Showing posts sorted by relevance for query rule of opposites. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query rule of opposites. Sort by date Show all posts

27 January 2012

The old nothing could be further from the truth ploy #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Ed Martin from Nalcor and Chris Huskilson from Emera held a news conference in St. John’s on Friday to announce that they will not have a deal on Muskrat Falls finished by the January 31 deadline.

They issued a short, joint statement in addition to holding a news conference.

Ed Martin:

We have made significant progress on the agreements and we are nearing completion; however, we will not have all the detailed work completed by January 31 as previously stated.

We do have the majority of agreements completed. This consists of thousands of pages of contract details. Our next steps are to finalize all the detail in the agreements and complete our internal reviews and due diligence.

Both parties are committed to a quality outcome and we want to ensure clarity in these agreements.

Chris Huskilson:

The principles of the term sheet are still the foundation of all discussions and they have not changed.

We understand that there will be some people who will believe this is more significant than it is and we feel compelled to emphasize that our relationship is strong, the term sheet principles remain and they are guiding our work.

We continue to make progress and we will ensure that people are informed once we have finalized the agreements.

This is the second deadline the companies missed.  Last November they slide the deadline from the end of that month until the end of January.

They announced the development with a simple statement:

“We are making good progress on the agreements,” said Ed Martin, President and CEO of Nalcor Energy. “However, we need more time to complete the volume of work required. Our relationship with Emera remains strong and both parties are committed to a quality outcome. These are important agreements and we’ll take the time to do them right."

Nalcor and Emera are targeting year‐end for completion of key agreements and both parties will then conduct review and due diligence prior to the end of January.’'

"We remain committed to the principles of the Term Sheet and look forward to finalizing an agreement with our partner Nalcor this year,” said Chris Huskilson,
President and CEO of Emera Inc. “This is an agreement that will be mutually beneficial for our customers in the region for decades to come. The additional time we are taking is modest in the grand scheme of things.”

Note the similar words.

But note the differences:

This time there is no new deadline even though they have completed “the majority” of the agreements.  Last fall they said they would finish the agreements within a month and then allow another month for “due diligence”.

This time they actually came to St. John’s to make a big deal about the missed deadline. That made sure people would wonder about the high level of sensitivity the companies had to the possibility that some people might get the wrong idea. 

Whoever those unnamed people are, they have enough influence to frighten the shit out of the two companies.  You can tell because Huskilson actually mentioned their concern in his bit of the statement: "We understand that there will be some people who will believe this is more significant than it is …”

As it is, the big show in St. John’s telegraphed that maybe the deal isn’t so secure after all.  Think of it like trotting out the deathly ill despot so people won’t speculate that he is about to kick off.  They usually only do that right before he snuffs it, thereby confirming the rumours were right all along.

And if you really want to know how not to reassure people, try this line from Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter in Friday’s Chronicle Herald:

"They're now not even going to bother to set another deadline because they feel they're close to getting it completed, which I think is all a very good thing. It's all very good news, in fact."

It’s the Rule of Opposites, or the rule of opposites or the rule of opposites or the rule of opposites.

- srbp -

25 July 2006

The Rule of Opposites, AG style

Regular readers of the e-scribbles will know the Rule of Opposites.

Richard Nixon says: "I am not a crook." Brian Tobin says you can't make up public policy on the fly right after he announces a major policy initiative he pulled out of some unmentionable bodily orifice even cops hate to search for illicit stuff. Toronto insists it is a world-class city.

It's the stuff where the real meaning lies in the opposite of what's being said.

Consider Auditor General John Noseworthy's latest newser. Think of the number of times he insisted that he was not being influenced by anyone, that his audit was his own work, that he had all the resources to do a proper job and that he would call it like he saw it.

Then consider that in this latest scandal Noseworthy has spouted talking points that were remarkably similar to the ones being spouted by the Premier's office and its legion of organized supporters.

