Nasty Sask. Party leadership race will make reconciliation tough
The notion the Saskatchewan Party can just set aside the bitterness emerging from this leadership race is a pleasant one. History tells us it’s not reality. The Saskatchewan NDP certainly didn’t come together after selecting Cam Broten in 2012, Dwain Lingenfelter in 2009 or even Lorne Calvert in 2001. The common denominator was always the younger generation wanting to take over from the older guard, and wounds continue to bleed to this day.
Admittedly, the same fractious generational differences are less evident in the current Sask. Party leadership race to replace Premier Brad Wall. Regardless of their age, most would be happy if the Sask. Party could simply clone Brad Wall ... or reset the DeLorean to return to 2007 and avoid all this.
But what the current Sask. Party contest reminds us is any leadership race is bound to be nasty, making post-race unity a difficult thing.
The most visible stuff has seemed to revolve around Alanna Koch — specifically, the accusations from other camps that the party hierarchy and executive council provided Koch with research resources and/ or even the questions prior to the Weyburn leadership debate.
The campaign story that just won’t go away took another twist this week when Finance Minister Donna Harpaeur told the LeaderPost’s D.C. Fraser and the StarPhoenix’s Alex MacPherson that her office received a request from executive council for information on the heritage fund three days before it came up in the Nov. 27 Weyburn debate. Harpauer described the inquiry as “unusual” adding, no one in the media or public has requested such information from her office since she took it over last fall.
The newspapers were told by an executive council spokeswoman that this information was not requested by any leadership camp. Rather, it was simply the kind of inquiry that executive council makes of ministries during the session when government must anticipate all sorts of opposition questions.
It could all be as coincidentally harmless as described. But given that only the leadership candidates themselves seem to have seen the full report on the matter that the Sask. Party has been unwilling to release, there remains a healthy culture for breeding suspicion.
This issue was supposed to be an internal one and the party hierarchy has done its utmost to keep it so.
As Koch pointed out on her own Facebook account, it would be naive to think there aren’t some raising this for their own political interests. However, it would be as naive to ignore the growing frustration in Sask. Party ranks now underscored by the finance minister’s “unusual” suspicions that something weird has been going on in executive council and party hierarchy.
A re-emerging theme for months now has been the subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle pressures from executive council, up to and including claims that cabinet and party staff have been pressured to support Koch or not actively support other contenders.
In fairness, both Scott Moe’s and Ken Cheveldayoff’s camps have been accused of applying the same pressures. It has seemed as if Koch’s camp has as often been the victim of rumours as the perpetrator. Really though, every Sask. Party candidate has been victimized by the nature of such leadership races.
But nastiness in this Sask. Party race has especially come fast: Reporters have been sent everything from anonymous accusations about candidate’s spouses to business relations to bank records.
This all underpins what the public is seeing beyond the complaint letter: The odd dynamic of some 22 current caucus members behind Moe; the suspicions of Ken Cheveldayoff going after federal Conservative and social conservatives; so many big business/corporate donors behind Koch, and the Liberal-Conservative split in this party accentuated by the Gord Wyant campaign.
The wounds are deep and may already be festering. Healing won’t be easy.
Reporters have been sent everything from anonymous accusations about candidate’s spouses to business relations to bank records.