|
|
Post by franko on Apr 6, 2011 14:46:34 GMT -5
BRILLIANT add. If Harpers voice was a little lower pitched and he adjusted the wording slightly, it would be EPIC! they really need to hire "The Voice" for the ad. Harper's voice just doesn't do it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 6, 2011 14:48:16 GMT -5
I'm surprised the media hasn't come out in full force against these tactics ... either stage a one day strike of covering Harper or something. They are all afraid one media outlet will get cold feet and be the one that gets the "exclusive" ... not only miss an exclusive [which Harper would gladly give] but possibly miss a boneheaded comment, which is even better. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 6, 2011 14:50:38 GMT -5
Integrity. Honestly. A willingness to stand up for what you believe in. you are looking for a politician to exhibit these qualities?  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 6, 2011 14:52:32 GMT -5
The problem as always is that people want that they want. They don't see or care to see a bigger picture. lower taxes. more services. a chicken in every pot. and in Toronto, a Stanley Cup Parade playoff game before the turn of the decade. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 6, 2011 17:02:02 GMT -5
I don't trust him because... well, he hasn't given me a reason to trust him. Sure, he promised us a loan for the Churchill Falls project. He also promised to honour the accords. We all know how that went. Churchill Falls was a foolish promise. He opened the door to 20-30 billion in loans because EVERY province will get in line. The problem as always is that people want that they want. They don't see or care to see a bigger picture. Quebec City wants a stadium, You get their vote if you promise them a stadium. NFLD wants loans for Churchill Falls. You get their vote if you load them the money. And the beat goes on across the country. So we demand from them what they couldn't or shouldn't deliver and then complain about it when they can't..Should they gave promised what they know will be a problem? Of course not ......but then. they wouldn't be politicians. Perhaps we should hold vote for two parties. The Rhinoceros Party and the second runner up...... You will be calling the Churchill Falls promise the best thing ever, when Harper uses the loopholes he has left himself to weasel his way out of doing it ... and in the process get 3-4 out of the 7 NL seats. The Lower Churchill will go ahead with or without the loan guarantee ... we don't need it ... but it would allow the province to save 2% on billions of dollars. (they have an interest rate of 7% now, the loan guarantee would lower it to 5%). And it doesnt cost the GOC a cent, not one red cent ... if the other ventures could say that, then fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 6, 2011 19:31:21 GMT -5
You will be calling the Churchill Falls promise the best thing ever, when Harper uses the loopholes he has left himself to weasel his way out of doing it ... and in the process get 3-4 out of the 7 NL seats. The Lower Churchill will go ahead with or without the loan guarantee ... we don't need it ... but it would allow the province to save 2% on billions of dollars. (they have an interest rate of 7% now, the loan guarantee would lower it to 5%). And it doesnt cost the GOC a cent, not one red cent ... if the other ventures could say that, then fair enough. Is the federal government guaranteeing the loan or actually supplying the cash? 7%?. Are you sure? I pay a bit less then 7% on a 20 year loan (wind project) and I'm less then nobody compared to NFLD. Mind you, I put up 1/3 but still, a province should be able to float some kind of financial device to get 3-4% loans. Bonds? The other issue is probably a technical issue that you may not be familiar with. Can they really get one or two thousand megawatts under the sea? Over that distance? I know Greece has put island-to-island power cables some offshore wind projects do it too, but nowhere near that kind of power. Anywho, I'm for the project big time, just hate the politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 6, 2011 19:50:39 GMT -5
You will be calling the Churchill Falls promise the best thing ever, when Harper uses the loopholes he has left himself to weasel his way out of doing it ... and in the process get 3-4 out of the 7 NL seats. The Lower Churchill will go ahead with or without the loan guarantee ... we don't need it ... but it would allow the province to save 2% on billions of dollars. (they have an interest rate of 7% now, the loan guarantee would lower it to 5%). And it doesnt cost the GOC a cent, not one red cent ... if the other ventures could say that, then fair enough. Is the federal government guaranteeing the loan or actually supplying the cash? 7%?. Are you sure? I pay a bit less then 7% on a 20 year loan (wind project) and I'm less then nobody compared to NFLD. Mind you, I put up 1/3 but still, a province should be able to float some kind of financial device to get 3-4% loans. Bonds? The other issue is probably a technical issue that you may not be familiar with. Can they really get one or two thousand megawatts under the sea? Over that distance? I know Greece has put island-to-island power cables some offshore wind projects do it too, but nowhere near that kind of power. Anywho, I'm for the project big time, just hate the politics. The federal government is supplying ZERO cash ... just co-signing the provinces loan to get a lower interest rate. I'm very sure of the numbers (I actually believe they are public knowledge, I'll look for a source) and I'm positive the power can go sub-sea. I have a relative that is a VP of NL Hydro / Nalcor |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 6, 2011 19:57:13 GMT -5
