Subtle Change in Climate Change Deniers

It is becoming harder and harder to deny climate change and its impacts. In less than a week two very destructive hurricanes have devastated Florida and Eastern Canada. Here is Ottawa a freak May thunderstorm left a third of the city without power, many for over a week. In Europe droughts have impacted crops and dried up rivers and the list goes on.

Recently I have seen a subtle change in the arguments of those who have been denying climate change. While they are not admitting climate change is a problem they are beginning to assert that if it is then we only need to develop the right technologies to adapt to it.

So the argument goes, stop investing in ways to prevent climate change, because it is probably not real, but let's develop new technologies to adapt to it just in case it is.

With such an argument they can demand that the Federal Carbon Price program be eliminated while money should be spent on carbon capture technology and other technologies.

It is a convenient argument and it will probably be the focus of the Conservatives' proposals to "fight" climate change going into the next election. So, I hope their opponents are ready with the arguments against it when it comes.

Because of course they are wrong. Technology is certainly part of the answer. However, it is a simple fact that technology alone will not save us. We have to reduce ghg emissions as well. They will go hand-in-hand and there is not getting around it.

Look at it this way. We are in a boat on the lake and it has developed a substantial and worsening leak. We have a bucket to bail, which is keeping us from sinking but the hole is steadily getting bigger. For the climate deniers their solution is to use the bigger bucket, problem solved. Sounds stupid when you put it that way because, of course, the only real way to solve the problem is to patch the hole and then bail out the water that is still in the boat. 

That is where we are with climate change. We are bailing our asses off and staying ahead of the game but we continue to pump way too much ghg into the atmosphere and eventually it will get to a point where it will overwhelm the balance in our atmosphere with untold negative outcomes for our civilization and maybe our species. If we hope to have any chance to preventing that we need to reduce ghg emissions and develop new technologies that will allow us to adapt to the change in the climate that we are already experiencing. If we choose only one we are probably done.

I welcome climate change deniers at least acknowledging that something needs to be done but they still have some way to go. Hopefully, they get there when we still have the time or the concern about the climate and our future hits critical mass early enough and makes their denial irrelevant.

I continue to be pessimistic that we will either that happen before a global climate catastrophe befalls our civilization.

Is Mr. Poilievre flirting with touching the political third rail?

Last week, during successive Question Periods, in The House, the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada kept insisting that the payroll taxes used to fund Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plans should be reduced.

First, let's make one thing very clear. They are indeed taxes, more specifically payroll taxes, levied to fund specific government programs. Unlike other taxes, such as income taxes and the Goods and Services Tax, these payroll taxes do not go into the general revenue fund. They go into specially established pots of money to be used to fund EI and the CPP. As such, reducing these taxes would reduce the funds available for these programs. Eliminating them would have the defacto effect of eliminating both programs.

So, talking about reducing the taxes on either one can be construed by their political opponents as having a plan to significantly reduce or even eliminate these programs and make no mistake their opponents will be working hard to make those very connections when they believe it is to their political advantage.

Talking like that is stupid on several levels.

First, EI is used regularly by seasonal workers, who use that program to carry them through their off-seasons. They largely live in rural areas of Canada. Right now these very people seem to lean towards the Conservatives but that could change if they believe their livelihoods are threatened. This is particularly true in the rural areas of the Eastern provinces. It is likely that the margins of victory for Conservatives in rural Central and Western Canada would probably save them from losing many seats there but the same cannot be said about the Eastern provinces. Pissing off seasonal workers there will hand those seats to the Liberals. For the Conservatives to win they need to take at least net 20 seats from the Liberals while hoping that they do not pick up any seats from the Bloc or the NDP. That is a very daunting task and if they hand six to eight seats to the Liberals in the East it will be a near impossible task. But here they are making threatening statements about a program that many of their potential voters depend on. That does not seem smart.

With regard to the CPP that is even more of a danger area for them. It is a simple fact that every Canadian over the age of 45 is making retirement plans that assumes the CPP will be available to them. If it is not there those plans will be shot to hell. It is also a simple fact that the over 50 voter is still the most reliable voter amongst the electorate. If that demographic believes that the Conservatives are a credible threat to their retirement plans the Conservatives would be creamed in any election and I mean reduced to 2011 Liberal territory. Again it seems kind of stupid to take the risk of having their statements spun to their detriment.

