:

The outreach effort is part of a broader strategy to renew and reunite the party after a decade of fratricidal infighting.

Kennedy says the strategy is crucial to the Liberal party's long term success, akin to having to build a solid foundation before trying to erect a new house.

"The strategy is to build inside before we build outside and I guess there's a cost to that," he says.

"That doesn't get us the yield in terms of moving those opinion poll numbers right away. But that isn't the point. (The point) is the long term. We have to do some base building."

I have always argued that the party needs to engage the grassroots. The leadership contest was a great exercise to put the elites back in touch with the ordinary rank and file. Wasn't it marvelous to listen to Ignatieff speak with intimate knowledge about the plight of farmers and rural Canada, as though he used to work at the local co-op. That process was a great step in re-building the party from the ground up.

I understand the commitment to consult endlessly, both Dion and Kennedy were very vocal in their desires. However, Kennedy's above statements show no sense of urgency, there is almost a defeatist short-term flavor. I don't prescribe to the belief that the next election is Harper's, although a long shot, all our energies should be on preparation for the now. The odds are increasingly favorable that we will have an election call this spring. With that reality in mind, it is vital that we quickly develop a platform. As the article cited admits, Dion is a policy wonk, there is no shortage of ideas, many of which have already been debated with the grassroots, through the leadership race. In the name of expediency, I am prepared to sacrifice the ideal of thorough consultations, in an effort to best prepare ourselves for a quick vote. It would appear we are trying to serve two masters here, and while admirable, I don't think it wise strategy, given the calendar.

Who Is Stephen Harper?

Olaf has an interesting post, which articulates frustration at anyone who still "trots out the boogeyman" when it comes to the Harper government. To categorize Harper as a right-wing ideologue, akin to the American neo-cons is outlandish, downright dishonest. Simple fear-mongering, the facts of one year in office don't support the alarmist thesis. Olaf does a commendable job laying out the initiatives and discrediting some lines of attack. The one glaring hole in the argument, can we say with certainty that this is the real Stephen Harper? Can you take this weak minority situation and extrapolate that reality as the true nature?

The problem I have with Stephen Harper, you have to subscribe to the "epiphany" theory to reconcile his long paper trail with the current rhetoric. Any objective reading of Harper's past musings would have to conclude that he favored a right-wing agenda. I'm not going to recite the opinions, they have been discussed to death. Conservatives conveniently ignore the past, "get over it", as though irrelevant to the current situation. I would be inclined to dismiss a lot of Harper's troubling positions, if they were the product of a reckless youth, but the real problem, there is a consistency that weaves its way through Harper's entire adult life- a logical pattern, that only now seems different.

What has changed to create the "new" Stephen Harper? Does anyone doubt the change is largely a result of electoral prospects, as opposed to some evolution in thinking? Did people miss the concerted effort to re-introduce Harper's conservatism during the last election? The motivations seem clear in my mind, the rhetoric is a packaged response, sharp marketing. I'm not prepared to forget the telling positions, articulated when Harper actually spoke freehand. As a matter of fact, I will take the uncensored Harper over this propaganda campaign everytime, because it simply a man expressing his self, without the lure of votes.

Put me firmly in the "idiotic" fear-mongering camp, I'm not buying the kinder, gentler Harper agenda. If we were two years into a majority situation, then I might temper my hysterics, but we're not and that point is central to any argument. Harper must move to the center, Harper must augment his rhetoric, Harper must morph to appeal to mainstream Canada. Has Harper changed? Please. Has Harper changed his tune to secure power? If you take Harper in totality, the answer seems obvious from here.

People can point to policies while in office, as evidence that the fear-mongering is misguided, asinine even, but I see a lot of this as the minority illusion. I'm not suggesting it isn't working, Liberals will have a hard time convincing Canadians that Harper should be feared, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. You have to sift through so much rhetoric, mis-information, that any clarity is lost.

So, who is Stephen Harper? IMHO, Harper is the same guy who spoke about "firewalls" and "welfare states", the only difference now, that honest talk doesn't quite jive with electoral success. The only "epiphany", a cold, hard calculation of what is required to take the helm. I fear a Harper majority, nothing to date has tempered that sentiment. I'm not buying, because clearly I'm being sold.

The Media And Al Gore

Very interesting Salon piece, which details the media love affair with Al Gore. I thought this relevant, as to why Gore may resist temptation:

Said the Note, in explaining the recent spate of positive coverage of the old press nemesis: ."Basically, the political press wants to tempt Al Gore into the race, and then they will destroy him as a flip-flopping, exaggerating, stiff loser. And Gore knows this."

Sad, small, pitiful and quite probably true.

It would appear all the favorable press is having an impact. This result was taken prior to the Oscars, you could assume Gore is probably a touch higher now:

Feb Jan

36% 41% Hillary Rodham Clinton

24% 17% Barack Obama

14% 10% Al Gore

12% 11% John Edwards

A pretty impressive tally for a guy who consistently says he won't run. I'm not really sure what that says about Edwards chances.

Our media is quite fickle, but the American media is a different animal altogether. They just love to push the underdog, bring them to the main stage and subsequently gut them beyond belief. Maybe the positive coverage now is some admission of guilt for past unfairness, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen again.

Gore's apprehension may be tested if he continues to rise in the polls. The draft Gore movement is starting to raise money, the Oscar speech allows for more speculation, the momentum may very well continue. Like or not, Al Gore will remain part of the Democratic discussion for some time.

Another Day, Another Poll

Another poll, showing some Liberal erosion, but not as dire as other findings:

The federal Conservatives' lead over the Liberals has widened to four points, but the level of their support remains shy of what's needed to put them in majority government territory, a new national poll says.

The poll, conducted Wednesday and Thursday by Ipsos-Reid for CanWest News Service and Global National, said the Conservative support held at 36 per cent for the second consecutive week of polling.

Support for the Liberal party stood at 32 per cent, down two points from its showing in an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted the previous week.

The New Democratic Party nudged up two points to 15 per cent. The Bloc Quebecois dropped a point to eight per cent and the Green Party held

In Quebec, some improvement:

The party climbed four points to 29 per cent, probably getting a bounce from their leading provincial counterparts in the early stages of the election, Bricker said.

The Bloc dropped four points to 34 per cent, and Stephen Harper's Conservatives dropped three points to 18 per cent.

Ontario:

In Ontario, the Tories and Grits were in a close race.

The Liberals had 39 per cent, down two points from the last survey, while the Tories had 36 per cent, also down two points.

The NDP support was up two points to 15 per cent.

This polls supports the theory that the Angus-Reid online poll is a outlier. What I take from this poll, confirmation of some Liberal erosion. The changing numbers seem more a function of the Liberals fading, than it does the Tories "surging".

The intriguing part of this poll, is it mirrors the earlier Decima poll findings for Quebec. The Liberals are up slightly, while the Tories are down, which gives me some comfort in saying the attack ads failed. I don't think you can co-relate the federal Liberal fortunes with the Quebec election, it makes more sense to see it as a benefit for Harper at this stage. The good news for federalists, another poll that shows the Bloc at a real low point, that we haven't seen for quite some time.

Get It Together

Consider this constructive criticism, we need to get it together- NOW. To be blunt, reading stuff like this is maddening:

A day after Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said the Liberals would consider a carbon tax, his office denied it is under consideration.
Outside the Commons on Thursday, Dion was asked whether his party would consider a carbon tax. "We have a set of possibilities, and it's a possibility," he said. But on Friday, Dion's office issued a news release denying that a carbon tax was under consideration...

John Bennett of the Climate Action Network said he was disappointed by the apparent confusion.

"It definitely does sound like a flip-flop to me. They'd better come up shortly with some strong regulations."

Maybe Dion shouldn't have said what he did, but he did. Either Dion was trying to appease or he was genuine in his comments, I prefer the latter. Whatever, the real problem I have is releasing a complete contradiction the very next day. Are we trying to fuel the flip-flop argument? Is there a better way to re-inforce the Tory attacks?

The carbon tax idea is controversial, the Conservatives have tried to score points and we respond. I think the tactical play, leave the Dion quote out there, downplay it, something like- "we are currently wading through all the ideas, once we complete out consultations we will have a firm approach, although I would stress that the carbon tax idea isn't on the front burner". Bottomline, we don't have a concrete policy yet, so any "slip" by Dion (is it really, or are we just reacting to the Tories) is temporary. What has lasting impact is the appearance that you flip-flop, especially when the word is already on people's tongues.

The press release today was unnecessary, it looks desperate, and worst of all it accomplishes nothing. I don't see anything particularly concerning about what Dion said, don't micro-manage and clarify, it just makes it worse. Now we have environmentalists criticizing Dion on his strength. Sometimes the less said, the better, instead of the appearance of elementary contradictions that fit neatly into your opponents main line of attack.

Concerning Poll

The new Angus-Reid poll puts Harper in majority terrority:

The Conservative party holds a 14-point lead in Canada, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 40 per cent of decided voters would support the Tories in the next election to the House of Commons.

The Liberal party is second with 26 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 15 per cent, the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent, and the Green party with eight per cent.

The poll gives the Tories a big lead in British Columbia and Ontario, with Quebec split down the middle. I suppose you can fluff off these polls, but in mind, there is no question we have a trend. This poll is the first I can remember that puts Harper in majority terrority, and it should give everyone pause.

The calendar is the Conservative's friend, hard to see a scenario where they are hurt by a feel-good budget. The latest polls certainly make a spring election more likely, Harper may orchestrate his own demise after the budget.

