The other campaign

One of the things to watch in this provincial election has been the media campaign, from the Tories low-key one to the Liberals' barely existent one. The new Democrats are somewhere in between, if that's possible.

There are the party websites, all of which represent the very best of Web 1.0 in a Web 2.0 world.

Even the Tory site, which is by far the best of the three party sites, is missing the sort of things that have become commonplace in political campaigns. Stuff like syndication feeds to allow people easily to access information from news releases. There's no campaign blog and even the whole layout is not designed to include people and invite them to participate. Rather, the party websites are simply devices for sending messages, not receiving them.

None of the political parties are using new media at all. No podcasting, let alone vidcasting.

There'll be more on this over weekend at Bond and Persuasion Business.

For now, let's turn attention to the unofficial contributions to the campaign, the stuff being put out by ordinary people.

There are bulletin boards on the Internet. There's good old nf.general, the newsgroup that seems to be decidedly uninterested in the campaign.

And there's youtube. Undisputed King or Queen of the genre in I.P.Freely. Sheer volume of output alone this year has dwarfed anything put out by the candidates. One of the original vids has had nearly 10,000 views since it emerged during the winter by-elections. A more recent vid on the campaign in Central Labrador has pulled almost 1,000 views in less than a week. [Hint for the professors out there: broadband access has nothing to do with it anymore than broadcasting does.]

Then there's one that cropped up in the Bond e-mail just this evening. It picks up on the raging political battle in Labrador and on something that the Tory campaign missed. Your humble e-scribbler, unrepentant townie that he is - the title townie bastard is already claimed - missed it completely as well.

In one of the streeters on the Tory website, at least two of the people refer to fighting for "Newfoundland". The first guy seems to be standing in front of the library at Memorial. There's an abrupt edit at the end of the word "Newfoundland' in the original, but that may mean nothing at all.

The second one is impossible to situate, but the phrase "Newfoundland" is unmistakable, as opposed to "Newfoundland and Labrador" or "NewfoundlandLabrador" as the province has become over at Voice of the Cabinet Minister.

The name of the province is a sensitive issue in Labrador.

Very sensitive.

Just how sensitive?

Well, the answer to that is in the intensity of the battles raging in the seats in Labrador, including the one held by cabinet minister John Hickey. He's the guy under attack in the 1,000-views video.

Campaign Notes: End of Week 2

1. Contrast in travel. From the Friday Telegram.

In an out-of-the-way hangar at St. John's airport, a handful of journalists are sitting comfortably in overstuffed leather chairs, gazing into their laptops or staring wide-eyed at the day's travel itinerary.
There's coffee, tea and an assortment of breakfast snacks.

And judging by the decor, this place is accustomed to well-heeled visitors.

Parked less than 10 metres away is a sleek private jet valued at about $2 million. Its two pilots wait patiently for their VIP passenger - Premier Danny Williams - and his entourage.

Then there's the Liberal bus-bound travel and the NDP's minivan.

2. Heard that one before, sorta. From Danny Williams in Marystown:

"My goal is to get the husbands and the fathers and the sons and the daughters and the mothers who have gone away to work, gone away to Alberta, gone across this country and get 'em back home," Williams told the crowd.

When Clyde Wells uttered the famous "every mother's son" line in Cox's Cove in 1989, he was talking about creating an economy and society where people could make a choice to live in Newfoundland and Labrador or pursue their own goals wherever they wanted. There's a big difference between individual choice and getting people back just because it fits some other imperative. Like say the demeaning "homing pigeon" nonsense Danny Williams likes to spout.

3. The Ghosts of Peckford. Interesting to see Peckford-era cabinet ministers Glenn Tobin (Social Services, Government Services) and Bob Aylward (Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development, Forest Resources and finally Municipal Affairs) advancing for Danny Williams at a rally in Marystown.

Tobin represented Burin-Placentia West from 1982 to 1996. He's currently the chair of the provincial government's liquor corporation.

Aylward represented the district of Kilbride from 1979 to 1993. Most recently he was vice-chair of the electoral boundaries commission.

Eons ago, Tobin was interviewed in a television report on the provincial government's make-work schemes. These would let people work on provincially funded projects long enough to qualify for federal unemployment insurance benefits. The whole policy was known as Lotto 10-42, a play on a popular gambling game combined with the formula that 10 weeks of make-work earned 42 weeks of federal benefits. The interview lurks in the archives at CBC most likely, but the one part that stuck with your humble e-scribbler all these years was pretty simple: Tobin denied there was such a policy. But if there was, he said, it wouldn't matter since oil would be flowing shortly and all would be fine.

4. Curiouser and curiouser. labradore, noticed something very interesting from Danny Williams speech in Corner Brook this week. The Tory campaign song was apparently written in 2004, or as Williams described it, just after the offshore deal victory. Problem: the deal came in 2005. Maybe there was a reason why Danny Williams didn't want to release poll results from his first 18 months in office. Makes you wonder what was in the polls, though, since they were eventually released to the Telegram but the Telly did nothing with them. Maybe the Telly missed something, aside from the research on adopting the green, white and pink native flag as the new provincial emblem. Maybe there was something curious in there after all, like discovering how much of a disaster the flag flap was, as revealed by the Premier's own polling.

5. You'll get the files, manana. The Indy is reporting this weekend that Diane Whelan promised to release details of her constituency allowance spending, particularly the donations. You may recall that, of the 115 legislators subjected to a review by the Auditor General, Whelan handed out the largest percentage of her allowance as cash gifts. The day after saying she'd cough up the details, Whelan told the Indy she'd dig the information out. But we'd have to wait until after the election to see where the money went. The story might be online next week.

-srbp-

First poll results

NTV/Telelink released the first public opinion poll of the provincial election campaign on Thursday.

The poll of 1583 residents across Newfoundland and Labrador showed some interesting results. Almost half those surveyed (48.7%) gave no answer to the question on which party they would vote for. Of that number, 30.4% were undecided, 14.1% refused to answer and only 4.2% indicated they would not vote.

As reported by NTV, 40.3% intended to vote Progressive Conservative, 7.3% were voting Liberal and 3.6% were voting NDP. Telelink then calculated the responses removing all non-answers and then compares the result to the method used by Corporate Research Associates.

However, this is an odd way of assessing the result. Those who supplied no answer or who indicated they were undecided were not apparently asked follow-up questions to determine any leanings, including whether they might belong in the "will not vote" category. Only 4.2% indicated they would not vote. Therefore, only those who indicated they would not vote should be excluded.

Those adjusted results would be:

n = 1517	n	%
PC	638	42
LIB	116	7.6
NDP	57	3.7
UND	481	31.7
REF	223	14.7

The truly interesting thing about these results is that they potentially show the actual popularity of the current administration versus the poll results using the method of eliminating most of the undecided or no answers.

If you look at the undecideds and those who refused to answer the question, there are actually more people in that pile (46.8%) than are actually openly committed to a governing party that is purported at unprecedented levels of popularity in others polls.

Think about that.

People refuse to answer questions or indicate they are undecided for many reasons. Some have to do with possible perception of the responses, were they to become known. Even though a survey like this one is conducted by telephone, in a small community there may be a concern that confidential information - like voting intentions - will become widely known. A voting intention that goes against the local norm or the perceived local norm mightr be withheld for fear of social repercussions.

