There are some awfully funny comments from Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn is the following story from The Telegram.
Ordinarily, the story would have focused on the poll by Corporate Research Associates (CRA) showing the Liberals with a commanding lead in in Atlantic Canada and in this province in the federal election. The story would also have drawn big attention to the fact that the CRA poll found that Prime Minister Paul Martin is the party leader preferred by most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Obviously, CRA didn't poll Liam O'Brien.
Anyway, the funny bits are the ones where Loyola Hearn wants us all to believe that the poll is crap - it isn't - and that the federal Conservatives have a shot at winning John Efford's old seat in Avalon.
It's funny because Loyola should be focused on winning his own seat rather than fretting over who is going to represent the riding in which he lives.
It's funny because when Loyola says Efford had a free ride previously, Hearn is actually the guy who gave it to him. When faced with a choice as to which part of his old riding he wanted to represent in Ottawa, the supposed Connie heavyweight opted to run in St. John's and Mount Pearl. He thought he'd have an easy ride of it, himself.
Reality proved starkly different.
Everyone else has marked his riding as being definitely in play, a swing seat, likely to turn over even, because Mr. Hearn's margin of victory last time was less than 9% of the vote. Some contend it was less than 5% but I'll stick to my new number.
It was the toughest political fight of Hearn's life and Hearn's less than generous comments in victory attest to how much the former Brian Peckford cabinet minister was pissed off.
Then, to make matters worse, Hearn got trapped in the spring Harper effort to defeat the government. Tons of e-mails poured in demanding Hearn vote in favour of the offshore deal and put partisan issues aside. "Put province before party" they demanded.
The Connie reply was to vote in favour of the bill containing the offshore deal, before they then voted to bring down the government on another motion.
Faced with the choice, Hearn picked Harper over Hamilton Avenue and his choice may continue to haunt him.
And the bruised politician started musing about taking up fishing and giving up the political racket. As he told CBC News, "[h]ow long more to you stay around? That's the point...Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
For the record, here is the full Telegram story by Jamie Baker.
I am taking the risk of reprinting from their website since there is no permanent link I can use and after a couple of days this story will vanish from the Internet.
Friday, December 2, 2005
Battleground Avalon
By JAMIE BAKER, The Telegram page 1, above the fold.
A new poll predicts the Liberals would sweep all seven ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador if an election were held today, but that isn't dashing any Conservative hopes, especially in Avalon, where the party is promising a changing of the guard.
St. John'’s South-Mount Pearl Conservative incumbent Loyola Hearn dismisses the poll and says Avalon, the riding held by retiring Liberal cabinet minister John Efford, is ripe for the picking.
The three Liberal nominees for the riding are former provincial cabinet minister Art Reid, lawyer Bill Morrow and Avondale deputy mayor Bern Hickey. Hearn said he expects his party will announce its candidate -— it is rumoured provincial Independent PC MHA Fabian Manning is among those interested -— within a matter of days.
Targeted campaign
The riding is among the 20 across Canada targeted by the Conservatives as potentially winnable.
"We will win that riding," Hearn predicted, adding he believes even Efford could have been toppled at the height of his popularity had the challenges been more substantial.
"Efford had a free ride," he said.
"When he ran in the byelection, we ran Michelle Brazil against him, with no organization, nothing and she got 20-odd per cent of the vote. The last time we had a guy come into the campaign, again, with no organization, no money, he had never been involved in anything public like that — and he took 31 per cent of the vote."
"Imagine what a well-known person could have done,— and Efford was riding high at the time."
Avalon's Liberal riding president Stephen Crocker isn't convinced voters will act against the party out of displeasure over Efford's recent political troubles, which began in the heat of the Atlantic Accord battle.
In fact, Crocker is convinced they will look to Efford's list of federal accomplishments as a sign of what the party can do -— and has done -— for the riding.
"I don't think Mr. Efford's legacy was totally negative -— Mr. Efford did a lot of good stuff in his time in politics and I think that is what people will remember, "Crocker said. "The key to winning Avalon, obviously, is a strong campaign and getting the message out to people on where the party stands, where it has been and where it is going.”
If the recent poll conducted by Corporate Research Associates Inc. is to be believed, where the Liberals are going is, apparently, up.
Besides taking all seven seats in this province, the poll has the Liberals taking 25 of 32 seats in Atlantic Canada -— five seats are forecasted for the Conservatives and two for the NDP.
The numbers also show if the election were held now, 46 per cent of Atlantic Canadians said they would vote for the Liberals, 27 per cent Conservative, 18 per cent NDP, 16 per cent were undecided, and 10 per cent had no response or didn'‚’t plan to vote.
Province more Liberal: poll
In Newfoundland, the numbers were even more Liberal, with 50 per cent preferring the Liberals, 29 per cent Conservative and 10 per cent NDP with 19 per cent undecided ‚— those numbers are almost exactly the same as they were in a May 2004 poll conducted in this province prior to the last federal election.
Fifty-one per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians also said they were very or mostly satisfied with the performance of the Martin government, up six per cent from May 2004; 39 per cent were either mostly or completely dissatisfied.
As far as leadership is concerned, 41 per cent of Atlantic Canadians prefer Paul Martin as prime minister compared to just 19 per cent for Stephen Harper and 17 per cent for Jack Layton.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Martin attracted 44 per cent preference compared to 20 and 15 per cent respectively for Harper and Layton.
"That doesn't surprise me when you look at Mr. Harper's track record and where he stands on health care and so on," Crocker said. "I think health care is going to be a big issue in Avalon, and we all know Stephen Harper's record of supporting two-tier health care.”
With mostly rural areas in the riding, Hearn said attracting the right candidate would also be huge for any party's hopes of victory in ridings east of Montreal.
Unlike more urban areas where voters rarely know the candidate and vote based largely on policies and platforms, Hearn said the candidate is also very important when it comes to campaigning in Atlantic Canada.
"In Atlantic Canada, everybody knows who you are and if they don't know who you are, you'll be hard pressed to get the votes," Hearn observed. "That's why you need reasonably good candidates, someone who is known and well respected. It is very seldom you will see a well established individual doing poorly in an election."
"Voters want solid representation, somebody they know they can trust and somebody they know will do the work for them in Ottawa. Check the public record, Hansard, even watch CPAC, and you'll have an idea who's doing what for the province -— we have not been well-represented by a number of Liberals."”
While Hearn sees Avalon, his own district and St. John's East as potential winners for his party, the big battles, he said, will be getting the right people to take on a couple of other longtime Liberal incumbents Bill Matthews and Gerry Byrne.
"The challenge is really out there in Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and Random-Burin-St. George's to have some good solid people come forward," Hearn said. "We have a great chance of forming government, and an extra seat or two in Newfoundland could be all it takes."
jbaker@thetelegram.com
02 December 2005
Norm Doyle - CBC Radio news
Since there was no link available for the earlier posting on Norm Doyle, let me tell everyone that Norm backed the call for a free-vote on equal marriage in an interview with CBC Radio.
When I can get the quote and the story as a link, I'll post it.
In the meantime, be amused at the latest evidence that when someone has nothing constructive or factual to say, someone will just make stuff up.
Then read the post about the GST. Negative campaigning raised to a new high.
or is it low?
When I can get the quote and the story as a link, I'll post it.
In the meantime, be amused at the latest evidence that when someone has nothing constructive or factual to say, someone will just make stuff up.
Then read the post about the GST. Negative campaigning raised to a new high.
or is it low?
A large double double view
Canadians will get this really easily.
A large Timmies in Newfoundland and Labrador will set you back $1.50. That the Canadian standard - large, double double - and taking in the harmonized provincial and federal sales taxes.
If Stephen Harper is elected, my Timmies will go to $1.48, for a total savings of two friggin' cents a cup.
It will take 20, 000 cups of coffee to reach the $400 in GST savings Harper claims his proposal will plunk in my pocket.
I better get started.
That's a lot of coffee.
A large Timmies in Newfoundland and Labrador will set you back $1.50. That the Canadian standard - large, double double - and taking in the harmonized provincial and federal sales taxes.
If Stephen Harper is elected, my Timmies will go to $1.48, for a total savings of two friggin' cents a cup.
It will take 20, 000 cups of coffee to reach the $400 in GST savings Harper claims his proposal will plunk in my pocket.
I better get started.
That's a lot of coffee.
Cutting the GST - the Andrew Coyne view
Courtesy of Paul Wells, comes an old column by Andrew Coyne, arguing that cutting the GST is actually a bad idea.
Cut other taxes instead.
And while we are on it, here's a story from CBC Liam O'Brien won't be quoting any too soon. Economists are criticizing the GST cuts proposal.
There have been plenty of those stories.
Plus there have been positive stories quoting people in the restaurant business. Ok. But cutting the GST by two percent - five years from now - isn't going to do a single thing to put one more bum in one more seat in one more restaurant across Canada.
Think about it.
The proposed cuts will give me the kind of cash - 40 freakin' cents off a $20 meal tab - that make me feel like going down to cross the harbour here in St. John's and buy up a few newspapers.
And it will happen two full years after Harper gets elected.
And after Harper repeals equal marriage.
If he gets elected.
Cut other taxes instead.
And while we are on it, here's a story from CBC Liam O'Brien won't be quoting any too soon. Economists are criticizing the GST cuts proposal.
There have been plenty of those stories.
Plus there have been positive stories quoting people in the restaurant business. Ok. But cutting the GST by two percent - five years from now - isn't going to do a single thing to put one more bum in one more seat in one more restaurant across Canada.
Think about it.
The proposed cuts will give me the kind of cash - 40 freakin' cents off a $20 meal tab - that make me feel like going down to cross the harbour here in St. John's and buy up a few newspapers.
And it will happen two full years after Harper gets elected.
And after Harper repeals equal marriage.
If he gets elected.
Norm Doyle appears - or is it Homer?
The high- spending Connie candidate in St. John's East emerged today for the first time in a while.
His choice topic? Backing Stephen Harper in opposing equal marriage.
Shag the Constitution.
Shag the Supreme Court.
Shag equality.
Shag common sense and the fact we managed to put this issue behind us.
Norm and his boss, Stephen Harper want to re-open the debate on equal marriage.
Way to go Normie.
Where should we send the cheque for all your help?
His choice topic? Backing Stephen Harper in opposing equal marriage.
Shag the Constitution.
Shag the Supreme Court.
Shag equality.
Shag common sense and the fact we managed to put this issue behind us.
Norm and his boss, Stephen Harper want to re-open the debate on equal marriage.
Way to go Normie.
Where should we send the cheque for all your help?
CBC buggers the facts - swing seats
Hey guys, I know it's a challenge to run a website, but at least use the cut and paste.
St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Connies took it by 8.9% last time.
That's below the 10% CBC is using to define a swing seat.
And if I recall correctly, CBC should also include St. John's North, which is now known once again as St. John's East. The margin in that neck of the local woods was damned close too.
Thanks to Liam O'Brien, official Connie propagandist on the Island for putting me on to this little error by the Ceeb. In his efforts to attack some of my earlier he comments, Liam tossed the CBC out as a source to contradict me on which seats are close.
D'oh!
The factually-challenged Connies were done in, in this instance, by someone else's dodgy facts. minor error, but as we have seen with Jason Kenney sometimes one can build an entire chunk of a campaign on stuff that is basically made up.
As my daughter used to say: "Oh deeuh".
St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Connies took it by 8.9% last time.
That's below the 10% CBC is using to define a swing seat.
And if I recall correctly, CBC should also include St. John's North, which is now known once again as St. John's East. The margin in that neck of the local woods was damned close too.
Thanks to Liam O'Brien, official Connie propagandist on the Island for putting me on to this little error by the Ceeb. In his efforts to attack some of my earlier he comments, Liam tossed the CBC out as a source to contradict me on which seats are close.
D'oh!
The factually-challenged Connies were done in, in this instance, by someone else's dodgy facts. minor error, but as we have seen with Jason Kenney sometimes one can build an entire chunk of a campaign on stuff that is basically made up.
As my daughter used to say: "Oh deeuh".
01 December 2005
Has anyone seen Loyola?
No point in looking here.
Seems like the Man from Renews (about two hours drive outside the riding he represented in Ottawa) thinks he's still in the last campaign.
That's the one where he ducked every interview he could duck, refused to debate the other candidates and generally seemed to go over the fence for most of the campaign.
At one point, his opponents seriously considered sending out search parties.
His reward last time? The nearest run election of his life.
His reward this time? Maybe a federal pension to go with the provincial one he already collects.
Seems like the Man from Renews (about two hours drive outside the riding he represented in Ottawa) thinks he's still in the last campaign.
That's the one where he ducked every interview he could duck, refused to debate the other candidates and generally seemed to go over the fence for most of the campaign.
At one point, his opponents seriously considered sending out search parties.
His reward last time? The nearest run election of his life.
His reward this time? Maybe a federal pension to go with the provincial one he already collects.
When the leader undermines his own candidates
From nottawa, comes this set of comments by Jack Layton that by voting for third place candidates, voters can elect a Conservative instead.
Ok.
The math works in some ridings where Jack is ahead.
But in St. John's East and St.John's South-Mount Pearl, Jack seems to be working to get Liberals elected.
How odd.
Of course, there is no small irony in the fact that Jack pushed for this election so that, in some cases, like say eastern Newfoundland, he'll be electing candidates whose party is now committed to cracking open the equal marriage debate, yet again.
The noise you hear in Ottawa is Peg Norman pounding her head against the wall at her campaign office.
Ok.
The math works in some ridings where Jack is ahead.
But in St. John's East and St.John's South-Mount Pearl, Jack seems to be working to get Liberals elected.
How odd.
Of course, there is no small irony in the fact that Jack pushed for this election so that, in some cases, like say eastern Newfoundland, he'll be electing candidates whose party is now committed to cracking open the equal marriage debate, yet again.
The noise you hear in Ottawa is Peg Norman pounding her head against the wall at her campaign office.
More curious Connie math comments
Check here for a Canadian Press story on the math behind the proposed GST cut and some other comments on the Harper proposal.
But get a load of this section, in particular:
*"For an average family of four with an income of $60,000 a year, this would mean about $400 less in taxes - savings they will see every time they go to the gas station, the shopping mall or a restaurant," Harper said.
"When the GST cut is fully implemented, the total benefit will, of course, be much greater."
Liberals argued that the first-year savings would be closer to $250, basing their claims on Statistics Canada numbers that indicate a typical family earning $60,000 makes taxable purchases worth about $25,000 a year.
Such a family would have to spend upwards of $40,000 in order to realize $400 in savings in the first year - a number that's not unreasonable, the Conservatives countered.*
Ok. A combined family income of $60, 000 a year making $40,000 in GST-related purchases a year. That leaves only $20, 000 to pay provincial, federal and municipal taxes, Canadian Pension Plan contributions and Employment Insurance premiums, a few bucks for the pension and maybe some cash for the kid's education. Surely I've left something out.
Even if I haven't, then at the end of the five years, once the Stephen Harper GST cut comes through, I'll have an extra $400 in cash. That's 0.6% of the gross annual income of this fictitious family.
Move over Donald Trump.
But get a load of this section, in particular:
*"For an average family of four with an income of $60,000 a year, this would mean about $400 less in taxes - savings they will see every time they go to the gas station, the shopping mall or a restaurant," Harper said.
