Election 2011

[GAP]

Iggy might make the claim that he has the Conservatives on the ropes.

Oh, his Bagdad Bob stand...... :

 

[a_majoor]

I will guess the opposition will find a way to let the budget pass. The numbers and funds available are all wrong for them and a potential wipe-out at the polls will deny them even the chance of forming a coalition of the losers.

Alternatively,  they might start trying political theater, something like the Democrat "Fleebaggers" (lovely name) leaving Wisconsin to prevent the bill from being passed without actually triggering an election. This will be more difficult to pull off (especially since the Fleebaggers have aroused a great deal of anger among the voters of WI, I believe recall petitions are already circulating), but perhaps more elegant Parliamentary moves can be employed....

 

[Edward Campbell]

The two national opposition parties are in a bind: they need an election - to avoid being seen as propping Harper up, again or still - but neither wants an election any time soon. The BQ wants one - it stands to gain even more seats in QC. But the Liberals have painted themselves and the NDP into a corner. Ignatieff cannot, yet again, be seen to be firing blanks and Layton also needs to stand up to the dreaded, evil Harper, each in order to placate his own base. Maybe both can manage enough strategic absences on voting days to sustain Harper but if they do that more than once then they will be seen as cowards, etc. I think that we are off to the polls ... Hi ho! Hi ho! It's off to vote we go ..." And I suspect the Conservatives are sniffing a razor thin majority.

 

[Edward Campbell]

John Ibbitson, in this column reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, sees what I have been suggesting for several months (years?) – the Manley Liberals are defecting to the Tories as Ignatieff moves the party to the left in order to steal NDP seats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-a-leftward-tilt-is-hobbling-michael-ignatieff/article1929777/

Why a leftward tilt is hobbling Michael Ignatieff

JOHN IBBITSON

Globe and Mail Update
Friday, March 4, 2011 7:45AM EST

Conflicting polls mask an emerging truth: As all parties contemplate a possible spring election, the numbers show the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff successfully draining support from the New Democratic and Green parties, just as it hoped to do.

But it is paying a price, as John Manley Liberals defect to the Conservatives, increasing the chances that a spring election would return Stephen Harper as prime minister with a strengthened minority, or possibly even a majority, government.

Pollsters are accusing each other of shoddy methodology and other evils, as companies such as Ipsos Reid and Harris Decima come up with differing assessments of the level of support for the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP federally.

But there is something we can learn from these polls. Taken as a bunch, they reveal that Conservative support has increased in recent months, Liberal support hasn’t gone down or up very much, and support for the NDP is declining.

Why is that happening? Here’s one possible explanation:

The Liberals accept that core Conservative support of something like one-in-three voters is rock solid, so if the Liberal vote is to grow it must come from convincing soft New Democrat and Green voters that only Michael Ignatieff can prevent Stephen Harper from remaining prime minister.

Accordingly, Mr. Ignatieff has shifted his party to the left. The Liberals oppose Conservative plans to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter. They would reverse the Conservatives’ most recent cuts to corporate taxes. They oppose the Tory crime agenda. A Liberal government would invest in home care, child care and other social programs.

This shift is working. Most polls suggest that the NDP’s support has declined since the last election from the high teens to the mid-to-low teens.

Except it is the Conservative, not the Liberal, numbers that are going up. Could some voters be leapfrogging from the NDP straight into the arms of the Conservatives? No. Something else is happening.

Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government began the process that led to the choice of the F-35 as the next generation of fighter jet. Paul Martin, as Liberal finance minister, launched the program of gradually reducing the corporate tax rate.

There are a great many voters who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. In the past, they have supported the Liberal Party, in part because it won elections and in part because these voters distrusted the strain of social intolerance they detected within the Progressive Conservative/Reform/Canadian Alliance/Conservative parties.

We could call these people Manley Liberals, in honour of John Manley, the former Chrétien cabinet minister who is currently the head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

Many Manley Liberals will have noted that the Liberal Party no longer wins elections, and that it reversing many of its own former policies.

As it becomes increasingly clear that Mr. Harper is keeping whatever socially conservative tendencies he might have in check, the temptation for Manley Liberals to switch to the Conservatives grows.

In sum, what we have seen in recent months is the drain of some support from the NDP and Greens to the Liberals, but an even larger drain of Manley Liberals to the Conservatives.

Unless the Liberals can reverse that drain, the outcome of the next election will not be what they’re hoping for.

