...and then there's advertising

which tells a story.

Like in this 1973 advert for Hovis, a bread maker in the United Kingdom.  Directed by Ridley Scott, the television spot has been a persistent favourite in Britain and has been voted as the best television ad of all time.

Look at it.

Feel it.

That's what you do with anything by Ridley Scott.

You see it and feel it and, in 45 seconds or so you feel you want a slice of the bread.

Scott might have difficulty making the same spot today, given that the changes in Britain have likely made it hard for a goodly chunk of the audience to understand broad Yorkshire.

Hovis is currently running a new television ad, also directed by Ridley Scott, that plays off a element of the original. The full length spot runs two minutes, but it also exists in shorter versions more likely to wind up on the telly.

There's not a clothesline in sight, at least not as the feature carrying the thing.

This is another advertisement built on a story and on a feeling.  Men of any age or background can relate to running an errand to the store, of kicking a can or to the thrill of being overflown by a Spitfire.

The feelings of nostalgia and warmth of home are key elements of Scott's two minutes.

Imagine what he could do if they gave him 113.

-srbp-

There's advertising...

Ad agencies from across Atlantic Canada took home awards at the annual ICE awards held in Halifax on October 16th.

Expect to see a news release from the provincial tourism department any day now claiming that the ad program - as opposed to the marketers' creativity - is winning awards for the pitcher plant logo brand thingy.

-srbp-

Hugo under pressure

Venezuela must be experiencing severe economic difficulties.

Hugo Chavez wants the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to cut production in an effort to get oil prices about US$80 a barrel.

Good luck with that, Hugo.

-srbp-

What's up now, Doc?

A policy windsock, that's what.

Supposedly the chief Family Feud campaigner, Danny Williams, and the entire Provincial Conservative caucus understood that if no Conservative seats in Newfoundland and Labrador meant that there would be no member of parliament would take up the cabinet job of being the province's regional representative in the event the Conservatives were re-elected.

Of course, Williams understood:

But Williams is not worried about the lack of representation. He said the three previous government MPs failed to advance major issues such as custodial management of the fishery and a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill River hydroelectric project in Labrador.

He said the province will now have seven strong Opposition MPs at the federal level.

People who supported the Family Feud - including Provincial Conservatives like St. John's mayor Doc O'Keefe - understood that as well.

So how come Doc is now trying to orchestrate a campaign to undo the situation that he and his party leader created in the first place?

If Doc feels some obligation to stick his municipal nose into federal/provincial relations now that the election is over, he had an obligation to his honker into the campaign a few weeks ago pointing out the gigantic problem - apparently as he finds it now - inherent in the campaign against the federal Conservatives run by their Provincial Conservative confreres.

Instead of that, O'Keefe and his Provincial Conservative mates on council were doing their own little bit of partisan campaigning against the Liberal Party.

No one should be surprised by this at all, given O'Keefe's record on council for shifting positions more often than most of us change underwear.

Nor, for that matter, should anyone be surprised that the Premier himself appears to be taking an entirely new position on the issue of cabinet representation from the one he held a few days ago:

Premier Williams says it is the Prime Minister's perogative to make cabinet appointments. However he notes, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a couple of options. He says the Prime Minister could appoint Senator Ethel Cochrane to the Senate or he could fill the vacancy in the Senate and then appoint that person to cabinet.

For his part, the Prime Minister has already said he will appoint a regional minister from among the elected members of his caucus. in other words: no senate appointments.

That makes eminent sense, given that this is exactly what defence minister Peter MacKay said plainly during the campaign and the Prime Minister has spoken about senate reform as a priority for his new administration.

Now five years into the current provincial administration, one gets the sense that major items of public policy are made up on the fly. Positions are shifted based on something other than a sound and detailed analysis.

If memory serves, this is a point made before here at Bond Papers and elsewhere.

This tendency for policy to follow the whim of the moment is ultimately what undermines the effectiveness of the provincial government. People don't know which statement is the real statement.

