Calgary-Shaw By-Election: Don't Get Too Confident

 First, congratulations to newly-elected MLA Kyle Campbell.  The win was decisive enough to not need a judicial recount, and to some degree sent a message to the United Conservative Party (UCP).  

This is not the overwhelming victory that it should have been.  Voters did not turn out in large numbers, and while a 500 vote margin is large enough to avoid a judicial recount, it's not anywhere near what should have been the case if people were actually paying attention to what is going on in Alberta politics. 

You can fully expect the UCP to argue a few things here: 

1. It's a by-election, and the turnout is so low as to really mean it was just angry NDPers who came out in numbers.
2. The vote was "split" because the Progressive Tory Party (PTP) garnered nearly 1,000 votes - stealing victory from the UCP

It's the latter argument that is more insidious because it presupposes that the existence of the PTP is invalid, and they should all be part of the UCP.  They will use this to attempt to undermine the PTP between now and next election. 

The logic will be something along the lines of "voting for the UCP will ensure the continuance of the conservative dominion over Alberta", and that "voting for the PTP is essentially voting for the NDP, and we cannot have the NDP in power ever again".  

Unite The Right Logic

The error in that logic is the supposition that conservatism is somehow a monolith.  In reality, as we are seeing in both BC and Federally, the language of "unite the right" is really a code phrase for a "takeover from within" of a party by its most radicalized socially conservative fringe groups.  

Federally, it's been a long, slow burn with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  The "unite the right" campaign began in the late 1990s and culminated in the merger of the Reform Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties under Stephen Harper's control.  I say control because while Harper was leader of the CPC, he was very careful to keep the social conservative wing carefully constrained so that the public wouldn't freak out at some of their more radical policies.  Since Harper stepped aside after losing the Federal Election in 2015, we have seen the CPC move ever further right, with increasingly radical socially-conservative policies become part of the policy book at each convention, and leaders that seem more willing than Harper to adopt those policies themselves.   That's a long burn - 25 years - but it was only that long because of Harper's tenure at the helm - had a leader with less focus on power been in charge, I would probably have been writing this kind of argument by 2015. 

The BC Conservatives have been speed running this same script.  The BC Conservatives ejected Rustad after the party narrowly lost the 2024 election.  The first half of 2026 was a leadership campaign which ultimately led to the election of Kerry-Lynne Findlay - who has made it very clear she is aligned with the more radicalized socially conservative wing of the party.  Rustad was already aligned, although somewhat more careful about what he said, Findlay is far more direct about it.  The BC Conservatives went from at least seemingly mainstream to radicalized in less than a year.  Since becoming leader, 9 MLAs have departed the BC Conservative caucus.  

The UCP suffers from a similar problem, with internal coups having resulted in the party going from "newly united" to radicalized in less than 10 years.  COVID no doubt played a role in that, but it's not hard to look at the party as it was in 2017 and what it looks like now and see that Danielle Smith is clearly beholden to a small, but organized and vocal group of radicals.  

In short, the "united front" of conservatives is not really what it claims to be.  It's a front for the movement's most extreme beliefs to take precedence.  

Upcoming Electoral Moments In Alberta

The Referendums

In just over a month, Alberta voters will vote in a series of 10 referendum questions - all of which are basically separatist propaganda questions.  If current polling is any indication, these questions should all go down to a pretty nasty defeat.  Of course, that supposes that a significant percentage of eligible voters actually vote.  It is not clear to me at all that will be the case.  

I fully expect Smith to ignore the results of the referendum and simply forge ahead with next steps.  Not because she has any mandate to do so, but because her career depends on that happening.

2027 Election

Next year's election is another matter entirely.  First, this fall is when Smith's second "Electoral District Commission" will release its revised electoral map.  Expect this to contain a significant amount of "gerrymandering" in the form of ridings on the edges of major urban centres being carved into "rurban ridings", and ridings where the UCP sees themselves at risk being creatively rearranged so that they are absorbed into safer ridings.  

Additionally, the UCP will probably step up its campaign against both the PTP and the NDP. 

Closing Thoughts 

The upshot here is that while the by-election in Calgary-Shaw is a definite win for people who are angry with the UCP, we need to recognize that we are not dealing with a party that cares one whit about "democratic mandates", and will push through whatever it feels like.  

Opponents of the UCP and the separatist movement in Alberta need to continue to organize and get their message out there.  Not just during campaign periods.  

On Government Finances and Debt

In Alberta Views this month, we have a debate column pair about government debt written by economist Trevor Tombe, and former PC finance minister Ted Morton.

There are a number of respects in which I find Morton's arguments are profoundly flawed, and I would like to take some time to address them in more depth than the relative brevity that the magazine format allows for.

