Harper Attack Ads Didn't Do the Job on Dion

There are a few new poll results out that were in the field after the Cons attack ads were run. they were designed to position Dion as not being a leader and a do nothing guy on the environment.

The polls are all over the place proving voter volatility is the new normal. There is no clear preference of party leader nor do we have any definitive indication of a preferred political direction in the mind of voters.

Nik Nanos’ SES NationState poll surveyed 913 Canadians between Feb 2 and 8th and shows a Dion/Harper “dead heat” at 33% each of committed voters but the trend lines show Harper in decline and Dion ascending. There are fewer uncommitted voters everywhere since the November 2006 results except in Ontario which is constant and the highest of uncommitted voters at 12%. Quebecers are leaving the Bloc in droves (-11) and those supporter seem to be moving to the Conservatives (+8). The Greens are the strongest in the West at 9% (+1) and the Cons are waning a bit in the West (-7).

What Harper gains in Quebec he is losing in the West but will that result in any seat changes in either place? Not likely but it will be interesting to see how much Harper is prepared to risk his western base loyalty to win Quebec in search of a majority government. The west is obviously noticing Harper's priority focus on Quebec's issues.

Leger has a survey of 1500 run from January 30 to February 4th. They redistribute the undecided responders in proportion to the actual poll allocation and get an increased 7% delta between Cons and Libs, in Harper’s favour. What evidence that undecided will vote and if so, that they split like the rest of the population? The Libs and Bloc are tied in Quebec and Harper “owns” Alberta at 59%. Again the Greens are knocking on the NDP door in the west but they are not there yet to surpass them. A full 15% were not committed or didn’t want to participate. The trend lines show no net change in the party support levels since the 2006 election when the margin of error is applied.

Finally we have Angus Reid’s results of 909 Canadians surveyed on line January 30 and 31, 2007. This was an on line survey designed to test the effectiveness of the Cons attack ads. They asked questions before people saw the ads and then asked them again after they viewed the ads on their computer screens. The report results say “the attack ads didn’t work.” The decline in perceptions of Dion post –viewing the ads was negligible dropping 1% from 40 to 39 on the question of who “would be the best Prime Minister.” Harper’s approvals stayed the same at 36%.

So not only did the attack ads not diminish Dion they added nothing to Harper’s positive profile either. Another key figure is the “Don’t Knows.” A quarter of Canadians have yet to make up their minds on which of these two guys are the best to lead the country. Voter volatility is potentially the ruling factor in the next election results. That means the campaigns will matter.

The next set of questions went to the Dion’s character and capability. The ads reduced perceptions of Dion ability to lead – the prime reasons for running the ads in the first place – by 5% - moving 3% away from his pre-ad supporters and 2% from undecided voters. Other perception questions on Dion and the environment, trust to keep promises and manage the public purse saw the ads have more impact. They changing poll results with more people have a diminished perception of Dion but the change came mostly from the undecided ranks and not from the core Dion support. these question tend to remind voters about the old Liberal fiascos under Chretien and Martin. The Liberals are not yet out of the penalty box but Dion does not get blamed for the "penalty" in the first place.

Only in the "will he improve the environment" question did Dion seem to have a glove laid on him. Then his core support went from 53% before seeing the ads to 47% afterwards. Some perspecitve isneeded here. If Dion actually got 47% of the popular vote in an election he would be forming a Liberal majority…so it is not really indicating much of a body blow to Dion’s potential electoral fortunes.

The hoopla over the ads and the big money spent, including the Super Bowl buy has to be very discouraging to the Tory war room given the net results being bugger all. Not much momentum coming out of this "full court press" on Dion by the Cons, especially for the money they spent on those ads. There is a glimmer of hope though; the ads are reported to have had to the most impact, such as it was, in Ontario and female voters, two key targets for Conservatives in the next election. Their money may not have been totally wasted.

Who Should Do What in a Progressive Canada?

Here is a unique opportuity to gather with some other Canadian progressives and get into the issues of the day through the progressive lens. Great speakers and interesting folks wiht a focus on the future.

Here are the details and I encourage all of those so inclined to progressive politics to attend:

(La version française suit le texte anglais)

26-28 March 2007. QUICK: SAVE THOSE DATES!

Join world-leading Canadian and international thought leaders for Canada 2020’s must attend policy conference in the national capital region March 26-28, 2007.

Continuing the discussion that began last year at the inaugural conference, this year, Canada 2020 has teamed up with Crossing Boundaries to deliver a progressive, innovative examination of the challenging theme:

“Who should do what in a progressiveCanada?”

Join the discussion and tackle the tough questions:
What is the role of citizens, government, the volunteer sector and businesses in solving social and economic challenges?
What does this mean for the traditional roles and responsibilities of government when the old top-down approach no longer works?
The conference will apply this new governance model to two major issues – the economic digital divide and the environment.

Participate in a discussion that will shape the future of the country - Save the dates today!

Confirmed keynote speakers for the March 2007 conference include:
Booker and Whitbread winning author Salman Rushdie. With his usual flair, Rushdie will tackle the issue of multiculturalism and what it means for progressives today.
The man who inspired Al Gore (last year’s dinner keynote speaker) and the author of the Weather Makers, Tim Flannery. Flannery will offer his insights on who should be leading whom in the public debate over the environment – the public or the politicians.
Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine and author of the widely acclaimed book on the new niche digital economy, The Long Tail. Anderson will challenge us to make the most of the transformational forces of the internet and new digital technologies. Canada , a country with a small market and a lot of geography, is well placed to benefit from the Long Tail.
New Brunswick Premier Shaun Graham will reflect how New Brunswick will engage the public in achieving its goal of making New Brunswick a have province by 2025.
Share your views and experiences. Test a new model of Progressive Governance. Meet with key leaders and decision-makers from the public, private and third sectors.

Registration will open February 1, 2007 on the Canada 2020 web site (http://www.canada2020.ca/). Early Bird rates will be available for the first 100 registrants.

See you there!
Canada 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stelmach's GHG Reduction Plans for Alberta is in the Works

Alberta’s new Premier Ed Stelmach is reported to say that he will not be reducing GHG emissions and “…stands firm on greenhouse gas plan.” There seems to be as much misunderstanding and confusion on Alberta’s intensions on GHG emissions as there is about how equalization works.

The half truths around GHG levels are sometime factual and sometimes conceptual misunderstandings and at other times they are induced by selected rhetorical references for scoring cheap political points.

Alberta knows that our energy economy is a disproportionately high contributor to GHG. The issue is what we are doing about it. Quite a bit actually and lots more is in the works. Calls for absolute GHG emission caps may work in sectors that are established and mature industries. Power generation, transportation, building standards, agriculture perhaps lend themselves more readily to absolute caps becasue the marginal costs can be calculated. Oil sands on the other hand is an embryonic industry sector. It is also a large user of energy, heat and water and a big time emitter of GHG as a result.

Alberta's big emitter industries have already been working for a few years to reduce GHG levels. The model is based on intensity reduction goals They are voluntarily and on a specific industry sector basis. These deals were worked out between industry with the governments of Alberta and Canada. This all happened by the way on Dion’s watch as Minister of the Environment.

The results of the volunteer program, instituted in 2004 I believe, have already seen a 16% reduction of GHG by Alberta’s energy industry on per unit of output. We are getting more effective at reducing GHG’s but since the oil sands, and Alberta overall, is growing rapidly, the total emissions have obviously gone up. Current oil sands production is just over 1 million barrels per day with projections to reach 3 million per day in less than a decade. The problem is obviously not going to resolve itself.

The USA just released some fiscal costs of the Iraq war, and it is over $470 per year for every man, woman and child in the States. That is not sustainable either so we can expect pressure from them for more energy supply from Canada very shortly. So total GHG emissions from Alberta are going to continue rising. Especially if we want the oil sands to be developed as a safe secure, reliable continental energy source. But even with that reality, we can’t just presume to continue in the old extraction adn mining models either. We need to create, change and adapt to new technology for oils sands extraction. That change is going to happen because it has to, both environmentally and politically.

We have a new deal on GHG emissions in the political works and it seems that Alberta and Canada are again on the same wave length with the Conservatives of today as they were earlier with the Liberals. In the face of rapid growth and the growing demand for energy, and with no reliable data, as yet, on the marginal costs of absolute caps, the intensity model will have to prevail, at least for now. It is not the end game but an interim measure that will become regulated, not voluntary, and likely more rigourous standards and with penalties for lack of compliance. New technologies that emerge to reduce GHG emissions will have to become compulsory for new plants and the older operators will have to adapt and adopt them too. Efficiencies will result and eventually absolute emissions caps will make practical sense.

The really big payoff for reduced GHG emissions in the Alberta energy sector will be when we truly come to see carbon dioxide as an asset instead of a liability. Once we commit and commence to capturing CO2 for use in enhanced conventional oil and gas recovery we will have turned a corner to toward realizing absolute, not just relative reductions of GHG from the Alberta energy sector. That is an idea whose time has come and the way has to be found to make that technology and its practical application a reality right now. That significnat culture change will change the climate in Alberta too - in more ways than one.

UPDATE: See these current and very related links:
Carbon capture...http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/capturing-carbon.html
Edmonton Journal story on oils sands mining option for heat source: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=692459f7-5e3c-48db-b42a-32b730003c40
Edmonton Journal editorial:http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=4b21faea-acd2-41b7-b0d8-bc6b41e17318

Alberta Firewall Guy Clarifies Equalization Payments

There is a very good op-ed in the Globe and Mail today that clarifies many of facts and the questions around equalization payments from the government of Canada to the so-called have-not provinces. The piece is written by Ken Boessenkool, now GM of Hill and Knowlton Alberta and one of the famous Firewall Letter signatories in 2001.

The myth busting article reflects and aligns with the same reality outlined in an early post in this blog. No wonder I like it.

The Firewall letter was signed by other notables including now Prime Minister Harper, but then he headed the National Citizens’ Coalition. Failed PC Leadership candidate, now Alberta Cabinet Minister, Dr. Ted Morton also signed the letter. It was a letter addressed to Premier Klein recommending that Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and set up its own cheaper scheme offering the same benefits. It recommended replacing the RCMP with a provincial police service. Both of these issues were part of the debates in the recent Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign.

Other recommendations included Alberta collecting its own income tax and take complete control of Medicare even if that resulted in breaches of the Canada Health Act and withdraw of federal funds to the province for health care. These two recommendations have proven to be non-starters politically and economically in Alberta.

The motivation for the Firewall letter is captured in this sentence from the document: "It's imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

Another telling part of the letter dated January 2001 noted "As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power."

Albertans overwhelming see themselves as Canadian even with a core group of about 10% separatist sentiment in the province. The mythology of a federal government plundering Alberta’s resources runs deep in certain sectors of Alberta society. It arises in the ghosts of another National Energy Program or the mistaken assumption that equalization payments are from Alberta resource revenues. The belief that equalization payments are made from federally expropriated Alberta resource dollars. There is no evidence for either of these myths but that rarely matters to some people in Alberta.

It really helps to have people like Mr. Boessenkool clarify the terms and scope of equalization as part of the national conversation, particularly around fed-prov relations and the role equalization plays as part of our Constitution.

It's Not About Politics. It's About the Planet

I have been watching, with increasing dismay, the diminishing level of political discourse on the issues surrounding climate change in national Canadian politics. The “debate” is not on the issues, the merits of policy options or the design of the way forward. It is almost entirely concentrated on efforts to define the “other guy” in negative terms for some less than adequate political “advantage.”

The Cons have a big television buy for their Attack Ads, attempting to position Dion as the guy who is totally responsible for all Liberal alleged lack of action on environment policy for the past 13 years. The Liberal rebuttal is Harper is merely a born-again environmentalist of political convenience but not a true believer and therefore not to be trusted.

The facts and evidence in support of each position are thin at best but that is not the issue really. There is plenty of blame to go around but time for action is a-wastin’ and we need some definitive action and serious competent political leadership with a larger vision and a longer view than the pending election.

My sense is Canadians will reward resolute, stringent and responsible regulations on GHG limits. The policy we need must encourage and provide incentives for what is nothing short of a culture change in how we live as part of nature and not as its “masters.” That is what polls are saying will be rewarded by the majority of citizen's at election time.

The people are much farther ahead of the politicians in seeing it is time to act on the issues of climate change. We know this is about “us” as much as it is about “them.” We know “we” as individuals, families, communities, countries and enterprises have to change first. We can’t afford to wait for “them” to move first and we have precious little leverage on others save persuasion and market forces.

We need our biggest brains, our most creative minds and our wisest thinkers to be unleashed and able to focus to help design a different way forward. We don’t need more communications consultants commissioned to produce misleading manufactured political rhetoric.

The policy framework for all of this is simple to see but difficult to deliver. It has to link economic growth to enhanced ecological outcomes and provide for improve social cohesion – on a local, national and international context. No big Whoop! (sic)

The chance to actually rethink our operational definitions of success and progress is upon us. Growth without concern for all the costs involved and the integrated ecological implications is no longer "on." The public policy change parade is forming and is at the tipping point for a new public policy approach.

The new approach must balance economic well being, ensure ecological enhancement and advance our social cohesion. The practical people, be they in business, politics or social activist, who can get in front of that parade with credibility and ability, will be the new leaders and agents of this change.

We need to attract, nurture and reward a different kind of person to come into politics if we want to change the nature of how we are governed in our democracy. I have great respect for the abilities of all the current leaders in our federal political parties. My sense is we have good people in a poor system because the system often rewards the wrong things. It is too much about attaining and exercising power for its own sake and not enough about defining progress and measuring achievements for the sake of us all.

This will only change when citizenship becomes something we all value and return to using its power to make a difference. The political system is only as good as the express expectations and the forceful insistence's of its citizens.