A Merger That’ll Never Happen
The left in the province of Alberta will never merge. There are four core reasons for this to be the case.
Firstly, the NDP is directly tied, through its organization, its employees (many of whom who work for the federal NDP as well), and other means, cannot get the nod for merger from Ottawa. This also forgets the basic idealistic traits of the NDP volunteers, base, and candidates who would form a new NDP if their party even came close to merging with any other. There is no way, no method, or any means to push this agenda in the New Democrats. To think so would be to ignore the very group that the NDP spring from.
Secondly, there’s no thirst for it, aside from old academics and ardent politicos. The politicians aren’t there for it (except one or two), the activists amongst each of the parties aren’t interested in it, and the public at large aren’t interested. I’ve doorknocked some 4,000 doors over the last provincial campaign and the conversation has only come up four times at the doors. For the Alberta Liberals their donations from their membership collapsed after broaching the topic at their convention and passing a call for cooperation with the other parties. There’s no thirst for it.
Thirdly, it doesn’t make sense. The views on government, the energy sector, and society are quite diverse. The Liberals and the NDP do not agree on important issues like the energy sector or on post-secondary education, or even on the purpose of government and its relationship with individuals. There is simply no cohesion there in any post-merger party.
Fourthly, and finally, all parties, except for the Alberta Liberals (at great cost to them, too, which likely has turned them off), has said no.
So the conversation on merger should be closed. The people have no thirst for merger and there is no means for it. There are bigger problems to solve, anyway.
10 Responses to A Merger That’ll Never Happen
Leave a Reply
Hey Calgary Liberal,
I hope you and the ND’s are happy with your whopping 5 and 4 seats. Let’s keep doing the same head bashing of 60 odd years. Hope you enjoy watching PC’S and Wildrose govern the province. The way it stands both parties might have the numbers to field a 3 on 3 basketball team at the leg summer picnic. They need to merge or they will be seen as the cute, nice MLA’S who are polite, but do not understand how to govern the province, but they fight the good fight. The thinking that it can’t be done will mean neither party will ever govern. How has being separate parties worked out for you guys? 24 election loses in a row for the liberals. 14 election loses in a row for the ND’S. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Maybe we should try something new. The supporters of both parties are not partisan. They just want a left of centre alternative, so they don’t have to hold their nose and vote PC.
If there is no appetite to merge amongst the partisans in their little clubs / sandboxes / empires perhaps some creative destruction should start.
Blakeman to the NDP, Hehr to the PCs.
Hello Edward,
Nobody is happy with the results of the election. There’s always more to build and more to do.
Also, when you note that neither of the supporters of each party are partisan, you are frighteningly wrong. If we engage in Joe Albertan’s idea of creative destruction, of either party, there will be a direct need to create new parties to replace them. And we’ll be in the same political ecosystem.
If I may ask you something.. have you ever been engaged in a political party, Edward? Have you ever door knocked or ever actually gone out to meet the supporters you claim you know? I strongly suspect you haven’t engaged with them. If you had you’d never come to the premises that you force into your conclusions.
I find this is the problem of most unite-the-blank folks in Alberta. Rarely have they been campaign managers, candidates, or people fighting for a vision on the ground. Most noticeably, the Democratic Renewal Project, after their ‘win’ at a Liberal convention, imploded and went their way. Their job was done. Finished. And so they sat back and stopped fighting for a vision of Alberta’s politics.
If you’re not willing to take a stand and do something then I can’t take your comments seriously, Edward. Or any other comments from other folks who are uninvolved yet think they know the exact prescription to fix politics in Alberta.
Hello VSP,
I love when the ideological wing of the liberal or ndp party are pompous and assume they know you. How many members do each party have? 6-7 Thousand members maybe. How many delegates are there at a convention? 300 – 400. The members are partisan, but the supporters want a progressive agenda and don’t care who wins. If the supporters were partisan, why did the liberals lose over 10% of their vote from last election? Why did the NDP lose over 10% of their vote in the 1993 election? It was because the supporters of both parties abandoned them to get rid of the Tories/ stop the wildrose. Supporters are not partisan.
How different was the party’s policy? Liberals were advocating a socialist policy that no NDP government has ever implemented (free university).
My cousin ran for the NDP in 2008. I door knocked and fundraised for him for months. What happened he increased the vote by 200 votes and still lost by thousands? The liberal candidate’s numbers went down. I have been involved with the David Kilgours campaigns, Linda Duncan’s campaign, Dave Eggen’s, Wes Mathers etc. So don’t think you know me. I have been fighting for a vision and the liberals and NDP have a very similar vision. When I talk to supporters of both parties they state why the two parties don’t get together. Is there really that big of difference?
