Does it even matter? I also thought you would be for fixed election dates. Geez.
Its just such a minor thing. Like I say I'm not even against it, so much as the fact is that I don't care. When I see Cory Morgan post about this and he has "damages" like campaign signs are collecting dust and things like that, the reality is that I don't care. I also think to myself "Really? They thought about ways to reform things electorally and the best they could come up with is fixed election dates? Nothing about campaign spending limits or re-allocating MLAs to reflect the more urban population, but just a set date for elections?" Its just such a lazy policy.
Like I say, I'm fine with them being implemented. I just think there are way more important things to deal with regarding that issue.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Well they're probably primarily perceived to be honest. The thing is that when you have a party where pure social conservatives like Link Byfield are running and feel comfortable it sends a message that I'm probably a bad fit there. I also hear the suggestions here from FL about opting out of CPP and things like that and it just rubs me the wrong way.
But, Slava, these social values are a red herring. I am a porno-loving, jebus disbelieving, borderline libertarian, but I will vote WRA (and cut them a cheque). You know, as well as I do, that none of these "social issues" have any chance of seeing the light of day in Canada. Ted Byfield can blather all he wants, but nobody is outlawing abortion or gay marriage. This isn't Arkansas - I am not worried these guys will suddenly start jailing sodomites. I don't see anything worse than the moronic 0.05 law coming from WRA...
Well they're probably primarily perceived to be honest. The thing is that when you have a party where pure social conservatives like Link Byfield are running and feel comfortable it sends a message that I'm probably a bad fit there. I also hear the suggestions here from FL about opting out of CPP and things like that and it just rubs me the wrong way.
I think Wildrose is positioning to be the governing party though which means that you will have diverse group of supporters some of whom will be disappointed that the party doesn't take a more polar stance on many issues. If you look at the news clips from previous party AGM's you will see that there were a few motions brought forward that were socially conservative but there were overwhelmingly voted down.
I liken it to the members of the federal conservative party that want to ban gay marriage. They are allowed to speak their opinion but it is a small minority opinion that will never overcome the majority of moderate votes in the house.
Well they're probably primarily perceived to be honest. The thing is that when you have a party where pure social conservatives like Link Byfield are running and feel comfortable it sends a message that I'm probably a bad fit there.
Every party has people you can pick out to "label" the group. Social conservatives say Wildrose is too open and point to people like Mr Morgan who has a FSM tattoo'd on himself.
Quote:
I also hear the suggestions here from FL about opting out of CPP and things like that and it just rubs me the wrong way.
That is hardly a social conservative concept, nor far-right wing. I'm right leaning on some things; but definitely not on the social issues.
Awaiting Fotze commentary on FL rubbing Slava wrong way.
I think Wildrose is positioning to be the governing party though which means that you will have diverse group of supporters some of whom will be disappointed that the party doesn't take a more polar stance on many issues. If you look at the news clips from previous party AGM's you will see that there were a few motions brought forward that were socially conservative but there were overwhelmingly voted down.
I liken it to the members of the federal conservative party that want to ban gay marriage. They are allowed to speak their opinion but it is a small minority opinion that will never overcome the majority of moderate votes in the house.
Don't ruin a good narrative with facts, GP_Matt.
The WRA are socially conservative, crazy right-wingers. Why? The liberals said so. You're not going to fool them with your "facts."
__________________
zk
The Following User Says Thank You to zuluking For This Useful Post:
The ad doesn’t actually mention .05, Alberta’s new hot-button digits. It says only that since 1998, 300 people have been killed by drivers blowing .08 or less.
I wonder what the figure would be if you only included people who blew between 0.05 & 0.08?
We do know that only 2.2% of fatal accidents fall in this range.
Doesn't 300 deaths in a little over 13 years in a province of 3.5 million seem like a pretty small number?
This chart is from the Government of Alberta website:
That shows just over 4000 traffic fatalities in the 10 year period from 2001-2010. If you assume that the numbers from 1998-2000 and 2011 averaged 400 deaths per year, then 300 over that 13 year span is only 5% of all fatalities.
In 2010 alone, there were 412 drivers involved in a fatal collision in Alberta. Of those, 304 had not been drinking prior to the collision, 33 had consumed some alcohol but weren't impaired, and 57 were legally impaired.
If the new legislation was brought in to save 300 lives over a 13 year period, what is the government planning on doing to save the other 3000 people whose deaths are in no way related to alcohol?
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I know the Wildrose won't be pushing the latest issue out there, namely because half of their caucus was receiving it, but the uproar today is about a committee that hasn't met for 40 months and yet the members continue to receive $1,000/month for being a part of it.
But some of the 21 MLAS who have been paid $1,000 a month to be part of the committee that hasn’t met since 2008 say they work hard for the money on other committees and it is up to voters to decide if they deserve their paycheques.
This committee included MLA's from ALL parties. Disappointing.
I know the Wildrose won't be pushing the latest issue out there, namely because half of their caucus was receiving it, but the uproar today is about a committee that hasn't met for 40 months and yet the members continue to receive $1,000/month for being a part of it.
Pretty pathetic.
Getting a little concerned that I was typing about the same issue as you posted this.... Quit stealing my thoughts dammit.
How many Wildrose MLAs voted to change the compensation though? (I don't know, just asking). I know that Kent Hehr and Dave Taylor (now Alberta Party, but Liberal at the time) were the only MLAs to vote against the pay increase.
I don't see anything worse than the moronic 0.05 law coming from WRA...
