What do Scott Reid, the prime minister's communications director and Liam O'Brien, the Conservatives chief blogger in Newfoundland and Labrador, have in common?
They are both apparently single men with no dependent children, talking about child care.
As a result, both of them miss the point about the Conservative Party's plan to give parents of children under six years of age an annual taxable payment of $1,200 for each child.
For Reid, he made the mistake of saying that parents would have $25 a week to blow on beer and popcorn instead of providing affordable child care spaces.
For O'Brien, like the party he supports, he made the mistake of claiming that the Conservative plan offers parents a choice in child care.
Neither could be farther from the truth. Simple math would have started them both on the right road.
The Conservative plan would amount to less than $25 per week or less than $5 per day, before taxes. After taxes, it could amount to as little as $2.30 per day.
For the 84% of Canadian families in which both parents work, $2.30 works out to next to nothing at all. A typical daycare in Newfoundland and Labrador costs about $500 per month for one child. That means the Conservative Party is offering less than 10% of the daily cost of that modestly priced service.
To offer meaningful choice of the kind Conservatives are talking about, one parent would stay at home providing child care for the first five years of a child's life. For single parents, the Conservative approach would mean that the parent would need income support for that entire period. In short, that means that the Conservative Party would have to offer about $30, 000 annually over a five year period.
Instead of that $150, 000, the Conservatives are offering a mere $7200, less than 5% of the amount required.
Choice my foot.
If Reid had wanted to demolish the Conservative policy for the fraud it is, he would not have raised the moronic point that the money would be spent on beer and popcorn. Even if parents in Canada were so monumentally irresponsible - and we are not - one doubts whether they could find a bottle of beer and a bag of popcorn anywhere in Canada for less than $2.50.
Rather Reid should have simply pointed to the blatant nonsense of the Conservative rhetoric about choice in light of the paltry sums the Conservatives are offering. The facts would have spoken for themselves.
If the Conservatives genuinely believed their proposal has merit, then they would not be working so hard to raise irrelevant points. Choice is but one; a parent under their program would still be compelled to send his or her child to daycare.
This undermines the second argument, one O'Brien loves, namely that the Liberal proposal is to create a "nanny-state" in which government replaces parents as caregivers. As O'Brien puts it: "stop advocating the Liberal government-daycare-one-size-fits-all monolith child care policy, opt for the fund-parents and allow-for-choice policy in child care!"
The very fact that people like O'Brien must conjure such fictitious boogie men reveals the weakness of their position.
As if that were not enough, O'Brien has now taken to challenging Liberals to fund a better choice program. He clearly does not wish to take responsibility for the failings of his own argument. Instead, he tries to fob it off on someone else. To paraphrase O'Brien, Conservatives are so sincere about choice in childcare that someone else should offer more cash to pay for it.
As single men with no children that I know of, both Reid and O'Brien are incredible commentators to start with. However it is the slipperiness of the argument, the blatant insincerity that destroys what shreds of credibility O'Brien and Conservatives could muster outside their own narrow circles. Reid's comments, as asinine as they were, simply cannot compare.
The Liberal Party solution, already in place, is to provide more child care places and early childhood learning for the majority of Canadian families who find that, in this day and age, both parents must work in order to provide an appropriate standard of living.
Given a choice, we parents might prefer to have one partner stay at home; that simply isn't an option for most of us these days. If we cannot find the support of our parents, as some of us were fortunate enough to do, we want reliable, accredited day care spaces where our children can learn and be nurtured. That is the essence of the Liberal and New Democrat child care proposals.
The current situation is not sufficient, but it is a start. As Canadians we should look at other tax and income support initiatives which firstly do not penalize couples for having children and secondly, offer genuinely nurturing experiences for children outside the home.
What we should reject are the sort of shams offered by the Conservatives under the guise of choice. Theirs are little more than meaningless words delivered, ultimately, with all the sincerity that can be mustered by the paid actors of their television commercials.
For what it is worth, Scott Reid should bear a little extra shame for his comments. He has succeeded in taking attention away from the Conservatives choice fraud. Given his apology, though, in due course, Canadians will be able to get past the howls of scorn from the Conservatives.
Their noise is merely a temporary diversion.
The shallowness of their position will soon again become plain.
[Update - Liam O'Brien's attack on this post is, predictably, longwinded. It also ignores the points made. As a friend of mine said when comparing the child care plans, anyone who thinks 12 hundred bucks offers choice in child care anywhere in this country has obviously never had children or had to pay for child care.
Liam apparently finds it a personal attack that I noted he is a single man with no dependent children commenting on child care. It would only be attack if it were untrue. As it is true - apparently - it merely constitutes pointing out a painfully obvious fact.
At the same time, a loyal e-mail correspondent advises that Mr. Reid, in fact, does have children. This is something I did not know when I wrote the post. His beer and pizza crack therefore is all the more baffling since he knows the 12 hundred bucks works out to half a tank of gas (at current prices) per week for a typical compact car like the one I drive.
The reality of the Conservatives' plan condemns it as the fraud it is.]
13 December 2005
12 December 2005
Harper changing stand on equal marriage?
Not likely.
The Globe and Mail is reporting this morning that the federal Conservative Party is attempting to distance itself from efforts by conservative Christian political activists who oppose equal marriage.
Conservative aides attempted to move the Harper campaign bus ahead of schedule as news media traveling with the Conservative leader attempted to interview David Mainse and Charles McVety.
As the Globe reports, "On Saturday, Charles McVety, the Canada Christian College head who also led the Defend Marriage organization against same-sex marriage, turned up at Mr. Harper's Mississauga rally, and was ushered into an office afterward to meet the party leader. But Tory campaign aides again pushed reporters to leave before Mr. McVety had departed."
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory told reporters that Ontarians do not wish to re-open the equal marriage debate, settled earlier this year. Harper's first major policy statement was a call to hold a free-vote in the House of Commons on equal marriage. The Conservative Party policy manual contains that commitment plus the commitment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Meanwhile a local Conservative Party supporter is attempting to deflect attention away from Conservative party policy and its association with the religious right. Liam O'Brien points to the number of Newfoundland and Labrador members of parliament who voted against equal marriage as a defense of the Conservative Party policy.
O'Brien made no mention of comments by the Ontario Progressive Conservative leader or the number of Conservative Party candidates affiliated with the religious right. The Conservative candidate in Ajax-Pickering is a a vice-president of one of McVety's organizations. Other Conservative candidates attended a convention last week to organize the religious right as a political movement.
The Globe and Mail is reporting this morning that the federal Conservative Party is attempting to distance itself from efforts by conservative Christian political activists who oppose equal marriage.
Conservative aides attempted to move the Harper campaign bus ahead of schedule as news media traveling with the Conservative leader attempted to interview David Mainse and Charles McVety.
As the Globe reports, "On Saturday, Charles McVety, the Canada Christian College head who also led the Defend Marriage organization against same-sex marriage, turned up at Mr. Harper's Mississauga rally, and was ushered into an office afterward to meet the party leader. But Tory campaign aides again pushed reporters to leave before Mr. McVety had departed."
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory told reporters that Ontarians do not wish to re-open the equal marriage debate, settled earlier this year. Harper's first major policy statement was a call to hold a free-vote in the House of Commons on equal marriage. The Conservative Party policy manual contains that commitment plus the commitment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Meanwhile a local Conservative Party supporter is attempting to deflect attention away from Conservative party policy and its association with the religious right. Liam O'Brien points to the number of Newfoundland and Labrador members of parliament who voted against equal marriage as a defense of the Conservative Party policy.
O'Brien made no mention of comments by the Ontario Progressive Conservative leader or the number of Conservative Party candidates affiliated with the religious right. The Conservative candidate in Ajax-Pickering is a a vice-president of one of McVety's organizations. Other Conservative candidates attended a convention last week to organize the religious right as a political movement.
Abitibi Stephenville to close?
Talks between Abitibi Consolidated and its workers at Stephenville have broken off, with likely little chance of resumption before the first severance cheques are cut this week.
The issue which once dominated news in the province virtually slipped off the news room monitors in recent weeks.
CBC news is reporting the story somewhat differently, noting that efforts to re-start talks are expected this morning.
Earlier this year, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to subsidize Abitibi operations at Stephenville in an amount beyond what the province collects in taxes from the mill operations.
The issue which once dominated news in the province virtually slipped off the news room monitors in recent weeks.
CBC news is reporting the story somewhat differently, noting that efforts to re-start talks are expected this morning.
Earlier this year, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to subsidize Abitibi operations at Stephenville in an amount beyond what the province collects in taxes from the mill operations.
11 December 2005
Harper courts the religious right-wing
Stephen Harper met over the weekend with David Mainse and Dr. Charles McVety. The information was contained in the middle of a Toronto Star article on a campaign rally held in metro Toronto.
Readers of the Bond Papers will recall that McVety is the guy who owns loyolahearn.com. He's also a political activist and operator of Canada Christian College and the School of Graduate Theological Studies. McVety's vice-president, Dr. Rondo Thomas is a Conservative candidate in Pickering, Ontario.
Apparently the issue of prime concern to McVety in this election is overturning the right to equal marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Among other things, McVety is organizing to support the Conservative plans for a vote on equal marriage, should Stephen Harper become prime minister.
The Conservative incumbents from this province oppose equal marriage; St. John's east Conservative Norm Doyle favours a free vote.
McVety also feels that the concept of separation of church and state, an American idea that has no constiutional standing in Canada, has led to Canadian political leaders being less spiritual than they ought to be.
More likely, McVety's problem is that political leaders in Canada don't reflect his views; that shouldn't be confused with a lack of religious faith.
McVety organized a convention in Toronto recently, where, among other things, the conservative political right from Canada got together with its American cousins to organize for the current federal election. They cancelled a grassroots activist school but went ahead with the conference and awards dinner .
There's some neat background over at politicsinbc, the blogspot dot com site that links back to some of the sites already provided here.
The Toronto gig was organized by the Institute for Canadian Values. McVety wrote an article for this outfit back in early November that said Canadian religious conservatives need a local version of Ralph Reed.
Reed founded the Christian Coalition in the late 1980s and served as executive director, with Pat Robertson as president, until Reed left the Coalition in 1997 to become a consultant.
The Coalition's mission is to:
* Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress;
* Speak out in the public arena and in the media;
* Train leaders for effective social and political action;
* Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation;
* Protest anti-Christianity bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith;
The Coalition's issues page basically lists a variety of anti-equal marriage, anti-choice, anti-birth control actions that in American political parlance add up to "pro-family".
[TorStar report from Warbicycle]
Readers of the Bond Papers will recall that McVety is the guy who owns loyolahearn.com. He's also a political activist and operator of Canada Christian College and the School of Graduate Theological Studies. McVety's vice-president, Dr. Rondo Thomas is a Conservative candidate in Pickering, Ontario.
Apparently the issue of prime concern to McVety in this election is overturning the right to equal marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Among other things, McVety is organizing to support the Conservative plans for a vote on equal marriage, should Stephen Harper become prime minister.
The Conservative incumbents from this province oppose equal marriage; St. John's east Conservative Norm Doyle favours a free vote.
McVety also feels that the concept of separation of church and state, an American idea that has no constiutional standing in Canada, has led to Canadian political leaders being less spiritual than they ought to be.
More likely, McVety's problem is that political leaders in Canada don't reflect his views; that shouldn't be confused with a lack of religious faith.
McVety organized a convention in Toronto recently, where, among other things, the conservative political right from Canada got together with its American cousins to organize for the current federal election. They cancelled a grassroots activist school but went ahead with the conference and awards dinner .
There's some neat background over at politicsinbc, the blogspot dot com site that links back to some of the sites already provided here.
The Toronto gig was organized by the Institute for Canadian Values. McVety wrote an article for this outfit back in early November that said Canadian religious conservatives need a local version of Ralph Reed.
Reed founded the Christian Coalition in the late 1980s and served as executive director, with Pat Robertson as president, until Reed left the Coalition in 1997 to become a consultant.
The Coalition's mission is to:
* Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress;
* Speak out in the public arena and in the media;
* Train leaders for effective social and political action;
* Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation;
* Protest anti-Christianity bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith;
The Coalition's issues page basically lists a variety of anti-equal marriage, anti-choice, anti-birth control actions that in American political parlance add up to "pro-family".
[TorStar report from Warbicycle]
The gaffers scorecard - update
Scott Reid, the prime minister's answer to C.J. Craig and Toby Zeigler put his foot in it during an interview with CBC television on Sunday, saying:
"Don't give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work. Stephen Harper's plan has nothing to do with child care."
He later apologized for the remark.
Meanwhile, Conservative candidate Brian Pallister is in hot water for giving what he termed a "woman's answer" to a question about his future in politics.
CBC quotes Pallister as saying: **"I am copping what's known as a woman's answer, isn't it? It's a sort of fickle kind of thing," he said, responding to criticism that a federal election campaign is no time for a candidate to be examining other job prospects.**
Pallister apparently is standing by his characterization of fickle as being a woman thing.
Anybody can screw up.
It takes guts and character to admit to the mistake.
First thing you have to do is understand you made a mistake.
"Don't give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work. Stephen Harper's plan has nothing to do with child care."
He later apologized for the remark.
Meanwhile, Conservative candidate Brian Pallister is in hot water for giving what he termed a "woman's answer" to a question about his future in politics.
CBC quotes Pallister as saying: **"I am copping what's known as a woman's answer, isn't it? It's a sort of fickle kind of thing," he said, responding to criticism that a federal election campaign is no time for a candidate to be examining other job prospects.**
Pallister apparently is standing by his characterization of fickle as being a woman thing.
Anybody can screw up.
It takes guts and character to admit to the mistake.
First thing you have to do is understand you made a mistake.
