April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I don't know how common it is (I've haven't been involved in other parties) and I'm not sure how effective it is either.

I've been around politics a while and I've never heard of this practice. I'd venture a guess that it's virtually unheard of, but I'd defer to anyone who knows differently.

I have a similar concern about my Wild Rose candidate; she has virtually no shot at my vote, but I do like to hear from every candidate, if only to soothe my own vanity about making "informed choices." I've received no information from her, she has no website that I've been able to find, and I've had doorknockers from the other two parties and not Wild Rose.

The Wild Rose has a bio describing her (decidedly average) resume, but other than that I literally don't know the first thing about her or what she believes about anything.

I also see fewer lawn signs for her than anyone else, which is weird given that according to the polls we're bracing ourselves for a Wild Rose sweep of Calgary. Is her campaign just not very organized?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

http://www.votepc.ca/admin/contentx/...d=2496&r=10187

Creating an Alberta Pension Plan with the same modified "pay as you go" financing as the CPP does not deal with the issue of today's workers paying the previous generations' pensions or the fact that, as the number of retirees increases in proportion to the number of active contributors, the contribution of the younger generation increases.

This is why CPP sucks. It might be sustainable, but it does so by being a bad investment for young people. Nice to see the PCs acknowledging the problem, but do they have a solution?

==========

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So with all this talk about seemingly more "protectionism" and "firewalls" by the Wildrose, it really leads me to believe this: I think this province is a whole lot closer to seperating from Canada than Quebec is. I think Quebec can't even afford to seperate from Canada, whereas obviously Alberta probably could (at least until the oil runs out).

You'd think so, but that relies on Quebec having a rational grasp on their financial interests. Or perhaps their bluffing and we just haven't called them on it, but they did get really close to the edge.

[Smartcar]

I was interested in WR until the energy dividend thing, what a stupid waste of money, cut taxes instead or spend it on education. This gag deposit just takes the cake. No way I'm voting for WR now.

[SHOGUN]

So which party supports spending $ in healthcare and hospitals?

[GP_Matt]

You can't cut taxes because of a one time surplus. Unless you want to raise them the next year The dividend fixes that issues As for education you could use it for one time grants but the goal is not to do anything that will commit spending the following year.

[EddyBeers]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2401848/

I am actually surprised there have not been more articles looking into the Wild Rose candidates. I imagine these will pop up more as it looks more likely that they will win the election. I think the inaccessibility of the candidates also contributes to these stories. This guy in Calgary Greenway looks like a real diamond in the rough

[SebC]

So... does this guy lose his bozo deposit, or is there a statute of limitations on it?

Edit: link broke, here's a screenshot.

Spoiler!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by SebC

So... does this guy lose his bozo deposit, or is there a statute of limitations on it?

Because this wasn't a media request, rather his own ramblings, he didn't need to clear it with HQ. And he won the nomination, so he's already gotten his $1,000 back.

Originally Posted by SebC

This is why CPP sucks. It might be sustainable, but it does so by being a bad investment for young people. Nice to see the PCs acknowledging the problem, but do they have a solution?

==========
You'd think so, but that relies on Quebec having a rational grasp on their financial interests. Or perhaps their bluffing and we just haven't called them on it, but they did get really close to the edge.

I agree CPP is nowhere near perfect, but if someone is planning ahead with that as their largest source of post-retirement income I'm not sure how wise that is. I view CPP more as a good supplement to what someone should also have, a good retirement plan on their own (TFSAs, RRSP etc).

And actually the CPP method is a hybrid of a Pay-As-You-Go and fully funded program, which apparently is more robust if proper assumptions as made. Again as long as we want to actually continue to re-evaluate the system, we should ensure its solvency in theory forever.

And I too have never heard of a bond to ensure anyone stays quiet, especially failed candidates. I mean if they support the party (which given they wanted to be running for, doesn't seem like a stretch), wouldn't they want to do whats in the party's best interest? If you're afraid they might sabotage other candidates, doesn't that not speak to a dysfunctional party?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Have you tried calling or emailing?

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

In short no, I do not understand why the candidate will not just show up at the debates.To email me back (or have someone in his office email back the party talking points) would not be the same as appearing at a debate. There are two more debates coming up, rumour has it the wildrose guy will not appear at the one on the 17th, but will appear at the one on the 19th because the rural papers in my riding go to press on the 18th.

I just wanted to add to this: phone/email/door knocking is not the same as a public forum in the sense that the candidate isn't committing anything to the public record. My candidate has twice completely ignored questions from me on twitter (which is sort of the same public record), and in case you're wondering they weren't exactly hard hitting either!

Today we have one forum, the only one in the riding. I don't know if he will show up, and never considered the idea that he wouldn't. I really wanted to ask him some questions though and will be very disappointed if he fails to show.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SHOGUN

So which party supports spending $ in healthcare and hospitals?

The Liberals and NDP probably support this to the highest extent. Raj Sherman works a day a week as an ER doctor still (Liberal leader) and has a grasp of the issues there far better than the others IMO.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

So... does this guy lose his bozo deposit, or is there a statute of limitations on it?

I know that he is exactly the kind of guy who should have free votes to represent 40,000 people though.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by First Lady

What, that we have average "Joes" (or Janes) who come to web forums to discuss policy?

No, what I hate about party politics is you generally toe the party line. Not you specifically, but provincial and federal politicians. Don't like something? Doesn't matter, it's our policy. It's not for me. Muni politics is great 'cause it's every man and woman for him/herself.

[killer_carlson]

2nd time in the election the sign on my lawn was taken overnight.

The ndp signs in the area haven't been touched.

Friday night the wild rose signs on the main drag were all removed as well.

