It has been ten months since the 2023 Alberta provincial election, and I feel like most of the conversations I’ve had about Alberta politics in those ten months have gone something like this: “Why is the Smith government pushing ahead with [insert initiative with little public support here]?” “Well, [Michelle/Shaye/Courtney/Kathleen], we need to remember that the last conservative Premier to finish a term in Alberta was Ralph Klein, and Danielle Smith faces a leadership review next fall.”
I so appreciate your thoughtful and informed analysis. As a relatively new Albertan, the in-depth knowledge and reasoned approach is enormously helpful.
Excellent column Lisa. I appreciate your analysis, as I always get a new 'take' on things. I especially would like to see much greater transparency for all parties funding individuals and party candidates, especially BEFORE the race is over. Alas, timely reporting is probably very difficult.
Overall, I think parties are a quite bad idea for local government, because there is less chance for unique candidates to stand up to party machines with all their funding. And also because, forcing provincial agendas on municipalities may be very much counter to the centre's understanding of what future work is most pressing. Since local governments are closer to the ground and more knowledgeable about the specifics and nuance of issues, they are better placed to make decisions for residents.
And, finally, if the UCP is NOT going to make the legislation applicable to smaller communities, it's a really unfathomable move, except for stymieing union contributions. Why not tackle the root issue directly, if that's the primary concern?
I know municipalities are legally a 'creature of the province', but that does not make provincial control a good thing, in my eyes. (In the case of the UCP, it would make many party based decisions, unannounced and disavowed policies / directions very suspect, given what's happening post-election...)
Great article Lisa. Your point about campaign financing is right on the button. However, my take on it is that Smith et al are not interested in meaningful campaign finance rules, just rules that impede their political opponents. Don't even get me started on the utter juvenilia of recall campaigns.
I'd go one further - how about the principle where the electorate pays for electoral campaigns?
No external funding to candidates in an election - but here is an out - you (as an individual or a business, union/corporation) can make political donations to the electoral system itself. All such external contributions are pooled and used to fund the entire election - and you still get your tax deduction.
In this day and age, how can we not afford to fund our political process and ensure its a level playing field? Really! Taking the $$$$ out of politics levels the field to the worthiness of the ideas promulgated by the parties to the electorate. No outside money. This removes the perception (real, impugned, or imagined) of the politician as "bought and beholden".
Lastly, I really like your comment of 'unintended' consequences and go you one scenario better - what about the case where the electorate in a municipality swings big to a party opposite to the UCP? The UCP would be hard pressed to argue the result was illegitimate. But I'd lay red money down they wouldn't be arsed to hide their contempt or forestall their impulse to punish any municipality that didn't align. I remember Ken Kowalski darkly threatening "Edmonton will pay for this" when Don Getty got beat by Percy Whitman in Edmonton Whitemud. And boy oh boy didn't Edmonton get throttled for years by the vengeful PCs.
Why would we expect the UCP to be any less vindictive?
Interesting fact about conservative leaders getting yanked or "recalled" much more than any other party. How long can they keep telling themselves it's not THEM having totally unreasonable expectations? And where exactly does the inevitable and recurring chaos fit into their claim of "common sense," not to mention good, old Canadian "peace, order and good governance?"
Since no one is ever quite good enough for them (it's like King Henry VIII and wives) it begs the question, what exactly IS it they want and never quite get? "Transparency" and "accountability" comes up a lot, SO much that it shows real paranoia and basic distrust. It's like they actually want to oversee EVERY single council meeting, and be able to have a vote on EACH item, because no one is as "wise" as they consider themselves to be.
So it's an unusual, overweening need for control, which, in a democracy, we customarily cede to the duly elected for the designated time for the sake of the stability of the system and our societies, despite varying degrees of disagreement or disappointment.
I am reminded of what happened in Lethbridge where a group of conservative guys randomly formed what they called the "Lethbridge Transparency Council" which of course implied that the existing, elected council was NOT that, a very bad starting point; how many levels of "oversight" make sense ultimately? At what point do you just shut up and accept how democracy works or run yourself?
UCP at this point could stand for "Ultimate Chaos Peddlers."
There does seem to be a reliable pattern here - that being Smith pushing ahead with some initiative not supported by Albertans and/or one she said was 'off the table.' Curiously, if Smith desires party affiliations displayed for Municipal politicians, then it should be across the province - not just larger cities/municipalities. The long view seems to suggest setting in place various measures for 'control' and establishment of the 'Republic of Alberta' (my suggestion - but she may have a different name in mind?) - separate from those controlling Feds - especially the current party. Will these issues or a newly invigorated opposition NDP cause UPC party concern at a leadership review? Or is all this just distraction from Smith raising taxes on fuel and ...grabbing pension contributions, creating mega hurdles for renewable energy projects and driving away investment dollars?
