Stelmach: voting for the WRA will benefit the Liberals.
Pop quiz: in how many Conservative-won ridings was the Liberal vote at least half of the combined Conservative/WRA vote (i.e. the minimum number that could possibly result in a Conservative/WRA vote split electing a Liberal) in the last election?
Answer: 22
How many of those were outside of Edmonton and Calgary?
Answer: 4. And three of those were St. Albert, Medicine Hat, and Lethbridge West.
So if 100% of the WRA's growth in the next election comes from the P.C.s (a dubious proposition, given the number of voters inclined to vote for the strongest available opposition party, especially in Calgary's current political climate),
and if voting patterns in the last election are a good indicator of voting patterns in the next election,
and if the PC-WRA vote is split in each riding in exactly the way that most benefits the Liberals,
then the Liberals will 31 seats in the next election. That's nearly half of what the P.C.s won in the last one!
Terrifying.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Geez, am I ever out of touch
I didn't even know he was running. But I pretty much reflexively support any candidate who promises to raise taxes, so I wish he'd have stuck around.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Restrain your equines
Before we get too excited about this business of the Wildrose Alliance being the natural successor to the United Farmers of Alberta, Social Credit League, and Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta - parties that came seemingly out of nowhere to topples Alberta dynasties - there are a few things worth remembering:
1. This isn't the first time the Wildrose Alliance has had a seat. Hell, it isn't the first time Paul Hinman's had a seat. He won one in the 2004 election, granted under the banner of the Alberta Alliance rather than the Wildrose Alliance (though the label changed part way through the term, once the Alberta Alliance merged with the Wildrose Party). That was hailed as a brave new threat to the Klein Conservatives on the right. The Alliance had secured a foothold, said conventional wisdom, and the next election might be like 1967, when Peter Lougheed led the hitherto moribund Tories to winning a shocking six seats from the unassailable Ernest Manning. And then 2008 rolled around. The breakthrough did not come. In fact, Hinman lost his seat.
This situation can be distinguished from the last one on a few bases: in 2008, there was a strong feeling of "give Ed a chance", while the sense now is that he's worn out his welcome in a few short years. In 2004, Hinman eked out a narrow victory over Conservative incumbent Bryce Jacobs; in 2009, Hinman blew the Conservative out of the water. 2004's victory was in a rural riding; 2009's was in an urban one, exactly where the WRA wasn't supposed to make inroads. So there are signs that something is indeed happening here, but we ought perhaps to be slightly more deferential to Stephen Stills in evaluating what it is.
2. This isn't the first time a surprising by-election result has been seen as a portent of shocking things on the horizon. In 2007, Liberal Craig Cheffins' victory in Klein's Calgary-Elbow seat was seen as a sign of an imminent Liberal breakthrough in Calgary. In 2008, the Conservatives continued their dominance of the city, including Calgary-Elbow. In 1982, Gordon Kesler of the separatist Western Canada Concept won an Olds-Didsbury by-election handily. That one attracted national attention, just as Hinman's has. Six months later, the WCC ran candidates in 78 of 79 ridings. All of them lost. Kesler's 1,400 by-election victory in Olds-Disbury turned into a 5,800 vote defeat in Highwood. Daryl Jaddock, his replacement as WCC candidate in Olds-Didsbury, lost by 2,300 votes. While conventional wisdom is trumpeting the significance of Hinman's victory, it might remember that it has always maintained, quite correctly, that by-elections are different beasts from general elections.
3. The Progressive Conservatives hold 72 of 83 seats. The Wildrose Alliance holds one. The Conservatives won 53% of the vote in 2008. The Wildrose Alliance won 7%, in what was supposed to be their breakthrough election (by comparison, the Conservatives got 20% in 1967, in what actually *was* their breakthrough election).
It's too early to predict with any accuracy what the 2012 (?) election will bring. But let's not go nuts in the meantime.
1. This isn't the first time the Wildrose Alliance has had a seat. Hell, it isn't the first time Paul Hinman's had a seat. He won one in the 2004 election, granted under the banner of the Alberta Alliance rather than the Wildrose Alliance (though the label changed part way through the term, once the Alberta Alliance merged with the Wildrose Party). That was hailed as a brave new threat to the Klein Conservatives on the right. The Alliance had secured a foothold, said conventional wisdom, and the next election might be like 1967, when Peter Lougheed led the hitherto moribund Tories to winning a shocking six seats from the unassailable Ernest Manning. And then 2008 rolled around. The breakthrough did not come. In fact, Hinman lost his seat.
This situation can be distinguished from the last one on a few bases: in 2008, there was a strong feeling of "give Ed a chance", while the sense now is that he's worn out his welcome in a few short years. In 2004, Hinman eked out a narrow victory over Conservative incumbent Bryce Jacobs; in 2009, Hinman blew the Conservative out of the water. 2004's victory was in a rural riding; 2009's was in an urban one, exactly where the WRA wasn't supposed to make inroads. So there are signs that something is indeed happening here, but we ought perhaps to be slightly more deferential to Stephen Stills in evaluating what it is.
