30 November 2010

Fernando’s Farewell Tour

As Danny Williams gets ready to hand the reigns of power to his hand-picked successor, it is interesting to see tributes that flow in for all the things Danny Williams did for Newfoundland and Labrador:  prosperity, offshore oil money, Hebron, Lower Churchill, Voisey’s Bay and of course, his personal favourite:  pride.

News that Williams will make a final appearance on This Hour Has 22 Minutes  - long beyond its sell before date – prompted your humble e-scribbler to go back to another post that seems to encapsulate much of what Danny Williams has been about.

Government by Fernando” contains all the themes people have heard in the past few days about pride and seals plus a few other ideas that might resonate with you.

Then notice the date:  September 2006. 

More than four years ago.

Read it, in hindsight, and be amazed at how long he’s been pushing the same lines.

And how successful he’s been at it.

Oh yes:  and the House of Assembly is delayed this week to facilitate the publicity tour.

- srbp -

12 comments:

Wm. Murphy said...

I hope you get over your grief from your statement a while ago....


"Unfortunately, the budget forecast a cash deficit of around $900 million.

Two things will help bring that number down. First, production at Voisey’s Bay – even allowing for a strike – might start pushing government’s mining royalty back up to where it was before the recession.

Second, and perhaps most likely, the provincial government could be way off in its capital works spending. This is – you will recall – a government that has a real problem getting the job done."


I feel sorry for you!

Edward Hollett said...

And the cash shortfall will be closer to $500 million than not, Murph.

Oil is only $65 million above forecast. They overestimated the price per barrel. Revenues are only up about a few hundred million and expenses are also coming in above budget.

As it turns out I was wrong on where the added revenue came from; they picked up some extra cash from corporate and personal income taxes instead.

Feel sorry for yourself as well. We will all have to cope with the fiscal mess at some point.

this seems to be yet another case where you didn't understand what I wrote or what the government position is. That must be why you can't tell everyone what your real name is.

Wm. Murphy said...

They overestimated the price per barrel.

Care to remind us what you said about the price per barrel....if I recall, I think it went something like they are full of shit for forcasting tthat price!!


what about your pronouncements on Voisey Bay and capital works spending?

Edward Hollett said...

And they were.

They were over on price and, as I noted, the odds were against oil being the usual saviour for their gigantic cash deficit.

And if you read my last comment you'll get the rest of what seems to be baffling you.

Wm. Murphy said...

This was one of your brilliant uncontrovertable fact observations back in April.....


"I am not taking issue with the idea oil might be 83 bucks a barrel this year. I doubt that it will be, but that's not really the point. it could be and that's all fine. We'll run a billion dollar cash deficit, the cash reserves will be gone and we'll have to borrow to balance the books for the next two years afterward.

I am pointing out as clearly as I could that given the uncontrovertable fact that oil production is going down, I think it is folly to think oil prices will continue to climb in such a way that Tom Marshall and his successor balance the books without any sort of real problem.

Oil may be 83 a barrel this year but do you really think it will be $178 on average in 2014?"

Edward Hollett said...

And your point is what exactly?

I don't think you know what I am talking about or what your point is.

Wm. Murphy said...

This is what you said after the last budget

"I am pointing out as clearly as I could that given the uncontrovertable fact that oil production is going down."

uncontrovertable fact....don't think so!

Edward Hollett said...

Over the long haul oil production is going down. Look at the forecasts and the trend lines.

Government will post a huge cash shortfall this year, as I said.

And once again, I can ask: what is your point?

I don't think you know what your point is.

Wm. Murphy said...

Oh, your comment is now about the long haul...how convenient.

Your matter of fact comment that oil production is going down, was also based on your imaginary 2010 projections as well.

That's funny when oil production this year went UP an additional 12.1million barrels of oil. Funny indeed

an "uncontrovertable fact"...ya sure!!

Edward Hollett said...

Government's forecast was off by 12 million bbls. You claim that production went up. That doesn't mean the information I used was wrong: it means the provincial government underestimated production for one year.

The trending over time is that oil production offshore is on the decline. This is not my prediction: the figures come from the offshore board and from the finance department and the oil companies.

Like I said: I don't think you actually understand what you are talking about or what I am talking about.

Eventually you'll wind up with cursing on me or making some idiotic claim like Danny Williams is going to quit four years from now on his own terms after winning a third majority government and curing cancer.

Keep it up Murph. it only reflects poorly on you.

But then again, that's why you don't write under your own name.

Wm. Murphy said...

You claim that production went up

silly me Ed...I was just referencing a line item in the news release.

You said, as an uncontrovertable fact, that oil production wll go down in 2010.

Those are your words in black and white.
You didn't say that the trend will begin in 2011...you said it will begin in 2010.

torque, weave and ratchet all you want....those were your words. All I am pointing out is that you are full of shit on that one. Oil production did not go down this year

Now, I will wait for the classic bob and weave. Over to you

Edward Hollett said...

Murph, if anyone went back and read that entire discussion it would become very clear:

a. what I was talking about and what I said, completely in context.
b. what you said at the time, driven by yet another one of these "I must prove Ed is wrong" obsessive drags of yours and,
c. that you really don't understand the discussion at all.

Not then.

Not now.

Face it: your hero is gone. He won't be around to win that third election for you and then retire in three or four years time (your great prediction)

So the faster you get to that part of your grieving process, the better off you'll be.