Category Archives: Alberta Election 2012

Resignation Bingo!

Posted on by
1

 

I was planning to put this game together sometime near the beginning of the legislative session. Alas, the Wildrose Party jumped the gun on me with their demanding the firing/resignation of Fred Horne in mid-summer so I decided I had better get on this as who knows how many stamps may be gained before the legislature even manages to sit for a full session.

There are few opposition tactics that are as shallow, abused, over-used and lazy as that of demanding the resignation of a government minister or member over an issue. Perhaps Horne’s firing is warranted but I tell you what; now that Smith has demanded he be fired there is practically no way that Horne will be shuffled or fired anytime soon. All the same, this is the first demand for a resignation/firing by the Wildrose since the election so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt in that this is just something of a one-off or that Horne really needs to go that badly.

It can be argued that one of Canada’s most fiscally conservative governments in recent memory was under Jean Chretien with a Reform Party opposition. A strong and responsible opposition can have a great influence upon a sitting government. The only way an opposition party can wield power though is to truly threaten the sitting government’s position in power. That position will not be attained if the opposition simply consists of demanding the resignation of ministers every time something happens under their watch.

Once an opposition party demands the resignation/firing of a government member, unless that member has done something huge, possibly criminal and totally unforgivable, that member will become even more deeply entrenched in government. Pride and political points come into play once a resignation is demanded. If a member is performing terribly and the opposition keeps hammering on and exposing those actions, that member may indeed eventually step down or be shuffled soon. Once a resignation/firing is demanded however, the chance of getting rid of that member goes from being simply unlikely to that of an icecube’s hope in hell.

Public cynicism with politics  in general is growing. The indignant howlings by parties on all sides in legislatures both federally and provincially are adding to that growing disconnection between citizens and elected officials. Few actions can aid in that better than a frivolous call for a resignation/firing of a member. I am not suggesting that the legislature try to emulate the rainbow and lollipop approach to debate that the Alberta Party proposed (leading to their utter electoral slaughter). A heated and emotional debate in the legislature can be engaging and productive. That debate needs to be carefully crafted though and opposition will have to work carefully to guide that.

In coming to this legislative session the Wildrose Party can choose between two potential roles; it can accept that it has replaced the Alberta Liberals in a position of permanent opposition, or it can act as a true government in waiting that is currently serving in opposition. The second option will not be achieved if frivolous calls for the resignation of government members remain common.

I am looking forward to what I hope is one of the best legislative sessions that we have seen in a decade.

The card I modelled has the current cabinet along with a few backbench wildcards. I will continue to update and mark it as calls for firings/resignations from opposition members add up. The color of the stamp will represent which opposition party demanded the firing/resignation.

Lets hope that the card does not fill up with stamps quickly. I don’t really want this bingo card to be a blackout winner.

Cory what the hell are you doing?

Posted on by
1

I figured that blog heading best captures the content and tone of many communications that I have gotten through phone and email in this last week or so. I may as well get to the point here.

I have been involved with the Wildrose Party since it’s inception as well as rather strongly involved with the Alberta Alliance Party before it. I have acted in many roles from different positions on the provincial executive to candidate in the 2008 election to moderating the last leadership debates to hosting the party’s headquarters in my office space for a couple years. No by the way, I am not trying to claim that the party owes me something, it does not. I do want to make it clear that I am a dedicated longtime supporter and member of the Wildrose Party. I did not come out of nowhere to raise a stink and I certainly am not a plant from the PCs as one idiot has already implied.

I am not giving up on the Wildrose Party nor am I recommending that anybody else does so. The Wildrose Party is the potentially the best government in waiting in the wings in Alberta and I do hope it forms government down the road.

The above being said, the Wildrose Party has slipped rather badly in it’s grassroots based governance in the last few years as I have been demonstrating in some critical blog postings here, here and here.  I likely will have a few more postings that may make some uncomfortable in the next little while.

I am an unapologetic partisan and have written on that.

I fully understand the need for people to work as a cohesive group for a common cause in politics if anything is going to be done. I understand how loyalty to one’s party obligates one to have to accept some practices, people and actions that may not be what one feels are ideal. Compromise is part of working in a team environment even when the team is made up of stubborn individualists.

Something I have learned though is being loyal to one’s party does not mean that one should stay silent when they see wrongdoing. On the contrary, when things are going in the wrong direction a person should feel obligated to speak up.

The drift has been incremental with the party. I am as responsible as many as I sat silently as we saw one more undercutting of the grassroots after another. Just one more nomination meddled with here and there or just one more principle set aside.

I stayed silent. When speaking up from within (as some are counselling me to do now), I hit the same old rationales from people. “Just let it go, now isn’t the time to deal with that.” or “This is how all the heavyweight parties do it.” or “It’s just the way it is with parties. Learn to look the other way.” or “Just hang on until the election.”

In answering all of those:

If not now, when?

I don’t care how the other parties do things, we are supposed to be different.

The election is past and I can’t think of a better time than now to dig into some of the issues with the party.

As I pointed out in a past posting, only one of the elected 2010 board ran for re-election in 2011 which is more than a little telling of problems. I don’t want to simply walk away. I have put too much into the party these last years to do so and the potential is still all there (I am not going back on the board though).

The vast majority of the members and supporters of the Wildrose Party share the same solid grassroots principles of members being the final authority in party governance. Our party constitution strongly supports this and an active principled provincial executive can address and solve pretty much any issue with the party. They are very empowered constitutionally and have a mandate of being elected by the membership.

As I have posted earlier, some odd business happened with the nominations and elections of the last board in 2011. Very few people applied for the jobs (surprising in such a growing party but unsurprising considering how hidden the process was) and we ended up with a dysfunctional board that only held five meetings in an election year as I posted. As I implied before, I do not feel that this marginalized board was a mistake and do feel that it was purposely set aside to allow others to govern the party unencumbered by executive questions. Even if it was just somehow a sheer fluke of luck that the board happened to be so invisible and unmotivated as opposed to being purposely constructed that way, it is clear that the board needs to be replaced.

As pointed out in earlier postings as well, it has been incredibly difficult finding out even when and where the Wildrose Party AGM was to be held and it took some pressure to get that out. There are many great potential party executive members out there but how will they apply and get elected if the party won’t aid with information as to when where and how to run for those positions? The cutoff for running is 65 days before the event and the cutoff for event notification is 60 days. Since the party won’t put out the call for grassroots executive nominees, I will. As I said, I will not sit back silently any longer.

Despite some blaming the last election loss on policy, the party’s policy will not be on the table at the coming AGM. I would think policy discussion would be something of a priority right now. Perhaps if we had an effective executive such oversights would not happen.

The foundation of the Wildrose Party is excellent. Our leader is exceptional and there are some great members of caucus who I don’t doubt will impress in opposition in these next four years. The Wildrose Party can (and I hope it does) turn itself into the party that Albertans are ready to embrace as their next government. This will only happen if the party stays true to it’s founding principles though and if members and supporters stay silent when things go the wrong way, that will never happen.

So in answering the question at the beginning: I am taking the tough but necessary steps required for the membership to regain control of the Wildrose Party in speaking up about what has been happening. I have pointed out some of the problems and have pointed out the solution. Nothing will be solved if we stay silent and we won’t fix anything in Alberta by turning ourselves into the party that we want to replace in government.

Speaking of “no meet” committees…..

Posted on by
2

With some less than gentle prodding on this blog, it has been finally (almost grudgingly) confirmed that the Wildrose Party will be holding it’s AGM on November 23-24 in Edmonton at the Mayfair Inn. While this information is still not on the Wildrose Party website, a tweet from Danielle Smith has confirmed this.

 A tweet from Wildrose Party VP Policy (Rob Ladouceur) has confirmed that policy and the party constitution will not be on the agenda at this year’s Annual General Meeting. It is unfortunate that getting answers for what should be simple questions is like pulling teeth these days and the best information comes from twitter rather than party releases or even the Wildrose Party website.

The bottom line is that the party is between a rock and a hard place. When it was discovered that an Annual General Meeting was a legal obligation, one was hastily slapped together for late November in Edmonton. The Wildrose Party constitution states that 120 days of notice must be given to members if policy or constitutional changes are to be considered. The deadline is past so it is impossible for policy and constitutional issues of the party to be addressed at the upcoming meeting. This is most unfortunate as so many have been saying that the Wildrose Party needs some robust policy debates soon.

There is one important matter that can and will be addressed at this fall’s AGM and that is the election of the Wildrose Party’s executive committee. Now according to section 5.1.1 of the Wildrose Party constitution: “Authority within the Party resides in it’s members”.  That is a huge and critical principle and it is the foundation of the entire party.

The only real way the members can exercise that authority is through the direct election of the party executive committee. An active party executive ensures that the members concerns are addressed and should communicate between the membership and other elements within the party.

The Wildrose Party’s current executive committee apparently only held five meetings between June 2011 and June 2012!

 The above statement can be verified by any Constituency Association President through viewing the minutes of the executive meetings as per section 7.18 of the Wildrose Party constitution.

What kind of party oversight is being provided when the Executive Committee only meets on average once every 73 days (in an election year no less)? In those few meetings apparently time was usually not set aside for reports from provincial directors so to those candidates and constituency volunteers who felt that their voices were not being heard by the powers that be in the party; you were absolutely right. While some PDs did want to raise issues and concerns to the board, they simply did not have the means or authority to call meetings.

Party President Paul Collins (who was unsurprisingly somehow acclaimed at the last AGM) while enjoying wearing the hat of Party President has been quite derelict in his duties. The responsibility to call board meetings is upon the Party President and it appears that Paul had little interest in going to that trouble. Outside of the board, has anybody really seen much of Paul Collins? I recall past presidents popping in to Constituency Association meetings and helping out greatly on the ground. Our current president has been largely invisible. This is indeed what happens when a party Executive has been stacked and given an unwritten mandate to marginalize itself. This allowed a certain element of staffers and the like to run and operate the party unencumbered by such things as member guidance and oversight.

If the Wildrose Party is going to stay true to it’s grassroots basis, the members must elect active members of their own choosing to the Provincial Executive this fall. It is simply inexcusable that a group of people tasked to such important duties could barely meet every second month. Executive meetings are easy to call and hold. The vast majority of them are through teleconference and last a couple hours. We used to hold them at least monthly.

Some may claim that the board did not need to meet much as committees actually took care of much of the party business. That is simply bunk. The committees of note are formed by the Executive Committee and report to the Executive Committee. How can that be effectively be happening if the Executive Committee barely ever meets?

