I've decided it's time for a change

I didn't want to put "electoral system" in the title because then nobody would click on the link, but
I've decided it's time for a change in how we elect our representatives.

Perhaps our current system makes sense federally, but I'm not sure it makes sense provincially or locally. This thought came to mind as I read a Metro article last week about the provincial by-election in Fort Whyte. In the article, the candidates were asked about the most important issues that came up as they campaigned door-to-door.

With the province increasingly mired in debt, billions being committed to Hydro projects of dubious benefit, and various problems with health care, family services, etc., the key issues, according to the candidates, are:

According to Brandy Schmidt, NDP ...

"the Waverly overpass request—that’s a big one," she said, adding an overpass at Waverly Street near Taylor Avenue would be something she’d look into if elected.

Bob Axworthy, Liberal ...

The most important issue, according to Axworthy, is having a representative in Fort Whyte who lives in the community.

Let me get this straight: the most important issue is not the provincial debt, or health care or increasing hydro rates or even infrastructure, but what street the candidate's house is on. Score one for Mr. Jetz TV, I guess.

Brian Pallister, PC ...

It varies from too-loud train whistles to the need for more elementary and a high school in the area, to traffic problems on Waverley Street.
...
While president of the Portage la Prairie Chamber of Commerce, helped find a resolution to train whistling — experience he hopes to bring to the Manitoba Legislature.

That's right: train whistles. Thankfully he is well-equipped to tackle the train whistle problem that plagues Manitoba, having worked on a similar problem in Portage La Prairie. He can leverage that valuable experience as MP and leader of the opposition.

Only Don Benham, Green Party, mentioned issues of province-wide significance: a proposed Honesty in Politics Act and recycling policy.

A common criticism of our 'first past the post' regional system is that it produces outcomes that are not consistent with the popular vote. This is true, but to add to that, you have these weird distortions where a person who will be governing on matters of provincial significance are campaigning on local issues that are significant only to a tiny fraction of the population. I don't know about you, but when a provincial election candidate knocks on my door and asks me what concerns I have with my riding, I have to wrack my brain to think of something that doesn't sound trivial. I'm not concerned about my riding ... I'm concerned about my province.

This preposterous state of affairs sometimes also results in something resembling bribery, as we saw in Southdale where residents voted NDP to get a fancy new community centre complex. Meanwhile, the candidate they elected to get their community center is voting on legislation that impacts everyone. It doesn't make sense.

The same arguments can be made of civic elections. I think we should elect a panel of councilors that have the best interests of the entire city in mind. I think most do, but if a councilor from Ward X continually makes poor decisions there is nothing that most people can do about it. Only a small percentage of people have a say in whether that individual gets re-elected, and because he has name recognition in that particular ward re-election is almost a certainty.

The recent Shindico land-swap craziness is evidence that there are massive systemic problems at Winnipeg City Hall that transcend ward boundaries. [By the way, Bart Kives has been doing a great job of covering this. See: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]. I'm not saying that council is directly to blame for this, but certainly some of them are complicit in allowing a culture to develop where grievous violations of process like this can be considered normal and acceptable.

It is my belief that if we moved to a system where all people in the city had a say in electing all councilors, there would be greater turn-over and more accountability.

I'm not prepared to come up with the details of how such a system would work, and I think it's highly unlikely anything will change anyhow since those in power have a vested interest in preserving the system that put them in power. I just think it can be better, is all.

Manitoba Liberal leadership idea.

This fall, the Manitoba Liberal Party will start the process of choosing a new leader to replace the outgoing Dr. Jon Gerrard. One man, the little-known Robert Young, has so far announced an intention to run. I don't know much about Mr. Young, but given his lack of political experience and journey-man career, I don't get a good vibe from this.

What the Liberal Party needs is a man who is ready to jump into the position already familiar with the political game, but with fresh ideas. I think I have just the person:

James Beddome

It's not so crazy. Trust me.

