He certainly was on the progressive side of Progressive Conservative. The first law adopted by his governement was Alberta's First  Bill of Rights. Which shows the difference between a Progressive Conservatives and todays conservative party. he actually believed in individual rights and freedom of religion.

I don't kow a lot about him, but I am sad for his friends and family.

Lougheed, Davis (William Davis of Ontario), and the other politicians of that generation (including, of course, people like Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien at the Federal level) dominated the national scene when I was growing up. Whether I agree with them or not, they had an effect on me. RIP, Mr. Lougheed.

Mendalla

The mid-late 70's was when I first developed an interest in politics. Whether you agreed with all the figures or not, they stirred something other than just increasinly extreme and irrational ideology and contempt or mere ambivalence and disinterest. They seemed larger than life. Lougheed was one of them. Bill Davis, Rene Levesque, Allan Blakeney, Brian Peckford. And, of course, Pierre Trudeau. They were grand days in Canadian politics with leaders who meant something to people.

I look at the bunch we have on stage now. Stephen Harper, Dalton McGuinty, Christy Clark, Charest and/or Marois. Minor leaguers by comparison who don't inspire anything positive.

Those were the days when you voted for somebody - they shared their vision and they told you what they had to offer.  And you decided which one would best represent you.

Now, with all the attack ads and negative statements it seems we just know who we don't want.  So we come up with 'none of the above' or 'abc'.  

He was before my time, but I've never heard anything bad about him (now Trudeau on the other hand...).

Alex, I'm confused by your comment as in the last election as the PC party used freedom from religion as party of the platform.  I could be wrong, but I doubt a female party leader would have been elected then.

Peter Lougheed's great contribution was the notwithstanding clause which made it possible for any provincial premier to violate human rights. the PQ and the Quebec Liberals thank him.

It was awkwardly worded, and I am mixing seprate ideas so it was likely confusing to evryone but me.

Let me try to reexplain or clarify. . There are small c conservatives and there are big C Conservatives. Small c conservatives are those who believ in a set of ideas, and they may or may not be a part of political party which are big C conservatives.  

.The National Conservative Party is a  party that is dominated by small c conservatives, who claim that they represent the conservative movement.

Historically one of the differences between the Progressive Conservatives and small c  conservatives or movement is it's support of Human Rights.

The PC support  for expanding human rights can be dated to at least Diefenbaker Human Rights Act of 195*.  Also You can pretty well distinguish the remaining provincial  Progressive Conservative today at  provincial levels by it's support of human rights. Thus in Ontario the PC party is dominated by small c conservatives because it wants  to remove or limit rights.  The Alberta PC Party still includes progressive thinkers, and still wants to expand rights.  Small c conservatives in Alberta today are actually Wildrose supporters.  

What I was trying to say that althrough at that time  Lougheed was a Progressive thinker and that is shown by the fact that his first law in his first government was the first Alberta Human Rights Act shows that.  

The current Alberta PC leader is also a Progressive in that she is against limiting human rights, 

Lougheeds support of the Alberta PCs over Wildrose in the last election is also indicative of that fact 

The notwithstanding clause was a necessary comprimise in order to assure adoption of the Charter. At moist it can be used for 5 years before it expires. And with the exception of  Quebec it's use is seen as a black mark and political suicide.(ala Stockwell Day)

 While in Quebec it's use is ineffective becasue all the laws that used the notwithstanding clause are than struck down by the courts because they also contravine  Quebec's human rights code, I believe.

The notwithstanding clause can be re-invoked every five years as long as a government wishes to do so.

We should never have accepted a charter of rights with such a clause. If that was the only way to pass the charter, there was really no point in having the charter in the first place.

And what it does is to protect provinces from judicial review of wide areas of their denial of basic freedoms. Imagine. Provincial governments would have to obey the law!

I see no upside in that whole process. To give us rights that could be denied at any time and with no reason was a farce.

P.S. It is a myth that there is or ever was a school of conservativism in Canada that was "progressive", whatever people might think progressive means.

The progressive party of Canada was a western one - that had really become quite unprogressive by 1945. About the time, the Conservative party was desperately searching for a new leader. The man it wanted was Brendan Bracken, popular leader of the Progressive party in Alberta.

