I think it is important to point out some other relevant facts around the nomination process for determining candidates in the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, especially for the vast majority of readers who are citizens and voters but not involved in political parties.
The Progressive Conservative Party Executive Committee and Party Leader’s review of Mr. Chandler’s nomination and determination of his suitability for candidacy is not unique to him. In the PC Party Constitution, all nominees for candidacy for the PC Party will go through the same review process that Mr. Chandler is going through.
The PC Party of Alberta is a membership driven organization, just like all other political parties and the various other non-profit voluntary sector organizations that exist in the province. The objectives of the PC Party are firstly “To promote and assist the interests and principles of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta.” Also “To promote and assist in nominating and supporting in an Provincial Election, official Progressive Conservative candidates, consistent always with the autonomy of the Constituency Associations.”
Clause 14(b) (vi) of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta says:
“A candidate who has been duly nominated shall be approved by the Leader and the Executive Committee and officially endorsed as a candidate of the Association if such approval is in the best interests of the Association.”
There is a dispute resolution process for resolving a range of issues surrounding candidate nominations, including a candidate’s qualification or disqualification before or after nomination.
In terms of fairness, Mr. Chandler is not a special case. The process for a nominee to be reviewed is clear and and I am sure the provisions of the Constitution will be followed for him and all other potential and aspiring candidates for the PC Party.
“...including a candidate’s qualification or disqualification before or after nomination.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of fairness...”
...would it not be more fair to nip the problem in the bud long before the nomination? The party’s preference seems to be to let the pariah hawk memberships and swell PC coffers by thousands of dollars before slitting his throat.
Interesting observation Herbert. We so called Red Tories had forfeited the party to the far right - federally and provincially in Alberta during the Klein regime.
ReplyDeleteWe let this happen to the point that Conservative politics in Canada became akin to Republican politics in the States. Stephen Harper being the last remnant of that time and tendency.
Harper is even more isolated with Bush being past lame-duck status and now just plain lame…but dangerous. The resounding electoral defeat of Howard in Australia, the other Harper kindred spirit, leaves the Harper Cons effectively alone and isolated.
Harper underscored his isolation on the world stage this week with his now singularly vague stance on addressing climate change at the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State.
The progressive element in the Alberta PC Party, and where I align, is emerging as an essential and redefining element of Alberta Progressive Conservative governing philosophy. It was allowed to atrophy within the party during the Klein regime – by past indifference of people like me quite frankly.
So there likely isn't the critical mass of constituency based progressives left to nip a Chandler in the bud. The shift to revive a truly progressive and conservative political movement has started under Ed Stelmach and is gaining momentum with help of others like Dave Hancock and Ron Stevens.
Obviously the Chandler social conservatives are also aware of the revitalization of the progressive element in the PC Party. They are also obviously trying to sustain their brand of fundamentalist social conservative voice and to continue to exert power and influence in Alberta politics - "one constituency at a time."
I think we are seeing changing nature in the attitude and political culture of progressive conservative politics in Alberta. We are moving towards a capital conservation stance including human and natural capital as well as in fiscal terms.
We are revitalizing a social progressive approach now too with initiatives like affordable housing, democratic reforms and an emerging wellness agenda.
The PC Party has adapted many times since 1971 and it will have to do so again if it is to regain the confidence of Albertans and retain the privilege of governing.
I think this adaptation of philosophy is well underway and the turning point may have been the recent success of the PC Party Policy Conference in Calgary earlier this month.
Take a look at many of the recent nominations victories - the far right in the PC Party (i.e., the social conservatives) are firmly entrenched within the party.
ReplyDeleteIf your so-called progressives were winning in the party, Hancock would not have got his butt kicked in the leadership race.
Expect Chandler's nomination to stand - I would bet my PC Membership on it.
Calling our Prime Minister of Canada lame and dangerous does not help the debate - name calling is not a substantive debate.
Anon @ 7:45 - your comment lacks specificity - can you give me the names and constituencies where the "far right" have become entrenched?
ReplyDeleteLove to see the list and their personal public affirmation by those candidates that they are social conservatives. Otherwise you are making it up and merely blowing smoke.
As for your membership card I personally will be glad to take your bet on Chandler. The Alliance or Wildrose is the party for your value set anyway.
As for the leadership - Stelmach is a progressive and he won. The progressives are once again returning to the active party membership participation since Ed won the leadership. Your perceptions and comments are over a year out of date.
Time to quite lamenting and longing for a return to yesterday. Time to move forward to a more modern inclusive and nurturing society.
Time to stop being afraid of our leaders. Not that Harper is scary - not anymore so we are told. Now he is just mean- spirited and a bully.
Ken, your comments on Prime Minister Harper smack of political elitism.
ReplyDeletePrime Minister However lost while seeking a fifth term as Prime Minister - while disappointing to those of us who support his fine work as Prime Minister of Australia, it was not earth-shattering.
Canada seems to have a lot more in common with other nations on the international stage than in the past half-decade - notably, we have returned to a position of influence which was lost under years of poor Liberal leadership.
I believe Prime Minister Harper's election represents the first in a series of bold steps forward for Canada - I guess we will see who is right.
What specific aspects of my comments smack of political elitism and how Will? General vague comments don't cut it. Be specific and give reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhat nations other than the Bush White House do we have more in common with that has resulted in our enhanced our influence in the world? France, Germany, England, China, India, Russia? Just what nations are you saying we are more aligned with and exerting influence upon Will? Be specific again please.
Australia in their recent election just turned 180 degrees away from the Harper/Howard position. New Zealand, judging by the Commonweath meetings, may still be lead by climate change deniers, I don't know. It is not a big influence on the world stage but are we a big influence on them?
Also, if Mr. Harper was such a bold step forward for Canada you would think in 2 years (half a normal mandate) he would have garnered enough support to form a majority government by now.
Yeah, Ken, you only want an inclusive party if and only if people like yourselves join. Do I smell a hypocrit? Just because Alberta is a one-party state doesn't mean liberals should be within the party. Hancock got destroyed in the leadership race because of his obvious leftist ideals.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 5:41
ReplyDeleteYou misread the facts. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. And you get to hide your identity too so your accountability and transparency is nonexistent and your credibility is limited at best.
Do I smell a hypocrit?
First of all, I believe that both France and Germany moved sharply to the right in their national elections - recognizing the failed socialist ideas of bloated wellfare states were crippling their economies, and setting them up for ruin.
ReplyDeleteBritain's Labour Party is Labour in name only, and has a lot in common with Prime Minister Harper's vision of Canada.
In fact, I see little in common with the Bush Whitehouse (I have always found the comparison of Prime Minister Harper to George Bush to be an intellectually light-weight statement - I expect better). In fact, if you match policy to policy, I think you'll find that Conservatives in Canada actually match more closely with Democrats - particularly fiscally-conservative Democrats like Bill Clinton. I think Canada need not be defined as being "not" something - our history and values stand on their own.
Speaking of specifics - would you care to identify the policies which form the basis of your linking of Prime Minister Harper to President Bush? Foreign policy? I doubt it - you'll find more differences than similarities. Domestic policies? Again, you'll find they are more in common with Democrats than Republicans.
I believe that when so given the opportunity, Canadians will choose to elect a Conservative majority government - again, we'll have to wait and see who's right on this one.
With regard to political elitism - I find it from such lines as:
"Harper is even more isolated with Bush being past lame-duck status and now just plain lame…but dangerous."
Your characterization of a democratically-elected foreign leader as "lame" is, in my opinion, symptomatic of knee-jerk anti-Americanism and elitist sentiment.
Lastly, given that the PC Party of Alberta has adopted so many "progressive" policies, shouldn't we have won more byelections than we did - and shouldn't our popular support be higher than when Premier Klein was in office? I happen to disagree with your linking of polling results to actual electoral preferences - but since you made first use of it, it seems fair to include it in my response.
First, I hate the word "firstly". Do you say "eleventhly"? "First" is already an adverb. You don't have to add an "-ly" at the end. You don't say someone "walked firstly out of the door" or "waited lastly in line".
ReplyDeleteSecond, I can't believe I agree with Ken on something: Chandler was the only "far right" candidate in Calgary to win a nomination. All of the other Rob Anders-supported candidates in Varsity, North Hill, Currie, etc., lost.
But no, Ken. Harper isn't Bush and he isn't isolated. And, no, you're not "emerging as an essential and redefining element" of our Party. Go look at yourself in the mirror a little longer.
Thx for the reflective, informative and well considered reply Will. It advances the conversation so much more than the generalist pap of so many Anonymous comments.
ReplyDeleteMy response:
France and Germany moving to the right from a socialist position hardly make them rightist...maybe centrists is more like it. They have serious social cohesion problems with immigrant populations too. More riots yesterday in Paris underscore that.
Moving toward the right is enough in your mind to say they align with Harper's neo-con agenda? That is a stretch.
Britain's labour party is polling the same as Harper and they supported set GHG targets in Uganda this week - Harper didn't.
Bush and Harper alignment - how about poorly thought out tax cuts -GST instead of income taxes for example. How about climate change alignment? How about crime legislation dealing with penalties and not causes? Death penalty by proxy is pretty much aligned. Bush sends people to Syria for torture and we abandon convicted citizens to face state sanctioned death they would not face in Canada. I could go on but you get my point.
As for the lameness of Bush - let’s watch the Annapolis Valley Middle East efforts the next couple of days. Lets reference polls that show is acceptance and performance rating are rivalling or may be below Richard Nixon at his lowest point. Look at his veto record and his policy initiation successes this term…negligible is the kindest characterization. Let’s look at his governing agenda – aimless and anxious – left with being a self-described “war President” running his country into an enormous debt and a dependency on China for sustaining the economy. All these aspects prove he is lame – dead in the water and listing. Truth is a defence to charges of elitism.
As for the by-elections - the PC party is at 50/50 - won one - lost one. Calgarians stayed home from the by-election just like 210,000 Albertans did in 2004 under Ralph. Besides the by-elections were too early in the Stelmach government for him to set the progressive agenda in place. He clearly has done that now. With the changes to the Lobbyists Act re volunteers, the tobacco control act and increased taxes on tobacco, and the settling of the ATA pension liability - all in one week. I could go on but you get my point.
I agree on one point Will - polls do not predict elections. Otherwise Kim Campbell would have won in 1993 when she was at 50% when the election was called. She ended up with only 2 seats. Campaigns matter.