I’m sure people from across the political spectrum are pissed off because of governments trying to ram new powerlines down their throats to the tune of $20 billion and they have no say in the matter. We’re not going to debate that?

Or maybe the Alberta government will close down something like Alberta Hospital, while claiming that these people will be taken care of in the community. We know damn well what happens in these situations because it happened in the 80s & 90s. Costs are “externalized.” Alberta citizens are the ones who’ll pay the price in crime and misery, not to mention increased insurance costs.

It’s no problem to hand out $2 billion to private companies for carbon capture and storage, but they can’t spend a few million on an institution like Alberta Hospital?

We need governments who have the vision to see the correct course of action because it’s the best thing for Albertans. I don’t care if it conflicts with their ideology or if provincial lobbyists don’t agree. That’s not what we have now.

As for policy, I would disagree that citizens aren’t concerned about policy. What seems to continue to happen federally and provincially is that we elect governments that initially seem to reflect the sensibilities of citizens, but then the hidden agenda starts.

I would really like to see a government that has a real plan and doesn’t fly by the seat of its pants. Alberta governments seem to govern more like pinball machines, bouncing from one issue to the next.

Is it really surprising that progressives do not feel that a conservative gov’t is not listening to them?

Again, what is the overall strategy? What is the end game?

Listening means conversations which leads to better understanding and respect and information about what is bothering people and what they see as needing policy attention.

I will be doing a blog post on some of the survey results before Reboot2.0 and a major presentation on the results and some analysis of the political and governance implications for the province at Reboot2.0

When citizens sense injustice, I believe that is their driver. Not that a politician is not listening.

Therecent happenings in the US is a great example. After eight years of Bush, Americans came to a decision that significant change was needed. Obama was clearly speaking what people wanted and bet that his message would resonate. The key was that he had always been listening and translated it into action via means for citizens to get involved. Listening was not a campaign or some unique activity, it was something he just did and he did not need to make a big deal of the fact he listens.

The other key was that the public wanted to hear a different voice. Clearly Alberta wants the same with the rise of the WAP.

Another concern is that the people involved in Renew and the Alberta Party are right now disenfranchised with their previous parties. So they seem to me to be insiders and may not be as connected to the 60% of Albertans who did not vote. They may want to be, but parties have a tendancy to create bubbles around members, the so called ‘drinkng the kool-aid’ effect. My sense is that this heavy emphasis on citizen engagement for the sake of engagement is becoming the kool-aid and i do not believe that is what people are looking for.

I think any electorate can be expanded, but it requires a different approach, by first building a different and open party. I’m not sure that the Alberta Party has positioned itself in that manner.

I also think that people care far less about policy per se, but that the actions and character of leaders reflect their sensibilities. If those are event, then I think policy matters more.

Anyways, good discussion. Hope I’ve pulled my head out of my ass :-P

Thanks for coming back and making a few things clear.

I agree with you that all party related expenditures should be fully transparent. It would be one step towards full accountability. I just don’t understand why some people have a problem with that. I don’t need to see personal financial details, of course.

(I think I need a button that will allow people to be notified via email of responses. Must be a widget for that!)

I agree it will be interesting to see how it plays out in terms of implementing the ideas, policies and constitution they derive from the Big Listen.

While they may not be a threat at this point, if the party gets its act together quickly, if their platform is in the same ballpark as the Liberals or NDP, in my opinion, they could be a legitimate threat.

As I said, whether I vote for them or not remains to be seen. I tend to be distrustful of all political parties.

“All secrets are deep. All secrets become dark. That’s in the nature of secrets.”
Cory Doctorow,
Someone Comes To Town, Someone Leaves Town, 2005

I just want it to be clear, that my personal blog is just that; personal. There is no connection to any party or initiative or as Chris LB refers to it a “WAP misinformation campaign.”

I was the CFO for the WAP up until January 2009. (over a year ago now). I did operate a bookkeeping business before I got involved with the party and I am currently trying to rebuild that business… so if you know anyone looking…. wink, wink, nudge, nudge….LOL

I have no more knowledge of Danielle’s campaign contributors than the general public. While I don’t share your concern over “where” they came from; I do agree they should be public and transparent.

I agree with Lorne Gibson’s recommendations (at least I think it was one of his); that Leadership races be subject to the same reportiing guidelines of parties and candidates who run in general elections. I would even go a step further and suggest there should be a full accounting of the expenditures. I think this would speak volumes as to where one stands on the fiscal spectrum.

Thanks Alain, have a good evening.