Glen Murray's web page

Glen Murray, Toronto Centre MPP and former mayor of Winnipeg, announced today that he's running for the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party in the wake of Dalton McGuinty's resignation.

We at the Peanut wish him luck in this new endeavor. He may very well make a decent Premier. I believe that had he stayed on longer as Winnipeg's mayor, we would be in a better place today than we currently are. He seemed like a credible guy and he had some vision, but unfortunately he didn't stick around to follow it through. Perhaps the higher office of leader of a provincial party / Premier will satisfy his ambitions.

Winning an election is about connecting with people, and to that end Murray is off to a bad start with his new web site: http://www.renewliberal.ca/.

The web site is terrible. His picture is blurry because it's a low-res photo blown up to a larger size; the logo looks like it was ripped off from Target; the website emphatically blinks every 10 seconds as it refreshes; but most of all the layout is awful.

The most common screen resolution of visitors to this blog, anybody-want-a-peanut.blogspot.ca, is 1280 x 800. This is what his web page looks like on that size of monitor:

Not only is the right side of the page cut off, even with a 1280 pixel wide screen, but all of the actual content of the web page is not visible. Even worse, on a traditional 1024 x 768 display you can't even see the DONATE and GET INVOLVED buttons. Literally all you see is the home page stamp in the top left corner and part of the giant banner.

That banner ... that banner is massive. Glen Murray's face alone consumes over 10% of the visible area on a 1024 x 768 display. If you've ever seen Glen in person you'll know that he does indeed have a big head. Physically. It's quite a large melon. However on a web site these are things you have control over.

Compounding the inefficiency of the web site is a vast amount of wasted space. A good web site will have a clean look and appear uncluttered, but this web site has gone to the extreme of making the welcome page almost entirely devoid of content.

To reiterate: the major problem here is that there is little to no actual content visible when a visitor arrives at the web page. The useful stuff -- Twitter feed, discussion links, news items, upcoming events, etc -- all occur 770 pixels down the page. When you add on the menu bar for the browser, the content starts at about 900 pixels. Perhaps as Premier, Glen will implement a government program to provide every computer user in Ontario with a giant monitor, but we can assume that today many people will be visiting this web site from laptops or desktops with modest monitors. If his visitors mirror those of this blog, 65% of them will not see a single link to any of the content mentioned above without scrolling down.

As for the content itself, I have to assume it will improve, but some initial thoughts are:

Twitter: this is NOT a Twitter feed from Glen Murray. It is a feed of tweets from Glen's RenewLiberal campaign twitter account, ensuring that nothing of interest will ever show up here. This ought to be a real-time feed of Glen's own tweets, and Glen should ensure that his tweets are not the usual boring drivel that most politicians are prone to. (More on my thoughts about this here.)

News: Here you will only find undescriptive links to policy statements by Glenn himself. These are not news items at all, and there is no information to grab the reader. Why not at least add a brief synopsis of the item? "Smart Government" is nothing more than a catch phrase. I'm not going to click on that. Sorry.

Upcoming Events: as of right now, the only event posted has already passed. Perhaps this should be renamed "Past Events" if they don't plan on being proactive with this.

Discussions: I'll cut him some slack on not having anything here yet, but it would have been a great idea to get a discussion ready for the launch of the web page. How likely am I to return if I see nothing there?

To summarize: I don't understand what they were thinking when they set this thing up. Premier hopeful Glen Murray will have a difficult time engaging voters if his web site is not the least bit engaging.

***
Glen's head actual web-site size:

warning: do not make this the last thing you see before you go to bed.

How to rebuild the PC Party of Manitoba

Some 'Rods' have stepped forward with solutions: The Black Rod's solution is a secret formula that he/she/it wants to sell. The Rouge Rod is proposing a merger with the Liberals. Clearly we need more ideas.

Naturally the AWAP? Policy Team has been hard at work coming up with boffo ideas in between margarita parties and building a LEGO version of the MTS Centre. Our plan is based on the premise that people aren't stupid. This is a false premise. People are stupid. Some people. But most people are intelligent enough to recognize when somebody is being disingenuous, and they appreciate honesty.

Our plan is also based on the premise that just because people have voted for the status quo 3 years in a row does not mean that they want the status quo or are happy with it. They haven't been given an alternative. The PCs said they offered an alternative, but they did not and by saying they did they were being disingenuous and insulting the voters' intelligence.

So, here's what you do:

STEP 1: Cut a hole in the box. No, wait. That's for something else. Dang ... my notes are all mixed up. K .. Step 1: get a charismatic leader. It does not matter where they are from; only that they have good communication skills and appear trustworthy. I thought McFadyen was that guy 5 years ago, but even a well-spoken youngish lawyer cannot overcome a God-awful campaign.

STEP 2: Accumulate good policy ideas. There are plenty of ideas out there. The CTF has some. The CFIB has some. AWAP has some awesome ones. Steal from the Liberal Party or the Green Party. It doesn't matter where they come from, just collect good ideas. Remember, I'm not talking about ideas that poll well or are easy to sell -- we'll deal with that in Step 3 -- but ideas that makes sense and actually make things better.

STEP 3: Start selling the ideas well in advance of the next election -- like, 2 years. Get them out there, have discussions with the community, and start rebuilding your oh-so-damaged brand. I suggest presenting the ideas in a Problem/Solution format, such as:

Problem: Manitobans consume more electricity than any other jurisdiction on the planet.

Solution: Implement inverted rates that will keep electricity affordable for small households while increasing the benefits of reducing energy use.

See: people will be begging to be charged market rates if you present it the right way. Okay, maybe not, but they will appreciate the fresh straight-forward approach after hearing nothing but rhetoric trash for 10 years. This approach also allows the challengers to attack the government's record, but in a constructive manner.

STEP 4: Ignore the other party's attack ads. It will make the other party seem petty and void of ideas, giving more strength to your own.

If you follow these 4 easy steps you should have a chance, and I guarantee voter turnout will increase, and voter pissed-offness will decrease. Some may argue that it's time to scrap the PC Party altogether and start something new like the Wild Rose Alliance or the Saskatchewan Party which just cruised to a massive majority next door. That is an option, but I think there is still some political capital left to be exploited with the PCs in Manitoba, and starting a brand new party foregoes any chance of winning the next election.

Regardless of if it's the PCs or the Prairie Crocus Alliance or Manitoba Party, they need to drastically change what they're doing for the good of the province.

An interview with Green Party leader James Beddome

I sat down with The Green Party of Manitoba leader James Beddome for a coffee at Stella's on Sherbrook. I do not guarantee that the transcript that follows is 100% accurate, but it is at least a close approximation:

*****

Anybody Want A Peanut?: So, some background: you're studying to become a lawyer ... what brings you into this nasty, dirty arena of Manitoba politics? Why not work as a lawyer for 10 years, make a pile of cash, and then enter politics?

James Beddome: You know, politics has always been my passion. At a very young age I have wanted to get into politics. I think I looked at it the other way: law was going to be my way into politics, along with a Political Science and Economics degree. So for me, the question is why not be involved, and how could I not be involved? I literally am a little bit of a political animal, so that's why I am involved and I'm enjoying it as it goes along, and I hope that I get elected as MLA, but if that doesn't work out, then the plan B is I go through law school and I'll see what happens in four years.


AWAP: You did a great job in the televised debate.

JB: Thank you.


AWAP: You have been excluded from other forums, though you seem to be getting more recognition in the media. But as a party that does not have any members in the legislature and does not have a full slate of candidates, why should the Green Party be considered as one of the big players?

