One sure way to beat Partisan

Since Sue's Blog started the discussion on partisanship - I have had many responses. Some of you want to know practical ways to end it.

The very first thing we do as voters is ensure that any new politician we elect understands this - you will not be elected to a second term and thereby deny you that pension - if you do not put your constiuents and communities first.

Those of you who live in districts where a long-term politician is in place - assess if they have represented your communities first and the party second. If not - throw them out.

If you live in a district with significant fishing dependence - throw him/her out. Think it's safe to say that they have not represented your interests.

Advise your MHA - if they have not represented your interests - not to bother to run federally. With a likely federal election very soon (after the budget) those who depended on Danny might come out with a new line - such as "this is a good time to mend fences and have our voice heard in Ottawa". Try not to laugh and politely ask them to find a new career.

If they come to your door with the normal array of prepared material - challenge them to explain how they are going to challenge Ottawa to fix equalization. We want our 10 billion dollars back. Ask them how they are going to reduce uneployment to below double digits. Don't stand for - I will take your concerns to the table. Ask them what table? Ask them what they will do for you really.

Ask them the following question if they are Tory or Liberal or NDP - how open is your party when choosing of a leader?  I will write more on that in my next post.

Try to engage youth in your district and ask them to become involved and listen to their hopes for the future. Ask what they think and ask why they have not been involved in the past.

Ask the candidate the following two questions:

1. What will you do to force Ottawa to fix the ferry service.

2. What will you commit to doing to make air travel between Labrador and Newfoundland and reverse affordable to encourage a new level of understanding between the Island and the Big Land.

Over the coming months we will come up with more questions together. Please post or email me with questions you think should be answered by those seeking our vote.

The People's Paradox

Kowtowing to a savior.
Is this what we want from our provincial MHA's or federal MP's?






What the people say they want - what the political parties will tolerate - and our weak 2 party sharing system.

How many times have you heard people express dismay when politicians tow the party line instead of standing for the position widely held by a particular constituency?

When Charlene Johnson - Trevor Taylor - and Harry Harding stood by the party during the RMS fiasco in the fishery - despite the wishes of the fishermen - people were angry and perplexed - it also turned out they were right - but 1 fishing season suffered catastrophic consequences.

When Stephenville lost the paper mill - workers wondered where Joan Burke and Jim Hodder were.

When Loyola Hearn - Fabian Manning - and Norm Doyle did not support this province respecting the broken equalization promise - people were angry and still are.

When John Efford did his song and dance over equalization - while Paul Martin was trying to get out of his promise - people were shocked and upset.

When John Hickey ignored the broken promise of his leader to the Metis Nation - people in Labrador were incensed.

What all these people - some of them long-standing respected politicians - chose to do - was tow the party line.

The people claim they want a representative who will stand by them and their communities - and when a choice has to be made - the member should stand with their constituency not the party line.

The political parties will avoid at all costs - independent thinkers who will do this.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will only elect the two traditional parties - and very rarely an independent member - who in short order joins one of the parties anyway.

Our system is weak and the two party system (the NDP never present themselves as government in waiting) we have does absolutely nothing to deliver the representation people say they want.

The two main parties in this province are the Liberals and the PC's who swap power back and forth - usually with one savior leader or another. Then of course the corporations which like to control and run the province - especially resourced based companies and financial institutions fill the coffers of who they think will win.

In order to change up the 2 party system - people need to find the courage and the sense to vote another way - they have to be open to and support new parties and independents federally and provincially - and become more involved in the NDP. The latter is more difficult as the NDPas similar to the PC's and Liberals have their long-standing members who tend to dominate the party executive and control the party message. We need to look at proportional representation and public funding of elections - so new parties or even the NDP can get some money in the bank for votes they receive. (The same as the new federal system)

Understand this clearly - it is unlikely that until we do this - anybody you vote in under the traditional party system will ever choose you the constituent over a party position. It is also unlikely that new leadership will come from within - as the parties tend to seek names and personality types that appear to be knights on a horse with all the answers from outside.

That's why Tom Rideout did not last long - Bill Rowe gained leadership but not government - Ed Roberts was rejected - Don Jamieson did not get the nod. Loyola Sullivan - Ed Byrne - Lynn Verge - and Len Simms could not take government either. That is why Roger Grimes never had a chance. Instead we had a long list of saviors riding in and carrying their parties to victory.