I know that many members of the Executive Committee have worked very hard volunteering in all sorts of roles within the party. That does not compensate for the lack of meetings where important issues and party direction should be discussed. The board is not there to micromanage the affairs of the party, but it does (or should) provide a critical form of oversight and guidance in party affairs.

The Wildrose Party has a little less than four years to prepare for the next election. One crucial step in becoming the party that a majority of Albertans can trust and embrace will be having the membership of the party resoundingly reclaiming control of the party at this year’s AGM. We need to prepare now and gather the right group of people to take part in the provincial board. If we do not speak up and act, the Wildrose Party will simply get another token “no meet”  executive committee and accountability to the membership will be lost for another year.

One final note, I am not seeking a position on the next provincial board. Been there, done that. I just want to speak up and ensure that we get a proper and functional board at this coming AGM. Nothing else is on the agenda there anyway.

How about a date?

Posted on by
4

In my last posting I covered how the Wildrose Party needs to earn the trust of Albertans and how the party could make great strides in that regard if they acted more openly and trustworthy with their own affairs.

That posting was inspired by the growing controversy and discussion happening around an interview that Danielle Smith had a little while ago where it appeared that Smith may be taking some liberties in statements on policy positions and policies without prior member input.

Danielle Smith’s musings in that interview led to concerns being expressed from some socially conservative members within the party as well as those who (like myself) are very committed to maintaining a member driven and controlled means of policy formulation. Danielle is indeed most entitled to her views but when speaking for the party she  is indeed obligated to speak for the party, not herself.

Now what most people have agreed upon is that there certainly will be some rousing and important discussion at the Wildrose Party’s next AGM. It has been a pivotal election year and many things have been learned. Now it is time for the Wildrose Party to gather it’s membership and to discuss as a whole how we plan to move forward as a party that is both serving in official opposition and aspiring to form government down the road.

I like to think I am generally pretty tapped into many inside sources with the party and have heard multiple rumors about where the date and the venue of the party’s next AGM ranging from October 2012-April 2013 and at locations from Red Deer to Edmonton to even Canmore for crying out loud.

The Wildrose Party website is devoid of information and nobody is officially speaking up. This should be a simple thing should it not? You schedule a meeting and you hold the damn thing. The word “annual” in the name should ease the stress of wondering how often one should hold these sorts of things.

The date and location of an Annual General Meeting is hardly any sort of proprietary secret and there is no real good reason (on the surface) that such information should be withheld from members. It has been about 14 months since the last AGM as of this posting by the way.

This made me dig yet a little more deeply. According to the constitution of the Wildrose Party, despite being named an AGM, an annual general meeting needs only to be held every two years.  Unfortunately this leads to quite a conundrum as technically the Wildrose Party is a society bound by the rules of the Alberta Societies Act which states that an Annual General Meeting is (wait for it…….) an annual obligation under section 25.  The constitution of the party is trumped by the societies act here.

Now some hair splitting may be done here and the meeting potentially can wait until the 18 month period. That does mean according to the Party Constitution that notice must be given to members 120 days before the date of the AGM if policies and constitutional changes are to be contemplated.  Now I know that I as a member have not gotten this notice nor have I heard of any other members getting it. The clock is ticking rather quickly on this one.

Another oddball clause with the Party AGMs covers the nominations for the executive. I will quote the whole thing below:

7.2 Not less than 90 days prior to any annual general meeting of the Party, the Executive Committee shall create the Nominating Committee consisting of three members. It shall be the duty of this committee to nominate candidates for the officer positions to be filled at the Annual General Meeting. Candidates for officer positions and all officers must be members in good standing of the Party. The nominating committee shall report to the Executive Committee prior to the notice of the Annual General Meeting being sent to all members and such report shall be included in the notice of the Annual General Meeting. Nominations may be made by any member up to 65 days prior to the date of the annual general meeting and will be included in the notice of the Annual General Meeting.

That statement is quite a mouthful. Now what is really concerning here is that one can’t be nominated past 65 days before the meeting yet the notice of the Annual General Meeting can be as little as 60 days if there is not to be policy discussion. This sort of makes it difficult for people to know if, how or when people may consider nominations for the board. This complexity is no mistake.

It may be noted that no directions for the pursuit of executive positions are available on the website and I assure you not everybody reads the entire constitution of political parties. It is conceivable that a 60 day notice could be issued and nobody of course aside from those personally chosen or somehow discovered by the committee (no information on how to reach this hypothetical committee) will be able to run for executive spots.

At last year’s AGM, only one person from the prior executive ran for re-election. The rest including myself gave up on the party board and did not run again. That should ring alarm bells to many in itself. Why would none of the executive members want to run for the position again when the party was growing so strongly at the time? That issue in itself is worthy of another likely long blog posting soon as it is part of another problem within the Wildrose Party at the management level. Now this led to a pile of acclaimed and weakly contested positions for top executive positions within the party as nobody even knew how to even find the committee in charge. On top of it all; the few contested executive positions that there were actually had asterisks indicating party endorsement for certain people next to their names!! The party committee actually took sides and made endorsements for the executive positions. This is reprehensible and completely contrary to grassroots principles. Still sadly, we let it slide. Nobody wanted to rock the boat on the way to a potential election.

