Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

I think we should just form a errr CP party, not the conservative Party. But the Calgary Puck party, of course with me established as the leader of the party.

We stand for three things

1) Socially Progressive - We believe that everyone is equal and the province is one big friendly puppy filled pit of inclusion. We all have rights, and we respect everyone elses rights to live and enjoy their lives. Except for Oiler fans who will become the lower class slave miners of our glorious home land

2) fiscally Conservative - That's right we believe that this province has more of a spending problem then a revenue problem. While we agree that there is some adjusting of taxation that is going to have happen, that the current regime is being punitive. We also believe that the whole argument that if you cut dollars services will suffer is a tired BS answer to a hard question. We believe that the front line services are bloated and for the most part poorly run and over staffed in terms of administration. There needs to be an adjustment to how dollars are spent, and how we work with and reward front line workers like teachers and doctors and nurses. Also we need to raise revenue, so I propose that we turn Edmonton into a massive energy generation center using the hot air emanating from the Oilers management team and fans, which should heat our houses forever with no carbon emissions. Also we will set up a extremely large factory to make sweatpants and sandals and dress socks, Edmontonians know their fashion and we can stock the factory with lowly paid Oiler fans who would believe that these horrible low paid jobs, like their horrible over paid team are awesome.


3) A end to voter dissatisfaction, if you elect me as the leader of the CP party and the people feel free to elect me as the provincial leader, I will suspend the concept of voting and democracy. In a salute and gesture to the ultimate expression of listening to the people who don't want to vote, I say why not! I say no votes for anyone!. On top of that as a reward for this faith by the former electorate, I will spend $400.00 per year per citizen in this province so that everyone will get a free subscription to Netflix, Showmi and CraveTV. A distracted television watching populous is a happy television watching populous.


4) The construction of the CaptainCrunch Calgary Megatorium. The new home for the Flames, The Stamps and all the other sports teams in Calgary. It will feature the best of everything including a 30 story salute to me your benevolent and concerned dictator. This statue will have me standing, facing north with both middle fingers extended to our slave pit to the North.

[polak]

Will you legalize crack?

[Dan02]

It is kind of crazy it seems that the majority of our electorate seems to want a social liberal, fiscally conservative party, yet none of the partys manage to fulfill that.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That was my point, Cliff. If Smith had fought through that vote rather than just folding her tent in a huff, she would have attracted those disaffected PC voters forced to choose between her and the NDP. That would have moved the party closer to the centre, and more toward the social agenda she wanted. But she got impatient, wanted the power, and sold out conservatives of all stripes in the process.

I guess we'll never know. But the grass-roots structure of the WR makes it difficult for a leader to pull it towards the centre. That's the problem with populist parties. Just look at how many years, how many make-overs, and how much top-down discipline it took the Reform Party to morph into a party that could win a federal election in Canada.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

Wasn't the Wild Rose' solution to the revenue problem in this province just a bunch of one time spending cuts?

So wait a minute, you spend time complaining about a party and what they stand for, but you don't even really know what their policy statements are or what their plans are economically?

That's funny, kudos.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Dan02

It is kind of crazy it seems that the majority of our electorate seems to want a social liberal, fiscally conservative party, yet none of the partys manage to fulfill that.

The Alberta Party comes closest to hitting the sweet spot for the Alberta electorate in terms of policy. But it has very little profile and money.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I guess we'll never know. But the grass-roots structure of the WR makes it difficult for a leader to pull it towards the centre. That's the problem with populist parties. Just look at how many years, how many make-overs, and how much top-down discipline it took the Reform Party to morph into a party that could win a federal election in Canada.

And even they had to ####-can their leadership, change party names (twice) and ride the coattails of the last party to govern canada that wasn't the Liberals.

This would be like firing all the current wild rose leadership, changing their name twice and joining with the provincial PCs to say they 'won' a mandate.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

Will you legalize crack?

Yes, I will also approve the legalization and taxation of childrens chewable crack.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

WildRose policies/politics is so undesirable to the Alberta electorate that they'll still have to join with another party in order to attain any kind of power.

Considering how much of the party is bankrolled by corporate dollars rather than individual fundraising, it makes their support look even worse.

you give me millions of dollars in campaign infrastructure and I will get you 20% of the vote.

