We've seen this before

The Telegram hit the nail on the head with their editorial this morning!

In a time of provincial economic and demographic decline and general political despair and apathy, Premier Williams and co. have really picked the wrong fight to satisfy their goal way of growing our way to prosperity.

They have taken valuable time from generating and implementing economic policy in favour of making their enemies list, checking it twice and then threatening and/or launching legal action, where appropriate, like some diabolical Santa Claus.

This is a self-indulgent luxury and an opportunity cost at our expense.

That's the problem with political jihads: first you start with the big enemies on the outside like Ottawa and big oil and then it's just so easy to slide into an attack on your own citizens.

It took the Peckford government 10 years to bring themselves to this point; it took Premier Williams just 3-1/2.

No good will come of this.
=============================

UPDATE:

Premier Williams just appeared on Open Line announced that the IEC will NOT be covering the leagal expenses of Minister John Hickey.

Yesterday on CBC, Premier Williams made it clear that the IEC would be covering the Minister's legal expenses and that it was perfectly justifiable.

Then the roof caved in under a blistering attack from a flood of talk radio callers.

So he changed his course. Clearly the Premier is not for turning for nobody or nothing.

Except adverse public reaction.

New Tory attack ads - French edition

Whoever the Quebec agency is for the Conservative Party is pretty damned good and better than the English one.

A new set of attack ads are out for Quebec - lighter, funnier and not at all shrill and mean like the English ones.

Do their polling numbers show that we in ROC are darker, meaner and shriller and therefore a better target for those kinds of ads while the good people of La Belle Province are happy-go-lucky and carefree?

In either case, this kind of campaign will reduce cooperation in the House of Commons and will make for a rough session. Whether it provokes an election is anybody's guess.

Government meltdown and libel chill

It's not very often you see a government meltdown right in the middle of a scrum but if you were in the Confederation Building today, would have witnessed one.

In case you missed it, Premier Williams backed Minister John Hickey in his suit against former Premier Roger Grimes. Then Premier Williams, unable to hold back, had to go just a few steps further: he threatened to expand possible future suits to include two notable local bloggers mentioned by name.

These were Ed Hollett of Bond Papers and Sue Kelland Dyer.

It wasn't a direct statement that they would be included in this suit, just that if they weren't careful then they might be included in the future. For defamation, apparently.

There are a couple of things about this that are deservedly shocking.

First, if the Premier and Minister have particular problems with these blogs and the facts they put forward then it's time to list and itemize the problems, rebut the points or otherwise advise the authors of their errors for purposes of correction.

Otherwise just simply leave them alone. Those kinds of shots over the bow are not intended to do anything but instill libel chill and to prevent legitimate political comment.

Second, there's way too much of this lately where government members are using the financial power of government to try and silence opinions of those they do not approve.

The Speaker mentioned this morning that in two previous occasions the House has paid the legal fees of MHAs who considered themselves defamed. It's worth noting that in both these previous cases, the object of the legal action were large corporations who could well afford dealing with these matters (CBC and VOCM).

There is no doubt that any MHA with the full financial backing of the House behind it could easily overwhelm the financial resources of a normal individual. Therefore that must be an action and power that is used very sparingly, in extreme situations only, in order to preserve vigorous debate in a healthy political society.

There is something that really stinks about members of government trying to litigate their critics out of existence. I'd like to say that this is unique but there are too many cases in too many jurisdictions where a part of supposedly "free" political environments saw government agencies launch legal suits of all kinds against their critics in order to silence them.

It's low and that seems to be what is happening here.

Finally, in spite of this government winning 3 of 4 by elections by huge margins and in spite of the fact that this government enjoys overwhelming support in the populace, it remains the touchiest, most defensive and aggressively hostile to responsible opposing points of view of any government since Smallwoood's.

You would think that they would be pretty happy with 70% or 80% plus support but instead this government is obsessed with winning over or otherwise stamping out of existence anybody not in their camp.

It is a peculiar form of pathology which has no place in public life. And it's a high form of hypocrisy to conveniently forget the kind of motive-imputing, character-assassinating and personally disparaging remarks that this Premier has become famous for.

Two wrongs don't make a right but it's worthwhile keeping all this in perspective.

And get over it, Mr. Premier. When you take a shot you have to expect one in return; public life is not for the faint of heart or the wussy in spirit.

Liberals win Humber Valley

Last night, after a real nail-biter, Liberal Dwight Ball defeated PC candidate Darryl Kelly by 12 votes. After seemingly endless weeks of real and shadow campaigning, it might be hard to discern what this all means.

Oddly, Paul Oram on VOCM this morning hit on a few truths without meaning to so it's worth reviewing his speaking points.

He said that there was no message to government in this by election loss and in that he's partially right. Prior to this election, government pushed hard the idea that these by elections signified some mandate to negotiate with the enemies of the province (big oil, Ottawa etc.). That was a bar set by Premier Williams himself.

Oram went on to say that it was local politics, conditions and personalities that drove the results in Humber Valley.

In this remark he has stumbled on an old truth - all politics is local (See Tip O'Neil).

Strategically the PC campaign neglected to recognize that fact preferring to talk about provincial issues. Except for the last-minute parachute announcement on the Nicholsville Bridge issue, all four of these PC campaigns were "by election in a box" with each putting the premier and province first and the particular district in the backbenches.

It's worth noting that in the previous 3 by elections the turnout was abysmal to the point of embarrassing. In Humber Valley, turnout was a remarkable 62% and the government received far less than an overwhelming vote than was received in the other races.

So on both counts Paul Oram was right. There was no message that there is any great groundswell of public support for any provincial jihad against the anti-provincial infidels and perhaps there should have been a closer government focus on local bread-and-butter issues.

In other words - It's the economy, stupid.

At the same time, while there is little for the government to crow about in terms of great victories, the Liberal performance has been less that inspiring. If politics is local, then the opposition Liberals was only able to marshal local forces and credible candidates in only one of four seats and lost ground in Port au Port where ground was expected to be gained.

In a 1988 by election, Liberal Eric Gullage ran and defeated PC Ralph Tucker by 200 votes in the District of Waterford-Kenmount. This win was widely recognised as the beginning of the end for 17 years of PC rule and the start of the shift that ushered in the victory of Premier Clyde Wells just a year later.

But that turning point was only recognised and acknowledged in hindsight. Time will tell if Humber Valley is the new Waterford Kenmount but I have to point out that there are more differences than similarities.

This next session of the House should prove entertaining.

Defining spin

Bond has already mentioned the great series Spin Cycle on CBC. I guess we are both Sunday morning CBC junkies.

Among communications professionals and trainers there exists a love-hate relationship with the idea of spin. I've heard more than a few national level communications trainers and lecturers say that spin is bad, they don't do or teach spin and they advise against spin.

They reinforce the idea that spin is a pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation. These trainers emphasize that while public relations may rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.

Politicians are often accused of spin by commentators and political opponents, when they produce a counter argument or position whether the charge is true or not. It's become like the word "rhetoric" Rhetoric has taken on a pejorative meaning even though the word simply means using persuasive language or words used to persuade. "That's just rhetoric" has become overt code for bullshit. But that's not what it is and neither is spin. Spin is confused with deception when the two ideas are distinct.

In true spin, the facts are true and lies are never uttered. It's the force with which the ideas are presented which make the message spin or not.

