25 Years Later, It’s Still Brian’s World

25 years ago today, Brian Mulroney was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada. His reign as Prime Minister began with an election landslide where his party won more seats than any before or since. Less than 9 years later, his reign ended with him earning among the lowest approval ratings for any Prime Minister. Months later, his party was decimated in the general election, and barely recovered in the next decade before merging with the Canadian Alliance.

After leaving office with an approval rating of around 20% (doubling his number from a few months prior), and seeing his party reduced from a majority government to 2 seats in an election, you might think we’d have heard the last of Prime Minister Mulroney. You’d be wrong, and I’m not talking about any inquiries that have come before Parliament. Brian Mulroney is still with us, because in many ways, the major issues of his tenure still define us politically.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbanmixer/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

The GST: Good Economics, Bad Politics
In its second term, Mulroney’s government brought in the GST, replacing the old tax on manufacturers. Economics like this, regular citizens generally don’t. Sales taxes still come up. Talk of harmonizing provincial and federal sales taxes still draws controversy, and in 2006 the Conservative Party made rolling back the GST from 7% to 5% a centerpiece of its campaign.

Free Trade
The Mulroney government brought forward the FTA, which became the focal point of the 1988 election. Before leaving office, Mulroney signed on to NAFTA. Though the Liberals campaigned against NAFTA in 1993, they accepted it once in office. Trade issues still come up – see the concerns about the ‘Buy American’ push from our neighbour to the south, and concerns about a proposed free trade deal with Colombia. That is, of course, to say nothing about buy local and local food movements. We’re still trying to feel our way around the issue of free trade, with no resolution in sight.

Refoooorm and the Divided Right
His decision to award the CF-18 contract to a Quebec company instead of the Manitoba one that submitted a superior bid provided the spark for the Reform Party to coalesce. The ballooning deficits of his government helped give the Reform Party its defining issue in its early years.

Maybe a Reform Party would have emerged regardless, but undeniably the Mulroney government’s actions helped bring about its relevance and success. The red tories and their more conservative brethren split ways, a major cause of the right’s decade in the wilderness from the mid-90’s through the mid-00s. Though the PCs and the Canadian Alliance (successor to the Reform Party) united under the banner of the Conservative Party in Canada in 2003, there is still a divide within the party, one that could be exposed and potentially exacerbated whenever the next leadership contest is held.

Québec
We end with the big one. First, the Mulroney government ended the Liberal party dominance in la belle province that began with Laurier. For 90 years, the Liberals could almost invariably count on winning a massive majority in Quebec, helping it form a string of majority governments, and in later years, compensating for diminishing success in the west. Once the Quebec stranglehold was broken, the Liberal path to victory – especially a majority government – became significantly more challenging. The vote splitting that allowed them to win near sweeps of Ontario in 1993, 1997, and 2000 masked this for a while, but with a united Conservative Party, there is no longer a clear path to a majority government for the Liberal Party. As long as the sovereigntists and soft nationalists are voting (be it for the PCs or the BQ), success in Quebec is far from a sure thing. After the 1980 election, the Liberals have won more than 26 of the 75 Quebec seats only once – winning 36 in 2000. In most of the elections, they’ve hovered around 20 seats. Suffice to say, Mulroney brought about a significant realignment of politics at the federal level in Quebec, first through his push for support, then through the emergence of the Bloc Quebecois in response to the failed renegotiation of the constitution that he initiated.

Which brings us to the issue of Quebec sovereignty, nationalism, and national unity. Now, you might point out that Québec Nationalism has ebbed and flowed since at least the time of Honoré Mercier (great-grandfather of NDP MP Thomas Mulcair!), and you’d be correct. It very likely could have ebbed again in the 1990s, but Mulroney’s actions certainly brought it on and exacerbated tensions. He also brought Lucien Bouchard, his old law school classmate, into government. Bouchard became the charismatic leader of the sovereignty movement, and nearly succeeded in winning the 1995 referendum.

