Random Links

I've been fairly busy of late so I've got a bunch of half posts that never materialized and e-mails with links I've never got around to posting sitting around. So, here's a completely random Friday link list:

1. The Better Calgary Coalition has their website up and online. They'll be commenting on the civic election in Calgary and *gasp* actually talking about the issues. Some of the issues getting media play so far in the campaign have been taxes and transit. Although, given the weather in Calgary, the sleeper issue might very well be snow removal.

2. Speaking of the race so far, I'd like to direct all my Ward 3 readers over to George Chahal's website. George is a very strong candidate who would be a big addition to council - go check out his site to see what he's talking about.

3. A hot rumour going around is that Bronconnier has brought on Rod Love and Hal Danchilla to help with his campaign. Hmm....Setting him up to replace Stelmach perhaps?

4. Saskliberal.ca is up and running.

5. From the people who brought you Derision 2006 comes The Goose, a satirical look at the Ontario election.

6. Here's an article slamming biofuels.

The Senators are out, and so is Senate reform

1. The Green Party environmental platform calls for a dreaded carbon tax and higher gasoline prices. Sure, it'll be unpopular, but if people are serious about meeting Kyoto (and the Greens certainly are), you'll only get there with hard line tactics like that.


2. On the international scene, G8 leaders have agreed to consider thinking about perhaps maybe possibly wanting to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050. And people laughed when Harper said he'd be instrumental in bridging a compromise...


3. I'm not sure if this helps or hurts Dion's status as a "leader" or a "hero", but Liberal Senators are shelving Harper's Senate reform bill for now.


4. Bill Casey is gone from the Tory caucus. I seem to remember a few commentators being hard on Dion for booting Comuzzi for breaking party ranks on a budget vote in March...I invite them to weigh in.


5. I've got to hand it to SDA for the "IOC rapes gay nazis" description of the new London 2012 Olympic logo.

Won't the real Gord Brown please stand up, please stand up, please stand up...

-One of my pet political interests is finding leadership races I could win by signing up a rec league soccer team. Last year, I reported on the PEI NDP race, won in a close 29 to 19 vote. This week, the Nova Scotia Green Party held their AGM and, in a tight three-way race, Ken McGowan emerged the winner in a 32 to 20 to 9 nail bitter.


-Apparently the oilsands will be exempt from several of the clean air regulations...you can bet the opposition parties are just going to love this.


-Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. UPDATE: And Lawrence Cannon gets hit too...


-Leeds-Grenville Conservative MP Gord Brown (no doubt busy campaigning for Tony Blair's job), has been caught Jaffering a constituent.


-Didn't take long for Justin Trudeau to attract controversy.


-After going 7 for 8 and 3 for 4 in the first two rounds, I'll take my chances and bet against Detroit for the third straight round. Anaheim versus Buffalo is your final.

A Fortnight to Forget

Stephen Harper hasn’t had many bad days since becoming Prime Minister but, boy, the last two weeks have been tough ones for him.

The rough patch all started last week with the taxpayer funded stylist turned psychic fiasco (she really should have seen it coming). Sure, it’s not a big deal, but it’s one of those quirky little mini-scandals like Romanian Strippers which gives the opposition parties a guaranteed joke in every stump speech from now until the end of the next campaign.

Then there’s been the environmental file which was going to be a headache no matter when it came to a head. John Baird’s Martin-esque hyperbole probably discredited some very legitimate economic concerns surrounding the Liberal Kyoto plan. Having the Tory plan leak out in advance (possibly breaking Canada's securities laws) didn’t help matters at all, especially since it led to a rushed release. As for the plan itself? Well, take a look at the less than enthusiastic response it has generated.

Worst of all, the Tories took a big hit on Afghanistan, which is guaranteed to be an issue during the next campaign. The Globe's front page story on blacked out torture documents was bad for optics, regardless of who edited the documents. The week-long game of "deal or no deal" left opposition leaders, pundits, and probably quite a few Tory Cabinet Ministers confused. It's unclear when this "deal" was signed, if it was signed, who negotiated it, what it entails, if it changes the status quo, or who knew about it when.

O'Connor himself has been crippled beyond repair and paying homage to Paul Martin's famous escalator scrum, by doing an elevator scrum, likely wasn't the best way for him to announce this deal. At the very least he could have let Peter McKay know beforehand...

As for the fall-out, well, just take a look at the CTV wire story and count the number of times "contradiction" and "incompetence" appear. For a government that prides itself on decisiveness and messaging, this has certainly been a week Harper would love to put behind him.

