With the various individual MLAs supporting Stelmach and Dinning a review of their respective constituency voting results shows those who performed well or poorly for their guy. The MLA job is to get their constituency to buy memeberships and show up and vote for "their guy." I have done the analysis of Stelmach's MLA Team and it is telling.
The overall score of stars and slackers is about 50/50 for Ed's Team. The big time performers were Ray Danyluk from Lac La Biche St. Paul who turned out whopping 73% of the total 1730 voters for Ed. Next was Luke Oullette from Innisfail Sylvan Lake who turned out a more than respectable 51% of the total 1726 voting members for Stelmach.
Lloyd Snelgrove of Vermillion Lloydminster was second best delivering 48% of the 1068 total voters. Iris Evans of Sherwood Park pulled in 34% of the 1516 votes cast for Ed which I find odd given the new hospital announcement out there made during the campaign. Ed also won Hector Goudreau’s Dunvegan-Central Peace by only by a whisker over Dinning garnering 26% of only 645 votes case but hardly a stellar performance.
The underachiever Ed supporters were Mel Knight in Grande Prairie Smoky who was by far the worst. Ed came in 4th with a mere 14% of the vote. OUCH! Ivan Strang and George Groeneveld were no shows in West Yellowhead and Highwood respectively delivering a 3rd place finishs for Ed with 19 and 20% respectively of the total votes cast. Fred Lindsay was the best of the bad lot getting a 2nd place finish for Ed in Stony Plain with 23% of the vote total.
Lots of room for improvement all over and some definite revitalization of effort and new vigor is needed by some of Ed’s backers if they are serious about supporting him and seeing him win.
Hancock and Stelmach are two of the best retail politicians in the province. Their constituencies drew out the most voters. Hancock's Whitemud drew the largest with 3069 voters and Stelmach was right behind in Fort Saskatchewan Vegreville with 2934.
The turn out of almost 100,000 voters was pleasantly surprising especially given the weather and the generally reported lack of campaign significant membership sales. Lots of constituencies reported a brisk traffic of walking in membership sales all over the province.
Average turnout in Calgary was 1092.25 per constituency, 1181.10 in Edmonton and 1196.35 in the rest of Alberta. The turn out was pretty balanced even though we are fracturing the party ideologically between social conservatives, corporatists and progressives and regionally as well.
This all augers well for a possible boost in overall voting turn out next Saturday too, especially if we get a break in the weather.
I will do an analysis of the Dinning MLA supporter performance next. Stay tuned.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Our Latest LaPresse Column Published Today
I am going over the numbers and the outcomes of yesterday and looking for the potential and possibilities for Stelmach to win. I have seen how i can be done. I am far from finished in my analysis of what it will take but as readers have heard me say before "Campaigns Matter."
This campaign is still far from over. I see what I call "The Mandel Syndrome" happening for Stelmach this week big time. The top guns are not seen as sufficient to make the shifts needed to meet the future and the third place alternative is not just a compromise but on reflection, he becomes the preferred choice and wins.
IN THE MEANTIME here is our LaPresse column published in Montreal today. It has relevance as you will see.
La Presse 26 novembre 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives signalled a definitive end to the era of Ralph Klein by voting for his successor yesterday, and in doing so began to redefine Alberta’s place in Canada.
In the last five years, Alberta’s government abandoned all vision and direction, after paying off the entire fiscal debt. It squandered opportunity and did little to respond to the pressure of rapid growth. Worst of all, it had no interest in developing the adaptability and flexibility needed to respond to change. It brought in a favourable royalty regime of one per cent to accelerate development of the oil sands when oil cost less than $20 a barrel – and persisted with it even as prices rose astronomically.
This failure to build an escalating royalty rate so that government income would increase as prices rose, cost the Alberta treasury more in lost revenue than the reviled National Energy Programme negotiated a generation ago between Peter Lougheed and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Indeed, this one instance of incompetence is as colossal as Quebec’s squandering of Hydro Quebec’s revenue potential, so ably chronicled in Alain Dubuc’s excellent book Éloge de la richesse.
In fact, the Alberta government went beyond laissez-faire economics, to invoke laissez-faire governance. Premier Klein’s government deliberately chose to create a debt-free fiscal climate wherein government would earn the room to cut taxes and give the free-market economy the lebensraum it needed to grow and flourish. This philosophy meant removing the deliberate and deliberative hand of government in favour of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.
This Adam Smith economic prescription was paired with a John Stuart Mill political outlook. Rather than a “social contract” between the citizen and the state, the Klein political philosophy followed Mill. His governing ideal enabled and empowered each person to exercise and develop their capacities, capabilities, engagement and participation in his or her own way, in order to achieve personal progress and personal happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment.
In this concept of political economy, a flat-rate personal income tax, more private choice in the provision of health care, and distributing resource royalties directly to citizens by writing everyone a cheque, are all perfectly consistent with Adam Smith economics and John Stuart Mill politics. In this construct, the individual liberty to pursue one’s own happiness, with the least possible constraint from the state, becomes the central governing ethos.
The effect of laissez-faire governance was to diminish the individual’s expectation of state support, and to regard the state as a shelter only in times of critical need. As Premier Klein put it, his governance philosophy was to provide “a hand up, not a hand-out.” The ultimate empowerment of the citizen, in the Klein philosophy, was the classical Mills view that democracy with its freedom of speech and freedom of choice is the best vehicle to enable each citizen to flourish, following pursuits and decisions of his or her choice free from the interference of others, so long as what one wants does no harm to others.
Yet it is clear to the majority in Alberta that hands-off government does not work. The state of the environment is by far the biggest preoccupation of Albertans, who seek government leadership in sustaining the environment without demolishing the economy. Of the candidates on yesterday’s ballot Jim Dinning was a strong proponent of what he called the “clean energy economy,” proposing billions of dollars of investment in sequestering carbon dioxide and slashing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Interestingly, this is also the perspective of federal Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion). And in survey after survey, Albertans declare themselves proud Canadians, ready to share their wealth with their fellow citizens (so long as the federal government is not the agent of distribution).
More than anything, Albertans seek a new role of leadership and influence in the country, based on their growing economic power and the responsibility that brings to perpetuate the common good. No matter what choice the Progressive Conservative party makes, an effective Premier of Alberta must respond to these desires.
This campaign is still far from over. I see what I call "The Mandel Syndrome" happening for Stelmach this week big time. The top guns are not seen as sufficient to make the shifts needed to meet the future and the third place alternative is not just a compromise but on reflection, he becomes the preferred choice and wins.
IN THE MEANTIME here is our LaPresse column published in Montreal today. It has relevance as you will see.
La Presse 26 novembre 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives signalled a definitive end to the era of Ralph Klein by voting for his successor yesterday, and in doing so began to redefine Alberta’s place in Canada.
In the last five years, Alberta’s government abandoned all vision and direction, after paying off the entire fiscal debt. It squandered opportunity and did little to respond to the pressure of rapid growth. Worst of all, it had no interest in developing the adaptability and flexibility needed to respond to change. It brought in a favourable royalty regime of one per cent to accelerate development of the oil sands when oil cost less than $20 a barrel – and persisted with it even as prices rose astronomically.
This failure to build an escalating royalty rate so that government income would increase as prices rose, cost the Alberta treasury more in lost revenue than the reviled National Energy Programme negotiated a generation ago between Peter Lougheed and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Indeed, this one instance of incompetence is as colossal as Quebec’s squandering of Hydro Quebec’s revenue potential, so ably chronicled in Alain Dubuc’s excellent book Éloge de la richesse.
In fact, the Alberta government went beyond laissez-faire economics, to invoke laissez-faire governance. Premier Klein’s government deliberately chose to create a debt-free fiscal climate wherein government would earn the room to cut taxes and give the free-market economy the lebensraum it needed to grow and flourish. This philosophy meant removing the deliberate and deliberative hand of government in favour of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.
This Adam Smith economic prescription was paired with a John Stuart Mill political outlook. Rather than a “social contract” between the citizen and the state, the Klein political philosophy followed Mill. His governing ideal enabled and empowered each person to exercise and develop their capacities, capabilities, engagement and participation in his or her own way, in order to achieve personal progress and personal happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment.
In this concept of political economy, a flat-rate personal income tax, more private choice in the provision of health care, and distributing resource royalties directly to citizens by writing everyone a cheque, are all perfectly consistent with Adam Smith economics and John Stuart Mill politics. In this construct, the individual liberty to pursue one’s own happiness, with the least possible constraint from the state, becomes the central governing ethos.
The effect of laissez-faire governance was to diminish the individual’s expectation of state support, and to regard the state as a shelter only in times of critical need. As Premier Klein put it, his governance philosophy was to provide “a hand up, not a hand-out.” The ultimate empowerment of the citizen, in the Klein philosophy, was the classical Mills view that democracy with its freedom of speech and freedom of choice is the best vehicle to enable each citizen to flourish, following pursuits and decisions of his or her choice free from the interference of others, so long as what one wants does no harm to others.
Yet it is clear to the majority in Alberta that hands-off government does not work. The state of the environment is by far the biggest preoccupation of Albertans, who seek government leadership in sustaining the environment without demolishing the economy. Of the candidates on yesterday’s ballot Jim Dinning was a strong proponent of what he called the “clean energy economy,” proposing billions of dollars of investment in sequestering carbon dioxide and slashing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Interestingly, this is also the perspective of federal Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion). And in survey after survey, Albertans declare themselves proud Canadians, ready to share their wealth with their fellow citizens (so long as the federal government is not the agent of distribution).
More than anything, Albertans seek a new role of leadership and influence in the country, based on their growing economic power and the responsibility that brings to perpetuate the common good. No matter what choice the Progressive Conservative party makes, an effective Premier of Alberta must respond to these desires.
And Now There Are Three
Good morning. A busload and Hancock supporters went to Calgary yesterday and we got home at 4:30 this morning. I am a bit blurry eyed and feel like I slept with an old sock in my mouth. I have been telling myself since I woke up “I am not too old for this.” There is a fine line between an affirmation and a delusion.
Just did a quick look at the constituency results and will have lots to say later today. The choice is clear but it is not a two horse race - it is a real three-way contest, with clear alternatives and real choices, each resulting in a very different Alberta.
Ed Stelmach is a strong third place finisher and is definitely in the hunt. He has traction, momentum and growth potential this week. The media will frame the choice as Dinning vs. Morton. I see that dichotomy as we really don’t need just more of the Dinning Calgary Mafia nor do most Albertans see themselves reflected in the social conservative values of the Morton Alliance Mafia.
This week there will be lots of hype, hyperbole and hypertension. There is time for the average Albertan to take some time for some sober second thinking about the kind of Alberta we should become. We can all reflect on which of these three is going to be the most effective agent of real change to help move us forward to our preferred future. Those that do some sober second thinking will find a real alternative in Stelmach. He is not just a compromise candidate to the other two "top guns." He is the real thing.
I know Ed Stelmach. I like him and respect him. More importantly, I trust him and know he is authentic to his progressive values and has sound judgment. I will be telling you more abut him as the week progresses.
I suggested early in the campaign that Hancock could be the beneficiary of a Mandel syndrome where the front runners were found wanting and an acceptable alternative was wanted. Mandel became that acceptable alternative to the so-called “favorites” and the Mayor of Edmonton. Not only is Ed “acceptable” but for the kind of real change an attitude and approach to government and governing, he is, by far the best alternative for Leader/Premier for ALL ALBERTA
Just did a quick look at the constituency results and will have lots to say later today. The choice is clear but it is not a two horse race - it is a real three-way contest, with clear alternatives and real choices, each resulting in a very different Alberta.
Ed Stelmach is a strong third place finisher and is definitely in the hunt. He has traction, momentum and growth potential this week. The media will frame the choice as Dinning vs. Morton. I see that dichotomy as we really don’t need just more of the Dinning Calgary Mafia nor do most Albertans see themselves reflected in the social conservative values of the Morton Alliance Mafia.
This week there will be lots of hype, hyperbole and hypertension. There is time for the average Albertan to take some time for some sober second thinking about the kind of Alberta we should become. We can all reflect on which of these three is going to be the most effective agent of real change to help move us forward to our preferred future. Those that do some sober second thinking will find a real alternative in Stelmach. He is not just a compromise candidate to the other two "top guns." He is the real thing.
I know Ed Stelmach. I like him and respect him. More importantly, I trust him and know he is authentic to his progressive values and has sound judgment. I will be telling you more abut him as the week progresses.
I suggested early in the campaign that Hancock could be the beneficiary of a Mandel syndrome where the front runners were found wanting and an acceptable alternative was wanted. Mandel became that acceptable alternative to the so-called “favorites” and the Mayor of Edmonton. Not only is Ed “acceptable” but for the kind of real change an attitude and approach to government and governing, he is, by far the best alternative for Leader/Premier for ALL ALBERTA
Friday, November 24, 2006
Bundle Up, Show Up and Vote Hancock.
Hello gentle reader! The “Case for Hancock” has been running through these postings and exchange of comments for weeks now. I am not about to repeat them. People know where I stand and why on this leadership campaign.
The question is where do you stand on this leadership contest and what do you want for the future of your family? What kind of society do you see Alberta becoming? How does Alberta fit into and relate to Canada and the world? What are the priority issues you want to see your Alberta government deal with? Is a firewall around the province and opening up same sex marriage again you idea of good public policy? Then Morton is you man.
Or are you concerned about the environment, education, health care, responsible growth, quality public service and a better life for you, your family and your fellow man? Then Hancock is the one because he speaks to your values.
Hancock is caught in the same dilemma as Adalai Stevenson was when he sought the Democratic nomination for president in the 1950’s. Myth has it that a news reporter commented to him that “He had the votes from every thinking man and woman in the country.” Stevenson’s reply was, “You may be right, unfortunately I need a majority.”
Too many of the thinking people of Alberta may be simply “sitting this one out.” That would be a mistake – especially if we get a radical right-wing social conservative government for the next two years as a result.
If you stay home and “pass” you will get the kind of government you deserve, even if it is not the kind of government you want.
It is going to be cold tomorrow. So bundle up, show up and vote for Hancock. You will be glad you did because you know you will be doing the right thing.
The question is where do you stand on this leadership contest and what do you want for the future of your family? What kind of society do you see Alberta becoming? How does Alberta fit into and relate to Canada and the world? What are the priority issues you want to see your Alberta government deal with? Is a firewall around the province and opening up same sex marriage again you idea of good public policy? Then Morton is you man.
Or are you concerned about the environment, education, health care, responsible growth, quality public service and a better life for you, your family and your fellow man? Then Hancock is the one because he speaks to your values.
Hancock is caught in the same dilemma as Adalai Stevenson was when he sought the Democratic nomination for president in the 1950’s. Myth has it that a news reporter commented to him that “He had the votes from every thinking man and woman in the country.” Stevenson’s reply was, “You may be right, unfortunately I need a majority.”
Too many of the thinking people of Alberta may be simply “sitting this one out.” That would be a mistake – especially if we get a radical right-wing social conservative government for the next two years as a result.
If you stay home and “pass” you will get the kind of government you deserve, even if it is not the kind of government you want.
It is going to be cold tomorrow. So bundle up, show up and vote for Hancock. You will be glad you did because you know you will be doing the right thing.