More work for dogsbodies
As the election campaign enters its third week, polling from different firms shows a general pattern of Liberals leading nationally, although different polls reports somewhat different margins.
Decima's ongoing online polling for Canadian Press shows the party standings at beginning of week three of campaigning, with the Liberals at 36%, The Conservatives at 27% and the New Democrats at 20%.
This is similar to the most recent Strategic Counsel (SC) poll, but differs somewhat in the numbers from SES.
Earlier this spring and during the last election, some of the variation between polls could be explained by different polling dates. SES, SC and Decima all polled within the same time frame.
The general positioning of the parties nationally is similar, except for SES which shows the gap between Liberals and Conservatives narrowing in the past two days.
Interesting to note that Decima's results for British Columbia are closer to SES than SC. Decima shows the Liberals leading New Democrats 36-32 with the Conservatives at 27. SC reported a three way tie (give or take a point) but a margin of error of seven percent, plus or minus.
EKOS reports results similar to SC but its margin of error (+/- 4.9%) leaves its analytical value in question.
While you have to pay to get the meat of their report, Ipsos is reporting a mere four point spread between Liberals and Conservatives nationally. Their Ontario numbers show the Liberals leading the Conservatives by seven points.
Decima's ongoing online polling for Canadian Press shows the party standings at beginning of week three of campaigning, with the Liberals at 36%, The Conservatives at 27% and the New Democrats at 20%.
This is similar to the most recent Strategic Counsel (SC) poll, but differs somewhat in the numbers from SES.
Earlier this spring and during the last election, some of the variation between polls could be explained by different polling dates. SES, SC and Decima all polled within the same time frame.
The general positioning of the parties nationally is similar, except for SES which shows the gap between Liberals and Conservatives narrowing in the past two days.
Interesting to note that Decima's results for British Columbia are closer to SES than SC. Decima shows the Liberals leading New Democrats 36-32 with the Conservatives at 27. SC reported a three way tie (give or take a point) but a margin of error of seven percent, plus or minus.
EKOS reports results similar to SC but its margin of error (+/- 4.9%) leaves its analytical value in question.
While you have to pay to get the meat of their report, Ipsos is reporting a mere four point spread between Liberals and Conservatives nationally. Their Ontario numbers show the Liberals leading the Conservatives by seven points.
When they pick at this stuff, you know you are doin' fine
When people have nothing else to offer as a criticism, they focus on the fact the Liberal Party of Canada televisions spots feature some people who are clearly identified as Liberals in the graphic beside their names and gee, just surprisingly happen to be Liberal party supporters.
These same "critics" miss all the people who are not members of a Liberal party riding association.
They also ignore entirely the televisions pots from another political party, namely the Conservatives, that, as in the past, feature genuine actors paid to pretend they are "ordinary Canadians".
Hmmm.
Paul Wells, the New Democrats and Warren Kinsella are in this category, the first one and last one surprisingly so.
The middle one makes sense, given that their campaign has tanked and their leader is busily running around the country telling people not to vote for third place candidates to stop the Connies.
Except where his people are in third place (when they actually have a candidate). Apparently, in those ridings, Jack isn't concerned about Conservatives winning.
They'd update their website with nice screen caps, to occupy space that could be taken up by their list of candidates for places like Newfoundland and Labrador.
These same "critics" miss all the people who are not members of a Liberal party riding association.
They also ignore entirely the televisions pots from another political party, namely the Conservatives, that, as in the past, feature genuine actors paid to pretend they are "ordinary Canadians".
Hmmm.
Paul Wells, the New Democrats and Warren Kinsella are in this category, the first one and last one surprisingly so.
The middle one makes sense, given that their campaign has tanked and their leader is busily running around the country telling people not to vote for third place candidates to stop the Connies.
Except where his people are in third place (when they actually have a candidate). Apparently, in those ridings, Jack isn't concerned about Conservatives winning.
They'd update their website with nice screen caps, to occupy space that could be taken up by their list of candidates for places like Newfoundland and Labrador.
Polling position
When people don't understand polling - on any level - and especially when their party is behind in the polls, those same people resort to peeing on them.
Polls are irrelevent.
They are snapshots.
Dogs know what to do with polls.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Properly conducted polls can reveal a lot of useful information.
One merely has to be able to accept that information and act accordingly.
Anything else is denial.
Polls are irrelevent.
They are snapshots.
Dogs know what to do with polls.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Properly conducted polls can reveal a lot of useful information.
One merely has to be able to accept that information and act accordingly.
Anything else is denial.
10 December 2005
Blochead hysterics
Helene Chalifour-Sherrer, Liberal candidate in the Quebec riding of Louis-Hebert pointed out in an interview that Quebec is not the "milking cow", and is in fact quite dependent on federal transfer payments. She apparently called Quebec "a poor province". [via Bourque]
The Bloc Quebecois immediately pounced on these comments claiming that if Quebec was a sovereign country it wouldn't be dependent on Ottawa.
Ms. Chalifour-Sherrer has apologised for the remarks.
Unless I am missing something, she has merely pointed out what is patently obvious: Quebec receives more in Equalization (in absolute dollars) than any other province by quite a wide margin. In 2004/05, Quebec received some $3.6 billion in Equalization payments, which is about as much as received by Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined.
Quebec received about 5.5 times the amount of Equalization received by Newfoundland and Labrador.
I didn't get the sense in the reported comments that she thought this was a good thing.
What is even more remarkable is the crap from le chef des Blocheads Gilles Duceppe who claimed in the Globe and Mail that an independent Quebec would have all the money it needed.
Ok.
So, then perhaps M. Duceppe would care to explain to Canadians why the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois vision of an "independent" Quebec calls for continued transfer payments from Canada after "independence".
The last time a clear question was posed to Quebeckers, the rejected M. Duceppe's view of an "independent" Quebec.
So did Canadians as a whole.
Perhaps M. Duceppe should apologise for being full of crap.
The Bloc Quebecois immediately pounced on these comments claiming that if Quebec was a sovereign country it wouldn't be dependent on Ottawa.
Ms. Chalifour-Sherrer has apologised for the remarks.
Unless I am missing something, she has merely pointed out what is patently obvious: Quebec receives more in Equalization (in absolute dollars) than any other province by quite a wide margin. In 2004/05, Quebec received some $3.6 billion in Equalization payments, which is about as much as received by Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined.
Quebec received about 5.5 times the amount of Equalization received by Newfoundland and Labrador.
I didn't get the sense in the reported comments that she thought this was a good thing.
What is even more remarkable is the crap from le chef des Blocheads Gilles Duceppe who claimed in the Globe and Mail that an independent Quebec would have all the money it needed.
Ok.
So, then perhaps M. Duceppe would care to explain to Canadians why the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois vision of an "independent" Quebec calls for continued transfer payments from Canada after "independence".
The last time a clear question was posed to Quebeckers, the rejected M. Duceppe's view of an "independent" Quebec.
So did Canadians as a whole.
Perhaps M. Duceppe should apologise for being full of crap.
Connies use public bucks to fund campaign
Calgary West Conservative candidate Rob Anders took the time before hitting the campaign trail to print a brochure aimed at voters in Richmond, British Columbia.St. John's South-Mount Pearl Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn circulated a household calendar.
What do they have in common?
The House of Commons. As sitting members of parliament in the last session, both were entitled to use public money to circulate reports on their performance to households in their constituency.
The problem is both Hearn and Anders - and any other MP of any other party - knew full well the House was due to close on November 28th. Any print jobs in progress should have been cancelled.
There are just no excuses.
It's that simple.
Hearn managed to do the same thing in 2004 with a householder that arrived in voter's homes the Friday before the writ dropped. The piece contained numerous factual mistakes and claimed credit for projects - like the St. John's harbour clean-up - that he had nothing to do with.
Anders' pamphlet is a particularly malodourous piece of political garbage, mixing together the current Prime Minister, crystal meth and something called "homosexual sex marriage". What the heck is a sex marriage anyways?
Anders is also the stereotypical
If that isn't enough, go to Hansard and grab the Connie's views on equal marriage and the separation of Church and state. Heady stuff.
Some people even went so far as to set up voteoutanders.com last election and appear to have have had an impact on both turn-out in the riding (it went up) and Anders vote (it went down).
Bottom line: these guys used public money to fund a portion of their campaigns. It's the sort of low-level corruption of the political process we should be trying to root out.
09 December 2005
SES and Gregg compared - some observations
Something has been bothering me all day about the Globe/CTV/Strategic Counsel claim that regional "weakness" in the Liberal support could make this a much closer race than it appears.
Later in the day, I saw Allan Gregg discussing the numbers for British Columbia. The Strategic Counsel poll shows the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats in a near tie for public support.
I checked the margin of error (MoE) for the BC results only to find out it was +/- 7%, 19 times out of 20. The whole report is here, at thestrategiccounsel.com
Ok.
Check SES and let's compare them:
Gregg has the Liberals at 30, the Conservatives at 29, the NDP at 31, the Greens at 10, with an MoE at 7%.
SES shows Liberals at 42, CPC at 29, NDP at 23 and the Greens at 5 with an MoE of +/- 6.4%.
Right off the bat, I have some problem with Gregg basing his analysis on numbers with MoE of anything more than 3% plus or minus. Look at these polls and you'll see why - Gregg shows a near tie. SES shows the Liberals well ahead.
But, if you adjust the figures within the margin of error for both, you can easily produce a result that has the Liberals at 36, CPC at 29, NDP at 27 and the Greens running around 7.5%. All I did was split the difference on the numbers. That produces a result which is actually closer to the SES result than the Gregg dead heat scenario. The MoE is so high for both BC results, though, that I could just as easily produce a bunch of numbers that have the Liberals sweeping the place or tanking and still be fine.
BC may be the most dramatic example of this problem with the Gregg analysis, but there are similar variations in the other numbers. For example, Gregg's national figures have been consistently out of line with other polling, not just SES, sometimes by as much as four or more percentage points.
Theoretically, pollsters using similar methodologies should produce results within the margins of error. Trust me, when these guys were all polling during the spring, I used their research reports to illustrate polling methods to a class of students. A simple chart showed just how similar the numbers were, given the same time frames, for four or five separate firms.
For Gregg and Strategic Counsel, though, I haven't been able to come up with a good explanation for the anomalous numbers. Undoubtedly there is some statistician's reasoning but since I am not one of those, it escapes me.
Another part of the Gregg report released today also caused some concern, but for a different reason. On page five there's a lovely colourful graph of the Strategic Counsel's momentum analysis beginning in May. It shows, pretty clearly that the Conservative momentum has dropped, by Gregg's figures from 36 to 25, while the Liberals have climbed from 22 to 27.
That looks pretty straightforward - but if you look at the way the graph is constructed, it appears that the Liberals and Conservatives are so close as to be almost tied. The digits say one thing; the picture says another. And that's my problem.
The decline for the Conservatives is twice as big as the gain for the Liberals. By whatever methodology you want to use, therein lies a telling story at this stage of the campaign. Rather than try to talk about close races, the SC analysis could have easily pointed to a stalling of the Conservative campaign.
That analysis would marry up with the national voter choice figures, that have a small margin of error, and help people get a broader sense of what has occurred at the end of the second week of campaigning. That approach would also give the Connie bloggers something to think about instead of all sorts of feeble excuses for why their party isn't showing in the polls as they wished for, all year.
I am left wondering why Gregg chose the approach he did when there is another story in his own numbers.
As for the seat projections, I am reasonably comfortable in my belief that Gregg's comments today were not based on his own polling data alone. If you look at democraticSpace.com, you can see a rather complex seat projection model built on everyone's public polling. Sure enough it supports the idea that there may be a small Liberal majority even given the national polling numbers. But notice - he is basing his analysis on everyone's numbers. Gregg is showing just his own and then somehow producing the same analysis. It doesn't add up.
This certainly doesn't mean that Strategic Counsel is cooking the books. Far from it. Allan Gregg is a competent, professional opinion researcher. What may be happening here is that the pressure for news that is different - what the client is looking for - may be affecting what Gregg can toss up to talk about. It's a real-world issue and no one can fault Gregg for dealing with it. The national exposure he is getting is worth its weight in billable hours gold.
For those of us who are political junkies, though, this election coverage and the access to some fairly sophisticated polling results - as public results go - is like having your own meth-lab. We can fiddle with numbers, run seat projections and basically develop a picture of the world using the work of some of the best in the opinion research business.
There's also a good warning in all this for people who are wedded to one set of polling numbers: get a divorce, or at least negotiate an open marriage. In order to get an accurate picture of what is going on out there among the Canadian electorate, you have to take in as much data you can from as many sources as possible and then make your own assessment.
Even after decades of public opinion research, there are still perils in polling, as my old professor, Hugh Whelan, used to say.
Later in the day, I saw Allan Gregg discussing the numbers for British Columbia. The Strategic Counsel poll shows the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats in a near tie for public support.
I checked the margin of error (MoE) for the BC results only to find out it was +/- 7%, 19 times out of 20. The whole report is here, at thestrategiccounsel.com
Ok.
Check SES and let's compare them:
Gregg has the Liberals at 30, the Conservatives at 29, the NDP at 31, the Greens at 10, with an MoE at 7%.
SES shows Liberals at 42, CPC at 29, NDP at 23 and the Greens at 5 with an MoE of +/- 6.4%.
Right off the bat, I have some problem with Gregg basing his analysis on numbers with MoE of anything more than 3% plus or minus. Look at these polls and you'll see why - Gregg shows a near tie. SES shows the Liberals well ahead.
But, if you adjust the figures within the margin of error for both, you can easily produce a result that has the Liberals at 36, CPC at 29, NDP at 27 and the Greens running around 7.5%. All I did was split the difference on the numbers. That produces a result which is actually closer to the SES result than the Gregg dead heat scenario. The MoE is so high for both BC results, though, that I could just as easily produce a bunch of numbers that have the Liberals sweeping the place or tanking and still be fine.
