Denis Coderre resigned this morning as the Liberal Party's defence critic and Quebec lieutenant for the leader. This follows on the brouhaha over Coderre's decision to prevent Martin Cauchon from running for the Liberal nomination in the riding of Outremont, a riding Cauchon had previously represented while serving as a cabinet minister. Link
In my view allowing contested nominations with any interested candidates should be the unwavering rule, so I opposed Coderre's decision on principle. In addition it is inexcusably stupid, as Cauchon is an experienced and capable candidate who won the riding three times before deciding not to run again in 2004. Why would you turn away strength? The answer of course would seem to be advancing personal or factional interests over that of the party as a whole. As a result I think you have to view Coderre's resignation today somewhat differently than much of the media spin.
Firstly Mr. Coderre, having made a poor decision and been overruled, should have resigned and I give him credit for that. Secondly this is a victory for the Liberal party as a whole, since it indicates that the will of the membership and the election-readiness of the whole is being placed above factional interests. In my view the victory of the Outremont membership and the positive message to the party as a whole are worth far more than the a few news cycles of bad press.
Open nominations are, to my mind, one of the foundations of democracy. The Conservative refusal to allow such, especially given that my MP is the singularly useless Rob Anders, is one of my largest problems with the party right now. If you are unable to win a nomination meeting held by the membership of your own party what on earth qualifies you as the best candidate before the electorate, the vast majority of whom belong to no party at all?
Excellent Blog post on the Issue by Jeff Jadras Here
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Carbon Capture Report
Now that I am back in Calgary and back to working as normal it is time to start posting here again.
I'd like to start up again by linking to this report on the science behind the carbon capture technology that Alberta is making such a large commitment to. Munk_Centre_Paper.pdf The Munk Centre for International Studies released this report by Graham Thomson of Edmonton yesterday. (As an aside thanks to Dave Cournoyer for keeping this issue prominent on his Daveberta blog!)
I think this paragraph from the conclusion sums up the importance of this report:
"The Bottom Line: Given the paucity of groundwater information in Canada and lack of
national water standards, the push to accelerate CCS could pose real risks to our
groundwater resources. In sum, the marriage of a brave new technology with a political
fix for an immediate climate problem could have negative long-term consequences for
Canadian taxpayers and water drinkers without stabilizing the climate. To move forward
on the sequestration of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in underground saline
aquifers without strong regulations, clear liability, effective oversight, sound science and
a transparent decision-making process would be sheer folly."
It is my view that the issue of emissions, not simply those into the air but also into water and soil, are going to be one of the central issues of the next 50 years. Moderating our impact on the environment around us while maintaining or improving our productivity and standard of living is already a central challenge. The fundamental issue I have with the proposed carbon capture technology is that it proposes to attack one issue by shifting the problem into another area - without any real understanding of how moving the carbon into the ground might impact soil and especially water tables. Clean water is already a growing issue in large areas of Alberta, and one we as a polity have not dealt with in a coherent and effective manner.
The political impetus behind the carbon capture initiative is undeniable, but is not necessarily a bad thing. Ultimately political action on emissions is what we need, but what we have to do is ensure that the political pressures are channeled into making good policy. At this point Carbon Capture is not that policy.
I'd like to start up again by linking to this report on the science behind the carbon capture technology that Alberta is making such a large commitment to. Munk_Centre_Paper.pdf The Munk Centre for International Studies released this report by Graham Thomson of Edmonton yesterday. (As an aside thanks to Dave Cournoyer for keeping this issue prominent on his Daveberta blog!)
I think this paragraph from the conclusion sums up the importance of this report:
"The Bottom Line: Given the paucity of groundwater information in Canada and lack of
national water standards, the push to accelerate CCS could pose real risks to our
groundwater resources. In sum, the marriage of a brave new technology with a political
fix for an immediate climate problem could have negative long-term consequences for
Canadian taxpayers and water drinkers without stabilizing the climate. To move forward
on the sequestration of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in underground saline
aquifers without strong regulations, clear liability, effective oversight, sound science and
a transparent decision-making process would be sheer folly."
It is my view that the issue of emissions, not simply those into the air but also into water and soil, are going to be one of the central issues of the next 50 years. Moderating our impact on the environment around us while maintaining or improving our productivity and standard of living is already a central challenge. The fundamental issue I have with the proposed carbon capture technology is that it proposes to attack one issue by shifting the problem into another area - without any real understanding of how moving the carbon into the ground might impact soil and especially water tables. Clean water is already a growing issue in large areas of Alberta, and one we as a polity have not dealt with in a coherent and effective manner.
