The Peters principle

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

The term “peter out” is defined as “to dwindle away to nothing.”

I believe that Stephen Harper has been trying dwindle our province away to nothing ever since Danny Williams took off the gloves in the ABC campaign.  

After the election he gave us Peter MacKay who callously showed indifference to us while flying all over the place in rescue equipment — yet when we have one of our own children lost on the ice, hoping for and expecting rescue, it does not happen.

But this MacKay acts like he does not care.

Not a word about how he feels something happened that should have been prevented; he was like I don’t know want happened to that child and frankly I don’t care.

Then we get Peter Penashue. He allegedly buys an election win, spends a ton of money himself travelling and, when asked about it for a couple of weeks, he finally stands up, speaks obvious gibberish and shows the whole province he doesn’t have a clue and he does not care who knows it.

A total reflection on the Harper government.

No one in that government is accountable to the people who put them there.

We cannot let that be the norm.

The prime minister wants to “peter out” this province; that has been obvious since day one.

Speaking of two Peters, the nursery rhyme “Peter, Peter Pumpkin Eater” is believed to have been adapted from the Scottish rhyme below:

Eeper Weeper, chimbly sweeper,

Had a wife but couldn't keep her.

Had another, didn't love her,

Up the chimbly he did shove her

I think the first two words in this rhyme should have been Stephen Harper.

Dennis Cooper

Grand Falls-Windsor

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • The use of inducements...
    November 15, 2012 - 07:51

    The use of inducements to potentially encourage the misuse of power could eventually lead to ruin. That’s why the public depends on governments to prevent corruption. “Cost over runs” in business or household projects is a matter for the family or business concerned. In government however, “cost over runs” could be symptomatic of corruption which has much more widespread and far-reaching effects. That’s why we have independent, non-partisan agencies like Elections Canada, to help keep governments in check. Do you see any difference between a household, a business and a government now Peter?

  • Peter FromUpAway
    November 14, 2012 - 12:33

    No matter how much one spends on signs, the people decide who to vote for and who they want as an MP. Honestly, a couple of thousand of dollars either way does not influence the vote. All these calls for him to reisgn is just the Liberals (backed by the NDP) thorwing a temper tantrum because they lost.

    • david
      November 14, 2012 - 13:48

      You know what kind of people are dissmissive of a mere "few thousand dollars" of curruption? The ones who themselves are so corrupt, on the take, or paid off under the table, to whom "a few thousand dollars" is a laughably insignificant rounding error. Please take your Penashue bagman "ethics" and go back to the political scumhole you came from.

    • Peter FromUpAway
      November 14, 2012 - 18:03

      @David: Ever hear of cost over runs? They innocently happen in virtually every government, business or household project. This is no different.

    • david
      November 16, 2012 - 19:04

      You are a complete and utter fool if you think I am such a complete and utter fool. or you're just a bad P.P. spin nurse (doctor is far above your skill level).