NL POLITICS: THE STATE OF PLAY

The latest poll from CRA does little more than reaffirm prior perceptions held by the public about the Premier and the Ball Administration.

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.

The results essentially mirror those reported when Ball’s popularity dropped off a cliff last year.

HEY CRITCH: LOOK WHO WANTS TO BE PREMIER... AGAIN!

Paul Davis wants to lead the P.C. Party into the next general election. Any sensible person would have to ask: why him? Surely, there are better choices.

Davis told the Telegram: “I never had a lot of time in the premier’s office… there were some ideas and vision and focus that I never had a chance to do.” Interesting. I don’t think anyone does vision and focus. These are attributes used to help shape a larger plan.

Davis was given the boot in the General Election last year.

Still, it is almost impossible to clear the mind of the amateurish missteps with which Davis greeted the public as he left the Lieutenant- Governor’s residence.  The appointment of an unelected Minister, unfamiliar with both political convention and the requirement to seek election, still resounds.

Then there is the Department of Justice fiasco — dropping "Justice" in favour of "Public Safety" — which confirmed that he understood enforcement but not habeas corpus.

CAN A DISGRACED P.C. PARTY SURVIVE?

The abrupt end to the Opposition filibuster in the House of Assembly on June 8^th served to underscore the larger issue of the Tories’ legitimacy as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Government House Leader Andrew Parsons told the media that the Tories “were agreeable to finishing up”. As well they might have been. Even if the Liberals’ budgetary measures were misguided, as many deem the case, only the mindless would be capable of denying that Tory fiscal mismanagement was the root cause of the debate in the first place.

The Sitting was the first of the 48^th General Assembly. In the preceding General Election, the remnants of the Progressive Conservative Party had been sent to the Opposition benches less by a Liberal juggernaut than by its own determination to self-destruct.  

A province is facing penury from overspending and a reckless energy strategy devised by a bunch of ‘rink rats’. A vulnerable society, one perennially on the edge, has seen its tenuous financial stability frittered away in less than a decade.

Opposition Leader Paul Davis still recites lines that reflect blissful economic ignorance of our current circumstance. More frequently, Keith Hutchings is sent out to play the Opposition role. The smiley Member for Ferryland tackles important budgetary issues as if he were commenting on a sporting event. Gravitas is lost to sound. Incredulity is grafted onto light-weight. Bemusement is the consequence.

WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM PAUL DAVIS

Inside the P.C. Convention Hall, on Saturday, Progressive Conservatives did their very best to display the intense excitement for which delegated leadership conventions enjoy a special distinction.  As the meeting headed into the second ballot Tories must have felt that, finally, the acrimony of the Dunderdale leadership and the Frank Coleman fiasco had passed into history.

But when the second ballot was counted and a one vote lead by Paul Davis still did not afford him victory, Tories must surely have felt under a curse.  Luckily, the third ballot confirmed what the second intended.  An incorrect and untimely interpretation of a ‘majority’ came close to splitting a Party already demoralized. 

Mr. Davis deserves our congratulations; his two competitors, John Ottenheimer and Steve Kent, can be proud of their participation in an important endeavor; after all, political parties are the foundation of our democratic system. Even when the process delivers a leader of questionable choice, but functions without self-interested interference, we are at least left with the confidence the system is still viable.

Whether Paul Davis is also Danny’s man will eventually become clear.

THE TORY LEADERSHIP RACE: IT WON'T BE LONG NOW

For most political parties a leadership contest represents opportunity and renewal.  It is a time not just to listen to voters but to re-connect with them in a way that helps to refurbish frayed nerves and replenish lost hope. 

For some, such competitions are only about policy; a candidate must be perceived an agent of change. Sometimes, it will suffice that the message is believable; the candidate is straightforward and his intentions are simple and clear.

For others, leadership contests are about giving men and women, who have already completed modest missions, a larger stage and to see which of them will shine.

Because each of us has different expectations and recognizes different qualities in the same person, such democratic competition assumes a respectful, even hopeful, multi-dimensional character. 

At the end of it all, each of us want to see contenders who have invested everything in their personal pursuit of high public office; to exhibit the wear and tear of a warrior, the exhaustion of one who has laid bare not just their body but also their intellect and their very soul. 

Even if they are not loved, the hope is they have, at least, engendered respect; a foundation of goodwill on which to build.

When such contests are characterized with such vigor and intelligence, we have reason to believe our democracy is mature, resilient, and progressive even if we chose to vote for the other Party.

Then, there is the reality.

OTTENHEIMER, DAVIS AND KENT: THREE PRINCES OF SERENDIP

Serendipity is a condition understood to be a "fortunate happenstance"; a "pleasant surprise".  In the context of the Tory Leadership Race that means the likelihood the Province will get a suitable Premier, from one of the three contenders, depends essentially on dumb luck. 

Horace Walpole, an English politician and man of Letters who coined the word ‘serendipity’, in 1754, used it to explain an unexpected discovery by referencing a Persian fairy tale ‘The Three Princes of Serendip’. The Princes, he noted, were “always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of”. 

The requirement of a second leadership process is serendipitous by any measure.  Given the weak line-up of new contenders, sensible decisions from the winner might be an unwarranted expectation.

There was a time when one thought serious candidates for high office possessed ‘extraordinary’ talents rather just those of the ’ordinary’ kind.  Serendipitous hope seems an odd substitute for a more certain skill set.