Alberta's Wildrose object to 9 a.m. legislature sittings

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

And lets be honest, most of the NDP MLA's won't do any kind of real thinking or veer away from anything Notley tells them to do. They should just scrap the whole session since Notley is going to ram through whatever she wants anyway.
Like the Borg, resistance is futile, you must assimilate.

yup, that's Canadian politics for all majority parties, you listen to your leadership no matter how nuts they are

[CaptainCrunch]

See this is annoying because Redford got castigated for using family for an excuse for her actions, and I remember one of her inner circle screaming at the press that she had a right to do what she was doing because she was a single mother.

And now it feels like we're back at the same way.

Maybe Wildrose likes the 10 am idea so they can see their kids off to school, or maybe they want to have extra prep time for the sessions so they can be an effective opposition. But I get why they're arguing this, they felt like they had an agreement and the NDP went against it because its all about them.

Look I get the work life balance and all of that, but that's something that you deal with when you evaluate whether you're going to take a job or not, you don't go into a job and then change it.

If your going to aspire to public office its different then a normal job, its long hours in the service of the people, and you damn well better be prepared for that if you win an election. You're being paid by the tax payers and your in for a limited time, you might have to make some sacrifices.

Government has never been a 8-5 job, you sacrifice for the right to do a public service or you don't do it. If you can't do it don't run for power.

The NDP is wrong. But what was said earlier was right, the Wildrose don't have a say in this government, their votes don't matter, so they are going to have to badger and put this governments feet to the fire publicly for the next four years.

[CliffFletcher]

If we want to get more women and younger adults into politics, we need to make it an attractive option. I work in R&D, and our company has extremely flexible hours and generous allotment of family time. Why? Because management knows that's what we have to do in this day and age to cast a wide net and attract the best employees. If we had strict 8-5 working hours, we would be a less effective company. Why don't we want the same principle to apply to our elected representatives?

[RedHot25]

So wanting to shift the day's structure around makes people "not committed", "not willing to put the hours in", "shouldn't have signed up for it"?

I would actually argue that shifting around may enable more opportunity for more work. See my previous posts. Start it in the morning. Go as long as need to. Then you still have rest of the day/evening to do work and slip in a talk or see family.

There is a lot you can criticize the ndp for, don't get me wrong. But getting up in arms over this? Really?

I'd rather focus on points about the economy and the budget. But instead, we are talking about moving the order of the day around. It all adds even more to this... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...onse-1.3298180 .

I don't know but the uproar over this just befuddles me. i don't get it.

[GGG]

Andrew Coyne had an article years ago talking about how you could improve parliament by moving question period to the mornings because so much time is focused on preparing those quips that you waste real governance time.

[spetch]

I watched a CBC interview with Mr Jean on this and the reason they oppose it was not cause its "too early" but its because doing this cuts opposition question period by 50%. I will try and find the interview

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brian-...ings-1.3297959

[PantherExtreme]

I do not know all the inner goings on, work day schedule, and prior agreements involved in this issue and will therefore resist the urge to use this thing i know nothing about to frame the party i dont like as terrible.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Let me clarify- you should not apply and accept a job if you are not prepared to deal with the hours of work involved.

While there are most definitely expectations with every job, it's beneficial to separate a job's procedures from its outcomes. Different employees can produce the same expected outcomes by utilizing drastically different procedures and limiting the pool of potential employees to a pool that only maintains the status quo limits both innovation and diversity.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Reading the NDP's reasoning makes me shake my head. Their MLAs want to start early because they have to get home to their young families? To me this is yet another example of them putting candidates in place who are not ready to govern. Outside of the MLAs who represent Edmonton ridings, how many can make it home to be with their families?

One of the reason I haven't entered politics is that I know how much of a commitment of your time it takes. If the NDP wasn't ready to do that, maybe they should find another party to govern.

Sounds like there was a schedule originally agreed upon, and now they want to change it after the fact.

Come on Ken. How can you honestly expect an MLA with likely no real political asperations to sacrifice their families for a job they never truly expected to have or perhaps really wanted. They can't pass up that sweet 4 year pay cheque now though so somethings got to give. just take it, you know you have no choice right?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by spetch

I watched a CBC interview with Mr Jean on this and the reason they oppose it was not cause its "too early" but its because doing this cuts opposition question period by 50%. I will try and find the interview

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brian-...ings-1.3297959

This is a good thing question period is a destructive element

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a good thing question period is a destructive element

Well other than being the single most effective tool an opposition has at its disposal...sure.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we want to get more women and younger adults into politics, we need to make it an attractive option. I work in R&D, and our company has extremely flexible hours and generous allotment of family time. Why? Because management knows that's what we have to do in this day and age to cast a wide net and attract the best employees. If we had strict 8-5 working hours, we would be a less effective company. Why don't we want the same principle to apply to our elected representatives?

Your example is not even close to the same thing. Elected officials are paid a lot of money, and they go in knowing that they're serving the public trust and being paid by the tax payers as representatives of the people. Its supposed to be a higher calling then a 9-5 job, and its certainly not a 9-5 job.

They are also not in session year round, they basically get summers and long periods of time off of working in the legislature itself.

If you aspire to public office, and you run in an election where you're supposed to represent your voters to their full extent, then sacrifices have to be made.

I'm sure they'll have lots of 9-5 days when Legislature is not in session.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well other than being the single most effective tool an opposition has at its disposal...sure.

No,

It has turned into quips and one liners. Essentially an endless attempt to score political points. It allows the media to not do their job and instead print half true show boating quotes instead of getting into the and nuance in bills when they are actually debated.

We would be better off without it and change other house rules to end the shutting down of debate on bills.

[Amethyst]

I don't care why they want to make the change. They want to start one hour earlier, two days a week. Even if they did agree to something different, this is hardly a major change. It makes the Wildrose look petty to argue about the issue. If that's their biggest concern with the government, then I guess everything must be pretty good. If that's not their biggest concern, why are they wasting time arguing about it? It's a one hour change, two days a week. If they can't be flexible on such a small issue, maybe they shouldn't have run for office.

And yes, if it was the other way around, I would say the NDP was being petty too.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I don't care why they want to make the change. They want to start one hour earlier, two days a week. Even if they did agree to something different, this is hardly a major change. It makes the Wildrose look petty to argue about the issue. If that's their biggest concern with the government, then I guess everything must be pretty good. If that's not their biggest concern, why are they wasting time arguing about it? It's a one hour change, two days a week. If they can't be flexible on such a small issue, maybe they shouldn't have run for office.

And yes, if it was the other way around, I would say the NDP was being petty too.

exactly, in the same vein why do police waste their time writing tickets and policing the road when there are murderers running loose. As we all know you can only focus on one and therefore the single most important topic at one time.

[WilsonFourTwo]

All while tens of thousands of Albertans simply wish they HAD a job, regardless of the hours.

This whole thing isn't just foolish, it's petty and insulting to the electorate.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Swarly

exactly, in the same vein why do police waste their time writing tickets and policing the road when there are murderers running loose. As we all know you can only focus on one and therefore the single most important topic at one time.

Okay, maybe biggest wasn't the right word.

If they think that it's an issue worth spending time on, then things must be pretty good.

It's a minor detail and it makes them look petty to me. I think it probably makes them look petty to others as well. Not what you want when you are campaigning for votes.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So to summarize, my objection is with the NDP going against an agreement made; to do something that only serves their own interests.

If you say so. Sounds more like trying to find something to whine about. WR has a questionable budget that they can (and are) pick apart, but this is a thing? Starting an hour early two days a week?

I should just bow out of political threads entirely. What a stupid thing to complain about. It doesn't even make sense how this only serves NDPs purpose. Because most of the NDP live closer, so the poor WR has to wake up earlier to get to work? Gimme a break.

This is one of those things where if it was WR in power doing this, and NDP whined about it, the NDP would be getting a new a-hole ripped for the mere suggestion that they can't get to work an hour early.

There are so many things to criticize the NDP for. Wanting to get to work an hour early is the weakest and lamest thing I can think of.

[Locke]

I'm no political Machiavellian guru but this is so petty that it sounds like the NDP wanted to force a change on something that was mutually agreed upon. The consequences would be that their opposition doesnt want to give up anything for free so they come out looking spoiled and petty.

The WR picked the wrong hill to die on on this one methinks.

This is one of those times where you should probably say:

"Sure we can start at 9:00 those days but on Fridays we're coming in with Halloween costumes and flasks of whiskey!"

Quid pro quo.

[adc]

Originally Posted by 4X4

If you say so. Sounds more like trying to find something to whine about. WR has a questionable budget that they can (and are) pick apart, but this is a thing? Starting an hour early two days a week?

I should just bow out of political threads entirely. What a stupid thing to complain about. It doesn't even make sense how this only serves NDPs purpose. Because most of the NDP live closer, so the poor WR has to wake up earlier to get to work? Gimme a break.

This is one of those things where if it was WR in power doing this, and NDP whined about it, the NDP would be getting a new a-hole ripped for the mere suggestion that they can't get to work an hour early.

There are so many things to criticize the NDP for. Wanting to get to work an hour early is the weakest and lamest thing I can think of.

This has nothing to do with getting to work earlier. The MLAs are likely already at work earlier than the start of Legislature.

Why do some people keep trying to spin this as some sort of way for MLA's to sleep in?