BC may be the most dramatic example of this problem with the Gregg analysis, but there are similar variations in the other numbers. For example, Gregg's national figures have been consistently out of line with other polling, not just SES, sometimes by as much as four or more percentage points.
Theoretically, pollsters using similar methodologies should produce results within the margins of error. Trust me, when these guys were all polling during the spring, I used their research reports to illustrate polling methods to a class of students. A simple chart showed just how similar the numbers were, given the same time frames, for four or five separate firms.
For Gregg and Strategic Counsel, though, I haven't been able to come up with a good explanation for the anomalous numbers. Undoubtedly there is some statistician's reasoning but since I am not one of those, it escapes me.
Another part of the Gregg report released today also caused some concern, but for a different reason. On page five there's a lovely colourful graph of the Strategic Counsel's momentum analysis beginning in May. It shows, pretty clearly that the Conservative momentum has dropped, by Gregg's figures from 36 to 25, while the Liberals have climbed from 22 to 27.
That looks pretty straightforward - but if you look at the way the graph is constructed, it appears that the Liberals and Conservatives are so close as to be almost tied. The digits say one thing; the picture says another. And that's my problem.
The decline for the Conservatives is twice as big as the gain for the Liberals. By whatever methodology you want to use, therein lies a telling story at this stage of the campaign. Rather than try to talk about close races, the SC analysis could have easily pointed to a stalling of the Conservative campaign.
That analysis would marry up with the national voter choice figures, that have a small margin of error, and help people get a broader sense of what has occurred at the end of the second week of campaigning. That approach would also give the Connie bloggers something to think about instead of all sorts of feeble excuses for why their party isn't showing in the polls as they wished for, all year.
I am left wondering why Gregg chose the approach he did when there is another story in his own numbers.
As for the seat projections, I am reasonably comfortable in my belief that Gregg's comments today were not based on his own polling data alone. If you look at democraticSpace.com, you can see a rather complex seat projection model built on everyone's public polling. Sure enough it supports the idea that there may be a small Liberal majority even given the national polling numbers. But notice - he is basing his analysis on everyone's numbers. Gregg is showing just his own and then somehow producing the same analysis. It doesn't add up.
This certainly doesn't mean that Strategic Counsel is cooking the books. Far from it. Allan Gregg is a competent, professional opinion researcher. What may be happening here is that the pressure for news that is different - what the client is looking for - may be affecting what Gregg can toss up to talk about. It's a real-world issue and no one can fault Gregg for dealing with it. The national exposure he is getting is worth its weight in billable hours gold.
For those of us who are political junkies, though, this election coverage and the access to some fairly sophisticated polling results - as public results go - is like having your own meth-lab. We can fiddle with numbers, run seat projections and basically develop a picture of the world using the work of some of the best in the opinion research business.
There's also a good warning in all this for people who are wedded to one set of polling numbers: get a divorce, or at least negotiate an open marriage. In order to get an accurate picture of what is going on out there among the Canadian electorate, you have to take in as much data you can from as many sources as possible and then make your own assessment.
Even after decades of public opinion research, there are still perils in polling, as my old professor, Hugh Whelan, used to say.
The seats to watch in Newfoundland and Labrador
E-mails arrive telling me I am off my rocker on the election in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Maybe I am.
For those who are interested here is an assessment by PoliticsWatch on the seats to watch in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Maybe I am.
For those who are interested here is an assessment by PoliticsWatch on the seats to watch in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Harpering the party
Conservative party organizers in Newfoundland and Labrador are reportedly looking at new ways of finding candidates.
SES results: Libs keep rockin'; Quebec undecided climbs
SES Research results of its rolling polls show that as of Thursday, The Liberals enjoy the support of 41% of decided voters, with the Conservatives down two points to 26%. The New Democrats are the choice of 18%.
Undecided was at 20% and the margin of error for the national figures is +/- 2.9%, at the 95th confidence interval.
Undecided in Quebec has risen to 28%, up from 11% on the first day of SES polling.
No one should get too excited by these numbers since there is a long way to go until voting day.
In the meantime, Connie bloggers continue to be confounded at the numbers. Albertaavenue goes so far as to claim that the polling firms don't release their methodology. Nice try, Alav, but they do.
Plunk the latest SES numbers into the Hill and Knowlton seat count predictor and here's what pops out:
Liberals: 166
Conservative: 63
NDP: 40
Bloc: 48
Other: 1
Personally, the real outcome would likely be somewhere between this result and the one projected by democraticSpace. Check out the methodology.
Click on the Newfoundland and Labrador results, though and you'll see that while democraticSpace is predicting a small Liberal minority, it is projecting a Liberal sweep of the province.
This is all good fun, but The Day is a way off yet. No one should be resting on any laurels.
Undecided was at 20% and the margin of error for the national figures is +/- 2.9%, at the 95th confidence interval.
Undecided in Quebec has risen to 28%, up from 11% on the first day of SES polling.
No one should get too excited by these numbers since there is a long way to go until voting day.
In the meantime, Connie bloggers continue to be confounded at the numbers. Albertaavenue goes so far as to claim that the polling firms don't release their methodology. Nice try, Alav, but they do.
Plunk the latest SES numbers into the Hill and Knowlton seat count predictor and here's what pops out:
Liberals: 166
Conservative: 63
NDP: 40
Bloc: 48
Other: 1
Personally, the real outcome would likely be somewhere between this result and the one projected by democraticSpace. Check out the methodology.
Click on the Newfoundland and Labrador results, though and you'll see that while democraticSpace is predicting a small Liberal minority, it is projecting a Liberal sweep of the province.
This is all good fun, but The Day is a way off yet. No one should be resting on any laurels.
Leger and SES agree
About 10 days into the campaign, pollsters SES and Leger Marketing show the current party standing with the Liberals in a 12 point lead over the Conservatives.
In Atlantic Canada, Leger is showing the Liberals at 47%, Conservatives 31% and New Democrats at 19%. That suggests the Liberals will hold onto their existing seats and may well pick up others from the Conservatives, especially in weak Connie spots like St. John's.
It seems strange to even say that the once might Conservative bastion is likely to go Liberal. How the mighty have fallen indeed!
Polls are only snapshots in time, but add them together and you can start to see a picture.
Even this early in what will be a long campaign, the picture emerging is not very good for Conservatives.
Expect a shift in their comms strategy any day now.
In Atlantic Canada, Leger is showing the Liberals at 47%, Conservatives 31% and New Democrats at 19%. That suggests the Liberals will hold onto their existing seats and may well pick up others from the Conservatives, especially in weak Connie spots like St. John's.
It seems strange to even say that the once might Conservative bastion is likely to go Liberal. How the mighty have fallen indeed!
Polls are only snapshots in time, but add them together and you can start to see a picture.
Even this early in what will be a long campaign, the picture emerging is not very good for Conservatives.
Expect a shift in their comms strategy any day now.
Another "tell"
Danny Williams explodes in anger and attacks the person, whenever a question gets close to the truth, not close to his family and friends.
That's his tell. The dead giveaway.
For the federal Connies - not Tories, that party died two years ago - the "tell" may well be the Sun chain.
Take a skim through the columnists online and look at all the columns that either praise Steve Harper (like the bitter Sheila Copps), attack Liberals (the ever-dyspeptic John "More TUMS" Crosbie), or in this case, the one where Greg Weston laments the hard position in which the Conservatives find themselves on an issue like gun control.
He does a fine job of claiming that the Prime Minister's announcement really isn't changing anything at all and is really designed to lure Conservatives into defending guns and being therefore, somehow, scary.
Geez, Greg. I love conspiracy theories. They make great movies - where the key ingredient is a suspension of disbelief. In the real world, there is much less conspiracy.
On the handgun issue, the Liberals have jumped in front of an issue in metro Toronto and did so on a day when news would be tuned to the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shooting.
The positioning put the Liberals firmly in control of a Connie issue - law and order - and did so in a way that grabbed extra support from recollections of a tragedy involving a nutbar and a handgun.
That's smart politics.
The Connies only find themselves thinking about their position because they got outflanked. The instinct will be to argue against gun control which, as the recent policy convention showed, is where the majority of Connie delegates were headed. They took out a simple statement in favour of the sort of licensing system this country has had for rifles and shotguns since the 1970s and for handguns since the 1930s. In its place would be a "screening system" that in all likelihood will have some pretty big mesh in the screen.
At the end, the Conservatives are left pretty much as they were headed. Polls clearly show the public doesn't trust Stephen Harper when he tells them that Connies have moved to the centre on social policy issues (except for equal marriage). Unable to think outside the box, the Connie strategists keep putting front and centre one Stephen Harper, the embodiment of Canadians unease about the Connies.
So they suffer at the polls.
And rely on shop-worn messages that the Liberals are all about spin.
Then Paul Martin announces a policy on a precious Connie cause and take control of an issue that used to be purely a conservative one. Gun control appeals in urban Canada and while it sometimes ruffles in rural areas, this particular ban won't affect too many.
It will also resonate with people in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason is simple. Handguns, restricted but legal weapons - Weston is wrong on that point - are seized at the home of a young man in St. John's. Tazers, a prohibited weapon, turn up in another police search.
In other words, as much as Connies will claim that legitimate handgun owners are the only ones to suffer under a ban, the truth is that the once safe system of handgun ownership in this country is slowly crumbling.
Legally acquired handguns are finding their way to the underworld through thefts or loss.
And that's what makes a simple "screening system" totally inadequate to address the criminal use of firearms - both illegally obtained ones and legally purchased ones that are diverted to the streets.
There are still many ways to refine Canada's gun control system but the Conservative Party policy, heavily influenced by a handful of anti-gun control types is not the way to go.
On this issue, the tell to watch is not only in the reaction of the Connie-friendly media. It's also in the movement in the polls.
That's the "tell" of public opinion, the one that will count in January.
That's his tell. The dead giveaway.
For the federal Connies - not Tories, that party died two years ago - the "tell" may well be the Sun chain.
Take a skim through the columnists online and look at all the columns that either praise Steve Harper (like the bitter Sheila Copps), attack Liberals (the ever-dyspeptic John "More TUMS" Crosbie), or in this case, the one where Greg Weston laments the hard position in which the Conservatives find themselves on an issue like gun control.
He does a fine job of claiming that the Prime Minister's announcement really isn't changing anything at all and is really designed to lure Conservatives into defending guns and being therefore, somehow, scary.
Geez, Greg. I love conspiracy theories. They make great movies - where the key ingredient is a suspension of disbelief. In the real world, there is much less conspiracy.
On the handgun issue, the Liberals have jumped in front of an issue in metro Toronto and did so on a day when news would be tuned to the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shooting.
The positioning put the Liberals firmly in control of a Connie issue - law and order - and did so in a way that grabbed extra support from recollections of a tragedy involving a nutbar and a handgun.
That's smart politics.
The Connies only find themselves thinking about their position because they got outflanked. The instinct will be to argue against gun control which, as the recent policy convention showed, is where the majority of Connie delegates were headed. They took out a simple statement in favour of the sort of licensing system this country has had for rifles and shotguns since the 1970s and for handguns since the 1930s. In its place would be a "screening system" that in all likelihood will have some pretty big mesh in the screen.
At the end, the Conservatives are left pretty much as they were headed. Polls clearly show the public doesn't trust Stephen Harper when he tells them that Connies have moved to the centre on social policy issues (except for equal marriage). Unable to think outside the box, the Connie strategists keep putting front and centre one Stephen Harper, the embodiment of Canadians unease about the Connies.
So they suffer at the polls.
And rely on shop-worn messages that the Liberals are all about spin.
Then Paul Martin announces a policy on a precious Connie cause and take control of an issue that used to be purely a conservative one. Gun control appeals in urban Canada and while it sometimes ruffles in rural areas, this particular ban won't affect too many.
It will also resonate with people in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason is simple. Handguns, restricted but legal weapons - Weston is wrong on that point - are seized at the home of a young man in St. John's. Tazers, a prohibited weapon, turn up in another police search.
In other words, as much as Connies will claim that legitimate handgun owners are the only ones to suffer under a ban, the truth is that the once safe system of handgun ownership in this country is slowly crumbling.
Legally acquired handguns are finding their way to the underworld through thefts or loss.
And that's what makes a simple "screening system" totally inadequate to address the criminal use of firearms - both illegally obtained ones and legally purchased ones that are diverted to the streets.
There are still many ways to refine Canada's gun control system but the Conservative Party policy, heavily influenced by a handful of anti-gun control types is not the way to go.
On this issue, the tell to watch is not only in the reaction of the Connie-friendly media. It's also in the movement in the polls.
That's the "tell" of public opinion, the one that will count in January.
Jack Layton: Different town; different message
In Ontario ridings, Jack Layton told voters to ignore third place candidates (who happened to be Liberal), warning that a vote for the third place is a vote for the Conservatives.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, where Jack is having a hard time finding candidates and where the ones nominated are way back in third place, Jack has a different tune.
Everyone can change their mind, but we are talking a matter of days here. Perhaps we need a Clarity Act to require the New Democrat boss to say the same thing everywhere he goes within the same election.
In the meantime, Deborah Coyne is on the ground in Toronto-Danforth knocking doors and taking names.
Ask Mulroney, Jack.
You that's one Coyne you don't want on your ass.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, where Jack is having a hard time finding candidates and where the ones nominated are way back in third place, Jack has a different tune.
Everyone can change their mind, but we are talking a matter of days here. Perhaps we need a Clarity Act to require the New Democrat boss to say the same thing everywhere he goes within the same election.
In the meantime, Deborah Coyne is on the ground in Toronto-Danforth knocking doors and taking names.
