Phendrana Drifts

Cabinet shuffle'd.

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:06:00 +0000

Premier Ed Stelmach unveiled his hotly anticipated cabinet shuffle this afternoon - although I haven't decided whether "hotly" is hyperbole or not... my world certainly watched with interest and I hit refresh a couple of times on my browser. Typically I describe these events as inside ball, mostly of interest only to a few inside the Legislature and to those who have something at stake within an individual department or attached to an individual MLA. This one was different as it was seen as the response to the declining poll numbers of the governing party and the sort of ennui that seems to have taken over government. In an environment where the mainstream and social media of Alberta (and perhaps the population in general, who knows...) seem to be clamoring for change, how was does this "compassionate" cabinet shuffle breakdown?

Biggest Surprise
This is not as large a shuffle as I was expecting and was made out to be - only three Ministers sent to the backbench. I was suggesting as many as 10 - and fewer departments too. The size of the cabinet remains at 24 and there is even now one more Parliamentary Assistant. 20 Ministers got to keep a portfolio, and half got to keep the same job.

I think the biggest surprise on an individual was that Doug Griffiths wasn't made a minister, and in fact was turfed from being a Parliamentary Assistant. He was put on Treasury Board, and I can't speak too much on whether that is a lateral move or a demotion. I believe Doug Griffiths is a phenomenal talent and it is a shame he wasn't promoted. The same could be said of Parliamentary Assistants Diana McQueen and Fred Horne - all three have the talent to be fantastic ministers.

For me personally I was most surprised that Doug Horner wasn't moved because that was all the scuttlebutt of yesterday and I work in post-secondary education - in fact, he got a nice promotion as Deputy Premier and Minister Liaison for the Canadian Armed Forces. Does that mean he is the Provincial Minister of Defence?

Change
By the numbers, this cabinet retains 20 of 23 members (excluding the Premier) - or 87% of its old membership. It leaves 10 in the same portfolio.

Like I said above, this cabinet has more in common with the last cabinet than it has changes. Our new cabinet ministers are Frank Oberle, the past Party Whip and MLA for Peace River; Jonathan Denis from Calgary-Egmont; and Thomas Lukaszuk, MLA for Edmonton-Castle-Downs. Ten ministers were also shuffled around, with Ted Morton to Finance, Ron Liepert to Energy and Gene Zwozdesky to Health likely to be seen as the most prominent. Both Denis and Lukaszuk were Parliamentary Assistants, so with the two spots they free up, the loss of Doug Griffiths and David Xiao from the PA ranks and the creation of a new Parliamentary Assistant we have five new PAs: Greg Weadick, Teresa Woo-Paw, Cal Dallas, Fred Horne and Jeff Johnson.

George Groeneveld, Janis Tarchuk and Fred Lindsay were the only cabinet ministers to lose their jobs entirely, and David Xiao and Doug Griffiths as mentioned above lose their spots as Parliamentary Assistants. I think it is important to note that Groeneveld and Lindsay were two of the seven MLAs who backed Stelmach as leader from the start - I don't know if this portends anything, just a good-to-know fact.

Winners and Losers
Hard to say - and partly I do not know how to weigh certain ministries vis-a-vis their old ones. Like was Liepert promoted or demoted? I would say that was lateral. Also, I do not know how to value Parliamentary Assistanceships vis-a-vis Treasury Board etc. But some today were winners:

Doug Horner: By virtue of adding Deputy Premier to his business card, he grows in stock and is now second in order of precedence. Definitely a gain.

Gene Zwozdesky: He has touched the portfolio before as Assistant Minister of Health but the promotion to the big and difficult portfolio has to be seen as a win.

Ted Morton: From all accounts he performed admirably in Sustainable Resource Development and is given a top visible job as Finance, although it remains to be seen if the true power still lies with Lloyd Snelgrove.

Lindsay Blackett: By virtue of staying in his job after what I consider to be a terrible performance as Minister of Culture and Community Spirit, Blackett gets to call today a win.

New ministers: Oberle, Denis and Lukaszuk are the obvious winners as newly minted Ministers.

Staff in the Legislature: Obviously the Premier wasn't lying when he said it was important to take into account the political staffers who work for Ministers, as the majority will at worst have to move desks and learn new files.

The losers:

Groeneveld, Tarchuk and Lindsay: These three stop being honourable when the new cabinet is sworn in - at least on letterhead. Media suggests Groeneveld and Lindsay got moved out as they may not be running next election and are comfortable making room for others, and as for Tarchuk, her time in Children's Services was not good.

Griffiths, McQueen and Horne: Honestly I thought all three of these individuals would have been made Ministers.

Evans? Knight?: I have no idea how they see their moves, perhaps they don't see them as demotions. Evans in International and Intergovernmental Relations makes sense if she will get the London job the media speculated on and Knight should do fine in Sustainable Resource Development.

Geography
The new Ministers come from Peace River, Calgary and Edmonton and the departing Ministers come from rural-ish Alberta (although Tarchuk might be identified as a Calgary-area MLA as might Groeneveld) tipping the balance slightly north and slightly urban. Geography is a fairly touchy subject in cabinet-making, but I suspect this is considered a wash more or less. Although on second thought, with the Deputy Premier now coming from the Edmonton bedroom community area as well, maybe Calgary loses a little.

Diversity
No new women, one woman dropped from cabinet, and all six who lose or gain ministerial positions are white - disappointing the gender balance wasn't maintained or improved, but it is a shame political life isn't more welcoming for women in general.

Leftover Questions
Will Morton and Snelgrove have the same relationship as Iris Evans did with Lloyd? Who between those two will actually control what is spent in this province, or can raise taxes?

Will the appointment of Morton be enough to prove to fiscal and social conservatives that the PCs are the best small-c conservative option in the province?

Will Ron Liepert fix whatever was broken in Energy? Will Gene Zwozdesky fix whatever was broken in Health?

I guess Lukaszuk's private members bill to stop floor-crossing will die unless he finds another MLA to pick it up, as he will stop being a backbencher.

Will the losers of this shuffle flee to the Wildrose? Will voters?

On the subject of floor crossing

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:28:00 +0000

Yesterday's defection of Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth sent a lovely ripple through Alberta's political scene yesterday and ensured the first day back for many in the Legislature and beyond was at least interesting. As many have noted, including the Premier's office, this is not a total surprise but has certainly set the tone for the new year and it likely is not the tone Premier Ed Stelmach was hoping for.

I for one would not be shocked if this was only the beginning of a few more defections, as there are bound to be hurt egos in the upcoming cabinet shuffle and government revenues force a difficult budget to be tabled in February. If this is going to be a semi-regular occurrence, it will bring up a few questions around floor crossing, indeed questioning the motives and legitimacy of Forsyth and Anderson's decision has already begun. You can read Chris Labossiere's take here, the quote from the Airdrie-Chestermere PC Association's here as well as Brian Mason calling for a by-election at iNews 880.

And they are important questions to ask, although admittedly when a Progressive Conservative or a New Democrat does it, it rings a little hollow. The Tories certainly didn't force Stan Woloshyn, Gene Zwozdesky or Julius Yanikowsky to run in a by-election when they crossed the floor, and if a Tory went over to the Mason's New Democrats we would be far more concerned about the impending end of the world to worry ourselves over a by-election. But in a electoral atmosphere dominated by partisan parties and especially their leaders it is a fair statement that most people vote for the party or the leader, and the MLA or MP are kind of a secondary thought. So if a member changes parties mid-stream, shouldn't they go back to the polls? I don't think so.

I am fan of floor crossing - for selfish and less selfish reasons. Selfishly, I think they are cool. They liven things up. They make politics more interesting and they offer a glimpse of personalities and undercurrents that focusing exclusively on leaders does not. It helps keep the system dynamic and responsive, and while it can heavily politicize government as well , it does make for interesting reading on Monday morning. I've blogged a little about it before, but clearly I'm a fan.

Less selfishly, it curbs the power of the executive in our system to dominate the legislative branch. And to be clear, the executive in the form of the cabinet and especially the first minister dominates our system. Rob Anderson reflected on his time in the PC caucus and said "elected MLAs generally have little, if any, real input into the decisions that impact the lives of their constituents," but neat part of floor crossing is that it proves that wrong. Making the decision he has Anderson has guaranteed that his actions will have an impact on the decision-making process and the minds of unelected advisors to the Premier.

The voters in Calgary-Fish Creek and Airdrie-Chestermere will get their chance to pass judgment on yesterday's floor crossing soon enough, 2012 if not sooner. And if the opening week of 2010 is any indication, a lot will happen between now and then.

Postscript: Paul Stanway from Premier Stelmach's office said "It's not that unexpected," when asked about the poll numbers that put the Wildrose Alliance way ahead last month. On the defections yesterday he said "We've known this was going to happen." Umm... kind of odd sound bytes, don't you think? Not the quotes expected from the Premier or from the office of the leader of the dominant party in Alberta. You would think if the Premier's office can see it coming, they might do something about it...

Apparently I do live in interesting times

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:02:00 +0000

The ancient Chinese curse always seemed to be an illusion here in Alberta, the closer we got to compelling and genuinely interesting times in provincial (or even provincially-local federal) politics, in reality the further away we got. Whether it was the minor drop in PC support in 2004, the PC leadership race in 2006 or the election in 2008, the closer we traveled towards change in Alberta politics the more like a mirage it seemed. Well to take the metaphor a little further we may be a lot closer to the oasis, or we may be at yet another hiccup in Alberta politics that has no bearing on the grand political story of our province.

I'm referring to the ongoing rise of the Wildrose Alliance here in Alberta. A recent poll places them in first place province-wide, and there is no denying they have a level of momentum an opposition party hasn't enjoyed until the Liberals in 1993 or beyond. Other bloggers have covered the specifics of the poll - daveberta, Brian Dell and Ken Chapman - and I don't want to rehash the territory that they've covered.

But there is the distinct chance that now we have entered a period of distinct (and dare I say refreshing) uncertainty. I have no idea what will happen - these numbers show Albertans are willing to entertain the end of the PC dynasty but given the utter absence of any solid or realistic policy on the part of the Wildrose Alliance (Brian Dell's commentary aside - he has great policy ideas, but aren't reflected in the terrible Alliance policy book) this likely represents little more than an expression of Albertans dissatisfaction with the status quo. But what could happen? Without copping out and saying anything could happen (which is certainly correct - but also would mean I wouldn't have a post to write) I'll speculate on six possibilities for the next two years culminating in the spring 2012 election.

1. Hi, I'm Alberta politics and I'm boring. Nothing happens, at least not in the grand sense. The Progressive Conservatives under Premier Stelmach win the election in 2012 after a period of relatively responsible governing with a couple of gems to show off as accomplishments. As many know I'm a fan of Stelmach's governing from Dec. '06 to Apr. '08 - and I can see him returning to those kinds of accomplishments - steady progress on a series of fronts. The thing is, I think he's been governing this way since April 2008 as well, just with a certain lack of accomplishments to point to. Fast forward to 2012 the message has to be a return to prosperity but with Premier Stelmach being the one at the helm when we left prosperity that message will ring much more hollow than when Premier Klein was able to paint the Getty administration as the bad guy in the scenario rather than Stelmach who will have no bad guy in his tale. That said, I still think this is the most likely of the six, just not the certainty as before.

