Tories bulking up own ridings with infrastructure funds

[WIP]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/WBwbureaublog

It has generally been part of Tory strategy to only spend on areas or people that will vote for them.

The strategy has been followed pretty closely since Muttart created it.

There is a real risk that any government project will be designed to provide jobs in the areas that vote for the party in power, but since the Tories don't have a majority government, there's no reason why the Opposition can't apply some leverage to get the money distributed more evenly for upcoming stimulus projects.

[Alta4ever]

Federal political parties don't usually spend money on provincial infrastructure projects....

So then zero fedral tax dollars have been spent on improving road ways in Csnada, why is it I see signs all across the country about upgrades to highways that show a percentage of funding is comming from the federal goverments.

[Moonbox]

Be clear what you mean. If you keep saying it is not worth voting for a party that doesn't win, it sounds like you place most of the value on winning. That isn't a context. It is simply stating back to you what you said.

Look up the definition of context. Context can drastically change the meaning of a statement. If you're not prepared to take context into account when talking then maybe you'd be better conversing with robots. I know what I said. You chose to take what I said as if it were a separate discussion altogether. Yes, TECHNICALLY Argus and I could start our own grass roots party. Yes, TECHNICALLY we could run for office ourselves. Whether we have the means or the inclination is another matter altogether. If we don't, then our alternative is to chose from the parties available. If he and I are voting from the right, we generally have the choice of Liberal or Conservative. Presently the Liberals look worse than the Conservatives. I hope that clears things up.

As for who you think you'll vote for, you don't have a clue. I have voted Liberal in the last 5 years and I would do so again if people like Bob Rae weren't in positions of influence. The fact that the coalition even became a possibility tells me the LPC has shifted left/stupid.

[Smallc]

a percentage of funding is coming from the federal government.

Federal government yes. Federal Liberals, no. Not much money was spent on infrastructure by Ottawa before 2000 because most of the 90's was dedicated to reigning in spending. After 2000, the money began to flow again, although not that quickly. Its also important to remember that Alberta would receive less help because it needs less help than the other provinces in terms of securing funding.

[Alta4ever]

Federal government yes. Federal Liberals, no. Not much money was spent on infrastructure by Ottawa before 2000 because most of the 90's was dedicated to reigning in spending. After 2000, the money began to flow again, although not that quickly. Its also important to remember that Alberta would receive less help because it needs less help than the other provinces in terms of securing funding.

Tell that to Dobbin

[Smallc]

Tell that to Dobbin

Tell him what? Alberta receives and has received money, just not as much as other places. Its not necessarily because of favoritism, but simply because Alberta doesn't need the kind of help that some other provinces do.

[jdobbin]

Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report - 12:18pmJean Chretien has already demonstrated, in the Shawinigate scandal, .... Chretien gave more money to his riding in Shawinigan, as the Shawinigate scandals ...

Can you highlight where Alberta received less infrastructure money than Chretien's riding? I can't find it.

Edited February 9, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Do you not recall Shawinigate? I do prior to 2000 what was spent on alberta infrastructure by Federal liberals? Zero.

Absolutely nothing was spent in Alberta? And this is what the anonymous MP from Alberta told you?

[jdobbin]

Look up the definition of context. Context can drastically change the meaning of a statement. If you're not prepared to take context into account when talking then maybe you'd be better conversing with robots. I know what I said. You chose to take what I said as if it were a separate discussion altogether.

If you want to say everything is context, I guess you can be like Harper and say that the budget is "technically" in a deficit. That's context.

If you say something like voting for a party that has no chance of winning is useless, I take you at you word. I didn't see what context you meant.

Yes, TECHNICALLY Argus and I could start our own grass roots party. Yes, TECHNICALLY we could run for office ourselves. Whether we have the means or the inclination is another matter altogether. If we don't, then our alternative is to chose from the parties available. If he and I are voting from the right, we generally have the choice of Liberal or Conservative. Presently the Liberals look worse than the Conservatives. I hope that clears things up.

I have an answer at last. You've limited yourself to the Tories and the Liberals based on viewpoint rather than who has the best chance of winning.

As for who you think you'll vote for, you don't have a clue. I have voted Liberal in the last 5 years and I would do so again if people like Bob Rae weren't in positions of influence. The fact that the coalition even became a possibility tells me the LPC has shifted left/stupid.

I don't recall asking who you'd vote for so I wouldn't have a clue.

[Moonbox]

If you want to say everything is context, I guess you can be like Harper and say that the budget is "technically" in a deficit. That's context.

No, that's just you trying to be clever. Context helps the AVERAGE person (not an anal person) understand that when someone like Argus says he chooses the CPC over all the alternatives, he actually means that "Barring the possibilities that I create and nurture my own political party and run for politics, and considering that a vote for a fringe party like the Christian Heritage Party makes about as much a difference as a fart in the wind, the best choice for my vote is the CPC."

Really anal people, on the other hand, require the clarification.

I don't recall asking who you'd vote for so I wouldn't have a clue.

You said I vote conservative no matter what. Citation please?

[jdobbin]

No, that's just you trying to be clever. Context helps the AVERAGE person (not an anal person) understand that when someone like Argus says he chooses the CPC over all the alternatives, he actually means that "Barring the possibilities that I create and nurture my own political party and run for politics, and considering that a vote for a fringe party like the Christian Heritage Party makes about as much a difference as a fart in the wind, the best choice for my vote is the CPC."

Yeesh, that is about as vague as some of the political statements some criticize Ottawa for.

Really anal people, on the other hand, require the clarification.

Really mushy people play the fuzzification angle by asking for someone to understand the context. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

You said I vote conservative no matter what. Citation please?

You said you vote on the right traditionally and have said so many times here.

You said so again here:

If he and I are voting from the right, we generally have the choice of Liberal or Conservative.

So you vote conservative no matter what and it is whatever of the two main parties is the most conservative, right?

Edited February 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

Yeesh, that is about as vague as some of the political statements some criticize Ottawa for.

I was mocking you. There was nothing vague about what you and Argus were saying. You decided that the alternative of running for office or starting our own parties were perfectly practical solutions to our choices of picking the lesser of evils when we vote.

Really mushy people play the fuzzification angle by asking for someone to understand the context. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Pure analism again. Think like a human being here. He said he votes for the CPC because it's better than the alternatives. Most people would leave it at that and realize he's talking about the parties available at the moment and that running for office is probably not a real option.

You said you vote on the right traditionally and have said so many times here.

So you vote conservative no matter what and it is whatever of the two main parties is the most conservative, right?

No. Nice try. Socially I'm very liberal. Fiscally I'm conservative. I'm not happy with the stimulus program right now and I know my taxes will likely rise in the next few years. Like Argus said though, which you managed to muddy up with your delightfully insightful suggestion that he run for office if he wasn't happy, was that there aren't better alternatives right now.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

I was mocking you. There was nothing vague about what you and Argus were saying. You decided that the alternative of running for office or starting our own parties were perfectly practical solutions to our choices of picking the lesser of evils when we vote.

Don't think I mentioned anything about starting your own party. I said there were other parties if you were willing to look at them.

As for your mocking, it is not surprising how you resort to personalizing.

Pure analism again. Think like a human being here. He said he votes for the CPC because it's better than the alternatives. Most people would leave it at that and realize he's talking about the parties available at the moment and that running for office is probably not a real option.

But he and others don't just leave it at that. We have heard that old chestnut of how all politicians are corrupt. Yadda, yadda, yadda. It is cliched but but it happens over and over again.

Fuzzy, fuzzy. Just like the politicians.

No. Nice try. Socially I'm very liberal. Fiscally I'm conservative. I'm not happy with the stimulus program right now and I know my taxes will likely rise in the next few years. Like Argus said though, which you managed to muddy up with your delightfully insightful suggestion that he run for office if he wasn't happy, was that there aren't better alternatives right now.

And I keep asking how long some people are prepared to hold their noses before they see that they do have alternatives.

As for those socially liberal ideas, I can't recall what they are. You don't talk about them much.

Edited February 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

Don't think I mentioned anything about starting your own party. I said there were other parties if you were willing to look at them.

Oh I'm sorry. I guess you were were referring to the 'other' parties that manage something like a combined 0.0001% of the vote.

[jdobbin]

Oh I'm sorry. I guess you were were referring to the 'other' parties that manage something like a combined 0.0001% of the vote.

Reform started off even lower than that.

[Moonbox]

Reform started off even lower than that.

The reform party was a western protest vote that only really became a factor after the implosion of the PC's. When the PC's went from 151 seats to 2, it left quite a vaccuum in western Canada.

Every party starts somewhere, which is I guess what you're saying, but I feel my vote is better spent preventing things like the Green Shift and Bob Rae by supporting the governing party which I happen to tolerate and on a lot of issues agree with.

Given that national politics are all about people-pleasing in 31,000,000 directions, it's unlikely that I'll ever be totally thrilled with the governing party.

[Argus]

Federal political parties don't usually spend money on provincial infrastructure projects....

There is a small private airport north of Montreal of no real consequence except it's near the country home of Paul Desmarais - Jean Chretien's in-law, and the patron of Paul Martin Jr. It got more federal money for refurbishment, and to expand it to take jets, than all the airports in Alberta combined.

[jdobbin]

The reform party was a western protest vote that only really became a factor after the implosion of the PC's. When the PC's went from 151 seats to 2, it left quite a vaccuum in western Canada.

You say protest vote, I call it a movement. In 1988, they ran only 72 seats one after they were founded and finished second in a tonne of the western ridings. The PCs imploded because the Reform was more than just a protest vote.

Every party starts somewhere, which is I guess what you're saying, but I feel my vote is better spent preventing things like the Green Shift and Bob Rae by supporting the governing party which I happen to tolerate and on a lot of issues agree with.

Given how many parties have started and been part of the federal process from Social Credit, Reform, Alliance, Progressives, CCF to NDP, I don't know that you can ever dismiss small parties.

If your choices are limited to Liberal or Tory, you are likely to be disappointed.

I looked at Reform briefly in 1987 when they had their convention in Winnipeg but I couldn't handle their racism. The candidate they ran in my riding got national attention for her stance and embarrassed her party.

Given that national politics are all about people-pleasing in 31,000,000 directions, it's unlikely that I'll ever be totally thrilled with the governing party.

I can't help cynicism. I run into that a lot of time about how people don't like teachers, police, politicians, doctors, nurses, young people, old people, etc.

A change in outlook on thing usually involves putting yourself out there or to be prepared to to take a chance on something based on your belief that it is right.

[Moonbox]

You say protest vote, I call it a movement. In 1988, they ran only 72 seats one after they were founded and finished second in a tonne of the western ridings. The PCs imploded because the Reform was more than just a protest vote.

The PC's imploded everywhere, not just the west. If they hadn't done such a terrible job in the 80's and early 90's the reform probably wouldn't have even started. If the Liberals collapsed right now we'd probably also see a movement to replace them with a new party.

[jdobbin]

The PC's imploded everywhere, not just the west. If they hadn't done such a terrible job in the 80's and early 90's the reform probably wouldn't have even started. If the Liberals collapsed right now we'd probably also see a movement to replace them with a new party.

I think you forget the PCs won a massive majority in 1988.

[Moonbox]

I think you forget the PCs won a massive majority in 1988.

It doesn't matter if he won a massive majority in 88 because he'd already been running massive deficits. The implosion started pretty much immediately after he was first elected.

[ToadBrother]

It doesn't matter if he won a massive majority in 88 because he'd already been running massive deficits. The implosion started pretty much immediately after he was first elected.

His constitutional reform failures didn't help either.

[Moonbox]

Among other things