The political impetus behind the carbon capture initiative is undeniable, but is not necessarily a bad thing. Ultimately political action on emissions is what we need, but what we have to do is ensure that the political pressures are channeled into making good policy. At this point Carbon Capture is not that policy.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Ah, Winston!
I just spent a chunk of my day that I should have been working watching a rather well-done biopic of Winston Churchill called "Into the Storm", apparently made for HBO. Quite well done, and it inspired me to once again go and listen to some of his speeches. Quite a bit more entertaining than my current work on tipping points in the gold standard exchange system, at any rate!
That said perhaps the rise of Obama, something that was certainly not the most likely political outcome even a couple of years ago, has served to remind everyone about the power of language when deployed by a good speaker. So many of our public figures these days are poor orators, and it is my view that our public life suffers for it. Public figures communicate less than they should, in part because they do it poorly and know it. (yes, I'm looking at you misters Stelmach, Harper et. al.) When they do speak many people listen less than they should, because, to be frank, the listening isn't worth the trouble most of the time.
Some work on rhetoric, in the classical sense, seems to me to be something that would have a healthy impact on the body politic. I can always hope, right?
A good selection of Churchill's speeches can be heard and downloaded here:
http://www.archive.org/details/Winston_Churchill
That said perhaps the rise of Obama, something that was certainly not the most likely political outcome even a couple of years ago, has served to remind everyone about the power of language when deployed by a good speaker. So many of our public figures these days are poor orators, and it is my view that our public life suffers for it. Public figures communicate less than they should, in part because they do it poorly and know it. (yes, I'm looking at you misters Stelmach, Harper et. al.) When they do speak many people listen less than they should, because, to be frank, the listening isn't worth the trouble most of the time.
Some work on rhetoric, in the classical sense, seems to me to be something that would have a healthy impact on the body politic. I can always hope, right?
A good selection of Churchill's speeches can be heard and downloaded here:
http://www.archive.org/details/Winston_Churchill
Friday, August 14, 2009
Bill 44 still waiting...
Well, it appears that in addition to the uncertainty it creates for teachers Bill 44 is also going to be enacted at an uncertain time. link
It now looks like the law will not be proclaimed until 'October or November', some 6 months after the legislature passed it. While I am certainly in favour of this piece of bad law not being enacted, it is capricious on the part of the government to delay proclaiming it. Either it is a piece of legislation they believe in and is ready to enact, or it should never have been approved. Delaying its proclamation simply magnifies the uncertainty already being felt by those who may be impacted, as now they cannot even be sure when the rules change.
For those interested in the issue I include a link to Ken Chapman's blog, where he continues to keep close track of the Bill 44 issue as it moves forward with his 14 August post. link
It looks to me like the government is doing one of two things. Option one is that they are, belatedly, working through the potential legal fallout of the bill with their lawyers. Option two is that they are holding off until after the Alberta PC AGM this fall, at which they can either genuinely debate the issue, or perhaps push through a motion of support from the party. Both would seem to involve the government engaged in doing something that should have been done before Bill 44 was ever brought forward for 3rd reading.
It now looks like the law will not be proclaimed until 'October or November', some 6 months after the legislature passed it. While I am certainly in favour of this piece of bad law not being enacted, it is capricious on the part of the government to delay proclaiming it. Either it is a piece of legislation they believe in and is ready to enact, or it should never have been approved. Delaying its proclamation simply magnifies the uncertainty already being felt by those who may be impacted, as now they cannot even be sure when the rules change.
For those interested in the issue I include a link to Ken Chapman's blog, where he continues to keep close track of the Bill 44 issue as it moves forward with his 14 August post. link
It looks to me like the government is doing one of two things. Option one is that they are, belatedly, working through the potential legal fallout of the bill with their lawyers. Option two is that they are holding off until after the Alberta PC AGM this fall, at which they can either genuinely debate the issue, or perhaps push through a motion of support from the party. Both would seem to involve the government engaged in doing something that should have been done before Bill 44 was ever brought forward for 3rd reading.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Citizenship and extradition
Today's post is a response to a series of exchanges over twitter regarding the Diab case. For those not familiar with the case here is a link to the National Post Editorial about it yesterday. In essence a Lebanese-born Canadian citizen has been accused of being involved in a bombing in France 29 years ago.
Here is the bulk of an exchange:
@dominionpundit Why are people so eager to strip citizenship, especially before trials? If he is convicted let him serve his sentance.
@theRoundhouse good pt. but, Canadians need to be vigilant to ensure govt enable our country to be a safe haven for terrorists.
@dominionpundit I would agree, but why not wait and see if there is actually any reason to discuss it first?
@theRoundhouse not comfortable w terrorists landing here,get citizenship,leave to terrorize under my flag, tarnishing my citizenship brand.
@dominionpundit Diab case, if sustained, relates to an event in 1980, so nothing to do with 'your flag' & all citizens must be equal to govt
@theRoundhouse I should say, even natural born Canadians should not expect AUTOMATIC clemency req from our govt when arrested for terror
@theRoundhouse re Diab.event was before he was granted Cdn cit.if convicted,means he lied on imm app.hence,loss of Cdn cit.
@theroundhouse If we have extradition treaties,Cdn cit(born here or not) shld be extradited for trial(pedo in Thailand, terrorism elsewhere)
@theRoundhouse Cdn cit shld not b getoutof-international jail free card if ur sought for crimes abroad. (assuming legal system is fair) no?
There are several issues in play during this exchange, and I want to deal with them separately, The first is citizenship. Citizenship to me is both a legal state and a principle. If you are a Canadian then you enjoy the rights and privileges thereof, as well as the obligations. I do not recognize any distinction between 'natural born' and naturalized citizens - either you are a Canadian or you are not. To think otherwise is to invite the creation of a caste system, in which some are more equal than others. The last thing any Canadian wants is for the government to be able to decide whether or not they are, in fact, a Canadian and thus worthy of access to those rights and privileges.
In recent years, starting under the Martin government and worsening under the Harper government, there has been a devaluation of Canadian citizenship. Among the chattering classes this has become a popular topic for conversation, and you see it regularly in the blogoshpere. Another person discussing this today: http://eaves.ca/2009/07/30/your-canadian-citizenship-means-nothing/
The second issue is that of extradition. In this @domionpundit and I are in complete agreement - where Canada has an extradition treaty we are obligated to give up any citizen charged with a crime. In cases where there is no treaty we are not so obligated, and such cases need to be examined individually to determine if there is both reasonable cause for extradition and reasonable expectation of a fair trial.
The third issue is the idea that terrorism is somehow a crime sui generis. Organized terrorism is closest, in organizational terms, to organized crime, and needs to be tackled in the same manner; combining efficient enforcement with the elimination of its root causes. Terrorism is also not new, despite some of the rhetoric in circulation these days. Even Western Europe & North America have historical experience: during the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th anarchists assassinated a President of the United States, a King of Italy, a President of France and a Premier of Spain within a few years of one another, among many other bombings and attacks. No constitutions were suspended or Patriot Acts passed, and the threat was dealt with within the existing laws.
Finally there is the question of government responsibility. The Canadian government is responsible for the protection of all Canadian citizens, regardless of their identity or the date of their citizenship. That doesn't mean that Canadians should be protected from foreign prosecution, of course. It also doesn't mean that Canadians abroad should expect to be rescued when they travel abroad - in the other countries of the world Canadians are aliens, though hopefully legal ones! In the event of a foreign country arresting a Canadian our government should represent us, and ensure that we are given due process and protected from violations of the law as it stands in that country and internationally.
In situations such as Mr. Diab's that means that he is free on bail while awaiting his extradition hearing for a trial in France sometime next year. Should he be convicted he will serve his sentence, and upon his release be free to return to Canada. In the case of Mr. Abdelrazik it means that the Canadian government should have been pushing for his return years ago, and certainly that he should have been brought home to Ottawa as soon as he set foot in the Canadian Embassy in Sudan 2 years ago. In the case of Omar Khadr, held in Guantanamo Bay, it means that our government should be pushing tirelessly to see him either released or charged with a crime and tried in a legal civilian court.
The idea that the government gets to choose which citizens to help is profoundly frightening. It is perhaps less frightening to me, as a white anglo with a safe name, but it is frightening nonetheless. Either citizenship applies to us all or we accept the creation of a stratified society in which, as Orwell said, some are more equal than others.
Here is the bulk of an exchange:
@dominionpundit Why are people so eager to strip citizenship, especially before trials? If he is convicted let him serve his sentance.
@theRoundhouse good pt. but, Canadians need to be vigilant to ensure govt enable our country to be a safe haven for terrorists.
@dominionpundit I would agree, but why not wait and see if there is actually any reason to discuss it first?
@theRoundhouse not comfortable w terrorists landing here,get citizenship,leave to terrorize under my flag, tarnishing my citizenship brand.
@dominionpundit Diab case, if sustained, relates to an event in 1980, so nothing to do with 'your flag' & all citizens must be equal to govt
@theRoundhouse I should say, even natural born Canadians should not expect AUTOMATIC clemency req from our govt when arrested for terror
@theRoundhouse re Diab.event was before he was granted Cdn cit.if convicted,means he lied on imm app.hence,loss of Cdn cit.
@theroundhouse If we have extradition treaties,Cdn cit(born here or not) shld be extradited for trial(pedo in Thailand, terrorism elsewhere)
@theRoundhouse Cdn cit shld not b getoutof-international jail free card if ur sought for crimes abroad. (assuming legal system is fair) no?
There are several issues in play during this exchange, and I want to deal with them separately, The first is citizenship. Citizenship to me is both a legal state and a principle. If you are a Canadian then you enjoy the rights and privileges thereof, as well as the obligations. I do not recognize any distinction between 'natural born' and naturalized citizens - either you are a Canadian or you are not. To think otherwise is to invite the creation of a caste system, in which some are more equal than others. The last thing any Canadian wants is for the government to be able to decide whether or not they are, in fact, a Canadian and thus worthy of access to those rights and privileges.
In recent years, starting under the Martin government and worsening under the Harper government, there has been a devaluation of Canadian citizenship. Among the chattering classes this has become a popular topic for conversation, and you see it regularly in the blogoshpere. Another person discussing this today: http://eaves.ca/2009/07/30/your-canadian-citizenship-means-nothing/
The second issue is that of extradition. In this @domionpundit and I are in complete agreement - where Canada has an extradition treaty we are obligated to give up any citizen charged with a crime. In cases where there is no treaty we are not so obligated, and such cases need to be examined individually to determine if there is both reasonable cause for extradition and reasonable expectation of a fair trial.
The third issue is the idea that terrorism is somehow a crime sui generis. Organized terrorism is closest, in organizational terms, to organized crime, and needs to be tackled in the same manner; combining efficient enforcement with the elimination of its root causes. Terrorism is also not new, despite some of the rhetoric in circulation these days. Even Western Europe & North America have historical experience: during the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th anarchists assassinated a President of the United States, a King of Italy, a President of France and a Premier of Spain within a few years of one another, among many other bombings and attacks. No constitutions were suspended or Patriot Acts passed, and the threat was dealt with within the existing laws.
Finally there is the question of government responsibility. The Canadian government is responsible for the protection of all Canadian citizens, regardless of their identity or the date of their citizenship. That doesn't mean that Canadians should be protected from foreign prosecution, of course. It also doesn't mean that Canadians abroad should expect to be rescued when they travel abroad - in the other countries of the world Canadians are aliens, though hopefully legal ones! In the event of a foreign country arresting a Canadian our government should represent us, and ensure that we are given due process and protected from violations of the law as it stands in that country and internationally.
In situations such as Mr. Diab's that means that he is free on bail while awaiting his extradition hearing for a trial in France sometime next year. Should he be convicted he will serve his sentence, and upon his release be free to return to Canada. In the case of Mr. Abdelrazik it means that the Canadian government should have been pushing for his return years ago, and certainly that he should have been brought home to Ottawa as soon as he set foot in the Canadian Embassy in Sudan 2 years ago. In the case of Omar Khadr, held in Guantanamo Bay, it means that our government should be pushing tirelessly to see him either released or charged with a crime and tried in a legal civilian court.
The idea that the government gets to choose which citizens to help is profoundly frightening. It is perhaps less frightening to me, as a white anglo with a safe name, but it is frightening nonetheless. Either citizenship applies to us all or we accept the creation of a stratified society in which, as Orwell said, some are more equal than others.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Crime and Conservatives
In the course of my daily prowl through the news and blogs online I came across this, posted last week by David Climenhaga. link
Perhaps unsurprisingly it matched a few thoughts of my own I was considering for this blog, and thus I may as well put it out there today. First of all I would like to point out that my MP is Rob Anders, and a better way to drive moderate conservatives, or anyone politically aware, away from the Conservative Party of Canada would be hard to imagine. That said he has won the riding here by significant majorities since replacing Harper in this seat. As a testament to the power of the CPC brand here in Alberta, and the failure of the Liberals to make inroads, there could hardly be a better example.
Mr. Anders sends out regular public mailings, both the parliamentary '10-percenters' and Constituency notices. There are only ever two topics for these mailings - crime and attacking the Liberals. The latter have focused on the 'just visiting' campaign and threatening me with Liberal tax hikes, both of which I find offensive but are not relevant to this post. What fascinates me, much like Mr. Climenhaga, are the mailings on crime and the criminal justice system.
Every single one of the mail-outs on crime is a ridiculous straw man. Every one. "Criminals don't register their guns, why should you", or variations on the theme of 'do you think criminal should be punished or immediately released without penalties'. I think all Canadian parties agree that there should be consequences for breaking the law. I would also think that appealing to criminal behaviour to justify ignoring laws you may not like isn't the strongest argument you could make.
Many people will remember the attacks on Paul Martin (link) that stemmed from this mindset. Mr. Martin, whatever his manifold failings as Prime Minister or leader of the Liberal party, is a father and a grandfather. The suggestion that he, or anyone in Parliament, does not wish to see child pornographers caught and punished is both a disgusting personal attack and mendacious.
In short I am profoundly irritated by the simplistic efforts of conservative politicians to pretend that only they understand and have correct views on crime and the criminal justice system. No single party or group is the sole source of truth or good ideas on any complex topic! Even more importantly the distinctions between positions that these sort of mailings appeal to is almost entirely fallacious. The real differences in policy terms at this time, between the Liberals and Conservatives especially, is very small. The substitution of rhetoric for fact in an attempt to create a distinction is both unpleasant and misleading.
*For those who are interested the recent Statistics Canada release on crime is here.
Perhaps unsurprisingly it matched a few thoughts of my own I was considering for this blog, and thus I may as well put it out there today. First of all I would like to point out that my MP is Rob Anders, and a better way to drive moderate conservatives, or anyone politically aware, away from the Conservative Party of Canada would be hard to imagine. That said he has won the riding here by significant majorities since replacing Harper in this seat. As a testament to the power of the CPC brand here in Alberta, and the failure of the Liberals to make inroads, there could hardly be a better example.
Mr. Anders sends out regular public mailings, both the parliamentary '10-percenters' and Constituency notices. There are only ever two topics for these mailings - crime and attacking the Liberals. The latter have focused on the 'just visiting' campaign and threatening me with Liberal tax hikes, both of which I find offensive but are not relevant to this post. What fascinates me, much like Mr. Climenhaga, are the mailings on crime and the criminal justice system.
Every single one of the mail-outs on crime is a ridiculous straw man. Every one. "Criminals don't register their guns, why should you", or variations on the theme of 'do you think criminal should be punished or immediately released without penalties'. I think all Canadian parties agree that there should be consequences for breaking the law. I would also think that appealing to criminal behaviour to justify ignoring laws you may not like isn't the strongest argument you could make.
Many people will remember the attacks on Paul Martin (link) that stemmed from this mindset. Mr. Martin, whatever his manifold failings as Prime Minister or leader of the Liberal party, is a father and a grandfather. The suggestion that he, or anyone in Parliament, does not wish to see child pornographers caught and punished is both a disgusting personal attack and mendacious.
In short I am profoundly irritated by the simplistic efforts of conservative politicians to pretend that only they understand and have correct views on crime and the criminal justice system. No single party or group is the sole source of truth or good ideas on any complex topic! Even more importantly the distinctions between positions that these sort of mailings appeal to is almost entirely fallacious. The real differences in policy terms at this time, between the Liberals and Conservatives especially, is very small. The substitution of rhetoric for fact in an attempt to create a distinction is both unpleasant and misleading.
*For those who are interested the recent Statistics Canada release on crime is here.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Boutilier's Banishment
Yesterday Mr. Stelmach took the unusual step of expelling a member of the government caucus.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/alberta-mla-kicked-out-of-tory-caucus-over-health-spending-spat/article1223606/
Interesting and unusual in itself, the real importance of the event may be whether or not it indicates a larger issue. On the face of it Boutilier's comments, while definitely uncomfortable for the government, hardly seem indicative of a serious opposition to the PC party. The man is, lest we forget, a former cabinet member of the party that just expelled him from caucus. In addition the criticisms he is making certainly echo those of his constituents. The inadequacy of Fort McMurray's infrastructure is a commonplace, both in the city itself and in Alberta politics. To my mind Mr. Boutilier's job as an MLA required him to say more or less what he said.
What I find interesting is that this move seems atypical for the Stelmach PC government. For one thing it is an open admission of, and invitation to, conflict - the one thing this government studiously avoids. Good luck finding an official mention of Bill 44 or the public outcry about that bill in any government publication.* The government's RSS feed doen't even list Bill 44 as one of the achievements of the last session!
In addition the PC party has worked hard to maintain itself as the biggest tent possible. The gap between Ted Morton and Jim Dinning in philosophical terms is much larger than that between most PCs and Liberals. This move is unusually decisive and divisive.
Opponents of the PCs are already taking this move as either the beginning of the end, with David Swann posting "the friendly farmer image is gone, now we can see the tight fisted control of this administration " on twitter, and a liberal blogger posting an entry on the viability of the PC party in Alberta http://pierretrudeauismyhomeboy.blogspot.com/2009/07/change-that-works-for-ed-stelmach.html . This of course builds on the pressure by the Wild Rose Alliance, and its implications for the right wing support of the PCs. (see Daveberta's entry of July 13th here: http://daveberta.blogspot.com/)
On the whole it appears that the strain of the recession combined with the inertia and lack of vision, or at least common vision, within the PC party after 37 years in power may be coming to a head. There is enormous energy in Alberta, but it doesn't owe anything to the government and hasn't for some time. The last several Alberta elections have seen the PCs run successfully on a caretaker agenda of 'don't rock the boat and we won't screw it up'. Should their image of bland certainty start to fade there may be the groundwork for real political change here in Alberta.
It would be well, however, for opponents of the PCs to remember the strengths of the government. In addition to their almost unwieldy majority (which may in itself be the cause of the Boutilier issue) the PCs have the fundraising, the relationships and total control over the apparatus of the province. All that, in addition to the habitual loyalty of a large percentage of the electorate.
The political weather may be changing, as a lot of challenges are coming to a head in the PC party here in Alberta. The most important element of that potential for change lies within the PC party at this time, however, and the real interest to me in the Boutilier affair is where it leads the factions within the party and the caucus over the next few months.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/alberta-mla-kicked-out-of-tory-caucus-over-health-spending-spat/article1223606/
Interesting and unusual in itself, the real importance of the event may be whether or not it indicates a larger issue. On the face of it Boutilier's comments, while definitely uncomfortable for the government, hardly seem indicative of a serious opposition to the PC party. The man is, lest we forget, a former cabinet member of the party that just expelled him from caucus. In addition the criticisms he is making certainly echo those of his constituents. The inadequacy of Fort McMurray's infrastructure is a commonplace, both in the city itself and in Alberta politics. To my mind Mr. Boutilier's job as an MLA required him to say more or less what he said.
What I find interesting is that this move seems atypical for the Stelmach PC government. For one thing it is an open admission of, and invitation to, conflict - the one thing this government studiously avoids. Good luck finding an official mention of Bill 44 or the public outcry about that bill in any government publication.* The government's RSS feed doen't even list Bill 44 as one of the achievements of the last session!
In addition the PC party has worked hard to maintain itself as the biggest tent possible. The gap between Ted Morton and Jim Dinning in philosophical terms is much larger than that between most PCs and Liberals. This move is unusually decisive and divisive.
Opponents of the PCs are already taking this move as either the beginning of the end, with David Swann posting "the friendly farmer image is gone, now we can see the tight fisted control of this administration " on twitter, and a liberal blogger posting an entry on the viability of the PC party in Alberta http://pierretrudeauismyhomeboy.blogspot.com/2009/07/change-that-works-for-ed-stelmach.html . This of course builds on the pressure by the Wild Rose Alliance, and its implications for the right wing support of the PCs. (see Daveberta's entry of July 13th here: http://daveberta.blogspot.com/)
On the whole it appears that the strain of the recession combined with the inertia and lack of vision, or at least common vision, within the PC party after 37 years in power may be coming to a head. There is enormous energy in Alberta, but it doesn't owe anything to the government and hasn't for some time. The last several Alberta elections have seen the PCs run successfully on a caretaker agenda of 'don't rock the boat and we won't screw it up'. Should their image of bland certainty start to fade there may be the groundwork for real political change here in Alberta.
It would be well, however, for opponents of the PCs to remember the strengths of the government. In addition to their almost unwieldy majority (which may in itself be the cause of the Boutilier issue) the PCs have the fundraising, the relationships and total control over the apparatus of the province. All that, in addition to the habitual loyalty of a large percentage of the electorate.
The political weather may be changing, as a lot of challenges are coming to a head in the PC party here in Alberta. The most important element of that potential for change lies within the PC party at this time, however, and the real interest to me in the Boutilier affair is where it leads the factions within the party and the caucus over the next few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)