A recent study released by Statistics Canada shows that Newfoundland and Labrador generated $4,741 per capita in federal government revenues in Fiscal Year 2004 but received $9,356 per capita in federal transfers.
A widely-criticized series of articles by The Independent claimed that Newfoundland and Labrador contributed more to Canada than it received in return. It also claimed that a great deal of information wasn't available despite the fact that Statistics Canada generates both raw data and analyses of all aspects of economic activity in Canada, including federal-provincial transfers.
Among the provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador is the largest recipient of transfers to individuals on a per capita basis, at $3,468. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the second largest per capita recipient of government transfers, at slightly more than $2,800.
19 February 2007
18 February 2007
For the record: Danny Williams on ending parliamentary free speech
Let's change it. From my perspective, I think the legislature should have the exact same accountability [ i.e. being sued for defamation]. That's a democratic practice that goes way, way beyond me. But from my perspective, I'd be prepared to be held accountable...those laws get changed [sic]...or anybody else in the House has to be held accountable for what they say. I have no problem with that.That's what Danny Williams told reporters on Tuesday in answer to a question about the right of members of the legislature to speak freely, immune from legal proceedings in a court. The words don't flow well simple because the Premier was speaking off the top of his head, but there's no mistaking what he meant: let's change the rules so legislators can be sued for anything they say, anywhere, anytime. A right that dates back to the 16th century needs to go, not just by the boards, but over them with a hip check.
NTV wins the brownie points this week for being the only media outlet to report the Premier's unquestionable - dare we say enthusiastic - support for ending the centuries-old right of free speech accorded to members of the legislature.
While comments made about four individuals, including your humble e-scribbler garnered considerable public and news media attention, the comments quoted above have far more ominous implications.
There'll be more to say about the idea of ending parliamentary free speech, but for now let's just let Danny Williams speak for himself.
17 February 2007
The legacy of Sir Sam
Canada has had its fair share of blow-hard and/or incompetent defence ministers.
The ones that do the most damage are the former military officers who never made it to the top while in uniform but manage to circumvent the eminent good judgment of the professional promotion system and get there through the political route.
Witness one Gordo, the current MND, but formerly a brigadier general who spent his career bouncing around inside a tank.
O'Connor seems determined to follow in the fine tradition of politicians who, as national defence minister, presume to know considerably more than they do.
Gordo, as many across the country have known for far too long, is trying to impose his vision for the Canadian Forces on a professional and highly-competent officer corps that knows their business far better than the retired zipperhead. His ideas do not stand up on their merit. Instead, O'Connor persists in advancing his ludicrous notions - like relocating JTF 2 to Trenton or creating whole new battalions of currently non-existent troops for deployment across Canada - merely because he is the political boss.
In the meantime, the far more competent Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, faces the challenge of reconciling the demands of the men and women in the field doing the hard work of defending the country with a budget that cannot support them and Gordo's foolishness.
To give an indication of how obvious was the problem with Gordo, consider that Bond Papers pointed it out fully one year ago, shortly after the retired tank driver was appointed to the job at 101 Colonel By.
Also noted at the time was the misery being inflicted on the people of Goose Bay who have been taken in by O'Connor's promises of troops, troops and more troops. They have their hopes pinned on O'Connor's commitments.
If they are lucky, Gordo will be fired - the sooner the better - and the community can start finding a new direction for the town's major employer.
If they are unlucky, the current federal administration will leave the decidedly wrong man defence minister, waste millions of taxpayers dollars fulfilling Gordo's pledges and in the process hook the people of Goose Bay to a form of economic crack cocaine: political patronage and pork.
It will fall to a future administration, gifted with more reasonable leadership to cope with the results of the mistake inherent in putting retired military men or women in charge of national defence.
It's not like we haven't been down this road before, far, far, far too many times.
The ones that do the most damage are the former military officers who never made it to the top while in uniform but manage to circumvent the eminent good judgment of the professional promotion system and get there through the political route.
Witness one Gordo, the current MND, but formerly a brigadier general who spent his career bouncing around inside a tank.
O'Connor seems determined to follow in the fine tradition of politicians who, as national defence minister, presume to know considerably more than they do.
Gordo, as many across the country have known for far too long, is trying to impose his vision for the Canadian Forces on a professional and highly-competent officer corps that knows their business far better than the retired zipperhead. His ideas do not stand up on their merit. Instead, O'Connor persists in advancing his ludicrous notions - like relocating JTF 2 to Trenton or creating whole new battalions of currently non-existent troops for deployment across Canada - merely because he is the political boss.
In the meantime, the far more competent Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, faces the challenge of reconciling the demands of the men and women in the field doing the hard work of defending the country with a budget that cannot support them and Gordo's foolishness.
To give an indication of how obvious was the problem with Gordo, consider that Bond Papers pointed it out fully one year ago, shortly after the retired tank driver was appointed to the job at 101 Colonel By.
Also noted at the time was the misery being inflicted on the people of Goose Bay who have been taken in by O'Connor's promises of troops, troops and more troops. They have their hopes pinned on O'Connor's commitments.
If they are lucky, Gordo will be fired - the sooner the better - and the community can start finding a new direction for the town's major employer.
If they are unlucky, the current federal administration will leave the decidedly wrong man defence minister, waste millions of taxpayers dollars fulfilling Gordo's pledges and in the process hook the people of Goose Bay to a form of economic crack cocaine: political patronage and pork.
It will fall to a future administration, gifted with more reasonable leadership to cope with the results of the mistake inherent in putting retired military men or women in charge of national defence.
It's not like we haven't been down this road before, far, far, far too many times.
16 February 2007
The truth hurts, part deux
The Offal News take on Tom Rideout's concerns about supposed "irregularities" in the Humber Valley by-election.
To paraphrase Lono at Offal News, Rideout's irregularity seeems to be that his candidate - correction - the Premier's candidate lost.
To paraphrase Lono at Offal News, Rideout's irregularity seeems to be that his candidate - correction - the Premier's candidate lost.
Hey, Denis: The truth hurts.
The period of cuts to the Canadian Forces ushered in by Jean Chretien was a dark period for not just the men and women in uniform.
It was a dark period for the whole country.
Simple thing, there, Denis Coderre, is the truth hurts.
Suck it up.
Memo to Stephane: Punt this guy into the cheap seats. He embarrasses the country.
Either that or hire him some better advisors. I can make some suggestions.
You know how to reach me.
It was a dark period for the whole country.
Simple thing, there, Denis Coderre, is the truth hurts.
Suck it up.
Memo to Stephane: Punt this guy into the cheap seats. He embarrasses the country.
Either that or hire him some better advisors. I can make some suggestions.
You know how to reach me.
Put on a happy face
It's polling season.
There is disquiet in some elements of the electorate.
News media are fried at the threats of law suits over libel chill.
Government's response is to flood a Friday morning with every manner of happy-face news releases.
A dozen before noon.
Still nothing though on the attack on our pride from Wisconsin.
There is disquiet in some elements of the electorate.
News media are fried at the threats of law suits over libel chill.
Government's response is to flood a Friday morning with every manner of happy-face news releases.
A dozen before noon.
Still nothing though on the attack on our pride from Wisconsin.
Remember the Alamo?
A tongue-in-cheek piece in the Badger Herald calls for the United States to liberate Canada as part of the war on terror.
But is it humour or is there a serious threat being made?
Useless?
Hmmm.
Anyone familiar with history knows the real story of the Alamo.
Ask any Mexican nationalist.
It looks like humour.
This guy Bill Rowe wrote a column a few weeks ago that sounds suspiciously like one component of this little plan: annex Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec.
Perhaps he's a fifth columnist on this one.
The Telegram.
Badger Herald.
Both newspapers.
Coincidence?
Maybe there's something sinister behind the clown mask.
If nothing else there is an effort here to bring down not merely a single individual but an entire nation.
We await the Premier's next scrum.
Our pride is at stake.
But is it humour or is there a serious threat being made?
With support, our Canadian heartland brethren can break the shackles of liberalism for once and for all. This would be accomplished by providing significant financial, organizational, and material backing to strengthen the position of Canadian conservatives. When they have gained sufficient power and popular support, they should be impelled to secede from the liberal elite dominating the country from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.Newfies?
Preferably, this would be the first step toward statehood, though an independent Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan loyal to the United States would also be acceptable. If the Canadian government attempted to quash the push for independence, we would be forced to move American troops into Canada and dissolve their government to maintain law and order, incorporating Canada into the United States as a protectorate. In this event it would be best to grant Quebec autonomy, and allow it sovereignty over New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other useless parts of the former Canadian nation. While some may find the creation of a Vichy Quebec undesirable in contrast to total annexation, let us pose a simple question. Does the United States need millions of croissant-loving French and Newfies pouring over the border and taking jobs from hard-working Americans? We most certainly think not. [Emphasis added]
Useless?
Hmmm.
Anyone familiar with history knows the real story of the Alamo.
Ask any Mexican nationalist.
It looks like humour.
This guy Bill Rowe wrote a column a few weeks ago that sounds suspiciously like one component of this little plan: annex Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec.
Perhaps he's a fifth columnist on this one.
The Telegram.
Badger Herald.
Both newspapers.
Coincidence?
Maybe there's something sinister behind the clown mask.
If nothing else there is an effort here to bring down not merely a single individual but an entire nation.
We await the Premier's next scrum.
Our pride is at stake.
Let's reform campaign finance laws too, Tom
Tom Rideout is the lead man for Danny Williams efforts to take the Humber Valley by any means necessary.
It's called desperation, but hey, if they have nothing better to do than try and overturn a vote by the electorate, that's their problem.
But when Tom Rideout starts talking about the by-election with tones like "we can now confirm..." he starts to sound a bit like the police inspector in Casablanca who declares "Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked!"
Rideout is intimately familiar with the province's election laws. It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that ballot boxes were moved about seniors homes in his own district.
But Rideout's efforts here seem aimed at the type of innuendo that often substitutes for the lack of evidence . By implication, Rideout is smearing the neutral elections officials who did nothing but follow the law and common practice in the way set down by the legislature.
Nothing new here. Public servants in the House of Assembly - all of them the same as elections officials - are used to being blamed for the failings of politicians.
It seems a common practice for this administration to take no responsibility even for things it does. In this case it seems that the loss of an election, despite the Premier's supreme efforts, must now be blamed on those who did nothing other than follows the rules, as established, that applied equally to all candidates and all parties.
In the meantime, Rideout seems unconcerned to reform election finance laws. There are plenty of issues there from out of province donations to soft money that need to be addressed too.
Unfortunately, those things - all of which would enhance accountability and fairness in the electoral process - wouldn't help in soothing the political frustration Danny Williams' is feeling right at the moment.
Heaven knows we can't have Danny frustrated.
It's called desperation, but hey, if they have nothing better to do than try and overturn a vote by the electorate, that's their problem.
But when Tom Rideout starts talking about the by-election with tones like "we can now confirm..." he starts to sound a bit like the police inspector in Casablanca who declares "Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked!"
Rideout is intimately familiar with the province's election laws. It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that ballot boxes were moved about seniors homes in his own district.
But Rideout's efforts here seem aimed at the type of innuendo that often substitutes for the lack of evidence . By implication, Rideout is smearing the neutral elections officials who did nothing but follow the law and common practice in the way set down by the legislature.
Nothing new here. Public servants in the House of Assembly - all of them the same as elections officials - are used to being blamed for the failings of politicians.
It seems a common practice for this administration to take no responsibility even for things it does. In this case it seems that the loss of an election, despite the Premier's supreme efforts, must now be blamed on those who did nothing other than follows the rules, as established, that applied equally to all candidates and all parties.
In the meantime, Rideout seems unconcerned to reform election finance laws. There are plenty of issues there from out of province donations to soft money that need to be addressed too.
Unfortunately, those things - all of which would enhance accountability and fairness in the electoral process - wouldn't help in soothing the political frustration Danny Williams' is feeling right at the moment.
Heaven knows we can't have Danny frustrated.
Countries respond to Al Queda threats to US oil supplies
Al Queda issued a general threat Wednesday to American oil supplies, including possible attacls on Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.
Bond Papers discussed oil rig security in the province's offshore last November, based on a report in the Ottawa Citizen that the federal government had drafted legislation on the issue.
The federal government is taking the threat seriously, according to public security minister Stockwell Day. Alberta has increased security, while the Saskatchewan government appears confident in the security of its oil production.
Bond Papers discussed oil rig security in the province's offshore last November, based on a report in the Ottawa Citizen that the federal government had drafted legislation on the issue.
The federal government is taking the threat seriously, according to public security minister Stockwell Day. Alberta has increased security, while the Saskatchewan government appears confident in the security of its oil production.
