Paul Jackson says "feckless" Hinman to blame for by-election shellacking

Well faithful readers, much has happened in Alberta Alliance Land since my last post. I've got a lot of catching up to do. The following is on my list of things to do and cover:

• Craig Chandler's defection to the Progressive Conservatives. Mr. Chandler has recently announced that he will be seeking the nomination for the Tories in Calgary Egmont.
• Further discussion of the false statements being made by the Alberta Alliance regarding the size of Alberta's bureaucracy.
• The 2007 Alberta Alliance AGM, and what it means to the AAP.
• Summarize and comment on the disastrous results obtained by the Alberta Alliance during the June 12 Alberta by-elections.
• The 2006 finances of the AAP have now been made public. The river of red ink continues.
• A new right wing provincal party has been created to challenge the Alberta Alliance. The "Wildrose Party of Alberta" includes a number of former highly placed Alberta Alliance operatives and candidates.
• Some new polling numbers. Could the Alliance be on the rebound?
• Media coverage of the Alberta Alliance.

On this last point, I thought I'd start with Paul Jackson's June 19 Edmonton Sun column entitled "Tories lack vision". In the column, Jackson covers the by-election results from the perspective of the Alberta Liberals, and then says the following:

... the most telling point from the protest vote in Calgary Elbow - and to an extent in Drumheller-Stettler - is the once alternative right-wing vote is now dead.

In Calgary Elbow, even Green Party candidate George Read beat Alberta Alliance candidate Jane Greydanus. In Drumheller-Stettler, Alberta Alliance candidate Dave France came in fifth place. Astonishing. ...

... The Alliance, which in 2004 polled 9% of the vote across the province and seemed to be soaring, is now not even on life support.

For this I blame its leader, Paul Hinman, who is a decent, but feckless fellow, and who couldn't organize a trip to a cat house for a bunch of horny football players.

Instead, after a winning game, Paul would likely invite them to a church basement for soft drinks and cookies.

Personally, I'd choose the cat house, and, in my younger days, I actually visited a couple of these fine emporiums.

Bizarre.

I have never considered a politician's propensity to head for a whorehouse rather than a church to be an endearing factor in the minds of most voters. While I agree with most of Jackson's comments and criticisms of the AAP and Hinman to date, this column is over the top.

And if I consider it over the top, the Alberta Alliance communications staff must have been beside themselves, and must have quickly issued a strong public condemnation of this hit piece.

Right?

Well, there's nothing on the Alberta Alliance website about it. In fact, the website hasn't been updated in over a month. The results from the by-elections haven't even been posted.

I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for Paul Hinman. It must be a real grind to continually be under attack when nobody in the party ever comes to your defense.

It creates the impression that the members, staff, and executive, have all but given up.

Source (click for screencap):

I guess it's worth a mention

Ordinarily, it would hardly be worth the time or effort to make mention of a political party that is polling at a meagre 6%, but, for the Alberta Alliance, such a figure is newsworthy.

So, here we go:

A new Ipsos Reid poll has found that 6% of Albertans support the AAP. That puts them 53 points back of the Tories, who polled at 59%.

The Liberals are at 20%, the NDP 10%, and the Greens are at 5%.

See this post at the Alberta Liberal Archive for links to the full story.

"What has happened to the Alberta Alliance?"

That is the question Paul Jackson asks in his latest column entitled "Look to the right for a solution". Towards the end of his column, Jackson cuts to the chase and provides his diagnosis as to what ails the AAP:

The Alliance, as you may recall, pulled in 9% of the vote under founding leader Randy Thorsteinson in the 2004 provincial election, but except for Hinman's recent headline-hitting revelation about MLAs double-dipping, has basically been nowhere to be seen.

In "Alberta Alliance poised to strike," (Jan. 2), I recounted my chat with Hinman and how he was super-confident the Alliance was on the move.

Now it appears the headline was off-base.

Pondering this, I believe one of the reasons is Hinman himself isn't focused.

OK, he's a very nice fellow, intelligent and accomplished in several fields, but try to interview him and you come away exhausted.

Rather than stick with one issue, he goes off on a mishmash of tangents.

While each is fascinating and would make a column in itself, it frustrates any attempt to pull together a cohesive column on one particular issue.

Hinman and his advisers need to map out a straight-shooting strategy and stick with it.

To sum up, the Alberta Alliance suffers from weak leadership, and incoherent communications. If a political pro like Paul Jackson can't sit through an interview with Hinman without longing for its conclusion, how on earth do you Alberta Alliance members expect a typical voter to stay focused on his scattered message?

