Well-informed, pithy and at times, hysterically funny.
Welcome to the blog world, Mark Watton.
30 November 2005
SES Research - the pollster to watch
Building on the success of analysis for the Canadian parliamentary channel CPAC, pollster SES Research is launching a new nightly tracking survey during this election.
To keep abreast of the latest, accurate numbers, tune in or go to the the SES website.
To keep abreast of the latest, accurate numbers, tune in or go to the the SES website.
Rolling in the aisles
That's what voters in Newfoundland and Labrador will be doing when they read the story from the Globe and Mail that the federal Conservatives have targeted the riding of Avalon as a seat they can win in the upcoming election.
Minor problem: the Conservatives don't have a candidate there yet - despite obvious signs that john Efford wasn't running again. Last time things were so desperate that even John Crosbie mused about coming back to elected politics. That is, he mused about it until his wife, Jane, got wind of the windy former minister's bluster. Crosbie quickly pulled his horns in and went back to writing bitter tripe for a mainland newspaper chain that also boasts the wit if not the wisdom of bitter former cabinet minister Sheila Copps.
Popular local member of the House of Assembly Fabian Manning is being courted by the federal Conservatives. Outside the legislature the other day Manning gave a dozen solid reasons why he wouldn't seek the nomination. Then, Manning said he was still 50/50 and thinking about it. Unless Harper makes Fabe an offer he can't refuse, count on Manning staying put.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives held onto their two seats in Newfoundland and Labrador by a mere five percent last time out. Incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle took a drubbing after the election for their stance on the offshore revenue deal. They voted for it before they voted against it and that tested the tolerance of even some staunch Tories.
Such was the din of disapproval that Hearn mused about going off fishing rather than run again. Doyle blamed "Liberal spin doctors" in St. John's for his problems. Try as I might, I couldn't get Norm to blame me personally.
If nothing else, the Globe piece represents putting a brave face on things. Go back to the polls and check the seat counters. Every scenario based on current numbers show the Conservatives losing seats in this election. Even in the Globe story, the Connie insiders admit that they expect to lose seats in the West to New Democrats.
They may lose seats in other places too, just like it is possible the Conservatives will pick up a bunch. If it nets out to fewer seats on The Day, then this election may well have been for naught.
Minor problem: the Conservatives don't have a candidate there yet - despite obvious signs that john Efford wasn't running again. Last time things were so desperate that even John Crosbie mused about coming back to elected politics. That is, he mused about it until his wife, Jane, got wind of the windy former minister's bluster. Crosbie quickly pulled his horns in and went back to writing bitter tripe for a mainland newspaper chain that also boasts the wit if not the wisdom of bitter former cabinet minister Sheila Copps.
Popular local member of the House of Assembly Fabian Manning is being courted by the federal Conservatives. Outside the legislature the other day Manning gave a dozen solid reasons why he wouldn't seek the nomination. Then, Manning said he was still 50/50 and thinking about it. Unless Harper makes Fabe an offer he can't refuse, count on Manning staying put.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives held onto their two seats in Newfoundland and Labrador by a mere five percent last time out. Incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle took a drubbing after the election for their stance on the offshore revenue deal. They voted for it before they voted against it and that tested the tolerance of even some staunch Tories.
Such was the din of disapproval that Hearn mused about going off fishing rather than run again. Doyle blamed "Liberal spin doctors" in St. John's for his problems. Try as I might, I couldn't get Norm to blame me personally.
If nothing else, the Globe piece represents putting a brave face on things. Go back to the polls and check the seat counters. Every scenario based on current numbers show the Conservatives losing seats in this election. Even in the Globe story, the Connie insiders admit that they expect to lose seats in the West to New Democrats.
They may lose seats in other places too, just like it is possible the Conservatives will pick up a bunch. If it nets out to fewer seats on The Day, then this election may well have been for naught.
Election notes on a slow second day
Grewal is out. Geez, what a surprise.
Harper plans to campaign on cleaning up government, getting tough on crime and lowering taxes.
When you look at those three items (oh yeah and he mentioned Gomery but not by name), consider the poll by the Strategic Counsel and the issues that are important to Canadians. Corruption is the second largest issue for Canadians, but only 13% of Canadians. taxes are a concern for 5% of those polled. That's it. 5%. 'Tough on crime" or anything like it doesn't register.
Now in the past, some Connie bloggers have taken to bashing Allan Gregg over the head for being a sell-out. That is, they bash him when his polls give them numbers they don't like. I just note that the correlations or in some cases lack of correlations are interesting.
For my part, I am not sure that any of these points are vote tippers - that is, I am not sure which ones are the basis on which people will tip their vote one way or another.
Then over at CTV, you can find this comment from the Conservative leader on re-opening the equal marriage debate. Note the comment that Harper brought the issue up after his staff cut off the question period. It's a safe issue for Harper: Connies love it and he doesn't lose any votes by sticking with it. By contrast, shifting his position would mean that he'd actually lose the hard-core right wing, on which the whole right movement is built. Heck, he'd even have nominated candidates walking away from him if he stood up for equal marriage.
While I may disagree with his his stand, Harper's political posture is smart politics for him.
Meanwhile, the Globe is putting a dark cast on the story, highlighting the problems with re-opening a contentious issue from the last election. The National Lampoon is telling it as a great move forward, by protecting gay couples who are already married, even if parliament at some undefined point decides to repeal the equal marriage bill.
Harper plans to campaign on cleaning up government, getting tough on crime and lowering taxes.
When you look at those three items (oh yeah and he mentioned Gomery but not by name), consider the poll by the Strategic Counsel and the issues that are important to Canadians. Corruption is the second largest issue for Canadians, but only 13% of Canadians. taxes are a concern for 5% of those polled. That's it. 5%. 'Tough on crime" or anything like it doesn't register.
Now in the past, some Connie bloggers have taken to bashing Allan Gregg over the head for being a sell-out. That is, they bash him when his polls give them numbers they don't like. I just note that the correlations or in some cases lack of correlations are interesting.
For my part, I am not sure that any of these points are vote tippers - that is, I am not sure which ones are the basis on which people will tip their vote one way or another.
Then over at CTV, you can find this comment from the Conservative leader on re-opening the equal marriage debate. Note the comment that Harper brought the issue up after his staff cut off the question period. It's a safe issue for Harper: Connies love it and he doesn't lose any votes by sticking with it. By contrast, shifting his position would mean that he'd actually lose the hard-core right wing, on which the whole right movement is built. Heck, he'd even have nominated candidates walking away from him if he stood up for equal marriage.
While I may disagree with his his stand, Harper's political posture is smart politics for him.
Meanwhile, the Globe is putting a dark cast on the story, highlighting the problems with re-opening a contentious issue from the last election. The National Lampoon is telling it as a great move forward, by protecting gay couples who are already married, even if parliament at some undefined point decides to repeal the equal marriage bill.
29 November 2005
Rain Man needs some help deciding
Loyola Sullivan, known to some as the Rain Man for his ability to rattle off figures like ""about a hundred million dollars. uh huh. a hundred million dollars" without really saying anything, got some big help today from auditor general John Noseworthy.
The AG made some really obvious but sensible suggestions about the uses to which the offshore revenue windfall could be put. They are obvious to anyone except, maybe, the Rain Man.
Noseworthy noted that as it currently sits in the bank, the offshore cash is earning interest at a rate of about $60 million annually. Putting that cash toward the unfunded pension liabilities would produce an additional $90 million (or a total of $150 million per year) than can be directed to program spending or used to pay down the long-term debt.
In a media scrum outside the legislature, a grinning Sullivan said he has made recommendations to cabinet on how to dispose of "surplus cash" the government may have on hand. Truthfully, it is hard to know what Sullivan has to grin about.
First of all, he should have developed a plan for debt and deficit reduction - and announced it - long before now.
