Alberta PC's way out front

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not following? You think that I would support the public system paying for private healthcare? I don't know how I gave you that impression, but no.

No.

Here are two statements.

1) I love the Liberal policy on these; if you want to send your children to private school, great, you cut the cheque.

2) I love the Liberal policy on these; if you want to be treated at a private clinic, great, you cut the cheque.

Both services are publically funded essential services. It is generally argued among Liberal/NDP/"progressive" supporters that people should not be able to buy there way into better health services. I feel that both health and basic education should be publically funded. I was just curious that you held that position with private schools is all.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I wonder what those Wildrosers were thinking in supporting this along with their PC brethren?

Ya, what was Raj thinking all those times he voted with the government while he was a PC party member.

And what about that hypocrite Scott Brison, he used to vote with the Cons all the time when he was a part of that party.

Sickening isn't it?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

No.

Here are two statements.

1) I love the Liberal policy on these; if you want to send your children to private school, great, you cut the cheque.

2) I love the Liberal policy on these; if you want to be treated at a private clinic, great, you cut the cheque.

Both services are publically funded essential services. It is generally argued among Liberal/NDP/"progressive" supporters that people should not be able to buy there way into better health services. I feel that both health and basic education should be publically funded. I was just curious that you held that position with private schools is all.

I see. Well truth be told I'm not sure that private school = better school. Its pretty clear that private health means faster care for those who can afford to buy it though and that is something that I don't think is right. That being said you can do this today. If you have a medical issue you can hop on a plane and go get treated right away in the US or a multitude of other countries. I don't mind that aspect at all, I just don't want public doctors tied up doing private care for others.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Ya, what was Raj thinking all those times he voted with the government while he was a PC party member.

And what about that hypocrite Scott Brison, he used to vote with the Cons all the time when he was a part of that party.

Sickening isn't it?

If they spoke in favour of something and now campaign against it, its absolutely hypocritical. I don't care for floor crossing, and thats not something I've failed to mention in the past.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

If they spoke in favour of something and now campaign against it, its absolutely hypocritical. I don't care for floor crossing, and thats not something I've failed to mention in the past.

You mean like how Jean Cretien campaigned against gay marraige but then changed his mind once in power?

Your line of reasoning is rather ridiculous. People change their mind all the time. There's absolutety nothing proving any of the MLAs werent coerced to support party policy previously or currently; so pretending you can read their minds and call them hypocrites is silly even ignoring the plain fact they could have changed their mind/become more educated.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You mean like how Jean Cretien campaigned against gay marraige but then changed his mind once in power?

I was going to mention that in my "all politicians are hypocrties" posts earlier. Chretien and most of the Liberals supported a motion to define marriage as being between a man and a woman in 1999 after the SCOC made its landmark ruling. They changed their tune a couple years later to appear progressive in a bid to win political points.

[Slava]

So you are against it when it's a Liberal but then fine with it when it's a WRA politician?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Your line of reasoning is rather ridiculous. People change their mind all the time. There's absolutety nothing proving any of the MLAs werent coerced to support party policy previously or currently; so pretending you can read their minds and call them hypocrites is silly even ignoring the plain fact they could have changed their mind/become more educated.

So, we don't need to follow campaigns at all - because everyone can change their minds?

[GP_Matt]

I am in favour of them changing their mind when it seems well reasoned. I don't like when it is reactionary to something they got caught with.
The other thing that bothers me is when they come up with a plan/opinion that they didn't think through, defend for a while and then give up and accept what is popular.

Looking at the Land Use Framework that they have now changed a few times, I have heard multiple times through the iterations of the bill that it is perfect and does not do any of the bad things that people are saying only to have them change the bill to eliminate the passage they were defending before starting again. The first bill that came out had a statement that the Act would take precedence over all existing Acts. When it was pointed out that the Land Titles Act was an Act that could be affected and that through this bill they could cancel someones title without recourse they gave speeches clearly talking about the bill and how people were making things up when they imagined that the bill could extinguish a title. A few months later they came out and revised the bill to take precedence over everything except the Land Titles Act.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by troutman

So, we don't need to follow campaigns at all - because everyone can change their minds?

Well when they change parties you can't expect them to keep toeing the old party line.

I really don't get where you guys are going with this?

They were elected as PC's and supported the PC party policies.

They have left the PC Party and now they are supporting the Party that they plan to run for in the next election.

It's not like the PC's campaigned on this legislation in the last election and now these people are breaking a campaign promise. They intend to run on a platform that opposes this legislation and the people will decide.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

The other thing that bothers me is when they come up with a plan/opinion that they didn't think through, defend for a while and then give up and accept what is popular.

"abortions for no one"

Crowd: Boooooooo

"Abortions for everyone"

Crowd: Boooooooo

"Abortions for some, minature american flags for others!"

Crowd: Yaaaay!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

So you are against it when it's a Liberal but then fine with it when it's a WRA politician?

I neither stated nor implied that, as you well know. But I'll flip the question and send it back at you: Are you against it when it is conservative politician, but fine with it when it is a Liberal?