Now with all of the above issues, what the Wildrose Party gained in the last AGM was an executive board that was handpicked and proved itself to be ineffective and neutered. No longer did the powers that be have to contend with an uppity board as the prior one was which gave up and did not run again. Executive meetings since the last election have been rare and essentially pointless as the party executive has allowed (or been built) to marginalize itself.

We have less than four years here people and if the Wildrose Party is going to get it’s crap together it needs to start now. People have been engaged by the populist appearance and apparent principles of the party. For the most part those principles and goals exist among the membership. The main means of empowerment for the membership is the election of the party executive. This is how the members may participate and retain control of the party and policy direction even if some staffers and the odd MLA feel that the membership is a hindrance.

The constitution empowers the members of the Wildrose Party and for good reason.

In order for the members to participate though, we need a mandate and a date for a general meeting at the least.

Should it be this hard to find out when an AGM is and what will be on the agenda? It has been over a year since the last one and months have passed since the election.

If the members of the Wildrose Party can’t control the direction of the party, then the party is indeed no better than the PCs. The Wildrose will simply be another facade of populism with an autocratic reality.

The Wildrose Party has stridently demanded fixed election dates in Alberta. Pretty sad that the party can’t set even it’s own AGM dates.

What the Wildrose Party needs to do is build trust.

Posted on by
2

People can point to all sorts of individual things in the last provincial election and blame them for the Wildrose Party’s failure to convince Albertans to elect them to government. The conscience rights policy made many people uncomfortable and Edmonton candidate Alan Hunsperger’s candid thoughts from an old blog post were outright offensive to most people upon hearing them. Any party that has 87 candidates, tens of thousands of members and hundreds of policies will have some questionable people speaking up now and then and will have some policies that simply stink. If a party has gained the trust of the electorate in general that party can withstand hiccups caused by some individuals within it and from poor policies.

With enough digging, we can rest assured that every major party has some crackpots within it’s ranks and some policies on their books that simply do not do them any favors. The PCs had a Calgary candidate who’s comments on ethnic issues paled in comparison to Leech’s awkward musings. The NDP had a candidate who was one of the main organizers of the Olympic Plaza illegal squatting last fall. The Liberals had to rush to fill candidate vacancies and it is a safe bet that a few of those names they used on ballots were less than rational. The reason that these things did not damage the other parties as they did the Wildrose Party is that Albertans know the other parties and can feel comfortable in writing off the actions of a few individuals and ignoring some outlying policies.

People in Alberta were clearly ready for change in the last election and it showed in the first three weeks of the campaign. Albertan’s can and will embrace grassroots populism as we saw with Reform throughout the 90s. Still though, the Wildrose Party was a relative unknown to the majority of Albertans and this made the popular support from the electorate very fragile. When the oddball people and policies popped up, voters got uncomfortable and retreated back to the devil they knew in the final days of the election. Polls can’t measure floating trust and comfort levels thus they completely dropped the ball in the last election.

Unfortunately the temptation is strong to further centralize actions and decision making within a party when things like this happen. Some people feel that the nominations should be more tightly controlled by the central party and candidates gagged even further. The Wildrose Party shamelessly messed with many nominations prior to the election. That offensive meddling with constituency choice caused great strain between constituency associations and the central party. When there is mistrust between the members themselves and the central party, you can rest assured that this discomfort spreads to the electorate at campaign time.

The Wildrose needs to strengthen it’s constituency associations and empower them further rather than meddle further with their choices of candidates. Will the constituencies make some poor choices in candidates at times? Yes they sure will. We can rest assured though that the central party can pick some dogs too. If they constituencies truly choose their candidates though in an open process, it makes it clear that each candidate is simply one of 87. It is much more difficult to label the entire party based on the actions of individuals when it is clear that the individual only represents one portion. When the central party takes direct part in candidate selection, than the party indeed will wear the actions of those candidates as a whole. In building trust we need people working in communities on the ground, not further centralization.

Party policy is of course another huge issue. Rick Bell with the Calgary Sun  just reported on an interview that Danielle Smith recently did on a lesbian website called “I dig your girlfriend”.

Some quotes and attitudes that came from Danielle in that interview are somewhat disturbing. It is clear as day that the Wildrose needs to revisit and reform some of it’s policies and of course there is nothing wrong with a leader saying that. It is the tone of Smith speaking as if these policy changes are a done deal and she will essentially tell us as members what we will be choosing as a stance or policy in the future with statements like: “Now that the decision has been made I’ll leave it at that,” and then following with “I’ll indicate that to my party as well.” (in regards to the funding of elective procedures such as gender reassignment in the public health system).

Ms. Smith, I do hope that you understand that the party indicates their policy wishes to you and not the other way around. I understand that a leader has to make some tough stances on issues and can’t consult with the membership every time an issue surfaces. The tone and attitude here though suggests that some areas are simply closed to member discussion and her word is final. I do hope that I am mistaken in this.

Year after year we have seen our party AGMs focus more on video and light displays with less attention being paid to policy. At our last AGM the video screens were fantastic but only a scant few hours were dedicated to member policy discussion over the entire weekend. That AGM lost nearly $90,000 as the $250 per ticket cost discouraged grassroots members from attending something that was more akin to a rock concert than a political party deliberating on important issues such as policy. Turnout was embarrassingly dismal for a party that was seen as a growing force. Perhaps has a couple more hours been dedicated to policy discussion, the membership may have taken more time to consider whether conscience rights were a viable policy option. As it was, policy discussions were rushed through with little meditation on the part of the collected membership.