Time To Get Your Eye Back On The Ball, Tom

Apparently NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair hasn't figured out what the ball is in Canadian politics today.

He also took shots at both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Trudeau.Trudeau, in particular, bore the brunt of Mulcair's attack.
The Liberals under Trudeau have been trying to court middle-class voters in the run-up to the next election, scheduled for Oct 19, 2015.

Let me be abundantly clear, Tom:  The problem in this country today is sitting two sword-lengths away from you in the House of Commons.  It is not the third party in the house, it is not the leader of that party, nor anybody else in the house - it is Harper and his government.

If the NDP is truly "The Government in Waiting", as the official opposition is often characterized, it needs to be focused on the malfeasance of the governing party.  There is no shortage of material to work with.  The "Fair Elections Act" (one of the most ironically named pieces of legislation ever tabled in the House of Commons) comes to mind, as do the government's abuse of omnibus bills, time allocation, and a litany of other topics that could be used to make political hay.

The only person that profits when Mulcair attacks the Liberals is Stephen Harper.  If he can show the NDP as unfocused, and just for fun gains a little bit from Mulcair's random attacks on the Liberals, he wins.  

Every time Mulcair takes a shot at Harper, he seems to think he has to take a shot at Trudeau.  I have no idea who is telling him this is effective rhetoric.  It isn't.  It dilutes his message, it takes the focus off the malfeasance of the governing party and actually makes Mulcair look like a dog who can't figure out what to bark at.

Mulcair has done an excellent job in the House of Commons grilling Harper over the Senate Expenses Scandal, so we know he's capable of excellent rhetoric and focused attacks on the government.  

The ball that he needs to focus on is NOT Justin Trudeau and the Liberals ... it is Stephen Harper and his band of criminals who are madly trying to steal Canada's democracy from Canadians.  Want to make political hay, Mr. Mulcair?  Keep your eye on the ball - in this case Harper and his government.  

Mulcair's Beard Is Not The Point

There are days that I am positive that the "image consultants" who hover around our political leaders don't have a clue what they are talking about.  Today, we find the discussion of the week is whether or not Mulcair should shave off his beard.

But media consultant Barry McLoughlin told HuffPost that if Mulcair was his client, he'd recommend he take two weeks off in the summer and shave it.

McLouglin said that although Mulcair's beard is well-styled, trimmed and looks good on him, it creates a barrier between him and the voter. Hiding some of his face makes it harder for people to connect with him, McLoughlin said — and it shouldn't come as a surprise that people may feel they don't know him personally if a third of his face is hidden.

Frankly, I actually like Mulcair's beard - he keeps it neat and it suits him.  I may not want to kiss it, but when I'm looking at a politician, that isn't what I think about anyhow - on that score, that's a discussion between Mulcair and his wife.

Mulcair's real problem isn't his beard.  It never has been.

Frankly, the issue that he is facing isn't his beard, it's his politics.  His job, as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, is to hold Harper and his gang of thugs accountable.  I'm sorry to say it, but frankly he's been failing miserably at it.

It seems as though every time that Harper does something abusive to this country, Mulcair barks at the Liberals.

Okay, I get it.  Mulcair sees the Liberals as a threat.  However, falling into the Stephen Harper pattern of trying to discredit the Liberals at every turn distracts him from doing his job - which should be taking Harper to task for absolutely everything that he does.

If Mulcair wants to reside at this nation's most coveted address, 24 Sussex Drive, he has to show Canadians that he is capable of far better than Harper has provided.  Instead, he more often than not seems to be in cahoots with Harper - attacking the Liberals instead of the Conservative government.

In the midst of the Senate Expenses Scandal, we haven't heard Mulcair make changes to his party's accountability in the House.  All we've heard is a glib, simplistic bunch of nonsense about abolishing the Senate, without actually addressing the far more central issue of accountability in Parliament.

The problem isn't that Mulcair doesn't attack the Conservatives - he certainly does - but rather that he doesn't focus his attacks.  Instead of holding the government to account for its actions and abuses of power, he dilutes the effectiveness of his comments by always seeming to add "the Liberals do it too".

The effect is like watching a cat being taunted by magpies - the cat simply cannot decide which magpie to go after, and fails to go after either effectively.  Mulcair has relatively little excuse for his performance, either.  There is no shortage of things that he could be calling Harper and his minions to task for.

First and foremost, Mulcair has to step forth and show himself to be capable of holding the current government to account.  He hasn't done that very well to date.  If he wishes to be the man sitting in 24 Sussex in a couple of years' time, Mulcair needs to get his focus sorted out.  At the rate things are going, even his ability to hang on to Stornaway is becoming questionable.  

Layton Flip-Flopping?

I must confess that Jack Layton's antics lately are making less and less sense.

Yesterday, the G&M was reporting that Layton had taken Tax Cuts off the NDP's list of budget demands that the HarperCon$ must meet in order to get the NDP to vote for the budget.

This morning, he seems to be speaking out the other side of his mouth.

The last time I saw something this incoherent out of anyone, I was pretty sure the individual was having a psychotic episode. Layton's changing his position on things so rapidly - and frequently - that it's almost impossible to figure out what direction he is trying to head.

But then again, Layton's behaviour in the HOC has been plain bizarre ever since 2006 - to a degree that makes me question Layton's objectives and his commitment to the principles upon which his party is founded.

Why Is The NDP Acting Like An Adjunct To Harper?

There's an important observation in this morning's article about the Liberal Caucus retreat:

But a $550-a-plate fundraising dinner slated for Monday night in Sudbury has garnered criticism from local unions and the NDP, as about 3,000 workers with Vale Inco enter their seventh week on the picket lines with no negotiations between the company and the union.

Some workers along the picket line described the dinner as a "slap in the face" and said they planned to protest outside the event.

Sudbury NDP MP Glenn Thibeault also plans to hold a dinner of his own, serving spaghetti and salad at $5.50 a plate to support miners who find themselves without a job.

"My whole meal … is going to cost about $550 to feed about 150 to 200 people, so there's a big difference here," he said.

Uh huh. Now, tell me Mr. Layton, about those "fundamental differences" that keep you from "supporting" the Harper government? You seem to be doing an awfully good job of telling your people to ignore the malfeasance of the Conservative GOVERNMENT while paying attention to the Liberals.

It's pretty amazing how regularly we are hearing things out of the NDP that sound suspiciously like Conservative-generated talking points.

Of Debates and Conspiracy

Okay, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will be in the leader's debate this election.

In spite of the fact that the Greens haven't elected any MPs to seats, they have run numbers in the 5-8% range in the last two elections - more than enough base support to demonstrate that there is a significant amount of interest in what they have to say.

There have been many times in the past when the NDP in particular has been polling down in that same range. Which is one of the reasons I take exception to the argument that 'only people who have a chance of becoming PM should be in the debate' that has been put forward. This is a spurious argument, IMO, because it suggests that only two leaders should ever be in these debates - the incumbent PM and the Leader of the Opposition. (Historically, I don't think that the 'third party' leaders have ever prevailed on election day)

But, what really bothers me about this whole affair is the way that Harper and Layton have been moving in virtual lock-step with each other on this:

The broadcasters changed course after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated earlier Wednesday that they no longer oppose May's participation in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2.

... and just a few days ago, we have this:

In arguing against May's inclusion, the Tories and NDP cited a deal she struck with Dion, in which they agreed not to run candidates against each other in their respective Nova Scotia and Quebec ridings.

It strikes me that Msrs. Harper and Layton are cut from the same Machiavellian cloth - it's all about personal gain for them, not about making Canada a better place to live.

Dear Jack - The Target's Further Right ...

I have no idea just what Jack Layton thinks he's doing.

Instead of focusing his attacks on Stephen Harper's utterly destructive government, he instead plays into Harper's game by critiquing Stephane Dion:

Mr. Dion cannot have it both ways. He cannot in good conscience complain about the negative effects of Mr. Harper's agenda one day and then see to it that it passes in Parliament the next. Increasingly, this is what is wrong with politics. More and more Canadians are seeing that this is what is wrong with the Liberal party.

I hate to point this out to Mr. Layton, but the issue at hand is not Mr. Dion - it's the dishonesty of the current occupant of the PMO and his antics. Every time Layton opens his mouth these days, there's a "half hearted critique" of the government, followed by a long winded attack directed at the Liberals.

Perhaps Mr. Layton thinks he's going to make some political points this way, but ultimately all he is doing is selling out to Harper's tactics of political thuggery and confrontation.

What Layton continually misses, and fails to focus on is how "Canada's Gnu Government" under PMSH is selling us down the river and turning us into a vassal state to George Bush's America.

A while ago on a friend's blog, I criticized Layton for supporting Harper and was asked what I meant - this is precisely what I mean. Layton is not being an effective opposition, he is being Harper's ally by playing to Harper's tactics. He doesn't attack Harper for making everything before the house a confrontation; he hasn't been going after Harper's government for writing laws that breach fundamental tenets of our justice system; he hasn't held Harper to account for liquidating the very government programs that hold the government accountable for its own programs.

If I was an active NDP supporter, I'd be a might bit pissed with Mr. Layton's tacit endorsement of PMSH's governance.