It really pi$$es me off when someone comes to my house and has to walk on my property to remove the sign.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2401848/

I am actually surprised there have not been more articles looking into the Wild Rose candidates. I imagine these will pop up more as it looks more likely that they will win the election. I think the inaccessibility of the candidates also contributes to these stories. This guy in Calgary Greenway looks like a real diamond in the rough

There are candidates in each party like that though. There are always a few "characters" in the mix.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know that he is exactly the kind of guy who should have free votes to represent 40,000 people though.

[Shudder]

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

So... does this guy lose his bozo deposit, or is there a statute of limitations on it?

Again (I'm pretty sure I've stated this before) all candidates have had their bonds returned. Bonds are only being held on the unsuccessful nominee candidates, like my husband.

AND bonds have nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather following the rules.

[Makarov]

From an article by Warren Kinsella in yesterday's Toronto Sun:

Here are some of the things that Smith said before Wildrose existed, and before she became its leader. She was a lot more candid, back then.

n On abortion: “... Any politician who challenges the status quo gets pilloried by the media, abortion rights groups and opposing politicians ... Yet, second- and third-trimester abortions are a horrific practice ... Most Canadians respect that the decision is between a woman, her doctor and God, but I’m sure they also agree that the taxpayer should not be on the hook to pay for it.”

n On university behaviour codes: “It is perfectly reasonable (to) expect its students to refrain from practices that are biblically condemned, and sign a pledge not to get drunk, swear, harass, lie, cheat, steal, have an abortion, practise the occult, or engage in sexual sins such as premarital sex, adultery, homosexual behaviour and viewing of pornography.”

n On the courts: “There are several decisions social conservatives point to in order to make the case the courts are out of control: Striking down the abortion law, the change in the traditional definition of marriage, the legalization of swingers’ clubs.”

n On overriding charter rights: “The notwithstanding clause is simply not necessary. Politicians are wily enough to find a way to violate charter rights with or without it.”

Those statements are on the record, and readily available via the Internet. There are many more. Smith’s expressed opinions paint the picture of a far-right social conservative, one who wanted to circumvent the courts, and the law, to impose her social agenda.

SOURCE: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/13...letely-off-key

ETA: I don't necessarily agree with the article's conclusions. I just thought people might be interested in some extra-provincial views on the Wildrose Alliance.

[Thunderball]

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what the Eastern media and Liberal syncophant Warren Kinsella think about Alberta and the Wildrose Party. Its a well loved myth here that Alberta is hard social right republican, and it would be a shame for Ontario to have to think any different.

Good for him to cherrypick a few quotes (likely out of context since Danielle was a columnist and journalist) and spin them into some good old fashioned fearmongery. I notice he didn't think her stance on legalizing red light districts was scary, nor her openly stating she was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but that sort of runs counter to a hard right social agenda.

First, there is certainly an argument to de-list abortion when essentials like optometry, ambulatory care, physiotherapy and dentistry have been at the mercy of secondary insurance for years. Personal choice, personal cost. I personally don't think that should be the case, but its not a "scary" viewpoint at all. I don't think you'd find a doctor in Canada who would do a third trimester abortion anyway, since the concept is horrifying.

Second, university behavior codes. I assume this is discussing private universities, not imposing them on Canadian public schools, but since Kinsella loves assumption and hyperbole, lets assume I'm right. If I want to go to a religious institute, I should have to agree to abide by their rules. Why else would I go there if not to embrace their morality? If I don't want to, I don't go (and save my money by going to a public institution). The army has a moral code too, including things like hair length. If I don't feel I want to abide by it, I don't sign up. I rejected offers from American schools with moral codes because I don't want to adhere to it. I didn't consider it discrimination, just rules they had that I don't like. They have the right to be backwards and ignorant, I have the right to call it that, and refuse.

On the courts. A lot of people feel the judiciary is there to enforce and interpret laws handed down by the legislative branch, not to create new laws. (of course interpretation can easily create new ones). She's not necessarily agreeing with anything here, just saying there's a case that can be made. Especially if you are of the belief that societal change should not be dictated, but evolved through society. Misguided, sure. Hard right? possibly. But nothing wrong with judicial scrutiny and maintaining a check and balance.

On overriding charter rights. The notwithstanding clause can't even be used on equality, liberty or conscience rights anyway. So in a way she has a very jaded point, probably not a well researched one anyway. Politicians can and do stick handle around these by their interpretation of s. 1 amongst other things. This is a jaded view, but again, not a particularly dangerous one.

Essentially, this is the rambling of a very biased person whose raison d'etre is to try and ressurect his dead party. I think the Toronto Star and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix should keep their opinions of Alberta politics to themselves, since the ignorance displayed in this article, and the Star-Phoenix's attack on Alison Redford were embarassing.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

There are candidates in each party like that though. There are always a few "characters" in the mix.

That's like defending the Canuck fanbase because every team has ######bag fans.

The portfolio of candidates should stand on its own merit.

[Makarov]

From the Wildrose Alliance's website:

Wildrose is under attack!

The same people that caused the Liberal Party of Canada to be in power for 13 uninterrupted years now have Wildrose in their crosshairs. They want nothing more than to see the Redford PCs re-elected to impose their big government-knows-best, ivory tower views on all of us.

While Wildrose has been campaigning positively, releasing our 5 Pledges, the Redford PCs have descended into the gutter, attacking Danielle and the Wildrose policies she is presenting to Albertans. For 40 years Albertans have had only one conservative option- the PCs, but now Albertans have a choice in Danielle and Wildrose.

WTF? Who are they referring to here? The provincial Conservatives? Or some shadowy conspiracy? Very strange.

I also enjoyed the juxtaposition of "Wildrose has been campaigning positively" and "[t]hey want nothing more than to see the Redford PCs re-elected to impose their big government-knows-best, ivory tower views on all of us."