Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« American foreign policy in the middle east | Main | Bravery & Sacrifice »

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Alberta Alliance Party & Wildrose Party May Unite

December 30, 2007

Notice of Special General Meeting (SGM) of the Alberta Alliance Party.

Dear Alliance Party Members,

During the month of December the Provincial Council has been in negotiations with the Wildrose Party of Alberta to unite the parties.  After several weeks of negotiations the Alberta Alliance Provincial Council has approved the following terms to a merger, subject to the approval of our members at a Special General meeting, to be held in Calgary , AB on Saturday January 19th 2008. We invite you to attend this meeting and ask that you pre-register by January 12th to insure we have adequate space for each attendee. You must be a current Alberta Alliance member.

The decision to merge the parties is entirely up to you. The following six resolutions will be submitted for consideration by all Alberta Alliance members in attendance.

Be it resolved that;

1)      the Alliance changes the name of the “Alberta Alliance Party” to the “Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta”.
2)      the Wildrose Alliance adopt new Bylaws substantially the same as those of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta ”.
3)      the Wildrose Alliance immediately conduct election of officers.
4)      the Wildrose Alliance call and provide notice of an Annual General Meeting to be held by May 1, 2008.
5)      the Wildrose Alliance accept all the assets and liabilities of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta”; following the acceptance of the merger by members of both the Alberta Alliance and the Wildrose Party at their respective Special General Meetings.
6)      the Wildrose Alliance allow all members of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta ” to exchange their membership in the Wildrose Party for a membership in the “Wildrose Alliance” for the unexpired term.

Both parties will have conducted due diligence examinations of the other, prior to the January 19th 2008 SGM.

If the merger is approved, the Wildrose Alliance will reimburse candidates for expenses already incurred for election material that bears the Alberta Alliance name to facilitate the transition to new name. (Candidates will have to provide documentation of the original expenses to be reimbursed.)

If the union is approved, a meeting of the new Provincial Executive shall follow the SGM, to establish by-laws for candidate selection and constituency formation.

Members of the “Wildrose Party of Alberta ” have been invited to attend. If members of the Alberta Alliance approve the above resolutions, Wildrose Party members will then be recognized as voting participants at the SGM.

I hope you can join us for this important meeting.


Jane Morgan, CFO
On behalf of the President & the AAP Provincial Council

Posted by Matthew Johnston on December 30, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alberta Alliance Party & Wildrose Party May Unite:


Smart move! That way Eddie can be tossed, and the united conservative opposition to him can take over governance without having to put up with a Lieberal provincial party in power - even if it's only for one term.

One term's more than sufficient time for the Left to wreak havoc to the provincial economy to the detriment of all Albertans.

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-30 7:09:42 PM

It seems AB will now have a "party of the right".

It will be interesting to see who is recruited as the leader and even more interesting - who among the Stelmach caucus and the "staunch blue" will make the move - as candidates, organizers, etc, etc.

This is going to be the most important AB election in decades. There is still room for a voice for people in the Center (a bit right/a bit left) who neither fit into the right nor the 2.5 parties to the left.

Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-12-30 9:16:29 PM

Very significant.

Posted by: dp | 2007-12-30 9:47:11 PM

...i do hope they get their act together. Being at the Alliance meeting was akin to a gopher hunt rally.

They need a professional redo and marketing plan to become a serious contender.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-12-30 11:38:03 PM

A united right Wildrose Alliance of Paul Hinman, Randy Thorsteinson, Link Byfield, Rob James et al would certainly make for a more interesting Alberta election in ‘08. There is a market of perhaps a quarter of a million Albertans who might consider a conservative alternative, a party to give the PCs a run for the money in the rural ridings, while the Liberals (even without a Broncharismatic leader) seem set to make urban inroads if they run a smart campaign.

Posted by: Herbert Patrotage | 2007-12-31 12:30:15 AM

Um...so they the right split into the Alliance Party, then into the Wild Rose Party and now back into the Wild Alliance Rose party...so they are still back at where they were before. Im not saying this isn't good, but whats really changed?

Posted by: SW | 2007-12-31 12:31:58 AM

It looks like the leader of the merged parties will be Paul Hinman, the sitting MLA. Things have to move quickly if an election is called in Feb as expected. This merger is a move in the "right" direction.

Posted by: MikeP | 2007-12-31 3:24:14 AM

Excellent! Now the right wing vote will clearly be split.

