Make Pallister a one-term premier

This is absolutely frightening:

Quote:

The Manitoba government is considering selling off its Amphibex ice-breaking machines that help prevent ice jams and floods on the Red River north of Winnipeg.

The province owns three of the machines and has them run by a corporation set up by three municipalities, under a contract that costs more than $1 million a year.

Infrastructure Minister Ron Schuler says the government is simply seeing if a better deal is available on the open market.

...

The Opposition New Democrats say they are worried privately-owned Amphibexes might not be available when they are needed during spring flood season.

No Mr. Schuler, you're wrong about this. The system we have now works. We need those machines to prevent major spring flooding. The fact that the river flows south to north, and freezes in the opposite direction in the winter time, to melt in the same direction, leaves the potential for major ice jams on the river upstream. We don't need to have jurisdictional squabbles in the middle of a potential flood emergency. A miscommunication could have those things out there too late or not at all, which could not only cause major flooding in Manitoba, but I imagine communities in Minnesota and North Dakota may be in danger as well.

Is there anything this government won't sell off? The most frustrating thing is that the rural communities that would be hard hit voted for this government in large numbers.

With the Winnipeg Police Service having said they are stressed beyond their capacity, and Mayor Bowman's call for a meeting with Trudeau and Pallister to talk about crime, and since Winnipeg is likely to record its highest ever number of homicides in a year, I think the NDP should start emphasising health care a bit less and place a bit more emphasis on the issue of crime and safety. If the crime wave we are seeing now was happening under a Liberal or NDP government, the Winnipeg Sun would be all over how the soft-on-crime approach doesn't work. Plus, the PCs have tried to make an issue of crime in Winnipeg before. Plus, people generally trust the PCs to deal with crime over the NDP, so it would show how Pallister has failed at something his party is supposed to be good at. Suburban voters might not be experiencing the same levels of crime in their neighbourhoods as downtown and the North End, but they do read the scary headlines. They will catch on that Pallister has made the city less safe if the NDP continues to hammer on this message.

I also wanted to respond to something else in the article epaulo posted. The author of said article accuses the NDP of collaborating with the police on the crime issue. I don't think that accusation is fair. The meeding is to take place in one of the areas of the city (and possibly the whole province) with the highest violent crime that happens. That's not some manufactured response. Residents in the area are very frustrated with what they see happening, and they want answers. When it comes to crime and public safety, the police are always going to be involved. I'm certain that many of the underlying causes of crime will be brought up, and that the NDP will champion many of these policies. Even high-ranking police officials have said that we can't arrest our way out of the problem and that people need more supports. I do have issues with how the police operate, especially when it comes to investigating officers accused of wrong doing, but we need to be fair in our critiques. Otherwise nobody will take us seriously.

This is not the first time this has happened. I remember during the last years of the Filmon administration arson became a big problem in the city. That was the reason that the police and fire department set up their own special task force dedicated to solving arsons. The PCs are clearly bad for public safety in Winnipeg.

Aside from having meth stabilization units so that the police and hospital emergency rooms are not tied up dealing with these people, we need immediate restoration of drug and mental health courts. These options would allow people who commit crimes brought on by drug abuse and mental health problems to receive leniency in exchange for dealing with the problems that led them to commit crimes in the first place.

From the NDP press release quoted in the CD article (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Fontaine and Smith also announced a community gathering in Winnipeg’s north end in which local community members can share concerns and discuss short- and long-term solutions to reduce violent crimes. Local police leadership will partner with Fontaine and Smith including Winnipeg Police representatives, AFN Regional Chief Kevin Hart, Aboriginal Youth Opportunities, Manitoba Moon Voices and local Elders.

The NDP invited Conservative Justice Minister Cliff Cullen and Health Minister Cameron Friesen to attend the gathering.

“While families are threatened, the province has stayed quiet. When our city is in crisis, the Pallister government has a responsibility to take action to keep families safe,” said Bernadette Smith. “We know the most effective solutions to violence in our communities will come from the community itself and so we invite the Conservative Minister to listen to those with the lived experience and expert knowledge that can make our city safer for all of us.”

I appreciate that getting at poverty is important. Unfortunately for us, the people of this province voted for Pallister with everthing about poverty being said. People want to talk about crime because they are experiencing it or they feel unsafe or they hear about it in the news. This is the perfect gateway the NDP can use to go into the other issues. Catch people's attention by saying, "You guys feel unsafe? The very people you put in charge have failed to do anything about it." Once you have people's attention, then you can move onto what we do about it. Talk about the cuts to programs that prevent crime and that allow for reabilitation. Show people that the police budget has been increasing while crime has been persistently high, both in terms of actual data and anecdotal evidence of unsafe people actually feel. Show them that we have choices, and I think, for the most part, that they will agree with investing in the more preventative solutions.

Sometimes I'm very frustrated at feeling like the left wants to lecture people, that they know the answers and everyone should just listen to them. One of the first things you learn if you take a communication course is that everyone has their own perceptual filters. If you want to have any hope of convincing people, you first have to understand their perceptions and world view (even if you disagree) and work within that frame of mind to convince them. How people who are supposedly educated can overlook that basic thing is mind boggling.

As far as doing something new, I would suggest re-evaluating what doesn't work and changing tactics. The NDP traditionally focuses on health care and education, which voters trust the NDP to do a better job with that than the other parties. Unfortunately, when it comes to messaging on health care, voters knew that in September and took that into account when they voted. They typically trust the PCs do deal more with crime and public safety. That was a theme of previous campaign ads, as shown here and  here. New approaches? Try to communicate more effectively. Take this closing ad for the PCs from 2016. The reason that ad works is that it hit the NDP for failing on something NDP supporters want their party to do succeed at. It doesn't matter that the ad doesn't propose solutions. It doesn't have to. Just pointing out how the NDP has let down its own supporters is enough to sap NDP energy and momentum. We have a chance to tell PC supporters that their Premier has failed to make them safer. As for solutions? The forum had much discussion about familar NDP themes like poverty, housing, and rehabilitation. We have a chance to pitch those solutions as being effective.

I think you and I agree on the broad principles of what needs to be done and what the goals are. I hope that this discussion can be more about how to refine tactics and approaches to meet said goals.

I listened to the Up to Speed interview laine mentioned upthread. I take issue with the woman's contention that the police need more training. Police officers already receive a great deal of training on many topics, both as they are being accepted to the police and ongoing professional development throughout their careers. The lady even described many police officers are having a "heart of gold." So somehow these officers are able to make use of their training to do things right. Training, or lack thereof, is not the issue. The issue is the "we're-the-good-guys-who-stop-the-bad-guys" mentality, whether or not officers have the support services they need to cope with the stress they have on the job, and the near impossibility of holding abusive officers to account.

I'm willing to grant that it is likely a small minority of officers who are abusing their power and not doing their jobs professionally. The problem is that it doesn't take many of these instances to affect perception of the majority and the police service as a whole, especially when this minority is not stopped.

This Canadian Dimension article goes into great detail about what Pallister has done. Specifically in terms of criminal justice, his cuts include:

Cutting a decades-old restorative justice program that kept people out of jail

Eliminating a program to teach trades and other useful skills to prisoners

Refuses to consider a safe injection site, as recommended by advocates, and to add insult to injury, lied about Horgan telling him that they came with unintended consequences

Refused to spend federal money given specifically for the treatment of meth

Cut funding to women's centres in Point Douglas and the North End

Rejected funding for 24/7 safe spaces (what do you think not having a safe space for vulnerable people does to their likelihood of being murdered? More police costs down the road?)

Ended the Neighbourhoods Alive program that helped communites in downtown Winnipeg, the North End, Elmwood, Brandon, Thompson, Dauphin, Flin Flon, Selkirk, The Pas, and Portage la Prairie (another major city in Manitoba that struggles with crime)

I'm just listing the cuts that have a direct impact on crime and public safety. The article lists more cuts to programs like child care and education that have a more indirect impact over the long term that everybody already knows. What I want to do is highlight some of the things that people might not be aware of and that should receive more attention.

It's not just communities in Winnipeg that are struggling:

Quote:

"It's really going to force community organizations to think about the way they implement projects in the community," says Espey. "Community organizations will have to build new partnerships and work for partnerships a lot harder than they've probably ever had to before."

Lynne Parker is the Executive Director of Recreation Opportunities for Kids (ROK) Central, and she shares these changes mean a considerable reduction of programs for ROK.

Parker adds the programs that ROK runs are geared toward vulnerable populations, and she believes it's the responsibility of the government to help make these programs available. Parker notes most grants do not cover wages and benefits.

"If we don't have wages for our staff it's just not going to work," stresses Parker.

epaulo13 wrote:

..if possible i'd like to continue the conversation that has been started here. the thread title can be changed.

Union wants policy changes, more police in grocery stores to address shoplifting

Shoplifting has become such a problem at Winnipeg-area grocery stores that a union representing retail workers is calling for changes to improve safety and reduce theft.

Employees are advised not to intervene in thefts, said Jeff Traeger, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 832, so he thinks more police in stores are needed to solve the problem.

"It's gone too far" for "trying to address the root causes to be a good short-term solution," Traeger said. "Right now [the solution] means police in stores."

UFCW also represents the security guards working at the stores, who Traeger said are "visual deterrents" but have no authority to actually stop anybody engaged in a theft.

quote:

Bronwyn Dobchuk-Land, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Winnipeg, said adding police isn't the right way to approach the problem.

"The idea of putting police in stores sounds good, but extending the idea to the scale it needs to be viable.... It's not surprising to hear this from a union, but it is disappointing," she said.

Dobchuk-Land said the root causes of crime include poverty and homelessness caused by austerity and public investment in policing doesn't make sense based on evidence.

"We're in the midst of a social crisis, a crisis of inequality, a crisis where people don't have enough to eat and are so beaten down by being overly policed that they're participating in vengeful acts of theft," she said.

Even if stores are paying for police, more security won't solve the problem, she said.

"It's not effective and it's likely to lead to increased tensions, increased racial profiling, regarding a problem that is fundamentally about poverty and inequality," Dobchuk-Land said.

Yeah, I was pretty angry about that when I read about it this morning. Large department stores like Superstore already have their own loss prevention staff to deal with this. I also think that if taxes are going to rise this much, then it should probably go towards affordable housing that will make it easier for the members of the union who work in the store. Funny thing, I never see the UFCW involved in any municipal political issues that would make their members lives any better.

Serously, UFCW 832 is one of the most useless unions out there. How long did they sit on their hands while Stella's staff were dealing with a toxic work envirnoment? And unions wonder why people don't like them?