How would our Province look if...........

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Much of Edmonton is very center-left and would not swing PC anyway.

Hmm...interesting. Only 5 out of 18 seats in Edmonton went for anybody other than Stelmach - 3 Libs and 2 NDP. The PCs won Edmonton comfortably and still won Calgary by a margin of 18 seats to 5. Its kinda hard to say that Edmonton is some sort of left wing fortress when the PCs were able to win more than two thirds of the seats.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact fallacy - you cannot superimpose a past decision into current situations. Why? Because the circumstances have not stayed constant based since that decision was made. For example, based on past statements and his history, one would have assumed that Stephen Harper would be a fiscal conservative along the lines of Friedman but who would have guessed that as PM would be spending like a drunken sailor/Keynesian when the recession hit? It really is impossible to guess how either Morton or Dinning would have reacted to the global crisis. Everything changed when the recession hit and all previous assumptions get thrown out the window.

I'm neither Lib nor PC and am frightened of a Morton government. The irony is that Stelmach has started to appeal more to the Morton side of the party with Bill 44 and the cuts to programs for transgender surgery. Stelmach has nowhere else to turn because he pissed off so many of the Dinning supporters with his poor fiscal management. By appealing to Morton's group, Stelmach has left his left flank vulnerable to the Libs or NDP. The Libs were rather pathetic in their fight against the PC's mismanagement and I think that they risk being overtaken as the official opposition by the New Democrats who have been a significantly stronger force with only 2 seats than the Libs have been.

[Smell My Finger]

Stelmach is a clown. He doesn't have much of a genuine clue what he is suppose to do. I said it.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Hmm...interesting. Only 5 out of 18 seats in Edmonton went for anybody other than Stelmach - 3 Libs and 2 NDP. The PCs won Edmonton comfortably and still won Calgary by a margin of 18 seats to 5. Its kinda hard to say that Edmonton is some sort of left wing fortress when the PCs were able to win more than two thirds of the seats.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact fallacy - you cannot superimpose a past decision into current situations. Why? Because the circumstances have not stayed constant based since that decision was made. For example, based on past statements and his history, one would have assumed that Stephen Harper would be a fiscal conservative along the lines of Friedman but who would have guessed that as PM would be spending like a drunken sailor/Keynesian when the recession hit? It really is impossible to guess how either Morton or Dinning would have reacted to the global crisis. Everything changed when the recession hit and all previous assumptions get thrown out the window.

I'm neither Lib nor PC and am frightened of a Morton government. The irony is that Stelmach has started to appeal more to the Morton side of the party with Bill 44 and the cuts to programs for transgender surgery. Stelmach has nowhere else to turn because he pissed off so many of the Dinning supporters with his poor fiscal management. By appealing to Morton's group, Stelmach has left his left flank vulnerable to the Libs or NDP. The Libs were rather pathetic in their fight against the PC's mismanagement and I think that they risk being overtaken as the official opposition by the New Democrats who have been a significantly stronger force with only 2 seats than the Libs have been.

Compared to anywhere else in Alberta, Edmonton is the left wing bastion. As I'm sure you recall, many of those 18 Edmonton ridings were fairly closely contested. The NDP and the Liberals also tend to engage in vote splitting there. As you mentioned, the Liberals are doing a shockingly poor job as the opposition. That has had an effect on voting patterns.

As for Harper, the rationale for him is simple. He has no choice. Either he spends like a sailor, or the Coalition of Halfwits either force an election that would change little, or worse, take over and spend like drunken sailors. At least this way, he can have a little discretion. I don't think assumptions can be held up with any veracity, but I think one can guess based on their leanings.

I think your appraisal of Stelmach is generally accurate. Though I think Stelmach has always been socially right and fiscally clueless, the fact that he's appealing to the right fringe is a bonus.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Compared to anywhere else in Alberta, Edmonton is the left wing bastion. As I'm sure you recall, many of those 18 Edmonton ridings were fairly closely contested. The NDP and the Liberals also tend to engage in vote splitting there.

Relative to the rest of Alberta, it is the least monolithic area but is hardly "very centre-left". Federally, even at the Libs' peak, only Landslide Annie and David Kilgour managed to get elected in Edmonton...and that was with a right wing split.

As for Harper, the rationale for him is simple. He has no choice. Either he spends like a sailor, or the Coalition of Halfwits either force an election that would change little, or worse, take over and spend like drunken sailors. At least this way, he can have a little discretion.

Why do politicians completely abandon principles to maintain power? No wonder people are frustrated with politicians --- Harper should have been willing to say that I am going to pass a budget according to what I say and then faced an election if necessary or allow the coalition to govern. The coalition formed because they have the majority of the seats in the house and are entitled to unite if necessary...it is a convention of our parliamentary system (with FPTP or PR) to allow parliamentary coalitions to form. It happened when the PCs and Alliance merged, when the PC-DRC was created, the Bloc was created.

[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.

[zuluking]

Ed was the Saskatchewan Riders of Alberta politics. Everyone's second favorite, but not expected to win anything. Unfortunately, this ain't football where an incompetent team can only hurt your pride as a fan. An incompetent premier can gut a province. He was told not to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, but, gosh darn it, that smart forestry guy told him it was a good idea. What could possible go wrong?!?!

At least Morton wouldn't have had to redevelop Alberta's slogan into some meaningless pap suggestive of nothing. "Freedom to Create" what?, Spirit to Achieve" what?" The Alberta Advantage? Well, crap, didn't we just have that?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

The thing I'm most pissed about is that mental midget making booze more expensive.

With the sorry sac that bunch is, that would just be biting your nose off to spite your face.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Relative to the rest of Alberta, it is the least monolithic area but is hardly "very centre-left". Federally, even at the Libs' peak, only Landslide Annie and David Kilgour managed to get elected in Edmonton...and that was with a right wing split.

Why do politicians completely abandon principles to maintain power? No wonder people are frustrated with politicians --- Harper should have been willing to say that I am going to pass a budget according to what I say and then faced an election if necessary or allow the coalition to govern. The coalition formed because they have the majority of the seats in the house and are entitled to unite if necessary...it is a convention of our parliamentary system (with FPTP or PR) to allow parliamentary coalitions to form. It happened when the PCs and Alliance merged, when the PC-DRC was created, the Bloc was created.

I would contend the hey-day of Alberta Liberals were in 1993 under Lawrence Decore. Edmonton and its surrounding area went completely Liberal. One could say it was the Klein v. Decore, Calgary v. Edmonton effect. However, in 1997, with a new leader, Grant Mitchell, they still captured every Edmonton riding except 4, 2 going NDP and 2 going PC. Provincially speaking, yes, very much a Centre-Left bastion. Federally, you're talking a totally different political animal. After all, even much of the BC Lower Mainland voted Reform/Alliance, and that's not exactly a right wing province.

As for Harper, your answer is exactly why he had to become a spendocrat. He wasn't given a full mandate. His electoral results dictated his actions. He had to work with one or more of the left wing opposition parties, and that means, he has to spend, or be voted out. Canada simply isn't that centre-right. However, his party was given plurality. The Liberals, NDP and especially the Bloc were not elected to coalesce. They have the right to coalesce to bring down the government, not to form it.

Essentially, Harper is giving the people what they want, but under the watchful eye of fiscal conservatism. Note that many people complained that Canada's bailout was way too little.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

Vote splitting is a scare tactic. When the shift comes (and it will), the Libs will end up with basically the same percentages.

As it is, the party lost 22% of its popular support from 2004-2008, not a good sign.

The only numbers on percentage I have seen compare our 61 candidates to our 83 in 2004; not exactly apples to apples.

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.

I would say that is an accurate statement.

Even in Calgary, the WRA did not impact the outcome of any riding.

We did not impact the outcome, but we improved our finshing spot by at least one (sometimes 2) positions, in all but 3 southern constituencies. (Mine being one )

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.

I don't see the Liberals getting it together. They are in debt; laid off all of their staff and members are very spit over the current leadership.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I would contend the hey-day of Alberta Liberals were in 1993 under Lawrence Decore. Edmonton and its surrounding area went completely Liberal. One could say it was the Klein v. Decore, Calgary v. Edmonton effect. However, in 1997, with a new leader, Grant Mitchell, they still captured every Edmonton riding except 4, 2 going NDP and 2 going PC. Provincially speaking, yes, very much a Centre-Left bastion.

I guess that we will agree to disagree...we are largely disagreeing on the degree to which Edmonton is centre left. You see it as centre left relative to the rest of Alberta and I see it as still pretty conservative relative to the rest of Canada particularly compared to Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Victoria, Regina, and Winnipeg.

However, his party was given plurality. The Liberals, NDP and especially the Bloc were not elected to coalesce. They have the right to coalesce to bring down the government, not to form it.

Where are you basing this from? Parliamentary systems have always seen the formation of parliamentary coalitions. In fact, it never stopped Harper from asking the GG to consider him forming a coalition with the Bloc rather than have an election in 2004.

Originally Posted by then Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper

September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Seems a little rich to say that it was ok for the Conservatives to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP but not for the Libs to do the same.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I guess that we will agree to disagree...we are largely disagreeing on the degree to which Edmonton is centre left. You see it as centre left relative to the rest of Alberta and I see it as still pretty conservative relative to the rest of Canada particularly compared to Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Victoria, Regina, and Winnipeg.

Its really difficult to compare provincial and federal politics. Vancouver and Victoria are left leaning cities, both have had ridings that went Reform/Alliance. Halifax is a left-leaning city that has voted PC. Toronto votes Liberal provincially, but is the top area for NDP support in Canada. There are numerous reasons for this. Most often are specific hot button issues and top candidates. I'm not saying your Edmonton = Conservative compared to other Canadian cities argument is wrong, in fact its likely correct, what I'm saying is, in this context (provincial politics), its irrelevant.

When it comes to Alberta, the most left-leaning area by far is Edmonton. It tends to have more unions, academics, public interest professionals and government employees (also mostly union) who traditionally vote leftist.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Where are you basing this from? Parliamentary systems have always seen the formation of parliamentary coalitions. In fact, it never stopped Harper from asking the GG to consider him forming a coalition with the Bloc rather than have an election in 2004.
Seems a little rich to say that it was ok for the Conservatives to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP but not for the Libs to do the same.

Of course, the GG rejected the CPC demands. I would have disagreed with that move too, if only because the idea of a hard left/centre-right/separatist coalition is utterly laughable, and completely incapable of governance.

You are right that parliamentary systems have always seen the formation of coalitions. However, in Canadian political convention, these coalitions have typically been built only to topple the government, or in extreme circumstances. The last true "coalition" government was Borden's Unionist Government during WW1. Otherwise, these coalitions typically require a mandate. Canadian political parties do not campaign on the intention to form permanent governing alliances with opposing parties, especially ones that directly oppose their core ideologies simply to make a power play.

Even in Europe, typically coalitions are built between parties with some common political ground.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Vote splitting is a scare tactic. When the shift comes (and it will), the Libs will end up with basically the same percentages.

Depending on how Stelmach's reign continues, if the PCs bleed support, Capital C conservatives are likely to go WRA, and small c conservatives may well go Liberal. Not in large enough numbers to seriously alter the landscape, however.

Vote splitting is a scare tactic today. With a strong WRA or NDP party, it would be a reality tomorrow.

The only numbers on percentage I have seen compare our 61 candidates to our 83 in 2004; not exactly apples to apples.

Fair enough. I didn't check on that.

We did not impact the outcome, but we improved our finshing spot by at least one (sometimes 2) positions, in all but 3 southern constituencies. (Mine being one )

If it helps, I voted for your party.

I don't see the Liberals getting it together. They are in debt; laid off all of their staff and members are very spit over the current leadership.

Agreed. The Liberals are dead until someone emerges that can unite the party via strong and charismatic leadership. We're probably coming on close to a century since the Alberta Liberals could claim having such a leader.