"When the GST cut is fully implemented, the total benefit will, of course, be much greater."
Liberals argued that the first-year savings would be closer to $250, basing their claims on Statistics Canada numbers that indicate a typical family earning $60,000 makes taxable purchases worth about $25,000 a year.
Such a family would have to spend upwards of $40,000 in order to realize $400 in savings in the first year - a number that's not unreasonable, the Conservatives countered.*
Ok. A combined family income of $60, 000 a year making $40,000 in GST-related purchases a year. That leaves only $20, 000 to pay provincial, federal and municipal taxes, Canadian Pension Plan contributions and Employment Insurance premiums, a few bucks for the pension and maybe some cash for the kid's education. Surely I've left something out.
Even if I haven't, then at the end of the five years, once the Stephen Harper GST cut comes through, I'll have an extra $400 in cash. That's 0.6% of the gross annual income of this fictitious family.
Move over Donald Trump.
Tax rhetoric for Connies
Over at RGL, Liam is predictably ecstatic about the GST cut proposal from Stephen Harper and seemingly perplexed by my comments earlier today. And since he's in full Connie campaign mode, Liam has to embellish my comments and add his own twists of meaning to everything.
Set up the straw man and knock 'em down.
Or should we take this as a hold-over from Liam's previous career as a journalist when he admits sitting in meetings where reporters plotted to get someone they didn't like?
Sticking to the facts and the issues are never good enough for some people.
But let's deal with the issues in reverse order:
3. In order to change the Harmonised Sales Tax, Liam, the three Atlantic provinces that are party to the deal all must agree.
My question was simple: did Harper check with Loyola Sullivan and da byes before springing this tax cut thingy out the door? This is a huge issue for federal provincial relations and contains a disturbing echo of Harper's pledge last time to alter equalization radically - and unilaterally.
That's really the key point. The Atlantic provinces would lose cash, at least as it looks to me, but hey on this point, I am willing to admit I could be wrong. Maybe there won't be any revenue loss for the provinces. But let someone show me some facts.
At least, I can admit when I may be off base. With Jason Kenney, he can only continue to make ludicrous accusations...and stick to them despite his own admissions he has no evidence to support his manic claims.
In the meantime, let's see if there actually was any consultation at all with the three provinces using HST before the Harper announcement.
2. Why wait five years to drop two points? Liam doesn't really answer this one at all, but it is a question that screams for an answer almost as loudly as the one about Harperian unilateralism. If Harper is going to slash the GST by two points, sure it will cost billions, but why the slow drop? There is no logical explanation why Harper can drop a few billion in revenue in one year and then take four years to chop the rest.
1. Why not zero? It's a simple, rhetorical question. If Harper can drop the GST by two points over five years, why not hack it even further? In for a penny, in for a pound.
And before Liam trots out the tried 1993 Chretien promise, let's just face facts - as Liam says, the GST is a source of considerable cash for the feds. We needed it in 1993 to pay off the huge debt load run up by previous governments, including the Gucci-level spending of the Mulroney Tories. Now that we are in good fiscal shape - thanks to Paulie Martin - then maybe we can look at different tax relief measures as part of the reward for the lean times.
Too late. He uses that tired old chestnut repeatedly. Liam even claims Liberals lied in 1993. To lie means to tell a falsehood knowingly. Like saying that Newfoundland government oil money is sucked off to Ottawa when, in fact, as the premier admitted, he collected and kept every cent. Gee, the fact truck never seems to make a stop in Connie-land.
Rather than the rhetoric of the parties, though, I am going to watch closely for comments from the business community and the public on this one.
Set up the straw man and knock 'em down.
Or should we take this as a hold-over from Liam's previous career as a journalist when he admits sitting in meetings where reporters plotted to get someone they didn't like?
Sticking to the facts and the issues are never good enough for some people.
But let's deal with the issues in reverse order:
3. In order to change the Harmonised Sales Tax, Liam, the three Atlantic provinces that are party to the deal all must agree.
My question was simple: did Harper check with Loyola Sullivan and da byes before springing this tax cut thingy out the door? This is a huge issue for federal provincial relations and contains a disturbing echo of Harper's pledge last time to alter equalization radically - and unilaterally.
That's really the key point. The Atlantic provinces would lose cash, at least as it looks to me, but hey on this point, I am willing to admit I could be wrong. Maybe there won't be any revenue loss for the provinces. But let someone show me some facts.
At least, I can admit when I may be off base. With Jason Kenney, he can only continue to make ludicrous accusations...and stick to them despite his own admissions he has no evidence to support his manic claims.
In the meantime, let's see if there actually was any consultation at all with the three provinces using HST before the Harper announcement.
2. Why wait five years to drop two points? Liam doesn't really answer this one at all, but it is a question that screams for an answer almost as loudly as the one about Harperian unilateralism. If Harper is going to slash the GST by two points, sure it will cost billions, but why the slow drop? There is no logical explanation why Harper can drop a few billion in revenue in one year and then take four years to chop the rest.
1. Why not zero? It's a simple, rhetorical question. If Harper can drop the GST by two points over five years, why not hack it even further? In for a penny, in for a pound.
And before Liam trots out the tried 1993 Chretien promise, let's just face facts - as Liam says, the GST is a source of considerable cash for the feds. We needed it in 1993 to pay off the huge debt load run up by previous governments, including the Gucci-level spending of the Mulroney Tories. Now that we are in good fiscal shape - thanks to Paulie Martin - then maybe we can look at different tax relief measures as part of the reward for the lean times.
Too late. He uses that tired old chestnut repeatedly. Liam even claims Liberals lied in 1993. To lie means to tell a falsehood knowingly. Like saying that Newfoundland government oil money is sucked off to Ottawa when, in fact, as the premier admitted, he collected and kept every cent. Gee, the fact truck never seems to make a stop in Connie-land.
Rather than the rhetoric of the parties, though, I am going to watch closely for comments from the business community and the public on this one.
Weather office wonderments
Pressure for the relocation of the weather office back to Gander continues to mount.
But here's a bit of information to ponder.
Weather forecasting takes two things: data and analysis.
The data comes from sites spread across an area. Most of it is transmitted by automated collection stations both on- and offshore.
The analysis can be done anywhere.
So is the issue with the weather office in Gander about the accuracy of the forecasts or about where people get paid to read the numbers? The accuracy of the forecasts might just have to do with a lack of sufficient automated data collection sites around the province, especially in the northeast and Labrador.
If it's about where people do the analysis, then the weather office could be in Rangoon and still get the local forecasting here spot on. After all, Gander used to forecast for Nain and the people in Nain never complained about things.
But here's a bit of information to ponder.
Weather forecasting takes two things: data and analysis.
The data comes from sites spread across an area. Most of it is transmitted by automated collection stations both on- and offshore.
The analysis can be done anywhere.
So is the issue with the weather office in Gander about the accuracy of the forecasts or about where people get paid to read the numbers? The accuracy of the forecasts might just have to do with a lack of sufficient automated data collection sites around the province, especially in the northeast and Labrador.
If it's about where people do the analysis, then the weather office could be in Rangoon and still get the local forecasting here spot on. After all, Gander used to forecast for Nain and the people in Nain never complained about things.
Why not zero? Why not right now?
Stephen Harper's first big election announcement - aside from hiring Ken Starr - is to drop the Goods and Services Tax from its current seven per cent to five percent.
Here's the catch - he'll drop it over the course of five years.
Here's my question: why five years?
Here's my second question: why stop at five? Why not just axe the thing altogether? If Ottawa has so much cash floating around, why wouldn't Harper just drop the GST to zero?
Here's a third question, just to add to the pile: Has Steve cleared this idea with the Atlantic provinces? They'd have to agreed to change the Harmonized Sales Tax. They also stand to lose a few bucks in the process.
Here's the catch - he'll drop it over the course of five years.
Here's my question: why five years?
Here's my second question: why stop at five? Why not just axe the thing altogether? If Ottawa has so much cash floating around, why wouldn't Harper just drop the GST to zero?
Here's a third question, just to add to the pile: Has Steve cleared this idea with the Atlantic provinces? They'd have to agreed to change the Harmonized Sales Tax. They also stand to lose a few bucks in the process.
Election quickies
1. JK Note to self: Douse self in gasoline on national television. Light Match. Apply match to own arm, leg or other available body part.
Conservative Jason Kenney had yet another factual meltdown with Mike Duffy last night.
Negative campaigning is designed to suppress the other guys vote. Kenney missed the part of Konnie Kampaign Kollege where it was explained that neg has to be based on fact. Based on fact, a negative will stick and have effect.
Bullshit, like napalm, sticks. 'Cept it sticks to the one that flung the bullshit. That's an effect you don't want, Jason.
Kenney himself has admitted there is no evidence to support his whacked out claims of high level corruption in the finance department, which Kenney quickly points out are not actually accusations of high level corruption.
Funniest moment with Puffy: when the Puffster's crackberry went off TWICE with e-mails from the Liberal Fact-ory, popularly known as the war room, setting the record straight.
One smack for Jason was funny. Two was hysterical.
Self-imolation on national TV as a campaign strategy. Something tells me that one won't be catching on like blogging.
Bond Papers Prediction: RCMP will find no basis for a criminal investigation.
NDP and Connies will hint strongly that even the Queen's Cowboys are on the take to Paul's Crew.
2. What's love got to do with it? Jason Kenney is apparently upset with Liberal "attacks on his Fearless Leader. The attacks - unlike Kenney's lunatic smears - raised questions about Kenney's boss based on facts, specifically, Harper's answer to the simple question: "Do you love this country?"
Harper's answer: ""Well, I said Canada is a great country. You know, all of us who get involved in public life spend a lot of time away from our families to go across the country, probably get in many ways the most rewarding experience you could have, you know. It's not tourist travel, you don't see all the hot spots and all the great sights but you get a real sense -- the kind old and the of traveling I've done, especially the last seven or eight months, you get a real sense of Canadians, where they live, who they are and what their challenges are. And I think the country has unlimited potential. That's why I think it would be so exciting to take over at this point in our history. But I think it's necessary to make a change if we're going to realize that potential."
My answer, if asked the same question: "Yes."
Maybe, "Of course".
It wasn't an essay question .
3. Upping the birthrate, the Tory way. Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm wants a tax break to encourage people to have more babies.
Whatever floats yer boat, there, John, bye, but dropping taxes so more Canadian males drop trou' is bordering on something a bit too kinky.
Call me weird.
A thong, high heels, and soft music usually work for me.
4. Our very own Ken Starr. The factual gulf between Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay, DDS is being more widely reported. Find a version of it on Mark Watton's blog.
We are starting to see the outlines of a strategy devised by Harper's games theory buddies: if we know you will commit "X" number of mistakes during the campaign and a big one towards the end is deadly (like last time), then let's deliberately shag up in the front of the campaign.
That way, statistically, we have nothing but good stuff to happen for the part of the campaign closest to voting day.
Conservative Jason Kenney had yet another factual meltdown with Mike Duffy last night.
Negative campaigning is designed to suppress the other guys vote. Kenney missed the part of Konnie Kampaign Kollege where it was explained that neg has to be based on fact. Based on fact, a negative will stick and have effect.
Bullshit, like napalm, sticks. 'Cept it sticks to the one that flung the bullshit. That's an effect you don't want, Jason.
Kenney himself has admitted there is no evidence to support his whacked out claims of high level corruption in the finance department, which Kenney quickly points out are not actually accusations of high level corruption.
Funniest moment with Puffy: when the Puffster's crackberry went off TWICE with e-mails from the Liberal Fact-ory, popularly known as the war room, setting the record straight.
One smack for Jason was funny. Two was hysterical.
Self-imolation on national TV as a campaign strategy. Something tells me that one won't be catching on like blogging.
Bond Papers Prediction: RCMP will find no basis for a criminal investigation.
NDP and Connies will hint strongly that even the Queen's Cowboys are on the take to Paul's Crew.
2. What's love got to do with it? Jason Kenney is apparently upset with Liberal "attacks on his Fearless Leader. The attacks - unlike Kenney's lunatic smears - raised questions about Kenney's boss based on facts, specifically, Harper's answer to the simple question: "Do you love this country?"
Harper's answer: ""Well, I said Canada is a great country. You know, all of us who get involved in public life spend a lot of time away from our families to go across the country, probably get in many ways the most rewarding experience you could have, you know. It's not tourist travel, you don't see all the hot spots and all the great sights but you get a real sense -- the kind old and the of traveling I've done, especially the last seven or eight months, you get a real sense of Canadians, where they live, who they are and what their challenges are. And I think the country has unlimited potential. That's why I think it would be so exciting to take over at this point in our history. But I think it's necessary to make a change if we're going to realize that potential."
My answer, if asked the same question: "Yes."
Maybe, "Of course".
It wasn't an essay question .
3. Upping the birthrate, the Tory way. Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm wants a tax break to encourage people to have more babies.
Whatever floats yer boat, there, John, bye, but dropping taxes so more Canadian males drop trou' is bordering on something a bit too kinky.
Call me weird.
A thong, high heels, and soft music usually work for me.
4. Our very own Ken Starr. The factual gulf between Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay, DDS is being more widely reported. Find a version of it on Mark Watton's blog.
We are starting to see the outlines of a strategy devised by Harper's games theory buddies: if we know you will commit "X" number of mistakes during the campaign and a big one towards the end is deadly (like last time), then let's deliberately shag up in the front of the campaign.
That way, statistically, we have nothing but good stuff to happen for the part of the campaign closest to voting day.
Danny Williams' letter to Santa
Tabled in the House of Assembly yesterday, here is a copy of Danny Williams letter to the federal party leaders.
The Premier likes to point out the success of his last such letter during the 2004 election.
Here's what actually happened:
The PM didn't respond to the letter. He stayed at the negotiating table and worked out the deal the Premier eventually signed.
Stephen Harper flatly rejected the premier's ideas on every level. If you doubt me, I'll post Harper's reply.
Jack Layton is the only guy who endorsed the Premier's position to the "t".
It'll be interesting to see what happens this time out.
The Premier likes to point out the success of his last such letter during the 2004 election.
Here's what actually happened:
The PM didn't respond to the letter. He stayed at the negotiating table and worked out the deal the Premier eventually signed.
Stephen Harper flatly rejected the premier's ideas on every level. If you doubt me, I'll post Harper's reply.
Jack Layton is the only guy who endorsed the Premier's position to the "t".
It'll be interesting to see what happens this time out.
30 November 2005
SES Research - the pollster to watch
Building on the success of analysis for the Canadian parliamentary channel CPAC, pollster SES Research is launching a new nightly tracking survey during this election.
To keep abreast of the latest, accurate numbers, tune in or go to the the SES website.
To keep abreast of the latest, accurate numbers, tune in or go to the the SES website.
Rolling in the aisles
That's what voters in Newfoundland and Labrador will be doing when they read the story from the Globe and Mail that the federal Conservatives have targeted the riding of Avalon as a seat they can win in the upcoming election.
Minor problem: the Conservatives don't have a candidate there yet - despite obvious signs that john Efford wasn't running again. Last time things were so desperate that even John Crosbie mused about coming back to elected politics. That is, he mused about it until his wife, Jane, got wind of the windy former minister's bluster. Crosbie quickly pulled his horns in and went back to writing bitter tripe for a mainland newspaper chain that also boasts the wit if not the wisdom of bitter former cabinet minister Sheila Copps.
