If Alberta’s United Conservative Party were the “centre right” political party its leader Danielle Smith would like us to imagine it is, the disqualification of Nadine Wellwood as a candidate would barely rate as news.
After all, Ms. Wellwood is so far out there on the right wing’s anti-vaxx fringe she was certain to become a major embarrassment, probably sooner than later.
But the UCP isn’t a normal Canadian political party, even given the continuing radicalization of the Canadian right, and Ms. Smith is not a normal Canadian political leader.
Truth be told, there’s not a lot of light between Ms. Wellwood’s beliefs, which are apparently so bonkers they got her disqualified as a UCP candidate, and those of Ms. Smith, which were apparently so mainstream they got her elected leader and premier.
As unsuitable as Ms. Wellwood may have seemed, the former People’s Party of Canada Banff-Airdrie candidate known for comparing vaccine passports to Nazi policies and cheering on convoy blockades seemed likely to be acclaimed as UCP candidate in the Livingstone-Macleod riding Premier Smith calls home.
After all, just days ago, Livingstone-Macleod UCP MLA Roger Reid dropped out of the nomination battle, saying that “while I hoped to serve a second term, I no longer feel it is possible for me to do so.”
Notwithstanding Mr. Reid’s previous reluctance to give up his seat so Premier Smith could run for the Legislature in her home riding, he is widely assumed to have seen the writing on the wall saying Ms. Wellwood’s vigorous organizing effort was about to overcome his efforts.
But yesterday – the eve of today’s by-election in Brooks-Medicine Hat where Ms. Smith opted to run instead for a seat in the Legislature – Ms. Wellwood published a statement on her website saying she had “received a letter stating that the Party Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC) rejected my application based on a referral from the Executive Director of the UCP.”
In it, she called for the party’s decision to be overturned “as it is a direct violation of a fair and just democracy and does not reflect a free election process.”
She noted, accurately, that “similar disqualifications were conducted under the previous UCP Leader, in ridings like Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre or Cardston-Siksika, to ensure a preferred candidate would be selected.” (Indeed, there had been talk Ms. Smith might reverse those disqualifications – although now, maybe not so much.)
Ms. Wellman also charged that “the Jason Kenney faction of the UCP board is still in place and making all Party decisions until the newly elected members are able to participate at the first UCP Executive Board Meeting later this month.”
This version of the situation has been challenged by current members of the party board, but it is true that the nine board members elected at the party’s annual general meeting in Edmonton last month were all members of an anti-vaccine Take Back Alberta slate in tune with the views of both Ms. Wellwood and Ms. Smith.
So what gives?
Well, the UCP was always an uncomfortable coalition between Progressive Conservatives and Wildrose Party members hammered together as the only solution to the vote splitting on the right that led to the election of Rachel Notley’s NDP Government in 2015.
Once Mr. Kenney was chosen as the UCP’s leader in 2017, he was able to keep it united as long as it succeeded – which it probably would have continued had it not been for the witches’ brew of passions aroused on the right by the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a result, what was once the anti-vaccine fringe now may be poised to control the party.
If they succeed, they can probably live with Ms. Smith as leader, as long as she does their bidding.
If they fail, they may see divorce as their most appealing option.
But if they win and Ms. Smith does what they want, her chances of winning a general election in 2023 or 2024 are significantly reduced. That, of course, would be good news for Ms. Notley and the NDP.
If the UCP can’t win, it has no raison d’être. In that case, the chances of the party fragmenting again may increase.
So, what happens next?
Well, that would be today’s by-election in Brooks-Medicine Hat.
Will Ms. Wellwood’s announcement have an impact on that vote?
All I can say is … surely some revelation is at hand!
The UCP is definitely a worn and tattered political party, that also has riffs and splits in its foundations. It is going to keep on faltering, until it just breaks up and can’t be put back together again. If the voters in Brooks Medicine Hat were wise, they would reject Danielle Smith on the ballot box, based on her history, as well as how bad the UCP has been in the last three and a half years. If they are foolish, they must live with the consequences, even though it will be very bad for Alberta.
