I have had some good spirited debate and e-mails from people on the blog asking me to clarify my position on the Conservative nomination for the Medicine Hat riding. Essentially my concern is that the end result has robbed conservative members of the chance to vote and participate in the nomination process. There is nothing fair, transparent or even democratic about what has happened in Medicine Hat since the federal election was announced.
Outgoing MP Monte Solberg has been the ridings candidate for voters holding conservative ideals for the past 16 years – even pre dating his election as MP. Needless to say there has been no candidate nomination process in our region for over 15 years! The last time there was any reason for members to vote was during the merger of the Alliance party with the PC’s – and Stephen Harper’s leadership bid.
At that time I seem to recall there being Conservative members in our region in substantially more numbers. Its hard to confirm the exact number today – but my recollection was that the Medicine Hat riding had approx 4500 members. Since there has been nothing to vote on most of those members let their card expire. In fact somewhere in the neighborhood of 82% of them did. Most people involved in politics know that it is not uncommon to be able to pick up your membership card at any time and participate in the leadership process if you so desire. It has been presented by some of my esteem blogging compatriots that allowing last min members to vote is somehow undemocratic…
Let me direct your attention to the provincial PC’s. By the way - if you are interested in supporting the Alberta PC party they are having their annual general meeting in Jasper Oct 3-5 where you can vote on issues – memberships will be sold at the door and you can fully participate in the process, including leadership if you so desire.
In fact according to the provincial PC Constitution – anybody is eligible to vote or run so long as they are a member in good standing ON THE DAY they file their nomination papers. Which means that you can walk in off the street pay your $5.00 and file your papers to run, for any position in the party including leader.
http://www.albertapc.ab.ca/public/data/documents/pcconstitutionmay2007.pdf
Enshrined in the Provincial PC constitution is the following:
“Reasonable public notice of the time, date and location of each nomination…and the nomination process must be fair, OPEN, and democratic”
Open – as in, open to all people, there is no 60 day lock out policy that bars new members from participating in a process that was unannounced at the 60 day mark.
This is the norm of party voting in politics. It is absurd to pretend that members of the PC party in Medicine Hat, that have nothing to vote on for years – are somehow negligent for not maintaining their membership. They would have every reasonable expectation that they could buy their membership before they voted. It happens all the time.
Lets review the time line of events for the Medicine Hat constituency
Sept 14, 2008 – Federal Election was called
Sept 12, 2008 – The first announcement that Monte Solberg would not seek re-election
Aug 24th, 2008 – The cut off date that Medicine Hat region Conservative members had to renew their membership to vote…(note this cut off date is 18 days previous to any announcement that there would possibly be a vote)
July 16, 2008 – The retroactive cut off date for potential nomination candidates to renew their membership – 60 days prior to any announcement that there would possibly be a vote.
Remember – we aren’t talking about a couple of members here – we are talking about the vast MAJORITY of them. Any process that excludes the majority of citizens is the furthest thing from democratic.
Earlier I posted the information from the Provincial Conservative constitution – examination of the Federal Conservative constitution is really not much different – judge for yourself if Medicine Hat’s constituency office has maintained the open and democratic principles they have preaching in our community for decades.
The Conservative Party will operate in a manner accountable and responsive to its members
Also to note that there is nothing in the Federal Conservative Party constitution which claims they MUST implement a minimum membership length to participate in the process – and certainly nothing outlining a 20 day / 60 day cut off point. Only that they MAY set a minimum period for membership participation. In light of the fact that it is the MP, not the voter who held out until the 11th hour – it is decidedly undemocratic and un Conservative to have the majority of members frozen out of the candidacy process. A greater number of previous members were EXCLUDED from the process than were eligible to participate.
The Conservative party promised better – and the Medicine Hat riding has been a loyal supporter for decades. We deserved better, we deserved the right to an open and democratic leadership process that allowed the voters, not the outgoing MP, to decide who would represent our Conservative ideals in our region.
http://www.conservative.ca/media/20050319-CPCConstitution.pdf
One solution summed up in two words…paid memberships
As usual DM you have done an excellent job of research to back your editorial. Congrats!.
The bottom line as I see it is that this party under its marketing name of Conservative Party of Canada (it really is 80% Reform now)has turned its back on its principles. It has become as corrupt and as back biting as any other party. In other words it’s playing politics and that’s the game we’re in here, folks.
Some of us look to elections to find candidates to forward our ideals to the government. But it is a rare person who is idealistic that wins. The NDP was idealistic in its approach for years. No one more so than their leader Tommy Douglas. But they are making a bigger stink when they join the other partys in slandering each other. Tommy must be turning in his grave just as Preston Manning must be wringing his hands and wondering what happened to the principles of Refoirm and the grass roots organization we promised the pubic. Nope, Steve and his cronies have taken over and have fallen to the age old principle of politics which is the FIRST duty of any government is to get re-elected. To hell with what the party stood for originally. Where did that get us, they ask. At best in opposition. We want the power so they prostitute themselves using broken promises. This is just one of them.