2. This isn't the first time a surprising by-election result has been seen as a portent of shocking things on the horizon. In 2007, Liberal Craig Cheffins' victory in Klein's Calgary-Elbow seat was seen as a sign of an imminent Liberal breakthrough in Calgary. In 2008, the Conservatives continued their dominance of the city, including Calgary-Elbow. In 1982, Gordon Kesler of the separatist Western Canada Concept won an Olds-Didsbury by-election handily. That one attracted national attention, just as Hinman's has. Six months later, the WCC ran candidates in 78 of 79 ridings. All of them lost. Kesler's 1,400 by-election victory in Olds-Disbury turned into a 5,800 vote defeat in Highwood. Daryl Jaddock, his replacement as WCC candidate in Olds-Didsbury, lost by 2,300 votes. While conventional wisdom is trumpeting the significance of Hinman's victory, it might remember that it has always maintained, quite correctly, that by-elections are different beasts from general elections.
3. The Progressive Conservatives hold 72 of 83 seats. The Wildrose Alliance holds one. The Conservatives won 53% of the vote in 2008. The Wildrose Alliance won 7%, in what was supposed to be their breakthrough election (by comparison, the Conservatives got 20% in 1967, in what actually *was* their breakthrough election).
It's too early to predict with any accuracy what the 2012 (?) election will bring. But let's not go nuts in the meantime.
Monday, September 14, 2009
On minority governments and contradictory first principles
This current fuss about a possible early election, like so many fusses, can be blamed primarily on the fact that nobody except me understands Westminster-style parliamentary systems.
Here are a couple of things that I think we can probably all agree MPs should strive for during minority parliaments:
1. Adhering to something approximating the platform that got them elected, and
2. Avoiding unnecessarily frequent elections (four elections in five years probably qualifying as unnecessarily frequent).
Does that make sense? I think that makes sense. We'll call these first principles against which MPs' performance must be evaluated.
How have the current MPs been doing? Well, the Conservatives have been doing very well: they've been able to pass the legislation they want (though you can quibble about how closely that resembles what they were elected on) without having had to make many compromises with opposition parties. They've never voted to defeat the government, and their leader has never asked for Parliament to be dissolved, so they're certainly not trying to trigger an election.
And the opposition parties? Well, since all opposition MPs (unless we're going to broaden the term to include Andre Arthur) ran on platforms quite inconsistent with what the government's been up to, the only way to adhere to principle 1 is to vote against the government, including on confidence motions. So far, the NDP and the Bloc have done quite well at this (though the NDP shows signs of caving). The Liberals, not quite so much (though they show signs of changing this as well). Of course, voting against the government on a confidence vote seems likely to result in an election, which means that the NDP and the Bloc have been failing pretty lamentably at principle 2. In fact, it appears to be impossible to adhere to both principles, as long as the Conservatives show little interest in putting forward legislation consistent with the opposition parties' platforms (and indeed, why should they? They're doing just fine without needing to do that, and doing so would necessarily hurt their own principle 1 performance).
If that was the case, the Westminster parliamentary system would appear to be a pretty lousy way to govern a country. Along those lines, the Globe and Mail recently asked Is Canada Broken?. While, axiomatically speaking, the question deserves a stupid answer, I'll try to give it a good one: no. While I'm no great believer in the Westminster system, it's not so flawed that it provides no solution to situations like this one, and the opposition parties, no dummies, realized it when, in late 2008, they proposed making Stephane Dion Prime Minister. Indeed, that proposal was about the only way they could adhere to both above-identified first principles.
Unfortunately, as it turns out (and, I take some pride in saying, as I predicted) many Canadians also hold a third first principle:
3. The leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons should be Prime Minister.
It's only that third principle that makes the situation untenable for the opposition parties (and enormously advantageous for the governing party). Voters who believe in it have no right to complain about a possible 2009 election.
Here are a couple of things that I think we can probably all agree MPs should strive for during minority parliaments:
1. Adhering to something approximating the platform that got them elected, and
2. Avoiding unnecessarily frequent elections (four elections in five years probably qualifying as unnecessarily frequent).
Does that make sense? I think that makes sense. We'll call these first principles against which MPs' performance must be evaluated.
How have the current MPs been doing? Well, the Conservatives have been doing very well: they've been able to pass the legislation they want (though you can quibble about how closely that resembles what they were elected on) without having had to make many compromises with opposition parties. They've never voted to defeat the government, and their leader has never asked for Parliament to be dissolved, so they're certainly not trying to trigger an election.
And the opposition parties? Well, since all opposition MPs (unless we're going to broaden the term to include Andre Arthur) ran on platforms quite inconsistent with what the government's been up to, the only way to adhere to principle 1 is to vote against the government, including on confidence motions. So far, the NDP and the Bloc have done quite well at this (though the NDP shows signs of caving). The Liberals, not quite so much (though they show signs of changing this as well). Of course, voting against the government on a confidence vote seems likely to result in an election, which means that the NDP and the Bloc have been failing pretty lamentably at principle 2. In fact, it appears to be impossible to adhere to both principles, as long as the Conservatives show little interest in putting forward legislation consistent with the opposition parties' platforms (and indeed, why should they? They're doing just fine without needing to do that, and doing so would necessarily hurt their own principle 1 performance).
If that was the case, the Westminster parliamentary system would appear to be a pretty lousy way to govern a country. Along those lines, the Globe and Mail recently asked Is Canada Broken?. While, axiomatically speaking, the question deserves a stupid answer, I'll try to give it a good one: no. While I'm no great believer in the Westminster system, it's not so flawed that it provides no solution to situations like this one, and the opposition parties, no dummies, realized it when, in late 2008, they proposed making Stephane Dion Prime Minister. Indeed, that proposal was about the only way they could adhere to both above-identified first principles.
Unfortunately, as it turns out (and, I take some pride in saying, as I predicted) many Canadians also hold a third first principle:
3. The leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons should be Prime Minister.
It's only that third principle that makes the situation untenable for the opposition parties (and enormously advantageous for the governing party). Voters who believe in it have no right to complain about a possible 2009 election.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
History repeats itself, part 2 * pi
Ralph Klein used to be considered a nice guy.
I realize that this is a surprising thing to say about a man who's best remembered now for throwing change at the homeless, ridiculing recipients of Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped, making lewd jokes about female cabinet ministers, and hunting nuns for sport, but it's true. When he was running for P.C. leader, the concern -- along with the concern that he couldn't make morning meetings -- was that he was too nice a guy, too inclined to be everybody's (drinking) buddy.
Observers became convinced that Klein had the backbone for the job only after three incidents early in his premiership: in 1994 he fired Deputy Premier Ken Kowalski for being a power unto himself and Transportation Minister Peter Trynchy for some questionable business dealings, and in 1996 he fired Social Services Minister Mike Cardinal for mixing the personal and the political unduly. All three were difficult firings: Kowalski was a cabinet heavyweight and an important power-broker, Trynchy was the longest-serving MLA in the province (the last remnant of Peter Lougheed's class of 1971), and Mike Cardinal was close to Klein both personally and politically. But he fired all three unilaterally, and he ruled his caucus from an iron fist from that point until the point several years later at which he started to completely lose his mind.
Ed Stelmach's ascendancy to the P.C. leadership took place the same month as Stephane Dion's to the federal Liberal leadership, and comparisons between the two were inevitable. Both were seen as nice guys whose wins were largely accidental, the product of voting systems that hurt their more popular, but also more polarizing, opponents. Stephane Dion, who I quite liked at the time and for whom I retain a good deal of admiration provided when I evaluate him on the basis of sufficiently carefully selected criteria, quickly went about reinforcing that impression. Stelmach sort of seemed to too.
Guy Boutilier is no Ken Kowalski, but Ed Stelmach has served notice that he's not fucking around. The only question is whether we as Albertans will mark it eight, or zero?
I realize that this is a surprising thing to say about a man who's best remembered now for throwing change at the homeless, ridiculing recipients of Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped, making lewd jokes about female cabinet ministers, and hunting nuns for sport, but it's true. When he was running for P.C. leader, the concern -- along with the concern that he couldn't make morning meetings -- was that he was too nice a guy, too inclined to be everybody's (drinking) buddy.
Observers became convinced that Klein had the backbone for the job only after three incidents early in his premiership: in 1994 he fired Deputy Premier Ken Kowalski for being a power unto himself and Transportation Minister Peter Trynchy for some questionable business dealings, and in 1996 he fired Social Services Minister Mike Cardinal for mixing the personal and the political unduly. All three were difficult firings: Kowalski was a cabinet heavyweight and an important power-broker, Trynchy was the longest-serving MLA in the province (the last remnant of Peter Lougheed's class of 1971), and Mike Cardinal was close to Klein both personally and politically. But he fired all three unilaterally, and he ruled his caucus from an iron fist from that point until the point several years later at which he started to completely lose his mind.
Ed Stelmach's ascendancy to the P.C. leadership took place the same month as Stephane Dion's to the federal Liberal leadership, and comparisons between the two were inevitable. Both were seen as nice guys whose wins were largely accidental, the product of voting systems that hurt their more popular, but also more polarizing, opponents. Stephane Dion, who I quite liked at the time and for whom I retain a good deal of admiration provided when I evaluate him on the basis of sufficiently carefully selected criteria, quickly went about reinforcing that impression. Stelmach sort of seemed to too.
Guy Boutilier is no Ken Kowalski, but Ed Stelmach has served notice that he's not fucking around. The only question is whether we as Albertans will mark it eight, or zero?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
My party can dehumanize criminals just as much as your party can, part 857
"We supported all of [the Conservative] crime legislation so I don't understand on what basis they would be [accusing the Liberals of being soft on crime] now, other than that it's their default knee-jerk position when it comes to the Liberal Party and crime."
- Jill Fairbrother, Liberal spokestype
And to how many of those pieces of legislation did the Liberals move amendments making it legal to shoot graffiti artists for sport? Yeah, that's what I thought. Softies.
- Jill Fairbrother, Liberal spokestype
And to how many of those pieces of legislation did the Liberals move amendments making it legal to shoot graffiti artists for sport? Yeah, that's what I thought. Softies.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
