CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Profile
Posts: 834
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 7:44 pm
 


One of the most prominent debates in Alberta politics right now is the proposal to merge the Wildrose Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives to form a new party to take on the governing NDP in the next election.

The forming of new, popular political parties has a long and interesting history in Canada. They often form in response to sudden, drastic changes in the public mood, to respond to or take advantage of popular discontent.

The United Farmers movements were formed in response to economic and political frustrations felt by rural communities during and after World War I. The Social Credit movement and the CCF (the forerunner to the NDP), both gained support after the Great Depression when people became disillusioned with the way capitalism was working. In both cases, people were upset with the current economic and political systems, and looked for new alternatives. These parties went on to govern several provinces and became elected to the federal Parliament.

In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois was formed in response to the rising feelings of nationalism among Francophone Quebecers, and was elected in 1976 when Quebecers became fed up with the provincial Liberals. In the 1980s, public anger over Pierre Trudeau’s broken constitutional promises and Brian Mulroney’s constitutional bungling led to the rise of the federal Bloc Quebecois and its election to Parliament. The Action democratique du Quebec acted as a forum for Quebecers who wanted more conservative policies than the Liberals or the PQ would provide.

In Saskatchewan, the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties largely self-destructed in the 1990s. This led to the rise of the Saskatchewan Party as a forum for critics of the NDP government.

Across Western Canada, frustration with the Liberals’ and Progressive Conservatives’ focus on Quebec and feeling that these parties didn’t care about the West’s issues led to the formation of the Reform Alliance party. More recently, frustration at the back-to-back majorities of the Jean Chretien Liberals led to the merger of the Alliance and the federal PCs to form the modern Conservative party.

Here in Alberta, the modern Wildrose Alliance grew out of a merger between the Alberta Alliance and the Wildrose party. Those parties came from their growing unhappiness with the Ralph Klein PCs, which only grew worse under Klein’s successors. Now, the Wildrose and PCs are discussing a merger to fight the NDP.

There are lots of fringe parties across Canada, but they have never been able to get the same level of influence as the parties mentioned above. All of these latter parties took root at particular times in the history of a province or the country, filling a void many people might see in politics that the existing parties can’t or won’t fill. Even when they don’t take power themselves, they can have a significant impact on the way the province or the country is governed.

Will a merger between the PCs and the Wildrose Alliance merge will have the same success as its predecessors?

Only time will tell.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10170
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 7:57 pm
 


Quote:
The Wild Conservatives? Suggested alternate names for Alberta’s new united conservative party


On Thursday, Alberta’s two conservative parties officially announced plans to merge. The former rivals are leaving aside the nitty-gritty for now, with all those details to be worked out at a future founding convention.

But one of the first orders of business was to name themselves the United Conservative Party. The name is good … but it’s not great. That’s why the National Post humbly presents some alternate suggestions below.

Image

The Amalgamated Confederated Union of United and Joined Conservatives
There are cynics who will call this merger a union of convenience brought about only by the singular desire to overthrow Rachel Notley. But those naysayers are wrong. Sure, Alberta conservatives already saw one marriage end in messy divorce (two if you count the whole federal thing). But this partnership is truly forever — just ask the five synonyms for “unity” in the party name.


Image

The Alberta Party
This is a classic Canadian political trick: Take the name of the jurisdiction you want to govern, and name your party after it. Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall did it with his conservative-leaning Saskatchewan Party. Ditto with the Yukon Party, which just wrapped up 14 consecutive years of governance. There’s just one problem: The centrist one-seat dweebs at the Alberta Party already took the name.

Image

Alberta Forward!
Admittedly, exclamation marks are really more of a European thing. The new president of France, Emmanuel Macron, represents a new party that roughly translates as “Onwards!” Across the border in Belgium, meanwhile, Flemish socialists have formed Red! But it’s high time Alberta got a political party that is also an interjection. If anything has made this province great, it’s doing things quickly and loudly.

Image

BLUE
Big tents win elections, so why risk alienating voters with words like “conservative,” “progressive” or “party”? Better to pick a name devoid of expectations or baggage; an amorphous vagary that can satisfy all and promise nothing. Blue will bring jobs. Blue will bring safe. Blue will bring house. Blue good. Blue strong.

