The Enlightened Savage

JoeyO on... being a Progressive

2012-01-19T19:00:00.000-07:00

(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

2012-01-19T16:26:00.001-07:00

(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

2012-01-19T09:00:00.000-07:00

(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

2012-01-18T19:00:00.000-07:00

(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

2012-01-18T17:00:00.000-07:00

(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

2012-01-18T13:12:00.000-07:00

(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

2012-01-17T11:41:00.000-07:00

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

2011-12-31T11:54:00.001-07:00

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)

2011-11-18T17:16:00.001-07:00

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

2011-11-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

This was never part of the plan.

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

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

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

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

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

What’s more, though: I began to realize that there was anappetite 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 ofour elections, you see numbers that are embarrassingly low. And while there areno doubt many different reasons for this lack of participation in the mostfundamental of our societal responsibilities, it’s not hard to imagine that oneof those reasons is the often ridiculous way that many of our elected officialsbehave. They name-call. They shout at each other. They don’t tell the wholetruth 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, andyet when a politician does it, we not only TOLERATE it, we vote for them – sometimesfor decades - and pay their salary.

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

I came to realize that in order to force the kind of changeI wanted to see, I could do one of two things: I could either write about itfor the next several years, and see if anyone took up the challenge; or, Icould 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 oftenwondered 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 PeterLougheed and John F. Kennedy, and I would imagine what it might be like to stepup and serve your fellow citizens, like they did, and change the world in whichyou lived. I would wonder what could drive a person to do a job where half thepeople you were trying to help would hate you, all of the time, no matter whatyou were doing.

But the desire to serve my neighbours never went away. Istarted forming opinions. Opinions formed around the dinner table whilewatching how things were unfolding at the time. Opinions challenged by greatteachers at St. Bonaventure Junior High and Bishop Grandin High School. Whenthe 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 adefinite turn for the worse, in my opinion. The money that gets thrown aroundin 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 bechanged often, and for the same reason”.

I don’t know if that’s true 100% of the time, but as I lookaround Calgary-Fish Creek, I see how drastically things have changed over thepast 18 years. Our communities aredifferent. 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. Allwe have to do is dare to talk about it. To talk, as equal partners in thatfuture, about ideas freely and openly, without fear of being labelled by voiceson the left as “rednecks”, or by voices on the right as “socialists”.

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

Politicians always tell you they want to “represent yourinterests to the party”. They say they want to be “your voice in Edmonton”. Butwhat do they do once they’re elected? They tow the party line. They echowhatever their party leader says. The people of Calgary-Fish Creek, if youbelieve the voting record, agreed with absolutely everything Ralph Klein everdid. 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 betweenelections? Politicians make big decisions in the 4 years between elections –sometimes, they even change their mind about which party they belong to. But dothey ever ask you? Do they vote against their own party, when it’s what thepeople who elected them – their BOSSES – want them to do?

The TRUTH is, our elected officials don’t work for theirparty, 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 aboutwhich ideas are “left wing” and which ones are “right wing”. I don’t believe inconvenient labels that hide the truth. The truth is complicated, and somethingthat the politicians of yesterday have trouble understanding is that votersaren’t dumb: We can have mature, adult discussions without a politician in theroom. We can even make decisions without a politician in the room. We canhandle “complicated” ideas.

I want to work with people from all parties, and from noparty. I want to work with people whose backgrounds are as varied as thelanguages that you can hear while you walk through Sikome Lake on a Julyweekend. I’m not going to pretend I know more than you do about healthcare – Iprobably don’t. If you’re a nurse, or a doctor, or a patient, I need to hearwhat YOU think. I’m not going to pretend I know more than you about energypolicy – again, I probably don’t. But whether you work on the rigs, or you owna mid-sized producer, I need to hear what YOU think. We can only face thesechallenges of vision and ideas when we hear ALL the ideas, and not just theones the person at the front of the room already agrees with (or, that theirparty leader agrees with).

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

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

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

Yesterday is done. Some of it was great. Some of it, not somuch. 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’tbe held back. If we don’t embrace change as a party, Albertans will forcechange at the ballot box. And they’ll be right to do so.

I believe in our party, and the people within it. I believethey see the need to change. And I believe that we, in Calgary-Fish Creek, canlead 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 purposethat I announce my intention to seek the nomination for the ProgressiveConservative 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

2011-11-11T09:21:00.001-07:00

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

2011-10-28T10:04:00.001-06:00

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

2011-10-11T03:14:00.001-06:00

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

2011-10-02T15:38:00.000-06:00

... 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

2011-10-01T12:59:00.000-06:00

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

2011-09-30T16:02:00.000-06:00

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)

2011-09-29T16:58:00.002-06:00

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]

*****

Convince Me: Alison Redford

2011-09-29T13:16:00.001-06:00

Submitted text appears below. - E.S.

*****

Many of you probably know that the party I have long been involved with, the Alberta PC Party, is about to choose a new Leader who will ultimately become Premier of this province. And I’m sure it won’t surprise you that I’m involved in helping to elect one of those candidates.

But I wanted to share some of the reasons that I think Alison Redford should be our next Premier, because they’re very different than you might expect.

Over the course of my political involvement, I have come to work for a number of candidates because they were friends or I had friends working for their campaigns. Normally I have a horse picked in any given race long before it starts. Not this time, though.

A few weeks before Premier Ed Stelmach announced his resignation and launched us into a leadership race, my wife and I found out that we were expecting our first child. I share that not to politicize my first-born, but because it very much changed the perspective I had when trying to decide who I wanted to be our next Premier.

Gone were my bachelor days when fancy logos and a good hospitality suite at party functions would go a long way in swaying my vote. All of a sudden I was about to become someone’s father – responsible for their well-being and success – and I wanted to use my involvement in the political arena to choose someone who would do the right things for my kids’ future.

So instead of thinking of the usual party politics, I started asking myself what was important. Health care and education were rarely policy topics that I spent much time on before, but they were suddenly front-and-centre as an expectant father.

The biggest area of public policy that someone who is about to have a baby comes in contact with is our health care system. As someone who hadn’t previously spent much time in doctor’s offices or hospitals, I was suddenly introduced to a world of specialists, referrals, hospital protocols and so on. It is a delicate patchwork of a system that confuses many. One of the first things that struck me about Alison Redford was her proposal for province-wide public Family Care Clinics open from 7am to 9pm. Anyone who’s been through an emergency room recently know that there are far too many people who have to rely on emergency as an access point for basic care. This is a tremendous waste of resources and, I think, can be drastically reduced through these proposed Family Care Clinics. Putting the parent-to-be hat on, I’d sure rather avoid taking my child to an emergency room if I can.

As someone who just built a house in a new neighbourhood that doesn’t yet have a school nearby, I also wanted someone who was focused on improving outcomes AND access to education. In Alison Redford, I saw someone who listens to the teachers like the ones I talk to when they say that the Provincial Achievement Exams for Grades 3 and 6 are a burden on kids with no correlating benefit to the education they receive. And I saw someone who was committed to predictable funding so that we don’t have to wonder if our son or daughter’s teachers would have jobs the following year. As much as my wife and I joke that we don’t want to become “those parents” who micromanage their kids’ education, I do want the system that educates our kids to be properly funded and managed so that our kids are ready to go out into the world when they graduate.

The other thing that struck me about Alison Redford is her global, big-picture perspective. Being able to think about Alberta beyond its borders will be important for the next Premier as they work to diversify our energy and agricultural economy and to improve and defend our reputation abroad. When I say I want someone with a global perspective of Alberta, I don’t mean “What do people in Washington think about us?” We need a leader who truly understands how interconnected our world is and can talk about Alberta not just in the context of the United States but also in the context of places like Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Alison Redford has worked in almost every corner of the globe as a legal advisor and election administrator with the United Nations. I am confident she is best suited to represent Alberta to the world and, just as importantly, bring the world to Alberta. That’s the kind of province I want my kids to grow up in.

I was lucky enough to sit next to Alison at a dinner a few weeks ago in Edmonton. The conversation between her, myself, and another Redford supporter who is also expecting soon, varied back and forth between our forthcoming kids and the politics that surrounded us. At one point, talking about what Alberta might look like 20 years from now, I stopped the train of conversation and said “You know, that’s really what this is about. The Alberta that Jess and I are going to live and work in is already coming down the pipe. We’re all doing this for our kids.” It was an absolutely true statement, and exactly the reason I want Alison to be our next Premier.

If any of this has stuck a chord with you, my non-political Alberta friends, you can actually have a say in the outcome. For $5, you can buy a membership in the PC Party of Alberta and join me in electing this incredibly thoughtful and intelligent woman as our next Premier. Election day is Saturday, September 17 (advance polls today, September 13!) and there are voting locations in every constituency in Alberta. You can read more about Alison and how and where to vote at http://www.alisonredford.ca/

Convince Me: Gary Mar

2011-09-28T11:07:00.003-06:00

The following comes via a Gary Mar supporter who took me up on my offer to post arguments in favour of a writer's preferred candidate.

As always, this should not be construed as an endorsement by myself.

Their text (with abbreviations edited to their full-length) begins now.

*****

I have known Gary since the mid 90s. We met when he was Seniors Minister and I was a reporter in Olds. I watched him speak with a group of irate seniors and bring them onside regarding cuts to seniors' programs. He can connect with people of any stripe in a very sincere and real way. I traveled with him a lot when he was Education Minister and that view was only solidified. Gary is smart enough to understand the issues in a comprehensive way and pragmatic enough to find consensus.

*****

I will continue to post there as I get them. As a reminder, they can be emailed to me at oberhoffner (at) facebook (dot) com.

- E.S.

Convince Me: Doug Horner

2011-09-24T10:00:00.000-06:00

Nation, yesterday I challenged my IRL friends and contacts within the PC Party and the various leadership camps to write me and explain why their candidate was the best choice to lead the party and the province.

You didn't let me down - responses started coming in almost immediately.

I'm not going to analyse or critique these arguments. I've read them, and I'm posting them one at a time for the rest of you (with the sender's names removed) to see for yourself what the arguments are.

We're all smart people, in a mature democracy. You don't need me telling you who to vote for. But below is someone else's opinion on PC Leadership candidate Doug Horner.

*****

Hi Joey,

Here is my pitch for Horner- I am not going to reiterate his policy, but rather why I think he should lead. In our shop we are quite concerned that the other candidates only glaze over economic diversification and do not understand its importance or what it takes. That is not the case with Doug. I have three items I want to share with you, a letter, a bit more background on diversification and then some thoughts on Doug as the most experienced leader. My great concern with lawyers as positions is they are trained to persuade people to accept other people’s positions. I want a leader with on the ground, practical experience and who has their own views. Views they developed in dialogue, of course, and which they have come to make their own mind up about. Policy is one thing but in the end we are electing someone to make the best decisions on the margin. I believe that leader is Doug. He is in it for all the right reasons.

A letter to Albertans

The future prosperity of Alberta depends on our ability to broaden our economic base (see below). Our new Premier’s top priority must be this goal.

The Premier’s job description necessarily includes knowledge of and commitment to economic diversification. This involves broadening the economic base, stimulating innovation and technology commercialization, and spawning the creation of new Alberta companies producing new products in new industries. From this perspective in the Party’s decision making, the experience of the three candidates is relevant. The choice should be obvious—Horner is clearly the most qualified of the three candidates.

In addition to his previous business experience and his tenure as Minister of Agriculture, his five years at Advanced Education and Technology has forged Horner’s qualities as a leader and shaped him for the job ahead as Premier. The importance of this is not significantly acknowledged.

As Minister of Advanced Education and Technology, Horner was responsible for 26 post-secondary institutions and the entire provincial research cluster, recently reorganized into Alberta Innovates. Doug created the Value Added and Technology Commercialization Task Force, whose mandate was to direct the diversification of the Alberta economy over a 15 year time frame. The Task Force resulted in the creation of Alberta’s Action Plan for Technology Commercialization, which focused on entrepreneurial support, innovation assistance and the creation of the Alberta Enterprise Corporation. The AEC serves as a catalyst for venture capital activity, which is a priority of the Alberta capital market.

Doug’s department conceived the Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy (PCES). The PCES released its report, referred to as the Emerson Report after its Chair David Emerson, prior to the leadership campaign. It includes five major recommendations intended to diversify and strengthen the Alberta economy within a 30 year time frame. The vision which the foregoing represents is central to Doug policy platform in the leadership race.

Doug’s platform is important to Alberta, as it supports the development of the province as a venture capital centre. We know that deals come to the money and tend to stay where the money is managed. Silicon Valley, and its Sand Hill Road, is the best example. As the oil sands and conventional fossil fuel related industries mature, Alberta can transcend the hydrocarbon economy by developing as a financial services centre including energy finance and venture capital.

The top three candidates are each strong in their own way, all will likely be in cabinet. What we have to ask ourselves is who we want to lead. For us, it is the leader with the most relevant experience, the boldest vision and the most realistic action plan. That leader is Doug Horner. Visit his site, check him out, and make the right decision for Alberta in October 1st. Vote Doug Horner.

The future prosperity of Alberta depends on our ability to broaden our economic base

In December 2010, the Alberta Competitiveness Council released its first annual report. It compares Alberta to 15 other jurisdictions on 45 indicators. Of particular concern was Alberta ranking in innovation and venture capital, the only section in which Alberta ranked in the bottom quintile; consider the following indicators:

· Gross expenditure on R&D, as % of GDP: 14/15
· Business expenditure on R&D, as % of GDP: 13/15
· Employment in high-tech manufacturing: 13/14
· Employment in knowledge intensive industries: 13/14
· Venture capital investment, as a % of GDP: 14/15
· Venture capital deals, per 100,000 people: 9/13

This comparison showcases a significant strategic weakness in Alberta economy. It represents a classic case of Dutch disease, whereby the presence of a major export market crowds out the development of a more diversify economic base. A strong and growing industrial base is foundational to a successful society. Given the competitive advantage of large, low-cost economies such as India and China, maintenance of our economic base requires continuous innovation. This innovation should be both in the extraction, processing and transporting of commodities but also in the development of capabilities in new markets such as clean technologies. One of the major components in bridging this gap is further development of the junior capital markets. Alberta already as a good start in financial services and expertise and it should be nurtured and encouraged to focus some attention to non-energy related financing. This growth of junior financing activity is one of the mandates of the Alberta Enterprise Corporation (AEC). The formation of a vibrant market requires an understanding of the potential participants, their needs, and the ways in which they interact.

Horner as a leader

· Doug recognizes that the oil and gas sector and oilsands development are paramount to our province today, but he also has a vision for a more diversified Alberta, critical to the long term expansion of our economic base. Alberta today stands at a crossroads which will determine the type of province our grandchildren inherit. To degrees, this vision is not being similarly demonstrated by the other candidates—but Doug gets it!
· As Minister of Advanced Education and Technology from 2006-2011, he was responsible for 26 post-secondary institutions, Alberta’s research and innovation programs, and the Task Force on Value Added and Technology Commercialization. Doug was the only candidate present at the release of the Premier’s Economic Strategy Council Report, a plan for Alberta 30 years hence. He is one of the few politicians who really understands the importance of our post-secondary institutions in relation to culture, innovation, venture capital and entrepreneurship.
· His working background includes significant banking, international and entrepreneurial business experience, ten years in government, including 3 years as Minister of Agriculture, and a solid, on-the-ground understanding of the entire province. Doug has the perspective required to lead!
· As we’ve introduced him to small groups around Calgary, Doug’s grasp of the issues has become very apparent. He has depth and breadth. There is nothing shallow about Doug, once people have a chance to know him their support follows.

I am available to talk more about any of this and I hope it has spur some thinking with you about what Doug brings to the table.

*****

I want to thank to writer for his thoughts, and his passionate argument for Doug. He's given me a lot to think about. I hope it has been in some way useful to the rest of you, as well. I'll keep posting the best of these for the 3 candidates - more than one for each candidate, if I can keep the numbers balanced - between now and next Saturday.
- E.S.

Convince Me

2011-09-23T11:27:00.000-06:00

Nation, as I indicated in my most recent missive, I'm conflicted about this second stage of the PC Leadership race.

One of the big sticking points for me has been my awareness - seemingly rare among politicos - that I do not, in fact, know everything about everything.

Not to worry - I still knew MORE than enough to inform a Wildrose candidate on Twitter earlier today that his calls for "transparency" rang hollow, coming from someone whose party leader didn't release the list of donors to her own campaign. He accused me of innuendo, and informed me (as the well-informed candidate for an MLA job that he is) that all donations were posted on the Elections Alberta website. They're not, and that's not the rule. Leadership races are voluntary disclosure because you're donating to a person, not a registered political party. Oops. Might be something you want to know before throwing around words like "transparency" or running for office to re-write laws that you clearly don't understand.
But hey, this isn't about the ignorance - willful or otherwise - of a candidate for public office. That time will come. This is about MY blind spots. The things I don't know, or can't see, about the 3 remaining contenders for the leadership of the PC Party.

As I've mentioned before, there are people I know and respect who are backing each of the 3 finalists. What I want from them in this last 8 days of the campaign, then, is a little help. Not press releases or retweets from the official campaign account - I've seen more than enough of those.

I want to hear from people I *know*, in their OWN words... why is your candidate the best choice to unite the party? To renew it? To reinvent the way the PC Party relates to Albertans? To make the party relevant again? To govern justly and with empathy and wisdom?

Convince me, Friends. Why should I, and my readers, support your candidate? Don't tell me he's got an "inspiring vision" - tell me what the vision IS. Don't tell me what she's done - tell me what she's GOING to do.

Send your pitch to oberhoffner (at) facebook.com. A sample of the best ones advocating each candidate - with the names of the senders removed - will be posted on the blog, to convince the Nation.

I await Enlightenment.

Stepping off my soap-box, to make room for you and YOUR candidate...

- E.S.

The Race to the Premier's Office - 9 Days to the Second Ballot

2011-09-22T23:55:00.003-06:00

Nation, by now you've no doubt heard the results of the first ballot to replace outgoing PC Leader and Premier Ed Stelmach. For those living under a rock, though, here they are again:

Gary Mar 24,195 (40.8%)
Alison Redford 11,127 (18.7%)
Doug Horner 8,635 (14.5%)
Ted Morton 6,962 (11.7%)
Rick Orman 6,005 (10.1%)
Doug Griffiths 2,435 (4.1%)

Total eligible votes cast: 59,359

We're going to be going back to those numbers quite a bit, so pack a lunch.

First impressions: HUGE blow to Ted Morton, who was generally accepted as a shoo-in for a second ballot. He missed the cut by just under 1,700 votes. More on Ted later.

The obvious outcome of this result is that, as the title of this blog post would suggest, we are headed for a second ballot. On October 1st (advance polls on Tuesday, September 27th) the top 3 finishers - Mar, Redford, and Horner - will go toe-to-toe trying to secure the 50%+1 result required to win the PC Party Leadership and, by extension, the Premier's Office. Party members will be asked to indicate a first and, if they wish, a second choice. If none of the 3 reaches the 50%+1 threshold when the ballots are counted on Saturday night, then the 3rd-place finisher will drop off the ballot, and the ballots indicating them as a "first choice" will be recounted and moved to the column of the indicated 2nd choice.

It's far from a perfect system, but it DOES have the advantage of ensuring that the PC's will always - ALWAYS - have a Leader who was supported, as a first or 2nd choice, by over 50% of the party's voting members.

I had the chance to debate this system with my fellow CalgaryPolitics.com charter member Shane Byciuk of CalgaryRants on Monday, courtesy of CBC Radio One's "The Homestretch". Click here to hear Shane get pWned.

Turn-out has been a big story, as it should be. The turn-out versus the first round of the 2006 leadership race was down by 38,331 - that's a LOT of people who voted in 2006 and stayed home in 2011. The PC's owe it to themselves to try and figure out why. Honestly. The "farmers were working in the fields" spin isn't going to fly.

It's not ALL doom and gloom when talking turn-out, however. Membership sales, while not at historic levels, aren't historically LOW, either. The 60,000+ dues paid memberships puts them at well past double their closest competition in Alberta.

Of course, many of those members will dry up and blow away once the leadership race is over, never to be seen or heard from again. Such is the nature of leadership races, and of nomination races for that matter: people show up who have never been political and will never be political again, they vote the way they've been told to by friends or family, and that vote - cast in pure ignorance - has as much weight as anyone else. That's democracy.

So what of the vanquished?

Morton and Orman threw their support behind front-runner Mar earlier this week, with Griffiths following suit on the following day.

But why?

Morton was crushed by the first ballot results. He ran arguably a better campaign than in his run for the leadership in 2006, yet at the end of the night he received 19,000 FEWER votes than in 2006. Losses to the Wildrose? Some of them, certainly. Losses to Rick Orman? Some, perhaps. Lingering hard feelings towards Morton over his perceived palace coup against genuine nice guy Ed Stelmach? Some, sure. But Morton - who tried like hell during this race to show his fiscal conservative bona fides and stayed away from controversial social issues - expected to make the 2nd ballot, timed his campaign accordingly, and never crossed the finish line. The best he can hope for at this point is to again serve as Minister of Finance under Mar or, perhaps, to stand for his old job as a Senator-elect in the promised upcoming senatorial elections and maybe someday get the call from Stephen Harper to take a seat in Canada's Upper House. Either would be made more likely by currying favour with the sitting Premier.

Orman did surprisingly well - narrowly missing out on a 4th place finish. After the votes were counted, he indicated he was returning to "private life", however the Mar endorsement might indicate a change of heart for the Getty-era cabinet minister. Orman - who spent much of his campaign throwing punches towards Mar - mysteriously endorsed him after the first round of voting. It MAY have something to do with his strong showing in the Calgary-McCall poll, which Orman won with an astounding 79.9% of the votes cast. At 1,668 votes, none of the 6 candidates received more votes in any poll than Orman did in McCall. And that INCLUDES the Advance Polls. The votes he received for PC Leader in McCall were about half of the votes it would take for him to win the seat in a general election, currently held by Liberal Darshan Kang (and with no nominated Progressive Conservative in the constituency. Hmmm...)

Griffiths' endorsement of Mar came as a complete shock to many, myself included. The Griffiths campaign - which was made up completely of volunteers, from the campaign manager on down - was all about the need for change, and for discussions that the Old Boys weren't interested in having. Doug made his points, time and again, and while they were applauded and well-received, at the end of the day the party's voting membership gave him just over 4% support. Hardly a ringing endorsement. So why would the "agent of change" support Gary Mar, the candidate with the backing of 30 other sitting MLAs and half the cabinet? In short - because there's only so much you can do from the outside looking in, and Griffiths clearly feels Mar is going to win. If Griffiths ever wants to be at the table where the decisions are made, and push for the kind of change he's talking about, he's got to BE the Premier, or he's got to have the Premier's ear.

I hate that this is how it is. I think it shouldn't be this way. But that's how it is, and it'd be disingenuous for me to pretend I didn't understand. I do. I'm just not happy about it.

Of course, MLA endorsements - even those of your fellow leadership candidates - don't mean everything. In the case of all 3 defeated candidates, their campaign managers are NOT supporting Mar. Likewise with many of the campaign volunteers. And, lest we forget, Ted Morton had 10 MLA endorsements, and finished 4th. Alison Redford had one - Art Johnston of Calgary-Hays, which she didn't win anyhow - and finished 2nd. So it's not enough to have the MLA or candidate, you need to have a team under them, selling memberships and mobilizing voters.

Since the vote, Mar has acted every bit the "pending winner", talking in glowing terms about the candidates who have come over to his side, staying on message, and playing coy about a possible snap election call. Upon being sworn in as Leader and Premier, Mar will either need to authorize over 40 nomination races to take place with 2 weeks' notice, appoint candidates, or both, in order to call a fall election with his slate filled. Whispers have put a possible date for a general election as November 21st, under this scenario. If he instead chooses to hold a by-election in order to take a seat in the Legislature, suggestions are that Iris Evans has offered her Sherwood Park seat for Gary to run in.

Redford has come out guns blazing, trying to capitalize on the influx of talent and support from the Orman, Griffiths and Morton camps. She's been appealing to teachers. She's talking about health care. She's taken clear aim at Gary, drawing comparisons to 2006 when first ballot runner-up Morton went on the offense against front-runner Dinning, allowing third-place finisher Ed Stelmach to focus on selling memberships and ensuring that he was the second choice of both Dinning AND Morton supporters - a dual strategy that, ultimately, guaranteed Stelmach's victory, and wouldn't have been possible without the acrimony between the Morton and Dinning campaigns. The narrative has been "change versus the status quo".