Popular local member of the House of Assembly Fabian Manning is being courted by the federal Conservatives. Outside the legislature the other day Manning gave a dozen solid reasons why he wouldn't seek the nomination. Then, Manning said he was still 50/50 and thinking about it. Unless Harper makes Fabe an offer he can't refuse, count on Manning staying put.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives held onto their two seats in Newfoundland and Labrador by a mere five percent last time out. Incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle took a drubbing after the election for their stance on the offshore revenue deal. They voted for it before they voted against it and that tested the tolerance of even some staunch Tories.
Such was the din of disapproval that Hearn mused about going off fishing rather than run again. Doyle blamed "Liberal spin doctors" in St. John's for his problems. Try as I might, I couldn't get Norm to blame me personally.
If nothing else, the Globe piece represents putting a brave face on things. Go back to the polls and check the seat counters. Every scenario based on current numbers show the Conservatives losing seats in this election. Even in the Globe story, the Connie insiders admit that they expect to lose seats in the West to New Democrats.
They may lose seats in other places too, just like it is possible the Conservatives will pick up a bunch. If it nets out to fewer seats on The Day, then this election may well have been for naught.
Minor problem: the Conservatives don't have a candidate there yet - despite obvious signs that john Efford wasn't running again. Last time things were so desperate that even John Crosbie mused about coming back to elected politics. That is, he mused about it until his wife, Jane, got wind of the windy former minister's bluster. Crosbie quickly pulled his horns in and went back to writing bitter tripe for a mainland newspaper chain that also boasts the wit if not the wisdom of bitter former cabinet minister Sheila Copps.
Popular local member of the House of Assembly Fabian Manning is being courted by the federal Conservatives. Outside the legislature the other day Manning gave a dozen solid reasons why he wouldn't seek the nomination. Then, Manning said he was still 50/50 and thinking about it. Unless Harper makes Fabe an offer he can't refuse, count on Manning staying put.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives held onto their two seats in Newfoundland and Labrador by a mere five percent last time out. Incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle took a drubbing after the election for their stance on the offshore revenue deal. They voted for it before they voted against it and that tested the tolerance of even some staunch Tories.
Such was the din of disapproval that Hearn mused about going off fishing rather than run again. Doyle blamed "Liberal spin doctors" in St. John's for his problems. Try as I might, I couldn't get Norm to blame me personally.
If nothing else, the Globe piece represents putting a brave face on things. Go back to the polls and check the seat counters. Every scenario based on current numbers show the Conservatives losing seats in this election. Even in the Globe story, the Connie insiders admit that they expect to lose seats in the West to New Democrats.
They may lose seats in other places too, just like it is possible the Conservatives will pick up a bunch. If it nets out to fewer seats on The Day, then this election may well have been for naught.
Election notes on a slow second day
Grewal is out. Geez, what a surprise.
Harper plans to campaign on cleaning up government, getting tough on crime and lowering taxes.
When you look at those three items (oh yeah and he mentioned Gomery but not by name), consider the poll by the Strategic Counsel and the issues that are important to Canadians. Corruption is the second largest issue for Canadians, but only 13% of Canadians. taxes are a concern for 5% of those polled. That's it. 5%. 'Tough on crime" or anything like it doesn't register.
Now in the past, some Connie bloggers have taken to bashing Allan Gregg over the head for being a sell-out. That is, they bash him when his polls give them numbers they don't like. I just note that the correlations or in some cases lack of correlations are interesting.
For my part, I am not sure that any of these points are vote tippers - that is, I am not sure which ones are the basis on which people will tip their vote one way or another.
Then over at CTV, you can find this comment from the Conservative leader on re-opening the equal marriage debate. Note the comment that Harper brought the issue up after his staff cut off the question period. It's a safe issue for Harper: Connies love it and he doesn't lose any votes by sticking with it. By contrast, shifting his position would mean that he'd actually lose the hard-core right wing, on which the whole right movement is built. Heck, he'd even have nominated candidates walking away from him if he stood up for equal marriage.
While I may disagree with his his stand, Harper's political posture is smart politics for him.
Meanwhile, the Globe is putting a dark cast on the story, highlighting the problems with re-opening a contentious issue from the last election. The National Lampoon is telling it as a great move forward, by protecting gay couples who are already married, even if parliament at some undefined point decides to repeal the equal marriage bill.
Harper plans to campaign on cleaning up government, getting tough on crime and lowering taxes.
When you look at those three items (oh yeah and he mentioned Gomery but not by name), consider the poll by the Strategic Counsel and the issues that are important to Canadians. Corruption is the second largest issue for Canadians, but only 13% of Canadians. taxes are a concern for 5% of those polled. That's it. 5%. 'Tough on crime" or anything like it doesn't register.
Now in the past, some Connie bloggers have taken to bashing Allan Gregg over the head for being a sell-out. That is, they bash him when his polls give them numbers they don't like. I just note that the correlations or in some cases lack of correlations are interesting.
For my part, I am not sure that any of these points are vote tippers - that is, I am not sure which ones are the basis on which people will tip their vote one way or another.
Then over at CTV, you can find this comment from the Conservative leader on re-opening the equal marriage debate. Note the comment that Harper brought the issue up after his staff cut off the question period. It's a safe issue for Harper: Connies love it and he doesn't lose any votes by sticking with it. By contrast, shifting his position would mean that he'd actually lose the hard-core right wing, on which the whole right movement is built. Heck, he'd even have nominated candidates walking away from him if he stood up for equal marriage.
While I may disagree with his his stand, Harper's political posture is smart politics for him.
Meanwhile, the Globe is putting a dark cast on the story, highlighting the problems with re-opening a contentious issue from the last election. The National Lampoon is telling it as a great move forward, by protecting gay couples who are already married, even if parliament at some undefined point decides to repeal the equal marriage bill.
29 November 2005
Rain Man needs some help deciding
Loyola Sullivan, known to some as the Rain Man for his ability to rattle off figures like ""about a hundred million dollars. uh huh. a hundred million dollars" without really saying anything, got some big help today from auditor general John Noseworthy.
The AG made some really obvious but sensible suggestions about the uses to which the offshore revenue windfall could be put. They are obvious to anyone except, maybe, the Rain Man.
Noseworthy noted that as it currently sits in the bank, the offshore cash is earning interest at a rate of about $60 million annually. Putting that cash toward the unfunded pension liabilities would produce an additional $90 million (or a total of $150 million per year) than can be directed to program spending or used to pay down the long-term debt.
In a media scrum outside the legislature, a grinning Sullivan said he has made recommendations to cabinet on how to dispose of "surplus cash" the government may have on hand. Truthfully, it is hard to know what Sullivan has to grin about.
First of all, he should have developed a plan for debt and deficit reduction - and announced it - long before now.
Second, his talk of "surplus cash" makes a mockery of his own announcement within the past few weeks that he had eliminated the current deficit and produce a surplus - overall - of less than $2.0 million. Sullivan's previous statement made it appear as though the cash surplus this year of well over $300 million by year end - had already been allocated and spent.
His comments today confirm the point made on the Bond Papers that in fact, Sullivan had erroneously hinted that he had no surplus on a cash basis. Face it, if there was no surplus cash - or very little - then there'd be no need for a cabinet paper.
Third, there is every sign that other cabinet ministers including the Premier have covetous eyes on the offshore cash. And that is the truly alarming prospect, as noted ">here previously. We will have considerable pressure to spend our future coming from within the provincial government. It might be too late for Loyola Sullivan to take good advice and do what is in the long term best interest of the province.
His fascination with numbers and decimal points seems to have overshadowed his ability to develop a sound plan and get on with the real job of a cabinet minister - making decisions.
The rain Man got some free advice today.
He should take advice from John Noseworthy and get on with the job of being finance minister...
rather than patting himself on the back when it suits his purpose and trotting out large numbers to frighten people when that suits his purpose.
Then Sullivan would have something to grin about.
And so would the rest of us.
The AG made some really obvious but sensible suggestions about the uses to which the offshore revenue windfall could be put. They are obvious to anyone except, maybe, the Rain Man.
Noseworthy noted that as it currently sits in the bank, the offshore cash is earning interest at a rate of about $60 million annually. Putting that cash toward the unfunded pension liabilities would produce an additional $90 million (or a total of $150 million per year) than can be directed to program spending or used to pay down the long-term debt.
In a media scrum outside the legislature, a grinning Sullivan said he has made recommendations to cabinet on how to dispose of "surplus cash" the government may have on hand. Truthfully, it is hard to know what Sullivan has to grin about.
First of all, he should have developed a plan for debt and deficit reduction - and announced it - long before now.
Second, his talk of "surplus cash" makes a mockery of his own announcement within the past few weeks that he had eliminated the current deficit and produce a surplus - overall - of less than $2.0 million. Sullivan's previous statement made it appear as though the cash surplus this year of well over $300 million by year end - had already been allocated and spent.
His comments today confirm the point made on the Bond Papers that in fact, Sullivan had erroneously hinted that he had no surplus on a cash basis. Face it, if there was no surplus cash - or very little - then there'd be no need for a cabinet paper.
Third, there is every sign that other cabinet ministers including the Premier have covetous eyes on the offshore cash. And that is the truly alarming prospect, as noted ">here previously. We will have considerable pressure to spend our future coming from within the provincial government. It might be too late for Loyola Sullivan to take good advice and do what is in the long term best interest of the province.
His fascination with numbers and decimal points seems to have overshadowed his ability to develop a sound plan and get on with the real job of a cabinet minister - making decisions.
The rain Man got some free advice today.
He should take advice from John Noseworthy and get on with the job of being finance minister...
rather than patting himself on the back when it suits his purpose and trotting out large numbers to frighten people when that suits his purpose.
Then Sullivan would have something to grin about.
And so would the rest of us.
28 November 2005
Election madness
Without a shred of evidence other than a vague "suspicion", Conservative member of parliament Jason Kenney is calling for an investigation of supposed insider trading that preceded last week's announcement by the federal government on income tax policy.
Kenney has no evidence of anything.
He admits that.
Just to make sure there is absolutely no doubt about it, let's repeat that:
Kenney has absolutely no evidence of anything wrong here.
and he admits he has no evidence.
Yet he makes a claim that, at its heart, suggests criminal activity on part of officials in Ralph Goodale's office.
The New Democrats are chiming in with the same call.
And the same absence of evidence.
As Canadian Press notes, there was a great deal of speculation in advance of the announcement, which took place after trading closed for the day.
However, speculation is what the stock market is all about. Changes in trading patterns don't necessarily mean anyone is up to anything criminal.
Meanwhile, both the police forces and the securities regulatory bodies in the country spend a lot of time keeping an eye out for just the sort of illegal activity Kenney is talking about. If they had any suspicions then, rest assured, they'd be all over this little situation.
As it is, all we have is taste of the utter insanity of the forthcoming election campaign.
People will be claiming all sorts of things without any evidence.
Sadly, we can likely also expect yet more of the "Libranos" and "Liberals = organized crime" crap that has been streaming from the Conservative benches for months.
Go back a few days and check the latest poll results, as well as the likely results, and you'll understand why the Conservative messaging is taking on an increasingly shrill tone. Compare it to the New Democrats' comments.
With the exception of the "Hey, I am implying criminal action but denying I am implying criminal action" stuff, the Dippers have been decidedly less shrill than their Connie partners.
Kenney has no evidence of anything.
He admits that.
Just to make sure there is absolutely no doubt about it, let's repeat that:
Kenney has absolutely no evidence of anything wrong here.
and he admits he has no evidence.
Yet he makes a claim that, at its heart, suggests criminal activity on part of officials in Ralph Goodale's office.
The New Democrats are chiming in with the same call.
And the same absence of evidence.
As Canadian Press notes, there was a great deal of speculation in advance of the announcement, which took place after trading closed for the day.
However, speculation is what the stock market is all about. Changes in trading patterns don't necessarily mean anyone is up to anything criminal.
Meanwhile, both the police forces and the securities regulatory bodies in the country spend a lot of time keeping an eye out for just the sort of illegal activity Kenney is talking about. If they had any suspicions then, rest assured, they'd be all over this little situation.
As it is, all we have is taste of the utter insanity of the forthcoming election campaign.
People will be claiming all sorts of things without any evidence.
Sadly, we can likely also expect yet more of the "Libranos" and "Liberals = organized crime" crap that has been streaming from the Conservative benches for months.
Go back a few days and check the latest poll results, as well as the likely results, and you'll understand why the Conservative messaging is taking on an increasingly shrill tone. Compare it to the New Democrats' comments.
With the exception of the "Hey, I am implying criminal action but denying I am implying criminal action" stuff, the Dippers have been decidedly less shrill than their Connie partners.
The blame game, a lame game
Flip over to RGL and you'll see a lengthy commentary that backs Loyola Hearn's contention that the federal government, i.e. the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), is solely responsible for the collapse of the cod stocks and their failure to recover.
What Liam misses, or choses to ignore, is that the latest report from the Commons fisheries committee makes it clear that there is enough blame to go around for everyone in the fishery. It is misleading to adopt a narrow approach to the definition of "management" such that it ignores the political, social and economic context in which governments make decisions. That is, if we take a narrow approach, as Liam and Loyola do, then we are apt to repeat the same errors made in the past.
Liam may find it painful that the report actually does not support his own pet views. However, he cannot blame me for this by asserting that the fisheries committee's own conclusions, as quoted here already, are actually mine. The words I used are the words the committee used.
There is no small irony here that when DFO - actually politicians - make(s) bad decisions, as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s in response to political pressure, the federal government is pilloried. One example is the recreational fishery and limited commercial fishery that began in 1998. Then, when it makes good decisions - such as resisting the calls for a wider recreational fishery and wider commercial fishery, despite evidence that the fish stocks could not sustain the new fisheries - DFO is once again attacked for not responding to political pressure.
What the latest report also contains are some concrete proposals that would change the overall management system, which the committee calls dysfunctional. In other words, they identify the problem and propose a way to fix it or at least start to fix it. One such suggestion is the use of local fishermen's committees to work with DFO on setting quotas for certain species and in certain locales.
The success of this approach was noted in several previous posts. As usual, people seem to ignore good ideas in favour of playing the blame game.
And ultimately, the blame game is a fool's errand. Focusing on blame alone provides no guide to future action. Often, the solutions proposed merely repeat past errors or do nothing to make the substantive changes in fisheries management which the Commons committee clearly thinks are necessary.
This brings us back to the original post and comments by Loyola Hearn. The member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl may wish to blame the federal government for the cod collapse. If he does, then he should make it plain those are his conclusions. If he doesn't agree with the report, then he has the responsibility to table a dissenting opinion - supported by evidence.
The problem comes when Hearn tables a report that doesn't support his conclusions and makes comments to the media that are, at best, misleading. Then he is doing a disservice to everyone involved in the report and in the fishery.
And that was the point of the previous post.
It is a point that gets conveniently ignored by some, along with the mountains of clear evidence that demonstrate Hearn's ideas are not based on fact.
What Liam misses, or choses to ignore, is that the latest report from the Commons fisheries committee makes it clear that there is enough blame to go around for everyone in the fishery. It is misleading to adopt a narrow approach to the definition of "management" such that it ignores the political, social and economic context in which governments make decisions. That is, if we take a narrow approach, as Liam and Loyola do, then we are apt to repeat the same errors made in the past.
