When Politicians Lie…er, Misspeak Themselves

Posted on January 4, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

“How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.”—Political joke.

Politicians don’t lie. They misspeak, they overstate, they understate. And the press distorts, takes out of context, twists, exaggerates or does something equally heinous to what they’ve said. Poor dears.

Over the past few months Premier Prentice and ex-Leader of the Official Opposition, Danielle Smith, have been moving their lips a lot. It ain’t pretty, but are they lying?

What is a political lie?

Smart politicians avoid political lies by resorting to politician-speak—the language of un-communication. For example, any sentence that starts with “let me be clear” or “I’ve been perfectly clear about this” will be followed by a load of obfuscation. (Watch for this with Mr Prentice. He’s been perfectly clear about many things).

Happy Ms Smith and Mr Prentice

Politicians who do lie generally resort to exaggerations, lies of omission or contextual lies. Whether we get bent out of shape by political lies depends on who got gored and how badly. If the lie helps our side and hurts the other guys we’re inclined to lay low and move on. If not, we make an ungodly fuss.

Did Smith lie?

Danielle Smith, the ex-Leader of the Wild Rose and Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, said she joined Mr Prentice’s Progressive Conservative government because she discovered there wasn’t much difference between his policies, resolve and shared interests and her own. She said Mr Prentice was sincere and had a firm grasp on what needed to be done. She thought he’d “been very honest about the challenges we face.”

A month earlier she said the exact opposite: “The Premier likes to claim that the province is under new management, but the throne speech makes it clear that the new management has no strategic or operational plans. If this were a business, the market would be expressing deep concerns about how the new management has such a poor grasp of the fundamentals.”*

The ruse of politician-speak, let alone exaggeration, omission or the contextual lie were unavailable to Ms Smith given that she joined the man and the party she’d reviled just the month before. Her praise of Mr Prentice rings hollow and she will go down in history as a lying politician who sacrificed her party on the altar of her own ambition.

Lies or a lack of integrity?

In the last two months, Mr Prentice made a political statement and an economic statement that cry out for the Truth-O-Meter.

A Happy Mr Prentice

Defection and democracy: Mr Prentice was asked whether accepting the leader of the opposition and 8 of her MLAs was harmful to democracy. He poo pooed the suggestion: “It’s not a democratic principle that conservatives should fight conservatives for the entertainment of socialists.” Socialists?

If gutting the Opposition isn’t a violation of Mr Prentice’s democratic principles, what is?

Mr Prentice says “to engage in public service is to be a servant of the people of Alberta…We are assumed to be honourable, assumed to be committed to upholding the trust our constituents have placed in us. Serious harm can be done to our democratic institutions when that trust is seen to be violated.**

Apparently crippling the most effective opposition Alberta has had in decades by allowing nine Wildrose MLAs to violate the trust their constituents placed in them does not constitute a serious harm to our democratic institutions.

In fact Mr Prentice justifies his actions as reunification of the conservative party. Others see it as a lack of integrity. Either way, it’s a lie.

The drop in the price of oil: Mr Prentice became the 16th premier of the province just as oil prices took a nose dive. Prices are now almost 50% lower than when he campaigned for the leadership of the party.  The result?  A $6.2 billion hole in the budget.

Mr Prentice says these are “untested” circumstances. He says this economic bust is unprecedented because this dip is more “precipitous” and is creating “more uncertainty” than the previous oil price drops.***

This is not true.

In 2008 oil prices dropped almost 70%. Bitumen prices approached $20 a barrel and we were in the grip of a global financial meltdown. So either Mr Prentice has historic amnesia or he’s scare mongering to prepare Albertans for a slash and burn cost cutting budget that will make Klein’s cuts look like a walk in the park.

If it’s the former, Mr Prentice is not fit to guide this province through the latest iteration of the classic boom/bust cycle. If it’s the latter, Mr Prentice is lying.

What to do about lying politicians

All politicians lie, or at least change their minds. Sometimes we forgive them (compromises must be made in order to move agendas forward) and sometimes we don’t.

An Unhappy Mr Nixon

Research shows that voters will reject politicians who lie to them if there’s clear evidence they lied and the lie is important. The backlash against the Wildrose defectors demonstrates that the political analysts are right—the defecting MLAs appear to be heading for the scrap heap come the next election.

One can only hope that enough voters see Mr Prentice’s lips moving when he says that gutting the Opposition supports the democratic institutions of government and that the 2014 oil slump is something Alberta has never seen before and decide he’s following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon’s press secretary Ron Zeigler and is misspeaking himself.

References: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2744068/How-tell-politician-lying-lips-move.html and http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/22/why-politicians-get-away-with-lying/politics-is-a-high-stakes-game-and-lies-can-pay.

*Hansard, November 18, 2014

**Hansard, Nov 25, 2014, p 161, 162.

***Calgary Herald, Dec 30, 2014, A4.

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 24 Comments

The Soapbox Family’s Christmas Tree

Posted on December 28, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Ms Soapbox spent Boxing Day reading, playing Battleship and wondering what to do about the Christmas tree. The Soapbox family has a fake tree. Every couple of years Ms Soapbox yearns for a real one.

Ms Soapbox has had an uneasy relationship with Christmas trees ever since she was a child and a scrawny pine went whump-tinkle-tinkle narrowly missing her cat who was just sitting there minding its own business when the darned thing fell over.

Mr Soapbox loves real trees and brought home many a tree that looked promising on the tree lot (all bound up with string and frozen shut) but turned out to have nothing but “bad” sides when it thawed.

