My fellow Albertans,
Since it has come to the government's attention that we allegedly don't like Alberta all that much, we're going to go out of our way to give Albertans outside of southern rural Alberta exactly what they want - a Liberal government, but without the name, the doctor, or the tax increases. Well, no new taxes for now at least. We'll have a chat about that later.
We're going to keep the promises to liberal-minded voters we made in our platform. Don't worry that our platform doesn't mention climate change or publicly delivered health care. Past PC governments have shown we can be trusted on those fronts.
• Follow a renewed fiscal policy and savings strategy to reduce dependence on non-renewable resource revenue and seek Albertans’ input on the future of the Alberta heritage savings trust fund.
• Identify strategies to expand the recruitment of post-secondary students in rural areas, including those within Métis and first nations communities.
• Serve as the catalyst for a pan-Canadian Energy Strategy that promotes inter-jurisdictional collaboration to develop a sustainable energy roadmap based on common goals and priorities.
• Implement Alberta’s International Strategy, including the negotiation of “externships” – competitive placements for talented Albertans in international organizations, foundations, multilateral institutions and the private sector.
• Implement increases to the monthly living allowance and the employment income exemptions for participants of the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program, as outlined in budget 2012.
• We will build a network of up to 140 Family Care Clinics based on the pilots in calgary, edmonton and slave lake.
• Alternative medicine plays an increasingly important role in preventative health, and needs to be considered in a holistic approach to wellness – especially in cases where naturopathic, homeopathic, chiropractic and other therapies help patients attain personal health goals. Qualified patients will be able to claim up to $500 per year for these treatments starting in 2013.
• A new PC government will increase the number of long-term care spaces by 1,000 per year over the next five years and meet the needs of Alberta’s aging population and changing demographic profile.
• A new PC government will implement a province-wide ‘After School Recreation Strategy’. the ‘After school recreation strategy’ is supported by evidence that unsupervised children, between the hours of 3 and 6 p.m., are more vulnerable to anti-social and other behaviours that lead them into trouble with the law. we would spend an estimated $1.5 million to develop the program, with an ongoing operational budget of between $3 and $5 million per year. funding for the program would come from the Alberta lottery fund.
• A new PC government will build an additional 50 new schools and renovate 70 more over the next 4 years in the communities that need them most
• The Canadian Energy Strategy will help provinces and territories understand how all of canada benefits from resources in Alberta. (along with our plan for Securing expanded pipeline capacity to Eastern Canada)
• This year, agencies contracted by Seniors and Human Services received an additional $62 million – the equivalent of a five per cent wage increase and a $1,500 lump sum payment for an estimated 17,000 agency workers.
• A new PC government is committed to strengthening supports for Albertans in their time of need. our Plan for Poverty reduction will focus on a 5-year plan to eliminate child poverty and a 10-year plan to reduce overall poverty.
• To help keep traffic moving, our water clean and expand transit we will renew our ongoing commitment to fund cities through the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI). A new Progressive Conservative government will commit an additional $600 million a year to Msi in 2014/15 and guarantee yearly funding of $1.6 billion a year through 2023.
So, Albertans outside of southern rural Alberta, take us at our word - we've got the change you want. Go ahead, hold us to it.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Trudeau's shadow
Hat tip to the National Film Board - can't believe Harper hasn't slashed it yet - and their excellent website, www.nfb.ca. It's packed with awesome documentaries from years back. What an asset to Canadian culture.
The question of who will be Canada's next great leader seems decidedly undecided right now. Though he's achieved his political objectives, Stephen Harper is not a great leader - a man who inspires us to greater highs - nor a nation builder - sensible for a politician who sees little role for government in nation building. Thomas Mulcair is showing a divisive, calculating streak by hanging his economic credentials on Canada's "dutch disease". But he has years to prove himself.
This weekend's free TV - Hat tip to the Internet, wag of the finger to the cable companies - included this series on the simultaneous rises, falls and interplays of Pierre Trudeau and Rene Levesque. The first of three: http://www.nfb.ca/film/champions_part_1/
Trudeau's removed intellectual style seems wildly out of place in today's Riddelin-starved retail politics - see Michael Ignatieff. Yet he was the last to reshape our nation. Significantly, he was the last prime minister a significant number of people seemed to love. But a review of his governing record, as the documentary suggests, returns many periods of listlessness and managerial dysfunction.
