The speculation about the PC AGM party leadership review this Saturday is just another act in the on-going political power drama in Alberta these days. The flu fiasco is a much more critical concern for the population and the politics of the province.
That does not mean these matters are not related. They are just two issues on the minds of Albertans, including the economy, the environment and our democracy. Everything is attached to everything else in our complex inter-related and interdependent world these days.
PC Leadership Review:
It is hard to imagine that PC Leader Stelmach will not get at least 80% support from the party faithful this weekend. I say the party faithful because even if you are unhappy with the job the party leader is doing, he is still Premier of Alberta. And the primary purpose of a political party is to stay in power. Why would any of the delegates take the risk of opening up a bitter leadership fight? Better to get the leader to change than change the leader.
The PC Party is not the Same as Alberta:
The thinking members of the PC party appreciate that the people of Alberta are very unhappy with the Stelmach government. The new Environics poll in the CanWest papers today proves that in spades. The horserace part of media coverage is always the main focus. But it rarely reveals the real story.
So the Wildrose is #2 and closing in on Calgary. That’s not news. At best it is old news since the Calgary Glenmore by election. What does a Wildrose Alliance far right reactionary party holding the #2 spot mean for politics in Alberta? Is that the alternative most Albertans want? If not, then what? Where does all this leave the Liberals and NDs? That is the deeper news story.
Other Interesting Poll Results:
The poll raises some interesting concerns. Like why was there a 2 week data collection period? Very strange when one considers the impact of the emerging H1N1 story. It also makes you wonder how many calls were made to get 1000 Albertans to answer the poll. Some estimates say as many a 20 calls have to be placed before someone will answer a pollster. Makes you wonder about the true randomness doesn’t it? We don’t know much about the participants either but we presume they are properly demographically distributed not just geographically.
There are more interesting results in this poll than just the top line. Top issue for me is that the PC approval rating is at 36% - a 16 year low. With 54% of Albertans saying they disapprove of the government's performance. There is not much equivocation in opinions about the quality of our governance and leadership. I remember back in the day Don Getty had a personal approval rating of 17% - just before he retired. What is Premier Stelmach’s personal approval rating? We are not told. Hope it comes out in follow up stories. Please tell me that this question was asked.
The other interesting findings are the province wide 16% of undecided Albertans. That is as big as the Wildrose Alliance support in Edmonton. The tale of two cities is another interesting story. Calgary is used to having power, access and getting its way in the province, a holdover attitude from the Klein years. They continue to send a message of displeasure by parking support with the Wildrose Alliance. But do they truly believe in the WAP or just want to send a message the Premier. Or is this all about having a Calgarian in power, regardless of party? Too early to tell but that is an interesting unanswered question.
Edmonton is a much more interesting place politically these days with the PCs (34%) and Liberals (27%) statistically tied within the margin of error. The WAP is a distant 3rd and the NDP has their strongest showing in Edmonton at 13%. Are there are at least three solitudes emerging in Alberta these days? It sure looks like it. I think south, central and northern rural Alberta has some considerable differences too but the poll samples are too small to show them.
Another curious result is the Green support at 8% in the big cities and 9% in the rest of Alberta. That party does not even exist anymore but still can garner that kind of support. The Greens are equal to NDP in Calgary and beat them in the rest of Alberta. Ouch.
The Politics of the Poll:
The PC Party and the Premier’s office will see the timing of this CanWest sponsored poll coming out just before the leadership review on Saturday, as mischievous at best. Not that such manipulative and mischievous media messaging ever emanates from government. Remember the phony beach ads and the $25 million taxpayer paid slick ad campaign of the government to respond to dirty oil and the ugly Albertan? Whatever happened to that campaign?
This tradition of political and governance mis-messaging is exactly what will happen in coming weeks if the PC party leader gets over 80% support in the review process. The official line will be to ignore these poll results. They will say: Hey, we won the PC leadership when we were not supposed to. We won the election when we were not supposed to - and we got a larger majority too. Now we have the overwhelming endorsement of the party. There is a recession going on so what is the problem? The conclusion will be that there isn’t a problem. Things are just fine. The message will be that leader’s hand is on the rudder, the direction is clear and the government is on the right path. Steady as she goes and there is no need to change a thing. With that level of support they will promise to “stay the course.”
That attitude will likely be confirmation of an accelerated end of dominance of the Alberta PC political brand. Will it result in the demise of the dynasty that was created and nurtured by Peter Lougheed over 40 years ago?
