ALBERTA: Provincial Elections!

[crazy canuck]

So while the BC Liberals are really Conservative, the Alberta Conservative are really Liberals? I mean, the teachers' union?

In BC the Liberal party is really the old Social Conservative party which was formed through a coalition of the then Liberal and Conservative parties.  After the Social Credit party collapsed in the early 90s the provincial Liberals were the brand name the coalition re-formed around.

Some interesting trivia.  Christy Clark was always a Liberal - both Federal and Provincial.  She was not part of the Social Credit party and so not part of the coalition per se, until the Social Credit collapsed and all those voters shifted to the provincial Liberals.  When that happened Gordon Campell won the leaderhip of the Party and the takeover of the Liberal party by the old coalition was essentially complete.

So what is the relevance of all that trivia today?  When you hear in the news that Christy Clark is having trouble with the "conservatives" in the Liberal party they dont mean "C" Conservatives.  They mean the people in the colation who were Social Credit and then Liberal.  ie the vast majority of the party.  That is why she had only one MLA support her in the leadership race and that is why the media continually speculates as to how strong her support is within the party.

tldr - the Leader of the Liberal party is and has always been a "real" liberal but she is leading a coaltion party primarily made up of non liberals - ie, ex social credit members.

[Sheilbh]

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

Maggie was a lawyer too.

[Neil]

Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Margaret Thatcher.

Exception that proves the rule.

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

[crazy canuck]

BB, while it didnt turn out the way you wanted I think the result is very positive in three ways:

1) It will allow Harper the leverage he needs to manage any rogue elements in his caucus - thinking about people like the right to life wing nut that makes news every 6 months or so.  If a party cant win a majority in Alberta by appealing solely to the right then for sure, one assumes the message to the Tory caucus will be, the Conservative party of Canada will not be able to win an election within staying firmling in the middle right.

2) Harper has been very successful in removing social conservative voices from government policy.  While people might quibble about how much impact the social conservative comments from Wild Rose candidates had on the Albera election it would be hard to deny it didnt have some negative impact.  This result will help Harper keep a focus on good fiscal conservative policy without feeling any need to appeal to social conservatism - which in my view would cost them the next election.

3) I hope this has an impact on the political scene in BC.  If Wild Rose had won in Alberta  The BC Conservative party would have been trumpeting that they can do the same thing here.  The dynamics are very different in BC of course - a split in the right means the NDP will win rather than the left vote going to the centre right party.  But that would not have stopped the BC Conservatives trying to play up the comparisons.

[crazy canuck]

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

Maggie was a lawyer too.

Maggie 

[Barrister]

Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Margaret Thatcher.

Exception that proves the rule.

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda Meir.

[Sheilbh]

You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

[crazy canuck]

Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

You will have to excuse Neil.  There is something about living in Edmonton that is very isloating, with the Rockies cutting him off to the West and the great expanse of praire to the East, much of the world simply passes him by.

[Barrister]

You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

I thought about mentioning Aquino, but I thought it was generally felt that her actions in the transition to democracy were wonderful, she had a less than successful government.  Same for Indira Gandhi - it's remarkable she was Prime Minister of India for such a period, but her overall record was mixed.

Can't say I'm familiar with Sirleaf or Clark.

[Neil]

You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

I'll concede Meir, but your other examples are either third-world barbarians or republicans, and so are beneath contempt.

[Jacob]

In BC the Liberal party is really the old Social Conservative party which was formed through a coalition of the then Liberal and Conservative parties.  After the Social Credit party collapsed in the early 90s the provincial Liberals were the brand name the coalition re-formed around.

Some interesting trivia.  Christy Clark was always a Liberal - both Federal and Provincial.  She was not part of the Social Credit party and so not part of the coalition per se, until the Social Credit collapsed and all those voters shifted to the provincial Liberals.  When that happened Gordon Campell won the leaderhip of the Party and the takeover of the Liberal party by the old coalition was essentially complete.

So what is the relevance of all that trivia today?  When you hear in the news that Christy Clark is having trouble with the "conservatives" in the Liberal party they dont mean "C" Conservatives.  They mean the people in the colation who were Social Credit and then Liberal.  ie the vast majority of the party.  That is why she had only one MLA support her in the leadership race and that is why the media continually speculates as to how strong her support is within the party.

tldr - the Leader of the Liberal party is and has always been a "real" liberal but she is leading a coaltion party primarily made up of non liberals - ie, ex social credit members.

Interesting.

How did she end up in charge? Was it that the the socred old guard thought she'd be the most "electable" or did she swing support from voters somehow, outside of the socred MLAs?

