Kevin Yates

It appears that the NDP leadership is quickly turning into a one-person race. While this isn't entirely true, Mandryk wants you to believe that Lingenfelter is the only choice to beat Brad Wall, and that his only obstacle is an unforgiving membership.

And so enters Kevin Yates. Kevin's always been kind of a buffoon: he's loud, self-important, and tends to exaggerate. A lot. But he's well-liked in his constituency, and his head's usually in the right place, so he's been tolerable. Now we hear Mr. Yates piping up about his involvement in Link's campaign: he talks about what Link's requirements were before he'd come back to the province, speculates on how many caucus members support Lingenfelter's leadership bid, and suggests that other potential candidates will bow out now that a concensus is forming.

But the best bit in this article is how Kevin comes clean about an attempted coup he organized in 2006, to try and oust Calvert as leader. And how 14 members of caucus supported a leadership change, but in the end, he was the only one with the balls to demand it. And how unrepentant he is about it all.

Kevin Yates: have you lost your tiny little mind? Session starts today, you ass, and nothing says "effective opposition" like a splintered caucus. In case you were too dumb to realize this, Link hasn't been elected and you still have to work with Calvert. This wasn't an act of principle, Kevin -- it was mutiny. In one act you've shown everyone that you're not only a liar, but you can't be trusted. If it were me I'd kick you out of caucus immediately and make you sit as an independent.

And if I were Link, I'd distance myself from your sorry ass as soon as possible.

Mandryk Sees the Light

Murray -- God bless him -- is less than kind in his assessment of Wall's decision to drop the equalization challenge:

Simply put, Wall and his government have allowed themselves to be bullied by Harper. The big brother has taken the little brother's allowance, threatening him bodily harm if he dares tell mom.

And Wall's determination to keep big brother happy instead of looking out for Saskatchewan people's interests is deplorable on several counts.

First, it simply rewards bad behaviour. It might not be the Saskatchewan Party's role to enforce political ethics, but make no mistake that Wall is not only allowing the federal Conservatives to get away with a broken promise. Far worse, the Saskatchewan Party is not only shilling for its federal big brother, but also engaging in a little deceit of its own.
(Leader-Post, July 12/08)

Murray goes on to say that we're owed $3 billion since the Conservatives originally made this promise in 2004, and that we'd fools if we believe anything other than Saskatchewan's equalization money -- promised to us by the feds -- is going to flow into Ontario and Quebec so the Conservatives can shore up more seats in the next election.

This is our payment for electing 13 Conservative MPs: use our money to buy votes where it matters.

How does this differ from the Liberals and their "Green Shift"? Or, right: it doesn't. Saskatchewan has lots of money but few votes, so now both the Liberals and the Conservatives are going to suck one away from us and put it where they can get the other. We've been sold out by two parties, neither of whom cares how many seats they get from this backwater landfill, so long as they get our money.

This is sickening and deplorable -- politics at its worst. My province deserves better than this.

More Arrogance Than Action

In last Saturday's column, Mandryk writes about the current animosity in the legislature. Now to be fair, he does give a pretty solid assessment of the current state of affairs:

The source of this problem at the Saskatchewan legislature appears to be the perfect cross-section of arrogance and entitlement from each side. We're witnessing a daily orgy of self-proclaimed intellectual superiority that's accomplishing nothing other than a lot of bad Opposition scrutiny and a lot of bad governance.

I haven't really complained here too much about the NDP's lack of direction in opposition, but they do need to get their act together. Where are the questions about equalization? Where are the questions about Privatize Saskatchewan? Or the environment? Or housing? Or Station 20? Does anyone remember "patient of the day"? It's time for our Opposition to feed the government some of its own medicine.

As for the bad governance, well, I think I've made opinion pretty clear about that. It's as though the Saskies have no idea about what governing means. Even so far as day-to-day legislative procedure -- do they have any clue? Have they been involved in this process at all in the last four years? Are they going to grow up and stop acting like a bunch of 16-year-olds whose parents are out of town and have left the lock off the liquor cabinet? This is a party that existed only to seize government, and the evidence is plain: they knew how to run a campaign, but they don't know what to do now that they're in the big chairs.

But I do think Mandryk dropped the ball by suggesting only the NDP believes the voters got it wrong last fall.

Well I hate to break it to you, Murray, but the voters did get it wrong last fall. I think we saw pretty clearly that Saskatchewan voters wanted a change of government -- for whatever reason -- but they weren't entirely convinced that the Saskies deserved a majority. I had people ask me how minority governments work last fall -- people who ought to know better. So I don't think a lot of voters knew that you couldn't have a minority government in a two-party system, and with the Liberals pretty much a non-issue, that meant a Saskie majority.

If anything, this should point to the need for civics classes in every Saskatchewan high school, as well as public forums prior to elections that explain how government works. And with their apparent ignorance about governing, it would probably help to put the Saskie MLAs through these classes too.

Edit: Fixed formatting and a typo.

A Rocky Path

Mandryk's column today dumps a number of Sask Party skeletons from their closets. Or more appropriately, from the "Hidden Agenda" vault they left when vacating their offices:

After all, if labour money can buy off the NDP, why wouldn't we assume that the Saskatchewan Party's $668,016 in corporate donations has influenced its policies? Wouldn't we also assume that the tens of thousands of dollars the Saskatchewan Party has received over the years from implement manufacturers (who demanded changes to the union certification laws) or from former media baron Conrad Black (who loved to crush unions) is the driving force behind Bills 5 and 6?
(Leader-Post - April 18, 2008)

Good questions, Murray. Thanks for pointing this out. And thanks for going further and speculating about oil royalty rates and Big Mouth Billy Bass. Your dig at the CFIB falls a little flat, though, because while the budget doesn't really address property taxes, Wall's one-eighty on municipal funding could be tied to this very issue. His change of mind was so abrupt that it even took Hutch, the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, by surprise. The CFIB, meanwhile, are too busy swooning not over the budget, but over the Premier they have in their pocket.

But for me, the best part about this column wasn't the blunt message to Tim McMillan that he should just shut the hell up and return to his job of warming the backbench, or Mandryk noting that the Sask Party took in two-and-a-half times the NDP's union donations from their corporate pals, or even the not-so-subtle reminder that the Kathy Youngs (and the Tom Lukiwskis) of the world don't change their stripes. Instead, it was the following:

Here's a simple solution to the Saskatchewan Party government's concerns over the undue influence union donations are having on the NDP: ban donations from all unions and corporations.

Indeed, some forward-thinking New Democrats raised this very issue at convention. It was voted down, of course, because people get stuck in their ways, and worried about cash flows, and can't see the big picture. But some of us -- Mandryk included, apparently -- want to see a democracy run by the people -- not by businesses, and not by organizations. The shift will be another rocky path, but with enough people on side it won't be too hard to clear the stones.

Edit: Fixed typos.

Mandryk Drops the Bomb

In today's column, Mandryk sounds like he's almost as pissed off about equalization as I am. Which is awesome, because it's moved him to expose the elephant in the room: Harper now has a lot of control over our provincial government. First he gets Wall to drop the equalization challenge (which Cathie from Canada has more on), then he gets him to support tying the $1 billion trust fund to the next federal budget, and now he's got the whole government doing backflips over this paltry $36 million payout.

I don't know why Wall finds himself so deep in Harper's pocket. Danny Williams certainly doesn't have any trouble speaking up.

And while I'm at it, I'm sick to death of Wall trotting out his pet line of turning this current boom into a lasting prosperity. You what would help with that, Brad? $800 million a year.