The Closed Nature of the UCP Kenney Party

I've been doing some reading about values and mindsets and applying some of these learnings to political organizations and trends.  In the previous post I spoke about Arrested, Closed and Open mindsets and related them to the Alberta NDP, UCP and Alberta Party respectively.

I want to delve a bit deeper into the characteristics of a Closed organization like the Kenney lead United Conservative Party.  It is essentially a binary mindset.  You are for them or against them.  We saw that with the HarperCons when they framed the debate on a piece of get-tough-on-crime draft legislation of you are either "with the pornographers or against them."

As a Minister in Prime Minister Harper's Cabinet  Mr. Kenney spawned his politically autocratic tendencies and honed his single-minded political focus.  Winning isn't just the best thing, it's the only thing when in pursuit of political power.

There is no flexibility in the Closed organization mindset.  They have difficulty accepting alternative ways of perceiving or different values.  Closed organization, like the HarperCons and now the United Conservative Party, seem to be happiest with then can hunker down and try to make the world fit into what they believe to be the only truth...their truth.

Politically closed operations have tendencies to harbour zealots and extremists who not only reject alternative perspective, they can tend to demonize the "other."  Those who disagree or oppose them are often labelled heretics, fools or idiots.  You see this frequently in Twitter posts of, mostly anonymous, conservative trolls.

Complexity and nuance is rejected in favour of simplistic solutions and group-think leader-driven policy approaches. The default state of mind is  "This is all there is." Fresh ideas and new methodologies are rare . They tend hold fast to what they see as "tried and true" so there is no need to change.

The lack of adaptability or capacity to accept new ideas or changing circumstances is seen as inappropriate because there is only the one way to be.  Countervailing facts, events or circumstances are rejected by the inner circle and the rest follow along willingly accepting the "wisdom" of their leadership.

As a result we can see many UCP partisans as very tribal and absolutist in their thinking while also being differential with strong allegiance to internal authorities and leadership.  Their world is full of threats so they find security in rituals, religion as they pursue power-seeking political goals.  They value loyalty, traditions and like to celebrate their wins especially if they are at the expense of others.

This is not the kind of political culture that will enable Alberta to transition, to an adaptive, inclusive, integrated and progress as a province.  But the UCP could become government easily if progressives choose to stay into their mindset of self-satisfied, comfortable, contented and disengaged from politics.

What is the Future of Progressive Politics in Alberta?

I posed this question in a blog post last March when Mr. Kenney won the PC leadership.

A lot has happened since then. The PCs and Wildrose have "united" under the leadership of Mr. Kenney.  Former Wildrose leader Brian Jean seems tentative about serving under Mr. Kenney.

The Alberta Liberals and Greens both have new leaders.  And the Alberta Party is in the hunt now for a new leader with the surprising resignation of Greg Clark/

Premier Notley became the Leader of the Alberta NDP three years ago in October 2014, and is now the longest serving party leader in the province,.  She is replacing the recently resigned Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark who became leader way back (sic) in September 2013.

With all this churn where will progressive go in the next election?  They went NDP last time to turf the PCs and because of a well-founded general distrust of the Wildrose on many policy issues.

Will there be a split amongst progressives between the NDP and a refreshed Alberta Party so the UCP comes up the middle to take over and rule Alberta?

Will more women and Millennials show up next time, like they do in non-partisan municipal elections, to help organize campaigns?  Will there be more progressive voters showing up so we get greater political participation and turnout?  Will that expanded progressive participation and voter turn out avoid a disastrous split of progressive votes and ensure the UCP is in third place?

Will the next election be as dramatic as the last one?  Would a minority government be possible?

Who knows?  The reality is the volatility in Alberta politics we have experienced is now dating back to 2006 election that was portending end of the Klein era.  He was kicked out as PC leader at the next AGM of the PCAA. 

Political volatility in Alberta is not over yet...and frankly, we ain't seen nothing yet as we move into perpetual campaign mode two years before the next election.

Can Alberta Conservatives Win in 2019 and Deny Climate Change?

Abacus Data has a new on-line survey of 1534 Canadians randomly selected from a panel of 500,000 Canadians.  They weighted the responses to "match census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada's population" demographics.

Not sure that weighting is reliable or even possible.  The Harper government killed the long form census so we likely don't have a reliable base line to weigh against.  Harper did not want reliable statistical evidence  contradict or undermine his political agenda.

Prime Minister Trudeau's first policy move after being elected was to return the long form census so it may be possible that Abacus Data has those results to "weigh" against.  Are the results using this methodology truly representative of Canadian opinion and values?  I don't know but I have a serious suspicion of on-line panel responses.  Are they anything more than allegedly random samples using questionable sources where certain responses are weighted to induce or deem a representative sample?

