The "Send ‘Em a Message” survey participation is starting to grow. The results this week are very consistent with last week. The environment is the BIG #1 issue as a priority and the intensity of the commitment at 27.25%. The next three issues remain essentially the same. Access to Quality and Timely Health care – commitment level remains the same too at 11.20% Managing Growth is #3 with 9.85% and a Focus on quality K-12 education is #4 at 7.88%.
The nest two issues are very close to the K-12 education issue and worth noting as part of that cluster of issues in the 7% range. They are #5 priority issue of Providing Open and Transparent Government with 7.14% and #6 priority of Reducing Poverty at 7.01%.
The remaining issues in order of priority are Diversified Value-added Economy with 6.08%, Labour and Skills Shortage at 4.64 %, Maintaining Public Infrastructure like schools and roads at 4.27%, providing access to Post-Secondary Education is at 3.82%, Managing oil and gas Royalties (including oil sands) come in at 3.36%. Having safe communities was #12 priority with2.53%, Lowering Taxes was net at 2.29%, followed by Dealing with resource revenue surpluses at 1.49% and the least urgent priority of these 15 issues was resolving problems facing Aboriginal Albertan at 1.17%
Again we point out this is a web based survey that is not a scientific poll. However we are approaching a large enough response that we are seeing what a self-selecting, highly educated and activitist part of the Alberta population sees as top policy priorities. We also see the intensity of their commitment level to those priorities. These are the people who get it and tend to “show up.” They will undoubtedly be working to influence the political and policy agenda of the next Alberta that emerges from this leadership review.
This project is way to provide some insight into that kind of thinking and what is on Albertan’s minds. It will be invaluable to the next leader, if they are wise enough to listen and understand.
If you wish to participate - take 5 minutes and do the survey.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
The Road Less Traveled By
Just over two years ago (Nov 8, 2004) I wrote a Guest Column published in the Edmonton Journal in anticipation of the provincial election, entitled “The Providence of Alberta.”
In it I talked about some of Alberta’s accomplishments past and present and offered some ideas for future feats we might want to tackle. I begged the question about our readiness to meet the new complex challenges before us. Did we have the commitment and discipline to realize our full potential? Were we too flush with cash and conceit to truly concern ourselves with the responsibilities we have to each other, the environment and future generations? Were we so busy making money that we are willfully blind to the social and environmental consequences of how we live, work and grow our energy based economy? Those same questions are still relevant today.
The 2004 election campaign results were not a disaster but they were not good either. Albertans were sending a wake up call to the PC Party and the Klein government. The Klein government seemed to not heed the call. It stayed on "cruise control" and went back to throwing money at problems. The party membership had had enough and responded last April 1st, when they forced the current leadership selection campaign.
If we are to believe the polls, only 30% of the PC party “base” members are intending to vote in the selection of their new leader. I hope that proves to be wrong because we need a re-engagement of socially progressive and fiscally conservative people who will “come to the aid of the party.”
We are entering the end of the "regular season" of this campaign with the looming November 25th first ballot. I think it is timely for Albertans to sit back and quietly reflect for a moment on what is really going on in this leadership selection campaign and what they want to emerge out of it at the end of the day. Sure it is a partisan event. But it is more than that. It is a chance for citizens to send a message about the kind of Alberta they want. Fundamental shifts in direction are needed and clear options are before us, given the kind of candidates and the policy options they are offering.
We can shift hard right to a more socially conservative society with the “Holy Trinity” of Morton, Oberg and Doerksen. Or we can move forward with a socially progressive and fiscally conservative “Wholesome Triumvirate” of Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning. The end result of the second ballot on December 2nd will decide the direction our government will be taking for the two years to the next election.
Do we, as a province, want to go hard to the Right or do we decide to move Progressively forward? The new Leader/Premier will be the one who get to define and decide the goals and the new destination for the province too. The outcome of this leadership process significantly impacts all of us in our daily lives...whether you voted or not.
No new Leader/Premier, will be able to govern alone, Stephen Harper notwithstanding. The next Leader/Premier will have to seek out support from like minded candidates to be allies. One of these two groupings of candidates will emerge December 2nd, depending on who we select as our next Leader/Premier. If you, as a citizen, decide to “sit this one out” that means you are prepared to entrust to others to make that decision for you. That is your right but take some time to understand and appreciate the potential consequences of such indifference.
There is one week left in this campaign. Participation in our democratic processes and institutions is dangerously low. Exercising ones right to vote, showing up to be part of the decision and not “siting this one out” is the road less traveled by…and that, my fellow Albertans, can make all the difference.
It is about your values, your choices and your future.
In it I talked about some of Alberta’s accomplishments past and present and offered some ideas for future feats we might want to tackle. I begged the question about our readiness to meet the new complex challenges before us. Did we have the commitment and discipline to realize our full potential? Were we too flush with cash and conceit to truly concern ourselves with the responsibilities we have to each other, the environment and future generations? Were we so busy making money that we are willfully blind to the social and environmental consequences of how we live, work and grow our energy based economy? Those same questions are still relevant today.
The 2004 election campaign results were not a disaster but they were not good either. Albertans were sending a wake up call to the PC Party and the Klein government. The Klein government seemed to not heed the call. It stayed on "cruise control" and went back to throwing money at problems. The party membership had had enough and responded last April 1st, when they forced the current leadership selection campaign.
If we are to believe the polls, only 30% of the PC party “base” members are intending to vote in the selection of their new leader. I hope that proves to be wrong because we need a re-engagement of socially progressive and fiscally conservative people who will “come to the aid of the party.”
We are entering the end of the "regular season" of this campaign with the looming November 25th first ballot. I think it is timely for Albertans to sit back and quietly reflect for a moment on what is really going on in this leadership selection campaign and what they want to emerge out of it at the end of the day. Sure it is a partisan event. But it is more than that. It is a chance for citizens to send a message about the kind of Alberta they want. Fundamental shifts in direction are needed and clear options are before us, given the kind of candidates and the policy options they are offering.
We can shift hard right to a more socially conservative society with the “Holy Trinity” of Morton, Oberg and Doerksen. Or we can move forward with a socially progressive and fiscally conservative “Wholesome Triumvirate” of Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning. The end result of the second ballot on December 2nd will decide the direction our government will be taking for the two years to the next election.
Do we, as a province, want to go hard to the Right or do we decide to move Progressively forward? The new Leader/Premier will be the one who get to define and decide the goals and the new destination for the province too. The outcome of this leadership process significantly impacts all of us in our daily lives...whether you voted or not.
No new Leader/Premier, will be able to govern alone, Stephen Harper notwithstanding. The next Leader/Premier will have to seek out support from like minded candidates to be allies. One of these two groupings of candidates will emerge December 2nd, depending on who we select as our next Leader/Premier. If you, as a citizen, decide to “sit this one out” that means you are prepared to entrust to others to make that decision for you. That is your right but take some time to understand and appreciate the potential consequences of such indifference.
There is one week left in this campaign. Participation in our democratic processes and institutions is dangerously low. Exercising ones right to vote, showing up to be part of the decision and not “siting this one out” is the road less traveled by…and that, my fellow Albertans, can make all the difference.
It is about your values, your choices and your future.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Dome Disease Is Ticked With Me!
Yesterday in a Comments exchange on the Renewing the One Party State Blog I commented on Norris being a Klein clone and his campaign funding model of issuing invoices for the candidate to provide consulting services to contributors. I was concerned how this worked and it the scheme had advanced blessing form the Canada Revenue Agency. “Dome Disease” is one of the anonymous Bloggers on this site and took me to task. Here is the subsequent exchange between us. I think people will find it interesting.
Dear Ken:
I am not sure you can criticize any other candidates funding platforms until your candidate reveals his. Makes you a hypocrite don't you think? Maybe your friend Anne McClelland could let you know what the Revenue Agency thinks. Unless you're afraid to disclose that you're one of Dave's handful of bankrollers hoping for huge payoffs in gov't contracts?
Norris is not a Klein clone, although it's actually not such a bad thing. In a big tent party you need someone who can relate to ordinary Albertans more than you need a nerdy lawyer who puts even librarians to sleep with his voice. Mark is a lot like Ralph in his ability to speak to people, not at them and I'm glad you see that valuable trait. But that's where similarities end, because Norris is much stronger on protecting Alberta and on actually being a conservative, don't forget your boy Dave isn't.
Your campaign has been getting more desperate with every set back and now you're swinging blidnly on your way down. I am sorry that your guy is an also ran but throwing mud at the former Premier (who helped make you, by the way) and at someone who shares some of his better virtues is not only childish, it's STUPID.Dome Disease 11.16.06 - 5:44 pm #
My response:
Dome Disease - I am not criticizing Mark for disclosure - just asking for clarification of the fundraising tactic he used in raising the funds he has disclosed.
If what he did is acceptable and satisfies the Income Tax Act by raising otherwise non-deductible campaign funds as contracts good on him. I just what to know if he had the prior blessing of the Canada Revenue Agency. It would be prudent don't you think?
If it is acceptable for candidates to do work for the "donors" as part of the campaign and a contribution deal it sure changes the way politics gets done. Don't you think?
I am not sure we want that to be the way politics "gets done" but if it is found appropriate by the Canada Revenue Agency then Mark has really changed the nature of political party leadership campaign fundraising.
For the record - I have not made a cash donation to Dave's campaign but I have volunteered lots of hours for sure. As for government contracts, we got some before and expect to get some after the leadership based on merit and not who the leader is. You wouldn't want it any other way would you?
As for Mark protecting Alberta, my Alberta does not need "protecting." It needs mature, seasoned, enlightened and wise leadership. It needs leadership that is not just ideological from a "Conservative" perspective.
I believe this campaign is about finding a leader for the PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party of Alberta. I want leadership that continues to embrace and integrate both of those concepts.
You mention Anne McLellan. What does Anne McLellan have to do with this PC leadership campaign anyway? Are you suggesting I should not have the right of free association and the right to vote for whom ever I wish? Are you suggesting there is only one way to think and act because I belong to a political party? Is that how a Conservative thinks?
Please also elaborate further on your comments on how Ralph Klein "helped make me" and tell us the relevance of that comment too. You allege to know quite a bit about me. I still have to wonder as to who you even are. Hardly the basis for a reasonable conversation, don't you think?
Are you implying in your comments that I am at some sort of risk by stating my opinions openly and freely and not anonymously? Should I fear you?
BTW - Every candidate except Morton has said they will fully disclose but after the campaign when the complete accounting can be done.Ken Chapman Homepage 11.16.06 - 8:39 pm #
Dear Ken:
I am not sure you can criticize any other candidates funding platforms until your candidate reveals his. Makes you a hypocrite don't you think? Maybe your friend Anne McClelland could let you know what the Revenue Agency thinks. Unless you're afraid to disclose that you're one of Dave's handful of bankrollers hoping for huge payoffs in gov't contracts?
Norris is not a Klein clone, although it's actually not such a bad thing. In a big tent party you need someone who can relate to ordinary Albertans more than you need a nerdy lawyer who puts even librarians to sleep with his voice. Mark is a lot like Ralph in his ability to speak to people, not at them and I'm glad you see that valuable trait. But that's where similarities end, because Norris is much stronger on protecting Alberta and on actually being a conservative, don't forget your boy Dave isn't.
Your campaign has been getting more desperate with every set back and now you're swinging blidnly on your way down. I am sorry that your guy is an also ran but throwing mud at the former Premier (who helped make you, by the way) and at someone who shares some of his better virtues is not only childish, it's STUPID.Dome Disease 11.16.06 - 5:44 pm #
My response:
Dome Disease - I am not criticizing Mark for disclosure - just asking for clarification of the fundraising tactic he used in raising the funds he has disclosed.
If what he did is acceptable and satisfies the Income Tax Act by raising otherwise non-deductible campaign funds as contracts good on him. I just what to know if he had the prior blessing of the Canada Revenue Agency. It would be prudent don't you think?
If it is acceptable for candidates to do work for the "donors" as part of the campaign and a contribution deal it sure changes the way politics gets done. Don't you think?
I am not sure we want that to be the way politics "gets done" but if it is found appropriate by the Canada Revenue Agency then Mark has really changed the nature of political party leadership campaign fundraising.
For the record - I have not made a cash donation to Dave's campaign but I have volunteered lots of hours for sure. As for government contracts, we got some before and expect to get some after the leadership based on merit and not who the leader is. You wouldn't want it any other way would you?
As for Mark protecting Alberta, my Alberta does not need "protecting." It needs mature, seasoned, enlightened and wise leadership. It needs leadership that is not just ideological from a "Conservative" perspective.
I believe this campaign is about finding a leader for the PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party of Alberta. I want leadership that continues to embrace and integrate both of those concepts.
You mention Anne McLellan. What does Anne McLellan have to do with this PC leadership campaign anyway? Are you suggesting I should not have the right of free association and the right to vote for whom ever I wish? Are you suggesting there is only one way to think and act because I belong to a political party? Is that how a Conservative thinks?
Please also elaborate further on your comments on how Ralph Klein "helped make me" and tell us the relevance of that comment too. You allege to know quite a bit about me. I still have to wonder as to who you even are. Hardly the basis for a reasonable conversation, don't you think?
Are you implying in your comments that I am at some sort of risk by stating my opinions openly and freely and not anonymously? Should I fear you?
BTW - Every candidate except Morton has said they will fully disclose but after the campaign when the complete accounting can be done.Ken Chapman Homepage 11.16.06 - 8:39 pm #
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Which Candidate Is Best to Keep the PC Party Together?
One of the overlooked realities of this leadership campaign is the impact the process and outcome will have on the future of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta itself. I wonder about the role of political parties in general and the resistance of people to join them. Do political parties have a future?
In the old days – I am old enough to have “old days” – political parties were individuals who came together in constituencies to use their collective power to create, influence, criticize, comment, propose and promote public policy ideas as part of the common good.
They recruited candidates, stuffed envelopes, delivered brochures and made phone calls – sometimes until their ears bled. The really big purposes of political parties were to run and win elections and to occasionally pick new party leaders…or dump old ones as the case may be.
Some of that still happens today but it is not grassroots and local anymore. It is centralized by consultants and marketing machine politics. People are more removed from the political process and the public policy development dynamics too. Campaigns have changed and so have political parties, and not necessarily for the better.
I think there is a fundamental role for political parties but they have to take back the power and purpose of grassroots democracy away for the leadership and the “handlers” of those party leaders.
Transparency, accountability, openness are all buzzwords in the politics of the day because of the miscreants and the ethically challenged political players of the past. People are turning off voting and turning away from democratic institutions like political parties as a result. Democracy is a fragile concept that depends on informed citizens who participate.
Engagement has to be meaningful before people will take the time to become involved. We need to change the culture where politicians are seen as “powerful” and we need to elect people more personally motivated by an authentic sense of being a servant leader and stewards of the public good. We need wiser, smarter and better people in elected office but that starts with citizens demanding it and doing something about it.
To get that we need more meaningful opportunity for ordinary citizens to see acts of citizenship as a duty but also a right that they respect and as a privilege they value in a free and democratic society.
With new technology and communications techniques we have lots of content and context on the candidate’s websites. But with no time to attend or serious opportunities to see and hear the candidates we don’t get to know about the character and capabilities of the candidates.
There are going to be thousands of “new PC members” who are into the fray to influence the leadership selection outcome mostly for reasons of self interest – which is just fine by me. I hope some are prepared to stay in the party past the second ballot and to keep the “winner” accountable as active citizens who are meaningfully engaged in democracy. Who knows – we may even help make the winner into a leader too.
In the old days – I am old enough to have “old days” – political parties were individuals who came together in constituencies to use their collective power to create, influence, criticize, comment, propose and promote public policy ideas as part of the common good.
They recruited candidates, stuffed envelopes, delivered brochures and made phone calls – sometimes until their ears bled. The really big purposes of political parties were to run and win elections and to occasionally pick new party leaders…or dump old ones as the case may be.
Some of that still happens today but it is not grassroots and local anymore. It is centralized by consultants and marketing machine politics. People are more removed from the political process and the public policy development dynamics too. Campaigns have changed and so have political parties, and not necessarily for the better.
I think there is a fundamental role for political parties but they have to take back the power and purpose of grassroots democracy away for the leadership and the “handlers” of those party leaders.
Transparency, accountability, openness are all buzzwords in the politics of the day because of the miscreants and the ethically challenged political players of the past. People are turning off voting and turning away from democratic institutions like political parties as a result. Democracy is a fragile concept that depends on informed citizens who participate.
Engagement has to be meaningful before people will take the time to become involved. We need to change the culture where politicians are seen as “powerful” and we need to elect people more personally motivated by an authentic sense of being a servant leader and stewards of the public good. We need wiser, smarter and better people in elected office but that starts with citizens demanding it and doing something about it.
To get that we need more meaningful opportunity for ordinary citizens to see acts of citizenship as a duty but also a right that they respect and as a privilege they value in a free and democratic society.
With new technology and communications techniques we have lots of content and context on the candidate’s websites. But with no time to attend or serious opportunities to see and hear the candidates we don’t get to know about the character and capabilities of the candidates.
There are going to be thousands of “new PC members” who are into the fray to influence the leadership selection outcome mostly for reasons of self interest – which is just fine by me. I hope some are prepared to stay in the party past the second ballot and to keep the “winner” accountable as active citizens who are meaningfully engaged in democracy. Who knows – we may even help make the winner into a leader too.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Strategic Voting and What is Best for Alberta
I have come to the conclusion that Jim Dinning has run the best campaign and is a shoe-in for the second ballot. He has the best organization; the most money, the most MLA support, a group of professional campaigners working for him and a network of volunteers throughout the province.
He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?
If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.
I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.
I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.
To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.
Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.
I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.
People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.
I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.
Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.
Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.
I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.
That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.
He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?
If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.
I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.
I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.
To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.
Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.
I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.
People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.
I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.
Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.
Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.
I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.
That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)