A new Ipsos Reid poll shows Albertans are on side with “Steady Eddie” big time. Interestingly the field work was done over a week (December 13 to 19) that included the Cabinet announcement on December 15 and the post-announcement reaction time. The lack of balance and representation of the new Cabinet seems to be an issue for the chattering classes only.
A 76% approval rating on the PC’s choosing Stelmach with 33% rating the outcome as “very good.” Expectations are high too, in that 78% are confident that he will be an effective Premier. High praise and higher expectations means the new Alberta government has to deliver!
As for decided voters, the Stelmach led PC’s get a 10 point bounce to 68% of decided voters taking support away from the Liberals and NPD in equal amounts of 4% each. With the NDP at 6% they are dangerously close to being replaced by the Greens as the third party.
The news release highlights the delivery issue incorrectly. It says “Few (17%) Want to See Stelmach Make Major Changes” implying a stay the course approach to governance and NOT make substantial changes. A deeper dip into the data shows just the opposite. In fact there is an appetite for change. Only 8% who want “no real changes.” Moderate change is supported by 58% and minor change is in at 20%. We are talking 90% what some kind of “real change” here and we are only quibbling as to the degree and depth of that change. We voted for change and we want it!
The divided province seems to be more mythical than factual too. In the “good choice” question, 72% of Calgarians and 78% of southern Albertans agree Stelmach was a good choice. Edmonton is really behind Stelmach with an 81% approval rating. The confidence level over Stelmach being an effective Premier is between 79% and 85% all over Alberta and even Calgary is 70% confident and 22% not confident. Still and all, these are impressive numbers and minor differences in the big scheme of things.
Party support into an immediate election (hypothetical at best) is a blow out for the Progressive Conservatives. The Alberta Alliance Party is even behind the Greens in support so the far right social conservative firewall agenda is the Monty Python “dead parrot” in the new Alberta political reality.
Overall the Greens are at 4% and the NDP at 6% and strongest in Edmonton and the North, where they are tied with the NDP. As the environment has moved and solidified as the #1 Alberta policy issue, the NDP are going to be gasping for political relevance in the eyes of Albertans next election.
This raises an interesting question to me. Do you think that any time a party changes leaders it should call an immediate election?
ReplyDeleteSome might say no on the grounds that we vote for a party and not a specific leader. But when a new leader means a potential change in direction for the party (however large or small) doesn't it behoove the government to seek approval for the new direction in the form of a new election?
In this way (one of the few, I admit) I think the Americans have got it right at the presidential level. Bush is president until the end of his term, even if somebody else will be running for president for his party in the next election.
To extend the metaphor, my personal opinion is that Ralph Klein should have been premier up until a new provincial election was called, regardless of who the PCs picked to succeed him as party leader.
This is a bit academic in a one-party province like Alberta. The outcome of the provincial election, whenever it happens, is well known in advance. The rush to join the PC party in the final days of the leadership campaign by people with radically non-PC views is a testament to the desperation felt by those marginalized by first-past-the-post riding driven election mechanics. Arts organizations in Calgary were practically begging their supporters to join the PCs in the hopes of obtaining a "least worst" situation for the future of arts in this province.
But whether its a nearly guaranteed win or a close call, I think a new leader for the party in power should mean an immediate election call to reaffirm the mandate.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteWith your comment:
"The lack of balance and representation of the new Cabinet seems to be an issue for the chattering classes only."
I think you hit the nail on the head. The average Joe - and I count myself to be pretty much in this camp - wants to see good government. This implies we want results, and in this context results that means change. Nebulous notions of "representativeness" are less important. I am not unsympathetic to those who want to see a diverse cabinet, but I place little weight to the comments of some who clearly have a pre-existing axe to grind. Or those media-types and pundits (pick any poli-sci "analyst" quoted in Cal Herald or Edm Journal) who were unanimous in their inability to call the leadership election results and now want us to believe their latest portents of doom.
Brian Mason and Kevin Taft will continue to criticize and will seek to maximize any imagined slight in the hope of getting additional seats. But they are the Opposition after all - that is what they do: oppose. Judge them accordingly.
The axe-grinders includes those Tory ministers left out of the current cabinet. Somehow I think that even if cabinet were neatly sliced into eveyone's notion of representativeness (statistically impossible given you are dealing with a sample of only 60-odd MLAs against a population of 3 million), that these same former ministers left out would still be grumbling. And they would still be throwing out the same (incorrect) numbers of cabinet positions being given to EDM and CAL; not considering the bedroom communities to be part of the urban landscape is akin to saying that your hand is indifferent to the health of your arm.
I think that everyone starting a new job would like to be given the benefit of the doubt while they establish their bona fides. Stelmach - and his cabinet - deserve no less.
