As CBC reported on Friday, Roger Grimes is expected to announce his resignation as provincial Liberal Party leader in a news conference at the Fairmont on Monday morning at 11:30 AM.
With an election about two and a half years away, Grimes' resignation gives the party the chance to hold a leadership convention quickly and thereby gift his successor with upwards of 24 months to get the party ready.
The one unusual feature is the speed. VOCM is reporting Grimes will vacate both his office as leader and his seat in the House effective Tuesday. This puts the party in the position of having to appoint an interim leader.
It also gives the government a chance to hold a by-election election and perhaps win Grimes' district before the Liberals can get properly organized. Under the revised House of Assembly Act, a writ of election must be issued within 60 days of a seat becoming vacant.
Grimes departure seems to have caught some people by surprise. It shouldn't have. Grimes was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1989. He served in every government since then either as a parliamentary secretary, minister and later as premier. That's a long enough time for most people.
Grimes showed himself to be an affable, competent minister. Under both Clyde Wells and particularly Brian Tobin, Grimes was given the tough portfolios and often won the co-operation and respect of those he dealt with who may have been opposed to one or another government policy.
He became premier after what turned out to be a bitter leadership contest. His biggest political problem came out of that contest. Beholden to all, he could do little to lead by force when force might be needed. Hence cabinet, and after afterward caucus, degenerated into more or less a loose association of people coasting along toward a vaguely defined common point.
The best example of what was wrong with the Grimes cabinet came over the Labrador ferry service. Cabinet minister Yvonne Jones broke ranks and openly criticized her cabinet colleagues for a tough decision on a tough file. Good for Yvonne's own interest; lousy for the government and the party. It cemented the view that the cabinet lacked sufficient cohesion to govern and far worse that, in some cases like Jones for example, cabinet was populated with too many people who simply didn't belong there.
As Opposition Leader, Roger Grimes demonstrated almost daily his considerable experience. His demeanor was measured and appropriate and often stood in stark contrast to the Peckford-esque ranting from the other side. He looked and acted like a premier.
But it has been past time for Grimes to go. He clearly had no interest in seeking another term as premier. In the meantime, the work needed to reinvigorate the party was definitely not getting done.
Grimes' speedy departure should be what people remember of him at this point. Recall not the speed but the effect: by going as quickly as he has and as unexpectedly, he is forcing the party out of its doldrums. Grimes' retirement to the links - where any of us would rather be anyway - is like being dropped naked into the Atlantic. The task now falls to others to see if they can mount a credible challenge to the governing party. Grimes' has given a dose of practical medicine as his last act as leader.
As for Grimes' long political career, people should remember not merely its length but the achievements. In education, health, tourism, labour and mines and energy, Grimes demonstrated time and again that he was among the most effective cabinet ministers ever to occupy a seat at the round table.
The Voisey's Bay deal, which some will ignorantly criticise, is actually an amazing achievement in and of itself. Don't even consider that Grimes' predecessor did all in his power to create a political climate in the province that made a deal all but impossible. That only makes the deal more noteworthy.
Grimes' didn't need to rely on flashy showmanship; he could do the job well and that was what stood out. He could explain himself easily to others as well and that too sets Grimes apart among politicians who rely too much on pat answers and cloudy verbiage. He was an effective political communicator; far better than the guy with the self-imposed title.
As for his interpersonal relations , Grimes' knew the value of a Christmas card for maintaining contact, which by its personal note long after such a note was required, conveyed the sincere connection intended.
There will be many words written and spoken about Roger Grimes in the next 24 hours. Doubtful that anyone can do him justice at this point; perhaps time will pass for the right words to emerge.
In the meantime, let this suffice, because in truth I can think of no higher a compliment to pay a fellow who has served his province as long and as well as has Roger Grimes:
He is the genuine article.
30 May 2005
27 May 2005
The Parable of the Trees
"Two trees stood on a cliff, both buffeted by fierce winds. One remained rigid and cracked under the strain. The other moved as the winds grew strong or ebbed.
This tree grew to great height."
Don't be too surprised if you start hearing rumours that Stephen Harper is about to retire from politics.
After all, those rumours started originally back in March, not coincidentally just before the Conservatives decided to reject the budget, disrupt the House and ultimately force a confidence show-down in the House of Commons. Bear in mind that this whole thing came about despite polling that showed the Conservatives well behind the Liberals everywhere except Alberta and that Paul Martin remained the overwhelming choice of Canadians to be prime minister.
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist once advised that where one is weak, one should appear strong. The Conservative push toward an election can be seen as little more than offensive action designed primarily to avoid dealing with a number of internal party problems including divisions over substantial policy matters and the lingering doubts about Harper's ability or willingness to leader the party into the next election.
Questions of leadership were evident in the way Harper treated Belinda Stronach. His own account of the dressing down he gave her is littered with signs of an internal struggle for control of the party. Faced too with the weaknesses that still exist within his party, Harper's solution was to attack the Liberals and thereby force his supporters to rally around the Conservative flag.
