Danielle Smith’s Leadership Review: A Game of Power

Posted on November 2, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“No one wants less power; everyone wants more.”—Robert Greene

Danielle Smith, leader of the Wildrose party, put her leadership on the line after failing to capture any seats in the four Alberta by-elections. Her leadership review was to take place in mid-November, well ahead of the leadership review scheduled to occur after the 2016 election.

Ms Smith

Ms Smith’s decision appeared, at first blush, to be a risky gambit. However when analysed in the context of Robert Greene’s 48 laws of power, it was an act of political survival.

The Laws of Power

Greene’s best seller, The 48 Laws of Power, analyses the actions of powerful people (strategists, statesmen, courtiers, seducers and con artists) over the last 3000 years and distills them into 48 immutable laws.

The premise of the laws is this: certain actions increase one’s power; other actions decrease it and those who bungle it completely are ruined or dead.

Danielle applies the laws of power

Three laws of power are relevant to Danielle Smith’s decision to seek leadership review on the heels of her party’s failure to win any seats in the recent by-elections. These are:

Law 29: Enter action with boldness. Danielle turned the rout of her party into an opportunity to solidify her mandate as leader.   Some considered this unnecessary in light of her 90% leadership approval rating in 2013, but the only way for Danielle to crush speculation about her ability to lead was to put it to the test. 

Law 31: Control the options. Get others to play the cards you deal. Political strategists, party insiders and the media relished the thought of spending the next few weeks debating a single question: is Danielle capable of leading the Wildrose to victory in the next election? Danielle changed the conversation…and pundits and politicos who expected to play a game of 5 card stud found themselves at the blackjack table…with Danielle as the dealer.  

Law 35: Master the art of timing. David Taras, a Calgary political scientist, described Danielle’s decision to seek a leadership review as a pre-emptive strike, noting that by getting “ahead of the curve” she demonstrated good political instincts.  If nothing else, she certainly caught her detractors off guard.

The Wildrose party explores the laws of power

Anyone hoping to unseat Danielle Smith in a leadership review would immediately recognize the need to tread carefully—failure to obey the laws of power jeopardises the political careers of those who’d like to become leader one day and, more importantly, threatens the existence of the Wildrose party itself.

Law 10: Infection. Avoid the unhappy and unlucky. A leadership review would embolden the unhappy hordes harbouring past grievances.  Danielle’s decision to side pocket the party’s evangelical social policies is one example. In the game of power miserable people make tactical errors that could seriously damage the party.

Law 27: Play on people’s need to believe. Wildrose party members need to believe that their defeat in the by-elections was simply the result of poor campaign strategy and inept execution. They need to be convinced that their policies continue to resonate with Albertans and that with a lot of hard work the Wildrose will form government in 2016.

A leadership review would shatter this belief by exacerbating the friction between the ideologues and pragmatists and driving members further apart instead of bringing them together to work towards success in 2016.

The laws of power are immutable

Robert Greene says the 48 laws of power are timeless and definitive.  They dictate that no one will unseat Danielle Smith. In fact they won’t even try.

On Nov 2, 2014 Robert Greene was proven right.

Rob Anderson, the Wildrose Opposition House Leader, put forward a resolution to withdraw Danielle Smith’s request for a leadership review.  The Wildrose caucus voted on the resolution and were united in its support of Danielle Smith as leader.

Nicely played Danielle, nicely played.

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

Top 10 Door Knocking Stories

Posted on October 28, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

As you know Ms Soapbox tossed her hat in the ring in the Calgary Elbow by-election. On October 27, 2014 the residents of Calgary Elbow tossed it back. Nevertheless, she is of the view that everyone should run for public office at some point in their lives, if for no other reason than to experience door knocking.

Door knocking is considered the most effective grassroots mobilization technique known to man because it allows the candidate to make one-on-one contact with a potential voter.

It can be, to quote Matt Forde, Labour Party door knocker, “revealing, heart-warming, depressing and dangerous, usually all in one afternoon.”*

The Top 10

Naked men: Single men at home consider clothing optional. It is not uncommon to knock on a door at any time of the day or night and be confronted by a young/old//large/small/hairy/hairless man wearing undershorts and pink foamy clogs. Sometimes he has an excuse (just got out of the shower), but most of the time he’s just lounging around in front of the TV. It takes a few such encounters to learn focus on his face, just focus on his face.

Variations on naked men: Variations on this theme include people in their jammies, people in bathrobes, people wrapped in blankets, people brushing their teeth, people who can’t find their teeth and people soaking wet wearing nothing but a towel.