JB: I think that all parties should be included, and I extend that beyond the Green Party, because I think it's really important that we get the ideas out there. I think voters are smart enough to be able to determine which ideas are good for themselves, and to not include the smaller parties creates such a structural disadvantage in the sense that all you hear is the status quo ideas. I think it's good for people to hear new bold ideas, even if they're not ready to agree with them, because I think it helps to create change in and of itself.


AWAP: But you have to draw a line somewhere...

JB: Our argument was that we had candidates in 56% of the seats -- 32 of the 57. We did want a full slate. We're going to keep pushing for that four years from now, so our point is we want some credibility, we are becoming a provincial party: we've got a candidate in Flin Flon, we've got a candidate in Kewatinook, we've got a candidate in Brandon, we've got rural candidates and we've got candidates in Winnipeg, so it's not as if we don't have fairly accurate diversity and representation. I should put another diversity plug out there: we have a 50% female slate, we've got I think five candidates of aboriginal and/or Métis descent, and two people you could identify as visible minorities as well as people who are part of the gay and lesbian community, so we have full diversity in Manitoba.


AWAP: Okay. So... tax: In the past 12 years the tax brackets have rarely been increased, resulting in a de facto tax increase every year, and we have one of the lowest basic personal exemptions in Canada, meaning overall we are one of the highest taxed provinces in the federation. Does the Green Party promote any meaningful tax reform?

JB: Ya, we propose bold tax reform, and I have to be frank and admit that we know it will take a while to implement, so what we're trying to sell as a party is that, look, we'll give you the 20-year vision and work towards it rather than people who only look at their four year fortunes. So, to go to our tax plan, it actually deals with what I talked about on the debate which is the universal basic income, and it would work as a de facto positive tax exemption.

The way that we want to structure it is such that everyone is guaranteed a certain set minimum -- let's say $10,000 per year.. maybe that's too high, but it works well for the numbers that I'll use here -- so, $10,000 per year is what people would be guaranteed to receive -- about $800 per month -- so you have that positive amount. Now, on every dollar you earn ... let's go high, let's say 50% -- now I know that's going to scare voters but this is just hypothetical ... but if we're taking 50% of every dollar you earn but you're guaranteed $10,000, when you start earning $20,000 you've actually paid fully back into the system. The system would operate in such a way that it ladders up as you earn an income. It's a more fair way that we think we could reform the tax system. Now it would require a lot of cooperation from the Feds, and we think we could replace a lot of social service programs -- employment insurance, other social services, employment and income assistance programs -- with this, while still retaining some special programs for people with disabilities. So we think it's a bold way to reform the entire tax system. I'm not naive enough to think that it will happen overnight, but that's why I hope we get into the legislature and have some of the resources available to research this, talk to the people in the tax department and have a little more weight as to why I'm requesting this information ... why I should be entitled to have it.


AWAP: One thing that I write a lot about on my humble little blog is Bipole III. We've talked a little bit about this before. If I understand the Green Party's position, it's that the Bipole III line doesn't need to be built at all. We can use our existing capacity and build on that with conservation and clean energy. Is that more or less correct?

JB: That's fairly correct. I would just caution it with saying that we may build it at some point, but what I think is most important is that our own regulator, the Public Utilities Board, is warning that we may lose money on these export deals that we're signing. Maybe over time we'll be able to pay down this debt, but of course Manitoba Hydro wants to increase its debt to equity ratio. We don't have a Manitoba energy plan. We have some good programs like Power Smart, but I don't think we've taken energy conservation seriously in terms actually trying to focus on demand management. Further to that, we think that there is a lot of capacity in southern Manitoba for the 1000MW of wind energy that's already licensed. That adds to your reliability factor because you have some local electricity -- granted intermittent electricity, so there is a need to overcome some of the technological barriers with intermittent renewable energies -- but the fact that we have the base of hydro that we can generally count on I think very much helps us, because we can learn to become leading edge managers in what they call "smart grid technology" and how you manage energy flow with intermittent energy and a baseline of stable electricity, in our case hydro. So, it's sort of like "let's hold off and think this thing through." We don't have to build it right away. The real driver for building Bipole III is Keeyask and Conawapa, so what we're trying to say is let's not just talk about one line, let's talk about the whole energy development strategy and then let's try to map out an actual plan, and I think there are so many more possibilities that might open up if we look into creating an actual plan.


AWAP: Your hair always looks great.. Do you have a stylist you can recommend, or certain products that you use?

JB: (laughing) Really I don't even have a consistent styling product that I use, but thank you. The Free Press has some pictures of my hair dangling in my face so it doesn't always look great.

AWAP: Actually it's better that way.

JB: Oh you think the hair in the face works? Okay..


AWAP: As a former employee of AECL, one thing that caught my eye was a promise by your party to stop, if I understand it, the transportation of nuclear products across Manitoba. I can tell you, as far as risks to the population goes, this is one of the smallest ...

JB: It may be a fairly small risk. I know that they have very secure cement containers. I guess for us the biggest problem though is they want to store it up in Creighton Saskatchewan, is basically the issue, right? They want to store waste coming from Bruce in Ontario in Saskatchewan, and what that means is the waste is going to be transported through our province, and I think that Manitoba needs to stand up and say something. Yes, the risk needs to be mitigated, but not only that it's wear and tear on our highways .. we're basically on the losing end of the stick on that one on so many levels and we need to stand up and say something. Why should we get pushed over by Ontario and Saskatchewan? I do know that it's a small risk but there are a lot of people who are concerned about it and I suppose Greens are not particularly in favour of nuclear energy. The waste factor makes it problematic, so part of it comes from that.


AWAP: All of the other party leaders seem to be in favour of hiring more police officers for Winnipeg, even though we have high per capita staffing levels already. I know you have a different idea about that. Explain ...

JB: Ya, it's about actually interacting police with the community. Basically what we would like to do is embed police officers in the same community on a regular basis. So in my riding here in Wolseley you would have, I don’t know the staffing levels so this is hypothetical, let's say you had 6 police officers, that's 2 police officers per day on a rotating shift. So let's just say .. you would have two officers who regularly work in Wolseley all the time. They would get to know the people in the neighbourhood. If you get to know the people in the neighbourhood they will be more comfortable confiding information and you will also be able to figure out the patterns and habits of people and you'll have a better idea of where you should be keeping a closer eye, and we think that's a way of making policing more effective. The province already funds police officers here in Winnipeg and in other places in Manitoba, and basically what we're saying is, we're fine with that but here is how we want you to implement it. There is a lot of power with the province to actually work with municipalities in terms of offering funding but making it conditional on certain conditions.


AWAP: I was going to ask you about that too, because Winnipeg is a big battleground and all of the parties are planning things for Winnipeg: soccer fields, police officers -- here is how many we want you to hire and how to deploy them. Why is it the province's responsibility to sort of micromanage the city this way in the first place? Why not allow city hall to deploy officers as they see fit, or build soccer fields as they see fit?

JB: Well, because inevitably city hall is going to be coming to the province for money. That's just the reality of finances in Canada. If we're going to be funding the municipalities -- and we should be better funding our municipalities in Manitoba -- then let's try to do it in such a way that we can work constructively together. Too often we have the city and province working at opposite aims, and it's the citizens that pay. We get ineffective government and we get waste of your tax dollars because one level is trying to do one thing and the other level is trying to do the other, and it creates needless expenditure of time and money.

AWAP: Alright, so last question: there are I imagine lots of undecided voters out there who don't who to vote for because they are all promising the same thing or they're disengaged. For somebody who is going to the polling booth on Tuesday, what would you tell them if you could say something? What should be the one issue on their mind?

