Do I really need to explain this?I didn't think so.
20 January 2006
Connie platform 2004 on Equalization
Anyone care to recall this little gem?
Conservative plan for Equalization 2004:
Perhaps they'll offer some sort of transitional assistance so some provinces can get used to working with less money. That's what they promised in 2004.
The main problem here is that we just don't know what the Conservatives are actually planning this time around. At least last time, they were straightforward in their approach on Equalization.
This time around I can see the poke.
It's just harder to see if there is a porker inside to buy.
Conservative plan for Equalization 2004:
A Conservative government will also revisit the equalization formula. We will move towards a ten-province standard that excludes non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula (helping the Atlantic provinces and Saskatchewan, in particular), and do so in a manner that ensures no provinces receiving equalization will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the currentformula provides.The current policy is similar but merely states something to the effect that the Conservatives will ensure no province is adversely affected by the changes. The platform just doesn't tell us how that will work.
Perhaps they'll offer some sort of transitional assistance so some provinces can get used to working with less money. That's what they promised in 2004.
The main problem here is that we just don't know what the Conservatives are actually planning this time around. At least last time, they were straightforward in their approach on Equalization.
This time around I can see the poke.
It's just harder to see if there is a porker inside to buy.
What they actually said: Lower Churchill
vocm.com is saying this about the Lower Churchill comments of Stephen Harper and Paul Martin, as well comments by Premier Danny Williams:
Williams: Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System primarily for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Harper: We support this proposal in principle and believe it is important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have greater control of its energy mix. A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes as the Hibernia Project. [Emphasis added]
[Comment: At no point does Stephen Harper provide a full guarantee on this project or even a partial guarantee. he simply welcomes discussions and offers the hope potential exists to move forward with the project.]
Martin: Our government is committed to the exploration of clean power sources that move Canada toward a clean energy future. The development of the Lower Churchill is an exciting opportunity for our shared goals of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic future and for the necessary investments in clean energy. We have funding in place to assist in the development of hydro power projects such as this and upon the province giving this project high priority, we want to ensure Labradorians, and in particular Aboriginal, Metis, Innu and Inuit communities, are central to consultations that will be undertaken.
[Comment: It's curious that Danny Williams is now characterizing the Martin response as being something far less than the "discussions' promised by Stephen Harper.
Williams is well aware of the memorandum of understanding signed last April that included these comments from his own natural resources minister:
As Williams himself put it at the time:
The Harper commitment to talks are clearly, significantly less than the current federal government position.]
In the meantime, Martin will not give a commitment to assist the province in getting access to a transmission corridor across Quebec for Lower Churchill power. Martin says he supports the development, but wants to see the details of the plan first. Premier Danny Williams says the fact that the Prime Minister is here with only a few days to go until the election means he's trying to shore up support for the Liberals.Well, here's what both Harper and Martin wrote in response to the Premier's question:
Williams says Martin has not given a full commitment to the Lower Churchill project, nor has he given a full guarantee.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper says he's prepared to work with the government to ensure the province is the principal beneficiary of the Lower Churchill. Speaking on VOCM Back Talk with Bill Rowe, Harper said the province will not be left out in the cold, similar to the Upper Churchill. [Emphasis and paragraphing added]
Williams: Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System primarily for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Harper: We support this proposal in principle and believe it is important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have greater control of its energy mix. A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes as the Hibernia Project. [Emphasis added]
[Comment: At no point does Stephen Harper provide a full guarantee on this project or even a partial guarantee. he simply welcomes discussions and offers the hope potential exists to move forward with the project.]
Martin: Our government is committed to the exploration of clean power sources that move Canada toward a clean energy future. The development of the Lower Churchill is an exciting opportunity for our shared goals of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic future and for the necessary investments in clean energy. We have funding in place to assist in the development of hydro power projects such as this and upon the province giving this project high priority, we want to ensure Labradorians, and in particular Aboriginal, Metis, Innu and Inuit communities, are central to consultations that will be undertaken.
[Comment: It's curious that Danny Williams is now characterizing the Martin response as being something far less than the "discussions' promised by Stephen Harper.
Williams is well aware of the memorandum of understanding signed last April that included these comments from his own natural resources minister:
I am pleased that one of the priority areas in the MOU is to explore the role that hydroelectric projects, such as the development of Lower Churchill, can play in achieving national and provincial climate change objectives," said Minister Byrne. "Besides providing an economical source of electricity, the Lower Churchill project can provide a significant portion of Canada's greenhouse gas reduction target, which is good for the environment, the economy, and the country."That is in addition to comments by John Efford in St. John's two years ago that the federal government was prepared to assist with the Lower Churchill development.
As Williams himself put it at the time:
"I heard through the media that Minister Efford has opened the door for talks between the province and the federal government on the possible development of the Lower Churchill, and we would certainly be delighted to have those discussions. In my first and subsequent meetings with Prime Minister Martin, I indicated the province would like to see the federal government play a significant role in developing the Lower Churchill, so I am glad to see this moving forward....]In the intervening two years, the Martin administration has signed an agreement with the province that contains provisions that would support Lower Churchill development. The agreement does not preclude other assistance.
The Harper commitment to talks are clearly, significantly less than the current federal government position.]
Knit one, purl Peter
During a radio interview in Halifax yesterday, Peter MacKay told Alexa McDonough she should stick to her knitting.
The line came in response to Alexa's comment she was using her reputation to bolster other candidates.
He apologized, but in explaining the whole thing to CBC Radio said:
See? That's the thing, Petie, sweetie, you charmer you. That little explanation is utter crap.
But what's worse?
Alexa is a former national and provincial leader of the Dippers.
When she is handing your political ass to you during a debate, that is her knitting.
And she is sticking the needles, most likely, somewhere you found a bit uncomfortable.
The line came in response to Alexa's comment she was using her reputation to bolster other candidates.
He apologized, but in explaining the whole thing to CBC Radio said:
"My understanding was it meant 'mind your own business or stay with the things you know.' It certainly was never intended to offend anyone, particularly women," MacKay said.
See? That's the thing, Petie, sweetie, you charmer you. That little explanation is utter crap.
But what's worse?
Alexa is a former national and provincial leader of the Dippers.
When she is handing your political ass to you during a debate, that is her knitting.
And she is sticking the needles, most likely, somewhere you found a bit uncomfortable.
Layton, McLellan, Kenney take questions...
Just saw this headline in the Globe online and the brain saw something else.
The world is not ready for minister of anything Kenny.
"Mmmmfpppf. Mmmmmffpppff."
Equalization fight - the Quebec battleground
Chief Blochead Gilles Duceppe is catching on.
Under a Harper government, Quebec will lose an estimated $3.5 billion in Equalization transfers from Ottawa over five years . La Presse Canadienne (Canadian Press) is reporting Duceppe's comments. The full text follows, en francais.
Now while some localcornerboys commentators will be quick to insist that:
a. this doesn't say anything about Newfoundland and Labrador and therefore is obviously unimportant; and
b. shag the guys in Quebec anyway, any money they lose they deserve to lose...
that just misses the point or actually points.
1. There is an Equalization racket coming under a Harper government, and it likely won't be pretty.
2. Some provinces will be seriously adversely affected by the proposal, like Quebec and New Brunswick.
3. No one has done an assessment of the impact on Newfoundland and Labrador across several scenarios including with the massive Lower Churchill project as the ultimate DIY job.
The last one is important for us. By someone, I mean someone other than Jim Feehan, Wade Locke or the provincial government. The last one just can't be trusted to give the straight goods. The former two have been known to assume a few can-openers for other than economic reasons such that their conclusions are suspect.
Under a Harper government, Quebec will lose an estimated $3.5 billion in Equalization transfers from Ottawa over five years . La Presse Canadienne (Canadian Press) is reporting Duceppe's comments. The full text follows, en francais.
Now while some local
a. this doesn't say anything about Newfoundland and Labrador and therefore is obviously unimportant; and
b. shag the guys in Quebec anyway, any money they lose they deserve to lose...
that just misses the point or actually points.
1. There is an Equalization racket coming under a Harper government, and it likely won't be pretty.
2. Some provinces will be seriously adversely affected by the proposal, like Quebec and New Brunswick.
3. No one has done an assessment of the impact on Newfoundland and Labrador across several scenarios including with the massive Lower Churchill project as the ultimate DIY job.
The last one is important for us. By someone, I mean someone other than Jim Feehan, Wade Locke or the provincial government. The last one just can't be trusted to give the straight goods. The former two have been known to assume a few can-openers for other than economic reasons such that their conclusions are suspect.
Les Québécois perdront plus de 4 milliards $ si Harper est élu, dit Duceppe
La Presse Canadienne
Jan 19, 2006 20:29
Par Lia Lévesque
BROSSARD (PC) _ Le Québec perdra plus de 4 milliards $ si les conservateurs de Stephen Harper sont élus, le 23 janvier, assure le chef du Bloc québécois, Gilles Duceppe.
De passage à Brossard, jeudi soir, dans la circonscription de Brossard-LaPrairie, M. Duceppe a attaqué les conservateurs non seulement sur la question linguistique, comme il l'avait fait plus tôt dans la journée, mais aussi sur l'argent dont sera privé le Québec, dit-il, si les conservateurs sont élus, lundi prochain.
"Tout ce dont on est sûr, avec les conservateurs, c'est que le Québec va perdre plus de 4 milliards $. Pour un départ, je trouve que c'est un drôle de départ; pour une ouverture, je vous dirai que c'est tout une ouverture", s'est-il exclamé devant un auditoire partisan dans un restaurant de Brossard.
Il fonde son calcul sur un document du ministère des Finances du Québec qui évalue que si les revenus issus des ressources naturelles non renouvelables _ comme le pétrole en Alberta _ ne sont plus inclus dans le calcul de la péréquation _ ce qui donne le niveau de richesse de certaines provinces _ , le Québec sera privé de 650 millions$ par année.
Sur 5 ans, cela signifie 3,25 milliards $ de moins pour le Québec, a-t-il noté.
A cela, il ajoute la fin de l'entente sur les services de garde après la première année, ce qui privera le Québec d'un autre milliard de dollars, déplore-t-il, d'où les 4,25 milliards $.
"On peut retourner ces chiffres d'un bord ou de l'autre; le Québec est perdant d'un bout à l'autre", a-t-il dénoncé.
M. Duceppe a fait campagne avec son candidat Marcel Lussier, qui se présente contre Jacques Saada, le libéral sortant. La péquiste Louise Harel est aussi venue prêter main forte.
19 January 2006
The promise of the coming Equalization War
Kudos to nottawa and The New Barrelman for bringing a core issue in federal-provincial relations back in the spotlight. [As an aside, here's a note on where Derek got the name for his blog.]
That issue is Equalization.
Stephen Harper plans to change the approach to Equalization so that non-renewable resource revenues are taken out when it comes time to calculate how much money a province makes from its own revenue sources and therefore how much it will get from the federal government to top that up to a national standard.
For some provinces, like Saskatchewan, such an approach means a doubling of its federal transfer. No surprise therefore that Dipper Premier Lorne Calvert is positively orgasmic at the thought. Saskatchewan has plenty of non-renewables in its revenue base.
For other provinces, like New Brunswick or even Quebec, changes to Equalization would mean a drop in their federal top-up payments. Lord-land doesn't have a lot of non-renewables in its base.
CBC New Brunswick seems to think the Conservative policy isn't clear. They're dead wrong.
It is absolutely clear and it has been consistent since 2004, at least.
