Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Greyhound bus killer will spend another year in mental ward | Main | Tim Hudak and his middle class idiocy »

Sunday, June 07, 2009

AB premier booed as Wildrose Alliance leadership race starts

Ed Stelmach

In a sign of what may be a major shift in Alberta politics, Premier Ed Stelmach was booed at an award ceremony in Calgary:

The catcalls were far from wide-spread, and others in the audience were applauding. But the incident was a watershed in a town that once would only whisper Ralph Klein's name in reverent awe.

It's a tough time to be a politician, whether Tory, Liberal, New Democrat or civic. Calgarians can be as tough on their city council as they are on the premier.

But Stelmach takes the roughest ride in the city that had a homeboy Tory premier for 28 of 35 years before he won the party leadership.

Heckling politicians is not necessarily newsworthy, but Alberta has a unique history whereby parties stay in power for a long period of time before being suddenly swept away by a small populist party. The current Progressive Conservative (PC) government has been the longest-standing of these dynasties, governing the province uninterrupted since 1971. A shift in support for the governing Tories could be a sign of Alberta's next political revolution.

The major impediment to unseating the Tories has been a distinct lack of any viable opposition parties in the province. Neither the Liberals nor NDP could organize a two car funeral, not to mention that the Tories will never be defeated by a party running on its left. Even with the many criticisms levelled against Premier Stelmach, he was still able to achieve a historic victory in the last provincial election. As far as I'm concerned, the Liberals had their turn in power between 1905 and 1921. Once a party is swept out of office in Alberta, they never regain power, so I don't see a future for them. And while the NDP has never governed, Albertans are way too smart to buy into the party's socialist propaganda. This leaves all eyes on the upstart Wildrose Alliance Party, which began its leadership race this weekend:

The Wildrose Alliance kicked off its leadership race Saturday with two candidates declaring their bids, a third expressing strong interest in running, and an acknowledgment the fledgling, MLA-less party faces tough challenges to broaden its support.

At an annual general meeting in a northwest Calgary community centre, leadership contenders Mark Dyrholm and Danielle Smith--once longtime provincial Tory supporters--each told the crowd they've jumped to the year-old Wildrose Alliance because they don't believe the governing Progressive Conservative party can be changed from within.…

"Don't let anyone tell you that your values don't represent mainstream Alberta because in this province, we have the history of seeing that our values are mainstream in Alberta. They've been voted in time and time again," said Dyrholm, who received strong support from the crowd, but no standing ovation.

The Wildrose Alliance leadership became at play when Paul Hinman announced in April his plans to step aside at the two-day annual general meeting.

The party, a January 2008 merger of the right-wing Wildrose and Alliance parties, suffered a setback in last year's provincial election when it lost its only seat in the legislature.…

Hinman, who is vying for the party's nomination in the Calgary-Glenmore byelection, dismissed characterization of the Wildrose Alliance as simply a rural, right-wing movement.…

On the fundraising side, the party has enjoyed great success, raising nearly as much money as the Tories during the 2008 election campaign.

The deadline for leadership applications is Sept. 1, and a new leader will be named on Oct. 17.

Is this a sign of a shift in Alberta politics? Will the Wildrose Alliance by able to gain enough momentum to put a dent in Tory support in the next election? At the very least, a strengthened Wildrose Alliance will make Alberta politics a little more interesting.

Timeline of Alberta Premiers

Premier Party Year
Frederick Haultain (NWT)
Federal: MacDonald, Mackenzie, Abbott, Thompson, Bowell
Liberal 1897-1905
Alexander Rutherford
Federal: Laurier
Liberal 1905-1910
A.L. Sifton
Federal: Laurier, Borden
Liberal 1910-1917
Charles Stewart
Federal: Borden, Meighen
Liberal 1917-1921
Herbert Greenfield
Federal: King
UFA 1921-1925
John E. Brownlee
Federal: Meighen, King, Bennett
UFA 1925-1934
Richard Gavin Reid
Federal: Bennett
UFA 1934-1935
William Aberhart
Federal: King
Social Credit 1935-1943
Ernest C. Manning
Federal: King, Laurent Diefenbaker, Pearson
Social Credit 1943-1968
Harry Strom
Federal: Trudeau
Social Credit 1968-1971
Peter Lougheed
Federal: Trudeau ,Clark, Mulroney
PC 1971-1985
Don Getty
Federal: Mulroney
PC 1985-1992
Ralph Klein
Federal: Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien, Martin, Harper
PC 1992-2006
Ed Stelmach
Federal: Harper
PC 2006-Present

Posted by Jesse Kline on June 7, 2009 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink

Comments

Interesting tidbit about Mark and Danielle; they were both born in 1971.

Posted by: Jane Morgan | 2009-06-07 7:42:08 PM


The Wild Rose is a little too "conservative" and not enough "libertarian" from what I understand. But as an Albertan I can say for sure they do a HORRIBLE job marketing themselves.

Alberta's independence parties are the most appealing if not the least likely to sweep the hearts and minds of the masses.

Posted by: Pete | 2009-06-07 9:43:58 PM


Pete,

The separatists are usually the most hard-core social conservatives/law and order conservatives/anti-libertarian conservatives. Voting for Danielle is the libertarian's best bet.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-08 6:10:16 AM


Jessie and others,

Notice when Albertans elected Liberal premiers -- when Laurier was leader of the Liberals and the party was libertarian.

Alberta isn't necessarily law and order conservative or social conservative. There is a huge libertarian impulse and there always has been.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-08 6:12:12 AM


Robert, The Alberta Liberal party government was nothing close to Libertarian.

The Liberal administration under all three premiers was for its time a huge deficit spending big government that pitted the northern Liberal base against the southern more Conservative base.

By the 1917 general election. Alberta's first debt was almost that of the Federal government and our budget deficits were out pacing the feds. It took the United Farmers and well into the Social Credit administration to pay down that first debt in the late 1940's.

The Liberal government in this province had a horrible track record of graft and corruption scandals. They committed unprecedented electoral fraud. There is a damn good reason that they have been in the Wilderness for the better part of the last century.

Posted by: Travis Chase | 2009-06-08 6:43:49 AM


Travis,

I wasn't aware of their corruption, though it was not uncommon in Canadian politics of the era (which is not to defend it). Thanks for pointing that out.

I am skeptical of your projection of the modern conservative/liberal divide (fiscal restraint vs. tax and spend) on the politics of that time.

Conservatives at the turn of the century were still very much defenders of the crown and of strong centralized government. It was the liberals who tended to favour civil liberty, decentralization, and the market economy. That was certainly true at the federal level. I can't imagine that Alberta was _that_ different.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-08 11:13:47 AM


PS The provincial Liberals were popular in southern Alberta at the time too because ranchers resented the tariff/protectionist policies of the federal Conservatives, favouring instead the free trade policies of the federal Liberals under Laurier.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-08 11:24:07 AM


Notice when Albertans elected Liberal premiers -- when Laurier was leader of the Liberals and the party was libertarian.

I disagree with this assessment. The federal Liberals ensured that the new province of Alberta had a Liberal government when we entered confederation. It had more to do with Liberal corruption than voter preferences.

Alberta isn't necessarily law and order conservative or social conservative. There is a huge libertarian impulse and there always has been.

I do, however, agree with you here. I think Alberta is far more libertarian than people think. Ralph Klein won the PC leadership largely due to a statement about abortion being between a mother and her god.

If the Wildrose Alliance becomes more of a libertarian party, I think they have a good shot at success.

Posted by: Jesse Kline | 2009-06-08 12:47:08 PM


I wasn't aware of their corruption, though it was not uncommon in Canadian politics of the era (which is not to defend it). Thanks for pointing that out.

See: The Alberta and Great Waterways Railway Scandal.

Posted by: Jesse Kline | 2009-06-08 12:50:18 PM


The Tories would do well to dump Stelmach at the next leadership convention. He has brought his party and his province nothing but bad press.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-08 1:55:53 PM


I voted for Morton with Stelmach as second choice.
I never imagined that either Morton or Prentice would lose the the second rater. Should have left the second choice spot blank. Damn!

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-08 2:13:18 PM


I disagree with this assessment. The federal Liberals ensured that the new province of Alberta had a Liberal government when we entered confederation. It had more to do with Liberal corruption than voter preferences.