Tired of Charlie Brown Christmas trees and pine needles popping out of the carpet in July, Ms Soapbox told Mr Soapbox it was time to invest in a fake tree.

“Over my dead body,” he said. (Mr Soapbox is a country boy. As a child he’d trek into the forest, fending off squirrels and rabbits, in search of the perfect Christmas tree.)

After considerable whining and snivelling (mine, not his) Mr Soapbox agreed to allow a fake Christmas tree into the house. We bought a department store tree-in-a-box. We poked all its “realistic” limbs into those little holes and decorated it. It looked like a TV antenna having a nervous breakdown. Awful.

The following year Ms Soapbox suggested that perhaps a real Christmas tree would be nice. Mr Soapbox said we already had a Christmas tree and refused to discuss it any further.

So Ms Soapbox went to Golden Acres and selected the biggest fattest tree she could find. A nice young man tied it to the roof of her car.  After he’d gotten over the shock, Mr Soapbox wrestled it off the roof and into the hall.

Then he took a nap.

It was clear to Ms Soapbox that if she hoped to set up this tree anytime soon she’d have to do it herself.

She enlisted the help of the children, “Missy” (age 9) and “Mini” (age 7). They manhandled The Beast into position only to discover that the trunk was cut on a slant and wouldn’t sit properly in the tripod base.

No problem. Ms Soapbox found a hacksaw in the garage. The children were in position holding the tree steady. She started to hack. It was tough going and got even tougher when the hacksaw blade slipped and drove itself into the hardwood floor.

“Oh oh,” gasped the children. “It’s fine,” said Ms Soapbox, “but let’s not tell Daddy.”

Ms Soapbox held the tree upright, Missy, the eldest, screwed the trunk into its tripod base and Mini provided helpful directions like: you’re crooked…you’re still crooked!

When Mr Soapbox awoke he was surprised to see that we’d put up The Beast all by ourselves. But the strain was too much for Mini, the youngest, who blurted out “Mommy hacked the hardwood floor” (wow, three seconds, a new secret-keeping record).

After he’d regained his composure, Mr Soapbox helped us string the lights and decorate The Beast.

All was well until 3 a.m. when we were awakened by a whump-tinkle-tinkle. We flew into the living room, shouting accusations at the dog (he had an iron clad alibi; he was asleep in Missy’s room).

The next day Mr Soapbox tethered The Beast to the wall. It spent the festive season straining against its moorings like the Titanic about to set sail.

A week later we took it down. There was sap everywhere, on the hardwood floor, on the carpet, on the wall, on the ceiling. Was the thing possessed?  

We’ve had a succession of real and fake trees since. Our real American tree came complete with tiny bird’s nest. Our fake American tree was a giant dust magnet and gave Missy hives. Our real Canadian tree smelled wonderful but dried out so fast you couldn’t sneeze in its general direction. Our fake Canadian tree came from China, complete with a combination of fake pine and spruce branches (Frankentree?), a peculiarity we didn’t notice until we got home.

Ms Soapbox thinks it’s time to retire Frankentree. She’s trying to persuade Mr Soapbox to relive his glorious youth by trekking to the tree lot in pursuit of the perfect Christmas tree.

She’ll even go with him to fend off the squirrels and rabbits.

********

Okay, it’s time for the Ziggy Christmas tradition. In Year One Ziggy hid in the Christmas tree.  In Year Two he flopped into a tragic heap at its base. In Year Three he wore a goofy blue hat. Here he is in Year Four, oblivious to us all as he attacks his Christmas present, a treat from the Drumheller Dinosaur museum (just kidding).

From the Soapbox family to you and your family, we wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and the very best for 2015!!!

Posted in Celebrations | Tagged , , , , | 24 Comments

Danielle Smith Betrayed the Wildrose; Jim Prentice Betrayed the Rest of Us

Posted on December 21, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” —Abraham Lincoln

Premier Prentice gave every member of his caucus a copy of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals. No doubt to help them “decide” whether to let Danielle Smith, the leader of the Opposition, and eight members of her Wildrose caucus join the Progressive Conservative government.

The absurdity of the situation escaped his dimwitted caucus.

Mr Lincoln

The book describes Abraham Lincoln’s relationship the three men in his own party who challenged Lincoln for the Republican presidential nomination.  After Mr Lincoln won the presidency he persuaded these three members of his own party to join his cabinet.

In case Mr Prentice hasn’t caught my drift there’s a huge difference between asking members of your own party to help you solve difficult problems and allowing a bunch of opportunistic carpetbaggers, some demanding cabinet posts, in the door.

Prentice’s Perfidy

The fact that Mr Prentice welcomed the gang of hypocrites who staged “one of the greatest acts of betrayal in Canadian political history”* with open arms tells us a lot about Mr Prentice.

Mr Prentice says it’s an opportunity to unite the conservative family. He’s delighted that the PCs once again represent the “full diversity of voices and regions from across all Alberta” (read: we’ve recaptured the rural vote). He says Alberta needed “united leadership and shared purpose in tackling the challenges ahead”.

United leadership and shared purpose? In case Mr Prentice hasn’t noticed, he already has an overwhelming majority in the Legislature and under his much touted “new management” he can accomplish anything his little heart desires.

No, this was simply a bargain with the devil to avoid the risk of a minority government in the next election.

Reunification at what cost?

Ms Soapbox is not totally naïve.   She knows that some politicians are self-serving opportunistic swine. However even she expected better of this premier.

A review of the Reunification Agreement sets out four themes that show how far Mr Prentice is willing go to win a majority government in the next election.