Ask Mulroney, Jack.
You that's one Coyne you don't want on your ass.
08 December 2005
Connie gun control
At its convention in March of this year, the Conservative Party delegates were asked to vote on a gun control motion that would provide:
- mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms;
- strict monitoring of high-risk individuals;
- crackdown on the smuggling [this incomplete/poorly translated phrase survived into the actual policy manual];
- safe storage laws [we already have this];
- firearms safety training [we already have this];
- a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally [we already have this];
- and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets."
The motion that made it into policy manual changed one bit: the bit about the licensing system, which we effectively already have and which has been in place for the better part of the last 25 years.
Instead, the section was changed to read "a certification screening program..."
No one knows what that means, but the implication is that the level of firearms ownership control we have had in this country since the early 1980s and beforehand would be reduced down to something far less burdensome for everyone - law-abiding gun owners and criminals alike.
That's what I posted before on this and by gosh, by gum, I am sticking to the interpretation that the Conservative Party policy manual actually appears to call for an elimination of licenses for firearms owners. Instead, they'll just have to clear a screening program of some kind.
Experience in Canada shows that deaths attributable to firearms are about half the rate they were 25 years ago. The rate of deaths per 100, 000 females dropped from 1.2 in 1979 to a mere 0.3.
Our current gun control laws work. Stengthening them makes sense.
Rolling back the clock, as the Conservative policy suggests, doesn't make any sense.
Unless you take your public policy advice from Ben Hur.
Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.
The facts speak for themselves.
- mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms;
- strict monitoring of high-risk individuals;
- crackdown on the smuggling [this incomplete/poorly translated phrase survived into the actual policy manual];
- safe storage laws [we already have this];
- firearms safety training [we already have this];
- a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally [we already have this];
- and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets."
The motion that made it into policy manual changed one bit: the bit about the licensing system, which we effectively already have and which has been in place for the better part of the last 25 years.
Instead, the section was changed to read "a certification screening program..."
No one knows what that means, but the implication is that the level of firearms ownership control we have had in this country since the early 1980s and beforehand would be reduced down to something far less burdensome for everyone - law-abiding gun owners and criminals alike.
That's what I posted before on this and by gosh, by gum, I am sticking to the interpretation that the Conservative Party policy manual actually appears to call for an elimination of licenses for firearms owners. Instead, they'll just have to clear a screening program of some kind.
Experience in Canada shows that deaths attributable to firearms are about half the rate they were 25 years ago. The rate of deaths per 100, 000 females dropped from 1.2 in 1979 to a mere 0.3.
Our current gun control laws work. Stengthening them makes sense.
Rolling back the clock, as the Conservative policy suggests, doesn't make any sense.
Unless you take your public policy advice from Ben Hur.
Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.
The facts speak for themselves.
Pollster or astrologer?
You can find some truly wacky things online these days, whether it is Liberal Warren Kinsella busily working to defeat the Liberals or this story from politicwatch.com in which a Sudbury pollster predicts a majority Conservative government.
The basis for his prognostication? A gut feeling.
Apparently, he missed the tea leaves that morning and his Kerlian photography kit was on the fritz so he couldn't get an accurate reading of the political "aura".
I have a gut feeling too when I read this sort of crap commentary from a supposedly professional pollster. But it's not the kind of feeling I feel comfortable discussing in polite company. Even Imodium wouldn't handle it.
In the meantime, both Strategic Counsel and SES are producing polls with results in the same general neighbourhood. SES numbers up to 6 December show the Liberals on the way to a majority government.
Plug them into the seat predictor at Hill and Knowlton.
E-mail the results to your Connie friends and watch them develop apoplexy.
The basis for his prognostication? A gut feeling.
Apparently, he missed the tea leaves that morning and his Kerlian photography kit was on the fritz so he couldn't get an accurate reading of the political "aura".
I have a gut feeling too when I read this sort of crap commentary from a supposedly professional pollster. But it's not the kind of feeling I feel comfortable discussing in polite company. Even Imodium wouldn't handle it.
In the meantime, both Strategic Counsel and SES are producing polls with results in the same general neighbourhood. SES numbers up to 6 December show the Liberals on the way to a majority government.
Plug them into the seat predictor at Hill and Knowlton.
E-mail the results to your Connie friends and watch them develop apoplexy.
Lowest common denominator school politics
God invented schools.
Then God invented school administration.
Then God took the brains to manage school administration away from anyone connected with the eastern school authorities in Newfoundland.
This report is the umpteenth kick at the cat for local school bureaucrats. Many of the ideas are old ones that reflect the sort of idiocy that only can come from academic bureaucrats who define a neighbourhood school as one in which their computer program drops your kid across town, even if the actual neighbourhood school is about a couple of hundred feet away from your back door.
Like the one to keep two schools across the street from each other and have one a K-3 school and the other a 4-6 school.
School board planners and the consultant hired to produce this report obviously never did a course in traffic management.
Tough decisions - but necessary ones - are not going to get made. Yet again.
Meanwhile the Minister of Education has been well-briefed. She is following the same pattern as her predecessors. She wants to scrap the plan and, likely, keep everything much as it is.
Then God invented school administration.
Then God took the brains to manage school administration away from anyone connected with the eastern school authorities in Newfoundland.
This report is the umpteenth kick at the cat for local school bureaucrats. Many of the ideas are old ones that reflect the sort of idiocy that only can come from academic bureaucrats who define a neighbourhood school as one in which their computer program drops your kid across town, even if the actual neighbourhood school is about a couple of hundred feet away from your back door.
Like the one to keep two schools across the street from each other and have one a K-3 school and the other a 4-6 school.
School board planners and the consultant hired to produce this report obviously never did a course in traffic management.
Tough decisions - but necessary ones - are not going to get made. Yet again.
Meanwhile the Minister of Education has been well-briefed. She is following the same pattern as her predecessors. She wants to scrap the plan and, likely, keep everything much as it is.
The good old days
Is it only 15 years ago that a Conservative government introduced gun control measures that were considered draconian at the time?
Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. Closets of Gucci loafers replaced by a wild campaign in which the PM reportedly spent most of the time on her tour bus steaming up the back windows with her boyfriend.
*sigh*
Those were the days.
Prime Minister Paul Martin today announced plans to ban ownership of handguns except for police, some security firms and the military.
Steve Harper said the plan wouldn't crack down on illegal gun imports or impose harsher sentences for gun crime.
Now if this site is correct from some guy named Bruce Montague, the Conservative Party policy forum earlier this year actually removed a section calling for firearms owners to be licensed.
I doubt that Brian and Kim would consider that to be good policy, Steve, especially when you are quoted as supporting the record of past Conservative governments on gun control.
Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. Closets of Gucci loafers replaced by a wild campaign in which the PM reportedly spent most of the time on her tour bus steaming up the back windows with her boyfriend.
*sigh*
Those were the days.
Prime Minister Paul Martin today announced plans to ban ownership of handguns except for police, some security firms and the military.
Steve Harper said the plan wouldn't crack down on illegal gun imports or impose harsher sentences for gun crime.
Now if this site is correct from some guy named Bruce Montague, the Conservative Party policy forum earlier this year actually removed a section calling for firearms owners to be licensed.
I doubt that Brian and Kim would consider that to be good policy, Steve, especially when you are quoted as supporting the record of past Conservative governments on gun control.
MacKay eyes Harper's job, post-election
Blonde, wealthy, well-connected.
Peter MacKay's latest love interest, according to well-known gossip sheet the NationalLampoon Post:
Sophie Desmarais. Of that Desmarais clan. They met courtesy of Mila Mulroney. Sophie's clan is tight with Liberals like Jean Chretien.
Way to go, Peter.
Now, just a few weeks to go before you can start the campaign to boot Harper and take his job.
As reminiscent of medieval Italian politics as this all seems, Peter might have learned to be a little less obvious. Nicolo would not be pleased.
Peter MacKay's latest love interest, according to well-known gossip sheet the National
Sophie Desmarais. Of that Desmarais clan. They met courtesy of Mila Mulroney. Sophie's clan is tight with Liberals like Jean Chretien.
Way to go, Peter.
Now, just a few weeks to go before you can start the campaign to boot Harper and take his job.
As reminiscent of medieval Italian politics as this all seems, Peter might have learned to be a little less obvious. Nicolo would not be pleased.
Custodial management almost impossible to deliver
Memorial University political science prof David Close threw some cold water on people who think "custodial management" is a simple answer to fisheries problems.
Close said while CM is easy to advocate it is almost impossible to achieve. He said it is not at all clear that Canada could unilaterally lay claim to waters outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
If that isn't good enough for you, there's a slightly different view from the dean of the Dalhousie law school. it adds up to the same thing, though: CM is easy to say but hard to do.
Close said while CM is easy to advocate it is almost impossible to achieve. He said it is not at all clear that Canada could unilaterally lay claim to waters outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
If that isn't good enough for you, there's a slightly different view from the dean of the Dalhousie law school. it adds up to the same thing, though: CM is easy to say but hard to do.
Moving forward is good enough for the Premier
It should be good enough for Liam over at RGL.
Apparently not.
He preferred to quote people from American political action groups to argue against government-funded child care outside the home for families where both parents work. Of course, he didn't see fit to disclose who these people actually were and the political action committees they work for.
Well, here's what Danny Williams had to say back in May when the province and federal government signed an agreement on early childhood education and child care:
"Making sure that our youngest citizens get the best start in life is one of the most important priorities for parents and families in our province," said Premier Williams. "This agreement signed today will help Newfoundland and Labrador achieve its long-term vision to ensure children and families have access to a quality early learning and child care system and that early child care educators and providers receive the training and supports they need."
And for the record, here's what finance minister Loyola Sullivan said in the same announcement:
"Our government has made significant progress in building capacity, ensuring children and families have access to quality programming and improving the quality of early learning and child care in Newfoundland and Labrador," said Minister Sullivan. " We are committed to building a progressive early learning and child care program to complement the work of our Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning that focuses on the learning needs of children and their families. As we move forward, we will continue to consult with parents and early learning and childcare stakeholders to assist in developing the action plan for Newfoundland and Labrador."
Here are two Canadians - Progressive Conservatives and political leaders at that - who don't see anything sinister in the government providing funding for quality childcare outside the home as well as funding new initiatives in early childhood education.
Hmmmm.
Now of course, they aren't early childhood education and childcare experts, but ya know, I'd put a lot more faith in their judgment on this issue than a bunch of political activists who had obscured identities if not obscured agendas.
As for Liam, he needn't worry about someone trying to create what he calls a "Nanny" state. He's the only one talking about that nonsense.
Instead, he just needs to take a breath and get over his morbid fear of Fran Drescher.
Apparently not.
He preferred to quote people from American political action groups to argue against government-funded child care outside the home for families where both parents work. Of course, he didn't see fit to disclose who these people actually were and the political action committees they work for.
Well, here's what Danny Williams had to say back in May when the province and federal government signed an agreement on early childhood education and child care:
"Making sure that our youngest citizens get the best start in life is one of the most important priorities for parents and families in our province," said Premier Williams. "This agreement signed today will help Newfoundland and Labrador achieve its long-term vision to ensure children and families have access to a quality early learning and child care system and that early child care educators and providers receive the training and supports they need."
And for the record, here's what finance minister Loyola Sullivan said in the same announcement:
"Our government has made significant progress in building capacity, ensuring children and families have access to quality programming and improving the quality of early learning and child care in Newfoundland and Labrador," said Minister Sullivan. " We are committed to building a progressive early learning and child care program to complement the work of our Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning that focuses on the learning needs of children and their families. As we move forward, we will continue to consult with parents and early learning and childcare stakeholders to assist in developing the action plan for Newfoundland and Labrador."
Here are two Canadians - Progressive Conservatives and political leaders at that - who don't see anything sinister in the government providing funding for quality childcare outside the home as well as funding new initiatives in early childhood education.
Hmmmm.
Now of course, they aren't early childhood education and childcare experts, but ya know, I'd put a lot more faith in their judgment on this issue than a bunch of political activists who had obscured identities if not obscured agendas.
As for Liam, he needn't worry about someone trying to create what he calls a "Nanny" state. He's the only one talking about that nonsense.
Instead, he just needs to take a breath and get over his morbid fear of Fran Drescher.
Coast Guard tragedy
Two Coast Guard employees were killed yesterday in an incident that is still under investigation.
It appears they were traveling by helicopter between sites, conducting routine maintenance of navigation aides on the south coast of Newfoundland when the incident occurred.
The two employees were flying in a Coast Guard MBB 105, like the one pictured.
Methinks he doth protest too much
Danny Williams likes to use sales jargon, like talking about "the ask".
Well, in sales as in poker, there's a thing called "the tell". It's something that gives away the truth, despite the apparent demeanor of the other person.
Whenever anyone asks Danny Williams a question he doesn't like - that is one that comes close to the truth - he immediately turns into attack mode. He lashes out and accuses his questioner of all sorts of evil motives.
That form of personal attack, while rather entertaining to watch is actually the weakest form of argument.
And it is noticeable that when you strike close to the truth, Williams gets personal.
All the time.
It isn't just that a question is about someone close to his family, and therefore he's defending his relatives. Williams has a noticeable tendency to employ people close to his family, so much so that it's become a bit of a joke at Confederation Building, in fact. he lashes out whenever someone is getting close to the real reason for some action.
Danny Williams didn't like questions yesterday about the hiring of his daughter's fiance as a communications director with the Department of Justice. Before that, the man was a staffer in the Government Members' Office. Beyond that, no one knows what his background is.
There was no competition for the position.
The Premier lashed out at the guy asking the question - Roland Butler - who was involved in a hiring scandal several years ago. Under a different Premier, Butler's boss and others paid a price for the incident.
