A tsunami of blue - If you were a Liberal MHA tonight, you'd be looking for some of that free booze to drown your sorrows. The Liberals have managed to get 3 seats, barely enough for official party status. It looks like there will be a judicial vote recount in the Gerry Reid riding of The Isles of Notre Dame, as there is a 7 vote difference between Gerry Reid (2364), and Derrick Dalley (2371). In the Port De Grave district, Liberal Roland Butler barely held on to make it a Liberal caucus of three. Everyone knew there would be a huge majority, but this is colossal -
PC: 43 Liberal: 3 NDP: 1.
In terms of popular vote, it was 70% for the PCs, 21% for the Liberals, and the NDP were just over 8%. The NDP, despite just maintaining their seat, actually increased their popular vote by several percentage points. Though it was disappointing for NDP supporters in Labrador and Burin-Placentia West, where the NDPs hopes were particularly high, their candidates performed strongly. On the Burin Peninsula, the NDP was always a distant 3rd place, but they were a respectable second this time around. Lorraine Michael's performance throughout the campaign and during the debate had been impressive. Her intelligence and smooth articulate delivery has boosted the NDP's overall profile.
There were some seesaw ridings, but most ridings had huge gaps of margins. Labrador was a surprise, electing 3 out of 4 PCs.
Well, people have spoken, Danny Williams and the PC party have trounced the opposition into near obliteration. With a majority like this, thank God that the auditor general has analyzed the spending scandal already, and new spending rules have been put into place, because if corruption could happen, it would more likely happen when there is next to no opposition.
In his victory speech, Danny Williams put "Steve" and oil companies on alert - as one commenter suggested for a PC campaign slogan, "Danny Williams, Afraid of Nothing".
Congratulations to all the candidates in all parties, for having the courage to run for public office. Congratulations to Danny Williams, and as a Newfoundlander, best wishes as Premier of our province.
Showing posts with label NL Election 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NL Election 2007. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Monday, October 08, 2007
Things That Could Make Danny Williams Lose the Election
He promises to make the $1000 per baby retroactive to 1960.
Liberal Gerry Reid promises $10,000 per baby, and throws in a years supply of diapers and milk.
Stephen Harper is seen at Danny Williams' private bbq, drinking together, hugging, and singing "This Land is Your Land".
News leaks that Danny is bragging about a new Lower Churchill deal, which is similar to the one Smallwood signed on the Upper Churchill.
On Larry King Live, Premier Williams loses in a seal hunt debate with Pamela Anderson.
Danny wants to leave Canada and join Greenland.
The Auditor General announces that Danny Williams, spent $34,000 on perfume and ladies underwear - for himself.
Liberal Gerry Reid promises $10,000 per baby, and throws in a years supply of diapers and milk.
Stephen Harper is seen at Danny Williams' private bbq, drinking together, hugging, and singing "This Land is Your Land".
News leaks that Danny is bragging about a new Lower Churchill deal, which is similar to the one Smallwood signed on the Upper Churchill.
On Larry King Live, Premier Williams loses in a seal hunt debate with Pamela Anderson.
Danny wants to leave Canada and join Greenland.
The Auditor General announces that Danny Williams, spent $34,000 on perfume and ladies underwear - for himself.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
On Voter Apathy .. If You're Interested
It's as worn-out a phrase as "it's a cliché", but, "every vote counts".
There have been close margins of victory in NL provincial elections, too close for comfort for the candidates in some cases. In the 2007 election, voter apathy, or perhaps, complacency in this case, could make for some close races. The current political atmosphere is one where the question is not who will win, but by how many. There is an assumption that Danny and the PCs will easily win, and for that reason there may well be a decreased sense of voting importance, for anyone inclined to vote PC anyway.
In the 2003 NL provincial election, the voter turnout was 72%. For whatever reason, 28% of eligible voters did not exercise this democratic right. If there was voter apathy then, then the spending scandal could arguably turn many more apathetic towards politicians. These people won't give any candidate their support. It could also be some people's way of protesting the behaviours of politicians.
The electorate should keep in mind that they can be part of the process and help determine who their representative will be. Otherwise, if they do not vote, and their elected MHA is someone they really are dissatisfied with, then the voter may be sorry for opting to not vote.
Though most election results are obviously decisive in margin of votes, from time to time, close incoming results on election night put candidates on a roller coaster of emotions. If anyone thinks that their vote does not matter, have a look at a few close results, especially this years by-election result.
