It's been an interesting few weeks in Toronto. I don't think I need to go through it play-by-play and blow-by-blow. But it's created a bizarre conundrum for those of us media types outside of Toronto: how much time should we devote to Rob Ford coverage?
It had the opportunity to anchor a few newscasts over the last week and I made the point of not including a Rob Ford story in a couple of newscasts, even joking on Facebook and Twitter that I did something "un-Canadian" by doing that. By that point in the day (late afternoon), there was nothing "new" to the story as Ford hadn't spoken to the media since 8am. My posts came with a mixed reaction. Some loved the fact that a Calgary radio station went an entire six minutes without talking about Toronto's mayor. Others hated it because they want to hear the latest, regardless of how small the story is.
Frankly, I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand, if you don't live in Toronto, how does this really affect you? You didn't vote for or against Ford. He's not making any decisions directly impacting you. And are we going to have put up with hearing the breath-by-breath from Ford until he either steps down or the next municipal election in Ontario? It's no wonder some people are quite tired of hearing about this story and want to move on.
On the other hand, this is a story that EVERYONE is talking about. It was on SNL last night. It's the fodder on all the late-night talk shows. Every news outlet is spending time on this story. It is the water-cooler talk of the country, as this IS the mayor of Canada's largest city. So it would be ill-advised to throw up your hands and avoid the story completely as it would appear that you're not in tune with what's going on in the world and what's being talked about.
I know I say this a lot, but I do believe there's a delicate balance that can be reached. A city like Calgary or Edmonton probably doesn't need the play-by-play and in-depth coverage every hour on the hour. But we are in the business of broadcasting news, information and stories that you are and will be talking about, so we will continue to talk about this saga as it continues to unfold...
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Living in a Post-Conservative World
Took me a lot longer than I'd hoped to be back on the blogging train. It has been an intense couple of months acclimatizing to my new role. Looking forward to seeing things calm down again and we can get back to some semi-sense of normalcy.
A little while ago, I asked people on Facebook what they would want to see me blog about and I had a number of options thrown at me. The one that seemed to stick out in my mind was the youth movement that seems to be going on in Alberta politics, especially as witnessed in the recent municipal election. It's an interesting topic that will likely expand into something unexpected. Let's begin.
Frankly, it's been a long time coming in Alberta politics to see young(er) political hopefuls get some attention. Don't get me wrong: I 100% respect what the veterans have done, putting themselves into the public eye term-after-term. It can't be easy to give up all of that time. Especially when it's always the "wrong" choices that get the attention while most of the good work you do ends up largely ignored. But I think Albertans were hoping for something new. Something fresh.
A lot of that "old guard" that some refer to could be considered conservatives. It's not that they align with a particular political party. But they know what their bread-and-butter is that will get them re-elected. They don't upset the apple cart, make sure their friends stay faithful, and they're in. They don't need to make bold, outrageous campaign promises because they're institutions to their constituents.
But something changed. People are no longer okay with the status quo. Things need to keep improving and progressing, especially at the municipal level. Otherwise, you're getting left in the dust. And so when there's an opportunity for change, Albertans have seemed to embrace it (at least at the local level). When was the last time we saw so many mayors who are under the age of 40?
And I do believe it has something to do with the idea that things can be even better. No longer is it acceptable in the eyes of most voters to stand by what's made you successful. They want to know wha'ts next. Politicians seem to love the idea of no tax hikes for a decade. But then when you ask residents how they feel, they wonder why nothing's changed with poor snow removal, broken-down city services and the like. The good economy in Alberta created an interesting environment where people started to realize that you have to spend money to make money. Of course, the hope is that the money will be spent wisely.
That's why I think it's more acceptable nowadays to see higher tax increases than we've seen in the past. Part of it is that many communities are trying to catch up from years of no funding (aka falling behind) for necessities like infrastructure. I think that's why there's an acceptance, even on the provincial level, that going into debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of some taxpayers, because they will be able to physically see what they're getting in return (in theory). It's a lot like what they're doing at home, getting mortgages and borrowing money for a better future. Does this mean Alberta is losing its "Conservative" to get a little more "Progressive"? Maybe.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Alberta is giving its politicians a blank cheque. I do believe there is a hope that money will be spent wisely and on the things we need, rather than the things we want. The difficult balancing act has been (and I've written about this before) is that EVERYONE will come at a politician with demands. We are a needy crew here and we want EVERYTHING now and in most cases, we don't actually want to pay for it. It's up to the politician to decide what's needed now and what's not. You can't make everyone happy. And it's pretty obvious who has been caught trying to do too much and who hasn't.
The one side of any government's economy that I've been thinking a lot about lately has been those "rainy day funds". I know Alberta has its Heritage Savings Trust Fund and many communities have their own little pot of gold sitting around somewhere. What intrigues me about having all these young(er) politicians is, how will they handle these "untouchable assets"? I love the political hot potato that these funds have become. Many will say "these are savings for future generations" or they will say "this is for when we hit a bad patch". And yet, when we actually use it during a rough patch (remember that recession we just went through), the governments/councils get raked over the coals for it. Am I wrong to think that the average taxpayer would actually be okay with dipping into a rainy day fund during something like this summer's flood? Or like the massive fire in Slave Lake? Or even something minor that we couldn't have predicted? Why does the money just have to stay there? For the future? Which future? The one where we wait long enough for the next generation of politicians to stand by and say "whoa whoa whoa, you can't touch that, we have to save it for the future!"