[Jacob]

BB, while it didnt turn out the way you wanted I think the result is very positive in three ways:

1) It will allow Harper the leverage he needs to manage any rogue elements in his caucus - thinking about people like the right to life wing nut that makes news every 6 months or so.  If a party cant win a majority in Alberta by appealing solely to the right then for sure, one assumes the message to the Tory caucus will be, the Conservative party of Canada will not be able to win an election within staying firmling in the middle right.

2) Harper has been very successful in removing social conservative voices from government policy.  While people might quibble about how much impact the social conservative comments from Wild Rose candidates had on the Albera election it would be hard to deny it didnt have some negative impact.  This result will help Harper keep a focus on good fiscal conservative policy without feeling any need to appeal to social conservatism - which in my view would cost them the next election.

3) I hope this has an impact on the political scene in BC.  If Wild Rose had won in Alberta  The BC Conservative party would have been trumpeting that they can do the same thing here.  The dynamics are very different in BC of course - a split in the right means the NDP will win rather than the left vote going to the centre right party.  But that would not have stopped the BC Conservatives trying to play up the comparisons.

I agree that the first two are positive, and I agree on the facts on point 3) - but since I'm less allergic to the NDP than you I'll leave that as neutral rather than positive. Still, I if you and I agree something is good, I expect BB won't like it.

[crazy canuck]

How did she end up in charge? Was it that the the socred old guard thought she'd be the most "electable" or did she swing support from voters somehow, outside of the socred MLAs?

When the Social Credit collapsed she was elected as a Liberal member along with a handful of other Liberals and she remained an elected MLA through a few elections and was a cabinet minister in the Liberal governments.  Then she retired from politics and ended up as a talk show host on CKNW.  She was quite popular and successful.  When Campbell had to step down over the HST that popularity gave her an advantage in the subsequent leadership race - ie she signed up a lot of new members to vote in the leadership convention. 

But now that she has lost much of that popularity she has a real challenge as she didnt have a lot of support amongst the rank and file as it were.

She may well still pull it out, and I hope she does, but she definitely has a hard road ahead.

[crazy canuck]

I agree that the first two are positive, and I agree on the facts on point 3) - but since I'm less allergic to the NDP than you I'll leave that as neutral rather than positive. Still, I if you and I agree something is good, I expect BB won't like it.

Whatever the state of your allergies a division in a coalition which gives any party unopposed power is not a good thing.  The Liberals time under Chretian showed us that.

[Barrister]

BB, while it didnt turn out the way you wanted I think the result is very positive in three ways:

1) It will allow Harper the leverage he needs to manage any rogue elements in his caucus - thinking about people like the right to life wing nut that makes news every 6 months or so.  If a party cant win a majority in Alberta by appealing solely to the right then for sure, one assumes the message to the Tory caucus will be, the Conservative party of Canada will not be able to win an election within staying firmling in the middle right.

2) Harper has been very successful in removing social conservative voices from government policy.  While people might quibble about how much impact the social conservative comments from Wild Rose candidates had on the Albera election it would be hard to deny it didnt have some negative impact.  This result will help Harper keep a focus on good fiscal conservative policy without feeling any need to appeal to social conservatism - which in my view would cost them the next election.

3) I hope this has an impact on the political scene in BC.  If Wild Rose had won in Alberta  The BC Conservative party would have been trumpeting that they can do the same thing here.  The dynamics are very different in BC of course - a split in the right means the NDP will win rather than the left vote going to the centre right party.  But that would not have stopped the BC Conservatives trying to play up the comparisons.

I agree that the first two are positive, and I agree on the facts on point 3) - but since I'm less allergic to the NDP than you I'll leave that as neutral rather than positive. Still, I if you and I agree something is good, I expect BB won't like it.

1. I doubt it has much impact on Harper.  He has his caucus well under control, and the wackier MPs he had from Reform days are all long gone.

2. It's not that social conservatism is some odious concept that must never be spoken of - but rather it's in how you present it.  The Hunsperger comments definitely hurt Wildrose - a message about the evil gays or abortion is just not going to resonate in 2012.  But there are more positive aspects to a "social conservative" agenda that have much better traction.  Support for families and communities, more room for religious charities, all plays well.  So yes Wildrose must shut the hell up about homosexuality or abortion, but certainly still needs to court social conservatives with policies that play well outside of social conservative circles.

3. Yes, with a much stronger NDP the dynamics are totally different in BC.  Doesn't mean you have to hold your nose and support any party as long as it can beat the NDP.  Sometimes you have to ask yourself if it is worth that risk to try and build a more right-wing party that can win government down the road.  But it is a tough question to ask.