[BLOG] Some Wednesday links

• Crooked Timber’s Maria Farrell writes about Ireland’s Magdalen Laundries, institutions she sees as product of Irish misogyny and Roman Catholicism.
• Daniel Drezner took note of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and argues that the main people arguing about a currency war are (among others) developing countries and a Bundesbank that doesn’t want to lose power to the European Central Bank.
• Eastern Approaches points out that cohabitation in Georgia between President Saakashvili and the governing opposition is not going well.
• Far Outliers’ Joel points out that the dialect of African-Americans in the Japanese translation of Gone With The Wind is that of the marginalized Tohoku region in northern Honshu, visited two years by disaster.
• Geocurrents maps the results of a referendum on conscription in Austria, noting that the largely rural state of Burgenland–once part of Hungary, and still a frontier region–voted strongly in favour.
• At Lawyers, Guns and Money, Dave Brockington notes that the American states with the longest voting lines tend to have Republican governments and relatively large African-American and Latino populations.
• Progressived Download’s John Farrell points out that private labs offering adult stem cell treatments very often inflict terrible, novel illnesses on their clients.
• Registan’s Mitchell Polman points out that Central Asia is hardly likely to prosper if foreign influence is seen as a zero-sum game. All kinds of powers need to take part.
• Window on Eurasia quotes from a Russian Eurasianist thinker, Rustem Vakhitov, who argues that separatist tendencies in Russia overall are strongest in Russian regions. Why single out the ethnic republics and risk triggering something?
• Zero Geography’s Mark Graham maps Twitter usage in different African cities.

[LINK] Two links on the Senate of Canada

First is by Tim Naumetz of the Hill Times of Ottawa, “40 per cent of Canadians want a reformed Senate, 31 per cent want it abolished: Forum Research poll”.

In the wake of the latest controversies involving allegations of wrongdoing by Senators, including two appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a new poll shows Canadians who want an elected Senate outnumber those who want it abolished it entirely.

But, even though only 14 per cent of respondents said the Senate should be left as it is, the Forum Research survey suggests if Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) succeeds in his Supreme Court of Canada quest to take incremental steps toward an elected Senate, the political turmoil could be significant.

The survey of 1,091 voting age Canadians on Feb. 7, found 40 per cent of respondents favoured an elected Senate, with an outright majority only in Alberta, where 55 per cent said they supported the idea.

A full 31 per cent across Canada said they want the Senate to be abolished, a longstanding NDP position that—depending on the result of Mr. Harper’s request last week for an opinion on constitutional questions about Senate reform from the Supreme Court—could be impossible.

[. . .]

The Forum Research poll, an interactive voice response telephone survey with a margin of error of plus or minus three per cent 19 times out of 20, found opinion about the Senate had not changed even one percentage point from an identical poll Forum Research conducted in January, 2012.

“While the appetite for Senate reform is not overwhelming, it exceeds the interest in abolition, so we may have the Red Chamber to kick around for a while longer,” Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff told The Hill Times.

Second is a Canadian Press article published in the Charlottetown Guardian, “Tories, Liberals unite in bid to salvage Senate’s tarnished reputation”.

Conservative and Liberal leaders in the much-maligned Senate are joining forces to salvage the upper chamber’s tarnished reputation.

They are demanding a swift — and public — resolution to allegations that some senators are abusing a housing allowance meant to compensate those who keep a secondary residence in Ottawa.

The Senate’s internal economy committee has been investigating the allegations and last week called in an outside auditor to scrutinize three cases — involving Conservatives Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau and Liberal Mac Harb.

In a rare show of bi-partisanship, government Senate leader Marjory LeBreton and Liberal Senate leader James Cowan have written the committee urging it to interview senators who have claimed the allowance in order to confirm their claims.

LeBreton and Cowan say that if a claim is found to be invalid, the senator in question should be required to immediately repay the money, with interest.

They say the Senate’s reputation is at stake, so it’s “vital” that the matter be resolved quickly and transparently.

[BLOG] Some Monday links

• Burgh Diaspora notes that Spanish workers are moving to Mexico and the Germany isn’t doing so well thanks to regulatory and language barriers.
• The Dragon’s Tales points to a recent study suggesting that the Neanderthals of the Iberian peninsula died out before the arrival of Homo sapiens.
• Eastern Approaches observes, after the failure of a civil union law to make it through the Polish parliament, the problems of facing GLBT rights in Poland.
• Could we have had a moonbase instead of the International Space Station? At False Steps, Paul Drye suggests that might have been a possibility.
• The Global Sociology Blog observes the global rise of the cosmetic surgery industry and points out that Saudi Arabia is a terrible place to live if you’re a woman or a child.
• GNXP’s Razib Khan points to a German study suggesting that only 1% of children, not 10%, have biological fathers other than the people identified as such.
• Language Hat notes the substantial immigration of Circassian-speaking Armenian Christians to the Russian North Caucasus in the 18th century.
• At Lawyers, Guns and Money, Scott Lemieux doesn’t think much of Alan Dershowitz’s many intellectual contortions, on the matter of the Brooklyn College’s conference and on other things.
• Window on Eurasia links to speculation in a Russian regional paper as to the prospects for the amalgamation of different federal units. Could there be a Middle Volga unit dominated by Kazan’ (and Tatarstan)?

[BRIEF NOTE] On the risks of British departure from the European Union

British Prime Minister David Cameron has done it.

Prime Minister David Cameron said Wednesday he will offer British citizens a vote on whether to leave the European Union if his party wins the next election, a move which could trigger alarm among fellow member states.

He acknowledged that public disillusionment with the EU is “at an all-time high,” using a long-awaited speech in central London to say that the terms of Britain’s membership in the bloc should be revised and the country’s citizens should have a say.

Cameron proposed Wednesday that his Conservative Party renegotiate the U.K.’s relationship with the European Union if it wins the next general election, expected in 2015.

“Once that new settlement has been negotiated, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms. Or come out altogether,” Cameron said. “It will be an in-out referendum.”

[. . .] Cameron stressed that his first priority is renegotiating the EU treaty — not leaving the bloc.

“I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain’s attitude: work with us on this,” he said.

Much of the criticism directed at Cameron has accused him of trying an “a la carte” approach to membership in the bloc and seeking to play by some but not all of its rules.

Speaking as a Canadian familiar with Québec’s intermittent flirtation with the idea of separatism, I’ve a few things to point out.

• Much of British history towards political Europe is ill-informed. One thing that frequently comes up in Euroskeptic discourse is a hostility towards the European Court of Human Rights, a supranational legal institution associated not with the European Union but with the entirely separate Council of Europe. Too much critical detail goes unnoticed, or unknown.
• Much like Québec separatists who confidently assume that after a “Oui” majority in a referendum the province could negotiate whatever arrangement it would like with a rump Canada, even a nominally pro-European Union politician like David Cameron seems to be making the mistake of assuming that a threat of separation will lead Britain’s European partners to make whatever changes the British government might want. I’m very skeptical of this. Perhaps more likely is a complete breakdown of the federation–in their own ways, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia came apart when this brinkmanship occurred.
• Many British Euroskeptics also seem to believe that, if the United Kingdom left the European Union, not only the United States but the entire Commonwealth would welcome the erstwhile founder of the Anglo-Saxon world. I can speak only for Canada, but there is no body of radically pro-Commonwealth sentiment in Canada. Canadian identity is no longer bound up with the Commonwealth in the way it was a half-century ago. If anything, British departure from the European Union would make the United Kingdom a less desirable partner relative to other European countries of a similar size.
• British departure from the European Union would be a catastrophe for the country. Unless a non-EU United Kingdom follows the lead of Switzerland and Norway in accepting European Union regulations while lacking any voice in formulating them, the United Kingdom will be outside of the various markets. What will happen to, among other things, Britain’s financial sector? (Frankfurt and Dublin will do nicely.)
• I can’t help but wonder what the consequences for Scotland might be if Britain departed. Could we get a Scottish separatism invigorated by the desire to remain in, or return to, the European Union?