Okay... it's crazy, but read on anyhow:

With James you have a guy who has experience with the operational aspects of leading a political party. You have a guy who is well-spoken and reasonably charismatic. He is clean-cut and wholesome in appearance, yet has hair that dangles down in front of his face that tells younger voters that this is a different kind of politics -- a kind that they can potentially relate to. More importantly, he has fresh ideas. His Green Party platform in the last election was not radical or unreasonable, rather it was principled and grounded in logic for the most part.

What James doesn't have is a way of bringing these ideas to the floor of the legislature. It could take decades for the Green Party to build a base in Manitoba large enough to grabs seats from the NDP. The Liberal Party on the other hand has a significant, though dwindling, chunk of the vote. Every election there are certain people who always vote Liberal because they have always been Liberal, or because it's viewed as the moderate choice.

From the Liberal Party point of view, a resurgence is desperately needed. The inertia that they've been coasting on since the Sharon Carstairs days has been eroding under the coma-inducing leadership of Gerrard, and has not been helped by the implosion of the parent party in Ottawa. A 50 year old business consultant who once wrote a Christian novel is probably not the spark plug that they need to fire up the engine again.

This is where James comes in. He has some youth appeal that could help revitalize the party, but has already earned the respect of other politicians. I know that Hugh McFadyen respected James as a peer and as a political opponent, for example.

But what about the Green Party? Am I asking that he abandon his Green roots? No.

But surely the Green Party has a clause in their constitution that prevents their leader from running for another party. Therefore this will require a bit of a gamble on Beddome's part. He will have to resign the leadership of the Greens to run for the Liberals. If he wins the leadership of the Liberal Party he can begin negotiations with the Green Party to amalgamate the two. The Green Party will be willing because they know James and they know what he stands for. As the freshly elected leader of the Liberal Party he would have the leverage to pull the party into the negotiations.

And then the master plan is complete! A young, stronger Liberal party with the combined strength of the Libs and the Greens, and a new platform of distinct and practical ideas that will stand out from the stale and predictable drivel presented by the NDP and the PCs.

It could work.

~~~~~~~
UPDATE
~~~~~~~

A new face, Ajay Chopra, plans to jump in the race ... just as soon as he returns to Manitoba from Toronto where he was working as a lobbyist. Ajay's outlook is better that Robert Young's in my opinion, because he is younger and somewhat familiar with the political machine, but this is not a big enough development to derail the above plan.

The ticket to attracting better candidates

Have you ever voted in an election for the person you disliked the least? Does it seem sometimes that there are no good choices on the ballot?

In the last civic election I voted for a real estate agent because there was so little to choose from. The field was so bad that the incumbent won easily even though most people agree that he's doing a terrible job. In the last Manitoba provincial election your choices were somebody with no fiscal responsibility, and somebody else promising to be just as irresponsible. Only one person has stepped forth to vie for the leadership of the opposition party after the role was vacated after an embarrassing loss to a party that's running the province into the ground.

At every level of government voting rates are low and trending lower, because there are no inspiring candidates. Voting is an unpleasant task where you have to pinch your nose while checking the box.

While in a twitter conversation with Luc Lewandoski I came up with the best idea ever to resolve this conundrum: Give politicians free Jets tickets! They are a valuable commodity that is sure to attract quality candidates to the political arena. It is a perk that could perk up the field in any political race. The job may be thankless, and you may be scrutinized and criticized at every turn, but tickets to the hottest show in town help to make it all worth while.

The best part: it won't cost taxpayers a dime. Private corporations can provide all the tickets. All we need to do is encourage them. Let's send out the word to all the companies out there with Corporate boxes and season tickets: invite politicians to Jets games! Lots of them! ALL OF THEM!! If they all go to Jets games, then the playing field will still be level.

Let's implement this plan immediately.

If Jon Gerrard were a wine ...

What kind of wine would he be?

He would be a red, obviously. An understated red. A light merlot from Napa Valley with hints of unconventionality and a slight medicinal flavour. An instantly forgettable beverage that you might buy in a family restaurant, and think "it's alright I guess". But, if you swirl the wine around in your glass, take a good sniff and let the liquid linger in your mouth, you detect a hint of stubborn bitterness and the slight unpleasantness of a budget wine trying to be something it's not.


