It has been over a week since Premier Stelmach executed his much rumoured and much anticipated Cabinet shuffle. It was not much of a shuffle, more of a minor, one portfolio expansion of the Cabinet.
When former Deputy Premier Ron Stevens left politics for the Bench Premier Stelmach wisely assumed the International and Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio in his own office. Stelmach used to serve in that Ministry and knows the files. He also knows the IIA function is become essentially a glorified Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier's office. So it only makes sense governance wise and for fiscal prudence to reduce his cabinet by one and for the Premier to be the International and Intergovernmental face for the province.
So it is interesting that we saw the appointment of Len Webber as the new Minister. Len Webber is a good guy and I am sure he is capable of fulfilling the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier function of this Ministry. This appointment had nothing to do with good governance of fiscal prudence. It was pure regional appeasement politics that pushed this appointment. It is more Calgary appeasement by the Stelmach PCs who looking for love in all the wrong places.
WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE SENT FROM CALGARY GLENMORE?
The key messages gleaned from the PCs enormous loss of the Calgary Glenmore by election is the recession is hurting and Albertans are grumpy with the spending plans of the province. It had nothing to do with the perceptions of the leadership capacities of the Premier or his office whatsoever. It was the good folks of Calgary Glenmore send a fiscal message only.
I don't think the Stelmach government is reading all the signs. They are practicing and perfecting selective listening. We have experiences a relatively light recession in Alberta compared to Canada and the planet. We have cash to cover the deficit. We have the "luxury" of not having to raise taxes for at last 2 years. We have unemployment at about 7.2%. In "normal" times 6% unemployment is considered full employment by economists. So Alberta is in a recession but it is not a dire as many of the past.
We have a natural gas revenue hit caused by low commodity prices between $4 and $5B but that is not enough to account for the almost $15B swing from last years estimate of $8B surplus and a $7B deficit one year later. We Albertans have not been shown how that math really works. I hope it is not more political messaging to manipulate expectations instead of actual accountability and authentic transparency.
So what. The "official government" key message and speaking points response to the wildly successful Wildrose Alliance campaign slogan of "Send Ed a Message is the recession and there is too much government spending. So the question for the Premier and his brain trust is what to do? The answer is clear. Shift to the right, fiscally and socially. Spend less and a lot less, right now.
Go ahead a break trusts by clawing back prior social infrastructure promises, especially in the vulnerable social service sector. They don't vote and if they did, they don't vote Tory anyway. One thing for sure, in a perpetual appeasement to Calgary elites we can't risk alienating the energy industry millionaire masters of the universe types, especially in times of recession.
WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE RECEIVED FROM CALGARY GLENMORE?
The real evidence of a fundamental (sic) social policy shift is in the other appointments made concurrently with Len Webber's ascending into Cabinet. Look at the rewards given to the social conservative gang that promoted and won the battle to pass their beloved Bill 44. This is even more disturbing and profound evidence of the social repositioning of the Stelmach government to the right. I suggest the far right. This is an exercise in social conservative appeasement but there is some overtones of more Calgary Appeasement as a beneficial by-election by product.
The elevation of rookie MLA Jonathan Denis to Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy puts a socially conservative Calgary face on the portfolio. Jono and I are Facebook Friends and follow each other on Twitter. [We are @JonoMLA and @KenChapman46 on Twitter if you want to follow us.] I find him to be an intelligent and civil debater as we arm wrestle in the social media. He may prove to be a very capable guy and deserves the benefit of the doubt. But there is not doubt of is social conservative credentials as one of the front men on Bill 44.
Side note: Jono beat the ultra social conservative Craig Chandler who ran as an Independent in the 2008 election after winning the PC nomination but Stelmach refused to sign his paper. Mr. Chandler is now the power and behind Mark Dynholm's bid to lead the Wildrose Alliance Party.
