Alberta budget news

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Perhaps list us some reasons of why or what groups SHOULD be there, and why the CTF doesn't qualify?

How about no special interest groups at all? CTF doesn't qualify because it is a special interest group. Simple, no?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

How about no special interest groups at all? CTF doesn't qualify because it is a special interest group. Simple, no?

Why not? Shouldn't transparency be a goal of democracy?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

No, no. There are no rules when it comes to Slava spin.

He will just turn around and pose a different question to you.

I'm not spinning anything. I will ask questions though, and have asked the same one for a few pages now: why should they be there? At this point the only answer is "because they used to be allowed". That's not enough to me.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not spinning anything. I will ask questions though, and have asked the same one for a few pages now: why should they be there? At this point the only answer is "because they used to be allowed". That's not enough to me.

Because transparency, openness and accountability are foundations of an effective democracy.

I notice you've yet to provide any reasons why they should not be there.

[Tinordi]

[QUOTE=transplant99;4115586]Good for you. The fact you consider the CTF a special interest group that doesn't work on behalf of every single taxpayer tells me all i need to know.

DELETED BY MOD

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not spinning anything. I will ask questions though, and have asked the same one for a few pages now: why should they be there? At this point the only answer is "because they used to be allowed". That's not enough to me.

I agree with you; it's a bit of a stunt.

But let's face it, Redford is pulling a bit of a stunt of her own here by barring them. And two can play that game.

Personally, I feel groups like the AFL, CTF, etc should be allowed in. I think governments should be under a microscope and different groups see different things.

These various perspectives are healthy... IMHO

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Why not? Shouldn't transparency be a goal of democracy?

Yes, transparency should be a goal of democracy. I'm missing the point you are trying to make though.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not a budget meeting, its the release of the budget for media to release after the lock-up expires. I have no idea why we need groups like CTF to be there.

Originally Posted by Slava

They're not fooling anyone because until they just invited them no one even knew that these others weren't there and cared even less. Good to see the Wildrose engaging in publicity stunts rather than actually just attending and coming up with ideas though.

Well as you said, it's just a release of the budget to the media. Maybe the opposition shouldn't be invited either. It's not like they can actually do anything to change the budget anyway.

The government wants a free media day where they can own the news cycle and their critics can't respond because they don't have the information. Maybe they should just outlaw any criticism at all.

[Tinordi]

Sigh

We're losing what the purpose of the 'lock-up' is. It's to give a 2 hour window before the official release so that news agencies and other pressure groups can develop their response to coincide with the Government's statement.

If you don't get in for the two hour advance window you can always, just read the budget right after. I somehow highly doubt that a up to minute response from the CTF will be required by any news agency based on the staggering stasis of their comments over the past 15 years. Do you think they need 2 hours ahead of time to dust off their boilerplate statements on government taxes and revenue?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Tinordi summed it up pretty well: Nothing issue is nothing.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I agree with you; it's a bit of a stunt.

But let's face it, Redford is pulling a bit of a stunt of her own here by barring them. And two can play that game.

Personally, I feel groups like the AFL, CTF, etc should be allowed in. I think governments should be under a microscope and different groups see different things.

These various perspectives are healthy... IMHO

But its not like the budget will be kept hidden from these groups (or anyone)? So I don't really see the issue. I mean, I suppose it is an advantage for these groups to get a head start on their budget analysis/commentary etc., but giving some groups a head start and not others seems to create a problematic decision that needs to be made about which groups to include and which groups to exclude. I have no idea if this is the rationale behind excluding special interest groups from this sneak peak meeting or not, but if so, it makes a lot of sense to me.

[Tinordi]

Yeah Budgets are 'free media days' maybe 30 years ago.

Another consideration is that based an the alarming synchronization of messages between the CTF and Wild Rose, maybe the government thought it was allowing CTF to respond by proxy. Anyway, the idea that the CTF isn't allowed into lock up leads to a free media day is baseless. You dont' think journalists will be asking for comment from anti-tax anti-big government types? /delusional

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yes, transparency should be a goal of democracy. I'm missing the point you are trying to make though.

Well you are arguing that limiting the current ability of many groups reporting and commenting on government activity is a positive. I don't agree at all; I think at least maintaining the status quo is important and see no need to limit participation in analyzing this years, or any years, budget.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Slava

I actually don't disagree with you if you're saying what I think you are. Groups like the AFL, UNA, etc. shouldn't be there either. Why do they need a sneak peek at the budget? Surely they can all be upset for media after its released? We know the AFL will say that its bad because there are too many cuts, and the CTF will say they should cut taxes. Maybe we can save the complimentary coffee and donuts and just get on with the show.

I'd be fine with that. The government picking and choosing bugs me. But the whole thing could be shuttered.

Pre-Internet days it made some sense as people had to pour over tomes of physical documents.

Now the info is instantly available, and largely pre leaked anyway.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Well you are arguing that limiting the current ability of many groups reporting and commenting on government activity is a positive. I don't agree at all; I think at least maintaining the status quo is important and see no need to limit participation in analyzing this years, or any years, budget.

Ugh, hook. line. sinker.

You think that not allowing some groups a 2 hour advance is limiting transparency? Maybe in the most puritanical form. But, you know, everyone will be able to download the budget the moment it's tabled by the Minister of Finance.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yeah Budgets are 'free media days' maybe 30 years ago.

Another consideration is that based an the alarming synchronization of messages between the CTF and Wild Rose, maybe the government thought it was allowing CTF to respond by proxy. Anyway, the idea that the CTF isn't allowed into lock up leads to a free media day is baseless. You dont' think journalists will be asking for comment from anti-tax anti-big government types? /delusional

Interesting point. You agree that many people want to hear comments and analysis from these types of groups, but that they shouldn't be allowed their usual access to the lock up.

Makes sense to Redford too, I guess.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Well you are arguing that limiting the current ability of many groups reporting and commenting on government activity is a positive. I don't agree at all; I think at least maintaining the status quo is important and see no need to limit participation in analyzing this years, or any years, budget.

Well, I'm not sure that I'm arguing that is a positive. I guess I really don't see the big deal either way.

What I am annoyed by, however, is CTF's reaction to their exclusion as if the exclusion of it, the champion of all Canadians (er, "taxpayers") were a slap in the face to all Canadians (er, "taxpayers") and to democracy itself. Its ridiculous.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ugh, hook. line. sinker.

You think that not allowing some groups a 2 hour advance is limiting transparency? Maybe in the most puritanical form. But, you know, everyone will be able to download the budget the moment it's tabled by the Minister of Finance.

I'm not out demonstrating. But regardless this isn't a positive development and is yet another example of Redford's terrible political mind.

[Tinordi]

What's more concerning to me is just how ginned up this right wing constituency is in the province. Far from being active citizens, there's a mob of malcontents looking to criticize at any moment and actually remove themselves from substantive policy discussions. This thread is a perfect example.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

If by "official" you care to include that they're dominated by special interests I could probably be swayed to go along with that. More accurately though, let's call it what it is: a publicity stunt. Next thing you know Danielle Smith will have her truck parked on the legislature steps in defiance of local bylaws!

Color me surprised you are trying to spin this into something about the WR instead of what actually happened with the PC and their blatent ability to be as corrupt and full of themselves as ever. Not. You never disappoint in that regard.

Now, can you tell me what "special" interest, (IE; something that doesnt affect everyone equally) the CTF represents? Their mandate, and it doesnt matter what level of government nor what party is in power, is pretty obvious and self explanatory. More efficient government, less spending, and most importantly accountability within government WHILE they are in power.

I understand that you as an aspiring politician (or formerly anyhow) don't like the idea, but many millions of people across the country do. Which is why they represent no single "special" interest, Their's is a universal interest except for those who dont want to have to explain their mistakes, corruption and wasteful ways.