Quote:
Originally Posted by North of 49
For Winnipeg to really prosper and grow. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as a big town.
...Being a big town has it's advantages though.
|
I think that's how we got into all this trouble in the first place, by selling ourselves short as a community and buying into mediocrity.
Winnipeg was once third biggest in the whole of this great land, at the forefront of progress in areas as diverse as rapid transit (We had the first electric streetcar system in Canada, a system so extensive it went to Selkirk MB), shopping (Polo Park was one of the first malls in Canada), and conventions (One of the first convention centres in Canada)...over time we lost our way...We fell from 3rd to 4th biggest, then 5th, 6th..and now somewhere between 7 and 9th largest.
Economic stagnation, urban decay, rampant crime and poverty..
This is where small town thinking and short term planning has taken us.
Anyways, Dan Lett had a lot to say on leadership yesterday.
Just maybe politicians should start thinking big
By: Dan Lett | Monday Jan. 24th, 2011
Posted: 01/24/2011 1:00 AM | - Winnipeg Free Press
Is it time for the big idea?
In almost all jurisdictions, and at all levels of government, politicians are looking for a way to motivate voters. Opinion polls tell us most voters think politicians are out of new ideas. This theory is validated in large part by election campaigns that are nearly bereft of creativity and boldness.
The most recent municipal election in Winnipeg is a good case in point. Other than 58 new police officers, it was difficult to find any news in Mayor Sam Katz's re-election bid.
Former premier Gary Doer won three majority governments with a combination of folksy charm, measured management and sober, underwhelming election campaigns.
On the federal stage, those leaders and parties who tried to float the big idea -- Stéphane Dion's infamous Green Shift comes to mind -- have been savaged by voters. Given all this recent history, why would anyone want to include a big, bold, risky idea as part of a plan to win or retain power?
Ironically, that is exactly what former prime minister Brian Mulroney would have current Prime Minister Stephen Harper do as he enters his sixth year in office. In an interview with The Globe and Mail last week, Mulroney said it's important to remember big ideas: "History remembers the big-ticket items."
Mulroney should know. He built alliances with Quebec nationalists to win majorities, tackled free trade and introduced the GST.
He did not, however, have a specific big idea for Harper. Mulroney identified the issue -- health care -- but could muster nothing grander than a suggestion that Harper strike a blue-ribbon panel to study the future of medicare. Mulroney, having clearly forgotten former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow's verbose 2002 Royal Commission on Health Care, seems to validate the theory that our political leaders, past and present, have simply run out of big ideas.
Pragmatists will claim the big idea is inappropriate in an age of deficit financing and low voter turnout. Incrementalism was once considered the enemy of progress; now, it appears political leaders embrace incremental change as the only change possible.
The aforementioned Doer was a master of incrementalism and a dedicated student of political restraint. He was frequently criticized for not doing more to attack the municipal infrastructure deficit or not eliminating the education portion of property taxes. But as the majorities began to pile up and Manitoba's economic standing in the federation rose, he often chided those of us who dared to criticize him. Doer would often say that only journalists and opposition leaders think big, bold ideas are a good idea. Those who understand governing, he added, understand that big and bold is needlessly risky.
His successor, Premier Greg Selinger, has so far shown he prefers to govern with the same Doerian incrementalism. The 2010-2011 budget and last fall's speech from the throne were stuffed with small, positive measures, but absent anything that could even remotely be called bold. And as Selinger hurtles towards another deficit budget and a fall election that promises to be the most competitive in a decade, he cannot afford bold. That does not mean that game-changing ideas are beyond his grasp.
The city, for example, continues to emit desperate pleas for a greater share of sales taxes to pay for infrastructure. The city, provincial and federal governments will spend $370 million this year fixing Winnipeg's streets, bridges and sidewalks. And despite the expenditure of that lofty sum, the city will end the year with a larger inventory of crumbling infrastructure than it began with. At this pace, incrementalism will destroy our cities.
The big idea is a new one-point sales tax dedicated to infrastructure funds. Canada's big cities have been trying for years to snag a dedicated portion of the sales tax, a growth tax, to replace regressive property taxes. And given that growing provincial and federal deficits mean there is virtually no way to channel a greater portion of existing tax revenues to infrastructure, adding a point to the sales tax is probably the only way to meet the needs of cities.
It's a big idea to be sure, but it's also a perilous move that requires a leader who is deft and courageous. Given the growing need and the ravaged treasury, it's an idea worth considering.
Incrementalism is the safe course. But what if ambivalent voters are just waiting for someone to shed the glacial pace of incrementalism in favour of game-changing change. What would history say about that kind of leader?
Prev
Linear Mode
