The Globe and Mail Columnist Jeffery Simpson last Saturday commented on “The Bozo Years” being over for Alberta and asked “What Now?” That is the ballot question in the hearts and minds of Albertans who are going to chose the new Progressive Conservative leader and Alberta’s pro tem Premier. It is on the minds of all of us, at the back of mind for some and at the top of mind for others. That is the central question - "What Now?"
There is an old axiom that says if you are coasting but still moving forward you have to be going down hill. That has been the recent reality for the Progressive Conservative Party and the “animating” (sic) characteristic of the Klein government for the past too many years. The basking in the glory of defeating the debt and deficit dragon has worn thin. It is now showing serious negative consequences because we have a government that believed debt and deficit was a finish line instead of a starting line.
Change and choice and taking chances are the stuff of elections and leadership campaigns. I sense Albertans are not only “up for” some different approaches in all three of these elements – they are demanding them. After 35 plus years of Progressive Conservative government is Alberta poised for one of it classic tectonic political shifts?
It has been said of Democrats that they make plans and then they go do something else while Republicans follow the plans of their grandfathers. I think that description has some resonance when applied respectively to the Progressive and the Conservative elements within the PC Party of Alberta too.
Part of the “Send ‘Em a Message” Survey on Policy Channel has been a rating of the Klein government’s performance in the 15 key policy areas we are researching. The survey is web based so it is not scientific but the participants self-select and volunteer so they have some “investment” in the answers they give. The group so far is 55% male/45% female. 58% are not PC Party members and 42% are. However 65% said they were “somewhat, very or extremely likely” to vote on the leadership. They are activist and engaged folks with things on their minds.
The performance rankings they gave the current government on the four most important issues on their minds are:
Environment: 17% Good and 83% Bad
Timely Access to Quality Health Care: 27% Good and 63%
Quality Education K-12: 49% Good and 51% Bad
Managing Growth: 13% Good and 87% Bad.
The only issue the government got positive ranking in was Lowering Taxes with 64% Good ranking. Lowering Taxes was also ranked as the least important issue facing Alberta so no serious benefit can be expected there for the next Premier. To say there is room for the current government to improve belittles the obvious.
What now? That is the ballot question, not just who is next?
Yes Alberta is moving forward. The growth in GDP and investment activity tells us that. But we have been coasting too. The PC Party memberships unceremonious ending of the Klein leadership last April 1 was the proof of that. The above survey performance ranking of the PC government also tells Progressive Conservative MLAs and party members that Albertans feel we are going down hill as well.
If this sense of government coasting down hill continues under the new leader - Albertans will definitely be doing some house cleaning - perhaps as soon as the next election.
Take 5 minutes and do the survey. It forces you to make some tough choices but it will help to get your voice heard.
I am interested in pragmatic pluralist politics, citizen participation, protecting democracy and exploring a full range of public policy issues from an Albertan perspective.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
...and Bush Has 2 More Years
This posting is just a brazen promo for Davberta's site. He has a YouTube Bill Clinton clip on there that is practicaly Pythonesque and sooo worth a visit. Jon Stewart ought to be a little nervous for his job with this level of political satire being out there.
Monday, November 06, 2006
I Like This Poll Result for Dion
The Toronto Star has run a story on an EKOS Poll showing good growth potential for Dion. I like that. The front runners in the federal Liberal campaign apparently are carrying too much baggage to really grow much on subsequent ballots. It is going to be a cliffhanger Dec 2 in Montreal for the federal Libs on all accounts. But I, like everyone else, am just guessing. Lots of time left and campaigns matter.
Now I wonder if we will see the "baggage issue" develop around the leading Alberta PC candidates. Oberg for sure deserves a serious second look by those who support him or are inclined his way. Albertans are now just starting to pay serious attention and are just begining to understand the implications of the PC leadership campaign for the future of the province and themselves. If they start to get nervous about the "baggage" of the front runners and seek alternatives they will also start to look around in earnest for a rational capable candidate instead of those in the front of the pack. My bet is they land on Hancock.
My friend Will McBeath at Noisefromtheright - active in the Ted Morton campaign - disagrees in his posting today and thinks Hancock is done. Three weeks left and he figures it is all decided. Maybe. But with the one person one vote right up to and including election day - anything can happen. Remeber how "scary" Harper was in the last week of the 2004 election as a result of his vocal social conservative supporters? Could it happen again, this time to Ted Morton? Rememeber how Stephen Mandel became the rational alternative from the baggage laden front runners in the last mayoralty race in Edmonton?
If people begin to realize the rough road some of the "leading" candidates will send us down they may engage and participate. If Albertans want a capable change agent of character, experience and proven capability - Dave Hancock is the obvious alternative.
But politics is never obvious and the wisdom of the crowd that shows up in the dying days of 2006 will decide the nature and nuance of the next Alberta for the rest us. Time will tell.
Now I wonder if we will see the "baggage issue" develop around the leading Alberta PC candidates. Oberg for sure deserves a serious second look by those who support him or are inclined his way. Albertans are now just starting to pay serious attention and are just begining to understand the implications of the PC leadership campaign for the future of the province and themselves. If they start to get nervous about the "baggage" of the front runners and seek alternatives they will also start to look around in earnest for a rational capable candidate instead of those in the front of the pack. My bet is they land on Hancock.
My friend Will McBeath at Noisefromtheright - active in the Ted Morton campaign - disagrees in his posting today and thinks Hancock is done. Three weeks left and he figures it is all decided. Maybe. But with the one person one vote right up to and including election day - anything can happen. Remeber how "scary" Harper was in the last week of the 2004 election as a result of his vocal social conservative supporters? Could it happen again, this time to Ted Morton? Rememeber how Stephen Mandel became the rational alternative from the baggage laden front runners in the last mayoralty race in Edmonton?
If people begin to realize the rough road some of the "leading" candidates will send us down they may engage and participate. If Albertans want a capable change agent of character, experience and proven capability - Dave Hancock is the obvious alternative.
But politics is never obvious and the wisdom of the crowd that shows up in the dying days of 2006 will decide the nature and nuance of the next Alberta for the rest us. Time will tell.
“Send ‘Em A Message” Survey Update #2
We are at the end of week 2 of the “Send ‘Em a Message” Survey on Policy Channel.
The analysis done of the top relative priority issue still shows the Managing the Environment is #1 with a weighted score of 22.88 – twice as high as the next priority issue Ensuring Access to Quality and Timely Healthcare weighted at 11.45. The 3# issue of Focussing on Quality Education K-12 with a weighted scoring of 10.04.
This priority is reflected in the recent Ipsos Reid traditional national poll results pegging 26% of Canadians saying the environment is the top priority issue that Canada’s leaders need to pay attention to. Ipsos Reid notes this is the first time since 1990 the Environment is the top priority issue for Canadians. The times they are a changin'.
Last week we reported Managing Growth and a Diversified Value Added economy and the third and fourth. Things have changed. Scoring in #3 position is a Quality K-12 Education and Managing Growth is now weighted as #4. Diversification and Value Added Economy has fallen down to #8 in the weighted score ranking.
Continuing at the very bottom of important issues in the survey are Lowering Taxes and Resolving Problems Facing Aboriginal Albertans. Both of these are recently identified with Dr. Oberg’s campaign. He is big on tax cuts in his policy. No new voter traction will be coming from an Oberg promise to lowering taxes according to this weeks survey results.
Aboriginal Albertan’s issues are not on the radar screen of Albertans in this leadership campaign. They will have to do more than just a candidate endorsement to get some traction and momentum on their issues for any candidate endorsement to make a difference to the voting intentions of the rest of Alberta.
Responses continue to come into the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey but participants are mostly from Edmonton and Calgary and region. We will be reaching out to rural Albertans this week to get more participation from them. It will be interesting to see how that changes anything in the survey results. We know from Environics Research work that rural and urban Albertans hold the same social values but the intensity and priority might be different. Time will tell. Take the time and do the survey and come back to this Blog for a further updates and commentary on the survey findings.
The analysis done of the top relative priority issue still shows the Managing the Environment is #1 with a weighted score of 22.88 – twice as high as the next priority issue Ensuring Access to Quality and Timely Healthcare weighted at 11.45. The 3# issue of Focussing on Quality Education K-12 with a weighted scoring of 10.04.
This priority is reflected in the recent Ipsos Reid traditional national poll results pegging 26% of Canadians saying the environment is the top priority issue that Canada’s leaders need to pay attention to. Ipsos Reid notes this is the first time since 1990 the Environment is the top priority issue for Canadians. The times they are a changin'.
Last week we reported Managing Growth and a Diversified Value Added economy and the third and fourth. Things have changed. Scoring in #3 position is a Quality K-12 Education and Managing Growth is now weighted as #4. Diversification and Value Added Economy has fallen down to #8 in the weighted score ranking.
Continuing at the very bottom of important issues in the survey are Lowering Taxes and Resolving Problems Facing Aboriginal Albertans. Both of these are recently identified with Dr. Oberg’s campaign. He is big on tax cuts in his policy. No new voter traction will be coming from an Oberg promise to lowering taxes according to this weeks survey results.
Aboriginal Albertan’s issues are not on the radar screen of Albertans in this leadership campaign. They will have to do more than just a candidate endorsement to get some traction and momentum on their issues for any candidate endorsement to make a difference to the voting intentions of the rest of Alberta.
Responses continue to come into the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey but participants are mostly from Edmonton and Calgary and region. We will be reaching out to rural Albertans this week to get more participation from them. It will be interesting to see how that changes anything in the survey results. We know from Environics Research work that rural and urban Albertans hold the same social values but the intensity and priority might be different. Time will tell. Take the time and do the survey and come back to this Blog for a further updates and commentary on the survey findings.
Most Recent OpEd for LaPresse
We write a regular column for LaPresse on policy issues through a western lense. Here is our most recently published offering.
A Relevant Decision
October 29, 2006
By Satya Das and Ken Chapman
Justice Douglas Rutherford’s decision striking down the “thought crime” portions of Canada’s anti-terror law is a belated and welcome restoration of fundamental freedoms in Canada.
It is especially relevant since the United States continues its inexorable slide into a Stalinist abyss, with its frightening new law allowing the indefinite detention of anyone who comes under suspicion of posing a threat to the state.
The section struck by Justice Rutherford enabled the detention of a Canadian on terror charges if there were religious, political or ideological motivations behind the act. The judge quite rightly rules this provision is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Indeed, removing the “thought crime” requirement may make it easier to apply the rubric of terrorism to supplement other criminal charges. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Kimveer Gill’s murderous rampage was surely an act meant to terrorize. Had he survived to face trial, it would have been extremely useful to add terrorism charges.
Rutherford’s ruling should remind us our fundamental freedoms must not be subject to partisan filters. Let us remember that the portions of the law struck down were in fact introduced by a Liberal government, in the furious aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terror strikes in the United States. At the time, many of us with misgivings about the Draconian sweep of the law held our tongues, perhaps acceding to the argument famously made by Michael Ignatieff that we must sometimes feel necessary to use drastic measures to combat terrorism. Yet we now see where such thinking can lead.
With President George Bush signing into law his anti-terror bill, which enables the U.S. to hold anyone merely suspected of terrorist intent without ever bringing them to trial, the United States is abandoning the fundamental freedoms for which the West fought, in the decades-long struggle against Stalinism and other forms of totalitarianism. The truly frightening provision is that the accused need never be shown the evidence against them, nor to be informed of the specificity of the allegations and charges they face. In Canada, we have seen the tragedy of Maher Arar, and there may indeed be others similarly maltreated. Yet the Bush law means that hundreds and even thousands of people like Maher Arar may simply vanish into Kafkaesque darkness.
The abiding concern is whether Canada’s new government will uphold this necessary restoration of Canadian freedoms, given its readiness to seek accommodation and friendship with Bush regime. Indeed there is significant merit to the approach of being open and collaborative with our neighbour and trading partner to the south. This is a refreshing change from what sometimes appears to be a national sport of gratuitous criticism of the United States. Yet as we saw in softwood lumber, there is a difference between principled friendship, and an appeasing pact that surrendered every victory won under international trade law and defied the fundamental principles of free trade.
On the matter of fundamental freedoms, Canada’s new government must resist any temptation to appeal the Rutherford ruling. Indeed, as the anti-terror law comes up for review later this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper can set a bold and distinctive course for Canada by refusing to renew a flawed law hastily drafted by a shocked and impetuous Liberal government. As we now see with time and distance, there is ample provision within Canada’s criminal code to deal with threats to our individual and collective security.
Canada’s new government must assert that we cannot compromise and sacrifice our fundamental freedoms for the convenience of the state, in the name of public security.
. Qu’en pensez-vous? satya@cambridgestrategies.com; forum@lapresse.com
A Relevant Decision
October 29, 2006
By Satya Das and Ken Chapman
Justice Douglas Rutherford’s decision striking down the “thought crime” portions of Canada’s anti-terror law is a belated and welcome restoration of fundamental freedoms in Canada.
It is especially relevant since the United States continues its inexorable slide into a Stalinist abyss, with its frightening new law allowing the indefinite detention of anyone who comes under suspicion of posing a threat to the state.
The section struck by Justice Rutherford enabled the detention of a Canadian on terror charges if there were religious, political or ideological motivations behind the act. The judge quite rightly rules this provision is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Indeed, removing the “thought crime” requirement may make it easier to apply the rubric of terrorism to supplement other criminal charges. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Kimveer Gill’s murderous rampage was surely an act meant to terrorize. Had he survived to face trial, it would have been extremely useful to add terrorism charges.
Rutherford’s ruling should remind us our fundamental freedoms must not be subject to partisan filters. Let us remember that the portions of the law struck down were in fact introduced by a Liberal government, in the furious aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terror strikes in the United States. At the time, many of us with misgivings about the Draconian sweep of the law held our tongues, perhaps acceding to the argument famously made by Michael Ignatieff that we must sometimes feel necessary to use drastic measures to combat terrorism. Yet we now see where such thinking can lead.
With President George Bush signing into law his anti-terror bill, which enables the U.S. to hold anyone merely suspected of terrorist intent without ever bringing them to trial, the United States is abandoning the fundamental freedoms for which the West fought, in the decades-long struggle against Stalinism and other forms of totalitarianism. The truly frightening provision is that the accused need never be shown the evidence against them, nor to be informed of the specificity of the allegations and charges they face. In Canada, we have seen the tragedy of Maher Arar, and there may indeed be others similarly maltreated. Yet the Bush law means that hundreds and even thousands of people like Maher Arar may simply vanish into Kafkaesque darkness.
The abiding concern is whether Canada’s new government will uphold this necessary restoration of Canadian freedoms, given its readiness to seek accommodation and friendship with Bush regime. Indeed there is significant merit to the approach of being open and collaborative with our neighbour and trading partner to the south. This is a refreshing change from what sometimes appears to be a national sport of gratuitous criticism of the United States. Yet as we saw in softwood lumber, there is a difference between principled friendship, and an appeasing pact that surrendered every victory won under international trade law and defied the fundamental principles of free trade.
On the matter of fundamental freedoms, Canada’s new government must resist any temptation to appeal the Rutherford ruling. Indeed, as the anti-terror law comes up for review later this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper can set a bold and distinctive course for Canada by refusing to renew a flawed law hastily drafted by a shocked and impetuous Liberal government. As we now see with time and distance, there is ample provision within Canada’s criminal code to deal with threats to our individual and collective security.
Canada’s new government must assert that we cannot compromise and sacrifice our fundamental freedoms for the convenience of the state, in the name of public security.
. Qu’en pensez-vous? satya@cambridgestrategies.com; forum@lapresse.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)