Winston Smith

A Different Act

2011-01-14T10:47:00.005-04:00

A Different Act

Well, that didn’t take long. Less than a month after Danny Williams resigned as Premier, Kathy Dunderdale announced her intention to succeed him. Unless something utterly unexpected happens during the next week, Premier Dunderdale will lead the Tories into the next provincial election.

While The Telegram has called the PC leadership race a fait accompli, it looks like the Tories are changing brands as well as leaders. If the speed of Premier Dunderdale’s ascension is remarkable, the makeover in the government’s rhetoric is equally noteworthy. Before the ink dried on Williams’ resignation letter, the provincial government dropped its combative stance towards the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. On 8 December, less than a week after Williams left office, CBC reported that Jerome Kennedy had softened his tone towards the NLMA. “I spent 20 years in a courtroom and oftentimes I had to admit I was wrong,” Kennedy told the House of Assembly. He continued, “If in fact I am wrong, that is something I can admit and accept again but at this point in time ... we are concentrating on trying to get a deal with the doctors, which is what the public wants.” Sure enough, within a couple of weeks the government managed to do something that it couldn’t do for over a year: negotiate settlements with the NLMA, as well as the fifteen striking NAPE workers at the Burin/Marystown Community Training and Employment Board.

This makeover hasn’t been limited to health care negotiations. When Premier Dunderdale stepped before the microphones to announce her intention to succeed Williams, she was flanked by only her daughter. With no hoopla or fanfare, the contrast with Williams’ style could not be more striking. Her pleasant, low-key news conference featured none of the aggression on which Williams habitually relied. Dunderdale acknowledged that while her government will follow Williams’ policies faithfully, she will be a “different act.” And if the early messages are any indication, her premiership will be a kinder, gentler version of Williams.

Rebranding offers Premier Dunderdale an opportunity to distinguish herself from Williams, but it also carries political risks. For a decade Danny Williams was the Tory brand in Newfoundland and Labrador. He dominated his party more than any other political leader since Joey Smallwood. In the wake of Williams’ resignation, there has been much talk of the pride and confidence that he instilled in his followers; however, throughout his political career, he also relied incessantly on enmity and vengeance. Williams himself addressed this legacy in his resignation speech: “You know, I laugh when critics and some reporters say that I’m nothing more than a fighter, someone always looking for a racket, never happy unless I’m taking someone on. Well, folks, I’m here to tell you today that those people are right.”

Danny Williams was able to capitalize on this image because anger sells politically. By jumping from one quarrel to the next, Williams’ Tories were able to set the political agenda, define the opposition, and manipulate public opinion with unprecedented success. Williams defined strength as belligerence; while the public may have wearied of the racket, it’s unclear whether voters will be receptive to a new style of Tory governance.

Premier Dunderdale faces a difficult choice. On the one hand, if she successfully rebrands the Tories as the party of reasonableness and accommodation, she risks losing a major part of the Williams legacy. Williams was able to exploit his persona as the fighting Newfoundlander to keep the opposition parties on the defensive; if Dunderdale abandons this modus operandi, she risks giving them the opportunity to rebrand themselves. If the new Premier decides not to pursue political feuds, she risks losing control over the province’s political agenda. And if it looks like she’s avoiding a fight, she risks appearing weak.

On the other hand, if she chooses to embrace Williams’ combative style, she risks losing legitimacy if she cannot carry it off. Danny Williams was able to get away with his endless bickering because he projected authenticity: he genuinely seemed to relish conflict and to dislike his enemies as much as he said he did. Unless Premier Dunderdale can find a way to create her own version of the fighting premier persona, she risks alienating the electorate if she mimics William’s acerbic style. If she begins to sound inauthentic, she will quickly lose popular support.

By calling herself a “different act,” Dunderdale has signalled that she’s well aware of the challenge of succeeding Danny Williams. The fact that no one else has yet decided to run for the PC leadership indicates that she is not the only Tory who understands how hard it will be to manage the Williams legacy.

Published in The Telegram, 8 January 2011. My thanks to Russell Wangersky and the editorial staff at The Telegram.

Are We There Yet? The Politics of Anticipation after Danny Williams

2010-12-06T12:40:00.003-04:00

Are We There Yet? The Politics of Anticipation after Danny Williams

Like everything else about Danny Williams, this was no ordinary resignation. Mr. Williams’ departure marks a provincial watershed, one of those rare moments when a political culture is on the cusp of transformation. As the tributes keep pouring in, it is tempting to see Williams’ premiership as marking a new era in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. According to the conventional wisdom, 2003 is Year One, because it signaled the end of defeatism and the beginning of a new polity based on pride, strength, and determination. Danny Williams built on a resurgent Newfoundland nationalism that was already prevalent in the political culture, even in the Liberal administration of Roger Grimes; but Williams took this nationalism in a new direction. Williams' first task was to make a rhetorical break with the past: far from being trapped by history, Newfoundlanders were now going to break free from the shackles of federalist oppression. As luck would have it, the Tories took power as the price of oil shot up dramatically and many commentators started talking about "the Williams effect," which drew a sharp line between the alleged weak Liberal past and the strong Tory present.

In his seven years in power, Danny Williams accomplished nothing less than the rebranding of an entire province. This rebranding was both literal and figurative, as the government commissioned a new provincial logo complete with a new spelling of the province’s name. Danny Williams took his nationalist politics further than any premier would dare (Brian Peckford included), and in late 2004 he ordered the Canadian flag hauled down as he engineered a showdown with Prime Minister Paul Martin. Looking back on this recent event, what is remarkable is how unremarkable it has become: few commentators even bother to mention the flag incident any longer, let alone debate its significance. What is remembered instead is Williams’ triumphalism. Victory over Ottawa, victory over the oil companies, victory over AbitibiBowater. As with every aspect of the Williams regime, he relentlessly branded himself, his party, and now the province as heroic. With the achievement of "have status" due to oil revenues, Williams took the province to the promised land that Brian Peckford could only dream of. He embraced a type of ethnic nationalism that went further than the provincialist rhetoric of his predecessors – he publicly invoked the term "race" to describe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – and his relentless personal attacks on enemies and rivals created new standards of incivility in public debate.

But underneath this political wave of change was a stronger current of historical continuity. Mr. Williams' premiership marked not the beginning of a new era but the end of an old one. Like all of his predecessors since Joey Smallwood, he was obsessed with natural resource development in general and Churchill Falls in particular. He saw himself as breaking with the past because he would succeed where they had failed. Far from attempting to take the province’s economy in a new direction, Mr. Williams wanted to fulfill Mr. Smallwood's dream and make Newfoundland and Labrador a regional energy powerhouse. Like most people of his generation, Mr. Williams viewed Churchill Falls as the holy grail of provincial politics. Development of the Lower Churchill represented not just economic development but cultural redemption. For forty years, the Lower Churchill has been the ultimate prize in provincial politics, the Mother of All Deals. When Bill Rowe prophesied in his recent book that signing such a deal would make Danny Williams "the greatest of our premiers," he was repeating a conventional wisdom older than many of his readers. The fact that Mr. Williams chose to resign almost immediately after he signed a tentative agreement that may develop part of the Lower Churchill demonstrated the power it wields over the provincial psyche.

If Churchill Falls is the alpha and omega of provincial politics, what happens now? How does a political culture evolve once it has reached the promised land, where have-not is no more? Mr. Williams did not change the province’s political culture so much as he embodied it. And for the past forty years, that culture has been predicated on the politics of anticipation. For two generations, Newfoundlanders have waited for political deliverance from the injustices of the past. This anticipation created a political teleology so deeply ingrained that it's hardly recognized, let alone questioned. The unspoken assumption has always been that Newfoundland and Labrador is not just a place but a time: it's always on the cusp of going somewhere, becoming something, fighting someone. To be a Newfoundlander is to know in your bones that the next big announcement is just around the corner, because one day the sun will surely shine. Being Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has meant never having to say you’re sorry, because suffering have-not status and Ottawa’s perfidy justifies doing whatever is necessary, from hauling down a national flag to slandering opponents as traitors and betrayers. Yet if politics has meant struggle, what happens when the struggle is won?

The resignation of Mr. Williams offers an important opportunity to debate this question. It presents a chance to reflect on the province’s political culture and the popular faith in natural resources as the solution to every problem. The political narrative remains a story of oppression at the hands of outsiders, whether Prime Ministers in Ottawa or Premiers in Quebec, based on a hard-wired belief that the province is rich in natural resources but poor in politics: if only we had full control over our resources, so the argument runs, we would solve our problems. The flaw in this mercantilist mindset is that it thinks of wealth in literal terms of staples that can be sold. It forgets Adam Smith’s dictum that wealth is what you make, not what you hold. Smith warned that gold bullion was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The province's bullion may have changed from fish and lumber to oil and hydro, but the fixation on resource extraction remains the same across generations. If you look around the world, most countries heavily dependent on natural resources, such as oil and mineral deposits, have stubbornly high rates of unemployment, severe income inequality, and a raft of social problems. As the gulf between rural and urban Newfoundland widens with each passing year, there is a pressing need to focus away from have-status and towards the demographic challenges facing hundreds of communities across the province. It's now time to consider what comes after the hydro deals are signed and the oil runs out.

Published in The Telegram, 4 December 2010. My thanks to Russell Wangersky and the editorial staff at The Telegram.

What They Don't Want You To See

2010-08-31T08:20:00.004-03:00

With ABC now long dead, and the campaign against Prime Minister Harper vanished down the memory hole, most media outlets (both national and provincial) seem to have come down with a curious case of political amnesia.

If the recent Abitibi settlement is a sign of things to come as we get ready for the 2011 elections, then here is a video that should be running 24/7.

And if Danny Williams attempts to succeed Brian Tobin in the role of Captain Canada, then here is a news story that should also be running 24/7.

And if Danny Williams wraps himself in the Canadian flag and takes a run at federal politics, then I hope that someone out there will remind the public that this is the same person who said of the Maple Leaf, "I'm not willing to fly that flag anymore in the province."

What's wrong with this picture?

2010-07-26T10:12:00.004-03:00

Take a look at this happy little picture.

Notice something odd, other than the admirably portly frame of the winning athlete?

If a picture speaks a thousand words, then this one says all that needs to be said about not only the screwed-up priorities of the RCMP and its out-of-control PR machine, but also the people who consider it perfectly appropriate to have full-dress federal police officers mugging for the camera at every major sporting event in this country. (I was going to say that the mounties are, presumably, doing it at full pay, but this may have been an overtime event. Either way, think of this picture the next time you read a government press release about the dire need for fiscal restraint).

I wasn't going to bother exhuming Winston, but then it occurred to me that if the RCMP are so media obsessed, they probably have someone staffed full-time to google for online commentary -- so even a comment from a dead blogger might get filed.

Russia and Newfoundland, 2010 Version

2010-05-17T11:47:00.014-03:00

I tried to post this comment on a post at Bond Papers, but it wouldn't work for some reason. Perhaps it's too long. I'm not intending to bring Winston back from the dead, but now that I've written this comment, I don't want to junk it.

Ed's reference to the link between NL politics and rum reminded me of something I wrote a while ago. In a paper I presented to the NHS's synposium on Newfoundland nationalism, I pointed out some of the similarities between Russia and Newfoundland, and I compared rum in NL to vodka in Russia.

Seven years later, much has changed in both Russia and Newfoundland. Back in 2003, I argued that the present did not really exist in NL's political culture, because all that mattered was the past and the future. That is no longer true. The Tories did not, of course, invent Newfoundland nationalism, but they have created a new variant of it. This variant focuses on the present, and 2003 is now Year One in the new nationalist calendar.

I am not suggesting that this is true for all nationalists -- there is no single Newfoundland nationalism but, rather, several overlapping Newfoundland nationalisms -- but the official Optimistic Correctness obsesses on the recent past and the present. Tories still talk about the future, of course, but it's quite different from the "some day the sun will shine" rhetoric of the Peckford era. Under Williams nationalism, have-not is no more, the future is now, and mastery is ours.

Which brings me back to the comparison with Russia. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin (first as President, now as Prime Minister), Russia has witnessed a rise in neo-nationalism, also based on the dramatic rise in oil prices and what many would call a state-sponsored cult of personality. Russia is also facing a demographic crisis and an urgent need to diversify its economy beyond natural resources. Like the government of NL, the Russian state has embarked on programs to increase its birth rate. And like Danny Williams, Vladimir Putin has lashed out at traitors and those who betray the motherland.

Unlike Mr. Williams, however, Mr. Putin has focused on reducing his country's reliance on natural resources. While the centrepiece of Mr. Williams' economic strategy is NALCOR, Mr. Putin's government poured $5 billion into the creation of RUSNANO, a state corporation dedicated to nanotechnology. From what I can gather, RUSNANO has been a boondoggle, but the fact that the Russians are at least trying to diversify their economy through new industries is worth noting, because they are sitting on more natural resources than Danny Williams can dream of.

If you'll pardon the lengthy comment, a couple of observations on the NP piece. What's striking are the absences. I follow NL news fairly closely, and I cannot remember off the top of my head the last time I read a reference to the province's unemployment rate. (I'm sure readers can correct me on this point). But the question I have is this: even if -- and it's a huge if -- the lower Churchill project becomes a reality, after the initial construction jobs what would be the long-term, direct impact on provincial employment? I ask because the way things have been going since 2003, NL appears to be following the model of Saudi Arabia, which uses its petrodollars to keep people employed in the public sector and mask serious socio-economic problems.

The other thing that struck me about the NP piece is the machismo. Yes, it's always been present in the province's political culture, but there was something about the interview that left the impression that this was all about leaving a manly impression. From the fact that the Premier can eat onion rings on top of his fish & chips (displaying arterial prowess beyond mere middle-aged mortals), to the gratuitous references to feces, fighting, and fans, the article was meant to show us, as the subtitle unsubtly put it, that "he isn't going away anytime soon."

But if the province is in the midst of a "perfect storm of prosperity," why on earth would he need to take time to schedule a puff-piece to proclaim to pundits, pollsters, and the public that he isn't leaving?

Post-Mortem

2010-01-05T13:00:00.024-04:00

Now that Winston has been dead for a couple of months, I thought I'd conduct a post-mortem to mark the New Year. Kicking the blogging habit was harder than I thought it would be. Blogging offers the type of instant gratification that's rare in life: you write something off the top of your head, or the tip of your emotions, and then up it pops, where a hundred people read your words within 24 hours. No editors, bosses, forms, bills, red-tape, or anything else to keep you from having your say when you want to say it. When you compare this to the real world of family and work -- the world of negotiation, compromise, collective responsibility, and split-the-difference outcomes -- it's not hard to understand why blogging, facebook, and twitter are so popular.

I'm home today recovering from a surgery, typing with my laptop in my lap and without access to my mouse -- so whatever I bang out in this post, it won't have hyperlinks because it's too hard to insert them using the pad. But since I have an hour to spare today, I want to give a post-mortem based on some trends I noticed when I was blogging regularly. Bond Papers recently gave Ed's manifesto on why he writes, which prompted me to reflect on why I started blogging a year ago. For me, the impetus to blog was simple: it was a reaction against bullying. One of the dividing lines between supporters and opponents of Danny Williams is the line between those who accept (either wholeheartedly or reluctantly) his bullying and those who cannot stomach it.

For me, the style and the content of Williamsism cannot be separated into neat political boxes. As much as I would like to overlook the hysteria, hyperbole, and histrionics, I just could not do it. This may place me in a minority -- perhaps a small minority -- but minorities matter. As J.S. Mill observed, the challenge for liberal democracy is to guard against the tyranny of the majority. And, if I'm going to be truly honest with myself, I have to admit that my opposition to Danny Williams was as much emotional as it was intellectual. Whenever I saw a clip of him, I recoiled. My dislike for Williams meant that I had a difficult time understanding his popularity, which I still find puzzling; but it also meant that I didn't have to fight the spell, known as "The Williams Effect."

If there was one thing that struck me the most when blogging about NL politics, it was the Williams spell. This spell works in different ways: from journalists making excuses for his inappropriate behaviour -- or downplaying "they should be shot" comments as if they were somehow acceptable in the football game of politics, or just amusing anecdotes -- to ordinary people angrily (almost gleefully) denouncing Yvonne Jones as a traitor in the comments section of the Telegram or CBC. As 2009 progressed, there were increasing references to the problem of online vulgarity and the perceived descent of public discourse; yet this commentary focused almost exclusively on the public/voters, not on the Premier. When Danny Williams slammed the electorate after the byelection loss in the Straits, no one in the mainstream media called him on it. They took him at his word -- "lessons learned," as it was put -- and there was no investigative reporting based on actual interviews with actual voters about actual reasons for the Tories' loss.

Which brings me to the online dust-up that followed the Straits byelection. In retrospect, the clash that erupted on Geoff Meeker's blog was inevitable. It was just a question of where and when. Before the Tories won the second byelection, there was a moment -- a fleeting moment, as we now know -- when there was blood in the political water. As a result, the online commentary became harsher, more personal, and more emotional. The dust-up had several short-term effects. It marked the end of Geoff Meeker's political commentary; since the incident, Meeker on Media has focused solely on media stories. This is, I think, a significant loss for local political commentary: not only did Geoff write incisive commentaries, but he also facilitated interesting debates, and his blog was the only one where a mixture of bloggers, journalists, and others participated in genuine, substantive discussions. The incident also prompted the suspension of comments on Polemic and Paradox, which has only recently been re-opened. And it illustrated the disdain some (perhaps most) professional journalists have for amateur and semi-amateur bloggers, and vice versa.

But despite the gulf between bloggers and journalists, the dust-up (which quickly spilled over to P&P and other sites) showed that they were both deeply engaged in a culture of machismo. There were repeated references to balls, stones, guts -- as commentators beat their chests as hard as they could. This chest-beating was not an isolated incident but rather part of a longer pattern whereby commentators focused on three principal issues: identity, experience, and partisanship. All three became wrapped into a talisman of masculinity. (Didn't anyone notice the absence of women in this slag-fest?). As commentators fought over who had the most experience and the least partisanship, no one questioned whether having decades of professional experience or a clean political past actually determined the merits of a respective argument. When the dust settled, it became clear that this fight was more about respect than anything else. While commentators disagreed sharply, they all agreed that they felt disrespected. The debate was, in retrospect, a microcosm of Williamsism, where machismo is the only political currency that really matters.

As for my own role in the online dust-up, I cannot claim to be blameless. It's remarkable how emotional (and how quickly emotional) the experience of online debate can become. I should have waited until later to shut-down Orwellian News, which was something I was planning to do; but Peter Jackson's comments got under my skin. I never liked blogging anonymously, and his barbs hit a sore spot. (And, I have to admit, his Ross Perot shot was kinda funny). I also may have been rather pedantic in my comments on P&P, but the sight of reading a blogger tout journalistic standards while being barely literate got to me. I also felt -- and I still strongly feel -- that P&P's attack on Geoff Meeker was grossly unfair and opportunistic.

So where does that leave things for 2010? Bond Papers seems to be consolidating its dominance in terms of political blogs. With its recent makeover, Bond Papers seems to be trying to move away from overt partisanship and towards a greater emphasis on policy. It's interesting to note that the online commentary on Bond Papers tends to spike whenever the question of partisanship and Liberal ties raises its head. When I objected to Peter Jackson's "Ed and Wally show" remark, it was, in part, because it was a slur on bloggers who do not take their marching orders from Labradore or Bond Papers. While Bond Papers will continue to dominate online political commentary, the Telegram will, I suspect, continue to tread a careful editorial line in print journalism. The elliptical metaphors and sports analogies may dull the edge of the editorials (though the string of football analogies was just tiresome), but sooner or later the Telegram will be forced to take a harder, and clearer, position on whether it supports Danny Williams. I have no idea of when this will happen, but when it does, it will be interesting to see if Williams can get away with blacklisting the only daily newspaper in St. John's.

According to Google Analytics, a surprising number of readers in NL still visit Orwellian News. I can dismiss hits from places like China generated via a random google search for the literary Winston Smith, but the continued readership from NL indicates that there was something I said over the past year that stuck. Tracking software is fun at first, but it soon creates pressure to sustain viewership, which is particularly important for the increasing numbers of blogs with online advertisements. To keep your numbers up, you have to blog every day, and this means one of two things: either you devote much of your workday to producing research-based commentary, which means that blogging becomes semi-professional; or you use your blog as a type of exhibitionist diary, which means that blogging becomes hyper-personal. In the case of the former, the blog mirrors a newspaper column; in the case of the latter, it mirrors a facebook page. Some bloggers try to combine the two, with mixed results. In the end, I could not sustain the former because it absorbed too much time (though my blog made no pretenses to actual reporting or objectivity), while I was unwilling to engage in the latter. I'm glad I kept a blog in 2009, but while it was fun to be part of the political debate, it's also easier to be on the sidelines.

This reminds me of the Simpson's Halloween special (sometime in the mid-1990s), when the townspeople repeated the jingle (written by Paul Anka) "just don't look," in order to rid Springfield of a sourge of giant advertising-sign monsters. If only this worked for politics as well as advertising....

Orwellian News Downsized

2009-11-09T17:31:00.014-04:00

I tried to kill off Winston last spring, but it proved harder than I thought. I hope that the second time works. Geoff Meeker has prompted a discussion that (while at once depressing and interesting) gives me a good opportunity to downsize Orwellian News and lay off its entire staff.

This blog was born in frustration with the Telegram, so it's only fitting that it dies in frustration with the Telegram. I have already had my say about the relationship between newspapers and blogs, so there's nothing to be gained by making that argument again. And reading professional journalists pour gas on flame wars, and then haughtily slag bloggers when they object, is just too much to stomach when you're writing for free. As I wrote today in an email to another blogger, I have said most of the things I wanted to say, so it's time for Winston to take a walk in the snow (or a long walk on a short wharf, depending on your metaphorical inclination). I see that Peter Jackson has already pounced on Geoff's blog; he wasn't funny last summer, and he's still not funny, but that's what passes for wit in the newsroom, I suppose.

The point I made on Geoff Meeker's blog is the same one I'd like to end on: there is a reason why the blogs critical of the Williams regime are so much better than the pro-government commentary.

Of Horses and Newspapers

2009-10-31T10:20:00.011-03:00

From today's front-page news:

'He still hopes to make the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project a reality before leaving office. "I'm definitely going to hang around to see if I can get it done," said the premier. But Williams said he's not going to stick around forever "to beat a dead horse" if a deal cannot be sealed, nor will he sign a bad deal for the sake of getting one done while in office.'

Look at the front page of today's Telegram (you may need to re-focus your eyes to take in all of the photo), and tell me that's it not all about him. Try and stomach the tired references to his business life and his accomplishments and, if you can, read and reflect on the last line of the article. Makes you wonder just who is beating a dead horse.

Deal or No Deal

2009-10-29T09:34:00.009-03:00

As the second-wave of commentary washes in, the debate seems to be revolving around whether the byelection is a big deal, no-big deal, or a split-the-difference deal. Regardless of how we categorize it, today's power deal eclipses the byelection anyways.

I think that we can all agree that this one will indeed be a very Big Deal. The question is whether it's a bad deal or a good deal. I leave it to the experts to parse the economics but, as for the politics, it's strangely good news for Danny Williams in the short-term. Williams' efforts to stoke the fires of nationalist rage seem (at least so far) to be less effective than past angry-dad moments, but today's Globe story shows that at least one national newspaper still thinks it's all about him. The impact of this unfolding story will be felt in different ways -- from interprovincial relations to internal Tory politics -- but one thing is for certain: Williams now has an excellent excuse (to be charitable, let's even call it a reason) for the lack of progress on the Lower Churchill.

I would never pretend to know enough about the intricacies of such mega-projects to make an economic prediction, but I know a thing or two about politics. And if the Lower Churchill is now a dead deal (to be charitable, let's call it on life-support), then all political bets are off. As I said earlier, I think Williams plans to stay on until a deal is signed on Churchill Falls, but if that's no longer possible, then he may take a walk in the snow earlier than the pundits have predicted. (Keep in mind that Trudeau's resignation took Ottawa completely by surprise). I have no reason to doubt Williams when he says that being Premier is an awfully tough racket, and it certainly does not look like he's enjoying it at all these days. And I seriously doubt whether the Tory caucus is a happy-happy, joy-joy sort of group this Fall, given the anger issues we've witnessed.

With the prospect of two more byelections, a House that will have to be opened sometime, and an Opposition that has sniffed a wee bit of blood, the political calculus has evolved. It may be a subtle change, but subtle changes often lead to important consequences. There seems to be a popular assumption -- a wrong assumption -- that for NL to be witnessing a big deal, it must look, smell, and quack like a BIG DEAL. But politics is never so simple and rarely so obvious.

Let's connect the dots between Tuesday's byeelection (little) deal and today's power (big) deal. On the one hand, you have a Tory leader who threw everything and the kitchen sink into a byelection and lost, thereby making the stakes far higher than they normally would have been. On the other hand, you have a Premier who threw everything and the kitchen sink into a hydroelectric megaproject that looks increasingly like it will never happen. Throw in a steady ministerial attrition rate, a skin that's famously thin, and the usual assortment of crises in the fishery, health care, and forestry. Add the smaller brush-fires, such as the unresolved problems with MUN and the NLMA. Factor in the legacy of ABC and the still-dismal relationship with Ottawa. Calculate how many oil deals are left to be made. Toss in the province's public spending and demographics. Consider that the Liberals will be a more difficult opponent in the next provincial election.

If you take a hard look at the actual political landscape rather than the polls, it does not look pretty for the Tories. When I argued that we've entered Late Williamsism, I was careful to say, quite emphatically, that this does not mean that the end of Tory rule was in sight. But just because a party remains in power does not mean that its rule remains the same. Williams may have many more days ahead of him as Premier, but his best ones are behind him. He may be able to pull a rabbit out of the hydro hat, but taking on Hydro-Quebec is nothing like brow-beating Paul Martin.

In the end, we need to make a distinction between what's possible and what's probable. It's possible that Williams will sign the mother of all deals, but it's probable that he won't. That probability matters more, in the end, than a dozen brace of CRA polls.

Lessons Learned

2009-10-28T12:29:00.012-03:00

Nottawa and Geoff Meeker have the best analysis thus far, but this CBC story is also inadvertently revealing, because it demonstrates four lessons:

1) Call it what you will -- personality cult, Late Williamsism, the Williams brand, Dannystan, whatever -- but the mainstream media are deeply complicit in its production and perpetuation. The symbiotic relationship between Williams and the media is so deep that I doubt whether the media even questions whether it is appropriate to have a post-mortem story on the byelection dominated (in title, photo, and sound bites -- the trinity of journalism) by The Premier.

2) As is so often the case, we're witnessing the alteration between the War-Danny and Zen-Danny. Whereas War-Danny was out in full force right up to voting day, today Zen-Danny is again at peace with the piece. It is, of course, no surprise that he is saying that this is no surprise; it's perhaps even no surprise that he's saying that this is a good thing, because it is (so the CBC tells us) a useful lesson...

3) ...But it's still a surprise to read Williams saying this: "It's a good check for a party that's been in government now for six years, that [is] showing popularity all through, and [has] the support of the people of the province." It's hard to follow the logic here (perhaps because there is so little of it to be found), but Williams seems to be saying that the defeat was good because the government is so popular. Wow! We knew that popularity could be used to explain just about everything in NL, but who knew that it could also explain an electoral defeat? Thus when the Tories win, it's because they are popular, and when they lose, it's because they are popular!