Second, his talk of "surplus cash" makes a mockery of his own announcement within the past few weeks that he had eliminated the current deficit and produce a surplus - overall - of less than $2.0 million. Sullivan's previous statement made it appear as though the cash surplus this year of well over $300 million by year end - had already been allocated and spent.
His comments today confirm the point made on the Bond Papers that in fact, Sullivan had erroneously hinted that he had no surplus on a cash basis. Face it, if there was no surplus cash - or very little - then there'd be no need for a cabinet paper.
Third, there is every sign that other cabinet ministers including the Premier have covetous eyes on the offshore cash. And that is the truly alarming prospect, as noted ">here previously. We will have considerable pressure to spend our future coming from within the provincial government. It might be too late for Loyola Sullivan to take good advice and do what is in the long term best interest of the province.
His fascination with numbers and decimal points seems to have overshadowed his ability to develop a sound plan and get on with the real job of a cabinet minister - making decisions.
The rain Man got some free advice today.
He should take advice from John Noseworthy and get on with the job of being finance minister...
rather than patting himself on the back when it suits his purpose and trotting out large numbers to frighten people when that suits his purpose.
Then Sullivan would have something to grin about.
And so would the rest of us.
The AG made some really obvious but sensible suggestions about the uses to which the offshore revenue windfall could be put. They are obvious to anyone except, maybe, the Rain Man.
Noseworthy noted that as it currently sits in the bank, the offshore cash is earning interest at a rate of about $60 million annually. Putting that cash toward the unfunded pension liabilities would produce an additional $90 million (or a total of $150 million per year) than can be directed to program spending or used to pay down the long-term debt.
In a media scrum outside the legislature, a grinning Sullivan said he has made recommendations to cabinet on how to dispose of "surplus cash" the government may have on hand. Truthfully, it is hard to know what Sullivan has to grin about.
First of all, he should have developed a plan for debt and deficit reduction - and announced it - long before now.
Second, his talk of "surplus cash" makes a mockery of his own announcement within the past few weeks that he had eliminated the current deficit and produce a surplus - overall - of less than $2.0 million. Sullivan's previous statement made it appear as though the cash surplus this year of well over $300 million by year end - had already been allocated and spent.
His comments today confirm the point made on the Bond Papers that in fact, Sullivan had erroneously hinted that he had no surplus on a cash basis. Face it, if there was no surplus cash - or very little - then there'd be no need for a cabinet paper.
Third, there is every sign that other cabinet ministers including the Premier have covetous eyes on the offshore cash. And that is the truly alarming prospect, as noted ">here previously. We will have considerable pressure to spend our future coming from within the provincial government. It might be too late for Loyola Sullivan to take good advice and do what is in the long term best interest of the province.
His fascination with numbers and decimal points seems to have overshadowed his ability to develop a sound plan and get on with the real job of a cabinet minister - making decisions.
The rain Man got some free advice today.
He should take advice from John Noseworthy and get on with the job of being finance minister...
rather than patting himself on the back when it suits his purpose and trotting out large numbers to frighten people when that suits his purpose.
Then Sullivan would have something to grin about.
And so would the rest of us.
28 November 2005
Election madness
Without a shred of evidence other than a vague "suspicion", Conservative member of parliament Jason Kenney is calling for an investigation of supposed insider trading that preceded last week's announcement by the federal government on income tax policy.
Kenney has no evidence of anything.
He admits that.
Just to make sure there is absolutely no doubt about it, let's repeat that:
Kenney has absolutely no evidence of anything wrong here.
and he admits he has no evidence.
Yet he makes a claim that, at its heart, suggests criminal activity on part of officials in Ralph Goodale's office.
The New Democrats are chiming in with the same call.
And the same absence of evidence.
As Canadian Press notes, there was a great deal of speculation in advance of the announcement, which took place after trading closed for the day.
However, speculation is what the stock market is all about. Changes in trading patterns don't necessarily mean anyone is up to anything criminal.
Meanwhile, both the police forces and the securities regulatory bodies in the country spend a lot of time keeping an eye out for just the sort of illegal activity Kenney is talking about. If they had any suspicions then, rest assured, they'd be all over this little situation.
As it is, all we have is taste of the utter insanity of the forthcoming election campaign.
People will be claiming all sorts of things without any evidence.
Sadly, we can likely also expect yet more of the "Libranos" and "Liberals = organized crime" crap that has been streaming from the Conservative benches for months.
Go back a few days and check the latest poll results, as well as the likely results, and you'll understand why the Conservative messaging is taking on an increasingly shrill tone. Compare it to the New Democrats' comments.
With the exception of the "Hey, I am implying criminal action but denying I am implying criminal action" stuff, the Dippers have been decidedly less shrill than their Connie partners.
Kenney has no evidence of anything.
He admits that.
Just to make sure there is absolutely no doubt about it, let's repeat that:
Kenney has absolutely no evidence of anything wrong here.
and he admits he has no evidence.
Yet he makes a claim that, at its heart, suggests criminal activity on part of officials in Ralph Goodale's office.
The New Democrats are chiming in with the same call.
And the same absence of evidence.
As Canadian Press notes, there was a great deal of speculation in advance of the announcement, which took place after trading closed for the day.
However, speculation is what the stock market is all about. Changes in trading patterns don't necessarily mean anyone is up to anything criminal.
Meanwhile, both the police forces and the securities regulatory bodies in the country spend a lot of time keeping an eye out for just the sort of illegal activity Kenney is talking about. If they had any suspicions then, rest assured, they'd be all over this little situation.
As it is, all we have is taste of the utter insanity of the forthcoming election campaign.
People will be claiming all sorts of things without any evidence.
Sadly, we can likely also expect yet more of the "Libranos" and "Liberals = organized crime" crap that has been streaming from the Conservative benches for months.
Go back a few days and check the latest poll results, as well as the likely results, and you'll understand why the Conservative messaging is taking on an increasingly shrill tone. Compare it to the New Democrats' comments.
With the exception of the "Hey, I am implying criminal action but denying I am implying criminal action" stuff, the Dippers have been decidedly less shrill than their Connie partners.
The blame game, a lame game
Flip over to RGL and you'll see a lengthy commentary that backs Loyola Hearn's contention that the federal government, i.e. the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), is solely responsible for the collapse of the cod stocks and their failure to recover.
What Liam misses, or choses to ignore, is that the latest report from the Commons fisheries committee makes it clear that there is enough blame to go around for everyone in the fishery. It is misleading to adopt a narrow approach to the definition of "management" such that it ignores the political, social and economic context in which governments make decisions. That is, if we take a narrow approach, as Liam and Loyola do, then we are apt to repeat the same errors made in the past.
Liam may find it painful that the report actually does not support his own pet views. However, he cannot blame me for this by asserting that the fisheries committee's own conclusions, as quoted here already, are actually mine. The words I used are the words the committee used.
There is no small irony here that when DFO - actually politicians - make(s) bad decisions, as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s in response to political pressure, the federal government is pilloried. One example is the recreational fishery and limited commercial fishery that began in 1998. Then, when it makes good decisions - such as resisting the calls for a wider recreational fishery and wider commercial fishery, despite evidence that the fish stocks could not sustain the new fisheries - DFO is once again attacked for not responding to political pressure.
What the latest report also contains are some concrete proposals that would change the overall management system, which the committee calls dysfunctional. In other words, they identify the problem and propose a way to fix it or at least start to fix it. One such suggestion is the use of local fishermen's committees to work with DFO on setting quotas for certain species and in certain locales.
The success of this approach was noted in several previous posts. As usual, people seem to ignore good ideas in favour of playing the blame game.
And ultimately, the blame game is a fool's errand. Focusing on blame alone provides no guide to future action. Often, the solutions proposed merely repeat past errors or do nothing to make the substantive changes in fisheries management which the Commons committee clearly thinks are necessary.
