GDT: The Alberta Election 2012 - The Morning After - PC Majority Government

[Slava]

Quick question (but maybe not easy to answer), but I hear talk that the Wildrose will drop some of their policies and some you have touched on that here. Removing things like their climate change, conscience rights and withdrawal from CPP and the RCMP. I realise this is on the drawing board and who knows what actually changes at this point as its so early and everything is decided by members.

My question is if they make these kinds of changes though, what's really left? The other major planks (at least off the top of my head) aren't that different are they? I mean removing everything kind of leaves them calling for roughly the same thing as the PC's, save for a few things here and there. About the only other major policy difference was a tax credit and the energy dividend and neither of these are likely deal-breakers for most people?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Context is everything with the Wildrose performance. If you started following the party on April 1st, you're likely extremely disappointed in their performance. If you started following them 4 years ago, you'd be thrilled as they've actually had an incredibly rapid ascent for a party that started from nothing. It should be interesting to see where they go from here as to how they plan on getting more of the center vote.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

Quick question (but maybe not easy to answer), but I hear talk that the Wildrose will drop some of their policies and some you have touched on that here. Removing things like their climate change, conscience rights and withdrawal from CPP and the RCMP. I realise this is on the drawing board and who knows what actually changes at this point as its so early and everything is decided by members.

My question is if they make these kinds of changes though, what's really left? The other major planks (at least off the top of my head) aren't that different are they? I mean removing everything kind of leaves them calling for roughly the same thing as the PC's, save for a few things here and there. About the only other major policy difference was a tax credit and the energy dividend and neither of these are likely deal-breakers for most people?

You forgot about the part about balancing the budget. That's a pretty big difference IMO.

[GP_Matt]

Slava, a lot of the policies that you mentioned were worded along the lines of
A Wildrose government will investigate the feasibility of....

One of the advantages of being the official opposition is that we will have a research budget so i think these sort of questions can be looked into that way. If the idea doesn't make sense than the research will show that.

As for what is left, I think the biggest policy of the Wildrose is the fact that they won't spend a budget surplus on anything that requires funding in the following year. By putting it in the Heritage fund, giving it to cities or even back to the people you are preventing a structural deficit going forward. I think that is a major policy difference from the other parties and one that may be tweaked but I don't see them dropping it.

[kn]

I heard Smith on Rutherford this morning and she mentioned she read a tweet from a nurse who wished Danielle would be shot in a drive-by shooting and brought to her ward so that she could exercise her conscience and refuse to treat her.

Smith mentioned that conscience rights are probably off the table since professional medical associations have these already in place even though most people don't realize this.

She's learning from the climate change debacle and while she sticks to the science not being settled, she acknowledged the need to look at green technologies, ways of lower emissions, etc., etc., as a way of developing a more robust environmental policy.

The "firewall" stuff is probably off the table although it's up to the members to decide at the next AGM.

She still defended Huntsperger's right to say what he did in the role of a church pastor. She said more on this issue but I can't quote or paraphrase accurately. Unfortunately, she sees the separation of church and state as preventing the state from interfering in church affairs, rather than the other way around.

As to Slava's question, she said that the five pledges are pretty much the starting point. Those aren't going anywhere but likely will be tweaked.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

As for what is left, I think the biggest policy of the Wildrose is the fact that they won't spend a budget surplus on anything that requires funding in the following year. By putting it in the Heritage fund, giving it to cities or even back to the people you are preventing a structural deficit going forward. I think that is a major policy difference from the other parties and one that may be tweaked but I don't see them dropping it.

If the WRP gets rid of the irresponsible Dani-dollars, I'd be 100% behind this policy. IMO, there are only three fiscally-responsible ways to deal with a surplus:

1) Accelerate repayment of outstanding government debt
2) Invest in long-term savings (i.e. Heritage Fund)
3) Save the excess money in a good year to cover a budget shortfall in a bad year (i.e. Rainy Day fund)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by kn

Unfortunately, she sees the separation of church and state as preventing the state from interfering in church affairs, rather than the other way around

Ugh, I hope she really doesn't feel that way and simply misspoke. If not she's off to a terrible start for 2016.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Umm.. I'm pretty sure going from 34% of the popular vote 40% of the popular vote would be a 6 point swing.

