April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm going to offend some people with this, but that's already the case. With the economy the way it is in Alberta, a government job is already much less desirable for capable people. The job marketplace is a self-selection process where on the whole those who worry about getting laid off in bad times seek refuge in the union-friendly public service. Unfortunately for government these are the same people you don't want working for you if you want to actually get things done or do things more efficient.

Heck I notice a huge difference in quality of people between small and large private industry companies. The more useless people seek the safest jobs at the bigger companies. Government jobs are a step even further in that direction.

BOOOO!!!

I know what you mean...there are plenty of government staff who would starve to death if they had to work in the private sector. Part of the problem that the feedback system in private industry is direct...if you are making money you are doing well...in the public sector the feedback channels are much fuzzier and thus its easier for people to coast.

However, not everyone in the Government is union (managers and up are usually non union).

Plus, there are good innovative, hard working Albertans in the government...just not enough of them. Cutting salaries and benefits won't help that...

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I think when you reduce things like that it is usually the more capable employees who leave and find work elsewhere. Although that might be a boon for the private sector (having a bunch of skilled and capable people entering the workforce) so you may be on to something.

Except you then are left with all the Ralph Wiggums trying to provide policies and programs for socio-economic development

A smart, innovative, nimble, lean Government can do a lot for the economy...at the very least it can help knock obstacles out of the way for business and ensure that all citizens are well looked after.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

While I'm all for reducing entitlements and clawing back on what the government does for everyone for long-term sustainability and competitive purposes,

Cowboy, are you against the idea of having the Heritage Fund?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Question here for First Lady and other Wild Rose supporters. I don't know if this has been discussed as I hav only been reading parts of this thread.

Now that the WR party looks to be in pretty much a dead heat with the Tories, how able are they to actually take power, form an effectrive government and name a cabinet? That's what worries me. I just don't see them being ready to take power, should they actually pull this off. That's what I think will enable the PCs to pull this out. Uncertainty!

I definitely agree with this. When I look at that roster of candidates there are literally a handful who I could see in the portfolios, and a lot of hangers on and guys who are hoping to catch the wave. Some of the higher profile candidates like Leech, Byfield and Carpay to name a few are just way to far right for me to be comfortable with socially.

sure, the same might be said about the 1993 Liberals Jacks, but there is an enormous difference. A lot of these people were elected and in some cases for years before they won power. They were in the official opposition and clearly had experience before being handed the decision making capabilities.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think giving the Wildrose a full majority without ever having governed even as the opposition is a scary thought. And I'd be saying that of any political party, not just the Wildrose. Give them a minority and a chance to show what they can do sure, but a full majority is a risky proposition.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Cowboy, are you against the idea of having the Heritage Fund?

Not at all. I'm all for it. It's just if you look around the world at what happens when populations age and economies stagnate, it points to the government ultimately having to do less. Alberta is blessed with a young population and a good economy while the rest of the world burns. Our citizens can better cope with the reality of claw backed government benefits/services when there are still good jobs to be had now.

Building a huge Heritage fund in combination with cutting back what the government is in the business of doing now (higher taxes might ultimately be needed to build the Heritage fund) will ultimately keep taxes relatively lower when the population ages and oil and gas fade from relevance so we can attract the new industries other jurisdications can't keep or develop due to higher taxes to maintain services. I believe it's the government's job to create and maintain a climate that's favorable to do business, rather than their job to actually create an economy or an industry.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

sure, the same might be said about the 1993 Liberals Jacks, but there is an enormous difference. A lot of these people were elected and in some cases for years before they won power. They were in the official opposition and clearly had experience before being handed the decision making capabilities.

By that logic no party is capable of running the province except for the PC's since no other party has more than a handful of current MLA's. How many more terms do we need to give the PC's before someone else is "qualified".

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think giving the Wildrose a full majority without ever having governed even as the opposition is a scary thought. And I'd be saying that of any political party, not just the Wildrose. Give them a minority and a chance to show what they can do sure, but a full majority is a risky proposition.

Giving anyone a minority isn't an option on election day.

[octothorp]

I'd be very curious to see someone take a whack at listing a hypothetical wildrose cabinet. Who are the most qualified potential MLAs they could throw at each position? (I did a quick google-search and couldn't find such a thing). I'd feel much more informed about them as a governing party if I had a rough idea of how their cabinet would shape up.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Bottom line I think the principle of the government living up to agreements has to cut both ways for both individuals and corporations. If they want to make a change in pensions it should be go-forward for new employees only, so that those who sign up for the job know exactly what they're getting into and those who planned their life around the old arrangement can continue to count on it.

No party is proposing otherwise. Unless you are talking about the politicians themselves as the Wildrose is promising to limit their transition allowance. There is absolutely no talk of handing union workers new contracts to sign.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

No party is proposing otherwise. Unless you are talking about the politicians themselves as the Wildrose is promising to limit their transition allowance. There is absolutely no talk of handing union workers new contracts to sign.

I was responding to an individual post that had that sentiment rather to an official platform plank of the Wildrose.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

By that logic no party is capable of running the province except for the PC's since no other party has more than a handful of current MLA's. How many more terms do we need to give the PC's before someone else is "qualified".


Giving anyone a minority isn't an option on election day.

Serious question: how long do you have to work at a new job until you really know what you are doing? I don't mean like I'm a financial advisor today and I go across the road and be a financial advisor. I mean like I used to be a (fill in the blank) and now I'm the head of the treasury board for the province or maybe the minister of advanced education.

That doesn't mean that no can possibly be replaced, its just that these are important positions and even more important with a smaller cabinet and government changes.

That might be just my opinion. You might be of the opinion that anyone can do this and its an easy job.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

By that logic no party is capable of running the province except for the PC's since no other party has more than a handful of current MLA's. How many more terms do we need to give the PC's before someone else is "qualified".


Giving anyone a minority isn't an option on election day.

Believe me when I tell you, I am no fan of the PCs at all. They should have been ousted long ago. But does it not concern you even slightly that the highest related position Danielle Smith has held was head of an admitedly dysfunctional school board? I'm not saying you need to be a multi-term MLA or political vet to be in office, but to be in total control?

As to voting for a minority government, no you cannot directly vote for a minority. You can, however, vote against a party in the hopes of proping up the opposition, which can lead to a minority. I think voting against a party is stupid, but then again no one ever said the average electorate are all that bright.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Serious question: how long do you have to work at a new job until you really know what you are doing? I don't mean like I'm a financial advisor today and I go across the road and be a financial advisor. I mean like I used to be a (fill in the blank) and now I'm the head of the treasury board for the province or maybe the minister of advanced education.

That doesn't mean that no can possibly be replaced, its just that these are important positions and even more important with a smaller cabinet and government changes.

That might be just my opinion. You might be of the opinion that anyone can do this and its an easy job.

Well why bother having elections if the guy/gal who has the job now is the only one qualified? Even if the guy/gal who has the job now is doing a piss poor job?

Only the PC's have enough candidiates with governing experience so we should just hold our nose and keep voting for the same thing over and over again?

I'm willing to bet last election you were saying the exact same thing when there was a chance that the Liberals could win. Now that the threat is to the right you seem to be happy with the status quo.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Believe me when I tell you, I am no fan of the PCs at all. They should have been ousted long ago.

Yet you want to see at least 4 more years of them?

The odds of a minority are probably pretty low IMO.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well why bother having elections if the guy/gal who has the job now is the only one qualified? Even if the guy/gal who has the job now is doing a piss poor job?

Only the PC's have enough candidiates with governing experience so we should just hold our nose and keep voting for the same thing over and over again?

I'm willing to bet last election you were saying the exact same thing when there was a chance that the Liberals could win. Now that the threat is to the right you seem to be happy with the status quo.

Nice try, but I actually do think the same about the Liberals. If they were to somehow win the election it would be a nightmare for the province in terms of picking a cabinet. Again you have a few qualified and experienced people and then a bunch of unproven and unknowns. (Why do you have to try to turn this partisan, anyway?)

Maybe if Albertans weren't so foolish in only electing one party election after election we would have some other alternatives for government. At this point though, yes it would appear as though the best qualified candidates are PCers. I don't love admitting that, but at least I can.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I want 4 years of wise government, and I could care less who does it. For me the problem is there's no real party commited to fiscal responsibility and social liberty, hence why I support no party out there. The Wildrose and PC platforms to me are very similar, with slight differences here and there, which makes sense with how many Klein era people are with the Wildrose.

[GP_Matt]

Ministers switch portfolios all the time so they definitely don't have in in depth knowledge of the portfolio they are representing.
As for qualifications you see it in the private sector all the time when a company brings in a CEO who has never worked in the industry before. The cabinet minister is the head of an area but they do not run the day to day operations. Looking at the Minister of Education, that is Thomas Lukaszuk, but under him is Deputy Minister Kerey Henke who is a permanent employee of the Government of Alberta. His job is to run the department while Thomas is the liaison between him and the government.
With a new government Kerey Henke will still be around to run the ministry but someone else will be the go-between.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The comparision of CEO who wasn't worked in that specific industry is actually a good comparision, and kind of makes my point too. Yes they might not know the industry but they know, or at least should as a CEO, how to manage a company, what is required of a CEO and what the functions of a CEO should be, they simply mold themselves to the industry.

Would you promote someone within the company or industry who has never held a job above entry level, or a CEO from a firm totally unrelated? This to me is not the time to be having a government learning as it goes. This is critical time for the future of this province, so ensuring we elect people who have experience or some semblance of a clue how to do the job effectively is important.

But again since I can't say there's a party I support, I guess I'm kinda pooped.

[GP_Matt]

Does anyone else think it is a bit odd to announce funding to the venue of your debate a few hours before said debate? Trying to earn a supportive audience? They are debating at Mount Royal tonight and the P.C.'s have just announced $86 million for said school.
http://www.votepc.ca/admin/contentx/...d=2455&r=10187
I understand timing announcements to fit where you are but shouldn't debates be held to a different standard?

[Rathji]

It would be foolish to think that a new MLA is just as suitable for a cabinet position as a 2nd, 3rd or longer term MLA.

Does that mean it will influence my vote? Doubtful.

Might be interesting for a while if the WRA pull out a win though.