THUD

That's the sound of the latest Conservative attacks ads falling flat, proving once again that with each successive predictable campaign (this being the sixth seperate set of attack ads), voters begin to tune you out. These are pretty conclusive poll results:

According to the Innovative poll, of those who were aware of the ads, 60 per cent said they were left with a negative impression of them, and 20 per cent said they were left with a positive impression, while 18 per cent said neither.

Impressions of the ads did not seem to lend a significant advantage to either the Tories or the Liberals, however. Thirty-one per cent of respondents said they were more likely to vote Liberal as a result of the ads, 33 per cent said less likely, and 36 per cent said neither. For the Conservatives, 22 per cent of respondents said they were more likely to vote Tory as a result of the ads, 51 per cent said they were less likely, and 25 per cent said neither.

Wow, that's pretty impressive, by 3-1 voters are left with a negative impression, and it is the CONSERVATIVE brand which suffers more. I've heard the ads on the radio a half dozen times now, and listening to their amateurish tone and juvenile messaging, is this really surprising?

Expanding the base?:

"Overall, the ads seem to have worked well with the Conservative base but have not worked with anyone else," said an Innovative Research summary of the poll results.

I'm not sure the "base" was the idea here, but it looks like they've effectively turned off any potential support.

I've said this before, and this poll supports the theme, these type of ads are now at the point of saying more about the source than the target. These attacks reinforce a cementing theme of a mean-spirited, negative, bullying bunch of hyper-partisans. Prior to this latest round, everyone knew the Conservative weaknesses, and yet they plow ahead with a plan that just highlights the unattractive. Pure genius I say.

Revenue "Neutral", We'll Prove It

Some details are starting to emerge, about the Liberals "tax shift", and I must say this idea should help counter the nonsensical Conservative attacks:

Stephane Dion will deploy Canada's auditor general to backstop his claim that a Liberal carbon tax will be revenue neutral, not the massive tax grab depicted by the Tories.

Under the plan, the federal treasury would not keep a dime of the roughly $14 billion in revenue the proposed carbon tax would generate. Rather, the money would be shifted back to consumers in the form of offsetting cuts to personal income and corporate taxes.

But Dion is not going to ask Canadians to simply trust him on that.
The plan includes a promise of legislation that would require the independent auditor general to review the tax shift annually and to verify publicly whether it is living up to its advance billing as revenue neutral.

"We will prove this," Liberal finance critic John McCallum said in an interview.

"I know politicians aren't always believed, and when we say it's revenue neutral people will be skeptical and they'll refer back to the GST. But we will have the auditor general verify each year it is revenue neutral".

Having third-party verification will be key to insulate the Liberals from the already known Conservative attack lines. Having the Auditor-General verify that any plan is actually revenue neutral might just expose the "trick" theme for what it is, fear mongering. I actually think this is quite a shrewd move, because it does say, don't trust us, trust those who have no vested interest. This idea moves the discussion outside of the purely political realm. I like it.

The above addresses the Conservative attacks, the following will address the NDP lines:

Insiders say Dion and his inner circle have agonized over details, trying to ensure that no one is unfairly penalized by the carbon tax. Various measures have been built in to protect those who can't afford or can't access alternative energy sources, such as poor, elderly and rural Canadians, or those whose livelihoods are dependent on fossil fuels, such as truck drivers.

Originally, I was fine with a delayed release, because it afforded the Liberals the rare opportunity of having floated a vague plan, having everyone else expose their criticisms, which allowed for "tweaking" to address those attacks. In the end, the plan would already incorporate the counter talking points, which should result in a better package. Reading the above reinforces that notion, although the time is clearly NOW for the release.

Finally, McCallum offers the "only adult in the room" assessment:

"I cannot say to you that no Canadian will be unharmed by this" he said.
"What I can say is that we've done our very best to ensure that the most vulnerable Canadians will not fall through the cracks and they will have assistance to make the necessary adjustments.
"But the whole planet has to adjust to higher energy prices and costs, and dwindling supply relative to demand for oil, and it's not going to be totally painless for every human being."

