Flip over to Monte Solberg's little blog when you need a laugh and see his musings posted as he flew off to be with his family over the long weekend.
I don't know what this guy did before he got into politics, but this is as good a lede as I have ever seen:
"This week will long be remembered in Conservative annals as the week that truly sucked."
Yep. That's about the size of it.
Now, Monte, ask yourself why it sucked.
The answer lives at Stornoway. The guy who resides there may be an eminent political tactician, but, by definition, a guy good at tactics sucks when it comes to strategy.
I hope Monte had a good a weekend with his family as I did with mine. And, for the record, no, Dad, I did not get any gardening done.
Who needs comments sections on a blog when your own family is full of people who pick up on every little thing?
23 May 2005
Loon magnet
A couple of weeks ago, I shut down the comments section of this collection of e-scribbles for two reasons:
1. The ones I got were from people who refused to sign their name to their comments. That's usually a sure sign of someone masquerading. Anyway, the short answer is no guts, no glory for those types.
2. There weren't many comments anyway.
Over at Andrew Coyne's little collection of way-more-popular-than-mine e-scribbles, seems he has had to shut his comments section down as well.
As Andrew notes: "But they [Ed. - the people with a brain and a sensible comment to make] have been drowned out by all the other crap -- low-brow, insult-filled, intolerant of opposing views, and unspeakably tedious. I have no desire for this site to serve as a clubhouse for hard-right wackos, usually anonymous, with way too much time on their hands."
Coyne's blog is one of the most widely read one sin the country and rightly so. Agree or disagree with him all you want, the fact remains his comments are thoughtful and insightful. Heck, Andrew even had the good sense to be the brother of a woman who would make a fine member of parliament. Her choice of party may rankle her brother's sensibilities, but hey, life's a bitch sometimes.
For those of us who read Coyne's stuff on a regular basis, it is annoying that Andrew has become the favourite site of a bunch of what he describes as "western separatists, Bilderberg conspiracy theorists and various other cranks."
At least he understands what blogs are about: "self-promotion and vanity."
Leave 'em with a laugh, I always say.
1. The ones I got were from people who refused to sign their name to their comments. That's usually a sure sign of someone masquerading. Anyway, the short answer is no guts, no glory for those types.
2. There weren't many comments anyway.
Over at Andrew Coyne's little collection of way-more-popular-than-mine e-scribbles, seems he has had to shut his comments section down as well.
As Andrew notes: "But they [Ed. - the people with a brain and a sensible comment to make] have been drowned out by all the other crap -- low-brow, insult-filled, intolerant of opposing views, and unspeakably tedious. I have no desire for this site to serve as a clubhouse for hard-right wackos, usually anonymous, with way too much time on their hands."
Coyne's blog is one of the most widely read one sin the country and rightly so. Agree or disagree with him all you want, the fact remains his comments are thoughtful and insightful. Heck, Andrew even had the good sense to be the brother of a woman who would make a fine member of parliament. Her choice of party may rankle her brother's sensibilities, but hey, life's a bitch sometimes.
For those of us who read Coyne's stuff on a regular basis, it is annoying that Andrew has become the favourite site of a bunch of what he describes as "western separatists, Bilderberg conspiracy theorists and various other cranks."
At least he understands what blogs are about: "self-promotion and vanity."
Leave 'em with a laugh, I always say.
Hearn continues deceit
Personally, I am long since past the point of giving Connie Loyola Hearn, the pretend member of parliament for St. Johns-Mount Pearl, any consideration when it comes to telling - deliberately telling - falsehoods.
The man also known as Blarney the green dinosaur from up the shore has got to know that what he is saying is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts - a giant coprolite. You can't be around politics as long as Hearn and be as powerful and influential as he claims to be, without knowing when you spout garbage. The man is hoist yet again by his own petard.
Hearn even has the gall to call the prime minister a liar. Hearn is the Typhoid Mary of pinocchiosis. He ought to know a lie when he sees one.
Hearn will say anything - regardless of veracity or accuracy - in order to advance his partisan cause.
He proves it every single time he opens his mouth.
I am speaking here of an FAQ on Hearn's web page that tries to explain the parliamentary procedures involved in passing bills. All this is in aid of getting the heat of his backside over the offshore votes.
Anyone listening to the radio on Friday heard a nonstop litany of callers who told Hearn to back off plans to defeat the government before the budget bill passes. The heat is on, but apparently Hearn in unrepentant in his approach of putting Harper and Hearn before province.
Anyway, for the record, here is the link to the offending FAQ.
Hearn says the fastest way to get the offshore money is to split the bill or have an election.
1. Bill C-43 and a stand-alone offshore bill have to go through exactly the same seven steps to become law. There is no way to speed that process up without unanimous consent. Realistically, the budget has to be passed soon or the government lacks the legal authority to spend money.
The budget measures will likely be clear of the House before the end of June, barring another Connie-inspired confidence shakedown in the House.
2. Another election would delay not speed up the bill. Read Hearn's first question and answer: No money until the whole process is complete.
If we have to wait until after another election, who knows how long it will take for the money to flow? Incidentally, this nonsense about last year's budget passing last week is just that: nonsense. Here's the progress of bills section from the parliamentary website. I dare anyone to find a supply bill from last year that passed in 2005, let alone passed in May 2005. Bill C-33 is called a second act for good reason: it makes some amendments to last year's authorization for administrative and other purposes.
But make no mistake:
Budget 2004 was passed in its entirety in Fiscal Year 2004. Here's the link confirming that Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget was tabled in March 2004 and:
Maybe Mr. Hearn can't remember what year this is.
I can assure you the current budget will be longer than the end of June, but only if Stephen Harper and Loyola Hearn get their way.
Given that this release was issued by Hearn's office this week, I think Kevin and the Fair Dealers need to target Mr. Hearn to make sure he votes for this province on the subsequent budget votes due to come before this province collects the offshore money from the Williams-Martin deal.
Let's see if a thousand e-mails an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for three months gets the facts through Hearn's noggin.
The man also known as Blarney the green dinosaur from up the shore has got to know that what he is saying is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts - a giant coprolite. You can't be around politics as long as Hearn and be as powerful and influential as he claims to be, without knowing when you spout garbage. The man is hoist yet again by his own petard.
Hearn even has the gall to call the prime minister a liar. Hearn is the Typhoid Mary of pinocchiosis. He ought to know a lie when he sees one.
Hearn will say anything - regardless of veracity or accuracy - in order to advance his partisan cause.
He proves it every single time he opens his mouth.
I am speaking here of an FAQ on Hearn's web page that tries to explain the parliamentary procedures involved in passing bills. All this is in aid of getting the heat of his backside over the offshore votes.
Anyone listening to the radio on Friday heard a nonstop litany of callers who told Hearn to back off plans to defeat the government before the budget bill passes. The heat is on, but apparently Hearn in unrepentant in his approach of putting Harper and Hearn before province.
Anyway, for the record, here is the link to the offending FAQ.
Hearn says the fastest way to get the offshore money is to split the bill or have an election.
1. Bill C-43 and a stand-alone offshore bill have to go through exactly the same seven steps to become law. There is no way to speed that process up without unanimous consent. Realistically, the budget has to be passed soon or the government lacks the legal authority to spend money.
The budget measures will likely be clear of the House before the end of June, barring another Connie-inspired confidence shakedown in the House.
2. Another election would delay not speed up the bill. Read Hearn's first question and answer: No money until the whole process is complete.
If we have to wait until after another election, who knows how long it will take for the money to flow? Incidentally, this nonsense about last year's budget passing last week is just that: nonsense. Here's the progress of bills section from the parliamentary website. I dare anyone to find a supply bill from last year that passed in 2005, let alone passed in May 2005. Bill C-33 is called a second act for good reason: it makes some amendments to last year's authorization for administrative and other purposes.
But make no mistake:
Budget 2004 was passed in its entirety in Fiscal Year 2004. Here's the link confirming that Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget was tabled in March 2004 and:
Budget 2004 passed on May 14, 2004
Maybe Mr. Hearn can't remember what year this is.