Bracken agreed - but insisted the Conservative Party would have to rename itself Progressive Conservative. Their have been some intelligent conservatives who had a sense of what was needed - John Diefenbaker has flashes of that. So did the much criticized R,B, Bennett.

But in general, there is nothing progressive about the conservtive party, and never has been. (nor have the liberals ever been particularly liberal. Neither party has anything that could be called a political philosophy.

I believe you mean John Bracken, who was not from Alberta but had served as Premier of Manitoba from 1922-1943, when he became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, on the condition that it change its name to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Brendan Bracken was a British Cabinet minister under Winston Churchill during World War II.

Early you did say conservative party, so you can see my confusion, especially when I prefer to compare apples to apples (the AB back then and the current PC party now). 

Thanks for the clarification!  I agree with your assessment of the small c conservatives here, but they don't really have too much power :)

revdavis - sorry. you're right. But I'll get you for it.

I'll be treading cautiously!

Not a political bone in this body...but I applaud Peter Lougheed's manner of stating exactly what he meant...when he meant it.  Cheers to a life well lived....**clink**

I hear what Graeme is saying, but the Notwithstanding clause was brought out in the spirit of protest; as all the western provinces are when it comes to the eastern proviincial block.  Further, that Quebec can use it to fuck people with is the status of Quebec in general when it comes to the non-French.  However, Quebec, is itself just beginning to grow up to realize that one can protest in one's country without having to cede identity with the country - in part this has come from allowing Quebec to fuck people up until it has embarassed them - only a small part I realize but MAYBE

what Lougheed was simply after was not allowing Ottawa/Toronto/Montreal to dominate the west, that is what he got. ????

He learned some lessons from WAC Bennett as all politicians in Canada did, in dealing with Trudeau specifically, and Ottawa in general.  These were lessons of protest in which autonomy was achieved through superior corporatist book-keeping to Ottawa, in a manner which screwed only the environment but made provinces very rich.

Lougheed believed in the ARTS and supported them unconditionally, which helped out Albertan's self-identity perhaps as much as or more than the money.

The nothwithstandinig clause had nothing to do with defending the West. How was the West threatened by allowing people to have human rights?

Alberta was a rich province. It did not want to share that wealth. It was not going to be Canadian wealth. It was going to be Alberta wealth. Lougheed, like some other Canadian premiers was as separatist as Quebec in that sense.

JLN - your second to last paragraph is unintelligible. As is your last one.

All premiers have supported the arts. ALL have done so conditionally. (I can't even imagine what unconditional support for the arts means.) And that helped Alberta's sense of self-identity? Really. Are Albertans a terribly, terribly artsy crowd.? Alberta has always had a strong sense of self-identity. Read some Alberta history.

Lougheed, like Wacky Benett, was nothing more than a servant to powerful corporations that made piles of money out of his province. They had no intention of sharing that money with other Canadians. So Lougheed did what they told them to do. As to the danger of Ottawa harming the environment of Alberta, that is laughable. Look at what Alberta has done.

The Notwhihstanding clause was there to protect to power of provincial premiers and to weaken the power of courts to protect Canadians. it was as separatist as Quebec, and for much the same reasons as the PQ is separatist - to protect the wealthy of upper class francophones.

What eastern bloc of provinces are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting Ontarioi to Newfoundland constitute a bloc?

And, as to Quebec learning to accept Canada, have y ou perhaps noticed that it just elected the PQ again?

The purpose of the notwithstanding clause was not to weaken Ottawa - because it didn't weaken Ottawa.What it weakened, and what it was designed to weaken, was the justice system. And that was certainly not to protect anybody - except for corporate bosses in provinces that they were happily ripping off and destroying.

And Albertans, in particular, have watched that silly game with grins as though it were good for them.

Oh, but let's do thank Lougheed for making it possible for Quebec to drive out half a million people who spoke English, and to siphon public tax money into the pockets of the Bombardiers and Lavalins of this world.

There's nothing like watching people getting ripped off, and cheering for the people who are ripping them off.

Wow graeme, this is pretty low even for you. A man that dedicated his life to public office has died. But you disagree with policies, and piss on his grave.
You're a real class act.

alta - please use words with meaning.

