[I reference here some of the "predictions" I made in my April 14 post - see below]
The clearest conclusion is that Premier Redford won her gamble that Alberta had fundamentally changed over the past few years and become a province that is young, urban, multi-cultural and outward looking. On the other hand, Wildrose's call to reinforce traditional "cowboy values" did not resonate. Some policies from the past that were brought forward, including: direct payments from the surplus to citizens, "firewall" proposals such as a provincial police force and an Alberta Pension Plan not only did not resonate but produced a backlash - during the campaign.
Then there were the "bozo eruptions" highlighting the rapid growth of a Wildrose Party that didn't have time to properly vet its candidates. One of these - Allan Hunsperger's year old article about gays ending up in an "eternal lake of fire" were well deserved rebukes. Anyone who subscribes to these 12th Century dogmas is an embarrassment to their church, let alone their constituency. [He did, though garner over 2000 votes, some 17% of the total and ahead of 3 other candidates - so go figure.] The other prominent "bozo" - Ron Leech - was running in a thoroughly multi-cultural constituency. He was aware of divisions between people of Pakistani and East Indian background - not to mention Sikh-Hindu-Muslim frictions. He tried to say [during an interview on a Punjabi radio station] that he could be perceived as apart from this factionalism because of his "old stock" background. However, these nuances quickly were lost and he became part of the "scary narrative". His successful PC opponent, Manmeet Bhullar, put it best when he commented “Mr. Leech lives in the past, we’ll let him stay in the past.” More than the multi-cultural angle, this statement captures the irony that whereas in 1971 when Peter Lougheed overthrew the tired 36 year long Social Credit regime, he represented the young, energetic, "hip" generation - the threat to the PC's in the 2012 election came from a Wildrose Party that too easily had its views and personnel characterized as old-fashioned and "uncool".
Wildrose is taking consolation from the facts that it moved from 4 to 17 seats (in an 87 seat legislature) and that it's percentage of the popular vote overall was close to 35%. These are being claimed as a basis upon which to grow. However, if my analysis above is correct, it's hard to see how Wildrose can grow. The bulk of their support is from older, Alberta-born, rural voters. All of these elements are decreasing in numbers and influence. The complete shut-out of the Wildrose in both Edmonton and Calgary [2 partially rural Calgary fringe seats being the exception, perhaps] and even PC victories in urban Red Deer and Lethbridge - islands in a Wildrose sea - point to Wildrose being born as a spent force.
Some will also argue that there is time for Danielle Smith and her winnowed caucus to grow and mature as the official opposition. However, it's hard to imagine the PC's being more vulnerable than they have been in the last 2 years. The arrogance, entitlement and corruption were close enough to the surface to be visible but those Albertans who voted (about 57%) by and large opted for the usual garden variety politics rather than the "scary" alternative of a thorny Wildrose, blooming wild and unpruned.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Alberta Election Patterns
Thanks to those who urged me to get back to this blog especially with an election on!
I was probably among the first to point out the "3 and out" pattern in Alberta's political history, many years ago when I taught a course on Western Canadian History. During the current campaign there have been a number of references to this pattern even though it was broken by Premiers Stelmach and Redford.
Briefly, the pattern was: long periods in power by a party with huge majorities; then a pivotal election when the governing party was overwhelmingly defeated by an entirely new party who won a large majority. On top of this was the pattern that each governing era featured three premiers. Thus it went:
Liberals: 1905 - 1921 - Premiers Rutherford, Sifton, Stewart
United Farmers of Alberta: 1921 - 1935 - Premiers Greenfield, Brownlee, Reid
Social Credit: 1935 - 1971 - Premiers Aberhart, Manning, Strome
Progressive Conservatives: 1971 - 2012 - Premiers Lougheed, Getty, Klein - AND then - Stelmach, Redford
Some are pointing to this overall pattern as foreshadowing a large scale victory by newcomer Wildrose in 2012.
Another dichotomy that has emerged in the campaign is between "traditional Alberta" and "modern Alberta". Candidate Danielle Smith has put forward "cowboy values" [Play fair. Speak the truth. Keep your promise.] as central to Alberta's identity. Premier Redford is conspicuously distancing herself from the traditional with the slogan "Not your father's PC Party" and appealing to what she sees as a new liberal, urban, multi-cultural, secular Albertan. Each is gambling their electoral success on which Alberta will vote on April 23, 2012.