Effort has been made to centralize control within the Wildrose Party in the last few years and this has led to a growing sense of discomfort and distrust within the party membership. I saw that mistrust starkly in the campaign that I worked with as the candidate did not even want to share his polling results with the party for fear that the list would be abused for central fundraising. It is tough to build a sense of unity and optimism among a campaign team in that atmosphere and even tougher for that team to spread that to the electorate in 28 days.

Leading and managing a grassroots party is damn tough. The headaches are endless as CAs go rogue, infighting happens and mixed messages get out. Despite those challenges, the way to earn that precious trust that the party so dearly needs will be by opening up rather than introverting. We need well attended public policy meetings that are open and take time in their deliberations. We need early nominations so candidates can get to know their constituents personally in years leading to an election. We essentially need to stick to our party bylaws which clearly lay all that out anyway and speak out every time somebody wants to try and bypass the will of the members.

Leading also means standing up for the party policies when they come under fire. When a leader begins to sound like they will say or do anything for a vote and is willing to throw their founding principles to the wind, trust is lost. The Wildrose lost a great deal of trust that way in the election when the party promoted the vapid and ill-conceived royalty rebate plan. It wasn’t that voters did not like the idea of a few bucks in their pockets, it was that the policy was a clear vote-buy that was in total contradiction of a party that claims fiscal responsibility. It felt disingenous

With 17 great MLAs in opposition and a little less than four years to work on it, the Wildrose Party is very well placed to earn that much needed trust among the electorate before the next election. If the party continues to ignore and sideline the membership however, the Wildrose could turn into a flash in the pan. Alison Redford is already presenting Alberta with a top-down centralized party. Why should that be replicated?

The dreaded robodial!!

Posted on by
1

 The tone of this last provincial election was simply horrific. Serious discussion of issues and policy was completely lost as every party engaged in a shrill fear and smear campaign where demonizing their opponents appeared to be much more important than highlighting what they perceive as their own merits. I admit, I jumped into the noise and hysteria in the twitter realm for awhile and yes I was as nasty as any on there. Still, even I who likes a degree of rough and tumble debate lost all appetite for the vulgar scroll of attacks online and backed off on the twitter scroll of insanity hashtagged #abvote. Only the NDP and their supporters tended to stay clear of the fray as they stuck to targeting their concentrated union support and indeed won all the seats they could in Alberta.

 We now have four years to dwell on how to avoid having such a nasty election campaign again if avoidance or at least mitigation is even possible after a performance like this. I hope some new behaviour and ideas surface that can lead to the retention of some degree of rationallity in future elections. I look forward to those discussions.

 Right now I still want to look at some simple and smaller things such as the visual pollution created by public campaign sign placement that I discussed in my last posting. What I want to touch on now is automated dialing which has really become prolific in politics this last few years (ht to Jeremy Nixon for bringing it up). While not earth shattering issues, the autodials and signs added to the buildup of white noise that led to many people simply shutting out the election altogether rather than dwelling on ideas and choices as they should have been able to do.

 Technology has radically changed autodialing in the last ten years. I remember us setting up an autodialer unit in the old Wildrose office years ago. It was great. We only needed to tie up three lines in order to dial out a blistering 180 calls per hour. In only two days we could get a message out to our whole membership for only a couple hundred dollars in long-distance fees. It was a great tool for getting out information to a reasonably small number of people in relatively short time at a decent cost. Compared to mailouts this was a huge advancement for us in member communication. We never really abused it as it was still awkward and expensive to do large dials so it was only used at need. That all changed quickly with the advent of web based voip-style autodial technology.

 In a few short years the technology developed to the point where for a couple hundred bucks and with 1/2 hour online setting up an individual could send out a phone blast to tens of thousands of numbers simultaniously. Polls can be set up and run through these systems quickly, easily and inexpensively. Even worse, it has become very easy to do these sorts of calls anonymously which has led to apparent abuses both federally and provincially.

 For anybody who has their number on the electors list it was an irritating election as our phones were simply barraged by calls from all parties and some unidentified groups. Campaigns with limited budgets found it hard to resist large broadcasts for small costs as was demonstrated by my local Liberal candidate who hit my phone a couple times on election day with what was clearly an untargeted (and ineffective) phone blast.

 The campaign that I worked on along with many others anticipated the pushback that autodialing abuse was causing and we utilized only live callers through volunteers and a paid live-dial service. Still, harried and tired voters while more appreciative of having a live voice call them were still tired of being contacted and it strongly reduced the efficacy of our GOTV campaigns. People stopped answering all calls from numbers that they didn’t recognize and responded with exhaustion and sometimes outright hostility to the volunteers making the calls. People had long stopped distinguishing between the parties when it came to the phone calls and simply lashed out at whoever called them next whether live or not. It didn’t matter if we used a live volunteer calling when the voters phone had been hammered by 8 autodials in the 24 hours prior to our live-dial. That voter was sick of it.

