Alberta Election 2015: "Mother of mercy, is this the end of Alberta Tories?"

Politics & Elections
1

The Alberta Progressive Conservatives (a/k/a Tories) have held office continuously since 1971. It’s the longest run in office in any Canadian province. Only Albertans who are 69 or older have participated in an election where someone other than the PCs were elected the government, in 1967.

In the last Alberta election, the polls were predicting that the Wildrose Party was poised to form the government and defeat the Tories, but in the last few days of the campaign, there was a massive switch as voters moved back to the old traditional vote, and they re-elected the Tories. Pollsters had egg on their faces, etc. See previous thread: Meanwhile in Alberta - is a once-in-a-lifetime electoral shift in the offing?

It’s been a tumultuous three years since then: the PC Premier elected in 2012 has resigned in disgrace; a new leader has been elected by the party, and automatically became Premier; oil prices, on which Alberta’s government revenues have depended, have tanked spectacularly; the leader of the Wildrose bolted to the PCs, along with several members of her caucus; and the new Premier introduced an unpopular budget and called an election on the budget, which will be held on May 5, 2015.

And, the polls are again showing the Tories are in trouble, with a three-way split between the centre-right Tories, the leftist New Democratic Party, and the rightist Wildrose Party.

Alberta election polls show unexpected ‘left-right squeeze’ that threatens PC dynasty:

Another case of pollsters getting it wrong, or is this the end of Little Caesar? Two and a half weeks to go.

2

I’d vote for “pollsters getting it wrong.” They certainly did last time; I see no reason why they wouldn’t this time.

The majority of Albertans are notoriously resistant to change, I find; and tend to go with a “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” attitude. The ones who don’t seem to fall into one of two opposing camps: those who feel that the government isn’t right-wing enough (Wildrose supporters) and those who feel that the government isn’t left-wing enough (NDP supporters). This, it seems to me, is how the PCs got in last time–the known and experienced middle-of-the-road option appealed more to the average Albertan voter than either of the unknown extreme options.

Yet at the same time, the recent budget was extremely unpopular, and dynasties don’t last forever–remember, Ontario PCs were in power from sometime in the 1940s to 1984. Since then, Ontario has seen Liberal, NDP, and PC governments. I don’t see how Alberta could be any different.

3

One thing that seems different is that the NPost article gives regional breakdowns of the polls, which I don’t recall in the last election. If Wildrose and the NDP can get strong concentrated support (the article mentions the NDP in Edmonton, for instance) that could have more of an effect than generalised support. Will be interesting to watch.

(I’m a sucker for watching for political streaks to come to an end, which is why I find Alberta so interesting.)

4

Well, it’s going to be interesting, no doubt about that.

What I find interesting is that Lethbridge has a “key riding.” Heck, it only has two! In the last election, both of Lethbridge’s ridings went to the PCs, but the city was surrounded by Wildrose ridings.

The riding of West Lethbridge is the one that the NP item is referring to. Demographics play an important role in West Lethbridge; it is the area of the city that is growing faster than the others, and not all of the newcomers are Albertan. Rather, they come from other parts of Canada, or even from outside Canada; and they don’t all have that old-school Alberta Tory attitude. In addition, West Lethbridge is where the university is, so you’ve got the students, and many of their professors, in the riding too. This is the demographic that the NDP is playing to in West Lethbridge, and judging by the amount of NDP lawn signs that I see, they are having some success. How much it will translate to at the polls, I have no idea; but you’re correct: it will certainly be interesting to watch!

5

Wait, Canada has politics?

6

Also warships.

7

Alberta: the province of rugged-minded individualists, who all just happen to vote the same way, for fear of the unknown. :slight_smile:

8

God I hope they die the death of a thousand cuts (so to speak). The NDP’s got their sh*t together pretty quick, all things considered, considering the “fixed election date law” passed by the PC’s means this election came a year too soon. Prentice also stole the NDP orange for his own election signs. Guy has a Messiah complex; he honestly believes he can not lose. Maybe more of a Macbeth complex. I’d really like to see Rachel Notley be the one to say, “Turn, hell-hound, turn!” She presents herself the most professionally and I believe she’s the one who actually will have earned the title Alberta’s Next Premier.

