UCP approves boundarysmithing maps
When I wrote about this earlier, I focused on the arguments Conservative influencers and staffers were making in favour of it because they were easier to contextualize than how I feel about the idea of redrawn boundaries making certain seats “unwinnable.”
Gerrymandering isn’t popular in Canada because we have rules against it. Hopefully “boundarysmithing” is short-lived, despite my affinity for the phrasing.
To be extremely clear, I do not support a government using its power to create advantages for itself or disadvantage my neighbours— wherever they may be.
My issue with which areas vote in certain ways and how political parties interact with them is more… let’s call it a “legitimate grievance.”
The thoughts I was already having about it were further strengthened by the incredible outcome of the U.S. midterms on Tuesday, which saw recently redrawn boundaries meant to solidify an advantage for incumbents (and disenfranchise voters) fail across the country. I’ll tackle that whole thing in another post. For this bit, I will stick to the underlying reason I’ve refrained from taking the more commonly held stance against boundary manipulation for partisan gain; for me, there’s a both sides problem.
Wave it away by calling it partisanship, or identity politics, or “communities of interest”— whatever you choose, I dislike that a party finds itself so far removed from voters, based on geography, that they cannot reach them.
I have railed against the idea that a party should “not waste their resources” in particular areas of the province. I understand it, from a party-focused, seat-centric, return-on-investment-strictly-about-the-numbers point of view; it just doesn’t serve the public interest.
I don’t like the idea that a political party or leader would consider Edmonton or Calgary-Buffalo unreachable. I don’t like the idea that a political party or leader would write off rural as unattainable. I also don’t think that’s a failure of the voter.
That’s what I (perhaps optimistically) took from the “Blunami” on Tuesday; people can and will unite to overcome unfair obstacles.
I prefer that explanation to the alternative, which is that people can be persuaded to switch their votes if the corruption reaches such outrageous levels that voters can no longer ignore… because that is simply not a future I look forward to.
The New Democrats said last week that they were prepared to launch a legal challenge of the boundarysmithing if the UCP passed the legislation.
Raging on with the culture wars
The UCP introduced their latest virtue signal for a minority of their supporters, this time declaring that post-secondary institutions should “stay in their lane” and ensure a safe space for “unpopular opinion.”
I do honestly struggle with how often this government has introduced legislation that does nothing useful.
We already have a right to free expression in the Canadian Charter, and the Alberta Bill of Rights, and then-Premier Jason Kenney already legislated all public post-secondary institutions to adopt the Chicago Principles to triple down on it in 2019.
So, Danielle Smith quadrupling down on this is just kind of… meh?
Especially when her government has shut down debate in the Legislature more than any other in the past 30 years.
The issue I tend to bring up is what I perceive to be a distinction between an “unpopular opinion” that there is little evidence to support and an opinion that is backed by evidence but is politically unfavourable. Take support for carbon taxes, for example. Adding a price to emissions signals to producers and consumers that there is an advantage available in reducing them. That is a well-researched, economically sound way to highlight that some decisions cost more than others and incentivize innovation to reduce emissions.
It is an unpopular opinion to support carbon taxes as a way to decrease emissions.
That is not the same as having an opinion that is not popular because it is unsupported by rigorous debate and testing; just ask a government that prefers not to allow the debate to do exactly that.
The second kind of “unpopular opinion” is rarer not because those opinions are “cancelled” or otherwise muted, rather, it’s because post-secondary education offers the freedom to test those opinions. It provides the tools to examine them. Sometimes, it even has access to answers that have been tested and re-tested so many times that we accept them as most likely true.
“Unpopular opinions” that fail when tested don't become more credible simply because someone insists they deserve to be heard.
That’s just the way actual education works.
Fiscal responsibility be damned
In an alternate universe where UCP MLAs are in opposition, they've already pored over the governing party's expenses, dubbed it the “Bourbon Boondoggle,” and claimed “big government” is trying to tell hard-working Alberta entrepreneurs how to do their jobs. Meanwhile, Danielle Smith rises in the Legislature to snivel and shed a few crocodile tears over affordability while pretending to give a damn about “out-of-touch” politicians literally riding high on the taxpayer's dime.
Of course, our reality is very different today.
Minister of Red Tape Reduction Dale Nally enjoyed some top-notch “cab rides” billed at more than $3000 and $2500 respectively during a recent work trip to Kentucky. Turns out, the “taxi” expenses were research of high-end “booze cruises” that the Premier says her government might want to bring to Alberta.
Or is it “Nashville North?”
I’m starting to lose track of whether we’re a distinct culture or a southern knock-off.
The Premier says the Government of Alberta has strict rules on what can be claimed for local transportation costs and they’ll definitely look into whether more than $5000 is an acceptable expense for two “rides.”
I can still hear the sniffles from that alternate universe.
The UCP also announced (a cherry-picked summation of) the findings from their million-dollar investigation into why Calgary’s water infrastructure failed twice in the past 18 months.
“Do Albertans really want someone that ignored critical infrastructure to run their province?” Anonymous social media accounts are asking on the local hellsite.
Despite the UCP doing its level best to discredit the former mayor, the report makes clear that City Administration did not share the report, or invite Council’s opinion on it more than a decade ago. Further, it explicitly says there’s no evidence to suggest that council or the mayor willfully ignored the report, or actively dissuaded City Administration from addressing its recommendations.
Which is definitely not what the UCP spent yet another million dollars to hear.
Is there no one who is willing to slap these people out of it before they commit millions trying to make “fetch” happen?
Would they like a volunteer?
Fak.
Semi-final thoughts
I’m paying attention to how the last 30 days have affected certain circles. It was one thing to see such a low level of support for even “sending Ottawa a message” in the UCP’s separatist question, but quite another to see Republicans and MAGA suffer such significant defeats in the U.S. midterms. There is, I think, a lot of crossover between that movement and those in Alberta who felt empowered by it, believing their time had come.
I also think, perhaps optimistically, that some who felt they could “regroup and start anew” have come up against a second wall of reality and will be contending with what that loss means to them as well.
This absolutely could change their calculations of how to move forward, and also impact the strength of a movement that was, perhaps, not all that independent to begin with. I do hope to have something on that soon.
Final thoughts!
Becoming a paid subscriber not only supports my work but makes it possible for me to report from places none of us want to go. To those who already do, I’m grateful!
Why wouldn’t all politicians want to raise kind, grounded kids who see diversity as a positive, not something to fear?
Because shielding 'impressionable minds' to appease an outdated, overly moralistic subgroup is anathema to our modern world. If we don't teach kids how the real world actually works, we're setting them up to be intolerant adults who will just repeat the cycle with their own children.
...Ah, OK. I’ve answered my own question.
Love - boundarysmithing. On the matter of the Calgary water main failure investigation by the UCP - If you feel like it, take a look at the Alberta road builders and heavy construction Association website to learn just how badly the UCP has neglected that kind of public infrastructure. During stampede this year, they published an hilarious ad to bring it to public attention.
AND, note that the UCP gave the investigator into the Calgary water main issue, the power to compel testimony. Not so with justice Wyant during the corrupt care scandal.
But I realize it’s hard to keep up with all of the hypocrisy coming out of the UCP.