Which prompts a parting question. If you’re an NDP MP in a rural riding where your support for the gun registry has you in Conservative crosshairs, or you’re a Liberal MP in a suburban Toronto or Vancouver riding facing a massive Conservative campaign to unseat you, why would you agree to bring down the government over the budget?

Why wouldn’t you tell your leader and caucus mates in no uncertain terms that with the polls showing the Conservatives as the only party that is gaining ground, it would be suicide to force a vote now? Why wouldn’t you let the budget pass, and live to fight another year?

While I am sure there are some (many?) Liberal and NDP MPs who are asking the questions Ibbitson poses as the end of his column, I suspect we are too far gone to avoid an election, now. There is one ‘hope:’ Layton is headed for the hospital for hip surgery; his party may decide that he – the most popular politician in the country, according to most polls – is ot up for a national campaign and they may decide that they want to defer the election to fall 2011 or, even, spring 2012, giving both them and the Liberals time to find new leaders.

Even better news might be that this represents a real shift in Canadian politics: the Manley Liberals drag the Tories farther into the solid political centre and the loss of those Manley Liberals moves the Liberals father towards the left of centre area.

----------

My political 'spectrum:' Hard left - Left of centre - Centre-left - Centre - Centre-right - Right of centre - Hard right
In my view: we rarely if ever elect anyone from the Hard left and right, the NDP and BQ are Left of centre, the Liberals were from 1945 onwards (save for the Trudeau and Dion periods) Centre and Centre-left, even, under St Laurent, Centre-right. The Conservatives are Right of centre but they were, and may again become, Centre right and Centre.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/Projecting+Tory+majority/4405264/story.html

Projecting a Tory majority

Global News: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 3:21 PM

Barry Kay, an associate professor at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., is an expert on public opinion and elections. He is also part of Global National’s election team. Kay has developed a model for projecting parliamentary seat distributions, from popular vote or opinion polls.

Based on his findings, he says the Conservatives would win a majority government if an election were held today.

You can view his findings below. (See link)

Kay spoke to Global News about his projections and the Canadian political landscape.

Question: The Conservatives are close to majority territory, seemingly at the expense of the NDP. Why?

Answer: I tend to challenge the premise of the question. There are different ways to address this issue, pertaining to winning constituencies or gaining popularity with voters. In either case, however, recent Conservative gains are more likely to occur at the expense of the Liberals. That is certainly the case in Ontario, but sometimes less so in the West, especially B.C. When the NDP is competitive in a seat, it is usually the Liberals that are the main competition, again especially in Ontario.

Q: Opposition parties are threatening to bring down the Conservatives and force an election. Would this be a wise strategy?

A: By approaching the two-and-a-half year mark since the last election, this is already one of the longer-lasting minority governments on record.

Opposition parties establish their credibility by opposing government policies, and the Michael Ignatieff Liberals have frequently been criticized for being a "doormat" for Stephen Harper in accepting past budgets.

The NDP has stronger ideological differences with the Conservatives, and has regularly opposed them in the past. They still could switch, but they will be criticized by the Liberals for rolling over to the Conservatives, and acting out of fear and weakness. That argument could cost them votes to the Liberals once an election eventually occurs.

The Bloc's position politically has been fairly solid in Quebec, and they probably have little reason to fear an election.

Ignatieff hasn't impressed overly until now, but he has had two years to change the dynamic, and he probably is thinking that only the dynamic of a campaign will give swing voters the motivation to take a second look at him.

It doesn't always happen as with Dion in 2008, but Harper changed the political dynamic during the 2006 election campaign. Either way, there will be an election by next year.

Q: If an election is called, where will the key battles be fought?

A: The key battleground is clearly in Southern Ontario, more specifically in the bedroom suburbs of Toronto… It isn't simply that Ontario is the biggest province, but rather that it has greater electoral volatility, and more swing seats proportionately than anywhere else in the country.

A secondary example is the greater Vancouver area. If the Conservatives have a shot at a majority, this is where it will occur.

Conversely, if the Liberals are to stage a comeback, they will have to regain the southern Ontario seats they lost in the last two elections, but which had supported them in 2004 and earlier. The voting traditions in the other regions are too solid, for many seats to turn over.

Q: What will the Conservatives need to do strategically to achieve that elusive majority?