Liam may find it painful that the report actually does not support his own pet views. However, he cannot blame me for this by asserting that the fisheries committee's own conclusions, as quoted here already, are actually mine. The words I used are the words the committee used.
There is no small irony here that when DFO - actually politicians - make(s) bad decisions, as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s in response to political pressure, the federal government is pilloried. One example is the recreational fishery and limited commercial fishery that began in 1998. Then, when it makes good decisions - such as resisting the calls for a wider recreational fishery and wider commercial fishery, despite evidence that the fish stocks could not sustain the new fisheries - DFO is once again attacked for not responding to political pressure.
What the latest report also contains are some concrete proposals that would change the overall management system, which the committee calls dysfunctional. In other words, they identify the problem and propose a way to fix it or at least start to fix it. One such suggestion is the use of local fishermen's committees to work with DFO on setting quotas for certain species and in certain locales.
The success of this approach was noted in several previous posts. As usual, people seem to ignore good ideas in favour of playing the blame game.
And ultimately, the blame game is a fool's errand. Focusing on blame alone provides no guide to future action. Often, the solutions proposed merely repeat past errors or do nothing to make the substantive changes in fisheries management which the Commons committee clearly thinks are necessary.
This brings us back to the original post and comments by Loyola Hearn. The member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl may wish to blame the federal government for the cod collapse. If he does, then he should make it plain those are his conclusions. If he doesn't agree with the report, then he has the responsibility to table a dissenting opinion - supported by evidence.
The problem comes when Hearn tables a report that doesn't support his conclusions and makes comments to the media that are, at best, misleading. Then he is doing a disservice to everyone involved in the report and in the fishery.
And that was the point of the previous post.
It is a point that gets conveniently ignored by some, along with the mountains of clear evidence that demonstrate Hearn's ideas are not based on fact.
26 November 2005
The political fish
It is hard to know if VOCM got it wrong or if Loyola Hearn actually blamed federal mismanagement for the continued poor state of cod stocks offshore Newfoundland.
Hearn is a member of the the House of Commons standing committee that just released a report on the cod stocks.
VOCM reports that Hearn "says the destruction of the Northern Cod is a direct result of federal mismanagement". VOCM also reports that Hearn is calling on the federal government to implement the recommendations contained in the report linked above.
Check The Telegram for Saturday, November 26, 2005 and there is another quote by Hearn, the guy who tabled the committee report in the Commons: "the destruction of the northern cod and its lack of recovery is a direct result of federal mismanagement."
The odd thing is that Hearn is not quoting the report when he blames the federal government for the lack of cod. Here's what the report actually says in black and white:
Hearn is a member of the the House of Commons standing committee that just released a report on the cod stocks.
VOCM reports that Hearn "says the destruction of the Northern Cod is a direct result of federal mismanagement". VOCM also reports that Hearn is calling on the federal government to implement the recommendations contained in the report linked above.
Check The Telegram for Saturday, November 26, 2005 and there is another quote by Hearn, the guy who tabled the committee report in the Commons: "the destruction of the northern cod and its lack of recovery is a direct result of federal mismanagement."
The odd thing is that Hearn is not quoting the report when he blames the federal government for the lack of cod. Here's what the report actually says in black and white:
...Overfishing has been clearly identified as the major factor in the decline of cod and other groundfish stocks, but not as the only factor. According to a number of past reports, a combination of factors was responsible, and fishermen, processors, scientists, fisheries managers and politicians all made mistakes. As stated by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) in its 1997 report, "The fishery crisis cannot be related to a single cause or blamed on a single group: it is the failure of our whole fisheries system."
In part, as a result of the "failure of our whole fisheries system," the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed on 8 February 2005 to undertake a study of the northern cod including the events leading to the collapse of the fishery and the failure of the stock to re-establish itself since the moratorium....[Page 2]
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. The cod stocks collapsed as a result of the entire fisheries system including both federal and provincial governments, politicians, processors, and fishermen.
If mismanagement was the cause, as the quote above notes and as the subsequent pages of the report document, the "mismanagement" extended to every sector of the industry.
Only Loyola Hearn can tell us why he misrepresented in such a blatant way the findings of a committee whose report he was tabling in parliament. It is tempting, and indeed, easiest, to simply put Hearn's comments down to the sort of old-fashioned "tell em anything" politics that we have heard from him so many times in the past.
Hearn has repeatedly demonstrated his love affair with misrepresentation. During the offshore revenue discussions over the past two years, for example, Hearn got so many basic facts wrong about oil and gas one would have a hard time believing he had been a provincial cabinet minister at the time the real Atlantic Accord was signed and passed by the legislature.
This is by no means a minor issue. The conclusions of a parliamentary committee should hold weight - indeed Hearn's words have been reported because the committee is taken generally as an important group, one with views that should be heeded.
The committee's report contains a great deal of valuable information and a solid set of recommendations. The report proposes a limited commercial fishery be re-opened where such a fishery can be supported by the populations. It calls for increased scientific research, a call that was seemingly heeded by an announcement by the federal fisheries minister of increased scientific research funding.
The report also contains recommendation for even stronger action against domestic overfishing:
RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to amending the Fisheries Act to deal with license violations using administrative sanctions subject to appeal through arm'’s-length tribunals;
That, in the interim, the Attorney General of Canada instruct federal prosecutors involved in Fisheries Actlicenseee violation cases to bring to the attention of the court, prior to sentencing, the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of investigating and prosecuting the offence, and to push for the maximum penalty under the law at sentencing; and
That any financial proceeds forfeited as a result of a conviction for license violations be used to support an enhanced dockside monitoring or some other equally important program.
This is a truly remarkable statement, given Hearn's claim that it was the federal government that bears responsibility for the death of the commercial cod fishery. The committee advocated stronger punishment for poaching and other forms of illegal fishing because witnesses who appeared before it and other evidence accumulated during its deliberations pointed precisely to domestic overfishing as a contributing factor in the decimation of the northern codstocks.
Yet the value in the committee's report does not end there. It's next recommendation is that the federal government create regional harvesting or conservation councils to give fishermen greater input into management decisions. The federal politicians - perhaps with the exception of Hearn - have clearly seen the benefit from similar committees at places like the Eastport peninsula.
This is a little known project but it has proven enormously successful. Local fisheries committees advise the federal fisheries minister on fish quotas. Their advice which combines the best scientific information plus the fishermen's own observations have led to dramatic improvements in the health of stocks such as lobster and have led to a dramatic decline - a near elimination - of poaching and other similar crimes.
This is the sort of progressive management approach that the Department of Fisheries and oceans has been quietly implementing. But few know of it when the news sadly is consumed by the rantings of men who once held positions of great political and industrial influence, but who offer little in the way of meaningful input. The only thing the have managed to do is distract people from both the real issues and the facts of the matter at hand.
All this leads back to Hearn and his false statements.
One of the strongest parts of the fisheries committee report is the comparison between what happened in Canada and what happened elsewhere in the face of problems in the cod fishery. In Canada, politicians seemed unable to ignore the pleadings of the fishing industry that quotas be maintaiend at levels the stocks could not support. They played political games with fish instead of acting responsibly. Our collective reward is the decimation of a fish stock that once fed generations throughout the North Atlantic world.
What we see in Hearn's blatant misrepresentation is truly yet more of the same political pandering to a small interest group against the facts, against the best advice. Ignored are the genuinely positive moves on enforcement of rules and on progressive management. Trotted out, instead, are the hoary myths, just in time for another election.
Having read both the Commons committee report and news coverage over the past two days, one can only agree with Telegram columnist and long-time fisheries reporter Joe Walsh. It is time to get cod out of the pork barrel.
Rather than focusing solely on the current federal government as he did, Walsh should have tossed Loyola Hearn into the mix. Hearn's interventions on fisheries issues since he went to Ottawa have been long on the pork and short - extremely short - on anything approaching a new idea that can be backed by facts.
The fisheries committee report spends a good deal of time documenting the mistakes of the 1980s.
Loyola Hearn should know about them. He sat in a provincial cabinet at the time.
One would have hoped he had learned from mistakes of the past.
All that comes to mind is another mangled phrase by Hearn's former cabinet mate and premier Tom Rideout. It had something to do with small, malodourous creatures that could not change their spots.
Strong language, to be sure, but seemingly appropriate on so many levels.
In part, as a result of the "failure of our whole fisheries system," the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed on 8 February 2005 to undertake a study of the northern cod including the events leading to the collapse of the fishery and the failure of the stock to re-establish itself since the moratorium....[Page 2]
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. The cod stocks collapsed as a result of the entire fisheries system including both federal and provincial governments, politicians, processors, and fishermen.
If mismanagement was the cause, as the quote above notes and as the subsequent pages of the report document, the "mismanagement" extended to every sector of the industry.
Only Loyola Hearn can tell us why he misrepresented in such a blatant way the findings of a committee whose report he was tabling in parliament. It is tempting, and indeed, easiest, to simply put Hearn's comments down to the sort of old-fashioned "tell em anything" politics that we have heard from him so many times in the past.
Hearn has repeatedly demonstrated his love affair with misrepresentation. During the offshore revenue discussions over the past two years, for example, Hearn got so many basic facts wrong about oil and gas one would have a hard time believing he had been a provincial cabinet minister at the time the real Atlantic Accord was signed and passed by the legislature.
This is by no means a minor issue. The conclusions of a parliamentary committee should hold weight - indeed Hearn's words have been reported because the committee is taken generally as an important group, one with views that should be heeded.
The committee's report contains a great deal of valuable information and a solid set of recommendations. The report proposes a limited commercial fishery be re-opened where such a fishery can be supported by the populations. It calls for increased scientific research, a call that was seemingly heeded by an announcement by the federal fisheries minister of increased scientific research funding.
The report also contains recommendation for even stronger action against domestic overfishing:
RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to amending the Fisheries Act to deal with license violations using administrative sanctions subject to appeal through arm'’s-length tribunals;
That, in the interim, the Attorney General of Canada instruct federal prosecutors involved in Fisheries Actlicenseee violation cases to bring to the attention of the court, prior to sentencing, the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of investigating and prosecuting the offence, and to push for the maximum penalty under the law at sentencing; and
That any financial proceeds forfeited as a result of a conviction for license violations be used to support an enhanced dockside monitoring or some other equally important program.
This is a truly remarkable statement, given Hearn's claim that it was the federal government that bears responsibility for the death of the commercial cod fishery. The committee advocated stronger punishment for poaching and other forms of illegal fishing because witnesses who appeared before it and other evidence accumulated during its deliberations pointed precisely to domestic overfishing as a contributing factor in the decimation of the northern codstocks.
Yet the value in the committee's report does not end there. It's next recommendation is that the federal government create regional harvesting or conservation councils to give fishermen greater input into management decisions. The federal politicians - perhaps with the exception of Hearn - have clearly seen the benefit from similar committees at places like the Eastport peninsula.
This is a little known project but it has proven enormously successful. Local fisheries committees advise the federal fisheries minister on fish quotas. Their advice which combines the best scientific information plus the fishermen's own observations have led to dramatic improvements in the health of stocks such as lobster and have led to a dramatic decline - a near elimination - of poaching and other similar crimes.
This is the sort of progressive management approach that the Department of Fisheries and oceans has been quietly implementing. But few know of it when the news sadly is consumed by the rantings of men who once held positions of great political and industrial influence, but who offer little in the way of meaningful input. The only thing the have managed to do is distract people from both the real issues and the facts of the matter at hand.
All this leads back to Hearn and his false statements.
One of the strongest parts of the fisheries committee report is the comparison between what happened in Canada and what happened elsewhere in the face of problems in the cod fishery. In Canada, politicians seemed unable to ignore the pleadings of the fishing industry that quotas be maintaiend at levels the stocks could not support. They played political games with fish instead of acting responsibly. Our collective reward is the decimation of a fish stock that once fed generations throughout the North Atlantic world.
What we see in Hearn's blatant misrepresentation is truly yet more of the same political pandering to a small interest group against the facts, against the best advice. Ignored are the genuinely positive moves on enforcement of rules and on progressive management. Trotted out, instead, are the hoary myths, just in time for another election.
Having read both the Commons committee report and news coverage over the past two days, one can only agree with Telegram columnist and long-time fisheries reporter Joe Walsh. It is time to get cod out of the pork barrel.
Rather than focusing solely on the current federal government as he did, Walsh should have tossed Loyola Hearn into the mix. Hearn's interventions on fisheries issues since he went to Ottawa have been long on the pork and short - extremely short - on anything approaching a new idea that can be backed by facts.
The fisheries committee report spends a good deal of time documenting the mistakes of the 1980s.
Loyola Hearn should know about them. He sat in a provincial cabinet at the time.
One would have hoped he had learned from mistakes of the past.
All that comes to mind is another mangled phrase by Hearn's former cabinet mate and premier Tom Rideout. It had something to do with small, malodourous creatures that could not change their spots.
Strong language, to be sure, but seemingly appropriate on so many levels.
25 November 2005
Find. Fix. Fire.
There's a reason why in both politics and the army they call it a campaign.
Winning requires strategy, logistics, co-ordination and flexibility.
There is only one winner.
Everyone else is a loser.
No one wants to be the loser.
The basic approach in a campaign consists of three words: find, fix and fire.
Find: This consists of finding your voters and those who will vote for The Other Guy. Opinion polling helps figure out the rough percentages and what issues and attitudes are motivating voters. A good voter identification program - polling by door-knocking or telephone refines the overall picture on a voting poll by voting poll basis.
You also want to find any swingers or wafflers. Those are the voters who either haven't committed yet, are leaning one way or the other (you need to find that out as well) and those who are in the other camp but who might be persuaded to switch sides.
Fix: Fix in this context means to hold your own voters in place. Political advertising and other communications are designed to reinforce your own supporters and get them worked up enough to want to go to the polls.
Fix, in this context, also involves efforts to dislodge TOG's voters. Plenty of people talk about negative campaigning and attack ads and while they are usually denounced, a properly conceived and executed attack phase of the campaign has proven extremely effective time and again, for party after party in doing one thing - suppressing the TOG's supporters.
Political communications in the fix portion of a campaign are also aimed to some extent at the swingers. The basic goal is to suppress the other guy's leaners, firm up the ones leaning to you, steal some of his weak ones and attract more of the undecideds.
Fire: Having found and fixed 'em, the last thing to do is to fire your voters into the polling booth on voting day.
This is where the voter identification campaign really pays off. Voting day is the most hectic day of the campaign: workers call identified party supporters and encourage them to vote. Drivers are dispatched to give people a free lift to the nearest polling station.
Scrutineers at the polling stations cross off voters as they come and send their data back to headquarters so identified supporters are crossed off the lists.
Energy then focuses in the last hours and minutes of the day to getting every last identified voter to a polling booth. Dragging, as it is commonly called, is about literally dragging anyone who hasn't voted to the polls.
There's an old saying that amateurs talk strategy and tactics while professionals talk logistics.
Well, in politics, the logistics are all about the voter identification program and the entire operation devoted to getting your supporters into a booth where they can mark an "x" for the right candidate.
Without it, you don't stand a hope in hell of winning.
But, in politics as in a military campaign, dominating the opinion environment through political communications makes the job of finding, fixing and firing that much easier. Increasingly, successful campaigns rely on solid comms support coupled with the log work for success
Political communications - the news releases, events, householders, buttons, signs and a website - play a key role. Screw that up and you can kiss the votes good bye. The best voter ID project in history won't save you.
