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

Remembrance gone wrong

Lately the white poppy campaign has, again, reared its ugly head. These people claim that the red poppy glorifies war, and that the white poppy is a better symbol, representing peace. They think that they are doing the world a service.

They are vastly misguided. At best.

That they assert red poppies are in celebration of war is indicative of ignorance. It also contains a highly offensive insinuation: that the veterans who hand out red poppies are glorifying and celebrating war. I submit that these very people who experienced the living hell of the battlefield are the ones who most want to put war behind them.

Poppies were never meant to glorify or celebrate war, and neither was Remembrance Day. If these people took a proper look at history, they'd know that Remembrance Day, November 11, is in celebration of the Armistice; that is, the cessation of war, in 1918. That said, maybe it's not their fault entirely. Perhaps some fault lies with our education system. If they didn't feed us the boring tripe that they currently do, maybe students would actually learn Canadian history, and this sort of travesty could be prevented.

The fact that this campaign has taken on a blatantly political overtone, despite Remembrance Day being a day where we are supposed to set aside differences in order to remember those who fought and died for our country, is a further slap in the face to veterans across the country. Are you trying to tell these men and women, who fought and died for our nation, that it is wrong of them to continue handing out the traditional red poppy, in remembrance of, very often, their friends and family?

But at the very heart of this discussion, the entire idea of a peaceful world is steeped in the strongest naivety. These bleeding-heart pacifists are the same voices that join in the call for the felling of dictators across the globe. How, exactly, do they propose to accomplish that feat? With flowers, rainbows, and unicorns? War is a great evil, but it is also a necessary evil, for "peace without justice is tyranny." There can be no true peace without tyranny, but the world is inherently unjust, and there will always be those who aspire to tyranny.

Our very best died so we could live freely. They died so we could speak freely. They did not die so that people with their digestive tracts reversed could speak through their arse and s*** through their mouths.

Lest we forget.

Lest we remember incorrectly.

#RealBulls***

This here, the new Trudeau ad, is absolute shite. It claims that the average income in Canada has only increased 15% over the last 30 years. That is patently untrue. The inflation adjusted figures are 60,200 in 1983 and 76,000 in 2013. That is a 26% growth. However, the chart on the ad uses 1981 and 2011. Why? Because 1981 is close to a local maximum (63,100) and 2011 (75,000) is lower than the most current figures. Even when fiddling with the years like that, the growth is 19%, not 15%.

The ad also compares income to GDP. While accurate in his claim that real GDP has more or less doubled over the past 30 years, this is comparing apples to oranges. Of course GDP has grown at a rate greater than average income, largely because the population of Canada has also grown, from around 25 million then to 35 million now.

The only passable comparison that can be made is with per capita GDP, which has grown at a much more sedate pace over the past 30 years: from about 24,000 to 36,000 (or about 50%). Even then, this figure is going to rise much faster than average income because a lot of economic growth is in increased trade. That will inflate GDP growth above income because that money doesn’t flow through to individuals. You would think the leader of a major federal party would at least attempt to understand basic economics, but apparently not.

If this type of misrepresentation of facts and lack of understanding for economics is propagated by the leader of the party, the Liberals have no business telling us that the Conservatives are doing wrong by Canadians.

Also, there is no point at all for going back 30 years. If the Liberals were trying to convey that the Conservatives are bad for the economy and that the Liberals would do better, that effort fell flat on its face. That is because, for 17 of those 30 years, it was the Liberals who were in power. And also because both numbers are, actually, still going up. There's a "rah rah!" for the Canadian economy, but nothing more.

More to the point is, the Conservatives have been in office since 2006, and income has grown 5.4% since then, despite a global financial crisis. By contrast, the United States median income dropped 5.2% during that period.

Anybody who bothers to stop and think would know what complete bollocks this is. It screams incompetence and irrelevance. But, hey, anything to win a couple votes from the ignoramuses out there, eh? Because that's who you want supporting your party!

Oh, and parting shot: this ad still hasn't told us what your priorities are, Justin. Maybe the party of the mushy middle is just that. Mushy.

PEI aftermath, Manitoba, and how to win the vote but lose the election

Turns out the polls underestimated Conservative support again, so instead of 25-2, it was 22-5. This is becoming habitual. However, at least the call for a Liberal landslide was right. And anyways, having more Conservatives is always a good thing. One semi-shocker from last night: the Greens beat the New Democrats.

