PC Leadership Race- Redford wins.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

1) I think with this result, Nenshi's win last year and the changes to the Alberta Liberals and the formation of the Alberta Party, it's starting to become pretty clear that there is a big shift in the politically engage demographics in Alberta.

Right, because Calgary never had a Liberal mayor before...

[moon]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Right off the bat, everyone on here that has seen me post about politics knows I am an NDP supporter.

However, I do wonder about people calling Alison Redford a weak candidate or a weak leader. She has one hell of a resume.

When I said weak that is the sense I get from her when I have heard her speak or be interviewed. She seems very meh and not very charismatic or inspiring.

Also considering she comes off as a liberal in the PC clothes, she should be very easy to attack from the WRA pespective as well.

I would think I would be the exact type of voter that the PC's would want to target in that I am a long time PC voter who has not been overly impressed with WRA so would prefer to stay with the PC's if they have a good leader.

Redford definitely puts me in the WRA camp now and judging by the majority of left wingers in this thread that seem to love Redford I assume that many others that were struggling between PC and WRA are going to feel similar.

[Resolute 14]

In the Herald chat last night, there was a lot of commentary about how the Liberals had elected a conservative as leader and the Conservatives were set to elect a liberal.

That will likely form the basis of both the Wildrose and Alberta Parties arguments: The old guard has lost their way.

[Bunk]

Well, most liberals (small l) are more effective at actually being good fiscal managers than most self-professed fiscal conservatives in North America.

I suspect 80+ percent of Albertans want sound fiscal management, but also want more socially progressive policy and a maintaining of public services. Albertans, as Peter Laugheed has long said, are by and large firmly moderate and not particularly ideological.

That's why I think casting yourself as 'true ideological conservatives' isn't going to garner Wildrose enough support to win government. I thought that was what electing Danielle Smith was about - she's the relative moderate and electable in the eyes of Albertans.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In the Herald chat last night, there was a lot of commentary about how the Liberals had elected a conservative as leader and the Conservatives were set to elect a liberal.

That will likely form the basis of both the Wildrose and Alberta Parties arguments: The old guard has lost their way.

Who? They might have had something in approximately February, but I can't see them gaining any traction now. A few of their leadership candidates seemed to have been supporting Redford, quite openly. If the Redford premiership really is socially liberal and fiscally conservative then there is barely a message for the Alberta Party as far as I can see?

I'll give you the idea that the Wildrose can always say "we would be more conservative", but thats a tough row to hoe. What in the world does the Alberta Party say though? Suddenly the middle is really crowded and I have a hard time thinking that *this time* voters will suddenly flock to a message of "they've been in power too long" AKA "give us a turn".

[Bunk]

^ Alberta Party would literally have to rely on a failure of Redford and collapse of the PC party as well as a continued stagnant liberal opposition. They could then pounce on that discontent and cast themselves as the new brand of moderate party best suited to govern. But if Redford proves popular and the PCs govern well, I agree, it will be difficult to gain much traction, despite the enormous talent behind the party.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by moon

She seems very meh and not very charismatic or inspiring.

Does this mean you wouldn't support Harper either?

[corporatejay]

I don't understand the "backdooring" her way into leadership" sentinment.

She garnered the majority of the votes in a two person run-off. Just because it was done on a single ballot doesn't make it any less accurate.

How did she back door her way in?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Addick

Does this mean you wouldn't support Harper either?

I agree a lot more with Harper's policies so for me he doesn't have to be as personable. He also didn't back-door his way into the leadership of a stagnant party.

[Slava]

Posted on twitter that Redford is the first premier in Alberta with a university degree since 1992! Granted university isn't everything, but that's kind of a big deal to me. (Also most of those years were Klein)

[albertGQ]

So when is she going to increase AISH payments by $400/month?
Is it going to be as quick as the $100M going to education?
Is it a gradual increase or is she bumping it by the full $400 in one shot?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Well, most liberals (small l) are more effective at actually being good fiscal managers than most self-professed fiscal conservatives in North America.

I suspect 80+ percent of Albertans want sound fiscal management, but also want more socially progressive policy and a maintaining of public services. Albertans, as Peter Laugheed has long said, are by and large firmly moderate and not particularly ideological.

That's why I think casting yourself as 'true ideological conservatives' isn't going to garner Wildrose enough support to win government. I thought that was what electing Danielle Smith was about - she's the relative moderate and electable in the eyes of Albertans.

I think the difference between being actually fiscally conservative and small l liberal 'fiscally conservative' is that the small l liberal types claim that simply having a balanced budget but with higher taxes/royalties and a larger government represents being fiscally conservative. In addition to being out of my bedroom I also want the government to be out of my wallet as much as possible too.

Redford promised more services, and a higher quality of existing services, without higher taxes. This won't happen and when it doesn't the choice she'll make won't be to provide less, it will be to tax more.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Posted on twitter that Redford is the first premier in Alberta with a university degree since 1992! Granted university isn't everything, but that's kind of a big deal to me. (Also most of those years were Klein)

Well, that encompasses exactly two people, so not nearly as significant a factoid as the time frame makes it appear.

Besides, Klein has an honourary Doctor of Laws from the U of C.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think the difference between being actually fiscally conservative and small l liberal 'fiscally conservative' is that the small l liberal types claim that simply having a balanced budget but with higher taxes/royalties and a larger government represents being fiscally conservative. In addition to being out of my bedroom I also want the government to be out of my wallet as much as possible too.