RostockRose,
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point. But I think it is one of those items that makes a lot of theoretical sense, but breaks down when you look at the realities of government.
Our system of government is different than the Americans in that here the leader of the party is the leader of the government. We vote for our local representative, not for the Premier. Americans vote directly for their President as a matter of normal course, with fixed election dates providing clear demarcation of the periods of governing. It is only because the last three decades in Alberta that the PC's have had such a grip on power that the election of a party leader morphed into a very public event. That, and the nature of the "one-member, one-vote" process which opens it up to the public. The Alberta electorate gave clear mandate to the PC Party to run the government for up to the next five years (to 2009). Power of his personality aside, the mandate was not owned by Ralph Klein.
From a practical perspective, a new leader needs time to acquaint his/herself with the roles of the office and set the agenda for the new cabinet, and could not reasonably be expected to run an election the next day. Political parties are creatures considerably interested in their own survival - having to hold an election right after a new leader is appointed would likely further entrench the current leader due to the party's fear of losing power. Probably not the behaviour we would like to see further incentivized.
I'm also a realist in that I personally think the public would be "electioned-out". We had a provincial election just back in 2004, where many people complained because it came on the heels of one just in 2001. We've also been through a six month (well, longer) period of one party dominating the news headlines with their leadership selection. We will most likely have a federal election next year. To have a provincial one run concurrently or within a few months of the federal one, I don't think would be the choice of many.
I'm no political analyst - just my two cents on the subject.
Interesting analysis, Ken. It seems fairly likely that the 68% is little more than a honeymoon bump. It should be interesting to see how Albertans react to Stelmach once he actually begins governing and making policy decisions.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the results of the question "are you familiar with Ed Stelmach" or "how familiar are you with Ed Stelmach" would have recieved. I think those questions would provide some deeper context for the 68%.
(PS. Merry Christmas!)
Interesting take. I believe part of Stelmach's approval is that he followed a man who desparately wanted to go fishing rather than hold a Legislative session.
ReplyDelete"Brian Mason and Kevin Taft will continue to criticize and will seek to maximize any imagined slight in the hope of getting additional seats. But they are the Opposition after all - that is what they do: oppose. Judge them accordingly."
Interesting how in direct and inderect ways the opposition (part of democracy, remember?) is marginalized here in Alberta. I guess the Federal Tories were just as useless 1993-2005.....
jonathan,
ReplyDeleteYou may have misunderstood the intent of my post. I meant no disrespect to Mssr. Taft and Mason and their parties with my prior comment. It is a foundation of our political system to have an Official Opposition. All I meant is that they are doing their jobs by taking government to task, and naturally being on the lookout for the next election, I would not honestly expect them to offer regular congratulatory toasts to the current ruling party. At least not in a public forum.
It will be interesting to see their take-up of Stelmach's offer to establish all-party committees. I think that this is "de-marginalizing".
Well I guess it was the "imagined" part that set me off. I can think of a few thousand unimagined slights that I've lived through, as Ralph has been premier for exactly half of my life.
ReplyDeleteThe democratic reform all-party proposal is interesting, but if Ed wants to do anything meaningful he will have to talk about dismantling the Bureau of Public Affairs, or severing it from the party completely. (not likely!)
All-party committees are a betrayal of fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy! They ensure that the voice of those who oppose the legislation or policy in question will be represented by NO ONE and will never be publicly aired or debated via the legislature.
ReplyDeleteI would remind you all of what Diefenbaker said about the role of parties in opposition: "If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends."
son of gaia,
ReplyDeleteHave a glass of eggnog and relax. Having some all-party committees is not a deathblow to parliamentary democracy. Rather, they offer a means to facilitate policy development, speeding up the process.
Fear not, question period will be unchanged. "It twer ever thus".
The adverserial tradition in our culture has reached its limits and is outliving its usefulness in dealing with the really serious issues of our day.
ReplyDeleteWe need to seek out new ways to understand and to explore new concepts and ideas to resolve the challenges of the day and those that are emerging, often of our own creation.
The dialectic approach of the good being discovered by eliminating the bad is seriously insufficient. The politics of difference don't get us very far in a systems based interrelated and interdependent and biodiverse planet.
The citizen's test as to who should govern is shifting from who has the most money and support from the establishment to who do I identify with most and who do I trust the most and who can do the job not just win the election.
This shift is a bigger change agent impacting the traditionalists view of our parliamentary democracy than collecting a diversity of opinion at a committee stage of law making.
Our institutions are not serving use very well these days...in fact most of them are actually betraying our trust.
I welcome institutional change that allows for a better decision making mechanism by including and acknowledging a diversity of opinion, experiences and perspectives. That is one positive way to help us as a society to make more sense of our changing world.