Winnipeg | 2026 Civic election & City affairs

[trueviking]

^ totally....i want him to call everyone's former employees and ask them for their dirt.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^ totally....i want him to call everyone's former employees and ask them their dirt.

How do you know Kives hasn't done so?

Also, that's the thing. The whole crux of the issue. These are former co-workers and employees who have offered up this information willingly.

Not one person has come forward with issues of past or present concern from any of the other candidates. Not one. They have had more than ample time to do so.

You sure you guys didn't just resign from the Hockey Canada board? The amount of Murray apologizing and rationalizing going on is shocking. Would your tune change if it was a woman that said he behaved inappropriately towards her? Or would it just be shrugged off as more "dirt"?

[GreyGarden]

I’m not going to come at journalists for doing their job. They may have an axe to grind but I don’t really care. I think it’s also indicative of Winnipeggers’ attitude and resentment towards people that move away. It’s like some people think everyone in Canada looks down on us and so we look at people who moved away with a skeptical eye. Murray has been knocked down a lot in my eyes during this campaign. Mostly by this tax freeze thing and just how poorly articulated his campaign has been. It’s like he doesn’t have smart people around him which is concerning. However living in Toronto is definitely not a strike. It’s a big plus in my books. I wish every Winnipegger could live in a different city for a bit to see what is possible.

[drew]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

That's the thing. These are former co workers and employees who have offered up this information willingly.

Not one person has come forward from any of the other candidates past with issues of concern.

You sure you guys didn't just resign from the Hockey Canada board? The amount of Murray apologizing and rationalizing going on is shocking. Would your tune change if it was a woman that said he behaved inappropriately towards her? Or would it just be shrugged off as more "dirt"?

Nobody here is rationalizing gang rape - so your comparison is a bit of an over reach.

I just don't think this a massive story. He has people that worked for him that don't like him. He's possibly a bad drunk, and a bit of an asshole boss.

The only issue here IMO, it the Murray campaign's clumsy response to the story thus far.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by drew

That whole Pembina Institute story seems dubious at best. Nothing official from the Institute, everything just based on emails and disgruntled ex-staff comments. It's basically a collection of very whiny people from what has been presented so far. It seems like it was a bit of an odd place to work.

Kives must have an ax to grind with Murray, because he could probably do his journalistic due diligence and "investigate" anyone of these candidates and dig up he said she said stuff from their past.

Yes, a bit of an odd place to work because of who was running the show. That is exactly what all the reports have said. I don't understand how that is missed. Murray made it an off place. What makes the story so dubious? People were wronged in their place of employment and they made it known.

Reporting on inappropriate behavior is an axe to grind? Or he just has a job to do to inform the electorate of what the candidates are up to.

Do we really need City Hall to be an "odd" place to work, considering how oddly it already works, if at all.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by drew

Nobody here is rationalizing gang rape - so your comparison is a bit of an over reach.

I just don't think this a massive story. He has people that worked for him that don't like him. He's possibly a bad drunk, and a bit of an asshole boss.

The only issue here IMO, it the Murray campaign's clumsy response to the story thus far.

No I compared it to the complete ignorance to inappropriate behavior that a few of you openly show on here in defence of someone who clearly has some issues.

The fact that you have to use the gang rape analogy shows how weak your points really are. You make assumptions on behalf of the people who actually experienced it and lived it and pass it off as him being an asshole.

Again, if it was a woman saying these things about him would you just be like "ah whatever, hes just an asshole?". Can't have it both ways.

[drew]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

No I compared it to the complete ignorance to inappropriate behavior that a few of you openly show on here in defence of someone who clearly has some issues.

The fact that you have to use the gang rape analogy shows how weak your points really are. You make assumptions on behalf of the people who actually experienced it and lived it and pass it off as him being an asshole.

Again, if it was a woman saying these things about him would you just be like "ah whatever, hes just an asshole?". Can't have it both ways.

