Gnarley’s Theory of Political Devolution

Ring… Ring .. Ring…

I am a morning person. I enjoy the solitude.  The 2-3 hours before 8:00 is when I get my
day’s work done.  It is odd to be
interrupted before the sun rises. 


Ring… Ring… Ring…

 So who would be calling me at this hour? I picked up
the phone.

 “Nav… it is good to see that your work ethic is
as good as ever.  I am coming into town
for the day.  Are you up for lunch”

It was odd for my old friend, Uncle Gnarley, to pay a
visit during the week.  But it was an
offer I could not resist. 

“Uncle Gnarley, it sounds like a capital idea,
except I am up at the University for the day, for a training course, on

Well, then I will meet you at Papa’s in
Churchill Square.  I am in the mood for
some Italian cooking.  I expect that you
will be both hungry and feeling a little impotent, considering the subject of
your course”.


To not acknowledge the soft jab lobbed by my old
friend, I simply replied “Very well then, let’s aim for 12:00”

It was five hours later when I walked into the
restaurant.  It was quite even for a Monday.  To be honest it was a relief.  As my friend was was now on the list of “Known Critics”
being seen with him, anywhere other than down the
shore, was potentially career ending.  I
discretely took the table in the corner. 

It was five minutes later the old economist entered
the restaurant.  A book was lodged under
his arm. 

“Hello, Nav… I must say you do look a little
more like management material since the last time we met.  But, do not let that compliment go to your
head.  You certainly have much to learn
in your area of today’s study.  Do you
want a drink?”

“No, Uncle Gnarley, I have to be on peak
performance, this afternoon”

The old man looked despot, clearly not pleased that he
would be solo for the afternoon’s session. 
The waitress came up and asked for our drink order.

 “We are just tea toter’s this afternoon.  My friend here will have sparkling water, and
I will have a virgin scotch on the rocks”.

Uncle Gnarley sensed the confusion in her eyes and
said “Just neat, please”.

With a look of great interest, he then asked,
“Well, Nav, I am intrigued about this leadership course you are on.  Not purely for what this course would
include, but why the hell would you be on it? 
You are not exactly the alpha male of the group, now are you”? more
a statement, perhaps, than a question. 
His usual grin was difficult, as always, to interpret.

“Well, Uncle Gnarley, leadership training is a
key element of any successful organization. 
It is all part of the succession planning.  The what if a bus hits the boss type of
analysis.  In today’s labour market it is
all about developing your talent, and planning for the future.  Leadership training is a critical part of

Uncle Gnarley muttered to himself, “I think it is
time I sell the shares in your company, Nav.”

“But, in all seriousness, I am intrigued about
this concept of leadership training and succession planning.  It does make sense.  Back in business school, we used to say that
it took two generations to build a business, and the third generation to ruin
one.  When leadership is determined by
who you know, and nepotism, rather than competency, you have a problem.  One just has to look at the current
Government to see that.”

With that last statement, my old friend had earned his
lunch.  He had my interest peaked.  I had to ask, “What do you mean by that,

the departure of Williams the PC party had a coronation of Dunderdale. One by
one the internal challengers stepped aside. The only external challenger was deemed
inappropriate and excluded by a technicality. 
Now, only two years later, the anointed one looks to be, what the
pundits refer to, as a lame duck premier.

In any other Westminster democracy the cabinet would
be nervous, in these precarious times, and whispers of revolt would be heard in
the halls of parliament.  However, after ten
years of PC government there is no clear heir to Dunderdale.  Their talent pool is a mile wide and an inch

Armed with the results of this morning’s effective
listening lecture, I prodded my old friend, “Why do you think it is like
this Uncle Gnarley”?

“Nav… it is simple.  The current crop of politicians eat their
best and brightest.  Their survival seems
threatened by any upstart.  Under
William’s tenure, there was some relatively good talent which was forced out of
the caucus.  Elizabeth Marshall, Loyola
Sullivan, Tom Rideout, Trevor Taylor, Paul Shelly, and even the old Senator
Fabian Manning, all left the nest.  Each
of these people would be potential replacements for Dunderdale.  Several of them could have potentially been
solid performers.

Neither Williams nor Dunderdale have been successful,
or interested, in recruiting new talent into the House of Assembly.  It is a dangerous place in which that the PC Party
find themselves.  But, it is also a
dangerous place for the Province, as well. 
A weak leader to be potentially replaced by an even weaker one!”

Uncle Gnarley was clearly building a great head of
steam.  His hand was already up to
request his second virgin scotch.  As
always, I was impressed by my friend’s insight. 
I thought of Smallwood recruiting Wells, Crosbie, and Roberts into the
caucus. Strong persons of character; all were promised a chance to replace the
old leader himself.  Although, they
eventually contributed to his downfall, it would have been different if
Smallwood had gotten out when he should have. 
Would it be different if Crosbie had won that infamous leadership

“Well, Uncle Gnarley, how does the system have to

 “Nav…  the
more I think about how the Westminster parliamentary system has evolved, in
Canada, I draw the conclusion that it has contributed partially to this
leadership void in Newfoundland and Labrador. 
It has to do with the centralization of power in the Premier’s office,
and the general weakening of cabinet. 
The politician’s progression, through an empowered cabinet, is meant to
groom and weed out potential successors. 
It is vital to succession planning and leadership development.”