Lougheed devoted his life to public office? WAs it a sacrifice? Did he die poor?

His major work in his career was to retain the major benefit of oil for Alberta. And the major benefit of that went to very few people. He also made life easier for the oil companies by not being fussy about the environment. That's a price for all of us to pay down the road.

For Canada, he established the principle that we take it easy on sharing the nation's wealth, again a move of greatest benefit ot the billionaires who hold it.

For Quebec, he made it possible for the PQ to destroy the English community.

He was the greatest premier in Canadian history?  Oh? Did he leave behind such a legacy of benefit to his province and the whole country as Tommy Douglas did? (not only didn't he; but Douglas did pay a price for serving - and an additional one of being spied on by the RCMP at the wish of the sort of people Lougheed served.)

There certainly have been (some) politicians all of parties who went into politics "to serve". But not many. I prefer the truth to pius abuse of the language.

I have no disrespect for the dead. You do.

I am certainly sorry to hear that Lougheed has died. What I intensely disllike is the maudlin act of mourning that some people put on when it is really an expression of their partisanship.

In sum. I was sorry to hear of his death. I think it way over the top to call him the greatest premier in Canadian history. I think it way over the top to attribute his career to a desire to 'serve the Canadian people" as if he were some sort of political monk. That shows profound cynicism.

So I was not, in your eloquently Christian terminology, "pissing on his grave".

Graeme.

Thanks for taking the time to read my writing.  I can't read your work as you have difficulty negotiating white space and do not give the reader any advantage of layout: too much of a snob to take care of presentation.

To clarify then,WAC Bennett led the provinces in attempting a provincial break from centralized government.   Quebec and Alberta followed the  "maverick" politics of WACKY Bennett.  This is intelligible straight-up Canadian history.

As for the Arts:  unless you were in Alberta, you wouldn't understand the huge impact money sleighted for arts and education had on Albertans.  It may have saved them from becoming completely annihilistic Nazi Fundamentalist Christians.

Also, you show complete disinterest in Western Canadian politics and do not understand the catch phrase of protest history, of which TC Douglas was only a small recipient from great men with great footsteps larger than his Douglas' entire life of footsteps.  There is reason as to why Douglas ended his career and his last days so  humbly. 

But back to:  Bennett and Lougheed  - who showed individualist takes on politics; neither right- nor left- wing all of the time.  They did not satisfy the Liberals ever and pissed off both left and right wings much of the time.   However, both men could easily been called socialists from time to time as much as they laid down tracks to neo-conservative corporate structure in their provinces.  You may call this separatist, as Trudeay did, however, it was considered the rational response to unfair East-West taxation et al.  iWe all know from the last recession that not diversifying investments is bad business, as sure way to end up on the dole.  I am not discussing the environment, but that was not Trudeau's interest either.  He simply wanted control - personally.  It was a personality war. 

I do belive that there was belief in Canada; as a small child remembers kicking fallen Maple leaves on the way to school, drinking in cool air and wondering at the amazing history which brought all the stories of Canada into a story.  It was a whisper "oh canada" and I believe all the men mentioned above had a breath of it in their ego. You can not deny that .  But they were all big boys in the games of old boys.   That the media got.

This is the reality in Western politics.  No one has been able to follow the legacy of either Bennett or Lougheed; they existed as entities and further, Lougheed would not have done so well with gaining autonomy for Alberta  (YES that was autonomy - not separation)  had it not been for WACKY who showed him how to do it.

Further, one can not blame the NOTWITHSTANDING clause for Quebec separationist movements.  Quebec has just discoverd the strength of protest which has been the statement in the western politics post the Western separation movement of Louis Riel.

Just a point. You giving way too much credit to WAC Bennett. He simply continued a process that was well underway; that began shortly after Confederation. One could argue that it was really Oliver Mowat (Premier of Ontario from 1872-1896) who began the move to emphasize provincial rights as opposed to the type of centralized government John A. Macdonald would have preferred and thought he had achieved.

Graeme, I'm not debating Lougheed policies in any way, shape, or form. I would like you to read the previous sentence again to make sure you understand it. Hell, I might even agree with you somewhat.
But that is not the point, and I honestly believe that you lack the necessary social skills to get the point.

jlin - your post is unintelligibale - and, in the bits I can follow, you suggests you know very little  about Canada. As well, you do not appear to know the meanings of many of the words you use.

alta - you may well be right about the social skills. I don't need them any more; and that's a great relief.

Rev.Davis,

I get your point, also about Ontario and I do understand the eastern/labour take on decentralizing government. 

WAC did have a tremendous amount to do with securing the actual control over water/mineral rights; however.  And it was his direct dealings with Trudeau in this regard that illuminated both Alberta and Quebec to dealing with Trudeau's government.  

It is easy to undersell WAC because he was such a crazy kind of guy.  However, it is never a good idea to deny someone's strength and reality.  WACKY held the power over educated and uneducated alike.  Everyone loved him from UBC to the coporate powers at the Vancouver Club to the fundamentalist Christian institutions and labour/trade mavericks - who hate/loved him.  People should not forget this becuase this is what has formed the personality of all subsequent BC politics and corporate idealism - and to imagine that BC and its HongCouver doesn't effect the rest of Canada is absurd.

Graeme,

Simply, you are insulting.  There is nothing to you but hurt, there is no intelligence in your statements only the desire to be abusive and cruel and that is what you come across as.

As an Albertan who almost always opposed Lougheed, I was glad when he finally stepped down after getting booed at a public event.  At the time I did not realize how much worse the leadership of the PCs could get.  Looking back, I believe the Right Honourable Peter Lougheed probably did the best he could for people as a whole in an environment with a mix of external and internal challenges.  The external challenges included the power of corporations to choose to pass on investing in particular places in order to influence politicial actions along with fluctuating markets and other governments, provincial and federal.

The internal challenges included the nature and character of the members of the Social Credit party that became PC members: many were anti-intellectual and pro pork barrel politics.  The electoral system in place then strongly favoured rural voters over urban voters.

The achievements of his governments over 4 terms included leading Canada in envrionmental actions including deposits on beverage contrainers, stronger standards for the treatment of sewage waste (Still decades ahead of BC, Nova Scotia, and many other provinces); tougher royalty rules than applied under the Socred governments, the creation of Advanced Education to increase investment in post-secondary education; and his wisdom in establishing the Heritage Trust Fund.  His commitment to the well-being of other provinces included loaning the funds in the Trust Fund to other provinces at well below market rates.

When we judge leaders, it helps to examine the people around him to see how far above and beyond them that leader reached.  As much as I wanted better for Alberta, I respect Lougheed for being head and shoulders above those around him and above those who followed him.

I agree with all that, jlin, and wasn't trying to undersell Bennett's importance. I was just noting that he was a continuation of an ongoing trend.

I agree with the view that Lougheed was a giant among midgets.

Thank you graeme, I've been thinking all through the hagiography of the last week or so that there are a lot of people out there trying to suck and blow at the same time and that Lougheed left a long time ago except nobody noticed ... 

I always thought of Lougheed as being provincial (which I think would be confirmed by the moniker "Mr. Alberta").  There has been an attempt to paint him as an "Alberta nationalist" and as a "great Canadian" at the same time. This is not supported by the facts, nor is it even possible. My sense is that from Confederation to the aftermath of the oil crisis, Eastern Canada "carried" and supported Alberta but when Alberta's turn came to reciprocate under the National Energy Policy Canadians were met with the same sort of resentment at being asked to contribute to the common good as is now being demonstrated within the ranks of the supporters of the Tea Party and the Republican party in the U.S.  when the subject of fairer taxation is raised.  I think of Lougheed as a made in Canada Mitt Romney.  I think of Alberta as the province that said, "Now that we've got ours, the rest of you are on your own."  Lougheed was in the forefront of that.

well, I think the big mistake we make is to rate what politicians do - without paying much attention to their motives.

Lougheed served big business. That was his motive. I see no evidence he ever thought of what was best for Canada or even best for Alberta. It was what was best for the big businesses that put up the money for his party to win elections. Alberta got full control of its oil because the investors who owned the oil patch wanted Alberta to have control (which really meant they had control.)

That's quite common, going all the way back to John A. Macdonald. John A. was on the take without a blush. Sir Charles Tupper even more so. Brian Mulroney big time. Even the hymn singing Mackenzie King was known to shake hands and put a few bucks in this pocket.

We often speak glibly of politicians as public servants. Some are. I didn't much like Diefenbaker as a leader. But there was a good deal of sincerity and compassion (as well  as hatred) in him. Ditto for Lester Pearson. Warren Allmand (L, northern affairs, solicitor-general) was a model of public servant - principled and intelligent.

Lougheed was a very skilful politician. But he was nowhere close to the good ones.

 "I always thought of Lougheed as being provincial (which I think would be confirmed by the moniker "Mr. Alberta"). There has been an attempt to paint him as an "Alberta nationalist" and as a "great Canadian" at the same time. This is not supported by the facts, nor is it even possible.  Qwerty

Q for Qwerty from jlin:  What do you think constitutes greatness in a provincial country like Canada? Surely you can't disagree with Leacock's definition of Canada at large as a bunch of hullaballoos let loose on the world; sort of like a Delhi private school opened up and in control.

"Lougheed was a very skilful politician. But he was nowhere close to the good ones."  - Graeme:

Q for Graeme:  In your mind what characteristics make up a great politician? 

Stephen Harper's comments in the memorial service yesterday almost made me choke, "Alberta's history began with Peter Lougheed."  "Canada's history began with him." or words to that effect.  So Colonel Macleod, the Burns family, the famous five, and countless other farmers, ranchers, explorers, entrepreneurs, artists and others are nothing?

jlin - good question. I guess I would call for a "good" politician to be skilful as a politician - but would add that the skill would have to be used to benefit the whole country, and not just a favoured few.

Mackenzie King was certainly skilful - but there was nothing about his career that changed Canada's direction. It was always a country run, essentially for the very rich under King - as it had been going back to John A. Macdonald.

Poor RBBennett was not a skilful politician. But he proved himself in his final year as a man who wanted the best for everyone in the country (despite his image to the contrary). Still, he comes closer to great for having introduced the fundamental principals of greater economic security for all Canadians.

Diefenbaker had his moments - but only moments. Same with Pearson. Certainly, Pearson was the only prime minister we had who saw Candian foreign policy as being something that should benefit all Canadians.

It's tougher with provincial p.m.s because there are so many to judge, and so few who have been studied. There's certainly nothing in the current crop - as sleazy a lot as we've ever produced.

I should think, though, it would be very hard to rank Tommy Dougas in his Saskatchewan years as anything short of great. He showed political skill, and he showed innovation that not only made profound change for the better in his own province - but had an impact that affected the whole of Canada.

My thought at the beginning of teh eologies yesterday (I did not watch all of the "service") was to remember the quote attributed to Bob Edwards (an newspaperman in AB in th 19th century).  He had been to the funeral of a politician and said he now knew the difference between a politician and a statesman---the latter was dead.  Edwards then stated that the country needed more statesmen.

Bob Edwards (1860 to 1922) was the publisher of The Calgary Eye-opener - and the possessor of a stunning wit.  He hated the CPR, with good reason, and often ran front pages pictures of a train wreck under the headline, "Another CPR Wreck"

When a man close to the CPR won the leadership of a national party, Edwards ran a big photo of him - under the headline "Another CPR Wreck."

(I think the reference was to Arthur Meighen who became Conservative leader toward the end of Edwards' life.)

Tommy was great because of all his predecessors. He had no intrinsic abiities that made him any better of a politician than he was a minister.

If it had not been for George Williams, J.S, Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, Stan Knowles, Brocklebank., Douglas would have been another Saskatchewan  wasSocred ( he started out as a Socred)  wannabe Liberal. 

All people stand on the shoulders of those before them. Even Paul stood on the shoulders of Jesus. Does that mean we should pooh-pooh Paul?

The roots of the CCF also lie in prohibitionism, Christianity, etc. Socred was one because it began as a criticism of big capitalism. (You should read some history).

Only later would it become the far right party than is now called the federal Conservatives.

Many people start off on the wrong track. (Paul, again.) The ones with brains change their minds. Peter Lougheed and Stephen Harper both started off as Conservatives and kiss-ups to big money.

As a politican, Douglas ran up an impressive series of wins. He also, almost single-handed, introduced on of the two most important pieces of social legislation we have - medicare.

So - tell us what you've been doing lately.