As the Municipal Election begins to loom here in Calgary I have regularly been asked for my thoughts on the race for Mayor. Having repeated them so many times I may as well post them publicly....
Both of the current front-runners in the polls will not be receiving my support. Ms. Higgins, running an exceedingly cautious campaign based on her name recognition, has yet to provide any reason for me to actually support her. In fact it is difficult for me to recall any serious campaign in the last 15 years in which the candidate offered less insight to their views or policy outlook. Mr. McIvor, whose record as an Alderman was indifferent, has also run a very cautious campaign based on his name recognition and the 'Dr. No' image he cultivated on council. Unfortunately the flip side of the 'Dr. No' reputation is the friction created on council, which certainly doesn't bode well for a Mayor, especially in a city where the mayoralty is a chairman of the board without much inherent power and thus in need of consensus support. The policy framework advanced by Mr. McIvor is also vague and unimpressive, which I suppose is part and parcel with the decision not to risk controversy.
The candidate I would most like to support would be Wayne Stewart, whose resume is impressive and comes very highly recommended by several people I trust. unfortunately I can't see any way for Mr. Stewart to break out of pack of also-rans and actually have a chance to win the race. I believe the same fate awaits Craig Burrows, whom I have been surprisingly impressed with in his attempt to recover from losing his last Aldermanic contest to Joe Connelly.
In the end I think this will leave me supporting Naheed Nenshi for Mayor. Mr. Nenshi's background in business and thinking about municipal issues is impressive, and his policy platform is the most complete and best elucidated. I do worry about his ability to manage a council, since a disconcerting number of his sentences start with "I" and he will need to command the support of seven Aldermen. Several people I know who have worked with him assure me that this won't be a problem, however, and in light of the balance of the race it is a risk I am willing to take.
On a more local level the Aldermanic race here in Ward 7 has caused me more trouble. I had hoped that I would be able to support a replacement for Alderman Farrell, but that is looking unlikely now. The Ward 7 Aldermanic candidate forum put on in the Triwoods Community Centre by Civiccamp was a very useful event. My thanks to all the volunteers who made it happen, and to Civiccamp as a whole for undertaking to put on one of these in every Ward. We as citizens need to have these, and I certainly appreciate having had the opportunity to attend one.
The five candidates attending were the current Alderman, Druh Farrell, James Taylor, Jim Pilling, Elizabeth Cook and Michael Krisko. For a detailed summary of the meeting see http://calgarypolitics.com/2010/09/29/urban-sprawl-and-ward-7/ The event certainly helped me familiarize myself with the options, and there is no substitute for seeing candidates live and in person, talking to them and listening to them answer questions. The result, for me, was that the options to Ms. Farrell underwhelmed me. The only serious challenger appears to be Mr. Taylor, but I have no real idea where he stands on the issues. His presentation, like Ms. Farrell's, is polished, but there is little in what he says to get a hold of. Hence, at the Aldermanic level, I am uncertain and unhappy with my options but leaning toward the incumbent. Inertia certainly isn't the best reason for casting a vote, but in the absence of a compelling alternative....
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What to make of the Gun Registry
The existing Federal Long Gun registry is an issue on which I have mixed feelings.
To begin with it is a flawed peice of legislation, its startup costs were exhorbitant, and its operating costs remain higher than they should be. That said Canada's police chiefs say it is useful, and the current operating costs aren't so extreme that the program should be cancelled on that basis alone. It should, however, be subject to a full review, with the intention of making the program both more useful to law enforcement and cheaper. A committee of the House of Commons with representation from all parties would be the ideal mechanism for this, though it is hard to see how it would work in the current poisoned climate in Ottawa.
Do I think Canadians ought to be able to purchase and own firearms? The answer to that is, unhesitatingly, yes. Do I think they should have to register those firearms? The answer to that is yes as well. It is a question of responsibility; where society is trusting you with a weapon you should be accountable for the maintenance, safety and use of that weapon. We all register our cars for the very same reasons, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we be accountable for our weapons in the same way. This is especially the case for handguns and automatic weapons, whose designed purpose is for use on humans. Long guns in the traditional sense have real and enduring utility outside city limits, but handguns and automatic weapons do not, outside of the pleasures of target shooting or collectors.
