Here it comes! The seeds of a PC caucus rebellion are planted by a group forming and publically calling themselves the Fiscal Four! Is this reminiscent of the (not so) Deep Six that Stelmach was part of as a rookie MLA? Three of them are strong social conservatives from in and around Calgary that were active in pushing the anti-gay, anti-teacher aspects of Bill 44. This will not sit well with the powers that be!
Is the Party Behind Stelmach but the Caucus, Not So Much?
This split in caucus is not a surprise. It is just coming much sooner than I expected. The 77% party support solution from the recent PC AGM was a great example of the wisdom of crowd. It was not so low that it caused a partisan panic. It was not so high that the Premier’s office could claim all was well in Ed's world regardless of evidence to the contrary.
The response from Premier Stelmach was obvious relief but too tentative in terms of articulating what he heard and what is intends to do. He says he will make changes - but slowly and on his time schedule. The delusional declaration that the PC policy is perfect and then blaming of the media for the poor communications and the head nod solution to using social media is inadequate and unimpressive. This response to the public’s resistance to the Stelmach government policy is just a “pocket full of mumbles.” That is the true communications problem.
Is Social Media Stelmach's Communications Solution?
The old-school command and control, top down, message management mentality of the PCs, and the Wildrose Alliance too, will not work in the culture of the new world order known as social media. The PCs tried to adapt to social media a year or so ago - and with some considerable effort and enthusiasm. The effort was shown with the set up of MYPCMLA site. As soon as the social media conversation started to work, the PCs enthusiasm waned and they have essentially abandoned the effort. Now a few PC MLAs still use it as well as Twitter, Facebook and personal blogs but on a cautious and inconsistent basis.
Fear of the openness of the social media world is the dominant reaction of traditionalists in political parties. This fear is because the inner circle political machinery in the Stelmach government wanted to continue to have absolute control over the messages. You can't do that in the social media world. It is too democratic for that. They are wary of joining in any authentic conversation with engaged Albertans online using social media tools.
Facing the rabble known as netizens without the usual tools of coercion and fear feigning as respect forced them PCs to retreat from the field. The rabble is talking about them anyway so it would be wiser to be involved and ensuring accuracy, understanding and context as well as the opportunity to learn and show real leadership.
So What is With the Fiscal Four?
Now we have the Fiscal Four breaking ranks and sending out their own messages. Two of them are very adroit at using social media and have substantial networks in the wired world. Is this self-anointed fiscal watch-dog group the start of the PC caucus “big tent” folding and not flourishing?
Are some of these MLAs part of the 10 closeted Wildrose floor-crossers that were rumored to exist a few weeks ago? Are they so fearful of defeat in the next election under the current leadership that this is now every man for himself - especially in Calgary? It has been that way for Edmonton PCs for decades. Or are these guys in Kris Kristofferson land and feeling a new found freedom because they have nothing left to lose?
Looks like the Premier may have to fast-track identifying and making the changes he alluded to last week end in his speech after the confidence vote. To delay now will only weaken his power, his base and undermine his own effectiveness and survival. He was quick to reverse the liquor tax increase last summer because he said he "did not feel right about it." He may need to be that nimble and assertive now. For sure he will have to be more substantive and more strategic now that these caucus cracks are showing.
Is the Wildrose Alliance Worth the Risk?
Albertans have to ask ourselves why the Wildrose Alliance is the best alternative for most us...not just the wealthy elites from the Calgary oil patch. They are in many ways scarier than the old Alliance crowd because they are not open and transparent on social and environmental policies. They seem to be conniving to avoid talking about key social (gay rights, abortion) and environmental issues because they say they are "divisive." It is all about aligning with the narrow and shallow Fraser Institute culture for the Wildrose Alliance.
It is as if the Wildrose Alliance believes if we just ignore human rights abuses, the plight of the poor, the obligation to the vulnerable, like children, seniors and the disabled they will go magically to away. It is as if the goal for Albertans is to aspire to get as rich as possible and as quickly as possible regardless of environmental implications.
The Wildrose Alliance has pledged to stifle government by starving its capacity with more ill-advised tax cuts. That way the self-fulfilling prophesy of government being incapable of doings it job is assured - but that is ok because that is the world unfolding as it should in a Wildrose Alberta.
The next government can deal with social fabric breakdown fallout, the environmental and climate change disasters we are developing today through a wanton and reckless focus on only economic policy. To them it is as if that is somehow acceptable for the current narcissist generation to ignore and avoid any social or environmental responsibility to future generations.
We still don't know who funded and is hidden behind the scenes and influencing the new Wildrose leader. She has refused to disclose her funders and the reason is "because they fear reprisals" from the government. That is not good enough.
Lots to look at and much more attention needs to be directed towards the Wildrose Alliance Party by all Albertans. We need to see if they are an alternative to be trusted and worthy of our consent to govern us. And by “us” I mean all Albertans from all over the province - not just the beautiful and bountiful Albertans in the Calgary elites and the disgruntled old-school former Reformers they are currently courting.
Showing posts with label Bill 44; Stelmach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill 44; Stelmach. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
There Is a Crack in Everything-That is How the Light Gets In
UPDATE JULY 18: THE MLA BACKBENCER REFERRED TO IN THIS POST IS GUY BOUTILIER. ON FRIDAY NIGHT JULY 17 HE WAS EXPELLED FROM THE PC CAUCUS BY PREMIER STELMACH. THAT PUTS MORE CONTEXT ON THIS BLOG POST.
The media reports about "cracks" in the PC Caucus coming out of recent comments by a PC backbench MLA who was critical of the Minister of Health are interesting. I am not going to deal with the merits of the comments. I am much more interested in the governing implications of the story. The politics of the situation are a large part of implications too.
The fact is a backbench MLA spoke out publicly, on behalf of his constituency, and criticized a change in government policy that directly affects citizens in his riding. This should be considered normal not objectionable behaviour by government, leadership and political parties. Otherwise what is the point of electing these people to represent us on a constituency basis? Cabinet Ministers are in a more difficult position because they have to actually represent the government. That can sometimes fetter their ability to speak out publicly.
There are always cracks in a political Caucus. They are supposed to be there. This is natural in a representative democracy and in Cabinets organized in departments with oversight committees like Treasury Board and Agenda and Priorities. In Klein's Caucus there was 1/3 on the right, 1/3 on the left and 1/3 who wanted to be on Klein's side. Most of them felt that they owed Klein their seats but that is not the case today. The left and right are smaller and the middle group does not owe their seat to Premier Stelmach, even with the large majority in the last election.
The more critical issue about "cracks" in a governing caucus is the role of power politics in the classic power structures of command and control leadership within a top-down governance philosophy. The classic command and control top down model demands that government politicians speak with "one voice" on all government policy. That one voice is often the leaders voice - regardless of the party. At least that is my experience.
We saw that "one voice" actually being that of a party leader happen last week. Premier Stelmach came out of a caucus meeting and said he was not raising taxes to cover the record deficits Alberta is facing. He did that in the face of contrary comments made by some of his Cabinet who mused about the possibility of raising taxes to cover budget deficits. He also said he was rolling back recent liquor taxes because "he was not comfortable with them." Why does the leader get to unilaterally decide to change the provincial budget by personal fiat after it is the law of the Province? This is not unique to Alberta but it should not be the acceptable norm in responsible "democratic" governance either.
The natural conclusion of a command and control top down policy decision making process is that it stifles public discussion and debate, especially by governing caucus members. I think this open public policy discussion, by governing politicians, is vital for a vibrant healthy democracy. It needs to happen vigorously and extensively before a policy decision is made or when a Minister unilaterally decides, by personal fiat, to change an existing government policy position. Anything less is not a meaningful way of practicing true responsible and representative democracy.
The command and control top down governance model means we end up with MLAs, especially government MLAs, only representing the government perspective to their constituents. MLAs are supposed to be the the best eyes and ears a governing political party can have. They are supposed to be sensitive and reflect the mood and mind of their constituency. But we hardly ever see or hear from them speaking out in that role. I am sure the behind closed doors caucus discussions are full of MLAs talking and debating about constituency concerns on various issues and proposed public policies. You would never know it given the tradition of caucus secrecy and the command and control "need" for one consistent voice coming out of caucus.
If you, as a politician, don't agree with a partisan policy position of your caucus you have few choices. Mostly shut up and toe the line or quit the caucus, or speak out and risk being kicked out of the caucus. Quitting means you don't get to fight another day and not toeing the line means you are deemed to not be "a team player." You will face pressures, discipline and other consequences from the party structure and precious little protection can come from your constituency.
I think political parties need to open up the internal party discussion and debate. They need to the trust the intelligence of the populace more than they do. We citizens are not so naive or stupid that we can't understand the political need for a governing party to balance conflicting perspectives and make trade offs of competing values. What we need, as citizens, in order to have more confidence in our government, is to see the actual political decision making process that is being used to strike that balance or to make that value trade off. We elect our politicians to make those balance choices and those value trade offs for us. But surely we ought to be entitled to see the reasoning and hear the discussion that was behind the choices being made on our behalf.
The closest thing we have to serve that need now is the political theatre of Question Period. That is more farce than informative. I want more government MLAs taking personal political positions in public on the policy issues of the day. I saw that public debate happen with Bill 44. Some social conservatives in the PC Caucus were actually speaking out in mainstream and social media and stating their positions and reasons in support of the legislation.
I did not see a single progressive conservative governing caucus member arguing against Bill 44 in public. My guess is they were silent because it was a government Bill and caucus already had the policy debate and the decision was a "done deal." But Bill 44 was only debated amongst the governing caucus members behind the closed doors of their private and secret caucus meetings.
Surely not everyone in the PC Caucus agreed whole heartedly with Bill 44 as written or amended. Will we ever know that for sure? Not likely. The PC Caucus and the PC Party apparatus just wants the whole Bill 44 fiasco to go away and to be forgotten. That is not likely to happen either. Not when there is a Facebook group like "Students Against Bill 44" with over 11,000 members still in existence.
The non-partisan and partisan public debate on the issues inherent in Bill 44 could and should happen before it hits a closed caucus meeting decision. I want to know that there was a debate, what issues were debated and the range of opinion that was under consideration. I want to see what was on the cutting room floor of the political drama. I am not satisfied with just get ting a pre-programmed press release about the final outcome. It is fine for a governing MLA caucus member to lose a battle, choose to stay in a caucus and to try and win another day in a mature political party process.
I respect politicians who authentically hold different political principles from my own. I especially respect politicians who spend their political capital and risk losing policy battles based on their principles. That is essential for a lively, vibrant, capable and confident political party. It is foundational to mature effective political leadership and core to the concept of responsible, representative and accountable democratic governance. All that is not possible in the current message massaging political machine of command and control top down governance models that dominate modern democracies these days.
Then add to the Bill 44 farce when the Premier declared a "free vote" for the PC caucus on Bill 44. What was free about this vote when, in the final result, any PC MLA who opposed Bill 44 on principle, and there were some, all ducked out of the free vote or they merely complied like sheep. Going along to get along and personal principles be damned is too often the default position of too many of our partisan-loyal politicians these days. Constituent concerns are, at best, treated as second class in this kind of political culture.
Excuses as to why PC MLAs did not show up to vote on Bill 44 third reading abound. Some have said "I was not on house duty that night" and "I had previous commitments" were amongst the most common. All weak and feckless excuses to avoid standing up for their political principles if you as me. The government knew it was going to invoke closure on the Bill 44 legislature debate and it did. It was not as if government MLAs did not know that and that the critical final vote on Bill 44 would happen that night.
Second, they would know when the vote would likely happen because they engineered the debate to happen late at night. The thinking there was undoubtedly that a late night vote meant that nobody would be following the debate and the MSM wouldn't care enough to cover it the next day. Wrong again, mostly because they did not expect the influence of the Internet and the power of social media. Hundreds of citizens were watching the debate as it streamed on line and they were actively engaged in Twittering all night long.
Finally I noted that the Premier came back to the Legislature about 12:30 am the night of the final vote on Bill 44. If he could make the effort to come back to the legislature to take advantage of the "free vote" why didn't those other government MLAs, who may have opposed Bill 44 on principle, come back and vote too? Was it about taking the easy way out and go along to get along? Or did they not believe the Premier when he said it would be a free vote. Where they afraid to vote against a government Bill as a PC MLA because it would result in "consequences?"
The Premier showed up and showed leadership that night. He was wrong in his position to my mind - but he at least showed up and voted. I always say the world is run by those who show up. The progressives in the PC caucus who were opposed to Bill 44 failed us and themselves when they failed, refused or neglected to show up and take a free vote stand against this ill-advised legislation.
This going along to get along is becoming the new normal in the world of command and control top down hyper-partisan "democracy." I hope the new networked collaborative and respective sharing of differences of opinion in open political discussion and with rigorous principled debate will be the basis of a revived representative democracy in Alberta. We sure need it. The "cracks" that are showing in any and likely all political caucuses, especially a governing party caucus, are a good thing for citizens and for our democracy. Remember what Leonard Cohen said:
"Ring the bell that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That is how the light gets in."
