The time has come, Nation. Use the Comments area of this post to make your arguments, and try to convince your fellow Web Denizens of the merits of your preferred hashtag.
The Poll is on the right-hand side of your screen. Choose wisely.
Voting closes the morning of Monday, Feb. 20th. A winner will be announced at that time.
- E.S.
... an attempt to make sense of politics and political happenings in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and North America.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Choosing an Election Hashtag
Nation, the Twitter is here to stay. Whenever I'm feeling particularly optimistic about the world, or about this species we call humanity, I know I can log on to Twitter and find all the spin, talking points, brainless repetition, paid retweets of months-old articles, and innuendo that it will take to cure me of my optimism.
And that's just from the Bieber fans. Wait until I search the POLITICS streams...
Social Media matters, and one of the battlegrounds in the upcoming provincial election in Alberta is going to be the virtual battleground of Twitter. Candidates, parties, and their supporters are going to be trying to get the message out, change hearts and minds, or (at the very least) cast stones at their opponents.
But, how to FIND all of this political chum in the ocean that is the Twittersphere?
By using hashtags, of course.
The use of hashtags in your posts makes it easier for interested people to find you, and your posts. They help you get your message out. The problem with them, though, is that they eat into your 140 character limit... consider that the Tweeps of Calgary voted to go with "#yycvote" rather than "#yycvotes" during the 2010 Municipal Election, because there was one fewer character in the former - giving them one more character to make their point with.
Indeed, your average Alberta Election tweet at this point is overrun with hashtags... consider this gem from this morning:
Indeed, further scanning of the twittersphere shows hashtags in use related to specific constituencies, hashtags that double as slogans for supporters of certain parties, city hashtags, party hashtags, attempts at Election hashtags hoping they'll catch on...
So, long story short: We need to agree on a hashtag that will be the "General Election hashtag" for Alberta in 2012. One that the public, candidates, media and parties alike will use, so we know where to post, and where to look for information. Having to search 5 or 6 hashtags to get your election information is silly - and few people will bother, rendering the whole exercise futile and neutering Twitter as an effective campaigning tool for EVERYONE. #yycvote worked because ultimately ALL of the candidates were using it - so the general public knew they had to only search that term to find their information. And boy, did they ever engage.
I will list below, in no particular order, the hashtags I've seen being used for Alberta's 2012 election thus far. If you have other suggestions, please "Comment" on this post, and I will include them in a subsequent Blog Poll.
The nice thing about Twitter is that it's truly social - we have as much say as any backroom party strategist, and the majority will well and truly rule.
So... let's nominate some contenders, and elect a winner.
Thus far, I've seen:
- E.S.
And that's just from the Bieber fans. Wait until I search the POLITICS streams...
Social Media matters, and one of the battlegrounds in the upcoming provincial election in Alberta is going to be the virtual battleground of Twitter. Candidates, parties, and their supporters are going to be trying to get the message out, change hearts and minds, or (at the very least) cast stones at their opponents.
But, how to FIND all of this political chum in the ocean that is the Twittersphere?
By using hashtags, of course.
The use of hashtags in your posts makes it easier for interested people to find you, and your posts. They help you get your message out. The problem with them, though, is that they eat into your 140 character limit... consider that the Tweeps of Calgary voted to go with "#yycvote" rather than "#yycvotes" during the 2010 Municipal Election, because there was one fewer character in the former - giving them one more character to make their point with.
Indeed, your average Alberta Election tweet at this point is overrun with hashtags... consider this gem from this morning:
RajShermanMLA wrote:Dr. Sherman used 130 of his 140 characters - but 41 of them were used on hastags. The longest message he could type, and still use the hashtags he wanted, was 99 characters - putting him at a distinct disadvantage. But, without a clear convention or an accepted "general" hashtag for the upcoming election, Raj included the hashtags for Alberta's Legislature (the closest thing we have at this point to a generally accepted political "catch-all" hashtag in Alberta), the PC Party, the Wildrose Party (for some reason), the Alberta Liberals, the hashtag that has been used for PC Nominations and their Campaign College event this past weekend, and "#donationgate", an extremely creative and not-at-all-dated reference to what Raj's party was until recently calling the "Warlords of Alberta" issue.
@ppilarski #ableg #pcaa #wrp #ablib #elxnpc I am just pointing out Corruption and Illegal donations received by PC's #donationgate
Indeed, further scanning of the twittersphere shows hashtags in use related to specific constituencies, hashtags that double as slogans for supporters of certain parties, city hashtags, party hashtags, attempts at Election hashtags hoping they'll catch on...
So, long story short: We need to agree on a hashtag that will be the "General Election hashtag" for Alberta in 2012. One that the public, candidates, media and parties alike will use, so we know where to post, and where to look for information. Having to search 5 or 6 hashtags to get your election information is silly - and few people will bother, rendering the whole exercise futile and neutering Twitter as an effective campaigning tool for EVERYONE. #yycvote worked because ultimately ALL of the candidates were using it - so the general public knew they had to only search that term to find their information. And boy, did they ever engage.
I will list below, in no particular order, the hashtags I've seen being used for Alberta's 2012 election thus far. If you have other suggestions, please "Comment" on this post, and I will include them in a subsequent Blog Poll.
The nice thing about Twitter is that it's truly social - we have as much say as any backroom party strategist, and the majority will well and truly rule.
So... let's nominate some contenders, and elect a winner.
Thus far, I've seen:
#ableg
#abpoli
#abgov
#abelxn
#abvote
#abvotes
#abvotes2012
#alberta2012
If you have OTHER suggestions, please post them as a comment. Nominations will close on Tuesday, and voting will begin Tuesday night.
- E.S.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Baby Steps
One of my earliest political memories is the talk around our dining room table that surrounded the Senate.
Like many Albertans, my father was (and is) a strong proponent of what came to be known as the "Triple E" Senate - Equal, Elected, and Effective. The issue, pro and con, was debated at great length around our table, and I was encouraged to make my own judgements.
The more unlikely requirement to effect constitutional change was, and remains, securing the support of the country's most populous - and, constitutionally, most powerful - provinces, Ontario and Quebec. The formula for constitutional change requires the support of these provinces - who, arguably, have more to lose than to gain from a change to the Senate that would put more seats in the West.
I don't really have any suggestions to that second end... to my mind, it's simple common sense to have the people elect their representatives. But what's common sense to me, may be backwards to someone who grew up with different values, and I won't presume to force my world view onto you.
The first sticking point, a co-operative Parliament, seems a whole lot more likely these days. While Parliament can't, by itself, make ALL the changes that I'd like to see in the Senate, what it CAN do is ask the provinces to hold elections for Senators-in-Waiting, as Alberta already does. And it can ask that the Prime Minister of the day fill Senate vacancies from those lists of duly elected individuals. It can even ask those Senators to commit to voluntarily step down after a term of 8 years, in order to run in their home provinces for another endorsement from their fellow citizens and a possible return to the Senate.
The majority Conservative House of Commons will support such measures. And it was only a matter of time before enough Senate vacancies were filled by Stephen Harper - Prime Minister for 6 years, as of this past Monday - to swing the balance of the Senate towards that view, as well.
Is this idea, as conceived, a full "Triple E" Senate?
No. It will not be equal. It will be populated by elected people, who were still appointed by the Prime Minister, as required by the Constitution. It will be effective, so long as Senators see their jobs as being on the line rather than guaranteed, lifetime appointments.
It's a baby step towards Triple E. And I can live with that, because it's progress.
My friend Jack Redekop is running for one of the PC slots on the Senatorial Ballot. Jack knows I don't do "endorsements" - I know you're all smart enough to decide for yourselves whom to support. But I know Jack to be a man of character and integrity, someone who doesn't sugar-coat his opinions, and calls it like he sees it. Most importantly, to me, he truly believes in the kind of fundamental, democratic reform that is needed to return the Senate to the people. If he's entrusted with a Senate seat in the future, I know he'll be a fine addition to the Upper House. Shane over at CalgaryRants did a write-up on Jack yesterday, if you're in the mood for some more reading after plowing through this post.
I know many of my readers will be present at the PC Campaign College in Edmonton this weekend, where the party's nominees for the Senatorial Election will be chosen by a vote. I encourage you to get to know the candidates - both inside and OUTside their hospitality suites. Do your research - their information is laid out on the party website, along with links to their own sites. I know and like several of these candidates - Doug Black is another good man who would represent our interests well.
As always, I implore you to cast an informed ballot. We're not electing the Prom King and Queen - ideas and character matter more than whether you'd sit down over a beer with these people, or what part of the province they live in.
At the end of the day, the voters always get what they deserve.
Choose well, delegates. Because your choices will be judged next by the voters of Alberta as a whole.
Like many Albertans, my father was (and is) a strong proponent of what came to be known as the "Triple E" Senate - Equal, Elected, and Effective. The issue, pro and con, was debated at great length around our table, and I was encouraged to make my own judgements.
I decided, after much debate, that I was in favour of the "Triple E" concept, while knowing full well that the issue - while being championed by Alberta - was going to be ultimately decided in 3 cities in Eastern Canada: Ottawa, Toronto, and Quebec City.The reality is, we can't formally and officially reform the way our Senate is built, the number of seats, the distribution thereof, or the way people end up in the Senate without the co-operation of BOTH Houses of Parliament. At the time, the notion of a House of Commons friendly to an Albertan cause was unlikely, to say the least. Likewise the notion of a Senate full of people willing to vote themselves out of a guaranteed, well-paying gig. But I'm the hopeful, optimistic sort... so, as unlikely as it was, I could see this as a possibility.
The more unlikely requirement to effect constitutional change was, and remains, securing the support of the country's most populous - and, constitutionally, most powerful - provinces, Ontario and Quebec. The formula for constitutional change requires the support of these provinces - who, arguably, have more to lose than to gain from a change to the Senate that would put more seats in the West.
I don't really have any suggestions to that second end... to my mind, it's simple common sense to have the people elect their representatives. But what's common sense to me, may be backwards to someone who grew up with different values, and I won't presume to force my world view onto you.
The first sticking point, a co-operative Parliament, seems a whole lot more likely these days. While Parliament can't, by itself, make ALL the changes that I'd like to see in the Senate, what it CAN do is ask the provinces to hold elections for Senators-in-Waiting, as Alberta already does. And it can ask that the Prime Minister of the day fill Senate vacancies from those lists of duly elected individuals. It can even ask those Senators to commit to voluntarily step down after a term of 8 years, in order to run in their home provinces for another endorsement from their fellow citizens and a possible return to the Senate.
The majority Conservative House of Commons will support such measures. And it was only a matter of time before enough Senate vacancies were filled by Stephen Harper - Prime Minister for 6 years, as of this past Monday - to swing the balance of the Senate towards that view, as well.
Is this idea, as conceived, a full "Triple E" Senate?
No. It will not be equal. It will be populated by elected people, who were still appointed by the Prime Minister, as required by the Constitution. It will be effective, so long as Senators see their jobs as being on the line rather than guaranteed, lifetime appointments.
It's a baby step towards Triple E. And I can live with that, because it's progress.
My friend Jack Redekop is running for one of the PC slots on the Senatorial Ballot. Jack knows I don't do "endorsements" - I know you're all smart enough to decide for yourselves whom to support. But I know Jack to be a man of character and integrity, someone who doesn't sugar-coat his opinions, and calls it like he sees it. Most importantly, to me, he truly believes in the kind of fundamental, democratic reform that is needed to return the Senate to the people. If he's entrusted with a Senate seat in the future, I know he'll be a fine addition to the Upper House. Shane over at CalgaryRants did a write-up on Jack yesterday, if you're in the mood for some more reading after plowing through this post.
I know many of my readers will be present at the PC Campaign College in Edmonton this weekend, where the party's nominees for the Senatorial Election will be chosen by a vote. I encourage you to get to know the candidates - both inside and OUTside their hospitality suites. Do your research - their information is laid out on the party website, along with links to their own sites. I know and like several of these candidates - Doug Black is another good man who would represent our interests well.
As always, I implore you to cast an informed ballot. We're not electing the Prom King and Queen - ideas and character matter more than whether you'd sit down over a beer with these people, or what part of the province they live in.
At the end of the day, the voters always get what they deserve.
Choose well, delegates. Because your choices will be judged next by the voters of Alberta as a whole.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Saga of Calgary-West... No, the OTHER One...
Nation, there are a few areas of the city where small-c conservative politics are a messy, messy business. The reasons for this are unclear... it certainly doesn't seem to be tied to property values, however, as some of the most affordable homes in the city, those in the north-east, are in the fabled Ward 10 area of civic notoriety, and some of the most exclusive and LEAST affordable homes in the city are on the "'Burg on the Bow"'s western edge, within the federal and provincial ridings of Calgary-West.
What both areas share, though, is a history of conservative politics that could be charitably described as "somewhat questionable at times".
Calgary-West - the provincial constituency - is under the microscope at the moment, as the Nomination Vote that took place on January 21st has been ruled invalid by the PC Party.
This vote was notable for a few reasons: Firstly, it featured 2 particularly well-known candidates in Ken Hughes and Shiraz Shariff. Hughes had served in the past as a Member of Parliament, and was on Alison Redford's transition team as she moved into the Premier's Office after the PC Leadership Race last fall. He was also, very notably, the former head of Alberta Health Services, and stepped down from that role to seek what many thought would be a "shoo-in" nomination win, and eventually a cabinet position. Shariff was a 4-term MLA in Calgary-McCall, serving from 1995 to 2008. Prior to this, Shariff served as the President of the local PC Association in McCall, winning the seat in a by-election after the prior MLA had passed away.
Secondly, the vote was noteworthy for the sheer volume of votes cast. I don't have access to the exact totals, per normal PC nomination procedures, however I have heard the votes cast were in the 3,000-to-4,000 range, and that the Shariff victory was on the third ballot, indicating that the preferential ballot system had to be used as no candidate won a majority after the first count.
After Shariff's surprising win on the 21st - which was even a topic of discussion at the Calgary-Fish Creek nomination poll, where voting was underway when the news broke - Mount Royal University's David Taras was quoted in a Calgary Herald article on-line indicating that Shariff's ground-game had carried the day.
Not so fast, though...
The PC Party received complaints after the fact about the eligibility of some voters. It's unclear who made the complaints, however Party President Bill Smith said in a statement that "The PCAA does not hold any one candidate or campaign responsible for the unfortunate situation." The Party has declared the vote invalid, and has asked the Calgary-West PC Board of Directors to supply a list of 3 names to Party Leader Alison Redford, who will then choose whom from among those 3 will be the party candidate in Calgary-West.
I don't have any inside knowledge as to exactly what the complaints were, or who lodged them. I can tell you that my own nomination contest, in Fish Creek, was run with near-military precision. There was no doubt and no debate as to the outcome being a fair and accurate reflection of the will of those with 2012 PC Party memberships who lived in the riding. We had a tremendous Nomination Chair, and an experienced and wise Returning Officer: There was no room for any shenanigans, and I didn't hesitate for a second in signing off on the results, regardless of how close they were. It's worth noting, though, that these were both roles filled by local volunteers - and, had 2 other people been in the roles and not been suited to them, the resulting race and vote might very well have been a whole different kettle of fish.
Whatever the reasons for the complaints, clearly the Party received enough of them to cast the result in doubt (had the margin of victory been 500 and 2 complaints been received, we would likely not be having this conversation). The PC's felt they had to act, and threw out the result. The campaigns of Shariff, Hughes, and others are out the time and money that were thrown into securing the nomination for the constituency, which opened after the surprise announcement that Finance Minister Ron Liepert would not be seeking re-election.
Shiraz, of course, is not going down without a fight, and took his case to Facebook yesterday, posting:
On a related note, I guess I should have checked and made sure my name wasn't on the "List of 3" before typing that last sentence. Oh, well...
The bottom line here, is that the Party found it necessary to, in the words of the President's release, "Disallow the nomination". That's a pretty big step, and one that they wouldn't take lightly. The complaints they received must have been pretty significant, for the embarrassment of proactively disallowing the nomination to have been lesser than the embarrassment of not acting and letting the complaints go public. It creates a political headache for a Premier who went into the winter break being criticised for a perceived lack of commitment to democratic principles, and who will at some point likely have to curtail debate on the Budget in order to pass it and move forward with an election call.
The PC's would NOT just be going through this exercise because they don't like Shiraz, or to get Ken Hughes on the ballot.
The exact details, we may never know. But let the conspiracy theorists rejoice!
The thousands of PC's in Calgary-West, who took time out of their lives to vote in their nomination contest, are watching closely to see what the Premier does to restore their faith in the party and the process.
As are the other 3.64 million of us.
What both areas share, though, is a history of conservative politics that could be charitably described as "somewhat questionable at times".
Calgary-West - the provincial constituency - is under the microscope at the moment, as the Nomination Vote that took place on January 21st has been ruled invalid by the PC Party.
This vote was notable for a few reasons: Firstly, it featured 2 particularly well-known candidates in Ken Hughes and Shiraz Shariff. Hughes had served in the past as a Member of Parliament, and was on Alison Redford's transition team as she moved into the Premier's Office after the PC Leadership Race last fall. He was also, very notably, the former head of Alberta Health Services, and stepped down from that role to seek what many thought would be a "shoo-in" nomination win, and eventually a cabinet position. Shariff was a 4-term MLA in Calgary-McCall, serving from 1995 to 2008. Prior to this, Shariff served as the President of the local PC Association in McCall, winning the seat in a by-election after the prior MLA had passed away.
Secondly, the vote was noteworthy for the sheer volume of votes cast. I don't have access to the exact totals, per normal PC nomination procedures, however I have heard the votes cast were in the 3,000-to-4,000 range, and that the Shariff victory was on the third ballot, indicating that the preferential ballot system had to be used as no candidate won a majority after the first count.
After Shariff's surprising win on the 21st - which was even a topic of discussion at the Calgary-Fish Creek nomination poll, where voting was underway when the news broke - Mount Royal University's David Taras was quoted in a Calgary Herald article on-line indicating that Shariff's ground-game had carried the day.
Not so fast, though...
The PC Party received complaints after the fact about the eligibility of some voters. It's unclear who made the complaints, however Party President Bill Smith said in a statement that "The PCAA does not hold any one candidate or campaign responsible for the unfortunate situation." The Party has declared the vote invalid, and has asked the Calgary-West PC Board of Directors to supply a list of 3 names to Party Leader Alison Redford, who will then choose whom from among those 3 will be the party candidate in Calgary-West.
I don't have any inside knowledge as to exactly what the complaints were, or who lodged them. I can tell you that my own nomination contest, in Fish Creek, was run with near-military precision. There was no doubt and no debate as to the outcome being a fair and accurate reflection of the will of those with 2012 PC Party memberships who lived in the riding. We had a tremendous Nomination Chair, and an experienced and wise Returning Officer: There was no room for any shenanigans, and I didn't hesitate for a second in signing off on the results, regardless of how close they were. It's worth noting, though, that these were both roles filled by local volunteers - and, had 2 other people been in the roles and not been suited to them, the resulting race and vote might very well have been a whole different kettle of fish.
Whatever the reasons for the complaints, clearly the Party received enough of them to cast the result in doubt (had the margin of victory been 500 and 2 complaints been received, we would likely not be having this conversation). The PC's felt they had to act, and threw out the result. The campaigns of Shariff, Hughes, and others are out the time and money that were thrown into securing the nomination for the constituency, which opened after the surprise announcement that Finance Minister Ron Liepert would not be seeking re-election.
Shiraz, of course, is not going down without a fight, and took his case to Facebook yesterday, posting:
"The nomination process for Calgary West was credible and set out by the constituency Board, comprised of committed and competent volunteers, such as Doctor Ryan Carter, brother of the Premier’s chief of staff. Other strong leaders in our community for whom we have high regard, were managing key processes, such as the credentials desk, which ensures the legitimacy of the voters casting ballots on nomination day.It remains to be seen what 3 names will be submitted by the Calgary-West PC Board for the Party Leader's approval, however it's safe to say that it would be a political nightmare for her if either Shariff's name or Hughes' name appear on that list. Whoever is appointed as the candidate will have to be able to WIN the seat in the upcoming election, and the voters of Calgary-West are notorious in their conservatism, and would likely give a rough ride to a candidate hand-picked by the Premier if they were parachuting in from elsewhere.
I maintain that my campaign was run fairly. It was run with integrity and we followed the process. Other candidates in the Calgary West nomination had also stated their acceptance of the process, the fairness and the outcome. Most importantly, security on the day of the vote ensured that no one could cast a ballot without first proving residency in Calgary West with two pieces of identification. This process was undertaken in the same way for all other constituencies."
On a related note, I guess I should have checked and made sure my name wasn't on the "List of 3" before typing that last sentence. Oh, well...
The bottom line here, is that the Party found it necessary to, in the words of the President's release, "Disallow the nomination". That's a pretty big step, and one that they wouldn't take lightly. The complaints they received must have been pretty significant, for the embarrassment of proactively disallowing the nomination to have been lesser than the embarrassment of not acting and letting the complaints go public. It creates a political headache for a Premier who went into the winter break being criticised for a perceived lack of commitment to democratic principles, and who will at some point likely have to curtail debate on the Budget in order to pass it and move forward with an election call.
The PC's would NOT just be going through this exercise because they don't like Shiraz, or to get Ken Hughes on the ballot.
The exact details, we may never know. But let the conspiracy theorists rejoice!
The thousands of PC's in Calgary-West, who took time out of their lives to vote in their nomination contest, are watching closely to see what the Premier does to restore their faith in the party and the process.
As are the other 3.64 million of us.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
No Regrets
Hi there, Nation.
2 weeks have now passed since the nomination meeting for the Alberta PC's in Calgary-Fish Creek. As most of you are no doubt aware, I was unsuccessful in my attempt to win the party's nomination, and will therefore not be appearing on the ballot for this spring's provincial general election.
I'm going to warn you now that this is going to be an intensely personal post. I don't plan these things out - I just write what pops into my head - so I can't be sure, as I type this, that I'll actually even hit "publish" at the end. But just in case, I want you to know that this post is not normal, run-of-the-mill "Enlightened Savage" fare.
There is nothing - nothing - in this world that I have ever wanted more than to run for office. Other kids dream about being a policeman, a millionaire, or a war hero, or a rock star, or an NHL player... but not me. The first sign, I guess, that I'm "not normal".
I have enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, the jobs that I do have. I'm incredibly blessed to get paid to do things that I love - and would do for free. Every morning when I wake up, I say "I GET to go to work today", instead of "I HAVE to go to work today", as so many do. This blessing is not lost on me.
And yet... I've always felt the desire to serve. I've always felt CALLED to serve. When my Firmware was installed, I was clearly wired for this role. To serve my neighbours with a smile on my face, representing their interests and opinions. Engaging them in the process. Speaking truth to power. Trying to leave the world a better place than it was when I got here. Setting the table for future generations to do even better. Showing that a life spent in politics can be a noble pursuit, and that government can be a force for good. Elevating the level of debate, and making campaigns about ideas and vision, instead of personality, dirty tricks or who can shout the loudest.
People who came into my life intent on changing me would tell me this was a foolish dream. An unworthy pursuit. An exercise in futility. I refused to give up the dream, and those people left my life when they realized that my dream to serve wasn't a passing notion - it was hard-wired into me. As much a part of me as my big German cheeks or my impish grin.
I wanted to stand for election, with every fibre of my being. So I prepared. I planned. And I waited.
On November 14th, 2011, the waiting stopped. I jumped into the pool with both feet, and declared my intention to seek the PC nomination in Calgary-Fish Creek, a geographically-large constituency in Calgary's suburban south in which I grew up, went to school, and worked.
After a 69-day campaign, the vote was held on January 21st, 2012 - and I narrowly lost the nomination contest. Wendelin Fraser, former Dean of the Bissett School of Business at Mount Royal University, will represent the PC's on the ballot in Calgary-Fish Creek this spring. I congratulate her on a hard-fought victory, and will do all that I can to ensure that she is successful in the election.
This is not the end of my dream, however... it is just the beginning.
While I am disappointed in the final result, I do not despair: Far from it. My team of supporters and volunteers - the "O-Team", as they came to be called - ran a campaign based on ideas and vision. We knew all the dirty tricks, and chose to employ NONE of them. We decided that we were going to appeal to people's better angels, instead of trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. We ran a campaign on a shoe-string budget - we were outspent by a VERY significant margin - and yet, despite all of what experienced political operatives would call "these handicaps", we very nearly WON.
This is what gives me hope for the future. This is what gives me hope for politics as a whole. We engaged the voters - both those who had held party memberships before, and those who never had - with ideas, positivity, and vision instead of the tried-and-true tactics of platitudes, attacks and innuendo. And the voters ENGAGED with us. They bought in. They came out to vote. All of the self-styled "experts" were WRONG - you CAN run a campaign without dirty tricks or piles of cash, and appeal to voters.
Not by being angry. Not by operating in a sleazy manner. Not by mud-slinging, or name-calling, planting questions in a forum or by outspending your opponent.
You can appeal to voters by being genuine. Articulating your vision of the future. Asking for their ideas. Engaging with them, on their level (which is, by the way, always much easier to do when it's the level you live on 365 days of the year anyhow). Asking them about their hopes, and their dreams for their kids, and how government can help - even if the best way for government to help is by getting out of the way.
I have SO much hope, and SO much to be thankful for, coming out of this campaign. The voters showed me that they're ready for a change in how politics is done. My team showed me that a dedicated team of good people can, and WILL, change the world for the better, without resorting to dirty tricks or selling out their principles.
The winds of change are blowing. Not against any one party or candidate, but against the "politics as usual" that permeates EVERY major party, and so many candidates. The voters know it's not good enough any more, they know there is a better way that some of us are just crazy enough to try, and they're willing to do something about it.
If the politicians don't embrace that change, they're going to be blown away by it.
In my speech, delivered on January 21st, I spoke the following line:
Hold on to your hats, kids - it's about to get windy in here.
And as for Joey O.?
I have not yet begun to fight.
2 weeks have now passed since the nomination meeting for the Alberta PC's in Calgary-Fish Creek. As most of you are no doubt aware, I was unsuccessful in my attempt to win the party's nomination, and will therefore not be appearing on the ballot for this spring's provincial general election.
I'm going to warn you now that this is going to be an intensely personal post. I don't plan these things out - I just write what pops into my head - so I can't be sure, as I type this, that I'll actually even hit "publish" at the end. But just in case, I want you to know that this post is not normal, run-of-the-mill "Enlightened Savage" fare.
There is nothing - nothing - in this world that I have ever wanted more than to run for office. Other kids dream about being a policeman, a millionaire, or a war hero, or a rock star, or an NHL player... but not me. The first sign, I guess, that I'm "not normal".
I have enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, the jobs that I do have. I'm incredibly blessed to get paid to do things that I love - and would do for free. Every morning when I wake up, I say "I GET to go to work today", instead of "I HAVE to go to work today", as so many do. This blessing is not lost on me.
And yet... I've always felt the desire to serve. I've always felt CALLED to serve. When my Firmware was installed, I was clearly wired for this role. To serve my neighbours with a smile on my face, representing their interests and opinions. Engaging them in the process. Speaking truth to power. Trying to leave the world a better place than it was when I got here. Setting the table for future generations to do even better. Showing that a life spent in politics can be a noble pursuit, and that government can be a force for good. Elevating the level of debate, and making campaigns about ideas and vision, instead of personality, dirty tricks or who can shout the loudest.
People who came into my life intent on changing me would tell me this was a foolish dream. An unworthy pursuit. An exercise in futility. I refused to give up the dream, and those people left my life when they realized that my dream to serve wasn't a passing notion - it was hard-wired into me. As much a part of me as my big German cheeks or my impish grin.
I wanted to stand for election, with every fibre of my being. So I prepared. I planned. And I waited.
On November 14th, 2011, the waiting stopped. I jumped into the pool with both feet, and declared my intention to seek the PC nomination in Calgary-Fish Creek, a geographically-large constituency in Calgary's suburban south in which I grew up, went to school, and worked.
After a 69-day campaign, the vote was held on January 21st, 2012 - and I narrowly lost the nomination contest. Wendelin Fraser, former Dean of the Bissett School of Business at Mount Royal University, will represent the PC's on the ballot in Calgary-Fish Creek this spring. I congratulate her on a hard-fought victory, and will do all that I can to ensure that she is successful in the election.
This is not the end of my dream, however... it is just the beginning.
While I am disappointed in the final result, I do not despair: Far from it. My team of supporters and volunteers - the "O-Team", as they came to be called - ran a campaign based on ideas and vision. We knew all the dirty tricks, and chose to employ NONE of them. We decided that we were going to appeal to people's better angels, instead of trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. We ran a campaign on a shoe-string budget - we were outspent by a VERY significant margin - and yet, despite all of what experienced political operatives would call "these handicaps", we very nearly WON.
This is what gives me hope for the future. This is what gives me hope for politics as a whole. We engaged the voters - both those who had held party memberships before, and those who never had - with ideas, positivity, and vision instead of the tried-and-true tactics of platitudes, attacks and innuendo. And the voters ENGAGED with us. They bought in. They came out to vote. All of the self-styled "experts" were WRONG - you CAN run a campaign without dirty tricks or piles of cash, and appeal to voters.
Not by being angry. Not by operating in a sleazy manner. Not by mud-slinging, or name-calling, planting questions in a forum or by outspending your opponent.
You can appeal to voters by being genuine. Articulating your vision of the future. Asking for their ideas. Engaging with them, on their level (which is, by the way, always much easier to do when it's the level you live on 365 days of the year anyhow). Asking them about their hopes, and their dreams for their kids, and how government can help - even if the best way for government to help is by getting out of the way.
I have SO much hope, and SO much to be thankful for, coming out of this campaign. The voters showed me that they're ready for a change in how politics is done. My team showed me that a dedicated team of good people can, and WILL, change the world for the better, without resorting to dirty tricks or selling out their principles.
The winds of change are blowing. Not against any one party or candidate, but against the "politics as usual" that permeates EVERY major party, and so many candidates. The voters know it's not good enough any more, they know there is a better way that some of us are just crazy enough to try, and they're willing to do something about it.
If the politicians don't embrace that change, they're going to be blown away by it.
In my speech, delivered on January 21st, I spoke the following line:
"Today, the people of Calgary-Fish Creek are going to choose to light a candle, rather than curse the dark".I've got a truck-bed full of waterproof matches. Let's do this.
Hold on to your hats, kids - it's about to get windy in here.
And as for Joey O.?
I have not yet begun to fight.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Super Saturday Nomination Results
Nation, with Daveberta away from his blog (and its comprehensive coverage of the nomination races taking place across the province) for the next week, someone has to step up and fill the void. I guess, by process of elimination, that means "me".
Not to fear: You'll be getting my thoughts on my own nomination race in Calgary-Fish Creek before too long. It just takes a while to put into words what it feels like to come so close to achieving your life's dream on the first attempt. :)
The following nominations took place yesterday:
Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo: Councillor Mike Allen emerged victorious, and will try to win this riding for the PCs against former PC Guy Boutilier, now of the Wildrose Party.
Little Bow: Former municipal Councillor and agri-businessman John Kolk will wave the PC flag.
Banff-Cochrane: 4-term Canmore Mayor Ron Casey emerged from a strong PC field which included popular Cochrane Mayor Truper McBride.
Calgary-Hawkwood: Social Worker and City of Calgary non-profit big-wig Jason Luan beat out 9 other candidates to win the PC nomination in the new riding in Calgary's north-west.
Grande Prairie-Smoky: Grande Prairie County Reeve Everett McDonald will run under the PC banner.
Highwood: Local publisher John Barlow will be the PC candidate running opposite Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith. Barlow is a popular and high-profile long-time resident of the riding, which is exactly the type of candidate the PCs needed here to try and counter Smith's celebrity. While party Leaders often spend much of their time attending to the provincial campaign in far-flung corners of Alberta, their opponents (and the bank accounts of other parties) can focus on yanking out the rug from underneath them. All politics is local.
Calgary-Varsity: Lawyer and former Nexen VP Donna Kennedy-Glans won the nomination for the PCs. Worth noting is that Kennedy-Glans had, several years back, announced her intention to challenge Calgary-West MP Rob Anders for the Conservative Party of Canada nomination. Her supporters won control of the local CPC Board, but were rebuffed in their attempts to hold a nomination vote.
Calgary-Currie: School principal Christine Cusanelli won a hotly contested race for the PC banner. Also in the running here was former MLA, Alderman, and mayoral candidate Jon Lord, whose scrutineer was ejected during the count for being on her phone (with a babysitter, according to sources). Party rules prohibit scrutineers from communicating with the "outside world" during the count itself. Lord has the option of challenging the result and submitting to arbitration on the Party's "Form G" if he so chooses.
Medicine Hat: Banker and former Alderman Darren Hirsch emerged from a 4-person field to capture the PC nomination.
Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock: Former head of the Alberta School Boards Association and curent Deputy Reeve of Westlock County, Maureen Kubinek won in a race with over 1,200 votes cast, and will be the PC nominee replacing Speaker Ken Kowalski.
Airdrie: School Principal and Airdrie Alderman Kelly Hegg won a fierce contest, and will represent the PC brand in this riding, which elected a PC in 2008 by the name of Rob Anderson, now of the Wildrose Party.
Fair readers: Did I miss any? Were there other parties holding nominations yesterday? Let me know! :)
- E.S.
Not to fear: You'll be getting my thoughts on my own nomination race in Calgary-Fish Creek before too long. It just takes a while to put into words what it feels like to come so close to achieving your life's dream on the first attempt. :)
The following nominations took place yesterday:
Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo: Councillor Mike Allen emerged victorious, and will try to win this riding for the PCs against former PC Guy Boutilier, now of the Wildrose Party.
Little Bow: Former municipal Councillor and agri-businessman John Kolk will wave the PC flag.
Banff-Cochrane: 4-term Canmore Mayor Ron Casey emerged from a strong PC field which included popular Cochrane Mayor Truper McBride.
Calgary-Hawkwood: Social Worker and City of Calgary non-profit big-wig Jason Luan beat out 9 other candidates to win the PC nomination in the new riding in Calgary's north-west.
Grande Prairie-Smoky: Grande Prairie County Reeve Everett McDonald will run under the PC banner.
Highwood: Local publisher John Barlow will be the PC candidate running opposite Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith. Barlow is a popular and high-profile long-time resident of the riding, which is exactly the type of candidate the PCs needed here to try and counter Smith's celebrity. While party Leaders often spend much of their time attending to the provincial campaign in far-flung corners of Alberta, their opponents (and the bank accounts of other parties) can focus on yanking out the rug from underneath them. All politics is local.
Calgary-Varsity: Lawyer and former Nexen VP Donna Kennedy-Glans won the nomination for the PCs. Worth noting is that Kennedy-Glans had, several years back, announced her intention to challenge Calgary-West MP Rob Anders for the Conservative Party of Canada nomination. Her supporters won control of the local CPC Board, but were rebuffed in their attempts to hold a nomination vote.
Calgary-Currie: School principal Christine Cusanelli won a hotly contested race for the PC banner. Also in the running here was former MLA, Alderman, and mayoral candidate Jon Lord, whose scrutineer was ejected during the count for being on her phone (with a babysitter, according to sources). Party rules prohibit scrutineers from communicating with the "outside world" during the count itself. Lord has the option of challenging the result and submitting to arbitration on the Party's "Form G" if he so chooses.
Medicine Hat: Banker and former Alderman Darren Hirsch emerged from a 4-person field to capture the PC nomination.
Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock: Former head of the Alberta School Boards Association and curent Deputy Reeve of Westlock County, Maureen Kubinek won in a race with over 1,200 votes cast, and will be the PC nominee replacing Speaker Ken Kowalski.
Airdrie: School Principal and Airdrie Alderman Kelly Hegg won a fierce contest, and will represent the PC brand in this riding, which elected a PC in 2008 by the name of Rob Anderson, now of the Wildrose Party.
Fair readers: Did I miss any? Were there other parties holding nominations yesterday? Let me know! :)
- E.S.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
JoeyO on... being a Progressive
(as posted at JoeyO.ca)
Webster's would define a progressive as "one who looks forward".
I've decided that, in my own efforts to define what a progressive IS, I'm going to try very hard to avoid doing 2 things:
So... what is a "progressive"?
To me, a progressive is someone who eschews the sacred cows of public policy discussions in order to have a full dialogue about what needs to happen to move society closer to a goal that is socially just. By this definition, Lyndon Johnson was acting as a progressive when he moved forward with the Civil Rights Act - a stance that to this day still hinders the fortunes of the Democratic Party in the southern U.S.. Likewise, Abraham Lincoln - a Republican, let's remember - was a progressive with his championing of the Emancipation Proclamation.
To me, a progressive is someone who feels that government can and should be a force for good within a society. That those things we can't count on the market to deliver for the betterment of all, government should take up, to ensure no one gets left behind. By this measure, Mackenzie King (introducing Old Age Pensions in 1930) and Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker, and Lester Pearson (the 3 mid-wives of national Medicare) were all progressives, in their own way.
To me, a progressive is someone who recognizes the value of stability, but also the potential reward to a society for embracing new ideas. That the "status quo" CAN be a good thing, but that it isn't ALWAYS a good thing. Using this barometer, Dwight D. Eisenhower (expansion of Social Security, creation of the Interstate Highway system, response to Brown v. Board of Education) and Theodore Roosevelt (Trust-busting, leadership of the "Progressive Party") were progressives.
The rotten thing about political labels, as I've said before, is that they can be applied by just about anyone, onto just about anyone else, and given whatever meaning one wishes. I can proudly call myself a progressive, thinking it means exactly what I've outlined above - and, at the same time, a political opponent can sneeringly refer to me as a "progressive, which is code for Liberal"... and, so long as we're using labels (progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian) for convenience's sake, in the place of frank and open discussions about policy, that will always be the risk.
But, when you look at the actual party affiliations of the people I've named in my examples, you see a cross-section of MANY different political parties: a Democrat; 3 Republicans; 2 Liberals; a New Democrat; and a Progressive Conservative.
I've been tempted many times during this writing to go on the offensive, and talk about anti-progressive forces. To talk about political rhetoric that promises to return things to "the good old days" or "the way things used to be"...
But I'm a progressive.
I'm looking forward.
And the future I see for this province is as bright as a clear day in Calgary, as expansive as an Athabasca prairie, and as rich and full as an Edmonton festival.
Come along with me, won't you?
Webster's would define a progressive as "one who looks forward".
I've decided that, in my own efforts to define what a progressive IS, I'm going to try very hard to avoid doing 2 things:
- Firstly, I'm going to try to avoid defining a progressive by what they AREN'T.
- Secondly, I'm going to try to avoid comparing progressives to other groups as though they are mutually exclusive - "progressive", in political terms, is not mutually exclusive from "conservative" as we know it and as I previously defined it, for example.
So... what is a "progressive"?
To me, a progressive is someone who eschews the sacred cows of public policy discussions in order to have a full dialogue about what needs to happen to move society closer to a goal that is socially just. By this definition, Lyndon Johnson was acting as a progressive when he moved forward with the Civil Rights Act - a stance that to this day still hinders the fortunes of the Democratic Party in the southern U.S.. Likewise, Abraham Lincoln - a Republican, let's remember - was a progressive with his championing of the Emancipation Proclamation.
To me, a progressive is someone who feels that government can and should be a force for good within a society. That those things we can't count on the market to deliver for the betterment of all, government should take up, to ensure no one gets left behind. By this measure, Mackenzie King (introducing Old Age Pensions in 1930) and Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker, and Lester Pearson (the 3 mid-wives of national Medicare) were all progressives, in their own way.
To me, a progressive is someone who recognizes the value of stability, but also the potential reward to a society for embracing new ideas. That the "status quo" CAN be a good thing, but that it isn't ALWAYS a good thing. Using this barometer, Dwight D. Eisenhower (expansion of Social Security, creation of the Interstate Highway system, response to Brown v. Board of Education) and Theodore Roosevelt (Trust-busting, leadership of the "Progressive Party") were progressives.
The rotten thing about political labels, as I've said before, is that they can be applied by just about anyone, onto just about anyone else, and given whatever meaning one wishes. I can proudly call myself a progressive, thinking it means exactly what I've outlined above - and, at the same time, a political opponent can sneeringly refer to me as a "progressive, which is code for Liberal"... and, so long as we're using labels (progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian) for convenience's sake, in the place of frank and open discussions about policy, that will always be the risk.
But, when you look at the actual party affiliations of the people I've named in my examples, you see a cross-section of MANY different political parties: a Democrat; 3 Republicans; 2 Liberals; a New Democrat; and a Progressive Conservative.
I've been tempted many times during this writing to go on the offensive, and talk about anti-progressive forces. To talk about political rhetoric that promises to return things to "the good old days" or "the way things used to be"...
But I'm a progressive.
I'm looking forward.
And the future I see for this province is as bright as a clear day in Calgary, as expansive as an Athabasca prairie, and as rich and full as an Edmonton festival.
Come along with me, won't you?
JoeyO on... Engaging With The Public
(as posted at JoeyO.ca)
I've wanted to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly since I was 17 years old. The problem was always that, even as a 17 year-old, I self-identified as a small-c conservative (or, what I understood that to mean). I believed then, as I do now, that we deserved the best government we could afford, and not a penny or a secretary more than that. I believed in mandatory minimum sentencing for violent offenders, and freedom of speech, and the ability of the free market to ensure competition and quality in most cases. I believed that an MLA’s job was to represent their constituents, and when they weren’t sure how the constituents felt, to ASK them rather than assume the once-every-4-years endorsement by the voters was carte blanche to just go with the member’s own opinions, beliefs and values. I believed in those things then, and I believe in them today.
I was a lonely 17 year-old, and my Progressive Conservative MLA welcomed me with open arms.
Fast forward 10 years (to 2005), and I still held those same beliefs - but, in many ways, I was still viewed as "too young to have anything intelligent or useful to add to the conversation". While the fringe parties in this province routinely threw 20-somethings to the wolves as candidates simply because they couldn't find anyone else, I would show up at campaign offices, federal and provincial, and be told by volunteers with important titles that my skill-set was best suited for dropping off flyers and pounding signs into lawns. Important tasks, to be sure. The kind of things that have to happen to win an election, absolutely. But this wasn’t what I wanted to learn how to do – I wanted to learn how to go from door to door with a candidate, and talk to people, engage with them, and change their minds – or my own – on a given issue. I wanted to apprentice, with the idea of someday using what I had learned, combined with my own knack for analysis, political thought and speech, to run for my “dream job”.
In late 2006, I noticed a conspicuous lack of coverage in the media on the PC leadership race. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta were going to be choosing a new leader and, by default, a new Premier for the province – and no one seemed to be talking about it. I couldn’t find any coverage on the television, or in the newspapers, and the internet had a smattering of information, but not a whole lot. So I researched. I surfed all over the internet, trying to dig up information about these people who wanted to be the leader of the province that was the beating heart of Canada’s economic engine. And when I was done... it occurred to me that, while I was satisfied that I had found the information I needed to help me make an informed choice, a lot of the voting members of the party wouldn’t know HOW to find the information I had found.
“This should all be collected in one place”, I thought to myself. And the idea of starting a blog was born.
I took the name “The Enlightened Savage”, because as a provincial employee, I wanted the freedom to write what I actually thought about the leadership contenders without worrying that someone I spoke against would win, find my name on a list of provincial staff, and promptly fire me. The inspiration for my use of a “pen name” was actually Samuel Clemens, who on February 3rd, 1863, at the age of 27 years, signed his name for the first time as “Mark Twain”.
I thought the name really encapsulated what I was trying to prove to the outside world, and to the smaller world within my own political circles... that a self-identified conservative wasn’t automatically a mindless, brown-shirted barbarian incapable of rational thought and discussion... and that a young person without “all the right connections” or a Political Science degree could analyze policy and strategy and political trends, and stimulate meaningful discussion rather than the mindless, partisan back-and-forth you hear from so many of the party faithful. I didn’t need to be “special”, or have the “right connections”, to have a voice that mattered to people.
The blog changed everything for me. I was writing, and people of influence were agreeing. They were engaged. They wanted to talk about ideas, and strategies, and they thought I had something to say that they should be listening to. They wanted to talk to ME, and to hear MY ideas and opinions, about matters of importance. It was ironic, since some of these people were the same ones who thought Joey O had nothing to contribute until I stepped up on the soap-box and started writing under an assumed name. Some of the more intrepid among the Mainstream Media actually found me... I even got invited to do some in-studio analysis on CBC Radio on municipal election night 2007, and some more for the 2008 federal campaign. A friend of mine, for whom many of you probably voted last October, helped me get booked to do a spot of analysis on CityTV for election night during the 2008 provincial election.
This blog has helped me hone the skills I needed to achieve my goal. I intend to run to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Province of Alberta. I have 5 years of writings (over 640 columns posted) that I stand by, as if they were a voting record. I believe that, when I ask the voters for their trust, they have a right to know what I've said, and hold me accountable for it.
The first post to the blog was on Wednesday, November 15th, 2006. In that post, I mentioned that “I hope to provide as balanced an approach as I can to the issues of the day, while at the same time making it clear where I stand”. I’d like to think in the past 5 years, I’ve managed to do that.
I also committed to the idea of “holding my own to a higher standard”, and standing up for people and groups who are often marginalized in the political discussion, particularly if that discussion is happening to the right of centre. I have done my best to deliver on that commitment as well.
I’ve tried to use the blog to talk not just about how politics IS, but about how politics SHOULD be – how it MUST be if it hopes to keep up with and stay relevant to the changing face of our society. If the voters won’t engage with those who seek their consent to rule, then WE, as politicians and those who wish to serve and lead, have to do a better job of giving them something with which they will WANT to engage.
If politicians want more people to engage with them, and to vote, then the politicians have to do a better job engaging with those people. It’s not enough to shake your finger at them and tell them they should be voting.
The people who want to lead us should talk to us like we’re all adults, and all equals. Don’t sell exclusive access to those elite few who can afford to make huge donations. Stop insulting our intelligence by saying things that clearly aren’t true. And stop treating youth like they have nothing to contribute but delivering flyers and installing lawn signs.
My name’s Joey O, and I want to be your MLA – and if you’ve got an opinion about how we’re governed, or an idea about how to make things better, I want to hear it, whether you think I’ll agree with you or not. It’s not just about what *I* think, it’s about what YOU think. I remember what it felt like to be marginalized and ignored. To be taken for granted, and dismissed as a “kid who doesn’t know anything”. You don’t have to start a blog for your voice to matter to me. You just need to speak, and I’ll listen.
Isn’t that supposed to be how this “Democracy” thing works?
I've wanted to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly since I was 17 years old. The problem was always that, even as a 17 year-old, I self-identified as a small-c conservative (or, what I understood that to mean). I believed then, as I do now, that we deserved the best government we could afford, and not a penny or a secretary more than that. I believed in mandatory minimum sentencing for violent offenders, and freedom of speech, and the ability of the free market to ensure competition and quality in most cases. I believed that an MLA’s job was to represent their constituents, and when they weren’t sure how the constituents felt, to ASK them rather than assume the once-every-4-years endorsement by the voters was carte blanche to just go with the member’s own opinions, beliefs and values. I believed in those things then, and I believe in them today.
I was a lonely 17 year-old, and my Progressive Conservative MLA welcomed me with open arms.
Fast forward 10 years (to 2005), and I still held those same beliefs - but, in many ways, I was still viewed as "too young to have anything intelligent or useful to add to the conversation". While the fringe parties in this province routinely threw 20-somethings to the wolves as candidates simply because they couldn't find anyone else, I would show up at campaign offices, federal and provincial, and be told by volunteers with important titles that my skill-set was best suited for dropping off flyers and pounding signs into lawns. Important tasks, to be sure. The kind of things that have to happen to win an election, absolutely. But this wasn’t what I wanted to learn how to do – I wanted to learn how to go from door to door with a candidate, and talk to people, engage with them, and change their minds – or my own – on a given issue. I wanted to apprentice, with the idea of someday using what I had learned, combined with my own knack for analysis, political thought and speech, to run for my “dream job”.
In late 2006, I noticed a conspicuous lack of coverage in the media on the PC leadership race. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta were going to be choosing a new leader and, by default, a new Premier for the province – and no one seemed to be talking about it. I couldn’t find any coverage on the television, or in the newspapers, and the internet had a smattering of information, but not a whole lot. So I researched. I surfed all over the internet, trying to dig up information about these people who wanted to be the leader of the province that was the beating heart of Canada’s economic engine. And when I was done... it occurred to me that, while I was satisfied that I had found the information I needed to help me make an informed choice, a lot of the voting members of the party wouldn’t know HOW to find the information I had found.
“This should all be collected in one place”, I thought to myself. And the idea of starting a blog was born.
I took the name “The Enlightened Savage”, because as a provincial employee, I wanted the freedom to write what I actually thought about the leadership contenders without worrying that someone I spoke against would win, find my name on a list of provincial staff, and promptly fire me. The inspiration for my use of a “pen name” was actually Samuel Clemens, who on February 3rd, 1863, at the age of 27 years, signed his name for the first time as “Mark Twain”.
I thought the name really encapsulated what I was trying to prove to the outside world, and to the smaller world within my own political circles... that a self-identified conservative wasn’t automatically a mindless, brown-shirted barbarian incapable of rational thought and discussion... and that a young person without “all the right connections” or a Political Science degree could analyze policy and strategy and political trends, and stimulate meaningful discussion rather than the mindless, partisan back-and-forth you hear from so many of the party faithful. I didn’t need to be “special”, or have the “right connections”, to have a voice that mattered to people.
The blog changed everything for me. I was writing, and people of influence were agreeing. They were engaged. They wanted to talk about ideas, and strategies, and they thought I had something to say that they should be listening to. They wanted to talk to ME, and to hear MY ideas and opinions, about matters of importance. It was ironic, since some of these people were the same ones who thought Joey O had nothing to contribute until I stepped up on the soap-box and started writing under an assumed name. Some of the more intrepid among the Mainstream Media actually found me... I even got invited to do some in-studio analysis on CBC Radio on municipal election night 2007, and some more for the 2008 federal campaign. A friend of mine, for whom many of you probably voted last October, helped me get booked to do a spot of analysis on CityTV for election night during the 2008 provincial election.
This blog has helped me hone the skills I needed to achieve my goal. I intend to run to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Province of Alberta. I have 5 years of writings (over 640 columns posted) that I stand by, as if they were a voting record. I believe that, when I ask the voters for their trust, they have a right to know what I've said, and hold me accountable for it.
The first post to the blog was on Wednesday, November 15th, 2006. In that post, I mentioned that “I hope to provide as balanced an approach as I can to the issues of the day, while at the same time making it clear where I stand”. I’d like to think in the past 5 years, I’ve managed to do that.
I also committed to the idea of “holding my own to a higher standard”, and standing up for people and groups who are often marginalized in the political discussion, particularly if that discussion is happening to the right of centre. I have done my best to deliver on that commitment as well.
I’ve tried to use the blog to talk not just about how politics IS, but about how politics SHOULD be – how it MUST be if it hopes to keep up with and stay relevant to the changing face of our society. If the voters won’t engage with those who seek their consent to rule, then WE, as politicians and those who wish to serve and lead, have to do a better job of giving them something with which they will WANT to engage.
If politicians want more people to engage with them, and to vote, then the politicians have to do a better job engaging with those people. It’s not enough to shake your finger at them and tell them they should be voting.
The people who want to lead us should talk to us like we’re all adults, and all equals. Don’t sell exclusive access to those elite few who can afford to make huge donations. Stop insulting our intelligence by saying things that clearly aren’t true. And stop treating youth like they have nothing to contribute but delivering flyers and installing lawn signs.
My name’s Joey O, and I want to be your MLA – and if you’ve got an opinion about how we’re governed, or an idea about how to make things better, I want to hear it, whether you think I’ll agree with you or not. It’s not just about what *I* think, it’s about what YOU think. I remember what it felt like to be marginalized and ignored. To be taken for granted, and dismissed as a “kid who doesn’t know anything”. You don’t have to start a blog for your voice to matter to me. You just need to speak, and I’ll listen.
Isn’t that supposed to be how this “Democracy” thing works?
JoeyO on... Education
(as posted at JoeyO.ca)
There's talk, yet again, about the lack of schools (at least in appropriate locations) in the province of Alberta. The Minister of Education has publicly pondered about the viability of building them using Public/Private Partnerships, so-called "P3's". The opposition has, predictably, come out against this plan, saying that in a province so awash in wealth, education should be a priority for full, public funding.
I agree with them.
Many Albertans moan about paying education taxes ("I don't have kids/my kids finished school long ago!"), and moan even louder about large government increases in payments to teachers ("they get 3 months off every summer!"), building schools ("put the kids on busses!"), etc. Two of these complaints are, in my mind, short-sighted.
Let's talk about cold, hard reality.
"I've got no kids in the system, why should my tax dollars pay for it?" - the thing I love most about this question is that it's often asked by people who in the same conversation will complain bitterly about the fact that their doctor, lawyer, or nurse speaks with an accent, and is from "somewhere other than here". The reality is, supporting a public education system not only ensures that we will train Alberta's children to hold meaningful and important jobs to make Alberta even stronger, but it ensures that those children, as they grow, will make more, thus contributing more to the CPP, which is the only way you're going to get any money from the CPP if you're in the 45-60 range as you read this. Let's be honest, folks... that CPP money you contributed back in '75 is LOOONG gone... It's the money that 18-year old Johnny Johnson from PEI contributed on his cheque last week that is going to be appearing on your first pension cheque. If we deny children the best possible education, it directly affects your financial well-being down the line.
"Teachers don't need more money, they work 6 hours a day and get 3 months off!" - Those 2 charges, "6 hour work-days" and "3 months off" are both way off the mark. Let's review: The average teacher shows up to work about 45 minutes before the opening bell, spends 6 hours from (ballpark) 9 to 3 dealing with the students directly. No lunch hour for them, as they have to supervise either inside of outside the school in this age of schoolyard stalkers, zero-tolerance for bullying and liability lawsuits against schools and school boards. They'll then likely spend about 45 minutes to an hour at the school after the final bell, either working with students who need individual attention, running detention, or attending staff meetings or doing some marking. Let's make the point again that this is the AVERAGE teacher - for every one you know of that shows up 10 minutes before class starts and leaves 10 minutes after the final bell rings, there's one who shows up at 7:30am to coach handball and doesn't leave until the computers club is done at 6:00pm.
So, thus far we've got a 7.5 hour workday for Jane Averageteacher. Now Jane's going to go home and do another hour of marking, which is mandatory if she is to do her job well. She'll then spend about an hour and a half planning her next day's lessons and researching the subject matter to ensure she's got all the bases covered. Incidentally, spending an hour and a half planning 5 hours worth of instructional time is BARELY adequate - at least 2 hours is usually required. But, so far we've got Jane working 10 hours. She's been completely embroiled in her work from 8:15 in the morning until 6:30 at night, allowing only 15 minutes to get from the school to her home, and getting no breaks. And much of her Saturday is going to be spent marking and planning for the upcoming week... So, we're talking 50-to-55 hour work weeks. This is without any extra-curricular coaching or activities, by the way. 6 hour days? Hardly.
Now, do teachers get 3 months without dealing with students? Yes. 2 months in the summer, 2 weeks in Winter, and 2 weeks in Spring. True. But, in those OTHER 40 weeks of the year, Jane works between 2000 and 2200 hours, at a minimum. A 40-hour per week worker, who doesn't miss a single day of work all year, takes no vacation, and works every statutory holiday, 5 shifts a week, 52 weeks a year, will work 2080 hours.
So spare me the "they only work 9 months a year" argument, because in those 9 months they work more hours than most of us work in 12.
And these teachers, by the way, are not answering phones in an office or re-stocking shelves at a supermarket - they're entrusted with the minds and hearts of our children. A pretty stressful job, I think we’d all agree. At Mikka Kiprusoff’s job, a bad day at work means a red light flashed and several thousand people were momentarily disappointed - at Jane's, she might scar a kid for life or lead him to a life of crime. Whom should we pay better, to make sure we get people up to the task?
"Why do they need more schools in the suburbs, when they're closing ones downtown? BUS those kids!" - I actually agree with this. If a building is structurally safe, it should be utilized. Needs are constantly changing as technology changes, and we'd all like to work in a new building, but if the money's not there, it's not there. 30 minutes on a bus isn't "cruel and unusual", and there are better things the money can be used for within the system. The $15 million to build a new elementary would bus those kids and pay for enough music or athletic gear for the whole school system... our schools need up-to-date computers, maintenance, supplies, reduced fees charged to the kids' families, etc. Use the buildings you already have, as long as they're safe. Not everyone can walk to and from school – it would be NICE, but there are more important things that need attending to first.
There's talk, yet again, about the lack of schools (at least in appropriate locations) in the province of Alberta. The Minister of Education has publicly pondered about the viability of building them using Public/Private Partnerships, so-called "P3's". The opposition has, predictably, come out against this plan, saying that in a province so awash in wealth, education should be a priority for full, public funding.
