The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Putin and Nukes -- Is This Another Bluff or Is He Serious?

Episode Date: March 28, 2023

Brian Stewart is by for his regular Tuesday commentary and he's got more great observations, ranging from a new Nordic alliance forming to questions about Putin's latest nuclear gambit.  Plus some thoughts about the budget, and an "end bit" on how the pandemic has changed hotel service!

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Putin and talk about nukes. Again. Is he serious this time? And yes, hello again, Peter Mansbridge here. It's Tuesday, that means Brian Stewart. That means talk about Ukraine and Russia, the impact those two countries are having on the rest of the world. Some interesting new talk about that, the impact on the rest of the world, today with Brian. But first of all, a couple of comments about that, the impact on the rest of the world today with Brian. But first of all, a couple of comments about budget, because budget, it is Budget Day in

Canada. And that can be a pretty exciting day. You know, reporters crush in around the House of Commons. They want to talk to the Finance Minister. They want to talk to the various opposition leaders. I mean, after all, there's only one budget, federal budget, a year. And so it's a big day. Chrystia Freeland has been working towards this for months. So it's her big day. She'll stand in the House of Commons and give her budget speech. And everybody will run around trying to get reaction to it and determine, is this a good budget? Is it a bad budget? Well, you kind of know what the opposition's

going to say. You kind of know what the government's going to say. And then there are all kinds of special interest groups represented, both on the Hill, because it's Budget Day, and elsewhere in the country who will have comment on it. Budgets have always been a big deal. I remember when I arrived in Ottawa in the 70s, budgets happened in prime time. They happened at night. All the networks covered it. And, you know, you'd get lots of reaction for hours about the budget. It was also a very secretive process in those days. A minister would have to be positioned to resign if any part of the budget was leaked beforehand.

Well, Leaky Ottawa, there are deliberate leaks on budgets every year now. They started in, I guess, somewhere in the 90s with the Paul Martin Finance Department. They deliberately leak stuff to try and get a sense of how it would play in the business community, in the basic community of Canadians. What would they think of some of these ideas? And so stuff was leaked.

And the closer you got to budget day, more details were leaked. And that's kind of the same now. It goes back and forth, budget to budget, the amount of stuff that's leaked beforehand, but there has been some stuff leaked on this one as well. But nevertheless, it won't stop people from reporting and commenting and reacting to the budget details as they come out later today. It's an afternoon budget as things go these days,

unlike those prime time days. I mean, I remember growing up in the 50s in Ottawa when budget night was a big night. You know, we'd crowd around the little black and white television, which we did in the late 50s, and we'd watch the, we'd watch Charlie Lynch and Norman DePoe reporting from the lobby of the House of Commons on what was in the budget. And I guess those days it was the Dieffenbaker government,

57 and 58, those budgets. So big deal, always has been, and is less of a big deal now than it was in those days. But nevertheless, there'll be lots of reaction, and tomorrow you can be sure that on Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth, Bruce and I will talk about the budget, the smoke, the mirrors, the truth of what's in the details, and how different parties are reacting to it.

Obviously, a lot of focus on the NDP, and will there be something in the budget that makes them go, oh, man, we can't support these guys anymore. Let's pull the plug and there there be something in the budget that makes them go, oh, man, we can't support these guys anymore. Let's pull the plug and there'll be an election. That's possible, unlikely, but possible. So we'll see how that plays out. So in the meantime, Brian Stewart's with us, as he has been on most Tuesdays,

since the war in Ukraine started, since the Russians invaded Ukraine, since the Ukrainians pushed back in a big way. And here we are more than a year later, and the fight continues. But there's a lot of other things continuing as well as a result of that conflict. And that's what we're going to get at today. So let's bring him in. Brian Stewart, war correspondent, foreign correspondent, and a great analyst to have by my side on things like this.

