Here are some fascinating poll results on the federal Liberal leadership from mid September. With the Quebec nation issue now gaining traction I wonder what the impact will be on these numbers. In a delegated convention method to pick a new leader after the first vote it is a free for all and you have wonder how delegates get their deals done and their "favours" granted and bestowed in the back rooms were we mere citizens rarely get to see.
Remember the CBC coverage of the PC Leadership Convention and the Mackay /Orchard deal - in writing - saying no merger with the Alliance. That lead right straight to the end of the federal Progressive Conservative party. Belinda merely crossed the floor. MacKay double crossed an entire political party.
I wonder if we will any similar level of candour and access to the backrooms especially around the Quebec Nation issue in Montreal at the Liberal convention.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Albertan's Not Pleased About Infrastructure Deficit
The “Send ’Em A Message” survey rating so far of how well the Alberta government has been doing on maintaining public infrastructure like schools and roads are telling about the depth of discontent in the province.
Albertans’ are clearly not pleased with the government's performance in this regard. Only 6.73% believe the government is doing a very good to excellent job in dealing with the infrastructure deficit. A whopping 73.02% rate the government performance poor to fair in dealing with the infrastructure deficit. OUCH!
Again appreciate this is not a scientific poll but tells something of the collective wisdom of those who are engaged and concerned enough to participate and to try and help set some public policy priority concerns for the next Premier’s and his remaining 2 year term before the next election.
Facilities maintenance is not the only big concern for education policy makers and influencers. The local school boards and Trustees are trying to respond to the dual dynamics of growth and sustaining marginal schools with declining enrolments. They know a school is a key support to the viability of rural and inner city communities all through the province.
Some classic government blame shifting has been going on here caused be the tepid and less than timely response to critical funding demands from school boards to meet these needs. I have beat up on Oberg enough in this blog as of recent times but he was the Minister for infrastrucutre at the critical time aroudn these issues...I do not want to even go to the negative impact he had on the K-12 education system as Learning Minsiter when he was one fo the central causes of a teachers strike.
Public Interest Alberta, (http://www.pialberta.org/) and the various school boards and their associations are very actively engaged in the broader and deeper issues about K-12 education and trying to get political attention during the PC leadership race in some meaningful way. Check out their efforts and visit the various candidate’s websites for details of their commitments on education policy.
Finally take a few minutes and do the Survey and Send ‘Em a Message about what you would like to see as the top public policy priorities for the next Premier. Rate the government’s performance in some key policy areas and consider what you would say about recommending the candidates to friends and family.
In a democracy we always get the government we deserve - not participating is hardly a rational option if you are concerned about the future of your family and your province.
Albertans’ are clearly not pleased with the government's performance in this regard. Only 6.73% believe the government is doing a very good to excellent job in dealing with the infrastructure deficit. A whopping 73.02% rate the government performance poor to fair in dealing with the infrastructure deficit. OUCH!
Again appreciate this is not a scientific poll but tells something of the collective wisdom of those who are engaged and concerned enough to participate and to try and help set some public policy priority concerns for the next Premier’s and his remaining 2 year term before the next election.
Facilities maintenance is not the only big concern for education policy makers and influencers. The local school boards and Trustees are trying to respond to the dual dynamics of growth and sustaining marginal schools with declining enrolments. They know a school is a key support to the viability of rural and inner city communities all through the province.
Some classic government blame shifting has been going on here caused be the tepid and less than timely response to critical funding demands from school boards to meet these needs. I have beat up on Oberg enough in this blog as of recent times but he was the Minister for infrastrucutre at the critical time aroudn these issues...I do not want to even go to the negative impact he had on the K-12 education system as Learning Minsiter when he was one fo the central causes of a teachers strike.
Public Interest Alberta, (http://www.pialberta.org/) and the various school boards and their associations are very actively engaged in the broader and deeper issues about K-12 education and trying to get political attention during the PC leadership race in some meaningful way. Check out their efforts and visit the various candidate’s websites for details of their commitments on education policy.
Finally take a few minutes and do the Survey and Send ‘Em a Message about what you would like to see as the top public policy priorities for the next Premier. Rate the government’s performance in some key policy areas and consider what you would say about recommending the candidates to friends and family.
In a democracy we always get the government we deserve - not participating is hardly a rational option if you are concerned about the future of your family and your province.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Survey Results Peg #1 Policy Issue - the Environment
So the initial responses of the “Send ‘em a Message Survey” on Policy Channel has some interesting but very preliminary results, since we only went “live” last Thursday afternoon late.
Of the 15 issues presented the top four driving issues for participants Managing Environmental Issues @12.73%, followed by Ensuring Access to Quality and Timely Health Care at 11.62%. The next top two issues are Managing Growth @ 9.6% and Creating a Diversified Value Added economy @8.15%
This underscores the Preston Manning message of over a year ago that Albertans want a well managed economy at the same time they want the environmental issues dealt with. They are not seen as mutually exclusive but part of the same overall integrated, comprehensive whole systems approach.
Positioning the economy against the environment or visa versa is not acceptable according to what Albertans are indicating so far. They want both issues dealt with and they want them handled concurrently. The politician who can make that message their own and make it resonate with Albertans is going to get some serious support.
The next Premier, to be successful, is going to have to show they get this and are able to get on with doing something about it – results will count. We expect more than just a good effort.
The last thing Albertans want their next government to do more of (from participants so far) is any more lowering of taxes. The 22.01% who said do not spend any more time and effort lowering taxes send a message that we need our government to get some serious things done and to get on with them. More lowering taxes, a big part of the Klein Alberta Advantage remember, is not on the agenda as a positive policy driver this time around.
So invest 5 minutes and take the survey. Tell us what you think is the most and least important policy issues that need government attention. Then tell your friends and neighbours about it and send them this link or send them to this Blog to get access to the survey. The more input we get the more reflective of Alberta the results will be.
Of the 15 issues presented the top four driving issues for participants Managing Environmental Issues @12.73%, followed by Ensuring Access to Quality and Timely Health Care at 11.62%. The next top two issues are Managing Growth @ 9.6% and Creating a Diversified Value Added economy @8.15%
This underscores the Preston Manning message of over a year ago that Albertans want a well managed economy at the same time they want the environmental issues dealt with. They are not seen as mutually exclusive but part of the same overall integrated, comprehensive whole systems approach.
Positioning the economy against the environment or visa versa is not acceptable according to what Albertans are indicating so far. They want both issues dealt with and they want them handled concurrently. The politician who can make that message their own and make it resonate with Albertans is going to get some serious support.
The next Premier, to be successful, is going to have to show they get this and are able to get on with doing something about it – results will count. We expect more than just a good effort.
The last thing Albertans want their next government to do more of (from participants so far) is any more lowering of taxes. The 22.01% who said do not spend any more time and effort lowering taxes send a message that we need our government to get some serious things done and to get on with them. More lowering taxes, a big part of the Klein Alberta Advantage remember, is not on the agenda as a positive policy driver this time around.
So invest 5 minutes and take the survey. Tell us what you think is the most and least important policy issues that need government attention. Then tell your friends and neighbours about it and send them this link or send them to this Blog to get access to the survey. The more input we get the more reflective of Alberta the results will be.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A New Survey on Policy Issues in Alberta
There is a survey on our affiliated website Policy Channel. You are invited to participate. We are going to publish the results on Policy Channel and this Blog every Monday afternoon starting this Monday until after the second ballot on December 2, 2006.
This is not a scientific poll because it is not random or necessarily statistically reflective of the demographic, geographic or the socio-economic makeup of the province. Participants will self select but as regular readers of this Blog know “the world is run by those who show up.” We cannot make winner predictions out of this survey. It is not about that.
It is not intended to be predictive of outcomes but rather to serve as a public policy insight gathering activity. Because it takes about 5 minutes including some thinking time – we believe participants are more likely to be engaged and interested in following and influencing public policy and politics in Alberta.
We are asking for you opinion on how the government has been doing in some key policy areas and for what recommendations you would make to friends and family regarding each candidate.
Finally we ask if you are or intend to become a PC Party member, your intentions about participating in the voting and how active you have been in various political activities.
It takes about 5 minutes and is not a bunch of yes-no easy questions - it makes you think.
Thanks for taking the time to participate. Again the survey is at Policy Channel
This is not a scientific poll because it is not random or necessarily statistically reflective of the demographic, geographic or the socio-economic makeup of the province. Participants will self select but as regular readers of this Blog know “the world is run by those who show up.” We cannot make winner predictions out of this survey. It is not about that.
It is not intended to be predictive of outcomes but rather to serve as a public policy insight gathering activity. Because it takes about 5 minutes including some thinking time – we believe participants are more likely to be engaged and interested in following and influencing public policy and politics in Alberta.
We are asking for you opinion on how the government has been doing in some key policy areas and for what recommendations you would make to friends and family regarding each candidate.
Finally we ask if you are or intend to become a PC Party member, your intentions about participating in the voting and how active you have been in various political activities.
It takes about 5 minutes and is not a bunch of yes-no easy questions - it makes you think.
Thanks for taking the time to participate. Again the survey is at Policy Channel
Good Morning Anonymous
I am presuming the last three postings by Anonymous in "Where is the Smear" posting of yesterday are from the same person but I may be mistaken. I suggest readers go to that posting and the comments for content and context before you continue on this entry. I also apologize for the length of this post. I think it was Socrates who said "If I had more time I could write a shorter letter."
Thanks Anonymous for the economic facts and details as well as the insights in the earlier postings (Where is the Smear) as well as the “supposition” comments regarding integrity. Let me assure you that yours and Dr. Stokes’ integrity is not at issue. My reasons behind this are at the bottom of this post.
At your invitation, I have some more questions.
First – please tell us who you are. You say you are “someone in the loop” and will reveal your identity soon. Will you also explain why you felt the need to keep your identity hidden now in a free and democratic society? In any event we look forward to knowing who you are and to making your acquaintance.
Second – please give the reference for locating the Gilbert Lauten Jung site you mentioned.
Third - can you clarify the first posting reference to crude, bitumen and SCO (Synthetic Crude Oil) price estimates “include the $30 price spread?" Are you talking the differential price between these forms of energy and are you saying that the oil sands industry price assumptions were used for bitumen and SCO in the model? I don’t understand the reference. I know energy commodity prices are somewhat seasonal as is the volume of use and presume that was all considered in the economic modeling for the next five years.
Fourth – does the reference you make to $9.5 B in tax cuts assume the average 1.2% increase in population growth over the 5 year review period? And were the Oberg net tax cut rates used in arriving at the $900 M cumulative simulative effect on tax revenues? What were the assumptions used in Alberta’s GDP over the next five years to reach the $900M cumulative figure?
Fifth – 1.2% per year seems a bit low as an assumption for Alberta’s average population growth over the next five years don’t you think?
The GOA stats at Alberta Finance show more recent economic and population growth significantly higher and a recent baby boom emerging with a 12.6 per 1000 population which will also have an impact. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 net migration population growth was 1.39, 1.43 and 1.62 per cent respectively. The actual numbers were 21,135, 22,475 and 56,084 in 2005 and 2006 appears to be larger still. This is not insignificant growth, I am sure you agree.
These new people coming to Alberta do not bring their homes, schools and hospital beds with them so we have to invest in public infrastructure to accommodate the growth – something Alberta has been ignoring for a decade or more. I note Dr. Oberg is on record saying he can overcome the multi-Billon public infrastructure deficit in 5 years and I presume those figures and the impact of growth issues are calculated in the model. Can you let us know what public infrastructure deficit numbers were used and the rationale for them?
Sixth - We are seeing enormous price increases in the current public infrastructure projects on the go of 40% and higher in the past year alone. What is the estimated cost premium tht was used for these projects over the five year period? We know the cost escalation is being caused by the over- heated economy, materials shortages, private sector project competition and the lack of skilled workers to complete projects in a timely fashion. Did the model project any economic slowdown due to project deferrals?
Plus what are the Canadian dollar and inflation assumptions around the remaining infrastructure deficit projects and what cost amounts was used for the additional projects like schools etc. we need right now, for the immediate future and over the five year review period to respond to the population growth throughout Alberta?
Seventh - Real GDP growth in 2001 at 2.0% and 2002 at 2.4% uses what fiscal year as the base for the calculations? Again the GOA stats at Alberta Finance for more current growth rates, which may be more reflective of the next five years than 2001 and 2002, show considerably higher numbers. In current terms the GDP growth in Alberta for 2003, 2004 and 2005 was respectively 13.5%, 9.3% and 15.3%. “Real” GDP using 1997 as the base for those years was 3.1, 4.3 and 4.5 per cent. In actual numbers GDP was $171,175M in 2003, $187,152M in 2004 and $215,858M in 2005. Pretty impressive numbers for a population of 3.2 million don’t you think?
I noted in the 4:40 am Anonymous Comment (insomnia or what”) the writer said “He (Dr. Stokes) was presented with a detailed costing of each of the policy elements contained in Blueprint for Prosperity and was given absolute free rein to apply the program within the context of his base case scenario of the Alberta economy.”
Who is it that prepared the “detailed costing” of the Oberg Blueprint for Prosperity that was supplied to Dr. Stokes? Did the detailed costing that was used come from the Oberg campaign and if so, did anyone confirm the “detailed costing” assumptions and calculations to give them independent veracity? I presume the detailed costing details and the identity of any independent third party verification will also be released in the near future. That seems to me to a critical element in all of this. Don’t you agree?
Finally – Please do not interpret these questions or comments as anything more than seeking clarification and understanding. Economic analysis and forecasting – like public opinion polling - is as much an art as it is a science as it has to make assumptions and has to be adaptive as circumstances change. That does not detract from it usefulness but it has to have a context and is subject to interpretation. The assumptions behind the economic model as well as what all is included and excluded and how the various elements are weighed all have a huge impact on the conclusions.
The current context is a hotly contested political campaign so people will tend to be skeptical. That should not in any way to be interpreted as disrespectful or of questioning the integrity of the Anonymous Commenter or the professional judgment or skills or integrity of Dr. Stokes, the economist who undertook the work. In fact I, as a citizen, appreciate and applaud Dr. Stokes for doing this professional task under these circumstances. Many others would simply shy away and avoid the challenge altogether.
Open, accountable and transparent democracy depends on citizens asking questions as much as government giving answers. The campaign process is abetted and democracy is better because professional people like Dr. Stokes provide their expertise to assist citizens decide on who we will entrust with our consent to govern us.
So thank you Dr. Stokes. Now let’s keep the dialogue going in an open, respectful and responsible manner.
Thanks Anonymous for the economic facts and details as well as the insights in the earlier postings (Where is the Smear) as well as the “supposition” comments regarding integrity. Let me assure you that yours and Dr. Stokes’ integrity is not at issue. My reasons behind this are at the bottom of this post.
At your invitation, I have some more questions.
First – please tell us who you are. You say you are “someone in the loop” and will reveal your identity soon. Will you also explain why you felt the need to keep your identity hidden now in a free and democratic society? In any event we look forward to knowing who you are and to making your acquaintance.
Second – please give the reference for locating the Gilbert Lauten Jung site you mentioned.
Third - can you clarify the first posting reference to crude, bitumen and SCO (Synthetic Crude Oil) price estimates “include the $30 price spread?" Are you talking the differential price between these forms of energy and are you saying that the oil sands industry price assumptions were used for bitumen and SCO in the model? I don’t understand the reference. I know energy commodity prices are somewhat seasonal as is the volume of use and presume that was all considered in the economic modeling for the next five years.
Fourth – does the reference you make to $9.5 B in tax cuts assume the average 1.2% increase in population growth over the 5 year review period? And were the Oberg net tax cut rates used in arriving at the $900 M cumulative simulative effect on tax revenues? What were the assumptions used in Alberta’s GDP over the next five years to reach the $900M cumulative figure?
Fifth – 1.2% per year seems a bit low as an assumption for Alberta’s average population growth over the next five years don’t you think?
The GOA stats at Alberta Finance show more recent economic and population growth significantly higher and a recent baby boom emerging with a 12.6 per 1000 population which will also have an impact. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 net migration population growth was 1.39, 1.43 and 1.62 per cent respectively. The actual numbers were 21,135, 22,475 and 56,084 in 2005 and 2006 appears to be larger still. This is not insignificant growth, I am sure you agree.
These new people coming to Alberta do not bring their homes, schools and hospital beds with them so we have to invest in public infrastructure to accommodate the growth – something Alberta has been ignoring for a decade or more. I note Dr. Oberg is on record saying he can overcome the multi-Billon public infrastructure deficit in 5 years and I presume those figures and the impact of growth issues are calculated in the model. Can you let us know what public infrastructure deficit numbers were used and the rationale for them?
Sixth - We are seeing enormous price increases in the current public infrastructure projects on the go of 40% and higher in the past year alone. What is the estimated cost premium tht was used for these projects over the five year period? We know the cost escalation is being caused by the over- heated economy, materials shortages, private sector project competition and the lack of skilled workers to complete projects in a timely fashion. Did the model project any economic slowdown due to project deferrals?
Plus what are the Canadian dollar and inflation assumptions around the remaining infrastructure deficit projects and what cost amounts was used for the additional projects like schools etc. we need right now, for the immediate future and over the five year review period to respond to the population growth throughout Alberta?
Seventh - Real GDP growth in 2001 at 2.0% and 2002 at 2.4% uses what fiscal year as the base for the calculations? Again the GOA stats at Alberta Finance for more current growth rates, which may be more reflective of the next five years than 2001 and 2002, show considerably higher numbers. In current terms the GDP growth in Alberta for 2003, 2004 and 2005 was respectively 13.5%, 9.3% and 15.3%. “Real” GDP using 1997 as the base for those years was 3.1, 4.3 and 4.5 per cent. In actual numbers GDP was $171,175M in 2003, $187,152M in 2004 and $215,858M in 2005. Pretty impressive numbers for a population of 3.2 million don’t you think?
I noted in the 4:40 am Anonymous Comment (insomnia or what”) the writer said “He (Dr. Stokes) was presented with a detailed costing of each of the policy elements contained in Blueprint for Prosperity and was given absolute free rein to apply the program within the context of his base case scenario of the Alberta economy.”
Who is it that prepared the “detailed costing” of the Oberg Blueprint for Prosperity that was supplied to Dr. Stokes? Did the detailed costing that was used come from the Oberg campaign and if so, did anyone confirm the “detailed costing” assumptions and calculations to give them independent veracity? I presume the detailed costing details and the identity of any independent third party verification will also be released in the near future. That seems to me to a critical element in all of this. Don’t you agree?
Finally – Please do not interpret these questions or comments as anything more than seeking clarification and understanding. Economic analysis and forecasting – like public opinion polling - is as much an art as it is a science as it has to make assumptions and has to be adaptive as circumstances change. That does not detract from it usefulness but it has to have a context and is subject to interpretation. The assumptions behind the economic model as well as what all is included and excluded and how the various elements are weighed all have a huge impact on the conclusions.
The current context is a hotly contested political campaign so people will tend to be skeptical. That should not in any way to be interpreted as disrespectful or of questioning the integrity of the Anonymous Commenter or the professional judgment or skills or integrity of Dr. Stokes, the economist who undertook the work. In fact I, as a citizen, appreciate and applaud Dr. Stokes for doing this professional task under these circumstances. Many others would simply shy away and avoid the challenge altogether.
Open, accountable and transparent democracy depends on citizens asking questions as much as government giving answers. The campaign process is abetted and democracy is better because professional people like Dr. Stokes provide their expertise to assist citizens decide on who we will entrust with our consent to govern us.
So thank you Dr. Stokes. Now let’s keep the dialogue going in an open, respectful and responsible manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)