Has Redford done any good for Alberta?

[GGG]

Before they boot redford they need to get rid of the preferential ballot for the last 3 candidates. Just go with who gets the most votes of the last 3. The prefferential ballot has led to candidates with no vision, the safe middle candidate always gets picked. Even if I disagree with the vision at leat they have a goal with rational reasons behind it.

I would have rather had Morton than Stelmach or Redford and I disagree with Morton on most things but at least he had ideas.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Before they boot redford they need to get rid of the preferential ballot for the last 3 candidates. Just go with who gets the most votes of the last 3.

Originally Posted by GGG

I would have rather had Morton than Stelmach or Redford

[REDVAN]

I'd rather have Mar.

[Rifleman]

Redford is done. According to a guy I know who does work for the PCs, the majority of the party has lost confidence in her, and with an approval rating hovering just below 30%, they'll cut their losses and abandon ship like the sinking of the Titanic. Stick a fork in her 'cause there's no way the PCs are gonna ride that disaster into the next election.

[Ducay]

Her biggest problem is oil prices/differentials. If she had any cash to do good with, I'm sure she'd be doing a lot more than just breaking promises and cutting spending. Oh well, it is what it is.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Her biggest problem is oil prices/differentials. If she had any cash to do good with, I'm sure she'd be doing a lot more than just breaking promises and cutting spending. Oh well, it is what it is.

I agree with that to some extent, except that the oil differential has always been there. A lot of the problem is that we (as a province) seem to have fallen for our own hype. All this talk about us being an energy superpower just doesn't work economically at this time when we have a product to sell into a congested market, and can't get top dollar for the product.

Politically the opposition parties in general have a habit of telling voters "we can make everything better" and that's hard to believe. I know the PCs do that as well, so I'm not giving them a pass here, but they're the devil we know. When the opposition parties say they have a fix-all I get suspicious because chances are they have no idea what they're talking about. They haven't seen the books and don't have all of the information, but then they stand up and say watch me fix everything.

If it were me, I would run on a platform of "we're not spending any more money, until we figure out WTF is going on. The government has poured money and resources after things, and we want things to get better, but we simply don't know how to do that until we untangle their running disaster.".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

So i can agree with the chair bashing on the Morton comment but what is peoples love with the prefferential ballot which assures that the least contraversial candidate wins.

Look at when Stelmach won. He only won because the Dinning supporters and Morton supporters hated eachother. Mar lost because of the ABM vote. Dion won the liberal leadership because of animosity between Ray and Ignatief camps.

Any good leader takes stands on issues, taking stands on issues divides people, the key to winning a preferential ballot is to have name recognition going in and be non offensive.

Nenshi would have likely lost a preferential ballot to McIvor and Higgins. They split the old, conservative vote allow Nenshi to win with the young vote.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GGG

Nenshi would have likely lost a preferential ballot to McIvor and Higgins. They split the old, conservative vote allow Nenshi to win with the young vote.

Actually Higgins and McIvor were just flat out terrible candidates, that's why Nenshi won. Great voter mobilization and horrible competition.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

So i can agree with the chair bashing on the Morton comment but what is peoples love with the prefferential ballot which assures that the least contraversial candidate wins.

Look at when Stelmach won. He only won because the Dinning supporters and Morton supporters hated eachother. Mar lost because of the ABM vote. Dion won the liberal leadership because of animosity between Ray and Ignatief camps.

Any good leader takes stands on issues, taking stands on issues divides people, the key to winning a preferential ballot is to have name recognition going in and be non offensive.

Nenshi would have likely lost a preferential ballot to McIvor and Higgins. They split the old, conservative vote allow Nenshi to win with the young vote.

I like forms of democracy where you actually need a majority to win. I love that the parties use preferential balloting, because that way I can point to that, when they oppose democratic reform, and ask why first past the post is a good enough system for the general election when it isn't good enough for their own leadership elections. Why does one need a majority to become the leader of a party, but not to become the leader of the country?

[DFO]

Neither the PC's or Wildrose will do the right thing and raise revenue some (sales tax, corp & personal taxes). Does it really matter then who is in power?

[c.t.ner]

So back to the question at hand, has Redford done some good things. I think she has. Has Redford done some horrible things? Not nearly as convinced. To be honest I don't really think she's done anything. Most of what has been done has been small things (and doing a horrible job of explaining them to people). But on a whole, I think her biggest fault and the fault of her circle of advisers is they've been absolutely horrible at managing public perception. Unless they dramatically steer that course and her current tenure as Premier will probably go down as a case of how not to control the political conversation.