Any serious discussion assumes some cost for people, that seems inherent to the idea of changing our habits. If the Liberal plan seeks to mitigate the harm, offer ways to offset, provide a clear path that could lead to lower taxes for the average Canadian, then people will understand that it can't be a free ride initially, attempting to change society in a such a fundamental way.

Poor Pierre

Ottawa Citizen column asks "Is Poilievre fit to hold public office?". Good question:

His party, and voters in Nepean-Carleton, should be asking if he's fit to hold public office. As a constituent, I would say no....

His efforts have not gone unnoticed on the Hill. A survey of political staffers by the publication The Hill Times awarded Poilievre top spot as the biggest gossip on the Hill and he tied for first as the biggest self-promoter.

In all, Poilievre's record ought to make Nepean-Carleton voters ashamed. The message from his residential schools comments and his shot about sex changes is that people in his riding are a bunch of red-neck bigots who have to be pandered to. Next election, let's show him that he's wrong.

Please do.

On the theme of self-promotion, I thought I would look at the long list of accomplishments. On Pierre's website he brags:

It also reminded me of the enormous achievements we have had together. Here are some examples of what we have accomplished:

Enormous achievements? I didn't realize attending local events, flipping burgers amounted to enormity, but it's the first thing on his scant list:

Personally attended 750 community events with many of you

Wow, clearly making the country better for all of us, or furthering your political career as the case may be.

I hope the Liberals target Pierre's riding, and rightfully paint him as the uber-conservative, all that's wrong with this government, sort of politician. Columns like the above suggest Pierre might not have an easy ride moving forward.

Market Acting As Carbon Tax

Everyday, we see more and more evidence that high fuel costs are already having the desired effect, accomplishing the basic argument of a carbon tax. A new polls suggests a seismic shift in our habit:

Millions of Canadian commuters are changing the way they get to work rather than paying the price at the pump, according to an Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National.

The poll, conducted this week as gas prices continue to rise, found that over the last six months 37 per cent of commuters were walking to work more and 31 per cent were switching to gas-efficient cars such as smaller vehicles.

The poll's results also indicate that 24 per cent of commuters were increasingly opting for carpooling, and 14 per cent were working more from home. Nine per cent of those polled said they took the drastic measure of moving closer to work.

The wild card is consumer demand, he said. "I think it's pretty clear evidence that there is a softening of North American demand for gasoline, as a result of the high price."

The poll also suggests that a number of Canadians are making plans to change their commuting habits in the future. A slim majority (52 per cent) of those polled said they plan on walking more in the future, while 49 per cent said they will switch to a more fuel-efficient car.

From everything I've read, it seems there really isn't any rational justification for oil trading at this price, it is entirely speculation. Supplies are up, demand is down, everyone is adjusting their forecasts downward, so one can assume, that after the summer season, prices will fall. If that holds true, then this change in routine might be a temporary shift, but then again even if gasoline were to retreat to a dollar a litre, it's still quite high.

I'll say it again, the Liberal carbon plan had better factor in the present circumstance and just leave it alone, or risk looking ridiculous. If the prices are artificial, and the bubble bursts, then, and only then, should a carbon tax kick in. The bottomline is reducing carbon emissions, if the market is currently achieving that in a substantial way, then any plan should factor in that reality.

Shortest Post Ever

Partisanship aside, this is pretty clever.

"I Welcome The Debate"

The NDP has it's plan for carbon, but I took Jack Layton at his word, that he "welcomed the debate" on environmental approaches, in reaction to the Liberal and Green angle. Layton wants a serious discussion, and is quite comfortable putting his ideas out there as the best policy. So, with that in mind, when I see this picture of Layton validating the Conservative smear machine, it frankly makes him look like an opportunist.