Closer to home, Premier Danny Williams used the same approach last October. His polling numbers were strong on the surface but underneath lurked some weaknesses, as revealed by Corporate Research Associates polling obtained by The Telegram under the new Access to Information Act. The premier also had alienated a number of provincial premiers immediately before a major national conference that would discuss, among other things, federal-provincial financing arrangements. Their resentment of the offshore proposal - what appeared to them as a major dodge around the current equitable but imperfect Equalization program - would have led to a nasty confrontation behind closed doors.
Williams' solution was to storm out of the meeting, claiming that the federal government's offshore offer was an insult. His polling numbers shot through the roof and any doubts about him and his leadership disappeared both in public or in the privacy of the pollsters' telephone calls.
Sometimes the approach works, as with Danny Williams. Sometimes it fails, as with Stephen Harper.
The Labrador by-election and two recent polls give clues as to why the Conservative Party's - really Stephen Harper's - push for the writ didn't work.
Successful national Canadian political parties are coalitions. Both the Liberal Party for most of its history and the Mulroney Conservatives did not have an immovable ideological core. They could embrace diverse views of social, economic and constitutional policy. Political parties learn to manage the disputes that erupt between members, between factions or among members from different regions. The bargaining and horse-trading that people decry are actually the mechanisms by which people can advance their particular causes without resorting to violence.
It may not be pretty but it is democracy.
Unsuccessful national parties, like the New Democrats and the Reform parties either represent a particular region or, most typically, reflect some ideological yardstick used to measure the purity of their members. There is no small irony, therefore that the initials of two Canadian ideological parties are the same, even if they represent polar opposite political views. The Communist Party of Canada, the Moscow-oriented clan and the Conservatives both go by the initials CPC.
The Unite the Right movement held at its core a belief that Canada needed a political party which represented what are called right of centre views, but which was essentially able to embrace both the substantial differences between the red Tories - the Progressive Conservatives - and the Reform cum Alliance Party. This was an effort to create another coalition party which, truthfully, is the only type of political party that could hope to win an election in a country as diverse as Canada.
On the surface, the recent CPC losses in the House and in Labrador can be seen as communications failures; the party used messages about corruption which were not heard by anyone outside their own ranks. This is revealed in the Leger poll. In Labrador, the CPC hammered on issues that did not address the views of the constituents they were trying to court. They talked about defence spending, that would benefit one portion of the riding, even though that was by no means a core issue for the majority of voters. At the same time, the CPC
talked about defeating the government's budget that included money for community infrastructure.
By the same token, Stephen Harper pledged not to force an election if the public didn't want it. When poll after poll revealed no one wanted an election, the CPC merely shifted gears. Peter MacKay likened elections to root canal - painful but necessary.
Make no mistake: these were monstrous communications failures. They represent massive political failures.
Look closer to home, in eastern Newfoundland and you can easily see the effects of the charge of the political light brigade that go beyond the national polling numbers like the ones from Leger or these from Ekos.
Two stalwart Conservatives, one of them an architect of the new party have destroyed their political base in what ought to be safe Conservative territory. Loyola Hearn is now openly talking of quitting politics. His reputation is battered. He is alienated from the local Conservatives both by the actions of his party and by the workings of his own jawbone.
This poses a problem, however. The CPC is supposedly a coalition party. Its leader is reputedly a master political strategist. Some of its key people - like Hearn and MacKay have fought successful campaigns provincially and federally or at least have the political savvy to know how to run a coalition team.
How is it possible for this combination to make such glaring errors?
The answer is that the CPC is dominated by ideologues that come not from only the old Reform Party. This is not to give into the temptation to dismiss the views held by Reformers; rather it acknowledges them for what they are - a group with strong views that is more likely to look for purity of belief, to exclude those seen as impure, to look inward rather than outward.
Consider the language used to describe Liberals. The enemy - even that word suggest the depth of their feeling - is corrupt and immoral. They and their supporters are criminal - mafia and whores. They lack principle. Voters are cowered by the dastardly villains. One need only listen to Stephen Harper's language or browse the blogs of CPC supporters to find this singularity of perspective. The use of moral judgments is striking.
How does one legitimately compromise with - even live with - untermenschen?
Added to that ideological singularity is a leader who is also apparently unyielding. His dressing down of Stronach suggests a man with little tolerance for opposition. This is hardly the stuff of a coalition builder. Harper's detractors all point to his unshakeable belief in his own correctness. Comments by Preston Manning ring in one's ears. According to Manning, Harper saw no value in holding town hall meetings to discuss fiscal policy with people lacking the education to comprehend the sophisticated concepts involved.
One of the finest examples of Harper's inflexibility came at the end of the last federal election. His national headquarters issued a news release that accused Paul Martin of supporting child molesters. When he faced reporters, Harper refused to disown the release. Leading a party that spoke of integrity, Harper refused to admit that someone had made an error and by doing so made the focus of the story the obvious gap between words and deeds. Credibility suffered and with it went Harper's hopes for a majority government.
Stephen Harper appears to have surrounded himself with old friends who share his outlook. Some have brought their game theory approaches, and with it, the unshakeable belief that their numbers not merely model reality - they are reality. Game theorists in Vietnam fiddled with individual variables and got lost in the tactical movements at the expense of the strategic. Stephen Harper opposed C-43, then supported it, then opposed it and then supported it - all tactical manoeuvering. The CPC voted for one part of the budget and against another - more transparent manoeuvering. One suspects that the game theory scenarios suggested that these were the optimum tactical approaches at each point.
