April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The statement "Not your Father's PC Party" is pretty bad. When you see how well "our Father's" PC party ran this province, I would have voted for it.

What I find funny is... that ad comes out and shortly thereafter Redford gets Lougheed to endorse her...

So let me see.... it's not my fathers party; but this is the guy my father voted for.... hmmm

What's that saying.... suckin' & blowin'

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Sigh....

[/B]

So have you contacted the police? Clearly you must be very upset that this hate speech is happening and he was never charged?

Or maybe, they can explain to you how idiotic your suggestion is.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Look I don't dispute that the PCs are fear mongering, because I've said all party's do it. No matter whether you call it fear mongering, conspiracy, tricks whatever, its appealing to emotion, the lowest common denominator, And the fact the SCOC is almost certain to vote down any citizen initiated referendum, then why the hell even have it out there as an issue? Other than to give those misinformed the belief they get laws passed through a referendum. If its going to be shot down anyways, why waste anyone's time/money? (Especially money. We know how expensive long court fights can be. Doesn't strike me as fiscally conservative.)

Because freedom applies to all, not just those you find convenient. Truth is, as long as the criteria for a citizen sponsored referendum is set appropriately (i.e.: higher than California), it is very unlikely that they would ever get such a thing on a ballot in the first place. Let them spin their wheels. It's their time, their money and their loss of respect amongst their peers to do so.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by SebC

You mean terrible?

Conservative trangressions:
- Cutting an most economically efficient tax (GST) to "return the surplus to taxpayers" when we should have been saving it, while simultaenously increasing spending about 40% (still talking pre-recession), thus creating a structural deficit.
- Initiating a tough-of-crime/war-on-drugs agenda that immitates failed American policies. The long term costs of this program WILL be huge.
- Undermined said agenda by destroying the long gun registry (and being arrogant enough to prevent future governments from restoring it if that is the public will by deleting the data). Tough on pot, soft on guns!
- Predicted that Canada would not go into recession, and thus didn't budget any stimulus spending until forced to by the opposition.
- Set a bad precendent by proroguing parliament when the PM clearly had lost the support of the House of Commons.
- Continued attempts to pass regressive copyright law that stifles innovation.
- Found in contempt of parliament for failing to provide proper information to parliament.

Harper's government has been a mix of misguided "vision" (copyright) and populist garbage (GST cut, tough on crime). When he does the populist thing, it's usually bad policy, and when he spends his political capital on things that are unpopular, they're often bad policies too.

============

You're Peter Lougheed? "Nanny Alli" is Peter Lougheed?

I disagree with you on the bolded parts, but agree with you on the non-bolded parts. Thing is, the "scary" Conservative party was supposed to destroy things other than the ones you brought up (with the exception of the Long Gun Registry, which I agree should be scrapped). They were supposed to destroy abortion, gay marriage, ect. They were supposed to send troops into the heart of our cities to impose some scary form of totalitarian power. And they haven't. Instead they took a country that had it's economy intimately tied to the American economy, and led it through the economic crisis of 2008 in the best shape out of all the western nations with no exception.

Every party out there is going to have policies you disagree with. If your views are partisan, you will be especially able to find an issue with any party out there. Many of those transgressions you listed are indeed transgressions, but they are minor both compared to what they were "supposed" to do, and when you compare the good they have actually done.

The Wildrose is supposed to be Super-de-duper scary. Just like the Federal Conservatives were according to the Federal Liberals. And like the Federal Conservatives, they will do some things that you will disagree with. That's the nature of politics. But when you compare them to the actual slide in competence the PC party has exhibited, there is no reason to be as scared as many here seem to want you to be.

[Senator Clay Davis]

If freedome of religion guarentees you can say whatever you want, then by that logic a church that hates blacks and wants them all dead is protected?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Reading this thread it seems that everyone is either voting for the Wildrose or they are against the Wildrose. There has been a lot of speculation that the WRA may have a hidden agenda or terrible social policies but not much in the way of support for the other parties.
I would then like to ask, If you don't think that we should vote in the WRA, who do you propose that people vote for and more importantly, why?

I think that people should attempt to vote for a minority government. A WRA minority is, in my opinion, the best possible outcome of this election of any realistic scenarios (and a Conservative minority the second best). The PCs have reached a point where they are in need of a complete overhaul, and Redford won the leadership contest on that mandate but has thus far failed to deliver. As for the WRA, I don't think there is a hidden agenda, but I truly question whether they have the experience and ability to put together a functional government and at the same time deliver on the rather ambitious ideas of change they've promised. Giving them a minority government forces them to move along relatively slowly and carefully, which I think would be good for them right now.

Obviously, voting for a minority isn't an option on the ballot, so it requires a strategic vote. It's an easy decision for me, I'll vote for my incumbent Liberal candidate; he's been a good representative in past years, and diversity of opinion in the legislature is important to me. For others, this probably means voting for the Conservatives, which I realize might be distasteful. But at this point a Conservative majority looks pretty-much off the table, so ensuring that at least some Calgary ridings stay Conservative would be a safe strategy in ensuring that nobody gets a majority.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I agree that a Wildrose minority is the best outcome. Let them get some experience, show the people they can be a functional government (especially since they'll have to work with other parties). Everything being equally, the Wildrose platform is probably the best platform top to bottom...its just the most unbelievable and hardest to imagine actually happening to me. But if they can prove it in the legislature, I'll gladly vote for them in the future.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I disagree with you on the bolded parts, but agree with you on the non-bolded parts. Thing is, the "scary" Conservative party was supposed to destroy things other than the ones you brought up (with the exception of the Long Gun Registry, which I agree should be scrapped). They were supposed to destroy abortion, gay marriage, ect. They were supposed to send troops into the heart of our cities to impose some scary form of totalitarian power. And they haven't. Instead they took a country that had it's economy intimately tied to the American economy, and led it through the economic crisis of 2008 in the best shape out of all the western nations with no exception.

Agree that the perceived hidden agenda wasn't what happened (yet ). But there was a hidden agenda, we just didn't know what is was (who knew he was going to take an axe to the long form census). But I absolutely do not trust Stephen Harper. I don't trust him to do what's best for the economy (see GST cut, which as a trained economist I presume he knew was a bad idea, but went ahead with it anyways - the alternative is that he is a moron). I still don't trust him on social issues either, since he's been building political capital more than he's been spending it, which to me begs the question, "for what?" and I see the marijuana manditory sentencing as proof that he is willing to implement regressive social policy.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Every party out there is going to have policies you disagree with. If your views are partisan, you will be especially able to find an issue with any party out there. Many of those transgressions you listed are indeed transgressions, but they are minor both compared to what they were "supposed" to do, and when you compare the good they have actually done.

I suspect the reason you see it that way is because of Canada's economic performance through the recession. I don't give them the credit for this that you do. We had a stable banking sector thanks to previous governments, and we were able to afford our stimulus spending thanks largely to Paul Martin. The budget that was implemented included stimulus spending because the opposition would have toppled the Conservatives had it not, and we were already in a worse position for stimulus spending because of the GST cut and spending increases pre-recession. As far as I'm concerned, we pulled through the recession very well in spite of the Conservatives, rather than because of them. (If they were leading Canada, it was in the direction that the Libs and the NDP were leading them.)

I agree that all parties will have flaws. I've made a post where I pointed some of them out. That's why I think the best outcome for Alberta is a minority government, so that the PCs and Wildrose can keep each other in check. (Edit: did not see the posts above me when I wrote this!)

Originally Posted by Knalus

The Wildrose is supposed to be Super-de-duper scary. Just like the Federal Conservatives were according to the Federal Liberals. And like the Federal Conservatives, they will do some things that you will disagree with. That's the nature of politics. But when you compare them to the actual slide in competence the PC party has exhibited, there is no reason to be as scared as many here seem to want you to be.

I don't see the PCs as sliding in competence. I see Redford more favourably than Klein or Stelmach (not old enough to remember anyone before that), although I'm not a fan of her teacher vote-buying. I also don't see a lot of competence within the Wildrose party. I think part of the reason I don't trust them is that they haven't been very clear on where they stand. Their budget is questionable (see Slava's posts), and "we won't legislate social policy, but we will allow the most regressive policies that aren't anti-consitutional to go to referedum" isn't very clear either. If they appear to be leaving the door open, perhaps it is because they actually are leaving the door open?

And of course the other reason I don't trust them is because the man behind the party, Tom Flanagan, is the same guy who is behind the federal Conservatives. And for the reasons outlined above, I haven't been a fan of their work.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Reading this thread it seems that everyone is either voting for the Wildrose or they are against the Wildrose. There has been a lot of speculation that the WRA may have a hidden agenda or terrible social policies but not much in the way of support for the other parties.
I would then like to ask, If you don't think that we should vote in the WRA, who do you propose that people vote for and more importantly, why?

I think the worst possible (likely) outcome from this election is a WRP majority. Not because I believe all of their policies are bunk but because as a populist party they are claiming they can do things that either they really cant or really shouldn't do. A majority PC government would be slightly less disastrous and the ideal situation of either party having a minority is probably the best result for Alberta.

That said, as I have mentioned in this thread, I have disregarded all party policy and will vote on the basis of candidates in my riding. The PC candidate lied to me directly, hoping I wouldn't catch it, then covered it up with a claim of ignorance. The WRP candidate said he would look into it, but clearly never did or decided to ignore the issue entirely. Interestingly enough, the WRP candidate in a neighbouring riding that I contacted as well, responded and resolved my concerns within a couple hours - I actually wish I could vote for him.

Still undecided, but learning towards WRP right now.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't see the PCs as sliding in competence. I see Redford more favourably than Klein or Stelmach (not old enough to remember anyone before that), although I'm not a fan of her teacher vote-buying. I also don't see a lot of competence within the Wildrose party. I think part of the reason I don't trust them is that they haven't been very clear on where they stand. Their budget is questionable (see Slava's posts), and "we won't legislate social policy, but we will allow the most regressive policies that aren't anti-consitutional to go to referedum" isn't very clear either. If they appear to be leaving the door open, perhaps it is because they actually are leaving the door open?

You don't see them as sliding in competence?

Even with a Royalty Review they brought in unsolicited that resulted in a massive change that was full of unintended consequences, with the final result being the same Royalty now as before?

Or the power structure of the party which allows everyone's second choice to ultimately become the premier, whether or not it is in the best interests of the party or the province?

Or how about when Redford came into power, how she attempted to cancel the Fall sitting of the Legislature, only to flip flop on that matter after pressure, still only allowing one or two days in that legislature?

Or how about appointing her largest political rival to a post in Asia, only to remove him from the post?

The no-meet committees, that were not dreamed up by Redford, but by a party with a negative grip on power over their own members?

And then Redford's oh-so-rational and deliberate attempt to suspend the committee, then after outrage, oh so slowly trying to get her members to pay it back, before finally demanding it? How long and how many attempts did it take for her to figure out the right answer?

Or the Budget that was supposed to be the end all of the PC party plan, but when slipping in the polls she pulls so many more promises out of her hat?

Or the wonderful idea that Alison Redford came up with during the election where she invented triage? How can they invent something like this without consulting the college of physicians as to whether or not this is necessary? Or even in place?

Or the fact Redford and the party was unable to see the writing on the wall and prepared for this election poorly?

Not to mention unpopular legislation or a leader who cannot represent the members of her own party, much less the province.

You don't think there is a slipping in competence here? Your list for the Federal Government's issues was far more minor.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by First Lady

What I find funny is... that ad comes out and shortly thereafter Redford gets Lougheed to endorse her...

So let me see.... it's not my fathers party; but this is the guy my father voted for.... hmmm

It's a stupid move which I don't know what PC is trying to accomplish here.

If I am a PC supporter, are you telling me the today's PC is not PC anymore so that I should vote for you?

If I am not a PC supporter, are you telling me it is safe to vote PC now because they are not really PC?

What's next? Please vote Redford because she's not the Redford who "wreck the PC"?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You don't think there is a slipping in competence here? Your list for the Federal Government's issues was far more minor.

One thing I don't understand about Redford is why did she insist on passing the budget before calling the election? Why hamstring yourself with the budget when this election isn't even based on the budget?

Seems to me that Redford has a very high opinion of herself. She though that once the public would clamor her once they've seen the budget. Turned out that nobody cared about the budget but a messy $1000/month no meet committee pay could very well done her in.

Hopefully, I would only need to endure her holier than thou attitude for another week.

[kn]

A couple things I heard today which I found interesting...

* Jessica Chawrun, the PC Alberta Communications Manager, replied to an email stating that the funding for new schools and existing schools is a priority and definitely not surplus dependent. The PCs can't make up their minds on this one and seem to change their version depending on the audience they're addressing.

* I heard tolerance defined today as "requiring us to accept views against which we are vehemently opposed." A dictionary definition suggests tolerance is "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own." Tolerance cannot be acceptance only if it adheres to one's one opinion or worldview. I think Smith's response to Hunsperger reflects this position more accurately than the outrage from Redford.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by kn

A couple things I heard today which I found interesting...

* Jessica Chawrun, the PC Alberta Communications Manager, replied to an email stating that the funding for new schools and existing schools is a priority and definitely not surplus dependent. The PCs can't make up their minds on this one and seem to change their version depending on the audience they're addressing.

* I heard tolerance defined today as "requiring us to accept views against which we are vehemently opposed." A dictionary definition suggests tolerance is "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own." Tolerance cannot be acceptance only if it adheres to one's one opinion or worldview. I think Smith's response to Hunsperger reflects this position more accurately than the outrage from Redford.

Again, this is where it gets tricky. What one person considers fair and objective another person may not. Some people view being gay as a sin as a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices of others, because they justify it through their religion. I think the first definition is a more accurate description of what at least I consider tolerance, that you accept someone without any reservations whatsoever, whether you agree with their views or not.

As to the other point, yeah the PCs are in a dogfight they never figured they would be. The flip-flopping seems about right.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You don't see them as sliding in competence?

Even with a Royalty Review they brought in unsolicited that resulted in a massive change that was full of unintended consequences, with the final result being the same Royalty now as before?

Or the power structure of the party which allows everyone's second choice to ultimately become the premier, whether or not it is in the best interests of the party or the province?

Or how about when Redford came into power, how she attempted to cancel the Fall sitting of the Legislature, only to flip flop on that matter after pressure, still only allowing one or two days in that legislature?

Or how about appointing her largest political rival to a post in Asia, only to remove him from the post?

The no-meet committees, that were not dreamed up by Redford, but by a party with a negative grip on power over their own members?

And then Redford's oh-so-rational and deliberate attempt to suspend the committee, then after outrage, oh so slowly trying to get her members to pay it back, before finally demanding it? How long and how many attempts did it take for her to figure out the right answer?

Or the Budget that was supposed to be the end all of the PC party plan, but when slipping in the polls she pulls so many more promises out of her hat?

Or the wonderful idea that Alison Redford came up with during the election where she invented triage? How can they invent something like this without consulting the college of physicians as to whether or not this is necessary? Or even in place?

Or the fact Redford and the party was unable to see the writing on the wall and prepared for this election poorly?

Not to mention unpopular legislation or a leader who cannot represent the members of her own party, much less the province.

You don't think there is a slipping in competence here? Your list for the Federal Government's issues was far more minor.

Royalty review: terrible, which means relative to Stelmach, Redford is better (granted, she hasn't had the opportunity to do something that stupid).

Leadership process: sorry, I support instant run-off. I'd rather have everyone's second choice than a minority's first first choice.

Not meeting: lame, but understandable when it's election season.

Mar appointment: botched, but pretty insignificant.

No-meet committee: pretty terrible, but again, Redford's position is an improvement over her predecessor.

Vote-buying not included in budget: bad, but not as bad as screwing up revenues (Stelmach) or demolishing / selling-off hospitals (Klein).

Inveting triage: silly, but so was the superboard. Redford could correct this before trying to implement it. Superboard is already done.

Prepared for the election poorly? I think she's being punished for the past actions of the PCs more than her own, much like Ignatieff was punished for Dion's failures.

That does not add up to "worse than the federal Conservatives". Silly gaffes and political missteps do not bother me as much as implementing policies that will cause long-term social (tough on crime) and economic problems (structural deficit), as the feds have done. The GST cuts / pre-recession spending increases / initial refusal towards stimulus spending were major errors in economic policy. And the libertarian in me takes big offense to their approach to marijuana, which I see as punishing a victimless crime - that's something that really bugs me on an idealogical level (and no, I don't partake in it myself).

I like I said, when I say I don't see their competency slipping, I'm evaluating Redford relative to Stelmach/Klein... especially Stelmach. If we're talking Redford/Stelmach vs Klein/Getty/Lougheed, maybe things are different.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So since I think we're all going to agree to disagree on tolerance and all that stuff, I have something I'd like to know, and I guess I'm directing this at the Wildrose folk (First_Lady perhaps?) since they no doubt are better versed on their policies than I am.

How does the wait time guarentee work? If the wait time isn't met, and private hospitals and clinics have to be used (in province or out), how does the payment for services outside the public health system work? Does the government pay for the entire operation in the private hospital/clinic? Do they simply give a voucher for the equivalent amount the operation would cost in the public system?

My concern in either case is of course is that when you bring private into the health care equation, profit also enters to equation. So obviously they have no reason to offer these procedures at the public health rate. Meaning either the government will pay more for health care (and our taxes rise no doubt), or patients have to come up with the difference between the cost and the theoritical voucher value, making it highly unlikely they will choose the more expensive option and thus not actually helping with wait times at all. Just curious how it all works really.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If freedome of religion guarentees you can say whatever you want, then by that logic a church that hates blacks and wants them all dead is protected?

