April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Slava

Then add to that the budget idea of inflation plus five percent. We might never catch up on the infrastructure deficit.

While I am a fan of efficient spending of government revenue and I think that the PC's have had their fair share of warts over the past 5-10 years, I still have concerns regarding a party who is so intent on avoiding going into deficit that they are willing to slash funding towards important infrastrucure developments such as public transportation. If Calgary wants to be a world class city they need to continue to develop the LRT and continually reinvest in public transportation. The costs associated with this development are going to continually rise in the future due to higher material cost and higher labour rates and it is something that every study says we need to invest in - so why would we cut funding now, seems penny wise and pound foolish.

Actually that phrase can be used in order to describe a lot of the Wildrose "plans" I think.

[Shasta Beast]

Dangit Bobbeh!

Of course I'm away on the 23rd. Anyway I can write in?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Hatter

First Lady,

What do you know about Cypress-Medicine Hat candidate Drew Barnes? Ever met or spoke to him? I'd like to get to know more about this guy and what sort of man he is before I cast my vote. The bio on wildrose.ca is pretty short.

I haven't met him in person. I've heard great things about him, hardworking and dedicated.

He is active on Twitter. https://twitter.com/#!/Drew_Barnes

I suggest dropping him a line (call or email). Most candidates are willing to meet with individuals and/or have time set aside when they are at their campaign offices to meet people.

Also, does Danielle Smith have any plans on visiting the area during the campaign?

Since its subject to change, the leaders tour is announced each day usually about 24 hours prior. I can't say for certain she will hit Medicine Hat, but will try to keep an eye out for you.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Finally some of the plans for where the Wildrose Alliance would cut are surfacing. We've all heard about the planned carbon capture halt and its alleged $2B in savings (despite $800M being spent already and who knows how many other associated costs. Now some other areas are slowly leaking out:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Stapl...542/story.html

Guess he was so eager to run with this story he neglected to get any direct quotes from Danielle.

Ahh well, I fully expect the knives to get bigger, longer and sharper.

Party response http://www.wildrose.ca/press-release...unicipalities/

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Shasta Beast

Dangit Bobbeh!

Of course I'm away on the 23rd. Anyway I can write in?

There is link in the first post of this thread to Elections Alberta and your voting options.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Your rights end where they infringe on my rights, and vice versa. That is the difference between something obviously ridiculous (religion sanctioning murder) and something which we actually should respect (people's beliefs). If you can't see that, then you're being willfully ignorant. My right to believe that gays are sinners is absolute...you can't force me to change my opinions no matter how much you may dislike them. My right to harm you in light of that belief is not. The "hate speech" laws we deal with are already infringing pretty far into the "freedom of expression" arena, but it could be argued that such speech is powerful enough to incite *actual* harm.

So we agree that rights are limited, there's a good start! To me religious rights have to be at the absolute bottom of the hierarchy. Why? Because no other rights should be violated just because "God says it's okay". Other rights are based on logic.

But to deny that rights need to be limited is what is truly assinine. And frankly, quite shocking for someone who aspires or has aspired to public office.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Guess he was so eager to run with this story he neglected to get any direct quotes from Danielle.

I'm gonna support you here. That article read to me like a lot of speculation.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The costs associated with this development are going to continually rise in the future due to higher material cost and higher labour rates and it is something that every study says we need to invest in - so why would we cut funding now, seems penny wise and pound foolish.

Actually that phrase can be used in order to describe a lot of the Wildrose "plans" I think.

I don't think you have to worry about it. Even WR isn't conservative enough by my book. I think what they would do is just to be more diligent in their use of funds, like not giving the teachers $100M without thinking it through.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by SebC

So we agree that rights are limited, there's a good start! To me religious rights have to be at the absolute bottom of the hierarchy. Why? Because no other rights should be violated just because "God says it's okay". Other rights are based on logic.

But to deny that rights need to be limited is what is truly assinine. And frankly, quite shocking for someone who aspires or has aspired to public office.I'm gonna support you here. That article read to me like a lot of speculation.

It's not a hierarchy. IF there's a conflict where your rights and mine cannot possibly co-exist, then there has to be a compromise that causes the least egregious abrogation of rights. In cases like you've described, where it's "right to life" vs. "my right to kill you based on religion," then that's a pretty easy case. But why should freedom of religion be subordinate to, e.g., your conclusion that we must teach every child that homosexuality is normal and wonderful? Which of *your* rights does it violate for me to teach *my* children this belief? You won't be able to name one...you don't have a right "not to be offended" by someone else's beliefs; you don't have a right to "prevent societal stupidity." But it's pretty obvious which of my rights you're willing to dismiss.

Oddly enough, in the "life" vs. "religion" rights debate, there's one hot-button issue where the very religious people are on the side of life -- the abortion debate. And in this case, pro-choicers are quick to say that a woman's right to govern her own body trumps both the religious "morals" argument AND the unborn person's right to life itself. So, in this conflict it's not only religion that comes out on the bottom, but life itself. In this conflict, the hierarchy you think exists is suddenly re-defined to be most convenient to solve the conflict in the way people want it to be solved.

To be clear, I'm the most non-religious person you could ever meet, and I think that most religious beliefs are silly. I also think abortion should be legal, to a point, but I'd never be able to do that to one of my own. That said, I accept that people have the right to beliefs I disagree with. It's just that their rights end at the tip of my nose. This is the heart of the libertarian philosophy, and it's why I'm voting for WR.

