Its no secret - long time readers know I regard Harper as the most dangerous politician in the country and that I lament the passing of the Progressive Conservative party. The fundamental difference between the two is the PC Party was strongly pro-federalism and fundamentally centrist and moderate at its core.

The Conservative party believes in a different view of federalism where the central government is made to be as weak as possible, and their overall approach is only centrist and moderate in a superficial sense designed to last only for electoral purposes. Once a majority is in Harper's hand, we can look forward to decidedly radical change.

So its clear I can't support the CPC while Harper and his cronies are at the helm. Yet I won't poke only at them. Last week I indicated it was time to talk about Layton and the NDP so without further adieu...

You'll forgive me for critiquing Layton first through my jaded Harper lends but its true: my principal issue with Layton is he is so fixated on trying to help Stephen Harper destroy the Liberal Party that he's perfectly willing to sell his soul to the devil (yes, that would be Harper) damn the repercussions.

Sure, I realize Layton's strategy isn't a one-election gambit. But really, does he believe the Liberals won't come back stronger next time? It will happen. In the meantime I shudder to think that an effective Layton campaign might gain him a marginal number of additional seats yet lose the country to a Harper majority.

Still, this fixation of mine with Layton's short term / long term strategy aside, my real issue with the federal (and provincial) NDP is their climate change policy. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. Dan Garner, Ottawa Citizen

When Layton talks about "big polluters" he conveniently leaves out one of the largest... you and me. Avoiding talking about our own personal responsibility is a populist tactic that Harper employs. I'd hoped Jack was above that.

I'm all in favour of higher fuel costs and carbon taxes, seeing both as a necessary component of a workable greenhouse gas / migration away from fossil fuel strategy. We have to change our behaviour. If one really believes that climate change is a pressing serious global issue then one's politics will be informed by that belief. The NDP plan for the environment is only a start because it doesn't focus attention on personal responsibility and in that manner their plan is as bad as the flunking Conservative plan.

Here the Green and Liberal party policies make more sense. They are both designed as if they really believe it. Layton goes part way there while the Conservative plan goes nowhere. The Sierra Club has done a platform review (PDF) of the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal, and New Democrat parties. All parties get a passing grade except for the Conservatives who flunk right out with an F.

At this point in the election the environment isn't getting the prominence it should, thanks in no small part by the ruthlessly brilliant (and un-Canadian in my opinion) Conservative stream of attacks designed to cut that leg out from under Dion. Had the NDP also joined the carbon tax bandwagon, this would have pushed Harper into a corner. However I think Ms. May stands a chance at turning the page back to environmental issues.

If that does happen, both Harper and Layton have something to fear. Provincial NDP leader Carole James also has, quite wrongly in my opinion, put a lot on the line in opposing Gordon Campbell's carbon tax.

Eventually all modern economies in all jurisdictions will end up putting a real price on carbon. Even Stephen Harper will be forced to deal with this at some point. Any leader that says they will not put a price on carbon is woefully uninformed or lying. They all know they need to do it, that international pressure will one day force their hand. Best be honest with people now and get going.

Yes, I realize being honest with people is frequently a losing electoral strategy. Still, as inept a campaigner as Dion appears to be, I give him high marks for being committed enough to the issue that he's doing the impossible: trying to sell during a highly competitive election a difficult to understand policy that includes the word "tax". Maybe an advertisement of some regular folks having a coffee in a doughnut shop, calculating their Green Shift tax savings on an envelope... might make more headway with the average voter.

On the subject of energy taxation, the following article by Dan Garner, published today in the Ottawa Citizen, is a worthy read. Please go on past this excerpt:

Harper economics: Stephen Harper has a masters degree in economics. He is conservative. He says he understands how markets function and he prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

Gregory Mankiw is a professor at Harvard University and a world-renowned economist. He was chairman of U.S. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Mankiw definitely understands how markets function and he, too, prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. More >