HRM Municipal Election 2012

[Keith P.]

I was told today that Kommissar Howard Epstein has endorsed Waye MAson for the council race in the south end.. It's been quite a week for him, having gotten Kyle Buott's endorsement earlier.

One wonders if he will be a puppet for Epstein like Watts. Regardless, it seems clear that he is about as left-wing as any councillor around over the past several terms. That means reasonable people should probably vote for someone else.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I was told today that Kommissar Howard Epstein has endorsed Waye MAson for the council race in the south end.. It's been quite a week for him, having gotten Kyle Buott's endorsement earlier.

One wonders if he will be a puppet for Epstein like Watts. Regardless, it seems clear that he is about as left-wing as any councillor around over the past several terms. That means reasonable people should probably vote for someone else.

Apparently I'm not a very reasonable person.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by NISH89

Hey Sam, is the Dartmouth Cove area (Kings Wharf and along the tracks there) is part of your district?

Most of my friends living in HRM live just down the tracks from KW and I've been urging them to get the word out to neighbours and co-workers.

Hope this is your district or I'll sound like a complete tool.

It is! The district is everything inside the Circ all the way up to Albro Lake Road. It's huge! I have canvassed Newcastle and Hazelhurst with some good results (couple of signs down there now), but I haven't yet been up into Harbour or the Killam apartments around the Coast Guard Base. I really appreciate the endorsement. Don't underestimate word of mouth. It can make a big difference.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by haligonia

Apparently I'm not a very reasonable person.

Evidently.

[robotropolis]

Up in the North North end I've seen a lot of Doug MacDonald posters and few JWatts, but I did see her out canvassing on our walk last night. If I had to guess I'd say Dawn Sloane will take the district from name recognition alone but D. MacD might draw off some of her vote leaving all us lefty yuppies to vote for JWatts as a bloc.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by haligonia

Apparently I'm not a very reasonable person.

Lol. I think he's been implying that about me for four years now.

I think I became a left-winger partly just to drive him nuts.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I was told today that Kommissar Howard Epstein has endorsed Waye MAson for the council race in the south end.

Well, Mary, Howard's partner, is an art prof, and loves my art policy, and she asked for a sign. If Howard is telling people to vote for me that is great, but there is no formal endorsement. I'm not doing endorsements, I think that is lame. I'm doing canvassing, beating down doors.

If signs = endorsement then I think I have pretty broad support - Conservatives like Ken Fram and Christina Lamey have my signs on their lawn, Libs like Vicki Grant and Merle MacIssac have signs, and Vicki hosted a meet and greet for her Lib friends, and NPDs have signs as well, which is unsurprising given that 50-55% of voters in the last fed and provincial voted NDP in the ridings.

Right now I would say of the identified political party activists supporting me, it is 45% NDP, 35% Con, 20% Lib. Libs are largely backing Gerry and Sue, that split works for me, to be blunt.

I have been accused of being in a socialist labour secret slate, a Mike Savage secret slate (by Rick Grant and Steve Murphy at CTV no less) and a right wing slate because of my tax proposal. So I guess I have all the conspiracies covered!

Anyway, I'm not a member of any party and the McCarthyesque nature of these statements is amusing, if that.

[Mr. Hunt]

Just a reminder that online voting has begun. So vote!

[spaustin]

The District 5 Debate went forward yesterday night. My wife was good enough to record my answers. We didn't plan to record so much of it, but the quality and audio turned out well so I thought I would share. It's a bit shakey as we didn't have a tripod handy! A lot of development and planning questions.

Question from the audience about reducing heights in the Centre Plan along Wyse Road to 2-6 stories.
http://youtu.be/hkQN82c9yS0

Question about affordable housing.
http://youtu.be/LhKqdK5j8I0

Question about density bonusing.
http://youtu.be/xX2B4hKDM2o

Question about concentrating growth in the existing serviced areas.
http://youtu.be/SIzfs4Xp8go

[Dmajackson]

^Nice but two of the videos are the same (the first two).

[spaustin]

Doh. Fixed now!

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by spaustin

The District 5 Debate went forward yesterday night. My wife was good enough to record my answers. We didn't plan to record so much of it, but the quality and audio turned out well so I thought I would share. It's a bit shakey as we didn't have a tripod handy! A lot of development and planning questions.

Question from the audience about reducing heights in the Centre Plan along Wyse Road to 2-6 stories.
http://youtu.be/hkQN82c9yS0

Question about affordable housing.
http://youtu.be/LhKqdK5j8I0

Question about density bonusing.
http://youtu.be/xX2B4hKDM2o

Question about concentrating growth in the existing serviced areas.
http://youtu.be/SIzfs4Xp8go

Great answers. Good luck on October 20th.

[Vl@dy]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

On the provincial level, there are:
- The New Democratic Party (left-wing) which currently governs the province, and holds a majority in the provincial government.
- The Liberal Party (Centre/centre-left wing).
- The Progressive Conservatives (centre-right/Right-wing).
- The Green Party (environmental focus) also has a showing here, but currently holds no seats.

There are a handful of other, very small parties, but they don't really have much of a showing at the polls. They usually exist only to promote various niche causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_Nova_Scotia

The federal level is more or less the same, though rather than the Progressive Conservatives, there's just the Conservative Party, the result of the former Reform/Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties merging on a national level. Politically speaking, they tend to be a little more conservative than their provincial cousins. They currently form the government at the federal level. While it's not really applicable to Nova Scotia (or any province outside of Quebec...) there's also the Bloc Quebecois, a left-leaning party which exists to promote Quebec's interests on the federal level (which usually amounts to advocating that Quebec separate from the rest of Canada).

At the municipal level, there are no parties, though many candidates will have past affiliations with political parties (Mike Savage was is a former Liberal member of parliament )

Thanks, it's clear.
Even if the wings of the parties are the same as those of my country, i think are different the policy programs. I think here is most seriously.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

On the provincial level, there are:
- The New Democratic Party (left-wing) which currently governs the province, and holds a majority in the provincial government.
- The Liberal Party (Centre/centre-left wing).
- The Progressive Conservatives (centre-right/Right-wing).
- The Green Party (environmental focus) also has a showing here, but currently holds no seats.

There are a handful of other, very small parties, but they don't really have much of a showing at the polls. They usually exist only to promote various niche causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_Nova_Scotia

The federal level is more or less the same, though rather than the Progressive Conservatives, there's just the Conservative Party, the result of the former Reform/Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties merging on a national level. Politically speaking, they tend to be a little more conservative than their provincial cousins. They currently form the government at the federal level. While it's not really applicable to Nova Scotia (or any province outside of Quebec...) there's also the Bloc Quebecois, a left-leaning party which exists to promote Quebec's interests on the federal level (which usually amounts to advocating that Quebec separate from the rest of Canada).

At the municipal level, there are no parties, though many candidates will have past affiliations with political parties (Mike Savage was is a former Liberal member of parliament )

The labelling of parties in such a way is part of the reason why change occurs so slowly in politics, because people are often voting based on this form of reputation.

Exactly how do issues get assigned as 'left' or 'right'?

If I desire to preserve forests, and their carbon storage capacity, in a sense that is conservative, yet on our political spectrum would label this as something 'left'...

Ideally, people should be willing to vote for any of the parties, but would narrow their vote for a party/candidate that is the most rational, essentially, bringing evidence to the table to support their platforms -- instead of fact-less ideological hypotheses (of which all parties have shown themselves to be guiltyto varying degrees)-- is what should merit votes.

Unfortunately though, the sub-par quality of science and math education in Canada's public schools translates into a population that cannot cut through political rhetoric and vote based on numbers and evidence.

Conservatives, I would definitely vote for, if their ideas were based in reality, as opposed to being based on 'opinions' about how things should be... such as tax cuts paying for themselves, gay people should choose to be straight, forest habitat is for harveting resources only, charter schools should be favoured over public, bilingualism isn't overly important, etc...

How far back should we go in Conservative beliefs: women shouldn't have the right to vote, blacks should be our god-given slaves again, Jews cannot enter certain universities because their heresy is an abomination...

THANKFULLY, science and math education in public schools and the gradual secularisation of our society has moved us forward.

Political change most often occurs when Conservative voters die and take their irrattional, religious, non-evidence-based beliefs with them to their graves.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Conservatives, I would definitely vote for, if their ideas were based in reality, as opposed to being based on 'opinions' about how things should be... such as tax cuts paying for themselves, gay people should choose to be straight, forest habitat is for harveting resources only, charter schools should be favoured over public, bilingualism isn't overly important, etc...

How far back should we go in Conservative beliefs: women shouldn't have the right to vote, blacks should be our god-given slaves again, Jews cannot enter certain universities because their heresy is an abomination...

THANKFULLY, science and math education in public schools and the gradual secularisation of our society has moved us forward.

Political change most often occurs when Conservative voters die and take their irrattional, religious, non-evidence-based beliefs with them to their graves.

This is a fine example of the kind of mindless labeling you decried in the first part of your post.

For our visitor from afar: what Canada labels as "Conservative" is actually far left of what one finds espoused in the USA by the Democratic Party, for example. The other Canadian parties are even further left. Regardless of who is in power, Canada is a socialist society, and there is no indication that is going to change. So we are a high-tax, big-government nation, and the only difference among the parties is a matter of degree on what are largely fringe-group issues.

One can be fiscally conservative without supporting some of the examples our friend has pointed out. Unfortunately the media and society as a whole is over-represented with people like him who believe that government should pay for all sorts of things that provide little benefit to society at large just to appease the whining of loudmouthed special-interests who do not pay the bills, and who believe philosophically that govt should deliver the services they are paying for despite the legendary inefficiency and costliness of doing so thanks to bureaucratic structures and public-sector unions.

