Alberta Election - Thread #4

Alberta Election now less than a week away.

Just looking at today's poles and again pretty obvious we're going to have a Conservative government; a Conservative leadership and a Conservative opposition. The PC’s taking a side seat to the “new” Klein style Conservative extremists who are seemingly subversive, trying to mast with a different guise. I mean, could this have been a planned event? Looks like Complete Power and Control by big money “Corporate Alberta.” And would you call that a coup?

“Coup d’etat - also known as a coup, putsch, and overthrow is the sudden, illegal deposition of a government usually by a small group of the existing state establishment to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d'état succeeds if the usurpers establish their dominance when the incumbent government fails to prevent or successfully resist their consolidation of power.”

- Wiki.

To me, the apparent deception of the painted faced Wildrose sales person is certainly, at the very least, a moral and ethical crime. And is Alison Redford just playing a roll, maybe that of a mindless camp follower?

It would bring a whole new meaning to a two party partisan dictatorship when both the "new" leadership and "the opposition" not only attend but host the same barbeque.

Any thoughts ...or banter?

Pff! Good one, Policywonk. Made me laugh. Yes it appears the Alberta Tories and Alberta Conservatives are about to ambush themselves from all sides. No surrender!

Wild Tory Roses, the unseen enemy. I wonder what they'd produce if they cross pollinated?

I noted a statement that Alberta was funding equalization came in to the last thread -- and the mismanagement of Ontario's manufacturing sector... A defence of Ontario which he bashed a bit might be fair to add to this discussion:

 I get some of the Alberta resentment bu let me put in a couple points in defence of the East.

1) The history of equalization is often ignored by Albertans. Some form of transfer had been around since Confederation and Alberta for many years had been a beneficiary. Ontario and BC were the ones traditionally paying the freight. In 1957 the system was made more formal with the objective of bringing all Provinces up to the standard of the two wealthiest provinces (ON and BC). At the start energy was not included in spite of the obvious unfairness since it is a revenue the provinces enjoyed. In 1962 as resource-based revenue was making some provinces way better off it was obvious they should not receive so much money from other provinces because their source of revenue was not counted so 50% of resource revenue was counted which was still advantage Alberta. In 1967 equalization included everything but energy. Advantage Alberta. In 1978 Ontario qualified due not just to economic difficulty but the rise in wealth of the others. It was decided to exempt Ontario so it would not receive payments. The standard was in 1982 reduced to national average rather than two wealthiest provinces. In January 2012 further discussion erupted over unfairness to Ontario of the current scheme which alleges that expenses and cost of living are not considered. Bottom line-- historically the scheme has been negative to Ontario; most provinces built their original infrastructure based on these payments which went in Alberta's favour for close to a century. To hear Alberta crying foul now rings a bit hollow especially as the system has been engineered several times to Alberta's benefit and Ontario's loss. The previous century of equalization along with federal investment went a long way to contributing to the wealth of Alberta and its present lowest tax in Canada status.

2) In 2010 which was not a good year, Ontario's GDP was 46,303/capita compared to Alberta at 70,826. In the resource based emphasis for the Canadian Economy Alberta was first and then NL and Sask. Then came Ontario. Ontario is the most populous province so its contribution to national wealth and importance to the national economy is not minimal. Ontario was below the national average not because it is a basket case but because Alberta, now bigger in population was almost 50% above the national average.

3) Alberta is a net importer of people. Those people are raised, provided health care and educated in other provinces for the most part. They move to Alberta to work. Yes, that may save the originating province if some of those would have been unemployed, but there is a fair argument that posits that these are not the ones who would have been unemployed but often the best. In 2006 it was estimated that this cost Ontario 1.4 billion (migration out of Province -- not all of which went to Alberta but a good chunk did). It is arguable that in effect Alberta's boom has created a people for equalization cash trade.

4) Oil is not a renewable resource. So when it runs out, if Alberta becomes a province that requires equalization again it will be fair that it return to the receiver status of equalization that it has had through much of the period since Confederation. We want to presume Ontario's attitude will be more like it was in that period than the attitude of many in Alberta today during a period of wealth for Alberta. Alberta invests for the future because it knows this is not a permanent state of affairs. It is fair to note that this investment will not be considered for the purpose of future transfer payments.