Is the Prime Minister a man not to be trusted, as Danny Williams said up until Tuesday's vote or is the war over, as he said on the day immediately after the vote?

Is it now possible for the Premier to do business on Wednesday with a kitten-eating lizard from outer space who had to be stopped on Tuesday?

It doesn't take much imagination to realize there is a,problem with consistency here. That problem - and it isn't new - causes people to tune out. They stop listening. If they aren't listening, then the Premier has a gigantic problem.

It's a problem entirely of his own making however.

What's more the rest of us have to hope we all don't pay a price for the windsock follies. The Premier worked the Feud to make sure he was the only spokesperson for the province.

He got what he wanted.

So we must all wonder why he and his political associates are suddenly uncomfortable with their victory.

Hang on a second.

Check the wind.

It might not be such a problem after all.

Oops.

It shifted direction again.

Problem back.

Ooooh. Hang on.

No problem, again.

You get the picture.

-srbp-

Random-Burin-St. Georges: a quick look at the results

 Random-Burin-St. Georges is a relatively new seat resulting from re-apportionment before the 2004 election.

However, the seat continues to trend as a decidedly Liberal seat, carrying on the trend pre-2004.

The 2008 result is not the one to look at closely here.  rather we need to look at 2006. 

That was the year the Provincial Conservatives threw their political weight behind the federal Conservative party.

The Blue team ran a staunch Provincial Conservative closely associated with the Premier. 

She had campaigned relentlessly between 2004 and 2006 against the incumbent, largely by using a refugee family's plight in a church basement as a rod with which to beat the incumbent and his party.

It apparently escaped her notice that the party she ran for had a policy diametrically opposed to her own stated position on this issue. In the end, her campaign was also caught up in the in-out scheme even though, as these results show, Random-Burin-St. Georges was not a lost cause for the Blue team.

The New Democrats ran a candidate from outside the riding in that election.  Not surprisingly, she fared considerably worse than the popular fisheries activist the NDP had run in 2004.

In that race, the Conservatives appear to have pulled voters who had voted NDP in 2004 and added a few thousand more besides.  The Liberal candidate - Bill Matthews - also increased his vote share.  Overall, turnout in the riding increased by slightly less than 4,000  voters.

What we don't see here is a collapse of the Conservative vote.  Rather, in 2008, it sank back to what essentially appears to be its core. The New Democrat vote declined by 3244 but did not slip back to its 2006 level.  The Liberal vote declined by 1100 votes.

Overall, it would appear that the New Democrats in 2008 had picked up some soft vote that in 2006 had gone to the Conservatives.  The bulk of the 2006 Conservative vote stayed home.

More than in some others, the vote pattern in this riding may have been affected by the remittance labour force from the Burin Peninsula currently working in Alberta. Without more detailed analysis it is difficult to know how much of this vote pool actually turned out and if it did, how it voted.

Even though the 2006 incumbent did not seek re-election, this is not a riding that was affected by Family Feud as obviously as in the three ridings on the Avalon peninsula.

It is interesting to speculate, though, what might have happened had the Provincial Conservatives taken an entirely different approach in 2008.

-srbp-

Friday Follies: a round-up of the week's odds and ends

1.  Pete didn't get the memo:  Peter MacKay apparently didn't hear about the kiss-and-make-up comments from his boss the Prime Minister and Danny Williams over this whole Family Feud thingy.  Speaking with the Chronicle Herald, the guy touted as being minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador laid it on the line:

“I think he’s just cooling his jets until his next blow-up," said Mr. MacKay. “He’s got a mercurial personality and all indications are that the next time that the wind changes or he feels offended, he’ll go off like a mad hatter again."

Mr. MacKay, who will likely end up as Newfoundland and La­brador’s representative at federal cabinet, said the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador “has lost the plot."

“It did become so irrational and personally vindictive on the part of a Conservative premier," he said.

