Political and public relations consultants in the province will be definitely revising their fee schedules as a result.
But here's another question: which of these people looks after the astroturf and the astroturfing?
-30-
The real political division in society is between authoritarians and libertarians.
"The broad lesson of history," he notes, "is that Canada's natural governing coalition always includes the federalist option in Quebec, not the nationalist one" -- as was true of the Liberals for much of the 20th century, and of the Conservatives in the 19th. The Alliance's Quebec strategy, in case anyone missed his point, should be to make itself "acceptable to a significant number of Liberal as well as anti-Liberal voters." Mr. Harper's leadership, then, would herald a historic shift -- not only in conservative politics but in the politics of the country.(h/t Andrew Coyne)
...
And while generally rendering unto the provinces what the Constitution assigns to the provinces, he says he wants to see "a stronger federal government" within its own fields of jurisdiction. Is this just lip service? Mr. Harper drops this tantalizing hint: "Our economic union is too weak because Ottawa has failed to use the powers it has under the Constitution to ensure that goods and services can freely flow across provincial borders." Is Mr. Harper saying he would use those powers? Paris was worth a Mass. An economic union would be well worth a firewall.
"Two parties is enough," the prime minister quoted Duplessis saying. "A good one and a bad one."Harper appeared to align himself strongly with the conservative, ruralist Union Nationale which, under Duplessis, ruled Quebec for 15 years beginning in 1944.
...
He said a re-elected Conservative government would lead a Canada that was "strong, united and free, with a Quebec (that was) autonomous and proud."
"There is nothing more precious than the family farm, which represents so well all the values on which our country has been built,'' he said to rapturous applause.From a 1956 speech archived by CBC, Duplessis describes Confederation as a pact between Quebec and English Canada.
Ever since it became self-governing in the mid-nineteenth century, political leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador has rotated between representatives of the dominant social class and populists who appeal directly to the "people" directly, with party labels meaning very little...J.D. [Doug] House, Against the tide: battling for economic renewal in Newfoundland and Labrador, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), p. 239.
What Newfoundland and Labrador needs, however, is neither populist nor merchant. It needs a leader - or leadership if you include the whole of Cabinet [sic] - who can transcend both the exaggerated rhetoric of the populist and the restricted conservatism of the merchant. It needs men and women who exhibit statesmanship, by which I mean leadership that both transcends the interests of a single class and is grounded in a deep understanding of the issues, problems and potential rather than superficial rhetoric. [Italics in original]
Williams will be in Toronto earlier next week for a meeting of the Federation council, seen in this artists' conception.
sneaking fart cushions into the Commons and randomly planting them on cabinet ministers' seats;
- tell Loyola Hearn he can pull Danny's finger anytime but Danny is sooooooo pissed off Loyola won't even get a fart; and,"It's always been in the air. Based on that, we did a certain amount of research, consulted with historians and that sort of thing before we made the film. But it was only after the film was finished that I read a brilliant thesis by John Fitzgerald, a young historian in St. John's, that was very supportive of the conclusions of the film - even though the film was a piece of fiction."That's pretty clear and frankly there's no excuse for missing the point that Jones read the thesis after finishing the movie.
"Sounds like a good Conservative budget to me. Also sounds like they're having awful rough treatment and they want it to continue."The lede on the CBC story reads this way:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper helped himself to some of the credit for Newfoundland and Labrador's record-setting surplus budget.Sarcasm apparently doesn't come across well for Harper.
Freedom of speech is also widely held to be an important right of legislators for the wider public interest it serves. Members of the legislature are entitled to make whatever statements they wish in dealing with a public issue. The same privilege extends to those called before the legislature or its committees as witnesses. All may speak freely and openly without fear and without concern that comments ought to be proven true before they are made.
More than a few in Newfoundland and Labrador were surprised by this picture [Tom Hanson/Canadian Press].Our plan is to continue this responsible approach in the years that follow to ensure we are increasingly strong, less reliant on the whims of others and more reliant onThe whims referred to are likely those supposed whims of the Government of Canada. This budget - like all recent budgets - builds itself on the whims of international commodities markets. Which one is less reliable?
ourselves.
If the province fails to reign in its whopping per capita government spending (about $8800/person [in FY 2006]) and super-size me civil service (96 provincial government employees /1000 people) it will quickly erode any gains from increased energy revenues.The Ugly
The most significant fiscal challenge facing Newfoundland and Labrador is the burden of debt we inherited, the highest per capita net debt in Canada, more than double the national average. High debt loads mean high interest payments, whether for a family or for a government. Reducing debt frees up money to spend on programs and other priorities.All government has done is produce a net reduction in the debt by a mere $70 million in FY 2006 and forecast a further reduction of $66 million in FY 2007. At that rate - i.e. $70 million per year - the province will be debt free in 2178.
Doubts over judgment of 'impartial' election official who claims Putin
always right
THE Russian official whose role is to act as an impartial umpire in elections has said in a published interview that president Vladimir Putin is always right.
Kremlin critics have raised doubts about the impartiality of Vladimir Churov, a former colleague of the president's who was last month chosen as chairman of the Central Election Commission.
In his first major newspaper interview since he started his new job, Mr Churov told the Kommersant newspaper yesterday that "Churov's Law No 1" is that Mr Putin is always right.
Asked by the newspaper what would happen if it turned out the Russian leader was mistaken on a certain issue, Mr Churov said: "How can Putin be wrong?"
Mr Churov worked alongside Mr Putin in the 1990s in the same local administration department in St Petersburg.
The new election chief has previously said he will treat all participants in elections fairly and equally.
Mr Churov will have a crucial role overseeing an election to the federal parliament in December and a presidential poll next March, when a replacement for Mr Putin is to be chosen.
In Russia, the election chief is often called on to adjudicate on allegations of vote violations, including claims bureaucrats have used their power to influence the outcome of elections.
Mr Churov replaced the independent-minded Alexander Veshnyakov at the helm of the election commission.
Analysts have interpreted the change of guard as part of a Kremlin plan to ensure a smooth transfer of power to Mr Putin's preferred candidate in the presidential poll.
Mr Putin, accused by critics of rolling back democracy, enjoys strong popularity after seven years of stable economic growth which brought relative prosperity for millions of Russians.