All posts tagged Hugh Macdonald

What – and who – is behind last week’s University of Calgary public sector pay fairy tale?

Ken Boessenkool and Ben Eisen consider their latest fairy tale. Alberta public policy commentators may not appear exactly as illustrated. Below: Tom Flanagan directs the Wildrose Party’s campaign while the Alberta media looks on. A similar caveat applies to this image. Below that: Mr. Eisen and Mr. Boessenkool as they appear to the folks who know them.

Once upon a time, “in the last decade of the 20th century Alberta became a paragon of fiscal virtue.”

So begins a fairy tale spun by Ken Boessenkool and Ben Eisen, Alberta’s equivalents of the Brothers Grimm.

Their fantasy story was treated by journalists with respectful kid gloves and a deceptive lack of background when it was released to the mainstream media last week by the so-called “School of Public Policy” at the University of Calgary.

Indeed, the National Post liked it so much, it practically copied the study’s opening line for the opener of its editorial last Friday.

Alas, unlike the work of Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm, the yarn spun by Messrs. Boessenkool and Eisen is designed to obfuscate, not to illuminate.

As time goes on and the number-crunchers have a chance to pull at the threads of this colourful but poorly knitted sweater, many more flaws are certain to be revealed that cast doubt on its sensational conclusion that (as summarized by the Calgary Herald) “Alberta’s public sector wage bill has increased nearly twice as fast as the national average over the past decade.”

But the trouble with the reasoned responses that are sure to be made by the reality-based community, however, is that in the time-honoured fashion of the drivel produced by the right-wing “think tanks” for which both Mr. Boessenkool and Mr. Eisen have toiled, they have captured the headlines. The denials or explanations will all be second-day stories to which no one much will pay much attention.

As is clearly intended by the authors of sensational “studies” like this one, this leads lazy or innumerate journalists to conclusions that cannot be supported by the authors’ arguments, but which nonetheless pass directly into the imagination of the public.

For example, consider this point from the National Post editorial noted above, which was written almost as if it were part of a co-ordinated campaign that began with the launch of this so-called study: “While wages for civil servants, nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees have increased 63 per cent across the country, they have risen by nearly twice that amount in Alberta.”

This may seem like a nice distinction to some readers, but what even the authors’ report says is that Alberta’s total public sector wage bill has increased over the decade “nearly double” 63 per cent – not necessarily a surprise in a fast-growing, high-cost province like Alberta. It does not say, as the Post fatuously implies and many members of the public will remember, that Alberta public employees’ average wages have grown by that much.

I personally crunched the numbers for first-year nurses employed by public health care facilities in Alberta in the same period and was forced to the conclusion that their wages had increased … wait for it … 63 per cent! (See the national average, above.)

According to a fact-heavy news release put out Monday by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, which represents direct employees of the provincial government, negotiated wages for its members who work for the government rose only 49 per cent in the same period, which happens to be identical to the increase in the Alberta Average Weekly Earnings calculated by Statistics Canada. What’s more, the number of AUPE members doing these jobs barely changed over the 10 years while Alberta’s population skyrocketed.

The Post also made much of the fact – quelle horreur! – that some Registered Nurses earn as much as $80,000 a year when their overtime is calculated in. So what’s wrong with that, one wonders? RNs are highly trained medical professionals on whom your life may depend – and it’s the almighty international market that normally sets the hard little hearts of guys like Mr. Boessenkool a-pitter-patter that regulates what nurses’ time is worth. (The Post also implied the nurses’ union had just negotiated these overtime provisions. Not true. The same provisions were in place back when Alberta was a paragon of fiscal virtue.)

So if all this is the case, assuming that Mr. Boessenkool’s and Mr. Eisen’s basic numbers are correct, how could the public sector wage bill have “shot up” 119 per cent between 2000 and 2010 when it obviously wasn’t the wages of ordinary public sector workers doing the shooting up?

Perhaps it was because Mr. Boessenkool and Mr. Eisen don’t seem to have accounted for inflation in the figures they used, a reasonable calculation that would have shrunk their sensational estimates by about 20 per cent across the board.

Perhaps it was because they rolled in the huge salaries and bonuses that were paid to senior government of Alberta managers. Managerial bonuses alone added up to $44 million a year in the period, according to Liberal MLA Hugh MacDonald. But Mr. Boessenkool and Mr. Eisen made no effort to break out such management perks, using a definition of salary that included, among other things, such non-working-class benefits as taxable allowances, bonuses, commissions and income in kind.

Perhaps it was the result of the big pay cuts that all Alberta public employees took the decade before. Except judges, of course, who are presumably also included in Mr. Boessenkool’s and Mr. Eisen’s numbers.

Perhaps it was in part the impact of the fact women and new Canadians are paid the same wage as everyone else when they do the same work in the public sector, but are systemically taken advantage of if they work for private companies.

All this remains to be seen when more sophisticated number-crunchers have a go at Mr. Boessenkool’s and Mr. Eisen’s conclusions. But will anyone notice if the media doesn’t bother to cover their analysis with the same enthusiasm it reported their claims of “astonishing growth” in public sector pay?

At this point, much of the Alberta media is too busy running biased polls designed to elicit a predictable response as part of their open campaign for the Wildrose Party, which naturally has jumped on the report’s dubious conclusions as a way to attack Premier Alison Redford and her Progressive Conservative government stewardship over the past decade.

You just have to know, people, that the publicity generated by this report isn’t going to be used to attack the obscene salaries of Alberta’s vast corps of deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and public health sector vice-presidents and directors!

No, it’s intended to be used as part of a co-ordinated campaign to push back the modest salaries, benefits and bargaining rights of ordinary working people in the public sector – and, by extension, to attack those in the private sector as well.

This may explain the media’s strange reluctance to inform its readers and listeners just who Mr. Boessenkool and Mr. Eisen are.

Not only has Mr. Boessenkool worked for various far-right “think tanks,” including the thoroughly discredited Fraser Institute (where he obviously learned his lessons well), he has been a strategist for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Office, a corporate lobbyist, the chair of a committee designed to engineer a reverse takeover of the Alberta Tories by the Wildrose Party, and is now Chief of Staff to B.C. Premier Christy Clark, head of a neo-Con coalition that only calls itself Liberal. Of himself, he says: “I came out of the womb right wing.”