“People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.”
That is a James Baldwin quote from “Empire of Illusion – the End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle” by Pulitzer Prize Winner Chris Hedges.
Time will tell but will the clock be ticking for Premier Stelmach starting Saturday?
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Our Latest LaPresse Column Published Today
I am going over the numbers and the outcomes of yesterday and looking for the potential and possibilities for Stelmach to win. I have seen how i can be done. I am far from finished in my analysis of what it will take but as readers have heard me say before "Campaigns Matter."
This campaign is still far from over. I see what I call "The Mandel Syndrome" happening for Stelmach this week big time. The top guns are not seen as sufficient to make the shifts needed to meet the future and the third place alternative is not just a compromise but on reflection, he becomes the preferred choice and wins.
IN THE MEANTIME here is our LaPresse column published in Montreal today. It has relevance as you will see.
La Presse 26 novembre 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives signalled a definitive end to the era of Ralph Klein by voting for his successor yesterday, and in doing so began to redefine Alberta’s place in Canada.
In the last five years, Alberta’s government abandoned all vision and direction, after paying off the entire fiscal debt. It squandered opportunity and did little to respond to the pressure of rapid growth. Worst of all, it had no interest in developing the adaptability and flexibility needed to respond to change. It brought in a favourable royalty regime of one per cent to accelerate development of the oil sands when oil cost less than $20 a barrel – and persisted with it even as prices rose astronomically.
This failure to build an escalating royalty rate so that government income would increase as prices rose, cost the Alberta treasury more in lost revenue than the reviled National Energy Programme negotiated a generation ago between Peter Lougheed and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Indeed, this one instance of incompetence is as colossal as Quebec’s squandering of Hydro Quebec’s revenue potential, so ably chronicled in Alain Dubuc’s excellent book Éloge de la richesse.
In fact, the Alberta government went beyond laissez-faire economics, to invoke laissez-faire governance. Premier Klein’s government deliberately chose to create a debt-free fiscal climate wherein government would earn the room to cut taxes and give the free-market economy the lebensraum it needed to grow and flourish. This philosophy meant removing the deliberate and deliberative hand of government in favour of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.
This Adam Smith economic prescription was paired with a John Stuart Mill political outlook. Rather than a “social contract” between the citizen and the state, the Klein political philosophy followed Mill. His governing ideal enabled and empowered each person to exercise and develop their capacities, capabilities, engagement and participation in his or her own way, in order to achieve personal progress and personal happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment.
In this concept of political economy, a flat-rate personal income tax, more private choice in the provision of health care, and distributing resource royalties directly to citizens by writing everyone a cheque, are all perfectly consistent with Adam Smith economics and John Stuart Mill politics. In this construct, the individual liberty to pursue one’s own happiness, with the least possible constraint from the state, becomes the central governing ethos.
The effect of laissez-faire governance was to diminish the individual’s expectation of state support, and to regard the state as a shelter only in times of critical need. As Premier Klein put it, his governance philosophy was to provide “a hand up, not a hand-out.” The ultimate empowerment of the citizen, in the Klein philosophy, was the classical Mills view that democracy with its freedom of speech and freedom of choice is the best vehicle to enable each citizen to flourish, following pursuits and decisions of his or her choice free from the interference of others, so long as what one wants does no harm to others.
Yet it is clear to the majority in Alberta that hands-off government does not work. The state of the environment is by far the biggest preoccupation of Albertans, who seek government leadership in sustaining the environment without demolishing the economy. Of the candidates on yesterday’s ballot Jim Dinning was a strong proponent of what he called the “clean energy economy,” proposing billions of dollars of investment in sequestering carbon dioxide and slashing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Interestingly, this is also the perspective of federal Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion). And in survey after survey, Albertans declare themselves proud Canadians, ready to share their wealth with their fellow citizens (so long as the federal government is not the agent of distribution).
More than anything, Albertans seek a new role of leadership and influence in the country, based on their growing economic power and the responsibility that brings to perpetuate the common good. No matter what choice the Progressive Conservative party makes, an effective Premier of Alberta must respond to these desires.
This campaign is still far from over. I see what I call "The Mandel Syndrome" happening for Stelmach this week big time. The top guns are not seen as sufficient to make the shifts needed to meet the future and the third place alternative is not just a compromise but on reflection, he becomes the preferred choice and wins.
IN THE MEANTIME here is our LaPresse column published in Montreal today. It has relevance as you will see.