Manitoba is next on the list of elections. The campaign has been dull. NDP Premier Greg Selinger is seeking his own electoral victory, and a fourth in a row for the Manitoba NDP, and it seems that he will get it. The PCs under Hugh McFadyen have gained since 2007 but it does not appear to be enough. The Liberals under I-dunno-who-his-name-is are in danger of losing their only seat. Voting is tomorrow, so time for the final call:

NDP ...... 43-46% ... 35-38 seats
PC ........ 42-45% ... 19-21 seats
Lib .......... 7-10% ....... 0-1 seats
Green ....... 3-4%

Politically Uncorrect projects a NDP MAJORITY.

You will notice that the NDP and PC vote ranges overlap; that is, the PCs could conceivably win the popular vote. However, you will also notice that the PCs are not projected to have an overlap in seat count. This is the workings of our oh-so-sensible first past the post system. We divide our map into little districts, and each district elects one representative. This representative wins by virtue of having the most votes. The reason the PCs are expected to perform so poorly with a high vote total is because they pile up useless votes in very safe districts (say...about 65-35), whereas the NDP support is evenly spread enough to win more seats by smaller margins (like 55-45). A win by 10% is still a win, and is exactly the same as a win by 30%. This is why sometimes, electoral reform creeps into my mind. Of course it doesn't take long for common sense to re-assume its place in my brain and quash the idea. I mean, who would want perpetual minority governments being held hostage permanently by splinter groups like...oh...the Liberals?

Hi, I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.

Statistics Canada just released their commute report Wednesday, and one interesting tidbit was the difference in commute time between transit users and drivers in the three major metropolitan areas.

In Toronto, drivers take on average 29 minutes to get to work, and transit users 49. That's a gap of 69% (calculated with driving as the base). Seems reasonable.

In Montreal, drivers take 30 minutes and transit users just 39. That is an astounding difference of only 30%.

In Vancouver, drivers take 25 minutes and transit users 48. The difference is nearly a double, at 92%. That is ridiculous.

Greater Toronto is a very large city; larger than Metro Vancouver in both population and area. Yet, there still exists a large variation in Toronto's favour. Some may argue that Vancouver is merely experiencing "growing pains" due to a large influx of immigrants, but Toronto and Montreal also see respectable rates of immigration, so this can't explain very much. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons for this ludicrous variation between Montreal and Vancouver:

1. Montreal transit operators are haphazard and drive recklessly, or
2. Translink service is terribly inadequate.

Since Montreal transit fatalities do not frequent the front pages of the Montreal Gazette on a daily basis, we are able to rule out option one. This leaves us to ponder option two: that Translink service is inadequate.

I know for a fact that there are perfectly urban bus routes where bus frequency is 20 minutes. On a weekday. During rush hour. We're talking about Burnaby to Burnaby, not Surrey to Fort Langley. Imagine commuting during off-peak hours or to/from suburban areas...40 minutes to up to 1 hr is not out of the question. You miss the bus, and you might as well call in sick.

Furthermore, Vancouver is a city that is large area-wise, but there are only three metro lines, which, as you can imagine, serve only narrow strips of the city. Before the Canada Line was completed in 2009, the airport terminal was actually only served by one solitary bus route. At present, while they do catch the major centres of Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond and Surrey, they continue to fail to connect with the two largest educational institutions. Maybe this is why we're all too stupid to do anything about this. Vicious cycle.

The existence of four express bus lines does marginally correct for this, but buses on busy roads are obviously slower than trains, and one of these lines has service that abruptly cuts off for 5 hours in the middle of the day! If you have to travel from UBC to Joyce Station between 10AM and 3PM, too bad, you're going to have to use the non-express line, which basically has a stop every 300 metres for a 10 km stretch, among others. That's 75 well-spent minutes!

Again, there are several reasons for the above:

1. Not enough drivers;
2. Not enough buses;
3. Translink is mismanaged.

I'm not fully aware of the drivers situation, but if this is the case, they could always hire more. Of course, that's a problem when Translink constantly bemoans that they don't have enough money. I'll analyze that claim later. I'm fairly certain that part of why they don't hire more is because no corporation wishes to deal with even more unionized staff than they already have.

