Just looked at the GrassRootsAvenger blog comments on the Hancock policy platform. He/She bemoans the fact Hancock poses questions and presumably does not offer enough answers. Fair enough and to the Avengers credit, some comments are posted to some of the questions they have on the Hancock policy. I would like to respond from my perspective on the answers...and I will check with Dave Hancock to see if his positions are different and report back if necessary.
Expanding school breakfast and lunch programs wherever needed; Is this a role for the provincial government?
Yes! Children are the responsibility of parents first and then each and every Albertan, individually and collectively where needed. Where a child is not able to realize their potential or is in danger or is hungry - we as a society ought to be helping to fix the problem...short term and long term. Feeding children in need is a no-brainer! If kids are not ready to learn and grow into healthy, productive, confident and self-reliant citizens because they are hungry, or scared, in need or at risk for whatever reason...society needs to step up to the plate. That, in part, is why we have government!
Implementing strategy to create 60,000 new post-secondary learning spaces; And just how much is this going to cost?
Plenty and worth every dollar! Education is the key to a prosperous productive and cohesive society especially in the knowledge based, technologically driven globalized reality of today. To not maximize our greatest assets - our human capacity is not just short sighted...it is stupid! Besides this is already official GOA policy - but like so many such "decision" of recent - it is not being implemented. Investment - the long view and strategic planning is what this is all about. The Alberta Republicans seem to know the cost of everything and the value of not very much.
Discontinuing Alberta Health Care Premiums and offering tax incentives for healthy lifestyle choices; Like Dinning's proposed tax on junkfood?
Not really! Dinning's junkfood tax is not likely to change much of the behaviours of those who are being harmed by poor nutrition - the poor! His tax is actually going to penalize and hurt poorer people disproportionately because research shows they are more likely to buy cheap, convenient but unhealthy fast food. Hancock is suggesting an incentive system to reward positive changes in behaviours that will reduce demands on the health care system. Fresh carrots not stale sticks!
Instituting a province wide ban on smoking in all public places; What about personal freedom?
What about personal freedom -it is not absolute. It is proven that your second hand smoke puts my life in danger. Smoke on your own property and not where children are around either. Consider it your "personal property" right to kill yourself on your own property and on your own time. By the way I will be paying your health care costs - even heroic ineffective interventions to extend your life through technology with my tax dollars to keep you alive. I will also be paying for your cancer treatments all because you lack the personal responsibility to take care of yourself. Thx a bunch! What about my personal freedom to chose not to pay for your irresponsible behaviour? Why not take individual responsibility here. You smoke you pay your own health costs. That is some two tier medicine that I could "live" with but will gladly forfeit the tax savings for a universal system - even if smokers are abusing it.
Instituting a government-run liability program for the volunteer sector; Whoa! Doesn't this mean taking on some huge potential liability...Isn't this expanding the role of government further into the private realm?
Yes and yes! If we do not support volunteer organizations to ensure safety and security of the people they serve - often our most vulnerable citizens. We neet to protect the volunteers too from abuse, unfounded litigation or allegations. Otherwise they will disappear along with the entire not-for-profit sector. Then government will end up hiring staff to do the work - because the issues and problems will not go away. Government replacement programs will be much more expensive and less likely to get optimal results as well. The private sector insurers are boosting rates in the face of greater perceived risks because the volunteer sector cannot afford to screen volunteers now. We are seeing more claims so the solution is more and better screening, more training and a backstop on liability insurance. We do co-insurance for workers compensation - why not the not-for-profit and voluntary sector?
The responses from The Grassroots Avenger are classic old-style shallow short term and narrow fiscal conservative thinking about reducing taxes and government's role. To them it is all about the costs and rarely about the value of effective outcomes. PROGRESSIVE conservatives see both sides - value for tax money and a postive role for government to step in but only where individuals and markets can't do the job.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Politics and the 18-35 Age Group
Canada West Foundation is about to release a report on the political attitudes of western Canadians 18-35 year olds. The report surveyed 2000 people across the west and is being released on Thursday October 19.
I have had a chance to read an advance copy and can tell you it dispels some myths about youth voting. It also confirms some issues and values preference differences between this group and the dominant over 35 age sector.
One eye-popping finding is that Under 35s also do not relate to political parties or election campaigns. What would it take to get them to participate? We know people do not vote on issues as much as their sense of identity. After all politicians in power do an awful lot in "our names" justifing actions in term of what they believe their constituents are telling them.
I wonder if the 18-35 people do show up and participate in the PC leadership which candidate resonates with them the most? Would it be Norris the Young? Oberg the Maverick? Morton the Academic Theo-con? Dinning the Destined? Hancock the Progressive? Stelmach's Integrity? McPherson's Courage? Doerksen the Nondescript?
Here are some report highlights provided by the Canada West Foundation with the advanced copy I am sure I can share:
Identity: Contrary to stereotype, under 35s are more likely to describe themselves as centrists than as left-leaning.
National Unity: Under 35s are quite confident that Canada will remain united in 20 years, but register high levels of indifference toward Quebec separation.
Attitudes Toward Canadian Democracy: Under 35s report a moderate level of interest in politics. The vast majority feels an obligation to vote, and many see volunteering in their community as an obligation.
Under 35 Public Policy: While many “mainstream” policy issues (such as health care) are important to under 35s, they are also concerned about a number of issues that receive relatively less attention, including poverty, post-secondary education, and international issues. There are a number of important policy priority differences between under 35s and over 35s, particularly with respect to international issues.
A healthy vibrant democracy depends on citizen participation. It is not good that this segment of our society does not relate their citizenship in terms of political parties and election campaigns.
Not their fault - parties have to be more open and relevant and elections have to be more meaningful and less market positioning of the candidates as a mediocre yet acceptable product. No inspiring leadership to be found there.
I have had a chance to read an advance copy and can tell you it dispels some myths about youth voting. It also confirms some issues and values preference differences between this group and the dominant over 35 age sector.
One eye-popping finding is that Under 35s also do not relate to political parties or election campaigns. What would it take to get them to participate? We know people do not vote on issues as much as their sense of identity. After all politicians in power do an awful lot in "our names" justifing actions in term of what they believe their constituents are telling them.
I wonder if the 18-35 people do show up and participate in the PC leadership which candidate resonates with them the most? Would it be Norris the Young? Oberg the Maverick? Morton the Academic Theo-con? Dinning the Destined? Hancock the Progressive? Stelmach's Integrity? McPherson's Courage? Doerksen the Nondescript?
Here are some report highlights provided by the Canada West Foundation with the advanced copy I am sure I can share:
Identity: Contrary to stereotype, under 35s are more likely to describe themselves as centrists than as left-leaning.
National Unity: Under 35s are quite confident that Canada will remain united in 20 years, but register high levels of indifference toward Quebec separation.
Attitudes Toward Canadian Democracy: Under 35s report a moderate level of interest in politics. The vast majority feels an obligation to vote, and many see volunteering in their community as an obligation.
Under 35 Public Policy: While many “mainstream” policy issues (such as health care) are important to under 35s, they are also concerned about a number of issues that receive relatively less attention, including poverty, post-secondary education, and international issues. There are a number of important policy priority differences between under 35s and over 35s, particularly with respect to international issues.
A healthy vibrant democracy depends on citizen participation. It is not good that this segment of our society does not relate their citizenship in terms of political parties and election campaigns.
Not their fault - parties have to be more open and relevant and elections have to be more meaningful and less market positioning of the candidates as a mediocre yet acceptable product. No inspiring leadership to be found there.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
This "Poll" Is Too Much Fun - and Dangerous!
I omitted in my haste this afternoon to detail some more glaring error in process and appraoch in this PGIB "poll." They took 3 weeks to get 600 replies but did not break them down to see if they reflected the demographic characteristics of the PC Party because the information emerging is that they used an internal list of PC Party members that was "at least one year old." Double Duh!
They took 50% of the input from South and Central Alberta and 50% split equaly between Edmonton and Calgary - ignoring the north entirely and totally unrelated to the true geographical distribution of the PC Party membership and based solely on their "old" list of PC Party members.
BUT without so much as offering a blush of embarrassment they make an unsubstantiated representation as to how they say PC Party members are thinking about voting for the leadership. That offers no evidence at all as to what the real PC Party current membership and pending new membership is thinking. The real question Albertans have to ask themselves about this PGIB "poll" is "What were they thinking?"
Polls can suffer from a serious lack of crediblity even when then are done by seasoned professionals. These PGIB "poll" sponsors are not professionals - they are rank amateurs and pranksters...perhaps with a potential to be big time political dirty tricksters. They have the profile don't you think?
As citizens we all need to keep our guards up aginst these kinds of tactics and their perpetrators .
Dr Morton's people are now seemingly to be slip slidin' away from this poll result and I would advise form any"endorsement" of the PGIB organzation and its leadership. Good idea to find some real distance from these guys Doctor Morton!
They took 50% of the input from South and Central Alberta and 50% split equaly between Edmonton and Calgary - ignoring the north entirely and totally unrelated to the true geographical distribution of the PC Party membership and based solely on their "old" list of PC Party members.
BUT without so much as offering a blush of embarrassment they make an unsubstantiated representation as to how they say PC Party members are thinking about voting for the leadership. That offers no evidence at all as to what the real PC Party current membership and pending new membership is thinking. The real question Albertans have to ask themselves about this PGIB "poll" is "What were they thinking?"
Polls can suffer from a serious lack of crediblity even when then are done by seasoned professionals. These PGIB "poll" sponsors are not professionals - they are rank amateurs and pranksters...perhaps with a potential to be big time political dirty tricksters. They have the profile don't you think?
As citizens we all need to keep our guards up aginst these kinds of tactics and their perpetrators .
Dr Morton's people are now seemingly to be slip slidin' away from this poll result and I would advise form any"endorsement" of the PGIB organzation and its leadership. Good idea to find some real distance from these guys Doctor Morton!
Excuse Me While I Piss on this Poll
The PGIB sent me their Leadership Poll news release and results breakdown. This is where they are saying it is a three horse race from a “PIGB poll of 600 Alberta PC Party members…over a three week period in Calgary, Edmonton, Central and Southern Alberta.” The other fact they tout is this is a poll where PC Party members only were being polled. That is a good thing - but they did it so badly they destroy any data supported evidence for their conclusion. They may be right but this "poll" is no proof of it. Duh!
There are some serious credibility problems with these poll results, some of which have already been pointed out, like the randomness of the inputs with no northern Alberta input, how can you be conclusive? The other irony is they say in the news release their poll is “statistically significant at 19 times out of 20” but fail to mention the margin error. Duh!
Statistics, questionnaire design, data collection and results analysis is part art and part science but it is a professional activity that “ought not to be tried at home” by amateurs, especially amateurs with an agenda! People like the PGIB ought not to be doing this because it is misleading and pure political misdirection unless they are not serious about their credibility as an organization’s reputation involved in political lobbying – apparently one of their core activities. Duh!
I would be interested in seeing where they got the list of names came from to do the PGIB survey. If it was names only from their own membership list (which I suspect) that also taints the results, given that they are an Alliance based, social conservative organization that would not therefore reach the full range of Progressive Conservative members. It also excludes those Albertans who intend to become PC Party members to participate in the Leadership. These people are not represented in their data inputs either. Duh!
This is at best described as a crude political tactic or cheap trickery. It is not a poll. If it uses PGIB members who say they are also PC Party members but that is validated through the PC Party membership list the premise of their survey is even more unfounded. The Undecided and refused to answer numbers are very high too and are in themselves sufficient to challenge the conclusion they reached even if the methodology itself was not so amateurish...which it is. Duh!
Thirdly they asked the wrong question: “Are you currently a member of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party?” That question is insufficient because it ignores those who intend to buy memberships between now and Dec 2 in the one person one vote system. And how come it took 3 weeks to gather the data? Do they not think opinions vary dramatically over such a long data collection period and the results are invalid as a result? Or am I giving this charade too much credit. Duh!
This is a very laughable and sad situation at the same time. Emmanuel Kant is giggling in his grave where people like Chandler, a poster boy for the far right, proving to be practically post modern personal examples out to prove that their political ends is justifiable using whatever means necessary - all in the name of winning and at all costs.
This is a dramatic example of the kind of society and polity we will have in Alberta if either Oberg or Morton gets to govern. What kind of Alberta will it be with these kind of people and organizations setting the agenda and providing the "values" perspectives about the future of Alberta.
Thx Craig Chandler and the PBIB for this “disclosure.” To the rest of us - Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!
There are some serious credibility problems with these poll results, some of which have already been pointed out, like the randomness of the inputs with no northern Alberta input, how can you be conclusive? The other irony is they say in the news release their poll is “statistically significant at 19 times out of 20” but fail to mention the margin error. Duh!
Statistics, questionnaire design, data collection and results analysis is part art and part science but it is a professional activity that “ought not to be tried at home” by amateurs, especially amateurs with an agenda! People like the PGIB ought not to be doing this because it is misleading and pure political misdirection unless they are not serious about their credibility as an organization’s reputation involved in political lobbying – apparently one of their core activities. Duh!
I would be interested in seeing where they got the list of names came from to do the PGIB survey. If it was names only from their own membership list (which I suspect) that also taints the results, given that they are an Alliance based, social conservative organization that would not therefore reach the full range of Progressive Conservative members. It also excludes those Albertans who intend to become PC Party members to participate in the Leadership. These people are not represented in their data inputs either. Duh!
This is at best described as a crude political tactic or cheap trickery. It is not a poll. If it uses PGIB members who say they are also PC Party members but that is validated through the PC Party membership list the premise of their survey is even more unfounded. The Undecided and refused to answer numbers are very high too and are in themselves sufficient to challenge the conclusion they reached even if the methodology itself was not so amateurish...which it is. Duh!
Thirdly they asked the wrong question: “Are you currently a member of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party?” That question is insufficient because it ignores those who intend to buy memberships between now and Dec 2 in the one person one vote system. And how come it took 3 weeks to gather the data? Do they not think opinions vary dramatically over such a long data collection period and the results are invalid as a result? Or am I giving this charade too much credit. Duh!
This is a very laughable and sad situation at the same time. Emmanuel Kant is giggling in his grave where people like Chandler, a poster boy for the far right, proving to be practically post modern personal examples out to prove that their political ends is justifiable using whatever means necessary - all in the name of winning and at all costs.
This is a dramatic example of the kind of society and polity we will have in Alberta if either Oberg or Morton gets to govern. What kind of Alberta will it be with these kind of people and organizations setting the agenda and providing the "values" perspectives about the future of Alberta.
Thx Craig Chandler and the PBIB for this “disclosure.” To the rest of us - Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
New Poll of PC Members Sees Three-Way Tie
Apparently a new Poll is out - can't track it down yet but QR77 Radio in Calgary is commenting on it:
CALGARY/AM770CHQR - A Calgary-based business and taxpayer group has released results of a survey showing a virtual three way tie for the lead in the Alberta Tory leadership race.The Progressive Group for Independent Business shows Lyle Oberg and Ted Morton each with 17 percent support among Tory party members who plan to vote in the election.Jim Dinning is close behind at 16 per cent.The PGIB says it did its own survey out of frustration that other surveys polled Albertans who were not tory party members or even planning to vote in the leadership race.
This group is a right wing business/lobbying organization run by Craig Chandler former federal Conservative leadership candidate with a strong social conservative personal perspective. So small surprise they "find" Morton in the lead of a tight 3 way race. What is apparently good about this poll is it asks if you are a party member or intend to become one. It is those people who will count in the end and make the real difference in the final results.
Wonder how many were undecided in the PGIB poll. That undecided number has been growing with each new poll and was high as 40% in the recent Leger Poll. The front runners support has been fallling off from the early September polls but the pack in the back have not been breaking out either.
Once I get the detailed results, the questions and the methodology I will share it with you.
CALGARY/AM770CHQR - A Calgary-based business and taxpayer group has released results of a survey showing a virtual three way tie for the lead in the Alberta Tory leadership race.The Progressive Group for Independent Business shows Lyle Oberg and Ted Morton each with 17 percent support among Tory party members who plan to vote in the election.Jim Dinning is close behind at 16 per cent.The PGIB says it did its own survey out of frustration that other surveys polled Albertans who were not tory party members or even planning to vote in the leadership race.
This group is a right wing business/lobbying organization run by Craig Chandler former federal Conservative leadership candidate with a strong social conservative personal perspective. So small surprise they "find" Morton in the lead of a tight 3 way race. What is apparently good about this poll is it asks if you are a party member or intend to become one. It is those people who will count in the end and make the real difference in the final results.
Wonder how many were undecided in the PGIB poll. That undecided number has been growing with each new poll and was high as 40% in the recent Leger Poll. The front runners support has been fallling off from the early September polls but the pack in the back have not been breaking out either.
Once I get the detailed results, the questions and the methodology I will share it with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)