This week in AB: June 22, 2025

Heard:

The Strategists: Toddler in a grocery store; Zain Velji hosts Stephen Carter and Shannon Phillips for some spicy words on Federal NDP, G7, and Pierre Poilievre’s January leadership review.

The Line: Where’s Nenshi? Jen Gerson talks with Dave Cournoyer about Alberta by-elections, separatism, Dodgy Contracts, and Naheed Nenshi

CBC Front Burner: In search of separatists in Alberta; Jayme Poisson with Jason Markusoff making the rounds to talk with folks in Three Hills.

Alberta

Expanding the buffer zone between hospitals and elected officials

It’s not my most charitable take, to be sure, but moving to “hospital-based leadership” that is still under the purview of AHS certainly allows the Premier and four of her ministers to yell “not it!” when healthcare troubles that have dogged the system for decades remain. The expectation that Danielle Smith would, let alone could, fix healthcare in 90 days of being elected Premier in October of 2022 is long forgotten (it’s been almost 10X that now, at 998 days) as the “bureaucratic vortex” that was envisioned as an arm’s length entity free from political interference is instead sandwiched in between the face of the problem and those faced by Albertans trying to access care. Essentially, it provides a revolving door for potential scapegoats when election time is near.

Revenge of the anti-vaxxers

Danielle Smith’s government also announced that the pro-vaccination people will now have to pay to protect themselves from unwanted side-effects of Covid. After two years of silence from AHS, and the Chief Medical Officer of Health, as Ms. Smith’s caucus actively promoting vaccine hesitancy, the Premier said that too many doses of the vaccine went unused. Almost as if the government had previously undertaken seasonal vaccine campaigns for a reason. Anyway, expected outcome received and now they get to justify their response.

Big test for Nenshi’s NDP

Three by-elections, Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, Edmonton-Ellerslie, and Edmonton-Strathcona are going to be decided on Monday, June 23, and the political watchers are on the edge of their seats because the stakes are high for the parties.

Political change isn’t always clear in by-election results. In the 31 by-elections held in the last 50 years, only five have resulted in the election of a candidate from a different party than previously held the riding. But who wins isn’t always the most interesting thing about by-elections.
Dave Cournoyer, Daveberta, June 19, 2025

By-elections are weird because voter turnout is typically low and because of that, strange things can happen, even if they normally don’t. Personally, I’m not overly concerned about the grotesquely named “Republican” party making much headway. The governing UCP under Danielle Smith’s leadership has spent much of the year thus far pandering to their demands, and Ms. Smith herself has gone far, far out of her way to align herself with the U.S. over Canada, taking much of the wind that would power Cameron Davies’ sails.

There’s not much reason for them to be angry with the UCP, or in need of “sending the party a message”, and Edmonton-Strathcona should remain as safe for the NDP as the rural riding is for the UCP.

The toss-up, based on some recent provincial polling that showed the UCP closing the gap in Edmonton by Janet Brown Opinion Research, is the third seat up for grabs: Edmonton-Ellerslie.

So it’s said here, if the NDP loses in Edmonton-Ellerslie, or even if it wins but narrowly, the knives will be out for Mr. Nenshi in the caucus and the party. Metaphorically speaking of course, this being the NDP we’re talking about.
David Climenhaga, Alberta Politics, June 17, 2025

Politics is about story-telling. It’s about setting expectations that you can easily exceed (think Danielle Smith promising to fire Dr. Deena Hinshaw and the AHS board if elected) and your opponent never can (Danielle Smith saying it’s up to Mark Carney to change how Alberta feels about Ottawa after almost a century of malcontents using the feds as a scapegoat for their own failings). It’s about building narratives that put yourself in the best light and your opponent in the worst.

It’s also about staying within a sweet spot between fact and fiction.

That’s why Edmonton-Ellerslie is so important: a win for the NDP allows them to hold their heads high, even if it doesn’t necessarily give them bragging rights. They’ve held Ellerslie for three elections over ten years now, so, while a win may not put them ahead, it doesn’t set them back — just like a loss in rural doesn’t set them back because they were never expected to win.

The UCP can’t brag about winning in rural, or claim they are shooting down separatist sentiment with that win because the separatists are too strong within the UCP itself. They aren’t expected to win in Strathcona, which has been a stronghold since 2008. A win in Ellerslie, however, would allow them to change the narrative and give them two years to tell a different story about the political landscape in Alberta.

It wouldn’t matter that, as Dave Cournoyer points out, most of the by-elections that went strange over the years didn’t amount to a win in the following general election; the UCP is the governing party and has a leader who is very skilled at being the centre of attention — for good or ill. A loss for the NDP in Edmonton would make for a hellish two years of trying to change that narrative and it’s not something that could be easily done because the fact would be that they lost a seat.

To be fair, if the NDP took a seat in rural, it would boost their fortunes just as much; so long as they played the Jason Kenney game of “staying humble”. I’m not saying there’s a chance, but this is a riding that has elected both a Liberal and a separatist in past by-elections; they’re strange things sometimes.

Of note:

There’s been a slight change in some of the language Ms. Smith is using in her communications. Communications professionals in particular know that language matters and there are few accidents in how they choose to use it. There is also a psychological aspect to the language we choose; simple word choices that a writer uses to subtly convey a particular sentiment. It’s like how you might write “government investment” if you agree with it, or “government spending” and “government waste” if you don’t. It’s a simple change that is meant to convey the author’s feelings without having to say “I don’t/do agree with this”.

I’m an odd person who loves sifting through political drama; you’re probably someone who wants to have time to do other things. Consider becoming a paid subscriber :)