Alberta Liberals fail to inspire, plan to conspire.

17-May-2010 Posted by Chris on 17-May-2010 | View Comments

Alberta Liberals fail to inspire, plan to conspire.

My whole life, Chrysler has struggled under a mediocre brand, constant quality issues and a failure to innovate meaningfully. GM, not much better, has suffered under it’s own bureacratic weight, lack of productivity, and perhaps even worse innovation.

No surprise, both these companies required major government bailouts, and are still trying to sell the same vehicles to the public. Now imagine this.

General Motors and Chrysler decide to “co-operate” in an effort to steal more market share from other competitors. But instead of a merger, they are simply going to agree not to compete with each other in strategic markets, or perhaps they would co-operate in speaking out against their combined competitors.

So keeping this anology in perspective, ask yourself how the customer receives greater value from either of these companies? Do the cars get better for the customer? Will they be able to change the perceived needs and wants of the customer, by offering LESS CHOICE? Of course not. Frankly, they would be conspiring to SCREW the customer, or at very least the SYSTEM, by playing games with the market instead of innovating, and adding more desired products for their customers.

Of course in the world of industry, there is no way in the world this would work. Firstly it would be against the law, secondly it would not grow the market share for either company, as customers will just laugh in the face of the conspirators, step around them and buy what they want.

Now, imagine we were talking about political parties, in a first-past-the-post election. You could argue that then things are different. That vote-splitting would be reduced and the conspirators could come out ahead.

Do the electorate get a better product? Or is it simply the best way to keep your failing brand from really innovating? We know the obvious answers to these questions, and yet the old-school win at all costs mentality of people losing grip on power, makes the self-serving option seem to make sense. But at what long-term cost?

To be clear, I am not talking abour a merger of the parties, which in my opinion would have some benefits. But that would require coming from two completely different locations on the political spectrum and trying to appease the grassroots of each. So a merger MIGHT create a better product (assuming moderate policies) for the customer, but the special influencers of the NDP (Union friendly and anti-business left wingers), and the smarter-than-the-average-Albertan egos of the Liberal Leadership, would never get this done.

So, in my personal opinion, it’s simply old-school politics and a bailout of those who have failed to inspire Albertans. Me, I’ll look for a new mode of transportation, built to function in a 2010 political economy.

Anonymouse

Your assumption that consumer choice is equivalent to a vote in a first past-the-post system is flawed. In a consumer choice model, one (of hopefully several) corporations gets your money. In a first-past-the-post system, all votes not registering to the winning candidate are dismissed. Providing voters with a new way to make their votes not count is hardly groundbreaking.

Equating consumers with citizens is troubling. The former merely chooses from what has been produced and presented as a number of limited choices. The latter is able to create entirely new options and expand the ability of all to make and shape choices.

Finally, your tired use of "conspire" is ridiculous. One might easily label the Alberta Party as a "conspiracy" of self-sabotaging Greens (Edwin Erickson) and dot-com capitalists (yourself). But such a description is hardly useful, is it?
anon

I disagree with your categorization of cooperation in Alberta as "old school politics."
What is authentically old school is adherence to a first-past-the-post system that gives 47% of the voters 13% of the seats (the opposition) and has allowed the right wing to rule without consequence for FORTY YEARS all because the progressive parties allow themselves to be divided and conquered, election after election, out of sheer obstinate partisan pride and muddy, shallow thinking.

What is new in twenty-first century politics, however, is cooperation, dialogue, intelligent discussion of platforms and ideas — not mergers, as all sides are loathe to give up their total autonomy — but cooperation. Mature, rational, cooperation.

Truly Chris, if you see yourself as a progressive (and I’m not sure that you do), I think you need to reconsider your opposition to this idea.
phil elder

The two readers’ comments above make any further response unnecessary. Mr. LaBossiere should go back to the drawing board and re-think his position.
http://www.wernerpatels.com Werner

… but the special influencers of the NDP (Union friendly and anti-business left wingers), and the smarter-than-the-average-Albertan egos of the Liberal Leadership, would never get this done.

It might be possible, though, because the Alberta NDP is not as radically far left as the federal party tends to be. Brian Mason, for example, while certainly pro-union, is not out to destroy companies the way many on the far left are (e.g., Naomi Klein). In a way, Mason has gone halfway to the point where Tony Blair positioned his New Labour. Now, if Mason were to adopt the Blair model in full, he’d also cut his party’s union ties and move to the centre. (Btw, Gordon Brown lost because he killed New Labour and resurrected Old Labour, thus making the party fully unelectable.)
Craig Chandler

The Alberta party is exactly the same failure as the Liberals. It’s time for a truly conservative alternative: the Wildrose Alliance.
workeradvocate

"but the special influencers of the NDP (Union friendly and anti-business left wingers), and the smarter-than-the-average-Albertan egos of the Liberal Leadership, would never get this done."

To repeat the comment of an anonymous contributor. "but such a description is hardly useful, is it?" Same old same old defeatist Alberta politics. Labeling, generalizations, stereotyping, scapegoating blah blah blah. No wonder the Regressive Conservatives remain the government party. The fact is- ‘we [progressive persons] are the problem’. We allow it to happen, we allow it to continue to happen and if we are not the solution we are the problem. Drop the labels, drop the generalizations, drop the stereotypes and please stop scapegoating.

There is absolutely no connective bridge between New dippers, union friendly, anti-business and left winger. Such a stereotype is one of the doctrinaire problems that has plagued Alberta politics for generations. Let me help you understand the progressive person who is a trade unionist, pro-business and not a new dipper.

We believe collectivity is essential to our survival and our existence as persons of free will in our free enterprise province. Collective solutions exist in the workplace, in our schools, in the home and in our communities.

To be successful in defeating the Regressive Conservatives and prevent a Reform Alliance government we must be open to all ideas, tolerant of all different views, broad minded and openminded to all persons, always moving forward, favouring reform, not looking backwards, protecting personal freedom, being generous and culturally oriented.

The kind of political rhetoric and religious bigotry that is pervasive in Alberta politics must stop. Clearly and competently illustrating the Wildrose Alliance principles and policies is the more constructive approach. And confirming our principles as pro.gres.sive and lib.er.al persons is the beginning.

So I would suggest that we approach our political revolution as being pro-union, pro-business, pro-worker, pro-employer, pro-immigrant, pro-senior, pro-public education etc. and we will be electable. So lets all agree, we are pro-gressive.
Chris LaBossiere

Great comments from everyone. I am going to rethink my thoughts on this and study the idea more.

blog comments powered by Disqus