Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Knave





Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Reputation: 12.8
Location: Calgary, Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McGuire wrote:
What it looks like they're doing is positioning themselves as the small-c conservative party in Alberta, cuz gawd knows the PC's aren't. It's been done before, Liberals doing this. The most small-c conservative premier in Atlantic Canada in my lifetime has been Frank McKenna


Well, they'd be smart to do so; they have the base of support in Edmonton and are probably the best-organized Party in the Opposition. The Alliance and the Wildrosers (and the Socreds, to some extent) are fractured and all fighting over the same small inches of electoral turf. That leaves the PCs and Alberta Liberals to fight over yards....
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Knave wrote:
McGuire wrote:
What it looks like they're doing is positioning themselves as the small-c conservative party in Alberta, cuz gawd knows the PC's aren't. It's been done before, Liberals doing this. The most small-c conservative premier in Atlantic Canada in my lifetime has been Frank McKenna


Well, they'd be smart to do so; they have the base of support in Edmonton and are probably the best-organized Party in the Opposition. The Alliance and the Wildrosers (and the Socreds, to some extent) are fractured and all fighting over the same small inches of electoral turf. That leaves the PCs and Alberta Liberals to fight over yards....


IF they were smart the Alberta Alliance, Wildrose, and social credit should merge into the "Conservative Alliance of Alberta" Party
Knave





Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Reputation: 12.8
Location: Calgary, Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

westmanguy wrote:
IF they were smart the Alberta Alliance, Wildrose, and social credit should merge into the "Conservative Alliance of Alberta" Party


That won't happen. In fact, the very reason there are three parties is because each can't (or, won't) work with the other and want to fight over the tiller instead of actually doing the rowing. Randy Thorsteinson split from the Social Credit Party to start the Alliance because he disagreed over one of their policies (so the story goes...); And now several former Alliance members are trying to start the Wildrose Party because of personality conflicts with the Alliance leadership and disagreements over direction of that party.

I doubt they'll seriously consider working together - you know, instead of fighting over small differences that the average voter doesn't care about - until after the Liberals manage to either push the PCs into minority, or come to power in Edmonton. The shock of such an outcome might make them reconsider their priorities.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
IF they were smart the Alberta Alliance, Wildrose, and social credit should merge into the "Conservative Alliance of Alberta" Party


Why not call themselves the Conservative Party of Alberta.

No one else seems to want the name. I thought by now many of the PC provincial parties would have changed their names to Conservative Party.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd go for "The Alberta party".

It would be in keeping with the right-leaning Sask. Party and Yukon party.
Knave





Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Reputation: 12.8
Location: Calgary, Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Why not call themselves the Conservative Party of Alberta.

No one else seems to want the name. I thought by now many of the PC provincial parties would have changed their names to Conservative Party.


They can't have a name that could be confused with another, existing party. Therefore, since "Conservative Party of Alberta" is similar to the "Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta," it likely would not be accepted by the registrar of political parties at Elections Alberta.

Cool Blue wrote:
I'd go for "The Alberta party".

It would be in keeping with the right-leaning Sask. Party and Yukon party.


There is already an Alberta Party. They've been around a long while; alas, they are a small group, supposedly smaller than both the Wildrose group, and the Alberta Alliance. They're essentially a non-entity in Alberta politics.
TealTories





Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 473
Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7
votes: 1
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Knave wrote:
westmanguy wrote:
IF they were smart the Alberta Alliance, Wildrose, and social credit should merge into the "Conservative Alliance of Alberta" Party


That won't happen. In fact, the very reason there are three parties is because each can't (or, won't) work with the other and want to fight over the tiller instead of actually doing the rowing. Randy Thorsteinson split from the Social Credit Party to start the Alliance because he disagreed over one of their policies (so the story goes...); And now several former Alliance members are trying to start the Wildrose Party because of personality conflicts with the Alliance leadership and disagreements over direction of that party.

I doubt they'll seriously consider working together - you know, instead of fighting over small differences that the average voter doesn't care about - until after the Liberals manage to either push the PCs into minority, or come to power in Edmonton. The shock of such an outcome might make them reconsider their priorities.


This could have all been avoided by Ted Morton winning the PC party leadership.
Now it is going to be a mess. I live in Calgary and I go up to Edmonton quite frequently there are alot of SoCred signs in Edmonton. Stelmach needs to do some conservative policy making in the near future to keep a majority.
Knave





Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Reputation: 12.8
Location: Calgary, Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TealTories wrote:
This could have all been avoided by Ted Morton winning the PC party leadership.


That would've pretty much assured the PC's continued dominance in Alberta for some time. Now, under Stelmach, things are uncertain.

Quote:
Now it is going to be a mess. I live in Calgary and I go up to Edmonton quite frequently there are alot of SoCred signs in Edmonton. Stelmach needs to do some conservative policy making in the near future to keep a majority.


The SoCreds are a non-starter, given their strict adherance to the Major Douglas theories on credit, and for some goofy policies that simply won't fly with the majority of Albertans who are more urban and, well, progressive.

Their showing in the byelections in June proves my point; in neither contest did the Social Credit candidates break the 5% mark.
TealTories





Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 473
Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7
votes: 1
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Knave wrote:
TealTories wrote:
This could have all been avoided by Ted Morton winning the PC party leadership.


That would've pretty much assured the PC's continued dominance in Alberta for some time. Now, under Stelmach, things are uncertain.

Quote:
Now it is going to be a mess. I live in Calgary and I go up to Edmonton quite frequently there are alot of SoCred signs in Edmonton. Stelmach needs to do some conservative policy making in the near future to keep a majority.


The SoCreds are a non-starter, given their strict adherance to the Major Douglas theories on credit, and for some goofy policies that simply won't fly with the majority of Albertans who are more urban and, well, progressive.

Their showing in the byelections in June proves my point; in neither contest did the Social Credit candidates break the 5% mark.


I dont think that they will any seats but the could divide some votes enough to change the out come in a couple of ridings.
Same with the alliance. They have alot of good principles but to the general public they will be seen as a little to non secular.
Knave





Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Reputation: 12.8
Location: Calgary, Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TealTories wrote:
I dont think that they will any seats but the could divide some votes enough to change the out come in a couple of ridings.
Same with the alliance. They have alot of good principles but to the general public they will be seen as a little to non secular.


I think the Alliance was the "spoiler" in a handful of ridings in the 2004 General Election.

But you're right, in that both the SoCreds and the Alberta Alliance have a reputation as being quite "non-secular" parties; the Socreds, because of their proposed policies (such as teaching intelligent design in schools, name one) - and the Alliance because of the involvement of several people who are members of the LDS Church (including their lone MLA and Leader, Paul Hinman...)

However, it's the continued fractures amongst "conservatives" and people who would vote for the Alliance ensures that none will be a contender against the PCs. The real contest in any Alberta election is between the PCs and the Liberals....
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess it would take the Liberals getting in power to get the other secondary conservative parties to merge.
Knave





Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Reputation: 12.8
Location: Calgary, Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

westmanguy wrote:
I guess it would take the Liberals getting in power to get the other secondary conservative parties to merge.


That's been my argument for some time, now. It will take the shock of such an outcome to both cut through the apathy which is pretty thick in Alberta at the moment, and make conservatives come to the realization that the obstacle to honest, accountable conservative governance in Alberta isn't each other.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

That would've pretty much assured the PC's continued dominance in Alberta for some time. Now, under Stelmach, things are uncertain.


The PCs need to clean up their membership system. Too many Liberals joined up and voted against Morton.

In fact, IMO, the more I learn about the Alberta PCs the more I'm shocked. They really need to reform their party structure.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I guess it would take the Liberals getting in power to get the other secondary conservative parties to merge.


I'm crossing my fingers that rather than that, a minority PC government comes in and the shock of minority status makes them tighten up their party and possibly bring Morton in as leader.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No party has an inherent right to power. Just about the time supporters start thinking that, is about the time they need some agony of defeat.
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Ontario Race Heatens Up: Tories Could Take Over!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB