As the U.S. presidential primary begins in earnest, with campaigning underway and the first debate scheduled for August, it’s easy to become insular as an American voter. But a couple recent elections in other countries featuring major upsets are worth talking about.
First, across the pond in the United Kingdom, where pundits had predicted British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party were in for a long night on May 7. But as the election results began rolling in, it turned out the pundits and, to give the former some credit, pollsters were wildly wrong.
Cameron and his party earned an outright majority in Parliament. There is now a debate simmering among members of the Conservatives’ chief rival, Labour, over whether it had moved too far left. Often, but not always, British and U.S. politics move in unison. So what does it mean for our presidential elections?
Closer to home, north of the border in Alberta, Canada, an entirely different result materialized the same week. There, for the first time in 43 years, the Conservative Party lost power – a stunning outcome.
The province is considered the conservative heartland of Canada with an economy dominated by the oil industry. Several U.S. reporters compared what unfolded to Texas waking up to a majority of liberals elected to its statehouse.
The results are a little more complicated than that, since the U.S. is largely unique in that just two parties dominate its political landscape. In Canada, however, the rise of the New Democratic Party benefited from conservatives splitting their votes between two separate parties. NDP garnered about 40 percent of the vote, while the two conservative parties combined for more than 50.
Regardless, the outcome means NDP and incoming premier Rachel Notley will be running the province and, if their election platform is any indication, big changes loom, especially for the vast oil sands. But it’s unclear exactly what they are.
As the Globe and Mail reported, the oil industry is “spooked,” since Notley’s party promised in the run-up to the election to complete “a careful review of how Alberta will promote resource processing and fair royalties,” and stated, “the people of Alberta as a whole are deprived of much of the benefit of our own resources.”
To the oil industry, that means royalty rates, the percentage of profits paid to the province, will go up. Canadian energy stocks tumbled after NDP’s victory and an investor told Bloomberg News the results are “completely devastating” for energy companies, which are already reeling from falling gas prices.
For her part, Notley has reached out to the energy sector and has said reviewing royalties doesn’t necessarily mean they will change. But how the province approaches the construction of the long stalled Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Alberta crude across Montana and several other states en route to refineries in Texas, almost certainly will change. The incoming premier said she will quit lobbying Washington, D.C. for its construction (although she supports other pipelines) and she also wants to work on a national climate plan.
As Montanans, the question is what does it all mean for us? What does Cameron’s victory mean for our presidential election? And, perhaps more importantly with the province so closely intertwined with Northwest Montana, how will Notley’s premiership impact the Albertan economy and its approach to environmental issues?
At this juncture it is too early to answer that. What’s clear is that Notley will be tested as she simultaneously attempts to fulfill campaign-trail promises and address Alberta’s budget problems.