A la prochaine

A. Biggest winner of the night?

Andy Wells, the acerbic mayor of St. John's who may finally get a job at the province's offshore board. Danny wants him, for some completely inscrutable reason, and Harper is unlikely to give a rat's ass.

The only question now is whether Wells become the unqualified chairman and chief executive officer or the part-time chairman with a full-time, highly qualified chief executive in Max Ruelokke. Smart money would say the latter, but this is a case of asymmetrical information and Williams isn't about to share what he's up to..

Runner-up goes to a bunch of Liberal candidates who won in ridings despite being targeted by a range of forces. Piss on all those forces, those without better things to do with bodily fluids.

B. Biggest loser of the night?

Yet to be determined.

1. Despite a clever games theory of a campaign, the Conservatives just couldn't crack through and win the elusive majority. There is lingering doubt about the team and what it may do. It remains a major contender for this award.

2. Among the loser nominees are Stephen Harper, who may find himself channeling either John Deifenbaker in 1957 or Joe Clark in 1979. We may find out the policy wonk from Calgary will set up his own model for prime minister in a minority government. Time will tell.

3. Big loser nominee would have to be some of the nation's pollsters, including former Conservative Party poll guru Allen Gregg. His polls and predications turned out to be as valuable as stuff pumped out by Jo Jo's psychic alliance for Jean Chretien. Warren the K can be embarrassed for his unreserved endorsement of Ipsos' last foray and in particular its spectacularly off-base seat projections.

C. Best Performance by a Prime Minister?

Paul Martin. In his speech tonight, Paul Martin proved why he was a competent and able prime minister who never deserved the schoolboy smears of the incoming government and its byte-sized lackeys.

Martin's resignation marks the end of his tenure as leader and Prime Minister and begins the process of rejuvenation of the party that has governed the country, with reason, for most of the last century.

Those who think they are dancing on its political grave should note the shifting sands already rising above their ankles.

Skip over most of the names already jockeying for contention. The list will quickly narrow down to the most likely choices. Don't count on it being anyone who served under Chretien.

Other coming changes?

The departure of Loyola Hearn. With his second pension assured, Hearn will fade into the woodwork before the next election to make room for Ed Byrne.

Hearn is unlikely to be a note-worthy federal cabinet minister from Newfoundland and Labrador.

He will likely occupy the only job he wanted - fish minister - and the only job the mainlanders think about when they think of the province, other than minister of employment insurance. Mainlanders seem to forget Don Jamieson (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister) or John Crosbie (International Trade and Connie wunderbar gauleiter of the east coast protectorate when it comes time to hand out the cabinet jobs.

At a time when our province should be in a more prominent national light, we are likely to be locked into being perceived as the place always with its hand out.

Paul Antle as provincial Liberal leader. It might be a faint hope, but someone needs to come forward who actually has had a genuinely new idea in the past 30 years and who isn't a captive of those in the party establishment who seem hell-bent on taking it on another lengthy sojourn in the Land of Political Irrelevance.

Hi ho, Steverino!

As Antonia Zerbisias points out, bloggers had very little discernible impact on this election campaign.

True that some, like Stephen Taylor of Blogging Connies will disagree, but when it all comes down to it, blogs and bloggers are little more than another course of commentary in a universe that is full of information and commentary.

We can forgive his insistence that bloggers provide "brilliant editorial opinion." There is no love quite like self-love but at some point even the masturbatory quality of that bit of self-stroking beggars credibility. The value of blogs is decided in part by the readers. Some blogs, like some news media, gain attention not for the quality of what they put out but because of their current popularity, their current score on the Chic-o-meter.

Taylor cites the income trust story as one that bloggers broke and which the mainstream media supposedly ignored. Truth is, they didn't. They just made a judgment about it early on that there was little evidence of a crime having been committed and chose to give it an appropriate level of coverage. Taylor thought it was exciting, not on the facts of the matter, but because as the chief Connie blogger in the country it fit his world view. It had to be a scandal since Liberals were involved and there was an election on in which his team was driving the Liberal scandal line.

Antonia has a solid point here. Blogs had very little impact on this election, at least in terms of breaking stories no one else would touch. Their impact came from being a source of commentary other than the usual talking head suspects.

Most bloggers became an easy source of streeters, the staple of news reporting for decades and one spoofed so cleverly by Steve Allen.

[Left, Don Knotts, as Bang Bang Morrison, in a streeter opposing gun control. Aired on The Steve Allen Show.]

As for the impact of this little corner of cyberspace, judge for yourself based on the frustrated outpourings of some local Connies.

I always wanted to channel Louis Nye.

Hi ho, Steverino!

Women voters

The candidate who better recognized and responded to issue-based appeals that speak to the concerns of women, especially career orientated women will win this election.

