I tried putting up the “reference” links, but it looked “wrong” from a design perspective to have duplicate links. I think the top links will have to have more emphasis and that means I’ll have to play around with the site template (which I’ve already completely gutted from what it originally was) to do this.

However, your suggestion about an “issues” page is excellent. I will adopt this and try to keep it updated. We’ll see how it works.

The user interface here is very hacked together, if I had more of an artistic sense I could make it look better, but I don’t.

Lib: 52% (+-0%)
NDP: 35% (-1%)
Grn: 12% (+-0%)
Other: 1% (+-0)

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20090414.pdf

Basically, Mustel’s poll results have been stable compared with their last two polls (16% spread, 14% spread.)

Compare Mustel’s current results with the same period in 2005 showing a 6%/8% spread and 5% spread in favour of the Libs just before voting day (and that result was bang-on), one can extrapolate that the Libs have a 10% higher spread this time around. Not much changed during the 2005 election and we will see if thzat’s the case this time around.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20050510.htm

Thank you, this is much clearer.

You may be right that this article was written with a unnecessary partisan slant, but I wonder how much of this was Jaccard’s or the media’s slant.

I agree that the current carbon tax is not effective, but I agree with it in principle and I would not like to see it scraped; I would like to see it improved.

And I agree that some money from the tax should go into green infrastructure, but we also need to boaster the effects of a carbon tax by reclining the money back into the economy by lowering income tax.

Both by building green infrastructure (facilitating green lifestyle options) and offering more economic mobility to those who choose to use less carbon we will start to see a shift to a carbon use level which is manageable in the long term. And we should be investing in green infrastructure anyway, the carbon tax is only one way of many to help fund these projects.

That is why I can’t take the man seriously.

I think a carbon tax is a good idea, but it needs to be increased substantially or the money needs to be put into public transit (not income tax reductions). As is it is as good as useless. Show of hands: who has decided to leave the car at home (even once) because the 2.4 cents/litre gas tax?

Here is his paper:
http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/files/spring2009/BC_NDP_Climate_Policy_Apr_10-2009.pdf

My quick take is that there isn’t nearly enough information in his paper for a third party to objectively construct a “model” to indicate the results he is claiming.

I’d be inclined to agree with those that think this report was a political smear job. I might write on this later.

BTW, Marc Jaccard has a Nobel prize – while John Calvert goes and sucks ice.