I am not having it in any ways. I just don't care as much about the story as you do. That's fine. We all take the information presented and vote the way we choose.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

The fact that you have to use the gang rape analogy shows how weak your points really are.

You are the one who used the gang rape analogy when you brought up Hockey Canada.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

You are the one who used the gang rape analogy when you brought up Hockey Canada.

exactly...that's just it....these stories are not the Hockey Canada issue...Glen is a big personality who can rub a lot of people the wrong way....that's what this reads like....former employees who didn't like him.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by drew

Nobody here is rationalizing gang rape - so your comparison is a bit of an over reach.

I just don't think this a massive story. He has people that worked for him that don't like him. He's possibly a bad drunk, and a bit of an asshole boss.

The only issue here IMO, it the Murray campaign's clumsy response to the story thus far.

Bingo.

People have personalities. I work with people who are assholes, but are good at what they do. I also work with very nice people who are good at what they do.

And those are my opinions of those people.

City Hall could use a backbone after 8 years of Brian B messing things up. He's a lawyer and the City did very poorly on the legal front over his terms. As an example. He's a pushover.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

That whole Pembina Institute story seems dubious at best. Nothing official from the Institute, everything just based on emails and disgruntled ex-staff comments. It's basically a collection of very whiny people from what has been presented so far. It seems like it was a bit of an odd place to work.

Kives must have an ax to grind with Murray, because he could probably do his journalistic due diligence and "investigate" anyone of these candidates and dig up he said she said stuff from their past.

I don't think this is on Kives. It's a combination of Murray having rubbed lots of people the wrong way - I mean, there's really no denying this - and a highly motivated, well-informed organizer for another mayoral candidates digging up this information and feeding it to reporters. I'm actually a bit surprised that Murray's team isn't striking back with some dirt of their own.

I mean, I am far from being a political insider. But anyone who has spent more than a few weeks on Winnipeg Twitter will have a pretty clear understanding of who exactly has a detailed knowledge of Murray's past misdeeds. He isn't exactly subtle about it.

As for Brodbeck, he has had a weird personal vendetta against Murray since the 90s. He's consistent, I'll give him that much.

But by and large, I agree with vike here. Say what you want about Murray and his policies and ideas, but the personal attacks and innuendo are unseemly:

Honestly. The media smear campaign is making me want Murray to win just for spite. Broadbeck every day with his ‘he’s not fit to be mayor’ crap and Kives looking for gossip from Murray’s former employees is brutal. I kind of want them to eat it.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by drew

Nobody here is rationalizing gang rape - so your comparison is a bit of an over reach.

I just don't think this a massive story. He has people that worked for him that don't like him. He's possibly a bad drunk, and a bit of an asshole boss.

The only issue here IMO, it the Murray campaign's clumsy response to the story thus far.

Murray is toxic, because he pretends to be an urbanist many of you easily overlook all of his shortcomings.

Bottom line is that he was mayor of Winnipeg and chose to quit halfway through his mandate for greener pastures, that alone should disqualify home from running again!

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by trueviking

the only two people who can win are murray or gillingham....any other vote is a waste....as terrible as murray has been, I will still take him over a conservative suburban candidate whose 'big move' is to build bigger roads.

Murray almost seems like the worst candidate for you. He was the one who approved your much-hated Waverley West. He’s the only serious candidate advocating a property tax freeze, which you and most of us have said many times was a huge mistake that set Winnipeg back. And last but not least, he doesn’t have the conviction to stand up for Portage and Main’s opening, one of your most written about topics.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think this is on Kives. It's a combination of Murray having rubbed lots of people the wrong way - I mean, there's really no denying this - and a highly motivated, well-informed organizer for another mayoral candidates digging up this information and feeding it to reporters. I'm actually a bit surprised that Murray's team isn't striking back with some dirt of their own.

This is basically what I said pages ago.

The fact they haven't countered any of this stuff and just are trying to grip onto a single digit lead in the last month of this campaign is kind of shocking strategically. Like even if they couldn't get someone from that Institute to speak highly of Murray they should be putting positive stories out there from his previous service as an elected politician in both Winnipeg and Ontario.

The fact they don't have anything to really run on other than "I built MTS Centre" which isn't a personal story....has really tanked their campaign IMO.

Murray is really, really lucky this isn't a 2 or 3 candidate race. The fact there's so many people that will take 5-10% of the vote will probably get him elected.

[P&M40BELOW]

I took in the Mayoral debate today at the Chamber luncheon. My assessment is a follows:

1. Gillingham is in favour of fast tracking ( if you can say a 20 year delay is fast tracking) widening Kenaston Blvd. and prioritizing the Chief Peguis extension. - Good move considering Winnipeg major roads are under built and overused.
2. Shone - is completely against Gillinghams plan and is all for recycling, tending to the homeless and opening P&M. He also wants to send social workers to domestic disputes instead of police. Dangerous idea.
3. Murray wants the Premier to increase the PST and give him 1% of the PST to pay for his priorities. Note: that will never happen. Came across as a tired old politician who only knows how to tax and spend. Poor leader who likes to name drop far too much.
4. Klein is the only candidate who is focused on cleaning up downtown and getting a better return for tax payers. He raised his profile today.
5. Oulett - No idea what his vision for the city is.

Outcome: For me its either Gillingham or Klein.

[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Honestly. The media smear campaign is making me want Murray to win just for spite. Broadbeck every day with his ‘he’s not fit to be mayor’ crap and Kives looking for gossip from Murray’s former employees is brutal. I kind of want them to eat it.

Following this from afar (sorry RRskylar, can't vote for ya), I agree.

Yes, W-E-W, it is a journalist's job to keep the public informed. And I am not commenting on the substance of the various allegations – I was particularly uncomfortable with the sexual harassment issue, and there should always be consequences for that. Nor have I been impressed by Murray's boneheaded approach to responding to it or some of the other choices made in his campaign, not to mention some of his erratic tendencies.

He definitely seems to have been rattled by this turn in the electoral campaign, as can happen with the famous 'October surprise' concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise, and all the personal attacks, which of course just means less attention on the vital societal / urban issues that that city is facing.

But yes, it is beginning to feel a bit like a smear campaign against him, which is just building on the lamentable, amateurish 'campaign' of Gillingham (did somebody say he was a pastor? don't remember) and his political operatives with their insinuations, disingenuous questions and attempted viral tweets which don't go anywhere. And those self-described hacks kept talking about the fact that Murray had lived elsewhere (so what?) and that he is yesterday's man, as if their road widenin', police helicopter lovin' candidate hasn't been in a prime position of power there for several years. What did he do to stop the demise of the tree canopy, for example?

Again, as someone with a long professional experience in journalism, I don't question (AT ALL) looking into all of these issues and his background; it is a vital part of the mission when one has the resources to do so. I also feel like Murray clearly has to get a grip on some aspects of his personality. In addition, I don't have all the data at hand about how much they have covered other candidates. But the timing of everything is interesting, given how one-sided some of it can feel sometimes.

I did see one of TV's tweets asking Tom Brodbeck why he was tweeting so much about Murray (almost compulsively at one point) because it was starting to look like a vendetta, and one woman tried to mock him saying 'who counts tweets'? Um, that is part of the process of journalism actually - it is called collecting and checking evidence and facts.

Anyway, maybe S.G. will win outright, who knows? Any scenario could happen – I'm following from another continent at the moment and in any case don't know enough to predict anything about this sort of thing. But if he waltzes through the wreckage due to a vote split, that would be unfortunate. Sometimes, generally speaking and not particularly about this race, people don't win elections – others lose them.

In any case, that city deserves – and desperately needs – something better than what's transpired.

[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Murray is toxic, because he pretends to be an urbanist many of you easily overlook all of his shortcomings.

