2010 civic election wpg

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by nordique

term limits. now.
how can i vote for term limits, and not these boring lifers?

I comepletely agree ... there are far too many who just vote for the same. It is just a lazy way of voting, especially if they haven't even looked at the alternatives.

Winnipeg has long been damaged by old blood at city hall. No new ideas means no improvements. Honestly they could replace Gerbassi with a monkey wearing a hat that says "NO WAY" and it would make zero difference.

I would vote for a 3 term limit in a second .. but then winners like Harvey, Gerbassi and Vandal would have to take up jobs as WalMart greeters.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Anyway, I'm guessing that many here would agree that it was good for Winnipeg that Juba was Mayor for 20 years; rather than having to leave office after, say, eight years.

Yeah driving the city deep into debt, which we are still working at paying off, was a spectacular benefit to the city. He cost the city 20 years of opportunity. Great mayor.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Yeah driving the city deep into debt, which we are still working at paying off, was a spectacular benefit to the city. He cost the city 20 years of opportunity. Great mayor.

I believe that there were three recessions between '57 - '77. Aren't you conservatives supposed to justify public construction spending in such times as necessary economic 'stimulus'? Who cares if it adds to the debt!

I assume you must be just livid that the feds are putting big $$$ into the CMHR, as Canada is in a deficit situation and will be for at least the next five years!

[1ajs]

the money from the feds for cmhr was anounced befor the economic mess

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

the money from the feds for cmhr was anounced befor the economic mess

Announced, but what budget periods is it coming out of? Budgets where Canada is in the red, that's where.

Really though, I was being trying to be tongue-in-cheek there in responding to Newflyer about how the CMHR $$$ from the feds is only going to add to our debt. I should probably say that I've no interest in opening the old can of worms (at this time)!

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

the money from the feds for cmhr was anounced befor the economic mess

Yupp... its just Winnipeg getting its piece of the pie... that has been enjoyed out east for decades.

[newflyer]

Kaynes theory does not do much to stimulate local economies in the long run.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Announced, but what budget periods is it coming out of? Budgets where Canada is in the red.

Really though, I was being trying to be tongue-in-cheek there in responding to Newflyer about how the CMHR $$$ from the feds is only going to add to our debt. Have no interest in opening the old can of worms (at this time)!

Obviously the Feds are able to handle debt much easier than a city in Canada. Canadian cities aren't in position to attempt flawed Kaynes theory. The fact is the level of debt absorbed by the city crippled the city for over 20 years.

[DowntownWpg]

Hum... interesting. I'm going to have to think about this for a while. Though my gut is telling me the feds are no better at handling debt than cities, but it is difficult to compare the levels in this regard.

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Anyway, I'm guessing that many here would agree that it was good for Winnipeg that Juba was Mayor for 20 years; rather than having to leave office after, say, eight years.

I don't agree with that. Winnipeg would have done just fine if in '65 Juba went back to selling furniture or whatever he did before politics.

Seems to me that Wyatt has been gearing up for it with 'going maverick' and is testing the waters.

He was "going maverick" at one time, but lately Steve Ashton's campaign committee chairman has been "going NDP lackey." However, this "maverick" perception among the public, backed with NDP dollars would make him a contender, though history shows that there is no beating Katz, or any other Chamber-backed candidate.

[Andy6]

Don't forget that Juba was only mayor of what is now the central city for most of his time in office. There were lots of other mayors of places like St. Vital and St. Boniface.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by rgalston

He was "going maverick" at one time, but lately Steve Ashton's campaign committee chairman has been "going NDP lackey." However, this "maverick" perception among the public, backed with NDP dollars would make him a contender, though history shows that there is no beating Katz, or any other Chamber-backed candidate.

IMO we see a correlation of chamber-backed candidates winning largely because the centre-left vote splits between many candidates. Often there will be an assortment of delusional fringe candidates, Nick Trenette, minimum of one left-leaning councilor, and a former NDP MLA or union elite. Some exceptions, but normally don't see the conservative vote split to the same degree as the centre-left.

Certainly an exception was Murray. He only ever so slightly beat Kaufmann, and probably would have lost if it wasn't for the fact that Kauffman ran a horrible campaign and had zero personal appeal. Then won again, as he was the incumbent.

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

IMO we see a correlation of chamber-backed candidates winning largely because the centre-left vote splits between many candidates. Often there will be an assortment of delusional fringe candidates, Nick Trenette, minimum of one left-leaning councilor, and a former NDP MLA or union elite. Some exceptions, but normally don't see the conservative vote split to the same degree as the centre-left.