I can assure you the current budget will be longer than the end of June, but only if Stephen Harper and Loyola Hearn get their way.
Given that this release was issued by Hearn's office this week, I think Kevin and the Fair Dealers need to target Mr. Hearn to make sure he votes for this province on the subsequent budget votes due to come before this province collects the offshore money from the Williams-Martin deal.
Let's see if a thousand e-mails an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for three months gets the facts through Hearn's noggin.
Grewal cops to crime: admits to CTV he solicited bribes
Alright it's Monday and I am back.
CTV is reporting this morning that Connie member of parliament Gurmant Grewal is saying two things about the supposed offer from the government related to his vote:
1. That he wanted to prove how low the Liberals would go so he endeavoured to entice someone into an influence scam; and,
2. That while he has FOUR hours of tapes, he has only released a few minutes worth of tape at the request of the Connie comms department.
Now then, ladies and gentlemen, we are starting to see some interesting aspects of this little escapade.
First of all, to set about to enduce someone into what is, by any definition, a criminal act, is a criminal act in and of itself.
This is in addition to his solicitation of a bribe - if you accept his version of the story.
Second, as stings go, the intention to prove that people are corrupt, usually undermines the whole concept of a sting operation. If you plan to see how low someone will go, where is the line between a sting operation and, say framing someone? Grewal had motive and intention in his actions. I'd say that makes him suspect.
Third, the rest of the tapes are relevant to the entire accusation. Keeping them secret suggests the story we are getting is only a teensy bit of the whole thing. Under the circumstances, I think Grewal and the Connie comms people are hiding relevant information. I don't really care what the rest of the tapes say: let's get them into the open and deal with the whole mess.
Fourth, if Grewal is found to be telling whopping great fibs, then he needs to be sacked.
Fifth, any Connie party officials in on this caper get the sack along with Grewal.
and here is the biggest one of all:
Six - I think the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have sufficient evidence to begin an investigation into the matter. We have one member of parliament who has admitted to contacting other members of parliament to discuss obtaining some form of reward in exchange for his vote in parliament. The CTV interview is a confession. Let's get at it, Mountie detectives.
Here's the exact quote straight from the interview: "I wanted Canadians to know how low this government can sink, making these offers to members of Parliament to buy out their votes." The words you are looking for are prime facie.
Grewal's motivation is not relevent at this stage.
Let the Queen's Cowboys sort that out.
I am thinking it will wind up in criminal court.
The person or persons in the dock will not be Liberals.
CTV is reporting this morning that Connie member of parliament Gurmant Grewal is saying two things about the supposed offer from the government related to his vote:
1. That he wanted to prove how low the Liberals would go so he endeavoured to entice someone into an influence scam; and,
2. That while he has FOUR hours of tapes, he has only released a few minutes worth of tape at the request of the Connie comms department.
Now then, ladies and gentlemen, we are starting to see some interesting aspects of this little escapade.
First of all, to set about to enduce someone into what is, by any definition, a criminal act, is a criminal act in and of itself.
This is in addition to his solicitation of a bribe - if you accept his version of the story.
Second, as stings go, the intention to prove that people are corrupt, usually undermines the whole concept of a sting operation. If you plan to see how low someone will go, where is the line between a sting operation and, say framing someone? Grewal had motive and intention in his actions. I'd say that makes him suspect.
Third, the rest of the tapes are relevant to the entire accusation. Keeping them secret suggests the story we are getting is only a teensy bit of the whole thing. Under the circumstances, I think Grewal and the Connie comms people are hiding relevant information. I don't really care what the rest of the tapes say: let's get them into the open and deal with the whole mess.
Fourth, if Grewal is found to be telling whopping great fibs, then he needs to be sacked.
Fifth, any Connie party officials in on this caper get the sack along with Grewal.
and here is the biggest one of all:
Six - I think the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have sufficient evidence to begin an investigation into the matter. We have one member of parliament who has admitted to contacting other members of parliament to discuss obtaining some form of reward in exchange for his vote in parliament. The CTV interview is a confession. Let's get at it, Mountie detectives.
Here's the exact quote straight from the interview: "I wanted Canadians to know how low this government can sink, making these offers to members of Parliament to buy out their votes." The words you are looking for are prime facie.
Grewal's motivation is not relevent at this stage.
Let the Queen's Cowboys sort that out.
I am thinking it will wind up in criminal court.
The person or persons in the dock will not be Liberals.
21 May 2005
Play your bit in building this blog
As a last little comment before I shuffle off to tend the garden and other such relaxing stuff, let's have a look at the readership of this blog for a bit, in light of the Top Canadian Blogs postings that have been taking place on this site and elsewhere.
The audience is comparatively small, but incredibly faithful, from what I can gather. They have been spreading the URL and it is always a surprise to bump into someone on the street who reads this stuff and comments on it. Every once in a while I get an e-mail from some place like Qatar or on the mainland from someone who stumbled across the site by accident.
Anyway, for the faithful out there, here's are some ideas I have been kicking around:
1. Next week, send an e-mail to someone on your contact list who you haven't already told about the Sir Robert Bond Papers but who might be interested in it.
After a week or so, I'll report back on any changes in my stats.
2. In the meantime, I have also been considering some Robert Bond merchandise or, to use another marvelous word, tchotchke.
I haven't got any definitive ideas, but this might be something to distinguish you out there as loyal readers of these scribbles.
I'll keep you posted as the ideas flow.
3. Send me an e-mail or gimme a call if there is a subject area you'd want me to have a go at. Is there something in the Bond Papers that I have forgotten to get back to or is there something you'd like to see. A little audience feedback on the Papers would be welcome.
Just remember to flip the URL to as many as you can.
And on that note, I am off to ponder the drizzle of a typical May 24th weekend.
The audience is comparatively small, but incredibly faithful, from what I can gather. They have been spreading the URL and it is always a surprise to bump into someone on the street who reads this stuff and comments on it. Every once in a while I get an e-mail from some place like Qatar or on the mainland from someone who stumbled across the site by accident.
Anyway, for the faithful out there, here's are some ideas I have been kicking around:
1. Next week, send an e-mail to someone on your contact list who you haven't already told about the Sir Robert Bond Papers but who might be interested in it.
After a week or so, I'll report back on any changes in my stats.
2. In the meantime, I have also been considering some Robert Bond merchandise or, to use another marvelous word, tchotchke.
I haven't got any definitive ideas, but this might be something to distinguish you out there as loyal readers of these scribbles.
I'll keep you posted as the ideas flow.
3. Send me an e-mail or gimme a call if there is a subject area you'd want me to have a go at. Is there something in the Bond Papers that I have forgotten to get back to or is there something you'd like to see. A little audience feedback on the Papers would be welcome.
Just remember to flip the URL to as many as you can.
And on that note, I am off to ponder the drizzle of a typical May 24th weekend.
Dump Harper old news
Paul Wells is linking to a piece in the Toronto Star that raises the idea there is a Dump Harper movement forming.
Members of the cabal are reputed to be David Orchard, Sinclair Stevens and David Asper.
Wells rightly dismisses this as sarcastically as he can, not because it is untrue but because it is not very surprising.
A couple of days ago, I offered up the link to Stevens' new website called Bloc-Harper. Orchard is the guy Peter MacKay, DDS screwed by dumping him for Stephen Harper.
As an aside, Peter is understandable distraught that he has been screwed and then dumped in the recent defection of Belinda Stronach. He whispered through an interview with Anthony Germaine on Saturday morning, obviously emphasizing the level of his emotional angst over Belinda. [Shades of Warren the K at Gomery - whisper for dramatic effect - but I digress even further.] Maybe Peter is concerned about the way he was screwed and then dumped as opposed to screwing by dumping. That's the only difference I can possibly see by examining Peter MacKay's relationship management history.
Anyway...