But the question yesterday focused on the Premier's future son-in-law, whom the Premier described in this way:
"This government has hired this bright, capable, qualified, young man in a temporary position, which is a perfectly legal thing to do and which the members opposite know is according to the rules and according to the rules of the Public Service Commission. So, he was hired in a temporary position and he is eminently qualified and that is according to law and according to rules. Shame on you!"
My questions for the Premier are simple:
1. Would the Premier please make public Bill Hickey's resume?
If he is so eminently qualified for the position, then it should be obvious why he was appointed into a position without a competition.
2. As for the competition currently underway for communications directors, would the Premier assure that it will be run fairly - not like other Public Service Commission competitions - so that incumbents, like Mr. Hickey, do not have an unfair advantage over other, eminently qualified candidates?
The questions are simple.
The replies should be equally simple.
Let's see if we can get them.
Well, in sales as in poker, there's a thing called "the tell". It's something that gives away the truth, despite the apparent demeanor of the other person.
Whenever anyone asks Danny Williams a question he doesn't like - that is one that comes close to the truth - he immediately turns into attack mode. He lashes out and accuses his questioner of all sorts of evil motives.
That form of personal attack, while rather entertaining to watch is actually the weakest form of argument.
And it is noticeable that when you strike close to the truth, Williams gets personal.
All the time.
It isn't just that a question is about someone close to his family, and therefore he's defending his relatives. Williams has a noticeable tendency to employ people close to his family, so much so that it's become a bit of a joke at Confederation Building, in fact. he lashes out whenever someone is getting close to the real reason for some action.
Danny Williams didn't like questions yesterday about the hiring of his daughter's fiance as a communications director with the Department of Justice. Before that, the man was a staffer in the Government Members' Office. Beyond that, no one knows what his background is.
There was no competition for the position.
The Premier lashed out at the guy asking the question - Roland Butler - who was involved in a hiring scandal several years ago. Under a different Premier, Butler's boss and others paid a price for the incident.
But the question yesterday focused on the Premier's future son-in-law, whom the Premier described in this way:
"This government has hired this bright, capable, qualified, young man in a temporary position, which is a perfectly legal thing to do and which the members opposite know is according to the rules and according to the rules of the Public Service Commission. So, he was hired in a temporary position and he is eminently qualified and that is according to law and according to rules. Shame on you!"
My questions for the Premier are simple:
1. Would the Premier please make public Bill Hickey's resume?
If he is so eminently qualified for the position, then it should be obvious why he was appointed into a position without a competition.
2. As for the competition currently underway for communications directors, would the Premier assure that it will be run fairly - not like other Public Service Commission competitions - so that incumbents, like Mr. Hickey, do not have an unfair advantage over other, eminently qualified candidates?
The questions are simple.
The replies should be equally simple.
Let's see if we can get them.
07 December 2005
Liam quotes the American right to back Harper
In one of several megaposts lately, Liam O'Brien at RGL quoted someone named Darcy Ann Olsen, who is presented as an expert commentator on child care issues.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The Battle Song of the Newfoundlanders
Courtesy of an old friend and sometimes e-mail commentator comes this link about a recent event involving HMCS Cabot, the naval reserve division in Newfoundland and Labrador.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
Controlling every little thing
These changes to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Act are curious if only for the fact they are entirely unnecessary.
The Order was created to honour outstanding contributions by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to their province. The selection committee consisted of a number of people, including the Chief Justice of the province and the President of Memorial University.
These two positions are now eliminated, supposedly to be replaced by two members of the order.
Unfortunately for Premier Williams explanations in the House of Assembly, his amendments to the legislation don't say that.
They simply reduce the advisory council to a committee comprising the Clerk of the Executive Council (appointed by the premier) and seven other people (also appointed ultimately by the Premier).
In any event, since the original Act didn't specify who was appointed beyond the Chief Justice, the Clerk and the university president, the government had plenty of opportunity to apppoint who they wanted or to amend the legislation to add to the council.
The switcheroo pushed by the Premier looks entirely like what it likely is: the Premier wanted to get rid of some people he didn't like and get personal control over as many appointments as possible.
At least in some instances - like the offshore board - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have qualified people appointed by a process the Premier can't gerrymander.
That doesn't stop the Premier from moving to control every little thing in the province.
The Order was created to honour outstanding contributions by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to their province. The selection committee consisted of a number of people, including the Chief Justice of the province and the President of Memorial University.
These two positions are now eliminated, supposedly to be replaced by two members of the order.
Unfortunately for Premier Williams explanations in the House of Assembly, his amendments to the legislation don't say that.
They simply reduce the advisory council to a committee comprising the Clerk of the Executive Council (appointed by the premier) and seven other people (also appointed ultimately by the Premier).
In any event, since the original Act didn't specify who was appointed beyond the Chief Justice, the Clerk and the university president, the government had plenty of opportunity to apppoint who they wanted or to amend the legislation to add to the council.
The switcheroo pushed by the Premier looks entirely like what it likely is: the Premier wanted to get rid of some people he didn't like and get personal control over as many appointments as possible.
At least in some instances - like the offshore board - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have qualified people appointed by a process the Premier can't gerrymander.
That doesn't stop the Premier from moving to control every little thing in the province.
Morrow to beat Manning
Lawyer Bill Morrow will carry the Liberal banner in Avalon.
The CBC report carries a bizarre comment: "Sandwiched between the twin Tory stronghold seats based in St. John's and Liberal-dominated ridings in the rest of the province, Avalon is emerging as the most interesting riding to watch."
Avalon is on the western border of both the St. John's ridings and drawfs them both in size. It is not "sandwiched" between them by any stretch of anyones imagination.
To call the St. john's seats "Tory strongholds" is also not based on the last voting results.
But hey, while everyone was quick to start the attacks on Art Reid, theirs was a pre-mature escalation of the political contest.
Now we can see a solid race in Avalon.
and the switcheroo in St. John's.
The CBC report carries a bizarre comment: "Sandwiched between the twin Tory stronghold seats based in St. John's and Liberal-dominated ridings in the rest of the province, Avalon is emerging as the most interesting riding to watch."
Avalon is on the western border of both the St. John's ridings and drawfs them both in size. It is not "sandwiched" between them by any stretch of anyones imagination.
To call the St. john's seats "Tory strongholds" is also not based on the last voting results.
But hey, while everyone was quick to start the attacks on Art Reid, theirs was a pre-mature escalation of the political contest.
Now we can see a solid race in Avalon.
and the switcheroo in St. John's.
06 December 2005
The real story on Gander and weather
VOCM broke the real story on Gander and weather forecasting that everyone else has been missing.
Harper: policy plagiarism - revised
Stevie Harper popped up in Petty Harbour today, just outside St. John's, to reinforce the view that all we have in Newfoundland and Labrador is fish and fishermen. His announcement in the local version of Peggy's (If I see one more "quaint" picture) Cove, focused on fish and not a helluva lot else.
The PM, by contrast, talked about lots of things during his trip here - and sounded like he was enjoying himself as he did it.
Standing side by side with Loyola Hearn, Harper proclaimed his support for a bunch of fisheries things, including a policy that would allow fishermen a capital gains break on transferring ownership of fishing vessels within the family.
He added joint management and custodial management to the pile, demonstrating conclusively that his fish man (Loyola Hearn) is stuck in the 1980s. What's next? A hydroponic cucumber factory in Mount Pearl? Double-daylight savings time?
As Greg Locke reports, one mainland journalist traveling in the Opp Leader bubble babbled that he had no idea what custodial management was. Here's a simple link.
For those who want to see it done properly, they can check the United Nations law of the Sea Convention and the current federal government approach.
Local proponents of custodial management want to force the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and claim the fish as ours to manage. Picking a fight with the Spaniards, French and Portuguese seems like an eminently sensible way of making sure the European Union lowers its tariffs on shrimp imported into the EU from Newfoundland and Labrador.
As for joint management, to paraphrase Harper himself on another topic, the answer to fisheries problems lies not in one group of politicians sharing power with another group of politicians. It comes from giving meaningful influence to those who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. Check the latest House of Commons fisheries committee report for just such an idea. It's blogged here.
*sigh*
Anyway, seems that the capital gains policy was lifted from bill C-343, proposed by Lawrence MacAulay back in February, 2005. It died with the government, like a bunch of other measures.
**Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital gains exemption on disposition of fishing property).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act allows an individual to claim a $500,000 total lifetime exemption for capital gains that arise from the disposal of qualified farm property.
I am pleased to table this bill today which amends the act so that an individual may also claim this exemption in respect of qualified fishing property.
This bill is very important to the fishing industry. I urge the House to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)***
Revision: Aside from the bit snipped, here's something from the Charlottetown Guardian from September.
Harper should have looked closer at bill: MP
Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay says Opposition Leader Stephen Harper should have taken a closer look at Bill 343 tabled by MacAulay last February before saying that a new Conservative government will provide a capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 of qualifying fishing
property transferred within a family. Harper said he would exempt fishermen from capital gains tax on up to $500,000 on land, licenses or equipment handed to their children. "There is just something wrong with charging capital gains tax when a fishing family wants to transfer assets from one generation to another," said Harper.
Under the Conservative plan approximately 60,000 full- and part-time fish harvesters in Canada would be affected.
But MacAulay says Harper's plan is only a half-measure. MacAulay's private member's Bill 343, given first reading Feb. 25, calls for an exemption on capital gains up to $500,000 on transactions involving any individual, not just family members.
"I just wish Harper would have looked at my bill, and he would not have limited his suggestion to families. My bill is for the entire fishing industry and it is important that it be that way in order to ensure its survival in the small business backbone of the Canadian economy."
The PM, by contrast, talked about lots of things during his trip here - and sounded like he was enjoying himself as he did it.
Standing side by side with Loyola Hearn, Harper proclaimed his support for a bunch of fisheries things, including a policy that would allow fishermen a capital gains break on transferring ownership of fishing vessels within the family.
He added joint management and custodial management to the pile, demonstrating conclusively that his fish man (Loyola Hearn) is stuck in the 1980s. What's next? A hydroponic cucumber factory in Mount Pearl? Double-daylight savings time?
As Greg Locke reports, one mainland journalist traveling in the Opp Leader bubble babbled that he had no idea what custodial management was. Here's a simple link.
For those who want to see it done properly, they can check the United Nations law of the Sea Convention and the current federal government approach.
Local proponents of custodial management want to force the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and claim the fish as ours to manage. Picking a fight with the Spaniards, French and Portuguese seems like an eminently sensible way of making sure the European Union lowers its tariffs on shrimp imported into the EU from Newfoundland and Labrador.
As for joint management, to paraphrase Harper himself on another topic, the answer to fisheries problems lies not in one group of politicians sharing power with another group of politicians. It comes from giving meaningful influence to those who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. Check the latest House of Commons fisheries committee report for just such an idea. It's blogged here.
*sigh*
Anyway, seems that the capital gains policy was lifted from bill C-343, proposed by Lawrence MacAulay back in February, 2005. It died with the government, like a bunch of other measures.
**Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital gains exemption on disposition of fishing property).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act allows an individual to claim a $500,000 total lifetime exemption for capital gains that arise from the disposal of qualified farm property.
I am pleased to table this bill today which amends the act so that an individual may also claim this exemption in respect of qualified fishing property.
This bill is very important to the fishing industry. I urge the House to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)***
Revision: Aside from the bit snipped, here's something from the Charlottetown Guardian from September.
Harper should have looked closer at bill: MP
Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay says Opposition Leader Stephen Harper should have taken a closer look at Bill 343 tabled by MacAulay last February before saying that a new Conservative government will provide a capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 of qualifying fishing
property transferred within a family. Harper said he would exempt fishermen from capital gains tax on up to $500,000 on land, licenses or equipment handed to their children. "There is just something wrong with charging capital gains tax when a fishing family wants to transfer assets from one generation to another," said Harper.
Under the Conservative plan approximately 60,000 full- and part-time fish harvesters in Canada would be affected.
But MacAulay says Harper's plan is only a half-measure. MacAulay's private member's Bill 343, given first reading Feb. 25, calls for an exemption on capital gains up to $500,000 on transactions involving any individual, not just family members.
"I just wish Harper would have looked at my bill, and he would not have limited his suggestion to families. My bill is for the entire fishing industry and it is important that it be that way in order to ensure its survival in the small business backbone of the Canadian economy."
Wells adrift in oil patch
Most of the bluster is gone.
Premier Danny Williams is accepting Max Ruelokke [pronounced roo-lock] as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
it was almost bizarre to hear Williams praising Ruelokke's extensive experience - bizarre given that Ruelokke was likely in consideration in the round of candidates Danny Williams scuttled in favour of a completely unqualified candidate named Andy Wells.
The Premier's comments about "the process not being finished" is just some bluster to cover over the fact that he was completely outmanoeuvered by the guys who actually read the Atlantic Accord and applied the terms of the contract.
The process is finished.
Ruelokke's in.
Wells was never even close.
Premier Danny Williams is accepting Max Ruelokke [pronounced roo-lock] as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
it was almost bizarre to hear Williams praising Ruelokke's extensive experience - bizarre given that Ruelokke was likely in consideration in the round of candidates Danny Williams scuttled in favour of a completely unqualified candidate named Andy Wells.
The Premier's comments about "the process not being finished" is just some bluster to cover over the fact that he was completely outmanoeuvered by the guys who actually read the Atlantic Accord and applied the terms of the contract.
The process is finished.
Ruelokke's in.
Wells was never even close.
05 December 2005
What Steve giveth, he taketh away too.
Flanked by his senior policy team, Conservative leader Stephen Harper today announced a $1200 allowance to be paid annually to families for each child under six years old.Sounds great.
Then the zinger: the money will be taxable.