While support for sovereignty has waned since then, the struggle to define Quebec’s place in confederation still confounds federal politicians (see Harper’s attempt to solve the fiscal imbalance, and the debate surrounding the idea of Quebec as a nation).

Do We Owe These Issues to Mulroney, or Was He Simply in Power at the Right Time?
This is a fascinating question that deserves a lengthy essay at the least, if not a full book. It’s difficult to answer, particularly since in many ways the answer depends on examining the alternatives – namely, what would a Joe Clark, John Crosbie, John Turner, or Ed Broadbent government have looked like in the 1980s and early 1990s?

Perhaps we can agree on this. When Mulroney came into office, the only organized western protest movement – the Western Canada Concept – was effectively a failed project. Quebec sovereignty was on the wane, and within the PQ there was debate about how much emphasis to put on the issue. Canadians had just gone through a long, divisive process of hammering out a Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quebec didn’t sign on, but it didn’t appear to be a sticking point in any upcoming elections.

When he left office, an upstart western protest movement was squeezing his party out of the prairies; a sovereigntist caucus had emerged in parliament, led by his former Quebec lieutenant. Two rounds of constitutional debates had inflamed passions and hard feelings across the country. The GST and free trade, already in place, remained contentious issues.

What is undeniable is this: on two fronts – western alienation and Quebec nationalism/sovereignty – Mulroney’s actions made situations significantly worse. His constitutional dalliances brought the country to the brink of separation. He left office with most of the issues he took on unresolved and continuing to fester.

That being said, the economy likely would have struggled through most of the next 10 years, regardless of who was in power. Starting in the 1980s, and accelerating in the 1990s, the worldwide community moved towards greater economic integration. Free(er) trade likely would have happened at some point, and the 1990s were a fiscally conservative time worldwide – even without Reform, the PC Party likely would have veered right – as it did provincially in Alberta and Ontario.

16 years after he left office, we’re still dealing with the issues brought about by 9 years of government led by Brian Mulroney. As we head for the 8th election since his landslide, there are no signs of this abating any time soon. The Mulroney government and the issues of his tenure stay with us, even as the man at the centre of that period recedes from public life.

Calgary Goes Wild(rose)

I predicted a Tory romp in today’s Calgary-Glenmore by-election. I was very wrong.

We can call this race for the Wildrose Alliance Party.

As I write this, 58 of 66 polls are in. Paul Hinman of the Wildrose Alliance Party holds the lead with 37% of the vote. Avalon Roberts of the Liberals is in second place with 34%, and Diane Colley-Urquhart, the Tory candidate, is in 3rd with 25% of the vote. The vote share of those three candidates hasn’t budged more than a percent or two either way for most of the night.

By-elections are, at best, a snapshot of the voters’ mood at a given time. They aren’t predictors of how the electorate will vote in a general election – when more voters are tuned in and will turn out to vote.

Still, this is bad for the Tories. The Wildrose Alliance ran with the slogan “Send Ed A Message”, and voters seem to have responded. The voter turnout will be in the mid 30s, below the 45% achieved in the 2008 general election. In that election, the Tories ran veteran MLA and Minister of Justice Ron Stevens, who earned 50% of the vote. The second place finisher, Avalon Roberts of the Liberals, earned 33% – right about where she is in the polls right now. The Wildrose Alliance earned 8% of the vote. They’ve gained about 30% tonight, while Tory support is down 25%, or half their vote share. For reference, the 2007 Calgary-Elbow by-election saw a vote shift of +9 for the Liberals, and -13 for the Tories.

What hurts is that the Tories weren’t putting forward a run of the mill candidate. Diane Colley-Urquhart, a 9-year veteran of Calgary City Council, carried the banner for them this election. The Alliance candidate, Paul Hinman, had some profile, having served as MLA for Cardston-Taber-Warner from 2004-2008, and as Alberta Alliance/Wildrose Alliance party leader for that same time. Yet, he had no roots in the riding. The vote is a rebuke to the Tories, there’s no way around it.

