Ward 7 features a rematch between Sharron Bryce seeking a third term on council, and Danny Berehula taking a second shot at dislodging her from the seat. Bryce held the seat fairly handily three years ago - but a second-time challenger always figures to have a better chance based on the experience of the previous campaign. So let's take a look at what both candidates have on offer.
Danny Berehula - video profile
It's surprising that somebody with Berehula's resume (as the longtime executive director of the Better Business Bureau) would have had as much trouble winning votes as he did in 2006. But if the issue then was with his campaign, he looks to be doing everything possible to fix that, having been well in front of the pack in announcing and advertising his candidacy.
So what can we expect if Berehula's campaign works out better this time than last? Berehula's core message is based on twin concerns of safety and fair distribution of city services. And among the lengthy list of other issues raised in his video profile and candidate announcement, he notably ranks as one of the few candidates to point out condo conversions as an issue linked to the need for increased development of rental housing.
Sharron Bryce - video profile
On the bright side, Bryce's message as to the need for "orderly", well-planned growth reflects at least a bit more concern for issues other than development at all costs than one will find in some of Regina's incumbents. But otherwise, Bryce looks to be positioned purely as a small-c conservative, focusing on tax complaints and anti-crime pandering while utterly neglecting to mention social issues.
And if those policy concerns weren't enough, it's even less helpful to the hope for improved representation that Bryce is one of the many incumbents branding herself somewhat with the current set of councillors as a whole.
Endorsement
This looks to be another ward where neither of the candidates is without some drawbacks. But based on the prospect that his more progressive platform planks might receive the attention they deserve as well as the potential value of having a consumer advocate on council, the endorsement goes to Danny Berehula.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thanks, I think
I'd be tempted to think that this means I'm not doing my job. But how seriously can one take a set of awards which misses the slam-dunk choice for "Best Blogger Who Doesn't Blog Enough"?
The reviews are in
Ralph Surette on what Nova Scotia is now enjoying under Darrell Dexter's new NDP government:
This week's byelection results are another signal of how deeply things have changed in Nova Scotia. Not only is the NDP still gaining, but this run — totally opposite to our political customs — would have been nearly unthinkable a short while ago. Let’s repeat the election night question: What’s going on?So who's up for some change from the same old story on the federal level as well?
...
Simply, that very rare commodity in these parts — public confidence in government — has gone up. Higher, I’d guess, than at any time in the last 40 years. And this, remarkably, even as the government settles in during troubled economic times and passes a budget with a huge deficit — the very thing that has been political poison for 20 years.
It’s early, of course. In my long experience, it takes a year and a half to two years to make any firm judgments about how a new government is doing, and there are plenty of obstacles ahead that could unhorse this one. But the twist here is that this is not just a new government, but a presumed complete overhaul of political tradition. The political cobwebs have been cleaned out, the place has a new paint job and the public, by all appearances, likes it.
On rush jobs
Yessiree, this certainly inspires nothing but confidence as to how much thought has gone into the Wall government's efforts to slap together a research/isotope reactor in Saskatoon:
A recent access to information request from The StarPhoenix for the minutes of the meetings of the working group aiming to bring a research nuclear reactor to Saskatoon received this response: They don't exist.
"No minutes were recorded at the meetings of the Nuclear Centre Working Group, as a result of the significant time pressures to create and submit the proposal on medical isotope production," reads a letter sent from Crown Investments Corp.
On common interests
I've seen a few rhetorical questions asking where the Greens have been when it comes to the NDP's effort to get Bill C-311 and its real greenhouse gas emission targets passed in time for the Copenhagen summit. So let's leave no doubt about the matter: to their credit the Greens both called for the Libs to support the bill prior to this week's vote, and criticized them for failing to do so.
But it's worth taking a closer look at where the Greens figure to stand in relation to the other federal parties going into the next federal election campaign. And it looks to me like the vote on C-311 is just the beginning of a realignment of the Greens' messaging which may ultimately bear fruit for both them and the NDP.