Here's how Stephen Harper put it in a recent letter to Danny Williams:
Ken Boessenkool, one of Harper's closet associates, advocated just such a revamping of Equalization in several papers for the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies. In 1999/2000 when the oil revenues were tiny, removing non-renewables from Equalization would have lowered Newfoundland and Labrador's Equalization entitlement by around $3.0 million per year.
That might not be the case in the future. There are no public estimates of what the Conservative proposals for Equalization would mean for Newfoundland and Labrador in the near future in the time when oil revenues are highest.
No one has yet assessed the impact of significant new revenues from renewable resources in this province, like say the Lower Churchill.
And here's the last thing to bear in mind: no one has factored in the offshore deal signed just last year. My bet is that a new federal government committed to changing Equalization would look on that money as a bonus to count against future Equalization and Equalization type entitlements.
After all, the offshore deal wasn't actually about giving back to this province its own revenues. It was about increasing federal transfer payments in a deal no other province, except Nova Scotia, could get.
Gee.
Entitlements.
There's that word again.
Odd thing is that in this context it will be Conservative premiers like Bernard Lord and likely Danny Williams looking to maintain their entitlement to federal transfers.
Equalization reform of the type proposed by Stephen Harper has the potential to be the biggest problem in federal-provincial relations for a new Conservative government.
Just watch.
That issue is Equalization.
Stephen Harper plans to change the approach to Equalization so that non-renewable resource revenues are taken out when it comes time to calculate how much money a province makes from its own revenue sources and therefore how much it will get from the federal government to top that up to a national standard.
For some provinces, like Saskatchewan, such an approach means a doubling of its federal transfer. No surprise therefore that Dipper Premier Lorne Calvert is positively orgasmic at the thought. Saskatchewan has plenty of non-renewables in its revenue base.
For other provinces, like New Brunswick or even Quebec, changes to Equalization would mean a drop in their federal top-up payments. Lord-land doesn't have a lot of non-renewables in its base.
CBC New Brunswick seems to think the Conservative policy isn't clear. They're dead wrong.
It is absolutely clear and it has been consistent since 2004, at least.
Here's how Stephen Harper put it in a recent letter to Danny Williams:
We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada. The Conservative government will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula. [Emphasis added]That wording is taken directly from the Conservative's March policy statement.
Ken Boessenkool, one of Harper's closet associates, advocated just such a revamping of Equalization in several papers for the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies. In 1999/2000 when the oil revenues were tiny, removing non-renewables from Equalization would have lowered Newfoundland and Labrador's Equalization entitlement by around $3.0 million per year.
That might not be the case in the future. There are no public estimates of what the Conservative proposals for Equalization would mean for Newfoundland and Labrador in the near future in the time when oil revenues are highest.
No one has yet assessed the impact of significant new revenues from renewable resources in this province, like say the Lower Churchill.
And here's the last thing to bear in mind: no one has factored in the offshore deal signed just last year. My bet is that a new federal government committed to changing Equalization would look on that money as a bonus to count against future Equalization and Equalization type entitlements.
After all, the offshore deal wasn't actually about giving back to this province its own revenues. It was about increasing federal transfer payments in a deal no other province, except Nova Scotia, could get.
Gee.
Entitlements.
There's that word again.
Odd thing is that in this context it will be Conservative premiers like Bernard Lord and likely Danny Williams looking to maintain their entitlement to federal transfers.
Equalization reform of the type proposed by Stephen Harper has the potential to be the biggest problem in federal-provincial relations for a new Conservative government.
Just watch.
A good look at Harper
From Norman Spector, former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney comes this:
Some people are in for a rude shock after January 23rd.
Make no mistake. Beneath that newly genial demeanour beats the heart of a deep-blue conservative, whose dream is to shrink the central government, dramatically reduce its role in public life, privatize as much as [Stephen Harper] can get away with, and hack away at the incomprehensible system of income transfers that sucks money from the haves to the have-nots. As for regional development programs such as ACOA -- to the guillotine! Mr. Harper is posing as an incrementalist, which, in many ways, he is. But if he has his way, his incrementalism will eventually reshape Canada as profoundly as did the creation of the welfare state.Food for thought.
If you think that legacy of entitlements, subsidies and big government is indeed a sacred trust, you should not vote for Mr. Harper. If you believe high taxes are fundamental to a caring society, you should not vote for him. If you don't want a reversal of aboriginal policy, don't vote for him. If you don't want 10 provinces and three territories experimenting with health care, don't vote for him.
Some people are in for a rude shock after January 23rd.
Thought provoking and then a moment of sheer hysterical laughter
Take a gander at The National piece last night that includes an interview with Albertans and Newfoundlanders about the future of the country.
Especially worthy of note: the attachment of one interview subject for fish. It seemed to be a bit..shall we say... intense, to the point where someone might check the guy's lapel for errant scales or the smell of cod.
Overall, though think long and hard about the difference in attitude between Albertans - even Newfoundlanders in Alberta - and the pseudo-nationalists in St. John's.
It's the difference between self-reliance and talking about self-reliance...with help from someone else to achieve self-reliance.
Especially worthy of note: the attachment of one interview subject for fish. It seemed to be a bit..shall we say... intense, to the point where someone might check the guy's lapel for errant scales or the smell of cod.
Overall, though think long and hard about the difference in attitude between Albertans - even Newfoundlanders in Alberta - and the pseudo-nationalists in St. John's.
It's the difference between self-reliance and talking about self-reliance...with help from someone else to achieve self-reliance.
This is a bit much
Kudos to andrewcoyne.com for providing a link to this site, dedicated to showing the other side of Stephen Harper.
I chuckled with the nonsense about harpermania, given the old boy is still struggling to get his party into power. The last great cult of personality produced an astonishing public reaction.
But that was Trudeau in 1968.
And Harper is not even close to being Pierre Trudeau on any level.
In fact, even Harper wouldn't want to be compared to Pierre.
I chuckled with the nonsense about harpermania, given the old boy is still struggling to get his party into power. The last great cult of personality produced an astonishing public reaction.