Thoughts?

[LINK] “Tories accidentally sell the EU to Britain”

A Fistful of Euros’ Alex Harrowell writes about the problems facing the Conservative Party and UKIP in the United Kingdom, as the prospect of Britain’s exiting the European Union rise. It turns out that growing support for the UKIP doesn’t necessary reflect anti-European sentiment.

One of the most surprising discoveries of this latest go-round of the Tories’ conflicts on Europe is that UKIP has stopped being a party that is primarily about the EU, in the sense that its voters don’t care about it. In general, British electors rank Europe relatively low among their priorities. For normal people, it tends to be a strong opinion but weakly held. Astonishingly, it turns out that UKIP voters are no different – their polling profile is basically identical to that of Tories.

This is important and interesting. It shows up that both the Tories and UKIP have a problem. The Tories’ problems are as follows – they’re competing for votes on both flanks, to the centre and to the extreme right (the polling is clear that UKIP wins votes from Tories), and they’re forced by their internal politics to spend time and effort making speeches about Europe and the nature of Britishness, which isn’t a productive activity. UKIP’s problem is more subtle; its leaders are fascinated by the EU. It’s why they do it. But their voters aren’t – only 27% of them rate the EU among their top three issues.

Over time, UKIP has evolved in a libertarian direction. Its leadership basically believe two things: we should get out of the EU, in order to be more neoliberal. The problem here is that libertarianism is very much a minority opinion. Most British people don’t want it or anything like it. Polling of UKIP voters shows they are no different. Instead, they seem to be Tories, but more so. They vote UKIP to register protest against the Tory leadership for compromising with the electorate and the Lib Dems.

For their part, the Tory Eurosceptics are trying to compete with UKIP in Euroscepticism and libertarianism. Therefore, the “Fresh Start” group wants David Cameron to demand three policies: an opt-out from the working time directive, and another from financial services policy. This is apparently meant to be popular. The Fresh Starters say some remarkable things – apparently the EU wants to “shut down financial services” – but it seems unlikely that the British people are desperate to avoid regulating the banks, and it is actually the declared policy of the government that the economy should be rebalanced to rely less on the City. (And they want to stop sending the European Parliament to Strasbourg, but then everybody wants that bar the mayor of Strasbourg.)

But this speaks to an important point. It’s meant to be about sovereignty, no less, and this is all they can think of to do with it?

[BRIEF NOTE] On the unlikelihood of Maritime Union

Facebook’s Mike linked to Jen Gerson’s National Post intervieww with Prince Edward Island premier Robert Ghiz. Unsurprisingly, Ghiz–like the vast majority of other Islanders–is uninterested in the idea of Maritime Union, that is, the unification of the three Canadian Maritime provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island) into a single unit.

It seems to have captured a bit of interest, but it seems safe to say you are very much opposed to combining the Maritime provinces, yes?

From my perspective right now, we’re very fortunate that we have three provinces. That gives us more clout when it comes to dealing with the feds, or dealing with other provinces. The arguments that are being made for it, I think if [the senators] did a little research they’d realize that there is a lot of co-operation that takes place amongst the Maritime provinces.

For example, we don’t have our own lottery commissions in each province. We have what we call the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. In the Maritimes, we have an institution that deals with issues around post-secondary education. We do a lot of procurement together when it comes to purchasing things. So there already is a lot of co-operation. I think it’s counterintuitive to what the Senate is actually supposed to be there for, which is to defend the interests of the regions that they’re appointed from.

Do you think there’s something to the argument that if the provinces did unite there would be fewer jobs for premiers like your good self?

