Women of ABpoli Hot Flashes: Wheat Kings
This Week in AB
What's in a political party, anyway?
"People"; the answer is "people".
After I posted photos of the massive turnout to Leela Aheer's constituency association meeting back in August, Gil McGowan of the Alberta Federation of Labour quoted it with some things I've spent some time thinking about.
"For the 'let's join the UCP and vote for a progressive' crowd; all you've accomplished is giving the UCP more $ to battle real progressives. The UCP is NOT a progressive party and never will be. Part of the whole UCP project was to rid the party of PC centrists. They've succeeded," he wrote.
Now, I don't take this personally, even though I was one of those people who renewed my membership, and it was my tweet.
What I spent time fighting for in those final weeks before the UCP membership deadline was participation, not "voting for a 'progressive'", because McGowan is one hundred per cent correct: the UCP is not a progressive party.
I didn't take it personally because I don't advocate for "progressives" or "conservatives"; I advocate for participation (I'm also not a good partisan but that's another story).
In political parties, insofar as policy is concerned, it's "one member, one vote" -- from those who show up. The people in attendance look at policy proposals and think "would I want this policy from my government?" At least, I do, but see disclaimer above.
To my way of thinking, decisions are made by the people who show up, so, if you show up, you are making the decisions.
But what McGowan said next is what I really needed time with:
"Sadly, that’s not the way political parties work.
They’re not open public forums; they’re private organizations created to achieve ideological & political ends.
The people who run the parties will never allow outsiders with dramatically different goals & aims hijack their club."
Again, he's one hundred per cent correct.
I know this -- it's precisely why I was motivated to start writing about it in the first place -- but this reply was beautifully succinct: political parties are exclusionary on purpose... they don't want your say they just want your vote.
Yet, here's the difference for me: if I zoom out and consider what, exactly, a political party is, to me, it's nothing more than a vehicle -- an empty, motionless vehicle with a shiny paint job.
That is, until you get a driver and pick up some passengers. If people like the direction you're going, they might even hitch their wagons to your vehicle.
Until that happens, you're just a group of philosophers who meet up at a local coffee or brew house and ponder what it means to have "good governance" (I know -- I've done this).
Watching the United Conservative Party form, it seemed perfectly clear to me that parties are just vessels looking for cargo. They don't "mean" anything until they begin to fill up -- with people.
Yet, they're also "private clubs".
They have the power to suspend memberships or deny them in the first place. They have the power to charge people for the privilege of having a say.
I see a bigger (if bleaker) picture: parties are just a reflection of the people showing up; they aren't "progressive" or "conservative" or actually anything at all without people.
If you're "progressive", you'll align with a party who claims they represent progressives (even if they stack the room with paid staffers to steer policy debate and voting).
If you're conservative, you'll align with a party who claims they represent conservatives (even if they stack the room with special interests to steer policy debate and voting).
Look, for instance, at how the Republican Party went from being the party who outlawed slavery to the party that... it is today.
No principles, no values, not one thing more than the sum of its parts (which can be replaced).
I've yet to be convinced otherwise.
Madu offers himself to next anti-science leader and Kenney vs Kenney
It's reminiscent of schoolyard peer pressure.
A group of people encourage someone to do something and then, once they have complied, turn around and mock them for doing the very thing they pushed the target to do.
However, this story isn't really about the feds; it's about a guy who disgraced himself and his position that now wants to show the potential new boss he can be counted on to sink to any depth if it might benefit him politically.
Kaycee Madu, Alberta's former Justice Minister of disrepute -- whose loyalty was rewarded with another Cabinet position after an independent inquiry found his attempt to interfere with the administration of justice was intentional albeit unsuccessful -- held a press conference to announce he stands with those who cost Albertans and Canadians billions with their illegal demonstrations.
Madu claimed Tuesday that federal vaccination rules were "never about science but about political control and power."
Placeholder Jason Kenney chimed in to say that federal rules enacted in December of 2021 had "no scientific rationale".
Alberta's vaccine requirements were implemented in September of 2021 and the soon-to-be former Premier didn't remove them until February of 2022.