This brings us back to the original post and comments by Loyola Hearn. The member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl may wish to blame the federal government for the cod collapse. If he does, then he should make it plain those are his conclusions. If he doesn't agree with the report, then he has the responsibility to table a dissenting opinion - supported by evidence.
The problem comes when Hearn tables a report that doesn't support his conclusions and makes comments to the media that are, at best, misleading. Then he is doing a disservice to everyone involved in the report and in the fishery.
And that was the point of the previous post.
It is a point that gets conveniently ignored by some, along with the mountains of clear evidence that demonstrate Hearn's ideas are not based on fact.
What Liam misses, or choses to ignore, is that the latest report from the Commons fisheries committee makes it clear that there is enough blame to go around for everyone in the fishery. It is misleading to adopt a narrow approach to the definition of "management" such that it ignores the political, social and economic context in which governments make decisions. That is, if we take a narrow approach, as Liam and Loyola do, then we are apt to repeat the same errors made in the past.
Liam may find it painful that the report actually does not support his own pet views. However, he cannot blame me for this by asserting that the fisheries committee's own conclusions, as quoted here already, are actually mine. The words I used are the words the committee used.
There is no small irony here that when DFO - actually politicians - make(s) bad decisions, as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s in response to political pressure, the federal government is pilloried. One example is the recreational fishery and limited commercial fishery that began in 1998. Then, when it makes good decisions - such as resisting the calls for a wider recreational fishery and wider commercial fishery, despite evidence that the fish stocks could not sustain the new fisheries - DFO is once again attacked for not responding to political pressure.
What the latest report also contains are some concrete proposals that would change the overall management system, which the committee calls dysfunctional. In other words, they identify the problem and propose a way to fix it or at least start to fix it. One such suggestion is the use of local fishermen's committees to work with DFO on setting quotas for certain species and in certain locales.
The success of this approach was noted in several previous posts. As usual, people seem to ignore good ideas in favour of playing the blame game.
And ultimately, the blame game is a fool's errand. Focusing on blame alone provides no guide to future action. Often, the solutions proposed merely repeat past errors or do nothing to make the substantive changes in fisheries management which the Commons committee clearly thinks are necessary.
This brings us back to the original post and comments by Loyola Hearn. The member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl may wish to blame the federal government for the cod collapse. If he does, then he should make it plain those are his conclusions. If he doesn't agree with the report, then he has the responsibility to table a dissenting opinion - supported by evidence.
The problem comes when Hearn tables a report that doesn't support his conclusions and makes comments to the media that are, at best, misleading. Then he is doing a disservice to everyone involved in the report and in the fishery.
And that was the point of the previous post.
It is a point that gets conveniently ignored by some, along with the mountains of clear evidence that demonstrate Hearn's ideas are not based on fact.
26 November 2005
The political fish
It is hard to know if VOCM got it wrong or if Loyola Hearn actually blamed federal mismanagement for the continued poor state of cod stocks offshore Newfoundland.
Hearn is a member of the the House of Commons standing committee that just released a report on the cod stocks.
VOCM reports that Hearn "says the destruction of the Northern Cod is a direct result of federal mismanagement". VOCM also reports that Hearn is calling on the federal government to implement the recommendations contained in the report linked above.
Check The Telegram for Saturday, November 26, 2005 and there is another quote by Hearn, the guy who tabled the committee report in the Commons: "the destruction of the northern cod and its lack of recovery is a direct result of federal mismanagement."
The odd thing is that Hearn is not quoting the report when he blames the federal government for the lack of cod. Here's what the report actually says in black and white:
Hearn is a member of the the House of Commons standing committee that just released a report on the cod stocks.
VOCM reports that Hearn "says the destruction of the Northern Cod is a direct result of federal mismanagement". VOCM also reports that Hearn is calling on the federal government to implement the recommendations contained in the report linked above.
Check The Telegram for Saturday, November 26, 2005 and there is another quote by Hearn, the guy who tabled the committee report in the Commons: "the destruction of the northern cod and its lack of recovery is a direct result of federal mismanagement."
The odd thing is that Hearn is not quoting the report when he blames the federal government for the lack of cod. Here's what the report actually says in black and white:
...Overfishing has been clearly identified as the major factor in the decline of cod and other groundfish stocks, but not as the only factor. According to a number of past reports, a combination of factors was responsible, and fishermen, processors, scientists, fisheries managers and politicians all made mistakes. As stated by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) in its 1997 report, "The fishery crisis cannot be related to a single cause or blamed on a single group: it is the failure of our whole fisheries system."
In part, as a result of the "failure of our whole fisheries system," the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed on 8 February 2005 to undertake a study of the northern cod including the events leading to the collapse of the fishery and the failure of the stock to re-establish itself since the moratorium....[Page 2]
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. The cod stocks collapsed as a result of the entire fisheries system including both federal and provincial governments, politicians, processors, and fishermen.
If mismanagement was the cause, as the quote above notes and as the subsequent pages of the report document, the "mismanagement" extended to every sector of the industry.
Only Loyola Hearn can tell us why he misrepresented in such a blatant way the findings of a committee whose report he was tabling in parliament. It is tempting, and indeed, easiest, to simply put Hearn's comments down to the sort of old-fashioned "tell em anything" politics that we have heard from him so many times in the past.
Hearn has repeatedly demonstrated his love affair with misrepresentation. During the offshore revenue discussions over the past two years, for example, Hearn got so many basic facts wrong about oil and gas one would have a hard time believing he had been a provincial cabinet minister at the time the real Atlantic Accord was signed and passed by the legislature.
This is by no means a minor issue. The conclusions of a parliamentary committee should hold weight - indeed Hearn's words have been reported because the committee is taken generally as an important group, one with views that should be heeded.
The committee's report contains a great deal of valuable information and a solid set of recommendations. The report proposes a limited commercial fishery be re-opened where such a fishery can be supported by the populations. It calls for increased scientific research, a call that was seemingly heeded by an announcement by the federal fisheries minister of increased scientific research funding.
The report also contains recommendation for even stronger action against domestic overfishing:
RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to amending the Fisheries Act to deal with license violations using administrative sanctions subject to appeal through arm'’s-length tribunals;
That, in the interim, the Attorney General of Canada instruct federal prosecutors involved in Fisheries Actlicenseee violation cases to bring to the attention of the court, prior to sentencing, the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of investigating and prosecuting the offence, and to push for the maximum penalty under the law at sentencing; and
That any financial proceeds forfeited as a result of a conviction for license violations be used to support an enhanced dockside monitoring or some other equally important program.
This is a truly remarkable statement, given Hearn's claim that it was the federal government that bears responsibility for the death of the commercial cod fishery. The committee advocated stronger punishment for poaching and other forms of illegal fishing because witnesses who appeared before it and other evidence accumulated during its deliberations pointed precisely to domestic overfishing as a contributing factor in the decimation of the northern codstocks.
Yet the value in the committee's report does not end there. It's next recommendation is that the federal government create regional harvesting or conservation councils to give fishermen greater input into management decisions. The federal politicians - perhaps with the exception of Hearn - have clearly seen the benefit from similar committees at places like the Eastport peninsula.
This is a little known project but it has proven enormously successful. Local fisheries committees advise the federal fisheries minister on fish quotas. Their advice which combines the best scientific information plus the fishermen's own observations have led to dramatic improvements in the health of stocks such as lobster and have led to a dramatic decline - a near elimination - of poaching and other similar crimes.
This is the sort of progressive management approach that the Department of Fisheries and oceans has been quietly implementing. But few know of it when the news sadly is consumed by the rantings of men who once held positions of great political and industrial influence, but who offer little in the way of meaningful input. The only thing the have managed to do is distract people from both the real issues and the facts of the matter at hand.
All this leads back to Hearn and his false statements.
One of the strongest parts of the fisheries committee report is the comparison between what happened in Canada and what happened elsewhere in the face of problems in the cod fishery. In Canada, politicians seemed unable to ignore the pleadings of the fishing industry that quotas be maintaiend at levels the stocks could not support. They played political games with fish instead of acting responsibly. Our collective reward is the decimation of a fish stock that once fed generations throughout the North Atlantic world.
What we see in Hearn's blatant misrepresentation is truly yet more of the same political pandering to a small interest group against the facts, against the best advice. Ignored are the genuinely positive moves on enforcement of rules and on progressive management. Trotted out, instead, are the hoary myths, just in time for another election.
Having read both the Commons committee report and news coverage over the past two days, one can only agree with Telegram columnist and long-time fisheries reporter Joe Walsh. It is time to get cod out of the pork barrel.
Rather than focusing solely on the current federal government as he did, Walsh should have tossed Loyola Hearn into the mix. Hearn's interventions on fisheries issues since he went to Ottawa have been long on the pork and short - extremely short - on anything approaching a new idea that can be backed by facts.
The fisheries committee report spends a good deal of time documenting the mistakes of the 1980s.
Loyola Hearn should know about them. He sat in a provincial cabinet at the time.
One would have hoped he had learned from mistakes of the past.
All that comes to mind is another mangled phrase by Hearn's former cabinet mate and premier Tom Rideout. It had something to do with small, malodourous creatures that could not change their spots.
Strong language, to be sure, but seemingly appropriate on so many levels.
In part, as a result of the "failure of our whole fisheries system," the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed on 8 February 2005 to undertake a study of the northern cod including the events leading to the collapse of the fishery and the failure of the stock to re-establish itself since the moratorium....[Page 2]
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. The cod stocks collapsed as a result of the entire fisheries system including both federal and provincial governments, politicians, processors, and fishermen.
If mismanagement was the cause, as the quote above notes and as the subsequent pages of the report document, the "mismanagement" extended to every sector of the industry.
Only Loyola Hearn can tell us why he misrepresented in such a blatant way the findings of a committee whose report he was tabling in parliament. It is tempting, and indeed, easiest, to simply put Hearn's comments down to the sort of old-fashioned "tell em anything" politics that we have heard from him so many times in the past.
Hearn has repeatedly demonstrated his love affair with misrepresentation. During the offshore revenue discussions over the past two years, for example, Hearn got so many basic facts wrong about oil and gas one would have a hard time believing he had been a provincial cabinet minister at the time the real Atlantic Accord was signed and passed by the legislature.
This is by no means a minor issue. The conclusions of a parliamentary committee should hold weight - indeed Hearn's words have been reported because the committee is taken generally as an important group, one with views that should be heeded.
The committee's report contains a great deal of valuable information and a solid set of recommendations. The report proposes a limited commercial fishery be re-opened where such a fishery can be supported by the populations. It calls for increased scientific research, a call that was seemingly heeded by an announcement by the federal fisheries minister of increased scientific research funding.
The report also contains recommendation for even stronger action against domestic overfishing:
RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to amending the Fisheries Act to deal with license violations using administrative sanctions subject to appeal through arm'’s-length tribunals;
That, in the interim, the Attorney General of Canada instruct federal prosecutors involved in Fisheries Actlicenseee violation cases to bring to the attention of the court, prior to sentencing, the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of investigating and prosecuting the offence, and to push for the maximum penalty under the law at sentencing; and
That any financial proceeds forfeited as a result of a conviction for license violations be used to support an enhanced dockside monitoring or some other equally important program.
This is a truly remarkable statement, given Hearn's claim that it was the federal government that bears responsibility for the death of the commercial cod fishery. The committee advocated stronger punishment for poaching and other forms of illegal fishing because witnesses who appeared before it and other evidence accumulated during its deliberations pointed precisely to domestic overfishing as a contributing factor in the decimation of the northern codstocks.
Yet the value in the committee's report does not end there. It's next recommendation is that the federal government create regional harvesting or conservation councils to give fishermen greater input into management decisions. The federal politicians - perhaps with the exception of Hearn - have clearly seen the benefit from similar committees at places like the Eastport peninsula.
This is a little known project but it has proven enormously successful. Local fisheries committees advise the federal fisheries minister on fish quotas. Their advice which combines the best scientific information plus the fishermen's own observations have led to dramatic improvements in the health of stocks such as lobster and have led to a dramatic decline - a near elimination - of poaching and other similar crimes.
This is the sort of progressive management approach that the Department of Fisheries and oceans has been quietly implementing. But few know of it when the news sadly is consumed by the rantings of men who once held positions of great political and industrial influence, but who offer little in the way of meaningful input. The only thing the have managed to do is distract people from both the real issues and the facts of the matter at hand.
All this leads back to Hearn and his false statements.
One of the strongest parts of the fisheries committee report is the comparison between what happened in Canada and what happened elsewhere in the face of problems in the cod fishery. In Canada, politicians seemed unable to ignore the pleadings of the fishing industry that quotas be maintaiend at levels the stocks could not support. They played political games with fish instead of acting responsibly. Our collective reward is the decimation of a fish stock that once fed generations throughout the North Atlantic world.
What we see in Hearn's blatant misrepresentation is truly yet more of the same political pandering to a small interest group against the facts, against the best advice. Ignored are the genuinely positive moves on enforcement of rules and on progressive management. Trotted out, instead, are the hoary myths, just in time for another election.
Having read both the Commons committee report and news coverage over the past two days, one can only agree with Telegram columnist and long-time fisheries reporter Joe Walsh. It is time to get cod out of the pork barrel.
Rather than focusing solely on the current federal government as he did, Walsh should have tossed Loyola Hearn into the mix. Hearn's interventions on fisheries issues since he went to Ottawa have been long on the pork and short - extremely short - on anything approaching a new idea that can be backed by facts.
The fisheries committee report spends a good deal of time documenting the mistakes of the 1980s.
Loyola Hearn should know about them. He sat in a provincial cabinet at the time.
One would have hoped he had learned from mistakes of the past.
All that comes to mind is another mangled phrase by Hearn's former cabinet mate and premier Tom Rideout. It had something to do with small, malodourous creatures that could not change their spots.
Strong language, to be sure, but seemingly appropriate on so many levels.
25 November 2005
Find. Fix. Fire.
There's a reason why in both politics and the army they call it a campaign.
Winning requires strategy, logistics, co-ordination and flexibility.
There is only one winner.
Everyone else is a loser.
No one wants to be the loser.
The basic approach in a campaign consists of three words: find, fix and fire.
Find: This consists of finding your voters and those who will vote for The Other Guy. Opinion polling helps figure out the rough percentages and what issues and attitudes are motivating voters. A good voter identification program - polling by door-knocking or telephone refines the overall picture on a voting poll by voting poll basis.
You also want to find any swingers or wafflers. Those are the voters who either haven't committed yet, are leaning one way or the other (you need to find that out as well) and those who are in the other camp but who might be persuaded to switch sides.
Fix: Fix in this context means to hold your own voters in place. Political advertising and other communications are designed to reinforce your own supporters and get them worked up enough to want to go to the polls.
Fix, in this context, also involves efforts to dislodge TOG's voters. Plenty of people talk about negative campaigning and attack ads and while they are usually denounced, a properly conceived and executed attack phase of the campaign has proven extremely effective time and again, for party after party in doing one thing - suppressing the TOG's supporters.
Political communications in the fix portion of a campaign are also aimed to some extent at the swingers. The basic goal is to suppress the other guy's leaners, firm up the ones leaning to you, steal some of his weak ones and attract more of the undecideds.
Fire: Having found and fixed 'em, the last thing to do is to fire your voters into the polling booth on voting day.
This is where the voter identification campaign really pays off. Voting day is the most hectic day of the campaign: workers call identified party supporters and encourage them to vote. Drivers are dispatched to give people a free lift to the nearest polling station.
Scrutineers at the polling stations cross off voters as they come and send their data back to headquarters so identified supporters are crossed off the lists.
Energy then focuses in the last hours and minutes of the day to getting every last identified voter to a polling booth. Dragging, as it is commonly called, is about literally dragging anyone who hasn't voted to the polls.
There's an old saying that amateurs talk strategy and tactics while professionals talk logistics.
Well, in politics, the logistics are all about the voter identification program and the entire operation devoted to getting your supporters into a booth where they can mark an "x" for the right candidate.
Without it, you don't stand a hope in hell of winning.
But, in politics as in a military campaign, dominating the opinion environment through political communications makes the job of finding, fixing and firing that much easier. Increasingly, successful campaigns rely on solid comms support coupled with the log work for success
Political communications - the news releases, events, householders, buttons, signs and a website - play a key role. Screw that up and you can kiss the votes good bye. The best voter ID project in history won't save you.
Flood a newsroom with bullshit releases and you'll likely alienate reporters you need in order to get your messages on important issues carried to voters. Feed them pap or duck them and they'll faithfully report your failings to everyone who listens, watches or reads their stuff.
Ask municipal candidates in the recent St. John's election about that sort of stuff.
Issue a news release that calls your opponent a child molester's best friend - without solid evidence - then back the mistake to the hilt and you can cost yourself the campaign and with it victory.
Ask Stephen Harper about that one.
One of the telling features in the upcoming campaign will be political communications and, unlike voter ID programs, it is the one that is most visible.
So when the writ drops next week -*sigh* - pay close attention to the stuff in your mailbox, and on your television, radio, in the newspapers, or on the Internet. You'll be able to tell a lot about the strategies being employed simply through careful observation.
And among the commentators cropping up on the news, you'll also be able to spot the amateurs and the professionals.
Winning requires strategy, logistics, co-ordination and flexibility.
There is only one winner.
Everyone else is a loser.
No one wants to be the loser.
The basic approach in a campaign consists of three words: find, fix and fire.
Find: This consists of finding your voters and those who will vote for The Other Guy. Opinion polling helps figure out the rough percentages and what issues and attitudes are motivating voters. A good voter identification program - polling by door-knocking or telephone refines the overall picture on a voting poll by voting poll basis.
You also want to find any swingers or wafflers. Those are the voters who either haven't committed yet, are leaning one way or the other (you need to find that out as well) and those who are in the other camp but who might be persuaded to switch sides.
Fix: Fix in this context means to hold your own voters in place. Political advertising and other communications are designed to reinforce your own supporters and get them worked up enough to want to go to the polls.
Fix, in this context, also involves efforts to dislodge TOG's voters. Plenty of people talk about negative campaigning and attack ads and while they are usually denounced, a properly conceived and executed attack phase of the campaign has proven extremely effective time and again, for party after party in doing one thing - suppressing the TOG's supporters.
Political communications in the fix portion of a campaign are also aimed to some extent at the swingers. The basic goal is to suppress the other guy's leaners, firm up the ones leaning to you, steal some of his weak ones and attract more of the undecideds.
Fire: Having found and fixed 'em, the last thing to do is to fire your voters into the polling booth on voting day.
This is where the voter identification campaign really pays off. Voting day is the most hectic day of the campaign: workers call identified party supporters and encourage them to vote. Drivers are dispatched to give people a free lift to the nearest polling station.
Scrutineers at the polling stations cross off voters as they come and send their data back to headquarters so identified supporters are crossed off the lists.
Energy then focuses in the last hours and minutes of the day to getting every last identified voter to a polling booth. Dragging, as it is commonly called, is about literally dragging anyone who hasn't voted to the polls.
There's an old saying that amateurs talk strategy and tactics while professionals talk logistics.
Well, in politics, the logistics are all about the voter identification program and the entire operation devoted to getting your supporters into a booth where they can mark an "x" for the right candidate.
Without it, you don't stand a hope in hell of winning.
But, in politics as in a military campaign, dominating the opinion environment through political communications makes the job of finding, fixing and firing that much easier. Increasingly, successful campaigns rely on solid comms support coupled with the log work for success
Political communications - the news releases, events, householders, buttons, signs and a website - play a key role. Screw that up and you can kiss the votes good bye. The best voter ID project in history won't save you.
Flood a newsroom with bullshit releases and you'll likely alienate reporters you need in order to get your messages on important issues carried to voters. Feed them pap or duck them and they'll faithfully report your failings to everyone who listens, watches or reads their stuff.
Ask municipal candidates in the recent St. John's election about that sort of stuff.
Issue a news release that calls your opponent a child molester's best friend - without solid evidence - then back the mistake to the hilt and you can cost yourself the campaign and with it victory.
Ask Stephen Harper about that one.
One of the telling features in the upcoming campaign will be political communications and, unlike voter ID programs, it is the one that is most visible.
So when the writ drops next week -*sigh* - pay close attention to the stuff in your mailbox, and on your television, radio, in the newspapers, or on the Internet. You'll be able to tell a lot about the strategies being employed simply through careful observation.
And among the commentators cropping up on the news, you'll also be able to spot the amateurs and the professionals.
The five percent solution
Wander over to Responsible Government League and Liam has done everyone the favour of linking to a few sites about election predictions.
The Hill and Knowlton one is interesting. Who knows the algorithm they are using but if you make shifts in the vote, you can get a prediction of seat counts nationally and by province?
Muck around with it a bit. Plug in the most recent polling results from Decima for a January/February election. It produces a large increase in new Democrat seats at the expense of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Hmmm.
Swing five percent of the New Democrat vote to the Liberals and you get a Liberal majority government of 166 seats, a rump New Democrat caucus at nine and 79 Conservatives.
Swing five the other way and the national seat count comes up with 104 Liberals, 101 Conservatives and 42 New Democrats.
What does it take to produce a Conservative minority? Swing a total of 10 percent of the vote from Liberals to New Democrats. That still only gives the Conservatives 111 seats.
I flipped Liberals and New Democrats since their vote migration seems to be much more likely than a swing between Conservatives and Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats and any other similar conversion.
Drop down on the local scene and you get something rather curious. Current polling shows that the situation is actually pretty stable around these parts. In your own calculations, remember that the margin of error on national polls has the Atlantic margin of error heading for more than six or seven percent. That's way, way too much.
But basically, swing a few percentages one way or the other (Liberal and New Democrat) and it gets curious indeed.
A swing of just five percentage points in the vote from Dippers to Grits and poof: the two St. John's seats change hands.
Swing it the other way and the Connies would add Bonavista-Exploits to their pile. At least that's the seat that Hill and Knowlton peg for the changeover.
It's all good fun and speculation but here's the upshot of it all:
All the political parties have some method of statistically allocating seats based on poll results. What they are using is a slightly more sophisticated version of the H and K thingy, but it doesn't have to get really any better than having really good local numbers to plug in.
Even using the H and K predictor across the most likely scenarios it is one heckuva job for the Conservatives to pull off a majority government. It's even kinda tough to
give them a minority government of any comfortable shape or size.
The big winners are the New Democrats. Across most scenarios, including the most recent poll results, the Dippers come off with a big increase in their seat count.
That leaves you wondering why Stevie Harper is so hot for an election.
It makes it plain why Jack Layton wants to go sooner rather than later.
This sort of device will give you a better sense of where the battleground will be. On the ground, expect that Ontario is going to get a lot of attention. The media gaze might spread to some places on the prairies or into British Columbia hunting for swing seats.
As far as messages and strategy go, expect to see a lot of emphasis on a battle between the New Democrats and the Liberals. The Dippers have the magic five percent Liberals need to pull off a majority nationally.
In a perverse way, it's also what Conservatives need to gain power, barring a radical redesign of the party. Even Ralph Klein doesn't think that is likely. Harper is at his peak, give or take a couple of points. He just needs to reinforce his own side and get them to the polls, which should be an easy job since they are among the most motivated of voters.
But Steve Harper needs Jack Layton in order to put the Alberta boy in new digs at Sussex Drive.
Such is the odd nature of politics.
On a local level, take a close look at the messaging and strategy employed by the local Liberal campaigns. If they fall into the trap of fighting on Conservative territory or pushing Conservative issues - like the federal job presence thing - the best that they can hope for is a repeat of the same seat distribution.
They won't pick up swing-Connies with that line: those guys don't exist for one thing. As for former Progressive Conservative voters disaffected by Harper and Company, they might respond a bit to negative messaging but their Tory leanings will likely make them a hard sell on voting Liberal. They might stay home and not vote, but odds are they'd do that anyway.
But... if the local Libs focus on other issues and work hard at attracting some swing-Democrats - the people who exist and who can easily float from the NDP to the left of the Liberal Party - the rewards could be big.
It only takes a swing of five percent of New Democrat voters to the Liberal ranks, one way or another, to land Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle in Ottawa.
Think about it.
and watch closely.
The Hill and Knowlton one is interesting. Who knows the algorithm they are using but if you make shifts in the vote, you can get a prediction of seat counts nationally and by province?
Muck around with it a bit. Plug in the most recent polling results from Decima for a January/February election. It produces a large increase in new Democrat seats at the expense of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Hmmm.
Swing five percent of the New Democrat vote to the Liberals and you get a Liberal majority government of 166 seats, a rump New Democrat caucus at nine and 79 Conservatives.
Swing five the other way and the national seat count comes up with 104 Liberals, 101 Conservatives and 42 New Democrats.
What does it take to produce a Conservative minority? Swing a total of 10 percent of the vote from Liberals to New Democrats. That still only gives the Conservatives 111 seats.
I flipped Liberals and New Democrats since their vote migration seems to be much more likely than a swing between Conservatives and Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats and any other similar conversion.
Drop down on the local scene and you get something rather curious. Current polling shows that the situation is actually pretty stable around these parts. In your own calculations, remember that the margin of error on national polls has the Atlantic margin of error heading for more than six or seven percent. That's way, way too much.
But basically, swing a few percentages one way or the other (Liberal and New Democrat) and it gets curious indeed.
A swing of just five percentage points in the vote from Dippers to Grits and poof: the two St. John's seats change hands.
Swing it the other way and the Connies would add Bonavista-Exploits to their pile. At least that's the seat that Hill and Knowlton peg for the changeover.
It's all good fun and speculation but here's the upshot of it all:
All the political parties have some method of statistically allocating seats based on poll results. What they are using is a slightly more sophisticated version of the H and K thingy, but it doesn't have to get really any better than having really good local numbers to plug in.
Even using the H and K predictor across the most likely scenarios it is one heckuva job for the Conservatives to pull off a majority government. It's even kinda tough to
give them a minority government of any comfortable shape or size.
The big winners are the New Democrats. Across most scenarios, including the most recent poll results, the Dippers come off with a big increase in their seat count.
That leaves you wondering why Stevie Harper is so hot for an election.
It makes it plain why Jack Layton wants to go sooner rather than later.
This sort of device will give you a better sense of where the battleground will be. On the ground, expect that Ontario is going to get a lot of attention. The media gaze might spread to some places on the prairies or into British Columbia hunting for swing seats.
As far as messages and strategy go, expect to see a lot of emphasis on a battle between the New Democrats and the Liberals. The Dippers have the magic five percent Liberals need to pull off a majority nationally.
In a perverse way, it's also what Conservatives need to gain power, barring a radical redesign of the party. Even Ralph Klein doesn't think that is likely. Harper is at his peak, give or take a couple of points. He just needs to reinforce his own side and get them to the polls, which should be an easy job since they are among the most motivated of voters.
But Steve Harper needs Jack Layton in order to put the Alberta boy in new digs at Sussex Drive.
Such is the odd nature of politics.
On a local level, take a close look at the messaging and strategy employed by the local Liberal campaigns. If they fall into the trap of fighting on Conservative territory or pushing Conservative issues - like the federal job presence thing - the best that they can hope for is a repeat of the same seat distribution.
They won't pick up swing-Connies with that line: those guys don't exist for one thing. As for former Progressive Conservative voters disaffected by Harper and Company, they might respond a bit to negative messaging but their Tory leanings will likely make them a hard sell on voting Liberal. They might stay home and not vote, but odds are they'd do that anyway.
But... if the local Libs focus on other issues and work hard at attracting some swing-Democrats - the people who exist and who can easily float from the NDP to the left of the Liberal Party - the rewards could be big.
It only takes a swing of five percent of New Democrat voters to the Liberal ranks, one way or another, to land Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle in Ottawa.
Think about it.
and watch closely.
Condolences
Sincere condolences to the family of Private Braun Scott Woodfield, killed in a vehicle accident in Afghanistan this week.
Also injured in the incident were four other soldiers, who are reportedly recovering.
The soldiers, all members of 2 Royal Canadian Regiment, Gagetown, New Brunswick, were riding in a LAV-III at the time of the roll-over accident. The LAV-III is similar to the one pictured.
Also injured in the incident were four other soldiers, who are reportedly recovering.
The soldiers, all members of 2 Royal Canadian Regiment, Gagetown, New Brunswick, were riding in a LAV-III at the time of the roll-over accident. The LAV-III is similar to the one pictured.
And Gerry and Scott wonder why they aren't in cabinet?
This little piece of news from yesterday is an example of the kind of politics no one wants or needs from any political party.
Member of parliament Gerry Byrne actually issued a news release yesterday to slag the chairman of the provincial caucus in Ottawa and the federal government for making an announcement on municipal infrastructure in St. John's, instead of some other place, like Stephenville.
Byrne isn't criticising the program. He's criticising the decision of where to announce it.
And that relatively minor point is enough to get a politician to issue an angry news release?
It isn't enough that people want to fight with Ottawa. Nope, now we have to fight over where to announce a program that will pour much needed federal cash into water and sewer work in every community in the province, including St. John's.
Surely, there is something just a tad more important to talk about Gerry than this kind of trivia.
When Gerry was the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), Gerry's news release were written so that they looked like they were coming in the community involved. Truth is they came from the ACOA office in St. John's. Did that change the impact of the money one way or the other, Gerry?
Then to cap it all, Scott Simms - the caucus chair under attack - simply pawns the thing off on the federal minister.
Way to go, boys.
Way to go.
Member of parliament Gerry Byrne actually issued a news release yesterday to slag the chairman of the provincial caucus in Ottawa and the federal government for making an announcement on municipal infrastructure in St. John's, instead of some other place, like Stephenville.
Byrne isn't criticising the program. He's criticising the decision of where to announce it.
And that relatively minor point is enough to get a politician to issue an angry news release?
It isn't enough that people want to fight with Ottawa. Nope, now we have to fight over where to announce a program that will pour much needed federal cash into water and sewer work in every community in the province, including St. John's.
Surely, there is something just a tad more important to talk about Gerry than this kind of trivia.
When Gerry was the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), Gerry's news release were written so that they looked like they were coming in the community involved. Truth is they came from the ACOA office in St. John's. Did that change the impact of the money one way or the other, Gerry?
Then to cap it all, Scott Simms - the caucus chair under attack - simply pawns the thing off on the federal minister.
Way to go, boys.
Way to go.
24 November 2005
Gee, how interesting
Just took a second a skimmed some postings to electionpredictions.org on the 2004 outing, specifically for St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
I threw something up there at one point during the campaign. Read my comments with the benefit of hindsight and you can make a judgement about whether I was on or off-base. I predicted a Liberal win (giddy optimism) or that it was too close to call. Certainly I documented all the problems in the Hearn camp that, oddly enough, turned out to be...true.
Scroll down a little further and see the prognostications of one Liam O'Brien. Hearn was rock solid and safe, according to Liam.
He won by a mere 1500 votes or so.
As always, I'll let you be the judge.
