“Who the f*ck’s he trying to impress?” came the voice of a steadfast friend as soon as the phone came up close to an ear.
“Who?” says your humble e-scribbler still choking back the hello.
“Ignatieff” he said, then reeled off a section of some online story about the Liberal leader’s statement that he will let Liberal members of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador vote against the federal budget this evening even though the party caucus will be voting for it. Five of the six had already said publicly they’d be bucking Iggy and the caucus anyway.
“No one,” says your scribbler.
“Well, he’s doing a great job.”
“You know,” he added after a long silence, “sometimes it seems like you and me are the only ones around this place not on acid.”
He hung up the phone as if this was just a snippet of an ongoing conversation.
A couple of days ago, another old friend brought up Michael Ignatieff’s increasing tendency to refer to the country - Canada - as The Federation. “I thought Danny was the only trekkie”, he’d said over a coffee, “but that stopped once he got a piece of the action and became a have province.”
The second friend took to calling him Sarek after that. “Buddy started out playing a Romulan, you know,” he reminded, tapping his finger on his nose, as if that meant something.
The Canadian Press story my steadfast friend had been reading over the phone had a few more of those mind-benders in it.
There was Danny Williams praising Sarek for letting members of caucus buck the whip:
“He shows real courage this early in his leadership to be making a move like that. The MPs are being allowed to do what they need to do on behalf of their province and I think the fact that a national leader recognizes that is very important.”
Williams’ own caucus, of course, is not allowed to think for themselves without permission from the Premier’s Office, let alone follow the direction of another party leader.
The six federal Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador got bombarded with telephone calls and e-mails this past week, most of them coming from Williams’ caucus directly or at their behest. The original orders came from the 8th, of course.
Someone on the 8th even managed to rouse John Hickey out of his hibernation. Hickey, who is rumoured to have some cabinet responsibilities, has been all-but-invisible until the day after Groundhog Day. He called the local morning call-in show on voice of the cabinet minister to list all the wonderful things for Labrador his master could have done with federal money.
Things like the a power line designed to take the hydro-electric power that wasn’t going off to somewhere else in North America down to the island of Newfoundland. This would somehow benefit Labrador even though there was no provision for any juice to bleed off to light the odd home in Labrador.
Or the Trans Labrador Highway.
Never mind that Hickey, as highways minister once claimed to have a deal with Ottawa on the thing already on his desk only being forced to admit that he really didn’t.
This is the same John Hickey, incidentally, who sued former Premier Roger Grimes not for what Grimes said but for what Danny Williams said Grimes said. No one knows what became of the lawsuit.
On another part of the front, the mayor of St. John’s, good Provincial Conservative that he is, took time from walking by a Tim Hortons drive-through to insist the Liberals must vote against the budget or risk their political careers. At the same time, he tells a national radio audience he can’t wait to get his hands on the federal infrastructure cash.
The foolishness isn’t confined to this latest racket the Premier’s Office acknowledges something called purple files it creates to prepare the Premier for media interviews. The most accountable and open government in civilization denies they exist when reporters ask for them under the province’s open records laws.
Then there is Equalization.
Aside from anything else, a surprising number of the crowd filling up comments on news websites or calling the talk shows on the voice of the cabinet minister think it is time to separate from Canada. Ottawa is not giving us enough handouts, they say, so we should pack up and leave and get no handouts at all.
The more loopy of the crew have taken to suggesting that Newfoundland should join with Quebec in a separate country.
The host of the night-time version of this psychedelic extravaganza of the airwaves fuels the chat with his preamble to the show the night of the budget vote. This is the same guy who, as editor of a local newspaper – the Independent – mused about separatism, denied he was a separatist when he ran for the New Democrats last time out and now is back banging the drum about a need to rethink the place of Newfoundland and Labrador within Canada.
Such is politics in Newfoundland and Labrador these days.
Such is public policy in Newfoundland and Labrador these past five years.
And a week after declaring that the budget changes would cripple the province’s economy, Danny Williams is praising Ignatieff for something that, in the end, means absolutely nothing. The budget still passed and the money will go – if it ever really would go – and anyone not in a state of altered conscious would wonder what the fuss was about in the first place.
What about the cash?
Even Danny Williams is nonplussed this Tuesday. Williams admitted to reporters on Tuesday afternoon that the federal government will only lift the O’Brien 50% option for this year.
This warp in space-time continuum - Newfoundland circa 1959 - once confined to one part of The Federation has spread.
The five members of parliament who panicked when Danny called did not waste time thinking of what they might do. Like say, finding out if what Danny said was right.
