Mediaboss Marketing

As Liberal MPs prepare to return to their home ridings for the summer recess, they were surely hoping for better polling news. Last weekend, however, Abacus Data released its latest federal political opinion survey, and found the Conservatives still 20 percentage points ahead of the Liberals. The polling firm reports that: If an election were held today, 42% of committed voters would vote Conservative with the Liberals at 22%, the NDP at 19% and the Greens at 5%.

The Conservatives lead in every region except Quebec (where the Bloc still leads) and with every age cohort. Abacus reports the Liberals are polling at their lowest level since they were elected in 2015. Meaning, they have received no bounce from their most recent federal budget, nor from a host of housing announcements, nor from the well-advised increase in the capital gains tax, nor from the Bank of Canadas long-awaited interest rate cut.

Ouch.

My key take-away: as the government seeks a reset ahead of its final year before the fall 2025 election, it desperately needs to shake things up. And for those of us deeply anxious about what a Pierre Poilievre majority government would mean for the climate emergency, we urgently need it to do so. Ill leave the matter of whether Prime Minister Trudeau should stay or go to others. But on policy, what is beyond dispute is that these folks need to cease what feels like a painful death march and reinvigorate the terrain with exciting ideas that can, finally, change the dreadful script that has characterized the last two years.

What role can and should climate policy have in such an effort to reset the political dial?

My perception in dealings with government representatives is of a prevailing sentiment that they have done enough on climate, and now have a limited desire to further poke the bear.

Thats a mistake. They have not done enough, but they do indeed need a new approach. Its time to stop being so damn boring and invite the fight with the fossil fuel industry and its political servants.

Among the most intriguing findings in last weekends Abacus survey was this chart, showing the results when the pollsters asked those who prioritized a given issue which party is best able to handle it:

If the path to great leadership can be found in capitalizing upon ones strengths, then the Liberals should lean in on climate. It is the only domain in which they strongly outperform the Conservatives and NDP.

The above also has lessons for the NDP. Its strengths are in the domains of Indigenous reconciliation, inequality and poverty, and to a lesser extent health care. But their results on climate and environment should give them great pause, where their credibility among those who prioritize this issue registers on par with the Conservatives and less than half the Liberals and Green Party.

I confess this NDP result somewhat surprised me. The partys lead critics of this file MPs Laurel Collins and Charlie Angus have, in my view, been stellar performers of late, leading the charge against the fossil fuel corporations. Perhaps the partys result is better explained by perceptions of leader Jagmeet Singh, who is virtually invisible on climate. Compounding the problem, to the extent that, for better or worse (mostly worse), the climate file is dominated by the issue of carbon pricing, the leader seems to dither and lack conviction. This is going to present a major problem for the NDP, because climate-anxious voters represent a big chunk of their potential base, yet on this issue, they find the partys performance wanting.

While the Liberals are moving on climate, they are doing so in such a ponderous, incremental and technocratic manner that they have failed to gain anything politically. They appear desperate not to overly antagonize the oil and gas industry. And so, we have a Sustainable Jobs Act that will result in nothing for at least five years (an act that manages to suck all the lifeblood out of a widespread movement for a just transition). We have a lackadaisical stroll towards a modest oil and gas emissions cap that may or may not see the light of day before the next election. We have low-carbon business tax credits that are under-subscribed and poorly deployed (with a heavy focus on carbon capture and storage). And we have much-needed zero-emission vehicle and electricity mandates with target dates set for the next decade.

You still awake? None of this, let us agree, has the capacity to capture the imagination or excite the electorate.

If the governing Liberals wanted to truly shake things up on climate, what would they do?

First (and I know Im a broken record here), bring in an audacious Youth Climate Corps. Kick it off with a $1 billion annual down-payment that invites tens of thousands of young people to train-up and serve in the battle of our lives (responding to extreme weather events, undertaking building retrofits, and working on renewable energy projects, etc.) Polling commissioned by the Climate Emergency Unit last fall finds such a program would be a big political winner.

Second, take Charlie Anguss private members bill C-372 an act to prohibit fossil fuel advertising and make it law. Yes, the oil and gas industry will holler blue murder. Thats the surest proof of its effectiveness. But after what will be, in all likelihood, another record summer of fires, heat and other unnatural disasters, why not come back to the House of Commons in the fall ready to name the culprits and limit their ability to sow confusion on the urgent need for climate action?