The best we seem able to hope for is that we get a govt that at least tries to pay for their socialist programs as they go instead of just adding to our debt year after year, but that is very, very rare in Canada.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I have been accused of being in a socialist labour secret slate, a Mike Savage secret slate (by Rick Grant and Steve Murphy at CTV no less) and a right wing slate because of my tax proposal. So I guess I have all the conspiracies covered!

Anyway, I'm not a member of any party and the McCarthyesque nature of these statements is amusing, if that.

It would be useful if you would publish a list of those who have contributed financially to your campaign.

[Nilan8888]

For our visitor from afar: what Canada labels as "Conservative" is actually far left of what one finds espoused in the USA by the Democratic Party, for example. The other Canadian parties are even further left. Regardless of who is in power, Canada is a socialist society, and there is no indication that is going to change. So we are a high-tax, big-government nation, and the only difference among the parties is a matter of degree on what are largely fringe-group issues.

I would not be so particularly sure that this is the case. True, the Conservative party is to the left of the US GOP, and is more flexible. However the main reason this government has some of the socialist policies that it does is due to what came before it. You would be surprised how much religion, for instance, one might find in the Conservative party rank and file.

If there seems to be a lack of distinction between the parties, it's because all of them have to play to the entire nation, or at least to either Ontario or Quebec.

The Conservative party has come somewhat more to the left than what it had been when it was the reform party, but there were reasons Joe Clark did not want to merge these parties. There were reasons Belinda Stronach left the Conservative party, and why many others defected as well.

[Keith P.]

Of course there are religious fundamentalist types in the Conservative party, just like there are neo-Communists in the NDP. The wacko fringes have to go somewhere if they want to be in politics and those parties are where they end up. In the case of the Conservatives they have no influence. I cannot comment on whether the extreme leftists influence the NDP.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This is a fine example of the kind of mindless labeling you decried in the first part of your post.

For our visitor from afar: what Canada labels as "Conservative" is actually far left of what one finds espoused in the USA by the Democratic Party, for example. The other Canadian parties are even further left. Regardless of who is in power, Canada is a socialist society, and there is no indication that is going to change. So we are a high-tax, big-government nation, and the only difference among the parties is a matter of degree on what are largely fringe-group issues.

One can be fiscally conservative without supporting some of the examples our friend has pointed out. Unfortunately the media and society as a whole is over-represented with people like him who believe that government should pay for all sorts of things that provide little benefit to society at large just to appease the whining of loudmouthed special-interests who do not pay the bills, and who believe philosophically that govt should deliver the services they are paying for despite the legendary inefficiency and costliness of doing so thanks to bureaucratic structures and public-sector unions.

The best we seem able to hope for is that we get a govt that at least tries to pay for their socialist programs as they go instead of just adding to our debt year after year, but that is very, very rare in Canada.

Canada is not a socialist nation. Canada is a social-capitalist nation.

Socialism isn't meant to replace capitalism; it's meant to feed it, with a broad middle class full of hungry consumers to spend their money on products and services from private and public businesses.

Special interests go both ways, bucky-boo. I fully admit that unions can get in the way of economic progress -- even though I support unions because income-based economics is superior to "Trickle-down" economics Conservatives praise (despite no math supporting its success anywhere in the world, ever) -- but I also realise that large corporations that have much, MUCH deeper pockets are capable of much deeper forms of economic damage (ie: corporate tax cuts we cannot afford, sending jobs overseas, creating environmental debt, and a resulting decline in the middle class which creates stagnation in a system of capitalism).

Capitalism needs consumerism. Most consumers will never be rich (since rich people need the working poor to work for them), so varying degrees of socialism are needed in order to prevent mass poverty, as mass poverty is a burden on our system in the form of crime/police spending, reduced income taxes, reduced market spending, reduced corporate confidence for investment, and higher hospital costs.

If you think Canada has extremely high taxes then I doubt you have high school level math skills -- because many of Europe's tax rates are higher, as are some African nations, as are Australia's, as are Japan's, and even some of the developing nations in South America.

And even after my post you still use 'left' and 'right' terminology. Try using 'rational' and 'irrational' instead. The way to figure out which label you may give yourself is relatively simple:

Can you find evidence to support your rhetoric? Give me an example of a purely capitalist 'small government' (whatever the hell that means) country that's doing well.

Take your time, dear.

(When you cannot find the evidence, this means you're 'irrational' -- or as you would put it, 'right-wing'?)

And government becomes inefficient and corrupt once special interests get a foot in the door; this goes for unions, but mostly large corporations. The end result is growing public debt, as we spend too much money on the wrong priorities.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

If you think Canada has extremely high taxes then I doubt you have high school level math skills -- because many of Europe's tax rates are higher, as are some African nations, as are Australia's, as are Japan's, and even some of the developing nations in South America.

A source for this statement would be nice. I'm particularly interested to see which African nations have higher taxes than Canada; either in general sales or in property.

And taxes aren't taught in the public school system so i'm not entirely sure why you related high school math skills to tax figures, unless yours deal with quadrilaterals and matrices.