  1. Violating the trust of PC voters: By agreeing to the Wildrose policies set out in the agreement Mr Prentice violated the trust PC voters placed in him and his government.  If they wanted to be governed under Wildrose policies they would have voted for the Wildrose party in 2012 and 2014.  They didn’t.

Ms Smith

Specifically, PC voters did not vote for narrow social conservatism which enhances parental rights at the expense of the rights of LBGTQ children. Mr Prentice wisely backed away from this policy when he “paused” Bill 10, but reversed his position to appease the nine Wildrose defectors.  

  1. “Selling” the premier’s personal endorsement: Mr Prentice gave the defecting Wildrose MLAs a lock on the PC nomination process in the upcoming election.  In an open letter Mr Prentice personally endorsed each Wildrose MLA who chooses to run as a PC candidate in the 2015 nomination process. Can I have an endorsement if I promise to stop slagging the premier on the Soapbox? 

3. Violating the candidate selection process: The agreement effectively blocks anyone but the defecting Wildrose MLAs from being a PC candidate in their riding in the next election. If a misguided member of the PC party were to put his name forward he’ll receive a call reminding him of the Premier’s endorsement.  I understand that such “reminder” calls run the gamut from “you’ve got to take one for the party, step aside” to “get out of the way if you know what’s good for you”.

By blocking nominations from anyone but the defecting Wildrose MLA, Mr Prentice subverted the democratic process of candidate selection and is forcing his choice, no, Danielle Smith’s choice of candidates on the PC voters in these ridings. 

  1. Stealing the Opposition: Mr Prentice negotiated with the Official Opposition as a bloc. He violated his promise of greater accountability, transparency and good governance because he knew that if he succeeded he’d destroy the most effective opposition Alberta has had in decades.

Two PC “leaders”

Mr Prentice stole the Opposition from the Albertans who put it there. Then he smugly announced that his seat count now equals that of ex-premiers Lougheed and Klein.**What he fails to recognize is that in Lougheed and Klein’s day it was the people, not the premier who put them there.

Cabinet vs Board Room

Mr Prentice fulfilled his promise of a “government under new management”. He handpicks his cabinet, parachuting outsiders into key portfolios like a CEO picking his executive team. He grows market share in rural areas by poaching “talent” that can deliver the votes. He mitigates a loss of market share by co-opting the Opposition so they can’t hold the government to account.

Abe Lincoln said: test a man’s integrity by giving him power. Mr Prentice had the power to say “thanks, but no thanks” when presented with the Wildrose defection plan. Instead he gutted the Opposition by drafting its disaffected MLAs into government.

It’s a shrewd move if you’re a CEO. It’s an abuse of power if you’re the premier.

*Globe and Mail, Dec 17, 2014, A1  

**Globe and Mail, Dec 19, 2014, A1

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 35 Comments

OPEC Sets Up the Rollercoaster, Albertans Take a Ride (Again)

Posted on December 14, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“You come from capitalist nations. You know what the market does. For any commodity it goes up and down, up and down”—Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi*

Contrary to the expectations of many analysts, OPEC (read Saudi Arabia) decided it would not reduce its 30 million-barrel-a-day production quota in order to prop up oil prices.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi

Oil prices dropped by 40%. Oil companies lost $67 billion in market value in two days. And we’re firmly locked in a downward trajectory.

Why did the Saudis do it?

Eighty percent of the Saudi government’s revenue comes from oil production. This decision hurts them more than it hurts us. Why did they do it?

Some say the Saudis are retaliating against Russia for supporting the al-Assad regime in Syria. Others say the Saudis want to teach the US a lesson by crushing US shale production.**

Saudi oil consultant, Mr Al-Husseini, says this is nonsense. It’s just business—a market decision designed to curb high-cost production wherever it lies, Brazil’s offshore fields, the US shale oil plays and Canada’s oil sands.”**

Oh oh.

Mr Prentice’s plan

Oil and gas revenue (taxes and royalties) makes up 21% of Alberta’s budget. Oil prices tanked right after Mr Prentice took office creating a $7 billion hole in the budget. His by-election promises of 230 new schools, multi-million dollar flood relief plans, hundreds of long term care beds and a chicken in every pot are in jeopardy.

Never mind says Mr Prentice, here’s why Alberta will survive the 2015 crash.

Moody’s likes us: Mr Prentice boasts that Moody’s gave Alberta its highest rating because it likes Alberta’s low tax regime, strong financial assets and a strong balance sheet.

So what.

Moody’s is an investment service. It rates government investment risk like Michelin rates restaurants. A Michelin 5 star rating means the food is good, not that the restaurant can balance its budget.

Mr Prentice

Similarly a triple A rating from Moody’s means Alberta is a good credit risk and can borrow more money than say, Detroit. It’s not remotely relevant unless Mr Prentice intends to fill the $7 billion budget hole by borrowing until Moody’s downgrades Alberta to junk bond status.  

Albertans must tighten their belts: Mr Prentice says “We will be making some tough decisions, and the impacts will be felt in this province. However…we are in it for the long-term (god I hope so!). The job of building this province is not finished, (no kidding!) and the long-run advantage of advancing long-terms solutions is now before us (what?).***

He concludes with a flourish: “…Albertans are resilient, and there is no province better positioned to weather the storm of which I speak”.  Actually there is. It’s called Saskatchewan. It too has a triple A rating from Moody’s and oil royalties only account for 11% (not 21%) of its total revenues, making it less vulnerable to plummeting oil prices.****

Stripping away the Churchillesque language, Mr Prentice is saying that government services will be slashed and we’ll have to suck it up. So all you old, sick and frail people, toughen up. And you young people, figure out how to teach yourselves.

