All posts tagged Alberta Progressive Conservatives

XL Foods, Tories and a frightened, politicized inspection agency offer a textbook case of brand destruction

“If it ain’t Alberta, it ain’t beef!” Not any more, though, thanks to the efforts of Alberta politicians, companies and the federal food inspection agency. From left to right above: Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry “Cold Cuts” Ritz, Alberta Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson and Alberta Premier Alison Redford. Actual politicians may not appear exactly as illustrated. Below: The actual Ms. Redford and Mr. Ritz.

Today is Thanksgiving, and we give thanks the XL Foods plant in southeastern Alberta doesn’t process turkeys!

Because XL Foods, its parent company, the Alberta Progressive Conservative Government, the federal Conservative Government and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have effectively destroyed the reputation of Alberta beef in the span of a single month.

In addition to the as-yet-undetermined problems that caused E. coli contamination inside XL Foods’ massive plant in the town of Brooks, they’ve provided a textbook example of how not to handle a public relations crisis.

First, it’s obvious that no one did any planning about how to respond if something like this happened – even though it was bound to be a possibility in any industrial food processing operation.

When it did happen, at least on the public relations file, each of the parties involved said and did the wrong thing at every turn!

First they tried to ignore the problem, then they downplayed it, then they refused to respond to questions from journalists and the public, then they looked for someone else to blame.

Meanwhile, when they finally got around to organizing a recall of the products from the plant, the task that should have been Priority 1 on Day 1, the list of already-sold products had gown so long it was impossible for anyone to keep track of it. More than 2,000 products are now on the list, we are told. Cases of E. coli infection tied to the plant have literally spread across the country.

On Friday, media reported cases showing up on Vancouver Island in the Pacific Ocean and Newfoundland in the Atlantic! Yesterday, new cases were reported showing up again throughout Canada – as will continue for months, because many people buy meat, throw it in the freezer and forget about it until they need it.

The public relations implications of this kind of food poisoning, even from a massive meat-packing plant like the one in Brooks, could have been minimized with a swift, honest and open response, with an action plan for fixing the problem that caused the poisoning set out clearly and transparently for the worried public.

Instead, every one of the parties to this public relations disaster turtled, acting slowly if at all on the core problem while insulting us with their explanations and evasions.

Under these circumstances, calls for a public inquiry into what went wrong made by the food inspectors’ union seem entirely reasonable. How else are consumers in Canada, and beef buyers abroad, ever going to be able to trust meat from Alberta again?

After all, when we needed action and openness, everybody in a position to do anything waited for days, effectively denying there was anything wrong at all after U.S. Customs detected E. coli in beef shipped from the XL plant on Sept. 3.

The responses of both XL Foods and its parent company Nilsson Brothers were pathetic. They left recorded telephone messages for reporters, for crying out loud.

Having your spokespeople refuse to appear on camera and describe what’s being done to fix the problem – no matter how uncomfortable it makes them – just doesn’t make the cut. What conclusion are reasonable people left with but that they’ve gone into hiding?

Meanwhile, Conservative politicians at two levels of government blandly assured us we had nothing to worry about and advised us to keep eating beef. “Let’s remember to cook it well,” Alberta Premier Alison Redford patronizingly advised us. Alberta Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson went shopping for steaks with TV cameras in tow.

CFIA blamed the company (which still wasn’t saying anything) for being slow providing information. It insisted it had enough inspectors. Provincial Tories denied it was their problem and made it clear the feds regulate the plant. Everybody pointed out it was just one plant – forgetting to mention it’s one plant that’s so big it processes 40 per cent of the beef in Canada!

Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry “Cold Cuts” Ritz held a news conference and then had his media flunkies help him escape when he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the questions reporters threw at him. Someone even tried to blame a cow!

The damage from this gong show to Alberta beef’s hitherto impeccable “brand” – that hard-to-define concept of a promise of values, benefits and costs, consistently delivered, that establishes satisfaction when compared with the competition – is immeasurable.

In the case of Alberta beef, it may take a generation or more to fix it. Photo opportunities of politicians buying steaks in their local grocery stores or right-wing bloviators calling consumers names for being rightfully concerned about the health and cleanliness of the food they plan to feed to their families won’t help one bit.

Damaged brands can be repaired, of course – just look at the successful effort by former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, once the most hated man in Canada, to get good ink in the media. But it takes time and costs money.

Drug-maker Johnson & Johnson’s swift and open response to the 1982 Tylenol tampering murders in Chicago is generally held to be the textbook example of the right way to deal with a public relations crisis.

The company co-operated with authorities, was completely open and honest with the public and media about the nature and magnitude of what happened, immediately and voluntarily recalled the product, and aggressively and transparently moved to ensure nothing like that could ever happen again.

Tylenol sales plummeted briefly, then rebounded. Tylenol, its name unchanged, today remains the one of the most popular painkiller brands in North America, even as we curse the multiple layers of packaging that make another case of deadly tampering all but impossible.

So what’s the plan for cleaning up the XL Foods plant and making sure this won’t happen again either? Informing the public about where their meat originates? Hiring lots of federal inspectors, unbiased and not beholden to the company?

The trouble with these ideas – which would help to solve both the E. coli problem and the resulting PR disaster – is that they’re not what either our provincial or federal Conservatives governments want to do.

