Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Dan Guadagnolo calls out the spinmeisters trying to torque job availability numbers to portray workers receiving coronavirus relief as lazy rather than deserving. And Christian Favreau notes that in fact, the real danger is that any recovery plan will be used to further enrich the already-wealthy while inflicting yet another round of crushing austerity on the poor and working class.

- Angus Reid studies public health compliance among the supporters of different parties, and unsurprisingly finds that conservatives are far more likely to be "cynical spreaders" putting people at risk for no good reason. And Tyler Barton and Anand Parekh offer some lessons from around the world about reopening schools - with the rate of community transmission serving as the most importance factor in avoiding outbreaks.

- Jeff Lewis and Rod Nickel discuss how improved measuring systems are revealing that the Canadian oil and gas sector is spewing out far more dangerous methane than previously recorded. And Laura Hurst reports on the increasing number of oil and gas companies doubting that there's any point in seeking out new projects. 

- Finally, David Roberts examines new research showing to effectively use carbon pricing as part of a set of policies to avert climate breakdown - rather than relying on it as a climate policy unto itself.

On common viewpoints

I haven't yet blogged about Angus Reid's poll on how respondents see the economic issue ads released earlier this year by the NDP and Cons. But I'll take a moment to point out both the most significant conclusion so far, and the next steps for the NDP in building toward government.

Here's Angus Reid's analysis of the partisan breakdown of the responses:

The ads definitely serve to both keep the supporters of the two main parties engaged, and irk their counterparts. New Democrats believe the Tory ad is unfair, and Conservatives feel the same way about the NDP ad.

Still, it’s important to look at how other past voters react to these advertisements. The views of supporters of the Liberal Party and the Green Party are similar to those of New Democrats, particularly on the deficit and on the low confidence expressed in Stephen Harper’s leadership.

Green voters hold the same level of confidence in Thomas Mulcair (63%) that New Democrats give their current leader.

And that analysis itself leaves out plenty more examples of Lib and Green supporters reacting even more strongly than NDP supporters in the direction one might expect.

In evaluating the Cons' attacks on Tom Mulcair, a slightly higher proportion of Lib supporters classified the Cons' spin as "unfair", "offensive" and "untrue" compared to their NDP counterparts; likewise Green respondents were more likely to rate the Cons' attacks as "untrue", while having an even lower inclination to consider it "informative", "fair" or "true" than current NDP supporters.

Likewise, the NDP's economic ad struck a chord as "informative" with slightly more Lib respondents than NDP supporters, while Greens were the most likely to see it as "true" and the least likely to rate it as "untrue" or "unfair".

Now, Angus Reid's results do highlight one area for future improvement on geographic lines. Even though Ontario and B.C. respondents are broadly more in agreement with the NDP's ad than the Cons', they still rate Stephen Harper somewhat more highly on a separate "confidence in leadership" question. Which shouldn't be surprising in matching an incumbent Prime Minister against a relatively new leader - but does signal that Harper himself isn't yet wearing the distrust those respondents have for his party's spin.

But the good news is that there's plenty of time and opportunity to tie the two together. And with Libs and Greens seeming no less receptive to the NDP's message than core supporters, the main task for the NDP looks to be reaching out to enough of the large Con-skeptical audience which finds its economic message informative.

On improved positions

Last week, I noted the top-line results from Angus Reid's latest federal polling. But perhaps even more important than the stability in Canada's party polling numbers is the question of which party is living up to the expectations underlying its popular support. And for all the work some have done to attack the NDP in its new role as Official Opposition, the poll results show respondents happier with the NDP than with any other party.

To start with, the party momentum scores show the NDP leading the way in the number of respondents saying their opinion of the party has improved. In fact, the NDP's 23% score on that from matches the Cons, Libs and Bloc combined. And the NDP also saw fewer respondents indicate a worsening opinion than any of those parties - putting the NDP's momentum score at par, compared to -11 for the Cons, -25 for the Libs and -33 for the Bloc.

So rather than disappointing its newfound voters, the NDP has actually done far better than any other party at living up to and exceeding voters' expectations. But what effect might that have on actual voting patterns in the future?