On occasions when I talk about Jon Gerrard, I usually feel the need to start by saying "Jon's a nice guy, but..." because I never seem to have anything positive to say about him, even though I really do not dislike the guy. It's just that he's been ineffectual as a leader. He sucks at his job.

Case in point: in the televised debate last fall, Greg Selinger had the opportunity to finish up the evening by posing one question to the opponent of his choice. Did he direct his question to his primary rival, Hugh McFadyen? No. He picked on the mostly irrelevant Gerrard because he knew that Gerrard would flail like a wounded pigeon and allow Greg to score an indirect hit on Hugh without Hugh having an opportunity to respond.

In case you forgot what the question was, Greg asked Jon if he made a mistake in supporting the PC's bill to cut hundreds of doctors and nurses and plunge Manitoba health care into the Pleistocene era where we use sharpened rocks to perform surgery. Jon's response?

Gee. Gosh. Since you put it that way, I guess you're right! Gosh! How could I have been so stupid? Stoopid stoopid stoopid (banging head against podium).

That's a paraphrase only. I don't have the exact text of the debate in front of me so there might be some minor inaccuracies. In any case, you get the idea. A real leader would have said something like:

Mr.Selinger, as you well know the bill was not to cut nurses and doctors but to make some necessary decisions to control spending. The Manitoba government has over-spent its budget each of the last 11 years, we are running record deficits, our debt is skyrocketing, and our increasing reliance on transfer payments is threatening our ability to ensure quality health care and social services in the long term. A leader needs to be prepared to make difficult decisions, and one of those decisions is being responsible with the tax dollars that Manitobans sacrifice each year. If you're not prepared to make those difficult decisions Mr.Selinger, then Manitobans deserve a better Premier.

I got my own taste of Gerrard's stubborness last year at the Beers and Bipole debate organized by the Canadian Taxpayer Federation last summer. I suggested that it might be better to present a united front against the NDP's disasterous policy rather than muddying the issue with a third unrealistic option, but Gerard wouldn't budge. His way was the right way, and compromise was not even to be considered.

His stubborness could be the downfall of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. Jon has said he will step down in 2013, but he has also recently mused about running again in the only safe Liberal seat next election. "There may be an advantage to having somebody who has got some legislative experience serving behind a new leader in the next parliament" he says. That's bad news if you're a Liberal. As Steve Lambert wisely points out, hanging on to the River Heights seat could make it difficult to attract a quality leader because the prospect of getting elected and getting that MLA salary is diminished. Jon would quite likely remain the only Liberal in the Leg (if he even manages to get re-elected .. he hardly won by a landslide last time) and would therefore remain the dominant face of the Liberal party, even if he's not the leader.

Big changes are needed if the Libs are to reverse course and back away from the abyss. Members are revolting, Liberal bloggers are plotting new political parties and using the word "poop" a lot. This is a bad sign. Jon not only needs to step down as leader, he needs to leave the party completely. Get the hell out of there so they can turn the page and attempt to rebuild. If he sticks around then the Liberal Party is as good as dead.

Have you ever left an opened bottle of red wine on a window sill for 6 months by accident? Oh look, it's that bottle of Jon Gerrard from the Hallowe'en party. I wonder what it tastes like?

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.

Brain Dump for Saturday, September 24

Thoughts ..

1) Geese

The Winnipeg Free Press article on goose overpopulation touched on several ways to deal with the problem, none of which are as good as my idea: There are millions of these 15-lb pea-brained menaces assaulting our city and country side ... and there are millions of people starving in Africa. It's time for a mass slaughter of geese so that they can be ground up and shipped to the Horn of Africa where they would provide desperately needed protein to little children with distended bellies and their skeletal mothers.

2) Rex Murphy

I completely disagree with Rex Murphy this time. He proposes that the NDP change their party voting structure to give Quebec greater say in the upcoming leadership race, saying that not doing so "is not a winning formula for the long run." Perhaps his bloated vocabulary has started invading grey matter normally reserved for logic, but the exact opposite is true: Changing a fundamental party rule to favour Quebec, where there is very little grass-roots support (as evidenced by the mere 1600 memberships province-wide), is "self defeating politics". The Quebec anomaly is no more than a flash in the pan, and if they tilt their rules to favour that province they will piss off their base everywhere else.