Knocking on the door of the last MLA: Picture this. You’re knocking on the door. It swings open and there she is—Alison Redford, the former premier and previous MLA. It was a potentially awkward moment for both of us, but we managed it like professionals. We talked about the perils of door knocking (naked men). We agreed on the need for comfortable shoes. She wished me luck and off I went.

Knocking on the door of the last MLA’s sister: Ms Redford (the sister) was delightful. We agreed that the Wildrose candidate was not a good choice and since she refused to vote PC there was no alternative but for Ms Redford (the sister) to vote Liberal. And while she was at it, she agreed to take a lawn sign. Cool.

Weird people: It’s a toss-up between the man from Deliverance or the lady from World War Z.  

Dogs: Everyone has a dog. And every dog sees door knocking as an opportunity to bolt for freedom…unless he’s ancient in which case he’ll sniff your leg suspiciously causing no end of distraction.

Cats are strange creatures:  Indoor cats stare balefully at you through the window.  Outdoor cats try to talk you into letting them back inside.  Neither really cares about you as a person.

Thanksgiving: No one celebrates Thanksgiving at the same time or even on the same day so you’re guaranteed to interrupt at least one family getting ready to carve the turkey regardless of when you set out or how early you come in. They are not happy about being interrupted and the delicious aromas wafting out of the house are enough to bring you to your knees.

Unlimited junk food: Door knocking is the best way to lose weight. Ms Soapbox ate nothing but pizza and chocolate chip cookies for a month and she’s down five pounds. Unfortunately her knees are shot but that’s the price we pay for democracy.

The best door knocking story ever! Early in the campaign young Andrew and I approached a door. I knocked and a small child answered.

“Is your mommy or daddy home?” I asked.

A woman’s voice floated down the hall. “May I help you?” she said.

(I couldn’t see her, just the child who’d opened the door).

“I’m Susan Wright, the Liberal candidate in the upcoming by-election…” I said.

“Oh, I can’t talk now” she said, “I’m having a home birth”. Home birth…????

“Yikes” I said (or something equally erudite) and thrust my brochure into the hands of the small child and beat a hasty retreat out of there.

And that’s when I knew that the political pundits were right. Door knocking is the best way to engage with your constituents because nothing, not even a home birth, will stop them from opening the door.

Now if we could just figure out how to get the ones who support the other guy to focus on the issues we think are important we’d have it made!

Everyone should run for public office at some point in their lives. Or, at the very least, help a candidate go door knocking. It’s one of the few times we get to interact with our neighbours about the issues that matter.

Try it. You’ll like it. And it’s good for democracy.

*http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/perils-political-door-knocking

 

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 38 Comments

The Conservative Government Responds to the Deaths of Two Canadian Soldiers

Posted on October 26, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Two Canadian soldiers were killed this week.

The first, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, was run down by a car in a parking lot in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec. The second, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, was killed while standing guard at the National War Memorial. Both were unarmed.

On Saturday a small group of Calgarians gathered at the Central Memorial Park Cenotaph to honour them. The wind was cold. The sky was the blank non-colour of steel. They sang O Canada and observed two minutes of silence…

…and then watched in stunned silence as Rob Anders, Conservative MP for Calgary-West, turned the tribute into a political stump speech.

Mr Anders

After a few perfunctory remarks, Mr Anders painted a “what if” scenario. What if the number of dead had been 25 not two? What if the dead included the Prime Minister and his members of his cabinet? What if…? What if…?

Then Mr Anders proposed a solution to his “what if” terror scenario—the government needs to enact legislation that allows the military and police to be armed off duty.

After all (he said), “If we trust them enough to arm them during war and conflict, we should trust the military and the police to have their guns…and…ammunition when they’re off duty too”.*

The fact that the lives of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Cpl. Nathan Cirillo would not have been saved had they been armed (WO Vincent was run down by a car and Cpl Cirillo was shot from behind) is irrelevant in Mr Anders’ twisted world of “what if”.

What if…?

Now here’s the scary part.

Prime Minister Harper is pursuing a “what if” scenario of his own.

He’s convinced that he can protect Canadians from terrorists by passing draconian laws.

Mr Harper

Last spring he used the Boston marathon bombings as an excuse to ram Bill S-7 through the House. Bill S-7 gives the police the right to pre-emptively arrest anyone on the suspicion of being involved in terrorism and hold them without charge for up to three days. Furthermore, it forces people not charged with an offence to testify at investigative hearings. Anyone failing to cooperate with the authorities risks a prison sentence of up to a year.

The Canadian Bar Association says Bill S-7 has the potential to violate our basic rights and freedoms and warns that “fighting terrorism” cannot justify “ever-expanding state powers and ever-increasing encroachment upon fundamental human rights, individual privacy, and the rule of law.” The Canadian Civil Liberties Association agrees.