Warbicycle

Over the course of this campaign, I've had a few e-mail exchanges with the guy who blogs under the name Warbicycle. His post on women voters is an interesting one since it reflects his experience of campaigning on behalf of a woman candidate and noting, albeit anecdotally, the response of women in the riding.

His post on women voters is an interesting one since it points to some observable differences between male and female voters. Rather than respond to an e-mail he just sent, I thought I'd toss in a few comments of my own.

There is a sex difference in vote intention: women tend to vote for a party other than Conservative

Most public opinion polls released during this campaign didn't report demographic data, even though every poll collects some information on reported or apparent sex, age and so forth. This is unusual since there is often useful information to be gleaned from doing what is called a cross-tabulation, that is of comparing vote preference by certain fixed characteristics like age and sex.

Ekos' most recent poll, released on 21 January, reports that 34% of women respondents are report their intention to vote Conservative, compared to 28.6% for Liberals and 20.8% for New Democrats.

A poll of Atlantic Canadians by Bristol/Omnifacts, a Halifax-based research firm, showed that 50% of decided females respondents favoured Paul Martin as prime minister, compared to 29% of decided females who felt Mr. Harper would be the best prime minister.

On the face of it, both these polls, one national and one regional, show a fairly clear difference between males and females in vote choice. An assessment by Simon Fraser University showed comparable differences in vote intention between males and females although, as the SFU assessment notes:

[b]y the end of the campaign period, however, the gender differences became much more muted as some shifts occurred. The differences in support for the Liberals had largely disappeared, but a new one emerged for the NDP. In the Ipsos poll conducted between January 17 to 19, even the gender differences in support for the Conservative Party had greatly narrowed; 36% of women and 40% of men said they would likely vote Conservative. 21% of women said they would vote NDP, compared to 16% of men; 27% of women were willing to support the Liberals, and 25% of men said the same. These results indicate a net movement of 8% of women away from the Liberals, with 3% going to the Conservatives and 5% to the NDP.

Possible explanations of the sex gap

Differences in vote intention between males and females has been the subject of considerable academic research.

One study concluded that :

Despite the change in the economic context and the advent of budget surpluses, women clearly remain more skeptical of the virtues of free enterprise, more supportive of the welfare system, and more reluctant to endorse market solutions than men in the 2000 federal election. The fact that these gender gaps could not be explained in terms of differences in women'’s and men'’s material interests lends weight to the socio-psychological argument that women tend to be less individualistic than men. The gender gap in views about crime and punishment also provides support for a socio-psychological interpretation of the gender gap phenomenon.

There are other studies that generally confirm the conclusions of the one cited here.

Whether or not one accepts any or all of the possible explanations for the difference, there's no question a difference exists.

So, the simple answer, Warbicycle is that your anonymous commenter would be correct if you actually said all women think alike. You didn't. You simply reported a phenomenon that has been reported for some time: women vote to the left of the political spectrum.

Anecdotally, I can add that some older males in one campaign found the male/female difference in vote intention difficult to comprehend or difficult to acknowledge. They dismissed the idea that Liberal media buys should be skewed toward 35+ females. It has been generally accepted for some time that women tend to vote to the left of the political spectrum and that they have considerable influence on household consumer decisions, including political decisions.

This admittedly small group of older males dismissed the idea out of hand. Go figure.

Another local Liberal candidate attracted some critical comment for his radio spot that focused on this very issue. Criticism of him came primarily from Conservative callers to local radio call-in shows. Too bad he didn't more argue forcefully in favour of his position: the facts were with him.

Will the male/female difference in voter intention make a difference in the final outcome, as Warbicycle contends?

Potentially. Women outnumber males in a number of ridings across the country, including my riding of St. John's South-Mount Pearl. The current election will depend very heavily on how many people are motivated enough to get out to vote.

Sadly, some of the local campaigns in the metro St. John's area on the political centre-left dismissed simple, factual arguments and/or failed to properly capitalize on the issues involved.

The fruits of those decisions may well be seen tomorrow evening.

ctv.ca prompts head-scratching

Check out this little timeline compiled by ctv.ca on the Parti Quebecois political history.

For those of us who have found CTV's coverage of this election peculiar, perhaps it has something to do with this sort of goof-up:

May 22, 1979
The Liberal Party led by Pierre Trudeau wins the federal election

Huh?

The May 1979 general election brought us the Joe Clark government.

The last time a Conservative minority ruled Canada

Purely for the sake of nostalgia, let's all remember one of the high points of the 1979 Clark administration.

This is the one Harper referred to as being "stupid".

The world is a different place now and the Progressive Conservatives are long gone from the political landscape.

Mystery Man with the Harper national tour?

Is this guy with the Steve Harper tour or is he merely a "local volunteer" as some stories have identified him?