2. My Premier is hotter than your Premier. Danielle Smith has captured all sorts of momentum and interest, and strangely without really saying a whole lot that would define her. Which is ok, because I still can't tell you what Dr. Kevin Taft stood for other than it being time for something and he was leader of the official opposition for five years. But in the next two years she could build a party of good candidates, good policy, good organization and good fundraising that is able to compete for the crown. The Wildrose Alliance wins in 2012 by stealing the majority of disaffected PC voters, a lot like Reform took federal PC voters in 1993. The thing is... I don't think Alberta is that right-wing. Wildrose has a long way to go before they resemble anything centrist and they don't appear to have any desire to go that way. So if this scenario is to come true one of two things will have to happen: either I have to be wrong about how right-wing Alberta is or the Wildrose Alliance will have to moderate, moderate, moderate. The problem is I'm often wrong. Imagine a provincial government further to the social and fiscal right than the present government provincially or federally. As it stands, I think this is the second most likely scenario.

3. The King is dead. Long live the King! The Alberta PCs are masters of reinvention and they could do it again. I think it would be risky. I think it would be a sign party insiders and other people of power believe the end is nigh for the dynasty and only by removing the leader can they hope to compete in 2012. This scenario isn't exclusive of all the other scenarios mind you, but for sake of projecting to the 2012 election this would assume the reinvented PC party wins the 2012 election and continues on as government. The natural question would be who leads this party and does the party swing right, left or other... I could speculate on the names of the new leader or premier but that would just serve to stir the pot. Would they go right or left - well that depends, who is more likely to vote for this revitalized PC party who presently wouldn't - someone from the 35% Wildrose camp or someone from the 25% Liberal? I think the answer is from the right.

4. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The "progressives" of Alberta unite. And the 23 of them go out and find another 150,000 ordinary Albertans to join them. This option, like the other three described above, is well underway. Renew Alberta launches their website tomorrow and there are plenty of centrists and lefties that are fairly disappointed with the status quo. As the Tories and WAP split the right and the Liberals and NDP are either sentenced to further obscurity or actually endorse a unified progressive option this becomes a possibility. Enough so to form government? Well there is a reason I put it as fourth. Although a leader like Dave Bronconnier or a Anne McLellan could change that.

5. If Bob Rae once became Premier of Ontario, I guess Premier Swann is possible... The division among the right and two years of disastrous governing by the Tories leads to... a Liberal government. Similar to the scenario above except using one of the mainstream parties from Alberta's left - but the thing is I think it is a virtual impossibility. I include it here partly that this scenario will drive some of the actions of Alberta's political actors and remains a major barrier to the united progressives scenario coming true. Such a scenario would mean the Liberals would have to accomplish those same four objectives I listed for the Wildrose, good candidates, good policy, good organization and good fundraising. And the thing is, they've failed at all four of those goals for nearly a century.

6. Minority. Determining the likelihood of this in any real terms involves math and I'm not in the mood. But given our reluctance to leave first past the post and the way the Alberta elections and geographic distribution of votes goes down I think this isn't as likely as majority government. The list of considerations would all be post-2012 but I can certainly see the Tories and/or WAP propping up the other in power before I see many other scenarios. In the event the Tories lose government there will be a difficult period of self-reflection for that party and one which I believe will kill the party itself, which leads me to my final prediction.

Regardless of which of the six scenarios I've laid out you think is most likely, I do think this all paints a specific picture for the current governing party - this is win or die. The PC party is not likely to take opposition well, and unless a left of centre party is the one that takes the Premier's chair it is hard to imagine the money and volunteers that focus their efforts on the PC party staying past 2012. Much like the PC / Liberal supporters in Saskatchewan or the Social Credit / right-of-centre people in British Columbia or the Social Credit supporters in the Alberta of old, the PCs will take a mortal blow if scenario #2 or maybe most variants of scenario #6 as well a good chance under the united progressive government or a Liberal government the PCs will sit in opposition, and without the levers of power and the promise of government they will discover that their political muscle without those goodies have atrophied to the point of obsolescence and that 40 years in power has meant they stand for shockingly little beyond relatively good governance and staying in power. Of course, if they win, then this becomes another chapter that is almost boilerplate in our political history - Alberta political dynasty briefly threatened by crazies, government comes up with new shiny thing, crazies go away, victory is had and spoils divided, repeat.

Red Deer

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:02:00 +0000

I remember listening to a Progressive Conservative campaign official explain to the CBC that his party had rules surrounding a leadership review in the event of defeat in the general election. He was obviously frustrated by the reporter's transparent tactics to get him to say something about the Ed Stelmach's chances in the event of Kevin Taft becoming Premier. I have to admit, I was really just doing my best not to laugh. The interview finally ended with the answer that in the event that Premier Stelmach was successful on election day there would be a vote on a leadership race at the second AGM following the election and that the Premier and his team were focused on winning the trust of Albertans for another term.

A week later Premier Stelmach won a landslide. And I never thought about the reporter's weird questions until recently.

Legend has it that Ralph Klein's review vote after his first election was done by voice on the floor - I honestly can't say as I was 13 and not present. I was present for the last two, in 2002 and the last acrimonious one in 2006, and neither was conducted from the floor. I will however be absent for the one in Red Deer in November. But I can't help wondering how it will go and what will happen.

I have a prediction, but admittedly my political spidey-sense has taken a severe hit since the second week of the 2008 Alberta election (at which time I was predicting 62 Tory seats when all sorts and sundry were suggesting I was far too positive on the PC's chances - by the fourth week most knew it would be a blowout). I thought the CPC would do better in Quebec. I thought Dave Taylor would win the Liberal leadership race. I thought Bob Rae would win the other Liberal Leadership race. I thought Diane Colley-Urquart would win in Calgary-Glenmore. So with those caveats, I am going to predict that Premier Stelmach will win his vote next weekend, and by a margin of around 80%.

Why? Two reasons. First, the partisan crowd attending the AGM will not be predisposed to voting for a leadership race - it doesn't serve their best interests. And second, the powers that are aligning against Stelmach pale in comparison to those coming to bat for the Premier.

