Nation, people like to fight about the Environment. I'm not sure WHY - it's something we all share in common, after all. But for whatever reason, we feel somehow compelled to either default to "planet-raping money lover" or "tree-hugging hippie".
The reality is, most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Unless we're talking to someone who disagrees with us.
The one thing we CAN'T dispute, though, is that the environment in Alberta is a huge asset to Alberta's people, both economically and from a quality of life viewpoint.
The land provides us oil, but it also brings forth crops, and a place for our kids to play. The air can power our turbines, but it also lets us breathe. Water can power our homes, and clean our dishes, host our fish, feed our cattle, keep our crops alive... but we also have to drink it, and have it be clean, just to stay alive.
We recreate in our Parks. We hunt on forest lands. We camp. We log. We farm. We try to preserve the sanctity of our watersheds, whilst also loving the thrill of riding a quad through a big mud bog.
We're a study in contrasts, we Albertans.
However, we're not talking about the Alberta of today. We're talking about the PERFECT Alberta, and how the people of that place deal with their environment. From tailing ponds to fishing ponds, from game trails to bike trails. National Parks, Provincial Parks, and City Parks.
So, Nation, you make the call: How does the Perfect Alberta deal with its environment?
Everything's an option, from higher density housing to emissions controls to carbon taxes to composting to increased provincial parks. Recycling and garbage. Building limitations to rainfall water collection to roof-top gardens to tax credits for ari-forming you lawn. Water treatment, hydro-electric power, hunting, fishing, ranching and farming (ranchers and farmers, by the way, are some of the best stewards of the land you'll find).
We love our environment, but we need a healthy economy. A healthy economy at the expense of a healthy environment, though, leaves us all wealthy and sick. Where's the happy medium? Where's the perfect balance?
No pressure, Nation. ;)
... an attempt to make sense of politics and political happenings in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and North America.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Perfecting Alberta, Part 5: Infrastructure
Nation, whether you're driving to your local health centre or just surfing the internet, the common thread that binds us all together is public infrastructure. Roads, schools, hospitals, the Supernet, LRT, public parks, public buildings... all of them built by our tax dollars, for the use of all.
It's no secret that we in the Alberta of the present are suffering from a significant deficit in public infrastructure. We have buildings in desperate need of repair, we have ring roads that need completion, and we have a need for a high-speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary (or DO we?). We need hockey rinks, community centres, and cultural spaces for the arts.
There's a lot to build. And of course, it all costs money. But, is there a way we can be managing our infrastructure BETTER? Is there a way we can better plan our cities, and better connect our citizens to one another?
One interesting idea I've heard that I'm hoping someone can touch on is the "multiple cores" idea, where in addition to your traditional "Downtown" area, you have a secondary urban core elsewhere in the city - a high concentration of office spaces, cultural spaces, and services that helps alleviate some of the pressure from the infrastructure of the Downtown core - good-bye, rush hour on MacLeod Trail into Downtown, hel-lo leisurely drive to the Sundance Commercial and Office Core.
So, I put it to you: How do we plan, build, and maintain the infrastructure of the Perfect Alberta? P3's? Full private? Full public? Toll roads and bridges? Sell naming rights?
It's all up to you, Nation. Build a province your grandchildren can be proud to call home. :)
It's no secret that we in the Alberta of the present are suffering from a significant deficit in public infrastructure. We have buildings in desperate need of repair, we have ring roads that need completion, and we have a need for a high-speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary (or DO we?). We need hockey rinks, community centres, and cultural spaces for the arts.
There's a lot to build. And of course, it all costs money. But, is there a way we can be managing our infrastructure BETTER? Is there a way we can better plan our cities, and better connect our citizens to one another?
One interesting idea I've heard that I'm hoping someone can touch on is the "multiple cores" idea, where in addition to your traditional "Downtown" area, you have a secondary urban core elsewhere in the city - a high concentration of office spaces, cultural spaces, and services that helps alleviate some of the pressure from the infrastructure of the Downtown core - good-bye, rush hour on MacLeod Trail into Downtown, hel-lo leisurely drive to the Sundance Commercial and Office Core.
So, I put it to you: How do we plan, build, and maintain the infrastructure of the Perfect Alberta? P3's? Full private? Full public? Toll roads and bridges? Sell naming rights?
It's all up to you, Nation. Build a province your grandchildren can be proud to call home. :)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Perfecting Alberta, Part 4: Taxes
Okay, Nation... so, we've solved the healthcare issue, overhauled Alberta's educational system, and set up the economy to succeed. Now, as the government of the future, it's time to figure out how to PAY for all this.
That's right... it's time to talk Tax Policy.
Even in the Perfect Alberta, we still have to find a way to PAY for our fantastic quality of life and standard of living... and that means taxes.
How should the people and businesses of Alberta be taxed? And at what levels?
What I want to hear about, specifically, includes issue like Corporate tax rates versus small business rates (and what constitutes a "small business")... personal income tax, and if we should even HAVE one... user fees for optional services, versus mandatory fees (aka "taxes") like the recently-departed Health Care Premiums... and yes, energy Royalties.
Should we have hospitality taxes, for attractions and accommodations? Energy taxes on things like gasoline and electricity? Taxes that only visitors pay, while residents are exempt?
It's all on the table, Nation. You decide: How does the Alberta of the future pay the bills?
We've seen the folly in the last year of paying the bills with a bank account that is overwhelmingly tied to a single sector of the economy... how do we secure our finances for the next generation, and beyond?
That's right... it's time to talk Tax Policy.
Even in the Perfect Alberta, we still have to find a way to PAY for our fantastic quality of life and standard of living... and that means taxes.
How should the people and businesses of Alberta be taxed? And at what levels?
What I want to hear about, specifically, includes issue like Corporate tax rates versus small business rates (and what constitutes a "small business")... personal income tax, and if we should even HAVE one... user fees for optional services, versus mandatory fees (aka "taxes") like the recently-departed Health Care Premiums... and yes, energy Royalties.
Should we have hospitality taxes, for attractions and accommodations? Energy taxes on things like gasoline and electricity? Taxes that only visitors pay, while residents are exempt?
It's all on the table, Nation. You decide: How does the Alberta of the future pay the bills?
We've seen the folly in the last year of paying the bills with a bank account that is overwhelmingly tied to a single sector of the economy... how do we secure our finances for the next generation, and beyond?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Perfecting Alberta, Part 3: Economics and Industry
Keep the comments rolling in, Nation - the only way we can secure a more perfect future for our children and their children is to imagine that Alberta today, demand it of our leaders, and articulate it well enough that they can make it a reality.
Today and for the next few days, I want to hear your vision for Alberta's economic future. Now, we're not talking about spending, or savings, or the Heritage Fund today. Neither are we talking about tax policy. Rather, I want to hear about the REAL economy in Alberta. Businesses that Martha and Henry set up, and then go public with - or pass on to their kids.
Among the sectors that could be touched on:
In our lifetimes, the traditional stockpile of petroleum is likely going to become less and less of an economic driver, due to reduced supply or technological advances leading to a reduced demand. How are we going to replace this gigantic piece of Alberta's economic pie?
So, I put it to you, Nation: How would YOU set up Alberta's economy of the future?
If you want to nationalize industry rather than leaving it up to the market, that's your choice... I'll warn you now, though, that I don't think Martha and Henry will go for it...
And thinking outside the box is okay, too... remember, at some point 60 years ago, someone looked at a bald patch of desert and had the words "Las Vegas" pop into his head...
Today and for the next few days, I want to hear your vision for Alberta's economic future. Now, we're not talking about spending, or savings, or the Heritage Fund today. Neither are we talking about tax policy. Rather, I want to hear about the REAL economy in Alberta. Businesses that Martha and Henry set up, and then go public with - or pass on to their kids.
Among the sectors that could be touched on:
- Energy (traditional and alternative)
- Mining
- Forestry
- Tourism
- Agriculture
- Bio-tech
- Technology
- Manufacturing
- Service
In our lifetimes, the traditional stockpile of petroleum is likely going to become less and less of an economic driver, due to reduced supply or technological advances leading to a reduced demand. How are we going to replace this gigantic piece of Alberta's economic pie?
So, I put it to you, Nation: How would YOU set up Alberta's economy of the future?
If you want to nationalize industry rather than leaving it up to the market, that's your choice... I'll warn you now, though, that I don't think Martha and Henry will go for it...
And thinking outside the box is okay, too... remember, at some point 60 years ago, someone looked at a bald patch of desert and had the words "Las Vegas" pop into his head...
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Perfecting Alberta, Part 2: Primary and Secondary Education
Nation, I want to thank everyone for their contributions so far. This is a critically important time in our province's history, and these kinds of discussions need to be had in the public sphere for Albertans of ALL walks of life to read and contribute.
The fact that new posts are going up in this series should not stop you from continuing the conversations in previous posts. By all means, keep the conversation going!
The next stop on the "Perfecting Alberta Whistlestop Tour" is education, from Kindergarten up to an including Grade 12.
Albertan students routinely perform at or near the top in national examinations... so, by the most basic of measures, the argument can be made that our education system ain't broke - so why are we trying to fix it?
The reality is that this is the 2nd largest consumer of public funds in the province, after health care. There are places we should be spending more, there are doubtless places we should be spending less, and as far as test results go, I'm reminded of the old adage "Good enough, never is". The fact that we're above average shouldn't stop us from trying to do even better. Why settle for a B when hard work could get you the A?
From class sizes to pre-school, from charter schools to curriculum to splitting the ATA into 2 separate entities (union/certification body), from collective bargaining to results-based-pay, there's a lot to talk about when it comes to possible changes to our education system. One thing, though, is indisputable: Our educational system in this province is absolutely tied to our future as a place of economic and cultural and scientific strength. The lessons that our children learn in these classrooms determines the future for ALL of us who will live here in the future.
We can't afford to screw things up, making change for change's sake.
So, Nation, I put it to you: How would YOU shape our educational system for the next generation?
All legal options can be considered. (The constitution requires the maintaining of a Catholic school system, funded by the province, separate from the public system. Before anyone goes there.)
Fire away.
The fact that new posts are going up in this series should not stop you from continuing the conversations in previous posts. By all means, keep the conversation going!
The next stop on the "Perfecting Alberta Whistlestop Tour" is education, from Kindergarten up to an including Grade 12.
Albertan students routinely perform at or near the top in national examinations... so, by the most basic of measures, the argument can be made that our education system ain't broke - so why are we trying to fix it?
The reality is that this is the 2nd largest consumer of public funds in the province, after health care. There are places we should be spending more, there are doubtless places we should be spending less, and as far as test results go, I'm reminded of the old adage "Good enough, never is". The fact that we're above average shouldn't stop us from trying to do even better. Why settle for a B when hard work could get you the A?
From class sizes to pre-school, from charter schools to curriculum to splitting the ATA into 2 separate entities (union/certification body), from collective bargaining to results-based-pay, there's a lot to talk about when it comes to possible changes to our education system. One thing, though, is indisputable: Our educational system in this province is absolutely tied to our future as a place of economic and cultural and scientific strength. The lessons that our children learn in these classrooms determines the future for ALL of us who will live here in the future.
We can't afford to screw things up, making change for change's sake.
So, Nation, I put it to you: How would YOU shape our educational system for the next generation?
All legal options can be considered. (The constitution requires the maintaining of a Catholic school system, funded by the province, separate from the public system. Before anyone goes there.)
Fire away.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Perfecting Alberta, Part 1: Health Care
Nation, this type of thing is exactly what makes Blogs so much more powerful than the print media... the ability to have an interactive discussion.
Over the next while, I'm going to be using this space to facilitate a discussion among the millions of faithful members of the E.S. Nation about a variety of policy areas, all targeted towards one goal: Perfecting Alberta.
To better facilitate something resembling "real time" conversation, I have (after much hesitation) disabled the "moderated comments" function on the blog, so your comments won't live in cyber-limbo waiting for me to check my email. Don't make me regret it. :)
What I DON'T want is this: Attacking a contributor because of the political party you believe they support. Personal attacks. Partisan hackery (e.g. "my perfect Alberta: no liberals", or "to fix this, we just have to elect Brian Mason").
What I DO want is to hear the best ideas, from all sides of the political spectrum. We have an opportunity, through this medium, to come together as engaged citizens and re-make this province.
All ideas are on the table. I don't want to hear about what's wrong... I want to hear about how we FIX it.
First topic open for debate on the floor of the virtual legislature: Health Care. It's up to you, Nation. All legal options are on the table. How would YOU fix Health Care in Alberta?
Over the next while, I'm going to be using this space to facilitate a discussion among the millions of faithful members of the E.S. Nation about a variety of policy areas, all targeted towards one goal: Perfecting Alberta.
To better facilitate something resembling "real time" conversation, I have (after much hesitation) disabled the "moderated comments" function on the blog, so your comments won't live in cyber-limbo waiting for me to check my email. Don't make me regret it. :)
What I DON'T want is this: Attacking a contributor because of the political party you believe they support. Personal attacks. Partisan hackery (e.g. "my perfect Alberta: no liberals", or "to fix this, we just have to elect Brian Mason").
What I DO want is to hear the best ideas, from all sides of the political spectrum. We have an opportunity, through this medium, to come together as engaged citizens and re-make this province.
All ideas are on the table. I don't want to hear about what's wrong... I want to hear about how we FIX it.
First topic open for debate on the floor of the virtual legislature: Health Care. It's up to you, Nation. All legal options are on the table. How would YOU fix Health Care in Alberta?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
City Council Continues the Snow Job
If there's an Alderman who needs replacing more than Bob Hawkesworth, I can't fathom whom it would be, Nation.
The Calgary City Council's Standing Policy Committee on Land Use, Planning & Transportation on Wednesday voted to recommend that the entire Council hold the line on what has got to be the worst snow removal plan in a major snow-bound urban centre since the Iron Age.
For those of you who have forgotten, the snow removal last winter was so woefully inadequate that the city issued a press release asking residents to stop calling 311 about residential snow removal. (For that matter, it was woefully inadequate the winter BEFORE last, as well.)
Their complete refusal to remove snow from their property, mind you, didn't stop them from issuing threats of fines to citizens who failed to remove snow from their own sidewalks within a couple of days of a snowfall. You lowly citizens have to remove snow, because if you don't, people could get hurt by slipping.
By comparison, of course, it's not humanly possible to get hurt on an icy residential street. You're only in a 1,000-pound vehicle travelling between 9 and 15 metres per second. The kids in that school bus or cross-walk will just have to suck it up and deal with it as you skid into them... after all, we'd have to raise taxes to pay for better snow removal. By far, the better policy position is to cross our fingers and pray for a Chinook that might take 3 to 4 weeks to get here.
Oh, and by the way - you can't plow your own street or alley. We'll give you a ticket for that. And no, we can't give you permission to do it before-hand, no matter HOW many winters you worked snow removal in Winnipeg - you might damage a fire hydrant.
Nation, I'm not worried about plowing into someone on Anderson Road - I'm worried about plowing into them on Woodpark Boulevard, or Bonaventure Drive, or Queensland Road. Residential roads, all. With hills. And crosswalks. And schools. And day-cares.
I can't wiggle my ears and make my car just APPEAR on a plowed major road, and neither can you - I have to drive on these icy, un-plowed residential roads to GET to the major routes. And stop (or TRY to, at any rate) at a traffic light or go through an icy interchange that was last sanded 72 hours ago to get ONTO the major road.
Firstly, I don't accept that it's all or nothing on this issue. I don't believe there's no happy medium between "$22 Million worth of crappy service" and "$100 Million where every street has a plow parked at the end, waiting for the first flake to fall". Hawkesworth seems to suggest there's no middle ground.
And even if I DID accept Alderman Bob's "all or nothing" position, we're talking about a difference of $80 Million per year. That's $80 for each Calgarian, to make sure that every possible thing that COULD be done to protect us during the ridiculously long winters we get here, WOULD be done. We'd all save that on auto insurance premiums alone.
Where do I send my cheque?