Take Two

The second Liberal Ad is similar to the first, adding the Al Gore glacier, a cute baby, and a few words from Stephane Dion.

Bag 'O Links

-Lots of Afghanistan news. The Liberal motion to set February 2009 as the withdrawal date will be voted down tonight thanks to the NDP even though 2/3 of Canadians agree with it. Gordon O'Connor, meanwhile, is in trouble for the treatment of prisoners, and Dion has some egg on his face for an odd proposal.


-After going 7 for 8 in first round predictions, I'll go with the Ducks, Sharks, Sabers and...I dunno...let's say Sens.


-Looks like the Clean Air Act is dead, although I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the opposition parties bring the amended version back on an opposition day.


-The sexy centrists are no more...it'll be Royal versus Sarkozy in the French election run-off.

May I have this dance?

The big news today is the announcement that the Liberals will not run a candidate in Elizabeth May's riding which is a shocking surprise for anyone who has been living in Bolivia the past three months. Actually, calling it "Elizabeth May's riding" is charitable since it's still going to be Peter MacKay's, even with this deal.

But, regardless, it's an interesting alliance, since the Greens and Grits are giving each other some added legitimacy by doing this. From an economical sense, the Liberals stand to lose 18 grand a year from the $1.75 per vote they'd get in Central Nova (probably less since May would siphon votes off, they save the money it takes to run a campaign and they get the ginormous influx of...dozens of Green voters in Saint-Laurent–Cartierville).

So the real trade-off comes from the legitimacy aspect and I do tend to think the Liberals come out on top here, if only because it gives Dion's environmental platform an implicit vote of confidence and helps out the inevitable "vote Liberal to stop Harper" messaging we'll see the last weekend of the campaign.

The trade-off is obviously that it gives the Greens a bit more credibility. And everyone has a different opinion as to which party that hurts most.


[Coyne's got an interesting take, touching on the optics of beeing seen as moving too far left]

Wrapping Up The Green Font Series

Original Questions
Why did it become an issue?
How big an issue is it, really?
Can the Greens actual get votes?



The Globe & Mail may still have 97 parts left in their Environmental series but I'll be wrapping mine up today. There are two questions from the original six I asked which still need to be answered; namely, will this change anything in the next election and, if so, what?




Is this a ballot question? Or is it the new healthcare?




Some Answers:


-I think it was already a significant ballot question in the last election.


-If Harper continues as he has people will still be highly worried and be looking for someone who looks like they will do something. If Harper puts in some kind of plan, I think a number of people will be satisfied even if the plan does not go far enough.


-This will be a ballot question, but in a negative sense.


-You know, it's tough to guess. Not a ballot question - not yet, anyway. The new healthcare.


-As for the question of how big an election issue will be ... that's a good one, and I don't know the answer. Like I said, for several elections, the enviro wasn't a big issue as all, as best as I can recall. If "something else" (a recession? PQ winning in Quebec? a new terrorist attack - again, God forbid) comes along, the enviro may sink down the list again.




My Take



This is one I've gone back and forth on since last fall when it really seemed to pop up as an issue out of thin air (or, hot air, I guess). I think I've finally settled more on the "it will be an issue" side of the spectrum. Even derisively calling it "the new health care" may have been unfair, because the two tier health care scare was an issue in the 2000 campaign.


That's not to say it will be the main ballot question - only that it will move some votes. It seems elections often come down to personality and leadership and with all the parties inching closer together as far as policy, it might not turn into the massive wedge issue the Liberals desperately hope it will become. But after watching provincial governments "go green" and seeing the sustained world wide attention around it in the punditry and general population, I do think it will be one of the top 2 or 3 policy issues people will be basing their vote upon.



If this becomes a ballot question, which party does it help the most?

Answers:

-Factoring it all in, I'd guess the Liberals would benefit most, but it's hard to say.

-People who value the environment are turning away from the NDP in huge numbers either to the greens, or perhaps to give Dion a chance and hope he keeps his promises. And people who used to vote NDP for protest are tiring of Jack, and seeing increased credibility of another party that is fresher to vote for in protest. This means the NDP's main group of supporters still remaining is the group who believe they are better than libs to deal with social issues.

-The obvious answer would be the Greens. However it also helps the Liberals as long as Harper is unable to salvage his image on the environment.

-It will help the Liberal party the most because the Conservatives are perceived as anti-environment.

-No one (has a plan). Yet.

-If Dion plays his cards right, it should be the Liberals. He's making it the party's prime issue, so if he can't win with it, the party's in trouble.




My Take


Yeah, obviously it helps the Greens the most - that's the easy answer. And, as for the Bloc, it probably won't make a difference for them one way or the other. I also think it's probably fair to say this will hurt the NDP more than it will help them, just because some of their votes could get siphoned off to Elizabeth May.


As for the big two, that's still up in the air. The environment is likely an issue the Liberals are perceived to be better at. But, at the same time, if Kyoto is the wedge and you have four parties on one side and the Tories on the other, it really doesn't help the Liberals unless they can convince Green and NDP voters that:

a) A Harper government would be disastrous
b) They'll do as good a job as the Dippers or Greens on this issue

So, while it's kind of a cop out to give an "I don't know", that's really where I sit on this. At the very least, the Liberals need to have a few more arrows in their quiver than just the green enviro one.

Green Answers - 3

Nick Nanos' blog put up the question yesterday about just how real the Greens' poll numbers are, leading to a wide range of answers. I asked the same question a while back so I figured today would be a good time to put up some of the answers.

(You can see the answers to some of the other environmental questions here and here)


3. Would Canadians actually vote for the Green Party? If so, who does that hurt the most?

Some Answers

-Green Party will get 5-10% of the vote in the next election. Probably hurts the Liberals the most as it might cost them some close seats in Ontario.

-It hurts the NDP the most as they've always been seen as the most environmentally conscious, and the Liberals the second most as they're now trying to cultivate a green image, but it hurts everybody a bit.

-The Green party will take young and urban votes away from the NDP and Liberals. It will have more of an effect on their dollars per vote financing than seats won.

-The Green Party's numbers will not change. They will only be supported by people who either a) actually care about the environment or b) are protesting the big three.

-No. (And I'll add: hahaha)


-Okay, but seriously - I say the NDP, in a perfect-storm sense when married with Jack Layton. If Ed Broadbent was leader, it would hurt the Liberals more, Dion or no Dion.

-if the Greens can't win a seat the next election (whenever that may be), with everyone talking about the environment, I don't see how they ever will.


My Take

The Greens always do better with hypothetical voters than with real ones and there's no reason to suspect that the next election won't be any different. True, they are hitting higher in the polls now than ever before, but when voting day comes, I can't see them with over 7 or 8%...which likely won't translate into any seats.

Still, they are taking votes away from someone and with politics being a zero sum game, that means someone loses when the Greens surge. In the past, studies into this showed that the Greens grabbed a lot of Conservative votes but I think that was because of Jim Harris being a Conservative and a lot of Red Tories looking for a home. Elizabeth May has quickly put her own stamp on the party such that people voting for the Greens are likely hard core environmentalists (or those casting a protest vote, in which case it doesn't really hurt anyone else since these people would be voting for the Canadian Action Party or staying home without the Greens). Given that, one imagines that any votes they drain are likely coming massively from the NDP and Liberals - probably more so from the NDP asI tend to think environmental idealists who don't care about voting for a party which can win would have left the Liberals for the Dippers a long time ago.

Thoughts?

Green Answers - 2

One thing Harper's bizarre accusations against the Liberals this week did do was take the environment out of the headlines. But with Al Gore poised to pick up an Oscar tomorrow, I figured it might be a good time to talk a bit about the environment. Last month, I asked a few questions related to the environment. I already looked at why it's an issue...this post will take a look at just how big an issue it really is.


2. Do Canadians really care, or are they only telling pollsters it's a big issue because they feel they should?

Some Answers:

-Most (90%) of those who say they care do, but willingness to make sacrifices varies.

-I think the complete lack of action on the above options [driving less and making environmental decisions] makes it pretty clear that it's the latter.

-The level of concern over the environment is soft because each day , hundreds of thousands of Canadians would rather drive to work and do an hour of gridlock rather than take the bus. They'd rather wait in a big line up of cars and trucks to buy a double double and a chocolate dip doughnut rather than make the coffee at home, slap it in a travel mug, walk two blocks to the bus stop and take the bus to work each day.

-A bit of both. I think a lot or people feel concerned but they're not ready to change their habits until someone tells/forces them to, while others are already looking for more environmentally friendly ways to do things.

-Canadians don't care. Canadians know that on some level the media is being cynical on the issue so they can't get worked up about it in a positive way.

-I think polls like this demonstrate the public reacting to issues, not leading issues, and this is the flavour of the month. Or, if we analogize with health care, flavour of the next 5 years or so.