But without getting into a range of hypothetical situations, just consider that in a province where the current Premier is supposedly overwhelmingly popular, the undecideds were only 10% less than the decideds giving their voting choice as Progressive Conservative.

Some pollsters and others will use a simple method and allocate the undecideds and refusals in the same way as the decideds. Unfortunately, the statistical arguments used in favour of this approach don't conform with actual experience. In 1999, for example, a poll similar to this one reported undecideds of 30% just before the debate. no more public polls were released but the final tally on voting day suggested that the undecideds broke disproportionately in favour of the opposition Progressive Conservatives under Ed Byrne.

Aside from that, there are a variety of things we don't know about this poll - they aren't reported - that might also affect interpretation of the results. These other details would include the relative percentages of males and females in the final sample, compared to the population and how those segments responded. We also can't account for the relative mix of respondents from the northeast Avalon versus other regions of the province. other demographic would also help to assess the poll results.

What we have here, though, is really just another example of why the media "horse race polls" ultimately don't give those of us outside the political parties any useful information on which to make judgments.

Added to that general reservation must be a question about the interpretation given by NTV in this story. Yes, there is strong Tory support, but the real story - the one with details that begged for better research - is in the undecideds and refuseds.

Maybe local media outlets will start doing better research designs for future elections. They cost a little more but they are so much better for informing audiences.

-srbp-

1. Following is the text of the NTV story, as linked above. Paragraphing has been changed for clarity.

Telelink poll shows strong Tory support, high undecided rate

September 27, 2007

The Progressive Conservatives maintain a large lead halfway through the campaign, although there is still a large undecided vote. That's according to a poll conducted by Telelink and paid for by NTV. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Telelink polled 1,583 residents across the province. Of those, slightly less than half watched Tuesday night’s leaders’ debate. Telelink asked which leader gave the best performance: 40.3% of viewers chose PC Leader Danny Williams, NDP Leader Lorraine Michael came second with 34.4 and only 4.6 chose Liberal Leader Gerry Reid. The rest had no opinion.

The margin of error for that sample was /-3.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Then Telelink asked, "Did the debate influence how you will vote in the election?" 16.1said yes, while 77.8per cent said no.

Finally, Telelink asked respondents how they planned to vote on Election Day: 40.3% said Progressive Conservative, 7.3% said Liberal, and 3.6% cent said NDP.

Among the 48.7% who gave no answer, 30.4 said they were undecided, 14.1 refused to answer, and 4.2 said they will not vote. That was substantially higher than the 24% who were undecided or not voting when Telelink polled voters this time last year. The margin of error for that sample was +/-2.5 percentage points.

However, when the non-answering block is factored out of the results, the numbers are almost identical to the quarterly Corporate Research Associates polls. Among decided voters, 78.6 said they would vote PC, 14.3 would vote Liberal, and 7.1 would vote NDP. The margin of error on that sample is +/-3.4 percentage points.

-30-

2. Related on Bond:

Shaggin' polls

Poll-er magic

Polls and something called a poll

Perils of polls [We asked for the poll report, but nothing ever showed up.]

Another reason why Danny is pissed

Check the answers.com entry on "Daniel Williams".

Yep.

Before you even get to the string of letters after his name, heck before you even get to Danny Williams' entry, you are encouraged to read about Simon Lono first.

-srbp-

Would the application even be considered?

While none of the political parties have demonstrated any awareness at all of new media in their campaigns (some individuals have), the Tories have a fascinating plank in their platform section on culture:

develop and implement a strategy to support a New Media Industry to allow this province to exploit a media environment that has been transformed by advancements in digital technology and computing, especially in products such as video games, electronic kiosks and podcast

Now right off the bat, the word is podcast-ing so odds are high a few people need to figure out the terminology. Like calling people who write blogs, blog-sters. Like hipsters, no doubt, 23 Skeedoo and all.

Anyway...

Consider too that the gaming and electronic kiosk industry is pretty much yesterday's stuff.

They also aren't really new media, either.

But this podcasting thing is something else, and if there is money for podcasting, Bond is there. Somehow, there just doesn't seem any likelihood that the government's cash is going to fund Bond Cast, no matter how meritorious the project.

Just a feeling.

-srbp-

Offshore R & D funding: a simple question

Exxon and Murphy are suing the federal government over offshore regulations on research and development related to the offshore.

The new regulations were introduced in 2004 by the offshore regulatory board, which is jointly managed by the federal and provincial governments.

But here's the thing: if the current R & D regulations are considered a violation of NAFTA, shouldn't we wonder what implications that has for the newly minted Hebron deal?

Tha association representing the oil producers made a submission to the energy plan that said:

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) recently implemented new research and development (R&D) guidelines which outline the amount of money operators have to spend on R&D over the life of their projects. It is CAPP’s position that the R&D guidelines should not prescribe amounts to be spent on R&D, as this will create a substantial cost burden to Newfoundland and Labrador operators. CAPP continues to work with operators to lobby for modifications to the new R&D requirements.

The only reference to R & D regulations in the energy plan is the one that says the offshore board makes the regulations.

And the Hebron memorandum of understanding sets a fixed amount:

Fixed R & D amount of CAD $120 million over the life of the project, provided such commitment meets the C-NLOPB’s requirements.

Now it is subject to the offshore board requirements, but if the MOU sets a fixed amount ,that amount would likely prevail in the development application approval.

And that's the question:

• Is the fixed amount negotiated for Hebron R & D the same, higher than or lower than existing offshore requirements?*

-srbp-

Update (2012):  The CNLOPB amount would have been much higher than the flat amount demanded by the provincial government.

Public policy by Macleans?

So when exactly did the Progressive Conservative administration start working on the master plan for population explosion?

June, maybe?

Highly unlikely, since the Macleans article linked above makes one thing plain, based on evidence:

Amazingly, the evidence suggests that the most successful policies have one thing in common: they don't try to pay women to procreate. Rather, they facilitate the careers of working mothers. They are premised on the idea that, the more value a society places on women's work inside and outside of the home, the more likely she is to want to contribute meaningfully in both spheres. In other words, take some of the load off of her shoulders and spread it around so that children become everybody's responsibility. Who would have thought that the most economically sound solution to a fertility crisis would be rooted in good old-fashioned feminism?

-srbp-

Debate quickies

There'll be plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking, but here are some quick comments and links on the provincial party leaders' debate.

1. The CBC and Canadian Press headlines aren't doing the Tory campaign any favours. CBC has Tory leader Danny Williams pleading with voters to trust him. CP has Williams on the defensive over spending scandal. Both stories don't quite match the headlines, though.

2. If you missed the live version, you can catch the tape at cbc.ca/nl.

Update:

3. Bizarre moment of the night: Danny's false accusation aimed at Simon Lono, in the midst of a free-for-all with Gerry Reid. One thing thing to make a false statement. Another thing to take a swipe at the guy who isn't in the room to defend himself. Lono's obviously gotten up the Premier's nose. Giving Lono this kind of attention won't make him go away; in fact, among Lono's potential supporters, the Prem just boosted his street cred.

4. Best opening statement: Danny Williams. All values and on his key themes. from a guy who delivers a speech like he is being tortured, this one shone.

5. Are you now or have you ever... Lorraine Michael fell into Danny Williams' lawyer trap just like she was in discovery or being cross-examined. She scored a big point when she repeatedly picked at Danny over the House management when he was Leader Op.

