Is This a Canada Thing or Just a Quebec Thing?

[Selene]

Alberta changes governing party. The Liberals once swept away by the United Farmers, who were then crushed by Social Credit, in turn crushed by the Progressive Conservatives, who were then swept away by the NDP.

Sounds like climate change to me... here comes the change

[william.scherk]

Alberta changes governing party. The Liberals once swept away by the United Farmers, who were then crushed by Social Credit, in turn crushed by the Progressive Conservatives, who were then swept away by the NDP.

Sounds like climate change to me... here comes the change

I don't get the humour, sadly. Tornadoes and flower-dance-smiley ... climate change?

It is a surprising, even shocking turn of events in Canada. A party that had ruled uninterrupted for forty-three years, the Progressive Conservatives went into the election holding 70 seats and were reduced to ten. The NDP went into the election with only four seats and emerged with fifty-three.

It is a big change, which a lot of pundits did not think was possible.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't get the humour, sadly. Tornadoes and flower-dance-smiley ... climate change?

It is a surprising, even shocking turn of events in Canada. A party that had ruled uninterrupted for forty-three years, the Progressive Conservatives went into the election holding 70 seats and were reduced to ten. The NDP went into the election with only four seats and emerged with fifty-three.

It is a big change, which a lot of pundits did not think was possible.

43 years is just too long. If the vanquished are basically worthy they'll be back soon enough I suspect. It might be the advantage of that political system compared to what we have down here.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

43 years is just too long. If the vanquished are basically worthy they'll be back soon enough I suspect. It might be the advantage of that political system compared to what we have down here.

I did not make clear what that selection of newspaper headlines meant in the long run: when I said the Liberals were swept out of power -- after their terms, they never again won power -- they were crushed by the United Farmers of Alberta. When the UFA were in turn crushed, by Social Credit, they died. When Social Credit was crushed by the Progressive Conservatives, they too died out as a party. They are gone, just a memory.

Now after forty-odd years of majority governments, the PCs have been crushed in turn.

That said, i agree with you -- the two right-wing parties (Wildrose, PC) will regroup, perhaps merge or fuse, and use the next four years to mount a comeback in 2019. If they remain split ...

Here is the key: the NDP only amassed just over 40% of the popular vote. Wildrose and PCs each amassed around 24-27%, rendering out as a majority of the popular vote: 51%.

Your two-party system tends to block anything like what happened last night in Alberta.

Edited May 6, 2015 by william.scherk

[Jules Troy]

Irony, the PC's called the election a year early. If oil makes a rebound if they had just sat it out for the year they probably would have fared much better...biggest political blunder ever.

[william.scherk]

Right, Jules, the outgoing government established the rule of law -- fixed elections every four years -- and then ignored the rule (because the Crown prerogative to dissolve a legislature and unleash an election cannot be abridged constitutionally, meaning the rule is a guideline, not 'the law').

This was the biggest of the big campaign errors -- trigger an early election not because of a constitutional necessity, but just because the other parties were weak in the polls.

If I were an Alberta voter, that would have left a sour taste in my mouth. I know that the Premier had not fought a general election (the previously elected PC leader had resigned from office), and sought a personal mandate for his budget and policies, and I know that the grim budget probably needed ratification/rejection by the voters, but ...

Sorry to bore you Americans. It doesn't really translate, this news ...

The most relevant I can make it is to point out differences in "income" taken in by governments that supervise and tax resource extraction. In a so-called balanced economy, it is the usual financial levers that finance a government, taxes on earners and consumers and businesses. So the difference between an oil-rich Russia and an oil-rich America is that the US federal budget is not floated by direct "state" oil revenues; the benefits of cheaper oil weigh even with the downside of cheaper oil. So the American economy takes no dangerous hit. A US government will not be gutted because of a collapse in oil prices, because the budget is not directly dependent on the level.

Contrast to an Alberta where "extra" revenues were not sequestered during boomtime energy prices. The increases of royalty revenue did not go into rainy-day fund, to be guarded closely -- the state coffers bloated by oil revenues were spent out as fast as they came in.

So, the grim budget presented to Albertans (tax hikes, fee hikes, spending cuts) was a result of squandering the "extra."

Like Russia, Alberta takes a wellhead scoop of cash and shovels it into the furnace of day to day expenses. Like Russia, the government finds itself with bare cupboards.

Unlike Russia, Albertans had an option to sweep out a government.

[Jules Troy]

Yup, that was always a piss off with me. They spent it like it was never going to end.

Roll in the Greg epithet!

The PC's got what they deserve!

[Selene]

Guys...

While we await the results of the British election under way today, I wonder if there’s anything to be made of the recent provincial election in Alberta, where the fringey, left-wing NDP ousted the long-serving “Progressive Conservative” party. (Yeah, yeah, I know “progressive conservative” is an oxymoron, but we’re talking about Canada here.) This is being regarded as a political earthquake, and rightly so; given that energy-rich Alberta is the Texas of Canada, it is as though Texas threw out Republicans and elected the Green Party and Elizabeth Warren as their next governor.

The main explanation is that the Progressive Conservatives had been in power too long, and had grown sloppy and mildly corrupt. But the NDP is publicly critical of Alberta’s energy economy: will they actually attempt to govern by this agenda, and turn Alberta into a Great White North version of Venezuela? (Canadian provinces enjoy a great deal more sovereignty over economic regulation that American states do. But talk about getting hosed!) And might we see a similar surprise out of the UK tonight?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/a-harbinger-from-canada.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

I did not watch the video yet.

Does this article make sense to ya'll folks up there in http://www.readersdigest.ca/holiday/christmas/travel/10-coldest-places-canada/#1zsSgyvjtqPAC4dp.97

A...

[william.scherk]

Guys...

The main explanation is that the Progressive Conservatives had been in power too long, and had grown sloppy and mildly corrupt. But the NDP is publicly critical of Alberta’s energy economy: will they actually attempt to govern by this agenda, and turn Alberta into a Great White North version of Venezuela? (Canadian provinces enjoy a great deal more sovereignty over economic regulation that American states do. But talk about getting hosed!) And might we see a similar surprise out of the UK tonight?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/a-harbinger-from-canada.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

I did not watch the video yet.

Does this article make sense to ya'll folks up there

Well, not really to me. I am realistic and so is the "fringey" NDP to some degree. This means that Premier-designate Notley was careful to position herself and her party in the centre ... in this instance it means they are fully onboard with continuing exploitation of the tar sands, and with pipelining that goodness to market.

The NDP policies suggest they want to 'diversify' and process and refine the raw products, not that they wish to cap or slow production. The promised resource royalty 'review' I suspect will be put to all-party committee or a stand-alone commission. As for future environmental concerns or policy, I explained before that Alberta has a carbon-tax in all but name. That was done under the PCs ... for an estimation of how scary the Canadian business community finds Notley's election, have a read of Alberta premier-designate Notley promises to work with energy sector. I don't think the Powerline blogger did. For an even more thoughtful prospect, see the queries put to the NDP previous to the election by a journalist at Maclean's: What might the Alberta NDP government do with energy policy?**

Re the "fringey" nature of the NDP, the person who wrote that either had no clue about Canada, or he considers the party to be a perennial crank left party like the Marxists-Leninists. The party has had governments in almost every single province to date, and it is currently the Official Opposition in the federal Parliament. Of course there will be some shock and and even fear in some quarters, business quarters, but the first rule of business is business: if business can find an understanding with Notley's crew, the Venezuela scenario is almost certainly just funny-ish hyperbole.

There is some truth to the 'out there' characterization in that it might be hard for an American to realize there is a political space left of Obama and right of Stalin.

As for the UK, the Powerline writer, I am sorry to say, has not a fucking clue.

__________________

** I sent some questions to the NDP on their energy policies and, with those answers in hand, I can conclude that an NDP government would certainly lead to changes in Alberta, but perhaps not of the radical sort feared by many in the province. In fact, on many issues, it’s hard to find a lot of daylight between NDP policies and those of the other two front-running parties. Their answers give you enough room to believe the worst, if that’s what you want to believe, but also leave room for benefit of the doubt.

Edited May 8, 2015 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Adam, I know you are a debate maven, but I don't know if you are yet sick to death of boring Alberta politics. Here is the highlight reel of the provincial leaders debate. You can appreciate for yourself the strength of personality and the poise that cinched the contest for Rachel Notley. Beware, though, the insinuating phrasing of "fair share" ...

Seriously, it would be interesting to see your reaction to the folks at the podium ...

Edited May 8, 2015 by william.scherk