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.
Showing posts with label Danprattle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Danprattle. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Kidding
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
All Roads Lead to Ottawa
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
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
Friday, May 1, 2009
Kiss the Backsides
"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.
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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Risky Business
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
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
Friday, February 27, 2009
Required Reading, III
The NYRB has an insightful piece on Orwell:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22414
While parts of Barnes' analysis are rather harsh (it's always easy to lay the boots to the dead), he clearly demonstrates Orwell's flaws as a writer and a person. We are left with a portrait of a flawed yet humanized Orwell who, warts and all, is as relevant today as he was two generations ago. Barnes' article serves as a reminder of the need to avoid hero-worship. As Sheldon Kopp wisely noted, we should be wary of both victims and heroes:
http://webdata2.soc.hawaii.edu/illumlife/abelist.htm
Which brings me back to DW. His serial thuggery, vulgarity, and pettiness constitute a type of banal evil, but what is truly disturbing is the way in which large parts of the NL polity have willingly embraced his populist authoritarianism. The truly disturbing fact is not that he labels his critics traitors but rather that so many people actively or passively support such bullying. Whether on the web or the call-in shows, these hero-worshippers offer a frightening display of how people will willingly, freely, almost gleefully reject critical thinking and embrace political absolutism.
Unlike Big Brother, DW doesn't need a vast network of spies and police (though it's clear that he has a large and highly-active propaganda unit), but he has managed to intimidate his critics and to spread a virus of tribal rage and nationalist fantasy. This virus feeds off long-standing aspects of the NL polity but, under Dangovt, it has mutated into a new form of collective psychosis not unlike the type described by Adorno a half century ago. What's so striking about this social madness is not that DW claims a monopoly over the truth but that so many people passionately want to believe him. This collective psychosis remains in its manic phase but, at some point before Dangovt finally expires, it will turn depressive, nihilistic, and (if one takes many nationalist bloggers seriously) violent.
And that, in the end, is why we must write.
Non-Ironic Update:
Interestingly, this afternoon Burkie announced that the officially-sanctioned theme for Think Week will be WHO IS YOUR HERO (and I'm not making this up):
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/edu/0227n01.htm
Judging from the Ministerial Proclamation, it looks like a trip to Room 101 may be in store for the unfortunate soul who either refuses to participate or names a Mainlander as their hero.
Suggested Reading Update:
Orwell's Politics and the English Language. Orwell overstates his argument in a number of places, it's still an important and enlightening (and short) essay:
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
It should be read alongside Strunk and White, still the best single book on how to write:
http://www.bartleby.com/141/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22414
While parts of Barnes' analysis are rather harsh (it's always easy to lay the boots to the dead), he clearly demonstrates Orwell's flaws as a writer and a person. We are left with a portrait of a flawed yet humanized Orwell who, warts and all, is as relevant today as he was two generations ago. Barnes' article serves as a reminder of the need to avoid hero-worship. As Sheldon Kopp wisely noted, we should be wary of both victims and heroes:
http://webdata2.soc.hawaii.edu/illumlife/abelist.htm
Which brings me back to DW. His serial thuggery, vulgarity, and pettiness constitute a type of banal evil, but what is truly disturbing is the way in which large parts of the NL polity have willingly embraced his populist authoritarianism. The truly disturbing fact is not that he labels his critics traitors but rather that so many people actively or passively support such bullying. Whether on the web or the call-in shows, these hero-worshippers offer a frightening display of how people will willingly, freely, almost gleefully reject critical thinking and embrace political absolutism.
Unlike Big Brother, DW doesn't need a vast network of spies and police (though it's clear that he has a large and highly-active propaganda unit), but he has managed to intimidate his critics and to spread a virus of tribal rage and nationalist fantasy. This virus feeds off long-standing aspects of the NL polity but, under Dangovt, it has mutated into a new form of collective psychosis not unlike the type described by Adorno a half century ago. What's so striking about this social madness is not that DW claims a monopoly over the truth but that so many people passionately want to believe him. This collective psychosis remains in its manic phase but, at some point before Dangovt finally expires, it will turn depressive, nihilistic, and (if one takes many nationalist bloggers seriously) violent.
And that, in the end, is why we must write.
Non-Ironic Update:
Interestingly, this afternoon Burkie announced that the officially-sanctioned theme for Think Week will be WHO IS YOUR HERO (and I'm not making this up):
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/edu/0227n01.htm
Judging from the Ministerial Proclamation, it looks like a trip to Room 101 may be in store for the unfortunate soul who either refuses to participate or names a Mainlander as their hero.
Suggested Reading Update:
Orwell's Politics and the English Language. Orwell overstates his argument in a number of places, it's still an important and enlightening (and short) essay:
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
It should be read alongside Strunk and White, still the best single book on how to write:
http://www.bartleby.com/141/
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
MUN Follies II
For someone who didn't issue a press release, Campbell is all over the press this evening.
The CBC came the closest to getting the story straight:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/02/10/campbell-unb.html
Observation 1: Campbell seems to like his revenge hot rather than cold. He could have given a "no comment," but he spoke to both CBC and VOCM about the controversy. Given the facts that he has still not signed a contract at UNB and has not, evidently, tendered his resignation (the CBC reports that he'll stay on until August), this is not a straightforward exit. While a wave of regret and recrimination hits the airwaves and web sites, Campbell gave this parting shot to Burkie: "The truth is I have no idea what the problem was, none," he said.
Observation 2: Burkie may have been kicked around by the media but she (A) hasn't learned a damn thing, (B) couldn't care less, and (C) is giving grade-A Danprattle. Asked about the crisis, she channeled her esteemed colleague in Health:
Education Minister Joan Burke denied Tuesday that there was any crisis. "I certainly think that we have a very well established university, and we certainly have some very high-calibre people over there," she said. "And you know, it's certainly a lot of people employed there at the university, and the leadership, I think, certainly see us through." That's gotta be in the running for the Danblurp of the month.
The CBC came the closest to getting the story straight:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/02/10/campbell-unb.html
Observation 1: Campbell seems to like his revenge hot rather than cold. He could have given a "no comment," but he spoke to both CBC and VOCM about the controversy. Given the facts that he has still not signed a contract at UNB and has not, evidently, tendered his resignation (the CBC reports that he'll stay on until August), this is not a straightforward exit. While a wave of regret and recrimination hits the airwaves and web sites, Campbell gave this parting shot to Burkie: "The truth is I have no idea what the problem was, none," he said.
Observation 2: Burkie may have been kicked around by the media but she (A) hasn't learned a damn thing, (B) couldn't care less, and (C) is giving grade-A Danprattle. Asked about the crisis, she channeled her esteemed colleague in Health:
Education Minister Joan Burke denied Tuesday that there was any crisis. "I certainly think that we have a very well established university, and we certainly have some very high-calibre people over there," she said. "And you know, it's certainly a lot of people employed there at the university, and the leadership, I think, certainly see us through." That's gotta be in the running for the Danblurp of the month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