The term spin comes from baseball. The game would be dull if pitchers just threw the ball at the batter so pitchers will throw the ball with spin. The idea is to fool the batter into thinking the ball will appear in a different place than it actually will all with the goal of making the batter strike out.

Hence you get top-spin, so the ball goes faster than expected, back-spin so the ball goes slower than expected, and left-spin and right-spin which make the ball break left or right.

In the same way political messages can be given top-spin, back-spin or side-spin. Let's take some examples of each.

Top-spinning a message means pushing a message hard to that it seems to have more value, weight, and velocity than one would expect of it. It's making the trivial or neutral look more important than it actually is. This past week Premier Williams used a scrum and press release to top-spin a message about NL Hydro filing an application for long-term electrical transmission service through New Brunswick System.

Why is this top-spin? Mainly it has to do with making much ado about a no-news ho-hum item. What makes it important in context is that the release and related activity give the appearance of a government action looking important and decisive just before, wait for it, three by elections.

Then there's back-spin. This is the effort to try to minimize an issue by leeching the matter of energy and importance.

One of the biggest issues of last year was the closure of the Stephenville mill. Premier Williams proclaimed that the mill would never close on his watch and when it was clear it was going to, threw a Hail-Mary pass of $150million to try to keep it open. It closed anyway amidst a flurry of promises about seeking new operators or, failing that, a new industrial tenant for the facility.

Then, very quietly and without any public attention, came this release announcing that the Stephenville Paper Mill Site would be decommissioned. A classic example of desperate back-spin.

Finally, there's the side-spin. The idea is to redirect and divert the reader (and the media) to another issue than the one at hand with a message that's not quite on target. There are many many examples of this but one that comes to mind is the Premier's defense of the $130,000 for entertainment, and more than $100,000 for gifts to other premiers, including a farewell gift of a sealskin coat to Alberta's Ralph Klein during the Premiers' conference held in St. John's and Corner Brook.

"I take my greatest pride as premier of our province in showcasing every single bit of talent and music and culture that we have," Williams said. "By God, that is money well spent."

Side-spin at it's finest.

The important thing to remember is that in none of these cases were there any misstatements of facts or deception of information involved. In fact all the facts were true and corrects and what distinguishes all these examples from what would we conventionally label as "truth" is the application of energy to the message pointing them in certain directions.

Becoming an informed consumer of news media and government information means understanding when and how you are being spun.

Perspective

This little peice on VOCM sparked my curiosity. For the record it says:

Holiday Bad for Business - Feb 11, 2007
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says they will not go along with another statutory holiday, especially not without the proper consultation. This province is considering following Saskatchewan and Manitoba's lead in creating a holiday in February to break up the long winter between Christmas and Easter. CFIB president Bradley George says that could be disastrous for business in this province.

It occurred to me as I read it that there are many impediments to business in this province: government wars against investment, demographic out migration and aging, crumbling schools, transportation challenges etc etc etc.

Any number of many many other things could be safely described as "disastrous for business in this province" long before a mere stat holiday in the dead of winter.

Let's keep our eye on the ball.

Offal commentary on CBC - Satire or Serious?

Earlier this week I recorded a commentary for CBC Morning Show based on this post. It was broadcast on Thursday morning and can be found at this link.

This morning they broadcast a response from a gentleman who's name went by too fast for me to catch. He thought it was goofy because the idea that appointed citizen's representatives overlooking politicians was ridiculous. After all, he said, we already have citizen's representatives and they are the elected politicians themselves.

Sir. . . that was the point.

Two things I learned about this.

1. Radio is harder to do than it looks and;
2. For some people satire has to be painted on in big, thick coats with a roller in order for them to catch it.

Turnout is the question -What's the answer?

Each party wants to get out their spin on the results of these three by elections. After all, if a party can't ascribe meaning to the events then the events lose their punch. That leaves aside the matter of the Humber Valley vote next week.

For government, the spin is that the electorate have endorsed the government's direction and that the Premier has received his mandate to negotiate with the enemies of the province. You know those people; the ones in the black hats who want to take our resources away leaving us nothing. The Premier, he tells us, is the only thing standing between them and more giveaways and now we've all told him to stand firm.

According to the Telegram today, Williams believes his party has majority support in spite of the low turnout saying “I’ve heard time and time again that if there’s a high voter turnout, it’s an indication of the satisfaction with a government. This is a lower voter turnout, but we’ve taken significant majorities in these three districts, and I take that as an endorsement of us and that the people are quite content to say, ‘Fine, we don’t need to get out and vote because this government is doing a good job.’ ”

I wouldn't take a 33% turnout in the district of Kilbride as a mandate for too much.

On the other hand is the message of the opposition Liberals. Gerry Reid said in the Telegram that it was possible some people didn’t vote because they don’t like the direction the premier is taking the province.

Overall their their message is a more difficult one: there is discontent with government because the Liberal vote went up and so many people stayed away because they were afraid to vote against the government.

Mind you that in most cases the Liberal vote went up from a ridiculously low base. And anyway, losing by 5-1 this time is not much better than losing by 10-1 last time (see Ferryland) and is fairly meaningless as a trend.

And while it's arguable whether there's any popular discontent with the governing PCs, there is little doubt that there is no popular appetite for the opposition Liberals.

Even though every side is working their hardest to put a brave face on a alarmingly low turnout, it does not bode well for the general election.

And by the way, I know Sean Skinner has been getting dumped upon for his suggestion of a fine for non-voters. God knows I've dumped on him myself for some stands he's taken - nothing personal - but I believe he's on to something here.

It's time for substantial and fundamental reform of our electoral system. We have a voting and first-past-the-post system evolved from another millennium inappropriate for the economic, demographic and social conditions we face today.

So far election reform has been an issue on the fringes with some minor tinkering on the edges only (incomplete and ill thought-out implementation of fixed election dates, for example) but now it's time to bring the issue to the fore.

I'll be offering suggestions shortly.

By-election fallout - no real surprises so far

At 4:30 this afternoon, Chief Electoral Officer Charles Furey went on the air to pooh-pooh the fact that some polling stations were located in the same building as a campaign headquarters and to state that the turnout so far was low.

Very low. Ranging from 15-20% at that point. The general rule of thumb is that you will get 1/2 the vote before 5pm and the rest of the voters will come out from 5pm to close. So Furey's remarks pointed to a turnout of 30-40%.

By-election turnouts are generally low anyway but that's not always the case.

In the recent Signal Hill Quidi Vidi by election the turnout was roughly 45% and that was considered exceptionally low. In Placentia-and-St-Marys on February 21st, 2006 it was 64.9% while in Exploits on June 23rd, 2005 it was 54.4%.

By comparison, the provincial election turnout in 2003 was 63.6%.

That fact that the PCs took all three seats by margins ranging from handily to overwhelming was no big surprise. While it was possible that might not happen, it certainly was not probable to the reasonable person. In the end it turned out that the stories of internal PC discontent were either over-blown or just plainly not a factor.

More significant than the final tallies, I think, was an exceptionally low turnout even by standards of recent by elections.

Since the 2003 election to these by elections, the turnout in Kilbride went from 61% to 33% and in Ferryland from 64.9% to 45%. In Port au Port turnout dropped less; from 60% to 51%.

Even by the standards of lower turnout in by elections, Ferryland is low and Kilbride is shockingly low; it may have set a record for people staying home. John Dinn, for example, goes to the House of Assembly with the backing of only 26% of the people in his district.

There are any number of possible reasons for why so many neglected to vote: discontent with government, contentment with government, discontent with the opposition or just plain annoyance and disgust with the the whole lot of them.

