Category Archives: Wildrose Alliance Party

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?

How long before we crash?

Posted on by
4

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

~Alexander Fraser Tytler

Tytler wrote that quote over 200 years ago (yes I understand that some dispute the quote origins). I am still trying to remain optimistic in viewing that quotation as being a warning rather than an immutable prophecy. It certainly is startlingly accurate in it’s application to the current trend among modern democracies.

Ayn Rand painted a world in Atlas Shrugged where weasels and parasites had brought the world’s productive to their knees through punitive and envious policy (always cloaked in the words “fair” and “equal”). The parallels that can be drawn between Atlas Shrugged and many modern governments, industries and actions are almost discomfortingly common and accurate. Look at how our government continues to bail out Air Canada & give them preferential regulatory treatment while essentially punishing upstarts such as Westjet for their daring to be profitable and productive. Now look at it as if it were a railway and change the names of the players; you essentially are seeing Atlas Shrugged being played out.

The sense of entitlement that we see growing in developed societies is disturbing. We saw thousands of kids damaging and squatting in parks around the world essentially protesting nothing aside from a feeling that the world owes them something that they apparently are not getting. Look right now to the thousands of whining students in Quebec who while enjoying some of the most subsidized education in the entire world feel that they should riotously protest for more fruits from the labors of others.

In Greece the government finally went totally broke. Austerity was not a consideration for Greece, it was a necessity. Despite this stark and apparently self-evident reality, thousands of union-led Greeks poured into the streets and rioted demanding money and entitlements that simply did not exist. Despite their demands being about as realistic as asking that the moon be moved closer to the earth for a better view, these people preferred to delude themselves into thinking that their government could somehow produce resources from nothing if only the collective temper-tantrum of the citizens was loud enough.

Even the Socialist government of Greece realized that providing the entitlements was simply impossible. Cuts were tabled and austerity measures came into play. Due to that, the people of Greece elected a government who simply promised the impossible and have ensured their total economic collapse will be coming soon.

France was sucked in with the entitlement siren song in last week’s elections as well as they elected a government that promised to tax the “rich” at 75% while reducing the retirement age to 60. Yes the idiotic electorate has essentially put the last nail in their economic coffin as the productive are doubtless already fleeing and I am sorry folks but early retirement is not what is going to aid a country already mired in massive debt. I wish I could say that only the French would think that the solution to deep debt was to work less but I am afraid that this trend is happening all over.

The collision course with an unsustainable debt was deferred by the Obama government last year but the trend has not changed. The debt is growing at catastrophic levels and eventually it will have to come to a hard end.

In Alberta we are only better by degree. Despite rallying resource prices we are still mired in deficit and will be into true debt soon if the Redford government comes through with even half of the promises that were made. Sadly, making unsustainable promises is an effective electoral tactic as we most recently observed. There was more to the Redford win than simply mass spending promises but that was indeed a large part of it. The electorate simply voted for whoever promised the most goodies and Redford promised in the billions. Nobody wanted to really bother themselves with thinking of how we will actually pay for all that excess.

The temptation remains to spend one’s way into power and for parties it certainly is hard to resist when looking at the success of such strategies. The Wildrose Party will be working and maturing in the next four years and I hope that the party continues to strive to be fiscally responsible despite the temptation to try to outspend the government. The temptation to centralize power in a grassroots party is strong too and we are seeing such attempts well under way in the Wildrose Party as some see the membership as a hindrance rather than a resource.

The quotation at the beginning of this posting does not need to be a prophecy. The Wildrose Party can be the voice of reason who can keep Alberta from sinking even more deeply into the unsustainable defict trap. People are making excuses and justifications for borrowing all over the place. To be blunt, they are baffling with bullshit. We simply can’t spend more than we take in. All we are doing is putting off the inevitable financial crash so that the next generation is forced to pay the price.

The membership of the Wildrose Party must be vigilant and fight the temptation to turn itself into the Progressive Conservative Party under a new name or these years of work will truly have been for nothing. Fiscal responsibility can happen and the electorate will embrace it if it is presented well by a trusted source. The Wildrose Party does not need to change it’s base principles or mandate in order to win down the road. We need to evaluate how we present and pursue those principles though.

Let’s turn Alberta into a fiscally stable island while the world around us buries itself in debt. The way to begin though will be by ensuring that our next government is indeed dedicated to that principle and goal. Ground level activity and AGM participation will be critical for the Wildrose Party in the next few years. If we don’t assert ourselves as party members, I assure you that the party will continue to centralize even further and we will simply be replacing one group of undemocratic opportunists with another one.

Remaining debt-free is the tougher political road but it is the only worthwhile one.

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.

Can we legislate against cheesy campaign songs????? Campaign planners, just say no!

Posted on by
2

OK what do all of the songs below have in common?

Well for one, they are all Alberta political campaign songs, they all have likely had utterly no impact in encouraging people to vote for their person/party and they all make me want to stab myself in the ear with a pencil.

 I understand that the production of these songs was likely fun and they helped in some small way to bond existing supporters. Come on though, they typically sound as low-budget as they indeed are and only really serve to irritate.