The Star piece is a penetrating insight into the obvious. The only thing mildly amusing is the reminder that Peter MacKay's Dad, with whom the erstwhile Connie dentist sought solace in Belinda's wake, was at the heart of the Dump Joe Clark movement in the early 1980s.
Enjoy the weekend. Unless something truly inspiring occurs, you humble scribbler will be taking some much deserved rest for a couple of days.
Members of the cabal are reputed to be David Orchard, Sinclair Stevens and David Asper.
Wells rightly dismisses this as sarcastically as he can, not because it is untrue but because it is not very surprising.
A couple of days ago, I offered up the link to Stevens' new website called Bloc-Harper. Orchard is the guy Peter MacKay, DDS screwed by dumping him for Stephen Harper.
As an aside, Peter is understandable distraught that he has been screwed and then dumped in the recent defection of Belinda Stronach. He whispered through an interview with Anthony Germaine on Saturday morning, obviously emphasizing the level of his emotional angst over Belinda. [Shades of Warren the K at Gomery - whisper for dramatic effect - but I digress even further.] Maybe Peter is concerned about the way he was screwed and then dumped as opposed to screwing by dumping. That's the only difference I can possibly see by examining Peter MacKay's relationship management history.
Anyway...
The Star piece is a penetrating insight into the obvious. The only thing mildly amusing is the reminder that Peter MacKay's Dad, with whom the erstwhile Connie dentist sought solace in Belinda's wake, was at the heart of the Dump Joe Clark movement in the early 1980s.
Enjoy the weekend. Unless something truly inspiring occurs, you humble scribbler will be taking some much deserved rest for a couple of days.
20 May 2005
Vickers Vimy on the way to recreate historic flight
Here's the link to the official website of the team planning to recreate the famous trans-Atlantic flight by John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown from St. John's to Ireland in 1919.
The Vimy left California yesterday and is due to arrive in St. John's around the first of June. Plans are to attempt the ocean crossing in the second or third week of June.
The only model kit I can find of the Vimy is this one, available only by special order from Eastern Express.
The Vimy left California yesterday and is due to arrive in St. John's around the first of June. Plans are to attempt the ocean crossing in the second or third week of June.
The only model kit I can find of the Vimy is this one, available only by special order from Eastern Express.
Friday Funny
No, I don't mean John Crosbie getting yet more national airtime to work out his peculiar view of history.
Someday, I'll reprint his ancien bon mots about Stephen Harper.
Nope.
For Friday before the Great Newfoundland Shiver in the Woods, I thought I'd generate a Team Martin sign of my own.
The Connies and Warren the K are using the site it for their purposes.
Here's mine. I figure the skid marks on the lawn were made by the Connie election bus as everyone fought over who was driving.
Go make your own sign at this spot.
Someday, I'll reprint his ancien bon mots about Stephen Harper.
Nope.
For Friday before the Great Newfoundland Shiver in the Woods, I thought I'd generate a Team Martin sign of my own.
The Connies and Warren the K are using the site it for their purposes.
Here's mine. I figure the skid marks on the lawn were made by the Connie election bus as everyone fought over who was driving.
Go make your own sign at this spot.
The Why Incision
Over the past few months, readers of The Sir Robert Bond Papers have been treated to jabs aimed at Conservative members of parliament (MP) Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn.
They have heard about cases of pinocchiosis inflicting one or the other and of both of them scoring zero on the Cred-o-Meter (r) on several occasions.
All fine, humourous and undoubtedly as annoying as those comments were to Hearn and Doyle supporters, they are rooted not so much in partisanship as in an acknowledgement of the fundamental gap between what these gentlemen have said in the past and what they have done in the present.
The entire Fair Deal for Newfoundland campaign to pressure Hearn and Doyle, the calls to call-in radio shows, all have their origins in the vocal chords of the two MP.
Here are some samples of what they said on the issue of the offshore revenue deal and how a member of parliament should vote:
"I'’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and if we’re not we shouldn’'t be there."
- – Loyola Hearn, July 4, 2004
"We're sent to do a job; we'll stand up for Newfoundland regardless of who's for us or who's against us."
- – Loyola Hearn, November 13, 2004
"Never again do I expect to see the members from our province in such a position of clout. It would be a terrible shame if that clout were squandered by not using it at all."
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
"Why can we not, just once, stand united for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why can we not, just once, stand on guard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?"
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
These two gentlemen never hesitated for one second to conjure the spirits of nationalism and populism when they could be directed against their target: John Efford. They reveled in the damage the demons inflicted inflicted, making a very difficult issue intensely personal.
Mr. Hearn, in particular, proved that perceptions of him as a kind and decent fellow were utterly false. His deeply personal remarks, at times, were nothing short of scurrilous. They were hardly becoming of a former provincial cabinet minister, let alone a member of our national parliament and a potential federal cabinet minister in waiting.
It should be no surprise therefore that some people took delight in his predicament over bills C-43 and C-48. No surprise, therefore that the populist was hoist with his own petard.
The problem for Hearn and Doyle, however, is not a partisan one.
The tragedy of Doyle and Hearn is that they represent an old-fashioned approach to politics which has past. These men learned their politics in the 1960s and 1970s, practiced it through the Peckford insanity and then stumbled into Opposition in the 1990s. They slipped back behind the scenes only to re-emerge in the federal legislature where they sat largely unnoticed until recently.
Events of the past six months have shown both Doyle and Hearn to be mere relics of a style of politics that took voters for granted, that treated them as ignorant, that saw no problem with saying one thing and doing another.
Consider Hearn's recent post office nonsense.
Consider Hearn issuing a constituency flyer before the last election saying that Equalization clawbacks were contrary to the Atlantic Accord, while the clawbacks that existed were exactly the ones he voted to support in 1985.
Consider Hearn's attack on a fisheries matter in another jurisdiction that did not affect this province at all, yet was whipped into an Open Line Crisis. The ship in question, leased from a foreign owner was subsequently bought by the Canadian company thus giving the lie to Hearn's accusation that a Liberal government in Ottawa was letting foreigners take our fish.
Consider Hearn lately explaining how one bill must go through six stages before cash could flow (there are actually seven) taking upwards of a year while another bill could seemingly float magically through the same process in mere weeks.
Consider just within the past week, Hearn and Doyle flanking their Leader as he explained that they had developed a confidence two-step which, as Stephen Harper admitted, was merely a device to prevent Hearn and Doyle from being accused of voting against their province. This sham did not last to see the light of the next day.
Did they really think people were so gullible, so completely stupid?
To be fair, parliamentarians serve many masters with different interests. It is unreasonable to expect that they always side with their constituents, their party or their leader. Our democratic system is built on the expectation that parliamentarians will learn to balance the competing interests and ultimately exercise their best judgment on our behalf.
But here is where the modern democracy differs from the version that Hearn and Doyle practice. Modern democracy is a dialogue. Voters expect that politicians will speak frankly and reasonably. They expect to have discussion and disagreement. They expect that a politician will tell them what he or she plans to do and explain why in plain English.
The jibes to one side, the main reason why these electronic scribbles have poked at Hearn and Doyle is because they failed to measure up, not to their self-imposed standard of populist nonsense but to the baseline for modern democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hearn and Doyle had ample opportunity to state exactly what they were going to do on Thursday and explain why they thought it best for the country and the province. Let their Leader be hysterical and angry. Seasoned politicians can be strong-minded but relentless in their explanations.
What we got instead from Hearn and Doyle was spin - misrepresentations, half-truths and in some cases contradictory answers from one question to another.
What we got from Hearn and Doyle was weak through and through and relentless only to the extent they both regurgitated their talking points over and over.
Not once did they even pretend to hold an intelligent conversation with their constituents.
To make matters worse, Hearn in particular picked fights - needless fights - with Premier Williams. His "neophyte" crack, if said in the heat of the moment could have been easily forgiven with an apology. Instead, Hearn made the matter worse with further insults, backed, a few days ago by the ever-charming Mr. Harper. To his credit, the Premier displayed restraint when asked to reply.