The 2007 by-election was so close that a judicial recount was required (NL Elections Act (62.(1)) requires a judicial recount if the vote margin is not more than 10). Due to an inaccurately recorded result, for at least 20 minutes Kelly was celebrating as initial numbers showed him winning by 12 votes. The voter turnout was 62%. At the end of the night 8 more PCs would have officially made Kelly the winner - so every single vote matters.
There have been close margins of victory in NL provincial elections, too close for comfort for the candidates in some cases. In the 2007 election, voter apathy, or perhaps, complacency in this case, could make for some close races. The current political atmosphere is one where the question is not who will win, but by how many. There is an assumption that Danny and the PCs will easily win, and for that reason there may well be a decreased sense of voting importance, for anyone inclined to vote PC anyway.
In the 2003 NL provincial election, the voter turnout was 72%. For whatever reason, 28% of eligible voters did not exercise this democratic right. If there was voter apathy then, then the spending scandal could arguably turn many more apathetic towards politicians. These people won't give any candidate their support. It could also be some people's way of protesting the behaviours of politicians.
The electorate should keep in mind that they can be part of the process and help determine who their representative will be. Otherwise, if they do not vote, and their elected MHA is someone they really are dissatisfied with, then the voter may be sorry for opting to not vote.
Though most election results are obviously decisive in margin of votes, from time to time, close incoming results on election night put candidates on a roller coaster of emotions. If anyone thinks that their vote does not matter, have a look at a few close results, especially this years by-election result.
| 1999 NL Provincial Election District: St. John's Centre Joan Marie AYLWARD (Lib) 2609 Paul BROWN (PC) 2443 Margin: 166 | 2003 NL Provincial Election District: Bellevue Percy BARRETT (Lib) 2623 Joan CLEARY (PC) 2523 Margin: 100 District: Signal-Hill Quidi Vidi Jack HARRIS (NDP) 2456 Karen CARROLL (PC) 2221 Margin: 235 |
| 2007 NL Provincial By-election District: Humber Valley Dwight Ball (Lib) 2153 Daryl Kelly (PC) 2146 Margin: 7 | |
The 2007 by-election was so close that a judicial recount was required (NL Elections Act (62.(1)) requires a judicial recount if the vote margin is not more than 10). Due to an inaccurately recorded result, for at least 20 minutes Kelly was celebrating as initial numbers showed him winning by 12 votes. The voter turnout was 62%. At the end of the night 8 more PCs would have officially made Kelly the winner - so every single vote matters.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Evolving from Old-Fashioned Politics and Attitudes
Having a strong, vocal, analytical, constructive opposition should ideally be a positive thing for a governing party. In fact, it should be desired by them. Let's dream in technicolor and imagine that we have evolved to a mature standard, where having a "wonderfully large" majority is not seen by the majority party, as an ideal governance structure for a province, but rather, as making them more prone to err, and rule recklessly.
For example, a government of 48-0 or 46-2 puts all the pressure on the majority governing party to be correct on all the big issues and developments facing the province. When there is a huge majority with very little oppoistion, what can follow is an outward attitude of pomposity, and an attitude of appearing falsely and misleadingly confident. That is old-fashioned politics. It's time to transcend the idea that once you're the government, you're right.
There may also be the short-sighted attitude that "we are so powerful with so any MHAs in government, that whatever we say, goes... and we will be seen as being correct in every decision until such time, and after much historical digging has taken place, that we will already have been lifted to a pedestal from the accolades of the people."
Certainly each party leader will wish that their party's candidates, whom they would have befriended, will, just because of being human, want that candidate to get elected.
Unfortunately, there has to be unsuccessful candidates in elections. Let's hope that - well it's simply going to be Danny Williams this time again, that he and the PC party, hope that there is a strong and constructive opposition. Why? To make the government think twice on issues, to offer different perspectives on proposed deals, to question government initiatives, and policies, to suggest alternatives, to simply criticize for the sake of doing what's right for the province.
Objectively looking at opposing party's perspective, and accepting that wisdom can come from any wise person, should give the governing party more confidence to sign deals, that is, when doubt subsides, and rational deliberation has lead to a stronger consensus among all parties.
The evolved political attitude towards an opposition party should be one where, they are seen not as an opposing hockey team competing for the annual cup, but a group of constructive and necessarily critical watchdogs, who are appreciated (albeit likely to be on the q.t.), by a thankful governing body, to have a second set of eyes, opinions, information, and options.
