Why Judy Manning?
That certainly is a reasonable question considering she has never been elected.
Why Judy Manning?
Why not John Ottenheimer who garnered half the support of the delegates at the convention?
Why not John Ottenheimer as he has considerable experience?
Why Judy Manning?
How does the Premier know her?
What does he know about her career and experience - considering the job ahead?
Why Judy Manning?
Apparently this really has nothing to do with the Attorney General having to be a lawyer because the Premier did not stop there. Davis added Status of Women, Fire and Emergency Services and the entire portfolio of Public Safety (which now includes Justice).
Why Judy Manning?
Is she a long time Tory or have significant Tory connections outside Senator Fabian Manning?
If you really felt that despite having a lawyer who IS elected take the position of Attorney General - then why Judy Manning?
What puts her above other choices in the legal community?
Was anybody else asked?
Did Felix decline? If so is he planning to resign?
Did Ottenheimer say no? Was he even asked?
Why Judy Manning?
It is particularly interesting since she claims she won't run in any upcoming by-elections but in the general election only.
This certainly demonstrates bad judgement. She could have accepted under the condition she will seek opportunity to be elected at the earliest opportunity. That would have shown respect for the people - but no - she accepts a mandate Paul Davis and Paul Davis alone bestowed upon her.
Why Judy Manning?
Yes - why indeed.
Showing posts with label pc party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pc party. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Tory Turmoil Continues - Legacy of Williams?
Here we go again. Back to square one. A new leadership process for the Tories begins as it did the last time.
Same group of people who may run.
Each day brings word of one of the list saying no.
Each day brings another Kent musing.
Media covering the same nonsense once again with almost the same panting breath.
The best we have so far is John Ottenheimer has announced he is running. Whoopee!
Is he how we describe renewal? Is he how we get new ideas? Is he the definition of fresh?
Nice fellow - John - despite his agreeing to do many things we have problems with. Is this the result of the Danny Williams leadership legacy?
Surround yourself with weak followers - surround yourself with obedient "colleagues" and voila you get leadership potential deficit.
A real leader surrounds him/herself with strong people - those with ambition and drive - those who strive to learn - listen - and lead.
One would figure there would be clamouring to get the top job after Williams left. He appointed Kathy Dunderdale to be an "interim" leader - while all other potential "new" leaders came to the for. Who did we get? We got lots of mumblings, whispers, and speculation. We had Brad Cabana try to run - but was determined "ineligible". So after all the fumbling, bumbling, and mumbling - Kathy was appointed.
Then Kathy the "interim" left - we should have expected the door to the candidacy locker to be kicked down - charged - and jammed with leadership hopefuls.
I woke-up one day and the media had a dozen or so waiting to come forward. Inside caucus - outside caucus - a retired army general, retired politicians, defeated politicians, a lobbyist, a retired fellow from the west coast, a fish merchant, and a grocer.
Day by day - the media plucked one off the list. We were down to three. Coleman, Bennett, and Barry. Danny did not like Barry and declared who he would not support. Delegate meetings were taking place before the actual campaign started. Bennett was thrown out of the race - Barry was procedurally crippled by the process and all we had left was one. No race again.
So the Premiership was Coleman's - the party had a leader and an election should have been called. Marshall stood in the House of Assembly and basically said his good-byes as he prepared to move over and let Frank take the helm. Sure before the handover occurred the Premiers Office staff went through a gutting putting Coleman's people in before he himself arrived.
Joan Shea quit so there was one seat open. Nope - Frank was not taking that one - so it became obvious that Tom Marshall was leaving his seat and Coleman could run at home.
Before a by-election could be called in St. George's - Stephenville East - the Premier appointed was gone - as quick as he came - with all his staff at the ready in the office he would never take over.
One clear sign of a good leader is that he/she has a reasonable succession plan. Draw your own conclusions.
Regardless, call an election now - your party mess is not our mess and is not the mess of government.
Same group of people who may run.
Each day brings word of one of the list saying no.
Each day brings another Kent musing.
Media covering the same nonsense once again with almost the same panting breath.
The best we have so far is John Ottenheimer has announced he is running. Whoopee!
Is he how we describe renewal? Is he how we get new ideas? Is he the definition of fresh?
Nice fellow - John - despite his agreeing to do many things we have problems with. Is this the result of the Danny Williams leadership legacy?
Surround yourself with weak followers - surround yourself with obedient "colleagues" and voila you get leadership potential deficit.
A real leader surrounds him/herself with strong people - those with ambition and drive - those who strive to learn - listen - and lead.
One would figure there would be clamouring to get the top job after Williams left. He appointed Kathy Dunderdale to be an "interim" leader - while all other potential "new" leaders came to the for. Who did we get? We got lots of mumblings, whispers, and speculation. We had Brad Cabana try to run - but was determined "ineligible". So after all the fumbling, bumbling, and mumbling - Kathy was appointed.
Then Kathy the "interim" left - we should have expected the door to the candidacy locker to be kicked down - charged - and jammed with leadership hopefuls.
I woke-up one day and the media had a dozen or so waiting to come forward. Inside caucus - outside caucus - a retired army general, retired politicians, defeated politicians, a lobbyist, a retired fellow from the west coast, a fish merchant, and a grocer.
Day by day - the media plucked one off the list. We were down to three. Coleman, Bennett, and Barry. Danny did not like Barry and declared who he would not support. Delegate meetings were taking place before the actual campaign started. Bennett was thrown out of the race - Barry was procedurally crippled by the process and all we had left was one. No race again.
So the Premiership was Coleman's - the party had a leader and an election should have been called. Marshall stood in the House of Assembly and basically said his good-byes as he prepared to move over and let Frank take the helm. Sure before the handover occurred the Premiers Office staff went through a gutting putting Coleman's people in before he himself arrived.
Joan Shea quit so there was one seat open. Nope - Frank was not taking that one - so it became obvious that Tom Marshall was leaving his seat and Coleman could run at home.
Before a by-election could be called in St. George's - Stephenville East - the Premier appointed was gone - as quick as he came - with all his staff at the ready in the office he would never take over.
One clear sign of a good leader is that he/she has a reasonable succession plan. Draw your own conclusions.
Regardless, call an election now - your party mess is not our mess and is not the mess of government.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Tom Marshall - Misleading the People!
Tom Marshall has made comments recently that really call his integrity into question. It is curious that a former Attorney General, Minister of Justice, a lawyer and current Premier would place his personal professional accomplishments behind party politics - but yet it appears he has.
Yesterday in this CBC interview - Marshall said "There's a premier in place, there's a cabinet in place, there's a caucus in place with a mandate to govern until October 2015"
This is - a deceptive comment that ignores the pith and substance - the meaning and intent of an important law respecting our democracy.
Fixed term elections were put into legislation to IMPROVE the democratic process. A few of us have noted that a loophole exists within the Tory initiated law - yet that concern has been ignored and now the PC Party is taking advantage of it. Below are the relevant sections: As you can see the intent under the "Election on change of Premier" exists to expedite the process of renewing a mandate if a Premier leaves before the end of the 3rd year of a term. This recognizes the need to go back to the electorate once the leader of the governing party exits. This is additionally important as the Premier is a public unelected office. So Marshall's comment - that there exists a mandate to govern until October 2015 - is not true.
We know in the case of Kathy Dunderdale - that her term ended 9 months before the end of the 3rd year in office and we should therefore expect - reasonably - that the PC Party would have a leader elected or selected in short order and then get to an election as soon as possible.
When this Bill was being debated in December of 2004 - the issue of leadership departure was significant.
Kelvin Parsons - at the time said after a leader leaves - it should be like a by-election and an election called within 60-90 day period. Terry French was agreeing with the concept - although felt 12 months allowed more reasonable time for a leader to be chosen and an election called.
Terry French said the following: Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that.
So what exactly are they up to? Why are the PC's not honouring the intent of the law? It is not our problem that they are mired in disorganization or worse - manipulation. Tom Marshall knows or should know the purpose of the law.
Marshall is dishonouring himself and all sitting PC MHA's by continuing to put off the call of an election - by using a loophole.
Tom Marshall must call an election immediately.
Shame on you Mr. Marshall - you have lowered yourself to protecting your party's interests instead of the people's.
Yesterday in this CBC interview - Marshall said "There's a premier in place, there's a cabinet in place, there's a caucus in place with a mandate to govern until October 2015"
This is - a deceptive comment that ignores the pith and substance - the meaning and intent of an important law respecting our democracy.
Fixed term elections were put into legislation to IMPROVE the democratic process. A few of us have noted that a loophole exists within the Tory initiated law - yet that concern has been ignored and now the PC Party is taking advantage of it. Below are the relevant sections: As you can see the intent under the "Election on change of Premier" exists to expedite the process of renewing a mandate if a Premier leaves before the end of the 3rd year of a term. This recognizes the need to go back to the electorate once the leader of the governing party exits. This is additionally important as the Premier is a public unelected office. So Marshall's comment - that there exists a mandate to govern until October 2015 - is not true.
Duration of House of Assembly
3.
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by
proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the House of
Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.
(2)
A polling day at a general election shall be held on the second Tuesday
in October, 2007 and afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the
fourth calendar year following the polling day at the most recently held
general election.
Election on change of Premier
3.1
Where the leader of the political party that forms the government
resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier of the province
before the end of the third year following the most recent general
election, the person who is elected by the party to replace him or her
as the leader of the party and who is sworn in as the Premier of the
province by the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months
afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of
Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.
We know in the case of Kathy Dunderdale - that her term ended 9 months before the end of the 3rd year in office and we should therefore expect - reasonably - that the PC Party would have a leader elected or selected in short order and then get to an election as soon as possible.
When this Bill was being debated in December of 2004 - the issue of leadership departure was significant.
Kelvin Parsons - at the time said after a leader leaves - it should be like a by-election and an election called within 60-90 day period. Terry French was agreeing with the concept - although felt 12 months allowed more reasonable time for a leader to be chosen and an election called.
Terry French said the following: Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that.
So what exactly are they up to? Why are the PC's not honouring the intent of the law? It is not our problem that they are mired in disorganization or worse - manipulation. Tom Marshall knows or should know the purpose of the law.
Marshall is dishonouring himself and all sitting PC MHA's by continuing to put off the call of an election - by using a loophole.
Tom Marshall must call an election immediately.
Shame on you Mr. Marshall - you have lowered yourself to protecting your party's interests instead of the people's.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Premier Marshall - Attorney General - Collins - Drover
Police Chief is retiring
Charges stayed request of Att. General Felix Collins?
Charges reinstated - request of Att. GeneralTom Marshall?
Guilty plea on new and reduced charge - Att. General Felix Collins?
Absolute discharge - comment from lawyer - we all get impatient?
Character witnesses - not named in media story?
Tory fundraiser, Board Member CNLOPB?
Justice Walsh says he does not think Ed Drover will do it again?
Clearly it's time to look at where we live and who controls what.
Clearly it's time to understand how Justice works in our province.
In either case I've got a load of questions - do you?
Is this a place you really want to live in anymore?
What I watched on the news last week - turned my stomach and confirmed the state of our affairs. It's nothing I recognize anymore.
What kind of power/control is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Open your eyes wide and take it all in.
How did the Mount Cashel thing happen here? No problem - from what I see.
Have we learned? In my opinion - not a chance.
Are the journalists going to dig into this?
Can they give us a complete review of what happened regarding the Ed Drover, initial charges, stay of charges, reinstatement of charges, reduced charges, guilty plea, the actual event in an agreed to statement of facts, the character witnesses, Drover's political connections, any past events regarding not being "patient"?
Let the people decide if the justice achieved was satisfactory.
Did this case set a precedent that could cause extreme consequences?
What are the qualifications to sit on a Crown Agency or Corporation Board?
Charges stayed request of Att. General Felix Collins?
Charges reinstated - request of Att. GeneralTom Marshall?
Guilty plea on new and reduced charge - Att. General Felix Collins?
Absolute discharge - comment from lawyer - we all get impatient?
Character witnesses - not named in media story?
Tory fundraiser, Board Member CNLOPB?
Justice Walsh says he does not think Ed Drover will do it again?
Clearly it's time to look at where we live and who controls what.
Clearly it's time to understand how Justice works in our province.
In either case I've got a load of questions - do you?
Is this a place you really want to live in anymore?
What I watched on the news last week - turned my stomach and confirmed the state of our affairs. It's nothing I recognize anymore.
What kind of power/control is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Open your eyes wide and take it all in.
How did the Mount Cashel thing happen here? No problem - from what I see.
Have we learned? In my opinion - not a chance.
Are the journalists going to dig into this?
Can they give us a complete review of what happened regarding the Ed Drover, initial charges, stay of charges, reinstatement of charges, reduced charges, guilty plea, the actual event in an agreed to statement of facts, the character witnesses, Drover's political connections, any past events regarding not being "patient"?
Let the people decide if the justice achieved was satisfactory.
Did this case set a precedent that could cause extreme consequences?
What are the qualifications to sit on a Crown Agency or Corporation Board?
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Journalism dealt another blow by James McLeod
This morning - the Telegram has served up another waste of space by "journalist" James McLeod. Under the News section you'll see a story headlined; "Rumours swirl about PC leadership ahead of critical meeting Saturday".
