SES Research results of its rolling polls show that as of Thursday, The Liberals enjoy the support of 41% of decided voters, with the Conservatives down two points to 26%. The New Democrats are the choice of 18%.
Undecided was at 20% and the margin of error for the national figures is +/- 2.9%, at the 95th confidence interval.
Undecided in Quebec has risen to 28%, up from 11% on the first day of SES polling.
No one should get too excited by these numbers since there is a long way to go until voting day.
In the meantime, Connie bloggers continue to be confounded at the numbers. Albertaavenue goes so far as to claim that the polling firms don't release their methodology. Nice try, Alav, but they do.
Plunk the latest SES numbers into the Hill and Knowlton seat count predictor and here's what pops out:
Liberals: 166
Conservative: 63
NDP: 40
Bloc: 48
Other: 1
Personally, the real outcome would likely be somewhere between this result and the one projected by democraticSpace. Check out the methodology.
Click on the Newfoundland and Labrador results, though and you'll see that while democraticSpace is predicting a small Liberal minority, it is projecting a Liberal sweep of the province.
This is all good fun, but The Day is a way off yet. No one should be resting on any laurels.
09 December 2005
Leger and SES agree
About 10 days into the campaign, pollsters SES and Leger Marketing show the current party standing with the Liberals in a 12 point lead over the Conservatives.
In Atlantic Canada, Leger is showing the Liberals at 47%, Conservatives 31% and New Democrats at 19%. That suggests the Liberals will hold onto their existing seats and may well pick up others from the Conservatives, especially in weak Connie spots like St. John's.
It seems strange to even say that the once might Conservative bastion is likely to go Liberal. How the mighty have fallen indeed!
Polls are only snapshots in time, but add them together and you can start to see a picture.
Even this early in what will be a long campaign, the picture emerging is not very good for Conservatives.
Expect a shift in their comms strategy any day now.
In Atlantic Canada, Leger is showing the Liberals at 47%, Conservatives 31% and New Democrats at 19%. That suggests the Liberals will hold onto their existing seats and may well pick up others from the Conservatives, especially in weak Connie spots like St. John's.
It seems strange to even say that the once might Conservative bastion is likely to go Liberal. How the mighty have fallen indeed!
Polls are only snapshots in time, but add them together and you can start to see a picture.
Even this early in what will be a long campaign, the picture emerging is not very good for Conservatives.
Expect a shift in their comms strategy any day now.
Another "tell"
Danny Williams explodes in anger and attacks the person, whenever a question gets close to the truth, not close to his family and friends.
That's his tell. The dead giveaway.
For the federal Connies - not Tories, that party died two years ago - the "tell" may well be the Sun chain.
Take a skim through the columnists online and look at all the columns that either praise Steve Harper (like the bitter Sheila Copps), attack Liberals (the ever-dyspeptic John "More TUMS" Crosbie), or in this case, the one where Greg Weston laments the hard position in which the Conservatives find themselves on an issue like gun control.
He does a fine job of claiming that the Prime Minister's announcement really isn't changing anything at all and is really designed to lure Conservatives into defending guns and being therefore, somehow, scary.
Geez, Greg. I love conspiracy theories. They make great movies - where the key ingredient is a suspension of disbelief. In the real world, there is much less conspiracy.
On the handgun issue, the Liberals have jumped in front of an issue in metro Toronto and did so on a day when news would be tuned to the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shooting.
The positioning put the Liberals firmly in control of a Connie issue - law and order - and did so in a way that grabbed extra support from recollections of a tragedy involving a nutbar and a handgun.
That's smart politics.
The Connies only find themselves thinking about their position because they got outflanked. The instinct will be to argue against gun control which, as the recent policy convention showed, is where the majority of Connie delegates were headed. They took out a simple statement in favour of the sort of licensing system this country has had for rifles and shotguns since the 1970s and for handguns since the 1930s. In its place would be a "screening system" that in all likelihood will have some pretty big mesh in the screen.
At the end, the Conservatives are left pretty much as they were headed. Polls clearly show the public doesn't trust Stephen Harper when he tells them that Connies have moved to the centre on social policy issues (except for equal marriage). Unable to think outside the box, the Connie strategists keep putting front and centre one Stephen Harper, the embodiment of Canadians unease about the Connies.
So they suffer at the polls.
And rely on shop-worn messages that the Liberals are all about spin.
Then Paul Martin announces a policy on a precious Connie cause and take control of an issue that used to be purely a conservative one. Gun control appeals in urban Canada and while it sometimes ruffles in rural areas, this particular ban won't affect too many.
