Alberta PCs in trouble?

[August1991]

The Alberta Progressive Conservative party's approval rating has fallen to 39 per cent from 54 per cent in September 2006, according to a Leger Marketing poll being released today.

The party's popularity is waning across Alberta, not just in Calgary where Stelmach has been feuding with Mayor Dave Bronconnier over infrastructure dollars.

"Overall, he's now below 40 per cent. He was at 54 per cent when we started tracking this in September. So that's a pretty big slide," said Marc Tremblay, vice-president of Leger Marketing.

Tremblay said the most dramatic downward move began in April, the month the government released its budget. The poll shows that since September, Kevin Taft's Alberta Liberal party gained eight percentage points, jumping from 12 to 20 per cent.

Calgary Herald

Does this mean anything? Can anyone explain it to me?

[jdobbin]

Does this mean anything? Can anyone explain it to me?

I think I started a similar thread a month ago and asked the same question.

The problem began when they allowed one member, one vote system.

I'm only half joking when I say that. There were a lot of non-Tories who joined the PCs just to influence the vote. Could it have had an impact?

[August1991]

I think I started a similar thread a month ago and asked the same question.

Sorry. I took a quick glance of active threads over the past few months and saw nothing.

The problem began when they allowed one member, one vote system.

I'm only half joking when I say that. There were a lot of non-Tories who joined the PCs just to influence the vote. Could it have had an impact?

So you mean that the problem is Stelmach?

[jdobbin]

Sorry. I took a quick glance of active threads over the past few months and saw nothing.

So you mean that the problem is Stelmach?

I know at the time when the leadership campaign was on that union leaders and Liberal votes were joining the PCs just to vote for a candidate. Is it not beyond the realm that the PCs elected someone they might have done otherwise?

One of the reasons I am against one member, one vote is that it does seem too easy for outside parties to hijack the leadership of another party. The delegate system is fraught with problems as well but what we saw in Alberta was a leadership campaign that had plenty of non-PCs voting.

Stelmach's rural roots do not fit Alberta's charging urbanism. Calgary and Edmonton are huge cities and they are largely underrepresented in the new government.

[geoffrey]

So you mean that the problem is Stelmach?

Not really. Stelmach is an excuse to finally look at change. People want some new blood, perhaps, and Stelmach just isn't it.

Dinning would have appealed to Calgary and Edmonton long enough to squeeze a couple more terms... but in all honest how much longer will people allow the Tories to govern. They've been in power for over 36 years now, longer than I've been alive. Put it another way, of all the people in business in Alberta today, most of them have never known anything but Tory in their adult life.

Ed Stelmach was younger than I am when Lougheed was first elected... he turned 20 the year of.

The Tories have bread new Tories. It's an old party, with huge grassroots support and alot of cash. They are n't dead, but like the Liberals in Ottawa (albeit a shorter term for them), people are beginning to look for change.

Unforunately, they want things like rent controls and halts on development. Interventionism didn't give Alberta the wealth we have today. This younger generation of Albertans are really the ultimate silver spoon socialists.

Stelmach's rural roots do not fit Alberta's charging urbanism. Calgary and Edmonton are huge cities and they are largely underrepresented in the new government.

Very true. There aren't the hicks you once saw even a few years ago. They've taken all their oil money and bought Benz's instead of F-350's and cleaned up. A little money can definitely swing people to the left side of the spectrum.

Not saying that people still don't drive trucks here disproportionatley to the rest of Canada, but it's becoming fewer and fewer.

It isn't the Alberta of 5 or 10 years ago, culturally or politically.

[Canuck E Stan]

One of the reasons I am against one member, one vote is that it does seem too easy for outside parties to hijack the leadership of another party. The delegate system is fraught with problems as well but what we saw in Alberta was a leadership campaign that had plenty of non-PCs voting.

I don't know where you got your "plenty of non-PC votes" numbers from, but in this provincial election 97,690 people vote in the first round.

Dinning, the province's one-time provincial treasurer who has been out of elected politics for a decade, had 29,470 votes with all of the province's 83 constituencies reporting. That represented about 30 per cent of the 97,690 ballots cast.

The second-place candidate is rookie backbencher Ted Morton, standard-bearer for the hard right of the party, with 25,648 votes (26 per cent). Ed Stelmach, a farmer and former cabinet minister, had 14,967 votes (15 per cent).

The deciding factor in this election was all the other candidates who placed below these top three throwing their support to Stelmach.The second round saw this support go to Stelmach and eliminate Morton(made Minister of Sustainable Resource Development). Morton in turn also gave his support to Stelmach, and in the third round it paid off for Stelmach in a win.

* Lyle Oberg:11.9% (made Minister of Finance)

* Dave Hancock:7.8% (made Minister of Health and Wellness, Government House Leader)

* Mark Norris, 6.9%

* Victor Doerksen:0.9%

* Gary McPherson:0.8%

Alberta PC election

Much like the Federal Liberal vote that the media said was a fight between Rae and Iggy,the PC vote was a battle between Morton and Dining.And the results are not much different than Kennedy giving Dion his support, and the Rae people hating Iggy enough to send their votes to Dion too.

Your so called "plenty of non-PC vote" was virually non-existant and had nothing to do with Stelmach's win.

[jdobbin]

I don't know where you got your "plenty of non-PC votes" numbers from, but in this provincial election 97,690 people vote in the first round.

The second-place candidate is rookie backbencher Ted Morton, standard-bearer for the hard right of the party, with 25,648 votes (26 per cent). Ed Stelmach, a farmer and former cabinet minister, had 14,967 votes (15 per cent).

The deciding factor in this election was all the other candidates who placed below these top three throwing their support to Stelmach.The second round saw this support go to Stelmach and eliminate Morton(made Minister of Sustainable Resource Development). Morton in turn also gave his support to Stelmach, and in the third round it paid off for Stelmach in a win.

* Lyle Oberg:11.9% (made Minister of Finance)

* Dave Hancock:7.8% (made Minister of Health and Wellness, Government House Leader)

* Mark Norris, 6.9%

* Victor Doerksen:0.9%

* Gary McPherson:0.8%

Much like the Federal Liberal vote that the media said was a fight between Rae and Iggy,the PC vote was a battle between Morton and Dining.And the results are not much different than Kennedy giving Dion his support, and the Rae people hating Iggy enough to send their votes to Dion too.

Your so called "plenty of non-PC vote" was virually non-existant and had nothing to do with Stelmach's win.

It was talked about in an earlier thread and the link was the Calgary Herald about union members and Liberals buying membership to influence the vote.

http://weblogs.ucalgary.ca/dllawson/blog/2..._being_hijacked

I heard that a lot of that non-PC vote went to Oberg.

I guess you can believe what you want. I know that if I lived in Alberta and it only took $5 to influence the vote, I might do it.

I still don't think much about the one member, one vote system. It is too easy to fiddle with it from the outside.

[August1991]

Much like the Federal Liberal vote that the media said was a fight between Rae and Iggy,the PC vote was a battle between Morton and Dining.And the results are not much different than Kennedy giving Dion his support, and the Rae people hating Iggy enough to send their votes to Dion too.

Your so called "plenty of non-PC vote" was virually non-existant and had nothing to do with Stelmach's win.

Without knowing alot about this, that's my reading too.

It is hard to see how outside votes will push a party to choose a bad leader. At most, outside votes will decide among a tough choice of good candidates. (If three candidates have 30% of the vote each, is it correct to say that outsiders with 4% of the vote chose the leader?)

IOW, the federal Liberals chose Dion, and Albertan PCs chose Stelmach.

----

With all this said, are the Albertan PCs on the downside of history? Geoffrey seems to think that it's inevitable (or as Karl Marx would say, inexorable).