But that was Trudeau in 1968.
And Harper is not even close to being Pierre Trudeau on any level.
In fact, even Harper wouldn't want to be compared to Pierre.
There I came face to face with a living legend, someone who had provoked in me both the loves and hatreds of my political passion, all in the form of a tired out, little, old man," Harper wrote in a newspaper column that stood out from the flood of Trudeau tributes. "It was an experience at once unforgettable, nostalgic and haunting." He went on to denounce that old man's legacy in the bitterest terms. Not only did he rebuke Trudeau's policy mix of "centralism, socialism and bilingualism," he even indicted him for failing to serve in the Second World War or oppose the Soviet Union. "In those battles," Harper wrote, "the ones that truly defined his century, Mr. Trudeau took a pass."
Hearn, Doyle and Manning - darlings of the socons
Social conservatives looking forward to repealing equal marriage in the country have spoken!
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Vote Marriage Canada is supporting:
Loyola Hearn
Norm Doyle
and
Fabian Manning
It was especially amusing to be sitting here typing this as yet another cheesy Loyola Hearn radio ad turned up on ym radio.
In this one, he personally pledges to stand up for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Except of course gays and lesbians on equal marriage.
But Loyola didn't need to say that anyway.
We already know where he stands on that issue.
Too bad he isn't as committed to fisheries issues as he is to banning equal marriage.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Vote Marriage Canada is supporting:
Loyola Hearn
Norm Doyle
and
Fabian Manning
It was especially amusing to be sitting here typing this as yet another cheesy Loyola Hearn radio ad turned up on ym radio.
In this one, he personally pledges to stand up for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Except of course gays and lesbians on equal marriage.
But Loyola didn't need to say that anyway.
We already know where he stands on that issue.
Too bad he isn't as committed to fisheries issues as he is to banning equal marriage.
Choice my foot - redux
A new commentary from the Caledon Institute is damning of the Conservatives' $1,200 child care buy-off.
Caledon's analysis concludes that the people who will benefit least from the Connie campaign plank are the people who need the help in child care the most:
Caledon's analysis concludes that the people who will benefit least from the Connie campaign plank are the people who need the help in child care the most:
The proposed Child Care Allowance would pay its lowest amount to families with modest incomes close to the poverty line:[p.4, emphasis added]
*• A two-earner couple with two children (one child under 6 and thus eligible for the Child Care Allowance) and income of $36,000 (only a few thousand dollars above Statistics Canada'’s estimated aftertax low income cutoff of $33,152 for cities of 500,000 or larger in 2006) would end up with an Allowance worth only $388 − one-third (32.3 percent) of the $1,200 face value payment.
*• A one-earner couple with two children (one child under 6) and income of $33,000 (just below Statistics Canada'’s estimated after-tax low income cutoff of $33,152 for cities of 500,000 or larger in 2006) would end up with $650 − just over half (54.2 percent) of the $1,200 face value payment.
*• A single parent with one child under 6 and income in the $27,000 to $29,000 range (not that far above Statistics Canada'’s estimated $21,341 after-tax low income cutoff for a two-person family living in cities of 500,000 or larger in 2006) would end up with $481 − only 40.1 percent of the $1,200 face value payment.
The true value of the Child Care Allowance shows no rational relationship to families'’ incomes. Only the poorest families on welfare, with no or only a few thousand dollars of earned income, would get the full $1,200 − but only if the provinces and territories exempted the Child Care Allowance from the calculation of income for purposes of determining social assistance, which Ottawa would have to ensure through negotiations. There is no guarantee that provinces and territories would agree to this, since some might argue -– correctly -– that families on welfare already have fully or almost fully subsidized child care so do not need the additional $1,200 to pay for child care. Instead, some provinces/territories might argue the added funds should reduce provincial/territorial costs of child care subsidies for families on welfare.
In this case, families on welfare would not gain at all from the new federal program.
18 January 2006
Channeling Mackenzie King
Connie candidate Loyola Hearn is still pushing himself as the guy in the party that will sort out fisheries problems.
Of course, we must ignore the fact that someone can't even edit a brochure here, since Hearn's people think he is talking about the Grank Bank. (see below).
As a sign of Hearn's strong commitment to custodial management, a big issue locally even if it is a legal crock, comes the following from one of his campaign brochures:
Two things to notice:
1. At no point does this brochure say anything about joint management of the fishery between the province and Ottawa. It says a Connie government will give "an increased role". That role is undefined.
2. Custodial management was something the Connies pledged to move on immediately back at the policy conference in March. Others have trumpeted this as a sign of Hearn's influence. He's even got a radio spot in which a well-known local fisheries chronic praises Hearn.
Well, here it is guys. Loyola is channeling Mackenzie King, he of "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" fame.
The new policy (the umpteenth watering down of the Connie platform on this point in the campaign) is to take action...if necessary. The whole point of Hearn's time in Ottawa has been to claim that it was long since past being necessary.
Loyola's resolution in the House of Commons on custodial was obviously just a gigantic political stunt, a hollow sham of an exercise. That called on the government to take "immediate action", no ifs ands or buts about it.
Find background here and here.
Of course, we must ignore the fact that someone can't even edit a brochure here, since Hearn's people think he is talking about the Grank Bank. (see below).
As a sign of Hearn's strong commitment to custodial management, a big issue locally even if it is a legal crock, comes the following from one of his campaign brochures:
Stand Up for Our Fisheries
A Conservative government will protect the fisheries following 12 years of Liberal neglect. We will also give the coastal provinces - – particularly Newfoundland and Labrador -– an increased role in the management of the fisheries. If necessary, we will not hesitate to take Custodial Management over the nose and tail of the Grank [sic] Banks and Flemish Cap. [Emphasis added]
Two things to notice:
1. At no point does this brochure say anything about joint management of the fishery between the province and Ottawa. It says a Connie government will give "an increased role". That role is undefined.