Attachments: The agenda for the meeting where this was discussed. This asinine recommendation goes to full Council on September 28th. Pay attention to who votes to accept the recommendation, and remember that when you go to the polls next October. Or when you slide into a curb in your neighbourhood because you were driving a reckless 10 km/h on a road still covered in snow and ice 5 days after the snow stopped falling.
At the bottom of the document is the report itself, and a list of 4 attachments (major routes in Saskatoon are cleared within 12 hours of snowfall - Calgary commits to "through-plowing" 90% of them within 48 hours), which I've included below.
Attachment 1: Winter Maintenance Comparison: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon
Attachment 2: TAC Winter Severity Analysis for Calgary
Attachment 3: City's Ridiculous Push-Poll on Snow and Ice Control
Attachment 4: Chart of Residential Street Enhancement Options
The Calgary City Council's Standing Policy Committee on Land Use, Planning & Transportation on Wednesday voted to recommend that the entire Council hold the line on what has got to be the worst snow removal plan in a major snow-bound urban centre since the Iron Age.
For those of you who have forgotten, the snow removal last winter was so woefully inadequate that the city issued a press release asking residents to stop calling 311 about residential snow removal. (For that matter, it was woefully inadequate the winter BEFORE last, as well.)
Their complete refusal to remove snow from their property, mind you, didn't stop them from issuing threats of fines to citizens who failed to remove snow from their own sidewalks within a couple of days of a snowfall. You lowly citizens have to remove snow, because if you don't, people could get hurt by slipping.
By comparison, of course, it's not humanly possible to get hurt on an icy residential street. You're only in a 1,000-pound vehicle travelling between 9 and 15 metres per second. The kids in that school bus or cross-walk will just have to suck it up and deal with it as you skid into them... after all, we'd have to raise taxes to pay for better snow removal. By far, the better policy position is to cross our fingers and pray for a Chinook that might take 3 to 4 weeks to get here.
Oh, and by the way - you can't plow your own street or alley. We'll give you a ticket for that. And no, we can't give you permission to do it before-hand, no matter HOW many winters you worked snow removal in Winnipeg - you might damage a fire hydrant.
Nation, I'm not worried about plowing into someone on Anderson Road - I'm worried about plowing into them on Woodpark Boulevard, or Bonaventure Drive, or Queensland Road. Residential roads, all. With hills. And crosswalks. And schools. And day-cares.
I can't wiggle my ears and make my car just APPEAR on a plowed major road, and neither can you - I have to drive on these icy, un-plowed residential roads to GET to the major routes. And stop (or TRY to, at any rate) at a traffic light or go through an icy interchange that was last sanded 72 hours ago to get ONTO the major road.
Firstly, I don't accept that it's all or nothing on this issue. I don't believe there's no happy medium between "$22 Million worth of crappy service" and "$100 Million where every street has a plow parked at the end, waiting for the first flake to fall". Hawkesworth seems to suggest there's no middle ground.
"I just don't see that citizens would want it, nor is it necessary."
- Ald. Bob Hawkesworth, on protecting the citizens of Calgary during Calgary's 6 month-long winters
Calgary police responded to over 180 collisions and another 20 injury accidents by 4:00 p.m.
EMS was so busy that they initiated a Red Alert for approximately 5 minutes around 1:00 p.m., and treated injured motorists in over 30 accidents.
"Between nine and 12 we had 40 calls and on a normal Sunday for a four or five hour period, we get one to two calls," said Paul LaPointe from Calgary EMS,"we of course have our normal call volume which we have day to day, so on top of that, we have all these motor vehicle collisions that we had to deal with."
- ctv.ca, Sunday, December 7th, 2008
And even if I DID accept Alderman Bob's "all or nothing" position, we're talking about a difference of $80 Million per year. That's $80 for each Calgarian, to make sure that every possible thing that COULD be done to protect us during the ridiculously long winters we get here, WOULD be done. We'd all save that on auto insurance premiums alone.
Where do I send my cheque?
Attachments: The agenda for the meeting where this was discussed. This asinine recommendation goes to full Council on September 28th. Pay attention to who votes to accept the recommendation, and remember that when you go to the polls next October. Or when you slide into a curb in your neighbourhood because you were driving a reckless 10 km/h on a road still covered in snow and ice 5 days after the snow stopped falling.
At the bottom of the document is the report itself, and a list of 4 attachments (major routes in Saskatoon are cleared within 12 hours of snowfall - Calgary commits to "through-plowing" 90% of them within 48 hours), which I've included below.
Attachment 1: Winter Maintenance Comparison: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon
Attachment 2: TAC Winter Severity Analysis for Calgary
Attachment 3: City's Ridiculous Push-Poll on Snow and Ice Control
Attachment 4: Chart of Residential Street Enhancement Options
Smith vs. Dyrholm, Today from that little speaker on your desk...
The 2 remaining leadership hopefuls for the Wildrose Alliance, Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm, will be taking questions and calls on the Rutherford Show on CHQR (770 on your AM dial) during the 11 o'clock hour.
Reactions and thoughts in the comments section of this post, please. :)
- E.S.
p.s. If anyone reading today was at last night's WAP Leadership Debate (when there were THREE candidates), I'd love to hear your thoughts and observations as well.
Reactions and thoughts in the comments section of this post, please. :)
- E.S.
p.s. If anyone reading today was at last night's WAP Leadership Debate (when there were THREE candidates), I'd love to hear your thoughts and observations as well.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
... and, just because I haven't been given enough to write about today...
... Rahim Jaffer has been charged (NOT convicted, CHARGED) with drunk driving and posession of cocaine.
Certainly not something you'd hope for.
Certainly not something you'd hope for.
Cabinet Shuffle... sort of...
Len Webber, the MLA for Calgary-Foothills, has been named the new Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations for the province of Alberta (Premier Stelmach had been doing the job after Ron Stevens' retirement).
Also, a shuffle in the Parliamentary Assistants, as Jonathan Denis (who is NOT the Enlightened Savage), MLA for Calgary-Egmont, has been named Parliamentary Assistant for Energy, Cardston-Taber-Warner MLA Broyce Jacobs becomes the Parliamentary Assistant for Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD), and Battle River-Wainwright MLA/social media lover Doug Griffiths moves from his role as the Parliamentary Assistant in ARD to become the Parliamentary Assistant for the Department of Solicitor General and Public Security.
I don't know Jacobs personally, but I've met Len Webber, Jonathan Denis and Doug Griffiths, and found them all to be exemplary public servants, who put their constituents first. Congratulations, gentlemen.
- E.S.
p.s. Minister Webber - now we've REALLY got to get you using Twitter! My offer from the #PCPC still stands. ;)
Also, a shuffle in the Parliamentary Assistants, as Jonathan Denis (who is NOT the Enlightened Savage), MLA for Calgary-Egmont, has been named Parliamentary Assistant for Energy, Cardston-Taber-Warner MLA Broyce Jacobs becomes the Parliamentary Assistant for Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD), and Battle River-Wainwright MLA/social media lover Doug Griffiths moves from his role as the Parliamentary Assistant in ARD to become the Parliamentary Assistant for the Department of Solicitor General and Public Security.
I don't know Jacobs personally, but I've met Len Webber, Jonathan Denis and Doug Griffiths, and found them all to be exemplary public servants, who put their constituents first. Congratulations, gentlemen.
- E.S.
p.s. Minister Webber - now we've REALLY got to get you using Twitter! My offer from the #PCPC still stands. ;)
The Morning After the Day After By-Election Day
Well, Nation... there was a little bit of an event happening on Monday night in the provincial constituency of Calgary-Glenmore.
The unofficial poll results from Elections Alberta are an interesting read. They're especially interesting when compared with the results from the most recent General Election in Alberta, in March of 2008.
Liberal (Roberts) 4,213 votes
WAP (Sadler) 1,025
Green (Bonokoski) 550 votes
NDP (Heffernan) 477 votes
45.5% voter participation
PC (Colley-Urquhart) 2,863 votes (down 56%)
Liberal (Roberts) 3,776 votes (down 10%)
WAP (Hinman) 4,052 votes (increase by 295%)
NDP (Carpendale) 148 votes (down 69%)
SC (Skowronski) 118 votes
ind. (Grochowski) 71 votes
40.5% voter participation
Now, every single candidate deserves our thanks and respect for caring enough about the health of our democracy to put their name forward. I want to spend a little time, though, dealing with the "DRP factor" and the 2 parties of the left, and then talk about what went wrong (and right) for the parties of the right.
The NDP vote all but disappeared in this by-election. It COULD be argued, I suppose, that those votes might have been driven to Avalon Roberts of the Liberals by the "DRP movement" - but even if that WERE the case, Avalon's own numbers dropped by 10%. While the math may support "unite the left" strategies in some ridings, it's clear that in Calgary-Glenmore, the only thing that can get the Liberals elected is either a 3-or-more-way split of the conservative vote, or the conservative voters staying home, as they did in the Calgary-Elbow by-election in 2007. Similarly, the only thing that can get the NDP elected in this riding is if nobody but the New Democrats notices that there's an election happening.
Now, before we look at what happened a few days ago, I want to get a frame of reference. Let's take a (very brief) look at the Calgary-Elbow by-election of 2007.
Elbow had, in the previous General Election, re-elected Ralph Klein as MLA by a comfortable 2,000 vote margin over his Liberal challenger. Voter turn-out in 2004 was at 52.4%. In the by-election to replace Klein, held in 2007, voter participation plummeted by nearly 18%, down to 34.6% overall. The Liberal candidate lost only 2% of votes versus 2004, which means when one factors in the overall decline in participation, their popular support actually increased. By comparison, the loyalty of local voters to Klein rather than to the PC Party brand was evident, as the Tory candidate lost 42% of Klein's voters from 2004. The Liberal went on to spend 9 months as an MLA, before being ousted in the 2008 General Election (overall voter turn-out rose by 13.6%; Liberal turn-out increased by 16%, PC turn-out improved by 34%).
The Glenmore by-election is different, for a few reasons.
Firstly, in the 2007 by-election, Ed Stelmach had been leader of the PC Party and Premier for only 6 months. The PC's had replaced a popular local candidate who just HAPPENED to be a former mayor of the city, and Premier of Alberta, with someone who had good credibility among the local power elite, but little recognition with the common voter. The PC's took for granted that they would hold on to Ralph's seat. With "the new guy" in charge, and a lot of Calgary PC organizers still stinging over the defeat of Calgary leadership hopefuls Ted Morton and Jim Dinning, the voters let the PC Party know how they felt about how "their guy", Ralph, had been treated by the party. Mostly, by staying home and letting the Liberal candidate take the seat.
The 2008 General Election ends the Glenmore-Elbow comparison on one hand, and acts as the first book-end of the larger Glenmore story.
In the 2008 General Election, Ed Stelmach had been Premier for nearly a year and a half. Times were good, money was being spent on projects and programs that made people feel warm and fuzzy. Fall-out from the new royalty regime was purely hypothetical. All that said, though, the people of Alberta - and particularly the mainstream media - missed the charisma of Ralph. They thought of the new leader as a "come up the middle" choice for leader of the PC's, despite the fact that Stelmach was the FIRST choice of more party members than either Dinning OR Morton in the 2nd round of the race. The PC's were drifting, and vulnerable according to many.
So the election was held... and the PC's cruised to a dominating victory of Klein-esque proportions. In Elbow, which they had lost in a by-election 9 months earlier, voter turn-out increased by 13.6% overall, and for the Tories it increased by 34%. Even when you consider that a rising tide raises all ships, the Tory voters had come back to the fold in the General Election. In Calgary-Glenmore, 45.5% of the electorate showed up, and a majority of them voted for the PC candidate, popular incumbent and Stelmach's top lieutenant Ron Stevens. Province-wide, the"drifting, aimless, rudderless, leaderless, wishy-washy, over-the-hill" Tories won 72 of 83 seats. Stelmach had won the day by showing himself to be a cautious, thoughtful leader - not the firebrand visionary that many Albertans hoped to see, and not the shoot-from-the-lip everyman that had been Ralph at the start of his tenure, but the clear choice to lead the province through what might be unsure waters ahead.
In September of 2008, the bottom began to fall out of world stock markets and energy prices began to plummet. All of a sudden, the "rainy day" for which we had been saving was upon us. And then things got worse. Energy companies were closing up shop, or scaling back production. People were out of work. A global economic crisis was affecting economies all over the world - and Alberta was no exception. Indeed, the only thing exceptional about Alberta was the fact that, as a debt-free constituency with money in the bank, it was better prepared than virtually every other jurisdiction - with or without oil - to come out of this period of crisis relatively unscathed.
However, when people lose jobs, when their standard of living drops, when they get scared, they look for someone to blame. And the government of the day is an easy target. No sooner than the government had finished tabling its first deficit budget in years, opposition parties started referring to Stelmach as "in the red Ed". The PC's were (still) "rudderless and out of touch", according to newspaper columnists desperate to seem relevant and cutting-edge ("angry" sells more papers than "happy"). Suddenly, the money that was being spent on projects and programs that made everyone feel good was deemed by the public to be "unneccesary". Cuts were needed. The 2 biggest slices of the pie, Health and Education, are impossible to even TALK about cutting without whipping various unions into a frenzy of fear-mongering. Reports were coming out suggesting that energy companies, burnt once by the fact that their business landscape had shifted under their feet with Alberta's new royalty regime, were looking at drilling elsewhere. In the space of a few short months, Stelmach had gone from "King Eddie" to the media's favourite whipping boy - and there was a new force on the horizon.
The Wildrose Alliance, born from the union of the populist Wildrose Party and the conservative Alberta Alliance Party, was attracting interest from disenchanted Tories who wanted to turn the clock back to the time when the government ran a surplus, "progressive" was a code word for Liberal, and the metric system was a tool of communists like Trudeau. The growing perception of the PC Party as being "too inclusive", or a party of convenience lacking any real "conservative policies", drove conservatives concerned about their image to this new party. Many of these supporters were old-time Reformers, from the Preston Manning days. It sometimes bears repeating that while Reform never actually formed government - they DID force the federal PC's to change the way they did and viewed things, giving birth to the current Conservative Party in the process. One could argue, that was Preston's whole point.
The Wildrose Alliance has spent the summer trying to find itself. Or, more accurately, they're in the middle of a leadership contest. One of the candidates in particular, Danielle Smith, is seen as being a real threat to the Tories, as she shares many policies in common with your average Tory voter without the baggage of actually BEING a PC - which gives your potential PC voter a real alternative, for the first time in a VERY long time, that doesn't involve voting for a Liberal candidate or selling out your socially moderate views. Summer being the political vacuum that it is, the leadership race has gotten a LOT of attention in the media - people know about this party. The one thing they DON'T know - which makes this week's Glenmore result all the more surprising - is what this party is going to stand for 6 months from now. 3 possibilities exist - either the party will be a reflection of Danielle Smith (fiscally conservative, socially moderate), it will be a reflection of one of the other 2 leadership contenders (fiscally and socially conservative), or it will be in a state of turmoil, if the party membership decides that, on second thought, we don't want to move the party to reflect the chosen leader, we want the chosen leader to move THEIR positions to reflect the grassroots membership - which is code for "whatever special interest sells the most memberships before an important meeting".
Back to Glenmore. Ron Stevens, the Deputy Premier of Alberta gets a better offer. They want to make him a judge. Ron accepts, and we've got ourselves a by-election. Opinions are offered as to how the various parties will do - some analysis proves more correct than others. And at the end of the day, voters heed Wildrose Alliance candidate Hinman's call to "send Ed a message", when the voter turn-out drops by only 5% overall, but the Tories lose 56% of their support from 19 months ago. Klein couldn't have lost 56% of his support if he'd started mugging little old ladies in dark alleys. Message sent, and received.
What is the message that the voters have sent Ed?
In a nutshell, the message is Paul Hinman, and whatever he DECIDES the message is. That's the problem with the provincial ballot - you mark an "x", and the candidates get to read those tea leaves however they want.
Is the message "we don't like Ed"? If it IS, then the question becomes: Why? Because he's not from Calgary, like Ralph and Dinning and Morton? Because he's not a "city guy"? Because the cabinet doesn't have enough Calgarians? Calgary doesn't have a finished ring-road? Oil and gas producers are nervous? The government is in a deficit position? He's got a funny haircut?