Consider the number of times Noseworthy has made some bold statements only to admit later that he didn't have much to base it on.

And consider that he is headed back to re-do work he supposedly already finished and insists it will take him months to do it.

Consider too that he used the words "invited" to do his recent audit and that he answers to no one, even though, as the law clearly states he was ordered back to do this very audit by the cabinet.

John Noseworthy joins an impressive list of people who live by the Rule of Opposites.

He forgets of course, that if he has to tell us what he is, odds are he isn't anything of the sort.

Sheila Fraser never has to tell us how impartial she is.

Think about it.

16 February 2009

Ruelokke, Rowe and the Rule of Opposites

A couple of years ago, you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a comment by Danny Williams to the effect that Max Ruelokke as head of the offshore regulatory board would be a really bad thing.

How bad?

Andy Wells would be better kinda bad.

The hysteria surrounding that nationalist cause of that moment – Ruelokke is hardly a Newfoundland name, is it? – prompted at least one local journalist to question the value of the rule of law since it was obviously [insert eye roll here]working against “us”.

Ruelokke and the offshore board are looking a lot like O’Brien/50% and the 1985 Atlantic Accord: something that was officially “bad” when it suited the current administration’s purposes but which turned out to be good in actual experience.

It’s yet another manifestation of The Rule of Opposites:  what is correct is the exact opposite of what the official government line was at the time.

Hibernia management and Development Company and Petro-Canada are suing the offshore regulatory board over its rules on local research and development.

At issue: new offshore R&D spending rules brought in by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board in 2004.

Those rules require HMDC and Petro-Canada to spend a percentage of their annual offshore revenue on research, development, education and training activities in the province.

That money was estimated by the board in 2007 at $25 million annually, depending on world crude prices.
Under the new rules, the board has the right to suspend production licences if oil companies fail to meet their R&D spending obligations.

Both HMDC and Petro-Canada say the board has unilaterally changed the rules in midstream and they question its authority to do so.

Incidentally, the Hebron deal includes a huge give-away on research and development but that’s another story.

So this case has been working its way through the courts with the offshore board winning at every turn. The oil companies are now headed to the Supreme Court of Canada for the last legal round of the fight.

Odds are they’ll win again.

But you can’t help but notice that this is running contrary to the predictions from a certain segment of local public opinion.

The courts appointed by Ottawa, the courts that ruled “our” oil wasn’t our oil in the early 1980s are here standing by the crowd at the offshore board led by Max Ruelokke as they protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians yet who, we were told emphatically, would not act to protect the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And the appeals court justice who dissented from the majority opinion  - i.e. who sided with the oil companies - was a guy Jerome Kennedy recommended to go to the Supreme Court of Canada last September 6.  Kennedy’s recommendation of Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe – along with Mr. Justice Leo Barry - was faithfully reported by the voice of the cabinet minister at the time, even if they don’t like you reading stuff from that long ago. (you can find the story through google but clicking on it generates and “error” message.)

Amazing as it seems, in the case of the offshore board – like Equalization - you really can’t go wrong most times by taking the government position of the moment and thinking the opposite.

And what about those oil companies like ExxonMobil that were “bad” in 2006 but which are now called “our offshore partners” by everyone from the Premier to his official spokesperson in natural resources?  Well, judge for yourself.

Your humble e-scribbler didn’t accept that they were enemies when some people wanted you to think that.  These days, they aren’t friends.  They are just companies doing business in the offshore and they should be treated as such. 

In the case of the suit against the offshore board the companies are just doing what they think is in the best interest of the people they represent: their shareholders.

That’s basically what the offshore board is doing on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Funny though how what happened is exactly the opposite of what some people wanted you to believe.

-srbp-

23 May 2006

The Rule of Opposites

Premier Danny Williams is one of those politicians who make it easy to understand what he is up to. Sometimes you just have to look at the opposite of what he says.

Take Fishery Products International (FPI), for example.