2. Custodial management was something the Connies pledged to move on immediately back at the policy conference in March. Others have trumpeted this as a sign of Hearn's influence. He's even got a radio spot in which a well-known local fisheries chronic praises Hearn.
Well, here it is guys. Loyola is channeling Mackenzie King, he of "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" fame.
The new policy (the umpteenth watering down of the Connie platform on this point in the campaign) is to take action...if necessary. The whole point of Hearn's time in Ottawa has been to claim that it was long since past being necessary.
Loyola's resolution in the House of Commons on custodial was obviously just a gigantic political stunt, a hollow sham of an exercise. That called on the government to take "immediate action", no ifs ands or buts about it.
Find background here and here.
Outlier polls
While polls have their value, there has been entirely too much emphasis on them in media reports during this campaign, particularly at the national level.
That said, it is interesting to see this simple comparison presented in today's nightly tracking report from SES:
Comparison
* SES Research (N=1,012 decided voters, January 14 to 16, 2006)
* Ekos Research (N=2,018 decided voters, January 15 to 17, 2006)
* Decima Research (N=1, 017 decided voters, January 12 to 15, 2006)
* Strategic Counsel (N=1,500 voters, January 14 to 16, 2005)
CPC -- SES 37%, Ekos 37%, Decima 37%, Strategic Counsel 42%
LPC -- SES 30%, Ekos 27%, Decima 27%, Strategic Counsel 24%
NDP -- SES 18%, Ekos 20%, Decima 18%, Strategic Counsel 17%
BQ -- SES 10%, Ekos 11%, Decima 11%, Strategic Counsel 12%
As I have contended all along, the Strategic Counsel research seems to be flattening Liberal numbers by some amount outside the margin of error for the polls and, likely inflates the Conservative numbers by an amount outside the usual margin of error.
That said, it is interesting to see this simple comparison presented in today's nightly tracking report from SES:
Comparison
* SES Research (N=1,012 decided voters, January 14 to 16, 2006)
* Ekos Research (N=2,018 decided voters, January 15 to 17, 2006)
* Decima Research (N=1, 017 decided voters, January 12 to 15, 2006)
* Strategic Counsel (N=1,500 voters, January 14 to 16, 2005)
CPC -- SES 37%, Ekos 37%, Decima 37%, Strategic Counsel 42%
LPC -- SES 30%, Ekos 27%, Decima 27%, Strategic Counsel 24%
NDP -- SES 18%, Ekos 20%, Decima 18%, Strategic Counsel 17%
BQ -- SES 10%, Ekos 11%, Decima 11%, Strategic Counsel 12%
As I have contended all along, the Strategic Counsel research seems to be flattening Liberal numbers by some amount outside the margin of error for the polls and, likely inflates the Conservative numbers by an amount outside the usual margin of error.
Ontario a "have-not" province? Williams better watch out.
Check out this release from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
It calls on the federal party leaders to audit federal transfers to provinces like Equalization in order to insure the programs are accomplishing their goals.
All this would be in support of the Ontario Chamber's call last year for efforts to address what it sees a fiscal imbalance in Confederation whereby Ontarians contribute $23 billion more to the country than they get back in federal transfers and programs.
There are a few simple observations:
1. Rhetorically, if Ontario is being seen as a burgeoning have-not province, what does that make Newfoundland and Labrador?
2. If an audit and benchmarking concludes the existing transfer systems need to alter radically because, for example, Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't been able to get ahead after 55 years of hand-outs, what policy implications will that have? There is only so much money to go around and a Harper administration will be facing huge demands from provinces like Ontario and BC for cash.
3. A Harper minority will be looking to add seats in Ontario, just as they have been doing for weeks now. That's the way politics works in this country, contrary to the bumpf being peddled by one Connie operative locally. The pressure would ramp up on a Harper administration to trash his plans cut spending and lower federal expenditures.
4. My guess is that Newfoundland and Labrador will be viewed as having already gotten its deal through the offshore agreement last year. The deal won't be ripped up but when the bargaining begins, our cash will count against us getting extras. One of the unstated reasons Danny stormed out of the Oct 04 meeting was knowing that his counterparts were going to push him a bit for his efforts to get a side deal. Don't expect much sympathy for our case in the near future.
5. Harper's general fiscal approach seems aimed at reducing federal outlays through cuts and program redesign like the one mapped for Equalization. He's going to have trouble doing that in light of the anticipated political pressure from the provinces. A minority government won't be able to resist the provincial demands.
6. From the local perspective, though, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to take a hard look at the real impact of any Harper changes to federal transfers. This province remains heavily dependent on federal transfers of all types. The best example of this is in the offshore deal. Contrary to what people were told and many believe, it was actually a way to keep or increase federal transfers rather than replace actual earned income lost to Ottawa by some means.
7. No matter which government sits in Ottawa on January 24th, this pressure from Ontario and elsewhere will be hard to resist. The only thing I'd say with some confidence is that this province's ability to influence federal decision-making will be no greater then than it is now. In fact, it might be much less.
In the past, this province has had to go to war with Ottawa on a regular basis irrespective of which party is in power. While this election is being shaped by some as an Anti-Ottawa, i.e. anti-Liberal fight, things have often been worse under the Conservatives.
Check Crosbie's memoirs on this:
- A 1988 call by Peckford for financial assistance met with Crosbie's famous "stop biting the hand that feeds you line."
- Regular fish fights including the feds decision to give France an allocation of Northern Cod, a species they hadn't fished for almost a century at that point.
Don't forget:
- The original Atlantic Accord - while still being a landmark agreement between Ottawa and a province - contained the very clawback provisions on Equalization that people who supported it then (like Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle) later blamed on the Liberals.
A detailed assessment of the Conservative platform and the specifics of the letter from Harper to Williams suggests more than a few areas where a Prime Minister Harper would clash with Danny Williams. That's without the burgeoning pressure from Ontario for more federal cash and the likely political pressure on Stephen Harper to win seats where he doesn't have them now.
