I really cannot improve on this media release sent today from Liberalberta Party president Todd Van Vliet, so I have posted it in its entirety.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A response from Alberta Liberal Party President, Todd Van Vliet, regarding merger(EDMONTON, AB) A merger of the Alberta Liberals and the NDP? Won’t happen.
Why not? Because politics isn’t simply about math. Politics is mostly about what voters will actually do, and combining polling numbers rarely works when it comes to mergers. In politics, adding 10 percent support to another 10 percent support never totals 20 percent. In fact, it could add up to far less (or more!) as voters make their real-life choices. That’s exactly what happened to the ‘left’ in the last election when Liberal voters slipped over to the PCs to stop a potential right-wing Wildrose avalanche.
And what about all the voters who weren’t motivated to get out to the polls in the last election? This is a bit of math that Mr. Hehr has forgotten to count. Who’s going to speak for their uncounted numbers?
So, what’s really going on when a Liberal MLA starts calling for a merger with another party? Not so much.
MLAs have their own opinions and even can choose to cross the floor and join another party if they disagree with their own party’s directions. While Mr. Hehr may be working in good faith to create a stronger alternative to the PCs, working to eliminate one’s own party would not seem to be the best way to do that.
Yes, the quest for power and to create a winning team is the business of all political parties. But politics has always been more than that. Politics, at its best, is about higher principles, about advancing values, which differ greatly from party to party. Yes, policies can be similar, even identical. But the paths are markedly different. And those paths matter. The means and the ends are never truly separate.
The NDP used to be the party of labour, unions and social justice. It was and perhaps still is “solidarity forever.” But over the past few decades the party has worked diligently to move itself into the ‘centre’ with some success.
The Liberals, on the other hand, have had a broader mission from the outset. The introduction to our bylaws states that it is “dedicated to the values that have sustained the party since 1905: public good, individual freedom, responsibility and accountability,” and that it puts “people first.” That is significantly different than putting labour first, or business first, as other parties do.
Today’s Liberals work hard to represent the needs of real Albertans and work for their future. As we said during the last election, it’s not so much about “right” or “left.” It’s more about “right” and “wrong.” And we definitely think this province should be doing a lot better in that regard.
So yes, even though both Liberals and NDs oppose the PCs, there are profound cultural differences between the two. For instance, it’s telling that the Liberal bylaws are open to the public. What do the Alberta NDP bylaws say? We don’t know. They’re not published.
To be even clearer, the Liberal bylaws state that membership in the party is open to those who “subscribe to the principles, aims and objectives of the party.” Mr. Hehr, more than anyone, should understand that eliminating this party through a merger would not be within the objectives of the party. At the very least he must know that such talk would create uncertainty.
So what’s actually going on with Kent Hehr and his advisers? Well, the idea of a merger certainly isn’t news. It has been raised at the last NDP annual general meeting and dismissed, and raised again at the last Alberta Liberal board meeting, and again dismissed. So who does this “merger” actually benefit? One would have to say, the PCs.
The only logical outcome of a merger is a widening canyon between the party on the so-called left (whatever it might be named) and Wildrose on the right—with the majority of dispossessed Liberals moving to the nominal ‘centre’ with the PCs. Without the Liberals to balance the centre, the PCs gain a real possibility of staying in power for decades longer.
As president I have regular discussions with party members, and I can say that nothing leads me to believe a merger option is wanted by our members. Nor would it benefit the Alberta public in the least.
As a final aside, one can’t help noting that the former Alberta Liberal executive director helping Mr. Hehr is a PR professional working with the local branch of one of the world’s larger PR firms. And one of his closest colleagues recently worked as Alison Redford’s leadership campaign manager and former Chief of Staff. Coincidence? Well, maybe.
At the end of the day this merger talk isn’t news. It’s just more back-room political engineering. To date, neither party’s leadership has picked up the phone to talk merger face-to-face, and I won’t be doing that.
The real math is engaging Alberta voters. Our job is to attract existing voters, motivate new voters to exercise their democratic rights and to show Albertans that the Liberals have a lot to offer. The rest is just noise.
Anyone interested in what we stand for should visit us at albertaliberal.com.
Todd Van Vliet
President, Alberta Liberal Party
Read the guest post from MLA Kent Hehr that spawned this debate.
UPDATE: MLA Kent Hehr has provided a comment via email in response to the Liberalberta Party press release: “It is what is and I understand the collective frustration of everyone involved. That said, in my view this is a discussion that progressives in this province need to have. I’m just trying to have that conversation.”
112 Responses on Liberalberta Party president attacks Alberta Liberal MLA in worst news release ever.
A very helpful contribution to the debate, for sure…
This is simply the silliest thing I have ever read.
Wow, someone is a little annoyed.
Unfortunately I think he’s wrong about the math part. The NDP and Libs will never have any shot as long as they are split and forced out of the center by the dynamic between the PCs and WRA.
The collapse of the Liberals federally demonstrated this with the huge gains the NDP made both in the election and since unfortunately by decimating the liberals rather than joining with them. The difference in Alberta is that there are now left, center and right wing groups with the PCs clearly in the center as moderates on everything and able to steal marginally left wing voters votes to avoid the extreme right.
It’s a delicate balancing act but it may just be that the WRA is the reason the PCs are still in power.
Similar math will apply if Trudeau wins liberal leadership federally. A very large chunk of the liberal gains will come at the expense of the NDP and only a little from the Conservatives (assuming no major screwups on the Harper side). This will effectively guarantee another Con win with he same 38% of popular vote or potentially even less…they might do it with 35% next time.
I think you mean “spawned”. It was Van Vliet who just “spurned” the debate.
This is one of those releases you read and wonder what positive outcome the author anticipates from this being sent.
I’d be very curious to know what the PC Party’s reaction would be to one of their MLAs calling for a merger with the Wildrose.
Read the 4th paragraph. Did he just tell Kent to leave the party?
This individual seems like a sad little man to me- to call out and belittle one of his party’s strongest representatives and suggest that K.H’s “opinions” are irrelevant, reflects on the very weakness of the current Alberta Liberal Party….stuck, inflexible and totally unwilling to recognize Alberta’s unique culture. Good luck in the polls buddy with an outlook such as yours. P.S this isn’t “news” and therefore your “news release” is nothing more than a reflection of your poor character and lack of understanding.
Alex, their reaction was not to vote him in as leader. Ted Morton, with his “mothership” line, was at one point a policy point by him.
Kent deserves better from his own party.
The Liberals could merge with the leaderless Alberta Party! *snicker*
This was written by a mad, upset person who should have taken a deep breath, walked away from the keyboard and let it sit for a day and then see if he still wanted to put this out. The Liberals only have five seats and attacking and slamming one of the party’s only recognizable MLAs along with vague accusations against back room staff…and Redford’s former chief of staff, well this is bad overall.
The message should have been short and simple ‘the party disagrees with MLA Hehr but will continue to work with him to find ways to strengthen the party and reach out to all Albertans regardless of who they voted for’ – end statement.
This statement, coming from the President no less, is unprofessional and reeks of amateur hour.
I have always disagreed about merger, though my position has changed lately.
This release is enough to make me support Kent completely in his process.
The ALP president has to resign and he has to do it now.
Wow… I remember a drunk dial I once did that was less ridiculous than that…
On the subject of mergers… I don’t see the necessary elements on the table at the moment to make it successful, being open to conversations of all sorts is a basic tenement of my own basic philosophy.
I think Todd Van Vliet took the opportunity to tell Albertans what the Alberta Liberal party stands for. Mildly chastising an MLA for flogging a dead horse and undermining the party may not have been politic; but, it’s understandable.
Personally, I would never vote for a merged Liberal/NDP party. I want a party that represents my views; not an abortion trying to gain power. The comments about the math are correct.
I love this one: “Politics, at its best, is about higher principles, about advancing values, which differ greatly from party to party.” What BS. Politics is nothing of the sort. Most people engaged in higher principles are doing something other than politics specifically because if they were in politics they’d have to endure the blathering of the high and mighty arrogance of Mr. Van Vliet; putting up with his “principles” which are nothing more than arrogance combined with stupidity. First, he’s misunderstood and misread Kent’s message from the very beginning. What’s needed is a temporary merger to accomplish a political goal: electoral reform. One the goal is complete, each goes back to their respective entrenchments. Perhaps Van Vliet is opposed to such an arrangement because he realizes his entitled position wouldn’t stand a chance in a general election framed by proportional representation or STV (or some combination thereof). Nope, Mr. Van Vliet clearly thinks he’s better than that. But the real problem is he doesn’t understand the tactic, meaning he’s perhaps not educated enough. He clearly can’t be educated enough because his math is pretty different than the results in the last Calgary Centre election… or is Van Vliet just delusional? He obviously doesn’t know math and for that reason I agree with Neil Mackie: do us all a favour and resign Mr. Van Vliet; I recommend a course in math after you resign.
