JoeyO on... being a Progressive

(as posted at JoeyO.ca)

Webster's would define a progressive as "one who looks forward".

I've decided that, in my own efforts to define what a progressive IS, I'm going to try very hard to avoid doing 2 things:

• Firstly, I'm going to try to avoid defining a progressive by what they AREN'T.
• Secondly, I'm going to try to avoid comparing progressives to other groups as though they are mutually exclusive - "progressive", in political terms, is not mutually exclusive from "conservative" as we know it and as I previously defined it, for example.

So... what is a "progressive"?

To me, a progressive is someone who eschews the sacred cows of public policy discussions in order to have a full dialogue about what needs to happen to move society closer to a goal that is socially just. By this definition, Lyndon Johnson was acting as a progressive when he moved forward with the Civil Rights Act - a stance that to this day still hinders the fortunes of the Democratic Party in the southern U.S.. Likewise, Abraham Lincoln - a Republican, let's remember - was a progressive with his championing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

To me, a progressive is someone who feels that government can and should be a force for good within a society. That those things we can't count on the market to deliver for the betterment of all, government should take up, to ensure no one gets left behind. By this measure, Mackenzie King (introducing Old Age Pensions in 1930) and Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker, and Lester Pearson (the 3 mid-wives of national Medicare) were all progressives, in their own way.

To me, a progressive is someone who recognizes the value of stability, but also the potential reward to a society for embracing new ideas. That the "status quo" CAN be a good thing, but that it isn't ALWAYS a good thing. Using this barometer, Dwight D. Eisenhower (expansion of Social Security, creation of the Interstate Highway system, response to Brown v. Board of Education) and Theodore Roosevelt (Trust-busting, leadership of the "Progressive Party") were progressives.
The rotten thing about political labels, as I've said before, is that they can be applied by just about anyone, onto just about anyone else, and given whatever meaning one wishes. I can proudly call myself a progressive, thinking it means exactly what I've outlined above - and, at the same time, a political opponent can sneeringly refer to me as a "progressive, which is code for Liberal"... and, so long as we're using labels (progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian) for convenience's sake, in the place of frank and open discussions about policy, that will always be the risk.

But, when you look at the actual party affiliations of the people I've named in my examples, you see a cross-section of MANY different political parties: a Democrat; 3 Republicans; 2 Liberals; a New Democrat; and a Progressive Conservative.

I've been tempted many times during this writing to go on the offensive, and talk about anti-progressive forces. To talk about political rhetoric that promises to return things to "the good old days" or "the way things used to be"...

But I'm a progressive.

I'm looking forward.

And the future I see for this province is as bright as a clear day in Calgary, as expansive as an Athabasca prairie, and as rich and full as an Edmonton festival.

Come along with me, won't you?

JoeyO on... Engaging With The Public

(as posted at JoeyO.ca)

I've wanted to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly since I was 17 years old. The problem was always that, even as a 17 year-old, I self-identified as a small-c conservative (or, what I understood that to mean). I believed then, as I do now, that we deserved the best government we could afford, and not a penny or a secretary more than that. I believed in mandatory minimum sentencing for violent offenders, and freedom of speech, and the ability of the free market to ensure competition and quality in most cases. I believed that an MLA’s job was to represent their constituents, and when they weren’t sure how the constituents felt, to ASK them rather than assume the once-every-4-years endorsement by the voters was carte blanche to just go with the member’s own opinions, beliefs and values. I believed in those things then, and I believe in them today.

I was a lonely 17 year-old, and my Progressive Conservative MLA welcomed me with open arms.

Fast forward 10 years (to 2005), and I still held those same beliefs - but, in many ways, I was still viewed as "too young to have anything intelligent or useful to add to the conversation". While the fringe parties in this province routinely threw 20-somethings to the wolves as candidates simply because they couldn't find anyone else, I would show up at campaign offices, federal and provincial, and be told by volunteers with important titles that my skill-set was best suited for dropping off flyers and pounding signs into lawns. Important tasks, to be sure. The kind of things that have to happen to win an election, absolutely. But this wasn’t what I wanted to learn how to do – I wanted to learn how to go from door to door with a candidate, and talk to people, engage with them, and change their minds – or my own – on a given issue. I wanted to apprentice, with the idea of someday using what I had learned, combined with my own knack for analysis, political thought and speech, to run for my “dream job”.

In late 2006, I noticed a conspicuous lack of coverage in the media on the PC leadership race. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta were going to be choosing a new leader and, by default, a new Premier for the province – and no one seemed to be talking about it. I couldn’t find any coverage on the television, or in the newspapers, and the internet had a smattering of information, but not a whole lot. So I researched. I surfed all over the internet, trying to dig up information about these people who wanted to be the leader of the province that was the beating heart of Canada’s economic engine. And when I was done... it occurred to me that, while I was satisfied that I had found the information I needed to help me make an informed choice, a lot of the voting members of the party wouldn’t know HOW to find the information I had found.

“This should all be collected in one place”, I thought to myself. And the idea of starting a blog was born.

I took the name “The Enlightened Savage”, because as a provincial employee, I wanted the freedom to write what I actually thought about the leadership contenders without worrying that someone I spoke against would win, find my name on a list of provincial staff, and promptly fire me. The inspiration for my use of a “pen name” was actually Samuel Clemens, who on February 3rd, 1863, at the age of 27 years, signed his name for the first time as “Mark Twain”.

I thought the name really encapsulated what I was trying to prove to the outside world, and to the smaller world within my own political circles... that a self-identified conservative wasn’t automatically a mindless, brown-shirted barbarian incapable of rational thought and discussion... and that a young person without “all the right connections” or a Political Science degree could analyze policy and strategy and political trends, and stimulate meaningful discussion rather than the mindless, partisan back-and-forth you hear from so many of the party faithful. I didn’t need to be “special”, or have the “right connections”, to have a voice that mattered to people.

The blog changed everything for me. I was writing, and people of influence were agreeing. They were engaged. They wanted to talk about ideas, and strategies, and they thought I had something to say that they should be listening to. They wanted to talk to ME, and to hear MY ideas and opinions, about matters of importance. It was ironic, since some of these people were the same ones who thought Joey O had nothing to contribute until I stepped up on the soap-box and started writing under an assumed name. Some of the more intrepid among the Mainstream Media actually found me... I even got invited to do some in-studio analysis on CBC Radio on municipal election night 2007, and some more for the 2008 federal campaign. A friend of mine, for whom many of you probably voted last October, helped me get booked to do a spot of analysis on CityTV for election night during the 2008 provincial election.

This blog has helped me hone the skills I needed to achieve my goal. I intend to run to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Province of Alberta. I have 5 years of writings (over 640 columns posted) that I stand by, as if they were a voting record. I believe that, when I ask the voters for their trust, they have a right to know what I've said, and hold me accountable for it.
The first post to the blog was on Wednesday, November 15th, 2006. In that post, I mentioned that “I hope to provide as balanced an approach as I can to the issues of the day, while at the same time making it clear where I stand”. I’d like to think in the past 5 years, I’ve managed to do that.

I also committed to the idea of “holding my own to a higher standard”, and standing up for people and groups who are often marginalized in the political discussion, particularly if that discussion is happening to the right of centre. I have done my best to deliver on that commitment as well.
I’ve tried to use the blog to talk not just about how politics IS, but about how politics SHOULD be – how it MUST be if it hopes to keep up with and stay relevant to the changing face of our society. If the voters won’t engage with those who seek their consent to rule, then WE, as politicians and those who wish to serve and lead, have to do a better job of giving them something with which they will WANT to engage.

If politicians want more people to engage with them, and to vote, then the politicians have to do a better job engaging with those people. It’s not enough to shake your finger at them and tell them they should be voting.

The people who want to lead us should talk to us like we’re all adults, and all equals. Don’t sell exclusive access to those elite few who can afford to make huge donations. Stop insulting our intelligence by saying things that clearly aren’t true. And stop treating youth like they have nothing to contribute but delivering flyers and installing lawn signs.

My name’s Joey O, and I want to be your MLA – and if you’ve got an opinion about how we’re governed, or an idea about how to make things better, I want to hear it, whether you think I’ll agree with you or not. It’s not just about what *I* think, it’s about what YOU think. I remember what it felt like to be marginalized and ignored. To be taken for granted, and dismissed as a “kid who doesn’t know anything”. You don’t have to start a blog for your voice to matter to me. You just need to speak, and I’ll listen.

Isn’t that supposed to be how this “Democracy” thing works?

JoeyO on... Education

(as posted at JoeyO.ca)

There's talk, yet again, about the lack of schools (at least in appropriate locations) in the province of Alberta. The Minister of Education has publicly pondered about the viability of building them using Public/Private Partnerships, so-called "P3's". The opposition has, predictably, come out against this plan, saying that in a province so awash in wealth, education should be a priority for full, public funding.

I agree with them.

Many Albertans moan about paying education taxes ("I don't have kids/my kids finished school long ago!"), and moan even louder about large government increases in payments to teachers ("they get 3 months off every summer!"), building schools ("put the kids on busses!"), etc. Two of these complaints are, in my mind, short-sighted.

Let's talk about cold, hard reality.

"I've got no kids in the system, why should my tax dollars pay for it?" - the thing I love most about this question is that it's often asked by people who in the same conversation will complain bitterly about the fact that their doctor, lawyer, or nurse speaks with an accent, and is from "somewhere other than here". The reality is, supporting a public education system not only ensures that we will train Alberta's children to hold meaningful and important jobs to make Alberta even stronger, but it ensures that those children, as they grow, will make more, thus contributing more to the CPP, which is the only way you're going to get any money from the CPP if you're in the 45-60 range as you read this. Let's be honest, folks... that CPP money you contributed back in '75 is LOOONG gone... It's the money that 18-year old Johnny Johnson from PEI contributed on his cheque last week that is going to be appearing on your first pension cheque. If we deny children the best possible education, it directly affects your financial well-being down the line.

"Teachers don't need more money, they work 6 hours a day and get 3 months off!" - Those 2 charges, "6 hour work-days" and "3 months off" are both way off the mark. Let's review: The average teacher shows up to work about 45 minutes before the opening bell, spends 6 hours from (ballpark) 9 to 3 dealing with the students directly. No lunch hour for them, as they have to supervise either inside of outside the school in this age of schoolyard stalkers, zero-tolerance for bullying and liability lawsuits against schools and school boards. They'll then likely spend about 45 minutes to an hour at the school after the final bell, either working with students who need individual attention, running detention, or attending staff meetings or doing some marking. Let's make the point again that this is the AVERAGE teacher - for every one you know of that shows up 10 minutes before class starts and leaves 10 minutes after the final bell rings, there's one who shows up at 7:30am to coach handball and doesn't leave until the computers club is done at 6:00pm.

So, thus far we've got a 7.5 hour workday for Jane Averageteacher. Now Jane's going to go home and do another hour of marking, which is mandatory if she is to do her job well. She'll then spend about an hour and a half planning her next day's lessons and researching the subject matter to ensure she's got all the bases covered. Incidentally, spending an hour and a half planning 5 hours worth of instructional time is BARELY adequate - at least 2 hours is usually required. But, so far we've got Jane working 10 hours. She's been completely embroiled in her work from 8:15 in the morning until 6:30 at night, allowing only 15 minutes to get from the school to her home, and getting no breaks. And much of her Saturday is going to be spent marking and planning for the upcoming week... So, we're talking 50-to-55 hour work weeks. This is without any extra-curricular coaching or activities, by the way. 6 hour days? Hardly.

Now, do teachers get 3 months without dealing with students? Yes. 2 months in the summer, 2 weeks in Winter, and 2 weeks in Spring. True. But, in those OTHER 40 weeks of the year, Jane works between 2000 and 2200 hours, at a minimum. A 40-hour per week worker, who doesn't miss a single day of work all year, takes no vacation, and works every statutory holiday, 5 shifts a week, 52 weeks a year, will work 2080 hours.

So spare me the "they only work 9 months a year" argument, because in those 9 months they work more hours than most of us work in 12.

And these teachers, by the way, are not answering phones in an office or re-stocking shelves at a supermarket - they're entrusted with the minds and hearts of our children. A pretty stressful job, I think we’d all agree. At Mikka Kiprusoff’s job, a bad day at work means a red light flashed and several thousand people were momentarily disappointed - at Jane's, she might scar a kid for life or lead him to a life of crime. Whom should we pay better, to make sure we get people up to the task?

"Why do they need more schools in the suburbs, when they're closing ones downtown? BUS those kids!" - I actually agree with this. If a building is structurally safe, it should be utilized. Needs are constantly changing as technology changes, and we'd all like to work in a new building, but if the money's not there, it's not there. 30 minutes on a bus isn't "cruel and unusual", and there are better things the money can be used for within the system. The $15 million to build a new elementary would bus those kids and pay for enough music or athletic gear for the whole school system... our schools need up-to-date computers, maintenance, supplies, reduced fees charged to the kids' families, etc. Use the buildings you already have, as long as they're safe. Not everyone can walk to and from school – it would be NICE, but there are more important things that need attending to first.

JoeyO on... Hard Spending Decisions

(As posted at JoeyO.ca)

On June 24^th, 2010, the provincial government released a fiscal update. The long and short of it was, "the 2010 budget said the deficit would be $4.7 Billion, but in reality it's $1 Billion".

Which is GOOD. I would MUCH rather be spending $1 Billion more than we have, than to be spending $4.7 Billion more than we have.

The PC's rightly point out that we in Alberta were in a unique position to weather the economic storm, because PC Governments had the foresight to open a "savings account" to draw on during bad times. More happy news from the report included the information that, due to the rise in the markets, the Heritage Savings Trust Fund earned $2 Billion - far more than the $711 Million initially forecast. As a matter of fact, with earnings of $2 Billion, and a budget deficit of $1 Billion, it looks as though the worst may be over, and it might be time to invest in black ink again. This is good news, right?

But... it's still not GOOD. It's BAD.


I'd understand if the deficit was 100% based on one-time infrastructure and education spending, to help Albertans in the skilled trades keep their families fed and help those "downsized" to find new vocations during the economic downturn. I'd be FINE with that - better than fine, in fact. That would be a sterling example of government being a force for good in the society.

The reality, though, is that we're in this situation because of program spending. There is fat in the system, make no mistake about that. We need to - ALL of us - sit down and have a real, adult conversation about what we're spending, and what we're spending it on, and how to do better. Press releases from the opposition demanding "More for Health!" or "Spend Less On Everything!" aren't helpful - they're exactly the opposite. Should we be funding chiropractic care? Let's talk about it. Should there be tax incentives for making healthy choices? Increased "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco? What about the funding model for our schools? Arts programs charge hundreds of dollars in fees at the high school level - is that okay with us?

Much of the reduction of the forecast deficit is as result of increased non-gas resource royalties. These are absolutely critical to our funding model - as we saw quite clearly when activity in the energy sector dried up recently. To this day, the Wildrose Party insists that moving the royalty rates upward was a near cataclysmic mistake by the Stelmach Tories, while opponents on the left say that we never would have RUN a deficit, had Alberta been getting a bigger share of resource revenue from producers.

Clearly, even with hindsight, the politicians can't agree on what to do.

We need to have these discussions, as a people. They're too important to leave to the politicians.

Because while they're going to be doing and saying what they need to in order to keep their own jobs, and support their own families in the short term - it's the only job in the world that you can be terminated, without cause, every 4 years and have your job given to someone else because they've got better hair - we need to think about what life is going to look like 10, 20, and 50 years down the line for us and our families and the next generation of Albertans... no matter WHO is sitting in the Legislature.

That's the greatest responsibility we have as citizens. Not voting. Not shoveling your neighbour's walk. Not picking up after the dog in the park.

We are the stewards of the future of this place. It's time to talk about what we're going to do with it.

Not like politicians.

Like grown-ups.

Fish Creek Thinks Big on Health

(originally posted on JoeyO.ca)

One of the issues that comes up most frequently at the doors and on the phones as we work through this process is the topic of healthcare.

In particular, people in Calgary-Fish Creek want to know how to improve the care they receive, and they want to know when the South Calgary Health Campus will be an option for their emergency care.

One idea that I really like in order to improve care is the notion of a health "SmartCard", with a chip and PIN. In essense, this card would be used every time you accessed a health service, from a doctor's visit to a trip to the pharmacist. Your test results, diagnoses, notes by your other health care providers, etc would be stored in a secure system, and would only be able to be accessed when you presented your card and entered your secure PIN (just like a bank card). Your practitioner would be able to see the notes from the doctor at the walk-in clinic you visited last week, your pharmacist would see what other medication you were recently perscribed to avoid drug interactions... this would result in fewer missed diagnoses, fewer errors all-around, and give your medical professionals a more full picture. These men and women are exceptionally well-trained, and when they have access to all the information, they can make MUCH better judgements. Of course, some people are really uneasy with the thought of their personal medical information on a computer server - so perhaps the cards would be something you can "opt in" to.

There is, understandably, a lot of concern about the South Calgary Health Campus. It seems, at times, as though we've been waiting 20 years for this new hospital and health campus to open. In the meantime, people in Parkland or Canyon Meadows are deciding to drive to health centres in Okotoks or Black Diamond rather than sit in the Rockyview ER. I will work with Alberta Health and Wellness to communicate to the people of Fish Creek exactly when they can expect the various phases of the new Health Campus to open, and make it very clear that the people of Fish Creek expect the centre to be fully staffed when it does open.

