Paul McLoughlin from the Alberta Scan newsletter has an interesting take on the September 12th PC Leadership Forum. This audio clip from CBC Radio in Calgary is worth a listen. Paul is one of the more astute political media commentators in my opinion. It is nine minutes long so be forewarned. Hyperactive blog readers may get a bit fidgety being mouse-passive that long. Paul's insights are worth it.
Nicole Martel - one of my favorite Liberals - has been checking out my suspicion about Calgary Mayor Bronconnier's provincial political ambitions. I mentioned this idea in an earlier posting about an Oberg-Bronconnier alliance I think they have formed to undermine Dinning's overwhelming support in Calgary. Nic has apparently uncovered some affirmative rumblings consisting with my suggestion. She may be moving her perception about my Bronconnier proposal from "hypothetical" to "mildly curious." Time will tell.
The mainline and blogosphere media consensus today seems to be that Jim Dinning's performance last night did not justify his reputation as the front runner. Jim has recently said that "positioning" has been media made and is not necessarily justified. The fact remains that Jim is the front runner. A number of opinion polls have place him in the lead but not that far ahead inspite of the last two months of intensive Dinning focused media coverage.
Today's media reporting, pundit and blog chatter confirms Jim's self assessment...and his advice not to presume he is way ahead in this thing. I agree with Jim...he may be way ahead in cash and MLA commitments but this is far from over. He is clearly ahead but not so far that he can't be caught. Campaigns matter and this one has barely started. The "dogs" have all just been shown the rabbit and they are just now starting to run - and we can expect all of them will be picking up speed.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Candidate Consensus to Solve Teacher Pension Issue
I made a mistake in the entry below. In fact Dr. Oberg's UPL proposal on the teacher's unfunded pension liability did not include a "total wage freeze" for a decade. What he proposed was that teachers accept the same compensation adjustments as MLAs receive. That provides for an automatic increase every year based on the average of the total wage and salary increases of all working Albertans.
Sorry for the mistake. The correct information was sent to me from the teacher side of the issue.
The answer to a question from the floor at last nights PC Forum was surprising to me. There was almost full candidate consensus that the outstanding teacher’s unfunded pension liability (UPL) was still a debt of the province and it had to be addressed.
Some candidates were vaguer than others on how they would tackle the issues but there was still a broad consensus that it is an outstanding issue that must be dealt with. Gary McPherson said it best…”I guess the province is not yet out of debt.”
Oberg said last night that he offered a solution “years ago but it was rejected” - by both Caucus and the teachers, I might add. Oberg was dealing with the UPL at the time of 2002 teacher’s strike – which he caused by the way. What he proposed then was the province pick up the UPL if the teachers would agree to a total wage freeze and not have the right to strike for 10 years. The impracticality of that was evident to the Caucus and the teachers. Just look how much Alberta’s labour situation has changed in the past 4 years.
If we use his scheme, with frozen wages and no contract negotiations for a decade for teacher’s and their pay does not stay competitive they leave the profession and maybe even leave the province. What is worse Oberg’s policy straight-jacket discourages young people from even entering the profession. And Oberg wants to freeze the wages of every teacher in Alberta for an entire decade and ensure they have no other contract negotiations either. Our teacher population is aging and we need all the new blood and continuing talent we can attract and keep in this profession. That is vital to realizing the province’s future potential. What Dr. Oberg is suggesting is neither smart politics nor a strategic policy initiative– especially in a booming and growing province like Alberta – especially now that we are also experiencing a growing baby boom.
We need a new Premier who gets the big picture, who thinks systemically past the next election cycle and can see beyond his nose. Education is emerging as one of the leading issues in the PC leadership race. It is pretty obvious the Oberg “dog” of a proposal for solving the teacher’s UPL just won’t hunt. Nevertheless Oberg says he will try it again. Caucus has recently kicked him out and I don’t think the teachers attitudes towards Oberg have softened since 2002. Given his past, he is clearly not the right guy to be solving anything to do with the future education – including the teacher’s unfunded pension liability issues.
Jim Dinning also responded to the teacher pension issues. He was the candidate with the most significantly different perspective on the issue. He said he knew teachers saw the unfunded pension liability issue “as a problem but he was not sure as Premier that is where he would put $6B." To be sure $6B is a big number. Strange reaction though I thought, especially from a proven and competent former Provincial Treasurer. Dinning undoubtedly understands that if we don’t deal with it now the liability balloons over time to over $46B. Isn’t an ounce of prudent prevention still worth a pound of painful cure in a fiscally conservative world?
If we merely designated a part of the Heritage Fund and use that investment revenue we solve the problem. Isn’t the Heritage Fund all about helping to meet the future needs of the province? Isn’t the unfunded pension liability all about the future needs of the province? How hard is that?
Sorry for the mistake. The correct information was sent to me from the teacher side of the issue.
The answer to a question from the floor at last nights PC Forum was surprising to me. There was almost full candidate consensus that the outstanding teacher’s unfunded pension liability (UPL) was still a debt of the province and it had to be addressed.
Some candidates were vaguer than others on how they would tackle the issues but there was still a broad consensus that it is an outstanding issue that must be dealt with. Gary McPherson said it best…”I guess the province is not yet out of debt.”
Oberg said last night that he offered a solution “years ago but it was rejected” - by both Caucus and the teachers, I might add. Oberg was dealing with the UPL at the time of 2002 teacher’s strike – which he caused by the way. What he proposed then was the province pick up the UPL if the teachers would agree to a total wage freeze and not have the right to strike for 10 years. The impracticality of that was evident to the Caucus and the teachers. Just look how much Alberta’s labour situation has changed in the past 4 years.
If we use his scheme, with frozen wages and no contract negotiations for a decade for teacher’s and their pay does not stay competitive they leave the profession and maybe even leave the province. What is worse Oberg’s policy straight-jacket discourages young people from even entering the profession. And Oberg wants to freeze the wages of every teacher in Alberta for an entire decade and ensure they have no other contract negotiations either. Our teacher population is aging and we need all the new blood and continuing talent we can attract and keep in this profession. That is vital to realizing the province’s future potential. What Dr. Oberg is suggesting is neither smart politics nor a strategic policy initiative– especially in a booming and growing province like Alberta – especially now that we are also experiencing a growing baby boom.
We need a new Premier who gets the big picture, who thinks systemically past the next election cycle and can see beyond his nose. Education is emerging as one of the leading issues in the PC leadership race. It is pretty obvious the Oberg “dog” of a proposal for solving the teacher’s UPL just won’t hunt. Nevertheless Oberg says he will try it again. Caucus has recently kicked him out and I don’t think the teachers attitudes towards Oberg have softened since 2002. Given his past, he is clearly not the right guy to be solving anything to do with the future education – including the teacher’s unfunded pension liability issues.
Jim Dinning also responded to the teacher pension issues. He was the candidate with the most significantly different perspective on the issue. He said he knew teachers saw the unfunded pension liability issue “as a problem but he was not sure as Premier that is where he would put $6B." To be sure $6B is a big number. Strange reaction though I thought, especially from a proven and competent former Provincial Treasurer. Dinning undoubtedly understands that if we don’t deal with it now the liability balloons over time to over $46B. Isn’t an ounce of prudent prevention still worth a pound of painful cure in a fiscally conservative world?
If we merely designated a part of the Heritage Fund and use that investment revenue we solve the problem. Isn’t the Heritage Fund all about helping to meet the future needs of the province? Isn’t the unfunded pension liability all about the future needs of the province? How hard is that?
Hancock and Morton Draw Battle Lines
Last night at the PC Leadership Forum drew a big crowd and a clear distinction between the Hancock and Morton world views. The difference is not as simple as Red Tory versus Blue Tory. It is more complex and turns more on how differently they each see the roles and responsibility of government and styles of governance.
It was never clearer than during their comments on crime. Former Justice Minister Dave Hancock says government can’t ignore the root causes of crime like drug addiction, poverty and mental health and believes they have to be dealt with as part of a modern crime policy. Ted Morton says who cares about root causes. His government would only deal with punishment and consequences of crime – full stop.
Morton says if “Klein says there is no plan – then there is no plan” and he bemoans the fact. Hancock says there is a plan and points to the 20 Year Strategic Plan for Alberta which he wrote and cabinet accepted. It is now being used by the government as the framework for future planning.
Morton wants to isolate Alberta behind a firewall from the rest of Canada. He laments that “Albertans sent $15B in income taxes to Ottawa last year” and says “Alberta will never be able to build the schools and hospitals it needs if it keeps sending its money to central Canada.” Hancock says we need to show how the growing wealth of Alberta benefits the entire country and we should be finding ways Alberta can exert more influence and show some national leadership.
Character counts in making candidate choices. Morton must be brought to task. He misleads us in how he frames the fed-prov taxation issue. Individual Albertans and our corporations pay the federal income tax. The provincial government’s tax and royalty money does not go to the federal government - as he implies. Hospitals and schools are a provincial responsibility. The federal income taxes Albertans pay as Canadians does not impede the province of Alberta’s capacity, in any way, to meet these responsibilities.
Albertans make more money than other Canadians and therefore we pay relatively more federal taxes. Duh! Klein, you may recall, once took the same fed bashing position, claiming individual taxes paid by Albertans to Canada was therefore money not available to meet local provincial needs. He was roundly chastised in the media and accused of being either woefully ignorant on the issue or badly briefed.
Dr. Morton is a knowledgeable and respected political scientist. Fed bashing is good sport and sometimes necessary. It ought to be done however, with some intellectual integrity. Morton’s postulating misses both the factual and intellectual integrity mark. His fed bashing misdirects and misleads us - and he knows better.
Hancock and Morton are offering Albertans clear choices about the future of the province. That should generate some serious interest and engagement amongst citizens in this leadership campaign. Remember you are selecting more than a party leader. You are selecting a Premier.
It was never clearer than during their comments on crime. Former Justice Minister Dave Hancock says government can’t ignore the root causes of crime like drug addiction, poverty and mental health and believes they have to be dealt with as part of a modern crime policy. Ted Morton says who cares about root causes. His government would only deal with punishment and consequences of crime – full stop.
Morton says if “Klein says there is no plan – then there is no plan” and he bemoans the fact. Hancock says there is a plan and points to the 20 Year Strategic Plan for Alberta which he wrote and cabinet accepted. It is now being used by the government as the framework for future planning.
Morton wants to isolate Alberta behind a firewall from the rest of Canada. He laments that “Albertans sent $15B in income taxes to Ottawa last year” and says “Alberta will never be able to build the schools and hospitals it needs if it keeps sending its money to central Canada.” Hancock says we need to show how the growing wealth of Alberta benefits the entire country and we should be finding ways Alberta can exert more influence and show some national leadership.
Character counts in making candidate choices. Morton must be brought to task. He misleads us in how he frames the fed-prov taxation issue. Individual Albertans and our corporations pay the federal income tax. The provincial government’s tax and royalty money does not go to the federal government - as he implies. Hospitals and schools are a provincial responsibility. The federal income taxes Albertans pay as Canadians does not impede the province of Alberta’s capacity, in any way, to meet these responsibilities.
Albertans make more money than other Canadians and therefore we pay relatively more federal taxes. Duh! Klein, you may recall, once took the same fed bashing position, claiming individual taxes paid by Albertans to Canada was therefore money not available to meet local provincial needs. He was roundly chastised in the media and accused of being either woefully ignorant on the issue or badly briefed.
Dr. Morton is a knowledgeable and respected political scientist. Fed bashing is good sport and sometimes necessary. It ought to be done however, with some intellectual integrity. Morton’s postulating misses both the factual and intellectual integrity mark. His fed bashing misdirects and misleads us - and he knows better.
Hancock and Morton are offering Albertans clear choices about the future of the province. That should generate some serious interest and engagement amongst citizens in this leadership campaign. Remember you are selecting more than a party leader. You are selecting a Premier.
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Devil is in the Dynamics
There was another Ipsos Reid poll on the PC Leadership done for the Calgary Herald last week. Bloggers like Daveberta are “having at it” now.
Most of the comments on the poll results are valid but there is more to consider in any results analysis. For example the poll does not ask respondents if they are PC party members or if they intend to become one. William McBeath of the Morton campaign correctly comments on Daveberta saying who cares what non-party members say – they will not be making the final choices.
True enough but these results still have some inherent strategic value. One of the big ballot questions for PC members will about the elect-ability of the next leader. Ipsos Reid gives us some indication of the candidate elect-ability perceptions of Albertans. They do not predict by show some relative candidate preferences and perceptions.
To the public, this leadership campaign is just starting and we know campaigns do make a difference. Look at the changes in public perceptions between the “scary” Harper of 2004 vs. the 2006 guy who was seen worthy of taking a chance on. Mulroney lead the federal PC to largest majority in the history of the country and left a party able to retrain only two seats one election later. The last provincial election saw tens of thousands of PC supporters stay home and about 70,000 others voter for the Alliance Party. Campaigns matter. In election campaigns the devil is in the dynamics as much as the details
We can glean of some possible voter dynamics by comparing the two related Ipsos Reid polls of September 6 and June 23, 2006. Let’s look at the front runners and some of the results differences from both polls. The first number for each candidate is for September then June and the difference.
Favourables:
Dinning 54% 54% 0
Oberg 48% 48% 0
Hancock 44% 39% +5%
Who would do the Best Job as Premier?
Dinning 26% 28% -2
Oberg 21% 23% -2
Hancock 06% 09% -3
None of the Above
Or Don’t Know 29% 27% +2
The “best job” candidate confidence level actually falls for all three of the top choices and the uncertainty level grows to exceed any one candidate. Dinning and Oberg have been in the media virtually every day between June and September but show no growth in favourable perceptions. Hancock has been comparatively invisible in the media by comparison but his favourable perceptions jump 5 points.
One has to ask if all the hype, media fawning and big money of Dinning and Oberg are doing them any good. Apparently, not comparing these results! But two poll results do not make a trend line obviously. We know the Alberta voter is grumpy and potentially very volatile. They can, and do, turn quickly and can change dramatically. Look at the last Edmonton civic election when the distant third place long shot, Stephen Mandel come out winning handily against the two presumptive front runners. We can’t predict a damn thing on these current polls results. We can sense that change is in the air, campaigns matter - and this campaign is far from over.
Most of the comments on the poll results are valid but there is more to consider in any results analysis. For example the poll does not ask respondents if they are PC party members or if they intend to become one. William McBeath of the Morton campaign correctly comments on Daveberta saying who cares what non-party members say – they will not be making the final choices.
True enough but these results still have some inherent strategic value. One of the big ballot questions for PC members will about the elect-ability of the next leader. Ipsos Reid gives us some indication of the candidate elect-ability perceptions of Albertans. They do not predict by show some relative candidate preferences and perceptions.
To the public, this leadership campaign is just starting and we know campaigns do make a difference. Look at the changes in public perceptions between the “scary” Harper of 2004 vs. the 2006 guy who was seen worthy of taking a chance on. Mulroney lead the federal PC to largest majority in the history of the country and left a party able to retrain only two seats one election later. The last provincial election saw tens of thousands of PC supporters stay home and about 70,000 others voter for the Alliance Party. Campaigns matter. In election campaigns the devil is in the dynamics as much as the details
We can glean of some possible voter dynamics by comparing the two related Ipsos Reid polls of September 6 and June 23, 2006. Let’s look at the front runners and some of the results differences from both polls. The first number for each candidate is for September then June and the difference.
Favourables:
Dinning 54% 54% 0
Oberg 48% 48% 0
Hancock 44% 39% +5%
Who would do the Best Job as Premier?
Dinning 26% 28% -2
Oberg 21% 23% -2
Hancock 06% 09% -3
None of the Above
Or Don’t Know 29% 27% +2
The “best job” candidate confidence level actually falls for all three of the top choices and the uncertainty level grows to exceed any one candidate. Dinning and Oberg have been in the media virtually every day between June and September but show no growth in favourable perceptions. Hancock has been comparatively invisible in the media by comparison but his favourable perceptions jump 5 points.
One has to ask if all the hype, media fawning and big money of Dinning and Oberg are doing them any good. Apparently, not comparing these results! But two poll results do not make a trend line obviously. We know the Alberta voter is grumpy and potentially very volatile. They can, and do, turn quickly and can change dramatically. Look at the last Edmonton civic election when the distant third place long shot, Stephen Mandel come out winning handily against the two presumptive front runners. We can’t predict a damn thing on these current polls results. We can sense that change is in the air, campaigns matter - and this campaign is far from over.
Remembering 911
This has some very sobering pictures about 911 and it is worth watching. It takes a few minutes so don't start it unless you have about 10 minutes to reflect.
I picked this up off of Conservative MP - Garth Truner's site tonight - remembering today is the 5th anniversary of 911 - do you remember where you where that day?
I picked this up off of Conservative MP - Garth Truner's site tonight - remembering today is the 5th anniversary of 911 - do you remember where you where that day?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)