In Alberta's past, it seems that it is the newbie who wins power - not the incumbent who loses it.

[geoffrey]

In Alberta's past, it seems that it is the newbie who wins power - not the incumbent who loses it.

Very true. That's why I have a hard time believing that Taft (a very ineffective leader) will come to power under the Liberals. If a charasmatic leader stepped up (I'm looking right at Bronconnier), they'd have a chance. After all, it wouldn't be the first Calgary mayor to win.

[fellowtraveller]

Sorry. I took a quick glance of active threads over the past few months and saw nothing.

So you mean that the problem is Stelmach?

I know at the time when the leadership campaign was on that union leaders and Liberal votes were joining the PCs just to vote for a candidate. Is it not beyond the realm that the PCs elected someone they might have done otherwise?

One of the reasons I am against one member, one vote is that it does seem too easy for outside parties to hijack the leadership of another party. The delegate system is fraught with problems as well but what we saw in Alberta was a leadership campaign that had plenty of non-PCs voting.

Stelmach's rural roots do not fit Alberta's charging urbanism. Calgary and Edmonton are huge cities and they are largely underrepresented in the new government.

The leadership vote was not so much a vote for Stelmach, it was a vote against Morton - and a decisive vote at that.

The 'discontent' is based on a Calgary perception that they are somehow underreprsented in Stelmachs cabinet. Despite having had local Clagary premiers for much of the last 25 years, and having had both Dinning and Morton as local candiates in the leadership. Calagry has traditionally had the lions share too of money for schools and infrastructure for quite some time.

Metro Edmonton has many Opposition members, unless Stelmach appoints some Liberals and NDP to cabinet posts that can't change. Edmonton has long been the source of the Oppositioon in Alberta, another thing that Calgarians hate about the place.

I do hope Bronconnier runs for the Liberals. he comes across as a first class a**hole interested only in what he can grab. A crushing defeat might shut his whining down for a few minutes.

[geoffrey]

The leadership vote was not so much a vote for Stelmach, it was a vote against Morton - and a decisive vote at that.

I actually went out of my way to vote against Stelmach. He was the worst choice of the three. That said, here we are.

Morton, Dinning. Those were my choices in order. I wanted change, Dinning and Stelmach weren't it. Dinning was a business connected Calgarian, I like that. That's why he was 2nd and not Stelmach.

Interestingly, I was with the Oberg camp at the beginning until he was eliminated.

The 3rd guy in the battle was almost sure to win regardless. Again, the stupidity of preferential ballot in a general election is revealed.

The 'discontent' is based on a Calgary perception that they are somehow underreprsented in Stelmachs cabinet. Despite having had local Clagary premiers for much of the last 25 years, and having had both Dinning and Morton as local candiates in the leadership. Calagry has traditionally had the lions share too of money for schools and infrastructure for quite some time.

Good. Calgary should have roughly 1/3 of the cabinet seats relative to our population. We have what, 5 cabinet members in a 20 something cabinet. 2 are just associate ministers, equal to about a parliamentary secretary in Ottawa. We should have no fewer than 1/3 considering our economic position and at least 2 or 3 should be in the top 10 'key' spots. Currently, no Calgary MLA has a key spot in cabinet.

That doesn't fly with me

I do hope Bronconnier runs for the Liberals. he comes across as a first class a**hole interested only in what he can grab. A crushing defeat might shut his whining down for a few minutes.

Careful. Bronco is highly popular in Calgary, despite his endless whining. It wouldn't be the first time a loud mouth (in a slightly more classy way in Bronco's favour) Calgary mayor became Premier.

[Riverwind]

Good. Calgary should have roughly 1/3 of the cabinet seats relative to our population. We have what, 5 cabinet members in a 20 something cabinet. 2 are just associate ministers, equal to about a parliamentary secretary in Ottawa.

OH the humilation. It is time for Calgary to seperate and create its own country free from despots in Edmonton...

[geoffrey]

Good. Calgary should have roughly 1/3 of the cabinet seats relative to our population. We have what, 5 cabinet members in a 20 something cabinet. 2 are just associate ministers, equal to about a parliamentary secretary in Ottawa.

OH the humilation. It is time for Calgary to seperate and create its own country free from despots in Edmonton...

No, but we should have at least one key cabinet place, from the economic side, no?

Education is nice, and a critical issue. I'll give Stelmach that. But the economic engine should be leading the economic policy IMO.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Partisan politics just gets worse! If it is not bad enough that we have had a one party rule for the last three and a half decades, now the power struggles within that party consume us. Lets waste time arguing about how much politics a group of citizens should have.

Albertans need to wake the #$%@ up and smell the coffee. We need to drop these petty concerns and start thinking about the reality of our society. We are devolving instead of evolving at a rapid pace. The price Albertans have paid for economic development has been to say the least high. Granted that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, yet our politicians are driven and manipulated by the financial backers and their partisan masters. We are living in an "its all about me world". The "me" being the political animal at the top of the gravy train. The rest of citizens are viewed as pond scum. While we are divesting ourselves of our natural resources, we don't need to export the employment that could be gained through development out of the province. While many Albertans were content to either become or remain in political apathy, the line is being drawn in the sand over this pipelining of tar sands out of the province. Without the development of secondary industry we will never get any further ahead then we are now. That would be fine with the architects of the current political direction and their corporate masters. On the other hand, the citizens of this province desire a LITTLE MORE BENEFIT then they currently have from their efforts.

[Canuck E Stan]

According to Byfield, Stelmach has visionary problems.

Alberta finds itself in astonishing situation

[August1991]

Good link, Canuck:

"We are without ideas, without policies, without a program, without a vision. We have nothing. Tell us what you think we should do."

...

Why, moreover, have we heard so little from Alberta in the current fight over the federal equalization program? We hear a great deal from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and even more from Ontario on the other side of the fence.

But where is Alberta, milk cow of the whole program and the whole country?

....

Look back at all the great premiers of Alberta -- Rutherford, Brownlee, Aberhart, Manning, Lougheed and the early Ralph Klein-- every one of them came into office knowing exactly what he wanted to do, why he wanted to do it, and how.

Albertans deserve a better, more competent voice than what they have.

The universe, power, abhors a vacuum. Maybe this is an instance where an Albertan government will defeat itself.

[geoffrey]

Maybe this is an instance where an Albertan government will defeat itself.

I'm not so sure. The polling indicates that while alot of people are abandoning the Tories, most are joining this 'Undecided" Party. I'm unsure about this party or their policies, but they must be attractive.

On the other hand, the Liberals and NDP numbers have been stagnant while Ed's support has plummeted.

I wouldn't be too worried yet.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm not so sure. The polling indicates that while alot of people are abandoning the Tories, most are joining this 'Undecided" Party. I'm unsure about this party or their policies, but they must be attractive.

On the other hand, the Liberals and NDP numbers have been stagnant while Ed's support has plummeted.

I wouldn't be too worried yet.

The Liberals have it in their grasp *if* they get a new leader...

Sadly they have only had one leader in the last 20 years who could have been Premier. If Laurence Decore hadn't been taken early because of cancer the Liberals probably would have broken through.

Stelmach will win by default. Although a minority Government in Alberta would be hella interesting...

[geoffrey]

Although a minority Government in Alberta would be hella interesting...

Eww. I'd hope the opposition would resign. Alberta does well because it's in the top 3 (at the very least) most attractive business climates in North America. The last thing we need is political uncertainty with a bunch of enviro-nut lefties holding the balance of power.

If Alberta votes out the Tories in the near future, they'll be signing their own warranty to become like the rest of Canada. There is no pro-business party other than the PCs. I don't want a second class society. I rather enjoy it the way things are.

