Today’s newsletter has been brought to you by the letter F, including the one I give my flowchart from July predicting how the UCP would deal with the Sovereignty Act.
Remember the movie Freaky Friday, where a mom and daughter wake up one morning inhabiting one another’s bodies? Surely that’s a version of what has happened to the UCP leadership candidates who felt so strongly about the Sovereignty Act that they held a joint news conference to announce they would never vote for it. Or maybe it was more along the lines of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and they’ve been possessed by evil aliens intent on ruining their reputations and credibility.
Or perhaps this is how party politics in Canada works. Party members select a leader and elected representatives fall in line behind them, because unity and loyalty are the preeminent virtues, far ahead of credibility and consistency.
Danielle Smith was elected party leader narrowly, and with few members of the UCP caucus supporting her. All but one of the other leadership candidates opposed her proposed Sovereignty Act, and four of them (Toews, Jean, Sawhney and Aheer) got together to hold a press conference to denounce the idea. (Schulz sat out the news conference, and must be feeling pretty good about that right now).
Now, all but one of them are in Cabinet and will be voting for an Act that is in some ways worse than what Smith was proposing during the leadership race.
Clearly, after Smith won the leadership there was a concerted effort within the caucus and party to find a way to come together to appear united. The prospect of the looming 2023 election has no doubt been sobering, and any internal strife would lend credibility to Rachel Notley’s claim that only she can deliver stable, boring government.
I had thought the caucus had exacted a promise from Smith to significantly water down the Sovereignty Act. Premier Scott Moe next door did her a favour by drafting his Saskatchewan First Act that signals discontent without actually creating a constitutional quagmire. But Smith didn’t follow his lead, and delivered a Sovereignty Act that has all the flaws her leadership rivals pointed out during the campaign.
Under other circumstances, this might produce a caucus revolt. Arguably, the Sovereignty Act is a political mistake that rivals Liz Truss’ budget. But unlike British Conservatives, UCP MLAs don’t have the tools or the will to rebel. (Incidentally, last Friday Smith crossed the Liz Truss line of 45 days in office.) Given the current price of a head of lettuce, I don’t recommend going out to buy one to put googly eyes on. Smith is safe.
And here’s where I have to go back and look at my flowchart from July, predicting that Smith would water down the Sovereignty Act or face a caucus revolt. I naively ignored the possibility that leadership contestants and other MLAs would put ‘party before country’ and toe the sovereignty line. So that flowchart gets an F. Next time, more cynicism!
It's not your flowchart that deserves a failing grade. It demonstrates graphically what, in a sane universe, would happen. No, the F grade should go to Danielle Smith for making our universe less sane than it was (and, in the process, demonstrating that this feat was even possible at a time when there was much doubt). And for sure F grades should be awarded to the spineless leadership aspirants who, having helpfully enumerated the faults of the idea, proceeded to support it anyway..
I believe it is more like `self-interest before party, country, and the province's citizens` than `party before country,` which is a common theme for this election and government.