Alberta’s bitumen must reach tidewater: Mr Prentice says continued investment in schools, hospitals and roads is contingent on our ability to “seize opportunities in the Asia-Pacific Basin”. He stresses that tidewater access—east, west, north or south—is essential because it gives producers access to world prices (which, you may have noticed, have tanked).

One tiny little problem: Mr Prentice cannot make it happen and Prime Minister Harper just gave notice that he’s washed his hands of the whole thing. So now what?

There will be no change to Alberta’s tax structure: The 10% flat tax on personal and corporate income and the absence of a sales tax is a sacred cow. End of discussion.

Somehow none of this is very comforting.

A new vision

After countless booms and busts (what Saudi Oil Minister al-Naimi quaintly calls “ups and downs”) Albertans are tired of checking with OPEC every time they need a new school or hospital.

“Ups” and “downs”

Unfortunately 30 years of symbiotic existence with energy companies warped the government’s sense of self. It cannot distinguish itself from industry.  It’s become industry’s mindless cheerleader.  Its premier says idiotic things like: “Alberta is a price taker.”  Alberta is a government. The government is not a player in the energy marketplace.     

OPEC’s decision to maintain production gives Mr Prentice an opportunity to remake government.  Instead of protecting Big Oil from OPEC, Mr Prentice should protect Albertans from Big Oil by revamping Alberta’s revenue structure and diversifying our economy so that Albertans will never experience another crash like the crash of 2015.

Just because OPEC set up the rollercoaster doesn’t mean we have to ride it.

*Daily Oil Bulletin, Dec 10, 2014

**Globe and Mail, Dec 13, 2014, B8

***Daily Oil Bulletin, Dec 1, 2014

**** http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/2014/11/18/lower-oil-prices-could-pressure-some-canadian-provinces/

 

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 33 Comments

Fortress Calgary: The “Gate” in Mahogany Manor

Posted on December 7, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

What is it about gated communities that sends us into orbit?

Calgary Planning Commission (CPC) just approved the construction of a “gate” in the southern Calgary to keep the hoi polloi out of Mahogany Manor despite the fact that the Planning Department recommended refusal.

The “gate” is actually a seven foot high solid wall made of “rocky mountain rustic masonry and boulders” pierced by two vehicle gates and a five foot high pedestrian gate made of slatted black wrought iron.*

It’s part of what the developer calls the “Island Collection”—two exclusive private islands on which it will build multimillion-dollar single family homes to create “Calgary’s most remarkable new address.”

The residents of the Island Collection will alight on their doorsteps after they swipe a cardkey or click a remote control to get through the gates, drive over a private bridge and out on to a man-made island in the middle of a man-made lake.  

Full Disclosure: Mr Soapbox sits on CPC. He and two of his fellow commissioners rejected this application, but were in the minority. The “Dissenting Commissioner” (as he is referred to in the press and around the Soapbox household) said that the gate was nothing but a marketing ploy.

The developer agreed.

The desire to “fort-up”

Humanity has been “forting-up” (to use a term coined by Jillian L Golby) since 300 BC but gated communities are a relatively new phenomenon in Canada.

There are three types of gated communities: “lifestyle” communities like retirement villages with self-contained organizational and recreational facilities; “prestige” communities which lack life-style amenities but ooze status and distinction; and “security zone” communities where rich and poor alike erect barricades to keep out the criminal element.

The Island Collection with 22 custom estate homes complete with personal docks, private beachfront and lake access falls comfortably into the “prestige” gated community category.

Safety, security, community

Gated communities appeal to the public because they promise safety, privacy, exclusivity, sameness and community.  Let’s take that from the top, shall we.

The promise of safety is an illusion.

With the possible exception of car thefts, gated communities experience the same crime rates as ungated communities.

Why? Because the only way to get into a gated community is with a cardkey or an access code and the residents cheerfully hand these out to their friends and relatives as well as the little people who trim their shrubs, clean their houses, kill their pests and deliver their pizzas.

The Island Collection will provide an intercom system for guests and service providers to alleviate the problem of the porous gate. But it will allow entry to garbage trucks, recycling and emergency crews through a keypad access and/or a lockbox system and strobe sensors (whatever they are) so the porosity concern remains.*

Oh, and on the issue of community, while residents of gated communities experience a closer sense of community—the shared communal space on “our” side of the wall belongs to “us” not “you”—this doesn’t mean that they actually know their neighbours any better than the rest of us living out here in the wild and woolly world outside the gate.

What’s the big deal?

Gated communities offer sameness, homogeneity and predictability. For some reason this is viewed as a positive attribute. Steady on Ms Soapbox, don’t get snarky.

So what’s wrong with homogeneity and predictability? If people can afford to live in a “prestige” gated communities why should the “hypocritical hand-holding nannies” at City Hall be allowed to stop them?

Here’s why.

Gated communities have a detrimental impact on the city.

Golby says the fortification and privatization of communities is harmful to the prosperity and growth of a city. As the wealthy shift to privatized infrastructure and services, they abandon their responsibility for public infrastructure and services. This increases the burden for the middle and low income classes.

Gated communities have a detrimental impact on society.

A gated community is an elite homogeneous population that focuses inward. It turns its back on urban problems and blinds itself to social issues beyond the gate. The result is increased social fragmentation and alienation.

Gated communities in Calgary

Ignoring the general concerns with gated communities, consider this.

City administrators and the public worked for years to create a long term vision for Calgary. The result of their hard work is captured in the Municipal Development Plan (MDP). The MDP strives for integration, creating neighbourhood bonds and community interconnectivity.

And yes, while Calgary Planning Commission has some discretion, it should not have exercised it here. The “gate”—which is actually a rock wall—tears apart neighbourhood bonds and community interconnectivity by creating a “separate, exclusive and isolated community” that turns its back on the rest of Calgary and all who live here.*

Remember the 2013 flood? One wonders whether after the next natural disaster Calgarians will pile into pick-up trucks to help their neighbours living in the Island Collection…no wait, they won’t be able to get past the gate. They don’t have a cardkey.

*Report to CPC Dec 4 2014 DP2014-4179

Posted in Crime and Justice, Privacy and Surveillance, Rich and/or Famous, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 26 Comments

What if Prentice Issued an FAQ to Explain Bill 10…?

Posted on December 3, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Premier Prentice likes corporate-speak (“under new management”, “price takers, not price makers”, etc) so let’s apply a corporate communication tool, the FAQ, to explain the government’s rationale for Bill 10. And let’s assume for a wild and crazy moment that the answers his spokesperson provides are the unvarnished truth.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What problem is Bill 10 intended to rectify?

A: Research shows that LGBTQ students feel more unsafe in their schools, suffer more from depression, and make more suicide attempts than heterosexual students.

Q: What can schools do to help LGBTQ students?

A: They can allow students to form gay-straight alliances (GSAs) which have been shown to reduce the incidence of depression and suicide in LBGTQ students.

Q: Does Bill 10 allow students to form GSAs?

A: Yes, but students need the consent of their school boards.

Q: So that’s a no, right?

A: Yes. I mean no. Students can sue a school board that refuses to give them permission.

Q: You’re joking. You want kids to litigate to protect themselves from discrimination?

A: Um. Yes.

Q: Are you expecting students to hold bake sales to fund their lawsuits?  

A: Well, the government isn’t going to subsidize them. The government subsidizes corporations. It does not subsidize people…well, okay it subsidizes rich people. Why am I talking about this?

Q: OK just to make sure I’ve got this straight. Bill 10 does NOT allow kids to form GSAs, because they can be shut down by red neck school boards, but it’s a good thing because it lets kids spend thousands of dollars and countless years in court trying to force school boards to allow them to form GSAs to protect them from discrimination. Did I get that right?

A: Yep.

Q: And this makes sense, why?

A: Because it “balances” the rights of LGBTQ students to be free from discrimination with the rights of parents and school boards to discriminate against them. And guess what, grownups’ rights trump kids’ rights because grownups vote.

Q: Looks to me like redneck grownups’ rights trump the rights of parents who would like to see GSAs in their kids’ schools.

A: Yeah, that too.

Q: Are you proud of yourself?

A: You bet!  

Q: Is there anything I can do about this ludicrous situation?

A: Sure, you can vote out redneck school boards…and while you’re at it you can vote out the government that gave them the right to take away your children’s rights. Oops did I just say that out loud?

Interview terminated.  Spokesperson fired.  

NEWSFLASH!! Prentice amends Bill 10. If a school board rejects the kids request for a GSA they can contact the Minister of Education who will “facilitate and support” setting up a GSA.  Bill 10 passes 38 to 17.

Q: What does “facilitate and support” mean?

A: How would I know? Set up a meeting in an empty portable across town—no wait we don’t have any spare portables. Write the school board a “Gee whiz guys, help me out here” letter? Set up a Facebook page? Twitter “Go kids go!”?

Interview terminated.  Second spokesperson fired.

Posted in Education, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 34 Comments

Lessons Prentice Learned at Harper’s Knee

Posted on November 30, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Somewhere between the time that Premier Hancock stepped down and Premier Prentice ascended to the throne, the PC caucus turned into a bunch of sniveling crybabies. Not to worry, Mr Prentice will save the day with a maneuver befitting his mentor, Mr Harper.

Apparently the Liberal’s Bill 202 wedged the PC caucus between a rock and a hard place.

Bill 202 obligates schools boards to let students form gay-straight alliances (GSAs) and eliminates the right of parents to pull their kids out of classes on religion, sexuality and sexual orientation.

The PC caucus was afraid that if they voted against Bill 202 they’d look like they didn’t support gay students, but if they voted for Bill 202 they’d upset parents (voters) and school boards.

Hmm, tough decision…what to do? Help vulnerable students or appease right wing parents and school boards? Ask for amendments in public debate or be absent from the Leg on “important” business across town?    

The PC caucus met secretly with the Premier and he came up with the Harper solution—he’d shred one of the few democratic processes we have left in the Alberta Legislature—“lively and meaningful” debate*—in order to produce a solution that’s worse than the status quo.

Dismantling democracy Harper’s way

Limit debate:  Lively and meaningful debate is vital to democracy, particularly in Alberta where the Legislature sits fewer days than all of the other provinces except PEI. (PEI may be forgiven its laxness; unlike Alberta, it does not wear the crown of energy superpower).

If the paucity of days-in-session weren’t enough, Mr Prentice limited the time available to debate Bill 202 by hi-jacking the agenda.

Laurie Blakeman (Lib)

He jammed it full of Written Questions and Motions from the Opposition. There was no urgency around the questions and the government rejected every last one of them so the schedule change was unnecessary.

However it served its purpose. It chewed up hours that should have been devoted to a debating Bill 202.

The Liberals responded by withdrawing their remaining questions and motions, which hamstrung their ability to hold the government to account, but cleared the calendar for debate of Bill 202….then Prentice shut down the Legislature early on account of snow. Is the Premier going to call a “snow day” every time the going gets tough and his MLAs aren’t tougher?

Launch a PR attack:  The Premier simultaneously unfurled a full scale PR campaign denouncing Bill 202 as “unfair”, “unbalanced”**and “unnecessarily divisive”.***

He said it pitted a student’s right to a safe, caring and tolerant learning environment against a parent’s right to make informed decisions about their child’s education and the democratic, legal and constitutional autonomy of school boards.

Roll out a “better” bill:  Instead of debating the issue of students’ rights versus parents/school board’s rights in the Legislature, the Premier chose the Harper solution—the PCs would introduce their own bill to trump the Liberal’s Bill.

No one has seen Mr Prentice’s bill because it’s being cobbled together as we speak. But never mind, Mr Prentice provided the highlights. He’ll amend the Alberta Bill of Rights to (1) include “sexual orientation” as a protected right (indeed, this is a good thing) and (2) add a new right—the right of parents to make informed decisions about their children’s education (good luck litigating the meaning of “informed”).

Parents will continue to get notices and be able to pull their kids out of classes on religion or human sexuality but they won’t get a notice if the topic is sexual orientation. How the topic of sexual orientation comes up in isolation from human sexuality is beyond me.

School boards will continue to have the power to refuse to let students form a GSA, but if they refuse, students will have a “clear legal recourse”—they can sue the school board!

The PCs Pre Harper and Post Harper

Leaving aside the injustice of forcing vulnerable school children to hire a lawyer to fight for their rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act, an equally grave concern is the fact that Mr Prentice aborted the democratic process of lively and meaningful debate in order to spare his MLAs the political fall-out of recording their views and votes in public.

Kent Hehr (Lib)

Laurie Blakeman’s Bill 202 is an extension of Kent Hehr’s Motion 503. When Mr Hehr asked the government to pass legislation requiring school boards to allow students to create GSAs the PC government and the Wildrose fell all over themselves professing their support for GSAs but couldn’t bring themselves to infringe on the sacred independence of school boards.

Every member of the WR caucus in the Leg that day voted against Motion 503…but 12 members of the PC caucus, including Sandra Janzen, Thomas Lucaszuk and Ken Hughes, supported it. The names of PC MLAs who opposed are recorded in Hansard for posterity.

The PC government wouldn’t support GSAs under Premier Hancock and they won’t support GSAs under Premier Prentice. The only difference here is that under Premier Hancock they were prepared to come out and say so. Under Premier Prentice, they’re hiding in a PR fog that starts with blaming the Liberals for violating Albertans’ values and ends with forcing students to go to court if they want to form a support group.

According to Caeleah Bartosek, a 13 year old lesbian who came out earlier this year, “Queer youth need to know that school is a safe place”. When she was told that by publicly supporting Bill 202 she risks becoming a target, she said “I’m not the one that needs to be targeted, it’s the politicians.”****

Damn right Caeleah! Mr Prentice turned the protection of Alberta’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens into a political football.

Here’s his email address: calgary.foothills@assembly.ab.ca

*Mr Prentice in Hansard, Nov 25, 2014, p161

**Calgary Herald, Nov 28, 2014

***Alberta Government News Statement, Nov 27, 2014

****Calgary Herald, Nov 29, 2014, A7.

Posted in Education, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Who Has The Worst Job in Alberta Politics?

Posted on November 23, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Why does the public go bananas when Danielle Smith, the leader of the Official Opposition, criticizes the PC government? They say she’s too negative, too shrill, too something. Can’t she be more positive they ask? More supportive?

Clearly they haven’t a clue about the role of the Opposition.

A thankless job

Winston Churchill grumped that being shot was a kindness compared to being the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. He’s right.

Consider this. Danielle Smith, as the leader of the Opposition, has the privilege of being the leader of the government-in-waiting without having access to the levers of power that she needs to make things happen.* It’s her job to point out the idiocy of the government’s legislation, its policies and, all too frequently, its misconduct.

Ms Smith, Leader of the Official Opposition

At the same time she needs to keep a wary eye on the leaders of the second and third opposition parties who are busy scoring points of their own in an effort to move into the pole position prior to the next election.

Add to that the loose cannons on the independent side of the aisle, notably former Wildrose caucus member Joe Anglin, who responded to the Throne Speech with a diatribe on Wildrose nepotism before praising the premier for tabling Bill 1—a bill that purports to reaffirm the government’s commitment to individual property rights by repealing the government’s own un-proclaimed Bill 19 which purportedly took away an individual’s property rights. Got that?

Rachel good; Danielle bad?

At first I thought the public’s anger with Danielle was a manifestation of the general bias against powerful women—an assertive man is the “boss”, but an assertive woman is “bossy” and needs to tone it down and be “nice”.

But that theory doesn’t align with the public’s affection for the new NDP leader, Rachel Notley.

Rachel made her debut as the NDP Opposition Leader on Nov 18, 2014. It’s clear from her comments on the Throne Speech and her go-for-the-jugular style in Question Period that the new premier and his 43 year old government are in for a rough ride.

Here are some examples:

On the government’s failure to deliver on its promise of new schools, greater access to post-secondary education and more long term care beds she said: “After promising not to be your father’s PC Party, it looks like dad is back in charge.”

Ms Notley, Leader of the NDP Opposition

On plummeting oil prices she said (with a touch of sarcasm): “…after 43 years in government no one could ever have predicted that oil prices might fluctuate…”

On the closure of the ER at the Miseracordia hospital (the roof collapsed when the building flooded for the third time this year) she asked: “Why has [the Premier’s] government, through their incompetence and grossly negligent behavior, been allowed to put the health and safety of Albertans at risk?”

On the unelected Education minister jumping the queue to deliver new school modules in Calgary-Elbow, a riding where he was fighting for a seat, she asked: “…Does the Premier understand that by his failure to deal with his Education minister’s conduct during the by-elections, his caucus’ integrity problem is now his integrity problem?”

Rachel’s tone is every bit as harsh as Danielle’s, sometimes more so, however she’s viewed as delivering “mild jabs” while Danielle is vilified for crossing the line.

Why?

The eye of the beholder

The answer comes from Gerald Schmitz, a political writer, who says “the role of an opposition party…is to check and prod, but ultimately to replace the government party”**

Schmitz notes that “[t]he balance between compromise and obstruction, co-option and reflex opposition, is often in the eye of the beholder.” This is enormously significant because one’s view of how well or how poorly the Opposition parties are performing is biased by which party one supports.

Albertans content with the PC government (or fearful of the Wildrose) behold Ms Smith as too negative, not because she is, but because she leads the party that almost deposed the PCs after four decades in power. When she exposes the government’s shortcomings she increases the chances that the WR will push the PCs into the dustbin the next time around.

Rachel Notley on the other hand, is the leader of the NDP and it’s a given that the NDP will never form government, right? So as bright and quick as she is, when she attacks the PC government she’s not viewed as a threat by Albertans satisfied with the status quo.

Divine Right

Prime Minister Diefenbaker

John Diefenbaker said “It is human nature for government to find the Opposition distasteful and the longer governments are in power the more they become convinced that they govern by Divine Right and that their decisions are infallible.”***

Nowhere is Mr Diefenbaker’s warning more poignant than in Alberta—a one-party petrostate with nothing but contempt for the Opposition parties and the few democratic processes (like Question Period) that remain at their disposal.

So here’s a message to the Opposition parties. The 28th Legislature is now in session. Danielle, Rachel and Raj: Give it everything you’ve got!

*http://www.macleans.ca/politics/is-mulcair-the-best-opposition-leader-since-diefenbaker/

** http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm

***http://speeches.empireclub.org/60206/data?n=14

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 10 Comments

Mouseland (why do people vote against their self-interest?)

Posted on November 16, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

               “All the laws were good laws. For cats.”—Tommy Douglas

The other day I called Telus to cancel my campaign phones and internet service.  Groan.  After listening to canned music for 17 minutes I was transferred to a customer service rep. He took my information, argued with me when I wouldn’t give him my email address, and finally transferred me to the cancellation department…where I was put on hold. Groan.  After listening to canned music for 6 minutes the cancellation rep came on the line.

She was a lovely woman who follows politics closely. We had a lively discussion about the recent by-elections and the astounding fact that the PCs were elected in all four ridings.

“Why do Albertans continue to vote the PCs into office?” I wondered.

“Ah,” she said, “you should check out Tommy Douglas’ Mouseland speech”. So I did.

Mouseland

Mouseland is a very short (and humorous) speech that is as relevant today as it was when Tommy Douglas first gave it in 1944.

Here’s the link. This is the animated version that’s introduced by Tommy Douglas’ grandson, Kiefer Sutherland. I’ll wait here while you check it out.

…(canned music)…

Did you check it out?

No?

OK here’s the Cole’s Notes version.

Mouseland is a place where all the little mice lived. They had a Parliament and voted every 4 years. On election day all the little mice would go to the polls and elect a government—a government of made up of big, fat, black cats.

The cats passed good laws. Laws that were good for cats; but oh so hard on mice. They made mouseholes big enough for a cat’s paw to fit in and set speed limits on mice so they’d be easier to catch.  

Life was hard for the mice and they finally decided to do something about it. They voted the black cats out and replaced them with …. white cats (who said things would be different). But things just got harder.

So the mice voted the white cats out and put the black cats back in, then they tried half white and half black cats (a coalition). But the trouble wasn’t the colour of the cats, it was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they looked after cats, not mice.

Finally a little mouse had an idea…instead of electing a government made up of cats, why don’t we elect a government made up of mice?

If you clicked the link you’ll know the joke comes here. Go ahead, check, I’ll wait.

(…canned music…)

Albertans, unlike the little mice, don’t bother voting in different coloured cats. They continue to vote for the same cats wearing different coloured collars. Redford had a red collar. Prentice has a reddish-blue collar. But anyone who has ever owned a cat knows that unless the collar is so tight it almost strangles the cat, he won’t be wearing it for long.

Okay, enough about cats and mice.

What’s the matter with Kansas?

Why do people continue to support conservative governments bent on deregulation, privatization and subsidization of corporations (and the wealthy) at the expense of public education, public healthcare, the frail, the elderly and the poor?

This question has bedeviled political scientists for decades.

Here are two competing theories:

The duping hypothesis: Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter with Kansas?, argues that the Right dupes voters into voting against their self-interest by “hooking” them with hot-button social issues like abortion, gun control, and gay marriage and then fanning the flames of a “class divide” (Rob Ford vs latte-drinking effetes).

He attributes the remarkable sea change in Kansas politics—the once progressive state voted 80% in favour of George Bush in 2000—to an anti-abortion demonstration held in Wichita in 1990.

The Republicans, ever mindful of opportunity, saw hundreds of anti-abortionists chain themselves to cars and lie down in the road and said: while we admire your courage and conviction, we’ve got something a lot smarter for you to do than lying on the highway. And it worked. People who weren’t the least bit “political” jumped at the chance to work with and vote for the Republicans and it snowballed from there.  

It’s about moral vision, stupid: Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind,* says the duping hypothesis is delusional because it lets the Left to absolve itself from blame while avoiding the hard work necessary to develop a successful strategy for the 21st century.

Haidt says what’s really going on is this: the Right aligns itself with lofty moral values like patriotism, social order, strong families, free enterprise and rugged individualism (no nanny state for me!) instead of pedestrian government programs. So a vote for the Right is not a vote against one’s self-interest, but rather a vote in favour of one’s moral ideals.

Do either of these theories ring true in the Alberta context? Or is Mouseland actually Dreamland—a place where we believe that if we leave well enough alone it will all work out in the end?

Over to you Alberta…

(…cannned music…)

*http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 33 Comments

The Sonic Boom: How Alberta Became an “Offshore Business” in the Pathology Market

Posted on November 9, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Why does Stephen Mandel, the newly minted Minister of Health, think it’s a good idea for Alberta taxpayers to support the lifestyles of wealthy Australian businessmen who earn more than $13 million a year, their executive teams who get ridiculous bonuses and stock options and the Australian economy as a whole with corporate tax contributions?

This is the bizarre consequence of the Health Minister’s decision to award a $3 billion 15 year lab services contract to a single service provider—Sonic Healthcare Limited.

Sonic who?

Sonic is a $6.7 billion company based in Sidney, Australia. It describes itself as “a leading participant in the pathology markets in Australia, the USA, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland the UK/Ireland and New Zealand, and in diagnostic imaging, medical centres and occupational health in Australia.”*

Sonic lab with logo in centre

Sonic refers to its non-Australian holdings as “offshore businesses” (which is appropriate given that Australia is the centre of Sonic’s universe but somewhat unsettling out here in the hinterland).

Sonic has a very simple business model. It provides lab services, administration services and facilities management services to medical practitioners. These services are paid for by patients, private health insurers or governments.

A serious risk to Sonic’s profitability is a government’s decision to reduce the cost of healthcare by implementing fee reductions or reducing the number of tests it will cover.

And therein lies the rub!

While the Alberta government is desperately trying to reduce the cost of healthcare (and its tax burden on Albertans) Sonic wants to increase the cost of healthcare with higher fees and more tests because these increase revenue which in turn increase profits.

And heaven help the offshore business that fails to deliver revenue as expected.

A Sonic “bust”

Sonic’s financial results took a hit in 2014 because its US offshore business suffered an unexpected drop in revenue.*

The US failed to meet revenue expectations because of currency fluctuations, weak macro economic conditions, Medicare fee cuts in Jan 2013, Apr 2013 and Jan 2014 (how dare they!) and Superstorm Sandy which devastated the eastern US in 2012 and depressed “volume growth” (Sonic’s term for more lab tests) because people had no heat, light, food or shelter (poor things were just trying to survive—how dare they!)

Superstorm Sandy

Not to worry, said Sonic’s CEO, I’m on it. He executed a $60 million “cost-out” initiative that he billed as the “most aggressive such undertaking ever”. Anyone who has worked in the corporate world knows that “cost-out”is code for slashing services and axing people.

Given that economic downturns, government changes to fee schedules and freaky climate conditions can strike anywhere, it is just a matter of time before Sonic will make a similar reference to the “Alberta offshore business” in a future Annual Report.  Something like:  Alberta had lower than expected revenues as a result of falling oil prices, federal/provincial fee reductions and massive flooding (or wildfires) in Northern Alberta. This will be followed by the CEO’s assurances that the Alberta offshore business losses will be offset by a mega-million dollar “cost-out” initiative similar to the one successfully deployed in the US.

Stephen Mandel

In Sonic’s world, fee adjustments and fewer tests curb growth. Luckily for Sonic, we likely  gave up the ability to reduce healthcare costs by agreeing that Albertans can be punished by “cost-out” initiatives if Sonic can’t make up the lost revenue elsewhere.

Oh and another thing…

While we’re on the topic of the lunacy; consider how much of the $3 billion Albertans will fork over for lab services will be diverted to cover the following expenses:

  • Taxes: Sonic’s effective tax rate is 25%. Alberta’s corporate tax rate is 10%. It doesn’t take a tax expert to figure out that some of the $3 billion will go directly into the coffers of the Australian Taxation Office.
  • Debt: Sonic is carrying almost $2 billion in debt. Its interest expense is around $60 million. Its carrying costs run as high as 8.74%. The Alberta government can borrow money at 2% to 6% interest. It will cost Albertans significantly more for Sonic to borrow the money necessary to make the land purchases and build the superlab that underpins the lab services contract than if the government had borrowed the funds itself.
  • Profit: Sonic’s profit for 2014 was $385 million. This was a 15% increase over 2013. Good news for Sonic’s shareholders but irrelevant to Albertans who won’t see a penny unless they hold Sonic stock.**
  • Executive compensation: Sonic will hire an Alberta-based CEO and management team to run the Alberta offshore business under the watchful eye of the $13 million man (sorry CEO) and his well paid executives. The Alberta executives will receive salaries, bonuses, stock options and severance contracts commensurate with the private sector. Déjà vu anybody?

Tell me again

So on behalf of all Albertans, I ask Stephen Mandel a simple question: ”This is a good idea, why????”

*Sonic’s fiscal year runs from June to June. All Sonic data taken from the 2014 and 2013 Concise Annual Reports

** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HugKKpfix4o

Posted in Alberta Health Care, General Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 35 Comments