I must give credit to Paul Jackson for telling it like it is. I think he wrote this column with the best interests of the AAP in mind. I view it as an open letter to the membership.

Unfortunately for Jackson, the moribund Alberta Alliance membership will probably fail to comprehend the message in his column.

Source (click for screencap):

Statistics Canada responds

Just a few hours after sending in my request, I have in my inbox a very helpful explanation from the staff at Statistics Canada.

According to the email, and some of the web pages it directs me to, Table 1-3 represents total public sector employment in each province. Total public sector employment includes: (i) federal government employees, (ii) provincial government employees, (iii) health and social service institution employees, (iv) employees of universities, colleges, and trade institutions, (v) local government employees, (vi) local school board employees, (vii) employees of federal government business enterprises, (viii) employees of provincial government enterprises, and (ix) employees of local government enterprises.

So, both my initial post, and the anonymous comment to this post, are incorrect. Table 1-3 includes all public sector employees.

What to do now?

Well, the email from Statistics Canada also provides the links I need to find the exact information that I am looking for (total public sector employment per capita for the provincial governments and the federal government). That information is contained in several downloadable tables that I will need to paste together.

I will need a bit of time to complete this task.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

I have noticed an increase in traffic lately from the member list at FreeAlberta.com. So I wandered over there to have a look, and what did I find?

I am apparently a member of this discussion forum.

Take a look at member 27. There I am, with a link to my website and everything. The hotmail address is a clever touch.

Unfortunately, I'm a gmail user.

This person is an imposter, and this account is not mine!

They have nothing to do with this site.

I suspect that this faker is in fact a member of the Alberta Alliance. I have no idea what he/she is up to, but I would like to thank them for promoting this site. I have received at least 20 referrals from FreeAlberta.com in the last 4 days.

Cheers.

Apples and Oranges?

I have just sent the following email to Statistics Canada:

Clarification of Table 1-3
1 message

---

The Watcher (albertaalliancewatch)	Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 4:32 PM
To: infostats@statcan.ca
I am writing to you to seek clarification on the data presented in Table 1-3. Do the public sector employment numbers presented in this table represent: the number of persons employed by the various provincial governments; the number of persons employed by the federal government working in the province; or the number of persons employed by both provincial and federal governments working in the province? When I use the term "government", I am using it in a wide sense, and intend to include employees of any respective boards, agencies, or Crown corporations that could be considered part of the public sector. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. -- Regards, The Watcher

The anonymous commenter on this post has suggested I am comparing apples and oranges. However, the commenter has provided no evidence as to why their interpretation of the data is correct. This is one of the reasons why I suspect the commenter is from the Alberta Alliance - no corroboration for any assertions made.

The other reason I suspect our anonymous friend is AAP is that they refer to Alberta Alliance leader Paul Hinman simply as "Paul".

A tad friendly for someone with no propinquity to Hinman.

But, let's get back to the issue at hand.

In order for the commenter to be correct, Saskatchewan would have to be a major centre for the federal government. After all, according to Table 1-3, Saskatchewan has more public sector employees per capita than any other province. On its face, this assertion is absurd. How can Saskatchwan have more federal government employees per capita than Ontario or Quebec, where the government is in fact physically located?

So, I have sound reasons for questioning the assertions made by the commenter. When we hear back from Statistics Canada, we'll see if we have apples and oranges ...

... or if somebody will be eating crow.

Another email to Paul Hinman

Well, I'll try this again. The last time I sent Paul Hinman an email, he didn't bother responding. Maybe I'll have better luck this time.

Here is a copy of my email to Paul Hinman wherein I ask him for a source for his apparently false statements on public sector employment in Alberta:

Provincial government employees per capita

1 message

---

The Watcher (albertaalliancewatch)	Wed, Jan 3, 2007 at 12:12 PM
To: Paul Hinman
Mr. Hinman, I sent an email to you earlier today that contained a couple of minor errors. I noticed them after it was sent, but have now fixed them and modified that earlier email in a couple of places. Please disregard the earlier one. I am the blogger who owns and operates the site Alberta Alliance Watch. I put up a post yesterday responding to some quotes of yours contained in a column by Paul Jackson of Sun Media entitled "Alberta Alliance poised to strike". In that column, you are quoted as saying the following: "On a per capita basis, Alberta has more government employees than any other provincial government and even more than the federal government ..." Can you please provide a source for the factual assertion you make in this quote? I can't find one, and you will note from my post that Statistics Canada has published a table indicating that Alberta has the lowest number of government employees amongst the provincial and territorial governments. As such, either you are wrong, or Statistics Canada is wrong. Given that your assertion is the basis for your policy of reducing the overall size of the public service in Alberta, I think it important that this matter be cleared up. I look forward to hearing from you as to the source of your information. If you choose to respond, you can reply to this email, and I will then post your email on Alberta Alliance Watch, or, you can provide a moderated comment to the post entitled "Another email to Paul Hinman". While I do moderate comments to prevent personal attacks, I can assure you that any comment you provide will be published as is. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -- Regards, The Watcher

I have left moderated comments open on this post, in case Mr. Hinman chooses to respond here.

