Prediction: Rona Ambrose Will Be The Alberta Premier in 2019

The Kenney Plan

If elected as the leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party on March 18, Jason Kenney plans to do the following:

1. Negotiate a framework agreement with the Wildrose Party to create a new united party
2. Hold a referendum on a unity agreement.
3. Create a united party at a founding convention
4. Hold a leadership election for the new party.

Predictions

I predict that Kenney will win the leadership. Before September 2017 a framework agreement with Wildrose will be negotiated. Before 2017 is over a united party will be created.  Sometime in 2018 a leadership election will be held. The name of the new leader of that new party will be Rona Ambrose.

Don't get me wrong.  I think Jason Kenney would make a fine premier for our province, but as far as I can tell that is not the plan. The Kenney plan appears to be a plan to pave the way for Ambrose to become the Premier of Alberta in 2019. That’s right; the evidence suggests that Jason Kenney does not intend to become the premier of Alberta. His job is to do the heavy lifting, and to endure the damage to his reputation required by the effort to unite Alberta’s free enterprise parties. But at the end of the day it will be Rona Ambrose who leads her people back to the promised land.

All-Star Strategy Team

Kenny has assembled a high powered team of strategists to make the plan work. A look at his team will give clues with regard to the plan.

• Jeff Henwood: former executive assistant to Alison Redford
• Ian Todd: Partner, Maple Leaf Strategies, Government and Media Relations
• Blaise Boehmer: Principal, Revolver Strategic, Public Affairs Expert
• Alan Hallman: Government/Community Relations Specialist
• John Weissenberger: Petroleum Industry Executive

Kenney has loaded up on strategic smarts. If his goal was simply to be elected as leader of the party he would not need nearly that much help. And he would seek a different kind of help. This all-star team is not too worried about who they annoy. They are all more focused on getting the job done than collaborating with anyone or even maintaining a conciliatory tone. The team is heavy on offence and light on defense. This is a campaign team that doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about what anybody thinks.  They don't have to. This is not about selecting a premier or even a party leader. This is about creating a new party that imposes itself on two reluctant existing parties. It needs to be done, but when it is done Jason Kenney and his reputation will be spent. Once the parties are united, in the best interests of Alberta he will have to step back, open the door for Rona Ambrose, and let her finish the job. 

The team has devised an effective strategy to unite free enterprise parties in Alberta. But this is a very poor strategy to get their candidate elected as premier, unless the name of that candidate is Rona Ambrose. This team is too good to make such obvious blunders.

The campaign they have devised is one where Kenney is a willing sacrifice for the greater good. Kenney will successfully become the final leader of the Progressive Conservative Party with support predominantly from people who voted Wildrose in the last election. But he will need someone else to come in who can unite enthusiastic members of the new party with the other half of the party which will by that time be on the verge of leaving. His team has been going out of its way to tick people off. I can tell you this from experience because I am a declared Kenney supporter and they are ticking me off. They have annoyed many many people who have been devoted to rebuilding the party with their plan to dismantle it. They have ticked off people who remain devoted to the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose brands with their promise to get rid of both. They have ticked off other leadership hopefuls by turning the leadership race into a referendum on uniting with Wildrose.  And Kenney’s high-powered team of strategic experts is doing nothing to stop it. They don’t want to. These guys are too smart to think this strategy will work to get Kenney to the Premier’s office. Kenney is freely and intentionally spending all of his political capital on round one. He will not have enough available for another successful leadership race in 2018.  It appears obvious that he has no plans to run.

Kenney Team Strategy is Good for Jean and Ambrose

Rona Ambrose is not the only candidate with a shot to win the new party's leadership. Many of the supporters of the Unite Alberta initiative are also Brian Jean supporters. If the Wildrose and the Alberta PC party unite in 2017, Jean, not Kenney, becomes the instant favourite to win the leadership. The very people who Kenney is recruiting to become members of the Progressive Conservative Party are Brian Jean supporters. The end goal of the Kenney team may well be to get Jean elected as our next premier.  But he does not have as much broad appeal and widespread support as Ms. Ambrose.

