"Not Been Spending Enough of Your Money"

Here is an hilarious piece of creative political mockery for your cynical amusement. I came across this mock-ad by Edward Monton on Twitter (follow me @kenchapman46). It pokes fun at the $25 million Alberta branding advertising campaign and the Alberta budget plight. The text reads"

"There was never a better time for Alberta to waste $25 million of taxpayers money. The Tory government under Ed Stelmach is doing a wonderful job of running the Province from a surplus into a deficit. Let's forget about health care funding, the crumbling infrastructure and education to throw valuable funds into the creation of a new logo. We will also create ads like this that are uninspiring and refuse to break stereotypes. With that in mind, better let this fellow get back to polishing the metal nuts dangling from the back of his Chevy truck."

The logo cut line is "Alberta Freedom to Spend, Spirit to Waste"

OUCH! But this is the role of the artist, to tell us about ourselves. Good on you Edward Monton.

That said, Alberta's revenues are down due to commodity prices and royalty give aways and subsidy to industry in the good times. Cuts are here and more are coming. I hope we see some intelligence, integrity and compassion applied to the next budget building in Alberta.

We have not seen much evidence of anything happening to improve Alberta's brand image recently. Copenhagen is coming up in December, First Nations are getting European bank backing to fight energy issues and the oil sands investments by Statoil are an election issue in Norway these days, and China is getting serious about buying in. Alberta is on the world stage alright. There is a lot of angry and anxious people these days, and who can blame them.

I have been working on a blog post for the next in the series "Society's Child" but have been distracted by real work I have to do. I will be getting at it again shortly and will be posting about some pf the implications of the Bosco Homes closure for those kids and what will happen to them.

I will also be looking at some positive examples of where social workers in the children's services area. The examples I will use illustrate some exemplary work done on behalf of kids at risk, where the social workers have really showed up and stepped up. Stay tuned.

Harper's Situational Ethics Rise Again - Will The Socialists and the Separatists be His Downfall?

Jeff Jedras has a hit on his hands with this video production. Situational ethics abound in politics. The Harper government's claim about socialist and separatist getting together to bring down the government before the last election has become the reality for Mr. Harper today.

Either the Bloc or the NDP will now be able to determine Mr. Harper's fate. Either one will have the power to vote non-confidence in him and force an election. We may not want an election but we need one to get out of this chaos from the current groups lack of leadership. We know we can't believe or trust this government and to perpetuate it for no real purpose will make things worse.

We can do better but only if we have an election. Then Canadians can take back the power from this Prime Minister and give the country a chance for a new government with a majority and a new mandate to manage the economy and work our way out of this recession

So I expect some day soon, but not right away, either Mr. Layton or Duceppe, or both, as the socialists and the separatists finally prove to be the nemesis of the Harper government.

Of course the irony of the situational ethics of Mr. Harper are made crystal clear in this video. He has a history of getting together with the separatists to defeat a minority government - but of course that was "different." That was not his government. No wonder citizens know they can't trust him. Just ask his income trust victims.

Harper in Court Over "Fixed" Election Dates Law - Was the Last Election Illegal?

This turn of events show just how strange politics can be. Democracy Watch is a watchdog group that monitors ethics in government., They are suing the Harper government in Federal Court and the arguments are being heard today. The issue is if Prime Minister Harper's last election call was illegal.

Harper had a campaign promise in the prior election of 2006 to set fixed election dates, and his law was passed unanimously by Parliament, if memory serves. Under the law of the land the next election was supposed to be October 19, 2009, pretty much as it looks like it will be, give or take a month.

The then Minister of Democratic Reform, now Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, said, according to CBC reports, the fixed election date law restricted the Prime Minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence in the government occurred before October 2009. Ouch!

Democracy Watch says the fixed election date law was intended to stop the kind of actions Mr. Harper took last year in asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Of course Mr. Harper's lawyers say nothing in the law prevents the Prime Minister from making such a request of the Governor General.

An interesting challenge of what is the appropriate statutory interpretation of Harper's fixed election date law will ensue in the Federal Court today. Does it mean a minority government can only be defeated by a non-confidence vote? With Harper proroguing Parliament he managed to duck out of facing such a vote. Is that good for democracy?

Technically the Governor General calls an election not the Prime Minister. So what does it matter if we have an election based on a non-confidence vote or a voluntary submission of a minority government to dissolve and go to an election.

In this case, the opposition parties formed a coalition and were prepared to do two things. First defeat the Harper government in a non-confidence vote. Then go to the Governor General as a majority coalition and ask the Governor General for permission to form a new government.

If she agreed to the coalitions request they would form a government and we would not have had the last election forced on bu by Mr. Harper's tactics. We did not want an election then either but Harper forced it anyway, and he still won anyway. Almost looked like a majority there for a few days too.

So what will happen? Will the court decide that last election was illegal? If so what does that do to the legitimacy of the Harper's right to govern? Do we go back into an election now by court order? Or will the courts wait out the forth coming non-confidence vote, see the next election through and then announce its decision? I think so. The courts do not want to get that deeply into the political thrust and parry of validating or invalidating an election if they can avoid it.

Or will the courts do what the RCMP did in 2006 and proceed and announce their decision, even if it is in the middle of an election. Remember in the middle of the 2006 election the RCMP announced a criminal investigation into possible income trust leaks by the government. that investigation later proved baseless except for one civil servant who used the insider information for personal gain.

Many believe that ill-advised and ill-timed investigation led to the defeat of the Martin Liberal government. I don't think the courts will do that but there is nothing to stop them. In fact there is much to be said for them proceeding on their own timetable and to ignore the political implications. After all many do not like what they call judge made law.

Just as the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, so too the courts do not belong in the election campaigns of the nation. However, that principle could cut either way. Staying out of the election campaign may be interpreted by the court as just delaying releasing its decision until after the next election is over. That is one way to stay out of the election process. It could also mean that the courts decide that the election timing and process has nothing to do with them and what ever they do is irrelevant to the election process. They would then choose to ignore the election process entirely and release their decision whenever they are ready. To do otherwise is a de facto involvement in the election process.

Then of course, this all depends on what the final court decision is. If Harper is off the hook and did not act illegally, should that decision be released in the middle of an election campaign? Will that not be the courts having an impact of the final result? If Harper is off the hook and the decision can be announced before the election starts but knowing we are headed for an election; should it be announced?

What if the courts wait, Harper wins the next election but loses in court? Does that destabilize and undermine the the legitimacy of his government? These potential scenarios are all real issues that could have been avoided simply by Harper facing the House of Commons non-confidence vote and challenging the coalitions legitimacy to govern and forcing an election in 2006.

Democracy Watch is saying if they win, then Canadians could start a class action against the Conservative Party for the $350,000,000 of costs for the last election. What a tangled web our Prime Minister weaves by the kinds of political choices he makes.

Are Volatile "Voters" Confounding the Pollsters?

So once again we are seeing voter volatility and uncertainty reflected in the various recent poll results but they are all about a hypothetical question of who will you vote for when there is no election on, so generally, people don't take the question seriously. Ekos says Harper and Ignatieff are tied but the Libs have been leading for a while. Strategic Counsel says Harper is up 5 points and has been leading the Liberals since early July. Ipsos Reid a couple of weeks ago had a poll result that was very different that a group of other recent pollster findings. Go figure? All are pollsters in the game are reputable and capable but how can we account fo rthe wide variations in findings?

Strategic Counsel says the Liberal Vote is down 14% in Quebec since last May. Ekos tells us that Liberal support is higher in Alberta than Conservative support in Quebec. A fun factoid but what does it mean. Will the Libs break through in Alberta again? Will Quebecers send Harper packing? All this proves nothing but continuing uncertainty and just adds to the misinformation and distraction from the real issues we need to be facing in any pending election.

Here are some of my concerns about the state of politics and the nation these days. Consensus about leadership is lacking, both in terms of Harper's capacity and Ignatieff's intentions. No one has really talked clearly about vision and how we need to mitigate and adapt over concerns over climate change, education based on skills needed for the 21st century, how we can rethink our economy to reposition ourselves globally as we come out of the recession. What about our relations with America - where the puck was, and China and India where the puck is going. None of these issues are in isolation, they are all integrated and impact on each other.

Canadians recognize that we need a change from another minority government but we are not sure yet which way we want to go to create that change. An election will focus us on how we really want to answer that question. The Conservatives are feeding fear that an election will shut down government and the home reno provisions will not be passed. Not true but in uncertain times feeding fear is a powerful political strategy.

Elections have never destabilized the continuing work of government in Canada. And the home reno issue is assured and need not be political at all, unless Mr. Harper decides he wants to make so. I still don't understand why Harper did not just pass it all in his budget last April. Why did he not just get the home reno program done when he had the chance? We have enough uncertainty and his approach to suggest it might not go through if an election were called this fall is not true and intended to add to the angst and uncertainty of the recession.

Harper wants to avoid an early election because he wants the media attention of the international meetings that are coming up, including another session with President Obama. He will likely do what it takes to defer any efforts to personally present a confidence motion on an issue that he would like to be defeated on, like EI reform. He will at least wait to play that kind of political card until after he gets to rub shoulders with the truly powerful politicians on the world stage.

The Liberals already voted for the Budget and want it finished and effectively implemented so they are not going to scuttle the home reno program. They also want to see the results of the fiscal update the PM has to deliver to the nation by the end of September. They are just starting to talk about hope and are staking out a place presence for their leader on the Internet and traditional media with a new advertising campaign. That needs time to gel too.

But but neither Conservative fear or Liberal hope is in itself an effective method to prove either leader is ready to govern in these perilous uncertain times in our country. We will want more meaningful policy meat from these camps if we are forced to go to the polls this fall. The economy, health care and the environment are likely the top of mind issues for most of us. No polls that I have seen are exploring what the issues are going to be in the next election and our attitudes are towards them. Pity!

The punditry is all about talking up the horse race between the leaders, as meaningless and trivial as that is to the real concerns of the country. Commentary is presented without clarification nor with the contextual reality that the race has not yet started so all this chatter is just that, much ado but signifying nothing. The polling focuses to date are just about positioning politicians and parties like people in elevators. They are either coming in and on their way up or they are going down and on their way out. Sadly we don't yet know for sure who is who in the zoo.

We are going to have an election eventually. The timing will be based on if Mr. Harper's minority government can still sustain the confidence of the House of Commons. The Liberals are now on record that they are ready to go any time. So now the Bloc and the NDP have the finger on the trigger of the starting gun that will cause the election. It is up to either them to tip the scales and determine when Mr. Harper's leadership has to face the nation. It is an open question when it will start, who will start it, Layton or Duceppe, and what issue they will use to trigger it.

As to what the ballot question will be in the next election, it is always based on a theme of leadership, change and vision. The next election will also be about those themes and how do we achieve an majority government so we can get back to some stability in our politics and governance. That means the underlying and animating ballot question will be which leader do we, as a nation and in our collective wisdom, trust with the absolute governing power of a majority government - Harper or Ignatieff.

Can Pre-Election Opinion Polls Do More Harm Than Good?

I don't have much faith and even less trust in opinion polls. Not because I think they are wrong or a waste of time. I just think they are too trapped in time and context and only a superficial snap shot of "opinion." So they are a pretty meaningless predictor of actual behaviours.

So I was interested to read this piece on polling in yesterday's Edmonton Journal. Ipsos Reid is one of the best brand names for polling around. It was good to see the discussion on the role and limitations on opinion polling.

It is getting harder to get folks to respond to polls these days, and when they do to ensure you have a truly random sample and that participants are telling you the truth. One of my favourite bumper stickers from many years ago was "Save Democracy, Lie to a Pollster."

I think this attitude about intentionally lying to pollsters is more prevalent than many realize. Also, the random sample may be demographically pure but there are so many more phone calls that have to be made to get people to actually participate. As a result we get a self-selection skew in the randomness of sampling. This self-selection skewing is especially true in on-line polling techniques.

I know lots of people who admit lying to pollsters, intentionally. Others give normative but untrue answers that do not reflect reality either. For example less than 60% of Canadians voted in the last federal election but polls indicate a much larger number say they did. Are they lying? some are. Did they forget that they did not vote but intended to vote and re making a mistake? Are they giving what they know is the proper (normative) answer even though they know it is not the truth?

Mr Bricker of Ipsos Reid also notes in the article that the order and syntax of questions will make a big difference in the answers polls generate. So with all this, I take opinion poss with a grain of salt. Those unscientific "surveys" you see in websites of traditional media are actually dangerous. This is because they have a air of unwarranted credibility about they because of the authority of the newspaper, radio or television broadcaster who is hosting them. They often get hijacked by special interests or competing interests, like political parties. The results mislead an unsuspecting public and can have a significant impact on the actual beliefs of many well intentioned but ill-informed people. Look how many Americans still think 911 terrorists came through Canada, even the US Cabinet Secretary involved made a recent comment to that effect. Mistaken initial beliefs are had to change, regardless of the amount and credibility of the subsequent evidence to the contrary.

That said, let the polls proceed. We just need to ensure we have some general literacy in our society about what opinion polls do, what they mean and don't mean and what they "prove" - if anything. I often do commentary and analysis on political opinion polls in the blog. I think the real value they have is, over time and with many sources on similar questions and issues, they can collectively provide a sense of trend or direction of public sentiment. But unless we are into an actual election, asking a hypothetical "how would you vote tomorrow if an election was called" generates pretty meaningless data.

Elections matter and campaigns create consequences that generates real results that truly matter to the good of the country. Poll away but don't let them have any sway until the reality of an actual election is happening, then, and only then should people pay them some heed.