Sour Notes

In attacking the Liberal plan so vehemently, I honestly think the NDP runs a serious risk of looking overtly political, rather than the "principled" persona supporters like to embrace. While others ask questions about trivial scandals, the NDP asks questions on issues. While others play partisan games, the NDP works to "get things done". Blah, blah, blah, anyone who is paying attention knows it's more about packaging as an alternative, rather than any fundamental difference in approach. The fact of the matter, the NDP is just as calculating, just as apt to compromise principle for political gain, as every other party, maybe worse, given the self-appointed purist pedestal.

Two columns today, form part of a developing narrative, one that possibly exposes the NDP on the environment, more concerned with self interest than an "honest debate".

First, former Ontario NDP MP Lynn McDonald, with a telling title:

Layton plays politics while Dion proposes a necessary ingredient to fight global warming



The NDP has historically been a leader in advocating social justice, but not now...

We all have to rethink the issue and the NDP does a disservice with its simplistic rejection of the carbon tax. All Canadians concerned with the environment and our long-term survival have a stake in a serious and effective climate change action plan.

Chantal Hebert, on the Quebec angle:

NDP climate strategy comes up short


As twisted as it may seem, the logic of advancing the cause of climate change by waging war on the Liberals at a time that party is winning kudos from much of Canada's environment movement for its Green Shift plan is what passes for strategy for the federal NDP these days.

In that spirit, the by-election campaign will give Canadians an early taste of the next general election, when Jack Layton will be taking turns with Stephen Harper to take shots at Dion's carbon tax.

The NDP justifies its opposition to a carbon tax by arguing that it will hit hardest the Canadians most vulnerable to rising energy prices. But the party would have more of a point if the Liberal plan did not go out of its way to shift money to lower-income and rural Canadians. Indeed, the Dion plan was harshly criticized for amounting to a covert redistribution scheme rather than the tax-neutral regime it purports to be.

Tellingly, the page that the NDP website devotes to a critique of the Dion tax shift features half a dozen independent quotes that pre-date the actual unveiling of the Liberal policy. Some don't even address it.

A prime minister who hails from the right wing of his party, Harper leads a government that is more conservative than any previous Tory regime. Dion meanwhile is really a progressive first and a Liberal second; his determination to regroup his party under the climate change banner in the next election is making the NDP battle plan look more opportunistic than idealistic.

Opportunistic indeed, and the prospects of another Harper/Layton tagteam might well put any doubt to rest.

The NDP has a fine line to walk moving forward, because if there is focus is evenly split between attacking the Liberals and the Conservatives, they risk looking political, they risk undermining the idea of any real action on the environment. The NDP's proposals are actually irrelevant, since they will never be implemented, that's just the bottomline. When left with only two choices, is it now the role of the NDP to help Harper keep power, by running ads against the Liberal plan, spending so much of their energy attacking the only alternative to nothingness? Again, bottomline, it couldn't be clearer. That doesn't mean no room for "honest debate", but it would seem much of the discussion so far is really about what's good for the NDP, what's good for Canada a speck on the horizon.

I've heard this online, as well as from more formal NDP sources, that the Liberal plan does nothing for the environment, the lack of hard targets, a clear red flag to empty proposals. Such a nonsensical argument, because if one is too believe the Liberal plan does nothing, then one has to disregard much of the environmental community who seem to see the merits of nothing. One of the most bizarre, illogical arguments I've heard. I guess the NDP knows more than the experts, the same people Layton used to love to mug to the cameras with as allies in a common fight. Good luck with that one. "Environmentalists offer tepid praise for Liberal Plan that achieves nothing". I smell a winner!

The plan lets bigger emitters off the hook, which entirely explains why the interests with the big emitters are firmly rejecting the Liberal scheme. If someone can reconcile that inherent contradiction let me know, because from here it serves as proof positive that the Liberal plan is tough, otherwise why the "outrage". See, when the Conservatives released their smokescreen of a plan, all we heard from the big emitters, and their political lackeys was "we can work with this", not "stealing our wealth" or "crippling our economies". All you need to do, to pierce through the spinning political haze, is look at the reaction from the bigboys, it speaks VOLUMES, and frankly exposes the NDP criticism for what it is, posturing.

The plan hurts the poor, yet as Hebert points out, no mention of the many REAL provisions in the plan to address this concern. It is as though we aren't sophisticated enough to see that the Liberal plan actually addresses the primary NDP talking point, it puts out measures to offset that real criticism. But, wouldn't want an "honest debate", when you can coin a catchy slogan for maximum political damage.

Time for a different tune, because all I hear are sour notes, and as time goes by, it becomes increasingly obvious, I'm not alone.

