Last Saturday's Telegram carried a front page story by Rob Antle on a poll conducted by Ryan Research for the provincial government back in January. They were surveying attitudes to the Williams administration's negotiations on the offshore deal.
The survey covered a sample of 1200 people across the country and was conducted from 4-9 January.
Since I have the privilege and the fun of teaching in an introductory public relations program, Rob's piece gave a chance to combine both writing and research analysis into one class.
Basically, the students were asked to look at the piece and offer some observations.
Well, low and behold they came up with a couple of doozies.
First of all they agreed that Rob had actually buried a really interesting coincidence way down in the story. Appreciating he may have been rushed, burying the lede isn't all that unusual for any writer.
But basically, here's the thing - Rob hinted at it - spelled out clearly.
Canadian flags came down in December.
The survey asked for agreement or disagreement with the decision.
60% of respondents did not support the decision at all. Now to make it clear to non-pollster types, on the scale used that is the most extreme disagreement.
Survey results came back on the 9th.
Flags went back up on the 10th despite Danny's commitment that they would stay down until the feds caved in.
So basically, if Danny got the overnight quickie results of that single question, he knew that his flag flap was actually a flag fiasco. There is just too much of a correlation here for this to be a fluke.
But here's something else my students picked up and I missed entirely: the sample breakdown.
1200 in total. 400 in Newfoundland and Labrador. 200 in the Maritimes. 200 In Quebec. 200 in Ontario. And 200 from Manitoba to BC.
Half the freakin' sample came from east of Quebec, which the last time I checked did not have half the country's population.
Think about that for a minute though. If 60% of respondents hated Danny tearing down flags, where were half of those located? Most likely in Atlantic Canada, said the bright-eyed ones. So basically he was alienating people who should ordinarily be supporting him.
Now I'll admit it is hard to be firm in this little assessment since the class was working off the news story and not the research report.
Still, I'd be willing to venture that there is a better story in what my students observed than was readily apparent.
Something tells me they are going to do very well in their program.
I'll just have to watch out. They are young and smart.
A definite double threat.
10 June 2005
Nice photoshop job, Stevie
Even though he was actually here, seems that Stevie Harper couldn't find time in his tightly scripted appearance at the municipalities conference to actually get some real live photos taken in historic St. John's.
Instead we get this crap courtesy of photoshop and the geeks who maintain the Connie website. (BTW - every website is maintained by a geek. Connie ones just have to wear ties and follow a dress code straight from Bob Jones University).
Take stock picture of St. John's.
Take stock shot of Chief Connie Stiff.
Lay one on other.
Poof.
Job done.
Only for people who have never been here.
For one thing, the colours and shadows are different between the two shots. The edge around Harper is too sharp.
For another thing, his hair isn't mussed. Unless the guy is wearing a helmet, you just can't go to Signal Hill without there being a Force 3 gale.
For another thing, I am trying to figure out how tall this dude is. Given the angle on this shot, Harper must be floating in mid-air. The original shot may have been taken on a crane.
Doctor a tape. Doctor a photo. Same thing.
Instead we get this crap courtesy of photoshop and the geeks who maintain the Connie website. (BTW - every website is maintained by a geek. Connie ones just have to wear ties and follow a dress code straight from Bob Jones University).
Take stock picture of St. John's.
Take stock shot of Chief Connie Stiff.
Lay one on other.
Poof.
Job done.
Only for people who have never been here.
For one thing, the colours and shadows are different between the two shots. The edge around Harper is too sharp.
For another thing, his hair isn't mussed. Unless the guy is wearing a helmet, you just can't go to Signal Hill without there being a Force 3 gale.
For another thing, I am trying to figure out how tall this dude is. Given the angle on this shot, Harper must be floating in mid-air. The original shot may have been taken on a crane.
Doctor a tape. Doctor a photo. Same thing.
Yeah. that's the ticket. Hearn and Doyle hire ex-SNL character as strategy whiz
The budget - including the offshore money - is a government bill.
The Connies are in Opposition and up until now were hell bent on killing the government.
Normally, Government members say positive things about the budget; Opposition guys say nothing unless it is critical.
Until they got the living hell whipped out of them in recent weeks, Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn were opposed to the budget.
Notice lately that every day at least one of the Connie dinosaurs are quoted in the media assuring everyone that the deal is almost through the House? Here's Norm Doyle's contribution for today.
Apparently no one except me noticed that for all his blarney, Blarney the Green Dinosaur from Renews - the guy who notionally represents a St. John's/Mount Pearl - actually promised to work all summer if need be to ensure the government's budget gets passed.
That is unprecedented. An Opposition hack pledges to back the government to the hilt on its budget. Geez, Hearn had no trouble voting against money for the province last year. Why the switch, Loyola?
Next thing you know Hearn and Doyle will claim credit for a deal they actually had nothing to do with at all. No wait. They've done that already. Repeatedly.
Who gives them political strategy or handles their media relations?
I always wondered what happened to Tommy Flanagan.
"Yeah.....that's the ticket."
The Connies are in Opposition and up until now were hell bent on killing the government.
Normally, Government members say positive things about the budget; Opposition guys say nothing unless it is critical.
Until they got the living hell whipped out of them in recent weeks, Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn were opposed to the budget.
Notice lately that every day at least one of the Connie dinosaurs are quoted in the media assuring everyone that the deal is almost through the House? Here's Norm Doyle's contribution for today.
Apparently no one except me noticed that for all his blarney, Blarney the Green Dinosaur from Renews - the guy who notionally represents a St. John's/Mount Pearl - actually promised to work all summer if need be to ensure the government's budget gets passed.
That is unprecedented. An Opposition hack pledges to back the government to the hilt on its budget. Geez, Hearn had no trouble voting against money for the province last year. Why the switch, Loyola?
Next thing you know Hearn and Doyle will claim credit for a deal they actually had nothing to do with at all. No wait. They've done that already. Repeatedly.
Who gives them political strategy or handles their media relations?
I always wondered what happened to Tommy Flanagan.
"Yeah.....that's the ticket."
09 June 2005
The first step to expanding the EEZ
For those who are agitating for expansion of the country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), here's a useful story from CBC.
Call it custodial management, call it what you will, the first step will be extending the claim to subseabed resources according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The mapping work currently being done in order to stake the claim legally will also make it easier for Canada to control development of any oil and gas resources that may lie beyond the 200 mile EEZ.
Call it custodial management, call it what you will, the first step will be extending the claim to subseabed resources according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The mapping work currently being done in order to stake the claim legally will also make it easier for Canada to control development of any oil and gas resources that may lie beyond the 200 mile EEZ.
08 June 2005
A hard look at CRA numbers
Without going into too much detail, it is worth taking a closer look at the actual news release issued by Corporate Research Associates on its recent survey of voter opinion.
If you accept the proposition that all CRA surveys are done the same way and the results are generally consistent for CRA over time, then it is easy to see that the provincial political parties have slipped back to the relative positions they occupied about six to eight months ago.
Certainly, no one will be panicking in the Premier's Office about these figures; at least they shouldn't be panicking. If they have other polling data that gives a much better picture of voter moods, then I'd be willing to change by view. On the basis of this stuff, though I wouldn't get too alarmed.
For the provincial Liberals, the simple conclusion to take from CRA's polling is that their popularity rests entirely in Danny Williams' hands. When he screws up, Liberal numbers climb. When he soars, the Liberals plummet. That's hardly a comforting position to be in and it is one that the current leader and any future leader will have to address.
Just flip down to some of the little details at the end of the release, though and here are a couple of reasons to be somewhat cautious of these results.
First of all, the survey data was collected from May 12 to June 6. Check your calendars and you'll see that this covers almost three full weeks. For political purposes, that's way too long to tell anything with certainty. Some people will change their answers, even if marginally, based on current issues.
Second of all, the margin of error at +/- 3.4% is a tad high. It's not so far off as to be unusable, but coupled with the possibility of variation coming from the length of time the survey was conducted, I'd be leery of using CRA's polling for anything other than entertainment and coffee table chat.
For a political party wanting to accomplish anything, solid research is the start of solid planning.
Information coming free from any research company is worth what you pay for it.
If you accept the proposition that all CRA surveys are done the same way and the results are generally consistent for CRA over time, then it is easy to see that the provincial political parties have slipped back to the relative positions they occupied about six to eight months ago.
Certainly, no one will be panicking in the Premier's Office about these figures; at least they shouldn't be panicking. If they have other polling data that gives a much better picture of voter moods, then I'd be willing to change by view. On the basis of this stuff, though I wouldn't get too alarmed.
For the provincial Liberals, the simple conclusion to take from CRA's polling is that their popularity rests entirely in Danny Williams' hands. When he screws up, Liberal numbers climb. When he soars, the Liberals plummet. That's hardly a comforting position to be in and it is one that the current leader and any future leader will have to address.
Just flip down to some of the little details at the end of the release, though and here are a couple of reasons to be somewhat cautious of these results.
First of all, the survey data was collected from May 12 to June 6. Check your calendars and you'll see that this covers almost three full weeks. For political purposes, that's way too long to tell anything with certainty. Some people will change their answers, even if marginally, based on current issues.