-Let me tell you in no uncertain terms, that Canadians care. So long as Canada wins the global lottery and gets a trillion dollars (US) and can afford to fix health care, lower taxes, buy more chocolate, and stop greenhouse gas emissions, Canada will be there, and Canadians will be on board!!!

-I won't question people's sincerity without cause, so I'll accept that people are genuinely concerned. Whether that concern will last, or will be swept aside by the next political issue or scandal, is a different question.

-it's soft support at best and most people don't truly understand the ramifications of meeting our Kyoto targets.

-Something I heard at the time, which I've heard now, is that the enviro is one of those issues that moves towards the top of the list of important items when other issues are not as pressing.


My Take:

I do think people care. Even before the global warming burst onto the scene as the hip issue, people talked about the environment in one form or another - recycling, acid rain, pesticides...it's always been something people were aware of. Captain Planet aired over a decade ago and the environment did score as a major issue in the late 80s. Obviously the poll numbers are echoing increased media hype around it, but I don't doubt that Canadians genuinely care about the environment, simply because they always have.

But Canadians care about a lot of things. They care about starving children in Africa, but there hasn't exactly been a groundswell of support to do something about that. The real question is how much they care. And, here, I suspect most Canadians are a lot more concerned about whether or not their favourite team will make the playoffs than about the long range temperature projections scientists come out with. So this brings us to question 5:


How much are Canadians actually willing to pay?

Answers:

-Most would probably support a greater cost increase resulting from emissions standards on industries than they would on something more visible such as a gas tax.

-Also, note how soft that support for environmental policy is. Sure, they'll tell pollsters how, theoretically, they'd sacrifice for the environment. But when the question gets to gas prices, a real expense they can calculate, they start to shy away. If any government actually enacted serious, carbon-cutting, economy-slowing policy, how long would people really put up with it?

-It depends on the penalties and the incentives. If there was suddenly a tax imposed on gas gussling vehicles like SUV's people would be using fule efficient cars in no time. At the same time people would be more willing to spend more on an energy efficient appliance if they see themselves getting money back on it through a tax credit.

-I have a question for you, why would I buy a Honda Civic hybrid when a new "normal" Civic costs considerably less, holds more, is cheaper to maintain, has a longer life span and is good on gas?

- They're not. Christ, vinegar and baking soda are two superb cleaning agents that don't contain any chemical by-products, and they're a third of the cost of cleaning products that you should not drink - people keep buying the fancy stuff, though.

-The capitalist in me says that the more political (read: government dependant) this issue becomes, the less willing people will be to take responsibility for their personal actions. I agree with you. People won't be cutting their driving by half anytime soon.

-If our economy tanks in the next year (and I think we are long overdue for an recession, but that's just me) I believe that Canadians might be more interested in finding their next job rather than finding out which political party has the greenest platform.


My Take:

Canadians care...until people start talking about a fifty cent gas tax. The mere fact that 61% of people surveyed said they would cut their driving in half to help the environment illustrates the problem. NOTHING IS STOPPING THEM FROM CUTTING THEIR DRIVING IN HALF! They don't need the government to force them to take public transit - all that question says is that people know they can help, they're aware that they could cut back, they say they'd like to, but they don't.

Now, that's a great argument for why the government needs to do something (since people won't on their own), but it also shows that people will only help so long as their lifestyle isn't dramatically altered. I think most Canadians would support some tax restructuring to encourage green choices and I think most would support regulations on industry. And, despite what I said above, I think most would support policy which would hurt them financially...so long as it's a very minimal cost. I simply don't think we're at a point where changes which drastically hurt the national economy or (more importantly) the personal economy of Canadians would be acceptable.

That's not to say Kyoto targets can't be met without hurting the economy. But it does mean that if Harper says "we can't meet Kyoto without hurting the economy", it's a message Canadians might listen to.

Proper Protocol?

Tonight, the House of Commons will vote in a law binding them to respect Canada's Kyoto commitments. This is quite remarkable since it is being done against the government's will, making it difficult to really predict how it's passage will be interpreted. Given that it will cost a lot of money to meet Kyoto and that the environment has become such a major issue, the government would certainly be in their right to see this as a loss of confidence and call an election over it. If the Conservatives simply call it a "nuisance bill" and ignore it, the opposition parties would certainly be in their right to bring forward a non-confidence motion and defeat the government on it.

I still don't think we'll see an election until 2008, but if anyone is itching for a spring vote, the mechanism to get there is certainly in place.