Yes I realize the issues around government finances are more complicated than I've made them out to be. But what's so wrong with making it more simple? The average Joe or Jane on the street is having a hard enough time trying to wade through the political BS. They don't care anymore about what's worked in the past or why things have been done a certain way for so long. The insider baseball of who likes who and who has helped who out or why so-and-so has been in the job for as long as they have just doesn't matter anymore. People want to see action. And the opportunity has come where they have a choice to vote for new candidates who are bringing fresh ideas to an old system. Which is why I think we're seeing quite the shift in the way politics are being done in Alberta. And by which generation.
Until next time, my friends...
A little while ago, I asked people on Facebook what they would want to see me blog about and I had a number of options thrown at me. The one that seemed to stick out in my mind was the youth movement that seems to be going on in Alberta politics, especially as witnessed in the recent municipal election. It's an interesting topic that will likely expand into something unexpected. Let's begin.
Frankly, it's been a long time coming in Alberta politics to see young(er) political hopefuls get some attention. Don't get me wrong: I 100% respect what the veterans have done, putting themselves into the public eye term-after-term. It can't be easy to give up all of that time. Especially when it's always the "wrong" choices that get the attention while most of the good work you do ends up largely ignored. But I think Albertans were hoping for something new. Something fresh.
A lot of that "old guard" that some refer to could be considered conservatives. It's not that they align with a particular political party. But they know what their bread-and-butter is that will get them re-elected. They don't upset the apple cart, make sure their friends stay faithful, and they're in. They don't need to make bold, outrageous campaign promises because they're institutions to their constituents.
But something changed. People are no longer okay with the status quo. Things need to keep improving and progressing, especially at the municipal level. Otherwise, you're getting left in the dust. And so when there's an opportunity for change, Albertans have seemed to embrace it (at least at the local level). When was the last time we saw so many mayors who are under the age of 40?
And I do believe it has something to do with the idea that things can be even better. No longer is it acceptable in the eyes of most voters to stand by what's made you successful. They want to know wha'ts next. Politicians seem to love the idea of no tax hikes for a decade. But then when you ask residents how they feel, they wonder why nothing's changed with poor snow removal, broken-down city services and the like. The good economy in Alberta created an interesting environment where people started to realize that you have to spend money to make money. Of course, the hope is that the money will be spent wisely.
That's why I think it's more acceptable nowadays to see higher tax increases than we've seen in the past. Part of it is that many communities are trying to catch up from years of no funding (aka falling behind) for necessities like infrastructure. I think that's why there's an acceptance, even on the provincial level, that going into debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of some taxpayers, because they will be able to physically see what they're getting in return (in theory). It's a lot like what they're doing at home, getting mortgages and borrowing money for a better future. Does this mean Alberta is losing its "Conservative" to get a little more "Progressive"? Maybe.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Alberta is giving its politicians a blank cheque. I do believe there is a hope that money will be spent wisely and on the things we need, rather than the things we want. The difficult balancing act has been (and I've written about this before) is that EVERYONE will come at a politician with demands. We are a needy crew here and we want EVERYTHING now and in most cases, we don't actually want to pay for it. It's up to the politician to decide what's needed now and what's not. You can't make everyone happy. And it's pretty obvious who has been caught trying to do too much and who hasn't.
The one side of any government's economy that I've been thinking a lot about lately has been those "rainy day funds". I know Alberta has its Heritage Savings Trust Fund and many communities have their own little pot of gold sitting around somewhere. What intrigues me about having all these young(er) politicians is, how will they handle these "untouchable assets"? I love the political hot potato that these funds have become. Many will say "these are savings for future generations" or they will say "this is for when we hit a bad patch". And yet, when we actually use it during a rough patch (remember that recession we just went through), the governments/councils get raked over the coals for it. Am I wrong to think that the average taxpayer would actually be okay with dipping into a rainy day fund during something like this summer's flood? Or like the massive fire in Slave Lake? Or even something minor that we couldn't have predicted? Why does the money just have to stay there? For the future? Which future? The one where we wait long enough for the next generation of politicians to stand by and say "whoa whoa whoa, you can't touch that, we have to save it for the future!"
Yes I realize the issues around government finances are more complicated than I've made them out to be. But what's so wrong with making it more simple? The average Joe or Jane on the street is having a hard enough time trying to wade through the political BS. They don't care anymore about what's worked in the past or why things have been done a certain way for so long. The insider baseball of who likes who and who has helped who out or why so-and-so has been in the job for as long as they have just doesn't matter anymore. People want to see action. And the opportunity has come where they have a choice to vote for new candidates who are bringing fresh ideas to an old system. Which is why I think we're seeing quite the shift in the way politics are being done in Alberta. And by which generation.
Until next time, my friends...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)