Sue's Blog

Monday, February 26, 2007

There's only one way to vote in Lab West

What an opportunity to demonstrate democracy in a real way. A vote for the Labrador Party does two things - one it tells all three parties that people are not satisfied with the spending scandal in the House of Assembly - including the passage of prohibitive legislation - barring the Auditor General (unless invited) as well as pay and allowance increases on a regular basis.

You see if the Telegram story - Behind Closed Doors - does not make you mad - very mad - these guys and gals will be encourages to continue the same pattern.

The second and more important reason to vote for the Labrador Party is the need for Newfoundlanders - more particularly in St. John's - to be educated on the importance of Labrador and the real value of that region. We need to hear about the lack of investment over the decades - and the cost of that negligence to all of us. Infrastructure that could have attracted major industry to Labrador - such as a proper highway and enhanced rail services.

The future is in Labrador and all of us need to understand what a great potential and opportunity that is.

Now is the time to send a real message for both democracy and for Labrador on behalf of us all.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

A vote for the Labrador Party is most importantly a vote for a new voice, a new approach, a new way forward and in Ron Barron a vote for a good representative. A vote for the old tired partys is a vote for the status quo, for the continued backwards approach of the present and past governments. At the very least Labradorians can voice their disapproval to this backwards approach. How come it doesn't occur to everyone that what is good for Labrador cannot fail to be good for 'the Province'?
We will all hear that you must belong to a major party, preferrably the governing party. Two things to say about that: Was Randy Collins of the governing party? And was he not a good MHA?Most importantly - What in the world has that ever gotten us here in Labrador. Prior to the 2003 election we had THREE, that is 3 MHAs and no less than Two, that is 2 cabinet ministers. What was the gain? Think about it. Add that to Sue's observations and really really think about it.

Lloyd

Anonymous said...

No one wishes more than I that Mr. Barron will win this seat in Labrador. However, it's a huge load to place on the shoulders of one individual since he will, at least for the time being, be the lone representative of an alternative to the status quo. This, in my opinion, is where the emphasis ought to be, rather than just on resource development.

There is a desperate , desperate need for some alternative to the effete, corrupt and presumptuous political establishment - the old Parties - that assume the exclusive right to rule and of being entitled to their entitlement. In this respect this by-election In Labrador West is just as important to the island portion of the province as it is to Labrador. Mr. Barron's victory would provide some glimmer of hope - some straw to grasp - in what are arguably the darkest and most shameful days in our political history..

Anonymous said...

I am not sure that I support Sue's contention on this one. If I were in Labrador West I would be voting New Democrat. The Liberals and the PC's are to blame for this mess at IEC. The New Democrats would be th eonly party dominated by rookie members untouched by the scandal.

A vote for the NDP is not a vote for the status quo, although a vote against the NDP is a death sentence for the struggling third party.

Randy Collins was effective because he was part of a parliamentary group that was recognized in question period, had funding for research and office space. Voting to destroy the NDP will only result in one less vice in the House Of Assembly and leaving the job of opposition to the Liberals who do not seem to have the knack for it.

The New Democrat candidate has a strong history of effectively representing the issues that matter to the people of Labrador West. He was a good mayor and will make a great contribution to Labrador as a member of the House Of Assembly.

The future of democracy in this province is what is on the line in this election. Parking your vote with any one other than the NDP could have the result of sending a liberal or PC to the House Of Assembly. IS that what you want to do.

A vote for the Labrador Party in this election will not send much of a signal to St. John's bu it could seriously wound the NDP

Cheers

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

I can see your point of view but I remain unconvinced. It is not the responsibility of Labrador to keep the NDP going and there is that same old Federal Connection.
All parties sat in the House of Assembly during the votes for more money for themselves - and all participated in booting the AG out. Notwithstanding this it is time some new political blood came to the table and increase from our typical 2 1/2 party system.
We need to make some headway in Labrador - the NDP could have made some moves in the last 4 by-elections. I remain supportive of the Labrador Party. I also cannot condone not giving the right person the vote to prevent somebody else getting in.

Anonymous said...

Sue - When are you going to offer yourself for political life?

I think you would be great on the Federal scene. Why not go for it when the next Federal Seat comes vacant. I can't think of anyone I would rather see representing us than you, either provincially or federally. You, Sue, have been strutting your good stuff for so long, it is time that you were paid for it. You are a provincial asset in my eyes.

Anonymous said...

Re: When are you going to offer yourself for political life?

Dear Sue did that and realized that her points of view only resonated with those that picked up the phone to chat with Bill.
Sue's constituency would not be enough to fill a Tim Horton's......and this is what makes democracy a wonderful thing. Our electorate is way too inteligent to ever elect Sue to any position that espouses and represents the views of people who know the difference

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

That would be intelligent - right?

Anonymous said...

A couple of things. First of all to the idiot anonymous poster who stoops to personal insults and hides their name. Sue makes a good contribution to public debate in this province. There is no need for the personal insults. Your a little person and a coward!

Now back to Sue's response to my advocating for the NDPin Lab West. Sue your facts are somewhat confused on the role of the NDP and thier role as a party in much of this AG issue.

Fact # 1....Sue you know, as evidenced in previous posts on the composition of the IEC, that the ew Democratic Party is not a member of the IEC. As a result they were neither consulted or part of the discussion to prevent the AG from looking into the books of the House Of Assembly.

Fact #2......Sue you know that when Marshall was AG and called on MHA's to allow her into the House it was only Jack Harris who released his expenditures showing a commitment to transparency.

Fact #3.....The NDP were given a office budget of $100,000 for the first time. This was long over due and in no way something that should not have been provided to a major political party in the House Of Assembly.

Fact #4....2 and 1/2 parties is incorrect. We now have three viable parties in the House Of Assembly. With two members the NDP have a special status that provides them with a designated block of time in question period, the ability to introduce Privatew members resolutions and responbd to ministerial statements.

Fact #5....A Labrador Party candidate in Lab West would equate to two dominant parties....and two independents. The NDP would slip back to independent status as would the Labrador Party rep. This means no guaranteed ability to participate in Question period, no automatic ability to reply to ministers statements and no ability to introduce opposition private members bills unless the individual (as opposed to a parliamentary body) is given leave which needs unanimous consent. I remember the days when John effort would refuse to grant leave to the lone NDP member Jack Harris to speak

#6, Voting for the Labrador Party a this juncture is ensuring Labrador West has a muted voice in the House Of Assembly unless the speaker (a tory) feels like recognizing an individual with no caucus.

I certainly understand your points but think the Labrador Party should get prepared for the fall election.

If they can organize and win 2 or three seats in Labrador they will have the resources and credibility to advocate a Labrador Agenda. A win right now I fear will damage democracy and open discussion more than hurt in. Particularly in the case of the NDP candidate who has a very good track record in articulating the issues of Labrador West.

Thats said neither you or I are in much of a position to influence the outcome of the election. However the meddling by some in St. john's sure made a mess of the Liberal Candidates chance of success.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter W

re:There is no need for the personal insults.

Please let me know where I have personally insulted Sue in my comments?
I passed comment that Sue does not have a constituency to fill a Tim Horton's and that her views are espoused by a majority of open liners..... There was no personal attack just a reference that you will hear in the to and fro of commentary.
By the way, is a "Peter W" worthy of identifing someone who is not anonymous??
Also I find wonderful irony in your poignent comment..."neither you or I are in much of a position to influence the outcome of the election"....You are absolutely right and I rest my case.

signed; Alice W

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

Alice - why are you here?
People with your agenda do not bother with people who have no constituency.
Deliver the proof.

You stick your name out there and see who has what constituency.

As for the irony you see - there is one irony better than that one - and you know what that is.

Your commentary is full of suggestions on developing natural resources or your feelings on the spending scandal or your position on healthcare - interprovincial trade - the value of wave energy versus wind etc. etc.

Your commentary is designed to take up other peoples time with silly personal banter - which you could host on your own blog. This is the last bit of energy I will waste on your "input". Your interest is not Newfoundland and Labrador - it is to score points with your hockey team so the coach will pat you on the back for a good job.

Anonymous said...

There is not one in this country today who is so aware of what has happened to Newfoundland and Labrador and its resources than Sue Kelland Dyer. I would welcome her as my MHA or MP any day. Go for it Sue!

Sue displays her intelligence, and her love for her province every day of the week through her research and sharing all of her knowledge with us in this blog. All of that and she doesn't get paid for doing so. I cannot think of anyone else out there with that type of brain power and dedication who even comes close to doing that for their province or their country.

You have already done more for your province Sue by advising our people of what has gone on in the political arena, what is going on in our political arena and what is due to come down the chute than all of the politicians who have gone through the system, and who are going through the system presently. Long live your voice and a great big thank you from the bottom of my heart.

TO: Anon of February 27, 2007 8:50 AM

What have you done for for province, other than lobbying against it with the rest of Canadians.

Anonymous said...

“We need to hear about the lack of investment over the decades - and the cost of that negligence to all of us. Infrastructure that could have attracted major industry to Labrador - such as a proper highway and enhanced rail services.” --Sue

Yes, Sue and Lloyd, Ron is the man for Labrador. Much like Randy Collins without the baggage.

You are indeed a smart lady. One of the few people on the rock who recognizes the value of Labrador and how it has been mostly ignored by island parties since 1949, to their detriment, I might add.

Now, the highway or lack of a highway is one of my pet peeves. Maybe because I worked on the section between Happy Valley Goose Bay and Churchill Falls in 1967 when I first came to this BigLand from the island. Back then all the talk at work was that, this is just a tote road; Joey intends to build a proper highway so many hundred yards from this one, straight through Labrador. Wow! What a dream. Here we are some forty years later and still no highway. Why does it take over forty years to build a 500km highway between major towns in Labrador? Does it take 40 years to do it in Newfoundland? Now, we are not talking about towns in Labrador without industries. Take Labrador City and the company that supports it, IOCC That company puts $1 million dollars a day into the economy of Labrador City and nearby Wabush, not to mention what Wabush Mines puts into these towns, no small change for sure.

An open-line show host once told me. Why should Labrador get infrastructure such as a proper highway system, it has a small population? That kinda pissed me off and I said, “I’m sick of hearing that. What have our so called small population got to do with it?
It’s like an old man and his wife having a run down old house, gravel driveway, a beat up old car but they have a gold mine in their backyard. Their neighbors next door, which includes a couple kids, have a fancy home, fancy driveway, four new cars, almost everything that money can buy and it all came from the gold in the old folks backyard. The neighbors got all the benefits because of their larger family.” The open-line host said, “that is pretty simplistic, isn’t it?” I said, maybe, but why does it have to be complicated? Labrador has the gold (valuable resources); attach something to it, like highways, water and sewer and low cost hydro for coastal communities etc... Adjacency should mean a lot when it comes to an area’s resources, weather the area is in Labrador or Newfoundland or Tim-buck-two.

If I had the power of the Williams government I would turn things around swiftly. I would draw up a new plan for the BigLand. That plan would include industries built right here; not industries divided, partly on the island and partly in Labrador like the failed Linerboard operation. Sure! We wouldn’t even have to build a Nuclear Power Plant like Ontario to drive them. I would search for large companies to come here and offer them incentives such as cheep electrical power for high employment. I wouldn’t do what a former provincial government of this province did when Alcoa Aluminum wanted to set up a factory here. The late Ben Michelle once said that they had an agreement with that Aluminum company but our provincial government placed such high demands on Alcoa that there was no way they could accept their deal. The province wanted part of this industry put in Newfoundland. Ben said that he walked out; he couldn’t take any more of it. That industry went to Quebec, probably using our hydro power. Ben also said, “We are dealing with the wrong people, we should be dealing with the corporate world, not government.” I can see where Ben was coming from. Governments are mainly interested in getting elected again, short term gain, not future employment for our people. They would rather see them go to other provinces for work.

When will we ever learn?

The last one out close the door.