Just notice one thing - Conservative supporters are extremely adept at using the Internet and comments sections like the ones at EP.org just like people use open line shows or greenhouses: they pack 'em with plants. It's all part of the game, but any day now you can tune out VOCM. It will just be full of the faithful of all political parties jamming the lines for their candidates.
I threw something up there at one point during the campaign. Read my comments with the benefit of hindsight and you can make a judgement about whether I was on or off-base. I predicted a Liberal win (giddy optimism) or that it was too close to call. Certainly I documented all the problems in the Hearn camp that, oddly enough, turned out to be...true.
Scroll down a little further and see the prognostications of one Liam O'Brien. Hearn was rock solid and safe, according to Liam.
He won by a mere 1500 votes or so.
As always, I'll let you be the judge.
Just notice one thing - Conservative supporters are extremely adept at using the Internet and comments sections like the ones at EP.org just like people use open line shows or greenhouses: they pack 'em with plants. It's all part of the game, but any day now you can tune out VOCM. It will just be full of the faithful of all political parties jamming the lines for their candidates.
It never ceases to amaze me...
the volume of copy that can be generated in response to a simple comment.
Flip to the Responsible Government League and enjoy the feast.
Of course, the volume of the reply, either in number of words or the intensity of voice with which they should be read, does not render them any more credible than anything else.
Flip to the Responsible Government League and enjoy the feast.
Of course, the volume of the reply, either in number of words or the intensity of voice with which they should be read, does not render them any more credible than anything else.
Heads and bodies
In a small exercise in news reading, try this gem from the Globe and Mail.
Read the whole thing and then consider a simple question: Does the headline match the whole piece?
The short answer is no. The headline grabs attention but it is also misleading. The subhead just reinforces the misinformation.
All I can say is this: don't believe everything you read. Or believe it. It's up to you. But it could be accurate and it could be misinformation.
Meanwhile in the Land O'Spin that used to be Responsible Government League, any pretension that RGL is an unbiased, fair and balanced place to find reliable information definitely went out the window this week.
Take a gander at the piece on giving Paul Martin the boot, in which the PM is called a variety of names. My favourite part, of course, is where former reporter O'Brien practices "spin". [He is always quick to accuse others of doing it.]
Follow the link to the Prime Minister's speech and you'll see he merely referred to a military pay raise. Liam claims the PM was talking about soldiers not getting paid at all. Wow, my widdle tin top couldn't spin like that.
Of course, that's just the latest spintastic uttering from RGL. A little while ago he was telling us that a poll which - like all other polls - had the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives was actually a statistical tie between the Grits and the Connies.
Utter tripe, but RGL peddled it anyway.
And the RGL site seems to be descending rapidly into nothing more than name calling, for example calling the PM a "sick sob". The other day John Efford was called a sell-out.
Ah well, at least we know that RGL is written by an unbiased, non-partisan, fair and impartial writer who accurately conveys facts solely for the purpose of informing his readers such that they can form their own opinions.
Yeah right. I am just waiting for the latest Connie flash animation to pop up on a site that, sadly, is falling back into being a place where logic routinely takes flight if not Really Great Leaps.
Read the whole thing and then consider a simple question: Does the headline match the whole piece?
The short answer is no. The headline grabs attention but it is also misleading. The subhead just reinforces the misinformation.
All I can say is this: don't believe everything you read. Or believe it. It's up to you. But it could be accurate and it could be misinformation.
Meanwhile in the Land O'Spin that used to be Responsible Government League, any pretension that RGL is an unbiased, fair and balanced place to find reliable information definitely went out the window this week.
Take a gander at the piece on giving Paul Martin the boot, in which the PM is called a variety of names. My favourite part, of course, is where former reporter O'Brien practices "spin". [He is always quick to accuse others of doing it.]
Follow the link to the Prime Minister's speech and you'll see he merely referred to a military pay raise. Liam claims the PM was talking about soldiers not getting paid at all. Wow, my widdle tin top couldn't spin like that.
Of course, that's just the latest spintastic uttering from RGL. A little while ago he was telling us that a poll which - like all other polls - had the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives was actually a statistical tie between the Grits and the Connies.
Utter tripe, but RGL peddled it anyway.
And the RGL site seems to be descending rapidly into nothing more than name calling, for example calling the PM a "sick sob". The other day John Efford was called a sell-out.
Ah well, at least we know that RGL is written by an unbiased, non-partisan, fair and impartial writer who accurately conveys facts solely for the purpose of informing his readers such that they can form their own opinions.
Yeah right. I am just waiting for the latest Connie flash animation to pop up on a site that, sadly, is falling back into being a place where logic routinely takes flight if not Really Great Leaps.
22 November 2005
Bond makes parliament. Not.
Cue the music.
Bond.
Robert Bond.
Agent 006.9
License to annoy.
The Blocheads brought up alleged Central Intelligence Agency flights through Newfoundland.
This has been covered already on the Bond Papers with a bit more detail than offered by Canadian Press.
Here's a story that ran in Saturday's La Presse, in which Anne Maclellan claims there's no reason to believe the aircraft under contract to the CIA transitted Canada carrying any detainees.
La Presse and others have shagged up the story by focusing on the Cessnas.
I have the records, Anne, for more interesting aircraft that definitely flew through St. John's. There may not have been detainees on them - we really don't know for sure and never will - but there's no doubt that airplanes identified by many sources as being under contract to the CIA have routinely used Canadian airports on their way to and from Europe. The most recent flight was last week.
Bond.
Robert Bond.
Agent 006.9
License to annoy.
The Blocheads brought up alleged Central Intelligence Agency flights through Newfoundland.
This has been covered already on the Bond Papers with a bit more detail than offered by Canadian Press.
Here's a story that ran in Saturday's La Presse, in which Anne Maclellan claims there's no reason to believe the aircraft under contract to the CIA transitted Canada carrying any detainees.
La Presse and others have shagged up the story by focusing on the Cessnas.
I have the records, Anne, for more interesting aircraft that definitely flew through St. John's. There may not have been detainees on them - we really don't know for sure and never will - but there's no doubt that airplanes identified by many sources as being under contract to the CIA have routinely used Canadian airports on their way to and from Europe. The most recent flight was last week.
A sensible purchase or more of the same old pork barrel?
With the announcement of the new transport aircraft purchase today comes a bit of grousing about the process.
The air force needs aircraft in operation within three years.
Suppliers have 30 days to register and qualify.
This gives a leg up to Lockheed and its C-130J. The logic is compelling: proven airframe. Bags of spares and other operators with whom we work already.
Advocates of the Airbus Industries A400M can check here to confirm that the aircraft hasn't even flown yet. First flight is expected in 2008 and first deliveries in 2009. Add a few years to that time scale owing to inevitable development delays.
The only way Airbus can meet the tender specs would be to provide Canada with a substitute airframe - like maybe Hercs - in the interim 'til their bird gets off the ground. Personally, I'd view this as a potentially competitive bid only if there are guarantees that indemnify Canada against any potential cock-ups and cost over-runs on a completely unproven commodity.
There's also the Antonov An-70, which flew in 1994. I have a soft spot for Russian aircraft but from a practical standpoint, this is a non-starter.
Predictably the Opposition slagged today's announcement for political reasons.
Let's hope no one says anything as monumentally stupid as Jean Chretien's attacks on the EH-101 before the 1993 election. Crouton was wrong, wrong, wrong, except for the political mileage he got out it. But the result of his decision was millions of dollars in needless added costs and final procurement of an adequate but smaller number of helicopters.
Before any Connies get a smug smirk on their faces, just remember the LSVW, the Griffon, the naval presence in Quebec program, maple syrup and a few other choice procurement cock-ups that cost Canadians billions in cash doled out as political pork.
