This week in AB
Accountability politics
Bill 20 fanned the flames of WTF is going on in Alberta, but adding some delightful hypocrisy as some much-needed comic relief.
Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver spoke to reporters about the Bill this week, which codifies the ability of the provincial government to remove municipal councillors or mayors outside of an election. In response to a question about accountability — since Cabinet discussions happen behind closed doors, rather than in public — McIver said, “I believe the most important and legitimate guardrail is that the announcement will have to be made publicly, and the public — both directly and through the media — will say ‘how did you come to this deliberation?’ and I hope you will agree that if the public says cabinet made a flippant decision, or one that the public thinks it’s, as you called it a ‘witch hunt’, or that it’s an unreasonable, selfish, partisan decision, I think that the cabinet would be at great risk of being held accountable at the next general election and it may cost cabinet dearly. And I think that’s a pretty big guardrail.”
Mkay.
What media, pray tell, will “the public” be able to reach this government through? Do they have to reach out to David Parker’s spousal unit directly, or will an actual “paper of record” suffice?
McIver wants us to believe the UCP will tell us how they came to their decision? The same government that has simply refused to answer questions, or fulfill FOIP requests?
The UCP has taken it upon themselves to act as judge and jury over democratically-elected municipal politicians while claiming impunity for themselves.
Cabinet, in its potentially finite wisdom, gets a free pass for four years, but if that same Cabinet decides that democratically elected municipal officials are not making the “right” decisions, they can be removed regardless of whether a majority of voters intended for them to show up and make those decisions on their behalf.
It’s laughable, certainly, but it stopped being funny when they said our votes no longer matter.
Speaking of the UCP ignoring the will of Albertans…
Calgary and Edmonton will be piloting municipal parties in the 2025 election, despite the fact that around 70 per cent of Albertans have said they do not want parties at the municipal level. Despite the fact that the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association has said their members do not want parties at the municipal level.
We can hold them accountable in 2027, right?
One conservative partisan showed up in my mentions asking why we couldn’t talk about what was “good” about the proposed legislation. Funnily enough, most people don’t have a problem with “good” legislation — myself being one.
After some back and forth, he eventually got around to saying that he wanted to know “which party” a Calgary group would align itself with, which speaks to this hope that a voter will be able to blindly follow a party over having to look at the individual campaigns of each candidate.
Municipal parties, however, don’t currently work that way.
British Columbia uses municipal parties and had their most recent election in 2022. In Vancouver, the parties were called: ABC Vancouver, Forward Together, TEAM for a livable Vancouver, Progress Vancouver, and NPA (No Political Affiliation).
In Surrey, the parties were called: Surrey Connect, Surrey First, Safe Surrey Coalition, Surrey Forward, United Surrey, and People’s Council Surrey.
Maybe some could tell who these “parties” aligned with, but I couldn’t be certain without seeking as much information as I normally would during a municipal election.
Albertans, in some people’s estimation, would vote “better” in municipal elections if they were just spoon-fed the recognizably conservative option. I’m not saying they’re wrong — it is entirely possible that more people who don’t have even the slightest clue about what any of the obligations of these different levels of government are would appreciate being told who they should vote for.
Aside from “Alberta United”, municipal parties generally try to showcase their intention for the municipality — not some desperately needy, salivating municipal lapdog of the provincial and/or federal government.
McIver said there will be no affiliates of provincial or federal parties at the municipal level, but Alberta United, which has been setting up boards and constituency-like associations around the province, claims that it is not in competition with either the provincial or federal parties as it supports both Danielle Smith and her UCP, as well as Pierre Poilievre and his CPC.
So, like the provincial and federal parties, they won’t have any “constitutional” obligations to one another, but they might show up at each other’s events.
The first NDP leadership debate was… interesting
I attended a watch party online on the Strategists Discord server. It was a great group because we had someone from one of the 'traditional NDP candidate’s campaigns, Nenshi supporters, longer term NDP supporters, and a disaffected conservative or two.
Overall, the consensus was that Sarah Hoffman came off as antagonistic and “more deserving” — in union-speak — as in deserving because of her seniority, rather than any other reason; people warmed to Gil McGowan’s “average Joe” personality and were sympathetic that he kept getting stomped on by the moderator for talking over time; Jodi Calahoo-Stonehouse wowed everyone with her easy and direct speaking style, humour, and her quick and knowledgeable responses; Kathleen Ganley delivered what everyone expected her to — not really a “wow”, but not a bad performance; and Nenshi didn’t lose, but “snarky Nenshi” was off-putting in that setting.
I’ve watched leadership races for a few years now, and this is not the first time I’ve seen long-time members go after the perceived front-runner, who also happens to be viewed as “an outsider”. That other race was the Alberta PC leadership that spanned the fall of 2016 into March of 2017.
Back then, Kenney’s argument was basically that squabbling over small differences in party purity — since merging the urban-palatable Progressive Conservative and rural-based Wildrose parties was a central pillar in Kenney’s campaign — was not worth another NDP win.
Despite trying to maintain some of that PC purity, the appetite for corralling the conservative vote to defeat the NDP was far stronger — at least among the politically engaged that will show up to make that change happen.
The current NDP leadership race reminds me of that PC race in a couple of ways; one: like Kenney, Nenshi’s focus is bigger than the NDP — and after only 19 months of Danielle Smith, it’s difficult to deny that the goal is compelling.
Two: the party was weak. The PCs were battered by a dismal showing in the 2015 election and was saddled with debt. Even though the NDP had their best showing since losing government in 2019, the party infrastructure had not kept pace with their opportunity to form government — and that made them vulnerable.
Now, as then, I feel for those who have an affinity for the party that goes far deeper than their ability to win an election, but, as one of my more partisan friends once said, “if you can’t win an election, what is the point of being a political party?” (Pro-life Alberta’s totally legal loophole of offering a bigger tax break to donations than they can as a charity or non-profit exempted, of course.)
There are a lot of Albertans who are unhappy with the UCP, and/or Danielle Smith — whose opportunity to continue her leadership also depends upon the outcome of the NDP’s leadership race — and if “being NDP” hasn’t brought them to the party yet, maybe this will.
Final thoughts
Women of ABpoli is a reader-powered publication. Thanks to all who support our work by reading, sharing, and becoming a free or paid subscriber — your support is greatly appreciated!
My debate takeaways from each candidate:
Hoffman - A driven hard worker much better suited to cabinet than leadership. Unwavering ideals have her determined to finish second place forever.
Ganley - Smart, capable, quick thinking, but not particularly warm or engaging. Talks a lot about policy without a lot of actual detail.
Nenshi - Wicked smart, but odd.... Clearly the most capable in navigating the economic handicap that all other candidates would face. The only one to talk about actual infrastructure to mitigate effects of climate change versus simply lowering emissions. Which is the right thing to do, but of little actual impact unless the rest of the globe does the same thing.
McGowan - More thoughtful than I thought he’d be. Claimed to “have a plan” on every issue. But a single issue pro-worker candidate would get destroyed in a general election.
Calahoo Stonehouse - We all need water. Okay. Extremely likable, but not a serious candidate.
Pancholi - Should have been there as she has more to offer than several who were actually on the stage. Dropped out way too early.