How can Layton stand there, point at the t-shirt and pose for a picture? Let me get this straight, the high minded NDP leader, who rises everyday in the House, who preaches that the NDP doesn't want to engage in the "gotcha" politics, the low signal approach to politics, doesn't run away from the yellow gutter? No, Layton sees an opportunity, nevermind the vehicle, and he stands there and endorses it. You pose with the representatives of the "do nothing" Conservatives, knowing full well that its a propaganda campaign, because you instantly realize it HELPS your cause, you effectively pimp out your supposed principles for perceived advantage. I guess they're right, when they say a picture says a thousand words. As a matter of fact, that's pretty much the book on Layton right there.

The Neutered Poodle

Everyday, the last member statement, prior to the beginning of Question Period, Pierre Poilievre stands and offers some childish cheapshot at the Liberal leader, part of some half baked strategy to get Dion "off his game" prior to his question. I must say, I watched with great delight today, as the arrogant "ankle bitter" rose to his feet, not to spew his usual nonsense, but to sheepishly apologize for exposing his true self.

As far as apologizes go, Pierre's was certainly wanting, real sincerity in short supply. The fact Pierre was forced to pull a "Lukwski" speaks to the seriousness of his remarks. The fact the government found it necessary to re-arrange the MP seating arrangement, putting Indian Affairs Minister Strahl and aborginal MP Rod Bruinooge beside Pierre as he apologized, is another indication of damage control. It all rang hollow, a little too scripted, Pierre trying hard to sound contrite, but it was more feeling bad over a "promising" career derailed.

The Liberals are demanding Pierre resign:

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre must be removed as Parliamentary Secretary for the intolerant comments he made yesterday only hours before the government made its official apology for the legacy of the residential school tragedy, Liberal Indian Affairs Critic Anita Neville said today.

“Not only did the Parliamentary Secretary taint the day with his comments, but he has yet to apologize,” said Ms. Neville. “Mr. Poilievre’s comments show complete disrespect. How can a Member of Parliament resort to such shameful stereotyping? The sincerity of the Prime Minister’s apology will be tested by his response to Mr. Poilievre’s ill-judged words.”

The real issue here is obviously what Pierre said, so take my disgust as a given. However, isn't it just wonderful to see the annoying turd squirm, his arrogant smirk evaporated? Lately, it's been Pierre, Pierre, Pierre, as Harper obviously miscalculated that this was the type of individual who deserved considerable face time for the government. As predicted, Pierre has turned into a liability, any objective observer could see a trainwreck in the making. I'll miss Pierre, in this sense, he was a terrible advocate for the government, hardly a persuasive defender, I felt comfortable that my impressions of him went beyond my own bias. Whatever Pierre's role moving forward, at the very least, the cocky poodle has been neutered, the smug know it all tainted, forever remembered as the "lazy indian" guy. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.

Thank-You Pierre

I wasn't going to comment on the formal apology today, because despite the fact it was Harper, it was a necessary acknowledgement. That said, after reading Pierre Poilievre's comments, I don't feel bad saying the following.

Stephen Harper, and his merry band of stooges, are the last people to be front and center, offering the formal apology. Let's cut through the pretense and the pretty words today, Harper doesn't give a shit about our aborginal population, in truth they have a great deal of contempt for the entire arrangement. Pierre just articulated the bottomline, beyond the presentation.

Actions speak louder than carefully crafted words, with just the right hint of staged empathy. That isn't to say the apology isn't genuine, only that the source is entirely conflicted. What exactly has this government done for aborginals, besides kill the Kelowna Accord, fail to follow through at the United Nations, basically bring nothing to the table, demonstrating ZERO sensitivity or true understanding.

What kind of a creton asks if we are getting "value" for the compensation money, on a day that was supposed to be about healing. And, was I the only one who noticed the homophobe Lukwski directly behind the PM as he offered his sober apology. Chuck Strahl, this government's Minister of Indian Affairs, is hardly a friend of aborginals.

I'd like to thank Pierre, because in essence, his insensitive comments, that demonstrate no understanding of anything, offer a lovely reality check to the show we say today. The message was powerful, but it was really just scripted lip service from the messenger. Poilievre demonstrated that in spades.