In the last federal election campaign, the pact between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May had an obvious impact on the Greens' messaging. Rather than presenting the Libs as part of the problem in Canadian politics, May explicitly endorsed Dion for Prime Minister against the Cons, while echoing the Libs' criticisms of the NDP on climate change policy and other issues. And that made plenty of strategic sense for a leader trying to get elected in a riding where the Cons and NDP had previously ranked as the top two contenders (and where the Libs weren't bothering to oppose her).
But now, May's focus is a riding where the Cons and Libs ranked well ahead of the pack in 2008, and where a Lib opponent with fairly significant environmental credentials has been less than shy about attacking May personally. And that figures to make for radically different incentives.
Now, any hope of getting May elected depends on the Greens mustering an effective attack on both of the two largest national parties - presumably by linking the two together as holding up any action on climate change. Which means that the main message which May needs to convey - not just in her riding, but nationally to set out the foundation for her argument in Saanich-Gulf Islands - will be a familiar "same old story" theme which highlights how even Libs with some seeming personal interest in the environment vote against it for partisan purposes. (Needless to say, C-311 looks to serve as one of the main examples in favour of such an argument.)
And it won't just be the Greens with an obvious inclination to work with that line of messaging. After all, the Bloc has already put together an ad campaign painting the Cons and Libs as "two parties, one outlook". Which again makes perfect strategic sense, as each time Gilles Duceppe has taken aim at only one of the Cons or Libs as his main opponent during the course of an election campaign, the other has managed to increase its Quebec support by election day.
But while the Greens and the Bloc have obvious reasons to push a "same old story" message against the Cons and Libs out of self-interest, there can't be much doubt that it's the NDP that will benefit most to the extent that theme takes hold. In fact, a campaign where both the Greens and the Bloc reinforce the NDP's argument for change would provide absolutely ideal conditions for the NDP to raise its own share of popular support just in time for voters to head to the polls. And if the Greens and Bloc perceive that the NDP is in a position to make the jump ahead of one or both of its national rivals, that may provide all the more reason for them to keep working in tandem to deliver real change.
But it's worth taking a closer look at where the Greens figure to stand in relation to the other federal parties going into the next federal election campaign. And it looks to me like the vote on C-311 is just the beginning of a realignment of the Greens' messaging which may ultimately bear fruit for both them and the NDP.
In the last federal election campaign, the pact between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May had an obvious impact on the Greens' messaging. Rather than presenting the Libs as part of the problem in Canadian politics, May explicitly endorsed Dion for Prime Minister against the Cons, while echoing the Libs' criticisms of the NDP on climate change policy and other issues. And that made plenty of strategic sense for a leader trying to get elected in a riding where the Cons and NDP had previously ranked as the top two contenders (and where the Libs weren't bothering to oppose her).
But now, May's focus is a riding where the Cons and Libs ranked well ahead of the pack in 2008, and where a Lib opponent with fairly significant environmental credentials has been less than shy about attacking May personally. And that figures to make for radically different incentives.
Now, any hope of getting May elected depends on the Greens mustering an effective attack on both of the two largest national parties - presumably by linking the two together as holding up any action on climate change. Which means that the main message which May needs to convey - not just in her riding, but nationally to set out the foundation for her argument in Saanich-Gulf Islands - will be a familiar "same old story" theme which highlights how even Libs with some seeming personal interest in the environment vote against it for partisan purposes. (Needless to say, C-311 looks to serve as one of the main examples in favour of such an argument.)
And it won't just be the Greens with an obvious inclination to work with that line of messaging. After all, the Bloc has already put together an ad campaign painting the Cons and Libs as "two parties, one outlook". Which again makes perfect strategic sense, as each time Gilles Duceppe has taken aim at only one of the Cons or Libs as his main opponent during the course of an election campaign, the other has managed to increase its Quebec support by election day.
But while the Greens and the Bloc have obvious reasons to push a "same old story" message against the Cons and Libs out of self-interest, there can't be much doubt that it's the NDP that will benefit most to the extent that theme takes hold. In fact, a campaign where both the Greens and the Bloc reinforce the NDP's argument for change would provide absolutely ideal conditions for the NDP to raise its own share of popular support just in time for voters to head to the polls. And if the Greens and Bloc perceive that the NDP is in a position to make the jump ahead of one or both of its national rivals, that may provide all the more reason for them to keep working in tandem to deliver real change.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Sounds about right
Brian Topp:
Mr. Ignatieff has no particular issues or priorities he wants to address in this Parliament or, so it would seem, in politics. The idea therefore seems to be to flail away in all directions until Christmas, and to hope that time heals the red team base of support at some point in the new year. Perhaps assisted by a magic policy conference in January.But the good news is that at least that fact is receiving due attention - even if the Libs are determined to stand in the way of actually getting anything accomplished.
That makes two national parties dedicated to not toucheing the patente. They might as well be asleep. Another good reason to make Jack Layton prime minister -- at least he wants to get something done.
On brownfields
It took a few days after the story first emerged, but a couple of Libs have finally noticed that their party voted with the Harper Cons against greenhouse gas emission targets. And particular credit goes to Eugene Forsey Liberal for actually questioning why the Libs voted down a bill which they'd passed in a previous incarnation and approved of when it was actually debated in Parliament.
Meanwhile, Jeff Jedras looks to be the first to actually try to defend the Libs' move. Except that he overlooks a glaringly obvious point in doing so.
After all, it's utterly nonsensical to start bringing up points about "due consideration" of a bill which has already been debated and passed with the support of the Libs. Which means that the calculation made by the Libs does appear to have been exactly what Janyce McGregor reported:
As for the blog response (or lack thereof): just so there's no doubt, I don't think for a second that there's any "conspiracy" afoot. While the Libs' silence would in fact make far more sense if it could be traced to some Harper-style diktat decreeing that any Lib discussing the issue would be placed just behind Denis Coderre on the party's list of untouchables, I don't think anybody would pretend that's how the blogosphere works. And indeed, if there had been some order that the topic be left alone issued to the range of bloggers on two aggregators reflecting a broad spectrum of party loyalty and independence, that itself would figure to have been made public in a hurry (and spurred more discussion of the topic).
But it looks to me even more damning that the same attitude which caused three-quarters of the Libs' MPs who showed up for the vote to take a stand against the environment just to spite the NDP also seems to be prevalent among the Libs' online supporters. In effect, that would suggest to me that the grassroots are actually even more jaded and withered when it comes to interest in the environment than the Libs' caucus. And if that's the case, then the Libs presumably won't see any reason to do anything more than pay lip service to the environment as Lib and Con governments alike have done for the last 16 years.
(Edits: fixed wording, corrected EFL's name.)
Meanwhile, Jeff Jedras looks to be the first to actually try to defend the Libs' move. Except that he overlooks a glaringly obvious point in doing so.
After all, it's utterly nonsensical to start bringing up points about "due consideration" of a bill which has already been debated and passed with the support of the Libs. Which means that the calculation made by the Libs does appear to have been exactly what Janyce McGregor reported:
(A) minority of Liberals evidently wanted to look like they supported action on climate change, and voted against a further delay. But on the other hand, more of them were said to be reluctant to support a bill that would allow the NDP to claim any edge or victory as far as championing environmental causes in Parliament. The fact that enough of them voted in favour (so the extension would pass) ironically made it easier for a few of them to take their policy stand and vote against, without any serious consequences. Get it?Now, it may well be that the fourteen MPs lionized by Eugene Forsey Liberal were in fact more concerned with whether they'd "look like they supported action" than with whether or not any actually got taken. But the fact that the vast majority of the Libs' MPs in attendance preferred to get nothing done for the sole purpose of avoiding some credit going to the NDP speaks volumes about where the Libs' priorities lie.
