A leaf from Harper’s political playbook, by J. Layton

Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party want the federal government to drop the goods and services tax on home heating costs.

Layton had a wonderful story to go with his call, as recounted by Aaron Wherry at macleans.ca:

“Mr. Speaker, Frank Rainville is a senior in Sturgeon Falls, Ontario who told me about how his bills for basic utilities have gone up by $20 a month just this past month because of the government’s HST,” the NDP’s Jack Layton reported a short time later. “He asked me how he could cope with heating bills when he has to turn the thermostat on because it is cold up there. The fact is heating bills are going up all across the country and working families are struggling right now. Will the Prime Minister show some leadership, join with us and work to take the federal sales tax off home heating fuel now?”

Yes, folks, Jack Layton and his fellow new Democrats are standing up for the working poor, people and fixed incomes and all sorts of downtrodden, hard-done-by people. Well, at least that’s what the die-hard Dippers out there will tell you.

But just think about it for a second. Mr. Rainville is going to have to cough up an extra $20 a month for heating thanks to what Layton has taken to calling the Harper Sales tax.  Rainville’s on a fixed income and that 20 bucks will come in handy.  Even though Layton’s little HST cut is aimed primarily at voters in Ontario and British Columbia where the HST is very unpopular, there are plenty of Mr. Rainvilles throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and the same cut to the heating costs will help them out, too.

Yay, Jack.

Well, not so fast.

These sorts of blanket tax cuts – the stock in trade of conservatives  - have the wonderful effect of cutting costs and they have the even more wonderful effect – from a Connie perspective of helping rich people proportionately more than people like Mr. Rainville. In St. John’s someone in public housing will get a break, but the person down in King William Estates or one of the other swankier neighbourhoods springing up in St. John’s East will just love the cut on heating oil or electricity that it takes to make their blimp hangers all the more cozy in the cold January night.

If Jack Layton really wanted to help people on fixed incomes, he’d go for something other than a blanket tax cut. Layton and his crew would offer rebates or  - better still - tax breaks tied to income. That way the people who need the help the most could get it and those who can well afford to heat their massive homes can carry right on doing so while footing the bill for their choices.

And actually the problem is not just with giving a disproportionate big break to the wealthy – as the NDP idea would do – or carrying a huge public deficit while helping out the wealthy.  That’s all bad enough just as it is bad enough that the average Republican looking at this scheme would embrace Layton as a discipline of Karl.  

Jack Layton’s tax cut idea is also damned poor environmental policy. Canadians don’t need to be rewarding energy inefficiency or giving people the chance to consume more energy.   An across-the-board tax cut does just that.  It potentially makes the NDP vulnerable on the left from the Greens, but there seems to be a conscious effort in the NDP thinking that they should just look for more votes in places where they can fight Conservatives, like out west or in a couple of ridings in Newfoundland.  That’s pretty much in tune with the NDP position on the gun registry as well.

Now the NDP position isn’t all bad.  They do want to bring back an energy efficiency incentive program.  That’s a great idea and coupled with a targeted tax break scheme, it would be a progressive social policy.

Unfortunately, this isn’t about progressive social policy:  the New Democrats are playing politics like Stephen Harper.  This HST thing is just Connie-style retail politics.

And politically, it is a sensible  - if monumentally cynical - thing to do if you want to get elected.  Jack Harris in St. John’s East will win re-election handily with such an idea.  All the well-heeled people in his district will love his conservative policies while the people on fixed and low incomes will get a bit of cash to make them happy too.  Over in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, the same thing applies even if there aren’t as many people with giant houses there.

Basically these sorts of Conservative-looking policies might help sagging New Democrat fortunes in a place like St. John’s where, as bizarre as the idea might seem, Conservatives will vote New Democrat if they can’t vote Connie for some reason.

It might work.  Too bad for Jack Layton and the New Democrats there likely won’t be an election for some months yet.  By the time people head to the polls federally, this sort of thing will likely be long forgotten.  But in the meantime it is interesting to see just exactly how much influence Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party have had on Canadian politics.

- srbp -

Political Darwinism

How appropriate in this week of celebrating the guy who pointed out natural selection to the rest of us that the federal Conservatives should demonstrate that, in fact, some people are doomed to political extinction.

There should be a special category for political Darwin Awards.

Those would be the people who cooked up a scandal with some guy and his trusty tape recorder and released bogus “transcripts” all in an effort to bring down the government and claw their way one inch at a time toward power.

Then, when caught in a wee political and potential legal problem over a politician on his deathbed and offers of financial help that some think look suspiciously close to being bribes, these scandal-and-tape Neanderthals scream conspiracy when someone turns up with a tape of their boss talking about said dying pol and said cash.

The source of this latest example of antediluvian politics, of course, would have to be Pierre Poilevre.  The Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary claimed in the Commons last week that it had been proven in court that the tape in question was doctored.

Not so, of course, as anyone who has followed the case would know.

Had that part been proven, as Poilevre claimed,  it is highly unlikely the federal Conservatives would have so quickly rushed to withdraw their law suit against the evil Liberals over the whole Chuck Cadman business in the first place.

Then again, no one ever accused Pierre of being the sharpest Clovis point in the pile.