No, they’re all for “less regulation” and more privatization. They’re determined to cut government services to “save” us from tax increases. And there’s no way they want to make it easy for consumers to identify where their meat comes from because they know how we would respond – we’d buy our beef from anywhere else and, like General Motors, XL Foods is too big to fail.

So don’t expect any more openness in the weeks ahead from the party whose unofficial motto is “never apologize, never explain” than we’ve seen up to now.

Alberta’s beef producers spent a lot of energy and money on a brand-building campaign that persuaded the world, “If it ain’t Alberta, it ain’t beef.”

In one month, the disaster perpetrated by two companies, two Conservative governments and a frightened, politicized food inspection agency have turned this into, “If it’s from Alberta, it ain’t safe!”

You can’t fix this problem by changing what we call beef, after all, although it wouldn’t be surprising if we discovered these clowns were thinking of something like “If it ain’t from the unnamed territory between Saskatchewan and B.C. … it ain’t … uh …  bovine comestibles!” (And I do mean clowns. Who can forget Mr. Ritz’s side-splitter about the death of a thousand cold cuts during the 2008 listeriosis crisis?)

Well, Alberta beef’s brand is going to have to be fixed. Unfortunately, that’s going to cost us taxpayers a lot of money and Alberta’s beef farmers a lot of time, tears and bankruptcies.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Ex PC MLA speaks: Fear and loathing on the Alberta Conservative trail

Conservatives get together to discuss their futures in Alberta. Political figures may not be entirely as illustrated. Below: Former MLA Doug Elniski.

CALGARY

Doug Elniski is a nice guy … for an Alberta Tory … and he’ll tell you that himself. But take it from me, it’s true.

The former Progressive Conservative MLA for Edmonton-Calder, who may have decided not to run again in the April 23 Alberta election rather than be beaten by New Democrat Dave Eggen, can be described as pretty easy going, careless about the implications of what he says, and really, really big. Like, six-foot six, maybe 240 pounds – I’m sure he’ll let me know.

Alberta Diary has given Mr. Elniski a hard time over the years for some injudicious advice given in a 2009 blog post (“Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s–t for something and has no idea what”) and equally ill-considered Tweets sent from an Edmonton Pride Parade. He’s also pretty bright, so his recognition of the impact of those remarks may have also weighed on his decision not to run again in 2012.

Still, I believe he didn’t mean any harm, and I’ve always said I’d want him on my side in a bar fight!

Now, Mr. Elniski has done us all a big favour by writing a post on his personal blog that tells a lot about the state of affairs in Alberta Conservative circles – a situation referred to in this space back on Sept. 28 in a post about how Premier Alison Redford and her minions treat her backbenchers and why they in turn don’t seem to like her very much.

Well, by the sound of it, it’s not just backbenchers, and it’s not just happening at the provincial level. Let me explain…

In an item today on his personal blog – evocatively titled “Don’t Encourage Me” – Mr. Elniski (who endorsed Ms. Redford on the second ballot almost exactly a year ago today) tells an interesting story about how even former politicians get treated in Conservative circles in Alberta when they dare to colour outside the lines.

“A person needs to prove that I should not like them,” Mr. Elniski wrote. So … “imagine my surprise, when a highish ranking member of a government, suggested to me that my blog is taking shots at the wrong people and the wrong parties. I should, in the words of the highish ranking member of a government ‘be careful’ lest I annoy the wrong people and thus reduce, if not eliminate, my chances for further public service.” (Emphasis added.)

Now, I confess that I first took this as a reference to goings on within Ms. Redord’s provincial government, but Mr. Elniski has contacted me to say he has another level of government entirely in mind, presumably the one led by such notable Alberta luminaries as Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Regardless, here’s how Mr. Elniski says business is conducted in the Alberta Conservative snakepit:

“Since I thought this particular highish ranking member of a government was a gender neutral ‘dick’ when I was a somewhat less highish ranking member of a government, I took offence to the advice,” he reminisced.

“To which I can only say,” the now-retired and obviously extremely annoyed former MLA went on, “What are you, highish-ranking member of government, going to do? Raise my taxes?”

“It will be frustrating for the highish ranking member to realize that they can’t even keep me from getting a fishing license, much less raise my taxes,” he went on. “There are no punitive measures left to elected officials who derive their mandates from the masses.

“That type of arrogance went out with meaningful monarchist rule. Time to realize my friend, you are neither the King or hopefully the Queen of anything. You chose to serve, you exist to serve and with service comes critique of your performance and your governments performance. Sadly, your cries of ‘off with his head’ will do nothing to prevent my continued evaluation and humorous assessment of your work and character.”

Notwithstanding Mr. Elniski’s revealing comment, MLAs still sitting in the Legislature as members of the Redford Government and MPs in Ottawa who are members of Mr. Harper’s caucus may not be so bold about stating their unhappiness with the way things operate within this unhappy government … yet.

I commend the entire blog to anyone interesting on how politics are practiced in Tory Alberta. Plus, of course, I would welcome tips as to the identity of Mr. Elniski’s unnamed interlocutor.

This post also arrears on Rabble.ca.

Some musings on the death of Peter Lougheed, founder of Alberta’s Tory dynasty

Peter Lougheed on the campaign trail in 1971. (Glenbow Archives Photo)

TORONTO

Peter Lougheed was the last Alberta Conservative leader worthy of the title.

By that I mean the premier who in 1971 founded the Conservative dynasty that rules the province to this day was a member of the now almost forgotten stream of conservatism that actually wanted to conserve things worth conserving, and that recognized the important role government properly plays in a civilized society.