The Liberal party will certainly be looking very closely at these numbers with little enthusiasm; the party has little to be proud of.

And the PCs don't have a whole lot to crow about either. They won the seats they were supposed to but there were no resounding victories here; certainly no mandate to negotiate with our "enemies".

There are no victories here; on to Humber Valley.

By-election day

Early reports indicate very low-turnout. That might change as the dinner-hour approaches - it might not.

In any case, on your way out to vote, take a look at this so you can make your X with a smile on your face and a song in your heart.

Whoever you vote for, just don't forget to do it.

By-election box scores

These four by-election's (you can take them as one set of four even though the elections are actually on 2 different days) provide an interesting opportunity for the electorate to evaluate the performance of the government.

It's a truism that by-elections are notoriously hard to predict because it's a great opportunity for the voters to express their thoughts or otherwise vote on different priorities without actually taking down a government. See Signal-Hill-Quidi-Vidi as an example of how local factors, conditions and personalities can trump provincial trends.

So the natural assumption that provincial polls showing apparent stratospheric government support necessarily indicates a sweep by the PC's is a generous over-interpretation of the landscape.

Although one would expect the apparently weak and disorganized Liberals to be at internal odds, the reality is that it looks like the PC's are the one at internal odds. Reports indicate that some of the failed nomination candidates are unhappy for a variety of reasons. Part of the problem is that while there might have been 2000+ votes for 6 or 7+ hopeful candidates in each district, in the end you have just one happy candidate and a bunch of unhappy ones who call the process unfair.

Another interesting about the PC nominations is that each one had a candidate designated and anointed by the Premier (in one case the candidate ran in two different districts) and they failed to take the nomination in each case. This might point to organizational weakness or loss of party control on the Premier's part - it's hard to tell.

It's not unusual for a Premier to try and muscle their way into nominations. Tobin tried to designate Liberal candidates in at least 3 federal by-elections and also failed each time.

The Liberals, on the other hand, have had no divisive nomination battles and in some cases were lucky to get candidates at all. In spite of that, some sensible and competent candidates emerged. More on that below.

The best that can be said about the NDP, meanwhile, is that they worked hard to get 4 candidates and did. It's just too bad that the energetic and shrewd talents of Rick Boland had to be wasted this way.

There are four seats in play: on the Avalon they are Kilbride and Ferryland. Both have been long-time PC seats and, frankly, there is little reason to expect that to change although I suspect the counts will be closer than previously.

Too bad because I have to say that Bob Clark (Lib-Kilbride) is putting up a spirited fight including media buys, and would likely to make a good MHA. Still he faces just an outside chance against John Dinn, former Goulds mayor and St. John's councilor.

While much better known, Dinn seems to be running his provincial race the same way he ran his municipal ones - with just $200, lots of good will, little door-knocking and no media. Meanwhile, reports indicate the Goulds 8 and other groups and individuals whom Dinn has previously annoyed, including some workers from camps of the failed nomination challengers, are vigorously working against him.

The west coast has the real interesting races: Port au Port and Humber Valley. These are the seats where it's a real competition. Most pundits and observers are saying the PC's are in real fear of losing one (Humber Valley) and an outside chance at losing the second (Port au Port).

Certainly the PC''s seem to think so because they have been marching the premier and other ministers all up and down the coast. But all things are not smooth for the PCs; this morning a long-time PC worker has cut the party loose and was willing to say so to a CBC radio reporter.

On the Liberal side, the one to watch is Dwight Ball in Humber Valley. Of all the candidates of all the parties in all the seats, he is the real deal - successful, sensible, articulate, fearless and smart. And the last time he ran he lost to his sister-in-law, the infamous Kathy Goudie, in a squeaker.

The strategies of the parties have been fairly predictable in the main. The PC's are putting provincial issues ("vote for us for a strong hand against Ottawa", or as one wag put it "give us a mandate to negotiate") and the personality of the Premier first and foremost. The Liberals, while generally running against the government, are running mainly on platforms of local issues claiming that the PC's are ignoring the local for the provincial.

The main exception seem to be on constituency allowances. It looks likes whoever wins these seats all the MHA's will be releasing constituency allowance records in the future.

It's hard escape the question of who will win what seats and what it will mean; each party there are different definitions of success and failure.

• 4-0 for the PCs is success for the PCs (they kept them all) and a push for the Liberals (they lost nothing)
• 3-1 for the PCs is loss for the PCs (they set a high bar for success) and a win for the Liberals (they gained one against a 70% current the other way)
• 2-2 is a serious failure for the PCs and glorious victory for the Liberals
• Losing more than 2 is catastrophic failure for the PC machine and a towering achievement for the Liberals representing a monumental sea change in the political landscape.

We'll see what happens.

OffalNews on CBC!

Well not quite, but close.

The wise people at the CBC Morning Show are on an endless quest for quality local programming but they have decided to put that mission aside for for 3 minutes or so and instead run a commentary from me.

It is a variation of A Modest Propsal and will be on tomorrow morning, February 8, between 8 and 8:30am.

Stay tuned.

A Modest Proposal

It's a rare thing when the head of the province's largest union and the Premier both call for the same fundamental reform of the province's political system.

Last week Carol Furlong of NAPE called for the appointment of a citizen's representative to sit on the Internal Economies Commission and oversee the elected officials.

Premier Danny Williams agreed.

Once again we have a half-hearted solution to a profound problem - the inability of our elected officials to take the responsibility of governing this province let alone governing their behavior.

One always suspected that but now it's confirmed at the highest political levels.

First, let's clearly define the problem: our elected officials can't handle the responsibility they are elected to exercise so the more they come under the review of appointed citizen's representatives, the better.

Since it's agreed that's the problem, we should greatly expand this concept for maximum effectiveness; no half-measures will do.

I suggest a modest proposal: We should establish a special committee of citizen's representatives to look over the shoulder of the MHA's.

The appointed Auditor General, while effective in ferreting out wrongdoing after the fact, can't do much to stop the exercise of bad judgment before it happens. The existing Citizen's Representative is short on all resources to really do the job and, anyways, that's not why that particular job was created in the first place.

No; we need a group of qualified, energetic and and capable appointed citizen's representatives with very wide ranging supervisory and overseeing powers. Their role will be to review every decision made by every government minister and department and to make sure it's in the interest of the people and not the politicians.

I would think that we would need at least 6 of these citizens. And because this is a small province where everybody knows each other and it's just too easy to have conflicts of interest, it would be wise to have 3 of those 6 coming from outside the province. Perhaps the mainland or some other commonwealth country.

Each of these six citizen's representatives should be allocated some areas of responsibility, so many departments each to review on an ongoing basis. If things get out of hand, in their opinion, they can veto.

It's time to take responsibility away from the elected officials and to place it in the hands of an overall commission of appointed representatives.

Since we can't trust our politicians and since they are completely incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions, that responsibility must be taken away from them for their good and for ours.

When it comes to exercising the democratic responsibilities for which they were elected, our MHA's are not fit for it.

Didn't we learn that last time?

Atlantic Journalism Award

Regular readers will know that "Caught in the Middle" is my 6000 word piece telling the story and the effects of the collapse of the Hebron project negotiations between the province and the oil companies.

Atlantic Business Magazine commissioned me to research and write it for publication in their July/August 2006 issue.

