Two Tory MLAs crossing to Wildrose Alliance

[killer_carlson]

I dunno about that.....

Rob Anderson was a couple years behind me at school. He always presented as politically ambitious. Certainly he is bright.

In the last election, he had a huge margin of victory (second only to Stelmach), he was given a junior secretary position even though he had no political experience. I think there would have been a good bet you would have seen him in cabinet sooner rather than later. The point is that if he was worried about his position, he would have kept his mouth shut and been an MLA for the next 40 years in the Airdrie area.

I don't think he makes decisions like this on a whim. He is too savy to think that the WRA won't see a dip in the popularity over the next two years before the next election. I think he truely believes what he is saying. Time will tell if it is the right move, but I think it's a mistake to characterize this as a guy desperate to hang on to his seat and career.


The bigger issue to me is the fact that the PC's had the opportunity to obliterate the NDP by refusing to give them funding and official party status because they failed to retain enough seats to get automatic status. The PC's did it to ensure that the NDP had enough funding to present as (ir)relevant enough to split the left wing vote and keep the Libs at bay.

NOW HOWEVER.....

the WRA has 3 seats, one more than the (ir)relevant NDP. Precedent forces the PC's to permit them funding to the WRA. I wonder if the PC's will try some sort of budget cutback thing to prevent the WRA from getting funding for actual work to be done at the Leg......

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

Nope, definitely not, and I was not aware of that.



a scathing article on what?

Our wishing to remove section 3.

anyhow, thank you for replying, and thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. Perhaps I did fall for fearmonger tactics.

However, since you seem to be involved with the party, I suggest you think of telling someone not to be so obscure in the meaning of striking this act in your list of policies, and also to give an explanation for something this controversial. As you were able to quickly and efficiently explain the policy, it would be perhaps wise to do so on your website and instantly respond to the fearmongering so perhaps people like myself won't be lead so easily to buying into it.

Not saying I suddenly agree with the policy, just that your reasoned response is appreciated and is food for thought.

I have told them that. We're going to be doing a website renovation in the future.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/our-policies

That is true, the WRA does have policies, and they are specific and well thought out, this is my favourite policy

".... collect the Alberta personal income tax. "

That is the change we need, a party that puts down as an official policy that it will collect the income tax from Albertans.

You have already stated you don't vote, so my response is more for the benefit of others. If you choose to open your eyes in the process, that will simply be a bonus.

Many are not aware that Alberta currently doesn't collect its' own provincial tax. It is collected by the Feds, who then dole it back to us. This is a long process and we would be further ahead to collect it ourselves. It would be put to work for Albertans sooner, could collect interest, etc.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

I repeat:



it's really nice that you have such strong principles, but until you explain to me what good it will actually do IN PRACTISE, I'm afraid you're not making much sense.

First off, any tribunal that is set up to allow any person to make an allegation against another without any sort of consequence to the person who makes the allegation if it is not founded has serious fundemental problems from the beginning. As it stands now I can make an allegation against any person or business and once I have done that, I have no responsibility in paying any fees or legal costs even if the allegation is not founded or completely false. However, the person who has the allegation made against them is on the hook for ALL of their legal costs. There is never any reimbursement if the allegation is not founded. In the REAL legal system, the court can order costs against the person making the allegation.

Example:

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/411.asp

A student brings a complaint before the HRC because some other students called him a loser and a complainer. To the benifit of the HRC they did dismiss the complaint, but not after the respondant was dragged through the tribunal and was out all legal costs.


Second, the reason these HRC were founded was to protect people from employment discrimination. Getting fired because of ones race or religion. Being denied a job for the same. But what has happened? These HRC have decided that they would morph into the moral police. Deciding not just how people should act but how they should THINK.

Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said this

It's too easy to claim an article may subject a group to hate or contempt under commission rules, Borovoy said.
"Even truthful articles describing some of the awful situations in this world could run afoul of this law, it is so broad and such a potential threat to freedom of speech," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2...-macleans.html

He also comments here.

http://www.safs.ca/issuescases/aborovoy.html

To finish it off here are some other examples of the decisions coming out of these HRC.

This case, the HRC made a decision that basically said that freedom of speech and religion are trumped by the right NOT to be offended. So, if what you say or believe in offend me, then you are in violation of Human Rights legislation.

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...en113007Pa.pdf

This one -

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...is060904Pa.pdf

A HRC decided that it is ones Human Right to recieve a housing allowance from the government even though he still lived at home with his mother. Thats right a grown man demanded that it is his right to get free money from the government even though he had housing and this HRC agreed.

Would you like more?

[First Lady]

Deleted - my faux paus

[bcb]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You have already stated you don't vote, so my response is more for the benefit of others. If you choose to open your eyes in the process, that will simply be a bonus.

Many are not aware that Alberta currently doesn't collect its' own provincial tax. It is collected by the Feds, who then dole it back to us. This is a long process and we would be further ahead to collect it ourselves. It would be put to work for Albertans sooner, could collect interest, etc.

I read your policy guide.

Predictably, here is one of your education policies:

"institute a student based funding system for financing education which will allow funding via Alberta Opportunity Scholarships to follow the student to the accredited education facility of parental choice."

Seeing as the above policy reads like fluff, I'll be blunt. Why is your party trying to destroy public education with this American style 'school choice' and 'voucher' nonsense?

Alberta has, arguably, the best public education system of any jurisdiction in North America. Our schools are safe, we set high curricular standards, teachers are well trained and students are standardized tested every 3 years.

If Alberta offers equal funding to public and private schools simply based on per pupil counts, government resources become rapidly sparce to support both 'choices'.

I support a strong, and well funded public school system. If parents want to send their kids to private schools, that's their choice to do with their own money.

Perhaps, one day, you and your cronies at the Fraser Institute will realize that public education is an investment, not an industry.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by bcb

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ha....it is damn close to being broke. Why are you so scared of allowing more choice in the education system? When I become a parent I would like the CHOICE of sending my child to the school I think is best for them. From my understanding the WRA party doesn't want to create for profit schools, just more charters which are currently allowed now.

The least that needs to be done is a complete overhaul of what we teach children in our schools, at least from junior high onward. There is a lot of useless crap that is being taught.

[bcb]

Ha....it is damn close to being broke.

Proof?
mere rhetoric?

Why are you so scared of allowing more choice in the education system? When I become a parent I would like the CHOICE of sending my child to the school I think is best for them. From my understanding the WRA party doesn't want to create for profit schools, just more charters which are currently allowed now.

You have the choice... What's the point of a PUBLIC school system if the the Province is subsidizing private schools? Defeats the purpose, eh?

The least that needs to be done is a complete overhaul of what we teach children in our schools, at least from junior high onward. There is a lot of useless crap that is being taught.

I'd answer this point, but I have to get to school to teach all that 'useless crap'.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by bcb

Proof?
mere rhetoric?

Show me proof that it is working and running effectively. Look, I am not saying Alberta's education system is a complete pile of crap, but it isn't the best not even close and it is getting worse.

You have the choice... What's the point of a PUBLIC school system if the the Province is subsidizing private schools? Defeats the purpose, eh?

First off, who said anything about private schools? Like I said, the WRA plan would be to allocate funding per child and allow parents to decide which school their child would go to ie: public or a charter. A charter is not a private school and it is not for profit. And, do you really need me to explain why competition is important in any field including education.

I'd answer this point, but I have to get to school to teach all that 'useless crap'.

Don't take it so personal, this isn't attack against you or teachers. Why are you so closed minded about change? Do you really think that how our education system is set up for junior high and high school prepare children for the real world? Lets take that even further, primary education is heading down a road where children's feelings and self esteem are more important that teaching them and ensuring they know the proper curriculum. From my experience it is not really up to the school or teachers if a child should be held back anymore, it is up to the parents...and it usually shouldn't be up to the parents.

[Jason14h]

WRA has 3 seats, one more than the (ir)relevant NDP. Precedent forces the PC's to permit them funding to the WRA. I wonder if the PC's will try some sort of budget cutback thing to prevent the WRA from getting funding for actual work to be done at the Leg......

Don't worry, the WRA will have no problem with fundraising!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Or maybe they're political opportunists looking to get in front of what they hope is a tidal wave of support for their new party from dissatisfied Albertans.

I suspect, like most politicians of all parties, these 2 are more concerned about their personal futures than the future of Alberta.

And yes, that very well may be true. I still maintain that being directly promised a cabinet post to switch sides so as to save a government is a considerably different thing than to leave the governing dynasty for a party that wasn't even on the map six months previous.

However, yes, if Anderson and Forsyth are adept at reading tea leaves, they would most definitely land very good portfolios if the WRA should come to power in 2012. Indeed, Forsyth's past cabinet experience would be invaluable for such a government.

As Slava will surely tell us over and over again, the current boom in popularity could also turn to bust. PyramidsofMars has already admittedly shown how easy it is to fear monger a conservative party's policies into something evil. It is most certainly a tactic the Liberals will use (Swann already has), and there is very little doubt that Stelmach (or his successor) will do the same in the next election, just as Strom and Manning did when Lougheed swept into power.

They are both gambling pretty hard on their political futures. Especially Anderson, as the Airdrie riding (and I suspect it will be a city riding only following redistricting) has always been one of the safest Tory ridings in the province.

Then again, so was Calgary-Glenmore.

[Slava]

^ There is really not much of a gamble here. Instead this move by the two MLAs is political opportunism pure and simple. The Tories are sinking in the polls and they are the first ones to jump from the sinking ship....there is nothing more to justify this.

If they were doing this for altruistic reasons of democracy (as they claim) then why not re-sign and run in the by-election? Surely because they have public support so deeply entrenched behind them they would have no problem in being re-elected, right?

[transplant99]

There is really not much of a gamble here. Instead this move by the two MLAs is political opportunism pure and simple. The Tories are sinking in the polls and they are the first ones to jump from the sinking ship....there is nothing more to justify this

It's still a risk, though a calculated one.

Tory support right now means squat....they have two more years to buy that support back and likely will attempt to do just that. Whether the electorate is sold or not is a different story.

Again I absolutely loathe that elected members can cross the floor, as to me it is as undemocratic as things get. However, it is a part of the process and these two are using it. I still think it could backfire on them however.

i can see where, with the way Stelmach has run things, that MLA's are disgruntled not only with him, but the entire Tory party and the direction it has taken the last 4 years. So I won't question their motives for switching at this point, but only their methods as I agree they should resign and force a by-election in those ridings and run under the WRA banner.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ There is really not much of a gamble here.

Jeez dude, we're as much as three years away from the next election and you're already throwing in the towel?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava;2238463

[B

If they were doing this for altruistic reasons of democracy (as they claim) then why not re-sign and run in the by-election?[/B] Surely because they have public support so deeply entrenched behind them they would have no problem in being re-elected, right?

Because then you would be on here complaining how these two MLA's are wasting taxpayer money on needless by-elections.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Actually, we have more listed policies than the PCs do and they're doing fairly well.

What I meant by that, is there was just a leadership race contested by two candidates with very different views (Smith and Dyrholm) - I don't think WRA has really worked out what they stand for, especially on social issues.

Are Smith's views going to dominate?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Jeez dude, we're as much as three years away from the next election and you're already throwing in the towel?

I guess that did sound a little defeatist, but no. My point here is that this isn't some altruistic move to preserve democracy on the part of Anderson and Forsyth. Its them looking ahead and thinking that they have a better shot at re-election with the WRA than they do with the PC's.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Because then you would be on here complaining how these two MLA's are wasting taxpayer money on needless by-elections.

Really? Where have I ever said that before? I actually am in favour of more elections and a full PR system that would likely result in more frequent elections. Thanks for telling me what I would hypothetically say though...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

Really? Where have I ever said that before? I actually am in favour of more elections and a full PR system that would likely result in more frequent elections. Thanks for telling me what I would hypothetically say though...

Hey, no problem. I am allowed to make educated guesses based on how you seem to make your own conclusions on what these two MLA's intentions and reasons were for doing what they did. You seem so sure of yourself that these two only did it for themselves and nothing else, it's a two way street my friend.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Hey, no problem. I am allowed to make educated guesses based on how you seem to make your own conclusions on what these two MLA's intentions and reasons were for doing what they did. You seem so sure of yourself that these two only did it for themselves and nothing else, it's a two way street my friend.

If they were doing it for demcracy then why not re-sign and preserve democracy in its fullest sense? Proof is in the pudding.