Craig Westcott on CBC's Here & Now last evening, also suggested that a government without any opposition can be dangerous. Absolute power can and unfortunately do corrupt. There can very well be a false sense of bullet-proof righteousness when there is no one in opposing positions to take shots (and not insulting shots, but shots aimed to help immunize the province from missteps). To err is human. Being human, people also do not like to admit it when they do, so they will swagger as if their position was infallible - that is old-fashioned politics, just like the deceit in the spending scandal is an old-fashioned tradition. Now that that Pandora's box has been opened, future politicians will hopefully learn, evolve, and transcend that tradition.
A government which possesses a more evolved political attitude ought to be thankful to have a strong oppositon so that there is a rational, objective, and a comprehensive analysis of major developments and financial deals, before dotted lines are signed.
For example, a government of 48-0 or 46-2 puts all the pressure on the majority governing party to be correct on all the big issues and developments facing the province. When there is a huge majority with very little oppoistion, what can follow is an outward attitude of pomposity, and an attitude of appearing falsely and misleadingly confident. That is old-fashioned politics. It's time to transcend the idea that once you're the government, you're right.
There may also be the short-sighted attitude that "we are so powerful with so any MHAs in government, that whatever we say, goes... and we will be seen as being correct in every decision until such time, and after much historical digging has taken place, that we will already have been lifted to a pedestal from the accolades of the people."
Certainly each party leader will wish that their party's candidates, whom they would have befriended, will, just because of being human, want that candidate to get elected.
Unfortunately, there has to be unsuccessful candidates in elections. Let's hope that - well it's simply going to be Danny Williams this time again, that he and the PC party, hope that there is a strong and constructive opposition. Why? To make the government think twice on issues, to offer different perspectives on proposed deals, to question government initiatives, and policies, to suggest alternatives, to simply criticize for the sake of doing what's right for the province.
Objectively looking at opposing party's perspective, and accepting that wisdom can come from any wise person, should give the governing party more confidence to sign deals, that is, when doubt subsides, and rational deliberation has lead to a stronger consensus among all parties.
The evolved political attitude towards an opposition party should be one where, they are seen not as an opposing hockey team competing for the annual cup, but a group of constructive and necessarily critical watchdogs, who are appreciated (albeit likely to be on the q.t.), by a thankful governing body, to have a second set of eyes, opinions, information, and options.
Craig Westcott on CBC's Here & Now last evening, also suggested that a government without any opposition can be dangerous. Absolute power can and unfortunately do corrupt. There can very well be a false sense of bullet-proof righteousness when there is no one in opposing positions to take shots (and not insulting shots, but shots aimed to help immunize the province from missteps). To err is human. Being human, people also do not like to admit it when they do, so they will swagger as if their position was infallible - that is old-fashioned politics, just like the deceit in the spending scandal is an old-fashioned tradition. Now that that Pandora's box has been opened, future politicians will hopefully learn, evolve, and transcend that tradition.
A government which possesses a more evolved political attitude ought to be thankful to have a strong oppositon so that there is a rational, objective, and a comprehensive analysis of major developments and financial deals, before dotted lines are signed.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Election Comes Alive
Congratulations to all three debaters, Mr. Reid, Mr. Williams, and Ms Michael. To this observer all three made great points, and displayed with conviction, their concerns for the province. Up to this point the election has been really just a waiting game, almost a waste of a campaign, because Premier Williams public support is so high, over 75%.
It's been interesting to drive around St. John's to see a noticeable decrease in the number of campaign signs. It could be for several reasons - voter apathy because of the spending scandal, or just that "what's the point of spending energy on supporting a candidate who will likely lose". So this election has lacked any measure of suspense so far, any anticipation of a close race.
The dabate tonight was very lively, heated, and impressive in some ways, and not, in another. You can't help but appreciate the pressure that a live debate puts on political leaders. They are expected to know the issues, know the province and party histories, policies, and have ideas to offer the public. For their strong individual performances they are all commended.
While the debate was lively, it was also annoying. NTV's Fred Hutton is a good newscaster, my aunt loves him. However, during this debate, he made Jerry Springer look like a good moderator. The liveliness was mainly ignited by Liberal Gerry Reid. He was very fiesty, and convincing in his "seriousness" (anger) about issues like the energy plan, and his assertions that Williams ignores Labrador on various issues. Unfortunately, his spirited verbal shots were allowed to be totally out of control by moderator Mr. Hutton.
The debate was too loose in the two way exchanges. Reid was not only louder than Williams and Michael but was almost non-stop talkative while the others were responding. Reid made many points but he really should have allowed the others proper opportunities to respond, rather than continue nearly shouting. It was next to impossible to hear Williams replies many times. There should have been better moderation of this debate.
Lorraine Michael was excellent! She came across as very well spoken, level headed, calm, yet assertive, sincere and bright.
Danny said things that his supporters wanted to hear, "no more giveaways", "we're entering a period of transition to 'have' status". He has not lost any political ground from tonight. Lorraine represented the NDP very well, and if they gain more seats, it would probably be at the Liberal's expense.
With huge developments on the horizon for the province it would be better to see much more debate/discussion time on one major development issue at a time. For example, set aside at least 20 minutes to discuss the Hebron Memorandum of Understanding, 20 for the Lower Churchill Development, 20 for the energy plan, etc. Perhaps the media should consider this to allow more open discussion of significant developments that will affect NL's people and their future.
It's been interesting to drive around St. John's to see a noticeable decrease in the number of campaign signs. It could be for several reasons - voter apathy because of the spending scandal, or just that "what's the point of spending energy on supporting a candidate who will likely lose". So this election has lacked any measure of suspense so far, any anticipation of a close race.
The dabate tonight was very lively, heated, and impressive in some ways, and not, in another. You can't help but appreciate the pressure that a live debate puts on political leaders. They are expected to know the issues, know the province and party histories, policies, and have ideas to offer the public. For their strong individual performances they are all commended.
While the debate was lively, it was also annoying. NTV's Fred Hutton is a good newscaster, my aunt loves him. However, during this debate, he made Jerry Springer look like a good moderator. The liveliness was mainly ignited by Liberal Gerry Reid. He was very fiesty, and convincing in his "seriousness" (anger) about issues like the energy plan, and his assertions that Williams ignores Labrador on various issues. Unfortunately, his spirited verbal shots were allowed to be totally out of control by moderator Mr. Hutton.
The debate was too loose in the two way exchanges. Reid was not only louder than Williams and Michael but was almost non-stop talkative while the others were responding. Reid made many points but he really should have allowed the others proper opportunities to respond, rather than continue nearly shouting. It was next to impossible to hear Williams replies many times. There should have been better moderation of this debate.
Lorraine Michael was excellent! She came across as very well spoken, level headed, calm, yet assertive, sincere and bright.
Danny said things that his supporters wanted to hear, "no more giveaways", "we're entering a period of transition to 'have' status". He has not lost any political ground from tonight. Lorraine represented the NDP very well, and if they gain more seats, it would probably be at the Liberal's expense.
With huge developments on the horizon for the province it would be better to see much more debate/discussion time on one major development issue at a time. For example, set aside at least 20 minutes to discuss the Hebron Memorandum of Understanding, 20 for the Lower Churchill Development, 20 for the energy plan, etc. Perhaps the media should consider this to allow more open discussion of significant developments that will affect NL's people and their future.
Famous Moments in Political Debates
Political debates have gotten very scripted, orchestrated and somewhat predictable in recent decades. Certain questions and topics are givens to be raised, so carefully planned responses, and gestures, can be rehearsed by politicians. The power of visual image grew as more people tuned in to the tube.
In the famous 1960 U.S. presidential debate, a pale Richard Nixon, sporting a five-o'clock shadow, faced a tanned, healthy looking, and telegenic John Kennedy. It's been said that radio listeners had a different perception of the debate than television viewers. Kennedy's slim victory could have owed to the televised candidate contrast.
That debate has so frequently been mentioned that it has likely influenced the "production" side of debating more than any other factor. As we know, a tidy, confident, and stately appearance has become a major factor in how the public perceives or rates the performance of candidates. Still, it must be combined with carefully worded responses, the kind that listeners "want to hear". A neatly groomed debater can look and act the part of leader but words have to match the image - and that does not always happen as we will see.
In the 1988 U.S. Vice-presidential debate, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen delivered a stinging jab to Republican candidate Dan Quayle.
In his campaign, Quayle had been put on the defensive for his political inexperience. Leading up to a live televised debate, he had been known to compare himself to John Kennedy, to send the message that relative youth in politics is not necessessarily bad, but can represent vigor, promise and talent, as Kennedy did. (Bentsen had reportedly heard these comparisons before, and may well have had his sail-bursting response ready before the tv debate.)
When asked by moderator Tom Brokaw about his qualifications for acting as President,
Quayle answered: "... I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency ..."
Bentsen's response: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.
(A lot of audience shouts and applause followed.)
Quayle: That was really uncalled for Senator.
Bentsen: You are the one that was making the comparison, Senator — and I'm one who knew him well. And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.
Dan Quayle dropped the Kennedy comparison for the rest of the campaign. The moment was replayed over and over, and was raw resource material for comedians.
One joke went "What did Marilyn Quayle say to Dan Quayle after making love? 'Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.'"
* * *
A couple of Reaganisms
What an ambitious person Ronald Reagan was. He studied economics and sociology at College, was a radio announcer, acted in 53 films, was president of the screen actors guild, was governor of California, and re-elected in 1970, then became President in 1980.
In his quest for Presidential re-election in 1984, he had to face Democratic candidate Walter Mondale in a live televised debate. At 74, most people would have experienced nearly ten years of retirement, but this man was applying for the mother of all jobs, and his competition was 56 years old. In the debate, Reagan's actor skills would serve him well when he smoothly, and good-naturedly quipped to Walter Mondale,
Reagan was seen as being sharp, calm, and upbeat, which endeared him to Americans for two terms as President.
In the 1980 debate with President Carter, Reagan asked,
The timing of the question was deadly for Carter, as American hostages were still not released by Iranian hostage takers at that point, and under Carter's Presidency. That question seemed to have struck a contemplative chord with voters.
* * *
Given Premier Williams recent remark about Liberal leader Gerry Reid's so-called "scowl", for tonight's debate, Williams might joke that Reid take a tip from former Presidental candidate Bob Dole. In 1996, Bob Dole insisted that his wife be visible to him at all times, because "her job was to remind him to smile."
* * *
It is rare for a "knock-out punch" to be landed in a political debate, but that is what happened in Canada's 1984 election debate between PC Brian Mulrooney and Liberal John Turner. The knock-out punch is when a quip decisively turns the election in one candidate's favor.
At this point, the Liberals had been in power, for what seemed like forever. Pierre Trudeau had retired from Politics in 1984, and John Turner had manned the post that year. Trudeau and the Liberals had been in power since 1968, with the exception of a brief PC Joe Clark 9 month PM stint, beginning in June, 1979.
Mulrooney was young, fresh, and hungry for the big job. During the 1984 debate, John Turner was drilled on the issue of patronage, by Mulrooney. Turner's response that he had to rubber-stamp Trudeau's patronage appointments, had raised the already temperature-rising debate to a trigger point, when Mulrooney responded with,
Mulrooney's expression was with such conviction and strength that it made Turner look weak. Mulrooney went on to win the election.
There may not be a crippling blow tonight - then again, there are plenty of issues that the opposition can take to the premier, and really drill him on. Likewise, the Premier, who is perched high, is positioned to sling some shots while affording some support loss.
Election debates are usually interesting, and historical in any event. Best wishes to all three leaders, Gerry Reid, Lorraine Michael, and Danny Williams. May they perform to the best of their abilities, and may the exchange be for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the famous 1960 U.S. presidential debate, a pale Richard Nixon, sporting a five-o'clock shadow, faced a tanned, healthy looking, and telegenic John Kennedy. It's been said that radio listeners had a different perception of the debate than television viewers. Kennedy's slim victory could have owed to the televised candidate contrast.
That debate has so frequently been mentioned that it has likely influenced the "production" side of debating more than any other factor. As we know, a tidy, confident, and stately appearance has become a major factor in how the public perceives or rates the performance of candidates. Still, it must be combined with carefully worded responses, the kind that listeners "want to hear". A neatly groomed debater can look and act the part of leader but words have to match the image - and that does not always happen as we will see.
In the 1988 U.S. Vice-presidential debate, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen delivered a stinging jab to Republican candidate Dan Quayle.
In his campaign, Quayle had been put on the defensive for his political inexperience. Leading up to a live televised debate, he had been known to compare himself to John Kennedy, to send the message that relative youth in politics is not necessessarily bad, but can represent vigor, promise and talent, as Kennedy did. (Bentsen had reportedly heard these comparisons before, and may well have had his sail-bursting response ready before the tv debate.)
When asked by moderator Tom Brokaw about his qualifications for acting as President,
Quayle answered: "... I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency ..."
Bentsen's response: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.
"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy,"
(A lot of audience shouts and applause followed.)
Quayle: That was really uncalled for Senator.
Bentsen: You are the one that was making the comparison, Senator — and I'm one who knew him well. And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.
Dan Quayle dropped the Kennedy comparison for the rest of the campaign. The moment was replayed over and over, and was raw resource material for comedians.
One joke went "What did Marilyn Quayle say to Dan Quayle after making love? 'Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.'"
A couple of Reaganisms
What an ambitious person Ronald Reagan was. He studied economics and sociology at College, was a radio announcer, acted in 53 films, was president of the screen actors guild, was governor of California, and re-elected in 1970, then became President in 1980.
In his quest for Presidential re-election in 1984, he had to face Democratic candidate Walter Mondale in a live televised debate. At 74, most people would have experienced nearly ten years of retirement, but this man was applying for the mother of all jobs, and his competition was 56 years old. In the debate, Reagan's actor skills would serve him well when he smoothly, and good-naturedly quipped to Walter Mondale,
"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign ... I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."
Reagan was seen as being sharp, calm, and upbeat, which endeared him to Americans for two terms as President.
In the 1980 debate with President Carter, Reagan asked,
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
The timing of the question was deadly for Carter, as American hostages were still not released by Iranian hostage takers at that point, and under Carter's Presidency. That question seemed to have struck a contemplative chord with voters.
Given Premier Williams recent remark about Liberal leader Gerry Reid's so-called "scowl", for tonight's debate, Williams might joke that Reid take a tip from former Presidental candidate Bob Dole. In 1996, Bob Dole insisted that his wife be visible to him at all times, because "her job was to remind him to smile."
It is rare for a "knock-out punch" to be landed in a political debate, but that is what happened in Canada's 1984 election debate between PC Brian Mulrooney and Liberal John Turner. The knock-out punch is when a quip decisively turns the election in one candidate's favor.
At this point, the Liberals had been in power, for what seemed like forever. Pierre Trudeau had retired from Politics in 1984, and John Turner had manned the post that year. Trudeau and the Liberals had been in power since 1968, with the exception of a brief PC Joe Clark 9 month PM stint, beginning in June, 1979.
Mulrooney was young, fresh, and hungry for the big job. During the 1984 debate, John Turner was drilled on the issue of patronage, by Mulrooney. Turner's response that he had to rubber-stamp Trudeau's patronage appointments, had raised the already temperature-rising debate to a trigger point, when Mulrooney responded with,
"You had a choice sir. You had a choice."
Mulrooney's expression was with such conviction and strength that it made Turner look weak. Mulrooney went on to win the election.
There may not be a crippling blow tonight - then again, there are plenty of issues that the opposition can take to the premier, and really drill him on. Likewise, the Premier, who is perched high, is positioned to sling some shots while affording some support loss.
Election debates are usually interesting, and historical in any event. Best wishes to all three leaders, Gerry Reid, Lorraine Michael, and Danny Williams. May they perform to the best of their abilities, and may the exchange be for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
First Draft Election Campaign Slogans
| For the Progressive Conservative Party (a few added from comments) |  | |
| Danny Williams double 0 7 (from commenter npc) Williams for Premium (npc) Danny & Hebron Oil Go With the Flow For a Bitter Newfoundland & Labrador Vote PC At 76% in the polls, You Know What to Do  Just Do it! | The PC Party. It's a gas gas gas (npc) Danny Williams Afraid of nothing (npc) Deal or No Deal I'll Even Bring the Cod Fishery Back Ye Can All Come Home Now Like, What ev er!? Just Vote Already I'm Infallibull | |
| For the New Democratic Party |  | |
| Our Father Who Art in Heaven Hallowed be Thy Name ... | Free Everything for Everyone | |
For the Liberal Party |  | |
| Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will be Done on Earth as it is in Heaven ... Danny's 5% Equity Steak in the White Rose Expansion is Just Boloney I Can Take Danny in an Arm Wrestle Vote Liberal. Drinks are on Us Perfume & Panties for the Ladies Ye Can All Come Home Now, My Ass! | So the PCs Got a Secretive Hebron Memorandum of Understanding - Big Deal! We Did Get the Voisey's Bay Deal. Even Danny Said that was Good. So There! We Got the Upper Churchill for ya, Didn't We? Liberals Will Complete the TLH We Booked the Queen for a Visit to The Big Land | |
Other tossed election Slogans
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Premier Gets a Bumpy Reception in Labrador
It's not surprising that Premier Williams and the Minister for Labrador Affairs, and Transportation, John Hickey, were put on the defensive regarding the province's energy plan. People, including mayor Leo Abbass of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, residents, and local councils, oppose Williams' plan to run the Lower Churchill transmission line to the island portion of the province.
Williams' response was "When it comes to this new power, I can tell you categorically that that industry is going to be here in Labrador." (see CBC article. The report did not say whether the Premier elaborated with further details, but the assumption may be, not.)
Yvonne Jones, Liberal critic for Natural Resources, also spoke out against the Williams' plan for the Lower Churchill energy. She also reminded listeners on VOCM this morning, as has been repeatedly made known by the highly researched, and incisive WJM, that very little progress has been made on the Trans Labrador Highway, despite many pronouncements and promises from Minister Hickey, that more much of the TLH would have been completed by this time. WJM and others have pointed out that there were/are plenty of words, and pronouncements that sound good, but have been misleading, and failed to deliver.
It will be interesting to see if Hickey can hold onto his seat given his record among Labradorians.
"So what's going to happen is that industries are going to look more to Newfoundland than Labrador to set up because there's not going to be no grid or anything for industry to set up to get cheap power," said resident William Burden
Williams' response was "When it comes to this new power, I can tell you categorically that that industry is going to be here in Labrador." (see CBC article. The report did not say whether the Premier elaborated with further details, but the assumption may be, not.)
Yvonne Jones, Liberal critic for Natural Resources, also spoke out against the Williams' plan for the Lower Churchill energy. She also reminded listeners on VOCM this morning, as has been repeatedly made known by the highly researched, and incisive WJM, that very little progress has been made on the Trans Labrador Highway, despite many pronouncements and promises from Minister Hickey, that more much of the TLH would have been completed by this time. WJM and others have pointed out that there were/are plenty of words, and pronouncements that sound good, but have been misleading, and failed to deliver.
It will be interesting to see if Hickey can hold onto his seat given his record among Labradorians.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Predictions for Election 2007
PCs: 41 Liberals: 6 NDP: nun
It's a given there will be a lopsided win, but it would be good to have (former Sister) Lorraine Michael back, and more opposition - NDP and/or Liberals than the current standing of 34/11/1.
It's a given there will be a lopsided win, but it would be good to have (former Sister) Lorraine Michael back, and more opposition - NDP and/or Liberals than the current standing of 34/11/1.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Voters, Keep Your Minds and Options Open
A Danny Williams mega majority in the fall election is not necessarily a good thing. There needs to be more people to keep a government and premier in check, to question and demand action on the premier's words or inactions. While many believe Williams' heart is in the right place, his popularity could take a swift turn if some questionable issues are emphasized more in the public, and given thought to. A couple of things come to mind. One, the Trans Labrador Highway. The phase III construction has been delayed longer than peace in the Mid East, despite promising announcements from MHA John Hickey in the past year. This should be a major election issue that opposing parties of the government, and the Newfoundland public ought to be concerned about (Labradorians are already outraged). As well, certain recommendations of Justice Green's were not intended to be put in place until after the fall election.
It makes one suspicious of why that would be. Also in the past, it's been noted in other news that Danny has said that "negotiations" were going on between the government and oil companies (summer of 2006), when in fact there were none taking place, except for general correspondence. Things like that are just misleading and it's preferable to have a complete honesty in a government, not people who say things that sound good.
It's good to be very protective of your province, and seeking the greatest financial reward from mega projects. People support him largely due to this strongly projected characteristic Premier Williams seems to have. However, he may look back and wish he could have re-framed some of his comments and approaches to oil companies and the Prime Minister, like "there better be a big goose egg in the budget". That needn't have been said at the time, as peoples' hopes were already leaning that way. But saying that publicly really made it look like he was telling the PM what to do. Harper was already shying away from the equalization promise he put in writing earlier in 2006 anyway, but comments like that perhaps closed the door to a more conciliatory leverage on the PM's part. Hopefully Danny's talks and approach with big oil will turn into real negotiations, and that the long awaited energy plan will be finalized soon, and from there a reasonable agreement can be reached on Hebron and other oil developments, with continued oil explorations as well. In the meantime, as the fall election approaches, it's healthy for the public to keep an open mind, consider all options, especially anyone who is honest, hard working, and is considered a good potential district representative, no matter what party he or she stands for.
Like the one that says a member of the legislature is personally liable for overspending on his or her expense account.
or the one that says a member of the House of Assembly cannot make donations using public funds. (from Ed's blog)
It makes one suspicious of why that would be. Also in the past, it's been noted in other news that Danny has said that "negotiations" were going on between the government and oil companies (summer of 2006), when in fact there were none taking place, except for general correspondence. Things like that are just misleading and it's preferable to have a complete honesty in a government, not people who say things that sound good.
It's good to be very protective of your province, and seeking the greatest financial reward from mega projects. People support him largely due to this strongly projected characteristic Premier Williams seems to have. However, he may look back and wish he could have re-framed some of his comments and approaches to oil companies and the Prime Minister, like "there better be a big goose egg in the budget". That needn't have been said at the time, as peoples' hopes were already leaning that way. But saying that publicly really made it look like he was telling the PM what to do. Harper was already shying away from the equalization promise he put in writing earlier in 2006 anyway, but comments like that perhaps closed the door to a more conciliatory leverage on the PM's part. Hopefully Danny's talks and approach with big oil will turn into real negotiations, and that the long awaited energy plan will be finalized soon, and from there a reasonable agreement can be reached on Hebron and other oil developments, with continued oil explorations as well. In the meantime, as the fall election approaches, it's healthy for the public to keep an open mind, consider all options, especially anyone who is honest, hard working, and is considered a good potential district representative, no matter what party he or she stands for.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Public Service Job Postings for Fall 2007
Date: June 3, 2007
Positions: Member of the House of Assembly of NL
Location: All over Newfoundland and Labrador
Job Type: Contractual - Duties commencing October 10, with possible renewal in 2011.
Qualifications: Must be knowledgeable of local, regional and provincial issues, hard working, diligent, caring, driven by the needs of people in the areas he/she represents. Should be a good listener, with prompt acting ability. Honesty an asset but not essential.
Must be willing to work nights, weekends and travel frequently as required within the constituency. Must be willing to read a lot, and continuously learn about issues affecting the people, district, and the province. The successful candidate should be thick-skinned, open-minded, analytical, and articulate. Have knowledge of HTML, spreadsheets, MS Office or Corel, and how to make a great coffee.
Previous MHA experience may be an asset, but not necessarily preferred.
Duties: Acting as constituents' representative in Government, the MHA will coordinate district social and economic initiatives, will ensure that SE infrastructure is maintained; will act as listener, and voice of the people; will conduct discussions and oversee programs that facilitate district development, health and general welfare. Other related duties.
Salary: Wicked!;) We'll talk.
Apply in writing, audio, or visual through radio, television, billboards, internet, newspapers, cars, trucks, SUVs, quads, trikes, boats, ski-doos, graffiti, phone calls, door-to-door, rallies, meetings, megaphones, people's fences, polls, tatoos, CDs, holograms, or sky writing, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Closing Date: October 9, 2007
For aspiring Ministers, please see Minister duties here
Links: http://www.elections.gov.nl.ca/elections/
Friday, May 18, 2007
Possible 2007 Election Campaign Slogans
| For the Progressive Conservative Party | |
| Re-elect Williams Vote for Sequalization Vote NBC - Nobody But Conservative Vive le Terre-Neuve-et-Labradore Libre We're 75% in the Polls, Just Do it! | For More of the Same Vote PC Won't Get Fooled Again Down with Harper Vote Danny Give'r |
| For the Liberal Party | |
If By Some Flute a PC Scandal Happens We're Better than Nuttin' Reid My Lips No More Taxes We'll Get Our 2 cents Worth in Don't You Worry We Don't Have Much to Offer, But What Are Ya Gonna Do | Come On, Give Us a Chance, Really For Half-decent Opposition, Vote Liberal We Won't Procrastinate on Signing Deals You Just Wait Your Mother or Father Always Voted Liberal, You Know You Want To |
| For the New Democratic Party | For Either PCs or Liberals |
To the Left, To the Left It's Time for Coupons It's Time for Respect and Decorum in the #%&@ House of Assembly | For Honesty in Government Vote Lorraine Michael, otherwise Vote Us. It's Time for Change... Cash, Cheques, Trinkets, Spending Allowances |
Other suggestions welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)