We are likely 2 1/2 years away from the next general election, but the signal that Calgarians will stay home or vote for another party is strong and clear. With the right leader and message, they might be willing to take the leap in a general election, when the stakes are higher.

This result is also potentially good news for the Wildrose Alliance. Having elected an MLA through a by-election, they are in a stronger position to argue for a spot in the leadership debate come general election time.

This could be the first sign of a shift in Alberta politics, or it could be a historical footnote, like the by-elections in Olds-Didsbury in 1982, or in Calgary-Elbow in 2007. In any case, politics in Alberta is suddenly more interesting than it was when we woke up this morning. It’s also likely a more competitive political realm, which is a positive thing regardless of your beliefs.

Note: I’ll add more over the next day or so.

Update: Some Tuesday morning thoughts.
– In the original post, I projected turnout in the mid-30s. It ended up being 40.5%, not far off the turnouts from 2004 and 2008 (48% and 45%, respectively).
– There is good coverage of the by-election and its potential ramifications all over the web. I recommend checking out what Chris LaBossiere, Ken Chapman, Trish Audette, Calgary Grit, and Graham Thompson have to say about it. Tuesday afternoon update: Daveberta weighs in too.

In addition to the benefits to the WRA mentioned earlier, winning an urban riding such as Calgary-Glenmore is a huge boost to the party as well. Having won in Calgary now in addition to previously winning (and coming a close second) in a rural riding makes it harder for critics to portray the party as outside the mainstream. If you look at the demographics of Glenmore, it looks fairly close to those of Alberta (perhaps only its higher proportion of immigrants would be different), leading to a good argument that it can be considered, in general, a bellwether riding.

Finally, we should remember the psychological boost this gives to the Alliance heading into their leadership race. Having won a by-electio, they can demonstrate a payoff to both volunteers and donors, which will help them earn a continuing commitment from both groups.

Most of the talk about the by-election has focused on how its bad for the Tories. It’s also bad for the Liberals. Their vote share, dropped slightly from 2008, which dropped slightly from 2004. In effect, they’re stuck in neutral in this riding. They’ve fielded the same candidate three times in a row now, and in the most recent one the party was led by a Calgarian. This hasn’t made an impact at all. If the party wants to move beyond the status of token opposition, and be a credible challenge to the government, they have to be able to win ridings like this one.

Beyond the Liberal Party, this result is bad for all left-centre/progressive minded people. An upstart, leaderless right of centre party just won a seat, boosting their vote share by 30% over the general election in Calgary-Glenmore. Since the 2008 election, people on the left have spent a lot of time navel gazing about mergers, co-operation, as well as party name changes and forming new parties. Nothing has come out of this so far, save for the Democratic Renewal Project, which was overwhelmingly rejected at this past weekend’s NDP convention.

With a fresh threat attacking the Tories from the right, the Liberals, NDP, and all progressive/left-centre voices need to get their act in order quickly or risk being drowned out of the public debate. If there’s a lesson to be learned from the Wildrose Alliance victory, it’s that campaigning hard and finding a message that appeals to voters is more important than cosmetic things like party names.

Smith Shines: Wildrose Alliance Forum in Review

Last night, the Wildrose Alliance Party held a leadership forum in Edmonton. Being a follower of politics, and particularly interested in the candidacy of Danielle Smith, I had to check it out. You can see my photo gallery here, and read my thoughts below.

The forum was held at the Four Points Sheraton on Argyll Road, not the most central location, but a decent-sized venue for the crowd. To my surprise, the ballroom was pretty full, attracting around 175 people in my estimation. There was a decent mix of ages, thought it was skewed towards older demographics. I was told that many in the audience are veterans of the Reform/Canadian Alliance party, which wouldn’t be a surprise.

Three candidates are running for the leadership – Danielle Smith, who I have written about previously, the former columnist and Alberta director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Mark Dyrholm, a chiropractor and party activist, and Jeff Willerton, a self-published author and activist.

The candidates were each given 10-minute introductory speeches, then the moderator asked questions submitted in writing from the audience. The candidates closed with 5-10 minute statements.

Here are my impressions of the three candidates:

Jeff Willerton is entertaining. I mean this both in the sense that he’s funny on the stump and in that made some outlandish statements and proposed some of the most off the wall ideas I’ve heard. Notably, he referred to the federal Liberals as a “rotten octopus” that wants to have their “sticky liberal tentacles in our pockets”. He then stated that if he were Premier, he would introduce a law that would require a vote on separation within 6 months of the election of a federal Liberal government. But don’t worry, he assured that he wasn’t a separatist. Rather, limited government is the objective, but he claims it’s not possible with the Liberal government. So to recap, we’d have a referendum on separation every time the federal Liberals won an election, but we don’t really want to separate. Got it? Let’s move on.

Mark Dyrholm definitely has a place in the Wildrose Alliance Party. But if it’s as leader, the party isn’t going anywhere. Dyrholm was short on what he supports, besides the standard Reform Party Democratic Reform package, and the abolishment of the Human Rights Commission (or at least Section 3), and the Court Challenges program. He did make thoughtful statements on the challenges of health care funding (pointing to cost containment as the end goal), and Carbon Capture and Storage, arguing that spending $2 billion on it while the government runs a deficit is irresponsible, and going as far as calling the whole project “junk science”.

That said, he’s not leadership material for a party that wants to contend for government. He’s too narrowly focused on the issues that defined the Reform Party movement, and won’t appeal to very many people outside the core Alliance base. He does have extensive experience as an organizer, serving as president of his Canadian Alliance riding association, on his provincial PC riding board, and having worked on 15 campaigns. He’d likely be an asset for the party as an organizer or in a leadership role in the party structure.

Danielle Smith was head and shoulders above her opponents. For one, she actually spent more time talking about policy and her values than bashing the Tories or federal Liberals. She identified key issues (health care, the environment – particularly how Alberta is perceived on the issue, and investor confidence). She sold her experience well, talking about past dealings with the media, and her conviction in her beliefs, and how they would be assets in an election campaign. While Willerton and Dyrholm spouted dated rhetoric about big bad Liberals, Smith focused on nuanced criticisms of government, and ideas about how to do better. She’s done her homework on issues such as health care – she used an analogy of charter schools to talk about how you could reform health care while respecting the Canadian Health Act and preserving the public element. There were moments when she pandered to the audience (talking about elected judges, and how the pro-life voice has been muted in the public debate, for example), but by and large she was thoughtful and articulate.

In her closing statement, Smith talked about values, echoing many of the themes in her speech to the WRA convention in June. It was an articulate message that connected with the audience – she received the biggest applause by far. She seemed to belong on a bigger stage than her competitors.

Will she win the leadership race? I have no idea. But I maintain she is the only one in the field who can take the Wildrose Alliance beyond the status of a fringe right-wing party. Unlike her opponents and many in the audience, she seems to be looking to the future, rather than living in a past of Liberal bogeyman and Reform patriots. Her challenge, if she wins the leadership, will be crafting a party that can appeal to a cross-section of Albertans. She’ll need good candidates around her, and a good team that can communicate a positive vision and message.

I agree with Dave that she could be a game-changer. In a debate with Messrs Stelmach, Swann, and Mason, she could very easily stand out. While I’m no supporter of her or her party, I do think that a competitive, Smith-led Alliance would be good for Alberta (I’ll reserve judgment on a Smith-led Alliance government). For that reason, I wish her well and I hope she is successful in her pursuit. Having smart, articulate, competent people seeking office and seriously debating issues is a good thing, regardless of whether they’re left, right, or centre.