Thoughts on Why Ed Stelmach Won the PC Leadership

My previous post was about why Dinning and Morton lost the 2006 PC leadership. That commentary was based on a study we did on leadership qualities Albertan’s were looking for in the the summer of 2003. A visit to the previous post will give you some context on the leadership attributes we considered.

What was it about Ed Stelmach that the Albertans liked about him when they showed up to chose him as their next Premier last December? The most significant positive Preparation driver for leadership in Alberta was someone with Business experience. None of the leadership candidates were strongly identified with having a business background, including Stelmach. However, his advantage was that he was also not identified with the other very negative Preparation attributes of being a professional politician, a lawyer or an academic. Other candidates were strongly identified with these negative attributes and that benefited Stelmach.

He was able to be identified with issues around the importance of Alberta’s role in Canada and the world. This was partly because of his past portfolios like Agriculture and top of mind issues like BSE and concerns about Alberta’s beef export access to American and other markets. His stint in International and Intergovernmental Affairs helped him understand and explain Alberta's place in a Canadian and international context. Stelmach’s recent success at the Council of the Federation, where he spent time explaining Alberta’s growth challenges and environmental plans, helped persuade most of the First Minister’s to sympathize with us and give us the benefit of the doubt and accept that we were engaged and up to the task.

In the end, I believe it was his personal qualities that made him the most attractive as the next PC leader and Premier. He was seen as an honest man with integrity and he campaigned aggressively on that theme. Even as a politician, he still farmed. That framed him to many as a potential leader who would not lose contact with the real lives of real people and not just identify and deal with the beautiful and bountiful or the rich and famous once he was in office.

His obvious ability to listen and even his lack of media skills would be perceived as positives in the campaign. Remember from the last posting, any media savvy candidate was seen as someone not to be trusted. They tended to be perceived as slick and masters of spin. The quality of being media savvy was a big leadership negative to Albertans in our survey results.

The other high value communications skill the survey showed was the ability to bring clarity to issues and to be a good listener. Stelmach is a very good listener. He sees and appreciates the complexity of most modern political issues and has a mind that likes to explore their implications and nuances. As a result clarity is sometimes sacrificed to his predilection for a fulsome understanding and "explanation" of the issues. In that way he is more like Jed Bartlett of the West Wing than George Bush of the Right Wing.

Being articulate was ranked as such a minor positive attribute that it could be considered as a neutral matter in our survey results. During the campaign, and ever since, the mainstream media in Alberta has made much of Stelmach’s “communications challenges.” Stelmach obviously lacks the polished “skill” of mouthing media-speak sound bite answers. That seems to drive the main stream media to distraction because they are so used to the professionally packaged politician. Citizens are not as concerned so long as they feel they can trust his judgement and his grasp of the issues. After all how many citizens get to (or have to) sit through an entire news conference or press briefing?

The second most important positive attribute for leadership from our study was being able to be an agent of change and to bring forth new ideas and support new ideas from others. This is where Stelmach's real potential lies, in championing changes. He has lots of change in progress in areas like energy policy, royalties and infrastructure funding. He is setting new priorities with an emphasis on innovation and technology, to concerns about managing growth and even raising issues about literacy.

He has instituted democratic reforms and reorganized the legislative policy committee structures to be all-party inclusive. He has introduced health reforms like legislation for smoking bans in public and work places. He is committed to cleaning up the teachers and other pension debts which was a holdover from Klein’s era. He is reviewing roles and responsibilities of agencies boards and commissions and the provincial government relationship with them including regional health authorities and municipalities. And he is instituting lobbyist legislation.

The record already shows Stelmach is an originator and supporter of new ideas and is a positive champion as an agent for change. None of this as yet to resonate with the mainstream media and, as a consequence, it is far from top of mind with the public. He is perceived by some, including me, as not having communicated very effectively nor has he executed political power particularly well.

There may be a change afoot however. The recent meetings in Moncton with the provincial Premiers at the Council of the Federation, Stelmach is being given media-based credit, for the first time, for his governance ability. He showed his capacity to articulate effectively, bring clarity to complex issues like climate change and GHG emissions and explain them in the context of accelerating economic growth pressures. And he has made the point of how Alberta's growth is benefiting the rest of Canada. All of these elements were identified by Albertans in our study way back in 2003 as the high value positive leadership attributes that we wanted for the next Alberta Premier.

Communicating clearly and executing the Premier's governance and political roles more effectively is a big part of what the PC government needs. These are key elements towards the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta revitalizing, rejuvenating and retaining its position as the preferred voter choice to govern the next Alberta.

An election is less than a year away and the Red Zone is a few months away. If our survey findings are still valid, letting Ed be Ed in ways that show off his personal qualities is one of our "secret" weapons to this continued success. Showing off Stelmach's personal qualities and capacities, especially as a champion for positive change, is big part of what we need to do to reconnect with Albertans. There is no time to waste Mr. Premier.

Why Dinning and Morton Lost the PC Leadership

Ed Stelmach’s win of the Alberta PC Leadership last December was a surprise to many but not to his hard working campaigners, especially given their success between the first and second ballot. Yes there was the emerging ABD and ADM factor (Anybody but Dinning and/or Morton) that will draw some to conclude Stelmach was a “compromise” candidate, but there was something else going on too.