Second of all, the margin of error at +/- 3.4% is a tad high. It's not so far off as to be unusable, but coupled with the possibility of variation coming from the length of time the survey was conducted, I'd be leery of using CRA's polling for anything other than entertainment and coffee table chat.
For a political party wanting to accomplish anything, solid research is the start of solid planning.
Information coming free from any research company is worth what you pay for it.
Meanwhile back on another farm...
There's a post coming on the FPI proposal and the re-emergence of talk show gadflies swarming around this issue.
While I work on it, here's a story from Maine.
Take a long hard look at the picture here in this Globe story.
Now put yourself in the place of the guys manning the US border station in Maine who had this guy show up armed with, among other things, a home-made sword, a hatchet, brass knuckles and a chainsaw with something red on it that appeared to be blood.
Take another look at the picture.
The border guards didn't suspect anything was wrong with this guy.
They just confiscated his weapons and wished him a good day.
Later on, he was arrested on a murder warrant from New Brunswick. Police found the decapitated body of a musician in the guy's kitchen.
I looked at the picture two or three times.
This is such an obvious Momma's boy that if he walked in a bloody chainsaw, I'd just assume he was ok and send him cheerily on his way.
Yeah.
Right.
While I work on it, here's a story from Maine.
Take a long hard look at the picture here in this Globe story.
Now put yourself in the place of the guys manning the US border station in Maine who had this guy show up armed with, among other things, a home-made sword, a hatchet, brass knuckles and a chainsaw with something red on it that appeared to be blood.
Take another look at the picture.
The border guards didn't suspect anything was wrong with this guy.
They just confiscated his weapons and wished him a good day.
Later on, he was arrested on a murder warrant from New Brunswick. Police found the decapitated body of a musician in the guy's kitchen.
I looked at the picture two or three times.
This is such an obvious Momma's boy that if he walked in a bloody chainsaw, I'd just assume he was ok and send him cheerily on his way.
Yeah.
Right.
07 June 2005
Singing a new song on the offshore
Premier Danny Williams recently delivered a message to oil companies looking at offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, telling them that he will expect better revenue returns for the province on future projects including Hebron-Ben Nevis.
The financial section of the National Lampoon had a commentary on the whole issue yesterday, warning the Premier that maybe he needs to take a different approach to avoid scaring away oil company investment.
When the Premier talks about offshore resources being given away at a discount in the past, he is likely engaging in a certain level of hyperbole - exaggerating for effect. This is the Premier's stock in trade.
That said, the only example where this might be true is in the case of Hibernia where his predecessor Conservative government traded government revenues - i.e. royalties - for a seven- year construction project on the gravity based structure (GBS). In fact, the government insisted on the GBS mode of production specifically to satisfy its policy of fostering as much spin-off work in the province as possible.
What Brian Peckford and his associates quickly learned was that provincial economic benefits are not a bottomless pit; jobs and royalties are linked. To go a step further, the context of the development has much to do with the outcome. By the time the Wells administration took office, the negotiations were largely concluded. The province still had to put cash concessions on the table in order to start a project that was widely held to be unattractive financially for many of the participants.
No one anticipated oil at US$50 per barrel.
But here's the difference between the Upper Churchill, for example, and the offshore: government revenues are tied to the price per barrel of oil. Thus, there is a built- in escalator clause that the Upper Churchill agreement simply does not have.
Even if the provincial government continued to apply the generic regime to Hebron and all future projects, its direct revenues would rise and fall with the price of oil. That feature of the real Atlantic Accord and the province's own royalty regime is why this government has been able to reap windfall revenues from increases in oil prices.
That is exactly how the oil companies make their money. In the case of the offshore, since the oil companies are taking the financial risk of development that have naturally, and logically, claimed the reward for their free-enterprise risk-taking.
Premier Williams can easily talk of taking a tough stance on negotiating. That is not simply because he is a tougher or smarter guy than his predecessors. Rather, his current stance is supported by the financial benefits that have come from the decisions by his predecessors. Mr. Peckford and Mr. Wells faced provincial finances that were abysmal. In 1991, for example, the debt to GDP ratio - a common indicator of fiscal health - rivaled that of any developing country. Today, by virtue of economic developments in the past 15 years and prudent fiscal management by his predecessors and record oil prices, the current Premier is not strapped for cash to keep the lights burning in his office.
Circumstances make everything different.
For those watching the Premier's offshore policy, the challenge is to figure out what he is doing. His policy manual from the last campaign spoke of secondary and tertiary processing from things like oil refineries as a way of boosting local benefits. Peckford used to say the same thing.
But we do not know if Premier Williams is talking about departing from a regime in which basic royalties are not fixed and everything becomes a subject for negotiation. That is the way the Peckford administration approached the matter, arguing that reduced royalties were more than offset by the added economic activity from GBS construction and by the groundwork laid for future development.
The same argument - looking at the total package versus a single element - is potentially attractive today. Notice, however, that what appeared to be splendid in 1988 is being used, predictably, by a new government as an example of a give-away. Which is true, 1988 or 2005? The logic then is the same as now; we should look at the total package rather than focus on government revenues alone.
Proper evaluation by the public would depend on wide disclosure of the details of the discussions and personally, I'd put stock in a more detailed and thoughtful review of the past than the Premier's hyperbole allows. The Premier's political statements are one thing; what government policy ought to be may be something else.
If we look at the recent offshore discussions, they have been touted as having achieved every one of the government's objectives. A closer assessment shows quite clearly that while they are remarkable on a number of levels they fell far short of the goal stated in the Premier's own letter to the Prime Minister on June 10, 2004.
Looking for more is fine. If looking for more means that, in practice, we'd go back to a Peckford-esque world in which government gives and takes behind close doors, then we may want to take a closer look at what is going on.
The reason has to do with where the lasting benefit comes from when we talk of offshore oil development. Government's primary interest should be in maximizing government revenues. After all, that is the money that will be used to provide essential services. As soon as government starts mandating that a company produces local jobs, the companies will look for a subsidy - effectively lower provincial government revenue - for any jobs not in their own business plans.
The jobs created by a smelter in the case of Voisey's Bay or a refinery in the case of offshore are far less than the direct revenues the government has to give up in order to get them. The jobs also run out, sometimes quite quickly; the Hibernia GBS jobs died within seven years.
But look at the cash flowing from the oil itself. It rises and falls with the price of oil, but in the current case that has been enough to boost our provincial government to the point where it will be a "have province" by any reasonable measure. There is cash flowing enough to pay down debt and replace buildings and other infrastructure, all of which produces a lasting measurable benefit. The current boom will last for the next three to five years by most current estimates and will add about over a billion dollars in oil revenue to provincial coffers next year alone. How many refineries would it take to equal that?
The problem with Premier Williams' new approach to the offshore - if there is a problem - is not that he is scaring away investment. The Hebron consortium is merely negotiating; after all, the position is preposterous. On the one hand they say high oil prices make the field attractive. On the other they say the difficulties of the field require require a change to the royalty regime. A deal will be reached; there is money enough for all.
The problem with the Williams' approach is a familiar one: we simply don't know what he means. If we do not know what he means, we cannot accurately judge success or failure.
But for the Premier, the personal problem is much more substantial.
Williams clearly wants to be the best Premier ever. Obviously, anyone can bamboozle the masses in the short-term; Peckford did it with ease. Ask the average Newfoundlander or Labradorian about Peckford these days and you won't find anyone giving him due credit for the good he did. Peckford went from messiah to pariah before he left office and today he serves as little more than the whipping boy for his successor.
The problem for Williams is a simple one: a reputation built on spin usually crashes, sooner rather than later.
The financial section of the National Lampoon had a commentary on the whole issue yesterday, warning the Premier that maybe he needs to take a different approach to avoid scaring away oil company investment.
When the Premier talks about offshore resources being given away at a discount in the past, he is likely engaging in a certain level of hyperbole - exaggerating for effect. This is the Premier's stock in trade.
That said, the only example where this might be true is in the case of Hibernia where his predecessor Conservative government traded government revenues - i.e. royalties - for a seven- year construction project on the gravity based structure (GBS). In fact, the government insisted on the GBS mode of production specifically to satisfy its policy of fostering as much spin-off work in the province as possible.
What Brian Peckford and his associates quickly learned was that provincial economic benefits are not a bottomless pit; jobs and royalties are linked. To go a step further, the context of the development has much to do with the outcome. By the time the Wells administration took office, the negotiations were largely concluded. The province still had to put cash concessions on the table in order to start a project that was widely held to be unattractive financially for many of the participants.
No one anticipated oil at US$50 per barrel.
But here's the difference between the Upper Churchill, for example, and the offshore: government revenues are tied to the price per barrel of oil. Thus, there is a built- in escalator clause that the Upper Churchill agreement simply does not have.
Even if the provincial government continued to apply the generic regime to Hebron and all future projects, its direct revenues would rise and fall with the price of oil. That feature of the real Atlantic Accord and the province's own royalty regime is why this government has been able to reap windfall revenues from increases in oil prices.
