Hacks & Wonks

Andrew Steele gives six reasons why Liz May would be foolish not to run in the by-election for Bill Casey's Nova Scotia seat:

1. Bill Casey's 60% of support running as an independent means there's a large chunk of voters open to attract;

 

2. Casey might even campaign for May as the Greens didn't run a candidate against him in 2008 and he might like the idea of putting the antagonistic May directly in the path of Prime Minister Harper;

 

3. The riding of Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley - try saying that five times fast - is exactly the type of riding that the Greens should be targeting in their quest to elect someone (rural, close knit, open to non-traditional political choices);

 

4. May's shown commitment to running in Nova Scotia with her foolish decision to run against Peter Mackay in Central Nova, so running in the neighbouring riding shouldn't be seen as carpet bagging;

 

5. A by-election is probably the best chance for a new party to win a seat (see: Reform, Deb Gray/Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe) as the government isn't being decided and "goofy" results are more likely to occur; and finally,

 

6. The Greens consistent polling (even the low end of 3-4%) shows that the country is likely ready to elect a Green MP.  It is just that there hasn't been the right convergence of events/situations to do so.  Some people in the riding will see electing "The First Green" as a noble action.

 

I agree on most points strongly and the others at least tentatively (Bill Casey's motivations notwithstanding), and say this: Elizabeth May must run in this riding if she wants to show herself serious about the 2010 election.  Running - and winning - the race should be a referendum on her leadership in the party.  The Greens do not often get opportunities this positive for their fortunes and if they wish to because a permanent player in the Canadian political debate, they have got to show themselves capable of significant gain from time to time.

Getting into the debate was nothing compared to getting into the House.  If May fails to see that (or shows herself unable to translate profile and personality into victory), then it will be time for the Greens to recognize her limitations as leader and move on.  

Brief hit on the Winnipeg Convention Centre expansion in today's Freep:

Manitoba's hotel operators want the province to kick in some money for a proposed $200-million expansion of the Winnipeg Convention Centre.

Manitoba Hotel Association president and CEO Jim Baker said a host of other Canadian cities are expanding their convention centres in a bid to snag a bigger share of the lucrative meetings-and-conventions business.

He said Vancouver recently opened a big new convention centre, Ottawa and Fredericton are also getting one, and Calgary said it wants one, too.

Even a second-tier city like Halifax said Monday it hopes to build a new $300-million convention centre.

"So we're very much in favour of getting on with this (expansion in Winnipeg)," Baker said. "Otherwise, we're going to lose ground in terms of our competitiveness with these other cities."

He said the city and the federal government have already indicated they're willing to kick in some money for the WCC's expansion effort, which was announced late last year.

"So we, as an association, want to know what the province's position is on this," he added.

A provincial government spokesman could not be reached Monday for comment.

Place me firmly into the skeptical camp on this project.  I've defended the Bomber Stadium. I've tentatively defended the Human Rights Museum.  As you know, I'm on board with the port initiative.

But I just can't get behind the Convention Centre expansion.  Chalk it up to hating the idea of a hotel being run by the WCC.  Chalk it up to spending huge money to chase a handful of big big conventions that are rarely going to come to town anyhow.  Chalk it up to Winnipeg just not being one of those convention cities that makes people say, "The annual get together is in Winnipeg?  Rock!"

I just don't believe there is that much convention business out there that we are missing to justify the expansion (not the least to mention, the expansion in ongoing operating costs associated with such an aggressive grow).  I've got a few friends that have sat on the WCC board and one or two that are still there.  If anyone wants to drop me a line with a quick pitch, I'm all ears.  But you have to win me over.

Might be smart to follow this Twitter: http://twitter.com/motherabigail

 

Unless you are more inclined this way: http://twitter.com/VegasWalkinDude 

I missed this myself last week, but Dan Lett writes that McPhillips Street Station is finally getting an ATM.

Good. 'Bout time.

Dan (and Tory leader Hugh McFadyen) suggests that it's another step towards taking advantage of problem gamblers, but honestly, this is more about convenience for the majority of patrons. Dan points out that every other casino in Canada has ATMs (hell, I remember sitting at a blackjack table in Halifax no more than fifteen feet from the nearest one there) and people who visit from outside of the province are often aghast at the notion that they have to cross to a beer vendor outside in January in order to access their money.

People don't carry cash like they used to and often people won't even have $40 in their pocket. They walk in, hand over their coats to the check staff, then ask where the ATM is so that they can reload.

Only to then ask for their coats back.

It's ridiculous. The point of a regulation like this is to achieve some purpose. After all, when it comes to the ATM ban, there is a price being paid by all to help some. So the question is, does it help anyone? Does the problem gambler who uses stepping outside as an excuse to leave really exist?

I would wager they must likely don't. Certainly not in sufficient numbers to justify the ban.

The prohibition on ATMs was as ridiculous as the one placed on serving and imbibing alcohol at the gaming tables. A casino is supposed to be about fun and gaming, but preventing people from having a beer while they play takes a lot of the fun out of an evening at the casino and basically guarantees that the only people spending any real time there are those that are serious gamblers only.

One Friday night a few summers ago, I was sitting at Club Regent playing blackjack and these four guys from South Africa joined me at the table. It was the night before their Winnipeg buddy's wedding and while the groom shut down around midnight, they still wanted to go out and have some fun.

They were shocked - literally shocked - when told by the waitress that they couldn't even bring their drinks over from the bar, least of all order one or worst of all, get comped a drink despite the pile of black chips in front of them.

"Well, that's a first in two dozen countries," noted one to the group shortly before they got up and left for someplace else where they could celebrate.

Doesn't that just sum it up best? When you put restrictions on casinos that take away from their ability to actually act like a casino, you pretty much ensure that the only people who regularly use the casino are the most hard core of gamblers who don't care about the social aspect of gaming. Isn't that kind of opposite of what we're going for with the regulations in the first place?

Look, I understand the desire to weed out problem gamblers and get them help if at all possible. I've known a couple of addicts myself. People who came thisclose to losing family and their homes. If I could figure out a way to deal with the inevitable closure of the small beverage rooms & bars that would result, I would be firmly in the camp to ban VLTs outside the casinos as their effect on people really scares me at times.

And if we want to have a debate about whether we should even have casinos, that's fine too. I'd be in the pro-casino camp, but at least we'd have the discussion.

But this half-assed approach to casino management is exactly why government shouldn't always be in control of operations. If you are going to run a casino, run it how a casino should be run. Make it an enjoyable place to be for those that enjoy casinos elsewhere. Both governments (Filmon PC/Doer NDP) have bungled their way along on the file. From the whole ATM & booze issue all to way back to the very beginning, when the locations picked for them were completely wrong in the first place. (How they both didn't end up downtown, close by to each other to create a "district", I'll never know.)

But lest you think I'm completely, "Get out of their way and damn the folks who can't help themselves," one aspect of Dan's story does register with me:

That's one area I would certainly support the government getting involved in. There should be no reason that staff cannot step in from time to time if they suspect a problem gamer and ask them to have a quick discussion. I'm sure there's a checklist of signs that would suggest trouble and asking the gamer to leave or to go speak with a councillor on-site wouldn't be too restrictive. Of course it would lead to the occasional confrontation and "How dare they!" accusations, but if I was the Minister in charge, I would back my staff in that situation.

Such an intervention wouldn't eliminate Manitoba's gaming problem, but it would certainly help far more people than banning alcohol and ATMs ever did.