Poll Internals

Harris Decima has released the internals from their latest poll. One thing I found curious, did you know that two weeks ago this outfit had the Liberals ahead, outside of the margin of error? Why that was never published seems odd, since it was the first time since the leadership convention bounce that the Liberals reached 35% nationally, a full four points ahead of the Conservatives. You would think a poll that showed the Liberals clearly out front would be news worthy, but apparently not.

Anyways, the latest week, as already mentioned, shows a deadheat. However, when you look at the regional numbers, a deadheat looks like a clear Liberal advantage:

Quebec:

Bloc 34%
Libs 26%
Cons 20%
NDP 11%
Greens 8%

Another Quebec poll that shows the Liberals with a healthy lead on the Conservatives. As mentioned in a previous post, CROP mentions the party leaders when they ask party preference questions, which probably explains the differing results we see. Do your own mental math, whether or not including the leader skews the results- I think it does.

Ontario:

Libs 39%
Cons 31%
Greens 14%
NDP 14%

The battle for third is particularly interesting.

British Columbia (high MOE):

Libs 31%
Cons 30%
NDP 23%
Greens 13%

Atlantic Canada:

Libs 37%
Cons 28%
NDP 27%
Greens 6%

The Conservatives don't lead anywhere, outside of their western base. What looks like a national tie, is actually a Liberal minority, if these numbers were to hold.

While the predictable partisans are patting themselves on the back, at just how clever the Conservatives are, the trends don't seem to support the bluster.

Words To Remember

I don’t get too excited about the predictable attacks on Dion that he’s “flip flopped” on the idea of a carbon tax. The reason, it’s not like anyone can argue this change is politically motivated to curry favor, hard to see the personal advantage in adopting a controversial plan. I think you can counter most of the criticism with a simple pragmatism argument, an evolution of thought. That said, Dion might be well served to review his past statements, particularly this one:

”A carbon tax is almost always implemented as a direct tax on fossil fuels. Given the current price of these fuels, however, it is difficult to argue that a further price signal will dampen consumption or shift demand.”

That “current price” in 2006, looks like utopia from here. I’ve said this before, but I hope this “tinkering” we are doing now encompasses some sort of threshold mechanism, wherein any tax only kicks in if prices drop to a certain level. We are in the midst of seismic consumption changes at the moment, the cost of fuel is already having the desired effect.

If Dion was right then, then it’s hard for any plan to argue differently now, given the present circumstance. Dion can change his opinion, but on the above score, those words have the potential to haunt him, if this plan doesn’t factor in the WOW of the NOW. If the goal is too cut emissions, change habits, nobody could argue that the market isn’t doing exactly that at the moment. The Liberal plan must acknowledge that simple, objective fact.

More Bad News For The "Chess" Masters

What now Kasparov? This makes three pollsters, who now show a statistical tie. Bad news all around for the Conservatives, and worrying signs ahead. This Strategic Counsel poll marks the fifth consecutive month where Tory support has waned:

The survey suggests the Tories would barely hang on to minority status were an election to be held Wednesday, with 32 per cent of Canadians surveyed saying they would mark their ballots for the government – down four points from the 2006 election.

The Liberals are holding steady at 30 per cent, the same as in the past election, as are the New Democrats at 18 per cent.

The Greens are at 10 per cent, up five from the vote.

Conservatives have dropped another two points, Libs one, NDP up two, Greens unchanged.

More bad news in the regionals, especially Quebec:

On the race for votes, the Conservatives have dropped most in Quebec, where 16 per cent said they would opt for the Tories, down nine points from the election. The Liberals are up one point to 22 per cent. The Bloc Québécois continues to significantly lead the pack with 46 per cent, up four points.

Ontario:

In Ontario, the Liberals increased their lead from last month by three percentage points over the Tories, to 39-31.

How's that "smile be happy" theme working in central Canada Mr. Flaherty?