The vote on the next PC Leader would also be the Premier of Alberta so the selection process was open to any adult Albertan who wanted to pony up 5 bucks and take the trouble to show up and vote. There were lots of people who were not typical Progressive Conservative party types but they did join the PC Party and they showed up and I think they made a big difference in the final outcome.

I had access to some particular insight as to what Albertans wanted in their next Premier. My firm, Cambridge Strategies Inc. with a strategic partner, did a Discrete Choice Modelling survey in the summer of 2003 where we asked Albertans to tell us what qualities they were looking for in the next Premier of Alberta. Given that it was done a while ago I think those findings still reflected, in large part, why Jim Dinning and Ted Morton lost and why Ed Stelmach won the PC leadership on December 2, 2006.

We surveyed influential Albertans, those who are involved in thier communities and whose opinions matter to other people, as to their preferences in three major leadership categories, Preparation for Premier, Vision and Education. We broke Preparation to be Premier in four experience areas, political, business, academic and legal experience. As for vision we asked if the next Premier should focus strictly on Alberta's needs, Alberta’s Role in Canada or Alberta’s Role in the World. The level of education preferred for the next Premier was between High School, University Degree and Post-Graduate levels.

We also asked about some personal qualities, communications skills and approaches to change citizens valued in their next Premier. The results showed the values of Albertans, including both positive and negative attributes, that would influence and drive their preferences in selecting their next Premier. It also indicated the degree of intensity Albertans held on each attribute.

I will share in my next posting my analysis of why Ed won, but first I will discuss what we discovered to be the least optimal leadership characteristics for the next Premier. I think this analysis of the study results around negative attributes, what Albertans did not want in their next Premier, provides some real insight as to why Dinning and Morton lost.

If your Experience in preparation for leadership was mostly political (Dinning) or academic (Dr. Morton) there was a significantly negative voter influence on you and your candidacy. If your Vision was focused exclusively on Alberta, like Dr. Morton who signed the famous Firewall letter, along with now Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Firewall letter urged Premier Klein to isolate Alberta from the rest of Canada by erecting a policy “Firewall” around the province. That was the second significant negative attribute on the Dr. Morton candidacy and campaign.

If your perceived personal qualities were Assertive and Self-confident (Morton) or Informed and Curious (Dinning) it was a turn off to voters. The world is a complex place and Integrity, Honesty, Real Life Experience and practical Know-How were the preferred personal leadership qualities Albertans were looking for in their next Premier. If your Communications approach was that of a media savvy political spinner (both the Dinning and Morton campaigns) it was a major turn off. Being perceived as slick and glib was a curse to any candidacy for Leader/Premier.

If your approach to dealing with change was to follow the lead of others; that was the most negative turn off in the entire study. I think Dinning may have gotten caught in this negative attribute because many saw his leadership as an extension of the status quo Calgary dominated continuation of the Klein agenda. Morton, a Reform Party activist, Senator-in-Waiting was perceived to be strongly tied to the agenda of the Reform wing of the federal Conservative Party. He was perhaps seen as someone who would be more inclined to follow the Harper Conservative agenda and isolate Alberta from the rest of Canada.

Voter perceptions of a candidate having to kowtow to those backroom people who “brung you to the dance” and who those people were would have had an influence on deciding if a candidate was “their own man or not.” Morton stating early on that he would not be disclosing any information about his campaign contributors made people wonder who he was going to be beholden to and if such unknown forces may have too much influence that would not be in the best interests of Albertans. The Dinning campaign was seen as having lots of the Klein era holdovers from the plethora of MLA endorsements to long time Klein political organizers in key campaign roles. That could have contributed to a suspicion about Dinning’s practical capacity to be an independent leader and an agent of real change or would he be just a continuation of the same old – same old.

This is admittedly all 20/20 hindsight but it is interesting to consider nonetheless, especially as we go into the next provincial election expected in the spring of 2008. Next posting I will discuss the survey results and how they indicated how Stelmach presented a winning combination of experience, qualities and capacities.

PC Leadership CampaignDisclosure Doesn't Cut It!

The disclosure of PC Leadership donations just does not cut it. Larry Johnsrude of the Edmonton Journal has a good analysis and he closely reflects my sentiments. The Progressive conservative Party has not done itself “proud” by having no rules around campaign contribution limits and disclosure. The candidates have done the best they could under the circumstances but the fact remains the PC Party created the circumstances.

Anonymous donations of any size are inappropriate in an open and transparent modern and mature democracy. Now put this under the pressure of a very competitive campaign context of a political party leadership. The system assured that nobody really knows anything about what is going on in the campaign and there is no obligation to account.

Under the circumstances what can you expect except what Stelmach and Hancock did by way of disclosure? Dinning is on board and Oberg will fess up shortly. Norris says he has disclosed already but needs to do it formally as a final wrap up if he expect to run again. Dr. Morton is a no show on campaign contribution disclosure and that is simply not acceptable in this day an age.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, (PCPA) of which I am a proud member, blew it. Instead of giving Albertans a sense of openness and transparency in the process this time, we have cast suspicion on the participants. In 1992, when we last selected a leader, the one person one vote model was a shining example of how we were an open process party inviting citizen participation.