The federal government is supplying ZERO cash ... just co-signing the provinces loan to get a lower interest rate. I'm very sure of the numbers (I actually believe they are public knowledge, I'll look for a source) and I'm positive the power can go sub-sea. I have a relative that is a VP of NL Hydro / Nalcor You guys have a lot of wind energy. It's far better then Ontario's but then again, you don't have an idiot running it. Mind you, I don't know what your distribution system is like or if you can move around with massive pieces of equipment/product. Regardless, hydro "should" be cheaper. Let me know about the other two. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 6, 2011 20:09:11 GMT -5
The federal government is supplying ZERO cash ... just co-signing the provinces loan to get a lower interest rate. I'm very sure of the numbers (I actually believe they are public knowledge, I'll look for a source) and I'm positive the power can go sub-sea. I have a relative that is a VP of NL Hydro / Nalcor The what the F is McStupids problem? Other then being McStupid? His green projects are all private money.....and the ratepayers will bleed through the nose to pay for them. Let me know about the other two. The political opposition here is very small ... Danny's wave of like 38 out of 43 seats (or something like that. But they keep harping in the Legislature for the government to come clean and tell the public how much their electricity rates are going to go up due to the Lower Churchill. Nalcor has stated this week, that is the loan guarantee comes to fruition the millions in savings will go directly to the consumers ... ... according to my relative, the rates were going to go up regardless. ************************* EDIT: We have wind energy. The is a site in Labrador to power some communities there. But it is so expensive and we have such abundance of potential hydro projects. The Lower Churchill , which at this moment is actually just Muskrat Falls is Phase II. Phase III will be Gull Island, which is the bigger of the two Lower Churchill projects. I couldn't find a link to the numbers ... but i dug out the April 5th Telegram out of our recycling pile. Under a story by Moira Baird, titled , "Financing the Lower Churchill" here is a direct quote: "Nalcor expected interest rates for the Lower Churchill financing to be in the range of 7.5 per cent, according to documents the company submitted to the federal environmental agency. A loan guarantee would drop that rate to about 5.5 per cent. If Nalcor gets a federalloan guarantee, Martin (Nalcor President) said any savings would be passed on to its customers. Nalcor and advisers Pricewaterhouse Coopers are in commercial discussions with banks to finance the Muskrat Falls development. Bonds and bank financing are among options under consideration, but Martin said its too early to say exactly how the company expects to finance the project" |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 6, 2011 20:24:12 GMT -5
The what the F is McStupids problem? Other then being McStupid? His green projects are all private money.....and the ratepayers will bleed through the nose to pay for them. Let me know about the other two. The political opposition here is very small ... Danny's wave of like 38 out of 43 seats (or something like that. But they keep harping in the Legislature for the government to come clean and tell the public how much their electricity rates are going to go up due to the Lower Churchill. Nalcor has stated this week, that is the loan guarantee comes to fruition the millions in savings will go directly to the consumers ... ... according to my relative, the rates were going to go up regardless. I don't understand the Danny's wave thing.... Ask your relative if there is any online provincial usage sites. I'm curious to see what you guys use and what sources. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2011 7:37:27 GMT -5
