The Debate last week had some interesting subplots. Those revolved around the personal skirmishes between the leaders. It gives a sense of the personal positioning, fears and animosity that may exist between the various party leaders in this campaign.
The order of importance and context of these personal trysts, that I perceived, are as follows:
#1 Mason vs. Taft: Mason has to ensure his base does not go strategic on him and vote Liberal to try and defeat Tories…like what happened in Edmonton in 2004. A vote for Mason is not a Tory victory vote in 2008 but Mason is saying the Alberta Liberals are pretty much the same as the PCs…both are in the pocket of big money. Vote NDP to keep them both honest.
#2 Hinman vs. Stelmach: Hinman has to show some of his “true conservative” credentials and take Stelmach on over his “overspending” and “progressive” values. Hinman gets to ignore the needed increased spending is due to lack of meeting the needed infrastructure and maintenance spending of past years under the Klein regime. Hinman has to give the far right a reason to believe in him and that is best done by showing that the PCs have lost their way. He has gone too far claiming the Stelmach PCs are unprincipled people who “tear up contracts” with oil sands companies (not true at all but good spin) and therefore the PCs not worth reconsidering. Reality check…Suncor has already voluntarily renegotiated its royalty deal and Syncrude is on its way to do the same thing. NO contracts are being torn up and Hinman knows it. He is taking a pass on integrity with this misrepresentation crap…and he knows that too.
#3 Taft vs. Stelmach: This is Taft bemoaning the past of PC governance to the point his is actually running against Ralph not Ed. For example he frames 37 years of the same PC government is long enough and that is reason enough to change government. He discounts the fact that voters decide who they wish to govern them. He skates over the fact that elections are a chance to change governments every 4 years or so and that the various PC governments have been responsive and nimble enough to change with the times. Taft has to beat Ed on a personal level if his is to win this election and based on the changes in the last 14 months, Taft can’t count on Ed gaffing his way out of government. Taft is hoping Calgary is in the process redefining its Red Mile to be a profound Liberal Red Mine with lots of seat shifts. Ed is banking on Redmonton returning to the PCs and becoming EDmonton. Cute metaphors but is there any truth in them? We will know in a week.
#4 Mason vs. Taft and Stelmach: As variations on the same theme, distinctions without a difference. He claims both are in the pockets of big business and they don’t have the best interests of his “regular Albertans” in their hearts...as he obviously does. Nick Taylor, a former Alberta Liberal leader and federal Senator once described his successor Liberal leader, Laurence Decore, as “Getty with glasses.” Mason says the difference between Stelmach and Taft is indistinguishable at their core that he would net even made that distinction between how they would govern.…especially their too cozy relationship with big business in Alberta. Not very accurate on the evidence…but good positioning for Mason to speak to his base who need to believe in him to stay with him.
The order of importance and context of these personal trysts, that I perceived, are as follows:
#1 Mason vs. Taft: Mason has to ensure his base does not go strategic on him and vote Liberal to try and defeat Tories…like what happened in Edmonton in 2004. A vote for Mason is not a Tory victory vote in 2008 but Mason is saying the Alberta Liberals are pretty much the same as the PCs…both are in the pocket of big money. Vote NDP to keep them both honest.
#2 Hinman vs. Stelmach: Hinman has to show some of his “true conservative” credentials and take Stelmach on over his “overspending” and “progressive” values. Hinman gets to ignore the needed increased spending is due to lack of meeting the needed infrastructure and maintenance spending of past years under the Klein regime. Hinman has to give the far right a reason to believe in him and that is best done by showing that the PCs have lost their way. He has gone too far claiming the Stelmach PCs are unprincipled people who “tear up contracts” with oil sands companies (not true at all but good spin) and therefore the PCs not worth reconsidering. Reality check…Suncor has already voluntarily renegotiated its royalty deal and Syncrude is on its way to do the same thing. NO contracts are being torn up and Hinman knows it. He is taking a pass on integrity with this misrepresentation crap…and he knows that too.
#3 Taft vs. Stelmach: This is Taft bemoaning the past of PC governance to the point his is actually running against Ralph not Ed. For example he frames 37 years of the same PC government is long enough and that is reason enough to change government. He discounts the fact that voters decide who they wish to govern them. He skates over the fact that elections are a chance to change governments every 4 years or so and that the various PC governments have been responsive and nimble enough to change with the times. Taft has to beat Ed on a personal level if his is to win this election and based on the changes in the last 14 months, Taft can’t count on Ed gaffing his way out of government. Taft is hoping Calgary is in the process redefining its Red Mile to be a profound Liberal Red Mine with lots of seat shifts. Ed is banking on Redmonton returning to the PCs and becoming EDmonton. Cute metaphors but is there any truth in them? We will know in a week.