That is exactly how the oil companies make their money. In the case of the offshore, since the oil companies are taking the financial risk of development that have naturally, and logically, claimed the reward for their free-enterprise risk-taking.
Premier Williams can easily talk of taking a tough stance on negotiating. That is not simply because he is a tougher or smarter guy than his predecessors. Rather, his current stance is supported by the financial benefits that have come from the decisions by his predecessors. Mr. Peckford and Mr. Wells faced provincial finances that were abysmal. In 1991, for example, the debt to GDP ratio - a common indicator of fiscal health - rivaled that of any developing country. Today, by virtue of economic developments in the past 15 years and prudent fiscal management by his predecessors and record oil prices, the current Premier is not strapped for cash to keep the lights burning in his office.
Circumstances make everything different.
For those watching the Premier's offshore policy, the challenge is to figure out what he is doing. His policy manual from the last campaign spoke of secondary and tertiary processing from things like oil refineries as a way of boosting local benefits. Peckford used to say the same thing.
But we do not know if Premier Williams is talking about departing from a regime in which basic royalties are not fixed and everything becomes a subject for negotiation. That is the way the Peckford administration approached the matter, arguing that reduced royalties were more than offset by the added economic activity from GBS construction and by the groundwork laid for future development.
The same argument - looking at the total package versus a single element - is potentially attractive today. Notice, however, that what appeared to be splendid in 1988 is being used, predictably, by a new government as an example of a give-away. Which is true, 1988 or 2005? The logic then is the same as now; we should look at the total package rather than focus on government revenues alone.
Proper evaluation by the public would depend on wide disclosure of the details of the discussions and personally, I'd put stock in a more detailed and thoughtful review of the past than the Premier's hyperbole allows. The Premier's political statements are one thing; what government policy ought to be may be something else.
If we look at the recent offshore discussions, they have been touted as having achieved every one of the government's objectives. A closer assessment shows quite clearly that while they are remarkable on a number of levels they fell far short of the goal stated in the Premier's own letter to the Prime Minister on June 10, 2004.
Looking for more is fine. If looking for more means that, in practice, we'd go back to a Peckford-esque world in which government gives and takes behind close doors, then we may want to take a closer look at what is going on.
The reason has to do with where the lasting benefit comes from when we talk of offshore oil development. Government's primary interest should be in maximizing government revenues. After all, that is the money that will be used to provide essential services. As soon as government starts mandating that a company produces local jobs, the companies will look for a subsidy - effectively lower provincial government revenue - for any jobs not in their own business plans.
The jobs created by a smelter in the case of Voisey's Bay or a refinery in the case of offshore are far less than the direct revenues the government has to give up in order to get them. The jobs also run out, sometimes quite quickly; the Hibernia GBS jobs died within seven years.
But look at the cash flowing from the oil itself. It rises and falls with the price of oil, but in the current case that has been enough to boost our provincial government to the point where it will be a "have province" by any reasonable measure. There is cash flowing enough to pay down debt and replace buildings and other infrastructure, all of which produces a lasting measurable benefit. The current boom will last for the next three to five years by most current estimates and will add about over a billion dollars in oil revenue to provincial coffers next year alone. How many refineries would it take to equal that?
The problem with Premier Williams' new approach to the offshore - if there is a problem - is not that he is scaring away investment. The Hebron consortium is merely negotiating; after all, the position is preposterous. On the one hand they say high oil prices make the field attractive. On the other they say the difficulties of the field require require a change to the royalty regime. A deal will be reached; there is money enough for all.
The problem with the Williams' approach is a familiar one: we simply don't know what he means. If we do not know what he means, we cannot accurately judge success or failure.
But for the Premier, the personal problem is much more substantial.
Williams clearly wants to be the best Premier ever. Obviously, anyone can bamboozle the masses in the short-term; Peckford did it with ease. Ask the average Newfoundlander or Labradorian about Peckford these days and you won't find anyone giving him due credit for the good he did. Peckford went from messiah to pariah before he left office and today he serves as little more than the whipping boy for his successor.
The problem for Williams is a simple one: a reputation built on spin usually crashes, sooner rather than later.
06 June 2005
Connie comm strategy: duck and cover
For those who follow these things, take a look at this link to a Canadian journalist blog.
Harper's lack of a scrum or other media availability speaks volumes for the Connie efforts to duck tough questions. Yeah Connies by nature assume that all media are "commie-pinko lefties", but their paranoia doesn't actually make the belief true, nor does it relieve someone who desperately wants to be prime minister from answering questions from reporters.
For another perspective, here's a local CBC story on the weekend blitz by national party leaders. Follow the link in the upper left to a debrief by Peter Gullage that covers the scrum-less Harper moment.
Now if you take a hard look at Harper's party you can see a good reason to avoid media questions:
- The failed election strategy. (The thing augered in deeper than a Titan 4 booster; the most toxic gas associated with it was methane.)
- A local Connie MP working against his party. (Here's a link to Loyola-land. Note the line at the end where Hearn pledges to work on getting C-43 passed - presumably intact - by the end of the month. "we will now use every method possible to fast track passage of Bill C-43 even if it means forcing the House to stay open for half the summer.")
- The Saga of Secret Agent Grewal. The more that everyone looks at this guy, the more problems that appear. People like Peter McKay, DDS are distancing themselves from Grewal and news tonight is that the guy mysteriously asked someone to carry a package for him from Vancouver to Ottawa even though Grewal had a ticket on the flight involved.
That last link takes you to a CTV story that indicates Grewal is taking "stress leave".
Maybe the next leave to be taken will be Mr. Harper. Maybe he is getting tired of it all. If VOCM had an affiliate in Alberta or if they had another slot available here, they seem to have a penchant for using clapped-out ex-pols to host their yak shows.
Harper's lack of a scrum or other media availability speaks volumes for the Connie efforts to duck tough questions. Yeah Connies by nature assume that all media are "commie-pinko lefties", but their paranoia doesn't actually make the belief true, nor does it relieve someone who desperately wants to be prime minister from answering questions from reporters.
For another perspective, here's a local CBC story on the weekend blitz by national party leaders. Follow the link in the upper left to a debrief by Peter Gullage that covers the scrum-less Harper moment.
Now if you take a hard look at Harper's party you can see a good reason to avoid media questions:
- The failed election strategy. (The thing augered in deeper than a Titan 4 booster; the most toxic gas associated with it was methane.)
- A local Connie MP working against his party. (Here's a link to Loyola-land. Note the line at the end where Hearn pledges to work on getting C-43 passed - presumably intact - by the end of the month. "we will now use every method possible to fast track passage of Bill C-43 even if it means forcing the House to stay open for half the summer.")
- The Saga of Secret Agent Grewal. The more that everyone looks at this guy, the more problems that appear. People like Peter McKay, DDS are distancing themselves from Grewal and news tonight is that the guy mysteriously asked someone to carry a package for him from Vancouver to Ottawa even though Grewal had a ticket on the flight involved.
That last link takes you to a CTV story that indicates Grewal is taking "stress leave".
Maybe the next leave to be taken will be Mr. Harper. Maybe he is getting tired of it all. If VOCM had an affiliate in Alberta or if they had another slot available here, they seem to have a penchant for using clapped-out ex-pols to host their yak shows.
Canada doesn't own the ocean - Updated
VOCM is reporting this morning that environmental group the Sierra Club has proposed salvaging the Titan booster left over from the Big Launch and sending the American government the bill for the clean up.
All this comes because of a report that the booster carried a variety of toxic chemicals when it splashed down.
There is no news release on the Sierra Club site backing this story.
Let's take it at face value.
1. The salvage operation may well release the toxic chemicals everyone is worried about. Is that worth the risk for what amounts to a publicity stunt?
2. Does anyone know where this thing is exactly? It took more than a decade of very expensive searching to find the Titanic which, in case you missed it, was a lot bigger than the Titan booster.
3. If the thing is NOT inside Canada's 200 miles exclusive economic zone, then who is going to salvage the bloody thing? After all, contrary to what some people want us to believe, Canada does not own the ocean.
4. Where was the Sierra Club when some yahoo anti-sealer was advocating shooting people in order to save a species that isn't even close to being in any sort of danger? All things considered, I can think of a dozen environmental issues that would get my attention long before I'd bitch about the LAST Titan missile launch in the Atlantic. AND if I did, I'd come up with a better story than spending tens of millions to stage some sort of bull**** publicity stunt. Something concrete would be much better.
Update:
This story apparently originated with an Access to Information request by Canadian Press bureau in Halifax. Here's a link to local CBC coverage, including a link to an audio interview with Deane Beeby of CP's Halifax office.
- The impact zone was reportedly within Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
- There was some residual fuel in the rocket. How much is unknown.
- One of several issues to be addressed here would be the impact of any salvage and disposal operation. There are some obvious hazards associated with deep sea salvage and any action that took place would have to weigh the risk of causing a leak of fuel through recovery operations versus leaving the thing on the seabed.