Holy #@&! this is the most batshit crazy amazing things I have ever read. Is this performance theatre? Are we being punked???
I’m reminded of David Orchard, for some reason.
Wow… Makes one want to rip up my membership card. This really isn’t a smart move.
Pass the popcorn, this is getting good.
And Laura’s comment (among others) illustrates just how poorly this news release comes across. As a recently retired member, I have to say, I am quite relieved not to be attending the next convention.
I look forward to quoting this line every time a Liberal accuses the NDP of being to left wing, in bed with labour, etc…
“…but over the past few decades the (NDP) has worked diligently to move itself into the ‘centre’ with some success.”
Well it looks like there quite possibly an MLA Benedict Arnold and his Cohort, both actively undermining the Libs, the Leader and Party, on behalf of the Tories. There really cannot be any other reason for such a cock brained, ill conceived manner. Thus is like a knife in the back of all of those that voted Liberal and those that support Liberal. Only some one covertly seving the tories would do something this underhanded. Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, since no names have been mentioned.
Kent Hehr, Laurie Blakeman and any other rational progressives should hammer out a deal with Mason, rename the resulting combined party, and cross the floor to join together. If the remaining Raj Liberals don’t enjoy their new non-party status come session, they may see the light.
As I wrote on my Facebook page:
“As a (literally) card carrying member of the Alberta Liberal Party and former ALP constituency association president, I am disgusted that the ALP party president would throw such an effective and dedicated MLA as Kent Hehr under the bus like this, simply for musing about creating a strong, progressive alternative to the current PCs. Especially in such a hackneyed, poorly written and ill considered public release. I usually follow the unspoken Liberal dictum of keeping intra-party fights in-house. But the president has opened this door. There were better ways to handle this. I am seriously reconsidering my involvement with the party.”
Vincent St. Pierre here. Duly elected president of the Calgary-Klein Liberal constituency association.
Could this have been written better? For sure.
It’s definitely not a press release so don’t read it as one. It was sent to members and is more in line with the blog/emails the party has been sending more recently.
But the content? It needs to be said. The way that the party was left post-Swann by the previous Executive Director and others was damn shameful. I want a set of leaders that can build a bigger and better party. And this email sends that letter loud and clear.
The Liberals have been having this conversation with a brick wall — the NDP, Alberta Party, etcetera — for almost four years now. It’s time to let this conversation close and move on. The NDs hate the Liberals guts and have never considered the idea, having it shut down every single time it has been brought to their Annual General Meetings. The Alberta Party laughed in the Liberals’ faces the last time this was brought up to them. How many times do we have to throw ourselves at the wall and get rejected?
The conversation on merger is done. I’m sick of speaking to a brick wall. I came from being no to merger to being fine with a united front, and now I’m looking at the situation, all the work done over the years to it, and saying that it has been a thorough waste of time. I want to move on in this conversation with the greater public.
I have a vision for this province. And I want to work with middle of the road, moderate, and magnificent people. I’m not so partisan to see that other folks in other parties are like this — but I want in my party with my leadership a force for Albertans. I want a party that takes a wider scope and comes from a position of building up others. I want to build. And that, for me, are the Liberals.
Vincent
Um…Vincent. It was sent to the media first before it was sent to the membership. It is most definitely a news release. It even had the FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE at the top and the -30- at the end.
Has no one in the Liberal party learned proper grammar, or how to proof read?
Are you writing a political statement or press release? If so, consider following this handy check-list to ensure that your work is up to par:
1. Take a swipe at a respected party member using his right of free speech
2. Insinuate back room connections and a nefarious agenda
3. Arrogantly state the superiority of your political silo above all others
4. Hint that anyone who disagrees with you is ‘wrong’ and ‘not a real Albertan’
5. Institute a top-down, non-consultative or debated approach to deciding an issue at hand
6. Finally, weave in statements of openness and conclude with a desire to ‘reach out to voters’, or at least those who have managed to hang on until the last paragraph.
Or better yet, maybe have someone responsible read your mass email to past and present party members before clicking send.
This is the ALP in full death spiral. Kent is the only one talking about innovative ideas for what might be best for progressive Albertans while the others cling irrationally to partisan ideology. I’m not, nor will I ever be, a Liberal, but I have mad respect for Kent. I have always found Kent to be a very reasoned fellow, and he’s a terrific MLA. His willingness to provide this kind of courageous leadership where others won’t is both needed and refreshing.
I was a card-carrying Liberal Party of Alberta member about 10 years ago, and had a very similar experience. Maurice Tougas was elected as the candidate for Edm-Meadowlark, and his first e-mail pep talk was crapped over by the Riding Association’s Treasurer, who PUBLICLY denounced him as an imposter.
When myself and others spoke up and ask him to express his concerns in a more private (and professional) manner, his response was to label me and the others a “new wave of Liberals” hell-bent on destroying the party from within. Although I got a personal apology from Kevin Taft a week later, the damage was done. I left the party and haven’t looked back since. Seems to me like they haven’t learned their lesson.
Hello Dave S.,
As a member of the “new” wave I’m pretty keen on some creative destruction. There are quite a few others as keen, too, if you’re interested in helping out. Here’s the email account of the -Klein association if you’re interested:
info@calgary-klein.ca
Vincent
Vincent,
If the “new wave” of ALP leadership includes impugning the integrity of a hard-working and well-loved sitting MLA, and publicly chastising him for his opinions, then I’m afraid that I’ll have to part ways with a party that has been my political home since I moved to this great province almost 10 years ago. The party has challenges. And the new ED and executive have a big hill to climb. But this media release has done nothing creative to help re-build the party. The ALP is the party of ideas. Not the party that punishes its members for thinking out loud what a lot of progressives are already thinking.
The release could have read: “While I respect the good work that MLA Kent Hehr has contributed to his constituency and the party, and I affirm his right to his opinion, Mr. Hehr does not speak for the Alberta Liberal Party, and no discussion of a merger with any other party is under consideration.”
That would have been the end of it. But instead, the president chose to attack one of his own. And we wonder why we’re in the political wilderness.
Kevin Powell
Past president, Lethbridge-East, Alberta Liberal Party
@ Kevin Powell, I’m similarly frustrated. This isn’t the party I’ve spent hundreds of hours volunteering for.
Matt Grant
Past President, Alberta Liberal Party
Past VP, Communications
Past Director, Calgary Buffalo, Calgary Elbow, Calgary Mountain View
I guess I should clarify. I was interim President. Mr. Van Vliet replaced me.
“Teams fight when they are too weak to win or to strong to be beaten!”
What the Alberta Liberal Party is going through right now is normal. They lost the election to Redford & their place in the Alberta Leg as Offical OP.
Now for some reason only seconds after the end of the fall session this merger talk & mortal threat to the Alberta Liberal party is here again.
The by-election in Calgary had to do with the health and talent of the Liberal Party of Canada, not the Alberta Liberal party. The Feds had M.P’s making stupid comments that did not help. Bob Rae failed to talk May into cooling her jets so a progressive party could win. After a history of the Liberal Party helping the greens make progress in Canada (like when Dion fought to have her in the TV debates against Harper).
Kent Hehr could have ran as an independent in the last election (perhaps should have) because had he his passion for bring the left together might have worked better. But when he saw how going it alone is too hard like when he ran for Mayor of Calgary than he stayed in the warm comfort of the Alberta Liberal fold.
This is not a membership driven quest to unite the left. Kent pointed out that he “did the math on by-election night” and saw that the only way is to unite. This is his own ego coming up with an answer to a question few members in the Alberta Liberal Party we asking.
Life is also about timing. Politics is also about timing. This merger could have been done at the right time. But just months after an election in Alberta something like this needs to be driven by the grassroots of each party. Not on the time table of people who are having an emotional response to of all things a Federal by-election result.
Do you think any P.C MLA would be wiling to cross to the Alberta Liberals after this session would do so know after the Kent Hehr moves toward merger.
Which caused the Alberta Liberal Party President to have a meltdown in the press. In open, civil warfare in the party. This is not how you do things.
