George Smitherman refutes Liberal MP accusations, defends Harper Government stimulus spending
What's this? A key player in the Ontario Liberal government publicly disagreeing with the Federal Liberal Opposition's view on the allocation of the stimulus spending?
What's this world coming to? McGuinty Liberals publicly refuting the claims of Iffy Liberals... stay tuned for the world ending black hole to open up somewhere over Stornoway.
UPDATE: Grrr... Taylor beats me to it again. How does he do it? ;-)
Toronto MP Claims Harper Government Favours Tory Ridings, Smitherman DisagreesIt gets even better though... the MP Smitherman is refuting? Why, it's his old Queen's Park colleuge, Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy. And even better yet when you consider that Smitherman is in fact DEFENDING his old Queen's Park RIVAL, Conservative MP Tony Clement.
2009/10/22 | CityNews.ca Staff“The [federal Liberals] draw conclusions based on the analysis that they’ve done,” deputy premier George Smitherman countered Thursday outside Queen’s Park.
But, he continued, they only looked at the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (Rinc) program. While that would indicate that Conservative ridings received more cash than Liberal holdings, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
The Rinc program was open to not-for-profits and municipalities, he explained.
“So the fact that there are 450 municipalities, many of them small, meant that there were more requests in the mix for smaller communities.
“I think that’s why you see it’s a little more distributed towards rural Ontario and by coincidence, that happens to be where Conservatives represent the ridings."
Toronto scored big when other initiatives were considered, Smitherman argued.
What's this world coming to? McGuinty Liberals publicly refuting the claims of Iffy Liberals... stay tuned for the world ending black hole to open up somewhere over Stornoway.
UPDATE: Grrr... Taylor beats me to it again. How does he do it? ;-)
Labels: CPC, iffy, irony, Liberals, Queen's Park
posted by Christian Conservative @ 1:46 p.m.
9 Comments:
At Thu Oct 22, 02:41:00 p.m. EDT,
Michael Harkov said…
What's this world coming to? McGuinty Liberals publicly refuting the claims of Iffy Liberals...
As a patient often has to have a limb cut away due to gangrene, so does the Ontario Liberal limb have to be cut off the Federal Liberal body. The trouble is, the Federal Liberal body is already dying of cancer, so cutting off the limb won't save it.
At Thu Oct 22, 07:47:00 p.m. EDT,
Hinchey's Store said…
It makes perfect sense! More municipalities = more projects.
And the fact that a Liberal MPP is backing a federal Tory... well, enough said.
Good post!
At Thu Oct 22, 10:01:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
And to top it off - Craig Oliver tells Souidas to "Shut Up". on Power-Point. Craig's a Liberal hack and former personal friend of PET - and yes the CBC is the right arm of the Liberal party.
What next??
At Thu Oct 22, 10:15:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Phillip Huggan, I didn't and won't be publishing your comments... what on earth do they have to do with the subject at hand?
If you want to rant off topic, and way out in left field, please do it somewhere else.
At Fri Oct 23, 01:48:00 a.m. EDT,
YL said…
The analysis done by the Liberals and the Globe and Mail does focus on the RInC, granted.
Yet, the CBC has done analysis on the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund which proves similar conclusions. Conservative ridings got 60 percent of all the funds.
It gets more difficult to explain away two instances of this, doesn't it?
At Fri Oct 23, 09:44:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
If only that were true, YL... of course, you Young Liberals never bother to let facts get in the way of a good spin job, now do you?
Ontario has 106 ridings, and we won nearly half of them with 51. Since most of your ridings are clumped together in Toronto, your ridings ARE REALLY SMALL compared to ours. As such, there's less area, and therefore FEWER PROJECTS TO FUND. Add to that the fact that most of the projects that we are funding generally affect two or three, OR MORE Toronto ridings, YET ARE ONLY CLAIMED AS FUNDING FOR A SINGLE RIDING, it stands to reason that the per riding average would end up falling somewhat.
Conversely, with our ridings generally being larger, there is more surface area, including more communities, and therefore have MORE infrastructure containing projects to fund.
Take water for example: In Toronto, one large pumping station can handle three of four ridings. However, in our ridings, there are potentially DOZENS of small water stations, all of which may require upgrades. As such, OF COURSE there's going to have to be more dollars spent in our riding, BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE PROJECTS.
Add to that roads, sewers, bridges... larger areas mean MOR PROJECTS, WHICH MEANS MORE DOLLARS.
If I'm having to explain these things to you, then it's quite obvious why Canadians have lost faith in your Party... CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
At Sat Oct 24, 02:14:00 a.m. EDT,
YL said…
And this makes it quite clear that it is impossible to discuss with Conservatives who make all their attacks ad hominum.
As an anonymous commenter on your later post has suggested, population counts just as much. There are more hospitals etc... per urban riding than in rural areas. Basing all your argument on an analysis of land surface area is inaccurate.
At Sat Oct 24, 09:57:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
YL: "It gets more difficult to explain away two instances of this, doesn't it?"
You call that "discussion"? Accusing me of trying to "explain away" things?
You came in here, and you a took a shot. I just responded by opening up both barrels, and I think pretty effectively blowing away your argument.
Please, discuss, I love genuine political discourse... but don't for a moment delude yourself into thinking that's what you were doing.
At Sun Oct 25, 01:29:00 a.m. EDT,
YL said…
I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was asking the question because i wanted a response, not to incense you.
Post a Comment
<< Home