All or nothing in Alberta

[First Lady]

Interesting article in the Winnipeg Free Press about Alberta.

If Harper is denied his majority, it's western alienation like never before

Dan Lett Winnipeg Free Press
Updated: October 12 at 02:50 AM CDT

In fact, there are so few election-related signs, you wouldn't need all of the fingers on one hand to count them.

Hinman isn't surprised. The former Alberta MLA and current leader of the Wildrose Alliance party -- a right-wing party that captures significant support from disenchanted provincial Tories -- believes Albertans are just bystanders in a fight that is being waged in other provinces.

That is not to say Albertans are have no interest. Despite the fact there is absolutely no suspense about the result in Alberta, Hinman is certain the outcome of this election will resonate throughout the oil-rich province.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper can earn a majority, there will be a sense that finally, a party built in large part by Alberta conservatives has been accepted by the rest of the country.

"People here are excited about the possibility of a majority," Hinman said. "This will be (Harper's) judgment day. If he comes back with a majority, this is where Albertans will say, 'we've finally arrived on a national stage.' "

However, if Harper is once again stopped by voters in Ontario and Quebec on the precipice of a majority, there's going to be quite a different reaction.

"I guess you could say there would be a little family feud if that happens," Hinman said.

That family feud will define the foreseeable future of federal politics, not just in Alberta, but across the country. If Harper fails to achieve a majority -- and the tightening race suggests it is slipping away from him -- Alberta and huge tracts of Western Canada may be more alienated from, and more distrustful of, the rest of the country than ever before.

"Right now, there is no real separatist movement in the province," said Roger Gibbons, head of the Canada West Foundation and one of the most thoughtful conservative pundits in the country. "And alienation is a term that almost never comes up these days in the Alberta political arena.

"But there are circumstances where that might be reinvigorated. You can imagine a perfect storm of outcomes that would do the trick. Albertans have a lot of investment in Harper winning a majority government, or something close to a majority government."

To understand Harper and what he is attempting to do to Canada's political economy, it is important to understand Alberta and the conservative values forged here.

Continued:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/story/4237868p-4880934c.html

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I'm not saying Gibbons is wrong, but that sounds a little silly to me. The CPC may be built in Alberta, but it's not founded in paranoid fears of Western Alienation as much as the conservative values of many voters in Western Canada. If Harper fails to get a majority (and it looks like he probably will) that simply reflects the difficulty of building a national coalition in Canadian governance, not that the West is specifically being alienated. In fact, the attitude Gibbons invokes is a little childish: vote for our party or we'll feel alienated and sulk.

The fact is, voters aren't dumb: the message is everything. To succeed in Canada, you need to put together a message that has appeal across many regions. Harper had started to do that, but the social conservatives in his party make it hard for him to expand his appeal in places like Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It's just a fact of life.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I don't see that as an accurate portrayal at all.

I'm sure it helps hinman's cause to fan the discontent, but the lack of a majority will have more to do with a poor campaign, medoicre policy, and above all bad luck on the timing.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In fact, the attitude Gibbons invokes is a little childish: vote for our party or we'll feel alienated and sulk.

To be fair, i know him a little and you'll not meet a more balanced guy. What he said was there's not a lot of support for alienation now, but if a number of things happen it could revive. That's not the same as 'vote for us or we'll feel alienated and sulk', despite the author's attempts to craft the story.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

To be fair, i know him a little and you'll not meet a more balanced guy. What he said was there's not a lot of support for alienation now, but if a number of things happen it could revive. That's not the same as 'vote for us or we'll feel alienated and sulk', despite the author's attempts to craft the story.

Well, I didn't really think he was saying "this will be my attitude"--I've met him too. (I went to U of C) It was more a "regional" attitude that I felt like he was invoking--as in "if this happens, the West will feel this way." I do respect him--I just think he's wrong.

EDIT: I needed to read your post more carefully--I agree that a lot of this is how the quote is contextualized in the story.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I don't see that as an accurate portrayal at all.

I'm sure it helps hinman's cause to fan the discontent, but the lack of a majority will have more to do with a poor campaign, medoicre policy, and above all bad luck on the timing.

+1

[SebC]

Alberta will never have political power because:

- we're too small: Quebec and Ontario have most of the votes. It will always be in the interest of the political parties to take money and power away from Alberta and give it to Ontario and Quebec

- we're too consistent: even for the PCs, the way to get a majority would be to sell out Alberta in favour of the bigger provinces, because we'll vote for them anyways. The Liberals have no reason to try to favour Alberta, because we won't vote for them anways. The way small voting blocks become important is to become the swing voters.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I don't see that as an accurate portrayal at all.

