I suspect most members of the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project were
happy to see Alison Redford, rather than one of the party establishment,
win the Progressive Conservatives’ leadership. She was the pick of the
bunch – smart, articulate, bold and female to boot. All of these
characteristics mark a refreshing change.
At the same time, her victory will make the DRP’s job harder: remember
our desire to end perpetual one-party rule in Alberta and get a new
government with progressive policies and support for proportional
representation? The popular take on Redford is that she’s a progressive,
so apparently malcontents like us can relax and be assured that we now
live in the best of all possible worlds.
I’m not so sure. I’m not going to make cheap comments about the
Premier’s early mis-steps – confusion about cancelling certain electrical
transmission lines, or changing her mind about a fall sitting of the
legislature. Inevitably there’s a steep learning curve for a new
incumbent and we should give her some breathing room.
I’m more worried about the same old bunch who helped Ed Stelmach
under-perform being included in the inner circle and indeed, about the
general party membership. With friends like these, and a civil service
comfortable with the status quo, we can look forward to a great deal of
“Yes, Premier” kow-towing, followed by in-fighting, foot-dragging and
subtle sabotage of Redford’s initiatives.
Having read a bit of history (I’m thinking of President Kennedy’s
experience), and having been on Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s staff, I
know that moving a bureaucracy is harder than throwing a rhinoceros by
the tail. Someone asked Trudeau how he was doing and he said he’d never
realized how hard it would be to get anything done.
It’s also possible that the Premier herself is not quite as progressive
as she appears. If she were, one would think that she’d have joined a
more progressive party, not the same old gang with mothballs between
their ears.
Admittedly, in a perpetual one-party state, ambitious people tend to
flock toward the party in power, so they can “get things done”, or
“change the system from within.” And how’s that worked out in the last
forty years? Good intentions disappear without trace, as toeing the line
is necessary to advance one’s career. Displeasing a well-entrenched
premier with strong party support led to Guy Boutilier or Raj Sherman
being kicked out of caucus.
So DRP’s job isn’t finished yet. Odds are the “new” government won’t be
much better than the old. For example, why couldn’t the two-day sitting
of the legislature have been three or four days, so as to pass the
premier’s intended increase in allowances for the severely handicapped?
Drafting the bill could have been done in half a day!
So how do we get rid of the same-olds in the next election? We think
that strategic voting is the answer. Remember when Joe Clark ran against
the Alliance in Calgary Centre? Few people gave him a chance. The
pundits thought that in Calgary, the home of the most conservative of
electorates, the Alliance would retain the seat.
But that’s not what happened. Instead, nearly every friend of ours
(okay, that’s a small sample) crossed party lines to elect Joe, on an
“anybody but the Alliance” theory. Apparently, many other people did
too.
The same thing could happen in the next provincial election. We plan to
set up a website which will identify the non-conservative candidate in
forty or more electoral districts (constituencies) who seems to have the
best chance. If centre-left voters accept our recommendation and vote
for this “winnable” candidate, even if that party is not their first
choice, non-conservatives (note the small “c”) could become the biggest
or second-biggest bloc in the legislature. Think of the legislative heft
we would have.
Now purists might say that, with recent re-positioning, none of the
existing parties in Alberta is “truly progressive.” But in this
province, relative, not true, progressiveness may be all we’re going to
get. We have to be pragmatic enough to accept this. In any case, the
DRP has decided to identify individual winnable candidates from
Evergreen, Liberal, NDP, and maybe the Alberta Party, not to issue a
general stamp of approval on any party as such. Maybe we will identify
acceptable candidates by their stands on environment/climate change,
medical and education policies (I’d also put in a plug for a guaranteed
annual income).
Another point on this slippery word “progressive.” Given the
mainstream’s use of the word to describe Premier Redford and by extension
her government, we may have to find another descriptor to differentiate
our perspective from the PCs (and Wildrose).
Of course, the above may be just my opinion. There is a range of ideas in
the DRP about our best strategy and all ideas on this subject are
welcome.
Please comment!
Phil Elder
Well put, Phil!
As the Occupy movement is reminding us, the main policy is fiscal policy. Who earns what and what taxes they pay so that governments can provide strong social, health, and educational programs for everyone, and insure a healthy environment determine whether a government can deliver on promises.
Alison Redford is a guaranteed phoney. She wants to tax like Danielle Smith and deliver programs like Brian Mason. That’s no doubt what many Albertans want: excellent programs at no cost to them. But it’s voodoo economics and Redford cannot deliver.
I t
Hmm. Cut myself off too soon! I’ll just add that the opposition parties owe Albertans a clearer picture of what their dream first budgets would look like if any of them or some combination of them were to become the government. Crapola about being a ‘fiscal conservative with heart’ (Raj Sherman) or being “good listeners” (Alberta Party) or simply getting more oil royalties while leaving taxes alone (NDP) don’t quite cut it. The Tories no longer have a stupid leader, but they don’t have a progressive leader either. It’s up to the opposition parties to show how they will govern differently.
The political situation sometimes changes faster than the weather. DRP needs to stay the course with our plans, even though the party leader situation has changed.