Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Harper Climbing Greased Poll

Stephen Harper is on a whirlwind tour of the Maritimes and Saskatchewan in an effort to rebuild support there after implementing a budget that will cost both areas billions of dollars. He's apparently given up on Newfoundland and Labrador all together but even in the Martimes rebuilding support is a job he will have difficulty with in light of his recent poll numbers.

According to a Decima Research poll released last week only 6% of Atlantic Canadians support Harper's stand on equalization and even when the undecided factor is removed the numbers show that a full 69% of the people in the region (including those in NB and PEI who are not involved in the Atlantic Accord debate) support the stand taken by Premier's Williams and MacDonald.

The poll, provided to The Canadian Press, also found that Harper has lost a lot of support in the rest of the country for his equalization policies. Nationally, only 27 per cent of respondents leaned toward Harper’s position, while 32 per cent sided with the premiers.

For the Tories, that means a national, not just a regional problem. This is a tricky issue everywhere for them, not just in Atlantic Canada.

When you add the national feeling over the ongoing Afghan mission and the mounting casualties there the picture for the PM doesn't look good. Just this week the list of fatalities increased when more Canadian soldiers died in a roadside bomb attack and in August soldiers from the Van Doos regiment in Quebec, a province already polling well over 70% against the mission, will be rotated into the battle zone.

It looks like it's going to be a long hot summer for the PM. The expectation is that overall national support for Stephen Harper's Conservative/Reform/Alliance/PC government, or CRAP for short, will slip into the low 20% range making them much more reflective of the numbers being experienced by his friend and mentor, U.S. President George W. Bush.

87 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am wondering if the Conservative Party saw the need to create foes against the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Government while they were the Opposition Party? The party knew the inherent lie that lay within its promise of excluding 100 per cent non-renewable and knowing that the electorate of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador comprised only 2.2 per cent of the total seats in the House of Commons that their promise was doomed to the dust bin for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As Loyola Hearn said yesterday, the rest of the Canadian Premiers were the decision makers. If that is the case, we will never have any say in Canada’s Parliament with just 2.2 per cent of the seats and no promise from now on can be taken seriously? We, as ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, were too smug in thinking that the Prime Minister would have the final say, so essentially in Stephen Harpers mind, he said I will promise them what I know I cannot deliver, but they don’t know that. Since it all boiled down to a Premiers’ Conference where it ultimately would be the decision of the 7 Premiers who were relying on those non-renewable for their economies to flourish.

So in essence what they, the Conservative Party of Canada, did was they came after one of the renegades in the provincial Newfoundland and Labrador caucus, and invited him to run for the Federal Conservative Party. That was a feather in his hat and I am sure he jumped with glee to get one up on Premier Danny Williams and he did just that and won Federally. And we all know what happened to the Finance Minister, who apparently was one of two people who knew the Equalization Program inside out, according to pundits; he was promised an Ambassadorial Position to keep things quiet on that front? If that scenario was used by the Federal Conservatives to undermine the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people, I will pose the question, why are we part of Canada in the first place? There are so many reasons why we can’t get ahead in this country, the number one being we do not have enough seats to have a say and the other being, that the Feds can undermine things in a way to shaft us royally by stealing our politicians and setting them against us and giving others patronage positions to get them out of the way. If that is the case this is a very corrupt country, with a very corrupt set-up? I am sick to death of having to put up with being classed as a ‘have-not province ’ despite the fact the province has plenty of resources to look after one-half million people?

Artfull Dodger said...

Granted the Premier took his dispute over the top with his anti-Harper/Conservative party rhetoric, but for a Prime Minister to tour through the Atlantic provinces region and completly snub an entire province is not very Prime Ministerial. All Harper achieves with this is to drive the final nail in the coffin for any future support from the electorate, well except for hard-core conservative party supporters at least.

I voted for the CP in the last election for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which was Liberal arrogance. It seems that arrogance is not limited to any specific political party.

I seem to have a coonundrum now, which party to vote for the next time, none of them currently appeal to me.

Artfull Dodger said...

There are those who say that Harper promised something he could not deliver on.

Playing a little 'devils advocate' here, if this is true, Harper took the wrong approach by saying the CP delivered on the promise. Harper should have come clean and stated the reason(s) he could not deliver on the promise, that I could at least grudgingly accept. Harper had his ministers trot out with the 'we delivered' message including the very hypocritical Loyola Hearn who labelled former minister John Efford a traitor to the province (pot meet kettle). Harper is either a victim of bad advice from his handlers or very decietfull.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, if you read the AIMS report (it's on a link on this site) you'll see that:

1) the 100% exclusion idea is fundamentally correct and in the best interest of all of Canada even if Ontario and others don't see that.

2) Harper as an economist knew and knows today that it is the right solution but he didn't implement it because because of political games and the hunger to win seats in central canada.

3) Harper bowed to vote rich areas rather than do what was best for Canada. He can say the provinces didn't want it all he wants but the reality is that equalization isn't decided by the provinces, it's a fully controlled federal program and he could have implemented the 100% solution without the approval of even a single province.

Anonymous said...

Hello NL from AB,
Anonymous (1) asked "I am wondering if the Conservative Party saw the need to create foes against the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Government while they were the Opposition Party?"

Good question. They're strange fellows, going around bashing people who might otherwise support them--Maritimers, veterans, a lot of seniors, small and naturally conservative investors, young working mothers... It's a long list. It's seems like they're saying 'Not enough votes there, abuse, next.'

I've not seen the like of it before in Canadian politics. What's the real agenda Harper is not telling?

Anonymous said...

You know darn well that the Federal Conservative Party at the time was quite aware that there was a renegade politician in the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Government. They seized upon the opportunity to lure him to the Federal fold. That would give them ammunition against Premier Williams, since they knew what they would have to do to get him on side and that was to promise something like 100 per non-renewable to be excluded from the Equalization Formula and no Cap. They also knew they would not be able to deliver that promise, which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were oblivious to. Also we were under the impression that that the Atlantic Accord was a bi-lateral Agreement and that two levels of government would have to be party to any changes. According to John Crosbie they couldn't and shouldn't have changed it, but they did.

Also the Federal Conservative Government saw the opportunity in a Newfoundland and Labrador Finance Minister, who was about to step down into retirement, and they said, no doubt, "here is a chap who can assist Premier Williams against us in the upcoming debacle that will present itself in the upcoming Federal Budget. That debacle as we know now saw the promise on Equalization reneged upon. They saw the greatest opportunity in the world for Ottawa in seizing upon the opportunity of getting this geltleman into their fold, and with lots of plum patronage positions that can be created at the flick of a pen; they decided to give that Chap an Ambassadorial position. That our beloved politician would have accepted that position is what baffles me.

We elect those politicians to do what is right for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but every darn one of them seems to get afflicted with the "me syndrome" disease after they are elected. Every other disease seems to be arrested, diseases such as BCE and SARS but the Government nurtures the "me sydrome" disease to the detriment of a province like Newfoundland and Labrador which has such a small representation in the Canadian Parliament which keeps it in the mode of forever being poor. That is the greatest sickness in the World for a province like Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ottawa do you not see what you are doing to us?

