Dion still not getting it....

[betsy]

So Dion gave a live press conference a few days ago to talk about the Environment. But the very first question asked was about the war in Afghanistan!

Craig Oliver had accurately predicted that journalists don't want to talk about the Environment. The latest Van Doos soldiers killed, plus the two reporters from Radio Canada injured in the bombing is what they are keen about. Oliver wondered out loud why Dion would choose to talk of the Environment at such a time.

Dion said Harper needs some credibility if he's going to go to the UN meeting next month. I say Harper is going to give some credibility to the UN by merely attending that meeting!

Dion I think is trying hard to keep the Environment isue alive....since it's the only thing that may give him ammunition in the next election, or perhaps to even stay as leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately....this latest stunt seemed to have back-fired.

Edited August 26, 2007 by betsy

[Michael Bluth]

Dion I think is trying hard to keep the Environment isue alive....since it's the only thing that may give him ammunition in the next election, or perhaps to even stay as leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately....this latest stunt seemed to have back-fired.

I really question Dion hammering on the environment as a strategic move.

It is definitely not a winning issue for the Liberals. It *might* help hold the Conservatives to another minority. But that's the best case scenario.

If the next election had the environment as the main issues the CPC would hold the 36% of the vote they got last time around and might be able to pick up some votes. If the election becomes a referendum on the environment the Liberals will have to swing left. Leaving the centrists who parked their votes with the Conservatives last time no choice but to stay with the Conservatives this time. The Liberals will probably alienate some of the centrist voters who weren't quite willing to support Harper last time around in the process.

The environment is another issue that people answer yes/no polls affirmatively, but when costs become involved their support erodes quickly. That leaves a lot of centrists open to the Conservatives.

This leaves the Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc fighting for a little over 60% of the vote. Is Dion, with his abysmal record as Minister of the Environment, weak policies as Official Leader of the Opposition and poor standing in his home province, going to be able to get 2 out of every 3 votes in the universe of votes avaiable to him?

Time will tell. But it doesn't seem like a good course of action for Stephane to follow.

A Conservative majority, or stronger minority, and Stephane is turfed. He could make history though. He might well be the first non-interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada to only face the electorate once.

[maldon_road]

If the next election had the environment as the main issues the CPC would hold the 36% of the vote they got last time around and might be able to pick up some votes. If the election becomes a referendum on the environment the Liberals will have to swing left. Leaving the centrists who parked their votes with the Conservatives last time no choice but to stay with the Conservatives this time. The Liberals will probably alienate some of the centrist voters who weren't quite willing to support Harper last time around in the process.

The environment is another issue that people answer yes/no polls affirmatively, but when costs become involved their support erodes quickly. That leaves a lot of centrists open to the Conservatives.

This leaves the Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc fighting for a little over 60% of the vote. Is Dion, with his abysmal record as Minister of the Environment, weak policies as Official Leader of the Opposition and poor standing in his home province, going to be able to get 2 out of every 3 votes in the universe of votes avaiable to him?

Bad news for the Libs if the next election is on the environment. The Liberals had their chance with Kyoto and blew it. Big winners in such a case would be the NDP and Greens. And ultimately the CPC who would win the election.

In fact I have a great deal of difficulty seeing Harper losing the election no matter what the issues are. There is no great dislike of him across the country and when you add to that the fact that Dion is a big blah and the NDP are going nowhere it's not surprising that none of the opposition parties is anxious for an election.

Edited August 26, 2007 by maldon_road

[old_bold&cold]

Dion will get the point of why you never shoudl call an election on an issue like the environment, probably right after he get routed for having done so. The whole science behind both sides of the environment are not stable and if anything the side that says it is not such a big and pressing issue, will probably win out, as if the envirmentalists are forced to have to give hard scientific evidence, thye will certainly be seen as shakey, and unsure. You should never make an issue on something as dynamic as the environment, unless you are sure that there is going to be enough proof coming during the election to be absolutely able to confirm your position. I do not see that happening.

Layton only wants an election because he see that he has no real power now and he would need something to chnage so he can try and be a deal maker. He has nothing to lose other then the small amount of credibility he has now, but he will risk that.

The Green party is just a blimp in all this and can only go up from where they are, but it would never even in dreamland would they ever get a chance at power for at least several decades. It does not matter what their policies are, or their future visions, now is not their time period.

Harper has ruled to most people's view fairly and has held up to pretty much he said he would do in last election. Yes there are some sore points, but do any of these sore points really seem unfair? He has shown to most he is not scary, and that he can be trusted to do the things he says and only change things if it is the only way to get it done. All those who say he is GW light, will have to really dig deeper as the USA gets redy ro replace their mistake and put a new president in place. Harper is the one I would trust more in this event then I would any of the others. Harper hyas been picked on for running a tight ship and the press hates him for that, as they now have to work harder for stories. I only wish Harper gets the majority needed, to sweep the civil service of the entrenched graft driven employees and do a proper cleaning. He has done a very good job with one hand tied behind his back, so lets now see what he can do with both hands.