No, I'm not a party member.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

It's not a hierarchy. IF there's a conflict where your rights and mine cannot possibly co-exist, then there has to be a compromise that causes the least egregious abrogation of rights. In cases like you've described, where it's "right to life" vs. "my right to kill you based on religion," then that's a pretty easy case. But why should freedom of religion be subordinate to, e.g., your conclusion that we must teach every child that homosexuality is normal and wonderful? Which of *your* rights does it violate for me to teach *my* children this belief? You won't be able to name one...you don't have a right "not to be offended" by someone else's beliefs; you don't have a right to "prevent societal stupidity." But it's pretty obvious which of my rights you're willing to dismiss.

If you deny your kid part of his education, it's not my rights being violated. It's your kids. And I'll stick up for them, because they are unable to do it themselves.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

If you deny your kid part of his education, it's not my rights being violated. It's your kids. And I'll stick up for them, because they are unable to do it themselves.

So in essence, the childs rights you will fight for are those that YOU believe are OK, but not those of that very child's parents?

Really?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Guess he was so eager to run with this story he neglected to get any direct quotes from Danielle.

Ahh well, I fully expect the knives to get bigger, longer and sharper.

Party response http://www.wildrose.ca/press-release...unicipalities/

Strange that the whole column is about Greenlink and the Wildrose doesn't deny cutting it?

[SebC]

Umm...

The Wildrose Party would become Alberta’s next majority government if the election was held today, suggests a Forum Research poll conducted Monday.

The Wildrose would have 58 seats in the Alberta legislature, with the current Progressive Conservatives taking a distant second with 22 seats, figures show.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/03/27/wildrose

[killer_carlson]

Good!

[Slava]

One of the polls released today is wrong; the other has it 37-34 for the PCs. Makes me wonder about the accuracy in general when they're off that far from each other.

In either case though I think there will be a lot of strategic voting with these figures. Albertans have shown they are more moderate over the past few years, a number of ways.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

While I am a fan of efficient spending of government revenue and I think that the PC's have had their fair share of warts over the past 5-10 years, I still have concerns regarding a party who is so intent on avoiding going into deficit that they are willing to slash funding towards important infrastrucure developments such as public transportation. If Calgary wants to be a world class city they need to continue to develop the LRT and continually reinvest in public transportation. The costs associated with this development are going to continually rise in the future due to higher material cost and higher labour rates and it is something that every study says we need to invest in - so why would we cut funding now, seems penny wise and pound foolish.

Actually that phrase can be used in order to describe a lot of the Wildrose "plans" I think.

I hear you on this but don't think the province should be paying such a large share for certain infrastructure items.

Perhaps if let's were being built instead of shelving the plans to build tunnels id have a different opinion.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Strange that the whole column is about Greenlink and the Wildrose doesn't deny cutting it?

The Wildrose plan is to give the same amount of money (or a bit more) but eliminate the conditions. The plan is to provide consistent, stable, and predictable funding to the cities.
It seems like you are concerned that Nenshi will decide that C-Trains aren't as important as say bridges and will therefore redirect funding towards bridges, but the people of Calgary voted for their local government and I think that the local government is better positioned to decide funding priorities than say an MLA from Peace River.
One of the key Wildrose beliefs is that decisions should be made closer to where the people are and should not be centralized decisions if possible. By giving the money directly to the municipalities they are allowing the spending decisions to be made at that level.

[killer_carlson]

I agree. When i think of who screwed up lrt service in Edmonton, my thoughts go to the municipal, and not provincial level.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Umm...

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/03/27/wildrose

I'm not sure how right those numbers are, but its nice to see that the PCs can't just easily use the budget to buy the election like they obviously figured.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

One of the polls released today is wrong; the other has it 37-34 for the PCs. Makes me wonder about the accuracy in general when they're off that far from each other.

Not "wrong" so much as lacking context. The real question is "what were the people asked"?

The Forum Research (Sun) poll is incredibly interesting though. I would want to know if they asked the same questions in their March 26 poll as they did their February 10 one. Even if you don't trust the actual numbers, if the questions are consistent, then the change from January 17 to February 10 to March 26 should be alarming for the PCs.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on the election doesn't link to the actual Forum Research packs, but to the news stories. However, it does provide a good look at the polling trends over time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Alberta_election

If you look at the trends over time, it seems that Forum has tended to rank Wildrose a little higher (and PC a lot lower) than other firms, while Leger (the other poll) ranks them a bit lower. I would not trust Forum's claim of a Wildrose majority at this point, but I would say it is pretty clear that the PCs have a problem. Wonder if they can fix it in time for April 23?

[llama64]

The first week of campaigning isn't over. Keep in mind the Wild Rose has been campaigning for over a year at least while the PC's have been going through leadership votes and running the actual government - their campaign didn't really start until this past month, really just this week.

The polls will change a lot over the next few weeks.

I think it will be interesting how the two different approaches for campaigning work out. Wild Rose is doing everything and anything to promote their leader above all - individual representatives seem to take a backseat to the Smith Brand. Meanwhile the PC's are promoting their individual MP's.

A single brand is easier to sell across a wider audience - but individual representatives could gain a lot of support inside their respective riding.