On Friday, Danny Williams will head to Government House and resign as Premier, just as eight others have done before him.
Danny Williams was a superlative tactical politician, the likes of which one seldom sees anywhere in Canada and certainly one has seen very rarely in this province.
That was his singular strength and for seven years he campaigned relentlessly to sustain his cult of personality. That cult then gave him license to pursue his own political agenda free of any interference by a thriving, healthy democracy.
Craig Welsh, the townie bastard, put it aptly:
And what I mean by "he can get away with doing it" is that the premier's popularity is such that he could strangle a baby in the middle of the Avalon Mall parking lot with the assembled provincial media in attendance and there would be people that would say the baby had it coming.
It’s a graphic image.
It is a disturbing image.
But it is an accurate description of Williams’ political influence. He could say things that were patently, demonstrably false and people would accept it unquestioningly. Supposedly cynical and sceptical media types were not immune from his powers of persuasion, despite what Danny liked to pretend. Some were known to leap to defend him.
Danny Williams was right because he was popular and popular because he was right. That he could create and sustain that preposterous notion and have it accepted by so many people is the sum of his political genius.
That was no mean accomplishment. Danny Williams ranks with the likes of Joe Smallwood, W.A.C. Bennett and Maurice Duplessis. Anyone who looks on that accomplishment - cultist worship 40 years after the last of the old demagogues held power – cannot fail to be impressed. That Williams was able to spread that cult of absurdity to the national level amongst business, academic, editorial and political leaders in a G-8 country at the start of the 21st century is truly astounding.
Instead of recognising that stunning achievement, people are crediting Danny Williams with a bizarre range of things; but the list, whether compiled at home or across the country, breaks down this way.
- They credited him for things he didn’t do: Williams promised a raft of things from openness and transparency in government to sound fiscal management. He just didn’t deliver on any of them.
- They credited him for stuff other people did: the oil and mining windfalls came as a result of deals put together by premiers before Williams. Of that $70 billion Williams talked about in his goodbye speech, the lion’s share of it came from deals delivered by Clyde Wells, Brian Tobin and Roger Grimes.
- They credited him for stuff that hasn’t happened yet: let’s see Hebron in action before anyone breaks open the champagne. It will likely work out fine but both the earlier reviews of Hibernia or Churchill Falls turned out to be wildly inaccurate, albeit for different reasons.
- They credited him for stuff that doesn’t exist. There is no deal to develop the Lower Churchill. What else can anyone say to that sort of thing except note that Williams had them all playing his tune more completely at the end than ever before?
The things that Williams did do, like a one time transfer payment from Ottawa in 2005, have been swollen by the cultist chanting to the point of absurdity.
And what of Danny Williams’ future?
Well, in all likelihood, he and his accomplishments will go the way of other politicians’, including those long-ago strongmen in whose ranks he clearly belongs. There is an inky abyss, a vacuum that awaits them all. It is a cross between Limbo and Purgatory, a living death for the egotistical and the once-mighty. Where once throngs sang their praises, there is only silence.
Five days after Williams announced his resignation, people still cry for his departure. Five weeks from now, they’ll be more concerned about Christmas credit card bills and if politics excites them, they’ll be watching the race to replace him. Five months from now and the province’s election campaign will be well under way.
Five years from now, people will struggle to remember that guy who parted his hair down the centre of his head. The collective amnesia on which Danny Williams built his cult of personality will swallow him as surely as it swallowed his predecessors.
Who the gods would destroy, they would first make proud.
- srbp -
Other reading: Robert Rowe makes the point as succinctly as anyone might in a letter to the Telegram.
Williams might have instilled some sense of pride, however defined, in Randy Simms and others, but no dear leader did that for me. I had it before Williams, during Williams, and I’ll have it after Williams. I have never suffered from any sense of inferiority or poor second cousinism to other Canadians.
True pride cannot be grafted onto a people in Kim Jong-Il style. It is not fostered by belligerence. It is not waving a flag (nor lowering it, for that matter) and it is not the jingle in your pocket. Rather it is a feeling in your guts — deep in your guts — and I’d like to think we have always had it. That’s a gift Premier Williams could not give me. What we did not have was wealth, and I suspect Simms has conflated these issues.
With my gratitude for the effort, I wish the premier a jingle in his pocket and good health in the future.