Horner has scoffed at reports he might step aside, clearing the way for a Redford/Mar showdown at high noon. And who can blame him? He's in the "Stelmach position", drawing no fire, throwing no stink bombs, and free to campaign quietly and effectively without having to take time out of his day to deal with the opposition. Horner's campaign, which was virtually non-existent in Calgary and not much better in Edmonton, has added only one new PC caucus member, the incomparable Carl Benito of Edmonton-Millwoods. Carl has promised to deliver the goods for Horner on voting day, and if there's one thing we know about Carl: When he gives his word, it's good.

I'll re-post the voting information when we get closer to the advance polls and October 1st, as well as the candidate profiles.

As for MY reaction to the first ballot results... I'm conflicted.

First of all: I don't know what the hell has happened to my friends, but I want it to stop, and I want them back. The name-calling, allegations, slick partisan jabs directed at each other... it wasn't this bad during the municipal election last October, and THAT was *bad*. I've gotten to the point where I've stopped logging onto Twitter, or at least started ignoring the #pcldr hashtag. It's an echo chamber now - you couldn't find un-spun truth in there with a polygraph hooked up to a Cochrane warp engine. When Twitter becomes a one-way broadcast medium for campaigns and re-tweeting campaign volunteers rather than a 2-way conversation medium, it loses its effectiveness.

Secondly, I've started second-guessing myself. It was clear to me earlier in this race that with the support of 26 MLAs, Gary Mar was the candidate of the status quo. He HAD to be - you can't get 26 politicians to agree on anything, EVER, unless it's directly related to them keeping their jobs.

But then, I started wondering - what if these endorsements aren't about cabinet spots and social climbing? What if they're about something else?

What if these MLA's - all of whom got their jobs the hard way, by running for office against real people and winning - know something that I don't? What if they know that Gary Mar really IS the guy to unite the PC's, has a genuine drive to evolve the party into its next iteration, and is the best choice to beat Danielle, Raj, Brian and Glenn? Don't they know better than me? I'm interested. I'm involved. I'm even - from time to time - a little smart about this stuff. But their mortgages get paid by what they know. Their entire lives are funded by their ability to see the direction the wind is blowing. If they're all seeing this... can they ALL be chasing cabinet jobs?

I've got friends supporting Gary. I've got friends supporting Alison. I've got friends supporting Doug. At the end of the day, I hope they can all be friends with each other again. But there's a real, seismic shift happening in the PC Party right now. And no matter WHO wins the leadership, there are going to be some pretty serious fault-lines that need dealing with, pronto. Will social or fiscal conservatives decide to leave and join the Wildrose? Leave and just stay home from now on? How about progressives - which is NOT a euphemism for "liberal", as neocons would have you believe (there are a lot of progressives in today's Wildrose)? Will they leave the party after what they might perceive as a victory of the "status quo"?

If change from WITHIN isn't possible, the only way to effect change is from WITHOUT...

I don't know what to think. If you held a gun to my head and forced me to bet on a likely winner, I think it's clear who I'd bet on. The math is pretty compelling. But memberships are for sale again. And in 2006, the smart money was on Dinning. And I don't bet against Stephen Carter candidates.

What I *do* know, though, is this: Every part of me is sick of this. I'm not just physically exhausted, I'm tired of this. And I'm a political wonk. This is like me deciding I'm sick of the Stanley Cup playoffs, a few days before the Finals start.

Is it the process? The antics of the campaigns? The behind-the-scenes machinations?

I don't know.

But I'm NOT a happy PC today. And I don't know what's going to change that.

Or if anything can.

- E.S.

It's Time To Play The Music... It's Time To Light The Lights...

2011-09-17T10:24:00.002-06:00

Nation, after what seems like a 16-year long campaign, the time has come to cast your vote for a new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and, by extension, for Premier of Alberta.

My thousands (millions?) of PC-inclined readers are no doubt already on their way to the polling stations scattered across the province. I don't need to tell you how important this choice is.

However, I know a lot of people who read this blog are not normally inclined to support the PC's. That might be a recent development, or they might be life-long haters of the PC brand and all it stands for in their eyes.

I want you to buy a membership and vote anyhow.

Sitting on the sidelines and criticizing the decisions and choices that other people have made is easy.

But Albertans - of any political stripe - are not the type to take the easy road.

Want to change this province for the better?

But a membership. Go vote today. Vote again on October 1st. Pick a new leader for the PC's, who will chart a new direction. You KNOW that not all PC's are the same. You know that a different leader can change things dramatically. Look at Peter Lougheed. Now look at Ralph Klein. Same party, two TOTALLY different governments.

And, after all is said and done, if you STILL hate the PC's, then volunteer for your local Wildrose, Alberta Party, Liberal or NDP costituency association. Stand for election yourself. Make a difference.

ALL of you, PC and otherwise - make a difference. Because oh MAN, do we need difference-makers in this province.

It starts with voting, today.

VOTING INFORMATION

WHO CAN VOTE? Eligible voters shall be:

Canadian Citizens
Of the full age of 16 years
Ordinarily resident in Alberta for at least six (6) months immediately prior to the voting date
Members in good standing of a Provincial Progressive Conservative Constituency Association (this just means you've paid for your membership)

HOW DO I BECOME A PC PARTY MEMBER IN ORDER TO VOTE? You can buy a membership for $5 at your local polling station right up until the polls close at 7 pm.

WHERE DO I VOTE? Click on this link, and then on the name of your constituency.

HOW DO I DETERMINE IN WHICH CONSTITUENCY I LIVE? Click on this link, select "Postal Code" and enter yours. Easy as pie. Or cake. Whichever's easiest.

WHAT DO I NEED TO BRING TO THE POLLING STATION TO PROVE MY ELIGIBILITY? (this is a big one - PLEASE read this carefully)

Each person must present their membership card and two pieces of Identification, one of which should be a picture ID, acceptable to establish residency within the constituency. Eligible identification includes but is not limited to:

Driver’s license
Passport
Citizenship Card
Social Insurance Card
Student ID
Utility bill
Property tax bill
Automobile insurance card

Voters whose eligibility as Canadian citizens is challenged will be required to show evidence of Canadian Citizenship such as:

Citizenship Card
Birth certificate
Passport
If challenged, proof of age.

PC Leadership Candidate Profile - Doug Griffiths

2011-09-16T16:38:00.000-06:00

Dark horse.

Maverick.

Agent of Change.

Doug Griffiths has been called a lot of things in this race. My favourite, though, has to be "Weapon of Mass Discussion". Griffiths, the 9-year MLA from Battle River-Wainwright, will talk to anyone, about any issue, without any fear at all. He was one of the first MLAs in Alberta to make direct use of social media - no staffers filtering his account or writing for him - and he remains one of the best at it. But through the entire campaign, one question has dogged the Griffiths campaign: Who IS Doug Griffiths?

He's a family man, first and foremost. This blogger has been in attendance at speeches where Griffiths has, when speaking about children and family, had to pause to collect himself. He has missed his 2 young sons and his wife terribly during this leadership campaign. He's also a renaissance man, and a study in remarkable contrasts: A University of Alberta grad in Philosophy and Education, Griffiths was an award-winning teacher - a job he took to, in his words, "support my ranching habit". He still maintains that ranch. He's one of the few people you'll meet who drives a pick-up because he needs to, has cowboy boots that get worn over 250 days per year, and can also type a Tweet without looking at the keys. He's an author, so passionate about communities that his speech, "13 Ways to Kill Your Community", which started on the back on a napkin, has been delivered in every corner of the province over the past 10 years and came out in book form recently. He defies being pigeon-holed as "left" or "right" - talking about equality of opportunity and how government can be a force for good while at the same time standing firmly in favour of personal responsibility for our actions. His campaign - 100% staffed by volunteers - has also been the most "blog-friendly", making sure that at every turn, from Day One, bloggers get invited to every event, to spread the message without wastefully spending donor money on ads - a nod to Doug's fiscal conservatism.

Griffiths is a man who doesn't shy away from having difficult discussions on account of political expediency. He famously raised the subject of a consumption tax - a provincial sales tax, in other terms - only to have it dismissed summarily by Premier Stelmach last year. If all provincial goods and services were paid for by sales tax revenue, and the trade-off was that you could eliminate the provincial portion of your income tax - the money you work to earn - wouldn't that be a discussion worth at least having? Current political dogma doesn't even allow the conversation, which was exactly Griffiths' point. Good governance doesn't have room for dogma. When Doug talks about the need for long-term planning - "if we want more doctors 10 years from now, we have to start training them yesterday" - it strikes a chord with his audience. When he speaks of his vision for an Alberta of 20 years from now, he has been favourably compared to Peter Lougheed, who at 38 - ironically, the age at which Griffiths is often dismissed as "too young" - was elected leader of the PC Party with no experience in the Legislative Assembly. Aged 38, Griffiths has been around for nearly a decade already, and is consistently left out of cabinet due to, according to insiders, his penchant for being outspoken in his belief that an MLA's loyalty to the voters and the truth is more important than loyalty to the Premier or the government.

Policy:

Each of Griffiths' policy releases has been accompanied by a very impressive video of the candidate laying out the argument and the vision. They're among the best videos I've seen, from anyone, running for anything, anywhere. Definitely worth taking the time to look at. Some of the policy highlights:

Reengineer government, reducing regulatory burden on business/industry and on government employees.
Turn the power of the legislature back to Members of the Legislative Assembly and accordingly back to Albertans.
All health professionals can be used to their full scope of professional practice.
Every health dollar allocation will have a performance measure associated with it to ensure value for money and quality service for the patient.
Personal responsibility for your own health will be re-introduced into the system.
A new focus on healthy living and preventative medicine rather than simply treatment of illness.
Continue the development of Land Use Planning Initiatives that blend local planning, global best practices, accurate environmental information, provincial long term objectives, and protection of property rights.
Increase the acreage of parks and protected places in the province for environmental reasons, and also to meet the growing demands of those who wish to enjoy those spaces.
Support the University of Lethbridge Water Research Institute in research and development to ensure our global leadership on best practices in all aspects of water
Encourage sustainable transportation around our urban centers that encourage emission reductions which will improve our air quality
Alberta must work to remove the administrative and regulatory burden and cost of local food production and distribution.
Adopt policy and regulatory structures that support local and national food security.
Municipalities are critical to building better communities. We must clearly identify roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government as it relates to community issues. Once the roles and responsibilities are identified, appropriate funding levels and performance measures can be set, enabling the delivery of services that build better communities.
Once roles and responsibilities have been clearly defined, revenue issues can be settled. Just as the province needs a stable revenue stream, so do the municipalities need steady, secure revenue sources to provide services and to build strong communities. Municipal government is a mature level of government, accountable to its electorate, and if communities identify a need for specific infrastructure, they should have the ability to levy taxes to pay for it when their citizens agree.
Recognize the benefit and the importance of infrastructure investments to support quality of life needs and economic growth in every corner of the province to ensure the long-term success of all Albertans.
Search for opportunities to use public infrastructure to maximize community benefits and address community needs, such as schools, hospitals, seniors’ complexes, and so on.
Encourage and support arts, culture, recreation, and heritage. These activities are part of our community infrastructure and directly impact the quality of life in a community. Arts and culture activities thrive in communities with a positive attitude and outlook, without additional government funding.
Balance program spending and tax revenue. A Griffiths government will focus on long term planning so Alberta is prepared for the next boom with an established foundation, so any surplus energy dollars flow into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.
Albertans are proud and want to pay their share as long as their money is not wasted. Alberta can no longer afford to have politicians try to “out-bid” each other with Albertans’ own tax dollars, as it is not government’s money, but Albertans’ money. Non-essential programs should be funded privately through alternate revenue sources such as personal service fees or corporate donations.
Albertans and their government need to be open to reforming the province’s tax structure to maintain Alberta’s competitive advantage.
To make the appropriate financial decisions, Alberta must have a long term plan first. The province must get value for the money spent and the best way to do this is to first understand what its long term goals are. If Albertans and their government know the long term goals, government is able to do a cost benefit analysis to ensure the province’s money is spent wisely.
Select professional service providers based on qualifications, not cost.
We must review all ministry budgets and identify efficiency targets. Government is not 100% efficient. A 10% improvement in government efficiency or priority re-allocation for the current $39 Billion annual budget will yield an overall savings of $3.9 Billion in the 2011/12 fiscal year. This improvement in efficiency will take Alberta from a deficit budget to a surplus budget, and start the province on the path of saving for the future.
Ensure all students are successful in literacy and numeracy by grade three.
Focus on education, not school fees. School fees should not be a barrier for education, particularly those who are less fortunate and more vulnerable. Basic school requirements should be included in our public education system.
Reward excellence in teaching and recognize the profession for the value they contribute to our society. Establish a teaching reward system based on merit and outcomes.
Ensure arts and fine arts are available in our basic education system – helping to build the creative thinkers and creative leaders to handle the dynamic and rapidly changing global economy.
Encourage growth of programs similar to the Registered Apprenticeship Program (RAP) and the International Baccalaureate Program (IB) that addresses the challenges of providing unique programs in high school that match the individual student’s interests and the needs of society.
Reform the student loan / bursary program to ensure Alberta students who require funding assistance have access to it.
Increase the capacity in our post secondary institutions in order to leverage provincial and federal research and development project grants and private investment making Alberta the most attractive place to conduct research and facilitate innovation.

The Long & Short Of It:

It's been suggested that Griffiths will be a great premier someday, but that it's not his "turn", as the premiership must return to Calgary this time. Despite the fact that he's younger than the other candidates, though, Griffiths has a great deal of experience as an MLA. The problem, though, has been that he collects legions of devoted followers one room at a time - and other candidates for the leadership are much better known. Whispers around the Legislature before Premier Stelmach announced his departure earlier this year were that Griffiths was done being kicked around and ignored by his own party caucus and leadership. He was widely expected to choose not to run again for the PC's, go home, teach and tend to the ranch, and eventually run for Reeve in Paintearth County, where he could put his community building theories to use, parlay his immense local popularity into holding the job as long as he wanted it, and try to build the area as a "Shining City on the Hill". He still might, if the party rejects change, and chooses a "status quo" candidate as leader. I know, from talking to many of my contacts within the various campaigns, that Griffiths would be FAR from the only party member to leave the PC's if the status quo wins the day.

His performances at the PC Leadership Forums have been outstanding. His jokes hit the mark, his body language shows his sincerity, and his messages - while not the comfortable pablum that party members expect - resound with Henry and Martha. He's a social media giant - by leaps and bounds the most active and followed on-line. But will any of that make a difference? Or will the PC Party pick a "safer" candidate - one better known, less likely to do something radical and potentially cost the party its 40-year grip on power?

"He'd be a great choice, next time" goes the line from supporters of other candidates.

But as Griffiths himself points out: Albertans are bold, and the PC Party might be out of "next time's".

"This is our moment... this is not 'next time country'."

Links:

Doug Griffiths campaign website

Calgary Herald profile and video for Doug Griffiths

PC Leadership Candidate Profile - Alison Redford

2011-09-15T18:10:00.000-06:00

Alison Redford is a successful, independent woman - mother to a nine year-old girl, a lawyer who advised Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark on policy before travelling the world promoting the structural edification of human rights into the governance of developing democracies and who counts Nelson Mandela among her mentors...

BANG!

That sound you just heard might have been Rob Anders' head exploding. Don't be alarmed.

A first-term MLA representing Calgary-Elbow, Alison Redford has her eyes set on being the 2nd Premier to hail from the southwest Calgary riding (the first was a fella named "Ralph" a few years ago). Appointed to cabinet in the high profile position of Minister of Justice immediately after being elected, the unapologetic carnivore (the "Redford Diet", I'm told, includes nothing that never had parents) had some big expectations to meet - and by most accounts, she did just fine, thank-you very much. In fact, Redford's term as Minister of Justice was so successful, earlier in this campaign she gained the endorsement of the Calgary Police Association, representing the members of the Calgary Police Service. If you're a lawyer and the cops actually LIKE you, you're doing something right. The strategy for Team Redford has seemed to be, from the beginning, "make the top 3" - and if recent polls are to be believed, that goal is within reach. As an unapologetic Red Tory, not to mention the only woman in the race, the hope is that Redford would do very well at converting supporters of defeated candidates, particularly those espousing "change", into Redford voters on the second ballot.

In many ways, Alison is the Wildrose Party's worst nightmare. She certainly brings with her some issues that they'd camp out overnight just to attack - such as her participation with Human Rights Commissions - but, on the flip side, she's an articulate woman who flat-out knows her stuff and loves to mix it up, verbally. Which cancels out many of the advantages that the Wildrose expected they'd have over Ed Stelmach in the next election (Ed has been called many things over the years, but "womanly" has never been one of them). In the verbal sparring match between the former television personality and the lawyer, once they go off-script, you bet the lawyer. Every time. And if public debates matter, that has to be a very worrying outcome for the Wildrose.

Policy:

Much of Redford's campaign has focused on the need for immediate solutions to immediate issues, followed by long-term planning. Examples of this include her pledge to immediately reverse the teacher cuts of this fall to get those teachers back into Alberta classrooms, and the setting up of Family Care Clinics so that families with working parents can still access the health system without needing to go to the local E.R. Some of the others:

Rejuvenating Albertans' freedom to access government information by speeding up replies to requests for information and keeping processing fees low;
Mandating that leadership candidates from all parties must publicly disclose their donors so Albertans can see where each is drawing support;
Enacting whistle-blower legislation to force government to own up to its mistakes and in doing so, learn from them;
Studying methods of telephone and e-voting so the disabled, residents in isolated areas and Albertans traveling abroad can easily have their say at election time.
Increase funding for the arts in the education system, allowing schools to provide stronger course offerings with more capacity;
Develop an organized campaign to promote kids' access to the arts outside school - studies show that kids who regularly attend public art performances display a higher degree of public engagement as adults.
Encourage high schools to develop close links with post-secondary universities, colleges and trade schools to allow students to obtain dual credits, better preparing them for higher studies;
End provincial achievement tests for Grades 3 and 6, as these are too stressful for students and do not impart the information we need to measure performance.
Legislate to end the "No Fail" practice in grade school, giving every student the chance to succeed or fail on their own merits.
Allow adults at any age to obtain their high school diplomas for free via continuing education, no matter their age or how long they've been out of school.
It is important that we restart the discussion between the ATA, school boards and the province to renew the current arrangement that would include more prep time for teachers, changes to professional days and review of class sizes. Guaranteed funding is needed to ensure we can continue to improve what we have started.
Put post-secondary education funding on a 3-year funding cycle, so institutions will know what to expect and be able to plan effectively.
Ensure all health care services at continuing care facilities are provided by Alberta Health Services. We need to separate private delivery of housing and related services from publicly funded and publicly delivered health care services.
Expand the range of health care that is provided in continuing care facilities and seniors private homes so that seniors don't have to travel to hospitals unnecessarily. Not only will this be more convenient and comfortable for seniors, it will also reduce pressure on our acute care system.
Devolve decision making authority, and the responsibility that goes with it, to local decision makers within the health care system.
Require AHS to publish local quarterly performance reports according to a set of indicators with comparisons to provincial standards in including:

               - Emergency wait times
               - Surgery wait times
               - Hospital and clinic acquired infection rates

$1,500 Family Recreation Tax Credit to support participation in organized sports and recreational activities like summer camps.
Childcare must be accessible and affordable. Alberta will subsidize childcare for all Alberta families with less than $50,000 household income.
Create a 10-year corporate tax exemption for new daycare operators and a personal income tax exemption for all income earned by daycare or day home employees and owners.
Reintroduce full-day kindergarten within one year of forming government.
Create a Department of Human Services to replace Child & Family Services, Community Spirit, Housing & Urban Affairs, Employment & Immigration and Aboriginal Affairs (shrinking cabinet by 4 ministries).
Establish a truly independent Child Advocate to monitor the performance of provincial child welfare services, advocate on behalf of children in care and report directly to the Legislative Assembly.
Start a Children's Serious Incident Review Team to independently investigate the death of any child in provincial care.
Require all government departments to conduct detailed program reviews and demonstrate why programs and services cannot be delivered by community-based organizations or the private sector. Within six months, I want to identify services that can be transferred to community leadership or privatized.
Implement a five-year funding model for Alberta Health Services and a three-year model for education at all levels.
Order regular budgetary reviews to uncover savings in existing expenditures wherever possible. Departmental budgets will only grow when there is a clear need, not just a desire for more money.

The Long & Short Of It:

Alison Redford may very well be the next Premier of Alberta. Her campaign seems to be firing on all cylinders, she's not promising the moon but rather achievable, measurable results, and she benefits from the "Anybody but Mar" sentiment that is floating around in some party circles. She's going to need to make a good impression at the Edmonton forum and go full-court-press to Get Out The Vote on Saturday, especially in Calgary, where she's said to be leading among party members. If she makes it through to the 2nd ballot, she's got a real shot. I'm a big fan of the "long-term planning" that she speaks of so often, and I'm willing to look past the fact that she's a graduate of Bishop Carroll High School, the arch-rival of my own Bishop Grandin. Despite that, though, she's competing against a tried-and-true political machine backing Ted Morton, a well-funded juggernaut in Gary Mar, and a very well-supported long-time cabinet member in Doug Horner - not to mention maverick Rick Orman and progressive darling Doug Griffiths. If Alison wants to beat at least 3 of those candidates on Saturday, it's going to take guts, organization, and hard work.

Can she do it?

Absolutely she can. She's assembled a great team.

WILL she do it?

Wait until the ballots are counted. That's why we do this "voting" thing, rather than just letting the blogger decide who wins.

Links:

Alison Redford campaign website

Calgary Herald profile and video for Alison Redford

NOTE: I had the opportunity to sit down and interview Redford last week. That interview appears below.

PC Leadership Candidate Profile - Ted Morton

2011-09-14T18:00:00.000-06:00

Candyman.

Candyman.

Candyman.

If you look into a mirror and say it 3 times, so the legend goes, you're in for a VERY bad night.

So it goes, too, with "Wildrose Party" - at least, if you subscribe to Ted Morton's view of provincial politics.

Long a darling of the "deep blue" conservatives in this province - first as one of the brains behind the Reform Party, and later as a senator-elect and PC Leadership candidate in 2006 (finishing 3rd behind Jim Dinning and Ed Stelmach), Ted Morton is a giant among conservative thinkers. Born in Los Angeles in 1949, Morton chose at the age of 32 to move to Canada, and 10 years later became a Canadian citizen. His detractors suggest he is therefore somehow "less Canadian than the rest of us", but that's purely tripe. He earned his doctorate in political science, and then went to work in the trenches with the nascent Reform Party, believing in its message of lower taxes, traditional values, fiscal responsibility and democratic reform.

During his 2006 run for the PC Leadership, Morton was roasted by the media (this blogger included) for his decidedly right-of-centre slant. Morton finished third in that race, and since then Alberta has seen the rise of the Wildrose Party (nee Wildrose Alliance), espousing many of the same values and policies that Morton brought to the table in 2006. Those ideas have clearly found an audience, although to what degree the Wildrose was a protest against Ed Stelmach and his policies rather than the natural evolution of political thought in Alberta and the "new normal", remains for history to decide. Ted, though, has his own theory - warning us that the only way to bring the Wildrose supporters "back to the mothership" is to send them a sign, through his ascendancy to the PC throne, that right-of-centre ideas are welcome in today's PC Party. He goes on to warn that vote-splitting of the right-of-centre vote between the PC Party and the Wildrose would make it possible for the Alberta Liberals, New Democrats and possibly even the Alberta Party to take advantage and wrestle away seats - or even control of government, as was seen when the federal political scene featured both the PC Party and the Reform Party, and Jean Chretien's Liberals reaped the benefits.

For their part, I haven't spoken to many Wildrose supporters who have indicated a Morton victory means they'll tear up their Wildrose card and come back to the PCs. But they MAY just be playing coy.

