And the Guessing Oscar Goes To...

Typically Sylvia and I tie in our informal Oscar guessing game, but this year I pulled ahead early and kept my lead for most of the night. I cheated myself out of another point by attempting to game the system, though; I had suspected that 12 Years a Slave would win Best Picture, but thought the preferential ballot might result in an upset win for Gravity, in much the same way that Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford crept up the middle in the last two PC leadership races, and look how well that's worked out for them. Argh, how did politics get into my Oscar blogging? I've been so good for the last year and a half...

Strategic Terror

Well, yesterday's thoughts on strategic voting created the heaviest traffic flow this blog has ever seen, but it seems few of you agreed with my argument. It would seem that many progressive voters decided to forgive the PC government's many sins rather than take the chance of allowing a Wildrose government to form.

The Alberta Liberal vote has pretty clearly collapsed, reducing our caucus by half for the second election in a row. That's a tough pill for me to swallow, having served the Alberta Liberal Caucus for six years. But the will of the voters trumps my personal disappointment; progressives simply have to work harder and smarter if we want to earn the right to form government.

On a personal level, I'm very happy to see that Albertans have re-elected Laurie Blakeman, Kent Hehr, David Swann and - hopefully - Raj Sherman, who is currently 11 votes ahead with a few polls to go. While we may no longer be the Official Opposition, I have no doubt that these four MLAs will continue to serve our province with distinction. 

Strategic Error

I've been a strategic voter since the federal election in 1993, voting Liberal or NDP depending upon who had the best chance of defeating the Reform/Alliance/Conservative candidate. Since I started working for the province's Official Opposition, I have of course voted consistently for the Alberta Liberals - not merely out of loyalty to my employer, but because I admire and respect the three leaders I've served and their caucuses, and I support the policies they've developed over the years.

But as the Wildrose Alliance surged during the current provincial election, I had a brief moment of weakness: was it time to return to strategic voting to stop a party even worse than the provincial PCs from forming government?

Living as I do in Edmonton-Meadowlark, Dr. Raj Sherman's constituency, there was never any question that I'd be voting anything but Liberal. But in conversations with progressive friends earlier this month, I admitted that I understood the reasons why they're considering holding their noses and voting PC. Indeed, my friend Stephen has crafted a very reasonable argument to that effect.

It's an argument the panicking PCs are using themselves, pleading with progressives to vote PC in order to stave off the horrifying spectre of a Bible-beating, fiscally libertarian Wildrose administration.

I believe that a Wildrose majority would be a bad outcome for Alberta. But is it really the worst possible outcome? Should progressive Albertans sacrifice their votes for the sake of a PC government that's intimidated health care professionals and municipal officials, consistently underfunded public education, mismanaged public health care into a state of ongoing crisis, solicited and accepted illegal political contributions and exposed teachers to being sued for discussing topics some parents are uncomfortable with? Can a Wildrose government really be worse than this?

Perhaps they can. But consider the consequences if progressive voters flock to the PCs and help re-elect the Redford administration: 

1) Progressive Albertans will lose their already tiny representation in the Alberta Legislature. What a tragedy it would be to lose Laurie Blakeman, a powerful advocate for human rights and the environment. Or Raj Sherman, who risked his career and gave up the cushiest job in politics (PC backbencher) for the most thankless (Leader of the Official Opposition). Or David Swann, a man who has entered war zones to help the world's most vulnerable people. Or Rachel Notley, Kent Hehr, Brian Mason, among others who have spoken out consistently to expose PC corruption, defend vulnerable Albertans and uphold progressive values. Do we really want to sacrifice these people to keep the PCs in power?

2) We'll be sending a message to the PCs that they really can get away with anything, without consequences. Send threatening letters to municipal officials, bully doctors, pass regressive legislation, continue the slow privatization of health care - that's okay with us, because we're afraid that Danielle Smith might be even worse!

