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.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)