The more important question, for Ed and for the PC's, is "what can we DO about that message?". Ultimately, even if you CAN distill this result into a particular message, and figure out specifically WHY people voted the way they did, on an issue by issue basis, what are the solutions? Will adding more Calgary MLA's to cabinet do it? Re-jigging the Royalty framework yet AGAIN? (by the way, even revisions in FAVOUR of the energy producers make them more nervous about setting up here, because of the frequent changes - we need to decide on a framework, and guarantee no changes for a set period of time. THAT will calm down the jittery nerves of the energy companies)
Stelmach has a vested interest in this city - he has children and grandchildren living here. To suggest that he doesn't care what happens south of Red Deer is ridiculous. And yet... there it is. He's not from here. Is the message that the PC's should pick a leader from Calgary? I wonder how Edmontonians would react to our refusal to accept a leader not from our shining city on the hill...
Oh, wait, no I don't... I already know.
1992 - Ralph Klein comes from behind to win the PC Party leadership from rival Edmonton MLA Nancy Betkowski, and becomes Premier.
1993 - PC's win 17 of 20 seats in Calgary, 0 of 18 in Edmonton.
1997 - PC's win 20 of 21 seats in Calgary, 2 of 19 in Edmonton
2001 - PC's win 21 of 21 seats in Calgary, 11 of 19 in Edmonton.
2004 - PC's win 20 of 23 seats in Calgary, 3 of 18 in Edmonton.
The old adage that "all politics is local" certainly seems to ring true... While Ralph was in charge of the PC's, Calgary overwhelmingly supported the party, while Edmonton earned the nickname "Redmonton" by rejecting Klein the Calgarian for most of his reign.
Fast forward to 2008 - Ed Stelmach, from outside Edmonton, had been Premier for over a year, so it was considered a fair test of his leadership and popularity on a provincial scale. The result?
2008 - PC's win 18 of 23 seats in Calgary, 13 of 18 in Edmonton.
The PC's under Stelmach lose 2 seats (now 3) to the opposition in Calgary, but steal 10 seats from the opposition in Edmonton.
Since then, however, we've had the thrill-ride of the global economic crisis (which Eddie didn't cause), and the implementation, re-jigging, re-implementation and re-re-jigging of the new royalty framework for energy producers in Alberta (which Eddie DID cause).
Is Calgary-Glenmore the start of a trend? Will Ed Stelmach as leader of the PC's turn this into an "opposition town"? And if so, why?
If it's for reasons of policy, I can live with that. But if Calgary turns against Stelmach and the PC's because he doesn't have Klein's mailing address, charisma, or style - then that's, in my opinion, a shoddy way to determine your leaders.
There's discontent in Calgary-Glenmore. There's discontent within the city as a whole. The province. Even within the PC Party itself. Times are tough. People want to "send Ed a message". The Hinman campaign capitalized on this sentiment brilliantly, to their credit. This wasn't one or two polls going to Hinman - he won in 32 of 66 polls. Support for him was wide-spread across the riding. People were telling Diane Colley-Urquhart at the doors that they supported her for Alderman, and would do so again, but they couldn't cast a vote for the PC's under Stelmach. Other Calgary PC's have heard the same.
But if the voters want their message to be heard - they've got to first figure out what their problem with Ed is, and what it will take to make it better. Because "I'm angry, and I don't know why, but I don't like you" is a bad head-space to be in when you're choosing someone to manage a multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Before the economic crisis, Albertans decided they wanted Ed Stelmach and the PC's to run the province. Calgarians, at least those in Glenmore, seem to be having second thoughts. But they need to decide if their issues are based on policy, or on geography.
Ed's had mis-steps along the way. He's made mistakes. He's made gaffes. Such is life when your every word and move is public domain. It's not too late to re-focus, re-energize the troops, and come up with a well-articulated vision for this province. Because Ed Stelmach and the PC Party shouldn't respond to this by trying to tinker with the car stereo to win back 15% of the 45% of people who bother to vote. They should take this opportunity to overhaul the engine, set themselves up for the next 30 years, and try to appeal to the 55% of Albertans who AREN'T voting.
Youth.
New Canadians.
Disenchanted, disenfranchised, disinterested.
Give people something to believe in. Give them the candidates they deserve. Tell them what their lives will be like in 20 years. Tell them about the Alberta their kids will inherit.
Shoot for the moon.
The unofficial poll results from Elections Alberta are an interesting read. They're especially interesting when compared with the results from the most recent General Election in Alberta, in March of 2008.
2008
PC (Stevens) 6,436 votesLiberal (Roberts) 4,213 votes
WAP (Sadler) 1,025
Green (Bonokoski) 550 votes
NDP (Heffernan) 477 votes
45.5% voter participation
2009
PC (Colley-Urquhart) 2,863 votes (down 56%)
Liberal (Roberts) 3,776 votes (down 10%)
WAP (Hinman) 4,052 votes (increase by 295%)
NDP (Carpendale) 148 votes (down 69%)
SC (Skowronski) 118 votes
ind. (Grochowski) 71 votes
40.5% voter participation
Now, every single candidate deserves our thanks and respect for caring enough about the health of our democracy to put their name forward. I want to spend a little time, though, dealing with the "DRP factor" and the 2 parties of the left, and then talk about what went wrong (and right) for the parties of the right.
Overall, voter participation dropped by 5% between the general election and the by-election - which, truthfully, isn't all that bad, for a by-election. It's still embarassing as heck that Afghanistan can record higher voter turn-outs than Alberta while voters there are operating under explicit threats of murder and violence if they dare to vote - but that's a blog post for another day.
The NDP vote all but disappeared in this by-election. It COULD be argued, I suppose, that those votes might have been driven to Avalon Roberts of the Liberals by the "DRP movement" - but even if that WERE the case, Avalon's own numbers dropped by 10%. While the math may support "unite the left" strategies in some ridings, it's clear that in Calgary-Glenmore, the only thing that can get the Liberals elected is either a 3-or-more-way split of the conservative vote, or the conservative voters staying home, as they did in the Calgary-Elbow by-election in 2007. Similarly, the only thing that can get the NDP elected in this riding is if nobody but the New Democrats notices that there's an election happening.
Now, before we look at what happened a few days ago, I want to get a frame of reference. Let's take a (very brief) look at the Calgary-Elbow by-election of 2007.
Elbow had, in the previous General Election, re-elected Ralph Klein as MLA by a comfortable 2,000 vote margin over his Liberal challenger. Voter turn-out in 2004 was at 52.4%. In the by-election to replace Klein, held in 2007, voter participation plummeted by nearly 18%, down to 34.6% overall. The Liberal candidate lost only 2% of votes versus 2004, which means when one factors in the overall decline in participation, their popular support actually increased. By comparison, the loyalty of local voters to Klein rather than to the PC Party brand was evident, as the Tory candidate lost 42% of Klein's voters from 2004. The Liberal went on to spend 9 months as an MLA, before being ousted in the 2008 General Election (overall voter turn-out rose by 13.6%; Liberal turn-out increased by 16%, PC turn-out improved by 34%).
The Glenmore by-election is different, for a few reasons.
Firstly, in the 2007 by-election, Ed Stelmach had been leader of the PC Party and Premier for only 6 months. The PC's had replaced a popular local candidate who just HAPPENED to be a former mayor of the city, and Premier of Alberta, with someone who had good credibility among the local power elite, but little recognition with the common voter. The PC's took for granted that they would hold on to Ralph's seat. With "the new guy" in charge, and a lot of Calgary PC organizers still stinging over the defeat of Calgary leadership hopefuls Ted Morton and Jim Dinning, the voters let the PC Party know how they felt about how "their guy", Ralph, had been treated by the party. Mostly, by staying home and letting the Liberal candidate take the seat.
The 2008 General Election ends the Glenmore-Elbow comparison on one hand, and acts as the first book-end of the larger Glenmore story.
In the 2008 General Election, Ed Stelmach had been Premier for nearly a year and a half. Times were good, money was being spent on projects and programs that made people feel warm and fuzzy. Fall-out from the new royalty regime was purely hypothetical. All that said, though, the people of Alberta - and particularly the mainstream media - missed the charisma of Ralph. They thought of the new leader as a "come up the middle" choice for leader of the PC's, despite the fact that Stelmach was the FIRST choice of more party members than either Dinning OR Morton in the 2nd round of the race. The PC's were drifting, and vulnerable according to many.
So the election was held... and the PC's cruised to a dominating victory of Klein-esque proportions. In Elbow, which they had lost in a by-election 9 months earlier, voter turn-out increased by 13.6% overall, and for the Tories it increased by 34%. Even when you consider that a rising tide raises all ships, the Tory voters had come back to the fold in the General Election. In Calgary-Glenmore, 45.5% of the electorate showed up, and a majority of them voted for the PC candidate, popular incumbent and Stelmach's top lieutenant Ron Stevens. Province-wide, the"drifting, aimless, rudderless, leaderless, wishy-washy, over-the-hill" Tories won 72 of 83 seats. Stelmach had won the day by showing himself to be a cautious, thoughtful leader - not the firebrand visionary that many Albertans hoped to see, and not the shoot-from-the-lip everyman that had been Ralph at the start of his tenure, but the clear choice to lead the province through what might be unsure waters ahead.
In September of 2008, the bottom began to fall out of world stock markets and energy prices began to plummet. All of a sudden, the "rainy day" for which we had been saving was upon us. And then things got worse. Energy companies were closing up shop, or scaling back production. People were out of work. A global economic crisis was affecting economies all over the world - and Alberta was no exception. Indeed, the only thing exceptional about Alberta was the fact that, as a debt-free constituency with money in the bank, it was better prepared than virtually every other jurisdiction - with or without oil - to come out of this period of crisis relatively unscathed.
However, when people lose jobs, when their standard of living drops, when they get scared, they look for someone to blame. And the government of the day is an easy target. No sooner than the government had finished tabling its first deficit budget in years, opposition parties started referring to Stelmach as "in the red Ed". The PC's were (still) "rudderless and out of touch", according to newspaper columnists desperate to seem relevant and cutting-edge ("angry" sells more papers than "happy"). Suddenly, the money that was being spent on projects and programs that made everyone feel good was deemed by the public to be "unneccesary". Cuts were needed. The 2 biggest slices of the pie, Health and Education, are impossible to even TALK about cutting without whipping various unions into a frenzy of fear-mongering. Reports were coming out suggesting that energy companies, burnt once by the fact that their business landscape had shifted under their feet with Alberta's new royalty regime, were looking at drilling elsewhere. In the space of a few short months, Stelmach had gone from "King Eddie" to the media's favourite whipping boy - and there was a new force on the horizon.
The Wildrose Alliance, born from the union of the populist Wildrose Party and the conservative Alberta Alliance Party, was attracting interest from disenchanted Tories who wanted to turn the clock back to the time when the government ran a surplus, "progressive" was a code word for Liberal, and the metric system was a tool of communists like Trudeau. The growing perception of the PC Party as being "too inclusive", or a party of convenience lacking any real "conservative policies", drove conservatives concerned about their image to this new party. Many of these supporters were old-time Reformers, from the Preston Manning days. It sometimes bears repeating that while Reform never actually formed government - they DID force the federal PC's to change the way they did and viewed things, giving birth to the current Conservative Party in the process. One could argue, that was Preston's whole point.
The Wildrose Alliance has spent the summer trying to find itself. Or, more accurately, they're in the middle of a leadership contest. One of the candidates in particular, Danielle Smith, is seen as being a real threat to the Tories, as she shares many policies in common with your average Tory voter without the baggage of actually BEING a PC - which gives your potential PC voter a real alternative, for the first time in a VERY long time, that doesn't involve voting for a Liberal candidate or selling out your socially moderate views. Summer being the political vacuum that it is, the leadership race has gotten a LOT of attention in the media - people know about this party. The one thing they DON'T know - which makes this week's Glenmore result all the more surprising - is what this party is going to stand for 6 months from now. 3 possibilities exist - either the party will be a reflection of Danielle Smith (fiscally conservative, socially moderate), it will be a reflection of one of the other 2 leadership contenders (fiscally and socially conservative), or it will be in a state of turmoil, if the party membership decides that, on second thought, we don't want to move the party to reflect the chosen leader, we want the chosen leader to move THEIR positions to reflect the grassroots membership - which is code for "whatever special interest sells the most memberships before an important meeting".
Back to Glenmore. Ron Stevens, the Deputy Premier of Alberta gets a better offer. They want to make him a judge. Ron accepts, and we've got ourselves a by-election. Opinions are offered as to how the various parties will do - some analysis proves more correct than others. And at the end of the day, voters heed Wildrose Alliance candidate Hinman's call to "send Ed a message", when the voter turn-out drops by only 5% overall, but the Tories lose 56% of their support from 19 months ago. Klein couldn't have lost 56% of his support if he'd started mugging little old ladies in dark alleys. Message sent, and received.
What is the message that the voters have sent Ed?
In a nutshell, the message is Paul Hinman, and whatever he DECIDES the message is. That's the problem with the provincial ballot - you mark an "x", and the candidates get to read those tea leaves however they want.
Is the message "we don't like Ed"? If it IS, then the question becomes: Why? Because he's not from Calgary, like Ralph and Dinning and Morton? Because he's not a "city guy"? Because the cabinet doesn't have enough Calgarians? Calgary doesn't have a finished ring-road? Oil and gas producers are nervous? The government is in a deficit position? He's got a funny haircut?
The more important question, for Ed and for the PC's, is "what can we DO about that message?". Ultimately, even if you CAN distill this result into a particular message, and figure out specifically WHY people voted the way they did, on an issue by issue basis, what are the solutions? Will adding more Calgary MLA's to cabinet do it? Re-jigging the Royalty framework yet AGAIN? (by the way, even revisions in FAVOUR of the energy producers make them more nervous about setting up here, because of the frequent changes - we need to decide on a framework, and guarantee no changes for a set period of time. THAT will calm down the jittery nerves of the energy companies)
No matter what he does, Ed will never be a "Calgary guy" - he's not from here. There's no 2 ways about it. He can think like us, he can talk like us, he can dress like us, but he's not one of us. And you know what? He doesn't HAVE to be - nor should he be EXPECTED to be just like us to govern us. He should be judged on his ability to do the job - not on where he was raised. The irony is, that's the argument we were ALL, current PC or WAP supporter alike, throwing towards Ontario when they were refusing to give Preston and Stockwell and Stephen the time of day, because they were from "somewhere other than here".
Stelmach has a vested interest in this city - he has children and grandchildren living here. To suggest that he doesn't care what happens south of Red Deer is ridiculous. And yet... there it is. He's not from here. Is the message that the PC's should pick a leader from Calgary? I wonder how Edmontonians would react to our refusal to accept a leader not from our shining city on the hill...
Oh, wait, no I don't... I already know.
1992 - Ralph Klein comes from behind to win the PC Party leadership from rival Edmonton MLA Nancy Betkowski, and becomes Premier.
1993 - PC's win 17 of 20 seats in Calgary, 0 of 18 in Edmonton.
1997 - PC's win 20 of 21 seats in Calgary, 2 of 19 in Edmonton
2001 - PC's win 21 of 21 seats in Calgary, 11 of 19 in Edmonton.
2004 - PC's win 20 of 23 seats in Calgary, 3 of 18 in Edmonton.
The old adage that "all politics is local" certainly seems to ring true... While Ralph was in charge of the PC's, Calgary overwhelmingly supported the party, while Edmonton earned the nickname "Redmonton" by rejecting Klein the Calgarian for most of his reign.
Fast forward to 2008 - Ed Stelmach, from outside Edmonton, had been Premier for over a year, so it was considered a fair test of his leadership and popularity on a provincial scale. The result?
2008 - PC's win 18 of 23 seats in Calgary, 13 of 18 in Edmonton.
The PC's under Stelmach lose 2 seats (now 3) to the opposition in Calgary, but steal 10 seats from the opposition in Edmonton.
Since then, however, we've had the thrill-ride of the global economic crisis (which Eddie didn't cause), and the implementation, re-jigging, re-implementation and re-re-jigging of the new royalty framework for energy producers in Alberta (which Eddie DID cause).
Is Calgary-Glenmore the start of a trend? Will Ed Stelmach as leader of the PC's turn this into an "opposition town"? And if so, why?
If it's for reasons of policy, I can live with that. But if Calgary turns against Stelmach and the PC's because he doesn't have Klein's mailing address, charisma, or style - then that's, in my opinion, a shoddy way to determine your leaders.
There's discontent in Calgary-Glenmore. There's discontent within the city as a whole. The province. Even within the PC Party itself. Times are tough. People want to "send Ed a message". The Hinman campaign capitalized on this sentiment brilliantly, to their credit. This wasn't one or two polls going to Hinman - he won in 32 of 66 polls. Support for him was wide-spread across the riding. People were telling Diane Colley-Urquhart at the doors that they supported her for Alderman, and would do so again, but they couldn't cast a vote for the PC's under Stelmach. Other Calgary PC's have heard the same.
But if the voters want their message to be heard - they've got to first figure out what their problem with Ed is, and what it will take to make it better. Because "I'm angry, and I don't know why, but I don't like you" is a bad head-space to be in when you're choosing someone to manage a multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Before the economic crisis, Albertans decided they wanted Ed Stelmach and the PC's to run the province. Calgarians, at least those in Glenmore, seem to be having second thoughts. But they need to decide if their issues are based on policy, or on geography.
Ed's had mis-steps along the way. He's made mistakes. He's made gaffes. Such is life when your every word and move is public domain. It's not too late to re-focus, re-energize the troops, and come up with a well-articulated vision for this province. Because Ed Stelmach and the PC Party shouldn't respond to this by trying to tinker with the car stereo to win back 15% of the 45% of people who bother to vote. They should take this opportunity to overhaul the engine, set themselves up for the next 30 years, and try to appeal to the 55% of Albertans who AREN'T voting.
Youth.
New Canadians.
Disenchanted, disenfranchised, disinterested.
Give people something to believe in. Give them the candidates they deserve. Tell them what their lives will be like in 20 years. Tell them about the Alberta their kids will inherit.
Shoot for the moon.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Live-blogging from DCU Campaign Headquarters
Nation, as you read on daveberta, I'll be live-tweeting and live-blogging the results for the Glenmore by-election as they come in. Updates will be posted at the bottom of this post.
***
As of 8:30, only the mobile polls have come in.
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 7
Roberts (Lib) 5
Hinman (WAP) 3
Carpendale (NDP) 1
Skowronski (SC) 1
Grochowski (ind.) 0
***
4 polls in
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 84
Roberts (Lib) 110
Hinman (WAP) 166
Carpendale (NDP) 7
Skowronski (SC) 8
Grochowski (ind.) 2
***
12 polls of 66
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 413
Roberts (Lib) 442
Hinman (WAP) 566
Carpendale (NDP) 26
Skowronski (SC) 18
Grochowski (ind.) 14
***
46 out of 66 reporting.
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 1821
Roberts (Lib) 2291
Hinman (WAP) 2632
Carpendale (NDP) 89
Skowronski (SC) 81
Grochowski (ind.) 51
***
53 of 66
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 2081
Roberts (Lib) 2696
Hinman (WAP) 3035
Carpendale (NDP) 110
Skowronski (SC) 92
Grochowski (ind.) 57
***
63 of 66
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 2491
Roberts (Lib) 3321
Hinman (WAP) 3611
Carpendale (NDP) 140
Skowronski (SC) 105
Grochowski (ind.) 65
Advance and special polls not in yet - could make a big difference to Hinman and Roberts. Stay tuned.
Hearing Avalon Roberts has conceded to Paul Hinman, with only the advance poll waiting to report.
***
As of 8:30, only the mobile polls have come in.
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 7
Roberts (Lib) 5
Hinman (WAP) 3
Carpendale (NDP) 1
Skowronski (SC) 1
Grochowski (ind.) 0
***
4 polls in
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 84
Roberts (Lib) 110
Hinman (WAP) 166
Carpendale (NDP) 7
Skowronski (SC) 8
Grochowski (ind.) 2
***
12 polls of 66
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 413
Roberts (Lib) 442
Hinman (WAP) 566
Carpendale (NDP) 26
Skowronski (SC) 18
Grochowski (ind.) 14
***
46 out of 66 reporting.
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 1821
Roberts (Lib) 2291
Hinman (WAP) 2632
Carpendale (NDP) 89
Skowronski (SC) 81
Grochowski (ind.) 51
***
53 of 66
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 2081
Roberts (Lib) 2696
Hinman (WAP) 3035
Carpendale (NDP) 110
Skowronski (SC) 92
Grochowski (ind.) 57
***
63 of 66
Colley-Urquhart (PC) 2491
Roberts (Lib) 3321
Hinman (WAP) 3611
Carpendale (NDP) 140
Skowronski (SC) 105
Grochowski (ind.) 65
Advance and special polls not in yet - could make a big difference to Hinman and Roberts. Stay tuned.
Hearing Avalon Roberts has conceded to Paul Hinman, with only the advance poll waiting to report.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
E.S. Nation Correspondents in Glenmore - Sound Off!
If you're in attendance tonight at the Calgary-Glenmore candidates' forum, post your thoughts and observations as comments to this post.
- E.S.
- E.S.
E.S. Nation Correspondents in Edmonton - Sound Off!
If you're in Edmonton for the Wildrose Alliance leadership debate tonight, post your thoughts as comments to this post.
- E.S.
- E.S.
T-Minus 4 Days...
(edited on Sept. 11 to correct a pretty big typo - content otherwise unchanged)
Nation, the Calgary-Glenmore by-election is entering its home stretch, and I thought now would be a good time to wade into the fray - especially considering that your humble scribe has his bachelor party scheduled for this Saturday, and may be... ill-equipped to blog on Sunday.
The Glenmore race has been heating up the internet since the moment it was announced - as a matter of fact, since BEFORE it was announced. I want to deal with each candidate seperately, since in a melee situation like the one we've had develop, keeping a balanced perspective can sometimes be problematic, at best.
In the interests of fairness, I'll talk about each candidate and their campaign alphabetically.
Eric Carpendale, Alberta's NDP
Carpendale has been nearly invisible to the public eye during this campaign. I drive through the riding every single day and have yet to see a lawn sign. Now, there may in fact be any number of good reasons for this - maybe the NDP is spending their money on things other than lawn signs in this race. Maybe Carpendale is knocking on every door in a suit and tie, and attending every school council meeting and community breakfast in the riding. But, in looking at the NDP website, you can't help but wonder if they're really offering him anything but token support.
In his effort to boost the NDP caucus by 50%, Carpendale is taking an odd approach - at least, odd for a New Democrat: He's criticising the Stelmach government's fiscal management. It's an interesting approach from the NDP, as it shows that they're capable of putting fire-and-brimstone ideaology on the back-burner for the sake of political reality: Fiscal management is a big deal, and a hot-button issue, in this riding.
Bottom Line: Carpendale is a young candidate who's been saddled with the unenviable task of appealing to an electorate that is looking for someone to replace their recently departed "elder statesman" of Ron Stevens. By most accounts he's an engaging personality one-on-one - he's a union leader, a father of 2, and a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, for which he deserves the utmost respect. With some more polish he might be the future of the NDP in Alberta - but that future is not today.
Carpendale on Twitter
Diane Colley-Urquhart, Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta
Colley-Urquhart finds herself in an unfamiliar situation in Calgary-Glenmore. She's trying to make the jump from popular alderman to MLA, however many of the people who support her as an alderman are backing other candidates in this race - and that support, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with Diane herself. She's running for a party that just tabled a $6.9 Billion deficit and has a leader who is never going to be given a fair shake by the voters of Calgary because he's from "up there", and beat 2 Calgarians for the leadership.
Diane has been hitting the doors of Calgary-Glenmore at a blistering pace, and has a pretty good sign prescence in the communities - once you get off the corners and the main arteries, you see as many of her signs on the cul-de-sacs and private lawns as anyone else's - and more than most candidates. She's a practicing nurse, so she's aware of the health care issues that are so important to residents of the riding, and she's got a solid fiscal voting record to stand on. Detractors have suggested that she'd be just another voiceless back-bencher, but there are ample reasons to believe that Diane's voice would be an important one on issues such as transportation and health for a caucus desperate to show it does, in fact, care about Calgary - and a cabinet role isn't out of the question, either. She is still serving residents of her ward as an alderman during the campaign, electing not to leave them without representation for the next year unless absolutely necessary, but is returning her salary to the city - so, she hasn't taken a leave-of-absence, but she's taken a pay cut of 100% during the campaign.
Bottom Line: She's hungry, and is drawing enthusiastic support from the PC ranks all over the city - people who know how to win. It will be a challenge to inspire voters to come out in a by-election and vote for the status quo, but such is the life of the by-election candidate running for the governmening party. If her volunteers pound the Get Out The Vote hard enough, Diane could find herself in a new job.
Colley-Urquhart on Twitter
Colley-Urquhart campaign website
Antoni (Tony) Grochowski, Independent
A veteran of municipal (mayor in 2004, ward 10 in 2005, seperate school trustee in 2007), provincial (for the SoCreds in 2008) and federal (independent, 2008) races in the past, Grochowski throws his hat into the ring this time as an independent candidate in Calgary-Glenmore.
An architect by training, Grochowski clearly has a deep desire for public service. He has in the past espoused views opposed to smoking bans, and in favour of Bishop Fred Henry's call for an end to funding Catholic school programs with gaming funds.
Bottom Line: Independent campaigns can win, but only if they're well-organized. Tony deserves all the credit in the world for running... but to be taken seriously, he's going to have to pick a single job he wants to win, and work on getting his message out to voters. This won't be it.
Antoni appears to have no social media or internet prescence for this campaign.
Paul Hinman, Wildrose Alliance Party
A former MLA for the riding of Cardston-Taber-Warner, Hinman has served as the leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party since its inception, and is currently serving as its interim leader until the conclusion of their leadership race.
Hinman's campaign has shown itself to be very capable and organized in the latter weeks of this race - while they got off to something of a slow start, they've more than made up for it since then with tireless door-knocking and a sign crew that seems to have a 4x8 sign on every corner - and more than a few private lawns, as well (go big or go home, I guess). The major theme of the campaign seems to be to capitalize on the discontent among Calgarians with the leadership of Ed Stelmach, as their campaign slogan even mentions Ed by name.
Bottom Line: While Hinman has a natural ally in that the reality of by-elections suggests that the voter interested in change is more likely to come out than the satisfied voter, his campaign runs into a bit of trouble as a result of the current leadership race within his party. Albertan voters are used to thinking of their votes not as going to a candidate, but to the party under which that candidate runs. Hinman's campaign hasn't exactly discouraged this thinking, either, sugesting that a vote for Colley-Urquhart is in fact a vote of support for Stelmach. Where this comes back to bite them a bit is in the fact that, by extension then, a vote for Hinman is a vote for... whomever wins the WAP leadership race. Which, at this point, could mean either Danielle Smith, Mark Dyrholm or Jeff Willerton - 3 VERY different candidates, under whose leadership the party would end up occupying 3 very different spots of real estate on the Alberta political
spectrum. That uncertainlty as to what the party will stand for a year from now may force some potential WAP voters to shy away from voting for Hinman, for the time being.
On a side note, it still impresses the hell out of me that Hinman speaks Tagalog. It's a beautiful language that I'm trying to get a grip on, but that grip continues to evade me - well done, Paul.
Hinman campaign website
Avalon Roberts, Alberta Liberal Party
Dr. Avalon Roberts is a practicing psychiatrist and health care advocate with the Friends of Medicare, seeking election for the third time provincially (she has run twice before in Glenmore, as well as once federally in Calgary South West against that Harper fella). Her campaign is hoping for a repeat of the Craig Cheffins by-election victory in Calgary-Elbow, with the all-out war between the PC's and Wildrose Alliance facilitating a right-of-centre vote split.
Driving up and down the major roads in Calgary Glenmore, you'd think this was a three horse race for popular support. Indeed, Roberts has significant name recognition in this area because of her past political forays, and that recognition - combined with the growing focus of the Liberals on turning anti-Stelmach sentiment into capturing "Battleground Calgary", much as they were able to do with anti-Klein sentiment in Edmonton - could work in her favour here. There aren't a lot of Roberts signs on private property, but even when you're mad at the Premier for the very good and valid reason that "he's not from this city", putting up a Liberal sign in your yard is... a sketchy prospect, at best.
Roberts talks a lot about Calgary-Glenmore having "effective opposition" working for them in Edmonton... I don't know whether she intends that to mean that Ron Stevens, the Deputy Premier, was "INEFFECTIVE opposition", or that she thinks being across the room yelling at the cabinet benches is a better way to represent the people of Glenmore than actually being in the cabinet room, where the decisions are made - either way, it's a talking point that needed a bit more thought put into it before it became one of the central points of the campaign.
On the issue of the Ring Road, Roberts has remained publicly silent as far as I can tell. I'm particularly interested to hear her proposed solution to the issue, because of her involvement with the Weaselhead Society, which has come out strongly opposed to any contruction or road building that affects the Weaselhead natural area.
Bottom Line: Anyone who thinks Roberts can't win this race is fooling themselves. The Liberals are riding a high in this city since the last provincial election, and their supporters are VERY likely to come out in droves trying to wrest this seat from the Tories. The campaign has been a bit underwhelming overall, and a bit of a pall has been cast by the appearance in the past week of potentially illegal 3rd-party advertising on Avalon's behalf... but if the Colley-Urquhart and Hinman people back off the GOTV efforts even for a moment on the 14th, they might both be looking up at the next Official Opposition critic for Health and Wellness.
Roberts' campaign website
Roberts on Twitter
Len Skowronski, Alberta Social Credit Party
You can call the SoCreds a lot of things... but quitters, they ain't. I got my first glimpse of a Skowronski sign in this campaign on August 31st, on a patch of grass in a high school parking lot. Because those High School kids are VERY likely to vote Social Credit. :)
Skowronski is the leader of the Alberta Social Credit party, and has been since 2007. He has run provincially twice before - in 2004 in Calgary-Varsity, and in 2007 in Calgary-Bow. The campaign signs feature a modified Alberta license plate with the SoCred logo and the plate reading "R U Ready?" - a message that suggests the Social Credit revolution is upon us once again. In fairness, the party has made a lot of strides lately in terms of policy and party infrastructure - the problem they run into is with their brand. To most Albertans, Social Credit has gone the way of the T-Rex - a big deal at its peak, but a historical footnote these days.
The sad thing about Skowronski's candidacy is, he proposes a lot of good ideas, and common-sense democratic solutions to some of the issues facing Glenmore, and all of Alberta. His brand, though, has simply GOT to change. The same policies and ideas, presented by the "Moving Alberta Forward" party, would gain a whole new level of traction in the public consciousness.
Bottom Line: Good ideas, but lacklustre execution and a terrible branding issue leave the campaign fighting to avoid the embarassment of finishing dead last.
Skowronski campaign website (sort of...)
Nation, the Calgary-Glenmore by-election is entering its home stretch, and I thought now would be a good time to wade into the fray - especially considering that your humble scribe has his bachelor party scheduled for this Saturday, and may be... ill-equipped to blog on Sunday.
The Glenmore race has been heating up the internet since the moment it was announced - as a matter of fact, since BEFORE it was announced. I want to deal with each candidate seperately, since in a melee situation like the one we've had develop, keeping a balanced perspective can sometimes be problematic, at best.
In the interests of fairness, I'll talk about each candidate and their campaign alphabetically.
Eric Carpendale, Alberta's NDP
Carpendale has been nearly invisible to the public eye during this campaign. I drive through the riding every single day and have yet to see a lawn sign. Now, there may in fact be any number of good reasons for this - maybe the NDP is spending their money on things other than lawn signs in this race. Maybe Carpendale is knocking on every door in a suit and tie, and attending every school council meeting and community breakfast in the riding. But, in looking at the NDP website, you can't help but wonder if they're really offering him anything but token support.
In his effort to boost the NDP caucus by 50%, Carpendale is taking an odd approach - at least, odd for a New Democrat: He's criticising the Stelmach government's fiscal management. It's an interesting approach from the NDP, as it shows that they're capable of putting fire-and-brimstone ideaology on the back-burner for the sake of political reality: Fiscal management is a big deal, and a hot-button issue, in this riding.
Bottom Line: Carpendale is a young candidate who's been saddled with the unenviable task of appealing to an electorate that is looking for someone to replace their recently departed "elder statesman" of Ron Stevens. By most accounts he's an engaging personality one-on-one - he's a union leader, a father of 2, and a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, for which he deserves the utmost respect. With some more polish he might be the future of the NDP in Alberta - but that future is not today.
Carpendale on Twitter
Diane Colley-Urquhart, Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta
Colley-Urquhart finds herself in an unfamiliar situation in Calgary-Glenmore. She's trying to make the jump from popular alderman to MLA, however many of the people who support her as an alderman are backing other candidates in this race - and that support, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with Diane herself. She's running for a party that just tabled a $6.9 Billion deficit and has a leader who is never going to be given a fair shake by the voters of Calgary because he's from "up there", and beat 2 Calgarians for the leadership.
Ed Stelmach could dive across an intersection to shield a baby carriage from an oncoming truck on MacLeod Trail, and he'd be criticized by locals for holding up traffic.
Diane has been hitting the doors of Calgary-Glenmore at a blistering pace, and has a pretty good sign prescence in the communities - once you get off the corners and the main arteries, you see as many of her signs on the cul-de-sacs and private lawns as anyone else's - and more than most candidates. She's a practicing nurse, so she's aware of the health care issues that are so important to residents of the riding, and she's got a solid fiscal voting record to stand on. Detractors have suggested that she'd be just another voiceless back-bencher, but there are ample reasons to believe that Diane's voice would be an important one on issues such as transportation and health for a caucus desperate to show it does, in fact, care about Calgary - and a cabinet role isn't out of the question, either. She is still serving residents of her ward as an alderman during the campaign, electing not to leave them without representation for the next year unless absolutely necessary, but is returning her salary to the city - so, she hasn't taken a leave-of-absence, but she's taken a pay cut of 100% during the campaign.
Bottom Line: She's hungry, and is drawing enthusiastic support from the PC ranks all over the city - people who know how to win. It will be a challenge to inspire voters to come out in a by-election and vote for the status quo, but such is the life of the by-election candidate running for the governmening party. If her volunteers pound the Get Out The Vote hard enough, Diane could find herself in a new job.
Colley-Urquhart on Twitter
Colley-Urquhart campaign website
Antoni (Tony) Grochowski, Independent
A veteran of municipal (mayor in 2004, ward 10 in 2005, seperate school trustee in 2007), provincial (for the SoCreds in 2008) and federal (independent, 2008) races in the past, Grochowski throws his hat into the ring this time as an independent candidate in Calgary-Glenmore.
An architect by training, Grochowski clearly has a deep desire for public service. He has in the past espoused views opposed to smoking bans, and in favour of Bishop Fred Henry's call for an end to funding Catholic school programs with gaming funds.
Bottom Line: Independent campaigns can win, but only if they're well-organized. Tony deserves all the credit in the world for running... but to be taken seriously, he's going to have to pick a single job he wants to win, and work on getting his message out to voters. This won't be it.
Antoni appears to have no social media or internet prescence for this campaign.
Paul Hinman, Wildrose Alliance Party
A former MLA for the riding of Cardston-Taber-Warner, Hinman has served as the leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party since its inception, and is currently serving as its interim leader until the conclusion of their leadership race.
Hinman's campaign has shown itself to be very capable and organized in the latter weeks of this race - while they got off to something of a slow start, they've more than made up for it since then with tireless door-knocking and a sign crew that seems to have a 4x8 sign on every corner - and more than a few private lawns, as well (go big or go home, I guess). The major theme of the campaign seems to be to capitalize on the discontent among Calgarians with the leadership of Ed Stelmach, as their campaign slogan even mentions Ed by name.
Wildrose Alliance supporters have been all over the internet, Twitter and the blogs, stumping for their guy - it's a good example of the kind of full-court press that other parties would be wise to emulate in the future (note to the parties: Hire a social media hotshot. Do what they say. Don't be luddites.). Like the early gold rushes, if you don't get your claim staked on the world wide web, someone else will stake it from underneath you. While Hinman is making some hay with his anti-Stelmach messaging, he's missing a particularly large plank of the Glenmore-centric platform by not talking about his proposed solution to the Ring Road debacle. Alberta-wide
solutions are good, but it's not a provincial campaign - it's a local one, and the people of Glenmore are electing a local representative to talk about their specific issues, not a new government.
Bottom Line: While Hinman has a natural ally in that the reality of by-elections suggests that the voter interested in change is more likely to come out than the satisfied voter, his campaign runs into a bit of trouble as a result of the current leadership race within his party. Albertan voters are used to thinking of their votes not as going to a candidate, but to the party under which that candidate runs. Hinman's campaign hasn't exactly discouraged this thinking, either, sugesting that a vote for Colley-Urquhart is in fact a vote of support for Stelmach. Where this comes back to bite them a bit is in the fact that, by extension then, a vote for Hinman is a vote for... whomever wins the WAP leadership race. Which, at this point, could mean either Danielle Smith, Mark Dyrholm or Jeff Willerton - 3 VERY different candidates, under whose leadership the party would end up occupying 3 very different spots of real estate on the Alberta political
spectrum. That uncertainlty as to what the party will stand for a year from now may force some potential WAP voters to shy away from voting for Hinman, for the time being.
On a side note, it still impresses the hell out of me that Hinman speaks Tagalog. It's a beautiful language that I'm trying to get a grip on, but that grip continues to evade me - well done, Paul.
Hinman campaign website
Avalon Roberts, Alberta Liberal Party
Dr. Avalon Roberts is a practicing psychiatrist and health care advocate with the Friends of Medicare, seeking election for the third time provincially (she has run twice before in Glenmore, as well as once federally in Calgary South West against that Harper fella). Her campaign is hoping for a repeat of the Craig Cheffins by-election victory in Calgary-Elbow, with the all-out war between the PC's and Wildrose Alliance facilitating a right-of-centre vote split.
Driving up and down the major roads in Calgary Glenmore, you'd think this was a three horse race for popular support. Indeed, Roberts has significant name recognition in this area because of her past political forays, and that recognition - combined with the growing focus of the Liberals on turning anti-Stelmach sentiment into capturing "Battleground Calgary", much as they were able to do with anti-Klein sentiment in Edmonton - could work in her favour here. There aren't a lot of Roberts signs on private property, but even when you're mad at the Premier for the very good and valid reason that "he's not from this city", putting up a Liberal sign in your yard is... a sketchy prospect, at best.
Roberts talks a lot about Calgary-Glenmore having "effective opposition" working for them in Edmonton... I don't know whether she intends that to mean that Ron Stevens, the Deputy Premier, was "INEFFECTIVE opposition", or that she thinks being across the room yelling at the cabinet benches is a better way to represent the people of Glenmore than actually being in the cabinet room, where the decisions are made - either way, it's a talking point that needed a bit more thought put into it before it became one of the central points of the campaign.
On the issue of the Ring Road, Roberts has remained publicly silent as far as I can tell. I'm particularly interested to hear her proposed solution to the issue, because of her involvement with the Weaselhead Society, which has come out strongly opposed to any contruction or road building that affects the Weaselhead natural area.
Bottom Line: Anyone who thinks Roberts can't win this race is fooling themselves. The Liberals are riding a high in this city since the last provincial election, and their supporters are VERY likely to come out in droves trying to wrest this seat from the Tories. The campaign has been a bit underwhelming overall, and a bit of a pall has been cast by the appearance in the past week of potentially illegal 3rd-party advertising on Avalon's behalf... but if the Colley-Urquhart and Hinman people back off the GOTV efforts even for a moment on the 14th, they might both be looking up at the next Official Opposition critic for Health and Wellness.
Roberts' campaign website
Roberts on Twitter
Len Skowronski, Alberta Social Credit Party
You can call the SoCreds a lot of things... but quitters, they ain't. I got my first glimpse of a Skowronski sign in this campaign on August 31st, on a patch of grass in a high school parking lot. Because those High School kids are VERY likely to vote Social Credit. :)
Skowronski is the leader of the Alberta Social Credit party, and has been since 2007. He has run provincially twice before - in 2004 in Calgary-Varsity, and in 2007 in Calgary-Bow. The campaign signs feature a modified Alberta license plate with the SoCred logo and the plate reading "R U Ready?" - a message that suggests the Social Credit revolution is upon us once again. In fairness, the party has made a lot of strides lately in terms of policy and party infrastructure - the problem they run into is with their brand. To most Albertans, Social Credit has gone the way of the T-Rex - a big deal at its peak, but a historical footnote these days.
The sad thing about Skowronski's candidacy is, he proposes a lot of good ideas, and common-sense democratic solutions to some of the issues facing Glenmore, and all of Alberta. His brand, though, has simply GOT to change. The same policies and ideas, presented by the "Moving Alberta Forward" party, would gain a whole new level of traction in the public consciousness.
Bottom Line: Good ideas, but lacklustre execution and a terrible branding issue leave the campaign fighting to avoid the embarassment of finishing dead last.
Skowronski campaign website (sort of...)
Calgary-Glenmore Candidates Forum
Thursday, September 10th
7:00 pm
Southwood Community Hall
11 Sackville Drive SW
Seating is limited, so arrive early.
Bring an open mind. Leave your campaign signs at home. The object is to discuss issues and let the undecided choose, not to chant, cat-call and intimidate better than "the other guys".
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Everyone Look Busy... the Boss Is Coming!
Well, Nation... the Calgary-Glenmore by-election campaign is half over, and the signs wars are... well, underwhelming at best. Every side likes to claim they're "winning the sign war", and yet they're also quick to dismiss the significance of having a lot of signs up - or, more specifically, or seeing a lot of their OPPONENTS' signs up.
The thing I'm noticing most is the ridiculous number of signs I'm seeing on public property. Don't get me wrong - there are signs on private property. Absolutely. But I'm seeing giant printed signs for Hinman and Roberts on some of the main roads going through Calgary-Glenmore, as well as big rented signs for those 2 plus Colley-Urquhart. The legalities of what IS and ISN'T allowed in terms of signage in this city is a little foggy to me (especially after hearing about THIS embarrassment), however I know that incumbents generally tend to get in less trouble than challengers on this front. Even though Glenmore HAS no incumbent, I'd think that a sitting Alderman would be very aware of what is and isn't allowed in terms of signage, so I'm assuming any place I see a PC sign in Glenmore is probably okay for the others as well.
All that said, though... all that signs on public property (legally or not) says is "my campaign has money". It DOESN'T mean "my campaign has support from local voters" - which most educated voters realize. A giant row of Avalon Roberts signs on a median doesn't mean much. An entire boulevard of houses with Hinman signs on every single lawn? THAT would "send Ed a message".
SPEAKING of the Premier... he'll be attending a rally at Colley-Urquhart HQ this coming Thursday. No word on whether any of daveberta's posters are up at Diane's office, but I suspect that the Premier's focus is going to be on Diane's record as an Alderman, the legacy that Ron Stevens leaves, the "free-flow 14th" band-aid for the ring road, and on getting out the vote to avoid another Calgary-Elbow fiasco.
At least, that would be his focus if *I* were advising him.
The Enlightened Savage will likely be in the house on Thursday - come say hi to me.
Well, and the Premier. He's a pretty big deal also. ;)
The thing I'm noticing most is the ridiculous number of signs I'm seeing on public property. Don't get me wrong - there are signs on private property. Absolutely. But I'm seeing giant printed signs for Hinman and Roberts on some of the main roads going through Calgary-Glenmore, as well as big rented signs for those 2 plus Colley-Urquhart. The legalities of what IS and ISN'T allowed in terms of signage in this city is a little foggy to me (especially after hearing about THIS embarrassment), however I know that incumbents generally tend to get in less trouble than challengers on this front. Even though Glenmore HAS no incumbent, I'd think that a sitting Alderman would be very aware of what is and isn't allowed in terms of signage, so I'm assuming any place I see a PC sign in Glenmore is probably okay for the others as well.
All that said, though... all that signs on public property (legally or not) says is "my campaign has money". It DOESN'T mean "my campaign has support from local voters" - which most educated voters realize. A giant row of Avalon Roberts signs on a median doesn't mean much. An entire boulevard of houses with Hinman signs on every single lawn? THAT would "send Ed a message".
SPEAKING of the Premier... he'll be attending a rally at Colley-Urquhart HQ this coming Thursday. No word on whether any of daveberta's posters are up at Diane's office, but I suspect that the Premier's focus is going to be on Diane's record as an Alderman, the legacy that Ron Stevens leaves, the "free-flow 14th" band-aid for the ring road, and on getting out the vote to avoid another Calgary-Elbow fiasco.
At least, that would be his focus if *I* were advising him.
The Enlightened Savage will likely be in the house on Thursday - come say hi to me.
Well, and the Premier. He's a pretty big deal also. ;)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Canadian Youth Are Awesome
Hope everyone's having a good day today. Anything interesting happen lately? ;)
Setting a slightly lighter tone today, before I sit down to solve the $6.9 Billion deficit in a single blog post...
Credit to @TPHogan for this gem...
Setting a slightly lighter tone today, before I sit down to solve the $6.9 Billion deficit in a single blog post...
Credit to @TPHogan for this gem...
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Revelations, Chapter 2 (spoiler alert!)
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 fliers 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.
I originally intended just to cover the selection of the new Premier, and then to slink away. If I could at least show up on a Google search, and help a single member of the PC’s make their decision, I’d call it a win.
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 PoliSci degree could analyse 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 had been writing for a week, and Googling to see how many more “buzzwords” I’d need to drop in before the Google Spiders listed me high enough to be found by my targeted “single party member”, when something extraordinary happened... I found a posting on another blog – talking about MY blog. The blog in question was named “Phendrana Drifts”, and the author (Duncan Wojtaszek) was talking about my posting in a complimentary way.
I’d look a little further, and see that the day before, 6 days into my “blogging career”, there was ANOTHER post on a PC insider’s blog, about this “new kid on the block”. This one was from Ken Chapman, one of the “heavy hitters” among the provincial political blogs.
The blog changed everything. 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. Some of the more intrepid among the MSM 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. Naheed Nenshi helped me get booked to do a spot of analysis on CityTV for election night during the 2008 provincial election (I need some work on my “on-camera” spots – hairy, at best).
No one other than my close friends and family even had the time of day for me and my political ideas under my real name, but when I wrote under a pseudonym, in the public domain, people were noticing. People who KNEW I was The Enlightened Savage were introducing me, by my given name, to MLA’s – and those same MLA’s would ask, when the discussion turned to political blogs, “who do you think this Enlightened Savage is?” 18 months later, I "outed" myself to the same MLA who had taken me under her wing at age 17. To say she was floored would be a bit of an understatement. She asked me, “where are you GETTING this stuff?”, and I told her “It’s just how I see things.” She remains a wonderful mentor, politically, and an example of everything that is right about politicians. Without the blog, I’d still be delivering her fliers and delivering her lawn signs, proudly. Now, I discuss policy and strategy with her – just as proudly, but far less sweatily.
This blog has helped me make the connections and 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 3 years of writings (440 posts, as of this writing) 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.
My concern with revealing my identity, though, has never been the public-at-large. It has been some as-yet-unknown overzealous middle-manager somewhere in my department who is going to try and curry favour with their favourite MLA by closing my one-man office and putting me out of a job, "solving" a problem for that MLA because I criticised them at some point. I'm not scared of the PC party - I'm scared of a faceless “true believer” supporter trying to protect his own version of party doctrine at the expense of my job – an important job that I do very well.
There’s been a lot of conversation in the past few days about the future of this blog. Whether I’d reveal myself, disappear, or remove the blog altogether. I want to thank Jane Morgan and Brian Dell for their discretion to this point. They didn’t HAVE to give me the time I needed to figure out what to do – but they did it anyhow. We don’t agree on everything politically, but this small act of compassion speaks to the quality of character that both of them have.
The first post to this 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 3 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 can proudly say I’ve rejected only a handful of comments on any of my 440 posts. Having YOU be part of the discussion is what has kept me doing this – let’s be honest, I’m not interesting enough to talk, uninterrupted, for 3 years straight. My favourite posts have been the ones with the most comments, because it means we’re actually talking WITH each other, instead of me just talking AT you. I haven’t gotten many posts that reached what I call the “daveberta line” (most of Dave’s posts seem to get at least 20 comments), but the conversation has been important to me nevertheless.
I’ve made an effort whenever possible to “give the rub” to other bloggers, whether they were already established (see my unsuccessful attempt to help DJ Kelly win a Canadian Blog Award) or just starting out (Shane over at CalgaryRants is not, in fact, me – I have been known to wear the mask around the house, though).
I’ve tried my best to make you think, make you discuss issues with your fellow citizens, make you laugh, and (sometimes) make you mad.
The only thing I haven’t given you over these past 3 years is a name.
And now you have one.
My name is Joey Oberhoffner. You can call me The Enlightened Savage.
And if you think this blog was interesting before... brothers and sisters, you ain’t seen NOTHING yet.
This blog – and this blogger – aren’t going ANYWHERE.
Viva la Nación.
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 fliers 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 this blog was born.
I originally intended just to cover the selection of the new Premier, and then to slink away. If I could at least show up on a Google search, and help a single member of the PC’s make their decision, I’d call it a win.
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 PoliSci degree could analyse 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 had been writing for a week, and Googling to see how many more “buzzwords” I’d need to drop in before the Google Spiders listed me high enough to be found by my targeted “single party member”, when something extraordinary happened... I found a posting on another blog – talking about MY blog. The blog in question was named “Phendrana Drifts”, and the author (Duncan Wojtaszek) was talking about my posting in a complimentary way.
“Another thought on blogs, I have a new flavour of the month in blogs, the Enlightened Savage. He is spot on in many comments, and I can only hope he will continue blogging about Alberta politics past Nov. 25/Dec. 2. He is setting a furious pace, with a superb analysis of Dinning today, and a good one on Hancock yesterday.”
I’d look a little further, and see that the day before, 6 days into my “blogging career”, there was ANOTHER post on a PC insider’s blog, about this “new kid on the block”. This one was from Ken Chapman, one of the “heavy hitters” among the provincial political blogs.
“I have just read a Blog, The Enlightened Savage that I think has some of the best comments, insights and profiles of the leadership candidates. It is definitely worth a read.”I didn’t even know what to do... I was simply floored. Here were people who had never met me, who I’d never spoken to, who seemed well-connected within the huge apparatus of the PC Party and they were complimenting my content. My insights. My ANALYSIS. My ability not to regurgitate press releases, but to read the data and come to conclusions – the very same skills that, under my own name, had been so casually disregarded because of my age and a lack of conventional political bona fides. They weren’t impressed by WHO I knew, but by WHAT I knew. I’m proud now to call Duncan and his wonderful wife Allie friends of mine. His kindness in pointing me out to the masses is something for which I will always be grateful. Ken Chapman is forever going to be my “blogfather”. He went out of his way to meet me when he was next in Calgary, and although we haven’t had a chance to sit down and really talk one-on-one since then, we’ve stayed in contact through other means - he is the model for me of what a true PROGRESSIVE conservative should be.
The blog changed everything. 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. Some of the more intrepid among the MSM 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. Naheed Nenshi helped me get booked to do a spot of analysis on CityTV for election night during the 2008 provincial election (I need some work on my “on-camera” spots – hairy, at best).
No one other than my close friends and family even had the time of day for me and my political ideas under my real name, but when I wrote under a pseudonym, in the public domain, people were noticing. People who KNEW I was The Enlightened Savage were introducing me, by my given name, to MLA’s – and those same MLA’s would ask, when the discussion turned to political blogs, “who do you think this Enlightened Savage is?” 18 months later, I "outed" myself to the same MLA who had taken me under her wing at age 17. To say she was floored would be a bit of an understatement. She asked me, “where are you GETTING this stuff?”, and I told her “It’s just how I see things.” She remains a wonderful mentor, politically, and an example of everything that is right about politicians. Without the blog, I’d still be delivering her fliers and delivering her lawn signs, proudly. Now, I discuss policy and strategy with her – just as proudly, but far less sweatily.
This blog has helped me make the connections and 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 3 years of writings (440 posts, as of this writing) 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 odd thing is, I never REALLY considered this to be an “anonymous blog”. I was writing under a name other than the one I had been given at birth, but so do many others – the fact that I didn’t choose something innocuous like “John Smith” is what gave it away, but many reporters and television news personalities don’t have their birth name as part of the by-line – it’s the content that makes them reputable. I wanted to think I was providing good content, keeping the rumours and “anonymous sources have indicated...” down to a minimum. I was accountable for what I wrote as The Enlightened Savage, and for what appeared here - hence, my moderation of the comments to the posts – because people knew where to find me and hold me to account. Right here, at this blog. Just like "Dear Abby" gets her mail, even though her given name isn't "Abby".
My concern with revealing my identity, though, has never been the public-at-large. It has been some as-yet-unknown overzealous middle-manager somewhere in my department who is going to try and curry favour with their favourite MLA by closing my one-man office and putting me out of a job, "solving" a problem for that MLA because I criticised them at some point. I'm not scared of the PC party - I'm scared of a faceless “true believer” supporter trying to protect his own version of party doctrine at the expense of my job – an important job that I do very well.
There’s been a lot of conversation in the past few days about the future of this blog. Whether I’d reveal myself, disappear, or remove the blog altogether. I want to thank Jane Morgan and Brian Dell for their discretion to this point. They didn’t HAVE to give me the time I needed to figure out what to do – but they did it anyhow. We don’t agree on everything politically, but this small act of compassion speaks to the quality of character that both of them have.
The first post to this 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 3 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 this 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 civilization. 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.
I can proudly say I’ve rejected only a handful of comments on any of my 440 posts. Having YOU be part of the discussion is what has kept me doing this – let’s be honest, I’m not interesting enough to talk, uninterrupted, for 3 years straight. My favourite posts have been the ones with the most comments, because it means we’re actually talking WITH each other, instead of me just talking AT you. I haven’t gotten many posts that reached what I call the “daveberta line” (most of Dave’s posts seem to get at least 20 comments), but the conversation has been important to me nevertheless.
I’ve made an effort whenever possible to “give the rub” to other bloggers, whether they were already established (see my unsuccessful attempt to help DJ Kelly win a Canadian Blog Award) or just starting out (Shane over at CalgaryRants is not, in fact, me – I have been known to wear the mask around the house, though).
I’ve tried my best to make you think, make you discuss issues with your fellow citizens, make you laugh, and (sometimes) make you mad.
The only thing I haven’t given you over these past 3 years is a name.
And now you have one.
My name is Joey Oberhoffner. You can call me The Enlightened Savage.
And if you think this blog was interesting before... brothers and sisters, you ain’t seen NOTHING yet.
This blog – and this blogger – aren’t going ANYWHERE.
Viva la Nación.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Revelations
Nation... there's a lot going on behind-the-scenes in "E.S.-land" right now, and a lot of people are finding themselves in unenviable positions.
Please vote on the poll to your right.
You'll be hearing from me on Wednesday.
- E.S.
Please vote on the poll to your right.
You'll be hearing from me on Wednesday.
- E.S.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
What's In A Label?
Nation, we've seen a great deal of discussion on the interwebs and in the fish-wrap lately about the usefulness of political labels. In light of the recent ramping up of partisan rhetoric ahead of the Calgary-Glenmore by-election, one of those labels in particular has got me wondering...
What, exactly, IS a "conservative"?
We're seeing a lot of supporters of Paul Hinman dismissing Diane Colley-Urquhart as a "phony conservative". Meanwhile, PC supporters seem determined to paint Hinman as a "scary social conservative". Wildrose Alliance officials, for their part, are quick to point out that their party is a "fiscally conservative, socially moderate party" - which might be news to those vocal few among their supporters who are so quick to cry "moderate is another word for liberal!!!".
Moderate. Liberal. Conservative. Progressive. Red Tory. Blue Tory. These labels are supposed to make it EASIER for the voters to figure out what these candidates and parties stand for?
The catalyst for this post, though, was a post I read (and commented on) over at The Alberta Altruist, entitled "Calgary Glenmore How Conservative Is It?". It's a good question, and one with a lot of levels... in order to be a "conservative riding", do the voters in Glenmore need to be fiscal and social conservatives both? Or can you be a fiscal hawk and social moderate and still be called conservative? How about a social conservative who's cut from the tax-and-spend cloth? The conservative "coin" as we understand it has 2 sides - do they both need to come up "blue" to call someone a "real conservative"? Does it, in fact, only have 2 sides? Why aren't there "environmental conservatives", since environment is neither purely social NOR purely economic?
And even if you have all the answers to the paragraph above, what does it MEAN to be a "conservative", anyhow?
The root word, of course, is "conserve".
So, right off the bat, we see that a "conservative" is someone who wants to protect and maintain things... in order to maintain something, it must be previously established, so we're probably looking at "traditional values, historic social institutions, and the environment". Plus fiscal policy, which we'll tackle at the end.
Not all traditional values, mind you, are necessarily worth protecting - and a lot of them will see modern "conservative" politicians running as fast as possible in the other direction - such as the subjugation of women, slavery, and paedophilia. All of these were accepted - and, depending on which part of the world you're looking at - even encouraged at some point. However in this more enlightened age, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) with any credibility at ALL would even THINK of accepting or encouraging that sort of garbage. So... just because it's how they thought a hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't NECESSARILY make it a "traditional conservative value". There are no legitimate conservative federal or provincial political parties that I know of who are in favour of any of those 3 examples - and yes, that includes subjugation of women. Stephen Harper does NOT have a secret plan to take away your right to choose and chain you to a stove-top. Stop it.
The "traditional values" that make up the foundation of "social conservatism", then, seem to be the values that western liberal (eek! There's that WORD!) democracies share: Respect for the rule of law, the sanctity of the family unit, the defence of individual liberties, and the absolute rule of democracy. The devil, of course, is in the details. Respect for the rule of law and individual liberties were tossed aside in defence of the state in the latter years of the conservative G.W. Bush presidency. The sanctity of the family unit is all fine and good, but what if MY family unit has 2 husbands and no wife? Most would agree this is hardly the family unit that most self-described social conservatives have in mind.
The democracy thing is a bit of a sticking point, too... many conservatives in this country want to overhaul the Senate of Canada, to make it more equitable to their own regions... and yet, the parties of the left want things to stay as they are. In effect, the conservatives are pushing for change, while the liberals defend the status quo, and our current democratic parliamentary system. So is democracy a purely conservative value? Does being in favour of free votes or fixed election dates make one a conservative by default? I submit it doesn't... which is a point that Preston Manning tried to make repeatedly while he and his party, founded on the simple principle that our system needed to change to ensure democratic fairness, were demonized as "conservative neanderthals".
It's important to note here, too, that being unable or unwilling to call one's self a "social conservative" does NOT, in fact, mean that you are fundamentally OPPOSED to social order, families, individual rights and the democratic process. It's not an "all or nothing" deal, despite what some of the "true believers" would have you think.
Historic social institutions are an interesting kettle of fish, particularly in Canada. Most "conservatives" in western democracies are republican - meaning, they prefer that the final executive power in their system of government lay in the hands of a person or persons whom have been elected by the people over whom they are ruling. In Canada, though, a sizable number - I'd submit, the majority - of conservatives prefer that we maintain our connections to the British Crown. This is another of the "moving targets" in conservative thought... in the early 1800's, to be a "conservative" meant that in all likelihood you wished for the maintenance or re-establishment of the rule of a monarch in your nation - that monarchy being an historic social institution. In the time since, democratic ideals have replaced monarchism as the social institution in much of the western world - indeed, an American conservative would scoff at the idea that his monarchist friend from Ontario be considered "conservative".
So, conservatives from different parts of the world are not necessarily all the same in their defence of social institutions, because those institutions are different depending on where you go. A conservative in British Columbia would be appalled at the institutions a conservative in Saudi Arabia would defend. A conservative in Manitoba would be considered a far-left wing-nut in Minnesota. And Barack Obama's "neo-soviet liberal heath-care policies", in the hands of a Canadian politician, would be called "draconian neo-conservative anti-medicare hog-wash".
The other "social institutions" that conservatives will generally tend to defend include: The nuclear family, resource-based industries, small business and agriculture, national unity, free trade, provincial economic autonomy, and Judeo-Christian faith-based values.
Again, the refusal to support ALL of the above-listed initiatives and institutions does not automatically exclude someone from being a "true conservative"... a conservative who has considered the issue and has decided he can not support free trade is not a liberal - he's a conservative who is against free trade. There are Muslim, pagan, and even atheist conservatives. There are conservatives who are also environmentalists. Which brings me to my next conservative litmus test...
Conservative conservationists.
Nation, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you define a conservative by their social stances or their fiscal ones, there's one issue that all conservatives should, by their very nature, agree on: Preservation and responsible use of the environment. Conservatives should, in effect, be conservationists.
You're a fiscal conservative? Great. Explain to me why we don't cut all the trees down at once - we'd make more money that way in the imeediate short-term, right? Even if you're a hardcore fiscal conservative, you have to accept that the best conservationists we've got in this country - our ranchers, farmers and foresters - are also some of the most devout conservatives. You CAN be both... you can value the economy AND ensure a sustainable environment at the same time. You can exploit natural resources without destroying the environment - and, if you take good care of the land, water and air, you can exploit those resources AGAIN at next year's harvest. Money, as they say, cannot be eaten.
You're a social conservative? Fantastic. Explain to me how poisoning the environment for future generations is a good, traditional, conservative value. Conservatives, after all, want to ensure that their children are given the opportunity to grow, learn and thrive. They need a healthy place to live in order to do that. We can "exercise our dominion" over the land, and the beasts, without poisoning the land and wiping out all the beasts. Remember: We have not inherited the world from our forefathers - we have borrowed it from our children.
Conservatives in Europe have already embraced the Green cause, and made it their own. Keeping the land and water clean, reducing waste, saving money on clean-ups, ensuring a healthy environment for future generations - those are considered conservative ideals in Europe. Conservatives on this side of the pond shouldn't hesitate to follow the parade, just because they're afraid of angering their resource-company donors. Are the big oil and energy dollars going to go to the "tax big businesses into the ground" crowd on the other side of the political spectrum?
The last conservative pillar, or sub-classification if you like, is the "fiscal conservative". Now, in these tough economic times (tm), EVERYONE likes to fashion themselves as a "fiscal conservative". What does this fiscal conservatism actually entail? Well, in a general sense, it means you "try your best not to waste the taxpayers' money". This can be achieved through minimizing the government's involvement in the ownership of corporations or privitizing existing government assets, promoting efficiency and minimizing waste, going into defecit only as a last resort (and paying back the money PRONTO), and lessening the corporate and personal tax burden as far as possible.
As I said, this "fiscal conservatism" is the one pillar that everyone from every remotely conservative corner of the politisphere is clinging deperately to these days, trying to convince the voter that they are the best choice to not take more than they need from each paycheque, or spend more than is necessary, in the current economic climate. Indeed, to an outsider it seems that even the Alberta Liberals are fashioning themselves as a "fiscally conservative" party, forcing Albertans to choose between 3 parties all claiming to be fiscally conservative.
Of course, in this scenario, the only party that can be attacked on its record is the one that has held power - and, since the world's economy has gone into what Montogmery Scott would call the "waste extraction unit", the same policies that 4 years ago would have been "fiscally conservative" are now decried as "reckless tax-and-spend liberalism". The alternative, taken in the name of seeming to be a committed fiscal conservative, would be to dramatically cut the public workforce, making an already bad economic situation worse (adding 10,000-or-more people to the ranks of the unemployed for the sake of not having people call you names is hardly a responsible solution to an economic crisis).
So, where does this leave us?
The problem with these labels is that we can bestow them on ourselves, other can bestow them on us as compliments or condemnations, and they can exclude us from the labels for the same reasons... "he's no neo-con" can be a compliment, while "she's not a real conservative" can be meant as a reason NOT to vote for someone. "I'm a fiscal conservative" is impossible to prove without a voting record, and "I'm a social conservative" could mean anything from "I think the government has no place in the bedrooms of the country" to "I think we should bus all the homosexuals to Massachuesetts".
So, since anyone can call anyone else anything they like (it's called "free speech" - I exercise it a lot - A LOT, according the future Mrs. Savage, and contrary to the loud imaginings of a very vocal minority, no HRC has ever come to my door with a roll of duct tape), and it's almost impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong about the labels, of what value ARE they, truly?
As I understand it, the accusation that a person isn't a "true conservative" comes from the old definition of a "conservative" as marching in lock-step with the 2 pillars of conservatism: Fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism. Someone who wanders, in fact or in the other person's imaginings, from either can't be a "true blue conservative".
Being a "conservative" isn't like being a Roman Catholic, though. If you stray from the dogma or the teachings of the movement, a bishop can't simply appear and excommunicate you. Supporters of another party can't kick your party out of the conservative club, and supporters of another candidate can't declare that you aren't a conservative simply because they disagree with you. Well, they CAN, and they DO, but it's about as legitimate as "my dad can beat up your dad".
I'd propose, though, that just as the simple "left-right" axis of my grade-school social studies class is no longer relevant to the realities of a 3-dimensional political world, so too must the over-simplification of the "conservative" label as "social and fiscal" go the way of the dodo.
To this one mind, the mind of the Enlightened Savage, a Canadian conservative is someone who finds themselves agreeing with most, but not neccessarily ALL, of the following:
If THOSE 4 points above were how we ALL agreed "conservative" was going to be defined... then I think we'd all have a much better idea about someone's policies when they called themselves a "conservative".
So... that's what *I* consider the "anatomy of a conservative".
How about YOU?
(hint: post a comment)
What, exactly, IS a "conservative"?
We're seeing a lot of supporters of Paul Hinman dismissing Diane Colley-Urquhart as a "phony conservative". Meanwhile, PC supporters seem determined to paint Hinman as a "scary social conservative". Wildrose Alliance officials, for their part, are quick to point out that their party is a "fiscally conservative, socially moderate party" - which might be news to those vocal few among their supporters who are so quick to cry "moderate is another word for liberal!!!".
Moderate. Liberal. Conservative. Progressive. Red Tory. Blue Tory. These labels are supposed to make it EASIER for the voters to figure out what these candidates and parties stand for?
The catalyst for this post, though, was a post I read (and commented on) over at The Alberta Altruist, entitled "Calgary Glenmore How Conservative Is It?". It's a good question, and one with a lot of levels... in order to be a "conservative riding", do the voters in Glenmore need to be fiscal and social conservatives both? Or can you be a fiscal hawk and social moderate and still be called conservative? How about a social conservative who's cut from the tax-and-spend cloth? The conservative "coin" as we understand it has 2 sides - do they both need to come up "blue" to call someone a "real conservative"? Does it, in fact, only have 2 sides? Why aren't there "environmental conservatives", since environment is neither purely social NOR purely economic?
And even if you have all the answers to the paragraph above, what does it MEAN to be a "conservative", anyhow?
The root word, of course, is "conserve".
Conserve, from the Latin "conservare" (to strongly keep watch, to strongly maintain) - modern usage "to save for later use"; "to protect an environment".
So, right off the bat, we see that a "conservative" is someone who wants to protect and maintain things... in order to maintain something, it must be previously established, so we're probably looking at "traditional values, historic social institutions, and the environment". Plus fiscal policy, which we'll tackle at the end.
Not all traditional values, mind you, are necessarily worth protecting - and a lot of them will see modern "conservative" politicians running as fast as possible in the other direction - such as the subjugation of women, slavery, and paedophilia. All of these were accepted - and, depending on which part of the world you're looking at - even encouraged at some point. However in this more enlightened age, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) with any credibility at ALL would even THINK of accepting or encouraging that sort of garbage. So... just because it's how they thought a hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't NECESSARILY make it a "traditional conservative value". There are no legitimate conservative federal or provincial political parties that I know of who are in favour of any of those 3 examples - and yes, that includes subjugation of women. Stephen Harper does NOT have a secret plan to take away your right to choose and chain you to a stove-top. Stop it.
The "traditional values" that make up the foundation of "social conservatism", then, seem to be the values that western liberal (eek! There's that WORD!) democracies share: Respect for the rule of law, the sanctity of the family unit, the defence of individual liberties, and the absolute rule of democracy. The devil, of course, is in the details. Respect for the rule of law and individual liberties were tossed aside in defence of the state in the latter years of the conservative G.W. Bush presidency. The sanctity of the family unit is all fine and good, but what if MY family unit has 2 husbands and no wife? Most would agree this is hardly the family unit that most self-described social conservatives have in mind.
The democracy thing is a bit of a sticking point, too... many conservatives in this country want to overhaul the Senate of Canada, to make it more equitable to their own regions... and yet, the parties of the left want things to stay as they are. In effect, the conservatives are pushing for change, while the liberals defend the status quo, and our current democratic parliamentary system. So is democracy a purely conservative value? Does being in favour of free votes or fixed election dates make one a conservative by default? I submit it doesn't... which is a point that Preston Manning tried to make repeatedly while he and his party, founded on the simple principle that our system needed to change to ensure democratic fairness, were demonized as "conservative neanderthals".
It's important to note here, too, that being unable or unwilling to call one's self a "social conservative" does NOT, in fact, mean that you are fundamentally OPPOSED to social order, families, individual rights and the democratic process. It's not an "all or nothing" deal, despite what some of the "true believers" would have you think.
Historic social institutions are an interesting kettle of fish, particularly in Canada. Most "conservatives" in western democracies are republican - meaning, they prefer that the final executive power in their system of government lay in the hands of a person or persons whom have been elected by the people over whom they are ruling. In Canada, though, a sizable number - I'd submit, the majority - of conservatives prefer that we maintain our connections to the British Crown. This is another of the "moving targets" in conservative thought... in the early 1800's, to be a "conservative" meant that in all likelihood you wished for the maintenance or re-establishment of the rule of a monarch in your nation - that monarchy being an historic social institution. In the time since, democratic ideals have replaced monarchism as the social institution in much of the western world - indeed, an American conservative would scoff at the idea that his monarchist friend from Ontario be considered "conservative".
So, conservatives from different parts of the world are not necessarily all the same in their defence of social institutions, because those institutions are different depending on where you go. A conservative in British Columbia would be appalled at the institutions a conservative in Saudi Arabia would defend. A conservative in Manitoba would be considered a far-left wing-nut in Minnesota. And Barack Obama's "neo-soviet liberal heath-care policies", in the hands of a Canadian politician, would be called "draconian neo-conservative anti-medicare hog-wash".
And medicare, by the way, is the perfect Canadian example of the moving target that is "historical social institutions"... Medicare has been in place now for 43 years. At some point in the not-so-distant future, defence of Medicare is going to suddenly find itself listed on some anonymous blogger's manifesto of "conservative virtues", because Medicare itself will be an historic social institution. Like the monarchy. Or hating the Toronto Maple Leafs. Or the metric system. Something we can all bond over, from coast to coast.
The other "social institutions" that conservatives will generally tend to defend include: The nuclear family, resource-based industries, small business and agriculture, national unity, free trade, provincial economic autonomy, and Judeo-Christian faith-based values.
Again, the refusal to support ALL of the above-listed initiatives and institutions does not automatically exclude someone from being a "true conservative"... a conservative who has considered the issue and has decided he can not support free trade is not a liberal - he's a conservative who is against free trade. There are Muslim, pagan, and even atheist conservatives. There are conservatives who are also environmentalists. Which brings me to my next conservative litmus test...
Conservative conservationists.
Nation, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you define a conservative by their social stances or their fiscal ones, there's one issue that all conservatives should, by their very nature, agree on: Preservation and responsible use of the environment. Conservatives should, in effect, be conservationists.
You're a fiscal conservative? Great. Explain to me why we don't cut all the trees down at once - we'd make more money that way in the imeediate short-term, right? Even if you're a hardcore fiscal conservative, you have to accept that the best conservationists we've got in this country - our ranchers, farmers and foresters - are also some of the most devout conservatives. You CAN be both... you can value the economy AND ensure a sustainable environment at the same time. You can exploit natural resources without destroying the environment - and, if you take good care of the land, water and air, you can exploit those resources AGAIN at next year's harvest. Money, as they say, cannot be eaten.
You're a social conservative? Fantastic. Explain to me how poisoning the environment for future generations is a good, traditional, conservative value. Conservatives, after all, want to ensure that their children are given the opportunity to grow, learn and thrive. They need a healthy place to live in order to do that. We can "exercise our dominion" over the land, and the beasts, without poisoning the land and wiping out all the beasts. Remember: We have not inherited the world from our forefathers - we have borrowed it from our children.
Conservatives in Europe have already embraced the Green cause, and made it their own. Keeping the land and water clean, reducing waste, saving money on clean-ups, ensuring a healthy environment for future generations - those are considered conservative ideals in Europe. Conservatives on this side of the pond shouldn't hesitate to follow the parade, just because they're afraid of angering their resource-company donors. Are the big oil and energy dollars going to go to the "tax big businesses into the ground" crowd on the other side of the political spectrum?
It doesn't matter whether you agree that climate change is a man-made, or man-exacerbated, phenomena. It doesn't even matter if you still steadfastly refuse to stop calling it "global warming", even though the rest of us stopped using the term 10 years ago, since some areas are seeing a dramatic drop in temperature rather than a rise (a drop is just as bad). Argue the science all you want. Taking care of the ONLY planet we have access to, just makes good, conservative sense. You don't kill the Golden Goose. You don't eat a fish that you found dead in the lake. You don't drink downstream of the herd - or of the tailing pond. You don't crap where you eat.
What's more common-sense, more conservative, than that?
The last conservative pillar, or sub-classification if you like, is the "fiscal conservative". Now, in these tough economic times (tm), EVERYONE likes to fashion themselves as a "fiscal conservative". What does this fiscal conservatism actually entail? Well, in a general sense, it means you "try your best not to waste the taxpayers' money". This can be achieved through minimizing the government's involvement in the ownership of corporations or privitizing existing government assets, promoting efficiency and minimizing waste, going into defecit only as a last resort (and paying back the money PRONTO), and lessening the corporate and personal tax burden as far as possible.
As I said, this "fiscal conservatism" is the one pillar that everyone from every remotely conservative corner of the politisphere is clinging deperately to these days, trying to convince the voter that they are the best choice to not take more than they need from each paycheque, or spend more than is necessary, in the current economic climate. Indeed, to an outsider it seems that even the Alberta Liberals are fashioning themselves as a "fiscally conservative" party, forcing Albertans to choose between 3 parties all claiming to be fiscally conservative.
Of course, in this scenario, the only party that can be attacked on its record is the one that has held power - and, since the world's economy has gone into what Montogmery Scott would call the "waste extraction unit", the same policies that 4 years ago would have been "fiscally conservative" are now decried as "reckless tax-and-spend liberalism". The alternative, taken in the name of seeming to be a committed fiscal conservative, would be to dramatically cut the public workforce, making an already bad economic situation worse (adding 10,000-or-more people to the ranks of the unemployed for the sake of not having people call you names is hardly a responsible solution to an economic crisis).
So, where does this leave us?
The problem with these labels is that we can bestow them on ourselves, other can bestow them on us as compliments or condemnations, and they can exclude us from the labels for the same reasons... "he's no neo-con" can be a compliment, while "she's not a real conservative" can be meant as a reason NOT to vote for someone. "I'm a fiscal conservative" is impossible to prove without a voting record, and "I'm a social conservative" could mean anything from "I think the government has no place in the bedrooms of the country" to "I think we should bus all the homosexuals to Massachuesetts".
So, since anyone can call anyone else anything they like (it's called "free speech" - I exercise it a lot - A LOT, according the future Mrs. Savage, and contrary to the loud imaginings of a very vocal minority, no HRC has ever come to my door with a roll of duct tape), and it's almost impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong about the labels, of what value ARE they, truly?
What does it MEAN when you say someone "isn't a true conservative"? They don't like free trade? They buy their gas at Petro-Canada? They read daveberta?
As I understand it, the accusation that a person isn't a "true conservative" comes from the old definition of a "conservative" as marching in lock-step with the 2 pillars of conservatism: Fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism. Someone who wanders, in fact or in the other person's imaginings, from either can't be a "true blue conservative".
Being a "conservative" isn't like being a Roman Catholic, though. If you stray from the dogma or the teachings of the movement, a bishop can't simply appear and excommunicate you. Supporters of another party can't kick your party out of the conservative club, and supporters of another candidate can't declare that you aren't a conservative simply because they disagree with you. Well, they CAN, and they DO, but it's about as legitimate as "my dad can beat up your dad".
I'd propose, though, that just as the simple "left-right" axis of my grade-school social studies class is no longer relevant to the realities of a 3-dimensional political world, so too must the over-simplification of the "conservative" label as "social and fiscal" go the way of the dodo.
To this one mind, the mind of the Enlightened Savage, a Canadian conservative is someone who finds themselves agreeing with most, but not neccessarily ALL, of the following:
- Traditional values that make us a vibrant civilization should be respected and protected, including respect for the rule of law, respect for the sanctity of the family unit (however you define it), individual rights and freedoms so long as they don't infringe on the right of others to live in dignity, and the selection of our leaders through a transparent and fair democratic process.
- Historic social institutions that add to our quality of life or our sense of identity and self, such as social welfare, public education, a healthy and sustainable agricultural sector, universally accessible healthcare and equality of opportunity (but not necessarily outcome) should be maintained and strengthened, while encouraging the citizens of Canada to participate in the economy as consumers, employees, and employers.
- Responsible and sustainable economic development should be encouraged within the context of a clean and healthy environment. Recycling, limiting waste, promoting efficiency in consumption of fossil fuels and other resources, long-term planning, researching new energy and environmental technologies and protection of the water table should be priorities that effect not just our standard of living, but also our economy and our quality of life.
- Government fiscal policies should provide for a strong public service infrastructure through which the above can be implemented. Taxes collected from the citizenry are not government funds, but rather the trust of the people, and must be treated as such. Waste must be limited, and efficiency promoted. No more tax than is necessary should be collected, and excess taxes should be returned to the taxpayers. Short-term deficits should only be entered into as a last resort, and debts should be cleared as soon as possible (not as soon as convenient - as soon as possible).
If THOSE 4 points above were how we ALL agreed "conservative" was going to be defined... then I think we'd all have a much better idea about someone's policies when they called themselves a "conservative".
So... that's what *I* consider the "anatomy of a conservative".
How about YOU?
(hint: post a comment)
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
What Paul Hinman knows but isn't telling us...
... he's got no chance in Calgary-Glenmore.
Nation, the race for Calgary-Glenmore is now, as of the writing of this blog, officially 25 and one-half hours old. And ALREADY, Paul Hinman - interim leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party and their candidate in the by-election precipitated by Ron Stevens' retirement from political life - is crying about the unfairness of the Premier setting the by-election's date as September 14th.
"No fair!", goes the caterwauling. "People are really busy right now, then it's the long week-end, and the kids are back in school, and it's election day! We can't get volunteers or donors at this time of year..."
Whoah there, Paul. Back up a sec. You can't mobilize enough volunteers and donors to fight a single by-election at the end of summer?
The Wildrose Alliance Party is the party that wants to ride to the rescue of the oilpatch. That wants to make life easier for small business. That wants to lower taxes, and help Alberta companies create jobs.
It's the party that wants to bring conservative government back to what they insist is a conservative populace... letting Martha and Henry and their pastor speak their minds without fear of the HRC's "thought police"... locking up bad guys and keeping bad guys from coming to Alberta from elsewhere.
You're telling me, in a province full of energy companies and allegedly conservative voters, that Paul Hinman's campaign team can't find enough money and volunteers to run a single race, with 4 weeks' notice?
And let's be clear, Nation - he and his party have had far, FAR more than 4 weeks' notice. Every single person who has been paying attention to Alberta politics for the past 3 months knew that the Premier was going to have to call a by-election to replace Ron Stevens - and he would have to do so no later than November. We've known since Stevens stepped down that this day was coming - and there are no "mulligans" in politics.
Paul's party shares some of the blame in this... as I pointed out on this blog, the Wildrose Alliance should very well be able to mobilize a huge sum of money and volunteers to fight this race. This is the provincial fruit of Reform's loins. Organization is what they do. And while they are, of course, locked in a leadership race right now, you can NOT convince me that the reason the WAP can't fund Hinman and supply him with volunteers is because the entire oilpatch, and the silent, disenfranchised conservative majority of Albertans are too focused on the Willerton-Smith-Dyrholm race to actually help a member of the party get ELECTED to the Legislature.
If the WAP is actually deserving of the attention they've been getting all summer from the MSM and the blogs alike - if they are, as they insist, the Party of business and of the hundreds of thousands of conservative Albertans that the PC's have abandoned, then they should already have tens of thousands in the bank and thousands of man-hours committed by volunteers from across the province, all determined to winning the WAP - the "next big thing" of Albertan politics, ready to form government as soon as 2012 - their first urban seat.
They don't.
If they did, Hinman wouldn't already be making excuses.
Hinman knows he has come up against the "perfect storm" of Alberta politics - a well-connected, well-funded, well-respected local politician with progressive social views, good fiscal conservative bona fides, strong volunteers from all over the city, and a history of working with the now-defunct PC Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada, through the constituency board of Prime Minister Harper. She's got him beat on the left, AND the right. She's not a shoo-in, by any means - Colley-Urquhart is going to have to mount a huge "get out the vote" effort to get voters out to the polls and avoid becoming the next Brian Heninger - but Colley-Urquhart is the prohibitive favourite, not just to outsiders looking in, but also to the WAP campaign in Glenmore. And so, Hinman goes - less than 2 hours into the race - to the "no fair" card.
Perhaps the best sign, though, that Hinman has all but given up is who he's blaming for his impending defeat.
Hear that, "people"? You're not as engaged as you should be. So when Paul Hinman loses this race, it's going to be YOUR fault - not his, or his party's.
That's the problem with this "democracy" thing... letting the "people" decide.
You should all be ashamed for making Paul lose.
SHAAAAAAAAAAAME.
Nation, the race for Calgary-Glenmore is now, as of the writing of this blog, officially 25 and one-half hours old. And ALREADY, Paul Hinman - interim leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party and their candidate in the by-election precipitated by Ron Stevens' retirement from political life - is crying about the unfairness of the Premier setting the by-election's date as September 14th.
"No fair!", goes the caterwauling. "People are really busy right now, then it's the long week-end, and the kids are back in school, and it's election day! We can't get volunteers or donors at this time of year..."
Whoah there, Paul. Back up a sec. You can't mobilize enough volunteers and donors to fight a single by-election at the end of summer?
The Wildrose Alliance Party is the party that wants to ride to the rescue of the oilpatch. That wants to make life easier for small business. That wants to lower taxes, and help Alberta companies create jobs.
It's the party that wants to bring conservative government back to what they insist is a conservative populace... letting Martha and Henry and their pastor speak their minds without fear of the HRC's "thought police"... locking up bad guys and keeping bad guys from coming to Alberta from elsewhere.
You're telling me, in a province full of energy companies and allegedly conservative voters, that Paul Hinman's campaign team can't find enough money and volunteers to run a single race, with 4 weeks' notice?
And let's be clear, Nation - he and his party have had far, FAR more than 4 weeks' notice. Every single person who has been paying attention to Alberta politics for the past 3 months knew that the Premier was going to have to call a by-election to replace Ron Stevens - and he would have to do so no later than November. We've known since Stevens stepped down that this day was coming - and there are no "mulligans" in politics.
Paul's party shares some of the blame in this... as I pointed out on this blog, the Wildrose Alliance should very well be able to mobilize a huge sum of money and volunteers to fight this race. This is the provincial fruit of Reform's loins. Organization is what they do. And while they are, of course, locked in a leadership race right now, you can NOT convince me that the reason the WAP can't fund Hinman and supply him with volunteers is because the entire oilpatch, and the silent, disenfranchised conservative majority of Albertans are too focused on the Willerton-Smith-Dyrholm race to actually help a member of the party get ELECTED to the Legislature.
If the WAP is actually deserving of the attention they've been getting all summer from the MSM and the blogs alike - if they are, as they insist, the Party of business and of the hundreds of thousands of conservative Albertans that the PC's have abandoned, then they should already have tens of thousands in the bank and thousands of man-hours committed by volunteers from across the province, all determined to winning the WAP - the "next big thing" of Albertan politics, ready to form government as soon as 2012 - their first urban seat.
They don't.
If they did, Hinman wouldn't already be making excuses.
Hinman knows he has come up against the "perfect storm" of Alberta politics - a well-connected, well-funded, well-respected local politician with progressive social views, good fiscal conservative bona fides, strong volunteers from all over the city, and a history of working with the now-defunct PC Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada, through the constituency board of Prime Minister Harper. She's got him beat on the left, AND the right. She's not a shoo-in, by any means - Colley-Urquhart is going to have to mount a huge "get out the vote" effort to get voters out to the polls and avoid becoming the next Brian Heninger - but Colley-Urquhart is the prohibitive favourite, not just to outsiders looking in, but also to the WAP campaign in Glenmore. And so, Hinman goes - less than 2 hours into the race - to the "no fair" card.
Perhaps the best sign, though, that Hinman has all but given up is who he's blaming for his impending defeat.
"People are busy and not engaged in politics as they should be," Hinman is quoted as having said in the Herald.
Hear that, "people"? You're not as engaged as you should be. So when Paul Hinman loses this race, it's going to be YOUR fault - not his, or his party's.
That's the problem with this "democracy" thing... letting the "people" decide.
You should all be ashamed for making Paul lose.
SHAAAAAAAAAAAME.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Municipal Rumblings
Nation, I - like the rest of you - sit around for much of the day pondering the mile-a-minute thrill-ride that is the race for municipal office. The long line-ups at polling stations, the 90% voter participation rate, and the long, open and vigorous debates about our city's future all make my spine tingle...
Okay. So maybe I'm forcing the issue JUST a little bit...
Nevertheless, there is, in fact, a municipal election coming to our Burg on the Bow, in October of 2010. And the rumblings are already beginning as to who may in fact be considering a run - either at "the big chair" or for aldermanic office.
Truth be told, municipal elections make for a fascinating study of retail politics. With the voter turn-out so embarrassingly low, the old adage that "the best Get Out The Vote operation wins" becomes etched-in-stone truth. People considering a run for city office in 14 months have to decide, and pronto, if they're actually going to go through with it... with no "party apparatus" to assist in fundraising, as we have at the higher levels of government, candidates face the monumental task of raising funds themselves, and without the ability to issue tax receipts. And while this is SLIGHTLY easier for incumbents and front-runners, the road to city hall is paved with the political carcasses of great, enthusiastic, visionary people who wanted to serve in city government, but couldn't raise enough money to get their message out to the masses.
Social media in general, and Twitter in particular, have levelled the playing field slightly, as candidates can get their message out to the "wired voter" for little or no cost. It's still only a drop in the bucket compared to a radio ad, direct mailer or ads on the side of a bus - but, it's a start. The web (in particular, Twitter) has also been buzzing with rumours of notable civic citizens considering a run, or "Draft such-and-such" movements.
Among the notables being mentioned (Wards for reference only, given changing boundaries and the fact that, for all I know, they're running for Mayor or school trustee, and not Alderman):
Steve Chapman - a friend of this blog, Chapman ran in 2007, for Ward 8 Alderman. He's big on law and order - the ideas (and maybe the t.v. show, for all I know - I'm more of an NCIS guy myself).
Lindsay Luhnau - also ran for Alderman of Ward 8 in 2007. A great candidate, who has a lot of great ideas for this city's future.
Jeremy Zhao - Another great, young mind - ran for Mayor in 2007. Answers currently to "the Alderman for Ward 15". Now runs PolitiCalgary blog.
DJ Kelly - good friend of this blog, arts activist, blogger, and all-around mensch. Understands this strange thing that much of council seems oblivious to - I believe it's called "nuance".
Zach Pashak - the Sled Island organizer has announced his intention to run in Ward 8. Reading his manifesto, one gets the idea he thinks that Ward 8 should declare itself an independent republic - or, at the very least, cut off tax dollars to the "sprawling suburbs". Because those million-dollar homes in the suburbs don't pay any taxes that go into, say, police officers who patrol Ward 8.
Naheed Nenshi - Chief cook and bottle-washer at the Better Calgary Campaign, instructor at Mount Royal College (GO COUGARS!), and well-known local political commentator. Has an inspiring vision for everything this city could be - if we're brave enough to make it so.
The Former Independent Candidate for Calgary-Egmont - While he's tied up in the current WAP leadership race, he's reportedly quite insistent that he has his eyes fixed on "bigger things". Reports persist, though, that he has his eyes set on running municipally in the ward that may be vacated by a sitting alderman-cum-mayoral candidate. TOTALLY unrelated note: Does anyone know what jersey number Patrick Marleau wears for the San Jose Sharks? Anyhow - with his organizational muscle, municipal politics is where this potential candidate could have the best chance of finding himself on the public's payroll.
Dave Breakenridge - While insisting that the effort would be better turned to that OTHER Breakenridge, this columnist for the Calgary Sun is the subject of a small-but-building "Draft Dave" campaign on Twitter - he's opinionated, and yet also willing to listen to arguments on the other side. A nice change from the current council.
On the other side of the ledger, names I have heard bandied about that I can assure you have NO intention of running municipally include:
Dan Arnold - Dan likes Calgary, don't get me wrong. But he's a little busy back east, trying to re-build the Liberal Party and gloating over the "Best Political Blog" title he stole from me in 2008. ;)
Kirk Schmidt - Kirk has settled into a life behind the scenes, politically - his interests lie elsewhere at this time.
Dave Taylor - The MLA for Calgary-Currie was rumoured to be mulling a run at the Mayor's chair. He's more likely to stay where he is, or pursue opportunities in his previous field.
The Enlightened Savage - While I'm flattered to be considered, I have my eyes fixed on another position, at another level of government. Stay tuned. :)
And, right in the middle of the page, we find a list of names that have been brought up in conversation, and would be interesting candidates yet have neither confirmed nor denied interest:
Cathie Williams - former school board trustee ran for MLA in 2008.
Joe Ceci - rumours have abounded that he has been considering a stab at the "big chair" - but with Bronco announcing he intends to run again, a split of the left wouldn't benefit Ceci at all.
Danielle Smith - obviously, she has bigger fish to fry at the moment. But many have pointed out that if she fails to win the Wildrose Alliance leadership in October, she's a very politically attractive candidate for mayor - straight-talking, fiscally conservative, socially moderate and benefiting from name recognition. She'd be seen as a mayor who could "stand up to the Provincial Government" without having to whine and pull cheap stunts, like other mayors who shall remain nameless.
DISCUSS, Nation - who would YOU like to see on the next council?
Okay. So maybe I'm forcing the issue JUST a little bit...
Nevertheless, there is, in fact, a municipal election coming to our Burg on the Bow, in October of 2010. And the rumblings are already beginning as to who may in fact be considering a run - either at "the big chair" or for aldermanic office.
Truth be told, municipal elections make for a fascinating study of retail politics. With the voter turn-out so embarrassingly low, the old adage that "the best Get Out The Vote operation wins" becomes etched-in-stone truth. People considering a run for city office in 14 months have to decide, and pronto, if they're actually going to go through with it... with no "party apparatus" to assist in fundraising, as we have at the higher levels of government, candidates face the monumental task of raising funds themselves, and without the ability to issue tax receipts. And while this is SLIGHTLY easier for incumbents and front-runners, the road to city hall is paved with the political carcasses of great, enthusiastic, visionary people who wanted to serve in city government, but couldn't raise enough money to get their message out to the masses.
Social media in general, and Twitter in particular, have levelled the playing field slightly, as candidates can get their message out to the "wired voter" for little or no cost. It's still only a drop in the bucket compared to a radio ad, direct mailer or ads on the side of a bus - but, it's a start. The web (in particular, Twitter) has also been buzzing with rumours of notable civic citizens considering a run, or "Draft such-and-such" movements.
Among the notables being mentioned (Wards for reference only, given changing boundaries and the fact that, for all I know, they're running for Mayor or school trustee, and not Alderman):
Steve Chapman - a friend of this blog, Chapman ran in 2007, for Ward 8 Alderman. He's big on law and order - the ideas (and maybe the t.v. show, for all I know - I'm more of an NCIS guy myself).
Lindsay Luhnau - also ran for Alderman of Ward 8 in 2007. A great candidate, who has a lot of great ideas for this city's future.
Jeremy Zhao - Another great, young mind - ran for Mayor in 2007. Answers currently to "the Alderman for Ward 15". Now runs PolitiCalgary blog.
DJ Kelly - good friend of this blog, arts activist, blogger, and all-around mensch. Understands this strange thing that much of council seems oblivious to - I believe it's called "nuance".
Zach Pashak - the Sled Island organizer has announced his intention to run in Ward 8. Reading his manifesto, one gets the idea he thinks that Ward 8 should declare itself an independent republic - or, at the very least, cut off tax dollars to the "sprawling suburbs". Because those million-dollar homes in the suburbs don't pay any taxes that go into, say, police officers who patrol Ward 8.
Naheed Nenshi - Chief cook and bottle-washer at the Better Calgary Campaign, instructor at Mount Royal College (GO COUGARS!), and well-known local political commentator. Has an inspiring vision for everything this city could be - if we're brave enough to make it so.
The Former Independent Candidate for Calgary-Egmont - While he's tied up in the current WAP leadership race, he's reportedly quite insistent that he has his eyes fixed on "bigger things". Reports persist, though, that he has his eyes set on running municipally in the ward that may be vacated by a sitting alderman-cum-mayoral candidate. TOTALLY unrelated note: Does anyone know what jersey number Patrick Marleau wears for the San Jose Sharks? Anyhow - with his organizational muscle, municipal politics is where this potential candidate could have the best chance of finding himself on the public's payroll.
Dave Breakenridge - While insisting that the effort would be better turned to that OTHER Breakenridge, this columnist for the Calgary Sun is the subject of a small-but-building "Draft Dave" campaign on Twitter - he's opinionated, and yet also willing to listen to arguments on the other side. A nice change from the current council.
On the other side of the ledger, names I have heard bandied about that I can assure you have NO intention of running municipally include:
Dan Arnold - Dan likes Calgary, don't get me wrong. But he's a little busy back east, trying to re-build the Liberal Party and gloating over the "Best Political Blog" title he stole from me in 2008. ;)
Kirk Schmidt - Kirk has settled into a life behind the scenes, politically - his interests lie elsewhere at this time.
Dave Taylor - The MLA for Calgary-Currie was rumoured to be mulling a run at the Mayor's chair. He's more likely to stay where he is, or pursue opportunities in his previous field.
The Enlightened Savage - While I'm flattered to be considered, I have my eyes fixed on another position, at another level of government. Stay tuned. :)
And, right in the middle of the page, we find a list of names that have been brought up in conversation, and would be interesting candidates yet have neither confirmed nor denied interest:
Cathie Williams - former school board trustee ran for MLA in 2008.
Joe Ceci - rumours have abounded that he has been considering a stab at the "big chair" - but with Bronco announcing he intends to run again, a split of the left wouldn't benefit Ceci at all.
Danielle Smith - obviously, she has bigger fish to fry at the moment. But many have pointed out that if she fails to win the Wildrose Alliance leadership in October, she's a very politically attractive candidate for mayor - straight-talking, fiscally conservative, socially moderate and benefiting from name recognition. She'd be seen as a mayor who could "stand up to the Provincial Government" without having to whine and pull cheap stunts, like other mayors who shall remain nameless.
DISCUSS, Nation - who would YOU like to see on the next council?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)