A grain of salt #nlpoli

Around this time of year the country’s major banks issue their economic assessments of the current year and their forecasts of the coming one.

Royal Bank issued the most recent one.  Not surprisingly, the bank’s economists are forecasting that the provinces that are most heavily dependent on natural resources will do quite well.  Saskatchewan and Alberta will lead the country in economic growth, with Newfoundland and Labrador in fourth place.

RBC’s forecast for 2012 and 2013 has Newfoundland and Labrador in the same relative position.  Natural resource prices and capital construction are driving things.  Over the next couple of years, new mineral developments will offset declines in oil production, according to RBC.  While their reasons may be slightly different, BMO and Scotiabank’s forecasts are all generally similar to RBC’s view.

There’s nothing surprising about any of that.  Newfoundland and Labrador has enjoyed phenomenal economic growth for most of the last 15 years.  In 2002, for example, the provincial gross domestic product grew 8.2% and in 1998 and 1999, the province led the country in economic growth for two years in a row.

There’s also nothing about the current economic growth that has anything to do with the party currently in power either. Some people would like you to believe otherwise.  A great many people in the province believe otherwise.  But they are wrong.

What you really need to do when looking at these economic projections is go beyond the short-term and the superficial.

Like oil prices.  Current thinking is that oil should be $100 a barrel on average.  In 2011, oil prices operated within a pretty narrow band, so if things stay like that, the world should be fine.

But…

The biggest, and more bullish, tail risk is of heightened turmoil in the Middle East and north Africa and, increasingly, in Russia, the world’s second-largest oil producer. An attack by Israel on Iran, for example, could push oil prices briefly towards $250 a barrel, according to some estimates.

Now with production in this province forecast to drop by 20-odd% from 2011, that might get a few people really excited.  Russia could be Kathy Dunderdale’s best friend, someone quipped.  Oil at $250 a barrel for any length of time would deliver a pretty sweet financial reward into the provincial treasury.  Some people might even use it as an “I told ya” moment to justify Muskrat Falls.

Just consider the cost of living with oil at around $100 a barrel, as it is now.  Look at the cost of living in all sorts of places, including Labrador West where housing prices are already at crisis levels for a great many families.

Now think of what it would be like with prices driven up by the costs of shipping just about all major consumer goods into the province.

Not pretty, eh?

And for those people who imagine the Americans desperate for cheap hydroelectricity at that point, well, the picture is even less rosy for them.

ExxonMobil produced an interesting energy forecast recently that looks at what the energy world might look like out to about 2040. Electricity demand will grow globally.  But in the United States, expect to see more electricity produced by natural gas.  There’s plenty of it and new natural gas plants are much more efficient at producing electricity than existing methods.

As for price, well, take a gander at this forecast of the cost of producing electricity in 2030:

Electricity produced from natural gas will be less than half the cost of Muskrat Falls electricity.

Forget about those export sales, gang.

But just imagine carrying the huge debt from Muskrat Falls, paying the electricity prices in this province because the provincial government forced you to pay for it and trying to cope with all the other increased costs coming because oil is more than double what it is today.

You really need to take all this talk of wonder and glory with just a grain of salt.  Things are good these days, better than they have ever been.  But if we make mistakes today, if we don’t look at the big picture, we can be paying for them tomorrow.

Big time.

- srbp -

Danger: Lawyer at work #nlpoli

The public utilities board review of the Muskrat Falls project may be a set-up but the lawyer for the board is certainly making Nalcor pay for every single inch of ground.

Here’s one of her recent letters for the record straightening out Nalcor’s counsel.

Again.

This is the kind of lawyer you want to have on your side:  relentless and meticulous.

Imagine if the board had real teeth again to manage the province’s electrical system.

- srbp -

Rumour management and Twitter #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Via crisisblogger.com comes a link to a Guardian feature on the role Twitter played in rumours about riots in London.

The site gives seven specific rumours and tracks the life-cycle of the rumour from inception to death.

From the Guardian:

A period of unrest can provoke many untruths, an analysis of 2.6 million tweets suggests. But Twitter is adept at correcting misinformation - particularly if the claim is that a tiger is on the loose in Primrose Hill.

This is a fascinating study that uses technology to help tell the story in a compelling way.

- srbp -

Rendition flights and Gander #nlpoli #cdnpoli

A story moving on Tuesday about aircraft logs, Gander and rendition flights reminded your humble e-scribbler of a post around these parts from 2005 titled “Even spies contract out”:

A Canadian Press story in the Sunday Telegram reports that two aircraft with alleged links to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have passed through St. John's on their way to Iceland and points beyond.

The aircraft, registration numbers N-168D and N-196D, are owned by North Carolina-based Devon Holding and Leasing. The two CN-235, like the ones illustrated here are Spanish-built turboprop light transports. Devon's livery is illustrated here, in this photograph taken at Kabul, Afghanistan earlier this year of another Devon CN-235, registration number N-187D.

The story that’s currently on the wire doesn’t include references to specific aircraft. The 2005 story – based on Icelandic reports at the time - includes a string of registration numbers as well as links to pictures of the aircraft.

- srbp -

The Crowd in the Dark #nlpoli

Dwight Ball will become the new leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador this week.  Expect an announcement on Thursday.

There’ll be no “interim” about it.