La Presse 26 novembre 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives signalled a definitive end to the era of Ralph Klein by voting for his successor yesterday, and in doing so began to redefine Alberta’s place in Canada.
In the last five years, Alberta’s government abandoned all vision and direction, after paying off the entire fiscal debt. It squandered opportunity and did little to respond to the pressure of rapid growth. Worst of all, it had no interest in developing the adaptability and flexibility needed to respond to change. It brought in a favourable royalty regime of one per cent to accelerate development of the oil sands when oil cost less than $20 a barrel – and persisted with it even as prices rose astronomically.
This failure to build an escalating royalty rate so that government income would increase as prices rose, cost the Alberta treasury more in lost revenue than the reviled National Energy Programme negotiated a generation ago between Peter Lougheed and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Indeed, this one instance of incompetence is as colossal as Quebec’s squandering of Hydro Quebec’s revenue potential, so ably chronicled in Alain Dubuc’s excellent book Éloge de la richesse.
In fact, the Alberta government went beyond laissez-faire economics, to invoke laissez-faire governance. Premier Klein’s government deliberately chose to create a debt-free fiscal climate wherein government would earn the room to cut taxes and give the free-market economy the lebensraum it needed to grow and flourish. This philosophy meant removing the deliberate and deliberative hand of government in favour of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.
This Adam Smith economic prescription was paired with a John Stuart Mill political outlook. Rather than a “social contract” between the citizen and the state, the Klein political philosophy followed Mill. His governing ideal enabled and empowered each person to exercise and develop their capacities, capabilities, engagement and participation in his or her own way, in order to achieve personal progress and personal happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment.
In this concept of political economy, a flat-rate personal income tax, more private choice in the provision of health care, and distributing resource royalties directly to citizens by writing everyone a cheque, are all perfectly consistent with Adam Smith economics and John Stuart Mill politics. In this construct, the individual liberty to pursue one’s own happiness, with the least possible constraint from the state, becomes the central governing ethos.
The effect of laissez-faire governance was to diminish the individual’s expectation of state support, and to regard the state as a shelter only in times of critical need. As Premier Klein put it, his governance philosophy was to provide “a hand up, not a hand-out.” The ultimate empowerment of the citizen, in the Klein philosophy, was the classical Mills view that democracy with its freedom of speech and freedom of choice is the best vehicle to enable each citizen to flourish, following pursuits and decisions of his or her choice free from the interference of others, so long as what one wants does no harm to others.
Yet it is clear to the majority in Alberta that hands-off government does not work. The state of the environment is by far the biggest preoccupation of Albertans, who seek government leadership in sustaining the environment without demolishing the economy. Of the candidates on yesterday’s ballot Jim Dinning was a strong proponent of what he called the “clean energy economy,” proposing billions of dollars of investment in sequestering carbon dioxide and slashing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Interestingly, this is also the perspective of federal Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion). And in survey after survey, Albertans declare themselves proud Canadians, ready to share their wealth with their fellow citizens (so long as the federal government is not the agent of distribution).
More than anything, Albertans seek a new role of leadership and influence in the country, based on their growing economic power and the responsibility that brings to perpetuate the common good. No matter what choice the Progressive Conservative party makes, an effective Premier of Alberta must respond to these desires.
And Now There Are Three
Good morning. A busload and Hancock supporters went to Calgary yesterday and we got home at 4:30 this morning. I am a bit blurry eyed and feel like I slept with an old sock in my mouth. I have been telling myself since I woke up “I am not too old for this.” There is a fine line between an affirmation and a delusion.
Just did a quick look at the constituency results and will have lots to say later today. The choice is clear but it is not a two horse race - it is a real three-way contest, with clear alternatives and real choices, each resulting in a very different Alberta.
Ed Stelmach is a strong third place finisher and is definitely in the hunt. He has traction, momentum and growth potential this week. The media will frame the choice as Dinning vs. Morton. I see that dichotomy as we really don’t need just more of the Dinning Calgary Mafia nor do most Albertans see themselves reflected in the social conservative values of the Morton Alliance Mafia.
This week there will be lots of hype, hyperbole and hypertension. There is time for the average Albertan to take some time for some sober second thinking about the kind of Alberta we should become. We can all reflect on which of these three is going to be the most effective agent of real change to help move us forward to our preferred future. Those that do some sober second thinking will find a real alternative in Stelmach. He is not just a compromise candidate to the other two "top guns." He is the real thing.