- Here's an Environmental Protection Agency information page on one of the chemicals involved, dimethylhydrazine. Notice that there are acute effects and chronic effects. Some of the affects noted in the Canadian Press refer to acute exposure - something that isn't likely to occur now that the rocket section is settled on the bottom of the ocean.
- As for nitrogen dioxide, here is some factual information on that one. While some reports have noted that it can produce nitric acid in certain circumstances, read this link before jumping to any conclusions.
As with most things, let's get a bit more factual information before anyone jumps to a conclusion.
All this comes because of a report that the booster carried a variety of toxic chemicals when it splashed down.
There is no news release on the Sierra Club site backing this story.
Let's take it at face value.
1. The salvage operation may well release the toxic chemicals everyone is worried about. Is that worth the risk for what amounts to a publicity stunt?
2. Does anyone know where this thing is exactly? It took more than a decade of very expensive searching to find the Titanic which, in case you missed it, was a lot bigger than the Titan booster.
3. If the thing is NOT inside Canada's 200 miles exclusive economic zone, then who is going to salvage the bloody thing? After all, contrary to what some people want us to believe, Canada does not own the ocean.
4. Where was the Sierra Club when some yahoo anti-sealer was advocating shooting people in order to save a species that isn't even close to being in any sort of danger? All things considered, I can think of a dozen environmental issues that would get my attention long before I'd bitch about the LAST Titan missile launch in the Atlantic. AND if I did, I'd come up with a better story than spending tens of millions to stage some sort of bull**** publicity stunt. Something concrete would be much better.
Update:
This story apparently originated with an Access to Information request by Canadian Press bureau in Halifax. Here's a link to local CBC coverage, including a link to an audio interview with Deane Beeby of CP's Halifax office.
- The impact zone was reportedly within Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
- There was some residual fuel in the rocket. How much is unknown.
- One of several issues to be addressed here would be the impact of any salvage and disposal operation. There are some obvious hazards associated with deep sea salvage and any action that took place would have to weigh the risk of causing a leak of fuel through recovery operations versus leaving the thing on the seabed.
- Here's an Environmental Protection Agency information page on one of the chemicals involved, dimethylhydrazine. Notice that there are acute effects and chronic effects. Some of the affects noted in the Canadian Press refer to acute exposure - something that isn't likely to occur now that the rocket section is settled on the bottom of the ocean.
- As for nitrogen dioxide, here is some factual information on that one. While some reports have noted that it can produce nitric acid in certain circumstances, read this link before jumping to any conclusions.
As with most things, let's get a bit more factual information before anyone jumps to a conclusion.
John has a long moustache
On beaches in northern France, 61 years ago today, hundreds of thousands of young men from the United States, Britain, France, Canada and other allied nations began the final drive to crush Nazi Germany from the west.
Here's a link to an exhibit at the National War Museum on war art from collections in Canada, Britain and Australia. Look at this painting by Alex Colville. Personally, I find Colville's painting s of the Second War to be the most evocative. This one captures the incongruity between the pastoral farmland on the one hand and the dead young German soldier, evidence of a savage battle. Take some time and flip through the exhibit online to find other stuff just as striking.
As you go about your daily life today, take a moment for some silent contemplation.
Say a prayer for the dead.
Say another for those who survived.
and remember what happened 61 years ago today on a war summer day in France.
Here's a link to an exhibit at the National War Museum on war art from collections in Canada, Britain and Australia. Look at this painting by Alex Colville. Personally, I find Colville's painting s of the Second War to be the most evocative. This one captures the incongruity between the pastoral farmland on the one hand and the dead young German soldier, evidence of a savage battle. Take some time and flip through the exhibit online to find other stuff just as striking.
As you go about your daily life today, take a moment for some silent contemplation.
Say a prayer for the dead.
Say another for those who survived.
and remember what happened 61 years ago today on a war summer day in France.
05 June 2005
Sunday morning, 8 AM: Quality time
It's Sunday morning and while most people aren't reading blogs today (readership drops off by about 40% whether I post or not) , I thought I'd offer up these observations on the weekend papers.
1. and a player to be named later. Having read both Russell Wangersky and Bill Rowe's Telly columns on Saturday, I think it is time the great newspaper gods organized a swap of writers so that all the people with the same general outlook on life write for the same paper.
Wangersky's little column on the Grewal tapes demonstrates that he has reached a conclusion without having conducted any research. Hence, he'd be an excellent choice to go down to the Indy to spell Ryan. Cleary, after all must be getting tired of writing the same "we are fierce now and passionate so watch out Paul Martin" columns.
Here's a clue, Russell: actually listen to the tapes and the transcripts. Try reading the wire copy: you'd know that Grewal hasn't released everything he has taped or if that's the lot then there are hours of conversations that didn't get taped for some curious reason. Either way Russell is a match for Cleary; colour me disappointed.
Meanwhile, Rowe would feel right at home next to another political dinosaur - John Crosbie - since both columnists appear to offer insights that derive from the absence of mental fibre in their diets. Having determined separation is the answer to everything (wait for his column on Harbour Breton), Rowe has decided this week that being Leader Opp is such a tedious chore that people like Stephen Harper elect to commit political hara kiri over staying in the job.
Is that why they fling brown envelopes over transoms too, Bill: sheer boredom?
Maybe some former Leaders Opp merely need to find their true calling in life - maybe they are not destined for political greatness but can be more productively employed besting the Moon Man in a contest of wits. That doesn't apply to all of them, though. Leader Opp can be a great job; just don't expect to find anything resembling thought on the subject coming from Rowe.
Crosbie this week attacks Belinda Stornach for abandoning the Connies to take a cabinet post with the Liberals. Those familiar with Crosbie's political past will recognize the unmitigated hypocrisy in the old fart's comments. There are a few pithy similies that come to mind, but they have been overused. Let's just say Crosbie knows all about crossing the floor and selling out his old political friends for nothing more than personal gain. I am reminded though of a remark by one Brian Mulroney about a Liberal cabinet minister who took a diplomatic post after leaving politics that seems to apply to Crosbie for other reasons: "There's no whore like an old whore."
Now where did I put that "Crosbie on Harper" clipping file, again?
2. An announcement a week and a good poll, Part Deux. The Spindy this weekend offers up a genuine interview with Brian Tobin. Who cares what Tobin thinks about anything?
The Telly, though, does give us a Ryan Research poll conducted for Danny Williams in January 2005 and obtained courtesy of the Access to Information Act on attitudes toward hauling down the flags and stuff related to the offshore dispute. I have to say that, for some inexplicable reason, Rob Antle's story is far from clear. The normally sharp reporter seems a bit muddled on this one.
I did manage to glean some things worth noting:
- The margin of error went so far off in the regional breakdowns outside this province that the numbers were largely useless.
- There was a question about whether or not the PM should "honour his commitment of June 2004". Intuitively, I'd expect people to say that a commitment should be honoured. Therefore the response here should be higher than it is reported by the survey apparently.
- There is no question that asks what people think is in the deal. In other words apparently, no one bothered to see if anyone actually understood what was involved.
- People across Canada did NOT like hauling down the flags.
This is one ATI file I am going to have to take a closer look at just to see what it does contain.
Speaking of poll requests, my e-mail to NTV goes unanswered.
1. and a player to be named later. Having read both Russell Wangersky and Bill Rowe's Telly columns on Saturday, I think it is time the great newspaper gods organized a swap of writers so that all the people with the same general outlook on life write for the same paper.
Wangersky's little column on the Grewal tapes demonstrates that he has reached a conclusion without having conducted any research. Hence, he'd be an excellent choice to go down to the Indy to spell Ryan. Cleary, after all must be getting tired of writing the same "we are fierce now and passionate so watch out Paul Martin" columns.
Here's a clue, Russell: actually listen to the tapes and the transcripts. Try reading the wire copy: you'd know that Grewal hasn't released everything he has taped or if that's the lot then there are hours of conversations that didn't get taped for some curious reason. Either way Russell is a match for Cleary; colour me disappointed.
Meanwhile, Rowe would feel right at home next to another political dinosaur - John Crosbie - since both columnists appear to offer insights that derive from the absence of mental fibre in their diets. Having determined separation is the answer to everything (wait for his column on Harbour Breton), Rowe has decided this week that being Leader Opp is such a tedious chore that people like Stephen Harper elect to commit political hara kiri over staying in the job.
Is that why they fling brown envelopes over transoms too, Bill: sheer boredom?
Maybe some former Leaders Opp merely need to find their true calling in life - maybe they are not destined for political greatness but can be more productively employed besting the Moon Man in a contest of wits. That doesn't apply to all of them, though. Leader Opp can be a great job; just don't expect to find anything resembling thought on the subject coming from Rowe.
Crosbie this week attacks Belinda Stornach for abandoning the Connies to take a cabinet post with the Liberals. Those familiar with Crosbie's political past will recognize the unmitigated hypocrisy in the old fart's comments. There are a few pithy similies that come to mind, but they have been overused. Let's just say Crosbie knows all about crossing the floor and selling out his old political friends for nothing more than personal gain. I am reminded though of a remark by one Brian Mulroney about a Liberal cabinet minister who took a diplomatic post after leaving politics that seems to apply to Crosbie for other reasons: "There's no whore like an old whore."
Now where did I put that "Crosbie on Harper" clipping file, again?
2. An announcement a week and a good poll, Part Deux. The Spindy this weekend offers up a genuine interview with Brian Tobin. Who cares what Tobin thinks about anything?
The Telly, though, does give us a Ryan Research poll conducted for Danny Williams in January 2005 and obtained courtesy of the Access to Information Act on attitudes toward hauling down the flags and stuff related to the offshore dispute. I have to say that, for some inexplicable reason, Rob Antle's story is far from clear. The normally sharp reporter seems a bit muddled on this one.
I did manage to glean some things worth noting:
- The margin of error went so far off in the regional breakdowns outside this province that the numbers were largely useless.
- There was a question about whether or not the PM should "honour his commitment of June 2004". Intuitively, I'd expect people to say that a commitment should be honoured. Therefore the response here should be higher than it is reported by the survey apparently.
- There is no question that asks what people think is in the deal. In other words apparently, no one bothered to see if anyone actually understood what was involved.
- People across Canada did NOT like hauling down the flags.
This is one ATI file I am going to have to take a closer look at just to see what it does contain.
Speaking of poll requests, my e-mail to NTV goes unanswered.
03 June 2005
C*O*N agents doctored tapes: expert
CBC is reporting that a technical expert in audio recordings has found substantive evidence that the Grewal tapes made public recently have been altered from the original.
You can also find a similar report here at CFRA's website. There's even a bit on a Dipper blog here with excellent links to other places.
In one instance, there is an audible click before Ujjal Dosanj reputedly says "Cabinet would be quick" with another audible click following immediately behind. The words are in English while the surrounding conversation is in Punjabi and appears to have a different tone and volume from the rest of that portion of the tape.
Meanwhile, The Chief of C*O*N and his assistant Larrabee (??) insist that Grewal has made public all the tapes and that maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically some problems with duplication produced some errors and omissions.
Uh huh.
Riiiiiiight.
What happened to the originals? Duplication is actually part of the problem in maintaining credibility here.
Let's not forget as well that Grewal's selective taping of conversations suggests that he was keen to avoid taping certain meetings so that he could speak more freely and openly. This makes him all the more suspicious.
Anyway, I wind up feeling like Shtarker, as I run around singing in a cheap German accent: "I von ze pool. I von ze pool."
You can also find a similar report here at CFRA's website. There's even a bit on a Dipper blog here with excellent links to other places.
In one instance, there is an audible click before Ujjal Dosanj reputedly says "Cabinet would be quick" with another audible click following immediately behind. The words are in English while the surrounding conversation is in Punjabi and appears to have a different tone and volume from the rest of that portion of the tape.
Meanwhile, The Chief of C*O*N and his assistant Larrabee (??) insist that Grewal has made public all the tapes and that maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically some problems with duplication produced some errors and omissions.
Uh huh.
Riiiiiiight.
What happened to the originals? Duplication is actually part of the problem in maintaining credibility here.
Let's not forget as well that Grewal's selective taping of conversations suggests that he was keen to avoid taping certain meetings so that he could speak more freely and openly. This makes him all the more suspicious.
Anyway, I wind up feeling like Shtarker, as I run around singing in a cheap German accent: "I von ze pool. I von ze pool."
02 June 2005
Meanwhile, back on the farm...
Joe, disguised as a door, looks on in amusement as Danny Williams puts the blocks to the Liberals by calling a quickie by-election in Exploits district.
The Libs were obviously unprepared.
It will be a close race; the Liberals might well lose.
I'd be interested to see a poll - a good poll - on the party strengths and weaknesses for the Libs, the NDP and the Tories there. My guess is that the Liberals aren't anywhere near as strong as they might like to be.
But most importantly, if the Liberals set this up as yet another campaign for their Amazing Philosophy of Ruralism, what happens if they lose the by-election?
The Libs were obviously unprepared.
It will be a close race; the Liberals might well lose.
I'd be interested to see a poll - a good poll - on the party strengths and weaknesses for the Libs, the NDP and the Tories there. My guess is that the Liberals aren't anywhere near as strong as they might like to be.
But most importantly, if the Liberals set this up as yet another campaign for their Amazing Philosophy of Ruralism, what happens if they lose the by-election?
Homer Grewal
If you listen to the handful of Grewal that have been released - handful out of the others there should be - there is another thing that leaps up.
Grewal was really concerned to stall any investigation into allegations he was taking campaign donations in exchange for helping with the immigration process. At one point he says very clearly that he wants to do something about that irrespective of whatever else happens.
Now the whole mess is being turned over to the Queen's Cowboys. I always thought that was the thing to do from the outset.
But here's the Homer Simpson part of it - Grewal is now going to be investigated for his ethical behaviour in soliciting favours from government and taping members without their knowledge.
Is Grewal from India or Springfield?
Grewal was really concerned to stall any investigation into allegations he was taking campaign donations in exchange for helping with the immigration process. At one point he says very clearly that he wants to do something about that irrespective of whatever else happens.
Now the whole mess is being turned over to the Queen's Cowboys. I always thought that was the thing to do from the outset.
But here's the Homer Simpson part of it - Grewal is now going to be investigated for his ethical behaviour in soliciting favours from government and taping members without their knowledge.
Is Grewal from India or Springfield?
01 June 2005
More than a good poll and an announcement a week
People who look at politics from the outside often focus on the stuff that they can see.
In looking at the pending changes in the provincial Liberal leadership, it's no surprise, therefore that reporters may sometimes focus on things like the supposed "bounce" in public opinion numbers that comes from a leadership fight or how a candidate might appear.
Craig Westcott and David Cochrane's comments this morning on CBC Radio by and large fall into the category of looking at what can be seen rather than looking beyond the substance.
Westcott, in particular, focused on the superficial, pointing to St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker as the brightest prospect to replace Roger Grimes. Westcott pointed to her aggressive style, her attractiveness and her profile as a way of drawing attention to the Liberal Party - likely from a media standpoint - and perhaps luring out the misogynistic comments from Conservatives that would give good copy.
What Westcott misses is the obvious in this case: Baker would make an excellent candidate. But there is nothing - absolutely nothing - in her background that would suggest she has the ability to tackle the real job of leading a political party, let alone leading the province.
He pointed, as many do, to finding someone to take on Danny Williams. This also focuses on the superficial - the "appearance" of a strong leader in the way that Latin American politics used to focus on the caudillo or strong-man around whom all rally. Much of our political history is told through an emphasis on individual leaders so there is an apparent justification for this approach. Unfortunately how the story gets told by people who, again by and large, see things from the outside, misses the details that tell the real story.
The easiest example to illustrate the genuine issue comes from Clyde Wells. Lured back into politics in 1987, Wells took two full years to rebuild the party. He and the team he brought worked on district organization, provincial organization, recruiting candidates, recruiting volunteers and amassing a war chest of cash to fight an election.
Even with a party that was tottering and tired, the 1989 election was not an easy fight. But the party won; Wells himself lost his bid for a seat. It was really not until several years after the 1989 election that people started to focus on him individually as opposed to the Liberal party and the whole cabinet. That shift in focus was driven by the media looking for a convenient carrier of their explanations - not on how the party actually ran or what won the 1989 election.
When Wells left politics in 1996, he left as well a party that was well-organized with strong grass-roots district organization. Cash was in good shape and there was a stable of strong ministers, strong caucus members and others ready to come forward as candidates.
By 1999, his successor Brian Tobin - the classic charming caudillo - led a party that was showing signs of wear. The district organizations were weaker, in particular and there was growing alienation borne of Tobin's style. Fully 18 seats were contests that should never have been and six were set to go Tory. In the end, Tobin lost three seats in areas where the party out to have been invincible, but more importantly, the party had shifted its strategic messages no fewer than three times during the campaign to counteract its own evident strategic mistakes. Tobin's political philosophy, characterized by one wag as "an announcement a week and a good poll", was obviously not good enough.
Tobin's successor emerged from a leadership convention nominally in charge but in fact bearing the burden left by Tobin's lack of organizational ability. The party was heavily in debt. John Efford's candidacy revealed the depth of the alienation in the rank and file at the caudillo approach. The party was largely worn down if not worn out by the evidence on flash over substance.
Flip across to the Tories in the same time frame and you see some of the same challenges. But here's one notable difference. At some point, the Tories started focusing on the sinews of the party. Ed Byrne's 1999 campaign against Tobin was a set piece of organization that ran as smoothly as these things can. Undecided voters - abnormally high right up to the debate - broke immediately after the debate and went, surprisingly to the Tories.
Whatever the Conservatives accomplished in 2003 had as much to do with the grunt-work of organization as it did anything else. When Danny Williams' campaign arrived it could slide in on top of a well-laid foundation. The results are well known.
In picking a new leader, the Liberal Party needs to look at more than the superficial. Reporters and other commentators would do well to follow the same approach, if nor no other reason than to give more insightful coverage to their audience.
The new leader will have to be an accomplished organizer who is able to re-build the party from the most basic levels. He or she must be able to create a team that can fight and hopefully win an election. The leader must have the depth to sweep away any outmoded ideas and forge a party which is genuinely a government-in-waiting.
The legacy of Tobinism is all around, best exemplified by those who believe - like Tobin minister Chuck Furey - that the convention should be as late as possible so that a "bounce" out of the convention would propel through the polls. Political success seldom, if ever, works that way in practice .
Political success cannot be pulled at the last minute from some bodily orifice. It comes from hard work, sweat and substance by a dedicated group built around a proven, capable leader.
Those who believe in pulling it out at the last minute seem to forget that what normally comes from that orifice is, by definition, refuse and has a consistency which does not bounce so much as splat in an ugly mess.
In looking at the pending changes in the provincial Liberal leadership, it's no surprise, therefore that reporters may sometimes focus on things like the supposed "bounce" in public opinion numbers that comes from a leadership fight or how a candidate might appear.
Craig Westcott and David Cochrane's comments this morning on CBC Radio by and large fall into the category of looking at what can be seen rather than looking beyond the substance.
Westcott, in particular, focused on the superficial, pointing to St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker as the brightest prospect to replace Roger Grimes. Westcott pointed to her aggressive style, her attractiveness and her profile as a way of drawing attention to the Liberal Party - likely from a media standpoint - and perhaps luring out the misogynistic comments from Conservatives that would give good copy.
What Westcott misses is the obvious in this case: Baker would make an excellent candidate. But there is nothing - absolutely nothing - in her background that would suggest she has the ability to tackle the real job of leading a political party, let alone leading the province.
He pointed, as many do, to finding someone to take on Danny Williams. This also focuses on the superficial - the "appearance" of a strong leader in the way that Latin American politics used to focus on the caudillo or strong-man around whom all rally. Much of our political history is told through an emphasis on individual leaders so there is an apparent justification for this approach. Unfortunately how the story gets told by people who, again by and large, see things from the outside, misses the details that tell the real story.
The easiest example to illustrate the genuine issue comes from Clyde Wells. Lured back into politics in 1987, Wells took two full years to rebuild the party. He and the team he brought worked on district organization, provincial organization, recruiting candidates, recruiting volunteers and amassing a war chest of cash to fight an election.
Even with a party that was tottering and tired, the 1989 election was not an easy fight. But the party won; Wells himself lost his bid for a seat. It was really not until several years after the 1989 election that people started to focus on him individually as opposed to the Liberal party and the whole cabinet. That shift in focus was driven by the media looking for a convenient carrier of their explanations - not on how the party actually ran or what won the 1989 election.
When Wells left politics in 1996, he left as well a party that was well-organized with strong grass-roots district organization. Cash was in good shape and there was a stable of strong ministers, strong caucus members and others ready to come forward as candidates.
By 1999, his successor Brian Tobin - the classic charming caudillo - led a party that was showing signs of wear. The district organizations were weaker, in particular and there was growing alienation borne of Tobin's style. Fully 18 seats were contests that should never have been and six were set to go Tory. In the end, Tobin lost three seats in areas where the party out to have been invincible, but more importantly, the party had shifted its strategic messages no fewer than three times during the campaign to counteract its own evident strategic mistakes. Tobin's political philosophy, characterized by one wag as "an announcement a week and a good poll", was obviously not good enough.
Tobin's successor emerged from a leadership convention nominally in charge but in fact bearing the burden left by Tobin's lack of organizational ability. The party was heavily in debt. John Efford's candidacy revealed the depth of the alienation in the rank and file at the caudillo approach. The party was largely worn down if not worn out by the evidence on flash over substance.
Flip across to the Tories in the same time frame and you see some of the same challenges. But here's one notable difference. At some point, the Tories started focusing on the sinews of the party. Ed Byrne's 1999 campaign against Tobin was a set piece of organization that ran as smoothly as these things can. Undecided voters - abnormally high right up to the debate - broke immediately after the debate and went, surprisingly to the Tories.
Whatever the Conservatives accomplished in 2003 had as much to do with the grunt-work of organization as it did anything else. When Danny Williams' campaign arrived it could slide in on top of a well-laid foundation. The results are well known.
In picking a new leader, the Liberal Party needs to look at more than the superficial. Reporters and other commentators would do well to follow the same approach, if nor no other reason than to give more insightful coverage to their audience.
The new leader will have to be an accomplished organizer who is able to re-build the party from the most basic levels. He or she must be able to create a team that can fight and hopefully win an election. The leader must have the depth to sweep away any outmoded ideas and forge a party which is genuinely a government-in-waiting.
The legacy of Tobinism is all around, best exemplified by those who believe - like Tobin minister Chuck Furey - that the convention should be as late as possible so that a "bounce" out of the convention would propel through the polls. Political success seldom, if ever, works that way in practice .
Political success cannot be pulled at the last minute from some bodily orifice. It comes from hard work, sweat and substance by a dedicated group built around a proven, capable leader.
Those who believe in pulling it out at the last minute seem to forget that what normally comes from that orifice is, by definition, refuse and has a consistency which does not bounce so much as splat in an ugly mess.
Clips the Lampoon won't show you
Here are a few clips from the Grewal tapes that Canadian Press and the National Lampoon missed.
Oddly they aren't highlighted in the original to make them easier to pick out and, curiously they don't support the story that there was some kind of deal going on here to lure Grewal to the Liberal cause.
What there was - obviously - a discussion surrounding Grewal crossing the floor. And it would come as no surprise that the prime minister was briefed on the matter or even prepared to meet with the defector once he had committed to crossing the floor.
So where's the story here?
Simple answer is, beyond the innuendo, there isn't a story, certainly not one that has beaten out the Belinda Stronach defection. Hey guys, everything you are reporting so far matches with Stronach: defector makes contact. Liberals talk with defector. Defector crosses floor and has newser with prime minister.
Sheesh: does anyone read his or her own copy?
Anyway here are some other quotes worth noting:
On Grewal's motives:
Grewal: I agree but why I am doing if it is that it is good for the country and good for all of us. Probably.
Tim: Yeah.
- Gurmant Grewal to Tim Murphy
We want to talk with goodwill, it [the investigation into allegations against Grewal on immigration] is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do.
- Gurmant Grewal to Ujjal Dosanj
I wonder what other juicy tidbits are being withheld, or as might be more likely the case, are completely misrepresented in the transcript that make it clear there was no criminal activity here and that Grewal was looking to cross the floor on his own:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Oddly they aren't highlighted in the original to make them easier to pick out and, curiously they don't support the story that there was some kind of deal going on here to lure Grewal to the Liberal cause.
What there was - obviously - a discussion surrounding Grewal crossing the floor. And it would come as no surprise that the prime minister was briefed on the matter or even prepared to meet with the defector once he had committed to crossing the floor.
So where's the story here?
Simple answer is, beyond the innuendo, there isn't a story, certainly not one that has beaten out the Belinda Stronach defection. Hey guys, everything you are reporting so far matches with Stronach: defector makes contact. Liberals talk with defector. Defector crosses floor and has newser with prime minister.
Sheesh: does anyone read his or her own copy?
Anyway here are some other quotes worth noting:
On Grewal's motives:
Grewal: I agree but why I am doing if it is that it is good for the country and good for all of us. Probably.
Tim: Yeah.
- Gurmant Grewal to Tim Murphy
We want to talk with goodwill, it [the investigation into allegations against Grewal on immigration] is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do.
- Gurmant Grewal to Ujjal Dosanj
I wonder what other juicy tidbits are being withheld, or as might be more likely the case, are completely misrepresented in the transcript that make it clear there was no criminal activity here and that Grewal was looking to cross the floor on his own:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Grewal transcripts wrong. Updated
Careful listening to the audio tapes released by Gurmant Grewal today show significant errors in the transcript provided on the Connie parliamentarian's website.
Following is a revised portion of the transcripts based on the audio files downloaded from Grewal's site.
Extract begins:
UD[Ujjal Dosanj]: Tim told me to call. I think, as I said earlier, no PRIME MINISTER would ever want to compromise himself with that kind of appropriate (?) because he want to be able to say, "‘I did not make a deal in it, there was no deal’." [incorrect Grewal transcription] "I didn't make a deal with anybody. There was no deal." [corrected version] You came and we accepted you, if that happens. If you want to be able to say that honestly. That'’s why I was suggesting you what I was suggesting you.[word added] That was the difficulty that Tim had. And you saw that. I think from my perspective, I told you about [words omitted by transcriber] that's the way how my conversation went with the PRIME MINISTER, when I came to the Liberals. [words added by transcriber] You know we have Scott Brison, he essentially [word omitted] came as a back bencher, stayed a back bencher, then he was a parliamentary [words omitted by transcriber] PRIME MINISTER'’s [word added/substituted by transcriber] secretary.
GG [Gurmant Grewal]: No, he came directly.
UD: Not to the cabinet.
GG: OK
UD He was made parliamentary secretary.
UD Depends... and you know that'’s how the deals are made [words inserted by transcriber] these things happen. [clearly audible words omitted by transcriber] I think I just wanted to call you that to let you know the conditions that you should talk to me should you decide. If you don't decide then we should leave it. You wanna -inaudible - but you don't want to face the attack (?) and I want to make sure that's how it is -inaudible - and I think you need to really seriously think about the understanding...about how these things happen. It's a matter of trust...then it's a matter of the prime minister being able to appropriately deal with these issues when the time is right. [audible section omitted by transcriber. Note: Grewal repeatedly mutters "uh huh" to indicate he is listening.]
- Inaudible -
UD: PRIME MINISTER can never say I will give you X and then say [words omitted by transcriber] is never going to say to you that [words added/substituted by transcriber] that I never said that. You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That'’s very important. That'’s why this these ["this" = incorrect word by transcriber] kinds of deals are not made in that fashion. If you think about it, if you think it is appropriate -inaudible portion -
GG - inaudible -
UD: Then the understanding has to be one together [words omitted by transcriber] and then if there is an understanding. ...Volpe would not be difficult. The ethics commissioner, there is nothing we can do. It is independent thing and must remain independent. [words omitted by transcriber]
-inaudible- [punjabi conversation??]
GG: We want to talk with goodwill, it is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do. [The words "irrespective of what we do" stand out, suggesting Grewal was focusing on the immigration issue as his main objective. The Globe story this evening points to allegations that Grewal was accepting cash in exchange for expediting immigration matters. Hmm. Soliciting political influence to avoid a possible embarrassing investigation by the ethics commissioner, Mr. Grewal? Say it ain't so.]
UD: Volpe, will talk with him, but it will be.. [There is an audible portion of the tape in which Dosanj makes reference to the issue with Joe Volpe. Donsanj quite clearly indicates that there can be no promise because Volpe might say "I am right and you are wrong and then we will have to persuade him..." This is rendered incorrectly in the Connie version.]
Extract ends
Here are some general observations:
1. The translation sucks. Even someone who does not speak Punjabi can notice that the Punjabi to English translations are extremely poor - poor to the point that one wonders what the heck might be missing of substance and context from the conversations.
2. The Blackberry log on the portion involving Sudesh Kalia doesn't match the set of transcripts made available. There are calls on 18 May for example - several of them - that weren't released.
3. We also don't have the calls Grewal made to others. The SK log of calls also shows calls being made by Grewal to SK. Where are they?
4. In the portion of the calls related to discussions between health minister Ujjal Dosanj and Grewal, the phrase "prime minister" is inexplicably rendered in all caps. The ONLY reason to do this is EMPHASIS. But since the sections refer to a prime minister wishing to distance himself from the arrangement, one wonders what the heck the purpose would be of this mucking about other than to draw unnecessary attention to the prime minister.
5. Chunks of Dosanj's comments are inaudible or barely audible. The audio quality on the tapes of chats with Dosanj is as poor as it gets. Only a sophisticated audio process - such as the police might employ could sort out some of the comments that can't be heard by the unaided ear. Funny that Grewal hasn't turned over all his "evidence" to the police since he is alleging a crime took place.
6. There are some huge problems with dates. Grewal went public with his allegations on 18 May, yet this tape has some conversations taking place that same day. In one tape - the Murphy in Grewal office tape - the conversation supposedly takes place on the 18th according to the Grewal site. Yet for that to be true, it would have occurred on the same day Grewal went public.
Strangely, in the audio tape - which is a small portion of the transcript - Murphy makes no reference at all to Stronach even though her crossing would have taken place the day before. Instead, Murphy makes a cryptic reference to other members of the Conservative caucus he refuses to name. It is surreal to think that Grewal would have been able to meet openly in his office with the Prime Minister's chief of staff the day after Belinda kicked Stephen in the political goolies.
7. The bits that are audible are rendered so inaccurately in places that one wonders if they were not deliberately - albeit clumsily - altered. Perhaps they are hoping the media won't think twice about the "evidence".
8. Let's be clear about this, though: even if the audio tapes from Grewal are not perfectly clear, the omissions and additions to the transcript significantly alter the tone of the conversation between Dosanj and Grewal, for example.
The same can be said of the conversations between Tim Murphy and Grewal about the matter being discussed related to Joe Volpe. Murphy is clear that the process must be allowed to proceed and, implicitly, that there cannot be interference. Try and find that in the transcript. There are also bits of conversation which are plainly audible - arranging meetings for example - that are inexplicably left out of the transcript.
9. References to the prime minister have been inserted where other words are clearly used. Other sections, where Dosanj makes it unequivocally clear that there can not be a deal to cross the floor in exchange for something have been left out even though these sections are audible to a careful listener.
10. Let's also be clear that there is absolutely no evidence provided here that there was ever an offer of any favour in exchange for Grewal crossing the floor. In fact, both Dosanj and Murphy explicitly reject the notion. They do point to the possibility of some consideration being given down the road to an appointment or position, but this is the type of thing that any caucus member might expect.
11. It is easy to see that Murphy and Dosanj are suspicious of Grewal's motives - and rightly so. They are playing the whole thing as straight as possible, if for no other reason than because Grewal is a very small and largely insignificant fish. Belinda Stronach, on the other hand, was a major catch but again - there is no evidence of any inducement for her to change parties.
12. By the way, can someone explain why this transcription of the conversations with Dosanj translates a garbled Punjabi comment with the words Belinda Stronach that appear to have taken place before Grewal would have known about her conversations with the Liberals? More particularly, it would seem odd in the context that this conversation took place the same day or the day after Grewal went public yet the comments by Donsanj focus on Scott Brison and not Belinda Stronach.
Turn the whole thing over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Grewal, his wife and whoever else is foisting this story on the country had better be ready to resign in disgrace if the edits on the transcript - poorly executed as they are - turn out to be but the tip of the iceberg in what I am still convinced is a Grewal scam.
Following is a revised portion of the transcripts based on the audio files downloaded from Grewal's site.
Extract begins:
UD[Ujjal Dosanj]: Tim told me to call. I think, as I said earlier, no PRIME MINISTER would ever want to compromise himself with that kind of appropriate (?) because he want to be able to say, "‘I did not make a deal in it, there was no deal’." [incorrect Grewal transcription] "I didn't make a deal with anybody. There was no deal." [corrected version] You came and we accepted you, if that happens. If you want to be able to say that honestly. That'’s why I was suggesting you what I was suggesting you.[word added] That was the difficulty that Tim had. And you saw that. I think from my perspective, I told you about [words omitted by transcriber] that's the way how my conversation went with the PRIME MINISTER, when I came to the Liberals. [words added by transcriber] You know we have Scott Brison, he essentially [word omitted] came as a back bencher, stayed a back bencher, then he was a parliamentary [words omitted by transcriber] PRIME MINISTER'’s [word added/substituted by transcriber] secretary.
GG [Gurmant Grewal]: No, he came directly.
UD: Not to the cabinet.
GG: OK
UD He was made parliamentary secretary.
UD Depends... and you know that'’s how the deals are made [words inserted by transcriber] these things happen. [clearly audible words omitted by transcriber] I think I just wanted to call you that to let you know the conditions that you should talk to me should you decide. If you don't decide then we should leave it. You wanna -inaudible - but you don't want to face the attack (?) and I want to make sure that's how it is -inaudible - and I think you need to really seriously think about the understanding...about how these things happen. It's a matter of trust...then it's a matter of the prime minister being able to appropriately deal with these issues when the time is right. [audible section omitted by transcriber. Note: Grewal repeatedly mutters "uh huh" to indicate he is listening.]
- Inaudible -
UD: PRIME MINISTER can never say I will give you X and then say [words omitted by transcriber] is never going to say to you that [words added/substituted by transcriber] that I never said that. You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That'’s very important. That'’s why this these ["this" = incorrect word by transcriber] kinds of deals are not made in that fashion. If you think about it, if you think it is appropriate -inaudible portion -
GG - inaudible -
UD: Then the understanding has to be one together [words omitted by transcriber] and then if there is an understanding. ...Volpe would not be difficult. The ethics commissioner, there is nothing we can do. It is independent thing and must remain independent. [words omitted by transcriber]
-inaudible- [punjabi conversation??]
GG: We want to talk with goodwill, it is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do. [The words "irrespective of what we do" stand out, suggesting Grewal was focusing on the immigration issue as his main objective. The Globe story this evening points to allegations that Grewal was accepting cash in exchange for expediting immigration matters. Hmm. Soliciting political influence to avoid a possible embarrassing investigation by the ethics commissioner, Mr. Grewal? Say it ain't so.]
UD: Volpe, will talk with him, but it will be.. [There is an audible portion of the tape in which Dosanj makes reference to the issue with Joe Volpe. Donsanj quite clearly indicates that there can be no promise because Volpe might say "I am right and you are wrong and then we will have to persuade him..." This is rendered incorrectly in the Connie version.]
Extract ends
Here are some general observations:
1. The translation sucks. Even someone who does not speak Punjabi can notice that the Punjabi to English translations are extremely poor - poor to the point that one wonders what the heck might be missing of substance and context from the conversations.
