Since 2006 Sue's Blog has been warning through posts about the disastrous Muskrat Falls project.
Bits and pieces of the Inquiry refer to critics of the project - not being experts.
Let's take that at face value and reflect upon the experts.
Clearly the highly paid experts were wrong in many areas of assessment. Clearly they failed initially to project and overcome engineering and design difficulties regarding the site. Clearly the project is a failure on every measurable level.
Miraculously the non-experts were right in many areas of assessment. Miraculously the non-experts did not miss the peculiarities of the site engineering. Miraculously they were successful in assessing the Muskrat Falls deal was horrific.
Now the other non-experts (politicians) were clearly incapable of understanding what the experts were concluding. They were clearly unable to see the massive flaws in the deal and the engineering. They were clearly non-experts listening to paid experts -most of whom will not likely suffer from this boondoggle.
For what use is an expert - if the person acting on an "experts" advice would not be independently be able to see the potential flaws? What's worse - the politicians refused to listen to critics - ignored or worse subjected the non-experts to terms such as partisans, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists.
There were opportunities to engage the citizenry but they were not afforded.
Citizen groups should have been provided funding throughout the processes from conception to sanction. This funding could have provided the non-expert politicians with real concerns, real hazards, and real findings from the non-expert citizenry.
Further this size of a deal should have gone through a referendum process where - the citizen non-experts were given the opportunity to promote and educate regarding their points of view and real concerns.
You see if the non-expert politicians felt expert enough to make the legislative commitment - they should have allowed the non-expert citizenry a real opportunity to be heard.
None of the politicians did this. No political party did this.
Declining population, increasing efficiencies in housing and appliances, closure of two mills, numerous fish plants, schools, clinics etc are examples of reasonable considerations to determine future power supply requirements.
Muskrat Falls versus the entire Lower Churchill or even Gull Island begged the question why choose Muskrat.
Emera owning ANY part of our domestic distribution system is illogical and not to our benefit. It will increase prices.
Dealing with Emera - a company that could be the subject of a hostile or welcome takeover - particularly when Hydro-Quebec is the touted enemy - and could easily consume Emera minus Nova Scotia Power - was a poor choice.
The critical removal of alternate energy sources into the future was naive at best and corrupt at worst.
The engineering challenges - poorly thought out, considered, or even dealt with was another red flag for a layman.
The power needs of Labrador - routinely and as is usual dismissed including but not limited to plugging an industry of substance into the new supply - another red flag.
The continued interference with the Public Utilities Board - when they are the stop gap for consumers - yet another red flag.
Budgets that were routinely over - became the norm - raising another red flag.
The lack of knowledge of many MHA's regarding the history of the hydro-potentials in Labrador was and continues to be a very disturbing situation.
The obvious angst of indigenous peoples despite the approval by some of their leaders should have been addressed.
This is but a short list of how a citizen could have been and some citizens were very concerned about this failed project.
The decision by Dwight Ball and the Liberal government to push through the remainder of the project without thorough analysis and public input into other options - just continued the madness that is Muskrat.
The Inquiry is a political decision to thwart anger of consumers and taxpayers away from the current government and will do nothing to demonstrate the mess that occurred after they took office.
The EXperts they say? Funny how the naysayers, conspiracy theorists, partisan hacks, and all other names given to critics of the project - were miraculously right.
As I write today the folly continues and we are made to look more the fools than we already are.
Showing posts with label Lower Churchill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lower Churchill. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
McLeod does Marx - Das Kleptocracy
Telegram employee James McLeod has come out with a challenge - wait no - more than a challenge - an ultimatum "..put up, or shut up".
Yes the "reporter" who appears to have a similar love-hate relationship with Tweeters to that of one Mr. Trump - has determined what our real problem is.
All "serious, credible.." people need to step up and run for political office. They need to give up their "...paycheque, your own reputation, your own comfortable lifestyle" and throw their hat in the ring. If they do not - McLeod demands they be honest and go away out of it.
First of all the "people" James talks about as credible - are as determined by him. They are people who have a paycheck apparently a comfortable one and a "reputation" - supposedly good. There are many of them according to our newspaper sleuth - he's talked to dozens.
Then there is this jewel: "There are other reasons to stay on the sidelines, too: the demands of an unsympathetic press corps, ..."
1. the demands of an unsympathetic press corps
There was a break in my writing here - my belly was hurting from laughter.
Which definition of unsympathetic is James using?
a) not feeling, showing, or expressing sympathy
Can't be that one. I would suggest that rightly most express sympathy when a politician has a family or life event of tragedy.
b) not showing approval or favor toward an idea or action
Maybe that one - in which case I would say the majority of media have been very sympathetic both of Muskrat Falls and the current fiasco of a Public Inquiry - as the project continues to motor on.
c) not friendly or cooperative; unlikable
Maybe this one - but again the opposite is true. Many of our "reporters" "journalists" "columnists" and "announcers" are very cooperative and friendly to politicians. They have actually fawned over many of them - like Danny, Tom, Danny, the other Brian, Danny.
The "unsympathetic press corps" he speaks of does not exist in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well no - that's not true - they are a very unsympathetic press corps to critics of the government - critics of Muskrat Falls. Many of them have tried in every way to marginalize such critics and have used words such as partisans, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists. How nasty....
I can assure Mr. McLeod - that many good private citizens - who have given freely of their time, effort, and intelligence to try and persuade a fawning media and public to beware of things like our current Muskrat boondoggle have risked their reputations, their paycheques, their "comfortable" lives and that of their families. The political parties, their trolls, their indoctrinated, their minions have on many occasions joined with or used the media to disparage "good" people.
He concludes this meandering thought by saying "politics is hard". Hard? Hard how? Hard to go to BBQ's in the rain? Hard to pound your hands in the House of Assembly? Hard to vote ignorantly on legislation? Hard to file for your allowances? Hard to keep up with Twitter or to block people from their Twitter accounts? Hard? Hard to make changes to your own pension plans? Hard to walk the streets once every 4 years? Really James - is that what you call hard? Hard is - an announcement like: I have ordered the shutdown of Muskrat Falls until a forensic audit and a review of project engineering is complete. It is really really easy to say - got to finish it now - cause it's almost done.
If you want to do a journalistic piece - I can recommend several.
1. Research and compare the various proposals to develop the Lower Churchill or any part thereof.
2. Research and compare the various hydro projects completed in Newfoundland and Labrador - their costs, engineering, contracts, the generation and associated transmission.
3. How did Danny Williams and Ed Martin pull the wool over media eyes regarding the many excuses for Muskrat Falls.
4. Do a complete expose of political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador and how they control the pool of MHA's and keep good people out.
5. Investigate and report on the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and how Quebec has used/uses Hydro to their advantage while our province watches on the sidelines.
I can ascertain from your articles that you know very little about the real history of Hydro and are therefore unable to ask the questions necessary to get information the public needs. This is true of the majority of your colleagues in the "press corps".
I challenge you and your colleagues to research your topic or stop writing.
I believe having a robust, knowledgeable, and fearless media would go a long way to improving the lot of our province. It might help "good" people feel more comfortable about running.
As for "good" people running. The media of Newfoundland and Labrador chased Danny Williams year after year until he ran. He was promoted without test, he was glorified by the media before "past the overpass" had ever laid eyes on him. He was touted by the media - he was put on a pedestal by the media - before he ever ran. I get the feeling you're gearing up to promote another messiah as perhaps leaked to you by the Liberal Party. The media in Newfoundland and Labrador are famous for creating messiahs and the childlike rumour mills for one millionaire after another.
The media has virtually controlled the sound bites, the desired quotes, and the forum in which "good" people could communicate. The good news is that Twitter, Blogs, and Facebook make communication among citizens much more accessible.
Yes the "reporter" who appears to have a similar love-hate relationship with Tweeters to that of one Mr. Trump - has determined what our real problem is.
All "serious, credible.." people need to step up and run for political office. They need to give up their "...paycheque, your own reputation, your own comfortable lifestyle" and throw their hat in the ring. If they do not - McLeod demands they be honest and go away out of it.
First of all the "people" James talks about as credible - are as determined by him. They are people who have a paycheck apparently a comfortable one and a "reputation" - supposedly good. There are many of them according to our newspaper sleuth - he's talked to dozens.
Then there is this jewel: "There are other reasons to stay on the sidelines, too: the demands of an unsympathetic press corps, ..."
1. the demands of an unsympathetic press corps
There was a break in my writing here - my belly was hurting from laughter.
Which definition of unsympathetic is James using?
a) not feeling, showing, or expressing sympathy
Can't be that one. I would suggest that rightly most express sympathy when a politician has a family or life event of tragedy.
b) not showing approval or favor toward an idea or action
Maybe that one - in which case I would say the majority of media have been very sympathetic both of Muskrat Falls and the current fiasco of a Public Inquiry - as the project continues to motor on.
c) not friendly or cooperative; unlikable
Maybe this one - but again the opposite is true. Many of our "reporters" "journalists" "columnists" and "announcers" are very cooperative and friendly to politicians. They have actually fawned over many of them - like Danny, Tom, Danny, the other Brian, Danny.
The "unsympathetic press corps" he speaks of does not exist in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well no - that's not true - they are a very unsympathetic press corps to critics of the government - critics of Muskrat Falls. Many of them have tried in every way to marginalize such critics and have used words such as partisans, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists. How nasty....
I can assure Mr. McLeod - that many good private citizens - who have given freely of their time, effort, and intelligence to try and persuade a fawning media and public to beware of things like our current Muskrat boondoggle have risked their reputations, their paycheques, their "comfortable" lives and that of their families. The political parties, their trolls, their indoctrinated, their minions have on many occasions joined with or used the media to disparage "good" people.
He concludes this meandering thought by saying "politics is hard". Hard? Hard how? Hard to go to BBQ's in the rain? Hard to pound your hands in the House of Assembly? Hard to vote ignorantly on legislation? Hard to file for your allowances? Hard to keep up with Twitter or to block people from their Twitter accounts? Hard? Hard to make changes to your own pension plans? Hard to walk the streets once every 4 years? Really James - is that what you call hard? Hard is - an announcement like: I have ordered the shutdown of Muskrat Falls until a forensic audit and a review of project engineering is complete. It is really really easy to say - got to finish it now - cause it's almost done.
If you want to do a journalistic piece - I can recommend several.
1. Research and compare the various proposals to develop the Lower Churchill or any part thereof.
2. Research and compare the various hydro projects completed in Newfoundland and Labrador - their costs, engineering, contracts, the generation and associated transmission.
3. How did Danny Williams and Ed Martin pull the wool over media eyes regarding the many excuses for Muskrat Falls.
4. Do a complete expose of political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador and how they control the pool of MHA's and keep good people out.
5. Investigate and report on the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and how Quebec has used/uses Hydro to their advantage while our province watches on the sidelines.
I can ascertain from your articles that you know very little about the real history of Hydro and are therefore unable to ask the questions necessary to get information the public needs. This is true of the majority of your colleagues in the "press corps".
I challenge you and your colleagues to research your topic or stop writing.
I believe having a robust, knowledgeable, and fearless media would go a long way to improving the lot of our province. It might help "good" people feel more comfortable about running.
As for "good" people running. The media of Newfoundland and Labrador chased Danny Williams year after year until he ran. He was promoted without test, he was glorified by the media before "past the overpass" had ever laid eyes on him. He was touted by the media - he was put on a pedestal by the media - before he ever ran. I get the feeling you're gearing up to promote another messiah as perhaps leaked to you by the Liberal Party. The media in Newfoundland and Labrador are famous for creating messiahs and the childlike rumour mills for one millionaire after another.
The media has virtually controlled the sound bites, the desired quotes, and the forum in which "good" people could communicate. The good news is that Twitter, Blogs, and Facebook make communication among citizens much more accessible.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Kudos to Antle and Cochrane - Exercise in Accountability
Rob Antle and Dave Cochrane - two CBC journalists - are to be commended for scratching the surface of PC hypocrisy. Their story today deals with promises made by the Tories in 2003 regarding electoral reform - and the promises broken regarding same. You can read their story HERE.
The bravado and chest-thumping of Danny Williams in 2002-2003 - came with it - promises to do many things differently than the Liberals.
Party leadership contests and the financing of same was absent in legislation and Williams promised to fix it. It did not get fixed.
This is a serious matter - no doubt - but pales in comparison to other promises of change made by then Opposition leader Danny Williams.
These two journalists have begun the process - I hope they continue the probe by reviewing promises on - energy, mining, forestry, and fishery. The people deserve to know - if not by the Tories or Opposition - then by the media - what exactly was promised on natural resource developments.
The information is all there - the only thing missing - the direct questions to the government on why they did not live up to the promises they made.
The commentary on the fishery, the paper mills, the mining sector, and energy was very aggressive and designed to make people believe that we would get more benefits under natural resource development than we would have under the Liberals.
The continued pouncing on the governing Liberals by Williams and rat-pack was specific and aimed toward the ear of the voter.
What should we have expected over the decade that followed 2003? How many long-term jobs from industrial development? How many projects where "construction" was not the objective - but permanent well paying trades positions was the objective?
The Tories have stripped away at the value of resources for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they have ushered in closures of many industrial operations, failed to improve our place in Canada, and squandered billions of our oil revenues.
So hats off to Cochrane and Antle - let's keep the accountability coming.
I do have one small critique - you state that, "This is the party’s first contested leadership race in nearly two decades, and the first chance for the Tories to play by the rules they promised to implement while in opposition."
It's not a contested race yet.
The bravado and chest-thumping of Danny Williams in 2002-2003 - came with it - promises to do many things differently than the Liberals.
Party leadership contests and the financing of same was absent in legislation and Williams promised to fix it. It did not get fixed.
This is a serious matter - no doubt - but pales in comparison to other promises of change made by then Opposition leader Danny Williams.
These two journalists have begun the process - I hope they continue the probe by reviewing promises on - energy, mining, forestry, and fishery. The people deserve to know - if not by the Tories or Opposition - then by the media - what exactly was promised on natural resource developments.
The information is all there - the only thing missing - the direct questions to the government on why they did not live up to the promises they made.
The commentary on the fishery, the paper mills, the mining sector, and energy was very aggressive and designed to make people believe that we would get more benefits under natural resource development than we would have under the Liberals.
The continued pouncing on the governing Liberals by Williams and rat-pack was specific and aimed toward the ear of the voter.
What should we have expected over the decade that followed 2003? How many long-term jobs from industrial development? How many projects where "construction" was not the objective - but permanent well paying trades positions was the objective?
The Tories have stripped away at the value of resources for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they have ushered in closures of many industrial operations, failed to improve our place in Canada, and squandered billions of our oil revenues.
So hats off to Cochrane and Antle - let's keep the accountability coming.
I do have one small critique - you state that, "This is the party’s first contested leadership race in nearly two decades, and the first chance for the Tories to play by the rules they promised to implement while in opposition."
It's not a contested race yet.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Media - Marshall - Muskrat
Let's all go back to 2002/2003 when Danny Williams was the coming of the savior. The Liberals were on their way out and the Tories were in a fit of hyperbole. The local media were chewing it up and spitting it out.
So let's find out if even the basic levels of investigation and balance exists in our current crop of journalists.
How about we get these basic questions answered.
What did the polls look like in March of 2003? Where did the Tories and Liberals sit?
What were the polls on leadership in that same time frame?
When you finish gathering that information - have a look at the House of Assembly Hansard and the statements coming out of the Tory Opposition - including Danny Williams.
From that information - please answer the following:
1. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because of the polls the government had no mandate to carry on?
2. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because Roger Grimes was not an "elected" Premier - he did not have the mandate to strike any resource deals?
3. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues suggest that Grimes and his government were afraid to take such deals to the public in an election?
4. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues hammer on the following points:
a) The findings of the Auditor General with respect to similar issues that AG Terry Paddon is
talking about now
b) The development of the Lower Churchill and Voisey's Bay and the mandate of former
Premier Brian Tobin with respect to any deal - any change of promise or term of a deal
c) The unfunded pension liabilities
d) The deficit and debt
e) the secrecy of the government
The information is all there. Will the media hold them accountable?
How about this - Dunderdale was elected based on a proposed agreement with Emera - the deal changed before sanction - and while their polling tanked. If this was 2003 and Danny Williams was addressing then Premier Roger Grimes - what would have been said?
Well that information is there. The Liberals did not have a mandate to change the terms outlined by former Premier Brian Tobin on Voisey's Bay.
Premier Marshall and his government need to take the changed agreement on Muskrat to the people in the form of a general election. They need to stop proceeding with this project unless they can renew their mandate. More particularly as Danny Williams would have said: Mr. Marshall you are not an elected Premier.
To make matters worse - soon we will have gone through 4 Premiers for one project - to sanction.
So let's find out if even the basic levels of investigation and balance exists in our current crop of journalists.
How about we get these basic questions answered.
What did the polls look like in March of 2003? Where did the Tories and Liberals sit?
What were the polls on leadership in that same time frame?
When you finish gathering that information - have a look at the House of Assembly Hansard and the statements coming out of the Tory Opposition - including Danny Williams.
From that information - please answer the following:
1. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because of the polls the government had no mandate to carry on?
2. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because Roger Grimes was not an "elected" Premier - he did not have the mandate to strike any resource deals?
3. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues suggest that Grimes and his government were afraid to take such deals to the public in an election?
4. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues hammer on the following points:
a) The findings of the Auditor General with respect to similar issues that AG Terry Paddon is
talking about now
b) The development of the Lower Churchill and Voisey's Bay and the mandate of former
Premier Brian Tobin with respect to any deal - any change of promise or term of a deal
c) The unfunded pension liabilities
d) The deficit and debt
e) the secrecy of the government
The information is all there. Will the media hold them accountable?
How about this - Dunderdale was elected based on a proposed agreement with Emera - the deal changed before sanction - and while their polling tanked. If this was 2003 and Danny Williams was addressing then Premier Roger Grimes - what would have been said?
Well that information is there. The Liberals did not have a mandate to change the terms outlined by former Premier Brian Tobin on Voisey's Bay.