Genuine strategy would see that each step is part of a longer journey and that the optimum step at each discrete moment on the road may lead ultimately to the wrong destination. Strategy understands the need to give with the wind sometimes.
On the surface, the Conservatives have committed some readily apparent political blunders.
The question that must be asked is why this is so.
The answer lies in the leader and in the party itself.
For the future, the Conservative Party faces the challenge of having a leader who is a four- or five-time failure. Many may feel the need to find a new leader.
But consider the timelines.
The prime minister has committed to an election in January.
By the time the House closes next month, and even if Stephen Harper resigned immediately, the party could not hold a leadership convention and begin the process of internal revitalization that it would need to win.
The only way the Conservative Party could win in January is for the Liberal Party to collapse.
Consider that the tree which grew strong did not depend on the other tree for its success.
26 May 2005
Peter MacKay, DDS, reveals his strategic genius
There's a CP story running today in which Peter "I feel so used" MacKay, DDS, claims that Labrador voters went Liberal out of fear that government support would vanish if they voted anything but rouge.
For those who don't know, MacKay is deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and former toy-boy of Belinda Stronach.
"There is fear among Labrador people that if they vote against the government, the government will not support that region," MacKay said just before giving a speech to a meeting of Quebec police union officials.
"I was there. It's a real fear."
The CPC also accused Liberals of buying votes in Labrador.
That was around the same time the CPC campaign was promising:
1. To renegotiate the Voisey's Bay deal to improve royalties for the province. (The feds have no legal ability to crack open the development deal since they weren't party to it); and,
2. To make the Goose Bay air base "operationally required", sending in a new infantry battalion to be based there alongside a squadron equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles.
The other stuff they promised was already in train.
In the actual result, every single person who voted Liberal last time voted Liberal again save for a few dozen. The CPC doubled its vote.
But here's the thing:
What was the major issue in Labrador?
Health care.
Other issues like transportation, the Inuit land claims agreement and water and sewer were also a big in the Big Land.
According to the Telelink poll for NTV, the Goose base was an issue for a mere 5% of those polled. Even if the poll was off by a certain amount it wasn't so far out of whack that the last place issue would supplant an issue that was reportedly getting eight times the level of support.
The Connies talked about defence, stuff they couldn't do anything about (Voisey's Bay) and a bunch of stuff that was coming anyway.
They are also on record as wanting to vote against the federal budget which includes, among other things, money for infrastructure projects like water and sewer.
Hmmmm.
The losing side accuses the winners of buying votes (despite their own blatant attempts to buy votes).
The losers say the voters were duped, were fearful or were otherwise not in their right minds when they case their ballot.
That speaks volumes about the CPC view of the electorate and democracy.
Personally, it looks to me like a combination of two things:
1. The voters weighed the options and made their choices. You don't have to like it but whatever they decided has to be accepted as valid. It can only be questioned if there is substantial evidence of massive fraud like one might find in Rhodesia or parts of the former Soviet Union.
2. The CPC message track was out of touch with what voters really want. That's because the CPC actually doesn't pay attention to voters' issues. After all, according Peter MacKay DDS, voters who chose someone other than his teammate must be acting under duress.
Arrogance, thy name is Peter.
For those who don't know, MacKay is deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and former toy-boy of Belinda Stronach.
"There is fear among Labrador people that if they vote against the government, the government will not support that region," MacKay said just before giving a speech to a meeting of Quebec police union officials.
"I was there. It's a real fear."
The CPC also accused Liberals of buying votes in Labrador.
That was around the same time the CPC campaign was promising:
1. To renegotiate the Voisey's Bay deal to improve royalties for the province. (The feds have no legal ability to crack open the development deal since they weren't party to it); and,
2. To make the Goose Bay air base "operationally required", sending in a new infantry battalion to be based there alongside a squadron equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles.
The other stuff they promised was already in train.
In the actual result, every single person who voted Liberal last time voted Liberal again save for a few dozen. The CPC doubled its vote.
But here's the thing:
What was the major issue in Labrador?
Health care.
Other issues like transportation, the Inuit land claims agreement and water and sewer were also a big in the Big Land.
According to the Telelink poll for NTV, the Goose base was an issue for a mere 5% of those polled. Even if the poll was off by a certain amount it wasn't so far out of whack that the last place issue would supplant an issue that was reportedly getting eight times the level of support.
The Connies talked about defence, stuff they couldn't do anything about (Voisey's Bay) and a bunch of stuff that was coming anyway.
They are also on record as wanting to vote against the federal budget which includes, among other things, money for infrastructure projects like water and sewer.
Hmmmm.
The losing side accuses the winners of buying votes (despite their own blatant attempts to buy votes).
The losers say the voters were duped, were fearful or were otherwise not in their right minds when they case their ballot.
That speaks volumes about the CPC view of the electorate and democracy.
Personally, it looks to me like a combination of two things:
1. The voters weighed the options and made their choices. You don't have to like it but whatever they decided has to be accepted as valid. It can only be questioned if there is substantial evidence of massive fraud like one might find in Rhodesia or parts of the former Soviet Union.