Both parties care more about their umbrella party (4 to 5 seats) then they do about making a big tent party. Because of their selfishness we will always be governed by conservatives. Unless the membership take over the hierarchy of the parties and forces merger on them.
VSP people are sick of the parties with similar ideology fighting for the same voters and handing over the election to the conservatives. There will be a merger one day as eventually people will get sick of losing. Last time either party was in power was 1920? Is that not a problem?
I be at one of the conventions voting for a merger.
Edward,
Firstly, it’s great to actually find someone who is interested in merger that actually walks the talk. I am so thankful to finally meet one. It truly is a pleasure. I have not, however, had the pleasure of seeing any merger supporters (aside from you) actually work on a campaign to further their vision of a single party. The DRP, ChangeAlberta, and a lot of other groups, and their supporters, tend to organize to tell a party to do something and, when they listen, they disappear shortly afterwards. If your position is to be shared more and supported more there needs to be more of you.
Secondly, everyone involved passionately anywhere needs to be somewhat pompous. I agree it was wrong of me to assume those facts about you but, in all seriousness, it’s the general case.
Thirdly, you’re making some very fundamental mistakes in your logic, Edward. For one thing, you’re assuming that progressivism overlaps in the NDP and the Liberals. It doesn’t. Far from it. There are different solutions offered by the two distinct parties. In this past election everyone saw that. The platforms were different, the supporters different, and the rhetoric was different. Do realize Mason went out of his way to moderate his party this election, and stretched quite a ways away from the party faithful. A big tent party between the large spectrum of the NDP to the center right, and everything in between, would simply not be coherent.
An NDP exists because an NDP needs to exist. Same for the Liberals. If the progressives in the different ridings solely focused their energies on having an opposition with a vaguely defined progressivism behind them they would have already selected one party for that. That hasn’t happened.
You’re also assuming that every supporter of each party is a progressive. Or ideological. They’re not. Far from it, actually. Most Albertans don’t care for parties, and prefer indifference as a general rule. Those swings you mention in your first paragraph is part of this fact. People can be swayed.
The problem comes with respects to organizers, volunteers, fundraisers, and other forms of support. I’m sorry, but the die-hard NDP or Liberals would die before they voted anything other than their first preference. And they make up the majority of campaign managers and volunteers. You pull that away and you scuttle any election platform. (And you definitely cannot rely on folks who advocate for merger and then promptly leave to take on that leftover work.) And it’s these die-hards that run the party, take the punishment of long hours and little thanks. And it’s the die-hards that fight for unique visions that are simply incompatible with opposing die-hards. A merger will eliminate those bases of support for the new merged party, and we’ll probably see movements to start new parties to replace the old ones, much to the disservice of everyone on each side of this quaint debate.
Fourthly, subsidized education is not socialism. The Liberals and the NDP do not have the same ideology, or even somewhat similar. On the point you bring up on education, it’s not unheard of in a western democracy to have full access to education for students. Primary and secondary schools are devoid of tuition in many western democracies. It’s not a left or right idea–it’s a smart idea. It’s a smart idea for Albertans, for business, and for students.
Fifthly, Albertans are not sick of either the NDP or the Liberals, or any of the other parties. Only an extreme minority state it at the doors. Or anywhere else, aside from the murmurs of a non-active minority in either party. You mentioning the membership “taking over” their respective parties for that goal is quite odd in this perspective: There’s simply just no thirst for it.
Sixthly, there has never been an NDP Albertan government. And the NDP would never have formed government in 1920 since it didn’t exist until the early 1960s.
The Alberta Liberals did not experience a collapse in member donations following the vote to cooperate with the other parties. This is simply not true.
As long as the parties insist on being elite social clubs focused more on excluding people rather than inclusion, they’ll remain on the outside looking in. Some people are content with this idea of party “purity” above all–we know this to be a fact. But those people are in the minority and quite frankly, a little scary.
The majority of Albertans don’t care about party brands or logos, they just want good ideas and good candidates to represent their best interests. The electorate is moderate–they don’t support idealogical extremes on either side. But, they were very unhappy with the PC’s and this election could have been a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work together for change. Instead, stubborn loyalties to these exclusive clubs saw all of the “progressive parties” struggling to field candidates and mount effective campaigns against an entrenched, corrupt monolith. Imagine, if for once, instead of running three good candidates against each other in one riding and only “paper” candidates in others, the parties cooperated and acted in a way that offered people more choice overall!
Building an effective opposition to conservatism will be impossible as long as the centre-left parties are fractured into three different groups. What we have now is effectively nine “opposition” members (now without status or proper funding) and two conservative parties running the show and setting the agenda in Alberta for another four years. This is what happens when people don’t cooperate to bring about change. Surprise–things DON’T change, which is where we are now.
Jody,
There are a number of points on which I have to disagree with what you’ve said here.
First, the problem of the identifying what you call the ‘centre-left’ parties. You are missing an important entry on that list in your post – the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta. I would argue that the ideological complex you are referring to won 70 of the 87 seats in the recent election. The three parties you attach that label to all suffered badly by being less well-developed and plausible as a government than the biggest party of the centre.
Second, the problem experienced by the Liberal, New Democrat and Alberta parties in getting people elected had very little to do with their competition among one another. Outside of a few ridings in the big cities their vote was largely insignificant. It isn’t a question of running too many strong candidates and ‘splitting the vote’ – in much of the province none of the three fielded a real campaign and as a result they got what they deserved. Even in the urban ridings you are referring to the truth of the matter is that the voters who support those three parties are not interchangeable. We saw, in fact, just how many of the formerly ‘liberal’ voters took the PCs as a second choice. I would suggest that even had there been only one candidate from among the three there are only 2-3 ridings where the redistribution of the vote would have changed the outcome. (I’m happy to sit down with you to show you how I ground the data on that if you like – far too long & dull for this post.)
Finally, the real issue is not that the parties are somehow fracturing a coherent alternative to the government; it is that they haven’t created one. When Albertans think about what their parties stand for they get a coherent image for the NDP, but outside a narrow demographic Albertans don’t share the vision. The Liberals have become a vague ‘we’re not the PCs’, and there were far too few aware of the Alberta Party to make it a viable government in waiting. Voters can’t simply be packaged and traded, and in this election we saw clearly how many of the people who casually support these parties are in fact comfortable with the PC positions when the only viable alternative is less appealing.
Both the PCs and the Wild Rose advanced plausible, relatively well organized messages. The result was to suck all the air out of the room for the others, and turn the election into a referendum on which of the two leaders you preferred. A “unified left” would simply have played even further into this narrative, leaving aside the other issues listed above.
Ultimately if the three parties you are talking about want a different result they do need to do business differently, but I would argue not in the way you assert. They need to build themselves around a vision of what Alberta should be, find a way to communicate and build from that vision and change the narrative. Either that or accept a role as the Greek chorus!
Hi VSP, I am going to counter argue all your points, but I decided to number them and I counter argued them in the order of 1,2, 4 -6, and finally argued number 3 (the longest and most complicated argument). Thanks for the thought provoking discussion, and I take nothing personally, as I hope you feel the same way. Let’s feel thankful we live in a country that allows this sort of discourse.
1. I hope there are more pro merger ndper’s/liberals, so we can change both parties and force cooperation.
2. We are all a little pompous when we feel strongly about something.
4. To illustrate that the liberals have policies that are perceived to have a policy to the left of the NDP), I mentioned the socialist policy of free post-secondary. It is the case that no NDP government has implemented this policy. I agree with this policy, though I referred to it as socialist because that is the way American or Canadian conservatives would perceive it. As well it has generally only been implemented in social democratic countries where there are more social programs then Canada. It is a fact anytime a government wants to add a new program or fund it more; it is closer to the socialist side of the political spectrum. I’m illustrating one policy where the liberals were to the left of the NDP. On this case the liberals overlap the NDP. They are similar to each other on so many other issues.
5. I tend to agree that some party diehards are never going to give up their tribe, but some want to. I look at both parties as somewhat different. The doctor has told them they will never form government as a single entity (Albertans just will never embrace you as is). So I look to the seven stages of grief to explain where many in both parties are at. Many of the party delegates are in the first stage of shock and denial. I have high ranking members of both parties tell me they won’t form government this election, but they have a plan to form government in two elections. Then I almost choke on my beer. That was stated in the last four elections. How has that worked out? Not well. I stopped listening to Fairy tales at 8, I wish the diehard stopped years ago. Some are in the third stage of anger. They are mad at the DRP (which by the way I am not part of or know anyone who is). Many former party diehard are in the fourth stage depression. They thought you could form government, but now know it’s impossible alone without a merger. They have accepted that conservatives will always govern the province. They are the pro-merger people like me. They are no longer involved in either party (or why less involved then when they were younger). They gave it their all and realized it is a colossal waste of time to wear themselves out to elect 9 -30 opposition MLA’S. Why become a candidate or campaign manager or volunteer if we can never be in government?