Bottom line is that he was mayor of Winnipeg and chose to quit halfway through his mandate for greener pastures, that alone should disqualify home from running again!

I know that it takes more effort than spewing out empty one-liners, but can you actually provide some evidence that he "pretends to be an urbanist"?

Whatever your other critiques of him, and I certainly have critiques of him myself, can you please provide evidence (for once) that he is pretending to be an urbanist?

And didn't you just post this:

"In a city of 850K when you only have 10-15K living downtown maybe some politicians realize that not everything is all about downtown all the time 24-7!

A vibrant downtown is essential but it isn't the end all like some here believe!"

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9767965&postcount=869

Is that your starting point for judging whether someone is an urbanist?

By the way, I know, I know: I'm a deluded, woke lefty and Trudeau-loving idiot and dope for daring to ask such a question. That's democracy for you.

So now that we've got that out of the way, you can answer the question and provide real, substantive evidence as well as outlining your own urbanist vision for WPG. Thx.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think this is on Kives. It's a combination of Murray having rubbed lots of people the wrong way - I mean, there's really no denying this - and a highly motivated, well-informed organizer for another mayoral candidates digging up this information and feeding it to reporters. I'm actually a bit surprised that Murray's team isn't striking back with some dirt of their own.

Murray has been getting all of the scrutiny because he's been the strong frontrunner throughout this campaign. Murray was ahead in the polls by like 20 points when Kives broke the Pembina Institute story... should he have also put the same effort into look for dirt on all candidates at the time?

And yes other campaigns are going to try and bring down the frontrunner. I believe they call this electoral politics (sp?). Unlucky for Murray that Gillingham's campaign just happens to have an advisor who is a walking encyclopedia of Winnipeg politics of the last 30 years... a guy who practically has all of the Clerk's Decision Making Information System memorized.

Meanwhile Murray's campaign has... Braydon Mazurkiewich?

[Sheepish]

Honestly...I am lost in the weeds now. I was certain that I was supporting Murray. My issue at this point is not so much about whether he 'rubbed people the wrong way'. But I suspect there are some character issues that he is dealing with that could impact his ability to lead. That does concern me. I also sense that truth seems to be an elusive skill for him at the moment. I want a Mayor that I can trust and believe in. (I thought that was Murray - but I have my doubts now). Mostly though, I am concerned that he seems befuddled, confused, weak and indecisive. Other than getting the province to contribute 1% from PST (which is itself a weak position that won't happen), I have no idea what he really wants to do that will be different from what's happening now.
Who is going to address the shortcomings of our city, and work to turn things around?
HELP!

[thurmas]

well Murray is putting some new tax increases on a napkin now that in my opinion would just drive more business outside the city:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-mayoral-promises-oct21-1.6625711

After vowing to freeze property taxes, Murray pitches hikes in business, parking, short-term rental taxes

Winnipeg mayoral candidate Glen Murray proposed a package of new taxes and fees on Friday that would raise as much revenue for the city as a 4.9-per-cent property-tax hike.

Murray promised Friday to bring in new measures that together, would bring in $33.2 million next year.

While he was taking part in a mayoral debate in front of an audience of business leaders, Murray proposed to raise an additional $13 million by adding one per cent to the city's business tax.

"That would cover more, or as much as a residential property tax," Murray said in a scrum following the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce event at RBC Convention Centre.

In a statement published on his campaign website, Murray also promised to raise $9 million by levying a 25-cent tax on commercial parking spaces every day.

This pledge is identical to a measure promised by mayoral candidate Shaun Loney on Oct. 10 and would require the province to amend legislation.

Winnipeg mayoral candidate Loney proposes 25-cent daily fee on commercial parking spaces
Murray also pledged to raise $8 million through development fees and another $3.2 million by applying a 10-per-cent tax on short-term rentals.

The revenue measures were announced two days after Murray promised a property-tax freeze.