Ermmm.

It wasn't the Mad Hatter that went about shouting "Off with her head."

2.  That's so 1960s:  Also in the Chronicle Herald, the accumulated wisdom of a few of Halifax's advertising geniuses.  Like, for instance, Don Veinish from Cossette Atlantic:

Danny Williams’s ABC campaign sure seemed to work, but I have to plead ignorance on whether it involved advertising or not.

Thanks for paying attention, Donny.

Then again, you just about prove the point you made:

People these days are exposed to the best of everything in the communications arena, including advertising. OK-ish ad efforts aren’t OK because they don’t meet the standard and tend to be disregarded or entirely disdained. Bottom line: If advertising had made much of a difference, there would be a difference today. There isn’t.

Speaking of not meeting the standard and tending to be disregarded, wonder how Don would feel about the idea of a billboard on the Gardiner? 

3.  Dons and Peelers:  Turns out that both some local bands of bobbies as well as Oxford University (as well as 11 other universities and assorted government entities) were stunned enough to squirrel away money in Icelandic banks.

4. Suck AND Blow:  New Labour starts to look a lot like old Conservatives, right down to the complete absence of logic:

[Culture (!!!???) secretary Andy] Burnham said that the "online challenge" had resulted in two dangerous tendencies emerging.

Firstly he criticized the burgeoning tendency in television to mimic the user-generated, "here's my blog" feel of much of the Internet, particularly in current affairs and news.

"The Internet as a whole is an excellent source of casual opinion," he said. "TV is where people often look for expert or authoritative opinion."

The second reaction to the rise of the Internet has been a "tendency towards safety first and the tried-and-tested, and way from innovation, risk-taking and new talent", he argued.

So on the one hand television is tending toward innovation, risk-taking and new talent by aping the Internet but at the same time, television is tending away from innovation, risk-taking and new talent.

The only challenge here would seem to come for Andy when thought is involved in his activities. [h/t to Guido Fawkes]

5. Blow and Suck:  Also from Guido, the story of a pollster in a conflict of interest.  Speaking of conflict of interest, thank heavens no pollsters in eastern Canada would do work for government and at the same time release poll results without disclosing that government had helped fund the poll on local politicians' popularity or lack thereof. 

Like say upwards of four times a year?

Nah.

Could never happen.

6.  Blown away?  A google blog search for "danny williams + intimidation" turned up two links to a blog by Paul Russell from Newfoundland and Labrador called Life, Writing and Everything Else.

They contained two references to alleged political intimidation.

Click on the link and you'll find that...

wait for it...

 

 

 

 

 

The blog's gone.

Suddenly.

Not just the posts.

The whole blog.

Hmmm.

Now it's not like he violated the broadcast prohibitions under the Canada Elections Act like at least one local blog did on Tuesday night.

Even if that were the case, the worst that could happen would be a fine.

A big fine.

But not death to the entire operation.

Nope.

Paul Russell, if you're out there, drop us a line and let us know what happened to your blog and those posts.

After all, they're just allegations and as long as they are labeled as such and unless and until someone brings forward evidence to back up the claims, no one should have a problem with it.

-srbp-

Auspicious beginnings

1.  Useful in a Conservative campaign news release with a quote critical of your own party that gets

2.  Highlighted by the Conservative's national newspaper in a story that mentions his

3.  Attack on the leader of his party [Hint: The Lampoon  love quoting Liberals knifing other Liberals in the back] and

4.  the guy's not even sworn in yet.

Yes, with fresh ideas like this, Liberals are well on their way back to power.

-srbp-

Avalon: a quick look at the results

If there ever was a campaign which showed the power of negative campaigning, it's Avalon.

From a time well before the writ dropped, incumbent Conservative Fabian Manning received countless vicious personal attacks.

That includes a reference to Manning as a "traitor" by no less than Premier Danny Williams. That savage rhetoric continued throughout the campaign from many quarters, including from a strong supporter of the Andrews and Harris campaigns.

