Unite the Right
In the midst of masterofhisdomain-gate, I seem to have missed this bit of news out of Alberta:
Before people get too excited about this merger, this is only slightly more significant than the eventual Marxist-Leninist/Communist Party merger that we all know is inevitable at the federal level. So, in the scheme of things, this is probably slightly less worrisome for Ed Stelmach than losing his domain name to some shit disturbing blogger and slightly more worrisome than getting a mustard stain out of his favourite suit.
For those outside of Alberta (which includes, I guess, me), the Alliance came into being in 2002, picking up 1 seat and 9% of the vote in the 2004 election. Given recent polls and by-election results, I tend to think 9% would be their best case scenario in the upcoming election.
As for the Wild Rose Party, their long and storied history will come to a close if this merger is ratified. Let's give them a moment of silence before moving on.
Should Wild Rose party members decide to kill their weeks of history in a bid to blow past the SoCreds on the relevancy scale, the new party would be cleverly named the Wild Rose Alliance (or, "Wild Alliance" for short) and would be led by Alberta Alliance leader Paul Hinman. This shouldn't be a major surprise given that the Wild Rose Party never selected a leader.
Alberta's political right may be in for a realignment in 2008, with the Alberta Alliance and Wildrose Party preparing for a merger before the next election.
If the union is accepted by members of both parties, the new Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta will run a full slate of candidates in the next election.
Before people get too excited about this merger, this is only slightly more significant than the eventual Marxist-Leninist/Communist Party merger that we all know is inevitable at the federal level. So, in the scheme of things, this is probably slightly less worrisome for Ed Stelmach than losing his domain name to some shit disturbing blogger and slightly more worrisome than getting a mustard stain out of his favourite suit.
For those outside of Alberta (which includes, I guess, me), the Alliance came into being in 2002, picking up 1 seat and 9% of the vote in the 2004 election. Given recent polls and by-election results, I tend to think 9% would be their best case scenario in the upcoming election.
As for the Wild Rose Party, their long and storied history will come to a close if this merger is ratified. Let's give them a moment of silence before moving on.
Should Wild Rose party members decide to kill their weeks of history in a bid to blow past the SoCreds on the relevancy scale, the new party would be cleverly named the Wild Rose Alliance (or, "Wild Alliance" for short) and would be led by Alberta Alliance leader Paul Hinman. This shouldn't be a major surprise given that the Wild Rose Party never selected a leader.
Labels: irrelevant mergers, Paul Hinman, Wild Alliance Party, Wild Rose Party
posted by calgarygrit at
10:09 p.m.
11 Comments:
I'd be willing to bet the party will get around 15% of the popular vote.
Given that they are planning to run a full slate and Thorstenstein is bankrolling them again they have a legitimate shot of electing 3 - 5 seats.
As well, many of Ted Morton's 44000 supporters (who voted for him on the second ballot) will probably vote for these guys.
By
Anonymous, at 11:42 p.m.
I'm sure Craig Chandler is beside himself with glee. He was running out of parties to be declared persona non grata in.
By
Reality Bites, at 7:47 a.m.
"This shouldn't be a major surprise given that the Wild Rose Party never selected a leader."
That's because they aren't officially a party, yet. They just barely got the 6000+ signatures to become registered. A leader would have been selected at an AGM in the next month or so.
By
Anonymous, at 8:59 a.m.
If Hinman gets into the debates, they get their act together by election day, and the media takes them seriously, then 15%, skewed incredibly rural, is possible.
But, if I was betting, I'd definitely go on the "under" of that over/under.
By
calgarygrit, at 9:35 a.m.
They should join with Social Credit now. If all the right-wing parties merged, they might actually become relevant. And by "relevant" I mean in the same way the NDP is relevant. But that's actually a step up from where those parties are now.
By
Robert Vollman, at 10:00 a.m.
This reminds my of a similar attempt a decade ago or here in BC. That is when a handful of similar parties tried the same thing here and the rest is history, or at least became history pretty quickly. I wonder if the Alberta attempt will have more legs.
Somehow I think the mustard stain will be larger concern for Ed than the unite the right thing will be.
By
Keith Richmond, at 11:28 a.m.
Anonymous at 9:42 supposes that the Wildrose Alliance might get 15% of the vote and 3-5 seats. Looking at the results last time, increasing their vote to 15% would probably only result in one extra seat for them.
By
Anonymous, at 12:13 p.m.
What ever can be said of its policies, you cannot deny "Wild Rose Party" is a cool name.
By
Anonymous, at 1:19 p.m.
Coming from someone who's fav party will never, ever again take the position of government in Alberta, whatever your opinion is of the new party is moot. Kinda like the hapless Maple Leaf fan holding out for that one last Cup.
By
Unknown, at 1:26 p.m.
Ha ha Babbler, you're right about the cool name.
LPS - I'm curious how Dan's position as a Liberal disqualifies his opinion or analysis of politics as "moot". I'm sure Jason Kenney and Irene Matheson are full of opinions on people across the political spectrum.
By
Anonymous, at 6:06 p.m.
I going to go out on a limb that Ed takes this seriously enough to call an election within a month from now in order to try and nip this in the bud.
- Brian Dell
By
Anonymous, at 6:34 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home