Premier Marshall and his government need to take the changed agreement on Muskrat to the people in the form of a general election. They need to stop proceeding with this project unless they can renew their mandate. More particularly as Danny Williams would have said: Mr. Marshall you are not an elected Premier.
To make matters worse - soon we will have gone through 4 Premiers for one project - to sanction.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Danny Williams Flashbacks Energy Flashbacks
How are we doing now? All energy deals? How does Muskrat stack up?
Globe and Mail March 2006
Excerpt
"So let's create some evenness. Let's create some stability."
or how about these gems? Globe and Mail March 2006
'This province has been perceived as a province that's down and out. Well, not any more. We're not used to surpluses, but we better get used to it.'
DANNY WILLIAMS
'We will not burden our grandchildren with the consequence of our own actions.'
LOYOLA SULLIVAN
Globe and Mail March 2006
Excerpt
Not only is Mr. Williams seeking equity in and higher royalties from the Hebron project, he said the province will demand more control and participation in all future energy deals, specifically, a refinery or processing plant to bring jobs and stability to areas outside of St. John's, where unemployment rates are chronically stuck in the double digits.
Mr. Williams doesn't think his demands are unreasonable.
"What I'm saying is: Give us some long-term employment," Mr. Williams said in an interview at his St. John's office. "Then we can have a sustainable industry that is not just boom or bust. Project in, project out."
or how about these gems? Globe and Mail March 2006
'This province has been perceived as a province that's down and out. Well, not any more. We're not used to surpluses, but we better get used to it.'
DANNY WILLIAMS
'We will not burden our grandchildren with the consequence of our own actions.'
LOYOLA SULLIVAN
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Tobin via Williams via MacDonald via Bennett
Any chance Dean MacDonald - the current cheerleader for PC appointee Cathy Bennett - in bid for Liberal leadership - can explain to us the difference in the proposed deal by Roger Grimes for the development of the Lower Churchill and the current fiasco on Muskrat Falls?
Liberal/Tory/Liberal/Tory - they do not possess political ideology that's coherent.
Tobin via Williams via MacDonald via C Bennett - keep control is what it's all about.
So Tobin as Premier who cut a government deal with Williams on Cable Atlantic contract and Williams as Premier who cut a deal with MacDonald on Persona government investment - and are where as it relates to C Bennett?
Force the subject media - let us examine the Grimes proposed deal and this Emera/Nalcor deal. Give the people the details - compare costs, revenues, consumer prices, jobs, recall, and ownership. Dean had a hissy fit as Chair of Hydro under Grimes and stomped off claiming the proposed deal was so bad. Yet his buddy and business chap Williams managed to get him to really like the Emera deal - and now - well he's a Liberal again supporting the PC appointed Chair of Nalcor while they were cutting the PC deal.
This is what they expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to accept. This is how stupid they think we are?
Time to compare.
Liberal/Tory/Liberal/Tory - they do not possess political ideology that's coherent.
Tobin via Williams via MacDonald via C Bennett - keep control is what it's all about.
So Tobin as Premier who cut a government deal with Williams on Cable Atlantic contract and Williams as Premier who cut a deal with MacDonald on Persona government investment - and are where as it relates to C Bennett?
Force the subject media - let us examine the Grimes proposed deal and this Emera/Nalcor deal. Give the people the details - compare costs, revenues, consumer prices, jobs, recall, and ownership. Dean had a hissy fit as Chair of Hydro under Grimes and stomped off claiming the proposed deal was so bad. Yet his buddy and business chap Williams managed to get him to really like the Emera deal - and now - well he's a Liberal again supporting the PC appointed Chair of Nalcor while they were cutting the PC deal.
This is what they expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to accept. This is how stupid they think we are?
Time to compare.
Monday, September 09, 2013
Did Dunderdale meet Quebec Premier Marois for 1 to 1 meeting?
According to a story in the Montreal Gazette:
"In addition to Lac-Mégantic, Marois has a one-on-one meeting planned with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale to discuss hydroelectrical projects in Labrador.
Newfoundland plans to build a $7.6-billion, 824-megawatt hydroelectrical project at Muskrat Falls, downstream from the 5,428-megawatt Churchill Falls dam, operated by Hydro-Québec.
Newfoundland is still bitter about a 1969 agreement giving Churchill Falls power to Hydro-Québec for 0.25 of a cent a kilowatt hour, dropping to 0.20 of a cent a kilowatt hour from 2016 until 2041.
Dunderdale wants to export Muskrat Falls power to New England using undersea transmission lines to Newfoundland and then from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.
At the July meeting of the Council of the Federation in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Marois proposed discussing the situation with Dunderdale at the La Malbaie meeting."
Did this meeting occur? If not - why not? If so what happened?
"In addition to Lac-Mégantic, Marois has a one-on-one meeting planned with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale to discuss hydroelectrical projects in Labrador.
Newfoundland plans to build a $7.6-billion, 824-megawatt hydroelectrical project at Muskrat Falls, downstream from the 5,428-megawatt Churchill Falls dam, operated by Hydro-Québec.
Newfoundland is still bitter about a 1969 agreement giving Churchill Falls power to Hydro-Québec for 0.25 of a cent a kilowatt hour, dropping to 0.20 of a cent a kilowatt hour from 2016 until 2041.
Dunderdale wants to export Muskrat Falls power to New England using undersea transmission lines to Newfoundland and then from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.
At the July meeting of the Council of the Federation in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Marois proposed discussing the situation with Dunderdale at the La Malbaie meeting."
Did this meeting occur? If not - why not? If so what happened?
Friday, July 26, 2013
What was John Ottenheimer talking about?
Okay let's go a step further.
After the signing of the 1999 GWAC agreement between CFLCo - which was refused release by government at the time for: "Commercial agreements such as those among Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, CF(L)Co and Hydro-Quebec are confidential. If released, they could compromise ongoing negotiations between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Quebec related to the Gull Island development. Commercial agreements of this magnitude cannot be negotiated in public."
Then Minister Paul Dicks alluded to John Ottenheimer's concerns which were:
"It is most inaccurate for Mr. Ottenheimer to suggest that the new Shareholders’ Agreement gives control to Hydro-Quebec, "Mr. Dicks said. "If Mr. Ottenheimer had inquired, he would have found out that Hydro-Quebec previously had many of these rights under previous contractual agreements and the laws of the Canadian Business Corporations’ Act. The Shareholders’ Agreement, which was executed in 1999, serves to recognize many of these rights that were already held by Hydro-Quebec."
Oh yes - the entire Tory caucus had issues with this GWAC/Shareholders Agreement. They had issues regarding control of our energy future under this 1999 agreement.
Dicks also said: there is no circumstance where Hydro-Quebec could gain control over CF(L)Co or dilute Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s ownership interest from the current 65.8 per cent.
Yup - that's true but the concern was of management control not actual ownership.
Where have all those concerns gone?
What did Quebec get by providing and additional 2 billion dollars of revenue for our hydro - over the life of the contract? What did they get.
After the signing of the 1999 GWAC agreement between CFLCo - which was refused release by government at the time for: "Commercial agreements such as those among Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, CF(L)Co and Hydro-Quebec are confidential. If released, they could compromise ongoing negotiations between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Quebec related to the Gull Island development. Commercial agreements of this magnitude cannot be negotiated in public."
Then Minister Paul Dicks alluded to John Ottenheimer's concerns which were:
"It is most inaccurate for Mr. Ottenheimer to suggest that the new Shareholders’ Agreement gives control to Hydro-Quebec, "Mr. Dicks said. "If Mr. Ottenheimer had inquired, he would have found out that Hydro-Quebec previously had many of these rights under previous contractual agreements and the laws of the Canadian Business Corporations’ Act. The Shareholders’ Agreement, which was executed in 1999, serves to recognize many of these rights that were already held by Hydro-Quebec."
Oh yes - the entire Tory caucus had issues with this GWAC/Shareholders Agreement. They had issues regarding control of our energy future under this 1999 agreement.
Dicks also said: there is no circumstance where Hydro-Quebec could gain control over CF(L)Co or dilute Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s ownership interest from the current 65.8 per cent.
Yup - that's true but the concern was of management control not actual ownership.
Where have all those concerns gone?
What did Quebec get by providing and additional 2 billion dollars of revenue for our hydro - over the life of the contract? What did they get.
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Muskrat Falls - Roger Grimes - Kathy Dunderdale - PUB
Roger Grimes made a public statement yesterday in a Letter to the Editor; the Telegram's Weekend Edition.
With reasoning - more thoughtful than the garbage information we have been fed by Dunderdale and Co. - Grimes highlights gaping errors in the thinking used to make this particular Muskrat Falls deal.
The former Premier also made a comment which reflects the true signs of leadership - the project can still be stopped. The Tories approach of well now that its started, sanctioned, signed - gotta keep going - is simply trying to convince people that there is no hope left to stop this mess.
The NDP in Nova Scotia has shown two qualities during this process - an ability and a weakness.
Somehow their politicians have shown that they are able to convince our politicians - that subsidizing power for Nova Scotia is a good thing and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy to do that. The weakness of course is that they appeared to do this work for a private company, Emera and by doing so just simply ammassed wealth for the private corporation on the backs of their own people.
So for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal is bad - very bad - and in my opinion that is either from naivety or corruption on some level or a combination of both.