It calls on the federal party leaders to audit federal transfers to provinces like Equalization in order to insure the programs are accomplishing their goals.
All this would be in support of the Ontario Chamber's call last year for efforts to address what it sees a fiscal imbalance in Confederation whereby Ontarians contribute $23 billion more to the country than they get back in federal transfers and programs.
There are a few simple observations:
1. Rhetorically, if Ontario is being seen as a burgeoning have-not province, what does that make Newfoundland and Labrador?
2. If an audit and benchmarking concludes the existing transfer systems need to alter radically because, for example, Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't been able to get ahead after 55 years of hand-outs, what policy implications will that have? There is only so much money to go around and a Harper administration will be facing huge demands from provinces like Ontario and BC for cash.
3. A Harper minority will be looking to add seats in Ontario, just as they have been doing for weeks now. That's the way politics works in this country, contrary to the bumpf being peddled by one Connie operative locally. The pressure would ramp up on a Harper administration to trash his plans cut spending and lower federal expenditures.
4. My guess is that Newfoundland and Labrador will be viewed as having already gotten its deal through the offshore agreement last year. The deal won't be ripped up but when the bargaining begins, our cash will count against us getting extras. One of the unstated reasons Danny stormed out of the Oct 04 meeting was knowing that his counterparts were going to push him a bit for his efforts to get a side deal. Don't expect much sympathy for our case in the near future.
5. Harper's general fiscal approach seems aimed at reducing federal outlays through cuts and program redesign like the one mapped for Equalization. He's going to have trouble doing that in light of the anticipated political pressure from the provinces. A minority government won't be able to resist the provincial demands.
6. From the local perspective, though, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to take a hard look at the real impact of any Harper changes to federal transfers. This province remains heavily dependent on federal transfers of all types. The best example of this is in the offshore deal. Contrary to what people were told and many believe, it was actually a way to keep or increase federal transfers rather than replace actual earned income lost to Ottawa by some means.
7. No matter which government sits in Ottawa on January 24th, this pressure from Ontario and elsewhere will be hard to resist. The only thing I'd say with some confidence is that this province's ability to influence federal decision-making will be no greater then than it is now. In fact, it might be much less.
In the past, this province has had to go to war with Ottawa on a regular basis irrespective of which party is in power. While this election is being shaped by some as an Anti-Ottawa, i.e. anti-Liberal fight, things have often been worse under the Conservatives.
Check Crosbie's memoirs on this:
- A 1988 call by Peckford for financial assistance met with Crosbie's famous "stop biting the hand that feeds you line."
- Regular fish fights including the feds decision to give France an allocation of Northern Cod, a species they hadn't fished for almost a century at that point.
Don't forget:
- The original Atlantic Accord - while still being a landmark agreement between Ottawa and a province - contained the very clawback provisions on Equalization that people who supported it then (like Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle) later blamed on the Liberals.
A detailed assessment of the Conservative platform and the specifics of the letter from Harper to Williams suggests more than a few areas where a Prime Minister Harper would clash with Danny Williams. That's without the burgeoning pressure from Ontario for more federal cash and the likely political pressure on Stephen Harper to win seats where he doesn't have them now.
Tortures of the Damned
If I am hearing David Cochrane correctly as he does a debrief on CBC Radio, Premier Danny Williams insisted that nobody leave Harbour Breton last year when the town's only employer closed, and now cabinet is set to reject the bulk of the plan the local economic development committee developed over the past year.
Hmmm.
By the sounds of the project Cochrane described, the ideas that came up were typical - lots of government money, not much chance of success - that are typical of projects that come from desperate people in desperate situations.
It was almost laughable to hear Cochrane passing on what were obviously comments of some senior government political types that the plans to re-open the fish plant basically didn't offer any chance of success, or words to that effect.
The comments were laughable since the very reason the plant was closed is that refurbishing and restarting it wasn't really an economically viable option.
Not surprisingly, Cochrane is reporting differences of opinion within the community about what types of activity will have the best chance of success, who will get certain jobs and so on and so on. It's not surprising because in a desperate town, that's what happens. It's also not surprising since it is an easy excuse for government to blame the locals, even though government has done precious little itself to help out here.
Compare Harbour Breton to Stephenville and its committee of the highest level cabinet ministers doing the work that the local people of Harbour Breton have been trying to do by themselves.
Does it strike anyone else that this is the tortures of the damned for the people of Harbour Breton?
The Premier basically did everything he could to insist, coax and cajole people to stay in the community rather than leave Harbour Breton for work elsewhere. The government itself has provided minimal help - the rejection of the proposal is witness to that - and now the whole process of developing some kind of development plan is likely to start all over again.
Hmmm.
By the sounds of the project Cochrane described, the ideas that came up were typical - lots of government money, not much chance of success - that are typical of projects that come from desperate people in desperate situations.
It was almost laughable to hear Cochrane passing on what were obviously comments of some senior government political types that the plans to re-open the fish plant basically didn't offer any chance of success, or words to that effect.
The comments were laughable since the very reason the plant was closed is that refurbishing and restarting it wasn't really an economically viable option.
Not surprisingly, Cochrane is reporting differences of opinion within the community about what types of activity will have the best chance of success, who will get certain jobs and so on and so on. It's not surprising because in a desperate town, that's what happens. It's also not surprising since it is an easy excuse for government to blame the locals, even though government has done precious little itself to help out here.
Compare Harbour Breton to Stephenville and its committee of the highest level cabinet ministers doing the work that the local people of Harbour Breton have been trying to do by themselves.
Does it strike anyone else that this is the tortures of the damned for the people of Harbour Breton?
The Premier basically did everything he could to insist, coax and cajole people to stay in the community rather than leave Harbour Breton for work elsewhere. The government itself has provided minimal help - the rejection of the proposal is witness to that - and now the whole process of developing some kind of development plan is likely to start all over again.
