The Calgary Sun still does not get what happened and the new the way Alberta will be governed as a result of the Stelmach win. They think Oberg was a key to the win, in no small part because he is a southerner and they do not perceive the sense and sensibilities of the rest of Alberta. As the Paul Simon song goes, so goes the Calgary Sun, "...a man still hears what he wants to hear and disgrards the rest."
Oberg had a hand in the Stelmach win for sure but not much real impact on the end result as any objective analyses will show. He delivered his own constituency, which is more than his Wood Buffalo endorsee Boutilier did. Hung Pham, Oberg’s other big vote generating and significant endorsee with his large block of Vietnamese voters, all moved with Pham to Morton and Calgary went total Dinning as a result. So much for an Oberg significant influence impacting the final outcome.
The real difference in the leadership result was the central and northern rural shift and the real voter growth caused by the Stelmach campaign itself. This was aided and abetted by Edmonton showing up and focusing on Stelmach over Dinning based on Hancock delivering Edmonton to Stelmach. Hancock was able at transferring his campaign operations and volunteer team and the rest of his votes throughout Alberta to Stelmach as well.
Hancock was the first to support Stelmach on the first Saturday vote and also promoted #2 votes for Stelmach throughout the campaign. Hancock started the traction and momentum to Stelmach in Edmonton and area.
Oberg was a delayed Stelmach “supporter” but took a few DAYS to actually back him on the second ballot. Norris was even slower to endorse Stelmach and both I expect bled lots of #2 votes to Morton, for different reasons. In the end result would still be the same and the Calgary media are oblivious to this reality.
The last 14 years in Alberta have been Calgary centric with a rural support based on Ralph Klein’s celebrated support in both spheres. It is evidenced by virtually every candidate having an appeasement policy platform for Edmonton as the Capital City. That has all changed now and the Calgary Compact has to understand how they fit into the new Alberta reality. It will not be difficult because Stelmach is an inclusive kind of guy, not like some other potential leadership candidates would have been very ego-centric leaders.
Stelmach is a rural guy and he won the leadership with the rural vote and with the help of Hancock delivering Edmonton. That is a really different reality than the Calgary media allows themselves to accept. As well Stelmach has the ability to explain the complexity of all of modern life in all of rural Alberta to the urban Albertans. This changing rural reality now includes the forestry and oil sands north and farming in cental areas as well as the ranching and dry land farming in the south. It is vital that Alberta's city-folk, including the Calgary Compact, understand and embrace this rural reality, and they can, if they are prepared to listen.
The Alberta agenda under Klein has been so dominated by what has come to be known as the Calgary Compact, throughout the rest of Alberta. The dramatic Dinning loss and the moribund Morton campaign in the second week underscored the growing animus that has developed toward Calgary. The image of a self-centred dominance of governance control and agenda influence in Alberta was in need of change and that came to be reflected in the results.
There is a change in leadership now. That changes how things will get done, decided and delivered. Calgary still figures into this but if this Calgary Sun piece is any indication that paper has some things to figure out too. This is not going to be a punishing shift. Everyone will be included and considered and balanced for the greater good, because that is Stelmach’s style. But the Calgary Compact is no longer the dominant force it once was that could presume to speak for all of Alberta.
Alberta is, all of a sudden, more interesting, complex, diverse and an inclusive society. It will be good for everyone in the end…including Calgary…but this Calgary Sun story shows they have a ways to go yet before they figure out what really happened with this change of political leadership on December 2, 2006.
Come on, Ken - Dave Hancock was the one who won the race for Stelmach. Give us all a break!
ReplyDeleteHancock had his little localized support as did the other Edmonton candidates. Granted, he probably did bring along with him many dippers and libs who won't even participate in the PC party.
"Stelmach is a rural guy and he won the leadership with the rural vote and with the help of Hancock delivering Edmonton".
That is an absolute joke. For those in Edmonton who are not as right as Morton, the obvious choice was Stelmach. Hancock could have flown to China and they still would have voted for Eddy over Dinning.
Hancock will get a cabinet position similar to the pre-PC race. However, his influence in the party will be diminished; his rather unsuccessful bid for premier illustrated how few Albertans agreed with his views.
It was a northern rural and Edmonton collaboration with Stelmach really bringing most of the new votes in himself. With the Red Tory Edmonton vote bring him past Morton who stalled and Dinning who did better but 37000 more Stelmach second ballot votes was more than Klein's second week growth in 1992. Impressive.
ReplyDeleteOberg was not the big contributor the Calgary Sun seems to think. The south does not see what happened still. It started with Hancock but Stelmach's machine really made it happen and Hancock support was icing to make it sweet.
The second largest consituency turnout after Stelmack was Hancock. It was a great team that you guys just don't get!
Ken, the Edmonton vote was delivered by all the candidates that agreed to go over to Eddy along with the anti-establishment anti-Calgary sentiment.
ReplyDeleteHancock's few extra thousand votes did not put Stelmach 10,000 votes over Morton, nor were even close to Morton's 14,000 second votes to Hancock.
Ken, will you not simply accept that democracy has spoken? They decided to reject Hancock along with his radical left views. Or will the federal liberal card-carrying members continue to flog this dead horse?
Eric - I said Stelmach's second ballot victory was mostly the result of his campaign organization delivering in rural Alberta by turning out over 50% of the total vote with only 33% of the population.
ReplyDeleteCalgary brought in more total numbers than Edmonton - but not for Stelmach (for Dinning and Morton instead).
The battle field for urban change was in Edmonton and the new voter growth plus the voter refocus on 2 candidates (Stelmach and Dinning) made the rest of the difference for Ed.
If the old mindset of a left and right dichotomy really meant anything anymore your distinctions may be relevant. But lets look at some outcome facts along those lines to see if the new socially progressive and fiscally conservative government in Alberta is a "dead horse."
There were three socially conservative candidates...Morton, Oberg and Doerksen. There were three socially progressive candidates, Stelmach, Hancock and Dinning.
After the first ballot 2 of the three surviving candidates (Stelmach and Dinning) were socially progressives. They dominated the first count with a combined total of 72% of the total votes cast with Morton at only 28%.
The support growth between the first and second Saturday votes showed Morton support only increasing 2%. Dinning rose 6% and Stelmach, with support of Hancock, Norris and Oberg plus a very effective rural campaign team jumped into FIRST PLACE with a 21% increase in support.
Hardly a dead horse on the socially progressive fiscal conservative agenda. It is more like Seabiscuit if you ask me.
In the end the far right socially conservative agenda was soundly rejected by a 72-28 ratio.
You are right about one thing Eric. Democracy has spoken and it is you and your ilk who are failing to hear her conclusions.
Only in Alberta could Dave be branded as having "radical left views." I'm sorry, but I have rarely read anything so outlandish, narrow-minded, simplistic or intellectually lazy. If one knew anything about human politics in a broader sense, then you'd know what a assinine statement that was. Fidel Castro, Karl Marx, Dave Hancock? Please spare me the rhetoric. Then again, the use of the left-right dichotomy, tries to simplify politics in a way that it shouldn't be simplified. We can't reduce something as complex as human politics to a mere continuum of right and left.
ReplyDeleteSo now Stelmach is not a social conservative. Ken, have you been oblivious when you campaigned for the man. He is clearly opposed to SSM and will be in favour of the defence of religions act - are those not signs of social conservatism?
ReplyDeleteAp - sorry for being intellectually lazy - I thought it was rather obvious. I could cut and paste provisions of Hancock's platform, but surely you could review it yourself. His political leanings are self-evident.
ReplyDeleteYes, it does simplify politics. By using a certain term, "liberal" or "conservative" there is essentially a rebuttable presumption that the particular individual espouses certain viewpoints.
Well then you are presuming that all people who are "liberal" or "conservative" believe in the same things. I don't think that all "liberals" share all the same viewpoints, nor do all "conservatives." What the hell is a "liberal" or a "conservative" anyway. I have a hard time figuring it out, especially seeing as all political terms seem to be self-defining.