Vindication?

The Prime Minister appears to think the deaths of two Canadian soldiers vindicates his position on Bill S-7.  Consider his response: “In recent weeks, I have been saying that our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest. They need to be much strengthened. I assure members that work which is already under way will be expedited.”**

It is hard to imagine what the Prime Minister could do to “strengthen” our laws and police powers to make them even harsher than the draconian measures already contained in Bill S-7, but Mr Harper, like his friend Mr Anders, will surely find a way…unless Canadians speak up.

We cannot allow Mr Harper and his Conservative government exploit this senseless tragedy in order to perpetrate an even greater one—the denial of our fundamental freedoms on the pretext of protecting them.

Please write to Mr Harper, your MP and the leaders of the Opposition parties. Voice your objection to Mr Harper’s exploitation of the tragic deaths of two Canadian soldiers to further dismantle democracy.

*http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Good+people+should+have+guns+says+Anders/10325326/story.html

**http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mps-return-to-house-in-emotional-gathering-after-ottawa-shooting/article21263777/

Posted in Crime and Justice, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 12 Comments

By-elections and Marshall McLuhan’s Light Bulb

Posted on October 19, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

By-elections are like McLuhan’s light bulb.

Marshall McLuhan, an Edmontonian who predicted the World Wide Web 30 years before it was invented, wrote books with evocative titles like The Mechanical Bride and The Gutenberg Galaxy, but none is more famous that his best-seller, The Medium is the Message.

Recognizing that no one had a clue what that phrase meant, McLuhan used the example of a light bulb.*

Marshall McLuhan

McLuhan pointed out that a light bulb, unlike say, a newspaper, has no content, and yet it has a social effect. When it is clicked on it allows people to interact in spaces that would otherwise be blanketed in darkness. McLuhan said that “a light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence.”*

By-elections are like McLuhan’s light bulb.  They are a flash of light in the political environment.

The writ drops, the switch goes on and the voters in the affected riding have an opportunity to choose a new MLA in mid-election cycle. They are urged to send the government a message by ousting the government’s candidate and replacing him/her with a member of one of the opposition parties.

Some voters interpret the phrase “send a message” to mean punish the government by sending in its worst enemy (here in Alberta that would be the Wildrose). While this may feel good for a nanosecond (“so there!”), voters need to consider whether they’re simply cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Instead of sending a message that could easily be misconstrued by the PC government (and the Wildrose for that matter) as validation of their view that Albertans are moving further to the right, it makes sense to send a more thoughtful message: one that reflects a common desire to protect and strengthen public services like education and healthcare and recognizes the need for a long term energy strategy which incorporates a desire to protect the environment.

It’s the only way to stop the PC government from continuing its slide to the Wildrose right.

If you’re one of the lucky voters who resides in the ridings of Calgary-Foothills, Calgary-West, Calgary-Elbow or Edmonton-Whitemud, what message will you be sending to the PC government on Oct 27th?  A message of light…or more darkness?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

Posted in Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

Turkey Day at the Soapbox House

Posted on October 12, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“There’s no such thing as too much turkey”.— Mr Soapbox

Mr Soapbox is a peculiar man.

He’s a wonderful cook who rises to any occasion but when it come to Thanksgiving (or Christmas for that matter) he believes that it’s unnatural to allow the celebration to pass without roasting a massive flightless bird in his own oven.

A majestic turkey

And no, enjoying Thanksgiving dinner at a friend’s house does not count because then the bird (and its wonderful aroma) is in their house, not our house.

Too much turkey?

Mr Soapbox’s unnatural affection for turkey came to a head when the Soapbox family moved to the US.

Like a chipmunk trying to carry six acorns in his mouth all at once, Mr Soapbox decided to observe Canadian Thanksgiving in addition to American Thanksgiving. Had he been successful the Soapbox family would have consumed five turkeys in less than seven weeks—one in October, two in November (one at home and one with friends on American Thanksgiving) and two in December (one at home and one with friends at Christmas).

Luckily American grocery stores don’t stock turkeys until November—for which the distaff side of the Soapbox family is eternally grateful.   

Stealing a bird

Apparently there’s an art to buying the perfect bird. Mr Soapbox used to “reserve” his bird until the practice almost landed him in the hoosegow.

A purloined turkey

Serious turkey lovers place their orders with the butcher weeks in advance. They return to the shop a day or two before Thanksgiving to pick them up. Mr Soapbox inadvertently grabbed a bird “reserved” for another turkey fanatic and didn’t realize his mistake until he brought it home.

At that point there was nothing left to do but pull the blinds and eat the bird under cover of darkness. The experience so traumatized Mr Soapbox that he’s taken his chances with “unreserved” birds ever since.

