Quick thoughts on the Bernews interview with the Premier

Interesting interview with the Premier. Very articulate and composed responses to good interviewing. It seemed like he avoided providing personal opinions in most cases and deferred decisions to the appropriate committees and bodies that will be setup. I look positively on this as it suggests his intent to lead by enabling decision making rather than dictating specific decisions.

Good that he pledges to stick to the OBA’s budget. Also good that he suggests any unbudgeted spending will need approval and will be publicized. Interesting that he avoids admitting what areas will see cuts. Encouraging remarks regarding commitments to balancing the budget.

I think growth will be alot harder of a task than is being suggested. As Jeremy Deacon suggests, there will likely be a time lag and no clear answer was given of how it will be achieved within the timeframe, only that they will live up to their commitment to balance the budget without details on how.

Encouraging answer on independence. Wish he’d come out immediately after Senator Hayward’s speech and said exactly that.

I tend to agree that the OBA did not take a position on same sex marriage. They abstained from challenging the rulings but did not take a firm position.

Very interesting remarks regarding the company formed with ties to AECON, will be interested in hearing more as it becomes available.

It will be very important that the government is transparent as possible when it comes to any contract reviews and changes.

Great question with regards to the definition of a living wage. Can’t say I’m surprised with the response as I don’t think it has really been defined and the Premier is best avoiding the definition and letting their committee determine the most feasible solution given our circumstances. Such as what Craig Simmons had to say regarding it.  I would rather see us take a pragmatic approach than force through an unrealistic one.

Unfortunately much of the commentary in the Bernews live feed was disappointing in that they attacked the interviewer vs. evaluated what was being said and the responses provided.

Comments

comments