Hearn and Doyle together persisted in their implausible positions to the point where even their own supporters in the provincial Tory caucus were openly talking of deserting them. Whatever shred of credibility they had even with the most stalwart of Tory supporters, must surely be stripped from them by now. As some have said, how can they go door to door with these guys and sincerely ask voters to support them?
Taken all together, it would be very surprising if either Hearn or Doyle survived to the next election.
Both Hearn and Doyle barely won their seats in the last election. Hearn, in particular, had counted on an easy win in a safe seat; instead he found that a neophyte came within a hair's breadth of defeating him. His weak position in the riding has grown steadily weaker since the last election and in the past several days, one can see that whatever pillars served as his support have been demolished with his own jawbone.
When they stood to vote against the federal government's budget, Hearn and Doyle were seen as voting against their own province and their own people. Neither Doyle nor Hearn bothered to explain themselves to the very people whose support they needed. They left that perception to become reality and it has been their undoing.
Norman Doyle and Loyola Hearn represent a style of politics long since mouldering in the ground.
It remains now for someone else to write the epitaph.
This has been merely a political autopsy.
They have heard about cases of pinocchiosis inflicting one or the other and of both of them scoring zero on the Cred-o-Meter (r) on several occasions.
All fine, humourous and undoubtedly as annoying as those comments were to Hearn and Doyle supporters, they are rooted not so much in partisanship as in an acknowledgement of the fundamental gap between what these gentlemen have said in the past and what they have done in the present.
The entire Fair Deal for Newfoundland campaign to pressure Hearn and Doyle, the calls to call-in radio shows, all have their origins in the vocal chords of the two MP.
Here are some samples of what they said on the issue of the offshore revenue deal and how a member of parliament should vote:
"I'’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and if we’re not we shouldn’'t be there."
- – Loyola Hearn, July 4, 2004
"We're sent to do a job; we'll stand up for Newfoundland regardless of who's for us or who's against us."
- – Loyola Hearn, November 13, 2004
"Never again do I expect to see the members from our province in such a position of clout. It would be a terrible shame if that clout were squandered by not using it at all."
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
"Why can we not, just once, stand united for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why can we not, just once, stand on guard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?"
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
These two gentlemen never hesitated for one second to conjure the spirits of nationalism and populism when they could be directed against their target: John Efford. They reveled in the damage the demons inflicted inflicted, making a very difficult issue intensely personal.
Mr. Hearn, in particular, proved that perceptions of him as a kind and decent fellow were utterly false. His deeply personal remarks, at times, were nothing short of scurrilous. They were hardly becoming of a former provincial cabinet minister, let alone a member of our national parliament and a potential federal cabinet minister in waiting.
It should be no surprise therefore that some people took delight in his predicament over bills C-43 and C-48. No surprise, therefore that the populist was hoist with his own petard.
The problem for Hearn and Doyle, however, is not a partisan one.
The tragedy of Doyle and Hearn is that they represent an old-fashioned approach to politics which has past. These men learned their politics in the 1960s and 1970s, practiced it through the Peckford insanity and then stumbled into Opposition in the 1990s. They slipped back behind the scenes only to re-emerge in the federal legislature where they sat largely unnoticed until recently.
Events of the past six months have shown both Doyle and Hearn to be mere relics of a style of politics that took voters for granted, that treated them as ignorant, that saw no problem with saying one thing and doing another.
Consider Hearn's recent post office nonsense.
Consider Hearn issuing a constituency flyer before the last election saying that Equalization clawbacks were contrary to the Atlantic Accord, while the clawbacks that existed were exactly the ones he voted to support in 1985.
Consider Hearn's attack on a fisheries matter in another jurisdiction that did not affect this province at all, yet was whipped into an Open Line Crisis. The ship in question, leased from a foreign owner was subsequently bought by the Canadian company thus giving the lie to Hearn's accusation that a Liberal government in Ottawa was letting foreigners take our fish.
Consider Hearn lately explaining how one bill must go through six stages before cash could flow (there are actually seven) taking upwards of a year while another bill could seemingly float magically through the same process in mere weeks.
Consider just within the past week, Hearn and Doyle flanking their Leader as he explained that they had developed a confidence two-step which, as Stephen Harper admitted, was merely a device to prevent Hearn and Doyle from being accused of voting against their province. This sham did not last to see the light of the next day.
Did they really think people were so gullible, so completely stupid?
To be fair, parliamentarians serve many masters with different interests. It is unreasonable to expect that they always side with their constituents, their party or their leader. Our democratic system is built on the expectation that parliamentarians will learn to balance the competing interests and ultimately exercise their best judgment on our behalf.
But here is where the modern democracy differs from the version that Hearn and Doyle practice. Modern democracy is a dialogue. Voters expect that politicians will speak frankly and reasonably. They expect to have discussion and disagreement. They expect that a politician will tell them what he or she plans to do and explain why in plain English.
The jibes to one side, the main reason why these electronic scribbles have poked at Hearn and Doyle is because they failed to measure up, not to their self-imposed standard of populist nonsense but to the baseline for modern democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hearn and Doyle had ample opportunity to state exactly what they were going to do on Thursday and explain why they thought it best for the country and the province. Let their Leader be hysterical and angry. Seasoned politicians can be strong-minded but relentless in their explanations.
What we got instead from Hearn and Doyle was spin - misrepresentations, half-truths and in some cases contradictory answers from one question to another.
What we got from Hearn and Doyle was weak through and through and relentless only to the extent they both regurgitated their talking points over and over.
Not once did they even pretend to hold an intelligent conversation with their constituents.
To make matters worse, Hearn in particular picked fights - needless fights - with Premier Williams. His "neophyte" crack, if said in the heat of the moment could have been easily forgiven with an apology. Instead, Hearn made the matter worse with further insults, backed, a few days ago by the ever-charming Mr. Harper. To his credit, the Premier displayed restraint when asked to reply.
Hearn and Doyle together persisted in their implausible positions to the point where even their own supporters in the provincial Tory caucus were openly talking of deserting them. Whatever shred of credibility they had even with the most stalwart of Tory supporters, must surely be stripped from them by now. As some have said, how can they go door to door with these guys and sincerely ask voters to support them?
Taken all together, it would be very surprising if either Hearn or Doyle survived to the next election.
Both Hearn and Doyle barely won their seats in the last election. Hearn, in particular, had counted on an easy win in a safe seat; instead he found that a neophyte came within a hair's breadth of defeating him. His weak position in the riding has grown steadily weaker since the last election and in the past several days, one can see that whatever pillars served as his support have been demolished with his own jawbone.
When they stood to vote against the federal government's budget, Hearn and Doyle were seen as voting against their own province and their own people. Neither Doyle nor Hearn bothered to explain themselves to the very people whose support they needed. They left that perception to become reality and it has been their undoing.
Norman Doyle and Loyola Hearn represent a style of politics long since mouldering in the ground.
It remains now for someone else to write the epitaph.
This has been merely a political autopsy.
Liveblog: Dead Man Talking on CBC
Hearn continues to spin despite being politically dead.
1. First person to raise the offshore revenues clawback problem in Ottawa 15 years ago (not 5):
Clyde Wells
2. First National Leader to reject the Williams proposal:
Stephen Harper
This guy is absolutely amazing.
Proven wrong again and again and again and he still sticks to the same spin.
1. First person to raise the offshore revenues clawback problem in Ottawa 15 years ago (not 5):
Clyde Wells
2. First National Leader to reject the Williams proposal:
Stephen Harper
This guy is absolutely amazing.
Proven wrong again and again and again and he still sticks to the same spin.
19 May 2005
Two "C"s to thank
Two members of parliament deserve the thanks of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian for helping push forward the government's budget bill:
Chuck Cadman and Carolyn Parish. The Two "C"s.
The other two C's, Conservatives Hearn and Doyle abandoned their province to side with their own personal and party interests. They followed their master's orders.
The Midnight Shuffle about voting for one bill but against the other never survived the light of the next day as commentator after commentator explained that it was procedural gobbledy gook. It was a pack of nonsense and easily seen as such.
Finance minister Ralph Goodale explained the silliness of the Doyle Hearn two-step to Open Line audiences next day.
And if that wasn't good enough, Premier Danny Williams made it plain how he viewed it.
So bad was the Doyle/Hearn position that, as stated here several days ago, the two local Connies had even alienated their base of local workers. Local Progressive Conservative friends of the pair have said openly that they will have a hard time knocking on doors for Doyle and Hearn.
So thanks, Chuck and Carolyn. If Conservatives live to their word, they will back off their plans to topple the government. The budget will be passed and offshore revenue cash will flow by the end of the current session - in June. For the record that is at least a full year before Stephen Harper's personal best estimate of when he might have been able to deliver something following an election.
In the meantime, Doyle and Hearn have shown their true colours.
Not pink white and green as Hearn likes to pretend, nor the red, white, blue and gold of the current provincial flag.
Nope.
Norm and Loyola are deepest of deep blue.
They are true Reformatories.
Voters will remember who delivered the offshore revenue money.
That's why Norm and Loyola are still running scared.
Chuck Cadman and Carolyn Parish. The Two "C"s.
The other two C's, Conservatives Hearn and Doyle abandoned their province to side with their own personal and party interests. They followed their master's orders.
The Midnight Shuffle about voting for one bill but against the other never survived the light of the next day as commentator after commentator explained that it was procedural gobbledy gook. It was a pack of nonsense and easily seen as such.
Finance minister Ralph Goodale explained the silliness of the Doyle Hearn two-step to Open Line audiences next day.
And if that wasn't good enough, Premier Danny Williams made it plain how he viewed it.
So bad was the Doyle/Hearn position that, as stated here several days ago, the two local Connies had even alienated their base of local workers. Local Progressive Conservative friends of the pair have said openly that they will have a hard time knocking on doors for Doyle and Hearn.
So thanks, Chuck and Carolyn. If Conservatives live to their word, they will back off their plans to topple the government. The budget will be passed and offshore revenue cash will flow by the end of the current session - in June. For the record that is at least a full year before Stephen Harper's personal best estimate of when he might have been able to deliver something following an election.
In the meantime, Doyle and Hearn have shown their true colours.
Not pink white and green as Hearn likes to pretend, nor the red, white, blue and gold of the current provincial flag.
Nope.
Norm and Loyola are deepest of deep blue.
They are true Reformatories.
Voters will remember who delivered the offshore revenue money.
That's why Norm and Loyola are still running scared.
The sad state of politics and journalism...
in this country is revealed by the excessive attention on The National and elsewhere over the relationship between Belinda and Peter MacKay, DDS.
I'd hate to see Pete go through the breakup of a relationship that lasted longer than a handful of months. Get a grip, man.
As for the journalists, try doing a series of stories on shallowness among the country's scribbling class as revealed by the reporting on the Stronach business.
Jane Taber, for example, is starting to sound like Joan Rivers without the wittiness of that decidedly unfunny bauble-hawker.
I'd hate to see Pete go through the breakup of a relationship that lasted longer than a handful of months. Get a grip, man.
As for the journalists, try doing a series of stories on shallowness among the country's scribbling class as revealed by the reporting on the Stronach business.
Jane Taber, for example, is starting to sound like Joan Rivers without the wittiness of that decidedly unfunny bauble-hawker.
18 May 2005
Sinc the Slasher - Crusading Tory
While leisurely scrolling through the raft of news release on Canada Newswire, I came across this curious thing about something called Bloc-Harper warning that Stronach's defection was the start of something big.
Anyway, here's the full release.
Then you can find your way to the full site here.
The domain is registered to one Sinclair Stevens, former cabinet minister in the Mulroney government who has been fighting relentless against the assimilation of the old Progressive Conservative Party by the Borg-like Reformers.
He is apparently going to have merchandise to flog.
While mainstream media will likely never cover something like this, its sheer quirkiness makes it perfect for the land o' blogs.
Unlike John Crosbie, Sinc's old cabinet mate, Stevens knows the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is dead.
Anyway, here's the full release.
Then you can find your way to the full site here.
The domain is registered to one Sinclair Stevens, former cabinet minister in the Mulroney government who has been fighting relentless against the assimilation of the old Progressive Conservative Party by the Borg-like Reformers.
He is apparently going to have merchandise to flog.
While mainstream media will likely never cover something like this, its sheer quirkiness makes it perfect for the land o' blogs.
Unlike John Crosbie, Sinc's old cabinet mate, Stevens knows the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is dead.
Meanwhile on Crap Talk...
John Crosbie, former gauleiter of Newfoundland, and Bill Rowe, former envelope chucker and perpetual crank, are engaged in a mutual massage-fest dissecting current goings on.
Crosbie talks about a signed contractual document namely the offshore deal and why it should be a separate bill like the Real Atlantic Accord.
Simple answer, since John's memory is failing, is that the Real Accord represented some major policies that affected federal legislative jurisdiction. The bill took two full years to get through the House and Senate.
The current document is merely authority to spend money and doesn't amend any other legislation, the Accord implementation act included. Including it within C-43 is the fastest way to get it done.
Meanwhile, since John said he never turned his back on this province, I draw your attention once more to the vicious comments Mr. Bumble...err... Mr. Crosbie made in the fall of 1990 when the provincial government asked him if they might have the revenue portions of the Accord changed. Check out here and look for "John Crosbie and hand-biting".
It took a Liberal government in Ottawa (Paul Martin as finance minister and then Paul Martin as PM) to help people who Mr. Crosbie considered to be ungrateful wretches biting the hand that fed them.
Oh by the way, JC is Atlantic co-chair of the Conservative Party campaign, not the Progressive Conservative Party campaign. The latter was killed off in the Reform take-over that spawned the Harper party currently in Opposition.
Now come to think about it, that would make this John Crosbie's third political party, not counting the work he did for the anti-Confederate movement in the National Referenda.
Now it all comes back to me. Crosbie bolted from the Liberal Party after failing to win the party leadership in 1968. He then joined the Tories, became a cabinet minister, and boosted the deficit and debt to then-record heights through spending including buying up the Upper Churchill project before rushing to Ottawa in 1976.
Then he tried for the Tory leadership and hung around long enough to be a successful, albeit cranky, cabinet minister.
To paraphrase one long-time acquaintance of the former gauleiter, Crosbie has wanted to be leader of everything he has ever been part of since the Boy Scouts.
Come to think of it, ambition plus floor crossing makes Mr. Crosbie eminently qualified to comment on Ms. Stronach's recent actions. The only problem for JC is that the bricks he chucked via Bill Rowe's new show Crap Talk are likely to rebound against the glass walls of Mr. Crosbie's current abode.
Crosbie talks about a signed contractual document namely the offshore deal and why it should be a separate bill like the Real Atlantic Accord.
Simple answer, since John's memory is failing, is that the Real Accord represented some major policies that affected federal legislative jurisdiction. The bill took two full years to get through the House and Senate.
The current document is merely authority to spend money and doesn't amend any other legislation, the Accord implementation act included. Including it within C-43 is the fastest way to get it done.
Meanwhile, since John said he never turned his back on this province, I draw your attention once more to the vicious comments Mr. Bumble...err... Mr. Crosbie made in the fall of 1990 when the provincial government asked him if they might have the revenue portions of the Accord changed. Check out here and look for "John Crosbie and hand-biting".
It took a Liberal government in Ottawa (Paul Martin as finance minister and then Paul Martin as PM) to help people who Mr. Crosbie considered to be ungrateful wretches biting the hand that fed them.
Oh by the way, JC is Atlantic co-chair of the Conservative Party campaign, not the Progressive Conservative Party campaign. The latter was killed off in the Reform take-over that spawned the Harper party currently in Opposition.
Now come to think about it, that would make this John Crosbie's third political party, not counting the work he did for the anti-Confederate movement in the National Referenda.
