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.
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wiseman Dumped
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.
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.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Tide of Public Discourse
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
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
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism, II
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.
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.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
ABC's of Health Care
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.
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.
Monday, April 20, 2009
What Kennedy Doesn't Know
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.
"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.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Clairvoyance & War
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Health Care in the Republic of Newfoundland
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?
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?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Politics of Hyperbole
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
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
Friday, April 3, 2009
Health Scare
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