Third, rethink those climate-related business tax credits (the take-up rate is weak and political pay-off even weaker), and redeploy billions towards big-ticket, high-visibility public climate infrastructure investments renewable energy projects, public transit, inter-provincial grid upgrades, zero-emission affordable housing that will employ thousands in well-paying jobs.

Critically, the government must link the fight for a safe climate with the battle to tackle inequality and the affordability crisis. The cost of living is what tops the publics list of concerns. So lets go big on items that free people from oppressive monthly utility and transportation costs free heat pumps for households with incomes under $100,000; free transit passes for modest income households; ambitious funding for deep housing retrofits; and enhanced rebates for e-bikes.

And lets pay for that with new taxes on wealth, windfall profits and high-emitting luxury items like private jets, outsized vehicles and yachts.

Rumour was the Liberals were considering bringing in a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies in the lead-up to the last federal budget, but then Minister Freeland took a pass. That was a huge error. The matter should be revisited and introduced in the Fall Economic Update. Doing so could offer a sextuple win.

First, a windfall profits tax is hugely popular; polling conducted last March found 62 per cent of Canadians support such a tax. Second, it would secure ongoing NDP support; the NDP would happily vote for such a measure, giving the government time to shift the political terrain ahead of the election. Third, the climate movement would be over the moon; failure to include a windfall tax was a source of deep disappointment with the spring budget, whereas this single item would unleash that movements enthusiasm. Fourth, a windfall profits tax on oil and gas could raise close to $1 billion a year, enough revenues to just about double the newly-introduced monthly Disability Benefit, allowing the government to re-win support from that constituency. Fifth, a windfall profits tax would help lower inflation, given the outsized role oil and gas profits have played in rising prices. And six, vitally, a windfall profits tax would bring on a good fight with the oil and gas industry, which at this stage would also be good politics. The Liberals have almost nothing to lose in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and much to gain elsewhere. And let Poilievre rail and explain why he doesnt want to impose this excess profits tax on the most profitable corporations in human history it will expose him as the faux populist that he is. Whats not to like here?

If we are to stave off a Conservative majority government something which, for the sake of climate policy and a safe future, we desperately need to do then its time for progressive parties to take some big risks and make some big, bold moves. Times ticking if they hope to shift the dial.

Go here to read the rest:
Federal Liberals urgently need to shift terrain with bold ideas - Canada's National Observer

A proposal to build multiple nuclear power plants wont be a deterrent for voters in inner city electorates at the next election, an opposition frontbencher says.

The coalition plans to build seven nuclear reactors across five states on the sites of coal-fired power stations, should it win the next election.

Opposition frontbencher Paul Fletcher has dismissed fears the nuclear policy could make metropolitan electorates harder to win at the next election for the coalition.

He said the plan would show the party was serious about reducing emissions.

What this announcement demonstrates, above all, is how committed we are to achieve net-zero by 2050 and measured, staged, achievable plan to do that, he told Sky News.

There will also be base load power to replace what is being removed from the system as most of the coal fired power plants exit, and I think what my constituents want to see is proven performance on emissions reduction.

Meanwhile The Weekend Australian reports polling conducted separately by the Liberals and Nationals shows support for nuclear in the communities where the reactors would be built.

The surveys show more than 50 per cent of those residents supported a nuclear replacement option for coal across all seven sites, taking in two Liberal held seats, four Nationals seats and one Labor seat, reports The Weekend Australian.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton will on Saturday reportedly rally the Liberal Party faithful at a meeting of the partys federal council.

His nuclear plan has prompted safety concerns in regional areas where the reactors are due to be built, as well as criticism over the coalition not releasing the costings of the proposal.

The coalition faced significant challenges at the 2022 federal election in blue-ribbon, inner city seats from teal independents, who pledged greater action on climate change.

While the reactors would be built in regional locations, Fletcher said those in inner city areas would also embrace the idea of nuclear.

I am very confident that we can make the case to the people right across Australia, that the coalitions plan is a measured, pragmatic, achievable plan that delivers reliable and emissions free nuclear power as part of a mix, he said.

Under the plan, it would take until 2035 to 2037 at the earliest for the first facility to be built.

