Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Fair enough. But at least criticize them on their ACTUAL policies instead of their SUPPOSED social conservative views.
|
Can't it be both?
Let's not forget that these social conservatives aren't some anonymous party members. They were actual candidates accepted by the party. Let's also not forget the "conscience rights" thing that came straight from Danielle Smith.
As far as policy goes, "we'll fund municipal infrastructure when we have surpluses" is precisely the opposite of what I'd advocate for as a Keynesian.
I also want to mention that there's also a bit of a funny effect where the Wildrose has attracted the social conservative, rural crowd and that alone makes the the conservative, rural party (in the eyes of some voters, at least). It's not entirely fair, but it's something they must contend with. How do they convince urban voters to support them where their power base is clearly rural? Yet if urban voters were to support them, then their power base could shift.
I see things like their landowner rights policy as something which is clearly beneficial to rural voters yet detrimental to urban voters (surely accomodating landowners when building things like power lines costs money). Wouldn't voting for them essentially be voting against my own interest?
The Wildrose has a long way to go to be a solid alternative to the PCs. They might get elected regardless, but picking the lesser choice out of spite is not a path that appeals to me.