Ball is the leader until the party’s executive board decides on whether or not to find someone else to fill the job.  They won’t do that until some time early next year.

There’s no real news in any of that, by the way.  Variations on that theme have been in the news for a couple of weeks.  The only new information is when the announcement takes place.

What will be news on Thursday will be the announcement of a reform committee comprising Kevin Aylward, Siobhan Coady and Dean MacDonald.  They will do something  - it hasn’t been nailed down, apparently - at their own expense and bring back a report or recommendations or something – that too is apparently up in the air – on how to get the Liberal Party back in fighting trim.

Word of this committee sends a clear message. Party president Judy Morrow can talk all she wants on CBC’s On Point about how the Liberal Party just went through “a horrific time“ of an election campaign.  Such talk would suggest that people running the party know they can’t keep going on as they have been going. This committee is all about avoiding change.

The executive board picked Kevin Aylward to replace Yvonne Jones last August because he promised very little change. Kevin fit right in, touting an archaic fisheries policy as the centrepiece of the campaign. He started out wanting to endorse Muskrat Falls and only came around to opposing it once he realised that it might get some votes here or there. 

Some have tried to claim Kevin added two seats to the Liberal roster.  He didn’t.   What the party actually did was lose two seats it already held – not Kevin’s fault – and failed utterly to capitalise on possibilities in several others.

Kevin didn’t bring anyone along who might have changed the party’s direction. Nor was he, himself, inclined to do so.  And that is the bony nub of the problem with Kevin Aylward on a committee about renewal, reform or rebuilding. a fellow selected because he represented no threat of change cannot be an agent for change.

As for the other two members of the committee, their selection suggests the same thing. In her brief political career, Siobhan Coady has shown herself to be mind-numbingly conventional.  She seldom offers an observation on anything that has not already been offered in a thousand other places. Take her recent remarks on the provincial fisheries mess as a classic example of that.

Ditto Dean MacDonald.  A smart guy, without question.  Personable and enthusiastic for sure. A go-getter, definitely.  But Dean comes across as someone who is unfocused politically and generally unaware of the inner workings of the Liberal Party.  As such there’s no sign he has any inclination for substantive change.

If the committee travels around and meets with people, individually or in groups, odds are they will hear all sorts of things.

Lots of people will talk about district organizations, for example.  Former candidates will talk about the need to get nominations done earlier so they can organize themselves.  Others will talk about the need to have “grass roots”.

The problem with those ideas is that none of it means that people are actually attracted to the party and will do the ground-work any party needs to fight and win an election. The party can get names on paper,  just like it has been able to find token candidates for the past three elections.  Getting people to do anything is another matter.

The problem with those ideas is that the party runs itself as though every district belonged to every candidate.  There is no continuity.  There is no party organization.  There is – in truth – no party in the sense of people who all belong to a group built around a shared set of ideas or values.

The Liberals Party does not speak to anyone about anything any more. Until someone from the party can offer a compelling reason why someone should get involved with the Liberals, nothing else matters.

The problem with those ideas is that – ultimately - there isn’t much chance that three people not known for their interest in change are likely to find secrets no one else found.  And if, by some miracle, these people do trip over the odd good idea, odds are better the idea will get buried under a pile of other stuff that is all about staying the same, not change.

After all the same people responsible for deciding are themselves a committee.  Committees, you see, are what people set up when they want to make it look like something is happening when it really isn’t.  Or they set up a committee in order to delay making a decision because they don’t know what to do. 

While the committee is out looking, stuff happens that sets the course.  The stuff that happens could be accident or it could be a petty intrigue here or there.  But incrementally things happen while the committee is meeting such that whatever the committee decides, their work is irrelevant anyway.

If the Liberals knew what to do or had a general idea of where to go, they’d do it.  Instead, they have adopted – in essence -  the fisheries MOU process.  That was a committee by another name and look at how successfully that worked out. 

In the meantime, the Liberals are like a crowd in the dark.  No one can see beyond the end of his or her fingers.  They wander around groping for something. Some of them stumble off and run into other people and don’t come back.

None of the rest will stray too far from where he started or than he can see.  As a result, they all wind up no more than a few feet away from each other shuffling around the ground they all know intimately from having trod on it over and over again for years.

None of them know where they are going.  They all keep asking each other what to do next.  And around and around in circles they go. None of them really knows where the rest of the community is, either.  They  still cling to the memory of a time when they were part of a huge group.  In truth, everyone else in the community has gone off in other directions.  The Liberals just can’t see that.  The room is dark, after all. 

And while the Liberals can hear noises in the distance, the crowd of them won’t – not can’t, they will not  - move toward the noises.   Instead, they stagger around in the dark, their numbers dwindling, waiting for someone to show up with a flashlight.

They have formed a committee of three, we shall learn on Thursday,  to check to see if anyone among them found a flashlight or maybe a few old batteries with some juice left in them.

What are the odds that will work?

- srbp -

Accessing more government information #nlpoli #cdnpoli

The Telegram editorial last Thursday (December 8), complained about the practice some government departments use of releasing access to information requests from one media outlet to all outlets.

The trigger for the editorial was a decision by Nalcor Energy to release salary details on it senior executives to all the local news media even though the initial request came from just one media outlet.

