I had a very enjoyable lunch today with one of Edmonton’s great arts and culture supporters, the Edmonton Journal’s Todd Babiak. We talked about many things – not the least of which is how to get the arts and culture sector more support and respect from the powers that be in the government of Alberta. He posted some of our discussion on his blog today, commenting that I believed Alberta was ready for a “change in government.”
I do believe there is a mood out there for a change in government. The advent of the environment as such a strong top priority issue amongst Alberta is ample evidence that people want some serious change. Ed Stelmach’s leadership win against the “traditional powerful forces” in the PC Party indicates the PC Party wanted changes.
I think Albertans want change, need change - and I think we shall see change. Here is an extended version of my comment back to Todd on what “change in government” (Alberta style) has meant and may mean again:
HI Todd – I enjoyed lunch today too. Thanks for taking the time. You are right about your blog comments that I see the mood “out there” is for a “change in government."
One change I hope for, and am optimistic about, is that the arts and culture life of our province has a toehold again in the awareness amongst the powers that be. A toehold is not a foothold and that is what is really needed to move this agenda forward politically and policy-wise.
I believe that foothold can be established with the provincial government this year. A great deal more communication and relationship building has to be done between the art and culture sector and the government policy makers for that to happen.
I have been in the PC Party since the Lougheed days and have seen the “government” change at least 7 times in that period, but always with the change coming from within the PC Party. In the waning Getty days the PCs were at 17% in the polls and we changed with new leadership.
We have a much stronger position in the polls today and have another new leader. I fully expect the needed “change in government” will also be part of an internal change exercise inside the PC Party. It has to change in ways that responds to the new realities of Alberta and to provide the new kind of governance that Albertans want. If the Party doesn’t change the way they want, the people of Alberta will force the change in the next election.
I just love democracies and free and open societies!
Monday, January 29, 2007
Liberals Run Negative Attack Ads Too!
Here is a short clip from the CBC National News by our friend Allan Bonner who comments on the use of negative political ads.
This clip was done when the Liberals were trashing Harper in an election negative ad campaign. My point is the Liberals are not pure as the driven snow here either. I don't think the Cons attack ads on Dion come close to what they did in 1993 to Chretien.
Allan Bonner who appears it the clip said this to us regarding the Dion attack ads:
We also think this effort is timed to be spending Conservative Party money electioneering but outside the writ period.
This clip was done when the Liberals were trashing Harper in an election negative ad campaign. My point is the Liberals are not pure as the driven snow here either. I don't think the Cons attack ads on Dion come close to what they did in 1993 to Chretien.
Allan Bonner who appears it the clip said this to us regarding the Dion attack ads:
"You may have the governing Conservatives in Canada are running negative ads about the new Liberal leader. This may mean an election is coming sooner than expected, they want to test their readiness, or they want to spend money outside the writ period."
We also think this effort is timed to be spending Conservative Party money electioneering but outside the writ period.
Manning Advises Against Extreme Politics - Is Harper Listening?
Preston Manning strikes another positive blow for political reason and democratic reform. In his Op-Ed in today’s Globe and Mail Manning is asking politicians to “Drop the Extremes in the Green Debate.” Once again Manning is showing how well he is aligned with the public sentiment - at least that is how I see his message.
Manning points out “…Canadians place a very high premium on tolerance and avoidance of extremes.” Remember how “Scary” Stephen Harper was in the 2004 elections because of his affiliation with extremists social conservatives? The extremists kept very quite in the 2006 election and that helped to get Harper elected as a result
Manning’s Globe piece points out that political party’s rhetoric and political positioning, especially on the environmental front, are not usually based on analysis and criticism of the actual policies of the various opposing parties. The political effort is more concentrated on intentional mischaracterizations of the opponent’s position as “extreme.” The Liberals and Conservatives are both guilty of this and the NDP will not doubt be doing it soon - to the Greens.
Manning decries the newsworthiness judgement calls made by the main stream media of such stylized conflicts dominating the greater need for informative content around complex issues. Citizens understand all this and it just adds to the cynicism about politics and that undermines our democracy.
The timing of this Op-Ed is likely merely coincidental to the release of the Conservative Party attack ads” that were no doubt authorized by Manning’s protégé, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. Why are the ads running now? It is really “…because Dion has been getting a free ride in the media as a guy who gets the environment issues.” That is the reported motivation according to Jason Kenney – Harper’s point man on all of this messaging extremism.
What better and more ironic example could we possibly have of that “green extremism” than these Harper Cons attack ads on Dion? This is exactly the kind of stuff that Manning is advising against. They "ads" are more focused on his competency as a person and his capability leader, than on his policies or his vision. We can make that competency and leadership judgement at election time. What we want to understand now is what policy alternatives are the various parties offering us. These attack ads may generate some heat but they will not shed much light.
But the Cons have lots of cash and they are not restricted in how they spend it right now. After all we are in a “non-election time frame” (sic) so the rules about campaign advertising and spending limits don’t apply.
This is clever politics for sure. But it is also a questionable governing technique. Canadians want better government not more politics. Thanks Preston Manning for your wisdom once again. You flirted with the Alberta PC leadership last year. Would you reconsider the leadership of your federal party one more time? The country could use you.
Manning points out “…Canadians place a very high premium on tolerance and avoidance of extremes.” Remember how “Scary” Stephen Harper was in the 2004 elections because of his affiliation with extremists social conservatives? The extremists kept very quite in the 2006 election and that helped to get Harper elected as a result
Manning’s Globe piece points out that political party’s rhetoric and political positioning, especially on the environmental front, are not usually based on analysis and criticism of the actual policies of the various opposing parties. The political effort is more concentrated on intentional mischaracterizations of the opponent’s position as “extreme.” The Liberals and Conservatives are both guilty of this and the NDP will not doubt be doing it soon - to the Greens.
Manning decries the newsworthiness judgement calls made by the main stream media of such stylized conflicts dominating the greater need for informative content around complex issues. Citizens understand all this and it just adds to the cynicism about politics and that undermines our democracy.
The timing of this Op-Ed is likely merely coincidental to the release of the Conservative Party attack ads” that were no doubt authorized by Manning’s protégé, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. Why are the ads running now? It is really “…because Dion has been getting a free ride in the media as a guy who gets the environment issues.” That is the reported motivation according to Jason Kenney – Harper’s point man on all of this messaging extremism.
What better and more ironic example could we possibly have of that “green extremism” than these Harper Cons attack ads on Dion? This is exactly the kind of stuff that Manning is advising against. They "ads" are more focused on his competency as a person and his capability leader, than on his policies or his vision. We can make that competency and leadership judgement at election time. What we want to understand now is what policy alternatives are the various parties offering us. These attack ads may generate some heat but they will not shed much light.
But the Cons have lots of cash and they are not restricted in how they spend it right now. After all we are in a “non-election time frame” (sic) so the rules about campaign advertising and spending limits don’t apply.
This is clever politics for sure. But it is also a questionable governing technique. Canadians want better government not more politics. Thanks Preston Manning for your wisdom once again. You flirted with the Alberta PC leadership last year. Would you reconsider the leadership of your federal party one more time? The country could use you.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Our Research at Policy Channel Foresaw the Environment Issue as #1 Priority During the PC Leadership.
The Strategic Counsel recent poll widely distributed in the Globe and Mail and on CTV has some surprising results according to pollster Allan Gregg. Foregive our hubris but we at Policy Channel knew the shift to the environment had happened early last October and by mid November 2006 we knew just how big a priority it had become.
The Globe and Mail/CTV poll was done in mid January with a 1000 sample size it showed that “Environmental Issues” are the #1 priority. That has change in the environment replacing health as the #1 issue priority been reflected in other recent polls. That is not the surprise. The surprise comes from the amazing number of Canadians who chose the environment as #1. A whooping 26%! For some context, when the Harper government took over one year ago the environment was #1 for only 4% of Canadians in a much larger poll of 1500 respondents.
Well we at Policy Channel saw this coming back in October 2006 during the PC Leadership contest. We did a web based conjoint study with a strategic partner pollster we know and found that 26% of Albertans who participated saw the environment as the top, #1 policy priority for the Alberta government. I did a number of blog postings on results as they evolved in the PC Leadership campaign. The latest interm blog report #4 on our survey results is the November 19, 2006 posting if you are interested in checking it out.
While the results were not “scientific” because of the self-selecting nature of those who participated are not necessarily reflective of the demographic and geographic nature of the province. The key was we got participation from people who are activists politically and who have influence as a result. They are the folks who show up and make a difference so in many ways and on the key issues. They are the opinion leaders and we know that their influential opinions are, in many ways, more important to the political process and politicians in particular.
Our research results not only indicate the issue priority but the intensity of the commitment to it. So when we say the environment is at 26% it is in the context of how likely are you to trade this issue off for another, like health care, which was the second priority in Alberta late last year. Our numbers help politicians and government decide where the public wants time and effort spent relatively speaking.
In pure Alberta political terms if candidate A “owns” the environment issue in the public’s mind, to neutralize that impact, candidate B would have to control and “own” the next three issues. They are health care quality and access, reducing poverty and the quality of K-12 education. Not easy to do.
NO WONDER HARPER IS AFRAID OF DION TO THE POINT HE NEEDS SUPERBOWL ATTACK ADS TO TRY AND NEUTRALIZE HIS STRONGER PERSONAL HOLD ON THE ENVIRONMENT ISSUE.
The Globe and Mail/CTV poll was done in mid January with a 1000 sample size it showed that “Environmental Issues” are the #1 priority. That has change in the environment replacing health as the #1 issue priority been reflected in other recent polls. That is not the surprise. The surprise comes from the amazing number of Canadians who chose the environment as #1. A whooping 26%! For some context, when the Harper government took over one year ago the environment was #1 for only 4% of Canadians in a much larger poll of 1500 respondents.
Well we at Policy Channel saw this coming back in October 2006 during the PC Leadership contest. We did a web based conjoint study with a strategic partner pollster we know and found that 26% of Albertans who participated saw the environment as the top, #1 policy priority for the Alberta government. I did a number of blog postings on results as they evolved in the PC Leadership campaign. The latest interm blog report #4 on our survey results is the November 19, 2006 posting if you are interested in checking it out.
While the results were not “scientific” because of the self-selecting nature of those who participated are not necessarily reflective of the demographic and geographic nature of the province. The key was we got participation from people who are activists politically and who have influence as a result. They are the folks who show up and make a difference so in many ways and on the key issues. They are the opinion leaders and we know that their influential opinions are, in many ways, more important to the political process and politicians in particular.
Our research results not only indicate the issue priority but the intensity of the commitment to it. So when we say the environment is at 26% it is in the context of how likely are you to trade this issue off for another, like health care, which was the second priority in Alberta late last year. Our numbers help politicians and government decide where the public wants time and effort spent relatively speaking.
In pure Alberta political terms if candidate A “owns” the environment issue in the public’s mind, to neutralize that impact, candidate B would have to control and “own” the next three issues. They are health care quality and access, reducing poverty and the quality of K-12 education. Not easy to do.
NO WONDER HARPER IS AFRAID OF DION TO THE POINT HE NEEDS SUPERBOWL ATTACK ADS TO TRY AND NEUTRALIZE HIS STRONGER PERSONAL HOLD ON THE ENVIRONMENT ISSUE.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
It is a National Apology Mr. Prime Minister - Not Just a Political Opportunity for You and Your Party.
I have had some niggling feelings about the apology by Prime Minister Harper to Maher Arar and his family. No doubt he is owed the apology and deserves the damages settlement. He also deserves the admiration and respect of we lesser mortals for surviving his ordeals. Not just the torture in Syria, the stripping of his dignity and the destruction of his reputation but also for suffering through the McCarthyesque baiting and badgering by CANADIAN officials and politicians.
Why did our Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of this nation and it citizens and about the contrition we feel collectively, individually and INSTITUTIONALLY - why did he have to politicize this moment?
Other bloggers have spoken about this. It is a blogger known as "Rational Reasons" who's post on this who captures my unease of how this apology has been compromised and I encourage you to read it.
This was a time for statesmanship from our Mr. Prime Minister, not gamesmanship from the Conservative Party leader. I feel bad about what happened to Mr. Arar and for what he and his family went through. I also feel sad that my Prime Minister felt the need to continue to use Mr. Arar's plight to try and score cheap political points. Read the blog posting by Rational Reasons for a deeper sense of what I mean.
Why did our Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of this nation and it citizens and about the contrition we feel collectively, individually and INSTITUTIONALLY - why did he have to politicize this moment?
Other bloggers have spoken about this. It is a blogger known as "Rational Reasons" who's post on this who captures my unease of how this apology has been compromised and I encourage you to read it.
This was a time for statesmanship from our Mr. Prime Minister, not gamesmanship from the Conservative Party leader. I feel bad about what happened to Mr. Arar and for what he and his family went through. I also feel sad that my Prime Minister felt the need to continue to use Mr. Arar's plight to try and score cheap political points. Read the blog posting by Rational Reasons for a deeper sense of what I mean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)