Fish Creek Thinks Big on Democratic Reform

(originally posted on JoeyO.ca)

One of the hardest deficits to eliminate is the democratic deficit. People feel disconnected from their representatives - and why shouldn't they? Premier Klein, after his retirement, famously spoke of 'Dome Disease': "You spend enough time under that dome and you start to believe that the most important thing in the world happens under that dome... Eventually you start to believe what the opposition and the media say is true; what the caucus says is true. It's only when you come out from under that dome and speak to ordinary Albertans do you get a different perspective." Our MLA will celebrate her 19th year in office this year. That's a lot of time under the dome.

Calgary-Fish Creek has always been an area full of reformers - people who aren't afraid to challenge convention in order to make things better. Some of the ideas I've heard from the people here to address the democratic deficit include:

• The creation of a permanent voting record for every bill and motion debated in the Legislative Assembly. Hansard, the current record, only records that the bill or motion "passes" or "fails", unless someone specifically requests a Division of the House, when each member must stand and have their vote recorded. ALL votes cast by your representative should be recorded, and should be accessible on-line to the taxpayers - their boss. Will it take longer? Absolutely. But this is 2012, and you should be able to hold your MLA accountable. Part of that is knowing how they voted - and when they were and were not present for votes.
• Mandatory reporting of donations. Political parties currently run like the private clubs that they are. There is, however, one big difference: The gentleman running to be the chair of your local Elks Club is not going to use that position to decide how to spend billions of tax dollars. People running for political office in Alberta, or for nominations or the leadership of political parties, should be held to the highest standards of transparency. I am in favour of requiring all political campaigns to release a full list of donors BEFORE the voting date, so the public and those casting their ballots will know to whom the candidates are beholden.
• Provincial senate. One of my favourite ideas on how to address the democratic deficit involves the establishment of an elected Provincial Senate. While we try to get the rest of Canada to clue in to Federal Senate Reform, we can plow ahead and show them how a Senate can, and should, work. By cutting the number of MLA's to 50 (from 87) and establishing an Alberta Senate of 25 members, elected at the same time as MLA's via proportional representation, we can ensure that Albertans are governed responsibly, that the power of the Legislature to push bills through unilaterally is diminished, and engage more Albertans by making it ever more clear that their vote DOES matter on a provincial scale, even if their voice is a minority one, locally. We're paying fewer politicians, and getting more democratic governance - talk about a win/win situation...

These are just the tip of the iceberg, but it's important that we start to have these conversations now. Rare is the government that will willingly turn over some of its own power - but we have seen, through our new leader, a willingness in Premier Redford to do just that. We need to strike while the iron is hot, and build a governance model for our province that will serve as an example across the country of what accountable, responsible and open government looks like.

If you can get behind these ideas, I ask you to consider getting behind me and casting your vote for me on January 21st. If we want to change "business as usual", we need to make sure there's someone advocating for this kind of change in Edmonton - and nominating me is the first step.

Yours for a better Alberta,

JoeyO

Leadership in Calgary-Fish Creek

On Saturday, January 14th, my team of dedicated volunteers (whom have dubbed themselves the "O-Team") and I spent the daylight hours knocking on every door we could find, blanketing 2 communities in Calgary-Fish Creek.

I heard a lot of good ideas and strong opinions. About health care. Policing. Seniors care. Fiscal responsibility. Education. Child care.

One area that mirrored a discussion I've been having both online and in real life centred around the idea of an MLA as a "leader" versus an MLA as a "servant".

Ralph Klein is often cited as the most effective leader our party has seen since Lougheed. Ralph liked to say that the key to political leadership was to figure out where the parade is going, and then get in front of it. I liked Ralph, as a leader. Policy-wise, I've always been more of a Lougheed Tory, but Ralph's idea of leadership jives very nicely with my own. I'm a populist - power to the people.

The thing is, as I look at the people in Fish Creek, I don't see a lot of people demanding an MLA to "lead" them, in the conventional sense. We don't wake up, roll out of bed, and say "I wish I knew what to do, I hope a politician tells me what needs to be done.". In Fish Creek, we're ALL leaders. Leaders in the community. Leaders in our churches, or our volunteer organizations, or our households. And, yes, we're leaders in the political sphere as well. The ideas I've been hearing at the doors are the sort of ideas that can build the Alberta of the future.

We in Fish Creek don't need to be led. We need to be served, by someone who understands that your ideas, your hopes, and your expertise are what truly matter.

I ask for the honour of serving you. Let's harness all of the leadership in Calgary-Fish Creek to lead our fellow Albertans to a better future for all of us.

Yours,

JoeyO

None For The Road

Nation, it's been awhile. I've been pretty busy - it turns out that running for a nomination is every bit as exhausting as I'd imagined. And then multiplied by 10 times. We've got a lot to talk about - and we will. But not today.

I posted the below message on Facebook. If you're in Calgary, I'd encourage you to take note of it as you plan your evening tonight. This isn't about politics. It's not about judgement. It's certainly not about teetotaling (I'm a scotch enthusiast - no scotch lover will EVER judge you for drinking, unless what you're drinking is bad scotch). It's about not driving after you've been drinking. It's about saving lives. Please plan ahead - we've got a big year coming up. :)

- JoeyO (original message appears below)




It’s New Year’s Eve – a great night to bid adieu to 2011, and welcome 2012!

If your celebration is going to involve alcohol, I implore you to NOT DRIVE tonight. Stay the night where you’re at. Take Calgary Transit (it’s free tonight). Arrange for someone in your group to be the designated driver. Or make arrangements through one of the local businesses below.

2012 is going to be a great year. Wake up on January 1st with a clear conscience, in your own bed rather than a jail cell, with your car and your life in one piece. Make the responsible choice.


Designated Driver services (you and your car get home safely)

• Drivers Choice Designated Drivers 403-216-2630

• Keys Please 403-255-4800




Taxi service (you get home safely, pick up your car tomorrow)

• Advance Cab 403-777-1111

• Alberta South Co-Op Taxi Line Ltd. 403-531-8294

• Associated Cabs Ltd 403-299-1111

• Black Top Taxi Company 403-735-3222

• Canadian Cab Co 403-777-1110

• Delta Cab Ltd 403-278-9999

• Checker-Yellow Cabs Ltd. 403-299-9999

• Mayfair Taxi Ltd. 403-255-6555

• Prestige Limousine Service 403-275-4163

Fixing Elections (at least, the dates thereof)

Hope everyone's had a good week. Mine was pretty uneventful. Except for that whole "announcing my intention to run for office and receiving hundreds of messages of support" thing.

I wanted to touch base on the recently released overview of the legislation to be debated during the fall sitting - in particular, Bill 21 (Election Amendment Act). In this Bill, as I understand it, the Lt. Governor will be asked to issue a writ of election every four years, between the dates of March 1st and May 31st, starting in 2012. The election period itself will be 28 days, as is the norm here.

Okay. Are we all on the same page so far?

Opposition to this news was fierce and as predictable as you might expect. Premier Redford (it IS "Premier Redford", Wildrose media copy writers, not "Ms. Redford") promised fixed election dates during the PC Leadership race. What we have, through this Bill, isn't a fixed date as they have elsewhere in Canada or in the U.S., but it is certainly a sign that the Premier is willing to give up at least some of her power to, in fact if not in law, call elections whenever she darned well pleases. You'll recall that there were many pundits who ruminated about a snap election call immediately following the post-leadership Cabinet shuffle in October.

This Bill would, as described, take the option of the "snap election call" off the table. For that matter, it would force the hand of a Premier who was otherwise disinclined to face the voters, as well. We've seen Premiers wait nearly the full 5 years in the past, and we've seen Premiers go back to the voters barely 3 years into their mandate. This bill would put the peg squarely at April 15th every 4 years, and give the government 6 weeks of "wiggle room" on the leash in either direction, in the event of natural calamity, budget deliberations or important matters of government not yet resolved, etc.

It's an extreme example, but serves the argument well: Can you imagine if, by law, an election had to take place on the third Monday of June each year, starting in 2011? On the third Monday of June this year, there was still smoke rising from the rubble of Slave Lake. How do you have a partisan exchange that anyone can care about when you have hundreds of Albertans watching their homes smoulder?

That writ would have been issued, under law, on May 23rd. One week AFTER the tragedy - so sure, you could "suspend" the law in an emergency, the same way the "no deficits" law was suspended. But if you're going to bring in a law that will be selectively enforced, you shouldn't bring it in at all. Laws aren't supposed to be flexible, or they'd be called "guidelines".

Is this the "fixed election date" that I, and many other political nerds, really wanted? Not really... we wanted a day - etched in stone. We wanted to be able to say "the next provincial election will be May 14th, 2012. The one after that will be May 9th, 2016. The one after that will be May 11th, 2020". The argument is simple: Fixed dates give Elections Alberta the chance to find people to work the polls and enumerate the voters. They give the parties time to find good candidates, and fundraise. They show a commitment to democracy, by taking the power out of the Premier's hands to catch the opposition parties unaware.

And while this Bill isn't the Bill that I wanted, or that I would have written...  it DOES accomplish those 3 things.

Elections Alberta knows it MUST be ready to go by March 1st, 2012. And again on March 1st, 2016. Although, admittedly, the fuzziness of the exact election period will make it harder to hire staff, since most people need to know when they'll be starting, or will find other jobs. The opposition parties know they have to be fully ready to go by those same dates. And, as the Calgary Sun put it in their editorial today, "... it's hard to believe any opposition party worth its salt could be taken by surprise after this 90-day election period is set in stone...".

Do many Albertans care about democratic reform?

I'd like to think so, but I'm a realist. *I* care about it. Deeply. But I'm part of a small minority on this issue.

This Bill isn't going to turn the balance of power on its ear, and it's not the first shot in a "democratic reform revolution".

But it IS the first step in an EVOLUTION of the way in which we elect our governments.

The first legislated, fixed provincial election date in Canada was held in British Columbia in 2005. We're behind, but we're not THAT far behind.

Evolutions are, by their very nature, slow and gradual.

But when the Biggest Dog in the Yard volunteers to be put on a shorter chain - that's progress.

It's not perfect.

But it's a start, that the Premier was under no obligation to make.

She CHOSE to give up this power, in the interests of a more transparent and democratic system.

And that's something I think we can ALL get behind.

Announcement

This was never part of the plan.

When I started blogging – exactly 5 years ago, as of tomorrow – the idea was to help my fellow citizens understand what was going on in the political world. Nothing more.

I didn’t have any extraordinary connections at the time. I knew my MLA. That was it: That was all.

I didn’t have a degree in Political Science. I didn’t grow up in a family of political operatives. To the best of my knowledge, I was the first member of my family to ever belong to a political party of any kind. I didn’t have any exceptional qualifications that elevated me above anyone else.

All I had was a computer, time on my hands, and a desire to help people see through the fog and the baloney.

As time went on, and my readership grew, I realized that there was an appetite for the kind of plain-spoken, common-sense analysis that I was providing. People really liked that I was a Progressive Conservative who was willing to take his own party to task, and to call them out when they deserved it.

What’s more, though: I began to realize that there was an appetite not only for that kind of coverage, but for that kind of MLA as well. The kind that puts good ideas and good governance ahead of partisanship and the “theatre of the absurd” that politics has become.

When you look at the voter participation numbers in all of our elections, you see numbers that are embarrassingly low. And while there are no doubt many different reasons for this lack of participation in the most fundamental of our societal responsibilities, it’s not hard to imagine that one of those reasons is the often ridiculous way that many of our elected officials behave. They name-call. They shout at each other. They don’t tell the whole truth when asked. Ask 3 of them the same question, and you get 3 versions of “the facts”. None of these behaviours would be tolerated from our children, and yet when a politician does it, we not only TOLERATE it, we vote for them – sometimes for decades - and pay their salary.

Don’t we deserve better from our employees? Shouldn’t our leaders lead by example?

I came to realize that in order to force the kind of change I wanted to see, I could do one of two things: I could either write about it for the next several years, and see if anyone took up the challenge; or, I could dare to BE the change I wanted to see.

Better to light a candle than curse the dark.

As a teenager growing up in Bonavista Downs, I often wondered what it would be like to be a politician. I would see shows on television – usually on Access, as this was “back in the day” of 36 channels – of Peter Lougheed and John F. Kennedy, and I would imagine what it might be like to step up and serve your fellow citizens, like they did, and change the world in which you lived. I would wonder what could drive a person to do a job where half the people you were trying to help would hate you, all of the time, no matter what you were doing.

But the desire to serve my neighbours never went away. I started forming opinions. Opinions formed around the dinner table while watching how things were unfolding at the time. Opinions challenged by great teachers at St. Bonaventure Junior High and Bishop Grandin High School. When the facts changed, I changed my opinions. Politicians call this “flip-flopping”, to try to talk you out of voting for someone. The rest of us call it “learning”.

Over the past several years, politics in Alberta has taken a definite turn for the worse, in my opinion. The money that gets thrown around in exchange for influence is ridiculous. The personal attacks are disgusting. The way we are, as citizens, expected to accept this as “the way it has to be” is, quite frankly, insulting.

We deserve better than this.

They say that “politicians are like diapers; they should be changed often, and for the same reason”.

I don’t know if that’s true 100% of the time, but as I look around Calgary-Fish Creek, I see how drastically things have changed over the past 18 years.  Our communities are different. Our needs and values have changed. The people of this area – my home – have aspirations and visions for an Alberta 20 years from now that, in 1993, would have seemed unimaginable. And yet, that future is within our grasp. All we have to do is dare to talk about it. To talk, as equal partners in that future, about ideas freely and openly, without fear of being labelled by voices on the left as “rednecks”, or by voices on the right as “socialists”.

We’re better than that. And we deserve better than the divisive politics of yesterday.

Politicians always tell you they want to “represent your interests to the party”. They say they want to be “your voice in Edmonton”. But what do they do once they’re elected? They tow the party line. They echo whatever their party leader says. The people of Calgary-Fish Creek, if you believe the voting record, agreed with absolutely everything Ralph Klein ever did. And then they agreed with everything Ed Stelmach ever did. Until 2010, when they started agreeing with everything Danielle Smith said.

Where is your chance to have your voice heard in between elections? Politicians make big decisions in the 4 years between elections – sometimes, they even change their mind about which party they belong to. But do they ever ask you? Do they vote against their own party, when it’s what the people who elected them – their BOSSES – want them to do?

The TRUTH is, our elected officials don’t work for their party, or their party’s leader: They work for you. And if they forget that, even for a minute, you should fire them.

I don’t want to spend the rest of my days arguing about which ideas are “left wing” and which ones are “right wing”. I don’t believe in convenient labels that hide the truth. The truth is complicated, and something that the politicians of yesterday have trouble understanding is that voters aren’t dumb: We can have mature, adult discussions without a politician in the room. We can even make decisions without a politician in the room. We can handle “complicated” ideas.

I want to work with people from all parties, and from no party. I want to work with people whose backgrounds are as varied as the languages that you can hear while you walk through Sikome Lake on a July weekend. I’m not going to pretend I know more than you do about healthcare – I probably don’t. If you’re a nurse, or a doctor, or a patient, I need to hear what YOU think. I’m not going to pretend I know more than you about energy policy – again, I probably don’t. But whether you work on the rigs, or you own a mid-sized producer, I need to hear what YOU think. We can only face these challenges of vision and ideas when we hear ALL the ideas, and not just the ones the person at the front of the room already agrees with (or, that their party leader agrees with).

It’s time to move past the politics of immaturity and divisiveness. It’s time to stop pretending the voters whose candidate didn’t win don’t matter in between elections. It’s time to demand better of our elected officials. It’s time to take back our voice from the special interests and big donors who drown the rest of us out with their big donation cheques and special access.

The people in Calgary-Fish Creek have always stood up for what is right, and for what makes sense.

We need change, as a province, as a government, and as the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta.

Yesterday is done. Some of it was great. Some of it, not so much. But it’s in the past. We can respect it, and learn lessons from it, without repeating it.

The future is today. It’s now. It can’t wait, and it won’t be held back. If we don’t embrace change as a party, Albertans will force change at the ballot box. And they’ll be right to do so.

I believe in our party, and the people within it. I believe they see the need to change. And I believe that we, in Calgary-Fish Creek, can lead the charge by sending an Agent of Change to Edmonton, to let them see that “politics as usual” isn’t good enough any more.

And so, it is with humility and a great sense of purpose that I announce my intention to seek the nomination for the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta in the constituency of Calgary-Fish Creek – to serve my neighbours in the way they deserve to be served.

There goes the neighbourhood.

Campaign Website: http://www.joeyo.ca

“Like” us on Facebook: http://o4u.ca/facebook
“Follow” JoeyO on Twitter: @oberhoffner
Email your questions and comments to JoeyO at: joey@o-mail.ca

Be Yours To Hold It High

Remembrance.

Simple - yet, for some, oh so hard.

It's more than a poppy. It's more than a day off of work, or school.

Everything that we have - EVERYTHING - we owe to those brave enough to put on a uniform, to stand in front of the enemy, and to die so that we might live.

Every political quabble we have. Every election - whether we choose to vote, or not. Every difference of opinion across partisan lines. None of these things happens without the bravery and sacrifice - past, present, and future - of our men and women in uniform.

Those whose lives are marked by a simple white gravestone or cross are forever to be remembered as heroes. Those who came home, whether from Germany in 1945 or from Afghanistan in 2010, have sacrificed for us again and again every night, when they close their eyes and relive the horrors they saw while defending the defenceless.

Remember them. All of them.

The video is of a Vancouver men's chorus performing a Stephen Chatman arrangement of the seminal poem "In Flanders' Fields". I have performed this work in the past, and it absolutely rips your guts out to sing it in a room full of Veterans. Powerful.

We Get It

Sorry for the relative silence of late, Nation - those of you following me on Twitter will have seen a lot of activity, but I haven't made it back to the Mothership at ES.com for a couple of weeks.

I am happy to announce, though, that I've taken on a couple of exciting new projects. One with the Calgary Herald - you'll get more information about that in the coming weeks. The other, though, is with OpenFile, a community-powered online news organization. In effect, they assign writers to cover stories suggested by you. I've already written 3 articles for them, and I'd encourage you to go check out the site!

What I wanted to write about today, however, was the "Occupy Calgary" movement - or, more specifically, about their "occupation" of Olympic Plaza.

I don't really have a lot to say about Occupy Calgary. There are people involved with the movement who I know and respect. Those people, I can say with absolute certainty, are involved for all the right reasons. They see injustice, and they want to do something about it. I applaud their devotion to their fellow human beings, and even if I don't necessarily agree with their proposed solutions, at least they're proposing SOMETHING. There are a lot of people involved with the movement who are, by contrast, just hangers-on. And you see that in every group, including political parties. So the fact that the Occupy folks have some "whack-jobs" (according to the local press) with them doesn't negate what they're trying to do. We've all got "whack-jobs" around us. Sometimes they even make it onto the ballot.

For the past 2 weeks, the Occupy Calgary folks have camped out in Olympic Plaza. And by most accounts, they've been exceedingly well-behaved for the most part. We, the people of Calgary and our elected leaders, have shown the protesters that they do, in fact, have the freedom to assemble. Those who showed up expecting to be martyrs to "The Man"'s oppressive black-clad shock troops, pepper sprayed and hauled off in chains on television went home sorely disappointed.

Those who remain are protesting inequality. They're protesting inequity. They're protesting concentration of power in the hands of a few. They're protesting the injustice that they see when they look at our system - and though I don't agree that things are as bleak as they see them, I've been perfectly content in knowing that the same system that allows me to live my life free of fear from intimidation by the state also allows them the right to protest the condition of the system as they see it. That's what great grandpa came here for. That's what grandpa went back to Germany and shot at his cousins for.

Your right to swing your fist, however, ends at the point of my nose. Exercising your rights at the expense of the rights of others is one of the things that the well-intentioned Occupy Calgary protesters are trying to fight against. And now, in terms of the Olympic Plaza occupation, they're becoming part of the problem.

It's been 2 weeks. We've noticed them. We get it: They're unhappy, and they want the system to be better. But by remaining in this public park as long as they have, they're now infringing on the rights of others to enjoy this public space.

If they're committed to staying out there as long as it takes - winter-be-darned - then I'd suggest they move to another downtown park for a week. And then another. And then another. Make one of your "moving days" on November 11th, and plan your route to go past the cenotaph, so everyone can see you walking past, paying your respects to the men and women who died to protect the rights you're exercising. Or head over to the "main camp" at St. Patrick's Island. If that's how they want to try to work for change, then power to 'em. I have my doubts as to the effectiveness, but they're not asking me for strategic advice.

What they ARE asking me to do is to give up my right to make use of Olympic Plaza indefinitely. And, with respect, that's not something I'm willing to do any longer. It's not a huge park, but it's ours: ALL of ours. They've had their 2 weeks. They've been exercising their rights. It's not an issue of being "allowed" to do it - it's their right. But it's my right to access the park as well. And yours. And your neighbours. And if the past 2 weeks have been about Occupation, then we should - ALL of us - act to Liberate our park. Call your Alderman. Call 311. Tell them we'd like our park back. Take no aggressive action whatsoever against our fellow citizens in that park, exercising their rights - we're all in this together. But if 80,000 of us show up next Tuesday, and fill every square inch of that plaza with laughing Calgarians, enjoying their public space... well, we'll be exercising our rights too. And if there's no room for the occupiers at that point, that's unfortunate for them. But that's democracy.

We're the 99%.

We'd like our park back, please.

Cabinet Calls

Nation, Premier Alison Redford told her caucus late last week that the new cabinet would be notified on Tuesday of this week, the day before being sworn in. Her instruction to all was to "Not worry about it, and enjoy your weekend with family".

Well, I hope everyone had a good time, because it's about to get all political up in this piece. As we say in the 'hood, yo.

I've spoken now with several very reliable sources, as well as making my own judgement calls based on geography, history, performance, gender balance, etc.  MLA's whose names have come up will be divided into one of three categories: NOT IN CABINET (no chance), ALMOST CERTAINLY IN CABINET (80% or higher), and LIKELY IN CABINET (50 to 80%).

Here we go...

NOT IN CABINET
6 members of the current cabinet are heavily rumoured to be in for a bad week:

• Cindy Ady - Backed Mar, but served ably as Minister of Tourism, Parks & Recreation. A surprising omission, if true.
• Lindsay Blackett - One of Doug Horner's big supporters, Blackett was the point man for the disastrous Bill 44. If Redford is going to revisit this bill as is rumoured, she can't have its principal sponsor on the front bench.
• Iris Evans - Iris was so integral to the Mar campaign she actually served as his proxy in a Calgary forum. Not expected to run again, she was rumoured to be strongly considered as Mar's replacement in Washington D.C. had he been successful.
• Yvonne Fritz - Surprising to see a third woman from the current cabinet being shown the door, if accurate.
• Ron Liepert - Gary Mar's right-hand man during the leadership, Ron's remarks since the conclusion of the race have shown he's unwilling to accept Redford as his leader. There's a line between disagreement and insurrection.
• Lloyd Snelgrove - "If she offered me a job, I would say no". 'Nuff said.

Also on the bubble (might be in, but odds are less than 50%) from the current cabinet:

• Hec Goudreau
• Mary Anne Jablonski
• Heather Klimchuk
• Mel Knight
• Luke Ouellette
• Rob Renner
• Len Webber
• Gene Zwozdesky

For those of you keeping score at home, that's as many as FOURTEEN current cabinet ministers who would not be sitting around the table on Wednesday afternoon. That's some serious, whole-scale change.

LIKELY IN CABINET

• Manmeet Bhullar - the current Parliamentary Assistant for Municipal Affairs, Bhullar is a good MLA who might be making the jump to the Big Leagues. His campaign volunteers are among the most visible in the city of Calgary, and as one of the Legislature's youngest MLA's, Manmeet certainly helps make the case that "this isn't your grand-daddy's PC Party".
• Jonathan Denis - one of the unlucky ministers whose ministry will almost certainly be folded into a new Ministry of Human Services, Denis nonetheless proved his mettle as Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs, achieving tremendous results while simultaneously cutting spending in his own ministry, seemingly with a chainsaw. It'd be a terrible oversight to not include him.
• Doug Griffiths - the former Leadership Candidate won a lot of respect with his campaign for the party's top job. His willingness to talk about the tough issues would make him an asset to Redford in a position where he could implement some of the changes he was talking about on the hustings. His support of Mar (instead of Redford, as expected) on the 2nd ballot might keep him out of a "top 5" spot on the depth chart, but his work ethic, enthusiasm and image as an agent of change should get him a fairly visible portfolio.
• Thomas Lukaszuk - The current Minister of Employment and Immigration, Lukaszuk has managed to stay out of the limelight while still delivering on the priorities of his boss. Which is exactly what you look for in a safe cabinet pick. He's said to be under consideration for the new Human Services ministry.
• Greg Weadick - the Minister of Advanced Education & Technology, Weadick is a parent of 2 post-secondary students and a very popular political institution in his hometown of Lethbridge. Weadick supported Horner in the leadership, but did so respectfully. If he moves ministries, he's considered a good fit for Infrastructure as well.

ALMOST CERTAINLY IN CABINET

• Ray Danyluk - Current Minister of Infrastructure backed Horner, but has a good relationship with Redford and has a tremendously active membership base in his home riding.
• Dave Hancock - The dean of Red Torydom, Hancock is one of only 4 PC MLA's with a Law degree who isn't busy being the Premier right now. He's rumoured to be moving to Justice.
• Fred Horne - The current Parliamentary Assistant for Health and Wellness will be moving down the hall, to assume the full Minister's job for Health. Hope he's developed some thick skin - his friend Raj is going to be calling on him quite a bit in Question Period.
• Doug Horner - Will likely be in charge of the Treasury Board, in addition to his job as Deputy Premier.
• Jeff Johnson - The MLA for Athabasca-Redwater is rumoured to be getting the call as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development.
• Art Johnston - Defeated for the PC nomination in Calgary-South East, Johnston may try again for the nomination in Hays. Redford's only first-ballot MLA endorsement came from Johnston, who as a former cop would be ideal as a Solicitor General.
• Diana McQueen - One of the rising stars in the PC Caucus, McQueen has been talked about as a potential Minister of the Environment or Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Even if she doesn't end up with either of those posts, she's almost universally expected to end up SOMEWHERE in cabinet.
• Ted Morton - The 4th-place finisher in the Leadership contest will need a pretty plum job to come back to the party that has twice rejected him and agree to play nice and run again for the good of party unity. He's expected to be named Minister of Energy.
• Frank Oberle - Oberle is a natural fit for Sustainable Resource Development, however the scuttlebutt is that the current Solicitor General is in line for a big promotion - perhaps Finance?
• Verlyn Olson - Currently the Minister of Justice, Olson is expected to stay in cabinet - if Hancock doesn't take the justice portfolio, Olson will stay where he is.

There are some names notable by their absence in any of the above categories... Evan Berger is the current Parliamentary Assistant for SRD, and may or may not get a phone call tomorrow. Robin Campbell will, in all likelihood, remain the Government Whip. Likewise, expect Ken Kowalski to stay on as Speaker. Cal Dallas from Red Deer is another Parliamentary Assistant whose name has come up a few times. Doug Elniski from Edmonton-Calder and Dave Rodney from Calgary-Lougheed both supported Redford on the second ballot, and sources are split on whether or not they get in. One specific rumour had Rodney taking over at Tourism, Parks and Recreation. He's an avid outdoorsman, and (if you haven't heard) climbed Mt. Everest. Two times. You could do a lot worse than a Parks Minister who poses for photo ops on top of mountains that he just climbed up, while the camera crew took a helicopter. Former Solicitor General Fred Lindsay is said to be on the bubble, and likewise with former school board trustee and Danielle Smith nemesis Teresa Woo-Paw. It could go either way for them.

CABINET SNAPSHOT
If you take a look at the cabinet that would be constructed using just those people listed as "Likely in Cabinet" and "Almost Certainly in Cabinet", here's what you get as a demographic break-down:

• 16 members, of which only 2 are women (Redford & McQueen). This will obviously not be the case, for political reasons. Expect cabinet to be 20 or 21 members - it will absolutely have more than 2 women.
• 4 from Calgary (5 counting Morton), 3 from Edmonton, 8 from the Rest of Alberta. Again, obviously, this can't be the final break-down for reasons of political survival.
• 6 would be first-time cabinet ministers. 10 would have prior experience.
• 7 would be under 45 years old.
• 8 - fully half of them - would be first-term MLA's, elected for the first time in March of 2008.

Is this the final, be-all-and-end-all listing of exactly who is going to be in, who is going to be out, and where they'll end up?

Of course not.

Some of these predictions are going to be flat-out wrong. That's the beauty of prognostication. That's what makes it fun - if Daveberta and I both had the exact same lists, one of us could just take the week off (it'd be me, just for the record).

Let's not overlook the possibility that some of the ministries named above might not even EXIST after Wednesday. Departments get moved from ministry to ministry, new ministries are formed while old ones get swept aside... I've done the same job for 6 years, in the same office, and I've worked for 3 different ministries. So I know full well how it works.

But, as a fun exercise in politics - this has definitely been worth staying up until 3 am.

And if you think *I'VE* had a late night...  ask one of the MLA's on the bubble how well they're going to sleep tonight.

Reminder, MLA's - set that cell phone to ring at highest volume. "Silent Mode" is not your friend this Tuesday.

Meet the New Boss

... most emphatically NOT the same as the Old Boss.

Alison Redford is the newly-elected Leader of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta. As a sitting MLA, when Redford takes the reigns of the Party upon Ed Stelmach's formal resignation in the next few days, she will become the 14th Premier of the Province of Alberta. The first of those 14 to be female, red-headed, or a meat-itarian. Guess which of those 3 "firsts" is receiving the most attention today?

Alison has a lot of work ahead of her as the transition period begins. And, let's not forget, she's still got some mourning and healing to do over her recent very personal loss. So we may have from a few days to a couple of weeks to wait before we start to see whole-scale change on a level that would satisfy the poor, (metaphorically)ink-stained wretches of the 5th Estate (and their silly blogger cousins, who do this all for free).

I wanted to talk a bit about the process used to select the new leader last night, look at what happens now going forward, and then run over some numbers with you today. Tomorrow I'm taking a "personal day", and I'd suggest you do the same (just not for the same reasons I am).

The Process:

The PC Leadership selection process is how it is so that no one can ever be elected Leader of the Party without the support of at least half of the voting membership. I've heard it suggested numerous times this week that a better idea would be to hold a third vote, rather than allowing anyone to get stuck with the "second choice" stigma - and I certainly appreciate the logic. However, the problem with having just 2 people square off for a week or 2 in the campaign to win a Third Ballot is that you end up with an EXTREMELY divided party membership afterwards. Even moreso than 2006. Remember the last time this "head-to-head" scenario happened was 1992 - and the 2 final candidates (and their respective supporters) hated each other so much by the end that the loser left the party and became Leader of the Opposition.

Why the HELL did it take so long to get the results?!?

There are a lot of places in which the system can log-jam. Anyone who's been on Glenmore Trail during rush-hour knows, it just takes one collision to plug up the entire roadway for everyone, no matter how well the rest of them drive.

At the Local Constituency Poll, the ballots are counted by hand. A volunteer must, in the presence of witnesses and scrutineers from the campaigns, pull out each ballot one at a time, read the vote aloud, and present it so that all can see the vote is marked appropriately for the candidate they indicated. At any point, a scrutineer can challenge the validity of a ballot. The judgement rests with the Deputy Returning Officer, a local volunteer who has the final say. After every vote is counted and the totals announced, scrutineers can ask for a recount. If the total number of votes counted doesn't equal the number of ballots given out at that polling station, a recount can take place. If the total number of votes cast doesn't match the number of voting cards presented, a recount can take place. And even if everything goes off without a hitch, you're still counting hundreds of ballots, one at a time. Having many volunteers does NOT make it any faster - it's one ballot at a time, in front of everyone, until you run out, and then hopefully your numbers add up. The polling station I was working at rejected a very small number of ballots, there was no recount required, the turn-out was less than 1,000 voters, and it STILL took almost an hour and 45 minutes to get to the point where we could call in our results to the party office. And that was with an experienced DRO, an experienced Assistant DRO, and an Accountant in the room.

AFTER the vote totals get called into Party HQ, they need to be confirmed. The Party goes over the numbers of ballots handed out, cast, spoiled, recorded...  they want to make sure that no constituency has made a simple math error that results in the nightmare scenario of a candidate giving a concession speech only to find out 4 days later that the DRO in Leduc forgot to carry the "4", and the candidate who conceded actually won.  If they can't make the numbers work - or if the DRO needs help - the Party needs to get ahold of someone in the field and have them physically go to the polling station to assist. Not a big deal in the city, but in some of the larger, rural ridings you're talking about a 45-minute drive just to GET there. At which point, you might need to do a re-count to figure out the discrepancy.

Is it time-consuming? OH, yes.

But it's democracy, on the "pay to get into our private club and you can vote for stuff" level. The party knows what's at stake. Every one of those ballots is treated like a sacred object, just as they would be in a general election. It's worth taking the time to make sure you got it RIGHT.

The Party did that last night, and as a result, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the party membership did, indeed, choose Alison Redford to lead them.

The Future:

Alison needs to put together a cabinet as quickly as is feasible. She committed to shrinking the size of cabinet, so the GOA public service will be restructured as a result (don't worry, we're used to it). The REASON she needs to put together a cabinet is partly political, and partly practical: Firstly, she ran as an agent of change. Running the machinery of government using Ed's model isn't really going to fly for very long if she wants to maintain her "change cred". So if she wants to do anything, she'll need her own cabinet in place. And she NEEDS to get some stuff done, pronto. She committed to restoring the education cuts within 10 days. The clock is ticking. She also set timeframes for reviews of government operations and spending, which is going to require political direction within the departments, from people whom Alison trusts. The most experienced MLA to support Alison (on the second ballot) was Dave Rodney of Calgary-Lougheed. I expect he'll end up with a cabinet job, along with Doug Horner and perhaps Ted Morton and Doug Griffiths. Gene Zwozdesky might be safe, as he stayed neutral in the leadership and hasn't done a bad job. As for the rest of cabinet: Alison's been sitting around that table for 3 years. She knows how they operate. The ones she has respect for - regardless of who they backed in the leadership - will be on the short-list. The ones who don't make the cut will be on the outside. What she WON'T do, though, is blindly reward her own supporters and backers. Even if you backed Redford, if you're not qualified to serve in cabinet, she won't be putting you in a position to make her look foolish. She has committed to constructing a cabinet based on merit rather than favouritism, although factors like regional, age and gender balance always creep into cabinet-building, at any level of government. Voters want a front bench that they can relate to. If all your best MLA's are 60 year-old men from Edmonton and you put them all in cabinet, they - and you - won't be there for long. All bets are off for Deputy Premier. It can't be Horner, for political reasons - he's too closely tied to the old regime. But it will probably be someone from north of Red Deer.