2. The CPC message track was out of touch with what voters really want. That's because the CPC actually doesn't pay attention to voters' issues. After all, according Peter MacKay DDS, voters who chose someone other than his teammate must be acting under duress.
Arrogance, thy name is Peter.
Lampoon hits new low
Odds are high you'll enjoy this editorial cartoon from the National Lampoon.
Funny how the editors of the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't hide it behind their subscriber wall so that only the people who shell out cash for this rag could see it.
Maybe it's a marketing ploy, a la Peg Wente.
Maybe it just reflects their ignorance of the country.
Maybe it reflects both.
Funny how the editors of the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't hide it behind their subscriber wall so that only the people who shell out cash for this rag could see it.
Maybe it's a marketing ploy, a la Peg Wente.
Maybe it just reflects their ignorance of the country.
Maybe it reflects both.
Hearn ponders trouting over fishing for votes
Loyola Hearn may be fishing for trout in a big pond instead of searching for the possibly scarce votes he'd get in the next federal election.
Here's a bit of what Loyola Hearn told CBS about the pressure he felt during the past two weeks.
Note especially the reply to the question about his future in politics:
"How long more to you stay around? That's the point," he says. "Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
Meanwhile, Hearn's opponents in the last federal election said they are planning another run at the seat.
Liberal Siobhan Coady and New Democrat Peg Norman want another shot.
The thing is, though, will they be shooting at Hearn...
or Ed Byrne?
Here's a bit of what Loyola Hearn told CBS about the pressure he felt during the past two weeks.
Note especially the reply to the question about his future in politics:
"How long more to you stay around? That's the point," he says. "Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
Meanwhile, Hearn's opponents in the last federal election said they are planning another run at the seat.
Liberal Siobhan Coady and New Democrat Peg Norman want another shot.
The thing is, though, will they be shooting at Hearn...
or Ed Byrne?
The Constitutional Fish
Meanwhile in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Appeals Division?), some enterprising lawyer is seeking a ruling on whether or not the Government of Canada has the right:
1. To regulate what is commonly known as the food or recreational fishery; and,
2. Even if it does, can the Government of Canada regulate the fishery within the province's boundaries, namely within the three mile limit.
While I am not a lawyer, I enjoy playing one sometimes in the privacy of my own blog.
The argument being presented on behalf of two chaps accused of breaching fisheries regulations hinges on the Terms of Union, which, as we all should know, is part of the Canadian constitution.
Under Term 2, the province is defined as including the same territory as at the date of union. Since Newfoundland and Labrador included a territorial sea of three miles, the province's boundaries extend that far out to sea. This was confirmed by the offshore decisions in the early 1980s.
Under Term 3, the British North America Acts, as amended, apply to the new province as to all others except as provided by the Terms of Union. The BNA Act is now known as the Constitution Act.
Still with me so far?
Section 22 of the Terms of Union specifically address fisheries matters.
22 (2) continues all fisheries laws of the former Dominion of Newfoundland for a period of five years from the date of union and from then on, as amended or repealed by the Government of Canada through the Newfoundland Fisheries Board which became a federal agency. While the NFB had powers over licensing it was created in 1936 to improve markets and the quality of fish exports.
Term 22 also provides that the federal parliament will assume appropriate jurisdiction to amend fisheries laws formerly in force in Newfoundland (before the date of union) but here's the key thing to bear in mind: sections 11, 12, 13 and 18 reinforce Term 3 in providing that the Constitution Act applies to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, the power to regulate coastal fisheries rests with the Government of Canada.
There may be some case law and argumentation I am unaware of that can be used to back up the case being made by the appellant(s). I could also have misunderstood the brief description of the case given on radio this afternoon.
To be frank, on the face of it, this case is going to be a short one. The letter of the law seems pretty clear as to the intention of the framers of the constitution.
In any event, people should keep their eye on this case to see what comes of it once the learned justices of the Supreme Court hear the arguments and then render a judgment.
1. To regulate what is commonly known as the food or recreational fishery; and,
2. Even if it does, can the Government of Canada regulate the fishery within the province's boundaries, namely within the three mile limit.
While I am not a lawyer, I enjoy playing one sometimes in the privacy of my own blog.
The argument being presented on behalf of two chaps accused of breaching fisheries regulations hinges on the Terms of Union, which, as we all should know, is part of the Canadian constitution.
Under Term 2, the province is defined as including the same territory as at the date of union. Since Newfoundland and Labrador included a territorial sea of three miles, the province's boundaries extend that far out to sea. This was confirmed by the offshore decisions in the early 1980s.
Under Term 3, the British North America Acts, as amended, apply to the new province as to all others except as provided by the Terms of Union. The BNA Act is now known as the Constitution Act.
Still with me so far?
Section 22 of the Terms of Union specifically address fisheries matters.
22 (2) continues all fisheries laws of the former Dominion of Newfoundland for a period of five years from the date of union and from then on, as amended or repealed by the Government of Canada through the Newfoundland Fisheries Board which became a federal agency. While the NFB had powers over licensing it was created in 1936 to improve markets and the quality of fish exports.
Term 22 also provides that the federal parliament will assume appropriate jurisdiction to amend fisheries laws formerly in force in Newfoundland (before the date of union) but here's the key thing to bear in mind: sections 11, 12, 13 and 18 reinforce Term 3 in providing that the Constitution Act applies to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, the power to regulate coastal fisheries rests with the Government of Canada.
There may be some case law and argumentation I am unaware of that can be used to back up the case being made by the appellant(s). I could also have misunderstood the brief description of the case given on radio this afternoon.
To be frank, on the face of it, this case is going to be a short one. The letter of the law seems pretty clear as to the intention of the framers of the constitution.
In any event, people should keep their eye on this case to see what comes of it once the learned justices of the Supreme Court hear the arguments and then render a judgment.
What goes around...
comes around and in a small province like Newfoundland and Labrador, it picks up speed on the way back.
Consider part of the argument presented in today's Telegram that points out the entire population of Labrador is around the size of a small municipality on the Avalon, and in a larger context is far smaller than a typical federal riding in Ontario.
Here's what the editorial said, in part: "If you take all of the people who voted in Labrador Tuesday, you'd have the equivalent of a population equal to roughly Portugal Cove-St. Philip's deciding the direction of an entire nation. In Toronto ridings with a much larger number of constituents, they might feel their individual votes are necessarily less valuable."
Well, editorialists might want to remember that the population of this entire province is smaller than, say, the City of Hamilton. During the constitutional discussions in the early 1990s, some mainlanders were fond of pointing out that small provinces carried too much weigh in Ottawa in proportion to the size of a province like Ontario or Quebec.
We should thank the Telegram editorial board for siding with an argument that usually winds up with calling on this province and its voters to bend to the will of Ontario. Its basically a variant of the argument John Crosbie used in 1990 to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that offshore revenues under the Real Atlantic Accord should be redistributed.
To paraphrase Crosbie's reasoning, a provincial government that got half of its income from Ottawa shouldn't be allowed to hold up major decisions like the Meech Lake Accord. Crosbie specifically linked the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord with his attitude toward revising the Atlantic Accord.
The major flaw in the editorial's argument, though, is that Labrador enjoyed some sort of popularity or influence beyond what it normally would expect with its one riding and one member in the Commons.
The Telegram mistakes media interest and the obvious interest of political parties in winning a seat with something more than it is: a desire to win the seat.
National media interest was driven by the recent efforts by the Conservative Party to force a national election despite the overwhelming view of Canadians that they do not want an election at this time.
National political parties mounted strong campaigns. The Conservatives were particularly interested in the seat since it would have given them a way of tipping a confidence vote the way they wanted it. But here's the kicker: Even in a majority parliament, the Conservatives would work very hard to wrest the seat from the incumbent party. The political value of that - the symbolic value - would be as great then as now.
Take away the Telegram's peculiar line of reasoning and you have nothing more than the conclusion: that Ottawa ignores rural areas of the country.
While it may be a popular and easily cynical sentiment, it really isn't borne out by evidence. The community editorial demonstrates that the folly underlying the main editorial as clearly as anyone ever could.
At least the community writer won't find his argument coming back to bite him on the backside anytime soon.
Consider part of the argument presented in today's Telegram that points out the entire population of Labrador is around the size of a small municipality on the Avalon, and in a larger context is far smaller than a typical federal riding in Ontario.
Here's what the editorial said, in part: "If you take all of the people who voted in Labrador Tuesday, you'd have the equivalent of a population equal to roughly Portugal Cove-St. Philip's deciding the direction of an entire nation. In Toronto ridings with a much larger number of constituents, they might feel their individual votes are necessarily less valuable."
Well, editorialists might want to remember that the population of this entire province is smaller than, say, the City of Hamilton. During the constitutional discussions in the early 1990s, some mainlanders were fond of pointing out that small provinces carried too much weigh in Ottawa in proportion to the size of a province like Ontario or Quebec.
We should thank the Telegram editorial board for siding with an argument that usually winds up with calling on this province and its voters to bend to the will of Ontario. Its basically a variant of the argument John Crosbie used in 1990 to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that offshore revenues under the Real Atlantic Accord should be redistributed.
To paraphrase Crosbie's reasoning, a provincial government that got half of its income from Ottawa shouldn't be allowed to hold up major decisions like the Meech Lake Accord. Crosbie specifically linked the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord with his attitude toward revising the Atlantic Accord.
The major flaw in the editorial's argument, though, is that Labrador enjoyed some sort of popularity or influence beyond what it normally would expect with its one riding and one member in the Commons.
The Telegram mistakes media interest and the obvious interest of political parties in winning a seat with something more than it is: a desire to win the seat.
National media interest was driven by the recent efforts by the Conservative Party to force a national election despite the overwhelming view of Canadians that they do not want an election at this time.
National political parties mounted strong campaigns. The Conservatives were particularly interested in the seat since it would have given them a way of tipping a confidence vote the way they wanted it. But here's the kicker: Even in a majority parliament, the Conservatives would work very hard to wrest the seat from the incumbent party. The political value of that - the symbolic value - would be as great then as now.
