The recent editorial in the University of Calgary student newspaper The Gauntlet captures the essence of Oberg's unilateral power-based governance style. He is notorious - no pun intended - at over promising and under delivering. Be it resolving the teacher's strike, dealing with the pension issues, twinning hiway 63 to Fort Mc or the preemptive announcement of the misguided Veterinary School at the U of C. The list is virtually endless if you want to do the research.
Alberta has been sending students to Saskatchewan's Vet School for years, helping to keep it viable in part. If there was a new approach needed - why would we not help the U of S do it rather than use our arrogant Alberta bucks to build our own only to beat up on them? The crass personality politics of Dr. Oberg is the answer.
So the great quote from the Gauntlet that captures the governing character of Oberg is:
The original announcement for the vet school came in 2004, during a high-publicity press conference at the Calgary Zoo from then-learning minister Lyle Oberg. The announcement, like so many since, was accompanied by a pledge that funding would be committed so the faculty could open on time. Obviously, it didn't and it won't.
Why? Because there is no glory for a Minister like Oberg in collaboration or consulting colleagues. He made a big promise for the U of C school knowing he could not deliver because he lacked budget approval and the Priorities support from the government. More of the reasons why the Caucus canned him....now he thinks he could lead the same Caucus as their leader? That tells me he is delusional at best.
If he did win on the 1 person 1 vote model, my experience says he would be a brutal ideological dictator if he ever became Premier.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Oberg "Sells" Himself
You gotta love Dr. Oberg’s view of democracy as captured in the cryptic comments of the “Benevolent Dictator” at Renewing the One Party State site. His posting says it all. “Dr. Oberg, it is one thing to lose and election it is another to lose your honour in the process.” The Edmonton Journal story headline captures the essence “Union Oberg backers buying memberships.”
The brain trust at the Alberta Building Trades Council has decided that as “Union Bosses for Oberg” they know best how their members should vote and are reported to be prepared to prepay for $10,000.00 of “free” PC party memberships for union members and have even hired staff to process the program. Gotta admire the efficiency of it all – don’t you?
What is the message here? Suspend your citizenship and do as you are told as a union member! “We a putting up the Five Bucks for you – and therefore you will vote Oberg.” What evidence supports the reports that the Union Boss is saying "Oberg…has been onside with the issues?” Do you think teachers and parents of students would agree?
Don’t ask why this top down directive to suspend independent thought and citizenship is happening. We are told why. The reason is clearly stated in the Journal story as because of someone’s “long standing relationship” with Dr. Oberg.
Who exactly is it that enjoys this “long standing relationship” with the good Doctor, and what is it based on - pray tell! What were the deals and the dealings that set up this “long standing relationship?” Ought we to be looking for “skeletons” as part of our questioning or is that too harsh?
Do the union bosses actually believe that individual members will do as they are told with a one person one vote secret ballot system? Are individual union members pleased that their funds are being spent in this way? Is it clear what benefits they will be getting if they play along in support of this “long standing relationship?”
Since we are selecting a Premier for the entire province as a consequence of this PC leadership campaign, is it unreasonable for the rest of us to ask what promises and preferences are being proffered to whom in exchange for what because of such an "investment" in the Oberg campaign?
I have no problem with groups getting organized to educate and engage members, networks and their spheres of influence and encouraging individual Albertans participation as citizens. What these “players” are doing however is nowhere close to passing the “sniff test” but it is within the financial “rules” of the game, such as they are.
So then it ought to be open to the rest of us to be free to inquire as to surrounding facts and get clarity on some details. We ought to feel free to pass some judgement about the motivation and appropriateness of this approach and its impact on an open and transparent democratic participation process (sic). Is there a "cost" if anyone steps out of line and does not pick up a "free" membership card? What is the consequence if someone steps over the line and openly supports someone other than the "anointed Oberg?"
Are we to surmise from this that we now know what Dr. Oberg’s wholesale price for access to him will be as Premier? Will this be the ante needed to get Oberg interest and engagement- the $10K range – or is that an early-bird special for this group only?
We Albertans need to think long and hard about this, especially the individual members of the various unions who make up the Alberta Building Trades Council. Do we want a PC Party leader and Premier of this province who is only interested in obeying the letter of the law and could give a damn about the spirit of it? Is that the kind society and leadership we want? If so, feel “free” to pick up your “free” membership and forget about the cost to your freedoms of thought, expression and perhaps even of association.
As Dave Hancock’s campaign slogan says, its Your Values, Your Alberta and Your Choice!
The brain trust at the Alberta Building Trades Council has decided that as “Union Bosses for Oberg” they know best how their members should vote and are reported to be prepared to prepay for $10,000.00 of “free” PC party memberships for union members and have even hired staff to process the program. Gotta admire the efficiency of it all – don’t you?
What is the message here? Suspend your citizenship and do as you are told as a union member! “We a putting up the Five Bucks for you – and therefore you will vote Oberg.” What evidence supports the reports that the Union Boss is saying "Oberg…has been onside with the issues?” Do you think teachers and parents of students would agree?
Don’t ask why this top down directive to suspend independent thought and citizenship is happening. We are told why. The reason is clearly stated in the Journal story as because of someone’s “long standing relationship” with Dr. Oberg.
Who exactly is it that enjoys this “long standing relationship” with the good Doctor, and what is it based on - pray tell! What were the deals and the dealings that set up this “long standing relationship?” Ought we to be looking for “skeletons” as part of our questioning or is that too harsh?
Do the union bosses actually believe that individual members will do as they are told with a one person one vote secret ballot system? Are individual union members pleased that their funds are being spent in this way? Is it clear what benefits they will be getting if they play along in support of this “long standing relationship?”
Since we are selecting a Premier for the entire province as a consequence of this PC leadership campaign, is it unreasonable for the rest of us to ask what promises and preferences are being proffered to whom in exchange for what because of such an "investment" in the Oberg campaign?
I have no problem with groups getting organized to educate and engage members, networks and their spheres of influence and encouraging individual Albertans participation as citizens. What these “players” are doing however is nowhere close to passing the “sniff test” but it is within the financial “rules” of the game, such as they are.
So then it ought to be open to the rest of us to be free to inquire as to surrounding facts and get clarity on some details. We ought to feel free to pass some judgement about the motivation and appropriateness of this approach and its impact on an open and transparent democratic participation process (sic). Is there a "cost" if anyone steps out of line and does not pick up a "free" membership card? What is the consequence if someone steps over the line and openly supports someone other than the "anointed Oberg?"
Are we to surmise from this that we now know what Dr. Oberg’s wholesale price for access to him will be as Premier? Will this be the ante needed to get Oberg interest and engagement- the $10K range – or is that an early-bird special for this group only?
We Albertans need to think long and hard about this, especially the individual members of the various unions who make up the Alberta Building Trades Council. Do we want a PC Party leader and Premier of this province who is only interested in obeying the letter of the law and could give a damn about the spirit of it? Is that the kind society and leadership we want? If so, feel “free” to pick up your “free” membership and forget about the cost to your freedoms of thought, expression and perhaps even of association.
As Dave Hancock’s campaign slogan says, its Your Values, Your Alberta and Your Choice!
A Globe and Mail Conspiracy?
I am not big on conspiracy theories. However sometimes you gotta wonder. I got a Google Search result late last night on the Globe and Mail story on the Hancock Policy Platform Launch yesterday.
This morning I get emails from across the country from friends and clients on the great platform launch and the quality of the media coverage - in particular the reference to the Globe and Mail Hancock piece. I go to my "ALBERTA EDITION," faithfully delivered to my door in Edmonton as usual - and the story is not there!
"What gives," I ask myself? How could the rest of Canada be reading about Hancock's positions and policies as a candidate for PC Leadership and Premier of the province and Albertans not be given the story?
Why is it people, outside of Alberta, who can't even participate in this election - except to give money to Dinning and Morton - get to read about the Hancock Platform and positions YET Albertans who can participate are not even given access to the story in the "Alberta Edition." Am I naive in presuming an Alberta Edition is an Alberta focus from "Canada's National Newspaper?"
Conspiracy? You can draw your own conclusions. But if you are interested in the story - here it is! I think it is a pretty good story.
This morning I get emails from across the country from friends and clients on the great platform launch and the quality of the media coverage - in particular the reference to the Globe and Mail Hancock piece. I go to my "ALBERTA EDITION," faithfully delivered to my door in Edmonton as usual - and the story is not there!
"What gives," I ask myself? How could the rest of Canada be reading about Hancock's positions and policies as a candidate for PC Leadership and Premier of the province and Albertans not be given the story?
Why is it people, outside of Alberta, who can't even participate in this election - except to give money to Dinning and Morton - get to read about the Hancock Platform and positions YET Albertans who can participate are not even given access to the story in the "Alberta Edition." Am I naive in presuming an Alberta Edition is an Alberta focus from "Canada's National Newspaper?"
Conspiracy? You can draw your own conclusions. But if you are interested in the story - here it is! I think it is a pretty good story.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Hancock's Policy Platform is Out!
So the Hancock Platform is out and he has a new updated website. Same address http://www.davehancock.ca/ but a new look and feel and more content. All the platform content is there and video of his speeches will be up tonight sometime. Hancock’s positioning is education, environment and innovation.
He is personally the PROGRESSIVE conservative candidate and hugely differentiated from Oberg and Morton in that regard. He has the most party, political and policy depth of any candidate given his 35 years experience starting out as a youth organizer and volunteer, to party president to politician. Hancock has seen it all. And has done it all.
He is a progressive because he believes that government has a positive role in bettering people’s lives “regardless of situation or circumstance.” He is conservative because he knows the responsibility to get value for taxpayer dollars. Conservation values underscore his sense of the environment. He is big on individual responsibility – also part of his conservative nature.
His environment focus is about enhanced stewardship and conservation. His innovation focus is about a diversified value added technologically strong competative economy. His education focus is about a competent and adaptive learning society. He is big on putting more back into Alberta than we take out – for the benefit of today and future generations. He sees the economy and the environment as interrelated and integrated not mutually exclusive competing interests.
His progressive and conservative focus is on enabling self reliant confident people who are able to take care of themselves, their families and to contribute to their community. Dave is big on values like caring, fairness, community, diversity and inclusiveness. He said in his platform speech: "Alberta has been good to us. It is time we were good to Alberta."
He takes a big picture, long term, strategic approach in his governing style and he is definitely future focused. He bemoans the excessive time spend by government of late, admiring the end of debt and deficit. He says “Alberta has been moving ahead by looking in the rear view mirror…and not…looking towards the future nearly enough.”
The consequences have been a lack of attention to social and infrastructure deficits. He is emphatic – contrary to Klein’s recent declarations - there is a plan. He said he knows there is a plan - because he wrote it…the 20 Strategic Plan for Alberta to be exact.
The government has been on cruise control so long they did not seem care where they were going, how much “gas” it was taking - or wasting - to get "there." The people in political control have spent the last 7 or 8 years – since the debt dragon was actually destroyed – just basking in their past glory.
They we disinterested in looking down the road - and when they did – their attention did not stretch much past the hood ornament. They were disengaged and unconcerned that our destination was unclear – and that the journey seemed so unintentional.
And who cared if we were even on the right road? Does it matter if we don’t have a clear destination? Success for government was to stay between the ditches. That’s all! And that has had damaging affects on optimizing Alberta’s future. That "lazy - faire" attitude is what caused Premier Klein to get such tepid party support at the convention last April 1.
Education the environment and innovation – make for an interesting politician to my mind. Hancock is smart but he is also a wise man with real life experiences. He has superior character qualities and proven capabilities. He is not your media darling or your power broker political player. He actually believes in the concept of leader- servant. Would be a refreshing change…no doubt that we need a change.
He is personally the PROGRESSIVE conservative candidate and hugely differentiated from Oberg and Morton in that regard. He has the most party, political and policy depth of any candidate given his 35 years experience starting out as a youth organizer and volunteer, to party president to politician. Hancock has seen it all. And has done it all.
He is a progressive because he believes that government has a positive role in bettering people’s lives “regardless of situation or circumstance.” He is conservative because he knows the responsibility to get value for taxpayer dollars. Conservation values underscore his sense of the environment. He is big on individual responsibility – also part of his conservative nature.
His environment focus is about enhanced stewardship and conservation. His innovation focus is about a diversified value added technologically strong competative economy. His education focus is about a competent and adaptive learning society. He is big on putting more back into Alberta than we take out – for the benefit of today and future generations. He sees the economy and the environment as interrelated and integrated not mutually exclusive competing interests.
His progressive and conservative focus is on enabling self reliant confident people who are able to take care of themselves, their families and to contribute to their community. Dave is big on values like caring, fairness, community, diversity and inclusiveness. He said in his platform speech: "Alberta has been good to us. It is time we were good to Alberta."
He takes a big picture, long term, strategic approach in his governing style and he is definitely future focused. He bemoans the excessive time spend by government of late, admiring the end of debt and deficit. He says “Alberta has been moving ahead by looking in the rear view mirror…and not…looking towards the future nearly enough.”
The consequences have been a lack of attention to social and infrastructure deficits. He is emphatic – contrary to Klein’s recent declarations - there is a plan. He said he knows there is a plan - because he wrote it…the 20 Strategic Plan for Alberta to be exact.
The government has been on cruise control so long they did not seem care where they were going, how much “gas” it was taking - or wasting - to get "there." The people in political control have spent the last 7 or 8 years – since the debt dragon was actually destroyed – just basking in their past glory.
They we disinterested in looking down the road - and when they did – their attention did not stretch much past the hood ornament. They were disengaged and unconcerned that our destination was unclear – and that the journey seemed so unintentional.
And who cared if we were even on the right road? Does it matter if we don’t have a clear destination? Success for government was to stay between the ditches. That’s all! And that has had damaging affects on optimizing Alberta’s future. That "lazy - faire" attitude is what caused Premier Klein to get such tepid party support at the convention last April 1.
Education the environment and innovation – make for an interesting politician to my mind. Hancock is smart but he is also a wise man with real life experiences. He has superior character qualities and proven capabilities. He is not your media darling or your power broker political player. He actually believes in the concept of leader- servant. Would be a refreshing change…no doubt that we need a change.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Canada Day Musing on the Consent To Be Governed
In light of the previous Post on the CPC nomination going to Court, I thought this piece I wrote on Canada Day 2004 for The Policy Channel has some context to bring to the stuff that is still ticking me off about politics.
CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED July 1, 2004
A few years ago I found myself at a Montreal crosswalk waiting for the light to change. Former Prime Minister Trudeau was beside me. We were headed the same direction, and as a westerner that irony was not lost on me. I opened a conversation on the weather. For the next few blocks we had a most animated, engaging and wide-ranging chat on many matters Canadian. We shared observations, insights, understandings and our different perspective as we ambled down the street and through the topics. Eventually our courses diverted but before we parted he turned to me, and asked "Should I know you?" My reply was with a wry smile: "Yes you should, I am a citizen." With a twinkle in his eye he smiled and said, "Yes, I suppose I should."
On Canada Day this Trudeau moment came back to me, reaffirming my expectations the political system ought to be working for citizens, not the other way around. The politicians should know more about real issues, not through obscure theory or marketing manipulation. Instead voters seem to be mere target markets in a shallow competition between various party/leadership brands. Through voting we actually decide to delegate a significant role over many important parts of our lives. This delegation of authority, through the ballot box, is the basic democratic expression of a citizen's decision to give one's consent to be governed.
The June 28th (2004) minority government election results were very much an expression of the collective mood of Canadians. We sent a clear message to our governors about how we felt about all partisan offerings. Many citizens knew the political system was taking us for granted. In choosing a strong minority government we have effectively reserved, for now, our consent to be governed. We were angry at the Liberals for indifference and arrogance and wanted to punish them. We wanted to cautiously encourage the "New" Conservatives but were not disposed to give them real power until we knew more about them. The NDP were more interesting and engaging this election but were not yet ready for prime time. The Bloc was getting a free ride on anti-Liberal sentiments in Quebec. The Greens were getting serious attention on merit as well as being a safe place to park a protest vote. This election results actually gave the Green Party a seat at the "big kid's political table" and some serious sympathy over their exclusion from the television debates.
The engaged voter was volatile, angry and, in the end, pragmatic. Politicians and parties of all persuasions had long ago lost the citizen's benefit of the doubt. This election accentuated a prevailing, growing and serious skepticism that our governors were no longer acting in the best interest of the citizens. Leaders, parties and politicians, of all stripes, were losing our trust.
The minority government was our collective response to these predominantly pessimistic perceptions. Many of our other institutions have also been testing our patience and breaching our public trust as well. There seems to be a never ending series of scandal involving deceit, manipulation, abuse and blatant lies. Such concerns involve too many of our leaders, our corporations, our churches and even the media. Institutional malfeasance is a growing concern amongst engaged, thinking and voting citizen.
Perhaps this election we were ready to take it out on our politicians and to make them the medium to vent our resentment about such abuses. Who said politics was fair?For many the ballot question was not who to vote for but rather who to vote against. The negative, inappropriately personal snipping and small-minded nasty campaigns of all the leading parties turned us off. The superfluity of polling results, mostly with statistically insignificant distinctions became a dominant but meaningless media story. Other media preoccupations were centered on what party strategy was working, or not, and what "gaffes" were being made.
Traction and momentum are important to campaigns but not to Canadians looking for leadership and a vision for the future. Little of this campaign focused on the big issues facing Canada or Canadians. When it did, it perpetuated negativity and mostly offered fear factor rhetoric. No campaign took, or had the time, to explain their policy ideas or to clarify their platform positions. The consequence was an intentional minority government.
Canadians have spoken clearly about their political expectations. We want more collaboration and cooperation from and amongst our all of our democratic institutions. With this minority we have given all of the parties a provisional chance to work more effectively together to re-earn our trust and respect. We expect them to find creative ways to work out policy differences, to do so more amicably and in a broader public interest. Every party needs to think very carefully before taking any action or inaction that would result in Canadians going back to the polls too soon.
Canadians are clearly not in a mood to be ignored, trifled with or manipulated. Remember, we are expecting you to govern us with a collective wisdom, not with a pooled ignorance.
CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED July 1, 2004
A few years ago I found myself at a Montreal crosswalk waiting for the light to change. Former Prime Minister Trudeau was beside me. We were headed the same direction, and as a westerner that irony was not lost on me. I opened a conversation on the weather. For the next few blocks we had a most animated, engaging and wide-ranging chat on many matters Canadian. We shared observations, insights, understandings and our different perspective as we ambled down the street and through the topics. Eventually our courses diverted but before we parted he turned to me, and asked "Should I know you?" My reply was with a wry smile: "Yes you should, I am a citizen." With a twinkle in his eye he smiled and said, "Yes, I suppose I should."
On Canada Day this Trudeau moment came back to me, reaffirming my expectations the political system ought to be working for citizens, not the other way around. The politicians should know more about real issues, not through obscure theory or marketing manipulation. Instead voters seem to be mere target markets in a shallow competition between various party/leadership brands. Through voting we actually decide to delegate a significant role over many important parts of our lives. This delegation of authority, through the ballot box, is the basic democratic expression of a citizen's decision to give one's consent to be governed.
The June 28th (2004) minority government election results were very much an expression of the collective mood of Canadians. We sent a clear message to our governors about how we felt about all partisan offerings. Many citizens knew the political system was taking us for granted. In choosing a strong minority government we have effectively reserved, for now, our consent to be governed. We were angry at the Liberals for indifference and arrogance and wanted to punish them. We wanted to cautiously encourage the "New" Conservatives but were not disposed to give them real power until we knew more about them. The NDP were more interesting and engaging this election but were not yet ready for prime time. The Bloc was getting a free ride on anti-Liberal sentiments in Quebec. The Greens were getting serious attention on merit as well as being a safe place to park a protest vote. This election results actually gave the Green Party a seat at the "big kid's political table" and some serious sympathy over their exclusion from the television debates.
The engaged voter was volatile, angry and, in the end, pragmatic. Politicians and parties of all persuasions had long ago lost the citizen's benefit of the doubt. This election accentuated a prevailing, growing and serious skepticism that our governors were no longer acting in the best interest of the citizens. Leaders, parties and politicians, of all stripes, were losing our trust.
The minority government was our collective response to these predominantly pessimistic perceptions. Many of our other institutions have also been testing our patience and breaching our public trust as well. There seems to be a never ending series of scandal involving deceit, manipulation, abuse and blatant lies. Such concerns involve too many of our leaders, our corporations, our churches and even the media. Institutional malfeasance is a growing concern amongst engaged, thinking and voting citizen.
Perhaps this election we were ready to take it out on our politicians and to make them the medium to vent our resentment about such abuses. Who said politics was fair?For many the ballot question was not who to vote for but rather who to vote against. The negative, inappropriately personal snipping and small-minded nasty campaigns of all the leading parties turned us off. The superfluity of polling results, mostly with statistically insignificant distinctions became a dominant but meaningless media story. Other media preoccupations were centered on what party strategy was working, or not, and what "gaffes" were being made.
Traction and momentum are important to campaigns but not to Canadians looking for leadership and a vision for the future. Little of this campaign focused on the big issues facing Canada or Canadians. When it did, it perpetuated negativity and mostly offered fear factor rhetoric. No campaign took, or had the time, to explain their policy ideas or to clarify their platform positions. The consequence was an intentional minority government.
Canadians have spoken clearly about their political expectations. We want more collaboration and cooperation from and amongst our all of our democratic institutions. With this minority we have given all of the parties a provisional chance to work more effectively together to re-earn our trust and respect. We expect them to find creative ways to work out policy differences, to do so more amicably and in a broader public interest. Every party needs to think very carefully before taking any action or inaction that would result in Canadians going back to the polls too soon.
Canadians are clearly not in a mood to be ignored, trifled with or manipulated. Remember, we are expecting you to govern us with a collective wisdom, not with a pooled ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)