It turns out that not only has ABM submitted it for a National Magazine Award, they have also submitted it to the 2006 Atlantic Journalism Awards closer to home.

Thanx kindly!

And stay tuned to see how it all works out.

Tory attack ad update

First, it looks like the Conservative Party may be in copyright violation for the video clips used in the ads. Might just be a matter of time before they get yanked from everywhere.

You really have to wonder what the strategy here is. I suspect that Conservative polling numbers are likely showing that Dion is either not particularly well-defined in English Canada or his numbers are just plain soft. Clearly they want these ads to provide that definition service in sort of the same way the PC's in Ontario kneecapped Dalton McGinty before the last couple of Ontario provincial elections - spend the money to run the attack ads way in advance and bury him.

But what I don't understand is this: if they are trying to force the Liberals to put off an election until later then why use a tactic that could so piss off the Liberals that they'll want to take out Harper's government ASAP? It's a high-risk strategy that could backfire.

Meanwhile the media response has been interesting. Stories here and here think it might work, a story here thinks it's deplorable while a story here just isn't sure.

Clearly they are meeting a mixed reception.

Second: I've been given better links directly to the ads themselves. You can find them below.

Clean up the Environment


Not a Leader


Back to Power

Premier Danny Williams vs. Big Oil - ABM 4 of 4

This is the last of the series of the 5 top stories of the year as published in the January-February issue of the Atlantic Business Magazine. All of them will be listed on the lower left column under published work when I get the time.

------------------------------------

Premier Danny Williams vs. Big Oil

In February 2006 negotiations between the Hebron Ben-Nevis consortium (led by Chevron Canada) and the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador collapsed amid public acrimony. No further talks have since been held, nor are any planned for the immediate future.

Meanwhile, plans for the possible expansion of the Hibernia project to exploit the southern extension of the field are now tangled in the thick underbrush of the provincial government approval process. The outcome is far from certain.

Hebron Ben-Nevis was poised to be the fourth offshore development for the province, the project that bridged the gap to a strong petroleum future. While the Williams government stands firm on its position of "no more giveaways", there is a very real potential for medium and long term losses from the delay, for both the public and private sectors.

Lost royalties and taxes (at least in the immediate term) are estimated to be equal to the other three projects combined: some $8-10 billion, depending on oil prices. And this money was scheduled to arrive just as the other project revenues are scheduled to go into a steep decline from a peak of $1.4 billion in 2012-13.

The recent shutdown of Terra Nova and the associated revenue impact on the provincial treasury has provided a sobering indication of the degree to which Newfoundland and Labrador now depends on the revenue from these few oil projects. The mid-term tipping of the provincial budget from surplus to deficit points to the need to have more projects in play.

But government revenues are not the whole story.

For the local supply sector, Hebron represented momentum and continuity, a smooth transition of business and employment opportunity from one project to the next. This project could have kept skilled workers in place and fabrication facilities humming.

In the wake of Hebron’s indefinite delay, firms are now looking for opportunity in other parts of the country and withdrawing personnel and capital from St. John’s, Marystown, Argentia and the surrounding areas. The Burin Peninsula has been particularly hard hit, since the regional fish plants, the only other source of significant employment, have also closed.

The loss of Hebron also represents a break in the path to future exploration and development. The political climate has become so rancorous that petroleum companies seem to have lost some of their enthusiasm for the province: exploration drilling scheduled prior to April 2006 is winding down, with no significant plans for follow-up. For the first time in recent memory, a call for bids offshore Newfoundland and Labrador (the recently-closed Sydney Basin offering) was met with a chilling lack of interests: no bids were received.

With more potential projects around the globe than resources to execute them, petroleum companies seem content to move on to other opportunities. Since oil companies have been withdrawing their senior personnel to more accommodating jurisdictions, the ripple effect on local supply companies has been to scale back also.

St. John’s and the surrounding region has experienced substantial economic stimulus from petroleum-related activity. With the slow-down in the supply sector, a drop in key economic indicators, such as housing prices and employment rates, are already being seen.

So far, Williams’ posture as "Fighting Newfoundlander" has played well in his province: CRA polling shows continued strong approval ratings. However, while public criticism of Williams’ stand has been limited, there is widespread disappointment that more efforts to reach a deal have not been made. His reputation as a successful deal-maker, which attracted widespread support from the business community during the last provincial election, is being sorely tested by the breakdown of these critical negotiations.

Averill Baker - *yawn*

Another Averill Baker column.

FPI is bad.

Ottawa is bad.

Canada is bad.

Foreigners are bad.

We are victims.

We are slaves.

Same as last week.

Same as next week.

Same old, same old.

*yawn*

Tory attack ads

My sympathies have been clear here and here - I've been waiting for a leader like Stephan Dion for a long time. Now that he's here, he's done nothing to disappoint me and has shown much energy and character to give me hope for the party and the country.

Here are the tory attack ads. This is the first time in this country I've seen/heard such a thing on the national level. I'll write further about this once I cool down a bit.





These are 2nd hand versions. Oddly, the Conservative Party is so proud of them that they have declined to post them to their website.

5 Top Stories of 2006 in ABM - 3 of 4

This is the next is the series of the 5 top stories of the year as published in the January-February issue of the Atlantic Business Magazine.

------------------------------------

Deep Panuke - Finally Moving

On June 30, 2006 Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald announced that the stalled Deep Panuke natural gas project was moving forward.

Deep Panuke first emerged as a potential third project for the Nova Scotia offshore in 2000, when PanCanadian Energy announced encouraging drilling results from a natural gas field associated with the Cohasset Panuke oil project. Deep Panuke will tap into the natural gas reservoirs located underneath the original Cohasset-Panuke oil field, which ceased production in late 1999.

The Offshore Strategic Energy Agreement (OSEA) announced by Premier MacDonald is the first step in the process to get both gas and opportunities flowing to the province.

To start, EnCana has guaranteed 1.34 million person-hours of work in Nova Scotia, including at least 850,000 by Nova Scotians. The agreement also contains a commitment to build accommodation facilities for the Offshore Production Unit in the province yielding some 280,000 person-hours for Nova Scotians.

The Deep Panuke OSEA contains a unique element that will facilitate long-term opportunities for Nova Scotia companies: EnCana will provide financial and human resources to help build an onshore drilling rig manufacturing operation in Nova Scotia - $1 million dollars worth per rig towards the construction of five onshore rigs in-province.

Nova Scotia companies who participate in this ambitious and creative supplier development initiative will acquire experience and an entrée into a market hungry for qualified labour and industrial capacity. Construction of the proposed initial five rigs could also help alleviate the rig shortage that has hindered the onshore industry in Atlantic Canada and across the country.

But rig construction is likely to be just the beginning of long-term benefit emerging from the Deep Panuke OSEA. Premier MacDonald expects joint ventures and partnerships established during project development to establish export capacity and help Nova Scotia’s resident industry flourish.

Premier MacDonald says the deal was reached through patience, cooperative spirit and an eye to the future: "(By) staying at the negotiating table and showing certainty to the company during the regulatory process, Nova Scotia demonstrated it is a steady partner that’s open for business and will find ways to make projects move forward."

The mood in Nova Scotia is confident, the supply and service sector is ready, and the industry is looking forward to success beyond the life of this new project.

Re-writing history - Incumbants versus Predecessors

A common theme of the politics over time is the practice of incumbents rewriting the history of their predecessors in order to justify or excuse current policies.

Take your time with these clips; they run about 20 minutes in total.

