Why for the first time in my life I won't vote PC next Provincial Election

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

+1, as it stands right now the AA is the only feasible alternative, everything else will just crank up whatever Farmer Ed is up to by a couple notches.

Vote Wildrose Party. They have more moderate ideas than the Alliance.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Vote Wildrose Party. They have more moderate ideas than the Alliance.

^^
See my earlier post; hard to vote for a group that is not yet a party.

I would like to hear your definition of "moderate" as well.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by First Lady

^^
See my earlier post; hard to vote for a group that is not yet a party.

I would like to hear your definition of "moderate" as well.

Wont be long until they are a party and I said they are more moderate than the alliance.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Wont be long until they are a party and I said they are more moderate than the alliance.

In what way are they more moderate?

[Flash Walken]

Alberta needs a good ol' fashioned Whig Party.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I certainly would use alcohol consumption and smoking as well to fund an increased environmental effort. Who cares if smokers have to pay through the nose -- ridiculous stupid habit should be taxed to the hilt. Up it and up it and up it and give non smokers tax breaks. lower healthcare etc.

Do the same with drinkers --Hey if they want to drink like a fish then tax the heck out of them. They can pay for the constant stream of people they kill while sloshed in their vehicles or to pay for the wives treatment when they beat the snot out of them in their dufus drunken stupor. I would do the same with drugs --legalize and tax it to the maximum.

Just rake in the cash and put it to good use!!!!!!

I hope you're joking. Father knows best policy is horrible for society. Instead of teaching people to think, you're telling people what to do and creating a society of mindless children.

Smoking is a stupid habit. Most people know that. Its also not governed by a traditional supply and demand. Charge $20+ for a pack of smokes and one of two things happen (perhaps both):

1. The black market intervenes and sells contraband cigarettes at a reduced rate, now you're getting no tax money and having to spend an assload of money to fight this (or lower the prices again to a point where the black market dissipates)
2. People start going broke to maintain their habit and jump on the welfare wagon... or worse... sell their houses, cars, mortgage their children's future, etc. All undesirable alternatives for the government.

The solution for smoking is simple. Charge health premiums like insurance companies charge life insurance. Smokers pay double, Obese people pay double... they still have their smokes for $7.95 a pack... but now they have a new bill. Now the decision is theirs.

As for alcohol... same story. Does not follow typical economics. Alcohol is already way more expensive than the US or Europe and yet consumption is at least as high as the US and European average. Taxing to the hilt will solve nothing. The solution here is also simple. Heavy, heavy punishment and fines for anyone caught driving under the influence. Get the cops off the traffic cameras and into checkstops and as undercover bar patrons. Maybe run Calgary Transit past 12:50am. What the hell would any responsible city in their right mind turn off transit before the bars close?? Many people drive intoxicated because they can't get a cab/driver's alternative is booked solid and they "aren't going that far." $10 high-balls aren't going to solve that problem. Especially since sin taxes just go into general revenue. Alcohol is also harmless to 90+% of the population. Instead of punishing all 100%, why not just really hammer that 10% causing problems. Why should I have to spend $25 for what should be a cheap bottle of red wine because some drives drunk?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If all they had was good environmental policy and not some Europa style social policy that would be an alternative.

Europa style social policy? You'll have to explain that one a little more.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

What is your definition of "socially moderate"?

Well I suppose its one that doesn't bother interfering in matters of personal choice....gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, etc. This happens on both sides of the spectrum, but personally I tire of this stuff very easily.

Fact is that a government is there to run the province (in this case) and make laws that apply to everyone in general. They are there to keep things fiscally under control and provide the services that we as citizens require. They don't need to be telling me or anyone else which gender is off limits, whether or not they can have an abortion due to their personal beliefs and things like that.

I realise that these are all contentious issues, and my point is certainly not to de-rail this thread by arguing these topics. I just think that political parties should avoid these issues in the first place.

With royalty debate, the high Canadian dollar, environmental concerns, crime issues, infrastructure issues and whole list of others that I won't list here the parties have a lot to argue about that actually matters. The last thing on that list should be whether my two male neighbours share a bed, or whether they have their own rooms!

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I suppose its one that doesn't bother interfering in matters of personal choice....gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, etc. This happens on both sides of the spectrum, but personally I tire of this stuff very easily.

Fact is that a government is there to run the province (in this case) and make laws that apply to everyone in general. They are there to keep things fiscally under control and provide the services that we as citizens require. They don't need to be telling me or anyone else which gender is off limits, whether or not they can have an abortion due to their personal beliefs and things like that.

I realise that these are all contentious issues, and my point is certainly not to de-rail this thread by arguing these topics. I just think that political parties should avoid these issues in the first place.

With royalty debate, the high Canadian dollar, environmental concerns, crime issues, infrastructure issues and whole list of others that I won't list here the parties have a lot to argue about that actually matters. The last thing on that list should be whether my two male neighbours share a bed, or whether they have their own rooms!

I agree wholeheartedly; abortion, marriage and religion are areas of personal choice that government should not be passing laws one.

So let me go back to your original comment then, about the differences between the Alberta Alliance Party, Social Credit and the Wildrose group.

Both the Social Credit and Wildrose have policies on one or more of these issues. While the Alliance have none.

Would it not make sense then, based on your definition; that the Alliance would be the more moderate choice for you?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I agree wholeheartedly; abortion, marriage and religion are areas of personal choice that government should not be passing laws one.

So let me go back to your original comment then, about the differences between the Alberta Alliance Party, Social Credit and the Wildrose group.

Both the Social Credit and Wildrose have policies on one or more of these issues. While the Alliance have none.

Would it not make sense then, based on your definition; that the Alliance would be the more moderate choice for you?

As mentioned before, the WRP is yet to be a party and have very few actual policies because every policy needs to be adopted by the members not the executive. Which is one of the main differences between the WRP and the others. They do have about 70 policy proposals but that is all they are, are proposals. During the AGM most proposals were voted down. So until all the policies have been defined by the membership I can't compare the two side by side.

One thing is interesting tho is that the amount of signatures required to register a political party in Alberta went from 300 and something when the alliance formed to now over 6000. I think the PC's were worried about these parties forming and made it very difficult for them to become registered. You only need 103 signatures for a federal party I believe.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As mentioned before, the WRP is yet to be a party and have very few actual policies because every policy needs to be adopted by the members not the executive. Which is one of the main differences between the WRP and the others. They do have about 70 policy proposals but that is all they are, are proposals. During the AGM most proposals were voted down. So until all the policies have been defined by the membership I can't compare the two side by side.

They do have these policies that were determined early on:

http://www.wildroseparty.ca/main/ind...d=65&Itemid=87

And these that were adopted by their membership just a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.wildroseparty.ca/main/ind...d=64&Itemid=88

Which includes this policy:

Tax-funding of abortion
Be it resolved, that the Wildrose Party of Alberta will end Alberta Healthcare funding of abortion with the exception being when a mother's life is in jeopardy, or in the case of rape or incest.

One thing is interesting tho is that the amount of signatures required to register a political party in Alberta went from 300 and something when the alliance formed to now over 6000. I think the PC's were worried about these parties forming and made it very difficult for them to become registered. You only need 103 signatures for a federal party I believe.

Signature requirement for provincial parties is based on a percentage of eligible voters. This has not changed for a number of years. At the time of the Alliance registering the requirement was just over 5000. It is now up to 6004; not a huge difference.

Federal party requirement is 250.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by First Lady

\
And these that were adopted by their membership just a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.wildroseparty.ca/main/ind...d=64&Itemid=88

A positive position on the family
We believe, like most Albertans, that the government should in practical ways encourage the traditional model of family, without revisiting federal contoversies such as gay marriage. We also believe, along with three-quarters of Albertans, that most abortions should not be covered by provincial medicare, and that we should respect the Constitution and leave all other aspects of the issue in Ottawa.

That they even bother wasting time on nonsense like this turns me off immediately. It's like the government in practical ways encouraging Albertans to paint their house brown.

People are going to have a traditional family or they are not. Nothing the government does is going to change that. Nothing the government does is going to convince someone to get married (to a member of the opposite sex) and have children. Nothing the government does is going to stop people from getting a divorce (short of making divorce illegal).

I can't take them seriously when they aren't even a party yet and they are talking about this crap.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by First Lady

They do have these policies that were determined early on:

http://www.wildroseparty.ca/main/ind...d=65&Itemid=87

And these that were adopted by their membership just a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.wildroseparty.ca/main/ind...d=64&Itemid=88

Which includes this policy:

Both those links say the same thing. Those are the polcies adopted by the membership. And the not funding abortion issue, so what, that has nothing to do with not being moderate. It has everything to do with making the healthcare system more sustainable. Instead of you and I paying for other peoples screw ups, they can pay themselves. It is not saying that they can't have an abortion.

Signature requirement for provincial parties is based on a percentage of eligible voters. This has not changed for a number of years. At the time of the Alliance registering the requirement was just over 5000. It is now up to 6004; not a huge difference.

Federal party requirement is 250.

It hasn't always been based on the population but if you say it was like that for the alliance I believe you. I really not exactly sure when they changed it. But thanks for setting the record straight. Doesnt it seem strange that one only needs 250 for a national party but 6000 for a provincial party? It is in place for a reason, to make it more difficult to start another party.