As an aside, my earlier post on the Quebec ads having no effect may have been pre-mature. Those numbers in Quebec are the highest I have seen for the Conservatives in some time. Take this poll in isolation, everything comes up roses for Harper, and the Liberals are in serious trouble. I just hope this is bottom.

Quebec Attack Ads Failed?

One of the important details within the latest Decima poll, suggests that the Tory attack ads have had no effect in Quebec. In fact the Liberal fortunes have slightly improved:

Feb 8 poll:

The Bloc Quebecois held a huge lead in Quebec at 42 per cent, compared with 21 per cent for the Liberals and 17 per cent for the Tories.

Feb 26 poll:

And in Quebec, Decima found Bloc Quebecois support was down to 35 per cent, with the Liberals at 23 per cent and the Tories at 15.

It's nice to see the Tories weren't rewarded for running misleading ads.

Major Liberal Scandal

Jane Taber has uncovered a possible big Liberal scandal. Get this, there are two talented people, who have these jobs and, here's the controversial part, their getting PAID for it. The horror:

Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay are receiving salaries from the Liberal Party to help prepare for the coming election, but how much they earn is being kept secret.

Since we are on the topic of jobs and salaries, maybe Jane Taber could do her's and actually report on something relevant. When will Jane Taber pierce the veil of secrecy and tell us how much she gets paid to ask bad questions on Question Period?

New Poll Results

New Decima poll:

The weekend Decima Research survey put Tory support at 36 per cent nationally, back up to where the minority government was just over a year ago when it won power. The Liberals polled 27 per cent, down from the 30 per cent they earned in the last election...

The Green party jumped to 12 per cent, putting it in a virtual dead heat with the NDP, which polled 13 per cent.
The poll suggests Liberals lost their long-time edge in Ontario, slipping to 32 per cent while the Tories surged to 40 per cent.
And in Quebec, Decima found Bloc Quebecois support was down to 35 per cent, with the Liberals at 23 per cent and the Tories at 15.

The Ontario numbers are concerning, no question. Those Quebec numbers should dampen the Ontario gains, especially when this poll was conducted after Harper's big announcement with Charest.

What is interesting, Liberal support seems to be moving to the Green Party, which suggests an apprehension to the Tories. This isn't the first poll to show this vacilation, and it provides more evidence that the Tories have a minority ceiling. Some conventional wisdom argues that the Green "surge" is just a blip, once the real vote occurs, we will see the typical erosion. I don't think people should be so flippant, the Greens look impressive and May is sure to shine in a campaign. The NDP should be quite concerned, as it appears voters are by-passing them as an alternative to the Liberals.

UPDATE
I should provide the Feb 8 Decima poll for context:

The Decima survey, provided to The Canadian Press, gives the Liberals a one percentage point lead nationally -- 33 per cent to 32 per cent -- which is within the 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

The survey puts the NDP at 15 per cent, the Bloc Quebecois at nine, and the Green party at eight.

The poll suggests the Liberal lead in Ontario has shrunk to four percentage points, compared with an 18-point gap at the start of the month.

The Bloc Quebecois held a huge lead in Quebec at 42 per cent, compared with 21 per cent for the Liberals and 17 per cent for the Tories.

Let Iggy Roam

Let me offer my two cents on the Ignatieff discussion. Arguing that we need to diminish Ignatieff's role translates into an admission that Dion is failing. A confident leader, comfortable with his role, doesn't feel threatened if others share the spotlight. Lowering Ignatieff's profile is an insecure response. Let's be frank, Dion's main strength isn't his persona, as leader of men. I think it an excellent strategy to speak of the "dream team", a net collective of intelligent minds, working together, forming a united front. That perception is a nice contrast to the one-man show operating across the aisle.

In my opinion, if you have an asset, you use it too full effect. Ignatieff has done a good job during question period, although for my money Goodale has been better. Where Ignatieff has been particularly effective is in the scrums, concise, assertive, engaging. If the media seeks Ignatieff out for a soundbite, great, all that matters is getting our message out.

What era are Liberals most remembered for in opposition? I would suggest the "Rat Pack", which consisted of four people, who weren't the "leader". Did they undermine or outshine Chretien, did the surrogates usurp the hierarchy? No, they were effective, pure gold for the Liberals.

The more voices articulating the message, the more character you present to the people. You don't insulate a leader to protect him, if you have to then that speaks volumes. I'm pretty confident that Dion can handle a shared stage with other talented people. If Dion is relatively weak in a specific sense, then use the abilities of the team to augment any "deficiency". If the Liberals have any chance in the next election, we should nourish as many voices as possible. If Dion looks comfortable with a high-profile Ignatieff, it speaks to his leadership, it doesn't distract from it.