6. Quote of the Night: "We want to grow the young people of our province." That is pretty much what we do with young people. Grow them. On a go forward basis.

7. Damn you, I.P Freely. The debate bingo card was only for one leader and the most common phrases were missing. If "go forward basis' and "quite frankly" were on my bingo card, I'd have hit the jackpot by 15 minutes in.

8. Torture: Danny Williams and Gerry Reid pounding away and talking over each other.

9. Earning votes: Politicians should earn them. Ask Chief Justice Green. One media commentator suggested this reference by Danny Williams might be a clue that the Tory vote is softening in some areas. Could be. but then again, the comment just fits with Danny Williams' tendency to complain about the poor quality of his opposition. Simple solution: tell Bob Ridgley to withdraw. instant improvement in the opposition (tongue planted firmly in cheek, for all those with no sense of humour)

-srbp-

Lesson Learned

Ok.

CBC News is attributing Linda Goodyear's comments on double-billing by her Tory incumbent opponent to a typo in the Independent.

Lesson learned.

Never rely on anything printed in the Independent.

Seriously, though, there's a question here.

How does CBC know it was a typo?

The reported double-billing for Diane Whelan was $291 not the nearly $21,900 and change attributed by Goodyear, based on the Indy's report. That's a pretty odd typo.

Well, like all good journalists, they likely checked the Auditor General's report directly.

The typo seems to be about the phrase "double-billing" and the amount of inappropriate spending.

Turns out that the Indy's figure of $21,976 dollars was Diane Whelan's amount of donations made from her constituency allowance. Both the AG and Chief Justice Green called that use of the constituency allowance inappropriate.

Add to that her $291 in double-billing - and relatively small amount attributable to clerical errors - and you get $22,267. [Aded 26 Sept: The Indy didn't sum the figures; they got them wrong, putting the donations number in the double-billing category and a second figure of about $8900 in the double-billing category. Indy editor Ryan Cleary acknowledhed the mistake publicly.]

The CBC story also points out that Gerry Reid - who was at the campaign event with Goodyear - donated over $22,000.

Think about a bit more and go back to the AG's report.

Whelan dropped $21,976 in donations in just three years. That represents 49% of her constituency allowance. That puts Whalen at the top of the list of donors of public money.

Reid's $22,000 was spread over 11 years.

There were some mistakes made by both the Indy and Goodyear, but one thing Goodyear got right was obvious: voters should ask every single incumbent about his or her spending. Make up your own mind based on the answer, if you can get an answer.

And don't forget the other lesson; double check everything you read in the Indy.

-srbp-

Money and the ethnic vote: part 2 of 3

Ineffective policy

At its simplest level, the Progressive Conservatives pronatalist policy is aimed at increasing family size within Newfoundland and Labrador. Women will receive a bonus of each child delivered or adopted.

The pronatalist policy should be rejected since it does not work and therefore is a waste of scarce public money. Experience across the globe over the past 30 years demonstrates that cash incentives do not change fertility levels to an appreciable degree. The average number of children born per couple of child bearing age remains generally the same. The policy may produce some temporary fluctuations but overall, fertility rates in major industrialized countries remain the same after pronatalist policies as before.

In jurisdictions where pronatalist policies have been tried, they tend to be very expensive. Quebec's decade long cash-bonus program cost an average of $15,000 per child but was abandoned because it was ineffective. Where policies did affect the birth rate modestly,they include measures inconsistent with a modern democracy. Franco's Spain banned birth control, for example. However, once the dictatorial methods disappeared with the move to democracy in countries such as Poland or the former German Democratic republic, birth rates moved in directions experienced in other democratic countries. Overall, the policies simply do not work.

On another level, the cash incentive policy is touted as a way of dealing with a declining population size; more people are leaving Newfoundland and Labrador either through emigration or death than are immigrating or being born.

Migration is driven primarily by economic considerations – people leave to find work or come to take advantage of opportunities. Paying a cash bonus of any size will not affect that simple motive, either for new immigrants or as a way of attracting former residents to return. Family size is driven by complex factors, centred mostly on individual choice about lifestyle. None of these factors are affected by the limited policy announced by the Progressive Conservatives and certainly none are affected by the $1000 bounty placed on a set of diapers.

Randy Simms and others have pointed out these inherent flaws in the policy as a policy aimed at addressing demographic issues facing Newfoundland and Labrador in the decades ahead. Their criticisms are well-founded. However, they have ignored other aspects of the policy which make it not merely ineffective but socially and politically regressive.

There are two aspects to the demographic problem facing Newfoundland and Labrador. One is the declining population which reduces the available workforce. This can be addressed, most effectively by increased immigration. Workers will be needed now. We have already arrived at the start of the worker crunch and this situation – fewer workers – will only increase in the years immediately in front of us, if present trends continue. A cash bonus for children - even if we imagine that it will be effective here where it has failed everywhere else - will not produce new productive members of the economy for the better part of two decades.

The second aspect of the demographic problem is the changed makeup of the population. The dependent portion of our society increases as the population increases. That is, where once there were more people employed people than children and seniors, we are already in the state of having more children and seniors than wage workers.

This has an obvious economic consequence in that each worker must produce - on average - more revenue for the treasury so that the existing public services can be maintained. Paying a bonus for having children does nothing to increase productivity or increase average wages.

Part of the flaw in the proposed policy is the emphasis on the declining population size. The adverse implications of the demographic changes taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador do not flow from the size of the population alone. In the fishery, for example, it is well established that the industry will have to change from its labour intensive production in order to remain competitive. Fewer people will be needed. it is possible to have a vibrant, viable economy with a smaller population or even one with a high rate of dependency - more non-workers than workers - than currently exists in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ignoring the evidence

That said, it is instructive to look at Danny Williams' comments to reporters:

We've had some lengthy discussions on this in caucus and at cabinet... and what we've done is we've looked at the jurisdictions across Canada, to the best of our ability, and as quickly as we could in advance of the election, government had started to do this process, but it's a very detailed process, and we want to make sure we follow through.

We're also looking at some precedent in Europe, and other modern countries, trying to encourage young families to have children. It's a clear problem, and it's an economic problem... This government is open to suggestions, and good suggestions... It's probably one of the key points in our platform, that we feel very strongly about. It's something we'd certainly like to implement as soon as possible. It hasn't been budgeted. One of the best jurisdictions and one of the most successful, of course, was Quebec. And they have found it to be one of the most successful initiatives. But I'd be remiss in [not] saying that we're still preliminary on this. [Emphasis added]

The policy was obviously hastily assembled. It is also obvious that the claim that Quebec's program was successful fly in the face of evidence. The current administration clearly appreciates that the demographic issue is an economic problem.

In the last part of this commentary, we'll look at possible explanations for the pronatal policy that defies the obvious reasons not to pursue it.

-srbp-

Victims in our own house

From the Monday Telegram, a letter criticising the bootie bonus:

Though Newfoundland may have had a small European settler population, the majority of which came from the West Country in England and the southwestern Irish (which I assume is Williams' favoured race), there exists in this province people of French, Scottish, Métis, and aboriginal ancestry. Do these people constitute a part of this supposed dying race?

First, how is this going to appear to the rest of country?

