The Dinning MLA Stars and Slackers are tougher to comment upon. Jim is so dominant individually in Calgary with his relationships in the energy sector I think he personally delivered Calgary with a whopping total vote of 13,752.
In Calgary Dinning’s relationship to the local MLAs is that they can depend on him to win their seats for them because of his personal influence in that city. Klein had that kind of sway in Calgary and most MLAs counted on his personal elect ability to win ridings. As a result it is hard to pick Stars or Slackers on winning Calgary seats. Dinning only lost Hung Pham’s Montrose constituency to Oberg but he literally "owns" the rest of the city.
So I see no reason therefore to look how the 18 Calgary MLAs who supported Dinning did to get out the vote. Some high turn outs are worth noting. His own area of Elbow (Premier Klein’s constituency) he drew 1153 that is 60% of the total. Ron Leipert pulled in 1026 votes in Calgary West for 56%. Shiraz Shariff in Calgary McCall pulled out 922 votes an impressive 69% of votes cast.
There were 11 slackers who did not win their constituency for their man and they were spread all over the province from Cabinet Ministers like Mike Cardinal in Athabasca –Redwater to Barry McFarland in Little Bow. Little Bow had 271 Dinning backers and a total vote of 1910 for a 14% share - not impressive. Minister Renner of Medicine Hat had a 33% showing and Minister Coutts of Livingstone Macleod garnered 26% of the votes. If they all want a Dinning win they can forget about sleeping this week...they have work to do.
Richard Marz showed up with 27% of the voters in Olds-Didsbury- Three Hills. Newcomers Doug Griffiths in Battle River-Wainwright turned in 22% of the voters and Len Mitzel of Cypress-Medicine Hat gather 23% support from his area. Rob Lougheed a late convert to Dinning lost Strathcona outside Edmonton with 22%. Hon. Ty Lund only garnered 25% in Rocky Mountain House in a lost cause for Dinning. NOT impressive!
“Stars” because they won the constituency but not with remarkable results were Janis Tarchuk in Banff-Cochrane with 40% turnout, Hon George VanderBurg pulled in 43% the Hon. Gordon Graydon of Grande Prairie- Wapiti and Frank Oberle of Peace River both had 38% turn up for Dinning.
The two Edmonton supporters won their ridings for Dinning where there were often four-way splits in the voting. Lukaszuk in Edmonton Castle-Downs tallied 38% with help from his Mom who was apparently was the star salesperson. Hon Gene Zwozdesky in Edmonton Mill Creek pulled a 33% and still won. Edmonton area supporters George Rogers of Leduc-Beaumont-Devon is technically a “star” but won by 2 votes.
MLA Endorsements are nice but if they don’t deliver and their leadership candidate “turtles” they mostly have to blame themselves. The idea is not to just ride on the leader’s coat tails but to get out and ensure the victory for the party.
The 2004 election saw 210,000 fewer votes for PC candidates throughout Alberta. They were sending us a message. Based on the poor showing by some MLAs for both Dinning and Stelmach, the message is still being sent but there is lots of evidence that we are not yet listening.
If we keep this up we will have Premier Morton for two years and then Premier Taft or Premier Bronconnier afterwards.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Can Stelmach Catch Morton?
Edmonton will be a battle ground this week to select the next PC leader and pro tem Premier. No guarantee that this week will be anything like the last week in Edmonton or Alberta for that matter, but there are some interesting facts that indicate strengths and potential for growth.
The Edmonton vote was split up all over the place. Dinning had 5575 in Edmonton and Hancock had 4995. No doubt some Hancock votes will bleed to Dinning. Oberg was third in Edmonton with 3228 and they have no reason to go to Dinning but will bleed some to Morton who had a respectable 2739 total in Edmonton. Norris was fourth in Edmonton with 3125 and Stelmach was only 200 votes behind him at 2925.
So let’s make some assumptions and see how this all shakes out. Let’s presume Hancock and Oberg bleed 30% each to Dinning and Morton respectively and the rest goes to Stelmach. We don’t know where Norris is going yet but we know a big part of the motivation for his backers was an “anybody but a Calgarian” leader. The question is will they show up for Ed or just go through the motions? So let’s say Norris delivers 60% of his vote to Ed and the rest splits evenly between Morton and Dinning. No reason to think Stelmach would see any of his core Edmonton support drift away.