It will also resonate with people in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason is simple. Handguns, restricted but legal weapons - Weston is wrong on that point - are seized at the home of a young man in St. John's. Tazers, a prohibited weapon, turn up in another police search.
In other words, as much as Connies will claim that legitimate handgun owners are the only ones to suffer under a ban, the truth is that the once safe system of handgun ownership in this country is slowly crumbling.
Legally acquired handguns are finding their way to the underworld through thefts or loss.
And that's what makes a simple "screening system" totally inadequate to address the criminal use of firearms - both illegally obtained ones and legally purchased ones that are diverted to the streets.
There are still many ways to refine Canada's gun control system but the Conservative Party policy, heavily influenced by a handful of anti-gun control types is not the way to go.
On this issue, the tell to watch is not only in the reaction of the Connie-friendly media. It's also in the movement in the polls.
That's the "tell" of public opinion, the one that will count in January.
That's his tell. The dead giveaway.
For the federal Connies - not Tories, that party died two years ago - the "tell" may well be the Sun chain.
Take a skim through the columnists online and look at all the columns that either praise Steve Harper (like the bitter Sheila Copps), attack Liberals (the ever-dyspeptic John "More TUMS" Crosbie), or in this case, the one where Greg Weston laments the hard position in which the Conservatives find themselves on an issue like gun control.
He does a fine job of claiming that the Prime Minister's announcement really isn't changing anything at all and is really designed to lure Conservatives into defending guns and being therefore, somehow, scary.
Geez, Greg. I love conspiracy theories. They make great movies - where the key ingredient is a suspension of disbelief. In the real world, there is much less conspiracy.
On the handgun issue, the Liberals have jumped in front of an issue in metro Toronto and did so on a day when news would be tuned to the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shooting.
The positioning put the Liberals firmly in control of a Connie issue - law and order - and did so in a way that grabbed extra support from recollections of a tragedy involving a nutbar and a handgun.
That's smart politics.
The Connies only find themselves thinking about their position because they got outflanked. The instinct will be to argue against gun control which, as the recent policy convention showed, is where the majority of Connie delegates were headed. They took out a simple statement in favour of the sort of licensing system this country has had for rifles and shotguns since the 1970s and for handguns since the 1930s. In its place would be a "screening system" that in all likelihood will have some pretty big mesh in the screen.
At the end, the Conservatives are left pretty much as they were headed. Polls clearly show the public doesn't trust Stephen Harper when he tells them that Connies have moved to the centre on social policy issues (except for equal marriage). Unable to think outside the box, the Connie strategists keep putting front and centre one Stephen Harper, the embodiment of Canadians unease about the Connies.
So they suffer at the polls.
And rely on shop-worn messages that the Liberals are all about spin.
Then Paul Martin announces a policy on a precious Connie cause and take control of an issue that used to be purely a conservative one. Gun control appeals in urban Canada and while it sometimes ruffles in rural areas, this particular ban won't affect too many.
It will also resonate with people in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason is simple. Handguns, restricted but legal weapons - Weston is wrong on that point - are seized at the home of a young man in St. John's. Tazers, a prohibited weapon, turn up in another police search.
In other words, as much as Connies will claim that legitimate handgun owners are the only ones to suffer under a ban, the truth is that the once safe system of handgun ownership in this country is slowly crumbling.
Legally acquired handguns are finding their way to the underworld through thefts or loss.
And that's what makes a simple "screening system" totally inadequate to address the criminal use of firearms - both illegally obtained ones and legally purchased ones that are diverted to the streets.
There are still many ways to refine Canada's gun control system but the Conservative Party policy, heavily influenced by a handful of anti-gun control types is not the way to go.
On this issue, the tell to watch is not only in the reaction of the Connie-friendly media. It's also in the movement in the polls.
That's the "tell" of public opinion, the one that will count in January.
Jack Layton: Different town; different message
In Ontario ridings, Jack Layton told voters to ignore third place candidates (who happened to be Liberal), warning that a vote for the third place is a vote for the Conservatives.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, where Jack is having a hard time finding candidates and where the ones nominated are way back in third place, Jack has a different tune.
Everyone can change their mind, but we are talking a matter of days here. Perhaps we need a Clarity Act to require the New Democrat boss to say the same thing everywhere he goes within the same election.
In the meantime, Deborah Coyne is on the ground in Toronto-Danforth knocking doors and taking names.
Ask Mulroney, Jack.
You that's one Coyne you don't want on your ass.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, where Jack is having a hard time finding candidates and where the ones nominated are way back in third place, Jack has a different tune.
Everyone can change their mind, but we are talking a matter of days here. Perhaps we need a Clarity Act to require the New Democrat boss to say the same thing everywhere he goes within the same election.