Edgar Peter Lougheed died of natural causes earlier today in Calgary, where was born in 1928. Over the next few days he will be remembered extravagantly by the Conservative Establishment, especially in Western Canada. That is fair enough, because the dynasty he created employs them still.

But as they indulge in the inevitable orgy of hagiography, and some of us on the left hum along in quiet harmony, have no doubt about this: If Mr. Lougheed were alive and in power today, the so-called conservative commentators and politicians who now dominate Canadian politics and media would disparage his positive contribution with the same venom they direct at Liberals, New Democrats and anyone else who dares to have a vision bigger than shrinking government enough to drown it in Grover Norquist’s bathtub.

And it can be said that many of these so-called Conservatives must be quietly relieved they can come to bury Lougheed, plus to praise him, secure in the knowledge there will be no more embarrassing suggestions from his corner that we Albertans are developing the oilsands too quickly or not paying enough attention to the future of our province as we scramble to make maximum bucks right now.

Indeed, it is an indicator of how far modern Canadian conservatism has fallen (not to mention other more progressive political philosophies) that it is a fair comment, and no insult, to say of Mr. Lougheed that by today’s standards he was practically a New Democrat!

Leastways, Mr. Lougheed wasn’t afraid to build things that needed to be built. Small-town Alberta is full of modern redbrick hospitals that are among his most practical and visible legacies.

Likewise, Mr. Lougheed was prepared to all but nationalize an airline to protect jobs and service in Alberta when circumstances required it.

Three generations of Conservative premiers – Don Getty, Ralph Klein and Ed Stelmach – would very much have liked to chip away at that legacy, but always came up against the political implications of public support for Mr. Lougheed’s uncomfortably un-conservative social vision.

The jury is still out on Premier Alison Redford, but if there is one of Mr. Lougheed’s successors that is a true Conservative in the Canadian tradition and the first Alberta Tory premier’s mould, it is her. At least she is the first Alberta Conservative leader since Mr. Lougheed left the political stage for whom there is some hope.

Nowadays, Alberta and Canadian “Conservatives” most often are politicians like Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith, who come in the name of market fundamentalism and a debased kind of globalism that would disdain Mr. Lougheed’s conviction the state was the actor best situated to create a better future, and that resources should be husbanded not squandered.

After Alberta spent years in the political and economic cul-de-sac that was the early Social Credit movement and the reactionary obscurantism it morphed into under Ernest Manning, Mr. Lougheed deserves credit for dragging Alberta kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.

Now we are in the 21st Century, the majority of Mr. Lougheed’s Conservative successors would like to drag us all back into the 19th!

So it is probably safe to say that, in reality, moderate and progressive Canadians will miss Mr. Lougheed and his generation of Conservatives more than the supposed Conservatives who will be mourning his loss so ostentatiously tomorrow.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Fiscal shocker! Redford Tories promise transparency but deliver opacity!

Secretive Redford Tory, left, moves to the right, while Wildrose transparency advocate, right, opts for a totally different course. Below: Doug Horner and Alison Redford, both smirking.

This just in! Alberta’s Progressive Conservative government is secretive!

Well… yeah!

What’s astonishing is that the Alberta news media appears to be astonished by this revelation, which if you happen to have been paying attention at any time during the past decade or four shouldn’t exactly come as news to you.

Yesterday, the Alison Redford generation of the successful PC firm founded by Peter Lougheed in 1971 rolled out its 2012 first-quarter financial “update” and the media were shockedtruly shocked! – that the government wasn’t very forthcoming with helpful analysis about the fact its optimistic pre-election predictions have been blown to smithereens by “lower than expected” energy revenues.

Why, Finance Minister Doug Horner’s fiscal update yesterday “makes no financial projections, omits capital planning and financial assets, and dramatically reduces the number of raw figures available for public scrutiny,” the Edmonton Journal’s reporter sputtered.

And that was just the news coverage, where reporters were relying on the usual suspects in the professional commentariat to condemn Mr. Horner for his unrevealing dance of the thousand fiscal veils. You should have heard what they were saying to each other! “They promised to be more transparent but they’re actually making it harder to understand what’s going on,” moaned one.

Also, reporters complained, those helpful finance ministry officials that used to hang around before these events to make sure hapless journos understood the government’s careful spin on the numbers are completely gonzo, apparently never to appear again.

Your blogger didn’t make it down to the Legislature for Mr. Horner’s news conference performance yesterday, so he can’t actually say if the minister was smirking at the media, but it’s hard to believe he wasn’t. I mean, really, it would be pretty difficult to say, as the Journal’s scribe summarized it, “the changes were designed to make the information easier for Albertans to understand” without laughing out loud.

Look, people, this isn’t really all that complicated. The Alberta PCs are Canada’s most secretive provincial government and have been for generations. What’s more, they keep getting worse.

Pretty well every election they promise to be more “transparent,” and after every election they turn out to be more opaque.

If you wonder where Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s brain trust came up with their plan to stitch Conservative cabinet ministers’ and caucus members’ lips shut, well, look no farther than the elegantly marbled hallways of the Alberta Legislature.

Mr. Harper’s federal Conservative Party, by the way, is the one that’s so very, very close to Alberta’s even-farther-to-the-right Wildrose Party, which is now mantrically repeating the talking-point phrase “fiscal incompetence and mismanagement” to describe their Tory brethren’s entirely characteristic behaviour.

