this blog has moved to a new address:

Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to

Friday, September 11, 2009

party before people.

From Don Braid's Blog:

That was quite the question - and answer - Thursday night at the Calgary-Glenmore all-candidates forum.

A taxpayer actually succeeded in getting a one-word answer out of Tory candidate Diane Colley-Urquhart, the only one on record in her long career of meandering rhetoric. He asked her for a clear yes-or-no answer to the question: if the needs of her riding varied from the government’s agenda, would she break with the party?

The candidate thought about it. Then thought some more. Then said: “No.”
Here's video of Colley-Urquhart's response (I'm not sure about the dog part at the end...)

The by-election is on Monday, September 14.


Anonymous said...

An honest answer?

Obviously the MLA is supposed to represent the riding.But there are frequent conflicts between the needs of individual ridings and the needs of an entire province.

If you happen to be in Government and therefore response to all voters in all ridings for making the best decisions, can you really bow out of that responsibility? Can you break ranks with the citizens your government represents in 82 ridings in order to please 1?

altapo said...

The PC Party's downfall will be that they don't get why this is a big deal.

C.Morgan said...

This makes it rather clear. A vote for Diane is a vote for Ed and nothing else. In her own words she will not stand up for the needs of the constituency.

The comparison of putting the needs of the province ahead of those of the constituency are not apt. If things were such, we would only need one seat wouldnt we? Representatives are there to represent their constituents. PC representatives are not allowed to do so.

I shot the video and the dog in question is Stewie. I place him at the end of all youtube videos that I post. Stewie has put in a fair amount of time in the Hinman campaign office of late and does deserve at least a little recognition.

Anonymous said...

Fortunately, we'll never see a fishWRAP government and no one in Alberta will be subjected to a group of these people trying to govern, make laws, etc., with no party discipline. Only 36 more days until they descend into well-deserved obscurity again. They actually make me nostalgic for the days when the Libs were strong enough to actually cause us some concern. Remember, Dave, the fishWRAP is the Alberta Liberal Party's fault, not ours.

I might vote for Stewie, though. Seems like a nice dog. I guess dogs can't choose their owners...

Anonymous said...

Better be careful with the fishWRAP may end up getting a big surprise in 36 days!!!

There were 180 people at the Edmonton leadership debate last night - that's 3 times what any of the town halls have ever had in attendance. I suspect that they will have close to 600 at the Calgary leadership debate.

I haven't held a provincial party membership since 2007...but I started thinking about it last night. I was on the phone till 1 a.m. talking about the teams each of the candidates could build and it may, in fact, end up surprising lots of people.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the Liberals are on this too

brdwzhr said...

With the majority that the PCs have members voting in favor of there riding I would see as a good thing or are some of the bills so bad that if they let them vote what is in the best intrests of their riding and not the partywould this defeat them

Anonymous said...


Brian Dell said...

"make laws... with no party discipline"

This would be a fair comment if not for the fact that Colley-Urquhart has been campaigning on what she is going to do to change party policy and stand up to Ed. Clearly, if Ed tells her that he has taken her concerns under advisement, and that's the end of it, she will sit right back down like a good soldier. Which makes her pretensions of independence from Ed the pretensions they are.

She didn't say that only in some extreme situation would she consider leaving the party. She said No. Implication Never. Apparently the greatest imaginable outrage to her Calgary constituents wouldn't be enough to move her.

Our anonymous commentator here would have us believe that unless all power is centralized in Ed's office like it currently is, it would be anarchy. That simply isn't so.

Brian Dell said...

In fairness, she was asked to give a "yes" or "no" answer, but a "yes" answer anticipated an extreme situation. A "no" answer anticipated NO situations. A yes could be qualified, in other words, a no cannot.

Seener Beaner said...

Does anyone know why the NDP candidate Eric Carpenter didn't make it to the forum?

Brian M. said...

A number of commenters seem to suggest that this would not be the case in other parties. Its true that the Wildrose Alliance can make a case that they hold a different view, but not the Grits or NDs. So it was an honest answer, and the same one the candidates from the other parties would have given if they were being honest.

C.Morgan said...

Seener Beaner,
the NDP has made no appearance in the entire campaign. No signs, no candidate, nothing.
Avalon has signs advertising the DRP in the constituency. Looks to me like a deal has been cut between Avalon and the NDP.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely there should be party before people. That's how the system works. If people don't like one party, they vote for another. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.

Jane Morgan said...

I know everyone says every party is the same, however the WAP has a policy that sets us apart.


A Wildrose Alliance government will be accountable to the people of Alberta by having free votes with the exception of the budget and votes of non-confidence.

Anonymous said...

Good luck passing any legislation that you promise in an election then, Jane.