NDP Government in Alberta
- Thread starter Goffik
- Start date
If Social Credit survived a stayed strong enough, with the right vote-splits the NDP might be able to win in 1986. However, I don't think they would last that long. I imagine seeing a left-wing government come to power would cause right-wing voters to flock to whichever party (PC or Social Credit) seemed more likely to defeat them.
So, basically what happened in BC in the 1970s. However, now that the NDP have proven they can win in the province, would they have broken the "dynasty" tradition of Alberta and remain a major competitor for office?
Maybe, but Alberta is just too right-wing for the NDP to be a serious force. If it comes down to a choice between right-wing and left-wing, which I suspect would happen following an NDP victory, Alberta will always pick the right.
Well, except that in every change of governing party(ie. 1921, 1935, and 1971) voters opted for a party that was to the left of what the incumbent party had become. And the UFA, at their outset, were about as left-wing as it got as far as mainstream politics went in Canada.
A good summation of the history
But yeah. For an officially-identified left-wing party to come to power in post-1940s Alberta, is a pretty tall order. You really need to get rid of several factors, not least among them oil. Governments since then have used energy-based social spending to keep the lid on the kind of discontent which in normal circumstances would prompt a more leftward cleavage among the populace.
Last edited:
More likely a merger, the Social Conservative party was repeatedly mooted in the 1960s to keep the left out. In such a case I think it would happen.
It is a terrible summation. I disagree that the Social Credit party was to the left of the UFA. Social Credit, particularly in its early years was by any reasonable standard or definition very right wing, as the GG noted 'Its a conservative's idea of a revolution'
Taking a firmer control of the financial sector and investing heavily in domestic industry ARE hallmarks of far-right regimes, they aren't hall marks of liberal regimes, but it is a mistake to conflate neo-classical liberalism with the right wing. Some may fall under the umbrella (and that was the trajectory of the BC Socreds) but that doesn't mean they are left wing. Is the modern Alberta Social Credit party somehow in the same part of the political compass as the NDP? Not my any reasonable metric.
Isn't the NDP currently one the rise in Alberta? I thought I saw a poll suggesting they were on track to win official opposition status.
For the most part, I agree. While it can be argued that in 1935 Social Credit was had elements traditionally associated with the left-wing - it's populist appeal to farmers was very similar to that of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation - it easily took a sharp turn to the right after coming to power.
And while it is true that voters elected a slightly more left-wing government by electing the PCs, such a scenario is completely different to electing the NDP. Shifting from an arguable far-right-wing party to a right-wing party is not the same as shifting from a right-wing party to a left-wing party. It would take an enormous shift in the historic voting patterns of Albertans, to name other issues (such as its large oil industry), for the NDP to become a dominant force in Alberta.
Most polls have shown that the Liberals and NDP are both hovering in the high-teens, with the lead between the two often shifting. But even with this it would probably translate into a 12-seat or so at most official opposition (unless it's formed by Wildrose), which in an 87-seat legislature isn't saying much.
Well, this gets us into definitions of "right-wing" and "left-wing", and specifically what they mean in a statement like "Albertans will never vote for a left-wing party".
If it is meant that Albertans will never vote for an economically interventionist party, then, no, that is easily refuted by both the UFA and Social Credit governments.
Now, if you wanna say that Social Credit can't be considered left-wing(even in relative terms) because it was socially conservative and subscribed to wacko anti-semitic theories, there's a case to be made there. But then, by that reasoning, we can't say that a Red Tory, the guys who established the CBC, were to the left of an anti-interventionist Tories, because the Red Tory probably advocated racism and imperialism. However, I think most people would say that the "Bennett Tories" of the 1930s were to the left of some modern day Chicago School type who wants to privatize the CBC. Again, in relative terms.
I agree, and this is basically what I was arguing yestetday. The Alberta PCs were not left-wing in absolute terms(as could be said about the NDP). Though I would say that they were not much different than any Conservative or Liberal government in other provinces. And, on some issues, were probably more progressive(I am old enough to rememeber when Ontario's puritan film-censorship made it a national laughingstock, including in Alberta).
For the most part, I agree. While it can be argued that in 1935 Social Credit was had elements traditionally associated with the left-wing - it's populist appeal to farmers was very similar to that of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation - it easily took a sharp turn to the right after coming to power.
In fairness to the Socreds, they did try to implement their populist agenda, but were slapped down by the courts on economic grounds. The official "sharp turn to the right" was made when Manning purged the economic populists and the anti-semites(who were mostly the same people) in 1948. Supposedly because anti-semitism was now a political taboo, but probably also because the oil companies didn't like hearing what sounded like radical anti-capitalist rhetoric coming from the government.
Those sorts of "Red" Tories (I like Lament for a Nation, but it has its issues) were to the right of any Chicago boys. The modern Chicago types would have gotten on far better in the old Liberal party. Conflating economics with left and right is a Marxist rhetorical trick, made clear enough in the Communist Manifesto when he tried to downplay Young England and various other clearly right wing interventionist movements. The right wing (particularly the far-right) has a long history of economic interventionism. Paternalism is its stock in trade after all.
Yes, I agree with the article in the sense that I don't think Albertans are necessarily immune to the allure of parties with radical economic policies, but that doesn't mean that those parties shall come from the left by and reasonable definition.
(I like Lament for a Nation, but it has its issues)
Oh God, yeah. The part where he starts going on about how, under the influence of liberal individualism, men can now sleep with men, so soon they'll be sleeping with dogs, is pretty choice. I still shake my head when I hear some left-wingers rhapsodize Grant as if he was some sort of progressive avatar. (And like you, I quite enjoy Grant on his own terms.)
And it's interesting how the phrase Red Tory has changed over the decades. At one time, it meant someone who was socially conservative, but slightly interventionist on economics(as exemplified by Grant in the above quote). Nowadays, it usually means someone who is free-market on economics, and individualistic on social issues. Basically, a Thatcherite who marches in the Pride Parade.
EDIT: Oh, just noticed this error in one of my posts...
"In fairness to the Socreds, they did try to implement their populist agenda, but were slapped down by the courts on economic grounds."
That should read "constitutional grounds", not "economic grounds".
.
Oh God, yeah. The part where he starts going on about how, under the influence of liberal individualism, men can now sleep with men, so soon they'll be sleeping with dogs, is pretty choice. I still shake my head when I hear some left-wingers rhapsodize Grant as if he was some sort of progressive avatar. (And like you, I quite enjoy Grant on his own terms.)
And it's interesting how the phrase Red Tory has changed over the decades. At one time, it meant someone who was socially conservative, but slightly interventionist on economics(as exemplified by Grant in the above quote). Nowadays, it usually means someone who is free-market on economics, and individualistic on social issues. Basically, a Thatcherite who marches in the Pride Parade.
EDIT: Oh, just noticed this error in one of my posts...
"In fairness to the Socreds, they did try to implement their populist agenda, but were slapped down by the courts on economic grounds."
That should read "constitutional grounds", not "economic grounds".
.
We'll see on Tuesday, but.....
It looks like it's take out the trash day on Tuesday. If the polls are right, the NDP is set to likely win a majority. They're blowing everyone else out of the water in Edmonton, are beginning to pull ahead in Calgary, and are even leading in the rest of Alberta.
It looks like it's take out the trash day on Tuesday. If the polls are right, the NDP is set to likely win a majority. They're blowing everyone else out of the water in Edmonton, are beginning to pull ahead in Calgary, and are even leading in the rest of Alberta.