Sorry to have to state the obvious, folks, but anyone who is even mildly surprised by this should be immediately cautioned against responding to emails containing confidential business proposals from the Nigerian Chamber of Commerce and Industry!

It should shock no one that the Redford Conservatives behave as North American “conservatives” always do. Anyone who imagines even for a moment that the Wildrose stream of the same party under Opposition Leader Danielle Smith would behave any differently in office requires a similar caution.

So it now seems things aren’t as rosy as they appeared before the election, no one’s fault really, and the price will just have to be paid by public employees – voters who would be, in many cases, the same ones who made Ms. Redford’s victories possible in last fall’s leadership contest and last spring’s election.

Who can forget all the those naïve strategic voters opting last spring for Thing 1 when faced by the possibility Thing 2 might win the election, abandoning the NDP and Alberta Liberals in the process?

Well, you can count on it that Ms. Redford’s government won’t do the one thing that would make sense under the circumstances, to wit, charging a fair royalty rate for the resources owned by the people of Alberta.

That might reduce the PCs’ renowned fundraising capacity.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

The Annals of Law Enforcement: Yeah, Alberta’s Tories are sleazy, but now and then they get it right anyway

Just a year ago, it seemed likely police recruits like these would soon be lounging around the dusty streets of Fort Macleod, where not much has changed since the Mounties pounded in their first tent pegs in 1874. Alas, it shall not be. Below: Col. James Macleod; former MLA Evan Berger; Solicitor General Jonathan Denis.

“When I look out over the crowd today, I think I can actually see people pinching themselves,” proclaimed Evan Berger, Progressive Conservative MLA for Livingstone-Macleod, just over a year ago as the sod was turned at the site of the new provincial police college in the windblown Southern Alberta town of Fort MacLeod.

“They’re having a hard time accepting that this day is finally here,” said Mr. Berger, then Alberta’s minister of agriculture, who at the time must have been reasonably confident he would soon be attending the opening of the college as a member of Premier Gary Mar’s PC cabinet.

Oh well, that was then, this is now, and folks in Fort Macleod must be regretting ever pinching themselves!

Fast forward from Aug. 24, 2011, to Aug. 29, 2012, and the local MLA is a Wildrose Party usurper named Pat Stier, Mr. Berger has been compensated for his loss with a controversially plum civil service posting as a “senior policy advisor,” and Solicitor-General Jonathan Denis, a member of Premier Alison Redford’s cabinet, has pulled the plug on the grandly titled Alberta Public Security and Law Enforcement Training Centre.

The far-right Opposition Wildrose Party was screaming bloody murder yesterday, insisting the good people of the dusty outpost close to where Col. James Macleod of the North-West Mounted Police built the force’s barracks in 1874 are being punished for not voting Conservative. Alberta’s New Democrats are singing harmony.

For once, the Wildrosers are almost certainly right, notwithstanding Mr. Denis’s protestations to the contrary.

But Albertans need to ask themselves: Is this the right decision, anyway, even if it’s being made for the wrong reasons? As most folks who weren’t born yesterday understand, such a thing can happen.

Well, as it happens, the answer to that question is almost certainly yes.

Let me explain: Putting a $122-million college for city cops from places like Edmonton and Calgary in a location that’s never been anything but an isolated backwater since 1884, when the Mounties finally had the sense to move up the hill from the Oldman River flood plain, never made any sense. It was sort of like putting a rodeo clown college in Manhattan’s fashion district – dumber, actually, since the potential for entertainment was considerably lower.

It would have cost a fortune to ferry trainee cops back and forth from the cities where they would be working to the dust-coated burg, pop. 3,000, where they were to be trained … to do what? Bust cattle rustlers? Drive fast on washboard?

The promise was first made by Premier Ralph Klein in 2006, a typical example of the kind of rural pork-barreling that kept the Alberta PCs in power for generations – at least until the Wildrosers came along and tried to take advantage of Premier Redford’s urban image by outflanking her generation of PCs from the right. Unfortunately for the Wildrose Party, this strategy only worked in a smattering of rural outposts like Livingstone-Macleod.

In other words, about the only logical justification for putting the college in Fort Macleod in the first place – other than tying up the rural Tory vote in another sparsely populated riding – was the historical connection with the NWMP, which was in reality just a polite name for a cavalry regiment stationed in the North West Territories to keep our American cousins from coveting their neighbour’s frontier.

It made no sense from a training perspective. It made no sense from a cost perspective. And the cops, peace officers and correctional officers it was supposed to serve couldn’t stand the idea. Even the Mounties thought it was pretty lame.

So it was just the sort of thing our Opposition parties are supposed to loyally oppose a government for doing, except that in Alberta rural politics can distort issues like a fun-house mirror.

The interesting question that remains is just how this fits into the long-term strategy of the Redford Tories. Do they expect stubborn Southern Albertans to return to the Tory fold when they realize the cost of voting Wildrose? That could happen, one supposes.

Or is this part of a strategy to recast themselves as the party of urban Alberta? (That, by the way, was an opportunity generations of Alberta Liberal and New Democrat politicians, few of whom could hope to get elected outside city limits, have ignored because the idea of a rural-urban, north-south split on the right seemed unimaginable.)

“What we just see here is classic PC incompetence and mismanagement,” Wildrose Justice Critic Shayne Saskiw complained to the CBC after Mr. Denis’s announcement yesterday.