The story begins by outlining rumours about who may seek the leadership of the Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party.
It quickly turns into another Liberal bashing through the bias pen of the reporter.
The subheading reads: "Throwing stones" In this paragraph McLeod talks about tweets by Liberals regarding the Tory delegate style convention. What it does not say - is there have been Tory tweets as well taking smacks at the Liberal convention style.
McLeod then adds that it is unclear what glass ceiling the Liberal party broke as they elected a middle-aged man. If McLeod is using a strict interpretation of glass ceiling - with feminist meaning - then I would suggest - the open leadership of the Liberal party allowed many thousands of women to vote for the next leader - without restriction of finance to attend a convention, without restriction of geography, and without restriction of conflicting commitments to job and family. If one were to use a more broad interpretation of glass ceiling - where men and women could be included in the advancement - then obviously over 20,000 people voting in a leadership election for any party in our province - not only broke it but shattered it.
McLeod then says "it was the PC Party that first put a woman in the role of Premier". If James were actually producing news not spin - he might have opined that there were rumours of backroom deals to keep men interested in the role from running. It is also interesting that McLeod finds that anybody putting a woman anywhere is somehow breaking a glass ceiling.
The next subheading reads: "Delegates decide" - and in that paragraph McLeod paraphrases something allegedly said by PC Party President Sheahan. He said the Liberals were so thoroughly decimated — without active district associations, donors or membership lists — that they needed to use their leadership race to rebuild the mangled party.
Right of the top - this is an example of Tories once again taking smacks at the Liberal process and further ignores the obvious balance to that statement.
The Tories are probably using the delegate style convention because they have been decimated in the polls and must raise some excitement to rebuild the battered party. The rumours of so many people running may simply be a set-up by the PC's in an attempt to show artificial interest in the publicly admonished party. Names like Ottenheimer, Skinner, Manning, and Oram - Tory stalwarts not new blood - and a bunch of Cabinet Ministers positioning themselves to be a king/queen maker.
The other obvious thing here is that the PC's that McLeod says put the female Premier in office - are the same group that so obviously threw her out and the same bunch that are acting now like it was all Dunderdale's fault.
There are some real problems with much that McLeod reports on - but this one is Duffyesque and shows a real bias.
The story begins by outlining rumours about who may seek the leadership of the Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party.
It quickly turns into another Liberal bashing through the bias pen of the reporter.
The subheading reads: "Throwing stones" In this paragraph McLeod talks about tweets by Liberals regarding the Tory delegate style convention. What it does not say - is there have been Tory tweets as well taking smacks at the Liberal convention style.
McLeod then adds that it is unclear what glass ceiling the Liberal party broke as they elected a middle-aged man. If McLeod is using a strict interpretation of glass ceiling - with feminist meaning - then I would suggest - the open leadership of the Liberal party allowed many thousands of women to vote for the next leader - without restriction of finance to attend a convention, without restriction of geography, and without restriction of conflicting commitments to job and family. If one were to use a more broad interpretation of glass ceiling - where men and women could be included in the advancement - then obviously over 20,000 people voting in a leadership election for any party in our province - not only broke it but shattered it.
McLeod then says "it was the PC Party that first put a woman in the role of Premier". If James were actually producing news not spin - he might have opined that there were rumours of backroom deals to keep men interested in the role from running. It is also interesting that McLeod finds that anybody putting a woman anywhere is somehow breaking a glass ceiling.
The next subheading reads: "Delegates decide" - and in that paragraph McLeod paraphrases something allegedly said by PC Party President Sheahan. He said the Liberals were so thoroughly decimated — without active district associations, donors or membership lists — that they needed to use their leadership race to rebuild the mangled party.
Right of the top - this is an example of Tories once again taking smacks at the Liberal process and further ignores the obvious balance to that statement.
The Tories are probably using the delegate style convention because they have been decimated in the polls and must raise some excitement to rebuild the battered party. The rumours of so many people running may simply be a set-up by the PC's in an attempt to show artificial interest in the publicly admonished party. Names like Ottenheimer, Skinner, Manning, and Oram - Tory stalwarts not new blood - and a bunch of Cabinet Ministers positioning themselves to be a king/queen maker.
The other obvious thing here is that the PC's that McLeod says put the female Premier in office - are the same group that so obviously threw her out and the same bunch that are acting now like it was all Dunderdale's fault.
There are some real problems with much that McLeod reports on - but this one is Duffyesque and shows a real bias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)