As for the blog response (or lack thereof): just so there's no doubt, I don't think for a second that there's any "conspiracy" afoot. While the Libs' silence would in fact make far more sense if it could be traced to some Harper-style diktat decreeing that any Lib discussing the issue would be placed just behind Denis Coderre on the party's list of untouchables, I don't think anybody would pretend that's how the blogosphere works. And indeed, if there had been some order that the topic be left alone issued to the range of bloggers on two aggregators reflecting a broad spectrum of party loyalty and independence, that itself would figure to have been made public in a hurry (and spurred more discussion of the topic).
But it looks to me even more damning that the same attitude which caused three-quarters of the Libs' MPs who showed up for the vote to take a stand against the environment just to spite the NDP also seems to be prevalent among the Libs' online supporters. In effect, that would suggest to me that the grassroots are actually even more jaded and withered when it comes to interest in the environment than the Libs' caucus. And if that's the case, then the Libs presumably won't see any reason to do anything more than pay lip service to the environment as Lib and Con governments alike have done for the last 16 years.
(Edits: fixed wording, corrected EFL's name.)
The reviews are in
Murray Mandryk:
But what perhaps was most revealing in Wednesday's throne speech was the nine paragraphs (compared to six paragraphs on agriculture) dedicated to limiting the amount of needles being handed out to intravenous drug-users to stop the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C -- and Wall's personal commitment to this issue.
Saskatchewan Health already accepted a report this spring saying the needle exchange program, though publicly unpopular, is preventing the spread of these deadly diseases. Those now working in the field call the new policy a pending disaster.
Yet Wall, certainly a social conservative himself, seems eager to dispense with expert assessment in favour of pandering to those social conservatives and others who, for whatever reason, seem intent on stirring the admittedly legitimate concern of needles discarded in public places into near hysteria.
For good or bad, this is how the Saskatchewan government is working.
On reruns
June 6, 2008:
Speaking as the last developed-world holdout against any emission reduction targets with no intention of budging an inch, I would suggest that any agreement at Copenhagen is unlikely.
Shorter Bush/Baird tag team on the prospects for a common front on greenhouse gas emission cuts at next week's G8 summit:Which of course brings us to a shorter Jim Prentice today:
Speaking as the parties who refuse to even consider any emission reduction targets, we have a crazy hunch that no unanimous agreement will be reached.
Speaking as the last developed-world holdout against any emission reduction targets with no intention of budging an inch, I would suggest that any agreement at Copenhagen is unlikely.
Worth a visit
If you're looking for more information about next week's Saskatchewan municipal elections, a couple of mainstream media sites which you may not have seen may be worth a look.
First, the CBC has introduced a interactive map featuring notes from dozens of municipalities. The content isn't as detailed as would be ideal, but the site nonetheless looks to be easily the best single source for at least an overview of news from across the province.
Meanwhile, Dave Hutton's City Hall Notebook is providing regular and in-depth coverage of developments in Saskatoon's races. Consider this one time where it would be a plus if CanWest papers actually were a bit more uniform in their priorities, as the Leader-Post is sorely lacking for anything of the sort (in fact you'll find more about Regina's races in Hutton's recent archives than on the Leader-Post's newsblog).
First, the CBC has introduced a interactive map featuring notes from dozens of municipalities. The content isn't as detailed as would be ideal, but the site nonetheless looks to be easily the best single source for at least an overview of news from across the province.
Meanwhile, Dave Hutton's City Hall Notebook is providing regular and in-depth coverage of developments in Saskatoon's races. Consider this one time where it would be a plus if CanWest papers actually were a bit more uniform in their priorities, as the Leader-Post is sorely lacking for anything of the sort (in fact you'll find more about Regina's races in Hutton's recent archives than on the Leader-Post's newsblog).
