Tomorow, Monday November 6, in the afternoon, I will be doing an update posting on the results to date of the "Send 'Em a Message" survey hosted on Policy Channel. We have had over 165 completed surveys last week. We will be reporting results, trends and changes every Monday on this Blog. By doing the survey you get your two-bits of opinion and insight reflected in the results. It take about 5 minutes and makes you think.
It is a web based survey so it is not scientific but if enough Albertans participate and the results are consistent the survey will undoubtedly have an impact on the public policy priority agenda for the next Premier.
Do the survey and let us know what you think are the most important policy issues for the new Alberta Premier to deal with. Also rate the Alberta government's performance on 15 key policy issues. Then tell us the likelihood of you making a recommendation to your friends and family for support of each PC leadership candidate.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Hancock Wins the Website Traffic Wars
PC Leadership Candidates are using the Internet and websites more seriously and significantly in this campaign than political parties did in the last provincial election. The reasons are obvious. One-person-one-vote means you need to have a direct relationship with a citizen to convince them to buy a membership, show up to vote and then to vote for you. The Internet is the perfect tool for this kind of relationship building. It is self- selecting, direct, content rich, timely, accessible, effective, convenient and inexpensive compared to paid advertising.
The Internet is a pure unfiltered, diverse, independent, decentralized and an aggregated collection of fact, fiction, fad, fuming and fulmination. It is an election friendly way for the collective wisdom of citizens to be expressed and is changing the way democracy is practiced and maybe even how it works.
Increasingly influential in the opinion forming process of citizens is the chatter of the collective wisdom (or pooled ignorance) of the Internet based web forums, chat rooms, website traffic volumes and the bleating babble of us “blogger-mouths.”
I did some research about how this new technology is working for the candidates and which ones are seeing website traffic and activity. I used a website ranking site called Alexa.com. Alexa “crawls” the web and reviews over 16 millions sites every day to determine rankings. It collects data on site visitors, the number of pages they read and the paths and links they used to get to the sites and so forth. A ranking of 150,000 or less means you are a force to be reckoned with on the Internet…you draw interest, traffic, comments and connections.
Here is what I found. At the low end of candidate website ranking we have the Doerksen and Stelmach sites are so little used they generate “No Data” at all. I guess their supporters are not Internet users and those who are curious about them are not users either. Even Alana Delong’s site still registered data (with a feeble ranking of 4,496,033) and she is not even in the race any more. Victor was Minister of Innovation and Science – and in charge of the SuperNet...but perhaps innovative in name only given this No Data Internet ranking.
The next group ranked in the 2million range. McPherson’s site ranked 2,799,479 surprisingly low because he is a late entry candidate and one who could really benefit from the Internet to connect with citizens. I thought he would be "all over" the internet as a campagin tool. Next was Morton at 2,198,606 which is not really a surprise because he really doesn't need it. He has a built in old Reform party and religous support base who are die-hards who don't need more information about him, particularly from the Internet.
Next lowest was a big surprise. Jim Dinning’s site ranked at only 2,139,003. He has the most money, a raft of advisors and consultants, and a vast array of technology at his disposal and has been campaigning the longest. I find it most interesting that he is not generating traffic on his website and I wonder what it means. Just under the 2m ranking we have Oberg at 1,999,438 and Norris at 1,939,596. Again, not all that impressive and not all that surprising looking at the nature of their support base.
Finally the winner of the website traffic rankings is the Dave Hancock site…way ahead of everyone else at 1,017,641 - but still not a real big deal in terms of effective Internet ranking. People interested or attracted to Hancock are obviously using the Internet and the Web more than the supporters of the other candidates. That is all one can really conclude from the traffic rankings.
Given the relative lack of traditional news coverage for the Hancock campaign this traffic does show considerably more interest in him than one would assume from “reading” the newspaper coverage only. We know Albertans want change. The question is who is the real agent of change in this leadership campaign? For me the real and serious agent of change has always been Hancock. Looking at his relatively higher website traffic rankings it appears that lots of others are taking him seriously as an agent of change too.
The Internet is a pure unfiltered, diverse, independent, decentralized and an aggregated collection of fact, fiction, fad, fuming and fulmination. It is an election friendly way for the collective wisdom of citizens to be expressed and is changing the way democracy is practiced and maybe even how it works.
Increasingly influential in the opinion forming process of citizens is the chatter of the collective wisdom (or pooled ignorance) of the Internet based web forums, chat rooms, website traffic volumes and the bleating babble of us “blogger-mouths.”
I did some research about how this new technology is working for the candidates and which ones are seeing website traffic and activity. I used a website ranking site called Alexa.com. Alexa “crawls” the web and reviews over 16 millions sites every day to determine rankings. It collects data on site visitors, the number of pages they read and the paths and links they used to get to the sites and so forth. A ranking of 150,000 or less means you are a force to be reckoned with on the Internet…you draw interest, traffic, comments and connections.
Here is what I found. At the low end of candidate website ranking we have the Doerksen and Stelmach sites are so little used they generate “No Data” at all. I guess their supporters are not Internet users and those who are curious about them are not users either. Even Alana Delong’s site still registered data (with a feeble ranking of 4,496,033) and she is not even in the race any more. Victor was Minister of Innovation and Science – and in charge of the SuperNet...but perhaps innovative in name only given this No Data Internet ranking.
The next group ranked in the 2million range. McPherson’s site ranked 2,799,479 surprisingly low because he is a late entry candidate and one who could really benefit from the Internet to connect with citizens. I thought he would be "all over" the internet as a campagin tool. Next was Morton at 2,198,606 which is not really a surprise because he really doesn't need it. He has a built in old Reform party and religous support base who are die-hards who don't need more information about him, particularly from the Internet.
Next lowest was a big surprise. Jim Dinning’s site ranked at only 2,139,003. He has the most money, a raft of advisors and consultants, and a vast array of technology at his disposal and has been campaigning the longest. I find it most interesting that he is not generating traffic on his website and I wonder what it means. Just under the 2m ranking we have Oberg at 1,999,438 and Norris at 1,939,596. Again, not all that impressive and not all that surprising looking at the nature of their support base.
Finally the winner of the website traffic rankings is the Dave Hancock site…way ahead of everyone else at 1,017,641 - but still not a real big deal in terms of effective Internet ranking. People interested or attracted to Hancock are obviously using the Internet and the Web more than the supporters of the other candidates. That is all one can really conclude from the traffic rankings.
Given the relative lack of traditional news coverage for the Hancock campaign this traffic does show considerably more interest in him than one would assume from “reading” the newspaper coverage only. We know Albertans want change. The question is who is the real agent of change in this leadership campaign? For me the real and serious agent of change has always been Hancock. Looking at his relatively higher website traffic rankings it appears that lots of others are taking him seriously as an agent of change too.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
What Do We Know For Sure?
The Calgary Herald Leger Poll is out but what does it tell us we did not already know? Not that it has a duty to show change, when there is none. Here are the results and the shifts since the last poll of those who identified as PC party supports...the key group:
Question:
If you could vote for the next Tory leader, who would you support?
Albertans PC Party - Supporters
Jim Dinning 18% 23%
Lyle Oberg 14% 16%
David Hancock 5% 4%
Ed Stelmach 5% 4%
Mark Norris 3% 3%
Ted Morton 4% 6%
Victor Doerksen 1% 2%
Gary McPherson 1% 1%
Other 3% 1%
Don't Know 37% 35%
Refused to answer/would not vote/spoil ballot 10% 4%
Source: Leger Marketing Margin of Error: 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
© The Calgary Herald 2006
So far "Don't Know" is running the most successful campaign at 35% support. The more extreme anti-campaign reaction of the refused to answer, would not vote or the "message senders" by spoiling ballots is down from 10% to 4% - still a significant condemnation of how the PC Party is doing reflecting and connnecting with its membership.
Dinning looks to be a cinch for a second ballot position and a second ballot looks inevitable as well. Oberg is the "rebel" but with a "cause" and a style of governing that no one feels very comfortable with...and for good reason. Morton is still the sleeper but a real threat for second or third place, depending if Oberg crashes and burns - or not! Morton support is almost subliminal but very substantially grounded in the evangelical movement and old line Reformers. They are below the radar but will show up to vote for their ideology as embodied in Dr. Ted Morton.
The remaining candidates are not out of it and campaigns matter but what happens to the Progressive element in the PC Party if the third place candidate is a distant third regardless of who that is? Alberta will survive but will we be in such a state of political flux that we are unable to effectively respond to the times of great promise - and responsibility - that stretch out before us?
I think the hard core PC party membership better start thinking seriously about how it regroups and progresses forward after the selection process because all signs are pointing to an early election in 2007 - whether Albertans like the idea or not. That means a provincial, municipal and likely federal set of elections next year and another set of revisited leadership issues for those whose party's lose in the elections.
Will all the King's horses and all the King's men be up to the task or do we get a bunch of factions all splitting off and into their own "realities" and the PC machine breaksdown.
I will soon post more "Send 'Em a Message" survey results on the evaluation of the government's performance in key policy areas. A bit of a preview - except for getting some positive credit for cutting taxes - it is not a pretty sight.
Question:
If you could vote for the next Tory leader, who would you support?
Albertans PC Party - Supporters
Jim Dinning 18% 23%
Lyle Oberg 14% 16%
David Hancock 5% 4%
Ed Stelmach 5% 4%
Mark Norris 3% 3%
Ted Morton 4% 6%
Victor Doerksen 1% 2%
Gary McPherson 1% 1%
Other 3% 1%
Don't Know 37% 35%
Refused to answer/would not vote/spoil ballot 10% 4%
Source: Leger Marketing Margin of Error: 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
© The Calgary Herald 2006
So far "Don't Know" is running the most successful campaign at 35% support. The more extreme anti-campaign reaction of the refused to answer, would not vote or the "message senders" by spoiling ballots is down from 10% to 4% - still a significant condemnation of how the PC Party is doing reflecting and connnecting with its membership.
Dinning looks to be a cinch for a second ballot position and a second ballot looks inevitable as well. Oberg is the "rebel" but with a "cause" and a style of governing that no one feels very comfortable with...and for good reason. Morton is still the sleeper but a real threat for second or third place, depending if Oberg crashes and burns - or not! Morton support is almost subliminal but very substantially grounded in the evangelical movement and old line Reformers. They are below the radar but will show up to vote for their ideology as embodied in Dr. Ted Morton.
The remaining candidates are not out of it and campaigns matter but what happens to the Progressive element in the PC Party if the third place candidate is a distant third regardless of who that is? Alberta will survive but will we be in such a state of political flux that we are unable to effectively respond to the times of great promise - and responsibility - that stretch out before us?
I think the hard core PC party membership better start thinking seriously about how it regroups and progresses forward after the selection process because all signs are pointing to an early election in 2007 - whether Albertans like the idea or not. That means a provincial, municipal and likely federal set of elections next year and another set of revisited leadership issues for those whose party's lose in the elections.
Will all the King's horses and all the King's men be up to the task or do we get a bunch of factions all splitting off and into their own "realities" and the PC machine breaksdown.
I will soon post more "Send 'Em a Message" survey results on the evaluation of the government's performance in key policy areas. A bit of a preview - except for getting some positive credit for cutting taxes - it is not a pretty sight.
Hancock and Dinning are the Green Candidates
The Conservation Voters of Alberta, a consortium of Alberta's environental groups today endorsed Hancock and Dinning as "Two leadership candidates (who) are knowledgeable and open about environmental problems facing Alberta and they have given considerable thought to developing and articulating solutions to these problems."
Dave Hancock's Statement in response to the endorsement follows:
"I am very pleased that the Conservation Voters of Alberta have endorsed my 21st Century Environment Plan for Alberta in their announcement earlier today. Other candidates believe Alberta does a great job protecting its environment. I believe Alberta has done a good job protecting its environment, not a great job. We need to do a great job. It means setting standards on climate change and enforcing them and being a leader there. I am committed to being the leader that sets and meets those standards."
In areas where we have economic development activities, we must ensure minimal impact and damage is done, especially to wildlife habitat. Reclamation and restoration of industry sites, roads, and other fragmenting disturbances have to be redressed in a timely and consistent way, after industry activity has ceased. Doing this is an essential characteristic of good corporate citizenship in Alberta, and for those companies who don’t get it or who fail, refuse, or neglect to comply - there will be serious legal and financial consequences. We do not want to look into our grandchildren’s eyes when they ask what happened to their land, water and air only to say “we used it all up.” Saying we are sorry will not be good enough."
The "Send 'Em a Message" survey still shows the environment at the strongest priority policy issue driver for the 185 survey participants so far this week. Take a few minutes and do this survey and help send a message about what you feel must be the priority policy agenda for the next Premier.
Dave Hancock's Statement in response to the endorsement follows:
"I am very pleased that the Conservation Voters of Alberta have endorsed my 21st Century Environment Plan for Alberta in their announcement earlier today. Other candidates believe Alberta does a great job protecting its environment. I believe Alberta has done a good job protecting its environment, not a great job. We need to do a great job. It means setting standards on climate change and enforcing them and being a leader there. I am committed to being the leader that sets and meets those standards."
In areas where we have economic development activities, we must ensure minimal impact and damage is done, especially to wildlife habitat. Reclamation and restoration of industry sites, roads, and other fragmenting disturbances have to be redressed in a timely and consistent way, after industry activity has ceased. Doing this is an essential characteristic of good corporate citizenship in Alberta, and for those companies who don’t get it or who fail, refuse, or neglect to comply - there will be serious legal and financial consequences. We do not want to look into our grandchildren’s eyes when they ask what happened to their land, water and air only to say “we used it all up.” Saying we are sorry will not be good enough."
The "Send 'Em a Message" survey still shows the environment at the strongest priority policy issue driver for the 185 survey participants so far this week. Take a few minutes and do this survey and help send a message about what you feel must be the priority policy agenda for the next Premier.
Jim Flaherty Does the Right Thing
So it’s a matter of trust – income trust that is. There is lots the “Gnu Government of Canada” has done that I disagree with but the phasing out of income trusts is not amongst them. This is the kind of political action and courageous hard choices we need from government.
Income trusts were getting out of hand. They force a short term and shallow definition of business success plus a narrow planning and management perspective on those businesses. They reward the here and now at the expense of the future. Research and development, productivity enhancements, new technology investment, even maintenance, anything with any immediate cash demands can tend to get deferred if they drain the pool of immediately distributable cash from the income trust. Management gets rewarded on quarterly results and effective corporate tax avoidance. Nothing wrong with that if your view of the role of business and enterprise is shallow and superficial. We were just setting our selves up to be even more non-competitive and more quickly with the BRICK countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and Korea).
Sure it was a political promise broken. Perhaps the promise should not have been made in the first place because it was unrealistic. Income trusts were growing rapidly and part of the political drama in the last federal election. You will recall the campaign rhetoric about "leaks" from Liberal Cabinet Ministers about the future of income trusts and the “timely” intervention of the RCMP’s very public announcement of an investigation about the so-called "leaks"right in the heat of the campaign. Does anyone remember what happened or the current status of that investigation? Was it purely political?
Campaign promises have been broken before and for far lesser reasons. Trudeau beat Stanfield saying never would he institute wage and price controls and did it soon after winning. Chrétien was promising to abolish the GST…enough said. Both men won subsequent elections as I recall. I am not justifying breaking political promises. Just saying it could be worse. Look at this clip from the TV show Boston Legal about the American state of political culture and tell me if it is more of a documentary than drama.
So are political campaign promises really equivalent to Pulitzer Prize winning fiction? It really depends on the capability, conscience and character of the candidates at the end of the day. What unrealistic promises are bing made by PC candidates that will be broken once power is achieved. It is called the Catch 23 of politics. The skills necesary to become the leader are entirely different than those needed to be the leader.
An old mentor of mine once said “Sometimes you have to put away your ‘principles’ and do the right thing.” That is what happened yesterday with the Harper government and I for one, in this instance, applaud it.
Income trusts were getting out of hand. They force a short term and shallow definition of business success plus a narrow planning and management perspective on those businesses. They reward the here and now at the expense of the future. Research and development, productivity enhancements, new technology investment, even maintenance, anything with any immediate cash demands can tend to get deferred if they drain the pool of immediately distributable cash from the income trust. Management gets rewarded on quarterly results and effective corporate tax avoidance. Nothing wrong with that if your view of the role of business and enterprise is shallow and superficial. We were just setting our selves up to be even more non-competitive and more quickly with the BRICK countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and Korea).
Sure it was a political promise broken. Perhaps the promise should not have been made in the first place because it was unrealistic. Income trusts were growing rapidly and part of the political drama in the last federal election. You will recall the campaign rhetoric about "leaks" from Liberal Cabinet Ministers about the future of income trusts and the “timely” intervention of the RCMP’s very public announcement of an investigation about the so-called "leaks"right in the heat of the campaign. Does anyone remember what happened or the current status of that investigation? Was it purely political?
Campaign promises have been broken before and for far lesser reasons. Trudeau beat Stanfield saying never would he institute wage and price controls and did it soon after winning. Chrétien was promising to abolish the GST…enough said. Both men won subsequent elections as I recall. I am not justifying breaking political promises. Just saying it could be worse. Look at this clip from the TV show Boston Legal about the American state of political culture and tell me if it is more of a documentary than drama.
So are political campaign promises really equivalent to Pulitzer Prize winning fiction? It really depends on the capability, conscience and character of the candidates at the end of the day. What unrealistic promises are bing made by PC candidates that will be broken once power is achieved. It is called the Catch 23 of politics. The skills necesary to become the leader are entirely different than those needed to be the leader.
An old mentor of mine once said “Sometimes you have to put away your ‘principles’ and do the right thing.” That is what happened yesterday with the Harper government and I for one, in this instance, applaud it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)