The two paradigms intersect over the question of; "Will Alberta continue its tradition of a political monoculture where there are very small numbers of Opposition MLAs. From current polling results it appears that Albertans generally are turning to Wildrose with the significant exception being Edmonton.
Finally, it certainly seems to be time for a change as a culture of corruption and entitlement has settled over the PCs. The polls are increasingly pointing to a Wildrose majority. However, historical events are never as "inevitable" as they always appear in retrospect. Will Redford reprise the fall of Kim Campbell or will Smith be in the tradition of Nancy Betkowski. On April 24th it will all be much clearer.
I was probably among the first to point out the "3 and out" pattern in Alberta's political history, many years ago when I taught a course on Western Canadian History. During the current campaign there have been a number of references to this pattern even though it was broken by Premiers Stelmach and Redford.
Briefly, the pattern was: long periods in power by a party with huge majorities; then a pivotal election when the governing party was overwhelmingly defeated by an entirely new party who won a large majority. On top of this was the pattern that each governing era featured three premiers. Thus it went:
Liberals: 1905 - 1921 - Premiers Rutherford, Sifton, Stewart
United Farmers of Alberta: 1921 - 1935 - Premiers Greenfield, Brownlee, Reid
Social Credit: 1935 - 1971 - Premiers Aberhart, Manning, Strome
Progressive Conservatives: 1971 - 2012 - Premiers Lougheed, Getty, Klein - AND then - Stelmach, Redford
Some are pointing to this overall pattern as foreshadowing a large scale victory by newcomer Wildrose in 2012.
Another dichotomy that has emerged in the campaign is between "traditional Alberta" and "modern Alberta". Candidate Danielle Smith has put forward "cowboy values" [Play fair. Speak the truth. Keep your promise.] as central to Alberta's identity. Premier Redford is conspicuously distancing herself from the traditional with the slogan "Not your father's PC Party" and appealing to what she sees as a new liberal, urban, multi-cultural, secular Albertan. Each is gambling their electoral success on which Alberta will vote on April 23, 2012.
The two paradigms intersect over the question of; "Will Alberta continue its tradition of a political monoculture where there are very small numbers of Opposition MLAs. From current polling results it appears that Albertans generally are turning to Wildrose with the significant exception being Edmonton.
Finally, it certainly seems to be time for a change as a culture of corruption and entitlement has settled over the PCs. The polls are increasingly pointing to a Wildrose majority. However, historical events are never as "inevitable" as they always appear in retrospect. Will Redford reprise the fall of Kim Campbell or will Smith be in the tradition of Nancy Betkowski. On April 24th it will all be much clearer.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Obama does Alberta a Favour
One of the most telling points against the increasingly decrepit Alberta government of the late 1960s was that we were exporting raw coal to Japan and receiving only 10 cents per tonne in royalties. Peter Lougheed used this point to advantage to end 36 years of Social Credit rule and usher in his Progressive Conservative party. While there has been significant improvement in adding value in Alberta through, for example, development of a petro-chemical industry, far more could be done and it is to our embarrassment that we are still exporting huge quantities of crude oil and, yes, raw coal [2010 royalties amounted to 75 cents per produced tonne]. (1)
President Obama's scuttling of the Keystone XL pipeline could be a favour to Alberta if we respond to it as an opportunity to dramatically enhance our capacity to add value to our petroleum resources and end the short sighted policies of exporting our raw resources. [Canadian economic history is characterized by the over reliance on primary products: fish, fur, forest, and farm production exported in its raw form without consequent economic diversification and capital accumulation.] Alberta should respond with an immediate tax on crude oil exports to incentivize refinery and petro-chemical construction here, and encourage further tertiary production. The income from such a tax should be targeted to enhance our highways and streets, and reduce the provincial tax on diesel fuel and gasoline.
In the late 1960s, Albertans were proud to have the best highways in Canada. Bill Hawrelak swept into the mayor's chair in Edmonton on a promise to pave every street in Edmonton. [Exciting stuff to those of us who drove on the gravel trail through Jasper Place (today's 156 street)]. Today we are relieved if some of the major potholes have recently been patched, but we should be embarrassed it has come to this. We should also be embarrassed that more often than not gasoline can be bought in Toronto at a lower price than in Alberta (not to mention in Houston).