I don't trust him because... well, he hasn't given me a reason to trust him. Sure, he promised us a loan for the Churchill Falls project. He also promised to honour the accords. We all know how that went. Churchill Falls was a foolish promise. He opened the door to 20-30 billion in loans because EVERY province will get in line. The problem as always is that people want that they want. They don't see or care to see a bigger picture. Quebec City wants a stadium, You get their vote if you promise them a stadium. NFLD wants loans for Churchill Falls. You get their vote if you load them the money. And the beat goes on across the country. So we demand from them what they couldn't or shouldn't deliver and then complain about it when they can't..Should they gave promised what they know will be a problem? Of course not ......but then. they wouldn't be politicians. Perhaps we should hold vote for two parties. The Rhinoceros Party and the second runner up...... You are, at the same time, so very right and so terribly wrong. Set aside the foolishness of the promise for a second (I really can't see how it's foolish to act as a cosigner on a loan that will break Quebec's monopoly control over east coast power generation and transmission - do you know how bad it is? Quebec turns off the taps during the day (when electricity is plentiful and cheap) at Churchill Falls and buys a lot of cheap energy from Ontario's nuclear power grid (which unlike Churchill Falls can not be turned off and must go somewhere - so Ontario practically gives it away). Then, when demand and prices go up at night, Quebec turns back on Churchill Falls and sells it back to Ontario at truly ridiculous rates). The real question - my real problem - is the lack of honesty. Now you say its because people demand what the government can not deliver, but at its root who is responsible for that? The public? Or the politicians? I agree that perhaps we should expect less. But to me a promise is a promise. My word is my bond and I don't care to be led by someone who does not feel the same way. Perhaps - perhaps - if something had come up. If Harper had found that something was off or that some crisis demanded more of the resources we had been promised I could have forgiven him. But Harper didn't even attempt to make an excuse. He more or less said "yeah I said I'd honour it, but I lied". That doesn't fly with me. If you can't build a platform without lying, then you can't lead my country either. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2011 7:39:41 GMT -5
Is the federal government guaranteeing the loan or actually supplying the cash? 7%?. Are you sure? I pay a bit less then 7% on a 20 year loan (wind project) and I'm less then nobody compared to NFLD. Mind you, I put up 1/3 but still, a province should be able to float some kind of financial device to get 3-4% loans. Bonds? The other issue is probably a technical issue that you may not be familiar with. Can they really get one or two thousand megawatts under the sea? Over that distance? I know Greece has put island-to-island power cables some offshore wind projects do it too, but nowhere near that kind of power. Anywho, I'm for the project big time, just hate the politics. The federal government is supplying ZERO cash ... just co-signing the provinces loan to get a lower interest rate. I'm very sure of the numbers (I actually believe they are public knowledge, I'll look for a source) and I'm positive the power can go sub-sea. I have a relative that is a VP of NL Hydro / Nalcor Not quite true. Harper has promised to cosign the loan OR provide Newfoundland with the equivalent of what would be saved in cash. Don't know why he would've made that distinction and I can't imagine why he would pay cash instead of signing on a loan, but there you have it. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2011 7:43:47 GMT -5
Integrity. Honestly. A willingness to stand up for what you believe in. you are looking for a politician to exhibit these qualities? We had one here for awhile. Sure, Danny had his rough spots. But he did right by Newfoundland and damn every one else. I'd trade a thousand Harpers for one of him. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2011 8:10:28 GMT -5
they had one in Alberta a few years ago -- well, more than a few years ago -- and he was hated everywhere else in Canada, just like Danny.
I probably should have said federal politician.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2011 8:16:12 GMT -5
If you can't build a platform without lying, then you can't lead my country either. it isn't lying it's being "realistic after the fact". and unfortunately it goes with the territory. I'm no Harper shill, but the old "how do you know when a politician is lying" line applies to them all. the biggest one this election [same as last election] is Layton: "I'm running to be Prime Minister". right. you are running to try to hold on to your job! to be honest, I'm getting more than a little tired of elections being run on personality. "Harper is a liar and can't be trusted". "Ignatieff didn't come back for you". How about "this is our platform and this is what it is going to cost" [as opposed to "we've costed it out" -- more lies]. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2011 8:41:31 GMT -5
to be honest, I'm getting more than a little tired of elections being run on personality. "Harper is a liar and can't be trusted". "Ignatieff didn't come back for you". How about "this is our platform and this is what it is going to cost" [as opposed to "we've costed it out" -- more lies]. Second here ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2011 8:43:13 GMT -5