Corporately, Emera and Nalcor, will make money on each and every kw - Emera (private) - Nalcor (crown). The question is who is that good for specifically?
Emera's shareholders (private) will make a killing if they operate in any way similar to how they currently operate both domestic and foreign assets while Nalcor's shareholders (the people of NL) will be gouged to keep Nalcor's spending viable.
When the PUBlic Utilities Board was banished from it's role as a regulator - protecting us - from unnecessary spending by our own corporation - Nalcor - became an agent by which politicians could cut deals that they wanted for whatever reasons - and those reasons can be very self-serving and sinister.
The PUB may have rejected this expenditure on behalf of the consumers of electricity - and the fact that people like Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Darin King felt it okay to bypass the ratepayer component of the process is legislatively corrupt.
Now the PUB should have no right to stop a deal for power development - if others - not us - the ratepayers - are paying for it. If the government wanted to make this pet project a legacy - they should have directly pinned it on the taxpayers and forced every taxpayer in the province to pay for this disaster. In this way the political fall-out is more instant - more direct.
Roger's points in his letter make sense - in a very basic real way. We have no real idea what the true energy asset base is in the province and whether or not those assets could have been used differently, expanded, or altered to accommodate the Island need for power. As for Labrador - this development - if allowed to proceed would not remove many Labradorians from thermal generation or supply from Quebec. That is ridiculous.
The idea of developing such a valuable resource such as Muskrat and then Gull Island in either order should have accomplished the following:
1. Mandatory renewable assets for all inhabited regions of Labrador,
2. Development of Industry which would spur tens of thousands of jobs (long-term) after the construction phase is complete, or
3. The sale of the majority of power to another Province or State wherein the power produced would cause our rates to be kept where they are now - for a generation or two, money for our treasury, and equity build-up for our people (similar to a tenant renting your property) they pay the mortgage - we own the asset,
4. Some combination of 2 and 3.
The added little bonus for the private Emera is that they now are going to be paid every time you and I pay our electric bill. They get a cut of the action that was once held solely for Newfoundland Power and Nalcor (Newfoundland and Labraor Hydro division). Why are they getting that cut? The truthful answer to that will start to unravel some pretty questionable decisions by our government.
There was and is a real potential to stabilize our rates by simply acquiring Newfoundland Power and eliminating the doubling up profits and eliminate administrative and asset duplication. By doing what we have done - Nalcor gets it up price, passed to Emera for its up price and then on to Newfoundland Power for its piece.
If we continue with this project - we are absolutely getting the least out of this asset - which in time will look worse than the Upper Churchill.
The former Premier should be commended for his leadership and be an example for those seeking to take office and government. The project should be stopped.
With reasoning - more thoughtful than the garbage information we have been fed by Dunderdale and Co. - Grimes highlights gaping errors in the thinking used to make this particular Muskrat Falls deal.
The former Premier also made a comment which reflects the true signs of leadership - the project can still be stopped. The Tories approach of well now that its started, sanctioned, signed - gotta keep going - is simply trying to convince people that there is no hope left to stop this mess.
The NDP in Nova Scotia has shown two qualities during this process - an ability and a weakness.
Somehow their politicians have shown that they are able to convince our politicians - that subsidizing power for Nova Scotia is a good thing and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy to do that. The weakness of course is that they appeared to do this work for a private company, Emera and by doing so just simply ammassed wealth for the private corporation on the backs of their own people.
So for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal is bad - very bad - and in my opinion that is either from naivety or corruption on some level or a combination of both.
Corporately, Emera and Nalcor, will make money on each and every kw - Emera (private) - Nalcor (crown). The question is who is that good for specifically?
Emera's shareholders (private) will make a killing if they operate in any way similar to how they currently operate both domestic and foreign assets while Nalcor's shareholders (the people of NL) will be gouged to keep Nalcor's spending viable.
When the PUBlic Utilities Board was banished from it's role as a regulator - protecting us - from unnecessary spending by our own corporation - Nalcor - became an agent by which politicians could cut deals that they wanted for whatever reasons - and those reasons can be very self-serving and sinister.
The PUB may have rejected this expenditure on behalf of the consumers of electricity - and the fact that people like Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Darin King felt it okay to bypass the ratepayer component of the process is legislatively corrupt.
Now the PUB should have no right to stop a deal for power development - if others - not us - the ratepayers - are paying for it. If the government wanted to make this pet project a legacy - they should have directly pinned it on the taxpayers and forced every taxpayer in the province to pay for this disaster. In this way the political fall-out is more instant - more direct.
Roger's points in his letter make sense - in a very basic real way. We have no real idea what the true energy asset base is in the province and whether or not those assets could have been used differently, expanded, or altered to accommodate the Island need for power. As for Labrador - this development - if allowed to proceed would not remove many Labradorians from thermal generation or supply from Quebec. That is ridiculous.
The idea of developing such a valuable resource such as Muskrat and then Gull Island in either order should have accomplished the following:
1. Mandatory renewable assets for all inhabited regions of Labrador,
2. Development of Industry which would spur tens of thousands of jobs (long-term) after the construction phase is complete, or
3. The sale of the majority of power to another Province or State wherein the power produced would cause our rates to be kept where they are now - for a generation or two, money for our treasury, and equity build-up for our people (similar to a tenant renting your property) they pay the mortgage - we own the asset,
4. Some combination of 2 and 3.
The added little bonus for the private Emera is that they now are going to be paid every time you and I pay our electric bill. They get a cut of the action that was once held solely for Newfoundland Power and Nalcor (Newfoundland and Labraor Hydro division). Why are they getting that cut? The truthful answer to that will start to unravel some pretty questionable decisions by our government.
There was and is a real potential to stabilize our rates by simply acquiring Newfoundland Power and eliminating the doubling up profits and eliminate administrative and asset duplication. By doing what we have done - Nalcor gets it up price, passed to Emera for its up price and then on to Newfoundland Power for its piece.
If we continue with this project - we are absolutely getting the least out of this asset - which in time will look worse than the Upper Churchill.
The former Premier should be commended for his leadership and be an example for those seeking to take office and government. The project should be stopped.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Province's MHAs pale in Comparison to Business Leaders
As we review the performance of the people involved, impacted by and/or responsible for the proposed Muskrat Falls development - big business shines.
If we as people had MHA's who performed close to the level of big business in representing their shareholders interests - we would not be considering this Muskrat Falls fiasco.
If a business has any opportunity to get it on an 8 billion dollar spend - the decsion gate is clear.
Let's look at what it considers:
1. Can the business make any money on this venture?
2. How much money can the business make on this venture?
3. How many years can the business profit from working on or for this project?
4. What will the business cost be to deliver product, service, manufacture or consulting to the project?
5. What will be the increase in the value of a share and therefore the value of the business?
Let's look at what it does not consider:
1. Who is paying the bill? (other than if the party was not creditworthy)
2. How will it impact this community or that community?
3. Are the owners of the natural resource getting value from the proposed deal?
4. How will this proposed project affect the province's debt?
5. How many long-term jobs will be created for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
This is why I am not concerned or surprised that businesses around the province and the country are supporting the proposed development.
I am concerned about the mindset of our MHA's who are there to represent us - the people.
Let's look at what they should consider:
1. Who is paying the bill?
2. How will it impact the ratepayer, taxpayer, and shareholder of the resource?
3. How many long-term jobs will be created for billions of dollars?
4. How much value can we add to shareholder?
5. Is this development needed for domestic supply?
6. Is this the only alternative?
7. Can we sell this power competitively in the export market?
8. Will the shareholder subsidize cheap power for business, another province, or American Export?
9. How will the increased price of power to domestic consumers affect our seniors, low/middle income families, and local small business (recessionary impact)?
10. Have I achieved support from the people I represent as an MHA?
As for Nova Scotia - they are playing it coy:
1. The proposed project will go to the PUB there - while Newfoundland and Labrador MHA's are preventing the same process here.
2. They do not have to buy in before the project starts.
3. They can play one energy competitor off against another for the best price - thereby eliminating Muskrat supply or reducing the price wherein the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay more for their power so Nova Scotians get cheaper power.
4. Currently the NDP government in Nova Scotia is in political trouble as it relates to Emera - where people are suffering the impacts of energy privatization that occurred at the same time as we prevented it.
5. Nova Scotia is presenting itself as the energy hub as it continues to attract industry away from Newfoundland and Labrador and to themselves.
As for the Mining exporters in Labrador - they are waiting like the wolf - we are the prey:
1. They are quickly becoming the raison du jour for the proposed development.
2. They have already threatened that without this type of infrastructure they may cancel or downsize development.
3. As other reasons for Muskrat development are destroyed - domestic island supply and export - their hands are wringing for cheaper subsidized power.
4. If they become the only reason for Muskrat - their demand for cheap prices will increase as other competitors (Hydro-Quebec) offer a cheaper price. All the while of course - Quebec gets secondary infrastructure to ship out our raw resources.
5. They have government's ear.
As for performance of CEO's - dead last in my opinion - Ed Martin
If we as people had MHA's who performed close to the level of big business in representing their shareholders interests - we would not be considering this Muskrat Falls fiasco.