Take away the Telegram's peculiar line of reasoning and you have nothing more than the conclusion: that Ottawa ignores rural areas of the country.
While it may be a popular and easily cynical sentiment, it really isn't borne out by evidence. The community editorial demonstrates that the folly underlying the main editorial as clearly as anyone ever could.
At least the community writer won't find his argument coming back to bite him on the backside anytime soon.
Lynda Calvert's hands
Yeah, I know it's a bizarre subject for a post but when you are in my business, the bizarre is normal sometimes.
Lynda is one of those TV reporters who doesn't routinely edit herself into her reports. We often don't get to see what she looks like. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for it other than her personal preference.
During the national coverage of the Labrador by-election, Lynda got to do some live hits with whoever was hosting the news. You know the format: reporter stares into camera and gives a live comment on what is happening.
Well, every time Lynda was on air - looking very professional, smartly attired and giving some meaningful insights - I just couldn't stop noticing her hand movements.
They were jerky and a bit exaggerated.
I am not sure if they were the result of her being uncomfortable and nervous. Maybe she had just finished one of those training courses for on-air presentation and was introducing hand-movents into her presentation style.
Maybe it is just the way Lynda gestures when she speaks.
Whatever it was, it got very distracting.
and yes, I know. I need a life.
Lynda is one of those TV reporters who doesn't routinely edit herself into her reports. We often don't get to see what she looks like. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for it other than her personal preference.
During the national coverage of the Labrador by-election, Lynda got to do some live hits with whoever was hosting the news. You know the format: reporter stares into camera and gives a live comment on what is happening.
Well, every time Lynda was on air - looking very professional, smartly attired and giving some meaningful insights - I just couldn't stop noticing her hand movements.
They were jerky and a bit exaggerated.
I am not sure if they were the result of her being uncomfortable and nervous. Maybe she had just finished one of those training courses for on-air presentation and was introducing hand-movents into her presentation style.
Maybe it is just the way Lynda gestures when she speaks.
Whatever it was, it got very distracting.
and yes, I know. I need a life.
The Perils of Polls
It's interesting to notice the Labrador result in light of the Telelink poll done for NTV in St. John's a few weeks ago.
Telelink reported a 42% undecided/don't know/no answer rate, but among decided voters, the Liberals were ahead with 29% and the Conservatives came in with 23%.
Telelink spokesperson Cindy Roma said the results were "too close to call". As I said when the poll was released the results seemed a little bit off to me.
If you look at the actual numbers - not the percentages of decideds, what Telelink actually got was something like this:
Liberal: 13.92%
Conservative: 11.04%
Und/DK/NR: 42%
Essentially, the answer with those numbers was not that it was too close to call. Nope. The answer actually was: we don't have a freakin' clue what will happen because our poll results don't give us data on which to make any conclusions.
Since Telelink didn't probe the undecideds at all, they couldn't even get a sense of which way people were leaning and try to pick some sense out of it on that basis.
If you look at the provincial district breakouts Telelink did, their confidence interval jumped up to something like 10 to 12%. Those results are completely useless and should never have hit the air.
As you will recall, I did contact NTV to get a copy of the research report. I was advised my e-mail had been passed on to higher management.
To date, I haven't received a reply from NTV. I haven't had the time to follow-up on it, but I will do so because the whole thing just gets me even more curious the more I think about it.
There are probably good answers to what questions I do have and the answers might also help people who aren't familiar with polls to appreciate why MUN political scientist Michael Temillini wound up making some off-the-wall comments on Canada AM yesterday based on the Telelink data.
I'll keep you posted.
Telelink reported a 42% undecided/don't know/no answer rate, but among decided voters, the Liberals were ahead with 29% and the Conservatives came in with 23%.
Telelink spokesperson Cindy Roma said the results were "too close to call". As I said when the poll was released the results seemed a little bit off to me.
If you look at the actual numbers - not the percentages of decideds, what Telelink actually got was something like this:
Liberal: 13.92%
Conservative: 11.04%
Und/DK/NR: 42%
Essentially, the answer with those numbers was not that it was too close to call. Nope. The answer actually was: we don't have a freakin' clue what will happen because our poll results don't give us data on which to make any conclusions.
Since Telelink didn't probe the undecideds at all, they couldn't even get a sense of which way people were leaning and try to pick some sense out of it on that basis.
If you look at the provincial district breakouts Telelink did, their confidence interval jumped up to something like 10 to 12%. Those results are completely useless and should never have hit the air.
As you will recall, I did contact NTV to get a copy of the research report. I was advised my e-mail had been passed on to higher management.
To date, I haven't received a reply from NTV. I haven't had the time to follow-up on it, but I will do so because the whole thing just gets me even more curious the more I think about it.
There are probably good answers to what questions I do have and the answers might also help people who aren't familiar with polls to appreciate why MUN political scientist Michael Temillini wound up making some off-the-wall comments on Canada AM yesterday based on the Telelink data.
I'll keep you posted.
25 May 2005
Election preview
With the Liberal win in Labrador, here's a thumbnail sketch of the next election, as it stands right now.
