I am a proud Progressive Conservative, and I am proud of the accomplishments of the Progressive Conservative government. Progressive Conservative policies have made Alberta a dynamic and ever-growing province. Alberta’s oil and gas industry is marketing around the world, farmers and ranchers now have expanding markets, small businesses are prospering, and all Albertans have every opportunity to succeed. Alberta has the capacity and foresight to build the infrastructure to accommodate our increasing population and is doing so. Yet the opposition is telling us we need to change.
In all of this, I can’t help but reflect on some quotable quotes:
From David Yager, President of the Wildrose Party, in October 2013: “Let’s face it, Wildrose started out much like [the Reform Party] 25 years ago, as a protest movement.” “What you get is a collection of people that are disappointed with something for a lot of various reasons and they come together under a new political tent.”
In contrast, from Peter Lougheed: “Our whole approach as a political party was to talk not so much negatively, but we wanted to talk about the future of the province and we wanted to talk positively”.
The Progressive Conservative government has remained positive, has moved Alberta to prominence not only in Canada, but worldwide, and continues to do so today. Progressive Conservative policies have not needed a major overhaul to appeal to Albertans. I say, let’s stay positive – and Progressive Conservative.
Debra Janzen
Turner Valley, AB
So true.
ReplyDeleteWoh - bit too much paint thinner in the Kool Aid there, darlin'. You neglected to mention during your warm and fuzzy PC ecstasy report that, along with all the dreamy stuff, there is also to consider the highest child poverty rate in the country, worst environmental record, highest incidence of food bank usage, diminishing economic diversity, single commodity tax dependence approaching 30%, suppression of industrial activity elsewhere in the national economy through superficially inflated petro-dollar value (aka Dutch disease), narrowing of post-secondary curricula and funding owing to preponderant focus on hydrocarbon extraction, accelerating loss of montane habitat, loss of prairie biodiversity through increasing agro-industrial monoculture, highest rate of boreal forest loss in the country, highest incidence of violence against women, highest incidence of drug use amongst young working-age males, least dynamic political culture, poorest voter turnout, sovereign-wealth fund stalled at 17 or 18 billion dollars where Norway's is close to 900 billion, inability to articulate legislative initiatives which do not gibe with interests of trans-global oil and gas interests, international pariah, especially amongst those in the developing world already suffering the effects of climate change, deep socio-economic structural debt associated with transfer of CO2 debt to future generations, unspecified public liability of at least tens of billions of dollars accruing from potential water-table damage resulting from thousands of improperly decommissioned oil and gas wells, unspecified and as yet untallied water-table contamination associated with burgeoning fracking practices....oh - I could go on, but it's late. Perhaps suffice to say that the whole purpose and spirit of democracy is change. Without it our governmental institutions necrotize and rot.
ReplyDeleteAlberta is a great place - it deserves better. And invoking the name of the much-lamented Peter Lougheed in the same breath as recent claimaints to his legacy is nothing short of insolent.
So I'll say this to Ms. Janzen of Turner Valley - try to cut down - there's help to be had out there.
Dear Debra Janzen,
ReplyDeleteWithout having read any of the comments above I have only this to say. Your letter suggests you've been drinking to much of the conservative kool-aid. In fact, it sounds like you drank the whole bottle.
People up north are food deprived with their traditional hunting rights threatened and a head of lettuce costing $28.00 and a two-litre carton of milk $10.00.
1 of 7 children in this country go to bed hungry every night while seniors are expected to live and survive on $12k annually and our veterans are treated like crap while the HarperCONS promote war and the spending of hundreds of billions on fighter jets, helicopters, navy ships, etc., never-mind the corporate welfare that goes on thanks to conservative governments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars (Royal Bank alone given $75b, and Blackberry the other day $1/2b)).
Yes Debra, the conservatives are good but oonly to their friends in high places and to each other. Ask yourself where is Alberta' Heritage Fund comparedto Alaska or the Netherlands? Or where will we be when unable to sell oil and gas having nothing else to fall back on because of all this good governance by the conservatives that you speak of?
Corporatocracy runs this province (country) for their benefit, not ours , and they run this place much as a madame does in a house of ill-repute with conservative governments acting as their pimps prostituting the rest of us while people like you tell us that we should just lay back and 'enjoy' getting.... you know what?
JP
Phil Burpee,
ReplyDeleteI should have read your comment first but I was just too fired up with the pretty portrait painted by Debra on how 'wonderful' things are here with decades of conservative rule that disenfranchises most Albertans because of an instilled 'corporate democracy' that serves the needs of the few at the expense of the many.
Well done Phil!
JP
I can recall the 1960's when the entire Pincher Creek area was forecast for environmental devastation, when we were all going to die or contract cancer from gas plant emissions, when quite a number of farmers demanded financial compensation when 'forced' to leave their farmstead (which monies only extended their land holdings and they stayed put). Similar fear-mongering is seen in comments here.