4) While no one seems to be paying much attention to Yvonne Jones, she made one of the most relevant comments I've seen today. According to CBC, Liberal Leader Yvonne Jones said people should see the result as a comment on the management style of Williams. "People want a voice, and there isn't a voice inside the Williams government," she said. "Most of the backbenchers are silent. Many of the cabinet ministers are allowing critical cuts to happen in their districts without ever speaking out against it." My hypothesis is that the question of democratic governance was far more important than the pundits and politicos realized. There is a persistent misconception in Town that style and substance can somehow be separated, that political rhetoric and economic reality are discrete phenomena that bear little relation to each other. Thus commentators overlook Williams' violent rhetoric because of the price of oil. Thus it is acceptable for the Premier to say that someone should be shot because he is spending lots of public money and is polling high. Thus the temptation is to accept the Faustian bargain of the endless war against the endless enemies of the people because it's a small price to pay for have-status and, as Professor Marland put it so superlatively, Williams is incredibly, phenomenally popular. I think that the byelection shows that the bargain may not be as good as it seemed.

Can we use the M-word now?

2009-10-27T20:21:00.013-03:00

Some early observations:

1) Those who predicted that this would be a three-way race were wrong. Without vote-splitting, opposition to the Tories was concentrated in the Liberal vote.

2) Look for the Tory spin-doctors to start early and relentlessly, trotting out the talking point that this was always a Liberal district, so the loss is no biggie.

3) Rev. Arthur Elliott was right when he said "I think in terms of participatory democracy, it puts the shine back on," though for different reasons than he thought.

4) However much the Danny Kool-Aid Brigade will try to deny it, the byelection will give the Liberals vital momentum.

5) The only question is how much momentum it will create and whether it will have longer ramifications. It's too early yet to predict any sort of turning point, but it's no longer premature to speak about momentum.

6) The result shows the limitations of vote-buying, intimidation, and cabinet carpet-bombing. It shows that when people feel disrespected, their vote cannot be bought back. Commentators and politicos have tended to assume that economics always trumps politics: throw enough money at a problem, and it will go away. The assumption is that if people are upset, they are only upset about economic issues. The assumption is that issues of democratic governance rank at best a distant runner-up to the hard issues of roads, jobs, and health care. My hypothesis is that this byelection demonstrates that this assumption is wrong.

7) Yvonne Jones deserves credit. I was, like Nottawa, worried about the most recent news cycle, but she obviously knew how to manage the retail politics in the district.

8) Professors Marland and Dunn were quite a ways off the mark.

9) P&P wasn't much closer, either.

10) The pressure is now on for Williams to call the next byelection.

Paradoxes of Branding

2009-10-24T15:11:00.012-03:00

I was going to post this as a comment on P&P's piece on the byelection, but I thought I'd post it on my own blog instead:

Here is one thing that everyone can agree on: this is no ordinary government. To Williams' supporters, he is super-excellent; to his detractors, he is super-terrible. But everyone can agree that he's super-something.

And with that comes super-expectations, which Williams himself has stoked furiously from day one. Since the day he took office, he has raised expectations and worked tirelessly to brand himself and the province as (to quote) the centre of the universe. Everything about this regime has always been super-sized, including its penchant for recklessness.

Thus the Williams brand depends on maintaining an image of invulnerability, which is why the Tories are so desperate to hold on to the seat. They know more than anyone how much their brand relies on the image of omnipotence.

Whereas a normal government could shrug off a minor loss in a byelection as part of the normal cycle of politics, the Williams government cannot afford to be mortal, because to do so would endanger the brand.

This helps to explain the strange fragility of the government, which over-reacts to any and all criticism with a disproportionate fury and panic. Even while they ride high in the polls, they act as if they are constantly under threat. They have a near-monopoly on power, yet they seem to be stressed out all the time. Why?

Well, because maintaining the brand of invulnerability takes an awful lot of time, energy, and luck. And sooner or later, lucky streaks end. If the Liberals win (which is still a big if), they may be able to start generating some momentum and perhaps get off life-support.

No one is suggesting that the Williams bubble will all of a sudden burst, even if they lose next week. But the bubble might develop a hole and start seeping support.

For a normal-government, that's the normal price to pay for governing. For a super-government, that's a looming catastrophe.

The interesting irony is that they are doing this to themselves. If there is a real story underneath all the rhetoric and posturing, it's the fact that we're witnessing how self-destructive this regime can be.

Tautology Alert Update:

Thanks to Nottawa for publicizing this fascinating little gem from the CP. It seems that MUN's political science professors have never met a tautology that they didn't like. But what's with the "key," as in "there is no key alternative"? Who said that the alternative had to be key, or does Jones need to have the key to the Chamber of Incredibly-Phenomenal Secrets before the Liberals can become an alternative? Or, since the Telegram is reporting that Williams has declared war on Hydro-Quebec, does "key" refer the suitcase with the launch codes?

Politics of Popularity

2009-10-16T07:42:00.016-03:00

It's another sign of the times that the Opposition feels that its most effective tool (perhaps its only effective tool) against the Williams regime is poll numbers. In the current political culture, any form of low polling is seen as kryptonite.

This past week we witnessed a political scientist trotting out the tautology that Williams faces no threat because he is popular, and he is popular because he faces no threat. In other words, Williams is popular because he is powerful and powerful because he is popular. As I've before, it's funny 'cause it's true. It is therefore unsurprising that when the Liberals finally manage to get some positive media coverage, they place all their political eggs in the popularity basket. To invoke a different metaphor, polls have become the water in which our political fish swim.

Of course, there are numerous problems with this culture of poll et impera. There are not only the issues of poll goosing and media manipulation, but also the question of popularity versus actual support. Williams' popularity may be a mile wide, but how deep is it outside the Tubble, i.e., the Townie Bubble? (And, to take the Teletubbies analogy a bit further, both rely on an inane optimism replete with creepy sun-king).

I'm sure that the Tories' internal polling shows that their support is alarmingly shallow in some areas off the Avalon, and I suspect that they are worried about the byelection. The problem for Williams is not only that he must win but that he must win big-time. For Williams, mere victory is never enough; it must be über-victory, a crushing demonstration of total supremacy.

Even a relatively close victory could deflate the popularity bubble, if only a bit, and Williams knows that his power rests on the image of pop-omnipotence. He must be seen as not just popular, but heroically popular. Thus it was important for Dunn to insist that Williams occupies a popularity summit unknown to mere mortal premiers like Clyde Wells.

Sustaining this popularity feedback-loop requires as much time and energy as actual governing, which is why we've seen such an explosion of PR advisers, media handlers, communication hacks, and call-in teletubbies. And whatever you want to say about the Williams government, it has been remarkably candid about its belief that it can govern by polling fiat.

For Williams, the beauty of popularity politics is that it's self-reinforcing. People tell pollsters that they support Williams in part (perhaps in large part, in some areas outside the Tubble) because there is no viable alternative. So he is popular because the Liberals are not. And vice versa. Getting out of this Teletubbie loop is easier said than done, but trotting out poll numbers won't do the trick. As they demonstrated during the showdown with the nurses' union, the Williams government knows when to make a tactical retreat, which has just been announced. Jerome Kennedy has become for the Tories what Roger Grimes was for the Liberals, and he will do what needs to be done (Kennedy better watch out that he might get what he wishes for). And to take the analogy further, we should point out that it took a party civil war and a bitter leadership convention before the Liberals began their final decline -- and even then Grimes had two years in power.

In a post on Nottawa, I speculated about who, if anyone, would play the role of Leo Barry in the Williams regime. I was referring to the question of whether anyone would dare cross the floor. Because the way things are going, it will take a floor-crossing or two before things begin to change. While we have entered the period of Late Williamsism, we need to keep in mind that this period could last as long as the Liberals remain in disarray. As I said before, in NL governing parties tend to rot from within before they fall, but they still have to be pushed.

Crackberrygate

2009-10-14T12:01:00.007-03:00

Crackberrygate is destined to generate some media traction, and the online comments at CBC make for some amusing and informative reading.

But crackberrygate also sheds valuable light on Oram's curiously short tenure as Minister of Health. It indicates that he may have been telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, when he said:

A) He preferred paperless verbal briefings over written documents.

B) He was under a lot of stress.

C) Government spending was unsustainable.

If nothing else, this bolsters his claim that he was a stressed-out, email-dependent minister who knew literally first-hand that government spending was out of control. Imagine how you would feel if you were glued so closely to a crackberry. The CBC story focuses on the money rather than the time, but stop for a minute and think about the effects of spending hours upon hours upon hours shackled to email/phone.

Iggy Popped

2009-10-06T09:31:00.012-03:00

I've received a couple of emails this morning asking about my missing post on Jeffrey Simpson. I had written a piece earlier this morning, but then I deleted it after reading the final version posted online.

I was going to point out that Simpson's patronizing column (I guess patronizing is redundant here) is part of a larger problem whereby policy gets conflated with politics. Simpson proposes a rather sensible policy -- raising the GST by two points to deal with the federal deficit -- but he is willfully deaf to the timing and the politics.

I was going to point out some of the errors in Simpson's argument, but I'm getting sickened by the feeding frenzy that we're witnessing. In less than a month, the media's feast on Ignatieff has helped to propel the Tories to near-majority status in the polls.

Today's Globe offers readers another generous serving of roasted Ignatieff: a lead story on his gender problem, plus a Wente parody, poll numbers, two other Liberal-negative columns, and a gratuitous media review. It's getting too rich a diet, even for me. As I said last month, I don't like Ignatieff, but I plan to vote for him.

Most of these pundits profess a desire for a change in political culture, but after watching the relentless feeding frenzy for several weeks, it seems to me that they are actually enjoying what amounts to a political homicide. (Whether the homicide is suicide, manslaughter, or murder is best left to forensic historians).

Which brings me back to Simpson and his advocacy of tax increases. Simpson loves to rant about the need for prudence and planning, and he never ceases to chide politicians for their recklessness.

But here's a couple of questions for the oracle of Ottawa. Is it reckless for pundits to participate so gleefully in the destruction of Ignatieff? And is it reckless for a political columnist to propose a policy (tax hikes), during a recession, which would be political suicide? (Bonus question: by the way, what's the plan for when the destruction of Ignatieff is completed?) . Taking Ignatieff down a notch is one thing; taking him out is quite another.

Simpson has the luxury of dealing with politics as it should be; Ignatieff has the burden of dealing with politics as it is.

Should have googled it first update:

As I should have known, I'm far from the first person to pun Iggy Popped. But the fact that Rick Mercer ranted on Ignatieff shows just how easy a target he is. I stopped watching Mercer a couple of years ago, so I didn't see this until I googled. The funniest google result was this.

An Observation and a Prediction

2009-10-06T08:47:00.006-03:00

Observation: Rob Antle's story in today's Telegram illustrates two trends in NL politics. First, over the past year or so, physicians have been getting increasingly frustrated with the Williams government on a number of issues that go far beyond the Cameron Inquiry. They have become increasingly media savvy, and they constitute one of the few independent political forces that can effectively challenge Danny Williams.

Second, over the past year or so, Lorraine Michael has consistently outperformed the Liberals. She has got out in front of key opposition issues and used the media far more effectively than Yvonne Jones. Rob Antle relies on a letter provided by the NDP, but the fact that he quotes only Michael is not unusual. In many CBC and Telegram stories over the past year, Michael has either monopolized the media coverage or marginalized the Liberals. Political insiders will know why this is the case, but it's a clear trend.

Prediction: Antle's story will prompt a TASS communiqué within 48 hours. With the pressure of a byelection, it might even prompt a scrum. But it won't prompt another rhetorical shooting. Threatening to shoot civil servants is one thing, but Williams won't dare to threaten a surgeon publicly -- so it will be interesting to see who gets blamed.

Predictable Update:

Just in case you don't buy my observation about how Michael is running media laps around the Liberals, here is the latest example.

Signs of the Times

2009-09-25T07:56:00.013-03:00

The imminent arrival of Moammar Gadhafi in St. John's is a suitable augur of the arrival of a new phase of NL political history that I would call "Late Williamsism."

I am not suggesting that the end of the Williams regime is in sight. Far from it. In fact, it could outlive Williams himself and continue under a new party leader in 2011, depending on when the Liberals finally get themselves organized. Regardless of what happens in the internal politics of the Tory and Liberal parties, I think it's safe to say that Williams will serve the rest of his term as premier.

Neologisms are fun, of course, but they are also necessary as a way to understand significant change. Like Late Smallwoodism (1968-72) or Late Peckfordism (1987-1989), Late Williamsism (2009-2011) will be marked by an accelerated descent into paranoia, bombast, loathing, and recrimination. As the Williams regime enters a new phase of senescence, power will become even more tightly centralized, as the 8th Floor squeezes out the last remaining cabinet ministers with either independent minds or an independent political base. I am not suggesting that the departure of Trevor Taylor will start a flood, but there will be a steady trickle of MHA's who either stray from the party line or announce that they will not be running again for personal reasons. Hardcore supporters like Joan Burke will stay to the end, but the Tories will not attract new blood. As the governing party ossifies, it will depend ever more on the personal rule of its leader, as Toryism and Williamsism blend to become one political brand.

I can already hear the protest: What about the polls? Surely the oracle of Halifax cannot be wrong! No, they are not wrong: the polls reveal what the polls reveal, just as chicken bones served as portents for centuries. High poll numbers are high polls numbers. While the popular conflation of poll numbers and actual political support remains as strong as ever, the past year tells a different story. It's not that Williams has made a single major blunder -- alas, there will be no deus ex machina for the Liberals -- but rather that he has made a series of minor blunders that have become systemic.

None of the scandals (the mishandling of the presidential search at MUN, the mishandling of Health Care, the mishandling of the shrimp fishery, the mishandling of Abitibi expropriation, et cetera) is enough to dent the goosed-up polls but, when taken together, they have been enough to prompt genuine protest movements. This movement is not (and likely will never be, unless the Liberals get their act together) unified, and the protests are not coordinated. But these protests -- whether it's fishermen occupying a government office in St. John's, hundreds of people protesting health cuts in Lewisporte, or an anonymous group publishing anti-expropriation ads in Grand Falls-Windsor -- are part of a broader pattern. The Williams government is increasingly out of touch with rural Newfoundland, as I've said several times, but it is not out of control.

Thus Late Williamsism is characterized by an increasing bifurcation: on the one hand, high polls numbers, weak opposition, and the Townie fortress; on the other hand, political atrophy, isolation, and growing popular discontent beyond the overpass. As this process intensifies, fear will replace enthusiasm within the Tory ranks, as those without parachutes will hunker down for the long haul. I am not suggesting that the icons of Williamsism will fail, or that official Optimistic Correctness will falter, but it will become a political mask that Tories will wear to hide their fear, loathing, and paranoia.

Don't believe me? Then try to explain this bizarre news story by CBC. There is a new health care facility coming to St. John's. It will be big and important. According to the head of Eastern Health, they are "well along in the planning." But Vickie Kaminski cannot divulge any information. She cannot say what the facility will be. Though it will be important, she cannot say what it is. She cannot say how much it will cost. Kaminski seems to be channeling Ross Wiseman, who said last winter (miffily, according to CBC) "When we have the facts we will make decisions not speculation on what might or might not happen."

It is precisely this combination of secretiveness and bafflegarb that marks the transition to Late Williamsism. It's a transition marked by increasingly strange Nixonian preemtive denials that there are no conspiracies, and "nothing underhanded or unaccountable" about the way the provincial government is run. This descent into strangeness may seem normal to people who live in it, like fish in water, but historians will look back and see it as similar to the lunacy that gave us Sprung Greenhouse.

As opponents begin to organize, it's no accident that they have resorted to anonymity. As Geoff Meeker has reported, an anonymous group of calling itself Exploits Energy has been running an advertising campaign that has attracted considerable attention. Perhaps this will prompt commentators to think twice before they condemn the use of pseudonyms. While David Newell condemned anonymous commentators "who do not have the nerve to reveal their identity," he defended his newspaper's decision to publish ads from this anonymous group, saying "since it is a business contract, we have to respect their privacy and our business relationship."

That would be well and good, but Newell didn't leave this issue there. As Meeker reports: "I do know one thing,” Newell continued. “These people have nothing to gain personally over an equity stake in the power, in the establishment of a venture capital investment fund or anything else involving that revenue. Not directly, anyways. They are sincerely interested in the long-term survival and prosperity of this Valley. These are people who have families and jobs and businesses. If the community prospers, so will they. If the region survives, they hope their kids will grow up here. It’s as simple as that for them.”

I leave it to you to decide whether Mr. Newell has contradicted himself, but I think it's safe to say that the issue of anonymity is now more complicated than it was six months ago. It's a sign of the times.

This just in (updated)

2009-09-23T08:52:00.008-03:00

Health and Community Services
September 23, 2009

Cabinet to Make Sacrifices to Help Health Care

The Department of Health and Community Services announced today that Cabinet will make sacrifices to assist the sustainability of the province's health care system. Honourable Paul Oram, Minister of Health and Community Services, said that the entire Cabinet has unanimously agreed to a 25% pay cut and an immediate freeze on all unnecessary travel and expenses.

“Our government works to balance quality with long-term sustainability. And, sometimes this means that politicians need to make sacrifices to find this balance,” said Minister Oram. “Our government faces a difficult decision to make regarding the types of services we can offer in the long-term, how much we can continue to pay politicians, and identifying how we can improve the quality in our programs and services across the province.”

The Provincial Government spends more per capita on Cabinet Ministers than any other province. “While our investments are significant and important to the quality and accessibility of care, this rate of spending is not sustainable over the long term,” said Minister Oram. “Our government is working to ensure rural healthcare services are sustainable so we never go back to the previous ways of unsustainability. It is important for us to make the right decisions today to ensure a strong future for our healthcare system."

"During a week when the Provincial Government announced subsidies for Rolls-Royce, Wally Andersen pleaded guilty and VOCM is reporting a grassroots movement against MHA's salaries, it is important to take stock of our priorities. We have to face the reality that our bloated political system of pay, perks, and pork is simply unsustainable," Minister Oram said.

- 30 -

2009 09 23 9:30 a.m.

This just in again (you cannot make this stuff up version):

The provincial government is defending the indefensible salary raise given to MHA's (never mind the perks and expense accounts) by claiming that it's justified because others got a raise, too. For the full version of this me-tooism, see the hot-off-the-presses TASS communiqué.

The learned Minister not only throws in the ignoratio elenchi of pension costs as a go forward justfication of the salary piece, but he offers this little gem that veers into tu quoque: "To fully index the Public Service Pension Plan and the Teachers’ Pension Plan on a go forward basis [could it be indexed on a go backward basis?] would increase the plan obligations by almost $2 billion. Even an ad hoc increase of four per cent would increase plan liabilities by $160 million. Many, many seniors in this province do not have any pensions at all and the Provincial Government has a responsibility to all senior citizens."

Memo to Ignatieff

2009-09-09T08:06:00.030-03:00

To: Michael Ignatieff

From: Agitated Voter

Re: How to Win
---------------------------------------

I don't like you. There, I've said it. You are charismatically challenged; you have an inauthentic demeanour; and I'll never forget your stance on the Iraq war. I suspect that millions of other Canadians feel pretty much the same way about you.

But I plan to vote for you. I want your party to win. I want you to beat Harper. However much I don't like you, I despise Stephen Harper and his Tories.

I worry that you're going to be a Canadian John Kerry. I worry that you're going to allow yourself to be swift-boated because of some misguided effort to occupy the high road. In your recent profile published in the New Yorker, Adam Gopnik claims that you're transformed. But if anything, Gopnik's profile shows how little you've changed. You say that you now realize that politics is about theatre (as if journalism and academia somehow are not!), but it's only party theatre: the other part is warfare.

Your summer slumber hurt you. Like millions of other Canadians, I don't care why you allowed yourself to miss an opportunity to attack Harper, but you did. I'm sure there is some complicated PowerPoint presentation somewhere that says that doing nothing for months was the right move. At this point, it doesn't matter.

At this point, you need to attack. Attack, and then attack again. You are not Barack Obama, no matter what your advisors and Annex scuppie friends tell you. You are never going to generate mass popular appeal. The public is never going to love you. On a charisma scale between Dion and Trudeau, you're somewhere in the middle. You need to recognize this for what it is: a tactical advantage over Stephen Harper, who Canadians really do not like. But they know Harper, and the jerk you know can sometimes become the jerk you live with.

So you need to know your limitations. Don't make your campaign autobiographical. Don't make the rhetoric too ambitious. You need to emphasize change. Change is what Canadians desperately want. Not change we can believe in, but change we can tolerate. Most voters want moderate change. They will vote for centrist change. Your slogan should be "Change you can vote for." You are lucky in one instance: Harper has given you a target rich environment. You will be on firm ground when you hammer away at his unpopular positions on wedge issues such as regional development, CBC and the arts, university granting agencies, science funding, or the environment. In harder areas such as the economy, you need to tread very carefully.

You will be on shaky ground if you try to attack Harper's position on Afghanistan or the deficit. In the case of the former, the Liberals are too complicit in the war to have much credibility, and you in particular will have no credibility because of your mistake over Iraq. Just say bland, centrist things, sound worried, and let the news stories do the work for you. Your strategists and professional pollsters may tell you otherwise, but real voters will tell you that this election will not be won or lost on foreign policy. Foreign policy will be, at most, a significant election issue; more likely, it will fade to minor status once the campaign starts.

In the case of the deficit, the public is not as stupid as you might think: they realize that some deficit financing was necessary as the recession took hold and they will tolerate it until the US recovers; the fact that Canada is doing better than most other countries means that Harper's economic record is not his achilles heel. This is one area where you can rely on what's left of the Liberal brand: you need to keep repeating the mantra that the Liberals will be a centrist, smart, moderate government that will manage the economy prudently.

You can bank on one thing: the Tory attack machine will stop at nothing. They will throw just about anything at you in the hope that something will stick. Because of this, you can afford to go negative, too. In fact, if you don't attack Harper, you will be seen as the type of weak, latte-drinking elitist that the Tories want to paint you as. When someone like Tim Powers attacks you for being an arrogant elitist, your staff needs point out the hilarious irony of Powers calling someone else arrogant or elitist.

Powers was not the first to play the arrogance card and he certainly won't be the last. It's something you will have to learn how to deal with, and sooner or later, your campaign will have to devise an effective counter-punch. The most depressing line in Gopnik's profile came after he summarized the smallness of the English Canadian elite. (Such a summary is necessary for Americans; Canadians know full well how small their cultural establishment really is. Only in Canada could John Ralston Saul, a prince of the establishment, safely rail against elitists). After explaining the peculiar form of Canadian elitism, Gopnik observes, "This smallness means that highbrow reputation and political plausibility can be twinned: a brilliant man [sic] from a well-known family who gives a good lecture and gets the notice of a few big people can become a party leader more of less overnight." Gopnik is more right than he realizes: it can indeed be surprisingly easy to become a party leader. Becoming Prime Minister is an entirely different story. It's been more than a generation since Trudeau left politics: over the past quarter century, the only two successful Prime Ministers were Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien, neither of whom fits Gopnik's template.

Don't make your campaign all about you. I know that you like autobiography. It's clear that you love talking about yourself, your family, your past. But you need to realize that it's not all about you. In fact, if your campaign makes it all about you, the Liberals will lose. One of the many weaknesses of Stephen Harper is that he has a weak cabinet by design. He doesn't want strong ministers. You need to demonstrate that you are a team player who will have a strong cabinet filled with people who do not believe in creationism. (You would do well to spend more time speaking with Chrétien and less time chatting up writers for American magazines).

Keep in mind that this election will be about retail politics. It will be about agitated voters frustrated with the status quo; voters who tell pollsters that they support Harper, even though they don't like him; voters who don't trust Layton and the NDP; voters who worry about the Bloc. These voters liked Harper's Australian-style, retail-politics tax cuts; but they are no Barry Goldwaters. They represent the big, fat, mushy middle, filled with people like myself who want to be persuaded that there is a genuine alternative to Harper.

You need to focus on local operations, volunteer organization, constituency offices, and getting the Liberal vote out. Many people forget that Obama's success was due far more to his campaign discipline, organizational prowess, and local networking than his masterful rhetoric or debating skills. Many people also forget that while Obama himself eschewed nasty attacks on Hilary Clinton and then John McCain, his supporters and surrogates never hesitated to exploit their opponents' weaknesses.

You need to stop talking like a cosmopolitan. Talking about Isaiah Berlin in interviews is fine as it goes, but often the reader gets the scary impression that you genuinely believe that this election will be an existential struggle between variants of liberalism, between the forces of individualism and the imperatives of collective rights. If you pander too much to Quebec nationalism, you will lose, no matter how intellectually complicated your rationalization may be.

Please keep in mind the fate of the ill-fated Decembrist coalition. Please keep in mind that more than anything else, your smart avoidance of the Decembrists was what got you the leadership in the first place. Do not forget how the Tories pounced on the so-called pact with the separatists. Do not think that you can somehow semantically skate around separatism. "So-called" doesn't matter in elections.

Stop talking about the Balkan civil war as if it was your war. You need to stop using it as an intellectual touchstone. If you tell Canadian voters that your position on nationalism was forged by Blood and Belonging, you will lose. If you tell Canadian voters that, as a result of the Yugoslavian tragedy, "I got out of my system a certain kind of cosmopolitism that's highly individualistic," you will lose. Talking like that is precisely what cosmopolitans do. Talking about your self-reinvention, your personal transformations, or how you've decided to try on a new brand of cosmopolitanism will not get you elected.

Keep in mind that you are not, and will never be, Trudeau. Keep in mind that he had more charisma in his left arm than you have in your entire body. Keep in mind that he was smart enough to know how to talk smart. Keep in mind that whatever else, he projected authenticity -- you knew who he was, even if you didn't like him -- and, because of that, he gained respect. Keep in mind that Trudeaumania was never as deep or as wide as Liberals make it out to be. Keep in mind past Liberal minority governments, past defeats, past missteps. Keep in mind that unlike Trudeau, you face an opponent who is as smart as you. Keep in mind that unlike Trudeau, you face a Tory attack machine that makes Tim Powers look positively refined.

I want to vote for you. I really do. And millions of other Canadians want to, too. They want the noise and uncertainty of minority government to go away. They want to push the spectacle of last year out of their collective memory, and they want to pretend that the whole prorogation soap opera never happened. You can help them do that. You may have supported the Iraq war, but you never became a fully committed Decembrist. Your relatively clean slate is one of your best friends in the next election. The other is Stephen Harper.

Keep in mind that however low you stoop, he will stoop lower. This does not mean that you should not jump into the mosh pit of political mud-slinging. Far from it. It means that because of their nastiness, you can afford to attack. It means that you are in the fortunate position of facing a nasty politician who has tried repeatedly, and failed repeatedly, to get Canadians to give him a majority. You may not have a lot of personal charisma, but he has far less.

You need to pass the elevator test, i.e., the leader with whom the voters, if given the choice, would prefer to ride the elevator. Voters like to talk more about how politicians are jerks than about the legacy of Isaiah Berlin. And while they tell pollsters that they don't like negative campaigns, the truth is that politicians use attack ads because they work. Remember what Machiavelli said about fear and love.

Trust me on this. Just because voters place such a high premium on perceptions of strength and authenticity does not mean that they are stupid (nor does it mean that all ordinary Canadians drink double-doubles, by the way), but it does mean that they can spot a phony or a bully a mile away. You're facing a bully in the next election; for the sake of the electorate, please leave the role of the phony to Jack Layton.

Good luck. And stop giving interviews to the New Yorker.

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

2009-09-04T07:50:00.007-03:00

Thesis: "The industry was facing a crisis and the MOU has been critical in resolving that."

Antithesis: "FFAW president Earle McCurdy says time is running out."

Synthesis: "As we head into the Labour Day weekend Premier Danny Williams is full of optimism about future economic prospects for the province."

I wonder what would happen if Here & Now used Kang as a point of comparison, as Global News did in 2007. Just wondering.

Kidding

2009-09-03T06:57:00.013-03:00

Kidding, nothing more than kidding,
Backtracking furiously, still trying to pin the feds,
Special sessions and recrimination,
Normal day in this angry nation

Kidding, wo-o-o-o, kidding,
Wo-o-o-o, kid you again, like the good old days

Kidding, nothing more than kidding,
Kidding now the polling is done
Kidding about burying hatchets
Pretending there's no political racket

Kidding, wo-o-o-o, kidding,
Wo-o-o-o, kidding

Wo-o-o-o, fool me once, shame on you,
Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again....

(Cue music, repeat & fade)

You may not laugh at the joke as reported in the Telegram, which reads like a piece from Angy Dad; but I'm sure the assembled audience laughed as heartily as they did at his health crack.

Aural Correctness

2009-08-18T15:31:00.007-03:00

From the people who brought you patriotic correctness, optimistic correctness, and emotional correctness, comes a bold step into a brave new world of governance: aural correctness. While it might not suit the tastes of the Telegram's editorial board, the new directive will be welcomed by aurally retentive politicians everywhere.

Missing Liberals Update:
Why did the CBC quote only Lorraine Michael in their story? What about the Official Opposition?

Piece Negotiations

2009-08-17T07:49:00.016-03:00

Danny Williams and his followers love the word piece. They love it so much that they have created entirely new meanings for the word.

In Danspeak, "piece" seems to denote a project or initiative, though it's often hard to discern any rational meaning. Take, for example, this prattle to the Globe and Mail, in response to a question about the mythical fixed link, "Yeah, but it's not just a simple link but a major transportation piece that enables people to do a circuitous route. [In Quebec] they are extremely interested; we talked to them about it recently." Williams was obviously on a roll by this point in the interview, because he offered this follow-up comment: "Being a have-province is a huge piece for us psychologically."

Pieces may be physical, psychological, or eschatological, but one thing is for certain: they are always political. And in this polling season, the tea leaves show some interesting patterns. Williams may have been too busy to attend interprovicial meetings, but he had plenty of time to give interviews with Gordon Pitts and Dave Bartlett (the latter was excitedly touted as an exclusive). Neither Pitts nor Bartlett asked Williams why he is so popular, but they sounded eerily similar to Lisa Simpson, when she observed that Monty Burns' campaign had the momentum of a runaway freight train.

Pitts offered the best inadvertent humour, however. Not only does his interview quote Williams as claiming that, pace Labradore, half the province's population lives in or near St. John's, but it offers the amusing spectre of him touting the world-class facilities of the same university that he has helped to turn into a collective acting class.

But what do the two interviews reveal, aside from journalistic obsequiousness? The ABC virus has mutated into yet another form. The last time I checked, the Williams government had announced a new shaming initiative, whereby they would use their unique powers of moral suasion to pressure the federal government to support their fishery policies.

However, as should be expected for a government on the move, both the shaming and kiss-the-backsides initiatives have been replaced by a new optimistic fatalism. According to this doctrine, the Lower Churchill will get finished, sooner or later; the federal government will subsidize the project, sooner or later; and Williams will retire as premier, sooner or later.

If Williams sounded like Luke Skywalker last winter, now he's channeling Yoda. If he wanted to rip Harper's head off in February, now he's refraining from even uttering the name of his nemesis. If he was enraged at the Shaft, now he's at peace with the piece. Now the best trash talk he can offer is this exercise in tepidity: "I don't think, at times, the federal government gives it [Churchill Falls] the attention it deserves." In this moment of political Zen, it's not a question of how or why; it's merely a question of when. There is no try, only do!

This is the sound of one mouth flapping. While Williams has declared a temporary truce in trash talking the Tories, Gros Morne remains fair game. It's no accident that he invoked a gambling metaphor: "Williams said the Gros Morne route would probably be the cheaper and shorter route, but he said it could be taken off the table if Ottawa would commit to help fund the project." He may be no longer threatening to haul down the Canadian flag, but he's not above environmental blackmail.

Which brings us back to piece. Williams' use of the word may be inexact, but it appears to be closest to [11], i.e., "a nice piece of acting." In this phase of the piece negotiations, the question is whether Williams' threat against Gros Morne is serious. The plan to run hydro towers across a UNESO World Heritage Site may sound crazy, but that's the point. In much the same way as Nixon wanted the North Vietnamese to think he was crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, Williams wants the federal government to think that he's nutty enough to ruin a national park. In much the same way as Nixon became obsessed with "winning" the Vietnam War, Williams is obsessed with the great Hydro war.

As I said last spring, the road to Newfoundland nationalism runs straight through Churchill Falls. To quote its namesake, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Nixon began his experiment in madman theory in 1969, six years before the Vietnam War finally ended.

If a report falls in July, does anybody hear?

2009-07-31T08:38:00.005-03:00

If an economic report falls in July, does anybody hear?

It's no surprise that the latest economic forecast from the Conference Board of Canada received ample attention in the Globe and Mail and the Telegram.

It's also no surprise that it's being ignored by the Williams government and VOCM.

But it is surprising that the Opposition is so quiet. While the Telegram's report that "Finance Minister Jerome Kennedy could not be reached for comment," is de rigueur these days, surely the Liberals could have got a word in somewhere? Couldn't the Opposition be reached for comment?

Stop the Presses Update!
It looks like the state of the economy cannot compete with an enraged cat.

Just how bad is VOCM?

2009-07-24T08:42:00.003-03:00

Here's a question for today: just how bad is VOCM?

Here are the headlines listed as of 8:45 a.m.:
Tragic End to Search for Chopper
Recreational Fishery Starts Saturday
Weekend Emergency Service Restored at Hospital
Memorial Beefs Up Emergency Plan
Central Health Recruits New Doctors
Premier Confident Central Newfoundland Will Overcome Challenges
Thursday's Sports Scores
Possible Supermarket Closure Prompts Rally
Dump Sites Closing
Guide Aimed at Special Marine Areas
South Coast Aquaculture Industry Astounding: Premier
Pot Bust on Northern Peninsula
Tall Ship Visiting Capital City
Viking Village Named Hidden Travel Gem
Local Sports
Janeway Case Room Nurses on Mandatory Stand-by
Drowning Victim Identified
Elderly Man Crashes Motorcycle
RCMP Hot on the Busted
Labrador Towns Baffled
Submerged woman recovering
Labrador West Saddened
B and B Operators Offer Free Accomodations to Quebec Couple
Contraband Cigarettes Seized
Eastern Health Moving to Implement Report
Avondale Store Celebrating Milestone
Gander Reassured About Search and Rescue Unit
Man Could Lose Driving Privileges
Email Scam Warning Issued
Turnings Boss Against Pot Legalization
Government Acts on Smelly Situation
Province Committed to Southern Labrador Airstrip: Taylor
Fuel Prices Unchanged
Former CBS Mayor Dies
NLer Helps Canada to Softball Victory O'Brien Shines
Avondale Store Celebrating Milestone 120 and counting
RCMP Applaud Quebec Couple for Rescuing Woman
Mainland Accident Claims Life of Woman From Province
Province Not Moving to Needs-Based Home Care: Oram
Young Person Hospitalized with H1N1
MHA Supporting Capelin Fishermen
Fire Department Issues Reminder to Businesses
Public Meetings Set on MHAs Salaries and Compensation
Mayor Pleased With Work on TLH
Paradise Beats Harbour Grace in Online Vote
Car Submerged in Pond Submerged vehicle stolen.
Man Injured in Workplace Accident
Fire Damages Home in Bulls Cove
Deer Lake Teen in Trouble
Police Release Surveillance

The stories stretch back to the 21st. Let's leave aside, for a minute, the high proportion of feel-good Williams government stories. Let's even leave aside the fact that today's pseudo-story on Williams' speech is nothing but an abstract of the speech, complete with an audio clip of...you guessed it: an excerpt from the speech. http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&id=558&latest=1

No, what's truly telling is the absence. What's left unsaid says everything about VOCM News. In a week with startling and disturbing revelations about the scope and depth of political corruption in NL, there is not a single story on the trial of Jim Walsh.

Only the Telegram is giving the Walsh trial the attention it deserves. I have been critical of the paper and some of its columnists in the past, but I have to give credit where credit is due: their reporting and commentary have been informative and incisive. Their editorial today gives reassurance that critical thought is alive and well in at least one corner of the fourth estate. It was also one of the better written commentaries, with a punch packed at the end:
"And if you're willing to simply accept reassurances that it's all better now, well, then you'll get the government you deserve."

That's one of the best lines I've read in a while. Here's the link: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=272184&sc=80

ABC's of Justice

2009-07-22T10:34:00.014-03:00

While the national media focuses on H1N1, the ABC virus continues to spread unabated.

The latest casualty is the Provincial Department of Justice. The ABC virus used to be confined to the long-standing agitation for a federal penitentiary in NL. As Labradore noted at the time, the Williams government was putting new rhetorical wine into an old political bottle: http://labradore.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-this-what-jerome-signed-up-for.html

But the ABC virus has since mutated into a new form that afflicts provincial as well as federal jurisdictions. In response to mounting public complaints about the poor condition of Her Majesty's Penitentiary in St. John's, the Williams government is apparently lobbying Ottawa to pay part of the cost of building a new provincial facility.

The VOCM story on 18 July neatly blurs the line between HM Penitentiary (a facility run by the province) and the long-standing campaign for a new federal penitentiary: "The province has been asking the federal government to help build a new prison in the province [a provincial penitentiary?], but the feds have yet to jump on board." http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&id=448

It's unclear whether this is part of the new federal-shaming policy that Fisheries Minister Hedderson announced last week, but it's certainly a sharp departure from Premier Williams' public declaration in the House of Assembly less than three months ago: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html

Or perhaps, like all agitprop, it's a hybrid of the two. Whatever the case, today's coverage in the Telegram shows that even inmates are well aware of the politics of prisons. According to the Telegram, a former inmate said, "federal politicians who refuse to fund a new [provincial] prison should be fired." (It appears that only the Premier is allowed to say publicly that officials should be shot).

When asked by the Telegram, Federal Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan released a statement saying, "As this is a provincial facility, the prison and its future are entirely the responsibility of the province." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=271377&sc=79

Meanwhile, the Provincial Department of Justice refused to comment on the matter. I wonder why.

Where's Waldo?

2009-07-15T07:04:00.007-03:00

My eldest son really enjoys the Where's Waldo books, so I've been reading them with him fairly often this past year. This morning I realized that Waldo-locating skills are useful when searching for other people, too. Take, for example, yesterday's press release, MOU, and news conference:

The press release, news conference, and media stories contain photos of, quotations from, or references to, the following individuals:
Tom Hedderson
Earle McCurdy
Gail Shea
Derek Butler
Stephen Harper

Who is missing?

[Hint: it's the same guy who appears on virtually every news release associated with NALCO]

Once you've finished the Where's Waldo game, you might want to ponder three questions:
1) According to the government's press release, "The industry was facing a crisis and the MOU has been critical in resolving that." So the crisis is now suddenly over?

2) Hedderson is quoted in the Telegram as saying, "We have a very good chance of making sure that we shame them into action." Does this mean that the provincial government has reversed its policy with respect to federal-provincial releations, replacing the official line of "we couldn't care less" with the new "making sure that we shame them"?

3) What's the difference between the "investments" touted in the government's press release and the "subsidies" that Dunderdale rejected just two weeks ago?

Here are the links:
The press release: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0714n06.htm
The Telegram story: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=269372&sc=79
VOCM story: http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=395
"We couldn't care less" policy: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html

Protest Postmortem

2009-07-14T09:00:00.007-03:00

The fishery protest that started with a media bang ended with a political whimper.

As I wrote last week, the return of the Premier meant one of two things: he would either wage rhetorical war against the protestors or cut a deal and throw money at the problem. As with the threatened nurses' strike, the provincial government blinked: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/07/11/shrimp-price.html

As I said when the nurses' strike was averted, I'm glad that the provincial government had the sense to cut a deal. However, while the government's response to the deal is a lot quieter than the aborted nurses strike (few media stores and no government press release thus far), a protest postmortem reveals some interesting similarities between the two incidents. These similarities are part of a broader pattern of governance. Let's call them the Williams Government Top Ten:

1) Procrastinate while the problem festers.
2) Attack when the problem generates significant media attention.
3) Blame everyone else involved and deny any responsibility.
4) Find a way to say it's all Ottawa's fault.
5) Issue a press release saying that the government has already done everything it can do.
6) Do nothing substantive until the Premier gets directly involved.
7) Cut a deal at the last minute.
8) Assume that the deal solves everything.
9) Return to ignoring the larger structural issues that caused the problem.
10) Return to your idée fixe: NALCO deal-making.

Press Release Update:
It will be interesting to see how much follow-up there is, but here's the press release:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0714n06.htm

How not to be an Opposition critic

2009-07-10T08:56:00.007-03:00

How not to be an Opposition critic, from the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/07/09/gros-opposition-709.html

Liberal critic Kelvin Parsons said the Gros Morne hydro corridor is a bad first option, saying he thought it was another case of the premier "shooting from the lip."

However, Parsons said he could possibly support the plan under certain circumstances.

"Right now we have a UNESCO site there. There should be no transmission line through there unless it is absolutely necessary to go through there. And we don't know that at this point," he said.

Why on earth would Parsons open the door, even a crack, to the possibility of supporting such an utterly stupid idea? It's not a "bad first option," it's bad. Period.

What could the Liberals possibly gain by giving Williams an inch so he can take a mile? It doesn't take a genius to figure out how political expediency can be skewed to appear as absolute necessity, if the power line lunacy continues. What we don't know at this point is how reckless the Williams government will be, not whether the power lines will be absolutely necessary.

If there is any issue on which the Opposition should take an unequivocal stand, it's this one. The Liberals never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. (Yes, I know it's an Abba Eban quote).

Now is the time for them to put as much distance as possible between themselves and Danny Williams. I'd trade the "shooting from the lip" quip any day for an unqualified rejection of Williams' (or is it NALCO's?) Gros Morne power line propaganda.

Wiseman Dumped

2009-07-09T12:10:00.012-03:00

As you've no doubt heard already, Williams has finally dumped Wiseman from Health:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=311
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/07/09/cabinet-shuffle.html

Timing is everything in politics, and in this case it was most curious. The spin and counter-spin will no doubt be full of all sorts of theories on why Williams decided to oust Wiseman today, rather than when he moved Burke out of Education.

But I'm sticking with the principle of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is likely the most accurate. And the simplest explanation is this: Williams did it because he wanted to. That's all. He waited until he decided it would be best for him, not for Health, not for the cabinet, not for the media, not for the public, not even for Wiseman himself, I suspect.

Perhaps a clue is that it was done in between Townie holidays (the 12th is soon upon us again), and in between scandals at Health: so it would generate as little publicity as possible. The last thing Williams would want is to give the impression that he was caving into public pressure. No, it was wham, bam, shuffle. No public leaks (at least none that I know of), just a terse media advisory giving the bare necessities: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0709n01.htm

The sharpest commentary I've seen thus far was on the CBC site, where someone said, "Someone must have suggested to Danny that Wiseman should stay on as health minister." At least Wiseman will no longer have to feel guilty when he spends his time speaking to Chambers of Commerce.

For those of you who just have to have a theory, here's one to chew over: Williams dumped Wiseman as a way to provide a temporary distraction from the crisis in the fishery and the fallout from his reckless Gros Morne power line talk. The pattern seems to be that he finally ousts a minister after the scandal in her/his Department has temporarily eased and when another Department is getting media heat. Thus Burke was dumped well after the initial presidential crisis erupted but at a time that took some of the pressure off Wiseman, who was being boiled in every news cycle. This fed the media something else to talk about and gave the impression that Williams was on top of things. Perhaps I was right when I said that last week's fishery protest had penetrated Williams' teflon. Williams returned from Europe, gave an absolute disaster of a media scrum (feeding not 1 but 3 stories in the Telegram), and so he was left scrambling to find a way to do damage control.

And for those of you who dare to think that this has something to do with the looming release of new information about cancer testing, you would be right: Wiseman said that the two events are connected, because today's shuffle bumped the release down the media advisory ladder. According to CBC, "The shuffle comes the same day as new numbers of patients affected by mistakes with breast cancer tests were expected to be released. Wiseman said the shuffle pre-empted the release, and the update will come early next week."

One could argue that the causal relationship should be the other way around, i.e., releasing new information would prompt a change of minister. One could also argue that the release of the cancer test imformation should take priority, given the earlier, "they should be shot," fiasco.

But nothing could be further from the truth. According to the CBC, "the premier said the timing of the shuffle is not related to the update." Quod erat demonstrandum.

All Roads Lead to Ottawa

2009-07-08T08:35:00.015-03:00

Hee's Baacck. In the wake of his media scrum and this morning's news cycle, a singular truth is more evident than ever: For the Williams government, everything revolves around Ottawa.

This may seem to be a curious claim to make about a notoriously nationalistic regime, but if you stop and think about it, Williams says practically nothing without reference to Ottawa. I'm not sure that even Clyde Wells was as focused on federal politics during the Meech Lake saga as Danny Williams has been since he took power. From the spin about "going it alone" in foreign policy or resource development, to hauling down the Canadian flag and the never-ending ABC putsch, Williams seems obsessed with the province's relationship with Ottawa. One way or another, Tory politics always comes back to the federal government.

Not convinced? Well, let's take today's news cycle. There are three substantive stories in today's Telegram:

1) Williams' response to last week's fishery protest: "Premier Danny Williams says the fishing industry ought to train its sights on the federal government - not the province - to solve its long-term problems. He said the province has already stepped up to the plate, but Ottawa has not." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=267408&sc=82

2) Williams' statement about the proposed NALCO transmission lines through Gros Morne: "The premier suggested that Ottawa could come up with the extra cash to defray the additional cost of rerouting the towers." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=267415&sc=79

3) Williams' report on his foreign policy junket to Europe. "Because of our unique position, where we've said that we're not totally on side with Canada [sic] in this whole process, I thought it was important that we made a direct link," Williams reported. The story is not available online, but you can view the first section via the Telly's "smart edition" function: http://thetelegram.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

According to Williams' scorecard, today's game of federal-provincial politics is 3-0. First, Williams denied that the provincial government bears any responsibility for the crisis in the shrimp fishery, which is now Ottawa's problem to solve. Evidently, Williams decided that last week's fishery policy -- promulgated in the press release that stated, "the industry itself has failed to take the action needed to address these issues" -- was due for a change, so he switched the blame to Ottawa.

Second, Williams threatened to build a power transmission line in a UNESCO world heritage site unless Ottawa covers the cost to build the towers elsewhere. And finally, he claimed that his relationship with Ottawa is so bad that he has to travel to Europe personally to oversee the province's own foreign policy, though Geoff Meeker has uncovered evidence to the contrary: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=266771&sc=88

If you thought this government was all about going it alone, think again. It's all about Ottawa.

Back to the Future Update

...And it's not as if this is a new phenomenon, either: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2005/02/independence-of-dependence.html

Penetrating the Teflon

2009-07-02T08:49:00.012-03:00

If journalism is the first draft of history, we may be seeing some history being made this week. With the fishery protest entering its fourth day, my sense is that we are in the midst of some sort of change.

It's too early to tell whether this change will be temporary or long-lasting, but it appears that Danny Williams' political teflon has been breached. This story seems to have broken through the teflon barrier, and it has the potential traction to do political damage.

The Telegram's editorial this morning gutted the story with a straightforward question: Why are thousands of fishermen receiving far less government attention than 130 paper mill workers? http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=265838&sc=80

It then split the story open by observing that Williams is in Europe on a foreign policy junket and Hedderson is in Texas of all places, leaving Dunderdale to tell the protestors to leave the building. (By the way, wasn't it curious that Williams chose to be out of the province on Memorial Day and Canada Day, and thereby miss the plaque unveiling ceremony?).

It's unclear whether ignoring the fishermen will hurt Williams' poll numbers when CRA does its thing again. If the venomous comments on the CBC and Telly sites are any indication, beating up on fishermen plays well with biased, uninformed, and bigoted people. It's interesting to note that no one ever calls civil servants pampered, overpaid, or lazy; but fishermen get called worse every time a story is posted online.

The larger question here is not about the management of the fishery per se but rather the management of government itself. Earlier in the week, VOCM was sticking fairly closely to the Tory party line, but today's story carries the FFAW's three most important talking points:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=174
1) Williams has refused to meet with McCurdy.
2) Williams needs to spend the same time on the fishery as on oil deals and ABC politics.
3) Williams' government needs to be more respectful towards the fishery.

Point number 2 is similar to the point that Randy Simms was trying to make before Williams' now-infamous meltdown on VOCM, so it will be interesting to see which Danny Williams lands at St. John's airport. Will we see the return of the angry patriarch eager to smite all those who doubt his will? Or will we see Williams quickly dispatch his ministers to throw money at this problem to make it go away as quietly as possible? (One wonders whether Hedderson himself knows the answer to that question).

What we do know at this juncture is this: the fishery protest is not a discrete, stand-alone story. It has hooked into the larger story about how Premier Williams treats people who challenge him. It has become a question of not only the government's fishery policy, but also its judgement, its attitude, and its competence. It relates directly to the political issue I've raised this week: the Tories are out of touch.

For four days now, the government's response has been to attack by throwing all the blame back onto the fishing industry. As a sign of the 8th Floor's irritation, they threw an angry press release at the problem. But still the protest continues.

Here is a question for you: if Williams lost his senses over just one session of Randy Simms' call-in show, how is he going to react to four days of protest?

For the press release and analysis, see:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0630n07.htm
http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/06/record-breaking.html
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/07/fishing-for-sympathy-without-any-bait.html

A Tale of Two Words

2009-06-30T08:31:00.018-03:00

If NL is now a tale of two worlds, then the government's policy is a tale of two words. While the economic gulf between the St. John's bubble and rural NL grows ever larger, the political divide is summed up in two words: investment and subsidy.

With Mr. Williams off on his very important European tour, it was left to Ms. Dunderdale to break the news to the fishermen that they failed the word test. According to the provincial government, the shrimp fishery has failed to qualify as an investment and, as such, any public money poured into the industry would become a subsidy. If we ever needed a reminder of the politics of words, VOCM's story provides it. How so, you may ask? Well, try this mental exercise: read the VOCM story and substitute the word "subsidy" with "investment." http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&id=129&latest=1

Changing just one word changes the politics. The choice of "subsidy," which is usually used as an epithet, was not accidental -- so let's stop for a moment and actually consider the meaning of this politically toxic word. Here is a sample definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsidy

A subsidy can mean different things, but it usually refers to some form of assistance designed for the public good. Now let's consider "investment," that most golden of political words. Here is a sample definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/investment

What's the biggest difference between the two words? Profit. Investments are typically associated with future private profits rather than present public good.

So let's return to Dunderdale's response to the fishery. The provincial government is willing to spend public money on a venture that may or may not return a profit in the future, but it is unwilling to spend public money on a venture that will definitely help fishing communities in the present. The subtext is this: the millions upon millions of tax dollars poured into the new economy (personified by NALCOR) are justified because they may return a profit at some point in the future; but the fishery isn't worthy because it is part of the old economy. One is an invesment; the other is a subsidy. One is the future; the other is the past.

But I'm not sure that the politics can be wrapped up in such a neat formula. In the first instance, other news outlets are offering markedly different coverage of the fishery story. Over at CBC, the headline puts Dunderdale squarely on the defensive: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/30/dunderdale-fishery-ffaw-630.html

I can already hear Tory supporters say "yeah, but that's the bias of the left-leaning CBC." Perhaps. But trying to write off the fishermen ignores two political realities. First, they are not going away anytime soon. These people are frustrated, organized, and angry to the point of action. Second, these people vote. In fact, they along with other voters in towns outside St. John's comprise the majority in NL. The looming crisis in the fishery may not undermine the CRAPolls in the short-term, but sooner or later, the Tories will feel the political bite. Sooner or later (and it seems to be much sooner than the Tories thought), people living in fishing communities will sense that their backs are up against the wall and they have nothing to lose by protesting against a provincial government that seems indifferent to their needs.

For a government that prides itself on being masters of their house, masters of their domain, and even masters of their destiny, the Tories' approach to the fishery betrays a surprising lack of ambition. If Williams is an action hero -- the premier who will knock heads and do whatever it takes to get things done -- then why isn't he rolling up his sleeves and attacking the problem? If he is willing to take on goliaths like prime ministers and international oil companies, why is he unwilling to take on the fishery? It is curious that a provincial government willing to use legislation to expropriate assets from a corporation is suddenly hiding behind laissez-faire rhetoric.

I suspect that if the negative press coverage carries over to another news cycle, the provincial government will, in fact, announce additional subsidies once Williams returns from Europe. In the meantime, it's up to the Liberals to keep the pressure up. The subsidy mantra is straight out of the blather binder that the jet-setting Williams left his ever loyal Deputy: http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/06/subsidies-are-bad-mkay.html

It's now up to the Liberals to develop their own talking points to counter the official subsidy slag.

Just Another Manic Monday

2009-06-29T07:22:00.008-03:00

If you're too young to get the Bangles reference, then you shouldn't be reading blogs. Like that great Eighties band, Williams is on tour again. And like all boomer stars, he's going to show that he's very big in Europe: http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&id=115&latest=1

One can't blame him, really. Eddy Campbell continues to bask in the longest round of goodbyes in St. John's history. The fishermen are being negative again. The NLMA is ready for negotiations. The Health ministry stumbles from one negative story to the next, with St. Lawrence being the latest hotspot. And the upcoming municipal election is already creating a racket.

Not surprisingly, then, in the audio clip on the VOCM homepage, Williams explains that he is taking a lot of issues to Europe.

VOCM Makeover Update:

Now you can access the audio directly via the funky new page in the Valley:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=115&GetAudio=1&latest=1

I counted 4 "issues" in the clip versus 1 "very very," which runs less than 20 seconds.

Question for Ms. Burke

2009-06-28T14:00:00.007-03:00

If Ms. Burke is too busy for briefing notes, binders, and all that stuff... http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260869&sc=88

Then how will the learned Minister know when the province has "the best system it possibly can in Canada, and worldwide for that matter?" http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=37089

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

2009-06-26T09:08:00.005-03:00

If the loggers are the canary in the Tories' coal mine, then the fishery is the albatross.

The point is not that there are problems in the industry. Everyone knows that there are problems, some of which can be solved locally and some of which are beyond the government's control. The point is that fishermen are publicly criticizing the Williams government for being out of touch.

As happened with mill workers and loggers, the provincial government has been remarkably slow to respond to local grievances. Their pattern has been to procrastinate until negative media attention finally forces them to act: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/06/abcs-of-fishery.html

The most significant part of today's CBC story is this section:
"Of a total population on the Northern Peninsula in the vicinity of 10,000 people, there's a thousand who work directly in the shrimp fishery," McCurdy said. "That's been closed down solid for [the] better part of a month, and there hasn't been a squeak," he said, referring to the Newfoundland and Labrador government's interest in the issue.

McCurdy said he wants to know why the government is not providing the fishery with the kind of assistance it has been giving to the forestry sector. He said he has been asking for a meeting with Premier Danny Williams since December, but instead has been fobbed off to Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson.

McCurdy said half-hearted and stop-gap measures will not be enough to solve problems in the fishery, which has long been troubled by too many people chasing too few fish. "Do they think no more highly of people in the outports than that to say that make-work projects are good enough for you?" McCurdy told CBC News.

For his part, Hedderson accused both the FFAW and seafood processors of not doing enough to turn things around. "I don't believe that they've done the due diligence that they need in order to get the price that's required to get that fishery going," Hedderson said Thursday."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/26/shrimp-fishery-price-protest-626.html

Politics is about managing expectations. Since he came into office, Danny Williams has been going for broke, raising expectations as high as he can, to the point that he's willing to embarrass himself on VOCM to protect his optimistic dystopia.

Yesterday the Telegram ran a reasonable editorial on the shrimp fishery, which offered a clear picture of a byzantine industry: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=263680&sc=80

The economics of the fishery may be one thing, but the politics is quite another. Fishermen, like everyone else in NL, hear the loud beat of the optimism drum from the "Tubble," i.e., the Townie Bubble. They hear all about how the sun has shone and have not is no more. They read about the success of the ABC campaign and the endless government spending on the ever growing bureaucracy in the Tubble. And they draw their own conclusions and make their own political calculations. Hedderson's effort to deny responsibility and throw all of the blame back on the FFAW and the processors will be about as successful as Joan Burke's effort to deny responsibility for the debacle at MUN.

Back in the halcyon days of March, the Speech from the Throne boasted that the good ship Williams had navigated a bold and brilliant course to the tropical paradise of Have Status, where everyone was so happy and optimistic that they didn't need a federal government: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/danspeak-90.html

But as Coleridge understood, sailors are fickle and they will turn on their captain quickly if they think they are being misled by a mariner who carelessly shoots things.

Out of Touch

2009-06-24T10:02:00.013-03:00

This morning VOCM is carrying the type of story I discussed yesterday:
Loggers' Protest May Resume Thursday
June 24, 2009

"The protest on the Northern Peninsula is over - at least for now. Forestry workers blocked part of the Northern Peninsula Highway to draw attention to their plight. Many jobs in their industry have disappeared over the last while, and they're asking government to step in and help. One of the protestors, Ralph Payne of the Loggers Association, says they haven't been able to get much of an ear from area MHA's Trevor Taylor and Wally Young. On VOCM BackTalk with Bill Rowe, Payne said they will give government a day or so, then take to the streets again tomorrow if they don't get a satisfactory answer." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=37006

While the Premier attacks anyone who dares to doubt his messianic campaign against skepticism, many of the people in NL (certainly the majority outside of St. John's) do not share his optimistic correctness. They know that there is a global recession going on, but they're frustrated by the government's lack of understanding, empathy, or even dialogue about the stressful situation facing many people in rural communities. With everything running through the 8th floor, Tory MHA's are unable to respond to local problems as they arise.

The Liberals need to target the Tories' regional weaknesses and expose the government's reluctance to deal honestly, directly, and sincerely with the genuine concerns of people living in rural communities. They need to point out that Danny Williams has never understood rural NL. There is a growing disconnect between Williams' flashy rhetoric about being the centre of the universe and the hard reality of local communities facing difficult choices. In my view, this disconnect should be the Liberals' primary political target.

While Williams' meltdown on VOCM attracted the lion's share of the media coverage (for understandable reasons), the story about loggers who cannot get the government's attention is the real canary in the coal mine. For the Liberals, the message is clear: the Tories are out of touch.

If you look at the fall of Smallwood and Peckford, arguably the most effective argument used against them is that they had become arrogant and had lost touch with the needs and attitudes of ordinary people. Williams' oversized personality, his wealth and business connections, and his slick pizzazz may be his greatest political assets, but they're also potentially his greatest weaknesses. Since 2003 he has used populist nationalism to mask the fact that he is the epitome of the St. John's elite; but as the VOCM story and others illustrate, chinks in the armour are starting to appear with greater regularity, and the Liberals need to exploit this opportunity.

The Road From Perdition

2009-06-23T15:52:00.026-03:00

With a number of journalists and commentators speculating about if/when Williams will step down and what stage of Dannyism we've entered, it might be a good time for the Liberals to take stock. As I said in an earlier post, if history is any guide, real change in NL politics will come when the governing party rots from within: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/long-view.html

As we weigh the different political predictions, I think we should keep three things in mind. First, Williams will not leave office with the Lower Churchill left undeveloped. As I've said many times, the road to Newfoundland nationalism runs through Labrador's hydro power, and I cannot envisage Williams stepping down without signing the Mother of All Deals. So either he'll have to be defeated in an election, or he'll step down once the hydro deal is signed.

Second, the Tories, like the Liberals, are neither a monolithic nor uniform entity. Rather, they comprise a coalition of different groups and peoples brought together for different reasons in a drive for power. For any party to govern effectively, it has to cross traditional sectarian and geographic boundaries. In the case of the Tories, they were successful because they extended their appeal beyond their traditional Townie and Catholic bases of support. They managed to do this in a number of ways (e.g., effective local recruitment in ridings, an appeal to nationalist sentiment and fed-bashing, and capitalizing on Liberal weaknesses); however, they never really succeeded in re-branding Williams, whose flashy suits and corner-boy style are as Townie as you can get.

There is an undercurrent of anger in many fishing communities and in Central Newfoundland. There is a real fear of being left behind, while the St. John's bubble continues to grow and grow and grow. The first place that the Tories will falter is in rural Newfoundland, where Williams' style has never been as popular as the polls indicated. In many parts of NL where people haven't felt the benefits of oil revenue and the government-spending boom, Williams' support is still a mile wide, but it is only an inch deep.

Third, the shift in power will begin only when the Liberals re-brand themselves as the party which cares about the little guy, the working people who feel left behind, the fishermen, and mill workers -- the people who feel screwed over and who never had a shot at a comfortable civil service job. They're not going to do this with Dean MacDonald in charge, or by returning to Tobinism. If the Liberals think they are going to be able to out-Danny Danny by annointing a slick new heir apparent, they should think again. In my humble opinion, Yvonne Jones has done a good job under difficult circumstances: she deserves to play a central role in deciding how the Liberals organize for the next election.

Above all, the Liberal Party needs to heal the fractures from 2001 and the fallout from its civil war. It needs to reintegrate the powerful tradition of rural populism that it lost when Efford was defeated, but it needs to do this without returning to Tobinism, which wore thin remarkably quickly. Tobinism was, in many respects, Dannyism without the petrodollars. It was slick and media-savy, though it was also inauthentic. One of the reasons why Danny remains relatively popular is that, whatever he is, he is seen as authentic. Many voters overlook his outbursts not because they like him but because they don't see him as inauthentic.

I've seen commentators make unfair comments about Jones' accent and her style, and I think the Liberals could turn this into a political opportunity. They need to brand themselves as the authentic voice of the majority of the population who do not spend their free time planning their next vacation to Cuba, loading up their new Camry at Costco, or calculating how much their East End back-split has soared in value since Danny took down the Canadian flag. Instead, the Liberals need to adopt what I would call the "Shearstown litmus-test." They need to rally around a leader, a style, and a platform that generate genuine enthusiasm in a traditional Liberal heartland like Shearstown. They have to start with the base of the party and work from there. If they can fill a hall with a speaker comfortable with the Shearstown brass band, that's a start.

The Liberals need to decide what they want to stand for: they need to find their own voice and forge a distinctive brand. And they cannot wait for the next election to get around to it.

Picture worth a thousand words?

2009-06-18T08:13:00.005-03:00

I missed it the first time. Perhaps you caught it but, if not, take another look at the front-page photo from yesterday's Telegram: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261552&sc=79

Look at the background. Is that a giant NO behind the shot of Williams?

Surely this was just a coincidence?

Perhaps, but the Telegram's photographers do have a penchant for interesting angles when they shoot the Premier: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/01/halo-effect.html

Proud, Strong, Determined

2009-06-17T07:16:00.004-03:00

Before the Telegram issues its balanced edict and explains to the masses why they should not be bothered by Williams' VOCM melt-down, here are three questions:

1) Proud. This government is very proud of the fact that it is so very, very busy. They remind us all the time that they have no time. So if they are so super busy, why did Williams have nothing better to do than call VOCM?

2) Strong. This government prides itself on its strong, steady judgement. They remind us all the time that they are the masters of their destiny. So if they are in such total command, why did Williams lose control of his temper?

3) Determined. This government prides itself on its determined leadership. They remind us all the time that naysayers are insignificant and that Newfoundlanders are the most optimistic people in the Western world. So if they have such iron-clad determination and everyone is so optimistic, why did Randy Simms' comments put Williams into such a rage?

Required Listening

2009-06-16T14:57:00.005-03:00

Listen to this: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?main=multimedia&MMID=974

The interview speaks for itself.

The Tide of Public Discourse

2009-06-15T08:34:00.017-03:00

If there is a dominant trend at the Telegram these days (aside from the proliferation of emotive, human-interest stories on the front page), it's the reaction against criticism of the Williams regime.

Like Russell Wangersky, Peter Jackson wants to play "devil's advocate" and chide those who blow problems "out of proportion."

Jackson starts with an overstatement: "Here's a thought. Is it possible Ross Wiseman is not the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history? The idea goes against the overwhelming tide of public discourse lately."

Exaggerating the opposite position (i.e., setting up the proverbial straw man) draws on one of the most common logical fallacies.

In Jackson's case, he caricatures the debate over Wiseman's tenure by opening with two extreme assertions that misrepresent the public debate, giving the false impression that,
A) People critical of Wiseman believe that he is "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history."
B) Belief in A is part of an "overwhelming tide of public disourse lately."

With his straw man neatly set up, Jackson chides the reader to "give the man his due," since Wiseman is not causing the problems at Health, which is not really in a state of crisis anyways but rather "still chugging along, wheels intact." "Cancer tests notwithstanding," Jackson claims, "most of the problems in health care boil down to a perpetual lack of funds."

It's hard to know where to start. First, if the extensive reporting by the CBC has demonstrated anything, it's that the problems are not all due to a lack of funds. Ineffective management -- including poor communication and inept leadership -- has led to poor morale among physicians. If anything, the media's focus on the Cameron Inquiry has obscured the larger problems beyond oncology. The recent exodus of specialists in a number of critical areas is, pace Jackson, evidence of systemic crisis in the system. Ask the NLMA, and they will tell you that it's not all about money.

Second, the only person I know who is publicly stating that Wiseman is the "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history" is Jackson. In an earlier post, I called Wiseman the "most incompetent member of cabinet," and other blogs have made similar claims. I suspect that Wiseman is trying his best, and chances are that he's a nice enough fellow who is out of his depth; but that's not good enough for the Health portfolio. I'm not sure what hospital Jackson has been visiting lately, but anyone who has a loved one needing heart surgery can tell you just how bad things are.

Third, just where is this "overwhelming tide of public discourse"? Where is the avalanche of public criticism of the Williams government? Where are the marchers and the protesters? Where are the devastating debates in the House of Assembly? Where is the large Official Opposition waiting to take power? Where are the newspaper columnists rallying public opinion against the provincial government? Where are even the low poll numbers?

Most of the sustained criticism of Williams has been restricted to a handful of blogs and the online comments sections of the CBC. Hardly an overwhelming tide. The latest CRAPoll showed that Williams still enjoys strong popular support. The House of Assembly, which sits as infrequently as possible, is now closed.

If Jackson wants to be an apologist for Danny Williams and Ross Wiseman, so be it. But he should be honest about his agenda and not hide behind some phamtom tide of public discourse.

When journalists believe that Danny Williams, of all people, needs protection from public criticism, you know that we're living through strange days indeed. Joey Smallwood faced Ray Guy. Brian Peckford faced the Sunday Express. Danny Williams faces...well, I leave that for you to determine. For those of you who like to blame everything on the internet, check this out in today's Slate.

And for those of you who, like Jackson, believe that the problems at Eastern Health are, "the price we pay for universal health care," keep in mind that the U.S. pays far more per capita on health care than we do, yet tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and the U.S. has a lower life expectancy rate than Canada. If money were the only probem, then the US would have the world's best health care system.

Definitely Not Ray Guy Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261187&sc=86

The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism, II

2009-06-13T09:43:00.011-03:00

Russell Wangersky is at it again this morning, offering another excuse for Danny Williams.

After discussing his own penchant for jokes and then moving to the Raitt scandal, Wangersky raises the "public vs. private" binary and says this about Williams:

"Premier Danny Williams recently said in public that people at Eastern Health "should be shot" for putting out a press release on cancer testing errors late on a Friday afternoon, and without making anyone available to comment on the information in the news release.

Williams used a pretty common colloquial expression - but it wasn't so much the language he used, as it was where he decided to use it.

And he's worn it ever since - even though it's something plenty of other people have said, and that plenty of other people will say again."

Don't forget, it's hard to have a perfect public face." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260535&sc=86

As I said at the time, the problems with Williams' hyperbolic language is not just its offensiveness but rather the fact that he let himself off the hook: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/politics-of-hyperbole.html

Far from having "worn it ever since," Williams received fairly light criticism, with the bulk of negative commentary restricted to bloggers.

I wish Wangersky would stop trying to justify Williams' bullying, but he seems determined to impose a balanced interpretation on imbalanced actions. There are, of course, always two sides to a story -- the proverbial "he said, she said" -- but that does not mean that both sides are equally correct or equally justifiable. Trying to find a balanced explanation for why Williams said health care officials should be shot only serves to justify his verbal bullying and public scapegoating of civil servants.

The problem is not, as Wangersky would have us believe, a question of where Williams made his remarks. This incident cannot be written off as an accident of geography.

It was the deadly serious way he uttered the threat: this was not meant to be funny and no one laughed.

It was the deadly serious subject -- cancer testing -- and the highly emotional environment in which he spoke publicly before the cameras.

It was the important issue of responsibility, and the effort to deny that the provincial government should shoulder any blame. As I noted at the time, Williams insisted on calling Eastern Health "them," while he freely uses "us" for other analagous agencies: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-teflon.html

It cannot be written off as a common local colloquialism, either. The phrase "someone should be shot" is not as common as Williams' defenders like to pretend. It cannot be excused as a facet of some unique local dialect, used frequently in the East End. I spent most of my life in St. John's, and I cannot think of a single time (other than out hunting with my father), when I heard someone say that something should be shot. The phrase is no more common -- and is no more acceptable -- than on the Mainland.

It cannot be excused as a simple slip-up, something that we should overlook because no one can be expected to be perfect in public. If this was simple mix-up -- if Williams' misspoke, as it were -- then all he needed to do was say that he misspoke. A simple explanation that he misspoke in the heat of the moment would mitigate the seriousness of the incident. Politicians slip up verbally all the time and apologize all the time when they do. We don't expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to own up to their mistakes.

When weighing the type of neat public/private formula that Wangersky lays out, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.

First, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the target and think about how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of such a verbal threat.

Second, we should think about the effects: what did the verbal shooting incident accomplish? It focused attention towards Williams and his anger and away from the actual chain of responsibility.

It was only after tenacious investigative reporting by CBC that the truth began to come out, months after Williams insisted that Eastern Health alone was entirely to blame: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/02/eastern-health-memos-602.html

In the meantime, the problems with cancer testing continue: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/11/missed-cancer-tests-611.html

Finally, we need to address the question of identity. Wangersky makes it seem that it's just a question of public versus private, not one of who is doing the talking. This may hold water when we're talking about private citizens, but it does not apply when we're dealing with elected officials, particularly the premier when he is speaking as leader of the provincial government.

No one expects perfection. We expect and deserve accountability.

Will the Real Premier Stand Up?

2009-06-12T09:31:00.006-03:00

If you have a few minutes today during your coffee break or lunch, it's worth your time to watch the video feed from VOCM linked to the latest fishery story: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36762

At the 45 second mark, after declaring that he will provide "backstop" funding for "income support" (whatever that means), Mr. Williams says that all this is "bearing in mind that we obviously will want to work with the federal government on such a program."

Fascinating stuff, coming from someone whose recent comments on the federal government included not only a reference to kissing backsides, but also this unqualified declaration: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html

There are two possible explanations for the cognitive dissonnance between the public statements made in the House of Assembly on 30 April and in the media scrum recorded by VOCM on 11 June:

1) Two different people made the statements.

2) The statements were indeed made by the same person, but he changed his mind at some point between 30 April and 11 June.

If it's number 2, then it will be interesting to see how the federal government responds to Mr. Williams' new policy direction. Did Mr. Williams consult with the Prime Minister or the federal Minister of Fisheries before announcing this new income support plan?

If, as seems likely, Mr. Williams has not chatted with Mr. Harper about this, did the Premier's Office at least send an email heads-up to DFO, letting them know that they are now being expected to support a vague and open-ended commitment to provide income support for certain groups of fishermen?

Does this mean that Mr. Hedderson will be able to get a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries? http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html

It's still possible that explanation number 1 is correct, but the fisheries edict fits a larger pattern whereby the provincial government procrastinates and then, after the media attention has reached a critical level, the premier jumps in suddenly and announces that cash will be thrown at the problem.

This was the government's pattern in dealing with the medical crisis, when it singled out oncologists for a special raise, and we all know how well that has worked. It will be interesting to see whether the fishery income support initiative works any better, but I suspect that by the time the provincial government gets around to actually implementing this policy, it will try to pin the mess on the federal government.

Given the shifts in provincial policy since April, I may have to update Triva Pursuit:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/trivia-pursuit.html

ABC's of the Fishery

2009-06-11T07:33:00.007-03:00

Further evidence on how the ABC folly continues to affect NL, via VOCM of all places:

"McCurdy says Newfoundland and Labrador is a low priority for the feds because of the successful ABC campaign. He says the province has a responsibility in federally regulated industries to play a role in helping those affected. Provincial Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson says the market issues are not unique to the lobster fishery- all fishing sectors are seeing the crunch. He says at first blush, the monies announced don't seem to go far enough. The Minister applauded the efforts of the protestors in bringing attention to the plight of those in outport communities across the province." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36709

Three questions for Mr. Hedderson:
1) Why did the fishermen have to resort to a protest in order to get the government's attention?

2) Does he agree with McCurdy's view on the fallout from the ABC campaign?

3) How will Hedderson work with DFO, given that he's working for someone whose attitude toward federal-provincial relations was summed up in this remark in the House of Assembly: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html

If you agree with Wangersky's claim on Tuesday about the effectiveness of Williams' combative personal approach, watch the video feed linked to the VOCM story.

At the 1:00 minute mark, one of the fishermen brings up the issue of the ABC campaign. Listen as he clearly and concisely describes how Williams has to take responsibility for the fallout from ABC and its impact on fishermen.

The Issue of Anonymity

2009-06-10T11:03:00.005-03:00

Here is the link to a guest commentary I wrote for Geoff Meeker's blog:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259473&sc=88

I have never met Geoff in person, but I respect the way he has tried to foster public debate. One issue that I forgot to raise in my commentary is my response to journalists' complaints about name-calling and personal slurs. When we're weighing this problem, it's important to keep in mind that many other professionals also have to cope with unfair criticism and nasty personal attacks from anonymous sources on the internet. As any doctor, teacher, or professor can attest, the proliferation of popular web sites such as ratemyteacher, ratemymd, and ratemyprofessor has affected their personal and professional lives. Some of these forums even encourage the public to comment on the sexual attractiveness of the targetted professionals. So journalists should remember that they are not unique and at least they have the opportunity to hit back in print.

The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism

2009-06-09T08:41:00.015-03:00

Russell Wangersky's column in today's Telegram offers an excellent example of the problem I discussed yesterday. Wangersky offers a thoughtful analysis of Williams' condescending attitude towards Lorraine Michael, but near the end of the column he pulls back to offer this balance: "It's a nasty trait, and one that is not an attractive side of a type-A provincial politician who has otherwise managed to use his combative personal approach to serve this province quite well." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259007&sc=86

Wangersky didn't follow up on this assertion, so we're left with no evidentiary basis on which to judge his claim that Williams' combative personal approach has served NL well. But Williams' ability to bully Paul Martin in 2005 is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps there is a rich body of evidence out there to demonstrate that Williams' combination of hyperbole, rage, bullying, name-calling, threatening, and recklessness has worked where a less combative approach would have failed. But journalists, like historians, labour under the burden of positive proof. If Wangersky wants to assert that Williams' "combative personal approach" (a sanitized term for bullying) is largely effective, then he should provide evidence for this claim. If there is a way to justify a style of leadership that invokes death threats and charges of treason, I'd like to see it. If there is a way to provide a balanced justification of why Williams can say "someone should be shot over there," it speaks volumes about the sorry state of NL's political culture.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Williams' politics of rage and revenge has not served the province well. From the so-called fiscal "shaft" to the failed foreign policy initiative, Williams' combativeness has hurt NL. With health care and the fishery stumbling from one crisis to the next, it's hard to imagine how personal combativeness has helped to do anything except distract the public from policy failures. Not only that, but in a number of cases, Williams' combative approach has actually created new problems, such as the ongoing leadership crisis at MUN, the unresolved issues with the NLMA, the refusal to investigate electoral irregularities, the failure to pass whistleblower legislation, et cetera.

In trying to provide a balanced approach to Williams' bullying, Wangersky undermines the very point that he is trying to make: Williams' condescending attitude toward Michael is unnacceptable. By claiming that this combative personal approach has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky seems to be suggesting that the problem here is not with Williams' behaviour but with his target. He seems to be saying that while it's unacceptable to bully Lorraine Michael, it's acceptable (indeed, it serves the province well) for Williams to wage personal war against others.

Most of the time, I admire Wangersky's journalism. While I find his meandering metaphorical style sometimes irritating, I respect his judgement. And I know it's easy for bloggers to criticize journalists who have to be careful not to burn political bridges. But there is something wrong when professional journalists feel compelled to balance criticism of Williams by justifying his pattern of bullying. Williams' treatment of Michael was not an isolated incident but rather part of a long, well-documented pattern of abuse that includes public death threats.

We need to recognize that we're facing a public choice. Either Williams' histrionics matters or it doesn't. Either it's a serious public issue or it can be dismissed as mere political theatre. I believe that it's a serious issue, and I think many journalists do, too. But I also believe that we cannot cherry-pick incidents and overlook everything else. There are times in political history -- and we're living through such a time right now -- when trying to balance criticism with defence actually perpetuates and enables the very problems that journalists seek to remedy. By claiming that Williams' histrionics has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky is feeding the pernicious myth that bullying is acceptable because it delivers results.

In assessing Williams' leadership, yesterday's editorial in the Telegram asked, "Wasn't it Lady MacBeth who doth protest too much?" http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=258567&sc=80

A more apt Shakespeare reference would have been to "Hamlet," when Marcellus says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

Collective Bipolar Disorder

2009-06-08T09:43:00.014-03:00

I got back late last night from a trip to the US, which is always interesting. It helped to put the don't-leave-home love campaign into context. As the late Erich Honecker knew all too well, it's never a good idea to allow too much exposure to other polities.

Reading and talking about politics outside NL forces any sentient being to confront two basic, undeniable facts: Danny Williams is odd; and the fact that he continues to be popular is even odder.

I am the last person to put much faith in the CRAPolls, but it would be silly to deny the fact that most people at least passively support the Williams regime: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Newsroom/SupportforConservativesinNLisUnchangedandRemainsHi.aspx

On the eve of the NS election, it's worth reflecting on some fundamental differences between NS and NL politics. There is plenty of venality and pettiness in NS politics, but there is also a marked absence of grandiosity. The parties are doing what most parties do in most western democracies: they are using a variety of rhetorical tools to convince voters that they are best equipped to lead the province. To do this, they are doing everything from slinging mud, to pandering to voters' fears, and to offering some constructive policies: in other words, it's a mixture of high- and low-brow politics. Whatever it may be, it's about choices and options in the real world of political calculus: no one is seriously promising (and no one is seriously expecting) that the election of one party will somehow magically cure NS of its problems and transport Nova Scotians to a promised land. No one is saying that NS is the centre of the universe, that Nova Scotians are the most optimistic people in the western world, or that health bureaucrats should be shot. The rhetoric may be petty, silly, or naive; but it is most clearly not megalomaniacal.

Which brings me back to grandiosity. As I commented in an earlier post, there are some interesting similarities between Williams and Nicolas Sarkozy, who shares Williams' mania and vanity: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/french-connection.html

But there is an important difference between the political experiences of Williams and Sarkozy. Unlike Williams, Sarkozy has faced severe, sustained public criticism from not only rival parties, but also the press, the universities, and the cultural elites. This criticism has focused as much on Sarkozy's style of government as his actual policies, and one critic has described France under Mr Sarkozy as an “egocracy." http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13745814

Not surprisingly, the Economist defends Sarkozy's policies, but it also points out that the strong reaction against Sarkozy is undermined by the fact that voters lack a clear alternative. In other words, it's not so much a question of Sarkozy's strength as the opposition parties' weaknesses -- a point of obvious comparison with NL.

Despite the similaries, there is a clear difference between anti-Sarkozysm and anti-Dannyism. In NL, the only steady source of relentless criticism of Williams has come from political blogs. Columnists, reporters, editorialists, and even some call-in hosts have offered sharp criticism on specific topics; but they have not provided a sustained rejection of Dannyism. NL has no equivalent to Ray Guy's critique of late Smallwoodism.

Equally important, whereas anti-Dannyism has failed to sway the public, anti-Sarkozysm has made itself felt where it counts: poll numbers. According to the Economist, "Two years into Mr Sarkozy’s term in office, intense and obsessive dislike of the president—anti-sarkozysme—is fast becoming the defining feature of French opposition politics. This goes beyond the president’s poor popularity rating, which fell another four points to 32% in May, according to TNS Sofres. In the election for the European Parliament, due on June 7th, the subject is not so much the future of Europe as Mr Sarkozy himself." It is important to keep in mind that Sarkozy's low poll numbers come at a time when the opposition parties are in disarray, so the excuse in NL that it's all the Liberals' fault doesn't wash.

Two factors help to explain why Sarkozy has much lower poll numbers than Williams. First, the public critique of Williams remains episodic and often fragmentary. The province's cultural establishment (which in NL usually means the self-appointed Arts Community, along with MUN) has failed to offer a congent public critique of Dannyism. While writers never hesitate to lay the boots to dead politicians, they are remarkably reluctant to criticize living ones. And while professors howled over the failed presidential search (can we please get over the martyrdom of Saint Eddy?), their political engagement has been remarkably limited. Fueled by a smug mixture of radical chic and cynicism, the intellectual elite cannot be bothered to get its hands dirty, leaving the blogosphere to semi-professional consultants, current and former Liberals, and anonymous outsiders like me. For every editorial that the Telegram gets right (and there are plenty of them) and for every columnist and reporter who nails a story (and, if anything, political reporting has been getting better over the past year), there are also many silences when Williams gets a pass. The problem with balanced reporting is that it assumes a balanced polity. When a government descends into a form of political mania, a balanced approach no longer works.

Second, we have to face the fact that Dannyism is relatively popular. However much I would like the public to recoil from the spectacle, the thuggery, the vulgarity, and the manipulation, it doesn't. It would be comforting to believe a conspiracy theory that explains how Williams has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. It would be comforting to believe that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders reject the propaganda and the bombast. It would be comforting to believe that Newfoundlanders see through the miasma of unrealistic expectations, witch-hunts, and political recklessness.

But such comfort would be a lie. The truth is at once much more disturbing and more banal. As I noted in an earlier post, it is important to keep in mind Occam's Razor, which is the principle that the simplest, most straightforward explanation of a particular phenomenon is usually the right explanation: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html

If Williams has consistently high polls numbers, then the simplest explanation is that he is relatively popular. Most Newfoundlanders are, at the very least, comfortable with the style and content of his leadership. While much of this support constitutes little more than tacit consent, it is still, as John Locke argued, a form of consent.

How do we explain this fact? I think we need to return again to grandiosity, which is more than political style. Grandiosity is a symptom of mania in bipolar disorder. The fact that it has become such an accepted part of NL's political culture is evidence of a collective bipolar disorder in which the lines between fantasy and reality, between what's inappropriate and what's appropriate, have become severely blurred.

Emotional Correctness

2009-06-02T07:34:00.010-03:00

First, we had Patriotic Correctness: http://meekermedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/david-cochranes-speech-on-patriotic.html

Then, we had Optimistic Correctness: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/optimistic-correctness.html

Now, we have Emotional Correctness: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36548

In this strategic partnership, the Ministry of Love wants you to show how much you love your fatherland by refusing to spend your money anywhere else:
"This is Tourism Awareness Week. Tourism Minister Clyde Jackman and representatives of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador were on hand for the official launch last night at the Atlantica Restaurant in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. Jackman says the theme is "For the Love of Newfoundland and Labrador". Jackman says the theme encourages residents to stay inside the province if they plan to go on vacation this summer. Jackman says they want people to enjoy whatever it is that makes them love Newfoundland and Labrador."