Hey, Steve could have legitimately appointed anyone he pleased to this riding and it would still be withing party policy and constitution. So how is that democratic?
And Jim to my knowledge every party allows last minute registration of members. If this is unfair and if this leads to Nazism, it sure has taken a long time getting here.
As I said before, at least this make the race interesting now rather than ho hum. There are plenty of choices for those disserviced conservatives to vote for.
BTW it is this crap that all parties use that turns off young voters. As all those who went through the great depression and all the war babies get older and die off, there are fewer and fewer voters at the polls. The next generations of boomers, busters, echos are not getting out to vote, not card carrying members of parties, not organized in youth groups in enough numbers to make a difference. They are taking their freedom for granted. Look to the school systems to blame as it is taboo to talk politics or even the importance of voting in the schools. The teachers may sway the children off their parents way of voting and the parents won’t allow that. But that’s another blog.
Dont get me wrong Jim, I not suggesting that new members dont have to pay.
Dangermouse,
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for finally adding some truth to this blog. It is sad that Ogston will continue to argue that it is all our fault as Conservatives in not maintaining our membership or that it defeats the democratic process to have many choices, it is a breath of fresh air to have a voice of reason and truth to exactly why many Conservatives are pissed right off a what has occurred. Being in the army Jim is not use to having differing points of view, debate and democracy as there is a hierarchy that has to be maintained and respected for the army to work. (Jim if you deny this you are truly not using the logic you like to say you spout on these very pages).
I agree with Bluboy that the Conservative (reform) party has turned its back on the principals it stated it would support and if I was Preston Manning I would be sick to my stomach. We need to overhaul the system we have because when a 1/3 of the ridings in this country elect a representative that gets less than 50% of the popular vote in that riding then something is fundamentally wrong. When the leader of this country is elected by getting less than 50% of the popular vote then again something is wrong with our system. We live in a pseudo democracy and it is time for Canadians to stand up and start demanding some changes from our elected representatives without them looking out for themselves first. There are changes that can be made right now to make a difference and make all votes count. The Single Transferable Vote, used by all parties to elect their leaders, should also be used to elect the representatives of each riding.
The disgusting display of patronage that Lavar Payne is the beneficiary of makes this Conservative almost unable to vote this election but I will vote and make my statement one way or another. If Monty was man enough to explain why he stepped down so suddenly then I could possibly understand why things happened the way they did. If the rumours being floated by Frank magazine that he had an indiscretion with a staffer and that is why he stepped down to repair his marriage are true than he would get more respect from all constituents by owning up to his mistake and apologizing to the people of this riding. By not explaining his reason for stepping down so suddenly he has opened up the situation to speculation and rumours. If he is protecting his reputation through deceit and lies to the people that have entrusted him for 15 years then good riddance to him and Lavar may just have a a few new members on his riding association board that are none to friendly to him and will keep his ass in line. Because next time around, when the nomination is up for renewal I am pretty sure Lavar won’t be going back to Ottawa.
Without evidence I dont want to discuss rumour and gossip - this will turn into a Chris Pronger incident with the public. We may never know the “real reason” why Monte chose to step down, perhaps it was a difference of opinion with the PM as to the direction of the party, perhaps it was personal …but it doesn’t matter, Monte has been a great representative of our region for years and I for one only have thanks for his work. Unlike Dean Shock and some others - I dont think he behaved inappropriately. It is not against the rules of democracy for a trusted community leader to place his support behind a candidate - where this process fell off the tracks was excluding the members from participation in the nomination and voting process….that is unacceptable.
To me it doesn’t matter why he stepped down - he doesn’t have to take the job. Its what happened after that decision that is unacceptable. The could have done everything they did on a tight timeline - but leave it open to the participation of members / new members. Having a closed process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth …and I get the sense from many conservatives that we find the process unacceptable.
The sad part to me is that it was completely unnecessary. If they had an open process, even though rushed - and Monte wanted to put his support behind Mr Payne…that would have been fine, and probably would have been good enough for them to get the result they desired. It would have crowded the field, but I doubt potential Candidates like Mr Hirsch or the interested alderman could have organized that many memberships in such a short period of time….but at least those who would have wanted to participate would have.
It stinks to have a party executive cashing in on a patronage appointment that never had to pass even the venir of a democratic process.
I agree with what Dangermouse has stated above.