In the meantime, Deborah Coyne is on the ground in Toronto-Danforth knocking doors and taking names.
Ask Mulroney, Jack.
You that's one Coyne you don't want on your ass.
08 December 2005
Connie gun control
At its convention in March of this year, the Conservative Party delegates were asked to vote on a gun control motion that would provide:
- mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms;
- strict monitoring of high-risk individuals;
- crackdown on the smuggling [this incomplete/poorly translated phrase survived into the actual policy manual];
- safe storage laws [we already have this];
- firearms safety training [we already have this];
- a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally [we already have this];
- and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets."
The motion that made it into policy manual changed one bit: the bit about the licensing system, which we effectively already have and which has been in place for the better part of the last 25 years.
Instead, the section was changed to read "a certification screening program..."
No one knows what that means, but the implication is that the level of firearms ownership control we have had in this country since the early 1980s and beforehand would be reduced down to something far less burdensome for everyone - law-abiding gun owners and criminals alike.
That's what I posted before on this and by gosh, by gum, I am sticking to the interpretation that the Conservative Party policy manual actually appears to call for an elimination of licenses for firearms owners. Instead, they'll just have to clear a screening program of some kind.
Experience in Canada shows that deaths attributable to firearms are about half the rate they were 25 years ago. The rate of deaths per 100, 000 females dropped from 1.2 in 1979 to a mere 0.3.
Our current gun control laws work. Stengthening them makes sense.
Rolling back the clock, as the Conservative policy suggests, doesn't make any sense.
Unless you take your public policy advice from Ben Hur.
Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.
The facts speak for themselves.
- mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms;
- strict monitoring of high-risk individuals;
- crackdown on the smuggling [this incomplete/poorly translated phrase survived into the actual policy manual];
- safe storage laws [we already have this];
- firearms safety training [we already have this];
- a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally [we already have this];
- and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets."
The motion that made it into policy manual changed one bit: the bit about the licensing system, which we effectively already have and which has been in place for the better part of the last 25 years.
Instead, the section was changed to read "a certification screening program..."
No one knows what that means, but the implication is that the level of firearms ownership control we have had in this country since the early 1980s and beforehand would be reduced down to something far less burdensome for everyone - law-abiding gun owners and criminals alike.
That's what I posted before on this and by gosh, by gum, I am sticking to the interpretation that the Conservative Party policy manual actually appears to call for an elimination of licenses for firearms owners. Instead, they'll just have to clear a screening program of some kind.
Experience in Canada shows that deaths attributable to firearms are about half the rate they were 25 years ago. The rate of deaths per 100, 000 females dropped from 1.2 in 1979 to a mere 0.3.
Our current gun control laws work. Stengthening them makes sense.
Rolling back the clock, as the Conservative policy suggests, doesn't make any sense.
Unless you take your public policy advice from Ben Hur.
Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.
The facts speak for themselves.
Pollster or astrologer?
You can find some truly wacky things online these days, whether it is Liberal Warren Kinsella busily working to defeat the Liberals or this story from politicwatch.com in which a Sudbury pollster predicts a majority Conservative government.
The basis for his prognostication? A gut feeling.
Apparently, he missed the tea leaves that morning and his Kerlian photography kit was on the fritz so he couldn't get an accurate reading of the political "aura".
I have a gut feeling too when I read this sort of crap commentary from a supposedly professional pollster. But it's not the kind of feeling I feel comfortable discussing in polite company. Even Imodium wouldn't handle it.
In the meantime, both Strategic Counsel and SES are producing polls with results in the same general neighbourhood. SES numbers up to 6 December show the Liberals on the way to a majority government.
Plug them into the seat predictor at Hill and Knowlton.
E-mail the results to your Connie friends and watch them develop apoplexy.
The basis for his prognostication? A gut feeling.
Apparently, he missed the tea leaves that morning and his Kerlian photography kit was on the fritz so he couldn't get an accurate reading of the political "aura".
I have a gut feeling too when I read this sort of crap commentary from a supposedly professional pollster. But it's not the kind of feeling I feel comfortable discussing in polite company. Even Imodium wouldn't handle it.
In the meantime, both Strategic Counsel and SES are producing polls with results in the same general neighbourhood. SES numbers up to 6 December show the Liberals on the way to a majority government.
Plug them into the seat predictor at Hill and Knowlton.
E-mail the results to your Connie friends and watch them develop apoplexy.
Lowest common denominator school politics
God invented schools.
Then God invented school administration.
Then God took the brains to manage school administration away from anyone connected with the eastern school authorities in Newfoundland.