It is Now in the Hands of Albertans
So the political punditry is all but past and who the next Premier of Alberta is going to be in the hands of the public, if not tomorrow then next Saturday for sure.
Not a great many of the public are going to make this decision by the looks of things. Those political die-hard will show up for sure. Those other citizens who have been able to overcome their philosophical and personal resistances to joining a political party will participate too. We owe all of them a debt of gratitude for taking the time to be part of this process and for ultimately making the decision.
They have seen the opportunity, and the threat, inherent in this party leadership contest and how it can impact the future of Alberta. Many have had to overcome some serious angst in order to becoming a political party member. that has been a barrier to many but the reality of the next PC leader also being the provincial Premier has had an impact on their decision I suspect.
Others who have risen to the occasion by showing real leadership and engagement on policy issues must be acknowledged too. They have become effective activists in promoting causes where they want to affect policy changes. The most successful and effective of these have been those citizens involved in the full range of disability issues and services. Thank you for your superior citizenship.
This process has been open and democratic but not as transparent as it needs to be, especially around disclosure and tactics used for soliciting campaign contributions. It has been too long a campaign in some ways but the extra time has given people, and candidates, more time to identify and understand the issues. Albertans have had the time to get more informed about the character and capabilities of the various candidates.
We are being offered two clear and different visions for Alberta’s future. We have a social progressive agenda within a fiscal conservative overlay that demands value for taxpayer’s dollars. This vision is represented by Hancock and Dinning. Alternatively we have social conservatives coupled with a fiscal attitude that sees government as a necessary evil. They believe more tax cuts, the marketplace and individual initiative is the best way to run a society. This vision is represented by Morton and Oberg.
Alberta is going to see a dramatic change of political direction, if not now, then at the next provincial election for sure. Neither of these two alternative are extensions of the current status quo. Each represents a significant change of direction from the past 5 years of the "cruise-control" Klein government.
The different approaches and the outcome of this leadership campaign is either the change itself, a prelude of the change to come, or if the PC party gets it wrong, about which party forms the next government. No small stakes are at issue here!
Just like no one knows the leadership outcome today, we will have to wait to see what Albertans want their future to be like and what principles and values will drive the direction of their next Alberta. Albertans know we are living in interesting, scary and uncertain times but we have great opportunity and a good reason for a sense of optimism - but some things have to change. Times of change demand wise leadership from politicians with real depth, significant experience and, above all, quality characters of the highest order.
So Alberta – bundle up, show up and vote carefully tomorrow – your future will depend on the choices that are being made. Those choices will be made by you - or by others "for you." Again, no small stakes. It is your choice, your values and your future that is at issue at the ballot box.
Not a great many of the public are going to make this decision by the looks of things. Those political die-hard will show up for sure. Those other citizens who have been able to overcome their philosophical and personal resistances to joining a political party will participate too. We owe all of them a debt of gratitude for taking the time to be part of this process and for ultimately making the decision.
They have seen the opportunity, and the threat, inherent in this party leadership contest and how it can impact the future of Alberta. Many have had to overcome some serious angst in order to becoming a political party member. that has been a barrier to many but the reality of the next PC leader also being the provincial Premier has had an impact on their decision I suspect.
Others who have risen to the occasion by showing real leadership and engagement on policy issues must be acknowledged too. They have become effective activists in promoting causes where they want to affect policy changes. The most successful and effective of these have been those citizens involved in the full range of disability issues and services. Thank you for your superior citizenship.
This process has been open and democratic but not as transparent as it needs to be, especially around disclosure and tactics used for soliciting campaign contributions. It has been too long a campaign in some ways but the extra time has given people, and candidates, more time to identify and understand the issues. Albertans have had the time to get more informed about the character and capabilities of the various candidates.
We are being offered two clear and different visions for Alberta’s future. We have a social progressive agenda within a fiscal conservative overlay that demands value for taxpayer’s dollars. This vision is represented by Hancock and Dinning. Alternatively we have social conservatives coupled with a fiscal attitude that sees government as a necessary evil. They believe more tax cuts, the marketplace and individual initiative is the best way to run a society. This vision is represented by Morton and Oberg.
Alberta is going to see a dramatic change of political direction, if not now, then at the next provincial election for sure. Neither of these two alternative are extensions of the current status quo. Each represents a significant change of direction from the past 5 years of the "cruise-control" Klein government.
The different approaches and the outcome of this leadership campaign is either the change itself, a prelude of the change to come, or if the PC party gets it wrong, about which party forms the next government. No small stakes are at issue here!
Just like no one knows the leadership outcome today, we will have to wait to see what Albertans want their future to be like and what principles and values will drive the direction of their next Alberta. Albertans know we are living in interesting, scary and uncertain times but we have great opportunity and a good reason for a sense of optimism - but some things have to change. Times of change demand wise leadership from politicians with real depth, significant experience and, above all, quality characters of the highest order.
So Alberta – bundle up, show up and vote carefully tomorrow – your future will depend on the choices that are being made. Those choices will be made by you - or by others "for you." Again, no small stakes. It is your choice, your values and your future that is at issue at the ballot box.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
AADAC Funds Allegedly Funneled into a PC Leadership Campaign
The Auditor General report released today also deals with allegations of AADAC funds diverted by a former senior executive of the agency into the hands of "tobacco control lobbyists who were then providing the funds to the campaigns of provincial leadership contenders." (page 13). The AG report says the the executive in question "stated he did not use any of the diverted funds to make political contributions and his record did not show any such contributions" (page 14).
The Auditor General says:
"Accordingly, we considered if funds may have been diverted to a political party, or candidate for political office, in order to enhance career aspirations or other opportunities. We found nothing to support these allegations." (page 13).
Apparently a traditional media outlet is indicating the Auditor General is looking into allegations that some of the money may have been funneled into a yet unnamed Tory Leadership campaign.
Is the AG still looking into this or has he finished his investigation and satisfied that no funds were diverted into a leadership campaign? The latter is what I read in his report.
The status of this matter has to be cleared up immediately because it puts an unfair cloud over all candidates. Is the Auditor General's investigation over funds being diverted into a PC Leadership campaigm completed and they found "nothing to support these allegations" or is it still on-going?
The Auditor General says:
"Accordingly, we considered if funds may have been diverted to a political party, or candidate for political office, in order to enhance career aspirations or other opportunities. We found nothing to support these allegations." (page 13).
Apparently a traditional media outlet is indicating the Auditor General is looking into allegations that some of the money may have been funneled into a yet unnamed Tory Leadership campaign.
Is the AG still looking into this or has he finished his investigation and satisfied that no funds were diverted into a leadership campaign? The latter is what I read in his report.
The status of this matter has to be cleared up immediately because it puts an unfair cloud over all candidates. Is the Auditor General's investigation over funds being diverted into a PC Leadership campaigm completed and they found "nothing to support these allegations" or is it still on-going?
Whether to Vote in Bad Weather Key to Third Place
Leger Marketing Poll of PC party members of record as at November 6th and polled between November 18 and 21 has some telling findings. We all know it has limitations because many campaigns have not turned in their memberships and many that were turned in did not have phone numbers so they were not contacted. The randomness is not in question but there is some self-selection at play all the time and especially here. Like do we know how many calls they had to make to get 801 who were prepared to answer the questions? Were the no-phones from a specific region? It all could have an impact on the results.
That aside, there are some interesting findings and scenarios that could emerge. Long shots with a chance result in big payoffs when they come in. Looks like Dave Hancock is a long shot with a chance with a strong second position showing in Edmonton.
The analysis is later in this posting but the question is will Edmonton deliver for Hancock given his base in the Capital City? Will Edmonton come to realize that with local support that he can make a real difference in the second ballot outcome? Will Edmonton show up for Hancock? If so he could be on the second ballot.
First: It is a two horse race between Dinning and Morton and both are likely to be on the second ballot. Now they have to see how committed their support really is and will they get out the vote in bad weather? It is a momentum game too and Morton has “MO.” The key question now is who is going to be the third man on the next ballot. Here we can say with great confidence that anything is possible.
Secondly Oberg is down and with the news today – he may now be out of the running. Today the Auditor General commenting on a 2004 provincial election campaign contribution from a “wholly owned corporation of Metis Settlements” to Minister Pearl Calahasen, an Oberg supporter. That contribution was, according to the Auditor General, “...contrary to the Elections Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act.”
The AG has referred the matter to the Chief Electoral Officer and I woujld not be surprised if Alberta Justice is looking at it too. This is not about Dr. Oberg directly but Oberg did not need more grief and yet another credibility “incident” to raise questions about his suitability to govern. He will have to comment on this publicly and in the final days of the campaign. Will this cause his soft supporters to stay home, the undecideds to discount and any potential for new growth to evaporate.
Thirdly, who is third? The candidate's regional differences are starting to show up in the Leger poll. Calgary is a two horse town with Dinning at 30% and Morton at 23%. Everyone else is out of it but therre is still an undecided of 28% four day before the first ballot - OUCH!
Outside of Edmonton and Calgary is also a two horse race with Morton at 20% and Stelmach at 18%. Dinning and Oberg are 13% and 12% respectively. Nobody else is in the hunt outside the major cities. The undecided is 27% and if the rural voters dessert Oberg and show up for Stelmach then Ed could be the third man in.
Edmonton is the least undecided at 21% but the most volatile. Arguably also a two horse race with Dinning at 20% and Hancock at 14% but the pack range from 9% for Stelmach, 10% Norris and 11% for each of Oberg and Morton.
This Edmonton showing is encouraging to the Hancock campaign. They have this much Edmonton support and they had not yet turned in their Edmonton memberships. Their supporter base was not polled and they are still a strong second place. If Edmonton show up for Hancock and Oberg’s Edmonton support stays home or goes to Morton, then Hancock could catch and pass Oberg and make the cut for the second ballot. That would be interesting.
Lots of “ifs” and a long shot for sure but this is politics and strange things happen all the time. It may all come down to the “weather” and the “whether.” Bad weather and indifference by people as to whether they feel they make a difference by voting are all at play here.
Showing up for Hancock in Edmonton and showing up in rural Alberta for Stelmach can make a big difference to the end result on December 2nd.
That aside, there are some interesting findings and scenarios that could emerge. Long shots with a chance result in big payoffs when they come in. Looks like Dave Hancock is a long shot with a chance with a strong second position showing in Edmonton.
The analysis is later in this posting but the question is will Edmonton deliver for Hancock given his base in the Capital City? Will Edmonton come to realize that with local support that he can make a real difference in the second ballot outcome? Will Edmonton show up for Hancock? If so he could be on the second ballot.
First: It is a two horse race between Dinning and Morton and both are likely to be on the second ballot. Now they have to see how committed their support really is and will they get out the vote in bad weather? It is a momentum game too and Morton has “MO.” The key question now is who is going to be the third man on the next ballot. Here we can say with great confidence that anything is possible.
Secondly Oberg is down and with the news today – he may now be out of the running. Today the Auditor General commenting on a 2004 provincial election campaign contribution from a “wholly owned corporation of Metis Settlements” to Minister Pearl Calahasen, an Oberg supporter. That contribution was, according to the Auditor General, “...contrary to the Elections Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act.”
The AG has referred the matter to the Chief Electoral Officer and I woujld not be surprised if Alberta Justice is looking at it too. This is not about Dr. Oberg directly but Oberg did not need more grief and yet another credibility “incident” to raise questions about his suitability to govern. He will have to comment on this publicly and in the final days of the campaign. Will this cause his soft supporters to stay home, the undecideds to discount and any potential for new growth to evaporate.
Thirdly, who is third? The candidate's regional differences are starting to show up in the Leger poll. Calgary is a two horse town with Dinning at 30% and Morton at 23%. Everyone else is out of it but therre is still an undecided of 28% four day before the first ballot - OUCH!
Outside of Edmonton and Calgary is also a two horse race with Morton at 20% and Stelmach at 18%. Dinning and Oberg are 13% and 12% respectively. Nobody else is in the hunt outside the major cities. The undecided is 27% and if the rural voters dessert Oberg and show up for Stelmach then Ed could be the third man in.
Edmonton is the least undecided at 21% but the most volatile. Arguably also a two horse race with Dinning at 20% and Hancock at 14% but the pack range from 9% for Stelmach, 10% Norris and 11% for each of Oberg and Morton.
This Edmonton showing is encouraging to the Hancock campaign. They have this much Edmonton support and they had not yet turned in their Edmonton memberships. Their supporter base was not polled and they are still a strong second place. If Edmonton show up for Hancock and Oberg’s Edmonton support stays home or goes to Morton, then Hancock could catch and pass Oberg and make the cut for the second ballot. That would be interesting.
Lots of “ifs” and a long shot for sure but this is politics and strange things happen all the time. It may all come down to the “weather” and the “whether.” Bad weather and indifference by people as to whether they feel they make a difference by voting are all at play here.
Showing up for Hancock in Edmonton and showing up in rural Alberta for Stelmach can make a big difference to the end result on December 2nd.
Win, Place and Show
Leger poll newspaper reports today indicate my earlier information was correct yesterday.
This is all about a second ballot race for third place now. Lots of undecided voters still and lots of memberships have not been turned in by campaigns because there is no need to. There is lots of “plus and minus” machinations still to be played with in any “analysis” of these results.
My guess is in a province of 3.2 million people; my guess fewer than 85,000 will show up in the end to cast select the next Premier for the province. That is political leverage. Too bad it is due to indifference and not design.
Next week will be really interesting.
This is all about a second ballot race for third place now. Lots of undecided voters still and lots of memberships have not been turned in by campaigns because there is no need to. There is lots of “plus and minus” machinations still to be played with in any “analysis” of these results.
My guess is in a province of 3.2 million people; my guess fewer than 85,000 will show up in the end to cast select the next Premier for the province. That is political leverage. Too bad it is due to indifference and not design.
Next week will be really interesting.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
New Poll Coming Out Tomorrow
My info is there is the new poll coming out tomorrow. It polled PC members but only those who have had their membership cards turned in to the party. Lots of campaigns have held back their membership so it is informative but not conclusive.
There is a horse race between Dinning and Morton. Oberg has fallen back into a pack for third place and the pack is way back behind the top two.
Saturday is getting more interesting all the time.
There is a horse race between Dinning and Morton. Oberg has fallen back into a pack for third place and the pack is way back behind the top two.
Saturday is getting more interesting all the time.
Character+Competence+Commitment+Caring=Dave Hancock
As readers know, I am a keen proponent of Dave Hancock for the next leader of the PC party. This Blog is full of postings as to the reasons why. In summary my support is about character, competence, commitment and caring. Look up any of those words in the dictionary and you should find a picture of Dave Hancock every time.
That is what we Albertans' should think about as we vote this weekend. We need to find a new kind of learder and Premier, not just someone else to full the office. That new kind of leader is Dave Hancock. So take the plunge, join the PC Party and show up on Saturday and vote for Dave Hancock. Then you know you will be making a real difference about the future of Alberta.
I am also a keen progressive when it comes to politics. I like the conservative aspect of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta too. I especially like the idea of conservation as a concept that needs to be embedded and more obvious stated as part of the “Conservative” element of modern politics and the PC Party of Alberta.
Conservation in my mind is a broad principle that embraces the environment, a long term view of economic prosperity, natural resource based stewardship and people centred concerns like social cohesion and inclusion.
The progressive part of what I see in Alberta’s future has to foster our cultural creative people. People have heard of Richard Florida’s book on the subject. The foundational book about cultural creatives is “The Cultural Creatives” by Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson in 2000.
You will hear more about this from me post leadership but as a break and segue take a minute and do the "Are You a Cultural Creative" Questionnaire. It says a lot about and to Progressives as well.
Cultural Creative and Progressives have to get organized and focused just like Social Conservatives have done. This questionnaire is a start to those ends.
Please let me know your thoughts on this idea of the Cultural Creative and Progressives getting organized politically as well.
That is what we Albertans' should think about as we vote this weekend. We need to find a new kind of learder and Premier, not just someone else to full the office. That new kind of leader is Dave Hancock. So take the plunge, join the PC Party and show up on Saturday and vote for Dave Hancock. Then you know you will be making a real difference about the future of Alberta.
I am also a keen progressive when it comes to politics. I like the conservative aspect of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta too. I especially like the idea of conservation as a concept that needs to be embedded and more obvious stated as part of the “Conservative” element of modern politics and the PC Party of Alberta.
Conservation in my mind is a broad principle that embraces the environment, a long term view of economic prosperity, natural resource based stewardship and people centred concerns like social cohesion and inclusion.
The progressive part of what I see in Alberta’s future has to foster our cultural creative people. People have heard of Richard Florida’s book on the subject. The foundational book about cultural creatives is “The Cultural Creatives” by Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson in 2000.
You will hear more about this from me post leadership but as a break and segue take a minute and do the "Are You a Cultural Creative" Questionnaire. It says a lot about and to Progressives as well.
Cultural Creative and Progressives have to get organized and focused just like Social Conservatives have done. This questionnaire is a start to those ends.
Please let me know your thoughts on this idea of the Cultural Creative and Progressives getting organized politically as well.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The Enlightened Savage Has Perspective
I have just read a Blog, The Enlightened Savage that I think has some of the best comments, insights and profiles of the leadership candidates.
It is definitely worth a read.
It is definitely worth a read.
Peter Lougheed Gets in the Game
There are few names in Alberta as famous as Lougheed. The statesman status of former Premier Peter Lougheed is one of the best antidotes to the stern hard line far right rhetoric of the Alliance cum “Progressive” Conservative candidates.
The halcyon mythology of the Lougheed time as Alberta’s “Camelot” is over blown by we Red Tories – just as much as “blaming the NEP and Ottawa” for all the past ills of Alberta is exaggerated by the Alliance folks. The partial truth of myths is both their strength and their weakness.
The Lougheed endorsement of Dinning is surprising to me. No surprise as to where his support would be. I am surprised however that he would break from his earlier commitment not to make any campaign endorsement. Doing so in such a timely and strategic way is good politics and a confidence boost for Dinning.
If resonance with the public sentiment is the test of a successful political position (and it is) Peter Lougheed and Preston Manning have been the most effective campaigners on “their issues” of anyone in this leadership contest. Frank, clear, blunt and forward thinking commentary from both men have added greatly to forming the current and emerging consciousness of Albertans. This is especially with the ascendance of the environment as the #1 issue in Albertan’s policy concerns. Their influence on making that happen is significant.
I think Peter Lougheed’s political instincts about what is happening in this leadership campaign are as sharp as ever. I believe he fears the potential ballot box strength of the republican-lite far right candidates and the collective indifference of the progressive and moderate elements in the leadership campaign.
So his engagement in the fray will help raise the attention level of the campaign amongst moderate and progressive Albertans. It will help Stelmach and Hancock garner support too I expect. Hopefully it will show progressive and moderate Albertans that they need to be involved in this leadership contest because the outcome can potentially define the future for all of us.
For years I used to sit back and roll my eyes at the statements and actions of the far right element in the PC Party. I viewed them as a minority that merely had to be tolerated in a free and democratic society. I sat back and did nothing to rebut the rhetoric, regardless of how ridiculous and rancorous it was at times.
Because most people like me in the PC party were also disengaging we left the policy and political field to the far right and they, to their credit, played the game well. They set the tone and temperament of the party and changed the public consciousness of what the PC party was all about. It had evolved from an amalgam of progressive plus conservative principles more into a big “C” conservative movement.
The new debt/deficit approach was a disciplined fiscal approach (for a while), but with a relatively harsh social agenda. It ended up being neither progressive nor conservative in the end just power-based pragmatic government with too much money to spend. The party had lost its way. This leadership campaign, we must remember, is about the future of the party and the province.
I few years ago I decided to re-engage and to stand up to the far right rhetoric when I thought it was destructive, discriminating and divisive. This Blog is just part of that personal re-engagement. I don’t know if Peter Lougheed is re-engaging for the same reasons, but given the circumstances and the timing, I would not be surprised.
The halcyon mythology of the Lougheed time as Alberta’s “Camelot” is over blown by we Red Tories – just as much as “blaming the NEP and Ottawa” for all the past ills of Alberta is exaggerated by the Alliance folks. The partial truth of myths is both their strength and their weakness.
The Lougheed endorsement of Dinning is surprising to me. No surprise as to where his support would be. I am surprised however that he would break from his earlier commitment not to make any campaign endorsement. Doing so in such a timely and strategic way is good politics and a confidence boost for Dinning.
If resonance with the public sentiment is the test of a successful political position (and it is) Peter Lougheed and Preston Manning have been the most effective campaigners on “their issues” of anyone in this leadership contest. Frank, clear, blunt and forward thinking commentary from both men have added greatly to forming the current and emerging consciousness of Albertans. This is especially with the ascendance of the environment as the #1 issue in Albertan’s policy concerns. Their influence on making that happen is significant.
I think Peter Lougheed’s political instincts about what is happening in this leadership campaign are as sharp as ever. I believe he fears the potential ballot box strength of the republican-lite far right candidates and the collective indifference of the progressive and moderate elements in the leadership campaign.
So his engagement in the fray will help raise the attention level of the campaign amongst moderate and progressive Albertans. It will help Stelmach and Hancock garner support too I expect. Hopefully it will show progressive and moderate Albertans that they need to be involved in this leadership contest because the outcome can potentially define the future for all of us.
For years I used to sit back and roll my eyes at the statements and actions of the far right element in the PC Party. I viewed them as a minority that merely had to be tolerated in a free and democratic society. I sat back and did nothing to rebut the rhetoric, regardless of how ridiculous and rancorous it was at times.
Because most people like me in the PC party were also disengaging we left the policy and political field to the far right and they, to their credit, played the game well. They set the tone and temperament of the party and changed the public consciousness of what the PC party was all about. It had evolved from an amalgam of progressive plus conservative principles more into a big “C” conservative movement.
The new debt/deficit approach was a disciplined fiscal approach (for a while), but with a relatively harsh social agenda. It ended up being neither progressive nor conservative in the end just power-based pragmatic government with too much money to spend. The party had lost its way. This leadership campaign, we must remember, is about the future of the party and the province.
I few years ago I decided to re-engage and to stand up to the far right rhetoric when I thought it was destructive, discriminating and divisive. This Blog is just part of that personal re-engagement. I don’t know if Peter Lougheed is re-engaging for the same reasons, but given the circumstances and the timing, I would not be surprised.
Monday, November 20, 2006
PC Party Needs More Than Revitalization.
The next Leader/Premier has to revitalize the PC Party of Alberta. Part of that effort must be to take the lead and change some of the culture around the parties nomination process and candidate selection. If we are going to attract better people into politics, they have to be assured the systems are fair and balanced and the rules are enforced. Not do so erodes the public's confidence in political parties and their processes. They potentially impede the effectiveness of successful candidates.
Lets be clear, the PC Party of Alberta is no better or worse than the other political parties in this regard. A quick search will show "incidences" in virtually every party. They seem to be just another one of our institutions that has let us down or betrayed our trust.
My point is we in the PC Party, with a new leader can take the opportunity to make some real changes. We can and should do a lot better and become the political party that raises the ethical bar and set the standards for everyone else as a result.
For example, there were allegations of irregularities surrounding the voter lists in his 2004 nomination in the Foothills-Rockyview constituency and the matter went to Court. It appears the matter was just dropped in light of the pending 2004 election. Pragmatism over principle seems to have been the ethical standard of the day. Not good enough! People deserve to know the truth.
The Court records on this matter is interesting reading but inconclusive as to if or how the issues and allegations were resolved in the end.
The initial legal issue was apparently a defeated candidate for the nomination was seeking a judicial review over the eligibility of some of the people on the voting membership list in the Foothills Rockyview Progressive Conservative Party nomination process for the 2004 election.
The Alberta Court of Appeal states the issue as:
“At the nomination meeting, Morton won by some 4 votes. Anderson was a losing candidate. Anderson believes, or suspects, or has concerns that some people who voted at the meeting were ineligible to vote because they were not resident in the riding.”
The issue was stayed by the Court due to the pending election but it appears to be still unresolved. It appears there were weeks of negotiations between the parties to settle these matters out of Court, but ultimately unsuccessfully.
Is it sufficient that the PC Party leave such matters unresolved? Was the voters list for the 2004 nomination meeting, ever produced and reviewed and eligibility confirmed? Is the party sure all those people on the list were actually residents of Foothills-Rockyview Constituency and appropriate to vote in that nomination?
Please don’t tell us this issue was delayed and then forgotten about by the Progressive Conservative Party at the end of the day because the 2004 election was looming. As the Court said “…(these decisions)…are potentially very important, not only to these parties but to others.” To not find out the facts and with the seriousness of the accusation made in these court proceedings is not fair to anyone involved. It does not do much to instil confidence in the PC Party either. We have such an open and fair process to select a new leader for the party, people need to be confident the process to nominate candidates is also open and fair.
I think the next leader’s job is not just about revitalizing the party. It is also about changing the culture of the party so this stuff does not happen. If and when there are issues or concerns, they get dealt with efficiently, effectively, openly, promptly and fairly.
Allegations of gamesmanship with the nomination process left unresolved, just enhances the cynicism of citizens about politics. Such issues are still happening. We see it with the federal Liberal leadership race, the provincial Liberal leadership race when Grant Mitchell was choosen still has a cloud over it. The federal Conservative Party of Canada currently has a court challenge on the Rob Anders nomination in Calgary West and of course we have the Ontario Conservative caucus dumping of Garth Turner but wikthout clarifying the reasons and rationale for the move.
I will be interested to see if and how the new PC leader tackles these party governance issues just as much as they tackle the various social, economic and environmental issues facing the province.
Lets be clear, the PC Party of Alberta is no better or worse than the other political parties in this regard. A quick search will show "incidences" in virtually every party. They seem to be just another one of our institutions that has let us down or betrayed our trust.
My point is we in the PC Party, with a new leader can take the opportunity to make some real changes. We can and should do a lot better and become the political party that raises the ethical bar and set the standards for everyone else as a result.
For example, there were allegations of irregularities surrounding the voter lists in his 2004 nomination in the Foothills-Rockyview constituency and the matter went to Court. It appears the matter was just dropped in light of the pending 2004 election. Pragmatism over principle seems to have been the ethical standard of the day. Not good enough! People deserve to know the truth.
The Court records on this matter is interesting reading but inconclusive as to if or how the issues and allegations were resolved in the end.
The initial legal issue was apparently a defeated candidate for the nomination was seeking a judicial review over the eligibility of some of the people on the voting membership list in the Foothills Rockyview Progressive Conservative Party nomination process for the 2004 election.
The Alberta Court of Appeal states the issue as:
“At the nomination meeting, Morton won by some 4 votes. Anderson was a losing candidate. Anderson believes, or suspects, or has concerns that some people who voted at the meeting were ineligible to vote because they were not resident in the riding.”
The issue was stayed by the Court due to the pending election but it appears to be still unresolved. It appears there were weeks of negotiations between the parties to settle these matters out of Court, but ultimately unsuccessfully.
Is it sufficient that the PC Party leave such matters unresolved? Was the voters list for the 2004 nomination meeting, ever produced and reviewed and eligibility confirmed? Is the party sure all those people on the list were actually residents of Foothills-Rockyview Constituency and appropriate to vote in that nomination?
Please don’t tell us this issue was delayed and then forgotten about by the Progressive Conservative Party at the end of the day because the 2004 election was looming. As the Court said “…(these decisions)…are potentially very important, not only to these parties but to others.” To not find out the facts and with the seriousness of the accusation made in these court proceedings is not fair to anyone involved. It does not do much to instil confidence in the PC Party either. We have such an open and fair process to select a new leader for the party, people need to be confident the process to nominate candidates is also open and fair.
I think the next leader’s job is not just about revitalizing the party. It is also about changing the culture of the party so this stuff does not happen. If and when there are issues or concerns, they get dealt with efficiently, effectively, openly, promptly and fairly.
Allegations of gamesmanship with the nomination process left unresolved, just enhances the cynicism of citizens about politics. Such issues are still happening. We see it with the federal Liberal leadership race, the provincial Liberal leadership race when Grant Mitchell was choosen still has a cloud over it. The federal Conservative Party of Canada currently has a court challenge on the Rob Anders nomination in Calgary West and of course we have the Ontario Conservative caucus dumping of Garth Turner but wikthout clarifying the reasons and rationale for the move.
I will be interested to see if and how the new PC leader tackles these party governance issues just as much as they tackle the various social, economic and environmental issues facing the province.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
"Send 'Em a Message" Update Report #4
The "Send ‘Em a Message” survey participation is starting to grow. The results this week are very consistent with last week. The environment is the BIG #1 issue as a priority and the intensity of the commitment at 27.25%. The next three issues remain essentially the same. Access to Quality and Timely Health care – commitment level remains the same too at 11.20% Managing Growth is #3 with 9.85% and a Focus on quality K-12 education is #4 at 7.88%.
The nest two issues are very close to the K-12 education issue and worth noting as part of that cluster of issues in the 7% range. They are #5 priority issue of Providing Open and Transparent Government with 7.14% and #6 priority of Reducing Poverty at 7.01%.
The remaining issues in order of priority are Diversified Value-added Economy with 6.08%, Labour and Skills Shortage at 4.64 %, Maintaining Public Infrastructure like schools and roads at 4.27%, providing access to Post-Secondary Education is at 3.82%, Managing oil and gas Royalties (including oil sands) come in at 3.36%. Having safe communities was #12 priority with2.53%, Lowering Taxes was net at 2.29%, followed by Dealing with resource revenue surpluses at 1.49% and the least urgent priority of these 15 issues was resolving problems facing Aboriginal Albertan at 1.17%
Again we point out this is a web based survey that is not a scientific poll. However we are approaching a large enough response that we are seeing what a self-selecting, highly educated and activitist part of the Alberta population sees as top policy priorities. We also see the intensity of their commitment level to those priorities. These are the people who get it and tend to “show up.” They will undoubtedly be working to influence the political and policy agenda of the next Alberta that emerges from this leadership review.
This project is way to provide some insight into that kind of thinking and what is on Albertan’s minds. It will be invaluable to the next leader, if they are wise enough to listen and understand.
If you wish to participate - take 5 minutes and do the survey.
The nest two issues are very close to the K-12 education issue and worth noting as part of that cluster of issues in the 7% range. They are #5 priority issue of Providing Open and Transparent Government with 7.14% and #6 priority of Reducing Poverty at 7.01%.
The remaining issues in order of priority are Diversified Value-added Economy with 6.08%, Labour and Skills Shortage at 4.64 %, Maintaining Public Infrastructure like schools and roads at 4.27%, providing access to Post-Secondary Education is at 3.82%, Managing oil and gas Royalties (including oil sands) come in at 3.36%. Having safe communities was #12 priority with2.53%, Lowering Taxes was net at 2.29%, followed by Dealing with resource revenue surpluses at 1.49% and the least urgent priority of these 15 issues was resolving problems facing Aboriginal Albertan at 1.17%
Again we point out this is a web based survey that is not a scientific poll. However we are approaching a large enough response that we are seeing what a self-selecting, highly educated and activitist part of the Alberta population sees as top policy priorities. We also see the intensity of their commitment level to those priorities. These are the people who get it and tend to “show up.” They will undoubtedly be working to influence the political and policy agenda of the next Alberta that emerges from this leadership review.
This project is way to provide some insight into that kind of thinking and what is on Albertan’s minds. It will be invaluable to the next leader, if they are wise enough to listen and understand.
If you wish to participate - take 5 minutes and do the survey.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
The Road Less Traveled By
Just over two years ago (Nov 8, 2004) I wrote a Guest Column published in the Edmonton Journal in anticipation of the provincial election, entitled “The Providence of Alberta.”
In it I talked about some of Alberta’s accomplishments past and present and offered some ideas for future feats we might want to tackle. I begged the question about our readiness to meet the new complex challenges before us. Did we have the commitment and discipline to realize our full potential? Were we too flush with cash and conceit to truly concern ourselves with the responsibilities we have to each other, the environment and future generations? Were we so busy making money that we are willfully blind to the social and environmental consequences of how we live, work and grow our energy based economy? Those same questions are still relevant today.
The 2004 election campaign results were not a disaster but they were not good either. Albertans were sending a wake up call to the PC Party and the Klein government. The Klein government seemed to not heed the call. It stayed on "cruise control" and went back to throwing money at problems. The party membership had had enough and responded last April 1st, when they forced the current leadership selection campaign.
If we are to believe the polls, only 30% of the PC party “base” members are intending to vote in the selection of their new leader. I hope that proves to be wrong because we need a re-engagement of socially progressive and fiscally conservative people who will “come to the aid of the party.”
We are entering the end of the "regular season" of this campaign with the looming November 25th first ballot. I think it is timely for Albertans to sit back and quietly reflect for a moment on what is really going on in this leadership selection campaign and what they want to emerge out of it at the end of the day. Sure it is a partisan event. But it is more than that. It is a chance for citizens to send a message about the kind of Alberta they want. Fundamental shifts in direction are needed and clear options are before us, given the kind of candidates and the policy options they are offering.
We can shift hard right to a more socially conservative society with the “Holy Trinity” of Morton, Oberg and Doerksen. Or we can move forward with a socially progressive and fiscally conservative “Wholesome Triumvirate” of Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning. The end result of the second ballot on December 2nd will decide the direction our government will be taking for the two years to the next election.
Do we, as a province, want to go hard to the Right or do we decide to move Progressively forward? The new Leader/Premier will be the one who get to define and decide the goals and the new destination for the province too. The outcome of this leadership process significantly impacts all of us in our daily lives...whether you voted or not.
No new Leader/Premier, will be able to govern alone, Stephen Harper notwithstanding. The next Leader/Premier will have to seek out support from like minded candidates to be allies. One of these two groupings of candidates will emerge December 2nd, depending on who we select as our next Leader/Premier. If you, as a citizen, decide to “sit this one out” that means you are prepared to entrust to others to make that decision for you. That is your right but take some time to understand and appreciate the potential consequences of such indifference.
There is one week left in this campaign. Participation in our democratic processes and institutions is dangerously low. Exercising ones right to vote, showing up to be part of the decision and not “siting this one out” is the road less traveled by…and that, my fellow Albertans, can make all the difference.
It is about your values, your choices and your future.
In it I talked about some of Alberta’s accomplishments past and present and offered some ideas for future feats we might want to tackle. I begged the question about our readiness to meet the new complex challenges before us. Did we have the commitment and discipline to realize our full potential? Were we too flush with cash and conceit to truly concern ourselves with the responsibilities we have to each other, the environment and future generations? Were we so busy making money that we are willfully blind to the social and environmental consequences of how we live, work and grow our energy based economy? Those same questions are still relevant today.
The 2004 election campaign results were not a disaster but they were not good either. Albertans were sending a wake up call to the PC Party and the Klein government. The Klein government seemed to not heed the call. It stayed on "cruise control" and went back to throwing money at problems. The party membership had had enough and responded last April 1st, when they forced the current leadership selection campaign.
If we are to believe the polls, only 30% of the PC party “base” members are intending to vote in the selection of their new leader. I hope that proves to be wrong because we need a re-engagement of socially progressive and fiscally conservative people who will “come to the aid of the party.”
We are entering the end of the "regular season" of this campaign with the looming November 25th first ballot. I think it is timely for Albertans to sit back and quietly reflect for a moment on what is really going on in this leadership selection campaign and what they want to emerge out of it at the end of the day. Sure it is a partisan event. But it is more than that. It is a chance for citizens to send a message about the kind of Alberta they want. Fundamental shifts in direction are needed and clear options are before us, given the kind of candidates and the policy options they are offering.
We can shift hard right to a more socially conservative society with the “Holy Trinity” of Morton, Oberg and Doerksen. Or we can move forward with a socially progressive and fiscally conservative “Wholesome Triumvirate” of Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning. The end result of the second ballot on December 2nd will decide the direction our government will be taking for the two years to the next election.
Do we, as a province, want to go hard to the Right or do we decide to move Progressively forward? The new Leader/Premier will be the one who get to define and decide the goals and the new destination for the province too. The outcome of this leadership process significantly impacts all of us in our daily lives...whether you voted or not.
No new Leader/Premier, will be able to govern alone, Stephen Harper notwithstanding. The next Leader/Premier will have to seek out support from like minded candidates to be allies. One of these two groupings of candidates will emerge December 2nd, depending on who we select as our next Leader/Premier. If you, as a citizen, decide to “sit this one out” that means you are prepared to entrust to others to make that decision for you. That is your right but take some time to understand and appreciate the potential consequences of such indifference.
There is one week left in this campaign. Participation in our democratic processes and institutions is dangerously low. Exercising ones right to vote, showing up to be part of the decision and not “siting this one out” is the road less traveled by…and that, my fellow Albertans, can make all the difference.
It is about your values, your choices and your future.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Dome Disease Is Ticked With Me!
Yesterday in a Comments exchange on the Renewing the One Party State Blog I commented on Norris being a Klein clone and his campaign funding model of issuing invoices for the candidate to provide consulting services to contributors. I was concerned how this worked and it the scheme had advanced blessing form the Canada Revenue Agency. “Dome Disease” is one of the anonymous Bloggers on this site and took me to task. Here is the subsequent exchange between us. I think people will find it interesting.
Dear Ken:
I am not sure you can criticize any other candidates funding platforms until your candidate reveals his. Makes you a hypocrite don't you think? Maybe your friend Anne McClelland could let you know what the Revenue Agency thinks. Unless you're afraid to disclose that you're one of Dave's handful of bankrollers hoping for huge payoffs in gov't contracts?
Norris is not a Klein clone, although it's actually not such a bad thing. In a big tent party you need someone who can relate to ordinary Albertans more than you need a nerdy lawyer who puts even librarians to sleep with his voice. Mark is a lot like Ralph in his ability to speak to people, not at them and I'm glad you see that valuable trait. But that's where similarities end, because Norris is much stronger on protecting Alberta and on actually being a conservative, don't forget your boy Dave isn't.
Your campaign has been getting more desperate with every set back and now you're swinging blidnly on your way down. I am sorry that your guy is an also ran but throwing mud at the former Premier (who helped make you, by the way) and at someone who shares some of his better virtues is not only childish, it's STUPID.Dome Disease 11.16.06 - 5:44 pm #
My response:
Dome Disease - I am not criticizing Mark for disclosure - just asking for clarification of the fundraising tactic he used in raising the funds he has disclosed.
If what he did is acceptable and satisfies the Income Tax Act by raising otherwise non-deductible campaign funds as contracts good on him. I just what to know if he had the prior blessing of the Canada Revenue Agency. It would be prudent don't you think?
If it is acceptable for candidates to do work for the "donors" as part of the campaign and a contribution deal it sure changes the way politics gets done. Don't you think?
I am not sure we want that to be the way politics "gets done" but if it is found appropriate by the Canada Revenue Agency then Mark has really changed the nature of political party leadership campaign fundraising.
For the record - I have not made a cash donation to Dave's campaign but I have volunteered lots of hours for sure. As for government contracts, we got some before and expect to get some after the leadership based on merit and not who the leader is. You wouldn't want it any other way would you?
As for Mark protecting Alberta, my Alberta does not need "protecting." It needs mature, seasoned, enlightened and wise leadership. It needs leadership that is not just ideological from a "Conservative" perspective.
I believe this campaign is about finding a leader for the PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party of Alberta. I want leadership that continues to embrace and integrate both of those concepts.
You mention Anne McLellan. What does Anne McLellan have to do with this PC leadership campaign anyway? Are you suggesting I should not have the right of free association and the right to vote for whom ever I wish? Are you suggesting there is only one way to think and act because I belong to a political party? Is that how a Conservative thinks?
Please also elaborate further on your comments on how Ralph Klein "helped make me" and tell us the relevance of that comment too. You allege to know quite a bit about me. I still have to wonder as to who you even are. Hardly the basis for a reasonable conversation, don't you think?
Are you implying in your comments that I am at some sort of risk by stating my opinions openly and freely and not anonymously? Should I fear you?
BTW - Every candidate except Morton has said they will fully disclose but after the campaign when the complete accounting can be done.Ken Chapman Homepage 11.16.06 - 8:39 pm #
Dear Ken:
I am not sure you can criticize any other candidates funding platforms until your candidate reveals his. Makes you a hypocrite don't you think? Maybe your friend Anne McClelland could let you know what the Revenue Agency thinks. Unless you're afraid to disclose that you're one of Dave's handful of bankrollers hoping for huge payoffs in gov't contracts?
Norris is not a Klein clone, although it's actually not such a bad thing. In a big tent party you need someone who can relate to ordinary Albertans more than you need a nerdy lawyer who puts even librarians to sleep with his voice. Mark is a lot like Ralph in his ability to speak to people, not at them and I'm glad you see that valuable trait. But that's where similarities end, because Norris is much stronger on protecting Alberta and on actually being a conservative, don't forget your boy Dave isn't.
Your campaign has been getting more desperate with every set back and now you're swinging blidnly on your way down. I am sorry that your guy is an also ran but throwing mud at the former Premier (who helped make you, by the way) and at someone who shares some of his better virtues is not only childish, it's STUPID.Dome Disease 11.16.06 - 5:44 pm #
My response:
Dome Disease - I am not criticizing Mark for disclosure - just asking for clarification of the fundraising tactic he used in raising the funds he has disclosed.
If what he did is acceptable and satisfies the Income Tax Act by raising otherwise non-deductible campaign funds as contracts good on him. I just what to know if he had the prior blessing of the Canada Revenue Agency. It would be prudent don't you think?
If it is acceptable for candidates to do work for the "donors" as part of the campaign and a contribution deal it sure changes the way politics gets done. Don't you think?
I am not sure we want that to be the way politics "gets done" but if it is found appropriate by the Canada Revenue Agency then Mark has really changed the nature of political party leadership campaign fundraising.
For the record - I have not made a cash donation to Dave's campaign but I have volunteered lots of hours for sure. As for government contracts, we got some before and expect to get some after the leadership based on merit and not who the leader is. You wouldn't want it any other way would you?
As for Mark protecting Alberta, my Alberta does not need "protecting." It needs mature, seasoned, enlightened and wise leadership. It needs leadership that is not just ideological from a "Conservative" perspective.
I believe this campaign is about finding a leader for the PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party of Alberta. I want leadership that continues to embrace and integrate both of those concepts.
You mention Anne McLellan. What does Anne McLellan have to do with this PC leadership campaign anyway? Are you suggesting I should not have the right of free association and the right to vote for whom ever I wish? Are you suggesting there is only one way to think and act because I belong to a political party? Is that how a Conservative thinks?
Please also elaborate further on your comments on how Ralph Klein "helped make me" and tell us the relevance of that comment too. You allege to know quite a bit about me. I still have to wonder as to who you even are. Hardly the basis for a reasonable conversation, don't you think?
Are you implying in your comments that I am at some sort of risk by stating my opinions openly and freely and not anonymously? Should I fear you?
BTW - Every candidate except Morton has said they will fully disclose but after the campaign when the complete accounting can be done.Ken Chapman Homepage 11.16.06 - 8:39 pm #
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Which Candidate Is Best to Keep the PC Party Together?
One of the overlooked realities of this leadership campaign is the impact the process and outcome will have on the future of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta itself. I wonder about the role of political parties in general and the resistance of people to join them. Do political parties have a future?
In the old days – I am old enough to have “old days” – political parties were individuals who came together in constituencies to use their collective power to create, influence, criticize, comment, propose and promote public policy ideas as part of the common good.
They recruited candidates, stuffed envelopes, delivered brochures and made phone calls – sometimes until their ears bled. The really big purposes of political parties were to run and win elections and to occasionally pick new party leaders…or dump old ones as the case may be.
Some of that still happens today but it is not grassroots and local anymore. It is centralized by consultants and marketing machine politics. People are more removed from the political process and the public policy development dynamics too. Campaigns have changed and so have political parties, and not necessarily for the better.
I think there is a fundamental role for political parties but they have to take back the power and purpose of grassroots democracy away for the leadership and the “handlers” of those party leaders.
Transparency, accountability, openness are all buzzwords in the politics of the day because of the miscreants and the ethically challenged political players of the past. People are turning off voting and turning away from democratic institutions like political parties as a result. Democracy is a fragile concept that depends on informed citizens who participate.
Engagement has to be meaningful before people will take the time to become involved. We need to change the culture where politicians are seen as “powerful” and we need to elect people more personally motivated by an authentic sense of being a servant leader and stewards of the public good. We need wiser, smarter and better people in elected office but that starts with citizens demanding it and doing something about it.
To get that we need more meaningful opportunity for ordinary citizens to see acts of citizenship as a duty but also a right that they respect and as a privilege they value in a free and democratic society.
With new technology and communications techniques we have lots of content and context on the candidate’s websites. But with no time to attend or serious opportunities to see and hear the candidates we don’t get to know about the character and capabilities of the candidates.
There are going to be thousands of “new PC members” who are into the fray to influence the leadership selection outcome mostly for reasons of self interest – which is just fine by me. I hope some are prepared to stay in the party past the second ballot and to keep the “winner” accountable as active citizens who are meaningfully engaged in democracy. Who knows – we may even help make the winner into a leader too.
In the old days – I am old enough to have “old days” – political parties were individuals who came together in constituencies to use their collective power to create, influence, criticize, comment, propose and promote public policy ideas as part of the common good.
They recruited candidates, stuffed envelopes, delivered brochures and made phone calls – sometimes until their ears bled. The really big purposes of political parties were to run and win elections and to occasionally pick new party leaders…or dump old ones as the case may be.
Some of that still happens today but it is not grassroots and local anymore. It is centralized by consultants and marketing machine politics. People are more removed from the political process and the public policy development dynamics too. Campaigns have changed and so have political parties, and not necessarily for the better.
I think there is a fundamental role for political parties but they have to take back the power and purpose of grassroots democracy away for the leadership and the “handlers” of those party leaders.
Transparency, accountability, openness are all buzzwords in the politics of the day because of the miscreants and the ethically challenged political players of the past. People are turning off voting and turning away from democratic institutions like political parties as a result. Democracy is a fragile concept that depends on informed citizens who participate.
Engagement has to be meaningful before people will take the time to become involved. We need to change the culture where politicians are seen as “powerful” and we need to elect people more personally motivated by an authentic sense of being a servant leader and stewards of the public good. We need wiser, smarter and better people in elected office but that starts with citizens demanding it and doing something about it.
To get that we need more meaningful opportunity for ordinary citizens to see acts of citizenship as a duty but also a right that they respect and as a privilege they value in a free and democratic society.
With new technology and communications techniques we have lots of content and context on the candidate’s websites. But with no time to attend or serious opportunities to see and hear the candidates we don’t get to know about the character and capabilities of the candidates.
There are going to be thousands of “new PC members” who are into the fray to influence the leadership selection outcome mostly for reasons of self interest – which is just fine by me. I hope some are prepared to stay in the party past the second ballot and to keep the “winner” accountable as active citizens who are meaningfully engaged in democracy. Who knows – we may even help make the winner into a leader too.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Strategic Voting and What is Best for Alberta
I have come to the conclusion that Jim Dinning has run the best campaign and is a shoe-in for the second ballot. He has the best organization; the most money, the most MLA support, a group of professional campaigners working for him and a network of volunteers throughout the province.
He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?
If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.
I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.
I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.
To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.
Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.
I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.
People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.
I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.
Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.
Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.
I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.
That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.
He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?
If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.
I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.
I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.
To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.
Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.
I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.
People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.
I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.
Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.
Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.
I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.
That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.
Monday, November 13, 2006
This Race is Far From Over - But Who Gets to the Second Ballot?
Ipsos Reid has done an interesting poll on the PC Leadership recently. They have not been asking who you would vote for but rather how favourable or unfavourable is your “impression” of each candidate.
Asking who you will vote for is so changeable and volatile and influenced by extraneous and often meaningless influences. Name recognition and recent media coverage can drive impulse answers and not necessarily reflect actual voting behaviours.
Asking favourable or unfavourable impressions generates more reflective, qualitative and evaluative responses about candidates. Not perfect but more informative of what people are “feeling” about candidates.
Our web based Policy Channel Survey “Send ‘Em a Message” asks for a deeper level of your thought about candidates. We ask how likely is it that you would recommend each candidate to friends and family. Now participants are more invested in their answers because they reflect back on themselves not just the candidates. Not perfect either but we get more than impressions and feelings, we introduced a personal reputation risk element when we ask for candidate recommendations
The comparison in results is difficult to make but here are the findings from each survey. Remember the Policy Channel “Send ‘Em a Message” results are not scientific because it is web based with self selecting participants but not random.
The first number is the Ipsos Reid Very Favourable and Somewhat Favourable aggregate percentages.
The second number is the Policy Channel Somewhat Likely, Very Likely and Extremely Likely to Recommend aggregate percentages.
Dinning: 56% 56%
Hancock 40% 65%
Stelmach 39% 43%
Norris 35% 25%
McPherson 30% 20%
Oberg 44% 17%
Morton 34% 13%
Doerksen 28% 19%
Dinning has the same level based on impressions and the likelihood of recommended to friends and family. Hancock and Stelmach are more highly regarded when one risks personal reputation by making a recommendations to friends and family. All other candidates are not as likely to be viewed as favourably when one has to “invest” or “risk” personal reputation through a candidate recommendation.
When the Ipsos Reid’s “Not Very Favourable” and “Not At All Favourable” impressions are aggregated then Oberg, Doerksen and Morton leave bad impressions with the most people, 38%, 36% and 35% respectively. The “best of a bad lot” winners are still Dinning, Stelmach and Hancock with Norris and McPherson in the middle again.
If Albertans start to think seriously about this campaign and about the characters of the people to whom they should grant their consent to be government then we could see a different outcome. Different at least than the conventional media wisdom and pundit wizardry is now suggesting.
Will that happen? The earlier Ipsos Reid poll said only 30% of current card carrying PC’s intended to vote in this selection process. Scary at so many levels. Nobody really knows what is going to happen. Citizens can show up to vote with $5 and a drivers license and decide on the spot who to support.
There is obviously a real potential a high jacking of this leadership selection process by a well organized special interest group if ordinary citizens do not engage. But that is democracy and we always get the government and governors we deserve. The Progressive Conservative brand is at stake here as well...just as it ought to be in a leadership contest.
Next posting will be on strategic voting and what group of candidates going through to the second ballot will be best for Alberta.
Asking who you will vote for is so changeable and volatile and influenced by extraneous and often meaningless influences. Name recognition and recent media coverage can drive impulse answers and not necessarily reflect actual voting behaviours.
Asking favourable or unfavourable impressions generates more reflective, qualitative and evaluative responses about candidates. Not perfect but more informative of what people are “feeling” about candidates.
Our web based Policy Channel Survey “Send ‘Em a Message” asks for a deeper level of your thought about candidates. We ask how likely is it that you would recommend each candidate to friends and family. Now participants are more invested in their answers because they reflect back on themselves not just the candidates. Not perfect either but we get more than impressions and feelings, we introduced a personal reputation risk element when we ask for candidate recommendations
The comparison in results is difficult to make but here are the findings from each survey. Remember the Policy Channel “Send ‘Em a Message” results are not scientific because it is web based with self selecting participants but not random.
The first number is the Ipsos Reid Very Favourable and Somewhat Favourable aggregate percentages.
The second number is the Policy Channel Somewhat Likely, Very Likely and Extremely Likely to Recommend aggregate percentages.
Dinning: 56% 56%
Hancock 40% 65%
Stelmach 39% 43%
Norris 35% 25%
McPherson 30% 20%
Oberg 44% 17%
Morton 34% 13%
Doerksen 28% 19%
Dinning has the same level based on impressions and the likelihood of recommended to friends and family. Hancock and Stelmach are more highly regarded when one risks personal reputation by making a recommendations to friends and family. All other candidates are not as likely to be viewed as favourably when one has to “invest” or “risk” personal reputation through a candidate recommendation.
When the Ipsos Reid’s “Not Very Favourable” and “Not At All Favourable” impressions are aggregated then Oberg, Doerksen and Morton leave bad impressions with the most people, 38%, 36% and 35% respectively. The “best of a bad lot” winners are still Dinning, Stelmach and Hancock with Norris and McPherson in the middle again.
If Albertans start to think seriously about this campaign and about the characters of the people to whom they should grant their consent to be government then we could see a different outcome. Different at least than the conventional media wisdom and pundit wizardry is now suggesting.
Will that happen? The earlier Ipsos Reid poll said only 30% of current card carrying PC’s intended to vote in this selection process. Scary at so many levels. Nobody really knows what is going to happen. Citizens can show up to vote with $5 and a drivers license and decide on the spot who to support.
There is obviously a real potential a high jacking of this leadership selection process by a well organized special interest group if ordinary citizens do not engage. But that is democracy and we always get the government and governors we deserve. The Progressive Conservative brand is at stake here as well...just as it ought to be in a leadership contest.
Next posting will be on strategic voting and what group of candidates going through to the second ballot will be best for Alberta.
Garth Turner Talks Tomorrow!
Garth Turner has scheduled a news conference in Ottawa tomorrow. Lots of media speculation as to what it is about. Here are some excerpts of what he posted yesterday on his Blog:
“Predictably, there’s some speculation about the nature of my media conference in Ottawa on Tuesday. I’m sure a bunch of people are wondering if I’ll be announcing my decision to become a Green or a Liberal, or if the Tories have come to their senses and are begging to take me back.”
“Well, can’t say right now. But the event is important enough to make the trek to Ottawa and back during this week when Parliament’s adjourned and MPs are attending to business in their ridings. I have a few things to say, after receiving three letters on Friday afternoon (amazing coincidence) from three senior Conservative bosses. They affect me, but they also affect you.”
“But let me make this clear before things escalate to a new level. My battle now is not to get back into caucus. That’s done. Nor is it to punish the prime minister or my former colleagues for their actions. I’m just one guy, after all, and they hold the power. What I say matters only if it matters to voters, taxpayers, citizens.”
“On this blog and in this conversation we’ve been having – the one that led to the situation above – I’ve often said I just want to do the right thing. And who better than me? Too stubborn to budge. Too old to be intimidated. Too experienced to be impressed. Too jaded to be tricked. Too arrogant to be scared off. Too self-sufficient to threaten. And now, too pissed to quit.” (emphasis added)
I wonder if he is being bulied too and is standing up to it? Yes – the power of one to really change things! It has happened before and it will happen again? Is it happening now with Garth Turner?
“Predictably, there’s some speculation about the nature of my media conference in Ottawa on Tuesday. I’m sure a bunch of people are wondering if I’ll be announcing my decision to become a Green or a Liberal, or if the Tories have come to their senses and are begging to take me back.”
“Well, can’t say right now. But the event is important enough to make the trek to Ottawa and back during this week when Parliament’s adjourned and MPs are attending to business in their ridings. I have a few things to say, after receiving three letters on Friday afternoon (amazing coincidence) from three senior Conservative bosses. They affect me, but they also affect you.”
“But let me make this clear before things escalate to a new level. My battle now is not to get back into caucus. That’s done. Nor is it to punish the prime minister or my former colleagues for their actions. I’m just one guy, after all, and they hold the power. What I say matters only if it matters to voters, taxpayers, citizens.”
“On this blog and in this conversation we’ve been having – the one that led to the situation above – I’ve often said I just want to do the right thing. And who better than me? Too stubborn to budge. Too old to be intimidated. Too experienced to be impressed. Too jaded to be tricked. Too arrogant to be scared off. Too self-sufficient to threaten. And now, too pissed to quit.” (emphasis added)
I wonder if he is being bulied too and is standing up to it? Yes – the power of one to really change things! It has happened before and it will happen again? Is it happening now with Garth Turner?
Sunday, November 12, 2006
"Send ‘Em a Message Survey Report #3
With tomorrow being a holiday I thought it better to do the survey update report tonight. The order of things has changed a bit and the Environment is still #1 but is pulling away from the pack of the other issues most dramatically. It is #1 with a bullet!
The weighted score of the Environment has moved from 22.80 last week to 27.26 this week. A huge jump that is indicating the increasing concern and commitment of Albertans to the critical needs for government to be addressing the environmental issues around water, land and air.
Guy Boutilier the Minister of the Environment has very little respect in government, industry and ENGO circles. He has just gone against the tide and supported Oberg. He is one of the very last MLAs to make a choice and it shows how politically out of touch the Minister of the Environment is given the disasters that are devastating the Oberg campaign of late. Best update the resume Guy given your disasterous performance in this portfolio.
The #2 issue remains ensuring access to quality and timely health care. The weighted score is down a tad however, from 11.45 last week to 11.10 this week. A small but not insignificant change.
Third spot is the big shift area and Managing Growth has taken over in this slot at a weighted score of 9.97, very close to health care. The fourth spot is the Quality K-12 Education system down from third spot last week but also losing weighted scoring too from 10.04 last week to 8.04 this week – a full 2 point drop.
At the bottom end of the scale as to what survey participants are concerned about as important issue to deal with right away are aboriginal issues at the bottom with a score of 1.27. The next least critical issue is dealing with resource surpluses scoring at 1.50
Performance scores for the Environment improved to only 82% saying it was bad compared to 83% not being impressed last week. Health care ranking has improved slightly with 60% not being impressed, down form 63% last week. The K-12 education rating has improved slightly too a poor rating of 50% from 51% last week. Managing growth is moved up to the #3 issue but the performance ranking is still a terrible 87% negative rating, the same as last week. This is the lowest performance rating of all 15 issues.
Big payoffs for government would be to do something significant in the environment and the management of growth. Lougheed is calling for a slowdown of oil sands projects. Manning is saying we can and need to have solid economic growth and enhanced environmental outcomes at the same time. Both approaches have been resonating but no candidate has picked up those concepts and made them their own in the campaign yet. Curious since that is the secret to winning.
Take the survey - but give yourself about 5 minutes because you will have to do some thinking about what is really important to you.
The weighted score of the Environment has moved from 22.80 last week to 27.26 this week. A huge jump that is indicating the increasing concern and commitment of Albertans to the critical needs for government to be addressing the environmental issues around water, land and air.
Guy Boutilier the Minister of the Environment has very little respect in government, industry and ENGO circles. He has just gone against the tide and supported Oberg. He is one of the very last MLAs to make a choice and it shows how politically out of touch the Minister of the Environment is given the disasters that are devastating the Oberg campaign of late. Best update the resume Guy given your disasterous performance in this portfolio.
The #2 issue remains ensuring access to quality and timely health care. The weighted score is down a tad however, from 11.45 last week to 11.10 this week. A small but not insignificant change.
Third spot is the big shift area and Managing Growth has taken over in this slot at a weighted score of 9.97, very close to health care. The fourth spot is the Quality K-12 Education system down from third spot last week but also losing weighted scoring too from 10.04 last week to 8.04 this week – a full 2 point drop.
At the bottom end of the scale as to what survey participants are concerned about as important issue to deal with right away are aboriginal issues at the bottom with a score of 1.27. The next least critical issue is dealing with resource surpluses scoring at 1.50
Performance scores for the Environment improved to only 82% saying it was bad compared to 83% not being impressed last week. Health care ranking has improved slightly with 60% not being impressed, down form 63% last week. The K-12 education rating has improved slightly too a poor rating of 50% from 51% last week. Managing growth is moved up to the #3 issue but the performance ranking is still a terrible 87% negative rating, the same as last week. This is the lowest performance rating of all 15 issues.
Big payoffs for government would be to do something significant in the environment and the management of growth. Lougheed is calling for a slowdown of oil sands projects. Manning is saying we can and need to have solid economic growth and enhanced environmental outcomes at the same time. Both approaches have been resonating but no candidate has picked up those concepts and made them their own in the campaign yet. Curious since that is the secret to winning.
Take the survey - but give yourself about 5 minutes because you will have to do some thinking about what is really important to you.
What Now is THE Leadership Selection Question
What is next for Alberta? What is the next Alberta going to be all about? The choice of leader/Premier has a profound influence on the answers and outcomes to those key questions. Candidates are vying for attention but who has the right stuff. Who has earned and deserves our respect? Who is most capable to govern not just able to "win" the leadership contest? And ultimately, who is worthy of our individual support and our grant of collective consent to govern us?
You can have a chance to provide your answers and influence the emerging political and policy agenda of the next Premier if you participate in the "Send 'Em A Message" survey. So today, as you "waste" time on-line, no doubt in part to avoid doing the household chores, go to the survey site. Relax and reflect as you do the survey on what you think are the most important priorities and issues for the next Premier.
You will be asked to rate how well our politicians have been performing in key policy areas. Finally you will get to do some personal evaluating of the PC candidates. Not who are you going to vote for or who you think will win, but rather how prepared are you to recommend each candidate to your friends and family.
Who is worthy of your support and what would you say about each of them if asked about their characters, capabilities, experiences and values. Policy is important but the candidates values and character concerns are the real criteria for evaluation for leadership.
Tomorrow I will be posting on the results of the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey on Policy Channel. The activity level on the survey has increased as more people are wanting to get their opinions into the mix.
The survey takes about 5 minutes. Stick with it even though it frustrates you a bit. You will be required to make some hard value choices…the same kind of thing you will expect of your next Premier. So give that new guy the benefit of your input and “Send ’Em a Message.”
Come back here tomorrow afternoon and see the results, trends and shifts from the first 2 weeks of reporting.
You can have a chance to provide your answers and influence the emerging political and policy agenda of the next Premier if you participate in the "Send 'Em A Message" survey. So today, as you "waste" time on-line, no doubt in part to avoid doing the household chores, go to the survey site. Relax and reflect as you do the survey on what you think are the most important priorities and issues for the next Premier.
You will be asked to rate how well our politicians have been performing in key policy areas. Finally you will get to do some personal evaluating of the PC candidates. Not who are you going to vote for or who you think will win, but rather how prepared are you to recommend each candidate to your friends and family.
Who is worthy of your support and what would you say about each of them if asked about their characters, capabilities, experiences and values. Policy is important but the candidates values and character concerns are the real criteria for evaluation for leadership.
Tomorrow I will be posting on the results of the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey on Policy Channel. The activity level on the survey has increased as more people are wanting to get their opinions into the mix.
The survey takes about 5 minutes. Stick with it even though it frustrates you a bit. You will be required to make some hard value choices…the same kind of thing you will expect of your next Premier. So give that new guy the benefit of your input and “Send ’Em a Message.”
Come back here tomorrow afternoon and see the results, trends and shifts from the first 2 weeks of reporting.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Oberg Should Be Toast - Just Butter Him - Don't Vote For Him
Omigod - Dr. Oberg...pack it in! When the Calgary Sun turns on a right wing conservative candidate it is over. I watched the late September duet on CPAC you did at Link Byfield's Conservative Congress in Calgary with Drs. Oberg and Morton. Morton is the inheritor of the Stockwell Day evangelical political machine that took Preston Manning out of politics.
Ipsos Reid recent poll results ironically shows slightly more Alberta Alliance support for Oberg than for Morton - but the total number of AA types in the poll is small. Dr.Morton passes it all off as a tempest in a teapot. Some tempest! Some teapot!
The Oberg base is not gone just his mentors like Jon Havelock, Lorne Taylor and his advertising agency. they have left him! One would hope he would not have any new support growth and his appeal appears to be diminishing according to the new Ipsos Reid poll.
The "influence and leverage" he had - and used to garner "support" as Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation is eroding rapidly too. The classic case of how he operates and would govern is shown in the demise of the Legislative Grounds project review as reported by Paula Simons today.
Oberg has a news conference in February for the renewal of the legislature precinct. He does this with no budget or or agenda and priority approvals. He does without following any of the safeguarding procedures and policies. He just announces this - just as he has done for pet political projects in other parts of the province. Then he dares the Caucus, Cabinet and Premier to challenge him. Sounds to me like a recipe for an Alberta made Adscam situation.
Caucus tired of covering for Oberg and in March they kicked his butt out of Caucus and out of Cabinet too as a result. He is not the agent of change in this campaign. He is just a guy who prefers doing things in a kind of freelance self-serving way...not the stuff of leadership or the way to be a positive contributor to party politics.
Perhaps it is time for Dr. Oberg to polish up the resume and dust off the Stethoscope.
I wonder if there is a citizens based "skeleton crew" starting up to uncover some facts about Dr. Oberg's past political conduct. It is being done by the far right on Jim Dinning...I would not be surprised if it happened to Oberg too.
Ipsos Reid recent poll results ironically shows slightly more Alberta Alliance support for Oberg than for Morton - but the total number of AA types in the poll is small. Dr.Morton passes it all off as a tempest in a teapot. Some tempest! Some teapot!
The Oberg base is not gone just his mentors like Jon Havelock, Lorne Taylor and his advertising agency. they have left him! One would hope he would not have any new support growth and his appeal appears to be diminishing according to the new Ipsos Reid poll.
The "influence and leverage" he had - and used to garner "support" as Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation is eroding rapidly too. The classic case of how he operates and would govern is shown in the demise of the Legislative Grounds project review as reported by Paula Simons today.
Oberg has a news conference in February for the renewal of the legislature precinct. He does this with no budget or or agenda and priority approvals. He does without following any of the safeguarding procedures and policies. He just announces this - just as he has done for pet political projects in other parts of the province. Then he dares the Caucus, Cabinet and Premier to challenge him. Sounds to me like a recipe for an Alberta made Adscam situation.
Caucus tired of covering for Oberg and in March they kicked his butt out of Caucus and out of Cabinet too as a result. He is not the agent of change in this campaign. He is just a guy who prefers doing things in a kind of freelance self-serving way...not the stuff of leadership or the way to be a positive contributor to party politics.
Perhaps it is time for Dr. Oberg to polish up the resume and dust off the Stethoscope.
I wonder if there is a citizens based "skeleton crew" starting up to uncover some facts about Dr. Oberg's past political conduct. It is being done by the far right on Jim Dinning...I would not be surprised if it happened to Oberg too.
Quality and Character Always Rises to the Top
Even the National Post is finally "getting" the essence of Stephane Dion as the class of the field in the Liberal leadership. With the Environment taking over Health care as the #1 priority issues for Canadians speaks well for the changing fortunes of Dion. He owns the environment issue and is trusted by citizens on the environment as well.
Here is what the National Post said about Dion today...worth a read.
Here is what the National Post said about Dion today...worth a read.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Remembering Fred Chapman on November 11th
Fred Chapman died in August 2003 a few weeks before his 85th birthday. Never one to burden the system he went for a regular check up tested positive for bladder cancer and died peacefully three months later.
He was a quiet gentle man and a WWII vet. His feelings about his service years were kept close and inside in a quiet but deeply profound and personal way. Like so many of his era and ilk he never spoke much of the war except for yarns about the good times on leave in London or wandering about the English countryside. He rarely mentioned the loss of his brother at Dieppe.
As a result the war to me was more of a social studies subject area and that was my mind set until he died and I started to read his letters home and spent time with his old pictures and memorabilia...stuff I had never seen before.
A few days before he passed he told me what he want me to do with his “things” like favourite pictures, personal mementos and the rest of the “stuff” that clutters our closets, basements and our lives. For the most part it was to go to the Salvation Army the organization he respected the most “because they were the most truly supportive organization of the service man during the war” he used to say.
Before his passing he wanted “everything to go” except for one thing and that thing had to be the subject of a solemn son to father promise. I was to be sure to keep his RCAF uniform as long as I lived. When I died the uniform would be free to go to a museum or some other place where it would be displayed and help other people to remember. It was not that that he wanted to be remembered. What he wanted to be remembered was what the uniform stood for, first by me, and then by others.
So tonight I will spend some time reflecting with that uniform and immersing myself in the memory of the man who wore it. Tomorrow I will be at the Cenotaph, wearing my Poppy, standing silently and remembering. My remembering will be at so many levels with many others, all coming together, paying respects and giving thanks to the many men and women both past and present to whom we all owe so much.
He was a quiet gentle man and a WWII vet. His feelings about his service years were kept close and inside in a quiet but deeply profound and personal way. Like so many of his era and ilk he never spoke much of the war except for yarns about the good times on leave in London or wandering about the English countryside. He rarely mentioned the loss of his brother at Dieppe.
As a result the war to me was more of a social studies subject area and that was my mind set until he died and I started to read his letters home and spent time with his old pictures and memorabilia...stuff I had never seen before.
A few days before he passed he told me what he want me to do with his “things” like favourite pictures, personal mementos and the rest of the “stuff” that clutters our closets, basements and our lives. For the most part it was to go to the Salvation Army the organization he respected the most “because they were the most truly supportive organization of the service man during the war” he used to say.
Before his passing he wanted “everything to go” except for one thing and that thing had to be the subject of a solemn son to father promise. I was to be sure to keep his RCAF uniform as long as I lived. When I died the uniform would be free to go to a museum or some other place where it would be displayed and help other people to remember. It was not that that he wanted to be remembered. What he wanted to be remembered was what the uniform stood for, first by me, and then by others.
So tonight I will spend some time reflecting with that uniform and immersing myself in the memory of the man who wore it. Tomorrow I will be at the Cenotaph, wearing my Poppy, standing silently and remembering. My remembering will be at so many levels with many others, all coming together, paying respects and giving thanks to the many men and women both past and present to whom we all owe so much.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Les Brost is Alberta's Answer to Stuart McLean
Les Brost is a great writer and avid fan of rural Alberta - all of rural Alberta. His wit, wisdom and insight are collected together and displayed in a piece he has done on the PC Leadership Candidates and published in Sharon MacLean's Edmontonians
His comments are so right at so many levels that the facts and fictions merge to give you a different sense of who the candidates are - and in a context you will enjoy. I was LOLing all over the place.
Smarter than Dr Suess and more insightful than Chairman Mao - do your self a favour and visit the very inviting mind of Les Brost.
Here is the link: http://www.edmontonians.com/Best%20In%20Show.htm
His comments are so right at so many levels that the facts and fictions merge to give you a different sense of who the candidates are - and in a context you will enjoy. I was LOLing all over the place.
Smarter than Dr Suess and more insightful than Chairman Mao - do your self a favour and visit the very inviting mind of Les Brost.
Here is the link: http://www.edmontonians.com/Best%20In%20Show.htm
Some Feedback for the Powers the Be!
The Globe and Mail Columnist Jeffery Simpson last Saturday commented on “The Bozo Years” being over for Alberta and asked “What Now?” That is the ballot question in the hearts and minds of Albertans who are going to chose the new Progressive Conservative leader and Alberta’s pro tem Premier. It is on the minds of all of us, at the back of mind for some and at the top of mind for others. That is the central question - "What Now?"
There is an old axiom that says if you are coasting but still moving forward you have to be going down hill. That has been the recent reality for the Progressive Conservative Party and the “animating” (sic) characteristic of the Klein government for the past too many years. The basking in the glory of defeating the debt and deficit dragon has worn thin. It is now showing serious negative consequences because we have a government that believed debt and deficit was a finish line instead of a starting line.
Change and choice and taking chances are the stuff of elections and leadership campaigns. I sense Albertans are not only “up for” some different approaches in all three of these elements – they are demanding them. After 35 plus years of Progressive Conservative government is Alberta poised for one of it classic tectonic political shifts?
It has been said of Democrats that they make plans and then they go do something else while Republicans follow the plans of their grandfathers. I think that description has some resonance when applied respectively to the Progressive and the Conservative elements within the PC Party of Alberta too.
Part of the “Send ‘Em a Message” Survey on Policy Channel has been a rating of the Klein government’s performance in the 15 key policy areas we are researching. The survey is web based so it is not scientific but the participants self-select and volunteer so they have some “investment” in the answers they give. The group so far is 55% male/45% female. 58% are not PC Party members and 42% are. However 65% said they were “somewhat, very or extremely likely” to vote on the leadership. They are activist and engaged folks with things on their minds.
The performance rankings they gave the current government on the four most important issues on their minds are:
Environment: 17% Good and 83% Bad
Timely Access to Quality Health Care: 27% Good and 63%
Quality Education K-12: 49% Good and 51% Bad
Managing Growth: 13% Good and 87% Bad.
The only issue the government got positive ranking in was Lowering Taxes with 64% Good ranking. Lowering Taxes was also ranked as the least important issue facing Alberta so no serious benefit can be expected there for the next Premier. To say there is room for the current government to improve belittles the obvious.
What now? That is the ballot question, not just who is next?
Yes Alberta is moving forward. The growth in GDP and investment activity tells us that. But we have been coasting too. The PC Party memberships unceremonious ending of the Klein leadership last April 1 was the proof of that. The above survey performance ranking of the PC government also tells Progressive Conservative MLAs and party members that Albertans feel we are going down hill as well.
If this sense of government coasting down hill continues under the new leader - Albertans will definitely be doing some house cleaning - perhaps as soon as the next election.
Take 5 minutes and do the survey. It forces you to make some tough choices but it will help to get your voice heard.
There is an old axiom that says if you are coasting but still moving forward you have to be going down hill. That has been the recent reality for the Progressive Conservative Party and the “animating” (sic) characteristic of the Klein government for the past too many years. The basking in the glory of defeating the debt and deficit dragon has worn thin. It is now showing serious negative consequences because we have a government that believed debt and deficit was a finish line instead of a starting line.
Change and choice and taking chances are the stuff of elections and leadership campaigns. I sense Albertans are not only “up for” some different approaches in all three of these elements – they are demanding them. After 35 plus years of Progressive Conservative government is Alberta poised for one of it classic tectonic political shifts?
It has been said of Democrats that they make plans and then they go do something else while Republicans follow the plans of their grandfathers. I think that description has some resonance when applied respectively to the Progressive and the Conservative elements within the PC Party of Alberta too.
Part of the “Send ‘Em a Message” Survey on Policy Channel has been a rating of the Klein government’s performance in the 15 key policy areas we are researching. The survey is web based so it is not scientific but the participants self-select and volunteer so they have some “investment” in the answers they give. The group so far is 55% male/45% female. 58% are not PC Party members and 42% are. However 65% said they were “somewhat, very or extremely likely” to vote on the leadership. They are activist and engaged folks with things on their minds.
The performance rankings they gave the current government on the four most important issues on their minds are:
Environment: 17% Good and 83% Bad
Timely Access to Quality Health Care: 27% Good and 63%
Quality Education K-12: 49% Good and 51% Bad
Managing Growth: 13% Good and 87% Bad.
The only issue the government got positive ranking in was Lowering Taxes with 64% Good ranking. Lowering Taxes was also ranked as the least important issue facing Alberta so no serious benefit can be expected there for the next Premier. To say there is room for the current government to improve belittles the obvious.
What now? That is the ballot question, not just who is next?
Yes Alberta is moving forward. The growth in GDP and investment activity tells us that. But we have been coasting too. The PC Party memberships unceremonious ending of the Klein leadership last April 1 was the proof of that. The above survey performance ranking of the PC government also tells Progressive Conservative MLAs and party members that Albertans feel we are going down hill as well.
If this sense of government coasting down hill continues under the new leader - Albertans will definitely be doing some house cleaning - perhaps as soon as the next election.
Take 5 minutes and do the survey. It forces you to make some tough choices but it will help to get your voice heard.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
...and Bush Has 2 More Years
This posting is just a brazen promo for Davberta's site. He has a YouTube Bill Clinton clip on there that is practicaly Pythonesque and sooo worth a visit. Jon Stewart ought to be a little nervous for his job with this level of political satire being out there.
Monday, November 06, 2006
I Like This Poll Result for Dion
The Toronto Star has run a story on an EKOS Poll showing good growth potential for Dion. I like that. The front runners in the federal Liberal campaign apparently are carrying too much baggage to really grow much on subsequent ballots. It is going to be a cliffhanger Dec 2 in Montreal for the federal Libs on all accounts. But I, like everyone else, am just guessing. Lots of time left and campaigns matter.
Now I wonder if we will see the "baggage issue" develop around the leading Alberta PC candidates. Oberg for sure deserves a serious second look by those who support him or are inclined his way. Albertans are now just starting to pay serious attention and are just begining to understand the implications of the PC leadership campaign for the future of the province and themselves. If they start to get nervous about the "baggage" of the front runners and seek alternatives they will also start to look around in earnest for a rational capable candidate instead of those in the front of the pack. My bet is they land on Hancock.
My friend Will McBeath at Noisefromtheright - active in the Ted Morton campaign - disagrees in his posting today and thinks Hancock is done. Three weeks left and he figures it is all decided. Maybe. But with the one person one vote right up to and including election day - anything can happen. Remeber how "scary" Harper was in the last week of the 2004 election as a result of his vocal social conservative supporters? Could it happen again, this time to Ted Morton? Rememeber how Stephen Mandel became the rational alternative from the baggage laden front runners in the last mayoralty race in Edmonton?
If people begin to realize the rough road some of the "leading" candidates will send us down they may engage and participate. If Albertans want a capable change agent of character, experience and proven capability - Dave Hancock is the obvious alternative.
But politics is never obvious and the wisdom of the crowd that shows up in the dying days of 2006 will decide the nature and nuance of the next Alberta for the rest us. Time will tell.
Now I wonder if we will see the "baggage issue" develop around the leading Alberta PC candidates. Oberg for sure deserves a serious second look by those who support him or are inclined his way. Albertans are now just starting to pay serious attention and are just begining to understand the implications of the PC leadership campaign for the future of the province and themselves. If they start to get nervous about the "baggage" of the front runners and seek alternatives they will also start to look around in earnest for a rational capable candidate instead of those in the front of the pack. My bet is they land on Hancock.
My friend Will McBeath at Noisefromtheright - active in the Ted Morton campaign - disagrees in his posting today and thinks Hancock is done. Three weeks left and he figures it is all decided. Maybe. But with the one person one vote right up to and including election day - anything can happen. Remeber how "scary" Harper was in the last week of the 2004 election as a result of his vocal social conservative supporters? Could it happen again, this time to Ted Morton? Rememeber how Stephen Mandel became the rational alternative from the baggage laden front runners in the last mayoralty race in Edmonton?
If people begin to realize the rough road some of the "leading" candidates will send us down they may engage and participate. If Albertans want a capable change agent of character, experience and proven capability - Dave Hancock is the obvious alternative.
But politics is never obvious and the wisdom of the crowd that shows up in the dying days of 2006 will decide the nature and nuance of the next Alberta for the rest us. Time will tell.
“Send ‘Em A Message” Survey Update #2
We are at the end of week 2 of the “Send ‘Em a Message” Survey on Policy Channel.
The analysis done of the top relative priority issue still shows the Managing the Environment is #1 with a weighted score of 22.88 – twice as high as the next priority issue Ensuring Access to Quality and Timely Healthcare weighted at 11.45. The 3# issue of Focussing on Quality Education K-12 with a weighted scoring of 10.04.
This priority is reflected in the recent Ipsos Reid traditional national poll results pegging 26% of Canadians saying the environment is the top priority issue that Canada’s leaders need to pay attention to. Ipsos Reid notes this is the first time since 1990 the Environment is the top priority issue for Canadians. The times they are a changin'.
Last week we reported Managing Growth and a Diversified Value Added economy and the third and fourth. Things have changed. Scoring in #3 position is a Quality K-12 Education and Managing Growth is now weighted as #4. Diversification and Value Added Economy has fallen down to #8 in the weighted score ranking.
Continuing at the very bottom of important issues in the survey are Lowering Taxes and Resolving Problems Facing Aboriginal Albertans. Both of these are recently identified with Dr. Oberg’s campaign. He is big on tax cuts in his policy. No new voter traction will be coming from an Oberg promise to lowering taxes according to this weeks survey results.
Aboriginal Albertan’s issues are not on the radar screen of Albertans in this leadership campaign. They will have to do more than just a candidate endorsement to get some traction and momentum on their issues for any candidate endorsement to make a difference to the voting intentions of the rest of Alberta.
Responses continue to come into the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey but participants are mostly from Edmonton and Calgary and region. We will be reaching out to rural Albertans this week to get more participation from them. It will be interesting to see how that changes anything in the survey results. We know from Environics Research work that rural and urban Albertans hold the same social values but the intensity and priority might be different. Time will tell. Take the time and do the survey and come back to this Blog for a further updates and commentary on the survey findings.
The analysis done of the top relative priority issue still shows the Managing the Environment is #1 with a weighted score of 22.88 – twice as high as the next priority issue Ensuring Access to Quality and Timely Healthcare weighted at 11.45. The 3# issue of Focussing on Quality Education K-12 with a weighted scoring of 10.04.
This priority is reflected in the recent Ipsos Reid traditional national poll results pegging 26% of Canadians saying the environment is the top priority issue that Canada’s leaders need to pay attention to. Ipsos Reid notes this is the first time since 1990 the Environment is the top priority issue for Canadians. The times they are a changin'.
Last week we reported Managing Growth and a Diversified Value Added economy and the third and fourth. Things have changed. Scoring in #3 position is a Quality K-12 Education and Managing Growth is now weighted as #4. Diversification and Value Added Economy has fallen down to #8 in the weighted score ranking.
Continuing at the very bottom of important issues in the survey are Lowering Taxes and Resolving Problems Facing Aboriginal Albertans. Both of these are recently identified with Dr. Oberg’s campaign. He is big on tax cuts in his policy. No new voter traction will be coming from an Oberg promise to lowering taxes according to this weeks survey results.
Aboriginal Albertan’s issues are not on the radar screen of Albertans in this leadership campaign. They will have to do more than just a candidate endorsement to get some traction and momentum on their issues for any candidate endorsement to make a difference to the voting intentions of the rest of Alberta.
Responses continue to come into the “Send ‘Em a Message” survey but participants are mostly from Edmonton and Calgary and region. We will be reaching out to rural Albertans this week to get more participation from them. It will be interesting to see how that changes anything in the survey results. We know from Environics Research work that rural and urban Albertans hold the same social values but the intensity and priority might be different. Time will tell. Take the time and do the survey and come back to this Blog for a further updates and commentary on the survey findings.
Most Recent OpEd for LaPresse
We write a regular column for LaPresse on policy issues through a western lense. Here is our most recently published offering.
A Relevant Decision
October 29, 2006
By Satya Das and Ken Chapman
Justice Douglas Rutherford’s decision striking down the “thought crime” portions of Canada’s anti-terror law is a belated and welcome restoration of fundamental freedoms in Canada.
It is especially relevant since the United States continues its inexorable slide into a Stalinist abyss, with its frightening new law allowing the indefinite detention of anyone who comes under suspicion of posing a threat to the state.
The section struck by Justice Rutherford enabled the detention of a Canadian on terror charges if there were religious, political or ideological motivations behind the act. The judge quite rightly rules this provision is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Indeed, removing the “thought crime” requirement may make it easier to apply the rubric of terrorism to supplement other criminal charges. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Kimveer Gill’s murderous rampage was surely an act meant to terrorize. Had he survived to face trial, it would have been extremely useful to add terrorism charges.
Rutherford’s ruling should remind us our fundamental freedoms must not be subject to partisan filters. Let us remember that the portions of the law struck down were in fact introduced by a Liberal government, in the furious aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terror strikes in the United States. At the time, many of us with misgivings about the Draconian sweep of the law held our tongues, perhaps acceding to the argument famously made by Michael Ignatieff that we must sometimes feel necessary to use drastic measures to combat terrorism. Yet we now see where such thinking can lead.
With President George Bush signing into law his anti-terror bill, which enables the U.S. to hold anyone merely suspected of terrorist intent without ever bringing them to trial, the United States is abandoning the fundamental freedoms for which the West fought, in the decades-long struggle against Stalinism and other forms of totalitarianism. The truly frightening provision is that the accused need never be shown the evidence against them, nor to be informed of the specificity of the allegations and charges they face. In Canada, we have seen the tragedy of Maher Arar, and there may indeed be others similarly maltreated. Yet the Bush law means that hundreds and even thousands of people like Maher Arar may simply vanish into Kafkaesque darkness.
The abiding concern is whether Canada’s new government will uphold this necessary restoration of Canadian freedoms, given its readiness to seek accommodation and friendship with Bush regime. Indeed there is significant merit to the approach of being open and collaborative with our neighbour and trading partner to the south. This is a refreshing change from what sometimes appears to be a national sport of gratuitous criticism of the United States. Yet as we saw in softwood lumber, there is a difference between principled friendship, and an appeasing pact that surrendered every victory won under international trade law and defied the fundamental principles of free trade.
On the matter of fundamental freedoms, Canada’s new government must resist any temptation to appeal the Rutherford ruling. Indeed, as the anti-terror law comes up for review later this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper can set a bold and distinctive course for Canada by refusing to renew a flawed law hastily drafted by a shocked and impetuous Liberal government. As we now see with time and distance, there is ample provision within Canada’s criminal code to deal with threats to our individual and collective security.
Canada’s new government must assert that we cannot compromise and sacrifice our fundamental freedoms for the convenience of the state, in the name of public security.
. Qu’en pensez-vous? satya@cambridgestrategies.com; forum@lapresse.com
A Relevant Decision
October 29, 2006
By Satya Das and Ken Chapman
Justice Douglas Rutherford’s decision striking down the “thought crime” portions of Canada’s anti-terror law is a belated and welcome restoration of fundamental freedoms in Canada.
It is especially relevant since the United States continues its inexorable slide into a Stalinist abyss, with its frightening new law allowing the indefinite detention of anyone who comes under suspicion of posing a threat to the state.
The section struck by Justice Rutherford enabled the detention of a Canadian on terror charges if there were religious, political or ideological motivations behind the act. The judge quite rightly rules this provision is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Indeed, removing the “thought crime” requirement may make it easier to apply the rubric of terrorism to supplement other criminal charges. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Kimveer Gill’s murderous rampage was surely an act meant to terrorize. Had he survived to face trial, it would have been extremely useful to add terrorism charges.
Rutherford’s ruling should remind us our fundamental freedoms must not be subject to partisan filters. Let us remember that the portions of the law struck down were in fact introduced by a Liberal government, in the furious aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terror strikes in the United States. At the time, many of us with misgivings about the Draconian sweep of the law held our tongues, perhaps acceding to the argument famously made by Michael Ignatieff that we must sometimes feel necessary to use drastic measures to combat terrorism. Yet we now see where such thinking can lead.
With President George Bush signing into law his anti-terror bill, which enables the U.S. to hold anyone merely suspected of terrorist intent without ever bringing them to trial, the United States is abandoning the fundamental freedoms for which the West fought, in the decades-long struggle against Stalinism and other forms of totalitarianism. The truly frightening provision is that the accused need never be shown the evidence against them, nor to be informed of the specificity of the allegations and charges they face. In Canada, we have seen the tragedy of Maher Arar, and there may indeed be others similarly maltreated. Yet the Bush law means that hundreds and even thousands of people like Maher Arar may simply vanish into Kafkaesque darkness.
The abiding concern is whether Canada’s new government will uphold this necessary restoration of Canadian freedoms, given its readiness to seek accommodation and friendship with Bush regime. Indeed there is significant merit to the approach of being open and collaborative with our neighbour and trading partner to the south. This is a refreshing change from what sometimes appears to be a national sport of gratuitous criticism of the United States. Yet as we saw in softwood lumber, there is a difference between principled friendship, and an appeasing pact that surrendered every victory won under international trade law and defied the fundamental principles of free trade.
On the matter of fundamental freedoms, Canada’s new government must resist any temptation to appeal the Rutherford ruling. Indeed, as the anti-terror law comes up for review later this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper can set a bold and distinctive course for Canada by refusing to renew a flawed law hastily drafted by a shocked and impetuous Liberal government. As we now see with time and distance, there is ample provision within Canada’s criminal code to deal with threats to our individual and collective security.
Canada’s new government must assert that we cannot compromise and sacrifice our fundamental freedoms for the convenience of the state, in the name of public security.
. Qu’en pensez-vous? satya@cambridgestrategies.com; forum@lapresse.com
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Do the "Send 'Em a Message" Survey
Tomorow, Monday November 6, in the afternoon, I will be doing an update posting on the results to date of the "Send 'Em a Message" survey hosted on Policy Channel. We have had over 165 completed surveys last week. We will be reporting results, trends and changes every Monday on this Blog. By doing the survey you get your two-bits of opinion and insight reflected in the results. It take about 5 minutes and makes you think.
It is a web based survey so it is not scientific but if enough Albertans participate and the results are consistent the survey will undoubtedly have an impact on the public policy priority agenda for the next Premier.
Do the survey and let us know what you think are the most important policy issues for the new Alberta Premier to deal with. Also rate the Alberta government's performance on 15 key policy issues. Then tell us the likelihood of you making a recommendation to your friends and family for support of each PC leadership candidate.
It is a web based survey so it is not scientific but if enough Albertans participate and the results are consistent the survey will undoubtedly have an impact on the public policy priority agenda for the next Premier.
Do the survey and let us know what you think are the most important policy issues for the new Alberta Premier to deal with. Also rate the Alberta government's performance on 15 key policy issues. Then tell us the likelihood of you making a recommendation to your friends and family for support of each PC leadership candidate.
Hancock Wins the Website Traffic Wars
PC Leadership Candidates are using the Internet and websites more seriously and significantly in this campaign than political parties did in the last provincial election. The reasons are obvious. One-person-one-vote means you need to have a direct relationship with a citizen to convince them to buy a membership, show up to vote and then to vote for you. The Internet is the perfect tool for this kind of relationship building. It is self- selecting, direct, content rich, timely, accessible, effective, convenient and inexpensive compared to paid advertising.
The Internet is a pure unfiltered, diverse, independent, decentralized and an aggregated collection of fact, fiction, fad, fuming and fulmination. It is an election friendly way for the collective wisdom of citizens to be expressed and is changing the way democracy is practiced and maybe even how it works.
Increasingly influential in the opinion forming process of citizens is the chatter of the collective wisdom (or pooled ignorance) of the Internet based web forums, chat rooms, website traffic volumes and the bleating babble of us “blogger-mouths.”
I did some research about how this new technology is working for the candidates and which ones are seeing website traffic and activity. I used a website ranking site called Alexa.com. Alexa “crawls” the web and reviews over 16 millions sites every day to determine rankings. It collects data on site visitors, the number of pages they read and the paths and links they used to get to the sites and so forth. A ranking of 150,000 or less means you are a force to be reckoned with on the Internet…you draw interest, traffic, comments and connections.
Here is what I found. At the low end of candidate website ranking we have the Doerksen and Stelmach sites are so little used they generate “No Data” at all. I guess their supporters are not Internet users and those who are curious about them are not users either. Even Alana Delong’s site still registered data (with a feeble ranking of 4,496,033) and she is not even in the race any more. Victor was Minister of Innovation and Science – and in charge of the SuperNet...but perhaps innovative in name only given this No Data Internet ranking.
The next group ranked in the 2million range. McPherson’s site ranked 2,799,479 surprisingly low because he is a late entry candidate and one who could really benefit from the Internet to connect with citizens. I thought he would be "all over" the internet as a campagin tool. Next was Morton at 2,198,606 which is not really a surprise because he really doesn't need it. He has a built in old Reform party and religous support base who are die-hards who don't need more information about him, particularly from the Internet.
Next lowest was a big surprise. Jim Dinning’s site ranked at only 2,139,003. He has the most money, a raft of advisors and consultants, and a vast array of technology at his disposal and has been campaigning the longest. I find it most interesting that he is not generating traffic on his website and I wonder what it means. Just under the 2m ranking we have Oberg at 1,999,438 and Norris at 1,939,596. Again, not all that impressive and not all that surprising looking at the nature of their support base.
Finally the winner of the website traffic rankings is the Dave Hancock site…way ahead of everyone else at 1,017,641 - but still not a real big deal in terms of effective Internet ranking. People interested or attracted to Hancock are obviously using the Internet and the Web more than the supporters of the other candidates. That is all one can really conclude from the traffic rankings.
Given the relative lack of traditional news coverage for the Hancock campaign this traffic does show considerably more interest in him than one would assume from “reading” the newspaper coverage only. We know Albertans want change. The question is who is the real agent of change in this leadership campaign? For me the real and serious agent of change has always been Hancock. Looking at his relatively higher website traffic rankings it appears that lots of others are taking him seriously as an agent of change too.
The Internet is a pure unfiltered, diverse, independent, decentralized and an aggregated collection of fact, fiction, fad, fuming and fulmination. It is an election friendly way for the collective wisdom of citizens to be expressed and is changing the way democracy is practiced and maybe even how it works.
Increasingly influential in the opinion forming process of citizens is the chatter of the collective wisdom (or pooled ignorance) of the Internet based web forums, chat rooms, website traffic volumes and the bleating babble of us “blogger-mouths.”
I did some research about how this new technology is working for the candidates and which ones are seeing website traffic and activity. I used a website ranking site called Alexa.com. Alexa “crawls” the web and reviews over 16 millions sites every day to determine rankings. It collects data on site visitors, the number of pages they read and the paths and links they used to get to the sites and so forth. A ranking of 150,000 or less means you are a force to be reckoned with on the Internet…you draw interest, traffic, comments and connections.
Here is what I found. At the low end of candidate website ranking we have the Doerksen and Stelmach sites are so little used they generate “No Data” at all. I guess their supporters are not Internet users and those who are curious about them are not users either. Even Alana Delong’s site still registered data (with a feeble ranking of 4,496,033) and she is not even in the race any more. Victor was Minister of Innovation and Science – and in charge of the SuperNet...but perhaps innovative in name only given this No Data Internet ranking.
The next group ranked in the 2million range. McPherson’s site ranked 2,799,479 surprisingly low because he is a late entry candidate and one who could really benefit from the Internet to connect with citizens. I thought he would be "all over" the internet as a campagin tool. Next was Morton at 2,198,606 which is not really a surprise because he really doesn't need it. He has a built in old Reform party and religous support base who are die-hards who don't need more information about him, particularly from the Internet.
Next lowest was a big surprise. Jim Dinning’s site ranked at only 2,139,003. He has the most money, a raft of advisors and consultants, and a vast array of technology at his disposal and has been campaigning the longest. I find it most interesting that he is not generating traffic on his website and I wonder what it means. Just under the 2m ranking we have Oberg at 1,999,438 and Norris at 1,939,596. Again, not all that impressive and not all that surprising looking at the nature of their support base.
Finally the winner of the website traffic rankings is the Dave Hancock site…way ahead of everyone else at 1,017,641 - but still not a real big deal in terms of effective Internet ranking. People interested or attracted to Hancock are obviously using the Internet and the Web more than the supporters of the other candidates. That is all one can really conclude from the traffic rankings.
Given the relative lack of traditional news coverage for the Hancock campaign this traffic does show considerably more interest in him than one would assume from “reading” the newspaper coverage only. We know Albertans want change. The question is who is the real agent of change in this leadership campaign? For me the real and serious agent of change has always been Hancock. Looking at his relatively higher website traffic rankings it appears that lots of others are taking him seriously as an agent of change too.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
What Do We Know For Sure?
The Calgary Herald Leger Poll is out but what does it tell us we did not already know? Not that it has a duty to show change, when there is none. Here are the results and the shifts since the last poll of those who identified as PC party supports...the key group:
Question:
If you could vote for the next Tory leader, who would you support?
Albertans PC Party - Supporters
Jim Dinning 18% 23%
Lyle Oberg 14% 16%
David Hancock 5% 4%
Ed Stelmach 5% 4%
Mark Norris 3% 3%
Ted Morton 4% 6%
Victor Doerksen 1% 2%
Gary McPherson 1% 1%
Other 3% 1%
Don't Know 37% 35%
Refused to answer/would not vote/spoil ballot 10% 4%
Source: Leger Marketing Margin of Error: 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
© The Calgary Herald 2006
So far "Don't Know" is running the most successful campaign at 35% support. The more extreme anti-campaign reaction of the refused to answer, would not vote or the "message senders" by spoiling ballots is down from 10% to 4% - still a significant condemnation of how the PC Party is doing reflecting and connnecting with its membership.
Dinning looks to be a cinch for a second ballot position and a second ballot looks inevitable as well. Oberg is the "rebel" but with a "cause" and a style of governing that no one feels very comfortable with...and for good reason. Morton is still the sleeper but a real threat for second or third place, depending if Oberg crashes and burns - or not! Morton support is almost subliminal but very substantially grounded in the evangelical movement and old line Reformers. They are below the radar but will show up to vote for their ideology as embodied in Dr. Ted Morton.
The remaining candidates are not out of it and campaigns matter but what happens to the Progressive element in the PC Party if the third place candidate is a distant third regardless of who that is? Alberta will survive but will we be in such a state of political flux that we are unable to effectively respond to the times of great promise - and responsibility - that stretch out before us?
I think the hard core PC party membership better start thinking seriously about how it regroups and progresses forward after the selection process because all signs are pointing to an early election in 2007 - whether Albertans like the idea or not. That means a provincial, municipal and likely federal set of elections next year and another set of revisited leadership issues for those whose party's lose in the elections.
Will all the King's horses and all the King's men be up to the task or do we get a bunch of factions all splitting off and into their own "realities" and the PC machine breaksdown.
I will soon post more "Send 'Em a Message" survey results on the evaluation of the government's performance in key policy areas. A bit of a preview - except for getting some positive credit for cutting taxes - it is not a pretty sight.
Question:
If you could vote for the next Tory leader, who would you support?
Albertans PC Party - Supporters
Jim Dinning 18% 23%
Lyle Oberg 14% 16%
David Hancock 5% 4%
Ed Stelmach 5% 4%
Mark Norris 3% 3%
Ted Morton 4% 6%
Victor Doerksen 1% 2%
Gary McPherson 1% 1%
Other 3% 1%
Don't Know 37% 35%
Refused to answer/would not vote/spoil ballot 10% 4%
Source: Leger Marketing Margin of Error: 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
© The Calgary Herald 2006
So far "Don't Know" is running the most successful campaign at 35% support. The more extreme anti-campaign reaction of the refused to answer, would not vote or the "message senders" by spoiling ballots is down from 10% to 4% - still a significant condemnation of how the PC Party is doing reflecting and connnecting with its membership.
Dinning looks to be a cinch for a second ballot position and a second ballot looks inevitable as well. Oberg is the "rebel" but with a "cause" and a style of governing that no one feels very comfortable with...and for good reason. Morton is still the sleeper but a real threat for second or third place, depending if Oberg crashes and burns - or not! Morton support is almost subliminal but very substantially grounded in the evangelical movement and old line Reformers. They are below the radar but will show up to vote for their ideology as embodied in Dr. Ted Morton.
The remaining candidates are not out of it and campaigns matter but what happens to the Progressive element in the PC Party if the third place candidate is a distant third regardless of who that is? Alberta will survive but will we be in such a state of political flux that we are unable to effectively respond to the times of great promise - and responsibility - that stretch out before us?
I think the hard core PC party membership better start thinking seriously about how it regroups and progresses forward after the selection process because all signs are pointing to an early election in 2007 - whether Albertans like the idea or not. That means a provincial, municipal and likely federal set of elections next year and another set of revisited leadership issues for those whose party's lose in the elections.
Will all the King's horses and all the King's men be up to the task or do we get a bunch of factions all splitting off and into their own "realities" and the PC machine breaksdown.
I will soon post more "Send 'Em a Message" survey results on the evaluation of the government's performance in key policy areas. A bit of a preview - except for getting some positive credit for cutting taxes - it is not a pretty sight.
Hancock and Dinning are the Green Candidates
The Conservation Voters of Alberta, a consortium of Alberta's environental groups today endorsed Hancock and Dinning as "Two leadership candidates (who) are knowledgeable and open about environmental problems facing Alberta and they have given considerable thought to developing and articulating solutions to these problems."
Dave Hancock's Statement in response to the endorsement follows:
"I am very pleased that the Conservation Voters of Alberta have endorsed my 21st Century Environment Plan for Alberta in their announcement earlier today. Other candidates believe Alberta does a great job protecting its environment. I believe Alberta has done a good job protecting its environment, not a great job. We need to do a great job. It means setting standards on climate change and enforcing them and being a leader there. I am committed to being the leader that sets and meets those standards."
In areas where we have economic development activities, we must ensure minimal impact and damage is done, especially to wildlife habitat. Reclamation and restoration of industry sites, roads, and other fragmenting disturbances have to be redressed in a timely and consistent way, after industry activity has ceased. Doing this is an essential characteristic of good corporate citizenship in Alberta, and for those companies who don’t get it or who fail, refuse, or neglect to comply - there will be serious legal and financial consequences. We do not want to look into our grandchildren’s eyes when they ask what happened to their land, water and air only to say “we used it all up.” Saying we are sorry will not be good enough."
The "Send 'Em a Message" survey still shows the environment at the strongest priority policy issue driver for the 185 survey participants so far this week. Take a few minutes and do this survey and help send a message about what you feel must be the priority policy agenda for the next Premier.
Dave Hancock's Statement in response to the endorsement follows:
"I am very pleased that the Conservation Voters of Alberta have endorsed my 21st Century Environment Plan for Alberta in their announcement earlier today. Other candidates believe Alberta does a great job protecting its environment. I believe Alberta has done a good job protecting its environment, not a great job. We need to do a great job. It means setting standards on climate change and enforcing them and being a leader there. I am committed to being the leader that sets and meets those standards."
In areas where we have economic development activities, we must ensure minimal impact and damage is done, especially to wildlife habitat. Reclamation and restoration of industry sites, roads, and other fragmenting disturbances have to be redressed in a timely and consistent way, after industry activity has ceased. Doing this is an essential characteristic of good corporate citizenship in Alberta, and for those companies who don’t get it or who fail, refuse, or neglect to comply - there will be serious legal and financial consequences. We do not want to look into our grandchildren’s eyes when they ask what happened to their land, water and air only to say “we used it all up.” Saying we are sorry will not be good enough."
The "Send 'Em a Message" survey still shows the environment at the strongest priority policy issue driver for the 185 survey participants so far this week. Take a few minutes and do this survey and help send a message about what you feel must be the priority policy agenda for the next Premier.
Jim Flaherty Does the Right Thing
So it’s a matter of trust – income trust that is. There is lots the “Gnu Government of Canada” has done that I disagree with but the phasing out of income trusts is not amongst them. This is the kind of political action and courageous hard choices we need from government.
Income trusts were getting out of hand. They force a short term and shallow definition of business success plus a narrow planning and management perspective on those businesses. They reward the here and now at the expense of the future. Research and development, productivity enhancements, new technology investment, even maintenance, anything with any immediate cash demands can tend to get deferred if they drain the pool of immediately distributable cash from the income trust. Management gets rewarded on quarterly results and effective corporate tax avoidance. Nothing wrong with that if your view of the role of business and enterprise is shallow and superficial. We were just setting our selves up to be even more non-competitive and more quickly with the BRICK countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and Korea).
Sure it was a political promise broken. Perhaps the promise should not have been made in the first place because it was unrealistic. Income trusts were growing rapidly and part of the political drama in the last federal election. You will recall the campaign rhetoric about "leaks" from Liberal Cabinet Ministers about the future of income trusts and the “timely” intervention of the RCMP’s very public announcement of an investigation about the so-called "leaks"right in the heat of the campaign. Does anyone remember what happened or the current status of that investigation? Was it purely political?
Campaign promises have been broken before and for far lesser reasons. Trudeau beat Stanfield saying never would he institute wage and price controls and did it soon after winning. Chrétien was promising to abolish the GST…enough said. Both men won subsequent elections as I recall. I am not justifying breaking political promises. Just saying it could be worse. Look at this clip from the TV show Boston Legal about the American state of political culture and tell me if it is more of a documentary than drama.
So are political campaign promises really equivalent to Pulitzer Prize winning fiction? It really depends on the capability, conscience and character of the candidates at the end of the day. What unrealistic promises are bing made by PC candidates that will be broken once power is achieved. It is called the Catch 23 of politics. The skills necesary to become the leader are entirely different than those needed to be the leader.
An old mentor of mine once said “Sometimes you have to put away your ‘principles’ and do the right thing.” That is what happened yesterday with the Harper government and I for one, in this instance, applaud it.
Income trusts were getting out of hand. They force a short term and shallow definition of business success plus a narrow planning and management perspective on those businesses. They reward the here and now at the expense of the future. Research and development, productivity enhancements, new technology investment, even maintenance, anything with any immediate cash demands can tend to get deferred if they drain the pool of immediately distributable cash from the income trust. Management gets rewarded on quarterly results and effective corporate tax avoidance. Nothing wrong with that if your view of the role of business and enterprise is shallow and superficial. We were just setting our selves up to be even more non-competitive and more quickly with the BRICK countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and Korea).
Sure it was a political promise broken. Perhaps the promise should not have been made in the first place because it was unrealistic. Income trusts were growing rapidly and part of the political drama in the last federal election. You will recall the campaign rhetoric about "leaks" from Liberal Cabinet Ministers about the future of income trusts and the “timely” intervention of the RCMP’s very public announcement of an investigation about the so-called "leaks"right in the heat of the campaign. Does anyone remember what happened or the current status of that investigation? Was it purely political?
Campaign promises have been broken before and for far lesser reasons. Trudeau beat Stanfield saying never would he institute wage and price controls and did it soon after winning. Chrétien was promising to abolish the GST…enough said. Both men won subsequent elections as I recall. I am not justifying breaking political promises. Just saying it could be worse. Look at this clip from the TV show Boston Legal about the American state of political culture and tell me if it is more of a documentary than drama.
So are political campaign promises really equivalent to Pulitzer Prize winning fiction? It really depends on the capability, conscience and character of the candidates at the end of the day. What unrealistic promises are bing made by PC candidates that will be broken once power is achieved. It is called the Catch 23 of politics. The skills necesary to become the leader are entirely different than those needed to be the leader.
An old mentor of mine once said “Sometimes you have to put away your ‘principles’ and do the right thing.” That is what happened yesterday with the Harper government and I for one, in this instance, applaud it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)