I know Ed Stelmach. I like him and respect him. More importantly, I trust him and know he is authentic to his progressive values and has sound judgment. I will be telling you more abut him as the week progresses.
I suggested early in the campaign that Hancock could be the beneficiary of a Mandel syndrome where the front runners were found wanting and an acceptable alternative was wanted. Mandel became that acceptable alternative to the so-called “favorites” and the Mayor of Edmonton. Not only is Ed “acceptable” but for the kind of real change an attitude and approach to government and governing, he is, by far the best alternative for Leader/Premier for ALL ALBERTA
Just did a quick look at the constituency results and will have lots to say later today. The choice is clear but it is not a two horse race - it is a real three-way contest, with clear alternatives and real choices, each resulting in a very different Alberta.
Ed Stelmach is a strong third place finisher and is definitely in the hunt. He has traction, momentum and growth potential this week. The media will frame the choice as Dinning vs. Morton. I see that dichotomy as we really don’t need just more of the Dinning Calgary Mafia nor do most Albertans see themselves reflected in the social conservative values of the Morton Alliance Mafia.
This week there will be lots of hype, hyperbole and hypertension. There is time for the average Albertan to take some time for some sober second thinking about the kind of Alberta we should become. We can all reflect on which of these three is going to be the most effective agent of real change to help move us forward to our preferred future. Those that do some sober second thinking will find a real alternative in Stelmach. He is not just a compromise candidate to the other two "top guns." He is the real thing.
I know Ed Stelmach. I like him and respect him. More importantly, I trust him and know he is authentic to his progressive values and has sound judgment. I will be telling you more abut him as the week progresses.
I suggested early in the campaign that Hancock could be the beneficiary of a Mandel syndrome where the front runners were found wanting and an acceptable alternative was wanted. Mandel became that acceptable alternative to the so-called “favorites” and the Mayor of Edmonton. Not only is Ed “acceptable” but for the kind of real change an attitude and approach to government and governing, he is, by far the best alternative for Leader/Premier for ALL ALBERTA
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Which Candidate Is Best to Keep the PC Party Together?
One of the overlooked realities of this leadership campaign is the impact the process and outcome will have on the future of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta itself. I wonder about the role of political parties in general and the resistance of people to join them. Do political parties have a future?
In the old days – I am old enough to have “old days” – political parties were individuals who came together in constituencies to use their collective power to create, influence, criticize, comment, propose and promote public policy ideas as part of the common good.
They recruited candidates, stuffed envelopes, delivered brochures and made phone calls – sometimes until their ears bled. The really big purposes of political parties were to run and win elections and to occasionally pick new party leaders…or dump old ones as the case may be.
Some of that still happens today but it is not grassroots and local anymore. It is centralized by consultants and marketing machine politics. People are more removed from the political process and the public policy development dynamics too. Campaigns have changed and so have political parties, and not necessarily for the better.
I think there is a fundamental role for political parties but they have to take back the power and purpose of grassroots democracy away for the leadership and the “handlers” of those party leaders.
Transparency, accountability, openness are all buzzwords in the politics of the day because of the miscreants and the ethically challenged political players of the past. People are turning off voting and turning away from democratic institutions like political parties as a result. Democracy is a fragile concept that depends on informed citizens who participate.
Engagement has to be meaningful before people will take the time to become involved. We need to change the culture where politicians are seen as “powerful” and we need to elect people more personally motivated by an authentic sense of being a servant leader and stewards of the public good. We need wiser, smarter and better people in elected office but that starts with citizens demanding it and doing something about it.
To get that we need more meaningful opportunity for ordinary citizens to see acts of citizenship as a duty but also a right that they respect and as a privilege they value in a free and democratic society.
With new technology and communications techniques we have lots of content and context on the candidate’s websites. But with no time to attend or serious opportunities to see and hear the candidates we don’t get to know about the character and capabilities of the candidates.
There are going to be thousands of “new PC members” who are into the fray to influence the leadership selection outcome mostly for reasons of self interest – which is just fine by me. I hope some are prepared to stay in the party past the second ballot and to keep the “winner” accountable as active citizens who are meaningfully engaged in democracy. Who knows – we may even help make the winner into a leader too.
In the old days – I am old enough to have “old days” – political parties were individuals who came together in constituencies to use their collective power to create, influence, criticize, comment, propose and promote public policy ideas as part of the common good.