With Mr. Harper and Academician Tom Flanagan, who this week was revealed to be the mastermind behind the green curtain working the bells and whistles of the Wildrose Party’s election campaign, Mr. Boessenkool was also a signatory to the famously Alberta separatist Firewall Manifesto.

Mr. Eisen is cut from the same piece of cloth, most recently as a propagandist for the Winnipeg-based faux-Fraser-Institute Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

But there’s nary a word of all this in the Post’s editorial, which fails to even mention the names of the report’s authors. It was passed over suspiciously lightly in other coverage by the media.

Look, it’s still a free country. If the University of Calgary and its “School of Public Policy” want to pass off this kind of ideological tripe as academic research and generally act like another right-wing think tank, there’s not much that can be done about it.

But they should have the decency to refuse the taxpayer dollars that pay for their operations and fund many of their propagandists’ public pensions. If they’re so hot to make cuts to the public sector, they couldn’t pick a better place to start than their own front doorstep!

And is it too much to ask that the mainstream media stop acting like their junior auxiliary, check their facts and try to answer the most obvious questions?

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Federal Liberal adoption of Alberta Liberal leadership voting rule is sure end badly

Your blogger with Alberta Liberal Leader Raj Sherman. Below: Federal Liberal Leader Bob Rae.

If he loses his seat in the next provincial election, will Alberta Liberal Leader Raj Sherman run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada?

He can if he wants, if the timing works out. And what the heck, he’s even a Liberal now. It’s said here that losing his seat is a virtual certainty.

At any rate, we are reliably informed that the federal Liberals yesterday adopted the same nutty leadership voting rule as their Alberta counterpart, the one that will allow any interested Canadian to vote for their next party leader.

According to a report in the Toronto Star yesterday, “Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae implored party members to back the move, calling it a ‘historic change’ to the party’s makeup.”

Oh, it’ll be historic change, all right. But one suspects Mr. Rae will wake up this morning, shake his head and say, “what was I thinking?” If not this morning, eventually.

According to the Star’s report of the federal Liberals’ national convention Friday, yesterday and today in Ottawa, the rule will create a new class of party “supporters” who are not dues-paying, card-carrying members but who will get to vote in party elections anyway.

Anyone from Alberta who’s been paying attention will be familiar with this scheme, as it’s essentially the same one adopted by the Alberta Liberals last summer in the run-up to the provincial party’s leadership vote.

But that innovation did not play out exactly as advertised. Dr. Sherman, an Emergency Room physician and mercurial former Conservative who had been fired by then-premier Ed Stelmach for going over the top criticizing his own party’s health care policy, handily defeated a stalwart and effective Liberal MLA named Hugh MacDonald and several other candidates for the party leadership.

It was said in this blog immediately after the Sept. 10 Alberta Liberal vote that there were two schools of thought about Dr. Sherman’s election:

“One is that the former Progressive Conservative Parliamentary Secretary for Health, who was fired from his post and kicked out of the Tory caucus last November by Premier Ed Stelmach is a remarkable politician who has the power to shake up Alberta politics and challenge the government from the centre. …

“The other is that the MLA for Edmonton-Meadowlark is a divisive and impulsive one-issue politician who will be the final stake driven through the heart of the moribund Alberta Liberal Party. As veteran NDP campaigner Lou Arab observed in a Tweet moments after the results were announced to a mostly empty gymnasium at the University of Alberta: ‘Raj Sherman is built for speed, not distance. This will end badly for the Liberals.’”

Subsequent events suggest Mr. Arab got it right.

Mr. MacDonald, MLA for Edmonton-Gold Bar, pulled the plug later in September, disgusted at the outcome of the leadership race and the way it was conducted, announcing he would not run in the next election. At the end of November, Lethbridge-East MLA Bridget Pastoor crossed the floor and joined Premier Alison Redford’s Conservatives.

Two other MLAs, former party leader Kevin Taft, Edmonton-Riverview, and Harry Chase, Calgary Varsity, had already announced they wouldn’t run again. That means only four MLAs from the party’s current eight-member caucus will even be running again, at least as Liberals. To date, the Alberta Liberals have nominated only 23 candidates for 87 provincial seats in an election that must take place in March, April or May.

Now, you can argue that the Alberta Liberals’ problems stem from Dr. Sherman’s leadership, or from external problems, but it’s said here that an election process that allowed a high-profile outsider with extremely shallow roots in the party to seize the leadership is a significant part of the problem.

This is not to say the same thing will happen to the federal Liberals if their party administration, which is sure to be larger and more effective, can keep control of the process. But one thing is certain – if the federal Liberals for any reason can’t put forward a promising, high-profile candidate with deep roots in the party, anyone can get elected, and that anyone can turn out to be very bad for the party, as seems to have happened in Alberta.

The problem is not that members of other parties will put up candidates to make mischief, or even vote for candidates that they think are weak. This is unlikely. Rather that “supporters” without deep roots in a party will be swayed by a high-profile candidate who means well, but may not be the the best bet for success when all aspects of party leadership are considered.

This idea is often touted as being a little like the U.S. primary system in its ability to raise a party’s profile and test potential leaders. That metaphor might work if Liberal Party elections were run by Elections Canada, but not in what is still seen as a private party election that will only attract a tiny portion of the electorate. Indeed, the small number likely to vote relative to the total population increases the potential for mischief.

If the federal Liberals hope to spread Alberta political culture to the rest of Canada, a strange idea for a party that has not exactly been a historical success here, it seems like it will be a hard sell in places where multiple party membership is not considered normal political behaviour.

As things stand – and the Alberta experience illustrates – if you are looking for proof the Liberal Party of Canada had lost faith in its own future and is grasping at straws to survive, the adoption of this rule is it.

Just as it seems to have for provincial Liberals in Alberta, this will end badly for the Liberal Party of Canada.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Liberal MLA Blakeman to run for Speaker, again

Edmonton Centre MLA Laurie Blakeman with Alberta Liberal Leader Raj Sherman last summer when they were both running for the leadership.

Well, Ken Kowalski is marching into history, so why the heck not?

At any rate, earlier today, Edmonton Centre Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman sent along a Twitter message saying she’s still the nominated candidate for her party, then went on to say: “Excited by idea of running for Speaker – best qualified but still need PC votes.”

The four-term MLA has sought the job before, and not gained much purchase with the vast Tory majority in the Assembly at any given time.