It gets worse:

In Ontario, which has absorbed the brunt of recent layoffs, 32 per cent picked the government as the best stewards of the economy, down six percentage points from February. By contrast, the Liberals were picked by 34 per cent, seven points ahead of where they were.

In Quebec, 29 per cent picked the Tories, down four points, while 24 per cent chose the Liberals, a drop of two points.

I guess the next question, have the Conservatives hit bottom?

Conservatives Poor Messengers

Normally, in a policy debate, the various parties can draw on expert opinion, or something else outside of the political arena to support their viewpoint. When this happens, no matter your position, it finds validity and then it becomes an argument of perception, saleability. I think it extremely important to consider one key point, as we move forward on the climate change debate. The Conservatives have no external support, which means their attacks and positions shouldn't be cause for overblown concern. As a matter of fact, I can't think of another issue where the Conservatives are so isolated, nobody, whether it be media, experts or economists take them seriously.

Polls show anywhere from 65-75% of Canadians don't approve of the government's environmental policies, have little confidence in their commitment. That means, the messenger is entirely marginalized, people already have a negative perception, which makes any "attack" less credible. Taken a step further, the "attacks" also draw attention not just to the target, but also to the flaws of the aggressor. Have you read a news item about the latest ads, which also doesn't reference the Conservatives weak approach? You can't just attack and yell forever, eventually it becomes a more serious debate, and within that, the Conservatives fail. The reason, nobody, in the know, will come to their aid.

Case in point, respected economist (the same guy Baird hired to cost out Kyoto for his Senate appearance) comes out today and trashes the hollow attacks:

"Tory attack on carbon tax is dishonest: economist"

A prominent resource economist has pronounced himself disgusted with "dishonest" Conservative attack ads on a Liberal carbon tax proposal that's yet to be unveiled.

"The Conservatives -- and I say this with great sadness because I don't care which political party is in power -- but if we're going to do anything about climate change, we're going to have to be honest with people," Marc Jaccard of Simon Fraser University told CTV.ca on Tuesday.

"This is just totally dishonest."

On the weekend, the Tories previewed ads aimed at the proposed carbon tax, painting it as Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's "tax on everything."

The ads are to start running Tuesday.

Jaccard, a co-author of the recent book Hot Air, said the Conservatives' own policy on reducing greenhouse gas emissions won't work because it doesn't put a price on carbon for consumers.

"Their policy is to regulate industry and then have these offset loopholes where industry can subsidize consumers. But those are the types of policies that have never worked in the past," he said.

"I'm not a fan of Stephane Dion, but when you get a politician out there that's trying to start an honest dialogue and say to people, 'you know what? We won't get our emissions down if there isn't a price on them and that's just the truth'," Jaccard said.

"And to see politicians saying, 'Maybe I can stay in power' or gain more power, or maybe a majority government, by distorting this" disgusted him, he said.

And that's the intangible in this entire debate. The Conservatives can howl, they can run ads, but when push comes to shove, they are the one's armed with the weak plan, a plan which has no backing. The NDP have a plan, the Greens have a plan, the Liberals will have a plan, people will debate the merits of each, while the Conservatives evaporate once we get passed soundbites and the superficial. Really, these attacks are desperation, it's all they have, because they bring nothing to the table.

Canadians already have a low opinion of the Conservatives, going entirely negative actually raises the prospect of Dion looking like the only adult in the room. I'm not suggesting problems, this plan had better show some realization of the present circumstance or it's dead weight, but nobody should fear the blue machine on this score. People wonder if Dion is the right messenger to sell the plan, but you could just as easily wonder if the Conservatives are the competent messenger to discredit the plan. Seems to me, the Conservatives are hardly the credible source, they have no apolitical support and their negativity ultimately draws attention their own failure. The Liberals will sink or swim, on the merits of their own plan, how capable they are at selling. Call me naive, but I'm just not afraid of the Conservative attack machine on this score.

I Wonder If They Gave Him A Good Reference

Lock Up Your Daughters

Who says Conservatives aren't cool?