So here's this week's conversation with Brian Stewart. Brian, one of the things we've talked about a number of times in the last, I guess the last six months, is how the world is really changing in terms of power structures, all as a result of what's going on in Ukraine. Sometimes we tend to think that everything that's happening on the Ukraine-Russia war is happening within the borders of Ukraine. Of course, that's not the case. There are a lot of other things happening as a result. We've seen Finland and quite likely Sweden as well, moving towards membership in NATO. We've seen the rise of Poland as a kind of superpower in Northeast Europe,

if not the major power in Northeast Europe. And now we're hearing about this Nordic pact, a pact between Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland. Now talk to me about that and why it could be, you know, pretty important. Yeah, and Norway too. I don't know whether you mentioned Norway, but it's the Scandinavian nations, 28 million people, but if you combined all their territory, it's the seventh largest country in the world. Now it's not a country, but this is geopolitics. It's nations waking up again to the fact that, you know, their destiny is often controlled by geography and those tides of history. And the tides of history is reminding the Scandinavian countries basically to,

you know, be wary of Russia. Very much so. It's a historical reality. And on the 16th, four of the Nordic, let's call them that, Nordic nations, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, their air forces signed an agreement. They're going to come together, form a joint command of over 250 modern frontline combat aircraft. It'll become a regional defense, all able to operate together in all situations from, sorry, training to crisis and right to conflict. This will be a major development because, rarely ever hear about the Nordic nations except in small-scale elements involved with NATO and the rest of it, though they play quite a really big role up there in the far north and on the Baltic. I mean, this is a kind of frontline area in the world today, very much so. And they have been shaken by Russian developments,

not just the invasion of Ukraine, but also going back to really it was the invasion of Crimea that convinced Finland and Sweden that we can't stay outside NATO any longer. It's taken right to the invasion to decide, okay, we better join NATO. But we have to do more than that. We want to become a one functioning Air Force. That's for reasons of obviously expense. It's a lot cheaper to do things as one mass than scattered all over the place. Much more effective in military terms to have a joint command, and to bring all our top flight aircraft, and we have really good aircraft, together into a force of 250, is something that Russia is going to have to pay serious attention to and not take for

granted. In recent years, before even the invasion of Ukraine, there were a lot of Russian overflights. We have them in Canada sometimes, but there have been a lot up in the Nordic area. And in the Baltic area, Russia has become more and more active. So this is what Putin has managed to, so far, it's like a pool game or something. You hit one ball and five others get moved at once, and they're all going in different directions. But this one is going in the direction of, ever since Putin began to ban Georgia and then Crimea, he has got countries thinking about, this is not a world where it's wise to be a single power out there by

yourself. You can declare all the neutrality you want in the world, but that's not going to help you if your frontier bumps up against a superpower that wants to recreate an empire that existed hundreds of years ago and seems to have an almost mystic religious fixation upon getting more territory for Russia, which has more territory than any country on earth. Somebody once said, there's no country anywhere with less rationale or reason to want more land than Russia. But there you are. Now, there's an interesting part here that for Canadians to take some attention. Yeah, I was going to say, you know, when you mentioned Canada a few

moments ago, it got me thinking. I mean, you know, we're kind of a Nordic nation too, right? I mean, we have territory, a huge chunk of it bordering on Russia. I mean, the Arctic Circle and the Arctic Ocean and the North Pole and everything else are in between, but we're kind of there. Are we a Nordic nation? Should we consider ourselves one? That's a good question. A lot of Canadians actually think they have become one over the years, but we're not. The Nordic nations are quite clear about that, that they're a gathering of nations that basically go back to the original

Scandinavian tongue. The Finns, of course, are separate in that regard. But many of them understand each other's own languages, And they've been basically for centuries, either fighting, feuding or getting along very well. They're going through a phase in history where they're getting along extremely well now. Canada, however, is a very good friend of the Nordic nations. They're good friends of ours. We go to their and sometimes their annual meetings of all the northern nations, including Russia and the Nordic nations in Canada. We all share that far, far, far north. So we have mutual interests. We have interest in indigenous peoples, too, which is a very big element in the Nordic nations right now.