Big questions. It's a little foggy in AB and not from a recent snow storm.
Political Party affiliation in municipal politics has been previously in Toronto with the NDP running SchoolTrustee/Aldermanic candidates, more out of an underdog attempt, against known Liberal/ Conservative opponents not declaring their political roots. Most people can surmise, most of the time, a politicians political leaning - thats be real.
Let’s talk about the big issue besides running on policies and platforms ( which the UCP flip-flopped on pensions, police force, etc.) - thats talk $$$$$….
Since most of us need a pamphlet on ‘Political & Election Financing for Dummies’ it is difficult to figure out what is going on beyond the typical complaints about Unions ( in a province with the lowest number of Unionized workers in Canada and weakest Labour Laws) that supposedly tilt the balance of power but do have influence.
Despite rules and regulations for the proper following (or walking the line) for financing, political parties have resources that cost money that influence election campaigns, like staff, organizers, membership lists, researchers. Parties in Parliament/ Provincial legislatures have the same resources like researchers/communications staff that have conversations on party strategy.
Other 3rd party support (know or unknown)besides Unions have great power in party and non party politics that can influence the direction of policies and platforms in municipalities ( classic influences in most areas from Developers, Business, Religious groups, etc.) that ‘Citizen Smith Goes to Calgary Council’ may not have but could (recent example of the confusion around the Calgary Recall campaign).
Bottom line: the current UCP government wants total control.
It has always been good politics for Alberta Conservatives to blame Ottawa for everything. Smith is attempting yo remove every federal institution from Alberta… especially those that enjoy a lot of goodwill like the RCMP, CPP and pharmacare. She is in a foot race to get ahead of Federal Conservatives, who might govern in 2 years under Pollievre. Pollievre has publicly rebuked the removal of the RCMP and CPP from Alberta but he has been quiet about it. If he governs he’ll have to make a stand. He is also unlikely to change equalization which Alberta conservatives whine about but never acknowledge it’s the Harper formula. It will be difficult to make these big changes if Pollievre remains consistent and opposes her. He probably has asked her to resolve these issues before the next federal election so it is in the past and not an issue he needs to talk about.
The elephant in the Room of Fair Elections remains the fact that the majority of the seats in the Alberta Legislature are rural, while the majority of the population resides in the cities. While I appreciate (and support) your points, Lisa, until this is addressed and adjusted to actually represent voter reality, anything else is motion dressed up as action. Or, a kabuki. Yeah, I like that term. :-)
Lisa, I am a resident of Calgary and I can absolutely identify positively with the idea of party affiliation.
Please let me explain!
I will use the example of our most recent election. Whatever anyone thinks of our current slate of "wise" thinkers on City Council I absolutely believe that they got elected and virtually the first thing that they did was not mentioned whatsoever on ANY of their election platforms. Almost the first thing they did was to declare a "climate emergency."
Now, I don't care if anyone does or does not agree with the idea that a "climate emergency" does or does not exist. What I do care about is that no one ran on this idea and then the herd decided it was just a wonderful idea; further, this idea has attached to it an incredibly nebulous price tag which, again, was not a campaign issue. Fine, the decision is democracy but why, if it was so important, did no one run on it? Did they figure out that the "climate emergency" existed ONLY after voting day but before the first council meeting? Of course there are other examples of policies that were promised or were ignored during the campaign but subsequently were ignored or discovered.
So, on to your thesis that no one is asking for political parties. Wrong! I am and have been for some years. Under the current system there are about a gazillion campaigns, all of which have individual promises, etc. and it is hard for any citizen to understand what council as a whole is planning, promising, condemning, etc. I contend that if there are political parties there will be a (somewhat) unified platform, albeit with individual ward promises but, still .... Subsequently, we can look at actions and inactions and also look back at the stated promises, etc. and ask why and why not. Currently, the councilors can deny responsibility ("It was the other guy's promise / action / inaction, etc.") and deflect, deny, lie and simply obfuscate.
Simply put, I see the idea of municipal political parties as a way to better hold accountable our elected councilors. As to more / fewer left / right / whatever folks, well, we will see. Further, I agree that the idea of all that union money sloshing around to elect what was in this last Calgary election a slate that was not clear to voters is distasteful - at absolutely best! At worst, well, it is worse. As for the developers, yes, they do donate money, lots and lots of money, and that should also be dealt with. Your point of individual donations only is quite useful.
I have to say that there is something to this. I'll also say that I am not particularly confident that I know what that something is.
It's clear that a great number of Alberta voters are as clueless as a bag of rocks or to be less harsh on the rubes, don't know anything more about their current political candidate and current political issues than what their traditional voting reflex has been.
It's also abundantly clear to anyone who pays attention to Alberta politics that this is a well known characteristic of the Alberta electorate. It shouldn't be so but it is.
So, maybe dirty dani and her dum-dum detail might be onto something.
I so appreciate your thoughtful and informed analysis. As a relatively new Albertan, the in-depth knowledge and reasoned approach is enormously helpful.
Excellent column Lisa. I appreciate your analysis, as I always get a new 'take' on things. I especially would like to see much greater transparency for all parties funding individuals and party candidates, especially BEFORE the race is over. Alas, timely reporting is probably very difficult.
Overall, I think parties are a quite bad idea for local government, because there is less chance for unique candidates to stand up to party machines with all their funding. And also because, forcing provincial agendas on municipalities may be very much counter to the centre's understanding of what future work is most pressing. Since local governments are closer to the ground and more knowledgeable about the specifics and nuance of issues, they are better placed to make decisions for residents.
And, finally, if the UCP is NOT going to make the legislation applicable to smaller communities, it's a really unfathomable move, except for stymieing union contributions. Why not tackle the root issue directly, if that's the primary concern?
I know municipalities are legally a 'creature of the province', but that does not make provincial control a good thing, in my eyes. (In the case of the UCP, it would make many party based decisions, unannounced and disavowed policies / directions very suspect, given what's happening post-election...)
Great article Lisa. Your point about campaign financing is right on the button. However, my take on it is that Smith et al are not interested in meaningful campaign finance rules, just rules that impede their political opponents. Don't even get me started on the utter juvenilia of recall campaigns.
I'd go one further - how about the principle where the electorate pays for electoral campaigns?
No external funding to candidates in an election - but here is an out - you (as an individual or a business, union/corporation) can make political donations to the electoral system itself. All such external contributions are pooled and used to fund the entire election - and you still get your tax deduction.
In this day and age, how can we not afford to fund our political process and ensure its a level playing field? Really! Taking the $$$$ out of politics levels the field to the worthiness of the ideas promulgated by the parties to the electorate. No outside money. This removes the perception (real, impugned, or imagined) of the politician as "bought and beholden".
Lastly, I really like your comment of 'unintended' consequences and go you one scenario better - what about the case where the electorate in a municipality swings big to a party opposite to the UCP? The UCP would be hard pressed to argue the result was illegitimate. But I'd lay red money down they wouldn't be arsed to hide their contempt or forestall their impulse to punish any municipality that didn't align. I remember Ken Kowalski darkly threatening "Edmonton will pay for this" when Don Getty got beat by Percy Whitman in Edmonton Whitemud. And boy oh boy didn't Edmonton get throttled for years by the vengeful PCs.
Why would we expect the UCP to be any less vindictive?
Interesting fact about conservative leaders getting yanked or "recalled" much more than any other party. How long can they keep telling themselves it's not THEM having totally unreasonable expectations? And where exactly does the inevitable and recurring chaos fit into their claim of "common sense," not to mention good, old Canadian "peace, order and good governance?"
Since no one is ever quite good enough for them (it's like King Henry VIII and wives) it begs the question, what exactly IS it they want and never quite get? "Transparency" and "accountability" comes up a lot, SO much that it shows real paranoia and basic distrust. It's like they actually want to oversee EVERY single council meeting, and be able to have a vote on EACH item, because no one is as "wise" as they consider themselves to be.
So it's an unusual, overweening need for control, which, in a democracy, we customarily cede to the duly elected for the designated time for the sake of the stability of the system and our societies, despite varying degrees of disagreement or disappointment.
I am reminded of what happened in Lethbridge where a group of conservative guys randomly formed what they called the "Lethbridge Transparency Council" which of course implied that the existing, elected council was NOT that, a very bad starting point; how many levels of "oversight" make sense ultimately? At what point do you just shut up and accept how democracy works or run yourself?
UCP at this point could stand for "Ultimate Chaos Peddlers."
Ummm ... pondering your excellent questions Lisa.
There does seem to be a reliable pattern here - that being Smith pushing ahead with some initiative not supported by Albertans and/or one she said was 'off the table.' Curiously, if Smith desires party affiliations displayed for Municipal politicians, then it should be across the province - not just larger cities/municipalities. The long view seems to suggest setting in place various measures for 'control' and establishment of the 'Republic of Alberta' (my suggestion - but she may have a different name in mind?) - separate from those controlling Feds - especially the current party. Will these issues or a newly invigorated opposition NDP cause UPC party concern at a leadership review? Or is all this just distraction from Smith raising taxes on fuel and ...grabbing pension contributions, creating mega hurdles for renewable energy projects and driving away investment dollars?
Big questions. It's a little foggy in AB and not from a recent snow storm.
