I have been wondering what is happening with the Canadian and Alberta economy in particular. There is lots of commentary on the recession, what caused it, where we are in the cycle, what will it take to get out of it. Since it is a global recession what one country does can impact another very dramatically. Protectionism and currency devaluations can bring short term advantages but be devastating long term.
I recently read a June 2009 interview by the UK newspaper The Observer and Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman that had some interesting observations I think are worth sharing. I also wonder if anything Krugman is saying has anything to do with the economic realities in Canada and Alberta?
Krugman had been warning about the possibility of an all out depression or a "lost decade" flat economy like Japan experienced. He said the first year of this crisis was "far worse that anything Japan went through" and suggested that "risk for long stagnation is really high." He also so emphasized that he thinks this recession is different and while fiscal tools like lowing interest rates and increasing government capital spending are happening,"...everything after that is speculation." That is a very clear signal that we live in interesting and uncertain time.
The Krugman response to the economic "green shoots" emerging like improving business confidence indicators and housing market bottoming in the US justifies optimism is that all this "...points to a levelling off, rather than actual recovery." He goes on saying "I hope I'm wrong but the question you always have to ask is: where do we think that this recovery's going to come from? It's not an easy story to tell."
Krugman postulate that we are into a 36 month downturn and we are a year into it and the rate of the downward trend is slowing. He notes not all countries and not all economies are the same. There are a range of government policy responses being tried in different countries. Some will come out sooner than others and the recovery will not be the same for each economy and rate of recovery will not be the same either.
Krugman thinks that USA stimulus program was not large enough and says there are discussion going on for an second round of American stimulus spending. He says "There is a possibility that we get some perk-up as the stimulus dollars start to flow and an almost mechanical bounce back in industrial production as inventories are built up. But then we slide down again. The idea that we sort of bounce along the bottom is all too easy to imagine."
He advocates more financial regulation for the American economy. He says what he wants coming out of this economic crisis is "...a stronger welfare state and a little more social democracy." He suggests the time is ripe for Obama to be pushing for serious health care reform and a better US social safety net.
I wonder what the aspiration for a better Canada and a better Alberta are coming out of this recession. I have said before that we better not squander this recession. It is an ideal time to make some fundamental changes. We have good financial regulation and a good heath care/social safety net. While improvements can always be made we are in good shape in Canada and especially in Alberta.
What I would like to see for Alberta, coming out of the recession, is a greater focus on investment in productivity. that is everything from enhancing our electronic connectivity all the way to a full range of literacy upgrading. I see a real need for a serious focus on economic diversification policies with emphasis resource based value added and new industry sectors enabled. We need to upgrade our faltering education system from top to bottom. I would like to see some serious stimulation of research and development programs focused in new green technologies. I think we need to get serious about natural capital by encouraging conservation efforts from energy use to wildlife habitat protection.
Alberta has a start in all these areas but we seem to be going through the motions instead of pursuing a passion. We need a real focus and some serious political, investor, industry and community support. We need to get some serious and committed champions who will get behind these efforts if we are to emerge from this recession better and stronger and more sustainable.
The time is right, and there is a fundamental realization that tomorrow is not a mere extension of yesterday in Alberta. I wonder who, if anyone in Alberta, will be stepping up to the plate and start making a difference in these areas.
Monday, July 20, 2009
TEDxEDMONTON Is Coming - What a Great Idea!
So Monday mornings are usually a catch up time, a time to get focused and to plan the week. This morning was that and more all because of a Retweet I noticed when checking Twitter. It was announcing a project called TEDxEdmonton. That is intriguing and puts a whole new mindset to my usual Monday morning.
UPDATE: Just heard from Michael Brechtel and he tells me the people behind this in Edmonton are him and Ken Bautista and Cam Linke. What is more they are apparently working on a Calgary TED event too coordinating with local organizers Jasmine Antonick, Alex Middleton and Sara Blue . This is bigger and better than I originally thought. Congratulations to all of you for coming up with this wonderful idea and pursuing it. Alberta will be better for your efforts.
