April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

How can this province have an anti-Ottawa stance when we elected 27/28 MPs from the majority party, including the Prime Minister? Maybe an anti-Eastern Canada stance (moslty Quebec and Ontario), but I'm pretty sure lots of people in this province like who's in Ottawa.

Who's saying anything about anti-Ottawa. I see it more as opening up honest discussion with our federal counterparts; in particular on issues that are provincial jurisdiction.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'd be curious to hear Ms. Smith's rationale for advocating Alberta's withdrawal from CPP. I hope that it is based on something more than just pandering to general anti-Ottawa sentiment among her party's base.

Sorry should have been clear I was responding to this, more of it was kind of a funny statement to me. I mean again I don't see much of an anti-Ottawa sentiment from people in this province, whereas I definetely see and hear lots of anti-Ontario and Quebec sentiment. Personally I definetely agree the transfer payment system isn't terribly fair to be funding other provinces budgets and then watching them screw up. But CPP is a strong system and opting out is foolish to me. If you want to introduce APP and offer it as an alternative thats fine, by all means.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I know many aren't fans of Sun News (heck even I can't stand some of their segments), but I found this piece interesting analysis of the debate.
Speaks of body language and how it changed over the course of debate.

I've heard from a few people that Ms. Redford has a bit of a facial tick when it comes to her blinking and eye movements. Judging from Chretien and the fall out from making fun of his Bell's Palsy, I'd be careful with this. Not that I think you were mocking it.

That being said, she definitely looks like a person who is under attack and losing patience over it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I've heard from a few people that Ms. Redford has a bit of a facial tick when it comes to her blinking and eye movements. Judging from Chretien and the fall out from making fun of his Bell's Palsy, I'd be careful with this. Not that I think you were mocking it.

Oh, no not at all. Just found it interesting as I watched the debate with people from PC's, Libs & Alberta Party. Afterwards we re-watched it (PVR'd) and the discussion of body language came up then too.

That being said, she definitely looks like a person who is under attack and losing patience over it.

Agree. It can be extremely difficult to not react and show emotion.

[transplant99]

Im not mocking her or making fun of her, but that looked hilarious....like she was about to lose it completely....moreso cause of the camera angle and how Sherman was in a rant than anything else i think.

Maybe its just me but Redford looks like she has aged 10 years in the last month or so...the pressure must be immense right now.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Now granted these are online poll numbers, but interesting regardless

A post-debate online poll of 615 Albertans who followed Thursday evening's televised contest found Danielle Smith of the Wildrose was seen as the most likable leader (34 per cent) and best able to explain her party's position (30 per cent).

However, PC Leader Alison Redford was viewed as the most competent leader (37 per cent), according to the survey undertaken for the Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal.

Smith and Redford also topped the field as the most convincing leaders (32 per cent and 28 per cent respectively) and most credible leaders (28 per cent and 29 per cent), far ahead of Liberal Raj Sherman and NDP Leader Brian Mason.

When asked who would make the best premier, based on the leaders' performances in the debate, 34 per cent of respondents picked Redford and 33 per cent selected Smith, while 12 per cent chose Sherman and nine per cent said Mason.

The online Leger poll was taken between April 12 and 13. While the margin of error is not reported in non-random surveys, a probability sample of 615 Albertans would result in a margin of error of about four per cent 19 times out of 20.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Alberta...314/story.html

So realistically Redford is viewed fairly well, its more her party that is holding her back.

[The Goon]

Had to laugh - yesterday, in our mailbox, this flyer featured a super-evil picture of Premier Redford:



Seriously, they might as well have drawn devil horns on her.

To contrast, the other image had Ms. Smith:



The flip side of the flyer had a similar comparison between the local Calgary West candidates.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

How can this province have an anti-Ottawa stance when we elected 27/28 MPs from the majority party, including the Prime Minister? Maybe an anti-Eastern Canada stance (moslty Quebec and Ontario), but I'm pretty sure lots of people in this province like who's in Ottawa.

Not only that, but Ottawa is increasingly pro-Alberta. Especially with the talk about immigration reform to fast track more workers for the labor shortage, and of course the idea to approve oil-sand projects in a more efficient manner.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

How can this province have an anti-Ottawa stance when we elected 27/28 MPs from the majority party, including the Prime Minister? Maybe an anti-Eastern Canada stance (moslty Quebec and Ontario), but I'm pretty sure lots of people in this province like who's in Ottawa.

Sure we do. But the people currently in Ottawa won't be there forever, and if Alberta has a desire to discuss its relationship with the feds, now is actually the time to do it. Certainly not when we have an eastern-based party that needs to spend billions of our dollars to buy votes in Quebec and Ontario.

Now, that isn't to say that I support building firewalls. But there are problems with how the provinces and feds interact in some cases, and there is nothing scary about evaluating our options.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

CPP is solvent for a fairly long time into the future (currently managing over $150 billion in assets, up from around $50billion in 2003) because our government can sometimes be wise enough to be forward thinking. In the mid-90's it was projected CPP would be broke by 2015, but instead they consulted with provinces and citizens on how to best keep the plan funded. Essentially they adopted policies to strengthen the plan (increased employer contributions, cost cuts etc), so CPP is actually very strong right now. Obviously there's always ways to improve, so we always have to look at those. In fact I'm not entirely sure we've had a full review since the mid-90s.