Flood a newsroom with bullshit releases and you'll likely alienate reporters you need in order to get your messages on important issues carried to voters. Feed them pap or duck them and they'll faithfully report your failings to everyone who listens, watches or reads their stuff.
Ask municipal candidates in the recent St. John's election about that sort of stuff.
Issue a news release that calls your opponent a child molester's best friend - without solid evidence - then back the mistake to the hilt and you can cost yourself the campaign and with it victory.
Ask Stephen Harper about that one.
One of the telling features in the upcoming campaign will be political communications and, unlike voter ID programs, it is the one that is most visible.
So when the writ drops next week -*sigh* - pay close attention to the stuff in your mailbox, and on your television, radio, in the newspapers, or on the Internet. You'll be able to tell a lot about the strategies being employed simply through careful observation.
And among the commentators cropping up on the news, you'll also be able to spot the amateurs and the professionals.
Winning requires strategy, logistics, co-ordination and flexibility.
There is only one winner.
Everyone else is a loser.
No one wants to be the loser.
The basic approach in a campaign consists of three words: find, fix and fire.
Find: This consists of finding your voters and those who will vote for The Other Guy. Opinion polling helps figure out the rough percentages and what issues and attitudes are motivating voters. A good voter identification program - polling by door-knocking or telephone refines the overall picture on a voting poll by voting poll basis.
You also want to find any swingers or wafflers. Those are the voters who either haven't committed yet, are leaning one way or the other (you need to find that out as well) and those who are in the other camp but who might be persuaded to switch sides.
Fix: Fix in this context means to hold your own voters in place. Political advertising and other communications are designed to reinforce your own supporters and get them worked up enough to want to go to the polls.
Fix, in this context, also involves efforts to dislodge TOG's voters. Plenty of people talk about negative campaigning and attack ads and while they are usually denounced, a properly conceived and executed attack phase of the campaign has proven extremely effective time and again, for party after party in doing one thing - suppressing the TOG's supporters.
Political communications in the fix portion of a campaign are also aimed to some extent at the swingers. The basic goal is to suppress the other guy's leaners, firm up the ones leaning to you, steal some of his weak ones and attract more of the undecideds.
Fire: Having found and fixed 'em, the last thing to do is to fire your voters into the polling booth on voting day.
This is where the voter identification campaign really pays off. Voting day is the most hectic day of the campaign: workers call identified party supporters and encourage them to vote. Drivers are dispatched to give people a free lift to the nearest polling station.
Scrutineers at the polling stations cross off voters as they come and send their data back to headquarters so identified supporters are crossed off the lists.
Energy then focuses in the last hours and minutes of the day to getting every last identified voter to a polling booth. Dragging, as it is commonly called, is about literally dragging anyone who hasn't voted to the polls.
There's an old saying that amateurs talk strategy and tactics while professionals talk logistics.
Well, in politics, the logistics are all about the voter identification program and the entire operation devoted to getting your supporters into a booth where they can mark an "x" for the right candidate.
Without it, you don't stand a hope in hell of winning.
But, in politics as in a military campaign, dominating the opinion environment through political communications makes the job of finding, fixing and firing that much easier. Increasingly, successful campaigns rely on solid comms support coupled with the log work for success
Political communications - the news releases, events, householders, buttons, signs and a website - play a key role. Screw that up and you can kiss the votes good bye. The best voter ID project in history won't save you.
Flood a newsroom with bullshit releases and you'll likely alienate reporters you need in order to get your messages on important issues carried to voters. Feed them pap or duck them and they'll faithfully report your failings to everyone who listens, watches or reads their stuff.
Ask municipal candidates in the recent St. John's election about that sort of stuff.
Issue a news release that calls your opponent a child molester's best friend - without solid evidence - then back the mistake to the hilt and you can cost yourself the campaign and with it victory.
Ask Stephen Harper about that one.
One of the telling features in the upcoming campaign will be political communications and, unlike voter ID programs, it is the one that is most visible.
So when the writ drops next week -*sigh* - pay close attention to the stuff in your mailbox, and on your television, radio, in the newspapers, or on the Internet. You'll be able to tell a lot about the strategies being employed simply through careful observation.
And among the commentators cropping up on the news, you'll also be able to spot the amateurs and the professionals.
The five percent solution
Wander over to Responsible Government League and Liam has done everyone the favour of linking to a few sites about election predictions.
The Hill and Knowlton one is interesting. Who knows the algorithm they are using but if you make shifts in the vote, you can get a prediction of seat counts nationally and by province?
Muck around with it a bit. Plug in the most recent polling results from Decima for a January/February election. It produces a large increase in new Democrat seats at the expense of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Hmmm.
Swing five percent of the New Democrat vote to the Liberals and you get a Liberal majority government of 166 seats, a rump New Democrat caucus at nine and 79 Conservatives.
Swing five the other way and the national seat count comes up with 104 Liberals, 101 Conservatives and 42 New Democrats.
What does it take to produce a Conservative minority? Swing a total of 10 percent of the vote from Liberals to New Democrats. That still only gives the Conservatives 111 seats.
I flipped Liberals and New Democrats since their vote migration seems to be much more likely than a swing between Conservatives and Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats and any other similar conversion.
Drop down on the local scene and you get something rather curious. Current polling shows that the situation is actually pretty stable around these parts. In your own calculations, remember that the margin of error on national polls has the Atlantic margin of error heading for more than six or seven percent. That's way, way too much.
But basically, swing a few percentages one way or the other (Liberal and New Democrat) and it gets curious indeed.
A swing of just five percentage points in the vote from Dippers to Grits and poof: the two St. John's seats change hands.
Swing it the other way and the Connies would add Bonavista-Exploits to their pile. At least that's the seat that Hill and Knowlton peg for the changeover.
It's all good fun and speculation but here's the upshot of it all:
All the political parties have some method of statistically allocating seats based on poll results. What they are using is a slightly more sophisticated version of the H and K thingy, but it doesn't have to get really any better than having really good local numbers to plug in.
Even using the H and K predictor across the most likely scenarios it is one heckuva job for the Conservatives to pull off a majority government. It's even kinda tough to
give them a minority government of any comfortable shape or size.
The big winners are the New Democrats. Across most scenarios, including the most recent poll results, the Dippers come off with a big increase in their seat count.
That leaves you wondering why Stevie Harper is so hot for an election.
It makes it plain why Jack Layton wants to go sooner rather than later.
This sort of device will give you a better sense of where the battleground will be. On the ground, expect that Ontario is going to get a lot of attention. The media gaze might spread to some places on the prairies or into British Columbia hunting for swing seats.
As far as messages and strategy go, expect to see a lot of emphasis on a battle between the New Democrats and the Liberals. The Dippers have the magic five percent Liberals need to pull off a majority nationally.
In a perverse way, it's also what Conservatives need to gain power, barring a radical redesign of the party. Even Ralph Klein doesn't think that is likely. Harper is at his peak, give or take a couple of points. He just needs to reinforce his own side and get them to the polls, which should be an easy job since they are among the most motivated of voters.
But Steve Harper needs Jack Layton in order to put the Alberta boy in new digs at Sussex Drive.
Such is the odd nature of politics.
On a local level, take a close look at the messaging and strategy employed by the local Liberal campaigns. If they fall into the trap of fighting on Conservative territory or pushing Conservative issues - like the federal job presence thing - the best that they can hope for is a repeat of the same seat distribution.
They won't pick up swing-Connies with that line: those guys don't exist for one thing. As for former Progressive Conservative voters disaffected by Harper and Company, they might respond a bit to negative messaging but their Tory leanings will likely make them a hard sell on voting Liberal. They might stay home and not vote, but odds are they'd do that anyway.
But... if the local Libs focus on other issues and work hard at attracting some swing-Democrats - the people who exist and who can easily float from the NDP to the left of the Liberal Party - the rewards could be big.
It only takes a swing of five percent of New Democrat voters to the Liberal ranks, one way or another, to land Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle in Ottawa.
Think about it.
and watch closely.
The Hill and Knowlton one is interesting. Who knows the algorithm they are using but if you make shifts in the vote, you can get a prediction of seat counts nationally and by province?
Muck around with it a bit. Plug in the most recent polling results from Decima for a January/February election. It produces a large increase in new Democrat seats at the expense of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Hmmm.
Swing five percent of the New Democrat vote to the Liberals and you get a Liberal majority government of 166 seats, a rump New Democrat caucus at nine and 79 Conservatives.
Swing five the other way and the national seat count comes up with 104 Liberals, 101 Conservatives and 42 New Democrats.
What does it take to produce a Conservative minority? Swing a total of 10 percent of the vote from Liberals to New Democrats. That still only gives the Conservatives 111 seats.
I flipped Liberals and New Democrats since their vote migration seems to be much more likely than a swing between Conservatives and Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats and any other similar conversion.
Drop down on the local scene and you get something rather curious. Current polling shows that the situation is actually pretty stable around these parts. In your own calculations, remember that the margin of error on national polls has the Atlantic margin of error heading for more than six or seven percent. That's way, way too much.
But basically, swing a few percentages one way or the other (Liberal and New Democrat) and it gets curious indeed.
A swing of just five percentage points in the vote from Dippers to Grits and poof: the two St. John's seats change hands.
Swing it the other way and the Connies would add Bonavista-Exploits to their pile. At least that's the seat that Hill and Knowlton peg for the changeover.
It's all good fun and speculation but here's the upshot of it all:
All the political parties have some method of statistically allocating seats based on poll results. What they are using is a slightly more sophisticated version of the H and K thingy, but it doesn't have to get really any better than having really good local numbers to plug in.
Even using the H and K predictor across the most likely scenarios it is one heckuva job for the Conservatives to pull off a majority government. It's even kinda tough to
give them a minority government of any comfortable shape or size.
The big winners are the New Democrats. Across most scenarios, including the most recent poll results, the Dippers come off with a big increase in their seat count.
That leaves you wondering why Stevie Harper is so hot for an election.
It makes it plain why Jack Layton wants to go sooner rather than later.
This sort of device will give you a better sense of where the battleground will be. On the ground, expect that Ontario is going to get a lot of attention. The media gaze might spread to some places on the prairies or into British Columbia hunting for swing seats.
As far as messages and strategy go, expect to see a lot of emphasis on a battle between the New Democrats and the Liberals. The Dippers have the magic five percent Liberals need to pull off a majority nationally.
In a perverse way, it's also what Conservatives need to gain power, barring a radical redesign of the party. Even Ralph Klein doesn't think that is likely. Harper is at his peak, give or take a couple of points. He just needs to reinforce his own side and get them to the polls, which should be an easy job since they are among the most motivated of voters.
But Steve Harper needs Jack Layton in order to put the Alberta boy in new digs at Sussex Drive.
Such is the odd nature of politics.
On a local level, take a close look at the messaging and strategy employed by the local Liberal campaigns. If they fall into the trap of fighting on Conservative territory or pushing Conservative issues - like the federal job presence thing - the best that they can hope for is a repeat of the same seat distribution.
They won't pick up swing-Connies with that line: those guys don't exist for one thing. As for former Progressive Conservative voters disaffected by Harper and Company, they might respond a bit to negative messaging but their Tory leanings will likely make them a hard sell on voting Liberal. They might stay home and not vote, but odds are they'd do that anyway.
But... if the local Libs focus on other issues and work hard at attracting some swing-Democrats - the people who exist and who can easily float from the NDP to the left of the Liberal Party - the rewards could be big.
It only takes a swing of five percent of New Democrat voters to the Liberal ranks, one way or another, to land Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle in Ottawa.
Think about it.
and watch closely.
Condolences
Sincere condolences to the family of Private Braun Scott Woodfield, killed in a vehicle accident in Afghanistan this week.
Also injured in the incident were four other soldiers, who are reportedly recovering.
The soldiers, all members of 2 Royal Canadian Regiment, Gagetown, New Brunswick, were riding in a LAV-III at the time of the roll-over accident. The LAV-III is similar to the one pictured.
Also injured in the incident were four other soldiers, who are reportedly recovering.
The soldiers, all members of 2 Royal Canadian Regiment, Gagetown, New Brunswick, were riding in a LAV-III at the time of the roll-over accident. The LAV-III is similar to the one pictured.
And Gerry and Scott wonder why they aren't in cabinet?
This little piece of news from yesterday is an example of the kind of politics no one wants or needs from any political party.
Member of parliament Gerry Byrne actually issued a news release yesterday to slag the chairman of the provincial caucus in Ottawa and the federal government for making an announcement on municipal infrastructure in St. John's, instead of some other place, like Stephenville.
Byrne isn't criticising the program. He's criticising the decision of where to announce it.
And that relatively minor point is enough to get a politician to issue an angry news release?
It isn't enough that people want to fight with Ottawa. Nope, now we have to fight over where to announce a program that will pour much needed federal cash into water and sewer work in every community in the province, including St. John's.
Surely, there is something just a tad more important to talk about Gerry than this kind of trivia.
When Gerry was the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), Gerry's news release were written so that they looked like they were coming in the community involved. Truth is they came from the ACOA office in St. John's. Did that change the impact of the money one way or the other, Gerry?
Then to cap it all, Scott Simms - the caucus chair under attack - simply pawns the thing off on the federal minister.
Way to go, boys.
Way to go.
Member of parliament Gerry Byrne actually issued a news release yesterday to slag the chairman of the provincial caucus in Ottawa and the federal government for making an announcement on municipal infrastructure in St. John's, instead of some other place, like Stephenville.
Byrne isn't criticising the program. He's criticising the decision of where to announce it.
And that relatively minor point is enough to get a politician to issue an angry news release?
It isn't enough that people want to fight with Ottawa. Nope, now we have to fight over where to announce a program that will pour much needed federal cash into water and sewer work in every community in the province, including St. John's.
Surely, there is something just a tad more important to talk about Gerry than this kind of trivia.
When Gerry was the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), Gerry's news release were written so that they looked like they were coming in the community involved. Truth is they came from the ACOA office in St. John's. Did that change the impact of the money one way or the other, Gerry?
Then to cap it all, Scott Simms - the caucus chair under attack - simply pawns the thing off on the federal minister.
Way to go, boys.
Way to go.
24 November 2005
Gee, how interesting
Just took a second a skimmed some postings to electionpredictions.org on the 2004 outing, specifically for St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
I threw something up there at one point during the campaign. Read my comments with the benefit of hindsight and you can make a judgement about whether I was on or off-base. I predicted a Liberal win (giddy optimism) or that it was too close to call. Certainly I documented all the problems in the Hearn camp that, oddly enough, turned out to be...true.
Scroll down a little further and see the prognostications of one Liam O'Brien. Hearn was rock solid and safe, according to Liam.
He won by a mere 1500 votes or so.
As always, I'll let you be the judge.
Just notice one thing - Conservative supporters are extremely adept at using the Internet and comments sections like the ones at EP.org just like people use open line shows or greenhouses: they pack 'em with plants. It's all part of the game, but any day now you can tune out VOCM. It will just be full of the faithful of all political parties jamming the lines for their candidates.
I threw something up there at one point during the campaign. Read my comments with the benefit of hindsight and you can make a judgement about whether I was on or off-base. I predicted a Liberal win (giddy optimism) or that it was too close to call. Certainly I documented all the problems in the Hearn camp that, oddly enough, turned out to be...true.