Williams said he is worried that the current board of directors and management of the company want to split it up and sell off the bits and pieces. He has expressed concern the company's quotas might be moved outside the province.

He has been somewhat cagey in his wording on occasion, referring to the directors taking decisions that are "contrary to the best interests of the people of the province." What those interests are and what would be contrary to them are left undefined. He has also said all options are on the table, including the sale of some FPI assets to the Barry Group. But make no doubt, when it comes to FPI, the Premier has identified individuals from outside Newfoundland and Labrador - foreign demons - as being a problem to be addressed only through legislation.

Therefore, he is pushing amendments through the House of Assembly which will change the way FPI is governed and managed.

But here's the thing. There isn't a shred of evidence that John Risley, George Armoyan or any of the directors of FPI are looking to do anything other than continue the company as a viable, profitable enterprise. The talk of plots to destroy FPI are just rumours pumped by the open line crowd and from time to time encouraged by Danny Williams' own remarks about decisions contrary to the province's best interests.

But even if there is some conspiracy, under the existing FPI Act, clause seven prevents the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the company. That restriction is there in black and white.

If Premier Williams was genuinely worried about the breaking up of FPI and the sale of its assets he could have slept soundly knowing the only way that could have been done is with his consent and subsequent changes to the FPI Act in the House of Assembly for all to see. After all, the Premier used that very clause to stall allowing FPI to set up an income trust from its Ocean Cuisine marketing arm.

If the Premier still had qualms, he could ask his deputy premier and fisheries minister, Tom Rideout (left) who told the legislature in late March this year that: "[w]e believe we have plenty of legislative authority to make sure that the interests of the people of this Province are protected, and we will not be hesitant to use it, Mr. Speaker, if we have to."

Under the changes to the FPI Act now before the legislature, the break up of Fishery Products International goes from being very difficult to being very easy. The new clause seven allows for the sale, lease, exchange, mortgage or other disposal of the assets of the company with the approval of cabinet. If FPI presents two proposals to government for the sale of any of its processing plants, for example, it will be Danny Williams who chooses whether or not to accept either offer or who makes the choice between the two. A simple order-in-council will bless the deal.

What appears to have troubled Danny Williams is not that decisions would be made but rather who would make the decisions. In the changes to the FPI Act Williams has assured his personal control of FPI and, in the amendments, ensured that neither he nor government can be sued for any financial consequences of their actions.

Yet, in all of this, there is no requirement for Williams to bring his decision into public and justify it before the public, let alone seek approval of the elected representatives of the people of the province.

Under the old legislation, any sale or disposal of the company assets required amendments to the FPI Act, which inevitably meant a debate in the House of Assembly full public view. That is the route Williams took with the income trust proposal.

If anyone thinks the Danny Williams' administration is changing the FPI Act to make sure the company continues to exist as it is now, that he is preventing the break up of the company and the sale of its assets, they had better look again.

Applying the Rule of Opposites will reveal what is actually occurring. A careful reading of the proposed changes to the FPI Act also make it clear that the goal here is to ensure that the Williams administration will be making the decisions for FPI and they will be doing it with as little public scrutiny as possible.

02 October 2015

Hyping the stock, yet again #nlpoli

Any oil company seriously interested in bidding on an exploration license offshore Newfoundland and Labrador isn’t likely to need the hyped presentation by the provincial government Thursday.

Exploring offshore is expensive.

Always has been.

Always will be.

Exploring beyond the 200 mile exclusive economic zone, in upwards of two kilometres of water, just makes the oil and gas all that much more costly. to find and more costly to produce.

24 July 2013

There’s desperate and then there’s Dunderdale #nlpoli

Take away the bluster:  “The agenda won’t be set by Quebec in terms of how we do our work, how we develop our resources, and how we access markets.”

Take away the old fairy tales :  “I would characterize this as a desperate move by a company that’s been trying one way or the other to thwart development on the lower Churchill for a number of years, unless it was clearly in the best interests of the people of Quebec.”