On environmental sustainability, indigenous living, urban challenges, health care sustainability, competitiveness and more, Canada needs fundamental change - realignments of responsibility, bold but careful intrusions into the market, a reconsideration of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Yet we have elected, since Mulroney, incremental managers in the style of your supervisor at work. Chretien and Martin succeeded in slaying the deficit in the 90s, yes - but those are trophies from award dinners, not the stuff of grade-school textbooks or tearful flag-raisings.
Despite his style, the meaningfulness of Trudeau's big accomplishments are with us still exactly because they impacted both our emotional and material lives. In retrospect, it's possible to draw the connections between a strong stance on rights and the impact the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had on the lives of all Canadians. Trudeau's intellectual rigour on rights - the succinctness of his thinking - eventually and almost accidentally came around to unite the heady and the daily.
I've yet to see a leader emerge who has thought through all those fundamental challenges and can explain why the work must be done. No leader has stepped forth to present with ruthless honesty and unending patience a plan that rises above easy criticism. Is there a leader who could do both and get elected in Canada today? Would we listen? The search goes on.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Police state? Thanks, Black Block.
Firstly, kudos to the Globe and Mail for speaking to and publishing the words of those involved in the Black Block techniques at the G8/G20.
It makes clear the motivation behind the violence - lash out against the corporate entities that are allegedly oppressing the populace.
One black blocker even argued the vandalism was helping spread the messages of non-violent protesters.
I see this as a teachable moment - an opportunity to restate what's evident in the way media covers protests marred by violence.
Destruction takes the lead. Your violent acts don't clear the way for other messages. They don't carry any political message through editors' filters. Violence is an opaque lens on the real issues that have upset you and motivated you to kick and smash.
If you're truly anarchists as you're often described, then maybe you're happy that the violence focuses the debate on the power of police instead of the politics affecting our daily lives.
You would do anything to elicit a heavy-handed police response, undermining public confidence in the social order.
But outside your living-room revolutionary brigades, there's a public that may well side with police in this debate. They see your antics as deplorable, and therefore the police justified in their use of force.
For that sizable part of the populace, you reinforce the need for a heavy-handed law and order state. You make the subversion of civil liberties seem like a necessary recourse to keep store windows in place.
The media you're aiming to saturate? Reporters are told to report at risk of arrest, or to leave.
Suddenly the list of your opposition grows - it's the corporations and governments, then it's the media, then it's the populace itself. Who exactly are you with? Who are you serving?
Do you care? Or are emotional fits enough to scratch that itch for action on your grievances?
It makes clear the motivation behind the violence - lash out against the corporate entities that are allegedly oppressing the populace.
“Look here, look at the reaction to austerity measures in Greece, look at the anger surrounding BP in the Gulf,” Mr. Bowen said. “The whole global economy is coming down. We are going to kick it until it breaks.”
One black blocker even argued the vandalism was helping spread the messages of non-violent protesters.
He claimed that Black Bloc acts as “a wrecking ball” that clears the way for other protest groups to state their various cases. Smashing windows at Hudson’s Bay Co., for instance, “actually opened up space for Canadians to stop and think about the colonial history of HBC,” Mr. Hundert wrote.
I see this as a teachable moment - an opportunity to restate what's evident in the way media covers protests marred by violence.
Destruction takes the lead. Your violent acts don't clear the way for other messages. They don't carry any political message through editors' filters. Violence is an opaque lens on the real issues that have upset you and motivated you to kick and smash.
If you're truly anarchists as you're often described, then maybe you're happy that the violence focuses the debate on the power of police instead of the politics affecting our daily lives.
You would do anything to elicit a heavy-handed police response, undermining public confidence in the social order.
But outside your living-room revolutionary brigades, there's a public that may well side with police in this debate. They see your antics as deplorable, and therefore the police justified in their use of force.
For that sizable part of the populace, you reinforce the need for a heavy-handed law and order state. You make the subversion of civil liberties seem like a necessary recourse to keep store windows in place.
The media you're aiming to saturate? Reporters are told to report at risk of arrest, or to leave.
Suddenly the list of your opposition grows - it's the corporations and governments, then it's the media, then it's the populace itself. Who exactly are you with? Who are you serving?
Do you care? Or are emotional fits enough to scratch that itch for action on your grievances?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Is education the wisest focus?
Michael Ignatieff stood before Canadians Sunday to try and convince them he's feeling their every-man pain ... by reminding us all he's a professor.
