Why I'm a Groucho Marxist

Groucho Marxism is the newest movement in politics. Or a really old one depending on your view of such things. The mantra of the new party is very simple:

 

"I do not want to belong to any party that would have me as a member"

 

I have become increasingly frustrated by ideology and the apparent assumption that the party knows best. Political parties, are exclusionary by design, most people do not belong to one and even less understand the inherit risks associated with them.

 

I will paraphrase the risks in an overly dramatic fashion:
In the early 1930's Adolph Hitler organized a group called the NAZI party. At no time did this party represent the views of the majority of Germans, it was a splinter group of white supremist radicals that used muscle and intimidation to control election results. If you were not a supporter you were taking your life in your hands trying to vote, the risk of physical harm kept people away from voting in droves and was a very effective tool in getting the small group into and holding onto power.

 

Similar things occur, not so much on voting day, but certainly during nominations. Crowds of people, plugging parking lots or sending false voting instructions are all minor examples of exactly the same strategy.  This is why I will no longer belong to any single political party. I am in the somewhat unique position of having won an election unexpectedly and have friends who have similar feelings or experiences with party politics, either as former members of a caucus or as former senior ministers reduced to back benches while valiantly resisting being pushed right out the door.

 

Candidate vetting, which was ramped up substantially this election, includes the use  of private detectives, not for the protection of the public but for the protection of the party. Controversial individuals are as unwelcome as a cold sore on prom night. The preferred candidates are malleable, squeaky clean and nice shiny representations of the party.

 

Now I agree that convicted felons might not be the ideal candidates, but the reality is that everyone has something in their past that best stay there. I for one, do not want to know the details of the Jamie Lall restraining order. Something that happened eight years ago can hardly be considered representative of character, yet it was apparently enough, and while the party machine can control a lot using the carrot and the stick, they lose control of those who are on the outside and can only hope to keep them quiet by increasing the size of the stick.

 

While not the same as physical assaults witnessed in Germany in the 1930's, the end result is the same: muzzled politicians, government employees and party officials.  Civil libertarians want people to be free to speak, but politics is not a democratic process. This factor, the limitation of democracy in politics has created numerous strange bedfellows over the years and is quite likely going to create a three way in the bed that is the Alberta Legislature. It will be interesting indeed to see how the Wild rose, NDP and PC's cohabitate if the polls are even remotely close to being accurate. Cutting across party lines is the best thing that could happen in our legislature; cooperation replacing adversarial confrontation will make question period a lot less interesting but will probably result in more reasoned, rational and accountable legislation endorsed by at least two thirds of the parties in the house. (If the liberals survive, half)

And because of the varied interests of the parties, todays bedmate may not be tomorrows bedmate but everyone will have to behave if they expect to get invited a second time.

Coalitions and minorities are not bad or wrong, they are only feared by those in power: put simply, If I am the winner in a win lose situation I have no incentive to care about win-win.   If I am not on the win side I have a huge incentive.

I do not believe there is any golden child in party politics. While I am a birthright Republican I don't  think that any one ideology necessarily reflects all of my views. So I said farewell to parties and the system of leverages and said hello to the notion that I will either belong to no party or all of them. My money however, will never go to a party, it will only go to deserving candidates.

I'd say join me in the Groucho Marxist movement, but anyone who takes the idea of being a Groucho Marxist seriously wouldn't join anyway.

Good luck on Tuesday.

 

 

It just got interesting...............

 

The game changer may  have occurred yesterday. School Board Trustees, the group long considered the entry level to elected office, are protesting in public over the Provincial Governments budget and the damage they perceive it will do to service delivery in the class room.

 

This is a good way to lose an election.

 

Like it or not, we live in a society where every kid is special, where participation is rewarded over winning and where failure is not the preferred option.  So if you want to annoy parents, the simplest way to do it is to pick on their kids.

 

The Trustees are telling the public just that. "government you are picking on the kids" Edmonton Public and Catholic school boards will have to deal with over four thousand new enrollments this year that are unfunded. School boards in other jurisdictions are worse off.

 

Now four thousand kids amongst a population of well over 150,000, is not incrementally a huge increase, but it is an increase none the less and it does no good to talk statistics or percentages when every statistic has a first and last name.