As well, to make it worse, they said all of this in the House of Commons, where every word is recorded and published in the official record of the House, namely Hansard. So, their political opponents will be able to take those words and use them in the future to make life difficult for the Conservatives and they would be hard pressed to counter any of their opponents' claims because they are a matter of public record from a completely non-partisan source. They would be required to explain exactly what they meant and as the old saying goes: If you are explaining you are losing.

So why would the Conservatives take such a risk? My guess is they are not thinking past the end of the day. What I saw in QP last week was the Conservatives trying to "win" the daily theatre that is QP. It really does show a lack of forward thinking and long-term strategy. As Evan Scrimshaw rightly pointed out during the Conservative leadership campaign Pierre Poilievre never seemed to look past the current day. Every statement, action, social media post and meme was about winning that day, with no regard as to how it might impact him and the party in the future. The same seems to be happening now that he has secured the leadership.

It is a simple fact that Pierre Poilievre has said some really stupid and offensive things over the years and that it has all been recorded. The only saving grace for him is he can claim it was in the past. However, now he is adding to the hopper as the Leader of the Official Opposition and the erstwhile PM-in-waiting and he will not be able to claim it is not relevant once someone brings them up. And make no mistake they will be bringing them up between now and the next election and with the amount of time left until that election they will penetrate the consciousness of the average voter. 

If Pierre Poilievre really wants to be PM he has to change his mindset and start to think strategically. Unfortunately for him and the CPC I do not believe he actually knows how to do that and I also think that he has surrounded himself with advisors who are unable to do it either. As someone who never wants to see him as PM I am fine with that but if you are a Conservative supporter, who can live with some of the crap he has promised in the last 6 months, then you should be concerned.

As Expected Some are Writing the PM's Political Epitaph, Again

With the election of Pierre Poilievre many of the usual suspects in the Canadian media have asserted that PM Trudeau is finished. They confidently assert that he will lose the next election. And right on cue a couple of polls came out today seeming to "prove" their assertions. 

Of course, this is nothing new. These bozos have been saying  this since forever. Indeed it never seems to stop. It became ridiculous a long time ago.

As I have stated many times you have to ignore the polls and pundits to see how politics is going. My attitude towards the public polls is well known if you read this blog. As for the pundits there is a reason why they are providing their services to a media outlet and not a political party. They suck at political strategy and prognostication. Criminy, my amateur ass is better at it than they are. 

Then again that is no surprise. I attended Carleton U back in the day where I earned a Political Science degree. That is, I studied politics. The University has a journalism school and I met more than one journalism student in my classes. The thing is, they usually only took one or two of those classes as electives. Naturally, they spent most of their time learning how to be journalists and not observing and analyzing politics. I have noticed a few of these folks are now "Political Correspondents" for major news outlets and I always get a chuckle from their political "analyses".

At any rate, if the PM's and the Liberal Party's political fortunes are as bad as the polls and the pundits would have us believe we would see it. Governments have survival instincts as keen as any living creature. If they really feel threatened you can see it. Looking at the current government they are showing no signs of any political distress. Hell, I have watched political leaders who knew they were in trouble and although they put on a brave face you could tell they were troubled and we are not seeing that with the PM. In all likelihood, their internal data is indicating that they are still in good political shape. 

Make no mistake the current government is getting long in the tooth and the next election will be very tough for them. They could even lose it. However, that election is probably not going to happen for at least another year and possibly later. 

Eventually, Justin Trudeau's political career will come to an end. I would say after the next election regardless of the final outcome. Either he will lose and he will move on or he will win and decide not to fight a fifth election, leaving the PM's post a year or so after that election. Until then the pollsters and the pundits should stop asserting the PM will lose the next election until that election actually takes place. They are just making themselves look foolish.

No F*cks Given

Ok folks let's remember that no one becomes the leader of a G7 government without having very good to excellent political instincts. That person could have brilliant political operatives as assistants but if the leader does not have their own they will not succeed.

So when Mr. Trudeau decided to belt out a Queen song, while wearing a t-shirt, in the lobby of a public hotel he knew that it would come out and that in this day and age video of it would be made public. Further if he thought it would cause him political harm he would have not have done it.

He knew the usual suspects would bitch about it but they have been finding things to bitch about him since 2013 and some of them started when he eulogized his father way back when. These people do not and have never liked him because of his name, his politics and/or the fact he kicked the old Liberal guard to the curb when he won the leadership of the Liberal Party.

So when the time came he let himself be himself. 

Politics and the Gifts that Keep on Giving

Political gifts that keep on giving are those policies, laws, regulations, events or people that a political party can use to keep its base angry or motivated and/or they can use to continually bludgeon their political opponents. They are quite rare and they are a precious commodity.