Thursday, October 22, 2009
On self-promotion
Number of Canadian cities on Bon Jovi's "The Circle" tour: 5
Number of Canadian cities whose mayor launched himself in front of every available camera to claim full credit for Bon Jovi's "The Circle" tour: 1
Just a thought, but maybe Pat Fiacco might have time to participate in the occasional open public debate if he wasn't confusing the mayor's position with that of a concert promoter.
Number of Canadian cities whose mayor launched himself in front of every available camera to claim full credit for Bon Jovi's "The Circle" tour: 1
Just a thought, but maybe Pat Fiacco might have time to participate in the occasional open public debate if he wasn't confusing the mayor's position with that of a concert promoter.
On toxic assessments
The blackout among partisan Libs on their party's choice to delay a climate-change bill continues unabated. But fortunately, others aren't being quite so shy about speaking out. Here's Stephen Hazell from Sierra Club Canada:
(Edit: fixed formatting.)
Ignatieff tossed the Green Shift aside when he became Liberal leader. This was perhaps politically necessary given the Liberals’ defeat in the October 2008 election. More baffling is that the Ignatieff Liberals appear to be treating environmental issues and climate especially, like toxic waste running away as fast as they can.h/t to JimmyRiddle @ Babble.
On numerous occasions, Ignatieff has voiced his strong support for further development of the tar sands, even though he says he wants Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and he knows that and that he knows that tar sands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Increasing tar sands development means that Canada will be unable to begin to reduce our overall emissions for many years—even in the unlikely event that carbon capture and storage technology proves to be feasible and effective.
Just as baffling is Ignatieff’s failure to support Bill C-311, the proposed Climate Change Accountability Act. This NDP private member’s bill is identical to a bill passed by the House of Commons in June 2008 with Liberal support that died on the Senate order paper when the autumn 2008 election was called. Bill C-311 is important because it will establish in law Canada’s deep obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions (25% below 1990 levels by 2020, 80% by 2050) that scientists say are needed to avoid disastrous climate change. Neither Ignatieff nor his environment critic David McGuinty have indicated what amendments the Liberals require in order to support Bill C-311.
Failure by Parliament to pass Bill C-311 will mean that Canada will go to the crucial Copenhagen climate treaty negotiations in December without a climate plan that other nations can take seriously.
(Edit: fixed formatting.)
Pod People II: Now In Disguise
To my knowledge, the Cons gave up on their plans to formally appoint shadow MPs after their last scheme was made public. But that doesn't mean they're otherwise being anything but shameless about trying to pretend their candidates are government decision-makers.
Take for example Edmonton-Strathcona candidate Ryan Hastman, whose apparent first-ever appearance at a "business round table" just happened to coincide with a photo op with Stephen Harper.
So let's ask a few questions which I'm sure the Cons would like to avoid. What exactly was the "business round table" meeting where Hastman appeared? Did he ever have any affiliation with the group prior to his appearance with Harper? Who asked him to appear and for what purpose? And how if at all did the Cons draw any distinction between Harper's meeting with the group in what we can only presume was a government role, and the partisan strategy of having a candidate show up for publicity with the PM?
Take for example Edmonton-Strathcona candidate Ryan Hastman, whose apparent first-ever appearance at a "business round table" just happened to coincide with a photo op with Stephen Harper.
So let's ask a few questions which I'm sure the Cons would like to avoid. What exactly was the "business round table" meeting where Hastman appeared? Did he ever have any affiliation with the group prior to his appearance with Harper? Who asked him to appear and for what purpose? And how if at all did the Cons draw any distinction between Harper's meeting with the group in what we can only presume was a government role, and the partisan strategy of having a candidate show up for publicity with the PM?
Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 8
The site of probably the biggest upset of the 2006 Regina elections, Ward 8 presents substantially the opposite problem from Ward 10. After narrowly defeating Vic McDougall last time out, incumbent Mike O'Donnell easily ranks at the top of the list of current councillors who could make valuable contributions to a more progressive council in the future - but he faces an extremely strong challenger in Donna Standingready. So how to decide between two candidates who can each make a worthy claim to an endorsement?
Mike O'Donnell - video profile
O'Donnell's policy platform is about as strong as anybody's this year, featuring a laundry list of curbside recycling, improved transit, sports and culture, and small business development (particularly among First Nations). And O'Donnell can point to at least some efforts to examine those issues within today's council.
Unfortunately, though, the composition of the current group makes it difficult to turn any studies into action. And while it's natural for an incumbent to present a "stay the course" message, it's difficult to reconcile that with any serious effort to address the issues that have been neglected by the rest of the current council.
Donna Standingready - video profile
Perhaps recognizing the perception that the current council will require some significant changes to allow the city to move in any different direction, Standingready's campaign is focusing largely not just on her resume generally, but on her experience navigating through government bodies in particular. And there's plenty of appeal to the prospect of a councillor who can combine good ideas with enough public policy experience to get them implemented.
And Standingready looks to be at least on par with O'Donnell in her policy focus, covering most of the same ground as O'Donnell while promising to lead the charge against flat taxes or other measures which would impose a greater burden on citizens as compared to businesses.
Endorsement
With both candidates presenting a policy slate that would make a positive contribution to Council, my endorsement is ultimately based on two factors: the need for a "change" message rather than satisfaction with the status quo, and Standingready's history of work experience with the First Nations Family Support Centre in a ward where both candidates acknowledge that First Nations issues need to be heard. So with that in mind, my endorsement for ward 8 goes to Donna Standingready.
Mike O'Donnell - video profile
O'Donnell's policy platform is about as strong as anybody's this year, featuring a laundry list of curbside recycling, improved transit, sports and culture, and small business development (particularly among First Nations). And O'Donnell can point to at least some efforts to examine those issues within today's council.
Unfortunately, though, the composition of the current group makes it difficult to turn any studies into action. And while it's natural for an incumbent to present a "stay the course" message, it's difficult to reconcile that with any serious effort to address the issues that have been neglected by the rest of the current council.
Donna Standingready - video profile
Perhaps recognizing the perception that the current council will require some significant changes to allow the city to move in any different direction, Standingready's campaign is focusing largely not just on her resume generally, but on her experience navigating through government bodies in particular. And there's plenty of appeal to the prospect of a councillor who can combine good ideas with enough public policy experience to get them implemented.
And Standingready looks to be at least on par with O'Donnell in her policy focus, covering most of the same ground as O'Donnell while promising to lead the charge against flat taxes or other measures which would impose a greater burden on citizens as compared to businesses.
Endorsement
With both candidates presenting a policy slate that would make a positive contribution to Council, my endorsement is ultimately based on two factors: the need for a "change" message rather than satisfaction with the status quo, and Standingready's history of work experience with the First Nations Family Support Centre in a ward where both candidates acknowledge that First Nations issues need to be heard. So with that in mind, my endorsement for ward 8 goes to Donna Standingready.
On denial
For those interested, here's a comprehensive list of blog posts on Liblogs and Liberals Online about their party's choice to vote with the Harper Cons against any binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in advance of the Copenhagen climate summit:
(crickets chirping)
Update: It's worth going into a bit more detail as to what the Lib supporters' non-response to their party's actions means. On the one hand, it's obvious that there's nobody among the Libs' grassroots supporters willing to speak up for the environment against the party's political calculations - signalling that the party's previous attempt at greenwashing has been thoroughly rejected in favour of Michael Ignatieff's cheerleading for the tar sands.
But even more significant is the lack of anybody willing to come to the Libs' defence on an issue where the party was in the headlines. I'm sure in some cases that's a matter of supporters concluding they'd simply rather ignore the issue - but among the more rabid partisans it figures to reflect a calculation that climate change not only isn't enough of a priority for the Libs to try to anything done, but isn't even important enough for the Libs to pretend to care by trying to justify their actions.