Something tells me The Grabber wasn't some stereo salesman from Scarborough who got a little overzealous on his day off.

By the way, I kinda like the way Mr. Furious, The Spleen and The Blue Raja are there backstopping for the latest Mystery Man.

Hunt on for missing Connie candidates

Thomas Steenburg of Mission, British Columbia is shown at right holding the cast of a footprint he claims is from a Sasquatch.

Mr. Steenburg has been contacted by Elections Canada and many national news media outlets to organize a search for Conservative candidates missing from this election.

Mr. Steenburg said he won't take up the hunt for the Connies, noting that he has a better chance of finding the legendary, large hairy beast of the Rockies.

Connie staff assaults reporter...

CTV is reporting the second incident in as many days of a reporter (TVA's Lina Dib) being restrained by Connie campaign staff as she attempted to interview a candidate the Connies wanted to keep away from reporters. [Check for the video link on the right hand side of that CTv page linked above.]

In the TVA photo above, Dib is seen confronting the Connie campaign staffer over the incident. He can be heard saying quite clearly in the video clip words to the effect that "you can't chase after them...".

The French language version of the story can be found here, from TVA.ca.

Simply put, it's a criminal offence to apply force to any person. It is called assault.

Getting it on tape is one thing and it was kinda interesting to watch the very tall guy who had grabbed a petite female reporter as he meekly apologized to her after the Connie candidate had successfully escaped.

The point is though that putting the guy in the dock will make it abundantly clear there is a limit to how far campaign staff can go in efforts to block access to people who ought to be available to news media.

If they think an apology will cover it, then they will be laying hands on people again. And that is definitely not something to be tolerated.

If the guys with the earpieces, short haircuts and lapel pins won't take the complaint, find a cop that will.

Have the guy arrested.

Williams to double provincial debt?

The Lower Churchill project will nearly double Newfoundland and Labrador's already crushing provincial debt, if the province opts for the go-it-alone option of constructing the hydro mega-project.

As CBC news reported yesterday, the estimated cost of the project has risen from government's initial projection of $3.5 billion in 2005 to $9.0 billion. The current provincial accrual debt is $12.0 billion, on an economy of slightly more than $20.0 billion. Both Premier Danny Williams and his finance minister have described the existing provincial debt in dire terms.

If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were to develop the Lower Churchill on its own, the entire debt for the project would count against the provincial coffers using the accrual method currently in use for budgeting purposes. The project should be self-financing through a long-term power purchase agreement, however, the provincial government has revealed no details of its efforts to find possible buyers for the power and financiers for the project overall.

Danny Williams announced yesterday that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is asking Quebec to estimate the cost of wheeling power from Labrador across HydroQuebec transmission lines, through Quebec to markets in Ontario or New York.

Wheeling in this case would likely involve building new transmission towers and lines since the Quebec grid can't handle extra power from the as-yet unbuilt Lower Churchill. The costs of those added lines and towers would be borne largely by Newfoundland and Labrador in a go-it-alone option.

A proposal to build the Lower Churchill project and upgrade transmission systems in Quebec and between Quebec and Ontario was substituted jointly by Ontario and Quebec last year.

While it wasn't included in the original official short-list, Premier Danny Williams publicly announced the option of having Newfoundland and Labrador build the project entirely on its own. That seems to be his preferred, if not only option, based on yesterday's announcement.

Favourite quote from yesterday's newser:

"It's very strategic," Williams told reporters Friday, adding the application indicates Newfoundland and Labrador is prepared to develop the Lower Churchill on its own.

Williams takes a trip to the head and he'd call it strategic. "Strategy" and "strategic" are his favourite buzz words. They are typically overused or, as in this case, misused. Strategy doesn't have a variable intensity or a quantity. Something is either strategic or it isn't. It can't be less strategic, or very strategic.

Second favourite quote:

Williams added that the provincial government is using a "market approach" to avoid the pitfalls of the Upper Churchill contract with Hydro-Quebec. In the past, Newfoundland and Labrador has tried but always failed to launch the project as a partnership with Quebec.

As with any project of this type, the Lower Churchill can't be built without having a market.

The Upper Churchill market was Quebec. Efforts to find other markets failed due to cost problems and technical problems that couldn't be overcome. There were few companies capable of taking on the engineering work for such a massive enterprise.

Williams' comments on this, much like comments by previous premiers, capitalize on the mythology surrounding the Upper Churchill contract rather than on the facts then or now.

Campaign break: Gillian Anderson

Do I really need to explain this?

I didn't think so.

Connie platform 2004 on Equalization

Anyone care to recall this little gem?

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:

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.

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]

Well, here's what both Harper and Martin wrote in response to the Premier's question:

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:

"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 local cornerboys 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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

Food for thought.

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.

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.

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.