April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by kn

I just heard on QR77 that the PCs have brought in from Toronto Stelmack's campaign manager along with Jamie Watt of CBC's "The Insider" fame. Elliot keeps her title of campaign manager.

That was debunked on Saturday by the PCs campaign. The two campaign managers that were rumored to be coming in have been apart of the campaign the entire time. There were a bunch of tweets about it, but the only link hinting at the debate online comes from the Beacon News - which should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I entirely disagree that balanced budgets are a terrible idea.

You presuppose that the government won't have budgeted for capital projects in slow periods, or that the only option is government spending (and that p3. Projects are not an option).

P3 is just a fancy way to say "borrowing money" though. If you're against running a deficit then surely you would be against the idea of using P3's as well.

[sevenarms]

Wildrose pledge #5 the Alberta Accountability Act was released today.
http://www.wildrose.ca/pledge/albert...ntability-act/

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by SebC

NDP

• Require all new oilsands development to have plans for upgrading in Alberta

Our competitive advantage in extraction is stronger than our competitive advantage in upgrading. Therefore, our economy should specialize in extraction and any attempt to force it away from that will result in a net loss. This is classic old-school protectionism that doesn't work - it works at an individual level but when one jurisdiction does it others follow and then everyone loses their efficiency through specilization. That's why we have free trade agreements. This policy would definitely make it more difficult for the federal government to negociate new agreements and might even contravene some of the agreements we already have.

That's so typical old-school NDP though. I'm sure even if they understood that there's dead-weight loss in their economic plans, they would just dismiss it as a loss that only the capitalist elites would see. Pretty hard for most to take a party seriously when their whole economic purpose is tunnel visioned towards creating more blue collar union jobs, and increasing the wages of all existing blue collar union jobs at the expense of pretty much anything else.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

First, good post, kn--and a fun debate. Here are my responses.

Originally Posted by kn

At its worse, it’s good retail politics. At its best, it’s a recognition that the money doesn’t belong to government, a concept difficult for statist elites to comprehend.

It's hard for me to understand how you can have the same people who've held the reins of power in Alberta for 30 years, now supposedly marshalled against the "statist elites." Who are these boogeymen? The liberals, who've been in the political wilderness since the 1920s?

If you say the Tories, then sure, I'd agree. But the Wild Rose is the same people, running on the same platform. You can't
a) be in power for 30 years, and then
b) claim that the "statist elite" is somebody else.

Secondly, I think the fact that sometimes funds may be used by the government to greater good than its citizens can use it for is so obvious it's practically trite. The fact that the Rutherford Conservatives in this province refuse to even acknowledge it is just evidence of their hypocrisy, because you have to think that even they realize it's true.

But that's in a way not even the point; what you call "good retail politics" is also sort of insulting to the electorate. I think this is precisely the kind of idea that the "statist elite" loves: you leave us in power for another term, and in exchange we'll toss you a breadcrumb from the top of the pyramid.

If anything, this emphasizes the political asymmetry here: the elite can now re-package populism for its own uses, as a social control mechanism to keep what you call the "great unwashed" pacified, duped into the belief that the elite, now dressed in shirtsleeves instead of pinstripes, will protect the interests of the populace instead of the interests they've always protected--their own.

Yeah, why should we elect the senate when it can be used for patronage appointments? And citizen-initiated referenda? Who would want the great unwashed proposing legislation?

I never said we should have patronage appointments. But I did say that we needed meaningful electoral reform. This ridiculous straw poll that we run for Senate doesn't count, and I think Preston Manning would agree, actually. As long as it's dependent on the discretion of the P.M. it's not really an election, and as long as the senate continues to be a rubber-stamp arm of the government it's not meaningful anyway. Manning wanted a "Triple E" senate. What we have is only ONE "E"and even that is an illusion.

As for citizen-initiated referenda, sure, why not? Let the unwashed have their little speaker's corner, while the meaningful political work is done by the legislative branch, who are elected the same way they've always been elected, in a first-past-the-post system that causes bizarre results sometimes and encourages gerrymandering.

I'm not opposed to electoral reform; we need it. But these ideas are like trying to eat soup with a slotted spoon.

Populism has always existed in Alberta’s political culture. The UFA, Social Credit, and Reform Party all had populist elements. Manning experienced it under his father long before Flanagan was around. I can’t speak for the Wildrose or other parties, but I know when I was a director for the Calgary-West constituency association in the early days of the Reform Party, anyone could have a say in shaping policy.

FL has been very clear that this is not the case now; we should not be listening to just anyone's ideas about the direction of this province, even if they're candidates for office. Rather, she insists, policy comes down from the top, and if the top doesn't say it, it's not part of the Wild Rose agenda.

There were good things--and some bad--about the old Reform Party. Preston Manning was, as much as I disagreed with him about almost everything, a true visionary. But that old party has been overtaken by the cynicism of establishment Canadian politics, as you yourself point out: Harper, who was never the visionary that Manning was, has proven not to be an agent of change after all, which is disappointing but not a surprise if you know him at all.

But the Harper-Manning debate isn't really even relevant to the debate over "who the Wild Rose" is. They're trying to tap into the populism that animated Reform, but really these are just Tories with a different name.

That being said, any populist movement will necessarily need to be articulated and usually that's by an “elite”. The question revolves around the different outlook between a populist elite and statist elite. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on comparative analyses of various schools of economic theory but I’d be really surprised if Love and Flanagan were ideologues who saw no role for government. They simply have more faith in people and the market to make better decisions than the state.

And this is where the shoe drops. A "populist" elite is an oxymoron, but it's the very bill of goods that Rod Love sold us under the banner of the PCs. The idea of populism is to topple the elite, and that must take structural and formal as well as rhetorical form for it to have any meaning.

You are right about one thing: Rod Love isn't an ideologue. He's a cynic, who I'm relatively sure doesn't believe anything in particular. Flanagan is an ideologue, though--to the point where he's inexplicably popular in right-wing circles in Alberta but is a figure of ridicule in intellectual circles in his own field across Canada, and would be more widely ridiculed if anyone outside of Canada had even heard of him.

At the end of the day, it's not about "faith in the state" so much as it's about what you think the state is: a populist believes that the state, in its ideal form, is a vessel for popular action, the collective force of the common will marshalled to the greater good. The "statist elite" is of the view that the reins of power must be carefully guarded in order to protect the interests of those who hold them.

I know which I think the Wild Rose is standing for; they've stood for it since they got into office in the 1990s, and now they've finally managed to purge the last vestiges of Peter Lougheed conservatism from their ranks, which is pretty ungrateful considering he was the one who led them out of the wilderness after their 40 years wandering the desert.

Actually, I think it’ll be more of a change than we’ve seen with the Harper Conservatives since Wildrose will not be as hampered by the need to represent various diverse regions of the country or feel pressured to move to the left.

I guess this is a matter of opinion; Harper, of course, isn't a populist either, but that's because he's basically a blank slate. Harper has of course overseen some change, but it hasn't been the sort of change that Preston Manning circa 1985 would recognize or endorse.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by sevenarms

Wildrose pledge #5 the Alberta Accountability Act was released today.
http://www.wildrose.ca/pledge/albert...ntability-act/

I love buzzwords!

That being said I agree with parts such as fixed election dates - but I don't think that this has been a problem recently.

I don't have a problem with extra pay for being on a committee, provided that the committee actually does something, I think that was the biggest complaints that people had... but I think that is rehashing a dead story.

That being said I still think that the average salary for an MLA isn't outrageous and it is already public record.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/hr/MLA/mem0.htm

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I love buzzwords!

That being said I agree with parts such as fixed election dates - but I don't think that this has been a problem recently.

I don't have a problem with extra pay for being on a committee, provided that the committee actually does something, I think that was the biggest complaints that people had... but I think that is rehashing a dead story.

That being said I still think that the average salary for an MLA isn't outrageous and it is already public record.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/hr/MLA/mem0.htm

Well, the problem with the committee pay was that the Tories were more or less playing "hide the ball." I actually think MLAs should probably be paid MORE, but that it should be totally transparent, and sitting on committees should be an implicit duty included in their regular pay.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by kn

At its worse, it’s good retail politics. At its best, it’s a recognition that the money doesn’t belong to government, a concept difficult for statist elites to comprehend.