Still, with the Alberta Liberals floundering under the leadership of former Conservative Raj Sherman, hope springs eternal. Maybe this time can be different. Ms. Blakeman could certainly do the job with aplomb.

And becoming Speaker would solve a problem for Ms. Blakeman, who earlier this year ran for the leadership of the Alberta Liberals and lost to Dr. Sherman. She has clearly seemed disaffected since. Her personal political website makes no mention of her party affiliation.

Rumours have suggested she might follow the example of her caucus colleague and fellow leadership candidate, Hugh MacDonald, and announce her retirement from politics, or petition to join the NDP caucus, which would have been a good fit for the experienced and genuinely liberal politician.

This provides another option – if an unlikely one. Unless the outcome of the next general election is closer than appears probable right now, Premier Alison Redford’s Conservatives seem much more likely to reward one of their own with the important and well-compensated post.

Mr. Kowalski, the Legislature’s longest-serving member, announced Friday that he is stepping down.

Future bleak for Alberta liberals; among progressive parties, only NDP has momentum

The Alberta Liberals: running out of gas and running out of road? Below: Liberal Leader Raj Sherman, NDP Leader Brian Mason, NDP candidates Shannon Phillips and Deron Bilous.

If you want a useful yardstick of the relative health of Alberta’s opposition parties, you need look no further than the number of candidates they have nominated for the next provincial election.

Using this measure, it is very unlikely the increasingly marginalized Alberta Liberal Party under Leader Raj Sherman will be capable of fielding a full slate of candidates on election day.

There will be 87 seats in the provincial Legislature after the next election. Here is a prediction: The Liberals will be unable to field a slate of even two-thirds that number, and may only be able to find candidates for about half the seats in the Legislature.

This is not idle mean-spiritedness. It is a forecast based on the difficulty all Alberta opposition parties have finding and fielding candidates, and the number of candidates the parties have nominated to date – with a general election possibly as close as three months away and certainly coming no later than six months from now.

Here are the nomination numbers for the three major opposition parties, which any sensible Alberta Liberal supporter must find deeply troubling:

New Democratic Party: 60
Wildrose Alliance: 58
Alberta Liberals: 19

Anyone who knows politics knows that while it may be possible to find warm bodies to fill out a slate of candidates, even for governing parties it is difficult to find good candidates with whom electors will really be thrilled. One needs only consider some of the lags in Premier Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservative caucus to know the truth of this!

Nevertheless, obviously both the NDP and the Wildrose Party have been doing their work with commitment and seriousness and will have full slates ready to go whenever the writ is dropped. Only the Conservatives will know when that is, of course, because Premier Redford’s “fixed election dates” law doesn’t fix an election date. It does, however, set the three-month period in which the vote will fall, which is why we can be confident the Liberal nomination numbers are going to be a big problem for the party.

Lacking key political staff and watching their support sag, the Liberals would be in a more difficult position anyway than the NDP or the Wildrose Party, even if they had more candidates.

Nomination numbers are moving targets, naturally. Last night, New Democrats in Edmonton-Centre nominated Candidate No. 60, Nadine Bailey, a veteran campaigner who ran federally for the party in May in the nearby Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont riding. (She was also, I kid you not, nominated in the Canada’s Sexiest Candidate contest started by a Toronto blogger who obviously had too much time on his hands.)

The NDP and Wildrose numbers tend to go back and forth as both parties proceed competently toward nomination of full slates. In fact, both will likely have 70 or more nominated within the next couple of weeks.

Meanwhile, the governing Conservatives, at 51 nominations, are a little behind, but given their position as Alberta’s Natural Governing Party with a large elected caucus, they will have less trouble finding qualified candidates for the few ridings in which they don’t already hold seats. The Alberta Party, which has never made it onto the province’s political radar screen and is unlikely to do so now, has nominated only eight.

But while everyone else’s numbers are building, the Liberals’ tally stumbled backward Monday with the defection of Lethbridge-East MLA Bridget Pastoor to Premier Redford’s Tories. This brought nominated Alberta Liberal candidates down from the 20 noted in Dave Cournoyer’s useful Daveberta blog, consistently the best source on Alberta nomination tallies and names.

The loss of Ms. Pastoor comes on top of announcements by the backbone of the Liberal caucus – experienced MLAs like former leadership candidate Edmonton-Gold Bar MLA Hugh MacDonald, former leader and Edmonton-Riverside MLA Kevin Taft and Calgary-Varsity’s Harry Chase – that they won’t be seeking re-election. Another former potential Liberal leader, Dave Taylor, quit the caucus months ago and now sits as the Alberta Party’s sole MLA. He too won’t be running again in Calgary-Currie.

This collapse in MLA support is arguably even more serious to the Alberta Liberal Party’s prospects than its decline in popular support as recorded by public opinion polls from better than a quarter of the Alberta electorate in the 2008 general election to somewhere between 11 and 15 per cent today.

As for the NDP and Wildrose Party, while they have similar numbers of candidates nominated and arguably possess similar levels of political skill, they cannot simply be considered interchangeable destinations for protest votes.

You can judge a party by its platform statements or by the people who support it. By either measure, the well-funded Wildrose Party is far to the right of the governing Conservatives. And never forget that despite Wildrose rhetoric to the contrary, Premier Redford and her Conservatives are pretty far to the right.

The Wildrose Party, led by former Fraser Institute functionary Danielle Smith, is dedicated to the proposition all government services ought to be privatized – and that goes particularly for the work done by the “publicly funded” public health system they promise to maintain with nuanced precision.

By contrast, the NDP led by Brian Mason is unabashedly a party of the progressive centre-left, committed to maintaining and improving publicly financed, publicly operated health care. (This is not something the Liberal leader, not so long ago the Conservative junior minister for health, can say!)

Mr. Mason earned his living doing a real job, driving a bus, before remaking himself as an effective Parliamentarian and legislative leader. With Edmonton-Strathcona MLA Rachel Notley, the small NDP caucus has consistently punched above their weight in Question Period.

With neither the Liberals nor the Alberta Party likely capable of nominating full slates of candidates, obviously the NDP is the only progressive opposition party where progressive voters can hope to get any impact with their votes.

Moreover, unlike some elections in the past, the NDP this time has been able to attract remarkably good candidates in all parts of the province. In addition to Ms. Bailey in Edmonton-Centre, there is five-term city councillor Lorna Watkins-Zimmer in Red Deer, Alberta Federation of Labour researcher Shannon Phillips in Lethbridge-West, and former councillor Wanda Laurin in Peace River.

In Edmonton, where the NDP enjoys a significant regional advantage, running ahead of all other opposition parties according to a recent Environics poll, there are candidates like Friends of Medicare Executive Director David Eggen in Edmonton-Calder, a former MLA, teacher Deron Bilous in Edmonton-Beverly and social worker Lori Sigurdson in Edmonton-Riverview.

So, sorry, but by every measure, the future looks very bleak for the Alberta Liberals.

The Wildrose Alliance is a radical right-wing party that would lead Albertans down a dangerous path to wholesale privatization of public services.

In this election cycle in Alberta, the New Democrats are the only progressive party with enough momentum to have a meaningful impact in the next election.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Alberta Liberals hit by defection as implosion continues; new poll suggests NDP potential for growth

Bridget Pastoor, still a Liberal to the party’s missing webmaster. Below: Raj Sherman.

No one can say the Alberta Liberals don’t have movement. The trouble is, it’s all down hill.

That the slow-motion implosion of the Alberta Liberal Party is gathering speed was evident on two fronts yesterday, as one of the party’s veteran MLAs skedaddled for the government benches and a new poll by Environics Research Group confirmed the party is mired in third place among the province’s opposition parties.

The departure of Lethbridge-East MLA Bridget Pastoor, 71, was hardly the surprise the media made it out to be. She’s been openly flirting with the governing Progressive Conservatives since early 2009, and like a lot of Alberta politicians of various stripes she was a Conservative before she was anything else.

But the timing of Ms. Pastoor’s floor crossing was dramatic, a symbolic slap in the face of the Liberal leader by freshly appointed Premier Alison Redford, on the first day of Part II of the Legislature’s abbreviated fall sitting almost a year to the day after Dr. Sherman threw a spanner into the Conservative works by getting himself fired as Parliamentary Secretary for Health, kicked out of the Conservative caucus and setting the stage for then-premier Ed Stelmach’s unhappy departure from power.

Back in November 2010, with the province in a tizzy about the state of health care and Dr. Sherman openly lambasting his own party, the part-time Emergency Room doc and Tory MLA for Edmonton-Meadowlark seemed like the most popular politician in the province. And while the sun shone last summer and fall, the by-then Independent Dr. Sherman was able to make hay with his popularity – getting himself elected leader of the Alberta Liberals on Sept. 10.

But that was then and this is now. The stumblebum government of Mr. Stelmach has been replaced by a more sure-footed version of the same thing led by Ms. Redford, who was sworn in at the start of October, and Dr. Sherman and the Liberals find themselves in dire straights.

Hugh MacDonald, the seasoned veteran of many Liberal campaigns and effective MLA who challenged Dr. Sherman for the party leadership, has pulled the plug in disgust at the outcome of the weird leadership race, in which the party foolishly allowed anyone to vote, whether or not they were party members.

Liberal MLAs Kevin Taft, Edmonton Riverview, and Harry Chase, Calgary Varsity, had already announced they wouldn’t run again. Back in 2010, Calgary-Currie MLA Dave Taylor quit the party, sitting for a spell as an Independent, then as an MLA for the fledgling and barely noticed Alberta Party. He’ll retire from politics too when the next election is called.

Party staff is scuttling down the hawsers as the Liberal ship settles in the water.

As for Ms. Pastoor, she will run as a Tory in the next election, which, presumably, will fall between March 1 and May 31, according to the fixed-election law promised in this Legislative session by the Redford Tories.

If the latest Environics polling suggests anything, it may be that while Albertans generally liked Dr. Sherman as a rebel Tory, and didn’t mind him as a principled Independent, they’ve grown tired of him as the leader of the Opposition. The slide of the Liberals also suggests that Alberta’s substantial numbers of die-hard Liberals are finally losing interest in their moribund party with the Conservative Dr. Sherman at the helm.

The Environics numbers – which were collected for the Calgary Herald between Nov. 4 and 8, then sat upon by the newspaper until now for some reason – show Ms. Redford’s Tories with a commanding 51-per-cent lead, indicating Albertans are quite satisfied with their government at the end of a tempestuous year.

The province-wide breakdown looks like this:

Progressive Conservatives – 51 per cent
Wildrose Party – 19 per cent
New Democratic Party – 14 per cent
Alberta Liberals – 13 per cent

There’s not much joy here for the Wildrose Party under Danielle Smith, whose fortunes have also fallen with the departure of Mr. Stelmach and the rise of Ms. Redford.

If normal recent patterns persist, you can expect the Wildrose Party to release a poll of dubious provenance in a day or two that shows that party at a higher level and the Conservatives lower, with everyone else in about the same place.

Significantly, however, the Environics results showed Alberta’s New Democrats under the steady old hand of Brian Mason second only to the Conservatives in the Capital Region, enjoying 21-per-cent support in the area.

This suggests that the NDP is the only opposition party with the potential for growth in the present circumstances. Coming into the 2008 provincial election at a lower level of support, they lost two of their four pre-2008 Edmonton seats and held on to Mr. Mason’s in Edmonton-Highlands and Rachel Notley’s in Edmonton-Strathcona.

If their current numbers hold, especially if the Wildrose Party can make a strong showing and split the right-wing vote, it’s realistic for New Democrats to hope to recapture the two seats they lost in 2008 and return to four seats in the Legislature.

If the New Democrats want to move beyond that, however, they are going to have to move their support into the 25-per-cent range in the Edmonton area – a development that is within the realm of possibility with the continued decline of Dr. Sherman’s Liberals.

Since the NDP’s regional advantage around Edmonton plays more strongly at current support levels than the Wildrose Party’s regional advantage in Calgary, it could be a very close contest between the two parties to see which one emerges as the official Opposition.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Sure, Gary Mar’s $264,576 Asian sinecure is sweet, but does it come with severance?

Gary Mar stands in Hong Kong and gazes back toward Alberta. Albertan politicians-in-exile may not appear exactly as illustrated. Below: Mr. Mar as others see him; Rick Orman aboard business jet with plate of fruit.

Word that Gary Mar is about to be sent into a comfortable voluntary exile in Asia by Premier Alison Redford prompted an instant and harsh reaction among many members of the Alberta public.

The Provincial Gag Reflex Index ™ moved sharply upward immediately upon publication Friday of the government’s news release announcing the appointment – which with apparently unintended hilarity didn’t bother to mention that until just days ago, Mr. Mar was Premier Redford’s chief rival for the job she had just won.

The salary, a nice neat $264,576 – how did they come up with that number? – seemed to irritate folks like sand on a sunburn. There was at least one moment Friday – albeit at a gathering not particularly sympathetic to the government – when the crowd broke into spontaneously heartfelt jeers at a mention of Mr. Mar’s soft landing.

Moreover, Albertans will probably be even more annoyed when the penny drops that, unlike you or me, the disappointed Progressive Conservative leadership front-runner won’t have to pay his own rent in hyper-expensive Hong Kong, and will probably have a decent enough living allowance to cover all the pork, barbecued or otherwise, that he wants. There’s sure to be a nice car provided, with a driver to boot.

Alberta NDP Leader Brian Mason told the Calgary Herald Mr. Mar should “get a real job.” Liberal MLA Hugh MacDonald – who himself knows a thing or two about the sting of not being chosen in a party leadership contest – complained that Mr. Mar didn’t do particularly well the last time he had essentially the same position, as Alberta’s “envoy” in Washington, D.C., from September 2007 until last March when he threw his hat in the Tory leadership ring.

But obviously the political strategists in the premier’s office – who so far have called the public’s likely opinions pretty accurately – were of the opinion the outrage would be short-lived, and the benefits more substantial.

Reading between the lines, Mr. Mar’s manufactured comment in the official Public Affairs Bureau news release was interesting: “Premier Redford and I had discussions on what my future would entail which included potentially running for office and serving in Cabinet.”

I’ll bet! Wouldn’t you have loved to be a fly on the wall at that meeting? One can just imagine the conversation: “Just forget it, Gary! Here, how about this…”

Usually, of course, the best advice to a politician in a situation like this is to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

And Ms. Redford has done just that with those of her former fellow PC leadership candidates who had seats in the Legislature. Doug Horner, Ted Morton and even Doug Griffiths have all been rewarded with important cabinet portfolios – notwithstanding the fact Dr. Morton and Mr. Griffiths continued to back the wrong horse, Mr. Mar that is, after they washed out of the leadership race.

But keeping them in cabinet allows Ms. Redford to keep an eye on them – and their ambitions or any bright ideas they might get about advancing them.

Ms. Redford may be alleged to have a have a manner with her underlings as blunt as that of Margaret Thatcher, but, by golly, she is not about to suffer Lady Thatcher’s fate at the hands of her Legislative caucus if she can help it!

As for Rick Orman, the premier’s advisors obviously concluded they could safely ignore him – after all, he seems just to be a rich old guy who ran for the position to ride his hobbyhorse. If he really makes a nuisance of himself, though, they could always put him in charge of a commission looking into the rules governing the service of fresh fruit aboard business jets in Alberta’s skies or something equally compelling.

Mr. Mar, however, presented a special case. He came so close, and obviously appealed to so many Conservative Party members – indeed, more than Ms. Redford if you go by ballot first choices alone – that he was bound to be an embarrassing “what if” if he hung around and things didn’t go swimmingly for the premier.

What’s more, he could have been a millstone in cabinet – and he really would have had to have been put in cabinet if he’d run and won.

Even if he’d just lingered in Alberta and not run for anything, he would still have presented a potential “what if” scenario – as former Tory front-runner Jim Dinning did after the accident-prone premiership of Ed Stelmach started to take turn for the worse after turn for the worse.

So from the premier’s perspective, what if a few taxpayers are unhappy at Mr. Mar’s new sinecure? The risks of that, someone obviously concluded, are less severe than the risk of keeping the guy around.

From Mr. Mar’s point of view, the calculus must have been similar. Going to Asia saves him from the horrible fate of having to keep his promise and run for an office he obviously doesn’t want – whether or not Ms. Redford saw fit to put him in cabinet.

And in a funny way, his appointment even gives Ms. Redford’s government an opportunity to fire a subtle shot across the bow of the Obama Administration in the United States, and to make Mr. Mar’s lack of success south of the Medicine Line work for him while she’s at it. “You didn’t like the message that Gary Mar was giving you about our oil from the tar sands? Well, if you don’t want it, maybe China does…”

All this said, there is a reason the premier’s office released this terse little message on a Friday afternoon – the traditional dumping-ground moment for news that is bound to be a pain in the Parliamentary rump.

This is because, once they’ve had a chance to think about it, Albertans are going to be asking questions about more than Mr. Mar’s living expenses and the credit limit on his Government of Alberta Visa card. They’ll be wondering, for example, what kind of a severance payout comes with this job should he ever decide, say, to return to run for public office again.

They may also wonder if he got a similar payout when he left his position in Washington, and if so, what it was.

Alert readers will recall that Mr. Mar’s severance was a matter for controversy once before – when he left the Legislature for Washington and said he wouldn’t take his MLA severance while he toiled in the vineyards of the public service, then changed his mind and took it after all. During the leadership race, famously, he wondered what the big deal was, since everybody does it.

That’s the problem, of course. Everybody doesn’t – if only because most of us don’t get such sweet deals when we leave a job, for whatever reason.

For once, the probability is that this won’t just be a topic of chatter in the blogosphere. Opposition politicians of all stripes are certain to develop a healthy interest in the details of Mr. Mar’s excellent new job as the next election approaches.

Later this week: Some thoughts on what the future may hold for Gary Mar.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Departure of Hugh MacDonald a more serious blow to Alberta Liberals than the mere loss of a single Grit

Hugh MacDonald: A serious loss to the Alberta Liberals. Below: Edmonton-Gold Bar NDP candidate Marlin Schmidt.

The planned departure of Hugh MacDonald from the crumbling Alberta Liberal Party became official yesterday when paid reporters finally tracked down the Edmonton-Gold Bar MLA and got him to confirm what’s been discussed here in the blogosphere since last week.

When the media eventually found him, Mr. MacDonald, 56, was too polite to aim anything but the subtlest jibes at party leader Raj Sherman, the mercurial former Tory elected in a leadership contest dreamed up by a couple of youthful party officials that let people who weren’t members of the party make the key decision about its future.

Well, the people spoke when they chose Dr. Sherman – decisively defeating Mr. MacDonald – but it’s hard to image the people speaking cared very much about the Liberal Party except as a vehicle for their candidate’s hobby horses.

“A party is bigger than one person,” Mr. MacDonald gently told the Edmonton Journal yesterday, ostensibly referring to himself. “A party is a group of people, and we forget that.” Perhaps, however, he was also taking a sly dig at Dr. Sherman, a one-man band if ever there was one.

The loss of the four-term MLA and die-hard Liberal is a much more serious blow to the Official Opposition party than a mere resignation announcement by one individual would normally signal for several reasons.

For one thing, as noted in this space on Monday, Mr. MacDonald is one of the hardest working Alberta MLAs in any party, a skilled researcher all on his own with the ability to sniff out scandals buried deep in dull financial reports that were sure to engage the attention of media and embarrass the government.

Indeed, it would be fair to say Mr. MacDonald has probably been personally responsible for at least half the Alberta Liberals’ press clippings over the past dozen years.

And the media hits he generated tended to be substantial ones, because of his nose for news and ability to dig it out. Without him, the party will have a hard time engaging the media – as a tired-looking Dr. Sherman unintentionally demonstrated yesterday by drifting rudderless through a pointless news conference on how it’s imperative, nay, urgent, nay, essential that Albertans defeat the Tories. Why? Because, he said, “we must remove this government! They have lost the moral authority to govern!”

You know what? That isn’t going to wash with Albertans, whose deeply programmed default position is to vote Tory. If you don’t give them a reason to vote for another party, they won’t do it. “Alberta, you’re gettin’ screwed, it’s time to change your government,” isn’t a reason.

Indeed, this did not seem to impress the media. Reporters looked bored and quickly departed, filing little.

Returning to Mr. MacDonald, in addition to his personal qualities, he made Edmonton-Gold Bar the Liberals’ safest seat in Alberta. Arguably, that isn’t so any more. Right wing former Edmonton Mayoral candidate David Dorward, who did well running for the Conservatives in the riding in 2008, likely wants another kick at the can.

Moreover, the Wildrose Party has not yet nominated a candidate, but if they find a good one, they could split the right wing vote with the Tories.

In normal times with Mr. MacDonald bearing their standard, that would be good news for the Liberals. But with the party seemingly headed for the precipice, the door is open to unexpected outcomes.

All this has New Democrats counting up their recent federal votes in the neighbourhood – NDP 45 per cent, Conservatives 49 per cent over the same real estate, without any Wildrosers to confound conservative voters, and without “Hughie’s” union affiliation to woo those who might otherwise vote NDP.

This has the NDP wondering of their nominated candidate, groundwater specialist and geologist Marlin Schmidt, 33, may suddenly be a contender thanks to the lingering effects of the Orange Wavelet that lapped through Alberta in the spring.

Finally, the loss of Mr. MacDonald is not the only departure facing the nine-member Liberal legislative caucus. Calgary-Varsity MLA Harry Chase and Edmonton-Riverview MLA Kevin Taft, a former party leader, have already announced they are retiring. There is no guarantee they will be replaced by Liberals.

Edmonton-Centre MLA Laurie Blakeman, who also lost to Dr. Sherman in the leadership contest, was sounding yesterday like a woman who might soon make the same decision as Mr. MacDonald. “I’ll admit that I’m trying to figure out what my place in the caucus is,” she told the Journal. “I have, I’m sure, the same questions that must have gone through Hugh’s mind.”

“Bottom line is how much fun is that going to be if I just get pushed off to the side and I’m supposed to be the queen mother? Good Lord, I couldn’t do that.” These hardly sound like the words of a candidate determined to stick by the new leader through thick and thin.

With Dr. Sherman at the helm, the Alberta Liberals are falling apart. Mr. MacDonald’s official announcement is one sign. The only real surprise is how quickly it’s happening.

NOTE: Second-place Conservative leadership candidate Alison Redford did the right thing the right way yesterday when she immediately suspended her campaign to go to the bedside of her mother, who had an unexpected health crisis. Family comes first. The Edmonton Journal reported early this morning that Ms. Redford’s mother had died and that the candidate will return to the campaign trail.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Alberta Tory popularity sure to dip when a leader is chosen; dispatches from the leadership front lines

Million-dollar Morty with Dime-less Dave: What trouble awaits the Conservative frontrunner on the morrow? You’ll have to tune in to the CBC to find out. Below: Reporter Charles Rusnell, Raj Sherman, Hugh MacDonald and Rick Orman.

With the Alberta Progressive Conservatives riding high in the opinion of the public right now, it is axiomatic that the party’s popularity with voters will slump the instant it chooses a new leader.

The important question no one knows the answer to, of course, is, by how much?

The Conservatives are enjoying a bump right now because Premier Ed Stelmach was unpopular with a lot of Albertans from all parts of the Tory voting spectrum. The party began to soar back to its traditional high esteem with the province’s voters as soon as Mr. Stelmach announced his intention to step down.

Now that we are in the final 10 days before the first PC leadership vote, the party is probably at or near its high point for support because there are real and substantive differences among the six candidates seeking Mr. Stelmach’s job.

So if the party moves further to the right by electing any of Ted Morton, Rick Orman or Doug Griffiths, centrist voters who nevertheless might vote Conservative will be tempted to abandon the Tories for one of the parties of the centre or the left.

On the other hand, if the party moves back toward the centre, as it will be perceived to be doing if Conservatives choose any of Gary Mar, Doug Horner, Alison Redford, the vocal Conservative right fringe may move back to the Wildrose Alliance.

Either way, the Conservatives are virtually sure to lose some of their current support whichever way they turn because you just can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Who would benefit politically from such shifts? If the Conservatives lurch to the right, it could mean a bump for the Liberals, who are expected to select the popular but mercurial Dr. Raj Sherman as their leader on Saturday.

But by the time an election rolls around, it is said here that trend would more likely benefit the Alberta New Democrats, who are united and experienced, and may still be on the crest of a bit of an Orange Wavelet. The Liberals under Dr. Sherman are not likely to be united for long, and Alberta Liberals will never benefit from a phenomenon like the Orange Wave federal NDP leader Jack Layton generated before his death. Over time, the Liberal-like Alberta Party might benefit too, but they are barely on the radar at the moment.

If the party moves toward the centre, the chief beneficiary will naturally be the far-right Wildrose under former Fraser Institute apparatchik Danielle Smith.

So true party loyalists among the NDP and the Wildrose alike can probably be forgiven for crossing their fingers hoping for the result likely to benefit their party most.

The question, of course, is will such movement by voters be significant enough to prevent an overwhelming victory by the Conservatives under any leader in the election they are likely to call as quickly as they can?

Mentioned in dispatches: and not in a good way!

The Liberal race grows tighter?

With the Alberta Liberal leadership vote now under way on-line and due to be counted Saturday, and the Conservative first ballot a mere 10 days away, both races are starting to heat up, with some interesting developments on the front line.

Former Conservative Raj Sherman, who some reports said has signed 18,000 supporters, has seemed a cinch to win the Liberal race since party officials threw it wide open, U.S. primary style.

Nevertheless, Dr. Sherman was doing everything in his power today to persuade supporters to actually get out and vote. In a series of urgent Tweets, he warned them that “our campaign is in TROUBLE, Our Vote is not coming out.” Shades of Ryan Hastman, the Tory candidate who tried a similar technique in the days before he was beaten in the federal election by Edmonton Strathcona MP Linda Duncan.

Another Tweet suggested 2,000 Sherman backers had failed to get the PIN they needed to vote, and begged them to vote in person on Saturday.

Meanwhile, candidate Hugh MacDonald has been grumpily telling reporters that Dr. Sherman’s victory is not the sure thing the punditocracy has declared it to be, noting that political success follows funds raised more than members signed. And, indeed, he has raised $50,780 compared with Dr. Sherman’s $36,672.

In the last few days, Mr. MacDonald has been busy phoning many of Dr. Sherman’s supporters, presumably to check if any of them answer from the grave or can only say meow.

Good news, bad news for Ted Morton?

The Edmonton Journal last night reported that right-wing Conservative candidate Ted Morton, who released a list of his contributors today, has raised over $1 million in donations.

The timing of the revelation by the Morton camp was interesting, coming the night before the putative release of a negative story about the former finance minister by the CBC.

CBC investigative reporter Charles Rusnell (@charlesrusnell), who was unsuccessfully dogging Dr. Morton’s footsteps at last Thursday’s Conservative leadership forum in Red Deer, Tweeted this last night: “What’s Ted Morton got to hide? Find out on CBC radio YEG @ 7:12 a.m Thurs; YYC @ 8:10; Online @ cbc.ca/edmonton + CBC TV @5/6.”

Mr. Rusnell won’t say what the story’s about. A little bird of the variety that doesn’t Tweet says one word: “Emails.”

A rocket for Danielle Smith

Speaking of emails, a former Wildrose staffer who says she was responsible for handling membership lists has emailed a plea to current Wildrose supporters to back right-wing Conservative candidate Rick Orman instead of her former boss Danielle Smith, whom she accuses of “lusting for power.”

Citing a recent Calgary Herald story about defections from Wildrose back to the Tories, the emailer accuses Ms. Smith and her inner circle of “true contempt for the grassroots of the Wildrose Party,” falling attendance at party events and sinking contributions. “The level of disrespect that has been shown to your hard-earned and generously given contribution dollars by Danielle and company were a significant part of why I chose to leave the Wildrose Party,” the letter states.

Click here to read the entire text of the email.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

The other leadership race: Can the Alberta Liberals survive Raj Sherman as leader?

Your blogger with Dr. Sherman, back in the day. Below: Hugh MacDonald, Laurie Blakeman.

Can the Alberta Liberals survive the election of Raj Sherman as their leader?

This question has to be asked because the probability now seems quite high that Dr. Sherman will in fact win the Liberal leadership on Sept. 10.

Dr. Sherman has said and various media have reported that the former Tory MLA for Edmonton-Meadowlark has registered about 18,000 of the party’s approximately 27,000 eligible voters. The number of eligible voters is so high for a party with low membership and relatively weak support because the party adopted rules that allow even non-party-members to vote without paying a fee.

And Dr. Sherman is without doubt popular among many members of the Alberta general public, thanks to his very public rebellion last fall against Premier Ed Stelmach and the rest of the Conservative caucus over their handling of the health care file. The perception that a campaign was orchestrated against him by Tory insiders who tried to question his mental stability hasn’t hurt his Liberal candidacy, given the party’s liberal voting rules, one bit!

In addition, Dr. Sherman is an engaging and intelligent man whom people tend to react to with favour. As an Emergency Room physician involved in a high-profile battle with his own party over health policy, a lot of Albertans give him some credit for knowing what he’s talking about. So, unlike all of the other candidates – including a couple of veteran Alberta Liberal MLAs who have served their party well through thick and thin – he now possesses extremely high name recognition.

Moreover, none of his opponents seem to have been able to inspire the public imagination. Opposing him are the two hardworking but relatively low-profile Liberal representatives – Edmonton-Gold Bar MLA Hugh MacDonald and Edmonton-Centre MLA Laurie Blakeman – and two virtual unknowns from Calgary, Bill Harvey and Bruce Payne. Mr. Payne is both an evangelical preacher and trade unionist, and Mr. Harvey seems determined to occupy a position to the right of the Wildrose Alliance.

So it is said here that if all those voters show up in 11 days, high name recognition plus a wide-open voting process plus lots of supporters from outside the party’s traditional ranks plus low-impact opponents will add up to a slam-dunk victory for Dr. Sherman when the Liberals replace outgoing leader Dr. David Swann, also a physician.

That will generate some headlines, but it ain’t necessarily good news for the Alberta Liberal Party. This is because there are several pretty obvious problems with Dr. Sherman as a leader from the Liberals’ perspective.

Above all, he’s a one-issue politician who doesn’t really care about the party or any other policy except his prescriptions for health care. What’s more, while lots of potential Liberal leadership voters may be comfortable with his insistence that he’s the guy with all the answers, one imagines a shrewd opponent could work pretty effectively with that in a general election.

Remember, this is a guy who said, apparently without irony, that “within 24 months, I can fix the health system. … I am the national expert.”

Related to this is the fact that Dr. Sherman is not really a Liberal – he’s a Tory who became an Independent when he had a very public bust-up over health policy with the party under whose banner he ran.

Some readers will ask, what’s the big deal? And it’s true, lots of politicians change horses in mid-stream in Alberta politics. But the Liberals, who for years have managed to hang on to a deeply loyal core vote mostly in the Edmonton area, are in very shaky condition right now. There’s another party – the Alberta Party – that essentially shares their program and includes many of their former members. Their caucus appears to be crumbling at a moment when it should have been able to hope to make significant gains.

In such circumstances, can the Alberta Liberals really thrive under a leader who could care less about traditional Liberal values and positions, let alone traditions, and whose legislative interest does not extend beyond one single policy area?

Finally, there is the delicate matter of Dr. Sherman’s mercurial nature. There is no doubt that he was treated shabbily by some members of his former party, who really seem to have made an effort to spread the notion he was suffering from mental instability. His credibility was not hurt by the media revelations soon thereafter that such accusations seemed to be standard operating procedure in certain quarters when any physician dared to criticize the health care system.

But no sensible person can read Dr. Sherman’s Nov. 17, 2010, email without thinking that, at the very least, sending it was an impulsive decision that displayed questionable judgment.

This combination of factors bodes ill for the Alberta Liberals if they choose Dr. Sherman over Mr. MacDonald or Ms. Blakeman, both of whom have what it would take to preserve the party’s traditional vote and lead it through this difficult period until a more charismatic leader emerges.

It seems probable that if this speculation is right and Dr. Sherman wins, the party will enjoy a small boost from the media attention that will follow the election. It will likely last about a week – until the Conservative leadership vote seven days later generates its own excitement.

It seems unlikely Dr. Sherman will be able to sustain things much longer than that with a one-issue campaign, and that traditional party supporters will abandon ship soon thereafter with an impulsive captain unconcerned about their ideas and traditions at the helm. Indeed, signs of such fissures were becoming apparent at the final party all-candidates’ forum, last night in Calgary.

If this happens, it will be a disaster for the party, and quite possibly the end of the Alberta Liberals.

Sorry, but no matter how good he looks this week, Raj Sherman still doesn’t have what it takes to be a successful Liberal leader and the Liberals will regret it if they choose him.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Alberta Liberals’ open nomination scheme will not fix the party’s existential crisis

Alberta Liberals follow party leader Dr. David Swann down a street in Calgary. Alberta political party supporters may not be exactly as illustrated. (Photo grabbed from sveinnbirkir.tumblr.com/.) Below: the real Dr. Swann, Dr. Raj Sherman.


Are they nuts?

In an effort to end their party’s continuing implosion, Alberta Liberals voted at their convention in Calgary yesterday to open their leadership and riding nomination contests to all voters, including those who are not members of their party.

It doesn’t take a PhD in political science to see what’s wrong with this scheme. Talk about handing potential hijackers the keys to the jetliner!

At the riding level, the only thing that will save the fast-fading party from that particular kind of disaster is that outside of a few electoral districts it is now so irrelevant no scheming Tory, perfidious New Democrat or mischievous Wildroser would bother to waste the time needed to derail a Liberal candidate. In other words, why bother to hijack a mode of transportation that’s going nowhere?

Do you doubt that the Alberta Liberals are going nowhere? Consider the words of leadership candidate and Edmonton-Centre MLA Laurie Blakeman, partly recounted to us by the Calgary Herald, which unfortunately didn’t quote her in full detail. “Blakeman, however, believes opening the nomination and leadership votes to members and registered supporters alike is ‘a huge advantage’ for her because she has lots of backers who’ve left the Liberal party,” the Cowtown quotidian reported. (Emphasis added.)

On a similar theme in the same story, departing Alberta Liberal Leader David Swann, under whose unsteady hand the party has faltered so badly, compared membership in political parties to being part of a religious cult. “There is a reluctance to join a ‘religion,’ there is a reluctance to join a ‘cult,’” he told the Herald, apparently in an effort to explain why Albertans are reluctant to join the Alberta Liberals.

But political parties only start to seem like religious cults when they’re down to their final few true believers, still clinging desperately to the faith, and no one else is interested. Alas for the party led by Dr. Swann, physician and MLA for Calgary-Mountain View, that’s pretty much where the Alberta Liberals find themselves today.

Handing the levers of the party’s nomination processes to anyone who happens to wander in from the street is not going to fix this crisis.

Indeed, given the four candidates in the race to replace Dr. Swann as leader – Ms. Blakeman, Edmonton-Goldbar MLA and stalwart Grit Hugh MacDonald, hitherto unknown Calgarian Bruce Payne, who is both an evangelical preacher and trade unionist, and health care gadfly Raj Sherman, MLA for Edmonton-Meadowlark – this is going to make the Liberals’ existential crisis much worse.

To be blunt, the problem is Dr. Sherman, the former Conservative Parliamentary Assistant for Health and part-time Emergency Room physician who was cashiered by Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach last fall for attacking his own government.

Dr. Sherman is personable, presentable and very popular with a significant number of Albertans. He is also a one-issue politician who is persuaded that only he has the answers to Alberta’s health care crisis. As such, a strong case can be made that he is exactly the wrong person to lead a party that is teetering on the edge of extinction.

It is the special responsibility of party loyalists – the kind of people who join political parties, pay dues and get to vote in internal party elections – to think really seriously about who is right and who is wrong for leadership roles.

There is no pleasure in saying that the Alberta Liberals cannot survive Dr. Sherman as their leader, but Dr. Sherman is exactly what they are likely to get if they open their leadership contest to the general public.

The youthful party brain trust on the Alberta Liberal executive that came up with this foolishness claims it was modelled on the U.S. primary system. But this is a misunderstanding of how most U.S. primary elections work. Those elections are conducted by state governments on behalf of the parties, presumably guaranteeing minimum standards. What’s more, the system assumes there are only two parties, and typically only registered party supporters get to vote.

Yesterday’s Liberal decision, at least, is the best news that could be imagined by the fledgling Alberta Party, which ran a blunder-free leadership convention in Edmonton over the weekend and chose a sensible and experienced politician, Hinton Mayor Glenn Taylor, in a vote by 1,200 party members.

As a party dedicated to the proposition that many former Liberal voters are now looking for a new home, the adoption of this ill-thought-out notion as Liberal policy will surely persuade many of Alberta’s remaining hard-core Liberals to consider switching to the Alberta Party.

This post also appears on rabble.ca.