Last time I looked at some of the ways Alberta's economic pillar, the fossil fuel industry, was recently affected negatively by a combination of technological change, competition and strategic interference. However, to understand the present economic bust more fully, we need consider more than the industrial side of things, but the human side, too. Unfortunately, much of the province's suffering today is result of poor choices made by people in government, and in their private lives, as it is a matter of circumstance. Accordingly, I believe much of what has happened was avoidable, as our predicament was predictable, but our leaders, and our selves, failed us.
To be gentle, we should start by considering the failings of the PC government.
The most common complaint about the past government is that they failed to plan for the future. This is a big charge, made up of two major components. The first is that they failed to save for days like this. Another component is that they failed to diversify the economy.
On the first charge, that they failed to save, rings all too true. The PCs, from Klein to Redford will forever be condemned as both reckless and irresponsible. The Province's Heritage fund was left to stagnate, left undisturbed since the downturn of the 1980s. Since that downturn, Alberta had paid off its debt, and was in the position, I remember, "to pay off the debt of other provinces, so long as they promised never to go into debt again" (this was actually argued in the National Post over a decade ago). Instead, the government cut taxes on the rich, on corporations, and on royalties.
That the tax cuts favoured the rich is undeniable; a flat tax, set at the relatively high rate of 10%, were you poor, or the incredibly low rate of 10%, were you rich, was a massive giveaway of billions of dollars a year in revenue. It needs be remembered, for all time, that tax cuts for the rich were very much in vogue in the English speaking world of the early 2000s, but that just serves to reinforce how shortsighted these governments were globally. Now tax cuts in general are not necessarily bad things; I would argue though that you can't afford them when people are dying in your hospital waiting rooms, and the insane are being put out on the streets. The only thing that made these tax cuts doable were the high revenues the province received from natural gas, gambling, and oil, the complicity of the province's media, and the wishes of the voters, in that order.
Cutting taxes on corporations remains popular today; probably because all of our news media comes from blatantly self-interested media corporations. However, even I feel that this may have been a good idea at the time. Low taxes do attract new businesses; but it can be seen that this did not happen in Alberta for other reasons, which I will explore later. The companies we did have, those incredibly profitable corporations of Alberta, were able to save their profits, and if you look who owns what, remove them from the country altogether.
The cut in the rate of oil royalties was actually more of an accident than a deliberate giveaway. Still, the story that can be told tells the same story of moral cowardice as before. Royalties dropped because Alberta had two different kinds of royalties: one for conventional oil, and one for the oil sands. Like the rest of Earth, Alberta's conventional oil was cheap to access and of good quality. Accordingly, the government in the distant past effected a decent royalty rate. Cheap access and good quality are two characteristics lacking in the oil sands. The Oil Sands are so inaccessible that for many years the best plan for getting at the stuff was by nuking the ground around Fort McMurray, a plan approved by Premier Manning's government (more amazingly, the Soviet Union actually did this on its own soil). As for quality, the oil sands are so bad they require much refining before even becoming as good as conventional oil; hence the much lower price it fetches internationally. So, to encourage development of the oil sands, the government set royalty rates low, and provided further generous incentives to oil sands companies. The drop in oil royalties basically reflects the historical depletion of Alberta's conventional oil sources, and their replacement by the oil sands.
Now the moral cowardice. Premier Stelmach inherited the government around the time the oil sands displaced the conventional sources as Alberta's economic (and revenue) driver. He proposed a royalty review meant to address the discrepancy between the oil royalties. In those days the price of oil was galloping towards $150US a barrel, and if your Calgary based oil company wasn't insanely profitable, there was something terribly wrong with it, or more likely, you. Nonetheless, the royalty review was aborted, with the specious claim the royalties were fine. The only thing to come from the whole situation was that Alberta's oil companies threw their financial weight behind the offshot of the wilting Social Credit Party: the Wildrose Alliance.
During the Stelmach years, investment poured into the Alberta Oil Sands. The Province's economic growth and population growth were simply stunning. Already, though, problems were becoming apparent. Things were simply too good. The low tax regime adopted by the province undoubtedly encouraged the mass migration and investment we received (reducing regulations also helped, no doubt). It also encouraged massive inflation; at one time, the poverty line in Fort McMurray was an income of over $60,000 a year.