Flip back to the Canadian Press story linked above and you'll see Conservative defence critic Gordo O'Connor complaining that the specs are written to preclude competition. He needs to take a hard look at the A400 program - there's no reason to shag around waiting for that aircraft to prove it can fly. Maybe it can get in on another procurement after the Hercs are ready to retire.
The only thing of substance Gordo said today was that his government would further delay buying these long-overdue aircraft.
Well, that and the bit where he stated the obvious: we aren't going to buy Boeing C-17s. Gordo, they are too big and the operating costs are too great for Canada. Very few of our allies fly anything that big - for just those reasons. C-17s would be nice if we could afford them, but we can't. And they aren't vital.
Both O'Connor and the defence critic sounded like they were more concerned about local, short-term job creation - i.e. pork - than in off-the-shelf, efficient procurement of the equipment actually needed by the Canadian Forces.
They just didn't promise to cancel the procurement.
Yet.
The anticipated J Herc buy makes sense in every respect.
Let's hope it doesn't fall victim to crass politicking.
The air force needs aircraft in operation within three years.
Suppliers have 30 days to register and qualify.
This gives a leg up to Lockheed and its C-130J. The logic is compelling: proven airframe. Bags of spares and other operators with whom we work already.
Advocates of the Airbus Industries A400M can check here to confirm that the aircraft hasn't even flown yet. First flight is expected in 2008 and first deliveries in 2009. Add a few years to that time scale owing to inevitable development delays.
The only way Airbus can meet the tender specs would be to provide Canada with a substitute airframe - like maybe Hercs - in the interim 'til their bird gets off the ground. Personally, I'd view this as a potentially competitive bid only if there are guarantees that indemnify Canada against any potential cock-ups and cost over-runs on a completely unproven commodity.
There's also the Antonov An-70, which flew in 1994. I have a soft spot for Russian aircraft but from a practical standpoint, this is a non-starter.
Predictably the Opposition slagged today's announcement for political reasons.
Let's hope no one says anything as monumentally stupid as Jean Chretien's attacks on the EH-101 before the 1993 election. Crouton was wrong, wrong, wrong, except for the political mileage he got out it. But the result of his decision was millions of dollars in needless added costs and final procurement of an adequate but smaller number of helicopters.
Before any Connies get a smug smirk on their faces, just remember the LSVW, the Griffon, the naval presence in Quebec program, maple syrup and a few other choice procurement cock-ups that cost Canadians billions in cash doled out as political pork.
Flip back to the Canadian Press story linked above and you'll see Conservative defence critic Gordo O'Connor complaining that the specs are written to preclude competition. He needs to take a hard look at the A400 program - there's no reason to shag around waiting for that aircraft to prove it can fly. Maybe it can get in on another procurement after the Hercs are ready to retire.
The only thing of substance Gordo said today was that his government would further delay buying these long-overdue aircraft.
Well, that and the bit where he stated the obvious: we aren't going to buy Boeing C-17s. Gordo, they are too big and the operating costs are too great for Canada. Very few of our allies fly anything that big - for just those reasons. C-17s would be nice if we could afford them, but we can't. And they aren't vital.
Both O'Connor and the defence critic sounded like they were more concerned about local, short-term job creation - i.e. pork - than in off-the-shelf, efficient procurement of the equipment actually needed by the Canadian Forces.
They just didn't promise to cancel the procurement.
Yet.
The anticipated J Herc buy makes sense in every respect.
Let's hope it doesn't fall victim to crass politicking.
Spook-tracking
The old hit counter tells me that the most popular searches used to find the Bond Papers over the past few days have been registration numbers and companies linked to the story about Central Intelligence Agency aircraft.
Normally, the most common search terms are "bond papers", "sir robert bond" and "ed hollett". I figured I'd be picking up some Harry Potter hits this weekend bu so far not a one.
For some reason, Sir Robert's spook plane post was enough to get into google's top 20 hits for certain search terms.
Those hits, in turn, led me back to several google searches of my own that confirm that most of the key aircraft listed in the news stories have indeed passed through St. John's on their way to places like Afghanistan. Dates and places all listed with detail and seeming accuracy.
Those searches also confirm that there are a bunch of Roy Croppers out there who carry the fine English tradition of trainspotting for aircraft at various places around Europe.
Good job lads!
Perhaps you can find gainful employment sequencing DNA.
Normally, the most common search terms are "bond papers", "sir robert bond" and "ed hollett". I figured I'd be picking up some Harry Potter hits this weekend bu so far not a one.
For some reason, Sir Robert's spook plane post was enough to get into google's top 20 hits for certain search terms.
Those hits, in turn, led me back to several google searches of my own that confirm that most of the key aircraft listed in the news stories have indeed passed through St. John's on their way to places like Afghanistan. Dates and places all listed with detail and seeming accuracy.
Those searches also confirm that there are a bunch of Roy Croppers out there who carry the fine English tradition of trainspotting for aircraft at various places around Europe.
Good job lads!
Perhaps you can find gainful employment sequencing DNA.
Connies to target Santa; Dippers to support motion on "old, straight white guy"
Left: Stephen Harper's discomfort with people dressed in red clothes handing out presents started early.Ottawa - Myron T. Grinchberg (C Angryville-Bitter Creek) said today that as part of opposition plans to force a Christmas election, his party will be introducing a bill in the House of Commons to force Elections Canada to include all Christmas celebrations and advertising as Liberal Party of Canada election expenses.
"Well, Santa is obviously a Liberal," said Grinchberg, the critic for Sucking the Fun Out of Anything. "He dresses in red and hands out goodies to everyone. There is no way that the Liberal Party of Canada should be able to get that kind of support for their corrupt regime, from a guy who is obviously a secret agent for Liberals."
Grinchberg said the very notion of handing out gifts for free confirms Santa's political leanings. He said Santa is just another shameless attempt by Liberals to buy the upcoming election using good will, happy thoughts and a raft of public money.
"Who the heck pays for all that stuff he drops from the sleigh? There's no way Santa can run his operation without massive government handouts." Grinchberg said a new Conservative government under Stephen Harper will widen the powers of the Gomery inquiry to find out what federal money was shunted to Santa by Grit insiders. 'This whole thing makes sponsorship look like really small potatoes."
"Besides, Santa is just an anagram of Satan," said Grinchberg, noting that this confirms that all Liberals are agents of the devil.
A spokesperson for the New Democrats said she expected her party to support the motion. "Santa doesn't reflect the cultural diversity of our country. Besides that the whole myth just teaches our children that the only good things come from straight, old white guys."
The spokesperson, who commented only on condition of anonymity, said federal New Democrats are concerned that Mrs. Claus is kept hidden in the background, perpetuating the sexism of Canadian culture. She said there is also a problem with an entire operation built on the backs of the physically disadvantaged or disabled.
"Obviously, Santa couldn't do what he does without the support of his family and the thousands of underpaid short people he employs in near-slavery. They deserve full recognition and a fair wage." The Dipper spokesperson said it is likely Santa set up his factory in territory once controlled by the federal government to escape provincial labour legislation."
Calls to the Bloc were not returned, but a party insider confirmed that the Bloc is looking at including the North Pole as part of an independent Quebec. He said the new Parti Quebecois leader finds the white powdery substance of the Arctic strangely compelling and his views will strongly influence the Bloc members of the federal parliament.
21 November 2005
Coyne to face Layton
While she was a rumoured candidate last time around, it looks like Deborah Coyne will tackle Dipper boss Jack Layton in the upcoming election.
I worked with Deborah eons ago. She is fluently bi-lingual, tough, knowledgeable and articulate. She's a veteran campaigner and Layton should have quite the fight on his hands.
Oh yeah.
And she is yet another one to hammer at the separatists, no matter where they are.
I worked with Deborah eons ago. She is fluently bi-lingual, tough, knowledgeable and articulate. She's a veteran campaigner and Layton should have quite the fight on his hands.
Oh yeah.
And she is yet another one to hammer at the separatists, no matter where they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)