Which portrayal of the province do you prefer: rosy or realistic?

Is the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in better shape than it ever has been with a brighter future ahead than most of us could imagine? Or is the province just holding its own economically with serious financial problems and uncertain prospects despite increased potential revenue from mining and offshore resources?

Your choice may help determine which of the two main political parties will get your vote. Although the campaign has only run one-third of its course, there is a considerable distinction emerging between the two main party leaders as to the current position and future prospects of the province.

Roger Grimes is putting forward the notion that not only is the economic position of the province very strong, but that even better times are just around the corner. He almost sounds as though he’s got Joey Smallwood’s illusory optimism and Brian Peckford’s “have not will be no more” bravado rolled into one.

Danny Williams, perhaps mindful of the budgetary deficits of recent years, is less enthusiastic about the province’s current finances and considerably more cautious about what the future may hold. Each offers a distinctly different approach and each has found support on the campaign trail.

No major glitches

With the opening set-pieces and platform releases now over, the election campaigns have begun in earnest with each of the leaders doing the usual opening of headquarters, knocking on doors, and walk-about greeting events. To this point, all seems to be going according to plan for each of the leaders.

Although both Roger Grimes and Danny Williams have run into a few protesters, there has been nothing so far to compare to the Coalition of Equality which dogged Brian Peckford during the 1985 campaign, the public sector unions which bedeviled Clyde Wells in 1993, or the nurses’ union, whose members beset Brian Tobin at every stop during the 1999 election.

Several groups, ranging from the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association to the public service pensioners, have indicated that they will seek to inject their views into the election campaign, although this has not gone much beyond newspaper advertising so far.

Advertising tacks differ

The media advertising for the two main parties is noticeably different and is, no doubt, based on their perception of how the leaders stand in relation to their parties. Nowhere in the Liberal ads is Roger Grimes’ image or name to be found. In contrast, Danny Williams is front and centre in the Tory ads. One local candidate is even running an ad saying nothing more than “Elect Shawn Skinner: A member of the Danny Williams Team” – no indication of what his qualifications, concerns, or promises might be. It’s just enough, I guess, for the voter to know that he’s Danny’ man.

Another major distinction between the two parties’ newspaper advertising campaigns to date is that the Progressive Conservatives provide a significant amount of their key policies on each focused ad, whereas the Liberals only have pictures, the relevance of which is not always immediately clear, and a short one-sentence synopsis of the relevant policy. One almost gets the impression that the Liberals think the public is too stupid, lazy, or uninterested to “Take a Closer Look” as they advocate.

Although the NDP advertising budget is tiny compared to those of the other parties, the most effective campaign news clip so far was Jack Harris’ low-cost but graphic portrayal of how much auto insurance costs in Newfoundland compared to BC where there is a public auto insurance system.

Incidentally, considering that this is one of the major planks in the NDP platform, it was not surprising that Harris rejected the findings of an Atlantic Premiers’ task force report which found only minimal benefits in a public auto insurance plan for the region.

Priming for debate

These approaches will be tested in Tuesday evening’s television and radio debate. While Jack Harris is the only one of the leaders who has experience in election debates, neither Grimes nor Williams are strangers to public speaking. In fact, if the debate resembles their performances during Question Period in the House, things could quickly become testy.

Although Harris will likely come across as the best performer, he has the least to gain and the least to lose. Despite getting over eight per cent of the popular vote in the last election, and despite having the most distinct platform, the NDP is unlikely to make major gains in this election and will be lucky to hold onto their two existing seats.

The debate will be a make or break opportunity for Roger Grimes. For whatever reason, people seem to be less than enthusiastic about his public personality and he has never appeared entirely comfortable in the role of premier. If he does better than expected, then he may be able to recover a bit of lost ground; but if he does poorly or becomes nasty, there will be little the Liberals can do in the remaining two weeks of the campaign to make up any loss.

For Danny Williams, the debate could solidify his commanding lead in public opinion polls. Many viewers and listeners will be watching carefully to judge whether he has the “royal jelly” which his main opponent seems to lack. If he gives a statesmanlike performance and can defend his party’s platform and his vision for Newfoundland and Labrador, then he will be well on his way to becoming the province’s next premier. Even if he falters, given the commanding lead he and his party have in the polls, he should be able to recover by election day.

Since this will be the only chance for voters to see the three party leaders in action together, it will be an interesting evening.

Comment on this commentary

to top