Update Jan. 3, 2007: The first email had a broken link and a couple of typos. I have changed it and updated this post. This one was sent at 12:12pm.

Update Jan. 29, 2007: A comment was received from "Anonymous" late yesterday. There is no indication that this is from the Alberta Alliance, although I suspect that it is. You will note that the commenter is suggesting the issue here is my own inability to understand what the Statistics Canada table is referring to. I suggest that the commenter is wrong. This matter will be continued in a new post. Comments are now closed.

Some contradictions from Paul Hinman

Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson seems to be back on the Alberta Alliance bandwagon. In today's column he describes Paul Hinman as "bubbling with ideas". Based on the number of quotes from Hinman contained in the column, it would appear that Paul Jackson recently interviewed the faltering Alberta Alliance leader.

That must have been quite an interview.

I wonder if anyone brought up the fact that Jackson has recently (i) called for Hinman to step down, and (ii) described the Alberta Alliance as "seemingly dead" under Hinman's leadership. Hehehe.

But I digress.

This column is noteworthy because it contains a couple of contradictions.

Firstly, Hinman makes the remarkable observation that Kevin Taft's Liberals may be the beneficiaries of Ed Stelmach's recent victory in the Alberta PC leadership race, and that the Alberta Alliance will then rise to power after "the shock is over":

He believes Stelmach's term will turn out to be only a "babysitting" government, and Liberal Leader Kevin Taft may be right in predicting his own party will make gains come the next election.

"The Liberals might go up the middle, but the Liberal gains will be short-lived. In the best-case scenario, we might see a minority government, but after that shock is over, Alberta voters will be looking for a solid, Conservative alternative."

That alternative, Hinman, 47, contends will be the Alliance.

This position contradicts the usual dogma Alberta Alliance members spurt, namely, that the Alliance will blow away the PC's in a sudden, massive, electoral sweep - much like the PC sweep of the Socreds back in 1971. Now, it would appear that Hinman believes there may be a Liberal government in between the PC dynasty and the Alliance coming to power.

Oh well.

Next, he indicates that he would hire more public servants:

To encourage more doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters and other essential service workers to move to Alberta or stay in their jobs, he'd give them tax incentives, too.

But would then reduce the total size of the public service at the same time:

He'd reduce the size of the provincial public service.

Because, according to Hinman, there are simply too many public servants in Alberta:

"On a per capita basis, Alberta has more government employees than any other provincial government and even more than the federal government, yet the private sector is crying out for employees."

But, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta has the lowest number of public sector employees per capita in the country. From Table 1-3:

	Province	Public Sector Employees per 1,000 population
1.	Alberta	83
2.	Ontario	85
3.	B.C.	88
4.	Quebec	92
5.	N.B.	104
6.	Nfld.	109
7.	N.S.	117
8.	Manitoba	123
9.	P.E.I.	128
10.	Saskatchewan	137
11.	Yukon	168
12.	N.W.T.	183
13.	Nunavut	207

What is Hinman going on about? Based on this data, he couldn't be more wrong.

I assume there must be an explanation for this contradiction, but Paul Jackson wouldn't appear to have even noticed it.

Perhaps I should endeavor to email Paul Hinman and see if he'll provide it to me.

Source (click for full size):

The Alberta Alliance's Sugar Daddy

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that Randy Thorsteinson is the most notable personage in the brief history of the Alberta Alliance Party. He was the first leader, and the main party builder. He got the party registration done - which in and of itself was a massive undertaking.

However, until I reviewed the financial statements filed in the offices of the Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of Alberta, I did not realize that Mr. Thorsteinson deserves another title as well.

He is the AAP's official "Sugar Daddy".

Check out this screencap from the final page of the Alberta Alliance's 2004 Financial Statement:

In 2004, the Alberta Alliance received a total of $121,300.00 in cash contributions from individuals who contributed more than $375.00, and from corporations (evidently, these two types of donations must be reported individually). Of that, $85,000.00 (or 70% of the total) came from individuals with the surname "Thorsteinson". An additional $15,000.00 (or 12% of the total) came from Randy Thorsteinson's company, Cascadia Motivation.

So, a total of $100,000.00 (or 82%) of individually reportable cash contributions essentially came directly from Randy Thorsteinson, or persons he is related to.

A measly 18% of contributions in this category came from all other party members and contributors.

Now look at the 2005 Statement:

The cash contributions from the Thorsteinson clan dropped to $2,000.00. Furthermore, the total value of individually reportable contributions plummetted from $121,300.00, to $32,689.12, and of the $32,689.12, only $17,045.00 was cash (the remaining $15,644.12 was comprised of "valued contributions"). Given that there were no valued contributions in the 2004 Statement, the Alliance actually realized a total drop in reportable cash contributions of 86% between 2004 and 2005.

Wow!

The Alberta Alliance is clearly having financial problems, and it looks like their main rainmaker has decided to cut his losses. As such, the financial problems will continue to grow and multiply, and will persist in causing stresses inside the party.

And you can read about it all right here, at Alberta Alliance Watch.

Santa comes early for Alberta Alliance members

Great news AAP members! Ipsos Reid has released a new poll, and it shows that support for the Alberta Alliance has increased by a whopping 50% - rising from 2% to 3%:

Now, for the bad news (I always have some). This result is within the margin of error of the Leger Marketing poll I blogged about here, so this Ipsos Reid poll in fact confirms, beyond all doubt, that the Alliance is at historic, pitiful lows in public opinion.

Any argument that the 2% finding of Leger Marketing was an outlier is now difficult to maintain.

I look forward to blogging about how you Alberta Alliance members deal with this issue during 2007. The ball is clearly in your court now.

Source: Ipsos-Reid
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 800 adult Albertans, conducted from Dec. 13 to Dec. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 3.5 per cent.

Alberta Alliance runs another deficit in 2005

Regular readers of this blog may recall that I previously broke the story of the incredible debt burden being carried by the Alberta Alliance at the end of the 2004 election. Well, I have just reviewed the Financial Statement for 2005, and the river of red ink continues to flow unabated.

Here is a summary of the salient points from the filed statement:

• on Dec. 31, 2005, the AAP had total cash assets of $18,185.00, and total debts of $402,518.00, for a net debt of $384,333.00;
• during the year ending Dec. 31, 2005, the AAP had incoming revenues of $108,578.99, and expenses of $112,810.00, for a net deficit of $4,232.00;
• the AAP revenues included $20,000.00 for leadership candidate fees (4 candidates at $5,000.00 each);
• the AAP had no income from fund-raising functions whatsoever.

There is an additional observation from this filing that strikes me as particularly important:

When one looks at the liabilities of the Alberta Alliance listed on their Financial Statement for 2004, there are two line items: a loan of $115,000.00, and accounts payable of $280,432.00. In 2005, the liabilities are almost identical - a loan of $115,000.00, and accounts payable of $287,518.00.

Interesting.

If you look at note 6 to the draft 2004 statement, it would appear that the $115,000.00 loan is non-interest bearing, so that would explain why that figure isn't changing - the Alliance has decided not to make a payment on it. But how does one explain the high accounts payable figures? Usually accounts payable are interest bearing after 30 days, and the interest rates are usually pretty high. Why is the Alliance carrying such high accounts payable?

Keep in mind that the Alberta Alliance recently changed (i) the location of its office, (ii) the hosting of its website, and (iii) the job description of their Office Administrator.

Were these changes made in order to cut costs?

Are creditors being paid?

I don't know the answers to these questions ... yet. But, I do think there is a story here, and I will be pursuing it.

Merry Christmas.

2%

I hate to be the one to deliver a lump of coal to the stockings of Alberta Alliance members, but I really must make mention of the results of the latest Leger Marketing poll published by Angus Reid Global Monitor on November 9, 2006, in an article entitled Alberta Tories Remain Well Ahead.

If you scroll down the page half way, you will see this table:

The Alberta Alliance polled at 2% amongst Albertans in October, 2006.

Two percent.

This number is obviously unacceptable, even by rump party standards. The Alberta Allance received 9% of the vote in the provincial general election in November, 2004. The party has lost over 75% of the support earned under the leadership of Randy Thorsteinson.

Paul Hinman has cratered the party. When will you Alberta Alliance members stop living in denial and face up to this self-evident truth?

Source: Leger Marketing
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 900 Albertan adults, conducted from Oct. 23 to Oct. 30, 2006. Margin of error is 3.3 per cent.