2. The Blackberry log on the portion involving Sudesh Kalia doesn't match the set of transcripts made available. There are calls on 18 May for example - several of them - that weren't released.
3. We also don't have the calls Grewal made to others. The SK log of calls also shows calls being made by Grewal to SK. Where are they?
4. In the portion of the calls related to discussions between health minister Ujjal Dosanj and Grewal, the phrase "prime minister" is inexplicably rendered in all caps. The ONLY reason to do this is EMPHASIS. But since the sections refer to a prime minister wishing to distance himself from the arrangement, one wonders what the heck the purpose would be of this mucking about other than to draw unnecessary attention to the prime minister.
5. Chunks of Dosanj's comments are inaudible or barely audible. The audio quality on the tapes of chats with Dosanj is as poor as it gets. Only a sophisticated audio process - such as the police might employ could sort out some of the comments that can't be heard by the unaided ear. Funny that Grewal hasn't turned over all his "evidence" to the police since he is alleging a crime took place.
6. There are some huge problems with dates. Grewal went public with his allegations on 18 May, yet this tape has some conversations taking place that same day. In one tape - the Murphy in Grewal office tape - the conversation supposedly takes place on the 18th according to the Grewal site. Yet for that to be true, it would have occurred on the same day Grewal went public.
Strangely, in the audio tape - which is a small portion of the transcript - Murphy makes no reference at all to Stronach even though her crossing would have taken place the day before. Instead, Murphy makes a cryptic reference to other members of the Conservative caucus he refuses to name. It is surreal to think that Grewal would have been able to meet openly in his office with the Prime Minister's chief of staff the day after Belinda kicked Stephen in the political goolies.
7. The bits that are audible are rendered so inaccurately in places that one wonders if they were not deliberately - albeit clumsily - altered. Perhaps they are hoping the media won't think twice about the "evidence".
8. Let's be clear about this, though: even if the audio tapes from Grewal are not perfectly clear, the omissions and additions to the transcript significantly alter the tone of the conversation between Dosanj and Grewal, for example.
The same can be said of the conversations between Tim Murphy and Grewal about the matter being discussed related to Joe Volpe. Murphy is clear that the process must be allowed to proceed and, implicitly, that there cannot be interference. Try and find that in the transcript. There are also bits of conversation which are plainly audible - arranging meetings for example - that are inexplicably left out of the transcript.
9. References to the prime minister have been inserted where other words are clearly used. Other sections, where Dosanj makes it unequivocally clear that there can not be a deal to cross the floor in exchange for something have been left out even though these sections are audible to a careful listener.
10. Let's also be clear that there is absolutely no evidence provided here that there was ever an offer of any favour in exchange for Grewal crossing the floor. In fact, both Dosanj and Murphy explicitly reject the notion. They do point to the possibility of some consideration being given down the road to an appointment or position, but this is the type of thing that any caucus member might expect.
11. It is easy to see that Murphy and Dosanj are suspicious of Grewal's motives - and rightly so. They are playing the whole thing as straight as possible, if for no other reason than because Grewal is a very small and largely insignificant fish. Belinda Stronach, on the other hand, was a major catch but again - there is no evidence of any inducement for her to change parties.
12. By the way, can someone explain why this transcription of the conversations with Dosanj translates a garbled Punjabi comment with the words Belinda Stronach that appear to have taken place before Grewal would have known about her conversations with the Liberals? More particularly, it would seem odd in the context that this conversation took place the same day or the day after Grewal went public yet the comments by Donsanj focus on Scott Brison and not Belinda Stronach.
Turn the whole thing over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Grewal, his wife and whoever else is foisting this story on the country had better be ready to resign in disgrace if the edits on the transcript - poorly executed as they are - turn out to be but the tip of the iceberg in what I am still convinced is a Grewal scam.
31 May 2005
No fiscal imbalance, says AIMS head
Here's a link to comments by Brian Crowley of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies on the so-called fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provincial governments.
"Now, a case has been made, Mr. Chairman, by a number of commentators on provincial government that there exists a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, by which I think they mean there is a mismatch between what the two levels of government are called to do under the Constitution, on the one hand, and the fiscal resources that they currently enjoy to carry out those responsibilities, on the other. In other words, Ottawa has too much cash relative to its responsibilities, and the provinces too little, and furthermore, the excess of cash at the federal level is the cause of the fiscal shortfall at the provincial level.
Now, before we rush to find solutions to that problem, it's important to determine whether the premises that define that problem are in fact correct, and I intend to make the case this morning, Mr. Chairman, that those premises are faulty, that the provinces have adequate resources at their disposal, including room to raise taxes, that Ottawa's surpluses are the proper reward to the federal government for its fiscal virtue, and that Ottawa's improved fiscal position is in no way at the expense of the provinces." [Emphasis added]
"Now, a case has been made, Mr. Chairman, by a number of commentators on provincial government that there exists a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, by which I think they mean there is a mismatch between what the two levels of government are called to do under the Constitution, on the one hand, and the fiscal resources that they currently enjoy to carry out those responsibilities, on the other. In other words, Ottawa has too much cash relative to its responsibilities, and the provinces too little, and furthermore, the excess of cash at the federal level is the cause of the fiscal shortfall at the provincial level.
Now, before we rush to find solutions to that problem, it's important to determine whether the premises that define that problem are in fact correct, and I intend to make the case this morning, Mr. Chairman, that those premises are faulty, that the provinces have adequate resources at their disposal, including room to raise taxes, that Ottawa's surpluses are the proper reward to the federal government for its fiscal virtue, and that Ottawa's improved fiscal position is in no way at the expense of the provinces." [Emphasis added]
30 May 2005
Hearn continues to fight his own party
No one should ignore the fact that Loyola Hearn's plan to have the finance committee separate the offshore revenue deal from the main budget motion basically puts him at odds with his own party's plan to keep the budget from passing by any means necessary.
Canadian Press is reporting the Connies plan a number of measures to slow the House and in the finance committee have talked of calling witnesses to slow review of the budget bills.
Mr. Hearn's position, therefore is nothing short of pathetic, not because of Mr. Hearn but because of his party.
Mr. Hearn is now so desperate to garner whatever votes he can in anticipation of an election, he is trying to break off whatever parts of the budget he needs in order to keep them from being crushed by the Connie rush to the polls. Or is it the lemmings rush to the precipice?
If the Connies would just stop playing procedural games, the money would be on the way by the end of next month.
Canadian Press is reporting the Connies plan a number of measures to slow the House and in the finance committee have talked of calling witnesses to slow review of the budget bills.
Mr. Hearn's position, therefore is nothing short of pathetic, not because of Mr. Hearn but because of his party.
Mr. Hearn is now so desperate to garner whatever votes he can in anticipation of an election, he is trying to break off whatever parts of the budget he needs in order to keep them from being crushed by the Connie rush to the polls. Or is it the lemmings rush to the precipice?
If the Connies would just stop playing procedural games, the money would be on the way by the end of next month.
National Conservative Lunacy
As the House heads back after a weeklong break, everyone who thought the confidence games were over in the Commons is finding out that the Connies intended to keep up their tactics.
The finance committee intends to stall the budget.
But for what purpose?
It is one thing to exercise power, but merely to become sand in the gears of government makes a political party look pretty lame. Their message is: "We want an election and we are prepared to pour crazy glue in every lock in the building to get our way. Oh yeah and we want to be the government, too."
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Then you have to look at the latest poll, this one by Decima.
Decima confirms other polls that show the Liberals decisively in front of the Connies nationally and in the battleground in Ontario.
The Decima poll also shows that almost half the sample have switched their vote choice in the past month. Look closely though, the biggest group of switchers are low-income women and they are moving between Liberals and NDP - NOT the Connies.
Decima concludes this is good for the Connies.
Only in the minds of the Connie game theorists. That level of volatility is hard to manage, but more importantly, it is highly vulnerable to the kind of messaging that normally causes the NDP vote to collapse and for those voters to stream to the polling booths in order to keep Stephen Harper out of 24 Sussex.
No matter how much low income women may find difficulty with Liberals, they have a much harder time living with Connies.
The finance committee intends to stall the budget.
But for what purpose?
It is one thing to exercise power, but merely to become sand in the gears of government makes a political party look pretty lame. Their message is: "We want an election and we are prepared to pour crazy glue in every lock in the building to get our way. Oh yeah and we want to be the government, too."
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Then you have to look at the latest poll, this one by Decima.
Decima confirms other polls that show the Liberals decisively in front of the Connies nationally and in the battleground in Ontario.
The Decima poll also shows that almost half the sample have switched their vote choice in the past month. Look closely though, the biggest group of switchers are low-income women and they are moving between Liberals and NDP - NOT the Connies.
Decima concludes this is good for the Connies.
Only in the minds of the Connie game theorists. That level of volatility is hard to manage, but more importantly, it is highly vulnerable to the kind of messaging that normally causes the NDP vote to collapse and for those voters to stream to the polling booths in order to keep Stephen Harper out of 24 Sussex.
No matter how much low income women may find difficulty with Liberals, they have a much harder time living with Connies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)