 

The government will fire back telling the boards to fund growth with their reserves which leaves nothing for the future and aside from funding the increase teachers received in their last collective agreement negotiation there will be no new money. Your kids are going to feel the pinch.

 

I particularly like this move by the Trustees, even if I am not completely certain of the data behind it, because this might very well be their one and only opportunity to stand up and make some noise about the issues they are facing.

 

This will resonate much louder with the public than calls for increased MSI funding or more money for LRT, or even, frankly, health care, because every day the problem will come home with a tattered text book.

 

When one level of government, school boards, is completely dependent on another level of government for funding, the province, conflicts are inevitable but so are the consequences of biting the hand that feeds. In this case, I do think the proliferation of lawn signs that are not Tory blue might be part of the incentive behind it.

 

If I were cynical, I might suggest that the proliferation of orange signs and the general propensity of Trustees to lean in that direction, might make this an orchestrated political campaign move but in fairness, the boards have a genuine issue here. Ignoring growth is not a recipe for success in any circumstance.

 

Ignoring the voters most affected by  the growth is a recipe for disaster.

 

So whatever the motivation, the Trustees are right, it will get voters out and it may not get voters out in a way that helps the government.

 

A good MLA works the schools, knowing that a fridge magnet given to a sixth grader goes straight home and onto the fridge while a fridge magnet given to an adult typically goes straight into the garbage.  Care about the kids, aspiring MLA's and the parents will care about you.

 

This could be the election when education becomes the game changer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not the number of lawn signs that should worry you; it's where they are that should worry you.

 

In 2008, I was asked why my opponent had more lawn signs than I did. I replied simply, "what difference, signs don't vote".  After driving back from Lethbridge on the weekend I'm inclined to revise my opinion: Lawn signs are only an indication of support when they are on private property and a large the sign nailed to a fence indicates strong support at that house.  In Edmonton, it does not bode well for anyone except the NDP.

 

I have favorite candidates in three parties and I happen to think that a minority PC government might not be such a bad way to go. Forcing coalitions amongst the right and left ends of the spectrum could, in fact, give us the means to do a few things that really need to be done:

 

• Control the bottomless pit called Universal Healthcare before it kills us all.
• Take up the GST reduction gap from seven to five percent and introduce a provincial sales tax of two percent.
• Cap government spending at inflation plus population growth.
• Adjust royalties equally in all sectors; Prentice and Campbell  avoided increasing the royalty on oil, but NOT on gravel, timber or any other natural resource. This is a calculated insincerity that deserves scrutiny.
• Consolidate the delivery of education by amalgamating Public, Catholic and Francophone school boards. I'm sure the people running them are smart enough to figure out how to keep religious equity intact.
• Develop and stick to a plan beyond the Four year election cycle. Nobody remembers the last ten year plan. I think it was to end homelessness or something, anyway, it didn't work.

 When a governing party, is controlled by polling, as is the PC party, their policies will adapt to reflect the strongest emotions demonstrated the public. Emotion is a terrible way to make policy of any kind, it is a bad reason alone to get married, buy a car and is really suited only to choosing a flavor of ice cream. It has it's place, but long term planning and planning for the future is not an emotional activity, yet what we get are increased sin taxes and more expensive speeding tickets, as though these things drive any of the issues or solve any problems, they do not.

 

They  are easy and no one is going to complain, but  there is no universal and well organized opposition to them. Hence in the legislature, a minority government will be forced to seek coalitions with the other parties to move forward on agendas, it's a great cure for pervasive arrogance.

 

I have not blogged about this election because there isn't much to blog about. What is occurring is in no way unique or unexpected. Team Ralph, Team Ed, Team Allison or  Team Jim, have all been faced with one primary goal: Power. And while this is a seductive beauty it is a fickle one and never a good long term partner as the focus will always shift from using power to keeping it.

 

My Prediction:

 

PC:    42-55

NDP: 12-21 all in Edmonton plus maybe Lethbridge east

Wild Rose: 15-33

Liberal: 2

 

Most likely:
 

43 PC

18 NDP

24 WRP

2   LIB

 

Now that would be an interesting legislature.

 

Good luck to every good candidate in this race, it's less about you dear friends than the banner you run under, so win or lose, do your best and hope your leader is able to resonate with the voting public.

See you on the 5th, if I can figure out where to vote.

 

 

 

Friends in more than one party

I have decided that I do not care about political parties. I have really begun to question the mindless wisdom associated with aligning oneself with a single ideology, it makes as much sense to me as the nonsense of things like "true believers", it makes none.

I make this bold proclamation because politics are ultimately about the acts and character of individuals, not the party machinery.  I've been to too many sevents where rabid sign wavers take their assigned spot on the stage behind the "leader" contrived events where they always subscribe to the theory of "the smaller the hall, the bigger the crowd looks".

They all do this, except the Liberals when Raj won the leadership. For some reason at that event they booked the butter done and would have been better off with a butter dish, so few people materialized.

The long term view and reason for strong parties is actually to discourage voter participation, I was elected because Ed Stelmach was premier, I was on Eds "team". We had talking points about policies and very little discussion about who the actual candidates were. The parties don't mind this, the old adage, "put a PC badge on it and you could elect a goat in this constituency" has been proven more than once.  The NDP are the worse with this, making their members promise not to join any other party, they marshal resources from the Tommy Douglas institute and every post secondary arts program in the west, their loyalists routinely sleep on the floors of like minded peoples homes and once the election is over they go back to class where they spend their time complaining about the cost of tuition and how washrooms aren't gender neutral.

It's a natural behavior frankly. Doesn't matter what party, they all do it.

So while I'm enjoying sunrise in Belize, a country in the midst of an election where politics matter because it's all local and where getting a new village water pump is often the hottest campaign issue, I  have decided to divorce myself from caring about party lines and will instead put all my efforts into helping candidates with integrity.

I will be campaigning for candidates, not parties. The parties  will have to accept that while in Edmonton Calder, Strathcona  or Castledowns, I'm supporting the PC candidate; in Westlock, Glenora  or Meadowlark I am not.   Other constituencies, like Decore or Manning I won't be supporting anybody.

I am campaigning for the person I happen to believe is the best candidate,  the party leaders are of no concern to me nor are the policies, promises and criticisms they are about to throw at each other, I will be very selective in my help. Some will need money, some shoe leather and while the party mandarins might not like my approach, I do not believe ANY party has the market cornered on candidates with integrity.

Alberta politics is so unpredictible it's rather boring, and it's going to stay that way

Jim Prentice risks being more interesting than a stuffed shirt by buying a 1950's car for his grandson. Welcome to the club Jim; I bought a 1958 Vauxhall Victor for my grandson for exactly the same reason.

Politicians are often self absorbed and boring, so it's nice to see a touch of humanity and frankly affluence by having our premier buy a 56 T-Bird. Of course the idea that he would spend his money on anything so frivolous  simply proves he is not responsible with money, except he paid cash and his T-Bird still cost less than your lifted F350 diesel with the leather seats you bought with no money down and will make payments on for eight years.

Like I said, the Premier paid cash.

In tough times, people who have cash generally get to buy things from people who do not have cash, this is called prudence and financial acumen. It's also called taking advantage of a good deal.

Now the left  will complain this is the 1% using their wealth to exploit the 99% but in reality it's just a fundamental understanding that you can't spend more than you earn.

So what does the T-Bird mean for the future of the province?

It means that fiscally prudent people  who live below their means might be in charge. The Premier might have more resources than most people, and the left might hate him for it, but all it really proves is, well, nothing other than  the guy has an eye for cars. Although to tell you the truth I am a bit concerned about the hood gap on the Bird, it's ever so slightly off, indicating a less than stellar restoration, I'm sure you noticed.
 

But to get where Alberta needs to go, driving old car analogies aside, the Premier is going to have to make some changes,  changes that involve replacing some old MLA's with new ones:

Peter Sandhu: Like him or not, he was embroiled in a scandal about his business dealings, he is a lightening rod and therefore gone. Scores a zero in fiscal prudence.

Fred Horne: Fred became the master of our of control single source contracts and  the irony of this is his fate is largely in the hands of the Yoda of the single source contract, PC party executive director Kelly Charlibois.

Raj Sherman:  Doctor Dreamy has gone into hiding of late, this will become permanent as he has single handedly demolished the Liberal party.  I know he's not a PC but he should still go.

Doug Horner: A great guy but he is completely off-side with the Prentice model of fiscal management, caucus cannot be a comfortable place for him. Oops I see I am a day late on this one, he retired before I could share my prediction.

Sohail Quadri: His undoing was telling my friend Nejolla that he had a special deal for voting in the leadership race that essentially let him do it for people. Very suspect behaviour.

David Xiao:  Since  being  disqualified as a CPC candidate,  being an MLA is embarrassing at best.  David, just go.  

Janice Sarich: She has already expressed her dissatisfaction with party politics and her lack of upward mobility. I think her dissatisfaction is about to be honored.

Gary Bickman:  Of all the people about to feel the wrath of the rebel voters in southern Alberta,  Gary will be the guy;  his election victory  over former MLA Broyce Jacobs was largely a battle of competing Mormon bishops,  this time it is more than likely to be a battle of more fundamental values, like honesty.

Danielle Smith:  Few people in politics have gone from hero to zero quicker than Ms. Smith.  Even if the PC party does not do a " Joe Anglin" on her, I think her constituents will seal the deal.

 

How come Thomas Lukaszuk isn't on this list? Well frankly, Thomas could run for the Rhinoceros party and people in Castledowns would vote for him. Indeed he has done a very good job of staying out of the limelight for negative things. 

 

There are a few others who might find their nomination "discouraged" by the Premiers office  such as Pearl Calahasen, Moe Amery, Neil Brown, Alana DeLong, all good MLA's,  however given that Premier has suggested "Term Limits" every MLA in the PC party should be looking at their personal "best before" date.

  
Tenure is no longer the great thing it once was.  Essentially the old timers need to go because each of them will receive 3 months severance for every year served prior to 2012. Alana DeLong, for example, was elected in 2001 she is eligible for 33 months severance or about $400,000.00.   The Premier is likely thinking, "better to take this hit once than drag it out".  Expect a lot of retirements.

 

The message was loud and clear to those who took the time to hear it:  this is a new team, a new Alberta, a new organization. All of which is just rhetoric except  anytime there is a new CEO, that CEO will want his own people.

Pretty boring stuff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quite possibly the most significant bi-election in Alberta history and nobody is even aware it's going on............

 

 

    The Edmonton Public School Board held a bi-election that is a first in Alberta. This publically elected board is taking constituent concerns to heart and held a bi-election  to elect a student to an equal seat at the board table.

 

In an era where political leaders do everything in their power to limit their transparency to the public, this board has taken the bold step of providing an equal say in board affairs to their greatest constituency: Students.

 

Rather than the traditional "your elders know best" approach to leadership, the EPSB passed a motion to allow students in high school to elect one of their own to sit at the board table and have the title; Trustee.
 

Such was the interest among Edmonton  high school students that 15 young people put their names forward vying for the chance to be the Trustee. This, for a position that adults often use as a gateway to greater political aspirations (Janice Sarich,  Bev Esslinger, Theresa Woopah, Danielle Smith, Kyle Fawcett, Maureen Kubernik) and are often elected or acclaimed in very quiet races as part of virtually silent municipal elections.

 

Why there isn't more noise about a student becoming a trustee is a mystery to me. If it were not a slow news day it might get some coverage, but I understand that   the possibility of Jim Prentice raising taxes or Ian Donovan and Kerri Towle not being able to tell right from right, takes precedence over an item like this.

 

I enjoy the potential implications:  the EPSB trustees have agreed, as a group, to water down their influence by allowing one more member on their board and that member will actually be someone directly impacted by every decision being made.

 

It's as imaginative as if the City of Edmonton appointing a homeless person to the homelessness commission, instead of just people who live in St. Albert, or the provincial government inviting the Pembina Institute  participate in environmental hearings without the Pembina Institute having to go to court.

 

It is a ground breaking step in transparency and  as moral and good as it is, it will at best considered a novelty, both in action and meaning by the majority of people and senior levels of government.

 

This decision by the EPSB is not the sort of thing we often get from our elected leaders, we get too many platitudes, prepared talking points, meaningless puff ball questions or other legislative boondoggles to  ever really see anything new or brave.

 

School board trustees, particularly since they aren't funders of the general social good, seldom get much recognition and are almost never introduced at fundraiser breakfasts yet somehow, despite this lack of attention and ego massage so common to City councillors or MLA's they managed to make a genuinely brilliant move that deserves far more accolades than a photo  of an MLA giving a giant cardboard cheque to a worthy cause.

There is a big difference between doing things the right way  and doing the right things: this is the best example I have seen in some time of a group of elected officials doing the right thing.
 

 

 

 

 

It's not over until the female with the gland issue sings...........

 

 

I did not pay much attention to the buy-elections, especially this one since it fell so close on the heels of the  NDP leadership race. I was just plain exhausted.

 

 Bottom line: The big blue machine has proven, again, if nothing else, it is a formidable  opponent and is clearly  dedicated to holding onto power.  

 

In politics; as long as you win:  Actually in politics, WINNING is all there is.  

 

Prentice knows this, Mandell knows this, the other candidates know this, as should the Wild Rose, who for some  inexplicable reason chose to ignore it.

 

Finishing third behind the NDP in Edmonton Whitemud is  interesting and somewhat humiliating,  losing Calgary West by 315 votes is a less bitter pill to swallow:  It was  a close race, they had a good candidate but finished 315 votes short of bragging rights.   They scored a moral victory and sent the PC's a message that almost enough people didn't vote for them, and they better watch out because if the right 316 move or die between now and the next general election, this seat will be in play.

 

There will be some  soul searching about Willy MacBeath and Vitor  Marciano,  the Wildrose dynamic duo responsible for the  hyper-partisan campaign strategy that failed to deliver anything except abject failure.

The Alberta party,  in Calgary Elbow showed what happens when you hire a modern strategist with a penchant for social media to run your campaign: They  lost by 795 votes, but the social media spin was terrific. They lost but they didn't have anything to  lose.

 

The Green Party  were able to convince a 356 people to waste their votes and 23 people voted for an independent, presumably his immediate family.

 

While the PC's held the seats, every party except the Wildrose has something to feel good about.

 

Mayor, oops I mean Minister, Mandell called his victory "kosher" and even though he left about 20% on the table compared to what Hancock used to poll;  he was pleased, with the result, and just to prove that he hasn't changed a bit he  got testy with the reporter who mentioned it.   

No, the real story here is how, yet again the Wildrose managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by relying on an outdated strategy managed by out of touch zealots:  The Willy and Vitor brain trust are really good at the negative, which in a general election is a proven strategy for them. (Oh wait, no it's not)

Sure the PC's played buy-election:  announcing, schools hospitals and road construction in the constituencies in question, but they have always done that and the Wildrose should have known it was coming:

I do not think the Wildrose played hard enough on this,  I'd have promoted the whole thing as a BUY-ELECTION and kept public tab of how much taxpayer money was being spent and or promised  by the candidates.

But I predict election losses are not quite the end of the story: I keep hearing rumours that more than one Wildrose MLA is in conversation with PC Whip George Vanderberg about crossing the floor the other way. 
  
Danielle desperately needs to contain her caucus more effectively than she did with Joe Anglin from Rocky Mountain House, where, ultimately, the brain trust  set him up to lose his nomination because he was going to imitate Sarah Palin and go rogue. 
Danielle's public declaration of getting at least 77% in the leadership review is going to be a controlled and somewhat contrived activity, especially if there are changes who aren't Willy and Vitor.

She will get 77%, question is of what?

Politics is a blood sport. Apparently it's not the names on the ballot who control affairs, it's the old boys in support hose who do, or at least think they do. Trouble is they are seldom held to account for screwing up.

The  Wildrose could very well cease to exist as  meaningful opposition after 2016. They keep showing the PC's that Albertans gave them "one last chance", but I doubt very much the Big Blue Machine is worried about the about the official opposition who managed to finish third in two of four buy-election.

It's like there are four dogs in this province, one that knows how to hunt and three who can't be bothered getting off the porch.