#4 Mason vs. Taft and Stelmach: As variations on the same theme, distinctions without a difference. He claims both are in the pockets of big business and they don’t have the best interests of his “regular Albertans” in their hearts...as he obviously does. Nick Taylor, a former Alberta Liberal leader and federal Senator once described his successor Liberal leader, Laurence Decore, as “Getty with glasses.” Mason says the difference between Stelmach and Taft is indistinguishable at their core that he would net even made that distinction between how they would govern.…especially their too cozy relationship with big business in Alberta. Not very accurate on the evidence…but good positioning for Mason to speak to his base who need to believe in him to stay with him.
If all politics are local, are all leadership arguments and differences of opinion ultimately personal?
Re: Hinman. I thought he did ok in the debate as far as playing to his core area of potential supporters. But after a while, I personally thought his answer to everything - lower taxes - got a little irritating after a while. [Hint: If your economic circumstances are such that rent is two-thirds of your income (or more) a tax cut isn't going to help.] I like lower taxes too - I happen to pay a lot in taxes every year - but lower taxes alone do not address all of the issues we have in the province.
ReplyDeleteHe is also openly jockeying for the disaffected junior oil & gas people. He plays to that group, but to everyone else he came across as an oil industry sycophaunt. And the more thoughtful oil & gas types realize that a vote for the WRA (specifically in Calgary) is a vote for the Liberals, who will not be good for business.
The debate was good for him in that it gave him free exposure - advertisting that money cound not buy. But he is in a dogfight to keep his seat. As such he hasn't been able to campaign much elsewhere in the province - the typical role of a party leader.
PC governments responsive and nimble? Where have you been living?
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the last Klein campaign was literally about nothing, and that Klein's strategy was, from day one, "Let's all pull together everyone, so long as we can keep tightening our belts and make sure the NEP boogey-man doesn't return, we'll be fine"
As a result, he transferred the debt from the banks into our roads, schools, and medical system. Had the PC's been responsive, they wouldn't have had the impression that everybody without a home is a person without a job. Had they been nimble we wouldn't have had an auditors report telling us that we've missed billions of dollars in royalties before cheapening green power means those royalties evaporate. And had they been competent, we wouldn't have the government that spends the highest amount per capita in return for higher tuition, less environmental protection, and less social supports than other provinces.
Yeah yeah.. that was then, you'll say, but Hinman was right on one thing. The head may have changed, but it's still the same beast. All the players there today were the same players in when Klein was in, and they're still trying to use the NEP boogey-man in their campaign.
Anon @ 10:18 - I won't argue with the sentiments of your comments in the last half of the former leadership...but Stelmach has done a great deal to change things and has been responsive and nimble. Teacher's pension, municipal infrastructure financing, affordable housing, royalty review and response...just to name a few.
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse Stelamch with Klein. And real institutional changes always starts with the head too.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteYour buddy Ed can't seem to do anything right.
No insurance cap
Court rejects attempt to reimpose $4,000 soft injury limit
Greg
Affordable housing? LOL. You must be rich Ken or simply do not talk to the average Joe. You should get down from your ivory tower and actually talk to Albertans.
ReplyDeleteKen:
ReplyDeleteThis is where we fundamentally differ in our points of view. I never confuse Stelmach with Klein. However, if Enron got a new CEO I don't think my opinion of the company would change.
Basically, you think the institution of the party is improved (and yes it was an upgrade) with different leader and that it will continue to improve. I've believed for a long time that it's beyond salvaging. Unless of course, being out of power permits the party to completely regenerate.
I don't know if that's the ballot question that you were wondering about earlier........this differing view of the Tory party seems to be talked about around the province, but not enough to make it the paramount issue.
It will be the undecideds that sway all of the close races that I'm looking forward to.......reminds of 2004! Ahhhhh it's like a never ending circle.....
"Stelmach has done a great deal to change things...And real institutional changes always starts with the head too."
ReplyDeleteMaybe if we're talking about a corporation. But not in a parliamentary democracy. Voting is about changing the body.
Here's a facetious-but-not-entirely-facetious question: if we buy the line that a LOT of Tory candidates are using--"change from within"--why bother having elections at all? If the ubiquitous "government table" is the best place to solve all of our problems (again this is sounding more like a corporate board than a parliament) why not elect 83 PC MLAs?
"Change from within" has limits. In Alberta, it's turned into a cynical and absurd game in which voters are told to vote Conservative if they don't like the Conservative Party. Some candidates do it overtly; others are more subtle. My favourite is PC Candidate Heather Klimchuk's absurd claim that Premier Stelmach supports hard caps on emissions. Vote PC if you don't like the PC position on the environment! I also note that she tells us "we can't dither" on oil sands development. But who HAS been dithering for the last decade?
Change is one of those words that's been stripped of meaning. In Alberta it's been co-opted by the PCs to mean very little change indeed.
It's a new head on the same body. That, in a nutshell, is why I'm voting Liberal. 37 years is an unhealthy amount of time for any party to be in power, and our democracy has suffered for it. Our ability to hold our government accountable depends on realizing that a change in head is not enough.
"If your economic circumstances are such that rent is two-thirds of your income (or more) a tax cut isn't going to help."
ReplyDeleteAnd rent control will? More than 90% of economists agree that rent control will reduce the quantity AND the quality of housing available.
We are spending almost 40% more per citizen than Quebec and the only tax move we've seen from Stelmach is to hike them (on gas E&Ps amongst others).
If this govt understood economics it would reduce the pressure on aggregate supply by cutting spending that aggravates domestic demand.
Brian - agreed rent controls are a proven disaster response. Not the answer - more supply at the appropriate level of enabling equity and ownership as well as sustainable shelter costs for vulnerable populations is a better answer.
ReplyDeleteTax cuts are a treadmill policy response with limited marginal utility after a certain point. We have reached that point in Alberta already. Most Albertan’s don’t want more tax cuts…they want public services that actually work…like healthcare and education sand transportation.
We need infrastructure, education, healthcare, environmental sustainability, transportation and something called intergenerational equity.
We need to have current taxes at a a level to pay for most of that stuff...not using non-renewable royalty revenues for current operational needs...only long term infrastructure (capital, natural and human capital infrastructure)investment.
Anon @ 10:38 - Stelmach does support hard caps and Rob Renner - Environment Minister said so when the intensity legislation was passed. He said intensity measures were interim and hard caps were required.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is timing and terms. Has to be sooner than later to my mind.
Change from within has limits...you bet. All chage has limits. What is your point? I think Stelmach has already instituted significant change. I want more - much more from him - particularly on social and environmental issues.
To suggest his 14 months of leadership has not changed the PC Party is to deny the facts.
"Tax cuts are a treadmill policy response with limited marginal utility after a certain point. We have reached that point in Alberta already."
ReplyDeleteResearch by experts like Jack Mintz says we have not. According to CD Howe's 2007 Tax Competitiveness Report, "there is some published evidence ... that Canada's corporate income tax rate is on the wrong side of the "Laffer curve," the relationship between government tax rates and tax revenue.
Canada's corporate income tax rate is 6 percentage points above the revenue-maximizing corporate income tax that we estimate ....
Canadian and provincial governments should reduce corporate income taxes. This study recommends a 20% rate"
The Wildrose Alliance would cut the provincial corporate rate to 8%, which together with Finance Canada's plans to cut its take to 15% by 2012, would mean a combined rate of 23% in Alberta, slightly better than the current average of 24.2% in the EU.
According to you, there is "limited marginal utility" to a corporate rate below 25%, given that the P"C"s have no intentions at bringing a lower rate. Mintz is far from the only one. The economists at Finance Canada agree. I've seen the research.
I can't believe you can talk about "intergenerational equity" and "not using non-renewable royalty revenues for current operational needs" while the P"C" govt has been raiding our Heritage Fund to pay for current operations. See http://members.shaw.ca/lldell/HeritageFund.htm
The Norwegians have $70K more per person in their sovereign endowment fund. In Alberta, our government spent that money. Your assertions imply that if that $70K difference had been invested instead of saved, our social services would have been devastated. Yet Norway is rated #1 in the world by the UN Human Development Report!
By the way, StatsCan reports that Canadians spend more on personal taxes than they do on shelter. Also, the increase in spending by Albertans on vehicles rose 22% year-over-year, well in excess of the increase in spending on shelter.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that affordable housing is not an issue, but to say that increased housing costs are inevitable when demand for other goods and services is increasing even more.
Brian - don't talk to me abut Canada's tax rate - they don't relate to the issues before us. We are in an Alberta election - only reference Alberta's tax rates...the lowest in the country and would making them lower still make us better off as a society?
ReplyDeleteDoes the Alberta Flat Tax create social equity?
Averages are crap analysis. If your feet are in the furnace and your face is in the freezer, on average you are at room temperature - so why are you complaining about being uncomfortable?