JB: If they don't want to vote then they need to understand that they're letting somebody else make the choice for them. If they're scared into voting for one party or the other because they're being told they have to vote strategically, they need to understand that a vote isn't just a vote for the party that's going to win, but you should vote with your conscience, vote with your heart, vote for who you think would make your best representative. You're not voting for the Premier, you're not voting against Hugh McFadyen or Greg Selinger. You're voting for the representative of your local area. People should to take that into consideration as well. I'm finding a lot of undecided voters here in Wolseley. This isn't a riding that the conservatives are going to take. This is a riding where you have a choice of a number of people and you have to make that choice.

AWAP: Good. Thank you very much and good luck in the election.

JB: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to do the interview.

*****

The Green Party finished a distant second in Wolseley in 2007, but they have since increased in stature on the political scene. If they have a chance to win a seat, this is where they would do it. It will be interesting to watch on election night.

MANITOBA ELECTION: STILL UNDECIDED?

I don't blame you. Choosing between the parties in this provincial election is like choosing between a light grey Chevy Malibu and a dark grey Chevy Malibu. If only a bright red Dodge Challenger SRT8 was available...

So far in this election, the boldest idea has come from the Green Party: free bus fare. The second boldest idea has come from the Liberals: relax Sunday shopping laws. Both the Greens and the Liberals are holding back on the excessive spending promises, meanwhile the NDP and PC parties are dropping money bags from helicopters. Unfortunately, neither the Liberals or Greens have a chance in this election. John Gerrard may get re-elected as the Liberal's only seat, meanwhile Green Party leader James Beddome is an underdog in Wolseley and no other Green candidate even has a shot.

The realistic discussion pertains to the NDP and the PCs, but when you look at the two main parties from a high level they look pretty much the same:

CRIME
NDP: more cops on the street
PC: more cops on the street

HEALTH CARE
NDP: more doctors and nurses
PC: more doctors and nurses

ECONOMY
NDP: won't balance the budget
PC: won't balance the budget

TAXES
NDP: minor tax credits with no significant tax reform
PC: minor tax credits with no significant tax reform

EVERYTHING ELSE
NDP: spend lots of money
PC: spend lots of money

Rather than campaigning on ideas, the NDP is campaigning on things the PCs might do, and the PCs are campaigning on things the NDP failed to do. The only difference is the NDP has a track record, and the PCs do not. Whether you think that track record is good or bad may be your deciding factor in voting, but if you're looking for something to tip the balance, this should be it:

BIPOLE III

I haven't blogged about Bipole III 2,587,398 times because I think it's just that interesting. I've written about it because it's an irreversible and extremely costly decision, and also because I have a very low tolerance for idiotic behaviour. The NDP government has routinely addressed problems by throwing money at them rather than making any sort of difficult decision, and this is the most extreme example of that, except in this case there is more at stake than just money.

Let's just cover the main aspects:

COST: The west route will cost about $1 billion more. That's "billion" with a "B". This is if we build additional capacity with Keeyask and Conawapa. If we scrap our export plans because they turn out to be too high-risk or may result in losses for Manitoba Hydro, then the East side route will not require converters, saving us an additional $2 billion, for a total of $3 billion savings.

FOREST: The argument is that the last piece of "pristine" boreal forest east of Lake Winnipeg need to be protected. A) the forest east of Lake Winnipeg is not pristine. There are mines and communities and roads and other things. B) Even if it were "pristine", there are thousands of square KMs of pristine forest elsewhere, from Labrador to the Northwest Territories, in the vast Boreal forest. C) Even if it were the last piece of pristine forest in Canada, the government has already promised to damage it even more than a HVDC line would by zigzagging a new road right through it. D) There are scarce aspen parklands to the west of the lakes. I don't know to what extent the preferred route impacts them, but I know it was a concern in the routing study. E) The west side route plows through as much forest as the east side route. In terms of the quantity of lumber produced, it's a saw-off. (haha, get it? "saw off". Anyways ...)

LINE LOSSES: The amount of electricity burned off in transmission depends on the how close to capacity the lines are running, but whatever the amount, it will be much greater for the west side lines. The cost in lost exports will be in the tens of millions of dollars each year. These lost exports have another cost too: pollution. The wasted 'clean' hydro energy will not displace 'dirty' fossil fuel energy in the US, resulting in thousands of tonnes of additional green-house gas pollution each year. How green is that?

CARIBOU: Yes, there is a threatened caribou herd on the east side of the lake. Based on the 2005 Caribou survey, there are also four or so caribou herds that might be impacted by the west-side line, at least three of which are threatened. Furthermore, these herds have less territory to maneuver than the east-side herd, who's territory extends right into Northern Ontario.

UNESCO: A) A UNESCO official is on record as saying that the east side route will not preclude UNESCO designation. B) the government hasn't even applied for UNESCO designation. C) the east side line would only graze one corner of the proposed UNESCO site, and D) In what way is a UNESCO designation worth $1 billion anyhow?

LAND USE: Aside from forest, there is agricultural land to consider, and to this point, the west side route involves huge compromises. Land owners will need to be compensated; route adjustments will probably be required to avoid owners who refuse to be bought out (since Hydro will not expropriate), further increasing the cost; aerial spraying will be difficult or impossible to do safely along the route, impacting farm productivity; etc ...

EXPORTS: The argument that an east side line will somehow risk exports to the US is laughable. Environmental groups can't stop the US from buying every drop of oil sands petroleum that we can give them. On what grounds could they prevent the US from buying clean power? There are parties who are associated with power producers in the US who want the exports blocked because Hydro is a competitor, but they don't give a shit what side of the lake the route goes down. Honestly. It's preposterous. In fact, this Hydro report suggests that export sales could be compromised by the west side route, because it can't supply reliable power.

RELIABILITY: The west side route would be much less reliable because A) it is in an area of the province that is more prone to tornados and other weather-related disasters, and B) it's a longer route and therefore has more potential to be damaged.

ENERGY SECURITY: Should the Interlake lines go down, the west route would NOT be able to support our energy commitments, whereas the east-side route could carry the load.

TECHNICAL: Lastly, there are other technical aspects of the Bipole line that I can't begin to explain because I don't understand them, but what I understand is this: Hydro engineers prefer the east route. In fact, the east route is not just preferable ... it is the only route that makes sense from a technical perspective. In addition, the west route could require us to build another bipole line 25 years sooner. (source)


In the televised debate, Greg Selinger berated Hugh McFadyen for his "reckless" plan to move the bipole line to the east side. Only Greg would call accepting the advice of engineers, reducing pollution, protecting our energy security and saving $1 billion reckless. The venom and conviction with which Greg lied about the east side route was almost shocking. This isn't a matter of opinion. This isn't a case where each side has equivalent pros and cons that have to be weighed. This is a case where the east side route is superior in every tangible respect, and the costs of going the other way are enormous and long-lasting.

So if there is one issue in this election that should turn your vote, make it this one.

*edit*
here are a couple of other related blogs
stumbling
TTNTBS
dobbin
ice & grain with a good post

The leaders go downtown. (Most of them).

Two blocks down from where two people got shot half a day earlier, the Provincial leadership candidates got together for a debate on downtown issues. Most of then anyhow. Greg Selinger sent one of his ministers, just as he did with the Bipole debate earlier.

Moderated by Dan Lett and Richard Cloutier, the panelists were the familiar Hugh McFadyen and Dr. Jon Gerrard. Gord Mackintosh sat in for Selinger. The Green Party's James Beddome was not invited to participate as a full member, but in an odd arrangement was allowed a few minutes to speak part way through the session. More on that later.

That's the set up. Here is my haphazard recount of what happened:

The first subject was rapid transit:

Jon spoke reasonably about how transit development should be planned before new neighbourhoods like Waverley West are built -- not after. The Liberals are the only party that has a firm policy on rapid transit as far as I know, and Jon talked about it frequently, seeing it as one of his strengths.