When the Alliance was formed abortion and same sex marriage were issues at the beginning. Thats how it works, people throw there ideas and the majority agree what policies they want to stand for.

EDMONTON, Alberta, November 19, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Albertans will go to the polls this Monday to elect a new legislature. According to recently published opinion polls, the Alberta Progressive Conservatives, led by Ralph Klein, are set to win another big majority, with the Alberta Liberals and NDP far behind. Also contesting this election is the new Alberta Alliance Party, which is calling for the abortion and marriage issues to be put to a province-wide vote.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A positive position on the family
We believe, like most Albertans, that the government should in practical ways encourage the traditional model of family, without revisiting federal contoversies such as gay marriage. We also believe, along with three-quarters of Albertans, that most abortions should not be covered by provincial medicare, and that we should respect the Constitution and leave all other aspects of the issue in Ottawa.

That they even bother wasting time on nonsense like this turns me off immediately. It's like the government in practical ways encouraging Albertans to paint their house brown.

People are going to have a traditional family or they are not. Nothing the government does is going to change that. Nothing the government does is going to convince someone to get married (to a member of the opposite sex) and have children. Nothing the government does is going to stop people from getting a divorce (short of making divorce illegal).

I can't take them seriously when they aren't even a party yet and they are talking about this crap.

Oh give it up. We all know that children are better off with a good family value system with two parents involved in there life. Maybe focusing more on parental responsibilities would do our society a bit of good.


The Alliance position

<LI style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">An Alberta Alliance Government will support the family as the cornerstone of our society and protect and enhance the treasured family institution.

6. We believe that the family is the essential building block of a healthy society and the primary means by which citizens pass on their values and beliefs; therefore, the family must be protected from unnecessary intrusions by government.

Big difference isnt there.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oh give it up. We all know that children are better off with a good family value system with two parents involved in there life.

You missed the point.

Promoting "The Traditional Family" is a useless pursuit. People are going to have a traditional family or they aren't. The government isn't going to change that.

I'm not arguing about whether it's the best way to do things, I'm saying the government can't influence people to have a wife/husband and kids. They should stop wasting time and money trying to influence something that they simply can't influence.

The Wild Rose Party should concern with things that they, as a government, will have some influence on.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Promoting "The Traditional Family" is a useless pursuit. People are going to have a traditional family or they aren't. The government isn't going to change that.

Agree wholeheartedly. Whatever one believes it when it comes to family, the chances of the government contributing to your decision are pretty low. Things like tax-breaks for some partnerships might ease financial burdens, but I really doubt anyone makes a decision on who to love/live-with based on what the government thinks is right. I'm a believer that a traditional family gives people the best chance at a stable life...but I dont want anything to do with any political party that tries to make that decision for anyone.

Parties need to stick to issues they can make a difference in.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You missed the point.

Promoting "The Traditional Family" is a useless pursuit. People are going to have a traditional family or they aren't. The government isn't going to change that.

I'm not arguing about whether it's the best way to do things, I'm saying the government can't influence people to have a wife/husband and kids. They should stop wasting time and money trying to influence something that they simply can't influence.

The Wild Rose Party should concern with things that they, as a government, will have some influence on.

There are many things a government can do to encourge "traditional family values" which I agree makes it sound like man and women but also two parent families. Tax benifits, education programs, extended maternity leave, daycare and many other options.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Agree wholeheartedly. Whatever one believes it when it comes to family, the chances of the government contributing to your decision are pretty low. Things like tax-breaks for some partnerships might ease financial burdens, but I really doubt anyone makes a decision on who to love/live-with based on what the government thinks is right. I'm a believer that a traditional family gives people the best chance at a stable life...but I dont want anything to do with any political party that tries to make that decision for anyone.

Parties need to stick to issues they can make a difference in.

I agree that most people are going to do what they want to do, but much of that is because parents have abdicated there responsibilities. Education if very important and they are not making a decision for you, they are saying that in most cases the traditional family (two parents) is the best way to go.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

There are many things a government can do to encourge "traditional family values" which I agree makes it sound like man and women but also two parent families. Tax benifits, education programs, extended maternity leave, daycare and many other options.

Those are all well and good, but they don't encourage people to get married and have kids if they otherwise wouldn't have, and they don't stop people from getting a divorce if they want one.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree that most people are going to do what they want to do, but much of that is because parents have abdicated there responsibilities.

I don't necessarily disagree, but do you think there would be less irresponsible people out there if certain parts of society didnt expect/put pressure on adults to live a traditional lifestyle (ie, get married/have kids when they really didn't aspire to).

Some people just shouldnt have kids to begin with. Maybe our government's should do more to encourage people to not get married and not have children, ha!