Opposition energy spokesman Ted OBrien said residents in areas near the proposed nuclear plants would be heavily consulted about the facilities.

They are welcoming the idea of zero emissions nuclear energy, he told reporters in Sydney.

They see this multi-billion dollar facility that might come to their community, they see the value in building jobs for generations, 80 to 100 years.

But Labor MP Patrick Gorman hit out at the nuclear policy, saying it was an expensive and risky move.

The smart path for Australia is to continue the path that we are on. Thats more renewables, more energy in the grid, more electrification, he said.

Obviously, I hope for those countries that do have nuclear power, that they have a safe experience of that energy source, because obviously the alternative is absolute catastrophe.

-with AAP

Go here to read the rest:
Nuclear won't be a voter turn off in cities: Liberals - The New Daily

Opinion

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is snorkelling at depths of unpopularity that rival those of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, shortly before the PC Party of old was obliterated in the 1993 national election.

Trudeaus Liberals now stand at 22 per cent support among Canadians, according to the latest Abacus poll. This is barely above the NDP, and far below Pierre Poilievres Conservatives who enjoy the support of 42 per cent of Canadians. Under the rules of our electoral system, this is wipeout territory for the Liberals.

This raises the question: why does the Liberal Party continue to tolerate a leader that is dragging them into the cellar? Why doesnt the party give Trudeau a pink slip? Besides some grumpy senators and Liberal-aligned columnists, there is virtually no effort nor movement intent on and working to give the leader the boot.

Sean Kilpatrick / The Canadian Press

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has gradually remade the Liberal Party in his own image.

The Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most successful if not the most successful parties in the history of the democratic world. The party of old would never have tolerated a leader who appeared to be pushing it to electoral oblivion.

So how is Trudeau still holding on?

Heres one answer: Trudeau is still leader because hes not the leader of the Liberal Party of Old. Rather, hes the leader of the Justin Party.

Hear me out. Between 2006 and 2015, the Liberal Party well and truly fell apart in terms of leadership, organization and finances. Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff led the Liberals to three resounding defeats in this period.

This culminated in the 2011 election in which the party plumbed new depths, falling behind Jack Laytons NDP to third place. It seemed like, as the Liberal Party disintegrated, the Canadian party system was transforming before our eyes, and that the once-dominant Liberal Party would become a minor party of the centre, much like the U.K.s Liberal Democrats.

Trudeau is the person that changed that historical trajectory, sweeping the Liberal Party back into power in 2015 in a remarkable and unexpected victory. The Liberals won in 2015, not on the basis of Liberal popularity, but rather on the basis of Trudeaus own appeal and sunny ways campaigning.

In 2015, Trudeau rescued a party that was well and truly broken and proceeded to remake it in his own image. And that continued well into Trudeaus time as prime minister.

What has Trudeaus remaking of the Liberal Party consisted of? Over his time in office, the Liberal Party has become much more ideologically left-wing and has come to more closely reflect Trudeaus own socially progressive politics. The Liberals have largely ceased being a brokerage party, willing to veer to both the left and right as the party did throughout Canadian history. The partys current agreement with the NDP fits the new Liberals like a glove.

Dont believe me? My students are often mystified to hear that, prior to Trudeau, the Liberal caucus had a sizable and at times influential pro-life contingent in its caucus. The party a big broad tent tolerated these MPs, and they in turn remained within the party and contributed to broadening the tent.

But Trudeau ended that in 2014, proclaiming that any Liberal MP would need to vote the pro-choice line on any abortion bill, or be booted from the party. On a whole range of issues (especially social issues), Trudeau sought ideological conformity rather than encouraging a broad range of perspectives.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Trudeau has dragged the party to the left, ended brokerage politics, and left his own policy stamp on the Liberals. This became particularly true after the departure of Finance Minister Bill Morneau, who was likely one of the last of the business Liberals of old, in 2020. Morneau is now publicly critical of the new Liberal Party, and the power of Morneaus old faction is virtually nil in the party.

The Liberal Party has also become more stylistically Trudeaupian over time. Trudeaus approach to politics, both good and bad, can be detected across his front bench. Almost every Liberal MP has never served under a leader other than Trudeau. And, for a surprisingly high number of Canadians, he is the only Liberal prime minister they have ever lived under.

The prime minister has also flexed the Justinian muscle to maintain control over his party. Cabinet ministers who have come up against the leader have either slowly or quickly found themselves sidelined. Just ask Morneau, or former ministers Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson- Raybould. Trudeaus grip on the party has strengthened, not weakened, over time.

The Liberal Party of old would never have tolerated Trudeaus low polling numbers and would have found some way to show him the door. But this isnt the Liberal Party of old, its the Justin Party. And this new partys inability to adapt in changing circumstances might lead it straight into electoral disaster in the coming election.

Royce Koop is a professor of political studies at the University of Manitoba and academic director of the Centre for Social Science Research and Policy.

Continue reading here:
Justin is the perfect leader of the Justin Party Winnipeg Free Press - Winnipeg Free Press

As Democrats make their case to voters around the country this fall, one challenge is that some of the bluest parts of the country cities on the West Coast are a mess.

Centrist voters can reasonably ask: Why put liberals in charge nationally when the places where they have greatest control are plagued by homelessness, crime and dysfunction?

Ill try to answer that question in a moment, but liberals like me do need to face the painful fact that something has gone badly wrong where were in charge, from San Diego to Seattle. Im an Oregonian who bores people at cocktail parties by singing the praises of the West, but the truth is that too often we offer a version of progressivism that doesnt result in progress.

We are more likely to believe that housing is a human right than conservatives in Florida or Texas, but less likely to actually get people housed. We accept a yawning gulf between our values and our outcomes.

Conservatives argue that the problem is simply the left. Michael Shellenberger wrote a tough book denouncing what he called San Fransicko with the subtitle Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Yet that doesnt ring true to me.

Democratic states enjoy a life expectancy two years longer than Republican states. Per capita G.D.P. in Democratic states is 29 percent higher than in G.O.P. states, and child poverty is lower. Education is generally better in blue states, with more kids graduating from high school and college. The gulf in well-being between blue states and red states is growing wider, not narrower.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Originally posted here:
Opinion | What Have We Liberals Done to the West Coast? - The New York Times

For young, secular, politically progressive men and women, having children has become something of an afterthought. Liberal conventional wisdom encourages people to spend their 20s on journeys of personal and professional self-discovery and self-fulfillment. Children are treated as a bonus round, something to get to only after completing a long list of achievements: getting a degree, forging a satisfying and well-established career, buying a house, cultivating the ideal romantic partnership.

The standards of readiness for family are at once so high and so vague that its hardly a surprise when people fail to reach them. Indeed, the data suggest that people are having children later than they used to and are having fewer than theyd like.

For progressives, waiting to have children has also become a kind of ethical imperative. Gender equality and female empowerment demand that womens self-advancement not be sacrificed on the altar of motherhood. Securing female autonomy means that under no circumstances should a woman be rushed into a reproductive decision whether by an eager partner or tone-deaf chatter about ticking biological clocks. Unreserved enthusiasm for having children can come across as essentially reactionary.

Over the past four years, weve conducted interviews and surveys with hundreds of young Americans about their attitudes toward having children. These conversations revealed that the success narratives of modern liberal life leave little room for having a family. Women who want kids often come to that realization belatedly, at some point in their early 30s the so-called panic years. If they are lucky, their partner (if they have one) will fall in line. If they are not, they face a choice of returning to the dating pool, freezing their eggs (if they havent done so already), single parenting or giving up their hope of having kids of their own.

In this way, the logic of postponement that has been promoted by liberals and progressives and bolstered by overblown optimism about reproductive technologies robs young people of their agency. How many children they have, and even whether they have them at all, is increasingly a decision made for them by circumstance and cultural convention.

This is not just a recipe for unhappiness; it also reflects a deep confusion. There is nothing inherently unprogressive about embracing the prospect of children. Even Simone de Beauvoir, the philosopher who was among the first to critique reproduction and family as instruments for the oppression of women, acknowledged that shaping the character and intellect of another human being was the most delicate and the most serious undertaking of all. While certain conservative visions of family life such as trad wives and Silicon Valley pronatalism no doubt have little to offer those on the left, our fellow progressives need to stop thinking of having children as a conservative hobbyhorse and reclaim it for what it is: a fundamental human concern.

Read more:
Opinion | Whats Stopping Liberals From Having Kids? - The New York Times