If a business has any opportunity to get it on an 8 billion dollar spend - the decsion gate is clear.
Let's look at what it considers:
1. Can the business make any money on this venture?
2. How much money can the business make on this venture?
3. How many years can the business profit from working on or for this project?
4. What will the business cost be to deliver product, service, manufacture or consulting to the project?
5. What will be the increase in the value of a share and therefore the value of the business?
Let's look at what it does not consider:
1. Who is paying the bill? (other than if the party was not creditworthy)
2. How will it impact this community or that community?
3. Are the owners of the natural resource getting value from the proposed deal?
4. How will this proposed project affect the province's debt?
5. How many long-term jobs will be created for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
This is why I am not concerned or surprised that businesses around the province and the country are supporting the proposed development.
I am concerned about the mindset of our MHA's who are there to represent us - the people.
Let's look at what they should consider:
1. Who is paying the bill?
2. How will it impact the ratepayer, taxpayer, and shareholder of the resource?
3. How many long-term jobs will be created for billions of dollars?
4. How much value can we add to shareholder?
5. Is this development needed for domestic supply?
6. Is this the only alternative?
7. Can we sell this power competitively in the export market?
8. Will the shareholder subsidize cheap power for business, another province, or American Export?
9. How will the increased price of power to domestic consumers affect our seniors, low/middle income families, and local small business (recessionary impact)?
10. Have I achieved support from the people I represent as an MHA?
As for Nova Scotia - they are playing it coy:
1. The proposed project will go to the PUB there - while Newfoundland and Labrador MHA's are preventing the same process here.
2. They do not have to buy in before the project starts.
3. They can play one energy competitor off against another for the best price - thereby eliminating Muskrat supply or reducing the price wherein the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay more for their power so Nova Scotians get cheaper power.
4. Currently the NDP government in Nova Scotia is in political trouble as it relates to Emera - where people are suffering the impacts of energy privatization that occurred at the same time as we prevented it.
5. Nova Scotia is presenting itself as the energy hub as it continues to attract industry away from Newfoundland and Labrador and to themselves.
As for the Mining exporters in Labrador - they are waiting like the wolf - we are the prey:
1. They are quickly becoming the raison du jour for the proposed development.
2. They have already threatened that without this type of infrastructure they may cancel or downsize development.
3. As other reasons for Muskrat development are destroyed - domestic island supply and export - their hands are wringing for cheaper subsidized power.
4. If they become the only reason for Muskrat - their demand for cheap prices will increase as other competitors (Hydro-Quebec) offer a cheaper price. All the while of course - Quebec gets secondary infrastructure to ship out our raw resources.
5. They have government's ear.
As for performance of CEO's - dead last in my opinion - Ed Martin
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Talk with Sue - For the Record with Brad Cabana
Thursday - Talk with Sue - For the Record Series - with Brad Cabana
Press HERE to go visit the Show Page or listen live on Thursday night.
With a broad and varied background Brad brings to the discussion straight forward opinions based on his research and some connect the dots analysis.
He has become a colourful politico in Newfoundland and Labrador and he makes no bones about his interest in all things Canada.
The proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls has certainly peaked such an interest and he fully plans to have a say. Like most people opposed to or concerned about the deal - airtime for Brad is limited and commercial advertising prohibitive.
Unlike some who are waiting for new or additional information before making a decision to support or reject - Brad feels he has enough information to say no. He is not alone as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have reached the same conclusion.
This program with Brad will certainly provide the undecided an opportunity to hear him explain the process he used to make a decision. Does he share - like many of you - the idea that a referendum is needed? While serving on a municipal council he was involved with a referendum process on the Meech Lake Accord; does he think the process best served his constituents in that case?
The free flow of information and opinion continues on For the Record with Brad Cabana this Thursday at 8 pm Island time and 7:30 pm in most of Labrador.
Press HERE to visit show page or to listen live on Thursday.
To listen to archived programs with Danny Dumaresque, Roger Grimes and Bruno Marcocchio PRESS HERE
Press HERE to go visit the Show Page or listen live on Thursday night.
With a broad and varied background Brad brings to the discussion straight forward opinions based on his research and some connect the dots analysis.
He has become a colourful politico in Newfoundland and Labrador and he makes no bones about his interest in all things Canada.
The proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls has certainly peaked such an interest and he fully plans to have a say. Like most people opposed to or concerned about the deal - airtime for Brad is limited and commercial advertising prohibitive.
Unlike some who are waiting for new or additional information before making a decision to support or reject - Brad feels he has enough information to say no. He is not alone as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have reached the same conclusion.
This program with Brad will certainly provide the undecided an opportunity to hear him explain the process he used to make a decision. Does he share - like many of you - the idea that a referendum is needed? While serving on a municipal council he was involved with a referendum process on the Meech Lake Accord; does he think the process best served his constituents in that case?
The free flow of information and opinion continues on For the Record with Brad Cabana this Thursday at 8 pm Island time and 7:30 pm in most of Labrador.
Press HERE to visit show page or to listen live on Thursday.
To listen to archived programs with Danny Dumaresque, Roger Grimes and Bruno Marcocchio PRESS HERE
Thursday, October 11, 2012
For the Record with Bruno Marcocchio
Talk with Sue - For the Record will host Bruno Marcocchio, Thursday October 18th, 8pm Island Time and 7:30 in most of Labrador and Nova Scotia.
Over the past few months many of you have probably heard the feisty conversations between Bruno and talk-show hosts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Bruno is an environmental activist and has led or participated in many significant campaigns throughout the country.
He has also participated in hearings and meetings regarding the proposed Muskrat Falls deal at the request of Labradorians.
His knowledge of regulatory issues relative to industrial development and environmental remediation is significant and important as part of our understanding as we examine the proposed Muskrat Falls development.
This will be an interesting and probing conversation as we look at this issue through another glass.
The program will run for 90 minutes allowing us the time to really understand what Bruno's concerns are and to focus on Labrador issues.
I hope you join us next Thursday as Talk with Sue continues to gather as much information as possible with respect to the broad range of concerns held by critics of this project.
Press HERE to visit the show page.
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Premier Roger Grimes
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Director of Hydro & MHA Danny Dumaresque
Over the past few months many of you have probably heard the feisty conversations between Bruno and talk-show hosts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Bruno is an environmental activist and has led or participated in many significant campaigns throughout the country.
He has also participated in hearings and meetings regarding the proposed Muskrat Falls deal at the request of Labradorians.
His knowledge of regulatory issues relative to industrial development and environmental remediation is significant and important as part of our understanding as we examine the proposed Muskrat Falls development.
This will be an interesting and probing conversation as we look at this issue through another glass.
The program will run for 90 minutes allowing us the time to really understand what Bruno's concerns are and to focus on Labrador issues.
I hope you join us next Thursday as Talk with Sue continues to gather as much information as possible with respect to the broad range of concerns held by critics of this project.
Press HERE to visit the show page.
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Premier Roger Grimes
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Director of Hydro & MHA Danny Dumaresque
Monday, October 08, 2012
Talk with Sue welcomes former Premier on Wednesday
I am pleased to advise listeners that former Premier Roger Grimes will our guest on Talk with Sue - For the Record - series on Wednesday evening starting at 8 pm on the Island and 7:30 pm in most of Labrador.
This series which debuted last week with Danny Dumaresque - specifically deals with critics of the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Roger will bring an interesting perspective to the program as one of a small group of people ever to have served as Premier.
Further he is the Premier that finalized the successful Voisey's Bay project - arguably the best industrial deal the province has ever made.
We will talk about the proposed Muskrat deal, the process of sanction, House of Assembly debate, Hydro-Quebec, industrial potential, and past proposals for development.
The show will be an hour and a half long allowing for more detail on this most important public policy and development issue.
Please join us by clicking HERE
This series which debuted last week with Danny Dumaresque - specifically deals with critics of the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Roger will bring an interesting perspective to the program as one of a small group of people ever to have served as Premier.
Further he is the Premier that finalized the successful Voisey's Bay project - arguably the best industrial deal the province has ever made.
We will talk about the proposed Muskrat deal, the process of sanction, House of Assembly debate, Hydro-Quebec, industrial potential, and past proposals for development.
The show will be an hour and a half long allowing for more detail on this most important public policy and development issue.
Please join us by clicking HERE
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Talk with Sue - introduces For the Record
Sometime ago I established an online radio program called "Talk with Sue"
Last year it produced six programs to try out the new forum.
Since that time almost 10000 people have listened to the programs which are available online.
For the Record will be a series of shows dedicated to the Muskrat Falls debate. The idea here is to allow an hour of virtually uninterrupted time for critics of the deal or process of sanction to explain what their specific concerns are and what they feel might be a reasonable approach to this development or for energy development generally.
The government and supporters have millions to promote their side while critics are limited.
I am pleased to announce that Danny Dumaresque will be the first guest to jump in and talk to you - the people - about his concerns.
Danny is a former MHA and a former Director of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He is a longstanding business person in Newfoundland and Labrador and has been actively involved in the Muskrat Falls debate.
Tune in tomorrow at 8 pm in Newfoundland and 7:30 in most of Labrador.
Press Here to go to the Show
Last year it produced six programs to try out the new forum.
