Connect with us

Opinion

Could we defer this October 16, 2017 municipal election until 2019?

Published

4 minute read

What if we had an election and nobody showed up? With voter turn out deceasing, that may happen yet.
We will be having an election on October 16, 2017 and it does appear that it is quite plausible, all the incumbents may run again. There are no indications of any incumbents deciding not to run. Since incumbents have a great advantage, media coverage, name recognition, events, etc., it is quite possible that there may not see any differences on October 17, 2017.
There are a few new comers throwing their hats in the ring, but they are not offering much different, than what we have now. So why vote for a shadow when we can vote the real thing?
In 2010 incumbent Mayor Morris Flewelling won re-election beating Hilary Penko, a relative unknown newcomer, but only with 8,100 to her 6,219 votes. He still won but Hilary Penko, made it a race.
Will we have any semblance of a race in 2017, or should we defer it to 2019?
Why? There are several reasons. The 2019 games will be over in March, the Provincial election will be over in May, and the Federal election will be over in October.
The games would be the final hurrah for some incumbents. The Provincial election will see a united right wing party, and new candidates, with some being municipal incumbents. The Federal election will see at least 2 new leaders, anticipated retirement amongst Federal incumbents, and again a few candidates being municipal incumbents.
So it is possible that after many years the Mayor takes the next step and becomes the MP for Red Deer/Mountview, and a couple of councillors become MLAs, and another one or two just retire after the games. Then we should have our election, which we would have had if they not changed municipal terms to 4 years from 3 in 2013.
The Mayor vacates her seat to be an MP, thus creating a By-election. The result of the By-election a councillor becomes the Mayor forciing another By-election for a council seat. A School board trustee wins a seat on council forcing another by-election for a school board trustee.
So to avoid all these hypothetical by-elections let us hold our municipal elections after the other 2019 events. We could demand a commitment that they not vacate their seats for these reasons.
Another reason to hold off the election is our population. Red Deer did their annual census in 2016 and found that the city shrank in population by 975 residents. They decided not to have a census in 2017 because they needed growth to validate the expenditure, which was highly unlikely. They also deferred any annexation due to lack of growth. Currently there is speculation that the population is still in decline, and we will not know until the census in 2018.
If we had 2017 numbers that showed continued decline the incumbents would have to defend their past decisions that may have contributed to our decline and would have to offer plans to turn it around. Now they can use the Federal Census showing growth over a 5 year span.
If the choice is just between incumbents and their shadows, and no real discussion, debate or distinct proposals on important issues, then defer the election to 2019.
Maybe by then we would see real growth, and not be recognized for our high crime rate, poor air quality, and our discriminatory practices against residents living north of the river.
The Mayor faced a “challenger” in 2010, will there be any real challengers for any incumbent in 2017? I hope so or deferral would be my choice.
Time will only tell, it is still early.

Follow Author

International

Trump’s Strike on Iran Reshapes Global Power Balance, Deals First Blow to Beijing and CRINK Axis

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Some analysts say the U.S. strike marks the West’s first major blow in an emerging global war against the ‘CRINK’ alliance — China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

At 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, President Donald Trump confirmed that U.S. B-2 stealth bombers had penetrated Iranian airspace overnight and delivered precision strikes on multiple nuclear enrichment facilities—marking the first direct American military action targeting Iran’s nuclear program since the conflict with Israel escalated.

Trump said the strikes were “massive” and necessary to prevent the world’s most dangerous regime from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.

The United States and its military had completed a strike unprecedented in history and that no other military can achieve, Trump declared in a televised address from the Oval Office, arguing that Iran had sought the destruction of Israel and America, and killed many U.S. soldiers.

The president’s remarks confirmed what international observers and Israeli defense officials had begun to piece together in the early hours of Saturday in the Middle East: that American forces had joined Israel’s rapidly expanding campaign to dismantle the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and military infrastructure—a move with historic ramifications for the balance of power in the region and for global security.

This attack, while narrowly focused on nuclear targets, may mark a broader inflection point in the strategic landscape of what some U.S. defense analysts call the “CRINK” war—referring to the de facto alliance of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

This morning Mike Gallagher, the former chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and now a national security adviser, said the strike marked a return to credible power projection.

“Deterrence comes from dominant force and the willingness to use it,” he posted to X. “Last night, President Trump took a critical step toward restoring deterrence in the Middle East and around the world.”

According to senior U.S. defense officials, the strikes involved a small number of stealth bombers supported by aerial refueling tankers and surveillance aircraft operating from bases in the Middle East and Europe. The targets included Iran’s deeply buried Natanz uranium enrichment complex and secondary facilities near Arak and Fordow.

Of these, Fordow is considered Iran’s most fortified nuclear site—tunneled into a mountainside near the holy city of Qom and designed to survive conventional airstrikes. Reaching it requires specialized bunker-penetrating munitions. Only the United States possesses weapons capable of striking such hardened targets: most likely the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bomb built to bore through hundreds of feet of reinforced rock and concrete. Defense sources say multiple sequential detonations would be required to break through the mountain’s layers and disable the underground enrichment halls.

Early satellite imagery and Iranian state media appeared to corroborate the targeting of Natanz, reporting heavy damage and widespread power disruptions across the site and adjacent military compounds. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement vowing retaliation but acknowledged that “enemy aircraft penetrated undetected and struck sensitive infrastructure.”