Sure, it's solvent, but does it offer a good return-on-investment? Or has the ROI (for an individual) been reduced to less than market in order to dig it out of the hole it was in?
==================

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Sure we do. But the people currently in Ottawa won't be there forever, and if Alberta has a desire to discuss its relationship with the feds, now is actually the time to do it. Certainly not when we have an eastern-based party that needs to spend billions of our dollars to buy votes in Quebec and Ontario.

Heh. Right now we have a western-based part that is spending billions of our dollars to buy votes in Quebec and Ontario. (Also the highest spending Canadian government ever - which they should be, but I take issue with some of the waste.)

[kn]

Charles Adler's video editorial including evidence of Redford denying she ever stated she wanted to change the character of Alberta (1:55 - 2:40):

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../1561502029001

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I think given the eventual demise of the CPP we need to explore all options. For those who are younger a complete opt out might be best. For those my age (pushing 50) a blended model might work. For those on cusp of receiving CPP likely staying the course is best.

You're trumpeting your party's platform without regard for the facts. The CPP is sound for many decades, proven by actuarial analysis. This is what I hate about party politics.

[kn]

Get it, you redneck rube. You gun-toting, mouthbreathing, knuckle dragger. You are backwards. You can't be trusted to help make policy. You could be trusted to re-elect the Tories for four decades. You were smart enough to do that, but nothing more. Now that their 41-year empire is at risk, you have all suddenly become demented and are not to be trusted.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Co...#ixzz1s3WbxWjN

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by kn

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Co...#ixzz1s3WbxWjN

what a well written column....and she hits the nail right on the head...the whole hidden agenda/scary Neo-Con thing is just ridiculous..and if this doesnt spell it out very clearly for those who believe in the boogeyman....then there is nothing that will.

[Jacks]

Baffling why the Wildrose would start bringing up the firewall stuff right now. That sort of thing appeals mainly to the base who are already motivated and are already going to vote for you. They should be trying to attract the centrist PC voter. I support the idea of the province running it's own pension plan and policing but they don't need to be trying to tackle that right away. Form government, signal your intention to move in this direction so it can be debated for a year or so and then make it part of the platform in the next election when you have a track record and people aren't so "scared" of your agenda.

[edslunch]

What I find scary is giving a strong mandate to a woefully inexperienced party headed by a telegenic figurehead backed by a group of polisci ideologues bent on trying out every play in the Reform playbook. I have no love for the PCs but I pray for a minority government either way to save us from their respective worst instincts.

[Senator Clay Davis]

For the record, the last 10 years of CPP ROI (from CPP Investment Board)

2003: (1.1)%
2004: 10.3.%
2005: 8.5%
2006: 15.5%
2007: 12.9%
2008: (0.29)%
2009: (18.6)%
2010: 14.9%
2011: 11.9%
2012(est): 0.1%

So really the only outlier is 2009, which of course is when we had the market in turmoil. Otherwise the plan is offering pretty solid returns and again outside 2009 minimal losses.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

For the record, the last 10 years of CPP ROI (from CPP Investment Board)

2003: (1.1)%
2004: 10.3.%
2005: 8.5%
2006: 15.5%
2007: 12.9%
2008: (0.29)%
2009: (18.6)%
2010: 14.9%
2011: 11.9%
2012(est): 0.1%

So really the only outlier is 2009, which of course is when we had the market in turmoil. Otherwise the plan is offering pretty solid returns and again outside 2009 minimal losses.

Right, but that's (presumably) for the whole fund. As an individual, what matters to me is whether or not my CPP payouts will reflect this rate of return, or if I'm overcontributing to keep it "sustainable" and fund the retirements of the baby boomers.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by SebC

Right, but that's (presumably) for the whole fund. As an individual, what matters to me is whether or not my CPP payouts will reflect this rate of return, or if I'm overcontributing to keep it "sustainable" and fund the retirements of the baby boomers.

Which is precisely the rationale for an Alberta Pension Plan. The idea is not so much to assert independence, or a concern of the central government screwing us, but because Alberta's demographics are a lot younger than the rest of Canada. Albertans would likely have to contribute less than they have to now under the CPP, and likely receive a better payout when they retire, as the money has more time to mature.

I believe Quebec already has an autonomous pension plan.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Again I'm getting this stuff from the CPP and CPPIB websites, but apparently assets held in the CPP fund are by themselves insufficient to pay for all future benefits accrued to date but sufficient to prevent contributions from rising any further and that CPP's chief actuary showed that this type of funding method is "robust and appropriate" given reasonable assumptions about future conditions.

So again, with proper management, the system seems to be in a strong position going forward. CPP is according the various reports published on the CPP and CPPIB websites solvent until 2075 at least. Unlike social security in US America, we've actually managed our fund very well (SS projected to be broke by around 2038)