(crickets chirping)
Update: It's worth going into a bit more detail as to what the Lib supporters' non-response to their party's actions means. On the one hand, it's obvious that there's nobody among the Libs' grassroots supporters willing to speak up for the environment against the party's political calculations - signalling that the party's previous attempt at greenwashing has been thoroughly rejected in favour of Michael Ignatieff's cheerleading for the tar sands.
But even more significant is the lack of anybody willing to come to the Libs' defence on an issue where the party was in the headlines. I'm sure in some cases that's a matter of supporters concluding they'd simply rather ignore the issue - but among the more rabid partisans it figures to reflect a calculation that climate change not only isn't enough of a priority for the Libs to try to anything done, but isn't even important enough for the Libs to pretend to care by trying to justify their actions.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
In re: glass houses
Con MP Greg Rickford serves up a distraction tactic:
A Conservative MP has filed a complaint with the House of Commons ethics commissioner against 18 Liberal MPs for fundraising through their websites.So MP websites shouldn't be used to direct traffic toward party activities? Rickford may want to have a word with some of his Con colleagues who "further their...partisan interests" by driving traffic to the Cons' website before making such a declaration.
In a statement, Conservative MP Greg Rickford accused the 18 MPs of "attempting to raise money using their online parliamentary offices."
"The Liberal party should not be using their online offices offering constituent services to further their private or partisan interests, or the interests of their party or riding association," he said.
En famille
Shorter Liberal Party of Canada:
Liberal Women's Caucus: I told you when our event was planned for this morning! Is it really that hard to listen?
Old Boys' Network: No, I'm pretty sure I'd remember if you'd said anything.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Liberal Women's Caucus: I told you when our event was planned for this morning! Is it really that hard to listen?
Old Boys' Network: No, I'm pretty sure I'd remember if you'd said anything.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
A culture of entitlement
The examples of insularity and patronization at City Hall seem to be piling up just in time for Regina's voters to decide as to who they want representing them on Council. Following up on the examples of Wade Murray and Jerry Flegel, we now have Pat Fiacco refusing to participate in any debate other than the $45 breakfast sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce - arguing in the process that he's too busy occupying the mayor's office to justify why he thinks he should be re-elected to the position.
And for an added bonus, Paul Dechene points out an anonymous councillor's suggestion that challengers should be glad to avoid public debates on the premise that they might not know "the details of how municipal government works or even the minutiae of what council's been up to lately". That claim of course runs counter to the reality that it's normally frontrunners with plenty of name recognition who seek to avoid debates so as to prevent anybody else from building a message about them (see Fiacco, Pat above). But more importantly, it also looks to reflect a stunning degree of arrogance and ignorance in the assumption that challengers won't have done their homework as to what's happening in the city before putting their names forward.
So multiple members of the current Council have now effectively suggested that Regina should simply assume they know best, rather than defending any of their actions on the merits. And that should only provide reason to worry that the same attitude of infallibility might be pushing those same councillors to be equally dismissive of the concerns of citizens in general.
And for an added bonus, Paul Dechene points out an anonymous councillor's suggestion that challengers should be glad to avoid public debates on the premise that they might not know "the details of how municipal government works or even the minutiae of what council's been up to lately". That claim of course runs counter to the reality that it's normally frontrunners with plenty of name recognition who seek to avoid debates so as to prevent anybody else from building a message about them (see Fiacco, Pat above). But more importantly, it also looks to reflect a stunning degree of arrogance and ignorance in the assumption that challengers won't have done their homework as to what's happening in the city before putting their names forward.
So multiple members of the current Council have now effectively suggested that Regina should simply assume they know best, rather than defending any of their actions on the merits. And that should only provide reason to worry that the same attitude of infallibility might be pushing those same councillors to be equally dismissive of the concerns of citizens in general.
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGE!!!!
Make no mistake, the Wall government is planning a "Mission Accomplished" banner as we speak (whose unveiling will of course bear no relation to any actual progress). But can even the Sask Party find an excuse to put its leader in a flightsuit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)