Out of seven seats, five are safely Liberal. The Connies couldn't find contenders in at least two of them. In central, they have chosen a decent guy with no profile to carry the Big C into battle. Fabian manning has made it clear it won't be running, so unless Loyola Sullivan decides to try federal politics, Avalon is another safe Liberal seat if John Efford runs again.
If Efford doesn't run again, I'll toss Captain Sid Hynes name into the ring for consideration. He's tough, competent and agressive; just the dose of clear-headedness we need around here.
In St. John's, the Connies have a problem. Loyola Hearn sounded kind of wishy washy in Jonathan Crowe's interview this evening when he was asked about running again.
Ed Byrne may step up in St. John's South Mount Pearl.
But if Hearn goes again, he will have an uphill fight. He came with 750 or 800 votes of losing the last time. He did a lot of damage to his support with his backing of Stephen Harper instead of the province.
Ditto for Doyle.
Curiously enough, the only seats that offer any chance of a race the next time out are all on the Avalon peninsula. The CPC actually has a problem with the two they hold now.
Now, let me just seal this in a mason jar and bury it in the garden to be opened the day the writ drops next.
Out of seven seats, five are safely Liberal. The Connies couldn't find contenders in at least two of them. In central, they have chosen a decent guy with no profile to carry the Big C into battle. Fabian manning has made it clear it won't be running, so unless Loyola Sullivan decides to try federal politics, Avalon is another safe Liberal seat if John Efford runs again.
If Efford doesn't run again, I'll toss Captain Sid Hynes name into the ring for consideration. He's tough, competent and agressive; just the dose of clear-headedness we need around here.
In St. John's, the Connies have a problem. Loyola Hearn sounded kind of wishy washy in Jonathan Crowe's interview this evening when he was asked about running again.
Ed Byrne may step up in St. John's South Mount Pearl.
But if Hearn goes again, he will have an uphill fight. He came with 750 or 800 votes of losing the last time. He did a lot of damage to his support with his backing of Stephen Harper instead of the province.
Ditto for Doyle.
Curiously enough, the only seats that offer any chance of a race the next time out are all on the Avalon peninsula. The CPC actually has a problem with the two they hold now.
Now, let me just seal this in a mason jar and bury it in the garden to be opened the day the writ drops next.
Libs take Lab
Undoubtedly, there'll be a lot of Wednesday morning quarterbacking and punditry but, I'll just leave it to the vote count.
Todd Russell of the Liberals took 51.5% of the vote with 83/85 reporting at around 2334 hrs Newfoundland Daylight Time.
Graham Letto of the Conservatives had about 32% with the remainder being spread across the three other candidates.
Turnout was up from the last election in 2004.
Count on the Connies to be playing up the fact they doubled their percentage of the vote. Fair enough, cause it is true. The growth in vote is all Connie. Basically the Liberal is virtually intact.
But don't stretch that too far. The Connies would have to count on pulling another couple of thousand people to the polls next time in order to barely squeak by in the seat. Given Labrador's historic turn-out this would be very hard to do. Look at it: everyone who voted Liberal last time turned out to vote Liberal again, with the exception of a mere 120 people.
The only way the Connies could win is to wipe out all the other parties, significantly collapse the Liberal vote or do some combination on the two.
That's a tall order for a seat that is basically Liberal and where voters don't change allegiance very much.
Now if you look to the northeast Avalon peninsula, you'll see a much bigger Connie problem.
They only won those supposedly safe seats by a handful of votes (relatively speaking) the last time out.
Voters on the northeast Avalon include a larger number of swingers - it would only have taken about 751 switched voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl to have caused Loyola Hearn to head to the unemployment line last year instead of booking a return flight to Ottawa.
There's something to keep a Connie strategists in the province awake at night.
Todd Russell of the Liberals took 51.5% of the vote with 83/85 reporting at around 2334 hrs Newfoundland Daylight Time.
Graham Letto of the Conservatives had about 32% with the remainder being spread across the three other candidates.
Turnout was up from the last election in 2004.
Count on the Connies to be playing up the fact they doubled their percentage of the vote. Fair enough, cause it is true. The growth in vote is all Connie. Basically the Liberal is virtually intact.
But don't stretch that too far. The Connies would have to count on pulling another couple of thousand people to the polls next time in order to barely squeak by in the seat. Given Labrador's historic turn-out this would be very hard to do. Look at it: everyone who voted Liberal last time turned out to vote Liberal again, with the exception of a mere 120 people.
The only way the Connies could win is to wipe out all the other parties, significantly collapse the Liberal vote or do some combination on the two.
That's a tall order for a seat that is basically Liberal and where voters don't change allegiance very much.
Now if you look to the northeast Avalon peninsula, you'll see a much bigger Connie problem.
They only won those supposedly safe seats by a handful of votes (relatively speaking) the last time out.
Voters on the northeast Avalon include a larger number of swingers - it would only have taken about 751 switched voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl to have caused Loyola Hearn to head to the unemployment line last year instead of booking a return flight to Ottawa.
There's something to keep a Connie strategists in the province awake at night.
24 May 2005
Ghost of Joey in Labrador By-election
Check national websites today and the Labrador by-election is the lead story just about everywhere.