The media reports about "cracks" in the PC Caucus coming out of recent comments by a PC backbench MLA who was critical of the Minister of Health are interesting. I am not going to deal with the merits of the comments. I am much more interested in the governing implications of the story. The politics of the situation are a large part of implications too.
The fact is a backbench MLA spoke out publicly, on behalf of his constituency, and criticized a change in government policy that directly affects citizens in his riding. This should be considered normal not objectionable behaviour by government, leadership and political parties. Otherwise what is the point of electing these people to represent us on a constituency basis? Cabinet Ministers are in a more difficult position because they have to actually represent the government. That can sometimes fetter their ability to speak out publicly.
There are always cracks in a political Caucus. They are supposed to be there. This is natural in a representative democracy and in Cabinets organized in departments with oversight committees like Treasury Board and Agenda and Priorities. In Klein's Caucus there was 1/3 on the right, 1/3 on the left and 1/3 who wanted to be on Klein's side. Most of them felt that they owed Klein their seats but that is not the case today. The left and right are smaller and the middle group does not owe their seat to Premier Stelmach, even with the large majority in the last election.
The more critical issue about "cracks" in a governing caucus is the role of power politics in the classic power structures of command and control leadership within a top-down governance philosophy. The classic command and control top down model demands that government politicians speak with "one voice" on all government policy. That one voice is often the leaders voice - regardless of the party. At least that is my experience.
We saw that "one voice" actually being that of a party leader happen last week. Premier Stelmach came out of a caucus meeting and said he was not raising taxes to cover the record deficits Alberta is facing. He did that in the face of contrary comments made by some of his Cabinet who mused about the possibility of raising taxes to cover budget deficits. He also said he was rolling back recent liquor taxes because "he was not comfortable with them." Why does the leader get to unilaterally decide to change the provincial budget by personal fiat after it is the law of the Province? This is not unique to Alberta but it should not be the acceptable norm in responsible "democratic" governance either.
The natural conclusion of a command and control top down policy decision making process is that it stifles public discussion and debate, especially by governing caucus members. I think this open public policy discussion, by governing politicians, is vital for a vibrant healthy democracy. It needs to happen vigorously and extensively before a policy decision is made or when a Minister unilaterally decides, by personal fiat, to change an existing government policy position. Anything less is not a meaningful way of practicing true responsible and representative democracy.
The command and control top down governance model means we end up with MLAs, especially government MLAs, only representing the government perspective to their constituents. MLAs are supposed to be the the best eyes and ears a governing political party can have. They are supposed to be sensitive and reflect the mood and mind of their constituency. But we hardly ever see or hear from them speaking out in that role. I am sure the behind closed doors caucus discussions are full of MLAs talking and debating about constituency concerns on various issues and proposed public policies. You would never know it given the tradition of caucus secrecy and the command and control "need" for one consistent voice coming out of caucus.
If you, as a politician, don't agree with a partisan policy position of your caucus you have few choices. Mostly shut up and toe the line or quit the caucus, or speak out and risk being kicked out of the caucus. Quitting means you don't get to fight another day and not toeing the line means you are deemed to not be "a team player." You will face pressures, discipline and other consequences from the party structure and precious little protection can come from your constituency.
I think political parties need to open up the internal party discussion and debate. They need to the trust the intelligence of the populace more than they do. We citizens are not so naive or stupid that we can't understand the political need for a governing party to balance conflicting perspectives and make trade offs of competing values. What we need, as citizens, in order to have more confidence in our government, is to see the actual political decision making process that is being used to strike that balance or to make that value trade off. We elect our politicians to make those balance choices and those value trade offs for us. But surely we ought to be entitled to see the reasoning and hear the discussion that was behind the choices being made on our behalf.
The closest thing we have to serve that need now is the political theatre of Question Period. That is more farce than informative. I want more government MLAs taking personal political positions in public on the policy issues of the day. I saw that public debate happen with Bill 44. Some social conservatives in the PC Caucus were actually speaking out in mainstream and social media and stating their positions and reasons in support of the legislation.
I did not see a single progressive conservative governing caucus member arguing against Bill 44 in public. My guess is they were silent because it was a government Bill and caucus already had the policy debate and the decision was a "done deal." But Bill 44 was only debated amongst the governing caucus members behind the closed doors of their private and secret caucus meetings.