A: Stephen Harper isn't loved by most Canadians, but his strategy is to claim solid economic stewardship and question the competence of the Opposition parties. In the process, he seems to have put aside previous doubts about being "scary" on social conservative issues. His negative pre-emptive attacks on Ignatieff are part of the strategy, as is a warning about a Liberal-NDP coalition with separatist support.

 

[ModlrMike]

Things just became much more interesting:

Reproduced with the appropriate caveats:

Tories slapped by 2 rulings
By Laura Payton, CBC News
Posted: Mar 9, 2011 3:48 PM ET

There's a case against the government for breach of privilege after it refused to hand over detailed cost estimates of its anti-crime agenda, and a minister may have misled MPs, House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken said Wednesday in a ruling reasserting Parliament's authority.

Milliken ruled there was a "prima facie breach of privilege" — in other words, enough evidence to send two separate motions back to MPs to decide the next step.

Article Link


I think this is the opportunity the Liberals have been working towards. They want to bring down the government without having to vote against the budget to get there. The options now are:

BQ - want an election in any event
Cons - would like one - Polls show them edging into a majority
Libs - want one, badly - think they'll return to power, or at least cause the departure of Mr Harper
NDP - caught in the middle. Mr Layton needs hip surgery, and they want some budget compromises passed.


So the question is, will Mr Brison et al tender a motion of non-confidence?

 

[Rifleman62]

Cripes, even the left of left New York Times has some biting comments about Iffy. What a joke this guy is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/americas/12canada.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299935065-l40wRkmB36trK1qd16uCdA

The Saturday Profile. Looking to Lead Canada, and for a Little Name Recognition

By IAN AUSTEN, Published: March 11, 2011

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF may have written 17 books, gained some fame on British television as a serious thinker and led a human rights center at Harvard. But all that appeared to count for little when he laced up his skates and headed out on the 19th-century canal this city uses as a giant ice rink.

After spending most of his adult life outside of Canada, Mr. Ignatieff, 63, returned home six years ago with the ambitious goal of becoming prime minister. If current political speculation is correct, he will finally have a chance this spring to put his case before the Canadian people.

But as he skated through a bitter wind on the Rideau Canal with 10 children and a gaggle of adults for a photo opportunity, no one approached him or even waved. In a random sampling, few of the skaters that day even knew his name.

Perhaps they did not recognize him in his hockey jersey and headband.

For all he has tried, Mr. Ignatieff has yet to connect closely with the average Canadian, and in the next few months, as he tries to lead the Liberal Party back to power, he will find out once and for all whether he ever will.

In an interview, Mr. Ignatieff (pronounced ig-NAT-ee-ef) openly acknowledged that his previous life — which included leading BBC camera crews into Balkan war zones and helping shape America’s debate over the invasion of Iraq as director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard, had not fully prepared him for the battle of electoral politics.

“It is, by a country mile, the most difficult thing I’ve ever tried to do,” Mr. Ignatieff said last week in the grand paneled parliamentary office that comes with his title of Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. “I’ve done a lot of things. I’m proud of them. But this one is just at another level of sheer difficulty. It takes everything out of you.”

Even without an election call, the governing Conservative Party has already flooded “Hockey Night In Canada” and other popular shows with attack ads portraying Mr. Ignatieff as an interloper who is filled with patronizing contempt for his birthplace.

“I don’t care what they say about me, that’s not the issue,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “There came a moment at Harvard when I thought that I had to decide: do I want to be a spectator, or teacher, in someone else’s country? I was frustrated by the fact that you could keep writing these articles and nothing would happen. It was time to come home and take responsibility. I don’t want to get on my high horse about it but there was something there, existentially.”

ASSUMING authority is something of a theme in Mr. Ignatieff’s family history. His father, George, who left Russia at the age of 6 and ultimately became a prominent diplomat in Canada, was the son of the last czar’s education minister and a princess. His mother, Alison, came from a family whose members helped lay out the route for the transcontinental railway that stitched the country together and played leading roles in creating Canada’s modern education system. Even for a country with a tightly connected elite, it is an unusually illustrious history. But Canada is also a country where politicians with even the vaguest hint of self-importance are more likely to be mocked on satirical television programs than revered, potentially making his family history a political liability. It is a problem, Mr. Ignatieff said, that he is willing to bear.

“The egalitarianism which makes us very vigilant about public officials is a very good thing,” he said. “It’s not just idle social compassion. This is what makes this place go.”

