April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by First Lady

That was in response to Redford yesterday saying to Calgary Chamber of Commerce that Alberta needed to change it's character.

What of our character needs changing? I would like to hear Redfords explanation of the statement.

That's fine, and maybe that's the statement you make. "I like Alberta's character, I'd like to know what Ms. Redford thinks needs changing".

Not "Ms. Redford doesn't like Alberta". I can assure you that anyone who is running for office loves their country/province/city, and obviously they think it could be better or they wouldn't promoting any type of change.

I'll tell you right now, Danielle Smith will not win my vote because she loves Alberta more, and I can't imagine that's true of anyone, it's all buzzwords that have no substance or value.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Hopefully labour costs don't double in three years, although if they do so will tax revenue so it should be neutral there.

And delaying costs makes sense all the time. Have you never wanted to buy two things and decided that you could afford to buy one now and the other later. Currently they allocate a capital budget every year and then pay for projects from it, by spreading those projects out over longer time periods it reduces the capital costs. The reduced amount is still higher per capita than any of the other western provinces.

Labour costs and material costs likely have doubled in the past 10 years actually, I don't have the stats and I don't know where I would get them but the average salary in Alberta has skyrocketed as a result of the prosperity and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon.

How does spreading out the cost over multiple years reduce the cost? Now I am not saying build everything for everyone but to blindly hack and slash programs in the name of not increasing any taxes is bound to leave Alberta in a situation as it was in the late 90s and still is today where they are having to build new roads and hospitals at a greater cost than they would at the time.

[REDVAN]

Not that anyone cares. I thought I'd be a little further north on the graph... oh well, can't trust CBC anyway.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Labour costs and material costs likely have doubled in the past 10 years actually, I don't have the stats and I don't know where I would get them but the average salary in Alberta has skyrocketed as a result of the prosperity and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon.

How does spreading out the cost over multiple years reduce the cost? Now I am not saying build everything for everyone but to blindly hack and slash programs in the name of not increasing any taxes is bound to leave Alberta in a situation as it was in the late 90s and still is today where they are having to build new roads and hospitals at a greater cost than they would at the time.

But nobody is proposing what you are saying, it's just a scare tactic from the left to support ever increasing spending.

There is no justification for Alberta to be spending double what other provinces do per person, especially considering we have been doing so for a decade.

Even in the 'dark days' of Klein cuts, we spent about on average of the rest of Canada per capita. Yet the left would have you believe everyone was living on the street and driving on dirt roads. It just isnt true.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm just one man!

The Liberals managed a fully costed platform with a balanced budget though, so clearly they're the real fiscal conservatives that Albertans are craving!

Where is this? I can't find it.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Not that anyone cares. I thought I'd be a little further north on the graph... oh well, can't trust CBC anyway.

CBC really puts the PCs right on the line for social liberalism/conservatism?

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Where is this? I can't find it.

How about trying their website?

http://www.albertaliberal.com/platform.php

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I think your reasoning is flawed beyond belief actually - because investing in infrastructure today is something that will be used during your children's and your children's children's future moreso than a tax break today will assist anyone but you. Not saying that I am in favour of massive tax increases but realistically they aren't the worst thing if the money is spent efficiently.

Also cutting salaries is much easier said than done - how do you propose to do that? If you cut nurse salaries for instance you are then in a position where more nurses leave the province and shortages are magnified leading to increased overtime and a further increase to costs.

I think that being selfish is hoarding everything for yourself not building projects for everyone.

You think roads today will be here in 50 years, let alone 10 years? I don't really agree with that. Last year we spent 3.2 Billion on roads, and 1.2 Billion on new schools/buildings etc. Of course a large portion of that probably were upgrade the PC's office buildings as well. If we simply controlled this spending in a predictable manner, we would be fine, but instead we have increased this budget 500% in less that a deacade. Totally and obviously unsustainable.