Comment by Labradorians though seems to reflect the legacy of Joe Smallwood. He dominated provincial politics between 1949 to 1972 to the point that people can't distinguish between things that are St. John's fault and the things Ottawa is responsible for. The same guy used to show up with both the local candidate and the one heading to Ottawa.
No surprise therefore that roads, water and sewer, and the Young Royal Commission are high on the list of things people in Labrador are supposedly ticked about. There is a feeling of being taken for granted that runs throughout all of Labrador. But hey, those are all provincial issues, not federal ones.
See this CTV story which, sadly relies on one lone reporter in Labrador for perspective. But the water and sewer is likely a bigger issue on the south coast, one of the four distinctly different regions within Labrador.
On the north coast, I'd venture the future of the LIA land claim is a hot topic as the Inuit people transition to self-government.
In western Labrador, it is the future of the mines.
The future of military training at Goose Bay is the dominant issue in central Labrador. The local citizen's committee has been sitting on its backside for the past decade waiting for Ottawa to fix its problem- low level training has had its day and few of the historic visitors to the base's facilities are coming back. The committee then blames government for failing to bring back the Nazis or the Commies or invent an enemy in Greenland to justify massive spending at Goose Bay "like in the old days" from someone like the Americans.
The committee moans and complains but has done nothing to look seriously at alternatives. Addicts have a hard time breaking a habit and the Connie promises are like OxyContin. No surprise therefore that the ideas floated by Gordon O'Conner - especially the ludicrous plan to base an infantry battalion at Goose - are being snapped up. Conservative candidate Letto's connections to the local committee didn't hurt on that score; it's also easy for the party out of power to promise the moon in exchange for votes.
The race is reputedly close - extremely close.
The irony of the vote today is that the future of the offshore revenue deal - highlighted in the CTV story as primarily benefiting the island portion of the province - might rest in the hands of Labrador's MP.
Comment by Labradorians though seems to reflect the legacy of Joe Smallwood. He dominated provincial politics between 1949 to 1972 to the point that people can't distinguish between things that are St. John's fault and the things Ottawa is responsible for. The same guy used to show up with both the local candidate and the one heading to Ottawa.
No surprise therefore that roads, water and sewer, and the Young Royal Commission are high on the list of things people in Labrador are supposedly ticked about. There is a feeling of being taken for granted that runs throughout all of Labrador. But hey, those are all provincial issues, not federal ones.
See this CTV story which, sadly relies on one lone reporter in Labrador for perspective. But the water and sewer is likely a bigger issue on the south coast, one of the four distinctly different regions within Labrador.
On the north coast, I'd venture the future of the LIA land claim is a hot topic as the Inuit people transition to self-government.
In western Labrador, it is the future of the mines.
The future of military training at Goose Bay is the dominant issue in central Labrador. The local citizen's committee has been sitting on its backside for the past decade waiting for Ottawa to fix its problem- low level training has had its day and few of the historic visitors to the base's facilities are coming back. The committee then blames government for failing to bring back the Nazis or the Commies or invent an enemy in Greenland to justify massive spending at Goose Bay "like in the old days" from someone like the Americans.
The committee moans and complains but has done nothing to look seriously at alternatives. Addicts have a hard time breaking a habit and the Connie promises are like OxyContin. No surprise therefore that the ideas floated by Gordon O'Conner - especially the ludicrous plan to base an infantry battalion at Goose - are being snapped up. Conservative candidate Letto's connections to the local committee didn't hurt on that score; it's also easy for the party out of power to promise the moon in exchange for votes.
The race is reputedly close - extremely close.
The irony of the vote today is that the future of the offshore revenue deal - highlighted in the CTV story as primarily benefiting the island portion of the province - might rest in the hands of Labrador's MP.
23 May 2005
Belinda Stronach Pictorial!
Bizarre things pop up when you google.
Like this Macleans photo slide show of Belinda Stronach from the Connie policy convention. Check it out here, under the title "On the trail of Belinda Stronach".
There's a striking picture of Belinda and Peter in which she is looking at him as he turns away. There really isn't much of a connection from his standpoint. His body language suggests he's already off to job two, although he is maintaining physical contact with his hand on hers. She, on the other hand, is looking at him as he goes, although there is something about that smile that makes me wonder.
My favourite shots are the ones of her hand (with a gorgeous ring), her pearl necklace and two shots of her shoes. They are favourites just because I can't figure out what in the heck the shooter is trying to show me - other than maybe his foot fetish.
Strange things turn up when you google.
Like this Macleans photo slide show of Belinda Stronach from the Connie policy convention. Check it out here, under the title "On the trail of Belinda Stronach".
There's a striking picture of Belinda and Peter in which she is looking at him as he turns away. There really isn't much of a connection from his standpoint. His body language suggests he's already off to job two, although he is maintaining physical contact with his hand on hers. She, on the other hand, is looking at him as he goes, although there is something about that smile that makes me wonder.
My favourite shots are the ones of her hand (with a gorgeous ring), her pearl necklace and two shots of her shoes. They are favourites just because I can't figure out what in the heck the shooter is trying to show me - other than maybe his foot fetish.
Strange things turn up when you google.
Monte Solberg, MP
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)