Update: Edited to eliminate an awkward sentence.
30 comments:
He could say things that were patently, demonstrably false and people would accept it unquestioningly.
That he could create and sustain that preposterous notion and have it accepted by so many people is the sum of his political genius
Williams had them all playing his tune
who are these PEOPLE you refer?
"He is five foot two, but he feels
six feet four,
he fights with words and spin
he is all of sixty-one,
and he's only eighteen,
's been a politician for a thousands years". Sorry Bob .
How is this for a word "Palingenesis" , the transmigration of a soul into the body of another person .....
Maybe Joey , W.A.C. ,Claude and Danny are one and the same .
The "UNIVERSAL POLITICIAN" .....
Complacent media, stunned voters, hoodwinked mainlanders. Whole legions of mesmerized sheep. My God, what a truly evil genius he was! And this great agenda was .... what, exactly? What nefarious plan was he cooking up all those years? Money? Power? World domination? A giant laser?
You should consider joining that Zeitgeist crew.
Peter...don't forget the political leaders in a G-8 country
To answer your question... I think it was a giant laser
..and now for continuing coverage on the Dunderdale series
Ed, how long will you ignore the questions I raised below? You made certain statements and you've refused to back them up - not very transparent of you Ed! Is it possible you're wrong or that you didn't actually do the research required before making your posts? Refer me to the relevant sections of the Term Sheet.
Can you elaborate on how Hydro Quebec could own 49% of the project? Are you suggesting it might buy Emera and take ownership that way? Aren't there NS legislated restrictions on ownership of assets owned by Nova Scotia Power (which Emera would hold the Lower Churchill related infrastructure through)?
Also, the contract would be governed by NL law allowing an expropriation of assets should such a situation arise. No?
How can Emera replace Nalcor in any export deal?
Peter: None of what you said is in this post or even implied.
What I said was that Williams was a superlative tactical politician. What that and the rest of it means - since you clearly didn't understand - is that he spoke effectively and eloquently to voters in words they would understand, using images they recognised and would respond to. He understood the portions of the local political culture that he wanted to harness and he used that to his advantage.
In the process he gained a level of political support - a carte blanche - that basically relieved him of a raft of other burdens. Few people can shape a public discussion to the extent that Williams did. I am surprised you are unwilling to applaud that for what it is or to acknowledge Williams' supreme political skill.
@pig: Like I said before - relax. There is plenty of time to get into that sort of stuff. As it unfolds you will see exactly what I meant.
That "sort of stuff"? You mean the supposed basis for the claims you made - and continue to refuse to support?
It's not a theoretical discussion. It's not a matter of seeing "exactly what (you) meant" but it is actually quite simple - point to the clauses in the Terms Sheet that allows Emera to replace Nalcor in any export deal and enable HQ to gain ownership of 49% of the whole thing despite ownership in NSPI restricted by statute.
You made assertions and you have evaded providing any basis for them. Directing people to do the research themselves (you're the "humble" e-scribbler who made the statements - not your readers) or read between the lines or read your mind isn't being forthright. Neither is asking readers to wade through an opinion piece you're drafting - you state the provisions exist and that consequences will flow from them so why not just name the provisions?
pig: Consider how different the world might be if you and others had held someone else to the same standard of providing evidence for claims they made.
Hold on to your pee, there'll be plenty of discussion on that one from me in the days and weeks ahead.
If you cannot hold on to your pee, though, like I said, make a phone call and ask for the term sheet for yourself. Hold your political friends to the same standard of proof and evidence.
In the meantime, I'll be shitting myself laughing at your hypocrisy.
he spoke effectively and eloquently to voters in words they would understand
Effectively, y'know, yes, y'know, but, y'know, from my perspective, y'know, he didn't, y'know, have the, y'know, eloquence piece, y'know, on a go-forward basis.
Ed, I've got the Terms Sheet but you're the one who's making unsupported assertions.
I don't have any "political friends" (unlike yourself, I don't know anyone in politics nor am I a member of any party) but if I did I would hold them to the same standard that you and the current government can't live up to.
"Shitting" yourself? You might as well do that considering your own hypocrisy in being unable to validate claims that you've made.
Is your terms sheet 36 pages long plus the cover?
I am thinking not, which is what I said in response to one of your comments last week. Then I told you where to go to get it.
If you had the Term Sheet, then you'd be able to see exactly what I am talking about.
As it is, the media have reported enough detail they got from the briefing to deal with the 49% point. You can also do some quick Internet searching and find how Emera is structured as a company and what, if any restrictions there are on ownership of a publicly traded company.
Basically if you've got enough to to fling these comments at me, you've had more than enough time to figure out the answers to your own questions.
In the meantime, if you are genuinely interested in my perspective, I'll be laying the whole thing out from my perspective in due course. I'll look forward to your comments at that point...that is, if you are genuinely interested in a discussion of the subject, as opposed to murphing around.
Yep, it's 36 pages long plus the cover. Where are the provisions you're speaking of? Not a difficult thing to do - just name the clause number or page.
You see Ed when you make a claim you've got to be prepared to back it up. It's not good enough to tell people "go do the research yourself." If you want to validate something rather than let it lie as a baseless assertion, like your statements about the Muskrat deal, you have to point people to your authorities at the very least. And don't conflate readers' demands for accountability with being interested in your perspective or interpretation. I'm not asking you to make another assertion or claim to back up the assertion or claim you've already made - I simply want your authorities for the claims you have already made. I'm interested in the deal itself, not your retarded look-at-me-I'm-so-witty-and-sophisticated vanity pieces.
Nice try deflecting me with "the media have reported it" bit. I've read everything in the news about Muskrat Falls and there's nothing out there explaining how Hydro-Quebec can end up with 49% of the project and somehow get beyond the NSPI legislation. It's your job to justify the assertions you have made not mine nor anyone else'.
Can you elaborate on how Hydro Quebec could own 49% of the project? Are you suggesting it might buy Emera and take ownership that way? Aren't there NS legislated restrictions on ownership of assets owned by Nova Scotia Power (which Emera would hold the Lower Churchill related infrastructure through)?
Also, the contract would be governed by NL law allowing an expropriation of assets should such a situation arise. No?
How can Emera replace Nalcor in any export deal?
'murphing around"
...I'm a verb?
What's the first word on the top of page 30?
Ed, just to aid you in researching the assertions you have confidently made Emera may be publicly owned but NSPI is a regulated company and significant ownership in NSPI is no easy thing.
Appendix.
Cool.
So when I discuss my assertions in detail you'll be able to follow along clearly.
Ha! All in good time! Ed, you've got no business maintaining a rant against the PCs when you are just as arrogant and unwilling to justify yourself as they are.
Pig, first of all you can feel free any time you want to stop publishing under a false name. When you've decided to stand behind your words perhaps then your insults might carry a bit of weight.
Second you can also feel free any time to rebut my comments with evidence, if you wish. You don't need to wait for me.
So, as I said, if you'd rather have a substantive discussion than just arse around, feel free to do so.
Over to you, as your cousin Murph would say.
I have a cousin named Pig?
Heck, Murph, all you trolls and sock puppets could be the same person.
I don't see what my moniker has to do with the fact that you make comments that you can't back up.
Also, which comments should I rebut? You mean the comments about Muskrat Falls that you are totally incapable of validating? No - you validate them. Besides, I have no interest in rebutting them - why would you assume that I would want to rebut them? I just want to know the truth about this deal and specifically the assertions you have made.
You want to have a substantive discussion? About what? About assertions that you have failed to validate? We could talk about those assertions but first I would have to know that you didn't make them up.
Hey pig: thanks for being as consistently lame as all the rest. When challenged you squeal and run away.
You see if you actually had anything you would be able to say:
"You claimed "x" but according to this document which I quote right here, it actually says something else entirely." You apparently have enough to identify things I've said but all you do is make a wild claim of your own, namely that i haven't backed them up.
Five and a half years. Every comment backed up. None rebutted on the facts of the matter.
You make the same lame assault every other partisan sock puppet has made for the whole time I've been writing this and you scurry away in the end.
No wonder you won't reveal your real identity.
Ed. Are you for real? Just answer the pig's question, or retract your claim. Or are you just limbering up for a run at politics?
Are you for real? Just answer the pig's question.
You stole that from the Muppets, didn't you?
No, from Animal Farm.
I thought it was from Lord of the Flies.
Afterall, Eddie has the conche
No Wm.
I'm pretty sure Marshall Dean has the Conche. He took it from Trevor Taylor.
Post a Comment