So Stelmach has 2925 and he gets 3500 votes (rounded) from Hancock, and 2300 (rounded) from Oberg and 1875 from Norris. His total “presumed” second week Edmonton base is therefore 10600.
Dinning has 5575 and there is no reason to think he wouldn’t keep that base. He gets 1500 from Hancock and 625 from Norris for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 7700.
Morton has 2739 and gets 625 from Norris and 970 from Oberg for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 4350 (rounded). I think there is a chance for a small amount of Morton’s Edmonton support to stay home but not enough to make a difference.
Stelmach can win if he can be in second place on the first count on December 2. The first ballot totals were 25600 Morton and 15,000 Stelmach so he needs 10600 more votes to break even from the first ballot and another 1600 from bleed to Morton in Edmonton for an Edmonton shortfall of 12200 going into the second ballot. He has a good chance to pick up 7700 of those in Edmonton alone from Hancock, Oberg and Norris. Which leaves him 4500 short of catching Morton just coming out of the endorsement adjustments in Edmonton.
The rural vote is interesting too. Morton is very strong with 15460 votes to Stelmach’s 10470 for a shortfall of 5000. My sense is Oberg has already lost whatever rural vote he had to Morton based on the kind of campaign he ran and the idea of we need to change the old boys network in the party. I am assuming Oberg’s remaining 5353 voters are not going to bleed to Morton and really are rural voters who will en masse to support another rural candidate like Stelmach. I think all Hancock and Norris rural voters go to Stelmach because there is no reason to go Morton or Dinning.
Coming out of Edmonton Stelmach is facing an adjusted shortfall to catch Morton of 4500 plus the first vote rural shortfall of 5000. Stelmach needs to make up 9500 votes to catch Morton before we face Calgary. He gets Hancock’s rural vote of 2000, Norris’ 3000 and Oberg’s 5300 which makes 10300 and effectively puts him even with Morton going into Calgary.
I will do an analysis of the Calgary vote implications for Stelmach journey to catch Morton tomorrow. Fact is Dinning “owns” Calgary butMorton is strong. How much does the allocation of the “also- rans” voters help Stelmach catch Morton?
Then there is the momentum and growth factor and the “Who really wants it” factor and who is going to go out and get it like Klein did last time.
Stay tuned.
The Edmonton vote was split up all over the place. Dinning had 5575 in Edmonton and Hancock had 4995. No doubt some Hancock votes will bleed to Dinning. Oberg was third in Edmonton with 3228 and they have no reason to go to Dinning but will bleed some to Morton who had a respectable 2739 total in Edmonton. Norris was fourth in Edmonton with 3125 and Stelmach was only 200 votes behind him at 2925.
So let’s make some assumptions and see how this all shakes out. Let’s presume Hancock and Oberg bleed 30% each to Dinning and Morton respectively and the rest goes to Stelmach. We don’t know where Norris is going yet but we know a big part of the motivation for his backers was an “anybody but a Calgarian” leader. The question is will they show up for Ed or just go through the motions? So let’s say Norris delivers 60% of his vote to Ed and the rest splits evenly between Morton and Dinning. No reason to think Stelmach would see any of his core Edmonton support drift away.
So Stelmach has 2925 and he gets 3500 votes (rounded) from Hancock, and 2300 (rounded) from Oberg and 1875 from Norris. His total “presumed” second week Edmonton base is therefore 10600.
Dinning has 5575 and there is no reason to think he wouldn’t keep that base. He gets 1500 from Hancock and 625 from Norris for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 7700.
Morton has 2739 and gets 625 from Norris and 970 from Oberg for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 4350 (rounded). I think there is a chance for a small amount of Morton’s Edmonton support to stay home but not enough to make a difference.
Stelmach can win if he can be in second place on the first count on December 2. The first ballot totals were 25600 Morton and 15,000 Stelmach so he needs 10600 more votes to break even from the first ballot and another 1600 from bleed to Morton in Edmonton for an Edmonton shortfall of 12200 going into the second ballot. He has a good chance to pick up 7700 of those in Edmonton alone from Hancock, Oberg and Norris. Which leaves him 4500 short of catching Morton just coming out of the endorsement adjustments in Edmonton.