The Liberal proposal is to fund child care spaces in accredited facilities and support early childhood education.
Corporal Taylor - give all the facts
Left - Mobile Gun SystemNot much surprise in the return of former Corporal Scott Taylor as an expert military commentator. His comments on the new transport aircraft purchase and the army's proposed mobile gun system are linked from Bourque, but here is the Taylor piece.
Taylor criticizes the proposed transport purchase by calling the J Herc a new version of the aircraft currently ins service. He's right - except that Taylor doesn't point out that there are no other aircraft currently flying that can meet the requirement.
Taylor talks about strategic airlifters. Again, there are no plans to purchase them but Taylor neglects to point out that Canada does not have a requirement for a fleet of heavy-lift aircraft that would justify the operating costs. Nor does he note that heavy lift is readily available in all foreseeable cases.
Taylor also criticizes the army's mobile gun system (MGS), essentially a version of the light armoured vehicle with a big gun on it. He notes comments by General Rick Hillier that the MGS was vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades. Note the use of the word "was" there.
The MGS and its LAV cousins were vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades. This was painfully obvious from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What Taylor didn't say was that a simple, add-on armour system corrects that flaw. The Department of National Defence has already called a tender for the add-on armour for its fleet of wheeled armoured vehicles. Problem solved.
Left - LAV III with add-on armour defeats rocket propelled grenades.Yes, the LAV family with add-ons is now too heavy to be carried by a Hercules - but other airlift and sealift is readily available. As it is, even without the add-on armour, the Canadian Herc fleet couldn't transport enough LAVs in a short time frame anywhere in the world to make much of a difference.
In the old days, Taylor's criticisms were well-founded, largely due to the inept Department of National Defence. His job was easy - he didn't have to know much to point to really obvious problems. Taylor built a name for himself among news media as a result.
These days Taylor's criticisms are based on not providing information that is already in the public domain which contradicts his conclusions.
Way to go, Scott.
Who owns loyolahearn.com?
Ok.
While I am starting to dig deeper into the mystery of Loyola Hearn's website, he has the one he used as a member of parliament.
Not a lick of campaign information here. Last time out, Loyola reformatted the pages on the parliamentary site so he could stuff campaign materials there, then switched back again later. El cheapo, for sure.
There's still some funny stuff, though. Like the news release headlined "Hearn introduces Private Member'Â’s Bill to help restore the Democratic Deficit".
Aside from the overdone capitalization, this means that Hearn wants to bring back the democratic deficit rather than eliminate it. Doesn't anyone in his office read English?
Hearn's motion would require that a by-election be held within 90 days of the resignation or death of a member of parliament. Maybe he should have introduced a motion requiring members of parliament to vote with the province instead of their party. Or maybe Hearn could have passed a motion that would prevent an MP from voting for a bill so he could vote against it.
Or maybe he should have tried an anti-hypocrisy motion to prevent a member of parliament from lambasting an opponent and then crying foul when the same populist e-mail storm hits his own e-mail in-basket.
There's still the mystery of the dot com site though. While I search, enjoy the sojourn over at Norm Doyle's tiny piece of cyberspace.
Norm Doyle's website is a mere blue page with a link to his e-mail address. The high-spending Doyle must be too busy to get his website up and inform voters of his views - like trying to end equal marriage.
I just can't wait to hear what else Norm wants to do.
Bring back the noose, maybe?
How about public flogging?
Take back the vote from women?
Meanwhile...
Seems that loyolahearn.com is registered to something called Canada Christian College, with the contact name on the account belonging to the college's president Dr. Charles McVety.
This is a bit wacky since there doesn't appear to be any logical reason why Charles McVety would own a website for Loyola Hearn.
McVety is the president of both Canada Christian College and the Christian Family Action Coalition. He's also involved with a number of similar political action groups like defendMarriage.
There is no indication of any direct connection between Hearn and McVety or any of the groups McVety heads. There's no sign the two even know each other.
Perhaps this site might explain it, although I still find the whole thing curious.
Seems that McVety has been cybersquatting - buying up the domains for members of parliament. Some of the sites have been activated, but for what purpose no one can say. Go to the sites named for Gerald Keddy or Don Boudria. They are almost identical.
My guess? McVety bought loyolahearn.com when hearn may have appeared to be waivering in his voting record on issues of concern to McVety. Doyle on the other hand had a perfect record and therefore wouldn't need to be pressured in cyberspace. Check Bouquets of Grey for just such ascorecardd" approach to rating members ofparliamentt.
I don't make this stuff up. I just put a bunch of stuff together and tell you what it looks like. There's no secret that conservative Christians on the extreme right have been working to influence Conservative Party policy and have staged minor coups in winning some nominations.
Consider this view, for example, taken from the Canadian Christianity website's OttawaWatch:
"And there are others who are known to competently understand and articulate the evangelical mindset, particularly with respect to life and family values. They include John Reynolds, Peter MacKay, Scott Reid, Loyola Hearn and James Moore."
This is going to take some extra digging.
In the meantime, I still haven't come up with a sensible reason why the head of a fundamentalist political action group would be owning a web domain named for a Conservative member of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador?
More to follow, for sure.
While I am starting to dig deeper into the mystery of Loyola Hearn's website, he has the one he used as a member of parliament.
Not a lick of campaign information here. Last time out, Loyola reformatted the pages on the parliamentary site so he could stuff campaign materials there, then switched back again later. El cheapo, for sure.
There's still some funny stuff, though. Like the news release headlined "Hearn introduces Private Member'Â’s Bill to help restore the Democratic Deficit".
Aside from the overdone capitalization, this means that Hearn wants to bring back the democratic deficit rather than eliminate it. Doesn't anyone in his office read English?
Hearn's motion would require that a by-election be held within 90 days of the resignation or death of a member of parliament. Maybe he should have introduced a motion requiring members of parliament to vote with the province instead of their party. Or maybe Hearn could have passed a motion that would prevent an MP from voting for a bill so he could vote against it.
Or maybe he should have tried an anti-hypocrisy motion to prevent a member of parliament from lambasting an opponent and then crying foul when the same populist e-mail storm hits his own e-mail in-basket.
There's still the mystery of the dot com site though. While I search, enjoy the sojourn over at Norm Doyle's tiny piece of cyberspace.
Norm Doyle's website is a mere blue page with a link to his e-mail address. The high-spending Doyle must be too busy to get his website up and inform voters of his views - like trying to end equal marriage.
I just can't wait to hear what else Norm wants to do.
Bring back the noose, maybe?
How about public flogging?
Take back the vote from women?
Meanwhile...
Seems that loyolahearn.com is registered to something called Canada Christian College, with the contact name on the account belonging to the college's president Dr. Charles McVety.
This is a bit wacky since there doesn't appear to be any logical reason why Charles McVety would own a website for Loyola Hearn.
McVety is the president of both Canada Christian College and the Christian Family Action Coalition. He's also involved with a number of similar political action groups like defendMarriage.
There is no indication of any direct connection between Hearn and McVety or any of the groups McVety heads. There's no sign the two even know each other.
Perhaps this site might explain it, although I still find the whole thing curious.
Seems that McVety has been cybersquatting - buying up the domains for members of parliament. Some of the sites have been activated, but for what purpose no one can say. Go to the sites named for Gerald Keddy or Don Boudria. They are almost identical.
My guess? McVety bought loyolahearn.com when hearn may have appeared to be waivering in his voting record on issues of concern to McVety. Doyle on the other hand had a perfect record and therefore wouldn't need to be pressured in cyberspace. Check Bouquets of Grey for just such ascorecardd" approach to rating members ofparliamentt.
I don't make this stuff up. I just put a bunch of stuff together and tell you what it looks like. There's no secret that conservative Christians on the extreme right have been working to influence Conservative Party policy and have staged minor coups in winning some nominations.
Consider this view, for example, taken from the Canadian Christianity website's OttawaWatch:
"And there are others who are known to competently understand and articulate the evangelical mindset, particularly with respect to life and family values. They include John Reynolds, Peter MacKay, Scott Reid, Loyola Hearn and James Moore."
This is going to take some extra digging.
In the meantime, I still haven't come up with a sensible reason why the head of a fundamentalist political action group would be owning a web domain named for a Conservative member of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador?
More to follow, for sure.
So what's the point?
So Decima is producing polling results for Canadian Press.
What's the point if no one but Canadian Press can see the details?
Notice that in the story carried online in the Globe on Sunday, there isn't a single mention of the methodology used to collect data. It's an "online" poll, but beyond that we know exactly squat.
Geez, at least with Allan Gregg's outfit, I can tell he is just producing some numbers for his own purposes - like lumping Alberta, where the Connies are miles ahead, with Saskatchewan and Manitoba where they aren't. Then there's the absence of any numbers for British Columbia where there seems to be a race and the Atlantic provinces.
Allan once missed a major development in Atlantic Canada and blew off the error of his predictions with a shrug and a simple "Sample was too small."
What's the point if no one but Canadian Press can see the details?
Notice that in the story carried online in the Globe on Sunday, there isn't a single mention of the methodology used to collect data. It's an "online" poll, but beyond that we know exactly squat.
Geez, at least with Allan Gregg's outfit, I can tell he is just producing some numbers for his own purposes - like lumping Alberta, where the Connies are miles ahead, with Saskatchewan and Manitoba where they aren't. Then there's the absence of any numbers for British Columbia where there seems to be a race and the Atlantic provinces.
Allan once missed a major development in Atlantic Canada and blew off the error of his predictions with a shrug and a simple "Sample was too small."
04 December 2005
Speaking of lame-assed
The Conservative party candidate in the Bonavista-Exploits riding is one Aaron Hynes.
He's an ex-navy type, with a bachelor of Arts degree from an unnamed university. Since leaving the navy, Aaron has worked extensively - as a staffer for Conservative members of parliament.
Now when a party has to start tossing political staffers into the fray, they are usually running low on alternatives. There's nothing wrong with staffers as candidates, but for the most part, most of them don't aspire to holding elected office.
If Aaron genuinely wants to enter elected politics on his own, then by all means, bring it on and good luck, Aaron.
And make no mistake, Aaron has a fine background - at least the navy bit. He deserves a medal for surviving as a political staffer for any party since the late 1990s.
What's lame-assed in this instance is the website. The thing is slow to load, is way too wide for most browsers and seem to have used just about every stock Conservative Party of Canada graphic and animation.
It looks exactly like every other CPC website except this one. That's the original CPC, the Communist Party of Canada.
Meanwhile, Loyola Hearn's site is still deader than a doornail. That's his dot com site; loyolahearn.ca doesn't even exist.
Compare that to his Liberal rival, Siobhan Coady. You can get there by .COM or .CA.
or for that matter, go visit Peg Norman, the New Democrat candidate who has reportedly stopped banging her head against the wall in the wake of Jack Layton's comments that people shouldn't vote for third place candidates.
Note that Peg's site is a cookie-cutter affair as well. Programmed nationally and with virtually no detectable local content.
He's an ex-navy type, with a bachelor of Arts degree from an unnamed university. Since leaving the navy, Aaron has worked extensively - as a staffer for Conservative members of parliament.
Now when a party has to start tossing political staffers into the fray, they are usually running low on alternatives. There's nothing wrong with staffers as candidates, but for the most part, most of them don't aspire to holding elected office.
If Aaron genuinely wants to enter elected politics on his own, then by all means, bring it on and good luck, Aaron.
And make no mistake, Aaron has a fine background - at least the navy bit. He deserves a medal for surviving as a political staffer for any party since the late 1990s.
What's lame-assed in this instance is the website. The thing is slow to load, is way too wide for most browsers and seem to have used just about every stock Conservative Party of Canada graphic and animation.
It looks exactly like every other CPC website except this one. That's the original CPC, the Communist Party of Canada.
Meanwhile, Loyola Hearn's site is still deader than a doornail. That's his dot com site; loyolahearn.ca doesn't even exist.
Compare that to his Liberal rival, Siobhan Coady. You can get there by .COM or .CA.
or for that matter, go visit Peg Norman, the New Democrat candidate who has reportedly stopped banging her head against the wall in the wake of Jack Layton's comments that people shouldn't vote for third place candidates.
Note that Peg's site is a cookie-cutter affair as well. Programmed nationally and with virtually no detectable local content.
The Fabester goes federal
Courtesy of Greg Locke is a picture for the history books.It was taken on Sunday 04 December 05 in Holyrood as Fabian Manning announced his candidacy for the Conservatives in the Avalon riding.
Back to the camera is provincial finance minister Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan, Fabe's mentor, as it were. Thankfully Fabe never picked up Rain Man's annoying tendency to cite statistics, numbers and decimals with a fetishistic fervour worthy of the most kinky accountant around.
Given the polls, Manning is likely to be out of work in the New Year, but hey, he is taking a shot.
One of the historic things about this whole change of direction for Fabe is that running for the federal Conservatives was one of the things Danny Williams cited in his heavy-handed effort to boot Fabe from the provincial Tory caucus. That's heavy handed as in having one of his political staffers sit in on the meeting - unheard of in other caucuses - to make sure the
The problem was the Premier got the wrong Manning at the time. Fabe's mistake at the time was not only challenging the Premier on his crab fishery management scheme but calling a local radio station to point out that the Premier had made a major league mistake about Fabe and his federal impulses.
Ya just don't do that to He Who Is Never Wrong.
The other historic thing about this shot is that it includes Elizabeth Marshall. She was Williams' star candidate in 2003 but fell from grace rather quickly as she had the temerity to disagree with the Premier.
Repeatedly.
She resented his making decisions within her department just because he could.
Repeatedly.
She finally got fed up and handed Danny her resignation.
He reportedly jumped for joy.
How quickly the stars fade.
