Sunday, January 30, 2011

What's Next?

Well, Nation - hope it was as boring a week for you all as it was for me.  Pretty much NOTHING went on this past week...  it was a nice vacation.

Of course, if you want to get technical, I suppose SOME items of small import crossed the radar this week...  I mean, in a span of 3 days, we saw the Alberta Party attract its first MLA (a former Liberal leadership candidate, at that), the Premier of the province of Alberta publicly announce that he would not be leading the Alberta PC Party into the next election, and the resignation of the Finance Minister, to seek that job.

So all in all, a pretty slow week in Alberta politics. ;-)

The question many are asking, with a nod to The West Wing, is "what's next?".

Well, I'll start by telling you what's NOT next: A eulogy for Ed Stelmach. Until the end of the spring sitting of the Legislature he remains the Premier of this province, and will govern with the massive mandate he received from voters WAYYYY back in spring of 2008.

I've heard it said that American Presidents do their best governing in the final "lame duck" year of their second term...  they've got no future battles to save their political capital for, no party line to toe in hopes of getting a more favourable Congress during the next election...  they can do what's RIGHT, and to hell with whether or not it's popular. That's the NEXT guy's problem.


Well, this is the position Ed Stelmach finds himself in.  Of course, Ed has already indicated that while he himself will be riding off into the sunset, he has no intention of hobbling the next PC Leader with massively unpopular moves on his way out the door. But he IS still "The Guy" - and his legacy is far from written. I expect that over the next 4 or 5 months, we may all get a glimpse of the Ed Stelmach that those of us lucky enough to have sat across from the man for a casual chat already know.

The question then comes up again: After Ed leaves, what's next?

Well, I've had the opportunity over the past few days to connect with several good sources within the PC Party (some within the PC Caucus itself), and here's what I've been able to glean...

Cabinet Shuffle: Ed has strongly urged, without ordering, cabinet minister with leadership ambitions to step aside. Once the dust settles from that exodus, those government departments are going to need new Ministers. Current "lower-level" Ministers can look forward to possible promotion to replace any high-profile cabinet members who step aside to seek the leadership, while MLA's outside of cabinet at present can hope for promotion to fill those ensuing vacancies near the bottom of the cabinet food chain. It's very likely that there will be little in the way of radical changes in direction under the new Ministers, as they all try not to mess up in the hopes of showing the new Leader - whomever that is - that they can handle high-level responsibility.

Interim Leader: It's possible that Premier Stelmach is going to wait until the end of the spring session to even tender his formal letter of resignation to the PC Party President. If that's the case, smart money is on Ed not wanting to wait around for 4-to-6 months while his promised "full, fair and transparent" leadership selection process runs its course - after all, Fall harvest waits for no one. If he steps out of the light before the leadership selection process has run its course, expect an interim leader to be chosen.  Deputy Premier Doug Horner is said to have leadership ambitions himself, so he'd be out as a possible interim leader/Premier. Multiple non-related sources have suggested Calgary-Foothills MLA Len Webber might be an ideal choice for the interim post.  Webber is a capable Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, is universally respected in the Legislature, is an all-around nice guy, and isn't said to be harbouring any leadership aspirations of his own.  It's also worth noting that his father was an MLA and cabinet minister in the Lougheed and Getty governments.  If Ed's not going to stick around to hand the baton to his successor directly, Webber would be a popular choice for interim leader and interim Premier, and the Legislative Assembly likely wouldn't sit until a new, permanent leader was chosen anyhow.

There IS a possibility that the timeframe will be moved up and a leadership vote could take place as early as June, but that call is entirely in the hands of Premier Ed Stelmach. The race doesn't start until he signs that letter - and there are things he still wants to get done, while he's in a position to do them. Once he signs the letter of intent to resign, he might feel he's abdicating his mandate to govern.

The Contenders: We've heard many names from both the traditional and electronic media over the past 5 days. Everyone from W. Brett Wilson (of "Dragon's Den" fame) to Ric McIver to the Two Jims (Prentice and Dinning) to Ken Hughes, former PC Member of Parliament for MacLeod and current Chair of Alberta Health Services. These "outsiders" (by which I mean, people not surrently sitting in the Legislatuve Assembly) may have a legitimate shot at being seen by PC's as the White Knights riding in to rescue them, but I want to talk today about the contenders who wouldn't need to win a byelection to serve as Premier.

In no particular order:

Ted Morton: Morton is 61 years-old, and is widely considered the front-runner for the job. In 2006, he finished 3rd in the race to replace outgoing PC Leader Ralph Klein. He served ably as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development and Minister of Finance under Premier Stelmach. Widely thought of as a social and fiscal conservative, it has been suggested that a Morton win in the leadership race might result in an exodus of progressives from the PC Party over to the Alberta Party, but would bring many disaffected PC's back to the fold who had fled during the Stelmach regime for the Wildrose Alliance. Wildrose leader Danielle Smith responded to this suggestion by stating that the PC Party had reached its expiry date, and a change in leader wouldn't solve anything. Oddly, Danielle and 75% of her caucus were happy to belong to the PC Party just 5 years ago, under Klein. So maybe the leader DOES make a difference. JUST as interesting, a 2nd Morton LOSS might be the best thing that could possibly happen to the Wildrose, as "Ted's people" might give up on the PC's altogether, and take their energies to the Wildrose. An internal Wildrose strategy of encouraging party members to buy PC memberships to vote for someone OTHER than Morton would be something to watch for. Morton might have to straddle the awkward spot of playing to his base without alientating the progressive wing of the PC's, which sees him thus far as "the wrong brand of conservative". He is said to have the quiet support of at least 10 PC MLA's (for all the good MLA support did Jim Dinning in 2006).

Alison Redford: Redford is 45 years-old, although her resume reads like she's in her 60's. She's currently the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Alberta, as well as occupying Ralph Klein's old seat of Calgary-Elbow in the Legislature. She's as bright as they come, with a razor wit and quick on her feet - and in a debate it's been suggested she could take just about anybody down for the count. Widely seen as a rising star, the knock against Redford is that she's only been an MLA since 2008 (then again, some would-be Premiers, PC and otherwise, aren't MLA's at ALL). A former senior policy advisor to Joe Clark while he was in the Mulroney cabinet, Redford is said to be 50% certain to run for the Leadership. If the Progressive Conservatives choose Redford - a Calgarian woman - to lead them, they'll definitely have a rebuttal for 2 of the big retail selling points of the Wildrose (as you all know, though, I *hate* it when politics is broken down to such a crass level). It would at least beg the question "so, tell me about your POLICIES", which is a good start. The potential drawback to a Redford win is that it would certainly continue the split in the conservative movement in Alberta, as Redford is a well-known "Capital P" Progressive Conservative, once famously dismissed by Rob Anders in a nomination battle as a "Feminist Lawyer".

Doug Horner: Horner celebrated his 50th birthday this month, although to say he's in ANY other way like Wayne Gretzky might be pushing it a little.  First elected in 2001, Horner holds the distinction of being the first Albertan MLA to hold TWO cabinet positions that were also held by his father: Minister of Agriculture (in 2004), and Deputy Premier, which he holds currently. He has also been the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology since 2006. Representing the Greater Edmonton riding of Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, Horner's family tree reads like a ballot: His Grandfather was a federal Senator, and 4 of the Senator's sons went on to be Members of Parliament. They're the Sutters of politics (without the bad trades, I mean). Horner comes with experience, and isn't all that likely to rock the boat - he's a lot like Stelmach in terms of policy and approach. Another thing he may share with Ed is in his likely choice for Chief of Staff, as he's said to be very close to Stelmach's right-hand-man, the oft-maligned Ron Glen. While a steady-rather-than-radical approach to governance may still appeal to many PC's nervous about the economic recovery, Horner's limited profile outside of the capital region may make this a tough slog, as a successful campaign would need to first explain to many PC Party members who, exactly, Horner IS.

Dave Hancock: Hancock is 55 years old, and if it seems as though he's been around forever - it's because he very nearly HAS. He was elected MLA for Edmonton-Whitemud in 1997, and before that he served as the President of the PC Youth wing under Lougheed and the President of the PC Party under Getty. He has served in cabinet for his entire career - 13 years and counting, minus the few months where he resigned to run in the 2006 leadership, in which he finished 5th - eventually throwing his support to Stelmach. He's an incredibly popular figure among progressives inside and outside the PC Party, however those progressive bona fides sometime border on parody, with one MLA referring to him as "Alberta's most powerful New Democrat". Hancock's Edmonton-Whitemud PC consituency association is said to have hundreds of members on the Board of Directors alone, and the PC "one member, one vote" leadership process (which was brought in while Hancock was Party President) might benefit him in that case. A Hancock victory would do little to heal the rifts between the party's red-and-blue factions, however it would certainly make for interesting relations with the Alberta Party, of which Hancock HAD been (until this week) touted as a potential leadership contender. If Hancock runs and thus resigns his current Cabinet seat as Minister of Education, look for the respected Janice Sarich, a former school board trustee, to possibly step in.

Jonathan Denis: Denis (not "den-EE") is 35 years old, and is often referred to as "the future of the PC Party". A first-term MLA for Calgary-Egmont, Denis is young and energetic, with a strong record as a fiscal conservative. Appointed to cabinet in January 2010 as Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs, Denis is also the Deputy Government House Leader and was named one of Avenue Magazine's "Top 40 Under 40" (it's okay, I've still got 8 years to make the list). The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs made remarkable strides in the 2010 budget year in terms of cost-cutting, while still reaching performance targets. This kind of able handling of his first ministry post suggests that even if Denis, one of the short-lived "Fiscal Five", doesn't throw his hat into the leadership ring, he may have a promotion coming with the inevitable cabinet shuffle (as a lawyer, he may end up as Minister of Justice if current Minister Alison Redford runs). Denis is widely seen as being closely aligned with Ted Morton, despite this blog's best efforts to paint him as a "notorious Red Tory" - the truth is, he's anything but. As a leadership candidate, this link might confuse the party's Blue Base, but if Morton wins, Denis is seen as an anchor on the front benches. If Morton loses, a high profile for Denis would be a good "olive branch" to the party's Blue Base.

Thomas Lukaszuk: Lukaszuk is, at 41, just entering his prime. The fomer teacher-turned-MLA for Edmonton-Castle Downs was born in Poland during a time when that was a bad place to be born, and raised in Edmonton. In 2001, at the tender age of 32, he was elected as an MLA (seems like a decent idea. Hmmmm...). He currently sits in cabinet as the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A well-known humanitarian and volunteer, Lukaszuk is also well-known in the Roman Catholic community as a past President of the Knights of Columbus. His youth and vitality, not to mention his fantastic hair and his Edmonton and immigrant roots, make Lukaszuk an attractive candidate. He's not known for being very polished as a speaker, however, which might be a problem going into a general election against, among others, a former television personality (no, not Barb Higgins). Further complicating matters for Lukaszuk is that, unlike Denis above, he really *is* a notorious Red Tory, which isn't a term of endearment for everyone the way it is for me. That said, PC Party members aren't necessarily going to vote for the candidate most likely to heal the rift in the party as much as they might choose to vote for the best representative of their SIDE of the rift - so, Lukaszuk could be an attractive Edmonton-area leadership candidate, particularly if Hancock chooses not to run.

Doug Griffiths: Griffiths is 38 years old, and won his riding (Battle River-Wainwright) with a borderline-obscene 79% of the popular vote in 2008. An MLA since 2002, Griffiths has been near-universally lauded for his use of social media in reaching out not only to his constituents, but to Albertans as a whole. He is the author and performer of a fantastic speech-turned-book, "13 Things You Can Do To Kill Your Community". A Twitter and Facebook darling, Griffiths has certainly been around long enough to have paid close attention to what went on in Calgary this past October. As a big fan of "politics in full sentences", Griffiths tried to start a conversation about the possible benefits of replacing provincial income tax with a provincial sales tax in 2010, but was shot down before he could get to the part where we don't pay income tax any more. All this said, though, Griffiths - a former teacher - has been on the outside of cabinet looking in for the past 8 years, a victim of regional and gender balance and his own penchant for free thinking. It's not clear whether this lack of cabinet experience would hurt Griffiths' chances, or help them. What IS clear, though, is that much like certain civic politicians in Alberta's 2 biggest cities, a Griffiths leadership campaign would draw support and talent from across the political spectrum. If successful, it would literally rebuild the tent, from the ground-up.

For more on "What's Next", I'd encourage you to check out:

DJ Kelly - Griffiths right man at right time?
Alberta Tory (yes, he's back - I guess I need to whup him again) - Questions Before Answers
Inside Alberta Politics - The Rumour Mill Churns
AlbertaVote.ca - What's Next? (a title clearly stolen pre-emptively from me)

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Ed Stelmach to Resign as Premier

Premier Ed Stelmach announced today that he will not lead the Alberta PC Party into the next provincial election. The timeline for his departure from office is to be determined.

"My successor will be under no obligation to go to the polls in March of 2012 - that was my timeline, and mine alone."
Stelmach went on to warn about U.S.-style campaigning, and predicted that "an extreme right-wing party will run as a moderate party based on personality", further mentioning that such a tact would be "at our peril."

Stelmach will bring in a budget this February, and then will step aside "in due course".


This throws the rumoured early election call by the PC's into the realm of the absurd.  Very likely, we're looking at a late 2012 election, if not even 2013.

The Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta will have to hold a leadership election, with several current PC MLA's rumoured to be kicking the tires, including perceived front-runner Ted Morton.

Stelmach mentioned specifically that he wants a "fair, fully transparent" leadership selection process.


The details of the race to replace Stelmach as leader will be announced once the PC Party decides on them.  In the race to replace Ralph Klein, cabinet ministers who intended to run for the party leadership were required to step aside from cabinet.  Ed Stelmach was the first cabinet minister to do so. There is no indication at this time whether this will be the expectation as Ed leaves office.

Whatever you think of the job that Ed Stelmach has done as Premier, or his politics, he deserves our thanks for the countless hours that he has put in over the years in trying, to the best of his ability, to make this province a better place for all of us.

The other parties that make up the Alberta Legislative Assembly are probably just as confused as anyone else right now, and the outcome of the PC leadership race will have a massive impact on those parties. A win by a centrist moderate reformer would give disenfranchised PC's who left for the Alberta Party a reason to consider coming "home". A win by a staunch, rock-ribbed right winger who could stand toe-to-toe with Danielle Smith would seriously damage the Wildrose Alliance's fortunes going forward.

As well, there are (as always) geographical considerations.  At present, the only party with a (non-interim)leader hailing from north of Airdrie is the NDP. There are a LOT of votes to be had up there - and yet, Calgary clearly showed its disappointment with its 2 finalists for the 2006 PC leadership - Morton and Jim Dinning - losing to a northern, rural MLA in Stelmach. After so many years of "calling the shots" in the PC Party and Alberta Government between Lougheed and Klein - both Calgary MLA's - the Burg on the Bow didn't much care to see its influence taken away. So those regional considerations will play just as much a factor as the retail politics will - who will look good on camera? Who "looks" like a Premier? Who can handle a media scrum or debate the best? Will the PC cause best be served by another middle-aged, white male?

Tomorrow is yet unwritten, but the reality is that these discussions, and the choice that the PC's ultimately make regarding their next leader, have just fundamentally changed the game - and all bets are off.

- E.S.

Taylor Made

Nation, as first broken by the Calgary Herald's Don Braid, Dave Taylor (MLA for Calgary-Currie) has decided to join the Alberta Party and sit as the party's first Member of the Legislative Assembly.

The Twitter reaction was predictable, if not disappointing.  Alberta Party supporters were, naturally, overjoyed.  Progressive Conservatives, for the most part, revelled in the fact that the Liberals were taking one on the chin for a change, instead of themselves. And the Wildrose Alliance gang was, curiously, attacking the move.

I say it was a curious reaction, because a strong Alberta Party is an absolute boon for the Wildrose Alliance. Unless they've deluded themselves into believing that they can win a popular majority outright, they have to know that the more votes that the Alberta Party can siphon from the Progressive Conservatives, the more seats the Alliance can hope to win.

Also curious was the apparent lack of memory exhibited by many of the PC and Wildrose supporters on Twitter, who attacked the Alberta Party for accepting the former Liberal leadership contender and current independent MLA.  The PC's accepted a defector from Liberal-land in 1998, when Gene Zwozdesky left the Liberal caucus, sat as an independent for one month over the summer (I'm not 100% certain the legislature was even in session, for him to "sit"), and then joined the PC caucus. The Wildrose, of course, did much the same with Guy Boutilier in 2010.  They ALSO accepted 2 defectors straight from the government benches (and strategy meetings) in January of 2010.

That said, though, I can understand the criticism - because, with only a few exceptions, most of the criticism seems to be of a similar variety to the stuff I toss around all the time - in particular, at the Wildrose: "I'm not saying they're WORSE than my party...  but their actions clearly show that, despite their earnest claims to the contrary, they are NO BETTER THAN WE ARE".