The argument that 'criminals don't register their guns' is a disingenuous straw man. It is, of course, partially true - but it is also a red herring. The goal is to restrict their access to weapons, with the acknowledgement that you can never eliminate it entirely, and to reduce gun crime by making it more and more difficult. in Switzerland, where nearly every household has several military-issue firearms, a result of their universal militia service, gun crime is among the lowest in the world. Their system of registration and accountability is one of the most important reasons why.
The other concern most often used by opponents of gun control is that "the government may take away my guns". I'm afraid that, with or without gun control legislation, if the government has reason to then they can certainly do that. Preventing unreasonable search and seizure is a part of the ongoing battle to maintain due process! Another, more reasonable, version of that argument holds that the government can retroactively ban certain weapons, making your formerly legal possession illegal. In my view almost all weapons should be allowed, provided the purchaser meets reasonable requirements, and thus the confiscatory concern should be addressed. Where there should be severe penalties is on the purveyance, and use in criminal activity of, illegal and unregistered weapons.
Given that we register our charitable donations with CRA, file for permits to move plumbing in our houses with city hall (in order to maintain our valid home insurance, if nothing else!), and register our vehicles with multiple authorities it hardly seems unreasonable to me that I should file that I own a deadly weapon.
People who really want to kill will find alternative methods, and there is no way to eliminate crime through legislation. Given the evidence of what stricter attitudes towards the responsibilities of firearms ownership, for example the British or the Swiss, does to crime and injury rates as opposed to the looser attitudes of the United States or Mexico I have to place myself in the stricter camp.
The problem with the Long Gun registry is that it is such a flawed and inadequate measure I'm not convinced it is more a part of the solution than it is a simple obstruction.
EDIT: It appears that the Registry has survived the private member's Bill to abolish it, by the narrowest of margins: 153-151 against. Now I hope there is a Bill introduced with changes to the legislation, to be followed by an open debate on the merits of said changes. Note the use of the word 'hope'.
To begin with it is a flawed peice of legislation, its startup costs were exhorbitant, and its operating costs remain higher than they should be. That said Canada's police chiefs say it is useful, and the current operating costs aren't so extreme that the program should be cancelled on that basis alone. It should, however, be subject to a full review, with the intention of making the program both more useful to law enforcement and cheaper. A committee of the House of Commons with representation from all parties would be the ideal mechanism for this, though it is hard to see how it would work in the current poisoned climate in Ottawa.
Do I think Canadians ought to be able to purchase and own firearms? The answer to that is, unhesitatingly, yes. Do I think they should have to register those firearms? The answer to that is yes as well. It is a question of responsibility; where society is trusting you with a weapon you should be accountable for the maintenance, safety and use of that weapon. We all register our cars for the very same reasons, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we be accountable for our weapons in the same way. This is especially the case for handguns and automatic weapons, whose designed purpose is for use on humans. Long guns in the traditional sense have real and enduring utility outside city limits, but handguns and automatic weapons do not, outside of the pleasures of target shooting or collectors.
The argument that 'criminals don't register their guns' is a disingenuous straw man. It is, of course, partially true - but it is also a red herring. The goal is to restrict their access to weapons, with the acknowledgement that you can never eliminate it entirely, and to reduce gun crime by making it more and more difficult. in Switzerland, where nearly every household has several military-issue firearms, a result of their universal militia service, gun crime is among the lowest in the world. Their system of registration and accountability is one of the most important reasons why.
The other concern most often used by opponents of gun control is that "the government may take away my guns". I'm afraid that, with or without gun control legislation, if the government has reason to then they can certainly do that. Preventing unreasonable search and seizure is a part of the ongoing battle to maintain due process! Another, more reasonable, version of that argument holds that the government can retroactively ban certain weapons, making your formerly legal possession illegal. In my view almost all weapons should be allowed, provided the purchaser meets reasonable requirements, and thus the confiscatory concern should be addressed. Where there should be severe penalties is on the purveyance, and use in criminal activity of, illegal and unregistered weapons.
Given that we register our charitable donations with CRA, file for permits to move plumbing in our houses with city hall (in order to maintain our valid home insurance, if nothing else!), and register our vehicles with multiple authorities it hardly seems unreasonable to me that I should file that I own a deadly weapon.
People who really want to kill will find alternative methods, and there is no way to eliminate crime through legislation. Given the evidence of what stricter attitudes towards the responsibilities of firearms ownership, for example the British or the Swiss, does to crime and injury rates as opposed to the looser attitudes of the United States or Mexico I have to place myself in the stricter camp.
The problem with the Long Gun registry is that it is such a flawed and inadequate measure I'm not convinced it is more a part of the solution than it is a simple obstruction.
EDIT: It appears that the Registry has survived the private member's Bill to abolish it, by the narrowest of margins: 153-151 against. Now I hope there is a Bill introduced with changes to the legislation, to be followed by an open debate on the merits of said changes. Note the use of the word 'hope'.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
In Memory of Dr. Margaret Osler
Last week the University of Calgary lost a superb teacher & scholar, who I deeply admired, and a witty and caring woman, of whom I was very fond.
Dr. Osler joined Calgary's department of History in 1975, and for the next 35 years enriched the world's understanding of the history of science and religion, intellectual history, the mechanical philosophy and the scientific revolution. She helped create the major and minor undergraduate programs in History and Philosophy of Science, the interdisciplinary M.A. and Ph.D. programs in Cultural Studies, and the Research Institute in Gender Studies. She also served as coordinator for the Science, Technology and Society program. Her published work is impressive in volume and quality, and her professional standing was of the first class. All of which was simply a result of her brilliant mind, impatience with guff, and wicked sense of humour.
During the coursework of my PhD I took a seminar with Dr. Osler on the development of the mechanical philosophy in the 16th & 17th centuries, roughly Gassendi through to Newton. It was utterly outside my field, but the opportunity to study with Dr. Osler was not to be missed simply because I was here in Calgary to study something else and didn't have an adequate background to study the topic at that level! My standing in the class could perhaps be best summarized by a comment on the paper I wrote, in the margin of which appeared "For flailing this isn't bad". That was all Maggie - succinct, penetrating, and witty.
As her teaching assistant, something I had the privilege to be more than once, I will always treasure that I was paid to listen to her lectures. How often to we get to listen to a world expert on an interesting field range over the topic with humour and wisdom? She told me more than once that when I "got over that political stuff" I should come and study a 'real' topic with her. I treasure that, and I choose to think that it was more indicative of her opinion of me than the time she snored through my lecture in her class. (In my defence I did better the next time!)
Outside of the University Dr. Osler was active in the Calgary community, dedicating time to the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association and the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, among others. Issues great and small were subject to her acute and occasionally acerbic wit, and to her warmth.
Goodbye Maggie, the world is a poorer and less interesting place without you. You touched many of us, and we won't forget.
The University of Calgary obituary is here:
http://arts.ucalgary.ca/news/dr-margaret-osler-fondly-remembered
Dr. Osler joined Calgary's department of History in 1975, and for the next 35 years enriched the world's understanding of the history of science and religion, intellectual history, the mechanical philosophy and the scientific revolution. She helped create the major and minor undergraduate programs in History and Philosophy of Science, the interdisciplinary M.A. and Ph.D. programs in Cultural Studies, and the Research Institute in Gender Studies. She also served as coordinator for the Science, Technology and Society program. Her published work is impressive in volume and quality, and her professional standing was of the first class. All of which was simply a result of her brilliant mind, impatience with guff, and wicked sense of humour.
During the coursework of my PhD I took a seminar with Dr. Osler on the development of the mechanical philosophy in the 16th & 17th centuries, roughly Gassendi through to Newton. It was utterly outside my field, but the opportunity to study with Dr. Osler was not to be missed simply because I was here in Calgary to study something else and didn't have an adequate background to study the topic at that level! My standing in the class could perhaps be best summarized by a comment on the paper I wrote, in the margin of which appeared "For flailing this isn't bad". That was all Maggie - succinct, penetrating, and witty.
As her teaching assistant, something I had the privilege to be more than once, I will always treasure that I was paid to listen to her lectures. How often to we get to listen to a world expert on an interesting field range over the topic with humour and wisdom? She told me more than once that when I "got over that political stuff" I should come and study a 'real' topic with her. I treasure that, and I choose to think that it was more indicative of her opinion of me than the time she snored through my lecture in her class. (In my defence I did better the next time!)
Outside of the University Dr. Osler was active in the Calgary community, dedicating time to the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association and the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, among others. Issues great and small were subject to her acute and occasionally acerbic wit, and to her warmth.
Goodbye Maggie, the world is a poorer and less interesting place without you. You touched many of us, and we won't forget.
The University of Calgary obituary is here:
http://arts.ucalgary.ca/news/dr-margaret-osler-fondly-remembered
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
'Fixing' what isn't Broken: Tampering with the Census
I have been startled this last few weeks to witness the extent to which a seemingly esoteric subject, the census, has become a political and conversational issue during the dog days of summer. Here in Calgary I have had a series of conversations about this topic, and so far all of them have been with people upset by the changes. Most people have been concerned by the prospect of impeding the gathering of good data, and everyone I have had the conversation with have been baffled by the government's decision to fix something that manifestly wasn't broken.
The decision by the Conservative government of Mr. Harper to change the long-form census from mandatory to optional was announced and defended on two grounds. First, that the current system was intrusive, and thus needed to be changed on privacy grounds. Second, that because there were legal sanctions attached to a failure to return the mandatory form it was necessary to act in order to protect Canadians from being punished by the state should they decide not to return the form.
Both of these grounds were, sadly, completely fatuous. In the case of the latter it is enough to point out that no Canadian has ever been jailed for the failure to complete the census. If there is a case I've missed on this point please let me know! As for the former, well, there are a series of reasons why that concern makes little or no sense. To begin with it is entirely possible to return the form blank, or with inaccurate answers. Tens of thousands do - witness the write-in answer of 'Jedi' under the religion category over the past few censuses. Secondly anything which identifies your answers with you is held in confidence for 92 years, at which point you will be past caring about what you may have said. Thirdly the data you are submitting via the long form frequently exists elsewhere, in tax filings, building permits, school records etc, all of which are vastly more accessible than the census data. Fourthly, many of us submit vast amounts of personal data to private organizations, whether those be stores or banks, that maintain and are held to a much lower standard of privacy. Finally it should be borne in mind that in an era in which we all can and do complain about things which irritate us every day the last census received a grand total of three, yes three, privacy complaints. I would submit that any private organization that sent out a questionnaire to its membership and received only three complaints would be thrilled; and that on a vastly smaller sample size.
The problems with the proposed new system of a mandatory short-form and a voluntary long-form are manifold. To begin with the mandatory long-form is the fundamental control group for all of the research done in this country by Statistics Canada and most private researchers as well. The mandatory long-form is invaluable because it reaches a huge number of people, the response rate is high and the people are randomly chosen. As a result the data provides a statistical sample size and randomness that is unmatched. This means that its results are accurate even though many people either don't complete it or send back that they are Jedi - these outliers fall off the edges of the curve for any given question and we are left with an enormous sample to work with. the result is data that is internationally admired for its reach, accuracy and completeness. To make the sample voluntary means that response rates fall, and the response rate skews away from a representative sample of Canadians. The worst thing about this is that we won't be able to know how much, or which way, the data has skewed - we will have cancelled the control group we test everything else against.
What I have found fascinating the past few weeks is the number of people I have had this conversation with, many of whom are not political people, much less policy wonks. I have several times been told that we, as Canadians, prefer to settle our differences by appealing to the facts. There seems to be something in the census changes that people recognize as an attack on the facts, or at least the system for gathering them. Last time I checked there were hundreds of groups, ranging from provinces and municipalities to professional groups like statisticians and economists, in opposition to the changes. In favour these was only the government, the National Citizen's Coalition (formerly run by Mr. Harper) and the Fraser Institute. The contrast is educational in and of itself. The issue also seems to have resonated with a much wider section of the public than the narrow element of the Conservative Party's base that the move was intended to satisfy. the polling data the last week indicates that it has hurt the government's standing with voters, though like all polls (especially in the summer) that needs to be placed in context. Unless the opposition is able to make strides towards portraying itself as a viable government-in-waiting then the results are unimportant.
Mr. Clement's announcement today that the government would move the language section of the long-form to the short-form census questionnaire is a transparent effort to avoid the court challenge filed by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. The conflict between the maintenance and extension of the short-form census and the rhetoric about removing the mandatory long-form and protecting citizen privacy from the state is striking.
The decision by the Conservative government of Mr. Harper to change the long-form census from mandatory to optional was announced and defended on two grounds. First, that the current system was intrusive, and thus needed to be changed on privacy grounds. Second, that because there were legal sanctions attached to a failure to return the mandatory form it was necessary to act in order to protect Canadians from being punished by the state should they decide not to return the form.
Both of these grounds were, sadly, completely fatuous. In the case of the latter it is enough to point out that no Canadian has ever been jailed for the failure to complete the census. If there is a case I've missed on this point please let me know! As for the former, well, there are a series of reasons why that concern makes little or no sense. To begin with it is entirely possible to return the form blank, or with inaccurate answers. Tens of thousands do - witness the write-in answer of 'Jedi' under the religion category over the past few censuses. Secondly anything which identifies your answers with you is held in confidence for 92 years, at which point you will be past caring about what you may have said. Thirdly the data you are submitting via the long form frequently exists elsewhere, in tax filings, building permits, school records etc, all of which are vastly more accessible than the census data. Fourthly, many of us submit vast amounts of personal data to private organizations, whether those be stores or banks, that maintain and are held to a much lower standard of privacy. Finally it should be borne in mind that in an era in which we all can and do complain about things which irritate us every day the last census received a grand total of three, yes three, privacy complaints. I would submit that any private organization that sent out a questionnaire to its membership and received only three complaints would be thrilled; and that on a vastly smaller sample size.
The problems with the proposed new system of a mandatory short-form and a voluntary long-form are manifold. To begin with the mandatory long-form is the fundamental control group for all of the research done in this country by Statistics Canada and most private researchers as well. The mandatory long-form is invaluable because it reaches a huge number of people, the response rate is high and the people are randomly chosen. As a result the data provides a statistical sample size and randomness that is unmatched. This means that its results are accurate even though many people either don't complete it or send back that they are Jedi - these outliers fall off the edges of the curve for any given question and we are left with an enormous sample to work with. the result is data that is internationally admired for its reach, accuracy and completeness. To make the sample voluntary means that response rates fall, and the response rate skews away from a representative sample of Canadians. The worst thing about this is that we won't be able to know how much, or which way, the data has skewed - we will have cancelled the control group we test everything else against.
What I have found fascinating the past few weeks is the number of people I have had this conversation with, many of whom are not political people, much less policy wonks. I have several times been told that we, as Canadians, prefer to settle our differences by appealing to the facts. There seems to be something in the census changes that people recognize as an attack on the facts, or at least the system for gathering them. Last time I checked there were hundreds of groups, ranging from provinces and municipalities to professional groups like statisticians and economists, in opposition to the changes. In favour these was only the government, the National Citizen's Coalition (formerly run by Mr. Harper) and the Fraser Institute. The contrast is educational in and of itself. The issue also seems to have resonated with a much wider section of the public than the narrow element of the Conservative Party's base that the move was intended to satisfy. the polling data the last week indicates that it has hurt the government's standing with voters, though like all polls (especially in the summer) that needs to be placed in context. Unless the opposition is able to make strides towards portraying itself as a viable government-in-waiting then the results are unimportant.
Mr. Clement's announcement today that the government would move the language section of the long-form to the short-form census questionnaire is a transparent effort to avoid the court challenge filed by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. The conflict between the maintenance and extension of the short-form census and the rhetoric about removing the mandatory long-form and protecting citizen privacy from the state is striking.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Another avoidable tragedy for Gaza
The loss of life on the flotilla attempting to move from Cyprus to Gaza is tragic, but it was also completely avoidable. This is a topic certain to inflame passions, but there were a few points I felt I had to make.
Gaza is under a declared blockade; one declared not by Israel alone, but rather by Israel and Egypt. While Israeli warships and troops carried out the blockade in this instance it is important to remember that a Palestinian ally supports the blockade. The flotilla's organizers refused to follow the protocol of the blockade, docking in either Egypt or Israel to have their cargo inspected and then delivered overland to Gaza. They wanted to make a statement, and they did that.
Obviously the primary focus of the blockade is weapons smuggling. Currently what is known as dual-use material is also restricted from shipment to Gaza under the terms of the blockade, however, as a result of the risk of it being used to support violence and terrorism. Piping and concrete are harmless in and of themselves, but they can become rockets and bunkers. As it stands today the blockade is a hardship on the people of Gaza, but food and medicine are exempt from the blockade and it doesn't add unduly to the humanitarian crisis that is Gaza.
The terms of the Camp David agreements removed Israeli troops from Gaza. they also forbade heavy weaponry to the Palestinian government of Gaza, something that Hamas has been reluctant at best to comply with. (Hence the blockade) Until Hamas realizes that giving up certain kinds of weaponry is one of the prices for peace, just as Egypt is not allowed heavy weaponry and more than a certain number of light soldiers in the Sinai, then the peace process will remain stalled. Israel, of course, needs to make concessions as well, with the most egregious violation on its part of the peace terms being the continued building of settlements on Palestinian land. This is, however, a separate issue.
Running a declared blockade means that you know there is a real possibility of a military response, and by declaring your intention and timeline beforehand you are basically fishing for one. Last night 3 Israeli naval vessels intercepted the flotilla, and presumably were unable to convince them to turn around or dock for inspection in accordance with the blockade. These vessels rightly decided that sinking the ships would be excessive, and elected to use a much lower scale of force. Interestingly the information I've seen indicates that all vessels complied without violence except one, so we'll have to see whether that case involved excessive force or real provocation. Sadly the facts may actually matter very little as the overwhelming majority of people will simply fit this episode into whichever pre-conceived framework they want to.
As a final thought there will be calls for the UN to take action against Israel as a result of this, and the question that I have is why did Israel's opponents give up on the UN to pressure Israel and Egypt to take down the blockade?
Gaza is under a declared blockade; one declared not by Israel alone, but rather by Israel and Egypt. While Israeli warships and troops carried out the blockade in this instance it is important to remember that a Palestinian ally supports the blockade. The flotilla's organizers refused to follow the protocol of the blockade, docking in either Egypt or Israel to have their cargo inspected and then delivered overland to Gaza. They wanted to make a statement, and they did that.
Obviously the primary focus of the blockade is weapons smuggling. Currently what is known as dual-use material is also restricted from shipment to Gaza under the terms of the blockade, however, as a result of the risk of it being used to support violence and terrorism. Piping and concrete are harmless in and of themselves, but they can become rockets and bunkers. As it stands today the blockade is a hardship on the people of Gaza, but food and medicine are exempt from the blockade and it doesn't add unduly to the humanitarian crisis that is Gaza.
The terms of the Camp David agreements removed Israeli troops from Gaza. they also forbade heavy weaponry to the Palestinian government of Gaza, something that Hamas has been reluctant at best to comply with. (Hence the blockade) Until Hamas realizes that giving up certain kinds of weaponry is one of the prices for peace, just as Egypt is not allowed heavy weaponry and more than a certain number of light soldiers in the Sinai, then the peace process will remain stalled. Israel, of course, needs to make concessions as well, with the most egregious violation on its part of the peace terms being the continued building of settlements on Palestinian land. This is, however, a separate issue.
Running a declared blockade means that you know there is a real possibility of a military response, and by declaring your intention and timeline beforehand you are basically fishing for one. Last night 3 Israeli naval vessels intercepted the flotilla, and presumably were unable to convince them to turn around or dock for inspection in accordance with the blockade. These vessels rightly decided that sinking the ships would be excessive, and elected to use a much lower scale of force. Interestingly the information I've seen indicates that all vessels complied without violence except one, so we'll have to see whether that case involved excessive force or real provocation. Sadly the facts may actually matter very little as the overwhelming majority of people will simply fit this episode into whichever pre-conceived framework they want to.
As a final thought there will be calls for the UN to take action against Israel as a result of this, and the question that I have is why did Israel's opponents give up on the UN to pressure Israel and Egypt to take down the blockade?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Link to Sue Huff on Expense Accounts
This is a link to a post by Sue Huff (an Edmonton School Trustee) on expense accounts and political culture. Well said, Sue.
http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=expense-accounts-and-the-safety-net-of-transparency.html&Itemid=1
http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=expense-accounts-and-the-safety-net-of-transparency.html&Itemid=1
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)