Alberta Business Marketing

I’m not a big fan of party politics. I could care less which party is in charge. I care more about who the people in government are and what kinds of decisions they make. [Note: This last sentence was cut from the printed version, but I thought it was important so I added it back in for my blog.]

With three leadership races going on at the provincial level there is an immense possibility for new leadership, some names are even being touted as leader for more than one party.

To that end I posted a poll on my blog to find out which individuals would make Albertans proud to have as premier; regardless of party affiliation. I invited readers to pick one of the recently rumoured candidates or to pick several — after all I doubt there is just one and one alone we’d be happy with and I suspect there might be one in more than one party.

I would never tout the results of my unscientific poll as looking anything like the possible outcome of an election, but there were some interesting outcomes which could indicate some emerging trends and give some food for thought.

First, the parties with established leaders in Brian Mason and Danielle Smith didn’t outpace as many of the potential candidates of other parties as I thought they would. This should indicate to the Progressive Conservatives and Alberta Party that at this point their eventual leaders are not as far behind in public consciousness as one might think.

The news is not as good for the Liberal party however. Of the rumoured candidates for its leadership, none of them made much of a blip. Kent Hehr did okay. It’s clear he would be the only current Liberal with a chance of righting their ship. Of course rumours also say he’s being wooed by the Alberta Party and the poll tells me he’d probably have more success there.

My informal poll also shows that the two front runners for the Progressive Conservative leadership are Doug Griffiths and Alison Redford. Their support is solid enough I would be shocked if either don’t run.

The numbers also illustrate many PC hopefuls such as Doug Horner and Jim Dinning would run in the middle of the pack and not make much of an impact in a general election. (Don’t forget this is what they said about Ed Stelmach too though.) However the vote for rumoured candidates Gene Zwozdesky, Gary Mar, Jonathan Denis and Ken Hughes was so abysmal I’m confident in saying unless they have a big game changer in their playbook that no one else has they should save themselves the time and embarrassment.

The big surprise in the poll however was a name I had heard rumoured six months ago but not lately, which I included on a whim. Chima Nkemdirim, someone I thought would have polled near the bottom instead was right at the top. Nkemdirim is Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s chief of staff. If he were to run, I’m confident he’d make a big splash with broad based support from all areas of the political spectrum.

Calgary original: http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/local/article/769602–focusing-on-the-individual-not-the-party

Edmonton original: http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/local/article/769602–focusing-on-the-individual-not-the-party

Tags: Alberta Liberal Party, Alberta Party, Alison Redford, Brian Mason, Chima Nkemdirim, Danielle Smith, Doug Griffiths, Doug Horner, Gary Mar, Gene Zwozdesky, Jim Dinning, Jonathan Denis, Ken Hughes, Kent Hehr, Metro Column, Naheed Nenshi, Politics
Posted in Alberta Business, Alberta PC Party | | Comments Off

I’m not a fan of party politics. Quite frankly I could care less which “party” is in charge. I care more about who the people in government are and what kinds of decisions they make. With three leadership races going on at the provincial level there is an immense possibility for new leadership, some names are even being touted as leader for more than one party.

To that end I wanted to post a poll here on the blog to find out who would make you proud to have as our premier. Regardless of party affiliation. So have at it. Pick one or pick several. Who do you think would do a good job?

If you’d like me to add more names to the poll, just leave them in the comments.

Tags: Alison Redford, Brian Mason, Chima Nkemdirim, Danielle Smith, Dave Taylor, Doug Griffiths, Doug Horner, Gary Mar, Gene Zwozdesky, Glenn Taylor, Jim Dinning, Jim Prentice, Jonathan Denis, Ken Hughes, Kent Hehr, Laurie Blakeman, Lindsay Blackett, Politics, Satya Das, Ted Morton
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

While the timing of today’s announcement by Premier Ed Stelmach may be a surprise, his resignation itself should not be. For months there have been grumblings about how the Progressive Conservative party will handle the next election.

The Wildrose Party has positioned itself as an heir apparent making room for all Alberta conservatives. Meanwhile disenfranchised progressives – mainly, but not exclusively PC members – have been toying with what the Alberta Party could be for them. In short, the party that’s been in power for 40 years was being torn in two with only the most ardent supporters who have fought tooth and nail to get where they were inside the party remaining loyal.

Observers and every PC insider knew something had to give. Polls, predictions and even gut feelings all were showing that with Stelmach leading the party into an election they were going to take a beating on all fronts. My prediction was a minority PC government being the outcome. To many, this was a best case scenario.

PC members aren’t stupid however. They could see the future coming too. With so much outsider anger (and even insider for that matter) directed at Stelmach’s seeming inability to gain enough traction with Albertans his fate was sealed. It was just a question whether he stepped aside before or after the next election. Obviously he’d prefer to wait to do it on his own terms, but as things got more and more dim for his party’s future, more and more of his own caucus mates began pondering how to speed things up to save the entire party. And their own seats.

Given all this there was a small movement afoot within caucus to push Stelmach out. However things hadn’t gotten dire enough for it to be a full blown organized coup yet. But if things did get worse, it would be. And for the internal politics of the party to blow up so close to an election would have all but handed the premier’s seat to Danielle Smith. Stelmach, a 25 year veteran, must have seen this too. And so he decided to do what was best for him and his entire party. Today he swallowed his pride and jumped on the grenade.

The table is clear now. The future is whatever the PCs make of it. The Stelmach baggage is gone and there is still enough time for a new leader to set a new tone to rival the other parties and win voter support. The party has had its biggest burden lifted. They still have lots of baggage, but it’s now at least more similar in size to that of it’s competitors.

Next in part 2: what the resignation means for opposition parties.

Tags: Alberta Party, Danielle Smith, Ed Stelmach, Politics, Wildrose Alliance
Posted in Alberta Business, Alberta PC Party | | Comments Off

It seems strange to me to congratulate someone who is effectively spewing venom. But I feel proud of Rob Anderson for switching allegiance from the Alberta PCs to the Wildrose Alliance. No sooner had he made the announcement and he began immediately exposing the dark corners of the Government he had supported and loved so dearly not so long ago.

To do this takes gumption and honesty. It could not have been an easy decision, but assuming he is telling the truth, it is clearly one based on morality and I applaud him for this. We need more politicians who are willing to be open and honest with the public and who are willing to stake their career on correcting their mistakes.

Yet, that is where my applause for his and Heather Forsyth’s defection ends.

If you don’t read many Alberta political blogs then you probably haven’t seen an interesting phenomenon happening coming out of the Reboot Alberta conference. Average citizens who attended – and many who didn’t – have been taking the time to put into writing what they believe the definition of “progressive” is. “Progressive” being what Rebooters have branded themselves as. (My own thoughts on the subject will come in the near future in the form of a series of posts.)

In my mind, I find myself amazed at the number of Albertan’s taking the time, through this difficult exercise, to try and spell out what they want their province to look like – and how Alberta might get from where it is now, to that point.

I’m not seeing this kind of open idealogical and policy development happening with the Wildrose Alliance and that concerns me. Hardly anyone is talking about what it means to be a Wildrose supporter. Especially before choosing to become one.

Up until this point the majority of what the general public has seen is a party which is defining itself via negative statements: i.e. “We are not the Tories.” This was perhaps most clearly stated during the Calgary-Glenmore by-election when the slogan the Wildrose Alliance staked their claim with was “Send Ed a Message”. There was nothing in there about how their position would be any different, but that’s okay because it tapped into a societal urge to do just that: send Ed a message. (Remember the Liberals did come in second in the race, also beating out the PC candidate. Meaning many voters chose to send a message too, just via a different channel.)

The problem with defining yourself in such a way is you’ve left the power to define you in the hands of your opposition. It would be very easy for Ed Stelmach to simply illustrate ‘the message was received’ and suddenly you’re brand has dried up. To be truly effective, the Wildrose Alliance are going to have to illustrate what they are and just what they are not.

So who is the Wildrose Alliance? What do they stand for?

From the policy documents on their website and what their leader Danielle Smith has said in the media, I think they can be summed up as offering ‘change’ or ’something different’. While this doesn’t help solve my previous point it’s not a bad horse to hitch your wagon to. After all, it worked for Barack Obama.

But the point with Obama was, he really did represent a different way of doing things. (Arguments can be made that his results so far have been the same, but his methods have been near polar opposites of his predecessor.) I’m not convinced yet that the Wildrose Alliance really does offer a different way of doing things.

Case in point the addition of Anderson and Forsyth. If you’ve staked your entire brand on the fact you are different than the PC Party, how can you accept two of their MLAs as your own? This appears to be a quick – albeit short-term helpful – abandonment of the central pillar of the brand.

Yet, I think it goes deeper than just this. From what I’ve been told, the Wildrose Alliance party was founded by former PC supporters who feel the party has lost its way over the past however many years. Anderson and Forsyth and the framing of the by-election victory illustrate this disillusion as well.

Here’s my point: if voters are looking for something new – how does the Wildrose Alliance represent anything other than simply the PC Party of the past? That’s not new, that’s simply slapping a new coat of paint on the same thing we’ve already had before. Change for the sake of change, if you will.

I’m not deluded however. This alone may be enough to hand them a majority in the next election. The Liberals – despite David Swann’s best efforts – are looking to do nothing more than change their logo, while the Alberta NDP plod along contemplating no change of any kind. When these are the options you are up against, the Wildrose’s fresh face with the same tired out plan might be more than enough.