Policy:

Morton has mostly stayed away from the traditional "social conservative" policies that earned him so much scorn in 2006, instead calculating that most Albertans agree with him on fiscal policy and the need for reform. His policies, therefore, have a decidedly mathematical and "common sensical" (it's a word NOW) slant to them. For example:

• Return Alberta to balanced budgets by restraining spending, not by making deep service cuts or tax hikes.
• Limit the annual growth of government spending to no more than population plus inflation—ensuring that the public sector grows no faster than the private sector.
• Ensure the Alberta Advantage by not raising income taxes or introducing a PST. And a Morton government will legislate that no future government can increase income taxes without Albertans’ approval by referendum.
• Protect Albertans from short-term fluctuations in government revenues by rebuilding the Sustainability Fund.
• Protect Alberta’s future by rebuilding the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund
• Work more closely with Ottawa under the Federal Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications to expedite entry of foreign-trained professionals into the Alberta work force.
• Negotiate an immigration agreement with the federal government to move decision-making on immigration to Alberta, similar to Quebec’s current agreement.
• Immediately put a stake in the heart of Bill 50.
• Support the development of new urban conservation areas and parks and a new dedicated fund to help pay for these parks. This fund would also be used to protect environmentally valuable lands (such as the conservation easements on OH Ranch) and to build new recreational infrastructure (such as campgrounds and trails)
• Amend the current Leadership Selection Process by adopting a cut-off date for the sale of memberships before balloting begins. The current system allows people to purchase memberships on the last day of voting – minutes before they cast their ballots. Many of these “two minute Tories” tear up their newly purchased membership cards as soon as they exit the voting booth.
• Provide the opportunity for PCAA members to purchase multi-year memberships.
• Continue with the implementation of Alberta Netcare (Alberta’s electronic health records system) and will replace the current paper Alberta Personal Health Cards with secure Smart cards for Albertans.
• Re-institute the practice of sending yearly statements to each person using Alberta health services so Albertans know the costs of their personal health care.
• Ensure that all existing property rights of landowners and leaseholders are respected—including all existing rights to compensation, plus the new right to compensation for loss of value caused by any new environmental restrictions on current use.
• The Alberta Tuition Tax Credit Program will provide a refund of tuition paid by Alberta students if they complete their program of study and then remain in Alberta and work for the next seven years. The tuition will be paid back in the form of non-refundable tax-credits and capped at a maximum value of $20,000.
• I will establish a transparent, independent review of MLA compensation and roll back the 2008 Cabinet and MLA pay increases until I receive the recommendations of the review.
• I will introduce fixed election dates, removing the power of the Premier to arbitrarily choose when Albertans go to the polls.
• I will introduce term limits for Premiers – no more than two full four-year terms and a maximum of 10 years total. This would ensure the province continues to move forward with vigorous leadership and fresh vision.
• I will reduce the size of Cabinet from the 24 that we have now to 17
• Reclaim Alberta’s position as the leading voice for Senate reform by holding new Senate elections in conjunction with Alberta’s provincial elections.

The Long & Short Of It:

July 28th will go down as the day that the Morton campaign hit its biggest snag. There have been hard days since - the Frederick Lee/document shredding "scandal" springs to mind - but on July 28th, the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald ran stories about a poll that showed the PC Party at 54% public support, and the Wildrose at 16%. In effect, Ted's "We need the Wildrosers to come back" argument had suffered a devastating blow. And yet, the mantra has stayed the same... at every function, on every doorstep, in every speech, Ted continues his insistence that the party members, donors and Albertan voters who have spurned the PCs for the Wildrose are going to cost the party - and perhaps the province - dearly when the votes are counted. Is he right? Well... he's got his doctorate in political science, so chances are good that he knows a little bit about which he speaks. Ultimately, however, it's another Journal/Herald poll that, ironically, might get Ted onto the second ballot. A poll released yesterday shows Morton in 4th place, trailing Doug Horner by just 1 point. As Morton learned ALL too well in 2006, the first ballot battle isn't to win outright, it's to finish in the top 3 and buy yourself 2 more weeks to sell memberships and mobilize your voters. Bet the farm that Morton's people went to Costco and bought several pallets of Red Bull yesterday, because they (and the 10 MLA's endorsing Morton) are going to pull out all the stops to get him that extra 2 points he needs to make the second ballot.

Will the provincial government look radically different under Ted Morton? Absolutely. For the better? Some would say so. But the critical question for a lot of party members as they consider their options on Saturday remains exactly the same as in 2006: If Ted Morton is given a mandate to lead this party, and if the Wildrose defectors DO come back to the mothership, will it still be the PROGRESSIVE Conservative Association of Alberta?

And, more to the point: Will Albertans WANT it to be?

Links:

Ted Morton campaign website

Calgary Herald profile and video for Ted Morton

PC Leadership Candidate Profile - Gary Mar

2011-09-12T18:00:00.000-06:00

Newton's Second Law of Motion defines "momentum" as "mass multiplied by velocity".

That said, Gary Mar had better find the accelerator on his huge campaign bus, because momentum can be a fickle mistress for such a massive campaign.

Mar has been the front-runner for this race since the day after the LAST PC Leadership race. An able cabinet minister, Mar served as an MLA for his north Calgary riding from 1993 to 2007 and as a cabinet minister under Ralph Klein in the portfolios of Environment, Community Development, Education, Health and International/Intergovernmental Relations. Before being first elected at age 31, Mar was a lawyer in his hometown of Calgary, earning the much-coveted "Q.C." designation for his accomplishments in the legal field.

After leaving the political arena in 2007, Mar accepted a posting to Washington as Minister-Counsellor of the Province of Alberta to the United States. In this capacity, Mar was Alberta's point man for any issue that required the attention of U.S. lawmakers in the Capitol. This included issues such as agriculture and energy. Mar was criticized for accepting his MLA transition package while continuing to work for the government in a paid role.

Indeed, despite his accomplishments and (compared to his old boss) squeaky-clean image, controversy has dogged Mar from time to time. In addition to the severance package, which he initially had deferred and then later accepted while working in Washington, Gary also ran into trouble during this leadership race when one of his booths was photographed offering "Free Memberships" to students. After a few tense hours, the story that came from the Mar camp was that a donor had offered to pay for student memberships, rather than the suggestion that, in contravention of the rules, Mar's campaign was purchasing memberships for people. These whiffs of scandal have also served to remind voters of the Kelly Charlebois issue, when Mar's Ministry (Health & Wellness) awarded a non-tendered contract to Charlebois, Gary's former executive assistant, for "advice" that produced no written record or reports. The cost to taxpayers? A paltry $400,000. What's almost half a million between friends?

Despite criticisms old or new, valid or invalid, Mar has raised an absolute boatload of cash with which to run his campaign. Indeed, while some of his opponents drive their private vehicles to forums, Mar has run a General Election-style campaign, even having his massive and VERY visible orange campaign bus drive to the forum in Fort McMurray while Gary himself flew in days earlier. Mar is said to be spending over a quarter of a million dollars in ads over the next week, and there's probably a lot more than that in reserve for the second ballot, if required. It's not just money that Gary's swimming in, however - it's also endorsements from sitting PC MLA's. At last count, Gary had the public backing of 26 MLA's, including half of the current cabinet. Conventional wisdom is that Gary should, by all accounts, win this race - and it's a good career move to be backing the guy who wins. This can also be seen in the very polished "fresh-out-of-university-polisci" look & feel of Gary's younger supporters, and their handlers. New executive assistants and caucus researchers and campaign managers will be the order of the day when the new leader takes over. It's unfortunate, because there are a lot of MLA's and young people who genuinely buy Gary's message and support him for all the RIGHT reasons - but they're lumped in with the career climbers.

Mar's messaging has been about "Greatness on purpose, rather than by accident", and he has opined that he feels Albertans today are more inclined to follow visionary leadership like Lougheed's in the 70s, rather than Klein's populism of the 90s.

Policy:

Mar's policies are a bit of a mish-mash on his website. There's a LOT of text, to be sure, but much of it is background. It's also hard to navigate between the "paragraph-style" content, the "bullet point policy steps", the press releases, and the one policy document that was actually in pdf format. The lack of consistency in format, though, doesn't dilute the fact that there's a lot of good stuff in there. Among the highlights:

That the federal government designate the building of energy infrastructure to the U.S. Gulf Coast and the West Coast of Canada as a national economic priority and ensure they receive the needed national support to get done.
Implement the recommendations of the Alberta Environmental Panel Monitoring Report on environmental monitoring of the oil sands.
Work with industry to evaluate the merits sharing the cost of development of roads and other common infrastructure in areas of intense energy development.
Ensuring stability in the current royalty regime for conventional oil, natural gas and the oil sands.
Remove the discretionary power of Cabinet under Bill 50 to establish Critical Transmission Infrastructure (CTI) requirements and place it with the Legislature where all Parties can debate and approve the action. The need for CTI can also be determined, as it was in the past, by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), in full consultation with industry stakeholders and Alberta consumers.
Reach out to families and friends of seniors by developing an enhanced caregiver supports program to include respite and elder “day care” components. There are opportunities to build on existing tax credits to ensure that families and friends can stay home to care for their loved ones when it is necessary.
Build a common entry point for access to all seniors housing and health services. The Accommodation Standards public reporting website could be built on to include information such as wait times to get into a supportive living or continuing care facility. This website could serve as a portal for information on accommodation costs and services provided.
Work with Albertans on preparing for their senior years by encouraging financial planning and wellness initiatives.
Establish an independent Alberta Environmental Monitoring Authority with an expert staff. This independent authority will monitor and report on the environmental impacts of developing Alberta’s energy resources, from oil sands to fracing and CO2-enhanced oil recovery.
Prohibit bulk water exports.
Put the implementation of Bill 36 on hold until a full dialogue has been undertaken on the two existing regional plans (the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan) and Albertans have time to see how they will be implemented. These first two plans will serve as pilots. Action on further regional plans will not proceed until we get these first two plans right
Commit to a comprehensive public review of Alberta’s tax system, with the objectives of enhancing overall productivity, competitiveness, and innovation, creating opportunities for further job creation, and strengthening the capacity of Alberta families to participate in the global economy. This work will commence once the provincial budget is balanced in 2013/14, and a sustainable balance between revenues and expenses has been restored. Tax reductions must be affordable.
Work with the federal government to target and fast track skilled workers needed by the Alberta economy, and to remove the cap on immigrants under the Immigrant Nominee Program (INP).
Work with the federal government to accelerate the process for foreign credential recognition.
Commit to reducing the number of ministries and ministers. For example, it will put the Treasury Board and Finance and Enterprise ministries back together so that government’s spending, revenue and budget planning work hand in hand once again.
Establishing a high school completion rate target of 100 percent, to stretch provincial efforts to ensure students complete high school.
Pushing ahead on enhancing the role of schools as “community hubs”, so that parents and families can access various services. Schools, community agencies and service providers work together to deliver services in a coordinated, “wrap-around” approach.
Commit to stable and predictable operating funding for schools boards. Stable and predictable funding would allow school jurisdictions to plan ahead and to know how much funding they can count on to implement long term plans and initiatives.
Municipalities will be given full access to the education property tax base, effective the 2013 assessment year. K-12 education funding will not impacted.
Place greater emphasis on professional development and training opportunities for public servants and make use of various leading edge online, social media and mobile device methods.
Place greater emphasis on alternative working relationships and flexible working hours, through such approaches as remote access, to allow public servants to more effectively balance work and family obligations.

The Long & Short Of It:

If you want to know who's going to win a PC Leadership race, you follow the money and the MLA endorsements. Thus goes the conventional wisdom. If this was always the case, though, we'd be on year 6 of Premier Dinning's reign.

Gary has gone to great lengths, and spent a lot of money to get his name and face everywhere he can. His team has put together a masterful campaign. Every city and town he goes through has a guest column penned by the local MLA, talking about why they're supporting Gary. His bus has become a fixture at public events across the province. And yet, for all his talk of "Change", and despite the fact that he wasn't directly tied to the Stelmach regime, Gary is perceived as the "status quo" candidate. In fact, a lot of the PCs I hang around with have expressed the opinion that Gary is the candidate under whom the PC Government would change the LEAST - at least, until election time, when Mar's speaking style - hilariously lampooned by a local pundit in Calgary as "Droopy Dog teaching third grade" - would be put up against Raj Sherman's passion and Danielle Smith's polished libertarian soundbytes.

Mar's team has to use all of the manpower and cash at their disposal to get out the vote on Saturday. The front-runner often sees supporters staying home, on account of victory being all but assured. Gary can't afford to take victory for granted - he knows this, and needs to make sure his supporters know it, as well. But if you're betting money on the most likely winner of this race, you'd be wise to bet Mar.

26 sitting MLA's already have.

Links:

Gary Mar campaign website

Calgary Herald profile and video for Gary Mar

PC Leadership Candidate Profile - Doug Horner

2011-09-11T18:00:00.000-06:00

Legacy.

Any story about Doug Horner's rise in politics has to start with the Horner legacy.

Doug's grandfather, Ralph, was a Senator for Saskatchewan. At the time of Doug's birth, his father was the sitting Member of Parliament for Jasper-Edson. Three of his uncles also served as MPs. After 9 years in Ottawa, Horner's father stepped down to try his hand at provincial politics, and served as an MLA for 12 years, first as a member of the 6-strong Official Opposition PC Caucus under young firebrand Peter Lougheed, and later holding cabinet posts as Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Transportation, Minister of Economic Development and Deputy Premier.

So, yeah... Doug's got some family connections.

All that said, though, Horner seemingly resisted the siren call of political service, opting to strike out on his own as a young man. After following the money to jobs in the oilpatch and at a lumber mill, Horner attended SAIT in Calgary (a stint during which he developed an unfortunate attachment to the Calgary Stampeders), married at age 19 (!) and worked in the financial sector as a banker, as well as in agriculture, where he did sales and marketing for ConAgra in Nebraska for several years. After returning to Alberta, Horner (at age 29) enlisted and served as a Canadian Forces Reservist, fulfilling a lifelong dream. In 2001, at the urging of his MLA (Ken Kowalski) he got into the family business, winning election to the Legislative Assembly, where he has served ever since. After 3 years on the back benches, Doug got the call from Ralph Klein to sit in Cabinet as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, and later had a very successful stint as Minister of Advanced Education and Technology under Ed Stelmach - also serving as the most recent Deputy Premier.

Fighting throughout the campaign to get noticed among the flashier and more controversial candidates, Horner has also had to work hard to avoid being stuck with the label "Stelmach 2.0", as many Stemach loyalists have jumped on board the Horner Campaign. Indeed, while Doug spends a great deal of time talking about the things that will change if he wins the leadership, it's worth noting that the cabinet mainstay and former number-2 man on the totem pole has 15 endorsements from sitting MLA's for whom the "old way of doing things" worked out just fine -among them Speaker Ken Kowalski, who replaced Doug's father upon his retirement under Lougheed and will celebrate his 32nd year in the Legislature this November - so, the "Change" motivation is a bit harder to believe in some cases. It's also reportedly a source of frustration that Horner has been painted as a "rural candidate", a characterization reinforced by the fact that of his 15 MLA endorsements, only one - Lindsay Blackett - comes from a constituency within one of Alberta's 2 big cities.

Policy:

Horner has released a LOT of policy, making his candidacy a field-day for wonks such as myself. Among the more interesting (to me) policies:

Accelerate the development of new technologies that reduce environmental impacts, economic costs and extraction deficiencies;
Embrace the social licence given to Alberta to develop our natural resources wisely by protecting the environment and encouraging economic diversification;
Develop separate investment and trade strategies for China, India, Mexico, Middle East, and South America;
Establish a stable regulatory environment and a planned approach to growth for a vibrant energy sector in Alberta;
Give education professionals the tools and resources they need to achieve success for our students. Confront our high school dropout rate with systems and programs that reduce the rate by 10% per year over five years;
Reduce the barriers to education by using technology tools and resources that are both scalable and distributable. Let’s become the first jurisdiction to create the virtual text book library for all students K-12;
Working with all stakeholders in the system to remove the requirement for doctors to deliver all services face to face in order to bill. Access is the number one issue facing Albertans today and we must open the points of access to health professionals best suited to effectively treat the patient.
Collaborating with stakeholders to minimize unnecessary residency requirements for foreign-trained doctors. Establish equivalency programmes with non-Albertan medical schools to recognize training conducted outside our province and country.
Enabling health care professionals to practice to the full scope of their training and keep pace with innovations already practiced by several healthcare disciplines. Enable direct payment from the publicly funded system for their services.
Establishing meaningful benchmarks for wait list times and offer Albertans options to seek medical care from other providers with the province funding a majority of those costs;
Explore increasing coverage and options for Alberta Blue Cross.
Introduce engagement opportunities for Senior Citizens to mentor, and participate with youth in the community, including school participation, business mentoring, and other ideas to tap the enormous wealth of knowledge and experience that our elders have;
Establish a care-giver tax credit for family members who care for senior citizens who live in their home or nearby;
Negotiate an Alberta-specific immigration policy with the federal government in the same manner as Quebec's immigration model, tailored to Alberta’s needs, and is flexible and responsive;
Develop foreign academic equivalency programs that allow new graduates in targeted countries to be qualified for work in Alberta upon graduation as opposed to having to be re-qualified once landed in Alberta;
Augment temporary foreign worker programs to allow for job transferability and qualification for full citizenship with the timely immigration of family members.
Create an Associate Ministry whose focus is on the wellness of all Albertans in sport, fitness and nutrition. Put emphasis on our children, youth, adult and senior-citizen involvement in community-based activity programs;
Double the funding for the Alberta Foundation for the Arts over the next three years and establish a basis for long-term planning and funding;
Begin discussion with the AUMA and AAMDC on “MSI 2” (Municipal Sustainability Initiative 2) that includes “no strings attached” to up-front funding; a funding model designed to recognize unique challenges of high growth areas and the importance of local decisions. We need to include our Metis settlements in the discussion and the model should also recognize that our two major centres have unique issues;
Suspend the implementation of regulations related to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, until such time as all seven watersheds are fully studied and the implication of water-use is comprehensively understood with regard to the environment and economy;
Determine with industry and Albertans, the current and forecast transmission capacity requirements and ensure that transmission line construction meets our anticipated capacity requirements. The final determination of transmission construction should rest with Alberta`s elected officials;
Increasing time spent engaging Albertans in home constituencies by elected representatives on matters of importance to Albertans; and
Eliminate hiring freezes and other imposed barriers to attracting the best and the brightest into the public service;
Provide opportunities for Government of Alberta employees to be engaged in their communities and to contribute to volunteer organizations;
Amend the Municipal Government Act to establish four-year terms of elected officials to allow for greater long-term planning;
Commit to long-term funding for regional school divisions across the province, each with the authority to deliver services and also to publicly share performance metrics which benchmark and compare performance with the other provincial regions. We must have a funding model that recognizes that some areas and issues are not the same across the Province.
Harness the brainpower and feedback of 3.7 million Albertans on a continual basis with online policy forums that promote democracy and engagement across the province;

In particular, Horner has a lot of very interesting policies regarding healthcare and promotion of healthy lifestyles, to address the cause rather than the symptom of ballooning health costs.

The Long & Short Of It:

In a race with a lot of VERY smart people, it's been suggested that Horner may be the smartest. The problems he runs into are simple politics: He's from the north. He's considered rural. He's tied to the outgoing Premier and administration. Perhaps the most damning criticism of Horner as "Premier material", though, was brought up to me at the Calgary forum: "He's extremely warm in person, like Ed, but he comes across as nerdy and boring at the front of the room, just like Ed, and Danielle's going to eat him for lunch". If the new leader is brilliant and personally warm, but loses the election, then they'll be a brilliant and warm Leader of the Opposition for the 6 months it takes the party to throw them to the wolves and pick someone else to take them to the top of the mountain again. We've seen glances, now and then, of Horner speaking passionately on health and education in particular. We need to see more of that guy in the next week. We need to see the Doug Horner who would stand toe-to-toe with Danielle Smith and Raj Sherman and give as good as he's getting. We need to see Doug Horner the way he is in front of the t.v. when Henry Burris breaks a tackle and streaks down the sideline. Fired up. Passionate. Inspiring. If we see THAT guy over these next 6 days, it might be enough to propel him onto the second ballot.

Links:

Doug Horner campaign website

Calgary Herald profile and video for Doug Horner

PC Leadership Candidate Profile - Rick Orman

2011-09-10T18:00:00.000-06:00

Rick Orman is mad as hell, and he's not going to take it any more.

The PC Party, according to Orman, has strayed from its founding principles. It doesn't handle itself the way it should. It needs saving. And Rick, after 18 years away from politics, is just the man for the job - or, so says Rick.

But who IS this Rick Orman?

A Getty loyalist, Orman was a cabinet minister in the Getty PC governments of the late 80s and early 90s. When Getty was ousted as leader, Orman ran in the subsequent campaign to replace his old mentor, and finished third behind Ralph Klein and Nancy Betkowski, whom he endorsed over Klein (Betkowski went on to contest & win the Liberal Leadership and served as Leader of the Opposition under her new married name, Nancy MacBeth). Getting out of politics after his leadership loss, Orman (who married a daughter of one of Alberta's wealthiest families) went into the energy sector, where he founded several companies and did business both domestically and internationally.

Rick takes a lot of offence over the sort of management he's seen from the PCs in recent years. So much so, in fact, that in listening to him speak you'd think he's running to be leader of an opposition party. The royalty change? Terrible idea. Deficit spending? Unacceptable, regardless of circumstance. Not keeping up with the Heritage Trust Fund? Brutal decision. He suggests intimidation of doctors is taking place. He's sure that the government is passing land use bills because they want to steal your land. And the band plays on...

Rick's campaign has been wrought with difficulties, however. He launched his campaign website prematurely, with large sections sitting empty. His social media approach was largely panned at the outset. His well-publicized reluctance to participate in public forums, calling them a "waste of time". His campaign's email foibles resulting in an automatic lock-down by Shaw's servers, and the subsequent tone-deaf response from his spokesman, who simultaneously exposed his candidate to characterizations of "elitist" and "unable to get his calls returned from major party supporters and donors". Rank-and-file party members are criticizing the Orman campaign's targeting of specific ethnic communities. Not helping matters is the fact that, for all his insistence that the 5 other candidates be held accountable for the fiscal performance of their governments, he hasn't yet been able to explain why he shouldn't be held accountable for the performance of the Getty government, which (while he was in cabinet) doubled the provincial debt and ultimately built the mess that Ralph Klein needed a chainsaw to cut his way out of in the 90s.

Policy:

This is normally where I'd write about the candidate's policies. Rick, however, doesn't have policies. According to his website: "Policies hatched by a small group of people, who remain nameless behind closed doors, are no way to make laws that affect everyone". Instead, Orman offers "Vision Statements", in which he makes commitments (which read a WHOLE lot like those awful, top-down, secretly-constructed-by-shadowy-figures Policies, to this blogger's eye) and is careful to link them back to the PC Party Principles (where the "fiscal responsibility" principle was during his time in the Getty cabinet isn't immediately clear - perhaps it was on vacation?)

Among those commitments:

◦Re-focus government to support new business development, international trade, labour market planning, innovation in skills training and updating, research, product innovation and new technologies to enhance environment protection.

◦Repeal the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (Bill 36) Act , which needlessly sterilizes resources that generate economic growth for large and small communities throughout the province and undermines the property rights of Albertans.

◦Full disclosure of findings of Health Quality Council’s investigation into allegations of wrongdoing. Confirmed cases will be handed over to appropriate authorities for immediate action. Will appoint a Judicial Inquiry if there is reasonable doubt surrounding the thoroughness of the investigation by the Health Quality Council.

◦Negotiation of a new five-year agreement with teachers.

◦Reverse the province’s recent decision to move all lottery revenues into the General Revenue Fund. Rick will restore the Lottery Fund to its original purpose, which included funding for community enhancement projects. Rick will also support increasing the portion of lottery funds allocated to community enhancement projects and arts and culture by $100 million next April 1, 2012.

◦25% reduction in Cabinet.

◦Initiate a review of the 191 government agencies to assess continuing need.

◦In consultation with First Nations and Metis, establish a Premier’s Task Force to identify and remove barriers that are preventing the full, active and meaningful participation of First Nations and Metis in Alberta’s economy.

◦Within ninety days of being elected Premier, Rick will engage post-secondary officials in discussions to determine the most effective approach for implementing a $25,000 Alberta tax credit for graduating students from Alberta post-secondary institutions who choose to remain and work in Alberta.

The Long & Short Of It:

Rick Orman is going to have to have sold an absolute TONNE of memberships to see his name carried forward to a second ballot. Not because of his ideas, or his background. Not because of his campaign, per se. It's because he's the only candidate who has essentially declared war on the current iteration of the PC Party. It's as though he's saying "Things are all screwed up, and every one of you is to blame for enabling these jerks". Needless to say, that tactic isn't going to win Rick a lot of love from existing members. So, if someone's going to carry Rick to victory, it simply HAS to be the people to whom he's sold memberships over the past 6 months.

Rick represents change, all right - but is it progress? Or a trip back to the Getty days?

Links:

Rick Orman campaign website

Calgary Herald profile and video for Rick Orman

PC Leadership Candidate Profiles - Primer

2011-09-10T12:25:00.001-06:00

Nation, almost 5 years ago, this blog was born. The first post was a welcome. The 2nd was a review of the recent PC Leadership Forum. And the third was the first in a series of profiles of the candidates to replace outgoing Premier Ralph Klein (that first profile was long-shot candidate Ed Stelmach. Whatever happened to that guy?).

This blog was, in effect, born to provide coverage that other outlets just weren't providing at the time.

I'm happy to report that the mainstream media have stepped up their game during the 2011 PC Leadership race - in particular, the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald have done some fantastic work. The Journal's "Brady Bunch"-esque videos comparing candidate policies are great, while admittedly a little creepy at times. And the Herald has published some very in-depth profiles of the candidates themselves, along with video.

All that said, though, I'm not abdicating my own responsibility to provide some unbiased thoughts on the 5 men and one woman running to be Alberta's next Premier. I've drawn names, in the presence of witnesses, from my pith helmet (don't ask), and this is the order of the profiles to be published daily between now and Friday the 16th (the day before the first ballot):

Profile 1: Rick Orman
Profile 2: Doug Horner
Profile 3: Gary Mar
Profile 4: Ted Morton
Profile 5: Alison Redford
Profile 6: Doug Griffiths

Again, I can't stress this enough: One of these 6 WILL be Alberta's Premier. They will, at the VERY least, determine how $35 Billion (with a "B") in public funds will be spent ("public funds" being a political euphemism for "money that belongs to you and me") and heavily influence the timing of the next provincial election. So, I'm begging you: Get informed. Here, and elsewhere. Slap down your $5, even on the day of the voting, and make an informed choice - even if you've never considered supporting the PC's before. This party - heck, ALL parties - determines its policies based on the participation and expressed opinions of its membership. Throw a Laurier down on the table, and you're one of those members, at which point your ideas matter just as much as mine or anyone else's.

You want change?

Don't WAIT for it.

Make it happen.

Vote.

Note: The Journal's above-mentioned videos are a bit tricky to find, so I've posted them below for your viewing pleasure.

"Tell Me About Yourself"

"Health Care"

"Infrastructure Priorities"

"Economics"

"Oilsands Responsibility"

The Race to the Premier's Office - 16 Days to the First Ballot (Who's Going To Bring Me Donut Mill?)

2011-09-01T15:24:00.002-06:00

Nation, long time no speak... I mean, granted, we've gone longer... but in the midst of a hotly-contested leadership race, 2 weeks is just 2 weeks too long... ;)

It's been an interesting 15 days, to be certain... 2 party-sponsored leadership forums, policy announcements by the barrel full, and the familiar game of "This candidate said THIS!!!" - "No, that's not what I said". Ahh... it's never boring, that's to be sure.

Here are some of the highlights (and, in some cases, lowlights) of the past 2 weeks, for those of you who might have missed anything... (candidates in alphabetical order, by first name)

Alison Redford
Redford has come out in favour of the provincial government investing in the Alberta Creative Hub, a film studio and production facility proposed near Canada Olympic Park in Calgary. Alison has also taken aim at cellular roaming charges - a stance that hit a little close to home, it would seem, as the spokesman for Telus had to call up his buddies at his former employer and write a column that ran the very next day, rebutting Redford's claims. Redford has also gotten into the sometimes sticky issue of MLA pay, committing to make the remuneration much more clear for MLAs, cabinet ministers and leaders, as well as eliminating "committee bonuses" and proposing that MLA pay and perks be handed over to an independent panel to be set.

Doug Griffiths
Griffiths continues to impress at the party leadership forums. While this blogger isn't picking "winners and losers" at these events, that doesn't mean the party faithful and general public aren't doing the same - and of the 6 attendees to the Lethbridge forum that I randomly polled after the event, 4 named Griffiths as the most impressive - including 2 wearing Mar buttons. If he keeps up his performance, the televised debates in Edmonton and Calgary should be a boon. He ran into issues at a privately-organized forum in Calgary for 2-and-a-half candidates (Gary Mar was double-booked, and oddly sent Iris Evans in his place), though, when he came to the defence of child welfare workers and told a personal story about what his father would likely do if he felt Doug's kids were in danger. Griffiths was, according to one person in the room, "Spitting mad" when the quotes were used by a local reporter to draw a reaction from the grandparents of a recent tragic case. Griffiths apologized to the grandparents for any hurt he might have caused them, but it's a stark lesson learned in media relations. Griffiths is moving on, having released the crown jewel of his policy platform, the Community Development plank, yesterday on his website.

Doug Horner
Horner made news yesterday with his proposal that healthcare wait time benchmarks be set for procedures, and if the wait time exceeds that benchmark that the Alberta Government pay to have patients flown out to other jurisdictions for their procedure. Doug has also committed to doubling the funding for the Alberta Foundation for the Arts over the next 3 years. He was the lucky recipient of some jabs from Gary Mar in a meeting with the Edmonton Journal editorial board this week over changes to the province's research funding framework that took place while it was Horner's responsibility. This is good news for Horner, as Mar is too smart to attack a rival candidate who doesn't pose an internally-perceived threat to his front-runner status.

Gary Mar
Mar took an unexpected leap 2 weeks ago when he came out in favour of the province looking at private health delivery. It wasn't unexpected that Mar felt that way - he was Ralph Klein's health minister, after all - but it *was* unexpected that Gary felt a need to even open that can of worms. With 4 former Ministers of Health on Team Gary - Mar himself, Liepert, Hancock and Evans - the health file is one he's well-stocked to defend. Mar's well-organized campaign is running on all cylinders, with buzzing hospitality suites, his General Election-style campaign stops, on-line presence and co-ordinated policy releases and Letters to the Editor in local papers and MSM webpages. Also showing on those pages of late, though, are columns and blogs like a recent one by Mark Lisac on the Calgary Herald site, that point out the Mar campaign may be playing it TOO safe with the lead. As an Oilers fan, I'm not sure I know what it's like to play with a lead, but I understand the metaphor.

Rick Orman
Orman took a bit of a hit 2 weeks ago when his former boss, Don Getty, endorsed Doug Horner (the son of another former Getty cabinet member). Since then, though, Orman has been firmly on the offense, claiming that the Athabasca Land Use plan will cost the province $150 Billion (with a B) in lost royalties, calling the plan "Third World". Rick proposes reforming the immigration policies of the province, taking aim at the factors he feel impede immigration to Alberta, and that contribute to our labour shortage - like training and retention policies. Orman out-bid Ted Morton on education tax credits, offering post-secondary graduates tax credits of up to $25,000 if they stay in Alberta for 5 years after graduation. Just a few days ago, he also promised that one of the government ministries that would be eliminated under his leadership would be Aboriginal Affairs, calling the government's attitude towards First Nations and Metis "paternalistic". Gun blazing, that's our Rick.

Ted Morton
Morton brought out the "big guns" this week, with the release of his Fiscal policies. Of note: A full roll-back of the salary increases for the Premier and cabinet, mandatory referendums on any income tax hike proposed by government, and a commitment to have Alberta "back in the black" in 2 years. Ted also spoke about the need to put "conservation back into conservatism", and unveiled a plan to fund capital spending in provincial parks through lottery revenue. In Lethbridge, Morton identified the building of west-bound pipelines to ship Alberta's energy products globally as "my number one priority", so that Alberta can get the global price for its energy resources, rather than the North American price.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the forum in Lethbridge, given that I was in attendance. On the whole, I thought the event was well organized. The questions were solid, the time limits were rigidly enforced (much to the detriment of Horner all night, who had a lot to say), and the event was attended by well in excess of 400 people (with 4,000 more watching online).

The only criticism I have of the event was the set-up of the candidate booths afterwards. Now, I know it's nobody's fault about the floor plan of the hotel and conference rooms - that's just how it is. There are only so many places in Lethbridge you can book an event like this. I get it. But the lighting in the atrium lobby was absolutely terrible - you couldn't see more than 5 feet in front of your face. I'm sure it impacted membership sales and post-event mingling.

All that said, though, the hospitality suites were certainly hopping. In particular, the Mar and Horner events were VERY well attended shortly after the event, though I'm told that by the end of the night (long after this blogger and his MSM travelling buddy had retired) the Griffiths suite was jammed to the rafters - and given the relatively small size of the room, that can't have been very comfortable. It was a suite, though, and so by its very definition a frill to the "don't have money to spend on a lot of frills" Griffiths campaign. It's a lesson sometimes the provincial government would do well to heed.

I was hoping to attend tonight's forum in Red Deer, however my long-awaited photographer's appointment (for a project you'll be hearing a lot about soon) has been changed last-minute, and I'll be tied up and away from the computer. Be sure to follow #pcldr on Twitter for coverage of the event, or watch it live on the PC Party website.

Who's going to bring me Donut Mill - anyone? Anyone?

The Race to the Premier's Office - 31 Days to the First Ballot

2011-08-17T16:50:00.000-06:00

I don't know what to tell you, Nation.

On the one hand, it seems to all the world as though the 6 candidates for PC Leader are just floating placidly on the pond of public consciousness, not making any waves and waiting to drift into the sun.

As anyone who knows ducks (or political campaigns, for that matter) would tell you, however, there's some absolutely FURIOUS paddling going on underneath the surface of that pond.

Here's what you may have missed this week, in the race to crown Alberta's next Premier...

Klein endorses Mar, Getty endorses Horner
Neither former Premier mentioned particular policies in their endorsements, instead making them endorsements of the men themselves. The Klein endorsement will likely carry more weight than that of Don Getty, however the actual real value of endorsements is very much open for debate. I have a lot of friends holding PC memberships. I have yet to hear one say "I didn't have any idea for whom I was going to vote, but if Gary's good enough for Ralph, he's good enough for me".

The Dangers of Twitter
Rick Orman got into a bit of a tough situation this week on Twitter, when he started trading shots with fellow PC Leadership candidate and Twitter Ninja Doug Griffiths over what he imagined (emphasis intended) was Griffiths' advocacy for a provincial sales tax. The exchange can be found here, courtesy of Stuart A. Thomson transcription services. What's touched on is the simultaneous exchange that was going on between the 2 and Walter Schwabe of Fused Logic, who had offered space for both men to debate on live-to-the-web streaming video. Orman refused repeated efforts by Schwabe to confirm if he would be willing to take part in the debate, leaving Griffiths without a dance partner and leaving Schwabe a little hot under the collar. In light of Orman's clearly expressed belief that leadership forums and debates are a waste of time in a race where memberships sold - not policy, or popularity, or public events - will be the biggest determining factor of success - his reluctance to "waste his time" debating another candidate on internet video makes sense. My response would be that getting televised on the web is better than getting televised NOWHERE, but Rick disagrees, as is his right. I'd just remind him, though, that Twitter isn't about broadcasting, it's about conversation. When you ignore the people who are trying to converse with you, you alienate them. And when they run web media companies... well, remember the old adage: "Never get into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel". Electrons are the new ink.

The Dangers of Twitter, continued...
Rick just had a bad night. He really did. At one point during the evening's Twestivities, the Orman/Griffiths repartee was interrupted by this tweet, from Alberta Party President Chris LaBossiere:

@Rick_Orman I would love to hear a couple examples of "innovation in the tax system" that would help us balance our budget. Help me out.

Now, at this point as a PC Leadership contender, your spidey-senses have to be kicking in. "Innovation in the tax system" certainly sounds like one of those political euphemisms designed to say something without actually saying it - like "increasing revenues" means "hiking taxes". And Orman said as much in response:

@ChrisLaBossiere not a language I understand. "innovation in tax system". What is that code for?

The problem, which Labossiere made clear in his next, incredulous tweet, was self-evident:

@Rick_Orman Umm... it wasn't a trick question. This is YOUR wording from your website.

And indeed, that's exactly where it IS from. LaBossiere didn't pluck the wording out of thin air; he was quoting Orman's website, and asking for clarification. Orman has not, to my knowledge, explained why he thought a term from his own website, under the heading "Rick's Commitments", was unfamiliar to him. It certainly couldn't be that the candidate didn't know what was on his own website - that'd be unfathomable.

Mar comes out in favour of private healthcare
The only thing shocking about this position, long-held as Daveberta outlines on his blog, is that Gary felt the need to go there. It could be that his internal polling is giving him some ugly numbers - in fact, that's the only reason I see for the perceived front-runner to voluntarily wade into the private health care debate. Rest assured, this position is going to get Gary some headlines for the next while - but are they really the sort of headlines that he needed? Or is this a case of "there's no such thing as bad press"?

Senate Elections on the near horizon
All 6 leadership candidates have come out in favour of holding Senate elections by 2012, in anticipation of filling upcoming vacancies in Alberta's representation in the Upper House. Candidate Doug Horner, however, wants the Alberta senate elections held in conjunction with simultaneous senate elections in BC and Saskatchewan, turning senate elections - and duly elected senators - from an Alberta-exclusive phenomenon into a regional one and putting senate reform back on the federal map in a big way.

"Read My Lips..."
5 of the 6 PC Leadership candidates have pledged they will consider no increases in taxes, no new taxes and no changes to the energy royalty structure. The black sheep, Doug Griffiths is leaving everything on the table, citing the gap between the $12 Billion we collect in income and business taxes versus the $39 Billion we spend each year. "We don't pay for the services we get. We rely on royalties and then we wonder why we ride this rollercoaster?... Maybe we should review the tax system and pay for what we get. That's all I'm saying. That's why it's part of that whole big fiscal discussion we need to have." Griffiths said to the Calgary Herald. If that chorus sounds familiar, it's because it's a call for a discussion that was also made this past May by none other than Saint Peter, Peter Lougheed, when he suggested the new PC Leader would have to take a good close look at the tax base to determine how to fund programs and infrastructure for the long-term, preparing for the day that the Golden Goose (the energy sector) stops laying eggs (my words, not his). If, in light of this, 5 of the 6 candidates are pledging no new taxes and no increases, it would seem that Griffiths was the only leadership candidate listening when Lougheed was speaking.

The next PC Leadership Forum takes place this Thursday at 7 pm, in Medicine Hat. The event will be live-streamed via the web through the PC Party website. I'll be watching from the friendly confines of Enlightened Savage World Headquarters. Since the winner of this contest will become the Premier of Alberta, I'd urge you to watch, as well. They're YOUR tax dollars, after all - no matter WHICH party you're inclined to support.

Shoulda Carried the "1"...

2011-08-17T13:10:00.003-06:00

Nation, typos happen. We've all zigged linguistically or mathematically when we should have zagged.

When politicians do it, however, it's a bit more of a problem. Because, quite simply put, we don't know whether or not we can trust a lot of them. They're up there with lawyers and used car salesmen in our public esteem, as "people who very probably would lie to my face if it would help them earn money/win". So, when a politician gets something wrong, we don't know if it's because they honestly made a mistake, or because they're trying to intentionally mislead us.

This problem reared its head this week when Wildrose Party candidate Richard Jones, of Calgary-Acadia (nee Egmont), posted the following on his Facebook page (click on image to enlarge):

Now, Jones' indignance - which is quite possibly linked to his future career prospects, let's remember - is based on the absolutely brutal statistic that he gleaned from the National Post column listed underneath his comment. In said column, Lorne Gunter quotes a report from the Fraser Institute in which the "$10,204 per capita" number appears.

The gist of the column - and the report - is that Alberta has a spending problem. Spending has increased nearly 40%, adjusting for inflation, since the Golden Age of King Ralph in 1996. That's certainly a discussion I'd be happy to have with anyone. But there's something about the figure that Richard quoted that just seems... off.

Let's see...

"Today, the PC Government spends $10,204 per person each month"... and he's obviously committed to that number, because he then extrapolates that, for his family of 6, that works out to over $720,000 per year. A solid and meaningful number. Those Tories must be out of control. I mean, let's extrapolate that number further, and see what those PC jerks are spending in TOTAL each year!

$10,204 per person, per month.
12 months per year.
That works out to $122,448 per person, per year.
There were 3,609,319 people living in Alberta in 2010, according to provincial figures.

That means the Tories are spending...

$441953892912 per year.

That's a big number. Let's add some commas.

$441,953,892,912.

Wait...

What?

The PC's are spending $441 BILLION per year?

No wonder Richard's so angry... Now *I'M* angry, too! Let's get rid of those free-spending morons!

Of course, a look at the budget would tell you that Richard's math is off, by a bit. $402 Billion, to be exact. Which is a lot of money. It's about 17 months worth of total FEDERAL spending, actually.

In fairness, it could be that Richard simply misunderstood the figure he was looking at. In particular, this could be true if he took Lorne's word for it and didn't actually read the Fraser Institute report which Lorne linked to from his column (it can be found here). Page 28, Figure 5. The truth is, the Government of Alberta spends $10,204 PER YEAR per capita, not "per month", as Richard asserted. The total amount that Ed Stelmach spends on Richard's family of 6 is $61,224 each year, over $33,000 of which is for those silly frills "health care" and "public education".

I'm trying to give Richard the benefit of the doubt here, because if he DID understand the true figure, the only other conclusion we could come to is that he was intentionally misleading us. Which, of course, I'd never accuse him of. In fact, I'd be happy to post his clarification in this space.

Albertans need to have a serious, open and frank discussion about taxes and about spending. These are adult conversations, requiring the utmost care and detail because they affect so many people in so many serious ways. We owe it to ourselves, to our fellow Albertans, and to future generations to get it RIGHT, rather than to throw soundbytes and factoids at each other to try and "beat the other guys".

Is spending "out of control"? I don't think so. I think it's higher than it should be. I think we're making up for the deplorable lack of program and infrastructure spending in the mid-90's for the most part, but there's also fat to be cut, and inefficiencies to address.

But let's do it with the real facts on the table, and calculators in hand.

Like grown-ups - neighbours, friends - trying to make the province better.

Not like politicians trying to win a job.

Our next generation deserves better than that.

The Race to the Premier's Office - 38 Days to the First Ballot

2011-08-10T15:03:00.000-06:00

Hello, Nation...

As panicked school children wonder where their summer holidays have gone, we take a gander at the calendar and realize we need but tear off one more page for the long-awaited PC Leadership election to be upon us. Political watchers are divided about whom the eventual winner might be, but few are proving foolish enough to predict a first ballot victory.

The race seems to have picked up some steam over the past couple of weeks, as Albertans digest the implications of recent polls suggesting that the winner of the race to replace Premier Ed Stelmach won't just be holding the job for a few months, but very likely 5 years or more. It's a real race, to select a real leader who's going to have a real impact.

Game on.

Here's what you may have missed since last we spoke...

Gary Mar took a swipe at Alison Redford in a statement he made referencing Edmonton's tragically high murder rate for 2011. His suggestion that the provincial government, and Redford as Justice Minister, didn't follow through on funding the Safe Communities initiative was met with swift rebuttal by Redford, who in turn criticised Mar for (I'm paraphrasing, here) using tragic and senseless crimes to score political points. The 2 took their argument to the airwaves, appearing on the Rutherford radio program last Friday. Both campaigns, not surprisingly, felt their candidate won that showdown. Redford ended the discussion telling Mar "Next time, let's do this on Health Care". Mar's campaign took some heat shortly thereafter when it was alleged a junior team member had called into the program under a false name to lob a softball question at Mar. The campaign, for their part, says nothing like that was ever suggested or authorized, and if it DID happen, it would have been a volunteer who took matters into their own hands.

Later that same day, Redford was endorsed by the Calgary Police Association, which represents almost 2,000 Calgary Police Service members. The organization will not be donating money to Redford, but will encourage members to buy PC Party memberships in order to vote in the leadership race.

Earlier this week, Gary Mar gained the endorsement of current Minister of Education Dave Hancock. This brings the total number of former Ministers of Health on Team Mar to FOUR, with Gary himself, Hancock, Ron Liepert, and Iris Evans. It's enough to make Raj Sherman lose sleep.

Just last night, Rick Orman hosted a reported crowd of several hundred at Wurst Restaurant & Beerhall, a much celebrated new addition to Calgary's dining scene for those of us with "Ober" in our names. ;) The big news coming out of that event was Orman's call for a full operational review of provincial government expenditures. His argument was that the province doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem (an argument that worked for Ralph Klein when running against the record of the free-spending Getty cabinet, of which Orman had been a member for 7 years).

The candidates all attended the Alberta Teachers' Association Leadership Forum this morning. The reviews were generally positive, though the most muted, polite applause seemed to be directed at former University of Calgary Professor Ted Morton. The OTHER professional educator in the race, former junior high school teacher Doug Griffiths, received boisterous applause and cheering at several points, particularly in his closing statement when he pointed out, in response to an ATA table placard, "...the future, it's why teachers teach... it's also why they run to become Premier".

The 6 candidates will square off again in Ft. McMurray this Thursday, starting at 7 pm. I expect it's a safe bet that Energy and Royalties will be popular topics, and that the Mar/Redford and Orman/Mar jabs of the past few weeks may continue. The forum will be live-streamed on the PC Party Website. I'll be watching the event from Gary Mar's Calgary HQ, and talking to his team for reactions afterwards.

NOTE TO CAMPAIGNS: This (undecided) PCAA member, who writes a blog that a few people read, is only available to watch 2 more forums from your Calgary HQ's - the Medicine Hat and Edmonton forums. The others - Lethbridge, Calgary, and Red Deer - I'll be live-blogging from. You know how to reach me to extend an invite. First-come, first-served. ;)

The Race to the Premier's Office - 52 Days to the First Ballot

2011-07-27T13:33:00.000-06:00

Nation, this blog isn't going to become JUST about the PC Leadership Race over the next few months... but, it would be stupid and, quite frankly, irresponsible to NOT cover the race which will determine who gets to spend my tax money. That's the nice thing about being a blogger - no Editor telling me what to cover.

There WILL be other topics coming - one in particular on the Democratic Reform proposals recently released by the Alberta Party that is worth looking forward to - but, for now, it's once again "#pcldr Time".

Here's what you might have missed over the past 6 days since the last Leadership Update post...

- The PC's have tweaked some of the rules ahead of their second leadership forum, which takes place tomorrow night in Grande Prairie starting at 7 pm (live streaming on the Alberta PC website). In particular, several of the camps were calling for longer time allowances to flesh out their ideas and vision - adding a minute to their opening statements, doubling the time to answer direct questions and doubling (to 1 minute) the time to rebut. This is thought to benefit Doug Griffiths and Alison Redford in particular, as both had a lot to say at the Vermilion forum and the 30 second rebuttal limit seemed to stymie Alison in particular. The change is considered by some party insiders to be potentially dangerous for perceived frontrunner Gary Mar, whose speaking style in Vermilion seemed focused on the standard 20-second soundbyte (despite his later criticism of the format as not allowing enough time to hold sitting MLA's to account on their records). Stretching those answers out to a minute or longer might throw Mar off his rhythm. Then again, it might not - it's not Gary's first barn dance. I guess we'll all have to tune in to find out.

- Ted Morton has suggested that in order to fund a new arena to host the local hockey heroes, Edmonton might consider a 1% consumption tax. Now, while "those who would use it should pay for it" makes good common sense, it's still worth noting that I got an email a few hours ago from the Ted Morton who ran for the PC Leadership in 2006, appalled that someone using his name and likeness would endorse the idea of creating a new tax.

- The Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal have commissioned a poll by Environics, which sought the opinions of 900 Albertans from across the province on a number of issues. As far as the PC Leadership race goes, the respondents (who were randomly-chosen Albertans, and not necessarily PC Party members or supporters), indicated their support as follows:

Gary Mar 12.1%
Ted Morton 8%
Alison Redford 6%
Rick Orman 4.7%
Doug Horner 4.7%
Doug Griffiths 1.5%

(quick correction for the Herald folks: Dinning led on the first ballot only in 2006; Stelmach led after the 2nd by almost 500 votes over Dinning, and won on the 3rd).

Now we all know what polls are good for (hint: it involves dogs), but Environics is reputable enough to at least have this sort of result steer some of the otherwise uncommitted donor money in interesting directions.

It's worth noting, more than 6 weeks from the first ballot, that a mere 4 weeks before the Calgary Municipal Election, Ric McIver polled a dominant first-place with 43% of decided supporters, compared to 28% for Barb Higgins and just 8% for eventual winner Naheed Nenshi. So, campaigns matter, and 6 weeks is an eternity in politics. Nenshi overcame a 35-point deficit to win. Even polling last, Griffiths would be in first place with a mere 11-point leap. It's still anyone's ball game. Gary's people know this very well - some of them were working for Ric and Barb.

- Lindsay Blackett, MLA for Calgary-North West and Minister of Culture & Community Spirit, has endorsed Doug Horner for PC Leader. Blackett is Horner's first MLA endorsement from Calgary.

- Peter Sandhu, MLA for Edmonton-Manning, has endorsed Ted Morton. So has Rob Anders.

