April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

The only thing that people required to have to obtain Ralph Bucks was an alberta address on September 1. They didn't have to pay taxes or even live in this province for a certain amount of time.

If memory serves, you needed to have filed an Alberta Tax return in order to qualify.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

No we didn't. You can see clearly on the Wildrose' own graph that we weren't spending as much. Its a nice talking point, but its just not the case...

I suppose had no choice is left to interpretation. Most Albertans would've agreed that we had to fund infrastructure through the early-mid 2000's though. We were in the midst of a boom, with a huge population influx and had to do something to try to deal with that. We could've left it stagnant, but that wasn't suggested by any of the political parties that I'm aware of.

What graph are you talking about? I've provided my sources and they are clear.... we spent as much as other provinces, period. Maybe you are talking about targeted spending of some kind, likely trying to compare apples to oranges, but you can't argue the facts.

We over funded all spending until we accumulated a huge debt of over 22 billion dollars by 1993. How could we possible have accumulated an equal infrastructure deficit at the same time? Then we reduced spending to an amount equal to the Canadian average for about 5 years, and then proceeded to overspend again for the past decade until we have exhausted the savings we have accumulated and racked up another deficit.

And yet, the left wing would let you believe we STILL have not spent enough.

I mean, looking at the numbers this is absolute insanity. It is quite clear spending needs to be restrained significantly in this province, and that resource revenues should be taken away from the bloated and wasteful government grasp.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

If memory serves, you needed to have filed an Alberta Tax return in order to qualify.

Nope, I lived in Banff at the time with lots of foreigners working slopes (Australian lifties mostly) and it was literally "every man, woman & child living in Alberta on X date" qualified.

I remember quite a few people calling Alberta services and confirming it like "I'm only in Canada on a 12 month visa, but I've been in Alberta for X days, do I qualify?" and the answer was always a resounding "Yes, every man, woman & child living in Alberta qualifies and is entitled to the money". I seem to recall they were even doing some programs with outreach centres to ensure homeless with no fixed address were given the opportunity to collect their Ralph Bucks.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

What graph are you talking about? I've provided my sources and they are clear.... we spent as much as other provinces, period. Maybe you are talking about targeted spending of some kind, likely trying to compare apples to oranges, but you can't argue the facts.

We over funded all spending until we accumulated a huge debt of over 22 billion dollars by 1993. How could we possible have accumulated an equal infrastructure deficit at the same time? Then we reduced spending to an amount equal to the Canadian average for about 5 years, and then proceeded to overspend again for the past decade until we have exhausted the savings we have accumulated and racked up another deficit.

And yet, the left wing would let you believe we STILL have not spent enough.

I mean, looking at the numbers this is absolute insanity. It is quite clear spending needs to be restrained significantly in this province, and that resource revenues should be taken away from the bloated and wasteful government grasp.

OK, this is the graph I'm talking about. Page 9, right at the very top (sorry there is probably an easier way to link this or link the image).

http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2...ative-2012.pdf

I get that the PCs can be accused of overspending, but this was in direct response to their own over-cutting in the years prior. This graph doesn't go back far enough to show the 90's, but you can see the tail end of the cuts here pretty clearly.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK, this is the graph I'm talking about. Page 9, right at the very top (sorry there is probably an easier way to link this or link the image).

http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2...ative-2012.pdf

I get that the PCs can be accused of overspending, but this was in direct response to their own over-cutting in the years prior. This graph doesn't go back far enough to show the 90's, but you can see the tail end of the cuts here pretty clearly.

That graph shows capital spending which is only a portion of total program spending, and it only compares to three provinces.

How anyone could say we have an infrastructure deficit after seeing we have spent 10 years doubling the average of those provinces must be crazy for coco puffs anyways.

But I was talking about the entire pie, not just one slice. And our pie has always been huge.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its not only really smart kids. It means that some kids who want to go into the trades would have proper prerequisites for that route, and yes the best would get in. We already have this; coupled with the financial barriers for some to go with it.

No we don't have free education for smart kids.

[Yeah_Baby]

Why do we care about post-secondary anyways? I've had it with those artsy fartsy communists and their fancy pieces of paper. The government should just leave me alone, I'm a hard working Albertan and I know my life and my rights better than some lawyer up in Edmonton.


/WRA voter.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

That graph shows capital spending which is only a portion of total program spending, and it only compares to three provinces.

How anyone could say we have an infrastructure deficit after seeing we have spent 10 years doubling the average of those provinces must be crazy for coco puffs anyways.

But I was talking about the entire pie, not just one slice. And our pie has always been huge.

Well we just clearly have a difference of opinion there. The infrastructure deficit is there, both in terms of transportation and in terms of our aging schools. Unfortunately the way to resolve this is spending; I don't know how else we can solve that problem regardless of how much we've spent in the past.

Originally Posted by Azure

No we don't have free education for smart kids.

Right, but we do have a system that allows for competition to get into post-secondary based on something other than money. This is what I was getting at. If you have 55% average coming out of high school you will have a hard time getting into a university, right?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Slava

If you have 55% average coming out of high school you will have a hard time getting into a university, right?

You don't need fancy book learnin' in Alberta. We're a hard working hardy people.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well truthfully there is still only one centre right option at this point, but why split hairs. As I noted though, the Wildrose was around in prior elections albeit under different monikers at some points.

Depends on what lens you are looking through. In my opinion the PC's are dead centre drifting to the left, the Wildrose are centre right. I'm sure in your opinion they are hard right wingers.

Wildrose is a entirely different party now than it was last election. Different leader, different candidates, different policies, different platform.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Depends on what lens you are looking through. In my opinion the PC's are dead centre drifting to the left, the Wildrose are centre right. I'm sure in your opinion they are hard right wingers.

Wildrose is a entirely different party now than it was last election. Different leader, different candidates, different policies, different platform.

Wildrose is an ideological coalition of centre right as well as hard line right wingers that want to form government. The reason it is so hard to nail them down empirically is because while the company line is centre-right, the hardline elements are still there. And true centrist party wouldn't even talk about conscience rights.

[IntenseFan]

Does the WRA campaign in this election remind anyone of the Federal Conservative campaign in the 2006 Federal election?

Not necessarily the policies, mind you, but the style and overall strategy?

The Fed-Cons early campaign focussed on the sort of policy every second day in the very early running. These included popular policies like the reduction in the GST and also head-stratcher policies like the $1200 child care tax credit (which is very reminiscent to me, strategically speaking, of the energy dividends the WRA has added to their promises). They got the drop of the Fed-Libs early in the campaign, took the lead and never relinquished it. The Fed-Cons were able to pander to several areas of soft support for the Fed-Libs and also the early lead allowed them to insulate much of their campaign agaisnt media and opposition attacks. The Fed-Libs were only able to cut into that lead a little bit late in the campaign with some truly nasty negative adds (along with what was likely voter sober second thought when a Fed-Con majority was predicted by a couple of pollsters).

Of course I recognize it is early days and things might change in the next three weeks, but it seems to me that the WRA are following some of the same strategies to possibly a similar result (i.e. a minority government, defeating a long-standing and previously very popular majority government).

I also wonder if, like the 2006 Federal election, we might see some similar tactics from the governing party (i.e. negative ads and a smear campaign). Although they seem distasteful to many, they often work.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

Does the WRA campaign in this election remind anyone of the Federal Conservative campaign in the 2006 Federal election?

Not 100% sure but I think Flanagan was/is heavily involved in both, that could be a connection to the strategy.

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

I also wonder if, like the 2006 Federal election, we might see some similar tactics from the governing party (i.e. negative ads and a smear campaign).

It's already started, don't you know that Smith is going to fire 8000 doctors, nurses and teachers?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Not 100% sure but I think Flanagan was/is heavily involved in both, that could be a connection to the strategy.


It's already started, don't you know that Smith is going to fire 8000 doctors, nurses and teachers?

Is that a PC ad? The only ones I've heard are the positive ones so far. Do you have a clip of that one from somewhere?

[IntenseFan]

Yes, I think you are right about Flannagan Jacks.

This article may be of interest to some: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...301/story.html

I think the energy dividends policy is almost entirely political and strategy (and I am aware I am being a bit cynical). It is almost exactly like the $1200 child care benefit. I wasn't a fan of that policy, but one thing I remember is the uproar it caused, particularly here in Western Canada (but also in Ontario) when a Federal Liberal insider made comments to the effect that Canadian would spend the benefit on "beer and pizza". An insensitive comment to be sure, but also made at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

The Fed-Cons ran with gaffe that to the maximum possible extent. Telling Canadians that the government can and should spend their money better than Canadians can was a hot button issue to many, particularly in the wake of the Ad-Scam. I think this policy has been invoked specifically so that WRA can benefit from a similar sentiment.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is that a PC ad? The only ones I've heard are the positive ones so far. Do you have a clip of that one from somewhere?

Yep, ads brought to you by votepc.ca. They are running on QR77 for sure, probably other stations too.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

Yes, I think you are right about Flannagan Jacks.

This article may be of interest to some: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...301/story.html

I think the energy dividends policy is almost entirely political and strategy (and I am aware I am being a bit cynical). It is almost exactly like the $1200 child care benefit. I wasn't a fan of that policy, but one thing I remember is the uproar it caused, particularly here in Western Canada (but also in Ontario) when a Federal Liberal insider made comments to the effect that Canadian would spend the benefit on "beer and pizza". An insensitive comment to be sure, but also made at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

The Fed-Cons ran with gaffe that to the maximum possible extent. Telling Canadians that the government can and should spend their money better than Canadians can was a hot button issue to many, particularly in the wake of the Ad-Scam. I think this policy has been invoked specifically so that WRA can benefit from a similar sentiment.

Ya, which is great. The thing is that people rely on the government for services and the election should be about more than just a policy to help with an election strategy. When people need medical care, send their kids to school or dozens of other areas where the provincial government affects their daily lives, the outcomes of the election are more important.

I don't mean that as an attack against the Wildrose or anyone else either; its just that elections have become more about scoring a few points here and there and not as focused on what actually matters. I'll use your example of the GST cut; looked good on paper and probably garnered both attention and point for the CPC in the election. Fast-forward a few years though and almost every economist from all political stripes would tell you its a bad policy and hard for the federal government to get rid of the deficit as a result.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

I think the energy dividends policy is almost entirely political and strategy (and I am aware I am being a bit cynical).

You're not being cynical, it's 100% vote buying.

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

I remember is the uproar it caused, particularly here in Western Canada (but also in Ontario) when a Federal Liberal insider made comments to the effect that Canadian would spend the benefit on "beer and pizza". An insensitive comment to be sure, but also made at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

That was Liberal strategist Scott Ried with his "beer and popcorn" comment. That helped tag the Libs as elitist and out of touch, he would love to take back that moment I'm sure.

[Brotato]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You're not being cynical, it's 100% vote buying.


That was Liberal strategist Scott Ried with his "beer and popcorn" comment. That helped tag the Libs as elitist and out of touch, he would love to take back that moment I'm sure.

It was also a true comment. I want leaders who can make longterm and tough decisions with any windfalls, not give it back so 95% of people can go buy the latest made in china trinket.

The last thing we need to be doing with non-renewable resource funds is squander them. They should be making leading edge, tough decisions that advance our province for the long term. Not giving 20 year olds money for a free weekend bender.

I was goingto vote WRP in this election, but not now. This proves these guys are more about getting power (vote buying) than having great plans for this province's future.

[IntenseFan]

Slava, I wonder if your "scoring points" analysis, which I tend to agree with, has a lot to do with the way media covers elections in Canada in the 21st Century?

Getting the message out and getting everyone talking about it over the internet, radio, tv and new media forums seems to be what it's all about. Sometimes, even if the policy is a head scratcher, like the energy dividend or the child care benefit, that doesn't matter. What matters is all the good and negative press the party that introduced that policy it is getting.

Perhaps it truly is a matter of "no publicity is bad publicity".

I will have to disagree with you regarding the GST, however. While it is more difficult for the Fed-Cons to reduce the deficit without the extra 2%, the much bigger problem (which can be put at the foot of the Fed-Cons and every other Canadian Federal government since the tax was introduced in the early 1990s) is that the GST was being used as a crutch to supplement revenue for a government that refuses to live within its means. It was introduced by a government that needed the tax to reduce the burden of its overspending and then kept by subsequent governments through boom and bust times alike because the government got addicted to it.

I could see some strength in your argument if I had any confidence that a future government would abolish it entirely when the deficit was wiped out, but I see no prospect of that ever occurring. Accordingly, reductions are the only good thing to ever happen to that wretched tax.