If you can't build a platform without lying, then you can't lead my country either. it isn't lying it's being "realistic after the fact". and unfortunately it goes with the territory. I'm no Harper shill, but the old "how do you know when a politician is lying" line applies to them all. the biggest one this election [same as last election] is Layton: "I'm running to be Prime Minister". right. you are running to try to hold on to your job! to be honest, I'm getting more than a little tired of elections being run on personality. "Harper is a liar and can't be trusted". "Ignatieff didn't come back for you". How about "this is our platform and this is what it is going to cost" [as opposed to "we've costed it out" -- more lies]. It's lying. Bottom line. Like I said, I understand the desire for hyperbole during the campaign. I also understand that events or situations occur which change our priorities. And like I said, had Harper come out and provided a reasoning for his treachery I might have been able to excuse it. But he more or less came out an admitted to lying for the sake of a few seats. That's great for him. It got him elected. But it doesn't fly with me. Maybe I'm wrong to demand more of our representatives. But I'm stubborn. Harper lied. In the big scheme of things that's all that matters. He lied to me, he lied to my friends and (now) neighbors. He lied to my family. Such things do not pass lightly for me. He has to be punished. I'd probably get arrested if I tried to physically punish Harper for his dishonesty, so I'll act the only way I know how. With my vote. And if whatever government comes after him lies to me, then I'll treat them the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2011 8:50:27 GMT -5
I have another political discussion started on Facebook. "Manton" found this article and posted it in the discussion. Another issue that hasn't been addressed as yet and sort of goes along what Franko was asking earlier. "Issue + how much". ============================================================= Terence Corcoran: The crisis no leader is talking about
Terence Corcoran Apr 6, 2011 – 10:53 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 6, 2011 10:55 PM ETInto the vacuous open pit of policy trivialities that has become this election, David Dodge, former governor of the Bank of Canada, has just dropped a ticking time bomb. The Canadian universal health care model, with governments as the major funders of service, is fiscally unsustainable. If the election platforms of the major parties are an indication, no Liberal or Conservative bomb squads will be available to neutralize Mr. Dodge’s device — a tidy bit of forecasting titled Chronic Healthcare Spending Disease. Mr. Dodge reports that health-care spending in Canada could rise to take up almost 19% of the national economy within 20 years, up from about 12% today. In dollar terms, that works out to an increase from about $5,000 today to $10,700 by 2031 in constant dollars for every person in Canada. If Election 2011 is being fought over family values, how’s this for dinner-table political chat: Health-care costs for a family of four will jump 50% to $42,800 within 20 years. The political question from Mr. Dodge is: How are Canadian families going to pay for these rising costs? He said Canadians cannot “sleepwalk” into the looming policy crisis on the assumption that no changes will be needed to the health-care model they hold so dear — a model that our electioneering politicians refuse to talk about beyond empty platitudes. “We’ll strengthen universally accessible health care,” says Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff in a platform that contains nothing on how that might be done. Same for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. In Mr. Dodge’s analysis, such evasions mask what is an impossible and unsustainable funding regime. Speaking at a Toronto luncheon for the C.D. Howe Institute, which published the report — coauthored with former Bank of Canada economist Richard Dion as a part of a new health care initiative — Mr. Dodge said the politicians elected on May 2 “are going to have to face this issue.” Mr. Dodge makes it easy to understand what the politicians are avoiding. Universal care as Canadians now experience it cannot be maintained at current levels without major increases in taxes or cuts in service — or dramatic cuts in other government services. More controversially, in his comments at the C.D. Howe luncheon attended by institute members and key figures in Canada’s health-care community, Mr. Dodge also mentioned the unmentionables of health care. These options include imposing some form of co-payment by individuals for the health- care services that are currently paid by the provinces. Another would de-list services that would then have to be paid by consumers or private insurance suppliers. A final option would be “development of a privately funded system to provide better quality care for those willing to pay for it.” Such a two-tier system, he said, should be part of the policy debate. During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Dodge was asked about issues of equity in any universal care system. “We have met the equity test be denying people the right to superior