For the truly committed Optimistic Patriots, the Ministry has partnered with local businesses to direct, for those who "just want to expound on your great love for Newfoundland & Labrador, phone us at 709-570-5291 and tell us about it for the chance to win some really great prizes." http://www.ozfm.com/contests/fortheloveofNL/fortheloveofNL.html

The penalties for vacationing on the Mainland, or for failing to publicly demonstrate your love, are unspecified.

As Eric Blair himself recognized, of all the state agencies, "the Ministry of Love was the really frightening one." As Blair explained, state-sponsored demonstrations of love and hate are flip sides of the same propaganda coin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Kznmrc3o4

Dangovt expects not just your loyalty, your optimism, and your hatred of Ottawa, but also a demonstration of your love. While the leaders of the regime sport deep Florida suntans, the public is expected to show their love by contenting themselves with the Newfoundland summer. If you love Newfoundland, you will spend all your vacation money in Newfoundland. If you don't...well, maybe you just don't love the fatherland enough.

As the web site directs, "This summer, vacation at home. And do it for love."

To everything there is a season

2009-05-23T06:43:00.008-03:00

A time for every purpose under the sun;
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to weed;
a time to call and a time to poll.

You could feel it in the air last week. The garbage gulls feasted on the curb offerings heated by the happy sun. The potholes breathed a sigh of relief as the last studded snowtire was finally put away for the year. And the dandelion began its annual takeover of lawns. As St. John's witnessed the ritual start of the seasonal struggle between homeowner and dandelion, everyone knew who was going to win. Yet habit and custom pushed voters outside, where they could be seen throughout the East End, on bended knee, fixated on the yellow apparition.

For those of you who missed the news because you were out in the yard, here are the highlights:

1) DW made a heroic phone call.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/20/williams-nurses-520.html

2) In the midst of a global recession, the capital bubble is unperturbed.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36293

3) Bob Simmonds is optimistic.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36262

4) The House of Assembly passed a motion calling for the federal government to do something it is already doing.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36268

5) The federal and provincial governments have partnered.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36313

Quite a week. Whether it was the power of polls, or something in the water, the nurses' strike was averted and I, for one, was happy to be proved wrong. Now I'm going outside to pull up some more dandelions. I know that they will return as soon as I pull them up, but I just can't help myself.

Judging from the news, things look good in Sunny Patch: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-biology.html

Seal Hunt Fallout

2009-05-17T09:29:00.006-03:00

Doug Saunders has a thoughtful piece in yesterday's Globe about how the Tories' attempt to make a big splash in Europe was derailed by the seal hunt controversy. Saunders explains how the Tory leader's strident defence of the seal hunt alienated the Europeans. He argues that the inability to compromise seriously undermined relations with European states.

According to Saunders, the unrelenting defence of the seal hunt was part of a pattern of Tory leadership that is at once idealistic and bullying. "Nor would he consider sacrificing the seal hunt," according to Saunders, "despite its negligible role in the economy, in order to gain a larger victory."

Saunders says that the Tory leader's approach is "to project and impose his strongly held" ideals. He quotes a senior EU official as complaining that the mistake “was that they didn't play the diplomatic game – they didn't do the Henry Kissinger stuff and make a big, visible sacrifice so they could get something in exchange. They just wanted to win everything.”

Who do you think Saunders was writing about?

Who do you think took a political hit because he refused to sell out the seal hunt?

The answer may surprise you: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.doug16/BNStory/International

Déjà vu

2009-05-15T06:40:00.012-03:00

There was apparently another glitch in the Matrix this morning. For a few minutes around 7:00, VODW had two versions of the same story posted online.

Here is story number 1: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36169

House Winding Down
May 15, 2009

There was another late-night sitting at the House of Assembly. Members debated legislation until the wee hours of the morning..... and that has the Opposition parties speculating on the possibility government could close the House soon in light of the situation unfolding with the province's nurses. Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons gets the feeling that government is winding things down, even though a host of legislation still sits on the order paper. Government House Leader Joan Burke says it's her intent to see all outstanding bills passed before the session closes. However she does say that it is their right to close the House.

Here is story number 2: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36168

House Winding Down
May 15, 2009

Another late night sitting at the House of Assembly. Members debated legislation until the wee hours of the morning..... and that has the Opposition parties speculating on the possibility government could close the House soon in light of the situation unfolding with the province's nurses. Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons says he gets the feeling government is winding things down, even though a host of legislation still sits on the order paper. Government House Leader Joan Burke says it's her intent to see all outstanding bills passed before the session closes. However she does say that the right to close the House is their's.

Aside from the amusing solecisms, it is interesting to see how VODW struggled with the wording in the final sentence.

It must be hard to find a delicate way to re-write the constitution.

One or both of the links may now be inoperable, since such glitches don't last very long; but they still worked the last time I checked. For more on the provincial Matrix, see http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/equalization-matrix.html

Remix Update:

It looks like VODW has settled on this version: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36168

The main page has an interesting audio link that captures Burke claiming absolute control over whether and when the House of Assembly is dissolved or prorogued.

For a different view of whether the Tories can unilaterally close the House of Assembly, see the Lieutenant Governor's homepage: http://www.govhouse.nl.ca/role.htm

"Role and Duties

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Canadian Head of State and The Queen of Canada with the Governor General being the Queen's representative for Canada. The Lieutenant-Governor is the representative of the Queen in the Province and exercises powers under Section 9 of the Constitution Act 1867 essential to the workings of the constitutional monarchy in Canada.

The Lieutenant-Governor must always ensure that the post of Premier is filled following resignation or death and that a Government is in place following defeat at an election or in the House of Assembly. Additional governance responsibilities include: administering oaths of office to Members of the House of Assembly and Ministers of the Crown so they may take up their duties; summoning, proroguing and dissolving the House of Assembly; assenting to legislative bills in order for them to become law; and signing into force Orders-in-Council, Proclamations and other official documents on the advice of Cabinet."

ABC's of Health Care

2009-05-14T07:47:00.015-03:00

As the provincial government's drama with the nurses' union enters its final act, it is clear that very little has changed over the past year.

Beneath the macho posturing and shrill rhetoric, the conflict is being driven by the same basic issue that's been driving it from the beginning: a battle over respect. http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-e-s-p-e-c-t.html

As the lead actor on the government's side changed from Wiseman to Kennedy to Williams, this battle over respect merely intensified and grew ever more personal over time. What is interesting about DW's latest diatribe is not the rhetoric, the threats, or the illogic. We're beyond that now. We're beyond mere bullying. What we're seeing is a personal feud that has devolved into a scorched-earth, ABC-style jihad.

If you watch the video feed from CBC (and if you can overlook the weird shoulder twitches), you will notice a revealing pattern. DW seems incapable of saying Debbie Forward's name:
http://www.cbc.ca/nl/ondemand/?playlistId=b219a8383d7ee24319c52d170d2ac72f6d0a6375&videoId=5008317

Unless I missed something, he says her name only once during a lengthy rant. For the remainder of the 3:25 minute video, all he can utter is a steady stream of "she" and "her." She has done this, she has said that, she will suffer the state's mighty wrath. Judging from the Danspeak, Debbie Forward has become an official non-person. As a persona non grata, Ms. Forward can expect the same treatment meted out to all enemies of the people.

When the premier of the province cannot bring himself to address the head of a major union by her own name, you know how this is going to end. It's going to end the same way that all of DW's conflicts end. It's going to be utterly personal, utterly ugly, and utterly gratuitous. What it will do is feed Dangovt's insatiable desire for hyperbolic self-righteousness, personal revenge, and fighting for the sake of fighting.

ABC's of the Seal Hunt

2009-05-06T09:00:00.017-03:00

Okay, I tried. I really tried. I tried to ignore the news, I tried not to read the papers, I tried to block out the ranting and roaring.

But this morning's latest, predictable outburst of populist cant about the seal hunt is just too much to bear silently.

So I posted a comment on the CBC's web site in response to their story on Williams's kangaroo comments: "So Europeans should have a good, hard look at themselves," says Premier Williams.

Europeans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Williams completely burned the political bridge between St. John's and Ottawa and then launched his own foreign policy initiative to deal directly with the Europeans; now that his reckless gamble has failed, he will place responsibility on everyone but himself.

The failure of Williams's seal hunt foreign policy is part of a larger continuum whereby the ABC virus has infected every aspect of NL's public life. Anyone following Hedderson's foreign policy folly in Ottawa could see that the initiative was doomed from the outset.

Blame Ottawa, blame Liberals, blame Europeans...Williams will blame everyone but himself. I'm sure he'll even try to pin this on Manning somehow.

Williams and Hedderson fooled themselves (and tried to fool the public, too) that they could somehow change European opinion without coordinating their actions with the Government of Canada.

As bad as the EU ban is, it will be important not to burn every bridge with the Europeans. As usual, Williams is putting populist rhetoric before reasoned policy.

Williams seems to forget that there is an international jurisdictional battle over undersea resources looming with France, and Canada will need all the allies it can muster. Ranting and raving may be good for the polls, but it's not a sound basis for foreign policy. In other words, it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick than shout loudly and carry a twig.

Before the nationalist mob starts burning European books in the streets, they should stop and think about what would be the best way to fight the next foreign policy battle, not the last one. Here's the link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seal-hunt-506.html
I'm sure the thumbs down votes on my little comment will be in triple digits before the day is over.

It's not as if there aren't voices of reason out there. The Tely had a sensible editorial on the economic realities (as opposed to political rhetoric) of the seal hunt: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=248363&sc=80

But trying to make a reasoned argument when it comes to this issue is like spitting in the wind. It was bad enough when DW had the usual arsenal of populist anger to tap into; now he has the seal hunt to whip the public into an unthinking frenzy of rage and revenge.

Lost in all the rage is reasoned policy. Lost in all the frenzy is a sensible strategy for getting the most out of a difficult situation.

Let me be clear: Yes, the Europeans are hypocrites. In fact, as any diplomat can tell you, geopolitics is full of hypocrisy and Machiavellian manipulation. As Orwellian News tried to point out, for example, Putin did not favour a seal hunt ban because he's a soft-hearted guy: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/bears-seals-and-bad-omens.html

The latest debacle has links to DW's Excellent European Adventure that started in February: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dws-excellent-european-adventure.html

Now we've come full circle: the foreign policy chickens hatched by the ABC folly have now come home to roost.

Which brings us back to hypocrisy. Dangovt expects the unreserved support of Harper's government at the same time as it continues to condemn them.

Dangovt wants it both ways: they want to blame Ottawa and they want Ottawa's help.

So what do they do? Hedderson's quote in the Globe sums it up:

"Obviously the seal hunt and perhaps us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not important,” said Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson. “We joined this country in '49 and we became full Canadians. And we expect our Prime Minister to stand up for us.”

Blame Ottawa for ignoring NL; dredge up Confederation and '49; and demand that Ottawa fix something that wasn't their fault. That's foreign policy in Dangovt.

Before long, the whole thing will be sold as another Shaft, another reason to give DW more blind support in time for the next CRA polling season.

Before Long Is Here Update:
Well, that didn't take very long did it? Note the machismo language of violent revenge (with "muscle" being the Danword of the day), and the lack of thoughtfulness or reflection on the larger contexts or consequences:
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35988
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seals-506.html

Here are the links to the original Globe and VOCM stories:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090505.wottseal0505/BNStory/politics/home http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35967

Now, back to trying to be on hiatus.

Kiss the Backsides

2009-05-01T08:06:00.018-03:00

"Kiss the Backsides," Williams's own words -- not mine. Words uttered in the House of Assembly, where "yahoo" is strictly prohibited.

Each day in the House this week has had its own particular theme. Monday was Where's Waldo Day and Tuesday was Wiseman Evisceration Day. Yesterday saw an outbreak of the flu known as D1W1.

Here is a list of what Williams actually said and claimed yesterday in the House of Assembly. Anyone who isn't drunk on PC Kool Aid will see these statements for what they are:

1) Williams couldn't care less if the federal government doesn't fund projects in NL.

2) The federal government promised him $10 billion.

3) The federal government took at least $1 billion away from NL.

4) Williams is not going to kiss the federal government's backside.

5) Williams doesn't care if NL has bad relations with the federal government.

6) The federal government has slapped and abused him and the people of NL.

7) The successful ABC campaign prevented the clowns from attaining a majority government.

8) Despite numbers 1-7, provincial cabinet ministers are meeting with their counterparts in Ottawa.

9) Despite numbers 1-7, the provincial government is doing everything appropriate to ensure that everything is covered and proper federal representation is maintained.

10) Despite 8-9, Williams's sole strategy is to wait until Ignatieff or Layton win the next federal election.

There you have it: the latest top ten of I Can't Believe He Said That (Again). I can hear Danny's angry supporters already dismissing this as just Danny being Danny -- this is just passionate talk from a proud, determined leader.

What do you think Williams and his government would say if Harper used words like clowns to describe them? How do you think they would react if Harper started talking about backsides? What would they say if Harper claimed they had slapped and abused him?

If Jones or Parsons had used language like Williams's, how do you think the Tories would respond? If Jones referred to someone's arse in the House of Assembly, what would the Speaker of the House say?

Language either matters or it doesn't. It's as simple as that.

If Williams wants to be taken seriously, then what he says has to be taken seriously. And if you're the type of person who happily puts up with such crap from your Premier, then you truly deserve such crap.

As for the substantive claims Williams made yesterday, I leave it to you to determine what's true, what's false, and what's pure bullshit. Anyone who has been reading this blog knows, for instance, that Hedderson is on public record as saying that he cannot get a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries. Anyone who has been reading Labradore knows how often the provincial government appeals for federal funding. And anyone who has been reading Bond Papers knows the many inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the entire ABC and equalization ponzi scheme.

Below is the transcript of Williams's exchange with Parsons, copied from yesterday's Hansard, with Williams's notable statements in bold: http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-30.htm

As you read over what Williams actually said (this is Question Period, remember, not a late-nite call in show), think about how this is part of a much longer and larger pattern of state language that:
1) Focuses obsessively on conflict
2) Focuses obsessively on personal insults (both received and given)
3) Uses violent imagery
4) Uses vulgar epithets
5) Responds glibly to serious issues
6) Fails to be ironic or funny
7) Fails to evolve or adapt to changing circumstances
8) Insists on double-standards
9) Insists on self-righteousness
10) Fails to take consequences seriously
---------------------------------------------------

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my next question – I will move on to another topic here - our federal regional minister, Minister MacKay, announced today $136 million in funding that will ensure that Halifax is the Atlantic Gateway. Unfortunately, our Province has lost out once again. Minister MacKay stated in a news release that this funding will allow Halifax to play their role as a major trade gateway to the world.

I ask the Premier: What recent discussions have you had with Minister MacKay and the federal government regarding our Province’s position as the Atlantic Gateway, and were you advised that this funding announcement would be coming today?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to Minister MacKay probably three or four times in the last six weeks and raised all kinds of issues with him: cost-shared funding through transportation and works. We talked about the Gateway. We have talked about all kinds of other projects, kept a constant dialogue going. He did not phone me up today to tell me that this announcement was made, nor would I expect him to, but we have made all appropriate submissions to the federal government. We are maintaining a dialogue with them. If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister MacKay, in his words, stated that it was thanks to the strong relationship between the federal and Nova Scotian governments that communities in that province will see the benefits of the Atlantic Gateway that will allow them to remain competitive and prosperous.

I ask the Premier: Is this another instance where the poor state of federal-provincial relations is costing the people of this Province new money and investment from the federal government?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is a situation, Mr. Speaker, whereby we were promised $10 billion from the federal government. They refused to provide that to us, so we took issue with it and we stood up on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; because with that kind of money we could have paid off our entire debt. They subsequently turned around during the last Budget and basically took away $1 billion to $1.5 billion from us.

On that basis, we are not prepared to turn around and kiss the backsides of the federal government under any circumstances. If that means that we have bad federal-provincial relations, then so be it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody is talking about kissing backsides. We are talking about doing your job, whether you are a Premier or a minister.

I say to the Premier: You alluded to the fact that you have had several conversations with Mr. McKay in the last six weeks. Has there been any discussions between you or any of your ministers with regard to the Atlantic Gateway that we could look forward to seeing some money coming here, or are the state of affairs, in fact, so bad that there is no conversation even ongoing in that regard?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you that I have had several discussions with the minister. I have had meetings with the minister. My ministers have had meetings with counterparts and that minister. We have done everything appropriate from our perspective to ensure that we have basically covered ourselves to make sure that we represented on behalf of the people of the Province.

Now I come back to the other principle. We can only go so far. If these people are going to abuse the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they are going to slap us in the face, there is nothing we can do about that. What we did do is we conducted a very successful ABC campaign, which ensured that these clowns did not end up with a majority government across this country. As a result of that, they do not have a majority government. Hopefully, there will be an election and they will be kicked out of office. That is our goal. Then we will see where it goes there, and we will see what Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Layton can do for us at the end of the day.

The Weakest Link

2009-04-29T08:03:00.017-03:00

It turns out that the real news during yesterday's question period was not the end of DW's boycott but the performance of Ross Wiseman, who demonstrated, once again, that he is without question the most incompetent member of cabinet.

The Opposition largely ignored Wiseman on Monday, but yesterday they returned to their favourite feeding ground. And the good minister seemed only happy to oblige, as his lengthy exchange with Jones attests.

Below is an extract from yesterday's Hansard. It's been edited to focus on the Jones-Wiseman exchange, and I've inserted political translations of Wiseman's non-answers. For the full transcript, see: http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-28.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

JONES: My question to the minister is: What are the clinical advantages to placing this facility in Central Newfoundland?

WISEMAN: What I find interesting in the House, Mr. Speaker, is how questions have changed over the years. For many years in this House members opposite have raised questions around, what are we doing for rural Newfoundland? Now, all of a sudden, we are getting questions in the House lobbying for St. John’s, Mr. Speaker. They want all services centralized in St. John’s.

Mr. Speaker, I answered questions in this House a couple of weeks ago around this very same point. One of the critical considerations for us as a government was to ensure that we are able to provide quality programming with capable, competent people, and we are very confident – we are very confident indeed - that Central Newfoundland, and in particular Grand Falls-Windsor, is a community in a region of the Province that can attract the kinds of people that we need. We are very confident that we are going to be able to provide the kind of programming that will respond to the challenging needs of those individuals who need that kind of addiction services.
So we stand by the decision to locate this new facility and this new program in Grand Falls-Windsor because we believe it will be successful and the people of all of Newfoundland and Labrador will be well served by that new program.

TRANSLATION: Wiseman cannot answer the question, so he fell back on his favourite defences. He used his "it's interesting/ironic" wisecrack, and then he gave a lengthy statement of the political/regional reasons for putting the facility in Grand Falls-Windsor, rather than the clinical reasons. If he had rattled off the reasons from a briefing note (or remembered something from it), he could have easily dispatched this question; however, his long-winded, disingenuous non-answer only invited more questions.

JONES: Who did your government consult prior to making the decision to place this important residential treatment facility in the Central Region of the Province?

WISEMAN: Again I am somewhat bewildered by the nature of the questions and the persistence, Mr. Speaker, of members opposite.

I do not have any difficulty, as a minister, and none of my colleagues on this side of the House would have any difficulty, meeting with any group in the Province to talk about issues of their concern. So, if there are organizations who would like to come in and talk with me about this decision, I am open to do that at any time of the day. Just invite me, or make the request, and I will have the discussion.

What I find very ironic, Mr. Speaker, is the persistence by not only the Leader of the Opposition but the Opposition House Leader in the continuous questions in this House, bringing into question a decision that we made about a location of a service in Grand Falls-Windsor. An attack, I say, Mr. Speaker, it is nothing more than an attack on the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador, as if it is a place no one would want to work.

TRANSLATION: Here Wiseman offers up the full meal deal of incompetence:
1) He admits he's bewildered (never a smart thing to do in politics)
2) He throws out another "I find it very ironic" herring to try to deflect from his shortcomings
3) He fails to answer the question
4) He sinks to the lowest form of political insult: he accuses Jones of attacking the people because she is asking a question

JONES: Mr. Speaker, what rubbish I have just heard coming out of the minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister has a responsibility, and a responsibility to provide services in this Province based on clinical cases and factual information, not based on what is politically opportunistic for the government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to complete her question.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister has trouble defending his actions today - that is quite obvious by his comments – but there are four groups in this Province who provide services and treatment to residential youth, and they have serious questions.

Mr. Speaker, the day treatment program that services addictions for youth is based in the St. John’s region, and I guess one of the questions they have is why government would choose to separate those two facilities and those two lots of services.

TRANSLATION: Jones knows that she has Wiseman on the run.

WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any difficulty at all, none whatsoever. I have no difficulty at all, or this government has no difficulty at all, in defending a decision to relocate a service in Grand Falls-Windsor.

TRANSLATION: Well, this doesn't need much translation: anytime you end up getting that defensive, you know that you're toast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

WISEMAN: A community, Mr. Speaker, that has demonstrated their innovative approach to providing health care. They have been leaders on a number of fronts. They have a very comprehensive mental health and addictions program already in existence there. They have proven they have the ability to be able to attract the qualified professionals that we will need to run this program. It is a community that is centrally located, provides easy access in and out of other parts of the Province; because, keep in mind, this is a provincial centre, not a St. John’s centre.

This is purely a provincial centre. It is centrally located, provides ease of access by road or by air, and it provides the professionals that will provide the delivery of those programs, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSLATION: Wiseman not only doesn't know the answer to the original question, but he doesn't seem to know much about the initiative or facility in general. All he had to do was throw out some specific details, in order to redirect the question; but he's just floundering.

JONES: One of the other issues that they raise is around the detoxification services. I ask the minister today: Is that part of the program for this centre, and will the people of the Province who need the service be assured that they will have access, and affordable access, to that service?

WISEMAN: To the first part of the question, yes, it will include a detox program. The second piece, by definition - I have said before, but let me repeat it - this is a provincial program. It is a provincial program and we are delivering it from Grand Falls-Windsor. By definition, every single person who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador will have access to that particular program and that particular facility.

This is not a regional facility. This is a provincial facility, so anyone who needs it will have access to it, just like Humberwood does in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

WISEMAN: This is purely a provincial program, no different than any other provincial program; because we have many provincial programs in St. John’s. People travel to St. John’s to access provincial programs here. Now people will travel to Grand Falls-Windsor to also access a provincial program, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSLATION: By this point, Wiseman just wants to run out the clock, and all he can do is trot out generalities and repeat himself (several times), relying on tautological reasoning. At no point does he offer details about the facility, or the specific estimates or plans that are, no doubt, locked away in his filing cabinet.

JONES: The Native Friendship Centre has also raised an issue around the Aboriginal component for this treatment process. They are asking if it will include an Aboriginal component in the program. I ask the minister today if he will commit to that.

WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it will absolutely give consideration to the Aboriginal community. In fact, as we develop the program, as we start to look at the design of the building, the programming will be driving the design and the program will give consideration to the Aboriginal needs of this Province.

TRANSLATION: Wiseman knows Jones' pummeling is just about over, so he mailed in a "we'll look into it" platitude
---------------------------------------------------------

Wiseman wasn't off the hook, however, and Michaels took him to task later in question period. But the damage was done. Not only did Wiseman make himself look defensive and incompetent (again), but his inability to answer a simple question needlessly fed the new cycle another negative story: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35822

DW's other ministers are not exactly paragons of eloquence, but no one comes to Wiseman's combination of incompetence, verbiage, and defensiveness. He's not usually as nasty as DW, but he sank as low as they go when he accused Jones of attacking the people of Grand Falls-Windsor.

After failing to draw blood on Monday, Jones knew where to go. If this keeps up, I suspect that Wiseman will come down with a political flu of some sort which will prevent him from attending question period.

Desperately Seeking Danny

2009-04-28T07:36:00.010-03:00

Before we get to the Premier's homework, it should be pointed out that this question period was easily the most anticipated of the year.

There are at least 3 major stories that the media have been pursuing (AbitibiBowater and the situation in Grand Falls-Windso; the Reynolds fiasco; and the looming nurses strike, along with other assorted health care crises) since the last question period way back on April 8th.

As a result, yesterday's question period received unusually heavy coverage from both maintream media and bloggers:
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35794
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35795
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35800
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/27/parsons-electoral.html
http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/04/confidence.html
http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/04/question-period-summary.html

It is highly significant that DW chose to boycott this particular question period. For a leader whom everyone, especially his supporters, insists is in total control, his absence spoke as loudly as a speech.

Whatever the excuse, DW still has to answer to the House of Assembly.

So here are the homework questions set for DW at yesterday's question period:

1) "I ask the Premier today: Now that AbitibiBowater has cancelled these payments is government willing to step up for these workers, make the payments and deduct the amount from what will be paid for the expropriated assets?

2) I ask the Premier today: Is government going to do anything to provide financial assistance to these workers now that they have been told the payments will not be coming?

3) I ask the Premier: Is it right that these workers are now caught between a company who is broke and a government who has retrieved the assets but are unwilling to pay out the money that is duly owed the employees?

4) I ask the Premier today: Has his government given any consideration to this [stimulus package] proposal? If so, what action do you intend to take to help these workers?

5) I ask the Premier today - I know that both sides [Dangovt and nurses] have made compromises, but I ask again: Why won’t government move away from these two clauses in order to avoid a nursing strike in the Province?

6) I ask the Premier: Will Mr. Byrne be repaying this money pursuant to the restitution order, or will the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador be reimbursing the taxpayers for money specifically used for PC Party operations?

7) I ask the Premier and the government: Are you willing to support an independent third-party investigation into election campaigns, to determine whether any other inappropriate funds were channeled to the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador?

8) I ask the Premier: Why are you so adamantly opposed to a third-party investigation that protects the Province’s electoral laws and would identify any abuses that have occurred?

9) I say to the Premier, who we all know is also a lawyer: Why are we refusing an investigation under the Elections Act, which is a totally separate issue than anything the former member might have done under the Criminal Code?

10) So I have a question for the Premier, and my question is: If this government is so sure that you can negotiate with AbitibiBowater to get the severance covered and the workplace reduction program money covered, if you are so sure you can do that, why won’t you put money up front to deal with what the workers are going through right now at this moment?

11) I ask the Premier: Why can’t this government give a clearer explanation to them so that they will feel something is going on to meet their needs?

12) I am not asking the minister or the Premier to go out and explain the position of AbitibiBowater. I am asking them to explain to the workers why they are so confident when they say they are going to take care of them, because they do not see themselves being taken care of. Explain your own position to them, Minister. That is what I am asking for."

For the full monty, see http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-27.htm

p.s. Number 10 is a particularly good question. If Dangovt won't put up a bridging fund of some sort, why won't the premier himself convene a town hall meeting in Grand Falls-Windsor to speak directly with the people affected? If he wants to be like Obama, who is giving another news conference as his administration marks 100 days in power, then surely DW can manage a stop-over in Grand Falls-Windsor on his way back from wherever he's been.

Minister Responds to Swine Flu Pandemic Threat

2009-04-27T20:10:00.006-03:00

Just when you thought it was okay not to panic, this just in from VODW:

"Health Minister Ross Wiseman says, although the province is lacking an infectious disease specialist, everything is being done to ensure the public's safety. Wiseman says efforts continue to secure another specialist for the province. "

You just can't make this stuff up.

For the full report, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35783

Integrity

2009-04-27T18:19:00.005-03:00

CBC offers the first news story from the new Premier-less era in the House of Assembly:

"The Liberals and the NDP said Reynolds' refusal to investigate was unacceptable, and have been calling for Reynolds to resign ever since.

Dunderdale said that won't happen since the Williams government has "every confidence in his ability to deal with this matter."

And while the opposition has focused on the fact that Reynolds is a former PC party president, Dunderdale insists that isn't an issue.

"I mean we are speaking to the integrity of the man, particularly in this circumstance, and our confidence in his ability to put his partisan politics to one side. And we believe that he's done that," she said. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/27/parsons-electoral.html

Here's a question for DW's body-double: What about the integrity of the law?

Premier Boycotts Legislature

2009-04-27T17:16:00.013-03:00

Earlier today VODW reported that the House of Assembly is going to be prorogued.

Now it's reporting that DW has decided that it would be faster and easier just to boycott the whole Confederation Building. Here's the breaking story:

Government Standing on Chief Electoral Officer
April 27, 2009

The province's Deputy Premier says she stands firmly on the Chief Electoral Officer in the wake of questions of an apparent but nonexistent breach of the Elections Act. The Premier was not in the House today, so all the questions concerning the 2001 St. Barbe By-election and how monies from former member Ed Byrne's constituency allowance was used to pay a conservative campaign worker fell to his Deputy, Kathy Dunderdale. Dunderdale said she was sitting on Reynolds and would not let him get up until everyone stopped asking questions. Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons is calling for a third party investigation into why Williams got to stay in Florida longer than everyone else. NDP Leader Lorraine Michael says the party executive wants to establish an all-party committee to ask Premier Williams to bring back two bottles of duty-free rum. Health Minister Ross Wiseman rose in the House to thank everyone for paying so much attention to the Reynolds scandal. He said he would try and rescue Reynolds if the Opposition promised to give him an easy ride during tomorrow's question period.

For the full story, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35787

House of Assembly to be Prorogued

2009-04-27T07:15:00.006-03:00

This just in from VODW:

Legislature to be Prorogued
April 27, 2009

Premier Danny Williams' spokesperson sent an email to VOCM announcing that he plans to tell Lieutenant Governor John Crosbie to prorogue the House of Assembly because the government is too busy. The spokesperson says Williams is "very, very concerned that the tedious work of the House of Assembly will impede democracy by forcing his ministers to spend time answering questions." She pointed out that a group of 12 local chambers of commerce across the island portion of the province sent a letter to Williams asking cabinet ministers to spend less time in the House of Assembly and more time giving luncheon speeches as a way to stimulate the provincial economy. The AbitibiBowater situation was supposed to get some shouting in the legislature today. MHAs are due to be back thumping their desks following their Florida vacations, and the Opposition has a list of issues they want heckled, including the impending memory loss of Ross Wiseman, the new highway confusion system, and odors lingering around the 2001 St. Barbe by-election. The Spring session resumes at 130 this afternoon. Corporate Research Associates announced that it will begin polling in Newfoundland as soon as the House of Assembly is closed.

For the full story, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35768

And for more on the effects of government's very hectic schedule, see http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/04/legislative-agenda-i.html

Iceland & Magic Bullets

2009-04-26T09:43:00.005-03:00

According to the AP: "Iceland's leftist coalition won the country's general election, according to final results on Sunday — a blow for the pro-business Independence Party that many blamed for the collapse of the country's banking system....

The biggest issue in the election, however, was membership in the EU — seen by many voters as a magic bullet for Iceland's financial troubles even though membership could take years. The results represented a strong victory for Iceland's pro-European Social Democratic Alliance. The Social Democrats, the Progressive Party and the Citizen's Movement want Iceland to apply for EU membership, which would eventually allow the country to adopt the euro."

I guess Newfoundland and Iceland do share one thing in common after all: popular beliefs in magic bullets.

But for some reason, Newfoundland nationalists have become remarkably silent about the once-popular Icelandic model.

Ironically, as I was reading the AP story on the Globe's web site, the insipid Newfoundlandlabrador tourism ad kept popping up: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090426.wicelandelect0426/BNStory/International/home

The Week the Government Left Town

2009-04-25T08:49:00.020-03:00

Perhaps it's an audition for another CBC series, this one based in St. John's rather than Tatamagouche.

Orwellian News has been trying to keep track of the list of MIA Ministers. Here's what we have so far:

1) In response to the controversy surrounding the chief electoral officer, DW merely sent a statement to CBC News, stating that he has no intention of asking Reynolds to resign. The statement says DW respects Reynolds's non-investigation. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/23/williams-electoral-officer-423.html

2) While the crisis at St. John's hospitals became worse with the resignation of an another anesthesiologist, Health Minister Wiseman was in Clarenville, giving a luncheon speech to the local Chamber of Commerce. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/health/0423n02.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/24/pain-doctors-stjohns-424.html

3) According to the Tely, Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale was not available for an interview Thursday to discuss the news that AbitibiBowater had given notice that it will file an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement. In an e-mailed statement, she said, "The fact that a notice of intent has been filed does not establish the merits of a challenge. NAFTA falls under the responsibility of the Government of Canada. The province will let the established process unfold and we have no further comment at this time." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=245223&sc=82

4) While the situation in Grand Falls-Windsor worsened this past week, Dangovt was, even VOCM was forced to admit, saying little. According to the Tely, not only was Dunderdale unavailable for an interview, but DW was saying nothing about the crisis. http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35709
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=245524&sc=80

5) Meanwhile, according to CBC, Minister Skinner's response to the crisis in Grand Falls-Windsor is to send letters: Rick Fudge, the president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union local that represents the woodcutters, "has requested meetings with Shawn Skinner, the innovation, trade and rural development minister and the head of a task force that is supposed to come up with a plan to help the region, but has only received written responses. "I know government might be busy, but this is very important. We are the direct people that are impacted. We are what that task force was set up for. We need to know what the plan is," he said. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/24/abitibi-loggers.html
While Skinner could do no more than send letters to the workers and get a spokesperson to send a statement to CBC, he was more than happy to do an interview with the Tely on an upcoming trade conference: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=245525&sc=82

So where was all the action this past week? Aside from a generous schedule of luncheons and feel-good press releases, there was a media blitz, complete with news conference, on the New Highway Signage System, which featured two cabinet ministers, Clyde Jackman and Kevin O’Brien, along with representatives of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/tcr/0421n05.htm

Good to know that they have their priorities straight.

Hatchet Jobs

2009-04-24T09:00:00.015-03:00

A couple of weeks ago we considered the nascent détente between the US and Venezuela and asked this question: is DW more captive to his populist nationalism than Chávez is to his populist socialism? http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/danny-chavez-reconsidered.html

We now have our answer: Yes.

Since that post, Obama and Chávez have met, shaken hands, and started the process of burying the hatchet: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/odds-hatchets-nadirs.html

In a gesture of goodwill, Venezuela has returned an island to the US: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8013592.stm

Meanwhile, the ABC folly continues to cast a dark shadow in NL. Yesterday, the Tely editorial noted its effects on federal funding; today, it's being discussed as a block to negotiating a settlement for the laid-off workers in Grand Falls-Windsor.

In a Tely story by Moira Baird, "On Notice," which is not available online, the provincial representative for the Communications, Engery, and Paperworkers had this to say: "The federal government and the provincial government are going to have to bury the hatchet -- they need to do a forestry worker adjustment program similar to what's being contemplated in other sectors."

If DW is unwilling or unable to bury the hatchet, why doesn't he act boldly and autonomously, and announce a special provincial fund to assist the workers while the legal issues get sorted out?

Such a fund would cost a fraction of the multi-millions being poured into NALCO. In fact, it would cost less than setting up a new government bureaucracy: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/health/0326n10.htm

If DW wanted to be really bold, Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) could be located in Grand Falls-Windsor, so that the $8.5 million (plus the $275,200 allocated for two new government lawyers) could be used for regional development to help a high unemployment area, rather than further inflate the economic bubble in St. John's.

For more questions on AbitibiBowater-gate, see http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/04/international-autonomy-in-theory-and.html

AbitibiBowater-gate MIA Update:
Even VOCM has noticed that Dangovt is MIA: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35709

This is the best they can do update? http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/tcr/0424n02.htm

Missing Ministers P.S.:
Yesterday, Wiseman was in Clarenville (where the internet access is as good as Town), so he will have a hard time (even for him) saying he didn't know the latest news in health care when Jones asks him about it in the House: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/24/pain-doctors-stjohns-424.html

By the way, if Wiseman can find the time in his hectic schedule to give a speech to the Clarenville Area Chamber of Commerce and have lunch at the St. Jude Hotel, then surely he can find the time to keep up with developments in his own Department: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/health/0423n02.htm

Another day, another serious health care problem in a have-province. Any idea of when no longer being a have-not province will actually produce better health care?

My guess is that this will begin to happen when the Minister of Health devotes more time to his own Department and less time to chatting up local Chambers of Commerce.

Risky Business

2009-04-23T09:33:00.018-03:00

As the questions surrounding Reynolds' conduct widen, it is important to place this burgeoning scandal in context. Coincidentally, this morning the Tely returned to ABC in its editorial: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=244819&sc=80

The Tely focuses on the question of revenge and the costs of ABC: "Now, you can say that governments shouldn't hold grudges, and shouldn't make decisions based on politics or differences in personalities. You'd be right. On the other hand, all of them - even our near and dear provincial government - do. So it probably should not be a surprise when it turns out that "Steve's government" actually has a long memory. Or that ABC may end up having ramifications throughout its tenure."

Fair enough, but there are 3 issues that demand further attention:

1) These ramifications were well known from the beginning of the ABC folly. Anyone even remotely aware of federal politics knew when the last federal election was called that it was highly unlikely that Harper would lose. The polls wavered from majority to minority status, but the prospect of defeating Harper was very remote from the beginning.

2) As for the difference between a minority and majority government, by DW's own admission Harper had shown that he was more than capable of doing what he wanted with a minority government. If Harper had already shafted NL when he had a minority government prior to 2008, then why would anyone expect that keeping him from a majority government would somehow alter his position towards NL?

3) As DW himself said repeatedly, Harper is a vindictive, nasty politician. So if the chances of defeating him in a federal election were known to be so slim, why would DW be proposing to launch a rhetorical nuclear weapon? Unless there was a realistic chance that Harper could be defeated, it made no political sense to torch the last plank in the bridge between St. John's and Ottawa, leaving NL with no representation at the federal cabinet. (And it needs to be noted that having no MP from NL serves Harper's interests more than anyone else's).

The Tely editorial also serves as a useful reminder of DW's infamous speech which, as they point out, "many in this province might remember, if for no other reason than the slightly bizarre appearance of a sign-waving Buddy the Puffin."

So let's return to the actual speech. Below is the passage where DW attacks Harper: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/speeches/2008/Premier_Board_of_Trade_September_10.htm

"Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaimed, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept." He used these words as he successfully attempted to woo voters from this province to not vote for the opposing party. Naively we trusted him. He rewarded that trust with a broken promise. According to his own brochure – he is a fraud. I think you all know my views on this issue and I firmly believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at home and abroad still feel the same cold, sharp sting of betrayal at the hands of our country’s leader. Other commitments were also made by Stephen Harper that were not kept. 5-Wing Goose Bay; custodial management; a Lower Churchill guarantee and numerous others. We all know that these promises are sadly not worth the paper they were written on and the bond of his word is meaningless. The raising of rates at Marine Atlantic in times of high gas prices, poor service and inaction on badly needed vessels is another example of their attitude to isolate the island and which creates more economic hardship on small rural businesses. American actress, Katherine Hepburn, once said, "To keep your character intact you cannot stoop to filthy acts. It makes it easier to stoop the next time". I believe these words hold a dire warning for all Canadians. If Harper is prepared to slash program spending with large surpluses and break his written word as the leader of a minority government, the future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and indeed all Canadians, will be very bleak under a Conservative majority. Do not let Stephen Harper turn your focus onto a green shift in his attempt to turn your focus away from the Conservative’s blue shaft. His list of broken and unfulfilled promises portrays a lack of integrity in his character and shows us he cannot be trusted. This is a federal government willing to not only break their own promises, but they go so far as to break their own laws and call an election even though they mandated fixed election dates. There is nothing Harper will not do to win a majority government. This is a party who purportedly offered a terminally ill MP a life insurance policy to get his vote. How low can you go? This is a man who wants an election before losing by-elections that were to have taken place this month. A man who wants an election before the economy declines any further due to fiscal mismanagement. He wants an election before findings are released on various ethical breaches against his government. It is so critically important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador let Stephen Harper know that his treatment, his attitude, his indifference to this province is NOT acceptable. When I met with him to offer a compromise he told me face-to-face that he does not need the people of this province to win an election. So, let’s let him know that we don’t need him either."
-------------------------------------

Stop for a minute and reflect on what DW actually said. Consider the seriousness of the accusations and the nastiness of the insults.

I'm not suggesting for a second that you have sympathy for Harper, but just stop and reflect on what he's calling the prime minister. DW's speech was singularly visceral, vitriolic, and vindictive.

Think about the stakes. This was no ordinary speech. It was made on the eve of a federal election which everyone knew that the target of that vitriol was going to win.

Whatever your political views, one thing cannot be doubted: this was an incredibly risky move. DW was taking a huge political gamble. He was rolling the dice in a high stakes game of chicken.

But there were two problems with this game: 1) he was gambling with the public's money, not his own; 2) the odds were stacked so high against him that it's hard to believe that this speech was really about whether Harper won a minority or a majority government.

The two lines in italics get the closest to what was really going on here. Harper allegedly said that he didn't need NL to win a federal election. That's an incredibly nasty and dismissive thing for a prime minister to say, but in terms of pure, Machiavellian politics, it was true: he won the election without any MPs from NL, and he's governing the country today without any MPs from NL.

DW's response was, essentially, screw you! If you dismiss us, we'll dismiss you. That may work well on the playground, but federal-provincial relations is an entirely different matter. Last month, Orwellian News reflected on the options DW had before him: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/abc-redux.html

Imagine that you're in charge of a regional office in a much larger corporation. Your boss is a jerk and you hate him, but you have to work with him nonetheless. You may despise the little creep, but you have to work with him to ensure that your regional office gets its fair share of funding and support. So what's the best way to achieve your goals?

You could throw a fit during a meeting, froth at the mouth, call him every name in the book, and launch a scorched-earth war against him. You could do this right away, before you have lined up sufficient support from the other regional offices, and while your boss is in a relatively strong position.

Alternately, you could smile when he jerks you around, bide your time, keep him in the dark, and maximize your short-term position while you pursue your long-term goal of removing him. You could wait for the right moment to act decisely when conditions are ripe for success. I leave it to you to decide which tactic is the dumb one.

But, in retrospect, I think dumbness explains only part of the puzzle. Another important part is recklessness: Dangovt seems addicted to risky behaviour and unnecessary brinksmanship.

Whether it's meddling with the MUN presidential search, antagonizing the nurses, or allowing Wiseman to remain in cabinet, Dangovt has shown a consistent pattern of recklessness.

This recklessness gets sold to the public in various guises -- passion, pride, patiotism, optimism, determination -- but let's not lose sight that it is, in the end, risky business.

And that's how we got to the latest scandal.

If the past is any guide, it's only a matter of time before Dangovt takes another big political risk that will distract the public's attention from Reynolds' inaction and the fallout from Byrne's conviction.

Psychological Update
If you're curious about the psychology behind such recklessness, then you may be interested in John Lanchester's take:

"One of the peculiar things about the world of finance is that it freely offers the sensation of being proved right to its participants. Every transaction in the markets has a buyer and a seller, and, in most cases, one of them is right and the other wrong, because the price goes either up or down. The cumulative weight of this right-or-wrongness is one of the things that make financial types psychologically distinctive. Artists, sportsmen, surgeons, plumbers, and the rest of us have secret voices of doubt, inner reservations about ourselves, but if you go to work with money, and make money, you can be proved right in the most inhumanly pure way. This is why people who have succeeded in the world of money tend to have such a high opinion of themselves. And this is why they seem to regard themselves as paragons of rationality, while others often regard them as slightly nuts. The chairman and C.E.O. of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, in his no-apologies testimony to a congressional committee after his company’s collapse, gave us a glimpse of this state of mind in its full pomp.

This is also why the financial masters of the universe tend not to write books. If you have been proved—proved—right, why bother? If you need to tell it, you can’t truly know it. The story of David Einhorn and Allied Capital is an example of a moneyman who believed, with absolute certainty, that he was in the right, who said so, and who then watched the world fail to react to his irrefutable demonstration of his own rightness. This drove him so crazy that he did what was, for a hedge-fund manager, a bizarre thing: he wrote a book about it."

For the rest of the article, see http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/11/10/081110crat_atlarge_lanchester?currentPage=1

Tory Logic

2009-04-22T08:38:00.017-03:00

This morning the Tely has an editorial on the Reynolds scandal: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=244410&sc=80

They pursue one of the strangest parts of this story: "But asked again Monday, Reynolds still said no - and went even further, saying that, since a Tory has been elected in the seat twice since then, the original byelection result must have been a legitimate one. That argument is so bizarre it hardly requires detailed examination. In case Reynolds is not aware, it's the Elections Act, not the Ends-Justify-the-Means Act.And if someone as supposedly versed in elections law as the chief electoral officer can't understand the difference, maybe it's time to hire someone who can."

Yes, the argument is bizarre but, if that's the position of the Chief Electoral Officer, then it warrants some analysis.

Reynolds' assertion is little more than wishful thinking that relies on the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

His argument is based on two false premises:
1) Success = Legitimacy, i.e., if someone won an election more than once, it must be legitimate. This is similar to the popular fallacy in NL politics that Wealth = Honesty. Or that other popular doctrine: CRAPoll Numbers = Democracy.

2) What happened after an event explains what happened before. This is also known as presentism, or the fallacy of nunc pro tunc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism

Let's take a real historical example. There was an American politician who won an election in 1968 and then proceeded to win a huge landslide victory in 1972. According to Tory logic, the election campaigns must have been legitimate, because the candidate won twice.

The politician was Richard Nixon, and the funny thing is that the Watergate break-in happened less than six months before he crushed George McGovern in the November 1972 election.

Nixon hardly needed the antics of the "plumbers" unit and second-rate burglars to win the presidential election: http://watergate.info/chronology/1972.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/

But corruption is often illogical and what happens after an event cannot be taken as an explantion for what happened before. Correlation is not the same as causation.

If nothing else, the Reynolds scandal should help dispel some of the popular myths that continue to surround Dangovt.

Campaign Ad Update:
Our Research Department has uncovered one of Nixon's election ads from 1972:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq4hz_nixon-1972-election-ad_ads

With lines like making dreams a reality, and he'll show us how repeated with an oddly revivalist tune, it sure sounds like Dangovt. This would be a correlation, of course, not causation -- unless you subscribe to Tory logic. For other correlations between DW and Nixon, see http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/conspiracy-theories.html

Byrne-gate and the Fallacy of Negative Proof

2009-04-21T20:01:00.010-03:00

Both Labradore and Bond Papers are busily exposing the logical flaws in the Tories' response to Byrne-gate, while Nottawa has made the legal case: http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/04/something-to-think-about-iii.html

As Bond Papers notes, Reynolds' statement contains a generous helping of Dangovt's favourite snack, red herrings: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/04/word-from-bunker-reynolds-issues-red.html

Reynolds conflates a quantitative issue (the amount of money spent on the election campaign) with a qualitative issue (where the money came from). Orwellian News has examined the statement posted by Labradore: http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-mechanics.html

This particular section stands out:
"The [1] available evidence indicates no knowledge or involvement on the part of the candidate or party with respect to the actions of Ed Byrne. There [2] is also no indication that the fraudulent actions on the part of Mr. Byrne affected the outcome of the 2001 by-election. Further, [3] there is no evidence that anyone other than Mr. Byrne was involved in a deliberate attempt to manipulate funds or to otherwise fraudulently circumvent the provisions of elections finance requirements in the Elections Act, 1991.

On the basis of the above, I conclude that any impropriety involved in the 2001 St. Barbe by-election was related to the actions of Ed Byrne, actions for which he has been convicted, and are not attributed to other persons involved in that by-election. [4] There is no evidence presently available to support a contention that the outcome of the by-election was affected by these actions and no formal investigation is required."

As any lawyer knows, the burden of proof rests squarely with the prosecution. However, that applies only when a thorough and impartial judicial investigation has been undertaken -- not when a cursory review of the known facts is tossed out as justification for blocking queries.

Given the severity of the potential breach of justice, the lack of initial evidence does not constitute a prima facie case against a full investigation into whether stolen money was indeed used to fund a provincial election campaign.

Reynolds' statement contains 4 attempts of negative proof, otherwise known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. For a pithy explanation, see Fallacy Files: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

The case against this type of argumentation is simple: a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

Until a thorough and independent investigation is completed, we have no way of knowing whether any wrongdoings -- criminal or otherwise -- were committed.

Simply saying that we have no evidence at this juncture is autoepistemic, i.e., self-knowing. As Fallacy Files explains, the form of such reasoning is:
If X were true, then I would know that X.
I don't know that X.
Therefore, X is false.

Given the known facts, the burden of proof is on Dangovt to demonstrate that it has done everything in its power to ensure that elections in NL were not bought with stolen money.

An argument based on negative proof is nothing more than an untested assertion.

National Boundaries, Provincial Politics

2009-04-21T08:21:00.004-03:00

I was reading the CP story on the French boundary claim on the Globe's web site (while trying to ignore the always annoying NewfoundlandLabrador pop-up ad) when this line stuck out: "Mr. Williams, who has repeatedly clashed with Mr. Harper, has said he expects Ottawa's full support in defending the province's interests in the region."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090421.SEA21GTAART2245/TPStory/National

Then I checked VOCM's take on the story, which had a similar line: "Federal cabinet minister Peter MacKay says Canada's position on the matter is clear, and the federal government will be standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador on the matter." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35634

What are these lines doing in a story about an international boundary dispute between two sovereign nation states?

The headline for the CP story gives a clue: "Canada rejects French claim to seabed off Newfoundland, PM tells Williams." While the explicit news is that Harper sent DW a letter to tell him that the federal government is going to do its job and protect Canada's claim to the Atlantic seabed, the implicit news is the question of whether the ABC jihad will affect how Harper deals with France's claim.

Notice how differently the CP story deals with the French department of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. While France does not have a federal system of government likes Canada's, its system of departments is not as uniform as it appears. Since 2003, overseas territories such as the collectivité territoriale de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon have enjoyed a measure of administrative autonomy.

As Nottawa reported last month, Saint Pierre et Miquelon has its own set of political grievances with Paris: http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/03/appel-au-secours.html

And yet, this is all the CP story has to say about the interests of Saint Pierre et Miquelon: "Annick Girardin, the elected member for Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, has said she wants the two countries to come to an agreement on dividing up the resources and any economic windfall that could come from the region."

The story gives two starkly different impressions. On the one hand, we have the unitary interests of France, which speaks with one voice on international border disputes; on the other hand, we have the bifurcated interests of Canada, which speaks with two voices on international border disputes.

This is false on two counts. First, in terms of politics, France is hardly the monolithic entity that it's made out to be, and what's happening involves regional grievances that would sound familiar to anyone in Canada.

Second, in terms of international law, Harper is neither defending the province's interests nor standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador. Rather, he is defending the country's interests and standing up for Canadians.

Harper's letter states, "I have also conveyed our position to President Sarkozy." DW has repeatedly said that he is a proud Canadian who does not support separatism -- so why, I wonder, would anyone think he'd have a problem with the Prime Minister of Canada doing his job?

What Kennedy Doesn't Know

2009-04-20T07:21:00.005-03:00

From the Canadian Press:

"The dispute over what’s known as a market adjustment clause would allow the government to offer bonuses, bursaries and other special allowances to nurses in order to boost recruitment in a province where there is an estimated shortage of 1,000 nursing positions. Such incentives are offered to nurses elsewhere in Canada where nursing jobs are difficult to fill. But what makes this proposal unique is that the province’s nurses’ union would not be involved in negotiations between its members and the government.“That’s not happening anywhere across Canada,” said Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions.

Finance Minister Jerome Kennedy said he wasn’t aware of the precedent the clause could set in Canada, but defended the overall wage package as highly generous.“There is also no other province in this country right now offering 30 per cent (pay) increases to nurses,” Kennedy said in an interview.“In order to ensure equitable application of these market adjustment policies, we need to bring it under one roof and give government the flexibility [i.e., sole dictatorial power] to deal with hard-to-fill positions.” http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=243477&sc=79

I guess Kennedy figures that Dangovt's policy of giving special raises to only certain professionals within a larger bargaining group has worked so well for its relationship with the NLMA, it would be a sure hit with the nurses: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=203112&sc=79

Where's Wiseman in this story, by the way? He must have been in one of those special meetings that's always scheduled when important questions get asked.

Paper Tiger

2009-04-18T09:32:00.007-03:00

Where would we be without Friday afternoon press releases? Labradore has already dissected this PR roadkill: http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/04/thoughts-on-press-release.html

But the last two paragraphs are worth another look:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/intrd/0417n07.htm

"The company has indicated that severance is not available at this time," said Minister Skinner. "However, AbitibiBowater is not bankrupt and there have been many companies who have come out of creditor protection to resume normal operations and commitments to former employees. We are hopeful that this will continue, and in the interim will impress upon the company that their obligations should not be compromised. As a government, we intend to keep their feet to the fire, keep their officials accountable and ensure that the workers receive the appropriate documentation to file EI claims."

"Given the forestry’s overall importance in the national economy, there is tremendous opportunity for the Federal Government to support workers during this trying time," said Minister Skinner. "The forestry employs twice the number of workers [IN CANADA] as the automobile sector. With this in mind, I encourage the Federal Government to step up and provide similar levels of support."

Who knew that a press release had such awesome power that it could not only keep a company's feet to the fire but also get the federal government to do something it has said it's not going to do?

Skinner got quoted in yesterday's Globe, so he must have read this:
"Ottawa is refusing to rescue AbitibiBowater Inc. with loan guarantees — putting thousands of jobs in communities across Canada at risk after the forest products giant filed for bankruptcy protection.
AbitibiBowater, one of the country's oldest companies and the world's biggest producer of newsprint, filed for Chapter 11 protection in the United States Thursday, citing a debt burden of more than $6-billion (U.S.), and plans to file for similar protection in Montreal today, under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Federal Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said Thursday that loan guarantees for the Montreal-based company would be a commercial advantage to Canadian producers and fuel the softwood lumber dispute with U.S. firms."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090416.wrabimain0417/BNStory/National/home

And this morning the Globe is reporting that Quebec is doing more than using a press release to tell Ottawa what to do:
"A loan guarantee of up to $100-million (U.S.) from the Quebec government is a welcome vote of confidence in AbitibiBowater Inc. [ABH-T] and helps reassure job-dependent communities in the province that suppliers will continue to be paid, court was told Friday. “That is a tremendous shot in the arm for us,” Sean Dunphy, the head of the legal team guiding the debt-laden newsprint giant through bankruptcy protection proceedings in Canada, told Mr. Justice Clément Gascon of Quebec Superior Court.
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090417.wabitibistaff0417/BNStory/Business/home

So here's the VODW Question of the Day: What is Dangovt actually going to do about the situation, besides issue a media advisory at 4:50 on a Friday afternoon?

Odds, Hatchets & Nadirs

2009-04-17T16:16:00.011-03:00

Odds are that Barack Obama is going to have a meeting with Hugo Chavez long before DW has a civilized discussion with Harper: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/17/obama.chavez/index.html?pc=no_id

I'm still puzzled by the lack of local media attention to former Foreign Minister Hedderson's remarkable comments in the House of Assembly on April 8th:

MR. HEDDERSON: On the point of meeting with the [Fisheries] minister, I certainly made the minister aware that I was in Ottawa. I did make a request, but obviously she did not see fit to meet with me at that particular time.

MR. HEDDERSON: We have continually asked him [Stockwell Day] to move forward in the position, to take the, I guess, WTO action. It was only last Friday that they indicated that they will. We have asked them constantly for their strategy and have not been given the courtesy of them telling us what their direction is.

Who knew that we could reach such a nadir that the fact that a provincial cabinet minister cannot even get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries would go largely unnoticed in NL.

Who knew that maintaining even the semblance of a functional federal-provincial relationship would be less likely than the US and Venezuela burying the hatchet after years of tremendous political hostility.

Obama-Chavez Handshake Update:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97KK2T00&show_article=1

Foreign Minister Replaced

2009-04-16T11:28:00.011-03:00

Dangovt has announced that Foreign Minister Hedderson has been benched.

Hedderson has been replaced by Dave Denine, who is being sent on a whirlwind trip to Ottawa to block the proposed ban on seal products by the EU: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0416n02.htm

Sources have told Orwellian News that this change may be the result of last week's negative coverage: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html

What the news release didn't say:

1. Whether Denine can, unlike his predecessor, manage to get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries, or at least find out the location of the Federal International Trade Minister.

2. That Denine is meeting with officials from only second- and third-tier European nations. There are no meetings scheduled with any officials from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, or even Britain. Getting the Irish ambassador to say something nice about DW may make for a swell PR photo, but it's not going to change EU policy.

3. That these meetings are little more than photo-ops. With no less than 9 meetings scheduled for today and Friday (and we all know how much work gets done in Ottawa after coffee break on a Friday), there will be little time to conduct substantive discussions. By lining up a series of bilateral meetings, Denine has ensured that he will have to spend much of his time sequentially repeating Dangovt's position. Denine could have arranged trilateral meetings in cooperation with the Federal Minister of Fisheries -- alternatively, he could have tried to convene some sort of summit or group meeting -- but he's stuck with the tactic that Hedderson has already tried.

4. The Federal Government has been magically wished away, officially redacted from media advisories. No doubt it's part of a grand strategy to force the Minister of Fisheries into a meeting by ignoring her.

5. As even the media advisory admits, the whole thing is an information session. Denine's mandate is merely "to ensure that EU member states are well informed about the seal harvest and its important implications from both an economic and fisheries conservation perspective." Since European opposition to the seal fishery is based largely on ethical arguments that have little to do with economic considerations, telling European ambassadors about how the ban will adversely affect the NL economy (which DW is telling everyone is in fantastic shape) will have about as much impact as trying to shout down Tory hecklers in the House of Assembly.

6. The trip appears to signal an expansion in the mandate of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. According to their 2007-2008 report, the furthest contacts had been with the Conference of New England Governors and the South Eastern United States–Canadian Provinces’ Alliance, neither of which are bilateral forums:
http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/iga/pdf/IGAS%20Annual%20Report%2020078.pdf

For initial press coverage, see http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=242703&sc=79
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35530

Equalization Matrix

2009-04-15T08:25:00.004-03:00

"Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. [A red pill is shown in his other hand.] You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

If you want to take the red pill and see where the equalization/Atlantic Accord/O'Brien formula rabbit-hole goes, then read this: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/04/manley-ponders-rot.html

Once you've finished, take a minute to watch Kennedy's news conference again: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090326.wvnfldbudget0326/VideoStory/politics/home?pid=RTGAM.20090326.wPOLnewf0326

Back in March, I noted Kennedy's strikingly bald assertion about the political power of CRAPolls: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-cra-buys.html

While this assertion certainly stands out, the whole news conference was singularly strange. It has the type of weirdness that reminds me of a glitch in the Matrix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_KmNZNT5xw

Watch Kennedy's body language as he tries to explain The Shaft. About a minute into the news conference, he shifts into a lawyerly style to explain how the federal government "unilaterally made a determination...." He touches his face and his body language is odd.

Interestingly, he doesn't touch his face at all when he makes the CRAPoll comment.

Maybe it's nothing. Maybe you believe that Kennedy was telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Maybe it's better not to take the red pill.

But keep in mind Kennedy's actual words, as opposed to all the media spin: "I don't think we have to convince the public that what we're doing is right."

Optimus Prime

2009-04-14T07:14:00.006-03:00

This morning's news:

"Premier Very Upbeat About Province's Future
April 14, 2009
Premier Danny Williams is very upbeat about the future. Premier Williams says consumer confidence is high and future job prospects for this province have never looked better. He says the recent announcement of another oil find off our coast is very significant and business optimism here is the highest in the country. Williams says consumer confidence is also very strong as people feel good about themselves and their future. He says the offshore continues to provide huge employment benefits; over 2.2-billion dollars will be spent at Long Harbour; the Lower Churchill project is making good progress, and the future has never looked brighter." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35472

Today's Optimeter reading: 4 verys; 2 upbeats; 2 high/highest; 2 never looked better/brighter; 1 huge; 1 strong.

But what's that I see in the last sentence? Good? Things never make just "good progress" in Dangovt. Someone must have removed the "very, very" part of the sentence. It sounds like a Decepticon has infiltrated VODW.

This looks like a job for Optimus Prime, DW's alter ego. Whenever something is less than very, very superlative -- whenever a project is described as making anything less than very, very huge progress -- DW transforms into Optimus Prime, who battles the evil forces of skepticism.

According to published reports, "Optimus has a strong sense of justice and righteousness, and has dedicated himself to the protection of all life, particularly the inhabitants of Earth; he will battle his foes with unyielding resolve to uphold this belief. He always seems to wear a mask over his mouth."

For further information about Optimus Prime, including his personal life, see the Optimus news sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime
http://www.transformerland.com/g1/optimusprime.html

Orwellian News has also uncovered one of Optimus Prime's early election campaign videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB0_vJUc3o4

Transmission Talk in Quebec

2009-04-13T16:16:00.007-03:00

With local coverage of NALCO in a temporary lull, it's worth taking a look at what's being said in the Quebec media.

According to an opinion piece by Gilles Boivin in Le Soleil, the lack of trust between NL and Quebec is inhibiting negotiation of a broader agreement for developing and transmitting power from the proposed Lower Churchill project: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/opinions/editoriaux/200904/09/01-845353-le-temps-ou-jamais.php

Unless I'm missing an ironic or saractic tone, Boivin seems to take the so-called Anglo-Saxon route seriously. He appears to believe that the technological challenges can be overcome and that NL has enough petrodollars to move forward.

Here's the google translation:
"Time or never
Gilles Boivin Le Soleil
(Québec)
We already knew that Quebec and Newfoundland did not speak the same language. Since the announcement of an agreement for the transport of electricity in Newfoundland on the Quebecois, it is reasonable to ask if they speak the same things.

At first glance, there would be any place to celebrate the beginning of collaboration between two provinces with hydro litigation will rebound to rebound in recent decades. But reading is different in the two protagonists songeur leaves. The premier of Newfoundland, Danny Williams, saw its first breakthrough into the U.S. market. The Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, Claude Béchard sees rather a recognition of the need for agreement with Quebec for the transport of electricity to this lucrative market.

The least we can say is that trust is a tragically absent from negotiations between the two provinces. It includes an agreement to work jointly harness the rivers of Lower Churchill has been short-lived, some years ago. Watching things and each of its end of the telescope, we lose sight of the goal.

At the point where now Newfoundland (and Ottawa!) Dream of a highway east-west power in Canada with transit to the United States. Québec is hard as iron to be within its territory, the sole owner and project manager for the highway ... . pay. No way to let Ottawa "put your nose in the construction of transmission lines" among us, slice, with reason, Premier Jean Charest.

And for good reason! Behind this apparently theoretical debate, if not constitutional, is looming in effect the sale of green power on the lucrative markets as Ontario and American. Faced with billions of dollars at stake, early agreement announced earlier this week does not compute. Just 40 to $ 80 million for Newfoundland and twenty million dollars for Hydro-Quebec. But it could still lay the groundwork for a broader agreement between the two provinces.

An exciting prospect for Ontario, which relies on the energy of a future development of mega terreneuvien Lower Churchill to get rid of its coal. And Newfoundland also has need of a market for this ambitious project. At the point where she is studying the feasibility of a submarine link to bypass the province and its precious megawatts sell directly to the U.S. market.

But petrodollars helping the island province will probably be the means to do so. Especially since technically it has already been done in Europe, between Sweden and the Netherlands. Moreover, one of the companies associated with the Lower Churchill, the Norwegian Statnett, has expertise in this area.

This comes on the table for Quebec when it comes to run the La Romaine project, a hydroelectric plant with a capacity of 1550 megawatts. These are more than 2800 MW project that the Lower Churchill put on the market almost simultaneously. And Newfoundland has already indicated it does not remove the nose on a "support" a few billion federal dollars.

To the chagrin of Quebec alone has developed and continues to do so, its hydropower. Before ending up before the fact, Quebec and Hydro-Quebec would certainly benefit to undertake serious negotiations with neighboring Newfoundland. Unless it is already too late and that he refuses ... Face it, the speaker of Quebec is no longer small and powerless poor province that has signed in the late 60s, a way that has benefited 19 times less than Hydro-Québec."

Twitter

2009-04-13T09:03:00.005-03:00

As I argued in an earlier post, I believe that blogs can be a positive force in democratic politics and civic engagement: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/newspapers-blogs.html

But I'm not a fan of self-indulgent blogs, social-climbing facebook sites, or the latest fad, Twitter. I survived high school, thank God, and I fail to see the attraction of returning to that world of popularity contests and status ranking. If connecting people and fueling dialogue are the internet's virtues, then facilitating banal exhibitionism and encouraging a hyper-personalized culture are its vices.

If you are, like me, baffled by Twitter, then you might find this Slate article interesting: http://www.slate.com/id/2215829

It asks, "To vast swaths of the population, though, Twitter is inscrutable: Wait a minute—you want me to keep a perpetual log of my boring life for all the world to see? What if I just spend my free time watching Golden Girls?"

But if you like to spend your free time telling the world about what you ate for breakfast and your choice of underwear, then you're likely not reading this blog anyways.

If youth can be wasted on the young, maturity can be wasted on the middle-aged.

Neocolonialism

2009-04-11T08:14:00.005-03:00

Switch Newfoundland for Turks and Caicos Islands, and this story sounds strangely like 1934 all over again. What's particularly eerie is the fact that the return to direct rule is receiving support from supposedly ardent defenders of liberal democracy.

Who said that British colonialism is dead? As is so often the case with Globe editorials, they are paternalistically supporting something in another jurisdiction that they would never support in Ontario. Notice how they move so immediately and so silently from an atypical situation (in this case extreme corruption) to a gross over-generalization (colonialism is good). It looks like the learned editors skipped their logic classes at Upper Canada College: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html

Some suggestions for the neoimperialist editors: perhaps the concerns of people actually living in a region (in this case the Caribbean Community) should not be so quickly dismissed. Perhaps there are other, less regressive ways to deal with corruption than imposing direct rule from London. Perhaps you should be extremely careful when generalizing about what's good for other people living in another country. Perhaps people in other countries deserve the same rights and freedoms as you do.

"From Saturday's Globe and Mail
April 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM EDT
The Caribbean Community, an organization of island nations, has expressed concern that colonialism is being reimposed on the Turks and Caicos Islands, a overseas territory administered by the British government. But if it is colonialism, then the people of other developing countries may want a part of it.
After the island's British-appointed Governor raised the alarm, the Queen sent in a judge recently to undertake an investigation into “possible corruption or other serious dishonesty” in relation to the conduct of island politicians. In an interim report, Lord Justice Sir Robin Auld cited “political amorality and immaturity,” and “chronic ills collectively amounting to a national emergency.” The British government is acting on the recommendation, urgently suspending parts of the territorial constitution, imposing direct rule from London, and dispatching an emergency state-building team of bureaucrats and advisers to oversee “a root-and-branch overhaul” of the government. The Caribbean Community might not like it, but this is very good news for the 32,000 people of the Turks and Caicos.
After the investigation found “clear signs of corruption,” Michael Misick, the premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, resigned. Mr. Misick denied the allegations and defended his US$288,000 salary, which is more than is earned by the British prime minister, telling the inquiry: “I have done more for the Turks and Caicos than Gordon Brown has done for England.” Whatever the merits of the massive sell-off of Crown land and the accompanying development frenzy that has occurred over the past six years, one of the leading beneficiaries appears to be Mr. Misick himself.
It is reported the premier had a modest $50,000 in assets in 2003. This ballooned into a multi-million-dollar fortune during his term as premier. He flew in a private jet, wore designer suits and lived in a $8-million mansion. Unlike the kleptocracies in Africa and elsewhere, which are looted bare by corrupt leaders and officials who are rarely held to account, the residents of the Turks and Caicos islands have been spared from apparent serious misconduct at the highest levels of the territory's government, and have seen precious Crown assets protected. If this is colonialism, then it has had a bad rap."

Give me a freakin' break!

Look for yourself. I'm not making it up:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090411.weTurks11/BNStory/specialComment/home

P.S. And while you're reading newspapers online, check out the front page to today's Tely. What's missing? Not only is there no oversized photo of DW. Not only is there no story on DW. Not only is there no story based on a Dangovt news release. Not only is the Opposition actually discussed. But, unless I missed something, DW doesn't get a single quote, beyond a generic reference to the infamous death threat he made last week. Instead, we're treated to a thoughtful editorial and a fine column by Pam Frampton. My favourite part was reading Steve Bartlett explain to readers why Jones had to raise her voice in the House last week. If the Tely keeps this up, I'll have to eat some crow.

Clairvoyance & War

2009-04-10T07:24:00.017-03:00

Two things stand out in the latest developments in Dangovt's negotiation with the nurses' union.

First, in the initial media coverage, the Tely stood out as the most DW-focused. Not even VOCM framed the story as all about Danny. Here are three headlines:
"Williams disappointed by nurses’ union decision." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=241051&sc=79

"Strike Still Looming for Nurses Despite Latest Offer." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35404

"No thanks: union urges N.L. nurses to reject government offer." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/09/nurses-vote-049.html

The three headlines convey radically different impressions. As is often the case with the Tely, the headline is biased towards DW, though usually their actual stories are balanced. In this case, the story is as sympathetic to DW as the headline. Even though it's just a short update story (with full-length reporting presumably coming on Saturday), the Tely stands in stark contrast to the CBC, which opens with the reaction of the nurses' union, not DW's feelings.

The second thing that stands out is DW's claim to clairvoyance. All three stories referred to Kennedy's/DW's claims that they knew from the outset that the nurses wanted a strike, but only the CBC offers a direct quotation from DW: "We've said all along, right from the start, that we felt that the leadership of the nurses union wanted a strike, and it looks like they're going to get one."

This is not the first time that DW has asserted, after failed negotiations, that he knew all along how someone would act. In his letter to the National Post in February, DW gave two contradictory explanations of the fallout from ABC and the Shaft. His first account was that after he won the ABC battle, "we began what we hoped was a new era of relations for the benefit of all." Later in the letter he offered a second explanation, "If I have a single disappointment from this recent punitive action, it is not with Stephen Harper, because this is the sort of behaviour I expect from him." As I noted in an earlier post, it's difficult to reconcile the evident contradictions: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/pick-your-principle.html

Which brings us back to the nurses' union. If DW is now trotting out the "We've said all along" rhetoric, it's not a good omen. Dangovt's propaganda unit is already cranking out ads, and yesterday's remarks signal that the PR dogs of war are going to be released again. As I've said many times, conflict is the lifeblood of this regime.

With DW's foreign policy initiative going nowhere fast, health care stumbling from one crisis to the next, and problems such as the MUN mess still unresolved, the looming war with the nurses will provide a convenient scapegoat.

Foreign Policy Report

2009-04-09T13:05:00.008-03:00

More news on the progress of the new foreign policy initiative, from yesterday's Hansard:

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, later today we will be debating a motion dealing with the Province’s seal hunt and the proposed EU ban. This ban on imported seal products brings a serious threat to 6,000 sealers and their families who depend on this industry. Last week, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture travelled to Ottawa to meet with EU officials.
I ask the minister: Did you achieve any results from these meetings and garner any additional support in an attempt to stay the proposed EU ban?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the question from the member opposite, certainly, any time that you speak with European politicians, in this case, ambassadors, you do garner intelligence.
What I did find out was that ban appears to be going full-fledged ahead in the Parliament. However, in meeting with some of these ambassadors, we do have allies, we do have opportunities, and of course, our Premier certainly put a letter out to all ambassadors clearly stating our position and indicating that we are not satisfied just with the ban or the exemptions. We want to have our seal harvest continue without any restrictions, because it is humane, it is viable, it is sustainable, and we as a jurisdiction are going to pull out all the stops to make sure that they fully understand the consequences of what they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, an issue of such importance requires a solid plan to deal with any potential EU decision, and requires cooperation and dialogue between the federal and provincial governments.
I ask the minister: During your visit to Ottawa, did you meet with the Minister of Fisheries to discuss any strategy in dealing with this important issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: On the point of meeting with the minister, I certainly made the minister aware that I was in Ottawa. I did make a request, but obviously she did not see fit to meet with me at that particular time.
As the regards to the federal government and cooperation with the federal government, we have been two years, I say, Mr. Speaker, asking this federal government to take trade action so that we have something that we can stand behind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I tell you: finally they have listened to us and are moving forward.
We, as a jurisdiction, as I pointed out, will do anything we can to ensure that this hunt is not only continued but continued in a way that can give us the commercial return that we need.
Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, seeing as the Minister of Fisheries would not meet, I am going to ask him another question.
Mr. Speaker, CBC Radio reported on Friday that if a ban on seal products is instituted the Government of Canada will launch a world trade organization action.
I ask the minister: Have you been in contact with the International Trade Minister, Stockwell Day, to lend our support to any international challenges to reverse this potential ban?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. member on the other side, we have left no stone unturned in trying to make sure that the federal government and our European politicians understand the position that we hold. My predecessors and ministers have been in contact with not only the DFO minister but also Stockwell Day. We have continually asked him to move forward in the position, to take the, I guess, WTO action. It was only last Friday that they indicated that they will.
We have asked them constantly for their strategy and have not been given the courtesy of them telling us what their direction is. As a result of it, I say, Mr. Speaker, we have to, as a jurisdiction, step up to the plate. We have stepped up to the plate and we will continue to be at the plate until we finally hit that homerun. Mr. Speaker, we will again leave nothing unturned to make sure that we get that result.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for Oral Questions has expired.
-------------------------------------------------

So here's the Foreign Policy Progress Report:

1) The Foreign Minister cannot get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries.

2) The Foreign Minister cannot get the Federal International Trade Minister to reveal his strategy.

3) The Foreign Minister knows what's being reported in the news.

4) The Foreign Minister knows that DW sent a personal letter.

5) Because of numbers 1 & 2, the Foreign Minister is going to play baseball.

Helps to explain why DW didn't make a significant cabinet shuffle:
http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-08.htm

Principle & Practice

2009-04-09T09:58:00.006-03:00

The Principle: In a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence."

The Practice: No major changes in cabinet. No shakeup at Health.

Links to the Peter Principle:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PETERPR.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
http://www.amazon.ca/Peter-Principle-Laurence-J/dp/1568491611

Links to the Danny Practice:
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35373
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=240860&sc=79
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/09/education-cabinet-shuffle-408.html

Health Care in the Republic of Newfoundland

2009-04-08T12:48:00.005-03:00

Here is Part 3 in Orwellian News' series on life in the future Republic of Newfoundland. Parts 1 & 2 explored democracy and foreign policy in this independent utopia:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/foreign-policy-in-republic-of.html
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/democracy-in-republic-of-newfoundland.html

From the standpoint of Newfoundland nationalism, what's most interesting about health care is the silence. Newfoundland separatists are easily thrown into fits of rage when the topic veers anywhere near nationalist terrain such as foreign over-fishing, borders of any sort, equalization, flags, Hydro, oil rights, and almost anything else involving federal jurisdiction. In addition, they are provoked into apoplexy by discussion of the past, the Referenda, Confederation, conspiracy theories, the First World War, or Commission of Government.

But when talk turns to health care, the angry blogs and call-in shows go curiously quiet. When DW appointed a Mainlander to run Eastern Health, there was nary a peep from the separatist camp. While the mainstream media and public were focused on the tragic findings of the Cameron Inquiry, the nationalists were busy plotting war on the Romaine River. When asked for his opinion on Confederation, Greg Malone, the newest nationalist expert, simply pontificated, "It's a total failure." He didn't feel the need to burden himself with details such as health care: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=237554&sc=79

This state of affairs is rather curious. If a liberation movement passionately craves nationhood, then surely its members would feel compelled -- nay, they would jump at the opportunity -- to spell out how an independent republic would offer better health care than a mere Canadian province. Surely they would be able to point out how health care was superior in the good old days, before the Canadian wolf imposed Medicare.

Surely they would be able to point to the gross injustices perpetuated by the Canada Health Act. Surely they would be able to show how the federal government mismanages Eastern Health. Surely they would be able to blame the findings of the Cameron Inquiry on Ottawa.

But there is a Parkway-sized pothole on the road to separatist health policy: it's a provincial jurisdiction. The many failures of health care in NL cannot be pinned on Ottawa. If the separatists criticized the running of health care, they would have to criticize DW, whose government has been running it for six years.

Still, the question remains: What would The Ministry of Health in the future Republic of Newfoundland look like? According to Brian Dobbin, departments such as Health would be run by professional experts, not elected politicians: "Ministers should be professionals like in Taiwan or the U.S. cabinet." He continues, "Elect the premier separately, he’s the CEO. Let him or her recruit and hire the professionals needed to minister the delivery of our services and the stimulation of our economy." http://www.theindependent.ca/article.asp?id=1334

Professional administrators, not politicians. No Ross Wisemans screwing things up. No cabinet interference. Get the business of health care out of the House of Assembly and into the hands of capable professionals, who know how to handle complicated things like issuing a press release. Keep it out of the public glare -- that's the nationalist ticket.

Free from the federale's Canada Health Act, the professionals could create a type of Crown Corporation -- a hybrid called something like Republic Health -- and give it a separate building in the west end, far away from the Premier's Office. An independent Newfoundland could also search the world for the best and brightest and attract professional CEO's from places like Ontario.

But some funny things happened on the way to the tricolour flag ceremony. The funny thing is that in 2009 it's not the elected Minister of Health who is receiving public death threats from Danny Williams. The funny thing is that it's not the elected MHA's who are being put under severe official censure. The funny thing is that being a have province -- the necessary condition to mastery and autonomy -- did not magically solve the health care crisis. The funny thing is that with all the petrodollars sloshing around the provincial treasury, the Health Sciences Centre still looks like a New Orleans hospital after Hurricane Katrina.

No matter. Following the Dobbin report, The Republic of Newfoundland would privatize health care and emulate the United States. Anything American has got to be better than Canadian, right? Don't they live longer down there and pay less in GDP on health care than Canada?

What Wiseman Doesn't Know

2009-04-08T08:05:00.013-03:00

From Hansard, April 7th:

"If I could, Mr. Speaker, I will provide an update to the member opposite and to the House."
[In response to the question, "where is the evidence that communications and protocols are being put in place and being followed within Eastern Health?"]

"Mr. Speaker, the real answer to that question is that there is an issue of reasonableness here. What is the role of the government, what is the role of the health authority, and what should they do? If you look at Hansard, Mr. Speaker – this is ironic, if you read from Hansard, because Hansard records what people say in this House."
[In response to the question, "Why are you and your department not practicing proper follow up on this issue?"]

"Mr. Speaker, I need to understand what goes wrong so we can find a remedy."
[In response to the question, "Have you identified who made the judgements on Friday, and has the shot yet been fired across their bow, as the Premier indicated yesterday?"]

"If the member opposite has some information about her recent resignation, then I will commit to investigate in terms of that particular resignation and what plans are in place, actually, to provide a replacement for her, but the most current information I had was that the individual was going to be on a sick leave and returning around the middle of April, I say, Mr. Speaker."
[In response to a question on the resignation of the nurse practitioner at the HIV/AIDS clinic.]

"I understood that Eastern Health had made arrangements as an alternate plan while that individual was on sick leave and pending to come back around the middle of April. I will undertake to find out what the new plan will be, now that the member opposite has become aware that the resignation was tendered this morning....That is not something that I would ordinarily know...."
[In response to a question on the resignation of the nurse practitioner at the HIV/AIDS clinic.]
http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-07.htm

No wonder he's such a very busy minister: that's a lot of non-knowing for one question period. So let's do a tally of where things stand before he speaks in public again.

In just three weeks of work, Wiseman didn't know:

1) That the only nurse-practitioner of the HIV/AIDS clinic had resigned:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/08/aids-clinic-nurse-048.html

2) That Eastern Health would release the new cancer test information last Friday: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/fantasy-island.html

3) Changes in the rates for personal care homes in Newfoundland and Labrador: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/freudian-slips.html

4) What is happening on a day-to-day basis at an operational level at many health authorities: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-wisecracks.html

5) That he was supposed to show up at a major health conference: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/busyness_31.html

6) That he was supposed to let the media in to hear him speak:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/wisecrack.html

Here's some food for thought: Wiseman is surrounded by an army of communications people. He faces a decimated opposition. After the coverage of the Cameron Report, there have been five major news cyclyes, none of which have focused on Wiseman's portfolio: Curious George Baker's circus and its aftermath; the tragedy of the helicopter crash; the bold and brilliant Throne Speech and budget; the debate and non-celebration of 60 years in Confederation; and the Hydro announcement.

The latest failure in his portfolio was overshadowed by DW shooting off his mouth. As for the current news cycle, the story of the resignation of the nurse practitioner is going up against the announcement of a new discovery of hydrocarbons off Newfoundland. I wonder which story will attract the most attention....http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/08/statoilhydro-offshore-find.html

To put the problems in Health in context, Orwellian News contacted an international expert in unknowledge, Donald Rumsfeld. Reached by phone in Washington, Rumsfeld had this to say: "There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know. And then there's Ross Wiseman."

Rumsfeld recommended that Wiseman view his instructional video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw

Fantasy Island

2009-04-07T12:57:00.006-03:00

Only on Fantasy Island would the following exchange be acceptable:

"MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the key elements of this process has been ensuring that information is released and communicated properly. What we saw on Friday was a press release from Eastern Health showing up at 4:00 in the afternoon with no media briefings or press conferences, and very little detail attached to it.
I ask the minister again – because it was told this morning that your office had been informed and knew about this since Wednesday. I ask: Why was it not communicated to the public more appropriately, in a more effective fashion than it was, instead of waiting until the end of the day on Friday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I will not try to explain the actions of Eastern Health’s communication strategy on Friday. I, too, would concur that late Friday afternoon, to make a release available to the public and not have anyone from Eastern Health available to provide comment, is not something that I would have directed. It is not something that I condone. It is not something that I agree with. Let me be perfectly clear about that particular piece.
Yes, I was aware that they were going to be doing that release. The conversation that my office had with Eastern Health was midday on Thursday, and the understanding and direction was pretty clear: that this information needed to get out immediately. The fact that they were late on Friday afternoon releasing it, I had no control over, Mr. Speaker. That was their call, their decision to release it. I received the notice of the release just moments before it was out. I was out of the Province on government business, meeting with my colleagues in Halifax and with other health regions.
Mr. Speaker, that was their call, but I would agree with the member opposite that getting a release out late Friday afternoon and not having anyone available from the organization to comment on it is not something that I would agree with either." http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-06.htm

Here's a translation of what Wiseman is trying to say. He knew about the piece. He even had a conversation about said piece. But then he got on a plane and...well...pretty much nothing that happened after that had anything to do with him.

To recap: he would not have directed what happened; he would not condone it; and he would not agree with it. Not in an office or in the House; not over lunch or to a mouse. He does not like green eggs and ham.

But on a plane? On a plane, he has no control; at a meeting, he's never droll. He may be told in Newfoundland, but it's not his call once on Mainland. He received notice, yes it's true, but while away over the ocean blue.

Wonderful place, this Fantasy Island. You can get on a plane and leave all your troubles and responsibilities behind. No wonder cabinet ministers travel so much.

The French Connection

2009-04-07T10:23:00.006-03:00

It turns out that an international leader is emulating DW. But it's not Obama, despite what the Globe reported last year.

It turns out that DW's doppelgänger is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also relentlessly bold, aggressively optimistic, and incredibly ambitious: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090406.wcosarko07/BNStory/specialComment/home

The problem is that Sarkozy hasn't listened hard enough to DW. According to David Rieff, after less than three years in power, "Many in Mr. Sarkozy's governing Union for a Popular Movement have become increasingly public in expressing their unhappiness. In effect, rather than according serious room for decision-making to Prime Minister François Fillon or his cabinet, Mr. Sarkozy has arrogated almost every lever of power to himself and advisers."

For a cabinet revolt to happen in NL, there would have to be an actual cabinet, rather than the current simulacrum.

That's not all. Rieff continues, "But Mr. Sarkozy has not governed effectively, as polling and his party's disenchantment make abundantly clear. His manic character - initiative spilling into initiative, each being the transformative solution to the problem at hand, and all opposition denounced as lies or cowardice - has worn thin."

Sure sounds like DW: manic character, manic initiatives, manic insults. Denounce anyone who disagrees with you. But Sarkozy did not have DW's secret weapon: CRAPolls.

Insulated by CRAPolls, a simulation cabinet, and deep coatings of Teflon, DW will surely outlast the President of France.

In the last paragraph of his essay, Rieff compares Obama and Sarkozy: "At a recent press conference, U.S. President Barack Obama said he was loath to comment immediately on matters of great public importance before being certain he knew the subject in question. Many French wish such self-discipline could rub off on Mr. Sarkozy. Given his temperament, however, that hardly seems likely. As a result, an administration in which many had placed high hopes is lapsing into demagoguery and ineffectiveness."

Message to Nicolas -- Don't worry, just contact these guys and soon you'll be soaring high above the maddening crowd: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Locations/default.aspx

Politics of Hyperbole

2009-04-06T22:24:00.007-03:00

Reading through the comments posted on the CBC's story, the reason why DW deploys such gross overstatement became clear: it provides cover for action. How so, you may ask?

Let's consider some alternatives. What if DW had said, "It's disgraceful. They should be fired over there." What if DW said, "It's disgraceful. They should be arrested over there." Or what if DW said, "It's disgraceful. They should be forced to meet everyone affected in person."

If you replace "shot" with "fired," then you would get political action. If you remove the hyperbole and make the threat realistic, then the story would be very different.

If DW said someone should get fired, then the public would expect that someone would get fired. But by saying that someone should be shot, he knew that the public would not expect that someone would get shot. He knew that it would attract attention to his emotion (anger) and deflect attention from his action (nothing).

In other words, he let himself off the hook. Like repetition, hyperbole has a specific political function to manipulate appearances and expectations.

I'm sure everyone has seen the story by now but, if not, here's the link. The public comments make for interesting reading: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/06/cancer-count-eastern.html

Political Teflon

2009-04-06T19:14:00.013-03:00

Not much that one can add to the latest Danburst. Not even an Orwellian blogger could dream that DW would say in public: "They should be shot over there." I guess doing the separatists' work for them wasn't enough; now he wants to assist Orwellian News, too.

However, Orwellian News still wants to know: How does DW get away with it? DW is, among many things, the premier of NL. As he and his legions of fans never hesitate to shout and yell, he is in charge. He is The Leader. As such, DW is ultimately responsible for the running of government, which includes health care as one of its most important mandates.

Orwellian News can now report the answer: political Teflon. According to an anonymous source in Sector 7-G (West Block), DW and his entire cabinet get secret Teflon applications each day. The Teflon spray prevents any bad news from sticking to them. It enables them, with a straight face, to take credit for anything that goes right (including the price of oil) and to disclaim responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

How does this work? It sounds complicated, but it's actually quite simple. The Teflon contains a semantic cream that alters the way in which the English language is transmitted and received. Specifically, it enables DW and members of cabinet to switch from "we" to "they" (and back again), according to a portable Blamemeter leased from Globex Corporation. Once the Blamemeter reaches a certain level, the speaker simply swaps "we" and "they," depending on which option maximizes political gain and minimizes actual responsibility.

You can see the results in today's interview. In the CBC story, DW is quoted as saying, "They should be shot over there," and "They've learned absolutely nothing."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/06/cancer-count-eastern.html

By contrast, when DW speaks about NALCO -- an analogous agency -- he always uses we. It's not NALCO but "we" who are looking forward to working with Emera. It's not they but "we" who have concluded a sale agreement. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0402n06.htm

Dupont, the maker of Teflon, denies that there are any health risks associated with long-term exposure to political Teflon. Studies examining the link between use of non-stick coating and the election of George W. Bush proved inconclusive.

In one scientific experiment at Harvard University, subjects who faced long-term exposure to political Teflon reported poor memory and persistent verbal tics, such as a compulsion to say the words, "master," "you know," "go forward," and "traitor." But before the experiment could be finished, the participants began fighting with each other and ran outside to take down the university's flag.

Nonetheless, the New York Times has continued to investigate the health affects of political Teflon. As the headline to one story put is, "Teflon Is Great for Politicians, but Is It Safe for Regular People?" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/business/14shortcuts.html

Pick Your Partner

2009-04-06T13:58:00.021-03:00

For all the prattle about going it alone and self-reliance, the 2 April press release makes it clear that Dangovt is not talking about developing Hydro power all by itself.

In fact, Dangovt is highlighting its new partnership. This partnership is not with Ottawa, Quebec, or any other province or state but, rather, a corporation: Emera.

The press release makes it clear that this deal is being touted as the beginning of a longer-term business relationship. For all the rhetoric about a "historic and momentous occasion for the people of our province," it was framed in terms of two businesses (both of which operate monopolies) forming a strategic partnership.

To make sure that this special relationship was lost on no one, Emera was cut a slice of the publicity pie. “This is an exciting opportunity for both Nalcor and Emera Energy,” said Wayne O'Connor Chief Operating Officer of Emera Energy. “We are proud to play a part and look forward to working together to bring this valuable resource to markets across northeast North America.”

“At the present time, we are working with Emera Energy to have our power get to these markets,” said Premier Williams. “In other words, we have concluded a sale agreement with them so that with their considerable expertise in the industry, this power, originating from our province may be sold into markets. Obviously, this is something entirely new for us as a province and so we retained the best expertise possible in these early days. Our goal is to eventually develop the expertise at Nalcor so that we can act as seller into final markets. We understand from Emera that power from Labrador today is being sold directly into the United States; destination – New York. Newfoundland and Labrador is taking a bite out of the big apple.” See http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0402n06.htm

To certify that this is, in fact, an authentic Dangovt proclamation, it contains a nonsensical code sentence: "Having assessed all options, Nalcor Energy determined the most strategic and valuable decision moving forward is this arrangement as opposed to entering another power purchase agreement with Quebec at this time." When you see such Danspeak, you know that you're dealing with an important Dannouncement.

Now that we've been told that Emera is going to be such a bold part of such a historic arrangement, it might be helpful to know a thing or two about this company and its operations in the Maritimes: http://www.emera.com/en/home/default.aspx

With Emera comes a Maritimes connection that has been overlooked in NL, but not in NS. The announcement has already fueled speculation about the role NS will play in the hypothetical Labrador-Newfoundland-Maritimes transmission line. With Graham already talking tough about the prospect of wheeling power through NB, speculation has turned to how NS faces a "squeeze play": http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1114709.html

While NL was in the frenzy of its initial Hydro spin, trash talk was already breaking out in the NS media, with one Chronicle Herald story headlined, "Premier zaps N.B.’s Graham: If you don’t want to be part of the Churchill power project, then you can be bypassed, N.B. premier told." At least the reporters managed to point out that no decision has been made about the hypothetical transmission lines, and the projected cost of the hypothetical project could top $9 billion: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1114763.html

In Nova Scotia, Emera is known for providing, via Nova Scotia Power, inferior service for inflated prices. Here's a sampling from CBC's coverage:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/02/10/ns-power-bennett.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/novascotia/story/2007/04/03/macdonald-nsp.html
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/11/05/nsp-rate-increase.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/08/28/survey-utilities.html

As any Nova Scotian can tell you, at length, mixing a public monopoly with private business can give you the worst of both worlds. NALCO loves to present itself as a savy business, but nothing -- repeat, nothing -- will happen with the Lower Churchill without gobs and gobs of taxpayers' money.

And nothing will happen until the music stops in the pick-your-partner Hydro dance. Perhaps that's the point.

Danny Chavez Reconsidered

2009-04-05T19:29:00.011-03:00

When Danny Williams gets compared to Hugo Chávez, the assumption is that this means that Williams' political apoplexy prevents him from cutting deals with enemies.

The assumption is that this occlusion (rooted in some combination of grandiosity and sociopathy) draws on a genuine ideology that subordinates commerce to politics.

This assumption is wrong. If Danny Williams is, in fact, anything like Chávez, the results may surprise some observers.

For all Chávez's socialist rhetoric, Venezuela continues to enjoy a close economic relationship with the United States. The US is still one of Venezuela's most important trading partners; even during the nadir of the Bush presidency, trade between the two countries actually increased. The US is Venezuela's largest oil customer and a major foreign investor.

James Surowiecki raises some interesting parallels. He writes, "Chávez has been the beneficiary of excellent timing: oil prices have quintupled since he took over, allowing him to hand out billions of dollars to the poor. But he has done little to diversify the nation’s industrial base and lessen the economy’s dependence on oil, while his few tepid ventures into state ownership or coöperatives will have no meaningful economic impact. The result is that the ties between the U.S. and Venezuela have actually tightened."

Surowiecki's short article is worth a full reading, especially the last paragraph. Try substituting anti-Canadianism for anti-Americanism: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2007/01/08/070108ta_talk_surowiecki

As the Hydro spin cycle continues, it's worth keeping in mind that NL faces essentially the same constraints as it did three years ago. For a sense of perspective, see this 2006 piece in Maclean's:
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20060731_130820_130820

One quotation in particular jumps out: "although the science fiction of a marine route that bypasses Quebec and flows energy from Labrador to, say, Boston, would have a price tag worthy of NASA."

Ottawa may be a planet away from this story right now, but sooner or later the federal government will play an important role in the Hydro drama. Whether it acts as the Deus ex machina is anyone's guess, but the emergence of a modus vivendi between Ottawa and St. John's remains a necessary condition for any major development of Churchill Falls.

It's no accident that the Hydro story remains enmeshed in the rhetoric of Newfoundland nationalism; for DW, the separatist threat remains a useful political tool. But while it's still useful in provincial politics, federal politics is an entirely different matter: 2009 is not 2004.

Here's a flashback to 2004, courtesy of Bond Papers: "Public optimism was shattered as Williams stormed from the meeting, flew back to St. John's and scheduled a media briefing for December 22. He announced there was no Christmas present from Paul Martin. Williams' talked of getting a slap in the face.Then he ordered Canadian flags to be taken from every provincial building. "Why would we fly their flag and pretend everything is rosy?" he told reporters at Confederation Building." [my emphasis]. See http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2005/07/getting-deal-danny-williams-and.html

So here's a question: is DW more captive to his populist nationalism than Chávez is to his populist socialism?

For further reading on Chávez, see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/23/080623fa_fact_anderson

The Secret to Happiness

2009-04-05T08:42:00.007-03:00

Want to know the secret to happiness on this mauzy morning? Positive psychology has reduced it to a neat formula: H=S+C+V.

H is your level of happiness, S is your set point, C is the conditions of your life, and V is the voluntary activities you do.

As John Lachester explains in his New Yorker article, "In other words, your happiness consists of how happy you naturally are, plus whatever is going on in your life to affect your happiness, plus a bit of voluntary work. Well, duh. The only vaguely surprising thing about this is how useful voluntary work can be to the person doing it—and even that isn’t really news. At the end of the nineteenth century, Emile Durkheim performed a huge cross-cultural study of suicide, and found, in Haidt’s words, that “no matter how he parsed the data, people who had fewer social constraints, bonds and obligations were more likely to kill themselves.” The more connected we are to other people, the less likely we are to succumb to despair—a conclusion that isn’t very distant from the common-sense proposition that lonely people are often unhappy, and unhappy people are often lonely."

Lanchester's entertaining and informative article is well worth reading. He begins with a hypothetical account of Ig and Og that bears on optimistic correctness: "It is the year 100,000 B.C., and two hunter-gatherers are out hunter-gathering. Let’s call them Ig and Og. Ig comes across a new kind of bush, with bright-red berries. He is hungry, as most hunter-gatherers are most of the time, and the berries look pretty, so he pops a handful in his mouth. Og merely puts some berries in his goatskin bag.

A little later, they come to a cave. It looks spooky and Og doesn’t want to go in, but Ig pushes on ahead and has a look around. There’s nothing there except a few bones. On the way home, an unfamiliar rustling in the undergrowth puts Og in a panic, and he freezes, but Ig figures that whatever is rustling probably isn’t any bigger and uglier than he is, so he blunders on, and whatever was doing the rustling scuttles off into the undergrowth. The next morning, Og finally tries the berries, and they do indeed taste O.K. He decides to go back and collect some more.

Now, Ig is clearly a lot more fun than Og. But Og is much more likely to pass on his genes to the next generation of hunter-gatherers. The downside to Ig’s fearlessness is the risk of sudden death. One day, the berries will be poisonous, the bear that lives in the cave will be at home, and the rustling will be a snake or a tiger or some other vertebrate whose bite can turn septic. Ig needs only to make one mistake. From the Darwinian point of view, Og is the man to bet on. He is cautious and prone to anxiety, and these are highly adaptive traits when it comes to survival. We are the children of Og." Here's the link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227crbo_books?currentPage=1

And for a thoughtful essay on the politics of optimism (and a break from reading about the latest Dannouncement), read Adam Gopnik's article on Voltaire. It serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of satire: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/07/050307crbo_books

Truth Slips

2009-04-04T20:06:00.012-03:00

DW admitting he may be out to lunch: "I hope it's not blissful ignorance." Listen for yourself, it's at the 5:35 mark: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/thursday-april-2#clip157120

VOCM reporting that things are already bad: "Things may be about to go from bad to worse in Labrador West as the Iron Ore Company of Canada has given notice the planned one month shutdown this summer may be extended to 13 weeks." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35277

Minister Dunderdale complaining about her colleagues' incessant shouting and hollering in the Legislature: "I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely clear on the question. I could not hear her, in the noise of the House."
http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-02.htm

Minister Wiseman admitting he's out of his depth: "I think, Mr. Speaker, since we have been in government, I think there has been about – I stand to be corrected on this, but since we have been in government this is probably the third, if not the fourth increase we have provided in rates for personal care homes in Newfoundland and Labrador." http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-02.htm

Globe article explaining the perils of reckless optimism: "Ultimately, it isn't undue pessimism that is dangerous, but undue optimism. Over the past two decades, undue optimism produced irrational exuberance, housing bubbles and unbridled confidence in the benefits of financial innovation. Undue optimism also encouraged commentators to label anyone who expressed doubts about the trajectory of the global economy or about the dangers of financial innovation as a crank, which served only to discourage healthy skepticism."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090404.SHIFT04/TPStory/?query=make+room+for+doom+and+gloom

Hydro Spin (updated)

2009-04-04T07:38:00.016-03:00

In just a couple of days, the Hydro story has gone through several early spin cycles. In the Telegram's initial story, DW was focused on gloating about his great achievement. "Newfoundland and Labrador is now taking a bite out of the Big Apple," Williams said.

The Lower Churchill was in the back seat, with the Tely story offering a follow-up statement: "He also said the agreement may also put the province in a better position to develop the Lower Churchill." See http://thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=238932&sc=79

By contrast, by the time of the CBC's story, the focus had shifted: "Power transfer through Quebec good for Lower Churchill 'leverage': Williams." According to the CBC: "Williams said the deal — which allows Newfoundland and Labrador to export as much as 250 megawatts of power in the summer months, when domestic demand drops but U.S. demand is surging — sets up the Lower Churchill megaproject, which is still in the planning stages." See http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/03/williams-lower-churchill.html

The difference between the two stories may be the result of different reporters' interpretations or different information they obtained. For good measure, the CBC story ends with the Lower Churchill, too: "The Lower Churchill is far from a certainty. The province will require federal government involvement for structuring the financing, and it requires regulatory approval."

The Tely's story dealt with the issue via an interview with Danny Dumaresque. "He told The Telegram there is 'absolutely nothing new' in this agreement. 'It doesn't bring us one inch closer to a Lower Churchill project because it doesn't give us the essential ingredient which is the right to build a transmission line across Quebec, he said. Dumaresque also said there's no space on Quebec's grid to move the projected 3,000 megawatts from the Lower Churchill."

While Geoff Meeker has analyzed the spins taking place in the media coverage, Bond Papers has reported developments in the availability of government information. Whereas the media coverage has been highly fluid and, in some cases, erratic, the provincial state has been busy redacting pubicly available material:
http://thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=239030&sc=88
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/04/wheeling-deal.html

We'll see what the Tely has to say today, but three unanswered questions come to mind:

1) Where is the Romaine River project in all this? Even in normal times, the amount of available capital for massive hydro projects is finite; during a global recession, access to capital is significantly constricted. It's hard to imagine how the Romaine and Lower Churchill projects can be separated: the development of one will surely affect the other.

2) Where is the federal government in all this? No doubt DW wants this story to unfold in a provincial vacuum -- Ottawa, what Ottawa? -- with the theme of self-reliance eclipsing any disucssion of what role the Harper regime is willing to play in raising capital or supporting regulatory approval.

3) How do the alternate transmission routes fit into this? If DW is now emphasizing how he has leveraged a deal to show the viability of transmitting future Lower Churchill power to the bitten Big Apple, does this mean that the NALCO-Gros Morne transmission line is a red herring?

It looks like there will be quite a few red herrings swimming around this story, so it's useful to keep in mind the etymology of red herring, which originally referred to smoked herring dragged across the trail of the fox (Hydro) to throw the hounds (public) off the scent:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

Power Play Update:
Check out this interview with DW:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/thursday-april-2#clip157120

As others have already reported, DW is clear that there is no deal with Quebec. What's less clear is how the "all options" on the table approach is going to work if actual construction ever starts on the transmission lines.

What's abundantly clear is that it remains metaphysically impossible to discuss Churchill Falls (Upper or Lower) without dragging in the entire kitchen sink of nationalist blather, from über-optimism to Harper to separatism and, curiously, back to George Baker. DW tries to declare that he's over Harper, who is now an official untermensch (DW says, with a straight face, that he doesn't have time for enemies), and he calls Curious George a great guy who doesn't really mean what he says (now how would be know that?).

As I've said before, the road to Newfoundland nationalism runs straight through Churchill Falls. To quote its namesake, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Health Scare

2009-04-03T09:45:00.007-03:00

In just one month, we've gone through at least six discrete news cycles: the release of the Cameron Report and calls for Wiseman to resign; Curious George Baker's circus and its aftermath; the tragedy of the helicopter crash; the bold and brilliant Throne Speech and budget; the debate and non-celebration of 60 years in Confederation; and now the Hydro announcement.

That's more than one news cycle per week (not counting the ongoing negotiations between Dangovt and the nurses union), each with multiple official press releases, media scrums, call-in show prattle, and associated conspiracies.

Throughout all of this, the crises in health care continue. As I mentioned in a previous post, CBC has done the best job of any news agency in reporting the different facets of the crisis:http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/busyness_31.html

Their coverage has been thorough and balanced. But with the relentless series of VODW Events of the Day, the multiple crises in health care are getting lost in the feverish cycles of ranting & roaring. And there is a danger that the intense focus on the Cameron Inquiry and its aftermath will produce a "Cameron Effect," whereby the wide range of problems in health care will get reduced to only cancer treatment.

While today's dramatic headline in the Tely is Power to the People, it's worth pausing to consider the other stories that continue to go unresolved. I have no doubt that these problems stem from many years of funding cuts, neglect, and mismanagement; however, DW has been in power for six years and, despite what cabinent members shout during Question Period, not everything in the entire universe can be blamed on Roger Grimes.

So if you're looking for a break from the latest news cycle, check out this CBC series:
File 1:File Name: Story 05 - Locums.wmvFile Size: 14 MBDownload Link: http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/sdo1df

File 2:File Name: Story 04 - Arthritis.wmvFile Size: 12 MBDownload Link: http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/1ddik9

File 3:File Name: Story 03 - Rural GIM.wmvFile Size: 36 MBDownload Link: http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/bk7wmp

File 4:File Name: Story 02 - Wait Times.wmvFile Size: 43 MBDownload Link: http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/xhcc9w

File 5:File Name: Story 01 - ID.wmvFile Size: 37 MBDownload Link: http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/skoyt6

As with most aspects of governance, money is at the root of many of these problems, but it's more complicated than that. For example, the imbalances between how the Department of Health deals with some specialists, such as oncologists, and other physicians continues to generate serious, and yet avoidable, difficulties for everyone involved. Now that there is a media blackout of the negotiations between the nurses union and the government, perhaps focus can shift back to the NLMA -- that is, until the next big energy announcement.

It seems that provincial politics has devolved into a type of Announcement Government. Public discourse revolves around the latest bold and brilliant achievement, as Dangovt saturates the media with press releases, media scrums, and call-in blather.

This saturation campaign is highly selective: while some official events get cooked and re-cooked, with the public eating leftovers sometimes for weeks, other issues become non-events, exiled to media Siberia. Whereas NALCO can't seem to get out of the news, the NLMA can't get into it. Whereas the MUN mess and the 60th anniversary were sent to the PR gulag, the apparently modest agreement announced yesterday is absolutely historic.

A lot of things bothered me about the Speech from the Throne and the budget. It wasn't just the prattle and the bombast; it wasn't just Kennedy citing CRAPolls as justification for not defending his budget; and it wasn't just the contempt they showed the nurses union.

No, in the end, what was the most repugnant was their insistence on speaking for everyone in NL, even you. It was their insistence that you must be optimistic about this government. It was their insistence that this optimism be the most optimistic in the western world.

This propaganda does what all propaganda does: it excites some people, turns off others, and feeds the anger of those who feel slighted. If you listen to the physicians in the CBC series, it becomes readily apparent that it's not all about funding; it's about the fact that they feel that no one in the government is genuinely listening to them. But listening is extremely difficult in a world of Optimistic Correctness: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/optimistic-correctness.html

Found in Translation

2009-04-02T22:04:00.004-03:00

Here is the link to the Radio-Canada story on today's hydro announcement:
http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/atlantique/2009/04/02/003-TNL-hydroelectricite_n.shtml

The story mentions not only the historic grievance in NL and the symbolic value of today's announcement for DW, but also the pending development of the Lower Churchill and the expansion of new transmission lines to transport that energy to the US. Unless I missed something, the story makes no mention of the Romaine River project, which is curious.

Here is the Google translation. It's pretty accurate, though it produced some amusing pronouns:

An historic agreement (Source: Radio-Canada). The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced an agreement with Quebec to move to the United States of electricity on the Churchill River. For the first time in its history, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, under an agreement with Quebec, carries electricity to the North American markets. Premier Danny Williams said that his province sells electricity in the United States since Wednesday. The energy comes from hydroelectric plants on the Churchill River in Labrador.

Premier Williams believes that the agreement for his province is a step towards prosperity. He is a historic moment for the entire population of Newfoundland and Labrador. The government explained that the Williams energy company of Newfoundland and Labrador, through its subsidiary, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, has concluded an agreement with Hydro-Quebec for the transmission of electricity up at the U.S. border. The electricity is then sold on the Canadian side to the company Emera Energy. The latter then sells electricity in Canada and the United States.

The priority of the energy company of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to supply electricity in the province. Only the excess energy is sold outside the province. Since 1969, Quebec enjoys an agreement to use the electricity generated by the top Churchill in Labrador. Quebec will benefit from this agreement until 2041. Until now, the top Churchill reported 19 billion dollars in Quebec, but only 1 billion dollars in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Even today, Premier Danny Williams said that the 1969 agreement is unfair. Meanwhile in 2041, when Newfoundland and Labrador may negotiate a new agreement, the province tries to make the most of its hydropower. Since 1998, Newfoundland and Labrador can use 300 megawatts produced at the top Churchill. It can now get electricity from the province by paying a right of passage. She started to export 130 megawatts in the New York area. This small production may relate to Newfoundland and Labrador $ 40 million to 80 million per year.

For Premier Williams, the sale also has a symbolic value because his province was finally able, despite the obstacles, to sell electricity to its neighbors. Newfoundland and Labrador will soon undertake a hydroelectric megaproject on the lower Churchill. Le ministre des Ressources naturelles du Québec, Claude Béchard, acknowledges that it will build new lines in Quebec to deliver that electricity to the United States, and it is best to cooperate with the Atlantic province.
"For us, it's a win-win situation with Newfoundland," said Minister Claude Béchard. For Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be a step toward self-sufficiency.

Radio-Canada.ca avec Presse canadienne Radio-Canada.ca avec Presse canadienne

The Tunnel That Never Was

2009-04-02T18:34:00.013-03:00

Looks like the Dunnel may never get completed after all. It also looks like the NALCO-Gros Morne transmission line controversy and the Romaine non-story story were likely secret black-ops designed to give Quebec the false sense that something was up and to keep the media off the scent.

Oh well, I hope they use humane methods to kill off the bioengineered giant crabs imported from the US: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/american-technology-to-build-nl-tunnel.html

The celebration hyperbole will likely be historic. Health Canada is recommending that those in the blast zone wear protective ear plugs. Lost in the frenzy will be the other side of the negotiations. If it's a historic victory for DW, is it a historic loss for Quebec? It is interesting, for example, to note that the Globe's headline is "Quebec signs historic power deal:" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090402.wpower0402/BNStory/National/home

Here's an extract from the Globe's story:
"Quebec's Minister of Natural Resources, Claude Béchard, explained that Newfoundland and Labrador have finally come to the realization that it cannot seek federal funding to build a costly transmission line to bypass Quebec.
Quebec argued that if Newfoundland and Labrador wants to develop the Lower Churchill project they will need to play by the rules and use Quebec's transmission lines. But he said that once Quebec's 1,550-megawatt La Romaine project – to be built at a cost of $6-billion – is completed, there may not be room for Newfoundland and Labrador to export power on Hydro-Quebec's transmission lines.
Building another transmission line would be necessary and also very costly, ranging in the billions of dollars. But Mr. Béchard said nothing was excluded.
'Everything is possible as long as everyone plays by the rules of the game. Quebec is well positioned to become the next Alberta and respond to U.S. President Barack Obama's call for greener energy from the North. We don't want to stop others to get into the market. … As for other projects, our door is always open,' Mr. Béchard said."

As for MOU's, proposed deals, ongoing negotiations, binding agreements, and legal contracts, there is going to be so much information and disinformation sloshing around for the next week that it will take quite a while before we know what really happened today.

As for the details of the story, I'll leave it to the experts to parse the fine print. As for the political spectacle, I'll borrow a quote from DW's speech last September: you ain't seen nothing yet.

For the Romaine non-story story, see:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/non-story-story-ii.html
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/non-story-story.html

Geoff Meeker Update:

I forgot to re-check the Globe story. As Geoff Meeker notes in his incisive analysis of the press coverage, the story's headline has been changed to "Newfoundland touts historic hydro deal with Quebec." Here's the link: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=239030&sc=88

He's right about the Tely doing a better job than CBC on this story (though I still think CBC's coverage of health issues is better than anyone else's); but the Tely's excited Power to the People headline was a poor match for the actual story, despite the alliteration.