Reboot Alberta

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Alberta is Ripe for Change - But What Change Means is Still an Open Question

Ipsos Reid has it figured right when they say the Stelmach Honeymoon is over based on their recent poll results. The fact that all parties are showing support levels that are the same as the 2004 election means politically Alberta is right back at square one in figuring out what kind of changes it wants in government. The PCs support is again at 47%, the Libs at 29%, the NDP at 10% and the Alberta Alliance at 9%. But there is so much more of interest as one delves into the devilling details.

Conventional wisdom is that Alberta majority governments are the result of the rural vote and one major city. In the Klein days that city was Calgary. Today we see Calgary and Edmonton reversing roles, if these poll results are meaningful and they hold until the next election. The PCs are down 8 points in Calgary support (now at 42%) but they are up 12 points in Edmonton enjoying 47% support and they are holding their own in the rest of Alberta up 2 points to 53% support.

Calgary is feeling the Stelmach PCs are not as “into them” as the Klein version was and only 33% believe the current government is addressing their needs. This is even with a large majority of PC MLAs and 5 Cabinet members now representing that city. A public spat between the Calgary Mayor and the Premier fueled by Calgary MSM has done its work.

Curiously, 58% of Edmontonians believes the Stelmach PCs “get them.” This is with only 3 PC MLAs, two of whom are now in Cabinet and one of those MLAs had to go to Court to get a recount and slipped in with a 12 vote margin.

Klein was always more popular than the PC party and he traditionally polled in the low to mid 70s for personal support. Stelmach has personal support in the 54% range and the trend is down. Again his numbers are warped by the Calgary discontent where they don’t like him on a 2 to 1 ratio. One has to wonder if this angst is more about Dinning’s leadership loss than the consequences of Stelmach’s actual win. Calgary did not see this coming and they don’t know what happened or how to interpret it – so they seem to conclude that it must be bad.

Again Edmonton is in a reverse contrast from the Klein years where he had low Edmonton support except in the 1997 election when he was rewarded with more Edmonton seats for a good job on debt and deficit. Today Edmonton is about 60-40 in support of Stelmach and Ed is enjoying his best support in the deep south, right there in Ted Morton Reformer country. The approval rating for Stelmach there is 70-30…that rivals Ralph Klein results. Not bad for a PROGRESSIVE Conservative from the north.

Interestingly, while the Liberal Party support is at 29%, up 9 points since April and 7 points since November 2006, Kevin Taft’s personal support is up only 5 points since April and is actually down 5 points from November when Klein was still around. His job is not all that secure either it seems.

All this says Albertans are still looking for a change but they have not yet found the kind of change they want. They have not yet abandoned the PCs for the Liberals and they have not tossed Stelmach aside for Taft. This means all possible scenarios are at play and nothing can be taken for granted by anyone, especially the Stelmach PCs.

The PCs can easily lose the next election but it will be their own fault, not the result of a perceived positive Liberal alternative. The Liberals do not yet seem to have the right stuff to convince Albertans that they are positive choice for government. Currently they are just an alternative to the PCs. In the real world of electoral politics, that is enough for the Liberals to get power and form the next government. But if that happens, based on what we know from the polls today, Liberals forming a government will be because the PCs let that happen.

The battle for the hearts, minds and hopes of Albertans is on now and fully engaged, even though the election may be a much as a year away. It is going to be interesting.

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:06 pm

    Ken:

    Your column is very perceptive as always. As you noted, if there is a change in government next year, it will not be due to the fact that Kevin Taft has offered any compelling reason to vote for the Liberals, it will because the Tories have not have not offerring a compelling reaon to vote for the,

    I am distressed by the Ipsos Reid numbers for a number of reasons. Seeing the Liberal support at 33% in Calgary is shocking. If their support remains at that level, they could win up to 9 seats in the city, because the support is concentrated in specific riding in the downtown area and the northwest.

    The Edmonton results distress me as well, because I know that the Liberals traditionally underpoll in Edmonton between elections. I don't see the Tories gaining many additional seats in Edmonton, maybe one or two. The bedroom communities are dicey as well. Iris is likely safe, but I'm not so sure about Lougheed or Horner. Those seats were Liberal in 1993.

    The Northern Alberta results are the most distressing. The Liberals are polling 29%. That means they are starting to penetrate into the Tory heartland. Peace River, Grande Prairie, Dunvegan, Fort McMurray and the far northern seats are now up for grabs.

    In central Alberta, the Red Deer seats have always been competitive. In the south, the Lethbridge seats are also competitive.

    This government is drifting much like the Getty government of 1991-1992. Fortunately, they are not up against Laurence Decore. If that was the case, I would be extremely worried. I am worried enough as it is, but Decore would be a real threat.

    I would like your thoughts on my observations and then I will follow with my blunt assessment what needs to be done to right the ship.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good post Ken. I agree with you that right now the trend is more a protest to the PCs than an endorsement of any opposition party, since none of the opposition parties have managed to connect with voters yet.

    If there's a blueprint for the Liberals to follow, it isn't in harkening back to Lougheed or even Decore, it's in the 2006 election of the Conservative Party of Canada. Taft, like Harper, isn't an overly charismatic leader, but should be able to appeal to voters as someone who will be a good manager and will run a clean government.

    If the Liberals can convince voters that the PCs are out of touch and corrupt and if they can present a simple, concise platform that focuses on basic governance/services and common sense, they could make some serious headway in the next election.

    The best thing they could do for the next 8-9 months before the writ drops is pick 3-5 priorities/ideas and then send Kevin Taft to every corner in the province selling them to as many Albertans face-to-face as he can.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon @ 7:06 - the trend line is more important than the snap shot of a single poll. The trend line is not absolutely clear yet as between parties and leaders...but there is some evidence of a shift for sure.

    However the trend line that is clear is that citizens want real substantive change - from their government. I don't think the politicians from any Alberta political party have seen that the public opinion "parade" for change has already formed. It is different in many ways. The shift to the environment as the #1 issue is a big indication of change.

    Being #1 is only part of the story. That fact that it is so far ahead as #1 that it dwarfs health care and education concerns combined show the intensity of its importance. That is the rest of the story.

    I know this from research I did during the PC leadership. In fact we knew the #1 issue shift in late September and the MSM and traditional pollsters picked it up many weeks later.

    The politicians don't get it yet so they are working with yesterday's consciousness and old issues that could be solved easily. The smoking ban legislation almost passing is a perfect example. It is on of yesterday's issues that is best dealt with quickly and put away. But is languishes for a fall session to get 3rd reading to become law. Then there is the important matter of giving the businesses time they need to implement it, which is only fair. It will not be seen as a bold policy by the fall but just a reflection of another example of holding back and playing it safe.

    It is a major victory for advocates but it is not any satisfactory proof to the public that significant change towards dealing with current and emerging issues is in the air. It is seen by 84% of the public who supported the legislated smoking ban as an idea that is way past due and one that is finally done...sort of!

    The politicians all talk about being bold but they fear they may be wrong or too far ahead of the public so they hold on to trying to perfect yesterday. In fact they are all too far behind the public mood and midset that exists today.

    That is dangerous and foolish in a volatile electorate who want to get on with the new real issues of today. We can see from elections in the past 2 years just how volatile the electorate is.

    But it takes courage for a politician to stand up and to catch the wave as opposed to hoping to survive in the backwash as the wave does its damages on the powers that be. And the new "winner" who emerges is accurately seen as merely being the best of a bad lot.

    And we wonder why there is disengagement and disillusionment in the electorate.

    Now tell us your view how to "right the ship." I am all ears.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:07 am

    Ken,
    I am curious how you reconcile the the idea of the environment being the number one issue with the dismal results of the Greens on June 12. Granted, these were by-elections, but when the Green party polls less then 10% AND their leader (George Read) is running AND it being a by-election has the added advantage of getting protest votes, then to me the voter is at best giving lip service to the idea that the environment is their #1 concern. Some say politicians are giving lip service to the environment. But then, it would appear they are only imitating their constituents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7:30 am

    Ken:

    Thanks for your observations. I will divide my blunt assessment about what needs to be done into two components: (1) personnel and (2) policy.

    Today I will talk about personnel.

    On the personnel front, there are a number of changes that need to be made. Examining this government's performance over the past six months, it is apparent to me that the communications both internally and externally is atrocious, opp. research is non-existent, and establishing good working relationships with counterparts at other levels of government (federal and local) is severely lacking.

    Issues are dealt with in isolation, without seeing the linkages to other issues and with no overarching vision.

    Research on issues is poor and as a result policy options are limited and often result in a reactive rather than proactive approach, in effect a crisis management mentality.

    A government needs to control the policy agenda. With this government, it too often seems that the media is controlling the agenda and the government is constantly reacting to issues brought up by the media.

    The Premier is a good man, honest, sincere and very intelligent. He is not the problem. The problem is that he is being let down by key political advisors who are giving him very poor advice.

    On the external communications side, it is clear that the decision to bring in Paul Stanway and Tom Olsen was a failed experiment. The Premier's speeches are poorly written, external communications with the media is very strained and messsaging around issues is poor. I believe Tom Olsen and Paul Stanway should do the honourable thing and resign, rather than forcing the Premier to fire them.

    The Public Affairs Bureau needs to be reorganized and certain people needs to be replaced. I see that Leanne Stangeland has submitted her resignation. I think Leanne is being unfairly blamed for the Calgary Elbow by-election loss and the poor communications of government policies in Calgary. She is doing what is in the best interests of the Premier by resigning. Others should take the hint as well.

    Internal communications between the Premier's Office and ministries needs to be better coordinated. Too often the Premier and his Ministers seem to be singing off different song sheets. Someone has to be brought into the Premier's Office to impose strict discipline between the Premier's Office and Ministers. Everyone has to be singing from the same hymn book.

    Issues and opposition research need to be improved. More effective linkages must be established with the academic community which is a lifeblood of ideas.

    Changes need to be made in Executive Council-Policy Coordination and the Executive Council Office. Rumour has it that Ron Hicks is frustrated with the dysfunctionality of the Premier's Office and may go to the private sector. That would be a mistake. Ron Hicks is extremely capable and needs to be given the authority to revamp Executive Council as he sees fit.

    As far as opposition research is concerned, there should be one person assigned exclusvely to that task in Executive Council and the within each government ministry. There are so many contradictions in Alberta Liberal policy, it is ridiculous. They need to be exploited and pointed out at virtually every opportunit, but there has to be a postive policy agenda to contrast it with.

    This brings me to the final personnel change -- the Premier's Chief of Staff, Ron Glen. Ron is a very nice fellow but he is in way over his head. The chief of staff has to be the fulcrum in government. He or she has to know everything that is going on within the government. He or she has to establish good relationships with the media,counterparts in other levels of government and with the private sector. He or she has to be a 24/7 person. It is a demanding role, but one that has to be filled by someone with many years of political experience, with an extensive resume, and with extensive contacts within governments at all levels, with the private sector, with think tanks, and with academics.

    And a chief of staff must have a extensive understanding of policy, whether it be environment, health care, education, finance, energy, etc. Ron needs to decide whether he is that person. If he is not that person, he should resign and go over to the private sector as he originally intended to do. He is the Premier's friend and as his friend he needs to do what is best for the Premier.

    I said I would be blunt. Your observations would be much appreciated, Ken.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting analysis Anon and you are blunt...but the reality of politics is you have to do it in public, without a net, and you do not often get a dress rehersal. It is a damn tough job.

    My comments have been peppered throughout this blog in prior postings. My sense is still that in politics the talents it takes to get the job are very different from those it take to do the job.

    I will not comment on the personalities as you have. I know them all and like them all and respect thier cabilities. I am more foregiving than you are - even under these political circumstances.

    But I have to say I found the resignation of the PAB Director strange.

    Thx for the comment and the obvious thought that has gone behind it. Do you feel you must be anonymous to be so frank?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:19 pm

    Ken:

    Thank you for your feedback. I have to be anonymous to be so frank, not because of any fear of exposing my own identity, but hurting my many friends throughout the government. Friends are very important to me. They have careers and families to support.

    I have worked for many years in politics, I have had many successes and made enough money to get by very comfortably. I don't have work if I chose not to--I do so because I am committed to public service.

    I am being blunt because the situation is retreivable, but the window of opportunity is closing fast. The government needs a wake up call. You know as well as I do once perceptions and opinions get hardened in politics, they become very difficult to change.

    Politics is a ruthless business and a lot of is done with the glare of the media on you. That's the nature of our business. It is cruel and destroys people's careers. You and I know are both old enough to know what happened to honourable men like Premier Getty, Treasurer Dick Johnston and Minster of Telecommunications Fred Stewart. They were destroyed by circumstances that were in many cases beyond their control.

    In many respects I hate the ruthlessness, egos and personalities in politics. I enjoy the passion of a debate over policies, but politics has become a blood sport. The media feeds on personalties and conflict. There aren't many Walter Lippman's or James Reston's out there, who focus on issues and do their research.

    Ken, I would not say I am not forgiving. All the people I have named are honourable, but as you said the talents it takes to get the job are very different from those it takes to do the job. To be fair, I am far harder on myself than I am on anyone else and it has exacted a toll on me over the years.

    My next posting will be about public policy which is my true love.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are