[As of this date Houston = 81.9 cents/liter vs Edmonton = 105.9 cents per liter]
These figures should cause us to ask why we should be so enthusiastic about supporting the Keystone XL pipeline which would export not only our crude oil but the consequent capital investment, job creation, and economic spin-offs to Houston rather than retaining all of these in Alberta.
It is surprising that the Wildrose has been such a vocal supporter of XL. A recent press release (2) claims that the XL pipeline somehow would reduce the gap between West Texas Intermediate and Brent crudes! [This is the implication of what is said, if one reads the press release. However, while there is a gap, the relevant gap is between the various spot prices in Western Canada, say Hardisty Heavy (3) and the imputed "world price" which traditionally has been considered the WTI price.]
As someone who grew up in the original Heavy Oil belt around Lloydminster, I know that there are many factors which contribute to the lower spot prices in Western Canada. These have more to do with the composition of the crude or blend, distance from markets, and so on. Thus, increased pipeline capacity is no more likely to increase the spot price for Lloydminster crude than did twinning the railroads (itself) result in increased spot grain prices for Lloydminster farmers.
The vision we should have is of an Alberta 10 years from now where we again have the best roadways in Canada, where Albertans pay the lowest prices in Canada for diesel and gasoline, where our export of unprocessed primary products has been eliminated, and Albertans have a reduced tax burden - all helping to make us truly "strong and free" - not just the most efficient exporters of our natural resources.
(1) http://www.energy.alberta.ca/coal/643.asp
(2) http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/keystone-delay-costs-alberta-treasury-billions
(3) http://www.lloydminsterheavyoil.com/
President Obama's scuttling of the Keystone XL pipeline could be a favour to Alberta if we respond to it as an opportunity to dramatically enhance our capacity to add value to our petroleum resources and end the short sighted policies of exporting our raw resources. [Canadian economic history is characterized by the over reliance on primary products: fish, fur, forest, and farm production exported in its raw form without consequent economic diversification and capital accumulation.] Alberta should respond with an immediate tax on crude oil exports to incentivize refinery and petro-chemical construction here, and encourage further tertiary production. The income from such a tax should be targeted to enhance our highways and streets, and reduce the provincial tax on diesel fuel and gasoline.
In the late 1960s, Albertans were proud to have the best highways in Canada. Bill Hawrelak swept into the mayor's chair in Edmonton on a promise to pave every street in Edmonton. [Exciting stuff to those of us who drove on the gravel trail through Jasper Place (today's 156 street)]. Today we are relieved if some of the major potholes have recently been patched, but we should be embarrassed it has come to this. We should also be embarrassed that more often than not gasoline can be bought in Toronto at a lower price than in Alberta (not to mention in Houston).
[As of this date Houston = 81.9 cents/liter vs Edmonton = 105.9 cents per liter]
These figures should cause us to ask why we should be so enthusiastic about supporting the Keystone XL pipeline which would export not only our crude oil but the consequent capital investment, job creation, and economic spin-offs to Houston rather than retaining all of these in Alberta.
It is surprising that the Wildrose has been such a vocal supporter of XL. A recent press release (2) claims that the XL pipeline somehow would reduce the gap between West Texas Intermediate and Brent crudes! [This is the implication of what is said, if one reads the press release. However, while there is a gap, the relevant gap is between the various spot prices in Western Canada, say Hardisty Heavy (3) and the imputed "world price" which traditionally has been considered the WTI price.]
As someone who grew up in the original Heavy Oil belt around Lloydminster, I know that there are many factors which contribute to the lower spot prices in Western Canada. These have more to do with the composition of the crude or blend, distance from markets, and so on. Thus, increased pipeline capacity is no more likely to increase the spot price for Lloydminster crude than did twinning the railroads (itself) result in increased spot grain prices for Lloydminster farmers.
The vision we should have is of an Alberta 10 years from now where we again have the best roadways in Canada, where Albertans pay the lowest prices in Canada for diesel and gasoline, where our export of unprocessed primary products has been eliminated, and Albertans have a reduced tax burden - all helping to make us truly "strong and free" - not just the most efficient exporters of our natural resources.
