This is going to be a very interesting Cabinet Premier Stelmach has crafted. I think people are already lowering their expectations of this Cabinet based on evaluation measurements that no longer really apply to modern governance roles and responsibilities.
We live in an intensely networked relational world that is more horizontal, competitive, connected and faster moving than ever before. Our social cohesion is breaking down as we are all working too much, too fast doing old style things for less and less marginal returns. Smarter working methods are being trumped by more of the same old even though we know that we can’t compete with the traditional models any more. Individual stresses along with community and family breakdown are all rising as a result.
The growing gap between rich and poor, have and have not, is especially troubling within Canada and internationally between the developed and developing world. The level of interdependence of all humanity is something very new as well. This is especially dramatic as we consider the consequences of our individual and collective behaviours as we share in the abusing the planet’s ecosystems. It may be foolish to some to be the first to change - but it is foolhardy in the extreme not to change at all.
So the new Stelmach Cabinet blog comments I am reading seems to me to be using old social scales and images to decide who should exercise authority and who is worthy of respect as we "evaluate the appropriateness" of the people in the Stelmach Cabinet.
In today’s world reality I am not interested in "expert" leaders or professionally packaged politicians who have had all the humanity media trained out of them. I don’t think the only goal of politics is winning the next election, although I acknowledge the importance of that to the candidates themselves.
I want curious, conscientious, caring, generous souls who like to laugh and have open minds and huge open hearts with a respect for differences and who can thrive on complexity who are interested in new ideas and open debate. Believe me that is not your “average Joe” but it could be, at least at another level of appreciation and understanding.
That being "comfortable in your own skin" sense of self and personal value set does not automatically emerge from a post-secondary education. Character gets taught in communities and in families and in dealing with others and in growing up and learning from ones life experiences. I am content to leave the professional job of government to the bureaucracy and the experts. I want politicians with humanity, humility, decency and honesty as their core expertise, skills and qualifications.
The politician’s role is about creating the conditions and the opportunities for synergies to emerge to help us all to improve our lives but in ways that are in harmony with each other and with nature. It is about the quality of the character and the compassion of the individuals that make for the best politicians. It is not all about the letters after their names or the pedigree of their parentage or the size of their “estates.”
It is more fundamental than that. Successful politician are those with the wisdom to help people to get stuff done - mostly for them selves, regardless of individual circumstances. Successful politicians are those individuals who are able to be them selves on purpose and at all times and in all situations. Successful politicians are those individuals who are “self-made” but only through the mutual benefits they created and enjoyed of, with and for other people.
Based on my criteria for success in politics, the most successful politician I ever met had a university degree but her self image was that of a farmer. She was only ever elected as a local school trustee. The exercise of pure political power was never her modus operandi. Her personal influence on people’s lives in the province however was enormous. I’ve never met anyone who did not love and respect everything this farmer cum politician stood for - even if they had never met her personally.
I am talking about Lois Hole. I wonder if we would be getting the same kind of veiled snobbery I see in some of the MSM and blogger-fodder if she was a new “no name” farmer member of Ed Stelmach’s Cabinet?
Drawing comparisons between Lois Hole's stellar track record and the new cabinet ministers', as yet, blank track record is a bit of a stretch.
ReplyDeleteIf you don’t want that naughty main-stream-media rushing to judgment or making false comparisons (*cough Harry Strom cough*) then you too should play by these rules.
Only time itself will tell the true tale of Mr. Stelmach’s cabinet decisions. For my part, I predict neither greatness nor terrible failure.
I not sure what most of this post has to do with the hostility to Ed Stelmach's cabinet that you are witnessing, I would have thought it was obvious.
ReplyDeletePeople look to their government to represent their interests and deal with their concerns. When they can't see themselves reflected in a cabinet they feel disenfranchised.
This is the first cabinet of an unelected Premier. He made a colossal error in ignoring women, big-city dwellers, visible minorities and aboriginal people in constructing his cabinet.
Further, he put loyalty to his campaign above all else. How else can you explain putting a complete neophyte in the number two spot? Much more experienced folks who have performed well in the past were relegated to to lesser roles because the supported a different candidate.
First impressions are critical in politics. Ed Stelmach is off to a very bad start. He has begun his tenure with a serious, unforced error. It does not bode will for the future.
HI F. Haultian - Are you the ghost of THE Frank Haultain? I wish you were still here so we could revist the Alberta-Saskatchewan border thing again.
ReplyDeleteYour points are well taken. People vote with their identity these days - not their ideology so much.
If 2/3 of the Alberta population (the big cities in particular) do not "see themselves" in this Cabinet and this government then Kevin Taft is going to look brilliant in the next election. Presuming the Liberals become the acceptable identity of big city Alberta and the rural folks failed to show up - not likely!
Remember in this leadership 51% of the second ballot votes came outside of Edmonton and Calgary and they make up less than 1/3 of the population. The world is still run by those who show up and Edmonton and Calgary are not yet showing up enough to make a difference!
This is a new world for the PC party too. We are going to have to earn every one of our seats on the door steps not merely riding on the leaders coat tails.
Edmonton PCs are used to earning their seat that way, Calgary is not. But they are resourceful and smart people and besides, it will be great for democracy.
The canary in the PC coal mine was in the 2004 election when we lost "a safe seat" Calgary Varsity. Time will tell if we got that message.
As for anonymous @6:03, the blank track record comment is fair too. Time will also tell if the Stelmach Cabinet can rise to the reality of the new Alberta. It is as much about consciousness and attitude as it is about geography and demographics.
I am optimistic and hopeful Ed Stelmach's crew can find an identifying connection with the big cities and other urban Albertans at a value and principles level, not just gender and geo-graphrics (is that a word?).
If I am misguided in my optimism, Albertans will make a change in about 18 months, in the next election, as is their prerogative.
Ken, let's not lose sight of what significance those truckloads of rural northeastern Stelmach voters actually has to Eddie's future electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteLittle to none. 17,000 Fort Sask-Vegreville voters can cast ballots for the Stelmach Tories, while a slim plurality of 5,500 pick the Taft Liberals in Edmonton-Castle Downs, for instance. One seat, one seat. An active voting populace root root rooting for the homeboy in one riding means far less than it did on two chilly, recent Saturdays. So he has to win the regions, and energize voters beyond his own backyard and parts surrounding.
And ironically, what would give meaning to the Vegreville poll power? PR voting, the very system the Tories have long ignored because it would give more power to their enemies.
Ken, I'm a bit concerned you're becoming an apologist for the new regime. Are you concerned there are so few women and visible minorities selected by a premier who has long stated he wants to reach out to new Albertans? Or that so many solid backbenchers and veterans were passed over for a guy like Fred Lindsay, whose only apparent background for SolGen was being on the site selection committee for the police college — and that in this and other cases pragmatism was trumped by more personal and political factors?
It's not worth crapping all over this new cabinet, as there are some pluses (Morton in a small file, Snelgrove getting to cabinet at all, Mel Knight, keeping Dave and Ron, and unloading a whole bunch of Klein-era deadweight.) But where's the call-em-as-I-see-em Chapman that existed a few short weeks ago?
You should go and check out the map on daveberta. It looks like the Northeast has gotten a huge amount of representation vis-a-vis everybody else. A premier can pick the cabinet he wants. It's just frustrating that his primary consideration appears to be loyalty rather than intelligence, experience, competence. I care most about having a competent government. There were some competent members who were skipped over because they supported Dinning, in favour of some members whose greatest qualification was their support of Stelmach. That is a real shame. Secondly, the rural-urban split does matter. Alberta is an increasingly urban and urbane society. 80% of the population lives in an urban area. Yet 66% of the cabinet posts are held by politicans from rural constituencies. Ultimately, those politicians are accountable to their own electorate. It is natural that their primary consideration will be the need of their own voters. Those voters needs are not exactly the same as those of urban citizens. This cabinet could very well be a step back, not a step forward.
ReplyDeleteKen -- I strongly agree with these commentators -- I hope we aren't going to lose your independent thinking on these issues!
ReplyDeleteFor a new independent view, see:
http://reinventingalberta.blogspot.com
a. henday,
ReplyDeleteI notice that you are plugging your blog as an independent view. Well, good for you and all the best.
I wonder though, that since you have apparently disabled the comment function on your blog (anonymous or otherwise), it does not seem to be an independent view - just the view of "a. henday and friends".
This is your perogative. But I would say that even though I don't always agree with Ken, I do respect the fact that he tolerates dissent within his own blog. Something you do not appear to do.
In fact, your independent view just appears to be a posting board for innuendo about the new Premier's cabinet and motives (based on posts so far). For all we know, you could be a disaffected supporter of another candidate, or even another party. Ken says who he is, and where he is coming from, from an ideological perspective. Willblog (Noise From the Right) - who is pretty far on the other end of the spectrum from Ken, does the same. How 'bout you?
HI May S. at 1:01 AM! I am not an apologist for the new regime but I am a fan of Ed Stelmach's. I will tend to give him more of the the benefit of the doubt than others might!
ReplyDeleteWith apologies to John Lennon "All I am saying...is give ED a chance." We are about 18 months away from an election and we can deal with all of this as citizens then if we don't like how it plays out.
The Cabinet does not fit the Poli Sci 101 standard buleprint on "How To Build a Cabinet." Ed's is not based on representation by gender, geography and diversity. I would prefer that it did, but so what! It is what it is and lets see how they do!
If Albertans do not like the performance of this Cabinet and government it will respond accordingly at the next ballot box, likely in the spring of 2008.
Let's not dwell on the individual personalities but rather look at the Mandate Letters Ed sent to his Ministers. They are online and set out his expectations and instructions to his Ministers for them to deliver on the Stelmach policy agenda.
That is the real stuff that merits our scrutiny first. We don't need to rush to judgment on the people he picked to perform until we consider what it is they are being asked to do.
Lets see how they perform first before we pass judgement. Lets consider the resonance of the Stelmach policy agenda before we "writeoff" any duly elected MLAs who the Premier has asked to do a job - for him and us!
Ken, please post about Stelmach not disclosing his contributors. I thought you wanted the process to be open and transparent. I remember that you were harking about Morton not disclosing his backers but somehow you don't mind if the Premier himself does not disclose. Why attack Morton but not Stelmach on this issue? Stelmach has stated he will give the names of people who are okay with disclosure - that is NOT disclosure!!! Who owns our Premier?
ReplyDeleteI am seldom moved to comment on anything that I see on the web, or on a blog. However ... in this case, I make an exception. Ken, first of all - great blog. I am glad someone sent it my way. My comment - as a society we really need to get over this perceived need to have "equality" of representation. I do not care about the "equal" Calgary/Edmonton issue, and I particularly am offended that there is a perceived need to ensure that women are included. I want to see a good performance by the new Ministers in their roles. And we need to give them, and the new premier time. I judge based on results - not on race, sex, or city/town of residence.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about every closed door old white boys club in the modern age is that they are always saying "we're open, we're friendly to all views" and they succeed in diminishing the opposition to the status quo by providing token changes and dismissing further objections as "radical".
ReplyDeleteOur province faces a serious crisis in urban development. We don't have time to wait and see if these inexperienced buddies of Eddie 'Mach have the chops to take on the issues. We need people with a proven track record of success taking decisive action now. In Calgary, 18 months might as well be eighteen years.
RostockRose said...
ReplyDelete"We need people with a proven track record of success taking decisive action now"
And who would you suggest has the proven record of success?
Is the fact that nobody springs to mind a sad sign for democracy or what?
ReplyDeleteEric @ 10:29 PM re disclosure - You are entitle to your own opinions but not your own facts.
ReplyDeleteGo back to my December 6th posting and you will see I suggested ALL Candidates be required to disclose BEFORE they took a Cabinet appointment...that would include the Premier and not just Morton. At that time Morton was the only candidate indicating he would not disclose in some form or other but I think he has changed now and will do some form of disclosure as well.
I can understand the impracticality of my precondition to Cabinet suggestion because of timing and money is still coming in - but better late than never.
The other problem is anonymous donors who wish to remain so because that was the deal going in. Unless the donor changes their minds and without rules in place it is not easy or fair to change the rules after the fact. The PC Party has to deal with tightening this up for next time!
My solution was to let them remain anonymous but to detail them individually and their specific amounts donated. We can see just how much of a "screen" the various candidates have surrounding their supports.
In a related context I find it amusing that someone like Eric would insist on no anonymity for donors but he will not tell us who he really is. That's hardly a tenable position.
Well, it's not tenable if you think there is no difference between the influence you can gain by donating money to a political campaign and the influence you can gain by commenting on a blog.
ReplyDeleteRostockrose @ 9:27
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your last comment? Are you saying there is no difference betwen an anonymous donation to a specific campaign and an anonymous comment on a blog?
To my mind there is a big and obvious difference. My earlier point was notwithstanding, some people feel a need for anonymity be in in blogging, commenting on blogs or making political donations.
The key concern is poilitical influence, and can you buy it anonymously. Anonymous blogging I expect has marginal political influence, mostly because it is anonymous.
In political donations there is usually someone else who knows the identity of the person making the donation...if for no other reason to be sure they are legally appropriate. Some groups should not be making political donations, like registered charities for example.