Québécois nationalists have been arguing the notion of "pure laine" for over 40 years. It implies that only Quebecers who are white, French-speaking, and have long-established ancestry can be considered Québécois.

Quebec historians like Lionel Groulx, who was a raving racist, argued during the 1920s and '30s that French Quebecers, as well, were a dying race and under threat from powerful outside influences. By putting our grievances as a nation in racial terms, it will be looked on with scorn and amusement by Newfoundland's critics, and will make any demand to have our destiny in our own hands illegitimate.

Second, when immigration becomes a fact of life in our province, how will this appear to the immigrant population? Will they not be considered real Newfoundlanders? Are the immigrants and refugees living there now considered Newfoundlanders?

These are heady times in our province and we find ourselves at a crossroad. We can continue with political rhetoric that existed when Britannia ruled supreme and women were seen and not heard, or we can open ourselves to the world as a proud and distinct nation.

Unfortunately, it seems we don't have the worldly leadership that this province deserves, but instead one that loves to see us as victims in our own house.

-srbp-

Cops as props

Think George Bush and the number of times he's used the men and women of the United States armed services as political props.

Imagine a raft of Progressive Conservative candidates standing behind their boss as he holds a partisan news conference with the latest batch of police recruits as his audience.

The only thing missing was the Premier pulling up to the newser in a police car, lights blazing and siren blaring and then The Boss taking a dive onto the hood of a "perp's" get-away vehicle.

Pure T.J. Hooker.

-srbp-

The old in-out, in-out

The federal Liberal Party released some added details into their allegations that the federal Conservatives tried to flout Elections Canada rules on election advertising.

The release can be found here, and there's an interesting attachment giving the ridings supposedly involved at this link.

Local angle: four of the ridings allegedly involved are in Newfoundland and Labrador

-srbp-

Rural neglect a tacit strategy by Liberals says Williams

Remember April 2006 and the big Hebron fiasco?

Danny Williams told local CBC news that "St. John's could take the hit" resulting from Hebron's failure since his focus was on rural Newfoundland.

Well, it's an election and that sentiment is no longer the view of the first townie to hold the Premier's chair in the better part of a century.

Apparently St. John's has been neglected, not by the Tories, mind you but by the evil Liberals.

And the venue for this little revelation? A speech in rural Newfoundland where the Premier decided also that rural Newfoundland has not been neglected by him.

Nope. It was the Liberals who neglected rural Newfoundland to drive people out.

There is obviously no limit to what a politician will say to grab a few votes.

Well, at least one politician.

As you ponder that little piece of reality, take a look at this post on outmigration from a time when local politicians didn't want to talk about it.

Since outmigration has mushroomed again under Danny Williams, would that be part of a tacit strategy as well?

-srbp-

St. John's has been neglected, premier says
Terry Roberts
The Telegram (St. John's, NL)
September 24, 2007, p. A7


St. Anthony - Growth in the province's economy may be most noticeable in the capital city region, but Premier Danny Williams acknowledges St. John's has been "neglected" during his government's first four years in office.

Ironically, Williams made the admission during a campaign stop in rural Newfoundland Friday night, where cabinet minister Trevor Taylor is seeking re-election in the district of The Straits-White Bay North.

"St. John's will need work," Williams said before a crowd of some 150 people at a rally in St. Anthony.

The provincial government will invest about $440 million in infrastructure this year. It's part of a $2-billion infrastructure commitment.

But only a fraction of this year's budget will be spent in the St. John's metropolitan region.

It's part of a strategy by the Progressive Conservatives to modernize roads, education, health and telecommunications in rural areas in order to stimulate economic development.

Williams also complained Friday in St. Anthony that significant spending was needed because of many years of Liberal neglect.

During the 1990s, many Liberal heavyweights - Paul Dicks, Chuck Furey, Chris Decker and Brian Tobin - represented districts on the west coast and Northern Peninsula, yet the region was ignored, Williams said.

He believes allowing the infrastructure to crumble was part of a tacit strategy by the Liberals to make life more difficult for residents "so there is no reason to live there."

While the bulk of future investments will continue to be made in rural areas, Williams said St. John's will begin to see a large piece of the pie.

"There's going to come a point in time where we need to do some things within the city as well," he said.

Williams said there's a need to expand the Health Sciences Centre. He also committed to increased investments in long-term care facilities and schools in St. John's.

Williams' comments come at a time when the Liberals continue to rail against the Tories over what they claim is an abandonment of rural Newfoundland.

Williams said that's not true.

He said areas such as Clarenville, Bay Roberts and Deer Lake are beginning to boom. The Coast of Bays region, which has fallen on hard times in recent years, is also seeing growth in aquaculture.

"There's a misperception out there that things aren't good in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when nothing is further from the truth. And in fact the irony is that there's still things that need to be done in St. John's," he said.

Yep. He's pissed

How can you tell? 

  He drops the 'd' word. 

 Democracy. 

 When other people do it, it's an attack on democracy. 

When Danny Williams uses the same sort of tactics, he is just standing up for his peeps. 

 Actually it's not really the tactics it's the fundamental challenge on Williams represented by the Labrador "revolt" Danny Williams argues that "Canada" exploits Newfoundland (and Labrador) resources and gives nothing in return. Within the province, people of Labrador make the same argument and with some justification. 

 This sort of argument flies in the face of Danny's core political belief, namely that the only legitimate political fight is the one between the "nation" he leads and the one on the mainland. Everything else must be subordinated to that since, if nothing else, it becomes the justification for his holding power. His political legitimacy derives from his supposedly superior ability to wage the supposedly only legitimate fight. 

Take a look at his campaign song. Look at the line: "stop your 'more for me please' rants" Not aimed outward, but aimed inward. "We" all must stand together behind the single leader and speak with a single voice in the Great Fight. "Cause if we don't stand together, then we don't stand a chance". Danny's cause is just and noble. 

 Every other demand within the province is illegitimate, a 'political game', a subversion of democracy simply by virtue of the way he defines it. His language is simplistic and self-serving. It's like he never learned the Golden Rule, or it's political equivalent: "What goes around comes around." 

 But subversion of democracy? 

 Well, around these parts that's the sort of term we'd reserve for a Premier who has no problem with taking away free speech in the House of Assembly.

 

-srbp-

One here. One there.

Sandra Pupatello, Ontario Liberal cabinet minister seeking re-election on October 10.

Jim Bennett, Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal candidate seeking election in the October 9 general election.

Anyone know of any other husband/wife combos running in elections simultaneously in two different provinces?

-srbp-

From the files: Parizeau, pure laine and doing it like bunnies

Parizeau's family plan: Triple baby bonus

The Gazette (Montreal)
Tuesday, March 15, 1988
Page: A1
By: Jennifer Robinson

CORRECTION to original story: Child payments start at $29.64: It was incorrectly report in The Gazette March 15 that family allowance payments for the first child are $44.30, of which $32.38 is paid by Ottawa, the balance by Quebec. In fact, the allowance for a child under age 12 is $29.64, of which $20.70 is contributed by Ottawa. The federal amount rises to $28.65 for a child aged between 12 and 17, bringing the total to $37.59. As the story said, the allowances rise according to the number of children.

In the grande finale of his ideological "strip-tease" on the way to the Parti Quebecois leadership, Jacques Parizeau said last night he would more than triple family allowances and give lavish tax breaks to encourage Quebecers to make more babies.

Unveiling his family policy, the last of a series in his four-month solo run for the leadership, Parizeau said that if Quebec were sovereign he would increase family allowance payments for the first child to between $150 and $175 a month; for the second, from $175 to $200; and for the third, from $250 to $300.

Parents now receive $44.30 from Quebec and Ottawa for the first child, with the bulk, $32.38, paid by the federal government. The allowance for each additional child increases slightly (See correction above).

Parizeau is expected to be acclaimed PQ leader Saturday at a special party meeting. Nominations for the leadership close Thursday and no last-minute candidates are expected.

During his "striptease" - as Parizeau called the progressive unveiling of his policies - the former PQ finance minister has promoted Quebec sovereignty, a crackdown on minority language rights and a toughening of language laws, free trade with the United States, government-owned industry, and a minimum-income scheme.

Yesterday, the focus was on the family and Quebec's declining birth rate.

"We need a good system of parental leave, we need a good day-care system, we need an excellent system of family allowance," he told about 400 partisans who jammed a Longueuil high-school gym.

The current Quebec and Ottawa governments can't provide those things because they don't have Quebecers' interests at heart, he said.

The whole system must be improved to encourage women to have children, he said, but he gave no details except for the family allowance figures.

"We owe it to ourselves to organize our lives the way we want," he said, building up to a pitch for Quebec independence.

"Thirty years ago, Quebecers were like rabbits . . . with one of the highest birth rates," Parizeau said.

Quebec now has the second lowest birth rate in the western world, with 1.44 children per woman. Parizeau said the financial burden of raising children is partly to blame.

Parizeau said that if he were elected, his government would negotiate with Ottawa to get taxing powers to pay for tax breaks and incentives for parents.

He said Quebec's and Ottawa's deductions and child-tax-credit systems are complicated, confusing and contradictory.

Parizeau wrapped up his "striptease" in the riding of Marie-Victorin, a PQ stronghold that neighbors the riding of Taillon, formerly represented by PQ founder and past premier Rene Levesque.

Former labor minister Pierre Marois, who quit the PQ government in 1983 over a dispute with Levesque, made his return to public life last night by introducing Parizeau with a thundering pro-independence speech that criticized Premier Robert Bourassa's government for selling out the interests of Quebecers.

"We're dyed-in-the-wool (pure laine) Quebecers. We know we're able to develop our potential," Marois said.

"Sovereignty is not an end in itself. It's the beginning," he said.

-srbp-

Money and the ethnic vote: Part 1 of 3

[This is the first of three posts dealing with aspects of the Progressive Conservative pronatal policy and other aspects of the party platform. ]

The unasked question

Voters in the provincial general election saw a curious situation this past week.

On Tuesday, Premier Danny Williams unveiled his party’s election platform which included a policy to pay women to have more children. He used the phrase “we can’t be a dying race” when discussing the policy with reporters.

We've had some lengthy discussions on this in caucus and at cabinet... and what we've done is we've looked at the jurisdictions across Canada, to the best of our ability, and as quickly as we could in advance of the election, government had started to do this process, but it's a very detailed process, and we want to make sure we follow through. We're also looking at some precedent in Europe, and other modern countries, trying to encourage young families to have children. 

It's a clear problem, and it's an economic problem... This government is open to suggestions, and good suggestions... It's probably one of the key points in our platform, that we feel very strongly about. It's something we'd certainly like to implement as soon as possible. It hasn't been budgeted. One of the best jurisdictions and one of the most successful, of course, was Quebec. And they have found it to be one of the most successful initiatives. But I'd be remiss in [not?] saying that we're still preliminary on this.

Later in the week, a local Liberal supporter said of transportation minister John Hickey that Hickey’s lawsuit against former premier Roger Grimes was intended to show that “if you criticize my government, if you criticize my fuehrer, I will sue you.'"

In both instances, the words used are provocative and come loaded with historical meaning. Yet, while Liberal Jim Combden was rightly condemned for his apparent allusion to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, few have commented publicly on the Premier’s use of the term race in connection with his $1000 baby bonus. The contrast in reactions is is both stark and revealing.

Not a single reporter apparently questioned Danny Williams on what he meant by the term “race”, let alone ask what race was dying. One editor called it “hyperbolic rhetoric.”

A prominent local talk radio host chastised those who – like Liberal candidate Simon Lono – questioned the use of the term. In his weekly column in The Independent, Randy Simms wrote:

While some people have taken exception to the use of the word race to describe Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, it was not meant in any derogatory way. He might just as well have said the words dying breed as opposed to dying race and it would amount to the same thing. We all know what he meant, and to try and give it any other meaning is simply being unfair. I do not subscribe to the view that the premier is any kind of racist. [Emphasis added]

They are not alone in their view. A discussion thread on nf.general produced at least two comments to the effect that ‘we all know what he meant’ and that the subject needed no further discussion.

Local freelance writer Myles Higgins, himself a staunch supporter the Premier during the election, posted a commentary on his blog Web Talk, under his usual pseudonym Patriot:

Anyone who is offended by terming the majority of people here a "race" certainly needs to be educated on their culture and history.

The unasked question knows no answer

Higgins, Simms, and the others are right. We all know – or we are reasonably comfortable in believing we all know - that Danny Williams was referring to the majority of people in the province. That is, he was referring to the white, English-speaking people of English, Irish, and Scots ancestry. That is the race to which he most likely referred.

Higgins does an excellent job of examining the term "race", incidentally. While he does not get into alternate possible meanings - such as using using race as a synonym for "breed" or merely the provincial population as a whole - his post makes the case against those interpretations implicitly. We will leave to one side the possible use of "breed" as a synonym for race devoid of a negative meaning.

The most striking feature of the premier’s comments actually came from the response in the province as a whole. Few questioned it. Most, one suspects, followed the approach of the reporters noted above and never thought of it as a potential issue or, as with others, assumed a meaning.

Rationalizing a term loaded with potential meanings or embracing it wholeheartedly suggests that the comfortable members of the majority group within the province are largely blind to the implications for society as a whole.

However, neither of these is ultimately satisfactory. Not only do we not know exactly who the ‘we’ are in that statement on "race", we simply have no idea what he meant since no one asked him.

Over the next two posts, let us take a walk into that area others seem unwilling to go. I doing so we may find some answers or potential answers to unasked questions.

First, we will examine pronatalist policy as a means of addressing the province's demographic problem.

Second, we will look at the pronatalist policy in a broader context of Progressive Conservative policy since 2003.

-srbp-

Oldie but relevent goodie

Faberge might have a solution to the population problem.

And yes, that's a familiar face playing the newsman in this classic viral ad.

Bootie Call promotion auditions

Is this a possible theme song for the bootie call program?

It ain't so much a question of not knowing what to do.
I knowed whut's right and wrong since I been ten.
I heared a lot of stories and I reckon they are true
About how girls're put upon by men.
I know I mustn't fall into the pit,
But when I'm with a feller, I fergit!

I'm jist a girl who cain't say no,
I'm in a turrible fix I always say "come on, le's go"
Jist when I orta say nix!

When a person tries to kiss a girl,
I know she orta give his face a smack.
But as soon as someone kisses me,
I somehow, sorta, wanta kiss him back!

I'm jist a fool when lights are low
I cain't be prissy and quaint
I ain't the type that can faint
How c'n I be whut I ain't?
I cain't say no!