If there was no scientific rationale for restricting mobility based on vaccination status in December of 2021, it means Kenney et al. didn't have the rationale to continue restrictions at the provincial level, either.
Later in the week, Kenney shared a reflection that he couldn't have possibly managed on his own.
"I know this is an old fashioned sentiment, but I actually believe civility is a conservative value... and there is a growing sense of profound incivility... and it concerns me greatly," he said at the Canada Strong and Free Network event in Red Deer.
Soon-to-be- former Premier Jason Kenney... the person who coined the term "over-caffeinated lefties"? The person who said the "kooks" were going to take over the UCP? The same person who said the Prime Minister had "the political depth of a finger bowl", is suddenly concerned about incivility?
Or the more likely scenario that he is more concerned that his legacy will be one that finally burned out after setting himself on fire over, and over, and over, again.
Danielle Smith promises pay-as-you-go access to preventative care that will save the health system money but shouldn't be covered as actual health care
Danielle Smith has a great idea: give Albertans access to $300 government dollars each year (if they put $300 of their own money in) so they can access preventative health options that are not considered important enough to be included in actual preventative health options with universal health coverage, but would, she says save the health system money and has the potential to increase our overall health.
Or, it's just priming us for the eventual Conservative Party of Canada government that wants to tear up the Canada Public Health Act and give us the freedom to choose to pay for life-saving, for-profit treatment options. I digress.
It's difficult to slam Smith's plan completely. The gig economy is only growing, employers don't want to offer benefits to the replaceable cogs that help them profit, and self-employment has been on the rise in the province since oil prices tanked in 2014.
So, a lot of Albertans have no coverage but don't qualify as poverty-level to get government-funded coverage and perhaps can't afford the $400/month for coverage for a family of four through Alberta Blue Cross.
Do people need a $300/year spending account to join a gym or get some quack advice from a pseudo-health professional?
Probably not; anyone who wants to spend their money on either likely isn't worried about putting food on the table.
Would a $300 discount help people with no dental coverage get some cavities filled? Absolutely. A $300 discount on new glasses? You bet.
It's curious that Smith is pushing this program as a way to save money on overall healthcare; if it will reduce the instances of long-term health problems, and reduce the costs on the healthcare system generally, then why aren't these options included in our coverage anyway?
If it's less expensive to cover preventative care then cover preventative care.
My expectations of reason are way, way too high, however.
Le sigh.
UCP announces plans to divest social housing
History is an amazing thing; you can look at outcomes of different policies and decide whether or not that's going to take you where you want to be.
Thankfully, we have papers of record that have kept track of policy outcomes and most of this information is readily available.
In Britain, social housing is called "council housing" (probably because municipal governments were responsible for it). Originally, all council housing was recommended to be sold off to tenants after 10 years. It was established as a way to ensure people had housing but could also move into private ownership.
For some, mostly wealthier individuals, the program was a success. For those who could not afford to buy their homes, even at discounted rates, the government moved to sell the properties to the highest bidder.
The practice of "right to buy" has led the policy to be one of the most scrutinized over the course of decades and familial generations. There is a lot of available information on how the program has fared since before Margaret Thatcher's time.
The Alberta government, however, as they discuss selling to municipalities (download), non-profit groups (decentralization of decision-making), and private companies (for-profit rentals) somehow says it's "not about privatization".
"The provincial government suggests it cannot afford to update the existing stock of affordable housing, nor meet the current need for certain types of housing. Transferring ownership would allow 'more responsive and preventive maintenance over the long-term,' according to the CBC.
The province has a much more enviable revenue sheet than anyone they are looking to offload these properties to... but someone else is going to have the money?
Seriously. Read the CBC article and then read the Guardian's and tell me how it's different. Please.
But there's also good news!
Dr. Lisa Young should be a familiar name in Alberta political analysis. She'll be putting together a new newsletter that focuses on the bigger questions of policy in Alberta.
As we all prep for the dreaded UCP leadership announcement on October 6, I'm especially looking forward to seeing her views of how politics gets in the way of good policy-making decisions.
“Today's newsletter - What can '70s TV teach us about the Sovereignty Act? https://t.co/ylVpLNfDZW”
Canada
It's not as funny when you have to explain the joke -- or the grammar
Freelance journalist Dale Smith made a snark on the twitters.
After the video of PM Trudeau singing Bohemian Rhapsody in a piano bar while in the U.K. for the Queen's funeral made the rounds, Garnett Genuis, the Alberta MP from Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan incorporated lines from the song into his question in the House of Commons on Thursday.
It was creative, even if the delivery was bsolutely cringey, but it's political theatre -- at least it hit multiple levels.
In response, Smith remarked "Genuis tries to includes lyrics from “Bohemian Rhapsody” in his question, and I cannot tell you how lame it is. When horses are this lame, you shoot them."
Now, during the pandemic, I discovered that far too many people have difficulty identifying the subject of a sentence. So, it's hardly surprising that some of the current CPC representation also fits into this group.
Before I go there, I'll spell it out: Genuis is the author of the subject, not the subject. The subject of Smith's comment is "lyrics from Bohemian Rhapsody in his question". The "it" referred to in "I cannot tell you how lame it is" is referring to the subject, not the author of the subject (who would also reasonably be referred to as "he" rather than "it" if we really wanted to say Smith was trying to go there).
Now, maybe you can ignore all of that and work your way around to Smith alleging that Genuis was a horse, with a broken leg, who should be shot (just not if you understand how grammar works).
Newly-crowned CPC leader Pierre Poilievre couldn't resist getting in on the potential virality and demanded to see more outrage.
"So a member of the press gallery tweets that a Conservative MP should be shot. Where is the outrage? Have the Prime Minister or journalists condemned this incitement to violence?" Poilievre wrote on Twitter.
Notice that we've moved seamlessly from the potential in Dancho's tweet ("insinuating an MP should be shot") and straight to the affirmative in Poilievre's ("tweets that a Conservative MP should be shot").
The manufactured feelings continued with the Conservatives demanding Smith's security credentials be removed because Genuis said he "felt threatened".
“In the current climate we should all know the risks associated with explicitly inciting violence against public officials,” Genuis said, according to the Toronto Star.
“Some would say surely he is joking, but the problem with so-called jokes implying threats towards public officials is that I, as the target of these comments, (am) somehow supposed to understand and be OK with a threat on the basis of someone’s presumed intentions. And I’m just not OK with this. He may follow me in the halls or hang around our caucus room waiting for me ... I should not have to consider whether or not I will encounter someone who has made a threat to me in the halls of Parliament.”
Again, the lame comment, and hence the shooting of a lame horse punchline was in reference to Genuis' phrasing of his question. However, I guess an argument could be made that Genuis is also lame, and therefore the real subject, as he and some of his caucus have.
Andrew Scheer got in on the action as well saying; "(to) clarify, we are not calling on him to be removed from the Parliamentary Press Gallery. We simply want his security credentials revoked. Someone who incites violence should not be able to bypass metal detectors and sit in a gallery just a few feet away from MPs."
Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Press Gallery also somehow decided grammar didn't matter and "dissociate(d) itself from the comments made by (Smith)". Shake my damned head.
Once again, we are watching narrative-building in the making; just remember it all started by not understanding how sentences work.
Speaking of narrative-building...
Many Canadians live in an information bubble -- some of their own making and some who have yet to realize how much of an information bubble they are currently in.
Inflation is high around the world, but between similar economies, like the U.S., U.K., and Canada, we're faring much better here. That is not to say we couldn't improve (because other countries are doing better) but we are nowhere near the worst.
So far as building on a new narrative that is perhaps three years away from influencing our feelings at the ballot box, we can likely expect that the CPC will still be able to stir up the hatred against Trudeau, who has decided to try and be the first Canadian Prime Minister to win government four times in a row.
If Trudeau doesn't win, he'll be the guy who is universally blamed for not getting out of the way and being an easy target for Poilievre if he becomes the next Prime Minister of Canada.
That is a prediction I'm willing to stand behind.
Final thoughts
“Good save. Good, not great. #ableg”
cover photo credit: