Interesting to see the Calgary Herald's Danielle Smith modifying her stance on Dr. Oberg's scheme to share the local property taxes between the municipalities and the local school boards. This is a device designed by an Oberg-Bronconnier alliance and only involves those two. Steele apparently liked the idea at first but is now saying "School Funding not Mayor's Role." I agree with her. The Mayor of Calgary, or any other municipality, ought not to be the person who decides where and when schools get built. Local school boards working with the province are the proper people to undertake that responsibility.
This blog was unimpressed with the Dr. Oberg 75/25 solution as well. This is fiscal burden being shifted by a leadership candidate to a level of government that can't serve its mandate now and this scheme does not solve that problem. It makes it worse. The province has responsibilities and a role to play here. The municipal and scholl infrastrucutre problems are worse because of Oberg's past delay and denial, as the Minister responsible, that public infrastructure needed attention.
Delegating a duty is one thing and may be acceptable from time to time. Abdicating a responsibility, like Dr. Oberg's infrastructure scheme, is not appropriate.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Dan MacLennan "Privatizes" Himself
Dan MacLennan just announced he is leaving as President of the AUPE, Alberta's largest union and joining the private sector. He has been one of the most successful and effective public sector representatives and a strong voices for his memberships in the anti-union environment that is Alberta.
Dan and I have met through provincial PC and federal Liberal circles. While our basic politics differ, he and I have agreed in our support for certain candidates including Ralph Klein and Anne McLellan. He is a bright, effective and one of the superior strategic thinkers and quality leaders in the province.
The AUPE new release does not say where in the private sector he is going. "Buff" (as he is known) has political aspirations. He played with the idea of running as a federal LIberal in Edmonton East last time but wisely passed. This surprise move to "privatize" himself is clearly in service of those personal political goals. If not - they ought to be. He would be a great addition to the political life of the province or the country - depending on which arena he chooses to play in.
The union movements loss it the private sector's gain. It will be better merely as a result of having access to Dan's skills and qualities.
Welcome to the dark side Dan. We have to find some time for a beer to catch up.
Dan and I have met through provincial PC and federal Liberal circles. While our basic politics differ, he and I have agreed in our support for certain candidates including Ralph Klein and Anne McLellan. He is a bright, effective and one of the superior strategic thinkers and quality leaders in the province.
The AUPE new release does not say where in the private sector he is going. "Buff" (as he is known) has political aspirations. He played with the idea of running as a federal LIberal in Edmonton East last time but wisely passed. This surprise move to "privatize" himself is clearly in service of those personal political goals. If not - they ought to be. He would be a great addition to the political life of the province or the country - depending on which arena he chooses to play in.
The union movements loss it the private sector's gain. It will be better merely as a result of having access to Dan's skills and qualities.
Welcome to the dark side Dan. We have to find some time for a beer to catch up.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Political Mentor “Marks” Norris as a Klein Clone.
Media reports tell of the recent Art Smith endorsement of Mark Norris for PC leader. Art Smith was the chief cook (and sometimes bottle washer) in the Calgary based Klein Kitchen Cabinet. Over a year ago, however, Smith openly called for Ralph to step down. A few days of “clarifying damage control” ensued but with Art Smith’s musings the die was cast for the political exit of King Ralph.
Art Smith was the man who “made” Ralph – in more ways than one. Dr. Oberg likes to take the credit for undermining Ralph at the PC Convention last April with his “skeleton in closets” comments. Such political opportunism is typical of the Oberg hubris. It is right up there with his belief he can lead a caucus he insults and embarrasses then fails to provide any evidence to back up his allegations. Oberg’s political chicanery tarred the entire caucus to the point they expelled him.
Back to Mark! Art Smith’s immense is practically mythological in Calgary political circles and marks (sic) a major coupe or the Norris campaign. Political campaigns are about change and moving forward, looking at alternatives, testing new ideas, fixing old problems, finding fresh faces, renewed vision and choosing the leader for now and beyond.
Art Smith's endorsement captures one of the disquieting essences of Mark Norris. He is very much, as Smith notes, a Klein clone. Smith’s presence underlines another concern about Norris’ readiness to lead the next Alberta. Research shows Albertans are ready for the future and they are more then a bit anxious about what the future holds. Are things moving a bit too fast for our capacity and infrastructure right now? Is the pace of growth creating new social and environmental problems and turning the entire province into Fort McMurray?