[Borg]

"Dion still not getting it"

Where is the surprize here?

Borg

[jdobbin]

On days when soldiers are killed, no one wants to talk about anything else but that.

The reason Dion originally prepared a statement on the environment is because that is what Harper was making a speech on in New York.

A poll released yesterday shows that a majority of Canadians do not support Harper on the environment.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...295&k=11584

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, at the United Nations Monday for a climate change summit, is running with the "wrong crowd" of international allies on the issue, according to a poll released Sunday.

The survey of 1,000 Canadians by the firm Harris/Decima, commissioned by an environmental group, indicated that six in 10 respondents (61 per cent) want Canada aligned with European countries that favour strict Kyoto-like emissions targets.

Only one-quarter agreed with the notion that Canada "should be siding with countries like the U.S. and Australia who want non-Kyoto targets."

Harper has refused to go along with countries, primarily in Europe, who backed the Kyoto pledge to reduce emissions below 1990 levels by 2012. He has instead pledged to reduce Canada's current emissions by 2020, and has praised efforts by countries like Australia and the U.S. to seek alternatives to the Kyoto approach.

"Canadians want our prime minister to quit running with the wrong crowd when it comes to international efforts to combat climate change," said John Bennett, executive-director of ClimateforChange.ca, in a news release.

Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush will be among more than 80 world leaders scheduled to address the special UN session intended to accelerate global negotiations on a new climate change agreement to replace Kyoto, which expires in 2012.

The poll also indicated the environment was considered the most important issue facing Canadians, with 30 per cent choosing that issue compared to 13 per cent selecting health care, which placed second. Just under half of Quebec respondents (46 per cent) chose the environment as the top issue, compared to 19 per cent of Canadians in the prairies surveyed by the firm.

It would seem Harper is still not getting it on this issue.

I think Dion's mistake today was to think that his press conference was not going to be highjacked by the Afghanistan issue. His press secretary should have had him respond on the main issue of the day and sent his response on the environment out in a fax to the media. I know every appearance is geared for TV but if they are only going to give a five second clip to you in a broadcast, best it be about the top news story of the day.

[M.Dancer]

I wonder if there's a poll that can really determine if we rank the environement high on our priorities.

I mean, I yawn every time one side or the other starts talking about GW. And in the big picture where do I rank the environment?

1. Economy

2. Healthcare

3. Security (includes Afghan war)

4. National Unity

5. Infrastructure

6. Global Warming (endless summer, rock on!)

7. Taxes

8. Debt

9. Hockey Night in Canada

10. Getting the kids to bed earlier

[jdobbin]

I wonder if there's a poll that can really determine if we rank the environement high on our priorities.

I mean, I yawn every time one side or the other starts talking about GW. And in the big picture where do I rank the environment?

You're probably right that priorities change day to day and issues evolve or fall by the wayside.

Depending on how a poll is phrased, it can seem to make one issue more important than another issue.

Still, when a preponderance of evidence tells you that people are concerned about something, you can ill afford to ignore it.

[M.Dancer]

You're probably right that priorities change day to day and issues evolve or fall by the wayside.

Depending on how a poll is phrased, it can seem to make one issue more important than another issue.

Still, when a preponderance of evidence tells you that people are concerned about something, you can ill afford to ignore it.

I think the last angus reid poll showed concern for GW around 24%....too large to ignore but not somlarge as it can't be managed. Show that Kyoto will have a negative effect on the economy, which will impact heathcare and you would see the support fall faster than the temperature in December.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm not sure its Dion that doesn't get it. I'm concerned about the whole lack of even lip service to the enviroment by the current Gov't, I mean come on, rehashing the same plan that was panned before ain't too bright, nor is unilaterally deciding we can wait till next spring to talk about Afghanistan and come up with an agreed upon plan for what NATO will be told?

[M.Dancer]

You're probably right that priorities change day to day and issues evolve or fall by the wayside.

Depending on how a poll is phrased, it can seem to make one issue more important than another issue.

Still, when a preponderance of evidence tells you that people are concerned about something, you can ill afford to ignore it.

If this straw globe poll is an indictation of what canadians feel about fighting GW, then I woul say it's a voter issue that can be managed by Harper but not much room to exploit it by the others.

In terms of global warming, what approach do you favour?

Strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol 34% 24681 votes

The 'more flexible' approach suggested by Prime Minister Harper 38% 27389 votes

A compromise between those two positions 23% 16705 votes

No action is needed because global warming is not happening 6% 4124 votes

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...&vote=78482

[Keepitsimple]

If this straw globe poll is an indictation of what canadians feel about fighting GW, then I woul say it's a voter issue that can be managed by Harper but not much room to exploit it by the others.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...&vote=78482

If this poll has any accuracy at all, it is very good news for the Conservatives. The 34% who voted for "strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol" is a worst case scenario (the highest it could be). Many of these respondents do not know what our Kyoto commitment actually is. Not only do they not understand the actual target, but they would think that the target must be met by 2012....and that is simply not true. Kyoto commits us to meeting our target, on average, for the years 2008-2012. That means we have to reduce our emissions by 30% in 2008! If we don't, we have to reduce them even more in 2009/10/11/12 to make up for it. So to comply, we would have to reduce emissions by 10% in 2008, 20% in 2009, 30% in 2010, 40% in 2011, and 50% in 2012 - that would allow us to average our required 30%. If the 34% (the strict adherents) understood this, common sense would have all but a few zealots picking another option.

From Wikipedia:

Details of the agreement

According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:

"The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this limitation represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.[13]

It is an agreement negotiated as an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, which was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP3) in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.

Most provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries, listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC. Emission figures exclude international aviation and shipping.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

[M.Dancer]

If this poll has any accuracy at all, it is very good news for the Conservatives.

It's a straw poll, so it's margin of error is huge.

But like a weathercock, it certainly may point in the right direction.

[Canuck E Stan]

The reason Dion originally prepared a statement on the environment is because that is what Harper was making a speech on in New York.

A poll released yesterday shows that a majority of Canadians do not support Harper on the environment.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...295&k=11584

It would seem Harper is still not getting it on this issue.

I think Dion's mistake today was to think that his press conference was not going to be highjacked by the Afghanistan issue. His press secretary should have had him respond on the main issue of the day and sent his response on the environment out in a fax to the media. I know every appearance is geared for TV but if they are only going to give a five second clip to you in a broadcast, best it be about the top news story of the day.

Just as Dion was using Harper's UN visit to prepare a statement on the environment(and blew it),this poll survey was conducted on behalf of the Ottawa-based environmental group Climateforchange.ca, which is run by veteran environmentalist John Bennett.

It too was used as a statement to be made while Harper was at the UN.

The poll was conducted on Aug. 15-21,a poll that by all logic should have been issued on August 22 and not a month later.

And who are this group of environmentalists who have conducted a poll that by all indications have answers to questions(what were these questions?) they asked.

Well one political pundit thinks he knows who is behind this concerned environmental group.

Just how closely connected are ClimateForChange.ca and the federal Liberal Party?

Now here's the weird thing about ClimateForChange.ca. The address is 64.26.141.35. Checking, I discovered this:

IP Information for 64.26.141.35

IP Location: Canada Canada Ottawa Peter Pundy Consulting Inc

Resolve Host: lp1.campaigngear.net

IP Address: 64.26.141.35 [Whois] [Reverse-Ip] [Ping] [DNS Lookup] [Traceroute]

SSL Cert: stephanedion.ca SSL Certificate has expired.

The SSL certificate for ClimateForChange.ca is stephanedion.ca?

Of course, stephanedion.ca is now permanently redirected to liberal.ca, the official site of the Liberal Party of Canada.

What other sites are on the same server as ClimateForChange.ca? Here is the complete list:

1. Climateforchange.org

2. Congresliberal.com

3. Deleguesliberaux.com

4. Johngodfrey.org

5. Liberalconvention.com

6. Liberaldelegates.com

OK, is it just me, or is it weird that every single site on this server is an official Liberal Party website? John Godfrey was an early contender for the Liberal Party leadership who quickly tossed in the towel and supported Bob Rae.

Specific servers might also be owned or leased by particular organizations, like a branch of the military or a political party or a private company, and so would never host any sites except the ones related to the owner of that server. The red flag here is that this server seems to be reserved for Liberal Party websites. That's either because the server is being managed directly by the IT department of the Liberal Party, or because the hosting service retained by the Liberal Party has decided, or is contractually obligated, to host all the Liberal Party sites on specific servers, exclusive of other sites unrelated to the Liberal Party. Or at least that would seem to be true but for the presence of ClimateForChange. Unless, as this clustering of sites suggests, ClimateForChange is just one more Liberal Party website.

Coincidence or not, the security certificate is not so easily explained.

Addendum: What about those other sites? CongressLiberal.com, Deleguesliberaux.com, and Liberaldelegates.com all list the following administration contact:

Project Coordinator, Dion [email protected]

35 O'Connor St, Suite 302

Otttawa, ON K1P5M4

CA

+1.6132352274

Dion? The address and suite number link back to the advertising firm Groupe Everest, which is well known as one of the firms deeply involved in the Sponsorship Scandal, in which Liberal-friendly advertising firms were given millions in bogus contracts, some of that money being kicked back to the Liberal Party.

The email address is for Mark Batten-Carew, who works on large political database applications.

Is this a poll worth noting? Not this one by a long shot.

[jdobbin]

Just as Dion was using Harper's UN visit to prepare a statement on the environment(and blew it),this poll survey was conducted on behalf of the Ottawa-based environmental group Climateforchange.ca, which is run by veteran environmentalist John Bennett.

It too was used as a statement to be made while Harper was at the UN.

The poll was conducted on Aug. 15-21,a poll that by all logic should have been issued on August 22 and not a month later.

And who are this group of environmentalists who have conducted a poll that by all indications have answers to questions(what were these questions?) they asked.

Well one political pundit thinks he knows who is behind this concerned environmental group.

Is this a poll worth noting? Not this one by a long shot.

The polling agency is reputable. The question was straight forward. The people who commissioned the poll are free to release it whenever they please. You might not like who commissioned the poll and who released it but the poll itself is in keeping with others done by the media on the issue of the environment.

[sharkman]

That poll which reveals the majority of Cdns do not support Harper on the Environment is supposed to carry weight? Last time I checked the majority of Cdns don't support Harper period. Big deal. Parties win majorities with less than 40% or so.

Edited September 26, 2007 by sharkman

[Canuck E Stan]

Well one political pundit thinks he knows who is behind this concerned environmental group.

Just how closely connected are ClimateForChange.ca and the federal Liberal Party?

The polling agency is reputable. The question was straight forward. The people who commissioned the poll are free to release it whenever they please. You might not like who commissioned the poll and who released it but the poll itself is in keeping with others done by the media on the issue of the environment.

One has to be really stupid to think an outfit that advocates for climate change would put a poll out saying Canadians are not interested in saving the environment.

The reputable polling agency is a business, and they like to get paid for what they do.

If Toyota wants a poll done to determine that people like Toyota over GM,do you think the pollsers don't know how to ask the "right" questions to get the right numbers?This is not the media looking for answers to one of their polls.

What were the actual questions as asked in the poll? And how many questions were asked....and how many were used?

And the Liberal connection?

[jdobbin]

One has to be really stupid to think an outfit that advocates for climate change would put a poll out saying Canadians are not interested in saving the environment.

The reputable polling agency is a business, and they like to get paid for what they do.

If Toyota wants a poll done to determine that people like Toyota over GM,do you think the pollsers don't know how to ask the "right" questions to get the right numbers?This is not the media looking for answers to one of their polls.

What were the actual questions as asked in the poll? And how many questions were asked....and how many were used?

And the Liberal connection?

Once again, you are discrediting the pollster and suggesting they created a dishonest poll.

Here is the full poll.

http://climateforchange.ca/files/climatefo...-2007-09-24.pdf

I don't see any questions that have not been asked before on the issue.

I don't know anything about the Climateforchange people or if their staff are Liberals or not. It isn't part of the formal Liberal party structure as far as I can tell.

The poll seems legit though.

[jdobbin]

Parties win majorities with less than 40% or so.

Pretty much every pollster says to win a majority in Canada now requires over 40% support.

[sharkman]

Why are you knitpicking? The point is, parties win majorities with less than a majority of all voters since there are 3 or more parties vying for votes. (Please don't knitpick and give an exact region by region count on the parties involved, unless you are REALLY bored and still hoping to run up your post count, in which case help yourself by all means.)

[jdobbin]

Why are you knitpicking? The point is, parties win majorities with less than a majority of all voters since there are 3 or more parties vying for votes. (Please don't knitpick and give an exact region by region count on the parties involved, unless you are REALLY bored and still hoping to run up your post count, in which case help yourself by all means.)

I see no reason to personally attack. The poll comment is not nitpicking. The Tories face a problem that much of their popularity is concentrated in areas they have already won such as Alberta. The latest poll released last week still shows that Tories are in second place in Quebec and Ontario. They will have to be first in one or the other to bring the numbers up past 40% which should translate to more seats. At the moment, they are stuck at 32%.

Edited September 30, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

I see no reason to personally attack. The poll comment is not nitpicking. The Tories face a problem that much of their popularity is concentrated in areas they have already won such as Alberta. The latest poll released last week still shows that Tories are in second place in Quebec and Ontario. They will have to be first in one or the other to bring the numbers up past 40% which should translate to more seats. At the moment, they are stuck at 32%.

It wasn't a personal attack. Look at the substance of the post.

Your ridiculous insistence on sticking with the 40% line ignores two very good points.

1. It is human nature to simplify things and use round numbers. Hence the reason why journalists and pollsters use that 40% figure when it isn't absolutely true, and has been historically proven not to be true.

2. It was only two majority Goverments ago that a party won with less than 40%.

The Tories can finish second in both ON and PQ and win a majority. Care to show how they have to be first in one of the two?

Ahhh, crying foul because your argument is indefensible. Good work dobbin.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Michael Bluth