The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT - Is The Voting System Fair?

Episode Date: October 5, 2022

Bruce is in the UK this week so not surprisingly he has a few things to say about the chaos the latest British Prime Minister finds herself in.  Also, a little Donald Trump bashing just to stay consistent.  But the big question revolves around electoral reform and whether it will ever happen here, especially after Monday's Quebec election results.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Wednesday, Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth with Bruce Anderson. Ah yes, it's hump day. We love Wednesdays. If for no other reason than we get to hear Bruce, Bruce Anderson is traveling in the United Kingdom as we speak, because clearly we know what a monarchist he is. He wanted to get over there early in the reign of King Charles III. This is my first visit to the UK in the reign of King Charles, and it doesn't feel that different, Peter.

I'll be honest with you. You're kidding. I was expecting it to feel't feel that different, Peter. I'll be honest with you. You're kidding. I was expecting it to feel a little bit different, but it hasn't yet. Maybe it will. I'll keep trying. You haven't seen him? He hasn't been by to say hello? No, but look, he's been getting relatively positive reviews in the local media.

I think there's a sense that he's kind of active and maybe that the drama surrounding the family has come down a little bit. And by the family, I mean more his kind of offspring, I guess. So, you know, I think people are actually maybe a little bit more accepting and positive towards his reign in these early days than perhaps was anticipated, or at least anticipated by people like me who aren't the biggest monarchists in the world, let's face it. You know, you got to be careful in judging how the British media looks at the monarchy. I mean, the British media is tough on a lot of stuff. Not so tough on the monarchy. They fall under certain restrictions and rules. You know, the palace put out word last week

that none of the networks, the television networks in Britain, can use more than an hour total of the footage from those 10 days of mourning. One hour. They're restricted to that. And now, if anybody ever said that here we'd say uh sure thank you very much uh see you later but not there not there it's like we absolutely only an hour yeah i just but can i just propose an amendment to what you said

peter and you feel free to say no it was was my statement, Bruce, I'm sticking with it. But I think that the British media are generally cordial, polite, or better than that for the monarch. But I think they've been pretty tough on members of the royal family. And so maybe what's changed is that now that Charles is the monarch, they're being generous or kind towards him. But is that fair, that restatement of your position? I would hold judgment on that for a while. I mean, they basically, in our lifetimes, they've had one monarch, right? And she was special.

And there's no doubt they were very careful about what they said about her and when they said it. We'll see how long that lasts for Charles, because they certainly weren't reluctant to take shots at him when he was Prince of Wales. No, no, but I was kind of reacting to your assertion that they've generally been positive towards the family, and I don't know that that's true.

Well, actually, the phrase I used was they've been positive towards the monarchy okay as opposed to the family i think that's what i said i'll point taken i'll rewind the tape and uncheck you probably rewind it and re-record it while i'm not on board but let's carry on okay all right well i i'm gonna get back to to the UK in a bit because I think there's some interesting stuff going on there in terms of politics. I want to get your sense of it from an observer status. But I want to start with where we normally start, Canada, because no matter where you are in these days of the technological wizardry that you can sort of plug in, connect, you feel connected no matter where you are in the world, and therefore you're in the UK, but you're connected to your

firm Abacus Data, and they've got new data out this week. Forget about the political fight that's going on. It's primarily looking at what Canadians see as the number one issues confronting them, what they care most about today. Any surprises in what you're seeing? Well, there's a few things. First of all, let me just say I'm really lucky to be in the business that I'm in. I'm completely addicted to public opinion data and have been for 35 years. And I know you've had a kind of an off and on relationship, not with me, but with polling.

So thank you for asking. And here's some of the things that I'm watching in our polling right now, Peter. First of all, everybody wants to know the horse race numbers usually. And the horse race numbers aren't really different from the more recent ones that we've had. I think it's a small three-point national lead for the Conservative Party, which translates into something that looks more or less like the parliament that we have if there's an election now. We are seeing, we're going to talk a little bit in the next couple of days about attitudes towards the different leaders, but, you know, I think we're seeing more people as they get to know Pierre-Paul Lievre, his negatives are up a little bit, his positives are up a little bit. No big stories to tell there. So what I started to focus on this

