The idea of rewarding volunteer hours with a tax break has been bruited around recently, and has caught my attention for a couple of reasons.
The first issue with this as an incentive to volunteerism of course is that the incentive has nothing to do with the reasons Albertans volunteer so extensively. There is no tax reason to do so now, and Albertans apparently volunteer as much as any population in the country. Clearly we have good reasons to do so that have nothing to do with our annual tax bill. We choose to become involved in sports leagues, drop-in centres, food banks, choral societies and even political parties because they allow us to realize our dreams or reach out to others. Given what we, as a society, are prepared to pay for convenience in food or parking, among a myriad of other things, it hardly seems likely that people will exert themselves to do something they wouldn't have done before just because of a small tax rebate.
In addition there are a great many opportunities for tax breaks as it is, ranging from business investment to home improvement. Those who would most benefit from a relief of their tax burden are those in lower income brackets, and there are far more efficient ways of delivering that relief than a credit for volunteer hours. A simple raising of the basic income tax exemption by $10-15,000 would be a far more effective tool in this instance. Coincidentally this idea, like so many others, would benefit from an open discussion of our province's ends and means with all options on the table, as is being called for by Doug Griffiths of the PCs and by the Alberta Party.
More important than the vague connection being asserted between volunteerism and tax relief are the administrative issues this proposed reform would create. In order to manage and administer this new tax break a burden of increased administrative costs and government red tape would be imposed on charities and non-profit groups. In essence one of the unintended side effects of this proposal would be an increase in the 'administrative slice' of every dollar donated to charity. In short increased administrative costs would eat into the percentage of donations that would actually be used to deliver service.
The idea of rewarding community involvement with a tax break seems to me rather fuzzy in its goals. If the goal is to reduce the tax burden then actually lowering taxes would seem to be the way to go. If the goal is to increase community involvement then there are all kinds of other inducements, from community project grants on the positive side to cutting funding for community services on the negative side, that will further that goal without increasing the burdens borne by our not-for-profit sector. In short this proposal amounts to a small and poorly aimed tax cut for a group that will continue being involved in these organizations without it. We won't stop organizing our children's hockey leagues or helping at Brown Bagging it For Kids if no tax credit for volunteerism is introduced. Those organizations will, on the other hand, potentially be disrupted if such a change is made.
Showing posts with label Civic Engagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civic Engagement. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Reboot 3 - Now what?
I was only able to make time to attend the Reboot 3 gathering at the last minute, meaning that I was not prepared or engaged in the agenda-setting stage. I found it interesting to note that the blogger population at Reboot 3 was considerably smaller than the first two, with major cogs in the Alberta blogosphere like DJ Kelly, Joey Oberhoffner and Dave Cournoyer not attending. Congratulations DJ, by the way!
The morning sessions were spent discussing models of ownership and their implications for the management of the oil sands. The table I happened to be at was, to my good fortune, full of passionate, articulate and capable people – one of whom thankfully makes a living as a mediator and was able to keep the conversation moving in more or less the intended direction. While we certainly didn’t arrive at a consensus on how ownership ought to be considered in the area of natural resources we were agreed that it was important for the Government and corporations to think differently on the issue. To me there is, or ought to be, a creative tension between the profit motive of corporations and the social good that ought to underlie government decision-making. Interestingly the table was quite interested in the idea of full-cost accounting, which is hardly a simple or non-contentious topic in and of itself.
The central conversation in the afternoon revolved around the question of what it meant to be a progressive. In examining this issue four speakers gave us their thoughts: Troy Wason of the Alberta PCs, Chris LaBossiere from the Alberta Party, Phil Elder for the Democratic Renewal Project and David Swann of the Alberta Liberal Party. (Speaking in that order) Both Mr. Wason and Mr. LaBossiere talked about their reasons for being involved with their respective parties, and their thoughts on how they feel their organizations are embodying and responding to ideas that can be defined as progressive. Mr. Wason was passionate in his belief that the progressive element of the PC party is a central part of that party. He also pointed out that his qualification as a member of the provinces notional political elite consisted of “paying my $5 and putting up my hand to volunteer”. Succinct and important to bear in mind – our system is run by those who choose to show up. Mr. LaBossiere’s talk is perhaps best summarized by himself on his blog, but he too addressed the importance of engagement.
Mr. Elder and Mr. Swann took another tack entirely. Mr. Elder outlined the Democratic Renewal Project and their plans to encourage non-competition among opposition parties. My thoughts on the undesirability and futility of their project are elaborated in an earlier post http://myroundhouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/night-with-alberta-democratic-renewal.html . Mr. Swann’s presentation focused on the reasons why the people in the room for Reboot should vote for the Liberals. Interestingly his primary reason was fear – he argued that without the Liberal’s tradition, organization and financial framework none of the other parties before Albertans could advance a progressive agenda or effectively challenge the PC party. Leaving aside the assumption that replacing the PC government is inherently desirable, it is hard to see anything progressive or attractive in this inherently negative formulation. It appeared to me as an attempt by Mr. Swann to dissuade those present from considering the Alberta Party, which, while an entirely justifiable end for the leader of another party to undertake, seemed entirely at odds with the kind of dialogue Reboot exists to promote.
In my view there are two ends that the Reboot name and movement can serve here in Alberta moving forward. I need to underline that my views here reflect nothing beyond my own opinions, and have no bearing on the thoughts or intentions of the organizers in particular or the other participants in general.
To begin with I continue to find these meetings to be a good forum for people of diverse views to meet and discuss matters of common interest. There is real value in a periodic forum to exchange views outside our usual partisan or professional communities, and Reboot has contributed usefully to the political culture of Alberta in that respect. Being exposed to alternative viewpoints is essential in challenging our assumptions. That process of challenging ideas and evolving them under the pressure of new information is in turn a fundamental element of healthy public discourse. I would like to see the Reboot gatherings continue once or twice a year, focusing on acting as a common area in which people of all partisan stripes, or none, can gather to discuss issues of public interest. As a mechanism perhaps an issue or two could be selected for discussion, followed by an unconference format upon arrival to decide where and how that conversation will be focused.
Reboot can, however, be the genesis of something beyond a useful meeting place on the political commons. I would like to see a permanent non-partisan think tank develop from the Reboot community. This organization would study questions of civic engagement, civil society and public policy. The public discourse gains real value from organizations like the Manning Centre and the Pembina Institute, the research they create, the events they hold and the people they train and employ. Given the population and wealth of Alberta, and the gaps between existing bodies of similar nature, there is more than enough room in the public discourse for such a body. (That sound you hear is the pained laughter of the Reboot organizers as I volunteer their idea and efforts for an extensive and labour-intensive expansion.) If the idea is of any interest to anyone but myself I hope to hear from you!
The morning sessions were spent discussing models of ownership and their implications for the management of the oil sands. The table I happened to be at was, to my good fortune, full of passionate, articulate and capable people – one of whom thankfully makes a living as a mediator and was able to keep the conversation moving in more or less the intended direction. While we certainly didn’t arrive at a consensus on how ownership ought to be considered in the area of natural resources we were agreed that it was important for the Government and corporations to think differently on the issue. To me there is, or ought to be, a creative tension between the profit motive of corporations and the social good that ought to underlie government decision-making. Interestingly the table was quite interested in the idea of full-cost accounting, which is hardly a simple or non-contentious topic in and of itself.
The central conversation in the afternoon revolved around the question of what it meant to be a progressive. In examining this issue four speakers gave us their thoughts: Troy Wason of the Alberta PCs, Chris LaBossiere from the Alberta Party, Phil Elder for the Democratic Renewal Project and David Swann of the Alberta Liberal Party. (Speaking in that order) Both Mr. Wason and Mr. LaBossiere talked about their reasons for being involved with their respective parties, and their thoughts on how they feel their organizations are embodying and responding to ideas that can be defined as progressive. Mr. Wason was passionate in his belief that the progressive element of the PC party is a central part of that party. He also pointed out that his qualification as a member of the provinces notional political elite consisted of “paying my $5 and putting up my hand to volunteer”. Succinct and important to bear in mind – our system is run by those who choose to show up. Mr. LaBossiere’s talk is perhaps best summarized by himself on his blog, but he too addressed the importance of engagement.
Mr. Elder and Mr. Swann took another tack entirely. Mr. Elder outlined the Democratic Renewal Project and their plans to encourage non-competition among opposition parties. My thoughts on the undesirability and futility of their project are elaborated in an earlier post http://myroundhouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/night-with-alberta-democratic-renewal.html . Mr. Swann’s presentation focused on the reasons why the people in the room for Reboot should vote for the Liberals. Interestingly his primary reason was fear – he argued that without the Liberal’s tradition, organization and financial framework none of the other parties before Albertans could advance a progressive agenda or effectively challenge the PC party. Leaving aside the assumption that replacing the PC government is inherently desirable, it is hard to see anything progressive or attractive in this inherently negative formulation. It appeared to me as an attempt by Mr. Swann to dissuade those present from considering the Alberta Party, which, while an entirely justifiable end for the leader of another party to undertake, seemed entirely at odds with the kind of dialogue Reboot exists to promote.
In my view there are two ends that the Reboot name and movement can serve here in Alberta moving forward. I need to underline that my views here reflect nothing beyond my own opinions, and have no bearing on the thoughts or intentions of the organizers in particular or the other participants in general.
To begin with I continue to find these meetings to be a good forum for people of diverse views to meet and discuss matters of common interest. There is real value in a periodic forum to exchange views outside our usual partisan or professional communities, and Reboot has contributed usefully to the political culture of Alberta in that respect. Being exposed to alternative viewpoints is essential in challenging our assumptions. That process of challenging ideas and evolving them under the pressure of new information is in turn a fundamental element of healthy public discourse. I would like to see the Reboot gatherings continue once or twice a year, focusing on acting as a common area in which people of all partisan stripes, or none, can gather to discuss issues of public interest. As a mechanism perhaps an issue or two could be selected for discussion, followed by an unconference format upon arrival to decide where and how that conversation will be focused.
Reboot can, however, be the genesis of something beyond a useful meeting place on the political commons. I would like to see a permanent non-partisan think tank develop from the Reboot community. This organization would study questions of civic engagement, civil society and public policy. The public discourse gains real value from organizations like the Manning Centre and the Pembina Institute, the research they create, the events they hold and the people they train and employ. Given the population and wealth of Alberta, and the gaps between existing bodies of similar nature, there is more than enough room in the public discourse for such a body. (That sound you hear is the pained laughter of the Reboot organizers as I volunteer their idea and efforts for an extensive and labour-intensive expansion.) If the idea is of any interest to anyone but myself I hope to hear from you!
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Reboot Alberta 3.0
I'm in Edmonton this weekend for the Reboot 3.0 conference, to see what the latest installment of these gatherings for self-selected 'progressives' has in store.
The most interesting charecteristic of the Reboot gatherings in the variety of people who attend. The first two Reboots crossed partisan lines in their attendence, and based on Friday's opening reception this one is no different. What is different, or perhaps just more noticable to me, is the presence of more declared partisans. There are members of the PC and Liberals present, though the coincidental overlap with the NDP's AGM has meant I have yet to see anyone from that party. There are also members of the Alberta Party here, though I put them in a seperate catagory since that organization is still in its infancy as an effective political organization.
what most interests me are the conversations about civic engagement. Much as wonks like myself enjoy the details of policy or the mechanics of campaigning it is important to step back form time to time and consider the wider questions of political culture. It is my opinion that the province of Alberta is in the early stages of a political transition. (Whether or not that means a change in government is another question entirely.) The shape of that transition will be an organic outgrowth of the changing political culture here, and the kind of wider engagement that preoccupies most of the attendees at Reboot can be a factor there. More to come as the weekend goes on.
The most interesting charecteristic of the Reboot gatherings in the variety of people who attend. The first two Reboots crossed partisan lines in their attendence, and based on Friday's opening reception this one is no different. What is different, or perhaps just more noticable to me, is the presence of more declared partisans. There are members of the PC and Liberals present, though the coincidental overlap with the NDP's AGM has meant I have yet to see anyone from that party. There are also members of the Alberta Party here, though I put them in a seperate catagory since that organization is still in its infancy as an effective political organization.
what most interests me are the conversations about civic engagement. Much as wonks like myself enjoy the details of policy or the mechanics of campaigning it is important to step back form time to time and consider the wider questions of political culture. It is my opinion that the province of Alberta is in the early stages of a political transition. (Whether or not that means a change in government is another question entirely.) The shape of that transition will be an organic outgrowth of the changing political culture here, and the kind of wider engagement that preoccupies most of the attendees at Reboot can be a factor there. More to come as the weekend goes on.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Some Pictures Are Worth a Thousand Words
From today's Toronto Star:
Funny and on target! I have to say that I'm very happy with the real contest of visions we had in our municipal election, especially compared to the dismal partisanship of the Toronto campaign.
Funny and on target! I have to say that I'm very happy with the real contest of visions we had in our municipal election, especially compared to the dismal partisanship of the Toronto campaign.
Friday, October 15, 2010
What's in a Name?
The negative tone of much contemporary politics in Canada, and even more the case in the United States, is an issue of concern to people from all sides of any given issue. It seems to me, based on prolonged observation, that there is a simple remedy that would go a long way to address the concerns of those lamenting the balkanization of our political discourse: use people's names.
Even if you don't like someone, or their views, show them some respect and use their name. As someone who has trained as an academic I'd be interested to see a correlative study linking the use of derogatory nicknames with the appreciation of complexity in politics. Painting issues in black and white is rarely a good way to accommodate the complexity of the world we live in. Painting policy alternatives, like a given airport tunnel project or piece of legislation, in black and white is even more unlikely to reflect anything resembling their true relationship with reality.
The fundamental point I always aspire to bear in mind is that people of good will can, and will, disagree on any given issue. Our system of Westminster-style democracy is not only designed to accommodate such disagreements, it is dependant on the adversarial contest between diverging views to develop a working consensus. This is perhaps even more the case in our pluralist parliamentary model, as opposed to the unique duopoly the Americans have developed. A substantial majority of our fellow-citizens are good people, so those engaged in our political discourse, whether they be politicians, civil servants, journalists, commentators or concerned citizens, deserve the same assumption.
The use of nicknames, whether simply shorthands or the actively derogatory, is obviously a continuum. However, in order to avoid slipping into the derogatory, or the grey area in which one could be perceived that way, use the simple alternative of the proper noun. So instead of 'Slitherman' or 'Harpo' I try to use Mr. Smitherman or Mr. Harper. In the latter case why not acknowledge his earned title, and call him the Prime Minister? He is, after all, whether I like it or not, and he deserves to be.
In short, I have resolved to combat trolls on the internet and incivility in my speech by aspiring to use the simplest of formal courtesies - the proper name.
Even if you don't like someone, or their views, show them some respect and use their name. As someone who has trained as an academic I'd be interested to see a correlative study linking the use of derogatory nicknames with the appreciation of complexity in politics. Painting issues in black and white is rarely a good way to accommodate the complexity of the world we live in. Painting policy alternatives, like a given airport tunnel project or piece of legislation, in black and white is even more unlikely to reflect anything resembling their true relationship with reality.
The fundamental point I always aspire to bear in mind is that people of good will can, and will, disagree on any given issue. Our system of Westminster-style democracy is not only designed to accommodate such disagreements, it is dependant on the adversarial contest between diverging views to develop a working consensus. This is perhaps even more the case in our pluralist parliamentary model, as opposed to the unique duopoly the Americans have developed. A substantial majority of our fellow-citizens are good people, so those engaged in our political discourse, whether they be politicians, civil servants, journalists, commentators or concerned citizens, deserve the same assumption.
The use of nicknames, whether simply shorthands or the actively derogatory, is obviously a continuum. However, in order to avoid slipping into the derogatory, or the grey area in which one could be perceived that way, use the simple alternative of the proper noun. So instead of 'Slitherman' or 'Harpo' I try to use Mr. Smitherman or Mr. Harper. In the latter case why not acknowledge his earned title, and call him the Prime Minister? He is, after all, whether I like it or not, and he deserves to be.
In short, I have resolved to combat trolls on the internet and incivility in my speech by aspiring to use the simplest of formal courtesies - the proper name.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
A night with the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project
Tonight I attended a panel put on by the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project here in Calgary. http://drpcalgary.wetpaint.com/
I should be clear that while I am not a supporter of the ADRP or their specific aims I certainly endorse their passion for Alberta. In addition I’d spent the rest of the day mired in re-working a chapter section on the development of the Bank of England’s 1925 American credit for the return to gold, so some political debate and contact with other human beings was more than welcome. In brief the ARDP is an organization devoted to two goals. In the short term a cooperative alliance or non-compete agreement among opposition parties here in Alberta, which they refer to as progressive parties. The ultimate purpose of this alliance, and their second goal, is to institute a system of proportional representation here in Alberta.
The panel consisted of three speakers: Dr. Avalon Roberts (former Liberal Candidate), Dr. Phil Elder (of the ADRP) and Dr. Doreen Barrie (University of Calgary) standing in for a panelist trapped in Edmonton by the weather. Each panelist spoke for 15 minutes to an audience of approximately 50 people. Typical of most such events the crowd was decidedly monochromatic, well off, well-educated and older, but what the group lacked in variety it made up for in lively engagement. The formal Q & A lasted longer than the talks, and many people stayed later to continue conversing. I don’t know whether the event generated any support for the ADRP, but it certainly succeeded in generating a worthwhile and engaging couple of hours.
As I couldn’t take notes I will simply note some of the themes discussed by the panelists. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Barrie both moved over similar territory; the focus was on declining voter turnout, increasing disengagement from the process, the travails of the current opposition parties and the inadequacies of the provincial government. Dr. Elder spoke on the ADRP’s plans and reasoning, which I will omit as you can find the basics on their website above. The one statement he made that I need to set out is the assertion that the opposition parties here in Alberta have broadly common policies. Questioners of note included Donn Lovett, formerly of the Alberta Liberals and now involved with MLA Dave Taylor, The President of the Alberta Liberal Party and MLA Harry Chase. When he spoke Mr. Chase seemed to be saying that he supported the ideas of the ADRP, but they could never work because of the NDP’s unwillingness to work with the Liberals. Mr. Sansotta’s stepped up later to address a critic of the ALP with some humour, but regrettably did not address any of the issues raised by the panel or other commenter's. Mr. Lovett made a couple of trenchant points about the layout of the Alberta electorate, and the requirements as he saw them of a successful party in the centre.
I had to ask a few questions. To begin I took exception to the repeated assertion that politics in Alberta is moribund or unchanging. What other jurisdiction in Canada has two new parties like our Wild Rose and Alberta Parties, not to mention activist groups like Reboot and the ADRP itself all coming forward at once? Secondly I pointed out that disillusionment might well have more to do with the inaccessibility of parties, and the tiny percentage of the population that belong to one, than the length of the current government. I couldn’t resist noting that most opposition candidates in Alberta are already ‘paper’ candidates, so the plan of the ADRP really only has relevance in perhaps 12-20 ridings in the province, even accepting (which I certainly do not) that the opposition vote could be united. Finally the idea that the Liberals, NDP and Greens share common policies demonstrates far more about the failings of those organizations to define themselves than it does about their commonalities.
So what do I think at the end of the night? For myself I am not sold on the virtues of proportional representation as a system. Provided the basic political culture is healthy it seems like a solution looking for a problem, and if the culture is unhealthy there are a whole new crop of potential abuses – every system has them. As for the idea of non-compete agreement, well, I oppose it on grounds of both principle and practice. To begin with the ADRP is so far from the consciousness of the mass electorate as to be a minor factor in voting intentions at best, so even if such an alliance were signed it could not deliver the votes to one candidate. I also don’t believe that the parties are in fact interchangeable, certainly not to their supporters. In addition I as a voter oppose the limitation of my options, and view diversity of competition as a healthy thing. Besides, with the rise of the Wild Rose it won’t just be the centre/left vote that splits in the next election, will it? All in all I feel that the ADRP’s plan is a poor substitute for a well-organized and well-executed opposition party or two.
That said I think having groups like this coming alive and working to raise awareness and engage people with the system, and trying to change the system, is an essential element of that healthy political culture I talked about earlier. I wish the ADRP people all success in bringing their plan before a wider audience, I just hope that it isn’t adopted!
I should be clear that while I am not a supporter of the ADRP or their specific aims I certainly endorse their passion for Alberta. In addition I’d spent the rest of the day mired in re-working a chapter section on the development of the Bank of England’s 1925 American credit for the return to gold, so some political debate and contact with other human beings was more than welcome. In brief the ARDP is an organization devoted to two goals. In the short term a cooperative alliance or non-compete agreement among opposition parties here in Alberta, which they refer to as progressive parties. The ultimate purpose of this alliance, and their second goal, is to institute a system of proportional representation here in Alberta.
The panel consisted of three speakers: Dr. Avalon Roberts (former Liberal Candidate), Dr. Phil Elder (of the ADRP) and Dr. Doreen Barrie (University of Calgary) standing in for a panelist trapped in Edmonton by the weather. Each panelist spoke for 15 minutes to an audience of approximately 50 people. Typical of most such events the crowd was decidedly monochromatic, well off, well-educated and older, but what the group lacked in variety it made up for in lively engagement. The formal Q & A lasted longer than the talks, and many people stayed later to continue conversing. I don’t know whether the event generated any support for the ADRP, but it certainly succeeded in generating a worthwhile and engaging couple of hours.
As I couldn’t take notes I will simply note some of the themes discussed by the panelists. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Barrie both moved over similar territory; the focus was on declining voter turnout, increasing disengagement from the process, the travails of the current opposition parties and the inadequacies of the provincial government. Dr. Elder spoke on the ADRP’s plans and reasoning, which I will omit as you can find the basics on their website above. The one statement he made that I need to set out is the assertion that the opposition parties here in Alberta have broadly common policies. Questioners of note included Donn Lovett, formerly of the Alberta Liberals and now involved with MLA Dave Taylor, The President of the Alberta Liberal Party and MLA Harry Chase. When he spoke Mr. Chase seemed to be saying that he supported the ideas of the ADRP, but they could never work because of the NDP’s unwillingness to work with the Liberals. Mr. Sansotta’s stepped up later to address a critic of the ALP with some humour, but regrettably did not address any of the issues raised by the panel or other commenter's. Mr. Lovett made a couple of trenchant points about the layout of the Alberta electorate, and the requirements as he saw them of a successful party in the centre.
I had to ask a few questions. To begin I took exception to the repeated assertion that politics in Alberta is moribund or unchanging. What other jurisdiction in Canada has two new parties like our Wild Rose and Alberta Parties, not to mention activist groups like Reboot and the ADRP itself all coming forward at once? Secondly I pointed out that disillusionment might well have more to do with the inaccessibility of parties, and the tiny percentage of the population that belong to one, than the length of the current government. I couldn’t resist noting that most opposition candidates in Alberta are already ‘paper’ candidates, so the plan of the ADRP really only has relevance in perhaps 12-20 ridings in the province, even accepting (which I certainly do not) that the opposition vote could be united. Finally the idea that the Liberals, NDP and Greens share common policies demonstrates far more about the failings of those organizations to define themselves than it does about their commonalities.
So what do I think at the end of the night? For myself I am not sold on the virtues of proportional representation as a system. Provided the basic political culture is healthy it seems like a solution looking for a problem, and if the culture is unhealthy there are a whole new crop of potential abuses – every system has them. As for the idea of non-compete agreement, well, I oppose it on grounds of both principle and practice. To begin with the ADRP is so far from the consciousness of the mass electorate as to be a minor factor in voting intentions at best, so even if such an alliance were signed it could not deliver the votes to one candidate. I also don’t believe that the parties are in fact interchangeable, certainly not to their supporters. In addition I as a voter oppose the limitation of my options, and view diversity of competition as a healthy thing. Besides, with the rise of the Wild Rose it won’t just be the centre/left vote that splits in the next election, will it? All in all I feel that the ADRP’s plan is a poor substitute for a well-organized and well-executed opposition party or two.
That said I think having groups like this coming alive and working to raise awareness and engage people with the system, and trying to change the system, is an essential element of that healthy political culture I talked about earlier. I wish the ADRP people all success in bringing their plan before a wider audience, I just hope that it isn’t adopted!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Reboot 2.0, or herding cats.
This past weekend was the Reboot Alberta 2.0 conference, which following on the striking success of the first I made time to attend. For my summary of Reboot 1 and some links to other responses see http://myroundhouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/response-to-reboot.html.
I, like the vast majority of the participants, found the November Reboot event profoundly stimulating and energizing. Obviously my hope going in to the second event was that the group would be able to build on that momentum. I was also looking forward to seeing what the larger attendance inspired by the success of the first event would bring; in particular if the event would see the arrival of provincial elected officials. With that said I also wanted to see how the challenges of growth, especially the challenges of raised expectations and the practical difficulties of recapturing the freewheeling discussions of Reboot 1 in a larger group.
The dissatisfaction that motivated many of us to attend the first Reboot, and by extension the second, was put on display for me early Saturday morning. During the first session I found myself at a table with a grade 11 student, who had decided to come (mother in tow) to take part in the event as the result of a trip their school had taken to an MLA-for-a-day event at the legislature. Despite being excited to attend that event what they saw had profoundly disillusioned this individual, who was startled by the blind partisanship and shortsightedness they witnessed. In addition they found the way their group of enthusiastic youth were treated, "like our enthusiasm was cute and they knew they'd never see us again", profoundly off-putting. While this anecdote only speaks directly to the mind of one person the feeling that the system is less responsive and less engaging than it could and should be is, I think, at the root of what created this gathering.
In the event there were several key differences between Reboot 1 and Reboot 2. Firstly it was simply larger; while obviously as an attendee I do not have access to the organizers' information by my count the attendance at Reboot 2 was at least 50% larger than Reboot 1 with at least 120+ in the room on Saturday morning. Secondly Reboot 2 was much more structured in approach than Reboot 1. The structure of the discussions was based on the outlines developed at the first event, which had a couple of important impacts on the weekend.
It was the combination of these two differences which I think led to the initial frustration of the 40 or more of us in attendance who had also been at Reboot 1. Shannon Sortland blogged about this here: http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php/home/my-initial-rebootab-20-thoughts-pre-230pm-saturday-by-shannon-sortland.html In short many of us who had attended the first event felt like much of the activity on Saturday was a 'Cole's notes' version of Reboot 1 - or perhaps more accurately a remedial course for the majority of the attendees who had not been at the first event. At the time, like Shannon, I found this very frustrating. As the day wore on, and in the days since, I have realized that my frustration reflected an unrealistic desire to forge ahead on the assumption that everyone who had missed the first event had somehow absorbed all of the information arising from it nonetheless. In fact until mid-afternoon on Saturday what we were doing, in fact, was not building on the previous event but bringing a wider circle of people up to speed on the conversation.
The fact that this process went as quickly as it did was the up side of the structuring of the event based on the 'streams' arising from Reboot 1. What the use of the outcomes of Reboot 1 cost Reboot 2 was the magic of that open-ended process. That being said I'm not at all sure that with the numbers present at last weekend's meeting that the methodology of the first meeting could have worked anyway. At Reboot 1 the discussion group for "Change within the existing system" had 14 of us. On Saturday afternoon I was part of a group of 30. 14 people is a manageable conversation, 30 is much less so and requires more structure and provides less interactivity.
As a result by Saturday afternoon, despite some really excellent exchanges and good ideas, I was getting frustrated that we didn't seem to be breaking any new ground. That said I would like to thank everyone in the final afternoon session - I thought there were a lot of interesting/challenging things said! On the whole I was frustrated at the outcome of Saturday as we ended the formal sessions, as I had come looking to exchange ideas on action to be taken, not the continued identification of problems. the problem here is, of course, that my dissatisfaction was completely unreasonable. First of all you can never recapture the magic of a new thing. Secondly the connections and conversations taking place were invaluable, and need to be acknowledged as such independent of my personal agenda going in. Where else in Alberta last weekend were PC MLAs, Liberal Strategists, NDP researchers and Wild Rose members all sitting down to talk with unaffiliated citizens and people from the civil service, the ATB and a spectrum of non-profits?
Things began to turn around for me personally almost as soon as dinner was served, however. My table, a most lively collection of people, was positively abuzz with ideas and proposals on how to effect changes of all kinds moving forward. Having a bunch of spontaneously witty people certainly helped liven things up too, though I certainly didn't add much to that part myself, sadly. Following that the migration of a large part of the overall group to a pub certainly helped shake things up too, mixing up individuals and groups rather thoroughly.
The upshot was a Sunday session completely different in tone and nature than Saturday. In short Sunday was what I came for - the 'OK, now what?" phase. A series of ideas, proposals and metrics were advanced for further discussion via http://www.rebootalberta.org/ and the forums community there. I encourage Albertans of every stripe to join that community and the conversations taking place there! It would have been good to have seen more representation from the Wild Rose, and the absence of the folks from the Manning Centre was also a loss. Other than that I found the variety of voices in the room both stimulating and encouraging, as was the sheer depth of knowledge available on a wide range of public policy challenges.
I learned a great deal last weekend, and I look forward to learning a great deal more in the months to come. It is in that arena of exchanging ideas and facilitating conversation that I see the future of Reboot - a larger-scale civic camp perhaps, or a common area for people of divergent interests and inclinations to meet and exchange ideas and arguments without the direct investment of partisan competition. As a movement to improve the exchange of ideas and help promote a healthier political culture here in Alberta I definitely think there is a place for Reboot as we move forward.
I, like the vast majority of the participants, found the November Reboot event profoundly stimulating and energizing. Obviously my hope going in to the second event was that the group would be able to build on that momentum. I was also looking forward to seeing what the larger attendance inspired by the success of the first event would bring; in particular if the event would see the arrival of provincial elected officials. With that said I also wanted to see how the challenges of growth, especially the challenges of raised expectations and the practical difficulties of recapturing the freewheeling discussions of Reboot 1 in a larger group.
The dissatisfaction that motivated many of us to attend the first Reboot, and by extension the second, was put on display for me early Saturday morning. During the first session I found myself at a table with a grade 11 student, who had decided to come (mother in tow) to take part in the event as the result of a trip their school had taken to an MLA-for-a-day event at the legislature. Despite being excited to attend that event what they saw had profoundly disillusioned this individual, who was startled by the blind partisanship and shortsightedness they witnessed. In addition they found the way their group of enthusiastic youth were treated, "like our enthusiasm was cute and they knew they'd never see us again", profoundly off-putting. While this anecdote only speaks directly to the mind of one person the feeling that the system is less responsive and less engaging than it could and should be is, I think, at the root of what created this gathering.
In the event there were several key differences between Reboot 1 and Reboot 2. Firstly it was simply larger; while obviously as an attendee I do not have access to the organizers' information by my count the attendance at Reboot 2 was at least 50% larger than Reboot 1 with at least 120+ in the room on Saturday morning. Secondly Reboot 2 was much more structured in approach than Reboot 1. The structure of the discussions was based on the outlines developed at the first event, which had a couple of important impacts on the weekend.
It was the combination of these two differences which I think led to the initial frustration of the 40 or more of us in attendance who had also been at Reboot 1. Shannon Sortland blogged about this here: http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php/home/my-initial-rebootab-20-thoughts-pre-230pm-saturday-by-shannon-sortland.html In short many of us who had attended the first event felt like much of the activity on Saturday was a 'Cole's notes' version of Reboot 1 - or perhaps more accurately a remedial course for the majority of the attendees who had not been at the first event. At the time, like Shannon, I found this very frustrating. As the day wore on, and in the days since, I have realized that my frustration reflected an unrealistic desire to forge ahead on the assumption that everyone who had missed the first event had somehow absorbed all of the information arising from it nonetheless. In fact until mid-afternoon on Saturday what we were doing, in fact, was not building on the previous event but bringing a wider circle of people up to speed on the conversation.
The fact that this process went as quickly as it did was the up side of the structuring of the event based on the 'streams' arising from Reboot 1. What the use of the outcomes of Reboot 1 cost Reboot 2 was the magic of that open-ended process. That being said I'm not at all sure that with the numbers present at last weekend's meeting that the methodology of the first meeting could have worked anyway. At Reboot 1 the discussion group for "Change within the existing system" had 14 of us. On Saturday afternoon I was part of a group of 30. 14 people is a manageable conversation, 30 is much less so and requires more structure and provides less interactivity.
As a result by Saturday afternoon, despite some really excellent exchanges and good ideas, I was getting frustrated that we didn't seem to be breaking any new ground. That said I would like to thank everyone in the final afternoon session - I thought there were a lot of interesting/challenging things said! On the whole I was frustrated at the outcome of Saturday as we ended the formal sessions, as I had come looking to exchange ideas on action to be taken, not the continued identification of problems. the problem here is, of course, that my dissatisfaction was completely unreasonable. First of all you can never recapture the magic of a new thing. Secondly the connections and conversations taking place were invaluable, and need to be acknowledged as such independent of my personal agenda going in. Where else in Alberta last weekend were PC MLAs, Liberal Strategists, NDP researchers and Wild Rose members all sitting down to talk with unaffiliated citizens and people from the civil service, the ATB and a spectrum of non-profits?
Things began to turn around for me personally almost as soon as dinner was served, however. My table, a most lively collection of people, was positively abuzz with ideas and proposals on how to effect changes of all kinds moving forward. Having a bunch of spontaneously witty people certainly helped liven things up too, though I certainly didn't add much to that part myself, sadly. Following that the migration of a large part of the overall group to a pub certainly helped shake things up too, mixing up individuals and groups rather thoroughly.
The upshot was a Sunday session completely different in tone and nature than Saturday. In short Sunday was what I came for - the 'OK, now what?" phase. A series of ideas, proposals and metrics were advanced for further discussion via http://www.rebootalberta.org/ and the forums community there. I encourage Albertans of every stripe to join that community and the conversations taking place there! It would have been good to have seen more representation from the Wild Rose, and the absence of the folks from the Manning Centre was also a loss. Other than that I found the variety of voices in the room both stimulating and encouraging, as was the sheer depth of knowledge available on a wide range of public policy challenges.
I learned a great deal last weekend, and I look forward to learning a great deal more in the months to come. It is in that arena of exchanging ideas and facilitating conversation that I see the future of Reboot - a larger-scale civic camp perhaps, or a common area for people of divergent interests and inclinations to meet and exchange ideas and arguments without the direct investment of partisan competition. As a movement to improve the exchange of ideas and help promote a healthier political culture here in Alberta I definitely think there is a place for Reboot as we move forward.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Calgarians Against Proroguing Parliament
The Calgarians Against Proroguing Parliament, a non-partisan outgrowth of the 208,000 member Facebook group, is hold a rally outside Mr. Harper's office on Saturday. I'll be attending, and hope some of the other Calgarians that read this blog will too.
Date: Saturday January 23rd
Time: 1 pm
Location: Outside Mr. Harper's office at 1600 - 90th Avenue SW, Calgary
www.noprorogue.ca/calgary/
Date: Saturday January 23rd
Time: 1 pm
Location: Outside Mr. Harper's office at 1600 - 90th Avenue SW, Calgary
www.noprorogue.ca/calgary/
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Political Labels
This post is largely in response to the growing dialogue surrounding Reboot Alberta, the site for which is here: http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
In particular This blog post from Chris LaBossiere: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/15/meet-chris-the-progressive-capitalist.html
and this one from Jason Morris:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/thoughts-on-how-to-do-politics-differently/
both speak to issues I have been giving some thought to lately and are worth responding to.
In essence Mr. LaBossiere's post has contributed to the conversation I have been having with myself about how to define political orientations and positions in our increasingly complex political firmament. Mr. Morris' post relates to my other major intellectual engagement with our political system these days - how do we modernize the structure of the political party to provide a better, more open and effective organization through which our citizens can contribute to the body politic? More on the latter in a post tomorrow, today I want to deal with the question of definitions.
The left/right dichotomy is over two hundred years old at this point, dating as it does from the National Convention of 1791, and over the years these terms' meanings have grown and changed constantly. Originally strictly referring (via seating arrangements relative to the chamber's speaker) to the political loyalties of the members, either royalist or montagnard. With the growth of economic factors in politics the terms grew to accommodate these ideas as well during the 19th century.
Where does that leave us today? In short it leaves us with an old, inflexible and ineffective terminology in general use for describing one another's political views. The result is a hampered dialogue, in which the label assigned frequently fails to convey any useful information, or at least insufficient information. We are in a similar position to a cook whose labels all read "bitter" or "sugary" - we have some information but not enough to make anything beyond the most basic dish.
This tool http://www.politicalcompass.org/ reflects some of the scholarship from the world of political science by marking out people's views on two axes - Authoritarian/Libertarian and communitarian/capitalist. By adding only one more variable a much more useful set of descriptors is created, but as Mr. LaBossiere points out the result still doesn't allow for much individuality. That, fundamentally, is the challenge for Canadian political institutions and representatives - they now exist in a highly individualized and open information environment. As a result citizens are demanding increased attention and, dare I say it, flexibility from their leaders and representatives. The era of the loyal voter, or the one-issue voter, is drawing to a close in Canada and other democracies simply because people are now able to engage with their interests and make choices in a much more flexible way than ever before.
For myself I am in most senses a 19th-century liberal - interested in the greatest possible individual liberty and minimal interference in the lives of its citizens by the state, while still believing that there are spheres appropriate for government action and believing that in those spheres government can accomplish much good. As a result, depending on the issue, I can swing from 'left' to right' quite dramatically; sometimes I am hard to pin down on even individual issues. For example I am a great believer in universal public health care, both on the principle that all citizens should have access to quality care and on the basis that universal provision, via the economies of scale, has proven to be cheaper and more efficient than any other method. Left and right in the same response.
One of the elements I most look forward to at Reboot Alberta is a discussion with a number of people whose thoughts I have enjoyed and been stimulated by about these topics.
In particular This blog post from Chris LaBossiere: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/15/meet-chris-the-progressive-capitalist.html
and this one from Jason Morris:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/thoughts-on-how-to-do-politics-differently/
both speak to issues I have been giving some thought to lately and are worth responding to.
In essence Mr. LaBossiere's post has contributed to the conversation I have been having with myself about how to define political orientations and positions in our increasingly complex political firmament. Mr. Morris' post relates to my other major intellectual engagement with our political system these days - how do we modernize the structure of the political party to provide a better, more open and effective organization through which our citizens can contribute to the body politic? More on the latter in a post tomorrow, today I want to deal with the question of definitions.
The left/right dichotomy is over two hundred years old at this point, dating as it does from the National Convention of 1791, and over the years these terms' meanings have grown and changed constantly. Originally strictly referring (via seating arrangements relative to the chamber's speaker) to the political loyalties of the members, either royalist or montagnard. With the growth of economic factors in politics the terms grew to accommodate these ideas as well during the 19th century.
Where does that leave us today? In short it leaves us with an old, inflexible and ineffective terminology in general use for describing one another's political views. The result is a hampered dialogue, in which the label assigned frequently fails to convey any useful information, or at least insufficient information. We are in a similar position to a cook whose labels all read "bitter" or "sugary" - we have some information but not enough to make anything beyond the most basic dish.
This tool http://www.politicalcompass.org/ reflects some of the scholarship from the world of political science by marking out people's views on two axes - Authoritarian/Libertarian and communitarian/capitalist. By adding only one more variable a much more useful set of descriptors is created, but as Mr. LaBossiere points out the result still doesn't allow for much individuality. That, fundamentally, is the challenge for Canadian political institutions and representatives - they now exist in a highly individualized and open information environment. As a result citizens are demanding increased attention and, dare I say it, flexibility from their leaders and representatives. The era of the loyal voter, or the one-issue voter, is drawing to a close in Canada and other democracies simply because people are now able to engage with their interests and make choices in a much more flexible way than ever before.
For myself I am in most senses a 19th-century liberal - interested in the greatest possible individual liberty and minimal interference in the lives of its citizens by the state, while still believing that there are spheres appropriate for government action and believing that in those spheres government can accomplish much good. As a result, depending on the issue, I can swing from 'left' to right' quite dramatically; sometimes I am hard to pin down on even individual issues. For example I am a great believer in universal public health care, both on the principle that all citizens should have access to quality care and on the basis that universal provision, via the economies of scale, has proven to be cheaper and more efficient than any other method. Left and right in the same response.
One of the elements I most look forward to at Reboot Alberta is a discussion with a number of people whose thoughts I have enjoyed and been stimulated by about these topics.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Remembrance Day
Tomorrow is Remembrance Day, and I wanted to post this list of events that will be happening around the city of Calgary.
- The Military Museums, 4520 Crowchild Tr. S.W. Ceremony begins at 10:40 a.m. Free parking and admission. Always a large event, so come a little early to get parking nearby/ a good spot.
- Jubilee Auditorium, 14th Street and 16th Avenue N.W. Doors open at 9:30 a.m., service begins at 10 a.m., followed by a small ceremony at the Memorial Park Cenotaph, 4th Street and 11th Avenue S.W, at 11 a.m. There will be a more extensive service and wreath laying ceremony at the cenotaph at 12:15 p.m.
- Naval Museum of Alberta, 1820 24th St. S.W., 11 a.m. ceremony on HMCS Tecumseh Drill Deck.
- CPR service, Gulf Canada Square, 10:45 a.m.
- Battalion Ridge, overlooking Westhills Towne Centre. Ceremony with scouts from Dover and Victoria Park starts at 9 a.m.
Personally given the importance of the day and the meaning it holds for me given my family history I prefer to attend a public event, as a statement of sorts. To my mind it is most important to remember, but it is also important to remember together. If the purpose of the day is to memorialize sacrifice then it is also important to think about what sacrifice for the common good can mean, so it seems appropriate to do so as a community standing together. This year I will be volunteering at the Military Museums ceremony as well, in order to contribute a little bit to making that event run smoothly.
Both of my grandfathers volunteered in 1939/40, and it was the middle of 1945 before either of them returned to their homes. They spent longer in uniform during the war than I have spent working on acquiring a PhD, voluntarily giving up a large chunk of their lives and accepting considerable danger because they felt it was the right thing to do. We take our safety and prosperity sufficiently for granted that we often fail to consider the obligations imposed by our privileges - the responsibilities that are the twins of our rights.
Come on out tomorrow and join other members of our community remembering those who have accepted their responsibilities to us, and paid a price for doing so.
- The Military Museums, 4520 Crowchild Tr. S.W. Ceremony begins at 10:40 a.m. Free parking and admission. Always a large event, so come a little early to get parking nearby/ a good spot.
- Jubilee Auditorium, 14th Street and 16th Avenue N.W. Doors open at 9:30 a.m., service begins at 10 a.m., followed by a small ceremony at the Memorial Park Cenotaph, 4th Street and 11th Avenue S.W, at 11 a.m. There will be a more extensive service and wreath laying ceremony at the cenotaph at 12:15 p.m.
- Naval Museum of Alberta, 1820 24th St. S.W., 11 a.m. ceremony on HMCS Tecumseh Drill Deck.
- CPR service, Gulf Canada Square, 10:45 a.m.
- Battalion Ridge, overlooking Westhills Towne Centre. Ceremony with scouts from Dover and Victoria Park starts at 9 a.m.
Personally given the importance of the day and the meaning it holds for me given my family history I prefer to attend a public event, as a statement of sorts. To my mind it is most important to remember, but it is also important to remember together. If the purpose of the day is to memorialize sacrifice then it is also important to think about what sacrifice for the common good can mean, so it seems appropriate to do so as a community standing together. This year I will be volunteering at the Military Museums ceremony as well, in order to contribute a little bit to making that event run smoothly.
Both of my grandfathers volunteered in 1939/40, and it was the middle of 1945 before either of them returned to their homes. They spent longer in uniform during the war than I have spent working on acquiring a PhD, voluntarily giving up a large chunk of their lives and accepting considerable danger because they felt it was the right thing to do. We take our safety and prosperity sufficiently for granted that we often fail to consider the obligations imposed by our privileges - the responsibilities that are the twins of our rights.
Come on out tomorrow and join other members of our community remembering those who have accepted their responsibilities to us, and paid a price for doing so.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Reboot Alberta
In ironic counterpoint to the exasperation of my last point I have booked myself a trip to Red Deer in November to take part in the Reboot Alberta event.
This event has the potential to be a very interesting thing, building on the success of events like Change Camp Edmonton (http://www.changecampedmonton.ca/) and Civic Camp Calgary ( http://www.civiccamp.net/index.php?title=Main_Page). The statement of intent reads "a weekend for Progressive Albertans to spend some time together for creating and exploring a new public policy map for the next Alberta. It will be an open-ended experience for progressive thinking Albertans to consider what their political voice should be in the next Alberta. It will be about how to get the progressive voice heard in the governance and politics of our province."
I am excited to see what develops at the event, especially in terms of finding ways to increase people's day-to-day engagement with their government and the development of good public policy.
Reboot Alberta site:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
Ken Chapman (organizer)
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta-is-about-to-happen-what.html
Dave Cournoyer (mentions it in his blog)
http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta.html
This event has the potential to be a very interesting thing, building on the success of events like Change Camp Edmonton (http://www.changecampedmonton.ca/) and Civic Camp Calgary ( http://www.civiccamp.net/index.php?title=Main_Page). The statement of intent reads "a weekend for Progressive Albertans to spend some time together for creating and exploring a new public policy map for the next Alberta. It will be an open-ended experience for progressive thinking Albertans to consider what their political voice should be in the next Alberta. It will be about how to get the progressive voice heard in the governance and politics of our province."
I am excited to see what develops at the event, especially in terms of finding ways to increase people's day-to-day engagement with their government and the development of good public policy.
Reboot Alberta site:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
Ken Chapman (organizer)
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta-is-about-to-happen-what.html
Dave Cournoyer (mentions it in his blog)
http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)