So goes the criticism of the Alberta Party today - and while I certainly see where their detractors would get this idea from, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the notion that accepting Taylor as an MLA is somehow hypocritical of the fledgling party.

While statements have come to light that were written in a blog post by (now, not then) Alberta Party President Chris LaBossiere that clearly show his distaste for the notion of switching caucuses without seeking the approval of the electorate, I had to opportunity to ask an eerily prescient question of Mr. LaBossiere during the Alberta Party convention, which I was observing on-line. During a "web forum" featuring several party organizers, I asked if the party would be accepting floor-crossers - a practice to which, with due respect to my friend Duncan, I am very much opposed. To his credit, LaBossiere replied that yes, without equivocation, the party had decided that MLA's who wished to join would be welcomed. This, despite the fact that it wasn't consistent with his own opinion on the subject - which I think speaks well for the man, that he can support a position other than his own because it is the expressed will of his membership.

So, I don't see the Alberta Party as having done anything wrong with regards to today's news. They've gotten their first MLA, they've captured the imagination of their supporters and the attention of the media, and their interim leader, Sue Huff, suggested today that there may be more MLA's yet to come. Huff isn't prone to hyperbole, but I HAVE heard that particular tune before - anyone know what happened to the "10 or more" PC MLA's who were poised to jump to the Wildrose Alliance about 10 months ago?

What does the Alberta Party do for an encore? Do they try to woo suspended PC Raj Sherman? Do they, as rumoured this evening, pursue Taylor's neighbouring MLA and ideological cousin, Kent Hehr?  Only time will tell.

I've got to say, I like Dave Taylor. We met a few times, and he and I see eye to eye on a lot of issues. I'm not going to call him "articulate", because the man is a trained radio journalist, and it's quite frankly insulting to call a former talk show host well-spoken. It's like calling a former supermodel a "handsome woman".  If you've been on the radio for more than 5 years, of COURSE you're articulate - unless, of course, your name is Eric Francis.
Dave, though, is taking some heat tonight - and not without good reason. Now, of course much of the criticism leveled at Dave is coming from the same people and same directions as the criticism of the Alberta Party - it's politically-motivated. Which is fine, I guess. It's part of "the game" (I wonder at what point those who wish to lead us will stop thinking of billions of dollars and power over the lives of their fellow citizens as "a game", but I digress). The point is, it's easy to dismiss the Taylor critics as partisan attack dogs, and move on.

Except, of course, for the fact that they're raising a perfectly reasonable point.

Taylor, upon leaving the Liberal caucus, stated that he wouldn't join another caucus without standing in a by-election as a member of that party.

His supporters point out that there was "wiggle room" in the words that he used. Which is true.

But unless Dave wants to stand in front of the media assembled at the Legislature on Tuesday and tell all of us that he chose his words that carefully so as to fool Albertans (I wouldn't recommend that strategy, but hey: it's not MY career), I think he's going to have to own the fact that it's just flat-out something that he shouldn't have said.

He's not required to step down by law, and thus he likely won't. Conspiracy theorists suggest that Ed Stelmach, whom they paint as either a bumbling fool or a Machiavellian villain depending on the day (and yet never seem to realize that he can't be BOTH) wants Taylor to step down so that he can leave the seat empty, keep the Alberta Party out of the legislature, and then call a snap spring election. Which brings me back to this critical point, that I apparently can't seem to repeat often enough:

The governing party isn't holding nominations. It won't have them done until the end of June. As of today, it hasn't held a single, solitary nomination meeting. There will NOT be an election if the party that decides on the timing of that election doesn't have nominated candidates.
But whether or not Dave is required by the law of the land to step aside, he has to own the fact that this move flies in the face of his earlier statement (in spirit, if not by the letter). Thus, the criticisms of him today were valid, despite their political-rather-than-moral motivation.

If it were ME, and *I* were an MLA, I wouldn't do it. You can't promise to never sit outside of the caucus you were elected to - sometimes, you don't get a choice in the matter. But you can promise to never join a DIFFERENT caucus without taking it back to the voters, so they can have their say. It's not the politically smart thing to do, because it doesn't give you "outs"... but it's the RIGHT thing to do. And anyone who casts a ballot at some point in the future with an "x" next to "Oberhoffner" can rest assured that I'll stand by those words.

After all - if the best our current crop can do is argue back and forth about how "those guys are no better than we are!" - shouldn't we try to get some more MLA's who believe that their word is a sacred bond with their bosses, the constituents?

Shouldn't we DEMAND better, if they're not going to give it to us of their own accord?

The Alberta Party did well today. Dave Taylor can still salvage his role in this, and move forward without any undue baggage from this week.

And Albertans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that their jobs just got a whole lot harder come election time: Now, more than ever, it's clear that the character of your local candidates means just as much - and maybe more - than the colour of button that they're wearing, or the leader they say they support.

Candidates matter. Good candidates make good MLA's, regardless of party affiliation - which, quite frankly, could change by the time you get to vote again.

Let's find some good ones, across the board.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Home is Where the Art is...

Nation, those of you who follow the #ableg hashtag on Twitter probably can't help but be aware of this already, but there is a meeting happening in Calgary this week, being put on by a group called "Save Our Fine Arts".

While I'm not associated with the group in any formal way (I know some of the people in it, but that's hardly surprising), I'm certainly interested - as a musician and private educator - in the pending changes to the way that the fine arts are taught in Alberta schools.

The meeting itself will be attended by many luminaries (including myself, naturally), and will feature a panel discussion and presentation from the Minister of Education, the Honourable Dave Hancock.

From the group website:

You are invited to attend a public meeting with Minister of Education Dave Hancock on Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 at 7 p.m. at Central Memorial High School Theatre, located at 5111 – 21st Street S.W. in Calgary.


This event is co-sponsored by the Calgary Board of Education and the Save Our Fine Arts (SOFA) Committee. It is also endorsed by the Calgary Catholic School District, Candian Rockies School Division (Bow Valley) and the Palliser School District (Lethbridge).





I'd encourage you, if you're thinking of attending, to show up early, as seating will be limited and the RSVP's that have come in so far have prompted the group to issue a similar message on its own web site.

More information about the event can be found on the SOFA website, at http://saveourfinearts.ca/

See you there, Nation!

Sunday, January 2, 2011

No Contest

Nation, I'm back after a relaxing week spent in beautiful Whitehorse, capital of the Yukon Territory. If you've never been, go see it for yourself...  just maybe not in December, unless you have REALLY good gloves...

Yesterday, FOES (Friend Of the Enlightened Savage) Blake Robert - unabashed conservative and hardly a PC cheerleader, by ANY measure - posted some political predictions for 2011 on Twitter, which generated some subsequent discussion (as you'd expect).

The discussion that really caught my eye, though, was based on THIS prediction:

"As implausible as it may sound to some, (Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta) will have the most contested nominations of any party in the (Alberta Legislature)."
It's worth noting, before we get started, that the PC Party has held exactly zero nominations for the next election to date.  As in, NONE. There are no nominees. The Party is going to reorganize from 83 constituency associations to 87, and will THEN nominate candidates, later this year.  So the drum-bangers from other parties and the media who whisper of a possible spring or summer snap election call by the Tories are completely and totally out-to-lunch.

Hint: If the party in power in a majority government hasn't nominated candidates, there's no election coming.

Now that THAT bit of business is out of the way, back to Blake's prediction - or rather, to the discussion it generated.  Brock Harrison, Communications Co-ordinator for the Wildrose Caucus, responded to Blake's prediction in 2 tweets:
  • 1) There's nothing implausible about the governing party of 40 years having the most contested nominations.
  • 2) That you're trying to pass it off as some kind of achievement is very revealing about how far (the PC Party) has fallen.

Now, Brock (who was, as I recall, a proud PC Caucus staffer until the Wildrose made him a better offer) is the official voice of the Wildrose Caucus these days, so his comments bear some scrutiny - ESPECIALLY when one considers the narrative that his party and their friends have been repeating, ad nauseum, for over a year now.

"The PC Party is old, stale, and out of touch. Their polling numbers are embarrassing, and Albertans have given up on them. They don't do anything right. They're corrupt, past their prime, anti-democratic, anti-business, and have no idea what they're doing. They're bleeding donors and members of the legislature and their volunteers are flocking to the Wildrose Alliance and Danielle Smith is all but guaranteed to be the Premier of Alberta by Christmas 2012".

Sound about right?  I think I touched on most of the speaking points in there... 

Here's the thing, though...  if that narrative is true, if those speaking points are accurate, then WHY on EARTH would Brock, or anyone for that matter, feel it's a natural for the PC's to have the greatest number of contested nominations?

Consider:

There are 67 sitting PC MLA's.  Sitting MLA's are rarely challenged for their party's nomination. Assuming 25% of the current MLA's are looking at retirement, that suggests 17 retirements in addition to the 20 seats not currently held by Tories...  that's 37 contested nominations, give or take a few acclamations or a few extra retirements.

If the Wildrose narrative - that they are the Party of Destiny, overflowing with members, donations & public support and have the next Lougheed as their Leader - is true, and a Wildrose nomination is a "Get into the Alberta Legislature Free" card - then why don't we see people crawling all over each other to contest Wildrose nominations?

The WAP has 4 sitting Members of the Legislative Assembly, all of whom have committed to stay on through the next election (so, no retirements, if they're to be believed).  Even assuming you arrange to have the Party Leader acclaimed in her riding of choice (purely that - an assumption), that leaves 82 seats with no incumbent WAP MLA, and without Danielle running for the seat.  And since WAP is so obviously going to form government in 2012, those 82 nominations are golden.  Every right-of-centre Albertan with a shred of political ambition wants one. They're tickets to a $100,000/year job - even more, if you get into cabinet.  They're tickets to the Halls of Power.  They're tickets to ride the Wildrose wave directly to glory...

And they're not being fought over.

They're being given away, with only one person bothering to file nomination papers.

No contest.

 
The Wildrose Alliance has 25 nominated candidates (according to daveberta's handy nomination-tracker), and reportedly fewer than half of those nominations have been decided by a vote of the local, grassroots members. 
 
Why?
 
They've been selling us this line that they're the Party of Destiny, no other opposition party has a chance, and that the PC's are bleeding out...  and yet, when given a chance to show their strength and popularity with vigorous and open nomination contests, we get...
 
Nothing.
 
Well, not quite nothing.  We do get allegations that the party office is playing fast and loose with its own rules, to get people (the right people?) nominated.  So that's something, I guess.
 
The conventional wisdom in Alberta political circles regarding the WAP nominations and the troubling number of acclamations is that potential candidates are coming together - with or without the urging of the party - and deciding among themselves which of them would be able to mount the best challenge to the local PCs.  Which happens in every other party, every day. So it's hardly ground-breaking or scandalous on its face.
 
Until you consider all of the ink and airtime this party gives to the notions of "bottom-up management" and "respect for the grassroots membership" and "open and democratic principles"...  does the image of a few powerful people getting together in the back room of a Legion Hall and deciding amongst themselves who will be acclaimed the party nominee that their grassroots members get to support sound like any of those?  Or does it sound like "old-time politics as usual"?
 
I'm not saying it doesn't happen in my party - of course it does.  But if you're going to make "That guy stinks, vote for me, I smell nice!" a part of your platform, you've got to make sure that you're showering daily.
 
The rush to acclaim candidates, or push local constituencies to hold nomination contests, ready-or-not, by the WAP is obviously a calculated move. They're not stupid - not by ANY measure. The hope, it would seem, is that by "vetting" problematic candidates in the back rooms and by holding nomination races before other such candidates have time to organize, they can keep the "undesirable element" off the ticket, and out of the public eye come election time. Out of sight, out of mind, after all. What types of members and candidates, exactly, they're uncomfortable having represent the party you'd have to ask them (unless this is all happening locally, being done by local potential candidates and their teams, and is one giant province-wide coincidence).
 
But the other benefit to this approach is that they're not showing the gaps in the party armour to their opponents. It's the same sort of logic that kept the party from releasing the vote totals in their leadership race, until one member leaked them herself - and the same logic that leads to party press releases that don't differentiate between nominations won and acclaimed, and CERTAINLY never list vote totals - "we're one big, happy family".  No fault-lines between the party majority and the values voters, or the Smith supporters and the Dyrholm supporters...  It's like a scene out of High School Musical.  We're all in this together...
 
And the PC's do the same thing in (internal party) peace-time...  I mean, Dave Hancock and Ted Morton quite literally held hands and sang "Kumbaya" at the PC Annual General Meeting in October (scroll forward to the 10:15 mark).  So the "there's no friction in our party" act is hardly new.
 
But what the Wildrose is gambling on with this approach, however, is that the benefit of not having obvious fault-lines for your opponents to exploit outweighs the risk of not having a robust and engaged membership base on the constituency level.
 
Nomination races bring in more membership sales than anything, short of a leadership race.  Local constituencies can sometimes sell over a thousand memberships during the course of a hotly-contested race, and each of those new members is added to the party database: Name, address, constituency, phone number, e-mail. Come General Election time, this database gives you a 1,000-voter headstart on your rivals.  And while many who buy memberships do it only to support a particular candidate, and will disengage should their candidate be unsuccessful, many others DO stick it out (win or lose), and become something much more valuable to the party than mere voters: They become volunteers. Board members. Soldiers on the ground, in the constituency, fighting the good fight on a day-to-day basis to spread the word about the party. They become the mythic "hyper-engaged voter" we heard so much about in conjunction with Social Media during the recent municipal campaigns. The people who raise money for your party, pound in lawn signs, knock on doors, and (eventually) carry your party flag and run for election themselves someday.
 
Contested nominations bring these people in to your party.  And the number of acclamations taking place in the Wildrose ranks means they're missing out on a lot of these people.  No race means no membership drives by nomination candidates. Which means a lot of potential assets to the party left untapped.
 
I don't know if the PC's are going to have more contested nominations than the Wildrose when everything is said and done.  But I know that if they do, then with all due respect to Brock's "point number 2" above, it IS a big deal - a party with 67 sitting MLA's, approximately 47 of whom will probably stand unopposed (from within) for re-election, should NOT have more people running for nominations than a party with 4 MLA's and 82 open nomination races.  Not if the PC's are dying, and the Wildrose is the Government-in-Waiting - as the spin doctors would have us believe. The bigger question is, why doesn't the "sure thing" Wildrose have 82 hotly-contested races, with multiple excellent candidates for every single open nomination?
 
Not to be overlooked in all this, of course, is the Alberta Party.  They're in the process of organizing province-wide, and have a leadership race in the works, with several people kicking the tires and one candidate who formally declared today, Chris Tesarski of Calgary.
 
If I was one of their organizers (I'm not, obviously), I'd give serious thought to running good candidates in targeted, winnable ridings instead of rushing to get organized constituency associations and nominated candidates in all 87 ridings by the next election, as they've stated they intend to do. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and running a college student in a riding where you have 7 party members is not the first impression you want to make to voters in that constituency.  It says "We don't take you seriously, and you should feel the same about us" (the Alberta Greens had that particular approach down to a science).  But, that's just my opinion.  What matters, though, is that the Alberta Party is trying to cultivate deep roots, appealing to a broad spectrum of Albertans from both the right and the left, and trying to engage them fully in the formation of their party.  What they'll end up with is anyone's guess - but for my money, I'd rather have support that was 20 ridings wide and 5 candidates deep than what the Wildrose is showing - support that's 87 ridings wide, and apparently not even deep enough to hold contested nominations in half of them.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Triage, Part Two: Diagnosis

Nation, as outlined in my previous post "Triage", I'm trying to have an adult conversation with you all, as Albertans, about the root causes of the strains on our health system, which is either the worst in the country or the best, depending on the metric you use and (generally) the political party you support or oppose the most.

The comments in response to that original post have been extraordinary, and I want to thank you.  (See, Twitter? It IS possible for partisans to talk with each other like grown-ups!)

If we want to FIX the system, if we want to make it better, or to perfect it, we need to first identify what is truly wrong with it rather than dwelling on the sensationalist coverage of the symptoms - we know there are beds in hallways. We need to know WHY, and "Ed Stelmach is a bad man" is probably not the reason (nor, in my experience, even close to true. But that's just my opinion, and you don't have to share it.). We need to diagnose the malady before we come up with solutions. And I think we've gone a long way already towards doing that.

The original post stimulated some good debate in the comments section, and some great and well-thought-out and reasoned responses, even if I disagreed with some of them. Ultimately, though, this isn't about what *I* agree with, but rather what WE can come up with, as Albertans, to fix the system that we, our kids and our parents have to use. 

The discussion is timely, and it hasn't escaped my notice that the health care debate has shifted in some circles, due in large part to economic concerns, to a debate about "should we privatize ALL delivery, or just SOME delivery?".  While I'm open to having that conversation, I've got to respectfully submit that there is, in fact, a third option there: To privatize NO delivery (also known as, the status quo). I don't know if it's the correct answer, or the one most Albertans will support, but pretending this kind of delivery isn't an option because of the system's current condition is akin to Stephen Colbert's ironic "George W. Bush: Great president, or the GREATEST president?" interview question asked of presidential historians. 

Given the list of issues below: If ALL of them were addressed, and the system STILL didn't work with a full public delivery of services, THEN I'd say we were likely alright to discount it totally as an option. Once you've had the electrician over, checked the fuses and breakers and wiring, maybe it IS the light bulb that's the problem.  But given everything that's wrong with the system right now, we can't say that the appropriate response to a city-wide black-out is to change your house's lightbulbs to fluorescents.  Delivery is part of the debate. But it's not the whole debate.

According to you, these are some of the root causes of our systemic health-care issues: 
  1. Not enough experienced & trained medical professionals, incl. family doctors
  2. Misuse/overuse of the system for non-essential services
  3. Lack of care for the poor
  4. Limited access to non-trauma Urgent Care Centres
  5. Organizational instability/Governance issues
  6. Acute care beds being taken up by people well enough to leave but who have nowhere else to go (lack of long-term beds)
  7. Lack of personal responsibility for maintaining health/education regarding healthy & preventative living
  8. Over-medicalization of seniors
  9. Lack of home care support for seniors/disabled
  10. Lack of a team approach
  11. Front line staff bogged down by distant/out-of-touch/large bureaucracy
  12. Rising costs created by increased use of technology
  13. Lack of public education about which health care provider is appropriate in a given situation
What I'd like to do, in the comments section of this post, is to start to talk about solutions. If it gets to be too hard to keep the conversations straight, I may do individual posts for each problem - however, none of these problems exists in a vacuum (problems 2, 7, and 13 are related, for example).

In your comments, kindly identify by number the problem for which you're proposing a solution (e.g. "Re: Issue #1. Recruit doctors and nurses from across Canada by making ours the best paid in the country.") 

Don't be afraid to change the rules.  Big problems require big solutions.  I've got some of my own, such as increasing the role (and, subsequently, the education required & pay received) of Nurse Practitioners, to help deal with Issue #1.  I'll get into that in the "Comments" section, though.

This isn't going to be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

My favourite comment on the original post has to be this one, from Roberta:

 
"The whole system needs a relook from the bottom up – but it has nothing to do with who pays. We need to completely examine what we’re doing and why."




Alright, Nation.
 
Let's fix it. 

 

 

 

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Triage

Nation, it occurred to me quite suddenly earlier today that the best way to deal with the current situation in Alberta's public health system might be to deal with it in much the same way that a Doctor would deal with a patient who presented themselves at their office or ER.

  • First, you identify the symptoms and relieve them where possible.
  • Then, you follow those symptoms to their root cause. 
  • Then, you address the root cause, if possible.

Am I a doctor?  No.  But I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express once...

Back to my point...  I think we're all aware of the symptoms that this particular patient is exhibiting: Over-crowded Emergency Departments, long waits to see specialists, staff working to - and, in some cases, past - the breaking point.  That's just to name a few.

The political response, and the response from the political media and bloggerati, has been predictable: Attack the government. This is all Ed Stelmach's fault, just like the global economic downturn was.  If we get rid of the PC's, all of these problems will be gone. Now, let's come up with a funny one-liner incorporating the word "cookie", and focus even more attention on a guy going through personal and professional hell in Dr. Sherman - hey, why not splash his marriage troubles all over the internet and talk some more about his father's impending death? I'm sure he'll LOVE that! (Note to the media: Sometimes, the moral thing to do is to shut off the mic and say "Thanks, I think we've got enough for the story.")  But first and foremost, let's solve every single problem in the system by getting rid of the PC's.

The problem with this simplistic approach is that it supposes that the health system is designed perfectly, and that the only problem with it is the people giving it political direction and setting the budget.  But I think if we're all being honest with each other, we can admit that Premier Smith would probably govern a RADICALLY different health care system than Premier Swann, Premier Mason or Premier Huff.  So, we've got to dig a little deeper for real solutions.

If we're all seeing the same symptoms, then what I want to know from you, the millions of members of E.S. Nation, is this: What do you see as the root causes of these symptoms? Is it board-level governance? A lack of financial resources? Low staff levels? Do we need more facilities, or a different sort of facility altogether?

There are likely as many answers to this question as there are people in this province, but if we're going to try and treat the disease rather than the symptom, we need to have an adult conversation about what the true root causes of these problems are - a conversation that's more nuanced and honest than "the PC's are the problem".

I've read with interest the health proposals from the Wildrose Alliance and from the Alberta Liberals. There are some good short-term and long-term suggestions.  I hope to read the proposals from others as well. But those are political parties, whose motivation can't be assumed to be pure any more than the governing party's can be by those in this province who oppose them. While I hope that all of these proposals are made from a place of genuine concern and a genuine desire to fix the system, I'm at LEAST as interested, probably MORESO, in what you - the public - have to say on these issues.

In summer of 2012, no matter WHOM is answering the phones in the Premier's Office, we're all going to be using this public health system. We've got to help fix it. But before we can do that, we've got to figure out what's truly WRONG, so we know what to fix.

So, I put it to you, Nation: What are the root causes of the distress on Alberta's public health system?

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Paging Dr. Sherman...

Alright, Nation...  I want to start this post off by being as clear as I can:

The very notion of "party discipline" is distasteful, to me.  The notion that an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly can be punished for speaking up for his or her constituents is anti-democratic, at best.

What I want to do with this post, though, is examine a little deeper...  because, as much as newspapers and partisan hacks of all stripes might like the simplest, easiest-to-understand story, I give readers of The Enlightened Savage more credit than that. You can handle grey - you don't need everything black or white.

Raj Sherman sent an email badly in need of spell-checking to his caucus colleagues and to some of his fellow physicians, which was leaked to the media. In that email, he mentioned his lack of confidence in Alberta Health Services, and that he believed the Premier had "broken his promise not only to the ER doctors, but also to the seniors, the 1.8 million Albertans who present for emergency care and their 2 million family members, and to all frontline healthcare professionals".

Sherman, the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Health & Wellness, was not punished for this criticism of AHS and the Premier. He went into a 2-and-a-half hour meeting with Premier Stelmach the next day, and came out of that meeting committed to helping the government fix the issues that plague the system.

Let's review that last paragraph again: Sherman was NOT disciplined for his criticism of the Premier.  At least, not in any measurable, on-the-books sort of way.  Critics of Stelmach will insist, and I certainly can't prove them wrong, that dissenters are dealt with behind closed doors, their upward mobility is hobbled, they're denied committee memberships, etc.  But, in front of the cameras, there was no discipline for Sherman. Just as there was no formal and public discipline when Kyle Fawcett criticised the Premier. Or when Fred Horne criticised his own government. Or when Heather Forsyth suggested, during the 2008 campaign, that Stelmach was possibly going to cost her her own seat.  Criticism of the Premier specifically, or of the government-as-a-whole, seems to be fair game (as it jolly well should be, in my opinion).

Sherman even spoke eloquently in favour of a Liberal motion for an emergency debate on the ER crisis.  He was not disciplined - again, nor SHOULD he have been.

Where Sherman runs into trouble is the next day, when he tells CTV News "The previous minister, to be honest, was quite rude and offensive to all front-line staff".

NOW Raj is in trouble.  Because he has (more or less) named another member of caucus - one other than the Premier - and criticised that member publicly.  Which is EXACTLY what got Guy Boutilier tossed from the PC caucus.  Boutilier didn't get kicked out of caucus for speaking against the Premier, or standing up for his constituents. The "line" that Guy crossed, now in more stark relief as result of the Sherman incident, was when he accused the Health Minister publicly of "talking gibberish".
I'm not going to say that I agree or disagree with where the Premier has drawn the line - I can tell you that if it were ME, I'd probably draw it elsewhere. But it's not my call.  What's important, in ANY organization, is that there are clear lines about what is and is not acceptable behaviour. What is, and what is not, tolerable.  Clearly, we've seen that criticism of the Premier or of the performance of the government as a whole, or of departments WITHIN the government, are fair game.  We saw it with Forsyth, and Fawcett, and Horne, and (at first) Sherman.  What has NOT been tolerated is criticism of individual caucus members not named "Stelmach".

One of the earliest rules you learn when you begin dating is that you never, EVER tell your partner they have to choose between you and someone else. It's not just dirty pool - it almost never ends the way you were hoping.  Whether you SAY "choose me or your friends", or whether you just force that choice through your actions, the person who forces the choice to be made, almost never ends up being the one chosen.

When you, as a PC caucus member, force the Premier to choose between you and someone else in the caucus, it's probably not going to go very well for you.

Ed can take a punch. He's done it before, and he'll likely do it again.  But he's clearly shown that you can't take swings at other members of caucus in public.

I'm not saying I like what's happened. I LIKE Raj. He's a good guy, and a good MLA.  He will remain both of those things - but he'll be those things OUTSIDE of the PC caucus, for now.

But it's consistent.  We know where the line is, and he crossed it. He's not being punished for speaking out on health care - he's being punished for publicly criticising a fellow member of caucus.

If Raj truly wants to fix the system, from the inside - he should take his medicine, learn his lesson, apologize for crossing the line, and get back in the trenches with the rest of caucus to offer his expertise to fix a broken system.

The PC's need Raj.

The question is: Does Raj think he needs the PC's?

Monday, November 15, 2010

2,103,840 Minutes...


Nation, exactly 4 years ago as of the publishing of this post, The Enlightened Savage was born.

I've spoken before on the anniversary of this blog about the people who have inspired me in this pursuit, and the thanks that I owe them as just as real and vital today as they were the first time I saw their encouraging words.  To Ken, Duncan, and all the people who have piled into the Savage Sidecar since - Thank-you.

This has been a banner year for The Enlightened Savage.  It started off (the Savagian Calendar beginning in November) with the 2009 PC AGM, at which a leadership review was voted upon (and ultimately voted against).  That was a little bit interesting, but the TRUE drama of the season was occurring at the headquarters of the E.S. Nation, as former Wildrose Alliance Executive Director Jane Morgan was holding down the fort while yours truly and his blushing bride cavorted on the beaches of Mexico whilst on their honeymoon.  Jane did yeoman's work, and managed not to get me excommunicated in absentia. ;)

In December, of course, I settled the global climate change debate once and for all (you're welcome). Luckily, the world has seen fit to let my take be the final word on the issue, and all debate has since ceased.

January saw a democratic sucker-punch with 2 PC MLA's crossing the floor to the Wildrose Alliance, and the long-rumoured-but-finally-realized cabinet shuffle that, among other things, saw not-at-all-Red Tory Jonathan Denis (Friend Of the Enlightened Savage) elevated to Cabinet.

February brought unexpected news, with Dave Bronconnier shocking many, this blogger included, with his announcement that he would not be seeking re-election as Calgary's mayor.  This blog post proved prescient in 2 regards: It first introduced the idea of the Best Political Team in the Blogosphere (tm) - which eventually morphed into CalgaryPolitics.com - and it mentioned a chap named Naheed Nenshi as a potential candidate to replace Bronconnier.  So, using the "Conan-Stewart-Colbert-Norris-Huckabee" equation - I got Naheed Nenshi elected mayor.  You're welcome, Naheed. ;)

In March, I got to opine on the Reboot Alberta 2.0 event held in late February (it was an awesome experience, and I can't recommend it highly enough), and Ann Coulter was kind enough to give us all a thing or two to talk about.

While a slow month for blog postings, April saw a plea from yours truly for school board trustee candidates (we eventually got many candidates, to my delight) and provincial news with the departure of Dave Taylor from the Liberal caucus.

May, in addition to being the month of my birth, was noteworthy for, among other reasons, the entry of Kent Hehr into the Mayoral race, and the resolution (for now) of the Calgary-West Conservative Party of Canada EDA civil war.

In June, this blog gained some mainstream attention with 2 "scoops" - the leaking of the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission (I posted the report several hours before it appeared on the Commission's own website), and an interview via Skype with freshly-minted mayoral candidate Naheed Nenshi (perhaps you've heard of him?).  The Nenshi interview was a great conversation, notable for Nenshi's thoughtful answers AND for the absolutely brutal audio quality.  He expressed an interest in a "re-do" at some point - I'm ready when you are, Your Worship. ;)

July saw a lot of noteworthy posts, but none moreso than the royal Savaging that Alnoor Kassam earned when he tried to re-write history during his announcement of a mayoral run.  The gist? Don't say that you haven't announced anything, when you've typed the words "I am running for Mayor" into Twitter.

Since August, this site has seen a LOT of activity. The coverage provided by this blogger as a contributor to CalgaryPolitics.com was posted here.  In early August, we got a shiny new look.  September continued with a regular stream of election coverage.  In October, things went off the hook, with the actual election, a nomination for the Canadian Blog Awards in the "Best Political Blog" category both as an individual and another as part of the CalgaryPolitics team, mainstream media appearances, the move of the blog to the custom domain "enlightenedsavage.com", and - most recently - the Progressive Conservative AGM, where I was able to help facilitate the PC Party's embracing of Bloggers with full media accreditation (with the first 2 passes going to Jane Morgan and Alex Muir of "The Roundhouse").

So...  yeah. It's been a busy year.  My first full year as an "outed", non-anonymous blogger.

How do you improve on a year like that? Where do we go from here?

Without giving too much away...  let's just say you're going to want to keep your eyes on this space, and follow "@oberhoffner" on Twitter.  Especially if you live, or KNOW people who live, in south-east Calgary.  There are some pretty big announcements coming in the next few weeks.

It's time to crank it up to 11.

- E.S.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

15 Minutes With Premier Ed Stelmach

The Premier is 10 feet away from me, making himself available to the media - yes, even the bloggers.

This is a sampling of his thoughts...

"... we've got some time to go before the next campaign, but I feel confident..."

"... (the next election) will be in Spring of 2012... I'm not the kind of individual that governs according to polls."

"... we've always had turnover (with candidates)... this reflects the changing values of Albertans..."

"... as we told Mr. Cameron when he was here, you can travel anywhere and talk to anyone (about the oilsands), I'm not sure that's true in (other energy exporting countries)..."

"... when we get to caucus, everyone has the opportunity for a frank, honest discussion... that's my role as Leader, to build consensus within the party..."

"... I get along with (Prime Minister Harper) very well... my job is to advocate for Albertans, and I'm doing that..."

"... I made a commitment we're going to balance (the budget) by 2012-2013, and we're going to do it..."

Friday, October 29, 2010

PC AGM Update 1

Nation, I just got out of the standing-room-only speech that the Premier gave to the assembled party membership and media at the PC AGM.

The speech was led off with a heck of a good opening speech from former (and future?) PC candidate Leah Lawrence (Calgary-Mountainview in 2008).  Lawrence introduced the Premier, who came in to the room to the tones of "Alberta Bound" by Mrs. Savage's future ex, and was VERY warmly received.

The speech started off slowly, with few chances for the assembled masses to bang their "fan-fans", however once the topic of the speech turned to Alberta's role in confederation, and the Premier's vision for the future, the applause came loud and long.  The crowd roared to its feet with Stelmach's statement that "I am ready to lead this party into the next election".

Some (well, one, anyway) in the Twittersphere are reporting an old, disengaged, nervous crowd on hand.  With respect, and I'll leave this to my blogging colleagues to confirm, nothing could be further from the truth in my estimation. I feel positively middle-aged in this room, at the ripe old age of 32.  The energy is tremendous. The spirits are high. And, while a possible election is still quite a ways away (the Premier indicated party nominations would be taking place "by June of next year"), there are over a thousand Progressive Conservatives assembled in this place not out of fear or a desire to watch a car wreck, but because of their passion for this party and province.

Agree or disagree with the PC's, that can ONLY be good news for a province where passion for politics is usually secondary to the local weather.

A Brave New World

Nation, I'm typing this from the media centre at the Progressive Conservative Annual General Meeting in Calgary.

This is noteworthy because, for the first time, the governing party has accredited bloggers as media.

As I write this, I'm sitting next to Jane Morgan, who is busily typing away, probably eviscerating the Blogger Liason for some oversight. ;)

Check out Jane's blog, as well as The Roundhouse, for ongoing coverage from the PC AGM.  You can also follow the events on Twitter, at the hashtag #pcagm

I will try to blog when I can, but no rest for The Enlightened. ;)

- E.S.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Ward 14 Recount

Nation, just because I didn't already have ENOUGH to do today... The City has indicated there will be a recount of the Ward 14 Aldermanic ballots, scheduled for 12 noon today.

What, exactly, triggered this recount is unclear at this time, although it seems somewhat unusual given the margin of victory for Election Day winner Peter Demong.  Early suggestions are that to trigger a recount like this requires a formal request from another of the candidates, or a minimum of 100 rejected ballots per polling station.  You may recall that Ward 14 DID experience some ballot shortages on Election Day, so it may be related to that issue.

We'll be all over this story as it develops.

As a reminder, the "unofficial results" at the conclusion of the first count were:

Demong, Peter - 8483
Dur, Richard - 7188
Fox-Mellway, Linda - 5187
Gerelus, Ken - 1324
Kao, Shawn - 5647
Tummonds, Billy The Butcher - 1201

Stay tuned.

- E.S.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

FINALIST!

This blog is a finalist in the category of "Best Political Blog" for the 2010 Canadian Blog Awards.  To say I'm floored and humbled would be an understatement.

And, just to prove that The Best Political Team in the Blogosphere (TM) really IS the BEST, CalgaryPolitics.com has been nominated - in the same category as The Enlightened Savage. 
But the good news doesn't stop there - my compatriots from CalgaryPolitics.com have also earned well-deserved individual nominations, in the following categories:

Shane Byciuk - CalgaryDaddy (Family) & CalgaryRants (Political)
Emily Ask - Gin and Tonic (Personal)

Congrats to all!

And...  remember to vote for The Enlightened Savage!  The Final Round of voting closes October 26th - you can vote once every 24 hours!

Monday, October 18, 2010

Ward 13 Profile

(before choosing a candidate for Alderman, please see my post on what the job actually entails)

Calgary's Ward 13 includes most of Calgary south of Anderson Road and west of MacLeod Trail.  It's a suburban ward, with many of the communities less than 30 years old.  Several of the communities are lucky enough to border Fish Creek Provincial Park.  Issues most often listed as high priorities in Ward 13 these days include policing, transportation (particularly the SW Ring Road), and preservation of natural spaces (in particular, the Shawnee Slopes issue).

The candidates (listed in alphabetical order, by first name) are:

Andrew Rodych

Rodych is a Shawnee resident, and a graduate of the University of Calgary in Political Science.  An avid recreationalist, he's a frequent user of public transit and an entrepreneur.  He's also due to be schooled by The Enlightened Savage in a game of Axis & Allies some day soon.

The issues that Andrew identifies most closely with are:
  • Real Representation
  • Community Characteristics
  • Budget Transparency

Rodych's website can be found here.
Rodych's audio Savaging can be found here.


Diane Colley-Urquhart

Colley-Urquhart is the incumbent Alderman, having been first elected in 2000.  She was most recently acclaimed, in 2007.  A Registered Nurse for 40 years, Diane still volunteers at the Chronic Pain Centre.  She currently serves as the Chair of the city's Standing Policy Committee on Land Use, Planning & Transportation.

Diane identifies the following issues as important to her:
  • Sustainable Communities & Innovation
  • Transportation & Mobility
  • Public Safety & Security

Colley-Urquhart's website can be found here.


Sandy Jenkins

Jenkins is a geophysicist and business owner, who finished 3rd in the race for Mayor of Calgary in 2007.  An avid sports fan, Jenkins coaches his son's soccer team and has a daughter enrolled in piano and choir (no word on whether Sandy's enough of a singer to coach the choir).

Sandy's issues include:
  • Transit and Transportation
  • Homelessness
  • Recreation, Environment & Community Living
  • Communication & Consultation

Jenkins' website can be found here.
Jenkins' audio Savaging can be found here.


Trevor Hodge

Hodge is a Bridlewood resident with 3 daughters (none of whom, miraculously, have succumbed to "Bieber Fever"), running on an "everyman platform".  He has 25 years' experience in the Hospitality field.

Trevor cites the following as the big issues for Ward 13:
  • Infrastructure
  • SW Ring Road
  • Taxes & the Budget
  • Shawnee Slopes

Hodge's website can be found here.
Hodge's audio Savaging can be found here.

'Twas the Night Before E-Day...

Nation, it's funny how life sometimes ties things up in a neat bow for you.

I started my interviews for Wards 11, 13 and 14 several months ago, with a sit-down interview with James Maxim, candidate for Alderman in Ward 11.  While I was out running errands today, whom do I run into, literally hours before the polls open?  James Maxim.

I thought I'd take advantage of the opportunity to catch up, and ask him how the campaign has been going.

Our conversation appears below.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Ward 14 Profile

(before choosing a candidate for Alderman, please see my post on what the job actually entails)

 
Ward 14 includes most of the communities south of Southland Drive, in between MacLeod Trail and the Bow River.  It is a study in contrasts, with swanky lake communities and some of the oldest standing buildings in the city, within the area formerly occupied by the Town of Midnapore.  Fish Creek Provincial Park and the green belt along the eastern bank of the Bow River bless the area with natural appeal - which is one of the reasons the POES (Parents Of the Enlightened Savage) chose to settle there when I was just a wee little Savage.  Issues most often listed as high priorities in Ward 14 include transportation (including the SE C-Train extension), property taxes and snow removal.

 
The candidates (listed in alphabetical order, by first name) are:

 
Billy The Butcher Tummonds

 
Tummonds is a local business owner - I'm a little unclear, as of my print deadline, what business he's in, though.  Deeply involved in the community, Billy has been able - up until now, that is - to keep his deep, dark past a secret...  but no longer.  Tummonds is a Toronto Maple Leafs fan.  There. I said it.

 
Among the issues that Billy The Butcher wants addressed:
  • Transportation
  • Community Safety & Emergency Services
  • Responsible Leadership
  • Recreation
  • Environmental Issues

 
Tummonds' website can be found here.
Tummonds' Savaging in print can be found here.


 
Ken Gerelus

Gerelus is a tech entrepreneur, who coaches hockey, basketball and soccer in Deer Run.  A father of 2, Ken is also an avid fundraiser and volunteer for local charities and causes.

Ken lists many issues as being important to him, such as:
  • Housing for the aged
  • Traffic & snow removal
  • Fiscal accountability at City Hall

Gerelus' website can be found here.
 


Linda Fox-Mellway

 
Fox-Mellway is the incumbent in Ward 14, having first been elected in 1995.  Most recently, she was acclaimed in 2007. The proud mother is a former President of her local Community Association, and was awarded an Alberta Centennial Silver Medallion in recognition of her volunteer work.

 
Linda lists the following as being important for Ward 14:
  • Mobility & Transportation
  • Sports & Recreation
  • Public Safety
  • The Environment
 
 

 
Peter Demong

 
Demong is a local business owner in Deer Valley, and has served as the Municipal Chairperson of the Progressive Group for Independent Business.  A doting father to 2 girls, Demong's campaign made news with its delcaration that they had managed to knock on every single door in Ward 14 - some more than once.

Peter's policy focus includes:
  • Accountability
  • Transparency
  • Cost Control
  • Taxation

Demong's website can be found here.
Demong's audio Savaging can be found here.


Richard Dur

Dur is a small business owner and expectant father, who moonlights as a political operative (having managed Paul Hinman's successful by-election bid in 2009).  His hand-written "thank-you" notes have been quite a hit on the campaign trail. 

Richard's issues include:
  • Smart Infrastructure
  • Safe Neighbourhoods
  • Taxes
  • Democratic Accountability

Dur's website can be found here.
Dur's Savaging in print can be found here.


Shawn Kao

Kao is a local IT businessman and father to 3 girls.  Originally from just outside of Grande Prairie, Shawn settled down with a Calgary gal, and calls Lake Bonavista home.  He's an avid volleyball player and has been since high school - his team finished 2nd in the Provincial Finals to the mighty Bishop Grandin Ghosts. ;)

Some of Shawn's more frequently-mentioned policy areas include:
  • Infrastructure
  • Transit
  • Quality of Life
  • Snow Removal

Kao's website can be found here.
Kao's audio Savaging can be found here.

Audio: Interview with Wards 11 & 12 CSSD Candidate Michael Annuik

Nation, I had a chance to sit down with incumbent trustee for Wards 11 & 12 Mike Annuik, of the Calgary Catholic school board, last night.  Mike's a pretty good guy - for a St. Francis graduate. ;)  We had a great conversation, and he was kind enough to give me the chance to record it - which, you'll find below.

Michael's interview begins...  now.


What Do These Schmucks Do? - Mayoral Edition

(re-posted, with edits and additions, from October 2007)

Back to the Queen's Printer, as (once again), nobody at the City of Calgary is inclined to tell us what the Mayor's job is...

General duties of chief elected official

(1) A chief elected official, in addition to performing the duties of a councillor, must
(a) preside when in attendance at a council meeting unless a bylaw provides that another councillor or other person is to preside, and
(b) perform any other duty imposed on a chief elected official by this or any other enactment or bylaw.

(2) The chief elected official is a member of all council committees and all bodies to which council has the right to appoint members under this Act, unless the council provides otherwise.

(3) Despite subsection (2), the chief elected official may be a member of a board, commission, subdivision authority or development authority established under Part 17 only if the chief elected official is appointed in the chief elected official’s personal name.

(Municipal Government Act, Part Five, Division Three)



So, essentially... the mayor is an "Alderman-at-large" required to swing the gavel at meetings.

Again, as with Aldermen, the Mayor can do much more if he (or she) wants to get re-elected. Ralph Klein, when he was Mayor of Calgary, focused on the task of communicating with the people that the council served. Bronco seems to view the mayor's role as more of a leader, helping to set the priorities of council as he believes the people of Calgary wish them to be. Each mayor, and each candidate for mayor, would bring their own interpretation of what the role actually entails.

As long as they've got good gavel technique, none of them is wrong... but some are more right, in the eyes of the voters, than others. Therein lies the difference between "Mayor Such-and-such" and "defeated mayoral candidate Such-and-such".

So...  what does it take to be a good Mayor, E.S.?

"Mayor E.S."...  I like the sound of that...

The skill set necessary to be a good mayor depends entirely on the type of mayor that a candidate would like to be.  For example, a great long-term vision isn't really necessary if you're going to be a "referee mayor", like Al Duerr - the ability to keep a cool head and understand the rules governing meetings is probably more of an asset in that case.  But, let's take a stab at this anyhow...

Political Acumen - a good mayor will know when to hold them, and know when to fold them.  If s/he is disinclined to fold them, they'll need to know how to bluff the rest of council.  At the end of the day, though, the mayor is going to have to find themselves on the WINNING side of more motions and votes than the losing side - whether or not it was the side they were on going in to that meeting.

Management Ability - "I don't need them to love me, I just need them to obey me."  Such words have been said by many leaders through history, and it's really no different at City Hall.  The paper shufflers in the Administration department need to understand, above all else, that Calgary's elected Mayor is NOT starring in a re-make of "Yes, Minister" - the one person on council who can say they were elected by, and speak for, the ENTIRE city is the Mayor.  The Administration, a group of rather well-paid people, need to respect the People's Voice while they cash in their paycheques drawing on the People's Property Taxes.  A successful Mayor should make those around him or her WANT to do this, rather than having to fight them over it.

Understanding of Council Procedures and Policies - At the end of the day, whether the Mayor is going to be a bold visionary or a referee making sure every Alderman gets a chance to speak on an issue, they need to understand the written Rulebook that governs debate and administration at City Hall.  You can't win the game if you don't know the rules - and it's even more important if you're the one holding the gavel and chairing the meetings.  NOTHING is more embarassing in a meeting environment than to watch the Chair being informed that what they just tried to do is against the rules - it's like watching a player explain to a referee what constitutes "tripping".

Communications Ability - Not just to speak to Council and to the public, but also to LISTEN to what they're being told BY Council and the public.  As an effective "alderman-at-large", a Mayor who is well-informed can swing a vote, and effectively offer a 2nd vote on Council to the residents of the Ward most affected by an issue or motion.  This requires having the humility to say, and MEAN, things like "this isn't what I would have preferred, but the people of the city have made their opinion clear, and it is my job in this instance not to lead, but rather to serve".

Judgement - As I mentioned above, the mayor is going to have to know when it's appropriate to keep pushing something, and when to back down.  An extension of this is the fact that there are dozens if not hundreds of times each day when the Mayor has to make choices that aren't perscribed by the Rule Book, or by precedent - they're going to need to be able to make tough decisions, with relatively little time to spare.  Being well-informed on most issues is ideal, however often unachievable given the tremendous number of issues that the City has to deal with on a daily basis.  The Mayor will have to be able to judge when it is appropriate to act quickly, and when it is more appropriate to seek more information before giving instructions to Administration.  Not EVERY issue needs a 9-month study - but the ones that DO, should see one done.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

The ‘Real’ Disappointments

Nation, one of the things I'm most excited about to come out of this election on the Social Media side of things is the birth of a new blog, by (until now) guest blogger Christina Rontynen and her "plus one".  Being the megalithic blogging presence that I am, I take full credit for the creation of this blog, as well as Calgary Rants and (by extension) Calgary Daddy, not to mention CalgaryPolitics.com.  Add to this the fact that I single-handedly wiped Alberta Tory off the map, and scared Calgary Grit so badly he had to move to Toronto, and it becomes clear that the greatest force shaping the landscape of the Albertan blogosphere isn't rain or wind - it's The Enlightened Savage. ;)

This is the final entry of a series that began with an open invitation by Christina for candidates to show her "the real them".

Christina's post begins...  now.

*****
I started this blogging adventure with an invitation to all mayoral candidates to hang out and let me get know the person behind the politician. I received an overwhelming response – McKenzie, Nenshi, Burrows, and Higgins. So thanks – to those of you that followed me along my adventure.

I thought it was only fair to let you know my dialogues ... or non-dialogues ... with the candidates I didn’t have a chance to hang out with. It’s only transparent and fair of me to give some credit where credit is due.

The most credit goes to candidate Jon Lord. We attempted to make schedules jive several times. We spoke back and forth through Facebook messages. I liked that – very personal – very friendly and obviously evidence he monitors his own account. He sent me an official invitation to watch him speak at his church on Thanksgiving Sunday. His topic was “enthusiasm” – something he told me he was excited about. I do think he has shown great enthusiasm throughout this race. My own Thanksgiving family commitments did not allow me to go that morning – although any other Sunday I would have gone happily and I would have dragged @ppilarski along too. Lord followed up with an invitation for coffee down in his neck of the woods in SW Calgary – or Chinese for dinner one night. Apparently, he enjoys it “once and while”. I told him my schedule and did not hear back. I chalk that up to it being the last week before the election. He certainly tried and I appreciate that.

Jon Lord also commented on my original blog posted on CalgaryPolitics.com. This to me shows that from day one he had an interest in sharing with Calgarians the ‘real’ man behind the campaign.

Ric McIver doesn’t get credit but his team of volunteers does. After my blog went up I was contacted by one of his youth volunteers, a University of Calgary student that was heading up his “McIver for Mayor” efforts on campus. He perceived this blog, and invitation, as a great opportunity for Ric. He told me he had forwarded it on to a “higher level” in the campaign and I would hopefully hear from someone soon. Time passed and I didn’t hear from anyone. At the beginning of October I sent a follow up email to this volunteer and copied an email address I found on the website. The volunteer replied again saying that they were attempting to get me on the schedule. I followed up one last time and was basically told he was busy with other media requests. Understandable. I very much appreciate his team attempting to get me some time with Ric – I feel like I can almost be certain he had never heard of the blog. But who knows. I think this blog could have been quite interesting if given the opportunity to write it. McIver comes across as a politician to the core. What does he do on a Saturday night? I can’t even imagine! I hear he is big into our arts community ... perhaps a play? Or time listening to the CPO?

I did attempt to talk to Hawkesworth. He didn’t get in touch with me – but his online army certainly did when my blogs began to come out. I thought it would be worth reaching out myself. An email received no response. Numerous tweets to Bob directly were not replied to – this to me was the most surprising because throughout #yycvote I had been involved in a few back and forths with Bob on Twitter. Most having to do with authenticity and using social media appropriately. I remain perplexed as to why Bob wouldn’t reach out to my invitation via Twitter. I asked his online army to pass along my invitation as well – it met the response that they wouldn’t because I was biased and would write negatively about their candidate. Too bad – I also think it would have been fun hanging out with Bob, especially after the latest Herald article about his thoughts on spending the day at the spa after realizing his 30 year political reign in the city had come to an end. I would never turn down a chance to get a pedicure.

I never heard a peep from Connelly – although I did mention I’d be interested in sitting down with him to a family member of a volunteer on his campaign.

Wayne Stewart approached me at a forum I attended and said with a big smile, “It is so nice to see the young people getting involved in politics.” That was the last I heard of him. And I know I’m young but the whole encounter turned me off. I’m not just a “young person” curious about politics – I’m passionate about them and about this city, and striving to choose the best mayor for the job. I never heard from his campaign – I did mention the blog to someone volunteering for him and he said he would mention it during a campaign meeting.

Bonnie Devine, Barry Erskine, Sandra Hunter, Gary Johnston, Dan Knight, Amanda Liu ... well I don’t blame them for not getting in touch with me because I don’t think they’ve gotten in touch with anyone.

I talked to Fech in person – he was flabbergasted I had been tweeting about him ... that anyone had been tweeting about him. And I really get the sense that we have all been exposed to the ‘real’ Oscar Fech over the course of this election, and every election that he has been involved with. What you see is what you get with that guy and I certainly hope he isn’t going away – the next council will need his outspoken accountability just as much as the last. Citizens like that are what keep politicians on their toes.

Actually I’m hoping we can all be “citizens like that” via social media long after #yycvote is over. I want this passion to transfer over to #yyccc ... so I’ll see you there Calgary!

(Cross posted on pcinyyc.wordpress.com)