Part of the problem for media outlets is that – as the Telly notes – “access to information journalism is neither easy nor cheap. Requests take months to come to fruition and can cost hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of dollars.”

When the agency releases the information to everyone free of charge, the media outlet winds up taking a gigantic financial hit in addition to just getting scooped on a story.

It’s all true.

To be frank, one of the reasons a government department or agency would release information like that is to take control of the story away from the particular news room.  By releasing the information generally, the department or agency can ensure its version of events, its side of the story, gets out there without the particular filter applied by the news room that originally pursued the story.

It’s not “petty revenge” as the editorial describes the practice.  It’s called protecting your interests and your reputation.  In dealing with  some “news” organizations, it would be called common sense.

There’s no news in reporting that government departments handle media and opposition party access to information requests differently from those from ordinary mortals.  There are even academic studies that show just exactly how some federal departments have done exactly that and the reasons behind it.

The Telly editorial writer finishes off with a worthwhile suggestion:

if releasing specific access claims is really an example of accountability, release them all, including information requested by private citizens, businesses, unions and law firms.

The Department of National Defence has been doing something like that for the last decade and then some.  The current DND web page on access to information requests goes back to 2006, but your humble e-scribbler has been using it, on and off, for a decade or more.

A chart of the web page lists the request number a description of the request and the outcome.  You can find released information by year and month.  All you’d have to do in order to receive the same information is contact the department and pay the costs of copying and mailing, just as you would have done if you’d asked for the information yourself.

Scan the list and you can see information requests that came from one newsroom or another.  You’ll see requests from private individuals, researchers and, in some instances, from companies providing temporary employees or other contract service to the department.

If you want to get a sense of the scope of the access to information challenge in a department like National Defence, you can check out a 2000 article by then Lieutenant Colonel Brett Boudreau in the Canadian Military Journal.  Boudreau notes that the number of access requests went from 67 in 1983-84 to more than 1,000 by 1998-1999. 

But within that number, one of the recent reports Boudreau mentions was a 35,000 page report that took six months to review and “sever” for information that had to be withheld under access laws.

Automatically releasing  - that is distributing - all access requests would be practically very difficult, even in an age of scanners, pdfs and the Internet.

But providing a list of access requests that are available?

That’s certainly possible.  More federal departments would probably consider it as a practical approach to the administrative demands of access to administration. 

That’s the federal government, though, where access to information is a well-established system.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, they’d have to accept the idea of public access to information in the first place.

- srbp -

Christmas Science-Geek Gift Alert

About three weeks ago, your humble e-scribbler wandered into The Tickle Trunk on Water Street and discovered some neat new toys.

Pathfinders Designs, a company from British Columbia makes kits of working catapults and trebuchets.

The Leonardo da Vinci catapult is based on a design by the great artist himself.  It uses the energy stored in two bent lengths of wood to crank the catapult.  The marketing materials say it will fling a ball made of modeling clay a distance of about 15 feet.

The kit is complete.  For $19.20 (taxes in) you get pre-cut wooden pieces, string, dowels, glue, a small piece of sandpaper, some modeling clay and a detailed set of instructions.

Allow about an hour to put the thing together, no matter what age you are.  The instructions are clear and written so a child under 10 could understand them.  That doesn’t matter though as one of the great potential values for this kit is a bit of bonding time between adults and children over the holidays.

There’s some information on da Vinci included with instructions.

Get it all together and what you wind up with is something that looks like the picture at right.

The finished model is about 33 cm (16 inches) tall, 25 cm (10 inches) long, and 14 cm (5.5 inches) wide.

Your humble e-scribbler bought one and then a second one.

And if that isn’t enough for you, they also have a trebuchet.

This one is a wee bit bigger than the catapult  - 26 inches (67 cm) tall by 18 inches (48 cm) wide  - and it can potentially hurl a ball of modeling clay out to about 20 feet according to the marketing literature. 

Again, you get pre-cut parts and all the stuff you will need except in two key areas. 

This kit supplies lengths of wooden dowels you will have to cut according to the instructions.  The dowels help to hold some of the parts together and give the finished model strength.  Since you need to use scissors, a hobby saw or similar tools, this one may require a bit of adult supervision or preparation, as well as some care with the measurements and markings.

But hey, as with all kits, this is a chance to learn.

Assembly time should be roughly two hours.  As soon as you are done, you can start flinging.

Well, once you add the second ingredient, namely weight for the big box on the end of the throwing arm.  This form of throwing device gets its energy from gravity acting on the weight.  You can use stones, pennies, old lead fishing weights or anything you’ve got laying around. 

Your humble e-scribbler used about 500 grams of pennies.  The box would easily hold about a kilogram of pennies.  Don’t worry.  the construction is strong enough to handle it.

These are safe enough for indoor use.  Flinging a five gram ball of modeling clay in the house didn’t case any damage chez Scribbler.  The trebuchet at full weight tossed the projectiles into the ceiling, producing a few scuffs that could be easily repaired. 

Cut back the weight in the box and adjust the sling and you can easily miss the ceiling and hurl out to the 20 to 25 foot range consistently (five grams with a 500 gram counterweight).  Note those ratios, by the way.

Aside from fun – and that’s the best part of it -  these kits are a good educational experience. 

One of the things you can do is experiment with different weights for the projectiles and, in the case of the trebuchet, of the counterweight that makes things fly.  You can also vary the length of the sling to see how that changes the flight characteristics.

Your humble e-scribbler found some information on line and made a modified sling.  Attached to the catapult with some minor modifications to the kit, the sling made some dramatic changes to performance.  Without a sling, the catapult would reliably toss a five gram ball about 17 feet.  With the sling, the catapult easily hit 27 feet  - we measured - and sometimes more.

So far, the oompah-loompahs at the scribbler household haven’t modified the sling on the trebuchet to see if they can boost its performance.  The results might not be as dramatic as with the catapult but the flinging distance should go up noticeably. The new sling design has a more effective pouch layout, attachment configuration and release.

The kits have turned out to be mighty popular.  A shipment of catapults that arrived last week went quickly but there are a few left.  As for the trebuchets ($21 plus tax), there are some left.  The manufacturer’s website notes they have sold out of the pre-Christmas production run.  More are on the way for January.

You can find the Tickle Trunk at 318 Water St, St. John's or by telephone at (709) 726-2535.

- srbp -

Photo credits:  (Tickle Trunk – google maps),  catapult and trebuchet illustrations from Pathfinders Designs)

Change in the fishery #nlpoli

Ocean Choice International’s Martin Sullivan was the guest this week on CBC’s On Point. That’s a link to a CBC story that includes the whole program.

The most obvious point about Sullivan’s argument is that it is – essentially – simple and sensible.  The company needs to export fish in a form the market wants.  The company was losing money in the two plants it closed.

The second segment of the show was an interview with fisheries minister Darin King.  The most obvious thing about King’s comments is that he now  - i.e. after OCI announced closures - sounds like someone who understands the need for fundamental changes in the fishery.  That’s something no one has said before, including Premier Kathy Dunderdale and her remarks blaming the union for not accepting a mere 18 weeks of work. 

In the political panel, former Tory cabinet minister Shawn Skinner suggests that the MOU process fell apart and that now OCI has pushed things forward. No surprise there for anyone who has been paying attention, but for some people this will be a smack in the gob.

No surprise either that Lana Payne had nothing positive to offer in either her assessments of the situation or possible solutions.  Siobhan Coady was marginally better, suggesting that the correct role for the provincial government was to squeeze the processors to ensure people in this province got work in at-sea processing.  That’s really just continuing the approach that created the current mess in the fishery and it’s not surprising that Lana Payne could chime in and agree with the idea.

Ditto Coady’s suggestion that the provincial government should be assisting the companies with marketing. That might have been a possible option a couple of years ago, but no longer.

But to then have Payne and Coady suggest that the provincial government needs to get on with the restructuring process was bordering on the laughable.  They just don’t get it.

All you have to do is go back and listen to Skinner again:  the MOU is dead and the government and the union are left to play catch-up as the companies drive the restructuring agenda.  That’s the reality and both Coady and Payne are woefully out of touch.

When you’re done with that, flip over to a commentary by fisheries broadcast host John Furlong:

Change is always hard. Even 'good' change. When you buy a house or have a baby or get a new job. Change is still hard.

It's even harder in the fishery. If you ask most people in the fishery today how they would like the fishery of tomorrow to look, they'll say "like it was yesterday."

That's not the way it's going to be.

Heck, the fishery of today isn’t the fishery of yesterday as much as some people have been trying to pretend otherwise.

- srbp -

Related:  “Building the fishery of the future”, one of the 15 ideas series (June 2011)

Thunderbirds still go!

Those who remember the 1960s television series might be surprised to know that an original Lady Penelope marionette from the series sold this past summer at auction in the united Kingdom.

Originally expected to bring 10,000 pounds Sterling at auction, the puppet actually went for 33,600 pounds including buyer’s premium.

A bookcase from the series went for 1,200 pounds and a desk and chair also from sets for the Lady Penelope character sold for 1,440 pounds.

- srbp -

Porking it up, old style #nlpoli

Turns out that a seat on the offshore regulatory board is not Reg Bowers first Conservative pork appointment.

In 2009, the provincial Conservatives re-appointed Bowers to a term on the board of College of the North Atlantic.

Yes.

you read that correctly.

Re-appointed.

Only thing is, there is no release announcing his appointment the first time.

In 2005, the provincial Conservatives put a whole new board in place.  Bowers’ name isn’t on the list.

Bowers wasn’t on a list of new appointees in 2007, either.

Very odd then that the 2009 release indicated Bowers was going back for a second term on the board.

When did the first term start?

- srbp -

There’s no changing the channel traffic #nlpoli

The top stories as chosen by SRBP readers:

1. The problem with the Liberals (post by Craig Westcott)
2. Muskrat Falls Friday Trash Dump
3. The truth hurts
4. Emera buys NL line service company
5. Margin of error defined
6. Dazed and confused, Muskrat proponents version
7. Speech writing
8. “…particularly hypocritical…”
9. We’re sorry – Scouts Canada
10. The price of hydro exports

Someone said recently that the Muskrat Falls story is over, that people need to change the channel and get on with something else.

The only people who think that way are people who back the project.

The more other people learn about the project, the more those other people oppose it.

That’s why the people who back the project want everyone to stop talking about it.

This week’s traffic bears out the continued interest in Muskrat Falls.