The government lacked the resources to keep up with the growth. Whole neighbourhoods were being built with no schools, community centres, parks. Calgary didn't get a new high school for 15 years, while the population increased by the hundreds of thousands. During the last election, one friend ran in a Northwest Calgary riding. I was astonished that it had as many schools - six - as the 60 year old community I reside in. There was a lack of hospitals, schools, teachers, doctors, nurses - there was a shortage of almost everything necessary for society to run.
There is perhaps a development lesson here. I feel the lesson is don't encourage more development than you can pay for or keep up with. The Alberta governments reckless tax cuts blew up a bubble economy, while reducing its ability to keep pace with it. And all the while, they didn't save a dime. Former Premier Lougheed criticized the government for its haphazard economic development. One think tank went so far as deem Alberta the province with the worst fiscal outlook in the country.
Why did economic diversification fail? Deregulating the electricity markets didn't help. Experts say it has cost the province's people and businesses $20 billion since it was implemented. This alone may not have been fatal to Alberta's other industries, but the massive economic growth in the province drove up rents and leases, too. The last nail in the coffin of Alberta's economic diversification was the success of the Oil Sands itself. One could simply make so much money, so fast, regardless of your passions or qualifications, that almost all the province's energies and talents were sucked into the oil sector. This was not a bad thing at the time, but were something to happen to oil, we would definitely be in an uncomfortable position.
And here we are.
I realize I have spent too long bashing the government. The people of Alberta deserve a shake too. Next time.
Again, thanks for reading.
A discussion of politics, science, emerging technology, and international affairs all centred on Alberta.
Saturday, 30 July 2016
Friday, 29 July 2016
Alberta's Perfect Storm, part 1
What a mess we're in. However did it get so bad? Didn't we all promise not to piss away the boom? Why is this happening? Well, in the interest of exploring those questions, I would like to mention some things I felt key to Alberta's present predicament.
In 2014, oil prices were twice what they are now. For the first time in 20 years, the Flames had an exciting offence. The Stampeders had the best football team I had ever seen. However, the Flames were no longer selling out every game; they weren't selling out any. Meanwhile, the Stampeders were watching their attendance drop game after game. In other locales, like Nashville North, patrons showed up drunk and left sober, the bar staff left to stand listless before empty tip jars. Clearly, something was wrong in Calgary. It was no longer its exuberant self. No more were blue collar folks blowing hundreds of bucks a night on beer; people weren't doing much of anything at all.
While the premiership of Alison Redford continued on its path to collapse, the province was turning a corner. The country's booming real estate markets across Alberta hit a wall. It became apparent that the price of oil had hit a wall of its own, and the PC dynasty that had run Alberta for two generations finally expired.
Alberta had been through busts before. But a number of factors conspired to make the present one the worst we had faced since the 1930s.
Alberta's economy had always rested on two pillars: farms and fossil fuels. The first of these fuels, coal, was responsible for the settling of communities from Crowsnest to Canmore to Grande Cache, to Hanna, to Drumheller. Oil, of course, had and has the most prominence. But it should be remembered that the fuel Ralph Klein wielded to slay the province's debt was not coal or oil, but Natural Gas.
This is the first problem. In the 1990s, Natural Gas had been worth $8-$9 a unit (US!); for over a decade now it has been worth only about a $1.50. When you consider that the Canadian dollar increased in value from $0.61US to almost parity (and sometimes better), it means the slide in price of Natural Gas in Canadian dollars, and adjusted for inflation is simply huge - at worst being in excess of 90%. The outlook for its price recovering to 1990s levels does not look favourable. Indeed, Natural Gas is so plentiful it could very well be given away for free, despite being considered the fossil fuel of the future.
Alberta's coal industry faced a different problem. In a world saturated with oil and gas, it simply no longer possessed any economic rationale. The Grande Cache coal mine first went under, was bought for $2, and was recently closed again. Coal simply pollutes too much, and powers too little. Even the coal producing regions of China, the world's leading consumer of the stuff, have been hard hit by the collapse in demand. Simply put, coal is obsolete.
Then there is oil. Certainly not obsolete, oil's problem is better described as a catch-22. The easily and cheaply accessed sources of oil being depleted forced massive investments in oil resources in places such as Alberta. However, the prices which made these investments profitable made oil too expensive to fuel the world's economy. Even today's price of $41US is high by historical standards. This has encouraged people to adopt alternatives, the most prominent of these being Natural Gas, which in spite of its popularity remains incredibly cheap. However, countries like China, Denmark and Germany have become leaders in renewable energy, and the bright future of those systems should give members of the Wildrose Party pause.
However, is $41US fair? I cannot think so. Oil should be selling for a higher price today. However, there are strategic reasons behind the current price of oil. Oil is the most important substance in the world. Its price can be manipulated to grow economies, and it can be used to devastate them. In the 1980s, the price of oil was deliberately depressed by the Arab States and the USA to fight Iran and the Soviet Union. At that time Alberta experienced its greatest recession. I believe something similar is going on today, with targets again being Russia, Iran, and also ISIS.
The other part of the oil problem Alberta faces is that our primary customer is the United States, a country that has desired energy independence since the 1970s. Thanks to fracking, among other technologies, the Americans are realizing this goal. Keystone XL failed to be authorized because it made no economic sense - hence the present emphasis on the smaller and more expensive (and more politically sensitive) Energy East and Northern Gateway pipelines. Now, how permanent our loss of the American market will be can only be guessed at; fracking wells supposedly possess a short lifespan. What I have read, though, would imply the Americans should be able to supply themselves into the early 2020s.
As we have seen, fossil fuels, the second pillar of the Alberta economy, and its biggest, was subverted by a number of global effects. In the next instalment, I will explore the human dimensions of Alberta's current bust. In part 3, I will examine the things that give me hope.
Again, thanks for reading.
In 2014, oil prices were twice what they are now. For the first time in 20 years, the Flames had an exciting offence. The Stampeders had the best football team I had ever seen. However, the Flames were no longer selling out every game; they weren't selling out any. Meanwhile, the Stampeders were watching their attendance drop game after game. In other locales, like Nashville North, patrons showed up drunk and left sober, the bar staff left to stand listless before empty tip jars. Clearly, something was wrong in Calgary. It was no longer its exuberant self. No more were blue collar folks blowing hundreds of bucks a night on beer; people weren't doing much of anything at all.
While the premiership of Alison Redford continued on its path to collapse, the province was turning a corner. The country's booming real estate markets across Alberta hit a wall. It became apparent that the price of oil had hit a wall of its own, and the PC dynasty that had run Alberta for two generations finally expired.
Alberta had been through busts before. But a number of factors conspired to make the present one the worst we had faced since the 1930s.
Alberta's economy had always rested on two pillars: farms and fossil fuels. The first of these fuels, coal, was responsible for the settling of communities from Crowsnest to Canmore to Grande Cache, to Hanna, to Drumheller. Oil, of course, had and has the most prominence. But it should be remembered that the fuel Ralph Klein wielded to slay the province's debt was not coal or oil, but Natural Gas.
This is the first problem. In the 1990s, Natural Gas had been worth $8-$9 a unit (US!); for over a decade now it has been worth only about a $1.50. When you consider that the Canadian dollar increased in value from $0.61US to almost parity (and sometimes better), it means the slide in price of Natural Gas in Canadian dollars, and adjusted for inflation is simply huge - at worst being in excess of 90%. The outlook for its price recovering to 1990s levels does not look favourable. Indeed, Natural Gas is so plentiful it could very well be given away for free, despite being considered the fossil fuel of the future.
Alberta's coal industry faced a different problem. In a world saturated with oil and gas, it simply no longer possessed any economic rationale. The Grande Cache coal mine first went under, was bought for $2, and was recently closed again. Coal simply pollutes too much, and powers too little. Even the coal producing regions of China, the world's leading consumer of the stuff, have been hard hit by the collapse in demand. Simply put, coal is obsolete.