Image

The Wild Conservatives
This seems to be the most elegant merger of the names Wildrose and Progressive Conservative — even if it does sound like an animated series featuring Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as motorcycle outlaws. Picking the “wild” card does indeed seem politically popular as of late. And the name also sounds great in French: Conservateurs Sauvages.

Image

Alberta Patriotic Front
There’s nothing in this party name that is technically incorrect: Whatever emerges from the founding party convention, it will be composed largely of patriotic Albertans forming a front against the NDP. And the name may attract votes from the greying demographic of Western separatists that still populate the province’s hinterlands. Unfortunately, a bunch of nationalist parties and terrorist groups have given the otherwise fantastic word “patriotic front” a bad reputation.

Image

Oil & Soil
If it’s possible to isolate a single factor that contributed to the conservative split in Alberta, it’s neglect of the grassroots. While the Progressive Conservatives ossified into a somnolent semi-dictatorship, the Wildrose rebelled by forming an organization that is almost as viciously democratic as a Vancouver knitting club. Well, what’s even deeper than grassroots? Soil — and the wonderful, ethical, job-creating oil beneath it.



Image

The New Progressive Conservative Party
Here’s a dirty secret: The “New” Democratic Party currently governing Alberta isn’t actually that new at all. It was founded in 1962! What’s more, there wasn’t even an Old Democratic Party. When will their lies stop? It’s time to take back the word “new” and apply it to something that was actually created at a time when Perry Como wasn’t topping the charts.

Image

The party formerly known as the Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties
What better way to symbolize rebirth and renewal than with an unpronounceable symbol? Is it even appropriate to represent such an historic coming-together with something as quotidian as words? Ultimately, the hearts and minds of Alberta conservatives can only be faithfully represented in the abstract. The cross. The wheat sheaf. The oil derrick. This symbol is all of those, and also none of them.


Image

The Alberta Conservative Party
This, obviously, is what they should have gone with. It is an Alberta conservative party, after all. You want to chance a name with a lot of risky non-location-specific froo-froo? Albertans drive Fords, they drink Tim’s, they name their children either Olivia or Liam and they sure as hell don’t need some latte-drinking marketing consultant fancying-up their election ballots.

• Email: thopper@nationalpost.com | Twitter: TristinHopper


http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/c ... picks=true


Online
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6986
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 9:06 pm
 


Just go back to calling it Social Credit


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22940
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 9:13 pm
 


Might as well call them the "No matter what they promise Thanos still won't ever vote for them Party". This is just a victory of rural social conservatives over the remnants of the urban Tories. What are they going to do, pull the old Klein trick of saying they'll be single-handedly responsible for creating another oil boom by themselves, and that the politics of OPEC and Wall Street don't have anything to do with it? Just more fantasy peddling from the right-wing, except this time it's in Alberta being done by those pushing the nonsense of a mythically awesome past just like the GOP in the US does.

Think I'll break the non-voting vow and go cast a vote for the Dippers again just to piss these fools off as much as I can. Fuck, I'm tired of the politics in this province and in this country. :evil:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31108
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 10:38 pm
 


How Do Political Parties Catch Fire?


Catch fire and move forward, sparking interest from voters ?

Or catch fire and burn themselves to a crisp ?


Jared, most of the examples you gave are left wing parties, which were created when the default
left wing party, the Liberals, just weren't Liberal enough. Which is fine, a fractured Left is just fine for me.

However, when the Right splits, it only creates troubles, because the right vote in Canada isn't strong enough to cope with being fractured.
The Reform Party created lots of problems before they were eventually folded back into the default right, the Conservatives.

If Wildrose and the PCs are going to merge, then they have a chance to regain power.
If they stay split, they can forget it.



One example of a right wing fringe party that created lots of change you should look at is UKIP in the UK.

They were able to get 4 million votes in the last UK election, a big win in the last EU elections,
and forced the Conservatives, while in government, to actually hold a referendum on Britain staying in the EU.

And now, it looks like most of the UKIP voters will now be folded back into the ruling big tent Conservative Party. Fascinating stuff.


The right wing in Canada needs to stay together, and the leaders of those parties need to respond to the needs of their members for policy.
Without it, they lose.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 41814
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 10:39 pm
 


NTD....Not The Dippers. The way they have to succeed is by dropping the inbred social conservatives and concentrate solely on being fiscal conservatives with a liberal social policy. Keep God out of politics and in the Church. We don't need any Talibaptist scum trying to emulate the Trumptards here.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22940
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 10:59 pm
 


They won't be able to control the so-cons the way Harper did because Harper had a large caucus where the so-cons were outnumbered by the regulars. He could allow them to propose a free vote every once in a while just to placate them. That won't work in Alberta right now, not when most if not all of the WRA MLA's are so-cons and, now with Kenney, the Tories are led by one too. Kenney and Jean can both talk about controlling the "lake of fire" pricks all they want but if there's too many of them then they have the power over the leaders, not the other way around. How long until the CINO accusations and smears start flying like crazy within the new party and among the membership in order to drive out anyone who is a moderate?

Assuming the new conservative party wins then there's really only one way to stop them. It would be anathema to the participants at first but there's really no choice if they're serious about not letting Alberta turn into Alabama. The Dippers, Liberals, Alberta Party, and whatever Lougheed-style progressive conservatives remaining will themselves have to amalgamate into a single party in order for there to be some representation for people who aren't social conservatives. It's just the way it is. Give religious conservatives an inch and the next day they've stolen a mile on you and, going by what they do with the gerrymandering in the US, then they start altering laws in order to make their rule perpetual. They have to be fought to the bitter end because they simply will not give up until they can eliminate as much secularism from the government and the school systems as possible.

Having this fight all over again in this province at the start of the 21st century just because some clods who wish the 16th century never ended keep agitating to make the law work for them and only for them. For fuck's sake! :evil:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25141
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:23 am
 


JaredMilne wrote:
One of the most prominent debates in Alberta politics right now is the proposal to merge the Wildrose Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives to form a new party to take on the governing NDP in the next election.


Like most right wing mergers in Canada, I hope they don't go further to the right. I hope they can ditch the fringe element in the WR, so they can attract centrist like me back.

But if Jason Kenny has anything to do with the party, I don't see that happening. They will catch fire, and burn to the ground. :(


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 56353
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:57 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Like most right wing mergers in Canada, I hope they don't go further to the right. I hope they can ditch the fringe element in the WR, so they can attract centrist like me back.


Regardless of the polarity of a party if you don't bring in the fringe voters you lose. You lose because they're the most motivated and high propensity bloc of voters and they're also your most motivated volunteers.

Don't believe me? Look at the recent US election where Hildewhore alienated the Bernie voters and where his volunteer base dwarfed her limited number of paid staffers (many of whom are still waiting for their paychecks).

Donald Trump went the other direction and stood out from a field of eighteen GOP candidates by speaking to the fringe and bringing them in to help fire a populist movement that put him so far ahead of everyone else that he became unstoppable. None of the other candidates attracted the motivated supporters that Trump did and none of them had the money to make up for the earned media and the endless number of volunteers that Trump had.

Hillary, by many accounts, outspent Trump by as much as fifty to one and she still lost states that should have been safely in her corner.

That said, ignore your fringe (left or right) at your own peril.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25141
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:08 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
Like most right wing mergers in Canada, I hope they don't go further to the right. I hope they can ditch the fringe element in the WR, so they can attract centrist like me back.


Regardless of the polarity of a party if you don't bring in the fringe voters you lose. You lose because they're the most motivated and high propensity bloc of voters and they're also your most motivated volunteers.

. . .

That said, ignore your fringe (left or right) at your own peril.


That may be true in US politics, but we saw in the last election that the Conservatives tried the politics of division on us, and got crushed. We don't go for that.

Jason Kenney is one of those people who thinks morals should remain in the 1950's, and that's not how Albertans' roll now. If he's in charge, he'll roll out the 'protect religion, suppress the LGBTQs' agenda and the Conservatives in Alberta will get crushed again. He'll concentrate on things we don't give two hoots about, and neglect the things we do, to try to stop the NDP at all costs. And he'll fail. And moderates like me will be out in the wind for another 4 years.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 56353
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:46 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
...but we saw in the last election that the Conservatives tried the politics of division on us, and got crushed.


The problem is that they didn't go far enough to engage the fringe.

Being 'radically moderate' like John McCain was in 2008 ("He's a Maverick!") doesn't work when you're just trying to sell the same old shit with a different marketing campaign.

You start by identifying your highest propensity voters, then you identify the issues that people most care about (You have to ask them for their issues and not just poll them on a list of topics you find acceptable to discuss), and then you engage those two groups and when you do so you have to have the nerve to stand against the conformists who want you to do what everyone else is doing.

Like we saw this last year there's two components to such a project: engaging your supporters and causing the oppositions' supporters to disengage.

You also never miss a chance to get a vote.

In Sacramento we had a campaign between two Democrats for an Assembly seat in the 9th Assembly District. Jim Cooper and Darryl Fong - both ex-cops and both lifelong Democrats - were running for the seat in the general election.

I supported Fong and when I went to do some work for his campaign his campaign manager essentially told me to get lost because I was a Republican. Turned out the Fong campaign fervently and actively HATED Republicans and they made a point to tell people as much at every opportunity.

Republicans in the 9th AD might be a minority but they're also a solid, high propensity bloc that makes up 32% of the frequent voters. They're not enough to elect a Republican but they're absolutely enough to sway a contest between two Democrats.

Needless to say, Jim Cooper actively engaged the Republicans (who were the fringe in this election) and instead of staying home like many Democrat analysts expected the GOP turned out to vote and they voted for Cooper.

Fong managed a majority of Democrat voters but Cooper won overall with a supermajority of GOP and independent voters.

Like I said: Ignore your fringe at your own peril.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22940
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:56 am
 


Ronald Reagan basically did the same thing but instead of embracing the disgusting fringe he went for the Democrat moderates who weren't pleased by the national party's slide towards post-1960's radicalism. And he won two elections this way. But it wouldn't happen again. By actually talking to the "enemy" he'd be called a cuck and a RINO and a traitor by the fringe that now has an oversized voice and influence larger than it's actual numbers. This is all verifiable by the basic fact that the post-Tea Bircher GOP and the MAGA's have successfully driven out of the GOP anyone who even considers engaging bipartisan co-operation or proposing legislation or policy to benefit all as opposed to their now far preferable scorched earth way of doing things aimed at dispossessing and harming their cultural enemies as much as they possible can.

Will this happen in Alberta? I wouldn't be surprised if they at least tried it. We've already got the spectacle in the federal senate of the Tories kicking a lifelong member out of the party just for being at the same dinner as Justin Trudeau. If Jason Kenney and the WRA hardcores think that the same thing will work here then the safe bet is that they're certainly going to try it just to see what happens.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31108
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:07 am
 


Thanos wrote:
he went for the Democrat moderates who weren't pleased by the national party's slide towards post-1960's radicalism.



Oh, you mean the white working class men and women, that voted Trump this time around ?


Besides, a "moderate" Democrat is a rare breed these days.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10170
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:09 am
 


Wrong. Most Democrats are moderate. Only a few are radical. Clinton is a moderate.

The moderate Republican went extinct 20 years ago.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 56353
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:12 am
 


Thanos wrote:
Ronald Reagan basically did the same thing but instead of embracing the disgusting fringe he went for the Democrat moderates who weren't pleased by the national party's slide towards post-1960's radicalism. And he won two elections this way. But it wouldn't happen again. By actually talking to the "enemy" he'd be called a cuck and a RINO and a traitor by the fringe that now has an oversized voice and influence larger than it's actual numbers. This is all verifiable by the basic fact that the post-Tea Bircher GOP and the MAGA's have successfully driven out of the GOP anyone who even considers engaging bipartisan co-operation or proposing legislation or policy to benefit all as opposed to their now far preferable scorched earth way of doing things aimed at dispossessing and harming their cultural enemies as much as they possible can.


You're so convinced of so many things that simply are not true.

1. Reagan engaged the Southern Democrat conservatives who had elected Jimmy Carter and then been alienated by his leftist and pacifist politics. Democrat moderates stayed with Carter and then supported Mondale in 1984. Reagan was most responsible for moving the Southern conservatives from the Democrat party to the GOP.

2. The right-wing does not control the GOP. They're a sizable minority but it's still the country-club types who run all of the party organizations like the RNC, the Senate Republicans, the House Republicans, and most of the funding organizations.

3. The scorched earth tactics in the current political cycle started with the Democrats in 2010 when they were able to push through Obamacare without even allowing their own members to read the thing first. Then they went 'nuclear' on the filibuster in the Senate and so it's no surprise that the GOP has done the same thing in return.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.