First, Pass the Toast

Choose your own Adventure

2006-09-18T16:31:00.000-03:00

Happy Election Day!

If you have already voted, go to (a).
If you have not yet voted, go to (b).

(a)

If you voted Progressive Conservative, go to (1).
If you voted Liberal, go to (2).
If you voted NDP, go to (3).

(1) Congratulations on your decision. You have voted for a centre-right party that has governed to varying degrees of success throughout the last seven years. As a bonus, you can rest safe if the knowledge that you have supported a party that initiated a referendum, set for 2008, designed to make your vote count beginning in 2010 or 2011.
(2) Congratulations on your decision. You have voted for a centre-right party that has been itching to govern for seven years. As a bonus, you can rest safe in the knowledge that you have most likely supported a great local candidate in a superior Liberal slate this year.
(3) Congratulations on your decision. You have voted for a centre-left party that has been missing its legislative representation since the departure of its former leader. As a bonus, you can rest safe in the knowledge that you have cast a ballot for the proposition that New Brunswick still needs a centre-left voice in the legislature.

(b) You don't have time to be reading First, Pass the Toast right now. Go vote and then wait patiently for Spinks and PNB to start blogging the results.

Final Predictions

2006-09-17T13:04:00.000-03:00

Here we go. Last chance at prediction. Nothing scientific here.

1. Campbellton-Restigouche Centre: Roy Boudreau (Lib)
2. Dalhousie-Restigouche East: Donald Arseneault (Lib)
3. Nigadoo-Chaleur: Roland Hache (Lib)
4. Bathurst: Nancy McKay (PC)
5. Nepisiguit: Cheryl Lavoie (Lib)
6. Caraquet: Stephane Doiron (NDP)
7. Lameque-Shippagan-Miscou: Paul Robichaud (PC)
8. Centre-Peninsule-Saint-Saveur: Louis-Phillipe McGraw (PC)
9. Tracadie-Sheila: Claude Landry (PC)
10. Miramichi Bay-Neguac: Carmel Robichaud (Lib)
11. Miramichi-Bay du Vin: Bill Fraser (Lib)
12. Miramichi Centre: George Smith (PC)
13. Southwest Miramichi: Brent Taylor (PC)
14. Rogersville-Kouchibouguac: Rose-May Poirier (PC)
15. Kent: Shawn Graham (Lib)
16. Kent South: Nadine Hebert (Lib)
17. Shediac-Cap-Pele: Victor Boudreau (Lib)
18. Tantramar: Mike Olscamp (PC)
19. Memramcook-Lakeville-Dieppe: Bernard LeBlanc (Lib)
20. Dieppe Centre-Lewisville: Bruno Roy (Lib)
21. Moncton East: Bernard Lord (PC)
22. Moncton West: Joan MacAlpine-Stiles (PC)
23. Moncton North: Mike Murphy (Lib)
24. Moncton Crescent: John Betts (PC)
25. Petitcodiac: Wally Stiles (PC)
26. Riverview: Bruce Fitch (PC)
27. Albert: Wayne Steeves (PC)
28. Kings East: Bruce Northrup (PC)
29. Hampton-Kings: Bev Harrison (PC)
30. Quispamsis: Mary Schryer (Lib)
31. Saint John-Fundy: Stuart Jamieson (Lib)
32. Rothesay: Margaret-Ann Blaney (PC)
33. Saint John East: Roly MacIntyre (Lib)
34. Saint John Harbour: Ed Doherty (Lib)
35. Saint John Portland: Colleen Knudeson (Lib)
36. Saint John Lancaster: Abel Leblanc (Lib)
37. Fundy-River Valley: Jack Keir (Lib)
38. Charlotte-The Isles: Rick Doucet (Lib)
39. Charlotte-Campobello: Robert Tinker (Lib)
40. Oromocto: Jody Carr (PC)
41. Grand Lake-Gagetown: Eugene McGinley (Lib)
42. Fredericton-Nashwaaksis: T.J. Burke (Lib)
43. Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak: Kelly Lamrock (Lib)
44. Fredericton-Lincoln: Greg Byrne (Lib)
45. Fredericton-Silverwood: Brad Green (PC)
46. New Maryland-Sunbury West: Keith Ashfield (PC)
47. York: Carl Urquhart (PC)
48. York North: Kirk MacDonald (PC)
49. Woodstock: David Alward (PC)
50. Carleton: Dale Graham (PC)
51. Victoria-Tobique: Larry Kennedy (Lib)
52. Grand Falls-Drummond-Saint-Andre: Ron Ouellette (Lib)
53. Restigouche-La-Vallee: Percy Mockler (PC)
54. Edmundston-Saint-Basile: Madeleine Dube (PC)
55. Madawaska-les-Lacs: Jeannot Volpe (PC)

That's 27 Liberals, 27 Tories, and 1 NDPer.