The number of buses is something that I do have some knowledge of. Translink just purchased 300 or so in 2009, and has a fleet of over 1500, which is plenty. Every time I drive by their bus lot in South Vancouver, I see a hundred buses parked there. Doubtless it is the same with the other lots. Most definitely, some of them are being serviced. That said, you cannot possibly service a hundred buses in the same lot at the same time. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they don't free up some of these buses and boost frequency to routes where it is badly needed.

Since Translink can't hire and has extra buses, we must now explore my third proposition. The sometimes...to put it bluntly...brain-dead actions of the Translink brass is cause for great concern. These actions also sometimes squander large sums, and are a leading cause of we-have-no-money-itis, which severely afflicts Translink. Take, for instance, fare evasion on SkyTrain. Translink frequently complains that there is a high rate of fare evasion which costs them millions. There is a very simple and common solution to this. They are called gates, and have been used in major cities all over the world since the beginning of mass transportation. It is beyond me why it took 25 years (1986-2011) for officials to recognize the need for them, and why it will take 2 more years to install them.

Q. How many Translink staff does it take to install a fare gate?
A. Seven. Six to retire and one to put in the screws.

This brings us to the amount of time it takes for things to be done. Let us study the Canada Line and the proposed Evergreen Line. The idea for the Canada Line came in 1995. A temporary bus route (98 B-Line) was proposed in 1998. The route entered service in 2001. In 2002, 10 months were taken to study whether the line could be built in time for 2010. In 2005 work finally started and the line was opened by 2009.

The Evergreen Line could be just as bad. The idea originally came with the Millenium Line, which opened in 2002. This idea was replaced with a temporary bus route (97 B-Line) implemented that year. By 2004 Translink had a plan; however, following public consultations beginning 2006, Translink changed the plans completely in 2008, then discovered they couldn't agree on the money in 2009. The expected completion date of 2014 (already 3 years delayed) was put into jeopardy with late 2015 now cited as the potential completion date.

The above analysis can be summed up in two short phrases: there are redundancies, and management can't manage. And this is why I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.

The New Democratic Way

It's been nearly three months since the election, and 3 months since I've posted. I can see I haven't missed much. However, there is an issue on which I'd like to write, from Saskatchewan, which happens to be having an election this November. Apparently the NDP released an attack ad in which they spliced two quotes of Premier Brad Wall (Saskatchewan Party) together. These two quotes were from a news scrum, spoken about 10 minutes apart. The new single quote was then taken completely out of context. Whatever bewitched them into thinking they wouldn't get caught I have no idea.

Before I begin, let me say that context never matters in politics. Nobody can sue anybody because normally the quote is exact and there were only differences in interpretation. If misinterpretation is done well enough, it might even force the misinterpreted to apologize. Of course, if it was common folk like us who misinterpreted comments so often, we'd be diagnosed as schizophrenic within a year (2 weeks if at non-Canadian medical institution).

Misinterpreting is one thing, but misquoting is quite another. The NDP could have kept the lid on this had they just admitted it was wrong and offered an apology. I realize, though, that expecting a political party to actually admit something is like watching paint dry. Your eyes dry first. Nevertheless, a normal political party will recognize damage when it comes and try to stop it. It is with this sharp departure from normalcy that I introduce to you...The New Democratic Way.

Deciding to take the high road instead, they called the Saskatchewan Party response "childish" and "over the top." Perhaps these words would have been more fitting had they been said to a mirror. The response from the government, while perhaps slightly dramatized, is in no way out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary, however, is the decision to remain defiant. They also defended the advertisement, saying it conveyed their message. By now, however, the only message the advertisement conveyed was that they were dishonest and desperate. If that's the message they wanted conveyed, perhaps NDP strategists were born on Mars. I really don't know.

As the controversy brew, they finally decided to pull the advertisement. Begrudging apologies were then offered - from all the wrong people. Party deputies released statements to the effect that they didn't know what the advertisement firm was doing. The party ordered the ads in the first place so obviously voters are expected to believe that they had nothing to do with this. Also, while party officials offered up peace offerings, the leader has been almost invisible. To this day I do not know Mr. Lingenfelter's first name. If you're running for premier and people don't know your name, you're either the leader of the Communist Party or in very big trouble (like trailing by 30%).

