The polling
group found that 34% of decided voters supported the Liberals, 40% backed the
PCs, while 24% stood behind the NDP.
Two other
statistics offer confirmation that the Liberals are in deep trouble: satisfaction
with the government stands at only 28%, while in leader preference Dwight Ball
receives 23% support against 36% for PC leader Paul Davis and 16% for Earle McCurdy of the NDP.
In March
2016, the Liberals held 66% support. But by June — following a disastrous
Budget — it dropped to 27%. Satisfaction with the Government dropped hard, too,
declining from 64% to 21%. The Premier’s personal popularity went from 53% to
18%.
In short,
the recent Poll suggests that the government has barely made a dent in its
efforts to recover from the 2016 Budget fiasco. The 34% represents, at best, the
“core” Liberal vote. It won’t get the government re-elected in an essentially
two-party system.
And, as
evidenced by the mere 23% popular support the Premier holds onto, he has been
bucked from the horse he rode in on. The public is well aware that Ball can’t walk
and whistle at the same time; hence the horse needs a new rider.
Had the Liberals
been skilful, two ‘anni horribiles’ and the heavy lifting of reducing public
spending would have been behind them. The general public might have felt
wounded but the public service would be sleeker; the health care and education systems would be
too. The power generation side of the Muskrat Falls project would have been put
on ice and a battle begun to send Emera packing. Instead, the Nalcor CEO will soon
confirm the cost increases and schedule slippage already noted by the so-called
oversight committee.
Rural NL,
too, would have been given a new instruction booklet about what overly
dependent communities can expect in a province driven to penury.
If not actual
support, the Liberals might at least be enjoying respect for having displayed
leadership at a difficult time. Respect is a worthy and enduring platform on which to build. A
deservedly pilloried Tory Party would, by now, have been driven out of town.
Instead,
the PCs are atop the polls, even if all of that could change when the Liberal
caucus finally shows Ball the door.
The public
must be pinching themselves — wondering why the Liberal caucus would have
picked up where the Tories left off, and why they so often end up with
dysfunctional government.
Had Ball a
few strong Ministers, the vigil on galloping incompetence might be less
painful.
In the 1970s
Frank Moores was found AWOL for long stretches of the year, allowing his
passion for salmon fishing to interfere with his public duties. The Liberal
Opposition — and the media (back in the days when public littering and potholes
didn’t lead the news) — pilloried him. But he had a Cabinet consisting of
Peckford, Crosbie, Marshall, and others who made the operation of government at
least seem seamless.
Which of the
current Ministers have the capacity to cover for this feckless Premier?
Cathy
Bennett, having delivered an essentially “fake” budget following last year’s
fiasco, wasting precious months on a “zero-based” PR exercise and saving
pennies, when the budget needed an axe? Her inconsistency about our spending
problem and her willingness to accept the propaganda wall erected by
the PR staff of Executive Council — diminishing Finance staff in the
process — warrants derision and the cynicism of what, otherwise, might have
been a patient public.
Siobhan
Coady? The still neophyte Minister who can’t offer a coherent cover story for
why the Government won’t investigate deceit and possible malfeasance on a grand
scale — of a Tory administration!
Gerry Byrne?
Perry Trimper?
How can so
many be so mismatched for a career they sought and in whom the public put their
faith?
Even Justice Minister Andrew Parsons, the one with the safest perch in Cabinet,
can’t find terms of endearment with a public desperately seeking leadership. As much as he may think otherwise, innovation
and courage are not demonstrated by donning a guard’s uniform to work a shift at HMP, as he did
recently. A week spent in solitary would have been a better choice — to reflect
on why he has failed to follow through on the Humber Valley Paving Inquiry and to think about finding a way to keep his party from the brink of Armageddon.
A failed
government has allowed vastly undeserved attention to be given to an unrepentant,
ill-suited, uninspired Paul Davis. When the last remnant of failed leadership
is the most popular elected leader, is it not time to ask: why has our politics gone so terribly wrong?
The Tories
have so far attracted only Ches Crosbie — who has been handed several kites,
including the falsification issue. But Ches, so far, refuses to fly, giving
attention to timing rather than the core issue, integrity, doubts about which
threaten his Party and the whole province.
The NDP
- if they ever plan to get into the game — hope that someday voters
will strike their heads on the way to the Polling Station and suddenly decide
to vote for them.
If the
Province was well run — on remote — who would care? But it is in a dastardly
state and it needs real leadership, now.
Ball likely
knows he is finished. But someone so dithering and ill-suited to his office
won’t make a single selfless decision. He will have to be shown the door.
As oil
prices continue their decline — and the gloss on Cathy Bennett’s Budget loses
its shine — a few in the Liberal caucus should be planning a fall offensive,
starting from within.
Of course,
that is wishful thinking.
The Liberal
caucus simply does not possess the gravitas or unity of purpose to countenance
real change. As both they and recent Tory administrations have underscored,
ours is not a question of ideology. Our problem is that we have a system of
governance which is completely vulnerable to influence and abuse.
Nor have
we figured out how to create a braking mechanism in our politics to guard
against electing fools. And, as we know, fools attract scoundrels. Both groups
abhor oversight — so we have none.
For those,
and other reasons too, the CRA Poll, giving a big lead to Paul Davis, describes
a voting population lacking hope.
And this
absence of hope is what best describes the state of play of our politics.