Unfit to govern: An object lesson
Steve Harper decided to start out his run to 24 Sussex by impuning the integrity and impartiality of the public service and the judiciary.
When a new government arrives looking for moles and spies and partisans among the bureaucracy, they inevitable wind up slaughtering thousands and breeding the kind of cynicism and distrust that actually works against the government.
The bureaucrats are the ones who know how the machinery works. They know how to make it work for you.
or against you.
Like the young master corporal, saddled with an obviously arrogant young officer.
After leading his platoon through woods and swamp in the pitch blackness, the young officer proudly stops his men and orders them to dig.
Checking his map, the master corporal protests that they can't dig fully prepared firing trenches in this spot.
After some back and forth, the master corporal looked to the more senior non-commissioned officer judging the exercise. The warrant officer glared back at the master corporal and told him to follow orders.
Come sunrise, there was a text-book position with deep trenches, steel reinforcement and overhead cover.
There too was the control tower of the local airfield, the controllers in their tower staring in amazement through their binoculars at the new inhabitants in the open space been the runways.
In short order, young officer was gone, to be replaced by a smarter guy.
"See," said the old warrant officer, to his younger friend. "There's more than one way to get rid of a stupid officer."
Many the minister and indeed the government that have been brought down by just that approach.
Keep, it up Steve. Your first months leading a minority government will be very interesting to watch.
When a new government arrives looking for moles and spies and partisans among the bureaucracy, they inevitable wind up slaughtering thousands and breeding the kind of cynicism and distrust that actually works against the government.
The bureaucrats are the ones who know how the machinery works. They know how to make it work for you.
or against you.
Like the young master corporal, saddled with an obviously arrogant young officer.
After leading his platoon through woods and swamp in the pitch blackness, the young officer proudly stops his men and orders them to dig.
Checking his map, the master corporal protests that they can't dig fully prepared firing trenches in this spot.
After some back and forth, the master corporal looked to the more senior non-commissioned officer judging the exercise. The warrant officer glared back at the master corporal and told him to follow orders.
Come sunrise, there was a text-book position with deep trenches, steel reinforcement and overhead cover.
There too was the control tower of the local airfield, the controllers in their tower staring in amazement through their binoculars at the new inhabitants in the open space been the runways.
In short order, young officer was gone, to be replaced by a smarter guy.
"See," said the old warrant officer, to his younger friend. "There's more than one way to get rid of a stupid officer."
Many the minister and indeed the government that have been brought down by just that approach.
Keep, it up Steve. Your first months leading a minority government will be very interesting to watch.
17 January 2006
Under a Harper administration...
I wonder what international seat Newfoundland and Labrador will be looking to have.
The most obvious one is the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).
Given the disproportionate number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Canadian Forces, I can see looking for a seat at the North Atlantic Treay Organization council as well. We could do a good job at NATO.
Given that Newfoundland and Labrador used to be an independent country, and just never exercised its right to a seat at the old League of Nations, I can see giving the province a sort of co-seat at the United Nations. Maybe one with shorter legs.
We should also look for a seat at the Commonwealth table, given again that this used to be an independent country and one of the Dominions alongside Canada, New Zealand and India to name a few.
Given the number of aircraft transitting the airspace over the province and its historic role in international aviation, a seat at the International Civil Aviation Council would be in order.
Gimme time and I'll come up with a few more.
[Update: Oooh. Ooooh. I got a new one. International Atomic Energy Agency. Once Danny gets around to uttering his Tobinesque "not one teaspoon" threat over uranium in Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador can look to become some kind of leader in all things nuclear.
Then there's the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental body addressing concerns of Arctic peoples.
The most obvious one is the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).
Given the disproportionate number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Canadian Forces, I can see looking for a seat at the North Atlantic Treay Organization council as well. We could do a good job at NATO.
Given that Newfoundland and Labrador used to be an independent country, and just never exercised its right to a seat at the old League of Nations, I can see giving the province a sort of co-seat at the United Nations. Maybe one with shorter legs.
We should also look for a seat at the Commonwealth table, given again that this used to be an independent country and one of the Dominions alongside Canada, New Zealand and India to name a few.
Given the number of aircraft transitting the airspace over the province and its historic role in international aviation, a seat at the International Civil Aviation Council would be in order.
Gimme time and I'll come up with a few more.
[Update: Oooh. Ooooh. I got a new one. International Atomic Energy Agency. Once Danny gets around to uttering his Tobinesque "not one teaspoon" threat over uranium in Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador can look to become some kind of leader in all things nuclear.
Then there's the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental body addressing concerns of Arctic peoples.
Welcome to Amerika!
Stephen Harper thinks that the Supreme Court is full of Liberals because the justices were appointed under Liberal administrations.
Obviously, Mr. Harper knows little of how our judges are appointed. It isn't the American system, nor should it be. And while there is room to improve the selection and appointment methods, we are a far cry from having the tortures of judicial appointments that are blatantly politicized as in the United States.
Based on these comments, we can logically conclude that his Prime Minister Harper's criterion for making the next appointment will be Conservative values.
Stephen Harper thinks the bureaucracy is Liberal because senior elements were appointed by Liberals. Mr. Harper might want to check the Progressive Conservative experience in 1979 and again in 1984 .
We can also logically expect a period of upheaval in the bureaucracy and intense suspicion by a Conservative government of anyone not providing Conservative-sounding advice. This will make the early months of a Harper government most interesting.
Lastly, on the Senate, Steve has it right. Yep. The majority have been appointed by Liberals. But, if he wants to check, he'll find that some Liberal administrations have appointed Conservatives and Independents.
Steve wants to reform the senate by having elections. Nice idea.
The major problem is that the senate, which should reflect the provinces of the country as equals, is currently weighted in favour of Ontario and Quebec.
If he really wanted to reform the senate and change the political landscape of the country, Steve would work to have an equal number of senators from each province chosen in elections run by Elections Canada.
