Alberta's $8,000,000,000.00 Deficit

[Slava]

I'm actually changing my mind on this whole WRA thing. How does the vote work...is it a mail in ballot? I think that I will buy a membership to vote for the direction that I want the party to go in....Mark Dyrholm ftw. Its important to take a stand and make sure that this party doesn't become mainstream and we can keep our right wing ideology. (Look at me saying we, as though I've already purchased my membership!) I might actually want to sell a bunch of these and have a virtually untapped market of friends to solicit these to. In fact I can't think of a single friend of mine who has a card right now, so I hope that I can contribute both substantially and gleefully to seeing Dyrholm succeed in the leadership contest!

This might come as surprise to some of you who know me, but Dyrholm and I have a lot in common. He runs a small business, and so do I. Plus we are both fiscally conservative (because there is only one meaning of that, and I'm sure he sees things my way) and best of all he is moderate because the party passed a resolution that says so. Just go ahead an forget his past comments about abortion, or the fact that Craig Chandler is running his campaign with him....that is ridiculous. The party has passed a motion.

I'm actually serious...you have to get out and vote if you want things to go a certain way. I would not only like to buy a membership to do so (and will seek one out) but I will also be advising as many friends of mine to do the same thing. Alberta needs more socially conservative options. Sure we have the PC's and we have the social credit party, but Alberta separation has all but dried up.

CPers ought to undertake this as a massive CP jihad. Sure it costs you $10, but the moderate statements like "In Alberta, pro choice is a left wing opinion" will provide us all with both excellent thread starters as well as prudent government (should the jihad succeed!). We've got until October 2nd and the membership costs a measly $10. But just think of the good you can do for the province with this!

If my endorsement isn't enough, how about this gem:

"Mark is someone who realizes that one can have principles and win. In fact, all Albertans really want is someone who respects the conservative culture of this province. The Wildrose Alliance is a conservative alternative and I doubt many are joing the party in hopes that it becomes PC lite". (SIC)
Craig B. Chandler

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm actually changing my mind on this whole WRA thing. How does the vote work...is it a mail in ballot? I think that I will buy a membership to vote for the direction that I want the party to go in....Mark Dyrholm ftw. Its important to take a stand and make sure that this party doesn't become mainstream and we can keep our right wing ideology. (Look at me saying we, as though I've already purchased my membership!) I might actually want to sell a bunch of these and have a virtually untapped market of friends to solicit these to. In fact I can't think of a single friend of mine who has a card right now, so I hope that I can contribute both substantially and gleefully to seeing Dyrholm succeed in the leadership contest!

This might come as surprise to some of you who know me, but Dyrholm and I have a lot in common. He runs a small business, and so do I. Plus we are both fiscally conservative (because there is only one meaning of that, and I'm sure he sees things my way) and best of all he is moderate because the party passed a resolution that says so. Just go ahead an forget his past comments about abortion, or the fact that Craig Chandler is running his campaign with him....that is ridiculous. The party has passed a motion.

I'm actually serious...you have to get out and vote if you want things to go a certain way. I would not only like to buy a membership to do so (and will seek one out) but I will also be advising as many friends of mine to do the same thing. Alberta needs more socially conservative options. Sure we have the PC's and we have the social credit party, but Alberta separation has all but dried up.

CPers ought to undertake this as a massive CP jihad. Sure it costs you $10, but the moderate statements like "In Alberta, pro choice is a left wing opinion" will provide us all with both excellent thread starters as well as prudent government (should the jihad succeed!). We've got until October 2nd and the membership costs a measly $10. But just think of the good you can do for the province with this!

If my endorsement isn't enough, how about this gem:

"Mark is someone who realizes that one can have principles and win. In fact, all Albertans really want is someone who respects the conservative culture of this province. The Wildrose Alliance is a conservative alternative and I doubt many are joing the party in hopes that it becomes PC lite". (SIC)
Craig B. Chandler

HAHA If you wanted to up the joke, you should have thrown your support behind Jeff Willerton.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

So I admittedly haven't read this thread other than the subject line, but a question has occurred to me. I apologize if this has already been raised...

Where does the Heritage Fund play into this?

It seems to me that the Heritage Fund has often been sold to the public as a "rainy day" fund, something that could be used in hard times or lean times. I expect, or at least hope, that the real purpose of the fund is to keep royalty money invested for the long term so that there is a lasting benefit of the resources in the province after they are extracted and gone. They are a finite resource after all.

But if the fund is truly a "rainy day" fund - when is it going to get rainier? A global economic meltdown with credit drying up seems to be about as bad as it's going to get. Economists have been comparing this recession to the Great Depression. I don't know if this is overblown in the media of if it's accurately portraying the dire straits of the economic situation.

But if things are that bad, and the government is heading towards and $8B deficit, and the Heritage Fund was put aside for conditions like this - why isn't it being used?

School me CP.

The deficit which is currently projected to be 7.9B will be drawn out the Sustainibility fund. The money in that fund was recently funnelled from Heritage fund. In other words they are using the rainy day fund.

There is roughly 16B between the two funds (if I remember correctly) so they are basically going to need to drain 50%.... thus it is unlikely that there will be any left by the next general election.

It should be noted this did not just happen this year or last....they have been outspending revenues for 5 + years now.

[First Lady]

Couple general comments to others.

Just because a party has a certain policy set (normally determined members) does not mean they day the get a majority all those things become law. They have to be implemented and passed thru the Legislature. Obviously most will try to prioritize and be only able to pass a few.
A good example of this is the PC's they have had a policy calling for fixed election dates for as long as I can remember. Yet their caucus refuses to bring it forward.

Second; you will not find anything in our policies about religion. I invite you to read them for yourself.

http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/our-p...s-mainmenu-183

Thirdly; to set the record completely straight. We have never had a policy regarding abortion; nor do I ever recall one coming even as a proposal from our members.

We did at one time have a reference to SSM. It was actually me who moved (at a policy convention) for it to be removed. And aside from a few cranky people it was carried successfully and removed. This is one I feel very strongly about as I have a relative who is in the GLBT community. I would never have anything to with a party that would try to marginalize these individuals in our society.

IMO, knowing what I do about our current members; neither of these will ever see the light of day in our party.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Second; you will not find anything in our policies about religion. I invite you to read them for yourself.

It's not explicit, but I found one that comes close:

implement legislation protecting the “conscience rights” of healthcare professionals

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's not explicit, but I found one that comes close:

Close to what exactly? Are you saying only religious people have a conscience? That's quite a stretch don't you think?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Close to what exactly? Are you saying only religious people have a conscience? That's quite a stretch don't you think?

Non-religious medical professionals have consciences too, but theirs are typically more aligned with patient interests.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Non-religious medical professionals have consciences too, but theirs are typically more aligned with patient interests.

I believe, as I think most would; all medical professionals have the patients' interest in mind.

"protecting the “conscience rights” of healthcare professionals"

Boils down to freedom of choice for those in healthcare.
This includes the freedom "to" preform procedures as equally as it includes the freedom "not to."

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I believe, as I think most would; all medical professionals have the patients' interest in mind.

"protecting the “conscience rights” of healthcare professionals"

Boils down to freedom of choice for those in healthcare.
This includes the freedom "to" preform procedures as equally as it includes the freedom "not to."

Oh come on... you're not really trying to tell me this will allow doctors to give blood transfusions to Jehovah's Witnesses whether they want them or not. Are you?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Oh come on... you're not really trying to tell me this will allow doctors to give blood transfusions to Jehovah's Witnesses whether they want them or not. Are you?

Ahh, no. How did you extract that? No where have I said "freedom to go against patient's wishes"...

It is the freedom for professionals to provide the services they wish; and along with that goes the freedom for patients to choose their doctors based on the services they provide.... it is a win-win.

[CrusaderPi]

I don't think you'll ever convince Seb you aren't the bogey man FL.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Ahh, no. How did you extract that? No where have I said "freedom to go against patient's wishes"...

It is the freedom for professionals to provide the services they wish; and along with that goes the freedom for patients to choose their doctors based on the services they provide.... it is a win-win.

So the freedom "to" doesn't include the "freedom to go against patient's wishes", who about the freedom "not to". I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that it does, otherwise you're not protecting ANY kind of conscience rights. That kind of invalidates your statement that the freedom "to" and the freedom "not to" would be equal. I consider it a loss for patients when their doctors can opt out of providing treatment for them.

Originally Posted by First Lady

This includes the freedom "to" preform procedures as equally as it includes the freedom "not to."

[jammies]

My problem with the WRA is that every single populist movement in Alberta history has been based upon a narrow conservative viewpoint that smacks of small-town thinking and small-town mores. I don't see anything different with the WRA - while I'm sure there are many intelligent, worthy people in the movement, there are also the borderline wackjobs like Byfield hanging around and making it look like another slow train to hickville picking up steam.

When the biggest problem with Alberta - in my mind - has been pandering to and wasting money on the hinterlands, another party with a strong connection to that same country constituency is never going to be the answer. Until a strongly urban-focused party can win an election, there is never going to be the structural change necessary to control government spending in the two big sinkholes: education and health care.

[SebC]

Yeah, I also noticed this too when I was reading the WRA platform: it specifically mentions programs for rural Alberta and none for urban.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I believe, as I think most would; all medical professionals have the patients' interest in mind.

"protecting the “conscience rights” of healthcare professionals"

Boils down to freedom of choice for those in healthcare.
This includes the freedom "to" preform procedures as equally as it includes the freedom "not to."

One question, would your party support the right of a parent to deny chemo therapy that the doctors would recommend for saving a life?

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yeah, I also noticed this too when I was reading the WRA platform: it specifically mentions programs for rural Alberta and none for urban.

That's smart. With the current (effed up) electoral divisions in Alberta you can't win without the rural vote.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

That's smart. With the current (effed up) electoral divisions in Alberta you can't win without the rural vote.

I disagree, if a pro-urban party swept Calgary and Edmonton it would be one seat away from a majority, and will probably be a majority after the next round of adjustments. But yeah, the divisions are messed... Calgary + Edmonton should be 46-47/83 seats, not 41.

[Slava]

Those divisions are not going to be rectified quickly either. If there are new ridings created they'll likely carve out a chunk of the city and mix it in with the surrounding rural area in one way or another. That is how the political system works...its not really solely about effective representation but about keeping power.

In Alberta we used to have proportional representation in Calgary and Edmonton. The system worked fine. Then one day the Socreds realised that they could win more seats with the current first past the post system, and voila it all changed.

[Azure]

Why does it have to be an urban party, or a rural party?

Why can't it be a party that panders to both?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Those divisions are not going to be rectified quickly either. If there are new ridings created they'll likely carve out a chunk of the city and mix it in with the surrounding rural area in one way or another. That is how the political system works...its not really solely about effective representation but about keeping power.

In Alberta we used to have proportional representation in Calgary and Edmonton. The system worked fine. Then one day the Socreds realised that they could win more seats with the current first past the post system, and voila it all changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering