There are few names in Alberta as famous as Lougheed. The statesman status of former Premier Peter Lougheed is one of the best antidotes to the stern hard line far right rhetoric of the Alliance cum “Progressive” Conservative candidates.
The halcyon mythology of the Lougheed time as Alberta’s “Camelot” is over blown by we Red Tories – just as much as “blaming the NEP and Ottawa” for all the past ills of Alberta is exaggerated by the Alliance folks. The partial truth of myths is both their strength and their weakness.
The Lougheed endorsement of Dinning is surprising to me. No surprise as to where his support would be. I am surprised however that he would break from his earlier commitment not to make any campaign endorsement. Doing so in such a timely and strategic way is good politics and a confidence boost for Dinning.
If resonance with the public sentiment is the test of a successful political position (and it is) Peter Lougheed and Preston Manning have been the most effective campaigners on “their issues” of anyone in this leadership contest. Frank, clear, blunt and forward thinking commentary from both men have added greatly to forming the current and emerging consciousness of Albertans. This is especially with the ascendance of the environment as the #1 issue in Albertan’s policy concerns. Their influence on making that happen is significant.
I think Peter Lougheed’s political instincts about what is happening in this leadership campaign are as sharp as ever. I believe he fears the potential ballot box strength of the republican-lite far right candidates and the collective indifference of the progressive and moderate elements in the leadership campaign.
So his engagement in the fray will help raise the attention level of the campaign amongst moderate and progressive Albertans. It will help Stelmach and Hancock garner support too I expect. Hopefully it will show progressive and moderate Albertans that they need to be involved in this leadership contest because the outcome can potentially define the future for all of us.
For years I used to sit back and roll my eyes at the statements and actions of the far right element in the PC Party. I viewed them as a minority that merely had to be tolerated in a free and democratic society. I sat back and did nothing to rebut the rhetoric, regardless of how ridiculous and rancorous it was at times.
Because most people like me in the PC party were also disengaging we left the policy and political field to the far right and they, to their credit, played the game well. They set the tone and temperament of the party and changed the public consciousness of what the PC party was all about. It had evolved from an amalgam of progressive plus conservative principles more into a big “C” conservative movement.
The new debt/deficit approach was a disciplined fiscal approach (for a while), but with a relatively harsh social agenda. It ended up being neither progressive nor conservative in the end just power-based pragmatic government with too much money to spend. The party had lost its way. This leadership campaign, we must remember, is about the future of the party and the province.
I few years ago I decided to re-engage and to stand up to the far right rhetoric when I thought it was destructive, discriminating and divisive. This Blog is just part of that personal re-engagement. I don’t know if Peter Lougheed is re-engaging for the same reasons, but given the circumstances and the timing, I would not be surprised.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
PC Party Needs More Than Revitalization.
The next Leader/Premier has to revitalize the PC Party of Alberta. Part of that effort must be to take the lead and change some of the culture around the parties nomination process and candidate selection. If we are going to attract better people into politics, they have to be assured the systems are fair and balanced and the rules are enforced. Not do so erodes the public's confidence in political parties and their processes. They potentially impede the effectiveness of successful candidates.
Lets be clear, the PC Party of Alberta is no better or worse than the other political parties in this regard. A quick search will show "incidences" in virtually every party. They seem to be just another one of our institutions that has let us down or betrayed our trust.
My point is we in the PC Party, with a new leader can take the opportunity to make some real changes. We can and should do a lot better and become the political party that raises the ethical bar and set the standards for everyone else as a result.
For example, there were allegations of irregularities surrounding the voter lists in his 2004 nomination in the Foothills-Rockyview constituency and the matter went to Court. It appears the matter was just dropped in light of the pending 2004 election. Pragmatism over principle seems to have been the ethical standard of the day. Not good enough! People deserve to know the truth.
The Court records on this matter is interesting reading but inconclusive as to if or how the issues and allegations were resolved in the end.
The initial legal issue was apparently a defeated candidate for the nomination was seeking a judicial review over the eligibility of some of the people on the voting membership list in the Foothills Rockyview Progressive Conservative Party nomination process for the 2004 election.
The Alberta Court of Appeal states the issue as:
“At the nomination meeting, Morton won by some 4 votes. Anderson was a losing candidate. Anderson believes, or suspects, or has concerns that some people who voted at the meeting were ineligible to vote because they were not resident in the riding.”
The issue was stayed by the Court due to the pending election but it appears to be still unresolved. It appears there were weeks of negotiations between the parties to settle these matters out of Court, but ultimately unsuccessfully.
Is it sufficient that the PC Party leave such matters unresolved? Was the voters list for the 2004 nomination meeting, ever produced and reviewed and eligibility confirmed? Is the party sure all those people on the list were actually residents of Foothills-Rockyview Constituency and appropriate to vote in that nomination?
Please don’t tell us this issue was delayed and then forgotten about by the Progressive Conservative Party at the end of the day because the 2004 election was looming. As the Court said “…(these decisions)…are potentially very important, not only to these parties but to others.” To not find out the facts and with the seriousness of the accusation made in these court proceedings is not fair to anyone involved. It does not do much to instil confidence in the PC Party either. We have such an open and fair process to select a new leader for the party, people need to be confident the process to nominate candidates is also open and fair.
I think the next leader’s job is not just about revitalizing the party. It is also about changing the culture of the party so this stuff does not happen. If and when there are issues or concerns, they get dealt with efficiently, effectively, openly, promptly and fairly.
Allegations of gamesmanship with the nomination process left unresolved, just enhances the cynicism of citizens about politics. Such issues are still happening. We see it with the federal Liberal leadership race, the provincial Liberal leadership race when Grant Mitchell was choosen still has a cloud over it. The federal Conservative Party of Canada currently has a court challenge on the Rob Anders nomination in Calgary West and of course we have the Ontario Conservative caucus dumping of Garth Turner but wikthout clarifying the reasons and rationale for the move.
I will be interested to see if and how the new PC leader tackles these party governance issues just as much as they tackle the various social, economic and environmental issues facing the province.
Lets be clear, the PC Party of Alberta is no better or worse than the other political parties in this regard. A quick search will show "incidences" in virtually every party. They seem to be just another one of our institutions that has let us down or betrayed our trust.
My point is we in the PC Party, with a new leader can take the opportunity to make some real changes. We can and should do a lot better and become the political party that raises the ethical bar and set the standards for everyone else as a result.
For example, there were allegations of irregularities surrounding the voter lists in his 2004 nomination in the Foothills-Rockyview constituency and the matter went to Court. It appears the matter was just dropped in light of the pending 2004 election. Pragmatism over principle seems to have been the ethical standard of the day. Not good enough! People deserve to know the truth.
The Court records on this matter is interesting reading but inconclusive as to if or how the issues and allegations were resolved in the end.
The initial legal issue was apparently a defeated candidate for the nomination was seeking a judicial review over the eligibility of some of the people on the voting membership list in the Foothills Rockyview Progressive Conservative Party nomination process for the 2004 election.
The Alberta Court of Appeal states the issue as:
“At the nomination meeting, Morton won by some 4 votes. Anderson was a losing candidate. Anderson believes, or suspects, or has concerns that some people who voted at the meeting were ineligible to vote because they were not resident in the riding.”
The issue was stayed by the Court due to the pending election but it appears to be still unresolved. It appears there were weeks of negotiations between the parties to settle these matters out of Court, but ultimately unsuccessfully.
Is it sufficient that the PC Party leave such matters unresolved? Was the voters list for the 2004 nomination meeting, ever produced and reviewed and eligibility confirmed? Is the party sure all those people on the list were actually residents of Foothills-Rockyview Constituency and appropriate to vote in that nomination?
Please don’t tell us this issue was delayed and then forgotten about by the Progressive Conservative Party at the end of the day because the 2004 election was looming. As the Court said “…(these decisions)…are potentially very important, not only to these parties but to others.” To not find out the facts and with the seriousness of the accusation made in these court proceedings is not fair to anyone involved. It does not do much to instil confidence in the PC Party either. We have such an open and fair process to select a new leader for the party, people need to be confident the process to nominate candidates is also open and fair.
I think the next leader’s job is not just about revitalizing the party. It is also about changing the culture of the party so this stuff does not happen. If and when there are issues or concerns, they get dealt with efficiently, effectively, openly, promptly and fairly.
Allegations of gamesmanship with the nomination process left unresolved, just enhances the cynicism of citizens about politics. Such issues are still happening. We see it with the federal Liberal leadership race, the provincial Liberal leadership race when Grant Mitchell was choosen still has a cloud over it. The federal Conservative Party of Canada currently has a court challenge on the Rob Anders nomination in Calgary West and of course we have the Ontario Conservative caucus dumping of Garth Turner but wikthout clarifying the reasons and rationale for the move.
I will be interested to see if and how the new PC leader tackles these party governance issues just as much as they tackle the various social, economic and environmental issues facing the province.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
"Send 'Em a Message" Update Report #4
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.
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.
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 #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)