morning and going through our data was this top issue question. And the way that we ask it is give people a list of choices and say, which three of these are the most important issues for you right now? And right up at the top of the charts, ahead of healthcare, which you've watched polls for a long time, Peter, and you know that the default setting for people is if they can't actually think of a big personal issue, a lot of people just say healthcare. Healthcare isn't the number one issue right now. The rising cost of living is. The economy is second on the list. Housing affordability and accessibility is up there as well. So healthcare is in the mix of the top issues,

but not the dominant issue as is often the case, which is really telling us what we've been kind of feeling about the economy, which is really telling us what we've been kind of feeling about the economy, which is that it's on everybody's mind. Whether it's the volatility in stock markets, the rising interest rates, the rising cost of food or energy, it's on our minds right now in a way that we haven't seen in a good number of years, really. We also see, you know, there's about 10% of Canadians who say that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of the top issues that concerns them. So it's on their minds. 30% pick climate change as one of the issues that's foremost in their minds. And that's a pretty big number.

And it's an indication that that issue isn't going anywhere. And sometimes we'll see it spike when there's events like the hurricanes that we've seen recently. But this doesn't look like that. This looks like a more permanent condition where more people than ever before, and probably more with each passing year, are going to say that climate change is a top concern for them. One other thing that I saw that I thought, or maybe two others that I thought I would mention, Peter, and we can talk about them if you want. We did put a lack of

freedom in Canada as one of the choices that people could make. And 10% of Canadians picked that as one of their top three issues. So it's not nowhere, but it's not, you know, obviously, one of the really largest issues. We do see it higher than average among 18 to 29 year olds, which interestingly enough, is one of those demographic groups where, I don't want to say the freedom convoy, but where Pierre Poliev and that kind of populist conservative sentiment has found a little bit of traction. So that's possibly an interesting and positive sign for the conservative leader. But at the same time, Indigenous reconciliation is higher among that 18 to 29-year-old group as well. So young people showing more interest, 17% of that group picked it as one of their top three issues, 10% overall for the country.

So a few things that we're watching there, and the headline item obviously being the economy, but where climate change is in the mix and Indigenous reconciliation and freedom in Canada also caught my attention. All right. You mentioned earlier that there are times where I have my doubts about polling and how worthy it is. This is one of the issues that I have, and you just went through it. Most of those issues, everybody understands what you're talking about. Talking about inflation, high cost of living, housing, whatever. People get it.

They know exactly what's meant when they heard that phrase. Indigenous affairs, they know what the issue is. Climate change, they know what the issue is. Climate change, they know what the issue is. You throw something at them like, and I don't know how your question was phrased, but you say something like, freedom in Canada. Now, I wonder whether the average person knows what you're talking about when you throw that out there, or whether it's simply a phrase that has become popular this year because of the convoy. And so if you associate yourself with the convoy, anti-vax, hating Trudeau, whatever, and you hear,

do you think there's enough freedom in Canada? You go, yeah, that's an issue for me. Now, that's the way I would look at it. So tell me why I'm wrong on that, because I see that one different than all the others. I always love it when you finish a statement with, tell me how I'm wrong. Because, you know, that's not the only thing I'm here for, but I'm always ready to help with that. The specific wording that we used was a lack of freedom in Canada. And of course, when we put these questions down, we're not saying that these are issues, we're giving people the

opportunity to say this is one of the issues that concerns me. And so putting it in the context of a lack of freedom in Canada is essentially offering them what Pierre Polyev has said, which is that there's not enough freedom in Canada. We need more freedom. We need to move in that direction. As to whether people understand it all the same way, I don't know that they do. However, the evidence that they're understanding what we're measuring in the context of today's politics is there when I look at people on the

left of the spectrum. So that is people who say I am on the left side of the political spectrum, only 5% of them said a lack of freedom was one of the more important issues. People who said that they were on the right of the spectrum were four times more likely to say freedom is the most important issues. Conservative voters, three and a half times more likely than liberal voters to say that. So it does look like it's picking up resonance among those whom it's being pitched to and who supported Pierre Poliev and his efforts in the leadership race. The one other thing you mentioned at the beginning when you gave the sort of what the political picture is, where the party's standings are, you said it's a three-point national lead for the conservatives. You know, as well as I do, and as I'm sure most of our listeners know, there have been other polls of late from other companies that have shown anywhere from three to upwards of seven point difference