If the plan of the Kenney’s team is not to get Jean elected, Ambrose is the most likely beneficiary of the plan. It all makes such perfect sense. Why would Ambrose not run for the federal leadership? Perhaps because she has a different plan in mind. Her commitment to the federal leadership party ends in May. Her stint as the interim federal party leader is the best possible audition for the Alberta premiership. People everywhere are raving about what an outstanding job she is doing.  No one will doubt she can do the job. She will be untainted by the brazenness of the present leadership campaign. All anti-woman talk resulting from the treatment of Sandra Jansen and Donna Kennedy Glans will be silenced. She may well be positioned to win one of the biggest majorities in Alberta history in 2019.  This appears to be the real plan of the the Kenney super-team.  It is a very good plan indeed!


See Also: http://pcaathoughts.blogspot.ca/2017/01/looking-forward-to-leadership-race-2.html

Why I Have Decided to Support Jason Kenney

I have long maintained, but not without wavering, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta and the Wildrose Party should find some way to unite. My hope has always been that there might be a friendly way to bring about such a union. I am coming to realize that friendly solutions to our political problem may not be available.

Jason Kenney’s Unite Alberta campaign has been referred to by some as a hostile takeover. In business a 'Friendly Takeover' is "a situation in which a target company's management and board of directors agree to a merger or acquisition by another company."  "A hostile takeover is the acquisition of one ‘target’ company by another company that is accomplished by going directly to the company's shareholders or fighting to replace management to get the acquisition approved." (www.investopedia.com) In the world of politics similar takeover concepts exist. Instead of shareholders, parties have members and blocks of voters. After the Alberta General Election of 2015 there was much talk of reuniting the Progressive Conservative Party with the Wildrose Party. The directors of the PC Party engaged in consultations with its membership where it explored whether it wished to engage in ‘friendly’ merger discussions. To that end they polled the membership in February 2016 and subsequently reported the following numbers:

Assessment %	Against	Neutral	In Favour
Rebuild the PC Party	17%	17%	68%
Unite the Right	25%	19%	56%
Renew/Then Assess	28%	18%	54%
Unite the Centre	26%	32%	42%
Re-brand	52%	26%	22%

It is clear from the numbers that more than half of the membership wished to ‘unite the right’ which we presume implies a union of some sort with the Wildrose membership. Since more than half also expressed a desire to rebuild the party, and to renew, then assess, it is apparent that the membership saw no contradiction among these concepts. Interestingly, at the Annual General Meeting in May 2016, members were presented with a choice between rebuilding the party and building a strategic relationship with another party. The disconnect between directors and members was beginning to surface. There also appeared to be a chasm between the membership and the 1000 or so people in leadership who had assembled at the AGM. At that meeting the party leadership chose to follow a path of rebuilding the party and the brand. 

The notion of a disconnect or a chasm may appear to be a harsh indictment.  That is not my intention.  Under the excellent leadership of Katherine O'Neill, prior to her election as president of the party, the party sought out its grass roots.  It consulted with its members and did what it could to take a penetrating look into the mirror and confront its failings.  With dissenting voices having left to cast votes elsewhere, the party faithful voted to seek to put Humpty back together again. 

The line in the sand had been drawn. Any union with Wildrose would now require unfriendly means. It would require turning the upcoming leadership contest into a referendum on the future of the party. It would require some form of hostile takeover for any plan to ‘Unite the Right’ to become a reality.

This is where Jason Kenney stepped in and stepped up. It would be unfair to say that he is personally unfriendly or hostile. He has won seven elections averaging 72% of the vote, has been instrumental in attracting the immigrant vote to the federal Conservative Party, was acknowledged several times by colleagues in all parties as one of the most popular MPs, has been a consensus-builder with opposition parties and provincial governments alike; and has been endorsed in this campaign by every single federal Conservative MP from Alberta with whom he has worked, with the exception of Brian Jean. The man has a record of building good and solid relationships. While all of the other leadership candidates are taking shots at his plan and at him, he has made no personal attacks against anyone. 

The terms hostile and unfriendly are most accurately a reflection of the feelings of those who were not included in the strategy to bring together Alberta’s two most significant free enterprise parties. In this Leadership race he has indeed been demonized, but in truth it is not the man his adversaries find offensive; it is his strategy.

