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.”
114 replies 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.