07 November 2010

Some loveable turncoats

‘In Newfoundland politics,”  wrote Bill Rowe, “you haven’t lost your political virginity unless you’ve knifed your own party in the back and crossed the floor of the House of Assembly at least once.”

At the time he wrote that – 1984 – Rowe was a lawyer, columnist, radio show host and the author of the splendidly titled Clapp’s Rock and The Temptation of Victor Gallanti. he was also the former leader of the provincial Liberals, a job he lost in the wake of a political scandal involving leaked police reports.

In 1985, Rowe tried to run for Brian Peckford’s Conservatives.  He lost the nomination fight.

In 1993, he carried the Liberal banner in the provincial general election and got a solid drubbing by the local Conservative candidate.

Fast forward a decade.  Conservative Danny Williams tried to lure Rowe back into politics as a Conservative.  Rowe held out for an appointment to a job as Williams’ personal ambassador to Hy’s.  He took up the job in 2004 and held it for a few months before packing it in to return to St. John’s.

Rowe is now touring the country, incidentally, flogging what is purported to be an insider’s account of things he was outside the room for during that brief sojourn on the Rideau.  According to reports, the mainlanders are lapping it up. The softcover book has hit the Globe and Mail’s hardcover best-seller list.

You could not make this stuff up if you tried.

One of his regular talk show callers these past few years has been a decent fellow named George Murphy.  He has garnered some local notoriety for his ability to forecast retail gasoline prices with some accuracy.  Murphy is a staunch supporter of the government’s gas price-fixing scheme, among other things.

Murphy’s gained some extra notoriety lately by being the latest local politician to carry on the fine tradition of crossing the floor to the other side.  Murphy very loudly and very publicly renounced the Liberal party and headed for the New Democrats. Murphy was cross that the Liberals did not hire him for a job, picking instead Craig Westcott, a journalist of some considerable experience who did a bit of work for the provincial Conservatives and whose only foray as a candidate was for the Harper Conservatives in opposition to Danny Williams’ Family Feud in 2008.

So far only one local journalist -  Telegram editor Brian Jones - has accurately captured the essence of former Liberal Murphy’s current position, that of New Democratic candidate in a by-election likely to be called next week for a seat formerly held by the Conservatives:

…Murphy didn’t like it that a Tory became a Grit, so he bolted. Murphy, a former Liberal, is now an NDPer.

He is seeking support from NDP members to win the party’s candidacy in the upcoming byelection in the district of Conception Bay East-Bell Island.

But by Murphy’s own logic, NDP rank-and-filers should be aghast. A former Liberal is tainting their pure gene pool, as it were.

Perhaps Murphy knows something the rest of us don’t — that changing parties is unacceptable for some people, i.e., Westcott, but entirely acceptable for others, i.e., himself.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’ve read that Telegram story three times and I’m still left thinking, let me get this straight…

You could not make this stuff up if you tried.

- srbp -

9 comments:

George said...

I don't know where you got the idea that Jones accurately carries the essence of my position, because the both of you are wrong.

To correct some inaccuracies in this blog post and the Jones article, sir:
Number one: Jones said that Murphy left because the Tory wanted to become a grit:
My answer: Westcott didn't become a Grit. He became a Tory who is working pushing a Grit message, and hired before any other more elequently qualified grit than myself.It's ok to become a grit if you're going to believe in a Grit message. If that person still espouses other beliefs, as Westcott still does in his "small C conservativism" as he said in his CBC radio interview, then I have a problem with the deliverer of the message.That, and his long-term commitment to the party in question.
Number two: I left because I would not become part of a party that would hire a known Danny basher as its messenger. The message of hiring such a person was more of a message in itself than of what any future message was composed of. It was leading down the wrong path of Danny bashing and American style politics rather than a concrete course of policy discussion...
Number three: It's prefectly ok for a liberal to carry a liberal message but the Jones article is factually incorrct on Westcott's colours, and you know that. Mr. Westcott in a CBC interview with Geoff Gilhooly talked about his "small 'C' consrvativism". He didn't become a liberal. Had he versed himself in pushing the liberal ideal and turned from his 'Danny bashing', rather than running against a liberal in the last federal election, I would have more than been happy with Westcott getting the big job.
It's ok to be a dipper though. At least over here I am accorded respect, something that I found the "former party" found hard to do. I've found "inclusion" here.
Just that, next time you might want to read my resignation letter, or at least ask the source contained in the story before you write such a distastful article that includes myself. Again, not checking your sources and the use of sources such as myself, or without knowing the facts, is not germane to some who seek to find out their own truths rather than the facts as they see fit.

I've left my liberalism behind. The liberals of the province today have become the Harper provincial wing.

Can you make this stuff up?
Evidently, the answer is "Sure you can!"

Edward Hollett said...

Hey George:

Jones captured one very important aspect of the recent drama (a total tempest in a teacup, BTW) over your personal decision to become a New Democrat candidate.

In your comment just now, you repeated exactly the point when you complained about Westcott the Conservative candidate and self-described "small 'c' conservative" working for a Liberal office.

Sorry, old friend, but you cannot escape the pretty obvious problem you have for yourself since it is one that comes from your own comments. Neither Brian nor I had to make anything up. We just gave back to you what you've been handing out.

It's not my problem if it doesn't hold together and that the whole thing makes you uncomfortable.

George said...

Nothing could be further from the truth that I am uncomfortable with my decision.

Nor, does my position make me uncomfortable either...

As I have said, I have left my liberal beliefs behind and renounced them, and I was very public about it.

Westcott has not renounced his "small 'c' conservative" beliefs and endorsed Liberal beliefs.If he had done so, then I would have been found accepting, but he has not.

Until he says so, then?...

Neither one of you are correct. I will comment no further on my past liberalism, other than remember it as a chapter for my own book years down the road maybe...lol

Period.

Check your facts. Check with the sources he used in his article. He wrote the article and I have a note gone to him as well on the issue.


As I said before. Yes, you can make this stuff up!...

Again, I will comment no further.

Edward Hollett said...

George: you said you were upset that a fellow who ran for the Conservatives against a Liberal was now working for the Liberal Opposition Office.

In fact, you were so upset you decide the best thing to do was go work for the party that defeated the Liberal candidate in that election and now renounce the Liberal Party and work against it and its candidates and policies at every turn.

Those are the facts. I do not need to check them when you said them before and just repeated them now.

Not surprisingly, plenty of people look at that and scratch their heads. Brian Jones is one of them. I am another.

People don't have to make this stuff up, George: your words speak for themselves.

Not surprisingly, either, you don't want to talk about this sort of thing. The contradictions in your own argument would make anyone squirm.

*reposted to correct a typo

Ursula said...

George Murphy ~~~~~~"May the road rise up to meet you .
May the wind be always at your back.
May the warm rays of sun fall upon your home.
And may the hand of a friend always be near".

WJM said...

I left because I would not become part of a party that would hire a known Danny basher as its messenger.

What, pray tell, is the matter with bashing Danny, who most deservedly needs good bashings, and lots of them, frequently?

That is one of the fundamental roles of opposition. If you don't understand that, I can't see why you would even bother to go to a different opposition party; why not just join the DannyFan cult of personality that used to be the PC Party?

PoscStudent said...

While I agree with you leaving George, to what I think is currently a better opposition party then the Liberals, I have to say that I don't really agree with your complaints about the Opposition hiring Wescott.

I'm not a fan of him and I think the only reason he applied for the job is to bash Danny and not help the Liberals get their messages across but the fact is he is not an employee of the Liberal Party he's a employee with the Official Opposition. If the Liberals aren't paying him then which political party he supports should definitely not play a role in the hiring. As an editor of a newspaper Wescott obviously has a good resume and that's all that should matter.

Edward Hollett said...

what a wonderfully legalific - but ultimately unconvincing - attempt to get around George's problem, POSC. Well-done but, as I said, useless.

Fundamentally, though he is still in the same conundrum. he doesn't like a fellow who once ran as a Conservative candidate working with Liberals, campaigning with Liberals helping Liberals.

Now the former Liberal is off working for the NDP, campaigning for the NDp and trying to get himself elected as a New Democrat when he is - apparently a Liberal of some sort. How can he credibly argue that he left his old party because he didn't like a turncoat when but that now voters in this district should support him with his coat inside out.

Once we get by that one (and you both seem to be floundering with it) maybe you can explain why the NDP provincially wants to encourage increased fossil fuel consumption. Sounds very Conservative to me, right alongside the whole tax cuts thing.

Wm. Murphy said...

The biggest conundrum is who the Lbs will put forward in the byelection. This will be the biggest news on the street.

"...but that now voters in this district should support him with his coat inside out."

Didn't your buddy Steve Kent do okay with his coat turned inside out?