Are There Cracks in the Tory Armour in Alberta?

Ed Stelmach has taken an awful beating since he was elected Premier of Alberta. Trying to handle the economy when oil took a nose dive, the Greenpeace protests over the tar sands, and rising unemployment.

But history seems to be repeating itself as a new party is emerging on the provincial scene.

The Wildrose Alliance recently won a bi-election, and have been making a lot of noise in rural communities, following the pattern of their predecessor, the Reform Party; who also started out as a Western protest movement. (what was even more interesting about that bi-election was that the Liberals placed second and the Tories third!)

In fact, their platform is not unlike the one that Stephen Harper wrote for the Reformers ... privatize everything ... end social programs ... end public health care ... no abortions ... no rights for gays ... same old, same old.

But I'm not sure what to make of these guys, and certainly not ready to dismiss them. I made that mistake with the Reform Party back in the day, never believing that Canadians would ever accept a party with such bigoted views. But guess what? They are now running our country and poised to get a majority next election if we don't smarten the hell up.

It's difficult to determine though, how this will play out on the national scene. Many of the old Reform base have been upset that their agenda has not been met. Abortion is still legal, homosexuality is not a crime. But more importantly, they are blown away by the increasing deficit, bailouts and growing debt. This is Brian Mulroney all over again.

With Harper up in the polls right now, they may hang in knowing that all he needs is a majority and then look out. But if he doesn't get one, he'll be gone and the Reform-Conservatives could have a contender for the right-wing vote. Then again maybe the Ref-Cons are providing support for this new Social Conservative party, looking for an ally when they start their 'slash and burn' agenda.

Crack emerges in Alberta Tories' rural fortress
By Don Braid,
Calgary Herald
October 5, 2009

CALGARY - From northeastern Alberta comes the first solid sign of rural movement away from Premier Ed Stelmach to the Wildrose Alliance.

It's poetic justice, really, since Stelmach's people always blame Calgary for nearly every sign of dissent, and the little town of Bonnyville should be blissfully calm for the Tories.

Bonnyville is in the heart of Stelmach's northeastern power alley, flanked by the ridings of Treasury Board president Lloyd Snelgrove and Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk. The premier's own constituency is just down the road toward Edmonton.

But now the mayor of Bonnyville, Ernie Isley, has joined the Wildrose Alliance, along with an outspoken town councillor named Gene Sobolewski. For good measure, so has a former Tory MLA named Doug Cherry, who used to represent Lloydminster and now lives in Calgary.

"Too many things have happened with the leader," says Cherry, MLA from 1986 to 1993. "I just can't support him any longer. "They're not serving the purposes I stood for over many years. The Wildrose seems to be more my style."

There are dozens more like them all over Alberta -- former and current conservative politicians who are moving to Wildrose.

Some are staying silent for now, but Sobolewski, Isley and Cherry are glad to speak out.

"I've been Tory blue since I was 18, but I can't believe this government," says Sobolewski. "Are they out of their bleeping minds?"

"I travel all over Alberta and everywhere I go people are saying the same thing -- they can't believe it." If Stelmach wants him back, Sobolewski says, he'll have to "fire the health minister -- just get rid of Ron Liepert."

Sobolewski says he was startled last week when Isley revealed he'd bought a Wildrose card. After the mayor explained his reasons, though, he went out and got one of his own.

Isley was a Tory MLA and cabinet minister from 1979-93. His loss to the Tories -- if he really is gone -- is the highest-profile defection yet.

Like many other Conservatives, though, Isley still hasn't made a final break.

Much depends on the outcome of the Wildrose leadership this month, and Stelmach's own performance at the leadership review in early November. Isley will go to both party conventions and make up his mind.

And he might just back the premier -- but only if Ed meets his conditions:

"Number one, kick the health minister into the backbenches and change the whole direction of health care.

"Number two, cancel the proposed drug changes for seniors."

Heating up, Isley soon abandons his numbering scheme. "The money wasted on severance payments is obscene," he says. "It's obscene when an official in the premier's office gets a bonus equivalent to a nurse's salary."

Since Stelmach shows no sign of backing up on anything, Ernie's vote appears lost forever. Isley is making life very uncomfortable for local MLA Genia Leskiw.

"There's never a dull moment with Ernie around," she sighs from her legislature office. "He'll always say what he thinks. "I've known him for 38 years and I love him, but this is one time I just don't agree with him. I'm a very strong supporter of our premier -- he's the only reason I ran.

"The premier has a plan. We're in tough times and we have to make tough decisions."

That is exactly what every Tory MLA is expected to say. The problem is that even in rural Alberta, some influential Tories now think the decisions aren't just tough, but bad.

Don Martin, Wild Roses and the Perfect Storm

I read Don Martin's column on a fairly regular basis, and while he is definitely pro-Conservative, every now and then he drops in a bit of balance.

I did deride him for the petty Ignatieff Me article that sparked the juvenile Conservative website of the same name; suggesting that he may have been having a bad hair day. It was horrible journalism and not up to his usual standards.

For some reason he really hates Michael Ignatieff, but then the National Post cutting up the Liberals? STOP THE PRESSES!

However, I wondered at the panic of a column he recently wrote for the Calgary Herald, suggesting that Stephen Harper is in a perfect position to get his majority.

One of the reasons was the EKOS poll that gave him a nine point lead over Ignatieff, but we all know those polls have a high margin of error, and the Ipsos-Reid poll showed that the numbers hadn't changed at all.

But why this sudden panic to suggest that "He has the winning conditions now--and he knows his opponents are off balance, underfunded and unprepared to argue the justification for a $300-million vote before outraged election-adverse voters."

C'mon Don. That's nonsense and you know it. The NDP are in tough straights, and maybe even more so if the Cons can successfully end their subsidies, but the Liberals are fine and their membership has tripled since December. Harper called an illegal election last year to halt (allegedly) investigation into the "In and Out". This one would be for a far more noble cause.

"The challenge for Harper now is to find a way to trigger an election without appearing to be the culprit." Do you honestly believe that we don't know how badly Harper wanted this election? His budget for Depends has doubled this week. Who knew that cozying up to 'separatists' and 'socialists', not believing they'd fall for it, would bite you in the butt? Maybe Jack Layton didn't catch Jason Kenney's Kool-Aid reference.

What I did find interesting though were the comments at the end of the article. Not the usual 'hyper for Harper' stuff that we normally expect from the Calgary crowd.

From BobbyB: "What is it that seems to baffle Canadians so much about federal elections triggered by a non-confidence vote? The Harper Conservatives do not build consensus within the Parliamentary structure. They then pose a spending motion which requires a vote and if they loose (sic) that vote then an election may occur (or the GG may ask the Official Opposition of they woyld (sic) be able to form a government with the confidence of Parliament), Harper and the Conservatives do not work with the other parties to seek consensus. ... The Harper Conservatives want to trigger an election. They try and fool the electorate to believe the opposition parties are the ones that want to spend the $240+ Million to have an election. The Harper Conservatives dare the other parties to not pass their spending and then label them as a coalition, or socialist, or separatists, or anything else they can think of to vilify the opposition, and then top it off with accusations that the opposition is triggering the election! The Harper Conservatives are acting childishly. They are like the fat school yard bully that sees a hornets nest, grabs a stick, bangs on the nest with it, and then screams and rants and raves that the hornets have no right to come after to him or be mad at him. This same bully then blames others for the fact this all took place. In my opinion we do need an election and we need to get rid of the Harper Conservatives that do not seem to understand how as the governing party of a MINORITY government they are supposed to work with others to build consensus and not drag their feet or taunt the opposition to needlessly force the disillusionment of Parliament.

And Phil: "Hmmm. The idea that voters punish the party that takes them to the polls is a myth. Harper wasn't punished last year. Nor was he punished the year before. Martin was punished but not for going to the polls. Before that Chretien was election happy but never punished."

However, I think this may be part of a bigger picture.

There could be a storm brewing in Alberta, stirred up by the arrival of a new party: The Wildrose Alliance. I've been following their story for a few weeks now, rather curious as to whether or not their message would resonate with voters, and how that would affect the sitting Tories.

Their platform is not unlike that of the Reform or Alliance federal platforms. However, they are just a provincial party now so not an immediate threat to the Harper government. Or are they?

I'm reading two earlier books on the creation of Reform Party, and see some parallels here. The success of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, was based on two things; at least in the early days:

Disappointment with Brian Mulroney and the Meech Lake Accord, which they saw as pandering to Quebec; and dissatisfaction with their own Tory premier, Don Getty. The province was experiencing an economic slowdown and falling energy prices, which meant mounting deficits and rising unemployment.

Well what do we have now? For all of Don Martin's back slapping and glass raising, no one seems to be too willing to imbibe. Alberta is now experiencing another economic slowdown with falling energy prices, which mean mounting deficits and rising unemployment, and what is the federal Conservative government doing about it? What is the provincial Conservative government doing about it?

And we just learned of some more bad news: "Alberta is closing 300 acute-care hospital beds and another 246 at an Edmonton mental hospital over the next three years as the province's health superboard struggles with a $1-billion deficit."

Jim Prentice's little faux pas recently indicates that they do care about votes, but what about voters? Are they so confident that they can sweep Alberta that they no longer have to do a thing?

But back to the Wildrose Alliance. They recently won a by-election in a provincial riding that has been Tory for four decades. What I found interesting though was that the Liberals placed second. What should the Harper government take from that?

Maybe instead of pretending to be an Albertan (Stephen Harper was born in New Brunswick and raised in Toronto), he should start pretending to care about his adopted province.

Stop and smell the Wildroses Stephen.

More Postings on the New Wildrose Party:

1. Congratulations Danielle Smith on Winning Leadership of Wildrose Party

2. Are There Cracks in the Tory Armour in Alberta?