Wade
Hey “Speaking of Benedict Arnold” aka “Deluded Ass”,
You unmask yourself and I’ll unmask myself. Because – again – I’m sure you’re Raj or somebody paid by him.
Matt,Kevin, completely agree. Prob with Libs always has been some insiders who completely undermine and nip away at their leaders. First Decore, then Taft, then Swann now Raj. You really have to wonder, why the heck would any of these guys think moving the party to the left or amalgamating with the ND’s is really an idea that serves to expand the cause if the tories because wildrose has taken ground from the right. This appears nothing more than a cheap poitical stunt, just like the one faked by somebody to make people believe that Rob Anderson wants to be WR leader. These tricks are all concoted in Tory land. Either these two are victims in a plan, or helping Toryland to carry it out.
I voted for Kent Hehr, not the Liberal Party. I’d vote for Kent regardless of his party.
The Liberal Party just publicly curb-stomped my MLA.
Kent is better than the Liberals. Kent should leave the Liberals.
@kevin, did K-ent not throw the party under the bus? all of the voters, supporter and volunteers? we feel gored and gutted by this.
Matt Grant
I really think you should mention how close you are to Kent.
Not to suggest you are part of this Carter led conspiracy but rather to show how much Kent and the people around him have been working hard for the party, sweating blood for the party and providing support for the party when this Todd guy was no where to be seen. This guy needs to step down as soon as possible and apologize to Kent. I do not totally agree with Kent but doing this t an elected MLA is amazing. Kent has run and won as a liberal in Alberta. He deserves respect from the president not humiliation. This guy has not put his name on a ballot, he has not won a PC seat for the party or spent years going to party events. He needs to go and right away.
Fair enough Neil. I was Kent’s Executive Assistant after he first got elected. He hired me after we lost Elbow narrowly to Ms. Redford (I worked for Craig Cheffins). I was part of the team that got Kent re-elected this last election. I consider Kent a close friend.
Because of this, I also know Kent has been passionate about merger since at least 2008, long before I was. A tonne of people could attest to this. This isn’t some leadership stunt. Raj could regain a lot of credibility and show leadership by allowing an open debate instead of having his proxies call others’ loyalty into question.
All of us are openly using our names and debating this in public. We’re not hiding anything and we certainly aren’t PC thugs.
Hey look Political Watcher, Speaking of Benedict Arnold, has a new name! Welcome, Albertan!
In the words of Forrest Gump, “stupid is as stupid does” that about sums up liberalism. Kent was a great hockey player, and my heart goes out to him for his tragic lot in life, but he should become a conservative, he is very smart and has to much to offer, to waste on clowns like Swann and the likes of Dave Taylor etal. Liberalism leads to California ,Michigan ,etc. and any other fiscal failure one can offer.
Hey Goose i wonder how much Toryland has paid to fuel all this. This only furthers tory interests, nothing more.
Folks;
Redford seems to be moving left of the Liberals, taking her party into full progressive mode. The ALP is losing its political space on that side. It can either become more left-wing, (getting squeezed in with the NDP) or wiggle just slightly right, taking a position between Wildrose and the PCs.
Every time Wildrose moves right or the PCs move left, the ALP can capture a bit more of the centre, and the PCs/WRP can’t easily win it back. Raj has already begun this process.
The real thing to remember is that the ALP has to work on building constituency associations. That’s been the real secret of Wildrose success – not Danielle Smith or anything else. No more paper constituencies, no more local notables looking for a way to build their brand.
@fixed wing goose, other, folks need to cool down. The real political enemy is toryland. The real goal all of you should have is colaberating against the staus quo and apathy of Alberta politics. Greens, another vote splitting group need to disintegrate for a few years and come closer to the center and squeeze toryland from the left. None of you folks are seeing the massive opportunity here. The WR has been bashing from the right and its time fhe left and center did their part. With enough combined fire if the center strengthens, that is the electoral sweetspot. While Laurie and Kent may mean well, just as an observer, Albertans ARE socially very progressive, but most normal progressive voting Albertans, are not going to vote for a leftie, green socialist amalgamated entity. While they are progressive, socially, electorally, they still vote in a very centrist to right of center voting preference. Knowing this and acknowledging this is the key to starting the defeat of toryland. MOst progressive Albertans are not interested inhugging bears or planting trees. That is fact, ease stop ignoring it. Electorally they are in the center and to the right of center, thanks to the Lakes of Fire comment.
Hey John, can you please explain that to the amalgamaters, that Liberals are headed to center and the just right of center vacuum?
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 over 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 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.Why question his intentions?
How is the new brand different from Alberta party?
Merging with the ndp is not the answer,simply because they wont merge with you.I didn’t hear or read anything by kent stating that, all he said is to form a big tent of progressive support which means cooperation that can be in many forms.Lastly I believe merging with Alberta party is a must,with no liberal in the name.That will be a first step on gaining momentoum for the future.Otherwise we will be here in four years debating the same point.
Ed Ammar
He’s not wrong about everything. It’s foolhardy to assume that 10+10=20 when it comes to politics. Assuming that the only options are “Tories” and “Everything else” does a great disservice to the individual policy platforms that each individual party may truly believe is the right one.
The whole controversy, however, is a prime example of insider bickering, the average voter doesn’t really care about the internal machinations of party politics.
I’ve said this before, you want people to engage, create policies that interest them, and the greater the population approves of a policy, the greater your chance of getting more votes. I’ve also said this and this seems to be missed – the vast majority of voters don’t rely on government money for their livelihoods. There are far more welders, tradespeople, business owners, retail workers than there are teachers, doctors or public employees. I’d bet there are more people who know what the price of oil is today than what the government spends on a given ministry.
And continuing to refer to those people as “bumpkins” will do more to ensure your party never forms government than any policy platform or press release.
Unreal and extremely petty!
If I were PC I would be very happy, the more we fight each other the less resources we have to fight them (and as anyone who has ran for either party knows resources are scarce) If I were a Liberal I would be finding a way to get a new president. As an NDP member I find it sad that we keep fighting each other instead of working together for the other 78 seats.
Tribalism seems to be alive and well, does Mr. Van Vliet not recognize that Mr. Hehr constitutes %20 of their caucus, total idiocy. If Liberal/NDP executives continue to act like this there will be nothing left to merge.
I’m not going to argue how wrong Mr. Van Vliet is, as I have made my argument many times on previous posts,although I would like to point out that he himself admits that it could add up to greater success. I would be willing to gamble 5 seats at a chance for many more.
“In politics, adding 10 percent support to another 10 percent support never totals 20 percent. In fact, it could add up to far less (or more!)”
As a final aside It is extremely disconcerting that Mr. Van Vliet also spoke so poorly of the former executive director of the Liberal party. Whom has worked and volunteered tirelessly for their party for many years, and believes like myself that enacting law that is best for Albertans is far more important then petty tribalism. Who he is employed by and what his colleagues do has little merit and is petty (there are many of my colleagues that I disagree with daily, but feeding my family is more important)
I must agree, this is the worst news release ever!
I find it highly amusing that a party which has made much hay over the negativity of “partisanship” would launch such a vitriolic broadside at a guy who has consistently punched well above his weight politically.
On top of that, Kent is quite frankly a hell of a good guy. I don’t agree with him politically on quite a few things, but the very attitude that got him in trouble with is the one that makes him so effective – he isn’t an idiotic idealogue.
If the ALP/Liberalberta folks keep this up, they’re going to be having their next convention in a phone booth.
Amateur hour indeed.
What does Liberalberal party leader Raj Sherman think of his handpicked president public trashing his caucus’ deputy leader? Does Raj agree with Todd? Did Raj sanction the press release?
Raj! Your silence is deafening!
Next best(or better) thing for Hehr to do, would be convince Swan to sit with him as an independent and caucus with the ND’s, and let Raj continue the Liberals downward spiral. Swan held a NDP membership up until he decided to run anyways.
Some of you folks need to grow courage and strength from within. Biased media did a great job of misrepresenting the Liberals. Fighting each ither and trash talk is not a way to get votes and leadership is NOT undermining your own party. It is time to set aside political baggage and grow up. This nonsense talking is unproductive, as is any merger. To dethrone toryland, there needs to be a better concerted effort, esp by some of you disenfranchised folk to try to eclipse the Tory political spectrum and get those votes by 2016. That should be the one and only discussion here, HOW CAN WE BRING RENEWAL AND POLITICAL TURNOVER IN THE CENTER. Any other discussion, is a waste of time pie in the sky help given for free to toryland.
