Originally Posted by Tropics
What irked me and causes me some fear is that she said that this result is proof that Albertan's want change. What is it about Alberta not voting for the Wildrose who so clearly fell on their heads in the final stretch of this election campaign and who clearly had some seriosuly weak MLA's who were of questionable character that says to Redford that "Alberta wants Change"?
I do not see this result as Albertan's wanting change, they simply did not want the Wildrose running the show. Heck, they put in the same party that has been running the province for 41 years now, "you must want CHANGE!" errm, no Redford.... that actually is not what this result says. It is YOU that wants change and you are just spinning this in order to justify the changes you are clearly planning on making...
A bit of Devil's Advocate here...
Perhaps "change" is a bit more nuanced than merely the name of the party in power. I think it's a commonly held belief that the PC party in Alberta has slowly been moving towards a more centrist position in general - and arguably with Redford, much moreso than ever. They're certainly not the "cut government to the bone" party of the Klein era.
The WRP and their supporters are essentially the old-time, hardline CONSERVATIVES that ran Alberta for decades. So, Redford and the PC party going forward are in fact "change" in a meaningful sense.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but it does speak to something that's mystified me about this entire campaign. I really failed to see where the WRP is a "change" other than in name. I mean shit, they stole a page directly from Ralph's playbook and promised cheques when the government had too big of a surplus. The only "change" I saw there was a different colour on an elections result map - and perhaps a few more crazies in power, depending on how out of context certain comments are taken.
"Change" in this province would be to elect a Liberal or NDP style party. Not just "PC, now with 5% extra conservatism".