My point, as it has been all day, is this: It is silly that you are trying to use the fact that the parties have different positions on an issue to argue that they are actually the same. You're defying logic here.

[Yeah_Baby]

Can't we all just agree that it's Trudeau's fault?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well just yesterday the poll for the Liberals puts them at what, 18%? That seems like a pretty solid gain at the expense of the PC's over the past few weeks. I know these polls don't mean anything but its still something to consider when you're writing off the Liberals.

The party that is a non-starter of these three is the Alberta Party. They might have had something at one point, but its gone. Sue Huff seems like she would be a good MLA, so its a bit of a shame in that sense, but they're on their way to zero seats and probably can hardly keep the lights on.

Yeah, perhaps 18% is respectable, but is it going to get them anywhere close to governing anytime soon? The Liberals blew the greatest opportunity they ever had when frustration and dissatisfaction set in with Stelmach. People were searching for an alternative, and instead of the Liberals setting themselves up as the government in waiting, they let an upstart party usurp them.

I think this is all partially due to the fact that party members seem to be far too stubborn to do something as simple as change their name. When you have a damaged brand the simplist thing you can do is CHANGE THAT BRAND!!!

Whenever I talk to to a party member about this they say something like "we shouldn't have to change our name, people should just get over Trudeau - it was 30 years ago!". or "we have nothing to do with the federal Liberal party". Well, that's not the point is it? It's just a fact that anger lingers and the liberal brand is toxic here - whether people should think this way or not is irrelivant. obtuse.

As for the Alberta Party - yeah, I think they'll have a very rough ride in the coming election. Any enthusiasm for that Party is pretty much deflated I think.

[Slava]

I do agree with some of what you're saying there Bunk. The Wildrose has gone through a few iterations before finally getting this recent breakthrough. I guess part of the problem is that a name change doesn't necessarily mean anything though. The Alberta Party was supposedly going to be what the Liberals refused to become. I figure they're on pace for zero seats, or maybe one if there is something amazing somewhere.

Part of the Liberals problem was attitude though. You don't win an election in 28 days. If you want to win a riding you should've been out a year or two ago, especially when you're an underdog and trying to change public perceptions.

I also agree with you about 2008. That's a part of the reason why I think it's a little early for people to be writing the obituary for the PC's. The whole "we want change" has been heard before in these parts.

[Bunk]

A name change is necessary but not sufficient in my view. But to not change it is just unnecessarily handicapping yourself. It's like spotting your opponent 5 points automatically for no reason.

The Alberta Party I think suffered from coming late to the game, in a very crowded field, and quite frankly, they really went nowhere when the PCs picked Redford. Centrists/moderates that may have split were drawn to the Redford (myself included probably - at least temporarily, particularly with the 'threat' of a party from the right).

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

I see. Well truth be told I'm not sure that private school = better school. Its pretty clear that private health means faster care for those who can afford to buy it though and that is something that I don't think is right. That being said you can do this today. If you have a medical issue you can hop on a plane and go get treated right away in the US or a multitude of other countries. I don't mind that aspect at all, I just don't want public doctors tied up doing private care for others.

So what if you don't think that private school may not be better. Are you saying that if it is not better, people can pay for it if they want it, but if it is better, it shouldn't be allowed? If private health were as pathetic as our current system, would it be okay? Would you be fine with it then? Somehow it is better to send health care consumers to the US rather than provide a vehicle to support them here. If, perhaps, the AMA let up on their tight doctor quotas and the government cut down on all the hoops to allow foreign doctors to practice or universities offered more spaces in the med department, wouldn't that offset a mixed mode of delivery? Or is the paradigm that we must only have so many doctors and therefore most of those doctors are only going to service paying clients? You're a critical thinker (or so you would have us believe - I think you're just pathetically partisan). Why so binary? And why don't you apply your binary thinking consistently re: education vs. health care?

[Slava]

I don't care for private health or private education actually. The two issues are very different though, so while I don't like either of them its not for the same base reasons.

With education I do think people should do what they want, but not expect taxpayers to foot the bill for that choice. With health people should still do what they want, but if the choice is private care then a piece of that means crossing a border on their dime.

Feel free to leave the "critical thinker" shots at the door. I basically reply to everyone's criticism here even though I'm pretty clearly in the minority (or maybe it's a silent majority!). I try not to cross the line and take shots at the posters themselves or try not to act like I'm better than anyone else. For all I know I could be totally wrong and the next thing you know we're voting for the same guy!

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by fotze

Some slunt from wildrose robocalled me tonite. I think her name was Corrie Hitler. I will vote for the party who doesn't robocall me. Book it.

That would be Corrie Adolph. http://www.corrieadolph.com/

You really have a thing for mutilating candidates' surnames 'eh?



Don't worry every party will robodial you by the time this is over... if the writ ever drops.

Well maybe the Alberta Party one won't, doubt they have the funds.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by fotze

### Sherman robocalled me too. Some dorky NDP guy came to my door.

Might as well give up; none of them have a name you can really get behind.