Now it all comes back to me. Crosbie bolted from the Liberal Party after failing to win the party leadership in 1968. He then joined the Tories, became a cabinet minister, and boosted the deficit and debt to then-record heights through spending including buying up the Upper Churchill project before rushing to Ottawa in 1976.
Then he tried for the Tory leadership and hung around long enough to be a successful, albeit cranky, cabinet minister.
To paraphrase one long-time acquaintance of the former gauleiter, Crosbie has wanted to be leader of everything he has ever been part of since the Boy Scouts.
Come to think of it, ambition plus floor crossing makes Mr. Crosbie eminently qualified to comment on Ms. Stronach's recent actions. The only problem for JC is that the bricks he chucked via Bill Rowe's new show Crap Talk are likely to rebound against the glass walls of Mr. Crosbie's current abode.
Guess Norm thinks I am effective, but won't pay me
Here's the CBC Radio online version of the story featuring Norman Doyle.
I was struck by one line in particular:
"Doyle blamed 'Liberal spin doctors' in St. John's for creating the impression that the Atlantic Accord will be wrecked if the government falls."
Mr. Doyle is rather specific about where these nefarious people - Liberal "spin doctors" - actually live. He says St. John's, not Ottawa or even Aurora-Newmarket.
Nope.
Norm said St. John's.
Now, truthfully, I don't think for a moment Norm would stoop to calling me anything. I have no reason to believe he knows I am still alive.
I just thought the line was cute.
I was struck by one line in particular:
"Doyle blamed 'Liberal spin doctors' in St. John's for creating the impression that the Atlantic Accord will be wrecked if the government falls."
Mr. Doyle is rather specific about where these nefarious people - Liberal "spin doctors" - actually live. He says St. John's, not Ottawa or even Aurora-Newmarket.
Nope.
Norm said St. John's.
Now, truthfully, I don't think for a moment Norm would stoop to calling me anything. I have no reason to believe he knows I am still alive.
I just thought the line was cute.
Where do I send the bill, Norm?
Meanwhile, the other beleaguered Connie incumbent in this province, one Norman Doyle told CBC Radio that the offshore deal is agreement between two governments and is therefore safe no matter what happens.
Regular readers will recognize two things:
1. The fact that this date (May 18) marks the very first time Doyle has said anything even vaguely like this about the offshore deal; and,
2. The stunning similarity between Doyle's new position and the one I posted here on Monday, May 16 under the title "Norm Doyle: Connie talking points change.
Here's a snippet - "In the meantime, the Connies - for some bizarre reason - have been consistently avoiding the most obvious position:
"The Accord is a deal between two governments. Whether we implement the current agreement or replace it with a much better deal - the Harper Equalization changes - a Conservative government will deliver for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."
Ok, Norm.
Where do I send the bill for my consulting services?
I may have put that comment out there in a public forum but if you used it, you'd better pay for it. Since you only used half the comment, I'll only charge you half my usual rate.
Regular readers will recognize two things:
1. The fact that this date (May 18) marks the very first time Doyle has said anything even vaguely like this about the offshore deal; and,
2. The stunning similarity between Doyle's new position and the one I posted here on Monday, May 16 under the title "Norm Doyle: Connie talking points change.
Here's a snippet - "In the meantime, the Connies - for some bizarre reason - have been consistently avoiding the most obvious position:
"The Accord is a deal between two governments. Whether we implement the current agreement or replace it with a much better deal - the Harper Equalization changes - a Conservative government will deliver for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."
Ok, Norm.
Where do I send the bill for my consulting services?
I may have put that comment out there in a public forum but if you used it, you'd better pay for it. Since you only used half the comment, I'll only charge you half my usual rate.
Hearn pinocchiosis reaches terminal stage
In comments on CBC radio today, Loyola Hearn said that he could not stand for spending outside the budgetary process.
He might want to tell us what that is.
The agreement with the New Democrats is obviously within the budgetary process since a bill authorizing the expenditure is currently before the Commons.
Mr. Hearn either doesn't understand how our system of government works or he simply says whatever comes into his head to justify his actions.
He might want to tell us what that is.
The agreement with the New Democrats is obviously within the budgetary process since a bill authorizing the expenditure is currently before the Commons.
Mr. Hearn either doesn't understand how our system of government works or he simply says whatever comes into his head to justify his actions.
Harper's rolling thunder of (self-)destruction
Speaking at a scrum in Ottawa, Conservative leader Stephen Harper has confirmed that the Conservative Party will vote in favour of Bill C-43, the budget measure containing the offshore revenue. However, they will vote against the second measure, which includes the agreement with the New Democrats.
As a result, the government would fall if it lost the vote on bill C-48.
The vote for C-43 - and the offshore money - in that context would be completely disingenuous. This new caucus manouevre is a cynical attempt at political manipulation of the likes the Conservatives have resorted to repeatedly.
The Conservatives and economist Stephen Harper are mired in a technocrat's argument, talking endlessly about process, often doing so as if they had no idea what the process actually was. Their arguments about separate bills for the offshore passing quickly or the absurd idea that the budget for 2004 was only passed last week are cases in point.
None of those arguments resonate in the public. Voters are are only concerned about results. Conservatives have increasingly been talking in terms that only they can hear or care about.
For the past six weeks Harper's Conservatives have sustained a shrill strategy focused almost exclusively on pushing up Liberal "negatives" in polling. They have done nothing to boost their own "positives". This explains very easily the persistent problem the Conservatives have been having in translating their approach into any meaningful gain in opinions polls.
Their latest effort - the radio spots - just reinforce a screeching message that people other than Connie loyalists started tuning out weeks ago. They continue an unproductive approach that had already begun to alienate voters by the time the spots hit the air.
Conservative references to mafioso and Liberals in the same breath are are part of same dog-whistling approach that appeals only to their own hard-core members. It does nothing to draw new supporters. In fact, it alienates a great many people the Connies would need to win.
Last week's antics in the Commons were seen by many as the childish tactics of those bent merely on destroying the Liberals, rather than presenting themselves as an alternative. The approach actually reinforced negative attitudes toward Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. It was a clear case of a series of self-inflicted wounds.
While national pundits could easily predict we will head to the polls if Harper has his way, what they consistently miss is that the Conservatives are stuck in the mud. Andrew Coyne's comments on the eastern edition of The National were a case of whistling past the political graveyard. The Connies, said Coyne, were building up in the polls from where they finished the last election. The problem Coyne avoided was that over the past few weeks, the Connies have been yo-yoing up and down. They are not on the way up.
For a party which has been engaged in an incestuous conversation with itself, today's defection by Belinda Stronach has produced even more damage, again, much of it self-inflicted.
Belinda Stronach's defection today highlighted all the worst things from the Conservative perspective:
- Obvious internal divisions over policy, reputed to be fairly significant, between the Reform wing and the Progressive Conservative wing.
- Internal leadership challenges and hence heightened speculation that Harper's push to the polls was motivated by self-preservation. Harper's comment to his wife said more about his own nervousness than about Belinda's overweaning desire.
- Harper's predictable reaction to the defection - as noted in Minister Stronach - was negative and at times catty and sexist. In every respect, the Conservative reaction to l'affaire Stronach pushed potential middle-of-the-road voters away from them. Sexist references by everyone from Harper on down reinforce the suspicion in the minds of many voters that the Connies are either not ready or not fit to govern or, worse, that they have a hidden agenda just waiting to be implemented.
- Stronach's defection was worth at least a five point boost in the polls for the Conservatives. With their margins close across the country and with their recent Ontario numbers looking dismal, going to the polls would be a case of political suicide.
- Expect the attacks on Stronach, like this one, or this one, or this one, to boost her worth by another five points. Consider, as well, these comments by a western Conservative who stops an inch short of calling Stronach a dumb blonde. This man is cabinet material?
The twisting approach - vote for C-43//vote against the NDP agreement portions - will only further damage Conservative credibility. It will be seen as a cynical and transparent effort to play games with matters that are fundamentally important to people. Stephen Harper is so genuinely concerned with what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians think that he will lie to their faces about what he is actually doing, let alone about what his intentions are. Stephen Harper the anti-democrat, the elitist, the sexist shines through his every word.
One need not take my word for it. As CTV is reporting, Harper wasted no time in his scrum announcing the budget two-step to lash out, as CTV puts it, at the Progressive Conservavtive premier Danny Williams. The budget dance may fool some of the provincial Conservavtives but the ongoing war of words with the Premier will suppress local party workers on whom both Doyle and Hearn will depend to vote for them and to get out their vote. For a man who won his seat by the thinest of margins, Loyola Hearn cannot afford to be alienating any more provincial Tories. [Note: If you missed David Cochrane's report this morning, here's a link to the full Harpoer scrum. It requires Windows Media Player.]
Doyle and Hearn have stood with their leader, but increasingly one must wonder what they are standing for. It surely is not the best interests of the country, let alone the province. Surely, they cannot seriously contend that Stephen Harper is the very best this country can produce to be prime minister at this time.
Pushing the country into an election the people of the country don't want was never a smart idea. It reflects the belief that politics is a game and that term has been bandied about with too much regularity lately by Conservatives. Politics as a game is explicit in Harper's reliance on game theorists to develop strategy. It is further evidence that they are fundamentally out of touch with the majority of Canadians.
The Conservatives may succeed in forcing an election now, after all that has occurred, and after doing a quick zig-zag for part of the budget and against part of it. One can only expect that the united right experiment will fly apart under the strains of running an election at full throttle. Debris will be scattered over a far greater area than an incoming Titan missile on the Grand Banks.
It will not be a pretty sight.
The rolling thunder you hear will be the disintegration of a political party glued together in an effort to gain power in Ottawa. The glue of individual ambition grows quickly brittle.
The Conservative party will have fallen apart as a result of a strategic approach as fundamentally unsound as the one used to develop the original Rolling Thunder.
Neither war nor politics is a game.
As a result, the government would fall if it lost the vote on bill C-48.
The vote for C-43 - and the offshore money - in that context would be completely disingenuous. This new caucus manouevre is a cynical attempt at political manipulation of the likes the Conservatives have resorted to repeatedly.
The Conservatives and economist Stephen Harper are mired in a technocrat's argument, talking endlessly about process, often doing so as if they had no idea what the process actually was. Their arguments about separate bills for the offshore passing quickly or the absurd idea that the budget for 2004 was only passed last week are cases in point.
None of those arguments resonate in the public. Voters are are only concerned about results. Conservatives have increasingly been talking in terms that only they can hear or care about.
For the past six weeks Harper's Conservatives have sustained a shrill strategy focused almost exclusively on pushing up Liberal "negatives" in polling. They have done nothing to boost their own "positives". This explains very easily the persistent problem the Conservatives have been having in translating their approach into any meaningful gain in opinions polls.
Their latest effort - the radio spots - just reinforce a screeching message that people other than Connie loyalists started tuning out weeks ago. They continue an unproductive approach that had already begun to alienate voters by the time the spots hit the air.
Conservative references to mafioso and Liberals in the same breath are are part of same dog-whistling approach that appeals only to their own hard-core members. It does nothing to draw new supporters. In fact, it alienates a great many people the Connies would need to win.
Last week's antics in the Commons were seen by many as the childish tactics of those bent merely on destroying the Liberals, rather than presenting themselves as an alternative. The approach actually reinforced negative attitudes toward Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. It was a clear case of a series of self-inflicted wounds.
While national pundits could easily predict we will head to the polls if Harper has his way, what they consistently miss is that the Conservatives are stuck in the mud. Andrew Coyne's comments on the eastern edition of The National were a case of whistling past the political graveyard. The Connies, said Coyne, were building up in the polls from where they finished the last election. The problem Coyne avoided was that over the past few weeks, the Connies have been yo-yoing up and down. They are not on the way up.
For a party which has been engaged in an incestuous conversation with itself, today's defection by Belinda Stronach has produced even more damage, again, much of it self-inflicted.
Belinda Stronach's defection today highlighted all the worst things from the Conservative perspective:
- Obvious internal divisions over policy, reputed to be fairly significant, between the Reform wing and the Progressive Conservative wing.
- Internal leadership challenges and hence heightened speculation that Harper's push to the polls was motivated by self-preservation. Harper's comment to his wife said more about his own nervousness than about Belinda's overweaning desire.
- Harper's predictable reaction to the defection - as noted in Minister Stronach - was negative and at times catty and sexist. In every respect, the Conservative reaction to l'affaire Stronach pushed potential middle-of-the-road voters away from them. Sexist references by everyone from Harper on down reinforce the suspicion in the minds of many voters that the Connies are either not ready or not fit to govern or, worse, that they have a hidden agenda just waiting to be implemented.
- Stronach's defection was worth at least a five point boost in the polls for the Conservatives. With their margins close across the country and with their recent Ontario numbers looking dismal, going to the polls would be a case of political suicide.
- Expect the attacks on Stronach, like this one, or this one, or this one, to boost her worth by another five points. Consider, as well, these comments by a western Conservative who stops an inch short of calling Stronach a dumb blonde. This man is cabinet material?
The twisting approach - vote for C-43//vote against the NDP agreement portions - will only further damage Conservative credibility. It will be seen as a cynical and transparent effort to play games with matters that are fundamentally important to people. Stephen Harper is so genuinely concerned with what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians think that he will lie to their faces about what he is actually doing, let alone about what his intentions are. Stephen Harper the anti-democrat, the elitist, the sexist shines through his every word.
One need not take my word for it. As CTV is reporting, Harper wasted no time in his scrum announcing the budget two-step to lash out, as CTV puts it, at the Progressive Conservavtive premier Danny Williams. The budget dance may fool some of the provincial Conservavtives but the ongoing war of words with the Premier will suppress local party workers on whom both Doyle and Hearn will depend to vote for them and to get out their vote. For a man who won his seat by the thinest of margins, Loyola Hearn cannot afford to be alienating any more provincial Tories. [Note: If you missed David Cochrane's report this morning, here's a link to the full Harpoer scrum. It requires Windows Media Player.]
Doyle and Hearn have stood with their leader, but increasingly one must wonder what they are standing for. It surely is not the best interests of the country, let alone the province. Surely, they cannot seriously contend that Stephen Harper is the very best this country can produce to be prime minister at this time.
Pushing the country into an election the people of the country don't want was never a smart idea. It reflects the belief that politics is a game and that term has been bandied about with too much regularity lately by Conservatives. Politics as a game is explicit in Harper's reliance on game theorists to develop strategy. It is further evidence that they are fundamentally out of touch with the majority of Canadians.
The Conservatives may succeed in forcing an election now, after all that has occurred, and after doing a quick zig-zag for part of the budget and against part of it. One can only expect that the united right experiment will fly apart under the strains of running an election at full throttle. Debris will be scattered over a far greater area than an incoming Titan missile on the Grand Banks.
It will not be a pretty sight.
The rolling thunder you hear will be the disintegration of a political party glued together in an effort to gain power in Ottawa. The glue of individual ambition grows quickly brittle.
The Conservative party will have fallen apart as a result of a strategic approach as fundamentally unsound as the one used to develop the original Rolling Thunder.
Neither war nor politics is a game.
Stephen Harper defends Doyle and Hearn
Stephen Harper from his post-caucus scrum:
"What is the next thing [after passing the budget]? We are going to be asked to have a bunch of mafia people working for the government because it might get Danny Williams money a couple of weeks earlier?"
The effectiveness of the recent campaign by Fair Deal for Newfoundland can be seen by the presence of Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn on either side of Stephen Harper during the scrum. These guys have likely never been under such intense political pressure in their long political lives.
Neither Doyle nor Hearn looked very happy.
Guess what? This little budget fiddle won't ease the pressure at all.
More to the point, Harper's stupid remarks aimed at Danny Williams will actually ramp up the pressure on the lone Conservatives on the island portion of the province.