This report is the umpteenth kick at the cat for local school bureaucrats. Many of the ideas are old ones that reflect the sort of idiocy that only can come from academic bureaucrats who define a neighbourhood school as one in which their computer program drops your kid across town, even if the actual neighbourhood school is about a couple of hundred feet away from your back door.
Like the one to keep two schools across the street from each other and have one a K-3 school and the other a 4-6 school.
School board planners and the consultant hired to produce this report obviously never did a course in traffic management.
Tough decisions - but necessary ones - are not going to get made. Yet again.
Meanwhile the Minister of Education has been well-briefed. She is following the same pattern as her predecessors. She wants to scrap the plan and, likely, keep everything much as it is.
Then God invented school administration.
Then God took the brains to manage school administration away from anyone connected with the eastern school authorities in Newfoundland.
This report is the umpteenth kick at the cat for local school bureaucrats. Many of the ideas are old ones that reflect the sort of idiocy that only can come from academic bureaucrats who define a neighbourhood school as one in which their computer program drops your kid across town, even if the actual neighbourhood school is about a couple of hundred feet away from your back door.
Like the one to keep two schools across the street from each other and have one a K-3 school and the other a 4-6 school.
School board planners and the consultant hired to produce this report obviously never did a course in traffic management.
Tough decisions - but necessary ones - are not going to get made. Yet again.
Meanwhile the Minister of Education has been well-briefed. She is following the same pattern as her predecessors. She wants to scrap the plan and, likely, keep everything much as it is.
The good old days
Is it only 15 years ago that a Conservative government introduced gun control measures that were considered draconian at the time?
Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. Closets of Gucci loafers replaced by a wild campaign in which the PM reportedly spent most of the time on her tour bus steaming up the back windows with her boyfriend.
*sigh*
Those were the days.
Prime Minister Paul Martin today announced plans to ban ownership of handguns except for police, some security firms and the military.
Steve Harper said the plan wouldn't crack down on illegal gun imports or impose harsher sentences for gun crime.
Now if this site is correct from some guy named Bruce Montague, the Conservative Party policy forum earlier this year actually removed a section calling for firearms owners to be licensed.
I doubt that Brian and Kim would consider that to be good policy, Steve, especially when you are quoted as supporting the record of past Conservative governments on gun control.
Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. Closets of Gucci loafers replaced by a wild campaign in which the PM reportedly spent most of the time on her tour bus steaming up the back windows with her boyfriend.
*sigh*
Those were the days.
Prime Minister Paul Martin today announced plans to ban ownership of handguns except for police, some security firms and the military.
Steve Harper said the plan wouldn't crack down on illegal gun imports or impose harsher sentences for gun crime.
Now if this site is correct from some guy named Bruce Montague, the Conservative Party policy forum earlier this year actually removed a section calling for firearms owners to be licensed.
I doubt that Brian and Kim would consider that to be good policy, Steve, especially when you are quoted as supporting the record of past Conservative governments on gun control.
MacKay eyes Harper's job, post-election
Blonde, wealthy, well-connected.
Peter MacKay's latest love interest, according to well-known gossip sheet the NationalLampoon Post:
Sophie Desmarais. Of that Desmarais clan. They met courtesy of Mila Mulroney. Sophie's clan is tight with Liberals like Jean Chretien.
Way to go, Peter.
Now, just a few weeks to go before you can start the campaign to boot Harper and take his job.
As reminiscent of medieval Italian politics as this all seems, Peter might have learned to be a little less obvious. Nicolo would not be pleased.
Peter MacKay's latest love interest, according to well-known gossip sheet the National
Sophie Desmarais. Of that Desmarais clan. They met courtesy of Mila Mulroney. Sophie's clan is tight with Liberals like Jean Chretien.
Way to go, Peter.
Now, just a few weeks to go before you can start the campaign to boot Harper and take his job.
As reminiscent of medieval Italian politics as this all seems, Peter might have learned to be a little less obvious. Nicolo would not be pleased.
Custodial management almost impossible to deliver
Memorial University political science prof David Close threw some cold water on people who think "custodial management" is a simple answer to fisheries problems.
Close said while CM is easy to advocate it is almost impossible to achieve. He said it is not at all clear that Canada could unilaterally lay claim to waters outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
If that isn't good enough for you, there's a slightly different view from the dean of the Dalhousie law school. it adds up to the same thing, though: CM is easy to say but hard to do.
Close said while CM is easy to advocate it is almost impossible to achieve. He said it is not at all clear that Canada could unilaterally lay claim to waters outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
If that isn't good enough for you, there's a slightly different view from the dean of the Dalhousie law school. it adds up to the same thing, though: CM is easy to say but hard to do.
Moving forward is good enough for the Premier
It should be good enough for Liam over at RGL.