He was right, of course. It’s just that the PC in question was named Ralph Klein, the last one the Wildrose Party claims to have had any time for.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Departed MP’s endorsement, big donations by candidate’s firm, complicate complicated Conservative nomination race

Candidates for the Conservative Party’s nomination in the Calgary Centre constituency prepare for next Saturday’s vote. Below: Candidates Greg McLean, Joan Crockatt and Jon Lord.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to … get elected.

The contest to find a federal Conservative candidate to replace Calgary Centre MP Lee Richardson is turning snarly as the race grows tight enough among various species of Red, Blue and Wildrose Pink Tories to make it increasingly difficult to pick a frontrunner. The vote is scheduled to take place in one week.

Mr. Richardson’s endorsement on Friday of Greg McLean, a Calgary investment advisor and “venture capitalist” who joined the race at the last possible instant before nominations closed, complicates matters further.

And now, talk of substantial donations – to the tune of more than $30,000 – to the far-right Wildrose provincial party by companies with which Mr. McLean is associated promise to get things spinning even faster.

To understand all this, alas, we have to plow through quite a bit of backstory.

So see if you can stay with us here … and while you do, remember that there are only 1,850 eligible voters who signed Conservative Party of Canada membership cards in time to take part in the constituency association’s nomination vote. Remember also that in the normal course of affairs in Alberta, the winner of the Conservative nomination is automatically declared the winner of the seat – although we haven’t quite yet dispensed with the meaningless formality of actually holding an election. (Settle down. That was sarcasm.)

Also in the normal course of events, an endorsement by a departing Conservative MP in a Calgary riding would all but cinch it for the anointed candidate.

But alert readers will recall that when he pulled the plug in May, Mr. Richardson was one of the very few Red Tories still occupying a seat in the House of Commons. There can be little doubt that the last thing Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to replace him is another Red Tory, which his endorsement sort of suggests Mr. McLean might be.

Mr. Richardson, by the way, went to work as Principal Secretary to Alberta Premier Alison Redford, who is perceived within this province as being pretty Red for a Tory herself, so presumably any candidate her guy endorses is going to get the votes of any of her supporters who remain in the federal riding’s constituency association.

Meanwhile, the most credible seeming candidates for the Tory nomination up until Mr. McLean’s last-minute arrival on the scene appeared to be Calgary lawyer Richard Billington, a past party functionary, Joan Crockatt, a commentator known for her right-wing economic views, and Jon Lord, a former provincial and municipal politician with ties to the social conservative crowd.

Notwithstanding his protestations that he prides himself on his ability to work with anyone, Mr. Lord appears to have gathered up the support of the riding’s social conservatives. You know, basically the Lake of Fire crowd. Which, in fairness, doesn’t make Mr. Lord a Lake of Fire believer, his name notwithstanding.

For her part, Ms. Crockatt – who despite her conservative economic views professes to be very liberal on such social issues as abortion rights and gay marriage – clearly hoped to build a winning combination of votes from riding association members who are progressive on social issues and those who are in the Harper Neo-Con Camp on economics. Obviously, Mr. Richardson’s endorsement of Mr. McLean is a setback to her hopes.

Mr. Billington? Well, not being a Conservative or a riding resident, I’m not quite sure about him – but presumably he hoped to emerge as an acceptable compromise candidate between Mr. Lord and Ms. Crockatt. Mr. McLean will also be vying for that role.

Now, stay with us here … there are plenty of Wildrose supporters among both Mr. Lord’s followers (the Wildrose so-con faction) and among Ms. Crockatt’s (the Wildrose neo-con faction), so you can count on Ms. Redford and her provincial Tories (who just hired Mr. Richardson, remember) not to like either of them.

This is said to be especially true in the case of Ms. Crockatt, who is scorned in Redford circles for endorsing the Wildrose Party in the recent provincial campaign in which the premier received a bad fright, although emerged victorious just the same after a hard fight. That may explain why, just today, a Redford cabinet minister was said to be out door-knocking with Mr. McLean. (Christine Cusanelli, c’mon down!)

So does it help or hinder Mr. McLean’s chances that between 2009 and 2001, the company of which he was investment director – Cavendish Investing Ltd. – donated $32,000 to the Wildrose Party? This is a matter of public record, all it took was for someone to look – which, this being the kind of battle it is, someone naturally did.

The bulk of that donation came in two lumps of $15,000, one in 2009 and one during the 2012 provincial election campaign.

In fairness, Mr. McLean wasn’t the only senior executive at Cavendish Investing and the company also gave $5,000 to Ms. Redford’s campaign, but the connection certainly has tongues wagging.

Mr. McLean also received a Tweeted endorsement from Jeff Callaway, who is a former Wildrose Party president and was fund raising vice-president when the first $15,000 contribution from Cavendish came in.

All this makes it quite unclear to an observer just how these votes are going to split, not to mention those that start out with the other candidates in the race. At this point, it would seem, almost anything could happen.

Naturally, it is hoped here that this will result in the weakest possible Tory candidate to emerge on Aug. 25 – allowing the NDP to win the by-election, or at least make a strong credibility building second-place showing, whenever Mr. Harper gets around to calling the vote.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

One True Conservative Party and Other One True Conservative Party now said in dead heat

A typical Alberta soccer mom contemplates the differences between the province’s two conservative parties. The one on the left has indicated stronger support for public health care.

According to the latest poll, Alberta’s election race has tightened significantly, and the province’s One True Conservative Party is now in a statistical tie with the province’s Other One True Conservative Party.

