April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.

Personally, I'd be shocked if any MLAs crossed the floor. In a minority situation a floor crossing is going to be under far more scrutiny than in a majority. It'll look incredibly opportunistic and with the heated environment of this election it'll probably the nail in the coffin for those MLAs. The election is basically boiling down to the hot button topic of "Do you want change and to toss the PCs out" or "Do you want the Wildrose in charge"

As a hypothetical example, if a PC MLA crosses the floor they are pretty much going to burn everyone that voted for them in the past election and it'll look horrible in their riding. If a WRP crosses the floor, it'll look like a full on betrayal against the WRP.

Especially in a minority environment where the chances of an election occurring in a couple years is far higher, it'll probably be the end of that MLA's political career, there will be too many burned bridges and a vendetta from the voting public.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

I don't really care which one it is, it's kinda lame.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Personally, I'd be shocked if any MLAs crossed the floor. In a minority situation a floor crossing is going to be under far more scrutiny than in a majority. It'll look incredibly opportunistic and with the heated environment of this election it'll probably the nail in the coffin for those MLAs. The election is basically boiling down to the hot button topic of "Do you want change and to toss the PCs out" or "Do you want the Wildrose in charge"

As a hypothetical example, if a PC MLA crosses the floor they are pretty much going to burn everyone that voted for them in the past election and it'll look horrible in their riding. If a WRP crosses the floor, it'll look like a full on betrayal against the WRP.

Especially in a minority environment where the chances of an election occurring in a couple years is far higher, it'll probably be the end of that MLA's political career, there will be too many burned bridges and a vendetta from the voting public.

It really depends on the size of the minority government. If the WRP is only a seat or two away from a majority, it makes sense for a couple MP's to cross the floor to form a solid government instead of constantly working from a minority status. Especially if they are similar in viewpoints (ie: Morton to WRP in exchange for cabinet portfolio).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Personally, I'd be shocked if any MLAs crossed the floor. In a minority situation a floor crossing is going to be under far more scrutiny than in a majority. It'll look incredibly opportunistic and with the heated environment of this election it'll probably the nail in the coffin for those MLAs. The election is basically boiling down to the hot button topic of "Do you want change and to toss the PCs out" or "Do you want the Wildrose in charge"

As a hypothetical example, if a PC MLA crosses the floor they are pretty much going to burn everyone that voted for them in the past election and it'll look horrible in their riding. If a WRP crosses the floor, it'll look like a full on betrayal against the WRP.

Especially in a minority environment where the chances of an election occurring in a couple years is far higher, it'll probably be the end of that MLA's political career, there will be too many burned bridges and a vendetta from the voting public.

All of that is true. On the other hand, if the WRA and PCs split most of the seats and the Liberals are in a shambles (down to 4 or 5 seats) I could see those MLAs defecting en masse. The Liberals that are left aren't all that "liberal" anyway, except for David Swann.

[MarchHare]

I hope there are a few floor-crossings so I can read all the misogynistic insults hurled at the MLAs in question.

[Slava]

A party talking about democractic renewal and these things should pass a law outlawing outright floor crossing. If they want to sit as independents, that is fine, but straight floor crossing isn't something I am in favour of!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I don't really care which one it is, it's kinda lame.

Well, you should lobby for an amendment to the criminal code that allows for assault as long as it's by old, sick men. See how that goes.

Our right not to be touched without our consent is fundamental if you think about it. It keeps fights from breaking out on C-trains, and allows our law to protect the integrity of your person from the intrusion of others.

With that said, it's likely he'll get Alternative Measures, assuming it's a first offence. He'll just have to volunteer at a community center or pick up garbage for a few hours or something, and that will be that.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

Maybe the shortage of funding was because of the bribe. I'm sure you remember because I've explained it to you several times in this thread, but Stelmach bribed the teachers union into silence during an election by paying 2 BILLION dollars towards their agreed upon portion of their pension liability. No reason or rhyme to this payment, except for the PC's political gain.

Thats 2 billion dollars that could have gone to classrooms or school building, or anything.

You are referring to the 100 million that Allison Redford promised to 're-fund' from cuts in the budget to the education system. But thats only 1/20 of the bribe teachers got to plate their pension. But again it just proves that the PC's are really pandering to unions and their public employees to the detriment of taxpaying Albertans. That's why they've totally lost control of waste and spending, they just want power at any cost.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Sadly everyone wants power at any cost. Its not a PC or Liberal or Wildrose issue. Its a politician issue. If we had strict term limits, no after service pensions or allowances then we'd be in a better place, but when you're a politician and you know it takes a whopping one election win to benefit for life, something seems very wrong about that to me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Maybe the shortage of funding was because of the bribe. I'm sure you remember because I've explained it to you several times in this thread, but Stelmach bribed the teachers union into silence during an election by paying 2 BILLION dollars towards their agreed upon portion of their pension liability. No reason or rhyme to this payment, except for the PC's political gain.

Thats 2 billion dollars that could have gone to classrooms or school building, or anything.

You are referring to the 100 million that Allison Redford promised to 're-fund' from cuts in the budget to the education system. But thats only 1/20 of the bribe teachers got to plate their pension. But again it just proves that the PC's are really pandering to unions and their public employees to the detriment of taxpaying Albertans. That's why they've totally lost control of waste and spending, they just want power at any cost.

You probably remember my explanation that a pension liability had to be addressed as well? It makes no difference what side of the political spectrum you're on, but when you promise people a pension for their retirement it should be honored. I fail to see how a Wildrose government wouldn't have come to the same conclusion?

That's not a bribe at all. We pay pensions to our public servants, and that incudes teachers. If you are against that, fair enough. Those deals are all negotiated though, and even the Wildrose would have a nearly impossible time cutting that completely.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

You probably remember my explanation that a pension liability had to be addressed as well? It makes no difference what side of the political spectrum you're on, but when you promise people a pension for their retirement it should be honored. I fail to see how a Wildrose government wouldn't have come to the same conclusion?

That's not a bribe at all. We pay pensions to our public servants, and that incudes teachers. If you are against that, fair enough. Those deals are all negotiated though, and even the Wildrose would have a nearly impossible time cutting that completely.

I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

The pension shortfall was allocated to be paid 25% by teachers, and 75% by government. That is what they agreed upon.

THEN, the government offered them 2 BILLION dollars towards the 25% the teachers had already agreed to pay. That on top of the billions the province had already paid for, as agreed upon, for their pensions.

So instead of teachers contributing the amount they agreed they would to their own pensions, Stelmach bought their silence with a quick 2 billion dollar payout.

And the wildrose would probably make public employees contribute to a defined contribution pension fund, exactly like the majority of private employees. Only public sector workers are comfortable with defined benefit pensions because they know the government will likely bribe them off with public money, and they will never acutally have to pay for their retirement like the rest of us.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...381/story.html

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

The pension shortfall was allocated to be paid 25% by teachers, and 75% by government. That is what they agreed upon.

THEN, the government offered them 2 BILLION dollars towards the 25% the teachers had already agreed to pay. That on top of the billions the province had already paid for, as agreed upon, for their pensions.

So instead of teachers contributing the amount they agreed they would to their own pensions, Stelmach bought their silence with a quick 2 billion dollar payout.

And the wildrose would probably make public employees contribute to a defined contribution pension fund, exactly like the majority of private employees. Only public sector workers are comfortable with defined benefit pensions because they know the government will likely bribe them off with public money, and they will never acutally have to pay for their retirement like the rest of us.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...381/story.html

Well lets just jump to the present day; how exactly would the Wildrose just "make public employees contribute to a definied contribution pension fund..."

This ought to be interesting. Is that actual policy anywhere, or just wild accusation on your part?

[Senator Clay Davis]

There is nothing the Wildrose can do anything about already made agreements, unless they want to piss of all AUPE workers.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

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.

I know that is how it works but I would much rather see the two more popular parties work things out amongst themselves. With the federal Conservatives and Liberals it just seemed like they were too stubborn to get along.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

Sorry, I should have specified which bribe I was referring to. I was concerned about the PC's topping up the teachers portion of their pension. The leadership pledge to return $130 million to the school boards doesn't bother me in the sense that some are calling it a bribe. It was a campaign promise made in the open so if members didn't like it they didn't have to vote for her. The part where she lied about how it would be funded is what bothered me.

As for the policy changes, I agree with you that they should air them and adjust as necessary but they seem to go about it backwards. They make the policy and then stand up and tell everyone that it is good and then pass it into law while ignoring all criticism. When the criticism doesn't let up they change the law but only a little. Rinse and repeat until people shut up. It is a very arrogant approach and reflects the PC attitude towards governing. Some of their MLA's were visibly upset that people would question the bills.
I sat through a 20 minute speech from a sitting MLA discussing about how all the criticism of the Land Stewardship Bill was unfounded and based on malicious rumours. This was about three weeks before the government decided to rewrite portions of the bill to address the very issues that they claimed were untrue.

I think it is fine for politicians to change their mind (especially as new information comes out or things change) but before they do they need to put a lot of thought into the decision and they should be reasonably sure that they won't change it again before any new information comes out.

One of the issues that Doug Griffiths brought up at the leadership debate was the policy process that the PC's follow. With a new idea they debate it during caucus (in private) and come to a decision. Then they present it in the legislature for all party debate. The problem is that the PC's have to be unanimous when they leave caucus and are not allowed to change their opinion even though the policy is being debated openly on the floor. So even if the opposition points out something that is wrong or brings in new information they have to continue to support the party position or fear that they will be removed from the party, kicked off committees or denied cabinet posts in the future. This process is an acknowledgement that the legislature is there only to give the opposition a chance to sound off and that things that come to the floor are already decided and are going to pass.

[Slava]

This article should make Killer Carlson thrilled I'm sure, its about the prospects of a minority government: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Br...878/story.html

[Senator Clay Davis]

God forbid we get a minority government and all the parties have to *gasp* work together to get things done! Not working together!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well lets just jump to the present day; how exactly would the Wildrose just "make public employees contribute to a definied contribution pension fund..."

This ought to be interesting. Is that actual policy anywhere, or just wild accusation on your part?

Well they've started by wanting to reduce cabinet salary (30%) , MLA salaries (5%) and pensions (65%) . Leading by example, as they should.

Then, I would expect they would follow the lead of most multinational companies whereby they initiate a new defined contribution pension and discontinue the outrageous defined benefit programs. Of course, they can follow the lead of the federal Conservatives who are operating on the same principles and also phasing out these expensive and unsustainable pensions that are the hallmark of public union bargaining.

[Tinordi]

Do people forget these parts when federal parliament was prorogued after Harper tried to redo campaign finance reform? Evidently, using the pricinples of majority rule in a parliamentary democracy is tantamount to "treason" and a "coup."

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I think that one of the unintended consequences of the WRP's reduction in salary and tweaking of the pension on the public service will be that the Government will be a less attractive place for people to work.

Thus you will end up with a less capable workforce...

That isn't good for anyone...