This is just laughable at this point. Maybe they'll sue:

Conservative Party spokesman Ryan Sparrow said the company, the Fuelcast Network, refused to take the ads Monday morning.

The Tories had been trying to get in touch with the company for an explanation, said Mr. Sparrow, who was going around Ottawa Monday showing reporters the party's contract with the company, signed on June 5.

The contract clearly identifies the client as the “Conservative Party.”

“We have a binding contract,” Mr. Sparrow said. “The Conservative Party and we fully expect them to honour the contract.”

Fuelcast said it became aware of the political nature of the ads only on Sunday, when one of them was broadcast on CTV's Question Period. The company has said it reserves the right to not play an ad with a political message.

Nothing says successful smear campaign like having someone refuse to place your cheesy ads. I know the pundits are marvelling at this free campaign, creating the buzz, but if you ask me it's actually looking quite amateurish, maybe even embarrassing.

Potential

The latest Decima poll(h/t Scott Tribe) offers pretty dreadful results for the Conservatives. What does it say about the Conservatives, that even in a two party race with the Liberals, they still can't get a majority number? I guess Canada isn't Bush country afterall:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey compared attitudes toward the Tories and Liberals in a head-to-head, two-party format. The telephone poll of just over 1,000 Canadians found that 44 per cent of respondents said they'd prefer a Liberal government after the next election, compared with 37 per cent who preferred the Conservatives.

Obviously, it is the Liberals who have growth potential, the only Conservative solace a divided center-left. The poll also finds that in a head to head matchup, the Liberals would carry Quebec, a surprising result. How the various parties would break:

NDP supporters told Harris-Decima they'd prefer a Liberal government by an almost four-to-one margin (69-18) compared with the Tory alternative, and Green supporters favoured the Liberals more than two to one (58-28).

Only Bloc Quebecois supporters were more favourable to a Conservative outcome, by a 41-32 margin.

I'm actually amazed that the Liberals would carry so many Bloc voters.

The other parties aren't going anywhere, so this is all theoretical of course, but it is relevant that the Liberals have potential for growth. This tells me, that should the Liberals develop attractive policies, they could siphon off soft support from other parties. The poll gives the Liberals 31% support nationally, which means if they could draw a third of the Greens 12% and poach a couple points off the NDP total, we are looking at a Liberal government. I don't think that presentation is outlandish in the least. Meanwhile, Harper is frozen, ideologically isolated from the vast majority of Canadians.

The most obvious calculation, could this tax shift idea be the drawing card? Common sense says some appeal to Green voters. Factor in elbowing in on the NDP's environmental turf, relying on heavyweights like Suzuki for support, and Dion's idea looks less risky. On the other hand, this assumes that the Liberal plan doesn't move some of their voters elsewhere, that they are able to hold their constituent with these controversial ideas. I wouldn't assume that.

The news for the Conservatives gets worse, other than leadership, and the gap isn't as bad as I would have thought, the Liberals have the advantage:

The survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20, indicates Prime Minister Stephen Harper beats Liberal Stephane Dion on leadership attributes (35-26). The Tories trail the Grits on questions of front-bench strength (26-20), values (35-29), and ideas for the future (31-28).

You counteract leadership, with an emphasis on team, which the above shows to be a Liberal advantage. Keep it up Pierre, John and Jim, you're about as attractive as foot fungus.

Force An Election?(Poll)

Tonight, we will have another opportunity to defeat the government. I'm curious to get a sense of some of the overall online opinion. I thought I would put up this poll, with one caveat, could people who aren't Liberals, or potential Liberal voters, please not vote. People can freep the poll if they want, but it would be more interesting to see what the faithful, and those inclined, think:

Go With Your Gut

Last night, I was thinking about these attacks ads, set to run at gas stations. I had this idea about a boycott, and even went to post on it, but stopped myself, thinking it might be a stupid suggestion. Today, I click on the computer and find, I was not alone, maybe not stupid afterall. So, with that in mind, here is my two cents on the matter.