between the parties. Right. Yeah. I think we had five last week as well. So, look, I think the Conservatives are clearly in a better position than the Liberals from the standpoint of, um, whether they look as though they could have gained a little bit of momentum

through their leadership race and whether or not the liberals look as though they haven't been, uh, gathering any momentum, um, no matter what they've been trying to do in the last little while. So I don't want to overstate the horse race numbers. three points this week, five or six last last week we'll have another pull out we'll keep watching them and uh i think

we sort of talked about last week or the week before what you know was occurring to me which is that the liberals numbers seem kind of flat and listless and the conservative numbers have a little bit of, of kind of bounce and pop to them. So if they were and thought, well, maybe these are the right numbers. They might think, well, this isn't as good as we, as we hoped it would be. But as you say, there are other polls out there. Oh, the other thing I noticed on that freedom question, just to go back and kind of beat that horse a little bit more. People who've had no vaccinations for COVID, 32% of them say a lack of freedom is one of the most important issues for

them. People who've had three or more, only 3%. So there's a 10 times difference in the interest in the freedom issue among the unvaxxed as compared to the fully vaxxed. So I think it's picking up what we were hoping that it would pick up. I'm shocked, shocked really, that you didn't include a question on bungee jumping, on whether or not the prime minister was risking the leadership of this country on the key issues like inflation and housing and climate change by going out with his kids and and jumping uh doing the bungee jump the other day i'm shocked that you didn't include that in in your questions.

Yeah, well, you know, look, I think the interesting thing for me is that we live in a time where social media wants to be fed with images and rambunctious thoughts and caustic commentary constantly, right? And so, I tended to look at all of that and say, social media isn't everybody. And I don't know how many people will be paying attention to that. And of the people who are paying attention to it, I don't know how many of them would come down on the good for him. He, you know, he went and did an activity with his kids, or how many of them would say, why wasn't he working 24 seven? You know, he went and did an activity with his kids or how many of them would say, why wasn't he working 24-7? You know, I obviously come from a headspace which says politicians, no matter what their political stripe, should be able to take some time off. Having said that, I think that the chances of a little video clip of a bungee jump becoming viral are better than I went to the park and I threw a ball with my kids. So I think from the PM standpoint, there had to be an understanding that posting that was going to attract a lot of attention. And some of that attention would probably be the usual kind of

caustic stuff. And some of it would probably be people saying, well, that's kind of interesting. But I don't have a lot more to say about it than that. I wouldn't take that jump, would you? You and I both know where that place is, and we've driven by it so many times. And if you do it, I will. How would I put it that way? Well, you have no worry of having to consider that.

I have enough trouble looking out of a high-rise window, let alone staring down. You jump off a rock at the lake that we both spent some time at, and you call it a cliff. It's a six-foot drop, but it feels like, I don't know, maybe 15 feet when you're at the top of it. So I can't see you doing the bungee jump either. No, I definitely can't do that but i i appreciate your thoughts on it you took it a lot more serious is a question and i thought you were going to um all right we're going to move on we're going to take a quick break and then we're going to come back and talk about a couple of other countries including the one you're in right now. That's when we come back.

And welcome back. Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto on this day. Bruce Anderson with Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth is in the United Kingdom, the glorious UK on this day. And I want to actually talk a little bit about the UK because I think, actually, I should give the old plug. You're listening on Sirius XM channel 167 Canada Talks or on your favorite podcast platform. On the UK, you know, we spent the last year talking about the chaos in Britain because of Boris Johnson and his leadership style. And it just seemed to go from one crisis to another. And, you know, we fought about whether or not he was going to survive or not.

You won that argument. He did not survive. And Liz Truss took over and you know things have not gone her way you know within 24 hours of becoming prime minister the queen dies so there was you know all that that she had to go through in her opening days while she was you know i assume wanting to take control uh politically once that was over with she started to take control politically on on a major program to try and um combat the same issues that we're facing here inflation uh costs housing costs energy costs you name it and it's all backfired and there were those who said she wants to be the new