I have no idea where I plucked the number 16% from. I think that I was actually trying to say a 12% swing (in the sense that the PCS would lose 6% while the WRP would gain 6%) in the popular vote. I don't know if that is how one is supposed to measure "vote swing" however?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by kn

I heard Smith on Rutherford this morning and she mentioned she read a tweet from a nurse who wished Danielle would be shot in a drive-by shooting and brought to her ward so that she could exercise her conscience and refuse to treat her.

Smith mentioned that conscience rights are probably off the table since professional medical associations have these already in place even though most people don't realize this.

She's learning from the climate change debacle and while she sticks to the science not being settled, she acknowledged the need to look at green technologies, ways of lower emissions, etc., etc., as a way of developing a more robust environmental policy.

The "firewall" stuff is probably off the table although it's up to the members to decide at the next AGM.

She still defended Huntsperger's right to say what he did in the role of a church pastor. She said more on this issue but I can't quote or paraphrase accurately. Unfortunately, she sees the separation of church and state as preventing the state from interfering in church affairs, rather than the other way around.

As to Slava's question, she said that the five pledges are pretty much the starting point. Those aren't going anywhere but likely will be tweaked.

She obviously still hasn't seen the light so to speak.

Frankly she should have come down hard on this guy. Even though he does have the right to think and say that sort of thing, she should have come down on him like a ton of bricks by say unequivally there is no room in the WRP for those kind of views and taken away his WRP membership.

I just don't understand what her problem is.

[GP_Matt]

This weekend at an event full of professionals and their SO's I was accosted by someone who knew I supported the Wildrose and loudly informed that I was in fact a homophobic woman hater who wanted to drag the province back into the stone ages.

This was an interruption to a conversation that I was having from someone in Edmonton SW who mentioned that he was torn because he supported the Wildrose but couldn't bring himself to vote for Hunsperger. I commiserated with him and told him that I wouldn't vote for the guy either.

[MarchHare]

She still defended Huntsperger's right to say what he did in the role of a church pastor.

I'll defend his right to free speech too. It's perfectly legitimate for him to spew whatever hateful nonsense he wants. I'd say the same thing about neo-Nazis, radical homophobes, white supremicists, Holocaust deniers, or any other fringe group with undefendable beliefs.

Apparently Smith doesn't really understand what freedom of speech entails, though. It means everyone has the right to express their beliefs without fear of state censorship or punishment. It does not mean that you can say whatever you want without consequence. It's not a free speech issue for Smith to turf Hunsberger as a candidate for being an unelectable moron who caused great harm to the WRP's standing with the voters of Alberta.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I have no idea where I plucked the number 16% from. I think that I was actually trying to say a 12% swing (in the sense that the PCS would lose 6% while the WRP would gain 6%) in the popular vote. I don't know if that is how one is supposed to measure "vote swing" however?

If its just one party the change comes from, you are correct sir. A gain must be offset by someone else's lose, so if it goes from 34-40, its a 12 point swing because its +6 for one, and -6 for another.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If the WRP gets rid of the irresponsible Dani-dollars, I'd be 100% behind this policy. IMO, there are only three fiscally-responsible ways to deal with a surplus:

1) Accelerate repayment of outstanding government debt
2) Invest in long-term savings (i.e. Heritage Fund)
3) Save the excess money in a good year to cover a budget shortfall in a bad year (i.e. Rainy Day fund)

Wow... I agree totally. While Danidollars are nice... to be honest it wouldn't have made that big of a difference in my life... actually the difference it would have made is miniscule. I suspect that is probably true for a large majority of people too.