We did not have very stringent fund raising rules around political donations in those days. Now we do. The PCPA ought to have adopted the same rules for political contributions applicable at election time and applied them to the 2006 leadership campaign. We did not change with the times and we should have.

After all we (including me) made big deals that we were not just electing a party leader but also a Premier. We (including me) made a big deal about how open, inclusive and accountable we were being as a party. We were letting any citizen who wanted to vote on our leader and for their Premier “in” on the PC Party's decision for a $5 spot to join the party.

We would welcome risking the loss of control over the selection of “our” party leader to the general population for the good of democracy. Damn we were being good. Right? Over 140,000 ordinary Albertans bought into that reality and showed up, ponied up and voted. Special interests formed and many showed up. Many more who were rumored to be “showing up” didn’t, and the rest, as they say, is history. Well that good will the party earned and deserved, has been squandered over the lack of adequate campaign contribution disclosure rules.

Now we have a pall over the process and the participants because of the immediate cash needs of many campaigns, including late comers like Stelmach and Hancock. They needed to collect money, lots of it and very quickly. So anonymous donations were accepted, simply because they were allowed and the need was great. Not good enough but that was the reality.

Here are the key questions we have to come to grips with on the level of disclosure from what we have seen, so far, and on a voluntary basis. Hancock has 7 no-names and one for $10K. Stelmach has about 80 individual contributions plus other unidentified sources amounting to about 1/3 of his total campaign budget. We don't know the distribution of the anonymous contributions. Are they all in the $1000 range or are their some big whoppers in there too? We need a breakdown to be as least somewhat reassured no one is apppearing to try to buy access and influence.

Hancock, Stelmach and others benefited from significant “fundraising” events that are reported as anonymous too, including the events in Edmonton and Calgary to cover some candidate’s campaign deficits. For the record, I am in for $500 of that “fundraising” group. My $500 ticket had a stub with a place for a name, which I filled out and turned in at the door on the evening of the event.

I fully expected that as a condition of attendance I would be seeing my name disclosed on a contributor list. It has not been so I am telling you my contribution now. I made no other financial contribution to any campaign, including Hancock, but donated hundreds of hours of volunteer time to the Hancock campaign over 6 months and about 60 hours to the Stelmach campaign in the last week.

I am not usually on the fund raising side of campaigns but I have picked up a few of the "realities" over the years. Most anonymous donations come from four main sources. First those who belong to other parties, usually higher profile types, who will support another party’s candidate on the quality of his or her character but they don’t want the publicity that would result from disclosure.

Secondly we have people who have made an “undying pledge” to support one candidate but given the nature of their business, often the government portion of which is significant, they feel they have to "hedge their bets" and support virtually anyone else they think will have an outside chance. The “also rans” contributions are almost always anonymous.

Thirdly are true benefactors, usually individually wealthy citizens. They make larger donations but do not to want to be hounded by other charities or fundraisers, including those outside of politics, for money. They don't need to buy access or influence, they already have it.

Occasionally you get some “rube” who thinks they can buy access to power this way by a big anonymous donation, but they are few and far between. That, however, is the central problem. They can’t buy the access and influence in reality, but we tend to think they can and therefore all anonymous donors all fall into the latter scuzzy category in the public’s mind.

I don’t blame the candidates for this fiasco, but they deserve some of the brunt and they are wearing it now. I mostly blame the PC Party of Alberta, my party, for this mess. We are supposed to be the good guys who are best able to manage and govern the province and be the best group to deserve and be granted the Alberta citizen’s consent to be governed.

Well we fell way too short on the issue of campaign contribution disclosure this time. I will be looking for the new legislation Premier Stelmach has promised to clean up this stupidity and it best be done sooner than later…and it better be good!.

The Catch 23 of Political Leadership

Everyone knows what a Catch 22 is. I have developed a new paradox that applies to the processes and practices of political leadership. I call it the Catch 23. That is the situation where the talents and skills it takes to get the job of a political leader are very different from those it takes to do the job of political leader.

Campaigns are large scale social activities dominated by manufactured simplified images, crisp vacuous sound bites, pleasing photo ops and truncated answers to complex concept based questions. It is about showing strength and domination and setting the attention getting agenda with professional media relations techniques. It is about issues management that masquerade as meaningful and resonant policy pronouncements. It is a decentralizing activity with endorsements and group think that is focused on not “messing up” as opposed to being momentous bold and courageous.

Leadership, on the other hand, is individualized, lonely and centralizing because of the enormous power and responsibility and accountability focused at the top, on one person. It is about change and all real change always happens at the margins, were it is uncomfortable and risky and comes with consequences, good and bad. It is about complexity and nuance, interests and influences, pressures and personalities that have to be balanced, bartered and prioritized. Some times principles get bent and promises get broken.

It is about culture that gets expressed in terms of competing principles and rivalling values that are either personal to the leader or collectively held by the society. The competition and tradeoffs amongst principles and values always get complicated and often misinterpreted by somebody or other. That usually results in political and personal consequences for the leader, and they are rarely good consequences.