They recruited candidates, stuffed envelopes, delivered brochures and made phone calls – sometimes until their ears bled. The really big purposes of political parties were to run and win elections and to occasionally pick new party leaders…or dump old ones as the case may be.
Some of that still happens today but it is not grassroots and local anymore. It is centralized by consultants and marketing machine politics. People are more removed from the political process and the public policy development dynamics too. Campaigns have changed and so have political parties, and not necessarily for the better.
I think there is a fundamental role for political parties but they have to take back the power and purpose of grassroots democracy away for the leadership and the “handlers” of those party leaders.
Transparency, accountability, openness are all buzzwords in the politics of the day because of the miscreants and the ethically challenged political players of the past. People are turning off voting and turning away from democratic institutions like political parties as a result. Democracy is a fragile concept that depends on informed citizens who participate.
Engagement has to be meaningful before people will take the time to become involved. We need to change the culture where politicians are seen as “powerful” and we need to elect people more personally motivated by an authentic sense of being a servant leader and stewards of the public good. We need wiser, smarter and better people in elected office but that starts with citizens demanding it and doing something about it.
To get that we need more meaningful opportunity for ordinary citizens to see acts of citizenship as a duty but also a right that they respect and as a privilege they value in a free and democratic society.
With new technology and communications techniques we have lots of content and context on the candidate’s websites. But with no time to attend or serious opportunities to see and hear the candidates we don’t get to know about the character and capabilities of the candidates.
There are going to be thousands of “new PC members” who are into the fray to influence the leadership selection outcome mostly for reasons of self interest – which is just fine by me. I hope some are prepared to stay in the party past the second ballot and to keep the “winner” accountable as active citizens who are meaningfully engaged in democracy. Who knows – we may even help make the winner into a leader too.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Strategic Voting and What is Best for Alberta
I have come to the conclusion that Jim Dinning has run the best campaign and is a shoe-in for the second ballot. He has the best organization; the most money, the most MLA support, a group of professional campaigners working for him and a network of volunteers throughout the province.
He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?
If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.
I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.
I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.
To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.
Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.
I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.
People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.
I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.
Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.
Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.
I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.
That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.
He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?
If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.
I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.
I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.
To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.
Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.
I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.
People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.
I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.
Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.
Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.
I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.
That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.
Monday, November 13, 2006
This Race is Far From Over - But Who Gets to the Second Ballot?
Ipsos Reid has done an interesting poll on the PC Leadership recently. They have not been asking who you would vote for but rather how favourable or unfavourable is your “impression” of each candidate.
Asking who you will vote for is so changeable and volatile and influenced by extraneous and often meaningless influences. Name recognition and recent media coverage can drive impulse answers and not necessarily reflect actual voting behaviours.
Asking favourable or unfavourable impressions generates more reflective, qualitative and evaluative responses about candidates. Not perfect but more informative of what people are “feeling” about candidates.
Our web based Policy Channel Survey “Send ‘Em a Message” asks for a deeper level of your thought about candidates. We ask how likely is it that you would recommend each candidate to friends and family. Now participants are more invested in their answers because they reflect back on themselves not just the candidates. Not perfect either but we get more than impressions and feelings, we introduced a personal reputation risk element when we ask for candidate recommendations
The comparison in results is difficult to make but here are the findings from each survey. Remember the Policy Channel “Send ‘Em a Message” results are not scientific because it is web based with self selecting participants but not random.
The first number is the Ipsos Reid Very Favourable and Somewhat Favourable aggregate percentages.
The second number is the Policy Channel Somewhat Likely, Very Likely and Extremely Likely to Recommend aggregate percentages.
Dinning: 56% 56%
Hancock 40% 65%
Stelmach 39% 43%
Norris 35% 25%
McPherson 30% 20%
Oberg 44% 17%
Morton 34% 13%
Doerksen 28% 19%
Dinning has the same level based on impressions and the likelihood of recommended to friends and family. Hancock and Stelmach are more highly regarded when one risks personal reputation by making a recommendations to friends and family. All other candidates are not as likely to be viewed as favourably when one has to “invest” or “risk” personal reputation through a candidate recommendation.
When the Ipsos Reid’s “Not Very Favourable” and “Not At All Favourable” impressions are aggregated then Oberg, Doerksen and Morton leave bad impressions with the most people, 38%, 36% and 35% respectively. The “best of a bad lot” winners are still Dinning, Stelmach and Hancock with Norris and McPherson in the middle again.
If Albertans start to think seriously about this campaign and about the characters of the people to whom they should grant their consent to be government then we could see a different outcome. Different at least than the conventional media wisdom and pundit wizardry is now suggesting.
Will that happen? The earlier Ipsos Reid poll said only 30% of current card carrying PC’s intended to vote in this selection process. Scary at so many levels. Nobody really knows what is going to happen. Citizens can show up to vote with $5 and a drivers license and decide on the spot who to support.
There is obviously a real potential a high jacking of this leadership selection process by a well organized special interest group if ordinary citizens do not engage. But that is democracy and we always get the government and governors we deserve. The Progressive Conservative brand is at stake here as well...just as it ought to be in a leadership contest.
Next posting will be on strategic voting and what group of candidates going through to the second ballot will be best for Alberta.
Asking who you will vote for is so changeable and volatile and influenced by extraneous and often meaningless influences. Name recognition and recent media coverage can drive impulse answers and not necessarily reflect actual voting behaviours.
Asking favourable or unfavourable impressions generates more reflective, qualitative and evaluative responses about candidates. Not perfect but more informative of what people are “feeling” about candidates.
Our web based Policy Channel Survey “Send ‘Em a Message” asks for a deeper level of your thought about candidates. We ask how likely is it that you would recommend each candidate to friends and family. Now participants are more invested in their answers because they reflect back on themselves not just the candidates. Not perfect either but we get more than impressions and feelings, we introduced a personal reputation risk element when we ask for candidate recommendations
The comparison in results is difficult to make but here are the findings from each survey. Remember the Policy Channel “Send ‘Em a Message” results are not scientific because it is web based with self selecting participants but not random.
The first number is the Ipsos Reid Very Favourable and Somewhat Favourable aggregate percentages.
The second number is the Policy Channel Somewhat Likely, Very Likely and Extremely Likely to Recommend aggregate percentages.
Dinning: 56% 56%
Hancock 40% 65%
Stelmach 39% 43%
Norris 35% 25%
McPherson 30% 20%
Oberg 44% 17%
Morton 34% 13%
Doerksen 28% 19%
Dinning has the same level based on impressions and the likelihood of recommended to friends and family. Hancock and Stelmach are more highly regarded when one risks personal reputation by making a recommendations to friends and family. All other candidates are not as likely to be viewed as favourably when one has to “invest” or “risk” personal reputation through a candidate recommendation.
When the Ipsos Reid’s “Not Very Favourable” and “Not At All Favourable” impressions are aggregated then Oberg, Doerksen and Morton leave bad impressions with the most people, 38%, 36% and 35% respectively. The “best of a bad lot” winners are still Dinning, Stelmach and Hancock with Norris and McPherson in the middle again.
If Albertans start to think seriously about this campaign and about the characters of the people to whom they should grant their consent to be government then we could see a different outcome. Different at least than the conventional media wisdom and pundit wizardry is now suggesting.
Will that happen? The earlier Ipsos Reid poll said only 30% of current card carrying PC’s intended to vote in this selection process. Scary at so many levels. Nobody really knows what is going to happen. Citizens can show up to vote with $5 and a drivers license and decide on the spot who to support.
There is obviously a real potential a high jacking of this leadership selection process by a well organized special interest group if ordinary citizens do not engage. But that is democracy and we always get the government and governors we deserve. The Progressive Conservative brand is at stake here as well...just as it ought to be in a leadership contest.
Next posting will be on strategic voting and what group of candidates going through to the second ballot will be best for Alberta.
Garth Turner Talks Tomorrow!
Garth Turner has scheduled a news conference in Ottawa tomorrow. Lots of media speculation as to what it is about. Here are some excerpts of what he posted yesterday on his Blog:
“Predictably, there’s some speculation about the nature of my media conference in Ottawa on Tuesday. I’m sure a bunch of people are wondering if I’ll be announcing my decision to become a Green or a Liberal, or if the Tories have come to their senses and are begging to take me back.”
“Well, can’t say right now. But the event is important enough to make the trek to Ottawa and back during this week when Parliament’s adjourned and MPs are attending to business in their ridings. I have a few things to say, after receiving three letters on Friday afternoon (amazing coincidence) from three senior Conservative bosses. They affect me, but they also affect you.”
“But let me make this clear before things escalate to a new level. My battle now is not to get back into caucus. That’s done. Nor is it to punish the prime minister or my former colleagues for their actions. I’m just one guy, after all, and they hold the power. What I say matters only if it matters to voters, taxpayers, citizens.”
“On this blog and in this conversation we’ve been having – the one that led to the situation above – I’ve often said I just want to do the right thing. And who better than me? Too stubborn to budge. Too old to be intimidated. Too experienced to be impressed. Too jaded to be tricked. Too arrogant to be scared off. Too self-sufficient to threaten. And now, too pissed to quit.” (emphasis added)
I wonder if he is being bulied too and is standing up to it? Yes – the power of one to really change things! It has happened before and it will happen again? Is it happening now with Garth Turner?
“Predictably, there’s some speculation about the nature of my media conference in Ottawa on Tuesday. I’m sure a bunch of people are wondering if I’ll be announcing my decision to become a Green or a Liberal, or if the Tories have come to their senses and are begging to take me back.”
“Well, can’t say right now. But the event is important enough to make the trek to Ottawa and back during this week when Parliament’s adjourned and MPs are attending to business in their ridings. I have a few things to say, after receiving three letters on Friday afternoon (amazing coincidence) from three senior Conservative bosses. They affect me, but they also affect you.”
“But let me make this clear before things escalate to a new level. My battle now is not to get back into caucus. That’s done. Nor is it to punish the prime minister or my former colleagues for their actions. I’m just one guy, after all, and they hold the power. What I say matters only if it matters to voters, taxpayers, citizens.”
“On this blog and in this conversation we’ve been having – the one that led to the situation above – I’ve often said I just want to do the right thing. And who better than me? Too stubborn to budge. Too old to be intimidated. Too experienced to be impressed. Too jaded to be tricked. Too arrogant to be scared off. Too self-sufficient to threaten. And now, too pissed to quit.” (emphasis added)
I wonder if he is being bulied too and is standing up to it? Yes – the power of one to really change things! It has happened before and it will happen again? Is it happening now with Garth Turner?
Sunday, November 12, 2006
"Send ‘Em a Message Survey Report #3
With tomorrow being a holiday I thought it better to do the survey update report tonight. The order of things has changed a bit and the Environment is still #1 but is pulling away from the pack of the other issues most dramatically. It is #1 with a bullet!
The weighted score of the Environment has moved from 22.80 last week to 27.26 this week. A huge jump that is indicating the increasing concern and commitment of Albertans to the critical needs for government to be addressing the environmental issues around water, land and air.
Guy Boutilier the Minister of the Environment has very little respect in government, industry and ENGO circles. He has just gone against the tide and supported Oberg. He is one of the very last MLAs to make a choice and it shows how politically out of touch the Minister of the Environment is given the disasters that are devastating the Oberg campaign of late. Best update the resume Guy given your disasterous performance in this portfolio.
The #2 issue remains ensuring access to quality and timely health care. The weighted score is down a tad however, from 11.45 last week to 11.10 this week. A small but not insignificant change.
Third spot is the big shift area and Managing Growth has taken over in this slot at a weighted score of 9.97, very close to health care. The fourth spot is the Quality K-12 Education system down from third spot last week but also losing weighted scoring too from 10.04 last week to 8.04 this week – a full 2 point drop.
At the bottom end of the scale as to what survey participants are concerned about as important issue to deal with right away are aboriginal issues at the bottom with a score of 1.27. The next least critical issue is dealing with resource surpluses scoring at 1.50
Performance scores for the Environment improved to only 82% saying it was bad compared to 83% not being impressed last week. Health care ranking has improved slightly with 60% not being impressed, down form 63% last week. The K-12 education rating has improved slightly too a poor rating of 50% from 51% last week. Managing growth is moved up to the #3 issue but the performance ranking is still a terrible 87% negative rating, the same as last week. This is the lowest performance rating of all 15 issues.
Big payoffs for government would be to do something significant in the environment and the management of growth. Lougheed is calling for a slowdown of oil sands projects. Manning is saying we can and need to have solid economic growth and enhanced environmental outcomes at the same time. Both approaches have been resonating but no candidate has picked up those concepts and made them their own in the campaign yet. Curious since that is the secret to winning.
Take the survey - but give yourself about 5 minutes because you will have to do some thinking about what is really important to you.
The weighted score of the Environment has moved from 22.80 last week to 27.26 this week. A huge jump that is indicating the increasing concern and commitment of Albertans to the critical needs for government to be addressing the environmental issues around water, land and air.
