Hacks & Wonks

The Silver/Powers Blog on the Globe & Mail politics website is usually pretty entertaining with Silver representing the earnest opposition and Powers the wise-ass government spinner.

 

(As an aside, the Globe & Mail website group have overtaken Macleans.ca as the best all-around politics/news/business website in Canada.  Toss in the GlobeSports.com site as well, and I can spend hours trolling it every night.)

 

This week, Robert Silver smacks Tim Powers around over the notion of "abandoning conservative positions" with this budget.  Powers laid out a defence that boiled down to the already-tired and cliched "extraordinary times" argument.

Silver, meanwhile, went in for the kill:

 

Yup.  It does.

 

Which is why you'll notice all the conservatives like me complaining about the "solution".

It's not going to work.  It's only going to create a bigger mess.

 

* * * * * * * * * * *
 
Rebuttal: Colby Cosh for the defence.

Facebook tells me that CBC-TV tonight will have a hard hitting exposé on the question:

Does pole dancing deserve to be added an Olympic sport?

 

And look at it this way, the athletes would likely wear more in this event than beach volleyball.

1. Who does Dan Vandal think he is impressing and winning on as a supporter by sounding petty and small in his comments about the Mayor and River Heights?

 

2. City Hall is full of smart people.  I was a roommate of one for a weekend, a roommate of another for a year and know a number of others from social engagements and one particularly fun night of Monopoly this past fall.  Can one of you please explain to the Mayor that the word "disgusting" does not mean what he thinks it means?   (Or rather, if it does, that he is probably using it incorrectly in this context?)
 

3. A buddy of mine is thinking about running for school board.  If you live in the Winnipeg One ward - Kenaston to the Red, Assiniboine to Taylor - and would like to learn a little about him, let me know.  The official announcement won't likely emerge until next week, but he's a guy who I think would do a great job and bring a critical voice against the status quo at the division level.  Winnipeg One has a budget in the hundreds of millions and yet, most people couldn't name one or two of the trustees if you held a gun to their head.   Needs some new blood and someone with ideas about where the school division should head.  I think he's one of those guys.

 

4. Attended the Route 90 open house last night and was shouted at by one resident who felt I had an ulterior motive for supporting the expansion since I work in the import business.  (And despite the fact that in reality, the vast majority of my business doesn't enter Winnipeg city limits, least of all sending trucks up and down Kenaston.)   He was upset that I had an opinion about "ruining his neighbourhood" because I travel south from Taylor every day and not northbound.  "Why don't you live closer to work?  I ride my bike everyday!"   Look folks, I appreciate you don't want to see changes that result in property being expropriated and a noisier area doesn't help your standard of living, however shouting down someone who is tentatively in favour of the expansion is not likely to win him over to the cause. 

 

5. Nothing really new presented by the open house, but I did have an interesting conversation with a critical resident who I discover this morning was Ken Klassen (quoted in the Free Press and on CBC Radio).  I thought he made some valid points about measures that would go a long way towards removing more cars from the stretch, however like many "sustainability advocates", I think he greatly underestimates the continued growth of the city and the use of the automobile thirty, forty years out.  Still, coming on the heels of the shouting mustache man, Ken and I had a good discussion.  

6. Orlikow and Currier need to figure out FAST which side of the fence they are on this one.  Ditto the rest of council as the final decision timeline is spring/summer 2010 and you just know the Winnipeg Citizens Coalition will use this as a litmus test of the "sustainability" candidates.

 

From a Jane Taber piece about Liberals stopping caucus leaks:
 

[One Liberal MP said] "You could hold me down and tickle me. I'm totally mum on this one."

Short Story: I hate it.  The spending is completely unsustainable and most of it is unnecessary as well.   The deficits being run wipe out any headway made towards the debt since the mid-90's and since they are being run until 2013, that will mean that over a two decade period (1995-2013), Canada will have paid exactly $20 billion or so towards the approximate $560 billion debt that we carried going into fiscal '96. 

At our pace, Canada will be paid off in 56 decades.

That's right.  Decades.

Five-hundred and sixty years.

The year 2573 will be a historic one in Canada, that's for sure.

Doesn't anyone cheerleading the spending spree realize how short-sighted they are being?  And for what?  Two years of "symbolism" as the economy basically does exactly what the economy was going to do anyways.  Does anyone really believe that yesterday's package is going to save Canada from recessionary forces?

Anytime the words "something for everybody" are used to describe a budget, watch out.  It means that political considerations trumped economic ones and that's never a good thing when we're talking about wiping out over a decade of fiscal prudence in one fell swoop.

