These past few days I've deprived Albertans and the public in general of my wit and wisdom as I've been directing my screeds at various Wildrose Alliance personalities who, in my infallible judgment, could do with some instruction and improvement faciliated by none other than the redoubtable Brian Dell, Expert of Everything and Authority on All. Satisfied that I've made appropriate efforts to edify, enlighten, and inform my political colleagues I hope to return to throwing my pearls of wisdom before the general reading swine later today or tomorrow.
There are a number of conditions under which political movements start to unravel and one of these is when members stop listening to each other. Obviously people will not always agree. But if they are listened to with an attention appropriate to objective measures of how evidence- or argument-backed and non-self-serving their opinions are - as opposed to how influential they just happen to be - most people can live with that regardless of the result. When people start leaving is when they feel their views are not being fairly considered. Another condition under which the ties that bind may fray is when some people's egos get too big. I, of course, am too humble to ever create that sort of problem!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
11.11
I nonetheless continued to enjoy hanging out with the guys, and in fact have recently been living off and on in a multi-room home used by current and former 41 Combat Engineer Regiment members (last year Edmonton-based 8 FER was disbanded and Edmonton-based sappers amalgamated with Calgary's 33 Fd Engr Sqn to create 41 CER). The unit's mascot, Sapper Bentley F Beaver, is pictured below right manning the C6 while on deployment in Kandahar province.
Last year's Remembrance Day, which I wasn't in Canada for, was significant for the unit. 41 CER reservists who volunteered for Afghanistan had joined the regular force 1 Combat Engineer Regiment to serve as part of Roto 5 of Operation Athena. A number of personal friends of mine were deployed, including CS, MB, Johnny P, and Jimmy P. At 1030 hrs on 20 August 2008 MB became aware that somebody had been hit since the internet was blocked on a coms lock order. The communications lock-down gives the military time to notify next of kin. Since MB happened to be tasked to the operations building at the time, he was able to see the preliminary message that noted the hit vehicle's call sign and 3 KIA & 1 PRI A CAS. Since MB could tell that it was Jim's vehicle, which was on a route survey operation, he knew that Jimbo had been hit, although there was still a good chance he was alive at that moment since Jim was quite probably the only guy in the back. Typically, an IED blows under the driver, since although insurgents can set a pressure plate further down the road from the charge, that's a more involved process they don't typically bother with. The other 2 KIA were probably half in the turret which sometimes shears off depending on the nature of the explosion, as proved to have been the case here. As it turned out, Jim was indeed alone in the back and was likely saved by the fact the deployment door blew off, dissipating some of the force. But as a priority A casualty the military deemed Jim to be in serious condition. MB knew that, having seen that identification typically followed up in the past by a VSA (vital signs absent; in ordinary English: dead) within an hour. When MB learned where the injured soldier was being brought, he rushed out of the ops centre in order to see Jimmy for what might end up being the last time. Although Jim was not conscious anyway, MB's thinking was that if he were in Jim's position and about to go, doing so in the presence of a long time friend instead of a bunch of strangers might be some small comfort. MB was later reprimanded for acting on information that was supposed to be contained within his comms group, but of course some rules are made to be broken.
The pleasant reality today is that Canadian military personnel are held in great prestige by their countrymen. When Johnny P's wife, who is a NDP organizer (CS and MB happen to be Wildrose Alliance organizers in the Edmonton area), was introduced to a union audience as the wife of someone currently serving in Kandahar, she received a welcome that would have embarrassed a hero, an illustration of how affection for the troops is non-partisan and heartfelt, regardless of one's view of the Afghanistan mission.