Mr. Ignatieff said that Canada fared much better than the United States during the recession because its sense of egalitarianism has led to a stronger public education system, public health care, tighter regulation of business and a wider range of social programs. Those programs, he argues, have been steadily eroded by the Conservative government that came to power in 2006.

Like many of the ancestors in his mother’s family who went abroad, Mr. Ignatieff concluded that he would never be fully a part of life in either of his adopted homes in London and Cambridge, Mass.

“I know quite a bit about expatriation,” he said. “You always hit a glass ceiling.”

In Britain, that realization came when he was told that he would not be given a television project because he was Canadian. In the United States, it was more a matter of gradual alienation. Mr. Ignatieff said he found the debates in the last decade about stem cell research, abortion and public health care almost baffling.

“What are they arguing about?” he recalled thinking. “I don’t want to overstate this, as I love American politics. But you do come up that it’s not your home.”

SELLING his social vision over that of Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, has not been easy. He was appointed Liberal leader in late 2008, but soon discovered how hard it is for opposition leaders to set the agenda or even to attract news media attention. On a visibility scale, they rank somewhere between vice presidents and lieutenant governors.

During his four years at Harvard, Mr. Ignatieff was known for his hawkish policy positions. That culminated in an article for The New York Times Magazine in 2003 in which he supported the Iraq invasion. It was a position so out of line with Canadian thinking that even Mr. Harper, who otherwise enthusiastically embraces the use of Canada’s military, backed away from it as the invasion soured.

In 2007, Mr. Ignatieff acknowledged that he was wrong in another article for the same magazine. But the episode may blunt his effectiveness in foreign affairs during any election campaign, even though he has a clear advantage in knowledge and experience over Mr. Harper. An economist by training, Mr. Harper rarely left Canada before taking office.

Neither man is a natural campaigner. But while Mr. Harper usually restricts himself to tightly controlled events and audiences, Mr. Ignatieff has been actively seeking hands to shake and questions to answer. He spent most of last summer traveling the country in a chartered bus, a dry-run campaign that he said he enjoyed.

“They want to poke you. They want to see what you’re made of,” Mr. Ignatieff said of voters. “They’re very demanding and extremely well informed. Sometimes it’s a bit scary.”

When Mr. Ignatieff first returned to Canada, he was instantly, and perhaps predictably, compared with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the former Liberal prime minister whose charismatic leadership many Liberals still hope to recapture.

Both men were latecomers to elected politics, equally at ease speaking French or English, and both might be fairly described as public intellectuals. Not tweedy intellectuals but handsome, fit and more youthful in appearance than their ages would suggest.

But it is an analogy that soon falls flat. Mr. Trudeau, for the most part, remained in Canada and was active in political debates and causes long before seeking election. He was so well known by the time he became prime minister in 1968 that his ability to draw crowds was known as Trudeau-mania.

For Mr. Ignatieff, the first step will be simply to introduce himself to Canadian voters. While he was untying his skates at the end of the photo opportunity last month, a small crowd did gather and some excitement built — Justin Trudeau, the 39-year-old son of the former prime minister and, for now at least, a Liberal member of Parliament from Montreal, had shown up.

 

[observor 69]

Glad to see that Mr.Austen provides coverage of both sides of the aisle :

New York Times

March 9, 2011
Canada: Conservatives in Contempt
By IAN AUSTEN

The speaker of the House of Commons found the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament on Wednesday for refusing to provide cost estimates for a new anticrime program and because of potentially misleading remarks from a cabinet minister. It was the third such finding against the government in about a year. After a review by a parliamentary committee, there is a remote possibility that the decision might ultimately jeopardize the ruling Conservative government’s hold on power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/americas/10briefs-Canada.html?ref=ianausten

 

[Rifleman62]

News broke yesterday.

One of the Comments at the National Post:

This could set a dangerous precedent, if Quebec city gets an NHL team, Toronto will want one.

This guy wants to be PM.

National Post  15 Mar 2011  BY MARIANNE WHITE  http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx   

IGNATIEFF DANGLES ARENA HELP

Charges that Harper has let down Quebecers

QUEBEC CITY • Prime Minister Stephen Harper has let Quebecers down and they should get back at him by voting for the Liberals, Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday.
MATHIEU BELANGER / REUTERS Michael Ignatieff told an audience in Quebec Monday a Liberal government would invest in multi-purpose infrastructure projects across Canada.