Actually, never mind the “statistical” bit. According to the on-line poll of 902 voters taken over the weekend by Leger Marketing and published this morning in the Postmedia newspapers, the difference in support for the far-right Wildrose Party under Danielle Smith and the not-quite-so-far-right Progressive Conservative Party under Premier Alison Redford is pretty much an honest-to-god dead heat.

Wildrose: 35.5 per cent
Conservatives: 34.2 per cent

Remember, however, that because of the strength of Wildrose support in Calgary, these results would still translate into a slim Wildrose majority.

The slippage in the Wildrose support – 5.8 per cent since April 4, says Leger – is probably the result of voters starting to pay attention to what the party really stands for, and the merits of its positions on such things as privatized health care and holding referenda on abortion rights.

Respondents were also clearly unimpressed, according to Leger, with Ms. Smith’s idea of giving everyone drawing breath in the province a $300 “energy dividend” cheque, with what support there was clearly concentrated among Wildrose die-hards.

Voters may also has started thinking about the potentially catastrophic effects of yet another massive reorganization of Alberta Health Services, as promised by the Wildrose Party. AHS has just gotten through nearly five years of chaos, and there’s a school of thought that more of the same would be ruinous. In fairness, however, there was no question on the Leger survey that directly dealt with that dire possibility.

Likewise, the Conservatives’ Road-to-Damascus conversion to the merits of public health care, based presumably on their reading of their own private polls, may be helping shore up support for the party’s up-to-now wobbly campaign.

A slightly larger number of undecided respondents indicated they were leaning toward supporting one right-wing party or the other – 21.6 per cent for the Tories and 18.1 per cent for the Wildrose.

The survey also shows some other interesting ties. On the question of whom would make the best premier, 28 per cent plumped for Ms. Smith, 27 per cent for Ms. Redford, the two clear leaders.

On the question of whom was likely to emerge as the No. 3 party in province-wide popular support, the NDP under Brian Mason and the Alberta Liberals under Raj Sherman were also effectively tied:

NDP: 13.2 per cent
Alberta Liberals: 12.5 per cent

However, support for the NDP seemed to be showing more signs of potential growth among the survey’s respondents.

A clear majority of respondents told the pollster they thought it was time for a new government in Alberta. The apparently growing problem facing the Wildrose Party with this conclusion by Albertans is that a significant number of them obviously have their doubts about making that change to an extremist party of the far right.

With results like these, if they truly reflect the divisions in opinion among the province’s voters, Thursday’s leader’s debate is clearly of paramount importance to all parties that will be represented there.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Wildrose on a roll? The auguries may be in the flakes

Bookies take odds on Alison Redford and Danielle Smith. Actual Alberta political observers may not be as willing to put their money where their mouths are. Below: The four similar, but nevertheless questionable, polls.

A string of flaky polls augmented by some flaky behaviour by Premier Alison Redford and her political brain trust suggest that the Wildrose Party may be experiencing a genuine breakout – at a singularly inauspicious moment for the Progressive Conservative government.

Polls in the past few days by Forum Research, ThinkHQ and Abingdon Research have suggested the Tories under Ms. Redford are flagging, sinking into the mid-30s in terms of percentage of committed voters, and moreover that the Wildrose Party under Danielle Smith is moving upward, closing in on 30-per-cent support.

As regular readers of this blog will know, I have my doubts about the methodology used by each of these three pollsters.

Yesterday, another poll by Abacus Data published for the Sun newspaper chain, which is increasingly committed to the Wildrose Party, came to an almost identical conclusion, putting the Conservatives at 34 per cent of decided voters and the Wildrose Party at 29 per cent.

Each of these polls on its own is not terribly persuasive. Taken together, however, they do seem to suggest a trend – though it’s only the “surge” the Calgary Sun propagandized about if you compare these results to polls that other Wildrose supporters have always disputed.

If this represents an emerging pattern, it’s not one that is particularly good news for Ms. Redford, with an election call expected within a few days and the vote likely to be held in May or even late April.

This is because while the numbers suggested by the four recent polls still leave the Redford Conservatives in majority territory, it wouldn’t necessarily take much of a shift in public opinion to change that. As any political junkie knows, the late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson had it exactly right when he observed that a week is a long time in politics.

Now, readers can count on it that the parties with the money to afford it – and that would certainly include Ms. Redford’s Conservatives and Ms. Smith’s Wildrosers – are polling like crazy right now and are basing their next moves on numbers that are more solid than those produced by any of the suspects mentioned above.

That is why the recent actions of the Conservatives are so evocative, suggesting a party that is looking at worse polling results than it had expected to face when it started the electoral juggernaut rolling downhill toward an election.

Resorting to attack ads that name the Wildrose party directly, hitherto unheard of among Alberta Conservative strategists, pillorying of Gary Mar for what in the great scheme of things is a minor and routinely tolerated offense, and the sudden decision in effect to cut MLAs’ pay in the face of criticism they were being paid for doing nothing on a committee that never meets were all uncharacteristic responses by Alberta Tories and suggest a whiff of panic among the general staff.

Or not. Remember that in the lead-up to the 2008 election some polls suggested voters were tired of the Conservatives under then-Premier Ed Stelmach, prompting plenty of speculation about minority governments or even a Liberal breakthrough.

In the event, it was all a pipedream. When it began to look as if the Alberta Tories actually might face a serious challenge, Alberta’s die-hard Conservative voting base bestirred itself sufficiently to troop through the March snowflakes to the polls – ensuring another mighty Conservative victory at the price, no doubt, of a broken hip or two.

Before you bet your antique Rolex or junior’s education fund on a Wildrose victory, remember that change comes hard to Alberta voters and in that regard 2012 may not be all that different from 2008.

Still, these auguries, flaky as they may seem, together suggest that something might be happening out there that will turn this election into a horserace yet.

If there’s another poll by a reputable pollster in the next few days that says the same thing, or if more Conservative attack advertisements are soon aimed at the Wildrose Party, readers have Alberta Diary’s permission to contact their bookies and inquire about the odds.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

What Alison Redford really needs: a smaller caucus

Members of former premier Ed Stelmach’s caucus discuss their differences in the Legislative Assembly. Is that Ron Liepert top right? Actual Conservative MLAs may not be exactly as illustrated. Below: Premier Alison Redford; Tory defector Rob Anderson, in black.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford needs to be praying hard that she wins fewer seats next year than Ed Stelmach did back in 2008.

Alert readers will recall that Mr. Stelmach, who had been chosen Progressive Conservative leader and premier of Alberta in 2006, saw his party win 72 of the 83 seats in the Alberta Legislature in the 2008 general election.

This was hailed as a historic victory at the time, and it was in a manner of speaking. But many of Mr. Stelmach’s subsequent troubles, it can be argued, flowed directly from the size of his majority.

If Ms. Redford wants to avoid many of those same pitfalls – which stemmed mostly from human nature, not some special political circumstance unique to Alberta – she would do well to hope for a comfortable majority, but not one as comfortable as that achieved by her unfortunate predecessor.

If an Alberta general election indeed takes place in 2012, as we have been promised, somewhere between 50 and 55 seats in the redistributed 87-seat Legislature would be a harbinger of Ms. Redford’s continued success, it seems to this observer.

Right off the hop – without really changing anything in terms of her ability to do whatever she pleases – the entitlement and arrogance associated with a party that can win back-to-back overwhelming majorities over the course of more than 40 years might be ameliorated a little.

That, in turn, would reduce the who-gives-a-hoot attitude of a lot of MLAs and ministers, which arguably led directly to many of the problems experienced by Mr. Stelmach that really did make it seem for a time as if the mighty Tory dynasty was on the ropes.

Indeed, it is said here that it was – it’s just that the party’s well-honed survival reflex was prompted, and the result was a new leader at the helm that presents a very different image. But while a new image may be enough to get the party through the next election, it won’t keep it healthy for long if old bad habits reassert themselves.

Back in Mr. Stelmach’s anti-heyday, while the arrogance of some well-placed Tories began to create serious problems for the premier, another symptom of a dangerously large majority began to assert itself. Let’s call this “Devil’s Workshop Syndrome.” (Let it be noted here that the use of the term DWS is not meant to imply that any members of the Progressive Conservative caucus have actual personal dealings with the Devil, except perhaps inadvertently.)

Regardless, we all know the expression: “Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.” With 72 members in his caucus, virtually every one of them harbouring some degree of ambition, there simply weren’t enough cabinet posts and legislative committees to keep them all sufficiently busy.

Pretty soon MLAs were carping publicly about the premier’s lack of success, wearing black to the Legislature to protest the premier’s insufficient enthusiasm for really destructive economic policies (something akin to what Mr. Stelmach himself indulged in back in premier Ralph Klein’s day) or, worst of all, sharing discreet cups of vanilla latte with Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith in Starbucks cafes all over downtown Edmonton. (Rob Anderson, c’mon down!)

Next thing you knew there was talk of open rebellion and 10 more defectors crossing the floor of the legislature the then-Wildrose-Alliance’s benches. (One would have liked to have been a fly on the wall at the caucus meeting where the kybosh got put on that idea!) Not to mention Tory MLAs riding in the Pride Parade whilst sending out inappropriate Tweets about the other participants.

No, what Ms. Redford needs is a significantly smaller caucus as a percentage of total seats in the Legislature.

That would keep her troops focused on their jobs, and on behaving themselves. After all, the possibly of a humiliating defeat in the next election concentrates the political mind wonderfully.

Moreover, having 20 or more MLAs in the Opposition, especially if they come from all the parties that will be running candidates in the next election, will go a long way to allaying the cynicism and distrust that plagues Alberta democracy and could cause big social problems not so far down the road.

Who wants to bet, though, that Ms. Redford and her key advisers don’t see it that way. As we have already seen in the Conservative leadership campaign, they play to win – and they will only be perfectly content if they win it all, or very nearly so.

With most polls putting support for the Conservatives around 50 per cent following the leadership election, that could well happen. It is said here with no joy that, notwithstanding the recent Forum poll, the Conservatives could well again capture more than 70 seats in the Legislature, especially if voter turnout is low as historically has been the case in this province.

Nothing good will come from that – even for the Conservatives.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Three lessons that can’t be drawn from Alison Redford’s election – but will be anyway

Alison Redford shouts to make herself heard over the din Sunday morning after news of her victory had been announced. She can now expect people to simmer down and listen carefully whenever she speaks. Below: the media myth-making machine machinating.

The Wildrose Party will have a great target in Alison Redford, you say? Don’t bet on it!

Yesterday, we considered six inescapable conclusions drawn from Alison Redford’s victory in the race to lead the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party:

  • Gary Mar blundered badly
  • Public health care matters to Albertans
  • We’re not in Ralph Klein’s Alberta any more
  • The Love Machine is broken
  • Labour votes matter
  • Democracy is dangerous to undemocratic elites

Now let’s look at the other side of the coin – the conclusions that are bound to be drawn from Ms. Redford’s historic party-election victory Sunday morning that are anything but inescapable.

Here are three that you can count on hearing from the likes of the Wildrose Party, the mainstream media and disgruntled supporters of other candidates within the PCs. They all sound plausible, but none of them are really supported by verifiable facts.

1 – The Wildrose Party will profit from Ms. Redford’s election

Well, the Wildrose Party will try, of course, and who can blame them for that?

But the Danielle Smith’s dwindling right-wing legions won’t win over voters from other parties who joined and supported Ms. Redford because they saw her as the most progressive Tory candidate. Nor will they change the minds of the many Tories who supported hard-liners like Ted Morton and Rick Orman on the first ballot, then ignored their candidates’ recommendations and switched to Ms. Redford on the second ballot as an obviously tough and capable leader.

If historical precedents hold – as precedents tend to do – Albertans most likely will be prepared to give Ms. Redford a chance.

Ms. Redford, for her part, is an obviously skilled politician who will likely manage to make the Wildrosers look like extremists while appearing conservative enough for typical Alberta voters. And typical Alberta voters, remember, see themselves both as fiscal conservatives and as supporters of completely public health care and mostly public education. So Ms. Redford’s pitch may strike just the right note with them.

Add to this the fact that Ms. Smith, with her strident Fraser Institute dogma, looks and sounds like a callow youth compared to the more nuanced Ms. Redford.

When the general election comes, you can put money on Ms. Redford mopping the floor with the Wildrose Party and its leader.

2 – Low turnout in the vote means right-wingers have abandoned the PCs

This story that the decline in votes in this in-house Conservative Party election from 144,000 in 2006 to 78,000 in 2011 was caused by legions of old-line social conservatives and extreme market fundamentalists permanently abandoning the Tories serves the current needs of the Wildrose Party and those who have hitched their wagons to its falling star.

We’re talking here about the kind of people who are desperately sticking with Wildrose ideological nostrums as their party’s support slumps in the polls. These are the ideologues who would like to close down the Human Rights Commission, hand out education vouchers and privatize the provision of health care services, come what may over at Tory HQ.

Now, these folks sincerely believe this yarn, of course – in the same way a fellow whistling past a graveyard really believes there are no ghosts. But just because they repeat it over and over again, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to accept it as gospel.

No doubt the erosion in the number of Conservative Party voters was partly the result of disillusioned ultra-conservatives joining the Wildrose Party – but are there really that many hyper-conservatives in Alberta? If so, why was the Wildrose Party always so anxious to pretend it was “moderate” and “centre-right.”?

The low turnout may also have been influenced by a general trend toward electoral apathy encouraged by parties of the right, plus the fact the novelty was worn off Alberta’s system of directly electing premiers through privately run governing-party elections.

But it’s said here that the total turnout was lower in 2011 than in 2006 mainly because a key part of the Tory Old Boys’ strategy was to encourage the public belief that Mr. Mar’s election was inevitable, thereby suppressing the vote by supporters of other candidates while maintaining the illusion of democratic choice.

It worked. But like so many things thought up by the brainiacs who ran the unsuccessful front-runner Gary Mar’s campaign, it just didn’t work as well as intended.

3 – The “progressives” have taken over the Progressive Conservatives

Of course, that this would happen was precisely the hope and intention of a lot of the “new Tories” who signed up to take part in the election. And you can expect this story to be pushed by the mainstream media, because it encourages the idea there’s going to be a horserace between right and “left” in the upcoming general election.

Journalists love the horserace narrative because they have been taught that conflict and competition make for good stories that, as they metaphorically say, sell newspapers.

But it’s not really an expression of Alberta’s reality today. Ms. Redford is still a very conservative politician. And the Conservatives are still an appropriately named party.

You can expect the Redford PCs to stick pretty closely to the Big-C Conservative script – low taxes for the well-heeled, dogmatic emphasis on balanced budgets, a preference for mega-projects over managed economic development, hostility toward working people’s rights, distrust of green solutions and little patience for a major state role outside education and health care, where public sentiment demands it.

Since Ms. Redford is a smart politician with a good ear for the electorate’s mood, she’s more likely to grow in popularity than to sink. So if the opposition parties are counting on voters to tire of her quickly, they’re out of luck. Indeed, it’s a virtual certainty that she’ll be more popular that Premier Ed Stelmach ever managed to be. But she won’t stray too far from the eternal conservative verities of her party.

What this means is that over time the parties who offer clear progressive alternatives to the Conservatives’ tired formula – as the Liberals used to, the NDP still does and the Alberta Party may yet – will be in a better position to attract voters than the increasingly wild-eyed extremists of the Wildrose right.

It would help the more progressive parties if the Wildrose fable is partly right and the far right really has abandoned the PCs. A bad vote split on the right worked well for Canada for years, and could work for Alberta too. But don’t get your hopes up.

More likely, the Wildrose Party will swiftly degenerate into a bitter, increasingly marginalized and radical rump, cut off from the oilpatch funding that made its rise possible, while most of its members are welcomed back aboard the Tory mothership.

Oh well, it must have seemed like a good idea at the time…

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.