Surely not everyone in the PC Caucus agreed whole heartedly with Bill 44 as written or amended. Will we ever know that for sure? Not likely. The PC Caucus and the PC Party apparatus just wants the whole Bill 44 fiasco to go away and to be forgotten. That is not likely to happen either. Not when there is a Facebook group like "Students Against Bill 44" with over 11,000 members still in existence.
The non-partisan and partisan public debate on the issues inherent in Bill 44 could and should happen before it hits a closed caucus meeting decision. I want to know that there was a debate, what issues were debated and the range of opinion that was under consideration. I want to see what was on the cutting room floor of the political drama. I am not satisfied with just get ting a pre-programmed press release about the final outcome. It is fine for a governing MLA caucus member to lose a battle, choose to stay in a caucus and to try and win another day in a mature political party process.
I respect politicians who authentically hold different political principles from my own. I especially respect politicians who spend their political capital and risk losing policy battles based on their principles. That is essential for a lively, vibrant, capable and confident political party. It is foundational to mature effective political leadership and core to the concept of responsible, representative and accountable democratic governance. All that is not possible in the current message massaging political machine of command and control top down governance models that dominate modern democracies these days.
Then add to the Bill 44 farce when the Premier declared a "free vote" for the PC caucus on Bill 44. What was free about this vote when, in the final result, any PC MLA who opposed Bill 44 on principle, and there were some, all ducked out of the free vote or they merely complied like sheep. Going along to get along and personal principles be damned is too often the default position of too many of our partisan-loyal politicians these days. Constituent concerns are, at best, treated as second class in this kind of political culture.
Excuses as to why PC MLAs did not show up to vote on Bill 44 third reading abound. Some have said "I was not on house duty that night" and "I had previous commitments" were amongst the most common. All weak and feckless excuses to avoid standing up for their political principles if you as me. The government knew it was going to invoke closure on the Bill 44 legislature debate and it did. It was not as if government MLAs did not know that and that the critical final vote on Bill 44 would happen that night.
Second, they would know when the vote would likely happen because they engineered the debate to happen late at night. The thinking there was undoubtedly that a late night vote meant that nobody would be following the debate and the MSM wouldn't care enough to cover it the next day. Wrong again, mostly because they did not expect the influence of the Internet and the power of social media. Hundreds of citizens were watching the debate as it streamed on line and they were actively engaged in Twittering all night long.
Finally I noted that the Premier came back to the Legislature about 12:30 am the night of the final vote on Bill 44. If he could make the effort to come back to the legislature to take advantage of the "free vote" why didn't those other government MLAs, who may have opposed Bill 44 on principle, come back and vote too? Was it about taking the easy way out and go along to get along? Or did they not believe the Premier when he said it would be a free vote. Where they afraid to vote against a government Bill as a PC MLA because it would result in "consequences?"
The Premier showed up and showed leadership that night. He was wrong in his position to my mind - but he at least showed up and voted. I always say the world is run by those who show up. The progressives in the PC caucus who were opposed to Bill 44 failed us and themselves when they failed, refused or neglected to show up and take a free vote stand against this ill-advised legislation.
This going along to get along is becoming the new normal in the world of command and control top down hyper-partisan "democracy." I hope the new networked collaborative and respective sharing of differences of opinion in open political discussion and with rigorous principled debate will be the basis of a revived representative democracy in Alberta. We sure need it. The "cracks" that are showing in any and likely all political caucuses, especially a governing party caucus, are a good thing for citizens and for our democracy. Remember what Leonard Cohen said:
"Ring the bell that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That is how the light gets in."
Monday, June 29, 2009
New Poll on Leadership in Alberta Says Stay Tuned.
I was talking to Mark Lisac of Insight Into government just last week on the lack of polling information on the performance of the Stelmach government and speculating why. We have seen some government polling released on the Branding exercise and on the reaction to the Budget but nothing on the government and leaders performance for quite some time. With all the changes going on in health and infrastructure, environment and the continuing crisis in social services I was wondering how well the government was doing in the court of public opinion.
It was good to see the Leger Marketing poll in the CanWest papers this morning. I wonder who commission the Leger poll. I presume it was CanWest but that is not clear. The Stelmach results are compared to poll results from February 2008 - a long time ago in political terms but the comparisons are valuable still the same.
Bottom line for Premier Stelmach - not much has changed with 41% Approval and 40% Disapproval ratings, even though the MSM say his "popularity take a hit." That is only true in the rural areas and all other differences from February 2008 are all within the margin of error and essentially the same today.
The province, Edmonton and Calgary are overall not significantly changed in 16 months. In fact the disapproval rating in Calgary is down 4 points. That minimal decease in Disapprovals has not translated into support in Calgary where he is done 1 point. The $3B taxpayer subsidy in the unraveling of the royalty regime in Alberta just to appease the Calgary energy sector suits has not bought Ed any respect in Cowtown. Edmonton is just the same as they were in February in their opinions of Stelmach with 48% Approving and 37% Disapproving of his performance.
However the Calgary suits may be modestly appeased with royalty cuts, Stelmach's rural Alberta base seems to be shifting away from him. The Stelmach Approval outside of Edmonton and Calgary is down 12 points to 40% from 52% in February 2008. His rural Disapproval rating is up 8% to 39%. That shift is significant. A rural grassroot crusade won Stelmach the PC leadership but if they are starting to abandon him to send a message of discontent. The PC powers that be are seem to be presuming that are going to the Wildrose Alliance.
You can see the politics in play here with the ill-conceived and ill-advised Bill 44 appeasement. the recent Legislative session had lots of political problems for rural Albertas from the land use to power transmission plans and new expanded powers for unilateral provincial powers to establish utility corridors. The recession is impacting small town Alberta hard as forestry, oil and gas, agriculture are all hit hard too.
The good news is Stelmach's worst enemy is likely himself and not the opposition. We don't have comparable February 2008 numbers for Mason and Swann but overall, Albertans are mostly indifferent to them as alternatives at this time with only a 22% Approval rating and larger Disapprovals in each case.
The more interesting data is the trend perceptions of the public's performance opinion of the leaders in the past year. Only 5% are saying they have a better opinion and 13% who don't know about the Stelmach leadership. We see the Stayed the Same and Worsened impression at 30% and 43% respectively. This is illustrative of the possibility of some sleeper issues capturing the public's perceptions.
Staying the same opinions in a recession could be interpreted as positive and worsening perceptions of governments and leaders are to be expected in a recession. However with the low overall approval rating to begin with a "stay the same" perception is not a blessing but a disguised disquiet that could blow up at any minute. Health care cuts and delisting services while Stelmach announces more royalty giveaways like the $3B to big oil to support natural gas drilling when there is already a glut on the market could be the political tinderbox waiting for a spark to inflame public opinion.
There are many more such examples but the point is that the people of Alberta are not happy and they are not sure if there is a coherent government policy strategy to deal with the real concerns they are facing. It has been almost 40 years of PC rule. Is the next tipping point for dramatic political change approaching? Beats me but the disquiet and discontent throughout in the province is crying for leadership. As the public looks around to see where that political and policy leadership is to come from they are coming up empty. That is typically a recipe for change but does that translate in Alberta? Who knows.
The poll was done with 900 random phone interviews between June18-21 with a margin of error of 3.3% so it is a pretty standard provincial sampling but the city and regional samples are smaller an have a 5.7% to 5.5% margin of error.
It was good to see the Leger Marketing poll in the CanWest papers this morning. I wonder who commission the Leger poll. I presume it was CanWest but that is not clear. The Stelmach results are compared to poll results from February 2008 - a long time ago in political terms but the comparisons are valuable still the same.
Bottom line for Premier Stelmach - not much has changed with 41% Approval and 40% Disapproval ratings, even though the MSM say his "popularity take a hit." That is only true in the rural areas and all other differences from February 2008 are all within the margin of error and essentially the same today.
The province, Edmonton and Calgary are overall not significantly changed in 16 months. In fact the disapproval rating in Calgary is down 4 points. That minimal decease in Disapprovals has not translated into support in Calgary where he is done 1 point. The $3B taxpayer subsidy in the unraveling of the royalty regime in Alberta just to appease the Calgary energy sector suits has not bought Ed any respect in Cowtown. Edmonton is just the same as they were in February in their opinions of Stelmach with 48% Approving and 37% Disapproving of his performance.
However the Calgary suits may be modestly appeased with royalty cuts, Stelmach's rural Alberta base seems to be shifting away from him. The Stelmach Approval outside of Edmonton and Calgary is down 12 points to 40% from 52% in February 2008. His rural Disapproval rating is up 8% to 39%. That shift is significant. A rural grassroot crusade won Stelmach the PC leadership but if they are starting to abandon him to send a message of discontent. The PC powers that be are seem to be presuming that are going to the Wildrose Alliance.
You can see the politics in play here with the ill-conceived and ill-advised Bill 44 appeasement. the recent Legislative session had lots of political problems for rural Albertas from the land use to power transmission plans and new expanded powers for unilateral provincial powers to establish utility corridors. The recession is impacting small town Alberta hard as forestry, oil and gas, agriculture are all hit hard too.
The good news is Stelmach's worst enemy is likely himself and not the opposition. We don't have comparable February 2008 numbers for Mason and Swann but overall, Albertans are mostly indifferent to them as alternatives at this time with only a 22% Approval rating and larger Disapprovals in each case.
The more interesting data is the trend perceptions of the public's performance opinion of the leaders in the past year. Only 5% are saying they have a better opinion and 13% who don't know about the Stelmach leadership. We see the Stayed the Same and Worsened impression at 30% and 43% respectively. This is illustrative of the possibility of some sleeper issues capturing the public's perceptions.
Staying the same opinions in a recession could be interpreted as positive and worsening perceptions of governments and leaders are to be expected in a recession. However with the low overall approval rating to begin with a "stay the same" perception is not a blessing but a disguised disquiet that could blow up at any minute. Health care cuts and delisting services while Stelmach announces more royalty giveaways like the $3B to big oil to support natural gas drilling when there is already a glut on the market could be the political tinderbox waiting for a spark to inflame public opinion.
There are many more such examples but the point is that the people of Alberta are not happy and they are not sure if there is a coherent government policy strategy to deal with the real concerns they are facing. It has been almost 40 years of PC rule. Is the next tipping point for dramatic political change approaching? Beats me but the disquiet and discontent throughout in the province is crying for leadership. As the public looks around to see where that political and policy leadership is to come from they are coming up empty. That is typically a recipe for change but does that translate in Alberta? Who knows.
The poll was done with 900 random phone interviews between June18-21 with a margin of error of 3.3% so it is a pretty standard provincial sampling but the city and regional samples are smaller an have a 5.7% to 5.5% margin of error.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Anti-Bill 44 Buzz Building as School Ends
Last Wednesday I sent out the last blog post on the challenges ahead for the PC Party on a possible resolution debate on the repeal of the odious portions of Bill 44 now in the Alberta Human Rights Act. It has been generating a lot of buzz.
I was sent this YouTube link from a Follower on Twitter. It is very funny, sad and satirical with Hugh Laurie. It is very funny and a great spoof on what the Alberta public education system can expect to face from aggressive social conservatives with a political agenda. This will only happen once this Act is proclaimed and school starts again in the fall.
Hopefully the Stelmach government will delay proclamation of the contentious parts. Hopefully they will then reconsider and repeal the unnecessary and offensive sections in the next sitting of the Legislature.
I will soon be posting some letter excerpts from those social conservatives received by the ATA during the Bill 44 debates. They will not identify the writers form privacy reasons but they do indicate their intentions and political agendas and how they intend to pursue them at the personal expense of teachers and with the result of diluting the quality public education in Alberta.
BTW the Facebook group "Students Against Bill 44" membership exceeded 11,000 - as I predicted. I encourage you to get on Facebook and join this group to send the message to the Stelmach government that you too are against Bill 44. This issue is not going away and the political pressure will come back in the fall.
I was sent this YouTube link from a Follower on Twitter. It is very funny, sad and satirical with Hugh Laurie. It is very funny and a great spoof on what the Alberta public education system can expect to face from aggressive social conservatives with a political agenda. This will only happen once this Act is proclaimed and school starts again in the fall.
Hopefully the Stelmach government will delay proclamation of the contentious parts. Hopefully they will then reconsider and repeal the unnecessary and offensive sections in the next sitting of the Legislature.
I will soon be posting some letter excerpts from those social conservatives received by the ATA during the Bill 44 debates. They will not identify the writers form privacy reasons but they do indicate their intentions and political agendas and how they intend to pursue them at the personal expense of teachers and with the result of diluting the quality public education in Alberta.
BTW the Facebook group "Students Against Bill 44" membership exceeded 11,000 - as I predicted. I encourage you to get on Facebook and join this group to send the message to the Stelmach government that you too are against Bill 44. This issue is not going away and the political pressure will come back in the fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)