Wildrose Shifts Far Right; Disenfranchises Libertarian Contingent

[troutman]

I don't care about their social policies. The momentum towards greater social justice can't be stopped now.

I happen to think smaller government and less taxes is not the magic bullet.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Wildrose is just about on it's last legs. Danielle is certainly quitting in 2016 because she obviously won't be winning, so at that point is it over for the Wildrose? Some have already mentioned it but it seems she is the Wildrose party, which is probably one of the main reasons they can't win. People hold a much more negative view of her than any other leader, and weak ass leadership like this is exactly why.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Wildrose is just about on it's last legs. Danielle is certainly quitting in 2016 because she obviously won't be winning, so at that point is it over for the Wildrose? Some have already mentioned it but it seems she is the Wildrose party, which is probably one of the main reasons they can't win. People hold a much more negative view of her than any other leader, and weak ass leadership like this is exactly why.

To the bolded - this is why, even though it's very lovely that her party gave her such a vote of confidence regarding her comments on stepping down earlier and told her she had to stay, after they didn't gain a thing after this last by-election, that she should step down now.

If they want to keep/gain relevance as a party past this year, they need to either turf her or allow her to step down, and find a new leader. Someone that is much different. It can't be another rammy mouthpiece type, like McAllister or Towle (there's another whose name escapes me just now) - they open their mouths and it's like listening to Smith - so many of them seem to have zero identity of their own - it's all like a ventriloquist and dummy act. Action needs to occur now - otherwise there won't be the time needed, to turn the sentiment around, regarding the WildRose (or perhaps WiltedRose is more appropriate at this juncture). They need to dig deep and find someone new within the party.

I get wanting to stay close to your party's ideals. But there has to be growth, as well. As long as you stunt your party by keeping Danielle Smith on board as leader, or bringing in another leader exactly like her - may as well fold now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Who needs roads and hospitals anyway.

I am going to have my kids in the US for a million bucks a piece.

I'm not saying it is right. Just saying that it is doable.

[Bill Bumface]

I'd rather vote in a bunch of idealist idiots that ruin the province than someone leading to economic success but at the cost of equal rights for any Albertan.

[ben voyonsdonc]

I'm no Wildrose supporter but here are my thoughts:

The Wildrose is playing right into Prentice's hands with their recent turmoil. The Wildrose is showing that they are a fledgling party that hasn't quite found its footing as a party. In 2012, the Wildrose was almost gifted the government by Redford and her crew of misfits. In a way, the Wildrose was lucky that they didn't win because they didn't have the team to govern and would have likely had significant problems setting and implementing their agenda.

The Wildrose seems to have entered a period of an identity crisis after the byelections which seems to be a major overreaction. Byelections don't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. They are momentary snapshots in time and the Wildrose should learn a few lessons about the effectiveness of their messaging but shouldn't be talking about throwing their leader out. They are fricking by-elections for goodness sake. The Wildrose should instead be projecting a stable, stay the course image while so that they can convince Albertans that they are a suitable choice for government. Instead they seem to be doing the exact opposite. I'm sure that Jim Prentice could not be happier.

[troutman]

There is no room for two "right of center" parties.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not saying it is right. Just saying that it is doable.

Of course.

I just would rather not have "doable, but to our detriment" in the scope of things our political parties are proposing.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by troutman

There is no room for two "right of center" parties.

The PC party is pretty much exactly at center, as much as is possible for any single party, which is why they are not losing elections.

[ben voyonsdonc]

The Wildrose should look at the Saskatchewan Party as its model. The SP was defeated several times by the NDP but each election they moved a little more to the middle and this kept the Liberals and PCs from rebuilding. Now they occupy so much of the spectrum that it is hard to defeat them.

The Wildrose was hoping that Redford would be Alberta's Grant Devine effectively wiping out the PCs. It didn't happen but the Wildrose should keep their heads down and focused on the goal of building towards government. They won't win by ceding the middle to the PCs. They won't win by capriciously tossing out their leader. They have to stay the course and show that they can recover from a punch.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

The Wildrose should look at the Saskatchewan Party as its model. The SP was defeated several times by the NDP but each election they moved a little more to the middle and this kept the Liberals and PCs from rebuilding. Now they occupy so much of the spectrum that it is hard to defeat them.