Liberal Scott Andrews, the only serious competitor piled on relentlessly, lightening up only for the last week or two.

That didn't mean the attacks stopped since the Family Feud deployed at least three cabinet ministers to the area north of the Trans-Canada Highway to work their persuasive magic on local Provincial Conservatives.

Through all that, Manning did phenomenally better than his colleagues in the St. John's ridings. In St. John's East, the Conservatives captured only 20% of the vote from 2006.  In St. John's South-Mount Pearl, 26% of the vote held.

In Avalon, Manning held on to about 60% of his vote from 2006.  Still and all, he lost 7590 votes.

Interestingly enough, the drop in voter turn out and the increased vote for Green, Liberal and New Democrat candidates totals 7582.  That's not likely a coincidence.

What's noticeable in Avalon is that the lost votes didn't migrate to another party. They appear to have just stayed home in large numbers.

Scott Andrews increased the Liberal vote by 4%, or 548 votes. 

The largest jump in votes for any candidate was in the New Democrat column which saw a 70% jump (2343 votes). If those votes came from disgruntled Provincial Conservatives, the attractiveness of New Democrats would largely be defined by one quality:  they aren't Liberals. The same quality likely had a strong influence on Blue voter choice in the St. John's ridings for those who came out to vote.

-srbp-

The Blue Shaft

Narrow partisan considerations reared their ugly head in a meeting of the legislature's management committee.

An independent study commissioned by the House of Assembly management commission recommends an increase in budgets for the Provincial Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic causes in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Provide base funding for the Government Members’ Caucus of $100,000 annually.

The Chair is ready for discussion.

Ms Burke.

MS BURKE: That is one recommendation that I support.

Joan Burke, education minister and government house leader may have enthusiastically voted money for her political friends but in the end, the Provincial Conservative members of the legislature's internal management commission support every single recommendation, except one. 

That one allocated $162,000 to the Official Opposition office to ensure a well-funded opposition that would have appropriate resources to carry out its important legislative function in a modern democracy.  The study reviewed legislature budgets across Canada and in several foreign parliaments.

The report included a set of general principles on democratic legislatures and caucus funding. They included, among others:

3. The legislature must be strong vis-à-vis the executive in order for democratic government to be effective.

...

5. In adversarial systems, the Opposition and other parties play important roles and need institutionalized protections.

...

One cannot imagine a more straightforward set of principles.  In order to drive home their point on the importance of a legislature with a properly funded opposition, the authors included an observation on events in several provinces where opposition benches were depleted after an election:

The crucial thing is that there has to be informed opposition, and that takes resources. However, one other consideration is germane here. That is that in first-past-the-post (single member plurality) systems such as those that exist in Canada, there is a danger of opposition shut-outs or quasi shut-outs as the electoral system exaggerates the winner’s share of seats. This has been seen in general elections in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, PEI, New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia. There needs to be a kind of “Opposition Bill of Rights” to deal with such anomalies, since Westminster systems
depend on adversarialism.

The Provincial Conservative members took a decidedly different view. Innovation minister Trevor Taylor put it this way:

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I don’t need to reiterate everything that Ms Burke just said, but I think if you just look at it from a perspective, a base allocation, one would think that a base allocation would be a base for all caucuses. Why the principles of Metrics EFG would differentiate is hard for me to follow, to be honest about it. [Emphasis added]

That last statement could not be more painfully obvious or true.

The extent to which the Provincial Conservative members also picked at petty issues is evident in the transcript of the session.  Education minister Joan Burke seemed concerned either to micromanage issues - as with Memorial University - or to ensure that no one got a few dollars more in his or her budget than she had available in hers:

MS BURKE: I have a question on that, and I think it may be just a clarification.

It says that the assistant to the Opposition House Leader is $49,000 and the assistant to the Government House Leader is $43,000. So, is this simply a case where there is a step progression but it would be the same job?

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that because in the report it kind of stands out as to why and I thought that would have been the explanation.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. My understanding is that the assistant to the Leader of the Opposition has gone through the step progression to reflect that salary, and the assistant to the Government House Leader will do the incremental steps to get up to that particular salary as well.

MS BURKE: In essence what we are saying is, instead of it being, say, $49,000 there, that would depend, I guess – that is only an indication of where an individual would be on a step. If that position changed tomorrow, that $49,000 could potentially be, I do not know, $38,000 or $39,000.

Outside the meeting the Provincial Conservatives defended their actions as being about responsible management of public spending. 

-srbp-

St. John's East: a quick look at the results

Jack Harris was the beneficiary of a double whammy on Tuesday.

First of all, Danny Williams' former law partner profited from the near total collapse of the Conservative vote as a result of the Family feud.

Well known Provincial Conservative Ed Buckingham's appearance at Jack's campaign launch foretold a considerable movement of Blue to Orange.

It was no accident.

Provincial cabinet ministers supported Harris publicly.  Even without turning out at Jack's headquarters, they could easily mobilise their own teams to drive votes to the polls for Harris.

Second of all, Harris profited from the  collapse of the Liberal vote, attributable almost entirely to Walter Noel's candidacy. While less dramatic than the Conservative drop, the Liberal candidate shed over 9000 votes all of which appear to have moved to the New Democrats on their own.

In some media interviews Harris pointed to an increased voter turnout in the riding, as if that showed some ground swell of support for his candidacy beyond the Family Feud effect.

Horse hockey.

The increase in turnout from 2006 was 875, a mere 2% jump.

The tale of the electoral tape in St. John's East is easy to see. Add the NDP 2006 number to the difference in votes for the Liberals and Conservatives.  You'll find yourself close as can be to Harris' vote count.

Early commentary suggested that Harris' win and the strong showing of former Independent editor Ryan Cleary in St. John's South-Mount Pearl marked some radical new age for the province's New Democrats:

“I think one of the stories of this election is the real dawning of a new day for the NDP in this province,” said [Memorial University political science professor Christopher] Dunn. “It really has firm urban roots here now.”

In fact, the NDP’s Ryan Cleary was neck in neck with Liberal Siobhan Coady in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl for most of the night, before Coady pulled away taking the seat by 1,047 votes, a mere three per cent difference in the popular vote between the two.

“It also shows the NDP is becoming very serious about its choice of candidates. When they run candidates with high profiles, they do very well,” continued Dunn who called Harris a “force to be reckoned with.”

That's not the case if one assesses where the vote came from.

In both St. John's East and St. John's South-Mount Pearl, the surge in New Democrat votes came predominantly from Provincial Conservatives.  Of Harris' total vote, about half came from the Provincial Conservatives. Another political alignment will rob the NDP of that support just as easily as it was delivered.

One point doesn't make a trend, but another kind will burst a few bubbles.

Pop!

-srbp-

St. John's South-Mount Pearl: a quick look at the results

The Family Feud had a pretty clear impact on the vote result in St. John's South-Mount Pearl.

The difference between the Conservative vote in 2006 and the Conservative vote in 2008 is the increase in Liberal and New Democrat vote, a smattering of votes for the other candidates and a large group (almost 3,000) that apparently didn't vote.

These would be almost entirely Provincial Conservatives who were constrained in their choices by activities within their own normal political camp.

The New Democrats were primary beneficiary of the Feud with an increased vote of 5810.  Some 2927 didn't vote, apparently.  The Liberal vote share increased by 2635.

Overall turnout was slightly above that of 2004 - when there was another spat within the Conservative party - but the total count of eligible voters increased as well from 2004 to 2008.

Liberal and New Democratic vote share did not change appreciably from 2004 to 2006.  The increase in Conservative vote in 2006, compared to 2004, can be attributed to a suppression that resulted from internal problems between the Provincial and federal Conservatives.  In 2006, the Provincial Conservatives supported their federal brethren openly.

