I am delighted to hear Premier Stelmach is reviewing the Craig Chandler nomination as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta – and that the criteria he is using is the Statement of Principles of the party. Media reports say Premier Stelmach will meet with the PC Party executive committee to discuss this matter very soon.
Good move Mr. Premier. Being leader of a political party and Premier of a province has overlapping elements but they are fundamentally two different things. Mr. Chandler's nomination is a constituency and party matter but it is up to the leader to accept him as a candidate.
Good move Mr. Premier. Being leader of a political party and Premier of a province has overlapping elements but they are fundamentally two different things. Mr. Chandler's nomination is a constituency and party matter but it is up to the leader to accept him as a candidate.
The leader’s final decision on candidates reflects to citizens/voters what the PC party will accept as "tolerable" and that should not include intolerance. This decision by Ed Stelmach is sending a message to voters about the character of our political party and our fitness to govern.
I believe Mr. Chandler is inappropriate as a PC candidate and as an elected representative from the PC party given our pluralistic, secular, inclusive and diverse province. He has often expressed views that are very inconsistent with those Alberta values as well as the Statement of Principles of the PC Party of Alberta.
He seems to be more closely aligned with the new Wild Rose Party. They look like they could use his organizational talents as they chase enough signatures to qualify as a new provincial political party before the next election.
Mr. Chandler will undoubtedly respond and make arguments about respect for democracy and freedom of speech. But many of his past actions have been anything but respectful of those values. He has even been forced to publicly apologize for Human Rights abuses in the past.
I believe Mr. Chandler is inappropriate as a PC candidate and as an elected representative from the PC party given our pluralistic, secular, inclusive and diverse province. He has often expressed views that are very inconsistent with those Alberta values as well as the Statement of Principles of the PC Party of Alberta.
He seems to be more closely aligned with the new Wild Rose Party. They look like they could use his organizational talents as they chase enough signatures to qualify as a new provincial political party before the next election.
Mr. Chandler will undoubtedly respond and make arguments about respect for democracy and freedom of speech. But many of his past actions have been anything but respectful of those values. He has even been forced to publicly apologize for Human Rights abuses in the past.
Premier Stelmach is right. We Progressive Conservatives can’t tolerate intolerance – especially in our political representation. While the democratic process duly nominated Mr. Chandler in Calgary Egmont. A nomination decision is only a recommendation from a constituency to the party. It is not a final decision.
That final decision on the acceptability of a candidate is, and ought to be, with the leader who, after all, has to work with a group that becomes his team at the end of the day. The PC Party selects it leader on a one person one vote basis so we are assured the winner is the real choice of the party membership. Those votes are very personal and individual decisions – not based on some phoney delegated authority of special interests. Given that leadership selection process, Ed Stelmach, as our party leader, should be able to exercise his discretion in accepting or rejecting candidate nomination recommendations from constituency organizations.
By personally consulting with the party executive, Premier Stelmach has shown once again that he brings ability and wisdom to his position as party leader. Legally speaking, seeking advice from the party executive need not be done at all. There is a legislation that gives him a right, a party leader, to override the local nomination process. He can, by law, refuse to sign the papers that turns a nominee into a candidate.
I hope and expect the PC party executive will conclude that Mr. Chandler is not an acceptable candidate and they will support a move to reject his nomination in Calgary Egmont. Do not expect Mr. Chandler and his followers to go away quietly. It is not their style. I would not be surprised if legal actions were at least threatened by Mr. Chandler and his acolytes. But adherence to values of respect, inclusiveness and diversity should not be diminished by any such threats or intimidation tactics.
That final decision on the acceptability of a candidate is, and ought to be, with the leader who, after all, has to work with a group that becomes his team at the end of the day. The PC Party selects it leader on a one person one vote basis so we are assured the winner is the real choice of the party membership. Those votes are very personal and individual decisions – not based on some phoney delegated authority of special interests. Given that leadership selection process, Ed Stelmach, as our party leader, should be able to exercise his discretion in accepting or rejecting candidate nomination recommendations from constituency organizations.
By personally consulting with the party executive, Premier Stelmach has shown once again that he brings ability and wisdom to his position as party leader. Legally speaking, seeking advice from the party executive need not be done at all. There is a legislation that gives him a right, a party leader, to override the local nomination process. He can, by law, refuse to sign the papers that turns a nominee into a candidate.
I hope and expect the PC party executive will conclude that Mr. Chandler is not an acceptable candidate and they will support a move to reject his nomination in Calgary Egmont. Do not expect Mr. Chandler and his followers to go away quietly. It is not their style. I would not be surprised if legal actions were at least threatened by Mr. Chandler and his acolytes. But adherence to values of respect, inclusiveness and diversity should not be diminished by any such threats or intimidation tactics.
I have it from good word that Chandler's nomination will not be overturned.
ReplyDeleteName names eric. No cloak and dagger back room power plays. Chandler can stay if he agrees to abide by the PC Party Statement of Principles. That is akin to a religious conversion for him.
ReplyDeleteNot impossible but we shall see.
You will just have to wait and see - his nomination will be promptly confirmed.
ReplyDelete"A nomination decision is only a recommendation from a constituency to the party."
ReplyDeleteSilly me, I was under the impression that a nominating meeting was a tool concerned citizens utilized in the process of selecting a local representative, and thus have an impact on the laws by which they themselves are governed.
But we as a society are now too enlightened to allow the unwashed masses to have any real say. Rather 'the people' are distracted with cable tv, the internet, worries about the economy, fear of crime and placated with the process of making "recommendations"; leaving the 'right' people free to make the 'right' decisions.
Yibpl - you are confusing a political party nomination that is done only by the paid up membership of what is essentially a private group, with an election, that is open to all eligible citizens.
ReplyDeleteHow the PC Party of Alberta operates is the suggestion of a nominee for party candidacy comes first from a constituency association to the party executive and the leader for approval. There is a presumption that the constituency nominee is appropriate and acceptable unless proven otherwise.
Once approved, the Candidate becomes the PC Party's suggestion for governing to the entire voting constituency.
Voters do not have to be party members and they get to make the final decision on which party or candidate they will vote for and grant their consent to governed by through the election.
You can label voters as "unwashed masses" if you like but I trust them to make the right decision more than I trust political parties.
Much of what Mr. Chapman says is true, but unlike Chapman, I see it not as commendable but as reprehensible. The principle at stake is representative government and due and democratic process within the party. Now if Chapman wishes to make the case that the Conservative party is anti-democratic in its policies and practices, and that this is a good thing, he is welcome to do so. The question I see as pertinent is this ~ who should judge whether Chandler is intolerant? The view that every sexual practice and perspective must be promoted in our schools if we are not to be judged intolerant (which is the logical conclusion of Chapman’s perspective) is something that should be judged by community standards and the principle of liberty of conscience in a democratic society. Chandler has already been persecuted because of his conscientiously held views. The Conservative Party has now sided with that persecution. It is rapidly moving to a secularism that will make it impossible for conscientious religious convictions of any stripe to inform political debate. That is social suicide and I must express my opposition to it.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the great strides made by the Reform Party ~ its desire to democratise the nomination process. Yes, I agree that there may be times when the party must distance itself from a member who clearly acts in contravention of the party principles but that distancing should be done by due process. The member in question should have a hearing, the opportunity to know what charges are laid against her, the opportunity to offer a defence and the opportunity for that defence to be judged by a group of her peers. I am not saying that Mr. Stelmach and his guys broke the party constitution (I don’t know whether they did or not) ~ I am saying that their actions are not consistent with democratic principles.
The candidate is chosen by the constituents to represent the constituents, not to represent Mr. Stelmach, nor to make a good personal fit with or for him. It should be up to the party members in the constituency to judge whether Mr. Chandler is intolerant or whether he is rightly defending the right of parents to decide what values will inform their children’s education. I am pretty sure that Mr. Chapman and his friends (Mr. Stelamch & the Conservative party executives) want that decision to be made by the state, not the parents. The party brass should have an opportunity to make their case to the party members in the constituency but ultimately the constituency should decide. I believe in local decision-making in regard to local representation which is what our provincial electoral process is all about. Just as the money raised and donated to a local constituency is legally the property of the constituency association (am I right in this?), so too the choice of who will represent the party locally should be a local decision.
There has been a significant shift in the culture of the Conservative party. I believe it is now virtually identical to the Liberal Party in terms of principles and it is only bickering about the how-to’s of policy that distinguishes the two.
I am glad you mentioned the Wild Rose Party ~ like the name, I think I'll check them out ~ Boyd Jahnke