I hope by now, that in Newfoundland and Labrador we understand the Canadian political system as well as we will ever and that we do something about it when electing people from now on. Maybe it is time we ask everyone of our politicians for a DISCLOSURE as to what will they do when presented with a situation where they have to either toe the party line for Ottawa or toe the party line for their constituents. We need the answer from them up front. And the answer should be that they will toe the party line for the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it more interesting that someone comes here anonymously with some big conspiracy story at the same time the local Tories are slagging fabian every day on the Open Line shows?

babe in boyland said...

"Maybe it is time we ask everyone of our politicians for a DISCLOSURE as to what will they do when presented with a situation where they have to either toe the party line for Ottawa or toe the party line for their constituents."

we already know that. we have a party political system. politicians run on a party platform and sit as members of their caucus. that says they will work within their caucus and within their party platform. otherwise they would run as independents.

in situations where there is a conflict between party policy and riding or constituency interest or will, you can only know what a politician will do when it happens. the argument, if he sticks with the party line, will always be that he can do more behind the scenes inside than he can outside.

we know from experience what manning is likely to do - he voted with his constituency and against government policy over raw material sharing. that issue was pretty cut and dried. rms was not accepted by mannings constituents and would have caused a lot of problems for the economy of his riding, and manning voted against it. the federal budget issue is less cut and dried. remember, manning is only responsible for his own riding and to the people who elected him, not to the government or the whole province of newfoundland and labrador. there was a lot in the budget for his riding and it would do a lot of good for the people who elected him to represent him. it pissed off the provincial government, but manning is not responsible to them. we'll know if manning did what the people he represents wanted when there is another federal election.

grow up, boys. harper may have broken a promise, but it was a stupid promise that he was stupid to make. we lost the political game this time, but punishing manning and the other mps wont get us what we want this time around. it will just mean we'll have noone in caucus and we'll be shut out of the game until government changes (which is not going to happen soon because harper has got central canada locked up) or we elect another conservative.

its irritating, but it really is better to have someone inside pissing out than outside pissing in.

WJM said...

If that is the case this is a very corrupt country, with a very corrupt set-up? I am sick to death of having to put up with being classed as a ‘have-not province ’ despite the fact the province has plenty of resources to look after one-half million people?

Aren't question marks usually used to mark questions?

Artfull Dodger said...

B in B, Manning will be re-elected or tossed out by the constituants in the riding which he is running the next time around. The premier can say whatever he wants, however that may carry little weight in a rural riding such as that which Manning represents. My personal feeling with respect to Mannings (clapping seal immitation) sitting next to Harper, whilst Harper made his remarks regarding the provincial budget made for a pretty bad optic in my opinion. Manning tried to rationalize the incident however I don't buy his explanation. I guess I have major trust issues with any politician lately.

I will say, that if the provincial government is on a Manning smear campaign with respect to this he said/she said nonsense currently playing itslef out, then that just ain't cosure.

Anonymous said...

Yes WJM they are, but how childish of you ask on a blog? I have seen many mistakes that you have made on this blogsite over the past few months, I have been tempted to tell you , but I exercised a little restraint and said to my self 'WHOOOA THERE' that is too childish. Do you wish me to point out your errors? Or by asking you the question, will you become a perfectionist with your grammar and punctuation? I am sure I will make the same ommission again, so I will not apologize. All that matters to me is that I know the difference.

WJM said...

Do you wish me to point out your errors?

I'm utterly indifferent!

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't waste my time. That is what I am saying. Please stop your childishness, we aren't in school here. You don't have to read my posts WJM, so please steer clear of them. There are more important things to write about than that.

Anonymous said...

Oh God of Great plots, explain please why Harper's crew didn't just recruit manning and Sullivan and leave them inside the caucus to cause Danny problems.

Big long comments with all sorts of plots. The only thing missing is popcorn.

Anonymous said...

WJM - I hope you enjoyed all of the plots.

babe in boyland said...

"The premier can say whatever he wants, however that may carry little weight in a rural riding such as that which Manning represents."

i dont get it - why would the premiers word not carry weight in a rural riding? he did pretty well in rural ridings last election.

btw, dodger - i like "B in B". reminds me of b&b (brandy and benedictine) which is a drink i used to drink a lot :-) thanks for the memory :-)

WJM said...

I hope you enjoyed all of the plots.

Plots?

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't waste my time. That is what I am saying. Please stop your childishness, we aren't in school here. You don't have to read my posts WJM, so please steer clear of them. There are more important things to write about than that.

July 05, 2007 2:54 PM

My man das all he wants, dat one ,Wally.Fight'en .Das all he doe's is troll around the internet lookin fer it. :)

Anonymous said...

Like Sue Kelland Dyer said this morning on VOCM Open Line the Feds are here in Newfoundland and Labrador giving out coppers, while they were in Nova Scotia yesterday and gave out $3.1 Billion Dollars. "Yes folks", in Nova Scotia yesterday they dropped 3,100 million dollars, just one giveaway, and no doubt, there will be more in that province, LISTEN UP NEWFOUNDLANDERS AND LABRADORIANS that is thirty one hundred million dollars or 3,100 x $1,000,000.00 dollars equals $3,100,000,000.00 DROPPED IN NOVA SCOTIA YESTERDAY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I wonder was that the reason the Feds made trips to Halifax recently? And don't forget about a month ago Premier Rodney MacDonald of Nova Scotia made a visit to Ottawa. If we could have been a fly on the wall during those meetings? Nova Scotia cannot be compared in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they are too well flushed with Federal jobs, and as we know they are still being given more and more of them. The province of Nova Scotia will never suffer in the Canadian Federation, despite the fact it has few natural resources.

Ed Hollett said...

Anon, please learn to do math.

The announcement yesterday was to refit and refurbish 12 frigates in the navy. These ships are based in BC and Nova Scotia and routinely patrol the entire coastline of each coast.

What harper annoucned was a refit program that will start in 2010. The tenders haven't been awarded yet.

Marystown can compete for the contract, among other places in this province.

What you have presented here is just sheer nonsense.

That's what you get for putting faith in someone who last year was shilling for harper using bogus theories and in spite of evidence that Harper wouldn't do what he was promising.

You are posting anonymously either because you don't want people to know who is spouting the nonsense.

Or you are Sue.

Sheesh, either way the answer works out to the same thing.

Anonymous said...

It is not the Math in that case, then it the time frame that you are speaking of, is it not Ed, or whether or not that announcement will stick? $3.1 billion is the number of million that I said it was, isn't it Ed. If it goes ahead it will have been 3100 millon dropped in Nova Scotia in that one visit, is it not Ed?

So maybe it is time that you were able to differentiate between Math and Timing. I computed the Math, I just assumed what the Feds said they were going to place in Nova Scotia will be placed there. Can you believe the Feds at all?

I trust that since the media pounced on it and annouced it to be so, that it will happen?

Anonymous said...

Ed you said "please learn to do Math".

What is the problem with the Math?