We have a kind of shared culture in many areas, but we're not part of it. But however, Canada for many, many years used to, I think we had dedicated 5,000 of our special forces and infantry to go to Norway in case of World War III. And I have frozen myself half to death, I tell you, honestly. Covering some of those exercises in Norway back in the 1980s, I have never been more cold. Anyways, the thought of a war taking place there during winter is

too horrific to even think about. However, they're added a new central command for their air force. They're vast. They're going to ask both the United States and Canada to have contingents involved. This means we would be involved in the central command operations, the training, the supply, the reconnaissance and radar, all of that, which is going to put Canada in a very interesting position because we actually don't want to be there right now.

You're going to ask me why probably. Yeah, I'm going to ask you why. Why not? Why don't we want to be there right now? Well, Canada's had six CF-18s in Europe for years now, going back to 2017 and even beyond. Six of them on a rotation basis based in Romania. And our duties have been to patrol the far north and the Baltic area. And we've been very active there.

But on December 1st, they started home. And Canada is not going to replace them. And the reason we're not going to replace them is because Canada is taking on this major operation to prepare for the CF-35, which will be coming in, I think, 2025, 26, that area. And, you know, that is so complex, so massive an operation. It's like our moonshot. We have to get all our ground crew preparing for the massive changeover. We need our pilots already, you know, training in advance

because it takes a very long period of training for a new plane. We have engineers and all that technical stuff have to go down and coordinate activities with the Americans. So it's a major, major operation. I think Canada is saying to its allies now, you know, please don't call on us for a while if you possibly can. Of course, all sorts of countries have reasons to say, don't call on us. But yeah, I think Canada will probably go ahead with its normal diplomatic stance in the world now, which is no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Well, perhaps. Okay, yes. You're really into that diplomatic language, aren't you? I know.

I would expect to see about two years from now that Canadian CF-18s are back in the Nordic territory based who knows where. There's a northern air base in Finland. The Finns are very anxious to get the Americans to come in because they share a very long border with Russia. And they've had a lot of problems with Russian overflights. So they want to get U.S. aircraft in there. But I think Canadians will probably bow to the chorus of demand and requests in the coming years. And we'll see more Canadian activity in Nordic countries and more of an alliance feeling with Nordic countries. And that's going to be kind of interesting for Canada's government to work on.

I'll be happy as well if they can spend a little more time focused on the Canadian Arctic and what they can do there. Because some of these issues about aircraft, whether they're CF-18s or F-35s, operating in the high Arctic, that's a challenge. You know, it's not just a challenge if they're taking part in some of the Nordic operations. It's a challenge right here in our north as well. And I know there's, you know, because of NORAD,

there's all kinds of talk about pouring more money into, you know, something in the equivalence to what we used to have in the dew line operation and all that. But, you know, it's much more, obviously, very different, much more tech involved, much more of a high-scale operation, but it's costing big bucks. So when they're looking at maybe helping the Finns and the Swedes and the Norwegians and so on and so on, we've also got a situation here as well that has to be looked after. Actually, that's a very good idea. In fact, we could almost propose here a multinational solution to some of the problems that perhaps the Nordic countries who have

enormous experience flying in the very far north, Norway and Sweden and Finland, they could send a delegation over to Canada and perhaps help us prepare for NORAD. So we can have a cross-cultural exchange going on here. Okay. All right. We've used our vast knowledge and experience to come up with a solution to all this let me get back to what we what you especially are very good at because what i've what i find interesting is because there have been these changes in the last year we're seeing all these new alliances whether it's a a Nordic pact, whether it's a beefed-up NATO, whether it's a better-financed NORAD, and now you've got this, what do they call it, AUKUS, Australia, the UK,

and the United States with potential nuclear-powered submarines, especially in the Pacific. This is mainly because of China, but nevertheless, it's yet another one of these, not necessarily new groups, but groups that are re-emerging on the international platform as alliances that are prepared to not necessarily throw their weight around, but certainly be much more evident in the geopolitical world that we live in now. Yeah, that's true.