The PC's have had their faults, but they are the only competent party in town. So keep voting PC.

[Michael Bluth]

Eww. I'd hope the opposition would resign. Alberta does well because it's in the top 3 (at the very least) most attractive business climates in North America. The last thing we need is political uncertainty with a bunch of enviro-nut lefties holding the balance of power.

I hear you, but I think the provincial PCs need a huge collective kick in the arse.

A one-time minority would go a long way in that direction.

[jdobbin]

The PC's have had their faults, but they are the only competent party in town. So keep voting PC.

After reading this article, I wonder if that is true.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...f4-92e55bf1a184

In the past five years, spending rose 50%, one-third financed by resource money it won't see again. By comparison Norway, which started saving in 1990, has stockpiled 60% of its energy take. Alaska manages, on average, to put away 20% of resource revenues into its Permanent Fund, started the same year as Alberta's and now worth US$37-billion. The province hasn't frittered away all resource income; just most of it. Between 1970 and 2005, it raked in more than $120-billion in petrodollars, contributing less than 10% to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund started by premier Peter Lougheed in 1976.

Mr. Lougheed planned to earmark 30% of resource windfalls annually, later cut to 15%, but between 1987 and 2006, Alberta contributed nothing while helping itself to the bulk of fund earnings. If it had simply left returns alone, according to Ken Kobly, CEO of the Alberta Chambers of Commerce, the Heritage Fund would have $52-billion. Had the 30% rule been strictly followed, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce calculates that, with compounding, it would have $109-billion. Instead, it's worth $16.6-billion. (There's another $25-billion in research and scholarship funds but it won't fix potholes on the QE2 when economic times turn rough.)

Even as the Stelmach government made a $1.25-billion fund deposit last year, it drained $1.37-billion out, despite an $8.9-billion budget surplus. While Mr. Lougheed's predictions of a coming Alberta-Ottawa clash over oil-sands emissions earned headlines this week, his speech to Calgary's Canadian Bar Association included another warning: that Albertans will one day wake up furious over how little their government has prepared for rainy days.

I think Peter Lougheed is right about people being angry years from now about how nothing was put away.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes Peter is right, but that does not mean that the current government will follow his advice. The harsh reality of Alberta is that they are very conservative by nature. Alberta has potential, but only that. Until the province begins to stand up for itself it will remain a backwater in both social and political terms.

An Alberta government that was responsive to the desires of the public would make sweeping changes to its economic and and political infrastructure. This government is not. A report on royalties is due shortly and I believe it will set the tone for this government. If the government does not revamp its royalty rates they will soon begin to hear from citizens in a very loud and clear manner. If the government calls an election this fall it will lose a lot of seat to the opposition and it will mark the beginning of the end for its tenure. The specter of separatism may well rear its head as a result of the people seeking alternatives to the present system.

[geoffrey]

Well, you see, Norway doesn't believe it's people are very smart, nor does Alaska. They save money for their people, no trust. Alberta gives us the money and let's us choose.

I'll take that freedom. If you choose to buy the HEMI and boat than do it, so long as they don't bitch later.

Why is the government saving money? For it's retirement? It's better to have those dollars in the economy where they can be used to stimulate new industry.

Edited August 24, 2007 by geoffrey

[August1991]

Well, you see, Norway doesn't believe it's people are very smart, nor does Alaska. They save money for their people, no trust. Alberta gives us the money and let's us choose.

No, the Albertan government spends the money (or what's left after the Feds take a cut).

Link

IMV, people in Alberta should pay no income and no corporate taxes whatsoever since all government expenditure could be financed through borrowing or resource and environmental rents.

I admire Lougheed for resisting the urge to spend the money on new-fangled projects. He put it aside for a rainy day but most important, he didn't spend it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually the Alaskan Permanent Fund was designed by a former Alberta Socred Treasurer! The reality is that August is 100% right.