Some of the things that she's done in regards to increasing AISH, stronger compensation for Firefighters and the pathway that they're taking with twinning Highway 63 are smart moves but very small. I've appreciated that she hasn't isolated Alberta and has done more to raise Alberta's profile in the US and internationally. And in general the Budget for what it was, is good, nothing over the top dramatic, but a steadying of the course. But nothing really over the top.

Where Redford has really dropped the ball is in letting stupid little things spiral out of control. A great example is the drinking and driving legislation that rammed through last year. Did it need to be rammed through like that and did it need to be as complex as it was? Probably not, but it played right into the hands of the Wildrose because of it's complexity and obscure nature. The Police training centre in Fort McMurray is another great example. Alberta didn't need it, so it was closed to reduce waste, yet it played right into the Wildrose's hands. There's dozens of other examples out there - (the Olympics Trip, this recent prescription drugs debacle, and others)

And kudos to the Wildrose for jumping on every misstep that the Redford government has bungled. They've done an amazing job of controlling the entire conversation, by essentially being against absolutely everything the PCs have done for the two years, even when it goes against the fundamentals of the party. The Wildrose are miraculously more fiscally conservative while opposed any cuts to education, health care or infrastructure - oh yeah and no new taxes also. They've done a great job of proclaiming that Alberta is falling apart at the seams (Although I'm in Ottawa, I'm pretty sure that Alberta as a whole isn't burning down to the ground) and it's all the fault of beaurcrats in Edmonton. It's grass roots campaigning 101 and they've done a great job.

Anyways, it'll be an interesting couple of years until the election. The only hail mary that Redford has to her advantage is time at the moment, but even that is slipping by.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with that to some extent, except that the oil differential has always been there. A lot of the problem is that we (as a province) seem to have fallen for our own hype. All this talk about us being an energy superpower just doesn't work economically at this time when we have a product to sell into a congested market, and can't get top dollar for the product.

Politically the opposition parties in general have a habit of telling voters "we can make everything better" and that's hard to believe. I know the PCs do that as well, so I'm not giving them a pass here, but they're the devil we know. When the opposition parties say they have a fix-all I get suspicious because chances are they have no idea what they're talking about. They haven't seen the books and don't have all of the information, but then they stand up and say watch me fix everything.

If it were me, I would run on a platform of "we're not spending any more money, until we figure out WTF is going on. The government has poured money and resources after things, and we want things to get better, but we simply don't know how to do that until we untangle their running disaster.".

Such a good point. All you really hear is that we have oil, so we should have tons of high-quality services and be taxed less than everybody. When the price of oil drops I don't understand how it's expected we get to keep both of those things.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

I like forms of democracy where you actually need a majority to win. I love that the parties use preferential balloting, because that way I can point to that, when they oppose democratic reform, and ask why first past the post is a good enough system for the general election when it isn't good enough for their own leadership elections. Why does one need a majority to become the leader of a party, but not to become the leader of the country?

In a 3 party system all a preferential ballot does is ensure the middle party always wins. So in Canada it would mean endless liberal majority governments. Cycling though different political parties and being able to remove parties in power is important.

At least proportional rep gives you endless minority governments where parties are forced to compromise. Not great because it ends in vote buying for pet projects occurs to keep the government running.

But a system that always selects the middle person, or least offensive person is a terrible way to select a leader.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by DFO

Does it really matter then who is in power?

Nope.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

In a 3 party system all a preferential ballot does is ensure the middle party always wins. So in Canada it would mean endless liberal majority governments.

Better than being governed by a party that has the rightmost 40% of the vote. How is that representative in any way whatsoever?

And yes, proportional representation is a better system than preferential ballot.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by nik-

Stelmach then Redford was like a punch to the groin followed by a hook to the jaw.

Still prefer it over the Wildrose though.

Pretty much this. Alberta government is a gongshow right now. Need someone(s) badly to save it.

[CaptainCrunch]

In a certain light, she does rock the pants suit tho, that's the only thing that I can think of that's a positive for her.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Her biggest problem is oil prices/differentials. If she had any cash to do good with, I'm sure she'd be doing a lot more than just breaking promises and cutting spending. Oh well, it is what it is.

I would have guessed her biggest problem was corruption, followed by duplicitousness. Her third problem is that she seems like a small, petty person trying to fill a role far too great for her skills. But that, like Stelmach, is more a reflection on the flaws in the PC party's policies for electing leaders than anything else.

The price differentials aren't the cause of this government's faults, they only underscore them.

[troutman]

I haven't read the Sun in a while. I'm amazed at what a Wild Rose pamphlet it has become.

[darklord700]

The problem with Redford is that she is using the office as a mean to promote her ideology without realizing that most of what a premiere needs to do is to govern.