Thread by @GregClark4AB

Since Tuesday’s meeting where the @albertaNDP and @Alberta_UCP voted together to cut funding for smaller parties in #ableg, I've run a few scenarios. Now that we know the final formula, it's actually worse that I thought. Here's some background on this: edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/… /1

Under the NDP/UCP plan, as majorities get bigger, proportionately less money goes to small opposition parties, even if they reach the new magic number of four MLAs for official party status #ableg /2

This could be a mistake that comes from not paying attention to the details, but given the subcommittee tasked with coming up with a new formula has been working on this for more than *two years* it sure looks like a deliberate attempt to disadvantage smaller parties #ableg /3

Before I get into the numbers, here's a primer on how caucus funding works. Of 87 MLAs in the Legislature, only Private Members get research funding (Cabinet Ministers and the Speaker do not). The money is used to prepare for bill debates, QP, committee research etc. #ableg /4

The money is also used for "outreach". Much of this is legitimate; our job as MLAs is to travel the province and talk with as many people from as wide a range of backgrounds as possible. But very often the lines get blurred between legit consultation and partisanship #ableg /5

So there is an opportunity to improve how the system works to ensure MLAs are focused on holding the govt to account vs. acting in our own partisan interests #ableg /6

The principle *should* be that the official opposition and smaller opposition parties have the resources they need to hold the government to account. In theory government backbenchers also do this, but in reality they're almost always reading gov't talking points #ableg /7

But back to the numbers. Caucus funding is made up of four components: A base amount per MLA, a Leader's Allowance (official opposition and recognized parties only), research funding and Calgary caucus office funding (gov't and official opposition only) #ableg /8

But the NDP and UCP got together to make a few changes:

1) Increased MLAs required for party status from 2 to 4
2) Changed research funding formula (incr cap for gov't and official opp, big cut for 3rd party and IND MLAs)
3) Added $$ for gov't Calgary caucus office #ableg /9

There's a lot wrong with this, and I'll get into the details below. Before I do, I want to point out that there is more than enough space in McDougall Centre to house both govt and official opposition MLAs. Absolutely no need to waste $180k on separate offices #ableg /10

So now to the numbers. I've run scenarios comparing the existing model with the new plan. A small majority (10 seats, which is what the NDP has), mid majority (20 seats, roughly Redford's majority) and big majority (30 seats, about what Stelmach, Klein & Lougheed had) #ableg /11

I’ve assumed there are 21 MLAs in cabinet plus the Speaker, which leaves 65 private members to divvy up research funding. All scenarios have an official opposition, a recognized third party and one independent #ableg /12

In a small majority the funding for the government caucus goes up, and so does the official opposition. But even with official party status the third party gets less, and so do any independent members #ableg /13

In the mid-majority scenario government caucus funding increases even more, the official opposition also goes up, and again third party / independent funding goes down #ableg /14

But it gets really troubling when we examine a big majority. The government would see a nearly 4% increase in funding, but now all opposition parties are cut vs. the current model, including the official opposition #ableg /15

There is something fundamentally wrong with any model that increases funding for government to the detriment of smaller parties in every scenario, and to all opposition parties when there’s a big majority #ableg /16

My solution? Either to keep the current model as-is or improve it by giving proportionally more funding to opposition than government (and also eliminate #yyc offices). Opposition’s job is to hold government to account; govt backbenchers don’t need the same resources #ableg /17

The only explanation I can think of for why the @albertaNDP and @Alberta_UCP would gang up on smaller opposition parties is that they think it’s to their advantage, democracy be damned.

I also wonder if party leadership is aware of exactly what's happened here #ableg /18

In conclusion, here’s what I want to know. Do @RachelNotley and @jkenney know their lieutenants have slashed funding to opposition MLAs? I would love to hear their rationale for why they think it's okay to blunt opposition, especially if we end up with a big majority #ableg /19

I want to hear directly from @RachelNotley that she’s okay with cutting funding to opposition parties, including a cut to the official opposition if they have 14 seats or less #ableg /20

And I want to know if @jkenney is okay with his team colluding with the NDP to cut opposition funding. I disagree with him on a great many things, but I believe he values parliamentary democracy, including a vigorous opposition #ableg /21

Caucus funding should transcend the narrow interests of any party (or parties). It should stand the test of time and should support the principles of parliamentary democracy, which includes an opposition that can hold govt to account. The NDP/UCP model fails. Let's fix it #ableg