- srbp -

Connies pork-up offshore board #nlpoli #cdnpoli

The federal Conservatives took a leaf from the provincial Conservatives’ book on Thursday and added a political pork appointee to the board that regulates the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Long-time Tory Reg Bowers was intergovernmental affairs minister Peter Penashue’s campaign manager in the last federal election. He’ll serve for a six-year term, subject to re-appointment.

The official announcement of his appointment is pretty vague on the details of Bowers’ background that make him an appropriate appointment.  All the release says is that Bowers has “30 years of experience in developing regional business prospects in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has worked on numerous projects creating opportunities for communities in his home province.”

Before he left politics abruptly in late 2010, Danny Williams set the wheels in motion to appoint his communications director to a provincial seat on the joint federal-provincial board.  Williams’ successor Kathy Dunderdale carried on with the appointment. Dunderdale and her natural resources minister word of Matthews’ new job secret until word of it leaked early in 2011. 

The botched appointment died in a ball of flames amid public condemnation of the blatant patronage it represented. 

The furor included a now famous attack on Dunderdale by Williams:

In my opinion, Elizabeth Matthews – of all the women I have met in politics including my ministers – was the most competent woman I had come across.

Bowers joins another federal appointee with no relevant background in the offshore oil and gas business:  Conrad Sullivan, brother of former Conservative fisheries ambassador Loyola Sullivan,

The two provincial appointees on the board - retired labour union boss Reg Anstey and Ed Drover – also lacked any relevant experience in dealing with offshore oil and gas issues prior to their appointment to the board.

- srbp -

“…particularly hypocritical…” #nlpoli

Tories bums in the province must be a wee bit tighter than usual this week.

The province’s Dippers – new Democrats to the uninitiated – filed a lawsuit this week challenging the constitutional validity of a Troy law passed in 2007 that lets people vote when there are no elections.

You can tells Tory bums are tight.  No, it’s not because of because of the agitated yelping of the local dogs who, alone among God’s creatures, can hear hypersonic flatulence.

Rather it is because of the number of Tories belching verbal flatulence against the New Democrats.

For starters, natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy told the Telegram that

“Ms. Michael’s about-face is disturbing on a number of fronts — first of all, her flip-flop on this matter shows a lack of principles and, secondly, rather than taking responsibility for her actions, she tried to blame her staff for not doing adequate research….”

An argument that starts by tossing aside a cabinet minister’s usual reluctance to comment on matters that are before the courts.

And then to start by impugning the personal integrity of one’s opponent.  The vicious, petty ad hominem slur:  there’s something you usually don’t hear from Tories in this province. 

So sad are these comments:  sad because Jerome Kennedy, the leading light of the administration, and one of the better cabinet ministers of the past couple of decades, has nothing of substance so he must instead rely on this sort of foolishness.

Sadder still are his words because Jerome knows that in the Tory version of the house of Assembly,  opposition parties do not have the time to research bills properly and investigate them.  the Tories won’t open the House or allow any time for such things. 

More on that later.

Then there is another Tory who did a stint as the last caller on the morning open line show on Friday.  He dismissed the lawsuit as being “particularly hypocritical” of NDP leader Lorraine Michael. Back in 2007, you see, the NDP leader voted for the Tory bill that made their special ballot foolishness the law of the land.

Said Tory claimed that if Michael was “legitimately concerned” then she would have used the “mechanisms available to her’ to suggest amendments to the election law.

Where might she do this?

Why, the House of Assembly, our Tory friend insisted.

This would be the same House of Assembly that has come to resemble a legislative house of ill repute under the Tories.  They ram through a handful of bills through in the scarce number of days they let the place open.  Parliamentary oversight committees don’t exist. 

And even if all that weren’t true, the Tory on the radio knew full well that he and his colleagues would vote down any amendment any opposition politician came up with, just because.

Coming from these Tories, any talk of relying on the legislature would be disingenuous at best

These are the same Tories whose current leader has criticised the House for being useless when it comes to dealing with the truth where the real problem has been her own demonstrable distance from truthfulness in the past.

Their former Glorious Leader routinely made a mockery of accountability, himself, and once mused out loud that it might be time to get rid of free speech in the legislature once and for all.

The thing is, the Old Man wasn’t joking.

What is a bit of a joke though is that this whole onslaught of Tories is in defence of Clyde Jackman, the Tory who won his seat in the last general election by a handful of special ballots. 

Where Jerome might be one of only a couple of high flyers in the current cabinet, Jackman is definitely at the other end of the scale.  He might not be the most incompetent minister to hold office since 2003.  The competition  - Charlene Johnson, Kathy Dunderdale, Paul Oram, Dave Denine to name a few - has been extraordinarily stiff even in a province used to having some especially stunned-arse cabinet ministers.  You’d be safe, though, if you suggested that Jackman would certainly be in the Top Three.

Jackman’s abilities are not the joke here, though.  Rather, the joke is that the lawsuit against the special ballot voting provisions came as a result of the fact that Jackman won a tight race by relying on them, as it turned out.

He wound up in that tight spot as a result of some rather clumsy political manoeuvring by Jackman and his colleagues on the fishery and the Marystown fish plant, the Marystown shipyard and likely the government’s botched response to a hurricane or two.

Now his Tory colleagues are employing equally clumsy  - embarrassingly clumsy - political claims to back him up.

And while that may not be particularly hypocritical, it is particularly funny.

Damned funny.

- srbp -

The truth hurts #nlpoli

Brace yourself.

Peter Jackson’s column in the Wednesday Telegram is spot on.

Yes.

You read that correctly.

Peter Jackson’s column is spot on the money and the mark and the point and whatever other metaphor you want to use.

The editorial on this page [in the hardcopy layout of the paper] laments how the Canadian electorate seems to be developing more tolerance for less-than-honest statements from our leaders. This is alarming, because cynicism and apathy can only lead to even worse behaviour, and undercut the foundations of our democracy. 

We expect politicians to avoid the unhealthy temptations that come with public office, but we’re not naïve enough to think it won’t happen from time to time. All we can do is remain ever vigilant, and ask those found culpable to own up and move on.

Peter’s especially right on the bit about how the cynicism and apathy that comes out of untruthful political statements eats away at the base of our society.

There’s evidence for this in a recent study that the Star’s Susan Delacourt blogged this week.  The study of voter apathy found that  - as the report put it - “Disengaged people felt that politics is a game that does not produce results for them…. The overall point seems to be that there is very little reason to be engaged.”
You don’t have to go to the United States or mainland Canada to find untruthful politicians.  There’s been plenty of false statements around these parts.  We are not talking politicians who change their position based on new information or a different circumstance.

We are talking unmistakeable falsehoods.

Like the one about the federal government taking 85% of provincial offshore oil revenues. Yes, friends, the entire 2004-05 offshore oil ruckus was founded on a falsehood.

Or, more recently, the claim that the Quebec energy regulator denying Nalcor access to the Quebec energy grid.

Aside from outright falsehoods, there is the cousin:  lack of disclosure.  The current provincial administration is well known for its love of freedom from information for the public.  Access to information debacles?  Failure to produce whistleblower protection laws?  The weakened House of Assembly and its broken oversight committees?

All speak to a political culture that promotes anything but the sort of honesty and integrity that genuine democracy demands.

Ultimately, we are all responsible for the current situation, just as we have to shoulder the burden for change.
The Telegram editorial [board] are right about that, too.

- srbp -

We’re sorry – Scouts Canada #nlpoli #cdnpoli

- srbp -

The price of hydro exports #nlpoli

Via National Public Radio (New York) comes a series on the cost to Americans of importing electricity from Canada.

The second instalment – aired December 6 – focused on Labrador and the Muskrat Falls project. 

There’s the familiar cost from Labrador opponents of the project, in this case former Conservative cabinet minister Joe Goudie:

But when you talk with a lot of the people concerned about those changes, many—not just Gaudi [sic] —bring up their parents.

“They [Nalcor Energy] just don’t understand that it [the river]  is a part of our lives.”

And then there is the irony of the potential future sources of energy for New York:

Opponents to [Nalcor vice president Gilbert] Bennett’s plan say natural gas could be a better alternative to cut emissions. But the irony is, that while the dam is controversial in Labrador, gas drilling is controversial in New York. They’re two conflicts that will play out simultaneously, as both places decide who will power who — and how.

Either way, “Canadian hydro would come at a price”.

- srbp -

Irresponsibly managed electricity #nlpoli

Energy expert Tom Adams takes about five and a half minutes to explain why “buying at high prices from local generators and selling vast amounts of power to neighbouring utilities at rock bottom prices” is a bad idea. [CBC audio file]

Energy supply has been growing in Ontario, especially from expensive sources, while demand hasn’t been going at the same rate.  As a result, the province has crap loads of electricity that it buys for one price and sells for much less to people outside the province.

Those inside the province get to pay high rates.

For those who missed it, that’s essentially the Muskrat Falls plan.

- srbp -

The problem with the Liberal Party #nlpoli

Guest post by Craig Westcott, from his editorial in this week’s Business Post.

If, as its president Judy Morrow has proposed, the Liberal Party puts off holding a leadership convention for two years, it will be making a serious, possibly ruinous mistake.

Like that one lonely turbot once described by then Fisheries Minister Brian Tobin as clinging to the Grand Banks by its fingernails, the Liberals are on the verge of extinction, despite its retention of Opposition status in the House of Assembly.

Tuesday’s CRA poll results confirm that.

For three consecutive quarters the NDP has marched upwards, standing solidly now in second place, its lack of Opposition status only temporary perhaps until the first by-election.

The bald truth is that nothing will get done to rebuild the Liberal Party without a real leader to push it. An interim leader won’t cut it, unless it’s someone of the ability of Bob Rae who is rebuilding the federal party while maintaining interim leader status. But Rae is an exception to the rule. There are no Bob Raes in the Liberal Party of Newfoundland, at least none that are obvious.

At the risk of telling tales out of school, I was shocked when I took the job as communications director for the Official Opposition last fall to learn there was no party apparatus backing the caucus. The fabled Big Red Machine no longer existed in this province. And even if it had existed, with a $700,000 to $800,000 deficit at the banks, there was no money to put gas in to run it.

There was no party membership list, there weren’t even district associations in most districts. Only for the work of long time MHA Roland Butler, who has perhaps the best organizational smarts in the party, there would have been no district associations in place to fight this past fall’s provincial election.

The sad truth was that little to no grassroots rebuilding had been done since the Liberals lost the disastrous campaign of 2007.