Scroll down a little further and see the prognostications of one Liam O'Brien. Hearn was rock solid and safe, according to Liam.
He won by a mere 1500 votes or so.
As always, I'll let you be the judge.
Just notice one thing - Conservative supporters are extremely adept at using the Internet and comments sections like the ones at EP.org just like people use open line shows or greenhouses: they pack 'em with plants. It's all part of the game, but any day now you can tune out VOCM. It will just be full of the faithful of all political parties jamming the lines for their candidates.
It never ceases to amaze me...
the volume of copy that can be generated in response to a simple comment.
Flip to the Responsible Government League and enjoy the feast.
Of course, the volume of the reply, either in number of words or the intensity of voice with which they should be read, does not render them any more credible than anything else.
Flip to the Responsible Government League and enjoy the feast.
Of course, the volume of the reply, either in number of words or the intensity of voice with which they should be read, does not render them any more credible than anything else.
Heads and bodies
In a small exercise in news reading, try this gem from the Globe and Mail.
Read the whole thing and then consider a simple question: Does the headline match the whole piece?
The short answer is no. The headline grabs attention but it is also misleading. The subhead just reinforces the misinformation.
All I can say is this: don't believe everything you read. Or believe it. It's up to you. But it could be accurate and it could be misinformation.
Meanwhile in the Land O'Spin that used to be Responsible Government League, any pretension that RGL is an unbiased, fair and balanced place to find reliable information definitely went out the window this week.
Take a gander at the piece on giving Paul Martin the boot, in which the PM is called a variety of names. My favourite part, of course, is where former reporter O'Brien practices "spin". [He is always quick to accuse others of doing it.]
Follow the link to the Prime Minister's speech and you'll see he merely referred to a military pay raise. Liam claims the PM was talking about soldiers not getting paid at all. Wow, my widdle tin top couldn't spin like that.
Of course, that's just the latest spintastic uttering from RGL. A little while ago he was telling us that a poll which - like all other polls - had the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives was actually a statistical tie between the Grits and the Connies.
Utter tripe, but RGL peddled it anyway.
And the RGL site seems to be descending rapidly into nothing more than name calling, for example calling the PM a "sick sob". The other day John Efford was called a sell-out.
Ah well, at least we know that RGL is written by an unbiased, non-partisan, fair and impartial writer who accurately conveys facts solely for the purpose of informing his readers such that they can form their own opinions.
Yeah right. I am just waiting for the latest Connie flash animation to pop up on a site that, sadly, is falling back into being a place where logic routinely takes flight if not Really Great Leaps.
Read the whole thing and then consider a simple question: Does the headline match the whole piece?
The short answer is no. The headline grabs attention but it is also misleading. The subhead just reinforces the misinformation.
All I can say is this: don't believe everything you read. Or believe it. It's up to you. But it could be accurate and it could be misinformation.
Meanwhile in the Land O'Spin that used to be Responsible Government League, any pretension that RGL is an unbiased, fair and balanced place to find reliable information definitely went out the window this week.
Take a gander at the piece on giving Paul Martin the boot, in which the PM is called a variety of names. My favourite part, of course, is where former reporter O'Brien practices "spin". [He is always quick to accuse others of doing it.]
Follow the link to the Prime Minister's speech and you'll see he merely referred to a military pay raise. Liam claims the PM was talking about soldiers not getting paid at all. Wow, my widdle tin top couldn't spin like that.
Of course, that's just the latest spintastic uttering from RGL. A little while ago he was telling us that a poll which - like all other polls - had the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives was actually a statistical tie between the Grits and the Connies.
Utter tripe, but RGL peddled it anyway.
And the RGL site seems to be descending rapidly into nothing more than name calling, for example calling the PM a "sick sob". The other day John Efford was called a sell-out.
Ah well, at least we know that RGL is written by an unbiased, non-partisan, fair and impartial writer who accurately conveys facts solely for the purpose of informing his readers such that they can form their own opinions.
Yeah right. I am just waiting for the latest Connie flash animation to pop up on a site that, sadly, is falling back into being a place where logic routinely takes flight if not Really Great Leaps.
22 November 2005
Bond makes parliament. Not.
Cue the music.
Bond.
Robert Bond.
Agent 006.9
License to annoy.
The Blocheads brought up alleged Central Intelligence Agency flights through Newfoundland.
This has been covered already on the Bond Papers with a bit more detail than offered by Canadian Press.
Here's a story that ran in Saturday's La Presse, in which Anne Maclellan claims there's no reason to believe the aircraft under contract to the CIA transitted Canada carrying any detainees.
La Presse and others have shagged up the story by focusing on the Cessnas.
I have the records, Anne, for more interesting aircraft that definitely flew through St. John's. There may not have been detainees on them - we really don't know for sure and never will - but there's no doubt that airplanes identified by many sources as being under contract to the CIA have routinely used Canadian airports on their way to and from Europe. The most recent flight was last week.
Bond.
Robert Bond.
Agent 006.9
License to annoy.
The Blocheads brought up alleged Central Intelligence Agency flights through Newfoundland.
This has been covered already on the Bond Papers with a bit more detail than offered by Canadian Press.
Here's a story that ran in Saturday's La Presse, in which Anne Maclellan claims there's no reason to believe the aircraft under contract to the CIA transitted Canada carrying any detainees.
La Presse and others have shagged up the story by focusing on the Cessnas.
I have the records, Anne, for more interesting aircraft that definitely flew through St. John's. There may not have been detainees on them - we really don't know for sure and never will - but there's no doubt that airplanes identified by many sources as being under contract to the CIA have routinely used Canadian airports on their way to and from Europe. The most recent flight was last week.
A sensible purchase or more of the same old pork barrel?
With the announcement of the new transport aircraft purchase today comes a bit of grousing about the process.
The air force needs aircraft in operation within three years.
Suppliers have 30 days to register and qualify.
This gives a leg up to Lockheed and its C-130J. The logic is compelling: proven airframe. Bags of spares and other operators with whom we work already.
Advocates of the Airbus Industries A400M can check here to confirm that the aircraft hasn't even flown yet. First flight is expected in 2008 and first deliveries in 2009. Add a few years to that time scale owing to inevitable development delays.
The only way Airbus can meet the tender specs would be to provide Canada with a substitute airframe - like maybe Hercs - in the interim 'til their bird gets off the ground. Personally, I'd view this as a potentially competitive bid only if there are guarantees that indemnify Canada against any potential cock-ups and cost over-runs on a completely unproven commodity.
There's also the Antonov An-70, which flew in 1994. I have a soft spot for Russian aircraft but from a practical standpoint, this is a non-starter.
Predictably the Opposition slagged today's announcement for political reasons.
Let's hope no one says anything as monumentally stupid as Jean Chretien's attacks on the EH-101 before the 1993 election. Crouton was wrong, wrong, wrong, except for the political mileage he got out it. But the result of his decision was millions of dollars in needless added costs and final procurement of an adequate but smaller number of helicopters.
Before any Connies get a smug smirk on their faces, just remember the LSVW, the Griffon, the naval presence in Quebec program, maple syrup and a few other choice procurement cock-ups that cost Canadians billions in cash doled out as political pork.
Flip back to the Canadian Press story linked above and you'll see Conservative defence critic Gordo O'Connor complaining that the specs are written to preclude competition. He needs to take a hard look at the A400 program - there's no reason to shag around waiting for that aircraft to prove it can fly. Maybe it can get in on another procurement after the Hercs are ready to retire.
The only thing of substance Gordo said today was that his government would further delay buying these long-overdue aircraft.
Well, that and the bit where he stated the obvious: we aren't going to buy Boeing C-17s. Gordo, they are too big and the operating costs are too great for Canada. Very few of our allies fly anything that big - for just those reasons. C-17s would be nice if we could afford them, but we can't. And they aren't vital.
Both O'Connor and the defence critic sounded like they were more concerned about local, short-term job creation - i.e. pork - than in off-the-shelf, efficient procurement of the equipment actually needed by the Canadian Forces.
They just didn't promise to cancel the procurement.
Yet.
The anticipated J Herc buy makes sense in every respect.
Let's hope it doesn't fall victim to crass politicking.
The air force needs aircraft in operation within three years.
Suppliers have 30 days to register and qualify.
This gives a leg up to Lockheed and its C-130J. The logic is compelling: proven airframe. Bags of spares and other operators with whom we work already.
Advocates of the Airbus Industries A400M can check here to confirm that the aircraft hasn't even flown yet. First flight is expected in 2008 and first deliveries in 2009. Add a few years to that time scale owing to inevitable development delays.
The only way Airbus can meet the tender specs would be to provide Canada with a substitute airframe - like maybe Hercs - in the interim 'til their bird gets off the ground. Personally, I'd view this as a potentially competitive bid only if there are guarantees that indemnify Canada against any potential cock-ups and cost over-runs on a completely unproven commodity.
There's also the Antonov An-70, which flew in 1994. I have a soft spot for Russian aircraft but from a practical standpoint, this is a non-starter.
Predictably the Opposition slagged today's announcement for political reasons.
Let's hope no one says anything as monumentally stupid as Jean Chretien's attacks on the EH-101 before the 1993 election. Crouton was wrong, wrong, wrong, except for the political mileage he got out it. But the result of his decision was millions of dollars in needless added costs and final procurement of an adequate but smaller number of helicopters.
Before any Connies get a smug smirk on their faces, just remember the LSVW, the Griffon, the naval presence in Quebec program, maple syrup and a few other choice procurement cock-ups that cost Canadians billions in cash doled out as political pork.
Flip back to the Canadian Press story linked above and you'll see Conservative defence critic Gordo O'Connor complaining that the specs are written to preclude competition. He needs to take a hard look at the A400 program - there's no reason to shag around waiting for that aircraft to prove it can fly. Maybe it can get in on another procurement after the Hercs are ready to retire.
The only thing of substance Gordo said today was that his government would further delay buying these long-overdue aircraft.
Well, that and the bit where he stated the obvious: we aren't going to buy Boeing C-17s. Gordo, they are too big and the operating costs are too great for Canada. Very few of our allies fly anything that big - for just those reasons. C-17s would be nice if we could afford them, but we can't. And they aren't vital.
Both O'Connor and the defence critic sounded like they were more concerned about local, short-term job creation - i.e. pork - than in off-the-shelf, efficient procurement of the equipment actually needed by the Canadian Forces.
They just didn't promise to cancel the procurement.
Yet.
The anticipated J Herc buy makes sense in every respect.
Let's hope it doesn't fall victim to crass politicking.
Spook-tracking
The old hit counter tells me that the most popular searches used to find the Bond Papers over the past few days have been registration numbers and companies linked to the story about Central Intelligence Agency aircraft.
Normally, the most common search terms are "bond papers", "sir robert bond" and "ed hollett". I figured I'd be picking up some Harry Potter hits this weekend bu so far not a one.
For some reason, Sir Robert's spook plane post was enough to get into google's top 20 hits for certain search terms.
Those hits, in turn, led me back to several google searches of my own that confirm that most of the key aircraft listed in the news stories have indeed passed through St. John's on their way to places like Afghanistan. Dates and places all listed with detail and seeming accuracy.
Those searches also confirm that there are a bunch of Roy Croppers out there who carry the fine English tradition of trainspotting for aircraft at various places around Europe.
Good job lads!
Perhaps you can find gainful employment sequencing DNA.
Normally, the most common search terms are "bond papers", "sir robert bond" and "ed hollett". I figured I'd be picking up some Harry Potter hits this weekend bu so far not a one.
For some reason, Sir Robert's spook plane post was enough to get into google's top 20 hits for certain search terms.
Those hits, in turn, led me back to several google searches of my own that confirm that most of the key aircraft listed in the news stories have indeed passed through St. John's on their way to places like Afghanistan. Dates and places all listed with detail and seeming accuracy.
Those searches also confirm that there are a bunch of Roy Croppers out there who carry the fine English tradition of trainspotting for aircraft at various places around Europe.
Good job lads!
Perhaps you can find gainful employment sequencing DNA.
Connies to target Santa; Dippers to support motion on "old, straight white guy"
Left: Stephen Harper's discomfort with people dressed in red clothes handing out presents started early.Ottawa - Myron T. Grinchberg (C Angryville-Bitter Creek) said today that as part of opposition plans to force a Christmas election, his party will be introducing a bill in the House of Commons to force Elections Canada to include all Christmas celebrations and advertising as Liberal Party of Canada election expenses.
"Well, Santa is obviously a Liberal," said Grinchberg, the critic for Sucking the Fun Out of Anything. "He dresses in red and hands out goodies to everyone. There is no way that the Liberal Party of Canada should be able to get that kind of support for their corrupt regime, from a guy who is obviously a secret agent for Liberals."
Grinchberg said the very notion of handing out gifts for free confirms Santa's political leanings. He said Santa is just another shameless attempt by Liberals to buy the upcoming election using good will, happy thoughts and a raft of public money.
"Who the heck pays for all that stuff he drops from the sleigh? There's no way Santa can run his operation without massive government handouts." Grinchberg said a new Conservative government under Stephen Harper will widen the powers of the Gomery inquiry to find out what federal money was shunted to Santa by Grit insiders. 'This whole thing makes sponsorship look like really small potatoes."
"Besides, Santa is just an anagram of Satan," said Grinchberg, noting that this confirms that all Liberals are agents of the devil.
A spokesperson for the New Democrats said she expected her party to support the motion. "Santa doesn't reflect the cultural diversity of our country. Besides that the whole myth just teaches our children that the only good things come from straight, old white guys."
The spokesperson, who commented only on condition of anonymity, said federal New Democrats are concerned that Mrs. Claus is kept hidden in the background, perpetuating the sexism of Canadian culture. She said there is also a problem with an entire operation built on the backs of the physically disadvantaged or disabled.
"Obviously, Santa couldn't do what he does without the support of his family and the thousands of underpaid short people he employs in near-slavery. They deserve full recognition and a fair wage." The Dipper spokesperson said it is likely Santa set up his factory in territory once controlled by the federal government to escape provincial labour legislation."
Calls to the Bloc were not returned, but a party insider confirmed that the Bloc is looking at including the North Pole as part of an independent Quebec. He said the new Parti Quebecois leader finds the white powdery substance of the Arctic strangely compelling and his views will strongly influence the Bloc members of the federal parliament.
21 November 2005
Coyne to face Layton
While she was a rumoured candidate last time around, it looks like Deborah Coyne will tackle Dipper boss Jack Layton in the upcoming election.
I worked with Deborah eons ago. She is fluently bi-lingual, tough, knowledgeable and articulate. She's a veteran campaigner and Layton should have quite the fight on his hands.
Oh yeah.
And she is yet another one to hammer at the separatists, no matter where they are.
I worked with Deborah eons ago. She is fluently bi-lingual, tough, knowledgeable and articulate. She's a veteran campaigner and Layton should have quite the fight on his hands.
Oh yeah.
And she is yet another one to hammer at the separatists, no matter where they are.
Stevie Harper and the tin cup of firewater
Seems that Official Opposition leader Steve Harper is still careening toward an election sooner rather than later.
The most amazing thing about this drive to an election is that the polls are consistently running against all Opposition parties, except for the Bloc Quebec. In 1979, the last time a minority government fell on a confidence motion, public opinion ran squarely against the government and in favour of the Opposition Liberals.