The wildrose policies are undesirable? Didn't 360,000 people vote for the wildrose in the last election? That's 24% of the vote. Maybe for someone who wouldn't vote for them. I think the ndp policies are undesirable.



from wikipedia

[peter12]

Honestly, the WRP needs to start rethinking how they communicate their social conservative policies to Albertans. Done in the right way, they could actually capture a lot of the suburban vote.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So wait a minute, you spend time complaining about a party and what they stand for, but you don't even really know what their policy statements are or what their plans are economically?

That's funny, kudos.

The election was more than a year ago. Sorry I don't remember every parties exact policy suggestions.

But I do like your policy on crack for kids. I feel like there's a big void to be filled there. You have my vote!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

The wildrose policies are undesirable? Didn't 360,000 people vote for the wildrose in the last election? That's 24% of the vote. Maybe for someone who wouldn't vote for them. I think the ndp policies are undesirable

In the cities they have very limited appeal. The Liberals have won as many seats in Calgary/Edmonton the last two elections as the WR. Until they can actually win in the cities, they'll always be an irrelevant regional party.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

Honestly, the WRP needs to start rethinking how they communicate their social conservative policies to Albertans. Done in the right way, they could actually capture a lot of the suburban vote.

You're really overestimating how many people agree with your views on social issues.

Most people just want a functioning economy, low to reasonable taxes and to be left alone. Most people don't care about what others do with their lives if it doesn't impact theirs. That's the massive electorate middle ground.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

In the cities they have very limited appeal. The Liberals have won as many seats in Calgary/Edmonton the last two elections as the WR. Until they can actually win in the cities, they'll always be an irrelevant regional party.

I guess the ndp is not a relevant regional party. They can't win in rural alberta. Not sure why you would think it's important to win in the cities? Could you explain?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Dan02

It is kind of crazy it seems that the majority of our electorate seems to want a social liberal, fiscally conservative party, yet none of the partys manage to fulfill that.

That's because the definition of 'Fiscally Conservative' and 'Socially Progressive' mean different things to different people.

To left wing people 'Socially Progressive' not only means laws that foster equality, inclusiveness, etc. but also includes social programs and spending to encourage equality and inclusiveness. To reconcile the financial end of this world they believe that being 'fiscally conservative' is simply running a balanced budget and a low government debt loads relative to GDP. A country that had their finances in order but had a 75% marginal tax rate could still pass the definition of 'fiscally conservative' to these people. So in summary 'Socially progressive', 'Fiscally conservative' could mean a huge government as long as its all paid for.

To right wing people 'Socially Progressive' means in the libertarian sense laws that foster equality, inclusiveness, etc. but an absence of the social programs and spending. It's a 'live and let live, do what you want but not if I'm paying for it' mentality. 'Fiscally conservative' to them not only means balanced budgets, low government debt loads relative to GDP, but also low tax rates and a small size of government that plays a minimal role in people's lives.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I guess the ndp is not a relevant regional party. They can't win in rural alberta. Not sure why you would think it's important to win in the cities? Could you explain?

That's where most of the people are?...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

You're really overestimating how many people agree with your views on social issues.

Most people just want a functioning economy, low to reasonable taxes and to be left alone. Most people don't care about what others do with their lives if it doesn't impact theirs. That's the massive electorate middle ground.

No, I am actually pretty realistic on how easy it would be to communicate my views in an effective manner, and get lots of normal middle-class people to agree with me.

This government has made some major steps in interfering in the lives of normal families - particularly in the schools.

[nik-]

Social conservative is a loser tactic in this province. It would be easy to communicate, it would also just be easier to bow out of the race.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, I am actually pretty realistic on how easy it would be to communicate my views in an effective manner, and get lots of normal middle-class people to agree with me.

This government has made some major steps in interfering in the lives of normal families - particularly in the schools.

Go for it. I'm genuinely interested.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

Social conservative is a loser tactic in this province. It would be easy to communicate, it would also just be easier to bow out of the race.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/05/14...lgbtq-students

No. I am not saying I agree with the protest, but hundreds - maybe thousands - of protestors from many backgrounds showed up to protest this bill in Calgary.

A principled, compassionate, and intelligent social conservative platform - combined with solid, prudent fiscal policy could win big in this province.