Agreed, Ralph had a good start but then he rested on his laurels. As a result, look at the growth of the Alberta Alliance party and friends who are starting to talk about a merger.
It's embarrassing for a Conservative government to lose the right.
I am hoping that the post-Ralph PCs will mount a return to the right, else I will be buying an Alliance membership before the next provincial election.
Well, I can't say I'm exactly thrilled with the field of potentials either. At least Ralph was a known. Say what you will, most of those people owe Ralph their jobs.
Well Adam, we have to give credit to a man who did created the conditions for a growing, healthy economy in the province of Alberta. For a man, like Klein to have the province have NO deficit whatsoever and on top of that a 7 BILLION (with a capital B)surplus is a pretty good record to brag about (Dalton McGuinty can learn something from Ralph but he won't). I do think this long goodbye (waiting til October '07) to leave is not a good thing for him. It will make him a lameduck premier and those who have leadership aspirations will undermine his administration in his last remaining months.
On to another topic, I hope you'll (or anyone else for that matter) will look at my post for today on my blog and take up a challenge that I want many conservatives as possible to do. You'll understand when surf there. 
Thank God he's finally leaving office. Contrary to popular belief, Klein is not a ideological conservative, and neither is he a social conservative. He's basically a big spending liberal, hanging on to office purely out of lust for power. In that sense, he's not altogether different than Jean Chretien.
I think Ralph Klein also has done a good job and he probably did this to avoid a showdown. Although I don't think it had totally to do with the Western Standard, but rather his health care reforms, which unfortunately have many opponents even in his own caucus. Despite being a conservative province, health care is one of the few issues Albertans tend to lean left, even more so than British Columbia and Quebec where support for a parallel private system is considerably higher.
It is true his spending was quite high in his later years, but with the surplus as large as it was, I just don't think the idea of spending cuts would go over well politically. Unlike many other provincial governments, there aren't too many areas the Alberta government is currently involved in that they shouldn't be. They don't have many crown corporations, fewer regulations than most provinces so there really isn't the same need for radical change as there is in other provinces such as Saskatchewan and Quebec.
Good to know that a flat tax, no net debt, cancer research and an attempt to build a world-class education system aren't conservative principles.
With all due respect Adam, I think Ralph is following your opportunity conservative plan fairly well.
Uh, no. Province with the highest social spending per capita? Alberta.
Well, first of all, Alberta may spend the most per person, but they also spend the least as a percentage of GDP, so their government is, arguably, the least redistributive.
But isn't your argument about creating opportunity and not just a cold one about how much government does or doesn't spend? I think it's pretty hard to argue that Alberta is not the most dynamic province in Canada.
Alberta only has the highest spending per capita since they have so much revenue they don't know what to do with it. With no debt, lowest taxes in the country, I certainly wouldn't be complaining here. If any other province spent like Alberta I would be upset, but no other province is debt free or awash in huge surpluses.
As for the Alberta Alliance, I don't think they are that big a threat. They are popular in Rural Alberta, but in Calgary they did rather poorly while the Liberals did win three seats albet near the centre of the city, which tends to be less conservative than the suburban parts. In the case of Edmonton, the party would likely do better there by moving to the left since it went mostly Liberal/NDP and has done so in most elections since Peter Lougheed retired. So I think on the whole Ralph Klein found the right balance being right wing enough to keep Rural Alberta on side, but not so right wing he would drive all of Edmonton and a good chunk of Calgary over to the Liberals. Alberta is conservative by Canadian standards, but nowhere nearly as Conservative as most of the United States (with the exception of the Northeast and West Coast).
Of course Alberta`s economy is dynamic. Of course it is a conservative province. Of course taxes are low and the state of its finances stellar.
Ralph used these facts as excuses to sit on his laurels. He could have made Alberta a world leader in conservative ideas and innovation (school vouchers, privatizing welfare delivery, etc...). He could have continued to push the envelope for conservatism. He chose not to, and became just another politics-as-usual guy.
I support the idea of school vouchers, but I am not so sure how popular it would be. On health care I support his reforms, but understanding it would face a fair amount of opposition he probably waited as long as he did for that reason as well as he wanted to make sure Alberta had a large enough surplus it could withstand any fines for violating the Canada Health Act, which they couldn't have done earlier. Privatizing welfare is a bad idea in my view. I am all for privatization when it makes sense, but not purely for ideological purposes.
He also did take a lot of flack over electricity de-regulation so I think the problems that happened there probably made him think twice about any more conservative reforms. Taking major conservative ideas is risky since if they work, the premier will become very popular for having the courage and foresight, but if they fail, they take a beating in the polls. In Ontario, initially Mike Harris' common sense revolution was very successful so people were quite supportive, but after Walkerton, people turned against it (Even though Walkerton as David Peterson mentioned could have happened under any government, although his numbers plunged in the polls right after that). My view is make bold conservative reforms where necessary and also if there is evidence from elsewhere that they will work. But don't do them purely for ideology.
It's amazing how blog comments drift far away from the original point of a post. Loewen and Lunn's points are all worthy but don't disprove my original one. All I said was that Ralph Klein didn't act conservatively in the last decade. The point stands. Lunn's argument that implementing conservative ideas are risky may have merit -- that said, wouldn't that mean that RIGHT NOW, as a lame duck Premier with nothing to lose, Klein has a perfect opportunity to attempt such things?
But of course he won't. Because Klein is not ideologically conservative.
Actually it still would be risky at the moment since he faces a leadership review and since most MLAs will be seeking re-election, they likely won't support any changes that might put their seats in jeopardy. Most of the Rural MLAs want the party to move to the right since their main challenge is the Alberta Alliance while those in Central Calgary and Edmonton want him to move to the left since the Liberals are their main challenge. I would cut Klein some slack until the leadership review is complete.
Commenting by HaloScan