Whut you goin' to do when a feller gits flirty, and starts to talk purty?
Whut you goin' to do?
S'posin' 'at he says 'at yer lips're like cherries, er roses, er berries?
Whut you goin' to do?

S'posin' 'at he says 'at you're sweeter 'n cream,
And he's gotta have cream er die?
Whut you goin' to do when he talks that way,
Spit in his eye?

I'm jist a girl who cain't say no,
Cain't seem to say it at all
I hate to disserpoint a beau
When he is payin' a call!

Fer a while I ack refined and cool,
A settin on the velveteen setee
Nen I think of thet ol' golden rule,
And do fer him what he would do fer me!

I cain't resist a Romeo
In a sou'wester and that
Soon as I sit on his lap
Somethin' inside of me snaps
I cain't say no!

-srbp-

Campaign blog

It's hard to find out all that candidates are doing on line without googling each one individually.  Facebook is popular with candidates from all parties, but you have to search them within Facebook individually.

We've already highlighted progressive Conservative candidate Steve Kent's website.

Now let's take a look at the Liberal in St. John's centre. 

Lori Ann Campbell-Martino, left,  is a social and environmental activist and a former Green Party organizer. Her website is simple, clean and easy to navigate.  There are pictures and a link to a video of a conversation she had with Ron Fitzpatrick of Turnings. She's got a Facebook group and a blog of her own.

The blog is the epitome of social media applied to politics, the ultimate social activity.  It's personal  - obviously written by the candidate - and hence very engaging.

While watching my children play I decided to ask other parents and caregivers for their opinions on the $1000 baby bonus proposed by Danny Williams. Of course everyone laughs. "It would take more help than that for me to have another one!" was one woman's response. One older gentleman pushing his grandson on a baby swing explained that his daughter cannot afford to pay for daycare for her son she got now, even with a subsidy from government, because of her high student loan payments and that's why he is helping care for the child.

The whole conversation called to mind another story I heard at one door in the district about an elderly lady who receives a pension cheque of $14.00, because 'the only work she ever done was raise nine children'. It seems that historically and today there has been an overall lack of investment in services for families precisely because it is difficult to economically quantify the 'benefits' of providing support of 'future' generations-unlike oil, gas and hydroelectricity projects. But good governance should require the ability to think and act beyond the short term 'today'!

The key word here is engaging.  Campbell-Martino engages people in the district in conversation about what matters to them and that is clearly reflected in her online presence. Other candidates undoubtedly do that too, but here the evidence is seen. Using social media also allows Campbell-Martino to engage others outside the district and make them aware of the views and lives of individuals she hopes to represent in the House of Assembly.

The tools are there.  They aren't hard to use and as Lori Ann demonstrates, it is possible to do it simply, inexpensively and effectively.

it doesn't matter whether she wins or loses;  Lori Ann has already used the Internet more effectively than any other member of any political party currently represented in the House of Assembly. How many of the former members - retired or incumbents seeking re-election  - used the Internet for communicating with constituents, preferring instead to follow the Speaker's lead and lower legitimate costs in favour of maximizing the money available for donations?

-srbp-

From the grassroots

New technology is changing the face of public life and Newfoundland and Labrador is no exception.

Well, at least Labrador anyway.

Someone with the onscreen ID "labmetis" has produced several videos, two of which involve the Progressive Conservative land claim promise to the Metis people of Labrador. One was posted a few months ago but the newest came only within the past few days.



It's pretty aggressive stuff, in its own way. So much for recent comments by a Memorial University professor that lack of broadband access in some parts of our province would limit the impact of things like youtube during election campaigns.

-srbp-

You be the judge

Scowl on his face and an attitude [right, Photo: cbc.ca/nl]






Scowl on his face and an attitude [left, Photo: The Telegram]

-srbp-

There's no "I" in t-e-a-m either.

It's supposed to be Torngat Mountains, isn't it?

Could this be another problem with a google search?

Even google will tell you that the place of spirits and the name of the district aren't the same.

-srbp-

Campaign Notes: end of week 1

1. Kiss Labrador good-bye, Danny. Anger over the energy plan seems to have galvanized attitudes in Labrador. The Labrador party announced on Friday that it won't be fielding candidates in the two ridings currently held by the DW Team. This will almost certainly guarantee the New Democrats will recapture Labrador West.

Meanwhile in the central district currently held by transportation minister John Hickey, it may become a contest to see if Hickey can stand three weeks of sleepless nights. looks like Chris Montague will be taking Hickey's seat; it will be interesting to watch Montague waving his "broken promise" letter from the Premier for the couple of years before DW retires.

Well, either that or Williams will spend the rest of the campaign in Labrador going door to door by dogsled, skidoo, quad and anything else he can use to get every vote possible.

Will there be any other seats where parties will not field a candidate to defeat an incumbent? Stay tuned.

2. The Fuehrer furor. Campaign 101: read the introductory speech of everybody introducing the party leader and anyone else on the speaking program. Stupid comment handled defensively thereby trebling the impact of the first goof.

3. The People's Campaign? From David Cochrane's campaign notes at cbc.ca/nl:

As I write this I'm on a Provincial Airlines Cessna Citation flying to Happy Valley Goose Bay.

That would be the executive jet - left - used by DW on the first day of the campaign to get to Deer Lake. After you allow for the Premier and a couple of staffers, the rest of the plane is media. The thing only holds eight people.

Wonder how much it costs? Provincial doesn't disclose its lease rates. In the old days, campaigns would lease larger aircraft and pull everyone around in the same airborne cattle car. The per passenger charge worked out pretty well the same for everyone.

Given that the media - like say the Mother Corp - would be or should be paying their own way on the eight seater, the cost for the Premier and his staffers would be pretty light. The media types would actually be the largest number of passengers. Having news media subsidize the campaign travel budget. Interesting concept.

Bond Papers welcomes e-mails clarifying the travel/cost arrangements.

4. Another committee named after a dead racehorse. Both the Liberals and Conservatives like things called secretariats. The Libs created a rural one before they were punted from office in 2003 and the Tories in office continued that along with a bunch of other Liberal policies.

Now the Liberals are talking about a population growth secretariat. Both parties are missing the point. The issue is one of economic development. It has nothing to do with either insufficient motivation ("Would you do him for a grand?") or the lack of recent MUN graduates traveling around the province holding consultations on copulation rites and rituals and producing reports in the time it takes elephant fetuses to gestate.

So far the rural secretariat hasn't produced any more wins than the race horse has lately. It's dead and so is the idea that make-work projects for bureaucrats solve anything.

5. Another reason Danny should regret voting for Harper: Child care. It's not like some us didn't warn about the choice in child care scam either. Bonus would have been getting the feds to pay for it, versus shelling out of your own pocket.

6. The Dan Vinci Code. Do you see the "w" formed by the three figures at the centre of this tableau?

And while we're at it, is the similarity to this famous painting just a coincidence?

-srbp-

When free speech is compromised

The Telegram editorial today raises questions about the provincial Progressive Conservative plan to put a bounty on booties of $1000 for each new child born or adopted in the province.

The questions raised in the editorial - based on sound research - point to criticisms of the approach from other quarters, none of which are partisan. Other news media have covered the issue in somewhat the same way as the Telegram does.

The criticisms are based on experience in other jurisdictions where these pronatal policies have not worked and have proven to be very costly.