I have a relative who was a labour leader and active in the community. I once asked why he never got involved in politics. He stated he has more influence on people’s lives doing his job then being a opposition MLA. Many Labour leaders, business people, community leaders, environmental spokespeople, mayor’s, city councillors have the same thoughts. Many of the progressive movement’s political class have no interest in getting involved in a futile exercise (running for province office), when they can help people better in their present occupation. One day both parties are going to be at the seventh level of grief and that is acceptance and that is when a merger will occur. It may take 10, 20, 30 years but it will happen. Others have taken the level of acceptance and joined the PC’S. I bet some PC MLA’S would be part of a progressive party, if it was unified and had a chance at government. Both the NDP and the Liberals will be one party one day.
6. I’m not sure if you are trying to portray me as stupid or you didn’t read my post properly. I stated neither party (meaning not the liberals or the NDP) have not formed government since 1920. With the wealth of political knowledge, I feel offended that it was assumed I wouldn’t know the NDP had never formed government. Obviously I would know that they were the CCF before 1962 and the independent labour party before 1932 (ironically the CCF formed in Calgary). The liberals formed government last from 1917 – 1921. Alright I was off by a year I admit my mistake. I assume you misread my post.
3. The average progressive voter in Alberta could not distinguish the difference in ideology between the liberals and NDP last election. It is ironic that so many of both party faithful are against this idea. But when I go and door knock for Dave Eggen, Wes Mather, Linda Duncan, and Dave Kilgor, I am told to tell the opposite party that their vote is a waste and if they want a progressive party to win the riding over a conservative they need to vote liberal/ NDP. Both parties are hypocrites. They state my party is not the same as them, but when it comes to door knocking you say your candidate is the only progressive who can win. Is that not flawed logic? Chretien was king of marginalizing NDP vote and campaigning as the only progressive to stop reform/alliance/conservatives from getting into government. Many NDPer’s do the same in places they are often in government. I would bet the federal NDP will use this tactic next federal election.
There is very little difference between either party when they get in to power (BC Liberals don’t count because they have occupied the right wing of the spectrum and want to change their name to a more conservative name). How different is the Doer government then the Mcguinty? How different is the Romanow government from the Chretien government. In Alberta it needs to be done because it is the only way the progressive movement can get in to power. They can be separate entities in other provinces because the progressives get into power half the time. In Alberta there is not a big enough pie for two or three progressive parties. There are differences between the parties, but they need a big tent approach so they can be in government.
You state “A big tent party between the large spectrum of the NDP to the center right, and everything in between, would simply not be coherent.” It could be kept together by the glue of power and effecting government policy. This Coalition is in existence in many places. Ask president Barrack Obama who is the head of that coalition in the United States. Chretien government had John McCallum, John Manley in cabinet with Lloyd Axworthy, and Shelia Copps. Thomas Mulcair would have been a Red Tory 30 years ago, who now leads the federal NDP (he has Libby Davies, and Peggy Nash as leaders in critic roles. Can you say big tent party.) Other Examples of big tent parties are the Blair government, Clinton government, Romanow government etc. If both parties are willing to compromise a few of their beliefs, they can have a government that is way closer to their view of the world.
An individual already compromises his ideology to be part of a party. I’m not in complete agreement with any party on all the issues, and very few people are. I could start the Edward party, but I would get one vote and effect no change. So I vote for a party (or join) that party that is closest to my view of the world, and factor in if they can implement policies I agree with (can they win?). I compromise my view for policy success, as does everyone else, when they join or vote for a party. Very few people agree with a political entity that they support 100%. What I want is the liberals and NDP to compromise some of their views so they can implement some policy they agree with. Former Alberta NDP leader Ray Martin stated in a candidate’s forum that he agrees with the other progressive parties on 98% of the issues. I would ask people to merge and compromise the 2% disagreement you have so the 98% can become law. That is common sense. Bob Rae, Dosanjh, Mulcair, Alex Mcdonough (very few people knew she was a liberal in her youth), Hazen Argue, Trudeau (he was an ndp sympathizer before he became a Liberal cabinet minister) etc., all switched parties. Progressivism overlapped for all these individuals so yes the Alberta NDP and liberal’s progressivism over laps. Most people switch parties not for drastic shifts in personal ideology, but because they thought they could affect government policy better in their new party (the new party could win power). In Alberta the only way we cannot have a Conservative government is if progressives unite and become one. It involves compromise yes, but the success is worth giving in a bit.
You state that both parties are two distinct parties with two different solutions. The same argument could be made with the green party and Ralph Nader against Al Gore/ John Kerry in the 2000/2004 US elections. . The end result, 8 years of President Bush. If both parties don’t come together the Wildrose will win the next election. Would you be willing to compromise your ideology a little to be in power and stop them? I sure as hell would. You state the diehard would rather die than merge, well they can die in opposition when their health care is privatized, schools cut to the bone, environment ignored, business taxes cut etc.
The CCF/NDP was created because the Liberals and conservatives were seen as catering to the wealthy interests in the early to mid-20th century (before that as well). Tommy Douglas was right about the white cat/ black cat fable. As time went on the NDP was successful in winning government in many places. They implemented some very great programs that are part of our social fabric today. Although being in government changed them. They learned they had to have gradual change and had to compromise and be pragmatic. As time went on they learned to straggle the center thinking, its better being in power compromising, than being out of power, letting conservatives run the government. Most places they won the liberals are a third party, in very small numbers, as progressive voters identify with the CCF/NDP.
In response to the rise of the CCF/NDP the Liberals changed. To stay in power in many places they learned to shore up their left flank. Federally bring in old age security, EI, public health care etc. Bring in progressive people Trudeau, Hazen Argue, various left wing academics, union leaders etc. They did this in the provinces as well. They shifted to the left to stay in power. When they have been strong, the NDP has usually been weak (ignore BC, liberals are conservatives their). Thus you always had a strong and weak progressive movement but only one progressive voter, although a progressive party was always in power once and awhile.
This leaves us with the current state of politics in Alberta. Neither party has in power since 1921. The NDP has 14 loses in a row, while the liberals have 24 loses in row. As the last election emphasis no progressive party is dominant having never governed in anyone’s life time. Progressive voters don’t have the luxury of having two or three parties to choice from. The slice of the pie is too small. In Alberta 30 – 40% of the electorate is ignored because they support parties that will never win government or are a threat to the PC’S. If the left was united then the conservatives would be in fear, and even if they never win government they will force the conservatives to embrace more progressive legislation.
VSP, in your first post you state “Also, when you note that neither of the supporters of each party are partisan, you are frighteningly wrong.”
Then in your second response you state, “You’re also assuming that every supporter of each party is a progressive. Or ideological. They’re not. Far from it, actually. Most Albertans don’t care for parties, and prefer indifference as a general rule. Those swings you mention in your first paragraph is part of this fact. People can be swayed.”
Which one is it our supporters partisan or not? They can’t be partisan and not care for parties. In every area of the world there is a group of progressives and a group of conservatives. It is a bit elitist to state people are indifferent. The average progressive is not into politics like you and me, but they are not indifferent. They don’t bring it up at the door because it’s not their problem. My brother, who has switched between liberal and ndp his whole life voted PC because of fear of the Wildrose. He stated if those two parties can’t get there shit together why should he vote for them. Many others probably felt the same way. I hope there is a thirst for a merger as it is the only way to form government.
The mention that the masses can be swayed is an elitist statement. The average progressive voter care about a well- funded public health care, education, and social services. As well as a more equitable society, that looks after the environment, and fair labour laws. Many want a vehicle that can be in government. Last election a quarter of progressives voted for the NDP, another quarter for the liberals. Half of the rest voted for Redford and the PC’s. If the left was united that half would have voted for a united progressive party. Unfortunately, they voted for the PC’S as they saw them as the only vehicle to government. My wife a lifelong environmentalist voted PC. Why? She was so dismayed with both the Wildrose’s environmental policy, and the chances of the NDP or liberals winning our riding. I would estimate the progressive vote in Alberta at 35 – 45% of the voting electorate, enough to be a huge opposition or maybe government in a three way race with two conservatives.