The Numbers:

First and foremost, the total numbers of votes cast should be VERY worrying for the Tories. 78,176 dues-paid members voted yesterday. Which is THREE TIMES the membership of the Wildrose Party. So no worries, right? Wrong. Here's the catch: On January 1st, 2012, the odometer re-sets at "zero". A lot of those 78,176 people will not be renewing their memberships. Their guy (whoever that was) lost. And while the PCs can brag that they've got a huge lead over their closest rival in terms of members, they historically have a membership of at least TEN TIMES the size of their closest rival. So, three-fold is nothing by comparison. They need to ask themselves "why?". Gary Mar was going to put Doug Griffiths on the case. It remains to be seen what Alison is going to do about it, but she certainly recognizes it as a problem that needs addressing - if possible, BEFORE the next election.

SPEAKING of voter turn-out, the turn-out for the second ballot was down 46% versus 2006. In '06, the gap between the first and second ballots was 1 week, and the total number of voters increased by over 46,000. In 2011, the gap between the first and second ballots was 2 weeks, and the total number of voters increased by just over 18,000.


35% of Doug Horner's voters didn't indicate a "second choice" on their ballot. Almost 51% of Horner's voters, though, chose Redford as their #2. And that was the ballgame. Those votes pushed her past Mar and into the Premier's Office.

In the first round of voting, Gary Mar had 40.76% of the popular vote. He gained endorsements from Ted Morton (11.73%), Rick Orman (10.12%) and Doug Griffiths (4.10%), yet on the second ballot his share of the popular vote (as a first-choice candidate) increased by only 1.75%. By comparison, Horner's share increased by almost 6%, and Redford's by 18.35%. In real numbers of votes cast, Mar gained 9,038 votes in the 2 weeks between the first and second ballot. Horner gained 7,315. Redford gained 17,866 votes - more than the other 2 finalists, combined.

And remember Ed Stelmach, "the man who nobody REALLY wanted"? The "Accidental Premier" the media keeps telling us about?

In 2006, his second-ballot "first preference" vote total was 51,764. After adding in the "second preference" votes from Morton's supporters, Ed had 77,577 votes.

That's almost as many as Gary, Doug, and Alison combined last night.

Time to find a new narrative.



Radio Silence

As I mentioned earlier, I will not be around on Monday - not on the blog, not on Twitter, nowhere. I suggest you take some time to recharge your batteries, as well. When Alison starts making changes, it's going to be fast, and thorough. The spin will be intense from all parties. The implications will be far-reaching. You're going to want to be well-rested.

See you on Tuesday, Nation.

On MLA's "Greeting" At The Polls

Nation, much has been made about the fact that incumbent MLA's, many of whom have very publicly endorsed and campaigned for one of the 3 remaining PC Leadership contenders, are "greeting" party members at the local constituency polling stations.

What do you mean, "greeting"?

Well, if you believe the MLA's in question, they're just saying hello, and thanking people for being involved with the party. After all, these party members are that MLA's built-in volunteer and donor network leading into the next provincial election. It would be sheer insanity to expect those MLA's not to come out and try to shake the hands of these people.

If you believe the reports leaking out of the various campaigns, however, the MLA's are there to advocate for the candidate they've endorsed. A handshake, a wink, a button hidden under the jacket lapel, flashed for a quick reminder. "Hi, how ya doing, thanks for coming, remember who 'our guy' is..."

I don't know who's telling the truth. So let's go to the guy who enforces the rules.

Says Chris Warren, Chief Returning Officer for the PC Leadership Election:

MLAs should not be “greeting” people within 50 m of the entrance to a polling station... We have told this to the Caucus liaison and he has sent emails to his colleagues. MLAs may volunteer at a polling station, but they need to be actually working (not campaigning) at the polling stations.


DROs have been told they may bar an MLA from the polling station where they are directly, or indirectly, campaigning.

Frankly, MLAs need to understand that when they are “greeting” people, they are not doing either themselves, nor the candidate they support, any favors. We have had members phone us to tell us they were upset to see their MLAs engaging in this type of behavior and were planning to vote on the second ballot for another candidate, not endorsed by their MLA, solely because of how the MLA conducted themselves at a polling station.

The above was the statement on September 24th.

The problem, it seems, is a communications issue.

Caucus liaison Cal Dallas sent a memo to all of his caucus colleagues a few days before the first ballot, informing them that greeting of members and volunteering at the polling place was perfectly acceptable for MLAs (who are also dues-paid members of the party, and have as much a right as anyone else to volunteer, with the local DRO's approval). The caveat was that there should be no campaigning, no wearing campaign clothing, nothing meant to affect the result. This was the practice in 2006 as well, and also in 1993 for that matter. Many MLAs offered to volunteer at their local poll as back-up Commissioners of Oaths (for statutory declarations), at the discretion of their local Deputy Returning Officer.

The problem is, Deputy Returning Officers never saw this memo from Cal Dallas. He's not supposed to talk to them, he's supposed to talk to Chris Warren. Local DRO's didn't know what Cal said to the MLAs.

Or, at least, that's ONE of the problems.

The other one being...  Cal was wrong.

Cal is the Caucus liaison to the party. But he doesn't make, or interpret, the rules surrounding MLA involvement in the leadership vote. Chris Warren does. And Chris Warren said: "MLAs should not be 'greeting' people within 50 m of the entrance to a polling station." But he didn't send that info to MLAs - he sent it (as he should have) to the Caucus liaison. Cal Dallas.

So the Caucus liaison says it's okay. The Chief Returning Officer says it's not.

It's a party election, not a caucus election. CRO wins. It's not okay.

So IF the local Deputy Returning Officer - who in my experience is sitting at the polling place from open to close, making sure everything runs smoothly - feels the MLA is overstepping or otherwise breaking the rules, s/he can kick him out.

Odds of this actually happening?

Buy a lottery ticket.

DRO's take their jobs seriously, and that's to their credit, but at the end of the day it would take GROSS misconduct for a local DRO - who is also a loyal local party member and likely a member of the constituency association board, along with the MLA - to bar the party's local MLA from the poll. Tomorrow, all of these people have to work together under the new leader and try to win their local riding.
Are there shenanigans going on?

Ultimately, it comes down to trust. Do you trust your local MLA to do the right thing today?

And, if you don't... why have you been voting for them in the first place?

The 13th Premier of Alberta

Nation, in the middle of all the hubbub and fanfare and spin that is going on as PC Party members head to their local polling stations to elect a new leader of their private club and, by extension and parliamentary precedent, a new Premier of Alberta, I want to take a moment to thank Premier Edward Michael Stelmach for his years of service to his community, his province and its people.

I'm not going to write a biography of the man. I'm not going to eulogize him - he's beginning a well-earned retirement, not dying.

But I *am* going to extend my sincere thanks.

Since 1986, Ed Stelmach has woken up every morning to serve others. To reprise a phrase that will force a smile onto the face of anyone who was at the PC AGM in Calgary last year, "it's what gets him up in the morning". For 25 years - a quarter of a century - Ed has committed his time and energy to making things better for other people.

He wasn't volunteering all those hours. He was being paid to do a job - first as a member and later reeve of the County of Lamont's council, and then as an MLA, cabinet member and later Premier. I'm not nominating him for sainthood. The job of a politician, though, is demanding no matter WHAT the pay scale. I've heard it suggested, by sitting officials, that the rate of divorce among elected politicians is near 75%. The job that Ed was doing is hard on ANY family - and he would be the first to tell you that. This is why, more than any other politician in recent Alberta memory, when the PC's celebrate an accomplishment or milestone in Ed Stelmach's career, they always - at Ed's insistence - put Marie on that same pedestal. Ed and Marie are a package deal. His wins are THEIR wins. His losses are shared as well. That's what love is. And his devotion to his wife, his children, and to his grandchildren, are the stuff of legend.

Ed is one of the nicest people I've ever met. Not just in politics - anywhere. He's just a decent and down-to-earth guy. Funny, in a self-deprecating way. Quick with a joke or a witty retort. This is the man Ed Stelmach is, behind closed doors where he's out of the spotlight. They say that "character is the person you are when nobody is looking". If that's the case, then Ed Stelmach has a stellar character. It was long a source of frustration for the party hacks who get paid to worry about such things that Ed, despite his personal charm, came across on television or in the glare of the media spotlight as awkward. "If only THEY could see the man WE see..." went the refrain. But even when the editorial press decided that Ed wasn't "their guy", even when the poll results showed that Albertans were thinking the same thing, even when those within his own party were working to show Ed the door, he remained the same: A good, decent, down-to-earth man. A man with the kind of character we all wish more politicians had.

When he was first elected as an MLA at age 42, Stelmach was an unrepentant fiscal hawk. He even refused a government vehicle, as he didn't feel the expense would be justifiable. A member of the so-called "Deep Six", Ed advocated for deep cuts of wasteful spending under Premier Ralph Klein. Ed held a special place in his heart for fiscally conservative rookies for the rest of his career, as evidenced by the special attention given to MLA's like Jonathan Denis and Rob Anderson (before he crossed the floor after not being advanced into cabinet) during their first term.

Ed Stelmach was an able cabinet minister, in 3 portfolios. He wasn't flashy, but (hard as it may be to believe) "flashy" was never really Ed's style. "Flashy" doesn't get the cows into the barn. He got legislation passed. While he was Minister of Infrastructure, he made sure things were getting built, on-time and under budget. But "flashy" never came into the picture. When he decided to step up and run for the PC Leadership after Ralph announced he was stepping aside, being the first Klein cabinet minister to do so, a lot of people in Alberta responded "Ed who?".

The PC Leadership Election system works in 3 stages. It is designed in a way that the eventual winner will absolutely, positively HAVE to have over 50% of voting party members mark their ballot in favour of that eventual winner. On the first ballot, voters simply choose their preferred candidate. The ballots are then counted. If any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, they are the leader. If not, then the top 3 finishers have some more time to keep campaigning, and another vote is held with only those 3 on the ballot. This time, members can indicate their first and second choices from among the 3-person field. If any candidate received more than 50% of the first-choice votes, they are the leader. If NOT, then the 3rd-place finisher from the 2nd ballot is dropped, and their ballots are redistributed among the remaining 2 candidates according to the stated 2nd choice of the voters (if a second choice is indicated).

In the race to replace Ralph Klein, Ed Stelmach finished 3rd on the first ballot, with just under 15,000 votes. 5 other candidates were dropped off the ballot. One week later, the second ballot was held, and Stelmach increased his vote total to 51,764. He WON the second ballot (are you paying attention, lazy media-types? He WON the second ballot - FIRST PLACE), with Dinning finishing second and Morton third. None of the candidates had the required 50%, however, so Morton's voters were redistributed among Dinning and Stelmach, with Ed picking up 25,000 Morton voters to Dinning's 4,000.  Stelmach, already ahead of Dinning before the Morton votes were even redistributed, was the new Premier of Alberta.

During the leadership, one of Ed's big promises was that he would take a look at the Royalty Rates that energy companies paid to the Government for the resources they took, developed, and sold - resources that belong to the people of Alberta. Despite the expectation by many Albertans that he was, like many politicians, especially full of hot air when running for office, Stelmach actually struck a Royalty Review Panel to take a look at whether or not Albertans were getting their fair share. The panel came back with a report recommending significant increases in the royalty rates. Ed DID raise some of the rates, but nowhere near the levels or to the degree recommended by the report. One of the report's authors is now involved, ironically, with the Wildrose Party - much to their energy company donors' delights, I'm sure.

Nation, you know the rest of this story. The global economic slowdown hits. The oilsands grind to a relative halt. Stelmach's "draconian royalty rates" - lower, mind you, than those suggested by the panel - are blamed for the slowdown of energy production. Corrections and tweaks are made to the formula in an effort to strike the right balance, but they only frustrate the energy companies, who are desperate for cost-certainty. Many companies go elsewhere, like Saskatchewan, where labour is cheaper than the super-heated northern Alberta labour market. The Wildrose Alliance surges in popularity, as they trumpet slogans like "Bring Back the Alberta Advantage!" and "Send Ed a Message!". Stelmach's Deputy Premier steps aside to take an appointment as a judge, and his PC-safe Calgary riding elects Paul Hinman of the Wildrose. Alberta dips into its savings to cover program costs. The knives start to come out inside of the PC Party.

On January 25th of 2011, Ed Stelmach shocked the Alberta political world by announcing that he was going to step aside at the end of the Legislature's business that year. Many of his commitments hadn't been fully realized. Many things he would have liked to have done, remained undone. But the grind, the battle, the never-ending struggle against forces outside of his control, against political opponents both outside of his party and inside of it, had taken their toll. He was going home to Marie.

When the history books eulogize Ed Stelmach, I don't know what they're going to say. I don't know whether they'll say he was a careful planner, or a ditherer. I don't know whether they'll say he was a steady hand in rough seas, or whether he was the reason the seas were rough in the first place. History is written by the victors.

What I *do* know, is Ed Stelmach is a good man, and has been a dedicated public servant for a quarter of a century.

When his time comes - as it comes for all of us - and Ed is called to his Final Home, politicians and Albertans will line up to talk about what a great guy he was. About how dedicated he was to his province and to his family. About how his work ethic inspired them to public service. There will be compliments paid, grudging statements made by politicians who wouldn't have crossed the street if Ed was on fire and they had a bucket of water. The sort of people who don't even show up on Ed's last day in the Legislature to grit their teeth and thank him for his service.

I don't want to wait. I don't want my thanks to go to Marie and his children and grandchildren.

I want to say it now, to the man himself.

Thank-you, Ed. For everything. Even the stuff we disagreed on.

Enjoy your retirement. God knows you've earned it.

Convince Me: Alison Redford (part 2)

Nation, I committed to posting your messages as you try to convince me - and the millions of members of the E.S. Nation - to vote for your candidate of choice on October 1st.

The second message I got today was, like the first, from a backer of Alison Redford. That's the way it's worked out. If the next one is ALSO from a Redford backer, I'll post it just like I would a message from a Horner or Mar backer.

This is your chance to make your case. Step up on the soap-box that is The Enlightened Savage's blog.

Submitted text begins... now.

*****

As I thought about what to write you, I remembered something that Alison said months ago at a Calgary event "the PC Party today will never elect me as their leader, but the PC Party that we need to be - will".


I think that this speaks a lot to where Alison has been trying to move the conversation. The focus has been less on existing Party members and more on engaging new Albertans to join the Party. This entire leadership race should have been about nothing but party renewal and proving that the new Leader of the PC Party can listen, respond and speak on behalf of all Albertans - not just the traditional base of PC Party members. After 40 years in power, we need to prove that we are still relevant.

Working in government for the past three years I have had the privilege of being part of Safe Communities and seeing real change being made not only with respect to gangs and crime but on the root causes of addiction, mental health and work with at-risk youth. I also though saw just how much things needed to change. There is a mentality that “well, we’ve always done it this way” stifling new, creative and bold ideas that could actually mean better government and services for Albertans. And not just with respect to the nine departments connected to SafeCom, but across all areas in government.

The only reason that we made progress was because of who was leading Safe Communities – Alison Redford.

The exhaustive list of policies that Alison has released rely heavily on employing the Safe Com model. Forcing departments to work together, engaging in actual consultation to develop public policy and looking at the outcomes we want to achieve will be core principles in Alison's govenment. I know that this works. Alberta is leading the agenda of cross-ministry work across North America. We even had people from Obama's team come up to ask us how we were able to do something of this scale as there is such a gap in cross-department work in all governments.

Until the last three years, Alison's experience is almost entirely international. And actually international - like there are bodies of water involved. These continents are our future markets and Alison knows how to work with governments and stakeholders amongst different cultures. It's another area that people can put a "checkmark" beside when they think of what our future Premier needs to be able to do.

On top of all of this, I really think that Alison has laid out policies that matter. My sister is a teacher, my sisters and I all have auto-immune diseases and require a lot of contact with the health-care system, my grandparents are in their mid-80's and about to be seperated after 63 years due to varying health care needs and both my parent's careers rely on the success of the energy industry. I think that her policies speak to what Albertans are asking for and I think that is the mark of a good leader.

I think that Alison, as a mother, wife, daughter, also allow her to bring a different lens to government. She wears her heart on her sleeve - which is both good and bad! You know how's she's feeling and she'll always fight for what she believes is right. I would hazard a guess that at about 75% of our SafeCom announcements, Alison had tears and hugs for all of the participants. She cares and connects with people in a way that makes me feel like I'm the Tin Man! I've also seen her in meetings with energy leaders - she's focused, smart (which they love!) and not afraid to tell it like it is. I've also heard people call Alison a "bitch". You know, I think I'm ok with my Premier being labeled a "bitch" every now and then if it moves Alberta forward. If she was a guy she'd be deemed strong and deliberate but c'est la vie!

Anyway, I think that Albertans are ready to give the PC Party one last opportunity to prove why we should remain in power. And unless we seize this opportunity and actually elect a candidate that will govern differently, encourage new dynamic community leaders to run for MLA and inspire Albertans to believe that change is possible - I believe the opportunity will be lost. The window is open for 8 more days.

I hope you'll consider giving Alison at least one of your votes on October 1.

Thanks,

[name withheld]
 
*****