-srbp-

The real ABC goal

Bond Paper's post election summary:

"...the Blue Machine is a better friend than enemy, at least for other Blue people."

Danny Williams' post-election summary:

“If there had been a good rapport … they possibly could have 150 seats. That would put them in striking distance of a majority,” he said.

Ahem.

-srbp-

The NL election summary

1.  Since 1949, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have typically voted in the majority anything but Conservative in federal elections.  Biggest thing to remember, but every single one of the media types and most of the local pundits just got lost in the Family Feud hype.  It spilled over into national reporting which was - for the most part - facile.

2.  The biggest impact of the Family Feud in 2008 was to bleed the federal Conservatives of candidates, money and volunteers.  It also suppressed the Conservative vote since Provincial Conservatives typically vote for their federal cousins.

Take a look at the results.  Turn outs are down.  The people who didn't vote are mostly Blue people.

The Conservatives got a taste of the Feud in 2004 when the Provincial Conservatives didn't turn out in any numbers for their friends.  There was no organized campaign, but there was a chill.

3.  St. John's East.  Jack Harris profited from picking up some of the Blue vote but his real surge came from the near total collapse of the Liberal vote. That wasn't ABC.  That was ABW.

4.  Avalon.  A couple of big changes in the last two weeks helped to really make the difference. 

First, Scott Andrews toned down the shrill rhetoric and started to sound like a member of parliament. He started to sound like someone to vote for instead of a guy picking up votes against someone else.  That seems to have had its biggest impact in the part of the riding north of the Trans Canada Highway which, for the most part, has tended to vote Red in federal elections.

Andrews was working hard anyway but as he started to sound more like the guy most of us know, it looks like he shifted votes.

Second, the Provincial Conservatives deployed some of their cabinet ministers and workers to twist arms. Whether that pulled votes to Andrews or suppressed Blue votes, the result was the same.

5.  St. John's South-Mount Pearl.  Midway through the election, poll results showed the Liberals and New Democrats holding onto their vote shares from the past two elections. The Blue votes sat in the undecided category.

At the polls, the Blues came out in a split between Orange and Red, with both picking up nearly equal shares.  Incumbency has its advantages if they can be understood and used effectively.

6.  Random-Burin-St. Georges.  Not a seat that figured in most people's "Watch" list since it's usually gone Red, but the story here is one of an experienced campaigner who worked hard to get the nomination and then to win the seat.  Judy Foote is a former provincial cabinet minister and someone to watch for in the months ahead.  She's tough and savvy and the two Liberal newbies would do well to watch closely what Judy does.

7.  The future.  The lesson of this election is that a divided Blue team leaves the field open. If the Conservatives can heal the rift, then the next federal election could turn out quite differently. Given the seat counts, Provincial Conservatives could have wielded gigantic  - maybe even unprecedented  - influence if they'd turned out for their friends and looked to turn more seats Blue.  They have a machine and they could have used it for niceness, at least for Conservatives.

Instead, they opted to cut throats. 

That might be too much for their brethren to forgive.  Then again, the game theorists in Ottawa might realize that even confined to a single province, the Blue Machine is a better friend than enemy, at least for other Blue people.

If the rift heals, then the next election could have vastly different results.

Jack Harris will have a time facing the likes of Beth Marshall in St. John's East.   Siobhan Coady will face someone like Tom Osborne who comes backed with a family clan that dominates the metro St. John's Conservative scene.

In Avalon, we might expect Fabian Manning to try a comeback.  He'll get some kind of reward for his loyalty.  Depending on what it is, he could be spending the next few months working hard to win back the seat he held until tonight.

The votes might be counted in seven sits, but this fight ain't over yet.

-srbp-

The greatest piece of nonsense in a generation

Memorial University political science professor Michael Temelini likes to refer to the 2005 Atlantic Accord as an example of what can happen in a minority parliament.

