Alberta PC's way out front

[GP_Matt]

I was listening to an interview with Naheed Nenshi on the radio a few days ago and he mentioned a rule that I found interesting. Apparently a majority of city council is not allowed to meet unless the meeting is advertised in advance and a recorder is present. This even applies to eating lunch together. Apparently it is in the Municipal Government Act and applies only to Alberta municipal governments and not provincial governments. I am not really sure where I stand on the rule but found it interesting that the provincial government wrote a rule preventing a lower level of government from doing something that they do all the time.
Do you think all government meetings should be public if they control a majority vote or is it acceptable for them to debate policy in private and then present a united front/voting block.
Doug Griffiths mentioned it during the PC debates as well in that he didn't think it was right that they would decide how to vote in public and not be allowed to change their vote during the open debate in the legislature when the other parties are allowed to present their sides.

[Slava]

Thats interesting. I would guess its because some of these municipal councils are so small though; you could literally have a few people get together off the record and make all of the decisions?

With the provincial government and political parties they have party conventions and things like that. I am guessing that is where the difference is?

[GP_Matt]

It makes sense, but I wonder if we would have better representation if they had to debate legislation in public.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

It makes sense, but I wonder if we would have better representation if they had to debate legislation in public.

Well that is just the way the governments operate though; they all have caucus meetings and figure out all of this stuff including strategy.

If you want to see a group that is unbelievably opaque and behind closed doors though, check out the CBE.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that they're both ridiculous. I do find it striking though that the Wildrose supporters are up in arms about this provincial example, and basically couldn't care less about the same situation dragging on federally. That situation went so far that the government ministers were even giving out cheques with CPC logos on them!

Anyway, as you were. We agree on this point so it would seem.

Prove it. Otherwise, wild conjecture.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Prove it. Otherwise, wild conjecture.

Show me a single report where people were complaining about the federal campaign? Its hardly wild conjecture, although that is a nice term to use.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Show me a single report where people were complaining about the federal campaign? Its hardly wild conjecture, although that is a nice term to use.

Sorry, your argument, your burden of proof.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Sorry, your argument, your burden of proof.

To prove what exactly? That the Wildrose is coming out against the provincial government here and said nothing about the federal government that they likely supported for engaging in the same tactic?

res ipsa loquitur

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

To prove what exactly? That the Wildrose is coming out against the provincial government here and said nothing about the federal government that they likely supported for engaging in the same tactic?

res ipsa loquitur

It doesn't make any sense to attack the federal party most closely aligned with your own provincial party? Regardless of the problems with the federal conservatives they are still the best option by far.

You think the Wildrose should be backing the NDP's? I mean please!

Anyways, yet another article outlining the insanity in the PC's provincial spending. http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...two-of-a-kind/

In Alberta, riches have spoiled fiscal discipline. Since 2005, spending has grown massively by 41.5% despite the major global recession of 2008-09. True, Alberta’s inflation and population growth puts pressure on spending, but this is not an excuse. Even after adjusting for inflation and population growth, Alberta’s real per-capita spending has grown by 11% from 2005-11, more than private-sector productivity growth.

Alberta’s profligacy comes of public-sector wage costs escalating far above the national average. In 2000, the differences in wages per employee were little different between Alberta and the rest of Canada. By 2010, Alberta government employees were being paid vastly more, especially health workers ($30,000 per employee).

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Sorry, your argument, your burden of proof.

How do you prove something that never happened?

[GP_Matt]

I believe you have been asked to disprove a negative.
I can help you out a bit, I am both a Wildrose supporter and against the PC's mixing campaigning in with government business and having the taxpayer pick up the tab for both. At the same time, I don't think I was as vocal against the federal conservatives with their economic action plan. I remember being offended by it and seem to recall an article or two in the National Post about the issue but don't recall leading a protest.

That being said, I am not against the signs that the Alberta government puts up at constructions sites declaring that they are paying for the project. I think it is important for people to know where their tax dollars are going and a sign on a new project is a good way to accomplish that. My issue is when things seem to become blatantly partisan on the taxpayers dollar. As an example, combining a training session for unelected candidates with a caucus meeting in Jasper and billing the taxpayer $70000 for it seems to cross the line.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Were you also up in arms about the last 3-4 years of ads the federal government ran touting their "Economic Action Plan"? Those signs and commercials are still run regularly.

Oh yes, those blue signs. Considering the federal Conseravtives only implemented a stimulus program when the opposition parties were going to kick them out of office for it, it is absurd that they are taking credit for it.