The Liberal leader positioned his party as the only credible alternative in Quebec as he tried to woo voters despite devastating poll results showing the party is in second-last place in the province.

Mr. Ignatieff urged Quebecers who are looking to punish the ruling Conservatives for — among other things — failing to chip in for the new NHLsized arena in Quebec City, to vote Liberal and not for the Bloc or the NDP if they want to make a difference.

“Quebecers are fed up with Mr. Harper. Quebecers are looking for an alternative to Mr. Harper and the only party that can form a government to replace Mr. Harper is the Liberal Party of Canada,” the Liberal leader told reporters.

He said he is confident his party can make inroads in the province, especially in Quebec City, where the arena is a major issue.

“We’re very optimistic, we can gain a lot of seats in the region,” he said.

Results of a Leger Marketing survey published Monday suggested the Liberals trail the New Democratic Party in Quebec with 18% of voter intentions.

The Conservatives are last with 16%, while the NDP gets 20% and the Bloc Québécois leads with 41%.

Support for the federal Liberals elsewhere in the country is at 23%, according to a national survey. The poll suggests the Conservative party is the likely choice of 36% of Canadians, with the NDP at 18%.

“I don’t listen to the polls, I don’t pay attention to the polls. I’m on the ground and I’m talking to Canadians all over the place,” Mr. Ignatieff said in response to questions about his party’s ability to catch up if there is a spring election.

Mr. Ignatieff reiterated a Liberal government would put forward a national strategy to invest federal money in the construction of new multipurpose infrastructure, such as the Quebec City arena.

He declined to say, however, how much money his party would devote to it.

Mr. Ignatieff gave a luncheon speech before the local chamber of commerce Monday and told the sparse crowd of about 100 participants a Liberal government would give Quebec a strong voice in Ottawa.

“Canada needs Quebec; it can’t brush it aside like Mr. Harper is doing,” he said.

Mr. Ignatieff also pledged a Liberal government would settle the long-standing dispute with Quebec over the harmonization of sales taxes.

“Quebecers need to have a voice in the next Liberal Cabinet and for that, they need to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada,” he said.

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | www.newspaperdirect.com, US/Can: 1.877.980.4040, Intern: 800.6364.6364 | Copyright and protected by applicable law.

 

[ModlrMike]

The same sort of bribery he's chastised Mr Harper about. Hello pot, this is kettle!

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Iggy is a Liberal from the right side of the spectrum tying to win votes by appealing to the left side of the spectrum.  He's making it up as he goes and he hasn't got a clue how to win.  I doubt the old "let's invade Iraq" Iggy feels all that comfortable with the socialist rhetoric he's now spewing.  I think he has a lot of bad advice.  I can't believe he's that silly all on his own.  Now he wants to give hundreds of millions to billionaires.  AAAaaaghhh!

 

[a_majoor]

Glad to see that Mr.Austen provides coverage of both sides of the aisle :

New York Times

March 9, 2011
Canada: Conservatives in Contempt
By IAN AUSTEN

The speaker of the House of Commons found the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament on Wednesday for refusing to provide cost estimates for a new anticrime program and because of potentially misleading remarks from a cabinet minister. It was the third such finding against the government in about a year. After a review by a parliamentary committee, there is a remote possibility that the decision might ultimately jeopardize the ruling Conservative government’s hold on power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/americas/10briefs-Canada.html?ref=ianausten

The Prime Minister may use this to trigger the election; simply saying that he will take the issue to the people (ahead of a budget or anything else). This might catch the opposition flat footed (again), and with the political and financial stars lined up against them, this election will probably (at best) end up with little change in parliament, and at worst (for them) a CPC majority government.

Update: Or not

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2011/03/delaying-opposition-day.html

Delaying Opposition Day

Rest assured that the federal budget will be released as scheduled next Tuesday, and the Liberals will not have an opportunity to introduce a non-confidence motion on Monday. The Tories have delayed the opposition day by one week, which I'm sure will draw the ire of the Liberals who would rather you don't see the budget. They are free to vote no on the budget and trigger an election if that's their prerogative, but there won't be a contempt of Parliament defeat before the budget is voted on. Great, I'd really like to see what's in the budget before I decide if we should have an election.

I'll admit that I did not like when Paul Martin delayed Conservative opposition days after the roof collapsed in the Gomery Inquiry, but Paulie delayed them for several months, not one week. I would like to see the budget before the next opposition day, and we won't have to wait very long. This was a great move.