Apparently not.
He preferred to quote people from American political action groups to argue against government-funded child care outside the home for families where both parents work. Of course, he didn't see fit to disclose who these people actually were and the political action committees they work for.
Well, here's what Danny Williams had to say back in May when the province and federal government signed an agreement on early childhood education and child care:
"Making sure that our youngest citizens get the best start in life is one of the most important priorities for parents and families in our province," said Premier Williams. "This agreement signed today will help Newfoundland and Labrador achieve its long-term vision to ensure children and families have access to a quality early learning and child care system and that early child care educators and providers receive the training and supports they need."
And for the record, here's what finance minister Loyola Sullivan said in the same announcement:
"Our government has made significant progress in building capacity, ensuring children and families have access to quality programming and improving the quality of early learning and child care in Newfoundland and Labrador," said Minister Sullivan. " We are committed to building a progressive early learning and child care program to complement the work of our Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning that focuses on the learning needs of children and their families. As we move forward, we will continue to consult with parents and early learning and childcare stakeholders to assist in developing the action plan for Newfoundland and Labrador."
Here are two Canadians - Progressive Conservatives and political leaders at that - who don't see anything sinister in the government providing funding for quality childcare outside the home as well as funding new initiatives in early childhood education.
Hmmmm.
Now of course, they aren't early childhood education and childcare experts, but ya know, I'd put a lot more faith in their judgment on this issue than a bunch of political activists who had obscured identities if not obscured agendas.
As for Liam, he needn't worry about someone trying to create what he calls a "Nanny" state. He's the only one talking about that nonsense.
Instead, he just needs to take a breath and get over his morbid fear of Fran Drescher.
Apparently not.
He preferred to quote people from American political action groups to argue against government-funded child care outside the home for families where both parents work. Of course, he didn't see fit to disclose who these people actually were and the political action committees they work for.
Well, here's what Danny Williams had to say back in May when the province and federal government signed an agreement on early childhood education and child care:
"Making sure that our youngest citizens get the best start in life is one of the most important priorities for parents and families in our province," said Premier Williams. "This agreement signed today will help Newfoundland and Labrador achieve its long-term vision to ensure children and families have access to a quality early learning and child care system and that early child care educators and providers receive the training and supports they need."
And for the record, here's what finance minister Loyola Sullivan said in the same announcement:
"Our government has made significant progress in building capacity, ensuring children and families have access to quality programming and improving the quality of early learning and child care in Newfoundland and Labrador," said Minister Sullivan. " We are committed to building a progressive early learning and child care program to complement the work of our Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning that focuses on the learning needs of children and their families. As we move forward, we will continue to consult with parents and early learning and childcare stakeholders to assist in developing the action plan for Newfoundland and Labrador."
Here are two Canadians - Progressive Conservatives and political leaders at that - who don't see anything sinister in the government providing funding for quality childcare outside the home as well as funding new initiatives in early childhood education.
Hmmmm.
Now of course, they aren't early childhood education and childcare experts, but ya know, I'd put a lot more faith in their judgment on this issue than a bunch of political activists who had obscured identities if not obscured agendas.
As for Liam, he needn't worry about someone trying to create what he calls a "Nanny" state. He's the only one talking about that nonsense.
Instead, he just needs to take a breath and get over his morbid fear of Fran Drescher.
Coast Guard tragedy
Two Coast Guard employees were killed yesterday in an incident that is still under investigation.
It appears they were traveling by helicopter between sites, conducting routine maintenance of navigation aides on the south coast of Newfoundland when the incident occurred.
The two employees were flying in a Coast Guard MBB 105, like the one pictured.
Methinks he doth protest too much
Danny Williams likes to use sales jargon, like talking about "the ask".
Well, in sales as in poker, there's a thing called "the tell". It's something that gives away the truth, despite the apparent demeanor of the other person.
Whenever anyone asks Danny Williams a question he doesn't like - that is one that comes close to the truth - he immediately turns into attack mode. He lashes out and accuses his questioner of all sorts of evil motives.
That form of personal attack, while rather entertaining to watch is actually the weakest form of argument.
And it is noticeable that when you strike close to the truth, Williams gets personal.
All the time.
It isn't just that a question is about someone close to his family, and therefore he's defending his relatives. Williams has a noticeable tendency to employ people close to his family, so much so that it's become a bit of a joke at Confederation Building, in fact. he lashes out whenever someone is getting close to the real reason for some action.
Danny Williams didn't like questions yesterday about the hiring of his daughter's fiance as a communications director with the Department of Justice. Before that, the man was a staffer in the Government Members' Office. Beyond that, no one knows what his background is.
There was no competition for the position.
The Premier lashed out at the guy asking the question - Roland Butler - who was involved in a hiring scandal several years ago. Under a different Premier, Butler's boss and others paid a price for the incident.
But the question yesterday focused on the Premier's future son-in-law, whom the Premier described in this way:
"This government has hired this bright, capable, qualified, young man in a temporary position, which is a perfectly legal thing to do and which the members opposite know is according to the rules and according to the rules of the Public Service Commission. So, he was hired in a temporary position and he is eminently qualified and that is according to law and according to rules. Shame on you!"
My questions for the Premier are simple:
1. Would the Premier please make public Bill Hickey's resume?
If he is so eminently qualified for the position, then it should be obvious why he was appointed into a position without a competition.
2. As for the competition currently underway for communications directors, would the Premier assure that it will be run fairly - not like other Public Service Commission competitions - so that incumbents, like Mr. Hickey, do not have an unfair advantage over other, eminently qualified candidates?
The questions are simple.
The replies should be equally simple.
Let's see if we can get them.
Well, in sales as in poker, there's a thing called "the tell". It's something that gives away the truth, despite the apparent demeanor of the other person.
Whenever anyone asks Danny Williams a question he doesn't like - that is one that comes close to the truth - he immediately turns into attack mode. He lashes out and accuses his questioner of all sorts of evil motives.
That form of personal attack, while rather entertaining to watch is actually the weakest form of argument.
And it is noticeable that when you strike close to the truth, Williams gets personal.
All the time.
It isn't just that a question is about someone close to his family, and therefore he's defending his relatives. Williams has a noticeable tendency to employ people close to his family, so much so that it's become a bit of a joke at Confederation Building, in fact. he lashes out whenever someone is getting close to the real reason for some action.
Danny Williams didn't like questions yesterday about the hiring of his daughter's fiance as a communications director with the Department of Justice. Before that, the man was a staffer in the Government Members' Office. Beyond that, no one knows what his background is.
There was no competition for the position.
The Premier lashed out at the guy asking the question - Roland Butler - who was involved in a hiring scandal several years ago. Under a different Premier, Butler's boss and others paid a price for the incident.
But the question yesterday focused on the Premier's future son-in-law, whom the Premier described in this way:
"This government has hired this bright, capable, qualified, young man in a temporary position, which is a perfectly legal thing to do and which the members opposite know is according to the rules and according to the rules of the Public Service Commission. So, he was hired in a temporary position and he is eminently qualified and that is according to law and according to rules. Shame on you!"
My questions for the Premier are simple:
1. Would the Premier please make public Bill Hickey's resume?
If he is so eminently qualified for the position, then it should be obvious why he was appointed into a position without a competition.
2. As for the competition currently underway for communications directors, would the Premier assure that it will be run fairly - not like other Public Service Commission competitions - so that incumbents, like Mr. Hickey, do not have an unfair advantage over other, eminently qualified candidates?
The questions are simple.
The replies should be equally simple.
Let's see if we can get them.
07 December 2005
Liam quotes the American right to back Harper
In one of several megaposts lately, Liam O'Brien at RGL quoted someone named Darcy Ann Olsen, who is presented as an expert commentator on child care issues.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The Battle Song of the Newfoundlanders
Courtesy of an old friend and sometimes e-mail commentator comes this link about a recent event involving HMCS Cabot, the naval reserve division in Newfoundland and Labrador.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
Controlling every little thing
These changes to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Act are curious if only for the fact they are entirely unnecessary.
The Order was created to honour outstanding contributions by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to their province. The selection committee consisted of a number of people, including the Chief Justice of the province and the President of Memorial University.
These two positions are now eliminated, supposedly to be replaced by two members of the order.
Unfortunately for Premier Williams explanations in the House of Assembly, his amendments to the legislation don't say that.
They simply reduce the advisory council to a committee comprising the Clerk of the Executive Council (appointed by the premier) and seven other people (also appointed ultimately by the Premier).
In any event, since the original Act didn't specify who was appointed beyond the Chief Justice, the Clerk and the university president, the government had plenty of opportunity to apppoint who they wanted or to amend the legislation to add to the council.
The switcheroo pushed by the Premier looks entirely like what it likely is: the Premier wanted to get rid of some people he didn't like and get personal control over as many appointments as possible.
At least in some instances - like the offshore board - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have qualified people appointed by a process the Premier can't gerrymander.
That doesn't stop the Premier from moving to control every little thing in the province.
The Order was created to honour outstanding contributions by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to their province. The selection committee consisted of a number of people, including the Chief Justice of the province and the President of Memorial University.
These two positions are now eliminated, supposedly to be replaced by two members of the order.