Looking at the first reason, those who typically shell out the $400 plus to go to Tory AGM are highly partisan people, individuals with a history with the PC party and will be thinking principally of what works best for that party and its caucus when they cast their vote. This certainly does not describe all who will attend and I do not mean to paint all attendees with that brush. Also, I do not want to paint the picture of an army of mindless automatons - I think the vote will be cast with a great deal of thought. Unlike 2006, Premier Stelmach is very much intending to serve as party leader during the next election - and that is a big change. Delegates in 2006 needed more than a sort of ennui about Ralph Klein's leadership, and the announcement that he wasn't going to run in 2008 was it. It made sense to around 45% of delegates that if Klein wasn't going to run, let's get it over with and give the new girl or guy a chance to put forward a vision before going to the polls.

If the PCs reject Premier Stelmach next weekend and throw the government into a leadership race the risks grow - especially if the new leader fails to capture the imagination of the Alberta public, media and influential class. The government's plan, such as it is, will be thrown into doubt not just until a new leader comes to power but quite possibly until the next election. Perhaps even more importantly, if you assume the amount of money that gets donated to political ends in Alberta is a zero sum game then a leadership race will divide the available donations even further, with most continuing to go to the Conservative Party of Canada, some going to the Wildrose Alliance, a smattering elsewhere and the rest divided among the leadership candidates, and very little going to main party. The entry fee to enter the leadership race may mitigate that, but running a leadership race with 100,000 plus votes is an expensive proposition as well. Finally, if you're a sitting PC MLA, a likely candidate or a devoted campaign worker for the expected 2012 election you have to be thinking that Ed Stelmach has to be a serious liability before you would surrender a bunch of political energy towards a leadership race. Dumping Ed Stelmach risks leaving the PC party exhausted come election time. All of these considerations beyond the ordinary pettiness of politics has to be rolling through the minds of delegates in Red Deer and I think the likely conclusion for most will be to cast a ballot in support of the Premier.

Also, and it may seem remote now after Calgary-Glenmore, but Ed Stelmach destroyed the competition in the last election. There are thousands of parents of the PC victory in March 2008 but a lot of that credit has to go to the leader. He's a winner, and that pronouncement may be more a sign of the dearth of political energy in the province than the political acumen of Ed Stelmach, all the same he's a guy who got it done last time out at the polls. And that also has to be weighing on the mind of delegates in Red Deer.

My second reason, the circumstances and "sides" of the vote being unevenly aligned for rather than against the Premier is something that Ralph Klein did not have on his side in 2006. Those who have come out publicly in support of the Premier include both the powerful and unlikely: Peter Lougheed, Rod Love, Jim Dinning and the person who I believe has the most of all to gain from a Stelmach loss, Dr. Ted Morton.

Against the Premier we have a much more motley and distant cast of characters, Ernie Isley, Alan Hallman and the only major name of the bunch beyond the obvious people from other parties, former Premier Ralph Klein. Admittedly, Klein is not actually encouraging delegates to cast out Premier Stelmach, but his comments to the media are a big reason that the media continues to harbour the idea that the Premier might lose in Red Deer.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm fairly peeved about Bill 44, enough so that I'd have trouble if I were a delegate reconciling my feelings about that stupid piece of legislation and my thoughts towards the government. And I know more than enough people peeved about our decent back into deficit budgeting. Interesting times. But in Alberta politics since the ascendancy of Earnest Manning if you had bet only on the most boring outcomes of all political events in our province you would be rich. And metaphorically, that's what I am doing - the most boring outcome of next weekend will be Premier Stelmach winning a healthy endorsement and the real showdown will be in 2012 with the Premier placing his record of returning to surpluses from deficit (and he better accomplish this, because if he can't I don't know what he presents to the electorate) against the dynamism of Danielle Smith and whatever it is that the Liberals and New Democrats try and bring to the table.

Post-Partisanship and the Statespeople

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:46:00 +0000

I am so sick of listening to politicians and watching politics. I know I am not the first person to utter those words but for me it is quite a bit of a epiphany. After all, I have worked in a political job of some sort since the day I graduated from university and I have been a partisan political volunteer and donor for almost as long. I left the partisan political world last year and I must say I couldn't be happier about that. I miss a lot of people and energy, but getting rid of that negativity and kool-aid drinking atmosphere is certainly for the best.

I expand far more on why I left and what I hope is the future in the most recent episode of the Unknown Studio - a project of Scott Bourgeois and Adam Rozenhart that I wholeheartedly endorse - along with my friend Dave Cournoyer. Give it a listen!

In his most recent blog Adam expands a bit more on a topic we discussed in the podcast, about how we lack statespeople in our public life. He asks why that is - and to some extent I think I know the answer - partisan politics suck. I am on the eve of listening to another politician, in this case Premier Ed Stelmach, talk about his vision for our province and I can't help but approach it with a growing sense of cyncism and aversion. Still, I'm going to watch. And hope to see a glimmer of statesmanship that Adam, Dave, Scott and an entire generation of our society thinks is missing from public life. Anyone want to take a bet that my cyncism is more on the mark than my hope?

Man, I love hockey

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:42:00 +0000

It was almost like the summer was this passive-aggressive pit of yuck when it came to hockey - instead of celebrating the coming of age of Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Marc-Andre Fleury as they hoist the cup the headlines were strewn with the debris of Balsillie's bid to buy and move the Coyotes. And I ate every minute of it, consuming every tidbit coming out of the Arizona bankruptcy court.

As the puck drops tonight on the 09/10 NHL season I'm glad that drama (or at least this chapter of the drama) is over - admittedly I was rooting for another Canadian franchise, and every time I see jobing.com Arena with only a couple thousand fans who likely paid $25 for the ticket I will shake my fist - it wasn't healthy for me to focus on that over what was on the ice.

The redeeming post-script to Theo Fleury's career was a good primer, and now I want the main course. No pressure boys, but it would be great if I didn't have to take off this jersey until June.

Go Flames Go!

My submission to the Electoral Boundaries Commission

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:15:00 +0000

I have been an active participant in Alberta�s political process for 12 years but increasingly I am one of a few who volunteer for a candidate, take an active interest in politics or even cast a ballot. Many among my generation and younger increasingly see the political process as lacking integrity, fairness and legitimacy. The important work that the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission is doing goes right to the heart of these issues, and many eyes will look on your work in the next two provincial elections and decide whether they see a corrupt, unfair and gerrymandered electoral system or the work of a group of people to end the mistakes of the past and create an electoral map that guarantees that every vote will count and be considered equally.

I understand the limits of your mandate and what the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act will allow, and while the five Albertans who sit on the commission alone cannot change the problems with our democracy and the lack of engagement I urge you to consider making our electoral map fairer. The most important consideration of redrawing our electoral map must be �the requirement for effective representation as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.� Right now the disparity between electoral divisions is atrocious. My own constituency of Edmonton-Meadowlark has a population close to the provincial average, 38,434 compared to the average of 37,820. My vote however is worth nearly half as much as a vote cast in Dunvegan-Central Peace, with a population of 23,649. Going to extremes would take Calgary-North West, with 60,511 people - nearly three times as many as Dunvegan-Central Peace, but leaving aside extremes there are clear trends - votes cast in Calgary. Edmonton and their bedroom communities count less than a vote cast elsewhere. This disparity breeds cynicism.

How to reconcile this? I urge that the commission:

Recommend electoral divisions that are within plus or minus 5% of the provincial average;
Recommend that the Edmonton metropolitan area receive 25 electoral divisions, commensurate with their current population; and
Recommend that the Calgary metropolitan area receive 26 electoral divisions, commensurate with their current population.

Calgary and Edmonton along with their surrounding bedroom communities make up 57% of our province - and it is growing. I believe this is the first rough calculation many Albertans will do when looking at the work of your commission. In my time in our political process, I have heard countless recriminations from Albertans saying our system is corrupt and unfairly penalizes Calgary and Edmonton because of who we vote for - my assurances that the system is in fact fair and representational hinges on you.

Agree? Disagree? Don't just tell me - tell the Electoral Boundaries Commission! You can e-mail them at info@altaebc.ab.ca.

Making maps, electing MLAs

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:13:00 +0000

A week from now about 3.2 million British Columbians will be eligible to vote in the general election to choose 85 new (or old, depending on their mood) MLAs to represent and govern them. Chances are at best only 60% of those will actually show up and cast a ballot but voter turnout is a post for another day. But another piece of news hit me yesterday - Improvements will reflect Alberta's changing population - the move by Alberta's legislature to increase their numbers from 83 to 87 MLAs.

daveberta is already talking about this and I'm sure more will be shortly. Naturally, most are focusing on the geography of the decisions that are about to be made and I certainly think how to distribute the seats, whether there 83 of them, 87 of them or even 60 of them is a vital debate, and one that will hopefully get the discussion it deserves. But before that comes the magic number, and I don't think that 87 is it.

Edmonton has 12 councilors (along with the mayor) to represent some 752,000 people, with each councilor representing 63,000 people starting in 2010 - until then they share wards with another councilor, meaning Don Iveson works hard to represent some 125,000 people. My MP, the Honourable Rona Ambrose, has to work a little harder, as she represents 128,000 people and doesn't have a ward mate to help out. So why is it that the average Alberta MLA need only represent 43,765 people? When we move to 87 that number will drop to 41,753. Why does the City of Edmonton have 12 councilors and 8 MPs (who also represent Sherwood Park, St. Albert and Spruce Grove) but an amazing 18 MLAs?

A Legislature needs to be a certain size in order to function - that much is obvious. If we're dividing Canada's provincial legislatures into three sizes - small, medium and large - we have four small legislatures in the three territories and Prince Edward Island, between 18 and 27. Even at those low amounts, MLAs represent a very small number of people - between 1,850 and 5,200 people a piece. But that comes out of necessity, as the average Alberta MLA represents more people than the entire population of the Yukon. We need at least around 20 MLAs to even carry on the basic function of a parliamentary democracy. Indeed, 20 makes it difficult, hence the medium legislatures.

Newfoundland (48), Nova Scotia (52), New Brunswick (55), Manitoba (57), Saskatchewan (58) all have medium legislatures. They have enough MLAs to form functioning caucuses for both the government and opposition and have enough members to make a cabinet and shadow cabinet. It would be fair to say that somewhere between 45 and 60 is the base level a legislature should be if it has the population to support and justify it. After all, if Nunavut had 60 MLAs each would represent 526 people which is smaller than my graduating class in high school.

Then we come to the large legislatures (according to the arbitrary Duncan scale of Canadian provincial legislature sizes) - British Columbia (79 - soon to be 85), Alberta (83), Ontario (107) and Qu�bec (125). Of these four, Alberta has the smallest population of 3.6 million compared to 4.4 million in BC, 7.8 million in Qu�bec and 13 million in Ontario. An Ontario MPP represents 121,300 people, a Qu�bec MNA represents 62,250 people and currently BC MLAs represent 60,000 people. I'm not advocating for each Alberta MLA to have an average constituency size of 120,000 but if they only represented 60,000 then we would have a functioning legislature of 65 MLAs. Lots of space for debate and diversity. Alas, the number of proponents of reducing the size of the legislature I suspect are going to have their voices drowned out. Too bad.

UPDATE: It would seem BC's legislature is growing to 85 on Tuesday, giving a BC MLA an average of 52,000 constituents.

