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?

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.

Oh ya, that's much better ...

Here's a little glimpse into the future for those of you who where calling for TASERs to get banned after the Langan incident:

A 26-year-old man died in hospital this morning after being shot by police outside an inner-city home when he refused to drop a knife he was brandishing ... One officer tried to use a Taser to subdue him, but the effort was unsuccessful and officers were required to use lethal force to stop the threat he posed.

Police said it’s too early to tell if the Taser malfunctioned, or if the electronic probes it shot failed to attach to the suspect.

Do you still want to suspend their use, Dr. Jon Gerrard? Let's suspend keeping people alive in favour of killing them with bullets, until the government conducts a review and sets guidelines for not killing people with bullets. Brilliant. And like Frogger points out, the police set guidelines for TASER use, not the government.

Seriously though, what's with all these people pulling knifes on cops? What are they hoping to accomplish?

Warning labels are the answer

Fire the Good Doctor

There has been some talk in the press recently about the Liberal Party of Manitoba and their leadership situation. Apparently some people in the party are "beginning to quietly muse" about replacing Jon Gerrard as leader.(*) Excuse me while I give the Liberals a virtual slap upside the head ... Fire the Doctor already!!! It does not matter if he is a nice guy, or a smart cookie, or able to prescribe Cialis. I think he's a nice guy too, but he's not getting the job done. Period.

What some of these people don't realize is that smart doesn't win elections. Charisma does, and the good doctor has none of it. Stuart Murray (a.k.a. Mr. Invisible) also had a chronic charisma deficiency and was rightly booted from the helm of the PC party.

Now, I know that you're thinking. You're thinking "but how do you explain Stephen Harper's success? That man has the charisma of a frying pan, and not one of those nice Jamie Oliver ones either." Well, yes, but Harper had good timing -- he established himself and pulled his party together when the sponsorship scandal and general sickness of the Federal Liberals was ripe. However, his lack of charisma and the fact that women think he's creepy seriously limits his potential upside in an election.

Anyhow, as I was trying to say, unless Dr. Gerrard can prescribe himself a personality-enhancing steroid, I'm afraid the party is going nowhere under his leadership. That is the unfortunate reality. I believe that people will vote on the issues if they big are clearly defined, but Gerrard was unable to differentiate the Liberals from the NDP in this way. The most commonly heard phrase last election was "they're all the same", and when that happens, the guy with the perma-grin will win every time.

h/t PF