Wildrose Shifts Far Right; Disenfranchises Libertarian Contingent

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This is often trotted out as a self-evident truism but it simply doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Petro-corporations in Alberta have been spending like drunken sailors during the recent energy boom. For example, anyone want to speculate on the public reaction if the Alberta government invested 1.4 Billion dollars to build the Bow? Or if the Premier earned 4.8 million dollars per year like the COO of EnCana?

At least with private corporations the management and leadership is held accountable and expected to attend to matters and deliver results. Our politicians can't even bother to show up to vote on matters that affect their constituency. Should the general public be paying our servants million dollar salaries to be ministers of our various public programs when they have no background or knowledge of those portfolios and areas? We don't get good government or good results by throwing more money into the system.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

At least with private corporations the management and leadership is held accountable and expected to attend to matters and deliver results.

Expected by whom? Shareholders?

And you are suggesting that the public does not hold the government accountable every four years when we vote?

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Our politicians can't even bother to show up to vote on matters that affect their constituency.

It sounds like you're comparing the attendance record of MLAs to the attendance record of private sector management. Do you have statistics on this? Does anyone?

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Should the general public be paying our servants million dollar salaries to be ministers of our various public programs when they have no background or knowledge of those portfolios and areas?

Which Ministers receive million dollar salaries?

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

We don't get good government or good results by throwing more money into the system.

Who has ever advocated just blindly "throwing more money into the system"?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Which Ministers receive million dollar salaries?

I wasn't claiming any ministers were getting millions dollar salaries but was trying to say that if we want to try to equate ministers with high pay executives from the private sector we should expect that minister to be competent in the field of their portfolio. If our finance minister was getting $4.2 million I would expect that he/she had appropriate credentials and wasn't just some career politician (just for example purposes and not specifically speaking of Doug Horner.)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Lol. Along with Quebec, the PC's have been the highest spending provincial government in Canada. Trying to pretend they are in the 'center' simply because there are other parties wishing to spend more doesn't make any sense at all.

How would you define the PC's as a 'centrist' party? Because they maintain low taxes and spend absolutely all non-renewable resource revenues on public programs?

By definition, at least the definition I was referring to, a party in the political center is one which avoids taking the extreme left or right position on social or economic items.

Which items do you think they are further left than the Liberals on, and which items do you think they are further right than the WRP on?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

By definition, at least the definition I was referring to, a party in the political center is one which avoids taking the extreme left or right position on social or economic items.

Which items do you think they are further left than the Liberals on, and which items do you think they are further right than the WRP on?

What does it matter how they compare to other parties, the political spectrum shouldn't be merely subjective to comparison.

By your definition all parties are centrist in Alberta.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

What does it matter how they compare to other parties, the political spectrum shouldn't be merely subjective to comparison.

By your definition all parties are centrist in Alberta.

The whole left right spectrum is to compare parties and ideas against each other. If you don't want to compare them against each other you should start using other descriptions for them and not be concerned when people use the spectrum.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The whole left right spectrum is to compare parties and ideas against each other. If you don't want to compare them against each other you should start using other descriptions for them and not be concerned when people use the spectrum.

As I originally said your definition of center doesn't make any sense when all parties in Alberta "avoid taking the extreme left or right position on social or economic items". Thus they are all centrist.

I never said I don't want to compare parties. I just didn't think you can validate your claim, and so far you haven't been able to.

[Rathji]

How can all parties not be taking the extreme left or right positions? Are all the platforms exactly the same?

I really don't think you understand how this whole thing works.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

How can all parties not be taking the extreme left or right positions? Are all the platforms exactly the same?

I really don't think you understand how this whole thing works.

So what you're saying is that if there are two parties, they are both extremist?

[Rathji]

One will be the extreme right on every issue, and one would be the extreme left on every issue.

Of course, when you are taking political, social or economic ideas, there is (almost) always an idea that is more extreme than the one you are proposing.

[mariners_fever]

After reading all of this, I can't help but think this is one guy looking for his moment in the sun.

If you look at the wording of what happened at the vote, they already had a policy believing ALL Albertans have equal rights. The vote was to replace that with a statement with a list. All of the arguments against were in the spirit of trying to be as inclusive as possible, and the word all happens to include everyone. Voting down this proposal upheld the verbiage of 'ALL'.

They added verbiage to their Constitution to defend the rights of ALL Albertans also. Objectively, this is a win for those concerned over this issue.

This really is nothing more than media trolling for a story. I have some friends in the LGBTQ community who attended this and voting against the motion also. They also felt that members were genuine in their wish to be inclusive.

I found it interesting that Don Braid said that Wildrose used to have the most inclusive rights policy in politics, but not anymore after this vote as though something had been removed. The vote kept the existing policy in tact, then another vote beefed it up in another section of party documents. Given this, they've made it more inclusive with the added content.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

After reading all of this, I can't help but think this is one guy looking for his moment in the sun.

If you look at the wording of what happened at the vote, they already had a policy believing ALL Albertans have equal rights. The vote was to replace that with a statement with a list. All of the arguments against were in the spirit of trying to be as inclusive as possible, and the word all happens to include everyone. Voting down this proposal upheld the verbiage of 'ALL'.

They added verbiage to their Constitution to defend the rights of ALL Albertans also. Objectively, this is a win for those concerned over this issue.

This really is nothing more than media trolling for a story. I have some friends in the LGBTQ community who attended this and voting against the motion also. They also felt that members were genuine in their wish to be inclusive.

I found it interesting that Don Braid said that Wildrose used to have the most inclusive rights policy in politics, but not anymore after this vote as though something had been removed. The vote kept the existing policy in tact, then another vote beefed it up in another section of party documents. Given this, they've made it more inclusive with the added content.

Really? So this guy quit the party over nothing? http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/edmo...vote-1.2841068

The parent of a LGBT son has resigned from the board of the Calgary-Glenmore Wildrose Constituency Association over the party’s policy on rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Albertans.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

One will be the extreme right on every issue, and one would be the extreme left on every issue.

Of course, when you are taking political, social or economic ideas, there is (almost) always an idea that is more extreme than the one you are proposing.

Interesting idea I guess.

In a two party system if you had one party advocating 100% tax on income and one wanting 99% tax, I don't think anyone would buy your description of one party being of an extreme right wing position on taxation.

Relativism really isn't very useful.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Interesting idea I guess.

In a two party system if you had one party advocating 100% tax on income and one wanting 99% tax, I don't think anyone would buy your description of one party being of an extreme right wing position on taxation.

Relativism really isn't very useful.

The whole political system is relative.

30 years ago, what was extreme left wing politics in supporting gay marriage is now a much more central view.

You can't just say Policy X is left wing and all parties who ever support it are left wing parties.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The whole political system is relative.

30 years ago, what was extreme left wing politics in supporting gay marriage is now a much more central view.

You can't just say Policy X is left wing and all parties who ever support it are left wing parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[Dion]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

After reading all of this, I can't help but think this is one guy looking for his moment in the sun.

If you look at the wording of what happened at the vote, they already had a policy believing ALL Albertans have equal rights. The vote was to replace that with a statement with a list. All of the arguments against were in the spirit of trying to be as inclusive as possible, and the word all happens to include everyone. Voting down this proposal upheld the verbiage of 'ALL'.

They added verbiage to their Constitution to defend the rights of ALL Albertans also. Objectively, this is a win for those concerned over this issue.

This really is nothing more than media trolling for a story. I have some friends in the LGBTQ community who attended this and voting against the motion also. They also felt that members were genuine in their wish to be inclusive.

I found it interesting that Don Braid said that Wildrose used to have the most inclusive rights policy in politics, but not anymore after this vote as though something had been removed. The vote kept the existing policy in tact, then another vote beefed it up in another section of party documents. Given this, they've made it more inclusive with the added content.

I know someone who traveled to Red Deer for that WRP vote and said the media scrambled out of the room after the vote totals were announced. They didn't stay to hear why it was rejected and the reasons for it. They were more interested in painting the WRP as a party to fear.

At the same time I think it was a bad move to have that vote. It left the party to interpretations of where they stand on equal rights. Smith bungled this like she did with the 2 wingnuts she had running back in 2012.

[killer_carlson]

Dion, that seems odd. I don't buy it.

Debate would normally occur before the vote. Those who wanted to explain or speak on the issue would do so, again, before the vote. It would not make sense to vote and then get explanations afterwards.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

I know someone who traveled to Red Deer for that WRP vote and said the media scrambled out of the room after the vote totals were announced. They didn't stay to hear why it was rejected and the reasons for it. They were more interested in painting the WRP as a party to fear.

At the same time I think it was a bad move to have that vote. It left the party to interpretations of where they stand on equal rights. Smith bungled this like she did with the 2 wingnuts she had running back in 2012.

No, the part Smith bungled is by not speaking to the motion and imploring her party to support it and recognizing how important the issue was. Fact of the matter is that she's not a strong leader. We've seen evidence of this for a few years now.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, the part Smith bungled is by not speaking to the motion and imploring her party to support it and recognizing how important the issue was. Fact of the matter is that she's not a strong leader. We've seen evidence of this for a few years now.

The problem as I see it is that she doesn't have the support from her own party members when it comes to her visions of what the party should be. Members of her party seem to be divided on many issues making it hard for her to an effective leader of her party.

I suppose she could become like Harper and not allow her own members a say in party matters. Frankly she would be better off walking away from the party all together.

[Bunk]

Matt Dykstra ‏@SUNMattDykstra 3m3 minutes ago
Breaking: sources say #wrp MLAs @KerryTowleMLA & Ian Donovan crossing floor to PCs today. #ableg


Interesting. I don't know these two MLAs. On the right, or more moderate?