Albertans are not at all interested repeating and perfecting the past - especially in the recent Klein model of “lazy fair” governance. Mark’s major backers are now all older establishment businessmen like Smith in Calgary and Cal Nichols in Edmonton. All are fine fellows and outstanding citizens to be sure. By their presence though, they make their 43 year old “youthful” candidate look like he needs mentoring. They tend to erode our confidence and raise the underlining and perhaps even undermining Norris question – “is he really ready for leadership?” Alberta is the fastest growing economy on the continent. With that growth comes complex problems – both old ones and newer ones emerging. Can he stand up and deal with them effectively for the next 2 years…and beyond? Norris threatens an Alberta separation. He talks recklessly about taking Alberta out of Canada. He sees royalty surpluses from non-renewable resource which are one time revenues as "over taxation." These are some examples that make me shake my head about his policy judgement and his readiness to lead.
Elder statesmen supporters who compare his capability and personality to the past andretiring leader don’t help the Norris’ candidacy and campaign much. Mark is a nice guy and I like him but if he is the reincarnate Ralph Klein, we voters have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Is that what we need now? Or as Ralph used to say "....that was then, this is now!"
How seasoned is Mark to meet modern political pressures and policy demands? Does he have the insight, acumen, proven commitment and personal capacity to deal effectively with the harsh realities of political leadership? Has he got the depth of experience, astuteness and the personal judgment capabilities we need? Is he his “own man” or is he an “owned man?” These are big questions that will not go away about Mark Norris. They will not be overcome with a “hail fellow well met” political patina. Political leaders need competent advisors and confidants. Acolytes and novitiates need elders and mentors.
Art Smith was the man who “made” Ralph – in more ways than one. Dr. Oberg likes to take the credit for undermining Ralph at the PC Convention last April with his “skeleton in closets” comments. Such political opportunism is typical of the Oberg hubris. It is right up there with his belief he can lead a caucus he insults and embarrasses then fails to provide any evidence to back up his allegations. Oberg’s political chicanery tarred the entire caucus to the point they expelled him.
Back to Mark! Art Smith’s immense is practically mythological in Calgary political circles and marks (sic) a major coupe or the Norris campaign. Political campaigns are about change and moving forward, looking at alternatives, testing new ideas, fixing old problems, finding fresh faces, renewed vision and choosing the leader for now and beyond.
Art Smith's endorsement captures one of the disquieting essences of Mark Norris. He is very much, as Smith notes, a Klein clone. Smith’s presence underlines another concern about Norris’ readiness to lead the next Alberta. Research shows Albertans are ready for the future and they are more then a bit anxious about what the future holds. Are things moving a bit too fast for our capacity and infrastructure right now? Is the pace of growth creating new social and environmental problems and turning the entire province into Fort McMurray?
Albertans are not at all interested repeating and perfecting the past - especially in the recent Klein model of “lazy fair” governance. Mark’s major backers are now all older establishment businessmen like Smith in Calgary and Cal Nichols in Edmonton. All are fine fellows and outstanding citizens to be sure. By their presence though, they make their 43 year old “youthful” candidate look like he needs mentoring. They tend to erode our confidence and raise the underlining and perhaps even undermining Norris question – “is he really ready for leadership?” Alberta is the fastest growing economy on the continent. With that growth comes complex problems – both old ones and newer ones emerging. Can he stand up and deal with them effectively for the next 2 years…and beyond? Norris threatens an Alberta separation. He talks recklessly about taking Alberta out of Canada. He sees royalty surpluses from non-renewable resource which are one time revenues as "over taxation." These are some examples that make me shake my head about his policy judgement and his readiness to lead.
Elder statesmen supporters who compare his capability and personality to the past andretiring leader don’t help the Norris’ candidacy and campaign much. Mark is a nice guy and I like him but if he is the reincarnate Ralph Klein, we voters have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Is that what we need now? Or as Ralph used to say "....that was then, this is now!"
How seasoned is Mark to meet modern political pressures and policy demands? Does he have the insight, acumen, proven commitment and personal capacity to deal effectively with the harsh realities of political leadership? Has he got the depth of experience, astuteness and the personal judgment capabilities we need? Is he his “own man” or is he an “owned man?” These are big questions that will not go away about Mark Norris. They will not be overcome with a “hail fellow well met” political patina. Political leaders need competent advisors and confidants. Acolytes and novitiates need elders and mentors.
Friday, September 15, 2006
“Money! Money! Money! – It’s a Rich Man’s World”
My apologies to ABBA (sic) but this title captures the key issues around disclosure of PC leadership campaign financing. The issues that are heating up including the appropriateness of out of province campaign contributions. Transparency, accountability and disclosure are all aspects of the personal integrity of any candidate for public office.