Canadian examples are the old Long Gun Registry and Justin Trudeau. 

In the United States Donald Trump counts as one but the greatest gift that kept on giving was Roe v Wade. That particular decision was extremely useful to the Republicans for decades

Considering their usefulness political parties are very reluctant to change them, especially since doing so could have some unintended consequences.

You only need to look at the Long Gun Registry to see what happens when a political party surrenders such gifts. The Conservative Party of Canada bludgeoned the Liberals for years over that registry and the fact its implementation went way over budget. It kept their voters angry and motivated. However, when they won a majority government in 2011 they eliminated it. I realize they did not have much choice but when they did that they gave up a weapon they could use against the Liberals. So in 2015, when the Conservatives accused the Liberals of planning on bringing back the Gun Registry it was pathetic to watch. You could tell the party was really missing that particular gift. Then the Liberals won the election and instead of creating another Registry they just banned military style weapons. You see, the Gun Registry was a compromise to control the military style weapons without actually banning them. The message being you can keep your assault rifles but we want to know where they are. Of course, many gun owners believed the Registry was just a way to find all of the guns so that "the Liberals" could take them away and they fought against it and demanded a Conservative government eliminate it as soon as possible. So, the next time the Liberals decided to do something about assault weapons they just banned them, something they would not have done if the Gun Registry had still existed. So, by having the Gun Registry banned the outcome was the one most gun owners feared. Schmucks.

As for Roe v Wade, successive Republican presidents and politicians strung their supporters along for five decades. They railed against it but failed to actually do anything concrete about it. It never failed to fire up the base come election time. Then the Tea Party took over the Republican Party and they made the strategic mistake of actually nominating Presidential candidates that nominated judges who would overturn the decision. It finally happened and now they have provided the Democrats with a winning issue for the foreseeable future. You see, with Roe v Wade in place Republicans could not actually attempt or suggest a national ban on abortion. The law prevented it. With that decision overturned Trumplicans are going to demand such a national ban and that is trouble for the Republicans. You see, the reason why Republicans did nothing about Roe v Wade for so long is because abortion is not a winning issue for them. It is an issue to fire up the base but if they want to win the last thing they want to do is actually talk about a national ban. On the other hand the threat of a national ban is a boon for the Democrats. It is just such an issue that will motivate Democratic voters to vote. If you have been paying attention to the last four years you will have noted that during the 2018 midterms, the 2020 Presidential election and the 2020 special elections in Georgia, Democrats came out to vote in record numbers. In all cases they won. The math is simple. There are more Democrats in the US than Republicans. The Republicans know it, which is why they pursue laws and measures to suppress voting. Giving the Democrats an issue they can use to motivate their voters is a bad idea. And this is an issue that will just not go away. Say the Democrats win the House and Senate in November. They may pass a federal law protecting abortion, which would force the Republicans to promise to repeal such a law when they got the chance, providing the Democrats with the opportunity to use the threat of an abortion ban to motivate Democrats to vote 2024, 2026 and so on. In short, Republicans will be forced to propose a ban on abortions during every future election which for most strategically minded Republican is a nightmare.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and why he has not yet been indicted. It is simple really. In 2020 the fact he was President brought out Democrats to vote in unprecedented numbers. His reaction and actions after the 2020 election brought out Democrats in Georgia, allowing the Democrats to win control of the Senate. His presence and the stuff he has been saying and doing leading up to the 2022 mid-term elections are being used by Democrats to convince their voters that they need to vote in November, which when combined with the Dobbs decision could allow them to hang on to the House and gain full control of the Senate. In short, Donald Trump is now the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats and they may be very reluctant to give him up by seeing him indicted. If his only alleged crime was he incited the January 6th insurrection they probably would not bother to indict him. The investigation would probably just drag on until after 2024. However, if there is evidence he kept nuclear secrets in his private home, after he left office, then authorities will have to act sooner but do not be surprised if they wait until after the mid-term elections are history.

Well Moderate Conservatives, what are you going to do now?

The results of the leadership vote for the Conservative Party of Canada should prove to you that you no longer have a home there. The guy that represented you did not even receive 20% of the votes and lost to the winner by around 40 points. Throughout the election campaign the winner kept stating that your guy was not even a Conservative, he said he was a Liberal. If you want further proof you only need to look to the reaction to the moderate conservative member from Quebec who quit the CPC caucus to sit as an independent. He has reported that he has received a ton of hate mail from Conservatives since his decision and non other that Ezra Levant has stated that he is not really a Conservative anyway so it is no loss.

So, I believe you have four choices.

One: Grit your teeth and keep voting for the CPC because we all know that to do otherwise is anathema to you and besides you do not like Justin Trudeau any more than Pierre Poilievre and his ilk. You just don't want him hanged for treason. Doing that of course could result in considerable hardship for countless Canadians, including yourself, because the CPC really has no interest in governing. They only want to tear down what has taken generations to build, pray at the alter of oil and gas, an industry in the twilight of its existence, allowing the opportunities presented by green tech and the the huge economic benefits of it to be taken advantage of elsewhere and implement their regressive social conservative agenda. You may believe that you can moderate the CPC from the inside but this weekend should put paid to that notion. If you vote for the CPC in the next election and they win any chance of you influencing that party in the future will be gone FOREVER.

Two: Form a moderate conservative political party. If you choose to do that good luck. You would probably be a thorn in the side of the CPC but like the PPC such a party would probably never be more than a nuisance to the CPC and it would also eliminate any chance of you influencing the CPC in the future.

Three: Grit your teeth even harder and vote for the Liberals. I know that such a notion probably gives you the heebee jeebees. Vote Liberal, NEVER!! However, maybe what you should do it stop thinking with your dick and start thinking strategically. As I have stated before if you really want to have a shot at taking back the CPC, the current party establishment has to be discredited and losing big to Justin Trudeau would do the trick. The humiliation of the Liberals in 2011 was a blessing in disguise because it allowed Justin Trudeau to come in, toss the party establishment into the dustbin of history and renew and refresh the party for the 21st Century. The humiliation of the CPC in the next election could have the same effect. Perhaps thinking past the next election is in order.

Fourth: Don't vote at all in the next election. I would advise against that because I would never suggest anybody not vote, even if they plan on voting for a party I would not like to see in power. However, this could have a similar effect to voting for the Liberals. One of the reasons why the Liberals were humiliated in 2011 was voter turnout for them was way down from the previous two elections. Or to put it another way, Liberals just decided not to vote. 

Whatever you decide, just remember that if you actually want to influence the direction Canada takes in the future you are going to have to find a political home and doing so will involve some tough choices and sacrifice. If you are unwilling to do that then you will be without political representation and influence for at least generation. 

Your move.

The Conservative Leadership Election

After yet one more Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, which had a few relatively minor oddities (the sudden disqualification of one of the candidates, representatives of one of the candidates handling thousands of ballots before they were counted) Pierre Poilievre won the post, surprising no one.

So what does it all mean? Who knows.

However, things are going to progress in a predictable fashion. He will try to begin the process of presenting himself as non-threatening and the media will let him because they are Conservative supporters themselves or they are afraid of being accused of bias by asking tough questions. Of course that is their main function in a democracy so if they are not willing to do that I again ask the question: "Is the concept of a free press still valid?" But I digress.

However, once the "honeymoon" is over he will find himself in the unenviable position of being the Leader of the Official Opposition and he will be there for a number of years before facing the voters. His overwhelming win is going to create high expectations for him going forward and one of those expectations will be to try to put the Liberal government off of its game. I don't know if anybody has noticed but that has not happened since they won power. If he is also unsuccessful he will have the same problems as his two predecessors. As well, Mr. Poilievre has said some things in the past and he will probably say some things in the future that could come back to haunt him. A compliant media will do what they can to shield him but his new found prominence will cause the more outrageous things he said to come out and people will pay attention. He is no longer a back bencher. He is the big cheese now so he will be scrutinized much more closely, despite the best efforts of his media friends. This is particularly true if the election really does not take place until 2025. Three years is a long time to hide some of the stupidly dangerous, offensive, and racist things he has said during an 18 year political career and it is sufficient time for it all to sink in.

Then there is the matter of leadership. Can he actually lead the Conservative Party of Canada, a Party with many factions, all of which will not water down their wine for the cause? That is the problem with leading a party of ideologues. They are all completely committed to their particular cause and if the Leader does not do his utmost to achieve their objectives then they will turn on him, even if that will deny the party power. You see ideologues believe that if the leader does not pursue their goals with single minded purpose they will be able to find someone who will and still be able to win a general election. If you do not believe me then I would point you to Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Scheer. The solution that his predecessors followed was to pander. It satisfied no one and lead to their ultimate political demise.

Ideally, he would use this time to renew and rejuvenate the CPC but that is not what he was elected to do. His job is to lead the Party created by Stephen Harper into the next election. To do otherwise is strictly forbidden. So he will follow the same strategy of Mr. Harper and his two successors. Throw red meat at the base to keep them angry and motivated and pivot to moderation when the time is right to shake loose enough voters outside of the base to eke out a victory. That strategy worked three out of the four times Stephen Harper did it but is was a dismal failure in 2019 and 2021. The Conservatives are hoping that Mr. Poilievre will be able to strike gold again using it during the next election.

Now of course the next election will be the fourth one for the Liberal government and the PM and the inevitable voter fatigue with a sitting government will be a factor in that election. However, things will be a little different from the last time the CPC replaced a Liberal government. Justin Trudeau is not Paul Martin, Maxime Bernier is stalking the CPC on the right, the stunning and decisive rejection of Jean Charest has demonstrated that there are very few moderate conservatives left in the CPC, and social media has completely blown up the ability of political leaders to control the message. Between now and the next election it is inevitable that he will have to deal with bozo eruptions from his caucus and prominent Conservatives. All of this will create drag on his efforts to replace the Liberal government.

Is it Time for the Federal Government be More Hands on with Healthcare?

It took awhile but the media has finally woken up to the fact that health care services in most of Canada have not been up to standard this summer. The media tried to ignore it for quite some time, instead talking about delays at Pearson Airport, Justin Trudeau's new hair cut and other banalities.

However, despite it going on for some time they could just not ignore the state of health care services any longer. As a result, health care has become the most pressing issue for Canadians, if you are to believe the latest public polls. 

The reason for the state of health care is the neglect of the system by Conservative provincial governments in this country of course. They all want to introduce some form of privatization into the system and they believe the best way to do that is to starve the public system so that people will accept more privatization as the solution. I do not believe that will actually work as they believe but they will still try.

One of the issues that has lead to this situation is the fact that provincial governments have taken funds from the Federal government, that were supposed to be used for health care, and used them for something else. It is probably not unreasonable to assume some of the $4 billion the Federal government transferred to the Ontario government paid for the licence sticker rebates before the last provincial election. Ontario was not unique but that has not stopped all of the provinces from crying poor and demanding more Federal funding to not spend on health care.

The Federal government is rightfully hesitant to throw more money at the provinces knowing full well that the money will be misappropriated. However that does not mean the Federal government cannot increase health transfers, they just need to skip over the provincial governments and transfer funds directly to health care providers.

In the next few months the Federal government should announce programs to do just that. The funding should be made available through Grants and Contributions programs, which are the most common way to provide funding to individual Canadians and organizations.

Such an approach would create a great deal of pushback from the Provincial governments but if the Federal programs are designed properly they would not have a leg to stand on. The administration of health care is the responsibility of the Provincial governments but that does not mean the Federal government cannot get involved in providing direct funding and assistance to health care providers. The programs would have to be designed so that they do not interfere with the Provinces' abilities to administer health care but it is doable.

Such as approach would also help the Liberals politically. Yes, the Provincial governments would have conniption fits but that is to be expected and it would have the same impacts on our politics as past Federal/Provincial disputes, namely none. With health care and its problems on everybody's minds proposing such programs would be widely appreciated by the electorate. The general sentiment would probably be "Finally, the Federal government is taking action to "save" our health care system". Such a proposal would put the Conservatives into a real bind. Their default position is to reject any proposal from the Liberals and to promise to cancel any program created by them. Having such a position with regard to programs designed to sustain and enhance the public health care system would turn off the very voters they would need to win an election. Even the Bloc would have a hard time opposing this for the same reason.

As for the NDP, I mentioned in my last post that the Liberals should move to vacuum up some of the centre-right voters, who currently do not have a political home, by proposing some policies that would appeal to them. Such a strategy could endanger the agreement the Liberals have with the NDP on money and supply motions in the House but the NDP would be hard pressed to reject them if it meant rejecting health care programs. They would do it if they believed the Liberals were in political trouble, we have seen that in the past, but if the Liberals are still in good political shape then they would not be able to bring down the government.

For decades Conservative provincial governments have been introducing privatization into our public health care system with impunity because they have been subtle about it. They have been nibbling around the edges. The pandemic has exposed the flaws these actions have created in the health care system, along with others that existed as part of the system to begin with, and it would appear that all of the Provincial governments have decided to be less subtle. Many Canadians are very worried about our health care systems, including Canadians who generally support conservative parties, so the situation is ripe for an intervention by the Federal government. If done right it could stabilize the system, wrong foot Conservatives across the country and help the Federal Liberals politically for the next few years.