Then this all has to be done in public, without a “dress rehearsal” and with out a “safety net” to catch you if you fail. It has to be done in an adversarial governance model that too often relishes having a good fight rather than finding the best solution. It is all very personal and personality driven when you look at the realities of modern politics and power. Each leader is captive of their own history, experiences, interests and aptitudes which impacts their judgement adds to the personality dimension of political leadership.

So how are we citizens then supposed to choose leaders given all of this? Obviously very carefully! The big questions are who are these candidates as people? What do they stand for and why? What kind of people are they and what kind of world do they come from. Are they decent, dedicated dependable and decisive? Do they know how to deal with people, and I mean all kinds of people? How do they handle pressure? Do they have a strong personal support base of family and close friends to help them as persons not just as politicians. Finally what is their world view? Are they, for example open curious and adaptable or are they controlling, contained and constrained?

Government like any other organization or institution never made a decision about anything. It is the people who lead and participate in them that are the real sources of decisions and directions. So who you elect is absolutely critical to the directions and destinations we undertake collectively as a society and how they will impact us individually and as family and community.

When you vote for the PC Leader/Premier tomorrow – slow down for a few moments and think twice about what you are voting for and why as much if not more than who you are voting for.

Then vote twice …#1 Ed Stelmach, #2 Jim Dinning. You will be glad you did.

Front Runners Campaign on "Anybody But" and "Let's Kick Some Butt"

As the campaign heats up to the sprint to the finish line interesting events are happening. For example, Ted Morton’ campaign slogan says “More Alberta – Less Ottawa.” But he has a bunch of Federal Conservative MPs from Ottawa in Alberta campaigning for him. Does what he really mean is “More of Ted’s Alberta – More of Ted’s Ottawa.”

The Edmonton gay and lesbian community supports Jim Dinning. Good to see the Pride Centre of Edmonton getting involved. The Edmonton Journal says they view Dinning as the “lesser of the evils.” Did they really mean to say that “Morton is the evil of two lessers?” I hope they at least vote Stelmach as #2.

Stelmach is the choice of people who want to see the province work more collaboratively and comprehensively in practical integrated ways to deal the full range of challenges before us. If the contest is all about the “Clash of the Calgary Titans” it is quite scary when you consider the consequences for the whole province. It is entirely avoidable too if everyone voted Stelmach as your #1 choice but that is unrealistic. At least make Stelmach your #2 choice regardless of who you vote #1.

The two front runners are polarizing forces for sure, as tonight’s debate will no doubt confirm. Albertans are looking at all three Leader/Premier candidates this week in terms of what motivates them, who is closest to them and who has influence on them and who controls access to them and, finally, how will they govern.

Policy differences are important but not the deciding factors. The choice between Morton and Dinning is being decided by many party members and interest groups as the lesser of two evils. I think that undervalues the obvious skills, abilities and talents of both Dinning and Morton. It is not just about who will govern but how they will govern that is unsettling to many as they look at Dinning and Morton.

The ballot box questions are concerns over the values and the motivations for each of the candidates and the public’s evolving perceptions of their personalities and characters. The choice is also being decided through a lens of a significant trend towards fragmentation of the province.

The fragmentation of Alberta into special interest groups who are becoming very involved and engaged as strategic voting blocks from unionists to evangelicals. The various regions throughout the province are also looking at voting strategically for candidates based on competition for critical government attention to their issues. The PC party is fragmenting internally too. I wonder if we aren't just auctioning it off to the Alliance Party by voting Morton.

The divisions are reflected in many ways including geography that is north-south, urban-rural, in the corridor and outside the corridor. There are value differences of intolerance of differences to embracing inclusion and diversity. Intergenerational differences about what to do with non-renewable resource revenues and surpluses are showing up. There are fault lines forming even amongst industry sectors as they scramble and compete for staff and workers, and we have not even highlighted Edmonton and Calgary issues.

So Alberta – ask yourself, what are the skills, insights and character qualities that are needed to deal with this reality? Who has earned the trust and respect of the widest range of people in all the “places” that is becoming Alberta today? Who sees this balkanization as a barrier to Alberta achieving its potential and living up to its promise - and will do something about it?

Who can ensure we make Alberta’s defining characteristic as being the best example of what is best about Canada as opposed to becoming a U.S. Republican Party facsimilie? Who is best able to use their leadership skills to ensure we don’t turn Alberta into a mini-middle east of irreconcilable differences were self-interests and radical factions compete for power and control?

This Saturday we all have unavoidable choices to make and serious consequences to consider as we decide on our Premier for the next two years. Even staying home and not participating is making a choice to let others decide this issue for you. Lack of knowledge can be cured by going on the candidate's websites and informing yourself. Indifference to the chance to make a difference is inexcusable.

The future is ours so long as we don’t blow it on Saturday. Overcome the frustration, the anger and deal with the angst and vote for intelligent, skilled, compassionate and effective change. Think about what is in the best interest of you and your family. Think about what is best for your community and the province as a whole when you vote. I have done that reflection and I am voting Stelmach/Dinning in that order.

Remember we are all in this together, alone!

Dinning's Stars and Slackers

The Dinning MLA Stars and Slackers are tougher to comment upon. Jim is so dominant individually in Calgary with his relationships in the energy sector I think he personally delivered Calgary with a whopping total vote of 13,752.

In Calgary Dinning’s relationship to the local MLAs is that they can depend on him to win their seats for them because of his personal influence in that city. Klein had that kind of sway in Calgary and most MLAs counted on his personal elect ability to win ridings. As a result it is hard to pick Stars or Slackers on winning Calgary seats. Dinning only lost Hung Pham’s Montrose constituency to Oberg but he literally "owns" the rest of the city.

So I see no reason therefore to look how the 18 Calgary MLAs who supported Dinning did to get out the vote. Some high turn outs are worth noting. His own area of Elbow (Premier Klein’s constituency) he drew 1153 that is 60% of the total. Ron Leipert pulled in 1026 votes in Calgary West for 56%. Shiraz Shariff in Calgary McCall pulled out 922 votes an impressive 69% of votes cast.

There were 11 slackers who did not win their constituency for their man and they were spread all over the province from Cabinet Ministers like Mike Cardinal in Athabasca –Redwater to Barry McFarland in Little Bow. Little Bow had 271 Dinning backers and a total vote of 1910 for a 14% share - not impressive. Minister Renner of Medicine Hat had a 33% showing and Minister Coutts of Livingstone Macleod garnered 26% of the votes. If they all want a Dinning win they can forget about sleeping this week...they have work to do.

Richard Marz showed up with 27% of the voters in Olds-Didsbury- Three Hills. Newcomers Doug Griffiths in Battle River-Wainwright turned in 22% of the voters and Len Mitzel of Cypress-Medicine Hat gather 23% support from his area. Rob Lougheed a late convert to Dinning lost Strathcona outside Edmonton with 22%. Hon. Ty Lund only garnered 25% in Rocky Mountain House in a lost cause for Dinning. NOT impressive!

“Stars” because they won the constituency but not with remarkable results were Janis Tarchuk in Banff-Cochrane with 40% turnout, Hon George VanderBurg pulled in 43% the Hon. Gordon Graydon of Grande Prairie- Wapiti and Frank Oberle of Peace River both had 38% turn up for Dinning.

The two Edmonton supporters won their ridings for Dinning where there were often four-way splits in the voting. Lukaszuk in Edmonton Castle-Downs tallied 38% with help from his Mom who was apparently was the star salesperson. Hon Gene Zwozdesky in Edmonton Mill Creek pulled a 33% and still won. Edmonton area supporters George Rogers of Leduc-Beaumont-Devon is technically a “star” but won by 2 votes.

MLA Endorsements are nice but if they don’t deliver and their leadership candidate “turtles” they mostly have to blame themselves. The idea is not to just ride on the leader’s coat tails but to get out and ensure the victory for the party.

The 2004 election saw 210,000 fewer votes for PC candidates throughout Alberta. They were sending us a message. Based on the poor showing by some MLAs for both Dinning and Stelmach, the message is still being sent but there is lots of evidence that we are not yet listening.

If we keep this up we will have Premier Morton for two years and then Premier Taft or Premier Bronconnier afterwards.

Can Stelmach Catch Morton?

Edmonton will be a battle ground this week to select the next PC leader and pro tem Premier. No guarantee that this week will be anything like the last week in Edmonton or Alberta for that matter, but there are some interesting facts that indicate strengths and potential for growth.

The Edmonton vote was split up all over the place. Dinning had 5575 in Edmonton and Hancock had 4995. No doubt some Hancock votes will bleed to Dinning. Oberg was third in Edmonton with 3228 and they have no reason to go to Dinning but will bleed some to Morton who had a respectable 2739 total in Edmonton. Norris was fourth in Edmonton with 3125 and Stelmach was only 200 votes behind him at 2925.

So let’s make some assumptions and see how this all shakes out. Let’s presume Hancock and Oberg bleed 30% each to Dinning and Morton respectively and the rest goes to Stelmach. We don’t know where Norris is going yet but we know a big part of the motivation for his backers was an “anybody but a Calgarian” leader. The question is will they show up for Ed or just go through the motions? So let’s say Norris delivers 60% of his vote to Ed and the rest splits evenly between Morton and Dinning. No reason to think Stelmach would see any of his core Edmonton support drift away.

So Stelmach has 2925 and he gets 3500 votes (rounded) from Hancock, and 2300 (rounded) from Oberg and 1875 from Norris. His total “presumed” second week Edmonton base is therefore 10600.

Dinning has 5575 and there is no reason to think he wouldn’t keep that base. He gets 1500 from Hancock and 625 from Norris for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 7700.

Morton has 2739 and gets 625 from Norris and 970 from Oberg for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 4350 (rounded). I think there is a chance for a small amount of Morton’s Edmonton support to stay home but not enough to make a difference.

Stelmach can win if he can be in second place on the first count on December 2. The first ballot totals were 25600 Morton and 15,000 Stelmach so he needs 10600 more votes to break even from the first ballot and another 1600 from bleed to Morton in Edmonton for an Edmonton shortfall of 12200 going into the second ballot. He has a good chance to pick up 7700 of those in Edmonton alone from Hancock, Oberg and Norris. Which leaves him 4500 short of catching Morton just coming out of the endorsement adjustments in Edmonton.

The rural vote is interesting too. Morton is very strong with 15460 votes to Stelmach’s 10470 for a shortfall of 5000. My sense is Oberg has already lost whatever rural vote he had to Morton based on the kind of campaign he ran and the idea of we need to change the old boys network in the party. I am assuming Oberg’s remaining 5353 voters are not going to bleed to Morton and really are rural voters who will en masse to support another rural candidate like Stelmach. I think all Hancock and Norris rural voters go to Stelmach because there is no reason to go Morton or Dinning.

Coming out of Edmonton Stelmach is facing an adjusted shortfall to catch Morton of 4500 plus the first vote rural shortfall of 5000. Stelmach needs to make up 9500 votes to catch Morton before we face Calgary. He gets Hancock’s rural vote of 2000, Norris’ 3000 and Oberg’s 5300 which makes 10300 and effectively puts him even with Morton going into Calgary.

I will do an analysis of the Calgary vote implications for Stelmach journey to catch Morton tomorrow. Fact is Dinning “owns” Calgary butMorton is strong. How much does the allocation of the “also- rans” voters help Stelmach catch Morton?

Then there is the momentum and growth factor and the “Who really wants it” factor and who is going to go out and get it like Klein did last time.

Stay tuned.

What MLAs Delivered For Ed and Which Didn't.

With the various individual MLAs supporting Stelmach and Dinning a review of their respective constituency voting results shows those who performed well or poorly for their guy. The MLA job is to get their constituency to buy memeberships and show up and vote for "their guy." I have done the analysis of Stelmach's MLA Team and it is telling.

The overall score of stars and slackers is about 50/50 for Ed's Team. The big time performers were Ray Danyluk from Lac La Biche St. Paul who turned out whopping 73% of the total 1730 voters for Ed. Next was Luke Oullette from Innisfail Sylvan Lake who turned out a more than respectable 51% of the total 1726 voting members for Stelmach.

Lloyd Snelgrove of Vermillion Lloydminster was second best delivering 48% of the 1068 total voters. Iris Evans of Sherwood Park pulled in 34% of the 1516 votes cast for Ed which I find odd given the new hospital announcement out there made during the campaign. Ed also won Hector Goudreau’s Dunvegan-Central Peace by only by a whisker over Dinning garnering 26% of only 645 votes case but hardly a stellar performance.

The underachiever Ed supporters were Mel Knight in Grande Prairie Smoky who was by far the worst. Ed came in 4th with a mere 14% of the vote. OUCH! Ivan Strang and George Groeneveld were no shows in West Yellowhead and Highwood respectively delivering a 3rd place finishs for Ed with 19 and 20% respectively of the total votes cast. Fred Lindsay was the best of the bad lot getting a 2nd place finish for Ed in Stony Plain with 23% of the vote total.

Lots of room for improvement all over and some definite revitalization of effort and new vigor is needed by some of Ed’s backers if they are serious about supporting him and seeing him win.

Hancock and Stelmach are two of the best retail politicians in the province. Their constituencies drew out the most voters. Hancock's Whitemud drew the largest with 3069 voters and Stelmach was right behind in Fort Saskatchewan Vegreville with 2934.

The turn out of almost 100,000 voters was pleasantly surprising especially given the weather and the generally reported lack of campaign significant membership sales. Lots of constituencies reported a brisk traffic of walking in membership sales all over the province.

Average turnout in Calgary was 1092.25 per constituency, 1181.10 in Edmonton and 1196.35 in the rest of Alberta. The turn out was pretty balanced even though we are fracturing the party ideologically between social conservatives, corporatists and progressives and regionally as well.

This all augers well for a possible boost in overall voting turn out next Saturday too, especially if we get a break in the weather.

I will do an analysis of the Dinning MLA supporter performance next. Stay tuned.

Our Latest LaPresse Column Published Today

I am going over the numbers and the outcomes of yesterday and looking for the potential and possibilities for Stelmach to win. I have seen how i can be done. I am far from finished in my analysis of what it will take but as readers have heard me say before "Campaigns Matter."

This campaign is still far from over. I see what I call "The Mandel Syndrome" happening for Stelmach this week big time. The top guns are not seen as sufficient to make the shifts needed to meet the future and the third place alternative is not just a compromise but on reflection, he becomes the preferred choice and wins.

IN THE MEANTIME here is our LaPresse column published in Montreal today. It has relevance as you will see.

La Presse 26 novembre 2006

Satya Das et Ken Chapman

Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives signalled a definitive end to the era of Ralph Klein by voting for his successor yesterday, and in doing so began to redefine Alberta’s place in Canada.

In the last five years, Alberta’s government abandoned all vision and direction, after paying off the entire fiscal debt. It squandered opportunity and did little to respond to the pressure of rapid growth. Worst of all, it had no interest in developing the adaptability and flexibility needed to respond to change. It brought in a favourable royalty regime of one per cent to accelerate development of the oil sands when oil cost less than $20 a barrel – and persisted with it even as prices rose astronomically.

This failure to build an escalating royalty rate so that government income would increase as prices rose, cost the Alberta treasury more in lost revenue than the reviled National Energy Programme negotiated a generation ago between Peter Lougheed and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Indeed, this one instance of incompetence is as colossal as Quebec’s squandering of Hydro Quebec’s revenue potential, so ably chronicled in Alain Dubuc’s excellent book Éloge de la richesse.

In fact, the Alberta government went beyond laissez-faire economics, to invoke laissez-faire governance. Premier Klein’s government deliberately chose to create a debt-free fiscal climate wherein government would earn the room to cut taxes and give the free-market economy the lebensraum it needed to grow and flourish. This philosophy meant removing the deliberate and deliberative hand of government in favour of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.

This Adam Smith economic prescription was paired with a John Stuart Mill political outlook. Rather than a “social contract” between the citizen and the state, the Klein political philosophy followed Mill. His governing ideal enabled and empowered each person to exercise and develop their capacities, capabilities, engagement and participation in his or her own way, in order to achieve personal progress and personal happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment.

In this concept of political economy, a flat-rate personal income tax, more private choice in the provision of health care, and distributing resource royalties directly to citizens by writing everyone a cheque, are all perfectly consistent with Adam Smith economics and John Stuart Mill politics. In this construct, the individual liberty to pursue one’s own happiness, with the least possible constraint from the state, becomes the central governing ethos.

The effect of laissez-faire governance was to diminish the individual’s expectation of state support, and to regard the state as a shelter only in times of critical need. As Premier Klein put it, his governance philosophy was to provide “a hand up, not a hand-out.” The ultimate empowerment of the citizen, in the Klein philosophy, was the classical Mills view that democracy with its freedom of speech and freedom of choice is the best vehicle to enable each citizen to flourish, following pursuits and decisions of his or her choice free from the interference of others, so long as what one wants does no harm to others.

Yet it is clear to the majority in Alberta that hands-off government does not work. The state of the environment is by far the biggest preoccupation of Albertans, who seek government leadership in sustaining the environment without demolishing the economy. Of the candidates on yesterday’s ballot Jim Dinning was a strong proponent of what he called the “clean energy economy,” proposing billions of dollars of investment in sequestering carbon dioxide and slashing the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Interestingly, this is also the perspective of federal Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion). And in survey after survey, Albertans declare themselves proud Canadians, ready to share their wealth with their fellow citizens (so long as the federal government is not the agent of distribution).

More than anything, Albertans seek a new role of leadership and influence in the country, based on their growing economic power and the responsibility that brings to perpetuate the common good. No matter what choice the Progressive Conservative party makes, an effective Premier of Alberta must respond to these desires.

The Road Less Traveled By

Just over two years ago (Nov 8, 2004) I wrote a Guest Column published in the Edmonton Journal in anticipation of the provincial election, entitled “The Providence of Alberta.”

In it I talked about some of Alberta’s accomplishments past and present and offered some ideas for future feats we might want to tackle. I begged the question about our readiness to meet the new complex challenges before us. Did we have the commitment and discipline to realize our full potential? Were we too flush with cash and conceit to truly concern ourselves with the responsibilities we have to each other, the environment and future generations? Were we so busy making money that we are willfully blind to the social and environmental consequences of how we live, work and grow our energy based economy? Those same questions are still relevant today.

The 2004 election campaign results were not a disaster but they were not good either. Albertans were sending a wake up call to the PC Party and the Klein government. The Klein government seemed to not heed the call. It stayed on "cruise control" and went back to throwing money at problems. The party membership had had enough and responded last April 1st, when they forced the current leadership selection campaign.

If we are to believe the polls, only 30% of the PC party “base” members are intending to vote in the selection of their new leader. I hope that proves to be wrong because we need a re-engagement of socially progressive and fiscally conservative people who will “come to the aid of the party.”

We are entering the end of the "regular season" of this campaign with the looming November 25th first ballot. I think it is timely for Albertans to sit back and quietly reflect for a moment on what is really going on in this leadership selection campaign and what they want to emerge out of it at the end of the day. Sure it is a partisan event. But it is more than that. It is a chance for citizens to send a message about the kind of Alberta they want. Fundamental shifts in direction are needed and clear options are before us, given the kind of candidates and the policy options they are offering.

We can shift hard right to a more socially conservative society with the “Holy Trinity” of Morton, Oberg and Doerksen. Or we can move forward with a socially progressive and fiscally conservative “Wholesome Triumvirate” of Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning. The end result of the second ballot on December 2nd will decide the direction our government will be taking for the two years to the next election.

Do we, as a province, want to go hard to the Right or do we decide to move Progressively forward? The new Leader/Premier will be the one who get to define and decide the goals and the new destination for the province too. The outcome of this leadership process significantly impacts all of us in our daily lives...whether you voted or not.

No new Leader/Premier, will be able to govern alone, Stephen Harper notwithstanding. The next Leader/Premier will have to seek out support from like minded candidates to be allies. One of these two groupings of candidates will emerge December 2nd, depending on who we select as our next Leader/Premier. If you, as a citizen, decide to “sit this one out” that means you are prepared to entrust to others to make that decision for you. That is your right but take some time to understand and appreciate the potential consequences of such indifference.

There is one week left in this campaign. Participation in our democratic processes and institutions is dangerously low. Exercising ones right to vote, showing up to be part of the decision and not “siting this one out” is the road less traveled by…and that, my fellow Albertans, can make all the difference.

It is about your values, your choices and your future.

Strategic Voting and What is Best for Alberta

I have come to the conclusion that Jim Dinning has run the best campaign and is a shoe-in for the second ballot. He has the best organization; the most money, the most MLA support, a group of professional campaigners working for him and a network of volunteers throughout the province.

He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?

If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.

I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.

I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.

To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.

Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.

I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.

People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.

I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.

Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.

Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.

I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.

That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.

This Race is Far From Over - But Who Gets to the Second Ballot?

Ipsos Reid has done an interesting poll on the PC Leadership recently. They have not been asking who you would vote for but rather how favourable or unfavourable is your “impression” of each candidate.

Asking who you will vote for is so changeable and volatile and influenced by extraneous and often meaningless influences. Name recognition and recent media coverage can drive impulse answers and not necessarily reflect actual voting behaviours.

Asking favourable or unfavourable impressions generates more reflective, qualitative and evaluative responses about candidates. Not perfect but more informative of what people are “feeling” about candidates.

Our web based Policy Channel Survey “Send ‘Em a Message” asks for a deeper level of your thought about candidates. We ask how likely is it that you would recommend each candidate to friends and family. Now participants are more invested in their answers because they reflect back on themselves not just the candidates. Not perfect either but we get more than impressions and feelings, we introduced a personal reputation risk element when we ask for candidate recommendations

The comparison in results is difficult to make but here are the findings from each survey. Remember the Policy Channel “Send ‘Em a Message” results are not scientific because it is web based with self selecting participants but not random.

The first number is the Ipsos Reid Very Favourable and Somewhat Favourable aggregate percentages.

The second number is the Policy Channel Somewhat Likely, Very Likely and Extremely Likely to Recommend aggregate percentages.

Dinning: 56% 56%
Hancock 40% 65%
Stelmach 39% 43%

Norris 35% 25%
McPherson 30% 20%

Oberg 44% 17%
Morton 34% 13%
Doerksen 28% 19%

Dinning has the same level based on impressions and the likelihood of recommended to friends and family. Hancock and Stelmach are more highly regarded when one risks personal reputation by making a recommendations to friends and family. All other candidates are not as likely to be viewed as favourably when one has to “invest” or “risk” personal reputation through a candidate recommendation.

When the Ipsos Reid’s “Not Very Favourable” and “Not At All Favourable” impressions are aggregated then Oberg, Doerksen and Morton leave bad impressions with the most people, 38%, 36% and 35% respectively. The “best of a bad lot” winners are still Dinning, Stelmach and Hancock with Norris and McPherson in the middle again.

If Albertans start to think seriously about this campaign and about the characters of the people to whom they should grant their consent to be government then we could see a different outcome. Different at least than the conventional media wisdom and pundit wizardry is now suggesting.

Will that happen? The earlier Ipsos Reid poll said only 30% of current card carrying PC’s intended to vote in this selection process. Scary at so many levels. Nobody really knows what is going to happen. Citizens can show up to vote with $5 and a drivers license and decide on the spot who to support.

There is obviously a real potential a high jacking of this leadership selection process by a well organized special interest group if ordinary citizens do not engage. But that is democracy and we always get the government and governors we deserve. The Progressive Conservative brand is at stake here as well...just as it ought to be in a leadership contest.

Next posting will be on strategic voting and what group of candidates going through to the second ballot will be best for Alberta.

Oberg Should Be Toast - Just Butter Him - Don't Vote For Him

Omigod - Dr. Oberg...pack it in! When the Calgary Sun turns on a right wing conservative candidate it is over. I watched the late September duet on CPAC you did at Link Byfield's Conservative Congress in Calgary with Drs. Oberg and Morton. Morton is the inheritor of the Stockwell Day evangelical political machine that took Preston Manning out of politics.

Ipsos Reid recent poll results ironically shows slightly more Alberta Alliance support for Oberg than for Morton - but the total number of AA types in the poll is small. Dr.Morton passes it all off as a tempest in a teapot. Some tempest! Some teapot!

The Oberg base is not gone just his mentors like Jon Havelock, Lorne Taylor and his advertising agency. they have left him! One would hope he would not have any new support growth and his appeal appears to be diminishing according to the new Ipsos Reid poll.

The "influence and leverage" he had - and used to garner "support" as Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation is eroding rapidly too. The classic case of how he operates and would govern is shown in the demise of the Legislative Grounds project review as reported by Paula Simons today.

Oberg has a news conference in February for the renewal of the legislature precinct. He does this with no budget or or agenda and priority approvals. He does without following any of the safeguarding procedures and policies. He just announces this - just as he has done for pet political projects in other parts of the province. Then he dares the Caucus, Cabinet and Premier to challenge him. Sounds to me like a recipe for an Alberta made Adscam situation.

Caucus tired of covering for Oberg and in March they kicked his butt out of Caucus and out of Cabinet too as a result. He is not the agent of change in this campaign. He is just a guy who prefers doing things in a kind of freelance self-serving way...not the stuff of leadership or the way to be a positive contributor to party politics.

Perhaps it is time for Dr. Oberg to polish up the resume and dust off the Stethoscope.

I wonder if there is a citizens based "skeleton crew" starting up to uncover some facts about Dr. Oberg's past political conduct. It is being done by the far right on Jim Dinning...I would not be surprised if it happened to Oberg too.