Newfoundland and Labrador must have the worst record in the developed world for natural resource projects.
As Labrador rises up - rightfully so - against the poisoning of their people - the Island population is in its usual temporary jobs trance.
Premier after Premier in our history promised new wealth and growth through commitments of change in the development of our resources.
Always with the exception of one - we have been let down - robbed - and depressed as these commitments disappeared.
Each and every time the lure of quick and temporary jobs tempers the outcry of the public that we've given something else away.
Can we actually claim that jobs created during the construction of the Upper Churchill were in any way compensatory for the billions of dollars of lost revenue? As we charge Hydro Quebec 1/5th of a cent per kilowatt hour and they sell it at 100 times that - can we really celebrate the construction jobs?
We have done the same with minerals, oil, fish, and forestry.
The mourning of the Upper Churchill contract has been longstanding. There is no way we would ever let that happen again right? We swore - it would never happen again.
Now it has. The Muskrat Falls project is worse than the Upper Churchill - we will pay for this project - our children and grandchildren will pay for this project. Unlike the Upper - this project is over budget - unsafe and unnecessary.
Only yesterday I seen stories of people complaining about being off the job because Labradorians have the gall to demand a reduction in the poisonous aftermath of the flooding.
There is no justification to keep this going.
Here's what we have:
Danny Williams says great deal - many people say not so fast but were ignored by the media and called traitors, conspiracy theorists and naysayers by the politicians.
Williams leaves and then Dunderdale's job is to keep it moving no matter what. Many people were crying stop and warning the population that this project was bad and should be stopped.
The PC's Liberals and NDP allowed the project to keep going.
The PC's delayed the election to allow more money to be spent while the Liberals and NDP permitted the Tories to get away with it.
The media still not tuned in. Continue to ignore the many voices warning the people that this project would cause irreparable harm.
People were once again lured with well paying construction jobs for short-term personal gain - while these very employees were subjecting their own children and grandchildren to years of financial pain and continue to do so.
The unions did their special interest bidding and completely ignored the damage to the province as a whole. One group of unions would of course cause problems for another set of unions as the province would have to lay-off CUPE and NAPE members and have no money for teachers or nurses.
Labour spokespeople like Lana Payne encouraging the development and making sure the NDP followed suit.
This project needs to be stopped. We must have a complete resolve to the Northern Spur and we must know what the costs are to stop the project. This is not-withstanding the issues Labrador faces with environmental costs.
We need a referendum on this - and we need it now.
Where's the leadership?
Where is the commitment of all our people that we would never ever again let the Upper Churchill happen again?
We are letting yet another 3 generations down - as we bankrupt their future and allow corporate interests rob our resources.
Showing posts with label cathy bennett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cathy bennett. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Thursday, June 23, 2016
The Nancy O'Connor fiasco
The CBC Newfoundland and Labrador has reported this morning that Nancy O'Connor - Director of Communications for the Premier contacted Memorial University about the "Resign" Dwight Ball signs on poles prior to their removal by the Department of Transportation and Works.
In part O'Connor explains to CBC: "In my capacity in communications I reached out to my counterpart at Memorial inquiring whether or not the poles belonged to the university and if posters were permitted to be displayed on those poles," and "If the university did not permit the display of posters on those poles, it would be a reasonable expectation that they would be removed."
The body of the actual email was:"Telling DB to resign ... Are these poles belonging to MUN or Power? And are ppl allowed to put posters on them? If not can someone take them down?"
Where do I begin?
If the communications director of the Premier does not know who owns utility poles in this province - she is not informed enough to serve as a communications director for any government department or agency. She might have visited the websites of Newfoundland Power, Nalcor, Telephone and Cable companies to educate herself.
What makes this worse is O'Connor's so-called expertise. She was a spokesperson for MT&L PR (Now known as "National") during the pro-Muskrat group development. In this regard she was listed as:
i) listed as Nalcor media contact for the response to Nunatukavut complaints over lack of consultation on the Lower Churchill project;
ii) Listed as Nalcor media contact for panel hearings on the Lower Churchill development...
All of her work involving the promotion of the Williams project and she does not understand the distribution system of the province?
Nancy O'Connor a walking support mouth of the Muskrat project for Williams and company finds her way to be the comms director for the new Liberal Premier?
Nancy's expertise cannot be questioned as it relates to transforming herself to advance herself but it most certainly can and should be questioned as it relates to the important issues in this province.
Now let's look at this seasoned experienced professional's take on democracy. The most important thing on a Sunday morning for Ms. O'Connor was trying to get the Premier's face off utility poles? It was not why the pictures were on the poles? It was not why the people were infuriated with Ball? It was not dealing with the inflicted hardships of the budget? Ms. O"Connors concern was how do I thwart freedom of expression and protect my boss? It was to ask an independent academic institution - our provincial University to help - if they could in removing "Resign" signs?
‘Freedom of expression’ is one of the fundamental freedoms protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(b) provides that everyone has “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”
In R. v. Keegstra, ([1990] 3 S.C.R. 697) the Supreme Court of Canada identified three main objectives underlying the guarantee of free expression. First, free expression is “instrumental in promoting the free flow of ideas essential to democracy and the functioning of democratic institutions.” Secondly, free expression is “an essential precondition of the search for truth.” Thirdly, free expression is “worth protecting for its intrinsic value to the self-realization of both speaker and listener.” Given the breadth of the underlying objectives, the guarantee of free expression has been held to apply to artistic, educational and even commercial expression, as well as political expression.
In consideration of all this Ms. O'Connor is trying to find an owner of poles who would thwart such expression?
Let's just say MU owned the poles and they did not allow posters. Is it O'Connor's most important duty to inquire of the University if they did and suggest they follow such rules?
I - we - pay her salary. She works for us. In my opinion - based on her activities involving the poles fiasco - she is not qualified to hold the position - particularly when we the people are paying her salary and benefits.
Now let's take a leap. If somebody in the Office of the Premier was trying to find a way to have the signs removed - are we to believe that some individual in the Department of Transportation and Works was thinking the exact same way at the same time - but no words, winks, nods were ever exchanged?
In part O'Connor explains to CBC: "In my capacity in communications I reached out to my counterpart at Memorial inquiring whether or not the poles belonged to the university and if posters were permitted to be displayed on those poles," and "If the university did not permit the display of posters on those poles, it would be a reasonable expectation that they would be removed."
The body of the actual email was:"Telling DB to resign ... Are these poles belonging to MUN or Power? And are ppl allowed to put posters on them? If not can someone take them down?"
Where do I begin?
If the communications director of the Premier does not know who owns utility poles in this province - she is not informed enough to serve as a communications director for any government department or agency. She might have visited the websites of Newfoundland Power, Nalcor, Telephone and Cable companies to educate herself.
What makes this worse is O'Connor's so-called expertise. She was a spokesperson for MT&L PR (Now known as "National") during the pro-Muskrat group development. In this regard she was listed as:
i) listed as Nalcor media contact for the response to Nunatukavut complaints over lack of consultation on the Lower Churchill project;
ii) Listed as Nalcor media contact for panel hearings on the Lower Churchill development...
All of her work involving the promotion of the Williams project and she does not understand the distribution system of the province?
Nancy O'Connor a walking support mouth of the Muskrat project for Williams and company finds her way to be the comms director for the new Liberal Premier?
Nancy's expertise cannot be questioned as it relates to transforming herself to advance herself but it most certainly can and should be questioned as it relates to the important issues in this province.
Now let's look at this seasoned experienced professional's take on democracy. The most important thing on a Sunday morning for Ms. O'Connor was trying to get the Premier's face off utility poles? It was not why the pictures were on the poles? It was not why the people were infuriated with Ball? It was not dealing with the inflicted hardships of the budget? Ms. O"Connors concern was how do I thwart freedom of expression and protect my boss? It was to ask an independent academic institution - our provincial University to help - if they could in removing "Resign" signs?
‘Freedom of expression’ is one of the fundamental freedoms protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(b) provides that everyone has “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”
In R. v. Keegstra, ([1990] 3 S.C.R. 697) the Supreme Court of Canada identified three main objectives underlying the guarantee of free expression. First, free expression is “instrumental in promoting the free flow of ideas essential to democracy and the functioning of democratic institutions.” Secondly, free expression is “an essential precondition of the search for truth.” Thirdly, free expression is “worth protecting for its intrinsic value to the self-realization of both speaker and listener.” Given the breadth of the underlying objectives, the guarantee of free expression has been held to apply to artistic, educational and even commercial expression, as well as political expression.