Here is the controversial interview on Fox where former President Clinton defends his record and clarifies facts and issues against the Bush revisionists.



Here is the Olbermann commentary of this event. It's a long and articulate attack on the unfair ambush of former President Clinton by a media outlet known for toadying to the right wing in power.



This happened in the US. And you know it never happens here in this country.

Or in this province.

Right?

Editorials - Loopy and Worse

I made a small and general comment about the local media for their aggressive pursuit of their little spots in the local media political monoculture. I've received some comment taking issue with that but I stand by my initial remark - local editorial stances are like Model-T Fords; any colour you want as long as it's black.

However, to be fair, there are all kinds of shades of black. Two concrete examples have now come my way.

Bond Papers has already noted that this Telegram editorial was thin. I think he was being overgenerous. I know and understand that it's hard to hit the target each and every time but this is just too clumsy. I read the piece several times and then went back to look it it again. I even asked others to look at it. Bond Papers suggests that it's a half-hearted attempt to maybe, possibly make a comment on the Premier's style (as opposed to substance).

I can't tell what the point of this piece is. Either the author was so ambivalent that they qualified the points into meaninglessness or a paragraph was dropped somewhere along the way.

Either way, I don't get it and it's not up the the Tely's usual par.

Then there is this editorial from the Independent. Labradore has commented on it's uncanny resemblance to free verse but I'm more concerned about the substance rather than it's accidental unconventional poetic form.

Editorials are usually defined as an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of its editor or publisher. That's not really the issue here. The real issue is the matter of what constitutes an piece worthy of being called an editorial?

Should an opinion have any basis in fact or can it simply be the product of whatever random set of firing synapses is going on in the head of the author at that very moment?

I would think that a properly constructed editorial would follow roughly this form as concisely suggested by a journalism professor at the University of Rochester.

Instead, Mr. Cleary has chosen to go with the randomly firing synapses route.

The piece is rife with coy unsubstantiated assertions (oil companies shut production in retaliation) and hoary, put-up inflammatory strawmen arguments (national media see Williams as Canada’s Hugo Chávez).

And that's just in the first couple of paragraphs!

The capper is when it goes on to suggest that the gentle reader should "consider this column an exercise in freeing the mind."

May I suggest that if the reader really wants to free their mind that a tab of psychoactive hallucinogenics would be healthier than than reading any more of this kind of predictable, unsubstantiated, prejudiced, pandering dreck week after week.

Equalization - Much ado about nothing?

In this article from the venerable StarPhoenix, Lorne Calvert indicates that he's hopeful that a solution to this matter of the Sask/NL Equalization war with Ottawa.

The story says:

After an interview on Wednesday in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper hinted he would live up to his election campaign guarantee to take non-renewable resources out of the federal equalization equation, Calvert was cautiously optimistic his own message on the matter was getting through.

It makes you wonder what kind of tempest in a teapot this whole thing was in the first place.

If you recall, this war started when Harper refused to give iron-clad assurances to Premier Williams at the PC Party convention in Gander. Little wonder Harper was disinclined to cooperate given the shabby treatment Williams accorded the Prime Minister and his political fellow traveler.

Here's the real question of the day: Did Premier Williams whip Harper's refusal to give an immediate answer into a storm because he thought the answer would be disadvantageous to this province or simply because he decided to push the matter to personal political advantage?

It's odd that this Calvert/Williams roadshow has but two stops - Saskatchewan and NL. One would have thought that it might have made better sense to stray from home territories to make forays into Ottawa, Halifax, Toronto or Vancouver in order to convince a wider audience.

But staying close to home makes perfect sense if the goal is merely to play to the home fans.

In the end, if Harper finally indicates that Equalization will be resolved to Williams' satisfaction then Williams can claim it that was his fight that made Harper cave notwithstanding the consistent assurances from Harper and his proxies (Manning, Hearn et al) that this province would not suffer under any new regime.

Maybe if Harper decides otherwise, it would be because he calculated he had nothing to lose from stirring the Premier's pique.

Equalization roadshow - two different takes

Below is the text of a column (Straight Talk) by Randy Burton in StarPhoenix, a Saskatoon newspaper. That is followed by a local article on the same subject written by Craig Jackson of the Telegram.

As hard as it is to believe, there is actually a responsible opposing point of view to Premier Williams' case on Equalisation* although that's pretty hard to tell. It seems we live in a media environment that is supersaturated with mere echoes of the Premier's latest remarks on this or that.

Local media is largely a political monoculture.

I know that the first is a column while the second is a news piece but the fact is that the local columns and editorials almost all follow the same line with rare exceptions which prove the rule.

Show me a local column that comes anywhere close to the position taken by this Saskatoon column in taking on a fundamental position of the Premier and I'll buy you a drink - it seldom happens and when it does, it's ignored because it is so rare.

You have to wonder if the local media have a policy on premiers that is similar to the policy of many US media outlets on the presidency: domestic policy is fair game for criticism and comment; on foreign policy, back the man to the hilt in all cases.

The media does the province no good in acting like an echo chamber - it breeds denial.

----------------------------------------------------
The rhetoric of equalization

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams would have to be counted among the most persuasive orators in the country.

The way he can frame an argument, he could probably convince Sidney Crosby that he needs hockey lessons.
So no one should be surprised to hear that he can make an eloquent defence of Newfoundland and Labrador's special equalization deal.

It's the same deal Saskatchewan wants -- the one Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised in writing no fewer than six times, in fact. The idea is that provinces with oil and gas, like Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan, should be allowed to exclude the value of their non-renewable natural resources from the calculations under the national equalization plan.

This is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too plan, where you can enjoy a gusher of oil revenues and still get equalization payments.

Of course, Williams can dress it up much more nicely than that. He ties the issue to Newfoundland's long history of disappointment, from the death of the fishery to the province losing control over returns from its vast hydro-electric resources.

He equates his sweetheart deal, called the Atlantic Accord, with subsidies to the Quebec aerospace industry or aid to Western beef producers.

In the same way, Newfoundland merely wants to be able to help itself with its own resources and makes no apology for it, he told a Saskatoon audience on Tuesday.

"Gone are the days when we sit back quietly and watch our economic wealth leave our shores to benefit others. We fight tooth and nail for each and every benefit that we so richly deserve and that has evaded us for so long," he said.

The case he and Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert make is a very simple one. As Harper likes to say, a promise made should be a promise kept. End of story.

There's no question it's an effective political argument, easy to understand and easy to sell.
The problem with it is that it ignores the fact equalization was never designed to be a regional development plan that makes a special case for less developed provinces.

It is supposed to be a national plan that allows provinces in different circumstances the ability to provide relatively equal services at relatively comparable tax levels.

There is no question equalization has failed to do that in the past, spectacularly so in Saskatchewan's case, where for a period of years we had more money clawed back through equalization than we actually made from oil and gas.

But to argue the solution is to simply load up the other end of the teeter-totter for a change makes no sense either.

If Calvert has his way, Ontario would actually have a smaller fiscal capacity than Saskatchewan. However, Ontario would still be contributing to equalization while Saskatchewan would be a big recipient. It's very hard to see how that passes the test of fairness that Saskatchewan claims is so critical.

When Saskatchewan Finance Minister Andrew Thomson suggests the federal government is "going to use Western oil money to essentially buy votes in Quebec," he is really sinking to a new rhetorical low in this debate.

In the first place, it can't be proven by looking at the available information on equalization. On a per-capita basis, Quebec contributes more to federal revenues, and thus to equalization, than Saskatchewan does.