Margaret Thatcher. And if she wants to be the new Margaret Thatcher, she'll stick by her guns on her program of various cuts in taxes for the wealthy. And coined that phrase, you know, she's not for turning, which is what Margaret Thatcher had her phrase, I'm not for turning. Well, Liz Truss is for turning. She's turned already. She took a lot of hits from within her own party and from the intelligentsia, if you want to call it that. And she's backed off some of the key areas, one in particular. And you look at her and go, is this the new calm in Britain

or is this the continuing of chaos with just a new leader at the forefront? You've been kind of watching this as an observer while you're there, and I'm wondering what you've been kind of watching this as an observer while you're there. And I'm wondering what you've seen. Well, I don't think that it's going to end well for Liz Truss. I think that I'll put down another marker and say I don't think she lasts a year in this job. I think she's been a horrible – she's off to a horrible start. But even during the leadership race, as she gathered support from MPs, and just so our listeners are reminded, that's how she was chosen.

She wasn't elected by the citizenry. She was chosen by the MPs who decided that it was time for them to chase Boris Johnson out of office. And then they get to pick. And then party members, I guess, also had a vote based on a kind of a runoff system. But the idea of her as prime minister has not been tested with the broader public. And obviously, to the extent that people have had a chance to see her in that role now, they don't like what they see. I think there's been a poll that had Labour with a 33-point advantage, which is as big a swing in public opinion support as I've ever seen in a very short period of time. What are the problems with her? I think the problem that she's got, that people were sort of identifying with her and getting anxious about on the conservative side during the leadership

is she's wooden. She's not very easy for people to gravitate towards or to understand from a retail politics standpoint. And so she had this kind of Thatcher-esque posture from a policy standpoint that attracted some support, and maybe her competitors weren't as good at building support among caucus members as she was. But that's not the same as imagining how she could do as a prime minister trying to win support for her policies, let alone policies that were always going to be controversial, including a pretty substantial tax cut for the wealthiest people in the UK, and changes to benefit programs, which really made her platform look less like trickle down and more like punching down on the disadvantaged in the UK.

And now, of course, she's got people on the left, unhappy with her, and she's got a lot of people on the right unhappy with her, either because they didn't think her policies were right in the first place or because they think she shouldn't have changed her policies because of a public outcry. Do you think there are any comparisons or lessons for Canadian politics at this juncture to learn from this? Well, I think everywhere in the world where there is a test between a right of center and center or center-left politics, politicians are going to be watching what happens here. I think you can sometimes look at the trends in various jurisdictions, and come to the conclusion that the right is on the rise. And that progressive voters are splintering and losing elections, and maybe that voters are less interested in progressive policy ideas. I don't think that that is necessarily true.

I think the jury is very much out. I think there are some issues where centrist voters are fatigued with some progressive policies. I think there are, and now maybe one more large example of a situation where centrist voters took a look at what right wing policy looks like and said, we don't want that. So I think it is going to be something that's watched in Canada as well as in other jurisdictions. It should be a matter that causes some consternation for Republicans in the United States, except that almost nothing ever seems to cause them consternation. It doesn't matter how outlandish and how badly some right-wing experiments go from a policy or a politics standpoint, republicanism in the United States seems completely self-absorbed and I would say directionless, except I think it has a direction.

I just don't know that it's one that anybody else really wants to emulate. All right. Well, as we work our way back to Canada, I want to stop in the States and get your comment on, you know, to me, it kind of fits with this theory I have that no matter what Trump does, he can get away with it. You know, the midterm elections are a little more than a month away. He's not running for anything, but he's trying to influence the vote, mainly for his own good. But this week he makes what seemed to most everybody an outlandish statement about Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, and his wife. So he talked about a death wish on McConnell, and he talked in racist terms about McConnell's Chinese-American wife.

Now, that story lasted like two days. And as usually happens, Trump throws another shiny object in the way and gets people talking in this case about a chance to go to the Supreme Court on the Mar-a-Lago case. But I'm not shocked anymore. I saw that come out, and I saw everybody saying, oh, the Republicans are going to split over this. It's outrageous what he said about McConnell and even more outrageous what he said about McConnell's wife. But it's basically gone already. Nobody stood up and said, this is wrong. No Republican stood up and said this is wrong no republican stood up and said this is

wrong you should never have said that he needs to apologize nothing just boom vanished so you know once again to me it's just like further evidence that the further these things go down the road the less likely that anything's going to happen as a result of them. Yeah. Yeah. Look, it was, we have to retain the ability to be shocked by that, Peter. As the society, it's so important that there is a notion of civility and appropriateness in terms of the conduct of our public discourse. And if people who have been in high office and maybe aspire to be in high office again, think that there really is

not only no negative consequences for them saying racist things, but possibly no negative consequences and some positives, then if we don't express any outrage, if people don't express outrage about it, then how do we expect this problem ever to improve? And so, I wasn't shocked. He was talking about a woman, by the way, just so our listeners are all aware, Elaine Chow, Mitch McConnell's wife, who was in his cabinet. And he referred to as China-loving Coco Chao. And it's a measure of how little most people expect from Trump, I suppose, that they couldn't muster much enthusiasm for an outcry. Some did. I think it's fair to say some did. But the things

that you can be offended by with Donald Trump are so many and so frequent. I'm reading one book right now called Trump to Divide or written by two Washington Post journalists. It's a very good book. Lots of stories that I thought I'd heard all of the shocking and horrible stories that there were to hear about Donald Trump in his time in office. And lo and behold, there are lots more that I didn't know about. And I guess Maggie Haberman's book, The New York Times writer is coming out this week or still consume this because it's sort of depressing to realize that America could have been run for several years by somebody with such weak moral fiber and poor judgment. And I could go on, but I won't. But, you know, this is still an open book.

What's going to happen? Is Trump going to run again? But it's also an open book in terms of the point that you were making, which is that Republicans had an opportunity again to say, we don't want our party to turn into a party that sounds like this. And they whiffed on the opportunity again. And that's disappointing for a great American political institution. Well, they certainly did whiff on it because, as you said, some people stood up and said, this is wrong, shouldn't have been said. But none of them were Republicans, at least, you know, aside from Liz Cheney. None of the current Republican leadership stood up. Right. Even Mitch McConnell didn't stand up and defend his wife.

It was a little like Ted Cruz in 2016, who came off all manly and taking on Trump after Trump criticized, made fun of, defamed his wife and his father. And Ted Cruz said, well, you can't say those things about my wife say him to my face and we'll have it out and then of course uh he turned a coward on that issue and uh ended up you know fighting for trump uh and continues to this day so i don't know you know i i just i don't get it. I'll get mail.

The Trumpies in Canada will write and say, oh, you're always unfair to Trump. Well, you know, yeah, you're right. I am. I've had it. You know, honestly, what is the upside of legitimizing that level of public discourse? I, yeah, if people want to hear people say, well, it's okay, because he's Trump. And, you know, that's, that's how well, I guess there are other podcasts. But I think we have to keep calling that stuff out. And we just have to hope that America doesn't choose him again, or find some steel in its spine against that kind of politics,

because it's pretty destructive. Well, here are my predictions, because I'm always wrong anyway. But my feeling is Trump won't run again unless he figures it's the only way he can stay out of jail. And Bojo will run again. Maybe that's what will happen in a year. He'll be back. Anyway. Well, there is a chance. there's certainly some talk of that

um you know i think there are some who think well at least we knew with bojo that he could give an interview and he could be folksy and charming for some people and i mean they they didn't like all the chaos and the combustibility uh but they don't like this. And I think the question that they have to ask is, what do they really need, you know, as opposed to what will capture the imagination, the attention of voters for a brief period of time and hopefully work out electorally, but what do they really need? What does the economy need here? What kind of a strategy do they have after they've gone through this wrenching Brexit scenario, which nobody seems capable of arguing that they should undo, but you don't really hear anybody saying what a fantastic success it has been.

And, you know, that was another example of using a referendum to deal with a difficult political issue. And a referendum is a horrible tool to deal with something that complex. All right. Last point is back here in Canada again. This is a big political week on the provincial side. You've got tomorrow in Alberta, they pick a new premier, and it appears likely that it's going to be Danielle Smith, which will produce its own challenges for the fabric of the nation, and we'll talk about that, I'm sure, a lot on Friday on Good Talk when Chantel joins us. But what we witnessed on Monday night was the election,

the re-election in Quebec of Francois Legault as premier. And it has caused a bit of discussion across the country. There wasn't much national discussion about the Quebec election during the campaign, but there has been since. And the reason for that is, once again, a renewed discussion about democratic reform, electoral reform. And the reason being that Legault won a big victory. He won 90 seats, I think it was. More than 70% of the seats available in the National Assembly of Quebec went to Legault's party, although they only received 41% of the vote, which is on the lower scale of big majority governments in Quebec.

Low turnout, by the way, second lowest, I think, in 100 years. But nevertheless, those were the numbers for them. The opposition is going to be formed by the Liberals who had 14% of the vote, which meant for them 20-21 seats. Interestingly enough, the Quebec Conservative Party had the same number of votes, about 14%, but no seats, zero seats. Liberals' vote was all packaged as it often is on the island of Montreal. But they got seats out of it, and they got the opposition.

So people are saying, you know, like, this isn't fair. It's not right that the split is like that. And once again, the debate, which comes up every few years, and for some people comes up every election, no matter what the result is, but this is pretty glaring stuff and makes people who were sat on the fence in this debate say, you know what, maybe it is time.

What do you think? Well, I certainly understand the frustration that people feel when they see something that looks as lopsided as that. Second thing I would say is that I know it's very difficult to make a change in these processes. I mean, it can sound easy to be frustrated. It's a lot more difficult to muster enough support for a very specific alternative, which is what you really have to do if you want to change it. But I think the other thing that we always have to bear in mind is that parties understand our first-past-the-post system, and they organize themselves to succeed within the rules of the road as they know it. And so, you know, there is a reason why we would be concerned if there was a huge concentration of support for one party in one part of the country or with one demographic group, and it didn't have much

support among others. But a different representation system ended up creating a victory for that party. The alternatives don't all look better necessarily is what I'm saying. Some would, and I think some reform would be a good idea, but I think it's hard to make it happen. And so I'm not sure this is really going to change anything, to be honest. I kind of feel it is a conversation, as you say, that comes up every time and eventually goes away. I think there are some models that everybody seems to feel are worth looking at, but I also don't know that everybody who believes that change is necessary has agreed on exactly what changes they would prefer to see. You know, in 2015, as you well know, the Trudeauals went from third place to first place and part of their

election platform was electoral reform now as it turned out they didn't follow through on that promise and they backed out of it which they took a few hits on it had been popular obviously amongst that group of people who really feel this is necessary in Canada. Have you ever done any data on it? Do you have any sense of where Canadians are? I mean, I imagine if you threw in a question next week, it would probably be higher than normal, given if this issue out of Quebec has penetrated the minds of a lot of people.

But have you ever done it? I mean, is it, clearly it's not a big issue right now for Canadians with the weighted issues that you talked about earlier. But generally, is it an issue? No, it hasn't been. I mean, it is a source of some passionate interest for a minority of the population. And, you know, that's been consistent for a good number of years, probably a couple of decades. I do think it has had been on the rise in the run up to 2015. But I don't sense that there's a consistent kind of rallying around a specific alternative. And of course, the three main political parties that control the largest share of voice of our political discussion, they don't all agree on what the answer should be, if not the status quo. And so I think that also helps keep it from becoming a point where political consensus is developed.

As I say, I think that there is room for reform. And I understand that especially when we have soft turnouts, and I gather the turnout in Quebec was really quite soft, I think the lowest since 1927, if I'm not mistaken. We need to look at all kinds of solutions or well be making sure that people who fear that their vote might not matter in the way that our seat totals are calculated see a future where that's different. I'm just not enough of an expert, I suppose, in that area to know exactly what that solution might be that would please the largest number of people or enough people to make it become the law of the land or the law of a specific province. All right. Well, on that point, we're going to wrap up Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth for this week. A reminder that tomorrow is your turn, plus the random ranter. And I got to say, as expected, there was a lot of reaction to the ranter's rant last week on electric vehicles.

Some misunderstandings of what he was arguing, some legitimate criticisms, and some support. Nevertheless, tomorrow we'll hear some of all that. Plus, we'll hear the ranter take another crack at it tomorrow. He's still firm in his belief, but he has adapted somewhat. It'll be interesting to listen to what he has to say tomorrow. Plus, your mail on whatever the topic, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com.

And Friday, of course, Bruce will be back with chantelle a bear for good talk thanks bruce you take care of yourself remember to salute the king if he goes by right bet okay all right take care of you that's it for now i'm peter mansbridge thanks so much for listening we'll talk again in 24 hours.