Let me just put it to you like this, if this were ever to go ahead, it would take years upon years to put something in place. I’m not going to be around in 10 or 15 years anyway as Premier, most likely, so it’s irrelevant to the job that I have.

Your province obviously does have a disproportionately large representation in Parliament. It would hurt your representation if you were to meld with the other provinces, wouldn’t it?

Absolutely. Right now we have four members of Parliament, we have four senators. This goes back to the 1864 conference, the 1867 formation of the country, the joining of Prince Edward Island to Canada in 1873. If [P.E.I. Senator Mike Duffy] or the other senators, who are from the respective provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, think that it is a good idea, I think perhaps they should consider stepping down from the Senate, running for provincial politics and putting that at the top of their agenda.

One political scientist interviewed by CBC was right to note that the topic of Maritime Union is only raised whenever there’s a perceived state of crisis.

Donald Savoie, Canada research chair in public administration at the University of Moncton, said the fiscal challenges facing the Maritime provinces and an aging population are what have brought the idea to the floor once again.

He said the three provinces are all stomaching immense financial pressures and the concept of the Maritime Union “is in fashion.”

“Whenever there’s an external force that threatens us in the Maritimes, we tend to talk about the Maritime Union,” said Savoie, noting that he has supported the idea for years.

“What we’re witnessing all through the Maritime provinces is some pretty serious fiscal challenges and some pretty serious economic challenges. We have a fast-aging population, and I don’t think we have the financial resources to maintain the status quo.”

At this stage, however, the fiscal crisis isn’t nearly severe enough to overcome particularly sentiments. Speaking particularly about my native Prince Edward Island, almost everyone is invested in the island having the status of a full-fledged province, whether as a deeply-felt expression of identity or materially. (The infrastructure of provincehood employs a lot of people.) I doubt many Islanders at all would like the fair island by the sea to be little more than a larger version of Ontario’s Prince Edward County.

[LINK] “The Dismal Failure of Union, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Articles of Confederation”

At the conservative/libertarian Volokh Conspiracy, David Post argues that the current flaws of the European Union are the flaws of the Articles of Confederation that preceded the current constitution of the United States, that just as the first American constitution gave too much power to the states and too little to the central government, so is power in the European Union distributed too overwhelmingly to the member-states to deal with the problems facing all Europeans.

As it happened, we had a lecture scheduled that day by Isabella Bufacchi, the financial reporter at one of the daily newspapers in Rome (Il Sole24Ore), on the developing Euro crisis. At her lecture, she starts talking about the fundamental problems, in her opinion, afflicting the structure of the European Union and the Eurozone that have contributed to (and become the focus of attention because of) the current Euro crisis. And damned if her list didn’t look a lot like Hamilton’s list! It was actually quite astonishing – a couple of students asked me afterwards if it had all been planned out that way (it hadn’t). The European Union, too, legislates (primarily) “for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist”; it has no power “to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions”; there is a “want of SANCTION to its laws”; it has no taxing authority for the purpose of raising its own revenue; on fundamental questions is gives each State equal suffrage; its judiciary power is crabbed and circumscribed; and it has “never had a ratification by the PEOPLE[, r]esting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures.”

It made me think: Perhaps the Europeans who are trying to envision what “Europe” should look like would take comfort from knowing that our first try at Union was a failure, too. And that the Federalist should be better known, and more widely read, in Europe. Europe needs its Publius, right about now: A fresh start; a catalog of the flaws of the current system, and a plan for a new way forward, to be submitted to the people of Europe for them to accept or reject.

I’ve heard the analogy raised before by people of various nationalities and ideological stances. The analogy sounds plausible enough to me, but I lack the background in American history to feel comfortable making any definitive conclusions. Does Post’s argument make sense?

[LINK] “The Dismal Failure of Union, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Articles of Conf

At the conservative/libertarian Volokh Conspiracy, David Post argues that the current flaws of the European Union are the flaws of the Articles of Confederation that preceded the current constitution of the United States, that just as the first American constitution gave too much power to the states and too little to the central government, so is power in the European Union distributed too overwhelmingly to the member-states to deal with the problems facing all Europeans.

As it happened, we had a lecture scheduled that day by Isabella Bufacchi, the financial reporter at one of the daily newspapers in Rome (Il Sole24Ore), on the developing Euro crisis. At her lecture, she starts talking about the fundamental problems, in her opinion, afflicting the structure of the European Union and the Eurozone that have contributed to (and become the focus of attention because of) the current Euro crisis. And damned if her list didn’t look a lot like Hamilton’s list! It was actually quite astonishing – a couple of students asked me afterwards if it had all been planned out that way (it hadn’t). The European Union, too, legislates (primarily) “for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist”; it has no power “to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions”; there is a “want of SANCTION to its laws”; it has no taxing authority for the purpose of raising its own revenue; on fundamental questions is gives each State equal suffrage; its judiciary power is crabbed and circumscribed; and it has “never had a ratification by the PEOPLE[, r]esting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures.”

It made me think: Perhaps the Europeans who are trying to envision what “Europe” should look like would take comfort from knowing that our first try at Union was a failure, too. And that the Federalist should be better known, and more widely read, in Europe. Europe needs its Publius, right about now: A fresh start; a catalog of the flaws of the current system, and a plan for a new way forward, to be submitted to the people of Europe for them to accept or reject.

I’ve heard the analogy raised before by people of various nationalities and ideological stances. The analogy sounds plausible enough to me, but I lack the background in American history to feel comfortable making any definitive conclusions. Does Post’s argument make sense?

[LINK] Three notes on elections in Canada: Etobicoke Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Alberta

In the Toronto federal electoral riding of Etobicoke Centre, defeated Liberal Boris Wrzesnewskyj is drawing on previous reports of electoral irregularities to launch a legal challenge to the election outcome. This could be quite big.

Arguments have begun in a legal challenge of the federal election result in the Toronto riding of Etobicoke Centre, where former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj lost by 26 votes to Conservative Ted Optiz last spring.

The defeated Liberal MP is questioning election paperwork and records involving 181 ballots. His case is based on votes from 10 polls — representing about five per cent of the riding.

“The rules matter,” Wrzesnewskyj told reporters outside the courthouse on Monday. We live in a democracy that’s governed by rule of law, and the same rules should apply equally to every citizen.”

“An election is the fundamental bedrock upon which our democracy is built. And if we don’t have confidence in that process, then we don’t have confidence in our elected representatives,” the former MP said.

“This case allows us to fix what went wrong before the next election.”

Wrzesnewskyj’s lawyer, Gavin Tighe, told Ontario Superior Court in Toronto that the legal challenge of the May 2 result is based on “irregularites” with some of the voting paperwork, including the failure to check off whether voters showed proper identification.

Other records suggest some ballots may have been cast illegally, by people voting at incorrect polling stations, which runs counter to the Elections Act.

However, the defeated MP’s lawyer conceded that he is not alleging any fraud or corruption in the vote.

In Ontario, it turns out that the NDP isn’t going to precipitate an election by defeating the Liberal minority government over the budget. The Liberals gave in to some of the NDP’s demands.

At a final meeting today, Premier Dalton McGuinty and NDP leader Andrea Horwath discussed a proposal that would integrate some key NDP goals into the 2012 budget and avoid an election (which is automatically triggered if a government loses the budget vote). The biggest element of that deal: the Liberals have accepted NDP calls for a two per cent surtax on those who earn more than $500,000. Revenue from that tax will go to reducing the deficit, and it will be eliminated when the deficit is, in 2017. McGuinty has also agreed to provide additional financial support to hospitals in northern Ontario, support for some child-care spaces that were previously in danger, and some transitional funding for the horse-racing industry.

Speaking to reporters earlier today, McGuinty described the proposal as a “sensible compromise,” one that provides for key NDP goals while also respecting the fact that citizens aren’t clamouring for a return to the polls anytime soon. Several Liberal MPPs are also supportive of the surtax as a matter of policy, and have been urging McGuinty to accept it in caucus meetings.

Today is, without doubt, a big win for the NDP and for Andrea Horwath, who emerge from these negotiations with a stronger political voice than ever before. They won real concessions from the government that reflect core NDP values, but also showed themselves to be true to their word when they say they are committed to having the current minority government work. “I still have many concerns…for everyday people this budget still falls short,” Horwath told reporters, “but I feel that we serve the public better by working together in the legislature.”

Alberta has had its election, with polls indicating a likelihood–but not certainty–of a regime change, the Progressive Conservatives who’ve been ruling the province since before my birth being replaced by the new right-wing Wildrose Party. Changes are afoot, and not jut in federalism..

Albertans remained on tenterhooks Monday night as they waited to see whether they had elected a new government for the first time in four decades.

The polls closed at 8 p.m. local time.

Members of the Wildrose Party remained optimistic that they could unseat the incumbent Progressive Conservative party, which has ruled the Alberta legislature since 1971.

Mired by a litany of petty scandals, and the perception that the ruling Tories had grown corrupt and stale, Wildrose maintained a lead in the polls throughout the most tumultuous campaign in recent memory.

If Ms. Smith wins, it will reflect a province reaching back to its traditional, conservative roots, a moral fibre at odds with the Red Tory values Ms. Redford represents, said Cliff Fryers, the Wildrose campaign chairman.

Mr. Fryers said Ms. Redford is likely to lose because she alienated the province’s conservative wing after she won the leadership of the PC party in October.

Also, if the premier had called the election right after she was chosen to head the party, he said this would have been a very different campaign.
‘I have a bigger fear of consuming industrially raised chicken than I would ever have about horses’

“We would have been fighting on her agenda instead of ours,” he said. “By the time we were five days into this campaign, people were not listening to her, they were already listening to us.”

This 28-day campaign has been called one of the meanest on record. However, Mr. Fryers said it has also been among the most modern ever seen in Alberta’s history.

“Wildrose reached out to everybody with a very definitive platform, and a communications strategy and tour and ads, everything was coordinated. You’ve never seen that before in Alberta,” he said.

The upstart Wildrose party cemented during the reign of former premier Ed Stelmach in 2008 as a response to the government’s meddling with oil royalties. Ms. Smith ascended to the leadership of the party a year later.

The fledgling party is expected to make historic gains in rural Alberta due to their criticism of Alberta Land Stewardship Act, which was created under the auspices of the Tories. The law sparked outrage in the countryside, turning the Wildrose into a de facto opposition party within a few short years.

[LINK] Three notes on elections in Canada: Etobicoke Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Alberta

In the Toronto federal electoral riding of Etobicoke Centre, defeated Liberal Boris Wrzesnewskyj is drawing on previous reports of electoral irregularities to launch a legal challenge to the election outcome. This could be quite big.

Arguments have begun in a legal challenge of the federal election result in the Toronto riding of Etobicoke Centre, where former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj lost by 26 votes to Conservative Ted Optiz last spring.

The defeated Liberal MP is questioning election paperwork and records involving 181 ballots. His case is based on votes from 10 polls — representing about five per cent of the riding.

“The rules matter,” Wrzesnewskyj told reporters outside the courthouse on Monday. We live in a democracy that’s governed by rule of law, and the same rules should apply equally to every citizen.”

“An election is the fundamental bedrock upon which our democracy is built. And if we don’t have confidence in that process, then we don’t have confidence in our elected representatives,” the former MP said.

“This case allows us to fix what went wrong before the next election.”

Wrzesnewskyj’s lawyer, Gavin Tighe, told Ontario Superior Court in Toronto that the legal challenge of the May 2 result is based on “irregularites” with some of the voting paperwork, including the failure to check off whether voters showed proper identification.

Other records suggest some ballots may have been cast illegally, by people voting at incorrect polling stations, which runs counter to the Elections Act.

However, the defeated MP’s lawyer conceded that he is not alleging any fraud or corruption in the vote.

In Ontario, it turns out that the NDP isn’t going to precipitate an election by defeating the Liberal minority government over the budget. The Liberals gave in to some of the NDP’s demands.

At a final meeting today, Premier Dalton McGuinty and NDP leader Andrea Horwath discussed a proposal that would integrate some key NDP goals into the 2012 budget and avoid an election (which is automatically triggered if a government loses the budget vote). The biggest element of that deal: the Liberals have accepted NDP calls for a two per cent surtax on those who earn more than $500,000. Revenue from that tax will go to reducing the deficit, and it will be eliminated when the deficit is, in 2017. McGuinty has also agreed to provide additional financial support to hospitals in northern Ontario, support for some child-care spaces that were previously in danger, and some transitional funding for the horse-racing industry.

Speaking to reporters earlier today, McGuinty described the proposal as a “sensible compromise,” one that provides for key NDP goals while also respecting the fact that citizens aren’t clamouring for a return to the polls anytime soon. Several Liberal MPPs are also supportive of the surtax as a matter of policy, and have been urging McGuinty to accept it in caucus meetings.

Today is, without doubt, a big win for the NDP and for Andrea Horwath, who emerge from these negotiations with a stronger political voice than ever before. They won real concessions from the government that reflect core NDP values, but also showed themselves to be true to their word when they say they are committed to having the current minority government work. “I still have many concerns…for everyday people this budget still falls short,” Horwath told reporters, “but I feel that we serve the public better by working together in the legislature.”

Alberta has had its election, with polls indicating a likelihood–but not certainty–of a regime change, the Progressive Conservatives who’ve been ruling the province since before my birth being replaced by the new right-wing Wildrose Party. Changes are afoot, and not jut in federalism..

Albertans remained on tenterhooks Monday night as they waited to see whether they had elected a new government for the first time in four decades.

The polls closed at 8 p.m. local time.

Members of the Wildrose Party remained optimistic that they could unseat the incumbent Progressive Conservative party, which has ruled the Alberta legislature since 1971.

Mired by a litany of petty scandals, and the perception that the ruling Tories had grown corrupt and stale, Wildrose maintained a lead in the polls throughout the most tumultuous campaign in recent memory.

If Ms. Smith wins, it will reflect a province reaching back to its traditional, conservative roots, a moral fibre at odds with the Red Tory values Ms. Redford represents, said Cliff Fryers, the Wildrose campaign chairman.

Mr. Fryers said Ms. Redford is likely to lose because she alienated the province’s conservative wing after she won the leadership of the PC party in October.

Also, if the premier had called the election right after she was chosen to head the party, he said this would have been a very different campaign.
‘I have a bigger fear of consuming industrially raised chicken than I would ever have about horses’

“We would have been fighting on her agenda instead of ours,” he said. “By the time we were five days into this campaign, people were not listening to her, they were already listening to us.”

This 28-day campaign has been called one of the meanest on record. However, Mr. Fryers said it has also been among the most modern ever seen in Alberta’s history.

“Wildrose reached out to everybody with a very definitive platform, and a communications strategy and tour and ads, everything was coordinated. You’ve never seen that before in Alberta,” he said.

The upstart Wildrose party cemented during the reign of former premier Ed Stelmach in 2008 as a response to the government’s meddling with oil royalties. Ms. Smith ascended to the leadership of the party a year later.

The fledgling party is expected to make historic gains in rural Alberta due to their criticism of Alberta Land Stewardship Act, which was created under the auspices of the Tories. The law sparked outrage in the countryside, turning the Wildrose into a de facto opposition party within a few short years.