Guy Boutilier the Minister of the Environment has very little respect in government, industry and ENGO circles. He has just gone against the tide and supported Oberg. He is one of the very last MLAs to make a choice and it shows how politically out of touch the Minister of the Environment is given the disasters that are devastating the Oberg campaign of late. Best update the resume Guy given your disasterous performance in this portfolio.
The #2 issue remains ensuring access to quality and timely health care. The weighted score is down a tad however, from 11.45 last week to 11.10 this week. A small but not insignificant change.
Third spot is the big shift area and Managing Growth has taken over in this slot at a weighted score of 9.97, very close to health care. The fourth spot is the Quality K-12 Education system down from third spot last week but also losing weighted scoring too from 10.04 last week to 8.04 this week – a full 2 point drop.
At the bottom end of the scale as to what survey participants are concerned about as important issue to deal with right away are aboriginal issues at the bottom with a score of 1.27. The next least critical issue is dealing with resource surpluses scoring at 1.50
Performance scores for the Environment improved to only 82% saying it was bad compared to 83% not being impressed last week. Health care ranking has improved slightly with 60% not being impressed, down form 63% last week. The K-12 education rating has improved slightly too a poor rating of 50% from 51% last week. Managing growth is moved up to the #3 issue but the performance ranking is still a terrible 87% negative rating, the same as last week. This is the lowest performance rating of all 15 issues.
Big payoffs for government would be to do something significant in the environment and the management of growth. Lougheed is calling for a slowdown of oil sands projects. Manning is saying we can and need to have solid economic growth and enhanced environmental outcomes at the same time. Both approaches have been resonating but no candidate has picked up those concepts and made them their own in the campaign yet. Curious since that is the secret to winning.
Take the survey - but give yourself about 5 minutes because you will have to do some thinking about what is really important to you.
What Now is THE Leadership Selection Question
What is next for Alberta? What is the next Alberta going to be all about? The choice of leader/Premier has a profound influence on the answers and outcomes to those key questions. Candidates are vying for attention but who has the right stuff. Who has earned and deserves our respect? Who is most capable to govern not just able to "win" the leadership contest? And ultimately, who is worthy of our individual support and our grant of collective consent to govern us?
You can have a chance to provide your answers and influence the emerging political and policy agenda of the next Premier if you participate in the "Send 'Em A Message" survey. So today, as you "waste" time on-line, no doubt in part to avoid doing the household chores, go to the survey site. Relax and reflect as you do the survey on what you think are the most important priorities and issues for the next Premier.
You will be asked to rate how well our politicians have been performing in key policy areas. Finally you will get to do some personal evaluating of the PC candidates. Not who are you going to vote for or who you think will win, but rather how prepared are you to recommend each candidate to your friends and family.
Who is worthy of your support and what would you say about each of them if asked about their characters, capabilities, experiences and values. Policy is important but the candidates values and character concerns are the real criteria for evaluation for leadership.
Tomorrow I will be posting on the results of the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey on Policy Channel. The activity level on the survey has increased as more people are wanting to get their opinions into the mix.
The survey takes about 5 minutes. Stick with it even though it frustrates you a bit. You will be required to make some hard value choices…the same kind of thing you will expect of your next Premier. So give that new guy the benefit of your input and “Send ’Em a Message.”
Come back here tomorrow afternoon and see the results, trends and shifts from the first 2 weeks of reporting.
You can have a chance to provide your answers and influence the emerging political and policy agenda of the next Premier if you participate in the "Send 'Em A Message" survey. So today, as you "waste" time on-line, no doubt in part to avoid doing the household chores, go to the survey site. Relax and reflect as you do the survey on what you think are the most important priorities and issues for the next Premier.
You will be asked to rate how well our politicians have been performing in key policy areas. Finally you will get to do some personal evaluating of the PC candidates. Not who are you going to vote for or who you think will win, but rather how prepared are you to recommend each candidate to your friends and family.
Who is worthy of your support and what would you say about each of them if asked about their characters, capabilities, experiences and values. Policy is important but the candidates values and character concerns are the real criteria for evaluation for leadership.
Tomorrow I will be posting on the results of the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey on Policy Channel. The activity level on the survey has increased as more people are wanting to get their opinions into the mix.
The survey takes about 5 minutes. Stick with it even though it frustrates you a bit. You will be required to make some hard value choices…the same kind of thing you will expect of your next Premier. So give that new guy the benefit of your input and “Send ’Em a Message.”
Come back here tomorrow afternoon and see the results, trends and shifts from the first 2 weeks of reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)