 Again I am not much on instituting more regulation but I think that the degree of abuse we have seen in autodialing calls for at least some examination of the issue. Perhaps allowing autodialing to people who have opted in or are already members of an organization is the best way to do it. Parties and groups simply will have to market to encourage people to opt in through doorknocking and other conventional forms of marketting. Stronger controls would also help in defending against unprincipled false autodials as we saw in the last provincial election.

 Banning or regulating are the options before us with public space signs and autodials. I think with open discussion and reasonable legislation we can take care of both of these annoying marketing techniques that have a very limited impact anyway. As long as rules are equally applied, no party would be disadvantaged.

 In an indealistic world, people should look forward to elections as they will see the discussion of ideas and options leading up to their casting a ballot in choice of their preferred candidate. In the realistic world, people are increasingly disconnecting as the campaign simply turns into unbearable noise and even if they still choose to cast a ballot they likely have not been exposed to good policy discussion.

Regulating/ending use of autodialers and public space campaign signs would not lead to a massive shift towards voter engagement or a sudden trend of civility among parties. Ending the abuse of those marketing tools would be steps in the right direction though.

Can we all agree to work towards ending campaign signs on public spaces?

Posted on by
8

Many blogs and columns are busy dissecting and interpreting our election results from last Monday. I am still too tired to wade into that realm right now after weeks locked into a campaign office (a few weeks in Australia should remedy that starting this Saturday). The last couple days have been exhausting in packing an office while making sure that countless signs and related materials are picked up and recycled/disposed of and I can’t help but be frustrated by the waste of both materials and time in placing campaign signs on public spaces.

Campaign signs serve an important purpose. They help build familiarity with the name of a candidate and their party. On private lawns campaign signs allow people to openly demonstrate their support for a particular candidate to their neighbors. Private placements can have some impact as many people can be more inclined to join the wave if they see a large trend of neighbors supporting a particular candidate. The impact of signs on public space is negligible.

The bottom line is that in a campaign no candidate can afford to let their competitor gain an edge in any manner even if the advantage is very slim. If only one candidate refuses to participate in the placement of public signs they will look weaker as their competitors flood spaces with their signs. I got many calls from supporters who were concerned about certain public spaces being under represented by our party in signs and of course that led to a compulsion to add yet more signs to the mess.

While I am indeed libertarian leaning and generally am not favorable of increasing any regulations, I have to say that I would like municipalities to step in and place an outright ban on placing campaign signs on public space for all elections. We simply cant rely on campaigns to choose not to place these ugly and generally ineffective signs on their own. If one campaign begins the placement, others will follow. If it is legislated, no one campaign is given an advantage or disadvantage.

Signs can and still would be utilized on private lawns. Large signs can be used as well of course. It is a person’s property, let them display whatever they want on it. Wouldn’t it be nice if our parks and public spaces were immune from that visual pollution during campaigns though?

Some of the major intersections were nothing less than stomach turning as a virtual vomit of colors assailed the eyes while one drove looking at blur of signs from a variety of parties. I am pretty confident that most people simply stop seeing the signs after a few weeks.

It would be good for all campaigns if they were freed from the perceived obligation to jam public spaces with mountains of signs. Those signs are expensive. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on public signs by campaigns in Calgary alone in the last election? How many volunteer hours were spent on the placement and maintenance of these signs? The public signs are magnets for vandalism and every large campaign has a full time person designated to simply keeping those signs standing. Those dollars and those hours all could have been more effectively used in other aspects of the campaigns. I would prefer to have a volunteer on the phones or door-knocking full time rather than wasting time fixing and placing public signs. I would rather those dollars be spent on another lit drop or even better beer on election night. Both expenditures would be of more value.

This is not a great thunderous electoral reform issue such as recall or even fixed election dates. This is an issue of colossal waste happening that can be very easily fixed. I think it is time to start the process of getting legislation into place. I seriously doubt many people would miss the signs on public space in future elections.

It’s not wrong to be right.

Posted on by
3

 

Shortly after composing the blog below, I encountered the video below that makes my point for me perfectly. This is the level that the PC party supporters are now sinking to.

 

 

The hysteria from the small but shrill and vocal community of Alberta’s left-wing has reached a fever pitch since the Wildrose Party took a commanding lead in this provincial election. The hipster-latte community is aghast that Alberta would dare embrace a new political alternative without swinging towards the left. The insults towards Albertans at large are piling up and the spite and loathing being displayed by the self-styled progressives is striking.

The secret that really should not be a secret is that Alberta is predominantly populated by people who are right of center on the political spectrum. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT SO GET OVER IT!

The typical fearmongering is in full force as people try to imply that all people on the right/libertarian end of the spectrum are secretly intolerant racists who want to set Alberta back decades in social policy as abortion is outlawed along with being gay. Spectres are being raised of segregrated water fountains and comparisons made between Alberta and the American South. I have seen many indignantly howling that they will leave Alberta should a Wildrose government be formed (I wish).

All of the above tactics should sound very familiar because they were all used before by the federal Liberal party through the 90s and early 2000s. What people should also realize is that those fear and smear campaigns invariably backfire terribly with Albertans.

While what is considered right wing has evolved over the years, the makeup of people on that side of the spectrum has not. Gone are the moralizing days of the Social Credit regime of the 50s but what is here is a population of individualists who want limited government that allows people to live their lives prosperously and in peace from moralizing busybodies (both left and right). The balance has been reached between the traditional model of social conservatism and the new “South Park Conservatives” with the current incarnation of the Wildrose Party and it shows as a groundswell of Albertans are embracing this party.

Most people do not sit and dwell about where they formally land on the political spectrum. People will gravitate to parties that are indeed more solidly placed on the spectrum and in Alberta the majority of the citizens prefer to sit on the right. Nothing wrong with that and no apologies.

So here is the root of the failure of the attempted shaming and fearmongering. When the sanctimonious left tries to label entire parties as being racist, intolerant, hicks etc., they are attacking most Albertans. When you call a person a pile of disparaging and offensive names how can you possibly expect to draw them into your cause? All the left does when they use these tactics is entrench the supporters for the right of center parties and encourage them to get out to vote.

Look at the old Reform Party. Chretien and his Liberals called Reform supporters racists among all the other stereotypes despite 70% of Albertans supporting that party in the 90s. How did that all work out for Liberals in Alberta? The same tactics were attempted by Liberals against Harper’s Conservative Party only a few years ago. How did that go? Well there still is not a single federal Liberal seat in Alberta and Harper is our Prime Minister with a very comfortable majority.

The last time the Progressive Conservatives were strongly threatened in their reign was in the early 90s and it was by the Liberal Party being led by Lawrence Decore. What is being forgotten by many though is that Decore campaigned not from the left but the right despite the name of his party. Decore brought out the debt clock to demonstrate the out of control spending by the Progressive Conservatives and gained a great deal of traction as conservative Albertans. It was only through the appearance of Ralph Klein who campaigned on government austerity and cuts that the government of the day was narrowly saved.

Klein followed through on his promises to Albertans. Aggressive cuts were made to spending while the size of the bloated civil service was reduced (never saw service decline due to that). The illuminated left went ballistic as predicted. Protests sprung up and unions went postal in their entitlement and rage. Pundits and academics predicted that Albertans would lash back and fiercely punish the Klein government for having swung right. What happened? Klein won an even stronger majority.

Over the years, Klein’s government began to lose support as they began to drift back left into the lazy cycle of tax and spend rather than responsible governance. The inevitable insular attitude of government grew as they remained unchallenged and Albertans began again to drift away from the Progressives and new alternatives were being developed. Klein was pushed out and the rest is all history that we know.

The Wildrose Party has embraced those unapologetic and truly conservative people. The party worked hard for years building the foundation that has put the party into the lead in this Alberta election. In response to this growing threat, the Redford Progressives actually swung left and it shows. Weeks of gross post-budget spending promises from the Redford Progressives have repulsed Albertans and the Liberal style fearmongering from her party is falling flat. If the PC party was to have a hope of recovery it would have been by turning to the responsible-right as Klein did. Redford pulling government hard to the left sealed the fate of this 41 year old dynasty as she clearly has no clue what most Albertans really want.

Many are stumped. Alberta has been growing in population for decades and predominantly the people have come from provinces that swing left. The left has hoped that this influx of people would change Alberta and make us eventually embrace the left-wing. This has not happened and the reason for that is quite simple.

People with the courage to take a chance, leave their friends and family to cross a nation seeking a better future are not by their very nature left-wing. People with that kind of ambition and courage are individualists. These are not people who want a large and pampering government nannying their every move. These are the people who want governance by parties such as Reform, the old PCs and now Wildrose. These will never be left-leaning people.

People who are naturally left-wing are the folks who will sit at home in hard times and demand that somebody solve their problems for them. These people want government created jobs or even outright welfare. They will not move and will always vote for whoever promises the most goodies with the least personal responsibility. We in Alberta need never fear an influx of these people as they simply do not have the courage or ambition to move from wherever they are. What few strong left-leaners we have in Alberta are often home-grown.

The temptation is always there to swing left and spend more. The ivory-tower gang is always pushing for such. Thankfully the electorate knows better and consistently embraces the right in Alberta as long as it is reasonably packaged for them as the Wildrose Party is.

As long as we happily and unapologetically stick to our principles we will continue to be the properous and truly conservative province that we are.

Outcome or ideology? Which is more important to you?

Posted on by
Reply

 

There are few sacred-cows that have been more carefully crafted and fiercely protected than that of Canada’s health care system.

Tommy Douglas has been essentially canonized as a founder of our system and it is considered blasphemy to dare even consider questioning the merit of the system. Politicians and journalists alike are pilloried should they ever dare suggest that Canada’s health system may not be the best one on the entire planet. If health system issues should ever arise, the only appropriate response to the zealous is the addition of more funding. Systemic change is simply unacceptable.

Now back to reality. The World Health Organization used to publish comprehensive rankings of health systems based on accessibility, cost and outcomes. Unfortunately they have not done this since 2000. In their last ranking though, Canada was 30th and dropping like a stone when compared to other nations.  Considering we have changed nothing systemically in the last 10 years, it can be safely assumed that the trend has continued.

The most successful systems in the world have involved a mixture of public and private involvement while maintaining universal access. This is not conjecture. This is documented fact. The only other systems that legislate such a degree of government monopoly in them as Canada are North Korea and Cuba. I assure you those countries are not good models to follow.

When the word “private” is used almost immediately people begin chirping about the American system. There should almost be some form of “Godwin’s law” that applies to the insertion of the big bad American boogyman in healthcare discussion. As soon as some fool takes the leap to bring up the American system, they immediately shall have been deemed to have lost the debate.

I am going to expose the big secret here: THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF HEALTH SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD AND DOZENS OF THEM ARE SUPERIOR TO THE CANADIAN AND AMERICAN ONES!!

Protectors of the status-quo (usually unions) constantly try to shut down discussion by trying to polarize debate. It is simply shallow and foolish to assume that Canada and the USA are the only two health-care systems in the world yet if we look at most Canadian discussion it would appear that way.

Another secret is that we have private provision all over the place. There are countless private labs, clinics and yes even hospitals in operation in Canada. Unfortunately, these facilities are still constrained by our inflexible system and often have to be almost snuck into the system by politicians who realize the need for expansion of our provision options but are afraid to dare question the sanctity of the status-quo.

We need to rip down this facade and have a real discussion. Hysterics and demonization of all who dare question the status-quo is harming us all.

We all have to ask ourselves; what is more important; the outcomes or personal ideology?

This is what it comes down to. The outright dismissal of private involvement is an ideology. The polarization of the discussion is an ideology. The self-blinding to all other discussion is an ideology.

We need to open the discussion and look to the best systems if we want to improve our own. I was impressed with Danielle Smith in last night’s debate in her being willing to entertain examining other means of health provision while the other 3 leaders stuck to the cowardly and closed minded defense of the unsustainable and failing status-quo. The whispered and shouted fearmongering continue about the Wildrose Party as ideologues dismiss any notion of real solutions and try to quell all discussion.

We need to stop the politics of envy, fear and division so that we can have a frank examination of our healthcare system based on what can lead to the best outcomes rather than the zealous and closeminded approach that we have had so far. Healthcare consistently ranks at the top of people’s concerns in politics yet it is the issue with which we are the most reticent in discussion.

Take off the ideological blinders and pursue what works best. It really is as simple as that. I am optimistic that a Wildrose government may be willing to be the first in a long time to do so.

 

Promises promises.

Posted on by
Reply

 

 I am recycling a picture from one of my past blog posts. Who says I can’t be green? The picture does say it well though.

My past post was based on why politicians can be prone to lying in campaigns and how we as an electorate encourage and feed that habit.

 Now as expected the parties are battling to outpromise each other in buying our love with our own money. No party is innocent of this tactic. The only difference between the parties is the degree of the unreasonable promises.

 I was inspired to touch on this by Alison Redford’s pledge to end poverty. While nice and fluffy, to put it bluntly it is a shallow and stupid promise of something that is impossible to deliver on. As long as there is a top in society, there will indeed always be a bottom that will be considered impoverished. A person may as well pledge to end cancer. It is a worthy goal but it simply won’t be happening through a campaign promise.

 My ears pretty much close as soon as I see somebody spit out the vapid promise to end poverty. Had they simply said mitigate poverty, alleviate poverty or even reduce poverty my interest would be piqued as perhaps something innovative and viable has been proposed. When it is the shallow talking point of elimination of something that has existed since the beginning of human kind, I simply dismiss it as the baseless unsustainable crap that we have unfortunately come to expect from our governments.

 The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has categorized the spending promises of all of the parties in this election. They are predictible and telling.

 The Redford Progressives are in full desperation mode and it shows in the billions in extra spending they are proposing beyond the budget they just force-fed to Albertans a few weeks ago. They lead the pack in mass unsustainable spending promises.

 The NDP is next. They are a socialist party who has no hope of forming government so their spending promises are to be expected. Even if their plans are unviable, they are at least honest about them.

 Sherman’s Liberals are next. Like the NDP, this is a party that really has nothing to lose in this election so has no fear of promising the unrealistic.

 At the back of the spending pack is the Wildrose Party with $308 million (so far) in proposed spending increases. This does indeed make the Wildrose the best of the worst, but it is still way too much spending coming from a party based on fiscal conservatism. If deficit elimination is indeed the goal, then some of these promises will have to be broken if they are being realistic with them. I understand the temptation to jump on the spending bandwagon but it really is a shallow way to try to gain support.

The Wildrose Party has been surging as Albertans have been recognizing the party to be a viable replacement to the tired Progressive Party that has governed Alberta since 1971. Albertans have embraced the fresh approach and honesty from Danielle Smith and the party and I hope that trend continues. The Wildrose is proposing spending increases at a rate 1/10th the cost of the Progressive Party promises and that alone makes the Wildrose an infinitely better choice on election day. Like any party though, they do have to be kept in check by all of us lest they drift too far away from their base.

 I hope the powers that be are watching the polls closely. A recent and comprehensive forum poll has shown that the Wildrose is maintaining the lead in Alberta. The same poll also indicates that a majority of people reject the wisdom of the vote-buy effort with the “dani-bucks”. People clearly don’t want to see foolish, blind spending. They like the responsible approach and it shows.

 Clearly people are ready to embrace the Wildrose the way they are. There is no need to promise the moon and the stars in this final couple weeks. If the Wildrose sticks to the honesty and realistic goals that they built themselves on, they will form our next government.

 Shallow and unviable promises only harm future governance and build even more electoral cynicism. Lets hope the race to the bottom with promises in this election is finished now.