Anyway, here's a picture of two former provincial Progressive Conservative stars who fell afoul of Danny Williams and paid the price for it.
One of them is looking to take up a new job.
Let's see what happens.
No contest in the TV spots
Check out the Conservatives' first TV spots - a series of three 30 sec spots built around the fake concept.
Here's Steve appearing to be interviewed by someone who is obviously not a real TV presenter. There's a screen in the background on which people who appear obviously to be actors are reading obviously scripted bits in an obviously 'I am reading a cue card or teleprompter' kinda way.
The people are referred to by first names, like "Joan", so we get the impression really quickly that these are generic Canadians. They are not real - even though there are obviously a few million real people across the country who would have been prepared to participate in some Conservative Party advertising.
Then Steve recites a bit of dialogue in a obviously stilted way. Aside from the obviously stiff approach and the obviously fake nature to the spots, the messaging is pretty heavy handed, as in crudely executed.
Then there are the first Liberals spots.
A soft approach featuring real people, with real names in real places across Canada telling you why they are voting Liberal. Since I had a small part in identifying people to participate, I can tell you they are real.
Then there's another one with a series of headlines praising Liberal policies over the past couple of years.
There's a big gap here in the quality and the execution of these TV spots on just about every level, from creative on down through the list. To be fair, the Conservative spots match their first week of campaigning in tone and message, but - and this is a big but - there is a sophisticated way to run political advertising that the Conservatives have just missed. They missed it in the flight they ran in August as well.
If the context and appearance - the look and feel - of the advertising lacks credibility, then the message will lack credibility as well.
But just so that everyone understand what the standards are for this type of advertising, try surfing through this site, The Living Room Candidate. I dare you to find a recent political television ad as lame-assed as these Conservative ones.
Here's Steve appearing to be interviewed by someone who is obviously not a real TV presenter. There's a screen in the background on which people who appear obviously to be actors are reading obviously scripted bits in an obviously 'I am reading a cue card or teleprompter' kinda way.
The people are referred to by first names, like "Joan", so we get the impression really quickly that these are generic Canadians. They are not real - even though there are obviously a few million real people across the country who would have been prepared to participate in some Conservative Party advertising.
Then Steve recites a bit of dialogue in a obviously stilted way. Aside from the obviously stiff approach and the obviously fake nature to the spots, the messaging is pretty heavy handed, as in crudely executed.
Then there are the first Liberals spots.
A soft approach featuring real people, with real names in real places across Canada telling you why they are voting Liberal. Since I had a small part in identifying people to participate, I can tell you they are real.
Then there's another one with a series of headlines praising Liberal policies over the past couple of years.
There's a big gap here in the quality and the execution of these TV spots on just about every level, from creative on down through the list. To be fair, the Conservative spots match their first week of campaigning in tone and message, but - and this is a big but - there is a sophisticated way to run political advertising that the Conservatives have just missed. They missed it in the flight they ran in August as well.
If the context and appearance - the look and feel - of the advertising lacks credibility, then the message will lack credibility as well.
But just so that everyone understand what the standards are for this type of advertising, try surfing through this site, The Living Room Candidate. I dare you to find a recent political television ad as lame-assed as these Conservative ones.
SES rolls on; PM and Harper move to Atlantic Canada
Another day, a new set of rolling polls from SES Research.
The Day 6 numbers, updated to 03 December 05, show the Liberals with 38%, the Conservatives with 29% and New Democrats at 15%. All changes are within the margin of error for the poll, but there seems to be an upward trending for Liberals and a flat line trending for Conservatives.
in the SES Leadership Index, there is also a significant change, but again, the fluctuations of the index components are within the margin of error.
Bottom line: Paul Martin still scores significantly higher than Steve Harper on the cumulative leadership scores.
The campaign shifts to Newfoundland on Monday and Tuesday. Paul Martin will address the St.John's Board of Trade on Monday. Stephen Harper is in St. John's on Tuesday, reportedly. Both leaders are obviously looking at the battleground in the three easternmost ridings in the country.
Two of the seats were held by the Conservatives after the last election but by the slimmest margin that I can recall for those seats, the ones Connie faithfuls were touting as "safe". The Liberals are looking for gains in those seats, hence the PM's visit.
Meanwhile, in the Avalon riding, former provincial member of the legislature Fabian Manning has bowed to the almost unprecedented pressure and will carry the Conservative banner. The seat was held by John Efford after the 2004 election. He'll be supported by Jim Morgan, among others. Morgan is a former provincial fisheries minister with more baggage from his past than new ideas.
Some reports have Stephen Harper in St. John's this week - most likely Tuesday. His goal will be to shore up the Avalon peninsula contests, particularly in the wake of polling that shows Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would return Liberals to Ottawa in the province's seven Commons ridings, if the vote was held today.
The Day 6 numbers, updated to 03 December 05, show the Liberals with 38%, the Conservatives with 29% and New Democrats at 15%. All changes are within the margin of error for the poll, but there seems to be an upward trending for Liberals and a flat line trending for Conservatives.
in the SES Leadership Index, there is also a significant change, but again, the fluctuations of the index components are within the margin of error.
Bottom line: Paul Martin still scores significantly higher than Steve Harper on the cumulative leadership scores.
The campaign shifts to Newfoundland on Monday and Tuesday. Paul Martin will address the St.John's Board of Trade on Monday. Stephen Harper is in St. John's on Tuesday, reportedly. Both leaders are obviously looking at the battleground in the three easternmost ridings in the country.
Two of the seats were held by the Conservatives after the last election but by the slimmest margin that I can recall for those seats, the ones Connie faithfuls were touting as "safe". The Liberals are looking for gains in those seats, hence the PM's visit.
Meanwhile, in the Avalon riding, former provincial member of the legislature Fabian Manning has bowed to the almost unprecedented pressure and will carry the Conservative banner. The seat was held by John Efford after the 2004 election. He'll be supported by Jim Morgan, among others. Morgan is a former provincial fisheries minister with more baggage from his past than new ideas.
Some reports have Stephen Harper in St. John's this week - most likely Tuesday. His goal will be to shore up the Avalon peninsula contests, particularly in the wake of polling that shows Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would return Liberals to Ottawa in the province's seven Commons ridings, if the vote was held today.
03 December 2005
The pollsters at odds
Reconcile the SES rolling polls with the latest from EKOS.
The latest SES numbers show the Libs at 36 with the Connies at 31. EKOS has the Libs at 34 and the Connies at 27.
One possible explanation is that the EKOS numbers reflect the state of play up to December 1. Then if look at last night's SES numbers - which correspond to the EKOS sampling time frame, you see that the EKOS ones are even farther out of whack or vice versa.
Maybe it's just that pesky margin of error thing. There's a more likely explanation, although the Conservative number is a teensy bit outside that range.
Then there's the issue of trending. The EKOS poll shows the Conservatives on a downward trend; SES has them moving upward, likely reflecting the first week of non-stop announcements.
In the regional numbers, and even allowing for the large margins of error involved in the national ones, all available polling shows similar pictures.
The Conservatives are ahead only in Alberta. They trail everywhere else, and in some cases, like Atlantic Canada, they are almost 20 points behind the Liberals. In Ontario, often described by lazy commentators as "vote-rich", the Conservatives a significantly behind the Liberals even at this stage and after a week of announcements that seem to have given the party a bump overall.
Flip along the EKOS poll and you'll seem some food for thought in the issues questions and in the demographic breakdowns of party support.
On page 23 of the EKOS background report you'll find a really telling number, however, and that is the stated expectation of respondents on who will win the election, irrespective of their own party preference.
Fully 64% of respondents expected the Liberals to win, compared to 18% for the Conservatives. Since April of this year, the gap between those two party expectations has continued to grow.
There is still plenty of desire for a new governing party, but that isn't reflected in any of the other positions.
For example, Paul Martin is viewed by EKOS respondents as the best person to lead the country and he is in the lead by a substantial margin everywhere except Quebec and Alberta.
Each poll offers a wealth of information. The key is to know how to read it properly.
The one thing both EKOS and SES seem to agree on is that the election is similar to the overall responses in 2004. I tend to agree with SES this evening that the race is trimming down to a two-way contest - Jack Layton's bus has developed a serious mechanical problem, with bits flying off at every turn.
The latest SES numbers show the Libs at 36 with the Connies at 31. EKOS has the Libs at 34 and the Connies at 27.
One possible explanation is that the EKOS numbers reflect the state of play up to December 1. Then if look at last night's SES numbers - which correspond to the EKOS sampling time frame, you see that the EKOS ones are even farther out of whack or vice versa.
Maybe it's just that pesky margin of error thing. There's a more likely explanation, although the Conservative number is a teensy bit outside that range.
Then there's the issue of trending. The EKOS poll shows the Conservatives on a downward trend; SES has them moving upward, likely reflecting the first week of non-stop announcements.
In the regional numbers, and even allowing for the large margins of error involved in the national ones, all available polling shows similar pictures.
The Conservatives are ahead only in Alberta. They trail everywhere else, and in some cases, like Atlantic Canada, they are almost 20 points behind the Liberals. In Ontario, often described by lazy commentators as "vote-rich", the Conservatives a significantly behind the Liberals even at this stage and after a week of announcements that seem to have given the party a bump overall.
Flip along the EKOS poll and you'll seem some food for thought in the issues questions and in the demographic breakdowns of party support.
On page 23 of the EKOS background report you'll find a really telling number, however, and that is the stated expectation of respondents on who will win the election, irrespective of their own party preference.
Fully 64% of respondents expected the Liberals to win, compared to 18% for the Conservatives. Since April of this year, the gap between those two party expectations has continued to grow.
There is still plenty of desire for a new governing party, but that isn't reflected in any of the other positions.
For example, Paul Martin is viewed by EKOS respondents as the best person to lead the country and he is in the lead by a substantial margin everywhere except Quebec and Alberta.
Each poll offers a wealth of information. The key is to know how to read it properly.
The one thing both EKOS and SES seem to agree on is that the election is similar to the overall responses in 2004. I tend to agree with SES this evening that the race is trimming down to a two-way contest - Jack Layton's bus has developed a serious mechanical problem, with bits flying off at every turn.
Byrne out?
Check the Telegram ad for Loyola Hearn when you pick up the Saturday paper today.
Missing from the photo:
Kilbride member of the House and provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne.
The young guy touted as a likely successor to the Old Guy from Renews is conspicuous by his absence.
The absence is almost as noticeable as the dyspeptic looks on the faces of some of the provincial Tories who are now apparently supporting, among other things, the guy who wants to bring back the equal marriage debate and the guy who told Danny Williams, politely, to get stuffed, in writing when Danny asked for a reworking of the Atlantic Accord.
Missing from the photo:
Kilbride member of the House and provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne.
The young guy touted as a likely successor to the Old Guy from Renews is conspicuous by his absence.
The absence is almost as noticeable as the dyspeptic looks on the faces of some of the provincial Tories who are now apparently supporting, among other things, the guy who wants to bring back the equal marriage debate and the guy who told Danny Williams, politely, to get stuffed, in writing when Danny asked for a reworking of the Atlantic Accord.
Star candidate of the 1980s
Loyola Hearn's website is still lost in cyberspace. We are at the end of the first week of campaigning.
Guess he's too busy down at his house in Renews or coaxing provincial members of the House of Assembly to pose for print ads to get the website back online.
Guess he's too busy down at his house in Renews or coaxing provincial members of the House of Assembly to pose for print ads to get the website back online.
Bond right about Wells
Way back in July, when Andy Wells first leaked the story that Danny Williams had put him up as a propspective chair of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Board, the Bond Papers pointed out the guy wouldn't be getting job.
After months of speculation but other people, turns out the Bond Papers got it right.
Read the story below by Terry Roberts, at The Telegram. It is again reprinted in full, below so that an electronic version won't disappear.
Max Ruelokke is eminently qualified for the job in so many ways. He's the calibre of candidate Andy was up against and, while Andy is good for a lot of other things, in this case, the man was outclassed by every single name that has been mentioned.
Including Leslie Galway, who, oddly, Premier Wells felt didn't have the stuff to run the province's offshore regulator for more cash than she is currently making running his rump of a department.
Then in one of the most bizarre of appointment suggestsions - before Joan Cleary to run Bull Arm - the premier touted Andy Wells to run the offshore board. The goal was simple, according to Danny Williams: to get more benefits for this province from the offshore, with Andy Wells to fight for those benefits through the offshore board.
The problem with the premier's argument was equally simple: as Danny Williams himself admitted later on, the offshore board doesn't negotiate or otherwise set local benefits. Danny does.
So here we are, all the months later, on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to St. John's and someone leaks the decision apparently reached by panel appointed to find a new chair for the offshore board.
How curious. I wonder who'll be looking for time in the PM's agenda for Monday?
Count on this issue to come up tomorrow at a forum sponsored by CBC Radio's The Current, in which the Mayor of Sin Jawn's is a panelist...
Saturday, December 3, 2005
Wells comes up dry
By Terry Roberts - The Telegram
Left - Andy Wells
It appears there won'’t be a shakeup at St. John'’s City Hall after all.
After months of speculation and controversy, The Telegram has learned that Mayor Andy Wells has been passed over for the position of chairman and chief executive officer of the federal-provincial board that regulates the province'’s offshore oil and gas industry.
In a surprising twist, a joint selection panel led by prominent businessman Harry Steele has instead offered the post to Max Ruelokke, a former deputy minister of mines and energy with the provincial government in the 1990s.
Sources say Wells, who was publicly endorsed by Premier Danny Williams for the job, has been offered the position of vice-chairman.
It'’s not clear whether he will accept the secondary role with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB), but there'’s speculation the decision may touch off another row between the federal and provincial governments.
The premier'’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Matthews, said Williams would not be commenting while the selection process was ongoing.
But sources say Williams is fuming over the decision and may confront Prime Minister Paul Martin on the issue during his campaign visit to St. John'’s Monday.
If so, it would be reminiscent of 2004, when Williams battled Ottawa over changes to the Atlantic Accord oil revenue sharing agreement.
After months of bitter negotiations, the dispute ended with the federal government agreeing to pay $2 billion in upfront money to the province.
It'’s believed Ruelokke, who has worked in the private sector since leaving government in 1998, was a compromise between Rex Gibbons, the federal government'’s choice for the job, and Wells, who was favoured by the province.
Gibbons has a Ph.D in geology and served as a Liberal MHA for the district of St. John'’s West from 1989 to '’97.
He is a former minister of mines and energy and was once the province'’s representative on the CNLOPB.
Ruelokke, a civil engineer and Grand Bank native, ran the Marystown Shipyard and the Bull Arm fabrication site, and comes with an intimate knowledge of this province'’s oil and gas industry.
He is currently the general manager of East Coast operations for AMEC Oil and Gas Ltd., an English company that provides engineering, procurement and construction management services to offshore oil and gas projects.
Neither Wells nor Ruelokke would confirm anything when contacted Friday.
"“I have no comment,"” said Wells, who planned to resign as mayor if given the job, which pays roughly $200,000 annually.
Wells has served on city council since 1977, and was re-elected to his third term as mayor on Sept. 27.
He has often been critical of various oil companies over their level of investment in the province, and his nomination for the job is said to have been strongly opposed by those in the industry.
Ruelokke acknowledged he was interviewed for the job this week, but sounded surprised to hear he was a leading candidate when contacted by The Telegram Friday morning.
"“I assumed I was one of a number of people who had interviews and didn'’t make any assumptions beyond that, really,"” said Ruelokke, who chaired an offshore petroleum engineering task force established by the former Liberal provincial government in 1998.
The process of selecting a new chair and CEO began making headlines last July after it was revealed that Wells was the province'’s first choice for the job.
Then-natural resources minister John Efford quickly weighed in, saying Wells did not make the short list of an independent head-hunting firm that had been seeking out potential candidates.
Both sides eventually agreed to appoint a joint selection committee.
Steele, chairman of Newfoundland Capital Corp. Ltd., was joined on the committee by a pair of government appointees - — Wayne Thistle for the Government of Canada and Dean MacDonald for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Steele was the mutual choice of Thistle and MacDonald.
It'’s not known how many candidates made the short list, but several interviews took place last week.
Ruelokke said if he were given the job, politics would not play a role.
"“'I'’ve never been involved in organized politics in my life,"” he said.
troberts@thetelegram.com
After months of speculation but other people, turns out the Bond Papers got it right.
Read the story below by Terry Roberts, at The Telegram. It is again reprinted in full, below so that an electronic version won't disappear.
Max Ruelokke is eminently qualified for the job in so many ways. He's the calibre of candidate Andy was up against and, while Andy is good for a lot of other things, in this case, the man was outclassed by every single name that has been mentioned.
Including Leslie Galway, who, oddly, Premier Wells felt didn't have the stuff to run the province's offshore regulator for more cash than she is currently making running his rump of a department.
Then in one of the most bizarre of appointment suggestsions - before Joan Cleary to run Bull Arm - the premier touted Andy Wells to run the offshore board. The goal was simple, according to Danny Williams: to get more benefits for this province from the offshore, with Andy Wells to fight for those benefits through the offshore board.
The problem with the premier's argument was equally simple: as Danny Williams himself admitted later on, the offshore board doesn't negotiate or otherwise set local benefits. Danny does.
So here we are, all the months later, on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to St. John's and someone leaks the decision apparently reached by panel appointed to find a new chair for the offshore board.
How curious. I wonder who'll be looking for time in the PM's agenda for Monday?
Count on this issue to come up tomorrow at a forum sponsored by CBC Radio's The Current, in which the Mayor of Sin Jawn's is a panelist...
Saturday, December 3, 2005Wells comes up dry
By Terry Roberts - The Telegram
Left - Andy Wells
It appears there won'’t be a shakeup at St. John'’s City Hall after all.
After months of speculation and controversy, The Telegram has learned that Mayor Andy Wells has been passed over for the position of chairman and chief executive officer of the federal-provincial board that regulates the province'’s offshore oil and gas industry.
In a surprising twist, a joint selection panel led by prominent businessman Harry Steele has instead offered the post to Max Ruelokke, a former deputy minister of mines and energy with the provincial government in the 1990s.
Sources say Wells, who was publicly endorsed by Premier Danny Williams for the job, has been offered the position of vice-chairman.
It'’s not clear whether he will accept the secondary role with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB), but there'’s speculation the decision may touch off another row between the federal and provincial governments.
The premier'’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Matthews, said Williams would not be commenting while the selection process was ongoing.
But sources say Williams is fuming over the decision and may confront Prime Minister Paul Martin on the issue during his campaign visit to St. John'’s Monday.
If so, it would be reminiscent of 2004, when Williams battled Ottawa over changes to the Atlantic Accord oil revenue sharing agreement.
After months of bitter negotiations, the dispute ended with the federal government agreeing to pay $2 billion in upfront money to the province.
It'’s believed Ruelokke, who has worked in the private sector since leaving government in 1998, was a compromise between Rex Gibbons, the federal government'’s choice for the job, and Wells, who was favoured by the province.
Gibbons has a Ph.D in geology and served as a Liberal MHA for the district of St. John'’s West from 1989 to '’97.
He is a former minister of mines and energy and was once the province'’s representative on the CNLOPB.
Ruelokke, a civil engineer and Grand Bank native, ran the Marystown Shipyard and the Bull Arm fabrication site, and comes with an intimate knowledge of this province'’s oil and gas industry.
He is currently the general manager of East Coast operations for AMEC Oil and Gas Ltd., an English company that provides engineering, procurement and construction management services to offshore oil and gas projects.
Neither Wells nor Ruelokke would confirm anything when contacted Friday.
"“I have no comment,"” said Wells, who planned to resign as mayor if given the job, which pays roughly $200,000 annually.
Wells has served on city council since 1977, and was re-elected to his third term as mayor on Sept. 27.
He has often been critical of various oil companies over their level of investment in the province, and his nomination for the job is said to have been strongly opposed by those in the industry.
Ruelokke acknowledged he was interviewed for the job this week, but sounded surprised to hear he was a leading candidate when contacted by The Telegram Friday morning.
"“I assumed I was one of a number of people who had interviews and didn'’t make any assumptions beyond that, really,"” said Ruelokke, who chaired an offshore petroleum engineering task force established by the former Liberal provincial government in 1998.
The process of selecting a new chair and CEO began making headlines last July after it was revealed that Wells was the province'’s first choice for the job.
Then-natural resources minister John Efford quickly weighed in, saying Wells did not make the short list of an independent head-hunting firm that had been seeking out potential candidates.
Both sides eventually agreed to appoint a joint selection committee.
Steele, chairman of Newfoundland Capital Corp. Ltd., was joined on the committee by a pair of government appointees - — Wayne Thistle for the Government of Canada and Dean MacDonald for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Steele was the mutual choice of Thistle and MacDonald.
It'’s not known how many candidates made the short list, but several interviews took place last week.
Ruelokke said if he were given the job, politics would not play a role.
"“'I'’ve never been involved in organized politics in my life,"” he said.
troberts@thetelegram.com
The smell of fear
Check out the telegram today on page A5.
Bottom of the page.
Big ad by Loyola Hearn with the headline "Provincial MHA's endorse Loyola Hearn".
There's Loyola in a posed picture surrounded by all the Conservative House member's from within his riding. There's even Loyola Sullivan looking a tad like something's up his backside that shouldn't be there, and Speaker Harvey Hodder.
There's two things about this ad that scream Loyola's fear of losing:
1. Last time out, Loyola couldn't get the endorsement of any Tories. People wouldn't work for him.
Then after the whole thing was over, Loyola got into a pissing match with Danny.
2. The ad talks about "Standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador".
Here's Loyola's record on the offshore:
1985 - As cabinet minister in Peckford, voted in favour of what he would later denounce as revenue clawbacks for Equalization.
2004 - Issues householder at taxpayer expense with factual errors about deal he voted for in 1985.
2005 - Encouraged to vote for offshore deal and put province before party
2005 - Gets exceedingly pissy when people expect him to live up to the same standards he used to politically bludgeon others.
2005 - In the final votes, supports the offshore bill and then votes to bring down the government. Hearn voted for the Province before he voted against it.
When choosing between party and province, Hearn chose party.
He took Harper over Hamlyn Road.
I smell fear in St. John's South-Mount Pearl. And it's coming from the little fellow from Renews.
I wonder if this time he will be willing to debate his opponents.
Bottom of the page.
Big ad by Loyola Hearn with the headline "Provincial MHA's endorse Loyola Hearn".
There's Loyola in a posed picture surrounded by all the Conservative House member's from within his riding. There's even Loyola Sullivan looking a tad like something's up his backside that shouldn't be there, and Speaker Harvey Hodder.
There's two things about this ad that scream Loyola's fear of losing:
1. Last time out, Loyola couldn't get the endorsement of any Tories. People wouldn't work for him.
Then after the whole thing was over, Loyola got into a pissing match with Danny.
2. The ad talks about "Standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador".
Here's Loyola's record on the offshore:
1985 - As cabinet minister in Peckford, voted in favour of what he would later denounce as revenue clawbacks for Equalization.
2004 - Issues householder at taxpayer expense with factual errors about deal he voted for in 1985.
2005 - Encouraged to vote for offshore deal and put province before party
2005 - Gets exceedingly pissy when people expect him to live up to the same standards he used to politically bludgeon others.
2005 - In the final votes, supports the offshore bill and then votes to bring down the government. Hearn voted for the Province before he voted against it.
When choosing between party and province, Hearn chose party.
He took Harper over Hamlyn Road.
I smell fear in St. John's South-Mount Pearl. And it's coming from the little fellow from Renews.
I wonder if this time he will be willing to debate his opponents.
GST rebate update 2
3 down (the traditional morning cup)
19, 997 to go.
Me and my kidneys are with ya there, buddy.
It's like one of those Depression era dance marathons or some crap that you'd see on Fear Factor.
Drink 20, 000 cups of coffee and see if you can win 400 bucks.
19, 997 to go.
Me and my kidneys are with ya there, buddy.
It's like one of those Depression era dance marathons or some crap that you'd see on Fear Factor.
Drink 20, 000 cups of coffee and see if you can win 400 bucks.
02 December 2005
Layton and Hargrove at loggerheads for same space
Check this out.
Buzz Hargrove warns people to vote Liberal where the New Democrats are third, in order to stop the Connies.
Jack Layton, who scarcely 24 hours ago said the same thing in eastern Ontario, criticizes Buzz.
The noise you hear, still, is NDP candidate Peg Norman - the distant third in St.John's South-Mount Pearl, banging her head against the wall.
For the second day in a row.
In the race to see who is going to emerg first, I am guessing my kidneys are stronger than anyone's head.
Buzz Hargrove warns people to vote Liberal where the New Democrats are third, in order to stop the Connies.
Jack Layton, who scarcely 24 hours ago said the same thing in eastern Ontario, criticizes Buzz.
The noise you hear, still, is NDP candidate Peg Norman - the distant third in St.John's South-Mount Pearl, banging her head against the wall.
For the second day in a row.
In the race to see who is going to emerg first, I am guessing my kidneys are stronger than anyone's head.
The first SES rolling poll results of the campaign
The first poll by SES Research for the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC) shows the Liberals with the support of 37% of decided voters, up from 34% on the day the campaign started. The Conservatives are steady at 29% with the New Democrats dropping from 20% to 15%.
Margin of error for the national figures is 3.1% at the 95 percentile confidence interval.
The regional figures open up much wider margins of error and therefore are less reliable in indicating voter choices.
SES has developed a leadership index for ranking opinions of party leaders as to trust, competence and vision for Canada.
Paul Martin's cumulative score on the index is 84, compared to 58 for Stephen Harper, 39 for Gilles Duceppe and 25 for Jack Layton. The margin of error in each of the three categories is plus or minus 5%, therefore making the changes within the individual categories thus far statistically insignificant, even though on the cumulative score, Martin's number has gone from 76 on Monday to 84 on the last day on which polling data was collected. Martin is the only leader to have increased his leadership index by more than 5 %.
Margin of error for the national figures is 3.1% at the 95 percentile confidence interval.
The regional figures open up much wider margins of error and therefore are less reliable in indicating voter choices.
SES has developed a leadership index for ranking opinions of party leaders as to trust, competence and vision for Canada.
Paul Martin's cumulative score on the index is 84, compared to 58 for Stephen Harper, 39 for Gilles Duceppe and 25 for Jack Layton. The margin of error in each of the three categories is plus or minus 5%, therefore making the changes within the individual categories thus far statistically insignificant, even though on the cumulative score, Martin's number has gone from 76 on Monday to 84 on the last day on which polling data was collected. Martin is the only leader to have increased his leadership index by more than 5 %.
GST rebate update 1
Two down.
Only 19, 998 to go in my bid to do what it takes to get $400 in GST rebates, should Stephen Harper make the leap to 24 Sussex Drive.
A large coffee at Tim's would go from the current local price of $1.50 to $1.48 under Harper's proposal.
Total GST savings on Day 1: four cents.
The bugger really wants my kidneys to work for the cash.
Only 19, 998 to go in my bid to do what it takes to get $400 in GST rebates, should Stephen Harper make the leap to 24 Sussex Drive.
A large coffee at Tim's would go from the current local price of $1.50 to $1.48 under Harper's proposal.
Total GST savings on Day 1: four cents.
The bugger really wants my kidneys to work for the cash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)