Even with the limited powers of the existing senate, which cannot hold up money bills indefinitely, for example and has no power to review appointments of judges and senior officials, an elected senate with equal representation from the provinces would go a long way to making the federal government more representative of Canadians and more effective.
Unfortunately, Mr. Harper hasn't shown any serious interest in reforming the federal legislature. That is one plank from the old Reform Party platforms many Canadians would support.
Obviously, Mr. Harper knows little of how our judges are appointed. It isn't the American system, nor should it be. And while there is room to improve the selection and appointment methods, we are a far cry from having the tortures of judicial appointments that are blatantly politicized as in the United States.
Based on these comments, we can logically conclude that his Prime Minister Harper's criterion for making the next appointment will be Conservative values.
Stephen Harper thinks the bureaucracy is Liberal because senior elements were appointed by Liberals. Mr. Harper might want to check the Progressive Conservative experience in 1979 and again in 1984 .
We can also logically expect a period of upheaval in the bureaucracy and intense suspicion by a Conservative government of anyone not providing Conservative-sounding advice. This will make the early months of a Harper government most interesting.
Lastly, on the Senate, Steve has it right. Yep. The majority have been appointed by Liberals. But, if he wants to check, he'll find that some Liberal administrations have appointed Conservatives and Independents.
Steve wants to reform the senate by having elections. Nice idea.
The major problem is that the senate, which should reflect the provinces of the country as equals, is currently weighted in favour of Ontario and Quebec.
If he really wanted to reform the senate and change the political landscape of the country, Steve would work to have an equal number of senators from each province chosen in elections run by Elections Canada.
Even with the limited powers of the existing senate, which cannot hold up money bills indefinitely, for example and has no power to review appointments of judges and senior officials, an elected senate with equal representation from the provinces would go a long way to making the federal government more representative of Canadians and more effective.
Unfortunately, Mr. Harper hasn't shown any serious interest in reforming the federal legislature. That is one plank from the old Reform Party platforms many Canadians would support.
There's just no pleasing some people
Danny Williams tries to pretend he is not taking sides in the federal election. [The deputy premier is.]
He praises Stephen Harper, even though much of Harper's letter is a promise to talk.
He says nice things about Jack Layton, who actually offered Danny everything he asked for.
When the prime minister's letter comes through, Danny dismisses it as being "disappointing".
That despite the fact it addresses every concern and in considerable detail in some cases. It provides firm opportunities of funding for the Lower Churchill, and actually would increase federal presence in the province in a way that is attainable (unlike Harper's B/s military promises).
It's worth reading the actual letter, compare it to the other two and then try and figure out what Danny is up to. Apparently, it isn't trying to influence the local election results.
Yep. And pulling down the Canadian flag last year was a good idea. (Just ask the Premier's favourite pollster on that one.)
Of course, it's scarcely surprising that Williams would misrepresent a letter from Stephen Harper. Last year, Williams wanted people to believe Harper said yes to the province's proposal on offshore revenues when in fact Harper said a big "no".
Twice.
If Stephen Harper had been elected year before last, Danny would still be waiting for his offshore cheque.
If Stephen Harper had been elected last spring, by Harper's own words, we'd still be trying to figure out the Equalization changes Harper said would address Williams' issues.
Danny would still be waiting for his cheque.
But then again, Danny isn't taking sides. [Tom Rideout, Loyola Sullivan and most of cabinet is. But not Danny. Rideout, the deputy premier and another relic of the Peckford regime is telling people a Conservative majority would be best for the province. Backupable Tom obviously forgets the endless rackets with Ottawa under Mulroney.]
I just hope he has someone working overtime to calculate how much the province will be losing in federal transfers under Stephen Harper's plan to change Equalization.
Meanwhile, this headline seems to have been written by someone who is under the impression CBC has already been sold to Fox.
There's no quote in the story to confirm Williams said the PM's response "falls flat."
He said it fell short. It's just hard to see where exactly.
And on the Gander weather office and federal presence piece, "falls short" means gives more than we asked for.
There's just no pleasing some people.
He praises Stephen Harper, even though much of Harper's letter is a promise to talk.
He says nice things about Jack Layton, who actually offered Danny everything he asked for.
When the prime minister's letter comes through, Danny dismisses it as being "disappointing".
That despite the fact it addresses every concern and in considerable detail in some cases. It provides firm opportunities of funding for the Lower Churchill, and actually would increase federal presence in the province in a way that is attainable (unlike Harper's B/s military promises).
It's worth reading the actual letter, compare it to the other two and then try and figure out what Danny is up to. Apparently, it isn't trying to influence the local election results.
Yep. And pulling down the Canadian flag last year was a good idea. (Just ask the Premier's favourite pollster on that one.)
Of course, it's scarcely surprising that Williams would misrepresent a letter from Stephen Harper. Last year, Williams wanted people to believe Harper said yes to the province's proposal on offshore revenues when in fact Harper said a big "no".
Twice.
If Stephen Harper had been elected year before last, Danny would still be waiting for his offshore cheque.
If Stephen Harper had been elected last spring, by Harper's own words, we'd still be trying to figure out the Equalization changes Harper said would address Williams' issues.
Danny would still be waiting for his cheque.
But then again, Danny isn't taking sides. [Tom Rideout, Loyola Sullivan and most of cabinet is. But not Danny. Rideout, the deputy premier and another relic of the Peckford regime is telling people a Conservative majority would be best for the province. Backupable Tom obviously forgets the endless rackets with Ottawa under Mulroney.]
I just hope he has someone working overtime to calculate how much the province will be losing in federal transfers under Stephen Harper's plan to change Equalization.
Meanwhile, this headline seems to have been written by someone who is under the impression CBC has already been sold to Fox.
There's no quote in the story to confirm Williams said the PM's response "falls flat."
He said it fell short. It's just hard to see where exactly.And on the Gander weather office and federal presence piece, "falls short" means gives more than we asked for.
There's just no pleasing some people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)