The right decision was made by the PC Party Executive Committee on Mr. Chandler’s suitability for candidacy in the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. The matter is not over. Beyond Mr. Chandler’s indications he may sue the Party for his nomination costs which he says are $127,000.00, the PC Party needs to revisit its nomination and leadership selection processes.
The PC Party, and other political parties too I expect, need to review their nomination process in the light of expectations of accountability, transparency and fairness. Premier Stelmach promised the Party would review and fix the leadership process. Let’s kill two birds and deal with the nomination process at the same time.
Let’s learn from the Chandler experience and do some Constitutional updating. First fairness. If the Leader or the Party Executive has reservations about a candidate pursuing nomination perhaps we need to take a page from the federal CPCs and have a questionnaire and statutory declaration completed by each candidate before they are eligible to run. We can confidentially get a sense of their background and skeletons, if any, and judge their suitability up front. We should not have to rely on Dr. Oberg for this information on skeletons. A suitability test and a decision could be made without embarrassing anyone.
Second, we need full disclosure of donors and perhaps limits on nomination campaign spending to level the playing field and for transparency. If Mr. Chandler spent $127,000.00 for about 950 votes, how did he spend it? Did he buy every supporter dinner in a nice restaurant? For that money? He could have.
Who ponied up $127,000 in the first place? Spending that kind of money at this level of the political process shows that Mr. Chandler is clearly only a social conservative...he is no fiscal conservative, that is for sure. Can you imagine how he might spend of our tax money if he were in government? We need to clean this matter up in the leadership process too. We have been waiting about a year and still don't know who supported Do. Oberg's leadership despite his promise to disclose donors. Dr. Morton said he will not disclose his leadership campaign donors and under the current Party rules - he is entitled to that entitlement. Not good enough.
We have some fixin’ to do in the PC Party around our nomination and leadership processes. This is up to the Party not the leader to undertake this job. Let’s get at it.
The PC Party, and other political parties too I expect, need to review their nomination process in the light of expectations of accountability, transparency and fairness. Premier Stelmach promised the Party would review and fix the leadership process. Let’s kill two birds and deal with the nomination process at the same time.
Let’s learn from the Chandler experience and do some Constitutional updating. First fairness. If the Leader or the Party Executive has reservations about a candidate pursuing nomination perhaps we need to take a page from the federal CPCs and have a questionnaire and statutory declaration completed by each candidate before they are eligible to run. We can confidentially get a sense of their background and skeletons, if any, and judge their suitability up front. We should not have to rely on Dr. Oberg for this information on skeletons. A suitability test and a decision could be made without embarrassing anyone.
Second, we need full disclosure of donors and perhaps limits on nomination campaign spending to level the playing field and for transparency. If Mr. Chandler spent $127,000.00 for about 950 votes, how did he spend it? Did he buy every supporter dinner in a nice restaurant? For that money? He could have.
Who ponied up $127,000 in the first place? Spending that kind of money at this level of the political process shows that Mr. Chandler is clearly only a social conservative...he is no fiscal conservative, that is for sure. Can you imagine how he might spend of our tax money if he were in government? We need to clean this matter up in the leadership process too. We have been waiting about a year and still don't know who supported Do. Oberg's leadership despite his promise to disclose donors. Dr. Morton said he will not disclose his leadership campaign donors and under the current Party rules - he is entitled to that entitlement. Not good enough.
We have some fixin’ to do in the PC Party around our nomination and leadership processes. This is up to the Party not the leader to undertake this job. Let’s get at it.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as rather peculiar that over the past few weeks you've commented extensively on many matters internal to the PC party (like the Chandler nomination, Stelmach's first year) and external to the Government (like resource revenues, the surplus etc.) -- but you have made no mention of the contentious Bill 46? It seems that this Bill will define the fall session for Premier Stelmach - both by virtue of its contents (of concern to many) and the manner it will be passed (using closure). Would love to hear your take on this!
I only have sao much time for this Blog. I am very interested in Bill 46 and Bill 41 but don't have time to get into either of them.
ReplyDeleteSomeone else in the Blogosphere is into them I am sure.
Me thinks Ken does not want to talk about Bill 46 and 41 because his chosen one, David Hancock (aka David the Red), has brought in closure on 46 and probably 41 in order to choke off debate.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called "controversy" about Bills 41 and 46 is much ado about nothing.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to Bill 41, it is all about the College retaining control. Maybe they should look to their own house... self-regulation is only acceptable if the ones doing the self-regulating are actually on the ball. Clearly, the docs screwed up with the Lloydminster case. Maybe they should be a little less about looking after their own, and a little more about looking after public health. Bill 41 is not taking anything away from them anyhow. If healthcare is ultimately the government's responsibility, then the government HAS TO have ultimate authority to enable change. You can't have one without the other. The docs trying to scare the public with their advertising campaign - that is absolutely shameful.
Bill 46, on the other hand, is all about professional instigators and the Opposition trying to make a scandal out of nothing. Why should I, the taxpayer, pay Sierra Club their costs of challenging any economic development project? They are neither directly affected nor are they short of cash. If you are directly affected (and that definition seems to be pretty loosely in favour of the claimant) your costs continue to be paid. Some of the biggest antagonists, are merely using this issue to enable a political career (like this Anglin fellow running for the Greens).
Agreed, Anon 7:58 pm. What sort of Government House Leader leaves 25 bills on the order paper with two days left in the session?
ReplyDeleteDave Hancock is not only a liberal windbag, but an inept parliamentary strategist.
They are still sitting in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, after nearly 24 hours. Dave Hancock strikes again. What a joke!
ReplyDeleteKen, not to tell you what you should or shouldn't blog about, and notwithstanding my own distaste for anonymous commenters, but they have a point. Your perspective on these rather egregious laws and the rather undemocratic way they were rammed through legislature would be worth reading. There are long term potential consequences for the PCs in what has hitherto been their safe rural heartland from these and other kick the base tactics of late.
ReplyDeleteAs for Chandler and the astounding amount of money he put into a provincial nomination run, there's an insufficiently examined story of the network of far right groups infiltrating all levels of Canadian government - particularly at the municipal level. There were lots of media mentions of Chandler's connection to Concerned Christians - much less of his other pet project, the Progressive Group for Independent Business and their organized efforts to dominate city council politics across the province.
PGIB's name suggests a boring fiscally conservative chamber of commerce style group - but their agenda is all about the far right, divisive and disrespectful reactionary right wing politics Chandler has become know for. And they have footholds on city councils all over Alberta.
this message to cliff what planet do you live in there is not a conservative on Edmonton city council.
ReplyDeleteMost are liberals and NDP so if there is a network of far right groups infiltrating all levels of Canadian government - particularly at the municipal level. I have not seen it
If we had a few conservative to ask the why do we need it questions and ask for answers we might get some common sense spending and not talk of 10% tax hikes.
We need a balance of people from all perspectives and and ability to agree to disagree without being asses about it.
so sorry for the what planet do you live on comment. ") my shock at the comment made me have a moment.
I have found I learn more from someone who does not share my view and sometimes when i listen I change my view if the other side makes a point.
However if the dialog of the deaf is going on everyone loses.
merry christmas and I hope you all find your familys well and that 2008 is a good year for everyone.