services.” Mr. Dodge — a lifetime Canadian bureaucrat and deputy minister of health who has rarely shied from expanding the role of government — did not endorsed any particular option. “None of these options is appealing,” he said, a claim that would certainly be contested by Canadians who would welcome moves to greater private choice and funding of health care. More private delivery of services, new private funding options, including medical savings accounts as exist in Singapore, have great appeal both to improve service and bring some individual choice and discipline to health-care costs. One key element of the Dodge analysis is that the looming cost increases for health care are not insurmountable. The emphasis — rightly — is on the idea that increasing total Canadian spending on health care from 12% to as much as 18.5% of GDP, or $42,000 per family, is “not undesirable or unsustainable.” Maybe 18.5% of GDP or $42,000 per family is the right level of spending, especially in a growing and wealthier economy. A more optimistic assessment of health-care spending by 2031 is about 16% of GDP. Whatever the number, the point of Chronic Healthcare Spending Disease is that the spending projections cannot be met under current health care laws and funding arrangements. Something has to give in the hearts and minds of Canadians about how health care is paid for and provided. One thing we do know, said Mr. Dodge, is the old way of controlling health-care spending — raw cutbacks in spending and service — will not work. “The Canadian public will not live with denial of service. We cannot do that again.” But are Canadian voters ready to take up Mr. Dodge’s call for an open debate over possible radical reform of the health-care payment system? A recent Ipsos-Read poll showed that 40% of Atlantic Canadians put health care ahead of the economy and jobs as election issues. This campaign is also likely the last chance to debate health-care funding before the federal-provincial health-care accord expires in 2014. The last chance is being met with silence. Is it too much to ask that the major party leaders make health care an election issue? Probably. At the luncheon where Mr. Dodge reviewed the options, the health-care players in the audience seemed powerfully resistant to radical options. They asked about other options to curb spending, including health prevention and promotion. “Why don’t we tax Tim Hortons?” asked one. The dean of a university health faculty also wanted to focus on ways to improve the health of Canadians. Somebody else wanted to go after Big Pharma’s drug costs. If some of the leading figures in health-care services don’t seem ready to tackle the funding reforms raised by Mr. Dodge and the C.D. Howe Institute, and since the electioneering politicians will continue to dodge the issue until the crisis lands, that means the leadership role on health care will have to be taken up by others. Voters, maybe. Link |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 7, 2011 10:33:33 GMT -5
to be honest, I'm getting more than a little tired of elections being run on personality. "Harper is a liar and can't be trusted". "Ignatieff didn't come back for you". How about "this is our platform and this is what it is going to cost" [as opposed to "we've costed it out" -- more lies]. But isn't that we've seen since the Kennedy days....i.e. the television elections? Trudeau-mania? Image has never been more front-and-centre than it is today. And so, it's attacked. That's not going away. Human nature relates to the good guy/bad guy scenario. We want to be associated with a winner. Sports: Montreal-Boston, Cowboys-Steelers, Yankees-Red Sox. Politics: Cons-Libs; Dems-Reps. Even different colors, branding, emblems..... Meanwhile, the real moves are being made by the corporate elite.... IMO, George Carlin wasn't far off when he said that political parties/elections exist to give you the illusion of choice. When it comes right down to it, politicians (by and large) are merely puppets of those really pulling the strings. For example, if Human Rights is truly the case in Libya/Iraq....why aren't those same forces doing something about Equatorial Guinea? Their president/dictator Obiang is among the worst in the world. Living conditions are horrendous. Oh wait....giants like Exxon Mobil have been enjoying huge oil profits off their coast and sharing them with Obiang since the mid-90s. Guess who's living like a king and can do whatever he wants as long as the oil flows and he plays ball? For years, Obiang has been welcomed with open arms to the White House. And that's just one example.... It's all a steaming pile of crap. Pick your poison. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 7, 2011 11:08:51 GMT -5
...wish I had even the slightest interest in our current political landscape.
But I don't.
There's just no central debate, no genuinely innovative programs, no charisma... just mud throwing, scandal digging and empty talks.
Quebec will send a massive Bloc delegation, the West will send a massive Conservative delagation and however the Ontario split the vote will tell us who will get the next minority government.
This country is in dire need of an in-depth political reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2011 11:28:01 GMT -5
...wish I had even the slightest interest in our current political landscape. But I don't. There's just no central debate, no genuinely innovative programs, no charisma... just mud throwing, scandal digging and empty talks. Quebec will send a massive Bloc delegation, the West will send a massive Conservative delagation and however the Ontario split the vote will tell us who will get the next minority government. Good post Doc. I'm trying to find a website that details each party platform, but I haven't been successful to this point (if anyone does have such a site then please post it). As far as party strategies go, this is probably the worst run campaigns I've seen in many years. Everyone seems to be more concerned about making the other guy look bad rather than promoting what they can do while in government. Here's my concerns: * I can't trust Harper with a majority. However, I feel immense pride in seeing how far our military has come during his tenure. Because of his government's initiatives our military has risen to previously-earned, later-lost international respectability. What I don't trust in Harper is how "Americanized" he seems to be on the surface. * I won't vote for Ignatieff. I don't know him or his politics. I also wouldn't want to give our military back to the Liberals. Under there tenure there wasn't enough money in the military budget to repair rusted out combat vehicles. That might not sound like a lot, but it sums up quite a bit to those in uniform. * I won't be voting for Layton. If they end up with enough to carry the swing vote it might not be a bad thing. If the do then it's possible that any future budgets might focus on both health care and the military; but, who knows really? * Quite honestly, if I were living in Quebec I might just vote Bloc, not only because they'll do what's best for their province, but also because the other parties haven't detailed any of their platforms. Conversely, the Bloc has one clearly defined platform. Now, that's not to say I'd support a referendum (that's a personal choice) but if I were living in Quebec I know for a fact that this is the party working for me. * The Greens? Well, they have a lot of the younger vote, but no one else seems to be giving them the time of day. Still more popular than the Rhinoceros Party I suppose. We'll need some bonafide leaders first, mate. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2011 12:01:28 GMT -5
I'm trying to find a website that details each party platform, but I haven't been successful to this point good luck, dis: Canada’s election without a cause Approaching the end of its second week, the Great Campaign of 2011 is most striking for the shallowness of the debate.
Wait a minute, strike that. You can’t call a debate “shallow” unless there’s an actual debate. There’s no way you can use that word to describe what’s happening on Canada’s campaign trail, where the political discourse to date consists pretty much of “You’re a liar.” “Am not.” “Am too.”
Reporting on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s bid for re-election has focused predominantly on two themes: he doesn’t let the press ask enough questions, and he doesn’t like to talk about Bruce Carson, a one-time adviser who proved to have a criminal record. Oh, and some students got kicked out a rally by the RCMP.
News of Michael Ignatieff has focused on the fact he seems more relaxed than usual, “comfortable in his own skin,” as they say.
Jack Layton … well, Mr. Layton is out there selling the usual NDP fairy dust, but this is his fourth election in six years and the bromides haven’t changed much, or become any more practical. His latest is a plan to cap interest rates on credit cards, guaranteeing low-income Canadians never get approved for another credit card. Um, yeah.
For this the opposition brought down the government amid cries that democracy itself was in danger. more |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 7, 2011 12:02:26 GMT -5
I don't understand the Danny's wave thing.... We have no opposition in our House of Assembly ... Danny's Progressive Conservatives took 38 out of 43 seats. So they PCs can pretty much do as they please ... but the very small Opposition has grabbed hold of the rise in electricity rates issue for the moment. No problem , i will see him this weekend most likely. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2011 12:12:55 GMT -5
I think we'll have to go to every individual party's web site -- no one has put it all together yet in comparison that I've seen [I'm surprised at that]
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 7, 2011 12:15:33 GMT -5
. There's just no central debate, no genuinely innovative programs, no charisma... just mud throwing, scandal digging and empty talks. Can you come up with one that doesn't cost money? Or wont challange the interest of the provinces? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 7, 2011 12:25:16 GMT -5
The federal government is supplying ZERO cash ... just co-signing the provinces loan to get a lower interest rate. I'm very sure of the numbers (I actually believe they are public knowledge, I'll look for a source) and I'm positive the power can go sub-sea. I have a relative that is a VP of NL Hydro / Nalcor Not quite true. Harper has promised to cosign the loan OR provide Newfoundland with the equivalent of what would be saved in cash. Don't know why he would've made that distinction and I can't imagine why he would pay cash instead of signing on a loan, but there you have it. Which is it? Co-sign or cash? There is a vast difference between the two. If it's co-sign, then someone like McStupid has very little to stand on. If it's cash, expect Harper to break his promise because every single province and city will demand BIG MONEY. And there is no way the federal government can afford it. ENTIRE cities need rewiring. Toronto alone needs several billion. Power lines, towers, more generation.....I can't even figure out where it stops, never mind how much.it would cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 7, 2011 12:39:27 GMT -5