These kinds of statements indicate just how far Calvert's New Democrats are prepared to go in their campaign against the Conservatives. Plainly, they aim to pit Saskatchewan and Western Canada against Central Canada and to paint Quebec as the illegitimate beneficiary of Western wealth.

This might be effective politics for the Saskatchewan NDP, but it's poisonously divisive for the country. Just for the sake of argument, let's say the Parti Quebecois takes power in the next Quebec election, a notion that is entirely possible. Thomson's accusation is just the kind of thing separatist premiers love to use when justifying another referendum.

There was a time not so long ago when Saskatchewan was regarded as a rational voice in federal-provincial relations. This debate is badly fraying that reputation.

For Calvert to stalk out of a meeting with the prime minister without so much as shaking his hand is not just rude, it's short-sighted. Whatever happens to equalization, Saskatchewan is obviously going to need federal co-operation on a whole range of other issues in the months ahead.

For whatever reason -- budgetary problems? -- the Calvert government is betting it all on this particular political initiative.

We have yet to count the costs of the collateral damage.

---------------------------

Premier outlines 'wrongs' of Confederation; Takes message west

For decades, many a Newfoundland and Labrador premier attempted to dispel the myth that the province is sucking the life-blood out of the rest of Canada, that the country's most easterly jurisdiction is dependent on federal handouts for the delivery of welfare cheques, health-care, education and public services.

Premier Danny Williams joined the ranks of those before him Tuesday, delivering his views on Confederation - and what it has meant for this province - during a speech to about 200 people at the University of Saskatchewan. Williams also took the opportunity to meet with Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert, who's on the same page as this province when it comes to federal equalization.

Burden
"When we joined Confederation almost 58 years ago, our per-capita debt increased tenfold the very day we joined," Williams said in his speech. "Ironically, to this day, we have the highest per-capita debt in the country.

"Before Confederation, we were a nation that had come through the war in good financial shape and abundant in natural resources. Since Confederation, things have changed."

Williams' comments are all a part of his fight to ensure this province gets to keep 100 per cent of revenue generated from non-renewable resources and that Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper keeps his promise that those benefits will not be clawed back through a revised equalization formula, an $11-billion program which allows for the delivery of an equal standard of public services nationwide.

"If you're going to convince someone to buy into your argument on equalization, and the need for us to have relief on non-renewable resource revenue, you need to give them some history of our background," the premier explained from Saskatoon Wednesday in an interview with The Telegram.

Give-aways
"It's an education for people so that they can understand why (the equalization issue) is so important to us now and why it's important we get a fair shake."

Williams said in his Saskatchewan address that this province gave up its right to manage offshore oil and gas resources when it joined Confederation in 1949. Other Canadian jurisdictions, however, owned and managed their oil and gas resources because "they are under ground instead of water," he said.

Accord
When the mid-1980s rolled around, the province signed the Atlantic Accord offshore deal with the Government of Canada, a document designed to rectify the wrong that had been written, he said, "but the promise of the Accord and the reality of its implementation were two entirely different beasts."

Williams, however, tackled that wrong in 2004, convincing former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin to renegotiate the Atlantic Accord. The premier returned home with a $2-billion agreement that served as an advancement on future offshore benefits.

The premier also cited other examples of where Confederation has not been entirely fair to this province.

He took aim at the federal government's refusal in the late 1960s to allow this province to transmit power through Quebec as part of the Upper Churchill hydro project. As a result, this province ended up in a lopsided deal with Quebec.

"Our loss is estimated at a billion dollars a year, a billion dollars from our resource that goes directly into Quebec's revenues every year, a billion dollars that could make us a have province," Williams said.

Fishery
The fishery, he said, is another example where the province passed control and management over to the federal government.

"Ottawa, in turn, used its control of our fishery to trade quotas to foreigners in exchange for other favours, and it mismanaged some species of our domestic fishery to the point of commercial extinction," he said.

"As a result of this mismanagement, tens of thousands of people have been forced to leave our province.

"Imagine, if in one day, 300,000 Ontarians suddenly lost their jobs as a result of the federal government's mismanagement of their (auto) industry. These circumstances would rightfully be described as a national disaster."

But when thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were displaced with the closure of the cod fishery in 1992, it was considered "a national nuisance," the premier said.

---------------------------------

* A basic point of principle I have to teach all my starting debaters is that there is always a responsible opposing point of view to virtually any side.

Quantitative Communications

There's a popular misconception that communications is necessarily a soft and fuzzy arts-style profession focussed on what words sound right. Even among so-called communications "professionals", there's the belief that communications analysis and practice is purely qualitative.

In fact, like many other areas, there is a hard, numbers-based and rigorous side to the field. In communications, one of those sides is content analysis. It simple means looking at communications products or whathaveyou and analyzing for patterns or information or forms to determine meaning.

Sounds complicated? It certainly can be but it doesn't have to be. I've seen enormously complex content analysis done for scholarly purposes where a solid advanced degree in statistics would be a boon in figuring out what it all meant. On the other hand, a simple count of which member of government appears in the media talking about what issue and how that changes over time can be very helpful in figuring out the latest government strategy.

What sparks off this little essay is this gem of a page in the New York Times. It's a wonderful interactive real-time content analysis of the last 7 State of the Union Addresses delivered by George Bush.

Check it out; it's fascinating!

I only wish we had the equivalent for Throne Speeches.

"Who Needs it?" video - viral politics

VOCM reports today that a video is making it's rounds on YouTube. A satirical take on the current provincial administration, it takes some shots at the supposed effects of government policies in a campaign-style 60 second piece.

I've already posted some notes on campaign advertising here, here and here. Back then I predicted that the low cost of modern digital video cameras combined with video posting websites and the prevalence of free video editing software would lead to the development of an underground brand of guerilla/viral political advertising.

And it seems now that it has come to pass.

For those who have not yet seen the video, check here, here or here. The last link, http://ipfreelynl.blogspot.com/, seems dedicated to the cause of local political underground videos and other satirical pieces.

An interesting side note is this: somebody seems to have gone to the YouTube site and flagged this video as "inappropriate" thus making it hard to find and access for the casual viewer. Flagging is usually restricted to videos that are pornographic, hate speech, infringes copyright, are too shocking or otherwise nasty and inappropriate for a general audience. It tells the YouTube managers to review this video and decide if it should be yanked from the site.

Clearly some government sympathizer thought this clip was too dangerous to be let out; certainly the comments attached to the video are strongly hostile to the video's point of view.

You'll have to decide for yourself if you agree or not.

Rent-A-Protester

We've already talked about astroturfing (artificial grassroots) and blog astroturfing (fake blogs for commercial reasons) and even the local variation: pitcher plants. Now it gets even better.

Artificial protesters.

No, I don't mean throwing manikins into demonstrations. I mean a German firm that will rent you people who will participate in your protest. They are handsome (or lovely) and well-endowed with good melodious voices for yelling slogans and strong arms for carrying placards or signs

They are affordable too: just C$200 a day.

See here for the BBC story.

See here for the website offering the service.

Welcome to the politics of the new millennium!

5 Top Stories of 2006 in ABM - 2 of 4

This is the next is the series of the 5 top stories of the year as published in the January-February issue of the Atlantic Business Magazine.

