April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'm saying it is pretty much impossible to keep that promise. How much more on top of the additional 3.4 billion is it going to cost to try?

Of course it is impossible to keep that promise, but this election never was about making promises you can keep for sure but more about making promises that people want to hear.

Originally Posted by Jacks

Hmm, thought I remembered it being in the 90's, I stand corrected. Not sure how Redford is going to pull off the miracle this time. Might as well promise to end car crashes or dog bites.

I know, right. Or she could promise something really ridiculous like drastically cutting spending and increasing services at the same time.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

It isn't quite an endorsement but it should ease Slava's fear that scrapping the Green Trip would prevent LRT expansion.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...994/story.html

From the article

He warned that the Wildrose idea is low on details and relies on several assumptions. But the Tory plan promises even less, unless there’s a surprise one-time cash injection.

Well I certainly wasn't voting PC before, but if they have money for everything except what most citizens need, yeah no thanks.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Hmm, thought I remembered it being in the 90's, I stand corrected. Not sure how Redford is going to pull off the miracle this time. Might as well promise to end car crashes or dog bites.

I just looked it up to make sure I was remembering correctly. The goal was to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. The motion was brought forward by Ed Broadbent, then leader of the federal NDP, and was passed on November 24, 1989 (one year into Mulroney's second term) with all parties voting in favour. No MPs voted against it.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I know, right. Or she could promise something really ridiculous like drastically cutting spending and increasing services at the same time.

So you're saying they're both idiots and you're voting Liberal?

[Cowboy89]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Alberta...220/story.html.

“I’m very excited about that prospect,” said Redford, who noted her Progressive Conservative government has already carved out “transportation utility corridors” for such use.
“What we’re hearing from interested parties is that there are economic opportunities to allow this to happen, that there are different funding formulas that wouldn’t require the provincial government to be investing in this purely as public infrastructure,” Redford said. “I think there’s a sense in Alberta right now that we’re just on the cusp of so much exciting change ... that we’ve got to be making smart decisions now and not dismissing anything until we know exactly what we want the future to look like.”

If people can get over the 'cool' factor of a high speed train they can probably see how it's probably not a great idea in the near term (Ie like 25-30 years) considering the low popultion of the Calgary-Edmonton corrider relative to places where these types of projects have been more sucessful (Still pretty costly). That all said Redford's answer was a little puffball. Raj Sherman seemed to have a better handle on the concept of transportation though, stressing that Calgary and Edmonton would need suburb transportation networks ahead of any such train.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Jacks

So you're saying they're both idiots and you're voting Liberal?

I most likely will vote either WRP or PC. That doesn't change the fact that both parties are promising on things they cannot possibly deliver on.

For a vast majority of people, no party platform will align nicely with their personal beliefs. Some of those people don't vote, some vote strategically and some pick one or 2 important issues and tie their horse to the party that has the best chance of doing that.

I like the idea of the WRP balancing the budget, but I find it absurd that they claim they can raise the level of service as well. The fact that they are saying it, make me think that they consider voters to be idiots.

I really like contributing to the Heritage fund with surplus oil money, but dislike the fact that a chunk of that surplus will be thrown away as a 'bribe' to voters under the guise of economic stimulus or that we know better what to do with our money.

I like the PC plank of contributing to education, but at the same time I think the amount they are pledging is too high.

I like the Liberal idea of eliminating tuition, but I don't think it would be a good thing the way they have it implemented. You should get a very large percentage refunded after you graduate, possibly after working in the province for x years, but not charging anything at all will cause more problems than it solves.

I could go on, but it is more of the same.

edit: Actually, one more. Despite the questionable definitive language used here - Trying to end child poverty is a really good idea in terms of long term financial return for the province. For every dollar you spend in helping under privileged kids you get a much larger social return on investment, to a factor of 6x (or more) your initial investment

In the end, the final decision will probably hinge on which candidates I have met in person and the responses I get from them (or their campaigns) about illegally placed signs.

[Jacks]

@Rathji
I agree with 90% of that.

[Flamenspiel]

@Rathji

I agree with some of what you said except when you compare to the PC you have to compare with what they have now, you cannot assume that anything will change. So its the promises of the three opposition parties and their ability to keep them vs the current state of affairs.

An incumbent has to be judged on what they did, not on what they say they are going to do. After all they have a 41 year old record, plenty to look at.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I most likely will vote either WRP or PC. That doesn't change the fact that both parties are promising on things they cannot possibly deliver on.

For a vast majority of people, no party platform will align nicely with their personal beliefs. Some of those people don't vote, some vote strategically and some pick one or 2 important issues and tie their horse to the party that has the best chance of doing that.

I like the idea of the WRP balancing the budget, but I find it absurd that they claim they can raise the level of service as well. The fact that they are saying it, make me think that they consider voters to be idiots.

I really like contributing to the Heritage fund with surplus oil money, but dislike the fact that a chunk of that surplus will be thrown away as a 'bribe' to voters under the guise of economic stimulus or that we know better what to do with our money.

I like the PC plank of contributing to education, but at the same time I think the amount they are pledging is too high.

I like the Liberal idea of eliminating tuition, but I don't think it would be a good thing the way they have it implemented. You should get a very large percentage refunded after you graduate, possibly after working in the province for x years, but not charging anything at all will cause more problems than it solves.

I could go on, but it is more of the same.

edit: Actually, one more. Despite the questionable definitive language used here - Trying to end child poverty is a really good idea in terms of long term financial return for the province. For every dollar you spend in helping under privileged kids you get a much larger social return on investment, to a factor of 6x (or more) your initial investment

In the end, the final decision will probably hinge on which candidates I have met in person and the responses I get from them (or their campaigns) about illegally placed signs.

Fantastic post, and I wish everyone though this way. There are pros and cons to everything, but people always get way too caught up in the pros they forget about the cons. Yes a $300 dividend cheque would be awesome, I could use $300, who couldn't? Strangely the richest man in the world and poorest man in the world will both take a dollar if you give it to them. But theres an opportunity cost to not investing that money in something more beneficial long term.

And I also have stated before the overall positive economic impact rebate cheques would have in Alberta would depend how much people invest and spend on 100% local companies.If someone buys a $300 gadget, almost nothing stays here, and all that money that should go to the Alberta economy evaporates.

I also think of the three handouts (Family Care Centers, Dividends, Education), that education would actually have the most positive economic impact. Its a pretty well established fact people with college educations earn more money, and thus pay more taxes so its more of an investment in a way than spending. If someone pays say $30,000 more in taxes in their life with a higher education than they would otherwise, its almost a profitable venture.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I also think of the three handouts (Family Care Centers, Dividends, Education), that education would actually have the most positive economic impact. Its a pretty well established fact people with college educations earn more money, and thus pay more taxes so its more of an investment in a way than spending. If someone pays say $30,000 more in taxes in their life with a higher education than they would otherwise, its almost a profitable venture.

It's what they take in college that counts, not that they simply went to college. The tuition is only part of the equation. Drive and ambition is another. I highly suspect that the number of employable, high-income college graduates will barely increase with zero tuition, but the number of liberal arts, professional students will skyrocket.

This has "law of unintended consequences" written all over it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I like the idea of the WRP balancing the budget, but I find it absurd that they claim they can raise the level of service as well. The fact that they are saying it, make me think that they consider voters to be idiots.

I can give you an example to think about. It's a personal one and certainly not on the same scale; but there are definite parallels.

Less than a year ago I started a new job. The role had been held by others previously, but it hadn't "changed" for at least a decade. That is to say, everyone one just kept doing things the way they had always been done before.

I knew this going in and one of my stipulations about taking the position, was that I be allowed to implement changes. And I have.

I've streamlined processes, I've introduced new technologies and I've eliminated many redundant practices. This has resulted a huge money saving aspect for the company, but it has also increased the efficiency of many tasks thereby improving service to both clients and employees.

It has also allowed us to meld most of work previously done by two people into one position. This should be complete in the next six months and will allow for one of the employees to retire.

In January (I had been there 6 months then) I approached management to see if they would allow me one extra week vacation, since we wanted to go to Australia. I was willing to go without pay. In a heartbeat I was granted the extra week - - with pay and an attractive raise to boot.

Inefficiencies can be found and corrected without throwing more money at the problems; in fact it can mean you will save money in the long run.

[Senator Clay Davis]

While you present a very strong case in point, and while I am a big fan of maximizing efficiencies, I find with health care in particular the issue relates more to lack of staffing or misuse of staff (i.e. not having enough people for peak periods etc...). I mean this massive facility in the south is about to open and they are going to need to hire a lot of people to staff that thing. I know there can be some efficiencies and savings, but with a growing population lowering costs while improving service seems like a mighty difficult task to achieve.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

While you present a very strong case in point, and while I am a big fan of maximizing efficiencies, I find with health care in particular the issue relates more to lack of staffing or misuse of staff (i.e. not having enough people for peak periods etc...). I mean this massive facility in the south is about to open and they are going to need to hire a lot of people to staff that thing. I know there can be some efficiencies and savings, but with a growing population lowering costs while improving service seems like a mighty difficult task to achieve.

Agreed. But when was the last time administration was overhauled?

Healthcare aside, the government itself has an average of one manager for every four to five employees. I can't think of any company that has that kind of ratio.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I believe the technical term for that is micro-micro management. Its embarrassing really to see a misuse of resources like that. I get you want oversight but at some point do you not trust people to do their job?

[First Lady]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ryHomeWILDROSE

CTV on their latest poll.

Watch the video for Chris Epps' minor slip....is kind of comical.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Obviously a lot whole riding on the debate tomorrow. Its gonna take a command performance from Redford to right this ship. Best case scenario for her is she talks issues and Mason and Raj beat up on Danielle. I don't think its in Redford's best interest to go negative.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I don't think its in Redford's best interest to go negative.

That's 50% of her campaign. The other 50% is bribes.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by First Lady

...
Inefficiencies can be found and corrected without throwing more money at the problems; in fact it can mean you will save money in the long run.

Of course they can be but I do not believe that you can so completely change the entire health care system, without having a concrete plan, that you can go from where it is now to being able to offer more services for less money. If there was a plan that they proposed then I could examine that plan and infer if it would succeed based on the details, but right now I have lots of abstract hand waving with buzz words that promise a lot.

It just seems to me to be promising the world on the platform of 'vague change', and I find that a bit insulting.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Redford has clearly lost a large chunk of votes already. Might as well not compound things by continuing to go negative

[FiftyBelow]

Anyone know if the debates will be streamed online? This might seem weird, but I don't have a TV at my place.