You are, at the same time, so very right and so terribly wrong. Set aside the foolishness of the promise for a second (I really can't see how it's foolish to act as a cosigner on a loan that will break Quebec's monopoly control over east coast power generation and transmission - do you know how bad it is? Quebec turns off the taps during the day (when electricity is plentiful and cheap) at Churchill Falls and buys a lot of cheap energy from Ontario's nuclear power grid (which unlike Churchill Falls can not be turned off and must go somewhere - so Ontario practically gives it away). Then, when demand and prices go up at night, Quebec turns back on Churchill Falls and sells it back to Ontario at truly ridiculous rates). The real question - my real problem - is the lack of honesty. Energy trading is a little more complex then that. I don't know the details of what happens between Quebec and NFLD, but I do know that demand varies by 30% between day and night and baseload prices collapse. Just to give you an idea, open market prices can go as low as one cent a kilowatt a night and 50 cents in high demand days. Now you say its because people demand what the government can not deliver, but at its root who is responsible for that? The public? Or the politicians? I agree that perhaps we should expect less. But to me a promise is a promise. My word is my bond and I don't care to be led by someone who does not feel the same way. Perhaps - perhaps - if something had come up. If Harper had found that something was off or that some crisis demanded more of the resources we had been promised I could have forgiven him. But Harper didn't even attempt to make an excuse. He more or less said "yeah I said I'd honour it, but I lied". That doesn't fly with me. If you can't build a platform without lying, then you can't lead my country either. My word is my bond too but you would NEVER vote for me. Ever. If you asked me for money for Churchill Falls, I would simply say NO and explain why. Why would you vote for me if the next politician says yes? You really believe or even care that my reason is valid and understandable if the other guy promises free money? And in case you said that you still vote for me, then you are amongst the very few. We as a society create and deserve what we get. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 7, 2011 12:59:16 GMT -5
No problem , i will see him this weekend most likely. I'm looking forward to it. Last night, I looked at your wind resources. WOW....you guys have an unbelievable amount of wind energy. To give you an idea, a given turbine can produce DOUBLE the amount of energy from the BEST wind sites in Ontario. Three times from an "average" Ontario wind site. Just for the record, with THAT much wind, wind energy can become very cheap. If your interested, I'll give you the numbers and you can figure out yourself how cheap it can be.... 2 MW turbine cost 5 million and will run for 20 years with one cents per kw maintenance/repairs. . It's residual is zerp. It will produce 12,000 Mw a year in places like Bonavista. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2011 14:41:52 GMT -5
I'm trying to find a website that details each party platform, but I haven't been successful to this point good luck, dis: Canada’s election without a cause Approaching the end of its second week, the Great Campaign of 2011 is most striking for the shallowness of the debate.
Wait a minute, strike that. You can’t call a debate “shallow” unless there’s an actual debate. There’s no way you can use that word to describe what’s happening on Canada’s campaign trail, where the political discourse to date consists pretty much of “You’re a liar.” “Am not.” “Am too.”
Reporting on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s bid for re-election has focused predominantly on two themes: he doesn’t let the press ask enough questions, and he doesn’t like to talk about Bruce Carson, a one-time adviser who proved to have a criminal record. Oh, and some students got kicked out a rally by the RCMP.
News of Michael Ignatieff has focused on the fact he seems more relaxed than usual, “comfortable in his own skin,” as they say.
Jack Layton … well, Mr. Layton is out there selling the usual NDP fairy dust, but this is his fourth election in six years and the bromides haven’t changed much, or become any more practical. His latest is a plan to cap interest rates on credit cards, guaranteeing low-income Canadians never get approved for another credit card. Um, yeah.
For this the opposition brought down the government amid cries that democracy itself was in danger. moreDisappointing ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2011 14:55:20 GMT -5
I abhor those stupid things that fly around the internet . . . but my daughter . . . my daughter who has absolutely 0 interest in politics sent this on to me [change names and parties as you desire]:
A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS..
Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man.
"Hi there little girl, I'm Mr. Ignatieff. What do you have in the basket?" he asked.
"Kittens," little Suzy said.
"How old are they?" asked Ignatieff
Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet."
"And what kind of kittens are they?"
"Liberals," answered Suzy with a smile.
Ignatieff was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens.
Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that Mr. Ignatieff should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.
So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from CBC, CTV, and Global.
Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Ignatieff got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.
"Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away."
"Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're CONSERVATIVES."
Taken by surprise, Mr. Ignatieff stammered, "But... but.... yesterday, you told me they were LIBERALS."
Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know. But today, they have their eyes open"
|
|