ReplyDeleteWe are not expected to spend all our monies in our youth so that we become dependent on government social programs as our only source of income in old age. We are expected to spend more responsibly and take responsibility for our futures.
The anti oil diatribe continues - exaggerated and not substantiated. Why not outline the alternative industries that should be developed?
Why not concrete examples of improvements that the oil industry could make? Why not point out that alternative energy needs considerable time and effort to become practical and economically viable and that the oil industry is already an active partner to make this happen.
It is not the Conservatives, federal or provincial, or any corporate entities that have failed us, for in spite of occasional protestations as we see here, we continue to support them with our votes or with our spending of the corporate salaries.
They have not failed us rather we have failed ourselves!
Phil and John,
ReplyDeleteThis past week on CBC's program Rewind, they were playing clips from 1948. The points you are lamenting regarding our province and country is similar to what the citizens in 1948 were complaining about. Poverty, high cost of living, shrinking middle class and on and on and on. Guess what? None of what they predicted has materialized as they had feared.
Despite all of these 'horrible' things you point out, we remain one of the most desired places to live and work- in the world. I am not a Conservative supporter however I know enough and appreciate the lifestyle and opportunity afforded to me and my family here.
I'll be looking for your names on the ballot in upcoming elections as you sound like you know and can do so much better.
Second from last anonymous - your mea culpa is interesting - it's apparently neither the tired-out PC Party to blame nor the corporate organizations which owe no allegiance to any jurisdiction other than the bottom line - it is us. Sounds suspiciously like Stockholm Syndrome - coming to blame the hostage rather than the extortionists. So, expand your thoughts here - is it that we are to blame for continuing to empower businesses and governmental organizations that increasingly disregard best outcomes for future generations? If so, I can understand this position - 43 years and running. I have not, however, thusly squandered my own vote.
DeleteLast anonymous - short memory - I ran in the 2008 provincial election on the NDP ticket against the exceedingly decent and now departed from the scene Evan Berger. I pretty much ignored the party line blather from NDP HQ in Edmonton and tried, as best I could, to channel the spirit of Peter Lougheed in pursuit of governmental policy attuned to a methodical and conscientious approach to resource exploitation and social stewardship. I got 476 votes - Evan went on to become Ted Morton's puppy. Nobody quibbles with the obvious benefits of prosperity - but in the rush to riches all too often a people's moral foundation is compromised.
When you're tossing out cheap shots about somebody putting their money where their mouth is, check your facts. I stand by my positions, and may well seek office again based on my hard-won perceptions of right and wrong.
Thank you both for your comments.
Let me jump in with some facts that the anonymous faceless people seem to miss in their lack of accountability comments. I give More credit to contributors like John Prince and Phil Burpee that have the courage of their convictions to put a face to their comments and speak from their heart as well as with factual information something that seems to be lacking when people with faceless anonymous comments speak. Since that part of my comment is done, let us get back to what I initially said, here are some facts that the current Alberta Progressive Conservative Dynasty has done and enacted on the people of Alberta. Now some people that drink gallons of the Alberta PC dynasty Kool-Aid(no offence to the Kool-Aid product intended) will probably love that the Draconian Bills 45 and 46 were enacted and forced upon the hardworking taxpayers of Alberta within a very short period of time. They were rammed through the Legislature while all the opposition parties fought them tooth and nail to no avail. In our democratic society the opposition parties do not always have enough members to fully vote down draconian bills that the entitled current Alberta government deem to put through. This is not fear mongering people this is actual fact. Now the courts recently sided with the everyday hard working Alberta taxpayers by granting an injunction on Friday February 14, 2014(what a valentine's gift for everyone) against the controversial labour legislation. That injunction was needed to stop the potential long term harm to labour relations here in Alberta and that would have been intolerable. Thanks for the court systems that stepped in before it was too late. Also Bill 46 rammed through by this old and tired Alberta government would have emasculated the arbitration provision that was put into Alberta labour law by the Honourable Peter Lougheed(may he RIP) government in 1977 after the removal of the right to strike of civil servants. This right to strike was taken away at the time because of the view that their roles and duties were too important to allow strike action in order to resolve a labour dispute. The Lougheed government at the time reasoned that there needed to be another fair mechanism to settle disputes and that mechanism is the binding arbitration process. So let us hope that all people that still crave and enjoy the Alberta Progressive Conservative Kool-Aide of the day, hope that you don't get sick from the bad after taste. I for one feel too much Kool-Aide of any kind has a tendency to cause rot of the teeth and possible rot in other areas as well. Let us also hope that Albertans and Canadians when they go to polls to vote have totally researched who they are voting for and make an informed decision and not expect the kool-aide being provided to be the panacea for what is ailing this tired old Alberta Progressive Conservative Dynasty. Kudos again to John and Phil keep up the accountability towards a better Alberta for all. Oh here is a link for anyone interested to see the 2008 provincial election results of the Livingston-Macleod riding
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Alberta_provincial_election,_2008/Livingstone-Macleod
And lot of bluster and noise. You only criticize and offer no alternative other than get rid of PCs. Then what?
DeleteThank you to all! We see here a need and opportunity for dialog, an opportunity to truly and critically examine our political history and propose constructive advice toward a better social and economic future. Can we focus on the future where we can have an impact and see real change or will be continue to sputter and spit about the past and who did what to whom? We do need to understand how we got here but only in so much as the past can lead to new directions.
ReplyDeleteOur MLA will be here for a town hall meeting April 2. Can we all review our concerns, without casting blame, without exaggeration and diatribe in an effort toward a better future?
How many take time to attend and contribute should be a good measure of just how dire we see our situation to be.
I look forward to seeing you there.
'Sputter and spit' - dandy stuff. Of course, studying the past does have merit, although exasperating over it certainly doesn't. It should be remembered, though, that the PC initiative of the much-referred-to Peter Lougheed was the natural inheritor of the best elements of the old Socred credo, by then corrupted beyond recognition by dogma and entitlement. They both arose out of a tradition which envisioned a communitarian interactivity between the government and the governed - what the Americans would have hoped for in their best days as being government of, by and for the People. The CCF/NDP came from the same place, but quickly diverged from the Socreds and their extreme social conservatism. So yes, Peter Lougheed was indeed the last great social-democratic premier of Alberta, advocating for a direct, ongoing and vibrant relationship between electors and elected, and maintaining a prudent and thoughtful control over some of the worst excesses of a marketplace completely unbridled, without unduly impinging upon entrepreneurial vigour - an ethos now sloppily abandoned by latter-day Alberta Tories who roll over shamelessly for big business. These are not mere nuances - for practical purposes, Joe Clark on the federal scene probably occupied a position somewhat to the left of that currently articulated by Brian Mason provincially. Circumstances shift and change. It's dogma that undermines social and political evolution.
DeleteAs to Mr. Stier and the Wildrose - well, the man deserves to be heard to be sure - and it is commendable of him to come out before his electors. But a person can't help but be somewhat suspicious of a movement born out of right-wing reactionaryism which now claims the well-modulated middle.
Finally some good discourse here at the Voice. Maybe see you at the town hall indeed.
We can have our suspicions, yes. If as you claim the Wildrose now professes to be the well-modulated middle, then are they not at least professing the direction we want to go. Let's test that claim with positive questions/comments and push relentlessly in the directions we want for the future so there can be no misunderstanding.
DeleteA good discourse, yes, but how can we get more persons involved. A key is that we need to actualize a participatory democracy rather than assume we are entitled to good governance with no effort, input or thought on our part.
Dear Editor
ReplyDeleteThank you to Rob Bernshaw for his comments to my March28/14 letter “ Disgusted by the state of provincial politicians” and Rob you are right of course that we do have our fair share of respectable, qualified representative, of all stripes, in all levels of our Government. My statement was “blanket” only in respect to those I have personally approached regarding a possible candidacy and their responses to stay out of the fray for a variety reasons.
Sharon Duncan
Claresholm, AB
Thank you Sharon for this response to my comments on the letter you wrote. I have a great respect for people when they take ownership of the words they write like you and Debra Janzen have done by writing letters to the editor. It takes great courage to put oneself in the public forum and not hide behind anonymity. Kudos to you and Debra for doing so. Therefore when names are attached to comments to take ownership of what is being said a respectful conversation is able to take place between the people involved. Without that ownership than the words are mere shadows on the paper. Thank you again Sharon for stepping up and being counted whether people agree or disagree with what is being said. The message is out there now and the conversation is started. Keep stepping up to the plate, as much can, and will be accomplished by doing so. Have a great day please.
DeleteRob, your continued objection to my anonymity cause me concern. I comment in this way for several reasons as I have in this sequence. This provides me an opportunity to approach an issue from several perspective. Sometimes I even play the devil's advocate. You have no need to know specifically who I am or where I reside in order to have an intelligent conversation. Feel free to just ignore my input.
DeleteI have to agree with the above. I read the words that are written and decide if they have merit regardless of who has signed their name to them.
DeleteI commend Phil and Rob for putting their names on the ballot, and upon reviewing the results it appears the electorate had spoken, democracy at work.
I look forward to a day when we have politicians who can tell the public what they propose to do differently in succinct and concise communication. People who can deliver a positive message. Politicians who appreciate how truly fortunate we are to have been born in this country or ended up here by chance or circumstance. Start from a foundation of gratitude and appreciation as opposed to fear mongering, name calling, fault finding to ad nauseam. Successful businesses excel at differentiation. Most politicians fail miserably.
A very positive comment from a fellow on anonymity :-) Particularly the "gratitude and appreciation as opposed to fear mongering, name calling, fault finding to ad nauseam".
ReplyDeleteWe need to become active partners in this business of governing, willing to expend our time and energy in support of our delegated representatives so that a common vision of what we want for the here and now can effectively be balanced against our wishes for the future. This on a continuing consultative basis, not just at elections or at times of (media generated?) crises.
I have stated previously that we individually are as much to blame for the current political dilemma as the politicians and/or corporations. But it can also be we individually who can cause positive change and future success.
I thank all those who have contributed to this discussion. Can we extend this? Mention this to your friends and neighbors and invite them too to get involved in the process of democracy!
The most important discussion in modern day politics, in my humble opinion, is how to limit narcissists from entering the political fray. Their huge egos and lack of empathy combined with exceptionally thick skin allows them to rise to the top in disproportionate numbers. In Provincial and Federal governments and all parties. Not familiar with narcissism? Google it and compare the definitions and spectrum to those who make you cringe daily in the news.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous Horde,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are all the silent majority out there - but there's really nothing wrong with anonymous commentary - sure beats slack-jawed apathy any day. It's better to make comment in any form than to acquiesce to the sometimes less-than-stellar performance of the 'narcissists'. Of course, this business of self-love amongst politicians has been reasonably well articulated in the Peter Principle - a concept which avers that sheer doggedness amongst those of diminished talent and ethics will eventually result in them achieving positions of power - aka Scum Rises to the Top. This is how Dick Nixon, the Trickster, eventually became President of the United States. It is by no means a universal principle, but occurs often enough to have some traction to it. Sometimes, too, it manifests in persons of well-endowed intellect, but whose sense of self-worth is nonetheless a bit too acute. One recalls the comment of former PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who, when asked why he was running for the office of PM for the umteenth time, replied that he ..." could not stand the thought of being governed by anyone less competent than himself."
As to democracy itself - it is a crude tool, yet with priceless credentials. One of the ways it is all-too-often undone in both practice and spirit is through the application of majoritarian leverage - a belief that just because you got the 'most' votes, you are therefore given carte-blanche to pursue your agenda to the exclusion of all others. This is deviant - and wrong-headed. It is currently being played out in Ottawa by Mr. Harper's government which garnered an absolute 'minority' of overall votes, yet came out with a bigger bloc in Parliament than any other single party, and therefore presumes to act on the part of all Canadians. Here is good cause for taking a look at a system of proportional representation to prevent this sort of excess. Even absolute 'majorities' do not warrant disregarding other voices - a typical state of affairs here in Alberta.
Comment on defintions raised by RJ Pisko recently that apply to this discussion:
ReplyDeleteConservatism - the principles and policies of a Conservative party ,disposition in politics to preserve what is established, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage), the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Liberalism - the quality or state of being liberal, a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity, a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard, a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class) Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government. Liberalism originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the European wars of religion of the 16th century
The conservative disposition for tradition and social stability and a preference for gradual change versus a liberal emphasis on progress and government as an instrument for amelioriation of social inequity seems to be the differentiating factor. Both see a role the autonomous individual with the conservatives placing a stronger emphasis on personal responsibility for personal [financial] needs. Both definitions seem to favor limited power of goverment.
One could propose therefore that a progressive conservative or conservative liberal government could be ideal and in fact the two major parties have little in terms of policy to differentiate.
Therefore I would propose that it is not party philosophy that is the underlying cause for concern in provincial politics but rather the manner in which the business of government is carried out. A major concern seem to be that the electorate, except at election times or at times of heightened controversy, are left out of the process. And, increasingly, the elected members may be ignored in favor of decision by caucus and more critically both the elected members and the caucus ruled singly by the premier's office!
A proposal to stop further degradation of the parliamentary process is this - every vote in the house is a free vote. This would allow each MLA to fully and truly represented the wishes of and be accountable to their ridings. Any presentation to the house from any member could sway the opinion of any other rather than be simply ignored by the majority party. The majority might more carefully draft any proposal knowing that they could need the support of bothe their majority colleagues as well as opposition members. Both the regular business of the legislature and question period would increase in import and comport!
The existing structures and mechanisms of government need not change under this proposal. An exception might be that a vote of non-confidence would need to be specifically end explicitly announced.
Speaking as a big-city newspaper & blog reader, there's more intelligent discussion in some of these PC Voice columns than the entire mainstream media output in Calgary, and polite too. Good on you!
ReplyDelete