Then there is oil. Certainly not obsolete, oil's problem is better described as a catch-22. The easily and cheaply accessed sources of oil being depleted forced massive investments in oil resources in places such as Alberta. However, the prices which made these investments profitable made oil too expensive to fuel the world's economy. Even today's price of $41US is high by historical standards. This has encouraged people to adopt alternatives, the most prominent of these being Natural Gas, which in spite of its popularity remains incredibly cheap. However, countries like China, Denmark and Germany have become leaders in renewable energy, and the bright future of those systems should give members of the Wildrose Party pause.
However, is $41US fair? I cannot think so. Oil should be selling for a higher price today. However, there are strategic reasons behind the current price of oil. Oil is the most important substance in the world. Its price can be manipulated to grow economies, and it can be used to devastate them. In the 1980s, the price of oil was deliberately depressed by the Arab States and the USA to fight Iran and the Soviet Union. At that time Alberta experienced its greatest recession. I believe something similar is going on today, with targets again being Russia, Iran, and also ISIS.
The other part of the oil problem Alberta faces is that our primary customer is the United States, a country that has desired energy independence since the 1970s. Thanks to fracking, among other technologies, the Americans are realizing this goal. Keystone XL failed to be authorized because it made no economic sense - hence the present emphasis on the smaller and more expensive (and more politically sensitive) Energy East and Northern Gateway pipelines. Now, how permanent our loss of the American market will be can only be guessed at; fracking wells supposedly possess a short lifespan. What I have read, though, would imply the Americans should be able to supply themselves into the early 2020s.
As we have seen, fossil fuels, the second pillar of the Alberta economy, and its biggest, was subverted by a number of global effects. In the next instalment, I will explore the human dimensions of Alberta's current bust. In part 3, I will examine the things that give me hope.
Again, thanks for reading.
Tuesday, 12 July 2016
Unite the Right?
I feel like I had to start this blog because I feel isolated. I listen to the radio, I read the newspapers, and nowhere do I see people asking the questions I feel like asking. I don't see people raising the objections I do, or following up with the follow ups I think. So, this is my place to examine the issues from one of those unexamined angles that are hidden, but oh so common in this province of Alberta.
So what are the media discussing these days in the province? Jason Kenney, and the latest attempt to Unite the Right.
So, I feel I must discuss the reasons why I feel all this hot air is not going to equal electoral success.
My wife asked me today if I think the NDP are going to win the election in 2019. Normally, when asked such a question, I hide behind the cliche that "x is a long time in politics," and at least, that's very true. However, this time I had to admit that yes, I thought they would. I saved the cliche for after. Unite the right or not, I don't yet feel the NDP will lose; but that's another story. For now, I must explain why I feel uniting the right will mean bumkiss in 2019.
As a starting point, let's expose the presumption of The Media that it is possible to "unite the right?"
Simply, no.
While The Media may have forgot, Alberta currently has three right wing parties which sit in its legislature: the PCs, the Wildrose, and the Alberta Party. In addition, there remains a Social Credit Party in the countryside which still receives thousands of votes each election, the various separatist parties (which in turn receive hundreds to thousands combined), and lastly, there is the new Reform Party of Alberta. This latter party is designed for Wildrose Party members who find the Wildrose Party just isn't socially conservative enough. The birth of this new party should be a first giant red flag in the quest for a United Right - with or without Jason Kenney.
We also need remember that the PCs and the Wildrose Party exist for good reasons. The PCs were a big tent party that included Progressive and Conservative people, united by political power. Their ability to govern for 40 years was largely the result of their ability to play the centre and the right wings of the province so ably. They did indeed have right wing opposition throughout - the Social Credit party never truly died and even if it stopped electing MLAs, it did receive tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of votes in elections after 1971.
The Wildrose Party was basically the successor to the Social Credit Party that had limped into irrelevance since 1971. It was the home of Social Conservatives whose views most aligned federally with the far right of the Conservative Party/Christian Heritage Party. It would likely have remained a marginal rural fringe party had it not been for an infusion of cash from big business after Ed Stelmach became premier. The empowerment of the WRP turned it into the opposition, and pulled Alberta politics far to the right. Premiers and Stelmach could rightly be considered moderates as individuals, but once in power, necessity drove them both to play right wing to keep the WRP under wraps.
The Wildrose Party sucked away many supporters from the PCs. In 2012 it seemed like they could be the ones to knock the PCs out of government. However, this opportunity did something which I find reported nowhere - it inspired greater voter turnout, and secondly, it inspired many traditional Liberal voters to vote PC to keep the Wildrose Party out of office. The Liberal Party went from having won 9 seats in 2008 to 5 in 2012, saw its proportion of the popular vote fall from 26% to 10%, and its actual number of votes received plunge from 251,128 to 127,626. Meanwhile, voter turnout across the province soared from the record setting embarrassment of 40.6% in 2008 to a still measly 54% in 2012. All seats lost by the Liberals were picked up by the PCs. This story should also serve as a warning to the "Unite the Right" campaigners. Albertans showed a great willingness to desert the PCs for the WRP in 2012; they were only undone by the willingness of Liberals and the apathetic to show up to keep them out of office.
Today, the PCs and the WRP remain fundamentally different parties. While the Wildrose Party may seem to socially liberal to some, its social conservatism and doctrine of market fundamentalism (a term I hate, but is apt in this situation), differentiates them markedly from the PCs. Jim Prentice, to give him a minimum of credit, at least realised in 2014-2015 that his government would have to raise taxes. It may have been years in the making, this realisation, but it remains one that has eluded the WRP to this day. Further, when it comes to social legislation, the PCs are more on the side of the government (with a handful of exceptions) than they are on the side of the opposition.
So if Jason Kenney were to show up, take over the PCs, and try to "unite the right," what do I see happening?
The Wildrose Party leadership we already know would favour such an opportunity for them. Their electoral success is pretty much dependent upon a future where they are the only conservative option in the province; this they already seem to know. Unfortunately, they mean a takeover like the Alliance did to the federal PCs back in the early 2000s, where the more viable body of the Progressive Conservative Party became the host to Alliance's more extreme ideas and values. They don't wish a merger - they want an annexation and occupation.
However, we have seen that such a situation is incredibly unlikely. We have already seen that disgruntled WRP members are willing to jump ship to new islands of extreme conservatism. We have also seen that conservatives have other small-c options in the province: the Alberta Party and even the Liberal Party.
So what do I envision? At least two exoduses (exodi?).
There is simply little chance that the average PC member will basically just give up for the sake of beating the NDP in 2019. I know many feel they are the best shot to beat the NDP in 2019 already, united right or not. But, why would they wish to stay in a far right party that not merely is unrepresentative of their views and values, but many find embarrassing? Memberships of the Alberta Party are sure to increase, and vote totals too, as that party marches forward.
The United Right party will have to reach out to these people, and they know it. Simply saying that its to beat the NDP will not suffice. This brings the second possible exodus into being, as Wildrose members unhappy with their party's moderation flock to the Reform Party, Social Credit, or the separatist parties.
As you are still reading this, you probably disagree with my conclusion that these people simply can't cooperate to defeat the NDP. You assume that the memberships of these two parties are rational and humble enough to join together. I can assure you the opposite is the case. The memberships are hardly rational (in any party), and there is a great deal of pride to overcome. Why else would Alberta have more parties in its legislature than any other province in Canada, even with 40 years of one-party rule? If the average PC or average Wildroser could work together, they would already have tried. Instead, they are all getting forced to from above.
So, one cannot simply unite the right; at least, not yet.
But, we need to consider the other reasons why I don't think a new Conservative party will have such an easy time winning in 2019. These I can put down to two factors: experience, and demographics.
Regarding experience, the NDP were not an accidental government, and in spite of polling to the contrary, Albertans have very little reason to be upset with the government. Having been elected at the worst possible time, there is literally nothing yet that the opposition parties could use as election fodder in 2019. The NDP are running a pretty tight ship, and unless oil becomes obsolete in the next three years, things should only get better for them as time goes by. The other side of the coin is that the "Alberta Advantage" isn't just thought of as dead, but people seem to have realised that it was a mistake. That mistake was that of the PCs, and the WRP rhetoric that cutting taxes and services will save the province is not an idea that holds water with the majority of the population.
The next issue is the demographic one. Conservative voters generally are older; and conservative ridings are generally rural ones. The issue with the former is simply that many conservative voters are literally dying, and are not likely being replaced by younger people.
The second point is that rural ridings are in danger of dying, too. The NDP government has already hinted that they will redraw the boundaries of the province's constituencies for the next election - as any government had to do. What makes this interesting is that NDP have nothing to lose and much to gain by actually balancing the distribution of seats to urban and rural areas. Throughout the history of the province, rural constituencies were heavily over-represented in the legislature. These rural areas, particularly in the south of the province, are the heartland of the WRP.
As one example "Northern Alberta" has 11 seats currently, whereas Edmonton, with more than double the population of that region, as 21. Another way of looking at it, the Lesser Slave Lake constituency had half as many votes cast within it as any in Edmonton. This is gerrymandering at its simplest, and its elimination is looming. It also doesn't help the conservative parties that courtesy of the economic downturn in the province some entire towns in the countryside, such as Grande Cache, are liable to disappear soon. It may only be a shift of a few seats, but this could have great implications for the 2019 election.
Thank you for reading all of this. Please let me know where I've gone wrong.
Damo
So what are the media discussing these days in the province? Jason Kenney, and the latest attempt to Unite the Right.
So, I feel I must discuss the reasons why I feel all this hot air is not going to equal electoral success.
My wife asked me today if I think the NDP are going to win the election in 2019. Normally, when asked such a question, I hide behind the cliche that "x is a long time in politics," and at least, that's very true. However, this time I had to admit that yes, I thought they would. I saved the cliche for after. Unite the right or not, I don't yet feel the NDP will lose; but that's another story. For now, I must explain why I feel uniting the right will mean bumkiss in 2019.
As a starting point, let's expose the presumption of The Media that it is possible to "unite the right?"
Simply, no.
While The Media may have forgot, Alberta currently has three right wing parties which sit in its legislature: the PCs, the Wildrose, and the Alberta Party. In addition, there remains a Social Credit Party in the countryside which still receives thousands of votes each election, the various separatist parties (which in turn receive hundreds to thousands combined), and lastly, there is the new Reform Party of Alberta. This latter party is designed for Wildrose Party members who find the Wildrose Party just isn't socially conservative enough. The birth of this new party should be a first giant red flag in the quest for a United Right - with or without Jason Kenney.
We also need remember that the PCs and the Wildrose Party exist for good reasons. The PCs were a big tent party that included Progressive and Conservative people, united by political power. Their ability to govern for 40 years was largely the result of their ability to play the centre and the right wings of the province so ably. They did indeed have right wing opposition throughout - the Social Credit party never truly died and even if it stopped electing MLAs, it did receive tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of votes in elections after 1971.
The Wildrose Party was basically the successor to the Social Credit Party that had limped into irrelevance since 1971. It was the home of Social Conservatives whose views most aligned federally with the far right of the Conservative Party/Christian Heritage Party. It would likely have remained a marginal rural fringe party had it not been for an infusion of cash from big business after Ed Stelmach became premier. The empowerment of the WRP turned it into the opposition, and pulled Alberta politics far to the right. Premiers and Stelmach could rightly be considered moderates as individuals, but once in power, necessity drove them both to play right wing to keep the WRP under wraps.
The Wildrose Party sucked away many supporters from the PCs. In 2012 it seemed like they could be the ones to knock the PCs out of government. However, this opportunity did something which I find reported nowhere - it inspired greater voter turnout, and secondly, it inspired many traditional Liberal voters to vote PC to keep the Wildrose Party out of office. The Liberal Party went from having won 9 seats in 2008 to 5 in 2012, saw its proportion of the popular vote fall from 26% to 10%, and its actual number of votes received plunge from 251,128 to 127,626. Meanwhile, voter turnout across the province soared from the record setting embarrassment of 40.6% in 2008 to a still measly 54% in 2012. All seats lost by the Liberals were picked up by the PCs. This story should also serve as a warning to the "Unite the Right" campaigners. Albertans showed a great willingness to desert the PCs for the WRP in 2012; they were only undone by the willingness of Liberals and the apathetic to show up to keep them out of office.