Yes, it is very odd that Ms. Wellwood seems to have been disqualified. She seemed to fit right in with Smith’s version of the UCP, or as one political commentator called it the Wildrose on hydroxycloroquine. It is even stranger as the current MLA decided not to run again, presumably because Wellwood would likely win. It is as if the UCP is developing a split personality.
All of this confusion can’t help Smith’s by-election chances. It further complicates things too. For instance will Smith now run in her original riding in the next election, rather than sticking with Medicine Hat, as seemed to be her latest plan?
Maybe someone from the more establishment side of the UCP is expecting or hoping for a less than stellar result for Smith in the by-election and this is an early insurgency within the party. It seems to me this repudiation of Wellwood is also some sort of repudiation of Smith too. Perhaps the newly elected UCP party directors will come to Smith’s rescue and somehow reverse this decision. In any event, it does indicate more turmoil beneath the surface in the UCP than their put on a happy face meeting and keeping so many Kenney cabinet ministers would indicate.
Indeed, DS or TBA, who be the falcon and who the falconer.
But only in their most passionately intense dreams did the UCP believe they held AB’s “centre”.
PJP: Two catches! Quality readership. I’m almost wishing I’d left in the Biblical explanation about the writing on the wall, to see if anyone was paying attention. DJC
Remember when Jason Kenney was considered the most right-wing premier in recent Alberta history? The devolution continues.
Any reliable polling available in B-MH? Will the freezing temps lead to even lower turnout? Will Biden announce he’s not running in ‘24? Sorry, wrong country!
I think Dingy Smith is not quite as dumb as she looks. What if she loses in Brooks – Medicine Hat? If necessary, she already has a plan to take another try at getting a seat in her own riding should Brooks-Medicine Hat not work out. Although a loss today would make things a bit trickier, if not right down embarrassing, it could be a clear indication of what the Alberta voters think of her, maybe not.
The worst are full of passionate intensity. That sums up many of the UCP candidates or wannabe candidates, such Wellwood, and the Take Back Alberta nutjobs on the board, not to mention the membership.
I thought Wellwood and Smith were pals. I wonder if Smith meddled in this decision, recognizing that Wellwood would be an embarrassment to the party and potentially cause a lot of collateral damage. Let’s not forget that Smith burned down the Wildrose’s electoral chances by not condemning a nutjob candidate, Allan Hunsperger, for his homophobic “Lake of Fire” comments. Once burned, twice shy?
The NDP candidate for the riding, Kevin Van Tighem, has strong credentials, is articulate, and well known and possibly is a threat, even though the riding is deep in UCP country. Perhaps the latest polls from Janet Brown about diminishing UCP support have some party apparatchiks worried.
Also, there is the worrisome issue presented by the fact the Livingstone-Maclead is the riding where Smith lives. The optics of Smith representing a riding in which she does not live are less than ideal. At least Getty moved to Stettler after winning his byelection there following his disastrous loss in his Edmonton riding. I am not sure that Smith would do the same. So, one way or another, she probably needs/wants to be the UCP candidate in the Livingstone-Macleod riding for the next election. It would be harder to shove her pal out of the riding if Wellwood were already elected in the by election.
But, as you say, surely some revelation is at hand.
Good catch, Phlogison. I expected that one to be missed. DJC
I will see your Keats and raise you one Berthold Brecht on the occasion of the 1953 Berlin riots:
“Wouldn’t it be simpler under these circumstances for the government to dissolve the people and elect another one?”
More: I expect that’s pretty much what the UCP thinks every time they hear of a doctor moving to B.C. DJC
I’m not sure I agree with some of the other commenters here, but I think I might have a slightly different background from most of the folks here…
Prior to my ouster at the recent UCP AGM, in addition to serving as VP of Policy and Governance, I also served on the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC), who is responsible for vetting candidates and acts as an arbiter in whether or not to disqualify a candidate. I was a member of the committee for all of the disqualifications mentioned in this article.
(I can hear your boos from here. Please stop, it’s hurting my ears.)
For obvious reasons I’m not going to discuss the inner workings of the various committees but there are some facts in the public record here that are worth going into.
Ms. Wellwood is incorrect in a number of her statements. I’ll ignore the more boring errors and stick to the big points.
She is wrong that the board is still “too controlled by the pro-Kenney faction”. Including the Leader (who gets a vote just like the rest) there are 17 voting members on the board plus the President. Eight TBA members plus the leader gives 9 of 17 votes, which is a majority. If it’s true that a) Ms. Wellwood has been excluded unfairly and b) Ms. Smith is fully aligned with the TBA group it should be a no-brainer for her to be reinstated when the Party Board hears her appeal.
Ms. Wellwood’s insinuation that since the board hasn’t met yet the old guard is still in charge is also incorrect. When a decision is made by the PCSC, appeals go straight to the board and if a regular meeting isn’t soon enough a special meeting is called strictly to deal with the issue. An appeal can be requested without specific procedural requirements, which generally means that rejected candidates always appeal since there’s no cost (time or otherwise) in doing so.
If you’re bored with my response so far, let me summarize: the TBA wing can’t hide behind anyone else if Ms. Wellwood is not allowed to run; they are firmly responsible for the outcome of this vote. If the membership doesn’t like it, TBA needs to wear it, just like I wore it whenever I failed to secure a vote that my electorate demanded.
I suspect the TBA folks are going to learn the hard way that the simple narratives presented on Twitter don’t reflect the reality of how the Party works. When I was on the PCSC I was accused of blocking candidates because of a single bad tweet (which is ludicrous) or because I was trying to let sitting MLAs run in their nominations unopposed (also ludicrous and personally offensive to boot).
If my fellow members on the PCSC saw fit to prevent a candidate from running, they did so with good reason and after careful deliberation. I agree with the sentiment from the article that this disqualification would generally not rate as news.
I am a UCP member and obviously want us to be successful in the next election. I also don’t particularly relish the thought of my former colleagues on the board having to navigate issues like this one. That having been said… let’s just say I can’t help but feel a certain amount of schadenfreude at the idea that the TBA wing has to face this decision so early in their tenure.
Joe: I can’t speak for my readers, but I was certainly not bored by your enlightening answer. DJC
ooooh, congratulations Dr DJC,
that nerve diagnosis must be spot on….what’s the word I’m looking for, hmm, quantify???
just as I’m watching a “news conference ” with Pierre P, saying I have been giving press availability, I gave a 45 min interview to the National Post….and what he was saying was sounding like a campaign speech, about what he would be doing as , umm, Prime minister? gee did I miss something??
Danielle Taylor Greene
I think it is a good thing.
Why. I believe that Ms Smith will reinstate her as a candidate.
That should bring even more focus and more exposure to exactly what kind of leader Danielle Smith is and what her beliefs are. And what kind of people she wants on her team.
There is not doubt in my mind that her beliefs are solidly in the conspiracy theory and
hillbilly camp. The more the this is highlighted to clear thinking Albertans the better.
Historical footnote: Both John A. Macdonald and his friend and fellow-Conservative D’Arcy McGee drank, often heavily. At one time, Macdonald was forced to tell McGee, Look here McGee, this Cabinet can’t afford two drunkards, and I’m not quitting.” *
You see this coming, don’t you? The UCP can only tolerate one certifiable lunatic at a time. That, or Queen Dannie can’t tolerate anyone as crazy as she is.
*John A: the man who made us, by Richard Gwyn. Vintage Canada, 2007
Well, whoda thunk it? Danielle Smith, the Queen of Qberduh, is pivoting toward the side of sanity. Here’s a post from Prof. Lisa Young, regarding Smith’s brand-new mandate letters (six, anyway) to her newly-appointed ministers:
https://open.substack.com/pub/lisayoung/p/and-theres-the-pivot?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
If this New & Improved Danielle Smith holds up, Rachel Notley’s job will get considerably harder. In fairness, Smith isn’t really stupid. Prone to conspiracy theories and with NO critical thinking skills, but her political instincts seem better than I’d expected.