I agree with them.
Many Albertans moan about paying education taxes ("I don't have kids/my kids finished school long ago!"), and moan even louder about large government increases in payments to teachers ("they get 3 months off every summer!"), building schools ("put the kids on busses!"), etc. Two of these complaints are, in my mind, short-sighted.
Let's talk about cold, hard reality.
"I've got no kids in the system, why should my tax dollars pay for it?" - the thing I love most about this question is that it's often asked by people who in the same conversation will complain bitterly about the fact that their doctor, lawyer, or nurse speaks with an accent, and is from "somewhere other than here". The reality is, supporting a public education system not only ensures that we will train Alberta's children to hold meaningful and important jobs to make Alberta even stronger, but it ensures that those children, as they grow, will make more, thus contributing more to the CPP, which is the only way you're going to get any money from the CPP if you're in the 45-60 range as you read this. Let's be honest, folks... that CPP money you contributed back in '75 is LOOONG gone... It's the money that 18-year old Johnny Johnson from PEI contributed on his cheque last week that is going to be appearing on your first pension cheque. If we deny children the best possible education, it directly affects your financial well-being down the line.
"Teachers don't need more money, they work 6 hours a day and get 3 months off!" - Those 2 charges, "6 hour work-days" and "3 months off" are both way off the mark. Let's review: The average teacher shows up to work about 45 minutes before the opening bell, spends 6 hours from (ballpark) 9 to 3 dealing with the students directly. No lunch hour for them, as they have to supervise either inside of outside the school in this age of schoolyard stalkers, zero-tolerance for bullying and liability lawsuits against schools and school boards. They'll then likely spend about 45 minutes to an hour at the school after the final bell, either working with students who need individual attention, running detention, or attending staff meetings or doing some marking. Let's make the point again that this is the AVERAGE teacher - for every one you know of that shows up 10 minutes before class starts and leaves 10 minutes after the final bell rings, there's one who shows up at 7:30am to coach handball and doesn't leave until the computers club is done at 6:00pm.
So, thus far we've got a 7.5 hour workday for Jane Averageteacher. Now Jane's going to go home and do another hour of marking, which is mandatory if she is to do her job well. She'll then spend about an hour and a half planning her next day's lessons and researching the subject matter to ensure she's got all the bases covered. Incidentally, spending an hour and a half planning 5 hours worth of instructional time is BARELY adequate - at least 2 hours is usually required. But, so far we've got Jane working 10 hours. She's been completely embroiled in her work from 8:15 in the morning until 6:30 at night, allowing only 15 minutes to get from the school to her home, and getting no breaks. And much of her Saturday is going to be spent marking and planning for the upcoming week... So, we're talking 50-to-55 hour work weeks. This is without any extra-curricular coaching or activities, by the way. 6 hour days? Hardly.
Now, do teachers get 3 months without dealing with students? Yes. 2 months in the summer, 2 weeks in Winter, and 2 weeks in Spring. True. But, in those OTHER 40 weeks of the year, Jane works between 2000 and 2200 hours, at a minimum. A 40-hour per week worker, who doesn't miss a single day of work all year, takes no vacation, and works every statutory holiday, 5 shifts a week, 52 weeks a year, will work 2080 hours.
So spare me the "they only work 9 months a year" argument, because in those 9 months they work more hours than most of us work in 12.
And these teachers, by the way, are not answering phones in an office or re-stocking shelves at a supermarket - they're entrusted with the minds and hearts of our children. A pretty stressful job, I think we’d all agree. At Mikka Kiprusoff’s job, a bad day at work means a red light flashed and several thousand people were momentarily disappointed - at Jane's, she might scar a kid for life or lead him to a life of crime. Whom should we pay better, to make sure we get people up to the task?
"Why do they need more schools in the suburbs, when they're closing ones downtown? BUS those kids!" - I actually agree with this. If a building is structurally safe, it should be utilized. Needs are constantly changing as technology changes, and we'd all like to work in a new building, but if the money's not there, it's not there. 30 minutes on a bus isn't "cruel and unusual", and there are better things the money can be used for within the system. The $15 million to build a new elementary would bus those kids and pay for enough music or athletic gear for the whole school system... our schools need up-to-date computers, maintenance, supplies, reduced fees charged to the kids' families, etc. Use the buildings you already have, as long as they're safe. Not everyone can walk to and from school – it would be NICE, but there are more important things that need attending to first.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
JoeyO on... Hard Spending Decisions
(As posted at JoeyO.ca)
On June 24th, 2010, the provincial government released a fiscal update. The long and short of it was, "the 2010 budget said the deficit would be $4.7 Billion, but in reality it's $1 Billion".
Which is GOOD. I would MUCH rather be spending $1 Billion more than we have, than to be spending $4.7 Billion more than we have.
The PC's rightly point out that we in Alberta were in a unique position to weather the economic storm, because PC Governments had the foresight to open a "savings account" to draw on during bad times. More happy news from the report included the information that, due to the rise in the markets, the Heritage Savings Trust Fund earned $2 Billion - far more than the $711 Million initially forecast. As a matter of fact, with earnings of $2 Billion, and a budget deficit of $1 Billion, it looks as though the worst may be over, and it might be time to invest in black ink again. This is good news, right?
But... it's still not GOOD. It's BAD.
I'd understand if the deficit was 100% based on one-time infrastructure and education spending, to help Albertans in the skilled trades keep their families fed and help those "downsized" to find new vocations during the economic downturn. I'd be FINE with that - better than fine, in fact. That would be a sterling example of government being a force for good in the society.
The reality, though, is that we're in this situation because of program spending. There is fat in the system, make no mistake about that. We need to - ALL of us - sit down and have a real, adult conversation about what we're spending, and what we're spending it on, and how to do better. Press releases from the opposition demanding "More for Health!" or "Spend Less On Everything!" aren't helpful - they're exactly the opposite. Should we be funding chiropractic care? Let's talk about it. Should there be tax incentives for making healthy choices? Increased "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco? What about the funding model for our schools? Arts programs charge hundreds of dollars in fees at the high school level - is that okay with us?
Much of the reduction of the forecast deficit is as result of increased non-gas resource royalties. These are absolutely critical to our funding model - as we saw quite clearly when activity in the energy sector dried up recently. To this day, the Wildrose Party insists that moving the royalty rates upward was a near cataclysmic mistake by the Stelmach Tories, while opponents on the left say that we never would have RUN a deficit, had Alberta been getting a bigger share of resource revenue from producers.
Clearly, even with hindsight, the politicians can't agree on what to do.
We need to have these discussions, as a people. They're too important to leave to the politicians.
Because while they're going to be doing and saying what they need to in order to keep their own jobs, and support their own families in the short term - it's the only job in the world that you can be terminated, without cause, every 4 years and have your job given to someone else because they've got better hair - we need to think about what life is going to look like 10, 20, and 50 years down the line for us and our families and the next generation of Albertans... no matter WHO is sitting in the Legislature.
That's the greatest responsibility we have as citizens. Not voting. Not shoveling your neighbour's walk. Not picking up after the dog in the park.
We are the stewards of the future of this place. It's time to talk about what we're going to do with it.
Not like politicians.
Like grown-ups.
On June 24th, 2010, the provincial government released a fiscal update. The long and short of it was, "the 2010 budget said the deficit would be $4.7 Billion, but in reality it's $1 Billion".
Which is GOOD. I would MUCH rather be spending $1 Billion more than we have, than to be spending $4.7 Billion more than we have.
The PC's rightly point out that we in Alberta were in a unique position to weather the economic storm, because PC Governments had the foresight to open a "savings account" to draw on during bad times. More happy news from the report included the information that, due to the rise in the markets, the Heritage Savings Trust Fund earned $2 Billion - far more than the $711 Million initially forecast. As a matter of fact, with earnings of $2 Billion, and a budget deficit of $1 Billion, it looks as though the worst may be over, and it might be time to invest in black ink again. This is good news, right?
But... it's still not GOOD. It's BAD.
I'd understand if the deficit was 100% based on one-time infrastructure and education spending, to help Albertans in the skilled trades keep their families fed and help those "downsized" to find new vocations during the economic downturn. I'd be FINE with that - better than fine, in fact. That would be a sterling example of government being a force for good in the society.
The reality, though, is that we're in this situation because of program spending. There is fat in the system, make no mistake about that. We need to - ALL of us - sit down and have a real, adult conversation about what we're spending, and what we're spending it on, and how to do better. Press releases from the opposition demanding "More for Health!" or "Spend Less On Everything!" aren't helpful - they're exactly the opposite. Should we be funding chiropractic care? Let's talk about it. Should there be tax incentives for making healthy choices? Increased "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco? What about the funding model for our schools? Arts programs charge hundreds of dollars in fees at the high school level - is that okay with us?
Much of the reduction of the forecast deficit is as result of increased non-gas resource royalties. These are absolutely critical to our funding model - as we saw quite clearly when activity in the energy sector dried up recently. To this day, the Wildrose Party insists that moving the royalty rates upward was a near cataclysmic mistake by the Stelmach Tories, while opponents on the left say that we never would have RUN a deficit, had Alberta been getting a bigger share of resource revenue from producers.
Clearly, even with hindsight, the politicians can't agree on what to do.
We need to have these discussions, as a people. They're too important to leave to the politicians.
Because while they're going to be doing and saying what they need to in order to keep their own jobs, and support their own families in the short term - it's the only job in the world that you can be terminated, without cause, every 4 years and have your job given to someone else because they've got better hair - we need to think about what life is going to look like 10, 20, and 50 years down the line for us and our families and the next generation of Albertans... no matter WHO is sitting in the Legislature.
That's the greatest responsibility we have as citizens. Not voting. Not shoveling your neighbour's walk. Not picking up after the dog in the park.
We are the stewards of the future of this place. It's time to talk about what we're going to do with it.
Not like politicians.
Like grown-ups.
Fish Creek Thinks Big on Health
(originally posted on JoeyO.ca)
One of the issues that comes up most frequently at the doors and on the phones as we work through this process is the topic of healthcare.
In particular, people in Calgary-Fish Creek want to know how to improve the care they receive, and they want to know when the South Calgary Health Campus will be an option for their emergency care.
One idea that I really like in order to improve care is the notion of a health "SmartCard", with a chip and PIN. In essense, this card would be used every time you accessed a health service, from a doctor's visit to a trip to the pharmacist. Your test results, diagnoses, notes by your other health care providers, etc would be stored in a secure system, and would only be able to be accessed when you presented your card and entered your secure PIN (just like a bank card). Your practitioner would be able to see the notes from the doctor at the walk-in clinic you visited last week, your pharmacist would see what other medication you were recently perscribed to avoid drug interactions... this would result in fewer missed diagnoses, fewer errors all-around, and give your medical professionals a more full picture. These men and women are exceptionally well-trained, and when they have access to all the information, they can make MUCH better judgements. Of course, some people are really uneasy with the thought of their personal medical information on a computer server - so perhaps the cards would be something you can "opt in" to.
There is, understandably, a lot of concern about the South Calgary Health Campus. It seems, at times, as though we've been waiting 20 years for this new hospital and health campus to open. In the meantime, people in Parkland or Canyon Meadows are deciding to drive to health centres in Okotoks or Black Diamond rather than sit in the Rockyview ER. I will work with Alberta Health and Wellness to communicate to the people of Fish Creek exactly when they can expect the various phases of the new Health Campus to open, and make it very clear that the people of Fish Creek expect the centre to be fully staffed when it does open.
One of the issues that comes up most frequently at the doors and on the phones as we work through this process is the topic of healthcare.
In particular, people in Calgary-Fish Creek want to know how to improve the care they receive, and they want to know when the South Calgary Health Campus will be an option for their emergency care.
One idea that I really like in order to improve care is the notion of a health "SmartCard", with a chip and PIN. In essense, this card would be used every time you accessed a health service, from a doctor's visit to a trip to the pharmacist. Your test results, diagnoses, notes by your other health care providers, etc would be stored in a secure system, and would only be able to be accessed when you presented your card and entered your secure PIN (just like a bank card). Your practitioner would be able to see the notes from the doctor at the walk-in clinic you visited last week, your pharmacist would see what other medication you were recently perscribed to avoid drug interactions... this would result in fewer missed diagnoses, fewer errors all-around, and give your medical professionals a more full picture. These men and women are exceptionally well-trained, and when they have access to all the information, they can make MUCH better judgements. Of course, some people are really uneasy with the thought of their personal medical information on a computer server - so perhaps the cards would be something you can "opt in" to.
There is, understandably, a lot of concern about the South Calgary Health Campus. It seems, at times, as though we've been waiting 20 years for this new hospital and health campus to open. In the meantime, people in Parkland or Canyon Meadows are deciding to drive to health centres in Okotoks or Black Diamond rather than sit in the Rockyview ER. I will work with Alberta Health and Wellness to communicate to the people of Fish Creek exactly when they can expect the various phases of the new Health Campus to open, and make it very clear that the people of Fish Creek expect the centre to be fully staffed when it does open.
Fish Creek Thinks Big on Democratic Reform
(originally posted on JoeyO.ca)
One of the hardest deficits to eliminate is the democratic deficit. People feel disconnected from their representatives - and why shouldn't they? Premier Klein, after his retirement, famously spoke of 'Dome Disease': "You spend enough time under that dome and you start to believe that the most important thing in the world happens under that dome... Eventually you start to believe what the opposition and the media say is true; what the caucus says is true. It's only when you come out from under that dome and speak to ordinary Albertans do you get a different perspective." Our MLA will celebrate her 19th year in office this year. That's a lot of time under the dome.
Calgary-Fish Creek has always been an area full of reformers - people who aren't afraid to challenge convention in order to make things better. Some of the ideas I've heard from the people here to address the democratic deficit include:
These are just the tip of the iceberg, but it's important that we start to have these conversations now. Rare is the government that will willingly turn over some of its own power - but we have seen, through our new leader, a willingness in Premier Redford to do just that. We need to strike while the iron is hot, and build a governance model for our province that will serve as an example across the country of what accountable, responsible and open government looks like.
If you can get behind these ideas, I ask you to consider getting behind me and casting your vote for me on January 21st. If we want to change "business as usual", we need to make sure there's someone advocating for this kind of change in Edmonton - and nominating me is the first step.
Yours for a better Alberta,
JoeyO
One of the hardest deficits to eliminate is the democratic deficit. People feel disconnected from their representatives - and why shouldn't they? Premier Klein, after his retirement, famously spoke of 'Dome Disease': "You spend enough time under that dome and you start to believe that the most important thing in the world happens under that dome... Eventually you start to believe what the opposition and the media say is true; what the caucus says is true. It's only when you come out from under that dome and speak to ordinary Albertans do you get a different perspective." Our MLA will celebrate her 19th year in office this year. That's a lot of time under the dome.
Calgary-Fish Creek has always been an area full of reformers - people who aren't afraid to challenge convention in order to make things better. Some of the ideas I've heard from the people here to address the democratic deficit include:
- The creation of a permanent voting record for every bill and motion debated in the Legislative Assembly. Hansard, the current record, only records that the bill or motion "passes" or "fails", unless someone specifically requests a Division of the House, when each member must stand and have their vote recorded. ALL votes cast by your representative should be recorded, and should be accessible on-line to the taxpayers - their boss. Will it take longer? Absolutely. But this is 2012, and you should be able to hold your MLA accountable. Part of that is knowing how they voted - and when they were and were not present for votes.
- Mandatory reporting of donations. Political parties currently run like the private clubs that they are. There is, however, one big difference: The gentleman running to be the chair of your local Elks Club is not going to use that position to decide how to spend billions of tax dollars. People running for political office in Alberta, or for nominations or the leadership of political parties, should be held to the highest standards of transparency. I am in favour of requiring all political campaigns to release a full list of donors BEFORE the voting date, so the public and those casting their ballots will know to whom the candidates are beholden.
- Provincial senate. One of my favourite ideas on how to address the democratic deficit involves the establishment of an elected Provincial Senate. While we try to get the rest of Canada to clue in to Federal Senate Reform, we can plow ahead and show them how a Senate can, and should, work. By cutting the number of MLA's to 50 (from 87) and establishing an Alberta Senate of 25 members, elected at the same time as MLA's via proportional representation, we can ensure that Albertans are governed responsibly, that the power of the Legislature to push bills through unilaterally is diminished, and engage more Albertans by making it ever more clear that their vote DOES matter on a provincial scale, even if their voice is a minority one, locally. We're paying fewer politicians, and getting more democratic governance - talk about a win/win situation...
These are just the tip of the iceberg, but it's important that we start to have these conversations now. Rare is the government that will willingly turn over some of its own power - but we have seen, through our new leader, a willingness in Premier Redford to do just that. We need to strike while the iron is hot, and build a governance model for our province that will serve as an example across the country of what accountable, responsible and open government looks like.
If you can get behind these ideas, I ask you to consider getting behind me and casting your vote for me on January 21st. If we want to change "business as usual", we need to make sure there's someone advocating for this kind of change in Edmonton - and nominating me is the first step.
Yours for a better Alberta,
JoeyO
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Leadership in Calgary-Fish Creek
On Saturday, January 14th, my team of dedicated volunteers (whom have dubbed themselves the "O-Team") and I spent the daylight hours knocking on every door we could find, blanketing 2 communities in Calgary-Fish Creek.
I heard a lot of good ideas and strong opinions. About health care. Policing. Seniors care. Fiscal responsibility. Education. Child care.
One area that mirrored a discussion I've been having both online and in real life centred around the idea of an MLA as a "leader" versus an MLA as a "servant".
Ralph Klein is often cited as the most effective leader our party has seen since Lougheed. Ralph liked to say that the key to political leadership was to figure out where the parade is going, and then get in front of it. I liked Ralph, as a leader. Policy-wise, I've always been more of a Lougheed Tory, but Ralph's idea of leadership jives very nicely with my own. I'm a populist - power to the people.
The thing is, as I look at the people in Fish Creek, I don't see a lot of people demanding an MLA to "lead" them, in the conventional sense. We don't wake up, roll out of bed, and say "I wish I knew what to do, I hope a politician tells me what needs to be done.". In Fish Creek, we're ALL leaders. Leaders in the community. Leaders in our churches, or our volunteer organizations, or our households. And, yes, we're leaders in the political sphere as well. The ideas I've been hearing at the doors are the sort of ideas that can build the Alberta of the future.
We in Fish Creek don't need to be led. We need to be served, by someone who understands that your ideas, your hopes, and your expertise are what truly matter.
I ask for the honour of serving you. Let's harness all of the leadership in Calgary-Fish Creek to lead our fellow Albertans to a better future for all of us.
Yours,
JoeyO
I heard a lot of good ideas and strong opinions. About health care. Policing. Seniors care. Fiscal responsibility. Education. Child care.
One area that mirrored a discussion I've been having both online and in real life centred around the idea of an MLA as a "leader" versus an MLA as a "servant".
Ralph Klein is often cited as the most effective leader our party has seen since Lougheed. Ralph liked to say that the key to political leadership was to figure out where the parade is going, and then get in front of it. I liked Ralph, as a leader. Policy-wise, I've always been more of a Lougheed Tory, but Ralph's idea of leadership jives very nicely with my own. I'm a populist - power to the people.
The thing is, as I look at the people in Fish Creek, I don't see a lot of people demanding an MLA to "lead" them, in the conventional sense. We don't wake up, roll out of bed, and say "I wish I knew what to do, I hope a politician tells me what needs to be done.". In Fish Creek, we're ALL leaders. Leaders in the community. Leaders in our churches, or our volunteer organizations, or our households. And, yes, we're leaders in the political sphere as well. The ideas I've been hearing at the doors are the sort of ideas that can build the Alberta of the future.
We in Fish Creek don't need to be led. We need to be served, by someone who understands that your ideas, your hopes, and your expertise are what truly matter.
I ask for the honour of serving you. Let's harness all of the leadership in Calgary-Fish Creek to lead our fellow Albertans to a better future for all of us.
Yours,
JoeyO
Saturday, December 31, 2011
None For The Road
Nation, it's been awhile. I've been pretty busy - it turns out that running for a nomination is every bit as exhausting as I'd imagined. And then multiplied by 10 times. We've got a lot to talk about - and we will. But not today.
I posted the below message on Facebook. If you're in Calgary, I'd encourage you to take note of it as you plan your evening tonight. This isn't about politics. It's not about judgement. It's certainly not about teetotaling (I'm a scotch enthusiast - no scotch lover will EVER judge you for drinking, unless what you're drinking is bad scotch). It's about not driving after you've been drinking. It's about saving lives. Please plan ahead - we've got a big year coming up. :)
- JoeyO (original message appears below)
It’s New Year’s Eve – a great night to bid adieu to 2011, and welcome 2012!
If your celebration is going to involve alcohol, I implore you to NOT DRIVE tonight. Stay the night where you’re at. Take Calgary Transit (it’s free tonight). Arrange for someone in your group to be the designated driver. Or make arrangements through one of the local businesses below.
2012 is going to be a great year. Wake up on January 1st with a clear conscience, in your own bed rather than a jail cell, with your car and your life in one piece. Make the responsible choice.
Designated Driver services (you and your car get home safely)
• Drivers Choice Designated Drivers 403-216-2630
• Keys Please 403-255-4800
Taxi service (you get home safely, pick up your car tomorrow)
• Advance Cab 403-777-1111
• Alberta South Co-Op Taxi Line Ltd. 403-531-8294
• Associated Cabs Ltd 403-299-1111
• Black Top Taxi Company 403-735-3222
• Canadian Cab Co 403-777-1110
• Delta Cab Ltd 403-278-9999
• Checker-Yellow Cabs Ltd. 403-299-9999
• Mayfair Taxi Ltd. 403-255-6555
• Prestige Limousine Service 403-275-4163
I posted the below message on Facebook. If you're in Calgary, I'd encourage you to take note of it as you plan your evening tonight. This isn't about politics. It's not about judgement. It's certainly not about teetotaling (I'm a scotch enthusiast - no scotch lover will EVER judge you for drinking, unless what you're drinking is bad scotch). It's about not driving after you've been drinking. It's about saving lives. Please plan ahead - we've got a big year coming up. :)
- JoeyO (original message appears below)
It’s New Year’s Eve – a great night to bid adieu to 2011, and welcome 2012!
If your celebration is going to involve alcohol, I implore you to NOT DRIVE tonight. Stay the night where you’re at. Take Calgary Transit (it’s free tonight). Arrange for someone in your group to be the designated driver. Or make arrangements through one of the local businesses below.
2012 is going to be a great year. Wake up on January 1st with a clear conscience, in your own bed rather than a jail cell, with your car and your life in one piece. Make the responsible choice.
Designated Driver services (you and your car get home safely)
• Drivers Choice Designated Drivers 403-216-2630
• Keys Please 403-255-4800
Taxi service (you get home safely, pick up your car tomorrow)
• Advance Cab 403-777-1111
• Alberta South Co-Op Taxi Line Ltd. 403-531-8294
• Associated Cabs Ltd 403-299-1111
• Black Top Taxi Company 403-735-3222
• Canadian Cab Co 403-777-1110
• Delta Cab Ltd 403-278-9999
• Checker-Yellow Cabs Ltd. 403-299-9999
• Mayfair Taxi Ltd. 403-255-6555
• Prestige Limousine Service 403-275-4163
Friday, November 18, 2011
Fixing Elections (at least, the dates thereof)
Hope everyone's had a good week. Mine was pretty uneventful. Except for that whole "announcing my intention to run for office and receiving hundreds of messages of support" thing.
I wanted to touch base on the recently released overview of the legislation to be debated during the fall sitting - in particular, Bill 21 (Election Amendment Act). In this Bill, as I understand it, the Lt. Governor will be asked to issue a writ of election every four years, between the dates of March 1st and May 31st, starting in 2012. The election period itself will be 28 days, as is the norm here.
Okay. Are we all on the same page so far?
Opposition to this news was fierce and as predictable as you might expect. Premier Redford (it IS "Premier Redford", Wildrose media copy writers, not "Ms. Redford") promised fixed election dates during the PC Leadership race. What we have, through this Bill, isn't a fixed date as they have elsewhere in Canada or in the U.S., but it is certainly a sign that the Premier is willing to give up at least some of her power to, in fact if not in law, call elections whenever she darned well pleases. You'll recall that there were many pundits who ruminated about a snap election call immediately following the post-leadership Cabinet shuffle in October.
This Bill would, as described, take the option of the "snap election call" off the table. For that matter, it would force the hand of a Premier who was otherwise disinclined to face the voters, as well. We've seen Premiers wait nearly the full 5 years in the past, and we've seen Premiers go back to the voters barely 3 years into their mandate. This bill would put the peg squarely at April 15th every 4 years, and give the government 6 weeks of "wiggle room" on the leash in either direction, in the event of natural calamity, budget deliberations or important matters of government not yet resolved, etc.
It's an extreme example, but serves the argument well: Can you imagine if, by law, an election had to take place on the third Monday of June each year, starting in 2011? On the third Monday of June this year, there was still smoke rising from the rubble of Slave Lake. How do you have a partisan exchange that anyone can care about when you have hundreds of Albertans watching their homes smoulder?
That writ would have been issued, under law, on May 23rd. One week AFTER the tragedy - so sure, you could "suspend" the law in an emergency, the same way the "no deficits" law was suspended. But if you're going to bring in a law that will be selectively enforced, you shouldn't bring it in at all. Laws aren't supposed to be flexible, or they'd be called "guidelines".
Is this the "fixed election date" that I, and many other political nerds, really wanted? Not really... we wanted a day - etched in stone. We wanted to be able to say "the next provincial election will be May 14th, 2012. The one after that will be May 9th, 2016. The one after that will be May 11th, 2020". The argument is simple: Fixed dates give Elections Alberta the chance to find people to work the polls and enumerate the voters. They give the parties time to find good candidates, and fundraise. They show a commitment to democracy, by taking the power out of the Premier's hands to catch the opposition parties unaware.
And while this Bill isn't the Bill that I wanted, or that I would have written... it DOES accomplish those 3 things.
Elections Alberta knows it MUST be ready to go by March 1st, 2012. And again on March 1st, 2016. Although, admittedly, the fuzziness of the exact election period will make it harder to hire staff, since most people need to know when they'll be starting, or will find other jobs. The opposition parties know they have to be fully ready to go by those same dates. And, as the Calgary Sun put it in their editorial today, "... it's hard to believe any opposition party worth its salt could be taken by surprise after this 90-day election period is set in stone...".
Do many Albertans care about democratic reform?
I'd like to think so, but I'm a realist. *I* care about it. Deeply. But I'm part of a small minority on this issue.
This Bill isn't going to turn the balance of power on its ear, and it's not the first shot in a "democratic reform revolution".
But it IS the first step in an EVOLUTION of the way in which we elect our governments.
The first legislated, fixed provincial election date in Canada was held in British Columbia in 2005. We're behind, but we're not THAT far behind.
Evolutions are, by their very nature, slow and gradual.
But when the Biggest Dog in the Yard volunteers to be put on a shorter chain - that's progress.
It's not perfect.
But it's a start, that the Premier was under no obligation to make.
She CHOSE to give up this power, in the interests of a more transparent and democratic system.
And that's something I think we can ALL get behind.
I wanted to touch base on the recently released overview of the legislation to be debated during the fall sitting - in particular, Bill 21 (Election Amendment Act). In this Bill, as I understand it, the Lt. Governor will be asked to issue a writ of election every four years, between the dates of March 1st and May 31st, starting in 2012. The election period itself will be 28 days, as is the norm here.
Okay. Are we all on the same page so far?
Opposition to this news was fierce and as predictable as you might expect. Premier Redford (it IS "Premier Redford", Wildrose media copy writers, not "Ms. Redford") promised fixed election dates during the PC Leadership race. What we have, through this Bill, isn't a fixed date as they have elsewhere in Canada or in the U.S., but it is certainly a sign that the Premier is willing to give up at least some of her power to, in fact if not in law, call elections whenever she darned well pleases. You'll recall that there were many pundits who ruminated about a snap election call immediately following the post-leadership Cabinet shuffle in October.
This Bill would, as described, take the option of the "snap election call" off the table. For that matter, it would force the hand of a Premier who was otherwise disinclined to face the voters, as well. We've seen Premiers wait nearly the full 5 years in the past, and we've seen Premiers go back to the voters barely 3 years into their mandate. This bill would put the peg squarely at April 15th every 4 years, and give the government 6 weeks of "wiggle room" on the leash in either direction, in the event of natural calamity, budget deliberations or important matters of government not yet resolved, etc.
It's an extreme example, but serves the argument well: Can you imagine if, by law, an election had to take place on the third Monday of June each year, starting in 2011? On the third Monday of June this year, there was still smoke rising from the rubble of Slave Lake. How do you have a partisan exchange that anyone can care about when you have hundreds of Albertans watching their homes smoulder?
That writ would have been issued, under law, on May 23rd. One week AFTER the tragedy - so sure, you could "suspend" the law in an emergency, the same way the "no deficits" law was suspended. But if you're going to bring in a law that will be selectively enforced, you shouldn't bring it in at all. Laws aren't supposed to be flexible, or they'd be called "guidelines".
Is this the "fixed election date" that I, and many other political nerds, really wanted? Not really... we wanted a day - etched in stone. We wanted to be able to say "the next provincial election will be May 14th, 2012. The one after that will be May 9th, 2016. The one after that will be May 11th, 2020". The argument is simple: Fixed dates give Elections Alberta the chance to find people to work the polls and enumerate the voters. They give the parties time to find good candidates, and fundraise. They show a commitment to democracy, by taking the power out of the Premier's hands to catch the opposition parties unaware.
And while this Bill isn't the Bill that I wanted, or that I would have written... it DOES accomplish those 3 things.
Elections Alberta knows it MUST be ready to go by March 1st, 2012. And again on March 1st, 2016. Although, admittedly, the fuzziness of the exact election period will make it harder to hire staff, since most people need to know when they'll be starting, or will find other jobs. The opposition parties know they have to be fully ready to go by those same dates. And, as the Calgary Sun put it in their editorial today, "... it's hard to believe any opposition party worth its salt could be taken by surprise after this 90-day election period is set in stone...".
Do many Albertans care about democratic reform?
I'd like to think so, but I'm a realist. *I* care about it. Deeply. But I'm part of a small minority on this issue.
This Bill isn't going to turn the balance of power on its ear, and it's not the first shot in a "democratic reform revolution".
But it IS the first step in an EVOLUTION of the way in which we elect our governments.
The first legislated, fixed provincial election date in Canada was held in British Columbia in 2005. We're behind, but we're not THAT far behind.
Evolutions are, by their very nature, slow and gradual.
But when the Biggest Dog in the Yard volunteers to be put on a shorter chain - that's progress.
It's not perfect.
But it's a start, that the Premier was under no obligation to make.
She CHOSE to give up this power, in the interests of a more transparent and democratic system.
And that's something I think we can ALL get behind.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Announcement
This was never part of the plan.
When I started blogging – exactly 5 years ago, as of
tomorrow – the idea was to help my fellow citizens understand what was going on
in the political world. Nothing more.
I didn’t have any extraordinary connections at the time. I
knew my MLA. That was it: That was all.
I didn’t have a degree in Political Science. I didn’t grow
up in a family of political operatives. To the best of my knowledge, I was the
first member of my family to ever belong to a political party of any kind. I
didn’t have any exceptional qualifications that elevated me above anyone else.
All I had was a computer, time on my hands, and a desire to
help people see through the fog and the baloney.
As time went on, and my readership grew, I realized that
there was an appetite for the kind of plain-spoken, common-sense analysis that
I was providing. People really liked that I was a Progressive Conservative who
was willing to take his own party to task, and to call them out when they
deserved it.
What’s more, though: I began to realize that there was an
appetite not only for that kind of coverage, but for that kind of MLA as well.
The kind that puts good ideas and good governance ahead of partisanship and the
“theatre of the absurd” that politics has become.
When you look at the voter participation numbers in all of
our elections, you see numbers that are embarrassingly low. And while there are
no doubt many different reasons for this lack of participation in the most
fundamental of our societal responsibilities, it’s not hard to imagine that one
of those reasons is the often ridiculous way that many of our elected officials
behave. They name-call. They shout at each other. They don’t tell the whole
truth when asked. Ask 3 of them the same question, and you get 3 versions of
“the facts”. None of these behaviours would be tolerated from our children, and
yet when a politician does it, we not only TOLERATE it, we vote for them – sometimes
for decades - and pay their salary.
Don’t we deserve better from our employees? Shouldn’t our
leaders lead by example?
I came to realize that in order to force the kind of change
I wanted to see, I could do one of two things: I could either write about it
for the next several years, and see if anyone took up the challenge; or, I
could dare to BE the change I wanted to see.
Better to light a candle than curse the dark.
As a teenager growing up in Bonavista Downs, I often
wondered what it would be like to be a politician. I would see shows on television
– usually on Access, as this was “back in the day” of 36 channels – of Peter
Lougheed and John F. Kennedy, and I would imagine what it might be like to step
up and serve your fellow citizens, like they did, and change the world in which
you lived. I would wonder what could drive a person to do a job where half the
people you were trying to help would hate you, all of the time, no matter what
you were doing.
But the desire to serve my neighbours never went away. I
started forming opinions. Opinions formed around the dinner table while
watching how things were unfolding at the time. Opinions challenged by great
teachers at St. Bonaventure Junior High and Bishop Grandin High School. When
the facts changed, I changed my opinions. Politicians call this “flip-flopping”,
to try to talk you out of voting for someone. The rest of us call it
“learning”.
Over the past several years, politics in Alberta has taken a
definite turn for the worse, in my opinion. The money that gets thrown around
in exchange for influence is ridiculous. The personal attacks are disgusting.
The way we are, as citizens, expected to accept this as “the way it has to be”
is, quite frankly, insulting.
We deserve better than this.
They say that “politicians are like diapers; they should be
changed often, and for the same reason”.
I don’t know if that’s true 100% of the time, but as I look
around Calgary-Fish Creek, I see how drastically things have changed over the
past 18 years. Our communities are
different. Our needs and values have changed. The people of this area – my home
– have aspirations and visions for an Alberta 20 years from now that, in 1993,
would have seemed unimaginable. And yet, that future is within our grasp. All
we have to do is dare to talk about it. To talk, as equal partners in that
future, about ideas freely and openly, without fear of being labelled by voices
on the left as “rednecks”, or by voices on the right as “socialists”.
We’re better than that. And we deserve better than the
divisive politics of yesterday.
Politicians always tell you they want to “represent your
interests to the party”. They say they want to be “your voice in Edmonton”. But
what do they do once they’re elected? They tow the party line. They echo
whatever their party leader says. The people of Calgary-Fish Creek, if you
believe the voting record, agreed with absolutely everything Ralph Klein ever
did. And then they agreed with everything Ed Stelmach ever did. Until 2010,
when they started agreeing with everything Danielle Smith said.
Where is your chance to have your voice heard in between
elections? Politicians make big decisions in the 4 years between elections –
sometimes, they even change their mind about which party they belong to. But do
they ever ask you? Do they vote against their own party, when it’s what the
people who elected them – their BOSSES – want them to do?
The TRUTH is, our elected officials don’t work for their
party, or their party’s leader: They work for you. And if they forget that,
even for a minute, you should fire them.
I don’t want to spend the rest of my days arguing about
which ideas are “left wing” and which ones are “right wing”. I don’t believe in
convenient labels that hide the truth. The truth is complicated, and something
that the politicians of yesterday have trouble understanding is that voters
aren’t dumb: We can have mature, adult discussions without a politician in the
room. We can even make decisions without a politician in the room. We can
handle “complicated” ideas.
I want to work with people from all parties, and from no
party. I want to work with people whose backgrounds are as varied as the
languages that you can hear while you walk through Sikome Lake on a July
weekend. I’m not going to pretend I know more than you do about healthcare – I
probably don’t. If you’re a nurse, or a doctor, or a patient, I need to hear
what YOU think. I’m not going to pretend I know more than you about energy
policy – again, I probably don’t. But whether you work on the rigs, or you own
a mid-sized producer, I need to hear what YOU think. We can only face these
challenges of vision and ideas when we hear ALL the ideas, and not just the
ones the person at the front of the room already agrees with (or, that their
party leader agrees with).
It’s time to move past the politics of immaturity and
divisiveness. It’s time to stop pretending the voters whose candidate didn’t
win don’t matter in between elections. It’s time to demand better of our
elected officials. It’s time to take back our voice from the special interests
and big donors who drown the rest of us out with their big donation cheques and
special access.
The people in Calgary-Fish Creek have always stood up for
what is right, and for what makes sense.
We need change, as a province, as a government, and as the
Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta.
Yesterday is done. Some of it was great. Some of it, not so
much. But it’s in the past. We can respect it, and learn lessons from it,
without repeating it.
The future is today. It’s now. It can’t wait, and it won’t
be held back. If we don’t embrace change as a party, Albertans will force
change at the ballot box. And they’ll be right to do so.
I believe in our party, and the people within it. I believe
they see the need to change. And I believe that we, in Calgary-Fish Creek, can
lead the charge by sending an Agent of Change to Edmonton, to let them see that
“politics as usual” isn’t good enough any more.
And so, it is with humility and a great sense of purpose
that I announce my intention to seek the nomination for the Progressive
Conservative Association of Alberta in the constituency of Calgary-Fish Creek –
to serve my neighbours in the way they deserve to be served.
There goes the neighbourhood.
Campaign Website: http://www.joeyo.ca
“Like” us on Facebook: http://o4u.ca/facebook“Follow” JoeyO on Twitter: @oberhoffner
Email your questions and comments to JoeyO at: joey@o-mail.ca
Friday, November 11, 2011
Be Yours To Hold It High
Remembrance.
Simple - yet, for some, oh so hard.
It's more than a poppy. It's more than a day off of work, or school.
Everything that we have - EVERYTHING - we owe to those brave enough to put on a uniform, to stand in front of the enemy, and to die so that we might live.
Every political quabble we have. Every election - whether we choose to vote, or not. Every difference of opinion across partisan lines. None of these things happens without the bravery and sacrifice - past, present, and future - of our men and women in uniform.
Those whose lives are marked by a simple white gravestone or cross are forever to be remembered as heroes. Those who came home, whether from Germany in 1945 or from Afghanistan in 2010, have sacrificed for us again and again every night, when they close their eyes and relive the horrors they saw while defending the defenceless.
Remember them. All of them.
The video is of a Vancouver men's chorus performing a Stephen Chatman arrangement of the seminal poem "In Flanders' Fields". I have performed this work in the past, and it absolutely rips your guts out to sing it in a room full of Veterans. Powerful.
Simple - yet, for some, oh so hard.
It's more than a poppy. It's more than a day off of work, or school.
Everything that we have - EVERYTHING - we owe to those brave enough to put on a uniform, to stand in front of the enemy, and to die so that we might live.
Every political quabble we have. Every election - whether we choose to vote, or not. Every difference of opinion across partisan lines. None of these things happens without the bravery and sacrifice - past, present, and future - of our men and women in uniform.
Those whose lives are marked by a simple white gravestone or cross are forever to be remembered as heroes. Those who came home, whether from Germany in 1945 or from Afghanistan in 2010, have sacrificed for us again and again every night, when they close their eyes and relive the horrors they saw while defending the defenceless.
Remember them. All of them.
The video is of a Vancouver men's chorus performing a Stephen Chatman arrangement of the seminal poem "In Flanders' Fields". I have performed this work in the past, and it absolutely rips your guts out to sing it in a room full of Veterans. Powerful.
Friday, October 28, 2011
We Get It
Sorry for the relative silence of late, Nation - those of you following me on Twitter will have seen a lot of activity, but I haven't made it back to the Mothership at ES.com for a couple of weeks.
I am happy to announce, though, that I've taken on a couple of exciting new projects. One with the Calgary Herald - you'll get more information about that in the coming weeks. The other, though, is with OpenFile, a community-powered online news organization. In effect, they assign writers to cover stories suggested by you. I've already written 3 articles for them, and I'd encourage you to go check out the site!
What I wanted to write about today, however, was the "Occupy Calgary" movement - or, more specifically, about their "occupation" of Olympic Plaza.
I don't really have a lot to say about Occupy Calgary. There are people involved with the movement who I know and respect. Those people, I can say with absolute certainty, are involved for all the right reasons. They see injustice, and they want to do something about it. I applaud their devotion to their fellow human beings, and even if I don't necessarily agree with their proposed solutions, at least they're proposing SOMETHING. There are a lot of people involved with the movement who are, by contrast, just hangers-on. And you see that in every group, including political parties. So the fact that the Occupy folks have some "whack-jobs" (according to the local press) with them doesn't negate what they're trying to do. We've all got "whack-jobs" around us. Sometimes they even make it onto the ballot.
For the past 2 weeks, the Occupy Calgary folks have camped out in Olympic Plaza. And by most accounts, they've been exceedingly well-behaved for the most part. We, the people of Calgary and our elected leaders, have shown the protesters that they do, in fact, have the freedom to assemble. Those who showed up expecting to be martyrs to "The Man"'s oppressive black-clad shock troops, pepper sprayed and hauled off in chains on television went home sorely disappointed.
Those who remain are protesting inequality. They're protesting inequity. They're protesting concentration of power in the hands of a few. They're protesting the injustice that they see when they look at our system - and though I don't agree that things are as bleak as they see them, I've been perfectly content in knowing that the same system that allows me to live my life free of fear from intimidation by the state also allows them the right to protest the condition of the system as they see it. That's what great grandpa came here for. That's what grandpa went back to Germany and shot at his cousins for.
Your right to swing your fist, however, ends at the point of my nose. Exercising your rights at the expense of the rights of others is one of the things that the well-intentioned Occupy Calgary protesters are trying to fight against. And now, in terms of the Olympic Plaza occupation, they're becoming part of the problem.
What they ARE asking me to do is to give up my right to make use of Olympic Plaza indefinitely. And, with respect, that's not something I'm willing to do any longer. It's not a huge park, but it's ours: ALL of ours. They've had their 2 weeks. They've been exercising their rights. It's not an issue of being "allowed" to do it - it's their right. But it's my right to access the park as well. And yours. And your neighbours. And if the past 2 weeks have been about Occupation, then we should - ALL of us - act to Liberate our park. Call your Alderman. Call 311. Tell them we'd like our park back. Take no aggressive action whatsoever against our fellow citizens in that park, exercising their rights - we're all in this together. But if 80,000 of us show up next Tuesday, and fill every square inch of that plaza with laughing Calgarians, enjoying their public space... well, we'll be exercising our rights too. And if there's no room for the occupiers at that point, that's unfortunate for them. But that's democracy.
We're the 99%.
We'd like our park back, please.
I am happy to announce, though, that I've taken on a couple of exciting new projects. One with the Calgary Herald - you'll get more information about that in the coming weeks. The other, though, is with OpenFile, a community-powered online news organization. In effect, they assign writers to cover stories suggested by you. I've already written 3 articles for them, and I'd encourage you to go check out the site!
What I wanted to write about today, however, was the "Occupy Calgary" movement - or, more specifically, about their "occupation" of Olympic Plaza.
I don't really have a lot to say about Occupy Calgary. There are people involved with the movement who I know and respect. Those people, I can say with absolute certainty, are involved for all the right reasons. They see injustice, and they want to do something about it. I applaud their devotion to their fellow human beings, and even if I don't necessarily agree with their proposed solutions, at least they're proposing SOMETHING. There are a lot of people involved with the movement who are, by contrast, just hangers-on. And you see that in every group, including political parties. So the fact that the Occupy folks have some "whack-jobs" (according to the local press) with them doesn't negate what they're trying to do. We've all got "whack-jobs" around us. Sometimes they even make it onto the ballot.
For the past 2 weeks, the Occupy Calgary folks have camped out in Olympic Plaza. And by most accounts, they've been exceedingly well-behaved for the most part. We, the people of Calgary and our elected leaders, have shown the protesters that they do, in fact, have the freedom to assemble. Those who showed up expecting to be martyrs to "The Man"'s oppressive black-clad shock troops, pepper sprayed and hauled off in chains on television went home sorely disappointed.
Those who remain are protesting inequality. They're protesting inequity. They're protesting concentration of power in the hands of a few. They're protesting the injustice that they see when they look at our system - and though I don't agree that things are as bleak as they see them, I've been perfectly content in knowing that the same system that allows me to live my life free of fear from intimidation by the state also allows them the right to protest the condition of the system as they see it. That's what great grandpa came here for. That's what grandpa went back to Germany and shot at his cousins for.
Your right to swing your fist, however, ends at the point of my nose. Exercising your rights at the expense of the rights of others is one of the things that the well-intentioned Occupy Calgary protesters are trying to fight against. And now, in terms of the Olympic Plaza occupation, they're becoming part of the problem.
It's been 2 weeks. We've noticed them. We get it: They're unhappy, and they want the system to be better. But by remaining in this public park as long as they have, they're now infringing on the rights of others to enjoy this public space.If they're committed to staying out there as long as it takes - winter-be-darned - then I'd suggest they move to another downtown park for a week. And then another. And then another. Make one of your "moving days" on November 11th, and plan your route to go past the cenotaph, so everyone can see you walking past, paying your respects to the men and women who died to protect the rights you're exercising. Or head over to the "main camp" at St. Patrick's Island. If that's how they want to try to work for change, then power to 'em. I have my doubts as to the effectiveness, but they're not asking me for strategic advice.
What they ARE asking me to do is to give up my right to make use of Olympic Plaza indefinitely. And, with respect, that's not something I'm willing to do any longer. It's not a huge park, but it's ours: ALL of ours. They've had their 2 weeks. They've been exercising their rights. It's not an issue of being "allowed" to do it - it's their right. But it's my right to access the park as well. And yours. And your neighbours. And if the past 2 weeks have been about Occupation, then we should - ALL of us - act to Liberate our park. Call your Alderman. Call 311. Tell them we'd like our park back. Take no aggressive action whatsoever against our fellow citizens in that park, exercising their rights - we're all in this together. But if 80,000 of us show up next Tuesday, and fill every square inch of that plaza with laughing Calgarians, enjoying their public space... well, we'll be exercising our rights too. And if there's no room for the occupiers at that point, that's unfortunate for them. But that's democracy.
We're the 99%.
We'd like our park back, please.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Cabinet Calls
Nation, Premier Alison Redford told her caucus late last week that the new cabinet would be notified on Tuesday of this week, the day before being sworn in. Her instruction to all was to "Not worry about it, and enjoy your weekend with family".
Well, I hope everyone had a good time, because it's about to get all political up in this piece. As we say in the 'hood, yo.
I've spoken now with several very reliable sources, as well as making my own judgement calls based on geography, history, performance, gender balance, etc. MLA's whose names have come up will be divided into one of three categories: NOT IN CABINET (no chance), ALMOST CERTAINLY IN CABINET (80% or higher), and LIKELY IN CABINET (50 to 80%).
Here we go...
NOT IN CABINET
6 members of the current cabinet are heavily rumoured to be in for a bad week:
Also on the bubble (might be in, but odds are less than 50%) from the current cabinet:
For those of you keeping score at home, that's as many as FOURTEEN current cabinet ministers who would not be sitting around the table on Wednesday afternoon. That's some serious, whole-scale change.
LIKELY IN CABINET
ALMOST CERTAINLY IN CABINET
There are some names notable by their absence in any of the above categories... Evan Berger is the current Parliamentary Assistant for SRD, and may or may not get a phone call tomorrow. Robin Campbell will, in all likelihood, remain the Government Whip. Likewise, expect Ken Kowalski to stay on as Speaker. Cal Dallas from Red Deer is another Parliamentary Assistant whose name has come up a few times. Doug Elniski from Edmonton-Calder and Dave Rodney from Calgary-Lougheed both supported Redford on the second ballot, and sources are split on whether or not they get in. One specific rumour had Rodney taking over at Tourism, Parks and Recreation. He's an avid outdoorsman, and (if you haven't heard) climbed Mt. Everest. Two times. You could do a lot worse than a Parks Minister who poses for photo ops on top of mountains that he just climbed up, while the camera crew took a helicopter. Former Solicitor General Fred Lindsay is said to be on the bubble, and likewise with former school board trustee and Danielle Smith nemesis Teresa Woo-Paw. It could go either way for them.
CABINET SNAPSHOT
If you take a look at the cabinet that would be constructed using just those people listed as "Likely in Cabinet" and "Almost Certainly in Cabinet", here's what you get as a demographic break-down:
Is this the final, be-all-and-end-all listing of exactly who is going to be in, who is going to be out, and where they'll end up?
Of course not.
Some of these predictions are going to be flat-out wrong. That's the beauty of prognostication. That's what makes it fun - if Daveberta and I both had the exact same lists, one of us could just take the week off (it'd be me, just for the record).
Let's not overlook the possibility that some of the ministries named above might not even EXIST after Wednesday. Departments get moved from ministry to ministry, new ministries are formed while old ones get swept aside... I've done the same job for 6 years, in the same office, and I've worked for 3 different ministries. So I know full well how it works.
But, as a fun exercise in politics - this has definitely been worth staying up until 3 am.
And if you think *I'VE* had a late night... ask one of the MLA's on the bubble how well they're going to sleep tonight.
Reminder, MLA's - set that cell phone to ring at highest volume. "Silent Mode" is not your friend this Tuesday.
Well, I hope everyone had a good time, because it's about to get all political up in this piece. As we say in the 'hood, yo.
I've spoken now with several very reliable sources, as well as making my own judgement calls based on geography, history, performance, gender balance, etc. MLA's whose names have come up will be divided into one of three categories: NOT IN CABINET (no chance), ALMOST CERTAINLY IN CABINET (80% or higher), and LIKELY IN CABINET (50 to 80%).
Here we go...
NOT IN CABINET
6 members of the current cabinet are heavily rumoured to be in for a bad week:
- Cindy Ady - Backed Mar, but served ably as Minister of Tourism, Parks & Recreation. A surprising omission, if true.
- Lindsay Blackett - One of Doug Horner's big supporters, Blackett was the point man for the disastrous Bill 44. If Redford is going to revisit this bill as is rumoured, she can't have its principal sponsor on the front bench.
- Iris Evans - Iris was so integral to the Mar campaign she actually served as his proxy in a Calgary forum. Not expected to run again, she was rumoured to be strongly considered as Mar's replacement in Washington D.C. had he been successful.
- Yvonne Fritz - Surprising to see a third woman from the current cabinet being shown the door, if accurate.
- Ron Liepert - Gary Mar's right-hand man during the leadership, Ron's remarks since the conclusion of the race have shown he's unwilling to accept Redford as his leader. There's a line between disagreement and insurrection.
- Lloyd Snelgrove - "If she offered me a job, I would say no". 'Nuff said.
Also on the bubble (might be in, but odds are less than 50%) from the current cabinet:
- Hec Goudreau
- Mary Anne Jablonski
- Heather Klimchuk
- Mel Knight
- Luke Ouellette
- Rob Renner
- Len Webber
- Gene Zwozdesky
For those of you keeping score at home, that's as many as FOURTEEN current cabinet ministers who would not be sitting around the table on Wednesday afternoon. That's some serious, whole-scale change.
LIKELY IN CABINET
- Manmeet Bhullar - the current Parliamentary Assistant for Municipal Affairs, Bhullar is a good MLA who might be making the jump to the Big Leagues. His campaign volunteers are among the most visible in the city of Calgary, and as one of the Legislature's youngest MLA's, Manmeet certainly helps make the case that "this isn't your grand-daddy's PC Party".
- Jonathan Denis - one of the unlucky ministers whose ministry will almost certainly be folded into a new Ministry of Human Services, Denis nonetheless proved his mettle as Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs, achieving tremendous results while simultaneously cutting spending in his own ministry, seemingly with a chainsaw. It'd be a terrible oversight to not include him.
- Doug Griffiths - the former Leadership Candidate won a lot of respect with his campaign for the party's top job. His willingness to talk about the tough issues would make him an asset to Redford in a position where he could implement some of the changes he was talking about on the hustings. His support of Mar (instead of Redford, as expected) on the 2nd ballot might keep him out of a "top 5" spot on the depth chart, but his work ethic, enthusiasm and image as an agent of change should get him a fairly visible portfolio.
- Thomas Lukaszuk - The current Minister of Employment and Immigration, Lukaszuk has managed to stay out of the limelight while still delivering on the priorities of his boss. Which is exactly what you look for in a safe cabinet pick. He's said to be under consideration for the new Human Services ministry.
- Greg Weadick - the Minister of Advanced Education & Technology, Weadick is a parent of 2 post-secondary students and a very popular political institution in his hometown of Lethbridge. Weadick supported Horner in the leadership, but did so respectfully. If he moves ministries, he's considered a good fit for Infrastructure as well.
ALMOST CERTAINLY IN CABINET
- Ray Danyluk - Current Minister of Infrastructure backed Horner, but has a good relationship with Redford and has a tremendously active membership base in his home riding.
- Dave Hancock - The dean of Red Torydom, Hancock is one of only 4 PC MLA's with a Law degree who isn't busy being the Premier right now. He's rumoured to be moving to Justice.
- Fred Horne - The current Parliamentary Assistant for Health and Wellness will be moving down the hall, to assume the full Minister's job for Health. Hope he's developed some thick skin - his friend Raj is going to be calling on him quite a bit in Question Period.
- Doug Horner - Will likely be in charge of the Treasury Board, in addition to his job as Deputy Premier.
- Jeff Johnson - The MLA for Athabasca-Redwater is rumoured to be getting the call as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development.
- Art Johnston - Defeated for the PC nomination in Calgary-South East, Johnston may try again for the nomination in Hays. Redford's only first-ballot MLA endorsement came from Johnston, who as a former cop would be ideal as a Solicitor General.
- Diana McQueen - One of the rising stars in the PC Caucus, McQueen has been talked about as a potential Minister of the Environment or Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Even if she doesn't end up with either of those posts, she's almost universally expected to end up SOMEWHERE in cabinet.
- Ted Morton - The 4th-place finisher in the Leadership contest will need a pretty plum job to come back to the party that has twice rejected him and agree to play nice and run again for the good of party unity. He's expected to be named Minister of Energy.
- Frank Oberle - Oberle is a natural fit for Sustainable Resource Development, however the scuttlebutt is that the current Solicitor General is in line for a big promotion - perhaps Finance?
- Verlyn Olson - Currently the Minister of Justice, Olson is expected to stay in cabinet - if Hancock doesn't take the justice portfolio, Olson will stay where he is.
There are some names notable by their absence in any of the above categories... Evan Berger is the current Parliamentary Assistant for SRD, and may or may not get a phone call tomorrow. Robin Campbell will, in all likelihood, remain the Government Whip. Likewise, expect Ken Kowalski to stay on as Speaker. Cal Dallas from Red Deer is another Parliamentary Assistant whose name has come up a few times. Doug Elniski from Edmonton-Calder and Dave Rodney from Calgary-Lougheed both supported Redford on the second ballot, and sources are split on whether or not they get in. One specific rumour had Rodney taking over at Tourism, Parks and Recreation. He's an avid outdoorsman, and (if you haven't heard) climbed Mt. Everest. Two times. You could do a lot worse than a Parks Minister who poses for photo ops on top of mountains that he just climbed up, while the camera crew took a helicopter. Former Solicitor General Fred Lindsay is said to be on the bubble, and likewise with former school board trustee and Danielle Smith nemesis Teresa Woo-Paw. It could go either way for them.
CABINET SNAPSHOT
If you take a look at the cabinet that would be constructed using just those people listed as "Likely in Cabinet" and "Almost Certainly in Cabinet", here's what you get as a demographic break-down:
- 16 members, of which only 2 are women (Redford & McQueen). This will obviously not be the case, for political reasons. Expect cabinet to be 20 or 21 members - it will absolutely have more than 2 women.
- 4 from Calgary (5 counting Morton), 3 from Edmonton, 8 from the Rest of Alberta. Again, obviously, this can't be the final break-down for reasons of political survival.
- 6 would be first-time cabinet ministers. 10 would have prior experience.
- 7 would be under 45 years old.
- 8 - fully half of them - would be first-term MLA's, elected for the first time in March of 2008.
Is this the final, be-all-and-end-all listing of exactly who is going to be in, who is going to be out, and where they'll end up?
Of course not.
Some of these predictions are going to be flat-out wrong. That's the beauty of prognostication. That's what makes it fun - if Daveberta and I both had the exact same lists, one of us could just take the week off (it'd be me, just for the record).
Let's not overlook the possibility that some of the ministries named above might not even EXIST after Wednesday. Departments get moved from ministry to ministry, new ministries are formed while old ones get swept aside... I've done the same job for 6 years, in the same office, and I've worked for 3 different ministries. So I know full well how it works.
But, as a fun exercise in politics - this has definitely been worth staying up until 3 am.
And if you think *I'VE* had a late night... ask one of the MLA's on the bubble how well they're going to sleep tonight.
Reminder, MLA's - set that cell phone to ring at highest volume. "Silent Mode" is not your friend this Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)