Except for this statement “Unlike Dean Shock and some others - I don’t think he behaved inappropriately.”
I watched how Mr. Solberg behaved, and he had the opportunity to work with the directors in seeing to it that the grass roots people of this riding had the opportunity to take part in the democratic process but he did not.
He chose to play the game in this rushed process of pushing his trust on the people who were card carrying conservatives that Mr. Payne was the person to vote for.
The voting members had not a clue who the candidates truly were.
Sincerely,
Dean Shock
P.S.
I required getting the truth out, and created this video…
Did Mr. Solberg play with our democracy?
The publicity stunt got us nearly 500 views so far on this video.
To quote Watchdog if I may:
“It is sad that Ogston will continue to argue that it is all our fault as Conservatives in not maintaining our membership or that it defeats the democratic process to have many choices, it is a breath of fresh air to have a voice of reason and truth to exactly why many Conservatives are pissed right off a what has occurred. Being in the army Jim is not use to having differing points of view, debate and democracy as there is a hierarchy that has to be maintained and respected for the army to work. (Jim if you deny this you are truly not using the logic you like to say you spout on these very pages).”
Watchdog Watchdog Watchdog….That is the most obtuse statement I have ever heard.
The assumption that those in the armed services are mindless robotic, bloodthirsty, war mongering; baby killing Neanderthals shows how little you know about the military. You assume we who serve either as regular or reservists are incapable of our own thought, logic and speech, which are only capable to respond on orders 24/7/365 in a similar perfunctory manner.
Please save the rhetoric for similar civvies’ with similar intellect. Try putting on a uniform and educate yourself, it may surprise you.
There is an old adage in the military that “we protect democracy not practice it” but in a totally different context that you presuppose.
I find it interesting how people can bitch and complain about anything and everything but are not willing to put their money where their mouth is….figuratively speaking…and there are many.
It is convenient to decry a loss of democracy from afar. If the only time you are a Conservative is when you vote come election time, all the while keeping your options open, to the other parties, the remainder of year then who are you to bemoan how a candidate was chosen? If you can not maintain your membership year round regardless if an election is in the air (and it has been in the air for a while) then I am perfectly within my right as a freethinking individual to say …where is your loyalty? I consider myself a forward looking individual and a vocal person who will step outside the establishment when I see a wrong. So put that dull-witted statement that I only react on command to rest as it is growing old real fast.
Had members maintained their memberships and had a vested interest in “the party” (interesting how they only have an interest when things go not to their liking) then they could have called for a review on policy and review membership enrolment/recruitment should the need arise.
Concurrent activity.
You are so willing to cut and condemn the military for your perception on mindlessness but one thing I learnt in the military that I use in civy street is to anticipate and expect the unexpected.
It is so easy to condemn the party from the outside but are you willing and able to do it from within? Apparently not.
The notion that those who are sudden one time only members, and members who couldn’t be bothered to renew their membership are suddenly the ones to decide the fate/ structure of they party that they choose at the last minute. Why are they suddenly the deciding factor on who the party is to run as a candidate regardless of the timeline. What gives them the right and not the paid members to be the beholders of the claim of “supporters of democracy”. They forfeit their right when they demand their rights over those that were “faithful members”.
One gratifying feature I got from my service is loyalty to those that serve/ have served/ and will serve. For someone with no affiliation, or “lapsed membership” to suddenly demand a commanding voice in said organization is not only foreign to me but viewed with suspension. I have seen it used in the past with our civic government with frightening regularity all under the name of “Democracy” and those same powers that tried to use “democracy” to subvert the system are the same people afoot at the federal level. But then as an army soldier I’m incapable for forming logic, points of view, debate, and understanding of democracy to form my own opinions.
Watchdog has obviously been blinded to my actions against city council towards their cowardly actions towards CAPCS and ignorant to how they excreted their will over council in the most undemocratic way. If Watchdog can make the top mentioned statement that I’m only capable of following orders, incapable of logical debate, and incapable of understanding democracy then I truly live in the wrong era.
You can be part of the problem or part of the solution…my actions in the past shows where I stand.
Oppps
Dean Shock
You may have gotten 500 hits for “your publicity stunt” but I know several that seen it and they say the same as I…what a moron. We don’t want one as a MP in Ottawa.
So you lost votes there.
Had you won I’m sure you would be singing from another song book.
Jim,
I respect your military service and all of those men and women in uniform for our country - I certainly dont think it makes your opinions any less valid.
I might even agree with your position IF those were the general rules of participation within the conservative party historically, and IF the Conservative party (formerly Reform party) hadnt preached so strongly about a different philosophy. If the assumption was you must maintain your membership at all times if you would like to participate in any party function …then yes the vast majority of Conservatives would have been negligent - But it has NEVER worked that way in the past. $5.00 is hardly a fund raiser that keeps the party afloat. Its why we elect representatives …so long as we have a candidate that represents our views …there is no need to have held on to the membership.
