I learned my lesson.

In 2011, I was duped.  I obtained (they were free) a membership in the Liberal Party of Alberta.  I voted for who I thought would be a great leader.

But all the other free members voted for Raj.

It took me too long to figure out what I'd done wrong.  I even purchased a membership in the PC party.  I voted for who I thought would be a great leader, not once, but twice.  It was at that point I finally figured it out.

51% of the PC members, including the temporary ones, voted for Alison on the third ballot.

This is why I refuse to get involved in this "elected Premier" campaign.  I have no business voting for the leader of a party I don't believe in.

That would be like me voting for the Prime Minister of Australia.  Tony Abbott would not be happy, and neither would the rest of his Liberal Party.

Yet the PCs seem quite happy to hand their entire future over to people who have no vested interest in their policies or beliefs, not once (as with Alison's election), but twice (with either Jim, Tom or Ric as their carrots for the disinterested masses).

Is it because they have no policies or beliefs, and therefore don't care who steps in?

They sell (unless you run into Jim) memberships with the promise that the new members get to pick the next Premier, and that it's their civic duty to do so.  What a great lie!  And it's an amazing fundraiser for the PCs - $10 times even 1000 new members equals a tour bus for the first week of a provincial election.

It is not your civic duty to vote for the leader of a party you don't believe in.  It's your civic duty to vote in a general election for the person you want to represent you.  That's what I did in 2012.

Granted, I still didn't get who I wanted, but the Alberta Party is making great strides to change that, and I believe they will even do it in the next by-election.

Certainly, I have no interest in funding even an air freshener in the next PC campaign bus.  Febreeze won't be able to cover up their issues.  They will not see a single red cent from me.

So if you don't hold a PC membership, don't worry about your civic duty.  If you voted in the 2012 general election, you still retain your right to complain.

But if you happen to hold one of the PC memberships, think long and hard about the value of your vote, especially if you're a "soft" PC, or not even a PC supporter at all.  Keep in mind that we do this all over again in as few as 16 months, but that time you actually get to vote for a party you believe in.

Then do what you believe in.  It will tell me a lot about you.

Me, I believe in voting for someone who will represent me.  The PCs stopped doing that a long time ago.

I had the pleasure of watching a forum on education last night.

Scratch that.  There was no forum.  There was a discussion.  Punctuated with humour.

We had to laugh.  It was the only way to look passed the fact that two potential Premiers of Alberta skipped it.

Thomas Lukaszuk, Ric McIver and Jim Prentice are all running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, and therefore our next Premier.

But Lukaszuk was the only one who showed up for a forum focussing on education at the Alberta Teachers' Association Summer Conference.

Prentice and McIver were given the opportunity to come long in advance.  They were given significant encouragements to come.  But they didn't.

You see, they don't care about education.  Not that they don't care about teachers ... they don't care about education.

You know, the second largest, and arguably the most tumultuous, portfolio in the Alberta Government? Yeah, that one.  They don't care about it.

So Prentice and McIver chose to let preconceptions about their positions speak for them.  So Prentice is seen as a Jeff Johnson supporter, which is not a friendly position for education.  McIver is seen as a tiny Wildroser in training, with a policy on education that is very similar to theirs.

These preconceptions could be totally wrong.  But we have no way of knowing.

Lukaszuk was up front and honest with me after the forum; he pandered to his audience.  He mentioned how he would have preferred to have been held more to account for what he was saying (moderator Ken Chapman did a great job trying to do that, but he was a moderator, and so couldn't firmly hold his feet to the fire).  A good public forum would have done that.

That being said, if he felt like he had to pander to teachers, good.  Because obviously Prentice and McIver provide no hope for Alberta Education's future whatsoever.

He didn't pander enough.  He didn't lay all concerns about the Taskforce on Education to rest.  He didn't commit fully to public education above all else.  He didn't provide actionable ways of improving revenues for the province.  So while he pandered well with what his platform and party would allow, he didn't pander well enough to convince me to lend even a single red cent to his party.

Thankfully the Alberta Teachers' Association, in the absence of the other PC leadership candidates, were able to bump the opposition Education critics in their place.  Kent Hehr (Liberals), Bruce McAllister (Wildrose) and Deron Bilous (NDP) all were going to come on Tuesday, but came on Monday instead.  It was truly an incredible opportunity for delegates to get a clearer understanding of the differences between the parties.