The rural vote is interesting too. Morton is very strong with 15460 votes to Stelmach’s 10470 for a shortfall of 5000. My sense is Oberg has already lost whatever rural vote he had to Morton based on the kind of campaign he ran and the idea of we need to change the old boys network in the party. I am assuming Oberg’s remaining 5353 voters are not going to bleed to Morton and really are rural voters who will en masse to support another rural candidate like Stelmach. I think all Hancock and Norris rural voters go to Stelmach because there is no reason to go Morton or Dinning.
Coming out of Edmonton Stelmach is facing an adjusted shortfall to catch Morton of 4500 plus the first vote rural shortfall of 5000. Stelmach needs to make up 9500 votes to catch Morton before we face Calgary. He gets Hancock’s rural vote of 2000, Norris’ 3000 and Oberg’s 5300 which makes 10300 and effectively puts him even with Morton going into Calgary.
I will do an analysis of the Calgary vote implications for Stelmach journey to catch Morton tomorrow. Fact is Dinning “owns” Calgary butMorton is strong. How much does the allocation of the “also- rans” voters help Stelmach catch Morton?
Then there is the momentum and growth factor and the “Who really wants it” factor and who is going to go out and get it like Klein did last time.
Stay tuned.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
What MLAs Delivered For Ed and Which Didn't.
With the various individual MLAs supporting Stelmach and Dinning a review of their respective constituency voting results shows those who performed well or poorly for their guy. The MLA job is to get their constituency to buy memeberships and show up and vote for "their guy." I have done the analysis of Stelmach's MLA Team and it is telling.
The overall score of stars and slackers is about 50/50 for Ed's Team. The big time performers were Ray Danyluk from Lac La Biche St. Paul who turned out whopping 73% of the total 1730 voters for Ed. Next was Luke Oullette from Innisfail Sylvan Lake who turned out a more than respectable 51% of the total 1726 voting members for Stelmach.
Lloyd Snelgrove of Vermillion Lloydminster was second best delivering 48% of the 1068 total voters. Iris Evans of Sherwood Park pulled in 34% of the 1516 votes cast for Ed which I find odd given the new hospital announcement out there made during the campaign. Ed also won Hector Goudreau’s Dunvegan-Central Peace by only by a whisker over Dinning garnering 26% of only 645 votes case but hardly a stellar performance.
The underachiever Ed supporters were Mel Knight in Grande Prairie Smoky who was by far the worst. Ed came in 4th with a mere 14% of the vote. OUCH! Ivan Strang and George Groeneveld were no shows in West Yellowhead and Highwood respectively delivering a 3rd place finishs for Ed with 19 and 20% respectively of the total votes cast. Fred Lindsay was the best of the bad lot getting a 2nd place finish for Ed in Stony Plain with 23% of the vote total.
Lots of room for improvement all over and some definite revitalization of effort and new vigor is needed by some of Ed’s backers if they are serious about supporting him and seeing him win.
Hancock and Stelmach are two of the best retail politicians in the province. Their constituencies drew out the most voters. Hancock's Whitemud drew the largest with 3069 voters and Stelmach was right behind in Fort Saskatchewan Vegreville with 2934.
The turn out of almost 100,000 voters was pleasantly surprising especially given the weather and the generally reported lack of campaign significant membership sales. Lots of constituencies reported a brisk traffic of walking in membership sales all over the province.
Average turnout in Calgary was 1092.25 per constituency, 1181.10 in Edmonton and 1196.35 in the rest of Alberta. The turn out was pretty balanced even though we are fracturing the party ideologically between social conservatives, corporatists and progressives and regionally as well.
This all augers well for a possible boost in overall voting turn out next Saturday too, especially if we get a break in the weather.
I will do an analysis of the Dinning MLA supporter performance next. Stay tuned.
The overall score of stars and slackers is about 50/50 for Ed's Team. The big time performers were Ray Danyluk from Lac La Biche St. Paul who turned out whopping 73% of the total 1730 voters for Ed. Next was Luke Oullette from Innisfail Sylvan Lake who turned out a more than respectable 51% of the total 1726 voting members for Stelmach.
Lloyd Snelgrove of Vermillion Lloydminster was second best delivering 48% of the 1068 total voters. Iris Evans of Sherwood Park pulled in 34% of the 1516 votes cast for Ed which I find odd given the new hospital announcement out there made during the campaign. Ed also won Hector Goudreau’s Dunvegan-Central Peace by only by a whisker over Dinning garnering 26% of only 645 votes case but hardly a stellar performance.
The underachiever Ed supporters were Mel Knight in Grande Prairie Smoky who was by far the worst. Ed came in 4th with a mere 14% of the vote. OUCH! Ivan Strang and George Groeneveld were no shows in West Yellowhead and Highwood respectively delivering a 3rd place finishs for Ed with 19 and 20% respectively of the total votes cast. Fred Lindsay was the best of the bad lot getting a 2nd place finish for Ed in Stony Plain with 23% of the vote total.
Lots of room for improvement all over and some definite revitalization of effort and new vigor is needed by some of Ed’s backers if they are serious about supporting him and seeing him win.
Hancock and Stelmach are two of the best retail politicians in the province. Their constituencies drew out the most voters. Hancock's Whitemud drew the largest with 3069 voters and Stelmach was right behind in Fort Saskatchewan Vegreville with 2934.
The turn out of almost 100,000 voters was pleasantly surprising especially given the weather and the generally reported lack of campaign significant membership sales. Lots of constituencies reported a brisk traffic of walking in membership sales all over the province.
Average turnout in Calgary was 1092.25 per constituency, 1181.10 in Edmonton and 1196.35 in the rest of Alberta. The turn out was pretty balanced even though we are fracturing the party ideologically between social conservatives, corporatists and progressives and regionally as well.
This all augers well for a possible boost in overall voting turn out next Saturday too, especially if we get a break in the weather.
I will do an analysis of the Dinning MLA supporter performance next. Stay tuned.
Our Latest LaPresse Column Published Today
I am going over the numbers and the outcomes of yesterday and looking for the potential and possibilities for Stelmach to win. I have seen how i can be done. I am far from finished in my analysis of what it will take but as readers have heard me say before "Campaigns Matter."
This campaign is still far from over. I see what I call "The Mandel Syndrome" happening for Stelmach this week big time. The top guns are not seen as sufficient to make the shifts needed to meet the future and the third place alternative is not just a compromise but on reflection, he becomes the preferred choice and wins.
IN THE MEANTIME here is our LaPresse column published in Montreal today. It has relevance as you will see.
La Presse 26 novembre 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives signalled a definitive end to the era of Ralph Klein by voting for his successor yesterday, and in doing so began to redefine Alberta’s place in Canada.
In the last five years, Alberta’s government abandoned all vision and direction, after paying off the entire fiscal debt. It squandered opportunity and did little to respond to the pressure of rapid growth. Worst of all, it had no interest in developing the adaptability and flexibility needed to respond to change. It brought in a favourable royalty regime of one per cent to accelerate development of the oil sands when oil cost less than $20 a barrel – and persisted with it even as prices rose astronomically.
This failure to build an escalating royalty rate so that government income would increase as prices rose, cost the Alberta treasury more in lost revenue than the reviled National Energy Programme negotiated a generation ago between Peter Lougheed and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Indeed, this one instance of incompetence is as colossal as Quebec’s squandering of Hydro Quebec’s revenue potential, so ably chronicled in Alain Dubuc’s excellent book Éloge de la richesse.
In fact, the Alberta government went beyond laissez-faire economics, to invoke laissez-faire governance. Premier Klein’s government deliberately chose to create a debt-free fiscal climate wherein government would earn the room to cut taxes and give the free-market economy the lebensraum it needed to grow and flourish. This philosophy meant removing the deliberate and deliberative hand of government in favour of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.
This Adam Smith economic prescription was paired with a John Stuart Mill political outlook. Rather than a “social contract” between the citizen and the state, the Klein political philosophy followed Mill. His governing ideal enabled and empowered each person to exercise and develop their capacities, capabilities, engagement and participation in his or her own way, in order to achieve personal progress and personal happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment.
In this concept of political economy, a flat-rate personal income tax, more private choice in the provision of health care, and distributing resource royalties directly to citizens by writing everyone a cheque, are all perfectly consistent with Adam Smith economics and John Stuart Mill politics. In this construct, the individual liberty to pursue one’s own happiness, with the least possible constraint from the state, becomes the central governing ethos.
The effect of laissez-faire governance was to diminish the individual’s expectation of state support, and to regard the state as a shelter only in times of critical need. As Premier Klein put it, his governance philosophy was to provide “a hand up, not a hand-out.” The ultimate empowerment of the citizen, in the Klein philosophy, was the classical Mills view that democracy with its freedom of speech and freedom of choice is the best vehicle to enable each citizen to flourish, following pursuits and decisions of his or her choice free from the interference of others, so long as what one wants does no harm to others.
Yet it is clear to the majority in Alberta that hands-off government does not work. The state of the environment is by far the biggest preoccupation of Albertans, who seek government leadership in sustaining the environment without demolishing the economy. Of the candidates on yesterday’s ballot Jim Dinning was a strong proponent of what he called the “clean energy economy,” proposing billions of dollars of investment in sequestering carbon dioxide and slashing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Interestingly, this is also the perspective of federal Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion). And in survey after survey, Albertans declare themselves proud Canadians, ready to share their wealth with their fellow citizens (so long as the federal government is not the agent of distribution).
More than anything, Albertans seek a new role of leadership and influence in the country, based on their growing economic power and the responsibility that brings to perpetuate the common good. No matter what choice the Progressive Conservative party makes, an effective Premier of Alberta must respond to these desires.
This campaign is still far from over. I see what I call "The Mandel Syndrome" happening for Stelmach this week big time. The top guns are not seen as sufficient to make the shifts needed to meet the future and the third place alternative is not just a compromise but on reflection, he becomes the preferred choice and wins.
IN THE MEANTIME here is our LaPresse column published in Montreal today. It has relevance as you will see.
La Presse 26 novembre 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives signalled a definitive end to the era of Ralph Klein by voting for his successor yesterday, and in doing so began to redefine Alberta’s place in Canada.
In the last five years, Alberta’s government abandoned all vision and direction, after paying off the entire fiscal debt. It squandered opportunity and did little to respond to the pressure of rapid growth. Worst of all, it had no interest in developing the adaptability and flexibility needed to respond to change. It brought in a favourable royalty regime of one per cent to accelerate development of the oil sands when oil cost less than $20 a barrel – and persisted with it even as prices rose astronomically.
This failure to build an escalating royalty rate so that government income would increase as prices rose, cost the Alberta treasury more in lost revenue than the reviled National Energy Programme negotiated a generation ago between Peter Lougheed and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Indeed, this one instance of incompetence is as colossal as Quebec’s squandering of Hydro Quebec’s revenue potential, so ably chronicled in Alain Dubuc’s excellent book Éloge de la richesse.
In fact, the Alberta government went beyond laissez-faire economics, to invoke laissez-faire governance. Premier Klein’s government deliberately chose to create a debt-free fiscal climate wherein government would earn the room to cut taxes and give the free-market economy the lebensraum it needed to grow and flourish. This philosophy meant removing the deliberate and deliberative hand of government in favour of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.
This Adam Smith economic prescription was paired with a John Stuart Mill political outlook. Rather than a “social contract” between the citizen and the state, the Klein political philosophy followed Mill. His governing ideal enabled and empowered each person to exercise and develop their capacities, capabilities, engagement and participation in his or her own way, in order to achieve personal progress and personal happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment.
In this concept of political economy, a flat-rate personal income tax, more private choice in the provision of health care, and distributing resource royalties directly to citizens by writing everyone a cheque, are all perfectly consistent with Adam Smith economics and John Stuart Mill politics. In this construct, the individual liberty to pursue one’s own happiness, with the least possible constraint from the state, becomes the central governing ethos.
The effect of laissez-faire governance was to diminish the individual’s expectation of state support, and to regard the state as a shelter only in times of critical need. As Premier Klein put it, his governance philosophy was to provide “a hand up, not a hand-out.” The ultimate empowerment of the citizen, in the Klein philosophy, was the classical Mills view that democracy with its freedom of speech and freedom of choice is the best vehicle to enable each citizen to flourish, following pursuits and decisions of his or her choice free from the interference of others, so long as what one wants does no harm to others.
Yet it is clear to the majority in Alberta that hands-off government does not work. The state of the environment is by far the biggest preoccupation of Albertans, who seek government leadership in sustaining the environment without demolishing the economy. Of the candidates on yesterday’s ballot Jim Dinning was a strong proponent of what he called the “clean energy economy,” proposing billions of dollars of investment in sequestering carbon dioxide and slashing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Interestingly, this is also the perspective of federal Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion). And in survey after survey, Albertans declare themselves proud Canadians, ready to share their wealth with their fellow citizens (so long as the federal government is not the agent of distribution).
More than anything, Albertans seek a new role of leadership and influence in the country, based on their growing economic power and the responsibility that brings to perpetuate the common good. No matter what choice the Progressive Conservative party makes, an effective Premier of Alberta must respond to these desires.
And Now There Are Three
Good morning. A busload and Hancock supporters went to Calgary yesterday and we got home at 4:30 this morning. I am a bit blurry eyed and feel like I slept with an old sock in my mouth. I have been telling myself since I woke up “I am not too old for this.” There is a fine line between an affirmation and a delusion.
Just did a quick look at the constituency results and will have lots to say later today. The choice is clear but it is not a two horse race - it is a real three-way contest, with clear alternatives and real choices, each resulting in a very different Alberta.
Ed Stelmach is a strong third place finisher and is definitely in the hunt. He has traction, momentum and growth potential this week. The media will frame the choice as Dinning vs. Morton. I see that dichotomy as we really don’t need just more of the Dinning Calgary Mafia nor do most Albertans see themselves reflected in the social conservative values of the Morton Alliance Mafia.
This week there will be lots of hype, hyperbole and hypertension. There is time for the average Albertan to take some time for some sober second thinking about the kind of Alberta we should become. We can all reflect on which of these three is going to be the most effective agent of real change to help move us forward to our preferred future. Those that do some sober second thinking will find a real alternative in Stelmach. He is not just a compromise candidate to the other two "top guns." He is the real thing.
I know Ed Stelmach. I like him and respect him. More importantly, I trust him and know he is authentic to his progressive values and has sound judgment. I will be telling you more abut him as the week progresses.
I suggested early in the campaign that Hancock could be the beneficiary of a Mandel syndrome where the front runners were found wanting and an acceptable alternative was wanted. Mandel became that acceptable alternative to the so-called “favorites” and the Mayor of Edmonton. Not only is Ed “acceptable” but for the kind of real change an attitude and approach to government and governing, he is, by far the best alternative for Leader/Premier for ALL ALBERTA
Just did a quick look at the constituency results and will have lots to say later today. The choice is clear but it is not a two horse race - it is a real three-way contest, with clear alternatives and real choices, each resulting in a very different Alberta.
Ed Stelmach is a strong third place finisher and is definitely in the hunt. He has traction, momentum and growth potential this week. The media will frame the choice as Dinning vs. Morton. I see that dichotomy as we really don’t need just more of the Dinning Calgary Mafia nor do most Albertans see themselves reflected in the social conservative values of the Morton Alliance Mafia.
This week there will be lots of hype, hyperbole and hypertension. There is time for the average Albertan to take some time for some sober second thinking about the kind of Alberta we should become. We can all reflect on which of these three is going to be the most effective agent of real change to help move us forward to our preferred future. Those that do some sober second thinking will find a real alternative in Stelmach. He is not just a compromise candidate to the other two "top guns." He is the real thing.
I know Ed Stelmach. I like him and respect him. More importantly, I trust him and know he is authentic to his progressive values and has sound judgment. I will be telling you more abut him as the week progresses.
I suggested early in the campaign that Hancock could be the beneficiary of a Mandel syndrome where the front runners were found wanting and an acceptable alternative was wanted. Mandel became that acceptable alternative to the so-called “favorites” and the Mayor of Edmonton. Not only is Ed “acceptable” but for the kind of real change an attitude and approach to government and governing, he is, by far the best alternative for Leader/Premier for ALL ALBERTA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)