 

[Rifleman62]

Surely Thucydides you not quoting a blogger as a source of information! Redeye will not be pleased. Next thing you know we will have to muddle through his renowned posts here.

 

[Redeye]

Surely Thucydides you not quoting a blogger as a source of information! Redeye will not be pleased. Next thing you know we will have to muddle through his renowned posts here.

The blog's a source of opinion in this case.  And one which I share.  I'd rather see the government torpedoed on the budget (or the ridiculous Bill S-10) than the contempt measure (which I'd like to see stick), but the Liberals aren't really in a position to be demanding an election now since they stand to gain very little from it.  They still don't have an electable leader it seems, which is a shame in the face of the fact that Harper's done a not particularly inspiring job of running things lately, the LPC can't really capitalize on it.  It makes an election somewhat pointless I suppose.

What really infuriates me is the amount of money being spent on both attack ads (which disgust me) and the "Economic Action Plan" ads.  I pass a fond reminder of that plan, the Washmill Lake Underpass (AKA the Underpass to Nowhere), every day on my way to work.  A $10 million dollar boondoggle that was part of this "plan".  The money wasted on it could have been used for other more pressing infrastructure projects that were actually needed, but instead, it wasn't.  I'm sure it's but one of many examples.

Also rather sad that because of previous blustering about the GST, the Grits can't use the foolish decision to cut it to bludgeon the Tories.  It would have worked remarkably well for that.

Anyone notice the amusing snipe the Grits have used a few times?  When the "Harper Government" label issue came out, several Liberals started referred to the "Harper Regime".  Pretty funny as a potshot.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I pass a fond reminder of that plan, the Washmill Lake Underpass (AKA the Underpass to Nowhere), every day on my way to work.  A $10 million dollar boondoggle that was part of this "plan".  The money wasted on it could have been used for other more pressing infrastructure projects that were actually needed, but instead, it wasn't.  I'm sure it's but one of many examples.

The provincial governments selected the projects and if they met the criteria the federal government wrote the cheque.  Spending the money was the Federal stimulus.  Getting value was up to the province.

 

[Redeye]

The provincial governments selected the projects and if they met the criteria the federal government wrote the cheque.  Spending the money was the Federal stimulus.  Getting value was up to the province.

Really?

Not accoring to this - in fact, it suggests the province didn't have any actual role:

http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/tories-hijack-halifaxs-recession/Content?oid=1379211

(Yes, Tim Bousquet has a pretty left-leaning spin on it, but he's also about the only one reporting heaving on the complete incompetence of HRM's council, which is now just getting embroiled in another scandal)

Here's a little more on the the whole mess at Washmill Lake:

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2011/01/24/will-wayne-anstey-citys-top-staffer-be-fired-for-this

(It would appear Anstey didn't get fired for it, but he's at the centre of scandal over concert funding emerging now)

I've never become so interested in municipal politics as HRM has made me, because it's just a series of headscratchers.

Now, don't get me wrong - much of what was done as part of the EAP was good investment, and it was a timely decision to intervene in the economy.  That being said, how many projects went like this one?

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The project was on a list of projects presented by the municipality.  The federal government had a preference for projects involving dirt, concrete, and asphalt because little of the value can be imported.  My municipality paved a road and built a water line with federal money.

 

[Redeye]

There were, however, several other projects of a similar nature on the list, and this one was a very, very low priority one on a large submitted list but it would seem that for whatever reason it was the one chosen.

More importantly, though, I can't stand that fact taht lots of public money is being spent to run these ads which are essentially campaign ads, that's not appropriate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
More importantly, though, I can't stand that fact taht lots of public money is being spent to run these ads which are essentially campaign ads, that's not appropriate.

One can, and the government does (or should) argue that the advertising is part of the "recovery" process - instilling public confidence in the overall stimulus programme. Governments, of all stripes, have advertised their programmes since, at least, World War I - always in order to gain and sustain public support. The EAP ads are, really, no different than:

                                                                                                                                                   

Would you have argued that the above was a Liberal (king) re-election ad?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There were, however, several other projects of a similar nature on the list, and this one was a very, very low priority one on a large submitted list but it would seem that for whatever reason it was the one chosen.

More importantly, though, I can't stand that fact taht lots of public money is being spent to run these ads which are essentially campaign ads, that's not appropriate.

Hold on. Let me go get my tinfoil hat. ;D