Today, the PCs and the WRP remain fundamentally different parties. While the Wildrose Party may seem to socially liberal to some, its social conservatism and doctrine of market fundamentalism (a term I hate, but is apt in this situation), differentiates them markedly from the PCs. Jim Prentice, to give him a minimum of credit, at least realised in 2014-2015 that his government would have to raise taxes. It may have been years in the making, this realisation, but it remains one that has eluded the WRP to this day. Further, when it comes to social legislation, the PCs are more on the side of the government (with a handful of exceptions) than they are on the side of the opposition.
So if Jason Kenney were to show up, take over the PCs, and try to "unite the right," what do I see happening?
The Wildrose Party leadership we already know would favour such an opportunity for them. Their electoral success is pretty much dependent upon a future where they are the only conservative option in the province; this they already seem to know. Unfortunately, they mean a takeover like the Alliance did to the federal PCs back in the early 2000s, where the more viable body of the Progressive Conservative Party became the host to Alliance's more extreme ideas and values. They don't wish a merger - they want an annexation and occupation.
However, we have seen that such a situation is incredibly unlikely. We have already seen that disgruntled WRP members are willing to jump ship to new islands of extreme conservatism. We have also seen that conservatives have other small-c options in the province: the Alberta Party and even the Liberal Party.
So what do I envision? At least two exoduses (exodi?).
There is simply little chance that the average PC member will basically just give up for the sake of beating the NDP in 2019. I know many feel they are the best shot to beat the NDP in 2019 already, united right or not. But, why would they wish to stay in a far right party that not merely is unrepresentative of their views and values, but many find embarrassing? Memberships of the Alberta Party are sure to increase, and vote totals too, as that party marches forward.
The United Right party will have to reach out to these people, and they know it. Simply saying that its to beat the NDP will not suffice. This brings the second possible exodus into being, as Wildrose members unhappy with their party's moderation flock to the Reform Party, Social Credit, or the separatist parties.
As you are still reading this, you probably disagree with my conclusion that these people simply can't cooperate to defeat the NDP. You assume that the memberships of these two parties are rational and humble enough to join together. I can assure you the opposite is the case. The memberships are hardly rational (in any party), and there is a great deal of pride to overcome. Why else would Alberta have more parties in its legislature than any other province in Canada, even with 40 years of one-party rule? If the average PC or average Wildroser could work together, they would already have tried. Instead, they are all getting forced to from above.
So, one cannot simply unite the right; at least, not yet.
But, we need to consider the other reasons why I don't think a new Conservative party will have such an easy time winning in 2019. These I can put down to two factors: experience, and demographics.
Regarding experience, the NDP were not an accidental government, and in spite of polling to the contrary, Albertans have very little reason to be upset with the government. Having been elected at the worst possible time, there is literally nothing yet that the opposition parties could use as election fodder in 2019. The NDP are running a pretty tight ship, and unless oil becomes obsolete in the next three years, things should only get better for them as time goes by. The other side of the coin is that the "Alberta Advantage" isn't just thought of as dead, but people seem to have realised that it was a mistake. That mistake was that of the PCs, and the WRP rhetoric that cutting taxes and services will save the province is not an idea that holds water with the majority of the population.
The next issue is the demographic one. Conservative voters generally are older; and conservative ridings are generally rural ones. The issue with the former is simply that many conservative voters are literally dying, and are not likely being replaced by younger people.
The second point is that rural ridings are in danger of dying, too. The NDP government has already hinted that they will redraw the boundaries of the province's constituencies for the next election - as any government had to do. What makes this interesting is that NDP have nothing to lose and much to gain by actually balancing the distribution of seats to urban and rural areas. Throughout the history of the province, rural constituencies were heavily over-represented in the legislature. These rural areas, particularly in the south of the province, are the heartland of the WRP.
As one example "Northern Alberta" has 11 seats currently, whereas Edmonton, with more than double the population of that region, as 21. Another way of looking at it, the Lesser Slave Lake constituency had half as many votes cast within it as any in Edmonton. This is gerrymandering at its simplest, and its elimination is looming. It also doesn't help the conservative parties that courtesy of the economic downturn in the province some entire towns in the countryside, such as Grande Cache, are liable to disappear soon. It may only be a shift of a few seats, but this could have great implications for the 2019 election.
Thank you for reading all of this. Please let me know where I've gone wrong.
Damo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)