3) Garbage

What the heck am I supposed to do with my big plastic garbage can when I get my big plastic garbage cart? This is a serious question.

4) Coloured Rods

Another Rod has joined us in the local bloggosphere. Rouge Rod started posting a little over a month ago and has kept up a torrent pace since then. Rouge joins the original Black Rod, The Blue Rod, and The Purple Rod who hasn't posted much lately. The Orange Rod has closed up shop, and there was also a Red Rod that didn't make a very good go of it. You can understand my hesitation to accept new Rods, given some of the fly-by-night rodders in the past, but Rouge seems to be making a genuine effort, so good luck Rouge!

5)Vladimir Putin

Barack Obama needs a little Vladimir Putin in him. No .. that's not what I meant. Oh God, you guys are so immature.

6) Dinner tonight

Do you leave the cover off the roaster when you're cooking a Canada Goose? What do you think: rosemary, cracked pepper and thyme?

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!

Bipole and Beers debate, with bonus doodle of John Baird

My haphazard notes, impressions, and thoughts in no particular order from the debate Monday night:

Panel:
Dr. Jon Gerrard (Liberal)
Hugh McFadyen (PC)
James Beddome (Green)
Stan Struthers (NDP)

Host/Moderator:
Colin Craig (Cdn Taxpayer Federation)

I missed the openings for Jon and Hugh because my garage door came off the rails and jammed, trapping my truck in my garage. (Yeah, that’s right James: I drive a truck. It’s a small one though and I carpool to work.)

Stan’s opening: we can’t shy away from making the “tough decisions” (an ironic choice of words I thought); if we go down the east side “there will be no sale at the end of the line”, implying that the U.S. will not buy power from us if we do so – a theme that came up several times; and talk of lawsuits etc. for an east-side route. He also said something else interesting: that the west side route would allow exporting power to Saskatchewan, while mocking the idea of building a line all the way over from the east side route. More on that later.

James was as well prepared for the debate as anyone. His position was that Bipole III need not be built at all, and that we should focus on conservation of energy and increasing renewable energy sources instead of exporting to the U.S. with uncertain profit margins, pointing out that the costs of producing hydro power have escalated over the years. (My thought as he was saying this was that from a ‘green’ perspective, exporting hydro power is beneficial because it largely displaces fossil fuel power and reduces green house gas emissions.)

Jon, while acknowledging the inferiority of the west side route, advocated for the under-lake route rather than the east route. At one point, during a discussion about reliability, the conversation turned to east side vs. under lake, which Stan Struthers must have loved. Jon is very soft-spoken and there was a camera blocking my view of him, so for me it was almost like he wasn’t even there.

Hugh generally got the largest applauses of the evening, and argued very cogently on most points. He ran over time on several occasions, and Colin Craig, perhaps showing a little bias, was reluctant to crack the whip and cut him off. There was one time where Hugh voluntarily stopped talking because of shouting from the crowd when Colin refused to prevent him from finishing his somewhat lengthy thought.

Colin was also involved in the funniest moment of the evening, when Professor John Ryan took the microphone to question Hugh’s numbers. His run up to the question was rather long, and Colin took the mic away, only to give it back after protests from the audience, but then there was an amusing little wrestling match over the microphone itself. Colin had a couple pretty good jokes through the evening too, but otherwise left the talking to the politicians. Overall the debate had a good tempo, and Colin deserves credit for that.

Stan Struthers had the unfortunate task of representing the NDP in front of a mostly unsupportive audience, but loyally carried the party’s position. He drew jeers for two things:
1) his claim that the U.S. would not buy power from us if the east side route was chosen, even after former Hydro President and CEO Len Bateman got up and told him he was full of shit (but in slightly different words). Stan was very cagey at first. He said that the U.S. politicians “were very clear” that they would not buy power “if we kept doing things the same way.” Oh, is that very clear? Sounds pretty damn vague to me. He would NOT say “if we build bipole III down the east side”. At least not the first several times it came up, but eventually he did make a more direct connection with the east side which drew boos from the audience who knew better,
2) his mention of privatization. It did not come up as a question, but Stan made sure to weave it in to some of his responses. One time it drew jeers so loud that you couldn’t even hear him talk. “Stop wasting our time” people would yell, during Stan’s futile attempt to convince people that Hugh is actually Gary Filmon, only more evil.