Turd Of The Day

Last time I checked, or lived "out there" for that matter, Alberta was PART of Canada. Speaking of living "out there", far as I could figure being an "Albertan" was pretty much defined by an us vs them mentality. I confess, I never could really quantify the "difference" between people in Alberta and say, the dreaded easterner. In other words, I found it all to be much fabrication, an imaginary boundary of divisions, fueled by narrow minded politic ans finding identity in creating teams. Call me naive, but as someone who has visited virtually all of Canada, including the north, I've always felt there is FAR more that unites us than divides, entirely disheartening to think of any province before the greater whole.

With this backdrop in mind, I found this turd of a column completely typical, completely caveman in its "provincial" attitude:

Meddling Dion got off lightly

For four long and glorious days Public Enemy No. 1 waltzes around Alberta.

He's allowed to promote his devious plan to suck $15 billion a year out of the country's "700 large final emitters" - a large number of whom form our hydrocarbon economy heartland.

And nobody lays a glove on him.

Meddling Dion? For cripes sake, the man is a Canadian, a national leader, how is it "meddling" to visit part of HIS country?? "He's allowed" to promote his devious plan, like a foreigner invading. I hate making generalizations, so take this as a partial opinion, but people like Neil Waugh represent the absolute WORST, and sadly it is people like him that are "allowed" to spread their nonsense to a fairly receptive audience.

Stephane Dion can tour Alberta for as long as he wants, it's HIS country. Anybody who wants to deal with GHG emissions is targeting Alberta, just like anybody who wants to deal with decreasing salmon stocks is targeting British Columbia, just like anybody that is targeting gun violence is targeting Ontario. Don't come into my backyard and preach your plan, it's your fault that 40% of the problem orginates here, back off buddy, who do you think you are? What an affront that a Canadian tours Canada pumping his ideas.

Wouldn't it be nice, if one day, Canadians could shed their insecurities and regional NARROWISM, coming to realize that there is a strange irony in watching the world get smaller, while we cling to our false perceptions based on nothing more than distance and stupid lines. Small people in a big country, surely we can do better.

New Carbon Tax Poll

Another finding, showing support for a carbon tax, but with an interesting twist- Canadians don't want the money back, they would rather it be invested in green technologies. Embracing the economic apocalypse:

Carbon tax gaining support across Canada: poll

When told that the government of British Columbia had recently introduced "a carbon tax on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," 72 per cent of those surveyed in the poll said that this was a positive step versus 23 per cent who thought that it was a negative step. The poll surveyed 1,009 Canadian adults across the country between April 29 and May 9, 2008 and is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

"The support for B.C.'s carbon tax is fairly uniform across Canada," he said. "Six out of 10 people definitely support it when you look at the numbers."

The strongest support for a carbon tax appears to come from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces where 81 per cent and 77 per cent of respondents respectively said that the B.C. tax was a positive step.

Pretty remarkable, to get widespread support on any question that includes the word "tax", which makes the results intriguing. These results should provide more comfort for uneasy Liberals, although support for the income tax cut is surprising low:

However, when asked how revenues from a proposed federal carbon tax should be spent, most Canadians told the polling firm that they would prefer to see more green spending, rather than income tax cuts.

For example, 47 per cent said that the new potential revenues should be spent on "renewable energy like wind and solar power" and 16 per cent said they wanted to see more spending on "energy efficiency technologies." Only 11 per cent of respondents said carbon tax revenues should be used to cut income taxes, while eight per cent said it should be spent on public transit.

"I certainly think overall that (a carbon tax in a federal political platform) would bode well and at the very least Canadians are certainly receptive to the idea," said Doud. "What Canadians are going to want to see, is they're going to want to know that this tax is invested in the environment in some way."

The above supports part of the NDP argument, but it should be pointed out that the Liberals aren't exactly balking at the idea of new investment in green technologies, although the money isn't directly tied to their carbon scheme.

"A carbon tax and a cap-and-trade program both put a price on pollution - they're much more similar than Mr. Layton suggests," said Clare Demerse, a senior climate change policy analyst at the Pembina Institute. "Our poll does support Mr. Layton's call for investments in energy efficiency programs like home retrofits, but it also shows that Canadians want those investments to be in addition to carbon tax programs like BC's. Canadians understand the urgency of global warming and they see that we need both approaches."

Something for everyone to crow about, except Conservatives of course.

"Leading The World", Again

Well, at least we are consistent on the world stage:

Canada watering down G8 African aid commitments: activists


Canada came under fire on the first day of the Group of Eight summit for lagging behind other G8 nations in delivering aid to the world's poorest countries.

Moreover, anti-poverty activists accused Canada of blocking a push by the United States to have the G8 leaders commit to improving health care in Africa.

