April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[crazy_eoj]

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, I still look down on proposals that would essentially rip up old agreements and replace them with new ones for existing civil service employees. Is it fair for the Wildrose types to hum and haw over the Stelmach PCs ripping up existing (existing at the time) Oil Sands agreements for existing projects over royalties and then proceed to do exactly that with existing government employees?

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.

If we were in a different situation where the government would be bankrupt and no one would get any pension unless reforms were made, then maybe an 'Air Canada like situation' would be necessary. With no government debt, a small deficit, and a small Heritage and Sustainability Fund, it's hardly at the point where the government has to start balking on it's obligations to survive.

I thought it was self-evident that one would want the province to abide by contract law/existing agreements.

However, that in and of itself means little. If your goal is to reform pensions, then you negotiate how that happens and what it means. You don't have to 'rip up contracts' or any of that nonsense. You follow the example that has been set decades ago by private industry. But continuing to allow public sector pensions to far outpace the average Albertan's is not only unsustainable but selfish.

Instead of money going to schools, teachers have taken billions upon billions of pension payments. Then they cry that education is underfunded. If they truly cared about the health of the entire education system they would have been seeking sustainable employment payouts a long time ago. But it's pretty easy to take free money when the PC's keep throwing it at you, and then cry about lack of funding on the other side.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by 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.

It would be nice that way, but the way Alberta seems to vote in a block that means a long time to change government. And really, does sitting in the opposition for 20 years make you better able to lead a province? Sure you have the opportunity to review policy and shout during question period but I am not sure how that qualifies you for a lot.
By reading some of the criticism here it seems like the only candidates allowed to govern are those who are doing it already or who run large corporations. You really don't hear about too many corporate executives running for provincial politics so that narrows the options down quite a bit.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Thinking its odd the PCs would announce MRU funding right before a debate at MRU would of course be assuming pandering in an election is ever odd. Pandering and elections go together like peanut butter and jelly.

And to me experience has to be a factor. Not the reason you vote for someone (cause the PCs have lots of experience right now, and lots of crappy ideas), but it has to matter.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

(Why do you have to try to turn this partisan, anyway?)

Oh I don't know, you never see that in this thread right?

Originally Posted by Slava

NMaybe if Albertans weren't so foolish in only electing one party election after election we would have some other alternatives for government.

We do have alternatives, it doesn't have to be the same thing every time.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.

The main difference is that the incumbent party has been there for so long that they have become corrupt. Some people don't wish to ignore that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I thought it was self-evident that one would want the province to abide by contract law/existing agreements.

However, that in and of itself means little. If your goal is to reform pensions, then you negotiate how that happens and what it means. You don't have to 'rip up contracts' or any of that nonsense. You follow the example that has been set decades ago by private industry. But continuing to allow public sector pensions to far outpace the average Albertan's is not only unsustainable but selfish.

Instead of money going to schools, teachers have taken billions upon billions of pension payments. Then they cry that education is underfunded. If they truly cared about the health of the entire education system they would have been seeking sustainable employment payouts a long time ago. But it's pretty easy to take free money when the PC's keep throwing it at you, and then cry about lack of funding on the other side.

Really?

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

It would be nice that way, but the way Alberta seems to vote in a block that means a long time to change government. And really, does sitting in the opposition for 20 years make you better able to lead a province? Sure you have the opportunity to review policy and shout during question period but I am not sure how that qualifies you for a lot.
By reading some of the criticism here it seems like the only candidates allowed to govern are those who are doing it already or who run large corporations. You really don't hear about too many corporate executives running for provincial politics so that narrows the options down quite a bit.

Its a huge difference. Before I say anything I better note that you don't have to sit in opposition for 20 years! Thing is that just being elected and serving before you're in a position of power and influence serves everyone well. Have a look at the federal conservatives (who I don't support). Harper was leader of the opposition and named his cabinet largely from people with experience shadowing the portfolios they were later representing. Sure, there were a few choices that were inexperienced, but on the whole he named people who had been elected and had shown that they were capable of thebasic job of an MP before giving them a shot to head a ministry. Why shouldn't we hope for the same thing provincially?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

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.

Given that the people behind Wildrose are the people behind the federal Conservatives (Flannagan), there may be similar levels of non-cooperation between Wildrose and PC as there where between the federal Conservatives and Liberals. In that scenario, the balance of power does indeed go to the provincial NDP/Libs/AP.

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

A little bit of foolishness, a lot of first-past-the-post distorting the will of the electorate.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Believe it or not, I fully expect the Wildrose will become (already is?) corrupted, because as long as politicians are breathing, they will always look out for self-interest ahead of public interest. Not that I blame them, its just human nature to look out for yourself first. Hence why term limits should apply to every position of public office. Make it a duty and service, not a job, and the corruption problem should go away.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

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.

I like the idea of a wise empowered Government with a long-term vision being very active in building the structure of the economy to be:
-Dynamic (able to adapt to emerging global conditions)
-Built upon a broad economic base (strong conventional/unconventional oil/gas + support sectors + service sectors + export focused technology/service companies)
-Have counter cyclical toolbox (i.e. a series of programs to stimulate the economy when slumping and cool it when overheating)

The problem with just creating a great place to do business is that it:
A: Ignores the ability of other jurisdictions to create the same climate
B: Leaves the economy wide open to volatility from resource export fluctuations

That being said, it's pretty damn hard to build a new economic sector anywhere, the best you can do is move a bit of the action from the energy sector into nearby sectors and hope for the best.

[Tinordi]

I'd much prefer a system where when the oil price spikes we send cheques to albertans and when it falls we go into debt and scramble to meet services while putting on the charade that we wont raise taxes. Much more fiscally responsible and conservative the latter.

[The Goon]

Conservatives play race card in Alberta campaign.

Article

This is somewhat disappointing in 2012.

[edslunch]

I've thought the PCs were past their best before date for a number of elections. But now that Wild Rose is the alternative I'm not sure what to do. WRA has some appeal and Smith comes across well, but they seem to be going for every play in the Reform playbook - citizen referenda, recalls, school vouchers, medical competition, get government out of the way, etc. Not necessarily all bad ideas but it strikes me as a purist, theoretical agenda being proposed by neophyte politicians (backed by old boys in the back room though). I don't trust any inexperienced party promising that much change.

I could imagine Redford renewing the PCs to some extent but honestly they just need a time out. Best case scenario for me I guess is a WRA minority - give them a chance to show what they can or can't do, then next election decide where to go from there.

It would also be interesting to see how WRA get along with Liberal or NDP power brokers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by The Goon

Conservatives play race card in Alberta campaign.

Article

This is somewhat disappointing in 2012.

I'm not sure what you mean? Which is disappointing, that its brought up or that there is no diversity on the Wildrose side?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by edslunch

WRA has some appeal and Smith comes across well, but they seem to be going for every play in the Reform playbook - citizen referenda, recalls, school vouchers, medical competition, get government out of the way, etc.

WHEREAS the Wildrose Party of Alberta has proposed voter-initiated referenda to "strengthen democracy and empower Albertans";

WHEREAS another photogenic Albertan from an upstart right-wing party previously proposed voter-initiated referenda in 1997;

WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby demand that Danielle Smith change her first name to "Stockwell".

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/d...mith-petition/

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not sure what you mean? Which is disappointing, that its brought up or that there is no diversity on the Wildrose side?

Are you seriously asking that question? It's disappointing that its being brought up. It reeks of desperation and fear mongering.

[The Goon]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Are you seriously asking that question? It's disappointing that its being brought up. It reeks of desperation and fear mongering.

What he said.

[GP_Matt]

Do you guys really distrust the voters so much that the idea of a voter initiated referendum scares you. One of the first things to come forward will likely be a petition regarding changing our first past the post system that so many dislike.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Are you seriously asking that question? It's disappointing that its being brought up. It reeks of desperation and fear mongering.

Well I didn't know what he meant, so I figured I would ask. Maybe it was clear to everyone but me, I didn't know though.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Do you guys really distrust the voters so much that the idea of a voter initiated referendum scares you. One of the first things to come forward will likely be a petition regarding changing our first past the post system that so many dislike.

In fact, if the California experience is any indication, the first things to come forward in voter initiated referendums will be both lower taxes and more services.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Do you guys really distrust the voters so much that the idea of a voter initiated referendum scares you. One of the first things to come forward will likely be a petition regarding changing our first past the post system that so many dislike.

Yes. Have you met the average voter?