On trust markets

In principle, Jack Layton's comment about a coalition government makes for an effective way to keep the Libs from gaining much momentum out of their platform launch. But it's looking like Layton need not have bothered, as the Worst Campaign Ever continues to fall short of even the lowest expectations.

Today, the Libs have managed to undercut a platform launch which was supposed to serve as their jumping-off point for the rest of the campaign. Rather than actually making their wider platform the story, they've instead scooped themselves by reannouncing an income trust tax adjustment which they'd already made public last year - which will only ensure that any actual new proposals will get lost in the shuffle.

What's more, Layton could hardly have scripted a better message to put the Libs on the wrong side of his "kitchen table/boardroom table" contrast than a focus on corporate structures and reopening tax loopholes. All of which suggests that while the Libs may succeed in pointing out one of Harper's more glaring broken promises, they're also opening the door even wider for Layton and the New Democrats to emerge as the governing alternative.

Still not to be trusted

Obviously today's announcement of charges surrounding an income-trust leak has given rise to some differing views on who owes who an apology. But on closer examination, the Libs' position today doesn't seem any more tenable than their previous claim that they could be trusted in saying nothing was amiss.

From Ralph Goodale's statement today:

The investigation has indicated no involvement in this matter by me, my staff or any other political person.

Let's compare that to the details of the individual charged:

The RCMP have concluded a 14-month investigation into the possible leak of income trust tax details by charging a senior civil servant in the Finance Department with breach of trust.

Serge Nadeau, the general director of analysis, tax policy branch, was charged Thursday, the RCMP said in a statement.

Now, it would seem to me to be a painfully weak argument to try to claim that a senior official in the department directly supervised by Goodale doesn't qualify as "staff" who should have fallen within the scope of his investigation. But even if there's a distinction between "staff" and "department", Goodale himself volunteered at the time that both were free of responsibility:

Mr. Speaker, first, let us be clear. There is no evidence of a leak. There is an allegation on this, particularly from the opposition.

The hon. gentleman asked if I inquired within my staff and within my department. Indeed I did, and I am satisfied that all requirements were met.

Of course, Goodale conveniently modified his wording today to try to pretend that his original position had been vindicated. But in reality, it appears that Goodale was, at best, flat-out wrong in so readily becoming "satisfied" that nothing worth investigating had happened within his department. Which means that if anybody's gonads are in evidence today, it's the Libs who have the nerve to ask for an apology for their own mistake.

Still not trustworthy

About the best one can say about the Libs' proposal to give billions away in taxes on income trusts is that it seems likely to go the way of their one-time promise to repeal the GST. But with the Libs and the Cons seemingly competing to see who can give away the most tax revenue for the least possible social return, the door appears to be wide open for the NDP to set itself apart by highlighting the better uses for public money.