Blaise Boehmer is a principal in the public affairs firm ‘Revolver Strategic’ and a spokesperson for the Kenney campaign. A perusal of his company website is informative. ‘We're here to get winning results for clients. We understand you want to get the right meeting with the key decision makers, but social media and other digital platforms have disrupted the game entirely. We can help you navigate this digital frontier so you are understood, effective and successful. We aren't afraid to whisper, awaken, instigate, provoke, or shock on your behalf.” Clearly Boehmer is one of the authors of the Kenney campaign playbook. The campaign has not been afraid to rock the boat and to work outside of the best wishes of the party directors. It is deliberately provocative. Initially I thought this was a bad thing. Now I’m not so sure.

In my position as president of a Progressive Conservative Constituency Association, I am among the people viewed suspiciously by the Kenney campaign. As I write this I am waiting to hear back from the Kenney campaign regarding an all-candidates event in my riding. I am not optimistic he will participate. Kenney prefers to organize his own events and mobilize his people outside of existing PC Alberta structures. I understand his suspicion. I am part of the machine that failed to understand it’s own polling. I am part of the party that failed to include departed members and departed voters into its understanding of the group we like to call the grassroots. The faithful Progressive Conservative remnant is unable or unwilling to understand the voter that Kenney represents.

Some see Kenney’s Unite Alberta campaign as a Wildrose takeover of the PC party. Others see it as a PC takeover of Wildrose. Still others see it as a hostile takeover of both by Kenny and his broad coalition of conservative voters. It doesn’t matter how it is perceived. His plan is the only one offered that reunites the conservative family. He has turned the leadership race into a referendum on the future of conservatism in Alberta provincial politics. That is exactly what needs to be done. That is why I am supporting Jason Kenney, even if it is unfriendly to do so.

The Real Progressive Conservatives

Who are the grassroots Progressive Conservatives? A great deal of effort has gone into rebuilding the Progressive Conservative Party over the past several months. Meetings have been held in all 87 ridings in an effort to hear the voices of our ’grassroots’ supporters. For the most part we have heard from people who have held prominent roles in Progressive Conservative Constituency Associations. I am uncertain that we have sufficiently reached the disenfranchised Progressive Conservative voter. I do not make this assertion in order to point a finger at anyone. The party has worked mightily to reach out and to listen. However, it is my sense that the disenfranchised voices have not been quick to make themselves heard in the public forums designed for that purpose in spite of the earnestness of the party's desire to reach out.

The Grassroots Includes Two Groups of Disenfranchised Voters

So who are these disenfranchised voters? In the current race to become the leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, Jason Kenney's campaign has been reaching out predominantly to people who have moved their support over to the Wildrose Party. He has provided some data to support this. Those who disagree with him appear to be relying more on intuition than data. The first major wave of discontent with the PC Party appeared in the 2012 general election where, in spite of the near collapse of the Liberal Party, the PC Party lost 10% of its share of the popular vote.  Even so, it did retain a majority of the seats in the legislature. That was the election where the Wildrose Party came seemingly out of nowhere to become the official opposition. This is the election that Kenney seeks to undo.  

The 2016 election was a different matter altogether. Wildrose retained ⅔ of its popular vote while the NDP added more than 30% to its previous 10% in popular support; almost all at the expense of the the PC Party. Through these two elections the two flanks of the Progressive Conservative Party were substantially eroded. We now have two large and disparate groups of disenfranchised PCs. The assumption appears to be that we will only be realistically able to regain one of them; or at least that one of them should be the preeminent target. The question we need to answer is, “Which general election result do we want to return to; 2008 (or earlier) or 2012?”

To Be or Not To Be Centrist

Who are the real Progressive Conservatives? Or in other words, which disenfranchised group comprises the real PCs; the real grassroots?  It is worth noting that the PC Party has only been the party in the middle (centrist) for the previous two general elections when the Wildrose took over ownership of the right end of the political spectrum. In its heyday the PC party received over 60% of the popular vote with the only significant opposition coming from the left.  In truth, the PC party defied the political spectrum altogether while those on the left embraced their “left-ness.” The problems began when in 2012 when we began to think of ourselves as ‘centrist’ at the behest of the new party on the right.  Of course all of this fails to take into account that there may be a new generation of voters which may or may not follow the patterns of their forefathers and foremothers.  Nevertheless, it can be said that at the peak of its success, the Progressive Conservative Party was not centrist. In terms of the political spectrum, which it previously attempted to avoid at all costs, it could best be described as “not left.”

Should we be centrist? The current slogan around the the party is that we are “Socially Progressive” and “Fiscally Conservative.” This is what centrist has come to mean.   Socially we are like the NDP and fiscally we are like Wildrose. To some, myself included, this is disconcerting.  Socially, we have not been like the NDP.  The basic foundation of society and of social thought in the life of the PC Party has been the family.  We are the defenders of the rights of parents and families.  To follow the NDP will mean the continued focus on individual rights, often at the expense of parents and families. The NDP have portrayed families as the bad guys in the lives of young people struggling with their sexuality and as such they work to curtail the rights and privileges of parents. The real PCs uphold the rights of parents because we know that in a vast majority of cases no one loves you more than your parents and nothing is stronger than a family. Our party was built on that version of being socially progressive. But this is not the clear message of those who would say we are centrist. The best versions of ourselves have not been centrist.  In our prime we were the party that did not fit neatly anywhere on the political spectrum. Should we not aspire to be that party once again?

The Shifting Votes in Four Quadrants

Look at this chart showing a history of the popular vote in Alberta General Elections since 1971. What do you see? Where are the trend-lines? Where are the outliers?


I built this chart to represent, as faithfully as I could, the Alberta provincial political spectrum with the Communist Party on the left and fringe right-of-centre parties on the right. Independents and 'others' are on the right which does skew the results a little (particularly in 1982 when independent candidates scored over 3% of the popular vote). The order of the parties from left to right is admittedly a little presumptuous. The big players include the NDP in green, the Liberals in purple, the Progressive Conservatives in pink, Social Credit in brown, and Wildrose (Alliance) in a smoky blue colour.

I'd like us to try to understand this chart as four distinct quadrants. 0 - 25% is the traditional territory of the NDP and fringe leftist parties.  The second quadrant, from 25 - 50% is the traditional territory of the Liberal party and perhaps the Alberta Party. The third quadrant, from 50 - 75% is owned by the Progressive Conservative Party and the quadrant from 75 - 100 on the right of the chart has been shared by the Wildrose Party, the Social Credit Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and a whole host of fringe right-of-centre parties.

The first thing this chart reinforces is what a surprise the NDP result in 2016 was. This is the only time they have received support in the 2nd quadrant (between 25 and 50 percent) Will this result prove to be an outlier once another 45 years have passed? I sure hope so! I think even the NDP is uncomfortable with the compromises on their principles that were necessary to acquire these votes.

If we compare 2016 to 1989, we will see some similarities when we look at the total of combined centre-and-left popular vote. From 1989 to 2012 there has been a trend of increased support for parties to the right of the PCs. These are the votes Kenney wants to combine with the Progressive Conservative votes in a new party. Is that the right strategy?

With the exception of 1971 and 2012 the PC party has commanded the support of the 3rd quadrant (between 50 and 75 percent). The question the party is pondering now is whether to target the 2nd or the 4th quadrant in order to secure an electoral victory in 2019. Jason Kenney appears to see the 4th quadrant as a reliable voter block not subject to waver much, and convicted by principles. 

By comparison the 2nd quadrant is scary territory. It had been shared almost exclusively by the PCs and Liberals until 2012 when under Allison Redford, the PC party made a decisive shift to the left to claim the entire block of votes.   In 2016 under Jim Prentice the party learned quickly that no-one in Alberta can own this 2nd quadrant for long.  It appears very uncertain whether the NDP can hold on to this block of votes. The Liberals, the Alberta Party, and many PCs will be eager to win these voters.  Leadership candidate Stephen Khan has taken the most direct aim at this group indicating that this is where the growing group of millennials will park their votes. Does this amount to forward thinking or rolling the dice?

It seems clear to me that the strategy most likely to be successful in 2019 is for a united conservative party to focus on the 3rd and 4th quadrants while recognizing that we may be sharing the block of voters in the 2nd quadrant with the NDP, the Liberals, and Alberta Party.  The 3rd and 4th quadrants are our bread and butter.  The 2nd quadrant is gravy.  And yet, three of the four leadership candidates have targeted this quadrant as their first priority.  