[GP_Matt]

As a supporter of the Federal Conservatives but not the Provincial Progressive Conservatives I resent you applying the PC name to the federal party. The parties are entirely separate.
That is all.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

To prove what exactly? That the Wildrose is coming out against the provincial government here and said nothing about the federal government that they likely supported for engaging in the same tactic?

res ipsa loquitur

To prove what? Several things:

1. That "Wildrose supporters" are "up in arms". As opposed to a single person on this forum who made a comment.

2. That Wildrose came out against the PCs on this front, said nothing about the federal Conservatives, and supported the feds for acting similarly.

3. That any action or comment shown to be made by Wildrose is unusual in politics as it relates to the opposition reacting to the government.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I believe you have been asked to disprove a negative.
I can help you out a bit, I am both a Wildrose supporter and against the PC's mixing campaigning in with government business and having the taxpayer pick up the tab for both. At the same time, I don't think I was as vocal against the federal conservatives with their economic action plan. I remember being offended by it and seem to recall an article or two in the National Post about the issue but don't recall leading a protest.

That being said, I am not against the signs that the Alberta government puts up at constructions sites declaring that they are paying for the project. I think it is important for people to know where their tax dollars are going and a sign on a new project is a good way to accomplish that. My issue is when things seem to become blatantly partisan on the taxpayers dollar. As an example, combining a training session for unelected candidates with a caucus meeting in Jasper and billing the taxpayer $70000 for it seems to cross the line.

I'm also against the mixing/blurring of the line. I think that this is a terrible use of public dollars regardless of which party does this.

I have no problem with the signs at a construction site and actually I think that its somewhat useful. The economic action plan signs/commericals/posing in front of said signs is just that though; its blurring the lines and acting as though the party funded these projects. That said if I were a Liberal MP I totally would've posed in front of the signs for election pictures, just because it would've been so amusing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

To prove what? Several things:

1. That "Wildrose supporters" are "up in arms". As opposed to a single person on this forum who made a comment.

2. That Wildrose came out against the PCs on this front, said nothing about the federal Conservatives, and supported the feds for acting similarly.

3. That any action or comment shown to be made by Wildrose is unusual in politics as it relates to the opposition reacting to the government.

1. OK, you win. I really don't care, but you (and any other Wildrose supporter that cares) were clearly just as upset with the federal Tories doing this as you are today with the provincial Tories.

2. I can't prove or disprove this. I'm convinced they said nothing, but you seem to imply that they thought that this was distasteful....anything to substantiate that in the least?

3. I can't believe that statement for a second. After all the Wildrose is completely different and would never be the same as another party. Haven't you heard? They'll balance the budget, reduce waiting lists, keep taxes low and fund infrastructure and education at the same time! Its going to be a miracle to behold! No, friend, this party is clearly different than all of the others in opposition.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

1. OK, you win. I really don't care, but you (and any other Wildrose supporter that cares) were clearly just as upset with the federal Tories doing this as you are today with the provincial Tories.

I don't believe I personally have made a comment on either.

2. I can't prove or disprove this. I'm convinced they said nothing, but you seem to imply that they thought that this was distasteful....anything to substantiate that in the least?

I don't need to. You were the one trying to draw links, not I. The truth is I doubt the Wildrose had any more comment on this than the Manitoba Liberals, BC Greens or Nova Scotia NDP did. It seems to me that you are trying to paint Wildrose as hypocrites using an utterly ridiculous argument.

3. I can't believe that statement for a second. After all the Wildrose is completely different and would never be the same as another party. Haven't you heard? They'll balance the budget, reduce waiting lists, keep taxes low and fund infrastructure and education at the same time! Its going to be a miracle to behold! No, friend, this party is clearly different than all of the others in opposition.

Strawman argument. Nice attempted dodge, however.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't believe I personally have made a comment on either.



I don't need to. You were the one trying to draw links, not I. The truth is I doubt the Wildrose had any more comment on this than the Manitoba Liberals, BC Greens or Nova Scotia NDP did. It seems to me that you are trying to paint Wildrose as hypocrites using an utterly ridiculous argument.

Strawman argument. Nice attempted dodge, however.

What are you saying I'm dodging here? I'm engaged in a ridiculous discussion about things that are *nearly* meaningless and continually replying. If anything I'm an idiot for continually replying, but surely not dodging anything!

[GP_Matt]

So, what are your thoughts on the Federal plan to raise the eligibility limit on OAS to 67 over the next twenty or so years? It isn't confirmed yet but sure seems to be coming.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

So, what are your thoughts on the Federal plan to raise the eligibility limit on OAS to 67 over the next twenty or so years? It isn't confirmed yet but sure seems to be coming.

I debated starting a new thread for that one...