Except that they were re-elected several times after being initially appointed. And, yes, although, there was some corruption with the Liberals and railway financing -- just like there was under MacDonald and the Tories -- Laurier is still the most libertarian prime minister we've ever had and the only success the Liberal party enjoyed in Alberta was when he was prime minister. I'm hard-pressed to think there isn't a connection.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-08 2:52:53 PM


I disagree with this assessment. The federal Liberals ensured that the new province of Alberta had a Liberal government when we entered confederation. It had more to do with Liberal corruption than voter preferences.

Except that they were re-elected several times after being initially appointed. And, yes, although, there was some corruption with the Liberals and railway financing -- just like there was under MacDonald and the Tories -- Laurier is still the most libertarian prime minister we've ever had and the only success the Liberal party enjoyed in Alberta was when he was prime minister. I'm hard-pressed to think there isn't a connection.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-08 2:53:26 PM


The Liberals of the era did well in some of the Deep south constituencies in Alberta but the base of the provincial Conservative party was in Calgary and surrounding rural areas Okotoks Gleichen Cochrane etc. The Liberals of that era defiantly looked after the north better then the south though.

I am writing a Feature for my blog a several part series on what the provincial Liberals were all about it should be posted in the coming weeks.

Posted by: Travis Chase | 2009-06-08 3:12:12 PM


Danielle Smith was on Rutherford this morning. i must say, she kicked ass. all the callers were in support of the new party and very angry with our oblivious eurocollectivist Premier.

oh yeah, she mentioned a few times that she was a libertarian. she made alot of friends. she gets my vote (if Morton doesn't run (heh)).

Posted by: shel | 2009-06-08 3:47:16 PM


By stating that she is llibertarian, she is clearly going after the rural stronghold.

While I find the policies of the llibertarian Party impractical, distasteful if not outright stupid, I suspect that this is due to her not actually reading them before making her Llibertarian claim. She should have just stated that she is a fiscal conservative and leave it there otherwise she is alienating the huge middle class centrist urban vote.

But by going after Red Ed's core support, she will send stabs of fear throughout the PC caucus. The alliance will vote split the urban ridings and we may actually get a decent opposition at last.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-06-08 9:37:46 PM


~epsilon

the average rural voter here is actually more conservative than libertarian, and the influx of urban migrants from other parts of Canada are apolitical, meaning "social liberal". they don't vote. also, the Calgary urbanites who do vote are not lefties, and Edmontonians are a conservative/liberal mix.

so, the Wildrose Alliance should do pretty well, i think.

and heck, though conservatives and libertarians have alot in common, most people don't know what a libertarian is anyway. Smith did good. hopefully a new party can stem the red tide and get us back on track.

Posted by: shel | 2009-06-08 10:08:08 PM


"She should have just stated that she is a fiscal conservative and leave it there"

???
That's the same thing as stating one is libertarian.

Posted by: Brian Dell | 2009-06-09 2:07:07 AM


Not necessarily. Fiscal conservatives don't necessarily support ending marijuana prohibition, reducing gun controls, or ending the government monopoly on the provision of healthcare.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-09 4:17:29 AM


For the record, Smith stated that she's a "fiscal conservative" and "social libertarian". She was quite clear on those points...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-06-09 9:05:19 AM


She's going to face an uphill battle in AB politics. Oilmen, farmers, and ranchers have a slightly different slant on gender equality.

Sure, there are plenty of women in the oilpatch, but take a closer look at their actual positions. Most of the women in upper and middle management jobs, are in environment and reclamation. That's cleanup work, for those not in the business.

Women who run ranches and farms are usually widows. The rest of the women in the industry are lucky if they have their names on a land title.

Logging? No women.

I'm not saying this is okay. I think it's time to tear down some of these walls. I just don't know if Alberta is ready.

Posted by: dp | 2009-06-09 9:31:34 AM


The post by dp is one of the most ignorant I have ever read on here.

Oddly enough my rural/agricultural constituency elected a female representative for well over three decades. Guess those walls were broken down a long time ago.

Posted by: Alberta Libertarian | 2009-06-14 2:15:23 PM


as bad as stelmach has done, i believe albertans dodged a bullet when they didn't elect morton as leader of the party. i have no trust or respect for morton in his capacity as sustainable resource minister. he is a typical politician which rewards his cronies and ignores the rest. if wildrose alliance courts him to join their party in any way, shape, or form, i will have to conclude that they aren't wise enough to run a province.

which would be a shame, i was looking forward to a more libertarian type political party which would fit my beliefs.

Posted by: maghiz | 2009-09-29 9:51:34 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.