As for salaries.... 77% of our education budget and 70% of our health budget are spent on Salaries. That's 4.3 and 7.7 BILLION dollars respectively. You don't think there is some room to cut fat there? Since 2000 we've seen the population of students increase 3.9% yet we have 13.5% more teachers.... why? We've seen the total government payroll increase in size by 20%. Is that really necessary? And this doesn't even begin to touch the insanity that is public pensions.

It's time to cut some fat from this equation.

[Jacks]

Both parties are acting like children today.

Wildrose: Redford hates Alberta.
PC: Wildrose supports drunk driving and hookers.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Since 2000 we've seen the population of students increase 3.9% yet we have 13.5% more teachers.... why?

Because we spent the 90's with too few teachers and needed to make up lost ground.

Originally Posted by Jacks

Both parties are acting like children today.

Wildrose: Redford hates Alberta.
PC: Wildrose supports drunk driving and hookers.

Don't expect it to get better. People who run for office are rarely the kind of people you would want in office.

[Tinordi]

You think roads today will be here in 50 years, let alone 10 years?

Uhm where will they go?

[nik-]

I really wish these politicians would stay away from this US style garbage like "So and so doesn't like Alberta"

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So that will save what? 10% of 26,046 over 83 MLAs so a total of $215,000 a year? No offense but I don't see that as being a big deal in any way shape or form.

Delaying projects isn't saving any money it just spreads it out over a longer term and often just causes increased costs as the cost of labour and materials increases. It doesn't matter if you save a dollar now if you have to spend 2 dollars in three years time, that isn't financially conservative, that is financially stupid.

I think it's more of the principle. Why is a portion of MLA's salary tax-free when everyone else has to pay taxes? It's not as much a budgetary cut as a removal of self-given benefits.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Both parties are acting like children today.

Wildrose: Redford hates Alberta.
PC: Wildrose supports drunk driving and hookers.

Combine the above with the Wildrose' positive support of da boobies and I'm sold

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You think roads today will be here in 50 years, let alone 10 years? I don't really agree with that.

Ummm yes? While roads are something that need uptake... wait are you holding out hope of a flying Delorian time machine?

Seriously your argument is that roads won't be there in 10 years?

Last year we spent 3.2 Billion on roads, and 1.2 Billion on new schools/buildings etc. Of course a large portion of that probably were upgrade the PC's office buildings as well. If we simply controlled this spending in a predictable manner, we would be fine, but instead we have increased this budget 500% in less that a deacade. Totally and obviously unsustainable.

Sure it was.

As for salaries.... 77% of our education budget and 70% of our health budget are spent on Salaries. That's 4.3 and 7.7 BILLION dollars respectively. You don't think there is some room to cut fat there? Since 2000 we've seen the population of students increase 3.9% yet we have 13.5% more teachers.... why? We've seen the total government payroll increase in size by 20%. Is that really necessary? And this doesn't even begin to touch the insanity that is public pensions.

Because class sizes were too large?

Actually I looked it up for health care a total 5,654,080,000 was spent on salaries by Alberta Health Services out of a total funding of health services of 16,000,000,000. Factoring in doctors fees which make up about 3,449,000,000 and you are at roughly 62.5% of every dollar spent on health care goes into salary.

There likely is fat but I can all but guarantee you that if you try and shave the fat you will kill the goose in the process... except in this case the goose is a person. Then you also haev to factor in that of every dollar being spent on health care salaries 10% is making it's way back to the province via taxes (roughly).

But I can't believe I am looking up actual statistics for someone who doesn't think that roads will exist in 10 years time.

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documen...-Report-11.pdf

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documen...tion-12-13.pdf

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Both parties are acting like children today.

I'm surprised anyone else is surprised.

The problem with politics is that politicians have to resort to the lowest common denominator because that is where the electorate dwells. There might be 50 people in the entire province that will delve into all party platforms in depth. There might be 50,000 who will take even a moderate interest in the process, and the rest will go in making their X based on a whim. Those are the people this nonsense targets.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Ummm yes? While roads are something that need uptake... wait are you holding out hope of a flying Delorian time machine?

Seriously your argument is that roads won't be there in 10 years?

So wait, roads need major uptake or not? If we built a road today, and left it, it will be waiting for us to use in 10 years?

Be realistic. Building a road today doesn't create an indefinite resource there for hundreds of years.

Because class sizes were too large?

According to who? Pupil Student ratio went way down. Have we seen any positive outcomes for this huge expense? Who is measuring the return on this costly investment...?

Actually I looked it up for health care a total 5,654,080,000 was spent on salaries by Alberta Health Services out of a total funding of health services of 16,000,000,000. Factoring in doctors fees which make up about 3,449,000,000 and you are at roughly 62.5% of every dollar spent on health care goes into salary.

Im going off of comments made by Andy Weiler, the Director of Communications who said roughly 70% of the AHS account is spent on salaries. Perhaps you have missed something or something has changed but lets agree it's a huge portion on their budget. The number you have come up with is 9 billion.

There likely is fat but I can all but guarantee you that if you try and shave the fat you will kill the goose in the process... except in this case the goose is a person. Then you also haev to factor in that of every dollar being spent on health care salaries 10% is making it's way back to the province via taxes (roughly).

But I can't believe I am looking up actual statistics for someone who doesn't think that roads will exist in 10 years time.

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documen...-Report-11.pdf

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documen...tion-12-13.pdf

There's nothing like putting one's opinion as fact. I can also guarantee that, like when it's happened before, freezing raises and eliminating middle management will not equal drastic cuts to service delivery.

Then again, I can't beleive I am arguing with someone who believes cutting a nurses overtime bonus means she will go out and kill people.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by flamingreen

How about trying their website?

http://www.albertaliberal.com/platform.php

Thanks I was looking at their budget document. http://www.albertaliberal.com/media/...r%20Budget.pdf

I didn't see the costed budget items at the end of the platform. While their tax revenue projections are probably way off, you have to give them credit for the attempt!

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by dhc-2

As far as 'innocent' people being screwed by this law - yes, I'm sure the breathalyzer could be faulty. But really what are the chances - first of all you'd have to be doing something pretty fishy to get pulled over on the suspicion of impaired driving in the first place. Then the breathalyzer would have to be faulty, and then, if you really hadn't been drinking, I'm sure you could offer to take a blood test, take a field sobriety test, call your lawyer, whatever.

Here is a link to the legislation:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?pag...=9780779761302

There is no doubt in my mind that aspects of this legislation infringe Charter protected rights...the question will be if they are saved under s. 1.

Or the WR will form the next government and repeal this (IMO) badly flawed legislation.

[SebC]

From the Edmonton Journal platform tracker First Lady posted:

[Wild Rose Party]- Keep provincial per-capita infrastructure spending at level consistent with Canadian average.

I see big problems with this item. First, population alone doesn't drive infrastructure requirements. Population growth is a very important factor in infrastructure demand in it's own right. A growing population needs higher per-capita spending than one that is stagnant. That alone makes indexing Alberta's spending to the Canadian average a very dangerous thing.

Now throw in higher construction costs (thanks to strong private industry) and you're compounding the problem. If we spend the Canadian average, we will have less-than-average infrastructure construction.

Less-than-average infrasturcture construction for a fast-growing population is a recipe for disaster and will create a massive infrastructure deficit.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Free votes in Leg means voting constituent views, not personal views.

Calgary's aldermen voted down Nenshi's secondary suite policy, claiming they were following the interests of constituents even when surveys showed that their wards supported it. As far as I'm concerned, constituent views typically traslates to the views of the most vocal, whether they are majority or not.

Originally Posted by Jacks

Good job getting Tom Flanagan on board, I always liked him.

Yikes.