Well, the poll also included a question as to how many 2011 voters actually do regret their choice to the point where they'd prefer to have supported another party. And a stunning 20% of those who voted for the Libs now say they'd rather have supported the NDP.

Translating that to the Libs' share of the popular vote, roughly 4% of voters can be classified as having voted Lib, only to wish that they'd supported the NDP - by far the largest group of respondents with regrets about their voting choice. And the Lib/NDP swing looks to be the only one with such a massive imbalance as to who's having second thoughts: while most of the inter-party swings tend to be roughly equal on either side, the number of voters who would now switch a vote from Lib to NDP is more than double that which would go in the opposite direction (roughly 4% to 2% of voters).

So for all the well-spun talk about how the NDP would fall flat on its face, the truth is that it's exceeded expectations and left plenty of voters with the sense that they'd have been better off supporting the party. And one could hardly ask for a better set of public perceptions as the NDP looks to build on its election result.

On value judgments

One last note from yesterday's Angus Reid post-election polling, as an election which changed so much in terms of Canada's party standings doesn't seem to have done anything to diminish the gap between Canadians and their governing party:

The polling company's survey also revealed that Canadians generally hold liberal values, except when it comes to serious crime.

Almost four out of five Canadians, but slightly fewer British Columbians, say the courts "need to give much tougher sentences to all those convicted of criminal acts."

However, most Canadians balked at jailing people for minor offences such as breaking and entering, saying: "It does more harm than good."

The live-and-let-live views of Canadians came out strongly on sexual morality, with 83 per cent of Canadians agreeing "the lifestyles of gay and lesbian people are just as valid as those of heterosexual people."

However, Canadians aren't opposed to government intervention on non-bedroomrelated (sic) issues. Three-quarters of Canadians want stricter environmental regulations, saying they're "worth the cost."

Another 68 per cent of Canadians believe governments need to provide more financial aid to the poor, suggesting most Canadians don't oppose political action for the common good.

Finally, even though a majority of Canadians supported various tax cuts, only one out of five agreed that "government debt should be reduced, even if it means cuts in health care."

Of course, the latter three points all reflect areas where the Cons tried to at least feign interest during the course of the election campaign, so they may not serve as evidence of future party preferences. But they surely figure to limit how far even a majority government can go in then opposite direction.

Meanwhile, the one issue where public opinion seems to clash meaningfully with that of our political class is that of criminal sentencing - where even with little partisan pushback against five years of Con posturing, a majority of Canadians don't buy the claim that the proper response to any criminal offence is to lock up the offender and throw away the key. And with that many respondents recognizing the problems with mandatory minimums on their own, there would seem to be ample room for the NDP to give a stronger political voice to that position.

On mandates

Following up on this post, here's another interesting tidbit from Angus Reid's post-election polling:

In addition, almost two out of three Canadians (and British Columbians) favour "mandatory voting" like in Australia.

Which makes for a striking finding, considering that somewhat less than two-thirds of Canadians actually voted in the absence of an obligation to do so. But it also suggests that the mandatory debate happening elsewhere may have some resonance with the general public - and also suggests that despite the Cons' efforts to paint even minimal compulsory contributions like the long-form census as being beyond the pale, the current public mood may in fact support greater government action to ensure public involvement in shaping our country's direction.

On hopeful signs

There are a few noteworthy developments in Angus Reid's post-election polling. But let's start with what looks like the most significant theme, as a large number of voters look to have rejected any attempt to diminish either the election or the political system in favour of a far more positive outlook than they held just weeks earlier:

Vancouver-based Angus Reid pollsters have discovered Canadians became more hopeful about politics as the decisive election campaign raged on.

Canadians' revved-up regard for the democratic process held firm even after Stephen Harper's Conservatives won their first majority and the New Democrats for the first time became the official Opposition.

More than 61 per cent of the population told Angus Reid pollsters after the election they were "proud to be Canadian."

"The respect for politicians actually went up during the election campaign. People got engaged," Angus Reid pollster Andrew Grenville said.

Almost half the population agreed a "Conservative majority will be good for Canada," with a solid 64 per cent applauding the NDP's Jack Layton moving into Stornoway, the Opposition leader's official residence.

Soon after the May 2 election, more than seven out of 10 people agreed that "federal politicians are working very hard to help create a better Canada."