- Doug Griffiths was the subject of a piece that ran in the Globe & Mail this week. Griffiths, a former teacher himself, is said to be garnering attention from teachers in the province as result of his strong pro-education statements in the first Leadership forum.

- Alison Redford is talking about bringing fresh perspectives to the PC Party, as her tour of Alberta continues.

- Gary Mar released an iPhone app this week. I downloaded it (of course). It's good. You can download it from the iTunes Store.

- Rick Orman wishes he wasn't wasting his time doing the Leadership forums.

The Race to the Premier's Office - 58 Days to the First Ballot

2011-07-21T15:58:00.000-06:00

Nation, the race to replace Ed Stelmach as leader of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta is now, by any measure, under way. While nominations opened in mid-June, it was just 6 days ago that the nomination period ended. All 6 previously declared candidates had their paperwork and deposits accepted by the party, and they will appear on the first ballot.

I thought I'd take a quick spin through the candidates, and see what it is that they and their campaigns have been doing to this point to try and capture the imagination of the members of the PCAA - and, by extension, the people of Alberta.

In alphabetical order, by first name...

Alison Redford made a heck of a good impression on my 9 year-old niece. She's now torn between being a ballerina, a doctor, or the Premier of Alberta when she grows up. As I tweeted at the time "it would seem 'hope' is contagious".

Redford has spent a lot of time early in her campaign in Fort McMurray, and talking Energy. One of her most recent announcements was her position that Alberta should take the lead in developing a Canadian Energy Strategy. From her press release:

"We need to take the lead on this issue," says Redford. "It is not leadership to that say we need to be afraid of Ottawa imposing environmental standards on our province. We have the opportunity to work with both Stephen Harper's government and industry to establish world standards in environmental protection. Albertans know more about this issue than virtually anyone in the world. Let's use that knowledge to set standards that we know are practical and effective."

The focus on the Energy sector is an interesting one for Redford, given that one of her opponents has worked in the oilpatch for 2 decades, and another has the backing of Alberta's current Minister of Energy. She's definitely giving the impression that she's in this fight to win it, however, by taking the fight to them instead of waiting for their own releases and then responding. It's a strategy reminiscent of the Nenshi "Big Ideas" in the Calgary municipal campaign, which shouldn't be surprising considering Alison's campaign is being run by former Team Nenshi big wheel Stephen Carter. Alison again channelled her inner Naheed when she challenged Gary Mar to a one-on-one Health Care debate, "any time, any place". It's hard to turn down challenges like that without looking like you're running away - ask the perceived front-runners in Calgary's mayoral race how that turned out for them after the votes were counted.

Incidentally... Alison: I challenge you to take me out to lunch. Any food truck of your choosing. I await your response. ;)

Doug Griffiths has been quietly buzzing from living room to living room, making use of the best resource he has at his disposal: Doug Griffiths. Much-rumoured to be short on cash, Griffiths finds himself without the resources to be shuttled around the province in a giant motorcoach with his face plastered on the side of it, so he's going back to his roots: Talking with people, about what they think matters. Doug's focus has been generational: He's asking people how to build an Alberta for their grandkids to enjoy.

The early knock against Griffiths was that he was "too young and inexperienced" to run the province. The rebuttal to those criticisms was typically good-natured, though no less on-target: Doug is the same age as Danielle Smith, and has been an MLA working for the people of Alberta for 9 years - that's 9 years longer than Smith, the "Premier-in-Waiting" of Wildrose lore. Subsequent criticisms have tried to paint him as an "insider, unable to change". Anyone who has paid attention to the inner workings of the PC Caucus would tell you, Griffiths was about as likely to get a full cabinet appointment as blogger Dave Cournoyer. As a former school teacher, Griffiths keeps education policy close to his heart. Speaking to the Calgary Herald about recent job cuts in education, Doug was quoted:

"The best way to transform our economy and ensure our success for generations to come is to make sure we have the best education system from kindergarten to post-secondary and all the research and development components that go with it," Griffiths said.

Griffiths is going to have to visit a lot of living rooms and convert a lot of undecided Albertans into proselytizing Griffiths Supporters in order to make up the ever-widening gap between what he needs to do to win, and what he can afford to do. He's been the most personal of the candidates to this point - folks who ran into him at Stampede breakfasts remarked over and over to me about how genuine he seems - and he gets full marks for doing all of his own Tweeting and blogging rather than farming it out to staffers (his campaign staff, from Campaign Manager on down, is entirely comprised of volunteers). The question is, can Griffiths - easily one of the most tech-savvy and approachable MLA's, from any party - translate "Tweeps" into "votes"?

Doug Horner has been collecting so many endorsements from MLA's and Cabinet Ministers he's probably keeping his "doubles" in a shoe box to trade to other kids or put in the spokes of his bike. At last count, Horner had the endorsement of no less than 12 of his caucus colleagues, including Speaker Ken Kowalski and sweetest-woman-on-earth Genia Leskiw.

Part of the problem for Horner at this point, though, is that 9 of those endorsements are coming from what most would term "northern Alberta" - which is to say, from constituencies north of Edmonton. The PC Party has traditionally favoured an unofficial system where the leadership would alternate between the north and south - and if this pattern holds, the PC power-brokers in Calgary are going to be working hard to keep Horner out.

The knock against Horner has been his strong ties to the outgoing Premier - indeed, it's been suggested that Horner comes as a package deal with Stelmach's Chief of Staff Ron Glen and most of his northern and rural party connections, as well as with his policies themselves. Doug hasn't gone to a whole lot of effort to criticize the past decisions or direction of government, either - rightly perceiving that it would be a tough sell to convince voters that the former Deputy Premier was opposed to the decisions that were being made around the cabinet table.

Rather than focus on his own past, though, Horner has come out with an impressive list of policies. Most recently, he postulated about the value of Alberta coming up with its own immigration policy, much as Quebec currently does, in order to address workforce shortages. As one Horner supporter put it to me:

"You need more doctors, but they don't grow on trees. They train perfectly good doctors in India, Poland and the Philippines, though - so why wouldn't we try to get them to come to Coaldale or Athabasca instead of Vancouver or Montreal?"

Gary Mar has been spreading so much orange across Alberta in his motor coach that he probably owes Sunkist royalty fees. Mar's rolling in caucus endorsements - 17 so far - and in donations. While the exact numbers aren't yet available, he certainly seems to be SPENDING the most, at any rate. The mainstream media line has been that Gary is running a "General Election-style campaign", and it's hard to argue that point.

Of course, being the perceived front-runner in a campaign has its drawbacks - just ask Jim Dinning. It paints a big, fat "bull's eye" on your back. While Mar spent the last 3 years working to advance Alberta's interests in Washington, that hasn't stopped one of his opponents from trying to paint him as a Stelmach lackey - despite the fact that the height of Mar's previous political influence was under the Premiership not of Ed Stelmach, but rather of Ralph Klein. Another opponent has challenged Gary - a former Minister of Health, let's recall - to a Health Care debate "any time, any place".

This attention, though, certainly seems to not be affecting Gary's ability to have a good time. One of the high points of the leadership race thus far, in my opinion, is the "Cooking With Gary: Flank Steak" video his team did up. I haven't tried it myself - can't get past the fish sauce. But the video shows us a side of Gary Mar that we wouldn't otherwise have gotten to peek at - and if anyone tries to tell you that these politicians are exactly the same when they're relaxed as they are when they're in Question Period, just smack them upside the head, L. Jethro Gibbs-style.

I have heard quiet criticisms from some PC's - both inside and outside of other campaigns - that Mar's backstage team is running some pretty grungy, old-school political manoeuvres. In a vacuum, I'm inclined to dismiss such allegations as tripe. There are a lot of people I know who are actively working on Gary's campaign who are of the highest calibre and class. I have all the respect in the world for these people, and don't believe they'd be party to such garbage. But I'm not talking about merely one or two rumours from competing camps... IF this kind of stuff is going on, I've got to believe that Gary, and most of his team for that matter, are completely unaware. As he himself wrote on his campaign blog:

We must remember why we are candidates in this Progressive Conservative leadership race. It’s because we care about the Party and we care about Alberta. I care deeply. So let’s talk openly, let’s be transparent and let’s be inclusive. Each and every candidate brings a unique perspective and the best Alberta will be built by hearing from all points of view.

Mar is the man to catch at this point... but 58 days is a long time. 58 days ago Anthony Weiner was a shoo-in to win re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives, if he didn't decide to run for - and very possibly win - the Mayor's job in New York City. Now, he's a punchline. Gary's a smart man - he won't take his foot off the gas. The question is: Does anyone else have the horsepower to catch him?

Rick Orman is not in this race to make friends. If there was any doubt as to this fact, his recently released campaign cartoons painting Ed Stelmach as a hapless dupe and Orman's 5 opponents as a gang of backstabbers should make his position crystal clear.

Orman has spent a lot of time, effort and money suggesting that the current PC Party has strayed from its founding principles. In particular, he lists "Fiscal and Economic Responsibility" as the first of those principles (just as they appear on the PC Alberta website). His critics are quick to point out that, while he served in cabinet under Premier Don Getty, Alberta's debt doubled, and per capita spending was the highest in Canada by over a thousand dollars per year, even after a nearly 30% drop in provincial revenues (source). Orman, to this point, hasn't explained why it was okay when he was in cabinet, but it was grossly inappropriate when he was in the oilpatch and other people were in cabinet.

On the "Issues" section of his website, Rick makes his feelings pretty clear. On most of the issues he addresses, the PC Party is just flat-out screwing up (in his view). The only issue that doesn't include a criticism of the current government is Education. Really and truly, and I'm not saying this for hyperbole's sake, it reads like the website of someone who's trying to get the PC's kicked out of office. I can fully understand the desire to "re-make the party" - continuous evolution is what has allowed the PC's to hold power for so long in Alberta. Without that generational change, they'd already be gone. But running for the leadership by saying "you've all screwed this up, and I'm here to fix it" is a tough sell. Especially for someone who supported (eventual Liberal leader) Nancy Betkowski over Ralph Klein in the 1993 leadership race. Are we to believe the last good leader the PC's had was Getty?

It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it's not supposed to. If Rick spends his money wisely, and runs a good Get Out The Vote operation on September 17th, then he could have an impact here. And if those people he brings to the party - be they from the Wildrose or from somewhere else entirely - stay involved in the party going forward, then he'll get the change he so fervently preaches in favour of. The question is: Will the Klein and Stelmach-era PC's still feel welcome? Or will Rick change the locks?

Ted Morton stayed relatively quiet in his leadership campaign until the race was officially underway, out of respect for Premier Stelmach, and this is very much to his credit. Also to the Professor's credit is that he seems to have learned some very hard-earned lessons from his last run for the party leadership in 2006. Ted is staying focused on policy. And, unlike 2006, he's making it really hard to look at him as the boogeyman of the PC leadership race, because so many of his policies just flat-out make sense. I mean, I just read his entire page on Democratic Renewal, and there wasn't a single thing - not a SINGLE THING - on that page that I disagreed with.

Granted, it's easier to grasp some of Ted's policies if you were already leaning far enough to the right that your Friendly Neighbourhood Red Tory (that's me) would suggest you see a chiropractor - but, the reality of this race is that the people who leaned left likely weren't going to vote for Ted anyhow. He knows his market.

And SPEAKING of that market - Ted Morton has either hired an absolutely brilliant polling firm that is getting down to the brass tacks on what his likely voters care about, or he's totally off his rocker (I'd think the first option is more likely). Ted's 2 big newsmaking items over the past few weeks have been to defend Alberta's rodeo heritage (I hadn't realized some of the leadership candidates were, in fact, ANTI-rodeo, but I guess it must be so) and to show off his Vanity Plate proposal, to boost awareness of conservation efforts. Again: Ted knows his market. You've got to play to your strengths, and Ted's strength is rural populism and his years-long tenure as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development - which means he was on Page 3 of everyone's hunting regulations, for years.

Morton is also one of only 2 candidates to have garnered significant MLA endorsements from both Calgary AND Edmonton, as well as rural Alberta. Now, an MLA endorsement doesn't mean much if you live on the other side of the province... but if you live in Calgary-Egmont or Edmonton-Calder and you're a very involved PC member in your area, then the fact that your MLA is endorsing Ted Morton gives you a reason to take a look at him. And in the more populous areas, with more members on the rolls, that can make all the difference.

There's a lot we don't know about Ted's chances just yet. But the one thing we DO know? An older model blue van will quite possibly be involved. You heard it here first. ;)

The first PC Leadership Forum takes place in Vermilion tonight at 7:00 pm. This forum - and all of the forums - will be live streamed across the province and the world via the PC Alberta website. Tune in and watch these 6 closely - one of them WILL be the Premier of Alberta on October 2nd.

"The Next Premier of Alberta"

2011-07-06T15:28:00.000-06:00

Nation, I've been watching with interest as the mainstream media began to notice that there was, in fact, a leadership race going on within the Alberta PC Party.

I admit to experiencing some level of schadenfreude as I watch some not-quite-ready-for-primetime-members of the Wildrose Party (nee Wildrose Alliance) - some of whom are nominated, or are contesting nominations to be elected Members of the Legislative Assembly - talk about their leader as "the Next Premier of Alberta".

Here's a tip, gang - if you want to run the Legislative affairs of the Province of Alberta, take the time to learn how our system of government works. The only way Danielle Smith can be the next Premier of Alberta is if she wins the PC Leadership race this fall. Failing that, someone ELSE will be sworn in on October 2nd, or before.

I don't expect members of the general public to understand this part of our arcane, centuries-old system of governance... but a candidate for provincial office who doesn't understand this is akin to a mechanic who insists that your car's electrical system can be fixed by pumping the tires and lubricating the door hinges... you just might want to reconsider your choice of mechanic.

All that aside, though, I want to talk today about the choice that faces members of the Progressive Conservatives as they choose the person who will, in FACT, be the next Premier of Alberta - and how that choice affects not only die-hard PC's and their party's future prospects, but all of us as Albertans.

In the days and weeks since the leadership race became official, I've begun to hear a rising sentiment among my PC friends that there are, in fact, multiple factors at play that might radically alter their choice by late September. Some of those factors include:

Which candidate can best unify the party's progressive & conservative wings, north & south wings, rural and urban wings?
Which candidate can renew the party and inspire a new generation of young PC's to replace the stalwarts from the Lougheed era?
Which candidate can raise the funds required to wage an election campaign within a year of assuming the Premier's office?
Which candidate can capture the imagination of the Alberta public, and win an election?
Which candidate can out-duel Danielle Smith, Brian Mason, Glenn Taylor and the eventual winner of the Liberal race in a debate and in a campaign?
Which candidate will best be able to thwart efforts by the other parties to paint the PC Party as hopelessly left of centre, or hopelessly out of touch in the minds of the Alberta voters?
Which candidate will represent enough of a change from the status quo to satisfy voters who were less than impressed with the Stelmach years?
Which candidate would make the best Premier, whether that be for 6 months or 15 years?

... and, one question that I've started to hear more and more: Which candidate would be able to hold the party together if it lost the next election, and help it rebuild? (My answer? I seriously doubt that the PC Party could survive an election loss. The coalition between populists and progressives was built in an absence of other options, and held together by success. Lose that glue, and the members would disperse among the other options on the political landscape.)

There's a feeling in some PC circles that the best thing that can happen to the party is for it to lose an election, and spend 4 years on the other side of the Legislature. Losing has a way of flushing out the people who are just hanging out with you because you're a winner. It shows you who your true friends are. And it forces you to closely examine what it is you're doing wrong that led to your defeat - and let's be honest: A lot of PC Party members are still so completely convinced that the party has never once made a mistake that it would make your head spin. I'm not saying those people are in the MAJORITY - but they're certainly still around.

The complication facing party members is that the names they come up with in response to the questions posed above are often consistent from one party member to the next, but vary wildly from one question to the next. For example, most people would answer that Rick Orman and Ted Morton are the best candidates to avoid being labeled as "Phony Conservatives" by opposition parties, but those same people admit that they're hardly the best choices to bridge the "progressive/conservative" fault in the party's membership base. Likewise, Gary Mar is clearly a fundraiser of rare ability, but it's hard for some party members to see a lot of party renewal in the cards under a successful Mar leadership bid, considering the large number of entrenched, multi-term incumbent MLA's backing him.

The long and short of it is, there's no "perfect candidate" - no obvious first choice, who can deal with all of the issues raised above.

So, the question PC members need to ask themselves as the summer BBQ circuit hits full-stride, and pancake breakfast season begins, is: Which of the above points matter MOST to me?

Do I really care if the new leader can beat Danielle Smith? Or is it more important to me that the party renews itself before dying a slow, atrophic death?

Is it more important to pick someone with business connections who can raise money? Or is it more important to pick someone who can appeal to common Albertans around a kitchen table rather than a boardroom table?

The choice is a tough one, for the party members, because they need to examine what they REALLY value, and that includes being honest with themselves about where the party has gone wrong, in their view.

No matter what happens, there are going to be a lot of people who are disappointed that their first choice didn't win. There are going to be fences that need mending. The party is going to need time to heal. So these assertions that the PC's are planning a fall election within weeks of choosing a leader are simply preposterous. The new leader is going to have dozens of nomination contests to approve and sign off on, and that doesn't even give the successful candidates time to door-knock ahead of a fall date. If the new leader holds an election in 2011, it will be because he or she has decided they want to maximize their chances of LOSING said election. A desire on the part of that leader which is, at best, unlikely.

I'd encourage Albertans of all political stripes - or of none - to pay attention to the policy planks being rolled out over the summer by the various candidates. You can buy a PC membership for $5 through the party website, if you want to vote in the leadership race. Remember: The winner of this race WILL be Premier, for months if not longer. There's absolutely no doubt as to that fact. So, you have a rare chance to directly elect the person who will be setting government priorities and a budget. Making decisions that affect you and your family, and spending your tax dollars.

Decide what's important to you.

Don't let me, or any other blogger, or the media tell you what you care about, or who the "legitimate contenders" are.

Decide for yourself: What matters to me?

Then come back here or visit some of the other great Albertan political blogs, read about what these candidates are saying, and decide which candidate makes the most sense, and which one you trust the most on the issues that you care the most about.

That's democracy, folks. That's the way this whole thing works. That's how you choose the Next Premier of Alberta.

- Savage out.

The PC Leadership Contenders (alphabetical by surname):

Some great blogs that talk Alberta politics, covering the PC Leadership:

Inside Alberta Politics

PCinYYC

Video: Interview with PC Leadership candidate Doug Griffiths

2011-06-05T16:25:00.001-06:00

Nation, in early February I had a chance to sit down with Doug Griffiths, MLA for Battle River-Wainwright, to talk about his vision for the province of Alberta going forward. Griffiths had announced only the day before that he would be seeking the PC leadership, and his team had quickly set up a "Social Media Breakfast", which was attended by several blogging luminaries from the Calgary area.

Turns out they had a spare seat, so I was invited, too. ;)

Griffiths will be getting the "Full Savaging" later on, in terms of a full candidate profile (as will ALL of the PC Leadership contenders), but considering I finally figured out how to fix the "brightness" issue on the video I recorded (too bad I couldn't fix the "stammering interviewer" issue, but Microsoft Movie Maker only lets you do so much), I thought it better to get the video up sooner, rather than later.

I want to make it clear that, as always, my coverage of these contenders should not in any way be construed as an endorsement. I am willing - HAPPY, in fact - to meet with every PC Leadership candidate - Liberal leadership contenders too, for that matter - when they're in the Calgary area. Informed voters make better choices, and I want Albertans of ALL political stripes to make the best choices possible, so consider this an open invitation. I don't mind putting the work in, if it helps my fellow citizens make their decisions. I'm working on scheduling with the Mar and Redford camps right now. Everyone else - I'm easy to find. (Hint: Email's in my blogger profile)

So, without any further ado... Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Griffiths (in 2 parts due to duration limits, works out to JUST over 15 minutes)...

When Free Speech Crosses The Line

2011-05-29T23:13:00.001-06:00

You all know I'm a man with opinions.

I have ideas that are in keeping with the political party I've chosen to support. I have ideas that are very different, and I defend them vociferously. I'm always happy to debate those ideas, and listen to the ideas of others.

Sometimes, though, it's not possible to come to an agreement. Sometimes, you have to agree to disagree. Sometimes, the other person isn't interested in compromise. Heck, sometimes - very rarely - I'm not interested in compromise. And so you end in a stand-off. This is the reality of adult conversation.

I've long been opposed to the co-opting of public figures' images, names or internet identities for partisan gain under the guise of "satire". I didn't like it when Ed Stelmach's domain name was snapped up. I didn't like it when fake Stelmach and Ted Morton id's popped up on Twitter. Those are elected officials, and they're fair game for criticism. I get that. Bloggers are no less public, and that's by our choice. We choose to step out of the shadows, stand on a soap-box, and proclaim our thoughts to the masses. So, we're fair game for disagreement at all times, and for ridicule when we deserve it.

All that said, though, it's still not okay in my mind to co-opt someone's identity to try and embarrass them. So it was with great trepidation that I saw recently someone had started a fake account on Twitter for my friend and fellow blogger Christina Rontynen. Christina did a great job of turning the other cheek, and even considered it something of a badge of honour that she had been considered a big enough threat to have warranted a "spoof account". This reaction denied the offender that which they were most probably seeking: The chance to be hurtful to the object of their scorn and ridicule.

My disgust at the appearance this weekend of a hideously named Twitter account meant to ridicule Jane Morgan is palpable. I know that, as a staunch advocate of free speech, Jane is going to let this roll off her back like water on a duck. But the clearly degrading language used to describe this earnest and passionate Albertan is completely unacceptable in a civilized society. The account suggests it may be the work of someone in her own party, but that could just as easily be a red herring. Whether the account is related to the Wildrose nomination battle in Calgary-Klein (nee North Hill), a result of someone from another partisan bent trying to get their shots in anonymously, or just some coward with a keyboard and a lot of free time is beside the point. It's name-calling in an attempt to be hurtful. It's something children do. And my friend Jane is many things - but "childish" is not one of them. She won't give this coward the satisfaction.

I have had the pleasure of meeting many of the political bloggers here in Alberta, from across the entire political spectrum. I count some of them - regardless of their affiliation - among my closer friends. We disagree on many things - but we disagree and debate those differences with respect, and in full sentences. It was a pleasant shock to me that when many of us were invited by Wildrose Alliance blogger The Alberta Altruist to join him in a suite at the Saddledome for a Calgary Flames game this past season, we all GOT ALONG. Not just those of us who were inclined to agree with each other before we met - ALL of us. Even Shane. Because we're grown-ups, and we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Jane says things sometimes that are inaccurate. She says things sometimes that are ill-advised, or that she shouldn't have said. You know who else does that, sometimes? Me. And Dave Cournoyer. And Ken Chapman. And Shane Byciuk. And DJ Kelly. And Jeremy Zhao. And Alheli Picazo. And the Alberta Altruist. And Dan Arnold. And Dan Pagan. And Kirk Schmidt. And Alex Muir. And Christina Rontynen. And Peter Pilarski. And Allie Wojtaszek. And Duncan Wojtaszek and Blake Robert, before I put them into retirement. And every other blogger, past and present. We ALL do it. And we're not alone - REAL journalists, who are trained to do this sort of thing and smart enough to insist on PAYMENT to do it, make those mistakes too.

When we DO, we should be called on it. By the general public, and by each other. We have to police ourselves, to keep the public discourse based on reality and civility. It's the responsibility of all of us to hold each other to a high standard, and to speak up when that standard isn't met.

I respect all of the bloggers listed above, and I've been lucky enough to have met many of them. Many of them have very different ideas from me - and that's okay. Because we can respectfully disagree. Because we're adults.

But a spoof account on Twitter made to embarrass or hurt someone's feelings?

That's a child's game.

Grow up.

Glenn Taylor Elected Alberta Party Leader #abpleader

2011-05-28T13:56:00.000-06:00

With 665 votes, Glenn Taylor, Mayor of Hinton, has been elected Leader of the Alberta Party. Taylor will now begin in earnest the joint tasks of setting up his own campaign for MLA in West Yellowhead, and in working with the party's Election Readiness team to try and win a sizable caucus in the next General Election for Alberta - expected in the next 2 years.

Taylor's acceptance speech appears below.

Savage On The Scene: Sue's Big Goodbye at #abpleader

2011-05-28T13:34:00.000-06:00

Outgoing Acting Leader of the Alberta Party, Sue Huff, pointed out on stage this afternoon that on his last day in the job Edwin Erickson had performed a rap song on his accordion. Not to be outdone, Sue picked up her guitar and brought the 300 or so convention attendees to their feet with her rendition of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow", a tongue-in-cheek response to criticisms of the party as being based on "rainbows and kitten" sentimentality.

Sue rocks.

If her suggestion that outgoing leaders should sing becomes a party tradition, I want to say to today's eventual winner: When your day comes, I'm available for lessons. ;)

Savage On The Scene: Countdown #abpleader

2011-05-28T12:54:00.001-06:00

Nation, in 8 minutes the first round of voting for the Alberta Party leadership closes. Internal estimates put the turn-out at just over 60% - I'll go on the record at 1,280 votes.

Said one source close to one of the campaigns: "The last 10 minutes are the worst. There's nothing to do but wait."

The Taylor campaign has apparently called every single eligible voter, from their phone bank on-site. They're calling through Google, at no cost.

Stay tuned!

Swag Wars: #abpleader

2011-05-28T10:21:00.000-06:00

These are some of the goodies that were left on the tables this morning at the Alberta Party Leadership Convention.

The award for "Most Swag" goes to Glenn Taylor. Including a fascinating fortune cookie...

Ahhhhhh... so THAT'S how the cookie crumbles...

Savage On The Scene: Royer Speech at #abpleader

2011-05-28T10:16:00.001-06:00

Royer's introduction talks about his book, which should have been called "Randy's Excellent Political Adventure". Royer is a "political philosopher and visionary" with years of business experience. Bold, courageous, unconventional. Talk of Calgary's municipal election - why, did something interesting happen there? I wasn't paying attention. ;) Paraphrase of the "Boldly Go" intro from Star Trek - you've got my attention now. "How can we see so much excellence in Alberta, yet a government of mediocrity?"

Royer thanks his fellow candidates. Also thanks Dave Taylor and Sue Huff, both of whom draw a standing ovation. Hearkens back to Bible Bill, and to Peter Lougheed. "The Heritage Fund grew and grew, but it has stalled out, and so has the party that has goverened for the last 40 years". Alberta has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, but we're talking aobut laying off teachers, line-ups in emergency rooms... this is not right."

Royer seems to be getting more applause than the other candidates - his speech seems to be designed for "applause pauses". It's having the desired effect.

This party is the greatest thing that has happened to Alberta politics in 2 generations. We need to be more bold - more aggressive. We need to be a leader of these new and exciting ideas. Talks about his experience in the "un-named natural governing party" of Canada. His company had a "department of listening".

"Listening is a means unto an end - it is not an end itself. We have to be prepared to act on it."

Royer wraps up his speech with some French. Interesting choice. The currency of government is the happiness of its people. "This is our time, this is the place, join me in making that change". A lot of love for Royer in the room. Could be an interesting vote...

Savage On The Scene: Easton Speech at #abpleader

2011-05-28T09:53:00.001-06:00

After a brief introduction, Easton takes the stage and talks about how important it is to him that the party does things differently, including how all the leadership candidates are pulling in the same direction and sharing some laughs.

Easton takes clear aim at the PC's and the current government. Out of touch, elite, etc - I'm feeling the love. ;) Talks about his background in Sudbury, moving to Calgary, and working at Mount Royal University. Talks about his work in the business world as well. "I've learned what it takes to lead; I know how to get things done."

Goes over his priorities: Education, including access to post-secondary. Long-term planning, and the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. Protecting the environment "It's not an option for us to do better, it's a requirement". Health-care. Commitment to fully public funded healthcare that "will. not. change. under. my. watch." Talks about aboriginal relations.

"We have to leverage these new political winds - we know there's a desire for change".

Alberta Party needs to do things differently by 1. Discussing reasonable solutions. 2. Employing leading-edge thinking to develop and implement long-term solutions. Takes a shot at the Wildrose.

"I share your vision for a progressive, innovating, world-class Alberta. It's time to dream again".

Savage On The Scene: Maloney Speech at #abpleader

2011-05-28T09:35:00.001-06:00

Introduction from Tammy's mom: The day has arrived, and isn't it exciting? "Woot woot", as those Facebook people would say... (laughs)

Throw to a video from Sam Gregory, the young man who spearheaded the Save Our Fine Arts organization. He met Tammy at an event, and fully endorses her for Alberta Party leader.

Tammy's mom continues to heap praise on her daughter, focusing on her heart and collaborative nature. No mention of sneaking out late at night or not doing her chores. Note to self: Under NO circumstances should my mother be allowed near a microphone when I run for office. ;)

Marc from Calgary East comes up to speak next, about the Alberta Party's belief in listening. Leader's job is to "ask questions on our behalf". Leader must be approachable to every Albertan. We have 4 very talented Albertans who represent the best of Alberta leadership. I know every one of them is capable. My choice is the person with the energy, drive and approachability to continue party's meteoric growth. Tammy comes onto the stage.

Maloney starts by thanking fellow candidates, and all in attendance. "I truly believe that no matter who we elect today, we can't make a bad choice - because our party is destined for greatness (big applause)". Talks about her business background, and her experience with the Clinton Foundation. "My heart has led me back home, to an experience with the homeless community in Calgary, I build relationships with street youth to help them enter the job market and not a homeless shelter." She begins to tear up when talking about the Alberta Party, and how for the first time she feels "at home". Speaks about the holistic approach to policy, and that "we WILL form the next government."

Savage On The Scene: Taylor Speech at #abpleader

2011-05-28T09:12:00.001-06:00

Glenn Taylor begins by thanking his fellow candidates. Points out that when Peter Lougheed and David King were building a progressive Alberta, he wasn't all that thankful - he was busy skiing (big laughs). Taylor hypes up the strength and growth of the party. Hearkens back to Lougheed again, and mentions the democratic deficit.Talks about why he chose to live in Hinton. Tells the story of working in the sawmill, going back to school, meeting his wife and his kids - the daughter a nurse, the son living at the base of a ski hill ("sometimes the sins of the father are visited upon the son"). His campaign for Hinton council was based on the simple concept of instilling pride through listening. The citizens identified their priorities, and council met them. Will the Alberta Party be defined by the left and the right? Yes. "We will be defined because we are going to make sure that the politics of the past is left behind, and we will do what is right". Mentions his participation in the first Reboot Alberta event in Red Deer, which was attended by people from every party and every part of the political spectrum. Says that "by this time next year, our party will have contested an election". A year from now I intend to be standing here again, as the elected MLA for West Yellowhead - and I want my fellow leadership candidates standing here with me, as part of the Alberta Party caucus.

Savage On The Scene: The Morning Of #abpleader

2011-05-28T08:49:00.000-06:00

Nation, after a relatively early night and a morning spent fighting off my hayfever (the battle wages on), I find myself sitting in Salons 8-10 at the Shaw Conference Centre.

The membership of this party is streaming through the doors, on their way to their various tasks or their breakfast tables. The party's President, Chris Labossiere, just stopped by one of the 2 "Blogger Tables" to say hi. Spirits are high, and many of these folks have already cast their ballots via telephone and online. I'm not 100% convinced that's the best course of action before the candidates have had a chance to speak to the convention, but those votes are no less informed than many of those cast in any other party's leadership races.

There's a smoky smell to the air in Edmonton today - I expect that's related to the wildfires that still blaze in many areas to the north. But there's also anticipation in the air, as the party may meet its new leader by 1:15 this afternoon, as the results from the First Ballot are announced.

The voting works as follows:
First Ballot voting is open until 1:00 pm today. Votes will be tallied, and if no candidate has 50% of the vote plus 1, the candidate with the least votes will be dropped off the list, and the remaining 3 candidates will again stand for election, on a second ballot.
Second Ballot voting, if required, will take place in-person at the Shaw Centre, and via telephone and online, from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The results will be tabulated and announced, and if none of the 3 remaining candidates secures 50% of the vote plus 1, the 3rd place candidate will be dropped from the ballot and the final 2 candidates will move on to a third a final round.
Third Ballot voting, if required, will take place from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm. By my limited grasp of math, I'm pretty sure that with only 2 candidates on the ballot, one of them will certainly have the 50% plus 1 required to be declared the elected Leader of the Alberta Party.

What strikes me most about the people in this room is the relative youth that I see... in my own party, I tend to spend more time around the youth than anyone else, but it's clear in larger party events that the youth contingent, while passionate, is certainly outweighed by the elder lions (a group towards which I find myself inexorably sliding further and further with each passing year).

As I look around this room, I'm counting about 150 people at breakfast - and maybe 30 of the heads are sporting grey foliage. The party has a provincial board of 24 members, and 18 of them are under the age of 40.

Now, youth isn't EVERYTHING - you've got to be GOOD at running a party, too. And the Alberta Party is still early in the game. But in terms of growth and energy going forward, they're in a place that many parties would love to be: Chock-full of young, passionate volunteers who want to make a difference.

Savage On The Scene: The Night Before #abpleader

2011-05-27T22:27:00.001-06:00

Nation, the Savage has landed in Edmonton, and arrived at the Shaw Convention Centre just as the formal program was wrapping up and leadership candidates were making the rounds, kissing the babies (figuratively) and the dogs (literally - there WERE 2 dogs here).

By this time tomorrow, a party leader will be standing here.

I've touched base with the Maloney, Taylor and Easton camps. The candidates have speeches to polish - they've got over 15minutes at the podium tomorrow to convince the voters why they're the right fit for the job. The supporters seem to be bundles of energy, ready to go off and do... something... at a moment's notice. WHAT, exactly, they're supposed to be doing, they're not so sure about.

Cue the Operatives... every party has them. They know your name, even though you've never seen them in your life. You see them smiling at odd times, and then notice the backlight from their cell phone is still glowing in their hand, showing the text message from the manager of their volunteer phone bank. They shake hands with potential supporters, chit-chat for a minute or two, and then grab a campaign volunteer to "work on" you while they power-walk off to put out the most recent fire.

Even for a party that's trying to get rid of "politics as usual", the Operatives have a place. A political party without Operatives is utterly incapable of waging electoral battle. And the Operatives are in for a late night tonight, I think.

Early returns from this evening, announced by the Alberta Party President Chris Labossiere, indicated nearly 30% turn-out of eligible voters. And that's just through internet and phone voting.

A long night indeed.

Those of you here in Edmonton who might need to get ahold of me tonight, know how to. I'm at the Mariott. ;)

Lightning In a Bottle: The Alberta Party Leadership Race

2011-05-27T15:41:00.001-06:00

Nation, something you may not know about me is that I agonize over the titles to my blog posts. I try to look for something relevant, funny, and/or understandable. Sometimes, an inability to come up with a good headline will stop me from writing a post altogether. And I always write the title before I write the body.

So, what's with the title to this particular post - "Lightning in a Bottle"?

Essentially, what the Alberta Party is trying to do this weekend with their selection of a leader is to find themselves the "next Naheed": Someone who can lift their party from obscurity and chase down the big dogs. Much as we saw Nenshi do in Calgary, the Alberta Party is going to have to overcome their relatively low profile to challenge the "establishment" parties of the PCs, Liberals, NDP and Wildrose (who, while new themselves, are completely stocked with politicians and operatives from yesteryear) for donations, media attention, and (ultimately) seats.

In order to do this, they need a leader who connects with Albertans. A leader who represents to Albertans exactly what the party membership feel is their most important attribute or focus.

If the membership feels their focus should be on party building, they'll vote a certain way in the leadership contest. If they feel their focus should be on the economy, they'll vote another way. And so on. In essence, we will know how this party defines itself and its priorities by the results of this leadership election.

Tammy Maloney will be elected leader of the Alberta Party if the membership wants to show the party as wearing its heart on its sleeve. Passionate and engaging, Maloney is impossible to dislike. She represents the progressive heart of this party's raison d'etre. She's a tireless worker, and boasts a very impressive resume. She's not afraid to say "I don't know the answer to that" - which would certainly be a change from the politicians of today. Her family's Albertan roots run deep, and the Vauxhall native would do very well at wooing potential party supporters in the rural south and the urban centres.

Glenn Taylor will be elected leader of the Alberta Party if the membership wants to show the party as eschewing "politics as usual". The only candidate to actually have been elected to public office in the past, the sitting Mayor of Hinton has developed a reputation for doing politics differently. He's about pan-generational planning, and building consensus. It also doesn't hurt that he has attracted some pretty high profile endorsements from within the party. The only candidate from north of Airdrie, Taylor would also be a boon to the party's fortunes in the north, particularly in Edmonton and areas to the west.

Randy Royer will be elected leader of the Alberta Party if the membership wants to show the party as being focused on the economy. His evocation of Bill Clinton's famous line "It's the economy, stupid" drew some ire from within the party, however Royer maintains that in order to get Henry and Martha onside with the new party, the focus has to be on ensuring that people can still make a living. It would also help silence the whispered criticisms of the party as being "re-branded Liberals". Royer's deep commitment to bettering Alberta for all of us is clear to anyone who's spoken with him, and he is convinced that his party can win the next general election in Alberta.

Lee Easton will be elected leader of the Alberta Party if the membership wants to embrace whole-heartedly their progressive mantle. His policy positions are clear and read like a progressive hymnal, though what's somewhat less clear is whether the party membership would fully endorse them even if he were to win the leadership. He's a teacher and academic with business experience, who would likely have a lot of appeal in the cities. I wasn't able to connect with Lee during the contest, but I'll try again when I get to the convention this evening.

I'll be doing a lot of posting from the Alberta Party Leadership Convention this weekend, and should be arriving around 8 tonight, so watch this space for updates.

(Rumour has it that Dave Cournoyer of daveberta has challenged me to a cage match. It's gunna get UGLY. Doesn't he remember how I crushed Alberta Tory? ;)

EDIT: The Twitter hashtag for the Leadership Convention is "#abpleader" - I'd suggest following it and #abparty if you prefer to get your updates via Twitter rather than waiting for prime rib-quality analysis from the Enlightened Savage. ;)

Quiet May Weekends...

2011-05-27T10:14:00.000-06:00

Nation, there are few things I love more than the ability to kick up my feet for a couple of days in May, listen to the rain, and do absolutely NOTHING.

This weekend will NOT be one of those times.

Indeed, this is one of the busiest weekends we've seen in a looooong time, as far as Alberta's political watchers are concerned.

Gary Mar is making the rounds in Cowtown, hitting Rutherford this morning to announce his municipal funding platform and opening his Calgary Campaign Office to much fanfare on this afternoon at 4:00 pm. Mar seems to have been anointed by the mainstream media as one of the front-runners to replace Ed Stelmach as PC Leader, along with Ted Morton and Alison Redford (the front-runners for PC Leader in 2006, according to the same luminaries, were eventual third-place winner Morton and runner-up Jim Dinning. They also picked Ric McIver to win Calgary's mayoral race, before picking Barb Higgins, before only begrudgingly acknowledging Naheed Nenshi's campaign in its final few weeks - so just because you read it in print, doesn't make it so. And this from a blogger who predicted 50 BQ seats in the 41st General Election.)

The Progressive Conservatives are having a major "Spring Fling" fundraiser in Calgary on Friday night to drum up funds and support for their local constituency associations in Calgary constituencies currently not represented by PC MLA's. Tickets are still available, but are said to be nearly sold out. Every declared leadership contender will be in attendance, to the best of my knowledge.

The Alberta Liberals are likewise holding a big get together in Calgary on Saturday and Sunday, billed as their Annual Convention and Special General Meeting, with the subtitle of "Politics Reimagined", to talk about where they go from here. Proposed amendments include everything from opening up leadership votes to any Albertan who "registers as a Liberal supporter" (which is, I imagine, not the same as being a party member) to moving from a "one-member, one vote" process to a "weighted delegate" process. Change is in the air, that much is for certain. This hot on the heels of yesterday's announcement by Bruce Payne of his intention to run for the party's leadership under his "87 Strong" campaign for party renewal across the entire province. It should make for an interesting meeting, to say the least. Payne joins sitting MLA's Hugh MacDonald, Laurie Blakeman and Raj Sherman as declared Liberal leadership candidates. The party will choose its new leader on September 10th in Edmonton.

The Alberta Party will be holding its Leadership Convention in Edmonton this weekend as well, with voting taking place online, via telephone, and live on Saturday. The online voting will be closely watched by politicos of all stripes, as other parties and organizations toy with internet voting as a way of improving turnout. I'll be most interested in watching to see if at any point "Kirk Schmidt" is leading the online vote, as that will be a sure sign that security is an issue. Subsequent votes will continue throughout the day if required, until a winner is declared among the 4 candidates. I have been granted Media Accreditation for this event, and will be in attendance Friday night and all day Saturday - so watch this space for interviews and updates as they become available.

No rest for the wicked... coming later: My impressions of the Alberta Party leadership candidates.

Audio: Interview with Alberta Party leadership candidate Randy Royer

2011-05-24T09:59:00.000-06:00

Nation, I had a chance to sit down with businessman, author and Alberta Party leadership contender Randy Royer the day after the recent federal election.

The Alberta Party will be choosing a leader in Edmonton this coming week-end, and I have been granted media accreditation. I will be live-blogging the event in this space, so be sure to tune in on Friday night and all day Saturday as the party membership charts the course they intend to take towards the next provincial election.

For more information on the Alberta Party leadership election, click here.
For more information on Randy Royer, click here.

Awesomeness from the Inbox

2011-05-06T16:02:00.000-06:00

Nation, this crossed my desk recently from a really nifty blog/social experiment called One Hundred Jobs, and it's too good to pass up.

One Hundred Jobs: Job 87: Get Yer Vote On For LOVE!

The couple in question are friends and colleagues of mine, and I can't reiterate in strong enough terms how deserving they are of this opportunity.

Take a few moments, please, and follow the instructions on One Hundred Jobs in order to lend your social media weight and Facebook vote to Duane and the LONG-suffering Becky.

We all know the impressive weight that comes from the "E.S. Bump". Let's harness the power of the Nation, and get these kids over the top.

Audio: Interview with Alberta Party leadership candidate Glenn Taylor

2011-05-04T08:00:00.003-06:00

Nation, I recently had the pleasure of sitting down for a chat with Glenn Taylor, third-term Mayor of Hinton and candidate for the leadership of the Alberta Party. Our discussion appears below.

For more information on the Alberta Party leadership election, click here.
For more information on Glenn Taylor, click here.

#elxn41: You Have Another Choice

2011-05-02T00:04:00.000-06:00

Nation, this is usually the time when I get up on my soapbox and exhort you, in the strongest possible terms, to make sure you go out tomorrow and exercise your democratic franchise. That you honour those who fought and died for that right, by making an informed choice at the ballot box.

I really want you to go out to your polling station. I REALLY do.

That's the choice that you always have to make, really: Do I vote, or do I not vote?

After all, it's a binary thing, right? You either got in the car, went to the polling station, and cast a ballot for one of the candidates... or you stayed home, made some Kraft Dinner, and caught up on some housework. One decision, 2 possible courses of action.

I'm telling you today that you have a third option.

Go to the polling station, and refuse your ballot.

Now, I should be very clear, here: In Federal elections, ballots rejected by the voter are not marked in a separate category, as they are in certain provincial elections (like the ones in Alberta, for example). They go into the same category as "spoiled" ballots - a fact of which I was unaware until recently - as "ballots rejected by the returning officer".

If you didn't find a local candidate you could support in this election... if no one did you the courtesy of returning your calls, or coming by the house and asking you for the job... if the candidate you were most likely to support didn't come to the all-candidates' forum in your riding... if you can't bring yourself to cast a ballot for a candidate attached to any of the parties, or their leaders... I want you to put on your coat tomorrow, drive to the polling station, and when they give you your ballot, I want you to hand it back, get the black border torn off, and drop it - unmarked - into the ballot box.

Your vote counts.

It gets marked down as "rejected" - but, you'd better believe that if 10, 20, or 30% of all ballots cast in the election are "rejected" ballots, the politicians are going to sit up and take notice.

Sick of the way federal politics are done in this country? Look in the mirror... the parties run ads like this because they WORK. They behave the way they do in the House of Commons because it WORKS. They give us garbage candidates in a lot of ridings because we ACCEPT the garbage candidates they give us. They run campaigns of flash instead of substance, because we don't demand any better. 50% come out and vote for whatever potted plant they often put in front of us, and 50% stay home, which the parties interpret in any of a thousand ways. But, those who stay home give up their franchise. They lose their chance to send a message. They're asked for their opinion - and they stay silent.

If you've found someone to vote for on May 2nd, good for you - please make sure to go out and vote for them.

If, however, you want to register a REAL protest vote... don't vote for the second most popular party in your riding. Don't vote for the party you feel most needs the $2 that is attached to your ballot.

Convinced no one has earned your support?

Don't give it to anyone.

You're not limited to "vote or stay home". You have a third choice.

You can reject your ballot, and choose "none of the above".

But get out there, and go to your polling station.

Or go to your local Legion, find a Veteran, and explain why he could go to Korea or Normany, but you can't make the 4-block trip to your local elementary school.

A cast ballot is power and a choice, no matter what mark (if any) is made on it.

A voter who stays home is part of the problem - not part of the solution.

Men and women died so you could make your choice.

So make it.

#elxn41 Primer: The Results

2011-04-30T17:44:00.001-06:00

Nation, I thought I'd save you all the time and trouble of staying up to watch the results on Monday's election - especially since Tweeting the results is against the law (but blogging them seems not to be... odd...).

Everyone else seems already to have weighed in on how the results are going to work out, and so now it's time to get Savage with some numbers.

A disclaimer first, however: While I DO have the Tories winning the election, that does not necessarily equate to the Tories remaining in government. A lot of very smart people whom I have a tonne of respect for have opined that an emboldened opposition, led by Jack Layton, will very possibly defeat the government at the first opportunity (which I believe is the Throne Speech), and not even wait for a budget. Much hinges on what the wounded Liberals are going to be in the mood for as they decide how quickly they can get the millstone named Michael off from around their necks.

But, all of this is a blog post for Monday night. TONIGHT, you want a prediction. And here it is.

ALBERTA: CPC 28 seats, all other 0

If you had asked me this yesterday, I'd have said Linda Duncan and Ray Martin had a good chance at holding and extending the NDP beach head in Alberta to 2 seats. But as I've thought more and more about this, I think the average Albertan voter, even in Edmonton, is likely pretty frightened (rightly or wrongly - I think rightly) about what an NDP-led government might mean for Alberta's economy. Those scared voters are coming out on Monday and voting Conservative, because 1 or 2 seats might make the difference when, at the start of the campaign, it was considered safe to toss Jack a couple of bones as a way of protesting against "Mean Stephen".

BRITISH COLUMBIA: CPC 21 seats, LPC 2 seats, NDP 13 seats, Green 0 seats

I think the British Columbian penchant for letting their more small-l liberal roots show will result in a net increase for the NDP here. The biggest news, and the only riding in BC that many will be watching, is Sannich-Gulf Islands. I just don't think Elizabeth May has the juice to beat Gary Lunn here. I expect she'll lose by at least 5,000 votes, and then the Greens are going to have to take a good, long look at themselves in the mirror about what to do next, and who should lead them.

SASKITOBA: CPC 22 seats, LPC 1 seat, NDP 5 seats, Green 0 seats

I expect Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, which the Conservatives won by 300 votes, will swing to the NDP. Ralph Goodale will hold onto Wascana for the Liberals by a slim margin - but make no mistake, those voters are voting for Ralph, not the Liberal brand.

ATLANTIC CANADA: CPC 6 seats, LPC 8 seats, NDP 18 seats, Green 0 seats

The NDP surge here hurts the Tories AND the Liberals. Peter MacKay hangs onto Central Nova, which puts him close to the California border (by his reckoning, anyhow). PEI remains a Liberal bastion.

THE NORTH: CPC 0 seats, LPC 1 seat, NDP 2 seats, Green 0 seats

Tory Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq is in for a fight with the NDP candidate, Jack Hicks. I expect Hicks to win based on lingering resentment over Aglukkaq's last campaign. Of course, when a riding is so vastly spread out as the 3 northern ridings, Get Out The Vote efforts are critically important, and the Conservatives have the edge there, so it WILL be close. No change in the Yukon - the incumbent Liberal Larry Bagnell is very popular.

QUEBEC: CPC 7 seats, LPC 6 seats, NDP 12 seats, BQ 50 seats, Green 0 seats

Much noise has been made about the NDP's surge in Quebec, and many Quebeckers who had previously voted for the CPC, the Liberals, and the Bloc are going to cast NDP ballots this time around. However, to my mind the lion's share of these new NDP supporters were previous supporters of the other federalist parties - the Tories and the Liberals. And the loss of those votes to the NDP is going to create space for the Bloc, despite running a relatively poor campaign, to take a handful of seats that they had been in close contention for in 2008.

ONTARIO: CPC 65 seats, LPC 17 seats, NDP 24 seats, Green 0 seats

This is going to be a catastrophe for the Liberal Party. Concerns about the economy will push voters to Harper, and concerns about social programs will push voters to Layton. NOTHING is pushing voters in Ontario into the waiting arms of Michael Ignatieff, and they're going to lose over half of their seats in Ontario as it serves as a microcosm of the Liberal Party's nationwide slide - in this election, anyhow - into "also-ran" status. A dozen of their 17 Ontario seats will be in the GTA.

THE FINAL NUMBERS:

Conservative Party of Canada: 149 seats (143 at dissolution)
New Democratic Party of Canada: 74 seats (36 at dissolution)
Bloc Quebecois: 50 seats (47 at dissolution)
Liberal Party of Canada: 35 seats (77 at dissolution)

So there. Those are the results. On paper, it's a Conservative minority. Go to bed early on Monday - you'll need your energy to get through a week of "evil Layton-led coalition" and "is Harvard hiring?" punditry and smarm.

#elxn41: You Don't Know Jack

2011-04-30T10:19:00.000-06:00

Nation, it was only a matter of time.

As soon as I saw the polling numbers rising for the NDP, I knew it was only a matter of time before some deep, dark secret in Jack Layton's ancient past creeped into the light - coincidentally, I'm sure.

Of course, every party is going to claim that they would *never* stoop to such depths, and that the only tie they MIGHT have to such info is if it were revealed to Sun Media by one of their supporters without their prior knowledge... a claim that I'm sure most Canadians will believe, as the parties have no reason to LIE about such things...

At least we have a list longer than one potential culprit... The Tories are trying to fight off the NDP in Ontario, the BQ is trying to fight them off in Quebec, and the Liberals are trying to fight them off in 308 ridings. So the "whodunit" game will at least be entertaining.

But the allegations are unsubstantiated crap.

That's right - I said it.

Now, let's be perfectly clear: I'm not a Jack Layton fan. And I'm about as likely to cast a ballot for my local NDP candidate on Monday as I am to sprout wings and fly around the polling station terrifying villagers. This is not a politically-motivated defence of Layton.

What it IS, is a REALITY-based defence of Layton.

Here's what happened:

Toronto Police, in 1996, entered a licensed massage parlour in Toronto's Chinatown looking for underage prostitution and sex acts. What they FOUND was city councillor John (Jack) Layton, in a second floor studio, naked and mellow with an attractive masseuse in the room.

The masseuse, whose mastery of English is suspect (based on the notes taken by police) became flustered during questioning.

Layton, when asked if he knew of sex acts being performed on the premises, responded "No, sir.". Asked if he himself had received any, he replied "No sir, I was just getting a shiatsu."

Which is EXACTLY how this would have gone if he were 100% innocent. Layton was never charged with anything - which, considering the political climate at the time and the fact that Toronto Police considered him anti-cop, is probably a pretty good sign that they had not a SHRED of evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.

And make no mistake: This same scene could be repeated anywhere, with anyone who receives a massage.

Case in point: I went for a therapeutic massage last week in Calgary (an excellent place - if you're looking in SE Calgary, email me for their details). If one of my blogging arch-nemeses (say, Alberta Tory or Alheli Picazo) were to have found out about my appointment and sent a tip in to cops, here's what they would have found when they burst into the massage studio:

"Enlightened Savage was lying on a table, covered by a towel. He later indicated he was told to get into "whatever state of undress he was most comfortable with". Client was partially covered in oil, and had been receiving services from an attractive (college-educated and licensed) massage therapist. When asked if he was receiving sexual services, Savage responded 'Are you flipping kidding me? Blue Cross would NEVER cover that! My lower back's killing me and I'm here for a massage!'. When asked if he was aware of sexual acts being performed on the premises, Savage responded 'Seriously? That kind of thing really happens?!? I thought Shane at CalgaryRants was bluffing... No. I was unaware. Now go bug someone else please.'"

SCANDAL! the blogs would scream the next day, outing me as some sort of deviant or misanthrope. "He doesn't respect women!" others would scream. The only problems with those assertions being a) nothing actually HAPPENED, and b) I've never requested a specific masseuse in my life, and just as frequently find a male therapist trying to work on my back and messed-up hip as I find a female one. It's luck of the draw. Male, female, attractive, not... I don't care. I'm not there to look. I'm there for a massage. Do I hold my chiropractor to some sort of sexual or aesthetic standards? Hardly. (Sorry Dr. S, you're an awesome guy but I just don't feel that way about you!)

Look... if you want to talk about why Layton's policies would be potentially devastating to the Albertan or Canadian economy, let's have that discussion. If you want to debate the qualifications of his candidates, that's fine. His readiness to lead? I'll talk about that all day.

But Jack Layton received a massage in 1996, and he was naked?

Come on.

REALLY?

No wonder people hate politics.

#elxn41 Primer: Conservative Party

2011-04-28T11:00:00.001-06:00

Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Minutes...

Give or take, depending on orbital wobble, that's how many minutes are in one calendar year. Criticisms about the amount of time Parliament sits (or doesn't) in a given year notwithstanding, it is worth mentioning that the Stephen Harper Government (TM) has been the longest-lived minority government in Canadian history.

Of course, our man Stephen isn't satisfied with being a trivia answer... he wants to wield REAL power... he wants his majority. And it almost worked out that way... in fact, it still might.

Today's Special: Tory-ander Chickpea Salad

Stephen had it all planned out... the Liberals under Ignatieff were stagnant in the polls. The Greens were a non-factor to voters who couldn't spell the word "patchouli". The Bloc was facing a backlash against separatist sentiment in Quebec. And the NDP was the NDP. It was the perfect storm... a passed budget would give Harper a mandate from Parliament to push his agenda forward for the year. A budget failure would trigger an election, and almost certainly an increase in seats for his Tories - maybe even into majority territory. Everything was going according to plan...

And then Jack happened.

This isn't to say that the surging NDP are going to form government - although, it's not outside the realm of possibilities. For that matter, the Tories could still capture a majority or minority government, as result of some of the idiosyncrasies of our first-past-the-post system. National polling numbers, while interesting, don't mean much to the people in Goose Bay or Wasa or Acme.

Where the Harper Tories made their first mistake was in assuming that because Ignatieff was stuck in the mud, they were in the clear. Their first major announcement - that tax relief was coming to families within the next 5 years - was akin to Wimpy's old line "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". I effect, the Tories promised tax relief in 5 years in exchange for your vote on May 2nd - and probably at least one more time after that, as well.

They've stayed quiet on a lot of fronts, hoping for opposition stumbles. While this is usually sound strategy, especially when your opponents are as likely to stumble as the divided Liberal camp and the NDP, it results in next to no momentum - a decision which is coming home to roost in the final days of the campaign.

The Tories are rightly pointing out that Canada is the envy of the first world when it comes to our position emerging from the global economic downturn - our public finances are relatively strong, although a strong dollar relative to the U.S. greenback is hurting Canadian exports. Unemployment is much lower than many of our neighbours, and the stimulus spending that the Tories championed seems - on the surface, at least - to be having the desired results.

Likewise, opposition attacks against the Tories have been far too "inside" to resonate with average Canadian voters - arguments about contempt of Parliament or fighter jets or spending on prisons is fine when you're sitting around a poker table with your fellow policy wonks, but Henry and Martha don't generally care which politicians have been found in contempt of Parliament - truth be told, it's a pretty accurate description of how many Canadians feel about the institution, when they pay attention to the goings-on in Ottawa.

But despite the general satisfaction with the job the Tories have done, they haven't captured the imagination of the populace. "Things are pretty good - let's not change anything" is hardly the stirring motto that the Tory War Room was hoping for. And while the Liberals were the only opposition the Tories were facing, the reality is that the Conservatives were campaigning LESS badly than the Grits, so a majority was inching closer to closer to fruition.

Now, with the NDP making significant gains in British Columbia and Quebec - both provinces where the Tories were hoping to wrest seats from the Liberals - the results are somewhat less sure. Conservatives in ridings they consider "safe" are tending to avoid all-candidates' forums, to the chagrin of local voters.

A result of the conscious choice to run the Tory campaign under the radar? Surely.

A bad gamble? Not necessarily.

The voters will decide on May 2nd.

But if the unthinkable happens, and Jack Layton is measuring the Prime Minister's Office for drapes on May 3rd, expect a very significant number of Albertan Tories to take a good, long look about what steps they can take to protect their home province's energy reserves from the new federal government.

Bloc Albertois, anyone?

Conservative Party of Canada - Website
Conservative Policies
Find your local Conservative candidate

#elxn41 Primer: New Democratic Party

2011-04-27T11:00:00.002-06:00

Banners and signs are waved as rock music plays in the packed hall. The beaming leader, flush with polling numbers that put him in a statistical tie for first place in La Belle Province, shakes hands and speaks of upcoming campaign stops in Atlantic Canada, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories - all places he expects to win seats.

And then, in a moment of clarity, the face of that leader reveals itself...

Oh. My. God.

Is that...?

Could it be...?

That's Jack Layton.

Today's Special: Dipped Nuts
The NDP has long served as the socialist conscience of Canada's parliament - it helped Pierre Trudeau's minority government form the state-owned Petro-Canada in the early 1970s, before helping to defeat that same government and force an election - in which their caucus was halved. Less than a decade later, they brought down the minority government of Joe Clark. In 1993, the party caucus was reduced by voters to 9 seats. And here we are in 2011, 8 years after Jack Layton was elected party leader, and the party sits with 37 seats in a 308-member House of Commons. An impressive recovery, but still a parliamentary afterthought, right?

Wrong.

The NDP's messaging has been consistent. Much like the Bloc in Quebec, the NDP has made it clear time and again that they would work with any party - ANY party - that would bring forward ideas that they believe would benefit Canadians. Of course, these ideas would have to be visible through the orange-tinted glasses of the NDP, but all the same, while political operatives decry this approach as "opportunism" and a willingness to "get into bed with whomever it takes to gain power", Canadian voters increasingly seem to recognize that sort of approach as "co-operation" - the same kind of thing we have to do every day, and the same kind of thing we teach our kids to do. As a result, recent polls show the NDP in a statistical tie with Canada's "natural ruling party", the Liberals, for 2nd place in popular support nation-wide.

The NDP campaign to this point has been focused on 2 main themes: Firstly, that Stephen Harper favours his business and oilpatch friends over ordinary Canadians, and secondly that Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are absentee enablers of the Harper government's policies. The strategy seems to be working, as voters who in past elections have voted Liberal to "stop the Tories" have seemingly swung to Layton and the NDP, at the expense of Ignatieff's Liberals.

An Ipsos-Reid poll of the leadership attributes of the federal party leaders illustrated how Canadians have come to feel about Layton, the longest-serving leader of a federalist party in this election:

Someone you can trust: Jack Layton (34%, 2nd place)
Someone who will get things done: Jack Layton (27%, 2nd place)
Someone who has what it takes to lead Canada: Jack Layton (26%, 2nd place)
Someone who is best to manage during tough economic times: Jack Layton (22%, 2nd place)
Someone who wants to be Prime Minister for the right reasons: Jack Layton (34%, 2nd place)
Someone who has a vision of Canada that you can support: Jack Layton (30%, 2nd place)

In many of these instances, Layton is at least 10% ahead of Michael Ignatieff. This situation seems absolutely shocking, given the relatively small population of Canada that tends to lean far enough to the political left to be within the NDP wheelhouse. But Canadians are likely embracing Layton more than his party: Here's a guy who a year ago came out and revealed he's getting treatment for prostate cancer, and is on the hustings with a cane because of a recent hip fracture, yet for all the world he seems more energetic and engaged than any of his relatively healthy competitors. He speaks with passion, he's personable, charming, and was the first political leader to appear on the new (right-leaning) Sun News Network. He's got no fear and no quit in him, and people admire that, even if they'd normally be inclined to dismiss his policies or record.

Now, the Layton Love aside, the NDP policy book reads more or less exactly like you'd assume. Big business = bad. Labour = good. Working families. Kitchen tables. Doctors. Trees. Conservative boogymen. They include a costing document, which Michael Ignatieff has since described as "science fiction" - the Alberta oilpatch had better hope it stays that way, since there are almost $9 Billion in increased revenues to the government projected in the NDP plan from corporate tax hikes and what the Dippers are calling "an end to fossil fuel subsidies". All in all, the NDP platform reads like instructions on how to completely devastate the Albertan economy - a fact that I'm sure makes the incumbent MP for Edmonton-Strathcona, Linda Duncan of the NDP, VERY excited.

But Jack Layton's not running for Premier of Alberta, and the politics of division works fine everywhere you're not targeting. Look at the NDP polling numbers in Quebec and BC, for example.

The notion of an NDP majority government is still a LONG ways off... but if Layton can propel his party into the second spot in a minority Parliament, then (depending on how the other parties fare) he might be one simple meeting away from a rainmaker spot propping up a Tory government... or the Prime Minister's Office, if a formal coalition could be formed with the Liberals.

Prime Minister Jack Layton.

Don't say I didn't warn you. ;)

New Democratic Party of Canada - Website
NDP Policies
Find your local NDP candidate

#elxn41 Primer: Liberal Party

2011-04-26T11:00:00.007-06:00

The Federal Liberal campaign has become about one man, and one man only: Michael Ignatieff. Or, as this pundit refers to him, "Canada's John Kerry".

Why Ignatieff has had so much trouble connecting with the Canadian public is going to be a subject that in coming years makes a lot of authors a lot of money. Is it that he seems too professorial? Does he come across as cold? Did Tory efforts to define him in the media leave a lasting impression?

At the end of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada - the party that is usually a sneeze away from power if not actually occupying 24 Sussex Drive (as they have for 78 of Canada's 144 years) - is polling neck-and-neck with the NDP for 2nd place, nationally. They've been relegated to also-rans in Quebec polls. And the fingers of blame are being pointed, rightly or wrongly, at Michael Ignatieff.

Today's Special: Runny Grits

The Liberals in 2008 were supposed to cruise to an easy victory. Stephen Harper's Conservatives had just broken the spirit of their fixed election dates law, if not the letter of it. The Liberals had just come out of a Winnipeg caucus retreat with a renewed sense of purpose. The Canadian public viewed the Conservatives as better equipped to handle the economy, but the Liberals as better prepared to deal with environmental issues. The Liberals, sensing the direction of the wind, prepared a major platform plank called "The Green Shift". Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, had essentially endorsed the Liberals as the best party to lead government. Danny Williams, the wildly popular Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was spearheading an "Anything But Conservative" campaign.

The reality of the outcome proved quite different. A disastrous performance by freshly-minted leader Stephane Dion resulted in a net loss for the Liberals of 18 seats. While every major party saw reduced voter turn-out (with the notable exception of the Green Party), the Liberals lost nearly 850,000 votes versus their results in 2006. 6 days after the election, Dion announced his intention to resign as party leader. The resulting leadership convention saw the coronation of Michael Ignatieff as the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Fast forward to 2011, and we see a Liberal Party that, again, should be doing much better than they seem to. Whether it's the fault of the leader of of the people running the party machinery, the party isn't connecting with average Canadians. They're perceived as a party that would be bad news for the economic recovery, their early campaign focus on the Harper government being found in contempt of Parliament was "inside baseball" of the worst possible kind, and their criticisms of Harper seem to fall on deaf ears as "the same old stuff we've been hearing for years". And to top it off, much of the campaign has seen Canadians trying to determine if, in fact, Ignatieff would enter a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc or not - the answer went from "no" to "maybe" to "possibly, but our parliamentary rules allow it and can we call it something else?".

The Liberals have made Family a central plank in their platform, with the release of a 2 year, $8 Billion spending commitment for programs from Post-Secondary Education and Childcare to Home Renovations. The Liberals argue that, unlike the Conservative Party proposals, their policies can be instituted right away to help families, and not years down the road. Their plans are fully costed, and they claim they can pay for the programs without any increase to the GST or personal income tax rates - a claim that the Conservatives find laughable.

While the national campaign has been less than stellar, all is not lost for the Grits. On a local level, they have a lot of grizzled, veteran operatives who know how to win. They're targeting ridings they consider "winnable" - particularly those that don't have incumbent Tories running in them, that the Tories seem to be taking for granted, or with what they're calling "absentee candidates" (Tories who are not participating in candidates' forums). In the Calgary area, the Liberals have high hopes for Calgary-Centre North, vacated by Jim Prentice several months ago. It's not LIKELY to yield a good result for them, but how likely was Edmonton-Strathcona to elect Linda Duncan in 2008?

History shows us it's exceedingly difficult to fight a political war with legitimate threats on two fronts. We saw it with the old Progressive Conservatives, when Kim Campbell had to fend off Jean Chretien's Liberals on her left and Preston Manning's Reformers on her right. This is the unfamiliar situation the Liberals find themselves in today, attacking the Harper Tories on the right while trying to make the case that Jack Layton and the NDP shouldn't be considered a viable choice. Some polls show them running FOURTH in Quebec - a result that was unfathomable just 5 years ago.

A week is an eternity in Canadian politics - and it had better be. Because if the Grits are going to make a move here and have a shot at bringing Stephen Harper down at the ballot box instead of in the Governor General's sitting room - they've got a lot of work to do, and 6 days left to do it.

Liberal Party of Canada - Website
Liberal Policies
Find your local Liberal candidate

#elxn41 Primer: Green Party

2011-04-25T11:00:00.001-06:00

Nation, this is the first is a series of posts that will go up daily leading to Election Day on May 2nd. I'll be profiling the 4 federalist parties and their campaigns thus far, in reverse order of their popular support according to the latest polls.

If it seems as though I'm a little down on ALL the parties and their performances in this campaign... well, you're not imagining that.

The schedule will be as follows:
Monday, April 25th - Green Party
Tuesday, April 26th - Liberal Party
Wednesday, April 27th - New Democratic Party
Thursday, April 28th - Conservative Party

Today's special: Mixed Greens.

The Green Party finds itself in a VERY different position in 2011 than it did during the last General Election. In 2008, the party was riding as high as it had ever been, with a sitting Member of Parliament (not elected as a Green, but sitting as one nonetheless), a spot in the Leader's Debates as a result of that MP, and polling near the double-digits. There was even cautious optimism among party insiders that leader Elizabeth May might be able to unseat Conservative Party rock star Peter MacKay in Central Nova, where she had spent many years as a youth and where she decided to run.

Reality, though, hit the party like a tonne of bricks as the election results came in. While they had increased their voter numbers nationwide greater than any other party, and by over 41% versus their results in 2006, they still registered less than 7% of the national popular vote, and found themselves once again shut out of the House of Commons. May herself scored a personal victory, capturing 32% of the vote in Central Nova (where the Liberals had declined to run a candidate against her) however she still lost the race to the entrenched MacKay by over 5,600 votes.

Fast forward to 2011, now, and let's take a look at the growth of the Greens. Whereas they scored 6.8% of the popular vote in 2008, now in 2011 they sit at... 6%. Elizabeth May - still Green Party leader after a controversial constitutional change within the party - is running in a Vancouver Island riding, where her party polls the highest, giving them their best chance yet at winning a seat in the House of Commons. May was shut out of the Leader's Debates on account of her party's lack of a sitting Member of Parliament (a decision which disappointed many, this blogger included).

While it's hardly surprising that the Green Party got their largest share of the popular vote in British Columbia in 2008, it's borderline shocking that their second strongest province, by the same measure, was Alberta. That's right - Alberta. Home of those awful "tar-sands", and rednecks who only care about green issues when the green being discussed is the ink on the $20 bill. Home of greedy corporations who plunder Mother Nature. THAT Alberta.

Well, the Greens are working to correct the issue this time, coming out strongly in favour of corporate tax hikes and a carbon tax. Which should do them WONDERS with their popular support in Alberta. "Thanks for the votes in 2008. p.s., get bent."

The Green Party policy book has a lot of very good "what"'s - that is to say, "Here's how life should be, and would be under a Green government". What it lacks is "how"'s - How do we actually achieve the goals as outlined?

The knock against the Greens has long been that they're a group of environmental activists, trying to run a political party against parties that are run by - wait for it - politicians. Candidates are often (but not always) exactly what you'd expect: Bright-eyed students, or bleary-eyed former hippies (the candidate in Calgary-Southwest, running against Stephen Harper, is trumpeted on the Green website as "an active member of the Calgary 420 Cannabis Community"). They increased their profile, though not necessarily their legitimacy in the public eye, with the July 2010 appointment of recently retired NHL enforcer Georges Laraque to the position of Male Deputy Leader.

The party has grown steadily in membership and support since Elizabeth May's first election as leader in 2006 - however, patience is reportedly wearing thin among Green Party donors and supporters. Many eyes on election night will be on May's suburban Victoria riding, where she's taking on notable Tory Gary Lunn. It will be a chance for May to prove that her party made the right decision in extending her term as leader. Possibly... the last chance.

Green Party of Canada - Website
Green Policies
Find your local Green candidate

The Leadership Race That Wasn't: Alberta's Progressive Conservatives

2011-04-24T09:29:00.000-06:00

Nation, while the Federal election has been garnering the lion's share of the attention in these parts, you could be forgiven for not realizing that there are, in fact, 3 leadership races going on on the provincial political scene in Alberta.

Or, rather, 2 leadership races going on.

The Alberta Liberals are in the process of selecting a leader to replace the outgoing Dr. David Swann, whom despite his inherent decency and palpable intelligence, never caught on with the electorate. Swann will go down in history as one of the few duly elected Leaders of the Official Opposition to never actually contest a General Election as a party leader.

The Alberta Party, likewise, is in the throes of a leadership contest, as they choose a leader to helm their fledgling party through the uncertain waters of the next General Election in Alberta, which has been predicted as taking place any time after March of 2012.

Arguably, though, the highest-profile leadership race is the one that isn't going on - at least, not officially. The Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, better known as the PC Party of Alberta, is the party that currently forms government in this province. Their leader, Premier Ed Stelmach, announced to much surprise in late January that he will not be seeking re-election and that he would be stepping aside as party leader once a replacement was chosen.

HOWEVER, the party won't be choosing a replacement until Ed hands a letter to the PC Association President formally informing him of his intention to resign as leader. Which won't be happening until after the spring sitting of the Legislative Assembly - after all, "the people's work" still needs doing. So... while they don't yet know who will be leading them into the next election, the PC's still have a leader today - Ed Stelmach.

This point was reiterated in an email that was recently sent to PC Party members by the party's president, Bill Smith, when he pointed out that the party DID, in fact, have a leader, and that leader's name was Ed Stelmach. And that there was no leadership race taking place at this time. Which is technically true - and may, in fact, be having a direct impact on how much (or, more accurately, how little) public campaigning for the job we're seeing from sitting MLA's like Ted Morton, Alison Redford, Doug Griffiths and Doug Horner.

Of course, this isn't stopping Klein-era cabinet minister Gary Mar from campaigning, after having given up his job promoting Alberta to the power brokers in Washington, DC in order to come home and run for the job. And neither is it stopping speculation on the street, in the coffee shops and on the internet about who ELSE may be running for the leadership, when the party actually declares the race open (to clear up any rumours: I am 95% sure I will NOT, in fact, be running for the leadership).

This blog, of course, was born during the *last* PC leadership race, in which Ed Stelmach ascended to replace Ralph Klein with a second-ballot victory over runner-up Jim Dinning. As I did then, I shall endeavour to provide full and unbiased coverage of the candidates, their platforms, ideas, and campaigns. I have gone on the record stating that any candidate who wishes to author an article for this blog or who would submit to an interview would be provided this forum to get their message out, and (as always) I will not be endorsing anyone in this space - I imagine I'll develop a favourite, and will vote for that person, but this author respects his readers enough to let them make up their own minds.

In that vein, despite the fact that there is no PC leadership race as of this very moment, I've included below a handy list of links to information on the people who have stepped forward and declared their intentions to seek the PC leadership, when it becomes available:

In alphabetical order by surname, they are:

Doug Griffiths
Doug Horner
Gary Mar
Ted Morton
Alison Redford

I will also be covering the Alberta Party and Alberta Liberal leadership races as they develop. The open invitation for interviews or guest articles applies to candidates in those races as well.

It's an exciting time to be a political watcher in Alberta - and really, how long has it been since anyone could honestly say THAT?

- E.S.

qOtd: Campaign Finance Reform

2011-03-24T11:22:00.000-06:00

Nation, my apologies for the silence as late. To say that I've been going through some interesting times would be an understatement. What I want to talk about today is campaign finance reform.

One of the most convenient slurs to throw towards a candidate is the ever-popular "we don't know who's funding his campaign - he might be bought and paid for". While statutes regulate donations to political parties, they're all too lax when it comes to leadership campaigns, and to municipal elections. For examples of this we need only look as far as the Wildrose Alliance leadership race, whose eventual winner still hasn't released a list of donors citing their apparent "fear of retribution from the government". Several PC Leadership candidates, including Doug Griffiths and Alison Redford, have expressed their commitment to full pre-emptive disclosure of donors to their campaigns, and amounts. The PC Party itself, through President Bill Smith, has been most emphatic that formal disclosure rules for all leadership candidates WILL be in effect, contrary to past practice (although Ed Stelmach DID eventually release the donor list for his successful PC Leadership run in 2006).

We saw a bit of this flavour creep into the Calgary Municipal campaign last October as well. Naheed Nenshi released a list of his donors, putting them into broad categories much like the back of a concert programme thanking "classes" of donors - "These people donated between $1,000 and $2,499". The advantage this has is that it provides partial disclosure - it says WHO is funding you - without requiring you to be so specific as to advertise to your opponents exactly how much money you've got in the War Chest. Kent Hehr, by comparison, released a full disclosure of his donors, before eventually pulling out of the race (Hehr, incidentally, has apparently REFUNDED his donors, on account of him not finishing the race. Now THAT is worth respect from across the entire spectrum).

The question is, do we need provincial statutes governing political party leadership races? And if so, what should they look like?

MY TAKE:

Yes, we do.

Political parties aren't like your local Elks Lodge or the Legion. The person who wins that election could conceivably find themselves, as result of our sometimes-arcane Westminster political system, in charge of the entire apparatus of government. Tens of Billions of dollars get spent every year by the provincial government, on the direct say-so of someone who was elected to lead one of those poorly-regulated political parties.

As it stands now, we count on the parties themselves to run these elections fairly. We're counting on it, but we have no way to hold them to account. For all we know, the leader of the Alberta Party is going to be declared after a cage fight (in which case my money's on Tesarski).

Just kidding, Alberta Party. I know better. But if you DID choose your leader that way, Albertans wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Likewise the donation disclosure. Moreso than fisticuffs and way-too-tight Tap Out shirts, what successful political operations have in common is money. That money comes from average citizens, and it comes from businesses large and small. Some of those businesses and individuals, hard as it may be to believe, aren't donating out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather because they want to curry favour with a candidate they feel could someday be in a position to return the favour.

And we have EVERY right to know who our wannabe leaders are owing favours to, BEFORE we cast our ballots.

We don't regulate the leadership selection for the local chapter of the Rotary Club.

Then again, the Rotarians don't get to spend my tax dollars.

Let's fix this. Make it one of the first bills passed under the new Premier's administration. And commit to passing new, more stringent rules in time for the next municipal campaigns.

That's MY take... what's yours?

The Wildrose Alternative Budget: Fun With Numbers

2011-03-06T08:37:00.001-07:00

Nation, after the release of the Government of Alberta's 2011-2012 Provincial Budget (and the all-day media feeding frenzy that followed), the "next Premier of Alberta" (as introduced by Rob Anderson, AFTER Ed announced his impending retirement, which makes you wonder what Rob knows that we don't) Danielle Smith presented the Wildrose Alliance's "Alternative Budget 2011".

I try to look at these types of documents with as objective an eye as I can - numbers in the millions and billions tend to make my head hurt, as they're so completely unrelatable to my every day life (more on that in an upcoming blog post).

That said, however, after reading the entire document, one phrase kept asserting itself over and over in my mind... "ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!"

Okay... now that I've got that out of the way, let's take a look at the Wildrose Alternative Budget (full document available here).

Increasing spending on health care, education, children’s services, public safety, and seniors and social supports by the rate of inflation plus population growth (which was approximately 2.2% in 2010).

Alright... now, I've gone on the record time and again as being in favour of spending restraint. We shouldn't waste money. Seriously. If I do it at home, my wife throws things at me. And that's if I waste my OWN money. Government doesn't HAVE its own money - the money that government spends is OUR money - yours and mine. We worked for it. We earned it. And they took it. Or it's a royalty on a resource that we own. But the money's ours, and government shouldn't waste it.

BUT... the Wildrose often likes to echo the mantra from the Ralph Klein days (which makes sense, as they're adding notable Klein-era Tories all the time, much to the chagrin of some of their original membership) that "government should be run the same way you run your household". They even refer to that idea a little later in their budget alternative. So let's play a little game I like to call "inflation plus population growth".

Last year, your household budget for maintenance was $200. You spent $175, because you're awesome. This year, you had no new children, and inflation was - oh, let's say 1%. So, if you use the Wildrose Spending Restraint Rule, you can budget $202 for maintenance. Which you should be able to swing - after all, you're awesome.

[bang]

That sound you just heard downstairs was your water heater blowing up. A new one costs about $500, uninstalled.

Not a giant deal, you say. This is an unusual situation, I can whip out the credit card to deal with this... Oh, no you can't. You can't do that, because we govern our home under the Wildrose Spending Restraint Rule. Turn on the stove and start filling the bathtub with hot water from the pots on the stovetop, because we don't run deficits in THIS home.

The Wildrose points out - in their budget document - that a private member's bill brought forward from their caucus last year would have codified the Wildrose Spending Restraint Rule as law, and it was defeated. It was defeated, of course, because it's a stupid thing to have codified under law. About as stupid as a law outlawing deficit spending. Sometimes, bad things happen. Sometimes, you need to spend money to fix them when those bad things happen. And forcing politicians to "break the law" when those bad things DO happen is wasting our legislators' time in order to score cheap political points and satisfy the egos of the bill's author and sponsors.

Repeatedly throughout the document, the Wildrose Alliance makes reference to what they call horrible over-spending from the PC's "over the last decade". Half of that decade saw their hero Ralph Klein as Premier and half of their current caucus as Cabinet Members, although they go to great pains not to mention those facts. And another of those years saw the budget overseen and presented by one of their newest publicly-lauded party members, Dr. Lyle Oberg, who was Minister of Finance in 2006-07. So, which is it, Wildrose? Did Ralph and Lyle suck, or were they awesome? You can't have it both ways...

There are also communities in the province that need new schools and health facilities immediately. Only the most urgent of these should be undertaken this next year with a commitment to refrain from opening any new facilities without the budget to fully staff them.

An excellent idea. Take the new South Calgary Health Campus, for example: They shouldn't start accepting emergency cases there until all 293 beds at the new hospital are fully staffed. I don't care if you're bleeding from your carotid artery, get to the Rockyview Hospital - tell them Danielle sent you.

This year, the Wildrose Balanced Budget Alternative proposes to increase overall departmental spending for the Departments of Health, Education, Solicitor General, Seniors and Community Supports, and Children and Youth Services to the rate of inflation and population growth, which in 2010 was approximately 2.2% (*Stats Canada and Alberta Finance). All other departmental budgets will be kept relatively unchanged or decreased where recommended by the PCs in Budget 2011.

Okay. I'm not going to go into the "Which hospitals won't you open? Which schools will you close?" line of questioning, because it's already been done. We've got new health centres opening, and they need staff - which costs money. We've got teachers getting a contracted 5% raise - if their district budget increases by 2.2%, the extra money's going to come from...? (DON'T say "selling the CBE's new headquarters" - it'll just make Josh Traptow's head explode when he reads it).

What I AM going to take umbrage with here is the statement "All other departmental budgets will be kept relatively unchanged or decreased where recommended by the PCs in Budget 2011".

Really?

We can't trust the PC's to run a lemonade stand... there's nothing even remotely conservative about them... they're in need of a "3-step program" to deal with their "spending addiction"... and yet, where they suggested spending reductions, you're just saying "okay, we're good with that"?

Folks, this is political laziness at its worst. And it's dangerous.

The Provincial Budget was written with hundreds of staff and full access to government financial details, over months of working meetings, deliberations, internal audits, and polishing. They had access to the full weight of the public service in writing it - because it's not the PC Budget for Alberta, it's the Government Budget for Alberta. Wildrose has to use their own people, and their own resources. The entire document is a massive undertaking. No one expects the Wildrose to be able to produce a mirror to that document, taking apart every ministry and department budget expense line-by-line. But if you're the party that likes to think of itself as the next government - if your members introduce your leader as "the next Premier of Alberta" - you've simply GOT to do better than an 18-page rebuttal document that includes a title page and 8 charts that take up at least half-a-page each. That's 13 pages worth of text. This might be the last Budget to come out before the next General Election. You're proposing we hand you the keys to a nearly $40 Billion economy and our entire social infrastructure, based on 13 pages of text.

The Wildrose Alternative Budget was released the day after the Government presented the actual Budget document. One day after. The sober, reasoned construction of a mature and well-constructed rebuttal to 500 pages of detailed financial information and fiscal policy was released after less than 24 hours. I don't know if you can write a budget rebuttal hopped up on Red Bull or not, but the only other alternative I can see is that the rebuttal was written before the authors saw the original budget, and they just filled in some blanks. But the meat-and-potatoes of that 13 page rebuttal was written before they saw the budget. Which reeks of "politics as usual" - "I haven't read it, but I oppose it". THERE'S the refreshing change Albertans are looking for.

I get it. I really do. In the age of retail politics and Twitter, you've got to get your rebuttal out as soon as possible, while people are still talking about the Budget. Three hours from now Charlie Sheen's going to do another interview, and you'll lose your casual audience. But doing it FAST shouldn't be the focus of a party that wants to form government. Being thoughtful and thorough should be their focus. If you want to win the hearts and minds of Albertans, start by giving them what they deserve. Take a week, and do it right. Albertans don't deserve slick retail politics. That assumes they're fickle and simple-minded. Albertans deserve thoughtful and deliberate planning. They're smart enough to read a document without the pretty coloured charts (that indicate Wildrose proposals in blue and PC Government actions in red or pink - nice touch!), and they're serious enough about their government to read something at least as thick as the local paper. Albertans are smarter than you give them credit for. They don't just want it fast - this isn't drive-thru governance. They want - and deserve - for it to be done RIGHT.

Now, none of this is to say that the document is completely devoid of any redeeming qualities: The title page is nice, and the graphs are appealing (though VERY poorly labelled). And there are even a few good ideas in it, like shrinking the size of cabinet. I think we need a strong public service, but that doesn't mean we need 23, 25, or 29 ministers overseeing it. And as I said, I favour the principle of eliminating waste, and spending only what MUST be spent, and saving the rest for a rainy day. I get that from my parents, who in turn were raised by people who grew up in the Great Depression.

But this document reads, to me, like a badly constructed joke more than a serious proposal from a party that hopes to form government.

I'm not going to tell you what you should think - read the document for yourself. Come to your own conclusions.

But I *am* telling you what *I* think.

I think... "Are you freaking KIDDING me?"

Tory Leadership Contender Doug Griffiths on the Budget

2011-03-04T11:14:00.000-07:00

Nation, it's no secret that I have a lot of love for politicians who blog (now, if only I could think of some bloggers who want to do politics... oh well...). I twumbled across a response to the recent provincial budget that was posted by PC Leadership Contender and Justin Timberlake lookalike Doug Griffiths on his campaign website.

Griffiths' remarks, available here, are notable for a few reasons - not the least of which is their tone. While defending the principle behind government spending on infrastructure during lean times when costs are lower (even at the risk of running a temporary capital deficit), Griffiths also warns against operating deficits, and manages to take his own party to task - again and again, in fact - for the lack of a long-term fiscal framework: a guiding document to get us from where we are to where we want to be in 10, 20 or 50 years.

Griffiths, along with Alison Redford, Doug Horner and Ted Morton, might be the next Premier of the Province of Alberta - so if you pay taxes here, it's worth checking out his thoughts. In the next few days, I'll be reviewing the "un-race for the Premier's Office" thus far.

It's important to note that this blog will - as most of you long-time readers will have guessed by now - not be endorsing or "cheerleading" for any particular candidate during the PC Leadership race. It's my intention to try to offer as objective a viewpoint as possible, so PC Party members and regular Albertans can get a feel for the people running to replace the outgoing PC Leader and Premier. It's why this blog was started in the first place, during the PC Leadership race of 2006.

I should note that I also had a chance the day after Griffiths' leadership announcement to sit down and interview him at what his team was calling a "Blogger Breakfast". Video was taken, but I haven't yet posted it as I'm trying to adjust the brightness setting (shoddy camera work by yours truly). I would be absolutely delighted to offer the same opportunity to any PC Leadership candidate, as well as to any candidate for the open Alberta Liberal and Alberta Party leadership contests.

qOtd: Private Health Delivery

2011-03-03T07:45:00.000-07:00

qOtd: Should Alberta further explore the option of allowing private, for-profit delivery of health services?

Nation, it's no secret that our current healthcare system in this province is seriously over-taxed. We have too many people, making too many visits, to too few doctors and too few facilities. Once they get there, they have too few beds and too many patients to deal with. Wait times are improving, but still an issue of major concern. Throwing more money at the system doesn't seem to be helping, and isn't fiscally sustainable even if it WAS helping.

One proposed solution that keeps coming up is to allow private, for-profit delivery. In essence, allow "Enlightened Savage Health Services" to open its doors and perform neuro-surgical procedures, as an example (I'd recommend against it, as I had to check the spelling of "neuro"). Alberta Health would then cut a cheque to the clinic, rather than to itself.

The benefits, we're told, are that it would provide more options for care. More beds. More surgical bays. More facilities, closer to more Albertans. The risks, critics claim, is that it will take the most qualified doctors and nurses out of the clinics and hospitals we have, and put them in the for-profit clinics where they can afford to pay more, or offer better perks. Also, we're reminded, it doesn't address the issue of a lack of trained health personnel - we'll just be spreading a limited number of doctors and nurses even further.

MY TAKE:

I think we're foolish if we don't at least explore this option. If we have more facilities offering care, then the demand for trained health professionals will rise. When demand rises, the supply will increase to meet it (in theory). More students will pursue nursing or medicine, because they'll know there will be jobs. If they're exceptionally good, there will also be opportunities in the "for profit" health system.

There IS, of course, the "slippery slope" argument to be made: That once we allow this to take root, before too long we'll have a second tier of health care, available only to the super-rich.

I'd point out that we already HAVE a second tier of health care, hidden in plain sight. We see the results of that second tier every Saturday night. When Jarome Iginla loses an edge and twists his knee on Monday, he's getting an MRI on Tuesday, and (if necessary) surgery by Friday. If the same thing happened to you or me on Monday, I'd get an MRI by Labour Day, and surgery by this time next year (maybe).

Would these "for-profit" clinics allow for queue jumping? I suppose it's possible - it would depend on the legislation and the regulations. Even if it DID, though, consider: If I'm #3 on the list for a hip replacement, and Brett Wilson (who is #2) pays an extra $50,000 to get his done right now at the "Golden Hips OsteoSurgical Spa" in Nanton, then I - the poor plebe that I am - move to #2 on the list. And I'm getting mine sooner. Provided there are doctors to do it, and they aren't all working on Brett's hip because Golden Hips pays better than the Rockyview General Hospital.

I don't know if private, for-profit delivery can work for health services. I know that's how we get dental, vision and chiropractic care in this province - some dental clinics are better than others, and the rates we pay vary from chiropractor to chiropractor. If we're told that it can't work, then fine - it can't. This isn't something I want to explore due to ideological dogma. I'm not interested in this idea at ALL if it means anyone, anywhere, is waiting LONGER tomorrow than they are today. Or receiving worse care tomorrow than they are today.

But we owe it to our parents - and to ourselves, and our kids - to at least TALK about it. Because nobody gets hurt by TALKING about it, right?

That's MY take... what's yours?

qOtd: TALON database

2011-02-28T07:55:00.003-07:00

qOtd: Are you in favour of the new TALON database for Law Officers in Alberta?

Nation, many of you have by now heard of the new "The Alberta Law Officers' Network", or TALON database.

In this database, police and peace officers will have access not only to your record of convictions, but also charges that were dropped, investigations you were a subject of, 9-1-1 calls associated with you - pretty much a full spread of everything the legal community knows, or suspects, about you.

The unfortunate quote that was attributed to Ayaaz Janmohamed, the executive director of the IT branch in the provincial Solicitor General's office, is "The concept is that we will have a single source of the truth."

Civil rights leaders, not to mention philosophy majors across the province, cringed at the quote. As did Ayaaz, I'm sure, after the fact.

The Edmonton Journal story includes a few points that have since been cleared up. Officers will, in fact, need to give a reason for accessing the information. And the privacy assessment will, as recently announced, be made public.

MY TAKE:

I understand where the critics are coming from. I do. At some point, though, don't we have to give the benefit of the doubt to these officers that they will, more likely than not, use the information to help them do their jobs - keeping us safe? I mean, we DO give them hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of training and equipment, and firearms.

I'm not saying we give them carte blanche to access any information they want. This isn't NCIS, where McGee can check my cell phone records in real time, without even thinking the word "warrant". But if a cop pulls over a car for speeding in Calgary and a run of the license plate shows it's registered to someone who was identified by cops in Lethbridge 2 hours ago as a possible abductor in a domestic disturbance called into 9-1-1 by the neighbours - isn't that good information for the Calgary cop to have before he scribbles a ticket and sends the guy on his way without, say, checking the trunk?

The issue that most clearly paints the picture for me about the necessity of this kind of a system - this KIND of system, not necessarily THIS system - is the story that came to light on Saturday regarding the alleged abduction of a young girl in Calgary by convicted sex offender John Francis Dionne. Among the MANY appalling aspects of this story is the one where Dionne - with his alleged victim in the front seat - was stopped and issued a speeding ticket by an RCMP member, and then sent on his way. In 2003, Dionne was convicted for sexual assault using a weapon and kidnapping with intent to confine. The RCMP deemed him a "high risk to re-offend". And he was issued a ticket, and drove away with a 10 year-old girl in the front seat.

Would TALON have made a difference in this case? It's hard to say - the devil is, as always, in the details. What information would come up on the screen? What information would the dispatcher pass along to a cop about someone during a routine traffic stop?

I know our system of justice is designed to let 100 guilty men go free rather than imprison one innocent man. And I know that legislation and enforcement measures approved from a place of fear or anger are dangerous.

But really... TALON doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. I trust our cops to get it right. And if they don't, I trust our judges to hold them to account.

Do I want your ex-wife to have access to all your TALON details during a custody hearing, or divorce proceeding? No. Do I want your political opponents to have access to the case notes from an investigation in 1993 where you were included on a list of possible narcotics distributors? No.

Do I want pieces of garbage like John Francis Dionne looked at a little closer during routine traffic stops? As the uncle of an 8 year-old girl, you bet I do.

That's MY take... what's yours?

qOtd: Fixed Election Dates

2011-02-27T13:55:00.002-07:00

qOtd: Should Alberta adopt fixed election dates?

Nation, this is an issue that's near and dear to my heart - and thus, it's the subject of our initial qOtd.

Fixed election dates are employed throughout many jurisdictions. Locally, our municipal elections are held on fixed dates (I can tell you, for example, on what date the municipal elections of 2019 will happen). Elections in the United States are held on a fixed schedule as well. Barack Obama knows exactly when his first term will end. For that matter, he knows exactly when his SECOND term will end, if the voters give him one.

The benefits to fixed dates for elections is that everyone knows they're coming. If we know there's an election in 2 months, then the massive funding announcement you made today is as transparent as the aluminum that Scotty used to build the whale tank in Star Trek IV. If we know there's going to be an election on November 3rd, 2011, then Elections Alberta can hire people to work during the campaign, they can enumerate voters, and they'll know - months in advance - what day they'll need elections officers to be working.

In the British Parliamentary tradition, however, we don't have fixed election dates. Elections are called by the monarch or by the designate in the monarch's stead: The "writ" of election is issued, and the election begins. While putting this power in the hands of the Queen or her ceremonial representative seems anachronistic, it is always either done at the behest of the governing party (in a majority) or after a minority government loses a vote of non-confidence in the house. The longest that an Alberta Legislative Assembly may sit without an election is 5 years - so, in effect, our legislatures DO have an "expiry date", if not a fixed date of elections. Presumably, if the Premier didn't ask the Lt. Governor to issue the writ before those 5 years are up, the Lt. Governor would do so of their own accord (it's never happened, to my knowledge).

MY TAKE:

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I know people who I respect greatly who disagree with me on this, but to my mind if a legislative body is to have any democratic credibility, they need to make it clear from the outset when they will next be going to the voters.

The current system places FAR too much power in the hands of the ruling party. They can have an election called when the opposition is down in the polls. They can have an election called when another party has just changed leaders (as we saw the federal Liberals do when Stockwell Day won the leadership of the Canadian Alliance). They can set the election to suit their own agenda - and whether or not they do so, the fact that they have the POWER to do so is fundamentally undemocratic, in my view.

Now, there's a twist to this, of course: In our system, unlike the U.S. system, the opposition can "bring down" the government. If you set election dates for the first Monday on May, once every 4 years, what do you do if the opposition brings down the government halfway through its term? Or in January of the 4th year? You hold an election, of course - we need to be governed by a duly elected body. But do you then re-set the clock, and start counting 4 years from the date of the last election? Because that's essentially what we've got now - except the clock re-sets to 5 years, and no one's ever gone the distance (that I know of, anyway).

There are a lot of details to work on, I know. And I'm perfectly willing to hear you out if you disagree with me on this issue. But to my mind, we need fixed election dates in this province. It's the only fair way to hold elections. It's fair to the opposition parties. It's fair to the public. It's fair to Elections Alberta.

And if you can't win a FAIR election - you probably shouldn't be in a position to hold an UNfair one.

That's MY take - what's yours?

Introducing the "Question Of The Day"

2011-02-27T11:14:00.001-07:00

Nation, for 4 long years you've been surfing to this little corner of the interwebs to see me wax on and on and on about politics. About how politics is done, and about how it SHOULD be done.

That's not going to change anytime soon. I'm still going to write about that, and more.

What I *am* going to do, though, is add a regular segment - regular as in "several times a week, at least" called the "Question Of The Day" ("qOtd", for short - the letter "O" is near and dear to my heart).

In the qOtd features, I'm going to ask YOU, the members of the E.S. Nation, to tell me (and all of your fellow readers) how you feel about a given issue. I'll also lay out my own opinion, with the caveat that I may be totally, 100% wrong or have no earthly idea what I'm talking about.

The impetus for this comes from my experiences on Twitter in particular. The 140 character limit requires brevity - which is a virtue I had yet to master - but it also lends itself well to trite and shallow attacks. I've got an entire blog post cooking on the tragic over-simplification of public discourse via Twitter, but for now I want to give people the space to express themselves in complete sentences. I firmly believe that when we all act like adults - another thing that sometimes gets forgotten on Twitter - and respect our fellow engaged citizens (even while disagreeing with their assertions), we can often learn something from a completely unexpected source.

I don't know everything. For me to completely disregard the opinions of someone who votes NDP (for example) just because of how they vote is, frankly, idiotic. If you're a doctor and we're talking about health care delivery and I IGNORE what you have to say about the issues in the system you're knee-deep in every day because of the party you voted for, then I'm part of the problem. Hopefully, through this exercise, we can all be part of the solution.

Some of the questions will be about sharing opinions. Some of them will be about sharing data, or straight-up knowledge on a subject that others (like myself) may lack. Things may get heated from time to time. But what I'm asking for in regards to this feature is 4 things:

Give me your qOtd suggestions! You can email me at the address listed in my profile on this page, or send them to me directly via twitter (I'm "@oberhoffner", with the hashtag #qotd). Other bloggers can submit qOtd's as well. I'll give full credit. :)
At all times be respectful of the other people offering their thoughts. It's possible to say "I disagree" or "you're wrong on the facts" without saying "you're stupid".
Please be up front about your bias, if you have one. If you are a nominated candidate for a political party, an officeholder for a party's provincial or federal executive, etc, it's only right to indicate as much. I've got all the time in the world for your thoughts - and I'm sure my readers do as well - but don't deny us all the chance to digest your thoughts in the proper context. I haven't been shy about giving people space on this blog to express ideas very much in opposition to my own, and I'm not about to start now. Let's just be open with each other. If you're advocating for a party's positions and you hold an elected position in that party, we deserve to have that information.
Please share these discussions on Facebook or Twitter, linking back to the qOtd post in question. I want to have as robust a discussion as possible, and that means making it easy for ANYONE to contribute their thoughts, whether they regularly check this space themselves, or they need to be led here first. :)

The fifth of four "asks" is the unwritten one: Please stay engaged if you're part of the conversation already! The points you make are going to be challenged, or backed-up, or built upon - so keep checking back to offer more to the discussion! In short, if you're interested in a qOtd - don't lurk! SPEAK! :)

Whaddya say, Nation? Ready to be part of the solution?