AHC/WI Jim Dinning or Ted Morton becomes Premier in 2006

As we all know, in 2006 Ed Stelmach came up the middle and defeated the two frontrunners for the leadership of the Albertan PC Party, and thus the Premiership, namely Dinning the Red Tory and Morton the Blue Tory. Stelmach's term in power deeply damaged the Tory brand in the province and ultimately gave way to Alison Redford in 2011. We all know how that turned out.

So my question is, what would Alberta look like politically had either Jim Dinning or Ted Morton won instead? What type of Premiers would these men be?
 
Assuming that Morton is the guy he tried to make himself out to be via his academic writing and other pronouncements...

He'd pick a lot of the fights with the federal governmnet, and not just over crowd-pleasing issues like energy, but also over social questions like gay marriage etc, ostensibly in the name of "provincial autonomy". But it would really just be a big dog-whistle to the old Alberta Report demographic.

Problem is, he'd be seriously overestimating the market for that sort of thing in 21st Century Alberta, and would end up alienating not only the feds and other provinces, but most urbanized or even semi-urbanized Albertans as well. Eventually, he'd be faced with a caucus revolt, and either moderate his positions, or be forced into retirement.
 
Also, Morton almost certainly wouldn't try to raise royalties like Stelmach did, which probably butterflies away the rise of Wildrose. So, unless Morton or some subsequent premier REALLY burns his bridges, the lack of vote-splitting probably means another decade or so of Tory hegemony.
 
So is Morton better than Dinning at maintaining the PC dynasty?

I don't know much about Dinning(I no longer live in Alberta, and mostly know Morton through his Calgary School days). But I would wager that, assuming Dinning leaves royalties untouched(thus foregoing the rise of Wildrose), he's probably better at maintaining a smooth continuation of the dynasty.

Like I say, I think Morton would start a lot of pointless squabbles with the federal government and social moderates. Even if this doesn't get the Tories turfed, it might damage their standing in Edmonton and maybe even Calgary and some of the smaller cities, in the 2008 election.

This all assumes that Dinning isn't the hardcore Alberta Firster/SoCon that Morton makes himself out to be.
 
I don't know much about Dinning(I no longer live in Alberta, and mostly know Morton through his Calgary School days). But I would wager that, assuming Dinning leaves royalties untouched(thus foregoing the rise of Wildrose), he's probably better at maintaining a smooth continuation of the dynasty.

Like I say, I think Morton would start a lot of pointless squabbles with the federal government and social moderates. Even if this doesn't get the Tories turfed, it might damage their standing in Edmonton and maybe even Calgary and some of the smaller cities, in the 2008 election.

This all assumes that Dinning isn't the hardcore Alberta Firster/SoCon that Morton makes himself out to be.

Well Dinning was apparently the Red Tory option in the race, so my guess is that under his leadership the party would have still had problems with Wildrose, but probably not to the degree that Redford had. Still, from what I read he was apparently the "Lougheed" candidate in the race.
 
A lot changes.

With Dinning in charge you don't with the absolutely inept leadership of Stelmach which probably means Hinman remains the lone Wildrose candidate for a lot longer (if he survives at all).

You probably see rumblings of discontent in Edmonton, but the Liberals (just like OTL) are utterly incapable of capitalizing on them.

Expect more royalty reviews. Royalties might not change every time, but I kind of got the impression that Dinning wasn't as combative as Stelmach to the oil patch but still wanted better funding out of it.

Morton probably wants to duke it out with the federal government, something that Albertans have grown increasingly less fond of, and his social conservatism will probably start raising the ire of Edmonton/Calgary/Lethbridge. This actually plays well to the Liberal platform and it could see the rise of more Liberal seats in 2008 onward.

You can literally draw a direct line from Dinning losing the leadership race to the Tory collapse.
 
Well Dinning was apparently the Red Tory option in the race, so my guess is that under his leadership the party would have still had problems with Wildrose, but probably not to the degree that Redford had. Still, from what I read he was apparently the "Lougheed" candidate in the race.

Well, I don't think that simply being a Red Tory is enough to prompt the rise of Wildrose. Lougheed himself was arguably to the left of Redford, but except for the Socred remnants of 1971 - 1975, never faced a right-wing opposition of more than four members.

I think the key to the rise of Wildrose is specifically the royalty review, which, while it might not have been the main reason for the party's garnering public support(since very few people actually feel sad for oil companies), WAS nevertheless the main reason that the party came into being(at least in its current form) in the first place.

That said, Lougheed also raised royalties in '72, and it didn't revive the Socreds. Probably, there wasn't yet the general public discontent with the Tory Party to for the oil money to coast on. (Apparently, though, Lougheed did get kicked out of the Petroleum Club for his radical affront against the plutocracy.)
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't think that simply being a Red Tory is enough to prompt the rise of Wildrose. Lougheed himself was arguably to the left of Redford, but except for the Socred remnants of 1971 - 1975, never faced a right-wing opposition of more than four members.

I think the key to the rise of Wildrose is specifically the royalty review, which, while it might not have been the main reason for the party's garnering public support(since very few people actually feel sad for oil companies), WAS nevertheless the main reason that the party came into being(at least in its current form) in the first place.

That said, Lougheed also raised royalties in '72, and it didn't revive the Socreds. Probably, there wasn't yet the general public discontent with the Tory Party to for the oil money to coast on. (Apparently, though, Lougheed did get kicked out of the Petroleum Club for his radical affront against the plutocracy.)

The growth of the Wildrose probably happens regardless, but it's going to be a lot more slow growth than the explosive growth we had OTL. With Dinning in charge, an actual competent premier probably inhibits the opposition for a term or two.
 
Top