Posted by: Trudeau's Ghost | 2007-12-31 8:51:12 AM

HA! That's what the PQ hoped for in Quebec with the rise of Mario Dumont - and they ended up in 3rd place!

Just another Trudeau wet dream, eh? except for a handful of ridings, Lieberals and Dippers aren't strong enough in Alberta to squeak through into power.

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-31 9:02:56 AM

This proposed merger will go in one of two ways. If the Alberta Alliance people (Thorsteinson, et.al.) gain control, then the new party will have about the same success as the Alberta Alliance has had. If the Wildrose people (Byfield, et.al.) gain control, then it has the potential to have the same success as Reform had in Alberta - i.e. a voting percentage that will eventually yield a majority government.

The only way that this can work is if the Alliance people roll over and say "we gave it our best, but our time has passed". Thorsteinson has had a reputation of wanting to retain control of the party even at the cost of not increasing popular support. It will be interesting to see if things have changed.

However, if the former Reform people come out on top, this proposed merger will be the fastest way that the inevitable will occur - and the least painful.

It promises to make for an interesting next few months.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-12-31 10:44:26 AM

This is a very stupid attempt to overcome the very stupid Ed Stelmach. This shows how stupid politicians have become. In a more pragmatic, smarter time they would simply had his ass shot by a loner with a scoped rifle from a high building and saved the day along with a lot of tax-payer money. Sigh!

Vote split = Liberal win. How dumb is that?

Posted by: John West | 2007-12-31 10:48:47 AM

While we are on the topic of subtleties in politics, let me offer my 2 cents.

The merger will fail because it cannot capture the soft middling and cowardly sensibilities of Albertans. Remember, these are the wishy-washy people that voted in Stelmach ~ $5 PC's. Remember?

The best effect it can have is to scare Stelmach into developing more conservative oriented policies.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-12-31 11:05:35 AM

historically, Alberta has had a habit of kicking governments out of power with shocking speed when they've pissed us off. we don't vote for social liberal parties, so there's little chance of vote splitting.

these days you never know, though. hope not.

i've read the Wildrose constitution, and their "three reasons" we should vote for them. i like their infrastructure policy (as long as they don't save TOO much for the future. the HTF is already too bloated). other than that, they give us some feel-good platitudes with lip service to conservative values and flipping the bird to the feds once in a while, but nothing with any teeth. no fundamentals nor root issues. no real constitutional foundation to build upon.

too watery and populist. no liberties set in stone and protected from government intrusion.

some lip service, but nothing much, to property rights (Red Stelmach is caught up with the zeitgeist and pissing on property rights more and more these days). nothing about free speech and HRC issues, and nothing about killing, so to speak, any future federal gun control insanity with provincial legislation.

oh well, can't have everything.

i'll vote for the new party because it's more conservative than Red's party, and there's little chance for vote splitting and bringing in the Liberals *shudder*.

i just wish they would head further in the direction of libertarianism and the free markets. this would help create a stable constitution and lessen the ups and downs of populism and political pandering.

if they do this, there will be little need for their statement "people are sick of politicians promising things and then not doing them".

stop making promises, and you won't be tempted to break them.

Posted by: shel | 2007-12-31 11:17:18 AM

Brent Weston~


Link Byfield is respected here. he's a good drawing card.

Posted by: shel | 2007-12-31 11:23:04 AM

Epsi - an interesting perspective re the wishy-washy

It really was not the centrists voting in favor of Stelmach as much as it was the Centrists clearly rejecting the Jim Dinning/Ralph Klein/Rod Love option of continued board room/back room control of gov't. There is nothing wishy washy about this at all, and in fact it came as a total shock to the Red Tory end of the spectrum. Check out the number of blue machine candidates who are not running in the upcoming election.

Many of the Centrists are highly unlikely to vote NDP or Liberal and many have clearly rejected the Red Tory option (based on the leadership race).

Many other Centrists simply chose to stay at home for the leadership vote and the Calgary Elbow vote. As you suggest, probably acquiescing to a compromise candidate. They were/probably are not now prepared to go hard right nor are they particularly pleased with the state of affairs within the Blue Machine/caucus, it seems.

A factor that has never really emerged in AB politics (10 in the '04 election) is the appearance of independent candidates. Perhaps this will yet emerge from among the Centrists with enough of an impact to result in a minority gov't.

After 35 years of one party rule and given what seems to be a significant desire for change - there are interesting times ahead.

Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-12-31 11:43:00 AM

shel: historically, Alberta has had a habit of kicking governments out of power with shocking speed when they've pissed us off.

...unfortunately historically Alberta isn't the same. Demographically and morally we've changed, maybe for the worse.

Until Albertans, namely Calgarian's get off the greed wagon, we may even see a Liberal surge.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-12-31 11:43:33 AM

It always makes me angry when "greed" is portrayed as a viscious trait rather than a virtue.

Greed is what drives our economy.
Greed is what incentivises us to work hard.
Greed is what motivates us to innovate.
Greed is what stimulates creativity.
Greed is what we all need more of.

Now you can colour this character trait anyway you want since "greed" has such a bad connotation for the lefties among us. But I for one am also tired of political correctness being applied to this precious character trait and wonderful word.

Lets stop being hypocrites. All of us want more.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-12-31 11:52:22 AM


yeah, i was going to mention why i'm not so sure there won't be a vote split, but i didn't want to offend the few migrants from the East who aren't dyed-in-the-wool social liberals. (heh heh...)

i don't mind greed. it's simply a part of human nature. greed and self interest work just fine when the markets are left alone. but Red's Tories are getting really mixed up with them (Ralph wasn't nearly as bad), and are becoming more "caring" over time.

you're right, we are changing morally. Red seems to like us to rely on the Welfare State. i hope we get some testosterone and change before we get too soft (no pun intended). ;)

Posted by: shel | 2007-12-31 12:05:09 PM



Posted by: shel | 2007-12-31 12:07:14 PM

"In a year-end interview with The Journal, Stelmach hinted Monday at incentives "with respect to simple things like washing machines that wash clothes with cold water..."

This is why you cannot trust Ached Stomach. For God's sakes, now he is telling us what washing machines we should have in our homes as a government priority.

This idiot is a leftoid meddler and has no business in my laundry room let alone the government.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-12-31 12:16:30 PM


I think you're confusing greed and ambition. Ambition is what drives us to create a better way of life. Greed is what motivates people to try and suck the life out of the ambitous people.

Posted by: dp | 2007-12-31 12:19:49 PM

Greedy Epsi

Ambitious Epsi

Same thing and such different connotations!

We want a better way of life because we are greedy. It is greed. There is nothing wrong with greed. Ambition sounds so much nicer, I know!

But I want to de-demonize the word greed.

Greedy-girl Epsi

Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-12-31 12:24:37 PM

"1. We'll reduce the massive outflow of Alberta dollars to the federal system by standing up to Ottawa and Quebec."

This is the one promise that will cause the most change. The Party has not yet identified itself as a separatist party but I also think that it has not yet ruled out the option. I.E. - they may be willing to say "or else" at some point.

The equalization payments are troublesome for Alberta but are also specified in the constitution. How does Wildrose propose to carry out this idea? If what is meant by the idea quoted above is to simply curtail the payments by having the Feds back away from areas of provincial jurisdiction, there will be a big enough fight with some of the other provinces. Imagine the fight that would ensue by simply asking the other provinces to honour the Constitution.

Or do they mean something else? Do they mean to go after the principle of equalization itself? That is fine with me, but it becomes a Constitutional question then. After watching the Reform movement try this question for over 20 years, the "or else" option will have to be at least floated - and in a manner that is credible. It will need to be floated at some point in time whether or not the question is one of federal/provincial jurisdiction or one of equalization payments in principle.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-12-31 12:24:53 PM

This all is bunk. Reality is Hinman is a non-electable leader and wont gain any more support than what he has. Byfield presumably has some money backing to prop up the new party, but there is allot of bad blood between the groups right now from past presidents Et Al. and the new Alberta Alliance Party executive. So even if they combine(which they should) they don't have any big enough names or PR manipulators that can gain the necessary media attention and constituency support to beat the Tories.
Bottom line is no money and no big named candidates will keep this party bogged down. The Electorate will vote with what they feel comfy with and that will be the Tories. Im Sure old Ed will throw a carrot or two out durring the election to sway some of the nay sayers.
Liberals are still criers, reactivists and have no defined policies to LEAD. They are stuck in the traditional Oppositional mind think, so one will vote for them...and the NDP's are insane so only the traditional loony left will get their support.
Same old Same old...and we will have this same conversation again and again in the up coming years.

