We Didn't Start the Fire

Sorry it's been so long - I had a very busy weekend.

At any rate, today's entry is a little parody regarding New Brunswick politics and the election.

Please sing the following to the tune of "We Didn't Start the Fire". Hey, I'm no Billy Joel (who demonstrated his creative genius by rhyming 'North Korea' with 'South Korea' in the original). If you are not familiar with the original, the lyrics can be found here.

The Speaker was a Bus Driver
(a "We Didn't Start the Fire" Parody)
by Alvy Singer

Orimulsion debt collection, Saint John Harbour by-election
Weir withdrawn, Hooton gone, Doctor Ed - now on call

Brewer picked, Charles banned, Liberal caucus out of hand
Name slipped, Tories dip, Pothier takes the fall

Riding boundaries displaced, Weathergirl court case
Tanker’s own agenda, P.R. referenda

Budget vote, Liberals stall, Branch goes to Montreal
Resignations, Privacy, Brenda the Offenda

The Speaker was a bus driver
He was pretty coy
For a Bay-du-Vin boy
The Speaker was a bus driver
Now the election’s on
And its Bernie or Shawn

[repeat chorus]

L.G.’s house, Writ dropped, nominations, signs propped
Pensions foggy, voters groggy, first two weeks a non-event

Liberals, Tories, N.D.P., Campaign, Spending spree
No COR, anymore, except for maybe Doaktown’s Brent

Point Lepreau, Senior care, Harbour cleanup, welfare
Gas prices, energy, P.U.B.’s authority

Moose fence, Byrne’s back, Twin Carrs, Grand Manan crack
Graham and Lord don’t disagree, both want a majority

The Speaker was a bus driver
He was pretty coy
For a Bay-du-Vin boy
The Speaker was a bus driver
Now the election’s on
And its Bernie or Shawn

[repeat chorus]

Blown into Proportion

One issue that seems to be getting virtually no attention during this election campaign is Lord's 2008 referendum on electoral reform. I'm going to skip the sermon on the pitfalls of the archaic, out-dated, vote wasting first-past-the-post system and the virtues of the proposed mixed member proportional system. I'm just going to assume that you understand the fact that the proposed MMP system is more democratic, more civilized, more equitable, and just plain better. If you believe that the current anti-democratic system of throwing the majority of votes away and systematically disenfranchising most New Brunswickers is preferable to a more proportional system, you might be either (a) misinformed, (b) a person with a vested interest in the disproportionate status quo, (c) Kelly Lamrock, or (d) all of the above. If you are (a), this is a great resource for you. If you are (b), then I will begrudgingly suppose that your position is understandable. If you are (c) or (d), then god help ya.

Here are what I assume to be the party positions:

• Tories are in favour of proportional representation, because of its populist potential and innate correctness. The introduction of a proportional system would reinvigorate the NB NDP, a development that would affect the Liberals more negatively than the Tories.
• Liberals are against it because it would hurt them electorally.
• NDPers are for it, obviously. The NDP has been grossly shortchanged by the current system. A more proportional system would: attract excellent candidates to the NDP, get more seats for the NDP, and cause more people to vote NDP.

So, what is likely to happen? My guess is that if the Tories win the election, the referendum will go as scheduled and there will be a moderate set of public consultations and education sessions. If the Liberals win, they could just cancel the referendum. More likely, however, is that the Liberals would want to kill the idea of mixed proportional representation once and for all by holding the referendum as scheduled but setting it up to fail by either attaching impossible conditions for success (like the government did in BC) or by unofficially running a massive confusion/misinformation campaign (like the government did in PEI). Any NDP members elected will likely use their public profile and influence in the legislature to keep the issue at (or bring the issue to) the forefront, and of course raise hell if the Liberals eff with it.

None of this is meant to insult the Liberals in any way. Politics is a Machiavellian exercise and either of the other parties would act the same way in the Liberals' position. After winning an election under the old system, the federal Tories aren't talking about it. NDP governments won in the old system in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and aren't clamouring for proportional representation. Unfortunately, it's all about position and not policy.

At any rate, I hope that New Brunswickers will hold whichever government is elected to the promise of a referendum. A fair referendum.

Interesting Weekend, Eh?

My deepest apologies for being AWAL since Friday morning but I had obligations relating to work, volunteerism and family to attend to.

Let's hear your thoughts on the weekend that was.

• CBC has launched it new election website, NB Votes 2006. The site is a decent resource for election-related information. Notice how there are three leaders profiled on CBC's page, representing each of the three parties? That's right, Telegraph Journal: there are three.
• Jacques Poitras even has his own column. They call it a blog. Normally, when a mainstream media outlet furnishes us with a "blog", it is received with an appropriate amount of skepticism as it often represents a ploy to co-opt the medium and push bloggers/non-jounalists who are not beholden to large corporate interests out of the picture. I have a soft spot for Mother Corp. and its public mandate, though, so perhaps we can treat this one as a noble, unbiased venture. We'll see.
• The Liberals are promising to remove 3.8 cents per litre from the cost of fuel. Yep, $1.50 per fill up. I haven't been this excited about personal savings since Stephen Harper's GST cut shaved nearly a penny off of the cost of my morning cup of coffee.

Back with more later on.

Captain Obvious and the TJ Headlines

I'll be back with more to blog on later on today, just thought that I would first point out something that I noticed about the cover of today's Telegraph Journal. The following phrases appear as headlines on the front page:

• Patronage at the PUB?
• Lord drops writ today
• Premier: Cheap gas will win election
• Liberals get jump on ad campaign
• Murder suspect's story in doubt

Well, duh.

Simultaneous Grahamslation

As a service to my every-growing readership (it would now take two phonebooths to house the lot you), I am going to provide translation of Shawn Graham's comments in Shawn Berry's article in today's Daily Gleaner (Pg. A3, for you citation aficionados).

Graham says, "I want to allay all concerns and fears that there's going to be a strong push on decentralization because that is not our agenda".

It means: I floated that trial balloon last week about moving some civil service jobs to Saint John, but then I realized that in order for Greg Byrne and Anne Bertrand to defeat Allison Brewer and Brad Green, respectively, I must not piss off the many civil servants who live on the south side of Fredericton.

Graham says, "Our agenda is to reinvigorate, restore the pride of being a civil servant, and give the tools to the civil service so that we can be the model for the rest of the country".

It means: My tutor says that I am now constructing sentencing at a seventh grade level. Also, I have been instructed by my pollsters to take a small step to the left to ensure the voters that I am not averse to increasing the size of the civil service.

Graham says, "Where I have talked about Saint John becoming the energy hub for the province, I also feel that Fredericton is poised to become the education hub in our three pillars that we're going to be building upon in the upcoming campaign".

It means: You see, with Saint John being the hub for energy, the logistics of having the Irvings dicate energy policy will be much simpler; they will literally be able to walk down the street and into the government office and give us the thumbs up or thumbs down, rather than having to go through the trouble of sending faxes to Fredericton. Furthermore, by saying that Fredericton will be made the educational hub, I can passify the concerns of Frederictonians by re-iterating what is already the case and feigning that it is some new initiative.

Graham says, "I find that when you micro-manage, often you get bogged down in the details of running government from day to day and you lose sight of the bigger goals".

It means: I'm only guessing, of course, because I have never run a government.

Graham says, "We'll put our province on the road again to self-sufficiency by turning New Brunswick into a leader in energy conservation and generation, by going from worst to first in education and by making job creation a priority".

It means: There you go. There is my grand trifurcated message for this campaign. I am completely dedicated to working on energy conservation and generation, as long I can do it with big short-sighted supply-side grants rather than by actually giving people the resources to retro-fit their homes in order to make them more efficient and thus lower their energy costs. I am completely dedicated to working on education and job creation as long as I can do it with more crippling-debt-creating loans masquerading as funding to students, rather than by actually providing them with the resources to go to university, community college or trade school to educate themselves and prepare themselves for the job market. Also, note the subliminal Willie Nelson reference at the beginning of my quote - my handlers tell me that this will play well in Charlotte County.

Graham says, "It's an idea we're putting on the table today, but it's not a commitment. It's imperative that we search out new ideas".

It means: We are waiting, as always, to see the NDP platform before we finalize the details of our campaign promises. It worked wonderfully in 2003, as we were able to steal public auto insurance from the NDP, claim it as our own, and then renege on it after the election. The NDP has great ideas that many, if not most, New Brunswickers agree with, but lacks the cash resources of our political machinery. By stealing their ideas, we can use our huge advertising budget to steal their voters as well.

Graham says, "The task is great, but I believe that it can be done. We will do it".

It means: Nothing whatsoever.

Again, dear readers, rest assured that this is not, as Jon Stewart would say, partisan hackery. Lordslation and Brewerslation will be forthcoming at later dates.

Two Prime Ministerial Wannabees Weigh In

In Today's Telegraph Journal, Federal Liberal leadership co-frontrunner Michael Ignatieff and Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton offer some thoughts on issues of leadership.

Ignatieff questioned Bernard Lord's deal making prowess, noting that a better deal for child care for New Brunswick was put on the table by former Prime Minister Paul Martin but not accepted. Nothing new here, of course, as it was apparent during "negotiations" that Lord's petulant insistence on dollars for the superfluous refurbishment of Point Lepreau would block the flow of child care funds from Ottawa to Fredericton. It is a moot point now anyway, as deals with other provinces such as the one that Ignatieff claims that Lord could have secured have been essentially reneged upon by the Harper government. But hey, who needs free public child care worth hundreds of dollars per month when you can get a taxable cheque for a hundred bucks anyway?

Not to let this meander into federal matters, but I do want to ensure my readers - all four of you - that the last snide comment is not intended to be pro-Liberal rhetoric. Public child care began popping up in the Chretien Red Books in the early 1990s and no action was ever taken. Sure, Martin's desperation had him signing cheques to the provinces, but it ought not to have taken fifteen years. It is a classic Canadian conundrum: is it better to believe the Liberals when they promise the moon and risk dejection upon the great likelihood that they will not fulfill the promise, or is it better to just accept the half-assed non-solution that the Conservatives are promising, safe in the knowledge that they will deliver on their inadequacies? Here is the conundrum in riddle form: Let's say that Paul Martin walks up to you on the street and offers you $100, but then Stephen Harper walks up to you and offers you $25. You may only choose one - which should you choose? The answer is that it doesn't matter. The value of Harper's offer is $25, as he will surely give it to you. The value of Martin's offer is also $25, because even though he is offering you $100, there is a 3 in 4 chance that he will turn around and run down the street before paying and you get nothing.

Back to New Brunswick and Ignatieff/Layton.

Layton was in Yvon Godin Country yesterday, celebrating the Fête nationale de l'Acadie. On the upcoming election, Layton noted the peculiarity of Lord's recent spending spree and offered an endrosement of Allison Brewer (naturally). Layton's positive comments on Brewer are no more surprising than Ignatieff's on Shawn Graham, so it's not really news. Interesting, though, was that Layton spoke about the need for an NDP voice in the legislature to hold the government to account and to represent the people: the province has missed Elizabeth Weir, etc. Frankly, any exposure that Brewer can get alongside Layton and Godin is tremendous for the NDP.

Pre-Election Spending

You can see the CP Story here.

In a nutshell:

• The Tories are flying around the province spending money as frantically and carelessly as Richard Pryor in Brewster's Millions.
• Nothing that the Tories are doing is illegal, though. Subsection 67(1) of New Brunswick's Politcal Process Financing Act defines election expenses (which the Act is partly designed to reign in) as: "all expenditures incurred during an election period for the purpose of promoting or opposing directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate or that of the candidates of a party, including every person who subsequently becomes or who is likely to become a candidate, and includes all expenditures incurred before an election period for literature, objects or materials of an advertising nature used during the election period for such purposes."
• So the PPFA governs election expenses and also non-election-time advertising spending (s. 67(1) for the former and s.50(1) for the latter). What the Tories are doing is neither.

So, great work by the PCs. Campaigning on the taxpayers' dollars and flaunting both the law and common sense by calling the election a week prior to calling the election. They seem to be developing a certain Martin/Clintonesque penchant for "technical legality" and "plausible deniability". Bravo.

This "blatantly buy 'em" strategy failed the Lord Tories in the Saint John Harbour by-election last fall, so it is somewhat curious that they are back at it.

Both parties are simply attempting to convey their messaging. The Tories want you to know that they are interested in four more years of this dirty little quid pro quo and the Liberals want you to know that they are looking out for you. While the Tories are getting their message out via the government, the Liberals are getting their's out through the media. It's win-win, really (except for the other party, who has neither the civil service nor the print media and its beck and call).

Why Am I Here?

I decided to initiate a blog this morning, when I read this at Spink About It. Spink asks about the lack of Progressive Conservative (New Brunswick-style) political blogs. My first reaction was to ask whether or not the Times & Transcript counted, but for once my ambition trumped my sarcastic apathy and I decided that I would start my own little blog here. It should last for the duration of the election, at least.

I can only fill the void that Spink blogged about on a general level, though: I'm no Tory. For the purposes of this blog, I feel comfortable self-identifying as a "multi-partisan" person. The Liberals have some great candidates (both incumbent and otherwise) who ought to be in the legislature, the Tories have demonstrated a willingness to react to the concerns of New Brunswickers (albeit with questionable solution-implementation strategies), and the NDP is needed in order to balance the behemoths and ensure that the Liberals and PCs actually, you know, do stuff.

I will be back soon with some commentary. This should be fun.