I'm sure it helps hinman's cause to fan the discontent, but the lack of a majority will have more to do with a poor campaign, medoicre policy, and above all bad luck on the timing.

+2

[rubecube]

Ummm...does Hinman even consider that the Conservatives are poised to lose multiple seats in B.C.? That's going to have a lot more to do with which type of government forms than what the East does.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Ummm...does Hinman even consider that the Conservatives are poised to lose multiple seats in B.C.? That's going to have a lot more to do with which type of government forms than what the East does.

Where does it say he is making any predictions?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I'm sure it helps hinman's cause to fan the discontent,

How so?

but the lack of a majority will have more to do with a poor campaign, medoicre policy, and above all bad luck on the timing.

Yup that pretty much sums it up, except it wasn't bad luck on Hapers part....he pretty much choose the timing.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by First Lady

How so?

If you're looking to attract disenchanted right wingers, as the article suggests, it helps if more are disenchanted, no?

Yup that pretty much sums it up, except it wasn't bad luck on Hapers part....he pretty much choose the timing.

You figure he saw the financial crisis boiling over in October? I don't give him that much credit.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

If you're looking to attract disenchanted right wingers, as the article suggests, it helps if more are disenchanted, no?

We already attract them. A few because of the weak backbone of past and current PC governments. Seldom do we get new members due to discontent with Harper.

We are not a separatist party and to suggest we are fanning separation does not make any sense.

You figure he saw the financial crisis boiling over in October? I don't give him that much credit.

Where did I say that???
He could have continued governing and stuck with his "fixed election" dates. Instead he staged meetings with the other leaders and came out saying "government could not function...let's go to the polls"... (that's paraphrased obviously). That's all I was referring too; he should have stuck it out longer and let the other prove in the House that it was non-functional. IMO

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by First Lady

We already attract them. A few because of the weak backbone of past and current PC governments. Seldom do we get new members due to discontent with Harper.

We are not a separatist party and to suggest we are fanning separation does not make any sense.

Honestly i think you're being a tad defensive. I didn't suggest anything about separation and didn't mean to equate the two.

Where did I say that???
He could have continued governing and stuck with his "fixed election" dates. Instead he staged meetings with the other leaders and came out saying "government could not function...let's go to the polls"... (that's paraphrased obviously). That's all I was referring too; he should have stuck it out longer and let the other prove in the House that it was non-functional. IMO

No argument here. The bad luck i was referring to was the market meltdown. The rest I agree is of his own doing, for better or worse.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Honestly i think you're being a tad defensive.

Not defensive, just looking for clarification.

I didn't suggest anything about separation and didn't mean to equate the two.

The article has "western alienation" in the sub-title and is basically about separation.
So I am still not clear on what you meant by your statement; "it helps Hinmans cause to fan discontent".

How is he fanning discontent and how will it help the cause?

[Resolute 14]

Hinman doesn't give the voters in his own backyard enough credit. If Harper does not win a majority, and he wont, we aren't going to get pissed off at the East for not supporting the Conservatives. We know full well how the vote is shaping up and why.

Alienation is not going to occur because of how the east votes. It will occur because of how the ruling party treats us, especially if it is based in the East. Alienation/Separatism reached it's peak when Trudeau sold Alberta out to subsidize Ontario. Putting aside the NDP, who will never form a government, only the Liberal's carbon scam poses the threat of increasing alienation, and that likely won't touch what the NEP did.

Hinman is way overblowing a non-existent possibility.

[Slava]

I don't buy the entire western alienation bit for a second. Its Alberta alienation really...Saskatchewan and BC have no problems electing MP's from the governing party.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hinman is way overblowing a non-existent possibility.

Paul referred to it as a little family feud.

Actually not unlike what has happened in the past when Klien has had to do some saber rattling..

Now if you were to say the writer of the entire article is overblowing it; I agree completely.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Where does it say he is making any predictions?

That's not really what I was getting at. My point was you can't really call something "Western alienation" when it's specific to one province. The East has no bearing on how B.C. or Saskatchewan vote. We all know how the East is going to vote. A majority most likely hinges on how B.C., Saskatchewan and even Manitoba vote. So the cries of Western alienation are a bit absurd.

[KTown]

Separation brings positives and negatives to me. Here is one of each
Positive.
I wouldn't mind having all our oil and gas money stay in Alberta, if it means we get more in services.
Negative.
Without oil and gas whenever its gone or not being used for whatever reason, for our kids, grand kids and great grand kids as we pass on, really how powerful are we?