Posted by: SW | 2007-12-31 1:46:46 PM


Greed and Profit are two different birds.

Greed is bad, while profit is good. How you get a profit can either be by greed or good management.

Greed ignores its workers, profit doesn't.

Greed only has one lifestyle, unsatable. Profit can work in good times and in bad.

Greed springs from the love of money, which is evil, profit springs from good money and people management.

See the difference. Yes I want more, but it doesn't drive me.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-12-31 9:03:08 PM

"this precious character trait and wonderful word."

#1 excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
#2 avarice: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)

Greed's sister name is 'covetous'.

...wonderful word eh? Not in my books, but I digress, this blogstream isn't about greed but the upcoming election.

Based on removing those greedy of power.

(Sorry couldn't resist.)

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-12-31 9:07:03 PM

Tomax, your problem is that you ascribe emotion into wealth. This is a common leftoid problem.

Once you can isolate emotion from money you will be able to see clearly. You will also find yourself richer than you ever thought possible. But at the same time you will also realize that having money and having the emotional maturity to truly realize what money is are two entirely different beasts. Are you following this?


Posted by: epsilon | 2007-12-31 11:11:41 PM

Epsi - glad you're a clinical gynecologist.

No not following this. Greed is pure and simple coveting more and more. It will never be satisfied and will eventually turn on you.

With reference to removing emotion, then either you're a zombie or robot.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-01-01 10:39:25 AM

...anyway, last word from my side, I hope the Alliance and Wild Rose get a good marketing firm on their side.

As well better defined goals.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-01-01 10:40:47 AM

If there are any spokesmen for this new party, I would have several questions.

1) Are there enough schools in the province to handle the influx of population?

2) Are roads adequate as they are now?

3) How much money would it take to ease the strain on infrastructure?

4) Where would the money come from?

5) What is more important ... the needs of all Alberta citizens or the needs of oil companies headquartered in Calgary?

6) Should all Alberta citizens receive direct benefit in the form of an annual royalty cheque? Articulate a formula.

7) When being criticized, will your fallback position be that your critic is anti-Semitic?

8) Given his history as frontman for Calgary oil company head offices, should Ralph Klein be drafted as leader of the party?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-01 11:16:45 AM


can i take a stab at your questions?

question 1)~ suck it up, push for lower taxes, and homeschool the kids. homeschooling works for my circle.

2)~ drive defensively. the infrastructure will catch up in time.

3)~ who cares? leave for work earlier. the infrastructure will catch up in time.

4)~ there's enough money now. it's just taking longer than some of us wish.

5)~ every citizen can invest in the oil companies, take the risks, and reap the benefits along with them. let's personalize it: what are your needs, set? i'm successful and set up. i've been following the markets and am as secure with my career and finances as any thinking person can be in this uncertain world.

how about taking responsibility and securing our own needs without looking to the State? there's enough moola in the gov. coffers to eventually take care of our collective needs. (infrastructure).

6)~ i haven't really thought about this one. i don't know if i like it. seems to be just another way for the government to convince the masses to vote for the "free stuff", when in fact, it's not free at all. lower our peripheral taxes instead.

7)~ ??? explain this.

8)~ nice spin. it's curious how people frame things. was Klein "bought" by the oil companies? or did he largely leave them alone and help create a capitalistic atmosphere for industry to thrive, for the benefit of everyone?


google: John Galt's Speech Mini Version. it frames things well.

Posted by: shel | 2008-01-01 12:42:21 PM

Let me try this one SYF

1)If we run short of schools we can always re-open the dozens that were closed down and sold for $1.
2)The roads are fine. Just look at all the gaps between the cars.
3)The infrastructure was supposed to be supported by the heritage fund, wasn't it?
4)See # 3
5)Try the needs of Albertans, and Canadians. At the rate we're balooning we might be back in the have-not category in a decade.
6)See #'s 1,2,3,4
7)Let's go with unpatriotic, it's harder to disprove.
8) Ralph is no longer of value to anyone. Maybe a poster boy for AADAC.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-01 12:59:00 PM

"1. We'll reduce the massive outflow of Alberta dollars to the federal system by standing up to Ottawa and Quebec."

This is the one promise that will cause the most change. The Party has not yet identified itself as a separatist party but I also think that it has not yet ruled out the option. I.E. - they may be willing to say "or else" at some point.

The equalization payments are troublesome for Alberta but are also specified in the constitution. How does Wildrose propose to carry out this idea? If what is meant by the idea quoted above is to simply curtail the payments by having the Feds back away from areas of provincial jurisdiction, there will be a big enough fight with some of the other provinces. Imagine the fight that would ensue by simply asking the other provinces to honour the Constitution.

Or do they mean something else? Do they mean to go after the principle of equalization itself? That is fine with me, but it becomes a Constitutional question then.

Our CPP contributions are the single biggest cash outflow from Alberta to Ottawa. People confuse 'equalization' with 'equality of benefits'. By opting out of the CPP and having an APP the cash stays here. This is not an equalization issue but an equality of benefits issue therefore the Canadian Constitution is not affected (over which we have no control).

Posted by: Ormand | 2008-01-01 10:20:27 PM

That's a new one on me. I've never seen an Alberta dollar. Alberta was only weened off of transfer payments a few short decades ago, and you're already crying over giving it back.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-01 10:45:59 PM

>"Alberta was only weened off of transfer payments a few short decades ago, and you're already crying over giving it back.
dp | 1-Jan-08 10:45:59 PM

Alberta, which is 100 years old, only received $92 (M)illion in transfer payments over a 7 year span, from 1956-1963.

That would be 44 years since Alberta has received a transfer payment and Albeta didn't receive ANY before 1956.

Alberta has been paying $11+(B)illion/year inexcess for decades.
(estimates are $230+ BILLION in the last 25 years)

Get it right dp.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-02 1:04:06 PM

weaned = disengage from a habit gradually.

weened = be of the opinion; think, suppose.

So, placed in context, dp's statement would be Alberta was only (be of the opinion; think, suppose) off of transfer payments ....

The better quesion would be ... when will Quebec and the Maritimes be weaned off Alberta's billions? My guess would be the day after Alberta separates.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-02 1:24:59 PM

Eddie is a very poor Premier, he would be a poor choice for any province but he is a disaster for the province of Alta. Alta was the wealthiest, most government free province in the dominion before Eddie became the default Premier. Alberta has had a huge influx of young, ambitious Canadians from the rest of Canada; a group of people who appreciate the chance to build a future for themselves and their families. The rest of Canada is, of course, pea green with envy ....all provinces want to retain the young working crowd to support the big batch of boomers who are about to retire - esp the boomers in that batch...MANY of the boomers work for the gument..so healthy gument coffers are a prerequisite for healthy retirement dole.

Eddie is getting into the business of state nannism and economic CONTROL - big time. He is giving the youthful workers the same pablum that the ROC is feeding to it's 'best past due date' crowd. His stance on smoking and regulating the food industry and the state intervention in the economy just will not fly with the under 40 crowd, attracted to Alta that he is attempting to crow to...or is he too dense to know that he has a very different population than the rest of Canada?...the Wildrose Party is not Politically Correct: youthful minded people do not like to be 'regulated'.

IMO, Eddie is done like a dinner: Albertans will show up to vote when they have someone to vote FOR - it won't be the Dipper/Liberal outfits as a protest vote thingie - it will be the Wildrose Party. If I were an Albertan I would have already bought a membership in a Political Party that DEFENDS Freedom.

Posted by: jema54j | 2008-01-02 5:23:49 PM

Thanks speller. I was going to suggest someone find the actual dollar amount. I live and work in Alberta, and have for many years. I was just trying to get a rise out of someone.

You have to admit though, when Alberta needed help they really needed it.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-02 6:57:59 PM

pffffttt...what a crock...effective alternative political expression is as dead in Alberta as the independence ethic. The status-quo policies of these 2 fringe parties show us this clearly...there is so little interest thaty must merge just to get attention.

With a few bucks in their pockets from another more prolonged but still boom/bust cycle, most Albertans have become comfortable with status quo top down technocratic politics wrapped in a western "old boy" network. Right now the PCs are the masters of status quo placebo politics and they are quite happy to deliver Alberta's sovereignty and best interests ever so quietly and incrementally into the hands of their brethren in the bowels of Ottawa's transnationalist neo-liberal technocracy.

Albertans are so politically numb from the intoxicating effect of boom times that alternative political solutions are the last thing on their minds....they will sleep right through this fringe merger just as they will sleep right through the next election....just as they sleeo through the incremental sellout of the province to Ottawa's centrally directed internationalism.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2008-01-03 7:31:05 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.