Of course, the question for the NDP now is how to tap into that positive sentiment - both toward it in particular, and the political system in general - to build its movement going into 2015. But a more optimistic populace looks to be a great place to start, particularly when the main opposing message is one that looks to devalue both government and democratic participation at every turn.

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Brian Topp's take on the debates is worth a read in full. But particularly interesting is his evaluation of the Harper Cons' failings throughout the campaign:

Stephen Harper's "approach march" to the debates was foolish. His campaign misunderstood its opportunity to make a mainstream appeal to Canadians – something that is apparently not in the DNA of those who run it. And so Mr. Harper spent the first two weeks ranting angrily about the opposition...(T)he bad news, for Conservatives, was that there was nothing in the angry, outraged and isolated Tory Leader to appeal to mainstream (notably female) voters. As a tactical proposition, the first phase of Mr. Harper's campaign fed perfectly into the Liberal "we are entitled to your vote" narrative. It's a neat trick, for the Conservative campaign to be that bad all at once: missing your golden opportunity; undoing your establishing (sic) work; and providing much of the fuel one of your opponents is running on.

- Ellen Russell discusses the harm done to Canada's federal finances by the Cons' boutique tax slashing:

Tax cuts give Harper "announceables." He can look like he is doing something by announcing attractively named tax cuts, regardless of whether these tax cuts actually have any reasonable chance of achieving their stated purpose. If you really wanted to promote public transit or fitness there are much more efficient ways to do it. These quirky tax cuts have nothing to do with solving genuine problems and everything to do with buying votes.

Even if you qualify for some of these tax cuts (and many of us do not) they are not really much help to most Canadians. I know the Conservatives argue that every bit helps, so you should be grateful if you save $40 here and $15 there on your taxes. But that is not the point. Consider how much better off you would be if all of the money used up by those tax cuts were put towards something truly meaningful -- like a national childcare or pharmacare program.

Harper markets these tax cuts to Canadian families who are struggling to make ends meet, but they are often useless for lower income households. To get money back on your taxes you have to have the upfront cash to pay for your public transit pass or child's fitness program. Many households can't afford to pay for stuff now and wait until tax time to get a little something back. And if you are so poor that you don't have enough income to pay taxes, these tax credits give you zippo.

For a guy that is supposedly committed to smaller, less in intrusive government, these tax cuts are dripping with hypocrisy. Every time Harper makes the tax system more complex with a designer tax cut, more bureaucrats are needed to manage it. Somebody has to answer the calls from taxpayers wondering if Junior's attendance at "graffiti for beginners" class is eligible for the Children's Arts Tax Credit. So with each new tax gimmick, our tax returns become more complex to fill out. After years of this foolishness, you will never throw away receipts for anything, and even folks with simple tax returns will resort to hiring professionals just to make sure they are filling in the forms properly.

Tax cuts are also hard to get rid of, even if they serve no useful purpose. Government spending measures are reviewed constantly, ostensibly to verify that taxpayers are getting value for their money. But tax cuts stay in force indefinitely, with virtually no scrutiny to check if they are actually achieving anything for the forgone tax revenue.

- The Star provides its English debate response counterpart to yesterday's report from the French debate. And it may be most striking in revealing that pitches for a majority government, for more cooperation and for specific policies (without any particular statement as to who will be involved in those efforts) both proved fairly popular with viewers who were often annoyed by the balance of the debate:

Interest and happiness, on the other hand, was highest when the politicians talked about specific policies. And, perhaps notably, happiness was highest among the four clips when Harper said in his closing remarks: “I hope Canadians do elect a majority government.”
...
Viewers registered strong opinions about the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, becoming highly “disturbed” and “annoyed” when Ignatieff spoke about an extended commitment. They liked when the leaders talked about working together, though they were also happy and interested when Layton slammed the Liberals for arrogance.

- Toby Sanger points out how Canadian finance and insurance companies are abusing tax havens more and more to avoid paying their fair share at home.

- And finally, Erin rightly questions Jeffrey Simpson's bizarre distinction between a corporate tax rate of 18% (in the Libs' platform) which he finds to be acceptable, and one of 19.5% (in the NDP's platform) which he uses as an excuse for typical corporatist hand-wringing.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading...