Refining the Orange

2006-09-14T11:13:00.000-03:00

A couple of days ago, I wrote about what the CRA poll in L'Acadie Nouvelle could mean for the NDP, the support of which was purported to be 10%.

After talking to some folks and letting the information ruminate, I am going to remove some of the ambiguity. I wrote that if the NDP gets 10%, then they will win a seat or two, and if they win a seat or two, then it or they must come from either Tantramar, Fredericton-Silverwood, Fredericton-Lincoln or Caraquet.

If the first condition is negated (i.e. the NDP does not get 10%), then the subsequent clauses in the reasoning are rendered moot. However, if the first condition turns out to be satisfied, then the remaining clauses are active. This is because I really don't have a position on whether or not the party can achieve the 10%; all I know is that if they do, the support must be coming from somewhere.

At any rate, two days ago I described Tantramar and Fredericton-Silverwood as the best shots, and Fredericton-Lincoln and Caraquet as "reaches".

I am going to amend that and offer up a bolder prediction:

If the NDP gets 10% of the vote, thus giving them an opportunity at a seat or two, the two remaining real possibilities (down from the four that I listed the other day) are Dennis Atchison in Fredericton-Silverwood and Stephane Doiron in Caraquet.

Fredericton-Silverwood: I work in this riding (I actually live in Fredericton-Nashwaaksis, which I believe will be won by PC Mike Smith, but I digress) and talk to plenty of people here. I am getting the sense that Atchison is the anti-Brad Green candidate of choice. I believe that the race will be very tight and involving all three candidates, and that the only thing keeping Liberal candidate Rick Miles in the race is some (but not all!) of the Liberal base vote and traditional bifurcated party thinking.

Caraquet: as I mentioned the other day the NDP has been known to offer up a where-the-hell-did-that-come-from candidate in the north every once in a while, like Dalhousie in 1995 and Nepisiguit in 1999. Whereas a couple days ago I thought Caraquet could be it, now I am moving this from a reach to a very real possibility. I read this in today's L'Acadie Nouvelle:

Mais il y a un troisieme joueur tres important dans cette election a Caraquet, en la personne de Stephane Doiron, candidat du NPD. intelligent et articule, il possede l'avantage d'avoir ete au coeur des manifestations contre le changement de l'hopital sans tenter d'y trouver un quelconque avatage politique, comme il l'a reproche a M. Albert... Il pourrait recuperer beaucoup de votes de personnes mecontentes de la position liberale.

You'll have to excuse the lack of proper punctuation. I don't know how to put accents and the like into the blogger interface. I did offer to pay CBC to help me out with it, but they refused. Regardless, Doiron has significant support up there in Godin Country. The above quote reinforces what I had heard from others, but it seems more real when in print.

At any rate, there you have it. The best-case maximum scenario for the NDP is likely two, so I have "grown a pair" and listed two, rather than four. I have refined the orange.

A Fool Predicts...

2006-09-12T15:09:00.000-03:00

Alright, I think I need to weigh in here. Spinks, Harrap and Scott have gotten into the act, not to mention NBPolitico's bandwidth-choking opus.

Let's declare a brief moratorium on reasearch, fact-checking and coherence so that I may contribute.

Today's CRA poll has the Liberals, Tories and NDP at 44%, 42% and 10%, respectively. Let's assume, for a brief moment, that these numbers are accurate and will reflect the final tallies on election night - it's a bit of a stretch, but doing any more or any less would allow for a level of subjectivity that I am just not comfortable with. The first two numbers are the thrust of the thing, of course: everybody wants to know who will be Premier. The third number, though, is an interesting one.