Leftovers

The Soapbox family enjoyed their turkey dinner on Saturday.

Mr Soapbox spent the better part of Sunday preparing turkey leftovers—soups, curries, sandwiches and something called a “divan” (?). Tonight we’re going over to a friend’s house for another turkey dinner (Mrs A is a wonderful cook, I’m sure it will be delicious).

Then in December we’ll do it all over again in reverse order.

Thanksgiving

Notwithstanding the surfeit of turkey, Ms Soapbox is ever so thankful.

Her parents, both in their 80’s, are doing well. Her sisters just finished the Run for the Cure. They started running years ago after one sister developed breast cancer (she’s fine now). All brothers-in-law, nieces and nephews are making their way in the world and the Soapbox girls have grown up into bright young women striding boldly off into the future.

And her husband, the quirky and delightful Mr Soapbox is, even as we speak, whipping up turkey stock in a caldron the size of a bathtub with Ziggy the dog glued to his side waiting for scraps that “accidentally” fall into his mouth.

A poutined turkey

From the Soapbox family to you and your family, may you all have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Mr Soapbox: There’s no such thing as too much turkey.

Ms Soapbox: Sorry, I draw the line at turkey poutine!

Posted in Celebrations | Tagged , , | 16 Comments

194 ABCs and Why They Matter

Posted on October 5, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

The other day on the campaign trail I met a Bearded Dragon.

He was curled up in the arms of a little girl, blinking sleepily in the afternoon sun. He practically purred when I stroked his chin. (Yes I know they don’t purr but I swear he smiled when I touched him).

Bearded Dragon (smiling)

It doesn’t take much to make a Bearded Dragon happy—a clean cage, fruit and vegetables and the occasional Madagascar hissing cockroach and he is good to go.

Not so with the human residents of Calgary Elbow. Like most Albertans they’re riled…and with good reason.

They’ve just learned that over the past 43 years the PC government created 194—repeat 194—agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs). These ABCs “manage” more than two-thirds of their tax dollars and are subject to less financial oversight than ministerial departments (and that’s not saying much).

The Big Four

The heavy hitters in the world of ABCs are Alberta Investment Management Corp (AIMCo), Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB), Alberta Capital Finance Authority and Agriculture Financial Services. Collectively they manage over $143.1 billion in assets.* Lord only knows how much money flows into and out of the remaining 190 ABCs.

Albertans have no idea who runs them, how their CEOs and boards of directors are selected, how their budgets are set and, most importantly, how well they perform.

Mr Prentice

Premier Prentice promised to put our minds at ease by appointing Hugh Bolton, Linda Hohol and Larry Pollock to conduct a “governance review”, starting with the big four.

This is a good plan but doesn’t go far enough.

The purpose of a “governance review” is to confirm that there are processes in place to assess a CEO’s performance and that the appropriate risk management and conflict-of-interest policies exist. It is an inward-looking exercise that doesn’t come close to living up to Mr Prentice’s commitment to “strong public agency board governance, accountability and transparency.”

Mr Prentice must expand his governance review into an accountability review—one that checks to see how well the ABCs are performing.

Alberta Health Services, the ABC with the biggest budget ($18.3 billion) is a case in point. Alberta spends more money per person ($6787) on healthcare than any other province, and yet our results are mediocre.

As an aside, Linda Hohol, one of the three people appointed by Mr Prentice to run the governance diagnostic on the ABCs, conducted a governance review of Alberta Health Services in 2013.**She made a number of excellent suggestions on how the governance of AHS could be improved.

Mr Horne

Fred Horne, the former Health Minister, shelved her report and fired the AHS board instead. Then he unilaterally appointed an outside consultant, Janet Davidson, to run the $18 billion enterprise by herself. Ms Davidson moved on to become Mr Horne’s deputy minister and was replaced by Dr John Cowell, former head of the Health Quality Council. Dr Cowell and Ms Davidson played musical chairs a year later when she replaced him after his one year term expired. (She kept her job as deputy minister). Fred Horne lost his cabinet post when Mr Prentice became premier and replaced him with Steve Mandel. Mr Mandel says he’ll reinstate the AHS board.

If this sounds like a governance gong show, that’s because it is.

Bottom line

Good governance is extremely important, but it’s not enough. The ABCs must deliver good results.

The public has the right to know which ABCs are performing well, which are mediocre and which are underperforming. Once we’ve identified the mediocre and underperforming ABCs (and Alberta Health Services is at the top of the list) we need to determine whether their performance can be improved…failing which they must be replaced with a better structure.

Albertans want more than the promise of good governance. They want to see concrete results; because unlike the Bearded Dragon, a tasty cockroach and a tickle under the chin just doesn’t cut it anymore.

*Alberta Government Press Release, Sept 24, 2014

**Health System Governance Review Task Force in a Governance Report submitted to Minister Horne in February 2013

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Premier Prentice Fast Tracks Flood Mitigation

Posted on September 28, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

It started with another “feel good” press release.

On Wed Sept 24, 2014, Premier Prentice announced that he was proceeding with two flood mitigation projects. He’ll divert the Highwood River to protect High River and create a dry reservoir in the Springbank area to protect Calgary.

Then it all went pear-shaped.

“Don’t Damn Springbank”

The residents, businesses and community organizations in Springbank, Bragg Creek and Redwood Meadows roundly condemned the Springbank dry reservoir project.*

Mr Prentice

They rejected Mr Prentice’s assertion that it was better than the original proposal pointing out that one community should not be destroyed to protect another.

They said there had been inadequate public consultation and they were not satisfied with Mr Prentice’s promise that they’d be fully compensated for the damage to their property or livelihoods.

They characterized Mr Prentice’s decision as a matter of political expediency.

They’ve formed an action group called  “Don’t Damn Springbank“. Its mission is to motivate the government to pursue more effective, natural, and environmentally responsible flood mitigation projects without destructive impacts to any community.

In other words, they’ve thrown down the gauntlet.  

Nenshi blind-sided

Mayor Nenshi expressed “surprise” at the announcement. No doubt after he peeled himself off the ceiling.

He issued a rebuttal press release setting out his “initial observations” which are:

  • The “dry” dam Springbank solution is a significant departure from the previous plan which provides a comprehensive water management plan.  The “room for the river” concept had never been discussed with the City (the Mayor and his team had been blind-sided).
  • The Springbank solution is incomplete. The Premier can’t demonstrate that it’s the most cost-effective solution because the analysis of two related projects—the McLean Creek dry dam and the Glenmore Reservoir diversion tunnel—is not yet complete.
  • The Springbank solution may not be sufficient. Mayor Nenshi challenged the Premier to produce engineering studies demonstrating that the Springbank solution would protect the City given the Government of Canada’s finding that the 1:100 year standard is no longer appropriate.

Mr Nenshi

Given the magnitude of the devastation caused by the 2005 and 2013 floods, one could be forgiven for expecting Mr Prentice to handle flood mitigation file with greater care and humility. But then again, his unelected Education Minister is running in the Calgary-Elbow by-election and is in desperate need of talking points.

The real “Room for the River” programme

Mr Prentice’s press release describes the Springbank dry reservoir as a “Room for the River’” program and includes a sidebar with this link: Netherlands “Room for the River” programme  thus creating the impression that the Springbank solution is founded on the Dutch experience.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Dutch government embarked on the “Room for the River” programme after the Rhine River threatened to breach its dikes in 1993 and 1995. Two hundred and fifty thousand residents were evacuated.

Instead of following 800 years of traditional flood mitigation (strengthening the dikes), the Dutch did something truly innovative—they brought together 17 partners (provinces, municipalities, water boards, etc) to make “room for the river” by moving dikes, digging new water channels and improving the quality of the physical and urban landscape.

Bridge designed by Next Architects, Nijmegen

The ambitious programme commenced in 2006 and will be completed in 2015. It will cost 2.2 Billion Euros.

Thoughtful transformation

The transformation of the 2000 year old city of Nijmegen is a testament to the success of the government’s approach. Nijmegen is one of 39 locations that will make “room for the river”. It will move a dike 350 meters inland and develop a new channel (suitable for rowing and sailing) for the river Waal. A new urban river park will be created in the heart of the city. It will feature floating restaurants and a marina. The quality of the redesign won Nijmegen a spot on the World Cities list.

Fifty houses were demolished. The process was difficult but the government allowed sufficient time for consultation and negotiation to bring the residents on board.  The cost of redevelopment will be $460 million.

Slap-dash transformation

Admittedly Alberta is not the Netherlands and Springbank is not Nijmegen, but surely Premier Prentice took more from the Dutch “Room for the River” programme than its name.

The Dutch experience demonstrates that comprehensive scientific and economic analysis and meaningful consultation are critical to the creation of a successful flood mitigation strategy.

Mr Prentice’s attempt to short-circuit the process by arguing “Government involves tough decision and tough choices”* is an excuse, not a justification, for a $200 million project that will impact the lives of Albertans now and into the future.

Alberta’s flood mitigation strategy deserves sober second thought, not hasty decisions aimed at propping up an unelected cabinet minister.

*Calgary Herald, Sept 27, 2014, A4

Posted in Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Jim Prentice’s First Week in Office–Straight out of the Corporate Playbook

Posted on September 21, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“As of this moment, Alberta is under new management.” — Jim Prentice, 16th Premier of Alberta*

Transition. There’s nothing more unsettling; no, strike that, nerve-wracking, for an organization than a change-out of senior leadership, particularly when the old leader is universally regarded as an abject failure (will I be condemned by association?) and the new leader is hailed as the messiah (am I within his orbit of influence?).

Mr Prentice

Mr Prentice knows that the burden of a successful transition, in this case from the tired old PC party to the shiny new PC party, rests solely on his shoulders. He needs expert advice in order to make this transition successfully.

Based on the events of last week it looks like Mr Prentice turned to the guru of corporate transition, Michael Watkins.

Mr Watkins wrote the book, literally, on how to avoid transition failure when taking over a complex organization. It’s called The First 90 Days, Proven Strategies for Getting up to Speed Faster and Smarter.**

Think of the Alberta government as a $40 billion organization in desperate need a turnaround and Mr Prentice as a new CEO parachuted into the top job to make it so.

How is he going to do it?

Mr Walters recommends 7 steps. Shall we lay bets on where Mr Prentice will succeed and where he’ll stumble?

7 steps to a successful transition

Preparation: The tricky thing about a transition is that the skills that served Mr Prentice well as a CIBC executive and MP in Stephen Harper’s government may fail him here. It’s that “unknown unknowns” trap that Donald Rumsfeld blathered on about (which incidentally is respected theory in the corporate world).

Donald Rumsfeld

The problem with “unknown unknowns” is that what Mr Prentice doesn’t know he doesn’t know really will hurt him, if for no other reason than the Opposition knows it all too well.

“Drinking from the firehose”. This is corporate-speak for accelerated learning. Mr Prentice needs to get up to speed very fast and he needs his team does likewise, especially the newbies.

Mr Mandel (health) and Mr Dirks (education) are responsible for the two biggest portfolios in government. Mr Mandel has no experience in healthcare whatsoever. His first order of business should be to understand why the AHS centralized healthcare delivery model is dysfunctional, however Mr Prentice cut Mr Mandel’s legs out from under him by saying he’d reinstate the AHS board. So expect more tweaking but no major changes in healthcare delivery.

Mr Dirks’s track record in public education is less than stellar. He approved the Calgary Board of Education’s decision to build an opulent new administration building. Construction costs tripled (from $34 million to $130 million) and the CBE was saddled with lease payments of $285 million. All the while children and teachers were packed into portables.

Match strategy to the situation: Peter Lougheed swept into power like the CEO of a successful start up. Mr Prentice crawled into power over Alison Redford’s lifeless body—the CEO of a turnaround. Mr Prentice’s task will be to identify killer problems and develop and implement a problem-solving strategy. It’s not going to be easy.

AlisonRedford

“Low hanging fruit”: This is corporate-speak for identifying something that’s easy to fix, fixing it and gaining credibility and momentum in the process. Mr Prentice’s biggest challenge was figuring out which of Redford’s failed policies to tackle first. In one week Mr Prentice re-opened the Mitchner Centre, grounded the government planes and ditched the new license plates. Mr Prentice will milk this one for as long as possible…and so he should.

Build a solid relationship with the boss: A transitional leader must manage his boss’s expectations. This will be huge challenge for Mr Prentice because his boss (as Mr McIver was fond of saying) is us. And a good many of us have deserted the PC party for good while many more of us were never there in the first place. Good luck with this one.

Build and align the team around a strategic vision: Mr Prentice has yet to unveil his strategic vision for the future of Alberta. Any effort to divine his strategy from his Cabinet choices is pointless. The three key portfolios, energy, health and education are in the hands of newbies—Messrs Prentice, Mandel and Dirks—and what they plan to do with these portfolios is anybody’s guess.

Build outside support/form coalitions. Mr Prentice is Big Oil’s kindred spirit…and that’s about as far as he goes when it comes to building outside support. It is highly unlikely Mr Prentice or his team will give equal air time to the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Alberta Teachers’ Association or the United Nurses of Alberta, let alone the leaders of the Opposition. This increases the risk that Mr Prentice will lose perspective and make bad decisions.

Bottom line

It’s not enough to say “This is a new Progressive Conservative government with new leadership, new voices and a new way of doing things”.*

Mr Prentice should give serious consideration to all of the steps laid out in the corporate playbook if he hopes to deliver a shiny new government. Failing which Albertans will cut their losses and liquidate the company, er, government.

*CBC News Online, Sept 14, 2014

**http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/how-to-hit-the-ground-running-in-your-first-90-days/article11751971/

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Education, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Jim Prentice Names his Cabinet: New Brooms Sweep Clean or Do They?

Posted on September 14, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

By this time tomorrow it will all be over, Jim Prentice, the premier-designate, will have unveiled his new cabinet.

Mr Prentice, the proverbial “new broom”, promised to sweep clean a cabinet larded with MLAs, who have enjoyed the unique privilege that comes with 43 years of uncontested power, and replace it with a smaller leaner cabinet that reflects merit and generational change. The result will be a “new government” that is accountable, ethical and focused on Albertans priorities.*

If only this were true.  

The “New Broom”

Mr Prentice’s heart may be in the right place; but unlike a private sector CEO, Mr Prentice does not have the latitude he needs to make sweeping changes. Here’s why.

McKinsey, a leading management consulting firm and oracle to senior corporate executives everywhere, studied the success of incoming CEOs over a 20 year period and provides the following advice for “new brooms”. (While directed at the private sector, McKinsey’s principles highlight the challenges facing “new brooms” in the public sector as well):

Take advantage of the “honeymoon”: New CEOs must move fast in the “honeymoon” period to reallocate talent and resources. Then they must throttle back to allow the market to understand their actions. Mr Prentice is moving fast to set up his new cabinet (which is good) but he has no time to throttle back or make course corrections if he or his cabinet ministers stumble because the 2016 general election is just around the corner and the opposition parties will rip him to shreds.  Frankly, Mr Prentice will be lucky if his “honeymoon” period lasts more than a day.

Clearly explain what you’re doing and why: Mr Prentice provided a high level explanation for his new cabinet (new faces reflect a new government) but he doesn’t control the narrative around why certain MLAs are exiting cabinet and caucus.

Mr Hancock retires

Why did Dave Hancock decide to retire? Why are Neil Brown and Wayne Cao falling all over themselves to offer Mr Prentice their seats? Why did Ken Hughes run for the PC leadership in March and announce his decision to leave politics altogether just 5 months later? What do they know that we don’t know?

Be bold: Here’s where the trial balloon for appointing non-elected cabinet ministers comes into play. This is the riskiest thing Mr Prentice has ever done because it’s an admission that his caucus is thin on talent and that he’s prepared to short-circuit the democratic process in order to fill the gaps.

This is insulting to existing MLAs, most of whom worked hard to ensure he’d be elected party leader and places the party at great risk because the only way Mr Prentice can legitimize appointed cabinet ministers (who are not accountable because they operate outside the House) is to call a number of by-elections quickly.

Failure to win these by-elections equates to a vote of non-confidence in Mr Prentice and his government.

The only way Mr Prentice can avoid this risk is by delaying the by-elections on the excuse that at $200,000 a pop they’re too expensive and the voters will have an opportunity to legitimize the appointed cabinet ministers in the general election in 2016.  Given that Mr Prentice created the need for more by-elections he can’t argue against them on the basis of cost.

“Own” the careers of senior talent: In order to pull off a “clean sweep” a CEO must be able to exert strong influence over the careers of his top 100 to 300 executives. Mr Prentice can influence the careers of 58 MLAs. He can try to persuade certain cabinet ministers to hang up their spurs, but some of them (Finance Minister Horner springs to mind) won’t go quietly.

Mr Horner

A premature “retirement” or an unexpected “demotion” will rile up PC party members and constituents who are deeply loyal to the unseated MLAs. The outcome? Even more fissures and instability within the PC party and the government, further heightening the chances that the PCs will lose in 2016.

Enlist Board support: Corporate CEOs have boards of directors to give them air cover as they move ahead with their “new broom” strategies. The premier-designate does not. The best Mr Prentice can hope for is support from PC party leadership which means he’ll owe them one;  nicely offsetting the debt they owe him for winning the leadership race in the first place.   

New brooms

The McKinsey study is telling us something we already know.

Enlisting a “new leader” to run an “old party” will not create a “new government” because unlike the private sector, the “new leader” is not at liberty to make the sweeping changes desperately needed to re-invent the PC government.

So bring on the 2016 election!!!  Let’s see what the “new brooms” from other parties have to offer.

*Calgary Herald, Sept 13, 2014, A5

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 12 Comments

How a “Fiscally Conservative” Government Facing a $20 Billion Debt Delivers on its Promises

Posted on September 7, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“Tonight, we begin the work of advancing and protecting sound, conservative fiscal principles.” —Future Premier Jim Prentice, victory speech, Sept 6, 2014

It hasn’t escaped Ms Soapbox’s notice that the party that bills itself as fiscally conservative has us on track for a $20 billion infrastructure debt—at a time when Alberta’s economy is booming.* Heaven help us when the economy tanks.

Mr Prentice

Mr Prentice promised on a stack of political bibles to build 90 new schools (40 more than Redford promised) and renovate 70 more. He’ll repair hospitals that were cited for health violations (and yes, Mr Drysdale, this is an infrastructure problem and yes, you are the minister of mice) and cap the infrastructure debt, estimated to be $20 billion, without touching the 10% flat tax or existing royalty structure.

How is he going to do it?

Easy.  He’s going to rely on P3s and P4s.

P3s

Public-private-partnerships are an alternative to the traditional way that government builds infrastructure.

Under the traditional model, the government designs an infrastructure project, finances it and puts it out to tender. A contractor builds it and someone else operates and maintains it. Cost overruns or performance problems are the government’s responsibility because it created the design in the first place.

Under the P3 model, the government shifts the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a project to the contractor. In theory the contractor bears the risk of interest rate fluctuations, schedule slippage, cost overruns and operational problems. It is assumed that the contractor will be more efficient than the government and the overall cost of a project will be lower than under the traditional model.

As we discovered with cold-fusion, theory does not always reflect reality.

Cheaper and more efficient?

A contractor’s cost of borrowing is always significantly higher than the government’s because banks know that governments don’t go belly up whereas contractors do (with alarming frequency). A loan to a contractor is more risky. The risk is reflected in the interest rate and the contractor passes this extra cost on to the government.

The contractor also expects to make a healthy profit and builds his profit margin into the overall cost of the project.

Regardless of how carefully the lawyers draft the P3 contract to make cost overruns, schedule slippage or performance problems the responsibility of the contractor, the minute these problems arise the contractor balks. Both sides threaten litigation while at the same time trying to negotiate a resolution—which invariably boosts the government’s costs. (Ms Soapbox is a lawyer; she’s worked on countless EPC contracts and knows this from personal experience.)

The UK experience

P3s have been used in the UK since 1992. Allyson Pollock, one of Britain’s leading authorities on public private partnerships, says they’re an unmitigated disaster.

She reports that 159 hospitals, prisons, schools and roads were developed using the P3 model (called PFIs in the UK). The debt for the hospitals alone is $30.6 billion.

Instead of repaying the debt at the government interest rate of 1.5 to 2%, the public is burdened with a private sector interest rate of 10% to 20% over 30 to 60 years, plus the additional cost of delivering a profit stream to the contractors’ shareholders.

P3s have been the subject of numerous UK Parliamentary Committees.

Andrew Tyrie MP, Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee says “[P3s] means getting something now and paying later. Any Whitehall department could be excused for becoming addicted to that”. He concludes “We can’t carry on…expecting the next generation of taxpayers to pick up the tab. [P3s} should only be used where we can show clear benefits to the taxpayer.”

Ms Pollock

Returning to Ms Pollock’s hospital example, under the traditional model hospitals paid 5% of income to service debt, but under the P3 model they pay 30% of revenue to service debt. The result is a reduction in staff and quality of service and the acceleration of the privatization of healthcare —hardly a clear benefit anyone but the private sector.

Value for money

The Wildrose party agrees that financing is an issue and would use P3s for everything except project financing which would remain a government responsibility.**

This sounds reasonable at first blush, but it undermines the integrity of the Value for Money analysis used by fiscally prudent governments to decide whether to build infrastructure using the traditional model or P3s.

The Value for Money analysis compares total project costs (capital, financing, retained risks and ancillary costs) for a project under the traditional method and the P3 method.

While I’m not an economist (thank god) even I can see that pulling the financing component out of the Value for Money formula is a non-starter because it makes it impossible to assess the contractor’s risk of bankruptcy, thereby increasing the government’s risk of failure.  

Furthermore the Wildrose solution does nothing to address the fact that P3s divert taxpayer dollars into the contractors’ shareholders’ pockets.

P4s?

Apparently even the rampant use of P3s isn’t enough to cover the infrastructure budget. So the PC government is moving to P4s.

P4 are public-private-partnerships plus philanthropy. Well heeled Albertans are repeatedly tapped to contribute philanthropic dollars to various government infrastructure projects; the $50 million infusion to the Alberta Children’s Hospital is a prime example.

Altruism is a good thing, but when the people of Alberta have to rely on charity for fundamental infrastructure something is terribly wrong.

Gordon Gekko and Blanche DuBois

It’s time for our “fiscally prudent” government to explain how it intends to fund the promises that put Mr Prentice into the premier’s office. Relying on P3s which simply hide the debt and enrich the private sector (hello Gordon Gekko) and P4s which throw us onto the kindness of strangers (hello Blanche DuBois) just don’t cut it anymore.

*Calgary Herald Online Sept 7, 2014

**A Better Way to Build Alberta, Nov 18, 2013, p10 .

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Economics, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments