[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Alberta politics is a little weird. Generally, it's a one-party system with a weak opposition, but there can be huge shifts in the balance of power. And I think most people understand that the Alberta Liberals in 2009 have nothing to do with the Federal Liberals in 1980.

Our parents generation will never forgive the Liberals for the NEP and the devastation it caused. Our generation is unlikely to support the Liberals following Chretien's reign of error.

Obviously the provincial party is not technically the same as the federal, but we do remember things like Kevin Taft calling up Alan Rock to have him campaign against Kleins health care bills, legislation that Rock never read before.

The name alone, I think, is enough to poison the electorate. And I think that was amply shown in the last election where Stelmach won the 2nd largest majority ever in spite of himself.

My point is this: I don't think you're wrong, exactly. I personally do favour a re-branding and a new centrist party. If Dinning headed it up, I might even join. But the Conservative hold on the reins of power isn't as safe as you might think. Consider that in 1967 the Conservatives held only six seats in the legislature. Six--to the Social Credit party's 55.

In 1971 the Conservatives were in power with a 49-25 majority, and they've been in power since. The dominant party in Alberta doesn't change very often; but when it does, it does it in a hurry.

On this you are right, but when it does change, it often changes for spectacular reasons, or when a charismatic leader can sway the population.

From Liberal to UFA following widespread discontent over the plight of rural Albertans not being heard. From UFA to SoCred following the Brownlee sex scandal, and because of the charismatic leadership of William Aberheart ("ALBERTA GOES CRAZY!"). From SoCred to Conservative after Manning resigned and Lougheed emerged.

Is David Swann the charismatic leader the Liberals need to break through? I doubt it.

There are two things that should worry conservatives. One is Stelmach. The other is vote-splitting, though that's a related issue, with the Wild Rose Alliance. However, until the Liberals have a different leader it's kind of a moot point.

Stelmach can be replaced. Don Getty's leadership cost the conservatives 18% of the popular vote and 24 seats from 1982 to 1989. Ralph Klein's emergence re-invigorated the party. I suspect Stelmach's reign will tread a similar path.

Vote splitting will only be a minor issue for the PCs until, like everyone else, the WRA finds a leader that can inspire the populace. As it is, the party lost 22% of its popular support from 2004-2008, not a good sign. The WRA is completely dead in the one area where vote splitting could really hurt the PCs: Edmonton, while it's strongest base of support is an area where the Liberals aren't likely to win: Southern Alberta. Even in Calgary, the WRA did not impact the outcome of any riding.

Change could happen, but not under the current climate. A redesigned Liberal party with a new name and a good leader could defeat Stelmach. However, barring these changes, I think the 2012/13 election will see a significantly reduced PC majority that prompts the party to take a serious look at a new leader.