I'm happy CS, MB, Johnny and Jim made it back, and not just because after he came back Jim gave me a nightstand and dresser for free that are with me in this room as I type! He's a long time friend, and it would have been difficult to deal with losing another guy when the unit had just lost someone else, someone else I had hung around with, to suicide just a couple years back. The way the government has dealt with the Jim's situation, being caught in a limbo between being not quite being able to return to his job that required full mobility and being not quite fully disabled, is in need of considerable improvement. But he has the same redoubtable attitude he did before; he swears that if his mother-in-law stays with him and his wife more than a month he is going to put in for another tour! I'm not happy that life's journey has come to an end for the other 3 guys in Jim's vehicle on that hot August day. It's not that I carry the candle for them; - I'm not really entitled to as I was never there. More than a year after it happened, CS and the others continue to wear a yellow bracelet day after day marked with the names of the three. For our veterans, Remembrance Day occurs 365 days a year. Although none of us knew SGT Eades, SPR Stock and CPL Wasden really well, they not having grown up in the Edmonton area despite 1 CER being based here, today this current civilian would nonetheless like to acknowledge the service of these three engineers. You are remembered and you are missed.
UPDATE late 11 Nov:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains...
- Rudyard Kipling, 1895
Monday, November 9, 2009
Dave Hancock vs free trade
The attendees of the P"C" party of Alberta convention in Red Deer this past weekend helped clarify for the voters their view of fiscal conservatism, as "Several resolutions on spending controls were rejected, including adopting legislation limiting year-over-year spending increases to the rate of inflation, plus population growth..."
It is absolutely true that unless government "engages in some way" ("engagement" being the Dave Hancock-approved term for coercive regulation) people will freely trade. That means exporting bitumen when the price is attractive and when the investment climate in Alberta has deteriorated to the point that the corporate finance number crunchers conclude upgrader projects within the province are lower NPV than in other jurisdictions. Now the government COULD change elements of those NPV calculations by 1) reducing the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on new investment to a more competitive level and/or 2) reducing the risk adjusted discount rate by not changing energy industry policy every time the populist winds shift and/or 3) stop crowding private investment with continued high levels of government spending that inflate the cost of business inputs, including labour. Not one of these options were acknowledged. Rather, Dave Hancock's Whitemud constituency association reckons coercive, trade restricting regulation needs a place at the table, a contention that would have been of limited interest to non-Whitemud voters were it not for the fact that the rest of the convention-attending, Stelmach-supporting P"C" membership decided it would make a great policy plank for their party. BA Energy spends more than a half billion on an upgrader near Fort Saskatchewan, goes bankrupt, and the problem wasn't the escalating cost of doing business but insufficient government "engagement"? Perhaps Hancock's idea of "engagement" also includes a massive corporate welfare scheme that would send billions of taxpayer dollars down the rat hole. After all, if they can find billions for boondoggle carbon capture projects, surely they can find billions for boondoggle upgrader projects that would create more carbon to capture! Of course, these upgraders will also suck so much juice from the grid we'll need a massive new power transmission line project... you see how it all fits together?
Could it be any clearer? The Wildrose Alliance platform contains a plank, a plank that, in my view, would be the cornerstone of the platform if associated with anti-cyclical tax reforms that would put serious (windfall revenue denying) teeth into it: "The Wildrose Alliance believes Alberta will limit growth in program spending to the rate of inflation and population growth of Alberta." This very same Wildrose Alliance plank was considered by the P"C" Party and rejected. At least they are consistent... these P"C"s are the people who increased government spending 191% between 1996 and 2008 while the population grew 34%. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
What are the stakes here? Jack Mintz does not believe that even limiting spending to population growth plus inflation will be sufficient to both avoid both deficits and higher taxes. No economist of note who has taken full account of Alberta's future demographic challenge has disagreed. The implication is that continued government by the P"C" Association of Alberta would not mean just deficits and higher taxes, but LARGE deficits and/or MUCH higher taxes.
If that wasn't enough Red Toryism for you,
Members approved a policy from Education Minister Dave Hancock's Edmonton [Whitemud] constituency association calling for the upgrading of more oilsands bitumen in Alberta by blocking shipments to other jurisdictions. The province should take "whatever appropriate action is necessary" to achieve the goal, said the resolution, including legislating that bitumen be upgraded in Alberta.
"One of the things we want out of our oilsands is to have the value here," Hancock said, suggesting the proposal is consistent with government policy. While the province doesn't like to interfere with private business, "unless you engage in some way, bitumen is going to flow down the pipe," Hancock said.
It is absolutely true that unless government "engages in some way" ("engagement" being the Dave Hancock-approved term for coercive regulation) people will freely trade. That means exporting bitumen when the price is attractive and when the investment climate in Alberta has deteriorated to the point that the corporate finance number crunchers conclude upgrader projects within the province are lower NPV than in other jurisdictions. Now the government COULD change elements of those NPV calculations by 1) reducing the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on new investment to a more competitive level and/or 2) reducing the risk adjusted discount rate by not changing energy industry policy every time the populist winds shift and/or 3) stop crowding private investment with continued high levels of government spending that inflate the cost of business inputs, including labour. Not one of these options were acknowledged. Rather, Dave Hancock's Whitemud constituency association reckons coercive, trade restricting regulation needs a place at the table, a contention that would have been of limited interest to non-Whitemud voters were it not for the fact that the rest of the convention-attending, Stelmach-supporting P"C" membership decided it would make a great policy plank for their party. BA Energy spends more than a half billion on an upgrader near Fort Saskatchewan, goes bankrupt, and the problem wasn't the escalating cost of doing business but insufficient government "engagement"? Perhaps Hancock's idea of "engagement" also includes a massive corporate welfare scheme that would send billions of taxpayer dollars down the rat hole. After all, if they can find billions for boondoggle carbon capture projects, surely they can find billions for boondoggle upgrader projects that would create more carbon to capture! Of course, these upgraders will also suck so much juice from the grid we'll need a massive new power transmission line project... you see how it all fits together?
If the government is not going to allow the private sector to export bitumen, are they going to allow the private sector to give out-of-province investors a return on investment? If Hancock can't tolerate gooey black stuff "flowing down the pipe" how is he going to keep his paws off an actual cash flow? Longtime readers of this blog know that I'm a frequent critic of the Prime Minister and what I see as a "firewall" mentality. But if there has to be a wall, I'd take Harper and Ted Morton's mostly symbolic social "firewall" around Alberta over Dave Hancock's economic firewall any day of the week and twice on Sundays. It is the expectation of being able to eventually take out a return on investment that creates the confidence to put the initial job-creating, economy-building investment in.
At the 2010 P"C" Party AGM, perhaps the Edmonton Whitemud P"C" constituency association will propose that the government take "whatever appropriate action is necessary" to ensure Albertans consume Alberta-grown bananas.
Mr Hancock could explain that Albertans want "to have the value [of banana production] here." Indeed, Albertans might have to go without any bananas that aren't home grown because foreigners decided not to trade with us after we are refused to part with our bitumen (we'll trade you some worthless stuff we Albertans don't want instead... what? not interested?) If the government does not "engage in some way," you get all these free traders influencing production and investment decisions, and that's apparently just too much to bear for Dave "give me my financially and environmentally dubious upgraders" Hancock.
Mr Hancock could explain that Albertans want "to have the value [of banana production] here." Indeed, Albertans might have to go without any bananas that aren't home grown because foreigners decided not to trade with us after we are refused to part with our bitumen (we'll trade you some worthless stuff we Albertans don't want instead... what? not interested?) If the government does not "engage in some way," you get all these free traders influencing production and investment decisions, and that's apparently just too much to bear for Dave "give me my financially and environmentally dubious upgraders" Hancock.Thursday, November 5, 2009
Dave Taylor vs Mel Knight
Dave Taylor challenged the provincial Energy Minister quite effectively in this Youtube clip from Question Period, IMO. Sadly, the government is in fact notorious for using taxpayer money for promoting what many observers believe are partisan ends.
I would like to see an opposition member stand up to challenge the government on why it is bringing back a retail bond program when it was terminated in the 90s because of its cost to the taxpayer relative to wholesale issuance, but the topic is probably too arcane.
new Alberta poll? PC 34 WRA 28 Lib 20 NDP 9
and 8% interested in voting for a provincial Green Party that does not currently exist as far as Elections Alberta is concerned.
I put a question mark after "poll" because the National Post seems to have pulled the story and I don't see it on either the Calgary Herald's or on Environics' website. Maybe there is some sort of problem with it. Intuitively, though, the poll results are plausible because it would be consistent with the fact the ferocious growth in the Wildrose Alliance membership rolls tapered off only moderately after the cut-off date for leadership vote eligibility passed. Anecdotally, whereas some of my direct friends just joined the party in September, by the end of October some friends of those friends were joining.
It's close to the point whereby we could run the proverbial monkey in a riding like Calgary West and get him elected under the Wildrose banner; if the party is 4 points ahead of the PCs Calgary-wide, it is probably a comfortable gap in the western and southern 'burbs. If we have any truly safe ridings it will free up some resources for long shots.
In Edmonton, it is PC 33%, Liberal 27%, WAP 17% and NDP 13%. We probably need to get that 17% to 20% to win a seat, as that would probably also imply a drop in PC support to 30%, and from 10 points behind across the city there ought to be an idiosyncratic riding we could scoop in a three way split with the Liberals à la Glenmore; e.g. the to-be-created one that I expect to be centered on the South Commons area. Indeed, the capital city strategy I am championing is to go after the likely-to-be-split Edmonton Whitemud riding with a one-two punch, the first being to run a fiscal conservative in the open municipal Ward 9 next October (which overlaps almost exactly with the current Edmonton Whitemud provincial riding), and then run that sitting alderman (who, having won, will have proven him or herself to not be some unelectable nutbar as well as a hard worker and/or fundraiser) over some of the same territory provincially in 2012. Our Zone Director is a fan of the idea that 2012 candidates should be fished for in the pool of civic 2010 candidates who, even if they didn't win, proved that they can campaign and win some votes. I don't think I am giving away too much strategy here because, aside from the fact this is just me talking as opposed to a directing group of Wildrosers, what is the competition going to do? Run a lefty in Ward 9 in order to try and shut out fiscal conservatives from city council? They couldn't have run a better insurgency than Iveson in 2007 yet if you overlaid the 2007 polls over the new Ward 9 territory, Iveson would have lost to Nickel. I'm also talking about this in order to ask Edmonton area readers who want evidence-based policy and more professional government to keep in touch with me so that we can work together to realize a common objective.
In any case I am currently organizing in Whitemud for the Wildrose Alliance and looking to welcome all assistance. The PCs may try to put Hancock up against our best candidate in Whitemud's successor ridings and thereby try to shut us out with a cabinet name, but Hancock is probably stuck to where he lives, meaning we should be able to side-step him in favour of PC and Liberal competitors who are unknown and/or sporting a thin resume and/or unwilling to door knock for weeks and weeks. I can't see their candidate recruitment prospects as likely to be stellar in the current environment.
As implausible as it sounds to overcome the governing party in Edmonton, keep in mind that the NDP has just 13% in this poll and won just 18% within the city limits last year yet hold not one but two seats. I suspect that the party whose support is most unfavourably unconcentrated across the city is the Liberals.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Democrats win upstate New York seat after all
My last post looks somewhat misplaced, since contrary to PPP's usually accurate polling, the White House has reason to cruise around and celebrate the result for NY-23 (not so much for the Governor races). In hindsight, the Republican bowing out in NY-23 and throwing her endorsement to the Democrat was probably big enough that once it sunk in a lot of voters concluded that the Conservative Party insurgent, Doug Hoffman, was too ideological and not enough of a native son (more than 95% of Hoffman's financial contributions came from out of state). There is a good chance that the Democrat will be ejected in 12 months as the Republican party puts some more deliberation into its candidate selection for 2010 House elections. In the background is the fact that that Obama's net favourability is running at 80% in the northeast, as per DailyKos' polling (below), versus -40% in the south:The real prize was not this House seat anyway but is the Florida Senate seat that opens in 2010. Marco Rubio's conservative insurgency has a number of differences from NY-23, uppermost of these being that the 38-year old Rubio has considerably more charisma and connection to his jurisdiction than Hoffman. The conservatives might well have won in upstate NY had they had a better vehicle than the novice Doug Hoffman. In conservative poster boy Marco Rubio they may have that vehicle.
On another note, I have to give a shout-out to my alma mater(s): The Times Higher Education supplement has ranked the U of Alberta at #59, one of the biggest gainers over 2008, and Lund University, where I did a Masters in European Affairs, tied with the London School of Economics for #67 and claim to Sweden's best university. Hosting an outstanding graduate school in the province of Alberta is not something that just benefits students but is something that benefits all Albertans. I'll be writing more about Paul Romer and his views on education and innovation in the coming weeks, but first I will discuss the investment climate in Alberta and how bold policy moves could help a province that has been sitting on its heels in recent years regain its competitiveness.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
third party candidate may win seat in Congress
According to PPP, their weekend polling suggests that in Tuesday's special US Congress election, a New York district near the Canadian border that has elected only Republicans since the Civil War in most of its territory is about to break that trend.
By electing the Conservative Party of New York's candidate.
Newt Gingrich, who intially endorsed the Republican Dede Scozzafava instead of the Conservative candidate, switched his endorsement to the Conservative Doug Hoffman after Scozzafava withdrew this weekend saying, "she didn't want to be the margin of helping the liberal Democrat win... and I commend her for that commitment to help Doug Hoffman win." Praise for Scozzafava also flowed from Sarah Palin. Yet within hours of these remarks Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens!
The Conservative vs Republican show down was characterized by some in the media as a primary that played out in the general election because a primary wasn't part of the GOP nomination process that selected Scozzafava. But if that's an accurate characterization, it's difficult to contend that Scozzafava is a team player since her reaction to losing this de facto primary was to endorse the Dem. Also vindicating the Conservatives in their launching of a competing campaign to the Republicans is the fact that both the unions (Scozzafava is married to a union boss) AND social liberals such as pro-choice lobbyists and gay marriage advocates were in the Republican candidate's corner instead of the Democrat's. It's one thing for a Republican to run left of his or her Democratic competitor socially (in fact, I think they should do it more often) or fiscally, but on both social and fiscal grounds? How many on-again off-again GOP volunteers are going to jump on-again for such a candidate? As much as people talk about wanting post-ideological, pragmatic politicians, there is a trade-off between this value and the risk of electing self-promoting candidates and a supporting political establishment that sees its power as an entitlement.
Hoffman is far from what I would consider an ideal candidate. He had a disastrous interview with the editorial board of the Watertown Daily Times and he's likely excessively ideological. But having an ideology has the merit of boosting voter participation. Running as a "movement" liberal or conservative brings in more donations (especially if it catches national attention) and new volunteers. According to PPP, although this New York district voted for Obama, the pool of likely voters this Tuesday went 51 - 43 for McCain last year. Polls conducted in September found Hoffman's support ranging between 16% to 19% but he was over 50% in a poll (by Public Policy Polling) by the end of October, a result that should greatly encourage all dark horse candidates without an established party endorsement.
Another third party candidate who is doing well but is not expected to win is independent Chris Daggett for New Jersey governor. The Wall St Journal has warmed up to Daggett, noting with approval that Daggett has advocated replacing some or most income and property taxes with an expanded sales tax. Daggett has lately been gaining in the polls at the expense of Republican candidate Chris Christie despite Christie's demagogic insistence that Daggett is a tax raiser. Says the WSJ, "Mr. Daggett's appeal has grown because he's offering voters precisely what Mr. Christie isn't: A specific plan for controlling runaway taxes and spending." Writers at David Frum's New Majority have made useful observations in the past like noting the superiority of a VAT over a sales tax, and have again contributed to the analysis by noting that the stumbling Christie campaign in NJ is what the GOP should expect when it doesn't run an idea based campaign.
As for Tuesday's developments back in Edmonton, well, we've got Canada's Youtube-nurtured sensation Justin Bieber at WEM from 4 pm to 7 pm. Your 13 year old daughter may not forgive you if this information is forwarded to her, despite the fact video and photo taking amongst the teenagers of today is so compulsive at least half a dozen clips should appear on Youtube within days. I'm sure the scene will be a picture of restraint, just like his appearances have been elsewhere!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