Since that time almost 10000 people have listened to the programs which are available online.
For the Record will be a series of shows dedicated to the Muskrat Falls debate. The idea here is to allow an hour of virtually uninterrupted time for critics of the deal or process of sanction to explain what their specific concerns are and what they feel might be a reasonable approach to this development or for energy development generally.
The government and supporters have millions to promote their side while critics are limited.
I am pleased to announce that Danny Dumaresque will be the first guest to jump in and talk to you - the people - about his concerns.
Danny is a former MHA and a former Director of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He is a longstanding business person in Newfoundland and Labrador and has been actively involved in the Muskrat Falls debate.
Tune in tomorrow at 8 pm in Newfoundland and 7:30 in most of Labrador.
Press Here to go to the Show
Monday, October 01, 2012
Dunderdale - Cochrane - Cashin - Bloggers "FEAR"
Democracy: new definition
A right of people to elect dictators.
The continual flow of apologists for government and media should bother us.
One blogger noted:
"For a guy who called the press conference pleading for openness and transparency, I find it peculiar for him to attack the medium through which such transparency could be taken advantage of by the public. As Paddy Daly noted, it was akin to biting the hand that feeds."
Here we go again speaking out must be highlighted by fear.
Biting the hand that feeds it?
What does this mean?
One cannot and must not criticise or question the media?
One cannot and must not criticise government?
Shut your mouth and you will be rewarded?
Shut your mouth or bad things will happen?
If one believes the media is being soft on the most significant resource deal of the century for our province - what should they do? If one believes that this is part of the reason the government is acting so arrogant while spending our money - what should they do?
The pedestals must fall - people - politicians and media alike must be placed with the people and for the people. This constant attack on citizens who buy papers, watch and listen to news and ultimately pay for things like the Emera deal must end.
Speaking freely and publicly should not achieve an outcome of punishment. What exactly are we living under?
Dunderdale and Harper are reason enough to question and criticise till one is exhausted - now we have the media suggesting they are above question.
Gate 1: return power to the people
Gate 2: chastise and punish all politicians who do not understand who they work for
Gate 3: start decrying the punishment mentality of both government and some media with respect to people expressing an opinion or belief.
Gate 4: understand that politicians and some media do an awful lot of power plays behind the scenes as they pass out their punishment.
Gate 5: stop all progress of the Emera deal until a referendum process is undertaken and complete.
If this is a democracy - the threats of retribution to citizens who speak out must stop.
Our history is filled with examples where neither elected representatives nor media have done due diligence and we have and continue to pay the price.
From the United Nations: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
When a citizen is discouraged from direct involvement through use of fear or intimidation - he/she does not live in a democracy.
It was only a short while ago that Premier Dunderdale stated that Tom Osborne did not do enough to build a relationship with her. For this reason and not for reason of competence or ability he did not make Cabinet?
Prime Minister Harper is a liar - straight up - yet the media does not only avoid the factual situation but also accepts his direction with respect to when he will answer questions and who he will answer in the media.
The race to the bottom is heating up and whether it's Cashin, Osborne, or any other soul who dares question, critique or oppose government or media - they are under threat of some sort of reprisal?
The same blogger mentioned earlier said the following:
"So why did Cashin put forth such a ridiculous claim? Well, it’s simple really. Cochrane asked him a question that made Cashin uncomfortable. In the press conference, Cochrane basically restated Premier Dunderdale’s position on not allowing expert witnesses in the House of Assembly for the special Muskrat Falls debate as they were going to follow the template set out in the Voisey’s Bay debate from years past. Cochrane probably knows full well all of the things that are wrong with Dunderdale’s assertion, but he clearly put it in front of Cashin for him to refute, if he could. THIS IS WHAT GOOD REPORTERS DO.
Cashin is right, comparing Voisey’s Bay to Muskrat Falls is like comparing apples and oranges. The fact that the premise for Cochrane’s question contained the assumption that it was okay to compare the two appeared to really piss him off. Cochrane premised a question with a notion that Cashin believes to be preposterous, as he appears to think it’s irresponsible to even suggest that Muskrat Falls is similar to Voisey’s Bay."
The question that comes to my mind is did David Cochrane question Dunderdale's premise in the same manner he asked Cashin to do?
Did he place before the Premier the facts of the Voisey's Bay debate and the factual differences between the two?
Did Cochrane drag out the factual assumptions of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over the past 25 years ans ask Martin or Dunderdale to explain the errors?
Did Cochrane chase Premier Williams around after his resignation to find out what's up?
Oh there are so many questions that could and should be asked by Cochrane and I assume that Cashin along with many others are exasperated by the soft approach on Dunderdale while leaving the tougher more aggressive questioning to citizens voicing their concerns.
Why will we pay Emera for any part of delivering domestic power?
Why will we pay Emera to maintain any part of our pole infrastructure?
What is Emera's record in Nova Scotia or the Grand Bahamas?
Does former Premier Williams have any investments that could benefit from this deal?
Why are the ratepayers/taxpayers paying for this mess?
Developing any part of the Lower Churchill should equal thousands of long-term jobs in Labrador and should be paying a significant dividend to the ratepayers in order to keep prices lower not higher.
How about Cochrane does a straight comparison between this proposed deal with Emera and the two last attempted deals by Tobin and Grimes. Let's see the information. Let us - the citizens make a call based on REAL information.
How about the Quebec card? How about we have some answers on that. How about we ask if Quebec companies will benefit greatly from this deal? How about we establish a fact that Quebec could buy into Emera?
This deal and all its dirt must be exposed and then stopped.
The only people who are really being chastized, marginalized, scrutinized and punished regarding the Emera deal are citizens who are not being paid to either govern or report.
A right of people to elect dictators.
The continual flow of apologists for government and media should bother us.
One blogger noted:
"For a guy who called the press conference pleading for openness and transparency, I find it peculiar for him to attack the medium through which such transparency could be taken advantage of by the public. As Paddy Daly noted, it was akin to biting the hand that feeds."
Here we go again speaking out must be highlighted by fear.
Biting the hand that feeds it?
What does this mean?
One cannot and must not criticise or question the media?
One cannot and must not criticise government?
Shut your mouth and you will be rewarded?
Shut your mouth or bad things will happen?
If one believes the media is being soft on the most significant resource deal of the century for our province - what should they do? If one believes that this is part of the reason the government is acting so arrogant while spending our money - what should they do?
The pedestals must fall - people - politicians and media alike must be placed with the people and for the people. This constant attack on citizens who buy papers, watch and listen to news and ultimately pay for things like the Emera deal must end.
Speaking freely and publicly should not achieve an outcome of punishment. What exactly are we living under?
Dunderdale and Harper are reason enough to question and criticise till one is exhausted - now we have the media suggesting they are above question.
Gate 1: return power to the people
Gate 2: chastise and punish all politicians who do not understand who they work for
Gate 3: start decrying the punishment mentality of both government and some media with respect to people expressing an opinion or belief.
Gate 4: understand that politicians and some media do an awful lot of power plays behind the scenes as they pass out their punishment.
Gate 5: stop all progress of the Emera deal until a referendum process is undertaken and complete.
If this is a democracy - the threats of retribution to citizens who speak out must stop.
Our history is filled with examples where neither elected representatives nor media have done due diligence and we have and continue to pay the price.
From the United Nations: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
When a citizen is discouraged from direct involvement through use of fear or intimidation - he/she does not live in a democracy.
It was only a short while ago that Premier Dunderdale stated that Tom Osborne did not do enough to build a relationship with her. For this reason and not for reason of competence or ability he did not make Cabinet?
Prime Minister Harper is a liar - straight up - yet the media does not only avoid the factual situation but also accepts his direction with respect to when he will answer questions and who he will answer in the media.
The race to the bottom is heating up and whether it's Cashin, Osborne, or any other soul who dares question, critique or oppose government or media - they are under threat of some sort of reprisal?
The same blogger mentioned earlier said the following:
"So why did Cashin put forth such a ridiculous claim? Well, it’s simple really. Cochrane asked him a question that made Cashin uncomfortable. In the press conference, Cochrane basically restated Premier Dunderdale’s position on not allowing expert witnesses in the House of Assembly for the special Muskrat Falls debate as they were going to follow the template set out in the Voisey’s Bay debate from years past. Cochrane probably knows full well all of the things that are wrong with Dunderdale’s assertion, but he clearly put it in front of Cashin for him to refute, if he could. THIS IS WHAT GOOD REPORTERS DO.
Cashin is right, comparing Voisey’s Bay to Muskrat Falls is like comparing apples and oranges. The fact that the premise for Cochrane’s question contained the assumption that it was okay to compare the two appeared to really piss him off. Cochrane premised a question with a notion that Cashin believes to be preposterous, as he appears to think it’s irresponsible to even suggest that Muskrat Falls is similar to Voisey’s Bay."
The question that comes to my mind is did David Cochrane question Dunderdale's premise in the same manner he asked Cashin to do?
Did he place before the Premier the facts of the Voisey's Bay debate and the factual differences between the two?
Did Cochrane drag out the factual assumptions of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over the past 25 years ans ask Martin or Dunderdale to explain the errors?
Did Cochrane chase Premier Williams around after his resignation to find out what's up?
Oh there are so many questions that could and should be asked by Cochrane and I assume that Cashin along with many others are exasperated by the soft approach on Dunderdale while leaving the tougher more aggressive questioning to citizens voicing their concerns.
Why will we pay Emera for any part of delivering domestic power?
Why will we pay Emera to maintain any part of our pole infrastructure?
What is Emera's record in Nova Scotia or the Grand Bahamas?
Does former Premier Williams have any investments that could benefit from this deal?
Why are the ratepayers/taxpayers paying for this mess?
Developing any part of the Lower Churchill should equal thousands of long-term jobs in Labrador and should be paying a significant dividend to the ratepayers in order to keep prices lower not higher.
How about Cochrane does a straight comparison between this proposed deal with Emera and the two last attempted deals by Tobin and Grimes. Let's see the information. Let us - the citizens make a call based on REAL information.
How about the Quebec card? How about we have some answers on that. How about we ask if Quebec companies will benefit greatly from this deal? How about we establish a fact that Quebec could buy into Emera?
This deal and all its dirt must be exposed and then stopped.
The only people who are really being chastized, marginalized, scrutinized and punished regarding the Emera deal are citizens who are not being paid to either govern or report.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Shoving a Muskrat down our Throats - Dunderdale?
The Muskrat Falls proposed development project has finally driven many people to become involved.
The size, scope, risk, and importance of developing this natural resource should interest and be of concern to all people in our province.
I hear the Premier and her colleagues complain and moan about critics and chastise anybody who speaks in any other manner than full-on support of the proposed deal.
Let's get a few things straight.
1. The government has spent a fortune of our money getting documents prepared and studies/analysis done to "prove" the worthiness of the deal. "Independent" reports, "independent" support, and "independent" voices Dunderdale proclaims. In other words our money for one-sided information.
2. The government has thwarted real involvement of the PUB which is the ratepayers authority and one which is supposed to make the call when spending goes on related to domestic supply.
3. The government did not accept the findings of the joint panel review. Another protection of the people and society at large regarding natural resource development.
4. The government has not agreed to a referendum despite the democratic merits of doing such.
5. The government is not allowing citizens to participate in a real debate between government representatives and experts in the populace.
6. The government is not allowing shareholders of the resource an opportunity to vote on such a rare and massive undertaking.
7. Nalcor is bullying Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - or NLH is not acting completely on its mission statement or mandate.
8. Kathy Dunderdale, Danny Williams, and other PC MHA's are ignoring very real concerns and risks placed before them by reputable people (mostly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians).
9. Kathy Dunderdale has yet to present polls demonstrating overwhelming support (75% +) of the deal.
10. The government is not allowing proper and thorough review of the opposing side.
If a government is truly interested in averting another fiasco like the Upper Churchill it would go out of its way to examine the "other side". That is to say make available the tens of millions they have spent on the "positive" potentials to examine the "negative" potentials.
If the entities that are reviewing are using assumptions and numbers thrust upon them by Nalcor (government) they will not achieve a real review of the deal.
If government were truly interested in vetting the deal and bringing true scrutiny to it they would allow competent citizens who have expressed opposition to the deal to have access to millions of dollars to study opposite or different assumptions.
This is what should happen through a referendum process but in the absence of that - monies should be granted for review by those citizens who vehemently oppose the deal.
The real deal is that it's being pushed down our throats and they will never have to pay any consequence if they are wrong. Booting them out of office is not the appropriate punishment for those who may cause generational destruction to our well being.
Next up will be Options A - B - C - D - how the establishment hedges its political bets. That includes the privatization of our hydro assets particularly Gull Island.
The size, scope, risk, and importance of developing this natural resource should interest and be of concern to all people in our province.
I hear the Premier and her colleagues complain and moan about critics and chastise anybody who speaks in any other manner than full-on support of the proposed deal.
Let's get a few things straight.
1. The government has spent a fortune of our money getting documents prepared and studies/analysis done to "prove" the worthiness of the deal. "Independent" reports, "independent" support, and "independent" voices Dunderdale proclaims. In other words our money for one-sided information.
2. The government has thwarted real involvement of the PUB which is the ratepayers authority and one which is supposed to make the call when spending goes on related to domestic supply.
3. The government did not accept the findings of the joint panel review. Another protection of the people and society at large regarding natural resource development.
4. The government has not agreed to a referendum despite the democratic merits of doing such.
5. The government is not allowing citizens to participate in a real debate between government representatives and experts in the populace.
6. The government is not allowing shareholders of the resource an opportunity to vote on such a rare and massive undertaking.
7. Nalcor is bullying Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - or NLH is not acting completely on its mission statement or mandate.
8. Kathy Dunderdale, Danny Williams, and other PC MHA's are ignoring very real concerns and risks placed before them by reputable people (mostly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians).
9. Kathy Dunderdale has yet to present polls demonstrating overwhelming support (75% +) of the deal.
10. The government is not allowing proper and thorough review of the opposing side.
If a government is truly interested in averting another fiasco like the Upper Churchill it would go out of its way to examine the "other side". That is to say make available the tens of millions they have spent on the "positive" potentials to examine the "negative" potentials.
If the entities that are reviewing are using assumptions and numbers thrust upon them by Nalcor (government) they will not achieve a real review of the deal.
If government were truly interested in vetting the deal and bringing true scrutiny to it they would allow competent citizens who have expressed opposition to the deal to have access to millions of dollars to study opposite or different assumptions.
This is what should happen through a referendum process but in the absence of that - monies should be granted for review by those citizens who vehemently oppose the deal.
The real deal is that it's being pushed down our throats and they will never have to pay any consequence if they are wrong. Booting them out of office is not the appropriate punishment for those who may cause generational destruction to our well being.
Next up will be Options A - B - C - D - how the establishment hedges its political bets. That includes the privatization of our hydro assets particularly Gull Island.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Regional Cooperation = Robbing Newfoundland and Labrador
The word "regional" flows from the lips of our provincial Tories much too loosely.
First of all I must remind each and every one of you accepting a salary from us and stating that for that salary you represent us - that your job is NOT regional growth.
Nova Scotia - New Brunswick - Prince Edward Island and Quebec "region' have their own politicians as well as federal representatives.
Regional to us has meant - the giveaway of the Upper Churchill, the giveaway of fisheries stocks, the giveaway of our people, the giveaway of our secondary processing of minerals, and the giveaway of refining for our top grade oil.
Regional cooperation has not returned resources and people from other provinces including the "region".
We have sent our people to Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island for work. What do they do? Well they process and refine fish, oil, gas, and minerals in these provinces.
We have sent 5000 MW's of power to Quebec at outrageous prices and in return they have created tens of thousands of jobs that we cannot qualify for.
We do not have the transportation infrastructure that other provinces in our region do. In fact our transportation has seen the elimination of railway, inadequate ferry service to Canada, and inadequate search and rescue assets.
We do not have the population growth and size of other provinces and yet we continue to export raw resources and minerals.
Now they want cooperation in order they may take even more hydro resources. We will subsidize power going to Nova Scotia. Why? They (Ottawa included) feel that Muskrat Falls is a good project so we can do OUR SHARE in the reduction of greenhouse gasses. Listen up - the 5000 MW's 5 BILLION Watts that we send from the Upper Churchill is the largest per-capita contribution to greening up in Canada. It is now time to do what we do for us.
We cannot be a "have province" in a region of "have-nots" that have more jobs, people, and infrastructure that we do. Where is our equivalent population growth or where is the lowering of our average age?
How about our cooperation on our fisheries resources?
What did we ultimately get in return? What did we give up? What other provinces benefited from the giveaway of fish stocks to foreign nations? How many communities have we lost?
Tourism numbers - how many tourists in the other provinces in our region? How many do we see?
Regional cooperation has always been a one way benefit and it has not been for us.
Tell me - what have we received from our historic cooperation (giveaway) of our resources? Nothing other than loss of communities, resources, and people.
Then there is Labrador - what can I say? Missing one gold plated highway, search and rescue resources, two smelters, four refineries, and hydro power for all communities.
First of all I must remind each and every one of you accepting a salary from us and stating that for that salary you represent us - that your job is NOT regional growth.
Nova Scotia - New Brunswick - Prince Edward Island and Quebec "region' have their own politicians as well as federal representatives.
Regional to us has meant - the giveaway of the Upper Churchill, the giveaway of fisheries stocks, the giveaway of our people, the giveaway of our secondary processing of minerals, and the giveaway of refining for our top grade oil.
Regional cooperation has not returned resources and people from other provinces including the "region".
We have sent our people to Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island for work. What do they do? Well they process and refine fish, oil, gas, and minerals in these provinces.
We have sent 5000 MW's of power to Quebec at outrageous prices and in return they have created tens of thousands of jobs that we cannot qualify for.
We do not have the transportation infrastructure that other provinces in our region do. In fact our transportation has seen the elimination of railway, inadequate ferry service to Canada, and inadequate search and rescue assets.
We do not have the population growth and size of other provinces and yet we continue to export raw resources and minerals.