The Conservatives have their rapid response people, do the Liberals have the capability to get the message out to riding members in a hurry? If someone becomes aware of a gas station running these ads, then the local riding should be made aware, with an instant mass email to all Liberals in that area. Include the phone number, the address and suggestions to "protest" the running of these ads. You send out an email to 3 or 4 hundred party members, I suspect a few will make a call, show up at said gas station, whatever.

These ads are apparently targetting Ontario, not exactly Conservative country. How much pressure would it really take for an individual gas station to conclude the ads aren't worth the hassle? Couple that with possible media involvement, and running those ads would like economic suicide. If the Liberals could network some kind of co-ordinated response, it is sure to get noticed, with the potential to have these cheesy ads blow up in the Conservatives faces. I'm sure I could get together a few local Liberals, some placards, give the local paper a call and head down to the gas station. "I want gas, not hot air", "Harper in bed with big oil", "Boycott the propaganda pumps". Sounds like fun.

Is It The Tax, Or Who is Proposing The Tax?

It's almost comical, as the Conservatives use all this outlandish language to describe the Liberals "tax shift". Compare this reaction, to the quotes from the main Conservative players, reacting to their buddy Gordon Campbell, and you see a disconnect:

"Contrary to some commentary, the national plan and British Columbia's plan complement each other." Stephen Harper

The "mother of all taxes" is "complimentary"? Interesting.

"British Columbia is a province that takes the climate change issue "seriously, and have moved forward with a variety of initiatives.''

"I don't have a problem with that at all. We've chosen a different path in this regard, but that's fine." John Baird

That's fine? But British Columbia is on a path to economic ruin, how can you offer such tepid response?

""British Columbia may have a different model. It's working, and we'll recognize their contributions, as well." Gary Lunn

It's "working"? Are you suggesting Dion's plan might work too? Who knew?

If you want to expose the Conservative attacks for what they are, simple fear mongering and political posturing, the Liberals might be wise to use the response to British Columbia's plan as evidence.

And, The Attacks Begin

Everyone knew it was coming, and today the Conservatives have officially started their campaign to discredit Dion's tax shifting policy. I've listened to the ads, scheduled to appear right at the gas pumps, among other places. You can view them on the juvenile website, very high quality, very high signal, very typical, very grade eight.

Clearly, a pre-emptive strike, further defining the Liberal plan before it is released, getting ahead of the PR war. The timing is good, if there is one thing on people's mind today, it's rising fuel costs, to some degree a receptive audience. That said, interesting that two and a half years on, the Conservatives have yet to release one ad that is positive in nature. It does start to say something about the messenger too.

On that score, Goldstein's latest column actually has some relevance (monkey and the keyboard?). This will be the first and only time I'll quote him, apart from mocking, but he makes a good point:

TORIES WORRIED

The campaign, designed to reach ordinary voters directly while bypassing media and academic elites, reveals Conservative thinking.

Clearly, they're worried Dion's carbon tax, whenever he releases it, could appeal to voters concerned about global warming, particularly if the Liberal announcement is backed by environmentalists, economists and business groups stressing it will be effective and "revenue neutral," a claim the Tories mock. You don't put this much effort into attacking someone you don't think is a threat.

Finally, the Conservatives haven't been good at explaining their own plans to combat global warming.

Simply mocking Dion without credibly explaining what they'd do instead, could be their Achilles heel.

And, there it is, attacking without an alternative doesn't produce the desired response. The obvious counter, as this debate evolves, the Conservatives are going negative, because they having nothing positive to offer. The Liberals offer a serious plan, while the Conservatives take shots from the sidelines. While the Liberals can present expert opinion to support their ideas, all the Conservatives have is the spectre of trying to yell the loudest, swamping the message, like a declawed bully. I'm not arguing the attacks won't resonate, but when you consider the source, they will be viewed with some suspicion.

How this all plays out is a completely open question. The Liberals are apparently ready to release their own ads to sell the plan, ads which I hope have a more mature argument, one's that give voters a certain measure of respect, as opposed to the Treehouse flavor offered by the Cons.