ReplyDeleteIf you disagree with Dave's world view, that is fine. Just say what he believes in that you disagree with. I have no problem with that. You're entitled to my respect if I find your viewpoint to be reasoned, logical, acknowledges your value judgments, and I'm quite sure that you are capable of it. But to merely characterize someone as being a :radical left", with no definition of what you mean by that or no evidence to back it up, is to take things over the top. It also doesn't lead to the intelligent debate that I think that Ken is trying to facilitate here.
Eric at 12:43...you are wrong again in saying Stelmach is "clearly opposed to SSM." Nothing in the Stelmach leadership platform even mentions SSM.
ReplyDeleteIf he was "clearly opposed" and it was so important to him I think he would have mentioned it. Morton and Oberg mentioned it in their platforms for sure.
Many politicians felt torn on the word marriage being extended beyond a heterosexual tradition. They also wanted to be inclusive and respect Canadians individual Charter rights.
The individal's rights properly trumped the concerns of those "family values" groups who oppposed SSM. In the end, most thoughtful politicians made the adjustment. Kind of like the change in consciousness when women got the vote as I see it.
Stelmach comes from a cultural heritage of being a persecuted minority. I don't see him perpetuating that behaviour on others as Premier or any other time.
The SSM matter is settled law anyway - thx to the Martin Liberal government passing SSM into law in June of 2005 and the Harper government confirming last week the Commons no longer want to go there and it is time to move on.
Strategic Counsel poll last week shows 58% of Canadians are now in favour of SSM too. Canadians have moved on too.
As for the Defence of Religions Act...not relevant...Harper is on record saying it will not be introduced.
Don't expect Morton to bring back Bill 208 into Alberta anytime soon either. He will be in Cabinet and not in line to sponsor a Private Members Bill. Albertans have moved on too.
It is difficult to frame an issue a certain way when the facts don't support it. SSM and Defence of Religions Acts facts for example.
Yes Stelmach is a social progressive and nothing in the last post by Eric changes that.
"Well then you are presuming that all people who are "liberal" or "conservative" believe in the same things."
ReplyDeleteap: Yes, that what a rebuttable presumption is. It is not perfect but people use it in everyday life all the time. I guess using the term "radical left" is inappropriate. However, Ken has numerous posting comparing Morton to a Republican Bush without giving a detailed policy discussion of why - it should work both ways. However, I take your point - two wrongs don't make a right.
Ken, since you were supporting Stelmach, I'd would have thought that you would have asked him whether or not he supports of SSM and whether he's in agreement with the defence of religions act (the first question really being moot). I know you'll be surprised at the answers. There are other reasons beside the distate of Dinning why Morton voters put Stelmach as their second choice.
Ken, if you want to use polls to conclude on public opinion, do so at your own peril. I'm sure I could find other polls with numbers showing the exact opposite.
I'm actually in favour of SSM marriage myself but just cannot stand the intolerance that the so-called 'progressives' have for other's religious views. Even your adjective "thoughtful" policians now are in favour reflects this attitude.
Ken, being a lawyer, you know that it is the way you phrase the 'issue' that forms the debate. Those opposed to SSM argue that the real question is whether it is a "right" to get married. The SCC has never stated that it is a right - although, every lawyer in the country knows that if a reference with this specific question were given to the SCC, their answer would be that legislating the traditional definition of marriage would infringe s. 15 and not be saved under s. 1.
The provinces can pass their own defence of religions act. Remember that education is under the provincial jurisdiction.
fyi, there is a 99.9% chance that Bill 208 will reappear.
Eric - you say "there is a 99.9% chance Bill 208 will reappear." This is not even issue framing...please tell us how you can be so sure and why we would bring it up again in the face of strong public opinion that the issue is done and folks want to move on.
ReplyDeleteIn the last week when I supported Stelmach I was writing blog postings, making phone calls and sending emails to my campaign contacts to explain why Dave and I had switched to supporting Ed.
I did not have the time, (nor did Ed I expect), for a private chat with me on his SSM position. It was not in his policy platform and that was good enough for me.
Churches do not have to perform SSM so they should be pleased. Surely we don't want to legally protect language and teachings that may be bigotry in the name of free speech or religious freedom.
As for education we have charter and church sponsored schools where people can have their kids educated and not have to worry about being taught material contrary to their parent's values. That option is there to serve such private concerns and so the public system can be more inclusive. We don't need Bill 208 to deal with education issues - it is already solved with these publically funded school choices.
I am no Constitutional lawyer but you might be. We don't know who you really are yet do we! Why not tell us your real identity so we can have a more open and meaningful exchange?
If I understand what you are proposing is to overcoming a individual's Section 15 Charter rights and freedoms is using a Section 1 override? Proof again that we really must be careful who we elect.
As for me describing Morton as a Bush Republican I did so initially in response to Professor Morton himself referring to Dinning as Liberal-lite (code for not a "real" conservative).
As to why I feel the Bush-Morton relationship is valid I look at the ties to religious fundamentalists and a shared "family values" based public policy agenda. The shared SSM positioning, the aggressive isolationist firewall policy and Bush isolationism like the Softwood Lumber ultimatium to Canada. Morton wants to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force under the control of the provincial government and the Premier. Kind of looks like it could be a Premier Morton Alberta National Guard if he wanted it to be. The similar tax cut policy to shared attitude towards the so called activitist unaccountable and appointed judiciary are a few Morton - Bush parallels just off the top of my head.
I state that Bill 208 will reappear as Morton's backers want him to introduce the bill and I believe he will follow through. Your public opinion polls do not show that the issue is over with in AB.
ReplyDelete"Surely we don't want to legally protect language and teachings that may be bigotry in the name of free speech or religious freedom."
That's is the exact type of phrasing of the issue that I believe is intolerent. If a priest wants to state an opinion that SSM is immoral, why is that automatically bigotry? Who are you to judge? Free speech allows one to state his or her views whatever they may be. It is bigotry to deny a group the same opportunity to make their voice heard as any other group. You should not be so insecure in the strength of your belief to take steps at limiting your opponent's ability to make thier own arguments. If you are confident that your position is correct, it should win on its merits.
Ken, I hope I can further debate as an anon. I don't specialize in constitutional law, but have taken many of the courses at law school. It is a fascinating topic.
No, a section 1 override is the court's option. A notwithstanding clause is the political tool. Even if a provincial premier used the notwithstanding clause, it would be ineffective if the area is outside the provincial jurisdiction (as in the case of SSM).
If the government was proposing to let people pull their kids out of class when they were being taught about racism, there'd be an uproar. If the government was proposing to provide legal protections to anti-semites, there'd be an uproar. Marriage commissioners are public officials. SSM is the law of the land. They are obliged to follow the law of the land. Period. If they can't then they shouldn't be doing that job. Eric, as someone who has gone to law school, you should know that public officials, who get their powers from statute, are obliged to follow/implement the law. Their private views are irrelevant for their public duties. Religious official are already protected by the Charter. They don't need any more protection than that. Homosexuals should be protected by hate crime laws, and that isn't provincial jurisdiction anyway. If this bill lessens protections for homosexuals before the human rights commission, that would be a charter issue. We don't need our politicians wasting their time debating issues that most people don't care about. Let's move on.
ReplyDeleteEric @ 8:45 - Bill 208 came as a Private Member's Bills, which are done on a lottery basis and only available to Backbenchers and Opposition members I believe.
ReplyDeleteIf Professor Morton is in Cabinet he will have to deal with government Bills only...208 will not come in as a government Bill, I will give odds on that bet!
AP answers your other comments very well indeed. I only have few points to add.
As for bigotry look up the definition. My Webster's says "stubborn and complete intolerance if any creed, belief, or opinion that differ's from one's own."
Look up "hate monger" and "hate crime" too while you check the definition of bigotry. Thankfully there are limits to free speech in a free and democratic society.
Where do you get the gall to suggest I am "limiting your opponent's ability to make their own arguments?" Have you not been paying attention to our exchanges in the past few days? Have I done anything to limit your ability to make your point on this Blog? Look back at other postings with extensive comments and you will see no limitations placed by me - merely rebuttals, corrections and sometimes concessions.
That comment is just another retreat into more misleading "issues framing" and is devoid of any basis in fact. It is more tactical misdirection designed to lead to a preconceived self serving conclusion.
As for my "confidence" in my position being correct, the Supreme Court has said so, the House of Commons has said so and the public opinon polls are now consistently saying so too. I think that is sufficient "merit" to support my position as correct.
This SSM issue has been debated to a pulp. It is decided law and supported by the broad span of public opinion...it is now very boring. Let's move on.
We'll wait to see on Bill 208. He can get it through another backbencher (Abbott or Doerkson).
ReplyDeleteap's answer does not answer my arguments - I agree with him that there would be a Charter violation.
" Thankfully there are limits to free speech in a free and democratic society."
Actually Ken, a priest can currently go out in public and state SSM is absolutely immoral and hurting Cdn society. That is called freedom of religous beliefs - it is not a hate crime.
I did not state "you" were limiting one's viewpoint; I stated that imposing a criminal sanction on a person's religoius viewpoint would.
I agree that the SSM marriage issue is over. Bill 208 is not about SSM.
Eric @ 11:15 pm: Bill 208 is about SSM because it is part of excluding or limiting or disrespecting certain people based on their sexual preferences - amongst other things.
ReplyDeleteYou can't isolate social inclusiveness and participation in social institutions like marriage...they are part and parcel of citizenship.
Bill 208 alleges to protect freedom of religion and speech in certain circumstances but those protections already exist. Therefore we don't need Bill 208.
Of course a priest can go out in public and make such statements and not be promoting hate. There is a line where freedom of speech crosses over into hate but it depends on the circumstances in each case.
For example, my friend Link Byfield's Commentary this week says:
"For example, any unbiased clinical assessment of the evidence easily shows that abortion, promiscuity and homosexuality are all harmful. They reduce the population, fracture families, and spread emotional despair, social distrust and physical disease."
This comment is not a hate crime by any stretch of the imagination - but it is debatable and intolerant. I disagree profoundly with what he says but value equally as profoundly his right to say it...publicly, fearlessly and not anonymously!
In fact Link goes further to say:
"But be careful about saying so. Expect to be widely denounced as intolerant."
Here Link and I agree totally. This attitude should be expected to be denounced as intolerant. But that is based on a different value set from Link's.
I believe in and value a society that is nurturing, inclusive, respectful, diverse and a creative community of interests.
What I happen to believe in obviously differs from Link. I am not threatened by that nor, I expect, is he.
An open discussion on the differences in moral beliefs and value priorities amongst sectors and interests within a society is healthy and does not even come close to that line where it becomes hate. It never has and never should.
That is why Bill 208 is unnecessary. The free speech and freedom of religion protections it alledges to serve needs no more protection that the Charter gives every citizen already.
There are school and educational alternatives already serving religious needs. All public officials, like marriage councillors, must comply with the law of the land. If they don't want to means they should not take on the responsiblity.
Eric - I think we are honing in on where we agree now.
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciated it but I am going to move on now.
You can't suck and blow at the same time. You state you want an open and free discussion on moral beliefs but when someone has different moral beliefs (like Link), you call it "intolerent" and state it should be "denounced".
ReplyDeleteThanks for the discussion as well. I'll agree to disagree on this one and I'd like to thank you for your responses.
I look forward to your discussion on the cabinet picks.
Eric @1:42 - I am a lawyer and get the impression you are too. Of course we suck and blow at the same time...it is part of the training ;-}
ReplyDeleteAgain you selectively do a context "take" trying to refocus and reframe the discussion.
In your earlier post you said:
"Actually Ken, a priest can currently go out in public and state SSM is absolutely immoral and hurting Cdn society. That is called freedom of religous beliefs - it is not a hate crime."
I agreed with you on that commentary was not even close to hate although I think is wrong for many reasons, including intolerance.
Your priests being able to say SSM is "immoral and hurting Cdn society" or Link saying "...any unbiased clinical assessment of the evidence easily shows that abortion, promiscuity and homosexuality are all harmful. They reduce the population, fracture families, and spread emotional despair, social distrust and physical disease."
AND ME BEING ABLE TO COMMENT BACK on such statements as intolerant and worthy of decouncement IS AN OPEN AND FREE DISCUSSION based on different points of view!