And it's motivated by, you know, the shared geography, a sense of geography, a sense that with this geographical position, we're vulnerable to certain, you know, attacks from other areas or influences coming in. We have to look to that. We have to look to history. Where have alliances worked well before in the past? Where do we seem to have a kind of way of working well with people?

And some are even exploding into areas that are not so familiar. For instance, the U.S. and Japan now are working on a major alliance, helping Japan beef up its defenses, you know, because of the China threat, and various islands. So all over the world, really, you're seeing these alliances. But one of the very important things to underline is, you know, modern weaponry is simply too expensive for single countries to handle. I mean, you know, Australia can't handle its own defenses on its own because a nuclear submarine costs billions upon billions of dollars. You know, Canada couldn't possibly handle its own defenses unless it became a total neutral with no military at all because everything costs so much now. Look at the F-35 as an example. So this is working its way. And also the fact that the period after the Cold War really didn't last very long in terms of people being relaxed about the

future of the world. I mean, 2001, and we were, you know, the terrorist threats were increasing dramatically. The world has, we've seen wars in, you know, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. There's a general worryingness out there that, you know, if a rules-based order begins to break down in the world, if some superpowers get away with breaking the rules, where do they stop? I mean, the history suggests, geopolitics may even suggest, they really won't stop anywhere soon. And that's the new reality. I mean, we would not be seeing anything at all like the unity in Europe right now and the sense of shared purpose going right up to the very, very far north if it was not for Putin. I mean, if Russia had adopted a much more, you know, I mean, amiable, let's say, line and less threatening line and not attack Georgia,

not attack Crimea, we wouldn't really have this. And the defense departments of the world would be worried stiff of how on earth do we persuade our populations to back all these massive new military expenditures are going on because we've got a kind of pleasant, tame Russia that wants to compete with us economically and in other areas, but certainly isn't anxious in gaining new territory. And we have a very robust and extraordinary and admirable China that is very anxious to be the world trading leader, which is good for competition perhaps, but isn't threatening to invade Taiwan. It's just changing all the mindsets that we're happy after.

You know, that night in Berlin we were in in 1989 when we saw the wall come down, our eyes were blinking in almost disbelief, but it was coming down in front of us. Really, you know, the world has really gone back to a period of greater tension than it was in the last part of the Cold War. You know, we've been lucky, eh, Brian,

when you consider the places that both of us have been and many more that you've been in situations, but that one, that time in Berlin in November of 89, it's hard to match that. I mean, you literally felt the world was changing right in front of your eyes. Yeah. It was quite something, but we have been lucky. You know, that night is so interesting how human destiny is. When we were there, I remember a big crowd off to the side, drinking beer and celebrating.

And they'd come over from Germany, and they're all celebrating. I remember it being quite noisy at times. And some people say we were trying to do live hits, whatever. And in the middle of that, holding a beer in her hand, was the future Chancellor of Germany. That's right. Angela Merkel. She was just a student at that time, right?

Like chemical engineering or something. That's right. But there she was. Initially on the other side of the wall, and then the wall came down in bits and pieces over the next couple of nights. Yeah, it was quite a time. Okay, we're going to take a quick break and come back and bring us to the present day moment

and try and get you to explain to me what this whole Belarus tactical nuclear weapons Putin thing is all about. I'll do that right after this. And welcome back. It's the Tuesday episode of The Bridge. Brian Stewart is with us. We're talking about a lot of different things in a world that's changed as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine more than a year ago now. You're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks,

or on your favorite podcast platform. All right, Brian, Putin makes an announcement in the last couple of days that he's going to send, with the approval of the government of Belarus, he's going to send tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. One, will that actually happen? Two, why is he doing it, and what could it mean? Well, it may happen. That's sort of the first thing, because Russian Belarus have talked about this

