April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by edslunch

To be fair to Ms. Smith there may be nothing to hide but clearly there is a media feeding frenzy forming that can only hurt WRA no matter what they do. Avoiding is her least bad option.

[Edit] I don't condone it - she has an obligation to face the voters - but i can understand it from a strategy perspective

I can understand it, but it happening will influence my vote and many others during this final week. Also, I wanted to clarify that I really don't think the WRP as a whole should bear the brunt of what one idiot posted on his blog. He should never be elected to political office, of course.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Doing other events and not media makes it even worse. That shows she's looking to duck the media. If you can't take the heat....

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

It's one thing to be good in front of the camera with a script and being in control of the message. It's another thing to be on the receiving end of criticism and having to respond to questions on the spot. Remember Smith isn't a sitting MLA at the moment, she hasn't had to respond to questions and debates in the legislature like the other leaders have.

Running from the media right now shows inexperience and plays in to the narrative of not being ready to govern.

While thats all very true, you'd like to think just being in the media industry they would have picked up on some pointers/helpful advice on how to deal with a firestorm. They outta both know running and hidding is not a good approach.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

knife Redford in the back as leader in the interim, then elect someone as leader who's actually center-right ideologically.

To me all the PC needs to do is to get rid of Redford. They didn't even want her to run for the premiership in the first place and she got in on a fluke. Bad as Gary Mar is, they won't be in this dire straits if Mar was the premier.

I for one won't even jump ship to WR if Mar was the premier. That isn't my endorsement for Mar but just evidence how bad Redford is. Once the polls at the end of March came out and lifelong PCers saw that WR stood a real chance of winning, the flood gate was open and nothing could stop it now.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by darklord700

To me all the PC needs to do is to get rid of Redford. They didn't even want her to run for the premiership in the first place and she got in on a fluke. Bad as Gary Mar is, they won't be in this dire straits if Mar was the premier.

I for one won't even jumped ship to WR if Mar was the premier. That isn't my endorsement for Mar but just evidence how bad Redford is. Once the polls at the end of March came out and lifelong PCers saw that WR stood a real chance of winning, the flood gate was open and nothing could stop it now.

I agree with this sentiment, except I still would have voted WR even with Mar as premier. He's the quintessential corrupt politician who epitomizes the problem with 40 years in power. He probably likely would have kept things between the lines as far as not moving the PCs into lefty territory but corrupt and a problem non the less.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So in choosing Gary Mar, clearly an establishment PC candidate (since 1993) over Redford (2008), that constitutes "change"? Because after all, thats what this election is about right?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So in choosing Gary Mar, clearly an establishment PC candidate (since 1993) over Redford (2008), that constitutes "change"? Because after all, thats what this election is about right?

The election is about 'Change' vis-a-vis the direction the PCs have taken since Stelmach got elected leader in Dec 2006. Not 'change' in the sense that we're looking to go to the left for answers to today's problems. That's why it's not a smooth cruise to a majority for Redford and why Liberal support is shrinking like a trip to the cold pool.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Gotcha. Its more about wanting to see a return to what the party was before (Klein era?), hence why the Wildrose appeals to many. I guess change is probably not the right word, more "Returning to the roots".

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I agree with this sentiment, except I still would have voted WR even with Mar as premier. He's the quintessential corrupt politician who epitomizes the problem with 40 years in power. He probably likely would have kept things between the lines as far as not moving the PCs into lefty territory but corrupt and a problem non the less.

The PC's were always their most popular when sitting as a center right party, under Klein for example. Two successive leaders pushing the PC party leftwards has opened up a huge gap in the political picture which the Wildrose has capitalized upon.

That's why we are seeing liberal support collapse and move to the PC's with the Wildrose clearly the only conservative option available.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Lets be real about the Wildrose: They are true not fiscal conservatives. In fact of all the party platforms I've looked at, amazingly the Liberal platform is probably the most fiscally conservative (save the tax increase).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Lets be real about the Wildrose: They are true not fiscal conservatives. In fact of all the party platforms I've looked at, amazingly the Liberal platform is probably the most fiscally conservative (save the tax increase).

A tax increase doesn't mean that they're not fiscally conservative. It means that they are wanting to provide a certain level of services and to do so this is how they'll pay for it. They really have the only logical fiscally conservative platform out there at this point in time, whether or not the others want to admit it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

See I'm totally on the fence now about tax increases, I've changed my mind a bit on it. On the one hand they suck. On the other hand, now's the time isn't it? Those who would be affected by the increase (+$100,000) can most afford it now while the oil is doing well. Waiting until oil is down to raise taxes doesn't seem wise to me, because it will affect people's bottom line more in the future than it would now for instance.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

A tax increase doesn't mean that they're not fiscally conservative. It means that they are wanting to provide a certain level of services and to do so this is how they'll pay for it. They really have the only logical fiscally conservative platform out there at this point in time, whether or not the others want to admit it.

Actually, increasing taxes and the size of government is fundamentally opposed to the tenents of fiscal conservatism. As is running deficits like the PC's.

The Wildrose fits fiscal conservatism to a 't'; balancing budgets, cutting wasteful spending, and limiting the size of government.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The size of government has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. That whole "size of government" has more to do with the belief that less beauracracy = more liberty and freedom. Fiscal conservatism, at least to me, is maximizing the effciency of every tax payer dollar spent, in essence doing more with less.

[GP_Matt]

I have two issues with the above statement. One, you think they should raise taxes on the rich because they can afford it. Shouldn't taxes be raised based on the needs of the government rather than the ability of the population to pay? And why just raise the taxes on the higher earners. If we as a province want increased services shouldn't we all shoulder some of the cost? As it stands, a 1% increase across the board will already be disproportionally payed for by the higher earners both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of income contributed. I posted earlier in this thread the tax rates paid by several income levels and those who make under $100000 pay quite a bit less than the current 10% rate and the rate goes down with income.

I still believe that the government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Increasing taxes does nothing to help with the spending problem and will only exacerbate the revenue side when resource revenue drops in the province.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm looking at it in terms of, as always for me, the numbers. Raising more revenue now means in theory you can collect less later, thus keeping taxes down more in the future (contingent on proper manangement of course). Obviously at some point taxes are going up in this province, because oil revenue is unpredictable (and perishable), while tax revenue is more predictable. I would be in favor of a consumption tax before an income tax increase personally, as consumption taxes have proven to be more efficient in the past. But I can see how an income tax increase can be somewhat justifiable.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The size of government has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. That whole "size of government" has more to do with the belief that less beauracracy = more liberty and freedom. Fiscal conservatism, at least to me, is maximizing the effciency of every tax payer dollar spent, in essence doing more with less.

Definition from WIKI:

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance.

reduction of spending = reducing size of government.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The size of government has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. That whole "size of government" has more to do with the belief that less beauracracy = more liberty and freedom. Fiscal conservatism, at least to me, is maximizing the effciency of every tax payer dollar spent, in essence doing more with less.

The size of the government has a lot to do with fiscal restraint. Most of the money that the province spends goes to salaries. More employees means more salaries. The government has become very top heave in the last decade or so. Starting at the very top, Alberta has too many bosses. Why is Ontario able to function with 20 more MPP's than us when they have 4 times the population and almost double the land area? It isn't just the MLA's, that is just where it starts.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So in choosing Gary Mar, clearly an establishment PC candidate (since 1993) over Redford (2008), that constitutes "change"? Because after all, thats what this election is about right?

A simple fact about Albertan is that we are entrepreneurs and we work longer and more than the average Canadian. After that we would like to keep more of what we make. Also we are highly educated, at least the younger Albertan are. So all these Redford's giving so and so 100 million dollars acts don't fly so well with us. For we know it is our own money that Redford is giving away.

Mar is no saint for sure but at least we are not "scared" that he's going to put his hand in our pocket. This is the gist of this election. It's all about money , Smith understands it with her dividend plan and Redford doesn't with her Robin Hood act.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Actually, increasing taxes and the size of government is fundamentally opposed to the tenents of fiscal conservatism. As is running deficits like the PC's.

The Wildrose fits fiscal conservatism to a 't'; balancing budgets, cutting wasteful spending, and limiting the size of government.

To a "T". Thats interesting. How does the fact that they are not going to balance the budget fit that definition? I have yet to hear a contradiction to my point that they are somewhere between $200M-$600M away from a balance budget, and that's based on their own figures.

To add to that, Alberta can still be the lowest taxed jurisdiction in the country, which happens to fit the fiscal conservatism definition you are using (off wikipedia of all places!). It doesn't mean that taxes can never go up, it means low taxes....which we would still have!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

The size of the government has a lot to do with fiscal restraint. Most of the money that the province spends goes to salaries. More employees means more salaries. The government has become very top heave in the last decade or so. Starting at the very top, Alberta has too many bosses. Why is Ontario able to function with 20 more MPP's than us when they have 4 times the population and almost double the land area? It isn't just the MLA's, that is just where it starts.

LOL! The ALP is the only party proposing to cut the number of MLAs down to 67. Are you ready to vote for an actual fiscal conservative now, or still sticking with the window dressing of the Wildrose?