The greatest piece of public policy in a generation he calls it.

That's not hyperbole.

That's just nonsense.

The 2005 agreement simply transferred $2.0 billion in federal cash to provincial coffers.  It hasn't produced a penny of new money since then.  It won't produce any more since the provincial government ceases to qualify for Equalization this year and won't qualify to renew the deal.

What Temelini either forgets or doesn't know is that offshore oil sits - constitutionally  - in federal jurisdiction. 

Under the real Atlantic Accord - signed in 1985 - the provincial government basically gets de facto control of the offshore, and more importantly sets and collects 100% of revenues as if the resource was on land.  The federal government collects typical federal revenues like income taxes, GST and corporate taxes.

All the royalties go to the provincial government.

And that's where they stay until the provincial government spends them.

Not a penny goes to Ottawa.

Never has.

At least not since 1985.

The enabling legislation for the real Atlantic Accord passed through parliament in 1987.  The provincial enabling legislation passed around the same time.

The agreement was signed between two majority governments.

But here's the thing.

Legally, constitutionally, the federal government wasn't obliged to do anything at all, let alone sign the 1985 deal.

The 1985 Atlantic Accord was one of the greatest pieces of Canadian public policy in a generation.

It is the sole foundation on which the provincial government's oil revenues rest.

Take that away and the 2005 deal is nothing at all

-srbp-

Incompetence or corruption?

Either way, you can call it a plague.

There's no other word that comes easily to mind to describe the insidious, weasel-politicking that goes on in far too many organizations across the province. 

The federation of agriculture is not the first group and it sadly won't be the last one to have a board whose members, at some point, think it more important to cave in to perceived political pressure rather than do the right thing.

The sorry truth is that boot-licking and arse-kissing are old political staples in Newfoundland and Labrador.  Politicians don't even need to ask to have their best wellies tongue-shined to perfection.

Take a look at the extracts from a letter from the agriculture federation board to Merv Wiseman, currently the Conservative candidate in St. John's South-Mount Pearl.

What we have in the case of the agriculture federation and Merv Wiseman is not something as simple as a poorly worded letter conveying a board decision about the dates of Wiseman's leave of absence.  That's what the federation tried to say when this issue erupted.

Rather we have clear evidence that the federation board wished to avoid causing any difficulty with the current administration by directing the president to stay away from the meeting.  This could have been handled more diplomatically.  This certainly might not have even been an issue, given that Wiseman will hardly be in any shape to go back to his usual job with the federation tomorrow.

From the context of the letter, the meaning is unmistakable.

And it is wrong.

This sort of situation is not something unique to the current administration;  the same sort of anti-democratic decisions have been taken by groups in the past.  It's just that with the current crowd,  in an environment where going against the government is called treason - and people actually stand up for their right to use such savage language -  the weak-minded and morally bankrupt out there take that as a sign that all those who are potentially not in the favour of the government must be silenced.

Some of them think they will get brownie points for attacking the regime's enemies. 

Take a look at two of the final paragraphs and you can see that the board understood full well the gravity of the decision it made and the reasons for it.

Notice that last bit:  it says - in effect - that if Wiseman wants to put the best interests of the industry first he will concur with the board's decision to stay away from the next meeting.

What sanctimonious tripe.

To her credit, the provincial minister responsible for agriculture has already distanced herself from the federation and this letter.  She couldn't do anything else and still retain a semblance of dignity.

But for the record, she ought to make it plain that it is never in the best interests of the province for any board of any organization anywhere to take the decision that the federation did.

We are all cheapened by such a fundamentally anti-democratic sentiment.

Wiseman ought not to attend the meeting because he is on a leave of absence.

The board told him not to attend because of the ongoing controversy between the current provincial administration and its federal counterpart.

The former is legitimate.

The latter is indefensible.  The board ought to resign immediately, en masse.  It has shown itself to be incompetent at best or political corrupt at worst.

 

-srbp-

International roundup of financial crisis developments

1.  The United Kingdom will loan Iceland 100 million pounds sterling to assist its Landesbanki repay British creditors of the nationalised Icelandic bank.

This is not surprising given the number of local councils that did their banking through Icesave, the Landsbanki subsidiary:

But there was increasing concern about the amount of British public and charitable-sector money deposited in Iceland's stricken banks. As much as £1bn of local council money is thought to be at stake, with British charities estimating their exposure at around £60m. "There are more than 50 charities that have deposits there," said Stephen Bubb, chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations.

2.  Meanwhile in Scotland, Scottish nationalists are putting a brave face on the financial crisis. According to some reports, the first minister has been ducking questions about whether an independent Scotland could have funded a 32 billion pound bailout of Scottish banks.  He's also been faced with questions about the so-called Arc of Prosperity which Scottish nationalists have used as proof that an independent Scotland could do well on its own.  Of the four countries in the arc,  Iceland is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, Denmark and Ireland are in recession and Norway is experiencing its own difficulties.

As Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling stepped in to save Scotland's two biggest banks, the Scottish Government tried to avoid questions over how an independent Scotland would have coped with the international crisis. A spokesman for Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said he would "not speculate on a theoretical future event" and refused to say whether he believed an independent Scotland could have bailed out its banks to the tune of £32 billion.

However, he insisted the SNP would still try to push through a referendum bill in 2010, even though if people voted Yes to independence, Scotland's two main banks would be owned by a "foreign" UK government.

At the same time, the Scottish local government is looking at ways of avoiding a recession in Scotland.

3.  Dutch local governments are also affected by the Landsbanki problems.  Twelve local councils have a total of 59 million euros with Landsbanki while the province of Zeeland has five million euros in the bankrupt American firm Lehman Brothers.

4.  France, Germany and Russia have announced separate bailout plans worth almost $1.3 trillion.

5.  Ireland and Australia are guaranteeing bank deposits.  The Irish government guarantee applies only to Irish banks, not subsidiaries of foreign banks.

6.  Ireland is about to introduce a tough national budget that will raise hospital charges and cut tax relief.

All hospital charges are to increase significantly - by 10 per cent in many cases, including charges to be treated in accident and emergency, or to have a private bed in a public hospital.

Despite the fee rises, the Health Service Executive will be forced to make serious cuts in existing services to stay within budget - which will be €400 million more than last year, but still not enough to meet extra wage bills and other costs.

-srbp-

The old Connies make a come back

Hiding candidates from the media and shoving reporters who try and ask a question.

Yeah, not like we haven't seen that before.

Will CTV look for assault charges to be laid?

"The non-consensual application of force by one person to another is an assault."

-srbp-

Aussie Dippers

It may be the website for The Australian, but a Canadian IP address will turn up a Canadian ad.

There's a CIBC one.

And one for the New Democratic Party and Jack Layton.

There's a pretty creative use of the Internet and it would be interesting to know how many Canadian voters actually saw the Dipper's Aussie ad.

-srbp-

At the last minute, Harris ducks

In the last hours of the campaign, New Democrat candidate Jack Harris was hit with a simple, straightforward question.

Rather than answer it just as straightforwardly, he ducked it with a comment that his Conservative opponent was raising it at the last minute.

Maybe Jack needs to trying answering the question about what he plans to do with his considerable provincial pension.

After all, it can't be a good thing when Walter Noel is backing you with some comment about why people shouldn't worry about a politician's other sources of income.

Hmmm.

Makes you wonder on a subject no one should wonder about.

-srbp-

The Fruitloop Factory

There's no allowing for the myriad reason why people feel the need to make stuff up, nor that they would use this false stuff for their own political ends.

Nope.

All we can wonder about is how people actually wind up believe sheer crap and run around repeating it like it was...

true.

Stuff that can be easily shown to be...wait for it...completely false.

Like say the stuff about Barak Obama.

-srbp-