This also causes another problem. The people who choose to run when a new savior presents are more opportunistic than anything else. They do not have to be strong in their own right - and they fully expect to get a well paying job with great benefits because their leader has the population spellbound. Unfortunately this means they are too grateful to their boss to do anything but nod in agreement. They are lead around by the nose - and despite their claims of protestations from within - they fail in changing policy which they know is bad for their constituents. Look at the numbers of people who sought PC nominations - then look at the other two and their candidate rosters.

Newfoundland and Labrador could use a couple of minority governments to shake up the status-quo - and members feelings of entitlement. In order to do this at least 3 strong parties must be present - and sadly as I write this today - we only have one.

Freedom of speech and independent thinking is not permitted in our two party system - unless you are the leader - and there is no fear that the populous will turn on that leader for the weak members he/she is stuck with.

Governments and Oppositions need more than one strong - articulate - and educated person - they need many people who can get in there and voice new - creative - and progressive policy. They do not need a bunch of bobbing heads calling open-line programs and saying I am part of so-and-so's team and that person is great. When is the last time you heard Wally Young call open-line and say this new policy initiative is something I have researched and proudly put forth to my colleagues?

Now the party system also protects itself - they will weed out any voices who may call it as they really see it - and stick to either weak or partisan fanatics who cannot see anything good in the other party's platform. Parties also discourage independents by telling us that if you are an independent - you will not be heard and you will be placed in the wilderness. This is of course not true - and some of the best work done by Yvonne Jones is when she sat as an independent - after the party system chose Danny Dumeresque and not the real choice of the people of Cartwright - L'Anse Au Clair.

Quebec is a good jurisdiction to look at - and examine how the wishes of Quebecers do come first and they are prepared to cross the floor - sit on their own - create a new party if they are forced to tow a party line contrary to interest of Quebecers.

Most other provinces have a strong 3 party system and some of them more to ensure that no one party or two become complacent and arrogant toward the needs of their constituents.

So when I hear some people lambaste Fabian or John or Loyola or Joan or Charlene - I can only conclude they don't really mean it. There are no consequences to these people because either - the party they represent have a savior as their leader (meaning they will get re-elected anyway) or the party will convince the particular member that the party will take care of them if their voters boot them out.

It is time for the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador to get more savvy when it comes to elections and political parties - and it's time for those parties to worry that the same old system won't protect their entitlements.

Simms misses the point in Telegram article

NEW POLITICAL PARTIES MIGHT BE THE SOLUTION

Randy Simms began his preamble this morning talking about a story in the Telegram - Saturday. He described the story almost perfectly. Tuning Out - MUN prof worries about scandal impact on coming election - talks about the growing concern that October may see voters staying home instead of voting because of the HOA scandal and the way politicians are responding to it.

Randy went on to talk about what poli-sci professor Michael Temelini had to say about finding a solution. He pretty much read the piece paragraph by paragraph and asked callers to weigh in on what was said.

Only problem is Randy left out one very important sentence - and one which would generate response from the audience. Here it is from the Telegram

Temelini said if the province’s constituents are so incensed with the involvement of the existing political parties in the constituency overspending scandal, maybe they should look at establishing new parties.

The problem in Newfoundland and Labrador has been the absence of other political parties - ones without federal ties. The other issue is the failure of the NDP to make significant gains in the province regardless of the situation. They are crippled more when people like Leo Puddister (ex NAPE boss) says he would like to run for Danny and Ron Smith (paperworkers union in Grand Falls-Windsor) has announced he is seeking the Tory candidacy in that area.

In Newfoundland and Labrador the Liberals and the Tories are pretty much the same - with the big corporate donors from the resource sectors such as fish - forests - oil and gas - and mines with the balance coming from the bankers and construction giants - picking the next savior for one side or the other. When Danny's star fades a bit more there will be names popping up as the future leader - propped up by the corporate elite with subtle messages.

This election might tell if the Labrador Party has any legs - it came pretty close last time around against Lake Melville MHA John Hickey.

The people may be ready for another party now - but I for one would like to hear what more have to say on the matter. It is also time for public finding of elections where the party receives so much cash for every vote they get. This has allowed - on the federal scene - the Green Party to have some money to build and the ability to put out their message. In a democracy - knowledge is important - and the more groups we have distributing policy suggestions and vision - the better off we are.

With the apathy in the voting public - partially because the electorate does not want to support any of the parties - the suggestion the professor made might be a good one. The question is why Randy did not mention this important part of the story. Think about it - as a talk show host - that would bring comment - pro and con.