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

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.

And these are no longer part of the Alliance platform.

Which is exactly why I was seeking opinions on what is considered "moderate".

Many of us, who have become involved in Alliance in recent years, consider ourselves socially moderate and fiscally conservative. We have worked from within the party to form and change policy that is better suited to the average Albertan and modern times.

Feedback from Albertans, such as on this forum are important to us.

[Slava]

On a bit of a tangent here...didn't Randy Thorsteinson lead the Socreds or something prior to him breaking off to form the Alliance? (I could well be wrong on this, just going by memory...)

If so though, how much of a difference is there? Seems like Coke II?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by First Lady

And these are no longer part of the Alliance platform.

Which is exactly why I was seeking opinions on what is considered "moderate".

Many of us, who have become involved in Alliance in recent years, consider ourselves socially moderate and fiscally conservative. We have worked from within the party to form and change policy that is better suited to the average Albertan and modern times.

Feedback from Albertans, such as on this forum are important to us.

And the ideas in the wildrose party are simply policy proposals not platform.

[nieuwy-89]

I think Stelmach has had a shaky start, primarily because he wasn't prepared for the amount of "reacting" that a Premier has to do. When Ralph Klein left, he mentioned that reacting and managing issues was even more important than planning and being proactive. Its just the nature of governing in an unpredictable world.

Stelmach came in with plans to focus on a limited number of priority areas. However, I think he has faltered a bit when forced to stray from these priority areas and do some "reactive" management. I also believe that most Albertans, who have been spoiled with some pretty charismatic premiers, are underwhelmed with his stilted and unpolished public persona. He is probably the most "normal" premier we have ever had.

Ultimately, I choose to look at the big picture and I'm fairly impressed with his main accomplishments so far:

Royalties - a very technical and economic issue that is completely misunderstood by most of the public. The adjustment was required and is fair. Industry is driving the province, but is also placing a tremendous burden on our infrastructure. The financial load needed to be re-balanced.

Safer Communities Taskforce - the government is implementing 29 of 31 recommendations ranging from increasing treatment for alcohol and drug abuse to tougher sentences for repeat offenders. Getting tougher on crime is about as small-c conservative as it gets.

Infrastructure - Stelmach has pledged sustainable infrastructure funding for schools, roads and hospitals. Again, just basic good governance in a time of growth, and so far with more forethought and planning than the previous administration (despite what Bronconnier and the Herald say).

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

On a bit of a tangent here...didn't Randy Thorsteinson lead the Socreds or something prior to him breaking off to form the Alliance? (I could well be wrong on this, just going by memory...)

If so though, how much of a difference is there? Seems like Coke II?

I have already pointed out the "key" differences.


Yes, Randy was previously with the Socreds.

Our Leader, Paul Hinman was previously with the Alberta Party.

I was previously with the Separation Party of Alberta.

Our VP of Policy, Cory Morgan was the founder of the Alberta Independence Party, that never got registered.


We all have histories and each all bring unique skills to the table. We are just like any other member in the party; we are but one vote when it comes to passing policy resolutions.

We have learned from our past mistakes and I don't see any evidence of "coke II" as you descrbe.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

And the ideas in the wildrose party are simply policy proposals not platform.

Before becoming a registered party; you register a non-profit corporation under Alberta's Society's Act. As a registered society, they have passed resolutions. If they attain party status those policy resolustions become the partys' policy and thus their platform.



If they are "simply proposals" and they do not have a "platform"; how can you make a comment like your earlier one:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Vote Wildrose Party.

What are you basing your endorsement on?
If they do not have any "policies" or a "platform"... why would anyone vote for them?

[Table 5]

First Lady, what are the Alberta Alliance's environmental stances? Im sure you'll know thats something a lot of younger voters these days place a huge priority on...something that shouldnt be ignored by a party looking to built a voting base.

Personally, Id love to vote for a party that encourages environmentalism by encouraging new green technologies and research. So far, every party out there has been reactionary. In reality, Alberta can become a leader in this field (we have the educated workforce already dealing with energy, they just need to make a shift on what type of energy they work on)...and reap the monetary benefits.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Table 5

First Lady, what are the Alberta Alliance's environmental stances? Im sure you'll know thats something a lot of younger voters these days place a huge priority on...something that shouldnt be ignored by a party looking to built a voting base.

You can read all of them here:

http://www.albertaalliance.ca/policies/environment.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You can read all of them here:

http://www.albertaalliance.ca/policies/environment.html

An Alberta Alliance Government will research methods to improve indoor air quality to develop standards that ensure health is not compromised by the use of energy efficient potentially harmful materials.

Can you explain that one? The energy efficient materials are potentially harmful, or energy efficient materials will be used to prevent potential harm?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Can you explain that one?

To be honest, no. We have many policies and I freely admit I am not versed on all of them.

I get the impression from that one; there was a specific case being referenced.
I will try to get more info and a clarification.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You can read all of them here:

http://www.albertaalliance.ca/policies/environment.html

To be honest with you, all those policies are indicative of a party that is not willing to be proactive about the environment, but reactive like the others. It talks about supporting environmental issues if they make common sense...a type of wait-and-see attitude which will only ensure that Alberta remains a secondary player in a worldwide movement. Smart people/parties with real common sense would jump on this inevitable bandwagon, and try take economical advatange of it...not try to push it aside. The demand for green solutions will only get bigger...why wouldnt a conservative party like the Alliance realize this is where the money will be?
Green=money. People need to realize this.

[Kaon]

Originally Posted by First Lady

And these are no longer part of the Alliance platform.

Which is exactly why I was seeking opinions on what is considered "moderate".

Many of us, who have become involved in Alliance in recent years, consider ourselves socially moderate and fiscally conservative. We have worked from within the party to form and change policy that is better suited to the average Albertan and modern times.

Feedback from Albertans, such as on this forum are important to us.

My concern and disapointment with AA's social policy changes was that this was included after the removal of holding an open vote on gay marriage, "An Alberta Alliance Government will support the family as the cornerstone of our society and protect and enhance the treasured family institution." To me this is just a backdoor to open up the issue once in power, and to say that the AA believes it would be the best way to protect and enhance the family institution.

And I would have to agree with Table 5 in that AA's environmental policies seem very status quo to what we currently have. I know from reading Table's posts in the past that he sits way farther down the environmental spectrum than I do, but the way the current policy reads it looks like there is no real plan to initiate action to aid the environment aside from some clean water common sense initiatives. I don't want liberal policies that sacrifice the economy for the environment, but some green initiatives can be made and policy laid out that is beneficial to both.

[Slava]

From reading through this it all comes together for me. You take one guy who used to lead the Socreds, then took his ball and started a new game. Add folks who want Alberta to separate and pretty much have a good understanding of why I would never vote for them!

Even if the argument is that "we've learned from our mistakes" it falls on deaf ears here. That is a rather enormous mistake to want to separate from the country, and now want to govern as a part of confederation!

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Green=money. People need to realize this.

As I have said before; no "one" party can satisfy everything you might look for in a party.

If you have an issue you are passionate about then that might be your determining factor. For you it is the environment; so the Green Party is best for you.

For me it is fiscally conservative ideas without overbearing social influence; so the Alliance is best for me.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Kaon

My concern and disapointment with AA's social policy changes was that this was included after the removal of holding an open vote on gay marriage, "An Alberta Alliance Government will support the family as the cornerstone of our society and protect and enhance the treasured family institution." To me this is just a backdoor to open up the issue once in power, and to say that the AA believes it would be the best way to protect and enhance the family institution.

Ah, so you think there is a conspiracy or a "hidden agenda".

The reference to family has been in there for a long time; it did not replace anything else.

You say "your disappointment" as if you have personal first hand knowledge. Tell me then, when was the reference to marriage removed from the policy platform?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

From reading through this it all comes together for me. You take one guy who used to lead the Socreds, then took his ball and started a new game. Add folks who want Alberta to separate and pretty much have a good understanding of why I would never vote for them!

I find it surprising that you think a handful of people can influence an entire party where each member has a vote on issues.

Even if the argument is that "we've learned from our mistakes" it falls on deaf ears here. That is a rather enormous mistake to want to separate from the country, and now want to govern as a part of confederation!

Well, better to have people who have learned from their mistakes, than those who keep doing the same things over and over even though they do not work.

Fresh ideas and innovative approaches are important to moving forward.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You say "your disappointment" as if you have personal first hand knowledge. Tell me then, when was the reference to marriage removed from the policy platform?

The answer is, it doesn't matter.

I'd conservatively (oh! a pun.) guess that 99.99% of the population in this province (stong and free, and all that) have no idea when ANY provincial party passed ANY policy change--- maybe only the hardest of the hardcore members of the existing parties would be able to recall that without reference to minutes.

Notwithstanding that you again try to go after someone who seems to import personal knowledge, perhaps its time the AA move to the Freelands of Separatismville, wherever that is, and rule their fiefdom with direct democracy. (oh! an oxymoron.)

The AA has questionable roots, and that's saying it as politely as I can.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by First Lady

If you have an issue you are passionate about then that might be your determining factor. For you it is the environment; so the Green Party is best for you.

you're right it is. although it still hope that the considering the environment becomes a norm for all parties, and not just considered a special issue agenda.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The answer is, it doesn't matter.

I'd conservatively (oh! a pun.) guess that 99.99% of the population in this province (stong and free, and all that) have no idea when ANY provincial party passed ANY policy change--- maybe only the hardest of the hardcore members of the existing parties would be able to recall that without reference to minutes.

Notwithstanding that you again try to go after someone who seems to import personal knowledge, perhaps its time the AA move to the Freelands of Separatismville, wherever that is, and rule their fiefdom with direct democracy. (oh! an oxymoron.)

I sorry you see it as "going after someone". I was simply seeking clarification from a poster who professed to have intimate details of policy changes.

If a poster wants their claims to carry any value; they need to be able to substantiate them and stand behind them.

The AA has questionable roots, and that's saying it as politely as I can.

Questionable roots is a vague statement and open to many interpretations. I was not involved at the onset of the party; so I can not debate "the roots".
I do have first hand knowledge of the current structure and party and know there is nothing questionable about it.

[Kaon]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Ah, so you think there is a conspiracy or a "hidden agenda".

The reference to family has been in there for a long time; it did not replace anything else.

You say "your disappointment" as if you have personal first hand knowledge. Tell me then, when was the reference to marriage removed from the policy platform?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
The whole "An Alberta Alliance Government will support the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others." is something I disagree with.

That ship has sailed; Ralph knew it, Harper knows it, and to continue raising the issue will do nothing other than promote division and rancour at a time when people should be looking to work together.

You are correct. Most of our membership realizes it is water under the bridge. We have a policy convention this fall where we will review and update aspects of our platform.

I actually followed the byelection results and was considering the Alberta Alliance for my next vote. The quote above is taken from your byelection post about AA policy. I would quote actually policy, but can't seem to find past policy on the AA site, so feel free to correct me if I was wrong above, but until the Fall sitting the AA supported exclusively marriage as being between a man and a woman and were pro-life. I just fail to see the need to mention the "family institution" at all in your policy unless it's to appease social conservatives in the party. Sure nothing might come of it, but I would rather there was no mention whatsoever given the social conservative background of many party members. I watched for the policy changes, I suppose firsthand, as I checked the AA website myself to see what changes would be implemented with the fall sitting.

Sorry if my post some how offended?, but I have been following the AA as there is not currently a party in Alberta that I can identify with. Not sure why you're on the defensive given that policy concerns from your potential electorate I would think would be important.