3) We'll demoralize ourselves, perhaps forever. If progressive voters give up now, how can we ever believe that one day we might elect a Liberal, NDP, or Alberta Party government - any government that's at least a little more in tune with our values? If we deny the many brave and excellent candidates running for progressive parties our support, how can we expect future progressives to step forward? Running for election is expensive and risky for progressives; I know this from personal experience, having run last time.

Maybe the Liberal or ND or Alberta Party candidate in your riding is a long shot, but doesn't he or she deserve your support if he or she truly reflects your values?

One day, a progressive party of one stripe or another will form government in Alberta. It probably won't be tomorrow, and perhaps not 2016 either. But that day will certainly never come if we vote against our own interests instead of supporting the policies and people we really believe in.

Good People, Big Ideas, Better Government

Full disclosure: while most of my readers know that I work for the Official Opposition and I've volunteered for the Alberta Liberal Party, I played no role in the development of their just-released platform - aside from contributing one photograph. 

Today the Alberta Liberal Party released its platform for the election to come this spring. Titled simply "Yes" and divided into three sections - Good People, Big Ideas, Better Government - the platform is a bold and brave statement of vision and principle.

Since ALP Leader Raj Sherman is an emergency room doctor, it should come as no surprise that fixing the public health care system is one of the cornerstones of his party's platform. He aims to cut non-emergency surgery wait times to six months, and emergency room treatment within six hours. (A six-hour wait would be a vast improvement compared to what happened to Sylvia back when she broke her leg in 2007.) He also proposed to put decision-making back in the hands of front-line health care professionals and get every Albertan access to a family doctor. And for anyone worried about the state of care for seniors, Sherman is promising to invest heavily in public home care and public long-term care. This is necessary for two reasons: one, Alberta's seniors deserve to live in dignity. And two, caring for seniors appropriately means getting them out of acute care, which frees up hospitals and emergency rooms, unclogging the system - and saving a whole pile of taxpayer money.

For parents, Sherman is promising greater access to quality pre-school and non-profit day care, better parental leave, an end to school fees and a school lunch program.

A post-secondary endowment would eliminate post-secondary tuition.  Other endowments will support the arts and amateur sport.

But how to pay for these promises? Well, according to the conventional wisdom of the post-Reagan era, it's political suicide to campaign on raising taxes. And yet the Alberta Liberals are promising a progressive tax that would increase rates on those earning $100,000 or more and a corporate tax hike of twelve percent, up two from the current rate of ten percent. That adds up to about $1.4 billion in annual revenue. Combined with over $200 million in cuts to wasteful spending, including communications (ulp!), funding for private schools, subsidized carbon capture and storage (CCS), fewer MLAs and fewer government ministries, that's an extra $1.6 billion to help eliminate the deficit and pay for the Liberals' ambitious social programs.

The Alberta Liberals are also proposing a revenue-neutral carbon levy to cap greenhouse gas emissions, reward companies who successfully reduce emissions, and fund green transportation and environmental innovation. (CORRECTION: this proposal is not revenue neutral; it would produce $1.8 billion a year when fully phased in, a four-year process. $900 million would go back to emitters and $900 million would be used to fund green transportation. Thanks to Alex for the correction!)

The platform also features some welcome democratic reforms, chief among them instant run-off elections, an idea I've blogged about before. Alberta Liberals also promise more free votes in the legislature, a simpler and more transparent pay structure for MLAs, truly fixed election dates (as opposed to the "election season" Premier Redford has created), recall legislation and more.

In fact, there's a lot more, including help for the energy sector, a better deal for municipalities, new consumer protections, a plan to decrease power bills...I hope Albertans will read the whole document - and, of course, the platforms of the other parties when they're released.

Will this vision convince Albertans to support the province's most venerable party? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm proud of the party for stepping way outside its comfort zone and wearing its liberal heart on its sleeve. Win or lose, Alberta Liberals can be proud for campaigning on a truly Liberal platform - fiscally responsible while investing in the programs and services that ensure no Albertan is left behind.

'Tis the Season to be Polling

Upon returning home tonight our phone rang and I found myself answering a poll conducted by Chase Research or Chase Marketing - I didn't catch the full name. With a provincial election around the corner these polls will start to fly fast and furious, and I sometimes entertain myself by guessing whether or not the poll was commissioned by a neutral party or hired by a political party in order to push the results in directions favouring that party.

I have a feeling Chase may have been hired by the Wildrosers. I say that because in addition to asking the standard questions - "If an election were held today, would you vote for party a, party b, party c" etc. - they also asked whether or not you had favourable or unfavourable views of Premier Redford and Wildrose leader Danielle Smith. They didn't ask this question about the other party leaders. They also claimed that Premier Redford is considering raising taxes and listed a number of way she might do so. And finally, they asked whether or not the illegal contribution scandal would make you more or less likely to change your vote/make it more or less likely to vote PC, one of the Wildrose party's pet issues. (To be fair, this question might also be asked by a firm hired by the Liberals; we've been pushing the issue pretty hard too.)

Sometime in the next few days, the results of this poll will be released to the media, and more likely than not the media will provide plenty of coverage regardless of whether or not the poll was conducted legitimately. Of course my own analysis is mere conjecture, but if an average citizen like me can smell something fishy about the way these questions were asked, you'd think the fourth estate would start asking questions too.

Crossing the Floor

Today Lethbridge-East MLA Bridget Pastoor crossed the floor, leaving the Official Opposition Liberals to join the Progressive Conservative government. Many Albertans are crying foul, arguing that as a matter of principle elected politicians who switch sides should step down so that a by-election can be called, or that the offending politician should at least sit as an independent. These folks argue that the people who live in the constituency elected a Liberal (or a Tory, or whoever), and that they should have a chance to vote on whether or not they approve of their elected representative's new choice of parties.

I can sympathize with that view, but floor-crossing is a longstanding tradition in the Westminster parliamentary system that allows elected officials a way to express immediate support or opposition to a particular party agenda. Ideally such a drastic move should be used only on urgent matters of principle, but of course floor-crossing is often opportunistic. In any event, constituents will have their opportunity to express their approval or disapproval come the next election. No system is perfect; that's democracy.

Personally, however, I'm disappointed in Bridget's choice. I don't believe you can change this particular 40-year-old government from within, as Bridget hopes; after so many years in power, the culture of entitlement is simply too entrenched. After 40 years, Alberta needs a new government, and I'd be saying that even if it were the Alberta Liberals who'd been in power so long. Every so often, the people need to clean house in a democracy, give new people and new ideas a try.

That being said, Bridget is a good person; I've worked with her for almost six years, writing speeches and articles and statements in her voice. (Heck, I spent several hours writing a major keynote speech for her just a few days ago, and don't think I didn't feel a moment of annoyance about that when I heard the news this morning.) I know she cares about seniors and disabled Albertans, and that she'll continue to do her best to represent the people of Lethbridge-East.

But I also hope that the voters of Lethbridge-East will recognize the need for a change in government and elect a new Alberta Liberal in Bridget's stead.

UFO Premier

Last night I dreamed that I wandered out onto the Legislature grounds for lunch, only everything was newly refurbished and the fountains were completely redesigned in multiple tiers. The grounds were packed, and everyone, including, atypically, me, was dressed to the nines in black suits. I sat down and started munching on a ham sandwich, and seconds later overheard Premier Redford discussing the merits of a new UFO TV series, based on the original British show from the early 1970s. She wondered out loud how long the original series had lasted, and I turned around to answer.

"I didn't mean to eavesdrop, but if you're wondering about Gerry Anderson's original UFO show, it lasted for two seasons - or 'series,' as seasons are known in the UK - of 13 episodes each, for a total of 26 episodes."*

"Wasn't that a great show?" Redford gushed. "And the new one is even better, at least based on the pilot!"

"I didn't even know they were making a new show," I confessed. "I'd heard rumors of a movie, but not another series."

"Well, don't miss it again!" she said.

I went back to my sandwich, and looked down in horror to see that my suit was gone and I was sitting there in my underwear in front of the premier and hundreds of other people.

*In fact, UFO ran for one season of 26 episodes, but with a long break in between two 13-episode sections.