I should add that there is a 4th way to deal with a surplus. Reduce taxes. If you have a significant surplus its pretty obvious that your taxation rate is too high. Reducing taxes encourages investment and is good for the economy and is a win-win all around.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If the WRP gets rid of the irresponsible Dani-dollars, I'd be 100% behind this policy. IMO, there are only three fiscally-responsible ways to deal with a surplus:

1) Accelerate repayment of outstanding government debt
2) Invest in long-term savings (i.e. Heritage Fund)
3) Save the excess money in a good year to cover a budget shortfall in a bad year (i.e. Rainy Day fund)

I rather like the portion going to the municipalities. As a one time cash injection it would allow them to finance something that people want but may not be able to afford. In the past, surpluses have been used in some part by the provincial government to fund these kinds of projects but I would much rather have those drafting the budget removed from the spending decisions of a surplus.
The city will know that the money is one time and has no strings so hopefully they don't use it to ramp up program spending.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by kn

I heard Smith on Rutherford this morning and she mentioned she read a tweet from a nurse who wished Danielle would be shot in a drive-by shooting and brought to her ward so that she could exercise her conscience and refuse to treat her.

I think that this was a facebook status from a RN, who I strongly suspect will be reprimanded in a coming issue of the Alberta RN Magazine. You will find stupid people in every single line of work, it is just with social media now they have a soapbox to voice their opinions and there is immediate evidence of how stupid some of their statements are. I am not going to post the name of the person because even though it was posted a public forum and she was obviously in the wrong (the RN) it would be in poor taste in my opinion.

[chemgear]

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I should add that there is a 4th way to deal with a surplus. Reduce taxes. If you have a significant surplus its pretty obvious that your taxation rate is too high. Reducing taxes encourages investment and is good for the economy and is a win-win all around.

Reducing taxes doesn't help though if the revenue is the result of high resource prices. If you reduce taxes when there is a lot of money coming in you then have to raise taxes as the price drops. Using corporate taxes as an example an oil company would pay a lower tax rate when they were making more money and their tax rate would go up when their margins are shrinking.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Wow... I agree totally. While Danidollars are nice... to be honest it wouldn't have made that big of a difference in my life... actually the difference it would have made is miniscule. I suspect that is probably true for a large majority of people too.

I should add that there is a 4th way to deal with a surplus. Reduce taxes. If you have a significant surplus its pretty obvious that your taxation rate is too high. Reducing taxes encourages investment and is good for the economy and is a win-win all around.

It depends on the size and frequency of surplusses. If the government is repeatedly running multi-billion dollar surplusses, even during times of economic downturn, then I agree that taxes are too high and should be reduced.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to increase taxes when necessary because of political repercussions, and governments run the risk of making deficits structural if rates are set too low. What if Ralph Klein had lowered taxes significantly during the last boom when everything in Alberta was looking rosy? How much worse would our deficit situation be today?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah reducing taxes is a bad idea to deal with surpluses, especially one based of resource revenue. When the money is gone and taxes have to rise again, you've only infuriated the population. Because resource revenue isn't forever, I'd prefer any surplus money go into the Heritage Fund. In the future, that could help keep taxes lower when revenues from resources fall.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Apparently Smith doesn't really understand what freedom of speech entails, though. It means everyone has the right to express their beliefs without fear of state censorship or punishment. It does not mean that you can say whatever you want without consequence. It's not a free speech issue for Smith to turf Hunsberger as a candidate for being an unelectable moron who caused great harm to the WRP's standing with the voters of Alberta.

I am going to bring this up with the party and I think that First Lady alluded to it but I am not sure what the options were. The candidate was elected by the members of the local constituency association to represent the Wildrose in the upcoming election. Does the party then have the option to have his name removed from the ballot? What if the ballot is printed, can they ask elections Alberta to strike out his party affiliation on the ballot?
I am not trying to pick a fight or debate the actions, I am really just not sure what options the party had.