And if it turned out he was, come up with a plan of their own. Maybe work on the caucus and government to see if a deal could be worked. Maybe even try proposing an amendment that suspended the specific change for one year. That’s something Danny Williams wanted at one and – since it was aimed at once province – likely wouldn’t upset too many applecarts. It might have passed.
As it turned out, the one year suspension was an option that the feds already tossed out at some point – did any reporter think to ask when the feds told the province this? - and Danny Williams accepted.
But the Liberals couldn’t even take credit for having anything to do with it.
Instead, Michael Ignatieff asks Stephen Harper if he would entertain a change.
Harper says no.
Case closed.
The six MPs get a pass on the whip – just this once, Iggy insisted – because springing a change is no way to run a Federation. Other provinces, affected as seriously or moreso than Newfoundland and Labrador by the Equalization changes, get no such consideration. While it is no way to run a federation, according to Iggy, it is apparently not enough of no way to cause a change in who is running the place.
No clearer message could they send.
They might have even considered saying they did not want to become party to the excuse that whatever bad budget decisions this current provincial administration makes over the next three years, Danny Williams can say it’s all Harper’s fault even though that wouldn’t be close to true.
They could have left the job of backing Danny against the unions to the provincial labour leaders, the head of the province’s labour party and the former provincial labour party politician now sitting in Ottawa from this province.
And even if the amendment failed, the whole Liberal caucus might have showed it was willing to try something substantive. Something that ultimately didn’t look like they were responding to the sound of a bell coming from the blackberry upside Danny’s head as he drove his Avalanche down the Parkway.
Or was it the Queensway?
Meanwhile, the Liberals ought to know – every single one of them in Ottawa – that this is not a one shot deal.
Williams will be back.
He knows what he can do to the federal Liberals and Ignatieff’s promise that this permission is a one-off won’t mean a thing.
A guy who tells a gaggle of national and local reporters that he has been building up a war chest for when the “feds” come after “us” again, is not a guy who is going away any time soon.
In a year’s time, Sarek might be the fed Williams is at war with.
He’ll be back sooner than you think.
-srbp-
17 comments:
And a week after declaring that the budget changes would cripple the province’s economy, Danny Williams is praising Ignatieff for something that, in the end, means absolutely nothing.
While Danny's minions and shills and little shits are out their puffin-pooping on Ignatieff and other Liberals for the very fact that it means nothing.
What is this party on March 31st really going to be about?
There is a break in the space-time continuum, but it's seems more like 1974 than 1959. The whole thing has a "Waiting for Fidel" feel, and, if anyone cared to look, it exposes the underlying impotency of DW. The haircut was a clue, but the pieces didn't fall into place until this morning.
DW loves hockey-speak, so let's look at the score-card: Harpo 1, since he gets his budget and stays in power; Ig 1, since he gets to avoid an election and remains Oppo Dude; DW 0, since he remains, as he so eloquently put it, shafted by a sledgehammer. Final score 2-0.
But that's in real-time. In Dan-time, DW's the winner: DW 2, since he got heaps of attention from the national media, especially the Glib, on top of the usual local fawning; NL MPs 0, since they had to take a double-shaft; Forward and anyone else looking for anything 0, since Dangovt can use the shaft to justify whatever they want; nationalist wingnuts 1, since they now have a new bone to chew, but this goal goes to DW. Final score 3-0.
Like Joey, DW didn't get to see Fidel, but he got to spend a lot of time strutting his stuff, showing who's the cock of the walk, yakking on about whatever came floated into his noggin'.
Like Joey in 1974, DW makes little logical headway when he yaks away, but his endless stream of prattle and jock-talk gives the illusion that something real is being accomplished.
Money was never the real principle. Danlogic was, and always will be, personal vanity, media attention, and petty bullying -- which DW got in spades this past week. I'm sure the 8th Floor Psy-Ops crew got to order extra pizza last night.
So the solution to our problems is to put DW on a plan to Havana with one of the Stirlings. It's our only way to get us back to 2009.
as he so eloquently put it, shafted by a sledgehammer
If you can think of a fetish, someone else already has a website about it, but that's a new one even for me.
Ed -
For the real world, as opposed to feverish fantasies. see today's Le Devoir piece "L'effet Ignatieff..."
The money is rolling in under this guy.
Allan
You make such good points today that I'm going to steal one from you, but I will give credit.
Ed is so smart, S-M-R-T. God you and Todd's pal Wallie are so superior to the rest of us. How can you guys live with the rest of the stupid newfies down here?
Nice try Steve.
@ anon 1902, it's such a shame that:
a. you can't be courageous enough to sign your name to your comment and
b. have to resort to racist epithets presumably for yourself and the rest of us who are very proud that we come from such a marvelous place.
Maybe b. is the reason for a.
I think it is a rude to say that the "crowd filling up comments on news websites or calling on the talk shows on the voice of a cabinet minister think it's time to separate from Canada.", are saying so because, "Ottawa is not giving us enough handouts, they say, so we should pack up and leave and get no handouts at all."
Personally I want no 'handouts' from Ottawa, none at all. I do want control of our resources. I do think that that Newfoundland and Labrador will never fully prosper to our natural limit as a Province. As it stands, ownership and control of our fishery, and our off-shore petroleum will not happen as a province of Canada.
What can happen as a Province of Canada, is for us to fill the coffers of Ottawa with our oil revenues for another 25 years, with Ottawa seeing fit to return some in whatever amount appeases them at the moment. At the end the oil we will not have been able to pay off our provincial debt, and we will struggle along, further depopulated and likely broken, as the perpetually destitute Canadian Province.
Or, we can use our resources to harness 100% of the best intentions of the Nation, and see our children and their children's children acting on the worlds stage diplomatically, financially, and culturally, rather than the 'goofy' province of a divided country.
We can be secure as masters of our own destiny and benefactors of our wealth. We will be better for it, and so will our children.
We also stand to exercise our culture as much as happens. If we keep hearing the same attitude from Canada regarding our culture, and our lowly station in Canada, eventually we're going to start believing it, I think some people already have.
This needed to stop years ago, and judging by what I read in comments in the national press, it's gotten stronger and angrier if anything. Sticking with this is unnecessary and unhealthy.
I once saw a quote from a Polish man in a Time article where he says of the Polish communism near the end.. 'We were always told to wait, to endure and suffer the hardships because if we did, eventually the system would triumph, I saw my children growing up, and the story had not changed, but all along we faced the hardships as asked. We'd been waiting 40 years for the system to work, how much longer would we have to wait?'
I wish I could believe that our union with Canada will eventually pay off. But you'd have to admit that this latest kick in the nads, hurts. Knowing that this can come at any time, do we really want to stick around for more? Why exactly?
I do believe we need to react, and strongly, to limit the ability of Canada to kneecap NL on a whim.
I only comment here as it seems fashionable among some local commentators, to immediately dismiss everyone who broaches the topic of regaining of our sovereignty as a solution to this ongoing political situation, as 'wingnuts'. This is a lot of people you're tarring. It is a cheap technique to dismiss the person and suggestion outright. It is rude, and untrue in this context.
To this reader, arguing for the status quo would seem more 'mad hatter', than would arguing to lay out all the finances, money in, money out, potential for success or failure, costs and benefits, and campaign for whatever is best for us.
7 seats of 308 = we're not going to get anywhere with this. I think highly of many Canadians, but this number doesn't lie, neither does our provincial debt.
Is it your position that we could not succeed and prosper as a small country in control of our resources and responsible for our own destiny in the world?
I personally see this as an elevated situation to where we currently occupy.
One thing about only having 500,000, democracy should be fairly straight forward. Joy!
Oh yes, the "Unite With Quebec" comments; either 14 year olds kids being funny (they'll learn!), or... Quebecers in disguise. ;)
or, I'll give you dumb as well. There are dumb people on both sides of this fence.
@Anonymous 1422
You have such conviction in your argument that you cannot bring yourself to sign your name to it.
It is not unfair nor rude nor unreasonable to note that this current argument is about not getting enough hand-outs from Ottawa. The response pushed forward by an awful lot of people is to separate and thereby cut off all transfers.
You claim your support for separation is so that you (I presume you mean the people of this place) can control their resources.
They do so right now, in every way, so I do not understand where you get the idea the resources are controlled by someone else. Someone has obviously misled you.
"Our oil revenues" as you put it do not go to Ottawa. Again, you must have been misled by someone.
It has been disturbing to see the number of hysterical claims being made about persecution when there isn't a shred of evidence to back it.
The sorts of events which occur in this country all the time and which occur in many countries are taken and - in some instances deliberately - distorted out of all reasonable shape and size.
Your comment reflects exactly that highly exaggerated, overly emotional sense of everything. The words that come to mind as I read your comments are: anger, fear, paranoia and aggression. These are not the roots from which anything positive has ever grown.
The heightened state of anxiety, this overly emotionalized condition serves no good at all.
It serves only to create an environment in which people are misled. We have seen this climate being fueled fairly consistently in recent years.
Part of this effort - what I find far more sinister than anything else - is the deliberate attacks aimed at people who disagree with those supporting this climate of fear and anxiety. They are branded as quislings and traitors. They are personally attacked and abused and some of those doing the attacking are quite proud of their excess.
We already live in a democracy, 1422. We've lived in one since 1949. If you are concerned about democracy and free speech and the future of Newfoundland, perhaps you should be more concerned about the people fomenting hatred and hysteria.
A fairer response, but one that doesn't address the financial balance of nation vs province. I'm frankly quite a bit less concerned with the emotional side of this discussion.
I'm not saying we are not represented democratically in Canada, but I am saying our best interests don't necessarily or usually jive with the best interests of Canada, and, I don't see the possibility of this changing.
I also don't see the hatred or hysteria. If you're reading it in my response I would suggest it to be your own projection. I reject the argument that those who believe NL is best on her own, must be paranoid.
I can understand people taking issue with being insulted for their opinions, either way.
People had feelings hurt when we abandoned the choice of self-determination, and I'm sure feelings will be hurt as we regain it.
There is no place for hatred or hysteria, I think we all love our place and should respect each others views. In the end, it will be up to the people, and I'm sure both sides will have plenty of option for comment in the leadup.
@Anonymous 1548:
We did not abandon the choice of self-determination 60 years ago.
It is that simple.
We did not.
We control our resources. We have control over them within the province just as much or moreso than before 1949 and 1934. To say otherwise is to deny the patently obvious.
If you believe that the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not jive with those of other Canadians then cutting Newfoundland and Labrador off as a separate country does not change that. It does not change it one jot or one tittle.
As for the emotional side, you cannot avoid it. You cannot avoid it since there are people who continue to foment the irrational and the hysterical. As I said, nothing good ever grew out those things. To the contrary, these are the ingredients in a recipe for disaster.
You say we (NL) control our resources? Does this mean we control the resources found under the Grand Banks, or are these not our resources?
Or are you saying, we don't own our sub-sea resources, so we do control our resources, only those on dry land.
Or am I missing your point?
"...it seems fashionable among some local commentators, to immediately dismiss everyone who broaches the topic of regaining of our sovereignty as a solution to this ongoing political situation, as 'wingnuts'. This is [sic] a lot of people you're tarring. It is a cheap technique to dismiss the person and suggestion outright. It is rude, and untrue in this context."
I, for one, used the term wingnut because it fits. It's rude because it's designed to be rude. It also happens to be accurate.
Just so you don't accuse me of using some elitist definition, from the OED or something, here is good old, populist Wikipedia:
Wingnut (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wingnut, a term derived from the phrase "right-wing nut," is used in United States politics as a political epithet referring to people who hold extreme conservative or far right views -- especially those who espouse right-wing conspiracy theories. According to New York Times language maven William Safire, "The prevailing put-down of right-wing bloggers is wingnuts; this has recently been countered by the vilification of left-wing partisans who use the Web as moonbats..."[1] Some right-wing conservatives have adopted the term as a badge of honor, with a group in South Dakota calling itself the SD Wingnuts.[2]
Merriam-Webster's dictionary, though, includes a more general definition: "one who advocates extreme measures or changes: radical"[3]
So, let's see: "wingnut" is a term used to poke fun, in a rather rude way, at the fact-challenged right-wing radicals who base their arguments on angry conspiracy theories rather than reasoned analysis. And it defies logic to insist that advocating separation from Canada is not a "radical" position.
As for fashionable, I beg to differ: nothing is more fashionable in NL these days, and nothing will get you more funding and media attention, than being a soft-core nationalist.
Nothing is more popular these days than indulgently musing about independence and separatism without knowing our own history, without checking out what's happening in the rest of the world (clue: check out Iceland), without believing everything one hears on VOCM, or without thinking, just for a second, that DW could be wrong.
It would be wonderful if, in fact, the opposition to such wing-nut can was actually fashionable. You may have your facts wrong, but you've got the Eighth Floor on your side.
@ Anonymous 1627:
Through your series of questions and negatives it is hard to know what you are saying.
Let's see if I can pick it apart.
"You say we (NL) control our resources?"
Yes. I said that.
"Does this mean we control the resources found under the Grand Banks,..."
Yes.
"... or are these not our resources?"
They are.
Are you saying they aren't?
"Or are you saying, we don't own our sub-sea resources,..."
I said we do. You appear to be saying we don't.
"... so we do control our resources, only those on dry land."
We control those too.
"Or am I missing your point?"
Yes.
I don't listen to VOCM. :)
I don't think I'm particularly right wing, somewhat maybe. Certainly not enough to equal me with the 'moonbat left wing' (who knew wingnut was RWing and Moonbat LWing?)
I'm not left wing either though.
If the 8th Floor is DWs office, this pleases me greatly to hear.
Joining Canada was a radical move.
Post a Comment