Herald Column: A Hollow Victory for "Progressive" Voters?

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the impact strategic voting had on the Alberta election results, and what those progressive voters who went with the Tories have wrought:

For an election that was ostensibly about change, the final outcome bears a striking resemblance to the status quo.
To suggest that a 12th straight Tory majority represents a change, is to stretch the word to the most outer limits of any acceptable definition.
That’s not to say things haven’t changed here in Alberta, however, as for the first time, the governing Tories now face a strong opposition from a small-c conservative party.
In that sense, perhaps, one could argue that the only voters who truly embraced chance were small-c conservatives.
In its own way, the manner in which yet another Tory majority was orchestrated represented a significant change.
For years, the success of the Progressive Conservative political machine was due to the fact that it had built and maintained a big tent — one that encompassed centre-right and right-wing voters.
The ascension of Alison Redford as Tory leader and the accompanying rise of the Wildrose Party seemed to indicate that the big tent was collapsing.   Polls during the election campaign appeared to be further confirmation that the secret to the Tories’ success lay in tatters and that, in fact, the end to their lengthy reign was at hand.
Clearly that was not the case.
But salvation for the Tories seemed to come from an unlikely source: left-of-centre voters.   For years, these same progressives were most vocal in their insistence that the Tory dynasty needed to end, that one-party dominance was bad for democracy, and that something new was needed on the left side of the political spectrum to bring about political renewal in Alberta.
As it turned out, all it took was a slightly left-of-centre Tory leader.
In her campaign for the PC leadership, Redford successfully reached out to those left-of-centre voters who were not typically those to ever show an inclination to take out a Tory membership.  As premier, Redford emphasized, in both word and deed, the progressive in Progressive Conservative. Her campaign was very much in keeping with that, especially her declaration in the closing days of the election that her party had more in common with the Liberals and NDP than it did with the Wildrose Party.
Certainly, Liberal voters seemed to share the sentiment. The Liberal vote collapsed from 27 per cent in 2008 to less than 10 per cent on Monday.
But it wasn’t just Redford’s apparent progressive bona fides that sealed the deal for the PCs, but also the fact that a real fear existed among many progressive voters that the Wildrose Party might in fact form government.
Those fears crystallized after controversial remarks from two Wildrose candidates, which made some wonder just how far right the Wildrose Party really was.
Therein may lay the explanation as to why the polls were so off. Rather than the polls merely being a reflection of how people might vote, the polls were certainly a major factor in how people voted.
And while now progressives can breathe a sigh of relief that they helped to deny victory to the Wildrose, what are they left with beyond that? Will this prove to be a pyrrhic victory for them?
There will be little cause for complaint. We know what Tory governance looks like. If four more years brings four more years of corruption and intimidation, these new supporters of the PCs can hardly claim they didn’t vote for that. You did.
It’s hard to see how rewarding the Tories with another large majority is going to send them a message that they need to change their ways.
Moreover, this election represents a major setback for the other left-wing parties. The NDP did slightly increase their seat count, but the Liberals took a big hit. The Alberta Party is going nowhere.
Ironically, a Wildrose victory would have been a boon to the political left.
Now, if the Wildrose can maintain themselves as a strong conservative alternative to the Tories, that further entrenches the PC party on the centre-left.
Progressive voters may have opted for the devil they know, but it’s a pact with the devil nonetheless. Steering the Tory dynasty slightly to the left would appear to be the best the left in Alberta can ever hope for.

Herald Column: Nothing to Fear from Direct Democracy

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at whether a call for citizen-intiated referendums is anything to be fearful of:

With the growing possibility that the Tories could be defeated on April 23, it’s to be expected that questions would arise as to what we might expect from those who could form the next government. 
As polls have shown the Wildrose surging, the focus has shifted to what exactly the party represents and what sorts of policies it might implement.
But those who would criticize the policies of the Wildrose should be careful about casting aspersions on the people of this province.
Certainly for the beleaguered Tories, the opportunity to shift attention away from their own record is a welcome one, and they’ve certainly done their part to help strike an ominous tone to the questions being raised around Wildrose policy.
Premier Alison Redford, for example, spoke last week of how she was “frightened” by the Wildrose policy on “conscience rights”. Presumably, however, Redford is aware of the fact that one of her most senior cabinet ministers once attempted to legislate “conscience rights”, and I see no indication that Redford is fearful of Ted Morton.
Perhaps what the Premier most fears is not the Wildrose Party itself, but rather the prospect of losing to them.
It is certainly fair game to question the idea of “conscience rights.” Last year, for example, Saskatchewan’s highest court ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to provide that service to gay couples. So that issue is likely a non-starter, as it should be.   The “conscience rights” controversy, though, has morphed into a broader controversy about Wildrose policy, and that has drawn in the issue of citizen-initiated referendum.   It is certainly worth noting that this is a power available to voters next door in B.C. Whether the Wildrose proposal would mirror B.C.’s remains to be seen, but the question of what such a law might lead to needn’t be hypothetical.
B.C. voters have, for example, forced a vote on the province’s HST. They have not, however, forced a vote on abortion. 
To then turn a debate over direct democracy into a debate over abortion is unfortunate and more than a little disingenuous.  A question of delisting abortion could theoretically arise, but so, too, could many other issues. In terms of what might arise as a ballot question — and what might actually be approved by voters — speaks not to the views of one specific party but rather to the concerns and values of Albertans as a whole.
Adding fuel to this fire, however, was a response from a Wildrose representative to a specific question from a Calgary blogger about access to abortion and coverage of abortion. 
Jeff Trynchy, identified as the chief administrative officer for the Wildrose Party, responded that “the legalities of abortion fall under federal jurisdiction. We respect that Albertans view social issues differently, which is why Wildrose would immediately introduce legislation allowing citizens to put issues like abortion to a citizen initiated referendum. “
The Wildrose Party has sought to further clarify the matter by issuing a statement declaring that they have “absolutely no intentions of legislating on abortion, and that includes delisting.”
Nonetheless, Wildrose leader Danielle Smith has been pressured to explain her position on delisting abortion, but just how many hypothetical referendum questions should Smith have to take a stand on? 
The Wildrose statement also notes that “any initiative must first be vetted by a federally appointed judge to determine whether or not it is constitutional.”
That’s important to note, because basic rights should never be subjected to popular votes. That might need to be pointed out to the Wildrose candidate in Barrhead-Westlock-Morinville, who thinks the Morinville school question and the rights of non-Catholics should be subject to a plebiscite.
Direct democracy already exists at the municipal level, as plebiscites can be triggered if enough signatures are gathered in a specific time frame. There’s no reason we should be fearful of applying that principle at the provincial level to the very same voters.
The notion that we must take citizen-initiated referendum off the table because of potentially uncomfortable questions and debates is absurd. The notion that the idea must be off the table to protect us from ourselves is an egregious insult.