Hit 'em with textbooks, he said in his convention closing speech Saturday.
Well, maybe he offered a bit more nuance:
"A recovery strategy must be a strategy for learning," he proposed for our ailing economy. He folded in the need for early childhood education, easier access to finances needed for post-secondary schooling, fighting illiteracy and improving the education system for Aboriginal peoples.
Smile and nod policy, all.
But will offering voters a lesson drive them to the ballot box?
I've never seen a poll that put education as a top issue of concern for voters. Right now it's the economy.
So yet another Liberal leader is proposing to fix the economy with indirect but expensive policies. It was incredibly difficult to link the Green Shift to economic prosperity because you can at no point say, "if I spend a dollar, you get a job." In this case, it's more like, "if I spend a dollar, you'll get an education, which should help you get a job - if they economy is good."
It's seems simple enough, but little more than "tax carbon, which you don't like, and save on income taxes, which you like."
It's good policy, but tough politics.
Like saying we need a green economy reached through an environmental focus, trying to tackle the economy through improved education makes sense. In an election campaign, however, it comes off as a dodge to the main issue.
It wasn't until Dion dropped the Green Shift and addressed the economy directly that even a breath of wind filled his campaign sails.
MI would also have to posit this professorial solution without sounding like a professor - arguably his biggest unconquered weakness.
Considering every speaker leading up to Michael's speech spoke almost exclusively about the need to win, I'm a bit surprised Liberals are willing to travel the winding road again.
Here's hoping it doesn't lead to the political wilderness.
Hit 'em with textbooks, he said in his convention closing speech Saturday.
Well, maybe he offered a bit more nuance:
"A recovery strategy must be a strategy for learning," he proposed for our ailing economy. He folded in the need for early childhood education, easier access to finances needed for post-secondary schooling, fighting illiteracy and improving the education system for Aboriginal peoples.
Smile and nod policy, all.
But will offering voters a lesson drive them to the ballot box?
I've never seen a poll that put education as a top issue of concern for voters. Right now it's the economy.
So yet another Liberal leader is proposing to fix the economy with indirect but expensive policies. It was incredibly difficult to link the Green Shift to economic prosperity because you can at no point say, "if I spend a dollar, you get a job." In this case, it's more like, "if I spend a dollar, you'll get an education, which should help you get a job - if they economy is good."
It's seems simple enough, but little more than "tax carbon, which you don't like, and save on income taxes, which you like."
It's good policy, but tough politics.
Like saying we need a green economy reached through an environmental focus, trying to tackle the economy through improved education makes sense. In an election campaign, however, it comes off as a dodge to the main issue.
It wasn't until Dion dropped the Green Shift and addressed the economy directly that even a breath of wind filled his campaign sails.
MI would also have to posit this professorial solution without sounding like a professor - arguably his biggest unconquered weakness.
Considering every speaker leading up to Michael's speech spoke almost exclusively about the need to win, I'm a bit surprised Liberals are willing to travel the winding road again.
Here's hoping it doesn't lead to the political wilderness.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Its the time of the season for voting
A gem I stumbled upon thanks to CBC's embrace of iTunes: the At Issue panel final session from a few weeks ago.
Interesting idea was touched upon, and I'd like to add a bit.
Heibert, Coyne, Gregg and Murphy stumbled upon the idea in chatting about federal election timing (they all later nominated the question as the most overdiscussed of the political year) that Dion et Green Shift are best to move before the winter season, when those home heating bills start to roll in -- the idea being that even though Dion could sidestep the high gas prices (in argument, at least) by pointing out his plan does not tax gas, he would have no answer to people's stress over the thought of even higher gas bills other than to say that, uhhh, there'll be some money coming to help that . . . next year.
So, it may be the winter of dismay for the Liberals, but the Harper government may not be able to stand the heat of the summer.
Since climate change fell upon popular awareness, every major weather event has seemed to trigger a connection with a need to get to work on global warming. If Canada faces an extremely hot or busy summer storm season, the tough talk of paying a price for carbon would at least seem viscerally justified.
This all leaves (pardon the pun) the fall as go time for the Liberals. One has to think that if Dion and party cannot sell the Green Shift in the period of a summer and an election, the thing is truly an albatross.
Interesting idea was touched upon, and I'd like to add a bit.
Heibert, Coyne, Gregg and Murphy stumbled upon the idea in chatting about federal election timing (they all later nominated the question as the most overdiscussed of the political year) that Dion et Green Shift are best to move before the winter season, when those home heating bills start to roll in -- the idea being that even though Dion could sidestep the high gas prices (in argument, at least) by pointing out his plan does not tax gas, he would have no answer to people's stress over the thought of even higher gas bills other than to say that, uhhh, there'll be some money coming to help that . . . next year.
So, it may be the winter of dismay for the Liberals, but the Harper government may not be able to stand the heat of the summer.
Since climate change fell upon popular awareness, every major weather event has seemed to trigger a connection with a need to get to work on global warming. If Canada faces an extremely hot or busy summer storm season, the tough talk of paying a price for carbon would at least seem viscerally justified.
This all leaves (pardon the pun) the fall as go time for the Liberals. One has to think that if Dion and party cannot sell the Green Shift in the period of a summer and an election, the thing is truly an albatross.
Looking far back, but not too far
A handy consequence of posting so infrequently: the first thing you see is an old post that is of the right vintage to uncork and taste.
Interesting to look at the last paragraph of my last post before the update. Now, Silly Hillary, who clearly along with many other people does not read this blog, decided to hold out to a bitter end before quitting the race. Despite that, Obama is in the lead according to every poll that I've seen. My argument slain? Hardly.
Mainly, Obama has been chasing hard after blue collar centrist votes with several policy shifts to the middle (I generally don't penalize folk for moving to the centre, hense I'll leave flip flop in the dictionary) and a lot of face time in some rather red states (July 4 in Montana?). This is of course, entirely logical and expectable, and my previous observation was hardly a eureka discovery -- but, it's nice to confirm that I'm at least starting from a sane point of view.
Interesting to look at the last paragraph of my last post before the update. Now, Silly Hillary, who clearly along with many other people does not read this blog, decided to hold out to a bitter end before quitting the race. Despite that, Obama is in the lead according to every poll that I've seen. My argument slain? Hardly.
Mainly, Obama has been chasing hard after blue collar centrist votes with several policy shifts to the middle (I generally don't penalize folk for moving to the centre, hense I'll leave flip flop in the dictionary) and a lot of face time in some rather red states (July 4 in Montana?). This is of course, entirely logical and expectable, and my previous observation was hardly a eureka discovery -- but, it's nice to confirm that I'm at least starting from a sane point of view.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Unholy union may be neccessary
The New York Times notes two trends related to organizational vote in the Pennsylvania primary.
While it is one thing to have unaffiliated workers voting en masse for one particular candidate, it's another when unions power one to victory. Unions are core Democrats, but have, in past, turned Republican (known as Reagan Democrats).
Two possibilities prevail:
By holding in the contest, Clinton is unintentionally working to drive Reagan Democrats back into the Red fold. The bitter rhetoric of her campaign, her tagging of Obama as an elite, may well turn unioner attitudes toward Obama sour if (or when) he takes the nomination. This would be potentially disastrous for the Democrats. One should note that during his 2000 primary bid, John McCain chased
the same Reagan Democrat votes that are fueling Clinton's survival. Bitter attitudes plus a friendly GOP message could collapse the grandstand beneath Obama, who has proven appeal in traditional red states but needs the confidence of traditional Democrats in order to pursue and capitalize those Red state votes in November. Betting on a turn in Mississippi seems foolish if Pennsylvania goes Republican.
Obama has shot his candidacy in the foot with the god and gun loving comments. If, as some critics have suggested, Obama's rhetoric is truly empty, then perhaps this was the sign; or, perhaps his oftly-cited "authentic" tone may have turned around on him. Even Obama believers will have to concede that the comments made him look like a pretty marginalized candidate: one who speaks largely to a class of urban idealists who, by a long stretch, do not form a majority in America. Insulting the pride, lifestyle and worldview of any group of people is a sure path to eliciting a powerfully negative emotional reaction. Obama dropped a seed of defeat with that comment, and these results may be sign that it has begun to sprout. An irrational, emotional turn against Obama would seal his fate in November.
In the frame of either understanding, the best solution is for Hillary to quit the race as soon as possible and genuinely work with Obama to sway the unions, and blue-collar Democrats, into his favour. Obama's message could be reshaped to keep traditional democrats in the fold, especially after two Bush Republican terms and with so few policy differences between the candidates. Hillary, in contrast, has proven throughout the campaign to be too polarizing a figure to reach out to independents and new Democrats, a quality needed against McCain's independent appeal. Obama still has the best electablility formula, with age and voice that suit a desire for change far more than the 70-some-year-old McCain, but that equation wains with each Hillary attack or chance for ill-informed misspeak without proper coaching.
UPDATE:
I'm not sure the 9 point margin really lends favour to either perspective i discussed. There seemed to be particular regional issues for Obama from what I'm reading, and the issues of spending and ground organization will have played a large factor. Mr. Obama clearly has the money, and evidently not the machine -- the opposite can be said for Ms. Clinton. Those factors aside, another interesting factor arose: voters who named the economy as their top issue in exit polls voted strongly (56 to 44 per cent) in favour of Clinton. Considering Obama lost Pittsburgh and almost all of the rest of rural Penn., I'd say he needs to bring forth, or at least passionately express an economic plan before Indiana to have a hope of scoring a decisive win there. His straight talk has fallen on deaf ears in manufacturing America.
9:39 p.m. | Signs, Signs, Signs: Check out the picture of the Clinton rally on our site. What jumps out is how many union signs are there. We noticed this at Senatr Clinton’s rally late Monday night at the Palestra. The unions _ AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers among them _ have stood by her. This may be good for the TV backdrop but it emphasizes her institutional support, not a rising up of the grassroots.
In fact, among white union members with no college education, she is winning almost three-quarters of the vote. That’s significant.
While it is one thing to have unaffiliated workers voting en masse for one particular candidate, it's another when unions power one to victory. Unions are core Democrats, but have, in past, turned Republican (known as Reagan Democrats).
Two possibilities prevail:
By holding in the contest, Clinton is unintentionally working to drive Reagan Democrats back into the Red fold. The bitter rhetoric of her campaign, her tagging of Obama as an elite, may well turn unioner attitudes toward Obama sour if (or when) he takes the nomination. This would be potentially disastrous for the Democrats. One should note that during his 2000 primary bid, John McCain chased
the same Reagan Democrat votes that are fueling Clinton's survival. Bitter attitudes plus a friendly GOP message could collapse the grandstand beneath Obama, who has proven appeal in traditional red states but needs the confidence of traditional Democrats in order to pursue and capitalize those Red state votes in November. Betting on a turn in Mississippi seems foolish if Pennsylvania goes Republican.
Obama has shot his candidacy in the foot with the god and gun loving comments. If, as some critics have suggested, Obama's rhetoric is truly empty, then perhaps this was the sign; or, perhaps his oftly-cited "authentic" tone may have turned around on him. Even Obama believers will have to concede that the comments made him look like a pretty marginalized candidate: one who speaks largely to a class of urban idealists who, by a long stretch, do not form a majority in America. Insulting the pride, lifestyle and worldview of any group of people is a sure path to eliciting a powerfully negative emotional reaction. Obama dropped a seed of defeat with that comment, and these results may be sign that it has begun to sprout. An irrational, emotional turn against Obama would seal his fate in November.
In the frame of either understanding, the best solution is for Hillary to quit the race as soon as possible and genuinely work with Obama to sway the unions, and blue-collar Democrats, into his favour. Obama's message could be reshaped to keep traditional democrats in the fold, especially after two Bush Republican terms and with so few policy differences between the candidates. Hillary, in contrast, has proven throughout the campaign to be too polarizing a figure to reach out to independents and new Democrats, a quality needed against McCain's independent appeal. Obama still has the best electablility formula, with age and voice that suit a desire for change far more than the 70-some-year-old McCain, but that equation wains with each Hillary attack or chance for ill-informed misspeak without proper coaching.
UPDATE:
I'm not sure the 9 point margin really lends favour to either perspective i discussed. There seemed to be particular regional issues for Obama from what I'm reading, and the issues of spending and ground organization will have played a large factor. Mr. Obama clearly has the money, and evidently not the machine -- the opposite can be said for Ms. Clinton. Those factors aside, another interesting factor arose: voters who named the economy as their top issue in exit polls voted strongly (56 to 44 per cent) in favour of Clinton. Considering Obama lost Pittsburgh and almost all of the rest of rural Penn., I'd say he needs to bring forth, or at least passionately express an economic plan before Indiana to have a hope of scoring a decisive win there. His straight talk has fallen on deaf ears in manufacturing America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)