Boy I thought I was being hard on Candidate Norris. Will McBeath's Blog (Noise From the Right) does a point by point “reality check” cum evisceration on Mark’s “Real Plan” policy document. It is worth a read.
Will is a committed Ted Morton guy – right to the bone. He thinks Morton’s ideological brand Republican Conservatives is the way forward for Alberta. I think Ted Morton is the Dick Cheney of Alberta politics.
McBeath is so confident in his view that the rest of us will see the light and go hard right for Dr. Morton that he uses the last federal election results as his proof. Conservatives 28. Liberals 0. Game Set and Match says our man Will. Ted should be a slam dunk.
Alberta PROGRESSIVE Conservatives are not the same as the Stockwell Day brand of Alliance/Reformers cum Republican Conservatives. Let’s look at the last Provincial election for a “Will-like proof.” PROGRESSIVE Conservatives 61. “Real” Conservatives (a.k.a Alliance) 1. Conclusion Ted is dead in the water.
What you are seeing presented by “Noise From the Right” is just that, Noise. But it is clever and tactical “noise” that frames Dr. Morton and a forgone conclusion to be the next Premier of Alberta. It is clever and pure unadulterated rhetorical bunk that is conclusive proof of nothing! You are seeing pure spin and propaganda at work here!
In this leadership selection we are talking about and making choices about the future of our province, its people, its prosperity and the place itself. Are we to be an engaged, nurturing community of fair minded and curious people? Or will we choose to be subject to a strict, disciplined, government that demands we be obedient citizens subject to and under a “greater” power…no not God – but our Republican Conservative Premier - be it Dr. Morton or Dr. Oberg. But I may be just plain wrong about the way the good Doctors would govern. But time will tell, especially if either of them gets to be the chosen one.
I believe in freedoms, particularly freedom of choice, expression and consciousness. I believe the politicians work for me, not the other way around. I vote intentionally and thoughtfully as I grant my consent to be governed. And I will revoke that consent at my will. I will live my life within the law and not be told how to run it by coercion, extortion, intimidation or threats by “the state.” I will keep my freedoms close, hold them dear and protect them aggressively – especially against any arrogant so called “higher” political power or authority.
I am a Progressive Conservative.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Hancock Stakes Out the Environment
The Hancock Campaign had just released his 13 Principles on the Protection and Enhancement of Alberta’s Environment along with an Open Letter Albertans on what he calls his “21st Century Environmental Plan for Alberta.” The stuff is all on his website http://www.davehancock.ca/. For purposes of disclosure – I have had a hand in the development of this policy. You are entitled to know that. His complete and comprehensive detailed policy platform is being released on October 4th.
It’s interesting that no candidate has staked out the environment yet. Hancock seems to be the first into the issue – and with a long term integrated comprehensive approach. He reflects the spirit and intent of Preston Manning’s writings last spring that the economy and the environment are complementary and not adversaries. We can and must see the links as synergistic and not competitive. Manning caused quite a resonant stir amongst Albertans when he made those observations in his op-ed pieces.
The feeling then (and now?) was that the population gets it and wants it to be that way but where has government’s environment political champion been? This policy position needs an effective political leader or at least an effective Cabinet Minister to make it happen? To date the old guard has been more about “Missing and Inaction.”
For example, Hancock says there are a number of significant environment plans in place (like Water for Life) or finally in process (like Integrated Landscape Management and the on again off again Oil Sands cumulative impact consultations) but they have not been implement, funded or advanced by the old government.
I think this issue has real legs. In the last federal election Alberta had the large percentage of Green Party supporters in the country outside Vancouver Island – ‘nuff said. The Greens finished second to Myron Thompson in the Bow Valley area – a distant second to be sure but who would have thunk it - second! The environment has not yet had a credible and balanced Progressive and Conservative politician take up the cause. Now it has. Give it a "boo" and let Hancock know what you think.
It’s interesting that no candidate has staked out the environment yet. Hancock seems to be the first into the issue – and with a long term integrated comprehensive approach. He reflects the spirit and intent of Preston Manning’s writings last spring that the economy and the environment are complementary and not adversaries. We can and must see the links as synergistic and not competitive. Manning caused quite a resonant stir amongst Albertans when he made those observations in his op-ed pieces.
The feeling then (and now?) was that the population gets it and wants it to be that way but where has government’s environment political champion been? This policy position needs an effective political leader or at least an effective Cabinet Minister to make it happen? To date the old guard has been more about “Missing and Inaction.”
For example, Hancock says there are a number of significant environment plans in place (like Water for Life) or finally in process (like Integrated Landscape Management and the on again off again Oil Sands cumulative impact consultations) but they have not been implement, funded or advanced by the old government.
I think this issue has real legs. In the last federal election Alberta had the large percentage of Green Party supporters in the country outside Vancouver Island – ‘nuff said. The Greens finished second to Myron Thompson in the Bow Valley area – a distant second to be sure but who would have thunk it - second! The environment has not yet had a credible and balanced Progressive and Conservative politician take up the cause. Now it has. Give it a "boo" and let Hancock know what you think.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Hey PC Party of Alberta- Fix This
THE PC PARTY COMES THROUGH. THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ARE BACK ON THE PARTY WEBSITE. KUDOS TO THE PARTY FOLKS WHO DID THIS. SEE MY POSTING OCTOBER 1 FOR MORE DETAILS.
I checked out the PC Party website to get an update on the Statement of Principles adopted by the Party in the early 1990's during Dave Hancock's term as Party President. They have been updated and ratified recently by an Annual General Meeting of the Party.
There is no sign of them on the Party website. Big error! Sure it is necesary to focus on the leadership BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PARTY!!!
There is a need to get folks involved in the Party and the leadership but don't you think they should have some background and an some ind of idea what a political party is all about...like access to the Statement of Principles of the PC Party for instance?.
Doug Graham - as Party President please fix this right away.
IN THE MEANTIME while you are waiting for that to be fixed check out the piece I recently wrote on Senate Reform in the Canada West Foundations "Dialogues" pubication "Equalize This." Hope you enjoy it. The "Gnu Government of Canada" as the federal Conservatives are insisting they now be called, even by the bureaucracy (if you like your job..but no pressure), are planning a full force incremental adjustment of the Senate. They are proposing a Bill to legislate term limits for Senators to 8 years. A start for sure and I like their pluck and wish them well. But why not tie into this Bill some equal Senate representation for the west as a quid pro quo for the equalization payments to "have not" provinces as well? The "poorer" provinces mostly have an excess of Senate seats that could be "equalized" to give us underprivileged western provinces some of the Senate seats from the fiscal "have not" provinces? Why don't we deserve equal "access" to that significnat federal public service, the Senate. Isn't that the fundamental principle behind equalization provisions in the Constitution, equal access to federal government services? Could be a fun debate.
I checked out the PC Party website to get an update on the Statement of Principles adopted by the Party in the early 1990's during Dave Hancock's term as Party President. They have been updated and ratified recently by an Annual General Meeting of the Party.
There is no sign of them on the Party website. Big error! Sure it is necesary to focus on the leadership BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PARTY!!!
There is a need to get folks involved in the Party and the leadership but don't you think they should have some background and an some ind of idea what a political party is all about...like access to the Statement of Principles of the PC Party for instance?.
Doug Graham - as Party President please fix this right away.
IN THE MEANTIME while you are waiting for that to be fixed check out the piece I recently wrote on Senate Reform in the Canada West Foundations "Dialogues" pubication "Equalize This." Hope you enjoy it. The "Gnu Government of Canada" as the federal Conservatives are insisting they now be called, even by the bureaucracy (if you like your job..but no pressure), are planning a full force incremental adjustment of the Senate. They are proposing a Bill to legislate term limits for Senators to 8 years. A start for sure and I like their pluck and wish them well. But why not tie into this Bill some equal Senate representation for the west as a quid pro quo for the equalization payments to "have not" provinces as well? The "poorer" provinces mostly have an excess of Senate seats that could be "equalized" to give us underprivileged western provinces some of the Senate seats from the fiscal "have not" provinces? Why don't we deserve equal "access" to that significnat federal public service, the Senate. Isn't that the fundamental principle behind equalization provisions in the Constitution, equal access to federal government services? Could be a fun debate.
The PC Party as a Means to an End
Graham Thomson makes a series of good points in his column today. Why buy a PC membership to participate in the leadership selection process? This is a fundamental question underscoring the current leadership campaign for each and every candidate and each and every eligible Albertan. I am encouraged that the Doctors are seeing the significance of this process and starting to engage. The teachers are quietly there already. The disability community is getting engaged and focused. The evangelical Christians and the Preston Manning old line Reformers are clearly in the game. Environmentalists are forming coalitions and will soon be making their move to influence the outcome. The Arts and Culture as well as Sport and Recreational people are getting their acts together wanting to be sure their agenda is given some priority. Municipalities are focused as well. Post secondary students and school boards and parents have issues and are starting to organize and are looking at ways to getting their messages out to candidates. A powerful group of community and aboriginal leaders held a new conference recently to focus on the shortcoming of the education system on aboriginal education. They will be exerting political force as well. PC Leadership Candidate Dave Hancock wa the only politician at the news conference, sad but not surprising given he the author of the Alberta Aboriginal Policy Framework.
In the end the best way to make it happen is to buy a membership, find the candidate whose platform, principles and character best aligns with your aspirations and concerns. Then help promote that candidate’s campaign by telling your friends, colleagues and contacts why you support him or her. Finally show up and cast your ballot accordingly. Everything else is theory, posturing or positioning. Voting makes it all happen.
A lot has already been said in the conventional media and political Blogs, including this one, about the significance of this “opportunity” to pick the next PC leader, a fine thing indeed. More importantly the process selects the nest Premier…someone who could have the next 2 years of Klein’s mandate to rework Alberta into his or her “own image.” There is no compelling need to for any new party leader go to an early election. Many feel it would be a waste of money and add to the political uncertainty of the province and the country. The likelihood of any perpetrator of a cynical political pre-emptive election strike, in Alberta or Canada, will result in the party who causes it, being punished at the polls. Today Graham brings it all into focus for us again…especially since the campaign has now really started and the public will begin to pay more attention.
I only quibble with Graham’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion about maybe not participating and just letting the two years lapse. The idea is to have the PC party “bash away at each other” as some kind of political sporting event until the next election. This may be fun for journalists but it is much too dangerous a strategy for our future stability and progress as a province. Albertans should engage and make a conscious and informed decision as to our future. That, to my mind, is a much more practical an enlightened approach for our own individual and collective good.
We must be vigilant and careful who we choose because who we select will, in no small way, go a long way to defining Alberta and what it means to be Albertan – at least for the remainder of this mandate A lot of good, or a lot of evil can be done in the two years until the next election.
So bring on the special interests groups and let them get involved. In a democracy we always get the kind of government we deserve because it is our individual participation in our free and open collective choices that generates the end result. The world is still run by those who show up. If you’re ready will and able to “show up” – I have memberships available at ken@cambridgestrategies.com and for $5 will be happy to facilitate your positive act of citizenship.
In the end the best way to make it happen is to buy a membership, find the candidate whose platform, principles and character best aligns with your aspirations and concerns. Then help promote that candidate’s campaign by telling your friends, colleagues and contacts why you support him or her. Finally show up and cast your ballot accordingly. Everything else is theory, posturing or positioning. Voting makes it all happen.
A lot has already been said in the conventional media and political Blogs, including this one, about the significance of this “opportunity” to pick the next PC leader, a fine thing indeed. More importantly the process selects the nest Premier…someone who could have the next 2 years of Klein’s mandate to rework Alberta into his or her “own image.” There is no compelling need to for any new party leader go to an early election. Many feel it would be a waste of money and add to the political uncertainty of the province and the country. The likelihood of any perpetrator of a cynical political pre-emptive election strike, in Alberta or Canada, will result in the party who causes it, being punished at the polls. Today Graham brings it all into focus for us again…especially since the campaign has now really started and the public will begin to pay more attention.
I only quibble with Graham’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion about maybe not participating and just letting the two years lapse. The idea is to have the PC party “bash away at each other” as some kind of political sporting event until the next election. This may be fun for journalists but it is much too dangerous a strategy for our future stability and progress as a province. Albertans should engage and make a conscious and informed decision as to our future. That, to my mind, is a much more practical an enlightened approach for our own individual and collective good.
We must be vigilant and careful who we choose because who we select will, in no small way, go a long way to defining Alberta and what it means to be Albertan – at least for the remainder of this mandate A lot of good, or a lot of evil can be done in the two years until the next election.
So bring on the special interests groups and let them get involved. In a democracy we always get the kind of government we deserve because it is our individual participation in our free and open collective choices that generates the end result. The world is still run by those who show up. If you’re ready will and able to “show up” – I have memberships available at ken@cambridgestrategies.com and for $5 will be happy to facilitate your positive act of citizenship.
Norris Misses the "Mark!"
Mark Norris is reported as saying Alberta’s revenue surpluses are “due to bad budgeting and over taxation” is just plain inaccurate and imprudent. A catchy sound bite for sure and the Sun newspapers will eat it up. In the real world it is nothing short of a dangerous presumption and a supercilious operating principle for any serious aspirant to political leadership.
Government surpluses that result from program and operating functions are not “over taxation” necessarily and definitely not in every instance. It could be “bad budgeting” but in every budget certain judgment calls have to be made on all kinds of assumptions and issues around program costs and criteria. Surpluses are more likely the result of inaccurate assumptions over a actual program costs, the implementation and timing, or a mis-assessment of an actual program need, or incorrect assumption over our amount, pace, distribution and make up of our population growth (think Fort McMurray). It may be the result of a less than enthusiastic program acceptance or many many other things that depend on human judgment and assumptions.
Look at the recent Centennial matching scholarship program that apparently nobody wants to participate in. Is that causing a surplus and as a result bad budgeting? Norris “won’t tolerate it” but what will his intolerance lead him to do about it? Can we assume even more simple minded “solutions?” Could it be the program was founded on an incorrect assumption as to what people will contribute toward the future of their kid’s education in the current inflationary and volatile Alberta economy? Is it possible that young Albertans with school age kids are using the cash they have for education to meet huge school fee hikes, increases in school transportation costs, rising gasoline prices, increased electricity charges, runaway shelter costs and increased inflation? Could it be they don't feel comfortable “freezing” cash just now in a program that may or may to be needed or even sufficient for the purposes intended at some vague time in the future? Even if it is matched by government. In Mark’s world this is “bad budgeting and must not be tolerated.”
Surpluses generated by larger resource revenues resulting from higher than estimated commodity prices are not over taxation either. They are windfalls and need to be used in ways to the benefit of future generations as much, if not more, than current operational needs. Would Mark “not tolerate” this as bad budgeting as well? It is not necessarily “bad budgeting” that all these variables are estimated and assumed for overall budget calculation purposes and that they may prove inaccurate in the end.
Misleading us as to the amount of resource revenue surpluses by accounting obfuscation and fiscal trickery…now that is more than bad budgeting, it is bad government. That practice has been more common, in both the Alberta and the federal Liberal governments in recent years. That approach is just plain bad governing. That is something that really has to stop. Mark Norris "no tolerance" stance is something he could use for this issue if he is serious about changing budgeting policy and procedures. The consequences of inaccurate financial reporting and intentionally misleading fiscal messaging is a truly bad budget practice that should not be tolerated.
Norris’ media comments really shows a serious lack of insight as to the complexity, issues and the fiscal dynamics of good government and effective governing. For each and every complex governance challenge there is always a simple solution - that is usually WRONG. Norris is a nice guy but apparently does not have a very deep grasp of such thing as revenue surpluses and public sector budgeting.
Norris has been dubbed “The Klein Clone” by no less than the likes of Art Smith and Phil Klein. These gentlemen are Ralph's mentor and father respectively. They ought to know a Klein Clone personality when they see one. Haven’t we already been there and done that? Do we really need to do that again? Is repeating that set of pesonal qualities the best way to go forward for Alberta? Those are some of the questions Albertans have to ask themselves as they assess the PC leadership candidates and wanna-be Premiers.
Politically however, Mark Norris is no Ralph Klein. He aspires to the Premier's office as a relative neophyte candidate having been elected only once and then losing his seat and Cabinet postion in the last provincial election. That suggests he is not yet ready to lead or to govern. He has not yet justified the public's confidence to the point where we citizens should grant him our consent to govern. Maybe next time but not this time.
Government surpluses that result from program and operating functions are not “over taxation” necessarily and definitely not in every instance. It could be “bad budgeting” but in every budget certain judgment calls have to be made on all kinds of assumptions and issues around program costs and criteria. Surpluses are more likely the result of inaccurate assumptions over a actual program costs, the implementation and timing, or a mis-assessment of an actual program need, or incorrect assumption over our amount, pace, distribution and make up of our population growth (think Fort McMurray). It may be the result of a less than enthusiastic program acceptance or many many other things that depend on human judgment and assumptions.
Look at the recent Centennial matching scholarship program that apparently nobody wants to participate in. Is that causing a surplus and as a result bad budgeting? Norris “won’t tolerate it” but what will his intolerance lead him to do about it? Can we assume even more simple minded “solutions?” Could it be the program was founded on an incorrect assumption as to what people will contribute toward the future of their kid’s education in the current inflationary and volatile Alberta economy? Is it possible that young Albertans with school age kids are using the cash they have for education to meet huge school fee hikes, increases in school transportation costs, rising gasoline prices, increased electricity charges, runaway shelter costs and increased inflation? Could it be they don't feel comfortable “freezing” cash just now in a program that may or may to be needed or even sufficient for the purposes intended at some vague time in the future? Even if it is matched by government. In Mark’s world this is “bad budgeting and must not be tolerated.”
Surpluses generated by larger resource revenues resulting from higher than estimated commodity prices are not over taxation either. They are windfalls and need to be used in ways to the benefit of future generations as much, if not more, than current operational needs. Would Mark “not tolerate” this as bad budgeting as well? It is not necessarily “bad budgeting” that all these variables are estimated and assumed for overall budget calculation purposes and that they may prove inaccurate in the end.
Misleading us as to the amount of resource revenue surpluses by accounting obfuscation and fiscal trickery…now that is more than bad budgeting, it is bad government. That practice has been more common, in both the Alberta and the federal Liberal governments in recent years. That approach is just plain bad governing. That is something that really has to stop. Mark Norris "no tolerance" stance is something he could use for this issue if he is serious about changing budgeting policy and procedures. The consequences of inaccurate financial reporting and intentionally misleading fiscal messaging is a truly bad budget practice that should not be tolerated.
Norris’ media comments really shows a serious lack of insight as to the complexity, issues and the fiscal dynamics of good government and effective governing. For each and every complex governance challenge there is always a simple solution - that is usually WRONG. Norris is a nice guy but apparently does not have a very deep grasp of such thing as revenue surpluses and public sector budgeting.
Norris has been dubbed “The Klein Clone” by no less than the likes of Art Smith and Phil Klein. These gentlemen are Ralph's mentor and father respectively. They ought to know a Klein Clone personality when they see one. Haven’t we already been there and done that? Do we really need to do that again? Is repeating that set of pesonal qualities the best way to go forward for Alberta? Those are some of the questions Albertans have to ask themselves as they assess the PC leadership candidates and wanna-be Premiers.
Politically however, Mark Norris is no Ralph Klein. He aspires to the Premier's office as a relative neophyte candidate having been elected only once and then losing his seat and Cabinet postion in the last provincial election. That suggests he is not yet ready to lead or to govern. He has not yet justified the public's confidence to the point where we citizens should grant him our consent to govern. Maybe next time but not this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)