Socially and Fiscally Progressive and Conservative

But what about principles? With apologies to those who contend that being socially progressive implies that we target the 2nd quadrant, the principled votes are not found there. The Liberal Party is comfortable in that quadrant because it is the party that believes nothing. More correctly, the Liberal party has beliefs that traditionally migrate and meander in search of votes wherever they can be found. There are principled socialist voters in the first quadrant who belong with the NDP. Alberta is a province, at least traditionally, where half of people (3rd and 4th quadrants) are at once fiscally and socially progressive and conservative. Our principles may be complicated, but we are never-the-less a devout people which needs a party to represent us!

The moral of the story is this; We will find our best allies in the disenfranchised yet reliable and principled voters who moved to the Wildrose Party in 2012. It appears that Jason Kenney has this figured out.

It is true that Kenney's constituency is currently a hypothetical one. He seeks to build a party that represents, not just members of any existing party, but all who identify themselves as Progressive Conservative, Wildrose, and perhaps Alberta Party members. He is running to lead a party that does not exist, but should exist. Polling seems to suggest that people want this party to exist. The real grassroots PCs want this party to exist. Many, myself included, find it irksome that Kenney's campaign presumes to exert considerable muscle to make this happen. Some will be disturbed that he would work to take over one or more political parties in order to represent this constituency. It's a bold move which I have come to accept as necessary.  Frankly, I don't see another way, among the choices currently offered, to reunite the true grassroots Progressive Conservatives under one tent.

PC Leadership Campaign: Early Thoughts

I am very disappointed at the departure of Donna Kennedy Glans and Sandra Jansen from the race to lead the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, and by Jansen’s subsequent exit from the party altogether.   The exodus of our two women candidates places the party in a bad light in a very public way.  While my perception is that neither of these two was a front-runner, their presence was important as a representation of a big tent party.  

I think that this set of events is a reflection of a larger problem.  The candidates are each identified by supporters as representing a narrow and narrowing band of the political spectrum.  We need a culture within our party where we cherish disagreement and recognize that a respectful struggle for a path to represent all Albertans is a beautiful thing.  Can we have a party where people like Jason Kenney and Sandra Jansen (and everyone in between), with all of their supporters look each other in the eye and say, “Not only do I need you, but I want you in my political life?  We make each other better!”  

There is a lot of finger pointing going on, but I do not see any innocent parties.  Jansen made it clear that her PC Party could not include the right represented by Jason Kenney, and then went on to lament aloud how there was no room for her in the shrinking tent.  Kennedy Glans cited polarization within the party at the expense of a more centrist vision.  This seems to suggest a desire for a party with no room for Kenney on the right or Jansen on the left.  In truth, I did not see Kennedy Glans as more centrist than most of the other leadership candidates.  More concerning is that I did not see any of the six candidates saying clearly what I believe somebody has to stand up and say.  

Namely:

• I want to lead a party that not only has room, but will prepare an honoured place at the table for each and every person in this leadership competition
• I want to be elected, not so much because of the value of my own ideas, but because I believe that it is essential and lovely that we engage in hard conversations characterized by respectful disagreement for the sake of all Albertans
• I believe that there is no contradiction between upholding the rights of parents, the rights of the LGBTQ community, the rights of the poor, the well-being of our economy, and the protection of the environment.  We don't need to unite Alberta.  We need a provincial government that reflects the unity that already gives us life, and gives us love, and gives us hope.  

I would gladly support a candidate who will agree to these assertions, without sacrificing kindness and politeness, and bring us all together in such a way that we can give those who left us a reason to come back.

As an added note, my thoughts are formed somewhat in the context of our riding (Rimbey - Rocky Mountain House - Sundre) where I don't yet see a realistic option to unseat our Wildrose MLA Jason Nixon; who is quite popular and perceived to be doing a good job.  The party I want is one where country folk don't feel the Wildrose party is the only party to represent their interests.  If I added another bullet (above) it would be that my preferred candidate would do all in his power to love them and win their love in return.

Going forward I will try to determine which candidate to support based on these assertions.  I have not ruled anyone out.  Frankly, I am experiencing a lot of pressure from party members to "dislike" Jason Kenney.  But the truth is, he is the only one who phoned me to ask for my advice.  I don't know the extent to which he is accepting my guidance, but I also don't think he's the devil.  I think he is simply a lot more pragmatic (Machiavellian) than I would be.  

With a heavy sigh I sign off.