Hands in our pockets

Translink. What are the first three words which come to mind when I say this? If you're anything like me, you probably thought of inefficient, mismanaged, and secretive.

Or you're probably a normal person, and thought slow, tardy, and under-serviced. Either way, you're probably fed up like me, and their latest proposal, backed by a majority of their Mayors' Council (made up of Metro Vancouver mayors), is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I am livid, and when I tell you why, you probably will be too.

Back in June, the Mayors' Council decided (with Burnaby, West Van, and Maple Ridge opposing) that in order to fund all their pet projects, Translink would need $7.5B over the next 10 years. This would require Translink's operating budget to be increased from $1.4B to $2.2B per annum, a massive increase of over 50% to maintain and expand bus service, build a light rail to Surrey and a subway extension to UBC, replace the Patullo Bridge, and other odds and ends.

What wasn't clear was how they planned to fund this, since the province steadfastly refused to reallocate tax dollars. None of these are bad ideas, but this is the very epitome of spending money you don't have, which we can all agree is not a very smart thing to do.

Last month, the Council announced that they had found a solution. They would put it up to the good people of BC, in a referendum this spring, to decide whether or not to approve a 0.5 percentage point hike in the PST, which would then go toward their plans. By their calculations, that would add about $250M each year into the provincial coffers.

Herein lies the problem. Ten years multiplied by $250M/year is not $7.5B. It is not even close to $7.5B. It is so far off that even the pollsters who said the NDP would win a majority in 2013 are looking great. Translink and the mayors apparently operate in a fantastical land of pixies and stardust where $250M over 10 years magically turns into $7.5B.

Do you know what you get in the real world when you are 200% off, to the tune of 5 billion dollars? As Donald Trump would say, "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Undoubtedly, Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson, the biggest backer of this plan, is trying to use this to fulfill a campaign promise for a subway line down the Broadway corridor to UBC. In the council's own report, this would take $2B, never mind Translink's history of projects going over-budget. By my calculations, the proposed PST hike would leave the city barely enough money to extend the existing line a couple of stations to join up with the Canada Line at Cambie St.

Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan is right when he says this leaves more questions than answers. Questions like "[how] are we going to decide which line goes first? Will it be Vancouver with the new tunnel down Broadway or will it be a light rail line into Surrey?" West Vancouver mayor Mike Smith told reporters that if his municipality kept the money they gave to Translink, he could provide free bus service for his constituents.

Translink has long been known to be one of the most wasteful organisations in the province. The Independent Transit Commissioner describes Translink's funding formula as the best in the country, yet year after year Translink complains that they don't have enough money to support their operations. Why? Because they misallocate millions of dollars, not least of which goes toward 6-figure salaries for over 400 employees, including an extremely bloated board of directors, not including benefits. And that's only the beginning...

Constant harsh criticism has prompted Translink to respond, saying “[we] do not have the resources to investigate each one of [the] claims, nor is the public purse well served by going down such dirt trails when we have important operations and communications matters to pursue.”

Well, other people have now been so kind as to do it for you. The lack of any sort of responsible governing of Translink is appalling, and the provincial government is to blame as well. Translink operates with all the benefits of a public corporation, complete with tax funding, and none of the accountability. If these reports surfaced about any government department, heads would have rolled. Instead, it's business as usual for Translink, after which the directors vote themselves great whacking bonuses.

If you look at Translink's 2014 budget, you'll find to no surprise that despite the best funding formula in the country, they have a $52M deficit. The Golden Gate Bridge is losing money, and there's not a single word about the Port Mann. When we take away everything that could fall under the purview of the provincial government (i.e. only looking at Translink and transit costs vs. revenue from transit operations), that shortfall grows nearly tenfold.

The province obviously can't be trusted to fix this; they're they ones who let it degenerate to this state in the first place. It's high time to privatise Translink and leave them to the mercy of private citizens, and force them to streamline.

In the meantime, when that referendum comes out, BC voters need to say "NO!" No to flowery promises of unlikely new transit lines, no to the continued smoke and mirrors finances of Translink, and no to another hand in our pockets. If they do get the money, it won't be long until they tell us that it wasn't enough (as if we didn't already know that). Then, they'll tell us that since they started already, it's too late to stop, so could we very kindly, pretty please, with a cherry on top let them stick another hand or three in?

Apparently, Translink thinks we're all idiots. If we let them have their way, this just might be the one thing they've ever gotten right.

Open letter

Dear student leaders:

For some reason, the people protesting with you seem to actually respect you. Validate them.

Two days ago, you accepted the government's overtures and agreed to opening dialogue. Do not use the scuffles with anti-protestors as an excuse to renege on this. The government had nothing to do with that, and you know it. These are people who are frustrated that Hong Kong has been brought to a standstill. And you know what? They, too, have a right to express their opinions.

I know, you believe that you were pushed to these drastic measures because of what the government has allegedly done (or failed to do, it's hard to know with you lot). But now that the government has offered to talk, Hong Kong's continued paralysis is as much your responsibility as the government's. Going back on your word like this is exactly what you have repeatedly accused the government of doing. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

Politics is a game of give and take. It also takes place in the real world, not whatever fantastical land you seem to think exists, where everything is exactly as you want. Take what you can get, certainly; otherwise, learn to cut your losses. You may think you're winning the PR battle right now, but dragging this out cannot possibly be in your interests. The frustration of the public will only grow, and at some point, it will become indiscriminate in its target.

You say you're doing this for the future of Hong Kong. You say you love Hong Kong. Well then, I challenge you this: lift your blockade on the daily lives of average, honest, hard-working people in Hong Kong. Show some real leadership, and walk up to the negotiating table.

Yours,

A disgruntled observer

The Hong Kong Question

Or, Why the Beijing Proposal is More Practical

Let me say, first of all, that in principle, I am in favour of holding general elections for the Chief Executive.

Let me also say, however, that I am NOT in favour of achieving this by means of Occupy Central, or boycotting school, or striking. Before you bring out the pitchforks, allow me to expound.

The current atmosphere of politics in Hong Kong is best described as fractious. If Beijing allowed open nominations, everybody and his uncle are going to run for office. The result of that will be a campaign of so many contrasting platforms, of such chaos, mudslinging, and extremes that the reputation of any candidate is going to be irreparably tarnished.

At this point, even the eventual winner will be so damaged that he will have lost his mandate to govern before he even takes office. Open nominations for the top job in a city-state is a recipe for perpetual lame duck Chief Executives. Each one will have no political capital to push the often necessary but bitter pills through for the betterment of Hong Kong. What the citizens want and what the citizens need are not always the same things.

What follows is a vicious cycle of incompetency and "quick fix" candidates; winners by virtue of being against the government, and not their own solid plan for the future. Hong Kong will descend into a death spiral, at the end of which lies the cesspool of the failed state.

Occupy Central will not convince Beijing that this will not happen. In fact, it will only strengthen this view, and Beijing's resolve to prevent this fate. If Hong Kong grinds to a halt in protest, it alone will suffer. Its economy will stall, the markets will fall, the entire city will be poorer, and Occupiers will be no closer to their goal.

If they hope to bring Beijing down with them, they are misguided. Hong Kong is but a drop in the bucket to Beijing. They will not be affected, they will not have to back down, and they will not back down, especially with much of the populace also against Occupying. Not only will Occupy Central be ineffective, it will ultimately be self-defeating.

On the topic of police brutality, there were likely faults on both sides. When protestors continue to attempt rushing government buildings and police barriers after repeated warnings, the police are going to react. Do I believe the protestors were mostly peaceful? Yes. But not all of them were, and unfortunately, violence begets violence. It only takes one spark.

At the end of the day, the police are only there to do their jobs. However, they are the easiest to vilify with media, especially social media, for perceived brutality. Were they slightly heavy-handed? Probably. But a violent suppression of the completely innocent? It was not.

Political reform is a complex issue requiring mutual compromise. You wanted the right to choose your own Chief Executive. You were afforded this right. You don't need 5, 6, or 10 candidates. Even the Americans usually only have 2 choices.

Let it not be said that Beijing chooses incompetent people. They may be corrupt, but even democracy is not without corruption. They may be friendlier to Beijing than you like, but do you really think a Chief Executive openly hostile to Beijing can get anything done?

If you grab a handful of cookies, your hand might get caught at the neck of the jar. If you let go of a couple, you might just find you can have your cookie and eat it too.

New Brunswick votes

New Brunswick is going to the polls today, and I've been too busy to follow too closely, but I can't resist making a call anyway. Premier David Alward's Progressive Conservatives are the incumbent government, having won the last election in 2010 by a landslide with 49% of the vote and 42/55 seats. They're seeking re-election to avoid being only the second NB government in history to be relegated to a single term. The opposition Liberals, led by rookie leader Brian Gallant, are seeking to redeem themselves. Meanwhile, Dominic Cardy took over an NDP holding 0 seats and are hoping to change that. On the fringe are the Green Party, and the People's Alliance which I've lumped in with the "Others."

For most of the campaign, it looked as though Brian Gallant was cruising to a landslide victory in a new, streamlined legislature of 49 seats. Their poll lead was often 20+ points, and nothing seemed to shake it. In the final week, controversy over shale gas, fracking, and abortion saw the Liberal lead drop to about 10, but it seemed they were on track for victory nonetheless.

As this was happening, however, Brian Gallant gave an interview with the CBC where he fudged the figures to his own party's tax policy. Subsequently, in a disastrous retake of the interview, the CBC (known to be Liberal-friendly) grilled Gallant mercilessly, generating a massive amount of bad press. Forum then released an eleventh hour poll just last night showing a dead tie, and if they are right, this massive blunder could potentially have been the turning point of the entire election.

And so, the raw numbers:
NBPC   38-43% [median 41.0]  20-30 seats [median 26]
NBLP   39-44% [median 41.6]  19-29 seats [median 23]
NBNDP   9-13% [median 10.8]   0- 1 seats [median  0]
Green   4- 7% [median  5.0]   0- 0 seats [median  0]
Other   0- 3% [median  1.6]   0- 0 seats [median  0]

Whatever the result, this promises to be a very interesting night, with both parties able to form government. It really looks like it's too close to call. However, for the sake of integrity...

The Politically Uncorrect final call: PC MAJORITY of 3.

Ontario Final Call

Last update, it looked as though the OLP might have been heading for a bit of a comeback under Kathleen Wynne. Then the debate happened, and Hudak stopped the bleeding. A barrage of polls were released, up until the final hour before the publication ban, and the picture remains as unclear as it was when the election began. The numbers, as they stand:

OLP    34-39% [median 36.6] ( = ) 34-53 seats [median 44] (4)
OPC    35-40% [median 37.8] (0.9) 37-52 seats [median 44] (3)
ONDP   18-22% [median 20.5] (0.3) 15-23 seats [median 19] (1)
Green   2- 5% [median  4.1] (0.2)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.0] (0.4)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)

There are two camps which the polls have split into:

IVR (EKOS and Forum): They have the Liberals ahead by a fair margin, possibly enough to eke out a majority government, and the NDP relatively low (below 20).

Online (Abacus, Angus Reid, Ipsos Reid, Oracle): They have the PCs either tied are slightly ahead, but the NDP rather higher (near 25).

As it stands, I'm going to go with the online firms on the PCs and Liberals, and edge closer to the IVR firms for the NDP score. There are several reasons for this. Having supporters that actually vote is key in elections where turnout is getting lower and lower. The Tories traditionally have that edge here, and I envision it continuing. That said, this effect will be somewhat counteracted by the bonus that incumbent governments usually get, and the PCs will probably just barely edge the Liberals in votes.

Regarding the NDP, they caused an election that nobody wanted, and voters won't take too kindly to that. Add to the fact that Horwath has been criticised for being too right wing, and NDP supporters might not feel inclined to vote. The fly in the ointment is, these NDP supporters may instead vote Liberal to block the PCs. However, in such a close race, I believe the PCs themselves will be motivated to come out and try and win this thing.

As it stands, the ranges for either frontrunners fall just short of a majority, but it's not out of the question (just highly unlikely). Tomorrow evening promises to be extremely interesting.

For the first time since the start of this blog, Politically Uncorrect projects...A TIE?!

Ontario Liberals may earn 4th term

The polling volatility really hasn't improved much, although the gaps are starting to become tighter for all voters. The glaring difference is still Ipsos Reid, which continues to show large PC leads among likely voters. The end result is a very tight race, vote-wise, but of course the OLP has an advantage with distribution (changes from last projection):

OLP    33-40% [median 36.6] (3.7) 35-59 seats [median 48] (9)
OPC    33-40% [median 36.9] (1.6) 32-53 seats [median 41] (6)
ONDP   18-24% [median 20.8] (2.9) 11-22 seats [median 18] (3)
Green   2- 6% [median  4.3] (0.7)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.4] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)

The ranges are still a bit large. They'll contract as the election draws nearer. Looking at broader trends, it looks like momentum was with Premier Wynne for a couple weeks, but recently Hudak seems to have stemmed the tide. Horwath is making no headway at all, and her election gambit is looking increasingly foolish.

Politically Uncorrect projects a LIBERAL MINORITY, short 6.

After one week: it's a horserace!

Last week, Andrew Horwath of the NDP looked at the Liberal budget and decided they could not support this government any longer. As Tim Hudak and the PCs have long refused to support the Liberal minority, Premier Kathleen Wynne requested a dissolution, and an election was called.

I've waited a whole week to do this because the pre-campaign polls were giving zero clarity on the picture, and unfortunately, the campaign period polls are all over the place as well. The only thing I can say is this:

The Liberals or the PCs will either place first or second, plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

With polls either registering anywhere between a 6 point Liberal lead and a 14 point PC lead (although I suspect Ipsos might have put out a bit of an outlier), the best guess right now is the weighted rolling poll average. And so (changes calculated from last election):

OLP    28-38% [median 32.9] (4.8) 22-52 seats [median 39] (14)
OPC    34-43% [median 38.5] (3.0) 35-66 seats [median 47] (10)
ONDP   21-26% [median 23.7] (1.0) 19-27 seats [median 21] ( 4)
Green   2- 6% [median  3.6] (0.7)  0- 1 seats [median  0] ( =)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.3] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] ( =)

After blowing a wide lead last election, one has to wonder how much good will Tim Hudak has left from his own party. Failure to win this time, with a Liberal government that is widely perceived as old, tired, and corrupt, will be fatal to his leadership. Tim Hudak only has one goal for June 12th: win 54 seats or more. He must convince centrist voters that the PCs are no longer the scary/nasty party.

Andrew Horwath's NDP is performing its best in the polls since the Rae victory, but has actually dropped back from their position last year of second or occasionally first. There is a sense that Ontario voters haven't fully forgiven them for the disastrous Rae government, but are almost ready to do so. Horwath must convince voters that they are a serious party that is ready to govern once again. Short of securing the official opposition, Horwath's tenure as leader may be threatened.

Kathleen Wynne's future is less clear. Since taking office, she has sought to distance herself from the McGuinty years, to mixed success. The lower hanging fruit for her will be to the left, in soft NDP voters. She must present her party as the only viable option for government. In other words, she needs to scare the centre away from the PCs and tell the left that the NDP can't win. If this election results in another hung parliament, she may attempt to hang on as premier as long as the OLP finishes either ahead of or only a couple seats behind the PCs.

For now, Politically Uncorrect projects PC MINORITY, short 7.