It is a pessimistic news day

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:24:00 +0000

I'm not kidding, here are the headlines on the Globe and Mail mobile page while I am heading to work:

Jobless ranks swell by 7.8%
New York-sized ice cap collapses off Antarctica
WHO raises alert level as virus spreads its reach
Washington, union to own GM, Chrysler

A little down the page is this gem:

How to prepare for a pandemic

No word on locusts. Yet.

Commentary from the outside

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:03:00 +0000

Brian Topp is the former chief of staff to Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow and the national director of the federal NDP campaigns in 2006 and 2008 and does not have the resume of someone whom I normally advocate taking economic advice from. And I'm not really trying to say Alberta should be taking his advice here either - he technically is advocating for higher taxes, which isn't something I usually articulate. But all the same his discussion on Alberta's budget in today's Globe and Mail is worth a read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090414.wPOLtopp0414/BNStory/politics/home

I know it is easy to make comments like this from the cheap seats, whether it is a call for fiscal responsibility (which is a relative euphemism in this case for social spending cuts) or increased taxes but all the same in a few short paragraphs Topp offers a counter to Alberta's budget that our opposition parties have failed to do.

Donating blood

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:40:00 +0000

I donated blood for the seventh time last week - I really enjoy the act (short, meaningful, helpful, free cookies) and it saves three lives. I recently got into... well not a debate and certainly not an argument but a discussion with a colleague about the Canadian Blood Services (CBS) screening practices, which prohibits any man "who have had sex with another man, even once, since 1977." They go on to say "This is based on current scientific knowledge and statistical information that shows that men who have had sex with other men are at greater risk for HIV/AIDS infection than other people." I, to an extent, defended the screening, as they ask a bunch of other potentially insulting and certainly limiting questions: Have you ever lived in Africa? Have you ever used intravenous recreational drugs? Do you have one of a long list of diseases? Have you ever taken or given money or drugs for sex? Have you had sex with someone new recently? Have you had sex with someone whose sexual history you don't know? All things that if you answer yes to you don't donate.

In my mind the practice of voluntary blood donation has two important components: safety of the blood supply and availability of the blood supply. You can't save people's lives with unsafe blood and you can't save people's lives if you don't have any blood. So, since we don't pay people to donate in Canada we have to make certain the donation process is inviting and easy but we also need to take every possible step to ensure we are limiting the risk of passing on infectious diseases to blood donation recipients. Makes sense, no?

The rub comes when you recognize some questions during the pre-screening process is probably a good thing - questions like "Do you have or have you ever been diagnosed with HIV?" makes sense to me. Even if the tests for HIV are accurate say 99.9% of the time that still leaves 0.01% of the time where the test fails so screening helps ensure the relative safety of the blood supply. Also without getting too much into risk management, I imagine the Canadian Blood Services board has a very expensive insurance policy and that insurance policy is contingent on some pre-screening. If I ran an insurance company, I know I would not insure Canadian Blood Services if they simply allowed all who wanted to donate to donate. However, I also recognize answering 200 questions all geared towards exhaustively identifying any and all risky behaviour (blood-wise) an individual participates in would greatly inhibit donations and alienate donors. So we need to have some questions but not too many - this seems to be the current policy of Canadian Blood Services - so which questions?

It would make sense that you should ask say the 20 or 30 questions that have the most relevance to ensuring safe blood. And if it comes down to it, I am reasonably fine if being a man who has had sex with other men is one of the criteria - if it is true. It also would mean that the criteria would have to be applied without exception to other demographic and charter-protected groups. What if the scientific evidence shows black individuals are far more likely to have HIV than the rest of the population? Do we then prohibit donations on the basis of race?

What shocked me most about this topic is how unwilling Canadian Blood Services is to making the data available on how much safer the Canadian blood supply is since they prohibit gay and bisexual men from donating blood. I've looked and looked and googled and googled (this topic was fairly active in the media about six months ago) and while the news stories are balanced with those who seek to change the policy and spokespeople from Canadian Blood Services and Health Canada, with a sprinkling of doctors, no one seems to be able to say how much safer. In the absence of data, and data that can be compared to other risk factors that are both on and off the eligibility list the policy seems bigoted. And shortsighted - fewer and fewer people are donating and shockingly few from my generation.

The USA of the near future

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:23:00 +0000

I'm a huge fan of alternate histories and speculative fiction - they are often fun and campy sojourns from reality and on the more intellectual side they allow you to look at some issues from a what-if basis and try and learn something about the impact of the decisions of yesterday and today on the present.

So I was excited to pick up Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 last night for my PS3 and start my campaign to rule the world under a Soviet flag in a world without nuclear weapons as well I loved watching the alternate universe of The Watchmen play itself out on the big screen. Man, I love alternate histories, especially ones about the Cold War.

If you're going to write a Cold War speculative fiction novel, video game, graphic novel, film or whatever you often start off with playing with certain stereotypes - the United States is technologically superior, and invariably wealthier than the USSR but may lack a certain will or may lack the numbers to do the job. Also, since I only know the English language examples of the genre, they are usually the winners. The Russians on the other hand are poor, declining, authoritarian and possess tremendous military might. The kind of military might that could be used to address the other problems. And that's how the war starts.

I was no fan of the George W. Bush administration - and for good reason. They tortured people. They started wars by lying. They polarized the American democratic system. They alienated allies and spent enormous amounts of political capital that had been earned over generations and paid for with the blood of American soldiers. But the biggest complaint I had with the group of essentially criminals in the White House was that they spent too much money. Billions. Trillions. Money borrowed from future generations and the impact of the borrowing hidden from the American public through more borrowing and an antiquated financial system that props up the value of the American dollar. At the end of Bush's term of office that system came crashing down and the United Nations and most importantly China are considering taking steps that will allow the American dollar to fall to its real value. And the way out of it for the American people seems to be taking an incredible gamble - spending even more money.

I am no economist - it is not even my undergraduate degree - I have history and political science degrees. I cannot even pretend to claim I know how this will all turn out. Nations, even big and powerful ones like the United States, have borrowed vast sums of money in the past and ultimately been fine and even more powerful and obtained a better sustainable quality of life for their citizens. But I look at how much the Bush administration borrowed ($5 trillion, give or take) and how much the Obama administration has already or is planning to borrow ($1.7 trillion, again give or take) and I'm worried. The public debt of the United States is climbing towards 80% of their GDP and the deficit is close to 5% - these are all levels my economics professors would have sounded alarm bells over.

The point I am trying to make is this - the United States is gambling that after having borrowed more than half of their national debt to pay for a stupid military adventure in Iraq and stupid tax cuts without corresponding cuts to what the state does for its citizens, they are going to borrow another massive pot of money - a pot that looks to leave each working American with about $120,000 of public debt. Right now it is around $60,000, and the American economy is shrinking (meaning fewer people working and producing GDP). If this plan does not work, then the United States will fall in economic terms to a middle power. With such a large debt, the federal government will be poor - and realistically so will the large majority of the population.

However, militarily the United States for all the bluster of being beset on all sides by evil and hostile forces is by far the largest military force on Earth. They are spending vast quantities of money (where do you think that debt came from?) and time and effort on creating a military that can be anywhere at once and attack "America's enemies" at will. Now, I don't think the American population has the stomach to take over the world - and nor should it. It is not worth it frankly, and the quality of life of your citizens as well as the general happiness of humanity is best secured without military force. Indeed, the United States was unable to conquer relatively minor powers like Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining acceptable casualty counts and preserving their need to be the good guy in the fight. But in the speculative future histories - which nation will now serve the role as the economically poor but militarily strong power looking to settle a perceived slight or grab for their former glory? I'm not sure it will be the Russians.

Upsetting

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:54:00 +0000

I was truly upset and disappointed to see the above video. Apparently a pseudo-satire on Fox News in the United States, Red Eye decided to take aim at Canada, specifically the operational end of our commitment in Afghanistan. A commitment that over 100 Canadian soldiers have paid for with their lives and was started in direct response to an attack by terrorists on American soil. Fox News should apologize to Canadians.

Blog reboot

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:07:00 +0000

I'm going to start blogging again. I miss it - and perhaps more importantly it made me a better writer. The advent of twitter has started to make think in 140 character bites - which while useful is not the ideal for all things. So I'm going to establish a regular blogging schedule and do my best to keep to it.

Resolutions

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:51:00 +0000

I have often lamented the practice of new year's resolutions and the very concept of a January 1 new year in general because September always felt like the new year. I was a student for 19 years, and still work in the post-secondary realm. However on this, my thirty-first new year's eve it suddenly feels like indeed, tomorrow could be the start of a new year and perhaps I should celebrate accordingly.

I also tended to eschew resolutions because taking stock of my life and making goals was never a problem - I did that pretty regularly. But this year is different. So with that, I'll think of some. And one of them is going to be either to blog more or determine what the fate of this vehicle is - because I have to stop having blog guilt. So either writing or evolving is in order.

Merry Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:10:00 +0000

DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

Virginia O'Hanlon.
115 West Ninety-fifth Street.

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Senate Disappointments

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:55:00 +0000

First, the only thing worse than Prime Minister Harper breaking his word and the spirit of his word and appointing a bunch of senators today would be the psuedo-Prime Minister Ignatieff doing the same thing, so to some degree I guess this is just the best of two bad choices. And I have nothing against the individuals themselves, but I would have still rather have had the Prime Minister choose to keep his word and dare Iggy not to appoint a bunch of Liberal hacks.

The 40th Canadian Parliament

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:29:00 +0000

I have a lot of thoughts. My brain, normally much more laid-back, is a-buzz. The Canadian government is facing imminent collapse and rather than facing the electorate, it seems likely another government will take the reins in the form of Dr. Dion and 24 cabinet ministers, six of which will come from the NDP. Now, given how the last five days have unfolded I don't think anyone can say what will happen in the next six.

My first thought, and the overwhelming one, is disappointment. There is enough blame to go around to all participants and the participants as a whole.

My second thought is directed towards the (current) opposition. Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay said yesterday that even if the Conservatives put forward an stimulus package now, it would have no credibility and the opposition would reject it - a statement that leads me to believe the Liberal and NDP caucuses spent more time talking about how to gain power than deal with the economy. I believe that the Collapse of Global Capitalism is merely an excuse for the actions of the opposition, and I have been searching for a mere hint that I am wrong. So if it is just an excuse, why now? And again, adding to my cynicsm, I think the reason is because if the opposition had done this last spring it would have triggered an election rather than a coalition government. Indeed, I think it is being done now because the window of credibly going to the Governor General to deny a dissolution of parliament and choose a coalition government is only a few weeks, and that is coming to a close. I believe this is a naked power grab and the economic crisis is just window dressing. If it weren't, I believe compromise is possible.

My third thought speaks to why compromise isn't possible. When it comes to crass and cynical political moves, Mr. Harper is pretty good at pointing them out because he has been the author of some pretty good ones. Killing public funding for parties under the guise of economic measures is only the last in a long line of partisan political moves done by the Prime Minister. You reap what you sow, and while I am surprised at how well the opposition have maneuvered in the last six days I am not surprised that they took the first (and really any) opportunity to stick it to the Prime Minister.

My final thought for this post is how far off the actions of all the political parties is from what they promised and what Canadians expected in the last election. A coalition government was not only not pitched to Canadians, it was explicitly rejected by the Liberals. I believe that had Dr. Dion suggested a Liberal/NDP government that would rely heavily on the Bloc for any and all confidence matters then Canadians would have punished him severely and awarded Mr. Harper with a majority. I certainly do not disagree that what the opposition is doing is legal - not only is it legal but I believe that if we are in that nascent environment when a minority parliament is sorting out who is Prime Minister and who is not, then this is legitimate. I do worry that we have passed that time (I would have thought the Throne Speech was the moment to pull that pin) but I shall allow the Governor General - and her suddenly busy team of lawyers and advisors - to make that call.