- David MacDonald's CCPA report on the complete lack of any return on a decade of corporate tax cuts is worth a read in full. But his blog post offers the ideal summary:

I took Canada’s biggest public companies, those on the S&P/TSX Composite and tracked them over the past decade to see how their taxes and profits changed. At the same time, I also tracked how many employees they had and therefore the number of jobs they created. These are the companies that benefit the most from corporate tax cuts because they declare the largest profits.

There were 198 companies that had data from 2000 through 2009. What readers should find shocking is just how dramatic the transformation in corporate taxation has been in the past decade. The effective tax rate that these successful companies have paid has been cut in half. Imagine if as an individual your personal income taxes had been cut in half over the past decade, well that’s what happened in corporate Canada.

With such a dramatic change, it should be no surprise that compared to 2000, profits are up 50% while taxes paid are down 20%. The tab for corporate tax cuts for just these 200 companies is $12 billion a year in lost provincial and federal revenues. To give readers a sense of scale, that much money could buy us a national $10/day childcare program and wipe out poverty among seniors with money left over.

The bargain that Canada made with its most profitable corporations was that if we give them dramatic tax cuts they’ll use that money to create jobs. We’ve cut the cheque, worth $12 billion a year in 2009, so did we get the jobs?

The Canadian economy as a whole has increased the number of jobs by 6% since 2005. However, the 200 companies that are receiving the $12 billion a year tax break have only increased their job numbers by 5%, in effect they are pulling down the average.

Instead of creating jobs with those billions, they have merely increased their profits or are sitting on the cash. Canadians should expect vastly more for $12 billion a year.

- The hope for the current election is that Edmonton-Strathcona will be joined by one or more other Edmonton ridings in turfing the out-of-touch Cons. But that quibble as to the state of other Alberta races aside, Josh Wingrove provides an entertaining read on Linda Duncan's work to win her seat once again.

- Meanwhile, Joel-Denis Bellavance notes that the NDP's ascent in Quebec continues, including a strong second-place showing at 24% in the latest Angus Reid poll.

- Finally, while I don't agree with all of Mike Moffatt's proposals, they certainly look to offer a far wider range of policy ideas than we're seeing from a lot of parties in the current election campaign. And indeed, I'd be curious to see a leaders' debate focusing in on some of the ideas raised - particularly the merits of a GAI, and the harm done by the Cons' boutique tax credits.

On safe choices

If we needed more evidence that the Cons' constant fearmongering about crime is far less effective among the general public than the political sphere, Angus Reid provides it:

Canadians are feeling secure in their communities, with 57 per cent rating their safety as excellent or good. Yet Canadians don’t appear willing to give credit to the Conservatives and their law-and-order agenda.

Just 14 per cent say they feel safer than they did five years ago while the majority (62 per cent) said they didn’t see a difference.

So a significant majority of Canadians are rightly rejecting the idea that we need to build and pack dozens of new prisons in order to feel safe in our communities. And even of those left over, a majority don't see the Cons as having done any good.

What's all the more remarkable is that the poll comes after a five-year span where the Cons have gone largely unchallenged in bleating constantly about crime to distract from their lack of interest in governing in more important areas. And the fact that the public has proven so resilient in disagreeing with the Cons' dumb-on-crime position should make for reason for the opposition parties to be far more confident in both minimizing the importance of crime compared to the issues Canadians really care about, and strongly countering the Cons' rhetoric on the subject.

On satisfactory outcomes

It still remains to be seen exactly what Stephen Harper will do to stay in power if the Cons face defeat in the House of Commons after the next federal election. But based on Angus Reid's latest poll about possible election outcomes, at least one of the Cons' previously mooted strategies to cling to power looks to be doomed to failure:

With a Conservative minority government, 44 per cent would not be satisfied while 31 per cent would be content.

A scenario where the Conservatives win more seats than any other single party, but the Liberals and the NDP form a coalition government—having more combined seats than the Conservatives—would leave 31 per cent of Canadians satisfied, and 43 per cent dissatisfied.

Canadians would be most unhappy with a scenario in which the Conservatives win the most seats but the Liberals and NDP form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Québécois. Only one-in-four Canadians (25%) would be satisfied with this outcome, while half of respondents (50%) would be dissatisfied.