I'm going to get into the guts of the budget tonight and maybe have some stuff for tomorrow, however know that I'm fairly choked at the party and the Prime Minister and have made a few decisions.

The results are that I will not be donating a single nickle to the Tories and there is a very good chance I won't even even for them so long as Stephen Harper remains the Prime Minister.

A few readers know that late last year, I began seriously looking at the 2011 provincial election and I know that my decision to sit out federal politics for the next cycle will have ramifications on the support I might receive from a few federal die hard Tories. 

 

However I just cannot go on supporting the party when I no longer trust them to be guardians of Canada's success.  My political philosophy comes down to a very core phrase: 

"Once a country is able to protect its citizens from physical attack, its primary focus must be on managing and stimulating a strong economic environment, because without that, nothing greater is possible from its government or its people."

This is why I have been a Tory for my entire political life and why I believe I cannot stand behind this version of the party any longer and tacitly support such foolish policy.

It really is too bad.  I would still love to know what Prime Minister Harper would have accomplished with the stability of a majority.  He's the type of thinker who would have likely thrived with a four-year comfort zone rather than the constant campaign that is minority government.

 

The Prime Minister may still receive his majority.  I'm not sold on Ignatieff and I don't believe the Liberals are poised for any type of spectacular comeback.  If an election is triggered before the end of 2010, I could see the public giving the Tories the rudder if only to take a break from elections.

But I won't be helping in that campaign.  I don't like the hypocrisy of the government.  It's reach the point where the bad is no longer outweighed by the good.

The Sarah 2012 run has begun.

 

The Governor is the chair of the committee, so there is no doubt she is behind this.

Never would have put this together myself, but doesn't it make an immense amount of sense for Manitoba to suddenly make it very easy for Icelanders to come to Manitoba, where they would have at least a little sense of home (the Interlake being home to the largest population of Icelandic descent outside of the actual country itself?)

If I was Premier, I would be quickly assembling a team to pursue this agenda and see if we could get something together.  As their country struggles the next while, people will be considering their options, as the folks above who have emailed Mayor Axelsson of Gimli.  But that's a half-dozen people only.

I'm thinking a little...more. 

The latest population figure I have seen for the country is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 320,000 people.  As occurs regularly during economic hardships and national unrest, it is safe to assume that up to 10% of the citizens will be considering their options elsewhere.

That is a potential 32,000 people who may or may not make their lives elsewhere in a year or two.

Should we try to entice at least a couple thousand to come here?  Especially those trained with desired skills or those bringing capital with them?

In fact, if Manitoba is going to weather the economic storms - and I believe we will - and if Canada is going to emerge out of the morass sooner than many other western economies - and I believe we will - then shouldn't we be out there making this know to the populations of the world?  Especially the countries facing greater and greater uncertainty?

Shouldn't we be making ourselves a safe haven for people wanting an opportunity to take part in that strength?

I say yes.  I wonder if anyone in the Manitoba government would agree.

Scratch that.  I know they would agree.

But would they actually do something about it?  That's the better question.

I don't know the answer to that one, but I have my hunch.

I'm met Hesse before at a JCI event and he seems like a serious, thoughtful guy.  Now I have no doubt that staying out of the River Heights/Fort Garry by-election is actually the right move for the guy, but the best move would have been to never played footsie with it in the first place. 

 

Hesse needs to decide what he really wants in his future - provincial or civic politics - and begin laying that groundwork towards that.  He continually states that he doesn't want the provincial Liberal leadership.  Many people - including Liberals - say that they know definitively otherwise.  I cannot say for sure, but there appears to be an eagerness to become "a big player" skipping the steps of "guy on ballot" and "minor operator" first.  [link]

The battle for the only vacant city council seat is shaping up to be a two-horse race, as lawyer and rapid-transit activist Paul Hesse has decided not to run in the River Heights-Fort Garry byelection.

The self-described progressive politician, who ran as a Liberal in the 2007 provincial election, decided to bow out to improve prospective centre-left candidate John Orlikow's chances against declared candidate Geoff Currier, a CJOB broadcaster who will likely attract conservative support in the politically diverse ward.

"You have to be realistic," Hesse said on Sunday as he took a break from placing calls to dozens of people who had pledged to work on his behalf in the byelection called by the city following the death of Brenda Leipsic.

"John Orlikow and I believe in many similar things and we might draw from many similar supporters. I'm pleased to hear some of things he's said about the things he finds important, such as smart planning and rapid transit."

Question: What are the three things conspiring to keep my holidays from blogging extended?

That said, those of you grousing that I haven't been updating, know that both the g/f and my mother have joined your chorus.  Well, I'm hopeful to get back on the wagon this week.