In response to a Partisan…
To merge or not to merge… that is not the question.
Based on the Math that may very well be the question but math in human affairs rarely adds up. In my mind the question is to be a Partisan or not to be a Partisan.
Partisanship is the cancer of today’s politics.
Partisanship leads to laziness from political Parties. People who vote for or support one particular party regardless of the candidate, or shifting ideas or ideals of the party leads to most of the problems in our political system.
Would Harper have run Crockatt in Calgary Centre if he didn’t rely on the blind partisanship of a significant portion of the electorate? Would he have sent his cronies out to ensure the candidate that best reflected his position instead over the general consensus of the centrist Calgary Centre was chosen?
At the moment neither the NDP, Liberalberta or the Alberta Party have put forward a strong enough position or unifying candidate to earn the vote of the forward thinking in Alberta.
So long as we put Party before all else, this will never happen.
It is my argument that those who identify themselves as Liberal, NDP, Conservative etc. are the source of the problem of a disjointed “left”. They stifle discussion and do everything in their power to ensure other the other “teams”, especially those relatively close to themselves on the spectrum gain no purchase. For decades the NDP has run harder against the Liberals than they did against the Conservative. The reverse can also be said to be true.
It’s time we burn our banners and demand that the Parties earn our vote.
Naheed’s election was our first taste of this post partisan world. Since Naheed, unlike Higgins and McIvor, did not cling or self-identify with any political brand he challenged us to do the same. He has proven by his 80% + approval rating that there is a large consensus in the centre in a post partisan world.
It is our flags and not our vision of Calgary, Alberta or Canada that divides us.
I believe there is a way to work within Partisan Politics to achieve a post partisan unified reality. The Alberta Party is an attempt to do this but to date it has not attracted the central unifying voice nor the right policy balance to be able to accomplish this. It is my hope that if any of the forward the forward thinking Parties are able to do this, we will be forward thinking enough to put down our Flags and look for consensus in the ballot box.
The Liberal President’s letter that has spurred this current conversation is the manifestation of the afore mentioned cancer. Defending the reinforcement of silo’s and the reinforcement of walls and divisions does nothing but feed this cancer.
I’m sorry that a 22 year old blogger is fed up with this conversation. Some of us have been fighting for this post partisan conversation for longer than this blogger has been alive and will continue to do so until it comes to fruition.
There is no other path forward. 100 years of Liberal and to a lesser historical extent NDP electoral failure and bickering are the proof of this unfortunate reality.
The army of forward thinking engaged volunteers that was assembled under Nenshi and forged under Turner (and I could be convinced under Harvey) is in my view a possible game changer. For the first time in my life, I feel that there is a chance for people I generally agree with, to not only influence but decide elections in this once monolithic Conservative bastion that is Calgary. The upcoming Municipal election is a fantastic time to prove this thesis. If this army is able to identify and coalesce around 2 or 3 strong forward thinking candidates we can completely alter the composition of Council.
If we vote for or work for the candidates who self-identify under our “chosen banner” we will ensure that the DiCu’s, Demongs, Hodges’ etc. etc. will continue to hold our city back form where it needs to go.
The choice is ours. Partisanship or a coalition of the forward thinking.
I love how all the people mad about the letters are using their real names and all the “people” defending it are anonymous.
Love or hate the idea of merger, this letter was offside and shows the liberals as total political amateurs.
Do you know what is amateurish? An utter failure to realize that a vote for anything other than Liberal or WR is a Tory vote. Some of you well meaning guys have to stopeating pot brownies and stale pizza and quit treating all of this like some weekend high school project. I agree, could have articulated in a more conciliatory tone, but given the situation, even Stel-mach called Red-ford a “turncoat”. A reasonable person would have said that perhaps Kent could have consulted the Party, but there was a conscience choice to ignore everybody. It takes teamwork folks. Not every person on a team will ever have the exact same thoughts on everything. But rest assured, you can’ t be scoring goals or winning games when a team member is trying to score on his own net or his buddies are cheering him on to score on his own net. Some of you need to take a good look in mirror.
For 20 years I supported the Liberal Party with volunteer time and financially. I can no longer support an organization that handles its internal disputes through this kind of amateur politics.
Where is the Leader is this dispute? Where is Raj Sherman?
Until the Liberals can prove they are mature enough to even form a coherent message, I will no longer support this party. What an embarrassing joke this party has become.
Kent Hehr and Corey Hogan have stuck to realities: l. the Liberals and NDP (and the Alberta Party in 2012, and the Greens in 2008) have run on platforms that are indistinguishable to almost all voters for the last several elections.
2. Their failure to work together reduces their combined vote because it causes most non-partisan voters to conclude that they are simply not electable as a government in Alberta.
Todd Van Vliet recognizes that the NDP has moved rightwards and is now a centrist party. Whether that’s a good thing or not is open to debate. But it’s a fact.
So, to distinguish the Liberals from the now-less-ideological NDP, Van Vliet turns to a variety of cliched statements about Alberta Liberals. They are all false or misleading. He tries to paint the ALP as having a consistent set of values through Alberta history, mentioning values that ALL parties would claim to accept. In fact, there is no continuity in the Liberal party’s history in the province. When it governed from 1905 to 1921, it was the party of the province’s early elites, especially the lawyers, and was rife with corruption and nepotism.
In the 1950s its policies were almost indistinguishable from the CCF. In the 1980s, led by Nick Taylor as a one-man band, its policies had no coherence. Lawrence Decore turned it briefly into a party with policies to the right of the Conservatives but a diverse set of MLAs who agreed on very little. It has stabilized over the past decade as a party of the centre-left whose members use “Liberal values” to mean at least as much social intervention as the current NDP envisions.
While Van Vliet mentions that the party’s current directors have voted to reject cooperation with other parties, the party’s last policy convention in 2010 voted in favour of cooperation. So, the last time its members spoke, the Liberal Party was on record as wanting a different kind of politics in AB. Interestingly, at that time, neither Kent nor Corey were as yet convinced of the need for cooperation, much less a merger. So this is not a debate that can be wished away: the voters’ turning their backs on the left-of-Tory parties either forces a rethink of go-it-alone practices (which Kent and Corey have bravely undertaken) or dooms these parties to continued irrelevance.
This release shows absolutely no respect for Kent. Even though I disagree with Kent on a regular basis and strongly support the Wildrose, I have worked on his campaign before. He is the kind of politician we need more of here in Alberta, and I think it speaks volumes about Mr. Vliet’s character that he wrote such an undeservingly scathing report. An aside: Kent has great BBQs, attend one if you get the chance!
Way back yesterday, someone claimed that the Alberta Party laughed in the Liberals’ faces when they approached the AP regarding a merger. I was on the board at that time. There was no laughter. There was serious discussion and respectful consideration. That is the Alberta Party way of doing business. We continue to be open to working with anyone who wants to help us build a better Alberta for Albertans. Now, upon reading this shameful airing of Liberal Party internal issues in the public realm, and based on other concerns about Alberta Liberal Board decisions, I begin to wonder if laughing would have been the more appropriate response.
Me thinks they all protest too much. Perhaps Mr. Van Vliet should have sought a sage communications counsellor before he sent out his diatribe. No one needs to see this… move along people.
@wench, here here!
Alvin, overly critical thinking and over analysis is not enough to make a dent in Toryland. Its clear now, or it should be by now that destroying parties or amalgamating is extremely unpopular and leaving a huge electoral vacuum in the center, which will be taken by Toryland, if short sighted folks keep harping on about amalgamations. At the end of the day, Alvin the best thing is to provide a center to just right of center alternative to Toryland. The best way to do that is growth of the Liberals. Bringing along Greens and ND’s will cause most mainstream progressive voters to flock to the Tories en masse and in fact re entrench Tory largesse. So Alvin, what you and some other amalgamists say, really
doesn’t make sense, in this reality or even an alternate one. Some of these folks with political baggage will always joust or challenge with any superior they work with. They will even joust with the amalgamated party, if there was to be one. For some of them, its just their thing. In Toryland, everybody has a place and works their butts off and listens, even if they disagree with party leaders, everyone has a winning mentality. Some of these folks here have such a negative contrarian mentality, they confuse contrarianship with leadership. There is a time to question and a time to unify behind your party.. You can bet your bottom, dollar, a would be merger, some of these guys will get lucrative “communications” or some other “relations” rewarded from Toryland. With so much Perhaps a few of these folks, party politics is not for them. Case in point Shira-z Shari-ff was denied his chance as an MLA. Did any of you guys see him bashing Red-ford, party brass, or bashing the party? NO! He was a team player and took it cool as a cat. He never cried foul. The point here is the strength of a party is way more than the leader, it is the cumulative teamship of All of its players and how they behave. Some folks have to look in mirror and be willing to fairly self analyze and not be careful no to overrate themselves and over embelish their abilities. Brian already said no to merger, Albertans already said no to the AlbertA Party. The beat chance against Torland is the Liberals.