OK the shallow minded policy purists can say the PC Party is a private organization and it is not necessary to disclose donor data. That attitude won’t cut it and besides, the winner here is also the Premier of the Province, so I think we have a right to know the score. The provincial election campaign disclosure standards ought to be, at a minimum, the requirements of the PC leadership candidates. Where did you get it and how did you spend it? With no rules coming from the PC Party, this issue could be one of the key and decisive character indicators of the various candidates. It is already forming as a campaign wedge issue.
Dinning and Dr. Morton are raising money outside Alberta. Why? Because they can! But should they? Dinning is reported, in Mark Lisac’s Insight Into Government newsletter as raising – and presumably spending - $3 million on his leadership campaign. A cool $1 million more than Stephen Harper spent to become leader of the federal Conservatives. Dinning has arguably been campaigning since he left politics in 1997 – surely he has enough money by now. Dr. Morton is chasing BC bucks from “like minded people” – whatever that means - but it sounds kind of austere doesn’t it, given what we know of Dr. Morton’s mind. To the ordinary Albertan this looks like elites and special interests buying influence and access to the seat of power in Alberta. Maybe not but time will tell…if either of them wins! It sure add to citizen's cynicism...just read the Letters to the Editor in the newspapers.
Norris says he has the high road on campaign disclosure. However, why would 106 well heeled individuals cough up $10K each for what should be a non-deductible campaign contribution, but is positioned as “buying consulting services” - from a political candidate? That is the Norris campaign funding model. The scheme is designed so “donors” can deduct the money they “spend” in exchange for “consulting services” from candidate Norris. His campaign contributions are being proffered as a tax deductible expense.
Clever - don't you think? Help your candidate and pay less tax instead of making a straight up non-deductible political donation. It may be legal, I don’t know, but does it pass your “sniff test?” I like lower taxes as much as the next guy but really! I hope he got an advance tax ruling on the scheme.
Does tax deductibility also mean, in effect, we are all unwittingly contributing in some way to the Norris campaign? Our governments are getting less revenue with his tax scheme for campaign funding. Does this mean lost tax revenues get made up by other charges or by reduced government services? Beats me, but hopefully the taxman looks into these business transaction/political donations and will let us know if it is proper.
If it is an appropriate tax avoidance scheme, then are the rest of us also funding the Norris campaign? Please list my contribution as “anonymous.” Not because I don’t want people to know I am helping out Mark as a taxpayer and citizen- but because I didn’t even know I was ;-}.
Why do some donors insist on anonymity? There are a number of reasons for this. Sometime big money movers and shakers hedge their “bets” by giving to more than one candidate. They still want each individual candidate to think they have the donor’s undying loyalty. Insisting on anonymity achieves both ends. Some anonymous donations may be ethically questionable, like from people associated with government agencies, boards and commissions that are supposed to be arms length from politics. Some donors just do not want to be bothered by other requests for money and ask to be anonymous.
Candidates should just tell us how many anonymous donors and the amount of each contribution. We citizens can then judge for ourselves what that implies (or not) about the receiving candidate’s judgment and the nature of his support. Simple solution don’t you think?
OK the shallow minded policy purists can say the PC Party is a private organization and it is not necessary to disclose donor data. That attitude won’t cut it and besides, the winner here is also the Premier of the Province, so I think we have a right to know the score. The provincial election campaign disclosure standards ought to be, at a minimum, the requirements of the PC leadership candidates. Where did you get it and how did you spend it? With no rules coming from the PC Party, this issue could be one of the key and decisive character indicators of the various candidates. It is already forming as a campaign wedge issue.
Dinning and Dr. Morton are raising money outside Alberta. Why? Because they can! But should they? Dinning is reported, in Mark Lisac’s Insight Into Government newsletter as raising – and presumably spending - $3 million on his leadership campaign. A cool $1 million more than Stephen Harper spent to become leader of the federal Conservatives. Dinning has arguably been campaigning since he left politics in 1997 – surely he has enough money by now. Dr. Morton is chasing BC bucks from “like minded people” – whatever that means - but it sounds kind of austere doesn’t it, given what we know of Dr. Morton’s mind. To the ordinary Albertan this looks like elites and special interests buying influence and access to the seat of power in Alberta. Maybe not but time will tell…if either of them wins! It sure add to citizen's cynicism...just read the Letters to the Editor in the newspapers.
Norris says he has the high road on campaign disclosure. However, why would 106 well heeled individuals cough up $10K each for what should be a non-deductible campaign contribution, but is positioned as “buying consulting services” - from a political candidate? That is the Norris campaign funding model. The scheme is designed so “donors” can deduct the money they “spend” in exchange for “consulting services” from candidate Norris. His campaign contributions are being proffered as a tax deductible expense.