The United States, by committing its own strategic assets to destroy critical Iranian military infrastructure, has gained the initiative in what could be seen as the first true strategic victory for the West in World War III—a long, undeclared conflict characterized by economic warfare, proxy combat, gray-zone cyber operations, and regional insurgencies. The Pentagon and White House now face critical choices that could significantly shape the remainder of this century.

The strike could come at a high cost, but also could deliver epoch-shifting, decisive strategic benefits. Iran supplies drones to Russia, subsidizes oil to China, and provides weapons to terrorist actors that threaten U.S. bases and allies from the Gulf to the Mediterranean, military and intelligence analysts argue. Its defeat would damage the CRINK axis, remove a key enabler of great power revisionism, and restore American leverage after years of attritional conflict.

Trump’s language Saturday night suggested he may favor such a path.

In Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the American action as “a decisive blow against the terror regime in Tehran.” In a national address hours after the U.S. confirmation, Netanyahu said, “This is not just Israel’s fight—the free world has acted.”

Israeli media reported that the Israeli Air Force had provided electronic warfare support and real-time intelligence for the U.S. strikes, though officials declined to confirm operational details. In Tel Aviv, civilians remained under heightened alert, but there were signs of cautious optimism. “The alliance between Israel and the United States is at full strength,” one senior Israeli official told local media. “We have shifted the strategic calculus in the region.”

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council convened an emergency session overnight. Government officials condemned the strikes as an act of war and said Tehran would respond “at a time and place of our choosing.” As of Sunday morning EST, no immediate missile launches had been detected. However, Western intelligence agencies were monitoring known Iranian proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen for signs of mobilization.

On Iranian social media channels, state-linked accounts circulated images of damaged facilities alongside calls for retaliatory “martyrdom operations” against U.S. and Israeli targets.

The joint U.S.-Israeli operation followed weeks of escalating hostilities, beginning with Israeli airstrikes deep inside Iranian territory that disabled radar arrays, weapons depots, and drone launch sites. Iranian retaliation—including missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities—prompted increasingly urgent warnings from Western capitals that the situation risked spiraling into open regional war.

In Tehran, BBC correspondents reported a rare mix of panic and defiance among civilians. Some feared a full-scale war was imminent. Others expressed anger at their government for failing to protect key military and nuclear assets.

European leaders called for restraint. In an interview late Saturday night EST, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the strike as “a painful but necessary step.” French officials warned of “a dangerous path toward uncontrollable conflict.”

In Washington, current and former intelligence officials said the operation signaled a fundamental shift in U.S. posture.

The Pentagon later confirmed the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the region, including carrier strike groups and long-range missile defense batteries.

Whether the operation succeeds in deterring Iran from restarting its nuclear weapons program—or sparks a wider war in the Middle East—remains uncertain. What is clear is that the seismic shift beneath Fordow began in Iran, but its aftershocks are now reverberating through the war rooms of Beijing and Moscow.

Editor’s Note: The first version of this story was updated to paraphrase President Trump’s remarks, and add a comment from former senator and CCP committee leader Mike Gallagher.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

National

Preston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?

Published on

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

Many years ago, when I was in the consulting business, I visited Washington DC to re-connect with some Republican contacts I had previously made in California and who had since risen to positions of influence with the Nixon administration. In their California days they had been idealistic advocates of change, but when I met them in Washington most of that idealism had evaporated. As they ruefully explained, “ Here in Washington DC, the real name of the game is simply “appearing to cope”.

And how do politicians in high office play this game? When issue X arises, hold a news conference or give a speech acknowledging X’s existence and expressing deep concern. Convene a hearing or a conference on X, calling for decision makers and experts on X to attend and testify. Issue an executive order or send a draft bill to Congress with X in the title, the preamble, and the news release. In other words, substitute announcement for action, conferencing and discussion for results, and appearance for substance.

Flash forward 50 years and regrettably the “appearing to cope” strategy is very much alive and now practiced in Canada by the newly elected Carney government.

Is Infrastructure Development, long neglected and even obstructed by the discredited Trudeau administration, a pressing issue? Of course. So, borrowing from the Conservative platform, now make Infrastructure Development a theme of speeches and commentaries by Liberals seeking and winning election. Post election, convene a federal provincial conference with Infrastructure Development high on the agenda and post-conference communiques announcing “cooperation” on the subject. Introduce a bill in parliament purporting to facilitate Infrastructure Development by reducing federal regulations and interprovincial barriers while prophesying billions of dollars of investment in Infrastructure Development. As yet no actual infrastructure development has occurred – there are no shovels in the ground – but the appearance has been given that the federal government is successfully addressing the issue.

“Appearing to do” as a substitute for actually doing is now complemented and amplified in this age of social media by the ease with which governments and politicians can also “appear to be” something or someone they are not. The exhortation to “Do, rather than appear to do” should now be accompanied by that of the old Latin motto – Esse Quam Videri – “Be, rather than appear to be”.

As the contractors complete the future Chamber of the House of Commons in the refurbished Parliament Building in Ottawa, maybe they should carve into the ceiling of the Chamber – in a prominent place visible to all members of the House. “Do, rather than appear to do. Be, rather than appear to be.” Would not the acceptance and practice of those two exhortations render our politics and our government more worthy of public trust?

Subscribe to Preston’s Substack.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X