Rutter wins $3.5 million Brazilian oil contract
St. John's manufacturing company Rutter Inc.(TSX: RUT) announced on Wednesday that its 74%-owned subsidiary Unicontrol International Ltda. (Unicontrol) has successfully
renewed its contract to provide support services to 32 Petrobras platforms operating in the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil.
renewed its contract to provide support services to 32 Petrobras platforms operating in the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil.
15 February 2007
It's that time of the month
There are by-elections.
Corporate Research Associates must be in the field with their quarterly omnibus survey.
How do we know?
The number of government news releases about capital spending in rural areas shot up this week. Like Thursday where the first four releases are about rural infrastructure.
Corporate Research Associates must be in the field with their quarterly omnibus survey.
How do we know?
The number of government news releases about capital spending in rural areas shot up this week. Like Thursday where the first four releases are about rural infrastructure.
14 February 2007
Hickey to pay own tab, Oram flubs badly
Despite his vehement defence of having the public treasury cover transportation minister John Hickey's legal bills in the battle with former premier Roger Grimes, Premier Danny Williams today told VOCM Open Line that Hickey would be footing the bill himself.
Many in the province - heck most people - were taken aback by the sudden change of direction.
Late in the day, Hickey turned up to tell CBC Radio that "I've thought it through and I decided that I wanted to change course here.... I'm going to pick up whatever legal cost that's going to be associated with this particular issue."
Later in the day still, Paul Oram, the Premier's tried vainly to explain to Back Talk host Bill Rowe what the heck the whole dispute was about. Rowe, a former politician and lawyer, tried in vain to get Oram to state specifically what remarks Grimes should apologise for.
Oram went down several roads, always making the same unsubstantiated claim likely contained in the talking points from the Premier's publicity department. At every juncture, Rowe shut him down with simple, obvious questions related specifically to the case.
To embarrass the hapless politician even more, Rowe insulted him at several points, essentially begging Oram to take offense and threaten to sue Rowe. Each time, Oram declined, thereby confirming that his initial point was impossible to defend. Of course that means that the Premier's point on the whole affray is nonsense as well.
Memo to the Premier: Paul Oram deserves a cabinet seat solely for his ability to defend the indefensible, repeatedly, despite the savaging of his own credibility in the process.
Many in the province - heck most people - were taken aback by the sudden change of direction.
Late in the day, Hickey turned up to tell CBC Radio that "I've thought it through and I decided that I wanted to change course here.... I'm going to pick up whatever legal cost that's going to be associated with this particular issue."
Later in the day still, Paul Oram, the Premier's tried vainly to explain to Back Talk host Bill Rowe what the heck the whole dispute was about. Rowe, a former politician and lawyer, tried in vain to get Oram to state specifically what remarks Grimes should apologise for.
Oram went down several roads, always making the same unsubstantiated claim likely contained in the talking points from the Premier's publicity department. At every juncture, Rowe shut him down with simple, obvious questions related specifically to the case.
To embarrass the hapless politician even more, Rowe insulted him at several points, essentially begging Oram to take offense and threaten to sue Rowe. Each time, Oram declined, thereby confirming that his initial point was impossible to defend. Of course that means that the Premier's point on the whole affray is nonsense as well.
Memo to the Premier: Paul Oram deserves a cabinet seat solely for his ability to defend the indefensible, repeatedly, despite the savaging of his own credibility in the process.
Williams slags Bond: the audio record
1. An audio clip of Premier Danny Williams scrum on Tuesday, from CBC Radio Noon. [The relevant part is at around 12:25 on your counter.]
2. Your humble e-scribbler responds. An interview with Ann Budgell on blogging and ethics. [Off the top of the show.]
2. Your humble e-scribbler responds. An interview with Ann Budgell on blogging and ethics. [Off the top of the show.]
The value of criticism
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Winston Churchill, 1874-1965
Meeker on media
Communications consultant Geoff Meeker has joined the online revolution with a new blog, Meeker on media.
As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".
Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.
His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.
Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.
Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.
Check him out.
You won't be disappointed.
As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".
Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.
His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.
Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.
Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.
Check him out.
You won't be disappointed.
13 February 2007
Canada West Foundation backs Harper on Equalization
Canada West Foundation issued a paper on Monday praising the inclusion of 50% of natural resources revenues in Equalization calculations as an "interesting compromise" on the issue.
"Equalization and the Fiscal Imbalance: Options for Moving Forward" is co-authored by Ken Boessenkool and Evan Wilson. The paper suggests ways to address the so-called fiscal imbalance.
Bond Papers readers will recall that Boessenkool is the author of several papers on Equalization that advocated, among other things, the complete removal of non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula. Boessenkool is also a former senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
From the abstract:
"Equalization and the Fiscal Imbalance: Options for Moving Forward" is co-authored by Ken Boessenkool and Evan Wilson. The paper suggests ways to address the so-called fiscal imbalance.
Bond Papers readers will recall that Boessenkool is the author of several papers on Equalization that advocated, among other things, the complete removal of non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula. Boessenkool is also a former senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
From the abstract:
The federal government has said that it wants to address the fiscal imbalance in the upcoming budget. Broadly speaking, this means dealing with fiscal arrangements between, and clarifying roles of, the federal and provincial governments, and fixing the equalization program. This paper does three things to stimulate debate on possible options for reform. First it discusses three broad policy pillars that together constitute a consistent approach to fiscal federalism. These pillars are: 1) "equalization as glue," which argues for the importance of equalization for our federation; 2) "after equalization, equal transfers per capita," which argues that programs outside equalization should treat all Canadians equally; and 3) "re-balancing the federation," which argues for clarifying federal and provincial roles and responsibilities.The Canada West Foundation paper contains a number of recommendations, many of which the authors acknowledge would be difficult if not impossible to implement.
The paper then discusses political and economic constraints facing the government as it seeks to address the fiscal imbalance. These include the current inefficiencies of the equalization program, cost challenges faced by the federal government, the political importance of Quebec and Ontario, and the influence of promises made previously by the Conservative government. Finally, the paper provides some reform options grouped into three categories: 1) the really difficult; 2) the really, really difficult; and 3) the nearly impossible.
The paper lists options for both fixing equalization and addressing other federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. When it comes to addressing the fiscal imbalance, there are many possible paths. The real challenge for the current government is to choose a path that results in a coherent system of fiscal federalism while addressing very real political and fiscal constraints. The paper does not put such a package together—it leaves this task to the current government. It does, however, present ideas that widen the menu of options currently being discussed.
A fundamental right in any democracy
From the Bill of Rights 1689:
Parliament itself, as reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights, must hold to account the Crown and the executive.
In any established western democracy, members of the legislature enjoy some measure of immunity from prosecution and a virtually untrammelled right of free speech.
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;The elected representatives of the people enjoy a right of free speech in British parliamentary democracy for a reason. It prevents them from being intimidated by outside or inside forces.
Parliament itself, as reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights, must hold to account the Crown and the executive.
In any established western democracy, members of the legislature enjoy some measure of immunity from prosecution and a virtually untrammelled right of free speech.
Stupid is...?
Transportation minister John Hickey is suing former premier Roger Grimes for defamation over comments Grimes made about Hickey's double-billing of expenses to the legislature.
Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.
Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.
Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.
If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.
On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.
The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.
Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.
And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.
Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.
Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.
Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.
On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.
The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.
Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.
That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.
The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.
Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.
Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.
In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.
But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.
When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.
To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.
The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.
The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.
By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.
In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.
No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.
Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.
Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.
Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.
If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.
On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.
The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.
Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.
And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.
Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.
Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.
Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.
On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.
The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.
Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.
That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.
The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.
Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.
Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.
In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.
But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.
When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.
To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.
The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.
The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.
By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.
In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.
No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.
12 February 2007
Dwight wins, Danny loses
Every Tory except John Hickey and Jack Byrne came off the benches to try and win the Humber Valley by-election, but in the end, Deer Lake pharmacist Dwight Ball squeeked out an 18 vote victory.
The next by-election will come in the Labrador West district. The seat will be vacated in mid-February by incumbent Randy Collins, who is leaving politics for a job in Toronto. For member of the House of Assembly Perry Canning is reported to be considering a run for his old seat on behalf of the Liberals.
The next by-election will come in the Labrador West district. The seat will be vacated in mid-February by incumbent Randy Collins, who is leaving politics for a job in Toronto. For member of the House of Assembly Perry Canning is reported to be considering a run for his old seat on behalf of the Liberals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)