The Wildrose was hoping that Redford would be Alberta's Grant Devine effectively wiping out the PCs. It didn't happen but the Wildrose should keep their heads down and focused on the goal of building towards government. They won't win by ceding the middle to the PCs. They won't win by capriciously tossing out their leader. They have to stay the course and show that they can recover from a punch.

The Saskatchewan Party is essentially the Liberal party there. I think that a lot of centrist voters in Alberta have shifted to the PC's now though, and that's trouble for the opposition.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The PC party is pretty much exactly at center, as much as is possible for any single party, which is why they are not losing elections.

Lol. Along with Quebec, the PC's have been the highest spending provincial government in Canada. Trying to pretend they are in the 'center' simply because there are other parties wishing to spend more doesn't make any sense at all.

How would you define the PC's as a 'centrist' party? Because they maintain low taxes and spend absolutely all non-renewable resource revenues on public programs?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by troutman

There is no room for two "right of center" parties.

Yes there is.

In fact the only two times there was a legitimate threat to unseat the Tories, the attack came from the fiscal right. (WR under Smith, and Libs under Decore).

Hell, even brian mason chastised Redford during the debate last election for her spending promises.

If you are talking fiscal politics, there is no room in Alberta for 2 (or more) left of center parties.

Socially, totally different story.

The other prong of this debate is the mistaken assumption that because someone is a supporter of a fiscally conservative party, that they automatically support the social platforms as well.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Yes there is.

In fact the only two times there was a legitimate threat to unseat the Tories, the attack came from the fiscal right. (WR under Smith, and Libs under Decore).

There may have been, but not any longer. People on the left will flock to the PCs to keep out a further right party. Alberta is attracting younger people who are more liberal. Alberta will become increasingly urbanized. Our right leaning parents are in decline.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Wildrose blew its load way too early with Redford. Had they been patient and started going after her now, the PCs would be in a world of hurt going into the next election. Instead the Wildrose went hard to get rid of her, and in doing so ushered in her more competent, substantially more liked successor. Prentice has to seriously drop the ball for the PCs to not coast in 2016.

The Wildrose's primary concern next election should not be winning, it should be earning more seats in Calgary and Edmonton than the Liberals and NDP, something it didn't even do last electon. Until it can do that, it is an utterly irrelevant political party.

[calgarygeologist]

I would be happy to vote for the PC again if they could focus on controlling government growth, expansion and regulation. We don't need more government and more spending. The government needs to be leaner and more efficient. This has been a common theme in the private sector where all companies are focused on reducing costs and waste but the public sector is the complete opposite. It is unsustainable and the tax payers can't and won't support it.

[nik-]

I feel like "we don't need more government" is such a hollow phrase.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by nik-

I feel like "we don't need more government" is such a hollow phrase.

I think we need to have taxes to reflect the actual size of our bloated government.

Then the phrase would have some real meaning.

Spending our children's portion of royalty revenues to maintain artificially low taxes should be criminal.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by troutman

There may have been, but not any longer. People on the left will flock to the PCs to keep out a further right party. Alberta is attracting younger people who are more liberal. Alberta will become increasingly urbanized. Our right leaning parents are in decline.

You are my right leaning parents

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I would be happy to vote for the PC again if they could focus on controlling government growth, expansion and regulation. We don't need more government and more spending. The government needs to be leaner and more efficient. This has been a common theme in the private sector where all companies are focused on reducing costs and waste but the public sector is the complete opposite. It is unsustainable and the tax payers can't and won't support it.

This is often trotted out as a self-evident truism but it simply doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Petro-corporations in Alberta have been spending like drunken sailors during the recent energy boom. For example, anyone want to speculate on the public reaction if the Alberta government invested 1.4 Billion dollars to build the Bow? Or if the Premier earned 4.8 million dollars per year like the COO of EnCana?