Dispose of all the crap and what’s left of Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s comments on the Hydro-Quebec legal challenge about the 1969 is very few words that reveal much.

28 May 2009

Two thirds of three fifths of f*** all

There’s an old limerick that, among other things, speaks to the ridiculous use some people make of numbers.

Like say, repealing an old piece of legislation that is long spent and then claiming the process that this contributes to government’s project to eliminate red tape.

The spent legislation is an act that gave effect to a series of agreements involved in the sale of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited to Kruger in 1984. It’s an easy read, in plain English, and involving only 10 clauses and a couple of hundred words.

Take, as an example, this clause:

9. (1) Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Honourable the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Crown is authorized to enter into, execute and deliver agreements amending the agreements referred to in this Act.

Pretty simple stuff.  The finance minister can negotiate changes to the agreements if need be and if approved by cabinet.

There is not a single line in this entire piece of legislation that creates a single useless, unnecessary or irrelevant regulatory burden on business.

Not a one.

To go by the words of the business minister earlier in May, there is not any element of this 1984 statute that would  involve“administrative and regulatory inefficiencies, including excessive regulations, requirements, reporting, processes and paper.”

Nothing.

So why then, would the minister responsible for the Kruger agreements repeal act make this demonstrably ridiculous statement in the legislature:

The repeal of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, will reduce an additional sixty-five regulatory requirements from government’s operations.

By the minister’s own words – a mere few seconds before that claim was made – “[a]ll of these agreements now have expired and because these agreements have expired… this legislation is no longer required and will not impact on Kruger’s operations in any way.”

What we have here is a clue to the entire sham of red tape reduction.  While there are undoubtedly some good measures in the red tape project, the announcement earlier this month of government’s triumph contained both a raft of things that had nothing to do with red tape reduction and a few more elements that are entirely bogus.

Like this Kruger one.

Blatant misrepresentation – i.e. spin or bullshit -  has apparently become such an integral part of government’s political communications that it spills out into relatively simple things like a statement in the House repealing an old statute. There was no need of saying much about, but the minister rambled on for a few seconds and then threw in this little piece of nonsense about red tape reduction.

The bullshit is not without meaning.

If you take a look at these two elements – Kruger and red tape – you see a government which must make things appear to be much larger and more significant than they are.  The evident reason is that someone, somewhere in the bowels of government thinks it is important to make it appear that government is actually up to something productive.  So intense is the need for aggrandisement that even the trivial is co-opted to the cause.

Of course, for those familiar with the Rule of Opposites, such obvious knob polishing only makes one wonder what the bullshit is intended to conceal.

Pile up enough crap and you can hide just about anything. 

-srbp-

24 April 2012

The rule of opposites, Penashue edition #nlpoli

Federal intergovernmental affairs minister Peter Penashue wrote a letter to the Telegram to take issue with a previous correspondent in the province’s largest circulation daily:

In a letter you published recently, Kate MacDonald of Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s suggested that Newfoundland’s concerns have been “neglected” in Ottawa under the current Conservative government.

This could not be further from the truth.

Penashue then rattles off a bunch of thing the federal Tories have done while “both opposition parties either opposed or flip-flopped on these initiatives”.

Big fat hairy deal.

Seriously.

Who gives a frig?

What’s really interesting about this letter is the letter itself.  A federal cabinet minister has to write a letter to the local paper taking exception to the comments of a vote.  The question most people would ask is “why?”.

The answer is right at the end:

In closing, Ms. MacDonald was wrong to call me a “lapdog.” She should know that our province has produced only two dog breeds, the Newfoundland dog and the Labrador.

Like me, both are excellent working dogs but very poor lapdogs.

It’s the rule of opposites.

Not X = X.

If it were otherwise - that is, if Penashue wasn’t some federal politician’s bitch -  Penashue wouldn’t have to write a letter and compare himself to dogs in order to rebut the assumption is a “lapdog”.  People would know it already.  And Penashue would be confident that people knew. So he wouldn’t have to write a letter to the paper.

Besides, Penashue’s letter is wrong.  More than two dog breeds originated in the province. He – or perhaps his mainland ghost-writer – should have checked.  There is the Newfoundland and the Labrador.  But the Labrador derived from another breed:  the water dog. 

And of course, people from Labrador are probably wondering how Penashue forgot about the Labrador variant of husky known, oddly enough as the Labrador Husky.

- srbp -

18 October 2016

The War of the Flea Circus #nlpoli

Muskrat Falls has become a three-ring flea circus.

In the first ring, we have the political ambulance chasers, a.k.a. Maudie Barlow and the Council of Xenophobes. The Safari Saviours rolled into town last week, issued a fill-in-the-blanks news release, and then frigged off having successfully tutted a few tuts and gained the media coverage they wanted,.

They, at least, want to end the project, which is more than you can say for the folks staging all sorts of protests here and there.  The folks in the third ring are likely the majority of folks in the province. They want Muskrat Falls finished,  no matter what the cost.  The only difference between Gil Bennett and Bill Gauthier is that Gil actually wants to spend less public money on a project that never made any sense at all.

In the centre ring of the circus we have the province's New Democrats and the self-described "progressive" white folks in the south.  The Dippers sent a letter to the Premier on Monday demanding that he open the House of Assembly "forthwith" in order to give the circus a bigger stage.  Make no mistake,  the Dippers don;t want to stop the project either.  They just want to slow things down a bit.  The NDP, like the Liberals and Conservatives and the overwhelming majority of people in the province want Muskrat Falls at any cost.

The Dippers, like some others, just want you to think they are against the project.  That is the flea in our flea circus.

And that, of course, is the flea in our circus.  It is the thing people insist is there  even when it obviously is not.

24 May 2006

Breaking up FPI

Curse Hansard for being unconscionably slow posting the transcripts of debates in the House of Assembly.

The stuff from last Thursday night and the debate on the Hydro bill is still not online. That yielded nuggets for blogging mostly because not a single member who spoke on the bill had a freakin' clue what it was about. Well, at least their comments didn't suggest any comprehension of the English language.

It is way too early therefore to expect anything from Tuesday and Danny Williams little slip of the tongue in which he revealed a bit of his "plan" for Fishery Products International (FPI). He said something to the effect that if a group of local stakeholders came forward with a plan to buy up the company, then he'd put government money behind them.

Couple that with the changes to the FPI Act currently in front of the House and you have the Williams' plan for FPI: break it up and sell off the bits. Sound familiar?

Remember the Rule of Opposites. In this corollary, take what he accuses someone else of plotting and apply to the Prem himself.

In the absence of any deeper plan for the fishery as a whole - let alone a deeper understanding of what the issues are - the provincial government is falling victim to the quick-fix bail out approach. That's why when fish minister Tom Rideout (right) spoke on the FPI Act amendments Tuesday, he referred to the current situation being like 20 years ago. FPI was created out of a massive bail-out scheme.

The bail-out scheme we may see applied in this instance would have the fish plants in the province sold off, most likely to the Barry Group.

Meanwhile, Ocean Cuisine and possibly the European division would be retained and run by a consortium of the smaller operators out there whose product it already flogs. The European division might also be a way of getting local shrimp under the European Union tariff barrier.

Remember Danny's comment about selling off FPI at fire-sale prices? Well, consider that the current bill in the legislature gives the cabinet control over the break-up: that's the goal of the legislation. The Premier was likely only concerned about someone else buying up the assets at a fire sale - one with flames fanned by his own government more often than not - not necessarily about the idea of a sale and a break up per se.

Of course, in the larger picture Rideout is dead wrong. He and Williams may well manage to cobble together a quick-fix here involving a bail-out and government money but they are really looking at a situation which is fundamentally different than the one 20 years ago. What Williams and Rideout will be doing - if the FPI break-up evolves out of the Great Wednesday Meeting with the Premier - is avoiding the tar-baby by taking the province headlong into the political and financial briar patch.

And just like 20 years ago, neither of them plans on being around when we find out how prickly the briar is.

11 July 2016

If Kelvin's departure was no biggie... #nlpoli

According to Premier Dwight Ball,  Kelvin Parsons was never going to stick around for long as the Premier's chief of staff.

Okay.

Let's think about that for a second.

21 May 2013

Political Grab-Bag #nlpoli

For the first day back after a long weekend, here are some short snappers on some issues swirling around these days at the national scene.

05 April 2013

Kremlinology 43: We Love the Leader! #nlpoli

Twice last week, provincial Conservative politicians offered unprompted endorsements of Kathy Dunderdale’s leadership.

Natural resources minister Tom Marshall praised her as a compassionate Iron Lady who had his full support.  Here’s the story VOCM ran:

Natural Resources Minister Tom Marshall says the premier has his full and complete support. Kathy Dunderdale has come under fire for a tough, cost-cutting budget that includes widespread layoffs and funding cuts. On VOCM Open Line with Bill Rowe, Marshall used a label which came into prominence during the term of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher came into power in the UK in 1970s and developed a reputation of being tough and uncompromising during a time of economic recession, earning the title "Iron Lady". Marshall says Dunderdale is also an Iron Lady, but one with compassion.

Meanwhile, Steve Kent – noteworthy in the past for his lack of Dunderlove – had this to say [via CBC and labradore]:

"Premier Dunderdale is a compassionate and principle-centered leader. I remain inspired by her vision and strength," Kent wrote.

Kent added that Dunderdale enjoys the full support of the PC caucus.

16 November 2009

Lower Churchill definitely a long way off

Danny Williams and his little band might be off to New York to push the Lower Churchill but those savvy people in the Big Apple will know the project is increasingly nothing more than a cute little video with Ron Hynes’ voiceover.

The aboriginal land claims agreement said last year to be finalised and set for a ratification vote in January is still mired in the negotiation and ratification process.

Canadian Press is reporting that Innu deputy grand chief Peter Penashue said:

"Government and the aboriginal people have signed off ... and that will ultimately go for ratification in the very near future."

But Penashue said it could be three or four years before the agreement winds its way through federal channels and is ultimately approved and voted on by his people.

Three or four years before it gets to a vote.

That’s a long way from this fall, which was Penashue’s prediction in June 2009.

Danny Williams was right when he told the Telegram editorial board recently that the project would not happen in the near term.

One of the reasons for the delay in finishing the land claims agreement is that only two of the three parties necessary for a finished product were involved.   Despite the provincial government’s  decades of experience with land claims agreements, including lengthy negotiations on the Innu claim, these talks ignored the federal government entirely. 

"At one point we were looking at splitting the agreement" into provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction, he said.

"Subsequently, it has been agreed to by lawyers that (provincial issues) can't be separate from the feds because the feds have the constitutional powers and authority to finalize these agreements," Penashue said.

There’s no explanation why the provincial government and the Innu embarked on the bilateral talks knowing that legally there was no way to cut Ottawa out.  What legal genius thought otherwise?

This is further proof that the problems and delays in the Lower have nothing to do with the politically driven fiction coming from the Premier’s Office  - and faithfully repeated by some others - that the whole Lower Churchill project is buggered up because of Hydro Quebec.  

There’s a reason why your humble e-scribbler labelled the New Dawn announcement the Matshishkapeu Accord.  The whole thing is a pile of wind, from some of its initial details to the  sheer nonsense that the whole thing was done.

The Premier heralded the thing last fall as doing everything except curing scoliosis. The deal was not just an important step toward the Lower Churchill, it was an “extremely important” one and before the already breathless sentence ran out of breath let’s add that it was also a “significant” step too.  Like an important step  - let alone an extremely important step  - wouldn’t also be significant unless that was added to the sentence as well.

Anyway, the overblown language turns out to have been a very good indicator that the deal was not so much of a deal after all.  Remember the Rule of Opposites?

After it was announced, the Matshishkapeu Accord  quietly slipped away into MIA Land.  The ratification vote was cancelled amid rumblings of major problems with the deal that needed reworking. 

-srbp-

30 June 2011

A tisket, a tasket

You gotta love subtle minds, especially subtle political ones able to see nuances of meaning or the possibility you could rub your tummy and pat your head simultaneously.

That would be most definitely not like the political geniuses of the last decade -  Danny Williams and Kathy Dunderdale  - who always saw the world as consisting of two polar opposites:  what they wanted to do, and the pathway to complete destruction.  With Danny, his tendency to gainsay got to be especially funny since he was known to wind up arguing with himself on some major issues like Equalization.

The latest example is Kathy Dunderdale’s comments to the Telegram editorial board.  In the latest offering from that rich gold mine, Steve Bartlett tells us that Kathy Dunderdale has no time for any talk of a sovereign wealth fund.

For those who don’t know what that is, a sovereign wealth fund* would be what they do in smart countries, like Norway, to make sure their oil money continues to benefit the country long after the last drop of oil is gone. 

Basically, the Norwegians put a bit of their oil wealth into an investment fund and let it make more money for them.  They do lots of other things with their oil money, like build roads, bridges, tunnels and schools and such.  But they put some of it aside for a rainy day.

Now bear in mind the Norwegians have a shitload of oil and natural gas.  They are not really in danger of running out in the near future and there is always a good chance that all the exploration going on offshore Norway will turn up a few more gushers.

Still, they still thought it might be wise to start a rainy day fund. 

You know. 

Just in case.

And now several billion or trillion dollars later, they are doing just fine.

Some people have suggested the same idea here.  The most recent one is Wade Locke. Kathy thinks it is foolishness:

"People talk about a legacy fund all the time and we respond to that by saying, 'That's our legacy fund, the investment in infrastructure.' Because unless you have roads and wharves and hospitals and schools, your economy can't grow," she says.

There’s that binary thinking again.  No chance of doing more than one thing.  Sovereign wealth fund or infrastructure.  The word “and” is not in Kathy’s vocabulary.

One of the many things Kathy missed is that all those roads and wharves and hospitals and schools don’t really produce any money to pay for their own upkeep.  That’s especially true in a province like this one where the economy has grown increasingly less diverse over the Tory term of office. So it is great to spend a bunch of money on all that lovely infrastructure but if that is all you have done with the cash, you really haven’t done much in the long run.

The sensible answer would be to do several things with the oil money.  Invest some.  Spend some.  Pay down debt with some.  Build some infrastructure with some.

What Kathy and her mates have done is put all the province’s financial eggs into one basket.  It’s basically the same thing the Tories did with their own political leader:  one egg to rule the basket.  Sadly, when the time comes and the egg goes, as it inevitably will, all you wind up with is the sad case of …well…an empty basket.

And who really wants to be left with a basket case?

- srbp -

*  Paragraphing change and rewritten sentence to make it clear that the sentence after this mark wasn’t a comment made or or attributable to  KD.

23 February 2010

Danny’s political future

The Premier, who had already indicated plans to seek another term, says that's the plan. And Williams quips, he's in politics for the long haul.

That courtesy of the radio station known derisively as voice of the cabinet minister who even supplied the audio version:

“Nothing has changed for me… so I am looking at possibly another four terms.”

Translation:  apply the rule of opposites. Now there’s a concept people should be very familiar with.

And if by some chance he did stay at it for another four terms – 16 years – then Danny Williams would be both the oldest person sworn in as Premier since 1949 and the oldest person to leave the office.

Williams turns 61 this year and would be pretty close to 80 if he actually won four more general elections.

-srbp-