Unfortunately for Premier Williams explanations in the House of Assembly, his amendments to the legislation don't say that.
They simply reduce the advisory council to a committee comprising the Clerk of the Executive Council (appointed by the premier) and seven other people (also appointed ultimately by the Premier).
In any event, since the original Act didn't specify who was appointed beyond the Chief Justice, the Clerk and the university president, the government had plenty of opportunity to apppoint who they wanted or to amend the legislation to add to the council.
The switcheroo pushed by the Premier looks entirely like what it likely is: the Premier wanted to get rid of some people he didn't like and get personal control over as many appointments as possible.
At least in some instances - like the offshore board - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have qualified people appointed by a process the Premier can't gerrymander.
That doesn't stop the Premier from moving to control every little thing in the province.
Morrow to beat Manning
Lawyer Bill Morrow will carry the Liberal banner in Avalon.
The CBC report carries a bizarre comment: "Sandwiched between the twin Tory stronghold seats based in St. John's and Liberal-dominated ridings in the rest of the province, Avalon is emerging as the most interesting riding to watch."
Avalon is on the western border of both the St. John's ridings and drawfs them both in size. It is not "sandwiched" between them by any stretch of anyones imagination.
To call the St. john's seats "Tory strongholds" is also not based on the last voting results.
But hey, while everyone was quick to start the attacks on Art Reid, theirs was a pre-mature escalation of the political contest.
Now we can see a solid race in Avalon.
and the switcheroo in St. John's.
The CBC report carries a bizarre comment: "Sandwiched between the twin Tory stronghold seats based in St. John's and Liberal-dominated ridings in the rest of the province, Avalon is emerging as the most interesting riding to watch."
Avalon is on the western border of both the St. John's ridings and drawfs them both in size. It is not "sandwiched" between them by any stretch of anyones imagination.
To call the St. john's seats "Tory strongholds" is also not based on the last voting results.
But hey, while everyone was quick to start the attacks on Art Reid, theirs was a pre-mature escalation of the political contest.
Now we can see a solid race in Avalon.
and the switcheroo in St. John's.
06 December 2005
The real story on Gander and weather
VOCM broke the real story on Gander and weather forecasting that everyone else has been missing.
Harper: policy plagiarism - revised
Stevie Harper popped up in Petty Harbour today, just outside St. John's, to reinforce the view that all we have in Newfoundland and Labrador is fish and fishermen. His announcement in the local version of Peggy's (If I see one more "quaint" picture) Cove, focused on fish and not a helluva lot else.
The PM, by contrast, talked about lots of things during his trip here - and sounded like he was enjoying himself as he did it.
Standing side by side with Loyola Hearn, Harper proclaimed his support for a bunch of fisheries things, including a policy that would allow fishermen a capital gains break on transferring ownership of fishing vessels within the family.
He added joint management and custodial management to the pile, demonstrating conclusively that his fish man (Loyola Hearn) is stuck in the 1980s. What's next? A hydroponic cucumber factory in Mount Pearl? Double-daylight savings time?
As Greg Locke reports, one mainland journalist traveling in the Opp Leader bubble babbled that he had no idea what custodial management was. Here's a simple link.
For those who want to see it done properly, they can check the United Nations law of the Sea Convention and the current federal government approach.
Local proponents of custodial management want to force the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and claim the fish as ours to manage. Picking a fight with the Spaniards, French and Portuguese seems like an eminently sensible way of making sure the European Union lowers its tariffs on shrimp imported into the EU from Newfoundland and Labrador.
As for joint management, to paraphrase Harper himself on another topic, the answer to fisheries problems lies not in one group of politicians sharing power with another group of politicians. It comes from giving meaningful influence to those who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. Check the latest House of Commons fisheries committee report for just such an idea. It's blogged here.
*sigh*
Anyway, seems that the capital gains policy was lifted from bill C-343, proposed by Lawrence MacAulay back in February, 2005. It died with the government, like a bunch of other measures.
**Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital gains exemption on disposition of fishing property).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act allows an individual to claim a $500,000 total lifetime exemption for capital gains that arise from the disposal of qualified farm property.
I am pleased to table this bill today which amends the act so that an individual may also claim this exemption in respect of qualified fishing property.
This bill is very important to the fishing industry. I urge the House to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)***
Revision: Aside from the bit snipped, here's something from the Charlottetown Guardian from September.
Harper should have looked closer at bill: MP
Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay says Opposition Leader Stephen Harper should have taken a closer look at Bill 343 tabled by MacAulay last February before saying that a new Conservative government will provide a capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 of qualifying fishing
property transferred within a family. Harper said he would exempt fishermen from capital gains tax on up to $500,000 on land, licenses or equipment handed to their children. "There is just something wrong with charging capital gains tax when a fishing family wants to transfer assets from one generation to another," said Harper.