In consideration of all this Ms. O'Connor is trying to find an owner of poles who would thwart such expression?
Let's just say MU owned the poles and they did not allow posters. Is it O'Connor's most important duty to inquire of the University if they did and suggest they follow such rules?
I - we - pay her salary. She works for us. In my opinion - based on her activities involving the poles fiasco - she is not qualified to hold the position - particularly when we the people are paying her salary and benefits.
Now let's take a leap. If somebody in the Office of the Premier was trying to find a way to have the signs removed - are we to believe that some individual in the Department of Transportation and Works was thinking the exact same way at the same time - but no words, winks, nods were ever exchanged?
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
The Twang from Abroad Powers - Martin - and Dalley
yet another short post...
I'm starting to wonder what the inside scoop is on future employers for certain of our public figures. Take for instance the Newfoundland and Labrador lost son Tim Powers - the Ontarian in him has certainly taken hold with his "ehs" and Ed Martin and Dawn Dalley of Nalcor - they are turning right into Haligonians (not a flower) with their "folks" this and "folks" that.
Hows (notice my change here) about some fun not funny speculation eh?
Tim the Conservative Voice Powers might be lining up to take on a federal seat - or even Dunderdale's job - after all - Upper Canada - needs some "trained" Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to carry the Ottawa torch. Maybe he is back to "burn all the boats" particularly with his Crosbie heritage.
Then there's Ed and Dawn perhaps not in Orlando (not a singing group) preparing for a change of employer as Halifax based Emera continues its privatization march throughout our land - hauling natural resource wealth from the health and education budgets of our province and into the outstretched and "well connected" arms of the elite offshore.
If Kathy is listening to Ed and Ed marches to Williams Symphony No. 5 - then the fluid movement of redundancies will continue to mount for the 3 amigos.
Quite the state we have here - fibre optical illusions - power/s ball jackpot - and one continuing joke on us the people.
The next couple of years are going to be dandy. I wonder what's in the offing for us "gull"ible people.
Wonder what the New Dawn's Agreement 2014 will look like. I should look toward the Mc"Cleods" where James and Cathy MacBennett may be talking.
I'm starting to wonder what the inside scoop is on future employers for certain of our public figures. Take for instance the Newfoundland and Labrador lost son Tim Powers - the Ontarian in him has certainly taken hold with his "ehs" and Ed Martin and Dawn Dalley of Nalcor - they are turning right into Haligonians (not a flower) with their "folks" this and "folks" that.
Hows (notice my change here) about some fun not funny speculation eh?
Tim the Conservative Voice Powers might be lining up to take on a federal seat - or even Dunderdale's job - after all - Upper Canada - needs some "trained" Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to carry the Ottawa torch. Maybe he is back to "burn all the boats" particularly with his Crosbie heritage.
Then there's Ed and Dawn perhaps not in Orlando (not a singing group) preparing for a change of employer as Halifax based Emera continues its privatization march throughout our land - hauling natural resource wealth from the health and education budgets of our province and into the outstretched and "well connected" arms of the elite offshore.
If Kathy is listening to Ed and Ed marches to Williams Symphony No. 5 - then the fluid movement of redundancies will continue to mount for the 3 amigos.
Quite the state we have here - fibre optical illusions - power/s ball jackpot - and one continuing joke on us the people.
The next couple of years are going to be dandy. I wonder what's in the offing for us "gull"ible people.
Wonder what the New Dawn's Agreement 2014 will look like. I should look toward the Mc"Cleods" where James and Cathy MacBennett may be talking.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Cathy Bennett fails 1st Transparency Test
The Liberal leadership has brought a barrage of commitments from all candidates regarding openness, transparency, and accountability. This is a great thing.
The candidate who has been on the firing line the most on this issue is Cathy Bennett. Rightly - other Liberal hopefuls have suggested her work as the Chair of Nalcor was wrought with secrecy and during a time when government was shutting information doors.
Ms. Bennett says she was opposed to Bill 29 and determined to open the information lines to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
She was tested the other night and failed.
The debate at Memorial University was public. The exchanges were heated. Leadership was on the line.
We know that Cathy Bennett said something to Danny Dumaresque immediately following the debate.
We know that Cathy Bennett apologized to Danny Dumaresque for the comment.
Considering this was a public forum being held as part of a process to choose a leader of the Liberals; who may well go on to be Premier - we should know what Cathy Bennett said to Danny Dumaresque.