Gord surprised me by saying "the money is on the table" for 1/3 of whatever type of rapid transit the city chooses: LRT or BRT. This is in contrast to the government's previous stance of sticking to plan 'A': the original BRT agreement. Nothing like an election to shake loose the purse strings.

Hugh was pressed to pick his preference on BRT or LRT. He personally prefers LRT but would work with the city on either. He spoke of the breakdown in relationship between the city and province as the reason for the lack of progress.

crime:

Gord: more cops and cadets on the street.

Hugh: more cops and cadets.

Jon: NDP failure. More cops and cadets.

Question from the audience: more cops won't matter as long as judges are letting people back on the street (to thunderous applause from the audience):

Gord: Blames Ottawa's lax criminal laws for the high crime rate. Points out the NDP anti-gang program.

Hugh: Ottawa's laws apply to all provinces. Does not explain why we are the worst. There are provincial policies that can be changed as well.

Jon: We also need more recreational opportunities for kids.

Question from the audience: poverty & homelessness are the root cause of crime. What will you do about that?

Jon: talked about rapid transit!! The questioner rightly stopped him and said "Rapid transit will not fix poverty." Bad answer by Dr. Jon.

Hugh: The government's anti-private investment regime has stalled private development of housing, and the government itself has not built enough public housing.

Gord: The NDP just announced today a plan to turn 7 acres of parking lots in to 2100 housing units.

All three parties would maintain rent controls.

More on housing: Jon wants to force high-rise buildings to have a % of affordable housing. Ya, that's going to encourage developers to build.

Question from the audience: organized crime has infiltrated the government.

Whaaaa?

A discussion of whistleblower legislation ensued..

On the issue of affordability:

Gord promises increases to the minimum wage every year.

Hugh briefly mentioned the high tax rate for low income earners, after using up all his time repeating stuff he talked about earlier. Should have hammered on the high tax rates right off the bat, as the government's record here is shameful.

Jon: I have no notes. Was probably talking to somebody.

Closing speeches:

Jon: Rapid transit (of course); something about an anti-poverty reduction plan; and will increase the personal tax exemption!

Hugh: Supports TIFF development; land transfer tax exemptions for first time home buyers; increase private investment. Also gave Green party leader Beddome a nod, and promised to wear a better suit to the televised debate on Friday.

Gord: The usual stuff plus a quote from Jian Ghomeshi! Well, with Jian Ghomeshi in their corner how can they lose?

*****

So about 2/3 of the way through the event, they interrupted the show and invited James Beddome up on the stage to talk. No questions or prompts or anything. Just "here is the mike. You can use it for 2 minutes." Dan and Richard made sure to mention that it was "agreed upon", although how this agreement was arrived at I don't know. By a show of hands all three party leaders said they would have welcomed the Green's participation, and Beddome himself certainly would have preferred to be at the table. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Anyhow, Jimmy Bop made the most of his 2 or 3 minutes on the podium with an energetic pitch about small business, free transit, and the pending platform release on Wednesday (Memorial Park at 11:00.) He is a very good speaker and could surprise a few people during the televised debates on Friday.

I was speaking with James on and off during the debate and I asked him if we really need more cops on the street. His thought was that more cops are not necessarily the answer. Perhaps deploying cops more consistently in a given area might help them to get to know the people and gain their trust. More of a community-based approach to policing.

*****

There were a few other things discussed through the night, but I got tired of scribbling in the old Moleskine. It was also good to bump into Kevin McDougald again.

Manitoba election checkpoint

Well, the election campaign has been underway for a couple of weeks or something by now, and the election day is only, um, a couple weeks or something away, so now is a good time to review how each of the parties are doing:

NDP

What does the coach always tell you? Stick to the game plan. The NDP has stuck to the same formula that they've been using for a decade: vilify the opposition and don't do anything drastic. Their motto could be No Vision, Slow Change, and Little Progress, but it's proven to be a winning formula in this passive little province. They are also milking the fortunate return of the Winnipeg Jets for all it's worth.

PC

The PCs have let the NDP dictate the play. They could have put forth a real conservative agenda and shrugged off the nonsensical NDP attacks, but instead have chosen to try to beat the NDP at their own game with numerous spending promises, no balanced budget for 7 years, and no significant tax relief. They have the advantage on the Bipole III issue, but otherwise have not done much to distinguish themselves from the NDP. Maybe their new attack ad will work for

See Brian's blog for more on the missed opportunities by the Conservatives.
them.

Liberal

Of the three main parties, the Liberals seem to be running the best campaign so far, but I have to admit that I've only been watching them out of the corner of my eye because I don't really think they'll be much of a factor. They need to put out concrete ideas like repealing the Sunday shopping laws, in order to get people to take notice. I like what they bring to the debate, but unfortunately the soft-spoken Mr.Gerrard will have a real tough time.

Green

The Green Party probably has the boldest ideas of the election, including free transit. In Manitoba however, the Greens are still a fringe party and thus have been excluded from most of the mini-debates so far, although Bart was nice enough to include James Beddome in his pop culture quiz. Perhaps the election of Liz May to the House of Commons will give the Green party enough legitimacy here in Manitoba to allow Beddome a run at office in Wolseley, but not if he continues to get excluded from debates.

Bottom line: if things continue as they are, the NDP will win.

McFadyen's platform: smart or sell-out?

Oh goody! A platform leak! I shall naturally assess everything I see against the paradigm of provincial election platforms, located on this blog.

First of all, the PC platform posted on the Free Press web site does NOT have rainbow-coloured category titles. Big fail right off the bat.

In terms of content, let's go through some of the items:

• program to provide financial resources to landowners to preserve natural wetlands and riparian areas.
  - something similar was suggested in the comments of my blog post, but I was skeptical about how much potential there was for preserving or reclaiming wetlands this way. It's probably a good policy though.
• re-route Bipole III to the east
  - you know how I feel about this.
• Join the New West Partnership
  - I suspect it's not that simple. Were we not denied entry because we're a "have not" province? If we make strides in the right direction, perhaps we may be allowed in, but I don't think we're excluded because Doer/Selinger forgot to ask.
• Provide funds to pave unpaved back lanes in Winnipeg
  - smacks of vote buying. I prefer my promise of rebuilding Winnipeg's sewer systems to reduce overflows into the Red River. Less glamourous, but important for the environment.
• Elimination of the enhanced Manitoba driver's licence to save $13 million
  - Depends: it was a bad program to begin with, but set-up costs are sunk. Are we losing money on an on-going basis?
• Reduce administration costs at regional health authorities
  - Yes, also on my platform. Probably easier said than done, but certainly lots of opportunity.
• Cuts to personal income tax
  - Good, but I hope part of that includes indexing tax brackets.
• No harmonization of PST with the federal Goods and Services tax.
  - Bad. As unpopular as it may be, HST is more efficient and implementing it would net us a nice bonus from the Feds. Alternatively, we could implement it temporarily, then reneg on the deal and refuse to give back the bonus money like BC.
• Extend $700 property tax credit to cottage owners to make cottage ownership more affordable
  - don't quite get this one. Why not just have the credit for primary residence?

In a list that is mostly unremarkable, there is one promise that really stands out:

• Balance the provincial budget by 2018, four years later than the NDP is currently targeting

Clearly this is intended to knee-cap the NDP's assertions that the PCs would hack and slash everything into oblivion as soon as they get into office. It may be a smart promise in that sense, because it reduces the fear factor for the on-the-fencers who value healthcare more than fiscal responsibility, and conservatives will still vote PC because they know that the NDP won't balance the budget any sooner regardless of what they say.