------------------------------------

Liquefied Natural Gas in Atlantic Canada

In 2006, no less than three Atlantic Canadian LNG (liquefied natural gas) facility projects continued their slow, deliberate scaling of the regulatory and economic peaks that stand between the proposals and completed construction and start-up. Should any of the projects succeed in the near term, it will be at the vanguard of introducing LNG to the North American marketplace.

Long in use in several international jurisdictions, LNG is natural gas cooled at the production source to -160 Celsius to reach a liquid state. At 1/600th of its original volume, it is then shipped to a regassification plant closer to one of the major global markets. There it is returned to gaseous form for delivery to customers, generally through pipelines.

The Atlantic Canadian LNG project closest to being realized is the $750 million Canaport LNG facility in Saint John, New Brunswick. A joint venture by Irving Oil Limited and Repsol, a Spanish company with long experience in LNG, this extension to the existing Canaport deepwater marine terminal is the largest construction project in the province of New Brunswick.

Closely associated is the $350 million Brunswick Pipeline project, a 145 km pipeline from the Canaport facility to Maine. This puts Saint John, the closest Canadian city to Maine, in the enviable position of becoming the regional energy hub.

Meanwhile, two other LNG projects are on the horizon in Nova Scotia.

Still in the public hearing stage is a massive $4 billion project, which would see Keltic Petrochemicals build an integrated LNG and petrochemical complex in Goldboro. Then there’s the stalled Anadarko Petroleum Bear Head project near Port Hawkesbury, which remains in limbo.

These projects hold out the promise of energy supply diversification for Nova Scotia, as well as competitively priced and environmentally friendly fuel options for electrical generation. Notwithstanding the ambiguous status of the Kyoto Accord, the long-term trend is toward cleaner energy sources, of which natural gas is one.

These projects also offer the tantalizing prospect of establishing a Nova Scotia petrochemical industry cluster, since they tap into the global LNG supply network. While it’s early to tell how this will pan out, the possibility exists where there is LNG but are unlikely without.

Finally, they help tip the scale toward economic production of natural gas offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. The impressive gas resources of the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and the Labrador Shelf (which, at some 10 trillion cubic feet, exceeds the MacKenzie Gas resource) are currently stranded. However, at least one proponent appears to see potential to monetize them: in late November North Atlantic Pipeline Partners quietly filed environmental documentation toward establishing a transhipment facility near Come by Chance in Newfoundland.

The pieces may well be falling into place for development of new gas resources in Atlantic Canada.

5 Top Stories of 2006 in ABM - 1 of 4

The January-February edition of Atlantic Business Magazine has a special feature: the 5 top stories of 2006. The number one story, penned by Rob Antle, was a quality feature length piece outlining the issue and ramifications of out-migration.

The other 4 stories here, shorter and more concise bits which came from my keyboard, will be reprinted here over the next little bit*. Enjoy.
-------------------------------------

Atlantic Premiers

Atlantic Canada has always had strong common historical, economic and political interests. From the Maritime (or Atlantic) Union movement of the mid-nineteenth century to the Council of Atlantic Premiers, established in 2000, the region’s political leaders have sought to put forward a common front. However, this seems to work better in theory than in practice.

With two new figures on the Atlantic Canadian political landscape, 2007 would seem like a time to launch a new era of cooperation.

In June, New Brunswick ousted Tory Premier Bernard Lord in favour of Liberal Shawn Graham, after a brief period of unstable minority governments and peculiar parliamentary shenanigans.

Meanwhile, Nova Scotia saw the end of the John Hamm era and the surprising ascendance of Rodney MacDonald as Conservative leader and premier in February. MacDonald received a mandate of his own in a nasty and close June election.

Less than a year in office, these two are finding their place among their more seasoned colleagues.

Tory Pat Binns is a known quantity, having served as premier of PEI since 1996. If he finishes his full term, he will be the second longest serving premier of that island province since Confederation.

Newfoundland and Labrador’s Danny Williams is perhaps the best known regional premier, having won a national reputation through waging war with two Prime Ministers in just three years.

How will the two new first ministers change the regional political balance?

If the recent December meeting of the Council of Atlantic Premiers is any indication, it looks like while the Premiers can agree on the big issues; it’s the details that bedevil them.

A good example of an issue that binds all four is equalization.

At the December 7 press conference following the meeting, all the premiers agreed that they wanted more equalization money, that the program should be equitable to all provinces and that no province should lose income.

Oddly, nobody was surprised at this.

But beneath this seeming unanimity, there were stark differences in positions. While Williams insisted that resource revenues be wholly excluded from the formula, his compatriots were just as adamant about their inclusion.

Williams’ position would give Newfoundland and Labrador a huge fiscal advantage, since his province relies heavily on resource royalties, especially oil. For the others, resource revenues are marginal.

Since politics is the art of the possible, they reached a compromise - after a fashion. They concluded with the insistence that federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty can and should come up with a plan that benefits all provinces and territories.

And Premier Williams promised to campaign nationally against the Harper government if he didn’t get his way.

So in the end, it looks like our two new Atlantic Premiers fit neatly into the region’s tradition of cooperation and agreement - unless individual provincial and political interests get in the way.

Just political business as usual on Canada’s east coast.

---------------------------------

*I'm not resorting to reprints because there is nothing on the go in the wider environment. I've just been out of commission with a very bad cold and now I'm behind on other commitments.

National Magazine Awards

Regular readers might remember this post from July called "Caught in the Middle". It was a long piece (6000 words) telling the story and the effects of the collapse of the Hebron project negotiations between the province and the oil companies.

Atlantic Business Magazine commissioned me to research and write it for publication in their July/August 2006 issue. It was a challenge. Once they put it in print, that allowed me to republish it here.

I thought it was ok and apparently some others think so too: I've just been notified that the article has been submitted for a National Magazine Award in the Business writing category.

I'm amazed, surprised and honoured by submission and I thank the good people who thought it sufficiently worthy for inclusion in this prestigious competition.

Over the next few days I'll be reprinting four pieces which Atlantic Business Magazine just published in their January/February year-end cover story.

Stay tuned.

Premier Williams: different in kind

John Crosbie has expressed his views on the tactics taken by Premier Williams in a column published in Atlantic Business Magazine and reinforced in an interview on CBC this morning. He says that the tactics of Premier Williams are the greatest threat to Canadian federalism.

This is not the first time Crosbie has expressed a variation of these views on the inability of our provincial leaders to make meaningful headway with the federal government.

I saw a panel discussion some time ago in which Mr. Crosbie participated. He made the observation that a consistent failure of the province in dealing with the federal government was the province's inability to make a good case for what it wanted. Too often, the argument was based on a simple "we want it" or "we deserve it" or "we are owed it". Rarely was there a substantial case based on merit. His position was that the province needed to get much better at negotiating with the federal government.

Crosbie expands on that theme with the latest salvo and makes an even starker point. While he's supportive of the province getting everything it should, he's concerned that Williams so poisons the atmosphere in any set of negotiations he conducts (oil companies, feds, other provinces) that he permanently damages relationships.

Why does that matter? It matters because one important basis of Canadian federalism, as Crosbie points out, is an environment in which ongoing set of negotiations between provinces and the federal government are carried out. While the public hears about the big shows, equalisation for example, a quick look at the long list of provincial media releases shows many many sets of federal-provincial initiatives, deals and programs. There are always federal-provincial negotiations going on in any number of areas at any given time.

So when that system of provincial-federal give and take breaks down and is replaced by a series of immovable ultimatums, problems set in. The smooth operation of the country starts to grind to a halt.