I love the comment about parties fighting when they’re too weak to win.
Just exactly who picked this fight?
The rest of us actually can see the path toward a win, and that’s what we’re working for. Long battle. Hard work. Not certain outcome…but believing in goal.
We’re fighting for our beliefs, and the NDs aren’t part of what we see…for darn sure.
To me, a real loser is the one whose values are not clear or strong enough to enable him/her to buy into a whole lot of work for a shot at a long-term win.
In the end, what gets you the win is the strength of the values.
THAT’s what voters have forgotten they can buy into.
The Liberal Party, on their best day, had a leader who was selfless, experienced, pragmatic and of high name recognition. That leader almost convinced this Province that they needed to take that great leap of faith.
Mr. Decore lost, of course, to a populist who knew the right thing to say, at the exact right time.
The message in this, is as follows:
1) The Liberals today are being strangled by a leader who is the opposite of selfless and pragmatic. His trade is name recognition and hubris. That is populism, which is fine, but it’s not enough. Where it hurts them is in his ability to share the spotlight with a team.
2) The Province has demonstrated over the last 100 years, that it is always ready to shift it’s politics to a more urban and progressive solution, but it better smell a little bit like conservatism. At the very least it should honour something about our conservative (independent/cowboy/rural/entrepreneurial) roots.
3) The brand Liberal is a 50lb weight around the neck of a racehorse already running in 3rd place. YES it is an attractive name to those who identify their ideals as Liberal… but most people identify the word Liberal as a party.. and that leads to many old scars and mythology about why Liberals (the party) are bad for Alberta
Sadly the only answer that can possibly fight the 100 year trend of Liberal failure to gain power, is to try something new. Perhaps the Alberta Party is a shell of an idea that can gain traction with some real leadership stepping forward from some brave MLA’s, or perhaps these folks should join the PC’s and hope to change that party from within.
But there is no hope for the Liberal Party to gain power. And what is the point of protest, if it ends in a cycle of constant commiseration and failure?
The party president blasts a sitting MLA for the sin of expressing his own opinion publicly. I didn’t think it could get worse than the stupid rebranding and weak green logo. It did.
Pot calling the kettle black, you are not one to talk, Chris, you guys don’t have even one seat, relegated to junk status. Albertans did not want, nor did they care for the Alberta Party Brand. The big listen thing didn’t really resonate, not even at a grass roots level.
Most progressive voters just showed they are not interested in brand new progressive brands or brand new parties, I believe this will include any Green or ND amalgamations.
The same way Albertans refused the AP path, the same way, they will shun any amalgamation. Its the Alberta way, they like something familiar because it is tested and feels safe.
The true path forward will lie, for each and everyone of us, centrists, inside or outside the Liberal Party to lance up, armour up and cast aside political baggage, differences and build an unbreakable resolve of steel to provide Toryland a nice path to be set out to the pastures.
Progressives fighting with progressives is not leadership. Those fighting with their own kind, don’t deserve much. Albertans will at least respect Liberals who fight bare knuckle to get the job done and unrelentingly soldier on. Consuming the soldier beside you, who you should be helping is not the path of success and victory. It is the path of political apathy and stagnation, much of that is echoed in your prose.
The biggest impediments of this brand is an entrenched association of the 1970 Federal Libs with 2012 Prov. Libs. Torycompany and the media have spent much money and effort to re-entrench myths, false statements and all out wrong beliefs of the AB prov libs. Most mainstream folks, come home, unaware, just casually believe what they read and believe blindly for it to be true.
So what do centrists do, they don’t blame un informed voters, they blame the party, the leader, the brass, the brand, blame blame blame makes you lame.
This whole issue is symbolic of politics in Alberta – lot’s of whining & complaining, but nothing changes. The Alberta Liberals need to face the big decisions if they are to remain relevant. It’s fine and dandy to have nice a storied history and belief in a set of principles, but at the end of the day, the raison d’etre of a political party is to get elected. After nearly 90 years of not forming government, you would think radical changes would be considered by the Liberal party.
People do want change in the province but as mentioned above, no other party has so far been able to get the right set of policies and the right set of charismatic individuals to make Albertans feel comfortable with changing to a different party. Ultimately, the Liberal party is saddled by the NEP label, despite the fact that it was done 30 years ago by their federal counterparts.To me, the Liberals should either 1) rebrand/rename their party and remove the word “Liberal” or 2) merge with another party. It’s a tough decision, no doubt, but something that must be done if they want to be relevant. Furthermore, the Liberals, like the NDP and the Alberta Party, need to come out with clear, concise policies that will differentiate them from the pack, even those same policies alienate some portion of the electorate (heck, it worked to a certain extent for Wild Rose).
As for Kent’s thoughts, I have nothing but respect for him, despite the fact that I’m on the Buffalo CA board for the Alberta Party. He’s probably one of the best politicians we have in the province and the fact that he is candidly discussing change should be something strongly listened to by everyone in the “progressive” side of Alberta politics.
What amateurish claptrap by the LiberAlberta Party… can’t they afford writers anymore (or strategists to decide the right way to deal with this situation)? Where’s Raj on this?
As to Kent Hehr, I don’t know much about him, but on this he is right, right, right. To the person who said 10 (Lib vote) + 10 (NDP vote) doesn’t equal 20, yeah, you’re right: sometimes it equals 30 or 40 or *gasp* a majority government. You see when the voters looked around and realized that the joined Party/brand could actually win, a lot more of them might vote and the ones who do vote might vote for a truly progressive party instead of Redford and PCs. Voters look for a Party/brand with a chance of winning, that’s why the Wildrose is the opposition and not the Libs.
Hehr is wrong in believing that this is likely to happen though. People at the top of both parties are too attached to the name and colours instead of being competitive (as if a name and colours were important when neither brand has a chance of winning in AB). News Flash: it would be mostly the same party if it was called something else (just bigger and more electable), same people and policies. The NDP ran to the right of the Libs last election, all the antimerger NDPers are defending is their (doomed) name and colours… especially since the NDP took 4th in the Calgary Centre byelection behind the Greens. Both NDP and Lib MLAs deserve better than being the 3rd and 4th parties for ever and ever, but will keep deluding themselves for ever and ever…
Everyone involved in this situation deserves better, especially voters who need an alternative, not tribalism
Merger between Alberta Liberals and the NDP is never going to happen. NDP prefer to tilt at windmills. Good for them. Only merger that will work is with the Alberta Party. Alberta Liberals have a decent batch of policies, the base of people who will vote Liberal until they die and a brand that is death. Alberta Party has a fresh brand, a great name, a positive approach to politics and some youthful enthusiasm and tech-savvy. Let’s get together.
Guardian:
Your party beat my party in the last election. You must be right.
My party outgrew your party in the last election by a factor of 10,000% to (-%50), I must be right.
Get over the numbers and start to embrace the trajectory of things.
The Alberta Party had everything going against it, and still showed promise. It LOST HORRIBLY because it still needs legitimacy, name-brand MLA’s, MUCH-BETTER policy clarity and a leader who exemplifies the movement….
But you know what? It has more promise over the Liberal Party, because it has a Brand and an Ideology of Rural and Urban Hope for the Future that the Liberals haven’t mustered in three decades.
And even then… I can’t say for certain it is better than the PC Party even. I am just certain it has more potential than the Liberals, who are stuck between a WRP and a Hard Place.
I’m not open to the idea of a merger but I would be inclined to support some form of cooperation along the lines of “historically over 30 years we’ve had better results in this riding than your party and you’ve had greater success in that riding. We won’t run our candidate in “your” constituency or riding if you don’t run your candidate here.” All parties agree to run on a platform that if elected the first thing they will do is reform Alberta’s election laws to give us a proportional representation government instead of the “First Past The Post” system we currently have then dissolve the government and call for another election made up of MLA’s who would then be more representative of all Alberta voters wishes. This would be a pretty expensive way to institute some real, meaningful democratic reform but I think it would be worth every penny.