Clever - don't you think? Help your candidate and pay less tax instead of making a straight up non-deductible political donation. It may be legal, I don’t know, but does it pass your “sniff test?” I like lower taxes as much as the next guy but really! I hope he got an advance tax ruling on the scheme.
Does tax deductibility also mean, in effect, we are all unwittingly contributing in some way to the Norris campaign? Our governments are getting less revenue with his tax scheme for campaign funding. Does this mean lost tax revenues get made up by other charges or by reduced government services? Beats me, but hopefully the taxman looks into these business transaction/political donations and will let us know if it is proper.
If it is an appropriate tax avoidance scheme, then are the rest of us also funding the Norris campaign? Please list my contribution as “anonymous.” Not because I don’t want people to know I am helping out Mark as a taxpayer and citizen- but because I didn’t even know I was ;-}.
Why do some donors insist on anonymity? There are a number of reasons for this. Sometime big money movers and shakers hedge their “bets” by giving to more than one candidate. They still want each individual candidate to think they have the donor’s undying loyalty. Insisting on anonymity achieves both ends. Some anonymous donations may be ethically questionable, like from people associated with government agencies, boards and commissions that are supposed to be arms length from politics. Some donors just do not want to be bothered by other requests for money and ask to be anonymous.
Candidates should just tell us how many anonymous donors and the amount of each contribution. We citizens can then judge for ourselves what that implies (or not) about the receiving candidate’s judgment and the nature of his support. Simple solution don’t you think?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Hancock Should "Get the Nod"
Props to Matt Frehner at the Gateway, the U of A student newspaper. His piece on the St. Albert PC Leadership Forum “PC Convention all Steak, No Sizzle” captured much of the “meat” on many of the candidates and what they had at “stake.” For record, I am a big Hancock fan for the next party leader/Premier and am working on his campaign. I agree with Matt's comments that:
“If all of Alberta were to vote for the new Conservative leader, I would guess (or maybe hope) that Hancock would get the nod.”
Unfortunately hoping or guessing is not a reasonable method or strategy to select a new party leader and our next Premier. There is 2 years left on the current mandate and there is no need for any new leader to call a quickie election. For $5 any one 16 years old and an Albertan for 6 month can show up and actually make a difference as to who the next “Premier pro tem” will be.
The outcome of this PC Leadership campaign means we ordinary citizens can actually look at “leasing” and can “test drive” the next Premier for the next 2 years. We can see if we what to continue the relationship at the end of the “lease period” - or turn him back in and elect someone else. It’s a little like having a Premier on probation…they better show up and account for themselves and what they are doing on a regular basis - or the consequences will be conclusive and swift at the next election.
So many serious citizens will simply have to hold their noses and buy a PC membership. Then take some time to educate themselves on the candidates. Then make up their own minds as who best fits their sense of where Alberta ought to be headed and how to get there. Finally they have to show up and vote – even if they feel they are choosing between the best of a bad lot.
In a democracy we always get the kind of government we deserve. It would be a pity if we let any special interest control this leadership outcome because the rest of us “couldn’t be bothered” or we settle for a “passive aggressive approach” as a personal political choice. There is just too much at stake (sic) for progressive citizens not to participate in this leadership-premiership selection process.
“If all of Alberta were to vote for the new Conservative leader, I would guess (or maybe hope) that Hancock would get the nod.”
Unfortunately hoping or guessing is not a reasonable method or strategy to select a new party leader and our next Premier. There is 2 years left on the current mandate and there is no need for any new leader to call a quickie election. For $5 any one 16 years old and an Albertan for 6 month can show up and actually make a difference as to who the next “Premier pro tem” will be.
The outcome of this PC Leadership campaign means we ordinary citizens can actually look at “leasing” and can “test drive” the next Premier for the next 2 years. We can see if we what to continue the relationship at the end of the “lease period” - or turn him back in and elect someone else. It’s a little like having a Premier on probation…they better show up and account for themselves and what they are doing on a regular basis - or the consequences will be conclusive and swift at the next election.
So many serious citizens will simply have to hold their noses and buy a PC membership. Then take some time to educate themselves on the candidates. Then make up their own minds as who best fits their sense of where Alberta ought to be headed and how to get there. Finally they have to show up and vote – even if they feel they are choosing between the best of a bad lot.
In a democracy we always get the kind of government we deserve. It would be a pity if we let any special interest control this leadership outcome because the rest of us “couldn’t be bothered” or we settle for a “passive aggressive approach” as a personal political choice. There is just too much at stake (sic) for progressive citizens not to participate in this leadership-premiership selection process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)