If the Collapse of Global Capitalism is a immenent and mortal threat to the Canadian economy then I do think a coalition government is not just an acceptable option for the 40th Canadian Parliament, but maybe the right one. However, the one that I think would make more sense would have been a Conservative-Liberal coalition, but I think I recognize that such a suggestion is made impossible by the partisan politics that I worry is killing our democracy.

I was pretty hasty

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:36:00 +0000

In declaring the Conservative government's move to kill public funding to political parties "brilliant" (see below) I've obviously erred. I'm now shocked the Conservatives are backtracking on virtually all policy made in the past week and are still facing the end of their term in a week. I wasn't shocked on Friday morning, but now I'm dumbfounded.

Master stroke? Or too far?

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:22:00 +0000

Many bloggers along with the mainstream media are discussing the Conservative Party of Canada's move to withdraw public funding to political parties - here is a sample from the blogs I regularly read:

daveberta: two comments on jim flaherty's "economic update."
Enlightened Savage: Harper to Opposition: Go Fund Yourselves! and Dion Had Better Blink
under the hood: It feels wrong, but I almost want to move to America�
Stephen Taylor: Flaherty to end campaign welfare
CalgaryGrit: If you want to play chess, let's play! and In a slightly ironic twist...
Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying: I don't even know where to begin

At first when I learned about the ploy I was not surprised, but I did think people were blowing it out of proportion - I didn't think it was likely for the government to fall or even for it to go forward - I thought the Conservatives would be content with the Liberals simply taking the heat and burning the political capital to put it back. Then I learned it would be a part of Flaherty's economic update, making it a confidence motion. And while I still don't think the Governor General has as much flexibility as some, it does raise some very interesting possibilities - although I still think either the Liberals will cave, the Conservatives will cave or an inevitable election will occur - even if my rusty constitutional law is way off and Ms. Jean has the power to ask Dr. Dion or Mr. Layton to form a government, that government can only last as long as M. Duceppe can stomach it. As leader of the official opposition, Mr. Harper will have all the tools at his disposal to kill the new government within a month, and on an issue of his choosing while framing the election all about the selfish Liberals playing politics over a couple of million dollars for the Liberals while Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. All the same, some observations:

1. The Tories were exceedingly successful in making the public funding of parties the message - and framing the opposition of the update only about this issue. The economic update is likely the most important business in front of the House before the spring budget - unless a bailout or other economic measure comes up - and the reasons for opposing it are likely wide and varied. Our response to the Collapse of Global Capitalism (that's what I call it until the mainsteam media think of something better) is perhaps the most important issue that has faced our government since deciding not to go to Iraq - that is an issue much bigger than $30 million of public funding to parties. Yet, the only thing mainstream media can seem to talk about is how the Liberals are opposing the update because they will die if they don't get your tax dollars. Brilliant.

2. The Liberals still look weak - why aren't they saying we don't want your money? I mean, I know they need it and what not, but money can be raised, fundraising schemes can be implemented, loans can be taken out, and yes, bankruptcy can be considered. But there is a certain air of Oliver Twist in the spin on their commentary. Show people you are ready to govern by saying Canadians will lose their jobs and pensions if this economic update stands as the federal government reaction to the Collapse of Global Capitalism. Tell the public that public funding of parties is a part of a much larger issue of democratic reform, but since democratic reform isn't the top priorities of either the Liberals or Canadians, you aren't really thinking about it right now. Also, read and re-read CalgaryGrit's post on fundraising in response - go out and ask for money. Keep asking for money. Don't just ask for the max from well-off donors, go out and ask for $10 from everyone who might donate.

3. While I think the economic impacts of yesterday's update are infinitely more important than the political, money makes elections possible, and the rules governing how parties and their campaigns are funded are an important part of studying a democracy. I don't necessarily think it is a mistake to withdraw public funding of political parties, but I think it is important to realize that when we introduced public funding it was done at the same time as capping donations from individuals, unions and corporations. By not simply rolling back the clock to 2000, we're changing the democratic system wrapped in an economic debate. And that is a little unfair.

4. I'm really not shocked - the Conservatives are going for the throat of the Liberals. That was really the point of the last election, and it is the entire point of doing this. And it will take a strategist better than I to get the Liberals out of this very serious strategic bind.

Will I ever blog again?

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:33:00 +0000

I'm sure the answer is yes, but at this moment what to blog about escapes me. Go see the Star Trek trailer. Sign up for Twitter (likely the real reason I don't blog).

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:20:00 +0000

"My friends, we've got them just where we want them." - John McCain

Yeah, if you want them in the White House. FiveThirtyEight.com puts the likelihood of a McCain victory at 6.2%.

Bored at home

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:16:00 +0000

I'm stuck at home with nothing but the internet (and my dog and cat) to keep me company, as I wait for Shaw to come and fix my home phone. Given that I spend 97% of my time at work online (unlike some people I know) it feels like a waste to spend a day off surfing the tubes in the sky. But it is too cold to read a book in my yard, and again, chained to the home as I await the cable guy. Sigh.

Who Am I Going to Vote For: The End?

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:28:00 +0000

For reasons that are kind of complicated and personal, I may have decided who to vote for, but explaining it here would kind of defeat the purpose of this blog series, if that makes sense. However, I would love to add I saw a sign for the Pants Party on a public thoroughfare yesterday - anyone know that is?

Short hiatus

noreply@blogger.com (Duncan) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:03:00 +0000

My desire to blog will be limited as I've been in Lethbridge and am heading south again tomorrow for a bit. Silly work.