April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Richard Wilkie never worked for the party. He was on the Executive Board as CFO (a volunteer position) He resigned about a year ago. Amanda was employed by the party and she was let go around the same time IIRC. Both were with the party less than a year, and this was about a year ago.

They each went on to back Rick Orman in the in PC leadership.

Yeah I don't see this as much as story, it really does sound like a stupid 23 year old tweeting about something they know little to nothing about, which frankly isn't much of a surprise when it comes to the majority of 23 year olds... It isn't a conspiracy or anything, it is just someone low on the totem pole texting without thinking at all.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

It isn't a conspiracy or anything, it is just someone low on the totem pole texting without thinking at all.

She wasn't that low on the totem pole, and she isn't just a random volunteer. Her regular (taxpayer funded) job is working in Redford's office.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/healt...305/story.html

Wilkie was a volunteer on the Progressive Conservative election campaign team and an executive assistant in the Premier's Calgary office. She has resigned.

She's also been spewing crap on twitter for awhile now.
http://www2.macleans.ca/wp-content/u...wikwikkie.html

he's hanging out with a much better class of people now! People who aren't Bipolar Tories

But we already knew ethics & integrity aren't part of @ElectDanielle character, or lack thereof

@evmenzies I called #wrp ignorant rednecks, not conservatives. Literacy is a great thing. #pcaa

Here's a real beauty considering her attack on Smith.

Women degraded by politics calgaryherald.com/entertainment/… An attitude #wrp thinks acceptable against #pcaa despite their own female members&candidates

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

She is an executive assistant which is a fancy title for secretary. She is someone who answers phones not a political mastermind determined to make Danielle Smith look bad.

Frankly I don't really care that much and a bigger deal has been made out of this rather than parties focusing on the issues. If her involvement with the campaign was the extent of answering phones and mailing letters, her opinion holds about as much weight as a random poster here and shouldn't be taken to be the opinion of the PC/Redford.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

She is an executive assistant which is a fancy title for secretary.

I take it you are privy to her job description?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I take it you are privy to her job description?

Not the exact job description but I do know what an executive assistant is so I can put two and two together.

Actually I like doing basic work for you so go here

https://jobs.alberta.ca/explore/research.html

And find executive support 1 and you can see such massive undertakings as booking travel arrangements, maintaining a calander and booking appointments! It isn't a high ranking official making these comments and trying to make it appear as such is intentionally skewing the facts of the case.

[Jacks]

I don't know what her exact duties are when working in Redford's office but executive assistant can mean a lot of things, most that I've met (hundreds) are not the receptionist.

That being said, of course her comments aren't endorsed by the party. Never said they were.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I don't know what her exact duties are when working in Redford's office but executive assistant can mean a lot of things, most that I've met (hundreds) are not the receptionist.

That being said, of course her comments aren't endorsed by the party. Never said they were.

An executive assistant in the premier's constituency office is as close to the bottom of the totem pole as you can get. Every constituency office has an "executive assistant." Their job is to answer phones and keep track of appointments, and so on.

Let's not blow this out of proportion. She's basically a nobody; her opinion matters about as much as mine.

[Jacks]

The point was that she wasn't just a volunteer who walked in off the street, she has a regular government job working for Redford and has been tweeting nasty garbage for awhile now.

Never said she spoke for the party. Never said she was a high ranking official. Never said it was a conspiracy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The point was that she wasn't just a volunteer who walked in off the street, she has a regular government job working for Redford and has been tweeting nasty garbage for awhile now.

Never said she spoke for the party. Never said she was a high ranking official. Never said it was a conspiracy.

....and its interesting that she was only 'let go' now, instead of earlier when she said some of the other crap.

Just figured I'd say it for you.

[Slava]

Ugh. Still focused on this? Pretty pathetic that we have a contested election and haven't had any meaningful discussion. First it was the Wildrose bus. Next we got the campaign officially rolling and got to talk about who loves Alberta. Now its a question about whether someone has kids (and whether its insensitive to ask why they don't).

C'mon. Surely there is more to discuss and surely more important topics.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The point was that she wasn't just a volunteer who walked in off the street, she has a regular government job working for Redford and has been tweeting nasty garbage for awhile now.

Never said she spoke for the party. Never said she was a high ranking official. Never said it was a conspiracy.

Anybody can have a twitter account. I bet you could fill the saddledome with "people who have a regular government job and tweet nasty garbage."

This person happens to have embarrassed the PCs with her tweet, even though they didn't authorize, approve, or even know about it until afterwards. There's nothing unusual about that--it's just how politics works. But pretending that this is evidence of politics "getting nastier" is a bit silly, that's all I'm saying.

[Slava]

I'll just leave this here...
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...627/story.html

[Jacks]

By comparison, Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund has more than $500 billion invested and the Alaska Permanent Fund is near $40 billion.

Norway doesn't have to send billions of dollars in equalization to it's neighbors every year. It is pretty pathetic that we haven't saved anything in decades though. Let's re-elect the PC"s, they'll fix the problem.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'll just leave this here...
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...627/story.html

Having briefly reviewed the 'Wildrose budget', I was very wary about a couple of the claims, but just chalked it up to them exaggerating a bit on what they could accomplish and them realizing they could blame resource revenues if things fell short. In the end, I figured, they wouldn't cut as much as they said and end up raising some taxes and running a deficit anyway, so I would probably end up with pretty much what I was ok with.

That article, which of course I have not fact checked either (so it might be totally out to lunch on several points as well), leads me to believe that I might have simplified the situation out of my desire that they are the answer I am looking for.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Norway doesn't have to send billions of dollars in equalization to it's neighbors every year. It is pretty pathetic that we haven't saved anything in decades though. Let's re-elect the PC"s, they'll fix the problem.

Yes that is true, if you choose to ignore the basic fact that it was the world economic downturn that resulted in a loss of roughly 3 billion dollars from the fund.

Personally I think setting arbitrary numbers for how much you are going to put into an investment account is pretty darn stupid and it is something that logistically would be tough to pull off given the Wildrose's promises.

Also on March 31, 2002 the book value was 12.4 billion, which is actually less than the 15.4 billion dollars that it was on December 31, 2011. Just a little actual facts for you.

Also the heritage fund has been used in the past in order to fund capital projects which continue to benefit Albertans today.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Yes that is true, if you choose to ignore the basic fact that it was the world economic downturn that resulted in a loss of roughly 3 billion dollars from the fund.

We can add 3 billion and it's still less today in real dollars than it was a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Personally I think setting arbitrary numbers for how much you are going to put into an investment account is pretty darn stupid and it is something that logistically would be tough to pull off given the Wildrose's promises.

Not that I think the WR's projections are doable but saving 1/2 of the surplus dollars doesn't sound unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Also on March 31, 2002 the book value was 12.4 billion, which is actually less than the 15.4 billion dollars that it was on December 31, 2011. Just a little actual facts for you.

But did we actually save any new money? adjusted for inflation the fund has lost plenty. Just on investment income alone it should be way higher.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Jacks

We can add 3 billion and it's still less today in real dollars than it was a long time ago.

It is actually about the exact same, which considering the recent downturn knocking out a sizable percentage of money isn't that bad.

Not that I think the WR's projections are doable but saving 1/2 of the surplus dollars doesn't sound unreasonable.

But did we actually save any new money? adjusted for inflation the fund has lost plenty. Just on investment income alone it should be way higher.

I am not saying that it is a bad idea, I just worry about where they are planning on finding this extra surplus money without raising taxes... because I am pretty sure it is going to come at the expense of social services and necessary infrastructure which costs money in the long run

Ignoring the fact that there was an economic downturn that wiped out profits it is almost the exact same using the inflation calculator from the Bank of Canada.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Ignoring the fact that there was an economic downturn that wiped out profits it is almost the exact same using the inflation calculator from the Bank of Canada.

This isn't a problem that started in the last few years. When the fund was created in 1976 it was fed by 30% of non renewable resource revenue. That practice stopped in 1987. Obviously nobody expects big contributions or big growth during a huge worldwide recession but there have been a lot of boom years since 1987.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Norway doesn't have to send billions of dollars in equalization to it's neighbors every year. It is pretty pathetic that we haven't saved anything in decades though. Let's re-elect the PC"s, they'll fix the problem.

So the answer is a party with a platform that we can already see doesn't add up? Why would we do that either?

Originally Posted by Rathji

Having briefly reviewed the 'Wildrose budget', I was very wary about a couple of the claims, but just chalked it up to them exaggerating a bit on what they could accomplish and them realizing they could blame resource revenues if things fell short. In the end, I figured, they wouldn't cut as much as they said and end up raising some taxes and running a deficit anyway, so I would probably end up with pretty much what I was ok with.

That article, which of course I have not fact checked either (so it might be totally out to lunch on several points as well), leads me to believe that I might have simplified the situation out of my desire that they are the answer I am looking for.

I think over simplification might be the best way to describe it. Thats why we have comments like "well I cut back in my own house, so why can't the government" type of thing as well.

[Slava]

I guess this must be Rick Bells April Fools joke? I didn't see this yesterday.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/04/02...oming-up-roses