(1) http://www.energy.alberta.ca/coal/643.asp
(2) http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/keystone-delay-costs-alberta-treasury-billions
(3) http://www.lloydminsterheavyoil.com/
Friday, October 14, 2011
Saskatchewan Votes
I was contacted recently by a member of the Lloydminster media for some commentary on the upcoming Saskatchewan provincial election (November 7). Since few of my comments survived to appear in the media, I record the actual context of my remarks below.
First, I was asked for a general prediction of the election outcome. [I've learned that despite being an Historian, I'm more often asked to predict the future than explain the past.] The simple headline version of my prediction was - "Wall Wins - Big". This was based on some polling showing the Saskatchewan Party running over 60%. These levels are enough for them to make substantial gains over their 38 - 20 seat lead at dissolution. I was asked whether the NDP promises, such as the recently announced rent control regime, would excite voters. My response was that I thought such policies hearkened back to the days of the NDP 30 years ago. I questioned how relevant they are to today's Saskatchewan. I ventured that the mood in Saskatchewan was much more optimistic these days about individual achievement with a new emphasis on upward social and economic mobility rather than reliance on government. I gathered that this general line was not exactly what the media person was expecting or wanting. The follow up question was to comment on the strengths of the NDP. I offered that in Mr. Lingenfelter they had an experienced leader [first elected to the legislature in 1978] but that still didn't seem likely to bring about NDP electoral success. Did this mean the NDP needed a shake-up? I said they might well but those prospects did not seem likely if my assessment of the changing nature of the Saskatchewan elector was correct. If it is true that Saskatchewanians are more entrepreneurial, independent, and optimistic than they were 50 years ago, then an NDP pasting at the polls is likely to move the NDP in the opposite direction. The reason for this is that when a party is far from power it attracts more ideological, issue centered supporters making it less representative of the province generally. I observed this years ago when the NDP was in power in Saskatchewan. Those attending party conventions seemed like people you would meet at any function across the province. [My cousin was party president!] At the same time, in Alberta, the NDP were lucky to have one or two MLA's and party conventions were dominated by union leaders and spokespeople for various and sundry single issue causes. The people attending seemed far from ordinary folk and appeared to like it that way.
The next question was about the prospects for the Greens. Would they make a breakthrough? My response was that, in terms of the election, they were irrelevant (standing in the polls as they were around 3%).
As a sort of consolation prize after this thorough vetting of any possible opposition, I was asked what I thought the interesting issues in the election were. I put forward two.
1. Whether the Saskatchewan Party would continue to increase its representation in urban ridings. [Some may remember the 2003 Saskatchewan Election when the distribution looked like this:]
This was the most remarkable rural urban split ever seen. In the 2007 election the Saskatchewan Party made enough inroads into the urban vote to win a comfortable majority. That trend, of urban voters supporting the more conservative approach of the Saskatchewan Party will need to continue if the prediction of "Wall Wins -Big" is to come true.
2. Whether the Aboriginal vote will show signs of "maturing". The term "immature voting bloc" was sometimes used in the early 20th Century to refer to immigrant voters who tended to vote as a bloc, usually for the party in power. The assumption was that voters were not versed in the issues or process so they followed the advice of their leaders. A good example of this was the so-called "Boss System" in many cities in the United States. [Some political scientists have pointed out that although the system was roundly criticized there was an element of democracy about it. Bosses had to deliver at least some benefits to their group and because they were able to deliver a bloc of votes they often could negotiate for such benefits.] That such a "system" is in place is one way of explaining that votes in recent Saskatchewan elections in some First Nations communities have seen NDP support as high as 98%. The argument is that it is almost impossible among "mature" voters to exceed 80% on anything. As well, the NDP have invested heavily in courting the Aboriginal vote, calculating, correctly, that Aboriginals are a large and rapidly growing demographic. So the question is, will Aboriginal voters still represent a monolithic bloc vote and help the NDP win 5 or 6 seats, or will Aboriginal voters be more diverse in their support or even transfer support to the Saskatchewan Party in light of their presumed victory?
.
First, I was asked for a general prediction of the election outcome. [I've learned that despite being an Historian, I'm more often asked to predict the future than explain the past.] The simple headline version of my prediction was - "Wall Wins - Big". This was based on some polling showing the Saskatchewan Party running over 60%. These levels are enough for them to make substantial gains over their 38 - 20 seat lead at dissolution. I was asked whether the NDP promises, such as the recently announced rent control regime, would excite voters. My response was that I thought such policies hearkened back to the days of the NDP 30 years ago. I questioned how relevant they are to today's Saskatchewan. I ventured that the mood in Saskatchewan was much more optimistic these days about individual achievement with a new emphasis on upward social and economic mobility rather than reliance on government. I gathered that this general line was not exactly what the media person was expecting or wanting. The follow up question was to comment on the strengths of the NDP. I offered that in Mr. Lingenfelter they had an experienced leader [first elected to the legislature in 1978] but that still didn't seem likely to bring about NDP electoral success. Did this mean the NDP needed a shake-up? I said they might well but those prospects did not seem likely if my assessment of the changing nature of the Saskatchewan elector was correct. If it is true that Saskatchewanians are more entrepreneurial, independent, and optimistic than they were 50 years ago, then an NDP pasting at the polls is likely to move the NDP in the opposite direction. The reason for this is that when a party is far from power it attracts more ideological, issue centered supporters making it less representative of the province generally. I observed this years ago when the NDP was in power in Saskatchewan. Those attending party conventions seemed like people you would meet at any function across the province. [My cousin was party president!] At the same time, in Alberta, the NDP were lucky to have one or two MLA's and party conventions were dominated by union leaders and spokespeople for various and sundry single issue causes. The people attending seemed far from ordinary folk and appeared to like it that way.
The next question was about the prospects for the Greens. Would they make a breakthrough? My response was that, in terms of the election, they were irrelevant (standing in the polls as they were around 3%).
As a sort of consolation prize after this thorough vetting of any possible opposition, I was asked what I thought the interesting issues in the election were. I put forward two.
1. Whether the Saskatchewan Party would continue to increase its representation in urban ridings. [Some may remember the 2003 Saskatchewan Election when the distribution looked like this:]
2. Whether the Aboriginal vote will show signs of "maturing". The term "immature voting bloc" was sometimes used in the early 20th Century to refer to immigrant voters who tended to vote as a bloc, usually for the party in power. The assumption was that voters were not versed in the issues or process so they followed the advice of their leaders. A good example of this was the so-called "Boss System" in many cities in the United States. [Some political scientists have pointed out that although the system was roundly criticized there was an element of democracy about it. Bosses had to deliver at least some benefits to their group and because they were able to deliver a bloc of votes they often could negotiate for such benefits.] That such a "system" is in place is one way of explaining that votes in recent Saskatchewan elections in some First Nations communities have seen NDP support as high as 98%. The argument is that it is almost impossible among "mature" voters to exceed 80% on anything. As well, the NDP have invested heavily in courting the Aboriginal vote, calculating, correctly, that Aboriginals are a large and rapidly growing demographic. So the question is, will Aboriginal voters still represent a monolithic bloc vote and help the NDP win 5 or 6 seats, or will Aboriginal voters be more diverse in their support or even transfer support to the Saskatchewan Party in light of their presumed victory?
.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Political Questions
Let's try some collaborative journalism. We know a few things. We need to find out more things. Can you help?
What we know:
1. Danielle Smith, Leader of the Wildrose Alliance, has had a very successful tour of Alberta over the past 3 weeks. As Don Braid commented in the Calgary Herald one of the things that has made this tour both useful and unusual is that Smith has met with a number of town, city and municipal councils to review their concerns. As Braid put it, "Until Wildrose came along, most councils were terrified of the blowback from the government if they paid any opposition party such respect. Liberals couldn't get in even if they brought the doughnuts."
2. Smith's tour organization had set up (and publicized) a meeting with the city council of Cold Lake for 4:30 pm on August 9, just prior to the council's regular meeting at 6:00 pm.
3. In the interval between the scheduling of Smith's meeting and it taking place, Lloyd Snelgrove, Progressive Conservative MLA, president of the Treasury Board, and Minister of Finance and Enterprise, contacted the City of Cold Lake to inform them that he could meet with them and the meeting was set at 4:00 pm on August 9. Cold Lake officials after accepting the meeting with Snelgrove said that the meeting with Smith would be "re-scheduled" to a later date.