So, to sum it all up:
1) Initiate incredible stupidity;
2) Respond with incredible stpuidity;
3) Behave with incredible stupidity;
4) Run and hide.

And that is...The New Democratic Way.

Olympia Marie Wawryk, BC Liberal member and cat

Not kidding; Christy Clark campaign.

Whenever there are leadership campaigns in a party, signing up members for support is very important. However, as the above article demonstrates, there are serious problems that can arise. However, the most serious problem for the party might not be the possibility of fraud, but the public message it conveys. To sign up people who actually support you is one thing, to sign up friends and family just because they are is another, but to sign up a cat...conveys the message that there is nobody left in the province who wants to support the party, and that is definitely in the party's best interests. Of course, so is having the party turn onto itself over this sort of triviality. Obviously, this is a win-win situation - if you are the editor in chief of a major newspaper.

The thing is, this wasn't the only incident. Kevin Falcon's team signed up an entire hockey team...without the team knowing it. Surprised? It doesn't end there. A family managed to be signed up by the Liberals without even knowing it. Nobody has claimed responsibility for this last one yet, but I'm sure someone will find out soon.

In addressing bogus memberships, it is imperative to also explore memberships for all the wrong reasons. Once again the BC Liberals have graced us: a restaurant owner supporting the Liberals recently began (then ended after realizing it was a mistake) a program to reward his employees with an iPad if they signed up 25 new members.

40 years and counting

What with the revolution in Tunisia and continued uprisings across the Arab world, most prominently Egypt, this is a good time to talk about the apparent demise of another one-party state, and this one's quite close to home. That's right, I'm talking Alberta. Of course, Alberta isn't truly a one-party state since it has free elections and all, but given the way the last 11 elections have gone...it might as well be one. It has often been said that you could run a fence post as a Progressive Conservative in Alberta, and it would win. That's true enough, or at least, it used to be.

Since 1971, Alberta has been run by the PCs. Yes, it has been 40 years, beating out the likes of Iraq and Egypt, and given a few more years they'll take on East Germany. This may not be the norm in other democracies, but in Alberta it's quite standard. In their 106-year history, Albertans have changed governing parties a whopping 3 times.

However, lately, there have been signs of fracture in the dynasty. Ed Stelmach was highly disliked as premier, and was recently forced to announce his resignation. Finance Minister Ted Morton, who has always been at odds with Premier Stelmach, also resigned to take the top job. Now, normally, this sort of party fratricide would not be a good thing in terms of PR, and for once, in Alberta, there is no exception.

Logically, when a government is viewed as tired, and when there is an appetite for change in the Canadian political scene, a Conservative government will give way to a Liberal one. Not so in Alberta. The name "Liberal" is so poisonous in Alberta that, for whatever lopsided reason, the newest political force is a party even more conservative than the PCs - the Wildrose Alliance. Now at first sight this is impossible. However, when you consider the fact that this is Alberta, it's not so absurd. After all, these are the folks who brought us the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers.

Why are the Wildrose Alliance such a threat to the PCs? They have a likeable leader, they're a sensational breath of fresh air, and they have 4 MLAs. To put that into perspective, the PCs themselves have 67 and the Liberals, the collection of unelectables of Alberta, have 8. But, for some reason, the PCs feel they have cause to panic. Not that that's a bad thing. When governments panic, they do things. Often times it's too little too late, but still better than nothing, as is usually the case.

Anyways, the bottom line is, 40 years is a long time, and it was about time Albertan politics got interesting again. Cherish it, because it likely won't happen again for another generation...or maybe two.

Politically Uncorrect

I thought it was time to finally post something that was related to this blog's namesake, even though I did not name this blog for this purpose.

I recently came across a comic that satirizes very well the absurdity that political correctness has gone to:
This was based on people actually trying to amend a classic such as Huckleberry Finn. Honestly, some people just need to take a chill pill. The book was written 125 years ago. That was the culture of the day, and the spirit of the book necessitates that it be preserved in its original form. Schools are not condoning or promoting the use of racist language just because they are teaching this book; get a grip! If you're so offended, then don't read the book. Really, your loss.

Also, look, we all realize the merits of multiculturalism and tolerance. However, just because I say "Merry Christmas" does not mean the whole world is going to go up in flames. There is nothing wrong with a Christian wishing someone Merry Christmas. Even if the person on the receiving end is a Jew, normal people can understand the good intent behind the wish. He can say Happy Hanukkah back, for that fact, and the world will go on. Time does not stop, mountains do not fall, oceans do not dry up. If you're going to wish me "Happy Holidays," go ahead, you're most welcome, and I'll be very happy. Just don't try to stop me from saying Christmas, because that will be intolerance on YOUR behalf.

Seriously, this has gotten to the degree where literally everything that is said in public has to go through some sort of rigorous testing. I understand that free speech is a liberty only intended for expression of valid, non-hate-inducing ideas. However, I also understand that free speech was a right that our fathers fought life and limb for and won; and at this rate, we're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And no, I'm not bowing down to that "s/he" nonsense. Sue me. Written work has used "he" as the non-gender-specific pronoun for ages. It's out of habit; not all of us are male chauvinist pigs.

The Koreas

As most of you may know, North Korea attacked a South Korean island without reason yesterday. South Korea was understandably panicked. Other countries' reactions were more perplexing. The Swiss stressed their neutrality, the French tried to surrender, the United States started to behave like that upset autistic kid in third grade, China voiced its "extreme displeasure" (they love that term and have expressed it at least 20 times this year), citizens in Hong Kong staged a protest, and Iran called for the destruction of Israel.

Clearly, nations do not base decisions and reactions upon the Word of God. However, in the irony of ironies, they help to fulfill its prophecies. Let us remember that Christ Himself said of the end of days in Matthew 24: 6-7a, "You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom."

And so, let us all take a step back, take a deep breath, and stop worrying about impending doom and nuclear war. At least...until the USA and China enter this conflict...on opposite sides.

A proud part of our political heritage

I was bored enough today to tune to CPAC on TV and watch, of all things, the Canadian House of Commons. Immediately I noticed several things.

There is no end to the partisan politics. If you're wondering why Parliament doesn't work, just watch the House of Commons. They're so busy attacking each other they have no time for offering up constructive ideas for new legislation. A Conservative member rose to speak for about 15 minutes, and I counted about 20 slurs on the NDP and another 10 on the Liberals. [Insert party here] is in a fantasy world; [insert party here] just doesn't get it; [insert party here] is totally ignorant of the facts, etc. etc. This is why substantial legislation (with the exception of confidence and budgetary matters) hardly ever gets passed!

Also, trivial Private Members Bills clog up the system a lot. On the order of business today was Bill C-544, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), "to prohibit the importation or exportation (a) of horses for slaughter for human consumption; and (b) of horse-meat products for human consumption." And I kid you not, every time an NDP member rose to speak, he or she produced a petition of a couple hundred signatures from some remote part of Canada supporting the bill, and every time, they had to read out the exact wording of the summary of the act after referencing the bill. Talk about literally beating a dead horse! Seriously, if it's unethical and unsafe to eat parts of horses, then pass the damn bill and move on!

Third, and probably most striking, was the empty chairs. I for one did not know that Canadians elected ghosts in 220 ridings. Where are all the MPs?! We elected you to work for us, so show up to work! We certainly didn't elect MPs to let them collect a 6-figure salary for showing up to work 5 days a month. Seriously, if they're going to behave like schoolchildren, then we should treat them like schoolchildren. Hell, take attendance if it's necessary to keep them in the House of Commons. And while we're at it, make these records public so everyone can see how hard their MP works. That way, if they're just there on a publicly subsidized ego trip for 4 years, at least we'll know to boot them out sooner rather than later.

Last election, 59% of us voted. Politicians keep talking about how this is a crisis and how they need to engage us better so we'll start voting again. A good place to start is working at an efficiency greater than 59%, and showing up more than 59% of the time.

Well that was embarassing...

The last polls of the New Brunswick campaign actually had the PC lead narrowing somewhat...ranging from 4 to 10 points. My rolling average had the PC lead on 7.44 points. David Alward's PCs actually ended up winning by 14.44 points. My projection called for 35 PCs, 19 Liberals, and 1 NDP. The actual result was a PC landslide, 42 to 13, with no NDP candidate elected.

In my defence, the polling conducted was wildly off.

In their defence, the last poll finished a week before election day.

Shawn Graham was the author of his own defeat. Proposing to sell the provincial power company to the separatist province was always going to be popular. Just ask Shawn.

Seriously, it wasn't so much that Alward ran a good campaign, as Graham shooting himself in the foot. Multiple times. All Alward had to do was demonstrate that he had at least normal intelligence. He already had an almost unbeatable advantage - he wasn't Shawn Graham.

Mr. Alward shouldn't drink too much in the coming days. He already has a provincial hangover to deal with, with the nearly $1 billion in debt Graham's government accumulated. He doesn't need a physical hangover on top of that.

Also, with 42 MLAs, Alward's going to have a hard time picking the cabinet. But then again, it's one of those problems you WANT to have, as opposed to the problem of whether to resign or not. Hi Shawn - er, rather - bye Shawn!

"Wow! That high?"

That was the response of an anonymous interviewee of the Global News report on the fact that Premier Gordon Campbell's approval rating is, according to Angus Reid, 12%. Win.

That's 12% approve, 76% disapprove, 12% undecided, for a net approval of -64.

Seriously, the numbers are not good. This at a time when members of his caucus are publicly musing about whether he should resign. When the Liberal Party is about to convene. This, along with trailing the NDP by an increased margin of 23%, and it might really be the final nail in his coffin. His prospects are about as rosy as a lump of coals.

Gordon Campbell has been in office since 2001. He's been the Olympic premier. He's won 3 majorities. It's been a successful run...up until the HST. It's a logical time to resign, and he probably will, instead of leading the party through election 2013, which is pretty much already a lost cause.

Unless, of course, he wants either his party, or the electorate, to hand him the pink slip.

Which, I might add, we rather want to.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

SPLAT!

The latest EKOS polls can pretty much be summed up like this. It has the press a-flutter, the Tories jumping for joy, and the Liberals...well actually we don't know what the Liberals are doing cause we can't find any.

Why? Because EKOS found that from the week of June 29-July 6, the Liberal Party of Canada polled the support of a whopping...23.9% of the populace. That's a new low. I think. It's really hard to keep track because whenever an EKOS poll comes out the Liberals seem to hit a new low.

So what is Michael Ignatieff doing to fix this? He is going to go on a bus tour across Canada, visiting battleground areas such as...Calgary. All jesting aside, he will be seeing people who: a) will vote for him no matter what, or b) who will not vote for him no matter what. At this rate, perhaps Ignatieff will become a minority Prime Minister in the year...2136?

And so, a parting question: all this really makes me wonder, how low can the Liberal Party go? Below 22? 20? The NDP? In the 2008 general election, the Liberals polled 26.2% of the vote and everybody thought that was their basement level of support. I guess not. The saviour everybody thought Ignatieff was, is no more.

A stellar display of parliamentary compromise!

Well, with the exception of the NDP, that is.

On Monday, MPs were trying to negotiate a deal on the Afghan detainee fiasco. To measure whether there was any progress, we sent it to a nuclear physics laboratory. The results came back, and measured progress at (1.6 +/- 9.7) x 10^-14 metres. Statistically insignificant.

All kidding aside, there was a bit of progress, but far from an agreement. So the NDP pulls the old "we're gonna quit negotiating if we can't get it done by tomorrow" trick.

Well, it seemed like it worked, because on Tuesday, the government announced a deal with the Liberals about releasing documents. The Bloc signed on too, and it looked like a shining moment for democracy in Canada. Right?

Wrong. In swoops Jack Layton and the NDP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They refused to sign on to the deal, then whined about it. Why? Because it didn't meet all of their demands, just half.

Jack, look up compromise in the dictionary. Your party champions working with others in Parliament. Your party prides itself in making things work for Canadians. Therefore, we naturally have all the other parties working together to make this work, while the NDP stands there like a little girl, crying, crossing her arms, and stomping her feet. Nice.

When people ask me what my favourite joke is, I always reply, "Jack Layton." This would be why.

Don't like Ignatieff's coalition position?

Wait five minutes.

Recall: in November 2008, during the initial (and very much failed) coalition attempt, initiated by Dion, Ignatieff signed onto the coalition deal with the NDP.

Recall: in December 2008, when he took over from Dion, he went from yes to maybe - "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."

Recall: in September 2009, he went from maybe to no - "Let me be very clear. The Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." - Let me just rephrase that for you: "In January Canadians clearly showed they did not support a coalition therefore we do not support one today or tomorrow."

Recall: in May 2010, it appeared his position hadn't changed (shock and awe!). In party talking points sent out to MPs and members - "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren't interested in coalitions."

Recall: last week, in an interview with CTV, he now says - "can't recall ever having categorically ruled out a coalition." - Michael, you've taught at Harvard, for crying out loud. You don't actually expect us to believe you've conveniently developed a case of political Alzheimer's, do you?

So there you have it. Michael Ignatieff has shown himself to be a man who is either:

1. Dishonest;
2. Indecisive;
3. A weather vane, or;
   
4. Completely insane (look right).
   

Not exactly qualities to be desired of a Prime Minister, and on a matter as important as which party or parties get to govern the nation, no less. And Liberals wonder why they're still stuck at "Dion levels" in public support. Food for thought.

Oh, and Michael, you still haven't really told us what you think about a coalition.

Another year, another PM

Naoto Kan was inaugurated as Emperor Akihito of Japan's 14th Prime Minister yesterday. 14 Prime Ministers?! The Emperor must've been on the throne for AGES!

Not so - Emperor Akihito ascended to Japan's throne in 1989, a mere 21 years ago. Evidently, the post "Prime Minister of Japan" does not have any job security at all. In fact, it is pretty much a graveyard. Recent years have been riddled with sudden resignations...often just a year or less into their tenure. This is very different from any other Prime Ministerial nation...heck, in Canada, we have to go back to 1920 to count out 14 Prime Ministers.

The Japanese public is peculiar. Why do I mention them? Well, it's often due to them that these sudden resignations arise. They are HIGHLY intolerant of their politicians. In fact, some of the world's lowest approval ratings come from Japan. Taro Aso served from 2005-07, and bottomed out at 7% approval. Noboru Takeshita's (1987-89) ratings REALLY DID TAK-E-S**T-A when he rocketed down to 4% approval. And the funny thing is, all of these Prime Ministers head into the post with 80% approval ratings. It's kinda like a typical contemporary American marriage. They rush headlong into it head over heels in love (or drunk)...then find out after a few months that they are hopelessly irreconcilable. And then either the Japanese public (via an election) or the Prime Minister (via resignation) will not be long in saying, "I want a divorce."

The HST isn't a tax increase! Honest!

Okay Mr. Campbell, we get it. The provincial government needs to be economical in these difficult times. The problem is, you're taking it to the step where you're being economical with the truth (read: lying).

The HST isn't a tax increase because we will pay 12% on items which formerly had a 5% tax. It isn't because businesses will pay less tax. GREAT! DOES IT LOOK LIKE THE CONSUMER GIVES A DAMN ABOUT HOW MUCH TAX BUSINESSES PAY?! IF I HAVE TO PAY MORE, IT'S A FREAKING TAX INCREASE!

You weren't lying to us about the HST because OBVIOUSLY you never promised that you wouldn't implement it if re-elected. That's definitely not why British Columbians elected you to a third term in office.

The province really, really, honestly was only going to have a deficit of $495 million in 2009. And all of a sudden after the election it's officially $2.8 billion. Either it was coincidental dyslexia or an accidentally on purpose LIE.

Seriously, this whole thing puts me in a bit of a pickle. The HST is actually good economic policy. It makes businesses more competitive in the province, and as a consumer tax will get the more affluent who have more to spend, not to mention that simplifying the sales tax collection will save the province oodles of money. The problem for me is not the HST; it's how it was implemented: that is to say, through lying, secrecy, backroom deals, and general disregard for the public.

A secondary problem arises from this - which party can I support in the next provincial election? The NDP will run the province into the poorhouse (as demonstrated the last time they governed), the Liberals can't be trusted with power anymore, and the Greens are my favourite joke (well no not really...that distinction still goes to Jack Layton). Basically, unless the BC Conservatives pull a meteoric rise out of the ashes within the next two and a half years, I will be completely alienated by the provincial political scene. That said, I will probably end up holding my nose and voting Liberal again just to keep the NDP out. Not that there's much hope for that happening now that the Liberals have dug themselves into a 15% hole with the entire HST fiasco.

Well may we say, "God save the Queen," because NOTHING will save this province. Not at this rate, anyways.