I am interested in pragmatic pluralist politics, citizen participation, protecting democracy and exploring a full range of public policy issues from an Albertan perspective.
I have added a link to the website of Garth Turner Independent M.P. I think he is worth following given what is going on in power politics on both sides fo the border these days.
Speaking one's mind is very important. My question to you in who is speaking for Jim Dinning these days.
I believe I have finally solved the mystery.
Stand near the water cooler the past few months, you're sure to hear a common rumbling amongst the media and political insiders trying to figure out why Jim Dinning's campaign lacks substance on policy and why it hasn't been the political juggernaut that we were all expecting.
Sure Dinning tried to shock and awe out of the gate showcasing his 20+ MLAs supporting him, but lo and behold, the rest of the candidates didn't pack up their campaign tents and run to the hills.
Even Oberg, who has been severely spanked for speaking out against "Dad" picked himself off the mat and launched his own campaign and others followed.
Well sorry no more my friends;I have come up with the answer to the "Where is Walso.err "Where's Jim's policy mystery.
Let's not forget the very first policy announcement that Jimbo finally uttered. It was brilliant: "let's divide our province by offering an income tax cut for those under 30. Justnhad your 30th birthday? sucks to you!
This was likely the brainchild of Dinning's policy guru, Ken Bossenkool. Well like a field goal kicker who couldn't put it through the uprights from 20 yards away, Kenny was quickly benched and appears to be "riding the political pine" ever since.
Cue the Wizard of Oz music. Enter the Master Puppeter himself--Rod Love who taken it upon himself to pull the policy strings.
Dinning is a decent enough fellow himself, engaging and friendly, albeit a little disingenous and arrogant, but on policy he is an empty vessel.
The claim that Dinning wrote Betkowski's 200 Days of Change in 1992 and that Dinning was responsible for the program to get Alberta's finances in order is bogus. The man behind both those initiatives was Dinning's brain, Paul Taylor, who now works for the Insurance Corporation of BC (ICBC).
If you look at what Taylor did for Gordon Campbell in BC as the Deputy Minister of Finance and Secretary to the Treasury Board in the province before he went over to ICBC, you'll understand Paul's brilliant mind. Without Taylor working behind the scenes as the intellectual lifeblood for Dinning in 2006, Dinning is a walking contradiction and looks lost and uncomfortable on policy matters.
Let's face it, Oberg, Morton, et. al. are not really running against Ji Dinning in this race. They are really running against Rod Love. Jim is just a puppet in this theatrical production.
Let's face it, Rod Love has been Premier for over thirteen years nd is now using Dinning as his prop to continue his reign. His control over the media in Alberta is impeccable and his reward and punishment system with the media is legendary.
Nothing will really change in Alberta under Dinning's leadership. We need fresh ideas. Frsh policies and for goodness sake, some fresh stagehands behind the curtain!
I have to agree with everything you say about Paul Taylor...brilliant man.
I have no comments or inside information on the Dinning campaign so really can't offer anything insightful or helpful. I do believe it is at least a 3 horse race and I hope Hancock will emerge as a preferred alterantve to the Morton/Oberg Alliance and not just Jim.
Oberg and Morton are going to form and "Alliance" - if they have ot already, and if either of them wins this thing then the Progressive word, name, ethos, concept and the PC Party disappears just as it did federally. And we lose the next election to boot.
We euthanized the Federal PC party thx to the Janus of Canadian politics Peter McKay. Remeber the deal he cut to become the Progressive Conservative leader. He signed an deal with Orchard saying no merge wit the Alliance in order to "win" that leadership.
Charcter counts then and in the Alberta race too. McKay's character flaws are monumental given how he simply broke his word- not only to Orchard but also to his party.
I can only say in breakups he has been the "dumpor" as well as the "dumpee." He did say smething profound once though on the farm in his post Belinda morose kneeling beside his dog when his pith and substance shone through with the memorable quote: "Dogs are loyal." And McKay is clarly no dog if loyality to a principle is the true test.
Thanks, Ken. No diagreement with you on Peter McKay at all. The guy is nothing more than an opportunist and an attention seeker. And he has designs on Harper's job, you can bet on that. He saw his best vehicle for advancement with the merger. If I were Harper, I'd been watching my back for any flying knives
Hi Anonymous - I would interested in what your take is on what Albertans are thinking about the future of the province, what are the important value drivers aropund the key issue, and what are the key issues we must deal with. How they want to be governed, what are the personal character qualities and leadership skills they think we need now. Finally what will it take - short of disaster or tragedy to get us to plan, design and direct our efforts towards that vision. I am well on the way personaly to figuring that out but I do this for a living.
There is just over a month before we vote provincially and see what is going to happen federally with the Liberals. We best get our individual and collective minds on this.
Like you I have been in the political business for many years, nearly twenty in fact. I've seen them all come and go: Getty, Johnston, Betkowksi (nee McBeth), McCoy,Orman, Chumir (the best of the bunch by far, so much potential cut short in his prime. I still miss him), Klein, Decore, and now Dinning, whose time I think may be up.
He's not the same Dinning that I remember, and it's all because the brain is in BC, Paul Taylor.
I sense that there is a lot of uncertainty among Albertans about where the province is heading, because of the policy drift of the past decade.
I think the government has blown a golden opportunity with the huge surpluses over the past decade to really do some realy innovative things in such areas as preventative health care and education, the keys to our competitiveness as a society and maintaining what is know as the sloganistic Alberta Advantage. And leaving a legacy for our grandchildren by building up the value of the Heritage Fund.
Albertans are concerned whether there is anyone out there who has a firm hand on the tiller. I think Dinning has been found wanting--he's becoming a walking contradiction, the poster boy for fiscal austerity has become the friend of every single interest group in Alberta, with all his uncosted promises.
Health care is the second big issue out there. People are frightened whether the system will be their for their parents, themselves and their children. Overcrowded emergency wards, lack of beds, lack of physicians and surgeons, cutting without a plan in the early to mid 1990s, no direction of the savings into preventative care. It's a shame.
And the biggest concern is that that the riches are going to run dry. As our royalty system moves from conventional to oil sands and CBM, we will not get the same juice that we have been getting on NRRR. The shit is about to hit the fan soon, and I don't think Albertans realize it.
What are Albertans looking for in their next leader? Honesty, integrity, perserverance, the courage to tell it like it is, no more spin doctors like Rod Love.
Someone who can lay out a program to get the best out of Albertans, and someone with the guts to follow through despite all the slings and arrows from the special interests and elites who still believe they run this province by divine right.
I like Hancock, he's a decent encough fellow, has great integrity, but the fiscal conservative in me says he doesn't understand the revenue crunch that coming down the pike.
You may not agree, but at this time, my choice is Lyle Oberg. He's got guts, he's wiling to think outside the box, and I think he'll follow through on what he is proposing.
We think a great deal alike. I know the fiscal side of Hancock and feel very comfortble with it. He is the long range fiscal thinker - just the "greaser of squeeky wheels." Look at his stance on Mount Royal wanting university status but they do not want to adjust enough to really be a university. Not good enough and Hancock says so.
For another example look at his championing the Access to the Future Fund. He also had 4 other endowments in the mix he was championing for the primary investment vehicles for non-renewable resource revenues to be used to co-fund innovations and research. He want to use the interest to be sure these windfalls are shared with future generations building on the Heritgage Medical model of Lougheed.
The old style and short sighted leadership cratered on the other funds and we ended up with a $100M three year rural development fund that will come and go, whereas an endowment fund focused on rural growth and development would be perpetual. Pretty fiscally conservative in my books.
Oberg is my least favourite option. I can even go for Morton over Oberg - if I had too...but I won't have to I epxect - Thank God!
I see what Oberg did to devistate our education system by forcing a stupid teachers strike and then ignoring the law on the binding arbitration he insisted on. Many children are still suffering from in adequate education services form the strike because of his hubris and bullying attitudes. He is also a bully in the infrastrucute portfolio. I have some clients with personal examples but they have to stay anonymous too. Strange don't you think? I supose you feel the same need to stay anonymous. Does not speak well for the future of our society when we fear our government.