Now they want cooperation in order they may take even more hydro resources. We will subsidize power going to Nova Scotia. Why? They (Ottawa included) feel that Muskrat Falls is a good project so we can do OUR SHARE in the reduction of greenhouse gasses. Listen up - the 5000 MW's 5 BILLION Watts that we send from the Upper Churchill is the largest per-capita contribution to greening up in Canada. It is now time to do what we do for us.
We cannot be a "have province" in a region of "have-nots" that have more jobs, people, and infrastructure that we do. Where is our equivalent population growth or where is the lowering of our average age?
How about our cooperation on our fisheries resources?
What did we ultimately get in return? What did we give up? What other provinces benefited from the giveaway of fish stocks to foreign nations? How many communities have we lost?
Tourism numbers - how many tourists in the other provinces in our region? How many do we see?
Regional cooperation has always been a one way benefit and it has not been for us.
Tell me - what have we received from our historic cooperation (giveaway) of our resources? Nothing other than loss of communities, resources, and people.
Then there is Labrador - what can I say? Missing one gold plated highway, search and rescue resources, two smelters, four refineries, and hydro power for all communities.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Muskrat Chill and Dunderdale's Parkas
CBC News Newfoundland and Labrador ran a clip on their late night broadcast of Premier Kathy Dunderdale commenting on the latest CRA poll results.
The quote from Dunderdale was:
"When you take on stewardship you have to be prepared to make difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular but it's always nice when you have support of the majority of people, we have that and I'm grateful for it."
First of all the Premier and her government do not have support of the majority of people - they are governing because in "a snapshot in time" in October the majority of people who voted supported them.
Now considering the Premier claims she does not govern based on polls - I suggest she does not use popularity as a reason.
The "difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular" piece as Dunderdale and her colleagues would phrase it - leaves me very perplexed. The erosion of support is based on difficult and unpopular decisions?
Let's see - so the Muskrat Falls fiasco is a difficult decision that is unpopular?
Decisions on what?
Is this a confirmation that polls are taking place internally on the Emera deal and they are not showing favourably?
There is no doubt that this proposed energy project is causing a significant drop in the popularity of the Premier and her government. Now come the tough questions versus the tough decisions.
1. British Columbia forced a referendum on HST through a tool in their democracy chest and the government had to live with the consequences. The harmonized sales tax policy is similar to the Muskrat Falls development deal in that it involves changes that affect consumers on mass and revenue streams for government. Will this government allow democracy to govern and call a referendum on this deal?
2. What can be done to force a referendum on this issue?
3. Considering this one project could amass a debt load equivalent to our entire debt now - is it not appropriate for the Premier and her government to seek permission over and above a "snapshot in time" result in October?
4. Considering very significant information on this deal and financial consequences were not known at the time of the last provincial election - how does the Premier feel she has vetted the public on it?
5. Will former PC and Liberal Cabinet Ministers step to the plate as former Premier Bill Vander Zalm did in British Columbia and rally the people to demand a referendum?
The Muskrat Chill refuses to thaw and the relationship between people and the government is getting frosty. The Premier can choose to pile on parkas or warm up to the people she is "humbled" to represent.
The quote from Dunderdale was:
"When you take on stewardship you have to be prepared to make difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular but it's always nice when you have support of the majority of people, we have that and I'm grateful for it."
First of all the Premier and her government do not have support of the majority of people - they are governing because in "a snapshot in time" in October the majority of people who voted supported them.
Now considering the Premier claims she does not govern based on polls - I suggest she does not use popularity as a reason.
The "difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular" piece as Dunderdale and her colleagues would phrase it - leaves me very perplexed. The erosion of support is based on difficult and unpopular decisions?
Let's see - so the Muskrat Falls fiasco is a difficult decision that is unpopular?
Decisions on what?
Is this a confirmation that polls are taking place internally on the Emera deal and they are not showing favourably?
There is no doubt that this proposed energy project is causing a significant drop in the popularity of the Premier and her government. Now come the tough questions versus the tough decisions.
1. British Columbia forced a referendum on HST through a tool in their democracy chest and the government had to live with the consequences. The harmonized sales tax policy is similar to the Muskrat Falls development deal in that it involves changes that affect consumers on mass and revenue streams for government. Will this government allow democracy to govern and call a referendum on this deal?
2. What can be done to force a referendum on this issue?
3. Considering this one project could amass a debt load equivalent to our entire debt now - is it not appropriate for the Premier and her government to seek permission over and above a "snapshot in time" result in October?
4. Considering very significant information on this deal and financial consequences were not known at the time of the last provincial election - how does the Premier feel she has vetted the public on it?
5. Will former PC and Liberal Cabinet Ministers step to the plate as former Premier Bill Vander Zalm did in British Columbia and rally the people to demand a referendum?
The Muskrat Chill refuses to thaw and the relationship between people and the government is getting frosty. The Premier can choose to pile on parkas or warm up to the people she is "humbled" to represent.
Friday, September 07, 2012
Why and How - Muskrat Deal Referendum
The reasons we need a referendum:
1. This one project could double the debt achieved over 60 years in 5 years.
2. This is an energy project in Labrador.
3. Failure of the Government to achieve wide based support.
4. Inconsistency in external and internal reviews.
5. Concerns raised in the public by reputable people with expertise (including former PC MHA's )
The how of a referendum:
1. Don't be concerned that you may not feel educated enough about the issue to vote - it is the Government's job to educate you satisfactorily. If they cannot sell it to you then your vote should be no.
2. The Government would have to provide funding for contrary groups to publicize and educate the public on their reasons not to proceed with the project as defined.
3. There would be a defined period for discussion and debate that provides media better access to information on a timely basis including the potential for public debates between government and opposing parties.
4. It would inject a much needed Democratic tool into our ever eroding open and transparent governance.
5. It is something that a confident government should welcome - particularly on a natural renewable resource development.
1. This one project could double the debt achieved over 60 years in 5 years.
2. This is an energy project in Labrador.
3. Failure of the Government to achieve wide based support.
4. Inconsistency in external and internal reviews.
5. Concerns raised in the public by reputable people with expertise (including former PC MHA's )
The how of a referendum:
1. Don't be concerned that you may not feel educated enough about the issue to vote - it is the Government's job to educate you satisfactorily. If they cannot sell it to you then your vote should be no.
2. The Government would have to provide funding for contrary groups to publicize and educate the public on their reasons not to proceed with the project as defined.
3. There would be a defined period for discussion and debate that provides media better access to information on a timely basis including the potential for public debates between government and opposing parties.
4. It would inject a much needed Democratic tool into our ever eroding open and transparent governance.
5. It is something that a confident government should welcome - particularly on a natural renewable resource development.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Rudderless at a Critical Hour in our History
The formation of a new company by concerned Newfoundland and Labrador citizens regarding the Muskrat Falls proposed development is a positive addition to the debate. It also points out a very negative reality that at a critical time in our history - our future is being debated and voted on by people who are disinterested or ignorant or partisan or dictatorial or hoping for personal gain.
The BBQ and festival season is in full swing and MHA's are shaking hands, passing out or eating hot dogs, having a dance, or rebuilding/building their respective political clubs.
The lawyers of 2041 Energy Inc. displayed anguish, concern, and frustration when trying to discuss what each political party stood for on this crucial issue. That's because the parties are all over the place or stuck inexplicably on very detrimental policy.
The Provincial Liberals are speaking from both sides of their mouths - with Dean MacDonald promoting the deal while elected Liberal MHA's say they are opposed. The NDP seem to be spinning at a dizzying pace while screaming they don't have enough information. Both parties have federal counterparts that confuse their non-position even more.
The Tories are "full steam ahead" torpedoes be damned - despite what the consequences may be. They are acting like steroidal zealots - most not having any real clue what they are following. The main reason some of them are accused of having personal interest in the project is that nothing else makes sense. There is no reason for the rush and there are numerous real reasons to slow down but the Tories will not listen.
This could be our finest or worst hour and our leaders have left the room. Even though this "new" group has publicly weighed in - they too are couching their position and surprisingly attempting to protect Danny's reputation while taking on Kathy Dunderdale.
Sadly we are - at this most critical time - rudderless in a house of mariners.
The BBQ and festival season is in full swing and MHA's are shaking hands, passing out or eating hot dogs, having a dance, or rebuilding/building their respective political clubs.
The lawyers of 2041 Energy Inc. displayed anguish, concern, and frustration when trying to discuss what each political party stood for on this crucial issue. That's because the parties are all over the place or stuck inexplicably on very detrimental policy.
The Provincial Liberals are speaking from both sides of their mouths - with Dean MacDonald promoting the deal while elected Liberal MHA's say they are opposed. The NDP seem to be spinning at a dizzying pace while screaming they don't have enough information. Both parties have federal counterparts that confuse their non-position even more.
The Tories are "full steam ahead" torpedoes be damned - despite what the consequences may be. They are acting like steroidal zealots - most not having any real clue what they are following. The main reason some of them are accused of having personal interest in the project is that nothing else makes sense. There is no reason for the rush and there are numerous real reasons to slow down but the Tories will not listen.
This could be our finest or worst hour and our leaders have left the room. Even though this "new" group has publicly weighed in - they too are couching their position and surprisingly attempting to protect Danny's reputation while taking on Kathy Dunderdale.
Sadly we are - at this most critical time - rudderless in a house of mariners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)