Under the Conservative plan approximately 60,000 full- and part-time fish harvesters in Canada would be affected.
But MacAulay says Harper's plan is only a half-measure. MacAulay's private member's Bill 343, given first reading Feb. 25, calls for an exemption on capital gains up to $500,000 on transactions involving any individual, not just family members.
"I just wish Harper would have looked at my bill, and he would not have limited his suggestion to families. My bill is for the entire fishing industry and it is important that it be that way in order to ensure its survival in the small business backbone of the Canadian economy."
The PM, by contrast, talked about lots of things during his trip here - and sounded like he was enjoying himself as he did it.
Standing side by side with Loyola Hearn, Harper proclaimed his support for a bunch of fisheries things, including a policy that would allow fishermen a capital gains break on transferring ownership of fishing vessels within the family.
He added joint management and custodial management to the pile, demonstrating conclusively that his fish man (Loyola Hearn) is stuck in the 1980s. What's next? A hydroponic cucumber factory in Mount Pearl? Double-daylight savings time?
As Greg Locke reports, one mainland journalist traveling in the Opp Leader bubble babbled that he had no idea what custodial management was. Here's a simple link.
For those who want to see it done properly, they can check the United Nations law of the Sea Convention and the current federal government approach.
Local proponents of custodial management want to force the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and claim the fish as ours to manage. Picking a fight with the Spaniards, French and Portuguese seems like an eminently sensible way of making sure the European Union lowers its tariffs on shrimp imported into the EU from Newfoundland and Labrador.
As for joint management, to paraphrase Harper himself on another topic, the answer to fisheries problems lies not in one group of politicians sharing power with another group of politicians. It comes from giving meaningful influence to those who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. Check the latest House of Commons fisheries committee report for just such an idea. It's blogged here.
*sigh*
Anyway, seems that the capital gains policy was lifted from bill C-343, proposed by Lawrence MacAulay back in February, 2005. It died with the government, like a bunch of other measures.
**Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital gains exemption on disposition of fishing property).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act allows an individual to claim a $500,000 total lifetime exemption for capital gains that arise from the disposal of qualified farm property.
I am pleased to table this bill today which amends the act so that an individual may also claim this exemption in respect of qualified fishing property.
This bill is very important to the fishing industry. I urge the House to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)***
Revision: Aside from the bit snipped, here's something from the Charlottetown Guardian from September.
Harper should have looked closer at bill: MP
Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay says Opposition Leader Stephen Harper should have taken a closer look at Bill 343 tabled by MacAulay last February before saying that a new Conservative government will provide a capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 of qualifying fishing
property transferred within a family. Harper said he would exempt fishermen from capital gains tax on up to $500,000 on land, licenses or equipment handed to their children. "There is just something wrong with charging capital gains tax when a fishing family wants to transfer assets from one generation to another," said Harper.
Under the Conservative plan approximately 60,000 full- and part-time fish harvesters in Canada would be affected.
But MacAulay says Harper's plan is only a half-measure. MacAulay's private member's Bill 343, given first reading Feb. 25, calls for an exemption on capital gains up to $500,000 on transactions involving any individual, not just family members.
"I just wish Harper would have looked at my bill, and he would not have limited his suggestion to families. My bill is for the entire fishing industry and it is important that it be that way in order to ensure its survival in the small business backbone of the Canadian economy."
Wells adrift in oil patch
Most of the bluster is gone.
Premier Danny Williams is accepting Max Ruelokke [pronounced roo-lock] as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
it was almost bizarre to hear Williams praising Ruelokke's extensive experience - bizarre given that Ruelokke was likely in consideration in the round of candidates Danny Williams scuttled in favour of a completely unqualified candidate named Andy Wells.
The Premier's comments about "the process not being finished" is just some bluster to cover over the fact that he was completely outmanoeuvered by the guys who actually read the Atlantic Accord and applied the terms of the contract.
The process is finished.
Ruelokke's in.
Wells was never even close.
Premier Danny Williams is accepting Max Ruelokke [pronounced roo-lock] as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
it was almost bizarre to hear Williams praising Ruelokke's extensive experience - bizarre given that Ruelokke was likely in consideration in the round of candidates Danny Williams scuttled in favour of a completely unqualified candidate named Andy Wells.
The Premier's comments about "the process not being finished" is just some bluster to cover over the fact that he was completely outmanoeuvered by the guys who actually read the Atlantic Accord and applied the terms of the contract.
The process is finished.
Ruelokke's in.
Wells was never even close.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)