Incidentally, in French, Harper said that this plan was the Consewrvative attention all along. They kept it secret for undisclosed tactical reasons. Maybe their constituency offices needed practice handling gajillions of e-mails. Maybe Loyola and Norm don't sweat enough.
In English, Harper said this approach would prevent Liberals from saying that the Conservatives had voted against the provisions of Bill C-43. This is at odds with statements made by Conservatives, including Stephen Harper, over the past two weeks that they opposed the government and the budget.
Apparently, Harper is prepared to vote against C-48 which contains money for children and students, but in favour of money for children and seniors because C-43 conforms to the Conservative Party principles. That sounds to me like a convenient bit of spin as the Connies focus on process and tactical navigation rather than strategic thought.
"What is the next thing [after passing the budget]? We are going to be asked to have a bunch of mafia people working for the government because it might get Danny Williams money a couple of weeks earlier?"
The effectiveness of the recent campaign by Fair Deal for Newfoundland can be seen by the presence of Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn on either side of Stephen Harper during the scrum. These guys have likely never been under such intense political pressure in their long political lives.
Neither Doyle nor Hearn looked very happy.
Guess what? This little budget fiddle won't ease the pressure at all.
More to the point, Harper's stupid remarks aimed at Danny Williams will actually ramp up the pressure on the lone Conservatives on the island portion of the province.
Incidentally, in French, Harper said that this plan was the Consewrvative attention all along. They kept it secret for undisclosed tactical reasons. Maybe their constituency offices needed practice handling gajillions of e-mails. Maybe Loyola and Norm don't sweat enough.
In English, Harper said this approach would prevent Liberals from saying that the Conservatives had voted against the provisions of Bill C-43. This is at odds with statements made by Conservatives, including Stephen Harper, over the past two weeks that they opposed the government and the budget.
Apparently, Harper is prepared to vote against C-48 which contains money for children and students, but in favour of money for children and seniors because C-43 conforms to the Conservative Party principles. That sounds to me like a convenient bit of spin as the Connies focus on process and tactical navigation rather than strategic thought.
17 May 2005
Minister Stronach - (updated)
In light of the move by Belinda Stronach to cross the floor and sit with the government, it is interesting to look more closely at the cracks appearing in the Conservative Party. [Update: Links added]
Update: For those who not know what Belinda looks like, here's a shot from Greg Locke's blog. Greg shot Belinda on several occasions for different publications and I wish he'd create a page of the shots. Notice the guy to the right in this one.
The Lampoon this morning caused Connie hearts to skip a beat with the possibility that Doyle and Hearn might cave under political pressure and vote for the budget.
Update II: Don't count on it. Loyola is doing the usual talking points on CBC Radio, calling the prime minister's comments "down-right lies". I'll leave it to you to judge who is saying things that aren't true. Loyola knows full well that if the government is defeated before any bill gets to the Royal Assent stage - stand-alone or budget - the offshore bill won't get passed and no money flows to the province until a bill is passed.
Update III: The Conservative House Leader is confident all his members will vote against the budget bill(s). The local boys are just being cagey.
Original post resumes: Now the woman reputedly involved romantically with the Connie deputy leader has abandoned the good ship Connie-pop. This cannot be good for Peter MacKay DDS, on any level.
The likely response of the Harperites (the Reformers in the party) will be to look more closely at the former Progressive Conservatives in their midst. Every word will be dissected for signs of disloyalty. There will be no room for dissent.
Therefore, the impact of Stronach's departure from the Connie ranks will be determined solely by the Connie/Harper response.
Criticize her as a self-interested whore - to use a popular Connie phrase - and, well, predictably her stock will go up and the Harper stock will, at least, not rise. Magnanimity is a sign of a leader. Meanspirited vindictiveness looks like the mark of a very small individual.
If the Connies pull the reigns tighter, then dissident members may well decide to join Belinda, not because they want to but because they are not being welcomed.
The situation for local Connies Doyle and Hearn just got much worse.
As national caucus chairman, the Harperites will be looking to Doyle to toe the line; he will need to be more zealously anti-Liberal than ever before. He cannot vote with the government on the budget without risking being pushed from caucus.
For Hearn, one of the architects of the Unite the Right experiment, the situation is equally dark. To buck the Harperites invites sanction. He has nowhere else to go. To buck the Harperites and open the division suggests that maybe his earlier action on bringing MacKay and Harper together was a mistake.
Politically, they cannot vote against their party and expect to move forward in glory as future Connie cabinet ministers.
Politically, they cannot buck the party line and expect to get re-elected. Over 13, 000 e-mails in a three day span and countless hours of Open Line and other media scrutiny is obviously causing the pair great difficulty.
Having insisted they are voting to bring down the government, they cannot suddenly switch positions and vote for the budget without damaging their credibility. The fact that Hearn and Doyle can argue any side of anything at any time really doesn't endear them to their constituents beyond the hard-core of the local Connie team.
If Hearn suddenly switches his vote - for the third time by my count, we have yet one more example of where Hearn said something emphatically that turned out not to be true.
Politics is always an entertaining sport to watch or to play.
Today's' events prove that to a tee.
Update: For those who not know what Belinda looks like, here's a shot from Greg Locke's blog. Greg shot Belinda on several occasions for different publications and I wish he'd create a page of the shots. Notice the guy to the right in this one.
The Lampoon this morning caused Connie hearts to skip a beat with the possibility that Doyle and Hearn might cave under political pressure and vote for the budget.
Update II: Don't count on it. Loyola is doing the usual talking points on CBC Radio, calling the prime minister's comments "down-right lies". I'll leave it to you to judge who is saying things that aren't true. Loyola knows full well that if the government is defeated before any bill gets to the Royal Assent stage - stand-alone or budget - the offshore bill won't get passed and no money flows to the province until a bill is passed.
Update III: The Conservative House Leader is confident all his members will vote against the budget bill(s). The local boys are just being cagey.
Original post resumes: Now the woman reputedly involved romantically with the Connie deputy leader has abandoned the good ship Connie-pop. This cannot be good for Peter MacKay DDS, on any level.
The likely response of the Harperites (the Reformers in the party) will be to look more closely at the former Progressive Conservatives in their midst. Every word will be dissected for signs of disloyalty. There will be no room for dissent.
Therefore, the impact of Stronach's departure from the Connie ranks will be determined solely by the Connie/Harper response.
Criticize her as a self-interested whore - to use a popular Connie phrase - and, well, predictably her stock will go up and the Harper stock will, at least, not rise. Magnanimity is a sign of a leader. Meanspirited vindictiveness looks like the mark of a very small individual.
If the Connies pull the reigns tighter, then dissident members may well decide to join Belinda, not because they want to but because they are not being welcomed.
The situation for local Connies Doyle and Hearn just got much worse.
As national caucus chairman, the Harperites will be looking to Doyle to toe the line; he will need to be more zealously anti-Liberal than ever before. He cannot vote with the government on the budget without risking being pushed from caucus.
For Hearn, one of the architects of the Unite the Right experiment, the situation is equally dark. To buck the Harperites invites sanction. He has nowhere else to go. To buck the Harperites and open the division suggests that maybe his earlier action on bringing MacKay and Harper together was a mistake.
Politically, they cannot vote against their party and expect to move forward in glory as future Connie cabinet ministers.
Politically, they cannot buck the party line and expect to get re-elected. Over 13, 000 e-mails in a three day span and countless hours of Open Line and other media scrutiny is obviously causing the pair great difficulty.
Having insisted they are voting to bring down the government, they cannot suddenly switch positions and vote for the budget without damaging their credibility. The fact that Hearn and Doyle can argue any side of anything at any time really doesn't endear them to their constituents beyond the hard-core of the local Connie team.
If Hearn suddenly switches his vote - for the third time by my count, we have yet one more example of where Hearn said something emphatically that turned out not to be true.
Politics is always an entertaining sport to watch or to play.
Today's' events prove that to a tee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)