"We're very concerned about the Canadians in particular," said Max Lawson, a spokesman for Oxfam International. "We're hearing that there are issues around attempts to water down the language on health."

Couple the above, with an active effort to waterdown any climate change comminique and you have a very successful trip. Yo Harper, get home soon, Canada's reputation can't take much more!

More About Leadership, Than About Issues

Jeff has an interesting post, detailing the latest "environment" numbers for the various parties, and possible ways for the Liberals to capitalize moving forward. At first blush, barely ahead of the Conservatives on the question of the environment is, as Jeff says, "a little disappointing". However, when you consider that the other two players here, the NDP and the Greens, both have well deserved credibility on the issue, hardly surprising to see no party with a clear advantage. In other words, I'm not fretting about that question at the moment, there is an ample pool from which to "grow", should the message receive a fair hearing.

In my mind, the most important indicator for the Liberals in the next few weeks and months won't be the horserace numbers or the issue questions, but the leadership trends. If you had to pinpoint the most glaring weakness for the Liberals, it would be Dion's woeful leadership numbers, the overwhelming sense that he is weak and indecisive. Until Dion raises his personal stature, the horserace numbers will mask an underlying problem that will likely manifest itself during a campaign.

The "Green Shift" should be judged, not just by the acceptance of the policy, but how this initiative transforms the perception of Dion. If this debate starts to show a marginal rise in Dion's leadership numbers, that may just be the best political news for the Liberals in the grand scheme. Replacing "weak" with "bold", would be quite the coup, whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea. At the very least, a developing measure of respect is exactly what the doctor ordered for Dion. Many negative columns or opinions, at least acknowledge the "stones" in proposing a controversial idea, give some credit for presenting something which shows no obvious political advantage. It would appear, the "wimp" tag is fading into the background, the tertiary leader firmly planted on center stage.

Obviously, the horserace numbers are indicative, and I'll be looking closely. But, more important in the preamble to a looming election, the notion that Stephane Dion is a serious character, armed with serious ideas, someone Canadians start to view as a credible leader. If, we start to see a favorable trend on leadership questions, I would argue that the "Green Shift" has achieved the most critical, purely political, goal.

"I know he cares about global warming. I know he cares about climate change" John Baird on Stephane Dion

John Baird on today's Question Period. The above is what you call a selective quote, wherein you take something out of context to present a half truth. I intentionally left out the rest of Baird's commentary, the part where he went on to criticize Dion, because I thought I would play his disingenious game. What does it say about John Baird, that he is reduced to using misleading quotes, from less than supportive sources, to find support for his policies? Today, Baird used quotes from both Jack Mintz and Don Drummond, both times failing to present a honest picture. Simply amazing, that Baird can't find one clear supportive reference, from an expert, instead he must play word games for any semblance of credibility.

John Baird, quoting from Don Drummond:

"Don't believe me, believe Don Drummond. He said 'It's never going to be revenue neutral'"

Here is the entire quote referenced by Baird:

"It´s never going to be revenue neutral for any individual or any corporation," observed TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond.

"Everybody´s going to be able to do their own calculations to some degree, and there will be winners and there will be losers.

"So, in aggregate, you may say, ´Okay, the $15 billion got recycled, but it didn´t in my household budget."´

"I think it will be revenue neutral, but there will be no individual or company in the country that will exactly get back what it pays back in carbon tax," Drummond told CBC News on Wednesday. "There will be a lot of winners and a lot of losers."

Not revenue neutral for everyone, but revenue neutral overall. Quite a different perspective than the Baird presentation. Just for fun, Drummond has also said:

"The idea itself is very sensible," Don Drummond, the chief economist at TD Bank, told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

"Given these uncertainties, many U. S. and Canadian businesses prefer a carbon tax over cap-and-trade and regulatory regimes."

Baird then quoted respected economist Jack Mintz. Baird used this quote:

"Where the Liberal proposal is weaker compared to the Conservative plan is that the latter is more directed at reducing carbon."

The funniest part, Baird uses a Financial Post opinion piece from Mintz for the quote, the same article where Mintz basically calls Baird a liar:

Nonetheless, the effect of the plan will largely fall on consumers and businesses purchasing energy-intensive products. The Conservatives have not been straightforward with John Baird, Minister of the Environment, indicating that only dirty big companies will bear the costs. However, given that companies must raise capital from international markets, costs cannot be passed onto shareholders but instead must result in higher consumer prices or lost jobs.

Given that the technology fund and Clean Development Mechanism payments can only cover some of the requirement, the targets can only be achieved if sufficient domestic offsets, which are projects sanctioned by Environment Canada, are available. Many companies have told the government that domestic offsets will probably not be available to cover the shortfalls, especially in the early years of the plan. If so, only one action is available to avoid criminal charges -- to curb any production that limits emissions. Canadians could be faced with brownouts, high fuel costs and lost jobs.

Again, what does it say about somebody, that Baird is reduced to using quotes from an article that also says he has "not been straightforward"? Mintz argues the Conservative plan would pass down the cost to the consumer, which is exactly the Conservatives main criticism of the Liberal plan. Tsk tsk:

In an interview, Mintz dismissed Conservative claims that Dion´s carbon plan would send shockwaves through the economy.

"I don´t think the plan will be negative on growth," he said.

"In fact, it will probably be positive. Because what you´re doing is taking taxes off investment and work effort and you´re putting it on to consumption."

In any debate about policy, you can usually find supportive voices to counter the one's that are critical. Even relatively weak ideas can find some backing, there are so many differing perspectives, the sheer mass of opinion makes it easy to find a friendly voice. Within that reality, John Baird is an utter joke, so desperate he actually quotes articles from people that crticize him personally and actually support the Liberal plan. If that's the best you can do John, you really are nothing more than an irrelevant outsider to this entire discussion. Anyways, I hope the Liberals use the video of the Baird quote in my title praising Dion's sincerity ;)

Gone Fishing

See you in a week :)

The Death Of A False Narrative?

Last night, two separate pundits on the At Issue panel made reference to Stephen Harper's supposed reputation as a tactical genius. The "checkers vs chess" narrative that had become the common assumption of most in the media class. It was interesting to hear more voices now questioning that narrative, and it seems to me the media is finally starting to re-examine the fallacy of believing that Stephen Harper is always one step ahead, his motives mysterious recipes of well thought out strategy.

What everyone is starting to realize, a theme which many of us have stated for some time, whenever confronted with the undeserved adjectives, Stephen Harper and his team are really quite ordinary. The Harper approach is really quite predictable, quite pedestrian in terms of forethought, really more reactionary than visionary. Above all else, Harper really came to power more as function of right time/right place, rather than some juggernaut, that laid waste to less capable opponents. I would submit, all Harper had to do was stay out the way, ride the wave of change (more people cited this desire in voting preference than any affinity to the Conservative program) and reap the benefits. It amazed me that the media heaped such praise, considering the fragile nature of his mandate, despite the optimal conditions. But, it was here that the narrative began to cement itself, and the media has reinforced it every since.

This isn't to say Harper is inept, or that the Conservatives don't have talented people, but given where we are now, it is clear that the attributes were clearly overstated. For his first year in office, Harper faced a Liberal Party without a leader, completely retooling, completely off balance. It doesn't take much exceptional ism to carry the day in that environment, certainly nothing of the stuff of "legend". In the aftermath of the Liberal convention, the Conservatives probably scored their biggest tactical victory, pre-defining Dion before he could define himself. All the other "out flanking" maneuvers since have really been more a by-product of Liberal fear, rather than any brilliance. In other words, given the circumstance, you didn't need much skill to navigate the hyper-friendly terrain.

The Harper narrative first started to get a second look, once he was actually tested, once events occurred which were not scripted, we saw the "team" react to the unexpected. Easy to sit back and map strategy on a 2 dimensional board, quite different to gauge your aptitude when you are forced to react on the fly. It was here, when surprise entered the equation that the Harper "brilliance" began to unravel. The economy starts to falter, these geniuses think it would be a good idea to go after a newly re-elected Premier in the most populous province. A raid occurs at Conservative headquarters, and these brainiacs react like rank amateurs, hurling gasoline on the fire at every turn. Cadman, Bernier, the CWB, etc... No progress in Quebec, no progress with ethnics, no progress with urban voters, no progress with women, stuck, nowhere, all their lofty plans have borne little fruit.

The final nail, and this is where the media seems to have realized, the reaction to this Green Shift. Only a Conservative partisan could argue that their reaction has been effective, even people who hate the proposal also agree that Harper has fumbled to date. What has happened, another narrative has cemented, one less flattering, that of a mean-spirited, low brow, juvenile approach to every issue, a situation of going to that well once to often. Is it really a testament to strategic aptitude, that you have only one response for every issue that confronts you, you always offer the same negativity that insults people's intellects?

It would now seem that the mirage has evaporated, Harper and company might be able, but they are far from something anyone should fear. As a matter of fact, in many respects, the Conservatives are politically "tone deaf", they don't seem to understand what is required to expand their support, what they need to do to improve their image. The inability to recognize their own weaknesses, to just forge ahead with simplistic arrogance, is nothing to admire. It is encouraging to see that the media is finally readjusting how they view Harper and his actions. R.I.P "The Master Strategist".

Harmonize

Nothing particularly earth shattering in Dion pledging to "harmonize" his carbon plan with British Columbia, but it is noteworthy that he and Campbell have spoken:

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is confident that he can “harmonize” his carbon tax plan with that of British Columbia.

Speaking with The Globe and Mail's editorial board Thursday, Mr. Dion said he and B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell have the same goals.

“We want a strong economy for British Columbia and a strong fight against climate change. So the two governments will harmonize what they are doing in order to have maximum results on the two fronts in British Columbia,” he said.

Mark Dunn, a spokesman for Mr. Dion, said Thursday that both leaders and their respective offices have already spoken about the two carbon tax plans.

Mr. Dion will be in the province later this summer to discuss it further, although no date has been set.

End Of Parliament Awards

Susan Delacourt previews the "At Issue" end of session roundtable. Beyond the obvious answers, here are my candidates:

BEST MOMENT

Watching Pierre Poilievre sheepishly apologize for his aborginal slurs, his usual smirk no where to be seen. How can that be the best moment? Simple. To my mind, Pierre represents all that is unseemly about our political environment. A cheap shot artist, a gross manipulator and downright disingenious advocate. Pierre was on the rise, further validating his gutter style, another bad omen moving forward. Having the poodle neutered, banished to the sidelines, is a net positive for the tone of any debate. Any roundtable, or MP slot, without Pierre is a bonus, the last thing Canadian needs is people like Poilievre front and center.

WORST MOMENT

Harper suing the Liberal Party of Canada. Harper's bully tactics, his "libel chill" represents a naked attempt to stifle discussion. How any party with as vile a website as the Conservatives can have the audacity to cry foul escapes me, but hypocrisy seems a core tenet with this bunch. The real kicker, Harper never did explain what was on that tape, preferring as James Travers said "to hide behind the skirt of the legal system".

MOST OVERRATED

Peter Van Loan. Is Peter so charismatic, such a tremendous orator and generally compelling figure, that he deserves such disporportionate stature in this government? More a testament to a thin bench, Van Loan has hardly shone in his role as chief apologist, his limp, repetitive answers haven't exactly benefited the Conservative cause. Only within this ordinary bunch, could such an average MP rise to be essentially Deputy PM.

MOST UNDERRATED

Dominic LeBlanc. Not sure if Dominic is underrated or not, but he was quite effective this session, on various tasks. Dominic comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and calm, a growing asset for the Liberals. Someone to watch in the future, could one day become a key minister.


You?

Interesting B.C. Poll

If you want to see a pseudo "canary in the coalmine" scenario, it is pretty interesting to see any polling coming out of British Columbia. The Mustel Group has released a new poll of the province, that shows Campbell paying little political price so far, despite British Columbians ranking "rising gas" as their chief concern:

A recent Mustel Group poll (taken June 9-19th ) among 750 BC residents shows that for the first time ever,
concern about fuel costs surpasses concern about the environment and other key issues such as health care
and the economy. When asked “What is the most important issue facing British Columbia today?” increasing
cost of fuel tops the list, with Metro Vancouver residents as concerned as those living in rural areas.

In the past poll, fuel costs were cited by a scant 3%, this time around 18%, marginally ahead of health care and the environment. One would think that Campbell would pay a price, considering his carbon plan piles on even more cost. Not really:

Libs 47%
NDP 37%
Green 14%

No statistical change for the Libs since the last poll, although the NDP do rise 6%, the Greens down 3%. To keep that in context though, the last poll looks a bit of an anomaly for the NDP, because they are now basically back where they were in a February and November offering respectively, the Greens actually up one from February. In other words, apart from some statistical noise, hard to argue any worrying trends for Campbell.

This fact is supported in the approval numbers, which sees Campbell's numbers very consistent with past findings, the same for the NDP's James. I suppose you could argue some erosion, but if you look at the February poll, Campbell is actually up, so it's playing with the numbers, the trends aren't significant.

This is the second poll I've seen that shows Campbell fairing pretty well, despite serious concerns about taxes and gas prices. Those with their own agenda will point to "you just wait until", or "Dion isn't Campbell", but given the fact that this poll shows gas price concern as the number one issue with British Columbians, you would expect to see Campbell taking a big hit right now, given his policies. On balance, I see this poll as another for the "good sign" column.

What Will Gordon Campbell Do?

I haven't really heard much comment about the Liberal Green Shift from B.C's Gordon Campbell. The two plans are different, but the thrust is the same. I wonder how Campbell will react to being the indirect target of the Conservatives smear campaign:

The federal Conservatives are launching attack ads in B.C. tomorrow against federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's carbon tax.