A major battleground will be the swing seats in central and western Ontario. Most polls show that minor changes in the popular vote can produce enough switching in these seats to create a Conservative minority government.
Meanwhile, in the far east, it seems that the Conservatives have identified St. John's South-Mount Pearl as a potential swing seat. For those who don't know, the Connies already hold that seat, but expect that the incumbent will have a tough time hanging on to his seat against a strong competitor.
In the face of that likely tough fight, expect incumbent Loyola Hearn to either switch seats to Avalon - vacated by John Efford whom Hearn could never hope to have beaten and where Hearn actually lives - or to pack it in altogether and take his federal and provincial political pensions with him.
While he sits as a member of parliament in Ottawa, double-dipping Hearn continues to collect a provincial pension from his days as a Tory cabinet minister in the 1980s and opposition member in the early 1990s. His colleague, Norm Doyle, donates his provincial pension to local charities while he collects a salary as a federal member of parliament.
The most amazing thing about this drive to an election is that the polls are consistently running against all Opposition parties, except for the Bloc Quebec. In 1979, the last time a minority government fell on a confidence motion, public opinion ran squarely against the government and in favour of the Opposition Liberals.
A major battleground will be the swing seats in central and western Ontario. Most polls show that minor changes in the popular vote can produce enough switching in these seats to create a Conservative minority government.
Meanwhile, in the far east, it seems that the Conservatives have identified St. John's South-Mount Pearl as a potential swing seat. For those who don't know, the Connies already hold that seat, but expect that the incumbent will have a tough time hanging on to his seat against a strong competitor.
In the face of that likely tough fight, expect incumbent Loyola Hearn to either switch seats to Avalon - vacated by John Efford whom Hearn could never hope to have beaten and where Hearn actually lives - or to pack it in altogether and take his federal and provincial political pensions with him.
While he sits as a member of parliament in Ottawa, double-dipping Hearn continues to collect a provincial pension from his days as a Tory cabinet minister in the 1980s and opposition member in the early 1990s. His colleague, Norm Doyle, donates his provincial pension to local charities while he collects a salary as a federal member of parliament.
Herc buy back on track
Canadian Press is reporting that of the recently rumoured $12.1 billion worth of defence procurements on the table, the $4.6 billion transport purchase will go ahead.
The purchase is based on urgent need for new aircraft to replace the fleet of C-130E models, some of which have been in service since the early 1960s.
The purchase is based on urgent need for new aircraft to replace the fleet of C-130E models, some of which have been in service since the early 1960s.
20 November 2005
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 links between Devon and CIA are reported widely on the Internet and were recently reported by The New York Times. Sweden is investigation claims that other aircraft, such as N-168BF owned by Wells Fargo Bank and N-50BH, a Gulfstream III currently registered to Crystal Jet Aviation, have used Swedish airports. Given the flight paths for these aircraft, it is likely they landed at St. John's, Gander, Stephenville or Goose Bay on their way to and from other airports in North America.
A google search reveals this link for N-50BH, but reports the operator as Richmor Aviation of Schnectady, New York. Richmor's website no longer lists 50BH as being part of its fleet; this story from late last week quotes Richmor representatives as saying the aircraft was operated on a private charter.
While the aircraft and registration numbers above are correct, sometimes Internet sites get the wrong. This one, for example reports N-168D as being a Boeing 737 - it isn't.
Likewise, it shows a Boeing 737 with N-313P registration. Unfortunately N-313P is registered as a single engined aircraft.
A complete list of registration numbers being investigated by an Icelandic newspaper can be found here.
They are:
N1016M, Cessna 208;
N1018H, Cessna TR 182;
N120JM, Fairchild 227;
N1210Z, Cessna 441;
N157A, Beech 200C;
N162EM, showing as an unused number in Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) records;
N168BF, Raytheon Hawker 800 XP;
N168D;
N169KT, Boeing 727-269;
N173S, Beech 300;
N187D;
N196D;
N1HC, Gulfstream GV-SP
N204FN, showing as unassigned by FAA;
N212AZ, ATR-42;
N212CP, Cessna 208;
N2138T, currently reserved, and previously assigned to a currently deregistered CH-47;
N2189M, Lockheed 382 (Hercules);
N219D, CN-235;
N221SG, Learjet 35A;
N229AL, showing as not assigned;
N229WJ, Learjet 25D;
N312ME, Beech 200C;
N315CR, ATR-42;
N33NJ, Learjet 35A;
N35NK, Learjet 35A;
N368CE, Boeing 737;
N381AA, Douglas DC-7;
N393DF, unassigned;
N4009L, Beech 300C;
N403VP, Cessna 208;
N4042J, Beech 200;
N418MN, Learjet 45;
N42HN, Learjet 35A;
N4456A, Beech 200C;
N4489A, Beech 200C;
N4557C, Lockheed 382 (Hercules);
N470JF, ATR-42;
N475LC, Gulfstream IV;
N478GS, Gulfstream IV;
N505LL, DeHavilland DHC-8 300 series;
N50BH;
N5117H, unassigned;
N5139A, Beech 200.
For those who follow these things CIA's use of civilian contractors is nothing new. Air America operated for decades in southeast Asia, being replaced more recently by companies like Southern Air Transport.
One of SAT's Hercs even made into a shot in the movie, The Presidio. Check out the flightline in one scene as Mark Harmon and Sean Connery are investigating the murders. smack in the middle of a bunch of military Hercs is one with the unmistakable SAT livery.
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 links between Devon and CIA are reported widely on the Internet and were recently reported by The New York Times. Sweden is investigation claims that other aircraft, such as N-168BF owned by Wells Fargo Bank and N-50BH, a Gulfstream III currently registered to Crystal Jet Aviation, have used Swedish airports. Given the flight paths for these aircraft, it is likely they landed at St. John's, Gander, Stephenville or Goose Bay on their way to and from other airports in North America.
A google search reveals this link for N-50BH, but reports the operator as Richmor Aviation of Schnectady, New York. Richmor's website no longer lists 50BH as being part of its fleet; this story from late last week quotes Richmor representatives as saying the aircraft was operated on a private charter.
While the aircraft and registration numbers above are correct, sometimes Internet sites get the wrong. This one, for example reports N-168D as being a Boeing 737 - it isn't.
Likewise, it shows a Boeing 737 with N-313P registration. Unfortunately N-313P is registered as a single engined aircraft.
A complete list of registration numbers being investigated by an Icelandic newspaper can be found here.
They are:
N1016M, Cessna 208;
N1018H, Cessna TR 182;
N120JM, Fairchild 227;
N1210Z, Cessna 441;
N157A, Beech 200C;
N162EM, showing as an unused number in Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) records;
N168BF, Raytheon Hawker 800 XP;
N168D;
N169KT, Boeing 727-269;
N173S, Beech 300;
N187D;
N196D;
N1HC, Gulfstream GV-SP
N204FN, showing as unassigned by FAA;
N212AZ, ATR-42;
N212CP, Cessna 208;
N2138T, currently reserved, and previously assigned to a currently deregistered CH-47;
N2189M, Lockheed 382 (Hercules);
N219D, CN-235;
N221SG, Learjet 35A;
N229AL, showing as not assigned;
N229WJ, Learjet 25D;
N312ME, Beech 200C;
N315CR, ATR-42;
N33NJ, Learjet 35A;
N35NK, Learjet 35A;
N368CE, Boeing 737;
N381AA, Douglas DC-7;
N393DF, unassigned;
N4009L, Beech 300C;
N403VP, Cessna 208;
N4042J, Beech 200;
N418MN, Learjet 45;
N42HN, Learjet 35A;
N4456A, Beech 200C;
N4489A, Beech 200C;
N4557C, Lockheed 382 (Hercules);
N470JF, ATR-42;
N475LC, Gulfstream IV;
N478GS, Gulfstream IV;
N505LL, DeHavilland DHC-8 300 series;
N50BH;
N5117H, unassigned;
N5139A, Beech 200.
For those who follow these things CIA's use of civilian contractors is nothing new. Air America operated for decades in southeast Asia, being replaced more recently by companies like Southern Air Transport.
One of SAT's Hercs even made into a shot in the movie, The Presidio. Check out the flightline in one scene as Mark Harmon and Sean Connery are investigating the murders. smack in the middle of a bunch of military Hercs is one with the unmistakable SAT livery.
17 November 2005
Only one day to go...or so
With my son bouncing around the house wielding a wand and both he and my daughter wearing their new Hogwarts scarves all day, every day, you can guess that it is less than 24 hours to the premiere of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
They'll likely be digging out the robes they wore a few Hallowe'ens ago for the movie. The scarves are new, with son wearing a Slytherin one (his choice) and daughter wearing a Gryffindor one for her namesake actress' house.
We already have the computer game and the entire clan has been busily playing away. Not so long ago, before my daughter could truly work her way around the keyboard, her mother would be tormented endlessly to play any of the previous Harry Potter games for hours on end.
She did so willingly though because she is perhaps more of a Potter fan that the children.
If that's possible.
Now I must go and watch my hit counter ascend with all the speed of a Golden Snitch.
Will Charlie Sheen be applying?
This story from CNN covers Heidi Fleiss' latest business venture.
Charlie Sheen was a client of her old business, according to some stories. Perhaps he can be an employee or business partner this time around.
Curiously, CNN describes the patrons of Fleiss' former business as being "wealthy actors and clients". As if the actors - like Sheen - were not availing themselves of the charms of the young women Fleiss provided to keep the gentlemen company.
On the other hand, one of my favourite actors, Tom Sizemore, will not be applying. It was a messy story that included accusations that Fleiss doctored photos purporting to show bruises inflicted by Sizemore during their relationship.
Read the whole interview, though, and you can get a sense of a guy with a lot off what people euphemistically call "issues".
Still doesn't stop him from being a good actor.
Scroll down the right hand side of the blog and there's a link to Black Hawk Down - a Sizemore flick and one I categorize as being anti-war.
A fine movie.
Charlie Sheen was a client of her old business, according to some stories. Perhaps he can be an employee or business partner this time around.
Curiously, CNN describes the patrons of Fleiss' former business as being "wealthy actors and clients". As if the actors - like Sheen - were not availing themselves of the charms of the young women Fleiss provided to keep the gentlemen company.
On the other hand, one of my favourite actors, Tom Sizemore, will not be applying. It was a messy story that included accusations that Fleiss doctored photos purporting to show bruises inflicted by Sizemore during their relationship.
Read the whole interview, though, and you can get a sense of a guy with a lot off what people euphemistically call "issues".
Still doesn't stop him from being a good actor.
Scroll down the right hand side of the blog and there's a link to Black Hawk Down - a Sizemore flick and one I categorize as being anti-war.
A fine movie.
Experience counts...for precious little [updated]
The appointment of failed Tory candidate Joan Cleary to head the Bull Arm Corporation makes the second selection by the Premier of a person who is demonstrably unqualified or a person whose qualifications for the job are less than obvious.
Andy Wells' nomination to chair the province's offshore regulatory board was the first one. Wells has no relevant experience - at all. The excuse given for his nomination, namely the need to get greater benefits for this province from offshore oil, was patent nonsense. The offshore board has nothing to do with securing benefits for the province, for one thing. For another, the Premier has made it abundantly clear that he (and maybe PetroNewf) will be bringing home the offshore goodies to spread around. Wells would have nothing to do in securing benefits, the very reason given for his nomination.
Bull Arm is an industrial site, left over from construction of the Hibernia gravity-based structure. The president of the corporation would normally have extensive experience in managing major construction projects or in negotiating them. We'd expect to find someone appointed with a list of contacts in decision-making centres around the globe who could actually pull contracts out of their blackberry or Palmpilot.
One might be looking for someone with a background similar to that of PetroNewf's boss, Ed Martin.
In the worst case, one might expect someone with a sales background or a track record in real estate.
Joan Cleary is a registered nurse. Her oil and gas "experience" consists - entirely - of working at Bull Arm during some construction related to the Terra Nova production hull and on construction of oil tanks for the Whiffen Head oil storage facility. She was senior health consultant.
To really drive this point home, compare the official news release with Cleary's candidate bio. Then compare those two with the biographical note that accompanied the announcement of her appointment as chair of the workers' compensation board.
In 2004, Cleary was responsible at Bull Arm for "case management of all work-related injuries and liaison with medical facilities, WHSCC and on-site management." In other words, she was the on-site medical officer.
In 2005, Cleary is miraculously transformed into someone who "[w]as a senior health specialist for three years during the construction of the Terra Nova FPSO, a position that provided her with first-hand knowledge of the physical construction of the site to enable rapid emergency response." In other words, working there, she got to know where all the paths went and where all the key buildings were.
The latest version obscures Cleary's background with vague words. The Premier praises her commitment to the growth of the province economically, as revealed through her involvement in the community. According to the Premier, Cleary gets the job because, among other things, she is the mayor of a community near Bull Arm, is a Lionette and once ran a Brownie troop. As praiseworthy and noble as those things are, they don't make her qualified to run a heavy construction enterprise.
In other words, there is not a single thing in Joan Cleary's background that suggests she has any experience relevant to the position she now occupies. No doubt she is a fine person and very capable in her profession and in her elected position as mayor of Come By Chance. But that doesn't mean she can be expected to pull millions of dollars in business to Bull Arm.
If the position actually requires no relevant experience - that is if someone else will handle the marketing and management of the site - then one must question why the high-priced senior management positions at Bull Arm Corporation exist in the first place.
Only two years ago, the Tories were railing against the appointment of then-Premier Roger Grimes' communications director to the position as vice-president at Bull Arm. They were right to do so. In the current situation, anyone would be equally right to question not only the Cleary appointment but even the value of the position itself. After all, as with the Wells nomination, the significant chunk of offshore work likely to come Bull Arm's way will be wrangled by none other than Premier Danny Williams himself.
And here's a point not anticipated by the talking points drafted in the Premier's Office and liberally sprinkled around to the organized team of Open Line callers Premier Williams and his crew maintains:
Given that the Premier is taking the hydro corporation and turning it into an oil and gas company, it is only logical that an under-used asset of the government - Bull Arm - be turned over to people with exactly the kind of experience Bull Arm needs. The site at Bull Arm is exactly the kind of asset that a company like PetroNewf could use as the centrepiece of its offshore fabrication work.
It is a match made in someone's heaven, especially when one considers that in the process taxpayers would save the hundreds of millions of dollars in senior management positions occupied by a Joan Cleary or a Carl Cooper.
In other words, even if Joan Cleary was somehow qualified to head Bull Arm, government actually has no need of the position in the first place. One little tidbit of information people have forgotten is that the position of president has lain functionally vacant since 2001. Cooper was appointed as a vice-president.
If Bull Arm could survive without a president for all this time, surely it could survive just a wee bit longer.
Better still, by handing Bull Arm to PetroNewf, Premier Danny Williams could have saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands in needless salaries while also strengthening his own pet Crown corporation.
Joan Cleary's appointment leaves many people scratching their heads but hopefully not the same spots scratched raw in the wake of the Wells nomination. There is a reason for this Cleary thing. Not the ones being foisted by the government's orchestrated "Praise Joan on Open Line" campaign; there is a real reason. Maybe we'll find out in due course.
Let's just hope it has nothing to do with counteracting criticism of the Premier about his supposedly bad attitude toward women. For one thing, the criticisms were wrong. For another thing, the appointment of an unqualified woman to a position where she will do little, if anything, merely points to the most cynical form of tokenism.
Rather than quieting the few voices slagging him on women's issues, the Premier would be doing nothing more than giving his critics something of substance to hurl back at him.
[Update: This story by CBC shows how little the Premier can actually say in so many words. The Premier's own comments mirror the ones being used by the organized Open Line callers, but here are a few observations.
1. It is a PIFO - a penetrating insight into the friggin obvious - for the premier to say he appointed her because he thought she was best qualified. D'uhhhhh. Like anyone would expect him to admit he completely cocked the whole thing up.
2. When the Premier gets to Cleary's qualifications, he cites
a. his experience with her on the campaign trail;
b. her experience in local government; and,
c her experience in regional economic development.
Simply put, the first one just means that the Prem actually knows her, as in he met her a few times. There's no sign Joan and Danny are as tight as some other people or that she is a member of his posse, that Cleary is a Danny Boy like, say, Dean MacDonald.
The second one applies literally to thousands of people in the province (including Andy Wells) and the last one likewise applies to literally thousands. I'd venture that the Premier knows a couple of hundred people who match all three criteria.
So why does Joan make a better candidate?
Well, that's the part of the little piece that goes begging in the government's version. Don't expect it to be tackled too soon, since a discussion of what the Bull Arm boss does or doesn't do will expose the patent silliness of the reasons given thus far to back up a dubious decision.
And we haven't even taken on the fact that the Premier once described as being an excellent judge of people - has made two, count 'em two - decisions to propose or appoint completely unqualified people to key positions.
Andy Wells' nomination to chair the province's offshore regulatory board was the first one. Wells has no relevant experience - at all. The excuse given for his nomination, namely the need to get greater benefits for this province from offshore oil, was patent nonsense. The offshore board has nothing to do with securing benefits for the province, for one thing. For another, the Premier has made it abundantly clear that he (and maybe PetroNewf) will be bringing home the offshore goodies to spread around. Wells would have nothing to do in securing benefits, the very reason given for his nomination.
Bull Arm is an industrial site, left over from construction of the Hibernia gravity-based structure. The president of the corporation would normally have extensive experience in managing major construction projects or in negotiating them. We'd expect to find someone appointed with a list of contacts in decision-making centres around the globe who could actually pull contracts out of their blackberry or Palmpilot.
One might be looking for someone with a background similar to that of PetroNewf's boss, Ed Martin.
In the worst case, one might expect someone with a sales background or a track record in real estate.
Joan Cleary is a registered nurse. Her oil and gas "experience" consists - entirely - of working at Bull Arm during some construction related to the Terra Nova production hull and on construction of oil tanks for the Whiffen Head oil storage facility. She was senior health consultant.
To really drive this point home, compare the official news release with Cleary's candidate bio. Then compare those two with the biographical note that accompanied the announcement of her appointment as chair of the workers' compensation board.
In 2004, Cleary was responsible at Bull Arm for "case management of all work-related injuries and liaison with medical facilities, WHSCC and on-site management." In other words, she was the on-site medical officer.
In 2005, Cleary is miraculously transformed into someone who "[w]as a senior health specialist for three years during the construction of the Terra Nova FPSO, a position that provided her with first-hand knowledge of the physical construction of the site to enable rapid emergency response." In other words, working there, she got to know where all the paths went and where all the key buildings were.
The latest version obscures Cleary's background with vague words. The Premier praises her commitment to the growth of the province economically, as revealed through her involvement in the community. According to the Premier, Cleary gets the job because, among other things, she is the mayor of a community near Bull Arm, is a Lionette and once ran a Brownie troop. As praiseworthy and noble as those things are, they don't make her qualified to run a heavy construction enterprise.
In other words, there is not a single thing in Joan Cleary's background that suggests she has any experience relevant to the position she now occupies. No doubt she is a fine person and very capable in her profession and in her elected position as mayor of Come By Chance. But that doesn't mean she can be expected to pull millions of dollars in business to Bull Arm.
If the position actually requires no relevant experience - that is if someone else will handle the marketing and management of the site - then one must question why the high-priced senior management positions at Bull Arm Corporation exist in the first place.
Only two years ago, the Tories were railing against the appointment of then-Premier Roger Grimes' communications director to the position as vice-president at Bull Arm. They were right to do so. In the current situation, anyone would be equally right to question not only the Cleary appointment but even the value of the position itself. After all, as with the Wells nomination, the significant chunk of offshore work likely to come Bull Arm's way will be wrangled by none other than Premier Danny Williams himself.
And here's a point not anticipated by the talking points drafted in the Premier's Office and liberally sprinkled around to the organized team of Open Line callers Premier Williams and his crew maintains:
Given that the Premier is taking the hydro corporation and turning it into an oil and gas company, it is only logical that an under-used asset of the government - Bull Arm - be turned over to people with exactly the kind of experience Bull Arm needs. The site at Bull Arm is exactly the kind of asset that a company like PetroNewf could use as the centrepiece of its offshore fabrication work.
It is a match made in someone's heaven, especially when one considers that in the process taxpayers would save the hundreds of millions of dollars in senior management positions occupied by a Joan Cleary or a Carl Cooper.
In other words, even if Joan Cleary was somehow qualified to head Bull Arm, government actually has no need of the position in the first place. One little tidbit of information people have forgotten is that the position of president has lain functionally vacant since 2001. Cooper was appointed as a vice-president.
If Bull Arm could survive without a president for all this time, surely it could survive just a wee bit longer.
Better still, by handing Bull Arm to PetroNewf, Premier Danny Williams could have saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands in needless salaries while also strengthening his own pet Crown corporation.
Joan Cleary's appointment leaves many people scratching their heads but hopefully not the same spots scratched raw in the wake of the Wells nomination. There is a reason for this Cleary thing. Not the ones being foisted by the government's orchestrated "Praise Joan on Open Line" campaign; there is a real reason. Maybe we'll find out in due course.
Let's just hope it has nothing to do with counteracting criticism of the Premier about his supposedly bad attitude toward women. For one thing, the criticisms were wrong. For another thing, the appointment of an unqualified woman to a position where she will do little, if anything, merely points to the most cynical form of tokenism.
Rather than quieting the few voices slagging him on women's issues, the Premier would be doing nothing more than giving his critics something of substance to hurl back at him.
[Update: This story by CBC shows how little the Premier can actually say in so many words. The Premier's own comments mirror the ones being used by the organized Open Line callers, but here are a few observations.
1. It is a PIFO - a penetrating insight into the friggin obvious - for the premier to say he appointed her because he thought she was best qualified. D'uhhhhh. Like anyone would expect him to admit he completely cocked the whole thing up.
2. When the Premier gets to Cleary's qualifications, he cites
a. his experience with her on the campaign trail;
b. her experience in local government; and,
c her experience in regional economic development.
Simply put, the first one just means that the Prem actually knows her, as in he met her a few times. There's no sign Joan and Danny are as tight as some other people or that she is a member of his posse, that Cleary is a Danny Boy like, say, Dean MacDonald.
The second one applies literally to thousands of people in the province (including Andy Wells) and the last one likewise applies to literally thousands. I'd venture that the Premier knows a couple of hundred people who match all three criteria.
So why does Joan make a better candidate?
Well, that's the part of the little piece that goes begging in the government's version. Don't expect it to be tackled too soon, since a discussion of what the Bull Arm boss does or doesn't do will expose the patent silliness of the reasons given thus far to back up a dubious decision.
And we haven't even taken on the fact that the Premier once described as being an excellent judge of people - has made two, count 'em two - decisions to propose or appoint completely unqualified people to key positions.
16 November 2005
Sometimes, it's a good idea to...
stop digging.
Had John Efford been more visible while he was working here in the province he might not have so much crap to deal with now. As it is, a local story has now taken national proportions and the criticisms are sharp and seemingly, well founded.
Once the crap started, if he aimed his criticism in the right direction and defended himself with something better than "Stop pickin' on the sick 'un" he'd be in better shape.
After all, this parliament has seen three guys with terminal cancer carry on their business at some level, even if they weren't cabinet ministers. If they were in cabinet, one doubts that they would be still collecting cabinet pay without any cabinet responsibilities. Regional minister isn't a recognized cabinet position; it's just a responsibility. Had the Prime Minister appointed Efford a minister without portfolio or shifted Efford to a less-stressful position, the criticisms of Efford's invisibility wouldn't have so much weight behind them.
As it is, Efford may find his time as a cabinet minister limited.
If that happens, he can only blame himself.
Something tells me he'll blame someone else - like the news media.
The hole will only get deeper.
National CBC off base on Fallujah
This report from the CBC website is off base on a couple of points.
1. White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is any form of incendiary including napalm. There this statement is incorrect: "Venable's comments could expose the United States to allegations that it has been using chemical weapons in Iraq." Well, let's look carefully at the wording: the comments could expose the United States government to renewed allegations - that's true - but the accusations would be, in a word, wrong.
Don't believe me just because I said so. Check the website for the countries that are party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Chemical weapons are things like phosgene, chlorene, and sarin.
I once had a prof at Memorial University argue that all explosives were technically chemical weapons because they depended on a chemical reaction for their effect. Heck, everything is made of chemicals, me and you included. How wide do we want to draw a definition until it gets to be unweildy to have any practical use for serious and effective arms control?
And hey, the mighty British Broadcasting Corporation actually changed the title of the original story on which the Ceeb based its piece. Anti-war websites reported the change extensively.
2. The admission that white phosphorus, also known as willy peter, willy pete and WP, is really nothing new. Pictures of it have been around for a while and the Americans have never denied using it.
Where the accusations have gone way wide of fact is in claiming that the United States and coalition military forces have used some sort of "mystery" weapons or have engaged in a deliberate plan to shoot innocent, unarmed civilians. The Italian TV doc is a second-rate piece of propaganda which deliberately misrepresents entire sections of interviews.
There is NO evidence that civilians have been used to attack civilians which would be a violation of of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, even though the United States has not signed the particular provisions related to incendiaries like napalm.
Make no mistake: the military operations in Iraq are violent and people get killed in lots of nasty, horrid ways.
Here's a BBC report that realistically describes white phosphorus.
Here's the Beeb's original story on the Italian p.o.s. report already discussed on the Bond Papers.
As for the reference to "shake and bake", here's where the term first appeared, according to a number of websites.
It refers to the practice of using WP to terrify insurgents who were in trenches or firing holes so that they would leave their cover. Once in the open, they would be killed with convention high explosive. Get past the raft of jargon and you'll tons of information about artillery operations by the Americans.
Again, just 'cause some reporters don't see certain information doesn't mean it has been a secret until they "discovered" it.
1. White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is any form of incendiary including napalm. There this statement is incorrect: "Venable's comments could expose the United States to allegations that it has been using chemical weapons in Iraq." Well, let's look carefully at the wording: the comments could expose the United States government to renewed allegations - that's true - but the accusations would be, in a word, wrong.
Don't believe me just because I said so. Check the website for the countries that are party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Chemical weapons are things like phosgene, chlorene, and sarin.
I once had a prof at Memorial University argue that all explosives were technically chemical weapons because they depended on a chemical reaction for their effect. Heck, everything is made of chemicals, me and you included. How wide do we want to draw a definition until it gets to be unweildy to have any practical use for serious and effective arms control?
And hey, the mighty British Broadcasting Corporation actually changed the title of the original story on which the Ceeb based its piece. Anti-war websites reported the change extensively.
2. The admission that white phosphorus, also known as willy peter, willy pete and WP, is really nothing new. Pictures of it have been around for a while and the Americans have never denied using it.
Where the accusations have gone way wide of fact is in claiming that the United States and coalition military forces have used some sort of "mystery" weapons or have engaged in a deliberate plan to shoot innocent, unarmed civilians. The Italian TV doc is a second-rate piece of propaganda which deliberately misrepresents entire sections of interviews.
There is NO evidence that civilians have been used to attack civilians which would be a violation of of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, even though the United States has not signed the particular provisions related to incendiaries like napalm.
Make no mistake: the military operations in Iraq are violent and people get killed in lots of nasty, horrid ways.
Here's a BBC report that realistically describes white phosphorus.
Here's the Beeb's original story on the Italian p.o.s. report already discussed on the Bond Papers.
As for the reference to "shake and bake", here's where the term first appeared, according to a number of websites.
It refers to the practice of using WP to terrify insurgents who were in trenches or firing holes so that they would leave their cover. Once in the open, they would be killed with convention high explosive. Get past the raft of jargon and you'll tons of information about artillery operations by the Americans.
Again, just 'cause some reporters don't see certain information doesn't mean it has been a secret until they "discovered" it.
Osborne hunts pesticides - should read Bond Papers
Almost a month ago, the Bond Papers posted some information that would help Tom Osborne in his great hunt to find Herbicide Orange in the province.
Bear in mind Osborne is the guy who accused Opposition critic Percy Barrett of fear-mongering back in October when Barrett asked about use of Agent Orange in the province.
If the CBC Radio voice clip of Osborne from this morning is correct, the guy needs better info - he claims Herbicide Orange wasn't used in this province. He pointed out that it wasn't available commercially - as we told you the night the story appeared back in October - but Osborne left the implication the stuff was never used here.
One of our local TV news shows has footage - check NTV. The original post said CBC but come to think of it, NTV is more likely to have stock footage from the 1950s.
And Bond Papers has a list of military sites where Orange, White and a whole bunch of other similar stuff was likely used, even if in limited applications.
Bear in mind Osborne is the guy who accused Opposition critic Percy Barrett of fear-mongering back in October when Barrett asked about use of Agent Orange in the province.
If the CBC Radio voice clip of Osborne from this morning is correct, the guy needs better info - he claims Herbicide Orange wasn't used in this province. He pointed out that it wasn't available commercially - as we told you the night the story appeared back in October - but Osborne left the implication the stuff was never used here.
One of our local TV news shows has footage - check NTV. The original post said CBC but come to think of it, NTV is more likely to have stock footage from the 1950s.
And Bond Papers has a list of military sites where Orange, White and a whole bunch of other similar stuff was likely used, even if in limited applications.
15 November 2005
Sullivan's pockets swell
White Rose achieved first oil on Saturday November 12, 2005, bringing online production from the province's third oil field.
It is unclear if the provincial government factored in White Rose oil, in their recent economic update. If they didn't, then add White Rose's 100, 000 barrel a day production to finance minister Loyola Sullivan's swollen pockets.
Owing to the streamlined costs of bringing the project online, Terra Nova will achieve payout this year, adding to the provincial government's increased revenues. Once costs are paid, provincial royalties move to a higher rate under the royalty agreement with the Terra Nova operators.
A similar approach to White Rose, coupled with high oil prices, may see that project convert to Tier 2 royalties by 2008/09.
It is unclear if the provincial government factored in White Rose oil, in their recent economic update. If they didn't, then add White Rose's 100, 000 barrel a day production to finance minister Loyola Sullivan's swollen pockets.
Owing to the streamlined costs of bringing the project online, Terra Nova will achieve payout this year, adding to the provincial government's increased revenues. Once costs are paid, provincial royalties move to a higher rate under the royalty agreement with the Terra Nova operators.
A similar approach to White Rose, coupled with high oil prices, may see that project convert to Tier 2 royalties by 2008/09.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)