From some, Bill Rowe comes to mind, come excuses that this Premier is really no different than others and that these conflicts are no different from the ones which have gone before. God knows that the Peckford-Trudeau and the Wells-Mulroney relationship's could be dismal at times.

But Crosbie argues that, in this case, the current relationships is not a difference of degree from what happened before but is fundamentally different in kind.

When you listen to Premier Williams and how he justifies his actions, he often falls back to his 30 year successful legal career as his model. It's worth noting that he was a particular kind of lawyer - a very aggressive personal liability lawyer fighting for the rights of his victim-clients.

And much of his tactics do seem drawn from that professional experience. But is it an appropriate experience in which to base government tactics?

Consider this: any lawyer you hire will, or should, zealously defend or fight for every detail to maximise benefit to you. And that's what Premier Williams does; he clearly sees himself as the personal liability lawyer for the entire province fighting on every point and giving away nothing.

But in the legal world there are governors and limitations in how far one can push and there are mechanisms for dispute resolution because disputes can't go on indefinitely.

Then there are rogue lawyers. These are practitioners who feel free to be as antagonistic and extreme in their positions as they can possibly be. They justify their actions with the knowledge that an outside force (ie. a judge) will impose a settlement in the end. That relieves the practitioner of the responsibility to be responsible and reasonable.

In federal-provincial or provincial-oil negotiations, there is no such outside force to ultimately impose a settlement; settlement comes out of the good judgement of the parties involved.

A second governor on legal negotiating behavior is the client. At some point a client, because the matter has dragged out long enough or the deal on the table is satisfactory or because the money is running out, will instruct his lawyer to wind it up and settle. In this case the client is the people of the province.

But with stratospheric approval levels in every poll since the last election, we have been telling our lawyer to push every issue right to their limit; we are egging him on to our long-term detriment. There is every expectation that as long as numbers are high, Premier Williams will fight on to the limit on every front, every time .

The province, the government and the people, is caught is a vicious circle: Premier Williams fights on because his numbers are high which pushes his numbers even higher so he fights harder.

It is that quality which makes Premier Williams, and his actions, different in kind from what has preceded.

It's anybody's guess how it will all end.

Nik on the Numbers - go visit

Here's two links for those interested in the black art of quantitative politics (better known as polling).

The first is a relatively new blog called Nik on the Numbers.

If you are long-term political junkie then you will recognise the name Nikita Nanos*. His firm SES Research is one of the most, if not the most, respected political pollsters in the business.

Nik is a regular commentator on CPAC, provided insight and analysis during the Montreal Liberal leadership convention and holds the distinction of correctly calling the results of the last federal election when his colleagues could not.

One of the great highlights of the last couple of elections has been his daily tracking polls which have become a must-read for everyone in every campaign. If you haven't signed up for them yet, you should do it now.

Nik on the Numbers is his latest foray into web communications. It's a discussion blog open to all comers where national issues are discussed by a wide and varied audience. Well worth reading and contributing to.

The other link is a New York Times obituary of Warren Mitofsky. Besides being the father of the exit poll thus revolutionizing the way the media covers election nights, he was also a pioneer in the area of random dialing methods for telephone polls. Modern political research would not be the same without his contributions.


--------------------------
* A personal note, I've known Nik for 20 years or so when we both competed on the Canadian university debating circuit. He was always an honourable and hard opponent - diligent, clear, logical and convincing. It's been a pleasure to see his career path developed to this level and I know that greater things will come his way.

Sullivan sees the light on the way out

This story popped up on VOCM and vanished so fast that it was easy to miss. It's worthwhile repeating in full here:

A Few Good Years
December 29, 2006

Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says it’s very important to have continuity in the offshore oil industry. Sullivan says Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose fields will have a reasonable life span and the next three years will be some of the best revenue producing years that the province is ever going to have. After that, Sullivan says the revenues will start going down.

This has been the position put forward by NOIA as well as other industry groups, prominent members of the oil and business community and respected observers, analysts and economists.

It's also the position that has been persistently attacked by the Premier as being anti-province at worse and dismissed as naive at best.

Then, all of a sudden, on the eve of his sudden resignation, this position has been given credence and credibility by one of the most senior and respected government ministers.

Did he feel the freedom to speak truth to power on his way out the door or was he shown the door for speaking truth to power?

Little wonder Premier Williams felt the need to reiterate his position here.

History: doomed to repeat it

If there was ever a cautionary tale in public policy, public statements, politics and negotiation, it's this one on VOCM.

While Premier Williams continues with the "if they don't meet our terms, Hebron will not happen" rhetoric, it's worthwhile looking back at for the historical parallels.

I can think of three.

The most obvious one was the Tobin's brilliant stratagem during the Voisey's Bay negotiations where he fell into the trap, as he often did, of talking way ahead of his position by uttering the immortal words "not one teaspoon". From that time on he left himself no where to go and had to let the deal pass him by.

So instead of getting the credit for developing one of the most lucrative mining resources ever found in the province to the benefit of the people of this province, he was left to hightail it out of here in search of greener pastures leaving the successful negotiation of the project to his successor.

The second notable example that springs to mind was the electric moment in the 1988 presidential debate between George Bush Sr. and Micheal Dukakis.

After spending the previous few months bashing Dukakis as the tax-and-spend governor of "Taxachusetts", Bush looked straight into the camera and capped his campaign theme by uttering those immortal words "Read my lips; No new taxes." The crowd loved it and he swept into the White House.

Only a few years later economic circumstances forced him to actually raise taxes for the good of the US economy and budget. It was a humiliating climb-down that, in part, cost him his reflection in 1992 paving the way for eight years of Bill Clinton.

Finally, and back to to local scene, there was the oil development policy of Brian Peckford through the 1980's which was focused on conflict, political and legal, causing a boom-bust cycle in the provincial economy, especially in and around St. John's. Sound familair?

In the end he never achieved his goal of exclusive jurisdiction over the off-shore. In fact, he merely crystallized the issue by proving through the courts that not only did the province not own the resource, we never did and never will.

The fact that the issue was eventually resolved through the Atlantic Accord meant not only a humiliating climb-down for Peckford, his pointless and ultimately counter-productive conflict over so many years delayed the eventual oil projects resulting in real opportunity cost to the province.

The bright side was that Peckford was strong enough to take that hit although he did resigned in exhaustion shortly afterwards.

Now we see yet another politician claiming victory amidst the wreckage. While Williams continues to carry on about Hebron as if it matters, there's no one left on the other side to talk to. The negotiating team has been disbanded leaving only a skeleton crew, the project development personnel have been dispatched around the world and the companies have let this province drift down the priority queue.

There are common lessons in all these different cases. The first is the danger of political and personal hubris. It's fine to stake a position based on pride but that makes pride the cost of modifying that position. And when a politician's pride is at stake, look out; it's a perfect storm of sacrificing the common good in favour of maintaining personal standing.

Second, it provides a clear case of that old US Senate saw of making the perfect the enemy of the good. We live in a world where where we can't always get everything we want all the time and most people learn that lesson around grade three. It's axiomatic that in a deal, everybody gets a bit when everybody gives a bit. We should have long-ago learned our lesson of the resentment and baggage that comes from one-sided deals

Finally there's the lesson of being moderate and responsible in public comments no matter if you are in office, running for office, in government or in opposition. Hasty statements leads you to policy dead-ends that may be hard to climb down from.

Welcome to the new year, same as the old year.