The ads could also cause collateral damage for Premier Gordon Campbell, just days before B.C.'s new carbon tax takes effect.

"Dion Tax Trick" ads will blitz the airwaves on radio stations in the Lower Mainland and the Interior.

Tory strategists say it's the most expensive non-election ad-buy in B.C. for years, going into six-figure numbers, and could last up to three months.

The campaign will also feature public events at which people will wear bright yellow T-shirts with the slogans "The Dion Tax Trick" or "Dion's Tax on Everything."

I suppose the good news for Campbell, it's not like the ads are particularly effective, not to mention the geeky yellow shirt routine. That said, this is a huge media buy, and no matter the specifics, Campbell is likely to feel the heat. Essentially, Campbell will defend his plan, which indirectly validates the Liberal plan, putting him on a collision course with the Conservatives low road campaign. Campbell apparently has cordial relations with Harper, and this was evidenced by the Harper government's hypocritical initial reaction to B.C's carbon tax, but surely this puts a strain on things.

Campbell has as much as Dion to lose, one would think we see an informal alliance build over time, if we do see months of negative ads. Nothing overt, but an agreement, based on mutual self interest, since both are targets, regardless of who is characterized as the "trickster". It will be entirely fascinating to watch this battle develop in British Columbia. Could Harper push Campbell towards Dion, or does he just push back, and in so doing, buttress Dion?

New Green Shift Poll

Thanks to whomever was kind enough from Angus-Reid to send me a pdf of their latest online poll. The horserace numbers show the Conservatives lead shrinking, down from 7 points last month to 3 this month- Cons 33%, Libs 30%, NDP 19%, Greens 9%. These numbers now mirror other polls, basically a statistical deadheat.

The interesting part of the poll, another measure of people's attitudes towards the "Green Shift". A mixed bag, there appears to be support for the broad strokes, but voters are still largely unaware of the actual details, some misinformation:

Supporters of Canada’s four main opposition parties express positive views on the proposed carbon tax presented last week by Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, but some misconceptions about the plan and its implications remain

Putting a price on carbon:

Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea:

47% support
36% oppose

Will a carbon tax help:

The proposed carbon tax will ultimately lead people to be more mindful of their carbon consumption and change their behaviour
65% support
26% oppose

Good news, for the general theme of the Liberal plan:

As you may know, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion presented his carbon tax proposal—also known as the Green Shift—last week. Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view?

Support 70%
Oppose 19%

However, the Liberals have work to do getting the message out:

The proposed carbon tax will increase the price of gasoline across Canada:
66% True
8% Not True

The proposed carbon tax will be revenue neutral—the money generated by the carbon tax will be given back to Canadians in the form of personal income tax cuts and business tax cuts:

15% True
54% Not True

People also overwhelming believe a carbon tax will hurt low income earners and seniors.

On political possibilites, another poll that suggests an opportunity t expand support:

The proposed carbon tax was welcomed by supporters of the four opposition parties, with 66 per cent of Liberal voters, 56 per cent of NDP voters, 51 per cent of Bloc Québécois voters, and 49 per cent of Green voters agreeing that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea. A majority of Liberals (57%) and Greens (54%) are willing to pay higher taxes on fossil fuels if they also get an income tax cut.

Conservatives aren't supportive. But then again, when only 44% of Conservative respondents actually believe in global warming, is that terribly surprising?

This is the type of poll that everyone can select the information that validates their predisposition. For my part, I like the fact that another polling outfit shows a close national race, reinforcing that dynamic. On the environmental front, the Liberals can see a path for growth, but it is imperative that they get the message out in a clear way- no news there.

Canadians Welcome Debate

Stephane Dion’s little debate challenge, is turning into a useful talking point and strategic pivot. Dion is now armed with the sentiment that “Canadians overwhelming want us to debate”:

An overwhelming majority of Canadians want to see Stéphane Dion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper square off in a televised debate on the Liberals' proposal for a carbon tax, a new poll shows.
"Canadians appear to be ready to see Harper and Dion discussing policy away of the confines of the House of Commons, and this might help Dion," said Mario Canseco, director of global studies for Angus Reid Strategies.
Almost 70 per cent of Canadians are keen to see that debate happen, according to the Toronto Star/Angus Reid poll released yesterday.
Canseco said the political duel could work to Dion's advantage as he tries to pitch his party's carbon tax proposal to voters.
"More than anything, it gives Dion an opportunity to shed the label of weakness," Canseco said

The money quote:

"Harper might never agree to this debate, but Dion will have a chance to say that he was willing to meet him anytime, and that the onus is on the Prime Minister," Canseco said.