5) Blaming Ontario alone for the mismanagement of Ontario's manufacturing is a complete canard. Much of that has been the result of national priorities imposed by national governments that have taken Ontario for granted imposing policies to help other regions. Again, I accept that we should make national decisions based on national priorities but it is those national decisions, support them or not, which have lead to other provinces coming up ahead of Ontario and many of those were funded by Ontario taxpayers in their time. Free trade was a national decision. The current emphasis on investment in resource sectors of other provinces over manufacturing in Ontario was also a national decision. It was remarkable that when the federal government stepped in to invest in the auto sector much of the rest of the country screamed even though it got its money back relatively quickly. Still there is no national industrial policy other than the de-development of the country with a dismantling of the Ontario-based manufacturing to invest in a raw materials economy that many think is unwise.

I am not an apologist for a "strong central government" as some want to call it. However, some of the rhetoric coming from Alberta could be tempered by history on both sides rather than a constant recitation of the same grievances while ignoring the other side. I don't begrudge the good fortune of Alberta but I do believe those who have good fortune should share some of it without blaming those who have less.

So sure-- claws can come out but let's deal with a more balanced picture.

Edited to adjust tone at start-- I originally wrote this centred on a single comment from Bag Kitty about Ontario mismanging its manufacturing but having reread Bag Kitty's post I have to recognize there was a lot of balance there and so I have edited this. Still, the statement that Alberta is funding the rest of Canada and how unfair that is does come from a lot of Albertans in a way not as balanced as Bag Kitty-- so I think I'll leave the rest here. It is extremely important to recognize the impact of national policies on both the good fortune of Alberta and at least part of the ill-fortune of Ontario.

Canada as a nation lacks a jobs or manufacturing strategy and free trade has been the race to the bottom when it comes to manufacturing that Ontario can hardly participate in. It is not unfair to point out that resources are as Bag Kitty says a geographical accident. That means that they cannot be moved off-shore to cheap labour as easily or quickly as manufacturing and that is the greatest "mismangement" in Ontario's manufacturing: the national embrace of Globalization. The high dollar propped up in part by resources is a factor and I really wonder why it is so politically toxic to point that out. This is not about saying Alberta should not have its gifts but it is not unfair to point out that they may come at some cost to the rest of the country in at least some issues. Overall we need to be reminded that all of Canada as a whole benefits from Alberta's wealth but Ontario as a province is paying a bit of a price for that in at least one way-- and that is over currency.

Too bad he can't carry a tune.

Sean: Well, I did say I was "loath using the argument" before dipping my paws into the waters of equalization payments in the first place. I did, however, enjoy your response, although if you are going to take as long a view as you do at near the beginning of your post:

you should also probably address the [and hats off to CB MacPherson for the terminology] "quasi-colonial relationship" between Alberta and central Canadian capital during the historic period. I would suggest paying particular attention to preferential tariff policies that ensured the west remained an essentially captive market for central Canadian manufacturing. I believe he phrased things particularly well when he wrote:

Of course I find it somewhat more practical to focus on a time period that is a little more current. How about we focus any discussion on the period starting roughly around 1976 (not completely arbitrary, given that the last available information I could find [courtesy of the Government of Alberta] places the median age in Alberta at 36, I thought it would be useful to confine the discussion to the period the "average" Albertan would likely be around... more than a decade following the last time the province was a "have-not" under the equalization formula). If you go back to thread #3, post #104 you will see that there seems to be an appetite for a more "up-to-date" focus.

Working within that particular time frame, I think you will find that Alberta has, throughout the period, been nothing other than a "have" province, and consequently nothing other than a contributor under the equalization program. Again, I see nothing wrong with this, indeed what objections I have over the equalization program have more to do with cherry picking the "sample" group of "middle income" provinces rather than basing the formula on what I see as a more accurate data pool including all provinces [and before anyone starts screaming, the net result of that would be to INCREASE the amounts being distributed to so-called "have-not" jurisdictions as the standard would be higher... currently Alberta at the top end of the scale and the Atlantic region on the bottom are excluded from the formula], side-deals that distort the implementation of the program [again, with the Atlantic Accord expiring this year, no reason for anyone to scream] and finally with the criteria used to determine the revenue potential of a province [the screaming here would be from those who think non-renewable resource should be excluded (in whole or in part) thereby artificially decreasing the revenue reported by some -- and yes, especially Alberta].

Bless my twisted little prairie populist soul, but if we are going to continue to follow the principles behind the equalization program (section 36 in the Constitution Act), perhaps it would be make things smoother to have principled criteria determining contribution and eligibility rather than the backroom deals that are currently applied.

Which, of course, brings me the long way round to my real concern -- when are we going to have a principled discussion about representation by population in parliament? Or is that just another "historical grievance" that I am failing to see the other side of?

[Upon reflection I guess I better distill my point and make it overt: There is no real linkage between equalization payments and problems with the profound democratic deficit that characterizes our federal political institutions. But, because they can, in a number of ways, be considered analogous, it is very easy for the right to imply they are linked, and hence foster the laager mentality here in Alberta. Failure to address the democratic deficit (and some other "regional" or "historic" grievances, use whichever modifier you prefer) makes the job of prying Albertans away from the right much more difficult. Trust me, they have put a lot of effort into making sure the implication of linkage is very much part of the worldview out here where we sit on all that "black gold". Don't underestimate the consequences of belittling legitimate grievances, even when it is clear that they are being manipulated to bolster artificial ones.]

The CBC are very create in their interpretation of polls. And speaking of the CBC once again they have rigged an online questionnaire to make it appear you support the Liberals when you like NDP policies. Seriously somebody needs to put the Liberal -loving CBC News Dept to bed once and for all.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/story/2012/04/16/albertvo...

Bagkitty wrote:

you should also probably address the [and hats off to CB MacPherson for the terminology] "quasi-colonial relationship" between Alberta and central Canadian capital during the historic period. I would suggest paying particular attention to preferential tariff policies that ensured the west remained an essentially captive market for central Canadian manufacturing.

It's been over a decade since I read Democracy In Alberta, so bear with me. But it was published in 1953, only five years after the oil strike at Leduc. So I don't know if it would have been able to measure the full impact of the oil industry, which I personally think has been the driving force in Alberta politics since then. If I recall correctly, MacPherson was writing about Social Credit as an economically populist movement, which it ceased to be after the oil strike and the Manning purge.

I'll also observe that, in a lifetime of listening to recitations of Alberta economic greivances, preferrential tariffs and whatnot occupy a fairly insignificant place on the list, which is pretty much dominated by the NEP and other Trudeau era policies. I suppose there could be vague collective memories of earlier indignities, sorta like a guy grew up hearing his dad complain about the tariffs, so that might inform his attitude toward the NEP, even if he's not really aware of it.

The only times I've heard the tariffs mentioned was when some pro-NEP debater points out that Alberta benefitted from the National Oil Policy in the 1960s, and the anti-NEP guy replies with "Yeah, well we had been getting so screwed on the tariffs for decades, we were pretty much owed whatever Ottawa gave us in the 60s". But that degree of historical awareness is not that common, in my experience.

But yes, MacPherson was certainly correct in his prediction that Alberta would devolve into a "quasi-party system"(interestingly, he also foresaw the same fate for Canada as a whole). I'm just not sure that the reaaons for that happening were the same ones that MacPherson outlined in his book. But again, it's been a while.

In a way it sort of reminds me of those heady days of my youth when a younger Preston Manning strode forth onto the field. 

In my area the sign war seems to be a tie between the PC's and WRA.  I've heard and seen all sorts of WRA ads, fewer PC ads mainly mentioning all the good things our MLA has done for us over the years, and 1 Liberal ad.  But that's rural Alberta for you.

I'm torn between ecstasy over the possible demise of the PC's, and a certain apprehension over our new masters.

Anyways bagkitty, sorry for any confusion in the other thread.  You sure know your Alberta history.

don't even know what to say  about that...seems weird though.

I'll take your word on that. To be honest, anti-CPR feeling in the west is something that I only ever heard about second-hand, and just as likely flitered through central Canadian sources. Growing up in Edmonton, with an Edmonton-born dad, a mom from Winnipeg, and no family in the rurals, I was pretty shut out from what was going in TROA. Two solitudes, indeed(to continue your theme).

Now, Dief killing the Arrow. THERE was something you heard about in Edmonton. I got a lecture on that in church when I was in town last year, as a matter of fact.  

It was amusing listening to the broadcast of the last party leader's meeting today... Mason really missed the chance to point out that he was the only one there who wasn't a current conservative premier (Redford), a former conservative MLA (Sherman) or an ultra-conservative (Smith).

The Globe and Mail has spoken, we are supposed to vote for Alison and her PCs. Has anyone been tasked with sending them the thank-you note for enlightening us?

Does he really need to point out the obvious?

I'm still not voting PC

Far more shocking than a change in government, would be a minority government elected in Alberta, won by whomever.

I'd take it as a sign of growing political sophistication in a political culture largely unaccustomed to political dialogue, largely unaccustomed to having different ideas bump into and contend with each other.