for a few years now, of moving Russian tactical weapons in there. What it really means is he's, you know, he's trying basically to scare the wits out of the West. You want to reduce it to what the core element here is, and also scare the Ukrainians, which is obviously not going to happen. You know, most military experts, the United States itself right now with excellent intelligence, says there really is no sign of any determination of Russia to use nuclear weapons. How can they? China and India, two of its, it's only two real

major friends left, have both said they don't even want russia to talk about nukes let alone you even consider using tactical nuclear weapons if he did it would be disastrous consequences in fact the united states have said if he used if russia uses nuclear weapons there would be catastrophic responses uh from the west and one has to kind of believe that. So it's really what they now tend to call an information operation. In other words, you put out a story, you scare your enemy, you eventually lower their morale because they're tired of having their hair stand on end over talk of nuclear weapons. And the other reality is, and this is why a lot of military experts are kind of scoffing at it as just a saber rattling operation, is that there's

no reason for them to put tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus because they've got all the range they need now. I mean, tactical nukes, which are not strategic nukes by any means they're much much uh i wouldn't say mild because they're certainly not mild but they're much less powerful and yield much less than the strategic ones do but they have nuclear submarines now they have flights of all kinds they have missiles that can fire 2 000 kilometers now why do they need to be forward based into belarus there's no need there's no real tactical reason for tactical nuclear weapons there therefore that makes no sense and therefore If he was planning to attack Ukraine, and recently his vice president, Medvedev, has warned that if Ukraine attacks Crimea, Russia would use all its weapons. And again, he's been saying that now for a full year.

And he keeps saying it over and over again. It's like, you know, crying wolf. The world has ceased to pay a lot of attention to Moscow when it makes these claims right now. The Ukrainians certainly, they want the world to really jump on Putin this time because, you know, he wanted to rattle some sabers. He should pay the price for rattling. There should be every time he rattles that saber, bring Russia before the UN and accused of this, that and the rest. Well, one thing.

That's where we stand. I think the kind of thing that every few months Russia will decide, look, we need something new because our offensive isn't exactly working that great. In fact, it's hardly working at all. And we're not intimidating the West by conventional military means we've got to bring nukes into them. Otherwise, you know, they'll be starting to take us for granted. And so they come up with another we may use nuclear weapons story, which doesn't seem to be founded really in any likelihood. Well, it's one of those headlines that causes a degree of a distraction from, as you say, the problems he's got elsewhere, and they are very real.

I want to ask you as a last thought here, a last topic for our discussion today. I saw a number this week on Russian tanks that are being put out of service, and that number is 2,000 in a year. Now, is that possible? This is, I should say this is the conservative estimate is now somewhere between 1,700 and 2,000. The Ukrainians are claiming over 3,000, but they're not being really believed on that. 2,000 tanks, that's really half their tank force for a large country.

Here's a statistic to keep in mind. Russia only produces 20 new tanks a month. It's losing 150 tanks a month. At this rate, they're using up all their, even their reserve tanks are being thrown into the fight because the area that russia controls in ukraine is the size roughly of portugal it's a very long front of 800 or so miles they need a lot of tanks in portugal but they keep being wiped out and sometimes 12 in a day and it's just been a kind of tank slaughter. In fact, we remember one of our earlier broadcasts, I raised the possibility that the day of the tank is finished.

Well, it certainly seems to be somewhat finished for the Russians, but we'll have to see whether Western tanks, modern and presumably better tanks, so the experts all say, will fare much better when they go into the attack. But certainly tanks are not surviving in a tank in an attack very well in this modern battlefield. Well, what's Russia doing for new tanks if they can't produce them themselves? I assume they can't find anywhere to buy them. So they're going into deep storage to bring those things out of museums that were used. Not deep storage, Peter, but deep, deep storage.