The comment may have been made at the heat of the moment - but we can anticipate that a Premier of a Province may have many such moments when dealing with Ottawa, provincial colleagues, executives of companies, union representatives, or citizens. We need to know what happens to Cathy Bennett when she is challenged. We need to know how she conducts herself in these circumstances.
The fact that Cathy Bennett will not tell us - means her transparency will be based on what she thinks we have a right or need to know. That's exactly what we have now.
Cathy Bennett has failed her first transparency test.
The candidate who has been on the firing line the most on this issue is Cathy Bennett. Rightly - other Liberal hopefuls have suggested her work as the Chair of Nalcor was wrought with secrecy and during a time when government was shutting information doors.
Ms. Bennett says she was opposed to Bill 29 and determined to open the information lines to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
She was tested the other night and failed.
The debate at Memorial University was public. The exchanges were heated. Leadership was on the line.
We know that Cathy Bennett said something to Danny Dumaresque immediately following the debate.
We know that Cathy Bennett apologized to Danny Dumaresque for the comment.
Considering this was a public forum being held as part of a process to choose a leader of the Liberals; who may well go on to be Premier - we should know what Cathy Bennett said to Danny Dumaresque.
The comment may have been made at the heat of the moment - but we can anticipate that a Premier of a Province may have many such moments when dealing with Ottawa, provincial colleagues, executives of companies, union representatives, or citizens. We need to know what happens to Cathy Bennett when she is challenged. We need to know how she conducts herself in these circumstances.
The fact that Cathy Bennett will not tell us - means her transparency will be based on what she thinks we have a right or need to know. That's exactly what we have now.
Cathy Bennett has failed her first transparency test.
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
Friday, September 13, 2013
Cathy -They Don't Appoint Liberals
Cathy Bennett has two significant messages for us.
1. I am a Liberal - Always been a Liberal - Will always be a Liberal.
2. I am the leader who can bring the Liberal Party together.
Let's examine these:
Williams and Dunderdale do not appoint Liberals.
In fact many of the Liberal and NDP complaints revolve around the extreme partisanship of this government.
Our agencies and Crown Corporations are run and managed by well known Tories such as Len Simms and Glenn Tobin.
The halls of Confederation building are traversed by many lifelong Tories and their families.
So partisan is this government that serving a community breakfast - if you are not a Tory - is a no no.
So how then can we possibly believe that this Tory partisan government appointed to the top position of Nalcor - a lifelong Liberal? How can we reasonably believe that the top priority - massive spending - key Muskrat deal would be under the hand of a lifelong Liberal?
For me this is not possible. I must go with the balance of probabilities - that is Cathy Bennett did in fact through contribution and action demonstrate that she was a loyal PC.
As for the second claim of bringing the Liberals together - I can only say that with her unmovable stance on Muskrat Falls and her longstanding Tory connections - that she would have the most difficult time in bringing Liberals together. One only needs to watch and listen to Liberals after they have observed her in a debate to know that electing her leader would be more divisive than the Efford Grimes fight.
To accept this candidacy as anything more than special interests protecting special projects is too much of a stretch for me. I guess it's up to the other candidates to expose this for what it is. Kissy Kissy Lovey Lovey - we are all Liberals chant - will not cut it for this circumstance.
1. I am a Liberal - Always been a Liberal - Will always be a Liberal.
2. I am the leader who can bring the Liberal Party together.
Let's examine these:
Williams and Dunderdale do not appoint Liberals.
In fact many of the Liberal and NDP complaints revolve around the extreme partisanship of this government.
Our agencies and Crown Corporations are run and managed by well known Tories such as Len Simms and Glenn Tobin.
The halls of Confederation building are traversed by many lifelong Tories and their families.
So partisan is this government that serving a community breakfast - if you are not a Tory - is a no no.
So how then can we possibly believe that this Tory partisan government appointed to the top position of Nalcor - a lifelong Liberal? How can we reasonably believe that the top priority - massive spending - key Muskrat deal would be under the hand of a lifelong Liberal?
For me this is not possible. I must go with the balance of probabilities - that is Cathy Bennett did in fact through contribution and action demonstrate that she was a loyal PC.
As for the second claim of bringing the Liberals together - I can only say that with her unmovable stance on Muskrat Falls and her longstanding Tory connections - that she would have the most difficult time in bringing Liberals together. One only needs to watch and listen to Liberals after they have observed her in a debate to know that electing her leader would be more divisive than the Efford Grimes fight.
To accept this candidacy as anything more than special interests protecting special projects is too much of a stretch for me. I guess it's up to the other candidates to expose this for what it is. Kissy Kissy Lovey Lovey - we are all Liberals chant - will not cut it for this circumstance.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Dean MacDonald come Clean
Dean MacDonald has placed himself right in the middle of the Liberal Leadership Campaign and therefore in the middle of debate and discussion.
So who are you Dean MacDonald? What is your claim to fame that makes you somebody to be listened to regarding this leadership contest?
1. You support the Muskrat Falls deal.
What we need from you on this is for you to compare the deal you were doing on the Lower Churchill when Brian Tobin was in power, the proposed development you rejected under the Roger Grimes administration and the deal in front of us under the Danny Willams administration.
You are in a perfect and unique position to be able to compare all three. You can tell us what makes this Muskrat deal superior to the other two you worked on.
You can tell us what happened to the Brian Tobin deal and what you gave up for a development that did not even happen.
2. You support Cathy Bennett - who supports the Muskrat Falls deal.
Did you at any time sit with Cathy Bennett on the Nalcor or various hydro boards?
The Muskrat Falls deal was cut under Danny Williams. Did you support Danny when he was Premier? Did you support him when his government cut a cheque for your company Persona? As a supporter of Danny Williams as a PC - do you acknowledge that he turned the Premiership over to Kathy Dunderdale? What has Kathy done differently than Danny Williams that has caused you to go Liberal? What can Cathy Bennett do with a Muskrat Falls deal that she was part of, supported, and was the poster face for - all under the PC government?
Did you at any time express to anyone that Cathy Bennett was not a Liberal and you could not support her?
Have you spoken to Danny Williams about the Bennett campaign? Has Cathy Bennett spoken to Danny Williams either before announcing or bid or after?
If one is to take you seriously and follow your "lead" to the Cathy Bennett camp - you need to prove your worth following anywhere.
Last time I looked you were on Twitter telling Con O'Brien to open his mind. That's a joke right?
Is this yet another Solid Gold idea?
So who are you Dean MacDonald? What is your claim to fame that makes you somebody to be listened to regarding this leadership contest?
1. You support the Muskrat Falls deal.
What we need from you on this is for you to compare the deal you were doing on the Lower Churchill when Brian Tobin was in power, the proposed development you rejected under the Roger Grimes administration and the deal in front of us under the Danny Willams administration.
You are in a perfect and unique position to be able to compare all three. You can tell us what makes this Muskrat deal superior to the other two you worked on.
You can tell us what happened to the Brian Tobin deal and what you gave up for a development that did not even happen.
2. You support Cathy Bennett - who supports the Muskrat Falls deal.
Did you at any time sit with Cathy Bennett on the Nalcor or various hydro boards?
The Muskrat Falls deal was cut under Danny Williams. Did you support Danny when he was Premier? Did you support him when his government cut a cheque for your company Persona? As a supporter of Danny Williams as a PC - do you acknowledge that he turned the Premiership over to Kathy Dunderdale? What has Kathy done differently than Danny Williams that has caused you to go Liberal? What can Cathy Bennett do with a Muskrat Falls deal that she was part of, supported, and was the poster face for - all under the PC government?
Did you at any time express to anyone that Cathy Bennett was not a Liberal and you could not support her?
Have you spoken to Danny Williams about the Bennett campaign? Has Cathy Bennett spoken to Danny Williams either before announcing or bid or after?
If one is to take you seriously and follow your "lead" to the Cathy Bennett camp - you need to prove your worth following anywhere.
Last time I looked you were on Twitter telling Con O'Brien to open his mind. That's a joke right?
Is this yet another Solid Gold idea?
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.
Festival of Spite? O'Brien reflects typical PC Tribalism
It's not a joke anymore. It's time that people in this province put an end to the spiteful, tribalistic, immoral and intimidating behavior demonstrated by many PC Cabinet Ministers and the Premier.
The latest - in a CBC story- an allegation that Minister Kevin O'Brien got a young Chamber of Commerce scholarship winner uninvited as a server for a community breakfast. Why? because he's not a Tory?
How many town councillors and mayors have been politically threatened by this PC government? We have all heard the stories - community leaders are frightened to death to speak out against ANY government action - lest funding for critical infrastructure may not come.
This government has asked organizations to remove their senior staff - if the organization wants to have any "hope" with government.
How many businesses were threatened with repercussion of some sort if they put a Liberal or NDP sign on their building - or supported a local candidate who was not PC?
This started with Danny in 2003 and has carried on with a gusto since Kathy took over. Intimidation of bloggers, open-line callers, and people with government jobs.
I don't know how many Cable Atlantic/Rogers former employees are now within the government rank and file - but somebody should really have a look.
This government behaves like a two bit mafia - enforcers and all. Why? Because they lack a leader, they lack integrity, and they lack confidence.
Instead of being a "cool hip" province - we are serfs forced to support our 5 or 6 lord's estate. Backward, backward, backward.
Don't see us going from one Kathy to another Cathy - do you?
The latest - in a CBC story- an allegation that Minister Kevin O'Brien got a young Chamber of Commerce scholarship winner uninvited as a server for a community breakfast. Why? because he's not a Tory?
How many town councillors and mayors have been politically threatened by this PC government? We have all heard the stories - community leaders are frightened to death to speak out against ANY government action - lest funding for critical infrastructure may not come.
This government has asked organizations to remove their senior staff - if the organization wants to have any "hope" with government.
How many businesses were threatened with repercussion of some sort if they put a Liberal or NDP sign on their building - or supported a local candidate who was not PC?
This started with Danny in 2003 and has carried on with a gusto since Kathy took over. Intimidation of bloggers, open-line callers, and people with government jobs.
I don't know how many Cable Atlantic/Rogers former employees are now within the government rank and file - but somebody should really have a look.
This government behaves like a two bit mafia - enforcers and all. Why? Because they lack a leader, they lack integrity, and they lack confidence.
Instead of being a "cool hip" province - we are serfs forced to support our 5 or 6 lord's estate. Backward, backward, backward.
Don't see us going from one Kathy to another Cathy - do you?
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Bond (Ed) Bond hits the nail right on the head of Bennett
The Sir Robert Bond Papers seems to have best summed up what to expect from Cathy Bennett if she became leader of any political party.
In his "Politics of Fashion" post Mr. Hollett talks about pollster Don Mills and his chat with the Board of Trade. Please see the excerpt below or keep it all in context by reading the complete post HERE
"...The provincial government started focussing on things like the Lower Churchill, squeezing more hand-outs from the federal government, and spending beyond what the public treasury could support. One of the provincial Conservatives’ biggest supporters after was Don Mills. Right in line behind Mills was the St. John’s Board of Trade. They cheered as the provincial government increased spending by incredible amounts. As the government admitted starting in late 2009, what it was doing was what the public couldn’t afford. Neither Mills nor the Board of Trade said a peep about it.
None of this is surprising. The two go together. CRA is the only pollster the local elite accepts and the Board of Trade reflects the views of the highly clique-ish local establishment. Mills is on the Board of Trade’s agenda because he is fashionable, not because he is saying something provocative or even something the Board actually supports. They don’t. The Board actually supports unsustainable government spending because that’s what puts cash in its members pockets.." (emphasis added)
Mr. Hollett certainly does not hold anything back when talking about Mills or the Board of Trade and their support of unsustainable spending by government.
Mr. Hollett continues on by adding the following later in the post:
" The Board is like an arm of government. The Board is such a reflection of the official view of things that they won’t even give time at a luncheon for a representative of the Liberals or New Democrats to speak. That sort of thing would be commonplace anywhere else but not in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2003." (emphasis added)
Well Mr. Hollett - I could not have said it better myself - however it was not only the Board of Trade and Don Mills who remained quiet while spending soared. You failed to mention one other; Cathy Bennett as the President of the Board of Trade in 2007.
This seems to differ greatly from Hollett's earlier post on Bennett's candidacy where he says:
"Bennett could prove to be the catalyst for a major change on the local political landscape. She is a fresh face. She offers potential."
Hard to match "fresh face" and "potential" with Hollett's earlier description of the Board of Trade and Don Mills since 2003. Hard to match "an arm of government" with catalyst for change.
Many of us already believe that Ms. Bennett is an opportunist - but Mr. Hollett puts it so much more clearly.
In his "Politics of Fashion" post Mr. Hollett talks about pollster Don Mills and his chat with the Board of Trade. Please see the excerpt below or keep it all in context by reading the complete post HERE
"...The provincial government started focussing on things like the Lower Churchill, squeezing more hand-outs from the federal government, and spending beyond what the public treasury could support. One of the provincial Conservatives’ biggest supporters after was Don Mills. Right in line behind Mills was the St. John’s Board of Trade. They cheered as the provincial government increased spending by incredible amounts. As the government admitted starting in late 2009, what it was doing was what the public couldn’t afford. Neither Mills nor the Board of Trade said a peep about it.
None of this is surprising. The two go together. CRA is the only pollster the local elite accepts and the Board of Trade reflects the views of the highly clique-ish local establishment. Mills is on the Board of Trade’s agenda because he is fashionable, not because he is saying something provocative or even something the Board actually supports. They don’t. The Board actually supports unsustainable government spending because that’s what puts cash in its members pockets.." (emphasis added)
Mr. Hollett certainly does not hold anything back when talking about Mills or the Board of Trade and their support of unsustainable spending by government.
Mr. Hollett continues on by adding the following later in the post:
" The Board is like an arm of government. The Board is such a reflection of the official view of things that they won’t even give time at a luncheon for a representative of the Liberals or New Democrats to speak. That sort of thing would be commonplace anywhere else but not in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2003." (emphasis added)
Well Mr. Hollett - I could not have said it better myself - however it was not only the Board of Trade and Don Mills who remained quiet while spending soared. You failed to mention one other; Cathy Bennett as the President of the Board of Trade in 2007.
This seems to differ greatly from Hollett's earlier post on Bennett's candidacy where he says:
"Bennett could prove to be the catalyst for a major change on the local political landscape. She is a fresh face. She offers potential."
Hard to match "fresh face" and "potential" with Hollett's earlier description of the Board of Trade and Don Mills since 2003. Hard to match "an arm of government" with catalyst for change.
Many of us already believe that Ms. Bennett is an opportunist - but Mr. Hollett puts it so much more clearly.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Dunderdale and Co. going going...gone
Cathy Bennett, Dean MacDonald, Paul Antle - all coming from the woodwork. The Establishment has determined the PC's are not winning the next election.
If the backbench Tories do not see this yet - well - they might not. They seem to just nod their heads.
The media is picking up the frenzy on possible candidates for the Liberal leadership and in so doing hyping up the race. Dunderdale is already passe and a new guard is forming in front of her face. The lady got her job done - she has delivered Danny's Muskrat child.
The problem now is that - is it really done? What about the other assets left to snatch by the elite investors?
The money is getting a fever and is starting to realize that power might land in the hands of somebody who will work - first and foremost for the people.
They are sweating the fact that Ball is a worthy candidate who can deliver competent and forward direction for the people.
They underestimated the people and overestimated Kathy, Jerome, and Darin.
Let's give the old boys club a royal boot and take back our province.
I would like the next leader to show the people all papers relating to the Muskrat deal to date. All contracts, all discussions, all written material. That's what they are really afraid of.
SNC Lavalin right here at home.
If the backbench Tories do not see this yet - well - they might not. They seem to just nod their heads.
The media is picking up the frenzy on possible candidates for the Liberal leadership and in so doing hyping up the race. Dunderdale is already passe and a new guard is forming in front of her face. The lady got her job done - she has delivered Danny's Muskrat child.
The problem now is that - is it really done? What about the other assets left to snatch by the elite investors?
The money is getting a fever and is starting to realize that power might land in the hands of somebody who will work - first and foremost for the people.
They are sweating the fact that Ball is a worthy candidate who can deliver competent and forward direction for the people.
They underestimated the people and overestimated Kathy, Jerome, and Darin.
Let's give the old boys club a royal boot and take back our province.
I would like the next leader to show the people all papers relating to the Muskrat deal to date. All contracts, all discussions, all written material. That's what they are really afraid of.
SNC Lavalin right here at home.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Motivate(ional) Questions for Dunderdale and Media
Funny to listen to talk a few talk show hosts, media, and politicians wonder aloud why the "opposers", "naysayers", "partisans", "conspiracy theorists", "armchair experts", and "idiots" are questioning the motives of those who support or comment positively on the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)