Redford promised more services, and a higher quality of existing services, without higher taxes. This won't happen and when it doesn't the choice she'll make won't be to provide less, it will be to tax more.

What if government revenues increase due to more parties paying taxes, earning better incomes and things like that? There could be no tax increases and funding these programs could be achieved.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

What if government revenues increase due to more parties paying taxes, earning better incomes and things like that? There could be no tax increases and funding these programs could be achieved.

That would entail the government being able to invest their money in a way that actually grows the economy faster than had they never taxed the money to begin with . Which it can't because efficient allocation of capital is an impossible goal when the civil service and politicians are involved. Government spending multiplier effect is less than the multiplier effect of money not being confiscated by government to begin with.

Mark my words, these plans will fail on a cost basis and when that happens the breaking point will be either ransacking Oil and Gas companies, a PST, a progressive tax system, or increases in registries, alcohol taxes et al.

Classic 'Progressive' Albertan politician. At election time say the right things about being fiscally responsible, pretend to work really hard to drive down costs, fail, then threaten the public to slash services if they don't get their paws on a new revenue source. Repeat. Stephen Carter has really tapped into how to get tax and spend Liberals elected in Alberta and it's the opposite of everywhere else. Campaign on the right, govern on the left.

[Bunk]

Some evidence that Smith, Nenshi or Redford are so called "tax and spend liberals" please.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by moon

Well with a weak leader who isn't a real conservative now is the time that the Wild Rose should get their act together as they likely aren't getting a better chance to make big inroads against the PC's.

As a former PC supporter it sucks to see another weak candidate backdoor their way in but as someone who didn't like any of the 3 choices left and was likely moving on to the WRA anyways it is good to see the PC's choose Redford.

How many Albertans are truly 'real conservatives' these days? Many I'm sure, but not an overwhelming majority as in the past. The large influx of people from elsewhere (like me) has brought more of a mix of views. I'm not convinced that WRA can win big, though with so many parties in play I'm not sure anyone can anymore.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'd be curious to know how many of the people singing Redford's praises voted PC last election?

I didn't vote PC last election, but historically I usually did. I wasn't impressed with Stelmach, and really don't like my MLA (Liepert); Redford seems so far to be much more in line with my own views and a lot of political analysts think Liepert will be gone with Redford winning, so there's a pretty good chance I will vote PC next election.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

That would entail the government being able to invest their money in a way that actually grows the economy faster than had they never taxed the money to begin with . Which it can't because efficient allocation of capital is an impossible goal when the civil service and politicians are involved. Government spending multiplier effect is less than the multiplier effect of money not being confiscated by government to begin with.

Mark my words, these plans will fail on a cost basis and when that happens the breaking point will be either ransacking Oil and Gas companies, a PST, a progressive tax system, or increases in registries, alcohol taxes et al.

Classic 'Progressive' Albertan politician. At election time say the right things about being fiscally responsible, pretend to work really hard to drive down costs, fail, then threaten the public to slash services if they don't get their paws on a new revenue source. Repeat. Stephen Carter has really tapped into how to get tax and spend Liberals elected in Alberta and it's the opposite of everywhere else. Campaign on the right, govern on the left.

I'm not talking specifically about the government investing directly in anything though. I'm just talking about program funding (which is what I thought you were talking about as well?) So while its great to talk about the multiplier effect and such its not really relevant IMO. The government should provide these essential services, Redford has commited monies to increase a couple and still be fiscally prudent while doing so.

Its totally doable. The economy will rise from where we are today, and surely you don't need me to tell you that. As the economy recovers and government revenues increase the programs can be funded....no increased taxation, no deficit, no magic.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

That would entail the government being able to invest their money in a way that actually grows the economy faster than had they never taxed the money to begin with . Which it can't because efficient allocation of capital is an impossible goal when the civil service and politicians are involved. Government spending multiplier effect is less than the multiplier effect of money not being confiscated by government to begin with.

Mark my words, these plans will fail on a cost basis and when that happens the breaking point will be either ransacking Oil and Gas companies, a PST, a progressive tax system, or increases in registries, alcohol taxes et al.

Classic 'Progressive' Albertan politician. At election time say the right things about being fiscally responsible, pretend to work really hard to drive down costs, fail, then threaten the public to slash services if they don't get their paws on a new revenue source. Repeat. Stephen Carter has really tapped into how to get tax and spend Liberals elected in Alberta and it's the opposite of everywhere else. Campaign on the right, govern on the left.

Or it could be that a lot of the programs which were proposed actually have a long term positive impact on the economy. The result of the cuts in the 90s in which the health care system was absolutely gutted resulted in a less healthy population, increasing the overall health care costs in the long run when the less healthy population relied on the health care system more.

I would much rather the PC party start looking towards long term savings rather than merely cutting and slashing.

Investing in education is one of the best things that the government could invest in - it has a positive long term impact on the entire population, increases the overall tax base in the long term. You could save 100 million today by not investing in the education system but if you do put that money into education, the benefits are on going. Higher graduation rates, better education achievement, better paying jobs, higher tax generated from the higher paying jobs, a healthier population in general (look at educational achievement and reliance on the health care system and long term health care costs)... the list of benefits to education is endless and I know I look at a leader investing in education as someone who is looking forward to the future. Compare that to Gary Mar who has a history of cutting spending in education and I can already tell you who I think is a more progressive leader.