He abused the Infrastruture and Transportation office that is why he was turfed from caucus - more than the poor judgement re "skeletons" comment. He did not have anything to do with the departure of Premier Klein...the party membership decided that themselves and did not need the comments of Lyle Oberg to help them make up thier minds on changing leaders.
Oberg did more nudging and winking around the province for transportation and infrastrucutre grants to various groups like muncipalities and regions seeking grant money to meet growth demands...none more so than Fort McMurray, for which I have personal knowledge.
His adminstrative skills are wanting too. For example he personally effectively centralized the grant applications process in the Ministers office telling groups seeking project funds to send the aplications to him and his office - not through the usual channels of the department and then not letting the department administration know what he was doing. Sounds inappropriate as so many levels don't you think? Especially as he is angling for leadership support at the same time. This kind of conduct is part of why he was turfed from Caucus from what I understanding talking to MLAs anyway.
I find it hard to reconcile your admiration for a quality guy like Chumir and a bullying power-monger like Oberg. What am I missing?
As well, I also saw on CPAC this afternoon the Calgary Conservative Congress I think it was called - the Link Byfield event held at the end of Sept. This is where Morton and Oberg were on a panel together beofre a group of Reform Alliance types. The ones Klein referes to at the Alberta Republicans. I kept seen and hearing echos of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
They are likely in the 2-3 position at the first ballot and likely also to form a coalition on the second ballot. If Dinning is not your guy OK but please look further than Oberg.
One need look no further than the this weekend's Calgary Sun. Paul Jackson (who openly supported Morton) and Rick Bell (who tore into Dinning over the Under 30 tax idea and back-room boys, etc.), practically fall over themselved giving Dinning literary fellatio. Huge reversal of their previous commentary. Methinks someone got a severe slapdown.
Check out the front page story in the National Post. This guy just doesn't have a clue where he wants to lead this province. His comments on health are laughable.
Check out the front page story in the National Post on Dinning. This guy doesn't have a clue where he wants to lead this province. His comments on health care are laughable.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking one's mind is very important. My question to you in who is speaking for Jim Dinning these days.
I believe I have finally solved the mystery.
Stand near the water cooler the past few months, you're sure to hear a common rumbling amongst the media and political insiders trying to figure out why Jim Dinning's campaign lacks substance on policy and why it hasn't been the political juggernaut that we were all expecting.
Sure Dinning tried to shock and awe out of the gate showcasing his 20+ MLAs supporting him, but lo and behold, the rest of the candidates didn't pack up their campaign tents and run to the hills.
Even Oberg, who has been severely spanked for speaking out against "Dad" picked himself off the mat and launched his own campaign and others followed.
Well sorry no more my friends;I have come up with the answer to the "Where is Walso.err "Where's Jim's policy mystery.
Let's not forget the very first policy announcement that Jimbo finally uttered. It was brilliant: "let's divide our province by offering an income tax cut for those under 30. Justnhad your 30th birthday? sucks to you!
This was likely the brainchild of Dinning's policy guru, Ken Bossenkool. Well like a field goal kicker who couldn't put it through the uprights from 20 yards away, Kenny was quickly benched and appears to be "riding the political pine" ever since.
Cue the Wizard of Oz music. Enter the Master Puppeter himself--Rod Love who taken it upon himself to pull the policy strings.
Dinning is a decent enough fellow himself, engaging and friendly, albeit a little disingenous and arrogant, but on policy he is an empty vessel.
The claim that Dinning wrote Betkowski's 200 Days of Change in 1992 and that Dinning was responsible for the program to get Alberta's finances in order is bogus. The man behind both those initiatives was Dinning's brain, Paul Taylor, who now works for the Insurance Corporation of BC (ICBC).
If you look at what Taylor did for Gordon Campbell in BC as the Deputy Minister of Finance and Secretary to the Treasury Board in the province before he went over to ICBC, you'll understand Paul's brilliant mind. Without Taylor working behind the scenes as the intellectual lifeblood for Dinning in 2006, Dinning is a walking contradiction and looks lost and uncomfortable on policy matters.
Let's face it, Oberg, Morton, et. al. are not really running against Ji Dinning in this race. They are really running against Rod Love. Jim is just a puppet in this theatrical production.
Let's face it, Rod Love has been Premier for over thirteen years nd is now using Dinning as his prop to continue his reign. His control over the media in Alberta is impeccable and his reward and punishment system with the media is legendary.
Nothing will really change in Alberta under Dinning's leadership. We need fresh ideas. Frsh policies and for goodness sake, some fresh stagehands behind the curtain!
Ken, your comments would be much appreciated.
I have to agree with everything you say about Paul Taylor...brilliant man.
ReplyDeleteI have no comments or inside information on the Dinning campaign so really can't offer anything insightful or helpful. I do believe it is at least a 3 horse race and I hope Hancock will emerge as a preferred alterantve to the Morton/Oberg Alliance and not just Jim.
Oberg and Morton are going to form and "Alliance" - if they have ot already, and if either of them wins this thing then the Progressive word, name, ethos, concept and the PC Party disappears just as it did federally. And we lose the next election to boot.
We euthanized the Federal PC party thx to the Janus of Canadian politics Peter McKay. Remeber the deal he cut to become the Progressive Conservative leader. He signed an deal with Orchard saying no merge wit the Alliance in order to "win" that leadership.
Charcter counts then and in the Alberta race too. McKay's character flaws are monumental given how he simply broke his word- not only to Orchard but also to his party.
I can only say in breakups he has been the "dumpor" as well as the "dumpee." He did say smething profound once though on the farm in his post Belinda morose kneeling beside his dog when his pith and substance shone through with the memorable quote: "Dogs are loyal." And McKay is clarly no dog if loyality to a principle is the true test.
Thanks, Ken. No diagreement with you on Peter McKay at all. The guy is nothing more than an opportunist and an attention seeker. And he has designs on Harper's job, you can bet on that. He saw his best vehicle for advancement with the merger. If I were Harper, I'd been watching my back for any flying knives
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous - I would interested in what your take is on what Albertans are thinking about the future of the province, what are the important value drivers aropund the key issue, and what are the key issues we must deal with. How they want to be governed, what are the personal character qualities and leadership skills they think we need now. Finally what will it take - short of disaster or tragedy to get us to plan, design and direct our efforts towards that vision. I am well on the way personaly to figuring that out but I do this for a living.
ReplyDeleteThere is just over a month before we vote provincially and see what is going to happen federally with the Liberals. We best get our individual and collective minds on this.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteLike you I have been in the political business for many years, nearly twenty in fact. I've seen them all come and go: Getty, Johnston, Betkowksi (nee McBeth), McCoy,Orman, Chumir (the best of the bunch by far, so much potential cut short in his prime. I still miss him), Klein, Decore, and now Dinning, whose time I think may be up.
He's not the same Dinning that I remember, and it's all because the brain is in BC, Paul Taylor.
I sense that there is a lot of uncertainty among Albertans about where the province is heading, because of the policy drift of the past decade.
I think the government has blown a golden opportunity with the huge surpluses over the past decade to really do some realy innovative things in such areas as preventative health care and education, the keys to our competitiveness as a society and maintaining what is know as the sloganistic Alberta Advantage. And leaving a legacy for our grandchildren by building up the value of the Heritage Fund.
Albertans are concerned whether there is anyone out there who has a firm hand on the tiller. I think Dinning has been found wanting--he's becoming a walking contradiction, the poster boy for fiscal austerity has become the friend of every single interest group in Alberta, with all his uncosted promises.
Health care is the second big issue out there. People are frightened whether the system will be their for their parents, themselves and their children. Overcrowded emergency wards, lack of beds, lack of physicians and surgeons, cutting without a plan in the early to mid 1990s, no direction of the savings into preventative care. It's a shame.
And the biggest concern is that that the riches are going to run dry. As our royalty system moves from conventional to oil sands and CBM, we will not get the same juice that we have been getting on NRRR. The shit is about to hit the fan soon, and I don't think Albertans realize it.
What are Albertans looking for in their next leader? Honesty, integrity, perserverance, the courage to tell it like it is, no more spin doctors like Rod Love.
Someone who can lay out a program to get the best out of Albertans, and someone with the guts to follow through despite all the slings and arrows from the special interests and elites who still believe they run this province by divine right.
I like Hancock, he's a decent encough fellow, has great integrity, but the fiscal conservative in me says he doesn't understand the revenue crunch that coming down the pike.
You may not agree, but at this time, my choice is Lyle Oberg. He's got guts, he's wiling to think outside the box, and I think he'll follow through on what he is proposing.
We think a great deal alike. I know the fiscal side of Hancock and feel very comfortble with it. He is the long range fiscal thinker - just the "greaser of squeeky wheels." Look at his stance on Mount Royal wanting university status but they do not want to adjust enough to really be a university. Not good enough and Hancock says so.
ReplyDeleteFor another example look at his championing the Access to the Future Fund. He also had 4 other endowments in the mix he was championing for the primary investment vehicles for non-renewable resource revenues to be used to co-fund innovations and research. He want to use the interest to be sure these windfalls are shared with future generations building on the Heritgage Medical model of Lougheed.
The old style and short sighted leadership cratered on the other funds and we ended up with a $100M three year rural development fund that will come and go, whereas an endowment fund focused on rural growth and development would be perpetual. Pretty fiscally conservative in my books.
Oberg is my least favourite option. I can even go for Morton over Oberg - if I had too...but I won't have to I epxect - Thank God!
I see what Oberg did to devistate our education system by forcing a stupid teachers strike and then ignoring the law on the binding arbitration he insisted on. Many children are still suffering from in adequate education services form the strike because of his hubris and bullying attitudes. He is also a bully in the infrastrucute portfolio. I have some clients with personal examples but they have to stay anonymous too. Strange don't you think? I supose you feel the same need to stay anonymous. Does not speak well for the future of our society when we fear our government.
He abused the Infrastruture and Transportation office that is why he was turfed from caucus - more than the poor judgement re "skeletons" comment. He did not have anything to do with the departure of Premier Klein...the party membership decided that themselves and did not need the comments of Lyle Oberg to help them make up thier minds on changing leaders.
Oberg did more nudging and winking around the province for transportation and infrastrucutre grants to various groups like muncipalities and regions seeking grant money to meet growth demands...none more so than Fort McMurray, for which I have personal knowledge.
His adminstrative skills are wanting too. For example he personally effectively centralized the grant applications process in the Ministers office telling groups seeking project funds to send the aplications to him and his office - not through the usual channels of the department and then not letting the department administration know what he was doing. Sounds inappropriate as so many levels don't you think? Especially as he is angling for leadership support at the same time. This kind of conduct is part of why he was turfed from Caucus from what I understanding talking to MLAs anyway.
I find it hard to reconcile your admiration for a quality guy like Chumir and a bullying power-monger like Oberg. What am I missing?
As well, I also saw on CPAC this afternoon the Calgary Conservative Congress I think it was called - the Link Byfield event held at the end of Sept. This is where Morton and Oberg were on a panel together beofre a group of Reform Alliance types. The ones Klein referes to at the Alberta Republicans. I kept seen and hearing echos of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
They are likely in the 2-3 position at the first ballot and likely also to form a coalition on the second ballot. If Dinning is not your guy OK but please look further than Oberg.
RE: Rod Love and control of the media.
ReplyDeleteOne need look no further than the this weekend's Calgary Sun. Paul Jackson (who openly supported Morton) and Rick Bell (who tore into Dinning over the Under 30 tax idea and back-room boys, etc.), practically fall over themselved giving Dinning literary fellatio. Huge reversal of their previous commentary. Methinks someone got a severe slapdown.
Everyone:
ReplyDeleteCheck out the front page story in the National Post. This guy just doesn't have a clue where he wants to lead this province. His comments on health are laughable.
Everyone:
ReplyDeleteCheck out the front page story in the National Post on Dinning. This guy doesn't have a clue where he wants to lead this province. His comments on health care are laughable.