I just took the $3.1 million dollar figure and computed for the readers of this blog how many million dollars there are in $3.1 billion. There are 3,100 million. That is a lot of visits that are worth $1 million dollars. Thirty One Hundred (3,100 visits to be exact could be made here and on each visit $1 Million dollars could be dropped. And in the case of the loss in the Atlantic Accord, which is $11 billion according to Wade Locke, the Feds can come to this province 11,000 times and drop $1 million dollars on each visit. That is a humunguous figure no matter wheter you look at it in visits to this province or the overall money that we are losing.

Is it that you were not able to differentiate between Math,Timing or whether the $3.1 Billion Contract will be placed in Nova Scotia Ed?

Ed Hollett said...

Well, take it either way.

You still have a completely nonsensical point.

$3.1 billion wasn't dropped in Nova Scotia. It wasn't. Never happened.

Where the money gets spent has yet to be determined.

The visit is therefore not worth 3.1 billion loonies pennies to Nova Scotia or anywhere else at this point, no matter how you want to demonstrate your facility with digits and expressing 3.1 billion different.

It is simply not a case of $3.1 billion being spent in a single province or across a dozen visits.

Post twice if you must. The point is still the same: your comments is nonsense. There is nothing to wake up too except an announcement of something.

The announcement was made in Halifax since that is the navy's east coats base. It doesn't mean the refurbishment cash will be spent in Nova Scotia entirely. The contract might well wind up going to a Quebec firm.

As for the comment on Wade Locke, you are right: $11 billion in federal handouts is a huge figure. I'd rather have the $14 billion lost in the failed Hebron deal and in the Hibernia South cock up and the effectively uncapped money from oil and other economic development rather than limit the province to federal hand-outs.

Priorities? Math? Facts? Doesn't matter. You have them all shagged up.

Anonymous said...

Thank You Ed! But you told me to learn Math, when there was no problem with my cumputation of the $3.1 billion dollar figure that was promised Nova Scotia by the Federal Government. That is all I wanted to do and I hope I made my point. I am glad though I don't have to go back to Math classes. Pheeeew!

Next time though ED please isolate what you want to attack in any particular statement made by anyone on this blogsite.

With regards to the MATH there was no problem at all. Since what I did was break down the dollar figure promised to Nova Scotia with the number of times that the Federal Government could visit and drop $1 million dollars on each visit.

I thought the Feds were sincere with the figure they dropped in Nova Scotia yesterday. So that means we cannot trust the Federal Government one iota in their promises, since they are still up to their old dirty tricks.

Anonymous said...

ed Hollet said
What harper annoucned was a refit program that will start in 2010. The tenders haven't been awarded yet.

Marystown can compete for the contract, among other places in this province.

well according to cbc
Minister Peter MacKay, said the refit process would start in 2010 and likely take seven years.

"The process will make the 12 frigates relevant for decades to come," said O'Connor.

Shipyards in Halifax and Victoria have been invited to submit bids to retrofit the frigates, he said.

from the bolded bit it appears Marystown hasn't been asked to submit a bid.

Anonymous said...

I was in halifax and i didnt see 3.1 billion dollars anyware

babe in boyland said...

wazzup? tried to post and couldnt.

got a problem, admin?

Ed Hollett said...

"Shipyards in Halifax and Victoria have been invited to submit bids to retrofit the frigates,..."

If that's the case then someone should raise a racket about that. marystown is already part of a consortium bidding to build other naval vessels.

On the face of it, there'd be no reason why Marystown shouldn't be able to work on the project in some fashion.

Artfull Dodger said...

If the work on the frigates is limited to bids from shipyards in Halifax and Victoria exclusively, then i think we have a dam good reason to demand from the government, an answer as to why Marystown had been omited. Since I do not know if this is indeed a fact, I'll reserve further comment.

I believe it is only fair that the bidding be open to all shipyards in canada as long as the yards can meet the specifications of any tender. This province has a proportionately large number of its young men and women serving in the CF, most especially in the navy. I don't think it is asking too much that we at least be given a fair shake at procuring any contract work for the CF. I will be waiting to see how this unfolds.

Caps Lock said...

TO: ED HOLLET WHO SAID; "I'd rather have the $14 billion lost in the failed Hebron deal and in the Hibernia South cock up and the effectively uncapped money from oil and other economic development rather than limit the province to federal hand-outs."

COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE THE $14 BILLION WOULD COME FROM. THERE MUST BE AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF OIL IN THE HEBRON GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE. WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN?

Caps Lock said...

An article in today's news read gunmen smashed in the windows of a car carrying a British girl to school Thursday and kidnapped a three-year old girl in the first seizure of a foreign child in Nigerias's increasingly lawless OIL REGION.

There have been over 200 foreigners kidnapped since militants stepped up their activities against the oil industry in late 2005 and more than 100 expatriates have been seized this year along as criminal gangs took up the practice.

If the Oil Companies were not gouging these poor countries, but instead giving the people their fair share, this most likely would not be happening. These big Oil conglomerates are so covetous and greedy that despite some of these countries vast oil reserves, the people who should be benefiting are as poor as church mice. I don't understand why some world body doesn't oversee restrictions on the Oil conglomerates to prevent them from plundering countries resources.

Ed Hollett said...

Geez, Caps Lock, you should pay attention to Wade Locke, even when it doesn't suit you.

By his estimate, the provincial revenue over the life of the project for Hebron and for Hibernia South was $14 billion.

You really should check the CNLOPB website as well. If you did you'd understand that Hibernia would achieve payout based on roughly the original estimated reserves (and given the current oil prices). Once payout was achieved even more oil (about one billion barrels would flow at the 30% royalty rate, versus the current 7%.

If memory serves, Locke put the figure for the 300 mbbls of hibernia SOuth alone at $4.0 billion, but frankly I think that might be a tad high.

Hebron was based on only Hebron, with roughly around 500 mbbls. With an assumed average price per barrel of something like US$50, the life of the project would have generated something on the order of $8 to $10 billion in royalties alone. Locke was widely quoted at the time the deal fell apart.

Put the two together and you get $14 billion or thereabouts.

Now bear in mind as well, that the Hebron figure didn't include the additional 250 mbbls estimated to exist between Ben Nevis and West Ben Nevis. Those would have been brought on stream presumably at the higher royalty rate, i.e. after payout.

Dems de facts. Go check 'em out.

I can hear the pop of your burst bubble all the way down here.

Caps Lock said...

The Oil Consortium certainly confounds dems de facts by putting forth figures that don't seem to jive with what you are putting in print Ed.

I believe Jeff Simpson said about two weeks ago in a CBC Radio interview that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's known reserves only amount to a 22 days supply of Energy. That is our reserves can run the entire World's economy with energy for 22 days. Of course, I do not believe one word that they are saying. Big Oil is so corrupt that they would never let Newfoundlanders and Labradorians or the World know what they are dealing with in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore reserves. You, Ed, seem to be touting more reserves in your last post than I remember you talking about in your previous posts.

Ed Hollett said...

Wade Locke is not the oil consortium, Caps Lock.

I offer facts; you just offer a paranoid delusion about a global conspiracy.

The size of the reserves for the fields are about the same as I used in any posts or comments I have made on the issue of Hibernia and Hebron, give or take a few barrels. if you can show otherwise, by all means please do.