For most of the four years between elections, the leader retained interim status. For part of the time, until Morrow was elected party president, the executive headed by Danny Dumeresque was said by some in the party to be more determined to undermine interim leader Yvonne Jones than support her.

It was a mess. The view throughout the party was that as long as Danny Williams was leading the PCs, the Liberals didn’t have a chance of regaining government anyway, a mistaken view to those with knowledge of history. Joey eventually lost the confidence of the people and I believe Williams would have too, only much sooner than the 23 years it took Joey to crash. A more contemporary example, is Vladimir Putin, like Williams a wildly popular, dictatorial egomaniac while in office, who is now losing the confidence of the Russian people. Time brings down all dictators eventually, if death doesn’t get them first.

But I digress.

The problem with the Liberals is both a failure of leadership – on the party executive side as well as within the caucus - and also a matter of unfortunate circumstance.

During the year I spent with the Liberal caucus, it had only four members. The leader, Yvonne Jones, was off for much of that time, taking cancer treatment, though still involved with the running of the Opposition office. Another member, Butler, had his own health issue to face and was unable to participate in as much of the daily hurly burly as he wished. The other two members, Kelvin Parsons and Marshall Dean, had districts at the exact opposite ends of the island from St. John’s: One centred in Port aux Basques, 900 kilometres away, the other on the Great Northern Peninsula, situated even farther. When the House wasn’t sitting, which was often, they had to be in their districts tending to constituency matters. That meant they were unavailable to the television media in St. John’s (though full marks to Kelvin Parsons for beating it back and forth across the TransCanada every week to fill in for Jones and still take care of his constituents. If there was a prize for the hardest working man in politics last year, Parsons would have earned it).

Down the hall, the sole NDP member - the intelligent, earnest and hardworking Lorraine Michael - was in Confederation Building every day to take media calls. No sweat for her in that regard: Her seat was located in the city.

While a number of PC friends of mine have blamed the NDP surge in St. John’s on Danny Williams’ federal ABC campaign, which drove thousands of long time Tories into the Dippers’ camp, Michael deserves as much credit for also showing up for the media every day, especially when nobody from the Liberal office was available.

The situation for the current Liberal caucus is no better, despite the fact it has two more seats than last year. That’s because not one of the Liberal MHAs are from St. John’s or even the Avalon Peninsula. Two are from Labrador and the four others all have seats west of Deer Lake. The NDP, meanwhile, has five members, every one of them in St. John’s. Who do you think is going to win the war for media attention between now and the next general election in 2015?

And yet, the Liberal Party’s problems are not that hard to fix. It could probably write off all that debt by making a simple offer of 10 cents on the dollar to the banks. The debt is getting so old now it has probably been written off by the lenders on their own books already.

The party needs a full time organizer to rebuild and maintain the district associations, the basic battle units in any election.

It needs to take its head out of the water on the fishery and adopt a strategy that makes sense, resisting its outdated, overplayed, knee jerk habit of barking at the processors and shouting out support, but no real answers, for the plant workers and harvesters at all costs. Here’s a news flash gang: The fishery doesn’t decide elections anymore. There are so few people left working in the industry now, their votes can’t sway a campaign. And almost everyone in the industry is sick of being poor. They want change. Offer it to them. The PC government isn’t. That’s how you will win fishery votes.

And realize this: You can’t win the next election without winning St. John’s. So drop this rural/urban divide malarkey and devise some policies that will benefit the Avalon.

Finally, the Liberals have to regain some pride. The Grits have a good story to tell, if only they would tell it. Newfoundland’s current prosperity is due in large part to Liberal Premiers Clyde Wells and Roger Grimes, the guys who negotiated the three energy deals - as well as Voisey’s Bay – that are filling the government’s coffers. The crowd running the show now had nothing to do with any of it. And if Kathy Dunderdale implements this disastrous Muskrat Falls deal, the PC’s will destroy their chances of winning re-election next time around.

So there’s a lot to build for. But nothing will happen without a real leader to drive it. Waiting until 2013 will be too late. Find a leader now and have him or her ready to win a seat in the first by-election that comes up in 2012. Because if you lose that one to the NDP, the Liberal Party is finished.

If you stop writing yourselves off, maybe the rest of the province will too.

- srbp -

Margin of error defined #nlpoli

Corporate Research Associates November 2011 omnibus:

If a provincial election were held today in Newfoundland and Labrador, for which party would you vote?

Progressive Conservative Party  60%

CRA August 2011 omnibus:

If a provincial election were held today in Newfoundland and Labrador, for which party would you vote?

Progressive Conservative Party 54%

Provincial General Election, October 2011:

Progressive Conservative Party:  32%

- srbp -

Speech Writing #nlpoli

Write in a way that sounds like the person delivering the speech would have said it.

You might not find that on any lists of great speech writing tips, but few people who write speeches would think of using words, phrases and sentence structures that just normally wouldn’t flow out of the mouth of the person delivering the speech.

You can see this point with Kathy Dunderdale.

Listen to her in a scrum on the fishery.  It’s at the 5:15 mark of a CBC newscast from December 2. She mangles a reference to contract negotiations between the fisheries union and Ocean Choice International. 

Then there’s a speech Dunderdale delivered in early November to a Canadian-American trade development group. This does not sound like Kathy Dunderdale:

Few of you would be here in this room today if you did not share my belief that there is indeed a time for courage, a time for stepping forward, a time for stepping up to do things that are hard, not out of hubris or reckless bravado, but out of a pure and rational conviction that greater things can be achieved by facing a challenge than by backing away from it. Fear has been running rampant through the marketplace in recent months. There are some who say this is a time not to build on great dreams, but to bury our ambitions – not to do the hard things, but to hunker down. I suspect that hunkering down is not why you are here. I suspect that you believe this is the time, not to bury or hunker or flee, but to “accept” the challenge, “to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills”, to “intend to win”, and to energize this economy the way economic growth has always been energized – with courage, confidence, ingenuity and hard work.

And then it turns into a long-winded recital of Muskrat mythology, everything from it’s low cost to its affordable to “we made an economic miracle.”

The whole thing is flatulent. 

Windy.

All the same, this part of the speech has plenty of potential.  It’s about three or four re-writes away from being a decent one. 

Whoever put it together has managed to pick up the idea that repetition works.  Read through it again and see if you can pick them up:

• …a time for courage, a time for stepping forward,  a time for stepping up to do the things that are hard…
• …to accept the challenge, to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, to intend to win, and to energise the economy…
• …with courage, confidence, ingenuity and bravado…

What the person who wrote this speech missed is that while repetition is good, you should repeat them in threes to achieve maximum impact.  Casual observation and detailed research bear it out.

Groups of three.

Don’t believe it?  Winston Churchill’s wartime pledge that he had nothing to offer but  “blood, toil, tears and sweat” usually gets remembered as “blood, sweat and tears.”

Later in the same speech, Churchill said his wartime aim was victory:

…victory at all costs,  victory in spite of all terror,  victory, however long and hard the road may be…

Let’s take that last bit of Dunderdale speech and re-work it. 

I suspect that you believe this is the time, not to bury or hunker or flee, but to “accept” the challenge, “to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills”, to “intend to win”, and to energize this economy the way economic growth has always been energized – with courage, confidence, ingenuity and hard work.

First of all, it is one big sentence.

So read it out loud.

Take your time and read it again.

Speeches are meant to be heard, not read.

Read it again.

There’s a bit of rhythm there. 

But see a problem?

Yeah, it is basically a series of repetitions of things.  The writer takes an idea to aid memory – repetition – and destroys the impact by doing it over and over again in a single sentence.

But wait a second, there’s another nice touch in there that can help us re-work it.  Look at the front end of that sentence.  There’s another useful device:  the contrast.  This is a time “not to…” ,  “but to”.

It sounds a bit like Marc Antony’s speech from Julius Caesar:

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Incidentally, remember how that speech starts?

Go look it  up.

Anyway, then the Dunderdale speech gives four things that we “but to”. 

Too much.

Then there are those opening words.  They suggest that Dunderdale is uncertain.  “I suspect that you believe…”.  I think you might believe this, possibly.

Awkward.

Why not just start out with a firm declaration?

“I believe that this is not the time to run away…”.

Run away is a simple phrase that conjures up the image of cowardice.

Bad.

Definitely something you would not agree with.

“Bury” doesn’t real fit.  It’s missing the object of the phrase:  what are you burying? The thought is incomplete.

“Hunker” only works properly if you combine with “down”.   “Hunkering down” is what you do when a hurricane is ripping through your town.  Hunkering down is what you do to survive a storm.  The image this conjures up is wrong.

On the other hand, “flee” is the image that the writer seems to have been shooting for.

It’s just that “flee” is a puffy word.  It is lace doilies.

“Run away” is the same idea but in a word that most people in the audience will pick up instantly with exactly the meaning you want:

“I believe that this is not the time to run away.”

Let’s make that one sentence.  You can add some stage instruction to the speaking notes for the speaker to lean on the word “not.”

So now we just have to complete the thought, tell people what we believe they must do.

Again, we’ve got the fours here.  The repetition is too heavy and even if it seems that this is an effort to work some mission statement into a speech, the result is a bit much.

What we need to do here is give the statement of what we think should happen.  We are looking for the oppose of run away.  Cowards run away.  Brave people do what?  They “face” up to things.

With Americans, a military metaphor would work as well.  A suggestion of combat, of fighting and winning what was lost would set up a clean picture of what the writer is struggling to say with all that repetition.

I believe this is not the time to run away.
I believe this is the time to face the fight.

Almost done.

We just need to close the deal with a line that will have them clapping away in agreement.

Here’s where the group of three comes in.

“…courage, confidence,  ingenuity and hard work…”

The first one and the last one are both naturals. 

The middle two don’t work as well.  It’s hard to be courageous without being confident.

Ingenuity is a good quality.  Americans pride themselves on being inventive.  They are clever.  They come up with original ideas.

But ingenuity is bit of a 50 cent word.  It isn’t quite as plain as the others.

A quick flip through a book of words that have similar meanings gets you in the neighbourhood of “creativity”.

And there you are, done:

I believe this is not the time to run away.
I believe this is the time to face the fight…
with courage, creativity and hard work.

Rule of Three.

Repetition.

Plain language.

And it would all sound like words Kathy Dunderdale would use.

Here endeth the lesson.

- srbp -