And there it is, whether Harper agrees or not is a side issue, what does matter is the optics. Dion wanting a debate, the public agrees and Harper is on the defensive. That is a terrific position to be in for Dion, because he does address the “weakness” factor and it is left to Harper to find excuses, or agree. I hope the formal letter includes the “will of Canadians”, it would be a nice touch :)

The Grand Conspiracy

The last few days, we have heard the "separatist" angry, as the usual suspects focus on the easy whipping boy, those dirty Liberals who want to ruin the "west". Yawn me a river. Liberals conspiring to hurt Alberta, NEP II, as though tackling GHG emissions is supposed to ignore the elephant in the room, recognizing the OBVIOUS, tantamount to blasphemy.

Now it seems, a growing convergence stateside wants nothing to do with "dirty" oil. Have the Liberals infiltrated the American political system? First, the likely next President:

"If it turns out that those technologies don't advance . . . and the only way to produce those resources would be at a significant penalty to climate change, then we don't believe that those resources are going to be part of the long-term, are going to play a growing role in the long-term future," said Jason Grumet, Mr. Obama's senior energy adviser.

The remarks amount to a shot across the bow of Alberta's oilsands industry, which is planning to boost production from 1.3 million barrels a day to 3.5 million barrels over the next decade.

"The amount of energy that you have to use to get that oil out of the ground is such that it actually creates a much greater impact on climate change, as well as using much more energy than even traditional petroleum," he said.

"And I think it's an open question as to whether or not the Canadian resources are going to meet those tests."

This comes on the same day, American mayors join to focus their sights on the tar sands:

Mayors from the U.S.'s largest cities singled out Western Canada's oil sands on Monday as they called for a crackdown on fuels that could cause catastrophic global warming.

"The production of tarsands oil from Canada emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as does conventional oil production and significantly damages Canada's Boreal forest ecosystem - the world's largest carbon storehouse," said the resolution.

This resolution sends a clear signal to Alberta and to oil producers that they need to get a grip on their greenhouse gas emissions," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based environmental group.

In response:

Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier also blasted his U.S. counterparts, saying they need to visit Alberta in person to "get the facts on oilsands production."

"This resolution suggests a lack of understanding," he said

I recommend inviting the mayors for a tour, so they can get the "facts". Don't forget to see the tailing ponds!

A Point Of Clarification

Some partisans are cautioning other partisans, not to read too much into a poll, which demonstrates an openness to the Liberals "the color you get when you mix blue and yellow" Shift (is that okay?). Just as a point of clarification, speaking for myself, I hardly view one finding, on a vague question, as "victory". More correctly, it just serves as another useful piece of information to suggest the Liberals might be well positioned moving forward.

How this whole debate shakes out remains to be seen, whether the plan is an albatross or a savior, completely debatable, reasonable people have differing views. My own mental math supports the concept, policy wise and from a political perspective. The first test, and a daunting one, if you consider the pre-emptive strikes by the Conservatives and others to define, was for the Liberals to release their plan and simply keep their head above water. I don't think it much of a stretch to say the initial launch was largely successful, easily Dion's best moment to date as leader. Pleasantly surprised is how I would characterize the opening, a fair response from the media, some helpful allies, a positive tone, a sense of coherent strategy, contrasted with a seemingly unglued Harper and friends. I like what I've seen.

My primary reaction to the latest poll is just another positive sign, a complete rebuke of the Conservatives claims of "crazy" and "screwed". That doesn't translate to any sense whatsoever that the Liberals are well on their way to forming government, or even any claim that the plan will be understood and appreciated. What I think you can say, based on a sense of the initial launch, it has been anything but a bad week for Liberal fortunes. All you can hope for is opportunity, and I don't think it entirely biased to argue that this plan presents just that. Opportunities are what you make of it, and in this case, also how your opponents react, who's more effective.

The way I look at it, Liberals have finally launched, successfully discarded the booster rockets and now try to successfully navigate the proper path to see if we reach target.

Canadians Ready To Embrace Economic Ruin

Try to wipe the smile off my face, just try:

A new poll finds suggests the Liberals could score votes with their controversial "green shift'' environmental proposal.

The first national poll since the Liberal leader Stephane Dion announced that he would impose a carbon tax to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions has found Canadians are beginning to pick sides.

While a majority remain undecided, 14 per cent say they are in favour and 17 per cent are opposed.

But once the policy is explained to respondents, the Canadian Press-Harris-Decima survey found that 47 per cent liked the idea and 39 per cent were opposed.

Significantly, the poll found that most of the opposition to the idea comes from Conservatives.

To be honest, that result is better than I would have thought.