If you don't know what TED is you need to visit http://www.ted.com/ and watch the videos on the stuff they do. It is fascinating cutting edge information. TED stands for Technology, Education and Design. I have often linked to TED events in this blog.
UPDATE: Just heard from Michael Brechtel and he tells me the people behind this in Edmonton are him and Ken Bautista and Cam Linke. What is more they are apparently working on a Calgary TED event too coordinating with local organizers Jasmine Antonick, Alex Middleton and Sara Blue . This is bigger and better than I originally thought. Congratulations to all of you for coming up with this wonderful idea and pursuing it. Alberta will be better for your efforts.
If you don't know what TED is you need to visit http://www.ted.com/ and watch the videos on the stuff they do. It is fascinating cutting edge information. TED stands for Technology, Education and Design. I have often linked to TED events in this blog.
To get involved with TEDxEdmonton you can get on the mailing list at http://www.tedxedmonton.com/. I encourage you to help make this most interesting and creative event a success. I am sure looking forward to it.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Stelmach Boots Boutilier Out of Caucus
So Boutilier was bounced out of caucus by the Premier. Quel surprise! What are we as citizens to read into all of this? What is the real motivation behind this move by the Premier?
Is it an internal party and caucus matter only? Is it a bigger issue about representative democracy versus leadership dominated politics? Is it about being a unified team (aka message mouthing sheep) as a governing party apparatus? Is it personal to Boutilier, since he has a very checkered political record and has not a very effective Cabinet level politician anyway. Could it be the last straw about Boutilier that goes all the way back to his questionable intervention while serving as Minister of the Environment and his ill-advised direct testimony "as an MLA" in a regulatory hearing on a Suncor oilsand project? Could it be because he supported Oberg in the leadership? Could it be all those thing...and more?
I'm betting all of that and more is behind Premier Stelmach last straw decision with the political future of Guy Boutilier as a Progressive Conservative. I expect Boutilier will be courted by the Wildrose Alliance and his Independent status will not last too long as he seek revenge by sitting as a WRAP MLA. Boutilier was one of the few caucus members to support "Ralph can't fire me because I know where the skeletons are buried" Lyle Oberg in his leadership bid for the Progressive Conservative Party.
Oberg you will remember besmirched the entire PC caucus with those comments. In a stroke of political theatrical brilliance Klein had the PC caucus expel Oberg from their ranks. Klein stayed "above the fray" and rightly so because Oberg's skeleton remarks insulted every other PC MLA in the caucus. Boutilier has only targeted the Minister of Health and since Stelmach made that appointment, the Boutilier challenge is directly at the Premier too. Stelmach picked up Guy's gauntlet and was a one-man bomb disposal crew as he personally dumped Guy from the PC caucus.
As for Guy, he got was was coming to him. It was incumbent on the Premier to fire him under the circumstances. I am all for more open debate and public discussion by governing MLAs on public policy but Boutilier was over the line and was asking for the obvious political consequences. It is entirely appropriate for an MLA to push politically for your constituency needs but it is about time, place and technique.
The timing tone and content of Boutilier's criticism of the Minister of Health and the personalization of his media comments, like accusing the Minister of "gibberish", went over the line. Stelmach has no choice but to boot him. Boutilier wants to talk to caucus who he implies are his "accusers." That was a request appropriately denied by Stelmach. The Premier is Boutilier's accuser and Stelmach is rightly in his rights as Boutiler's political nemesis. Stelmach has spoken on the issue of Boutilier's future with the PC caucus with great clarity. There is none! Move on!
Boutilier is no hero, nor is he an innocent victim, nor is he a martyr in this medieval morality play of partisan politics. He is merely a guy who doesn't get it and is quite frankly very late into the game of constituency representative democracy. For years he fiddled and frittered while his constituency, Wood Buffalo and particularly Fort McMurray, burned with growth pressures, infrastructure shortfalls and enormous safety and social crisis.
There are no winner is this embarrassment for all ofus who are of a PC persuasion - from the Premier down to mere members like myself. There are lots of loser however. The good folks of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo still have serious social, growth, infrastructure, safety and capacity problems. Now they have nobody in the critical government caucus meetings to keep them up keep up to date on what is really happening that impacts them. They are the big losers in all of this. Their continuing efforts to respond to these enormous challenges for their unique and hard pressed community are caught hard in these recessionary times. We now have many more Alberta communities facing challenges just like Fort McMurray. But that does not solve the problem nor fix the consequences of the systemic neglect inherent in the Fort McMurray reality of over two decades of gold rush growth in the oil sands.
Stelmach has done the only thing the partisan political circumstances allow him to do. He had to turf Boutilier, and for so many reasons. In the hothouse of partisan politics it was a decision that is totally justified. This result is more attributed to Boutilier's doing than Stelmach's. It is not a situation that enables a more enlightened discussion about presenting a more open and representative democracy. It is all about asserting leaderhisp in a climate that is all about raw power in politics. Guy played his hand and was trumped by ht ePremier. That trick is over but the game goes on. Guy, however, is no longer at the table and will no longer be dealt any political cards by the Stelmach government.
As for a better governance model, we have nothing to learn or applaud from the travesty of these recent events. It is time for citizens to act like owners of the oil sands, the water, the land, the air and the democracy that makes up Alberta. It is too serious a situation to leave to petty politics and partisan infighting...regardless of your political persuasion. Without a re-engagement in politics by Albertan these events will rule, become the norm and everyone loses. Please tell me citizens of Alberta that your sense of being Albertan and you sense of shared and personal responsibility for this place is greater than indicated by these offensive events.
I hope the lessons for Albertans is such that they will re-engage in the political culture of their province. Politics stinks because you and I have abdicated our shared responsibility and have allowed it to rot.
Friday, July 17, 2009
There Is a Crack in Everything-That is How the Light Gets In
UPDATE JULY 18: THE MLA BACKBENCER REFERRED TO IN THIS POST IS GUY BOUTILIER. ON FRIDAY NIGHT JULY 17 HE WAS EXPELLED FROM THE PC CAUCUS BY PREMIER STELMACH. THAT PUTS MORE CONTEXT ON THIS BLOG POST.
The media reports about "cracks" in the PC Caucus coming out of recent comments by a PC backbench MLA who was critical of the Minister of Health are interesting. I am not going to deal with the merits of the comments. I am much more interested in the governing implications of the story. The politics of the situation are a large part of implications too.
The fact is a backbench MLA spoke out publicly, on behalf of his constituency, and criticized a change in government policy that directly affects citizens in his riding. This should be considered normal not objectionable behaviour by government, leadership and political parties. Otherwise what is the point of electing these people to represent us on a constituency basis? Cabinet Ministers are in a more difficult position because they have to actually represent the government. That can sometimes fetter their ability to speak out publicly.
There are always cracks in a political Caucus. They are supposed to be there. This is natural in a representative democracy and in Cabinets organized in departments with oversight committees like Treasury Board and Agenda and Priorities. In Klein's Caucus there was 1/3 on the right, 1/3 on the left and 1/3 who wanted to be on Klein's side. Most of them felt that they owed Klein their seats but that is not the case today. The left and right are smaller and the middle group does not owe their seat to Premier Stelmach, even with the large majority in the last election.
The more critical issue about "cracks" in a governing caucus is the role of power politics in the classic power structures of command and control leadership within a top-down governance philosophy. The classic command and control top down model demands that government politicians speak with "one voice" on all government policy. That one voice is often the leaders voice - regardless of the party. At least that is my experience.
We saw that "one voice" actually being that of a party leader happen last week. Premier Stelmach came out of a caucus meeting and said he was not raising taxes to cover the record deficits Alberta is facing. He did that in the face of contrary comments made by some of his Cabinet who mused about the possibility of raising taxes to cover budget deficits. He also said he was rolling back recent liquor taxes because "he was not comfortable with them." Why does the leader get to unilaterally decide to change the provincial budget by personal fiat after it is the law of the Province? This is not unique to Alberta but it should not be the acceptable norm in responsible "democratic" governance either.
The natural conclusion of a command and control top down policy decision making process is that it stifles public discussion and debate, especially by governing caucus members. I think this open public policy discussion, by governing politicians, is vital for a vibrant healthy democracy. It needs to happen vigorously and extensively before a policy decision is made or when a Minister unilaterally decides, by personal fiat, to change an existing government policy position. Anything less is not a meaningful way of practicing true responsible and representative democracy.
The command and control top down governance model means we end up with MLAs, especially government MLAs, only representing the government perspective to their constituents. MLAs are supposed to be the the best eyes and ears a governing political party can have. They are supposed to be sensitive and reflect the mood and mind of their constituency. But we hardly ever see or hear from them speaking out in that role. I am sure the behind closed doors caucus discussions are full of MLAs talking and debating about constituency concerns on various issues and proposed public policies. You would never know it given the tradition of caucus secrecy and the command and control "need" for one consistent voice coming out of caucus.
If you, as a politician, don't agree with a partisan policy position of your caucus you have few choices. Mostly shut up and toe the line or quit the caucus, or speak out and risk being kicked out of the caucus. Quitting means you don't get to fight another day and not toeing the line means you are deemed to not be "a team player." You will face pressures, discipline and other consequences from the party structure and precious little protection can come from your constituency.
I think political parties need to open up the internal party discussion and debate. They need to the trust the intelligence of the populace more than they do. We citizens are not so naive or stupid that we can't understand the political need for a governing party to balance conflicting perspectives and make trade offs of competing values. What we need, as citizens, in order to have more confidence in our government, is to see the actual political decision making process that is being used to strike that balance or to make that value trade off. We elect our politicians to make those balance choices and those value trade offs for us. But surely we ought to be entitled to see the reasoning and hear the discussion that was behind the choices being made on our behalf.
The closest thing we have to serve that need now is the political theatre of Question Period. That is more farce than informative. I want more government MLAs taking personal political positions in public on the policy issues of the day. I saw that public debate happen with Bill 44. Some social conservatives in the PC Caucus were actually speaking out in mainstream and social media and stating their positions and reasons in support of the legislation.
I did not see a single progressive conservative governing caucus member arguing against Bill 44 in public. My guess is they were silent because it was a government Bill and caucus already had the policy debate and the decision was a "done deal." But Bill 44 was only debated amongst the governing caucus members behind the closed doors of their private and secret caucus meetings.
Surely not everyone in the PC Caucus agreed whole heartedly with Bill 44 as written or amended. Will we ever know that for sure? Not likely. The PC Caucus and the PC Party apparatus just wants the whole Bill 44 fiasco to go away and to be forgotten. That is not likely to happen either. Not when there is a Facebook group like "Students Against Bill 44" with over 11,000 members still in existence.
The non-partisan and partisan public debate on the issues inherent in Bill 44 could and should happen before it hits a closed caucus meeting decision. I want to know that there was a debate, what issues were debated and the range of opinion that was under consideration. I want to see what was on the cutting room floor of the political drama. I am not satisfied with just get ting a pre-programmed press release about the final outcome. It is fine for a governing MLA caucus member to lose a battle, choose to stay in a caucus and to try and win another day in a mature political party process.
I respect politicians who authentically hold different political principles from my own. I especially respect politicians who spend their political capital and risk losing policy battles based on their principles. That is essential for a lively, vibrant, capable and confident political party. It is foundational to mature effective political leadership and core to the concept of responsible, representative and accountable democratic governance. All that is not possible in the current message massaging political machine of command and control top down governance models that dominate modern democracies these days.
Then add to the Bill 44 farce when the Premier declared a "free vote" for the PC caucus on Bill 44. What was free about this vote when, in the final result, any PC MLA who opposed Bill 44 on principle, and there were some, all ducked out of the free vote or they merely complied like sheep. Going along to get along and personal principles be damned is too often the default position of too many of our partisan-loyal politicians these days. Constituent concerns are, at best, treated as second class in this kind of political culture.
Excuses as to why PC MLAs did not show up to vote on Bill 44 third reading abound. Some have said "I was not on house duty that night" and "I had previous commitments" were amongst the most common. All weak and feckless excuses to avoid standing up for their political principles if you as me. The government knew it was going to invoke closure on the Bill 44 legislature debate and it did. It was not as if government MLAs did not know that and that the critical final vote on Bill 44 would happen that night.
Second, they would know when the vote would likely happen because they engineered the debate to happen late at night. The thinking there was undoubtedly that a late night vote meant that nobody would be following the debate and the MSM wouldn't care enough to cover it the next day. Wrong again, mostly because they did not expect the influence of the Internet and the power of social media. Hundreds of citizens were watching the debate as it streamed on line and they were actively engaged in Twittering all night long.
Finally I noted that the Premier came back to the Legislature about 12:30 am the night of the final vote on Bill 44. If he could make the effort to come back to the legislature to take advantage of the "free vote" why didn't those other government MLAs, who may have opposed Bill 44 on principle, come back and vote too? Was it about taking the easy way out and go along to get along? Or did they not believe the Premier when he said it would be a free vote. Where they afraid to vote against a government Bill as a PC MLA because it would result in "consequences?"
The Premier showed up and showed leadership that night. He was wrong in his position to my mind - but he at least showed up and voted. I always say the world is run by those who show up. The progressives in the PC caucus who were opposed to Bill 44 failed us and themselves when they failed, refused or neglected to show up and take a free vote stand against this ill-advised legislation.
This going along to get along is becoming the new normal in the world of command and control top down hyper-partisan "democracy." I hope the new networked collaborative and respective sharing of differences of opinion in open political discussion and with rigorous principled debate will be the basis of a revived representative democracy in Alberta. We sure need it. The "cracks" that are showing in any and likely all political caucuses, especially a governing party caucus, are a good thing for citizens and for our democracy. Remember what Leonard Cohen said:
"Ring the bell that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That is how the light gets in."
The media reports about "cracks" in the PC Caucus coming out of recent comments by a PC backbench MLA who was critical of the Minister of Health are interesting. I am not going to deal with the merits of the comments. I am much more interested in the governing implications of the story. The politics of the situation are a large part of implications too.
The fact is a backbench MLA spoke out publicly, on behalf of his constituency, and criticized a change in government policy that directly affects citizens in his riding. This should be considered normal not objectionable behaviour by government, leadership and political parties. Otherwise what is the point of electing these people to represent us on a constituency basis? Cabinet Ministers are in a more difficult position because they have to actually represent the government. That can sometimes fetter their ability to speak out publicly.
There are always cracks in a political Caucus. They are supposed to be there. This is natural in a representative democracy and in Cabinets organized in departments with oversight committees like Treasury Board and Agenda and Priorities. In Klein's Caucus there was 1/3 on the right, 1/3 on the left and 1/3 who wanted to be on Klein's side. Most of them felt that they owed Klein their seats but that is not the case today. The left and right are smaller and the middle group does not owe their seat to Premier Stelmach, even with the large majority in the last election.
The more critical issue about "cracks" in a governing caucus is the role of power politics in the classic power structures of command and control leadership within a top-down governance philosophy. The classic command and control top down model demands that government politicians speak with "one voice" on all government policy. That one voice is often the leaders voice - regardless of the party. At least that is my experience.
We saw that "one voice" actually being that of a party leader happen last week. Premier Stelmach came out of a caucus meeting and said he was not raising taxes to cover the record deficits Alberta is facing. He did that in the face of contrary comments made by some of his Cabinet who mused about the possibility of raising taxes to cover budget deficits. He also said he was rolling back recent liquor taxes because "he was not comfortable with them." Why does the leader get to unilaterally decide to change the provincial budget by personal fiat after it is the law of the Province? This is not unique to Alberta but it should not be the acceptable norm in responsible "democratic" governance either.
The natural conclusion of a command and control top down policy decision making process is that it stifles public discussion and debate, especially by governing caucus members. I think this open public policy discussion, by governing politicians, is vital for a vibrant healthy democracy. It needs to happen vigorously and extensively before a policy decision is made or when a Minister unilaterally decides, by personal fiat, to change an existing government policy position. Anything less is not a meaningful way of practicing true responsible and representative democracy.
The command and control top down governance model means we end up with MLAs, especially government MLAs, only representing the government perspective to their constituents. MLAs are supposed to be the the best eyes and ears a governing political party can have. They are supposed to be sensitive and reflect the mood and mind of their constituency. But we hardly ever see or hear from them speaking out in that role. I am sure the behind closed doors caucus discussions are full of MLAs talking and debating about constituency concerns on various issues and proposed public policies. You would never know it given the tradition of caucus secrecy and the command and control "need" for one consistent voice coming out of caucus.
If you, as a politician, don't agree with a partisan policy position of your caucus you have few choices. Mostly shut up and toe the line or quit the caucus, or speak out and risk being kicked out of the caucus. Quitting means you don't get to fight another day and not toeing the line means you are deemed to not be "a team player." You will face pressures, discipline and other consequences from the party structure and precious little protection can come from your constituency.
I think political parties need to open up the internal party discussion and debate. They need to the trust the intelligence of the populace more than they do. We citizens are not so naive or stupid that we can't understand the political need for a governing party to balance conflicting perspectives and make trade offs of competing values. What we need, as citizens, in order to have more confidence in our government, is to see the actual political decision making process that is being used to strike that balance or to make that value trade off. We elect our politicians to make those balance choices and those value trade offs for us. But surely we ought to be entitled to see the reasoning and hear the discussion that was behind the choices being made on our behalf.
The closest thing we have to serve that need now is the political theatre of Question Period. That is more farce than informative. I want more government MLAs taking personal political positions in public on the policy issues of the day. I saw that public debate happen with Bill 44. Some social conservatives in the PC Caucus were actually speaking out in mainstream and social media and stating their positions and reasons in support of the legislation.
I did not see a single progressive conservative governing caucus member arguing against Bill 44 in public. My guess is they were silent because it was a government Bill and caucus already had the policy debate and the decision was a "done deal." But Bill 44 was only debated amongst the governing caucus members behind the closed doors of their private and secret caucus meetings.
Surely not everyone in the PC Caucus agreed whole heartedly with Bill 44 as written or amended. Will we ever know that for sure? Not likely. The PC Caucus and the PC Party apparatus just wants the whole Bill 44 fiasco to go away and to be forgotten. That is not likely to happen either. Not when there is a Facebook group like "Students Against Bill 44" with over 11,000 members still in existence.
The non-partisan and partisan public debate on the issues inherent in Bill 44 could and should happen before it hits a closed caucus meeting decision. I want to know that there was a debate, what issues were debated and the range of opinion that was under consideration. I want to see what was on the cutting room floor of the political drama. I am not satisfied with just get ting a pre-programmed press release about the final outcome. It is fine for a governing MLA caucus member to lose a battle, choose to stay in a caucus and to try and win another day in a mature political party process.
I respect politicians who authentically hold different political principles from my own. I especially respect politicians who spend their political capital and risk losing policy battles based on their principles. That is essential for a lively, vibrant, capable and confident political party. It is foundational to mature effective political leadership and core to the concept of responsible, representative and accountable democratic governance. All that is not possible in the current message massaging political machine of command and control top down governance models that dominate modern democracies these days.
Then add to the Bill 44 farce when the Premier declared a "free vote" for the PC caucus on Bill 44. What was free about this vote when, in the final result, any PC MLA who opposed Bill 44 on principle, and there were some, all ducked out of the free vote or they merely complied like sheep. Going along to get along and personal principles be damned is too often the default position of too many of our partisan-loyal politicians these days. Constituent concerns are, at best, treated as second class in this kind of political culture.
Excuses as to why PC MLAs did not show up to vote on Bill 44 third reading abound. Some have said "I was not on house duty that night" and "I had previous commitments" were amongst the most common. All weak and feckless excuses to avoid standing up for their political principles if you as me. The government knew it was going to invoke closure on the Bill 44 legislature debate and it did. It was not as if government MLAs did not know that and that the critical final vote on Bill 44 would happen that night.
Second, they would know when the vote would likely happen because they engineered the debate to happen late at night. The thinking there was undoubtedly that a late night vote meant that nobody would be following the debate and the MSM wouldn't care enough to cover it the next day. Wrong again, mostly because they did not expect the influence of the Internet and the power of social media. Hundreds of citizens were watching the debate as it streamed on line and they were actively engaged in Twittering all night long.
Finally I noted that the Premier came back to the Legislature about 12:30 am the night of the final vote on Bill 44. If he could make the effort to come back to the legislature to take advantage of the "free vote" why didn't those other government MLAs, who may have opposed Bill 44 on principle, come back and vote too? Was it about taking the easy way out and go along to get along? Or did they not believe the Premier when he said it would be a free vote. Where they afraid to vote against a government Bill as a PC MLA because it would result in "consequences?"
The Premier showed up and showed leadership that night. He was wrong in his position to my mind - but he at least showed up and voted. I always say the world is run by those who show up. The progressives in the PC caucus who were opposed to Bill 44 failed us and themselves when they failed, refused or neglected to show up and take a free vote stand against this ill-advised legislation.
This going along to get along is becoming the new normal in the world of command and control top down hyper-partisan "democracy." I hope the new networked collaborative and respective sharing of differences of opinion in open political discussion and with rigorous principled debate will be the basis of a revived representative democracy in Alberta. We sure need it. The "cracks" that are showing in any and likely all political caucuses, especially a governing party caucus, are a good thing for citizens and for our democracy. Remember what Leonard Cohen said:
"Ring the bell that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That is how the light gets in."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Research Shows Connected People Can't Live Without Social Media.
New research done this June by Anderson Analytics of 5000 U.S. social media users says that 71% "can't live without Facebook." Life without Twitter could be tolerated by 43% making 57% saying it is vital to their lives these days.
As for the most "valuable network" the study shows 75% touting Facebook, 30% naming the business centred LinkedIn and only 12% giving Twitter the #1 designation. Makes sense to me given the more social nature of Facebook overall.
Twitter is a much different social media animal that Facebook I think. It is more issues and activist oriented. That is especially true if you use a program like Tweetdeck.com to organize you Tweets and messages in themes instead of just chronologically. Chief Marketing Officers are trending towards Twitter according to a recent Business Week story. Part of the reason is you can find and target different social network communities using Twitter. One CMO comment was the Twitter users are the "loudest" group online - a sentiment I share.
The Anderson survey estimates that 110 million Americans are regular social media users. That is 36% of the population. Men are more active in all three social media than women partly because men are less likely to be concerned about meeting strangers on line. Facebook has women participating than men 56% vs 44% but LinkedIn has more men than women 57% to 43% participants. The average social media networker will visit sites 5 days a week and about 4 times a day for an hour each and every day.
Social media is changing the nature of communications, relationships and information sharing. It is horizontal and community based with a richer definition of community than neighbourhood.
As for the most "valuable network" the study shows 75% touting Facebook, 30% naming the business centred LinkedIn and only 12% giving Twitter the #1 designation. Makes sense to me given the more social nature of Facebook overall.
Twitter is a much different social media animal that Facebook I think. It is more issues and activist oriented. That is especially true if you use a program like Tweetdeck.com to organize you Tweets and messages in themes instead of just chronologically. Chief Marketing Officers are trending towards Twitter according to a recent Business Week story. Part of the reason is you can find and target different social network communities using Twitter. One CMO comment was the Twitter users are the "loudest" group online - a sentiment I share.
The Anderson survey estimates that 110 million Americans are regular social media users. That is 36% of the population. Men are more active in all three social media than women partly because men are less likely to be concerned about meeting strangers on line. Facebook has women participating than men 56% vs 44% but LinkedIn has more men than women 57% to 43% participants. The average social media networker will visit sites 5 days a week and about 4 times a day for an hour each and every day.
Social media is changing the nature of communications, relationships and information sharing. It is horizontal and community based with a richer definition of community than neighbourhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)