Yeah well, some 'statist elites' believe that revenue belongs to FUTURE Albertans as well...so plowing more money into the Heritage fund or into socio-economic infrastructure is better than driving it into the local mall.

Plus, Albertans spend enough to create inflationary pressures anyways...why add to that?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

On another note...I'd be interested to hear about what anyone thinks about the importance of broadening the economic base of Alberta.

Both WRP and PC's are talking about getting the Heritage Fund back on track...which is huge...

But what about making the Alberta economy more innovative, dynamic and high-tech? Of course the energy sector and the sectors that support it are going to be the motor for a looong time. But that really leaves Alberta exposed to market forces (drop in oil prices), political forces (NEP 2.0, hippie president in US), or technical forces (Someone invents an economic alternative to bitumen).

For my money this is pretty important and I don't like what I have heard from the WRP with the exception of growing the Heritage Fund. Have the WRP talked about how they would support this?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I entirely disagree that balanced budgets are a terrible idea.

You presuppose that the government won't have budgeted for capital projects in slow periods, or that the only option is government spending (and that p3. Projects are not an option).

Balanced Budgets aren't a terrible idea...taking any ability of the Government to invest/stimulate the economy away is INSANE.

You need to have ALL the tools available to act in a way to attempt to balance out economic activity....ESPECIALLY in an economy as volatile as Alberta's (we are slaves to exports).

In an economic downturn it is the BEST time to catch up on infrastructure and build new capabilities to take advantage of when the economy recovers.

Of course, if you save for the next down turn in advance (Heritage Fund) you can still run a balanced budget...but I think legislating away a fiscal tool for the government is dumb, really dumb.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

On another note...I'd be interested to hear about what anyone thinks about the importance of broadening the economic base of Alberta.

Both WRP and PC's are talking about getting the Heritage Fund back on track...which is huge...

But what about making the Alberta economy more innovative, dynamic and high-tech? Of course the energy sector and the sectors that support it are going to be the motor for a looong time. But that really leaves Alberta exposed to market forces (drop in oil prices), political forces (NEP 2.0, hippie president in US), or technical forces (Someone invents an economic alternative to bitumen)

For me this is one of my biggest interests, but in the context of this election I don't think we'll hear anything regarding this. I'd personally like to see Alberta move towards a stronger investment in the Tech Industry in Alberta as it has the perfect storm for a culture of innovation. Especially with cities such as Calgary and Edmonton, which could easily to mimic some of the successful elements of Austin or Boston. There's a lot of great entrepreneurs and highly skilled citizens in Alberta.

That being said, that sort of planning is only of interest to a small portion of the population. The fight right now is between the two Conservative groups to sway voters in Rural Alberta and Calgary (what I think are the two big battle grounds for the next two weeks).

[automaton 3]

Does anyone else get the sense that the PC's are mailing this one in? I've noticed very few PC signs locally, and haven't seen much of the PC candidates out campaigning.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Does anyone else get the sense that the PC's are mailing this one in? I've noticed very few PC signs locally, and haven't seen much of the PC candidates out campaigning.

It depends on where you live; in certain areas of the province, I think the PCs are in deep trouble.

The big problem for them will be if they drop far enough that it no longer makes sense to vote for them "strategically."

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Both WRP and PC's are talking about getting the Heritage Fund back on track...which is huge...
..........
For my money this is pretty important and I don't like what I have heard from the WRP with the exception of growing the Heritage Fund. Have the WRP talked about how they would support this?

Could be wrong but from what I've heard it's the Liberals and Wildrose who have talked about building the Heritage Fund. Haven't heard anything from the PC's on this issue unless I missed some news release. I wouldn't believe the PC's anyways (yes, I'm jaded) since their track record is contribute pretty much nothing to the fund since the late 80's.

The Wildrose proposes to put 50% of future surpluses into the fund. Not sure what the Liberal proposal is, Slava could probably fill you in.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Does anyone else get the sense that the PC's are mailing this one in? I've noticed very few PC signs locally, and haven't seen much of the PC candidates out campaigning.

They've pretty much been mailing it in provincially since 1993 and federally since I was born. For at least the last 10 years I haven't had a Conservative candidate knock on my door or even leave a brochure. I get those stupid federal 10%ers all the time which really grinds my gears though.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The big problem for them will be if they drop far enough that it no longer makes sense to vote for them "strategically."

Don't think NDP votes are going anywhere but Liberals have a real decision to make on election day. Agree with you that if the PC candidate is unlikely to win then votes will probably flow back to the Libs and occasionally the Alberta Party.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Balanced Budgets aren't a terrible idea...taking any ability of the Government to invest/stimulate the economy away is INSANE.

You need to have ALL the tools available to act in a way to attempt to balance out economic activity....ESPECIALLY in an economy as volatile as Alberta's (we are slaves to exports).

In an economic downturn it is the BEST time to catch up on infrastructure and build new capabilities to take advantage of when the economy recovers.

Of course, if you save for the next down turn in advance (Heritage Fund) you can still run a balanced budget...but I think legislating away a fiscal tool for the government is dumb, really dumb.

Yes, this is obviously the case. As we can see, the USA clearly avoided a large recession by using the most massive direct government stimulation of the economy in western history. Now they have a debt load they will be paying off for a generation but at least the economy is roaring. /greentext

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, this is obviously the case. As we can see, the USA clearly avoided a large recession by using the most massive direct government stimulation of the economy in western history. Now they have a debt load they will be paying off for a generation but at least the economy is roaring. /greentext

Are you saying that the government should not have had a bail out package? Because while I can agree in part, from everything I have read it sounds like it was required in order to keep the wheels from completely falling off the cart. It was needed in order to keep money moving in the financial system and to avoid a complete collapse of the economy. That being said I think neither you nor I have the expert knowledge to make any insightful comment on the necessity of the bailout package in the states.

Plus the US was never going to pay down their debt, their economy has been built on credit since the 1950s.

[The Goon]

Only mildly related, but I love this picture of Danielle Smith in the Globe&Mail today:

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is where it's tough though. As a centrist in a riding that's close (I think) and the other parties are probably 15 points behind, what do you do?

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but if you call yourself a centrist and yet don't support either the Wildrose or the Tories, then I venture you're definition of 'Centrist' puts you 23.5 percentage points to the left of the the median Albertan voter according to the recent polls. If you're centrist by Albertan standards then you're likely in the right wing ranks of the PC party tent. That's likely the crux of this election and why the Wildrose stand a chance at winning a majority (Ie the middle of the road Tory is actually left of center in Alberta terms).

[Senator Clay Davis]

So I've been creeping this whole forum for a while now, mostly since the Cup last year when I was living on the Island and had to endure with Canucks fans non-stop. I needed a place for ridiculous, absurd Canucks bashing and this place was the best by far, especially the riot thread. But I finally decided to join because the Off-Topic forum seems awesome, and here especially the political discussion is mostly civilized and engaging unlike most places.


Anyways, getting to the political stuff, I'm saddened that apparently voting for "change" means voting for the guys who we all ditched not even 10 years ago. Beyond that the Wildrose to date hasn't impressed me with their platform, not the least of which has to do with the fact I don't think their numbers are realistic. No way can they balance the budget while improving health care, offer all these credits and bribes...errr....dividend cheques. And the ironic thing about the dividend cheques is the potential hidden cost to most people. If oil is going for say $150 a barrel and the dividend cheques happen, is it really a benefit if everyone has to pay $1,000 extra for gas to offset the higher oil? Its a nice bait and switch actually, pay $1,000 to get $300. And sadly most people will think they've come out ahead.


The social issues bother me a bit, but its the economic issues that really concern me. As someone in school for business, I just cannot see the math working for them, especially if tax increases and changes to the royalty structure are non-starters for the Wildrose. But the PCs aren't any better, and the Libs and NDP are dead before they even begin. The Alberta Party is somewhat intruiging, though like the Wildrose as a newbie to the scene, I have a few questions about their policies.


Overall though this race already sadly seems over, its just a matter of Wildrose majority or minority. I just hope people understand the "change" they are voting for isn't really change at all.