Project Alberta

Looks like the Wildrose Alliance is against this, as well - which I don't find the least bit ironic, considering that there's a good number of Wildrose Alliance (and Ted Morton) supporters who are unabashed federal Conservative Party cheerleaders. I don't know, but it might be difficult reconciling a stance against a policy (or, a number of policies) on the provincial side, then voting for the party enacting those policies on the Federal side. No?

I saw this same kind of disconnect when talking to folks about the Party of Alberta, back in 2007. I met a number of them - folks who, I figured, would be all for Alberta asserting its own interests in every arena, as their politics on the provincial side of things made it seem that they were sympathetic to Alberta 'standing on its own.'

In the end, the ones willing to forswear the federal Tories and Stephen Harper were few and far between.

I can understand why Harper has so much support. The West is under constant attack from the East and that is only getting worst as the West grows in power.

To be fair to the East they believe they are Canada, and heck why not they were Canada at one time. They only set up the West to support them, to supply them with grain, money, and a connection to the Pacific to hold off the Yanks.

Now they see a West that is large, powerful and very different from them. They fear being ruled as they have ruled us.

It is this regional divide that gives Harper such solid support. We know he is not representing us as he should. He is doing a much better job of representing regions that did not vote for him, Quebec for example. He stands up for Quebec being a Nation but allows Quebec and Ontario to bash Alberta at every turn.

But what are the options? If an Albertan votes Liberal or NDP they are slashing their own throat.

Of course provincially that is not the case. We should vote for the party working for Alberta but that is still not the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP.

Is it the Wildrose Alliance? I'm not so sure about that. I do not see them saying they are going to opt out of Federal Programs, or demand representation for the money we send to Ottawa or cut off transfer payments. Are they the best option when it comes to the Federal relationship and programs like this single national regulator?

Maybe but I haven't heard about their vision for Canada or how Alberta fits into that vision.

So I'm thinking Harper is it and we better hope he does well. Worst case is to have another Liberal Federal government dependent on NDP and/or Bloc support. In that scenario Alberta and Canada lose big time.

I wouldn't trush Morton to defend Alberta against a pomegranate, let alone Ottawa. His position in the Stelmach gov't is out of appeasement by Soft Ed, not out of Morton's 'expertise' in anything.

In federal politics, the short answer is that there aren't any. Well, none with broad appeal to Albertans, anyway. But, the NDP and Liberals - disagree with them, or not - do appeal to a slice of Albertans in a handful of ridings, and do occasionally win a seat or two (largely in Edmonton). I have no problem with that; Alberta politics would be even more stagnant than it is, already, if it didn't have those differences of opinion -- the province would arguably be worse off if it was just an echo chamber.

Interestingly, protest votes seem to increasingly go to the Green Party - and the numbers bear that out. They're the only federal party which actually had more Albertans vote for them in 2008 as compared to 2006, even as overall voter turnout decreased.

But that's going further off-topic, again...


If I didn't know any better, I might say that it looks as though Morton is being positioned should Stelmach resign... which is more likely to happen if it looks like the PCs may lose to a surging opposition in an upcoming election (Read: Don Getty). Back then, Laurence Decore had Getty's number, and was making traction with his talk about deficit reduction. And, that suitcase debt clock was a great prop.

But that sort of shell game switcheroo is exactly the sort of tactic that's paid big dividends before for the PCs. Like Decore was with Klein, it'd be more difficult for Danielle Smith to make traction if she is talking the same line as the leader of the incumbant PCs; worse, if she starts pushing any identifiable tenets of the "Firewall Letter" as policy in an election against one of the people who, you know, actually signed his name to it.

Don't claim to know how that'll turn out. And, I'm just thinking out loud.

That would be a good show, though.

There is indeed a trap being laid, but it can be seen. The Wildrose folks can see it too, and they just have to avoid it.