In other words, any thought of "taking it to the people" to override the majority of voters and MPs looks to be entirely misplaced.

In fact, a Lib/NDP government is ever so slightly seen as a better outcome than a Con one even under the poll's artificial assumption that the Cons will end up with the most seats on their own - which can only signal that the Cons won't find a public that's the least bit receptive to spin about their having won an election if they can't hold the support of the House. And even the option of a coalition supported by the Bloc isn't all that much lower in its level of public approval.

Of course, it's also worth noting that absolutely none of the government options presented by Angus Reid meets with more than 34% approval. But that too figures to reflect some serious dissatisfaction with the choices respondents were given - and that might well serve as reason to hope that voters will end up looking for far more options when they actually get to decide for themselves.

Tuesday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Brian Topp highlights one of the main lessons coming out of David Miller's time as mayor of Toronto:

The current debate about Toronto’s government and future demonstrates a hard political fact. If citizens cannot see what their government is doing, then, politically, to some extent, it is as if those achievements didn’t happen. It is extremely difficult for any government at any level to communicate what it doing to citizens. Speeches by the chief executive don’t do the job.

Lesson for the future: the next time there is a progressive administration in Toronto, it needs to find a way to clean the dirty boys out of the back door while still operating a muscular and unabashedly political strategic/communications team.

- I'm all for creative efforts to engage citizens online. But keeping in mind the enthusiasm for Rick Mercer's Doris Day petition just a decade ago, what are the odds that the Online Party of Canada won't vote itself out of existence if it's in any danger of getting anywhere?

- Needless to say, it's not at all surprising that knowledge about Sean Bruyea's now-vindicated privacy concerns went all the way to the top. But don't worry: while the PMO is perpetually involved in message control, it does seem to be willing to accept limitations on its power when it comes time to actually doing anything useful:

On Sept. 26, 2006, Shaw wrote Bruyea to inform him that neither the PMO or veterans affairs minister’s office could get involved in the handling of his personal file in order to deal with his benefit entitlements. She referred Bruyea to a department official. The e-mail did not address Bruyea’s concerns about the mishandling of his private information.

- Finally, today's Angus Reid poll would be a lot more meaningful if it hadn't unduly limited its scope to respondents' opinions of the Cons and Libs. But there's still an interesting gap between questions of high-level economic policy - where the Cons have a lead - and the one dealing with jobs which is currently a wash between the two parties included in the poll. And the more Canadians start to distinguish between job issues that affect them directly and more abstract issues like debt and inflation, the more trouble the Cons figure to have in trying to run a campaign on the economy.

On choice results

Steve has already discussed the latest Angus Reid leadership poll where "Neither" is not only outpolling both Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion for PM, but appears to be in majority-government territory with a steady standing in the high 30s to low 40s.

It's worth pointing out though that it isn't the leaders alone who look bad as a result of the unduly narrow poll. After all, after three months of a plurality saying they don't want either Harper or Dion in charge, it's surely long past time for Angus Reid to stop pretending that Canadians have only two choices.

Negligent omissions

For all the talk today about Angus Reid's latest poll, not to mention Robert's rightful frustration with media double standards, I'm surprised nobody has yet commented on the most obvious omission from the poll.

After all, with the NDP polling within 5 points of the Libs, not to mention the Greens only another 6 points behind, it would surely make sense to at least allow respondents to give their opinions on Jack Layton and Elizabeth May as well. But instead, the poll only addressed Harper and Dion as individual leaders. Which in turn helps to both minimize the options Canadians have in opposing Harper, and perpetuate the usual "horse race" Lib/Con comparison - even as the party numbers within the poll show that nearly 40% of respondents plan on parking their votes elsewhere.

Of course, the results of this particular poll may make the omission particularly galling. (For those looking for other additional results worth analyzing, the precipitous drop in "right track/wrong track" and the NDP's relatively strong youth showing are probably worth some ink.)

But in general, there's no excuse for failing to consider more than just Harper and Dion in comparing Canada's leaders. And narrow coverage of the type applied in this poll is all too likely to keep either the NDP or the Greens from occupying as strong a position in Canada's political scene as they would if given a fair comparison.