If the NDP achieves 10% of the popular vote despite being short seven candidates and one Weir... they may just win a seat or two. Think about it for a moment: the support must be coming from somewhere. In 2003, the NDP got 9.7% of the popular vote, representing 36,989 ballots. 10% of the popular vote (the current level of support according to CRA) would be 38,133. At least half of the 2006 NDP candidates will come in below 500 votes and account for 9,000 to 10,000 of the party's total. That leaves 28,500 for the remaining 24 candidates. It is tough to figure how 28,500 votes could be cast for 24 candidates without seeing at least one of them elected. Like I said: the support must be coming from somewhere. But where?

I have scanned the NDP slate and done some research. My conclusion: there are only about four that are even conceivable, and I had to reach for two of them. Let's get the other 51 out of the way first.

I've got Tories in Bathurst, Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou, Centre-Péninsule-Saint-Saveur, Tracadie-Sheila, Miramichi Centre, Southwest Miramichi, Rogersville-Kouchibouguac, Moncton East, Moncton West, Moncton Crescent, Petitcodiac, Riverview, Albert, Hampton-Kings, Rothesay, Saint John Portland, Oromocto, Fredericton-Nashwaaksis, New Maryland-Sunbury West, York, York North, Woodstock, Carleton, Restigouche-La-Vallée, Edmundston-Saint-Basile, and Madawaska-les-Lacs.

I've got Liberals in Miramichi-Bay du Vin, Campbellton-Restigouche Centre, Dalhousie-Restigouche East, Nigadoo-Chaleur, Nepisiguit, Miramichi Bay-Neguac, Kent, Kent South, Shediac-Cap-Pelé, Memramcook-Lakeville-Dieppe, Dieppe Centre-Lewisville, Moncton North, Kings East, Quispamsis, Saint John-Fundy, Saint John East, Saint John Harbour, Saint John Lancaster, Fundy-River Valley, Charlotte-The Isles, Charlotte-Campobello, Grand Lake-Gagetown, Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak, Victoria-Tobique, and Grand Falls-Drummond-Saint-André.

That's 26 Tories and 25 Liberals.

I said that I would have four ridings for the end because the NDP may - may - have a shot in them. Of the four, I have two with what I consider to be decent chances are two that I had to reach for. Both of the "reaches" are likely to be Liberal seats, taking the total to 27 Liberals, 26 Tories. The other two, however, are both Tory seats, so if the NDP is shutout, I am predicting 28 Tories and 27 Liberals.

But I am not predicting a shutout.

I am predicting that the NDP will win one (or possibly two) seat(s), and that any winner or winners will come from among these four ridings:

Tantramar. Virgil Hammock is a popular municipal politician in Sackville and the NDP has held the seat in the past. There is currently no incumbent. NBPolitico has this one as "leans NDP".
Fredericton-Silverwood. Dennis Atchison is a strong candidate who greatly increased the NDP vote in Fredericton North while Nan Luke and John Carty (federally, twice) had a fair bit of success on the south side - this riding could be ready.
Fredericton-Lincoln. I don't really have a strong feeling about this one, but Brewer has gotten plenty of media attention and has a very strong sign presence. It is included here because I think that it is possible.
Caraquet. That's right, I said Caraquet. Whereas the other three that I have listed here are all virtually assured of a respectable showing (all three should easily approach 20%), this one is anything but. The most likely scenario for Stephane Doiron in Caraquet is that he, like the NDP usually does there provincially, gets less than ten percent. However, I believe that he has a shot at winning; a sort of potential lightning-in-a-bottle situation. Think Dalhousie 1995 or Nepisiguit 1999. These things do happen, and I think that if the NDP is going to have a where-the-hell-did-that-guy-come-from candidate this time, Doiron will be it. Doiron was apparently involved in a fight to keep the hospital open in Caraquet and has many of those activists working with him on the campaign and could be joined by Yvon Godin for the stretch drive.

Final Prediction: 27 Tories, 27 Liberals, 1 NDP.

A Real Poll

2006-09-12T11:27:00.000-03:00

L'Acadie Nouvelle published a Corporate Research Associates poll today that shows the Liberals at 44%, the Tories at 42% and the NDP at 10%.

The final results in 2003 were Tories 45.4%, Liberals 44.4%, NDP 9.7%. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I'll be back later today.

An Open Letter

2006-09-11T13:55:00.000-03:00

Dear Jerkasses,

Please stop vandalizing election signs.

Look, I realize that applying naughty words and drawings to election signage is a time-honoured tradition for knuckle-draggers like yourselves.

