Will Danielle Smith Deliver Us From Evil?

So we are supposed to believe the kinder, gentler more moderate mask of the Wildrose Alliance Party coming out of their first AGM! I’m not buying it and I doubt any thoughtful Albertan will either.


We are being told by the WAP leader that “We’ve enough of socialists and liberals masquerading as conservatives.” Well we are about to get a snoot full of moderate masquerading to divert us from the realities of the reactionary and radical republican like Wildrose. They will try to tell us they are more like true blue caring conservatives and not the Wild West reformers of the past.

Be afraid Alberta. Be very afraid. We need transformative change in Alberta’s political culture for sure. We don’t need to return to the ways of thinking and acting back in Eisenhower’s and Nixon’s days. That is where the WAP would take us – back and backwards. We need to move forward and while the PCs are increasingly inept, the WAP is not the kind of political alternative that is in the best interests of Alberta and Albertans moving forward.

Let’s look at some of the outcomes of the WAP “coming out party” this last weekend at their AGM in Red Deer. First, it was hardly a ”coming out party” when you look at just how much of the authentic and actual beliefs of the social conservative base were gagged and stuffed in the policy and platform closet. Keeping the reactionary radical right base of the WAP out of sight and out of mind is the hope and strategy of the WAP power elite as they pursue personal political power in our province. Instead of bringing Albertans some clarity about the true policy intentions of the WAP we now have more opaqueness and obfuscation as we saw the policy resolutions orchestrated and staged.

Calling themselves “the true conservatives” this group of libertarians and social fundamentalists is still the same as they were before the weekend in Red Deer. They are still playing politics the same old HarperCon way. Say whatever you need to say to get elected then do what you want with the political power at your disposal. Most of the Harper Con MPs are working for the WAP including such enlightened luminaries as MP Rob Anders. The new kids on the block are being well mentored

There is a quote from the Edmonton Journal about a resolution debate on granting “unequivocal right to own firearms” that sums it up so far as the true conservative beliefs behind the soft peddling of policy resolutions. One WAP delegate is quoted as saying regarding establishing the right to bear arms in Alberta “basically I support…what is written here, I’m just worried about how this may be received in the public and portrayed in the media, so I am voting no.” So much for integrity, honesty, transparency, accountability and trustworthiness of the WAP approach to a different kind of politics. It’s the politics of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld being imported into Alberta.

We are all supposed to stay asleep at the switch and suspend our disbelief about the cold cunning and calculating fundamentalist heart of the social conservative base of the WAP. We are supposed to pretend there is a shift in the “true conservative” thinking of the WAP towards the political centre. I think this is no shift to the centre. It is merely a cynical calculating crusade to take political power and move Alberta society to the far right as fast as possible.

I find it eerily ironic that the education guidelines for the Bill 44 amendments to our Human Rights laws by the Stelmach PCs as an appeasement to the social conservatives came out this week too. To refresh your memory, Bill 44 was successfully pressed on Stelmach by guys like Rob Anderson, WAP floor crosser. It allows religious fundamentalists to persecute teachers if they don’t get advanced notice where religion, sexuality and sexual orientation even come up in class. With those restrictions it may be dangerous to even teach the Canadian Charter of Rights, and the Catholic schools are already seeing the dire consequences to their faith based education rights. That is just one example of the kind of socially regressive and intentionally oppressive laws we can expect more of with a WAP government in Alberta.

The “inching to the centre” by virtue of carefully worded revisionary framing of key policy issues are that are to appease the average Albertan and lull us into staying inert politically. Let’s look at some of the manipulation of language to manufacture a myth of WAP’s new found moderation. They watered down a resolution aimed at killing unions and passed a policy to “allow individual workers the choice to determine their membership in labour organizations.” That is the law now! There is nothing transformative, useful or even intellectually honest in that pointless policy stance. It is bound to be overturned on a Charter challenge anyway but that is the fundamental philosophy of the WAP policy approach.

They whitewashed the prior policy to disallow teachers to strike to simply review what services in Alberta are to be deemed essential. Cute and cunning but the motivation to still punish teachers and unions prevails notwithstanding the vague and vacuous wording change.

I love the resolution to establish an Alberta Constitution. That is a real wolf in sheep’s clothing. There are about 8 to 15% of Albertans who are separatists and they are mostly lurking in the bowels of the WAP these days. The idea of a sub-national constitution is absurd, unless of course you intend to pursue separation from Canada. That is the hidden agenda behind that resolution otherwise it makes no sense.

Then there is a semi-secret society of serious and self-serving oil money in Calgary that was behind Smith’s leadership and now they seem to be pushing the WAP itself. They were originally out to spank Stelmach and they did that rather well. They were after Stelmach because he was not one of them and not their puppet – at least not in the first year of Stelmach’s Premiership. Now they are out to unseat Stelmach. Have they found a new and more compliant puppet in Danielle Smith so why even bother to intimidate and bully Stelmach anymore? There is a certain faction within the Alberta energy sector that has effectively become the natural governing party in this province. The operate behind closed doors and were especially influential in controlling the economy and environmental policy under Klein. They seem intent to continue to wield quiet power and behind closed doors influence through Smith and the WAP, just as they did through Klein.

These energy sector tenants have all but effectively taken over the title to the natural resource property that Albertans actually own. And Albertans need to wake up to that reality and change it. The WAP is not the way to take back control of our democracy and reassert the citizen ownership of our resources. Just consider Smith’s response to the recent negligence conviction of Syncrude over the dead ducks in its tailings ponds. She did not assert the proxy position of the people of Alberta. She sided with the company calling for “common sense and restraint I how the verdict is applied.” Not a thought about beefing up enforcement and monitoring or environmental laws and regulations behind that attitude! No calling out the industry tenants of our natural resources for negligence and risking being seen as not worthy of their social license to operate their businesses responsibly in service the public interest as well as stockholders. Nope – Smith was all about not ruffling the feathers of big oil and she chose to dance around any debate on enforcement by using escape clause language like “common sense and restraint.”

There is change in the political air in Alberta but I don’t see the change offered by the Wildrose Alliance Party as anything more than the same old pursuit of political power for its own sake. What is worse is they are already showing they are intellectual dishonestly, a lack of integrity and a less than robust commitment to transparency. Albertans are going to demand those values be demonstrated not just talked about in stage managed political theater before any trust will be bestowed on any political party or leader. Means justify ends in Wildrose country and that is not good enough.

Did Danielle Smith Ignore WAP Floor-Crossing Policy?

What gives?  It now appears from a coupe of sources that the Wildrose Alliance Party has a policy on floor-crossing MLAs contrary to the comments of their leader Danielle Smith that there is no party policy. 

Brian Dell outlines some of his personal experience in trying to clarify the WAP policy on the issue.  A floor-crosser has to have the support of the WAP leader, the local constituency and be subject to a by-election if the constituency wants one.  Dell suggests an opinion poll in the constituency would suffice to determine if a by-election should be called or not. 

When citizens cast ballots it is unclear if they are voting for a party, a candidate, a leader, a platform, an issue of just name recognition or any combination of these motivations.  Do we elect politicians to exercise their best judegement or to reflect the majority opinion of their constiuents or perhaps some other controversial but perhaps more "enlightened" position on an issue? 

When a politician says "my constituents are telling me such and such how do we know that is a true reflection?  Who spoke to them, in what context and how is the will and state of mind of "the constitencyu" determined.  It is not.  It is totally subjective and most often framed as a convenience for the benefit of the politician or their political party or purposes. Let's be truthful here, almost every time you hear a pooiticina say "My constituency tells me..." it is all about spin, posturing and the self interest of the politician and nothing to do with the best interests or actual instructions of their constituents.

So to my point, thanks for waiting.  The WAP policy on floor-crossing MLAs is easy and practical so far as the requiremetn of the consent of the leader and the local party organization is concerned.  It is vague and vacuous when it come to the best interest and desires of the citizens that potential floor crosser is support represent.  How is the policy supposed to determine if the citizens in that constituency approve of their MLA joining another party between elections? 

Should a potential floor-crosser go public first and run a poll to see if they have citizen support for them to cross?  What happens if the citizens say no don't go?  Where does that leave the MLA?  Unwanted by the "receiving" party and distrusted by their current party.  It forces them into de facto independent status, something that the citizens in their constituency did not vote for either.

This is WAP policy on floor crossing is naive at best and pandering populism at worst.  It is impractical.  If a politician is unhappy in their current party or the party is unhapppy with them, the simple answer is they go independent - period.   Then they can explain to their constituency the reasons for them leaving or the leader who turfs them can do the same.  After that, if the independent MLA wants to join another party they can canvas and even poll their constituents to see if that is acceptable and judge themselves accordingly.

The reason this approach makes more sense is because we don't know how to respond to the wide array of reasons why people voted.  But there needs to be more respect shown by politicians, leaders and parties for all of those reasons.  If a politician is no long comfortable with their party, its leader or its policies,  they need the flexibility to leave, just as the party or the leader needs the power to kick someone out of caucus.  That should put them in an independent status and as far as the politician, leader or party power should come into play. 

Moving from there to another party is something that the citizens must have a say in before it happens.  A poll that asks if a by-election should be called if the independent wants to join another party is not a solution.  But a petition of say 20% of voters calling for one may be enough to trigger a by-election instead of a unilateral behind closed doors decision about joining another party is made.

I would be interested in thoughts from readers on this issue.  The WAP has not solved it and they have not even followed their own policy.  If we are to do politics differently the recent example of the floor-crossing by the WAP is not a shining example.

Fellow Blogger Hits a Home Run With a Funny Bone.

Chris LaBossiere is my friend and fellow-traveler on the Reboot Alberta journey.  Today he has a most interesting and entertaining blog post.  He has discovered a new program that apparently turns text into "movies."  The technology is pretty ridimentary (think Mario Brothers meets South Park) but it is potentially at the threshold of a new social media platform.

This is Chris' first adventure into animated political parody.  His content is as focused, biting and pointed in his animation as he is in his text blog posts.  His context is even better with this animation tool.  He takes on the Wildrose Alliance Party political policy positions.  He makes a very clear point about what they will not talk about, like donors and social policy.  What they do say speaks loudly but it is mostly one-line media ready sound bites that glosses over complex environmental, economic and social concerns.  His post has all the links you need to the WAP policy documents to check them out and decide for yourself.
He promises to take on Reboot Alberta next.  He calls it the "Goldilocks" of Alberta politics.  With a set up like that I can't wait to see what he comes up with. I don't think Chris is going to be Alberta's next Frank Kapra or Donald Cameron.  But he may be well on his way to being our Trey Parker or maybe even our Jon Stewart

Well done Chris.  Thanks for the laughs - but also for the information and the insights which you have presented in such a clever and entertaining way.