You know as a citizen of Canada you can register to vote AT THE POLLING STATION. that is what fair and OPEN and democratic means.
For me - I am a supporter of transparent democracy, I just cant pick and choose when its OK to have those ideals and when it is OK to look the other way while they get ignored.
DangerMouse
“For me - I am a supporter of transparent democracy, I just cant pick and choose when its OK to have those ideals and when it is OK to look the other way while they get ignored.”
I am a believer in what you stated and is why I chose the path I took in running as an Independent. The easier path would have been to walk away.
Sincerely,
Dean Shock
I had this website sent to me and I thought I should post. I was a big reform supporter including the senate 3E promises and free parliamentary votes. Stephen runs a pretty tight ship…
http://anythingbutconservative.ca/promises.htm
Jim,
I love how your running off at the mouth continues to support how blind you are to the real issue. Loyalty is not measured in membership cards just as being a Canadian doesn’t mean you serve in the military. The fact IS that the military is a HIERARCHY and HAS to be and it can be NOTHING but. This is something that any military man I know understands. At the end of the day there is a command structure that has to be followed to maintain order. I will not argue that democracy can be perverted to the benefits of the few that are in power but it does allow for dissent and debate at the expense of its leaders - see Bush and Dion as examples. I am not cutting down the military and those that have chosen the military and support it fully and as I have stated in the past it is underfunded. It is interesting that you are by far the most vocal and opinionized individual that blogs in this forum. But I guess it is human to substitute the qualities of action with the quantities of words. The reason you failed at your bid at a seat on council is that you are more ready to hear yourself speak than to listen to others. I guess you must be compensating for all those years of military service. I always put my money where my mouth is. Here’s to being obtuse.
Yes sir…no sir….three bags full sir……You are truly the HIERARCHY Watchdog…forgive me for not knowing my place.
I listen to people very well which is why I stand up for the businessmen and the citizens who were wronged in city issues past. I certainly don’t do it to hear myself speak and rake my family over the coals for the sake of same. I do get tired of people that have all the solutions and condemnation but are unwilling to step up to the plate when it is time. Playing the sidelines is not my way nor is making a character accusation using an anonymous name. We have a word for those in the military.
You notice I use my real name here.
Your uncanny knowledge of the military is now legionary. My 33 years of service are now meaningless and the past 15 as a military historian studying military leadership and ethics was a waste of time.
I know a few reasons why I lost in the election and not having a big budget and hordes of signs are a few.
Here is a thought….put your name on a ballot and see how you do. Here is a news flash your opinions are not always wanted or agreed with. I know mine are not always.
When you do run maybe it might compensate for something you didn’t do with your oral cavity. But some how I think that will not happen because it is to convenient to mouth off here under another name.
Just a reminder that people can disagree with a person’s position without attacking their character.
Sure I disagree with Jim on this issue, but I respect him a great deal and agree with him on other issues. If we all agreed with each other all the time - not only would be the political arena be boring, but there would be no need for democracy at all.
Besides ad hominom personal attacks are not logical either …even the morally depraved can present sound arguments.
We try to moderate with a light hand, but the forum does have posting guidelines - lets just have everybody post their opinions on the issues at hand and keep the personal stuff out of the blogsphere.
Here here DM
If he is going to act like a child then I will give an appropriate response…DAD! HE STARTED IT!
Watchdog, I beg to differ with you. In this thread, IMO, you started it.
Dean Shock, 500 views, probably 500 lost votes. Forget mine. Nice video.
DM:”If we all agreed with each other all the time - not only would be the political arena be boring, but there would be no need for democracy at all.”
Isn’t this the definition of AB politically speaking. Starts off as a Liberal provcinxce for 21 years, then UFA (?) for 14 years, then Socred for 36 years, and currently PC since ‘71. I can’t think of any other provinvce that has stayed so right wing for that length of time. That’s my def. of boring. At least elsewhere people who speak out are not looked upon with such disdain as those in this province are if you disagree with the overall government policy.
Interesting stats Bluboy but how does it resonate federally? Many vote differently provincially versus federal. Some leaders also flip parties. Charest was the Conservative leader federally but ran as the Liberal leader in Quebec. Ray NDP/liberal is another to name a few. I have always voted Conservative provincially but toss between Liberal and Conservative dependant on local rep and national leaders. In the last elections I voted Monty because he was a good rep regardless if in opposition or government. I wasn’t a Harper fan.
Edmonton/northern AB tends to go Liberal verses Calgary/southern AB goes Conservative federally.