This is where they put the weapons back to the Second World War. In fact, this is a story that, you know, you can hardly believe, but train load of F-54, sorry, T-54 and T-58 tanks were seen heading from the East Russia over to Western Russia in the direction, presumably, of Ukraine. And a lot of military experts around the world are saying they can't be. They can't really be throwing in a tank. The T-54 came out in 1947. That was the era of Truman, Stalin, Attlee, Mackenzie King. And the T-58, which is a more modernized version, came out around the time of the first artificial space satellite. I mean, these are absolutely ancient museum pieces. But the Russians are Russians already been throwing in the T-62, which was a, you know, really a late 60s tank. These tanks, they don't have the metallurgical strength of modern tanks.

They can't resist the kind of fire that modern tanks, the best ones can. They'd be just chewed up as mincemeat. I think more likely, even the Russians won't dare send a T-58 or a T, sorry, a T-54 in. That would be suicidal. But they're using them to back up other old tanks like the T-62 that they're sending into Ukraine because they're running out of tanks. hulks from deep, deep, deep storage into either the battle itself or backing up older tanks going into the battle. Younger tanks, but a decade or so, I mean. You never cease to surprise us and make us think of what's going on there. I mean, it is almost inconceivable to imagine that the powerful so-called or we thought powerful russian army could be left like this you know a little more than a year after uh

boldly saying it was going to move into ukraine and clean it up and have a parade to celebrate within a week um none of that's happened. And now we're talking these kind of numbers on Russian tanks and them having to look, you know, go deep, deep into storage, start to bring out the museum pieces. It's really quite remarkable. The central fact coming home to Russia is that, you know, all the modern weapons it has to produce, well, the United States is having trouble producing enough modern weapons to meet the current crises and other demands. And it's 10 times the size of the economy of Russia, with a vastly greater industrial capability. The United Kingdom is five times the size of industrial capacity of Russia. So, I mean, this is one of those geopolitical almost facts, but really, to get involved in a war when you're outmatched overwhelmingly

by the other side and its allies, that is really madness. Professor Brian Stewart with his geopolitics, what's the word I'm looking for, his lesson today on geopolitics and where we are in the world on a number of fronts. Brian, as always, thank you for this. We'll talk to you again in a week. Okay, thanks, Peter. Brian Stewart with us, as he has been, as you know,

for most of the past year. And some of that stuff is, it's kind of mind-boggling, really, when you think of it. And the way, for most of our lives, we have thought of what at first was the Soviet Union and now is Russia as, in a way, this impenetrable bastion of arms and conviction and that it couldn't be pushed around by anyone? Now, there's reason, and we should have noticed, that there was lots of reason to believe that they could be pushed around. Look what happened to them in Afghanistan.

They were there from, what, 79 to 88, early 89, something like that. And then they up and left because they could not win. And it was draining their economy and their treasury of what little they had left. And, of course, it eventually led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. So there was a lesson there. But nevertheless, we all sat around more than a year ago thinking this is going to be, you know, a slam dunk for the Russians. I shouldn't say we all did, but a lot of us felt that way.

And a lot of other countries felt that way. But that's not what happened, as we well know. Anyway, thanks to Brian, as always. Now, I've got an end bit to close out today's show, and it's got nothing to do with Ukraine, nothing to do with Russia, nothing to do with the budget. Although it affects your budget, I guess, in a way. We talk about how the pandemic changed things, changed our world. And it did in a lot of different ways, some small, some big. Here's one if you travel at all if you decide that on your holidays you want to do a little bit of driving with the family you want to take a train trip you want to you want to go somewhere it usually means that at

the end of that trip or not the end of the trip trip, that as far as you go, you're going to end up in a hotel or a motel or something. Well, things at hotels and motels have changed because of the pandemic. And here's one thing that's changed a lot. It was a headline last week in the New York Times of all places. Say goodbye to daily hotel room cleaning. That's right. You know, you used to be spoiled at a hotel, any level hotel, that they would come in, clean your room.

You know, you'd leave that little sign on the door, room needs cleaning. You'd get fresh towels, sometimes fresh sheets if you were staying more than one night. If you were spending a couple of nights, you'd get fresh sheets each day. In most hotels, that is not the case anymore. Starting with the pandemic, because most customers,

they didn't want anybody in their room. First of all, there were very few people in hotels. I remember on a couple of occasions in that, was it the first year, the second year of the pandemic, I had to travel because of work. And I ended up in, you know, in a hotel and one that I would normally stay at, whether I was in Calgary or Winnipeg or Vancouver or Halifax or Ottawa. And I usually stay at the same hotels and I have for years. And yet you'd go in and that first or second year of the pandemic

and there was nobody there. There were very few people staying in the hotel. Occupancy rates were down into single digits. But that's not all. Most occupants did not want people coming in the room. I don't know, you don't have to make out the room. I don't want anybody in the room. And so you'd make your own bed.

You'd tidy up your own room. There was no vacuum cleaner there to vacuum, but you looked after things. Well, what's happened since? Occupancy rates are back up. They're within, in the States, they're within a couple of points of where they were pre-pandemic.

The occupancy rate in, you know, in the general hotel range was around 65, 64% before the pandemic. It's at 62% now. So it's basically back. But what isn't back is daily hotel room cleaning. Depending on, of course, the room you stay at. You know, quoting from this

New York Times article. This is kind of interesting. I didn't realize there was this kind of spread. Marriott, which operates 30 hotel brands and more than 8,000 properties in 139 countries and territories, trumpeted its new normal during an investor call last month in February.

It said that it was creating a tier system for housekeeping in which those who paid more could expect a higher level of service. Its highest-end properties, like the Ritz-Carlton and the St. Regis brand, where rooms run upward of $550 a night, would continue to provide free daily cleanings. That's not bad, right? You spend $550 on a room, you might want to think that you could get it cleaned once a day.

Fresh towels. The next level would be like the Sheraton or the Meridian. Guests would get a free daily tidy. You like that? That's their quote. Oh yes, we'd love to have you with us and we'll give you a free daily tidy. So that's what happens in those. Guess at what it calls its select service brands.

Okay, now we're getting close to where we stay. Courtyard by the Marriott, Four Points by the Sheraton, Aloft and Moxie, never heard of those, among others. Would get their rooms cleaned every other day. At Hilton's brands, such as Conrad, Doubletree, and Embassy Suites, the housekeeping schedules vary, but the majority in the United States now offer opt-in service, meaning guests need to contact the front desk if they want a complimentary room cleaning. Recognizing some guests may have varying levels of comfort with someone entering their rooms after they've checked in, Hilton offers them

the choice and control to request the housekeeping services they desire. One thing that had already started before the pandemic, and it happened in a lot of hotels, there'd be a little sign there saying, you know, we'll certainly change your towels if you feel there's an absolute need to, and if you do feel that way, then you should leave the towel on the floor of the bathroom. However, if you don't, we'd appreciate for conserving energy, et cetera, et cetera, that you just hang the towels, let them dry,

and use them again the next day, like you would likely do at home. All right? So now you know. There's your end bit for today. I love that. That phrase, though. I love that that phrase though we would love to give you a tidy up just let us know

and we'll be by alright folks that's it for today budget day today tomorrow smoke mirrors and the truth Bruce will be by we'll talk about the budget and we'll talk about other things as well so look forward to that and keep in mind if you have any thoughts comments on anything including yesterday i've got a ton of comments already yesterday people writing in with you know i asked for the one thing they're doing. Not the ten things they're doing.

The one thing they're doing. Man, you people love to write long, long, long, long letters. But keep in mind, you'll just get a couple sentences on the program if you make the cut for Thursday's program. That's your turn and the random renter on Thursday. So don't be shy. Drop me a line. The Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com.

The Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. That's it for today. Thanks so much for listening. I'm Peter Mansbridge. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. Thank you.