Certainly an exception was Murray. He only ever so slightly beat Kaufmann, and probably would have lost if it wasn't for the fact that Kauffman ran a horrible campaign and had zero personal appeal. Then won again, as he was the incumbent.

That's it right there: the left has never gotten along in Winnipeg (decades ago it was Communists vs. socialists), and that's why other than Glen Murray, the only labour-backed candidate to become mayor was John Queen in 1933--at the apex of the Great Depression (although I'm not sure where Juba vs. Sharpe fits in). Pretty remarkable, given that, as Andy points out, most of this time was prior to Unicity, when the North and West Ends were major voting blocs.

Kaufmann was funny: I remember being a teenager when he ran for mayor, and seeing a billboard at Pembina and Grant Avenue, with his face taking up half of it, with the words "LET'S GET IT DONE." It just creeped me out.

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Obviously the Feds are able to handle debt much easier than a city in Canada. Canadian cities aren't in position to attempt flawed Kaynes theory. The fact is the level of debt absorbed by the city crippled the city for over 20 years.

It's Keynes, not Kaynes. And it isn't necessarily flawed. You just have to have the political will to increase taxes and decrease spending in the good times, not just decrease taxes and increase spending in the bad times. Cities are definitely in a tougher position to implement Keynesian theory but in any case it requires political will.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

IMO we see a correlation of chamber-backed candidates winning largely because the centre-left vote splits between many candidates. Often there will be an assortment of delusional fringe candidates, Nick Trenette, minimum of one left-leaning councilor, and a former NDP MLA or union elite. Some exceptions, but normally don't see the conservative vote split to the same degree as the centre-left.

Certainly an exception was Murray. He only ever so slightly beat Kaufmann, and probably would have lost if it wasn't for the fact that Kauffman ran a horrible campaign and had zero personal appeal. Then won again, as he was the incumbent.

Personally I feel that it has been a very long time since a credible candidate ran for mayor of this city, and this includes the past few mayors we have elected.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by flatlander

It's Keynes, not Kaynes. And it isn't necessarily flawed. You just have to have the political will to increase taxes and decrease spending in the good times, not just decrease taxes and increase spending in the bad times. Cities are definitely in a tougher position to implement Keynesian theory but in any case it requires political will.

Keynesianism isn't something that can be implemented on a municipal level... Fiscal and monetary policy are the domain of the federal government, not cities...

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Keynesianism isn't something that can be implemented on a municipal level... Fiscal and monetary policy are the domain of the federal government, not cities...

Says who? You can run your household according to Keynesian principles. In fact, most do.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Yeah driving the city deep into debt, which we are still working at paying off, was a spectacular benefit to the city. He cost the city 20 years of opportunity. Great mayor.

At least you knew where he stood on the issues, unlike slippery Sam.

In my opinion, what drove the city into debt was having to cater to a bunch of low density auto dependent burb's that were acquired as a result of Unicity.

While I admire Juba for doing his part to destroy the metropolitan council, you have to wonder how different the city's finanaces would be if places like Royal Wood had to self sustaining.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by flatlander

Says who? You can run your household according to Keynesian principles. In fact, most do.

In what ways can you run a city using Keynesianism? Keynesianism is about smoothing out the boom and bust cycles of the economy and ensuring full employment. What kinds of monetary policies (ie: lowering interest rates, controlling money supply) can the city enact? Do they have some sort of central bank that I'm not aware of? In terms of fiscal policy, how do you expect the city to control aggregate demand? The city doesn't tax consumption, so are property taxes supposed to increase when times are good (which they don't, at least not right away)? As for spending, municipalities in Canada can't run a deficit on their operating budgets (I assume you would expect the city to control unemployment by hiring a larger workforce during a recession, which wouldn't be possible without an increase in revenues). Cities' main functions are to allocate resources (roads, services, etc). They are not in the domain of stabilization or redistribution (which is for federal and provincial governments), which is why I would argue that cities can't enact keynesian policies. In short, Keynesianism is a set of macroeconomic policies which can't be applied on the city scale. I would like to hear what you mean though, in terms of how cities can implement these policies...

[drew]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

At least you knew where he stood on the issues, unlike slippery Sam.

In my opinion, what drove the city into debt was having to cater to a bunch of low density auto dependent burb's that were acquired as a result of Unicity.

THe city is going to start getting a lot more flush with cash this next coming year, thanks to the increase in property values.

I am not sure how many here on SSP are homeowners, but my property taxes are going up about 18% next year. My house increased in value just a bit over the city wide average, so there will be a lot of people paying more next year.