You won't of course, because you can't provide evidence to back any of your claims.

That's really been the whole point I have made repeatedly: you and your associates offer only fiction, fantasy, delusion and invention.

Caps Lock said...

I have a question, or is it a conundrum, for you Ed and Simon? And Myles this question or conundrum could very well form the basis as a topic for your next Post.


HOW CAN THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR survive with the Outsourcing of 100 per cent of its Natural Resources, therefore the creation of no Processing or Manufacturing Jobs occur as a result of the stupid decision making in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and the consequential result is the Out Migration of all of its people? What is the alternative Ed and Simon? I would like to have two gentlemen, Ed and Simon, opine on this matter. Myles if you wish, I would also like your opinion.

The more input into this serious matter the better. Outsourcing of our raw materials and the resulting out-migration of our people is the crux of the problem that is at rearing its ugly head in our province at this very moment. We need to talk and talk fast if we are to avert a castrophe.

Caps Lock said...

GLOBALIZATION: While it is considered good for the overall health of the nation, SOME AREAS ARE ADVERSELY IMPACTED AS A RESULT OF GLOBALIZATION, AND THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR IS A CASE IN POINT. Canada exports our fish quotas so that trade can flourish elsewhere in Canada and the World, since those quotas are traded for something else in some other part of the globe, but the trading Nation, such as Canada will never tell its electorate that. As a result some parts of a Nation will suffer, it is especially true that it has had a devastating effect on the economic condition of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador since the fishing industry in this province has suffered greatly.

We export our Iron Ore to create jobs in manufacturing elsewhere. We export our Nickel Ore to be processed elsewhere and thus the resource creates manufacturing jobs elsewhere, and the same is true for our Oil and our Hydroelectricity resources. Ottawa, unlike what it has done for other provinces of Canada, failed to make up for these resource losses here. Ottawa could have compensated in some form and lessened the impact on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador but it didn't. Why it didn't do that is a crime on Ottawa's part? Ottawa was a co-signer to free trade and globalization movements and the problems rests on its shoulders.

There is an increasing interest in how the process of globalization affects the economic, civic, and educational conditions of disadvantaged communities around the world. Concerns have arisen about globalization and its attendant impact on labor markets and employment standards, and there are questions about the appropriate roles of regulatory organizations. There has been particular interest in understanding the broader forces and processes that are prompting a shift in the terms and conditions of employment and contributing to changes in formal and informal employment. These changes to the labor market are particularly troublesome because they appear to undermine the earning power of less-skilled workers and erode the power of workers generally.

Caps Lock said...

Ed you said: "I offer facts; you just offer a paranoid delusion about a global conspiracy".


There can be no facts offered in this delusional world of conspiratal economics. The secrecy, surrounding all governmental economic affairs, is too intransparent or opaque. Who can read the minds of big oil conspirators anyway? Neither me nor you!

And believe me Ed, we will never know the extent of the Oil and Gas Reserves in our off-shore waters because these figures will only be known after the last barrel is taken from the geolocical resevoirs.

babe in boyland said...

'If the Oil Companies were not gouging these poor countries, but instead giving the people their fair share, this most likely would not be happening.'

i just googled "nigeria, government take, global, oil' and eventually found out that the nigerian government takes over 80% of oil revenues. its not big oil that is gouging the nigerian people, its their government. if your government screws you over, what can - or should - and oil company do?

Anonymous said...

If Nigeria can get 80 per cent of its Oil Revenue, why can't Newfoundland and Labrador get 5 per cent? I doubt that the Oil companies are that generous and give Nigeria 80 per cent of the take though?

Anonymous said...

If Nigeria can get 80 per cent of its Oil Revenue, why can't Newfoundland and Labrador get 5 per cent? I doubt that the Oil companies are that generous and give Nigeria 80 per cent of the take though?

Ed Hollett said...

"If Nigeria can get 80 per cent of its Oil Revenue, why can't Newfoundland and Labrador get 5 per cent? I doubt that the Oil companies are that generous and give Nigeria 80 per cent of the take though?"

Overall, NL current receives far more than 5% of cahs flows from its offshore oil resources. It's royalty regime brings in more initially (as a percentage) than Alberta or the US Gulf of Mexico.

One of the points made by a chap named Kellas at the recent NOIA conference was that countries like Nigeria rely on state-owned oil companies and equity stakes since they lack the reliable tax collection structures available in the developed world.

babe in boyland said...

so you dont believe wood gundy, our governments consultant? they say nigeria gets over 80%. and thats 80% in royalties, taxes and equity - all of it. the government take on our oil projects is a bit over 50% - that includes royalties (NL gets all of that), provincial taxes, federal taxes and all. equity of whatever percent would add on to that.

oil companies are not generous. theyre businesslike. if it is easiest to agree to a straight 80% levy to government and they make what they think is enough profit on the remainder, then thats what theyll do.

a lot of countries, including us, want different benefits instead of just cash from their oil. some want jobs, contracts for local businesses, roads, schools, hospitals, teachers, doctors, all kinds of stuff. nigeria just wants money for government. thats why they get so much.

in the past weve gone after other benefits as well as money. mostly contracts for local businesses, jobs for newfoundlanders and labradorians, building facilities like bull arm, making their major contractors locate and put facilities here - stuff that would and did help build up a made-in-newfoundland industry and start a sustainable long-term industry sector.

we were doing well with that for a while.

too bad.

Anonymous said...

Whatever we went after in the past or we are getting in the present and we will want for the future, it will not add up to 80 per cent of the take. I will repeat: The oil companies are just not that generous.

You can bet your next meal on that one.

Caps Lock said...

Exxon received $40 Billion dollars in its last quarter. And if their takes is as you say 20 per cent and since you say they give away 80 per cent, that means that there were another $160 Billion dollars in that same quarter that went to governments and their jurisdictions which allowed their oil to be exploitedÉ

Ed Hollett said...

Caps Lock, where did you get that Exxon took $40 billion out of Nigeria alone and that that was only 20% of the total value of Nigerian oil?

Of course, just looking back through a few of your posts, have you checked to see if Nigeria "outsources" its oil to support development of "economies" in other places?

babe in boyland said...

so youre saying wood gundy is wrong?

nigeria is NOT getting 80% of revenue?

does that mean we should demand less, because our demand is usually based on what others are getting.

we have to stop thinking of the oil companies as bad guys. if theyre the bad guys, we should never do a deal with them, or were dealing with the devil, right? we dont do deals with hitler, right?

if oil companies were evil, we should not let them operate in our waters at all.

if oil companies are evil, we should not do business with them.

if oil companies are evil, we should not try and create one of our own.

we have to stop thinking about business in terms of good and evil. its not about good and evil, its about money. sometimes good or evil things happen in the pursuit of money, but thats not the heart of the thing.

the heart of the thing is finding, developing, producing and selling oil - and you can do that because the world needs oil. otherwise, nobody would buy it. but why do you WANT to do it? to make money and build economies. oil companies want to make money. buyers want to build economies. countries that HAVE oil want to make money AND build economies.

we have to start thinking about it like that, simple and businesslike, not all wrapped up in generosity and good and evil and shit. otherwise, were dealing emotionally - and when you do that, you ALWAYS lose.

when was the last time you passed the course, got the job, won the case, did the deal or won the argument because you were more EMOTIONAL than the other guy????

bet your next mean on THAT one, smartypants.

i thought GIRLS were supposed to be the irrational, emotional ones.

Caps Lock said...

So Nigeria gets 80 per cent of the take and Big Oil gets 20 per cent; and Big Oil doesn't mind taking on all of the risks including having it workers taken hostage from time to time for large ransoms. Wow! The need for Oil is greater than Premier Danny Williams is allowed to believe.

Premier Williams please take note of how badly your jurisdiction's oil is needed by Big Oil and the World's economy. Please do not let it go for a song. It is a very valuable commodity indeed.

Caps Lock said...

babe - why are you writing those long posts that contain little substance. Are you doing it to camouflage pertinent figures from the Oil Industry that you yourself posted and figures I think that Premier Danny Williams should be privilege to, if he isn't already?

babe - You also seem to worry about the Gender of the person posting. It is almost like you think women should not hold an opinion on anything, is that what you are digging at babe? I remember another poster a few months back posting with the same slant on things. I wonder if you are that person?

And, "Oh Yes" babe I have a lot of emotions and those emotions are biased towards my province Newfoundland and Labrador getting its 'fair and just' share from it resources. This province has 500,000 people which it is responsible for creating a province wide Economy for, while the Oil Companies have far less than that number in their employment centers. I also want the Oil Companies to get their fair share, since I know, they too, have responsibilities; but I do not want them to have the lion's share.

Caps Lock said...

Ed Wrote:July 07, 2007 2:30 PM

"Caps Lock, where did you get that Exxon took $40 billion out of Nigeria alone and that that was only 20% of the total value of Nigerian oil?"


babe in boyland said: "i just googled "nigeria, government take, global, oil' and eventually found out that the nigerian government takes over 80% of oil revenues."

Caps Lock said: "Exxon received $40 Billion dollars in its last quarter. And if their takes is as you say 20 per cent and since you say they give away 80 per cent, that means that there were another $160 Billion dollars in that same quarter that went to governments and their jurisdictions which allowed their oil to be exploited?

ED I WAS USING babe in boyland's statement that contained the figures that Nigeria gets 80 per cent. So therefore, if Nigeria gets 80 per cent, Big Oil, whichever Corporate Conglomerate representing Nigeria gets 20 per cent. So I took for example Exxon's last quarter profits of $40 Billion to do a demonstration.
Exxon's profit of $40 Billion dollars, no doubt, were not all earned in Nigeria, but instead came from a number of oil fields around the globe. So if 20 per cent represents $40 Billion, well then I said, the other 80 per cent that represented the other owners, no doubt government jurisdictions had to amount to $160 Billion Dollars. It is simple math.

So I am wondering if the portion that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador receives amounts to 80 per cent of the take? If not what per centage does the provice really receive?

Premier Danny Williams is asking for 5 per cent stake in the next Oil Project so I suspect that the profits that the province is receiving is very, very low. Or why would he be asking for that 5 per cent equity?

If we can get 80 per cent like babe says Nigeria gets, I am sure our Premier would not want anything other than that figure. We could do many things with the profit represented by the 80 per cent and have enough to put in a Heritage Fund beside.

Ed Hollett said...

Caps Lock wrote: "Exxon's profit of $40 Billion dollars, no doubt, were not all earned in Nigeria, but instead came from a number of oil fields around the globe. So if 20 per cent represents $40 Billion, well then I said, the other 80 per cent that represented the other owners, no doubt government jurisdictions had to amount to $160 Billion Dollars. It is simple math."

The problem here is not the math but your logic. You win up with GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out.

The figure of $40 billion represented ExxonMobil's yearlynet profit. It's quarterly profit - net for all operations - for the second quarter of 2007 was almost US$11 billion.

You started with the wrong number and then incorrectly attributed the profit to Nigerian operations. Your math is wrong and your conclusions are wrong.

I am not sure where babe gets her figures or what figures she is referring to. Nigerian joint ventures between the Nigerian state oil company and private sector partners are typically 60/40 splits with Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation taking the 60%.

Nigeria has a national content plan to ensure that the lion's share of Nigerian upstream oil and gas is (labour, companies etc) is Nigerian. Basically, you'd have to take the revnue stream coming out of the 60% and factor in the other work to figure out the local benefit.

The problem that you have with the 5% equity point you raise is two-fold.

First, you have the wrong number. The province will be looking for its oil company to have a 10% ownership stake.

Second, NNPC's equity (oil company ownership stake) is not the same as its royalty regime. If you look at only the equity position in NL and compare directly to Nigeria you'd be missing a whole raft of cash in NL.

That's why I keep dragging you back to Locke's comparison of things like net cash flows. It compares apples to apples. Your version compares apples to oranges.

Looked at on that basis, the province's overall take - as it stands right now - is about 40% on TN and White Rose and about 27%, if memory serves on Hibernia.

Bear in mind that out of that 60% for NNPC it actually runs an oil company on that, so the portion of that headed for the Nigerian treasury is not 60% of oil revenues of NNPC.

Looked at another way, Nigeria - which is considered by some to have a highly attractive financial climate, has the government assuming both the market risk and the operator risk, but it actually has to pay for the operator risk through its oil company.

In Canada, the resource owner - i.e. the province - takes only the market risk (the price of the oil at market0 while the operator assumes all the operating risk and hence gets to reap the other rewards that go with that in the good times. It also sucks up the pain when things arent that good.

Again this is why I keep dragging you back to looking at the real issue here in NL: why should the province accept the risk of operating an oil company?

Realistically, any profit realized by the company cannot necessarily be spent; it must be retained as a hedge against down turns and operational losses. It must go towards paying for the dry holes, if it takes on exploration. In other words it must pay for the risk it takes.

Add to that the question about how the province might actually pay for its so called equity. The premier hasn't bothered to even try and explain that. But if we look at the one figure he did use on Hebron - total net of $1.5 billion to the provincial oil company over the anticipated 20 year lifespan of the project - you are talking about chump change compared to the $8 to $10 billion in other revenues the province would get directly.

You've basically consistently mixed a whole bunch of ideas together that really can't be mixed together.

Fundamentally, you can't say "equity" is the same as ownership. Anyone who does that is misrepresenting the situation. The province already is the effective owner of the resource.

Equity is about operating an oil company and that is really all it is about. unless and until someone from the current administration explains the whole thing clearly and takes into account the risks/costs and benefits, the pros and cons, we should all be extremely skeptical.

Ed Hollett said...

Just to clarify: when I said 10% ownership stake I meant the oil company as an operator or, as some people put it "owner".

The province already effectively owns the resource.

Anyone who considers the 10% equity to be "provincial government ownership" is misrepresenting the situation.

Caps Lock said...

Since my sympathies lie with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador I can say distinctively that I have a Newfoundland and Labrador bias.

I would say to Premier Williams, "go ahead Premier and do a 'Nigerian' on our Oil, 80 per cent is better than 20 per cent no matter what amount of expenses we have to pay." After all we will be paying the expenses that we are stuck with in the first place, I am sure Big Oil is not putting one cent in this province than it has to, after it gives us our share of the royalties. Their head office is in Calgary and anything else is in Halifax. Premier Williams go ahead and take the 80 per cent and pay the expenses to THY KINGDOM COME, we will be still much better off. But I know the Canadian system will not let that happen.

My sympathies run very deep for the province of N and L. We have always being ruled by one corrupt establishment or another. When it was England that sent the Governors here to rule us, they were corrupt and they used our resources for the good of the Mother Land. Now that Canada has us under its thumb, it is using us for the good of its other charges.

When England passed over Newfoundland in 1949 as payment to Canada for its $8 BILLION DOLLAR WAR DEBT, Louis St. Laurent, the then Prime Minister of Canada gave a jubilant speech in which he uttered the following words when addressing Canada “The greatest of our achievements was not even anticipated in 1945. I believe that it was a source of satisfaction for all of you, as it was for the members of the government, that we were able to achieve this union with Newfoundland, OF WHICH CANADIANS HAD BEEN DREAMING FOR MORE THAN 80 YEARS, and thereby complete the dream of the Fathers of the Confederation."

The Canadian Press for the past 58 years tried to tone down the jubilation because they wanted the people of N and L to think that they did us a favour by incorporating our land and our resources into their system. For Canada to have let us know that we were an asset would have prompted us to ask for our fair share. And that was one thing that they were not about to give us, our fair share or equality.

So we traversed from one corrupt system to another, and as a result we have suffered economic inertia for the past 500 years.

And as an aside we can never forget the fact that in the First World War at Beaumont-Hamel a cruel event occured that devasted the country of Newfoundland, as it was known at the time. On July 1st 1916, 800 men of the Newfoundland Regiment went into battle. Next morning, only 67 answered roll call. That represented about 30 per cent of the population of Newfoundland's young and healtiest men.
It was complete devastation for Newfoundland at the time to have lost 733 men out of a population base of 240,000, and we are still feeling from the ripple effects of that devastating disaster and it is compounded by the fact that we suffer the scourge of the biggest percentage of out-migration, when compared to our population,
anywhere in the Western World.

To Recap- Premier Williams go for the 80 per cent Nigerian Plan, please do not be deterred. LONG MAY YOUR BIG JIB DRAW PREMIER DANNY WILLIAMS, THAT IS, OF COURSE, IF YOU ARE HONEST AND FORWARD CONCERNING OUR AFFAIRS SINCE HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE YET TO ENJOY FROM A RULING GOVERNMENT IN THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR.

Ed Hollett said...

Thanks for another ahistorical, hysterical rant, caps Lock.

There is no Nigerian 80%.

Newfoundlanders voted for Confederation as much as you want to argue against democracy.

Putting things in all caps doesn't make them real.

Caps Lock said...

It is a historical rant INDEED but it is also the truth.

Ed why are you so anti-Newfoundland and Labrador and so pro Big Oil? Are you getting paid to be at their beck and call to rebut everything that is written on this particular blogsite anytime of the day or night? Personally I cannot see anyone being that LOYAL to Big Oil so as to be omnipresent in perusing a blogsite for them.

And Ed why does it bother you so much for me to write some sentences in all CAPITAL LETTERS. I must really be touching a Raw Nervein YOUR BOD and THE BOD OF BIG OIL? If that is the case, more power to the CAPS BUTTON!!!!!

Ed Hollett said...

Caps Lock once again you retreat into smears.

You try to attack me personally simply because you have no evidence to back up your own arguments. you keep bringing up the same nonsense over and over again.

Your rant was ahistorical, which means it has nothing to do with history.

So why do you persist in making claims that are untrue, that have no foundation at all in fact?

Caps Lock said...

I tell you my Rant WAS a HISTORICAL ONE, not AHISTORICAL. I do not need you to tell me what the definition of AHISTORICAL or ATYPICAL or ASEXUAL means. I know. And I know what the definiton of HISTORICAL MEANS, it is recorded history , it is the past and it happened and it is the TRUTH. The footprint is there.

babe in boyland said...

caps lock:

ive been reading this blog long enough to know that you accuse posters of having little substance when you dont agree with them. i dont care if you dont agree with me, im just posting like the rest of the people on this blog, because i am interested in free speech, in expressing my opinion. not because i want to 'camoflage' anything. and compared to some posters, mine are not long.

you have also misunderstood me. i think women - and men - are entitled to an opinion on anything and everything. its just that a lot of the time i find that women dont express their opinions on economic and political issues as much as men do. therefore 'babe in boyland'. granted, youve got me on the gender thing - i am assuming that most posters here are men, althought the only ones who are really identifying gender are patriot (i forget his name now, but its male), ed, wally and me.

come to think of it, who knows if im a woman or not? ok - take it for granted.

but back to opinions and emotions. i dont fault anyone for having strong emotions about anything, especially this beautiful place we live in. but i believe opinions should be based as much as possible on fact and decisions should be based on information and analysis, not emotion. i dont know what other person youre talking about, though. its hard to get a sense of whose who when so many people post anonymously.

i want oil companies to make a profit in newfoundland because that will keep them coming back and doing more. wade locke wrote in the independent this weekend that we need more exploration. well we do.

my husband was working here at home for 12 years, and he got HIS fair share in salary. the pay for oil project work is better than average and there were a lot of people working. but with construction and drilling slowing down so much, a lot of the guys were getting laid off and going out to fort mac. my man had to head to alberta, doing 6 and 2. our kids arent very happy because they were used to the 3 and 3 schedule.

so yeah. i want something to happen to get oil companies back here, because thats where the jobs are coming from. i can tell you, im pretty sick of being a single mother for 6 weeks at a time. getting all worked up over how much money the GOVERNMENT gets out of oil projects isnt the solution. just getting something happening so PEOPLE get JOBS (and therefore money) is what im interested in.

another long post. i hope it doesnt bore you too much, caps lock. but ive got a lot of time to think, every 6 weeks or so.

Caps Lock said...

babe thanks for your post. But we do have to worry about how much money the government gets out of its Oil. We cannot keep giving away our resources without getting something out of them. That is the reason we have not been able to create economies here over the years, despite the fact many of our resources are shipped out to create economies in other places. That is the gist of our conversation here. I want our Government to get its fair share so that you can stay home in this beautiful province with your children and husband. I also want people like your husband to be employed here to keep you all safe and secure. That is what I want. As long as our Government takes the money it gets out of Oil and spends it in the right places. One being to create industry and the other to pay down the debt. I love my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I want to have more of us stay here and work here, and I would love to create more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out of immigrants. That is a beautiful thing when we can create a multi-cultural society. It spices up life.

By the way babe from your last post you and I don't differ on a lot of things. But I DO CARE how much REVENUE our GOVERNMENT RECEIVES out of our resources and I also want it to be fair for Big Oil or Big Mineral Corporations or whichever Corporation is exploiting whichever resource. Fairness is the name of the game. That is the crux of the matter. It has always been lopsided here in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and that bias has always been to the positive for the Big Corporations or some other provincial jurisdiction. Thanks for your last post, it was more congenial.

War Detester said...

When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn? To borrow a line from a song.

I was listening to CBC Radio this morning when I heard that we in Newfoundland and Labrador were asking National Defence to put one of 5 Mental Health Clinics proposed for Canada in this province. The story said that since so many of the Military Personnel are from this province and since many of the ones from this province come back to retire here that it is badly needed.

I shake my head in utter belief, that despite the fact approximately 10 per cent of the Canadian Military are from this province of a total force of 66,000 and since that would equate into 6,600 military personnel, that the Canadian Military will not only not put a full fledge Military base here but that they won't treat the mentally inflicted when they come home here in this province.

And believe me I don't think that there are too many that come out of any war that aren't inflicted with a mental illness. Even the ones at home must be inflicted. It is a terrible stress on the human body and I cannot see how anyone can go unscathed.

Why do we not allow societies to evolve naturally? I cannot see us going to the Amazon and trying to change the Yanomani people, why do we try to change the Afghan people? If we could do it peacefully that would be okay. I say let it happen through the process of evolution. If we could do that process through teaching, other than War I would be all for it, but when so many people have to be killed through bombs or booby trapping that is too outrageous to even contemplate.

Why do we have to have war in the first place?

War so often has been about obtaining resources for industry. And that leads me to think does the Afghan War have anything to do about taming the peole and putting a pipeline through their territory to get the Oil out of regions around that area. It is I heard the shortest route and would capture a lot of Oil. Has it got anything to do with Oil, I wonder?

Anonymous said...

If there is a clinic you can rest assured that the one serving us will be in Hellifax. Now lets all bend over and take it like a good newfie should.

Anonymous said...

What do we need a base for?

War detester said...

I prefer not to see a Military base anywhere, but if we are going to continue on the path of providing personnel, to the extent we have for the Canadian Military, well then we should have a Military base placed here.

babe in boyland said...

"As long as our Government takes the money it gets out of Oil and spends it in the right places."

thats the hard part, isnt it? i agree absolutely that government should use oil money to pay down debt. and i agree that government should use oil money to do things that attract or make it easy for newfoundland and labrador businesses to set up and grow. stuff like good roads and airports and ferries so people and goods can move around easily.

but im an old-fashioned conservative and i really believe that government doesnt create industry - people and businesses do that, when government helps get the barriers out of the way. keep taxes low. make regulations simple and easy to comply with. that kind of thing. my dad talked about the ridiculous industries smallwood kept trying to start up - orange juice and rubber boot factories. i hope we never get into that stuff again.

ive got no problem at all with creating industries by secondary processing of our oil - bring it on. but government cant be at it, its got to be done by clever newfoundlanders who see a business opportunity. and we've got to find more oil to feed those processing plants.

Anonymous said...

I still don't no what that base is suppose to be for, repelling the invasion from St. Pierre or what? Lot of military personal from PEI and Cape Breton too but they don't have a base neither.

Anonymous said...

hey babe in boyland, what about guitar factories!

babe in boyland said...

are guitars made out of oil?

Ed Hollett said...

"I prefer not to see a Military base anywhere, but if we are going to continue on the path of providing personnel, to the extent we have for the Canadian Military, well then we should have a Military base placed here."

Anyone who wants to understand why the country is in a financial mess need only look at the thinking behind that comment: the military doesn't exist to defend the country. Nope. It is exists solely as a way of doling out patronage, pork, grease and corruption.

Anonymous said...

Anon who said: "I still don't no what that base is suppose to be for, repelling the invasion from St. Pierre or what? Lot of military personal from PEI and Cape Breton too but they don't have a base neither. "

Which territories do the bases in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia serve to repel?

Anonymous said...

ed hollet said: "the military doesn't exist to defend the country. Nope. It is exists solely as a way of doling out patronage, pork, grease and corruption."

Ed is that your belief that the military exists solely as a way of doling our patronage, pork, grease and corruption? I am not sure that I am reading you properly. Please, if you could explain I would appreciate.

Anonymous said...

babe: the Federal Government creates industry out your tax dollars. Wouldn't you consider Military bases, Ship building facilities, subsidies to Agriculture, grants to Bombardier and the the Auto Pack a method of creating industry? I would and I think that is the only way one can describe those activities.

Ed Hollett said...

Sarcasm perhaps didn't come across clearly.

Military forces exist to provide defence for a country.

Where the forces are located is based on operational requirements.

Astonishingly, as with the quote I used from war detester, some people argue that military forces in Canada should be deployed and bases built because of what part of the country a given percentage of people in uniform come from.

That's the view I was lampooning. It's basically a silly idea. It's the kind of thinking that led to the disastrous Naval Presence in Quebec program. It's the kind of thinking that leads to huge amounts of waste.

Of course, I don't support wasting public money. There are plenty of good reasons to base military and naval forces in this province. How many NLers are in uniform is definitely not one of them.

Anonymous said...

I want to know what is the strategery purpose behind putting more bases in Newfoundland?

Anonymous said...

Ed you said: Of course, I don't support wasting public money. There are plenty of good reasons to base military and naval forces in this province. How many NLers are in uniform is definitely not one of them.

Newfoundland and Labrador's location is perfect for a naval base and I do believe that the number employed in the Military which originate from this province should also be a deciding factor.

Ed your bias towards the Federal Government is shining through in both of your statements.

How much do you get paid to make such statements? Never mind it is just a sarcastic question.

Ed Hollett said...

Anonymous there are only two things shining through:

1. Your ability to completely misrepresent what I said.

2. Your complete cowardice for the personal smear, which, once again has no foundation in fact.

Who pays you to spread these vicious lies?

Anonymous said...

I though you were a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe you are not a native Newfoundlander and Labrador. I might be mistaken. Since If you knew about the resources that were exported out of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be processed elsewhere and to create industry in the places to which they are shipped; and the fact that we have not been on the receiving end of Federal largesse, such as high paying Federal Regional Offices and Military bases, ship building centers, and we do not have any industries such as Bombardier and the Auto Pact, which receive billions from the Feds from time to time, maybe I am too hard on you, because maybe you are totally unaware. Sorry Sir if that is the case. Otherwise you would have to have all your senses disabled if you are so unaware about how Newfoundland and Labrador have been treated by Ottawa.

Again if I have misjudged you in those respects I am truly sorry, but if I haven't too bad, since you should be pulling for your province to see that it gets its fair share of what is being handed out by Ottawa, and our fair share of our own resources. But from your writings here and listening to you on the Open Line Shows it appears to me that you don't want this province to receive any Federal largesse and you want to keep sending off our resources to other places, so that the other places can prosper.

babe I hope you see what is happening here. Again babe that is the reason your love ones and mine cannot be employed at home. There are no industries here because our resources go someplace else to be utilized and we get no Federal Regional offices or anything else placed here by the Federal Government.

And again I will say emphatically that I have never received a cent from a government in my life to support it.

How come you can't state the fact that you aren't being paid by some outside force so strongly and emphatically in your denial as I do?

babe in boyland said...

guys (and i use that in the gender-neutral sense), i wont be drawn into an adversarial situation between two other posters.

"the Federal Government creates industry out your tax dollars. Wouldn't you consider Military bases, Ship building facilities, subsidies to Agriculture, grants to Bombardier and the the Auto Pack a method of creating industry"

heres my view.

military bases are about national defense and contribution to international peacekeeping. because different locations are strategic at different times, depending on who is the enemy and what kind of war we expect to fight, you cant rely on military bases for permanent industry. unless of course you manufacture weapons or ammunition. then it doesnt matter where the base is.

ship yards are privately owned. most ship building and fabrication is done for the private sector. sometimes government decides it wants to build ships (war ships, ferries, etc) in local yards. that is a policy decision and depends a lot on the budget situation. right now, the feds want to and have the money. a few years ago the province chose to buy a crapped out old hull and refit it, instead of building a new ferry; it cost way more in the end, but the original policy decision was to buy one and keep the cost to taxpayers down. see? it depends on policy and budget. and those things change with each administration. government investment is not enough to build an industry on. too changeable.

subsidies to agriculture and various manufacturers also do not create industry, but they can help keep it going when the industry is not competitive in the international market.

sure, governments can decide on a short term basis what it is going to push or prop up by choosing where to put a base or which business to give a subsidy to. but that doesnt CREATE industry.

we shouldnt and cant rely on government to do that. theyre not good at it.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Anonymous, if that comment was directed at me, perhaps you might do two things:

1. Identify yourself; and,

2. actually give factual information to back up your comments.

It's pretty meaningless to say someone doesn't know something if all you do is make a comment without evidence. That's one of the problems with the comments made by anonymous people here. They have no information in them.

So why no come out of the anony-closet and have a fact-based exchange.

Somehow I don't think that will happen, will it?

Anonymous said...

Why are there military jets based in Quebec that, when scrambled to go over the Atlantic must stop in Labrador to refuel. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have them based in Labrador?

I ask this because there seems to be a sentiment here that the government places military installations where required, not for political reasons. Can someone explain this to me then?

Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed, it would make more sense to have all the Military for the East Coast based in Labrador, but it is done to appease Quebec and the other provinces where those bases are established. Ottawa doesn't give one iota about placing things to Newfoundland and Labrador to placate Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. And the fact that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are silent on the matter makes it easy for Ottawa to get away with it and plus you have people like the poster above who works for Ottawa so it doesn't happen. See how that poster fights tooth and nail to see our Oil leave without Newfoundland and Labrador getting even 5 per cent equaity, see how he argues when I point out that we should be getting some of the goodies handed out by Ottawa. What would make a Newfoundlander and Labradorian stand up for Ottawa instead of fighting for his province? Could it be MONEY?

Anonymous said...

Being paid by some entity or party would require that you give your name so that the entity or party would know that you are at least doing work for your money. SINCE I DO NOT get paid to advocate on behalf of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for a better share of our resources and the tax dollars, which are part of my tax dollars, that Ottawa doles out on behalf of the Federal Government to the other provinces, I do not have to identify myself.

I am NOT a slave to anyone. I just want WHAT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE for my beloved province. It is too bad that I have to fight LOBBYISTS who are paid by the Federal Government and Big Industry to advocate for thier best interest. It is such a corrupt world that we live in Captain Jack! Some people would sell their Mother for a dollar! And that is what one is doing when he/she advocates on behalf of the Federal Government and Big Industry against ones own provincial government. STOP IT NOW! WE want to prosper in this province no differently the other provinces are propspering. STOP IT!

Anonymous said...

A previous poster raised a good point when he/she asked (in response to the comment that bases are placed in areas where they are strategically needed) what military bases in Quebec, Nova Scotia and others were intended to defend against?

Yes, military bases on BC make sense. Strategically they protect our western flank. Our Northern Ocean is left largely unprotected but (if you believe Harper) the plan is to do something about that soon. That leaves our East coast.

If you look at a map you'll see that Newfoundland and Labrador are much further east than any other place in Canada, including Halifax where a major base is located. It would make much more sense for that base (and others) to be located here rather than hundreds of miles further west and hours away by sea or air.

Like the poster said, what are the other bases supposed to protect against? Are we expecting an invasion from the U.S. (our only unmentioned flank), are they there in case they are needed to use against our own people or are they there for political reasons. It seems to me the answer has to be one of the three.

Ed Hollett said...

Well, anony-slagger, by making any claim, you should attach your name to it in order to make it plain that you personally stand behind your comments.

As it stands we have absolutely no way of verifying anything since we have no idea who you are. You simply make a claim but don't stand behind it in any way.

I suggest that, in fact, you are the one whose motives should be question.

Those of us who identify ourselves plainly and clearly have nothing to hide.

You on the other hand hide constantly and make veiled claims about fighting paid lobbyists.

I can state without fear of contradiction that I am not a paid lobbyist here or anywhere else.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar, plain and simple or a malicious gossip monger whose motives must be questioned for repeating false statements.

You can't say the same thing - otherwise you'd have no problem revealing your identity.

So why don't you come out of the shadows and stand behind your comments?

What do you have to hide? Obviously quite a lot.

Anonymous said...

I have absolutely nothing to hide, but I have an insatiable appetite to tell my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what happened in the past, is happening in the present and will happen in the future unless we stop being complacent.

It is time for the Corrupt Patronage Money to go by the wayside as we see from some of the posts that are no doubt funded by the Federal Government to dispel thing that are written that are factual. The quicker Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get to know what is going on in this country the better for this province.

Again we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to get with the times, open our eyes and demand equality in this province with the rest of the country and stop letting our resources be exported out of the province to create great economies for others. And we have to DEMAND our fair share of what Ottawa hands out with our tax dollars.

Ed Hollett said...

"I have absolutely nothing to hide,"

Of course you do: it is your identity. You hide it all the time. You consistently refuse to identify yourself.

Why?

What are you afraid of?

Why don't you want people to know who engages in making false statements about me and other people?

Anonymous said...

I am not making any false statements about you. There are two people posting here as anons, what I am saying is that Nobody wastes his/her time defending the Federal Government against what Premier Danny Williams wants for this province, unless he or she is being paid? After all Premier Williams wants 5 per cent equity into our Oil, the promise fulfilled that was made by Prime Minister Harper that 100 per cent of non-renewable resources would be excluded from the Equilization Formula and he would like to have some of the Federal Largesse that gets handed out from time to time to the other provinces and their Corporations, which makes the economic situation in this province far from equal with the others.

No Newfoundlander and Labradorian in his/her right mind would go against Premier Williams desire to have an equal playing field for this province aided and abetted by Ottawa. For a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to do such a thing, in my mind makes him/her a traitor.

Ed Hollett said...

"I am not making any false statements about you."

So who are you talking about then?

Anonymous said...

Trust me when I say that it is the spin doctor Eddy Baby Hollet who is full of shit. If you doubt me read my blog sometime. Just google me. Or better yet tell Eddy Baby to grow some balls give me a call 506 434 1379 since he tried to block my emails, i have been making a joke out of him. He and everybody else knows that I am not a shy man and I am never reckless with the truth.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos