Quote:
Originally Posted by lambeburger
I guess we'll never know how any party other than the PCs would handle anything. A change in government is obviously too scary of a thought for Albertan voters.
|
Well, actually I think we have a pretty good idea.
I wrote this post a few months ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
I wonder if this will be cause for reflection for Wild Rose/Conservative supporters.
Is this move, and the preceding political fates of Stelmach and Redford any kind of reflection on conservative ideology in Canada?
Is this just a case, again, of forthright ideologies being misrepresented (again) by the wrong politicians, or is it deeper than that? Is the current political landscape a reflection of the conservative ideology that has had popular support for decades? You reap what you sow, right?
Does the entrenched, conservative nature of these parties and ideologies breed this sort of behaviour?
For example is it conservative resistance to efforts to pluralise voting results, most famously the SoCred decision to abolish proportional representation in favour of first past the post, or their ideological approach to regulation of natural resources that contributes to this kind of anti-democratic action?
Is conservative ideology not up for reflection when once again, two parties on the conservative side of the fence have put power above representation of their constituents?
There seems to be a plurality of posters in here that would rather not vote than vote for a party that didn't identify as conservative. Are these posters aware of their contribution the lack of representation of alberta voters?
When the time a single party has been in power is measured in decades, at what point do the political ideologies that frame the elected officials become as culpable as the officials themselves?
To put it simply: When people who eschew progress are continually rewarded, should we be surprised when precious little progress has been realized?
Stelmach, Redford, the current wild rose disaster. Are these not symptoms of 'conserving' power? Of an ideology opposed and resistant to change? Or is the facile argument of it being the politicians themselves and not the system they have created and represent going to be used again to pull the wool over peoples eyes?
How long can this charade of 'small government' and 'social conservatism' hold relevance in the face of floor crossing and power mergers in a province without political recourse or popular representation, and how long will voters in the province pretend like it has nothing to do with them?
|
So, when caramonLS says wildrose wouldn't have done much better, we have evidence.
Popular conservative ideology in the province of Alberta is an abject failure at this point. Going further into that ideology is highly likely to follow the same trajectory. I'm sure there will be arguments to the contrary that shape the narrative that the conservatives in power aren't 'real' conservatives etc, but that's a bunch of hooey if you look at the track record of the province for the last 40 years. Conservative policies are what got the province into this mess; low taxation, poor infrastructure development, reliance on boom/bust energy sector. These are all hallmarks of a/the conservative ideology.
So, while Prentice might point the finger at voters, and while voters might point the finger at the party, what both are missing is that it's not either, it's the ideology of contemporary 'conservatism' that is responsible. It's the idea that you can have low taxes and still have social services, that you can have poor infrastructure but still maintain population growth, and that you can ignore environmental externalities if they come at the cost of employment statistics.
The chickens have come home to roost now, and the same people who would have you go even further to the right are the same who would suggest 'digging up', often tagging a long a 'stupid' qualifier on the end.