The big question, obviously, just what exactly that plan will be. Here's hoping that the plan is watered down somewhat, and by that I mean, acknowledgement that the present circumstance is already doing much of what the tax was supposed to achieve. I've already posted on the rapidly changing dynamics on the consumption side, in reality we are already seeing the desired response. A few people have floated a "threshold" idea, wherein any tax only kicks in if fuels drop below a certain level, a level which MUST be well below the current price. In this way, you say to the electorate, no sense piling on now, but there is an acknowledgement that prices will only drop to a certain level. This plan had better be pragmatic, or these attacks will get more mileage than they deserve.

"They Don't Want An Election"

Don Martin, commenting on the current Conservative posture. As far as I'm concerned, that sentiment tells us all we need to know about whether the Liberals should trigger an election:

"I don't think, since 2006, I've ever seen the Conservatives so nervous about an election as right now. You talk to them, and it's no more of this chest beating testosterone, we'll take them down, we'll crush them on the campaign trails. THEY DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION. The window of opportunity is wide open right now, and I'm telling you right now, if they do this prorogue thing in August....and we don't come back until November or later, the Harper government will have repaired the damage, all this things will be forgotten, their machine will be stronger than ever. The Liberals will be kicking themselves for all of 2009, going why didn't do this in the spring. When you get the Conservatives nervous, when you have the PM tired, I don't know why they aren't doing it."

Don Martin

Martin basically argues what I've said, namely that waiting allows the government to get back on their feet, with the added kicker that they will control the agenda as far as Parliament reconvening.

We now hear talk of Dion being "isolated" on an election call, the vast majority of MP's, the main players in caucus, all in agreement, all showing increased frustration, all wanting an election. In Dion's corner, his advisers and campaign people, which means you have the elected representatives on one side, those that are getting feedback from their riding, and a few Dion loyalists on the other. It is actually quite a scary proposition to think that Dion has little caucus support for his plan, a dangerous situation that could well blow up.

Susan Bonner

"It is going to make for a very interesting summer for the Liberals"

Let's keep it real, Dion's hold is a weak one, he is not immune to another round of questioning quotes and behind the scenes second guessing. To move forward with little support from other influential people in the party, not to mention an unease within the grassroots, raises the spectre of an interesting summer in deed. You provide the window of complete idle, coupled with restlessness, and people's focus could surely wander. Moreover, the signature reasoning, this carbon plan, doesn't seem to enjoy widespread support within the same circles, creating further potential tensions. The question becomes, can Dion afford to wait, or is he on a ledge somewhat alone? I've never heard the word "isolated" used to describe a party leader, and people may be optimistic not to understand what exactly that means.

Reading today's Globe and Mail piece, on this same question, it reads like a tragedy. The silliest argument:

More broadly, one adviser said, Mr. Dion must use the summer not only to sell his green plan, but to hone his skills at communicating it so he can use it to counter Tory attacks that he is a weak leader.

Stephane Dion is what he is, to actually think that he will morph into a "communicator" over the summer is just wishful thinking. We already have all the evidence we require, Dion has been leader for 18 months, and he still reads from a piece of paper in Question Period, looking exactly as he did, this time last year. That isn't Dion's strength, and we've seen enough to resign ourselves to the fact that it is what it is. I suggest another viewing of Dion's dud of a convention speech for anyone who actually thinks Dion possesses any natural aptitude in this regard. I'm not holding my breath for the "honing of skills". Maybe Harper will develop "warmth" too.

Interesting, that last fall when Dion wanted to force an election, the majority was against the idea, now the opposite, with the only consistent element, Dion virtually alone. This fact suggests little confidence in the leader, and his reasonings, which when you jump out of your partisan considerations, is an objective worrying condition. A leader is only in command if he possesses the ability to make people follow, otherwise he is really only a leader in name only, finding hollow comfort in the inner circle bunker, detached from his supposed army.