For a Party to publically attack its own Deputy Leader with a 2 page news release is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.
Raj Sherman should also quit hiding behind proxies…
To those who are saying Raj is hiding behind a proxy or hasn’t made his thoughts clear on this subject, this is what he said to the Calgary Herald on the subject:
“For his part, Liberal Leader Raj Sherman said he disagrees with Hehr, but believes the Calgary MLA should be able to speak his mind.
“It’s a free world,” Sherman said.
“This is actually pretty old news,” he added, noting the idea of working with other progressive parties was discussed and dismissed by his party’s executive this fall.”
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Feud+erupts+between+Alberta+parties+over+left+centre+merger+talks/7684822/story.html#ixzz2EuRdSr2B
Really Vincent?
So the Party put out a release attacking its own sitting MLA (and seemingly encouraging him to cross the floor) without the Leader even consenting to it, or seeing a draft?
Weird man, just weird.
Raj Sherman likes to be leader. Brian Mason likes to be leader. Those 2 are the biggest obstacles to any merger. They ensure party faithful sabotage any member driven moves towards a merger. Write to every other Liberal and NDP MLA and suggest they form a new party/caucus of their own. Leave both Emperors without any clothes.
Raj Sherman should resign.
Ed Ammar, the 1100 votes you lost to the Tories scrambled over there to protect against Wildrose. They’re exactly the same 1100 you’d lose to the PCs if the Libs and NDs merged.
[...] online op-ed caused the president of Hehr’s own party to blow his stack to smithereens. Todd Van Vliet issued a press release that positioned the Liberals as a distinct, individual-oriented alternative to the New Democratic [...]
Every bumpkin here has almost forgotten about the Lakes of fire Hysteria, especially you Chris, it wiped out your party, and stole 125,000 Lib votes, WR was denied victory, no party leader was able to stop weak spirited voters from falling on the sword, holding their nose and voting Tory. THe blame shiuld goto biased conservative media, entrenched voters, and those really scared voters got spooked by the boogeyman. No leaders are to blame.
Some of you need to realize the bell curve of voters, the mean where most progressive voters are, is in the center to just right of center. What his means is that a lefty amalgamation strengthens the Tory party even more.
The amalgamation that makes the most sense is Alberta Party supporters coming back to the Liberal Party fold, with the intent of reconciling old political baggage, setting it aside and acting in true honesty and good faith to build a very strong center, with policies that are moderate socially and financially fiscal, thereby making it a true Toryland alternative. This will bring back Liberal votes lost from the Tories and possibly a lot more progressive votes from Toryland.
If the long standing political tradition of bashing Liberal leaders can stop, voters will have a reason to come. So Chris, Dave Berta, if it means getting voters and supporters coming back, are you guys willing to be men and reconcile differences with insiders, if this could translate into a huge wealth transfer of votes to the progressive center, r u willing to do what it will takes to win? Not in 40 yrs, after 50000 big listens, but next election.
A vote given to any lefty amalamation, or any vote splitting party is a tory vote, its that simple. Even those AP votes, Chris you guys worked so hard to inspire, are going back to the Tories next election, go re-entrench their power, kurruption and largesse. Yes they are, unless we collaberate. Unless you are serving to collaberate and build up the center through the Liberals, you guys are helping tories, electorally speaking. That is a fact. Yes it is.
Albertans are not interested in any sort of new political vote splitting experiments, leftie parties or amalgamations. Albertans are progressive centrists, or just to the right of center, take note Kent, Chris, Corey other dispirited folks. That is where we should all coalesce our power to get those votes.
Lets try to work together and work differently, collaberate and negotiate, etc..Check your baggage at the door. For those of you unwilling to unclench, you are either closet spoiler tories or too stupid to analyze anything meaningfully, yes u are.. Look in yourself and look in the mirror. Democracy has been held hostage too long by bruised egos, entrenched egos and baggage. R u willing to do what it takes for a credible center to get progressive votes. If you are, you have taken the first step to making this way more than you and your egos and taken the first step towards a pradigm shift to give people a safer place to vote. At the end of the day, this is about rebalancing and creating a better democracy and seving Albertans, i think we can all agree on that, as a start, don’t u think?
Some if you uninspired negative types are way too genius, way too charasmatic to work under any political leader in any party, ever. Either you need to grow up or just stay away from politics altogether. Brian is i overwhelmingly popular, as is Raj, didn’t he like just get a resounding 95% endorsement by all thise that voted? Raj and Brian have already spoken, amalgamations are old news. Some of you bashers need to get your head examined, if you care to remember Special Ed and Nanny Red were asked to step down over something way way worse and bigger than this. Have a cold glass of water and get some perspective.
@Alex Macdonald : don’t kid yourself. A lot of Liberals didn’t just vote PC to block the Wildrose. They voted PC because Alison Redford is a better leader than Raj Sherman (who is only a Liberal because he was kicked out of the Tory party for widely circulating an offensive typo-ridden late night email). Might as well vote for a real Tory, rather than a Tory in disguise.
To Alex MacDonald
I never supported a merger with the NDs simply because they won’t merge with the liberals.
We all know something has to be done.
Alex how is the new liberal brand different from the alberta party?
Liberal brand is a stale product.
values aren’t tied to a brand, a Trudeau rise is more bad news for alberta liberals time to start fresh.
Completely Agree Ed. More folks need to get politically engaged, communicate to Albertans, door knock, get the word out. Trudeau has done the right thing and separated himself from the NEP and his father’s Federal Policies, which a Tory Premier signed onto, NOT a Prov. Lib Leader.
What is stale here is, the self-defeatist loserish attitude centrists have after each election. What is stale is the entrenched biased and one sided manner in which the conservative media have portrayed the Liberals, to keep the Tories in power. People have short memories and have believed the lies told to them thousands of times. Lies told over and over again, start to become real, especially in sleeping Alberta.
Its time to unify the center under the Liberals and bring the Alberta Party folks back. Each party has to unclench their fist and be willing compromise on things, both sides, everybody, put your blame and finger pointing down and ask how can we fix, reconcile and work together?
Its funny how everybody blames a party, a leader, the brand, or the people in it. But NONE of you have taken any sense of personal reasponsibility, or revisited anything you could have done better. Its always easier to blame someone else for your short comings. Yes, there has been hard work, everybody has done it. Uttering self defeatest language, feeling sorry for yourself is not the way.
Do you guys think that any leader after taking the party for just 6-7 months, with no money or volunteer bases was ready to defeat the Tories? No new leader would have been able to pull that off in such a short time, it would have been very unprecedented, if they did. It would have been freakin mission impossible, no matter how good the leader was, even Decore couldn’t do it.
To win, you MUST be unsinkable and have an iron will to believe in the unbelievable. That is leadership. Learn it within.
The best leader in history, Abraham Lincoln lost like 11 times before he won. He never blamed anybody he never quit. Its times like these a hard fight should never break you, but make you into something stronger and better. So much can be accomplished if folks are willing to change the way they believe and think.
A letter from Mike Hruska, rank-and-file Liberal to Todd Van Vliet, reprinted by permission from Mike:
Alberta Liberal Party President
Todd Van Vliet
Dear Todd
In response to Todd’s contribution, and as a member of the Liberal Party, I totally reject his gratuitous remarks about Kent Hehr and his connections. I am ashamed that a Liberal Party president would throw out such puerile observations about Kent, a respected MLA in our party. Kent has displayed more courage in the legislature than many of our other MLAs, especially in reminding the legislature that Alberta has a revenue problem and not a cost problem.
I read your correspondence today about a merger between Liberals and NDP. I nearly fell off my chair. I would not disagree, if you are only talking about values, that it “isn’t simply about math”. But politics is all about math when it comes to the power needed to implement Liberal values.
The formulation of policy in a party is all about values as desired by the majority of party members.
Effectiveness of campaigns in part is based on math: how many door knocks, how many phone calls, how many pamphlets distributed, how many volunteers, etc.
Electoral polling is about statistics which is a branch of math.
The system of voting is all about math and has a profound impact on a party’s electoral strategy.
Votes cast are counted, not weighed, to decide who wins a seat.
Achieving a majority of “bums on seats” in the Legislature is all about math and the ability to exercise power.
