Alison Redford resigns, PC Premier of Alberta

[Accountability Now]

I have lived in all of them except PEI. They all have a particular flavor. Nice feature about this country.

So which is it? Conservatism or Redneck? Don't shy away now.

[On Guard for Thee]

So which is it? Conservatism or Redneck? Don't shy away now.

Aren't they one and the same?

[Accountability Now]

Aren't they one and the same?

So I guess according to your infinite wisdom, Canada is under redneck rule right now too? And all those Ontario MPs are rednecks too? Is that what you are saying? What other generalizations do you want to put on display today?

[hitops]

Alberta is like any place with historical conservative tendencies. Prosperity results, and creates a magnet for immigration, and immigration changes the political spectrum and consequently can eat away the same policies that caused the reason they came in the first place.

The converse is also true, Quebec being the prime example. They are hemorrhaging people, and those people may find themselves elsewhere, vote differently, and bring Quebec-type problems to wherever they go.

In the US it's also true. California (and everywhere else) is losing people to Texas because Texas has policies that breed prosperity. Eventually the new demographics will cause voting that will probably erode that. Virginia is an example of where that process has already taken place.

Edited March 24, 2014 by hitops

[guyser]

Alberta is like any place with historical conservative tendencies. Prosperity results, and creates a magnet for immigration, and immigration changes the political spectrum and consequently can eat away the same policies that caused the reason they came in the first place.

Net results suggest the population, while increasing, isnt all that much as Alta has held the same rough % of total pop of Canada .

IOW, as we all grow so grows Alta.

The converse is also true, Quebec being the prime example. They are hemorrhaging people, and those people may find themselves elsewhere, vote differently, and bring Quebec-type problems to wherever they go.

4.5% population growth is not a hemorrhage.....is it?

In the US it's also true. California (and everywhere else) is losing people to Texas because Texas has policies that breed prosperity. Eventually the new demographics will cause voting that will probably erode that. Virginia is an example of where that process has already taken place.

California, highest rate of growth in decades...2012 , 333g of em.

[The_Squid]

Net results suggest the population, while increasing, isnt all that much as Alta has held the same rough % of total pop of Canada .

IOW, as we all grow so grows Alta.

4.5% population growth is not a hemorrhage.....is it?

California, highest rate of growth in decades...2012 , 333g of em.

Please... don't go fighting innuendo with facts! That's hardly fair...

[guyser]

Please... don't go fighting innuendo with facts! That's hardly fair...

Aw geez...Im sorry, should have known better.

[hitops]

Net results suggest the population, while increasing, isnt all that much as Alta has held the same rough % of total pop of Canada .

IOW, as we all grow so grows Alta.

Umm nope, Alberta growth is much faster than anywhere else. More than double any other province with the exception of Sask, and not quite double Sask.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02b-eng.htm

4.5% population growth is not a hemorrhage.....is it?

Nope, but that's not Quebec's growth rate either. That's the rate over 5 years. Yearly rate is under 1%. (see previous statscan link).

Quebec is indeed hemorrhaging when it comes to inter-provincial migration. This issue has specifically been mentioned many times in the run up to the Quebec election, but here's a link anyway:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/recession-like-migration-from-quebec-highest-in-over-a-decade-1.2489009

California, highest rate of growth in decades...2012 , 333g of em.

Uh ya......babies are born in every state and every state grows. Net migration is the issue, and on that issue California is losing big.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Californias-Population-Moving-Out-182914961.html

Every state by net coming and going. California losing as usual:

http://vizynary.com/2013/11/18/restless-america-state-to-state-migration-in-2012/

'As for population and job growth, from 2000 to 2012, California grew 11.9 percent. Texas more than doubled California’s growth at 24.4 percent. The U.S. population expanded 11.3 percent in that time. Much of Texas’ growth came from domestic migration, while California lost residents to other states, Texas being the most common destination;'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/03/texas-v-california-the-real-facts-behind-the-lone-star-states-miracle/

Fastest growing states have conservative policies:

http://voices.yahoo.com/ten-fastest-growing-states-united-states-by-12372625.html?cat=3

Edited March 24, 2014 by hitops

[August1991]

Alberta is like any place with historical conservative tendencies. Prosperity results, and creates a magnet for immigration, and immigration changes the political spectrum and consequently can eat away the same policies that caused the reason they came in the first place.

Like Norway?

Would you call prosperous Norway (or Sweden) conservative? Or are they socialist?

----

Hitops, what are you really saying?

Edited March 25, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

She clearly took the premier's office to be more than it was. She thought she had a free ticket to do what she wanted which gets right in the face of those who feel they are serving honestly. It doesn't take long to lose your confidence in a leader when you see that he or she has little to no respect for the office.

[Eyes upturned] Ok .... But how did she lose the support of her caucus?

[overthere]

Would you call prosperous Norway (or Sweden) conservative? Or are they socialist?

They are quite different from each other....

Norway is a placewith a massive social contract, but they can easily afford it because they are expert at squeezing every nickel out of their revenue opportunities and can easily afford to fund pretty much anything they can dream up. Fiscally conservative, socially progressive. Before the oil, they struggled mightily. Notably, they have rejected joining the EU.

Sweden used to have a massive social contract, now seriously trimmed to one they can afford.

Both countries are run by pragmatists, not opportunistic amateurs.

They do share an ability we have so far failed to achieve: the wit to recognize reality and the character to act accordingly on a national level.

[Accountability Now]

Net results suggest the population, while increasing, isnt all that much as Alta has held the same rough % of total pop of Canada .

IOW, as we all grow so grows Alta.

Actually when you look at long term numbers this isn't true at all. Here is a link showing the provincial populations dating back to 1971. http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/statistics/population/PDF/Annual_Pop_Prov.PDF

The population of Alberta as a percentage of Canada in 1971 was 7.6% where as in 2013 it had 11.4% of Canada's population. Compare this with all these other provinces that had decreasing percentages in the same time period (NL - 2.4 to 1.4, PEI - 0.5-0.4, NS - 3.6 to 2.7, NB - 2.9 to 2.2, Que - 27.9 - 23.2, Man - 4.5 to 3.6, Sask - 4.2 to 3.2)

The only provinces to gain more of Canada's percentage were BC (10.2% to 13%) and Ontario (35.7% to 38.5%). Now I have nothing to back this up but BC typically gets large immigration numbers from Asia and Ontario (particularily Toronto) also gets a large immigration influx. I'm sure that Alberta gets some immigration influx but one number that is apparent is the large intra provincial movement to Alberta as of late. This chart shows the numbers for 2011-2012 which is not indicitave of the same 1971-2013 timeframe but does highlight the recent trend. You'll notice the dark blue NET is only postive in Alberta (and barely in Sask). The rest are negative.

4.5% population growth is not a hemorrhage.....is it?

As shown above, Quebec's population as a percentage of Canada has dropped drastically since 1971. It went from 27.9% to 23.8 %. I would consider that 4% drop to be hemorrhaging since all the other provinces that dropped were by 1% or less. Compare that with increases by 2.8% in Ont and BC and 3.8% in Alta.

[Accountability Now]

[Eyes upturned] Ok .... But how did she lose the support of her caucus?

Seriously? I just answered this.

[overthere]

"Mandel was a complete train wreck of a mayor - the perfect example of "tax and spend". He won exactly how Stelmach did, the third choice of everyone won the second ballot. He is also as NDP as conceivably possible (even considered "left" for Edmonton which should tell you something)."

Complete nonsense.

First, the voting system for the leader of the PC party is a preferential vote. You vote for first and second.

The mayor in Edmonton is a direct vote. Every voter gets to vote for ONE person. Duh.

NDP??? Totally oblivious. Edmonton does not have municipal party politics and they do not get slates of candidates overtly or otherwise during or after campaigns. The Council is refeshingly free of that nonsense.

If anything, Mandel was the best business head of any mayor in recent memory. He was the complete opposite of Jan Reimer, who was a hardcore lefty and got nothing done during a couple of terms.

In contrast, Mandel got a LOT done: loads of major infrastructure including billions on highways, LRT, sewers and the city has grown a lot during his tenure. He fought every klevel of govt hard for every penny, which is what he is supposed to do. This is likely news for a Calgarian, which has gotten a disproportionate share of money(with no effort required) for decades from the endless string of Calagry based Premiers.

The downtown of Edmonton is finally growing again thanks to Mandel: new museum, new arena, seveerla major condo towers, office buildings, LRT expnasion. None of that happened with his predecessors.

Hydra illustrates my point above why the next Premier won't be Mandel: he is not from Calgary. And that is unforgiveable in Alberta. Nenshi is glib and from Calgary. That is enough.

[left_alberta]

Wrong about the direction of Albertans voting. They have moved to the center long ago, and that messaage was pounded home sharply least election. There is simply no other interpretation. I know the ROC likes to think the place is bursting with rednecks, but in reality most people here are from soemwhere else, migration has been massive.

Wildrose got crushed last election.

Mandel was an excellent mayor, and would probably be a very good Premier.

He has one small thing against: he is 67, which is old for the job.

He has one massive strike against: he is from Edmonton. Premiers in AB MUST BE FROM CALGARY or CALGARY GETS VERY VERY ANGRY. The only Premier in the last few decades not from Calagry was Ed Stelmach, and he got run out of office because.... he wasn't from Calgary.

Don Getty as well was not from Calgary. And he got run out out of office.

BUT...

That doesn't back up the theory that Calgary always turfs non-Calgarians. Because Don Getty was more popular in Calgary than he was in Edmonton.

[overthere]

"Because Don Getty was more popular in Calgary than he was in Edmonton."

Maybe that was because people in Edmonton had watched his career as a horrible quarterback for the Eskimos?

Getty was run out of office by his (Calgary based) cabinet. He inexplicably did not change any of the Cabinet when he became Premier, an oversight he paid for dearly. Oh, and at the time Liberal leader Decore was getting pretty frisky, mostly with many seats in Edmonton. So... the Calgary based party exec dumped him and installed Klein(Calgary icon). Of course, installing Klein meant assassinating the career of the favoured Nancy McBeth, the front runner and a pal of Getty. Not coincidentally, McBeth was from.... wait for it... Edmonton.

[left_alberta]

overthere:

But do you really think that the Calgary-based cabinet dumped him simply because he wasn't from Calgary? It seems to me more likely that they dumped him because he lost a bunch of seats in 1986, failed to get them back in '89, and, as you say, showed signs of doing much worse in '93.

If it had been a Calgarian losing all those seats, you think the cabinet would have been, like "Oh, no big deal, as long as you're from Calgary, it's all good"? Or if it had been an Edmontonian continuing with Lougheed's numbers, they would have said "Well, 75 out of 79 seats is alright and all, but it really ticks us off that you're from Edmonton, so get the hell outta here"?

[hitops]

Like Norway?

Would you call prosperous Norway (or Sweden) conservative? Or are they socialist?

----

Hitops, what are you really saying?

What I'm saying to you is that you have to compare large, diverse economies to have meaningful comparisons. Culturally and politically, provinces or states with the same country are obviously the closest comparisons and would give us the most meaningful information.

Norway and Sweden are very different and have all kinds of confounding factors. They are very white, very educated, very small, and hostile to immigration. Section out that same group in Canada or the US (for accurate comparison), and you will have a group doing even better than Norwegians or Swedes. Norway also has the luxury of being a petro state with no corruption. Sweden and Norway both have sky-high taxes. All these factors change the game when comparing.

Edited March 25, 2014 by hitops

[guyser]

They are very white, very educated, very small, and hostile to immigration. Section out that same group in Canada or the US (for accurate comparison), and you will have a group doing even better than Norwegians or Swedes.

Sounds like Quebec.

White...yup

Educated...yup

Hostile to immigrations...yup pretty much (but in a sneaky way of course

[hitops]

Sounds like Quebec.

White...yup

Educated...yup

Hostile to immigrations...yup pretty much (but in a sneaky way of course

Quebec is no more educated than the Canadian average. The prairies are the highest by a fair margin, comparable to Scandinavian countries:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2009075/c-g/c-g3-eng.htm

I'm talking about actual rates of immigrants and the real world results, not local attitudes. While Quebec may not like immigrants, they have lots. Scandinavian countries on average have far fewer. This has real effects on a society.

Of cities, Montreal has third highest percentage of immigrants in the nation. It moves to 2nd place when you look at recent immigrants (2006 - 2011).

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/2011001/tbl/tbl1-eng.cfm

Quebec is also higher than Canadian average for total immigrant population

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/table/t2-eng.cfm

This is despite the fact that only a small minority of immigrants in the world would prefer French-speaking rather than English speaking areas. If you could correct for that, I'm sure Quebec would appear even more immigrant friendly, in policy terms.

Compared Quebec's immigrant population to Scandinavian countries. On average, it is much higher, notably 4x higher than Finland, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population

Edited March 26, 2014 by hitops

[Accountability Now]

Quebec is no more educated than the Canadian average. The prairies are the highest by a fair margin, comparable to Scandinavian countries:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2009075/c-g/c-g3-eng.htm

I'm talking about actual rates of immigrants and the real world results, not local attitudes. While Quebec may not like immigrants, they have lots. Scandinavian countries on average have far fewer. This has real effects on a society.

Of cities, Montreal has third highest percentage of immigrants in the nation. It moves to 2nd place when you look at recent immigrants (2006 - 2011).

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/2011001/tbl/tbl1-eng.cfm

Quebec is also higher than Canadian average for total immigrant population

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/table/t2-eng.cfm

This is despite the fact that only a small minority of immigrants in the world would prefer French-speaking rather than English speaking areas. If you could correct for that, I'm sure Quebec would appear even more immigrant friendly, in policy terms.

Compared Quebec's immigrant population to Scandinavian countries. On average, it is much higher, notably 4x higher than Finland, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population

Hey hitops...quit fighting innuendos with REAL facts. Lol.

[overthere]

overthere:

But do you really think that the Calgary-based cabinet dumped him simply because he wasn't from Calgary? It seems to me more likely that they dumped him because he lost a bunch of seats in 1986, failed to get them back in '89, and, as you say, showed signs of doing much worse in '93.

If it had been a Calgarian losing all those seats, you think the cabinet would have been, like "Oh, no big deal, as long as you're from Calgary, it's all good"? Or if it had been an Edmontonian continuing with Lougheed's numbers, they would have said "Well, 75 out of 79 seats is alright and all, but it really ticks us off that you're from Edmonton, so get the hell outta here"?

Being from Calgary is a prerequisite to job security as PC leader. The PC party has been run from there for many decades and they really get in a snit when it goes otherwise. One of the real oddities is that they have not changed their leadership process, which has led to two consecutives hijackings of the leaders positions. Stelmach was the first - there was a massive soiling of underwear south of Red Deer when he won , beating two ultinate old guarders in Dinning and Morton. It could be argued , and perhaps persuavively that the Stelmach episode was the stimulus behind the rise of Wildrose. That too was ehavily Calagry based in the angry remains of the right and religious parts of the old PCs.. Redford was the second. Of course, Redford is from Calgary but in the eyes of the party old guard she arrived there after indoctrination in North Korea. Doomed.

[left_alberta]

Being from Calgary is a prerequisite to job security as PC leader. The PC party has been run from there for many decades and they really get in a snit when it goes otherwise. One of the real oddities is that they have not changed their leadership process, which has led to two consecutives hijackings of the leaders positions. Stelmach was the first - there was a massive soiling of underwear south of Red Deer when he won , beating two ultinate old guarders in Dinning and Morton. It could be argued , and perhaps persuavively that the Stelmach episode was the stimulus behind the rise of Wildrose. That too was ehavily Calagry based in the angry remains of the right and religious parts of the old PCs.. Redford was the second. Of course, Redford is from Calgary but in the eyes of the party old guard she arrived there after indoctrination in North Korea. Doomed.

re: Stelmach being the stimulus for Wildrose. I would agree, though I think it had more to do with his heterodox royalty policies than with his place of origin.

re: Redford's "North Korean" background. Possibly she is regarded as ideologically suspect by the old guard, but the ironic thing there is that she is actually to the right of Lougheed(who campaigned for her in 2012). Mind you, Lougheed probably wasn't perceived as left-wing in his day, since his policies were very much in keeping with what then was the Keynesian-influenced mainstream, and there was no one of any significance to the right of him in the legislature after 1975. Whereas Redford makes a stark contrast to Wildrose.

[overthere]

Whereas Redford makes a stark contrast to Wildrose.

That contrast got her elected as Premier, simple as that. The rejection of Ted Morton had a lot to do with it too. The evangelical uglies fled PC when they realized that same sex marriage, abortion and social justice were all things that the PCs were not going to back away from. They all went to Wildrose.

Wildrose is an odd mash of the far right of the PCs who hate the Red Tory contingent, the mass of organized fundamentalist Christian groups who were set adrift by the sound thrashing of Ted Morton(twice) and random malcontents. They had the election won a couple years ago until Danielle Smith lost control of the runaway mouths of several of the numerous Wildrose evangelical weirdos candidates that are prominent in the party and that was pretty much the ball game. Really, all she needed to do was state that she believed the Earth was more than 6,000 years old, or to confirm that homosexuals were not evil, to become Premier. Wouldn't do it. Buh-bye.

Ordinary middle of the road absentee voters(the majority of Albertans) came to the polls in unprecedented numbers in alarm over the prospect of the unsettling nastiness at the core of Wildrose.

The eection campaign was won by Redord grabbing all of the middle, all the centrist vote.

The question now is: will the Tory old guard provincial executive actually understand why they are still in power? Will they be able to pick a leader/Premier that will appeal to enough centrist voters to defeat Wildrose again? The Tories benefit from the weak leaders on the left and left center. Raj Sherman is quickly leading the Liberals to complete oblivion because he is a certified idiot. Brian Mason of the NDP is the same stolid, earnest and utterly ineffective leader of the NDP he has always been.

The PCs have a large majority in the legislature now, but the legacy of Redord will erode that.

The next PC leader has some work to do!

Edited March 29, 2014 by overthere

[Kemohmansaray]

The problem of the PC party is complacency. How can one political party be in power for over 40 years and not become complacent? When a political party stayed that long in power it leads to corruption and misuse of power. "Power corrupt absolute power corrupt absolutely". This is what Africans face and we in the west are so quick to cry foul. This is why African countries often see coup d'état because of one political party staying too long in power. It is almost most the same, people don't vote they don't participate in the polo cal process and the party compensate those how help them to stay in power by offering them contracts, office positions etc. )Favouritism and nepotism ) how is a corrupt Africa government different from Alberta's government. How many people actually vote in elections? If we want change we should not sit back and whine but be proactive in getting involve in the political process. We cannot have the military to rescue us but it will take all of us using our democratic right that we are taking for granted and use it to effect the change we need.