The Economist has an article speculating about climate change creating border conflicts. What do you think? We already have our first phase of climate change refugees and more to come.
This is the single greatest threat and opportunity mankind has to prove the Prisoner's Dilemma is more than a game.
All of mankind - not to mention other species - are all in this together. What are you thoughts on if we are wise enough to conserve and preserve instead of consume and presume things will be alright?
UPDATE: THX TO A TIP FROM ANDREW MCINTYRE HERE IS A LINK TO A VIDEO OF GWYNN DYER ON TVO'S BIG IDEAS TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE REFUGEES ADN OTHER MATTERS.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Poll Says Canadians Fed Up with the Minority Government
Strange to release a politically based poll on Canadians attitudes toward government on a Sunday but that is exactly what Harris Decima did yesterday. The findings are dramatic. By a 3:1 ratio Canadians now prefer a majority government. "Canada's five year experiment with minority government appears to have sparked a desire for majority government to return." says Jeff Walker Senior VP at Harris Decima.
This is the early warning signs of the game changing attitudes that are emerging amongst Canadians and the role and relationship they want with their federal government. While the stomach for an election is still not there, the next election portents to deliver a very different result as Canadians want more accomplished by its federal government. Minorities are clearly not seen as the way forward.
The largest proponents of majority government comes from Atlantic Canada (72%) and Alberta (69%) with no region below 60% support. Conservatives and Liberals supports all feel the need for a majority government even more strongly, at 74% and 77% respectively.
The array of minority governments for the past 5 years are seen a done as much as can be expected by 60 % of those polled. Only 52% of Quebecers are pleased with the performance of the minority governments. 72% of Albertan, a Conservative stronghold, saying they are satisfied with the past accomplishments of minority governments.
So what does this mean going forward? Hard to say since a single poll is just a snapshot not a moving trend line and with no election expected it the near future the results are soft in determining any actual shifts in political power preferences . That said, these results are still intriguing as to what preferred outcomes are indicated for the next election.
Overall 24% want a Conservative majority and 30% want a Liberal majority. Quebec is the strongest for a Liberal majority at 36% and Alberta is big time for a Conservative majority at 47%. The votes are in Ontario and Quebec so those preferences are key to what might actually happen next election. Ontario votes are evenly split between ad Conservative and Liberal majority but Quebec' s preference for a Liberal majority is significant. The Bloc, NDP and Greens would all prefer a Liberal majority or Liberal minority over Conservative options.
So Liberals have work to do in Ontario and have to get other party faithfuls to want to defeat the Harper Cons to the point they shift the final results to a Liberal majority. Harper is in decline as his his party. Given time and a real threat of an actual election they could be the attitude of other party supporters - they want to get rid of Harper more than preserve their own position and all for the good of the country. It will be an interesting election when it happens.
July 14/09 update: Dave Breakenridge's editorial in the Edmonton Sun today adds some more context and heft to the recent poll showng a desire for a majority government. Worth a read. What do you think?
This is the early warning signs of the game changing attitudes that are emerging amongst Canadians and the role and relationship they want with their federal government. While the stomach for an election is still not there, the next election portents to deliver a very different result as Canadians want more accomplished by its federal government. Minorities are clearly not seen as the way forward.
The largest proponents of majority government comes from Atlantic Canada (72%) and Alberta (69%) with no region below 60% support. Conservatives and Liberals supports all feel the need for a majority government even more strongly, at 74% and 77% respectively.
The array of minority governments for the past 5 years are seen a done as much as can be expected by 60 % of those polled. Only 52% of Quebecers are pleased with the performance of the minority governments. 72% of Albertan, a Conservative stronghold, saying they are satisfied with the past accomplishments of minority governments.
So what does this mean going forward? Hard to say since a single poll is just a snapshot not a moving trend line and with no election expected it the near future the results are soft in determining any actual shifts in political power preferences . That said, these results are still intriguing as to what preferred outcomes are indicated for the next election.
Overall 24% want a Conservative majority and 30% want a Liberal majority. Quebec is the strongest for a Liberal majority at 36% and Alberta is big time for a Conservative majority at 47%. The votes are in Ontario and Quebec so those preferences are key to what might actually happen next election. Ontario votes are evenly split between ad Conservative and Liberal majority but Quebec' s preference for a Liberal majority is significant. The Bloc, NDP and Greens would all prefer a Liberal majority or Liberal minority over Conservative options.
So Liberals have work to do in Ontario and have to get other party faithfuls to want to defeat the Harper Cons to the point they shift the final results to a Liberal majority. Harper is in decline as his his party. Given time and a real threat of an actual election they could be the attitude of other party supporters - they want to get rid of Harper more than preserve their own position and all for the good of the country. It will be an interesting election when it happens.
July 14/09 update: Dave Breakenridge's editorial in the Edmonton Sun today adds some more context and heft to the recent poll showng a desire for a majority government. Worth a read. What do you think?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
David Emerson on the Premier's Council of Economic Strategy
David Emerson, the Chair of the Premier's Council on Economic Strategy for Alberta is interviewed by Adam Radwanski of the Globe and Mail. It is early days for the PCES but this interview outlines some of the mandate principles going forward.
I am looking forward to seeing what comes out of this process and what the government does with any recommendations. Lots of work to do and some serious forward thinking is badly needed.
I will be posting progress reports on the PCES from time to time.
I am looking forward to seeing what comes out of this process and what the government does with any recommendations. Lots of work to do and some serious forward thinking is badly needed.
I will be posting progress reports on the PCES from time to time.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Let's Not Squander This Recession but Use it to Revisit the Role of Government.
There are other elements to consider around the recent declaration by Premier Stelmach that there will be no tax increases on his watch. Deficits are also tax increases by other means because the pain is deferred to the future - usually to be repaid on someone else's watch. So it is arguable that running a deficit is a defacto tax increase just not on the current watch.
But there are other considerations too. The tobacco tax was not a money grab, it was a health promotion and prevention issue behind the tax increase last April. The research shows that more expensive smokes are and the less visible they are - like the elimination of the "power wall" displays, the less likely kids will start and get addicted to tobacco. There is also a health prevention argument around the liquor tax. Eliminating them both government reduces revenues to offset deficits (tax increases by other means) and increases the social and health risks associated with these legal but sometimes lethal products. I am not a prohibitionist just a realist.
The last additional point I think is worth noting about eliminating the revenue side from the fiscal took box of government is the issue of the role, efficiency and effectiveness of government. The old Klein approach of simple-minded across the board cuts and damn the consequences is not likely to be the Stelmach approach this time. However, there may be stuff government can do without, stuff we can do better and other stuff that needs doing particularly in a prolonged recession like we are in these days. This is the time to do that kind of revisiting and revamping of the relationships and roles we expect from government.
This recession is a perfect opportunity to revisit and redesign the role of government and our relations to it, as business, service providers and citizens. We can improve delivery and be clearer on what we expect of the public sector and our governance model. We can retool the private enterprise sector and community based social service sector too. The goal is not just efficiency, as important as that is, but it must be more focused on the effectiveness of the outcomes and how we achieve them using government as a vehicle.
This is a quest for better questions as much as it is better answers. We have the Governance Secretariat looking at these matters focused on agencies boards and commissions. We need the same thing to happen in the link between government and the social services sector and the private enterprise sector too.
Lets not squander this recession. Let's make sure we come out of it better focused, better equipped and better able to meet the challenges in the 21st century realities. It would be such a waste of an opportunity. We can't merely try to revive, restore and sustain the inadequate governance, economic, environmental, social and technological models of the past.
Premier Stelmach is hinting at this approach in some follow up comments to his no recent tax increase declaration. Lets hope he makes it more explicit and actionable.
But there are other considerations too. The tobacco tax was not a money grab, it was a health promotion and prevention issue behind the tax increase last April. The research shows that more expensive smokes are and the less visible they are - like the elimination of the "power wall" displays, the less likely kids will start and get addicted to tobacco. There is also a health prevention argument around the liquor tax. Eliminating them both government reduces revenues to offset deficits (tax increases by other means) and increases the social and health risks associated with these legal but sometimes lethal products. I am not a prohibitionist just a realist.
The last additional point I think is worth noting about eliminating the revenue side from the fiscal took box of government is the issue of the role, efficiency and effectiveness of government. The old Klein approach of simple-minded across the board cuts and damn the consequences is not likely to be the Stelmach approach this time. However, there may be stuff government can do without, stuff we can do better and other stuff that needs doing particularly in a prolonged recession like we are in these days. This is the time to do that kind of revisiting and revamping of the relationships and roles we expect from government.
This recession is a perfect opportunity to revisit and redesign the role of government and our relations to it, as business, service providers and citizens. We can improve delivery and be clearer on what we expect of the public sector and our governance model. We can retool the private enterprise sector and community based social service sector too. The goal is not just efficiency, as important as that is, but it must be more focused on the effectiveness of the outcomes and how we achieve them using government as a vehicle.
This is a quest for better questions as much as it is better answers. We have the Governance Secretariat looking at these matters focused on agencies boards and commissions. We need the same thing to happen in the link between government and the social services sector and the private enterprise sector too.
Lets not squander this recession. Let's make sure we come out of it better focused, better equipped and better able to meet the challenges in the 21st century realities. It would be such a waste of an opportunity. We can't merely try to revive, restore and sustain the inadequate governance, economic, environmental, social and technological models of the past.
Premier Stelmach is hinting at this approach in some follow up comments to his no recent tax increase declaration. Lets hope he makes it more explicit and actionable.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Comparing and Contrasting WRAP Leadership Candidates
Politics is an ever changing world and party leadership contests are windows into the culture of change - not just the change events themselves.
The Wildrose Alliance Party is going through a leadership contest with two main candidates, Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm. The Calgary Herald ran separate pieces by each candidate but both entitled "Why I Want to be Leader of the Wildrose Alliance." Since they were published over a month apart I thought it would be helpful for Albertans to see them at the same time and side by side for contrast and compare purposes.
I would never join the WRAP but found the candidate pitches to be very interesting at a few levels. First both candidates are Calgary based so they provide some insight into the right-wing sensibilities in that city. Then they were both once active Alberta Progressive Conservatives but became disillusioned in what they saw as a progressive shift in the PC Party post Ralph Klein and they left to join the WRAP.
That reasons for leaving the PC Party is the third interesting insight from the comments of these leadership candidates. Post debt and deficit Smith felt the PCs "..slowly began to lose their way." As for Dyrholm, he blames Stelmach for "devastating the oilpatch" claiming he "torn up contracts" which I presume is a comment from Mark about the new royalty regime. That was nothing close to tearing up a contract if my assumption is right about Mark's statement. The Calgary "Patch" players have declared the royalty changes to be the new NEP and facts to the contrary will not dissuade them.
I am intrigued by other reason for wanting to lead the WRAP where I agree with them. Mark is criticizing the PC government for "eroded democracy with the firing of the Chief Electoral Officer because recommendations made were not one he (Stelmach) wanted to hear." I agree this is an important issue and with Mark's assessment of the implications too.
Danielle Smith bemoans the fact "Teachers fear being hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission under an amendment to the legislation that no one I know was asking for." Even casual readers of this blog for the past 3 months know how much I agree with that concern and oppose the PC government's stand on Bill 44.
Both candidates are staunch fiscal conservatives and like very small government. Smith is much more socially moderate than Dyrholm who touts his support for many very right-of-centre groups and his active role in the former federal Reform and Alliance parties - now known as the Harper Conservatives.
As I reflect on the WRAP leadership race I note they are former PCs who left mostly for what they say as a lack of fiscal discipline in the "conservative" side of the PC party. They both have concerns with some social justice issues, and that is a subject matter that appeals to the "progressive" side of the PC party. What might a rise in the political influence of the WRAP mean for the future of the Progressive Conservative Party if the fiscal cons gravitate to them and the social progressives disengage or go elsewhere?
My final thoughts was about what was lacking in the political consciousness of these candidates based on their published pieces. There wasn't any commentary from either of them on the environment or the need to provide for vulnerable people in our society as a society. The fact that these issues are not on the radar screens of these leadership hopefuls is a surprise. It will likely prove to be a fatal flaws for future electoral success with the greater Alberta population for whomever becomes the WRAP leader. Of course they both have time to adapt and tell us more about their position on these serious public policy concerns.
The Wildrose Alliance Party is going through a leadership contest with two main candidates, Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm. The Calgary Herald ran separate pieces by each candidate but both entitled "Why I Want to be Leader of the Wildrose Alliance." Since they were published over a month apart I thought it would be helpful for Albertans to see them at the same time and side by side for contrast and compare purposes.
I would never join the WRAP but found the candidate pitches to be very interesting at a few levels. First both candidates are Calgary based so they provide some insight into the right-wing sensibilities in that city. Then they were both once active Alberta Progressive Conservatives but became disillusioned in what they saw as a progressive shift in the PC Party post Ralph Klein and they left to join the WRAP.
That reasons for leaving the PC Party is the third interesting insight from the comments of these leadership candidates. Post debt and deficit Smith felt the PCs "..slowly began to lose their way." As for Dyrholm, he blames Stelmach for "devastating the oilpatch" claiming he "torn up contracts" which I presume is a comment from Mark about the new royalty regime. That was nothing close to tearing up a contract if my assumption is right about Mark's statement. The Calgary "Patch" players have declared the royalty changes to be the new NEP and facts to the contrary will not dissuade them.
I am intrigued by other reason for wanting to lead the WRAP where I agree with them. Mark is criticizing the PC government for "eroded democracy with the firing of the Chief Electoral Officer because recommendations made were not one he (Stelmach) wanted to hear." I agree this is an important issue and with Mark's assessment of the implications too.
Danielle Smith bemoans the fact "Teachers fear being hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission under an amendment to the legislation that no one I know was asking for." Even casual readers of this blog for the past 3 months know how much I agree with that concern and oppose the PC government's stand on Bill 44.
Both candidates are staunch fiscal conservatives and like very small government. Smith is much more socially moderate than Dyrholm who touts his support for many very right-of-centre groups and his active role in the former federal Reform and Alliance parties - now known as the Harper Conservatives.
As I reflect on the WRAP leadership race I note they are former PCs who left mostly for what they say as a lack of fiscal discipline in the "conservative" side of the PC party. They both have concerns with some social justice issues, and that is a subject matter that appeals to the "progressive" side of the PC party. What might a rise in the political influence of the WRAP mean for the future of the Progressive Conservative Party if the fiscal cons gravitate to them and the social progressives disengage or go elsewhere?
My final thoughts was about what was lacking in the political consciousness of these candidates based on their published pieces. There wasn't any commentary from either of them on the environment or the need to provide for vulnerable people in our society as a society. The fact that these issues are not on the radar screens of these leadership hopefuls is a surprise. It will likely prove to be a fatal flaws for future electoral success with the greater Alberta population for whomever becomes the WRAP leader. Of course they both have time to adapt and tell us more about their position on these serious public policy concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)