Open issues

The Globe and Mail's coverage of the latest shift in Strategic Counsel's poll of public concerns focuses on the problems caused for the Libs by the fact that the environment has dropped to #3 on the list of the most pressing issues facing Canada. But it's worth noting that the three main concerns seem to offer three different issues of roughly equal concern - each of which can easily be linked primarily to one of the national parties:

As the cost of filling the tank hits uncharted heights – and is predicted to go even higher – a wide-ranging survey conducted by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV suggests energy prices are on par with the sagging economy when it comes to Canadians' worries.

The environment, last year's top issue, has been pushed to No. 3, with just 16 per cent of Canadians surveyed saying they now consider it their primary concern...

In Canada, 18 per cent of respondents said the rising cost of gas was the most important issue. That was equal to the percentage in this country who named the economy as their No. 1 concern. In the past three years, gas prices have rarely been mentioned by people surveyed by the Strategic Counsel; the highest number was 4 per cent in July of 2006.

The article doesn't discuss the effect of gas prices and the economy taking over the top two spots. But the difference between respondents more concerned with one rather than the other might also track potential voter pools for the NDP and the Cons.

After all, the Harper government's declaration that it isn't interested in dealing with fuel prices and other increasing costs of living to the extent they're cause by "market forces" would seem to leave the field wide open for the NDP to win over voters who rank gas prices as the primary concern. And given that a similar focus seems to already be working for the B.C. NDP, there's every reason for the federal party to figure it's best served keeping up the same focus.

Meanwhile, all concerns about plausibility aside, the Cons have tried to turn economic management into an area of strength, particularly based on their choice of attacks on the Libs' carbon tax scheme.

All of which suggests that the current parity in the top three issues may be matched by a similar level of opportunity for each of the parties to grab hold of the issue which favours it most. And if we're indeed headed for a fall election, it wouldn't be surprising to see the party which most effectively carries out that task winning the most support as a result.

Mind you, none of the party links will go without at least some challenge. The NDP will of course point its comparative track record on the environment, the "Tory times are tough times" line figures to be a difficult one for Harper to answer in trying to run on economic management, and the Cons have tried at least somewhat to take on the NDP's concern with gas prices.

But there's little indication so far that any of the parties have managed to prevent the others from branding themselves based on the three top issues of concern. And from here on in, the smart play looks to be for each party to push its own issue to the forefront, rather than getting caught up trying to challenge opponents' credibility on the others.

On creative ideas

Following up on yesterday's post about what the NDP can do to challenge the Cons on gas prices, I should note that the concept of a contest is hardly a new idea for the party. But the most recent similar effort looks to have left only a small amount of room for creativity. And as a party which is looking to take on the mantle of leading a united opposition against the Cons, the NDP should be looking for all kinds of different messages and ways of expressing them, rather than limiting the scope of its contests to a single, party-designed catchphrase and concept.

Of media and messages

Robert offers his suggestion as to what the NDP could do to stake out their own territory in reply to the Cons' carbon tax attacks on the Libs. And I agree entirely that the NDP should be pointing out at every opportunity that it's the Cons who have repeatedly declared their refusal to do anything about the same high gas prices which they now want to use a a weapon against the Libs.

But while I largely agree with the substance, I'd argue that there's also an important opportunity to criticize the Cons' method of delivering their ads. After all, the Cons' campaign seems to be based on the assumption that it's worth trying to repeat their attack on the Libs a few more times at the expense of further irritating Canadians who are already annoyed with the prices at the pumps.

Rather than choosing the same route, I'd think the NDP is probably best served aiming its message through less-intrusive media which attack not only the current high gas prices, but also the Cons' decision to nag consumers:

"It was bad enough when Stephen Harper told you he wouldn't do anything about high gas prices. But just when you thought filling up your car couldn't get any more painful, Harper's Conservatives started lecturing you as well.

We say you've suffered enough punishment at the pumps. Join Canada's NDP."

Of course, even better would be to focus less on top-down messaging and more on creative, individual involvement - or at least add a separate, grassroots-driven component to get people thinking and talking. Maybe a photo/video contest for individuals' ideas as to how to tell the Harper government that prices are too high?

Update: Meanwhile, Stageleft's suggestion as to how consumers can respond to the Cons' ads is definitely worth a look.

On fixes

I've noted before that the Libs' carbon tax plan leaves plenty of room for the NDP and the Cons to each stake out their own territory on energy prices. But while the Ottawa Citizen goes out of its way to pretend that the Cons' do-nothing stance is effectively the only option, it can't help but to report that the NDP's position looks to have a lot more resonance with voters:

A large majority of Canadians -- 70 per cent -- believe either the petroleum sector or OPEC illegally fixes prices, according to a Compas poll for the Citizen. The poll is deemed accurate to within 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The numbers suggest one clear winner, said Compas president Conrad Winn. "For the NDP, it's loud and clear: They can't lose by attacking oil companies."

Again, the article appears critical of the prospect that any voter or party would have anything less than total faith in oil producers or laissez-faire economic theory. But whether or not oil producers manage to avoid outright illegal activity, there's little room for doubt that Canadians are duly skeptical when they're told that there's no choice but to believe the parties whose profits and political influence have both been skyrocketing thanks to higher prices. Which means that there's every reason for the NDP to frame its message around the ability of those actors to shape the cost of energy.

Meanwhile, a Con party still firmly rooted in the oilpatch can't hope to pass a laugh test with a similar tactic. As a result, its range of options is likely limited to either outright backing the status quo, or perhaps taking up Taxpayer Federation-style stunts surrounding the taxes which make up a small portion of current prices and are entirely independent of the factors driving price increases.

Either way, it looks to be the NDP whose solutions both fit better with where Canadians see responsibility falling, and make more sense in having the potential to lead to sustainable cost containment. Which means that if the Cons succeed in making gas prices into a ballot question against the Libs, it's the NDP that stands to benefit the most.

On consistent differences

Following up on this post, the other noteworthy (if equally misguided) attack on the NDP has come from the Cons, as Harper and company have made a sad attempt to escape the obvious effect of the parties' respective positions on gas prices. But even the examples pointed out by the Cons serve only both to point out the NDP's consistency, and to highlight the Cons' contrasting disinterest in dealing with either high gas prices or greenhouse gas emissions.

Here are the "facts" relied on by the Cons:

* According to economists, under the NDP supported Liberal Bill C-288, gas prices would rise 60% above today’s prices. Jack Layton and all NDP MPs present voted FOR this bill (Division No. 112, February 14, 2007)
* Federal NDP leader Jack Layton wants the federal government to force oil companies to rationalize price rises (Vancouver Sun, May 8, 2004).
* “Green Taxation Reforms: The NDP has emphasised the need to change existing tax laws and tax credits that artificially lower the true costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.” (NDP Action Plan, previously posted on NDP website)
* “Stop tilting the marketplace towards unsustainable fuel and, over four years, shift government subsidies away from unsustainable fuels towards renewable ones. The first step is to reverse the tax reductions for fossil fuel industries” (NDP Kyoto Plan, previously posted at: http://douglas.ndp.ca/kyoto/en/taxpa.php)

Let's start with the last two, which can be easily dispensed with. First, they both refer on their face to cutting subsidies and benefits to the oil and gas sector to avoid "artificial" prices of any kind. Second, that exact type of action is not only something that the Cons themselves seek to take credit for doing, but something which they've also tried to criticize the NDP for voting against (when packaged into the Cons' reactionary budgets).

Which means that the Cons are criticizing the NDP...for holding a consistent position against oil and gas subsidies which they themselves claim to share.

What about the NDP's proposal to require oil companies to "rationalize" price increases? Well, their recent campaign against high gas prices has been based on substantially the same issue. So this doesn't serve to show any inconsistency - only to emphasize that the NDP is the lone party which recognizes that regulation may be needed to keep the oil and gas industry from exploiting consumers.

It might be noted that this is in particularly stark contrast to the Cons. Harper and his minions nominally claim to be against forcing seniors to choose between "filling their refrigerators, filling their prescriptions or filling their gas tanks" - but make an exception when that's caused by "market forces" (not to mention the occasional giveaway to big pharma).

Finally, let's deal with the first point which the Cons seem to think they're making. And listing the NDP's vote on C-288 manages to make for most ridiculous Con criticism of all.

Keep in mind that C-288 required only that the federal government come up with a plan to meet Canada's Kyoto targets, making no mention of a carbon tax whatsoever. And indeed none of the opposition parties ever suggested at the time that a carbon tax of any kind should be included as part of the plan - let alone as the whole thing.

In response, it was the Cons who pretended that the required emission reductions should be reached only through a carbon tax. By excluding any other means of reducing emissions (including the regulatory strategies which they now claim to support), the Cons generated inflated numbers as to the cost of meeting our international obligations - including the same 60% number which they now seem to be relying on.

Which means that the Cons are pointing to their cherry-picked numbers - themselves dependent on the Cons' choice to rely on a carbon tax which the NDP has never supported - as evidence that the NDP has somehow contradicted itself by continuing to argue against a carbon tax now.

Once the Cons' spin is untangled, the real picture is one which the NDP will be happy to emphasize. While the Libs and Cons have established track records of failing to protect either consumers or the environment, the NDP alone can point to a consistent record of supporting both reasonable prices for Canadians and real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Which makes it understandable that the Cons seem concerned that the NDP will successfully claim both issues for themselves.

On wedge issues

The Globe and Mail reports that the Libs are laying the groundwork for a carbon tax/tax shifting proposal to be their policy centrepiece in the next federal election. What's most interesting about the framework being discussed now, though, is that it provides just as strong an opening for the NDP as for the Libs in drawing a distinction from the Cons' status quo:

Stéphane Dion is poised to unveil a carbon-tax scheme and attempt to neutralize any political damage by offering corresponding personal income tax cuts of between $10-billion and $13-billion to working Canadians, senior Liberal sources say.

The Liberal Leader wants this major environmental policy to be the centrepiece of the party's election campaign platform, according to the sources, and is anxious to reveal it this summer to give Canadians a chance to digest the idea before a federal election.

The plan, according to sources, would shift the 10-cent federal excise tax on a litre of fuel at the pumps into a broad-based carbon tax that would also apply to other fuels, such as for home heating. Sources say that the plan would not add more taxes to gasoline.

But the key is that the money raised – estimated as much as $17-billion – would be returned to middle-class and working Canadians in personal income tax cuts, making it revenue neutral. There could be corporate tax cuts as well.

Let's note first the most obvious critique of the plan, as it would necessarily impose a burden on either individuals or businesses who currently rely on carbon-based fuels and don't have the money sitting around to compensate with new equipment. My initial hunch is that the divide would likely break down along urban/rural lines, with city-based Canadians likely having far more alternatives available (and thus likely coming out ahead in the shift), while rural-based ones would face far more difficulty in adapting.

Now, the Libs could conceivably try to tweak their proposal to avoid this result. But for those of us who want to see Harper removed from office, such a dividing line could prove to be a feature rather than a bug.

After all, the NDP likely wouldn't mind targeting a campaign message toward those who would stand to be most directly harmed by the Libs' plan. Having already taken up the cause of pointing out how gas-price gouging affects Canadians, the NDP would be well-positioned to emphasize that its price-regulation proposal would reduce the costs of the same fuels which the Libs would plan to tax. And on the balance, the NDP would stand a strong chance of gaining more from the Cons by campaigning on more affordable supplies in rural areas than it would lose to the Libs in the cities.

Meanwhile, the Cons would have little option but to argue for a status quo where high fuel prices serve only to pump money into the oil and gas industry. At best, they might try to counter by cutting existing gas taxes. But the NDP could bash that as simply putting more money in the pockets of oil companies, while the Libs would presumably respond by emphasizing the environmental implications of actually encouraging more energy-burning.

In sum, a ballot question based on fuel prices - with the Libs' platform appealing to those who don't use many carbon-based fuels, while the NDP holds the promise of a more affordable approach for those who do while pointing out different means of reducing our emissions in the long term - could easily leave the Cons bleeding support from all sides. And that's the kind of shifting that many Canadians would be glad to see.