You're losing track of your own point now. The first half of your what-if talks of speech. Your second half talks of action. Apples and oranges.

Thanks to freedom of speech, there are people comfortable in stating they believe all gays will burn in hell. That same freedom of speech allows the Aryan Nations to hold little white-power protests. (And in the US especially, black power on the other side)

There are two good things about this for society: First, that these views are held by an ever shrinking minority of people. And second, that we don't limit protected speech to what we individually support. There is always a counter protest anywhere the Aryan Nations or Westboro Baptist Cult goes.

Now, obviously there comes a point in the Canadian charter where such speech does cross a line. Much like you can't defend yourself with "free speech, bitches!" if you start a panic by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, at some point such statements can become hate speech. Where that line is, I wouldn't care to say. But I do think it is quite a bit past "all gays will burn in hell". Afterall, to borrow your trick, would "all Christians will burn in hell" constitute hate speech in your mind? Probably not.

Related to this election, I can say that I would much rather trust the judgement of a judge to decide where that line is than the idiots that make up the AHRC. The legal system, at least, tends to be held to precedent, allowing for a more defined understanding of where that line is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're losing track of your own point now. The first half of your what-if talks of speech. Your second half talks of action. Apples and oranges.

Thanks to freedom of speech, there are people comfortable in stating they believe all gays will burn in hell. That same freedom of speech allows the Aryan Nations to hold little white-power protests. (And in the US especially, black power on the other side)

There are two good things about this for society: First, that these views are held by an ever shrinking minority of people. And second, that we don't limit protected speech to what we individually support. There is always a counter protest anywhere the Aryan Nations or Westboro Baptist Cult goes.

Now, obviously there comes a point in the Canadian charter where such speech does cross a line. Much like you can't defend yourself with "free speech, bitches!" if you start a panic by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, at some point such statements can become hate speech. Where that line is, I wouldn't care to say. But I do think it is quite a bit past "all gays will burn in hell". Afterall, to borrow your trick, would "all Christians will burn in hell" constitute hate speech in your mind? Probably not.

Related to this election, I can say that I would much rather trust the judgement of a judge to decide where that line is than the idiots that make up the AHRC. The legal system, at least, tends to be held to precedent, allowing for a more defined understanding of where that line is.

While I see what you're saying, because the US has no hate speech legislation in place(they don't) it is different for them. They can literally say anything they want and be protected, whereas here we do have hate speech legislation and laws, making it a more slippery slope.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The PCs saying gays could be in trouble isn't wrong, because of course citizen intiated referendums can rally enough votes to put gay marriage and equal rights on the ballot. California Prop 8 anyone?

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I agree that I don't think you could get the votes, but its not wrong to suggest is it? Its not impossible at all to imagine enough signatures being gathered to at least put it on the ballot. And thats the problem, once it's one the ballot, then its an option. It shouldn't be an option. We live in a country of equality for all, which I will always believe in.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And the fact the SCOC is almost certain to vote down any citizen initiated referendum, then why the hell even have it out there as an issue? Other than to give those misinformed the belief they get laws passed through a referendum. If its going to be shot down anyways, why waste anyone's time/money? (Especially money. We know how expensive long court fights can be. Doesn't strike me as fiscally conservative.)

Why do you keep saying this stuff?

Let's forget that they would have to get 20% of the population to sign a petition in 6 months which would be almost impossible. Let's forget that if it got on the ballot that over 50% would have to vote for it.

The WR has said very clearly that any proposed referendum would be cleared through a federal judge to ensure that it is constitutinal. Banning gay marriage, banning abortion, rounding up transgendered and putting them in concentration camps and any other silly scenario that the PC's can think up would not be constitutional therefore no referendum.

Please stop parroting the PC fear campaign.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Why do you keep saying this stuff?

Let's forget that they would have to get 20% of the population to sign a petition in 6 months which would be almost impossible. Let's forget that if it got on the ballot that over 50% would have to vote for it.

The WR has said very clearly that any proposed referendum would be cleared through a federal judge to ensure that it is constitutinal. Banning gay marriage, banning abortion, rounding up transgendered and putting them in concentration camps and any other silly scenario that the PC's can think up would not be constitutional therefore no referendum.

Please stop parroting the PC fear campaign.

Forgetting something, are we?

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter

Not saying Danielle is going to use it, but its a tool out there. So clearly a federal judge can be made irrelevant. Also I'm not voting PC so I could care less what they say. I'm looking at this from the perspective of an independent person, not that I expect to be able to convince Wildrose supporters otherwise.