That said, I don't disagree with your general point. But Greg Clark is a small fish in a large pond. The Alberta Party doesn't compare to the Wildrose because it isn't a breakaway from a major former dynasty, so it started with virtually no momentum.
It's bubble thinking. Wildrose is massive outside of Calgary. Massive. They control the AB rural vote.
If there is another boundary review prior to the next election the Wild Rose may want to think about how they can become more appealing to urban voters.
Ideally what you would want would be for the PCAA to just dissolve. The right-wingers still there could then move to the Wildrose and the centrists could then move to the Alberta Party and the ALP (who would then merge).
Probably the best thing about an NDP government is their willingness to wrest disproportional power away from rural Alberta. The Conservatives always watered down the recommendations of boundary reviews to protect their base in rural Alberta.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I'm not so sure where the Alberta party sits (more or less center) is a sliver in the next election. NDP was a protest vote last year, and after they finish jumping the shark, Albertan's are going to want to lean further right - but not so far right as to go down the fractious, splinted and glass half-empty option, especially in its current state with multiple splintered parties. Not to mention people won't as easily forget the corruption of arrogance of the last Conservative party in power. Wildrose is a wild card but needs better urban support to actually have a legitimate shot at a majority. Liberals may improve their vote count once they finally get a charismatic, motivated leader.
On top of that, I'd wager to guess that our economy will be performing relatively better in three years than now, and so the pressure to get rid of the lefties on an ideological slant vs. an incompetent government will be lessened.
So what do you have for the next election? I'm going to wager a still-fractured right wing taking a minority victory role in the Leg. However the NDP, Liberals and AP will still compose a significant number of seats there too. AP should, IMO, double their seat count, especially in urban areas. If they can speak to Albertans over the next three years as a third alternative, I think they could secure 2-6 spots in the next election. Remember, the Wildrose started from humble beginnings too.
I'm not so sure where the Alberta party sits (more or less center) is a sliver in the next election. NDP was a protest vote last year, and after they finish jumping the shark, Albertan's are going to want to lean further right - but not so far right as to go down the fractious, splinted and glass half-empty option, especially in its current state with multiple splintered parties. Not to mention people won't as easily forget the corruption of arrogance of the last Conservative party in power. Wildrose is a wild card but needs better urban support to actually have a legitimate shot at a majority. Liberals may improve their vote count once they finally get a charismatic, motivated leader.
On top of that, I'd wager to guess that our economy will be performing relatively better in three years than now, and so the pressure to get rid of the lefties on an ideological slant vs. an incompetent government will be lessened.
So what do you have for the next election? I'm going to wager a still-fractured right wing taking a minority victory role in the Leg. However the NDP, Liberals and AP will still compose a significant number of seats there too. AP should, IMO, double their seat count, especially in urban areas. If they can speak to Albertans over the next three years as a third alternative, I think they could secure 2-6 spots in the next election. Remember, the Wildrose started from humble beginnings too.
Well the other side of the coin is that Clark won his seat as a part of that protest vote. The problem the Alberta Party faces is that (A) almost no one has ever heard of them outside of politically active people and (B) no one has a clue what they stand for aside from "we're centrist".
What looks more likely is that the votes bypass the Alberta Party entirely and head back to the rejuvenated and invigorated PC party. A new leader there who is more centrist to contrast with the Wildrose and offer the line of "we were a mess, but we've cleaned house" is far more compelling than what we've heard from the Alberta Party for a lot of voters I think.
Yeah, that "we were a mess but we've cleaned house" thing didn't work terribly well for Prentice.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yeah, that "we were a mess but we've cleaned house" thing didn't work terribly well for Prentice.
No, it did not. But losing the keys to the Legislature changes perception.
As it is, the 2019 election is likely shaping up a lot like 2015 was.
2015: The PCs are unpalatable. Make your choice between Wildrose and the NDP.
2019: The NDP are unpalatable. Make your choice between Wildrose and the PCs.
I don't see much of the NDP's protest vote snapping all the way to Wildrose if they weren't willing to do so last year. It will gravitate back to the PCs as the only viable alternative.
How many years and how many elections did it take for the PCs and Reform to figure that out and merge? And how long did it take the new party to purge the loonies and broaden their appeal enough to win an election?
Difference is that they are starting with a 50-65% Conservative base, if the parties merged tomorrow they would be all but guaranteed to win a majority next election. Federally they were starting with about a 30% base. This isn't two parties fighting over table scraps, it's almost certain victory, that should motivate them to get something done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The Reform party was founded in 1987. The Canadian Alliance was founded in 2000. The Conservative Party of Canada was founded in 2003. They formed a minority government in 2006, so 20 years after Reform was founded. The Wild Rose party was founded in 2007.
Any Alberta merger won't happen any time soon because of the same animosities. Many PCs hate the WR and many WRers hate the PCs. That's true of the rank and file, and doubly true of the party leadership.
First off it makes sense that they would have learned something from the time taken and the success of that merger, there is no reason to think they are somehow required to take the same sort of timeline. As I remember (could be wrong) Clark was open to absorbing the Canadian Alliance as early at 2001 but had no interest in a merger. There was no serious talk of a merger until after Clark was gone and MacKay took over in 2003 and made his deal with Orchard. So in reality they won an election a few years after merger talks began in earnest.
This is the way the dialogue will go until the Cons + WR have both lost at least another election.
PC party loyalists to WR: Your guys' rural, socially conservative brand is toxic to our base of urban professionals. You should just come back to the fold and rejoin the PCs.
WR party loyalists to PCs: Your guys record of corruption, high spending, and cronyism is toxic to our base of populist conservatives. You should just give up your party and join the WR.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Well the other side of the coin is that Clark won his seat as a part of that protest vote. The problem the Alberta Party faces is that (A) almost no one has ever heard of them outside of politically active people and (B) no one has a clue what they stand for aside from "we're centrist".
Albertans have shown in the past they have no problem voting en masse for a party that has no track record (Reform, NDP).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I just don't get the Wildrose support sometimes, they were essentially created or at very least gained steam in protest to Stelmach and have the same faces and egos synonymous with P.C corruption.
It's not like leaving the P.C party to make your own club washes away the stink.
I do wish the Alberta party had more recognition in the province as I'm a fairly Socially liberal minus my stance on criminal elements, and fiscally conservative. I just don't know how much of a minority I am in the province these days.
The Following User Says Thank You to RinkRat For This Useful Post:
Albertans have shown in the past they have no problem voting en masse for a party that has no track record (Reform, NDP).
Those were both protest votes though, and in each case it wasn't voters just taking a flyer on something completely unknown. In the case of the Reform party you had a number of former PC's who had been in government. The NDP was pure protest vote and none of the other parties looking ready.
Incidentally the Alberta Party was an option in that election as well, and aside from one riding where they won they were a complete non-factor. Did they even finish second or third anywhere else?
If you leave a party because you disagree with - in this case - entitlement/waste, then how are you tarred for taking an action to separate yourself from that? The point of the split was "we're losing sight of what made us work. We need to stop doing x and get back to doing y".
Now, criticize away if you do not think Wildrose should be doing y (i.e.: social conservativism), but it is absurd to argue they should be tainted for disagreeing with action x and taking steps to push away from it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
I just don't get the Wildrose support sometimes, they were essentially created or at very least gained steam in protest to Stelmach and have the same faces and egos synonymous with P.C corruption.
Which faces are those?
As a fiscal Conservative I switched my support from the PC's to the WR as the PC's shifted to the left. Some people on here may not want to admit it but the PC's under Redford were basically Liberals calling themselves Conservatives. If the PC's get their crap together I'll probably move back to them as the WR are more socially Conservative than I care for. The NDP and Libs are non starters for me and the AP is irrelevant.