-srbp-

Don’t blame me, redux

Your humble e-scribbler cannot be blamed for voting into office the obviously incompetent twillicks who will drop this country into such massive deficits over the next two years.

It will take years to dig the country out of the fiscal mess just like it took years the last time.

-srbp-

Some in-out scheme highlights

While the conventional media have been fixated on the Connie's deliberate effort to undermine parliamentary committees by co-ordinating a refusal by witnesses to testify,  some details of the in-out scheme were entered by witnesses who did show up.

Here's one excerpt from the testimony of a former provincial cabinet minister.  Two other witnesses, from the campaign in random-Burin-St. Georges gave similar evidence:  money sent down from Ottawa on condition it be sent back a couple of days later. No sign that any national advertising ever appeared using the taglines of the local candidates.

Hon. Charles Hubbard: Where was the money spent?

Mr. Joe Goudie (Conservative candidate in Labrador; former provincial cabinet minister): We have no idea.

Again, I remind you and the honourable committee that I, personally, was not aware of this until after the campaign was completed and really, in any detail, not until the news report came out in April. The money was not spent by us.

    Mrs. Singleton [campaign manager]and Mr. Barnes were both.... More specifically, Mr. Barnes, my official agent, was directed by a gentleman, Mr. Hudson of the Conservative Party of Canada, to, once funds had been transferred to our account.... It was explained that 60% of that amount could then be claimed on our election return, which seemed unusual but nevertheless they were following directions, and that the amount of money transferred to our account would then have to be returned to the Conservative Party of Canada as soon as possible.

Hon. Charles Hubbard: To clarify, if you gave somebody $10,000 and wanted it back.... They could claim that $10,000 in the expense, which they didn't spend. Do you mean to tell me you'd get $6,000 back from the Government of Canada as a result?

Mr. Joe Goudie: As I understand it, that was the implication of the explanation. Yes.

Hon. Charles Hubbard: Where would that $6,000 eventually wind up?

Mr. Joe Goudie: In the campaign account, as far as I know. I know nothing other than that.

Hon. Charles Hubbard: It almost sounds, Mr. Goudie, like a very fast way of making money.

Mr. Joe Goudie: It sounds that way.

No wonder someone wanted to shift the media coverage to something other than testimony.

-srbp-

Sponsorship of Connie hypocrisy

From the Calgary Herald, news that more money was spent by Canada's New Harpocrisy on Canada Day celebrations in Quebec than in the rest of the country combined.

The bill for celebrating our birthday

Calgary Herald, July 1, 2007

OTTAWA - If today's Canada Day parties seem a bit more festive in Quebec, thank the federal government. Over half of all federal "Celebrate Canada" funding is directed to Quebec-based events, government records show.

More than $3.7 million will pay for flag-raisings, fireworks, face-painting and other projects across the province, accounting for 55 per cent of the funds channelled through Celebrate Canada.

In contrast, funding for national holiday events in the rest of the country totals just over $3 million.

Celebrate Canada was created to fund citizen-initiated events for Canada Day, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Multiculturalism Day and National Aboriginal Day. The Department of Canadian Heritage says Quebec receives a larger share of money for holiday celebrations because its provincial government doesn't fund Canada Day events.

The bulk of money goes to Quebec's Canada Day organizing committee, which is set to receive $3.2 million for events in Montreal and 27 other municipalities around the province in 2007-08. The theme of the events this year is "Tip of the Hat to the Environment."

The organizing committee in Alberta, meanwhile, will receive $50,000 in federal funds. Ontario's committee will get $100,000 and British Columbia's $190,000, according to figures released by Canadian Heritage.

- - -

Canada Day funding by province

Quebec $3,690,786
Ontario $1,013,500
British Columbia $491,250
Alberta $310,250
Manitoba $211,000
Saskatchewan $174,294
Nova Scotia $173,250
New Brunswick $172,000
Newfoundland & Labrador $148,000
Prince Edward Island $123,000
Yukon $87,000
Northwest Territories $76,650
Nunavut $64,300

TOTAL $6,735,280

-srbp-

Living in a fog: one Connie offers his thoughts

Mainland Connies think the people of Atlantic Canada are, to quote the Wonderful Grand Band, living in a fog, living in a dreamworld.

Nonsense like this stuff from the ironically titled My Conservative Dreamworld should give a good idea of how much traction the provincial government's arguments have out past the Port au Port peninsula.

If the Premier can't get at the Conservative vote base, there's not much hope for his so-called ABC option. He doesn't need to convince Liberals and New Democrats that Stephen Harper is a bad idea; they didn't vote for him in the first place.

In passing, it is worth noting how little this form of institutionalized bribery actually benefited its instigators. The concession on ownership rights (by Mulroney) and on natural resource revenue clawbacks (by Paul Martin) did not produce quite the electoral harvest those two gentlemen were anticipating. This also has its own rationale: when voters have grown accustomed to welfare they view it as a right, and then why should they sell their votes for something that is rightfully theirs? The Atlantic Accords is therefore that rare political event that is worse than a corrupt vote-buying exercise - namely a failed, corrupt vote-buying exercise.

Some of these guys actually want to demolish the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

Think about it.

-srbp-