I may be wrong, but it strikes me the public don’t just want new people doing the same thing we’ve done before. If given the option, they want Alberta politics to be done in completely different – and better – way.

So far as I can see right now, those bloggers typing out their thoughts on what the province could be are the only ones offering anything “new”. And that’s too bad they’re the only ones.

Tags: Alberta Liberal Party, Alberta NDP Party, Barak Obama, Danielle Smith, Ed Stelmach, Heather Forsyth, Politics, Reboot Alberta, Rob Anderson, Wildrose Alliance
Posted in Alberta Business, Alberta PC Party, Blogging, Marketing | | Comments Off

These days nearly as many people visit albertaventure.com in a month as subscribe to the magazine. And though there is some overlap between the two groups, most absorb our content through one medium or the other, not both.

That leaves us editorial staff in a kind of love-hate relationship with the website. On the one hand, it is a whole additional burden requiring a separate strategy and content development from people raised on print. On the other, it steps in and solves certain limitations to the print product.

A perfect example of the latter is our annual “Best and Worst” feature, commemorating the noteworthy business news of the past year in Alberta. At best the magazine can cover the first 10 months of the year; it typically takes three months to plan, assign, edit, design, print and distribute a paper magazine. The December issue, for example, was on press on Nov. 11. How then do you treat a really important business story like Bill 50, which eventually was passed in the legislature on Nov. 25? Doesn’t that qualify as best or worst, depending on your perspective?

Here’s where the website can really complement our commitment to magazine readers. This year for the first time we’ve committed to continue adding to the Best and Worst package right up to Dec. 31 online. And it’ll still be there in 2010 for those seeking to refer back to a story that took place over this tumultuous year for business.

—–
I’d like to take a moment to comment on a really important development in our neighbouring province to the west that may have escaped the notice of Alberta readers. In November the Nisga’a Lisims government in northwestern B.C., created in 1998 by the province’s first modern aboriginal treaty, passed a law permitting individual, fee-simple ownership of tribal lands.

Other commentators noted the significance of this in the context of the Indian Act (which holds all reserve lands in common) and the evolving social development of Canada’s first nations. They brought up the writings of former World Bank economist Hernando de Soto, who theorized in his book The Mystery of Capital that the most important cause of poverty in the developing world is the inability of individuals to secure title to their land and thus use it as collateral for loans the way most of us in the developed world do. You can see the obvious parallel on Canada’s native reserves where people live in expensive, substandard housing provided by constitutional obligation by a paternal federal government.

But there’s a still more important implication to the province of B.C., where more than 90% of the land base is owned by the Crown (which in most areas bothered neither to conquer nor sign a treaty with the existing inhabitants as a body of international law requires). That’s why, when you drive B.C.’s highways, you have to make sure your gas tank is full; you can go tens, even hundreds of kilometres between commercial developments of any kind. (Compare this to the state of Washington, where you can find motels and service stations and artisanal shops almost anywhere.) The Crown land is off-limits to all but forestry monoculture and preservation. It can only be bought under certain circumstances such as for agriculture, which is impossible in 95% of the mountainous province. Indeed, even the forest licences dictate how and where the tree harvest can be used and processed.

Back in 1991 I flew, then drove, with then-premier Bill Vander Zalm and a clutch of other journalists to the Nisga’a capital of New Aiyansh to see him break with 120 years of denial of native claims and initiate the treaty negotiation with the Nisga’a. Many right-wing commentators then (and remember Vander Zalm was on the far right of the political spectrum) viewed this as unprincipled appeasement of native activism (this was the summer of the Oka standoff) that would deny British Columbians their birthright and remove most of B.C. from the market economy.

However I felt at the time, and last month’s news from New Aiyansh confirms it, that the settlement of land claims would instead liberate B.C. from chronic underdevelopment due to government ownership of the land base. It amounts to the de facto privatization of B.C. Now Nisga’a land can be bought and sold between owners, both native and non-native. Most importantly it can be mortgaged, providing capital to the rural people who most need it. Although there are certain land-use covenants on the land still, I foresee a day when, thanks to the treaty process, anyone can acquire land all over B.C. (which is about twice the size of Alberta, remember) and use it for the highest possible use, whether it be for a woodlot, recreational property, gas station, eco-lodge, what have you. And that will be a very good thing for all of Western Canada.

—–
A number of people have asked me for my thoughts on the Wildrose Alliance. I have to reply that I’m not a political commentator. However in a recent column for Investment Executive shortly after Danielle Smith’s ascension to the party leadership, I did look at some of the economic implications, or rather limitations.

Tags: Best and Worst, BizBeat - Editor's Blog, Danielle Smith, Wildrose Alliance
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off