9

It’s not the “fixed” election date that’s triggered this election. According to s. 38.1 of the Alberta Elections Act, the election should have been in the spring of 2016, four years after the 2012 election. Premier Prentice jumped the gun, calling the election a year early. That’s not uncommon for a new Premier who comes to office by winning the party leadership: they often want to have the voters confirm them in office.

10

A good question, and maybe one more suitable for another thread, but I’ll ask here anyway: do “fixed elections” really work in Westminster parliaments?

11

Leave it to Canada to have “progressive” conservatives. What does this mean? Do they oppose change in a more mellow tone of voice?

12

Apparently the Progressive Conservatives espouse Red Toryism. No, I never heard of it before either.

13

In Alberta, they are certainly not progressive. But they are not particularly conservative either, unless conservative means giving a break to all your corporate petroleum producer friends, but being extremely stingy with things that taxes are supposed to pay for, like health care and education.

14

That is indeed what it means here, almost. They don’t so much give breaks to oil companies as exist to serve them, though.

15

That’s (a large part of) what “conservative” means in the U.S.

16

OMG! The world must be coming to an end! Prentice actually backed down on something (he’s promised not to reduce the deduction for charitable donations after all).

17

My personal opinion is that they don’t, but nine out of ten provinces, plus the feds, disagree with me, so what do I know?

My first objection is a general one: the whole idea of the Westminster system is that the government holds office at the will of the Commons. If that changes, there should be elections, not because of some arbitrary date.

Second, my observation of the election cycle is that there really aren’t many six week stretches available for an election.

  • You can’t call an election during spring planting; farmers will be upset.

  • you can’t call an election during fall harvest; ditto.

  • you can’t call an election during the summer; everyone with summer plans of lazing at the beach will be upset.

  • you can’t call an election during winter, or when there is snow on the ground (for our American friends, that’s not synonymous :slight_smile: ), or when there’s a reasonable likelihood of snow on the ground. Voters don’t like going out to vote in a blizzard.

That really leaves about one stretch of time in the spring, and one in the fall. Plus, Finally, the voters have a habit of punishing a government that goes to the polls too early (see: David Peterson, Ontario, 1990), or hang on too late (see: Pierre Trudeau, 1979), so even without fixed dates, the election cycle is reasonably predictable.

As well, if the government falls, or the government is having trouble getting its legislation passed, an election is necessary.

And, in cases like this, where the new Premier has become premier because he won the party leadership, without even having run in the last election or a seat in the House, it makes good, sound democratic sense that he call an election to win a mandate to govern from the people, not just from his party supporters.

So overall, I’m not much of a supporter. Seems to me that it’s part of the Westminster system, and there are systemic checks on the abuse of the power to drop the writ.

(by the way, Spoons, I saw your question this morning, but didn’t answer it because I was afraid my personal Pjen-rating in this thread was getting too high. :smiley:

Now that some others have posted, I thought I’d chip in again.)

18

That’s my feeling also. If the whole system rests on the Commons’ confidence in the government; then if the Commons no longer has confidence in the government, there should be an election. I cannot imagine a government without the confidence of the Commons saying, “Big deal, we’re not holding another election until the legislation says that we have to.” It seems to me at that point, the GG/LG would be constitutionally-bound to dissolve the Commons anyway, regardless of fixed-date legislation–would I be correct?

I guess I am! :slight_smile:

I’ll admit that I never thought of the seasonal nature of elections in Canada; but now that you bring it up, most are always in the spring or fall, as I recall.

No problem on the delay. Thank you for the excellent answer!

19

What date is set for this election?

20

May 5