4. Cold Lake has had long running financial difficulties as the cost of providing services to the rapidly growing community has outstripped the city's tax base. There has even been consideration of dissolving the City and adopting a set up analogous to Sherwood Park which is an unincorporated community in the County of Strathcona. A similar arrangement for Cold Lake would give them access to the oil related revenues of the surrounding municipal district.
What we don't know:
1. The purpose, content, and outcome of the Snelgrove meeting with Cold Lake council.
2. Whether Snelgrove was aware of the scheduled meeting of Smith with council before asking for his own meeting and whether another day or time would have been possible for him.
3. Whether anyone suggested including Smith in the meeting of Snelgrove with council.
4. Whether the citizens of Cold Lake are better off because of the meeting that took place or whether they will be better served after the "re-scheduled" meeting takes place.
If you can provide information about the things we don't know, please comment below. If we get informed, useful, and accurate comments - we can continue to construct the story together.
What we know:
1. Danielle Smith, Leader of the Wildrose Alliance, has had a very successful tour of Alberta over the past 3 weeks. As Don Braid commented in the Calgary Herald one of the things that has made this tour both useful and unusual is that Smith has met with a number of town, city and municipal councils to review their concerns. As Braid put it, "Until Wildrose came along, most councils were terrified of the blowback from the government if they paid any opposition party such respect. Liberals couldn't get in even if they brought the doughnuts."
2. Smith's tour organization had set up (and publicized) a meeting with the city council of Cold Lake for 4:30 pm on August 9, just prior to the council's regular meeting at 6:00 pm.
3. In the interval between the scheduling of Smith's meeting and it taking place, Lloyd Snelgrove, Progressive Conservative MLA, president of the Treasury Board, and Minister of Finance and Enterprise, contacted the City of Cold Lake to inform them that he could meet with them and the meeting was set at 4:00 pm on August 9. Cold Lake officials after accepting the meeting with Snelgrove said that the meeting with Smith would be "re-scheduled" to a later date.
4. Cold Lake has had long running financial difficulties as the cost of providing services to the rapidly growing community has outstripped the city's tax base. There has even been consideration of dissolving the City and adopting a set up analogous to Sherwood Park which is an unincorporated community in the County of Strathcona. A similar arrangement for Cold Lake would give them access to the oil related revenues of the surrounding municipal district.
What we don't know:
1. The purpose, content, and outcome of the Snelgrove meeting with Cold Lake council.
2. Whether Snelgrove was aware of the scheduled meeting of Smith with council before asking for his own meeting and whether another day or time would have been possible for him.
3. Whether anyone suggested including Smith in the meeting of Snelgrove with council.
4. Whether the citizens of Cold Lake are better off because of the meeting that took place or whether they will be better served after the "re-scheduled" meeting takes place.
If you can provide information about the things we don't know, please comment below. If we get informed, useful, and accurate comments - we can continue to construct the story together.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Health Care Quality Council?
Health Care Quality is a pressing issue. In Alberta, a government mandated and appointed committee has been studying this since 2003. Results so far are meagre. The committee, since 2006 known as the Health Quality Council of Alberta has, according to their website ( http://www.hqca.ca ) lots of the Mission, Vision and Values statements familiar to those of us who spent our careers in bureaucratic organizations. A recent press release (June 29, 2011) sounded promising but a careful reading of it reduced its "News" to 4 points:
1. We've had some meetings.
2. We've talked to some people in the medical establishment.
3. We'll give you a similar report this fall.
4. We may have an actual report in 2012 (after the next election?).
This despite the fact that one of the important issues dates back to 2001, viz.
"Efforts continue to validate the presence of a waitlist for lung surgery in 2001, including patients that died while on that waitlist many of whom had cancer."
There is a definite need for measuring quality of outcomes and ensuring more accountability but the Council's language is not encouraging there either, viz
“Health care is delivered by a complex and interconnected set of service areas. Our experience and knowledge show us that lasting gains in quality health care and patient safety are possible when the focus is on system improvements rather than individual components or care providers.”
Health Quality Council of Alberta, 2009 – 2010 Annual Report, p. 19 http://www.hqca.ca/assets/pdf/Annual_Reports/HQCA_AR_2010.pdf
Can we actually improve a "system" without addressing its components and the individuals who make up that "system"? The "system" is an abstract concept, merely allowing us to talk about the entirety of the complex arrangement of component individuals involved. Efforts to improve the "system" are as vague and ideologically weighted as efforts to reform "society" without blaming any individual or organization within it.
Check out the website and other work of the Health Quality Council and see whether you think they are on the right track to bring real life improvements to the quality of health care and patient safety in Alberta.
1. We've had some meetings.
2. We've talked to some people in the medical establishment.
3. We'll give you a similar report this fall.
4. We may have an actual report in 2012 (after the next election?).
This despite the fact that one of the important issues dates back to 2001, viz.
"Efforts continue to validate the presence of a waitlist for lung surgery in 2001, including patients that died while on that waitlist many of whom had cancer."
There is a definite need for measuring quality of outcomes and ensuring more accountability but the Council's language is not encouraging there either, viz
“Health care is delivered by a complex and interconnected set of service areas. Our experience and knowledge show us that lasting gains in quality health care and patient safety are possible when the focus is on system improvements rather than individual components or care providers.”
Health Quality Council of Alberta, 2009 – 2010 Annual Report, p. 19 http://www.hqca.ca/assets/pdf/Annual_Reports/HQCA_AR_2010.pdf
Can we actually improve a "system" without addressing its components and the individuals who make up that "system"? The "system" is an abstract concept, merely allowing us to talk about the entirety of the complex arrangement of component individuals involved. Efforts to improve the "system" are as vague and ideologically weighted as efforts to reform "society" without blaming any individual or organization within it.
Check out the website and other work of the Health Quality Council and see whether you think they are on the right track to bring real life improvements to the quality of health care and patient safety in Alberta.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Democracy Needs to be Delegated
All the political parties seem to talk about "listening to the people" and the opposition parties also propose various "democratic reforms". Sometimes, though, one wonders if there is a clear idea of what "democracy" really means. The new Alberta Party has proposed a term limit of 10 years on a premier. With a little thought, this can be clearly seen to be anti-democratic. If democracy means anything it means "power to the people" - that is, the people as a whole having the power to change the rules of a society. Term limits give one group, at one point in time, the power to limit the choice of another group, at a different time. [Hazel McCallion has been Mayor of Mississauga for 32 years and the electorate recently confirmed their opinion that she was still the best choice.] Premiers are, of course, not directly elected - another problem with the AB Party proposal, it encourages the false notion that we have a presidential rather than a parliamentary system in Canada.
The term limit idea also perpetuates the notion that the basic problem is that we have the wrong people in office. We all know that when we elect a new crew, it does not take long before they are behaving just like the old crew. What are needed are reforms to the processes. We need greater transparency, accountability, and better means for citizen input into decision making. In short, we need to delegate decision making to "the people". New technologies are enabling much more exercise of direct democracy. If 7 plus million people can vote for Jose Bautista to be in the MLB All-Star game, surely it is time we could do at least plebiscites on issues. Citizen initiatives and referenda are useful steps forward. Individual MLA's could do more by way of developing processes to allow feedback on emerging issues. Political parties can continue to develop meaningful processes for input into their own agendas.
Overall, there are many ways, especially through the new technologies, that we can have input. However, we also need to keep in mind the words of John Adams - democracy can only survive where there is "a wise and virtuous populace".
The term limit idea also perpetuates the notion that the basic problem is that we have the wrong people in office. We all know that when we elect a new crew, it does not take long before they are behaving just like the old crew. What are needed are reforms to the processes. We need greater transparency, accountability, and better means for citizen input into decision making. In short, we need to delegate decision making to "the people". New technologies are enabling much more exercise of direct democracy. If 7 plus million people can vote for Jose Bautista to be in the MLB All-Star game, surely it is time we could do at least plebiscites on issues. Citizen initiatives and referenda are useful steps forward. Individual MLA's could do more by way of developing processes to allow feedback on emerging issues. Political parties can continue to develop meaningful processes for input into their own agendas.
Overall, there are many ways, especially through the new technologies, that we can have input. However, we also need to keep in mind the words of John Adams - democracy can only survive where there is "a wise and virtuous populace".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)