 It took talent and work to create these songs and I can appreciate that. At this time though, I think that talent and effort may better be utilized on doorsteps than in low budget recording scenarios.

 When it comes to these songs too, it should be kept in mind that musical genre crosses political lines. I understand that many in Alberta love country music. While I am a born and bred Albertan, I despise country music. I have tried to learn to like it but alas like brussels sprouts I just can’t make myself enjoy that stuff. I would rather listen to a choir composed of Helen Keller clones trying to sing Handel’s Messiah than listen to country music. Does that mean that Wildrose or other parties should then model campaign songs playing classic rock to appeal to folks like me? No! Then the country crowd won’t want to listen. Just stick to platforms.

 Not the end of the world I guess. Many people are complaining about being called too much, too many flyers in their mail and too many ads. Well I want to complain about the rotten songs composed and recorded during campaigns.

 Should you want to torture yourself, by all means listen to the songs below. I won’t try to rate which one is less bad than another. I will post more as they surface if they do. With any luck these will be all I find. 😉

How dare we consider empowering those uppity unwashed masses!!

Posted on by
5

 

 Well I see that the latest fabricated issue to hit the political social media set has been the sudden apparent discovery of the Wildrose Party’s support of citizen’s initiated referenda and the accompanying hysteria following as a leftist minority tries to use that issue to convince people of an evil (exceedingly well) hidden agenda. Polls and my own work on the ground in this election show pretty clearly that Albertans are not paying any attention to the fearmongering and the Wildrose is continuing it’s steady march towards the legislature as the party is gaining the trust and support that Redford’s Progressives discarded.

 As with my last posting though, what strikes me is the disdain shown to Albertans by the small but vocal latte-left set. These people truly do see Albertans as unwashed rubes and feel that we must must have government reduce individual rights and increase nanny-government control ever further to protect us from ourselves and each other. I guess these people feel that we can be reprogrammed through social engineering into some fantastic progressive utopia down the road. Reality dictates that totalitarianism is hardly of benefit for people if history is any indicator.

 The shrill howlings against citizen’s initiated referenda take some very offensive assumptions. People are screaming that with referenda Alberta would make abortion illegal. OK folks, for one it is not even in our jurisdiction. For another thing, you are telling us that you feel that a majority of Albertans would like to illegalize this. I have even seen some people online claiming that a referendum would be held to illegalize homosexuality. Do you really think such a proposal would even reach a ballot? It sure as hell would not be approved by a majority of Albertans.

The anti-democratic fearmongers who are howling about citizen’s initiated referenda are claiming if we empower this province of bigotted hicks democratically that we would rush right out and use that legislation to infringe upon the rights of others. That patronizing attitude of loathing towards our province is tiresome and offensive in itself. If you really think this province has a strong majority of people who feel that way, why not simply move somewhere else before we hicks build a new iron-curtain?

 Others claim that referenda would be used wastefully and frivolously by people. Citizen’s initiatives are used responsibly and effectively all over the world. With good legislation it can be safely ensured that only issues worthy of a broad public debate and settlement will make it to a ballot. I know Mercer did a good spoof on referenda with the use of an internet petition and a joke. In reality, a true paper petition is very difficult to get filled out within a time limit. Anybody who is claiming that it would be easy to get 10s of thousands of official (name, address, phone number, witness) signatures on paper in a limited time period is either lying or has never actually tried real petitioning.

 There is no better way to address a large divisive independent issue than a referendum. It opens a targetted discussion of the issue and lets the electorate choose the best course of action. To oppose this democractic tool because you don’t trust the people with the power of choice is loathsome. What next? Shall we end general elections too in case those fools in Alberta pick what you determine to be the wrong government?

 The fearmongering is failing on the ground but the buzzing noise is getting irritating from the elitist set online.

Laugh a little people.

Posted on by
2

Well this morning began in a pretty typical way. I was walking around in the bush checking on some survey while peripherally checking twitter in case some issue demanded my attention and input. I noted a couple tweets regarding the Wildrose Campaign bus from some people. I knew that the bus was being unveiled today so didn’t think much of it. I just assumed that the usual suspects were adding their critique on the shade of the color or something. Still tweets kept popping up on the bus so I knew something was up. I paused and had a look at a picture of the bus and saw what is pictured below:

  Yes. In an epic failure of graphic design Danielle Smith’s torso was pictured on top of a pair of bus wheels which caused some rather unintentional imagery.

  As an unabashed partisan supporter of, founding member of and multiple term member of the provincial executive of  the Wildrose Party, how was I to respond to a twelve foot depiction of our leader like this?

 As a socially liberal man married to a strong political woman (aka @Jaanikka) how was I supposed to respond to this image?

Well I will tell you: I laughed my head off!

I am not talking the obligatory LOL that I give on twitter when somebody says something moderately amusing. This was a deep, rich and real outright laughing fit in the middle of the trees. I then jumped in on some of the growing laughs and jokes about the whole thing on Twitter.

Face it people. The picture is hilarious and there is nothing wrong with laughing about it or making good natured jokes about it.

I understand that elections and politics are serious business by their very nature and importance. That is why distractions and laughs like this are indeed so important. I take politics very seriously. I have put thousands of hours and dollars into politics over the years. Rest assured I don’t take the issues and policies lightly. I still however can laugh at myself and the party I support when the situation calls for it.

 In past election campaigns my fondest memories are not of the knockout punch delivered in a church basement all candidates forum. I remember the fun/funny things. I remember a car chase with a black Saab driven by a supporter of an opposing candidate while I drove a mobile billboard though the suburbs of Calgary (it was a low speed chase). I remember asking for Mr. Korea at a door due to poor walking papers only to be told by a young lady in perfect English with excellent sarcasm “We are Korean but nobody named Korea lives here.” (awkward but I still got a sign placement). I remember 3am stakeouts to try and catch a serial sign vandal (and we did catch him).

 Campaigning and campaigns can be fun. They have to be. It is tough and important work being on a campaign. A person can wear themselves physically and emotionally out very quickly if they will not let themselves relax and have some fun at times. To do so a person has to lighten up and be able to laugh at themselves first and foremost.

 I see that some people immediately labelled all of the banter about the bus as being sexist. I say with all sincerity: Kiss my butt. It is not. Geeze. People can make jokes about Obama without being racist and people can make jokes about female politicians without being sexist. I despise people trying to shut down humour and discussion by claiming sexism or racism when it is not really there.

I have seen many who keep saying that this would not have gone viral like this had it been a male candidate. I say BS people. Below is a picture that somebody tweeted. It is funny too. Now, had that bus had a male political candidate pictured, I assure you that the banter and the jokes would have taken off and been just the same.

 

 

 Look, sexism does exist and women in politics get terribly abused unfairly in public life. There is a double standard when it comes to critique of their appearances, their attitudes and even their voices. We saw it in a recent repugnant headline about the Alberta election in the Huffington Post, we saw it when people commented on Clark’s cleavage in BC and we saw it in the utter character assassination of Palin. I hope that we can grow out of it as many great women are indeed staying out of politics due to not wanting to endure that scrutiny and abuse.

 The above being said, that has nothing to do with the current Wildrose bus affair. There are some individuals who went too far in their comments such as Progressive Conservative campaign manager Piotr Pilarski tweeting about tassels and such but that is to be expected by nuts like him. He would have been just as offensive on something else had this issue not popped up. The majority of the banter was good natured and it was fun.

 Danielle responded excellently. I can only guess that she was not immediately amused by the error. It is expensive and certainly distracts from the campaign.

 All the same, Danielle put out a tweet saying:

 “Glad to see everyone is so interested in our bus. 😉 Guess we’ll have to make a couple of changes huh?”

Nothing more needs to be said. This is a passing issue. Some embarrassment was had as well as some fun. Hopefully some lessons were learned and there is likely now a better system of checking on things being implemented by the campaign team.

 Some people have complained about all of the joking being childish. Well nobody knows how to relax and have some fun better than a child do they?

Pull the stick out of your arses and laugh a little people. Be a child for a moment. It is going to be a long campaign.

 

This is the crap that makes people quit voting.

Posted on by
5

 Well, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation came out with their annual “Teddy Awards” for waste in government.

 Usurprisingly Alberta won the provincial category. This is not surprising as our entitled and entrenched Progressive Conservative government really has shown utterly no regard for their expenditures of the hard earned tax dollars of Albertans.

 The highlight that won Alberta top honors in waste is that we have a legislative committee with 21 members on it who have been paid $1,000 per month for being on that committee. This committee however has not even met in over three years!!!

Now government waste of tax dollars is far from new and it has never failed to irk me. I will tell you something that angers me far more than government members lining their pockets on the backs of the taxpayers; there were members from every opposition party serving on that committee!!

Alberta Party: Dave Taylor

NDP: Rachel Notley

 Liberal: Bridget Pastoor (since crossed floor) and David Swann.

Worst of all in my view, Wildrose Party: Guy Boutilier and Heather Forsyth!

How are all of these people who took $1000 per month in pay for a committee that never met for years going to be able to justify this?

Was it impossible for an opposition committee member to put out a press release decrying this waste? I assure you it would have been picked up.

 I wish there was a good excuse for this but I see none.

All of us who support opposition parties expect better than this from our MLAs. We have come to expect waste and entitlement from government MLAs. It is hard to claim we are better when our own MLAs apparently will sidle up to the trough without hesitation.

 More offensive than the wasted dollars is the damage done to an already cynical electorate. It is damned hard for me as a volunteer to knock on doors to respond to a person who says: “They are all the same.” when indeed our bloody MLAs are all acting the same on this.

 I still support the Wildrose Party and do feel that they hold infinitely more promise and principle than the governing PCs. I will continue to do so. I sure as hell hope that some of our MLAs and MLAs to be learn something from this.

 We should be exposing government waste, not indulging in it! Brighten up guys. It will be at least four more years before we get another crack at this.