April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Simple question to Redford

I am a hard working male with a family to feed. I earn above average salary but I am not a teacher. What have you done or proposed to be doing that will make my life better if you get elected?

The answer is why you are in the state you are in right now.

For the last six months almost all your decisions ended up making my life worse. God forbid if you shall get re elected. All hard working people should just flee this red communist state.

You mean things like building schools, opening hospitals and that kind of making the province better? I think its a step in the right direction.

Can you tell me which policies from the Wildrose are going to make the province better?

[simmonjam1]

I think it's funny how all these "built by the government ofnAlberta" signs popped up everywhere within months of an election. They're by the schools, all over Stoney trail.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Thats what mystifies me about people who are so anti-PC at this point. What about the Wildrose is specifically drawing interest? Is it really just change for the sake of change? Cause I look at the Wildrose and don't see a ton of change from the PCs, but maybe thats just me.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I didn't know having two chronic illnesses made someone not liable for assault.

It is the confused old man defense. Works every time.

[killer_carlson]

Polls have us back in a tie.

Debate will be interesting, but honestly, can we have those leaders of parties polling under 15% just not show up?

[GP_Matt]

One of the big reasons that turned me off the P.C.'s was the fact that they have added almost nothing to the Heritage fund despite years of record growth and high surpluses. Instead they spent the money on things like a $2B bribe for the teachers and put the rest into a new sustainability fund. The sustainability fund seemed to me like a stick your head in the sand fund. Yes, I agree with the idea of putting money away to smooth budgets out over the ups and downs of the economy but we did not have that bad of a run and they have bled it down to almost nothing and are still drawing from it this year when the oil patch is looking to break records for spending and drilling.

Another issue that I have with them is the fly by night way they seem to create a contentious policy defend it for a while and deny that there is anything wrong and eventually tweak it a bit before starting again and repeating several times before they have a law that gets passed. The most obvious example of this is the royalty review, they promised that they would review the royalty rates so they issued new royalty rates after closed door meetings. These rates also included veiled threats that if certain oil sands companies didn't renegotiate existing contracts they would have trouble with future applications and expansion. Since the royalty rates came out they received backlash and found that E and P money was shifting to B.C. and Saskatchewan and internationally so they changed the rates to encourage one form of drilling after another before finally settling on rates that were similar to what we had at the start. The other issue that is more important to the rural population is the Land Use Framework. They issued it and faced immediate criticism but rather than step back and review the complaints they went on a speaking tour and toured the province to declare that the bills were flawless and the sections about preventing appeals to the courts superseding all other acts were just lawyer speak and that we should trust the government that they wouldn't abuse it. After a few months of touring and sending out speakers (all of whom refused to debate the bill with anyone informed and chose instead to give a speech) they modified the bill. I think it had been modified three times now and the current ads highlight the fact that you do have access to the courts despite an entire speaking tour assuring people that there was no need to access the courts.

Looking at Alison Redford's leadership promises two come to mind that were broken almost immediately upon gaining power. The first a lot of people don't care about, but she promised fixed election dates and after thinking about it decided that election seasons were good enough. The second is the money that she promised to inject into the school boards after the election. She assured voters that the money ($130 million I think) would come from savings that she would find in the budget and the money would not come from the Sustainability fund. Once elected she decided that it was easier to just pull the money from the Sustainability fund and ignore the promise to find the savings from current spending.

Going more in depth, I don't like the trend towards centralization that has been happening over the last decade or so. Alberta Health went from local boards to regional boards to the health super board but I don't think that anything has improved. Bill 2 seems like an attempt to do the same with the school board and most other departments are doing the same. Looking at forestry, it used to be that new small scale projects like a single wellsite or short pipeline were approved locally by the forest officers who visited the sites. Now everything is approved by employees in Edmonton who don't visit the sites and the local forestry officers are turning into compliance officers.

There are quite a few reasons that I have turned away from the P.C. party but the above is a few of them.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by darklord700

God forbid if you shall get re elected. All hard working people should just flee this red communist state.

Amazing stuff. Thank you.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Polls have us back in a tie.

Debate will be interesting, but honestly, can we have those leaders of parties polling under 15% just not show up?

If we're in a tie, having the NDP and Liberal leaders there is EVEN more important. These guys will determine who may have the balance of power in Government.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Robocalls are a strange phenomenon. Do you gain enough votes to offset the loses of them annoying people into not voting for you?

The thing I don't get, is if I've answered and went through one of their little push button surveys, why do they not take me off their list? I guess it's because when I did their survey I answered the wrong party

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

If we're in a tie, having the NDP and Liberal leaders there is EVEN more important. These guys will determine who may have the balance of power in Government.

So in a minority government, where overwhelmingly the province voted for the two most fiscally conservative parties, the balance of power will shift to the left side of the spectrum?

I hope Redford comes out and says that because it will decide the vote for a lot of undecideds. Smith came out and said more free votes, which solves the issue if other parties follow suit.

Sorry, the ndp and libs are still irrelevant, even in a minority government.

[The Goon]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Simple question to Redford

I am a hard working male with a family to feed. I earn above average salary but I am not a teacher. What have you done or proposed to be doing that will make my life better if you get elected?

The answer is why you are in the state you are in right now.

For the last six months almost all your decisions ended up making my life worse. God forbid if you shall get re elected. All hard working people should just flee this red communist state.

I don't think she's going to have the time to read this thread. You may want to find out when she's appearing close to you and ask her directly.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I didn't know having two chronic illnesses made someone not liable for assault.

Oh big assault, he got pushed.

What will he do for an encore, have his grandma charged for twisting he ear when he was a kid?

Maybe he can go to the hospital and annoy some patients.

[Senator Clay Davis]

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if the Wildrose gets a minority, how many PCs will jump ship to give them a majortiy? Then again, if the Wildrose can't get a majority now with so much anti-PC sentiment, I doubt they'll ever be able to get a majority, so why jump ship if you're a PC member?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

So in a minority government, where overwhelmingly the province voted for the two most fiscally conservative parties, the balance of power will shift to the left side of the spectrum?

I hope Redford comes out and says that because it will decide the vote for a lot of undecideds. Smith came out and said more free votes, which solves the issue if other parties follow suit.

Sorry, the ndp and libs are still irrelevant, even in a minority government.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but in a parliamentary system that's how it works. That's really the basics of our form of government.

If a minority government pans out then the 7-10 seats that the Liberals and NDP hold will have the balance of power, they'll have the trump card to hold the minority government, whether it's the PCs or WRP, accountable. Saying that the NDP and Liberals are irrelevant is pretty crazy.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if the Wildrose gets a minority, how many PCs will jump ship to give them a majortiy? Then again, if the Wildrose can't get a majority now with so much anti-PC sentiment, I doubt they'll ever be able to get a majority, so why jump ship if you're a PC member?

Interesting question. I guess it depends on which of the PC Candidates win their riding and which lose. I could see someone like Morton jumping ship, but I can't see any of the newer candidates (such as McIver or Jansen) jumping ship.

There was an article in the Herald on Saturday about 'three unnamed disgruntled PCs' disappointed in when Redford called the election, etc., I could see those three MLAs jumping ship, if they're elected. But one has to wonder if the Three MLAs in question are ones that are more ticked off that it's not a cake walk through the election or are in danger of losing their seats.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

One of the big reasons that turned me off the P.C.'s was the fact that they have added almost nothing to the Heritage fund despite years of record growth and high surpluses. Instead they spent the money on things like a $2B bribe for the teachers and put the rest into a new sustainability fund. The sustainability fund seemed to me like a stick your head in the sand fund. Yes, I agree with the idea of putting money away to smooth budgets out over the ups and downs of the economy but we did not have that bad of a run and they have bled it down to almost nothing and are still drawing from it this year when the oil patch is looking to break records for spending and drilling.

Another issue that I have with them is the fly by night way they seem to create a contentious policy defend it for a while and deny that there is anything wrong and eventually tweak it a bit before starting again and repeating several times before they have a law that gets passed. The most obvious example of this is the royalty review, they promised that they would review the royalty rates so they issued new royalty rates after closed door meetings. These rates also included veiled threats that if certain oil sands companies didn't renegotiate existing contracts they would have trouble with future applications and expansion. Since the royalty rates came out they received backlash and found that E and P money was shifting to B.C. and Saskatchewan and internationally so they changed the rates to encourage one form of drilling after another before finally settling on rates that were similar to what we had at the start. The other issue that is more important to the rural population is the Land Use Framework. They issued it and faced immediate criticism but rather than step back and review the complaints they went on a speaking tour and toured the province to declare that the bills were flawless and the sections about preventing appeals to the courts superseding all other acts were just lawyer speak and that we should trust the government that they wouldn't abuse it. After a few months of touring and sending out speakers (all of whom refused to debate the bill with anyone informed and chose instead to give a speech) they modified the bill. I think it had been modified three times now and the current ads highlight the fact that you do have access to the courts despite an entire speaking tour assuring people that there was no need to access the courts.

Looking at Alison Redford's leadership promises two come to mind that were broken almost immediately upon gaining power. The first a lot of people don't care about, but she promised fixed election dates and after thinking about it decided that election seasons were good enough. The second is the money that she promised to inject into the school boards after the election. She assured voters that the money ($130 million I think) would come from savings that she would find in the budget and the money would not come from the Sustainability fund. Once elected she decided that it was easier to just pull the money from the Sustainability fund and ignore the promise to find the savings from current spending.

Going more in depth, I don't like the trend towards centralization that has been happening over the last decade or so. Alberta Health went from local boards to regional boards to the health super board but I don't think that anything has improved. Bill 2 seems like an attempt to do the same with the school board and most other departments are doing the same. Looking at forestry, it used to be that new small scale projects like a single wellsite or short pipeline were approved locally by the forest officers who visited the sites. Now everything is approved by employees in Edmonton who don't visit the sites and the local forestry officers are turning into compliance officers.

There are quite a few reasons that I have turned away from the P.C. party but the above is a few of them.

Thats all well and good, but some of that is just governing. Specifically the part about making a policy, seeing where its contentious and then tweaking it. Frankly speaking, I would prefer that to having it rammed down our throat despite any backlash.

Some of the comments are straight from the Wildrose playbook here as well. Bribing teachers? I don't know if you recall, over the past year parents paid hugely increased school fees as a result of the shortage of funding. So while you see that as a bribe to teachers I see that as restoring funding that shouldn't have been cut in the first place. I'm not a teacher, and other than what I think is proper funding for an education system that I care about I haven't seen any personal benefit either.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Interesting question. I guess it depends on which of the PC Candidates win their riding and which lose. I could see someone like Morton jumping ship, but I can't see any of the newer candidates (such as McIver or Jansen) jumping ship.

There was an article in the Herald on Saturday about 'three unnamed disgruntled PCs' disappointed in when Redford called the election, etc., I could see those three MLAs jumping ship, if they're elected. But one has to wonder if the Three MLAs in question are ones that are more ticked off that it's not a cake walk through the election or are in danger of losing their seats.

I suspect this is likely the case. I think the likelyhood of any MLAs crossing floor will depend how close the Wildrose gets to a majority. If they are at 42 for instance I expect a few floor crossings, but at 37 or 38 I can't see as many as 15% of PC MLAs jumping ship.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Oh big assault, he got pushed.

What will he do for an encore, have his grandma charged for twisting he ear when he was a kid?

Maybe he can go to the hospital and annoy some patients.

Do you actually know what assault is? Serious question.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Do you actually know what assault is? Serious question.

I believe he is commiting the common mistake of confusing assault and battery.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I believe he is commiting the common mistake of confusing assault and battery.

Well, not exactly. He's confusing assault with "beating someone up." Assault just means "touching without consent." You don't have to hurt them.

If you cause bodily harm that's more than merely transient that's "assault causing bodily harm." That's where you get your butt kicked and wake up with your jaw wired shut in the hospital.

The difference is kind of important. The first usually lands you (for a first-timer) Alternative Measures and a few hours of community service, and no criminal record. The second can land you in jail.