Political Party affiliation in municipal politics has been previously in Toronto with the NDP running SchoolTrustee/Aldermanic candidates, more out of an underdog attempt, against known Liberal/ Conservative opponents not declaring their political roots. Most people can surmise, most of the time, a politicians political leaning - thats be real.
Let’s talk about the big issue besides running on policies and platforms ( which the UCP flip-flopped on pensions, police force, etc.) - thats talk $$$$$….
Since most of us need a pamphlet on ‘Political & Election Financing for Dummies’ it is difficult to figure out what is going on beyond the typical complaints about Unions ( in a province with the lowest number of Unionized workers in Canada and weakest Labour Laws) that supposedly tilt the balance of power but do have influence.
Despite rules and regulations for the proper following (or walking the line) for financing, political parties have resources that cost money that influence election campaigns, like staff, organizers, membership lists, researchers. Parties in Parliament/ Provincial legislatures have the same resources like researchers/communications staff that have conversations on party strategy.
Other 3rd party support (know or unknown)besides Unions have great power in party and non party politics that can influence the direction of policies and platforms in municipalities ( classic influences in most areas from Developers, Business, Religious groups, etc.) that ‘Citizen Smith Goes to Calgary Council’ may not have but could (recent example of the confusion around the Calgary Recall campaign).
Bottom line: the current UCP government wants total control.
It has always been good politics for Alberta Conservatives to blame Ottawa for everything. Smith is attempting yo remove every federal institution from Alberta… especially those that enjoy a lot of goodwill like the RCMP, CPP and pharmacare. She is in a foot race to get ahead of Federal Conservatives, who might govern in 2 years under Pollievre. Pollievre has publicly rebuked the removal of the RCMP and CPP from Alberta but he has been quiet about it. If he governs he’ll have to make a stand. He is also unlikely to change equalization which Alberta conservatives whine about but never acknowledge it’s the Harper formula. It will be difficult to make these big changes if Pollievre remains consistent and opposes her. He probably has asked her to resolve these issues before the next federal election so it is in the past and not an issue he needs to talk about.
The elephant in the Room of Fair Elections remains the fact that the majority of the seats in the Alberta Legislature are rural, while the majority of the population resides in the cities. While I appreciate (and support) your points, Lisa, until this is addressed and adjusted to actually represent voter reality, anything else is motion dressed up as action. Or, a kabuki. Yeah, I like that term. :-)
Agreed!
I was reading somewhere today. Municipal Politicians cannot run under the provincial party! True or not true?
Lisa, I am a resident of Calgary and I can absolutely identify positively with the idea of party affiliation.
Please let me explain!
I will use the example of our most recent election. Whatever anyone thinks of our current slate of "wise" thinkers on City Council I absolutely believe that they got elected and virtually the first thing that they did was not mentioned whatsoever on ANY of their election platforms. Almost the first thing they did was to declare a "climate emergency."
Now, I don't care if anyone does or does not agree with the idea that a "climate emergency" does or does not exist. What I do care about is that no one ran on this idea and then the herd decided it was just a wonderful idea; further, this idea has attached to it an incredibly nebulous price tag which, again, was not a campaign issue. Fine, the decision is democracy but why, if it was so important, did no one run on it? Did they figure out that the "climate emergency" existed ONLY after voting day but before the first council meeting? Of course there are other examples of policies that were promised or were ignored during the campaign but subsequently were ignored or discovered.
So, on to your thesis that no one is asking for political parties. Wrong! I am and have been for some years. Under the current system there are about a gazillion campaigns, all of which have individual promises, etc. and it is hard for any citizen to understand what council as a whole is planning, promising, condemning, etc. I contend that if there are political parties there will be a (somewhat) unified platform, albeit with individual ward promises but, still .... Subsequently, we can look at actions and inactions and also look back at the stated promises, etc. and ask why and why not. Currently, the councilors can deny responsibility ("It was the other guy's promise / action / inaction, etc.") and deflect, deny, lie and simply obfuscate.
Simply put, I see the idea of municipal political parties as a way to better hold accountable our elected councilors. As to more / fewer left / right / whatever folks, well, we will see. Further, I agree that the idea of all that union money sloshing around to elect what was in this last Calgary election a slate that was not clear to voters is distasteful - at absolutely best! At worst, well, it is worse. As for the developers, yes, they do donate money, lots and lots of money, and that should also be dealt with. Your point of individual donations only is quite useful.
I have to say that there is something to this. I'll also say that I am not particularly confident that I know what that something is.
It's clear that a great number of Alberta voters are as clueless as a bag of rocks or to be less harsh on the rubes, don't know anything more about their current political candidate and current political issues than what their traditional voting reflex has been.
It's also abundantly clear to anyone who pays attention to Alberta politics that this is a well known characteristic of the Alberta electorate. It shouldn't be so but it is.
So, maybe dirty dani and her dum-dum detail might be onto something.