Look, I realize that you may be at that strange age wherein you have learned to read political literature but have not yet learned to think critically about it and as a result you (a) falsely tout yourself as an intellectual to any naive young woman who has consumed enough jello shots to listen to your fallacy-laden schtick, (b) chronically misquote everybody from Marx to Limbaugh, and (c) figure that kicking down some coroplast signage at 3 a.m. is a better form of political protest than organizing, volunteering or, uh, voting.

Look, I realize that election campaigns are a cherised, unique and infrequent spray-painting opportunity that only comes around every four years; a sort of Vandalism Olympics, if you will.

Look, I realize that peer pressure is leading you to (a) establish your alpha-male status by being the first in your pack to vandalize a sign or (b) establish submissive membership in a pack by joining in when the alpha-males begin vandalizing signs.

Look, I realize that William Forrestall, Greg Byrne and Allison Brewer would look better with soulpatches.

But please stop vandalizing election signs.

Sincerely,
Alvy

Bernard Lord a Master Debator

2006-09-08T09:47:00.000-03:00

First things first: my deepest apologies for not being around for the past ten days or so. I'm going to have to see a doctor about this atrophied blog.

On to the english debate analysis!

Consider the pool of undecided voters who watched last night's debate and what their reactions would be. Undecideds are the only ones still "in the game". For those of us who have already decided, watching a leader's debate quickly devolves into a sort of dissonant self-congratulatory exercise wherein we each confirm our own beliefs. For an undecided, however, this stuff can actually mean something.

Being a decided voter, I can only speculate as to the perspective of an undecided voter (like when CNN's Anderson Cooper describes the plight of Katrina victims or when Monte Solberg tries to figure out what we humans are feeling). That said, I'll do my best.

I suppose that the important thing is how likely an undecided voter is to vote for a particular party after watching the debate, compared to how likely she was to vote for that same party before having watched the debate. That is: how well did each leader perform relative to the expectations of an undecided voter?

Bernard Lord "won" the debate. Decided, undecided, young, old, conservative, liberal, social democratic, tall, short... all can agree that Lord won the debate. I woke up this morning and Mrs. Singer looked at me and said "Lord won the debate". I jumped in the shower and thought to myself "Lord won the debate". I started my car and the radio said "Lord won the debate". I got to work and my colleague said "Lord won the debate". In about two hours I'm going to go to the Deli for lunch and the cashier is going to say "seventy three cents your change, Lord won the debate, enjoy your tuna wrap".
Shawn Graham was okay. He certainly wasn't a disaster. The problem is, from the undecided voter perspective, he didn't look like a Premier. He was the only person on stage who had the task of enabling the audience to envision him as Premier (Brewer clearly won't be Premier and Lord already is). I don't think he did well in that sense, if only because he was out-classed by Lord (who, in excess of what was needed, looked positively Prime Ministerial at times) and, on at least one occasion, Brewer.
Allison Brewer was okay, too. The thing is: she was working from a different set of expectations than the other two leaders. Nobody is asking her to look like a Premier; her job is to show that her or any of the other NDP candidates can act as a competent moderator who holds the red guys and blue guys to account on their promises. I think she did that job. She was at her best when reminding the audience about the Liberals' petulant childishness in the legislature and dubious job creation history (I believe that at one point early in the debate she referred to Graham's bit about a "can-do attitude" as a "call centre attitude"). She shuffled her papers a bit and had difficulty maintaining eye contact with the camera. Those are rookie mistakes but they don't really reveal anything to an undecided voter because, well, she is a rookie and people expect those sorts of mistakes.

On the measure of raw, uncontextualized performance, I would say that the order of finish was 1. Lord, 2. Graham and 3. Brewer. On the more important measure of performance relative to the expectations of undecided voters, I would say that the order of finish was 1. Lord, 2. Brewer and 3. Graham.

We Didn't Start the Fire

2006-08-28T14:50:00.000-03:00

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

2006-08-22T10:52:00.000-03:00

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?

2006-08-21T10:30:00.000-03:00

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

2006-08-18T10:04:00.000-03:00

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

2006-08-17T10:23:00.000-03:00

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

2006-08-16T10:31:00.000-03:00

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

2006-08-15T15:57:00.000-03:00

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?

2006-08-15T15:08:00.000-03:00

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.