I look at BC as a model for Alberta. A two party system between the progressive party (NDP), and the conservative party (the liberals, before you state the BC liberal party is liberal, most of Harper’s BC caucus support the Liberals, and most former and current federal liberal MP’S support the NDP). The population is tired of the conservative (lib) government, because it’s old, tired, basically the party of entitlement after over 10 years in power (sound familiar except it’s been over 40 years in Alberta’s case). The population wants change badly. The right wing supporters of the liberal party have moved to a more conservative party to encompass the disaffection of the governing party. The left wing supporter of the liberal party has moved to the progressive party (the NDP). The progressives don’t have to support the conservative party (liberals), like Alberta, to stop the neo conservative party. Why? It is because there is only one progressive party. When BCer’s are mad at the progressive party the green party rises on the left (so the left has a vehicle to express disappointment with the NDP). Alberta is different than BC, but if we had one progressive party we could be in government. The polls for the NDP in BC is around 45% – 50% in BC (with a split right it would mean 65 – 75 seats out of 80 some.). Are there 35% more new democrats in BC? No it’s just the place for progressives to park their vote.
The Alberta PC government has made Rachel Notley’s and Brian Mason’s ridings, super NDP ridings (change the boundaries so they have more ultra-progressive voters). Meaning it is almost impossible for the NDP to lose those seats. Do you think they do this because they like the NDP? No the conservatives know that having two NDP voices in the leg means they will always been seen as credible party and cut in to the liberal vote by 10%.
The parties need to be separate entity and names from their federal cousins. If there is a coalition federal government in 2016(which is a strong possibility), both parties are going to be punished by Albertans. So it makes sense to form a new party with a different name.
VSP, I place more blame on the NDP then the Liberals. There was an agreement ready to go between the NDP and Liberals, when David Swann was leader, to only run one candidate and split the ridings among the two parties. The NDP rejected the idea at the last minute, secretly stating it would lead to a takeover by the liberals as they are the stronger partner. Now is the best chance of a merger, if not that some form of cooperation. The reason it can be done is both parties are almost even (4/5 seats, 9.9/9.8% of the vote). They would be equal partners for the first time since 1948, when both parties had 2 seats a piece.
The merger may never happen, but neither will a liberal or NDP government. Progressives only hope (myself included) is to affect change by joining the PC leadership vote and electing a less conservative leader. Is that not totally screwed up? I find that very sad. VSP, you seem young, reading your profile. I have been around politics for twenty years and I have learned that Alberta progressives are split and will never form government. I’m in the fourth stage of grief, depression that we will always have a conservative government. I hope others will one day be at the seventh stage of grief, acceptance and a merger or cooperation can occur. VSP, I will not respond (my wife is annoyed with me blogging, normally I don’t do this) and thank you for the dialogue.
I leave you with a thought. This summer when the Liberal Caucus plays the NDP caucus 3 on 3 basketball game at the summer leg picnic my money is on the NDP. The youth of Deron Bilous will win it for the NDP.
Hey Alex,
The PC’s are not centre left. They advocate a flat tax system that would be the envy of American republicans. They don’t want to raise royalties of oil, which are the lowest in the world. The most conservative corporate tax structure in Canada. Most pro-business/ anti-union labour legislation in the country. Redford’s policies would have made her a neo con in any other province. They PC’S are conservative.
Second, the reason the left did so badly is so many progressives feared the Wildrose. Many voted PC to stop the wildrose, not because they loved the PC’S but because the left was split, they knew that the left had no chance of forming government so they decided on the devil they knew.
Finally, look to BC (read post above). When the left is united against two conservative parties they can pull ahead and the progressive voter doesn’t have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
You are obviously conservative; you don’t want them to join. They would be a force, maybe not for government but for a strong opposition.
About a month ago, I said I’m taking a step back from the Alberta liberal party.My reasons were two fold. One is personal, the second is political Leaving the personal aside,I’ll state the political.
After the spring elections,where i Doorknocked 7000 doors ran one of the best campaigns in Alberta with 617 lawn signs and a list of 3300 identified votes,I ended up with 2200 votes.Why?
Because liberal supporters didn’t feel that us as a party were capable,or strong enough to protect their values they got stuck in the moment not moving forward but not going back.
The party failed, it lost half of its popular vote.All of us believed that something has to be done.
What was done my friends is a bad makeup job when what is needed is a surgery.You either go bold Red Liberal ,champion social issues that our core supporters value most or chase votes down the centre.
The party is convinced that chasing votes down centre is the answer,fair enough,so why attack
Kent for his thoughts,accusing him of not being liberal when you guys fly a green flag and liberalberta name.That is a complete nonsense.
How is the new brand different from Alberta party?
Merging with the ndp is not the answer,uniting with Alberta party is a must since you choose chasing votes approach, with no liberal in the name.That will be a first step on gaining momentoum for the future.
Ed Ammar