I had some conversations with the candidates after the meeting. Highlights:

Jon Gerrard: I questioned Jon about confusing an already confusing topic by adding the third underwater alternative, suggesting that if he sided with Hugh leading up to the election it would give voters two clear choices and would maximize the chance that the west side route would not be built. Jon would not be swayed however, and insisted that the underwater route needs to be on the table right now. I think I insulted him a little bit when I said it wouldn’t get built because the Liberals would never win power, but he rightfully pointed out that they could hold the balance of power and have influence that way.

James Beddome: I had a good time talking with James, who it turns out is not a stranger to this blog. He and I agree on certain things, like the concept of inverted Hydro rates and allowing small private generators of electricity to feed power back into the grid. At one point when I was talking to James, Hugh came over to complement James on his intellectual consistency and his thoughtful arguments. I also found out that his nick name is Jimmy Bop, although I thought Elle (Federal NDP candidate) said “Jiffy Pop”, so I will forevermore refer to James as Jiffy Pop.

Hugh McFadyen: I had a good chat with Hugh too, about converters and the west side route. When I suggested the underwater route would allow us to avoid the most problematic areas of the east side, Hugh said no, not really, because the underwater route may still go through Poplar River traditional territory, and they are the First Nation most opposed Bipole III.

On the converter issue, I argued that he should include converters in his cost estimates for the East side to give his numbers more credibility, and also to undermine the NDP’s only argument related to reliability. When Stan Struthers was questioned on reliability all he had was the fact that they are building new converts to add redundancy to the Dorsey station – something the PCs would likely do too, but cannot claim because they are not including the costs in their estimate. Hugh tells me that for technical reasons the converters for an east side route would be cheaper than the west side converters, but reliable estimates are not available yet.

Finally, Stan Struthers: I questioned Stan on one thing – his claim about being able to export power to Saskatchewan more easily from the West side. I pointed out that both lines terminate south of the city, so is he claiming that we can just splint into the line half way down and divert power off to Saskatchewan?

Stan: the engineers have assured us that we can send power to Saskatchewan.
Me: but you will need converters
Stan: we’re building converters
Me: but those converters are located south of Winnipeg, the same place as the East side converters would be.
Stan: but the west side route goes closer to Saskatchewan.
Me: so you’re saying you would build extra converters somewhere up near Dauphin to export power?
Stan: we’ve already factored in converters
Me: Yes, but those converters are south of Winnipeg. Either way, you’re running a line from Winnipeg to Saskatchewan
Stan: no we would run it from up near Dauphin
[repeat above conversation 4x]
Me: Okay, but you would need additional converters for that, which would cost billions more dollars
Stan: Well, we would sell them billions of dollars in power.

Wow, that was … more difficult than it should have been.

One last note: the power sales to the U.S. are in U.S. currency. Should the bottom fall out of the $US, Hydro would be in big trouble. The scuttlebutt Monday night after the debate was that the infamous NY whistleblower was fired in part because she suggested the possibility of Hydro going bankrupt as a result of a drop in the American dollar.

****

Now, as your reward for making it through all of that, I give to you the latest in my long tradition of offensive comic panels. This is a doodle I did on my coffee break on Monday when I found out that John Baird was visiting the rebels in Libya:

UPDATED: Bipole, Beers, and (sigh...) more math

UPDATE: I talked to Hugh McFadyen about converters. He conceded that they are planning to build new converters for the east side route, but that for technical reasons they would not be as expensive as the west side converters ... they just don't know how much less expensive. I'm not about to make a wild guess, so I'm leaving my number alone, but consider it a starting point. It could be much higher. Given that the west side converters could cost upwards of $2.6b, even a small % difference in price would make a big difference to my number.