It is, however, a risky position. After hammering on the NDP for fiscal irresponsibility, Hugh could lose credibility because of this. Is Hugh just saying what he thinks the voters want to hear? Can we believe him? The whole "I won't privatize Manitoba Hydro" thing hinges on his credibility. Being in opposition, Hugh has had little opportunity to build trust with Manitobans, and can not afford to squander what he has.

This promise is a half-baked attempt to combat negative ads by the NDP, but it could very well backfire. The political analysts here at The Peanut believe that Hugh would have been better off staying true to his principles rather than letting the NDP drive his policies.

Over all, it's a less than stunning platform, although there are some good things in there.

2011 Manitoba provincial election platform

If you elect me as Premier, this is what I will do:

BUDGET

- balance budget ahead of schedule

- strengthen balanced budget legislation, including requirement to balance gross budget incl. crown corps on 3 year moving average basis.

- reduce dependency on equalization payments
- end defined benefit pensions for public employees in favour of defined contribution (grandfather basis).

TAXES & FUNDING

- reinstate a 1% income tax for small business (is 1% really too much?)

- phase out the payroll tax

- enact legislation to require the indexing of all income tax brackets. (see here)

- raise basic personal exemption 20% per year for first term.

- reduce education component of property tax & eliminate operational and capital funding for cities/municipalities. (see here)

EDUCATION:

- allow school divisions to close underutilized schools and redeploy resources

- consolidate school divisions

- lift university tuition freeze

ENVIRONMENT

- remove requirement for City of Winnipeg to remove nitrogen from wastewater (save $350m)

- fast track & help fund improvements to reduce the release of raw sewage into the Red River by the City of Winnipeg.

- review management of water levels and improve drainage, especially in the Interlake region.

- assess cost and practicality of replacing Hecla causeway with a bridge.

HYDRO

- immediately stop development of west-side Bipole III route and re-start assessment process for east-side route.

- direct PUB & Hydro to reduce electricity costs for base residential levels, and charge market rates for everything above that (inverted rates).

- reduce red tape allowing small private generators to feed electricity back into the grid.

HEALTH CARE

- encourage private clinics to operate in MB

- review effectiveness of the regional health authorities and hospital bureaucracies and eliminate redundancies in administration.
- fire 1000 nurses and doctors. (just kidding. yeesh.)

AGRICULTURE

- review building and electrical codes for hog barns and other animal barns.

- re-evaluate hog farm moratorium based on best scientific evidence.

TRANSPORTATION

- restrict scope of taxi cab board to safety-related concerns only. Open up taxi industry to competition.

- open up rural bus service to competition, eliminating Grey Hound's monopoly. Allow companies to bid on routes.

- improvements to Trans Canada Hwy, Perimeter Hwy & Hwy 75 including overpasses for key intersections, increasing speed limits to 110 km/h for entire lengths.

CRIME

(to the extent possible)

- focus on rehabilitation for first & second offenses for property crimes and minor offenses, with exponentially harsher penalties for each additional offense (see here)

- crack down on parole violations

- implement training and educational opportunities for prisoners, and make them mandatory for any prison terms longer than 6 months

- parole must be earned through the completion of education or training.

- scale back penalties for DUI, but implement a new tier of criminal offense for: DUI over twice the legal limit, DUI while speeding & DUI while texting, with much harsher penalties. (see here)

- make penalty for texting and driving equivalent to DUI

- include hands-free cell phones in cell phone driving ban. (see here)

- *NEW* expedite serious offenses in the court system

OTHER

- open adoption records, on the recommendation of my policy advisor.

- scrap rent controls and accompanying regulations, and restrict condo conversions until vacancy rates improve. (see here & here)

- immediately rescind all provincial funding to the Upper Fort Garry heritage park or whatever it's called.
- ban advertising by public sector unions in the 6 months preceding an election.

- revise Liquor Control Act to allow private beer boutiques and the importing of wine and beer independently of the MLCC.

This is a living document. Let me know if something here is out to lunch, or if you have a better idea, and I may very well update this list. If you have a blog, post your own platform!

Election 2011: Anybody Want A Peanut? endorses:

Maybe not "endorses". Everybody sucks. We can't endorse any of them. However, I got together with my advisors and the Anybody Want A Peanut? editorial board to decide who I should vote for.

Here's the thing: An NDP government would be a disaster for the nation. They are a well-intentioned bunch, but the misguided economic policies, spending increases and economic interventionism would be bad news. Fortunately, I don't believe the NDP will win the election. They may be surging, but I think there will be some pull-back today at the voting booth. Just like the first time you go sky diving: when the moment of truth comes, you look out the door of the air plane and say to yourself "what the hell am I doing? This is crazy!" Plus, if the announcement of Osama Bin Laden's death will have any any impact of the Canadian election, it will be to detriment of Jack Layton. It brings an issue to the forefront that Jack is in the minority on, plus it brings new hope that the war in Afghanistan is not futile. In fact, it may be more winnable now than ever before, making an immediate pull-out of troops irresponsible.

Likewise it is clear that the Liberals will not win the election. This is a good thing, because Ignatieff, who could have chosen a fiscally conservative platform, instead chose to veer left into NDP territory. Not quite as far off into the socialist bramble, mind you, but too far for my liking.

I happen to live in a riding that is a battleground between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Between incumbent Conservative Shelley Glover, and former MP Raymond Simard. Those are my only two meaningful choices. Andrew Coyne puts the decision this way: "would the Liberals do more harm to the economy than the Conservatives would do to democracy?" That is a tough question to answer, however, since the Liberals will not win, I don't have to answer it. Instead, the question becomes: do the Conservatives deserve (or need) a majority government?

I have argued before that Harper would be on a path to an easy majority if he was only less of a dweeb. He is his own worst enemy. Every time he gained in the polls, he pulled some aggressive or mean-spirited move that turned off marginal voters and knocked his rating back down. I do not like his style of leadership. I do not agree with many of the things that he has done, and I think his current campaign that primary revolves around coalition fear-mongering is absolutely terrible. I think the Conservatives would do much better under a different leader, and I think the Canada would benefit from that change as well. As a result, I am inclined to say that Harper does not deserve the majority that he is looking for. To give him a majority is to give approval of his horrendous campaign and his systematic destruction of parliamentary process in Ottawa. When this election is over, I want the Conservative advisors to sit down and say to themselves: "Okay, that didn't work. What can we do differently?". Politics in Ottawa is sickening, and it's largely because of Harper.

If there was a chance that any other party would win, I would probably vote Conservative, because the alternatives are even worse. For various reasons I don't believe there will be a Liberal/NDP coalition government if Harper gets a minority, and if there is, I don't think it will last long. Therefore, my decision is based on giving a vote of disapproval to Harper and the Conservatives by voting for Liberal Raymond Simard.

At least that's the decision that my advisors and I came to. I might get a sky-diving flashback and change my mind in the voting booth.

*****

Hey look! A couple of bloggers have awoken from their comas to post special election-edition commentaries!

Hacks and Wonks

Prairie Topiary

Good to see your blogs come alive again.

*****

My election predictions, as tweeted on Friday:
CPC 140, NDP 85, LPC 61, BQ: 21, GPC: 0, Ind: 1

Debate: quick impressions

Layton looked good. Some pre-debate face airbrushing going on there. Didn't think he made much of an impact though. NDP supporters will think he did great -- and he didn't do bad -- but most of what he said was just swatted aside like a bug.

I couldn't figure out what Duceppe was talking about half the time, but he made me laugh a couple times. "If you shoot a duck, you have to register the duck. If you blow away a dog, the dog is registered. The only thing not registered is the gun." He's good for entertainment value if nothing else.

Iggy was at his best when he got passionate about an issue. My favourite moment in the whole debate was during his one on one with Layton when he was defending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. He was off script, came across as being a genuine and intelligent person, and stomped all over Layton in the process. He had some other good moments too, but he appeared off balance at times and he returned back to his talking points too often, repeating the same things several times over. It was repeating that Liberal party script that lost me.

Harper never lost his cool. He answered everything with ease, and he denied every charge against him. A deal with the Bloc and the NDP? Denied. Corporate tax cuts? Denied. Didn't give cost data to parliament? Denied. And done with the same cool demeanor the whole time. His opponents were getting frustrated with him.

If I have to award a ribbon, it goes to Harper for his cool as a cucumber performance.

Notes:

1. The one-on-one format was awkward, and the one-on-ones between Layton/Duceppe and Iggy/Duceppe were especially lame. It was of interest to nobody and like a coffee break for Harper. Get rid of it.

2. Two national debates give Duceppe more air time than he deserves. He should be booted from the English language debate and replaced with Lizzy May, or with an empty seat.

Debate debate

I love that 25% of people don't think the PM should be in the leaders' debate:

- fp -

25% of people also don't think the official opposition should be part of the debate. This just proves my theory that people are too dumb to vote. We should appoint William Shatner as Tsar and be done with elections.

***

If you're wondering when I'll get to some real election punditry: probably not for a couple weeks. I'm saving up some energy for the Manitoba budget, but free time might be a factor for reasons that I can't get into here. Meanwhile, I'll be watching Harpo and Iggy and Gimpy out of the corner of my eye. I might even work on a new cartoon of the boys.

I'll be in touch...

Illegal advertising, the Insiders, Twitter

One more post about this political advertising thing, then I'll leave it alone. I think I've finally got to the bottom of the matter. To recap:

o Two posts ago I discussed a Hugh McFadyen-bashing mail ad that came addressed as an official-looking government communication. I thought to myself "this can't be right .. what are the rules about this?"
o Last post I discovered that advertising rules don't apply to advertising if they're paid by the taxpayer instead of by the party. This loophole was one of Gary Doer's first accomplishments as Premier back in 2000.

In the comments of the last post Steve Lambert pointed me to The Legislative Assembly Act, where they have some rules about how these tax dollars can be spent by a caucus. Specifically: section 52.23 says that this money may not be used for advertising ... but ... only within 60 days of an election. So right now they can spend it on whatever they want.

But!! What about this whole thing about disguising partisan ads with a Manitoba Legislative Assembly address and the Manitoba coat of arms? Isn't there some rule against that? Well, there is one more thing: the expenses authorized under section 52.23 are subject to yet another act (the fifth one I've looked at now):

The use of money received under this section is subject to the criteria or guidelines established under section 6.1 of The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act

Makes you wonder why they can't put all this shit in one place. Anyhow, let's mosey on over to this other act and see what kind of criteria or guidelines have been established:

6.1(1) The commission must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the coming into force of this section, establish criteria or guidelines to ensure public funds are used appropriately in respect of

(a) material printed, mailed or distributed electronically; and

(b) advertising in newspapers, magazines or other periodicals, on the Internet, on radio or television, or on billboards, buses or other property normally used for commercial advertising;

by members and by caucuses of recognized political parties.

That's it. That's all there is, except some crap about how this supposed commision is to come up with these guidelines "in a timely fashion". This section was created in 2008, and they haven't even created guidelines yet. They don't even have interim guidelines. Apparently "as soon as reasonably practicable" is somewhere north of three years.

So the bottom line is this: The rules about advertising using tax dollars are: THERE ARE NO RULES.

Good to know...

***

As part of the Free Press' election coverage, they had a bit in the Saturday Free Press called "The Insiders". Theses guys -- one from each main party -- are supposed to give us their "analysis and insights of the campaign."

The concept is a good one. I like listening to party insiders on TV share their views and perspectives, and it adds to the coverage, but only if their views are actually insightful.

Of the three Insiders that the Freep assembled, only Orange Crush had what I would call a good write up. In fact, the NDP insider's analysis was excellent. The commentary was reasonable, it wasn't patrionizing or overly biased, and he or she even tossed in a little joke about Viagra. Well done.

True Grit's commentary wasn't bad, but had a fair bit of Harper bashing that wasn't entirely accurate, and it was kind of snarky. But it was a masterpiece next to the Conservative commentary...

Big Blue gave us no insight at all; just talking points mingled with insults of the opponents. Instead of giving us a "best opening salvo" like the other insiders, Blue gives us a "worst opening salvo" by ranting about the "sheer stupidity" of the opposition parties. The whole thing was meanspirited, and this insider is doing his party no favours by giving people the impression that the inside of the Conservative party is ugly.

My advice to Blue is to read Orange's column and learn from it. Both for my sake as a reader, and for your party's.

***

Guess who's on twitter? Yes ... you're right ... Charlie Sheen is on twitter, smart ass. I mean: guess who else is on twitter? Me! @cherenkov_blog I don't know what I doing yet. I'm not following anybody. I don't have any followers. I don't know how the stupid thing works. I just thought I should reserve my place in the twittersphere in case I should need it, with elections coming up and everything.

I will probably start following some of you and getting the hang of it, but I have no plans to be a hard-core twit. I am very wary of The Twitter. I have seen The Twitter suck people right out of the bloggosphere, like Hacks and Wonks and Policy Frog. Beware the power of The Twitter.

Illegal advertising or unlimited advertising?

Hey boys and girls, how would you like to go for a walk through the tundra of obscure government regulations? Watch out for the loop holes...

Last post, where I discussed a fascinating little ad that I got in the mail from the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, I wondered if this was legal and all. My concern was that partisan material was being sent as something resembling an official government communication, and was almost certainly being paid for with tax dollars.

A commenter, Paul St.D, suggested that using the legislative return address might be a violation of section 54 of the Election Finances Act. I had a look at section 54 and didn't see it. I saw something else that looked like a possible violation though:

54.2 tells us that advertising by a registered political party must be authorized by the party's chief financial officer, and that this authorization must be printed on the advertisement.

This is clearly advertising by a political party (see 54.1(6) for descriptions), but there is no authorization to be found anywhere in the ad, unless it's written in microscopic type using carbon nanotubes. Is that not a violation? Looks like one to me.

... and then I read the very short, one scentence, sub section 54.1(5) a little more carefully. It says:

If an allowance is paid under The Legislative Assembly Act respecting an expense incurred by a member of the Assembly or by the caucus of a political party, that expense is not an advertising expense under this section.

Now I'm not a loophole-ologist, but that looks like a loop hole to me. The way I read that is: if you bill the tax payers for your ad, then it isn't an ad. The rules of ads, like spending limits and authorizations, and so on don't apply to you. That one sentence apparently renders the entire section of the act null and void -- but only for the party in power of course. Good luck to any opposition party getting allowances for your ads.

Surely there must be some limit to this? I scanned the The Legislative Assembly Act and was unable to find anything relevant. Maybe you have sharper eyes. My impression is that this loophole creates a no-limits advertising free-for-all for the ruling party.

This loophole, by the way, was part of the ammendments that Gary Doer enacted his first year in office. Just thought you might like to know.

I am sure I am interpreting this incorrectly. I am not a lawyer. I am not familiar with navigating the dull and cold terrain of government acts. Still, something doesn't pass the sniff test here. Maybe I should just keep my nose out of this stuff and concentrate on more useful things like perfecting my mojito recipe before summer arrives. I like the smell of mint.

Bipole disorder: the games politicians play

Good thing I snoop through my neighbour's mail, otherwise I would never have seen this...

It's a glossy ad knocking Hugh McFadyen's plan to route the bipole III power line down the east side of the province (in case you weren't able to figure that out). It came delivered in an official-looking addressed envelope from the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, with the Manitoba coat of arms in the top left corner.

Interesting that it's packaged this way. Almost as an official government communication. It does say "NDP Caucus" in smaller type below. Did anybody else get this thing?

So here's the main part (click to see full size):

They get off to a great start, comparing the east side route to the BP oil disaster. (Oh, by the way.. for newer readers, I posted some great pics of that here.) A comparison I find somewhat insulting, and maybe even distasteful given the hardship caused to many by the BP disaster. There is no comparison to begin with, but if you insisted on making one, the NDP's west side route would come out on the losing end -- both in terms of pollution to the environment and inconvenience to people. (I've been through that so many times, I am not going to rehash it here.)

The second paragraph makes it sound like Hugh McFadyen is ass-raping a virgin forest. The third paragraph serves us the dire warning that should this happen, the forest would be gone! FOREVER!!! Not only that, international groups and lobbyists will sue us. Somebody please explain to me how an international group could have any jurisdiction to sue a Canadian provincial government, supposing they had any interest in doing so to begin with.

It's quite a piece of work. The release of this thing is obviously timed to coincide with the "feel good ads" that Dan Lett wrote about in the Free Press. The TV ads soften you up, and the mailers knock you down in a vicious 1-2 partisan propaganda punch, paid by you, the tax payer. (Wow .. went a little crazy with the alliteration there.)

I couldn't tell you if this mailing is even legal, but the packaging, with the Manitoba crest and "Manitoba Legislative Assembly" return address, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not a fan of negative ads, but I accept them as a part of politics. What I really don't like is the government spending my own money to lie to me and everybody else for partisan gain.

Will they work? The absurd comparison to the BP disaster could backfire on them, much like the "Hugh is going to pee in your mouth" ads that the NDP put out earlier seemed to. As I recall, Hugh's numbers went up after that.

***

This made me wonder: has Hugh done one of his Hugh TV episodes about bipole III yet? In Episode 1, if you'll recall, he was talking to Ladybug Girl about the homeless. Episode 2 has him talking to Paramedics about heart disease, and in episode 3 he's talking to firefighters about muscular dystrophy. Still no talking to Hydro engineers about bipole.

Though it might not matter: with only 145 views for E2 and 83 views for E3, these things don't seem to be drawing many eyeballs. Unless large numbers of people are tuning in to Shaw TV, this campaign might not be making much of an impact. Perhaps if he started putting out something with actual policy or vision, as was promised...

***

I actually have to give a plug to NDP fanatic, very frequent Free Press commenter, and blogger Brian Oakley. He did a pretty good remix of Hugh's episode 1 and stuck in You Tube. It has almost as many views as the real thing:

I mean, good lord dude .. do you have a job? (Or is this your job?). in any case, that's not bad.

***

Final note: Our sympathies go to Winnipeg Girl who slipped on ice this morning and can't sit in her favourite chair.

UPDATED: Manitoba Matters with McFadyen: a preview

Interesting little development here in the Manitoba pre-election campaign campaigning. The provincial PC party sent out a communication about what they call a new TV Program:

Starting tomorrow morning, our party, in partnership with Shaw, will launch Manitoba Matters with McFadyen – a weekly TV program featuring our Leader, Hugh McFadyen, as he meets and listens to Manitobans from all walks of life. The program will air every weekend, once every hour, on Shaw TV Winnipeg ... with a new episode each week.

They promise "thoughtful ideas to bring vision, change and progress". Sounds good. We could use some of that "ideas" and "progress" stuff, and also some of that "vision" stuff that I always hear so much about. Vision, in politics, is like Bigfoot or the G spot. People claim it exists, but ...

Anyhow, without further adoo (Ado? Adieu? whatever...) here's your first look at McFadyen TV:


I sure hope this is in HD so I can see the bacteria in Hugh's pores:

Hugh meeting people: check. Hugh talking to people: check. Ideas and vision? I don't recall seeing any of that in the, err, TV program. Mind you, this is just the first one. We can hope for more substance in later episodes.

This is pretty crafty and well done, in my opnion. Yes, Hugh didn't actually say anything of substance, but the portrayal is very good. He's out with the people. He supporting something of importance -- a cause that resonates with almost everybody, and he's letting other people do the talking for him. Best of all, snagging a smiliing Hannah Taylor is a major coup. How can you not like Hannah Taylor? She's the Ladybug girl!!

You have to also appreciate that this is a positive message. He didn't place the blame of all these hapless homeless schmucks on Selinger. But the fact that he is out there walking to help homelessness, talking to people who are concerned about homelessness and interviewing Hannah with no sign of Greg Selinger anywhere, puts him on the front edge of this issue without having to say anything of substance. Neat trick.

Also a neat trick is this partnership with Shaw. How does that work exactly? Jim and/or Brad Shaw must obviously be aligned with the PCs, but one might wonder if the PCs are paying for the air time, or if Shaw is donating it, or if Shaw is actually paying Hugh McFayden to host one of its "TV Programs".

Hard to say what the impact will be. Half of us don't even get Shaw, and the other half never watch Shaw TV except at Christmas time when they have the flaming logs. However all of this is also on YouTube of course .. and with a bit of buzz this could get some eyeballs.

I also have to say that the PC machine has come a long way since the cheesy ads of four years ago. This could get interesting.

*UPDATE*

From the Free Press: "It's a paid segment," McFadyen said Friday. "It's similar to buying advertising, except that we're able to do more than you'd normally do in a 30-second spot."

Presumably the NDP could do the same thing ... unless Shaw just happens to have no more available spots left. Actually, if any party needs more exposure it's the Liberals, but that's for another post.

New Hugh McFadyen ads

A super quick post (because I have spent far too much time on the computer already today) about Hugh McFadyen's new ads:

I am sure several people were wondering about how Hugh would combat the negative campaign of the NDP. As an opposition party it might be a little bit harder to steer away from negative campainging because you don't have a record of your own to run on, so you have to combat the other guy's record. Still, I think these first two ads are pretty good in that regard:





I like the line in the first one: "what do you know about Hugh McFadyen? I'll put a stop to wasteful spending..." borrowing the line from the NDP ad.

The second addresses the negative NDP ads head on. This one may backfire on him because of the line "There is nothing to celebrate." I can see the NDP jumping all over that: Hugh doesn't support the Human Rights Museum, Hugh doesn't like Folklorama, Hugh doesn't like it when babies are born, etc ... It's potentially dangerous for the PCs.

Overall, much better than the ads from the last election. No cheesy actors or gimmicks.

source

Hugh McFadyen should sue Greg Selinger

Why not? I probably would if I were him.

I'm refering to the negative campaign ads that the NDP is airing on TV, and now appearing in your mailbox as well. Pretty soon there will be billboards too:

Negative ad campaigns are standard operating procedure in politics now, and to some degree people expect a level of exaggeration or half truths. That doesn't make it right, but that's the way it goes. That said, you have to draw a line somewhere unless you want to end up with swift-boat style ads dominating political campaigns.

The TV ads say "We know McFadyen would overturn water protection laws and allow e-coli and urine to pollute our rivers and lakes." Bruce Owen has already wrote about this in the Free Press:

For the record, all he’s said is that the province could save $350 million by backing off its plan to require the City of Winnipeg to remove nitrogen from its wastewater. Phosphorus should be removed, but removing nitrogen too would have a negligible effect, he says. A bunch of scientists say the same thing.

Not to mention that there is already e-coli and urine polluting our rivers and lakes.

To what degree can you bend the truth in a political ad? Does there have to be at least a half truth? A shred of truth? A nugget? A photon? In civil law, the standard would certainly be set above "photon".

The Criminal Code says that defamatory libel "is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person or concerning whom it is published." I would say that the NDP ad fits that description quite well.

A valid defense against a charge of defamatory libel is truth. If what you're saying is true then you're off the hook. What the NDP ads say certainly is not. Not by any standard that would be recognized by the courts. I just don't see how McFadyen would lose if he chose to sue Selinger and the NDP for libel. That is, unless he had the misfortune of running into an NDP-friendly judge. Then it could back-fire on him in a big way.

That's risk no. 1. Risk no. 2 is that the public will view him as a pansy-ass whiner who can't take the heat of politics. Thus if he were to sue the NDP, he should do it on the down-low. Don't say anything about it publicly. Somebody will notice (probably a blogger with too much time on their hands) and it will come out with a splash. When asked about it, Hugh can play it cool and simply comment that there was no truth to the "fact" portrayed in the ads. That way he gets to confront the ads in a manner that is not forced or desperate.

The upside is huge. (Or "Hughe" in this case. Ha! See what I did there? With the "h"? You know, cause McFadyen's name is "Hugh, and um ... ya anyhow ...) Right, upside no. 1: the big kerfuffle about the untruthiness of the NDP ad will put a spotlight on the integrity of the NDP and call into question the factualness of everything else they have said.

Upside no. 2: it will bring the issue of the Water Protection Act into the front pages. The newspapers will be forced to explain what exactly Hugh called for in his press release, which will provide another opportunity to expose the collosal waste of money of removing nitrogen from the water.

Upside no. 3: should Hugh win, it could be for a substantial amount of money which could really hurt the bank balance of the NDP. The NDP could even be bankrupted if the stars aligned properly for the PCs. More than likely it would be settled out of court for some mutually agreed sum, but whatever that sum it still amounts to the NDP fundraising for the PC party.

Upside no. 4: ads are bound to be more truthful in the future.


techincal note: I don't know if a defamatory TV ad would consitute libel or slander. Libel is written, slander is spoken. TV ads are spoken, but they are read off a script, thus I am assuming libel would be the charge.

And the winner is ...

Message to Sam: please don't interpret this as a resounding affirmation of your leadership. Make this your last term in office, and use it wisely. Finish phase one of BRT. Please. No more studies and flip flopping. (Ooooo .... Maglev!). Stabilize our finances. Focus on core operations instead of glamorous projects. You don't need the photo ops anymore. Forget about the waterpark. If it's going to happen, it will happen. Take your $7m carrot and plant it into the community club garden (if that makes any sense.)

Oh lord ... Eye or the Tiger? Really? Maybe if you walked in to Norah Jones you wouldn't be out of breath.

Message to Judy: Sorry. You have not changed anything at city hall. This whole thing has been a waste of time, but the good news is you get to spend your pension.

To the people who voted to Harvey Smith: Come here. A little closer. A little closer. A little closer. *SLAP*

About the voting process: I actually had to stand in line. What the hell, am I in Afghanistan or something? I guess I shouldn't complain about a 2 minute wait. Pretty groovy new voting tabulators though -- like little portable garbage bins. One little niggle: when you mark your vote with the marker, it leaches through to the other side, so if anyone is paying attention when the sheet is fed into the garbage muncher you can see how someone voted (somewhat) by how the black marks line up.

Message to follow bloggers Brian, Curtis and Colin: Well done, all of you. It's funny ... it wasn't that long ago that Frogger's dalliance with CJOB resulted in a 100+ comment debate about a blogger selling out to the Main Stream Media or some damn thing like that.

Oh my God, Sam. Don't Stop Believing? Really?

Why I'm voting for Brad Gross

I have made up my mind. I am going to vote for underdog Brass Gross (that's "graas", as in "loss") in the Winnipeg mayoral election. Why? Glad you asked. I will tell you why, and will accompany my explanation with quickie doodles of each candidate:

Sam Katz
Sam has not earned my vote as mayor. His complete butchery of the rapid transit project alone might be enough to drive a voter like me away, but that's just where it starts. He didn't keep his word on Upper Fort Garry, the bus service to my neighbourhood has been cut in half under his watch, and our infrastructure deficit keeps climbing. His whole management system involves knee-jerk decision making without due process or diligence, meanwhile the city continues it's unsustainable sprawl into the surrounding farmland.

Don't get me started on the ugly sport coats...

Judy Wasy-whatever

Judy has three things going for her: 1) she's not Sam. 2) she actually took a position on property taxes. 3) she has a comprehensible position on rapid transit .. at least phase 1. However, at the same time she committed to by-passing the competitive bid process in favor of going straight to local co. New Flyer. In other news: the cost of New Flyer BRT buses just doubled.

That's the thing about Judy. She is going to spend money faster than my wife on a shopping trip in New York. The entire tax hike has been committed to infrastructure and policing according to her web site, which means that all of her other hare-brained ideas will have to get money from somewhere else. Where do these ideas come from anyhow? Who determined that there was demand for garden markets all over the city? How exactly are you going to create those and what happens if they're not successful? You could ask a dozen questions about every one of her ideas, but the only clear answer is that they'll all cost money. Remember: this is somebody who came straight out of the Provincial NDP: the party that overspent it's budget every single year and gutted our balanced budget legislation. I fear the day that a Judy administration has to negotiate a contract with a City workers' union:

Union Boss: we demand a 7% raise over two years.

Judy: 10%

Union Boss: Errrrr. Okay.

Judy: hey, this negotiating stuff isn't so hard!

Those are some of the reasons why I cannot vote for Judy. Or maybe it's because she's a woman, (not withstanding the fact that I voted for a woman in the last Federal election.)

Rav Gill

I am tempted to vote for Rav, simply because if I do not I am afraid he might turn me into a bat. However, I can't vote for Rav either. The campaign information on his website is so sparse that I have no idea what's he's planning on doing. For a fringe candidate who routinely gets neglected by the media, you would figure that he would have all kinds of detail out there for people to research on their own, but I guess not. It doesn't even list his promise of creating a gay village. Maybe that's because he realizes that it's a idiotic promise. I am sure that some other cities have gay villages, but were they created by politicians? Really? How do you do that anyhow? Give exclusive property tax breaks to homosexuals?

That leaves...

Brad Gross

Brad has a terrible website. The platform

on his main page looks like it was typed out over a coffee break with no prior thought whatsoever. Worse, the pages specific to each area of his platform like traffic, crime, and so forth, have no content whatsoever. He is obviously just doing this to increase his profile to benefit his real job as a realtor.

So why vote for him? Because in a campaign almost completely absent of vision and big ideas, Brad pushes the boundaries:

• solar powered street lights!
• move industrial areas away from the middle of the city!
• community centres run by university students!
• expel criminals! Ya, there we go! Not quite sure how you're going to do that, and I'm pretty sure it's a charter violation, but Ya!

Sure, most of the ideas miss the mark completely or are impossible to implement, but I like the idea of reducing the number of traffic lights and getting education taxes off the property tax bill. But that's not the point. The point is that if people vote for this guy with the crazy ideas, that might send a message to whoever wins that what we need at city hall is not rhetoric and fear mongering and waffling, but vision and bold thinking.

If I vote for Sam, then I'm rewarding incompetence. If I vote for Judy and she gets in, then I'll feel like I had a hand in the damaging policies and reckless spending that are sure to follow. Brad however is not going to win, so if I vote for him then I can rest easy knowing that I didn't contribute to the destruction of our city.

*all images © Me, whoever the hell I am.