Just over two years ago (Nov 8, 2004) I wrote a Guest Column published in the Edmonton Journal in anticipation of the provincial election, entitled “The Providence of Alberta.”
In it I talked about some of Alberta’s accomplishments past and present and offered some ideas for future feats we might want to tackle. I begged the question about our readiness to meet the new complex challenges before us. Did we have the commitment and discipline to realize our full potential? Were we too flush with cash and conceit to truly concern ourselves with the responsibilities we have to each other, the environment and future generations? Were we so busy making money that we are willfully blind to the social and environmental consequences of how we live, work and grow our energy based economy? Those same questions are still relevant today.
The 2004 election campaign results were not a disaster but they were not good either. Albertans were sending a wake up call to the PC Party and the Klein government. The Klein government seemed to not heed the call. It stayed on "cruise control" and went back to throwing money at problems. The party membership had had enough and responded last April 1st, when they forced the current leadership selection campaign.
If we are to believe the polls, only 30% of the PC party “base” members are intending to vote in the selection of their new leader. I hope that proves to be wrong because we need a re-engagement of socially progressive and fiscally conservative people who will “come to the aid of the party.”
We are entering the end of the "regular season" of this campaign with the looming November 25th first ballot. I think it is timely for Albertans to sit back and quietly reflect for a moment on what is really going on in this leadership selection campaign and what they want to emerge out of it at the end of the day. Sure it is a partisan event. But it is more than that. It is a chance for citizens to send a message about the kind of Alberta they want. Fundamental shifts in direction are needed and clear options are before us, given the kind of candidates and the policy options they are offering.
We can shift hard right to a more socially conservative society with the “Holy Trinity” of Morton, Oberg and Doerksen. Or we can move forward with a socially progressive and fiscally conservative “Wholesome Triumvirate” of Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning. The end result of the second ballot on December 2nd will decide the direction our government will be taking for the two years to the next election.
Do we, as a province, want to go hard to the Right or do we decide to move Progressively forward? The new Leader/Premier will be the one who get to define and decide the goals and the new destination for the province too. The outcome of this leadership process significantly impacts all of us in our daily lives...whether you voted or not.
No new Leader/Premier, will be able to govern alone, Stephen Harper notwithstanding. The next Leader/Premier will have to seek out support from like minded candidates to be allies. One of these two groupings of candidates will emerge December 2nd, depending on who we select as our next Leader/Premier. If you, as a citizen, decide to “sit this one out” that means you are prepared to entrust to others to make that decision for you. That is your right but take some time to understand and appreciate the potential consequences of such indifference.
There is one week left in this campaign. Participation in our democratic processes and institutions is dangerously low. Exercising ones right to vote, showing up to be part of the decision and not “siting this one out” is the road less traveled by…and that, my fellow Albertans, can make all the difference.
It is about your values, your choices and your future.
I agree that the PC party was on cruise control. Where was Hancock when all of this was happening? Why was he just sitting on the sidelines twiddling his thumbs? Where were his leadership skills? Or is he simply saying, "I couldn't do anything"? That's the problem with Hancock. He WAS there, could have changed things, but did NOTHING.
ReplyDeleteYour title "the road less travelled by" - we've already been travelling with Hancock - we need change. Hancock simply represents the same old same old.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I can't wait to see your post and the corresponding spin when Hancock gets knocked out in the first round.
I'm still confused why you'd still support Dinning when his supporters basically straight armed Mrs. Hancock.
Hi Anonymouses..anonymousi..whatever.
ReplyDeleteThe habitual inappropriate unilateral spending declarations of the past leader from the $400 cheque fiasco to impulse spending on "studies" for trains to Fort McMurray frustrated good governance. Even the Billion dollar spending spree last week with out legislative authority and in the face of a change in leadership shows why the party pushed for change.
This is just one of the many limitations of the traditional Westminster parliamentary system. If you don't agree with the leader you either shut up and live to fight another day, you speak up and get kicked out of caucus by the leader a la Garth Turner, or you resign.
None of these alterantive are of much help in supporting good governance. We need to modernize that model for sure.
If you think I am supporting Dinning you ARE CONFUSED!!!! Perhaps it is that you are so politically illiterate that you can't read the writing on the wall.
Dining is going to be to the second ballot. Hancock and Stelmach should be on the second ballot too. That is is all I am saying. Is that clear enough?
Hancock's accomplishments are many and varied from The Access to the Future Fund, to the 20 Year Planning Strategy, the championing of key initiatives from Domestic Violence to starting the move for an Integrated Land Use Policy. He was instrumental in securing funding for the Anthony Henday ringroad and lead many forward focused projects like the Lois Hole Digital Library. He introduced innovations like putting public health centres in public schools like at the George P. Nicholson school. The list goes on and you can research more on his website if you wish.
Bottom line Dave is a team player and plays by the rules. So does Ed Stelmach. I think that is admirable but I also think it has hurt them both in this campaign. Dave and Ed are late comers in the race but they did their Cabinet jobs with integrity while others, like Dinning, were were free for about 8 years to campaign on company time. Norris failed to get re-elected so he got hired by this donors and he campaigned for the last 2 years.
Then we have Dr. Oberg, who used his Infrastructure and Transportation portfolio to fly all over the province in the government planes, mostly to advance his leadership aspirations. Oberg was so abusive in that regard that his MLA colleagues kicked him out of caucus.
So why Hancock? Because he is the wisest, most seasoned, experienced and authentic agent of change candidate in this campaign. People are having second thoughts about a Dinning coronation, a Oberg dictatorship or a Morton theocracy.
Hancock is an accomplished politician, a man of exemplary character and has proven that he is in public life for the right reasons. Public service - not personal power.
Albertans are just coming to realize the importance and implications of this leadership race on their everyday lives. As a result they are taking this leadership issue more seriously and are supporting Hancock as the intelligent and logical choice for PC leader and the next Premier of Alberta.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with you regarding David Hancock's credentials for the job of Premier. They are impeccable and his platform is thoughtful and progressive. In fact, he may be the only progressive conservative in this race.
His line at the Calgary debate about no one knowing him because he hasn't screwed up was a classic. Very well done and absolutely true.
My concern is that Hancock has not been able to break out of his Edmonton enclave.
You know Dave well. What assures do we have that he won't cut a deal with what I perceive as the "phoney" Jim Dinning campaign after the first ballot?
Your thoughts on this would be most appreciated?
Hi Anon! I have spoken directly with Dave about "cutting a deal" with Dinning. Overtures have been made before the first ballot to the Hancock campaign and he rebuffed them.
ReplyDeleteHe said to me "that this is not about backroom deals but about individual Albertans making decisions about their future and their province." He would not do a deal then.
As for second ballot support I have not spoken to him about that. To my mind that support depends on who is on the second ballot and the relative strengths of the candidates.
If the second ballot is Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning - what is the point of making a deal? If it is Morton Oberg and Dinning, I know I would then be supporting Dinning.
The oher thing is what real difference does second ballot support make. Candidates can't really "deliver" their supporters with one person one vote.
Last time Betkowski had every other candidate fold after the first balot(10 of them I think there were) and endorse her but it was not enough.
Campaigns matter and I sense this is far from over. It is not a done deal yet.
I think Morton has an army of fundamentalist "Christian Soldiers"
out there who are organized and going to show up. If that happens and the rest of Alberta stays home, that could tip this thing over dramatically. I fear he, Oberg and Doerksen together would transform Alberta into something closer to Alabama in the next 2 years.
I also see that every candidate has their pockets of support, sometimes geographical, sometimes philosophical and sometimes it is a special interest group is pushing their preferred candidates to their spheres of influence throughout the province.
Only Dinning's support seems to be broadly based and he had 8 years of pre-camaign time to develop the network. My sense the elites and "powerful people" support he has geerated is off-putting to most Albertans. People whi are paying attnetion seem to want a change in the Premier's office and in the power structure that runs the province too. There is an uneasiness that Dinning will do that second part of the change because he is beholden to the "elites and powerful people."
Ken:
ReplyDeleteHow about Dinning, Morton and Stelmach? I respect your opinion and I am still agonizing over mine. What would you do in that instance.
In Dinning Morton Stelmach second ballot - depends on the relative strengths and the order of finish - under no circumstances Morton.
ReplyDeleteI would want to talk to Ed and some others to see how to have the most positive impact for the good of the province and the party.
Not a cop out - as much of a real possibility as any scenario except perhaps Doerkson, Norris and McPherson on the 2nd.
Hancock gets a big "F" from the Taxpayer's Federation. Just another reason not to vote for him.
ReplyDeleteGiven your obvious partisan stance, I wasn't surprised that this was not posted on your blog.
Ken, who do you think Doerkson will support once he's out?
ReplyDeleteHancock's answers to the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation were recieved late and are being graded right now. They'll even be posted soon. Geez, keep up why don't ya?
ReplyDeleteRE My "obivous partisan stance" isn't that what selecting a new leader is all about? I am definitely a partisan as a long standing member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.
ReplyDeleteI hope I am being obvious as to what my stance is. I support Dave Hancock for the next leader of the PC Party of Alberta. You seem to imply this is all a bad thing. It is simple democracy and good citizenship as I see it.
RE CTF candidate ranking...I actually did post on that issue in comments on Renewing the One Party State where the original CTF rating story was posted.
Part of what I said was about the fact the ranking was done before they had Dave's reply.
The CTF confirmed it was going to revist its ranking and rating again since had received Dave's reply. I just checked the CTF site and it looks like they have not posted any revised ranking yet.
I commented on RTOPS that The "Send 'Em a Message" survey we are doing on www.policychannel.com is showing that tax cuts are not a high priority issue for Albertans...in fact of the 15 issues being surveyed it was overwhelmingly the least important thing for the next government to be doing. Seems Albertans have moved on from debt/deficit and simply accept that we have the lowest taxes as a done deal.
Other issues like the environment and dealing with the impacts of growth, quality K-12 education and timely health care access are dominating as the priority issues now.
Cutting taxes more is simply not a big time concern for Albertans at this time. Albertans have moved on. I think we have a spending problem again - not a revenue problem...except to revisit the royality regime but that is about selling our assets or a fair price and it is not about taxes.
I encourage readers to do the Policy Channel survey but it take about 5 minutes and forces you to make hard choices. We have over 2500 individual issues prioirty responses from paticipants so far.
As for where Doerksen goes on the second ballot I do not have a clue. The more important question is will his supporters go with him or even show up for the second ballot.
That the CTF should even be considered an unbiased - and good - indicator of candidate support is laughable.
ReplyDeleteEasy to get an 'A'. Just say you will cut spending and lower taxes. Wow, you win.
One issue groups - and candidates - rank below belly lint in my estimation of worth.