More here:

The key finding, said pollster Bruce Anderson, is that Canadians who did not describe themselves as Conservatives were favourably disposed to the idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Two-thirds of Liberals, 59 per cent of New Democrats, 62 per cent Parti Quebecois supporters and 48 per cent of Green Party supporters said they were in favour of the policy – all, except for the Green Party, by wide margins.

The Liberal green plan is also finding double-digit support among women (48 per cent in favour, 34 per cent opposed), voters under 35 years of age (61 versus 26), and in voters east of the Ontario-Manitoba border (49 versus 37), all segments the Conservatives need in order to win a majority.

“It does have the potential to be a game-changer for the Liberals,” Mr. Anderson said.

Also interesting, a third of Conservatives like the proposal (I guess none of them are online ;)).

Howl away with your childish fear mongering, it would appear Canadians are smarter than you think. If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of Conservatives scrambling.

The Empty Chair

I've read a few news items today, wherein the Conservatives are deflecting any call for debate with Harper, saying Dion had his chance in Question Period, but he failed to show up. Speaking of not showing up, Harper's attendance record the past two months:

June 20th absent

June 19th absent

June 13th absent

June 9th absent

June 6th absent

May 30th absent

May 29th absent

May 28th absent

May 27th absent

May 26th absent

House off for week

May 16th absent

May 12th absent

May 9th absent

May 8th absent

May 2nd absent

May 1st absent

Harper had an impressive 48% attendance record, maybe Buckler should learn the phrase "when you live in a glass house, don't throw stones". As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a Don Martin column a few weeks ago, wherein he suggested the PMO were purposely keeping Harper away from Parliament, to avoid all the questions of scandal and missteps.

Anyways, I'm sure the Conservatives can come up with better, sometimes their genius just takes a few days to ferment.

On a side note, Harper has apparently already begun the summer barbeque circuit:

Let's Dance

Clearly, the Liberals think they've hit on a winner, with the debate angle. Keeping up the pressure, Dion will write a letter to Harper, which will be available to all media outlets. Perfect:

Dion challenges PM to 'green' debate

OTTAWA — Stéphane Dion took on a rare aggressor's role Sunday with Stephen Harper, daring the Prime Minister to debate him over the Liberals new green plan.

The Liberal Leader made the challenge on CTV's Question Period Sunday, where he also characterized Mr. Harper as vulgar for suggesting the Liberal plan would “screw” taxpayers. “I would be very pleased to debate it at any time,” Mr. Dion said. “And let me tell you one thing ... I will always debate in a respectful way, in a meaningful way, because it's what Canadians deserve.”

Sources said that Mr. Dion intends to make his request official with a letter to the Prime Minister. It's the first effort of an aggressive sales pitch which began after the announcement last week.

Harper's people better develop a better talking point- is there a Canadian alive that still believes our question period is a place for serious debate?:

“If Mr. Dion wanted to have a debate with the Prime Minister he should have, for starters, shown up for Question Period during the last week that the House of Commons was sitting,” Sandra Buckler said.

Next.

So far so good.

Calling Out Harper

Who's playing chess now? The best defence is a good offence, and Dion has successfully turned the tables on Harper. I view calling for a television debate on climate change as a strategic stroke of brilliance. Dion basically calls Harper out, leaving a simple question- what are you afraid of?

Nobody can dispute the merits of an "adult" conversation, to allow Canadians the opportunity to make up their own minds. Whether you think Dion "crazy" or not, the onus is now on Harper to rise to the occasion, put his inflammatory remarks to the test. Harper has characterized the Liberal plan in such a dismissive way, he should relish the opportunity to pound Dion with his reckless plan. Anything less, and Dion has successfully marginalized Harper as nothing more than paper tiger, spewing nonsense, but cowardly resisting a serious discussion.

Dion seizes the initiative once again, he has laid out the terms and Harper is forced to react. I would suggest, if Harper ignores the proposal, that Dion use that at every turn, as proof that Harper is "not a leader". What does it say about Harper, that he would refuse to debate a man, which his supporters constantly argue, lacks a basic grasp of English? Afraid to debate Stephane Dion, on an issue which apparently "screws" us all, how can one not jump at the opportunity?

Let's hope all the surrogates take up this theme, and constantly put out the idea of a debate. This ensures that every interview with a Conservative asks the question, leaving Harper and company to scramble with weak excuses, or take up the challenge. Either way, that dynamic is a political win for the Liberals. As people try to sift through the conflicting messages, what better way than to have the two principles engage each other? Match the bravado with action Mr. Harper, or risk being so marginalized that you aren't taking seriously, yelling from the bleachers, but afraid to take to the pitch. I fail to see the downside for the Liberals here.