![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
They Called Her The Wildrose...
Oct. 19th, 2009 02:19 pmhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/as-the-wildrose-alliance-blossoms-all-eyes-are-on-stelmach/article1328558/
I do love to get a prediction right.
Short Canadian primer. In the 80s, federal politics was dominated by the Progressive Conservatives. The name is considered quite a misnomer for Americans, but in basic, it was a centre-right party that companioned fiscal responsibility along with a progressive social program. At least on paper, that is, but that leads to a much longer discussion. In the late 80s and then the early 90s, the party faced two splits; the first with the Quebec wing, which split off to form the Bloc Quebecois, and then in the West, which formed the Reform Party. The 1993 election essentially broke the back of the PCs, reducing them to two seats, and making the Reform Party the official party of the right. The Reform Party, built around a more traditional Conservative model of both fiscal and social conservatism, when on to eventually subsume the remains of the PCs and form what is now the 'Conservative Party', and currently the ruling party of Canada.
The bedrock of what is called Western Conservatism is Alberta, especially crouched around its nucleus at the Hayek dominated University of Calgary economics program. The populist (and occasionally separatist) notions follow a muscular approach to politics, at odds with the more traditional Canadian approach of consolidation and coalition building. Unlike the other provinces, the PCs (the Progressive Conservatives still exist on a provincial level, but their policies now mostly mirror the federal Conservatives) have held a death-grip on power in Alberta for 38 years.
However, as with all parties in power, the route to a majority government in Canada lies through Ontario and Quebec, causing some rumbling in the West as Harper's minority Conservative government negotiates many items that once had been seen as concrete Conservative decisions. Especially the negotiations involving Quebec, which has long existed as a kind of geographic bogeyman of the West, not dissimilar to, say, Massachusetts to the US Right and Texas to the US Left. Added to that has been a bad roadbump in Alberta's energy dependent boom of the last ten years, seeing their leader start to make noises about deficit spending and considering the expansion of certain programs. It makes the Alberta Right unhappy, and when they get unhappy, they organize.
Which leads to the Wildrose Party. Despite having the dumbest political party name since the Rhinoceros Party in Canada, has come out polling within fifteen points of Canada's longest serving current political dynasty. They have just elected Danielle Smith leader, a highly media savvy politician with a Conservative pedigree so sparkling it must move Harper to tears; from the 'Calgary School' with an economics degree, an internship with the Fraser Institute, and a portfolio of endorsements from the bedrock of the Canadian Conservative movement. Against her is Ed Stelmach, a fairly able if uninspiring leader who is a decent enough mechanic in prioritizing the provincial needs, but struggles mightily in persuading others. Alberta's political environment is a tough place to sell the need for a deficit to, and Stelmach first didn't try, and then too late, tried and crashed in the process. It is possible that he won't survive his upcoming leadership review, leaving the Tories engaged in a leadership battle while the Wildrose Party targets disgruntled members and swayable independents.
The larger picture is that the Wildrose Party may not just have provincial ambitions, and a win or even a significant showing in the election means that Prime Minister Harper will suddenly find himself caught between a Conservative movement he neither controls nor can hide in the backbench, forcing him to deal either with the demands of his base, or he need for a more centralized platform that will give him the seats in Quebec and Ontario to put him over the top for a majority government.
Either way, it's going to get interesting.
I do love to get a prediction right.
Short Canadian primer. In the 80s, federal politics was dominated by the Progressive Conservatives. The name is considered quite a misnomer for Americans, but in basic, it was a centre-right party that companioned fiscal responsibility along with a progressive social program. At least on paper, that is, but that leads to a much longer discussion. In the late 80s and then the early 90s, the party faced two splits; the first with the Quebec wing, which split off to form the Bloc Quebecois, and then in the West, which formed the Reform Party. The 1993 election essentially broke the back of the PCs, reducing them to two seats, and making the Reform Party the official party of the right. The Reform Party, built around a more traditional Conservative model of both fiscal and social conservatism, when on to eventually subsume the remains of the PCs and form what is now the 'Conservative Party', and currently the ruling party of Canada.
The bedrock of what is called Western Conservatism is Alberta, especially crouched around its nucleus at the Hayek dominated University of Calgary economics program. The populist (and occasionally separatist) notions follow a muscular approach to politics, at odds with the more traditional Canadian approach of consolidation and coalition building. Unlike the other provinces, the PCs (the Progressive Conservatives still exist on a provincial level, but their policies now mostly mirror the federal Conservatives) have held a death-grip on power in Alberta for 38 years.
However, as with all parties in power, the route to a majority government in Canada lies through Ontario and Quebec, causing some rumbling in the West as Harper's minority Conservative government negotiates many items that once had been seen as concrete Conservative decisions. Especially the negotiations involving Quebec, which has long existed as a kind of geographic bogeyman of the West, not dissimilar to, say, Massachusetts to the US Right and Texas to the US Left. Added to that has been a bad roadbump in Alberta's energy dependent boom of the last ten years, seeing their leader start to make noises about deficit spending and considering the expansion of certain programs. It makes the Alberta Right unhappy, and when they get unhappy, they organize.
Which leads to the Wildrose Party. Despite having the dumbest political party name since the Rhinoceros Party in Canada, has come out polling within fifteen points of Canada's longest serving current political dynasty. They have just elected Danielle Smith leader, a highly media savvy politician with a Conservative pedigree so sparkling it must move Harper to tears; from the 'Calgary School' with an economics degree, an internship with the Fraser Institute, and a portfolio of endorsements from the bedrock of the Canadian Conservative movement. Against her is Ed Stelmach, a fairly able if uninspiring leader who is a decent enough mechanic in prioritizing the provincial needs, but struggles mightily in persuading others. Alberta's political environment is a tough place to sell the need for a deficit to, and Stelmach first didn't try, and then too late, tried and crashed in the process. It is possible that he won't survive his upcoming leadership review, leaving the Tories engaged in a leadership battle while the Wildrose Party targets disgruntled members and swayable independents.
The larger picture is that the Wildrose Party may not just have provincial ambitions, and a win or even a significant showing in the election means that Prime Minister Harper will suddenly find himself caught between a Conservative movement he neither controls nor can hide in the backbench, forcing him to deal either with the demands of his base, or he need for a more centralized platform that will give him the seats in Quebec and Ontario to put him over the top for a majority government.
Either way, it's going to get interesting.