Every now and again the cantankerous old economist
would surprise me with one of his profound statements. The jury was still
deliberating on this one.  “Uncle
Gnarley, can you please explain to me the difference, in Canada, compared to
say… Britain?”

“You see, in Canada, once a leader is elected leader
of a party it is very difficult to replace him or her. For the Conservative Party in Canada a non confidence vote for the leader requires 50% of the general
party, at an annual conference.

But, in the old country, the members of parliament
still maintain traditional levels of power, when it comes to non-confidence
votes, in their leader.  For the Conservative Party, in Britain, it takes 15% of MP’s to trigger a non
confidence vote, with 50% of the sitting MP’s required to overturn a

In Britain, there can be a non confidence vote at any
time, and without losing the 
government.  Leaders’ longevity is,
therefore, dependent upon their ability to find consensus amongst the cabinet,
and indeed, the entire caucus.  But, most
importantly, a leader’s survival is dependent upon respecting the principals
and powers of cabinet. In Britain, the leader cannot ignore the caucus to the
same extent that Canadian leaders can.”

With that Uncle Gnarley sat back and smiled.  “You know, Nav, I think the British system also
maintains a healthy balance of power in times when the Government maintains a
very one sided majority.  Take for
example the Blair majority of 1997.  Tony
Blair enjoyed a strong majority for his labour government.  Much like in Newfoundland, the opposition was
divided into two weak parties, with limited resources.  In this case, the natural check to Blair was
not the opposition, rather it was his Finance Minister Gordon Brown.  The unhealthy state of competition in the
House of Commons was replaced by the healthy opposition within the Labour Party
itself.  It provided the checks and
balances required for democracy to function!

Now no matter how much Blair may have wanted to ignore
Mr. Brown he could not.  Brown had a
great following within the Labour Party; one large enough to trigger an
embarrassing non-confidence vote.”

Now, this theory presented by the old economist, did
seem to have merit.  But, it was still
too abstract for me to fully digest. 
Although it meant I would likely miss the first part of my afternoon’s
class, I asked the question, “How does this relate to Newfoundland

“Nav… it should be obvious to even the most
casual observer.  In Newfoundland, we subscribe to the ‘saviour’ complex.

A strong leader, who runs a tight ship, can easily
preside over a Cabinet with little power. 
They can be largely ignored.  It
is difficult for a party to oust a leader, even harder for the discontented Members
of the House of Assembly.  Instead, they
must follow the leader in the hope of getting a cabinet, or parliamentary
secretary posting.  The checks and
balances, provided within the party itself, are not effective”

With that, Gnarley paused to collect his
thoughts.  He seemed to have his own
moment of enlightenment.

“You see, Nav, if the MHA’s and Cabinet had more
influence and were capable of
ousting a leader, they would naturally be shown more
respect by that same leader.  This would
help in what you refer to as succession planning and leadership
development.  But, it would also allow
more critical review of government policy”.

It was as if the last six months of conversation were
about to converge. 

“In the British model a piece of public policy,
as unsound and divisive as Muskrat Falls, would never have happened.  The leader could not ignore the democratic
process to the same extent as could Dunderdale. 
Even with weak opposition parties, ambition and competence within the
front bench of a Government, armed with the power of a non confidence motion in
the leader, would have lead to a change in the plan; final consensus would have
been reached.”

Gnarley was in fine form and I was intrigued to hear
more,  “Uncle Gnarley, what would
have consensus looked like in this scenario?”

“Well, Nav… 
I do not want to sound arrogant when I say that consensus would have
likely resembled our modest proposal.

 Any reasonable political challenge of the Muskrat
Falls plan would have resulted in a staged development.  Meeting our current energy shortfalls, but
waiting until the current boom of resource projects were completed before
building the dam.  It was so  obvious a solution, that it could not have
been be ignored by any group of insightful and objective politicians. 

This modest proposal alone would have likely reduced
the $1.6 billion deficit, in 2013, by hundreds of millions.  It would have lead to both a stronger balance
sheet for the Province, and resulted in stronger polling for the PC

With that conclusion, Gnarley took a strong
drink.  “Nav… when you eat your
young, your lineage will eventually die.”

In response, I raised my hand and ordered two virgin
scotches on the rocks.  My old friend was
a more effective a teacher than any academic. 


 Editor’s Note: This Post was written by “JM”, the anonymous reseacher, writer and
presenter, to the PUB and in local Blogs, on the Muskrat Falls Project. JM has written a
number of earlier Uncle Gnarley pieces, including, most recently,   “The Great Revolutionary From the Shore”.  His latest Paper is entitled: Muskrat Falls Revenue Stream: Fact or Fiction  – Des Sullivan


If a Big Mac costs McDonalds $10 to produce and it is sold for $1.50, McDonalds will go out of business. They would not declare a profit!


Bill left public life shortly after the signing of the Atlantic Accord and became a member of the Court of Appeal until his retirement in 2003. During his time on the court he was involved in a number of successful appeals which overturned wrongful convictions, for which he was recognized by Innocence Canada. Bill had a special place in his heart for the underdog.

Churchill Falls Explainer (Coles Notes version)

If CFLCo is required to maximize its profit, then CFLCo should sell its electricity to the highest bidder(s) on the most advantageous terms available.