Article content continued

The Liberals, then, have failed to make a case for their re-election, while the Tories have failed to make the case for why they should replace them. To say this — or to note that their platforms have more in common than they have serious differences — is to risk the ire of partisans of both, who are heavily invested in the idea that this is an election of great import, as they are generally in the idea that politics is a noble calling filled with honourable men and women who keep at least half their promises.

The parties seem unable to tell the truth even about the recent past

But wishing doesn’t make it so. What is more striking about this election is what is not being discussed than what is; the number and importance of the issues on which the parties have literally nothing to say quite dwarfs the number on which they have chosen to emphasize their comparatively minor differences.

(And yes, the latter category includes climate change: it is probable the Liberal plan, at least so far as it is possible to guess what it is — how high would carbon taxes be raised? How would they close the 79 megatonne gap between projected and targeted emissions in 2030, to say nothing of reaching “net zero” by 2050? — would cut emissions by more than the Tory plan would, since the Tory plan would not cut them at all.

But at what cost? The two famously differ over carbon pricing, but there is much in the Liberal plan that is not carbon pricing, virtually all of it more expensive, per tonne of emissions reduced. Measured in terms of bang for the buck, I suspect we might find there was less difference between the two plans than meets the eye.)