So why, pray tell, would the Telegram feel the need to preface its editorial with these words:

This is not meant to be a criticism of any party's election platform...?

An editorial is the place where a newspaper should take a critical position - if need be - and not have to apologise for it at all. An editorial should criticize the platform of any party if there is a good reason to do so. Being ineffective is as good a basis for criticism as anything else, particularly when the criticism is constructive.

Feedback, including critical comment, should be expected in return. The Telegram took issue yesterday with a Liberal who eventually wound up as a candidate in the current election voting in an open nomination process of another party, the Progressive Conservatives.

As far as Bond Papers was concerned, the editorial was off base on its facts. Frankly even after the editorial page editor commented on it, it's still hard to see what the issue actually is. The alternate point of view - expressed eloquently by the Telly's sister the Western Star - was presented in that post to demonstrate the difference of opinion on the issue.

But...

No one questioned the right of the Telly's editorialists to make a critical comment in the first place.

Free speech demands no less.

Free speech needs no qualification.

On the front page of the Telegram today there is also an article calling attention to comments made by a Liberal supporter, who referred to the Premier as a "Fuehrer". The Telly story isn't available electronically but cbc.ca/nl picked up the same point:

Party supporter Jim Combden, speaking at a rally in the town of New-Wes-Valley, made a crack about how Progressive Conservative cabinet minister John Hickey had threatened to sue critics of his spending.

"[Hickey] said, 'I will sue you if you speak on the open line programs, if you speak on legitimate airwaves, if you criticize my government, if you criticize my fuehrer, I will sue you,'" Combden told the rally, in the Bonavista North district.

Combden's remarks were over the top and the use of any analogy to Nazi Germany is the certain death of any point. Rather than lamely try to pass the comment off as a joke, Combden ought to apologise unequivocally and immediately withdraw the remark. It was wrong.

However, let's recall that the incident to which Combden referred prompted concerns at the time about many things including libel chill; that is, that the threat of law suits would silence critics. The fear is reasonable given the abuse of defamation laws by the rich and powerful in our own society and in the developing world to silence anyone with whom they disagree.

The Premier is notoriously thin skinned. In February, at the time the Hickey suit was first raised, Danny Williams named several individuals - including your humble e-scribbler - and threatened to sue them for motives he attributed to the individuals falsely, at least speaking in reference to Bond Papers.

Let's also recall at the time that the Premier stated his belief that it would be appropriate to eliminate the right of free speech in the provincial legislature. Centuries of precedent and a hard won liberty be damned: let's take the parliamentary immunity away.

In the aftermath of the Premier's remarks and the launch of Hickey's suit against former premier Roger Grimes, many people changed their behaviour. One blog vanished for a period of time, although ostensibly for other reasons. There's no question that callers to the province's very popular talk radio shows regularly checked themselves needlessly or in some cases refrained from comments out of fear of lawsuits.

Thankfully, that chill was temporary. Nattering nabobs, as Telegram editor Russell Wangersky named them after the fashion of former American vice-president Spiro Agnew, have their valued place in any democracy worthy of the name.

However, when the province's leading daily newspaper hobbles its own opinion as it did today, free speech is compromised.

We are weaker.

We should be ashamed.

And the only determination we should have is to resist unreasonable efforts to restrain voices of dissent.

-srbp-

And it only took four days

"It's good to have an opposition, but it's important that that opposition be a constructive opposition, it not be a name-calling, mudslinging, personal-attacking type of opposition," Williams said in an interview.

Premier Danny Williams, quoted in a Canadian Press story on the provincial election, September 16, 2007

"Gerry Reid is a capable guy in his own way, but he's got an attitude, and he can't get over it. And everybody in the province is seeing it," Williams said during a rally in Twillingate. "When they look at him, they see him on television, they see the scowl on his face."

Premier Danny Williams, quoted in a Telegram story on the provincial election, September 20, 2007

Slamming a guy for the face God gave him. There's an original Conservative personal attack.

While we're at it, how nice it would be to have a government administration that didn't resort to a name-calling, mudslinging, personal attacking type of government.

Update almost instantly:

The highly productive I.P Freely has reposted one of his little videos from last January when it seems the Premier had dropped a derogatory comment or two about Gerry Reid's face during a spate of by-elections. The vid was relatively popular, having garnered almost 2,000 views.

Two wrongs don't make a right, I.P, but this puts things in another perspective.

-srbp-

Campaign Notes: Using the technology

Step 1. Google any of the following words:

"danny williams"

"pc party"

"newfoundland"

Step 2: Check the sponsored links, usually on the right hand side.

Hint: Try "pc party" first and see if your search turns up the same result as the one we just did here at Bond.

Step 3: lol or roflyao

Update - Step 4; Google "bob ridgley". You won't find any website for the candidate. The first link that turns up is interesting.

-srbp-

A non-story

Someone picked up on the fact that some campaign signs - in this case for Tory Beth Marshall - don't carry any reference to the "Danny Williams Team."

There are plenty of re-cycled signs around and Marshall appears to have been frugal with her campaign expenses.

Let's hope Bond Papers doesn't get as many comments on Marshall as CBC radio did after her interview yesterday. The server couldn't handle the volume of criticism aimed at the former auditor general

-srbp-

Two views of democracy

From today's Telegram a rather bizarrely written editorial trying to make an issue of a candidate for one party who voted in the open nomination process of another.

Bizarre because apart from the smear of referring to political cross-dressing, the editorial gets the facts wrong:

But take this curious situation: Simon Lono, a Liberal candidate in St. John's North, actually attended a Tory nomination meeting in St. John's East and voted for a candidate there, even though he wasn't eligible to vote in the district at all.

This comment makes it sound like Lono did something improper or illegal.

He didn't.

The shifting of boundaries created problems across the province, but especially in St. John's where district line shifted by one street or another. In this case, the Progressive Conservative candidates themselves blanketed areas of the old St. John's East boundary which included Lono's house. Turns out the district association decided to use the new boundaries, even though they weren't legally in effect.

This editorial is something one might expect from a locally owned newspaper with a political agenda, one that took to printing tripe to fill up its page three in the weeks leading up to the election. It's unusual for the Telegram; conspicuously different from the norm.

Conspicuous too, given that in January 2007, the Telly's sister daily endorsed open nominations as a means by which all citizens can become involved in the political process at the grass roots. progressive Conservative candidates blanketed the airwaves of commercial radio with appeals for voters - any and all voters irrespective of party - to come and vote in the PC nomination process.

Were someone to ask, one would likely find that men and women from across the province have voted for candidates of different parties at various times and have participated in nomination processes for parties other than the one they usually support.

There's nothing sinister about it, nor is there any implication of some form of political gender confusion, whatever that is.

No one seems to be confused here, except the editors at the Telegram. The thing that has confused them most are the pesky things that normally confound their independently minded competitors across town: facts.

The Western Star (Corner Brook)
Opinion, Saturday, January 20, 2007, p. 6

Byelection promises to be interesting

Next month's by election in Port au Port has drawn a slew of candidates lining up for the PC party nomination. The byelection became necessary with the resignation of PC Jim Hodder, who after serving 21 years in the House of Assembly, decided to leave for health reasons.

It's good to see that seven citizens have come forward to offer themselves because it shows there is real interest in the seat and it will be interesting to see who gets the nod when voting takes place Monday.