Next is Broyce Jacobs as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Agriculture and Rural Development. Mr. Jacobs is and was the MLA from Cardston. He lost to Paul Hinman in 2004 but beat him in 2008. Remember it was Hinman who parachuted into Calgary Glenmore and trounced the local high profile PC candidate in the by election this month. Elevating him also sends a message to Albertans with a strong fundamentalist faith base that they have a voice right into the provincial political power structure.
Next we have the evidence of the social and fiscal shift to the right in the new appointments to key Cabinet committees. Adding Lindsay Blackett to Agenda and Priorities is a reward for a job well done on pushing through Bill 44 in the face of serious, vocal and broadly based public opposition.
There seems to be soap-opera around the selection of rookie Rob Anderson to the all powerful Treasury Board. Rob is apparently a fiscal hawk and was the face of Bill 44 to the social conservative element in the caucus and in the PC party. His appointment is clearly a reward for his Bill 44 efforts and success.
The soap opera element is the apparent political punishment of Kyle Fawcett, another social conservative Bill 44 caucus promoter. Kyle, a Calgary rookie MLA, had the temerity to say the equivalent of Premier had no clothes in his analysis of the messages coming out of the Calgary Glenmore by election. See the blog post of Don Braid, provincial affairs columnists for the Calgary Herald for details.
All of this is a symbolic sign to those former PC supporters who abandoned the party and voted Wildrose Alliance in Calgary Glenmore. The Premier is showing off his social conservative bench strength and trying to convince So-con swing voters that their concerns will be dealt with from now on by his government. He is trying to show those folks that he got that message. I think that message has come through loud and clear since the last election.
That puts the progressives in the PC party on notice that they are marginalized. I think it may prove that the progressives int eh PC party will be even more marginalized than in the darkest days of the Klein regime. Time will tell.
Showing posts with label Hinman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hinman. Show all posts
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Stelmach Says Environment Trumps Economy - It is About Time.
You can’t blame Albertans for being confused when you read the reporting on Ed Stelmach’s alleged response(s) to the CEMA letter calling for a partial moratorium on further oil sands leases so conservation issues can be addressed.
I think the Edmonton Journal front page headline repeats Stelmach from over a year ago saying “No Brakes on Oil Sands” and the Globe and Mail has Stelmach saying “Environment Trumps Economy.” I think both stories are accurate but you have to wonder at the framing of the issue and why the PC policy position is not clearer and more consistent. It can change over time and I applaud that it does. But whoda thunk Ed Stelmach was so post-modern! Well, me for one because I know a bit about the man. I know his sense of ecological stewardship and the respect he has for the free enterprise system. However the role of government is to ensure and enhance both aspects of our lives and for the greater common good, not just the accumulation of private wealth.
I have to spend some time reflecting on how to square this circle. The best I can do so far is to express my own feelings and beliefs. The environment has to trump the economy –every time. And the economy has to serve the interests of society –every time and not the other way around as it has been in Alberta as of late.
Government has a duty to regulate and protect the environment. And there are economic consequences in the government's job in exercising that stewardship responsibility. Progress is measured by building on strengths and avoiding or mitigating weaknesses. On the weakness side I want a government that first avoids and, if necessary, fixed screw ups and one that seizes opportunities that present themselves.
On the strength side I want a government who takes responsibility for those things we need to care about as a society, including the natural and social capital deficits we have in Alberta today. I want a government that takes its role of managing our resources seriously and responsibly - including collecting royalty payments owned when due.
Finally I want a government that has a leadership group, like a Cabinet, that can listen, learn and adapt – effectively, quickly and appropriately. That is the real biggie going forward. We need to enhance our ecological integrity in this province. We need to enhance our social cohesion and capacity show caring and compassion for our vulnerable citizens form children, to seniors to the disabled. We need to vastly improve our decision making procedures and capacity.
So Ed, Kevin, Brian, Paul and George, that is what I want my next government to be capable of. The rest is detail that I will trust you, as my Premier, if you are in power after Monday, to work out in a way that is open, transparent and accountable. No pressure!
