28 April 2009

The House of Assembly, condensed

1.  bit courtesy of Courtesy of nottawa.

For the record, the grandstanding was not supplied by the Premier.

He is apparently still on some sort of vacation – yet again – and couldn’t be in the legislature.

2.  Meanwhile, people in the province yesterday learned that – contrary to comments by his supporters – the Premier does collect his salary in full. 

The admission came from finance minister Jerome Kennedy during questioning on the budget estimates:

Mr. Chairman, first, again, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows better in terms of the Premier’s salary. It is my understanding that Finance told him he had to take the salary in order to donate it to charity, which is essentially what he does. To leave any other impression, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is not fair. The Premier’s salary is provided to, I think it is the Williams Family Foundation, which then distributes it to charity. The Premier of this Province does not receive one cent to himself for the benefit of what he does. Unlike the rest of us, or at least unlike me, I use my salary to live.

And by “not one cent of benefit”, presumably the finance minister does not include in that estimate accumulating pension entitlements and taking the tax breaks on the donations which go – it must be pointed out – to the family charity run by his wife, daughter and family friend.

Notice, as well, the construction of Kennedy’s sentence which clearly leaves the impression the goal of the exercise was to make the donation, not avoid taking a salary.

He apparently never heard of a “dollar-a-year” man.



Anonymous said...

God forbid the hardest working Premier we've ever has take a vacation.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Hardest working?

Care to quantify that including reference to how much vacation time the current one takes?

WJM said...

And, in order to clinch the title of hardest working, show the comparative stats for his predecessors?

Where is Danny, anyway? And why couldn't he take his holidays when the House isn't sitting?

Seriously: WHERE IS DANNY?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Given how much the House doesn't sit these days compared to when I worked in the office, that leaves pretty much the whole year available for swanning off to wherever people swan off to these days.

Anonymous said...

It's April - the man hasn't had a vaction since March. Cut him some slack.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Mystery's over: he's back.

WJM said...

Mystery about where He IS, maybe... not about where He WAS, or why He spends so much time there.

Anonymous said...

He is apparently still on some sort of vacation – yet again – and couldn’t be in the legislature.

I would like to explore this a bit further....

I don't think that we have to go in great detail about how inappropriate and arraogant for a Prem to take time off during a sitting session...it is just wrong!

I wonder if the legal profession routinely schedules R&R during a scheduled trial?

So now that we have that figured out;) What is a reasonable time for the Prem to take on "annual leave"

Anthony Roy

Anonymous said...

I have no idea how much vacation the Premier takes. Nor do I care. This place is running the best its ever run. More Liberal Complaining.. yawn!!!

Edward G. Hollett said...

I can understand the anonyslaggers who don't have the balls to sign their names to an insult, but when someone is evidently in some sort of delusional rapture about their Blue Team why wouldn't they want everyone to know who they are?

Anonymous said...

Ed,knowing who these annonomous eunuchs are, is not important. I always use my big brush and paint all of the anonyslaggers the same colour! Just so happens that we have a shade of blue in these paint cans!!

Anthony Roy

Anonymous said...

I can just be like you "Anthony Roy" and sign "Roy Anthony" if that floats your boat. Signing a name real or fictitious doesn't distract from the fact the current Premier is running this place the best it’s ever been run. Just ask the overwhelming majority that voted in the last provincial election or ye Liberals forgot what happened. How many was it again 44 to 3 I think. You guys yarn like sore losers.

Yours Truly,
Roy Anthony (with great big balls)

Edward G. Hollett said...

And then the partisan background to your comments shines through.

Best it's ever been run?

Hmmm. The facts of the matter would say otherwise but feel free to offer some concrete examples and comparisons.

In some areas, it's on par.

In other areas, it's demonstrably worse, accountability and openness being chief among the areas where it is demonstrably worse than even the early 1980s under Peckford.

In perhaps the most significant area Blue supporters would point to - namely the financials - the revenue base is derived entirely from the very deals the same Blue people have to piss on in order to make their claims of stupendousness for the current crowd.

More money came in one year (last year) from oil revenue deals dating back to the late 1980s than delivered by the one time federal hand-out cheque from Ottawa in 2005.

That's part of the problem with the partisan blinders. Those who insist on those sorts of comparisons (inherently false and useless anyway) often have to fabricate the past in order to serve the hype or ignore the reality then and now.

Another case of fabrication or hype: "Overwhelming majority who voted". It's the "who voted" part that counts.

If you look at the numbers - versus the hype - the share of eligible votes for the Tories was the same in 2007 that it was in 2003.

Inevitably, of course, those who look at the world only through a partisan lens:

a. assume everyone else does as well,

b. blindly support whatever their team pushes,

c. dismiss substantive criticism based on their assumption in "a" versus looking at things in detail, and,

d. later on wonder how come bad things happen.

If anyone wants to understand, for example, how come things like the 1969 CF deal happened, they need only look to the time when all the Red people said exactly the same things you just said about the current crew.

The only thing different was the party labels in the parts of your sentences.

Anonymous said...

Nice comeback Potsie....and no you can't be like me!

For starters I was Christened Anthony Roy and in fact my Balls are quite big. Also, where did you get the notion that I was questioning DW's competence. I refernced that it was completely wrong and arrogant that the Prem take holidays when the House was in session. For all the mental Blue giants out there, I would love to hear your views. I am sure that the "overwhelming" majority does not appreciate the Premier of the provice slipping out of the Legislature that currently sits the least in the country.

Still have not heard what an appropriate amount of holidays is accepatble for a sitting prem?

Back to you...

Anthony Roy

Edward G. Hollett said...

Well, Malph, let me give this as a way of setting a benchmark:

At a time when the House sat twice as much as it currently does and the prem worked upwards of 10 to 12 hours a day, he took something on the order of three weeks vacation a year and never took that time off when the House was in session. That includes, incidentally, the Easter recess.

Winston Smith said...

As for precedents and the House of Assembly, has an MHA ever cited blogopinion during question period?

While explaining the reasons behind his resolution in the House yesterday, Kelvin Parsons said, "Every blogger who exists in Newfoundland and Labrador has raised the question."

Anonymous said...

Sorry "Anthony Roy", hate to burst your bubble but only the first part was about you, just when you thought it was your "Happy Day". Just a note to Ed, I never debate a professional Spinner. It goes no where in the end.

-- Potsie

Edward G. Hollett said...

Well, Postie, I can't speak for Anthony, but there are no professional spinners 'round these parts.

Incidentally, Anthony I may have misread to whom your last post was aimed and called you Malph in jest in return.

All you anonymous types get a big hard to follow sometimes.