Reading your response to Kent Hehr makes me wonder if you understand this at all. The political process and the very language of achieving political POWER is all about math. It is precisely because the Liberal Party does not appreciate the nexus between achieving POWER and the math underpinning it that the Liberal Party continues to mark time. If the Party continues in this wasteland of ideological values wasteland in which there is no place for any pragmatic assessment of how to achieve POWER, then I am afraid that the Party is doomed to political oblivion.
Voters who do not vote Liberal may do so for reasons that you choose to ignore. Liberal voters may be turned off by the candidate, the futility of voting for a party that has nothing new to offer, the futility of voting for a non-state-supported party in a province that is a petro-state, the futility of voting in a province where there is a rural/urban gerrymander, or the futility of voting for a party that cannot match PC or WRP political spending. You need to take the complexity of voter behaviour into account and provide us with a more considered comment about voter intentions. Members do not appreciate simplistic one-liner throwaway lines. Given Alberta’s voting history, there is virtually NO opportunity for the Liberal Party to EVER come to POWER, or implement Liberal values unless we consider drastic change.
Think what you could do if you presented a viable political alternative by cooperating across party lines with people who have similar values. You could form an effective Opposition as a precursor to gaining POWER; once in POWER you could implement a fairer voting system that guarantees regular change of government. I lived most of my life in a country (Australia) where we tossed out parties of either political colour if they “lost the plot” while in POWER. Never forget that you actually have to achieve POWER before exercising it as a reflection of your values
Kent Hehr has had the moral courage to face political reality. In fact, Kent is doing more to keep the Liberal Party and its values alive than you with your throwaway line ‘… working to eliminate one’s own party…”. He is talking precisely about what many of us in the liberal Party are thinking: there is a different way to POWER and that is through CHANGE! In the real world, individuals and institutions are continuously morphing as they face social, economic and political realities. You obviously are not a student of history; political parties are born and grow; they change their “spots” and their ideology; they merge; some lose their relevance, just ebb and die, as the Liberal party surely will if it refuses to change. This raises another question. Why would a political party not change, when party members tire of a static adherence to values that clearly does not resonate with voters. One of the great parties of the world had a violent birth, grew to overthrow a corrupt government, momentarily gave hope to millions, lost its way, became static and eventually died. Yes, I speak of the Soviet Union Communist Party and I am not making any comment about its values, but pointing out that these changes were brought about by people within the party.
Liberals can adhere to higher principles while being pragmatic about the pursuit of political power. Rather than standing self-righteously on the sidelines forever, we can actually take clear and principled actions to seek the POWER that will enable us to use Liberal values for the public good.
I nearly choked with laughter when you quoted the by-laws and their aim of putting “people first”. I recently attended my association’s end of year event where the frustration of many party members was obvious. During the evening our leader, Raj Sherman dropped in to stroke the egos of members, spread the message of values and urge us to keep the faith, while asking for volunteers to help in the central party office and to trumpet his personal successes in canvassing support for the Liberal Party. While you talk only about “people first”, Raj talked about his outreach to business and the symbiosis of working together. Naturally financial contributions were also mentioned (another example of the relevance of math), but at least Raj recognised, in a very pragmatic way, that the way to POWER is to think beyond the by-laws and include business and organisations like the trade unions.
You might want to reconsider the breadth and depth of feeling among members about cooperation with other parties. Dr Swann addressed this issue directly after the last Edmonton convention: he had no success but at least he tried to talk cooperation. His problem was Brian Mason, a man stuck in the old rhetoric and who used every tactic to avoid or stifle discussion on the subject, much to the disgust of many of his members. But today even in the NDP there is change occurring and I would remind you that ground swells have a habit of swallowing the nay-sayers. It will happen.
As a pensioner, I am one of many who donate money to the party on a monthly basis because I support change in this province and feel comfortable with Liberal party values. But I am starting to wonder why I should bother to contribute, after reading this piece by someone who obviously does not understand history, or the pragmatic nature of politics. You may have your circle of members who support a “non-merger option” but I am also aware of many in the Liberal and NDP ranks who have an opposing view. What is more, the media and social media seems to indicate that yours is a minority view.
How many more elections do Liberals have to lose while propping up a party that clings to an outmoded approach to gaining power in Alberta? Do the math. We will NEVER gain POWER under the current voting system in a multi-party environment. Do not treat Liberal party members like children! We do know how to cross the street. This party has to cooperate with other people and parties in order to gain POWER. Again, do the math, only then can we do something about public health, education, fiscal prudence, and the environment.
Cooperation is not a dirty word. We practise it in our family and with our friends. We value and practice cooperation when we work in our communities with like-minded citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed or political belief. So Todd, get acquainted with the exciting idea of POWER and math in the real world and stop belittling other Liberals!
With all due respect I feel Van Vliet really has no clue why Redford managed a majority.
She bought the leadership race through promises of future support of the ATA, which aparently she has chosen to renage on now.
Virtually all municipal and city official are in the PC’s back pocket either through outright graft or threats of cutting funding. Those threats are very real as witnessed by what is happening in southern Alberta.
To attack one of the few Liberals who managed to get a seat in the last election is truly astounding.
For those who think the Liberals lost support because of the Wildrose ‘lake of fire’ fiasco, I would point out that the Alberta Liberal Party was polling in the low teens long before Danielle Smith imploded in the campaign.
In fact, low poll numbers was far more likely what did in David Swann’s leadership than his attraction to the idea of co-operation.
To @ED
“Its time to unify the center under the Liberals and bring the Alberta Party folks back. Each party has to unclench their fist and be willing compromise on things, both sides, everybody, put your blame and finger pointing down and ask how can we fix, reconcile and work together?”
You should probably re-word that. Maybe start with asking folks to work together and reconcile their differences. And consider if telling folks to unify under your banner, and then calling for compromise and reconciliation, might perhaps be a little arrogant and condescending.
All of these postings and comments will become useless, once the deficit balloons to 6 billion and beyond, coupled with a drop in oil prices, the Tories will fall through the thin ice. The only question then remains, is how much deficit will it takes before entrenched Tory voters leave? You want to take a guess Alvin? Why not be ready for that moment? Or we still going to busy being geniuses and fighting and bickering with each other ortoo busy talking about feelings, bruised egos or pie in the sky dreams? How much deficit will it take to unite centrists? 3 billion is not enuff for you folks?
Pragmatist,
People don’t normally turn to left and far left parties to solve deficit crises or overspending issues. If the the deficit balloons and the price of oil drops, they’ll turn to the Wildrose, not the NDP, Liberals or Alberta Party. If that happens, the Wildrose will occupy the right, the PCs will take the centre and all the rest will be squished into the left and far left.
[...] problems facing our province. More recently, his comments about uniting progressive voters drew the ire of Liberal Party archetypes. While his party plays with gimmicky name changes, Mr. Hehr is trying to figure out how to get the [...]
The ALP needs to quit fretting over where they fit on the sliding ideological scale, and focus on providing a ‘better, clearer’ progressive voice for Albertans. If that that voice echoes much of the PCP, or a bit of the NDP – so be it.
Alberta Liberal Party voter
Pragmatist, I think Kevin Taft’s Follow the Money: Where is Alberta’s Wealth Going? explains nicely why AB does not save money for rainy days. There is no need for either deficits or financially-driven program cuts in AB (our health, education, and social needs do not decline because the price of oil drops). If we taxed individuals and corporations at the levels that Premier Lougheed did, we’d have lots of money in the kitty from good times to put over to both hard times and the long-term Heritage Fund. Follow the Money raises questions about our changing definitions of “right,” “left,” and “centre.” Lougheed was considered to be a Red Tory, someone in the centre. Yet ALL of the parties of today, including the NDP, have fiscal policies well to the right of Lougheed’s policies: the Liberals had the most left-wing taxation program in this provincial election, but it would have left corporate and personal income tax rates for the wealthy well below Lougheed-era rates. PIA and the AFL have called for an “adult conversation” in AB about revenue. So far, thanks to the strength of right-wing parties and right-wing media, it’s not happening much.
Alvin, Darrel, PC’s had s near death experience in the 80′s with the huge deficits, Albertans almost turned Liberal. Funding social progs becomes huge issue. Money is going up in smoke, no savings, no plan to save, huge structural debt. poor revenue collection, no prov taxes collected from uber rich + corruption = debt.
Even if the debate started in a very messy way I think in the long run it will serve democracy well in Alberta.
Losing sucks. Decent people from all parties spend much time, money and effort to make Alberta a better place.
The main question is it about party/brand or is it about leadership.
My thought is that it boils down to leadership. Had Smith acted swiftly to turf her crazy candidates off the campaign ASAP and shown leadership she might be Premier today.
Had Raj worked better to build a team & gave Liberals and voters something to care about greater than themselves he might have one.
Had Mason been able to build more bridges and work and play with others better he could have had the orange wave he was looking for.
The future is up to each of them.
Redford will lead the P.C party into the next election. Will the rest also still have that chance to lead. Only time will tell.
I think for the sake of democracy in Alberta some other party needs to lead even if it is only for one term.
Toryland as some call it. They know how to make the others fight with one another. We all must learn to add.
Wade
Interesting read. Nice to see that people are concerned about their party’s integrity. Talks of mergers are akin to treason (ie. Quebec wanting to separate). The Alberta Liberal party appears to be different from the federal Liberals. If JT were not running in the federal arena, Albertans may be tempted, but the leopards don’t change their spots overnight or even over a generation. I actually enjoyed this rebuttal, and feel that this is exactly the type of response that should come from a president, so that all the concerns are laid on the table in a public way. That is what debate and media exposure is all about, is it not? Freedom of speech and thought is a cherished freedom.
If people responding here there and everywhere to a press release are concerned that it is inappropriate it is because Albertans are afraid of debate of principles. Attacking a president for standing up for his principles is worse. We need more parties to represent the people and those parties should also be allowed to have a place in the house of government if they receive % of voter confidence. It is the “only two real party mentality” or “1st past the post system” that is hurting Canadian politics as it shuns large groups of people who have found that NONE of the political parties truly represent their values, and the corruption associated with certain political thinking continues to be stunning. While I appreciate the Liberal philosophy, the outworkings of that philosophy have been detrimental to Canada and Alberta at many levels, but I don’t claim to understand it all. I find the discussions intriguing and thought provoking, but they seldom change my vote unless the person running has a proven track record in my community (intregrity being the first choice).
Wade, if everybody in unison keeps hitting the Toryland barge again and again in the same spot, it will sink and become unsalvagable. Its already nearing that end stage. The key will be for all opposition party MLA’s to collaberate and work together and support each other. Each and every MLA SHOULD be loyal to their party. You can’t help but wonder, in light of all of this, is “Bridget Past Her Due Date” keeing a warm empty seat for someone? For whom? Hypothetically, how much is that person to be paid for that warm seat. Opposition MLA’s loyal to their parties will always have a high degree of political currency and respect from the public at large.
I’m 33 and I have a prediction. I would bet my house and life savings that the liberals or NDP will never form government in Alberta in my lifetime. I will bring this up for the next 50 years ( After every election that is.). The two parties need to cooperate (either merger or non aggression pact next election). Both parties are losers and if they keep going it alone they will stay that way.
James, folks who supported and voted social credit, used to say about the PC’s. Social Credit is non existent. Don’t kid your self, i agree ND’s will never form gov’t, but that doesn’t mean the PC’s wont join their socreds buddies one day when they get electorally out out to pasture. Albertans are sick and tired of being lied to. Again how debt is too much $3billion, 6, 9, 12$ billion, before tories fall?
“the quest for power and to create a winning team is the business of all political parties”
Unfortunately, yes; this representative democracy system that has evolved is precisely that; a way of creating cliques who sole purpose is ‘power’ (over the people). The motivations, methods and protestations of all of them are transparent.
Career politicians are pretty low, they will abandon what they profess to hold dear and ‘cross the floor’ as it suits their personal plans and secures them a spot on the gravy train. I doubt there is one who agrees with everything his party claims to ‘stand for’ (until it is expedient to do otherwise)
Yet it is us who are dumb enough (if you do) to vote for any of them; as history has shown for thousands of years, they never do as they promised during their election campaigns in spirit of in substance.
How can you for instance profess to ‘public good (&) individual freedom’ while supporting a fiat money system designed to keep the people in indefinite servitude. Which party aims to abandon the system?
If there was one, like the Libertarians in the US, they would be marginalized (like not being invited to presidential debates) and generally ignored, especially by the ‘in-pocket’ press.
What a way to run a society! If we haven’t destroyed ourselves through our own greed in a couple of centuries; what do you think historians will write about this nepotistic atrocity?
Yet the system is entrenched, you have to be a party to market your ideas widely enough to beat the current pack of wolves, and during your tenure abolish the system itself; without becoming that which you fought against.
..and so it continues : “Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught; only then will you find that money cannot be eaten”
[...] Van Vliet’s rambling and bitter attack on Mr. Hehr was prompted by the Calgary-Buffalo MLA’s contribution of a guest post to the [...]
[...] Van Vliet’s rambling and bitter attack on Mr. Hehr was prompted by the Calgary-Buffalo MLA’s contribution of a guest post to the [...]
Who ever responded to me I agree people are sick of the tories. I DISAGREE THE LIBERALS WILL NEVER FORM GOVERNEMENT. Even though I hate the thought, the government that will replace the tories is the old socreds know as the wildrose. Why because the progressives are divided and don’t want to cooperate. Like I said neither the Liberals or NDPs will ever win government in my lifetime because they can’t get over their small differences. Very sad, conservative or severly conservative governments in Alberta.
I see today that Mike Butler, many time prov/fed Liberal candidate in Edmonton, has called on Raj Sherman to resign as leader.
@James Anderson,
Yes, the progressives CAN co-operate, provided the progressive corporate sleeze that are corrupted, lie, steal and cheat from Albertans are censured, impeached and dethrowned, along with their spies and proxies in each party. As long the tentacles of corruption are meted out and some goto Stephen Harper’s expanded prison system, a few Judicial Inquiries into some of the nefarious things that have been whitewashed, we will have political renewal and turn over, which will restore public confidence. We need to return to a traditional NDP Liberal and Conservative political forum. There is NO reason why the NDP, LIberals and Conservatives(Wildrose) cannot co-operate to squeeze out the corruption. Wildrose are more than welcome to change their name to the Conservative Party of Alberta. The Liberals will become the defacto centrist Progressive Choice for MOST Albertans.
I think Mr. Van Vliet handled the situation with pussy cat gloves. He didn’t say anything so horrible. In fact, what this MLA did, maybe seen by many party insiders, voters and supporters as disloyal, as it works only to help to the Pee C’s, so why should Raj resign? its the stupidest thing I ever heard! The Leader’s job is to build the party and expand it, not split it up!…so what part of that should Kxnt be applauded for??? I would think the person giving up ground to the other party is the disloyal one.
Nike Mutler should get his marbles checked. Its the Party leader’s job to ensure everybody is moving in the right direction. The right direction, is to the right, NOT to the left. If Kxnt had any sense, he would realize, moving to the left, would alienate a lot of centrist Liberals and work to undermine the Liberal Base and help the Pee Sees.
So Kxnt has to ask why he is so willing to help the Pee See’s?
Quoting Mr. Van Vliet’s comment:
“As a final aside, one can’t help noting that the former Alberta Liberal executive director helping Mr. Hehr is a PR professional working with the local branch of one of the world’s larger PR firms. And one of his closest colleagues recently worked as Alison Redford’s leadership campaign manager and former Chief of Staff. Coincidence? Well, maybe.”
There fore, the fair question must be asked, Mr. Hxhr, do you or the Former Lib AB executive misdirector have anything to confess?
Mr. Van Vliet, thank you for being a strong voice for the Liberal Party of Alberta. You are doing the right thing and what is in interest of Albertans and the Party. The time has come for the Liberal Party to build on its strengths, increase membership and fundraising.
[...] around MLA Kent Hehr over his efforts to reach out to the NDP and discuss merger. This prompted a bizarre rebuttal from ALP… This entry was posted in Bloggers, Liberal. Bookmark the [...]
[...] it fits in Alberta’s new political landscape. Popular Calgary MLA Kent Hehr and party president Todd Van Vliet clashed earlier this month over what the future direction of the Liberal Party should be. The next [...]
[...] MLA Kent Hehr restarted the latest debate about cross-party cooperation and was stunningly, and strangely, rebutted by Liberalberta Party president Todd Van Vliet in a media release. Liberal leader Raj [...]
[...] Alberta Party, and Greens, as has been suggested by Calgary-Buffalo Liberal MLA Kent Hehr, is unpalatable to Dr. Sherman, perhaps he could be convinced a merger with his party’s federal namesake would not be a bad [...]
Leave a comment on Liberalberta Party president attacks Alberta Liberal MLA in worst news release ever.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI