• The Conservatives have been around since Alberta became a province in 1905 but didn’t form a government until 1971.

The Alberta PC website recounts how the party virtually disappeared from 1935 to 1965. In the late 30s and 40s the Tories formed a coalition with the Liberals to try and oust the Social Credit. In 1940 the Libs and Conservatives ran under one banner and together managed to elect 19 MLAs. According to the Tory website, the Conservative-Liberal coalition eventually came apart and the Tories elected only one MLA during the 50s. The Tories rebranded themselves the Progressive Conservatives in 1959; the PCs and Liberals each only got one seat that year. In the next election the PCs were shut out entirely and their popular vote sat at 12.5 per cent. They elected Peter Lougheed as their new leader in 1965 but had terrible results in two subsequent byelections before they enjoyed a breakthrough in 1967 when Lougheed and five other PCs were elected. Finally, in 1971, the Conservatives won their first election.

• Dave’s blog of Sept. 22 shows an interesting graph from 1963. The NDs didn’t elect a single MLA for two elections before finally getting a seat in 1971. During the golden years under Grant Notley they won 16 out of 83 seats in 1986 and 1989, but were shut out entirely in the next election in 1993. And for the last 20 years they’ve had only two to four MLAs.

• When Alberta was created in 1905 the Liberals were in govt until they were replaced by the United Farmers in 1921. The Liberals have elected MLAs but have not succeeded in forming govt for about 90 years.

So why rehash all this old history? To make the point that the Alberta Party being shut out of its first election – and by that I mean the two-year-old moderate Alberta Party – does not a failure make. History shows it takes time to build a new political movement.

The vast majority of us who were active in the Alberta Party leading up to and during the election recognize this and have chosen to stay the course. Heck, we’re just getting started. I believe other moderate Albertans who want a govt that spends our money responsibly, acts in the public interest instead of self-interest, and has a strong social conscience will come to know and appreciate the Alberta Party. Other Albertans who genuinely want change and are bold enough to try something new will find a home in the Alberta Party and will be welcome.

“… because the media pundits and so-called “experts” focus on the minutae of leadership character and personality to the exclusion of all else. Frankly, it’s boring…and alienates people from the political process”

As per many media oberservers, the dominant media approach is largely horse-race journalism focused on the leaders because among other reasons, it costs so little.

Jay Rosen has written frequently about an alternative approach that would actually serve the citizens during elections, an approach developed in the 1990′s but so far rarely taken up the the MSM.
and… Despite the necessary online journalism/ social media capacity being available for some time.

Here:

The Citizens Agenda: A Plan to Make Election Coverage More Useful to People
http://pressthink.org/2011/12/the-citizens-agenda-a-plan-to-make-election-coverage-more-useful-to-people/

and here:
http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/volume-8/number-9/citizens%E2%80%99-agenda
Mr Baker said Fairfax Media was participating in the project because of its potential to explain how social media can invigorate political reporting and journalists’ engagement.

“The more engaged we are the better the outcomes for society, community and country,” he says.

The idea of a “citizens’ agenda” first arose in the United States during the 1990s civic journalism movement.
New York University Professor Jay Rosen conceived a new role for the media — not just to identify problems, but to assist in the search for solutions. ”

======================
here:

http://www.upstart.net.au/2010/08/19/citizens-agenda-what-should-the-pollies-be-talking-about/
The Citizens Agenda: A Plan to Make Election Coverage More Useful to People

If people are no longer happy with the leadership and policies of (Liberal, Evergreen, AP, or NDP…pick one), then…JOIN ANOTHER PARTY! That would lead to a true competition of ideas, wouldn’t it?

I’m not hearing a lot of people at the “grassroots” clamouring for mergers, etc. I suspect that most of them are just working away(as volunteers, no less!) for policies and people they believe in, and their motivations for doing so are as individual as they are themselves.

It’s the pundits and professional politicos who are driving the perceived need for organizational changes, all motivated by a competition of people, not ideas.

One can examine the entrails of electoral defeat or success all to one’s heart’s desire, but the reality is that IDEAS (even “branded” ones) are what matters, and elections give us the opportunity to examine the pros and cons of ideas. That’s why so-called “fringe” groups run…not with the expectation of winning, but with the expectation that their ideas will be discussed.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen as much as it should, because the media pundits and so-called “experts” focus on the minutae of leadership character and personality to the exclusion of all else. Frankly, it’s boring…and alienates people from the political process.

As for so-called “progressive” parties merging, co-operating, or “non-competing”, one key obstacle to such an arrangement is the view of most card-carrying New Democrats that the Liberals are not “progressive”. To us “Dippers”, Liberals are simply a different colour of cat than the Tories, with very similar corporatist policies whenever in government; indeed, the Alberta Liberals’ strongest electoral showing in recent memory was under the late Laurence Decore, when they were advocating “massive cuts” (to spending on public services) in “contrast” to the Conservatives’ “brutal cuts”. The Liberals are also just as dependent on big business for their revenues as are the Conservatives. These reasons are largely why this month’s NDP Convention again rejected any non-compete arrangements with the Liberals or anyone else. The only “merger” we will countenance is for Liberals and the others to tear up their current party cards & sign NDP memberships.

I don’t resent in any way that there were candidates from the Alberta Party, the N.D.P.or any other party for that matter.
Campaigns are competitions of ideas. Candidates have to do their best to convince people that their ideas are the best ones.
Sometimes we get hit with unexpected curveballs.

I do hope that the Alberta Party and the Liberals can work out some sort of cooperation or maybe even formal merger.
I didn’t find that big a difference between the policies their candidates supported and what I as a Liberal candidate supported.
The N.D.P. is so adament against cooperation that this is no longer an proposal worth pursuing.

Glad to see this discussion taking place. We need to look at realities and look for the best solutions. Ranting, pointing fingers, falling back onto platitudes etc will accomplish nothing if we want genuine change.

The one group that could break this deadlock, if they were not so divided among themselves about everything imaginable, is the trade union movement. The small group of trade unions that fund the NDP without question and keep it alive in Alberta need to consider what life for them will be like when, not if, the Wildrose becomes the government. If the unions wait that long, they’ll find that it’s too late to reconsider a one-party political policy that has never worked and won’t work in the future (mind you, the complete non-partisanship of most of the unions is an even stupider policy that only starves progressive parties of funds and threatens these non-partisan unions in the long run).

Can’t find where I attacked ALP. I actually managed a successful ALP MLA’s campaign in April – the only one in Edmonton that the winner was not the top spender. Since 2004, the total of MLAs has halved and nearly haved again. The vote was reduced by 100,000 in 2012 election compared to 2008. Stellar candidates (Goldbar, Riverview) didn’t have a chance, so how did the brand help them? Only incumbent ALP candidates won.

The NDP are trying to spin that they have demonstrate massive growth over the last election, aided ably by some fine bar charts by yours truly. However, the truth is that the NDP are still the 4th party in the Legislature and are confined completely to the Edmonton region for any real hope of election. That combined with the Federal Party’s decision under Mulclair to pursue the old Federal Liberal strategy of alienating Albertans in order to build the B.C., Ontario and Quebec coalition and win federal government, means they have little to no chance of even forming the official opposition in Alberta in the forseeable future. I doorknocked under Chretien and I can tell you Albertans dislike Mulclair more (and that is one very low bar my friend).

I say this not to disparage the fine members of the NDP, but to make the point I make to all progressives. This silly and petty tribalism needs to stop. The Evergreens, ALP, NDP and Alberta Party have way more in common than that which differentiates them. And they need to figure out a way to come together.

If the Alberta Party brand and name is attractive to the Liberals who have not formed government in 80 years, then isn’t it just as attractive to the NDP who have not formed government in 50 years and show no signs that they ever will?

If the progressives in Alberta can possibly form government by coming together. And if the Alberta Party name, logo and brand are the best and most baggage free of all the parties, then isn’t the solution fairly self evident?

The details are important, but they are just details. The members need to tell their parties to wake up and get together.

But that’s just my own opinion.