I think the Edmonton Journal front page headline repeats Stelmach from over a year ago saying “No Brakes on Oil Sands” and the Globe and Mail has Stelmach saying “Environment Trumps Economy.” I think both stories are accurate but you have to wonder at the framing of the issue and why the PC policy position is not clearer and more consistent. It can change over time and I applaud that it does. But whoda thunk Ed Stelmach was so post-modern! Well, me for one because I know a bit about the man. I know his sense of ecological stewardship and the respect he has for the free enterprise system. However the role of government is to ensure and enhance both aspects of our lives and for the greater common good, not just the accumulation of private wealth.
I have to spend some time reflecting on how to square this circle. The best I can do so far is to express my own feelings and beliefs. The environment has to trump the economy –every time. And the economy has to serve the interests of society –every time and not the other way around as it has been in Alberta as of late.
Government has a duty to regulate and protect the environment. And there are economic consequences in the government's job in exercising that stewardship responsibility. Progress is measured by building on strengths and avoiding or mitigating weaknesses. On the weakness side I want a government that first avoids and, if necessary, fixed screw ups and one that seizes opportunities that present themselves.
On the strength side I want a government who takes responsibility for those things we need to care about as a society, including the natural and social capital deficits we have in Alberta today. I want a government that takes its role of managing our resources seriously and responsibly - including collecting royalty payments owned when due.
Finally I want a government that has a leadership group, like a Cabinet, that can listen, learn and adapt – effectively, quickly and appropriately. That is the real biggie going forward. We need to enhance our ecological integrity in this province. We need to enhance our social cohesion and capacity show caring and compassion for our vulnerable citizens form children, to seniors to the disabled. We need to vastly improve our decision making procedures and capacity.
So Ed, Kevin, Brian, Paul and George, that is what I want my next government to be capable of. The rest is detail that I will trust you, as my Premier, if you are in power after Monday, to work out in a way that is open, transparent and accountable. No pressure!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Debate Uncovers Personal Animosities Amongst the Alberta Political Leaders.
The Debate last week had some interesting subplots. Those revolved around the personal skirmishes between the leaders. It gives a sense of the personal positioning, fears and animosity that may exist between the various party leaders in this campaign.
The order of importance and context of these personal trysts, that I perceived, are as follows:
#1 Mason vs. Taft: Mason has to ensure his base does not go strategic on him and vote Liberal to try and defeat Tories…like what happened in Edmonton in 2004. A vote for Mason is not a Tory victory vote in 2008 but Mason is saying the Alberta Liberals are pretty much the same as the PCs…both are in the pocket of big money. Vote NDP to keep them both honest.
#2 Hinman vs. Stelmach: Hinman has to show some of his “true conservative” credentials and take Stelmach on over his “overspending” and “progressive” values. Hinman gets to ignore the needed increased spending is due to lack of meeting the needed infrastructure and maintenance spending of past years under the Klein regime. Hinman has to give the far right a reason to believe in him and that is best done by showing that the PCs have lost their way. He has gone too far claiming the Stelmach PCs are unprincipled people who “tear up contracts” with oil sands companies (not true at all but good spin) and therefore the PCs not worth reconsidering. Reality check…Suncor has already voluntarily renegotiated its royalty deal and Syncrude is on its way to do the same thing. NO contracts are being torn up and Hinman knows it. He is taking a pass on integrity with this misrepresentation crap…and he knows that too.
#3 Taft vs. Stelmach: This is Taft bemoaning the past of PC governance to the point his is actually running against Ralph not Ed. For example he frames 37 years of the same PC government is long enough and that is reason enough to change government. He discounts the fact that voters decide who they wish to govern them. He skates over the fact that elections are a chance to change governments every 4 years or so and that the various PC governments have been responsive and nimble enough to change with the times. Taft has to beat Ed on a personal level if his is to win this election and based on the changes in the last 14 months, Taft can’t count on Ed gaffing his way out of government. Taft is hoping Calgary is in the process redefining its Red Mile to be a profound Liberal Red Mine with lots of seat shifts. Ed is banking on Redmonton returning to the PCs and becoming EDmonton. Cute metaphors but is there any truth in them? We will know in a week.