Also, under the other things to consider category: I heard suggestions last night that Hydro is using an estimate of $1000/acre as the price for acquiring farmland for their right of way, which might not be bad if you're buying a whole section, but if you're only buying a strip of land through the middle of a field, not many farmers are likely to bite. Hydro said it will not expropriate land, so expect the cost of negotiated settlements to increase greatly.

****

Every time I do a post on Bipole III I think it's going to be my last, but invariably they keep pulling me back in. They = every politician who is confusing the fuck out of the population.

There is of course a ridiculous discrepancy between the competing estimates of what the additional cost will be of building our new HVDC power line down the longer west side route versus the more direct east side route. The PCs say it will be $11,748 per family. The NDP says it will be $13.68 per household. As you might imagine, virtually every assumption in these calculations is different: the route costs, inclusion of line losses, amortization of costs, population figures, etc.. I was tossing around the idea of bridging one number to the next, in much the same way as that old video (which I can't seem to find anywhere) showed Courtney Love transforming from a hot starlet into a disgusting junkie. However, that would have been much too much work, so instead I'll calculate my own numbers from scratch.

I am doing this because I have not really seen any good analysis of this data out there in the Media. The Press has been reporting the numbers and doing some peripheral commentary on them, but the reader must still be left thinking "so who am I supposed to believe? What is the REAL number?"

The best analysis I have seen so far comes from up-and-coming blogger Westerner with his Land of Ice and Grain blog. Westerner has been doing some good work with his blog, and I encourage you to read his post on Bipole III because it has good critique of some of the methods used by the two parties, and lots of links to lots of data sources.

So here we go. I am going to try to keep this as simple as possible:

TRANSMISSION COSTS

This is my source for the west side costs.

Original: $1133 million

Addendum: $1477

New March 2011: $1451

New leaked estimate: $1516*

I will forego the leaked estimate in favour of the new official estimate:

West side: $1451 million

Cost of the east side line:

The PCs say $600 million, plus $188m for licensing costs. I could not find this amount in my scan of the source that they listed, so I'm not sure I trust this number, but I suspect that it is an original estimate -- not an updated one suitable for a comparison.

This Free Press article says that Hydro pegged the additional cost at $571m. At the time, the official estimate for the West side was still the original estimate of $1134m, which puts the East side cost at 1134-571=563 ..even less than the PC estimate. I suspect, however, that they were basing it on updated costs, perhaps the 2009 CPJ addendum costs which place the West side transmission at $1477m, which means the East side would be $906m. It is hypocritical for Brennan and the NDP to use updated costs for the East side route, but original costs for the west side route. I will go with newest March 2011 numbers because I used those numbers for the west side as well. $1451-571=880. This puts the cost per km almost on par with the west side route.

East side: $880 million

Incremental cost: $571 million

LINE LOSSES

This one is pretty simple: the number being used by the PCs based on a leaked Hydro report is $300m. I haven't heard anyone dispute this number (which means it's probably higher) so I'll use it.

In Brennan's $13 estimate, by the way, he treats line losses as follows: "I did not include what Mr. McFadyen was talking about, increases losses that occur, I excluded that." Way to go, Bob. "What Mr. McFadyen was talking about" in reference to the waste of enough electricity to power every household in Brandon. Aren't you due for retirement or a heart attack or something?

Incremental cost: $300 million

CONVERTER COSTS

Here is where the biggest confusion lays. Bob Brennan, in a waffling sort of way, is on record as saying that new converters are needed for both routes. The NDP doesn't waffle on this at all. They say converters are required for both sides, period. End of story. The PCs, on the other hand, do not include converters in their estimate. Who is right?

Here are Brennan's exact words:

Mr. Brennan: When we originally looked at the proposal to build the line down the east side, it was at that point being tied in to the existing conversion equipment, and at that point, it was–the converter stations, without considering new generation being added to the system or the reliability associated with something happening to the existing converter stations, it was not included at that point.

When we went to the west side, there was a need to have conversion equipment which, in our opinion, took away reliability issues that we had at that time and at the same time provided for new generation to be able to come down the line at that point in time. So conversion equipment should be considered on both sides in our view.

