The top performers in delivering the Second Ballot vote for Ed Stelmach is Ed Stelmach. His own astonishing performance of 4156 votes in Fort-Sask Vegreville for 91% of total votes cast.
Given the obvious propensity for Morton supporters to go to Stelmach over Dinning, I have not said much about the impact of the second preference vote, although the MLAs would also have some impact on that outcome. Where it made a significant difference I have noted it.
The Second Ballot ranking (excluding the Morton #2 preference support) of the MLA endorsements for Stelmach are:
#1 Ray Danyluk of Lac La Biche-St Paul with 2496 votes
#2 Hon. Dave Hancock of Edmonton Whitemud with1909 votes
#3 Hon. Iris Evans of Sherwood Park with 1493 votes
#4 Hon. Luke Ouellette of Innisfail-SylvanLake with 1385 votes
#5 Lloyd Snelgrove of Vermillion-Lloydminster with 1231 votes
#6 Hon. Lyle Oberg of Strathmore-Brooks with 1012 votes
#7 Fred Lindsay of Stony Plain with 909 votes
#8 Mark Norris of Edmonton McClung with 917 votes (21 votes over Dinning but 246 past him on the allocation of the Morton second preference votes)
#9 George Groeneveld of Highwood with 901 votes (lost to Morton at first but won big time over Dinning by over 1000 votes on the Morton second preference votes)
#10 Hon. Pearl Calahasen of Lesser Slave Lake with 891 votes
#11 Hector Goudreau of Dunvegan-Central Peace with 581 votes
#12 Hon. Mel Knight of Grande Prairie Smokey with 570 votes
#13 Ivan Strang of West Yellowhead with 481 votes
#14 Hon. Guy Boutilier of Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo with 306 votes almost 100 votes behind Dinning on the first count and he still lost to Dinning with the addition of the second preference Morton votes.
This is a ranking of the performance of the supporters. I have not done the analysis but I expect all did significantly better than the November 25th first vote. Some constituencies have smaller and more dispersed populations than others so that will account for some differences.
That said though, this is a pretty good idea of who the real performers were for Ed Stelmach’s campaign. The top six are pretty impressive. The Hon. Boutilier is clearly not a campaigner. He garnered only 306 votes where the Fort McMurray population alone is now the size of Red Deer.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Stelmach and Dion - A New Alberta. A New Canada
Stelmach will be a uninfying force for the PC Party and will also change the nature of politics and governance in Alberta too. All for the better. Great campaign and the extremists were rejected by Albertans today, as were the traditional powerbroker politics of the past. Change was wanted and change is what we got.
Dion will be good for Alberta, especially as we tackle the environmental and immigration demands and opportunities before us.
If you want to know more about Stephane Dion go to Policy Channel for the interview we did with him during the campaign.
The link is http://www.policychannel.com/AVideos/Dion/iframe1.php
I am very tired and very happy to have called both the Dion and Stelmach wins tonight. I just wished I had made more bets.
Welcome to the New Alberta and the New Canada. Democracy has spoken very clearly and profoundly today in both places.
Dion will be good for Alberta, especially as we tackle the environmental and immigration demands and opportunities before us.
If you want to know more about Stephane Dion go to Policy Channel for the interview we did with him during the campaign.
The link is http://www.policychannel.com/AVideos/Dion/iframe1.php
I am very tired and very happy to have called both the Dion and Stelmach wins tonight. I just wished I had made more bets.
Welcome to the New Alberta and the New Canada. Democracy has spoken very clearly and profoundly today in both places.
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Catch 23 of Political Leadership
Everyone knows what a Catch 22 is. I have developed a new paradox that applies to the processes and practices of political leadership. I call it the Catch 23. That is the situation where the talents and skills it takes to get the job of a political leader are very different from those it takes to do the job of political leader.
Campaigns are large scale social activities dominated by manufactured simplified images, crisp vacuous sound bites, pleasing photo ops and truncated answers to complex concept based questions. It is about showing strength and domination and setting the attention getting agenda with professional media relations techniques. It is about issues management that masquerade as meaningful and resonant policy pronouncements. It is a decentralizing activity with endorsements and group think that is focused on not “messing up” as opposed to being momentous bold and courageous.
Leadership, on the other hand, is individualized, lonely and centralizing because of the enormous power and responsibility and accountability focused at the top, on one person. It is about change and all real change always happens at the margins, were it is uncomfortable and risky and comes with consequences, good and bad. It is about complexity and nuance, interests and influences, pressures and personalities that have to be balanced, bartered and prioritized. Some times principles get bent and promises get broken.
It is about culture that gets expressed in terms of competing principles and rivalling values that are either personal to the leader or collectively held by the society. The competition and tradeoffs amongst principles and values always get complicated and often misinterpreted by somebody or other. That usually results in political and personal consequences for the leader, and they are rarely good consequences.
Then this all has to be done in public, without a “dress rehearsal” and with out a “safety net” to catch you if you fail. It has to be done in an adversarial governance model that too often relishes having a good fight rather than finding the best solution. It is all very personal and personality driven when you look at the realities of modern politics and power. Each leader is captive of their own history, experiences, interests and aptitudes which impacts their judgement adds to the personality dimension of political leadership.
So how are we citizens then supposed to choose leaders given all of this? Obviously very carefully! The big questions are who are these candidates as people? What do they stand for and why? What kind of people are they and what kind of world do they come from. Are they decent, dedicated dependable and decisive? Do they know how to deal with people, and I mean all kinds of people? How do they handle pressure? Do they have a strong personal support base of family and close friends to help them as persons not just as politicians. Finally what is their world view? Are they, for example open curious and adaptable or are they controlling, contained and constrained?
Government like any other organization or institution never made a decision about anything. It is the people who lead and participate in them that are the real sources of decisions and directions. So who you elect is absolutely critical to the directions and destinations we undertake collectively as a society and how they will impact us individually and as family and community.
When you vote for the PC Leader/Premier tomorrow – slow down for a few moments and think twice about what you are voting for and why as much if not more than who you are voting for.
Then vote twice …#1 Ed Stelmach, #2 Jim Dinning. You will be glad you did.
Campaigns are large scale social activities dominated by manufactured simplified images, crisp vacuous sound bites, pleasing photo ops and truncated answers to complex concept based questions. It is about showing strength and domination and setting the attention getting agenda with professional media relations techniques. It is about issues management that masquerade as meaningful and resonant policy pronouncements. It is a decentralizing activity with endorsements and group think that is focused on not “messing up” as opposed to being momentous bold and courageous.
Leadership, on the other hand, is individualized, lonely and centralizing because of the enormous power and responsibility and accountability focused at the top, on one person. It is about change and all real change always happens at the margins, were it is uncomfortable and risky and comes with consequences, good and bad. It is about complexity and nuance, interests and influences, pressures and personalities that have to be balanced, bartered and prioritized. Some times principles get bent and promises get broken.
It is about culture that gets expressed in terms of competing principles and rivalling values that are either personal to the leader or collectively held by the society. The competition and tradeoffs amongst principles and values always get complicated and often misinterpreted by somebody or other. That usually results in political and personal consequences for the leader, and they are rarely good consequences.
Then this all has to be done in public, without a “dress rehearsal” and with out a “safety net” to catch you if you fail. It has to be done in an adversarial governance model that too often relishes having a good fight rather than finding the best solution. It is all very personal and personality driven when you look at the realities of modern politics and power. Each leader is captive of their own history, experiences, interests and aptitudes which impacts their judgement adds to the personality dimension of political leadership.
So how are we citizens then supposed to choose leaders given all of this? Obviously very carefully! The big questions are who are these candidates as people? What do they stand for and why? What kind of people are they and what kind of world do they come from. Are they decent, dedicated dependable and decisive? Do they know how to deal with people, and I mean all kinds of people? How do they handle pressure? Do they have a strong personal support base of family and close friends to help them as persons not just as politicians. Finally what is their world view? Are they, for example open curious and adaptable or are they controlling, contained and constrained?
Government like any other organization or institution never made a decision about anything. It is the people who lead and participate in them that are the real sources of decisions and directions. So who you elect is absolutely critical to the directions and destinations we undertake collectively as a society and how they will impact us individually and as family and community.
When you vote for the PC Leader/Premier tomorrow – slow down for a few moments and think twice about what you are voting for and why as much if not more than who you are voting for.
Then vote twice …#1 Ed Stelmach, #2 Jim Dinning. You will be glad you did.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Ted Morton's Big Tent
Ted Morton is all of a sudden a big tent, inclusive kind of guy with a passion for diversity. He has lots of room for lots of different people in his Conservative party even though he is running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party…a real difference and not just semantics I might add.
He even pointed out his “endorsement from the Muslim community” on the Global TV debate tonight as his proof of this claim. Specific reference in the newspapers in Edmonton and Calgary today was to Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada as the supporter of Dr. Morton.
Here is a Calgary Herald story from this past August on his Muslim supporter and the group he represents. His supporter sounds a bit harsh to me and apparently not representative of the majority of the Muslim community as Dr. Morton suggests. I’ll leave the final judgment of readers as to if this helps make Dr. Morton’s image as a more accommodating, moderate and tolerant guy and someone who you would grant your consent to govern your life as Premier of Alberta.
Muslim leader lashes out at U.S. 'fascists': Calgarian prompts outcry by blaming Bush for terrorism
Calgary Herald
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Page: A7
Section: News
Byline: Jason Fekete
Source: Calgary Herald
A national Islamic organization headed by a Calgarian says George W. Bush is a root cause of terrorism, calling the U.S. president and some neo-conservatives "the biggest fascists, terrorists and extremists."
Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and founder of Muslims Against
Terrorism, also suggested this week's United Kingdom terrorism plot was an effort to shift the world's attention from "the genocide in Lebanon."
The comments sparked criticism from other religious leaders, including Hatim Zaghloul, chairman of the Muslim Council of Calgary, who said Soharwardy's remarks don't represent the views of the larger portion of the community.
Soharwardy condemned Friday the alleged terrorism plot discovered by British authorities to blow up at least 10 transatlantic flights -- a plan the U.S. president linked to "Islamic fascists."
Soharwardy insisted Bush and the terrorists have a "common agenda," which is to kill civilians and destroy infrastructure in an effort to gain control over people and the world's resources.
"The reality is that the overwhelming majority of peaceful people see Mr. Bush and his neo-cons as the biggest fascists, terrorists and extremists," Soharwardy said in a statement that was further backed up in an interview.
The terrorists, along with Bush and his "neo-cons" -- including British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- are the root cause of terrorism, he said, adding that both of these "mafia-like organizations" should be condemned and brought to justice.
"It has been proven Mr. Bush and his neo-con mafia are responsible for producing more terrorists and more destruction," said Soharwardy, speaking on behalf of the Islamic council, which has 13 chapters across the country and says it represents 50,000 Muslims.
"The war against terrorism is a factory that is producing terrorists on a very large scale. Mr. Bush and the neo-cons are managing this factory," he added. "Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are as much responsible as the terrorists for killing innocent civilians."
Soharwardy said his argument that the British terror plot is an effort to deviate the world's attention from "the genocide in Lebanon" isn't necessarily laying blame for who's behind the plan.
"Regardless of who's responsible . . . this plot has diverted attention from Lebanon," he said, adding that it's damaged the Muslim cause.
His statements were quickly censured by Calgary's largest Muslim group and by the B'nai Brith Canada.
"It's inflammatory language, there's no doubt," said Zaghloul, whose group represents about 80 per cent of all Muslims in Calgary, or between 50,000 to 65,000 people.
"We need to bring people closer, not further apart," Zaghloul said.
Calgary Imam Alaa Elsayed agreed that Soharwardy represents a small percentage of Muslims, but conceded Bush's comments have sparked a backlash that may be partially to blame for mounting terrorism in the world.
"I don't disagree totally. I disagree in the wording," he said, specifically criticizing suggestions Bush is a terrorist.
Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, assailed Soharwardy's statements as absurdities that "have no foundation in reality," particularly the notion of a genocide in Lebanon.
The comments reflect a pattern, Dimant said, of elements within Canadian society that are becoming much more aggressive.
"It's horrible. It's outlandish. It's on the verge of insanity to speak in the terms being spoken by these people," Dimant said. "It's preposterous that people in the safety of Canada can possibly pronounce the kind of statements done (Friday)."
In an interview with the Herald, Soharwardy conceded he used "strong language." However, he said it was needed so Canadians can see a more complete story regarding the terror plot, and that terrorism isn't automatically tied to Muslims or Islam.
Bush's comments and the military actions of the western world isolate the general Muslim population, he said, which leads some Muslims to extremist groups.
"The war against terrorism hasn't reduced terrorism. It's increased terrorism," Soharwardy said.
jfekete@theherald.canwest.com
This Saturday – be careful who you elect.
Front Runners Campaign on "Anybody But" and "Let's Kick Some Butt"
As the campaign heats up to the sprint to the finish line interesting events are happening. For example, Ted Morton’ campaign slogan says “More Alberta – Less Ottawa.” But he has a bunch of Federal Conservative MPs from Ottawa in Alberta campaigning for him. Does what he really mean is “More of Ted’s Alberta – More of Ted’s Ottawa.”
The Edmonton gay and lesbian community supports Jim Dinning. Good to see the Pride Centre of Edmonton getting involved. The Edmonton Journal says they view Dinning as the “lesser of the evils.” Did they really mean to say that “Morton is the evil of two lessers?” I hope they at least vote Stelmach as #2.
Stelmach is the choice of people who want to see the province work more collaboratively and comprehensively in practical integrated ways to deal the full range of challenges before us. If the contest is all about the “Clash of the Calgary Titans” it is quite scary when you consider the consequences for the whole province. It is entirely avoidable too if everyone voted Stelmach as your #1 choice but that is unrealistic. At least make Stelmach your #2 choice regardless of who you vote #1.
The two front runners are polarizing forces for sure, as tonight’s debate will no doubt confirm. Albertans are looking at all three Leader/Premier candidates this week in terms of what motivates them, who is closest to them and who has influence on them and who controls access to them and, finally, how will they govern.
Policy differences are important but not the deciding factors. The choice between Morton and Dinning is being decided by many party members and interest groups as the lesser of two evils. I think that undervalues the obvious skills, abilities and talents of both Dinning and Morton. It is not just about who will govern but how they will govern that is unsettling to many as they look at Dinning and Morton.
The ballot box questions are concerns over the values and the motivations for each of the candidates and the public’s evolving perceptions of their personalities and characters. The choice is also being decided through a lens of a significant trend towards fragmentation of the province.
The fragmentation of Alberta into special interest groups who are becoming very involved and engaged as strategic voting blocks from unionists to evangelicals. The various regions throughout the province are also looking at voting strategically for candidates based on competition for critical government attention to their issues. The PC party is fragmenting internally too. I wonder if we aren't just auctioning it off to the Alliance Party by voting Morton.
The divisions are reflected in many ways including geography that is north-south, urban-rural, in the corridor and outside the corridor. There are value differences of intolerance of differences to embracing inclusion and diversity. Intergenerational differences about what to do with non-renewable resource revenues and surpluses are showing up. There are fault lines forming even amongst industry sectors as they scramble and compete for staff and workers, and we have not even highlighted Edmonton and Calgary issues.
So Alberta – ask yourself, what are the skills, insights and character qualities that are needed to deal with this reality? Who has earned the trust and respect of the widest range of people in all the “places” that is becoming Alberta today? Who sees this balkanization as a barrier to Alberta achieving its potential and living up to its promise - and will do something about it?
Who can ensure we make Alberta’s defining characteristic as being the best example of what is best about Canada as opposed to becoming a U.S. Republican Party facsimilie? Who is best able to use their leadership skills to ensure we don’t turn Alberta into a mini-middle east of irreconcilable differences were self-interests and radical factions compete for power and control?
This Saturday we all have unavoidable choices to make and serious consequences to consider as we decide on our Premier for the next two years. Even staying home and not participating is making a choice to let others decide this issue for you. Lack of knowledge can be cured by going on the candidate's websites and informing yourself. Indifference to the chance to make a difference is inexcusable.
The future is ours so long as we don’t blow it on Saturday. Overcome the frustration, the anger and deal with the angst and vote for intelligent, skilled, compassionate and effective change. Think about what is in the best interest of you and your family. Think about what is best for your community and the province as a whole when you vote. I have done that reflection and I am voting Stelmach/Dinning in that order.
Remember we are all in this together, alone!
The Edmonton gay and lesbian community supports Jim Dinning. Good to see the Pride Centre of Edmonton getting involved. The Edmonton Journal says they view Dinning as the “lesser of the evils.” Did they really mean to say that “Morton is the evil of two lessers?” I hope they at least vote Stelmach as #2.
Stelmach is the choice of people who want to see the province work more collaboratively and comprehensively in practical integrated ways to deal the full range of challenges before us. If the contest is all about the “Clash of the Calgary Titans” it is quite scary when you consider the consequences for the whole province. It is entirely avoidable too if everyone voted Stelmach as your #1 choice but that is unrealistic. At least make Stelmach your #2 choice regardless of who you vote #1.
The two front runners are polarizing forces for sure, as tonight’s debate will no doubt confirm. Albertans are looking at all three Leader/Premier candidates this week in terms of what motivates them, who is closest to them and who has influence on them and who controls access to them and, finally, how will they govern.
Policy differences are important but not the deciding factors. The choice between Morton and Dinning is being decided by many party members and interest groups as the lesser of two evils. I think that undervalues the obvious skills, abilities and talents of both Dinning and Morton. It is not just about who will govern but how they will govern that is unsettling to many as they look at Dinning and Morton.
The ballot box questions are concerns over the values and the motivations for each of the candidates and the public’s evolving perceptions of their personalities and characters. The choice is also being decided through a lens of a significant trend towards fragmentation of the province.
The fragmentation of Alberta into special interest groups who are becoming very involved and engaged as strategic voting blocks from unionists to evangelicals. The various regions throughout the province are also looking at voting strategically for candidates based on competition for critical government attention to their issues. The PC party is fragmenting internally too. I wonder if we aren't just auctioning it off to the Alliance Party by voting Morton.
The divisions are reflected in many ways including geography that is north-south, urban-rural, in the corridor and outside the corridor. There are value differences of intolerance of differences to embracing inclusion and diversity. Intergenerational differences about what to do with non-renewable resource revenues and surpluses are showing up. There are fault lines forming even amongst industry sectors as they scramble and compete for staff and workers, and we have not even highlighted Edmonton and Calgary issues.
So Alberta – ask yourself, what are the skills, insights and character qualities that are needed to deal with this reality? Who has earned the trust and respect of the widest range of people in all the “places” that is becoming Alberta today? Who sees this balkanization as a barrier to Alberta achieving its potential and living up to its promise - and will do something about it?
Who can ensure we make Alberta’s defining characteristic as being the best example of what is best about Canada as opposed to becoming a U.S. Republican Party facsimilie? Who is best able to use their leadership skills to ensure we don’t turn Alberta into a mini-middle east of irreconcilable differences were self-interests and radical factions compete for power and control?
This Saturday we all have unavoidable choices to make and serious consequences to consider as we decide on our Premier for the next two years. Even staying home and not participating is making a choice to let others decide this issue for you. Lack of knowledge can be cured by going on the candidate's websites and informing yourself. Indifference to the chance to make a difference is inexcusable.
The future is ours so long as we don’t blow it on Saturday. Overcome the frustration, the anger and deal with the angst and vote for intelligent, skilled, compassionate and effective change. Think about what is in the best interest of you and your family. Think about what is best for your community and the province as a whole when you vote. I have done that reflection and I am voting Stelmach/Dinning in that order.
Remember we are all in this together, alone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)