The Progressive Conservative party has opened nomination voting to the general public and they're to be commended for doing so. A person shouldn't have to be a card-carrying member of the party to help make the decision on who their candidate will be.

Often voters are undecided in an election and tend to vote for the man or the woman rather than along party lines. This open system gives any person the opportunity to be involved at the grassroots level of politics. There are good candidates running for the PC nomination and whoever takes it will likely have a fight on his or her hands since the district was known to be a Liberal one in the past.

That changed in the last election when Hodder took it from incumbent Gerald Smith and it remains to be seen what message voters want to send this time around.

With a general election coming in the fall, this byelection promises to be more interesting than most.

-srbp-

You whistle. Who barks?

"We can't be a dying race."

Premier Danny Williams

Dog whistle politics is the use of code words that carry specific meanings for specific segments of an audience. The majority may miss them, but for certain segments they have a different meaning than the one most people might assume.

The term originated, according to some accounts, in Australian politics in the 1990s and the ideas of Howard strategist Lynton Crosby. It's based on a theory of voter motivation that is far from controversial in and of itself. As Crosby put it:

"People don't generally vote simply on the basis of issues," he told a conference in Canberra last May [2004]. "They vote as much on the values and motivation of political parties in taking a particular position on an issue... It is the values you communicate, and the motivation you have, that influences the way people vote."

It's hard to escape the idea that there is something of a dog whistle in Danny Williams use of the word race, especially when you see the sort of posturing on the issue that turned up after the remarks. It's code in the local nationalist fringe, just as it would be in Quebec.

The themes in the last throne speech and the campaign song all have a flavour and tone which would appeal across several audience segments. There's the talk of pride of place which most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel and its a core value pretty well everyone has.

The bootie call policy itself is a pretty straightforward example of the sort of retail politics that took Stephen Harper to 24 Sussex last year. It also makes it appear to some people that the premier and his crew are trying to do something to stem the tide of outmigration by paying people to stay and have children.

But if you wanted to look at another layer, consider that idea of Newfoundlanders as being a distinct race of people is a notion most common among those who never quite got over their loss in the 1948 referendum. Williams has raised the traditional political theatrical device of the external enemy to a fine art, playing to the insecure and largely xenophobic crowd who thrive on the myths of carpetbaggers and Canadians who pillage the benighted people of God's other Eden. To those people, defending a Newfoundland race beset by a declining birthrate and the loss of their culture to the evils of the mainland is as instinctive as breathing.

But for most of "race' is such an odd word, that it's sudden appearance in public remarks by the Premier would elicit one of two responses. Either people would ask what he meant or, as in this case, the embedded atmosphere of the media on the bus might well lead people to rationalize the word as an unimportant anomaly.

Problem is that things are quite that easy.

Political messaging sometimes comes on layers, with different aspects aimed at different segments of the audience. It takes a sophisticated organization to research and detect how messages are playing in smaller segments of the population and then adjust messages according.

Williams has done it before. The one instance in which such a detailed analysis was conducted occurred in 2004 with polling on the flag controversy. The poll results were obtained by the Telegram under Access to Information laws. Shortly afterward, the Premier's office stopped purchasing polling other than CRA through any publicly accessible means. That doesn't mean the sophisticated polling stopped.

Political messaging in a skilled organization isn't developed on the basis of the simplified and almost simplistic analysis offered in the Corporate Research Associate's quarterly omnibus political questions. Skilled operators would know what messages resonate with specific audiences.

The Premier's race comment might just be a slip of the tongue. But don't bet on it.

Danny Williams is a savvy politician whose has built his success on surrounding himself with a team of capable, sophisticated marketers. He doesn't often drop words out there carelessly, even if occasionally he gets suckered into musing on taking away free speech. those are core to his political agenda.

In this instance, "race" is the word Danny Williams chose without prompting.

It's a word that was on his mind.

There's a reason why the word came up.

Maybe he was whistling a tune intended, in part, for some of his most hard core supporters.

-srbp-

Beth Marshall: Donations by MHAs "are appropriate"

In an interview with the St. John's Morning Show, former Auditor General Beth Marshall blew away whatever credibility she had as a fearless campaigner for accountability of public spending.

Marshall said she had no problem with members of the legislature handing out donations from constituency funds in manner essentially in violation of the system of accountability she used to espouse. In many cases, what the legislature called donations went to purposes for which there were already established government programs.

Among her most amazing comments:

"The Auditor General [John Noseworthy] has no basis to base his opinion on that those expenditures were inappropriate."

The AG based his views on the report by Chief Justice Green and his scathing indictment of the practice of donations. When pressed by Jeff Gilhooley on whether or not the donations were inappropriate, given that they came from an allowance that was never intended to include donations, Marshall was unequivocal: "They are appropriate."

Marshall defended her view on the basis that "discretionary funds" exist throughout government. That's an interesting argument for Marshall to make. As she should know, Green documents the original Morgan Commission recommendation in 1989 on allowances and the manner in which discretionary funds were restricted until that specific type of fund was eliminated by Marshall and her colleagues on the House management committee in 2004.

Had donations in fact been treated like discretionary funds, then members would have been limited to a maximum of $4800 per year. But Marshall knows that donations were not treated like discretionary funds. In the period after Marshall and her colleagues eliminated discretionary funds - and as the AG documented - gifting by Marshall and her colleagues increased compared to previous years. Marshall's colleague the deputy Premier handed out one gift of $5,000 in a single go in 2007.

In another part of the interview, Marshall said that when she was elected, she was provided with a set of rules to be followed. That's blatantly contrary to the line taken by most members that there were in fact no rules and hence abuses and oversights occurred.

-srbp-

An abundance of optimism

There's a great story in the Wednesday Telegram assessing the possible performance of the Hebron royalty arrangement compared to the generic regime.

Sometimes, though, one gets an uneasy feeling when the same people who scream "no more give-aways" step forward to say "trust me", but then don't release any details of the deal.

And it's not like the major deal that the "no more give-aways" crowd use as a goblin to frighten people wasn't greeted with an abundance of enthusiasm when it was announced in May 1969. [Aside: That's right, Bill Rowe. May 1969. When you were in cabinet.]

From the Telegram, May 30, 1969 in a story by John Carter:

Fears that Newfoundland came out on the short end of the stick in the agreement to develop Churchill Falls appear to be unfounded.

In fact, Newfoundland fares quite well, although it may appear otherwise on the surface.

...

The $950 million project in Labrador has been a long time coming. However, it probably would have come earlier had it not been for Premier J.R. Smallwood's uncontrolled outbursts of provincialism...

There are references to name calling, of Smallwood referring to keeping the project from the "clutches of Quebec" and things that sound eerily familiar.

Sadly, there is no electronic copy of the text, just these two scans.

Maybe the Telly will add them to their website.

-srbp-

Stephenville 2: Not on my watch

From the Premier's remarks in Goose Bay on Tuesday:

And I want people here to know that I am not prepared to leave Labradorians excluded on my watch. Labrador's day has arrived. This is Labrador's time to shine, to flourish and to reap the benefits of growth as our province moves forward, united, toward self-reliance.

It's odd to use this sort of phrase a second time, at least under the circumstances.

-srbp-

Danny makes Bourque!

Well, indirectly.

But the original is here.

-srbp-