At first, I thought Brennan was full of shit. The routing study only mentioned converters for the East side as an afterthought, to mitigate the unlikely catastrophic loss of the Dorsey station. The secret leaked report that the PCs cite for some of their numbers also says that the converters are not required for the east side, but then it also says the following (section 5.1):

Converters would be required on the east route to facilitate additional northern generation to be sent south but would not be required to, at present, solve the reliability concern for HVdc line outages.

So there you go. It seems implausible that the routing study would not take into consideration added capacity, but I am now inclined to believe that converters are indeed required for the east side, even though the original design point was to tie it into the existing Dorsey converters. Perhaps the construction of new converters could be delayed for the east side, thereby saving money, but let's assume not:

Incremental cost: $0

TOTAL INCREMENTAL COST: $871 million

This is lower than what the Canadian Taxpayer Federation is reporting, but my research assistants here at Anybody Want A Peanut assure me that it is a fair and conservative figure.

Now, since everybody insists on doing this as some sort of per capita cost, I might as well too. The PCs use a family of four (total pop/4). Brennan uses some household number from the future. I personally like Westerner's idea of using rate payers. I think it is the most logical way to do it. There are about 510,000 rate payers, so the average cost per rate payer is:

$1,708 per ratepayer

There's your number. I give you permission to use this free of charge. You don't even have to give me credit.

This is still far from the end of the Bipole III story. The costs are sure to continue increasing, the process of buying farmers out of their land is only beginning, and there are numerous adjustments one could take to account for the time value of money, among other things.

There are also the very major issues that the West route is far less reliable, in that it is much more susceptible to natural disasters, unable to carry the load should the interlake HVDC lines get blown down again, whereas this is not a problem with the east route; and building down the west side would require a new Bipole IV line to be build 25 years sooner according to this report. All of this is potentially very costly and favours the east route.

***

There is a "Beers and Bipole" doohicky Monday evening, June 27, hosted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and featuring Hugh "I'm not Filmon" McFadyen, Jon "the good doctor, but gosh I wish he had more charisma" Gerrard, James "who?" Beddome, and Minister Stan "my boss is too busy for this shit, but I have no idea why Wowchuk can't make it" Struthers. That ought to be interesting, if you find this kind of thing interesting. If you made it this far in post I can assume that perhaps you do, so go and grab yourself a beer, and listen to the politicians continue to confuse the fuck out of everybody. Beer: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems (except probably Bipole).

(credit goes to Homer Simpson for that last line.)

* Leaked estimate was $4.1m total cost. Converter costs went up 132%, which puts them at $2584m, which leaves $1516m for transmission costs.

Who's donating to who?

This is a phenomenal resource for nosy people:

Federal political party contribution map

You can zoom right in and look up your neighbours to see who they're donating to. You can look up your favourite politician or local minor celebrity to see who they're supporting. Or you can randomly click on spots in Tuxedo like I did when I stumbled across Gail Asper:

Gail has donated thousands to the Conservatives, thousands to the Liberals, and even $1500 to the Green Party, but nothing to the NDP. This is only federal of course. I don't doubt that she has tossed some pesos in the hat of the provincial NDP party. From this, a person could infer that Gail is really a Greeney at heart, but gives to the Tories and Libs for strategic reasons.

Not that it's any of my business. Nor is it yours, I don't think. Yet, here it is, in convenient map form with little coloured bubbles, making it ridiculously easy to find. All the data is provided to the public by Elections Canada, so Elections Canada must think that it is our business.

I suppose a case could be made that it is. There should be a way to find out if the government is being 'bought'. If contracts are being awarded to people who have monetarily supported a party for instance. Or, to borrow a phrase from Marty Gold, if governments are supporting the pet projects of millionaires who happen to donate thousands of dollars to them. But it just seems really odd to me that I can have such easy access to the political donations of random private individuals.

I love this stuff though. I like maps and I like data, so interactive maps with data embedded in them is like cat nip. It's also awesome how Wolseley is so totally NDP. Nothing but brown dots.

h/t David Akin

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.

Gun registry winners and losers

big winner: Jack Layton. Four words that I never thought I'd have to string together, but there it is...

I think Jack handled the whole gun registry debate better than anyone. While Harper was whipping his MPs to vote to kill the registry, as you would expect from a iron-fisted leader hailing from gun-toting red-neck country; and while Iggy was whipping his boys and girls to vote against killing the registry, as you would expect from a bunch of out-of-touch money-wasting urban lefty elitists; Jack was playing it cool. While he clearly stated his own preference -- as any leader should on an important issue -- he allowed his MPs to vote as they saw fit while proposing an alternative of some kind, thereby positioning himself as the moderate in this whole affair. Tired old Wacky Jacky is all of a sudden the captain of common sense and compromise.

Canadians are desperate for more of that: cooler heads, compromise solutions, and acknowledgment that different constituencies have different values. I personally would like to see more open votes in the House. The rhetoric will get toned down because you are less likely to fear monger and hurl insults when some of your own colleagues are voting the other way. Ultimately I think it would lead to a more productive parliament.

winner: Tory MP Candice Hoeppner
Who is Candice Hoeppner? A few weeks ago I would have guessed a third liner on Canada's women's hockey team. Now I know differently. Even though her bill failed, she has still put herself on the main stage and has performed reasonably well.

big loser: Harper. Lost the vote, again. The registry's never going away Steevo. Get used to it.

loser: Ignatieff. Even though you won the vote, you still alienated a bloc of voters, and you were out-classed by Layton. Jack Layton. Deal with that.

losers: anybody who changed their vote. Spineless wusses.

loser: Niki Ashton, for not saying how you were going to vote. You went from being open-minded and thoughtful to indecisive and annoying. Were you waiting for bribes? I ditto Policy Frog's tweet.

***

Where do I stand? The Anybody Want A Peanut public policy and cocktail mixing department (I had to consolidate due to cut-backs) has not provided me with a report yet, so I don't know what to think. The bastards are probably too busy drinking mojitos. I look at it from a cost/benefit perspective. A registry per se is not a bad idea, but is it worth all the money we're pumping into it? I can't answer that question.

Getting things other than the census done ...

On Friday the federal Conservative Party sent an email out to it's supporters titled "Getting things done..." In it, they list their recent accomplishments, highlighted with bold red check marks:

	Investments to deliver our armed forces with the tools they need to get the job done overseas.
	Agreements with the US, strengthening our commitment to open borders and free markets with our largest trading partner.
	Strategic investments in research facilities and equipment at colleges and polytechnic institutes across Canada.
	Improvements to our security by imposing increased sanctions against Iran.
	Re-affirmed support for abolishing the long-gun registry.
	The launch of a review of affirmative action hiring practices to ensure federal hiring is fair.
	Continued strategic investments across the country to create jobs now, and jobs for the future.

Why that is indeed an impressive list. Hey wait a minute, I think you forgot something:

	Protected Canadian liberty by replacing the mandatory long form census with a voluntary survey.

The conspicuous absence of the census announcement, even in an email to their own supporters, tells me that the federals Conservatives just want everybody to forget about it. They are too stubborn to admit they're wrong and change their mind, so they change the conversation and omit any mention of it. Eventually people -- especially the annoying press geeks -- will stop talking about it. Why the hell are those press geeks so interested in this anyhow? It's the census for crying out loud. It's the least interesting thing in the world, next to ... I'm not sure what ... something so boring that I can't even think of it.

The same email also says that there is only one way to prevent the "nightmare" of a Liberal-led coalition from becoming reality -- a Conservative majority government. Well I have this to say to the Conservatives: if you want a majority, maybe you should stop doing stupid things. Every time you build up political capital, you blow it all by peroguing parliament or doing something else that makes all those jittery voters in Toronto scamper off into the Liberal bushes. I'm telling you, the clock is ticking. The Libs won't always be engulfed in the charisma vortex of a doltish professor like Dion or Ignatieff. Sooner than you think, the Liberal Party will elect the passionate and outgoing Justin Trudeau as their leader and all the singing and piano playing in the world won't help you out.

***

In other news, Germany is getting attacked by radioactive boars.