Posts Tagged ‘ableg’

Wildrose policy upgrade muddying their message? Hardly

- April 9th, 2013

Much has been made over the last couple of days over the Wildrose announcing it would be reviewing some policy stances in an attempt to appeal to more Albertans.

Commenters under our stories accuse them of being nothing more than Tories with another name, and the deputy premier ridiculed them as selling out their own values.

I get that a complete reversal, or removal of core values, would be seen as a betrayal of all the supporters who have been with a party since the beginning, but as I say in my column this week, there’s room for improvement. And if you think a losing party would keep going to voters with the exact same playbook election after election, you’re fooling yourself.

If the goal of your party is to win an election, you want a winning platform. But it has to be one that sticks with your core values. A complete killing of the Alberta Human Rights Commission may not have worked for the public, but let’s look at other reform. Or let’s do a better job of explaining the benefit of the original policy.

I have no issue with policy review. It’s natural to review policy.

What I take issue with is a party that says one thing during a campaign then does the opposite once elected. That’s unforgivable.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories: General | 3 comments

CTF debacle an example of poor Tory decision making

- March 6th, 2013

Which seems like a better PR strategy to you?

1. Let one of your opponents listen to your budget briefing, then let their comments get lost in the shuffle of opposition politicians and other groups. And do it under the guise of “we’re full.”

2. Refuse them entry for the first time in 20 years, deal with at least 24 hours of criticism over the decision, let someone else extend them the olive branch, then turn around and say a spot just opened up.

Sometimes it’s just best leave well enough alone.

That concept was lost on the Tories, who told officials with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation they would not be welcome at Thursday’s budget briefing.

Now, at the start of a legislature sitting, this would normally be a minor distraction, with a Speech from the Throne to get worked up over, and the normal sparring in question period.

But this isn’t a new session, with no new Throne Speech, no legislative agenda.

All the focus is on the budget and the Tories’ reputation as stewards of the public purse.

The CTF has long been critical of the PC government, so the ouster from the lockup is at best terrible optics and, at worst, it’s petty and punative.

Some would like to point out that left-wing labour groups have never been allowed into the budget lockup, so it’s only fair the right is getting its lumps.

Forget that other groups haven’t been allowed in, and forget that it’s an alleged “right-wing” distraction.

A group that routinely spars with the government, one that for 20 years got access to the budget lockup, was suddenly told “Sorry, no go.” If the left shoe were being kicked off, I’d find it baffling too.

The optics of it are terrible, especially in a contentious budget cycle where the specific group has been a thorn in the side of the government.

Then for the premier’s office to turn around and overrule the finance department, AFTER the official opposition had offered a way in for the CTF and three other groups. Two of those groups could be called left-wing, I might add.

So we go from “We’re full, so too bad,” to “We’re focused on the budget and welcome their continued input.”

Tags: , , , , ,
Categories: General | 2 comments

Dialling up questions on distracted driving law success

- June 21st, 2012

For the last few months, Alberta has been under rule of the distracted driving legislation, banning talking, texting, makeup application, reading, etc., while behind the wheel.

I have written my fair share about problems with the law, including provisions that prohibit changing music yet still allows lighting a smoke, or the nice sections that say you can’t even check your phone if you’re stuck at a rail crossing. And as a top traffic cop has suggested he’s seeing people go to greater lengths to hide banned behaviour, thereby taking eyes further off the wheel, there is fear of a greater risk of crashes.

But at least one member of the force is crediting the law for a reduction in crashes.

“I personally believe that’s the reason,” said CPS spokesman Kevin Brookwell, regarding the perceived link between the province’s distracted driving law and a large drop in crashes in the last three months of 2011 and the same period of 2010.

In the fourth quarter of 2011, there were about 9,400 crashes, compared to more than 13,000 in 2010.

A nice drop. Nothing to sneeze at, really. Fewer crashes are a good thing.

But because of the distracted driving law? Prove it.

Just because the legislation came into effect Sept. 1, doesn’t mean it gets credit for the drop.

After all, in the previous year’s three months, there was a drop of 2,000 crashes. And that followed two years of hikes.

Maybe some drivers were being extra cautious in Calgary in 2010 AND 2011. Maybe the new law played a role, but no one can give it credit for the whole drop.

To continue the analysis and looking at the first three months of 2012, a similar claim could be made. After all, from 2011 to 2012, there was a drop of about 2,000 crashes for the quarter.

But there was a larger drop, 3,000 fewer crashes, between the same periods in 2009 and 2010 and that drop was book-ended by spikes.

Traffic patterns, including crashes, fluctuate.

A drop can never be attributed to a single factor, and that includes distracted driving legislation.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories: General | 1 comment

In this campaign, it’s all about the cash

- March 28th, 2012

It’s been official now for a couple of days, and unofficial for weeks.

Albertans are going to the polls April 23

And for all the talk of how different this race is, from the leaders to the parties to the political climate, at the end of the day, it’s about the dough.

And I’m not talking about all the talk of cutting budgets and balancing budgets, I’m talking about the Tories facing a well-financed an organized opponent.

I’m not saying the Wildrose will win because they have a lot of spending money, but much has been made of the party’s ability to fundraise more than their other opposition opponents.

And if the ad the party released in advance of the election call is any indication, the Wildrose is definitely something the Tories haven’t seen in a long, long time: A well-funded opponent.

Slick campaign financed with lots of cash may not win elections on their own, but they get attention. And getting voters to pay attention is more than half the battle.

I’ll leave forecasting to pollsters, but as Rick Bell says here: “Politics has come to Alberta.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories: General | No comments

Pastoor across the floor

- November 22nd, 2011

The first day of the second half of the abbreviated fall session of the legislature was a busy one.

New legislation on the table, a growing deficit, government opponents suggesting health-care premiums are on the table, and if that wasn’t enough, the Tory caucus grew by one.

Lethbridge Liberal Bridget Pastoor, who in the past has been a member of the PC party, jumped ship to join Alison Redford’s Tories.

The MLA is the second since the election of new leader Raj Sherman, himself a former Tory, to announce a departure from caucus.

Feisty Edmonton MLA Hugh MacDonald has already announced he won’t be seeking re-election.

The move by Pastoor has reignited the debate over whether MLAs and MPs should be allowed to do such a thing. It’s the same argument that came up when Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth left the Tories to join the Wildrose Party.

At the time, those departures were blasted even by Tory MLAs, one even wanted to see other moves banned. But there was nary a peep from now-Education minister Thomas Lukaszuk, who pitched the proposal.

From my editorial:

While everyone is well within their right to feel betrayed and to question a politician’s motives for leaving a party, eroding rights to remedy hurt feelings is pretty ludicrous.

The hurt feelings of the political elite don’t warrant knee-jerk legislation, especially when it might violate a number of freedoms we take for granted.

That includes the freedoms of conscience, expression and association, all outlined in the Charter.

For a party that claims to believe in rights, suggested as a motivation behind the parental rights clause of Bill 44, the prospect of this bill smacks of totalitarianism.

Thankfully, the notion seems to have vanished.

But Pastoor’s departure brings up one important question: Why?

I’m left wondering is why the Tories want Pastoor and, frankly, why she would want them.

For a party trying to fend off challenges from a strong right-wing contender, scooping up a Liberal doesn’t do them any favours with the right. And while I strongly believe they have the right to make the move, joining a party you’ve spent seven years criticizing always seems a little strange, especially when it’s a jump to the party in power.

But “having a seat” at the table is something that Pastoor said is important, as she told reporters:

“This way I will be able to sit at the table where the decisions will be made. I’ll be able to have input into the policy. I’ll be able to say from the inside what I’ve saying from the outside.”

Take that how you will, but it doesn’t help kill the notion that’s being floated in some circles that all the Tories care about is being in power.

Tags: , , , ,
Categories: General | 2 comments

« Older Entries