#4 Mason vs. Taft and Stelmach: As variations on the same theme, distinctions without a difference. He claims both are in the pockets of big business and they don’t have the best interests of his “regular Albertans” in their hearts...as he obviously does. Nick Taylor, a former Alberta Liberal leader and federal Senator once described his successor Liberal leader, Laurence Decore, as “Getty with glasses.” Mason says the difference between Stelmach and Taft is indistinguishable at their core that he would net even made that distinction between how they would govern.…especially their too cozy relationship with big business in Alberta. Not very accurate on the evidence…but good positioning for Mason to speak to his base who need to believe in him to stay with him.
The order of importance and context of these personal trysts, that I perceived, are as follows:
#1 Mason vs. Taft: Mason has to ensure his base does not go strategic on him and vote Liberal to try and defeat Tories…like what happened in Edmonton in 2004. A vote for Mason is not a Tory victory vote in 2008 but Mason is saying the Alberta Liberals are pretty much the same as the PCs…both are in the pocket of big money. Vote NDP to keep them both honest.
#2 Hinman vs. Stelmach: Hinman has to show some of his “true conservative” credentials and take Stelmach on over his “overspending” and “progressive” values. Hinman gets to ignore the needed increased spending is due to lack of meeting the needed infrastructure and maintenance spending of past years under the Klein regime. Hinman has to give the far right a reason to believe in him and that is best done by showing that the PCs have lost their way. He has gone too far claiming the Stelmach PCs are unprincipled people who “tear up contracts” with oil sands companies (not true at all but good spin) and therefore the PCs not worth reconsidering. Reality check…Suncor has already voluntarily renegotiated its royalty deal and Syncrude is on its way to do the same thing. NO contracts are being torn up and Hinman knows it. He is taking a pass on integrity with this misrepresentation crap…and he knows that too.
#3 Taft vs. Stelmach: This is Taft bemoaning the past of PC governance to the point his is actually running against Ralph not Ed. For example he frames 37 years of the same PC government is long enough and that is reason enough to change government. He discounts the fact that voters decide who they wish to govern them. He skates over the fact that elections are a chance to change governments every 4 years or so and that the various PC governments have been responsive and nimble enough to change with the times. Taft has to beat Ed on a personal level if his is to win this election and based on the changes in the last 14 months, Taft can’t count on Ed gaffing his way out of government. Taft is hoping Calgary is in the process redefining its Red Mile to be a profound Liberal Red Mine with lots of seat shifts. Ed is banking on Redmonton returning to the PCs and becoming EDmonton. Cute metaphors but is there any truth in them? We will know in a week.
#4 Mason vs. Taft and Stelmach: As variations on the same theme, distinctions without a difference. He claims both are in the pockets of big business and they don’t have the best interests of his “regular Albertans” in their hearts...as he obviously does. Nick Taylor, a former Alberta Liberal leader and federal Senator once described his successor Liberal leader, Laurence Decore, as “Getty with glasses.” Mason says the difference between Stelmach and Taft is indistinguishable at their core that he would net even made that distinction between how they would govern.…especially their too cozy relationship with big business in Alberta. Not very accurate on the evidence…but good positioning for Mason to speak to his base who need to believe in him to stay with him.
If all politics are local, are all leadership arguments and differences of opinion ultimately personal?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Green's George Read Circumvents the MSM and Gets His Message Across.
Now is the time for all Albertans to prove their contrarian spirit and take a few minutes and give a listen to George Read of the Alberta Greens. Cut out of the debate by the supercilious determination of the Alberta television networks George is the Rodney Dangerfield of Alberta politics. Read is a maverick with a cause whereas Hinman is a rebel without one. Hat tip to Archie McLean of the Edmonton Journal for the link.
Visit his YouTube response to the debate questions. For those in my generation, who don’t know what YouTube is, let me explain. It is the nextGen’s interactive alternative viewing source to replace the MSM's "out-casting" model of network television. If you don’t know what nextGen means Wiki it…if you can’t figure out either of these concepts then rapidly retreat into the stupefying confining boxes of Dave Rutherford or Charles Adler.
Read’s rough cut video shows that he is knowledge, informed, authentic and genuine. No slick Vancouver or Toronto ad agency puffery here…a real deal kinda guy with commentary that is refreshingly progressive.
Visit his YouTube response to the debate questions. For those in my generation, who don’t know what YouTube is, let me explain. It is the nextGen’s interactive alternative viewing source to replace the MSM's "out-casting" model of network television. If you don’t know what nextGen means Wiki it…if you can’t figure out either of these concepts then rapidly retreat into the stupefying confining boxes of Dave Rutherford or Charles Adler.
Read’s rough cut video shows that he is knowledge, informed, authentic and genuine. No slick Vancouver or Toronto ad agency puffery here…a real deal kinda guy with commentary that is refreshingly progressive.
Alberta Debate Results: #1 Stelmach, #2 Don't Know, #3 Taft
The impact of the Alberta election debate is the subject of a CanWest poll published today. My blog post for the CBC YouCast site said the debate changed nothing for the undecided voter but the leaders all reaffirmed and reassured their bases. The poll results confirm this.
Pundits and MSM see political debates as contests between party leaders so, by definition, there has to be a winner and a loser. When there isn’t a clear result the chattering class suffer from a kind of political cognitive dissonance because can’t resolve the values conflict that demands a winner and a loser. I say let them suffer.
Looking at the poll results, ¾ of viewers did not change their minds and 23% are still undecided with about 10 days to go. The numbers say Stelmach “won” for 30.1% of the respondents and 34.6% say they are voting for him. Taft is perceived to have “won” by 23.3% and 23.1% are voting for him. This is showing the core vote for each party is pleased with their guy’s performance – nothing more can be read into this poll result. The NDP and WAP results are inconsequential but there are some interesting strategic implications around them for the two main parties.
The WAP’s Hinman confirmed his fiscal fundamentalist right-wing agenda. His challenge was to reassure the newly merged WAP members that they are a political force and not be discouraged with the President’s resignation and the poor showing on candidate recruitment. Hinman has to sustain his 70K popular vote from the 2004 election and get re-elect to succeed.
The NDP has to reassure core supporters not to vote Liberal for strategic purposes to defeat the PCs. He has done that by taking on both Stelmach and Taft. He has positioned Taft as pretty much a PCer in a red sweater. His core is reassured that an NDP vote is not a waste and they should return to the role of keeping both the Libs and the PC honest. He has to at least retain seats and sustain popular vote levels to succeed.
Taft has performed well this election campaign but the debate is where he will have peaked and is now plateaued. He will sustain this support level to and through Election Day. That potentially means more seats but not government. With no clear ballot question and a considerable but seemingly disengaged undecided segment, the big momentum change the Libs need to form government is not happening. His attempt to position Stelmach as same old…same old has not gelled because Stelmach has proven to be an agent of significant change in the past 14 months.
As for Stelmach, he has kept his true Progressive Conservative party core. With Hinman’s debate performance, the far right voters that abandoned Klein in 2004, are not coming back. That is a god thing because it clearly puts to bed that Stelmach is just a continuation of the past government. Stelmach has recognized that Albertans what change and elections are always about change and choices. The results coming out of this debate and the campaign so far shows Albertans want change but they are coming to realize Ed Stelmach is the kind a prudent, thoughtful and careful change agent we need in these time of turmoil.
Pundits and MSM see political debates as contests between party leaders so, by definition, there has to be a winner and a loser. When there isn’t a clear result the chattering class suffer from a kind of political cognitive dissonance because can’t resolve the values conflict that demands a winner and a loser. I say let them suffer.
Looking at the poll results, ¾ of viewers did not change their minds and 23% are still undecided with about 10 days to go. The numbers say Stelmach “won” for 30.1% of the respondents and 34.6% say they are voting for him. Taft is perceived to have “won” by 23.3% and 23.1% are voting for him. This is showing the core vote for each party is pleased with their guy’s performance – nothing more can be read into this poll result. The NDP and WAP results are inconsequential but there are some interesting strategic implications around them for the two main parties.
The WAP’s Hinman confirmed his fiscal fundamentalist right-wing agenda. His challenge was to reassure the newly merged WAP members that they are a political force and not be discouraged with the President’s resignation and the poor showing on candidate recruitment. Hinman has to sustain his 70K popular vote from the 2004 election and get re-elect to succeed.
The NDP has to reassure core supporters not to vote Liberal for strategic purposes to defeat the PCs. He has done that by taking on both Stelmach and Taft. He has positioned Taft as pretty much a PCer in a red sweater. His core is reassured that an NDP vote is not a waste and they should return to the role of keeping both the Libs and the PC honest. He has to at least retain seats and sustain popular vote levels to succeed.
Taft has performed well this election campaign but the debate is where he will have peaked and is now plateaued. He will sustain this support level to and through Election Day. That potentially means more seats but not government. With no clear ballot question and a considerable but seemingly disengaged undecided segment, the big momentum change the Libs need to form government is not happening. His attempt to position Stelmach as same old…same old has not gelled because Stelmach has proven to be an agent of significant change in the past 14 months.
As for Stelmach, he has kept his true Progressive Conservative party core. With Hinman’s debate performance, the far right voters that abandoned Klein in 2004, are not coming back. That is a god thing because it clearly puts to bed that Stelmach is just a continuation of the past government. Stelmach has recognized that Albertans what change and elections are always about change and choices. The results coming out of this debate and the campaign so far shows Albertans want change but they are coming to realize Ed Stelmach is the kind a prudent, thoughtful and careful change agent we need in these time of turmoil.
It looks like Albertans are prepared to give him a real shot as a change agent and to give him more time to get the needed changes done right, not just rapidly. This time he will have his own team and his own mandate. He will also face a much higher expectation level for deliver on his promises and to stay true to his stated values than any other Premier of Alberta in history.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Alberta's Wildrose and Alliance Parties Looking At Merger!
Good to see the nascent Wildrose Party and the bucolic Alliance Party talking merger. My sources say early efforts at a merger between Wildrose and the Social Credit Party proved unworkable. There are still the Alberta Party and the Separation Party that may be ripe for merger with this new entity too.
The parties better fast track this effort if they want to be a force in the forth coming Alberta election. Getting the Alliance party members to agree to a merger and accept the bylaws of the Wildrose Party and have Wildrose first in name will take some explaining if it is to be successful a the January 19th AGM of the Alliance.
The Alliance has been around longer, since 2002, and has proven to be able to deliver at least a modicum electoral success with Leader Paul Hinman. The compromise position offered is Mr. Hinman will lead the new merged party. That will at least be until the next election where we will see how well he does in his own seat. His second major challenge as leader will be recruiting credible candidates with such short notice and not much money or time to raise it.
Hinman will be running against Progressive Conservative Broyce Jacobs again. Jacobs held the seat before but lost it to Hinman in 2004 as the Cardston-Taber-Warner seat concentrated its disillusionment with Ralph Klein. Alliance gelled their support and in a tight two-way race Hinman won by 131 votes. The Alberta Liberals and New Democrats have not nominated their cannon fodder candidates in the constituency as yet.
This constituency is one to watch for many reasons but mostly as a test of the Stelmach PCs and the political viability of the far right parties, in coalition or otherwise. The implications for the acceptability and viability of the proposed merged Wildrose Alliance Party are obvious.
The parties better fast track this effort if they want to be a force in the forth coming Alberta election. Getting the Alliance party members to agree to a merger and accept the bylaws of the Wildrose Party and have Wildrose first in name will take some explaining if it is to be successful a the January 19th AGM of the Alliance.
The Alliance has been around longer, since 2002, and has proven to be able to deliver at least a modicum electoral success with Leader Paul Hinman. The compromise position offered is Mr. Hinman will lead the new merged party. That will at least be until the next election where we will see how well he does in his own seat. His second major challenge as leader will be recruiting credible candidates with such short notice and not much money or time to raise it.
Hinman will be running against Progressive Conservative Broyce Jacobs again. Jacobs held the seat before but lost it to Hinman in 2004 as the Cardston-Taber-Warner seat concentrated its disillusionment with Ralph Klein. Alliance gelled their support and in a tight two-way race Hinman won by 131 votes. The Alberta Liberals and New Democrats have not nominated their cannon fodder candidates in the constituency as yet.
This constituency is one to watch for many reasons but mostly as a test of the Stelmach PCs and the political viability of the far right parties, in coalition or otherwise. The implications for the acceptability and viability of the proposed merged Wildrose Alliance Party are obvious.
Results differ depending if this deep-south constituency sees Stelmach as a continuation of Ralph Klein or is he going to be seen as a new guy with rural roots and a man of integrity, substance and experience. On the other hand they may feel they don’t know enough about Stelmach and could decide continuing as a contrarian constituency and supporting Hinman again can’t hurt them and it will send a serious message to government.
There is a back story in all of this too that involves Dr. Ted Morton and where he will stand and how will he come out in all of this. He is clearly the heir apparent to the Wildrose Alliance leadership if Hinman fails to win his seat. He is also well respected and known in the area. Where will Morton’s loyalties lie, with Stelmach, his Alliance roots or with his own future leadership aspirations? If the case is the latter scenario, which party will Morton align with to fulfil his political leadership ambitions?
Morton can concentrate on winning his own seat as a PC and not work for Stelmach in the deep south. This has the making of best scenario outcomes for Morton If Stelmach does well, Morton will have proven his capability and “loyalty” to the Stelmach PC government and should be secure in a Cabinet post again.
If Stelmach does not do well then consequences differ depending if Hinman wins or loses? If Hinman loses Morton will be facing a far right draft to cross the floor and lead the new party giving it a continuing seat in the Legislature as well. If Hinman wins, there will be pressure for a PC leadership change again and will Morton try to become leader of the PCs again?
There is a back story in all of this too that involves Dr. Ted Morton and where he will stand and how will he come out in all of this. He is clearly the heir apparent to the Wildrose Alliance leadership if Hinman fails to win his seat. He is also well respected and known in the area. Where will Morton’s loyalties lie, with Stelmach, his Alliance roots or with his own future leadership aspirations? If the case is the latter scenario, which party will Morton align with to fulfil his political leadership ambitions?
Morton can concentrate on winning his own seat as a PC and not work for Stelmach in the deep south. This has the making of best scenario outcomes for Morton If Stelmach does well, Morton will have proven his capability and “loyalty” to the Stelmach PC government and should be secure in a Cabinet post again.
If Stelmach does not do well then consequences differ depending if Hinman wins or loses? If Hinman loses Morton will be facing a far right draft to cross the floor and lead the new party giving it a continuing seat in the Legislature as well. If Hinman wins, there will be pressure for a PC leadership change again and will Morton try to become leader of the PCs again?
Looks like Dr. Ted Morton is positioning well for a favourable personal political outcome no matter what happens in the next election – so long as he wins his own seat. One more indication that Alberta politics are no longer boring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)