I doubt he knew how much time would be wasted debating this.
Also - why does the Calgary mayor have to bring public commentary to the Alberta public on a provincial issue? Not sure why the Liberal Party - Raj Sherman, Kent Hehr or David Swan or whomever - didn't raise this with a more public profile. God knows the Wildrose won't do it.
It is hard to raise something to a significant public profile when the public largely considers you (in this case, the Liberal party) to be irrelevant.
Glad to hear the Liberals were all over it. Didn't realize Bill 202 was floating about, I was a little short on knowledge about the latest developments over the issue.
I just don't see why a municipal mayor has to raise the profile around this to get enough traction though. I guess it speaks to ability Nenshi has to capture an audience as well.
It is hard to raise something to a significant public profile when the public largely considers you (in this case, the Liberal party) to be irrelevant.
Weird because the Liberals not only raised the issue to begin with, but they brought it to the fore and the government had to either kill it or vote in favour. I would say that's fairy significant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Glad to hear the Liberals were all over it. Didn't realize Bill 202 was floating about, I was a little short on knowledge about the latest developments over the issue.
I just don't see why a municipal mayor has to raise the profile around this to get enough traction though. I guess it speaks to ability Nenshi has to capture an audience as well.
Nenshi does have the ability to do just that, but bill 10 was killed a couple of weeks ago now, and the issue around bill 202 was basically killed at the same time. So while its great that he is bringing his weight to bear now, and I think he's entirely right, the bill was already put on hold and being re-worked.
That's pretty lame if true. If he believes its as bad as he says today then he should've come out against it at that time. I'm pretty sure that the mayor of Edmonton spoke out against it during that time frame.
He did talk about it in scrum on Dec 4 while debate was occurring. But the Chamber speech is a much bigger microphone he wanted to utilize to really speak out. Thought it was a particularly important message to hear in the context of talking about business and economy in Calgary and the impacts this kind of issue has on labour attraction.
Kent Hehr (and also Laurie Blakeman, the original sponsor of Bill 202) has already been beating this drum for weeks.
As has Greg Clark, but it's Hehr and Blakeman who are leading us on this issue. I like Nenshi, but he's not staking out new ground here - he's supporting the Liberal position after they forced the PCs to address the issue in the legislature.
Here's his entire Chamber speech - long, but really worth watching. One of his best ever speeches - themes of competitiveness, resiliency, diversity, inclusion and dignity
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Here's his entire Chamber speech - long, but really worth watching. One of his best ever speeches - themes of competitiveness, resiliency, diversity, inclusion and dignity
Thanks, hope you don't mind if I add it to the original post for a better first summary post.
The Following User Says Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Here's his entire Chamber speech - long, but really worth watching. One of his best ever speeches - themes of competitiveness, resiliency, diversity, inclusion and dignity
Outstanding. What an amazing leader. Calgary is very lucky.
You touched on a second question that I was wondering about. If he made the jump to federal politics would he run as a Liberal or a Conservative?
At the federal level, I'd say Liberals. As there have been rumors for a long time that they've been courting him for a while. I don't get the sense that many in the Conservative Party are fans of him.
Provincially that's a tough one. My gut actually says he'd throw his hat into the Alberta Party ring. If not them it would be under the Alberta Liberals banner. [Although it would be funny to see him run for the Wildrose and watch people's heads explode]
Now that being said, If Nenshi does continue his career in politics after he's done with being the Mayor I think it's only at the Federal level and nothing else.
A thought: with just this move, have the Liberals have shown themselves to be a more effective opposition than the Wildrose?
But then one could argue that Joe Anglin, as an independent, has been more effective than either of them, since his bill (which had to do with more transparent electricity billing) actually passed.
There's a lot of assumptions that provincial or federal politics are a "step up" from big city politics. Municipal is where most things seems to actually get done and one does not have to deal with entrenched partisanship.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
I don't think I've seen a bigger "swing and a miss" when it comes to this debate then what Diane just posted.
She just hasn't been in the paper enough lately, especially after not siding with Ward and Chu on enough budget issues. This is all a publicity push to get some print time.
Am I being completely naïve, or am I the only one who doesn't understand why such a big deal is being made out of this debate? Who cares if there are clubs in schools to talk about issues pertaining to the LGBT (sorry if I missed any letters) community. Allowing these clubs in schools does not mean all students have to participate, only those who want to join will participate, so once again, what's the big ****ing deal?
The Following User Says Thank You to Cuz For This Useful Post:
Am I being completely naïve, or am I the only one who doesn't understand why such a big deal is being made out of this debate? Who cares if there are clubs in schools to talk about issues pertaining to the LGBT (sorry if I missed any letters) community. Allowing these clubs in schools does not mean all students have to participate, only those who want to join will participate, so once again, what's the big ****ing deal?
Am I being completely naïve, or am I the only one who doesn't understand why such a big deal is being made out of this debate? Who cares if there are clubs in schools to talk about issues pertaining to the LGBT (sorry if I missed any letters) community. Allowing these clubs in schools does not mean all students have to participate, only those who want to join will participate, so once again, what's the big ****ing deal?
The big deal is that the bill would allow parents or school boards to specifically deny the ability of gay-straight alliance groups to form in schools and use school grounds and resources.
I don't think I've seen a bigger "swing and a miss" when it comes to this debate then what Diane just posted.
1. Leadership skills, communication skills, project management, empathy for other people in your community who feel unsafe in their own communities due to prejudice, confidence to stand up for one's beliefs and open a dialogue in their community...
2. You, A.S., are making this about sex. Not the kids. Besides that, american states who have abstinence-only education are their country's leaders in teenage pregnancy rates.