That said, lets take a look at what the survey purports to discover in the context of what political policy should be on climate change if a political party wants to be reflective of the will of citizens and victorious at election time.

Abacus says that back in the day "...politicians who chose to be early champions of action to reduce emissions were running a certain amount of political risk."  Carbon emission consequences were not fully formed in the public consciousness.  However, "Today in Canada, the risk equation has changed. the bigger political peril lie in appearing indifferent to a matter of widespread and growing public perception."

If this survey is accurate half of Canadian voters (49%) won't even consider a party or a candidate that doesn't have a plan to combat climate change.   Only 6% prefer a party or a candidate that ignores the issue.

If ignoring the issue of climate change is the same as denying it exists then are Conservatives, including those in Alberta, in trouble next election?  Yup, but only if climate change is an election is a significant enough issue in the minds of voters.  Consider this survey finding.  "The rest (44%) are 'willing to consider' a party that doesn't make the climate a priority."

Abacus' analysis on the 44% says "For Canada's conservative parties and candidates, an optimistic read of these numbers is that the Conservatives cold win without an ambitious plan given that half of the population don't consider this policy a pre-requisite for their support."  They go one to warn Conservatives that ignoring the climate change issues would be "tying on hand behind their backs, leaving them no room for error."

Environmentalism has changed in Canada and is now a "moderate" concern for 78% of Canadians.  Only 11% see themselves as "ardent" environmentalists and another 11% are indifferent.  There are 68% of us how attribute climate change to human and industrial causes, 21% say its just natural phenomenon and 2% are climate change deniers.

Obviously one way to defeat the KenneyCons (a.k.a. the UCP) in Alberta is to elevate climate change action into a ballot box issue.  How might that happen?  Well we need to be sure the voting public understands and appreciates the consequences of inaction or inept half-hearted action on climate change.

That may already be the case given the Abacus survey found 85% of us said "...taking no action on climate change will be severe, very severe, or catastrophic across a wide range of areas..." including agriculture, human health and insurance access, taxpayer costs of rebuilding after disasters to name a few.  The momentum is for action so says 63% versus 37% who want" to do little or nothing" about climate change.

Here's the kicker for inert Conservatives on climate change.  There is an enormous moral responsibility as 91% say taking action on climate change is a duty to future generations.  While 47% believe the damage is already done, we are past the tipping point and there is "...little chance we could  stop climate change at this point."  Contrast that with 87% who feel there is "already lots of evidence we can cut emissions when we try."  And, get this shift, 79% believe "...combating climate change will open up economic opportunities."

So the old-line HarperCons climate change denier stance is no longer tenable as sound political platform.  The environment is not perceived as a trade-off with the economy nor is it a barrier to growth, in fact is is a catalyst for growth, responsible sustainable growth and a competitive advantage. 

Will the KenneyCon UCP base in Alberta, that now is really the same old HarperCon fundamentalist  social conservative crowd, accept this shift in public perception and deny being deniers?  Will a UCP shift to rhetoric on responsible sustainable economic development that stewards the environment be credible to Alberta progressive voters?

I'm betting no to both propositions.  That doesn't mean the UCP loses the next election.  But making the integrated comprehensive mutually positive relationship between the environment and the economy as a major ballot box issue is a great start to defeating Kenney next election, 

If you want to dig deeper into the Abacus survey the link is here...

Greg Clark Steps Down as Alberta Party Leader

In a surprise move the Alberta Party is in the hunt for a new leader.   With recent consolidation of the uber-right in the UCP there are a lot of free-floating former progressives in the former party of Lougheed who are looking for a home.

The Alberta Party has had a number of false-positive political test results around thwarted floor crossings from the Stelmach government and the Sherman Liberals.  Never able to raise sufficient funds to really be a contender they were able to elect thier Leader Greg Clark in the last provincial election.

Whether he was nudged, pushed or saw a personal obligation to resign to help refresh the Alberta Party through a leadership contest, that is the stuff of pundit and partisan  pontification.  In the real world it matters not.

We have a two-party system at present that sees each other as extremist, be it the "socialist" left or "social conservative" right. The reality is the majority of Alberta voters are in the centre but nobody is really resonating with this progressive majority of Albertans.  The Alberta Party is an unfulfilled potential and the Notley NDP is making moves more towards the centre while the UCP is moving farther to the radical religious right.

The three partisan options potentially to be offered to Albertans can be described as Arrested, Closed or Open.  The NDP was elected as a reaction against the social conservative Wildrose and the self-serving entitled mindset of the PCs.  The political surveys, while fraught with methodological faults, a consensus seems to be forming.

That is a growing perception that the NDP has peaked and further progress is "Arrested" or Stalled. Barriers towards further progress have emerged that need to be overcome. They may lack the insight to perceive or to explain what is happening so that the barriers can be overcome.  Political dissonance on wedge issues may still emerge to help them sustain power and establish them as an authentic and preferred option for change.

The UCP is Closed in that they are psychologically blind to seeing alternatives to their fiscal hawkishness, social conservative base and climate change denier beliefs.  They can't even see their barriers to achieving a broader "big tent" political acceptance, never mind overcome them.   Their internal divisive history makes change difficult.  Their membership is threatened by change and fight to perfect yesterday.  They wish to return Alberta to a Bible-Belt social policy with simplistic economic policy while ignoring environmental concerns.

The Alberta Party is Open to realizing the potential of change as as evidenced by the resignation of its leader.  The Alberta Party has had many barriers to becoming a significant political force but they are aware of them and open to new ways to overcome them.  Recent boost in membership from disenfranchised progressives and centrists and the potential for some serious fundraising show the Alberta Party is able to more more freely to adapt and adjust to the shifting political culture of Alberta.  

They are not locked in the Left versus Right outdated political perception trap.  They are open to accepting individual differences and not locked into habitual patterns of the other conventional parties.  They accept that change is and complex so they are not prone to jumping on the politics-as-usual simplistic bandwagons.  They are more likely to have good listening skills, be accepting of differences and be non-judgmental about various approaches to life.

We may be closer to the next election and to the last one.  So time is of the essence for all parties.  I have no idea what will happen but nothing is guaranteed for any political party in Alberta these days.

USA Style Dark Money Has Come Into Alberta's Politics

Alberta's laws on reforming Election Financing has come a long way since the Notley government came to office. We really needed to "clean up our act" on donor disclosures, contribution limits and political accountability. 

But recently, in Alberta, we have seen the arrival of American-style Political Action Committees (PACs).  They are being formed and operating outside the spirit and intent of recent Notley electoral reform efforts. Some recent legislative review is needed for some context on what has been going on around political finance reform...and what still needs to be fixed.

STEP 1:
Eliminate Corporate, Union and Employee Organization Political Donations.

The Notley government's very first piece of legislation upon being elected in 2015 was "An Act to Renew Democracy in Alberta."

It was a law designed to eliminate corporate, union and employee organizations who bargain collectively from making donations into Alberta electoral politics.  

Prohibited contributions included those to, "registered" candidates in nominations, elections and by-elections.  Contributions from these sources were also disallowed to "registered" constituency organizations. Something long over due and studiously ignored by the former PC government.

Step 2:
Reduce Levels of Political Contributions by Individuals

In December 2016 they took their "second step" introducing Bill 35 the Fair Elections Financing Act.  The stated motive behind this law, as recorded in Hansard on December 6, 2016, was to "...rein in political spending by political parties and reduce individual contribution limits. Third parties would also no longer fund their agendas through anonymous contributions for political advertising."

The Notley government said they were getting "big money and special interests influences out of deciding elections," then adding transparency and a "level playing field for all candidates and parties...and give democracy back to Albertans."  Good stuff! 

The goals was to assure Albertans "...that ideas and not money would determine success or failure at the polls...that Alberta's political leaders would be chosen based on what they stand for and not be influenced by how much money was spent during political campaigns."

Specific nomination, election and by-election spending limits were set for political parties and candidates.  Individuals could only donate a maximum total  of $4000 per calendar year to all provincial political activities.  Corporations and Unions could no longer "second" their staff to work to a campaign and keep them on the company payroll. All good stuff in the service of the admirable policy objectives.

The Wildrose was on-side and noted, in debate, that rather than a $4,000 personal contribution limit, they wanted  an even lower $1,000 personal limit.  They also rightly noted, that nothing had been done to stop sitting governments from abusing taxpayer sourced advertising dollars to boost an incumbent government profile leading up to an election.

By all accounts the revised system of campaign finance controls is working as intended.  However the world has changed.  The perpetual campaign nature of modern politics and the rise of the influence of the ubiquitous Internet means the old election writ-triggering model is out of date and out of touch.  All the good intentions of fair limits, disclosure and eliminating big money backroom back-scratching anonymous influences are bring thwarted.  

Step3:
Enter the Political Action Committees!
Elections Alberta tracks Third Party Advertisers both, politically and in elections.  There are some "Election Advertisers" who have recently de-registered and other registrants who have not yet disclosed any information at all.    

The "Political Advertisers" are even more interesting. All seven of the registered entities filed 6 months of fund raising for 2017, The Alberta Federation of Labour disclosed $490k from 24 union locals.  Next was the Merit Contractors Association coming in at $194k but no details on where that money came from.  That is followed by the Alberta Advantage Fund, a diverse group in at $178k.  The others have raised between Zero and $25k.  

These are all legitimate initiatives legally involved in election or political advertising and operating within the spirit and intent of the disclosure laws.

However, what is emerging is a number of politically active operations akin to American Political Action Committees, known as PACs.  They are not registered as Third Party Advertisers because they are not active in election or political advertising.  

The operations I know of, and there may be more, are the emerging Alberta Together centrists effort initiated by former Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel.  There is the left leaning, Progress Alberta operation headed by Duncan Kinney.  Full disclosure, I have been to events sponsored by both of these groups, and will continue to do so but have not donated to either of them and will not do so.

There is a coalition of conservative groups called Alberta Can't Wait, the Alberta Prosperity Fund and Unite Alberta.  The latter admitted to funding part of Jason Kenney's PC Leadership Campaign.

This raises red flags about PAC political activities, because they claim to be beyond election and political advertising disclosure requirements.  What is at risk with this non-disclosure is the return to backroom back-scratching politician-based influence dealings funded by big-money anonymous donors.  This is not good for democracy, regardless of the quality of the intent.

Benign Citizen Engagement Groups or Secretive Political Operations?

These Alberta PACs are alleging that they are not engaged with or within any political party operations or candidate support.  Their fund raising is said to be for advocacy and issues management efforts.  

As a result they are third-party political action organizations with agendas and operate outside the current laws of donor disclosure and contribution limits. Operating without donor disclosure means they are essentially aligned with what has become known as Dark Money that has taken control of the American political culture.

We see these PACs organizing events, commenting and pressing on issues of concern to them  as a good thing for an informed citizenry enabled for more critical thinking. 

However, in the case of Unite the Right PAC, it raised $508,000 from 2,129 donors for the Jason Kenney PC leadership run.  These funds were raised before the  leadership writ was issued and therefore believed to outside the legal disclosure requirements. 

That money was in addition to the $1,505,894.13, also raised and disclosed, within the campaign financing laws relating to Mr. Kenney's PC leadership campaign.

Mr. Kenney "promised" to disclose the identity and details of Unite the Right pre-writ anonymous donors.  He has since reneged on that promise.  

To be fair the Kenney PC leadership has released the names of 63 Unite the Right pre-writ donors who contributed $118,745 of the total raised.  But what about the rest and why not disclose, as promised?

"Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant" - Justice Louis Brandeis

The question remains; what is the Kenney campaign hiding and why not fulfill the political promise to disclose the full pre-writ donor details? They claim to have a "subsequent" legal opinion claiming privacy constraints against disclosure. 

But that is exactly the kind disclosure concerns behind the recent legal changes to the campaign financing laws. 

Kenney should release the legal opinion so we could test its analysis and assess its veracity.  Kenney could also offer to return those non-disclosed donors dollars to those who do not wish to be disclosed.  

This may require some retroactive legislative capacity and a supervised systems by Elections Alberta to verify the return system. Is that OK, so long as it respects the privacy of those who contributed to the Kenney PAC scheme?  Or is the public entitled to know all those who participated in the pre-writ non-disclosure Kenney campaign fund raising scheme?  

Some ethical and moral questions obviously impinge on any such process.  Could it be developed as part of a new modern, comprehensive go-forward legislative arrangement for better disclosure requirement to cover PACs.

Step 4:
NOW WHAT?

Modern politics has become perpetual election campaigning machine.  Writ periods are no longer reasonable time frames to control donor disclosures and apply funding limits in Alberta's political culture.  

Without continuous full disclosure and annual limits on all PAC donations regardless of policy or political influencing purposes we run the risk of seriously diminishing our democracy and, quite possibly, enabling political corruption.    

We need new disclosure and contribution limit laws more aligned with the contemporary realities of Alberta's modern political culture.  It cannot be delayed.  Accepting non-disclosure or benign indifference to Dark Money in Alberta's politics is a clear and present danger to our democracy.

The NDP government recently said they saw no reason to revisit its recent election reform agenda.  Given the rise of PACs and their donor secrecy, the perpetual nature of electoral politics, and the disclosure avoidance tactics of the Kenney PC leadership pre-writ fund raising, that reluctance has vanished. 

We need to revisit and revise our political contribution laws to build on the good work done to date and enhanced to accommodate legitimate PAC influence efforts but with full and real-time detailed disclosure. 

And that is a good thing for returning public trust in our political processes.  And that is a necessary thing to strengthen and protect our democracy.