Well, at least the elected ones.

If we are having so many problems with the elected parties, then we should be made aware of actionable policies of other, not-yet-elected parties.  I would have liked to have seen the Alberta Party and Green Party leaders have an opportunity to share their policies.

Nonetheless, we heard from four oppositions last night.  Yes, Lukaszuk is in opposition.  With two PC leadership contenders who do not value education, Lukaszuk is in the minority.

When are we going to hear from a government?

To see the live tweeting from the forum at the ATA Summer Conference, check out the hashtag #atasc on Monday, August 11, 2014.

On Wednesday this week, I was surprised to find out that Premier Alison Redford had made another provincial proposal to teachers for a framework for their contracts.  The Provincial Executive Council of the Alberta Teacher's Association has sent it on to locals for consideration.  This could mean we'd be entering into another province-wide agreement very shortly.

Two things from this. If it takes the Premier to get involved everytime, such as when Dave Hancock was Education Minister when then Premier Ed Stelmach pitched a 5-year and got it signed, and now with Redford superseding current Education Minister Jeff Johnson, why bother having a Minister of Education at all?

But that's not the biggest thing I get from this. The biggest thing starts from the question "where was the Alberta School Boards Association in all this?"  It seems to me they had no idea this was going down at all, trustees were never informed the conversation between the PC government and the ATA was even happening, and one blogger has even wondered why the ASBA even exist in the first place.

That's not deep enough.  The ASBA has other purposes, just like the ATA is not simply a bargaining entity.  However, trustees don't have too many other significant duties than good interactions with their teachers.  Well, okay, they give direction to the implementation of education in their area as well.

Trustees have been sidelined for years now, starting most prominently with Stelmach. When he pitched a 5-year deal, ASBA was concerned then about funding, but much worse, trustees were not given the opportunity to bargain as much for local issues.  Some boards didn't even have trustees involved at all, and instead had Employer Bargaining Authorities, like the one that my Board was a part of called the School Boards Employer Bargaining Authority.  That means that trustees have been removed from discussing complete contracts with their employees for over 8 years.  Some trustees have never even been involved in such discussions at all.

So why do we even have elections for them if they aren't given an opportunity to represent us?  Well, okay, they give direction to the implementation of education in their area as well.  However, if you were to ask Education Minister Jeff Johnson, the only direction required should be "Inspiring Education". So again, why do we even elect trustees at all?

Then I recall some of the recent goings on following the latest provincial election. Evan Berger, appointed (without a competition) to a six-figure post in the Alberta Government, despite being dumped by the electorate for a Wildrose MLA in Pat Stier. A police college that was expected to go into Fort Macleod because those citizens elected a mayor that would make it happen got cancelled.  It makes one wonder ... if the PCs are in government, does it matter who we elect?

We want elections to count. We want our voices heard. So we vote for trustees who we think will represent our interests best. We vote for MLAs who we believe will do the same. We vote for mayors who will work to better our communities, but aren't able to anyway because their hands are tied to the Alberta Government's purse-strings.  Our elections don't count.  Considering our elections come up this October, the fact that who I elect doesn't matter bothers me significantly, because I firmly believe we need trustees who are empowered, and councillors and mayors who aren't going to have to worry about the PC boot falling on them.

If we are to see this change, we need to vote for a party who will make elections count. They'll give your vote an opportunity to work. They'll give trustees, councillors and mayors the opportunity to represent our interests to the better of our community.

Do you know of a party who has made it their platform to get elections to count?

You need to care about the Alberta Party's fortunes. Even if you don't agree with their policies, or think they're just another fringe party, the Alberta Party's viability is an indicator of the level of discourse in Alberta politics.

Let's be honest. The Alberta Party is small. It has no MLAs. If it is to be relevant, it is only because the level of discourse in Alberta politics has not improved.

Right now, the Alberta Party's fortunes are entirely dependent on the discourse in other circles of Alberta politics.  As long as the Alberta Party does not direct its own conversation and depends on others, it will be the actions of others that shape its future.

So in 2013, these are the different actions that would need to take place to make the Alberta Party irrelevant in Alberta politics, and the people who will be the biggest indicators (with links to their Twitter feeds);

7) The PCs collaborate. With anyone. The reason why "41 years is enough" is because the PCs sense of self-entitlement is so deep, it has become the culture of Alberta politics. It's a major reason why the Alberta Party started up. If the PCs start making a history of collaboration with others, that self-entitlement culture will dissipate.  The one to watch on this will be Fred Horne (@FredHorneMLA), because the Health portfolio is where the idea of collaboration is most needed, and least likely to occur.

6) The PCs finally produce a transparent, costed and complete budget with realistic projections. Borrowing for the future is not a bad idea when used sparingly, but plunging into debt because you used a pie-in-the-sky projection of revenue is unacceptable. When the PCs stop doing this, that is step 1. Watch Doug Horner (@DougHornerMLA) for this one.

5) The PCs take action on diversifying the Alberta economy. Adam Legge alluded to this need in his article about the need for the Alberta Advantage to evolve. It's something the Alberta Party has been saying for quite some time, and have even come up with some suggestions, such as the creative industries, or reinvesting in agriculture. Alison Redford has proven that she can't steer a ship, so watch the Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk (@LukaszukMLA) for this, if it ever happens.

4) The Wildrose Party manages somehow to shake the chains of the "Lake of Fire" history, and actually makes measurable and progressive changes to their social policy. I have doubts about the measurable changes to their policy. I have even more doubts that, even though they may want to, they will ever shake the unfortunate comments made by a few poorly vetted candidates. Danielle Smith will not be the one to watch for on this, because if there is one person in the Wildrose who fits that bill, it is her. It will be the most conservative and vocal on the Wildrose bench to be the indicator of a shift in social policy, and that person is Rob Anderson (@RAndersonMLA).

3) The Liberal Party sorts out its mess of an organization.  It will do this by admonishing its upper brass for hanging one of its most respected Members of the Legislative Assembly out to dry (see letter written by Todd Van Vliet about Kent Hehr).  It will clear up its marketing issues by actually choosing one of its brands, and ramming it down the throats of Albertans until they know what it means to be Liberal. Interestingly, the one to watch for on this will be Kent Hehr (@kenthehr).  If he continues to fly the Liberal flag (whatever colour they end up choosing), it will either be because he really doesn't believe in collaboration amongst progressives, or because the Liberals have fixed their issues and welcomed him back into the fold.

2) The Alberta New Democrats lose the sarcasm and add a willingness to collaborate. In the last sitting of the Legislature, there were very few comments that I heard during Question Period from the Dippers that were anything different from what the Wildrose came up with, with an added turn-of-phrase or clever quip. It seems odd that with the amount they seem to agree with other opposition parties that they would flatly refuse to collaborate with anyone to make positive change happen. There is nothing wrong with their policies, they are well-formulated, but their approach to doing politics is fundamentally flawed. The guy to watch on this will be Deron Bilous (@DeronBilous), as he is the future of that party, and will be the one to set the standard of behaviour for those who follow him.

1) The Alberta Party doesn't do anything. At all. In order for it to be truly irrelevant, it must never do anything that will make itself visible to the rest of Alberta. It must never make any attempt at providing more definition to its policies. It must never try to listen to Albertans, and create innovative solutions to the problems they hear. Unfortunately, there isn't really any truly visible individual on this, as there is a group of people who will be the indicators on this.  The current board, led by William Munsey as President (@AP_President), will be the identifiers here.

If you see four of these things happen, I would suggest that the Alberta Party would no longer be relevant, and seeing as only one of them is within their own control, their fortunes are very much tied to others.

But in all honesty, I don't see the PCs collaborating, costing out their budget, nor diversifying the economy. I don't see the Wildrose shaking the chains of their past candidates (although I do see them trying). I don't see LiberAlberta sorting out their mess. I also don't see the New Democrats changing their approach.

I have a very big concern, as an Alberta Party Member, about whether or not my party will do anything. They are updating their constitution on February 23, and that will be a big indication to me of the party's directions. I do, of course, have high hopes.

However, 2013 will be the true litmus test for the Alberta Party, and Alberta politics on the whole. Let's hope it starts representing all Albertans, and soon!

It's similar to "liking" your own Facebook status, or laughing at your own joke, when nobody else does.

The High River Times printed in yesterday's paper an article about the Alberta Liberals efforts in touting their new brand, or wordmark, or whatever they wish to call it.  It stated that people (all 30 of them that came out to hear about it) were generally pleased with the brand.  Had they known how the green logo came about, they would likely change their viewpoint to match that of a number of Alberta Liberal Party insiders.

Jody MacPherson, former Alberta Liberal Party VP of Communications and President, raised the alarm over how grassroots the organization truly was.  In the same Executive meeting the logo was endorsed, the decision to not cooperate with other political parties was made, contrary to the wishes of the general membership of the party.

Alex MacDonald, an Alberta Liberal policy wonk, explained to a number of Twitter followers, including blogger Dave Cournoyer that the new brand was not focus-group tested.  It was just the brainchild of the Executive, who approved it quickly like a fashion model giddy with a new Versace.

And the President, Gerald McEachern, touts the party's grassroots and transparent nature?

A party whose Executive flouts the wishes of the general membership, and then does a massive rebranding without public consultation sounds neither transparent nor grassroots to me.

And with the backdoor decisions made by the PCs of late, we know that we can't expect transparent, accountable grassroots policy from them.

The Wildrose and the Alberta Party are the only two parties who can truly lay claim to representing average Albertans; the Wildrose from within its party membership, and the Alberta Party through its Big Listens.  There are some fundamental differences in how the two groups work, but they both develop their viewpoints from a grassroots base.

If the people of Highwood are to truly value grassroots politics, I hope they seriously consider where examples of grassroots actually exist.  Explore the Wildrose and the Alberta Party, and support the party that best represents your views.

And I would be happy to answer questions about the Alberta Party.

Our future is under attack, thanks to the cancellation of the police college in Fort Macleod. And the only one to see it is the Mayor of Fort Macleod.The Alberta Liberals were the first to lambast the PCs. Oddly enough, it was in defense of another party, the Wildrose. At first I thought how nice it was that the Liberal party could show respect for another party regardless of how wildly different their ideologies were. Then I realized that the Liberals missed the point.

The Wildrose are having a difficult time sticking to their tune, asking the PCs to cut excess spending, and in the same breath crying foul when they do. Even so, they are still missing the point.

The PCs are missing the point most by cancelling the building of the police college. They did it saying we had no need right now, and so rather than spend more, save the budget by cutting it. While the police chiefs of the area might say there is no need right now, they aren't looking at the big picture the province's future, which is what we need to expect the PCs to do on our behalf.

This police college could become an incredible export for our province. Law enforcement agencies from across the western provinces, or even further, should be looking to Alberta for models of great enforcement. This college would be the key to making that happen. With the creation of this college, suddenly we have diversified our market even further, easily making up for the $122 million the PCs hope to save right now.

Imagine officers of the Lethbridge police, the RCMP, the Vancouver police, and the Toronto police getting upgrades on their training in Fort Macleod. They bring business to Alberta with them. The standardized curriculum Jonathan Denis is hoping for would be so easily implemented at a centralized location. Peace officers such as the late Rod Lazenby could get the professional development they need right in our own back yard. American police officers could learn how to diffuse situations without the use of firearms.

Less reliance on oil and gas revenue means more stability in the budget. Therefore, diversifying into the field of law enforcement couldn't possibly be a bad idea.

The mayor of Fort Macleod knows this. It's why his community has injected over $4 million into the project, over twice what the Alberta government has put in so far. $4 million which the Alberta government now expects Fort Macleod to eat. This is no drop in the bucket for the town. It staked its entire future on it. Now the PC government is killing this future.

Sure, police chiefs said it's not a police-driven initiative, and seem to have supported the government's decision. I would too, if all I was concerned about was my own jurisdiction. But it's the government's responsibility to consider more.

We should demand this project be plugged back in. It's for our future's safety and economic health. Forget the optics of the PCs maligning the Livingstone-Macleod constituency twice in 1 month. Forget the optics of the PCs cutting less than a third of a percentage of the budget to make up for lost unstable revenues. Forget the optics of police chiefs supporting the Alberta government when their primary focus is their own jurisdictions.

Instead, look at what the Fort Macleod mayor saw up until a few hours ago; a future with promise.