April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Really?

No idea how it can be much clearer.

So they won't legislate it, and it probably won't fly as a referendum question. Ergo, it's NOT off the table. Pretty simple. Really!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Really?






No idea how it can be much clearer.

It sounds to me like they would like to be able to pass more restrictive abortion legislation, but they know that it won't withstand Charter scrutiny.

This, plus the "conscience rights" debate, seems to expose the Wildrose party as yet another fiscally conservative party that can't resist the urge to pander to the social conservatives. It is what it is I guess. But it will never get my vote.

[The Goon]

Today's Globe & Mail editorial:

Alberta's unsatisfactory choice

The electors of Alberta have more than two weeks to consider critically both of the parties that have a real prospect of forming the next government: the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party. Neither is a model of good fiscal policy.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Makarov

It sounds to me like they would like to be able to pass more restrictive abortion legislation, but they know that it won't withstand Charter scrutiny.

This, plus the "conscience rights" debate, seems to expose the Wildrose party as yet another fiscally conservative party that can't resist the urge to pander to the social conservatives. It is what it is I guess. But it will never get my vote.

I'm a member of the party and I have no interest in seeing a debate on the issue.

I have every confidence that it is not going to happen at all, and in the event it did, people like me would tell the party we are not interested in the debate.

I'm disappointed in the pcs on this though. I thought they would have realized the "hidden agenda" threat is tired. Albertans are resistant to being painted as the boogeyman.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

One not-insignificant question is what the Wild Rose's ground operation is like. I assume it's good, but somewhat untested? I honestly don't know; FL could speak to it maybe.

I'm guessing by this you mean individual candidate ground operation as opposed to Party.

Don't think we are unlike other parties in that some are very strong and other not so much. Ground strength can be measured in many ways;

- money to invest in literature, signs and calling,
- manpower in terms of volunteers to door knock, man phone lines & scrutineer on E-day,
- of course the candidate is pivotal, have they been out there working & for how long. Is their individual message and personality resonating with constituents.

Obviously I can't let on too much about where we have all these things hitting on all cylinders; but I will say we have enough that are, that they are now sharing resources with the candidates who might be short in some areas. For example; excess volunteers in X area are being redirected to Y area.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I'm a member of the party and I have no interest in seeing a debate on the issue.

I have every confidence that it is not going to happen at all, and in the event it did, people like me would tell the party we are not interested in the debate.

I'm disappointed in the pcs on this though. I thought they would have realized the "hidden agenda" threat is tired. Albertans are resistant to being painted as the boogeyman.

I'm tired of hearing "hidden agenda" as some sort of defence for policy that is not hidden in any way. Lets have a look at why the undecided voter might get these impressions though:

I) Danielle Smith has commented publicly that the party would "ensure conscience rights" for healthcare professionals and marriage commissioners. You can see that for yourself in the FFWD article from last fall.

II) Its been a policy of the Wildrose and specifically references pursuing this for healthcare professionals. The wording was changed in 2011, albeit slightly, but its right there clear as day.

III) The abortion debate of this week isn't the result of an opposition party on a witch hunt. A high-level Wildrose staffer opened this all up. His comments (now brushed aside as an error) were pretty blunt; if the voting public wants to know about a party policy and gets information about the policy directly from the party that seems like the furthest thing from a hidden agenda! Bluntly, thats a pretty stupid "mistake" to "accidentally" reveal, or rather confuse the party position entirely. If it was a mistake, then you have to wonder about the competency of the high level staff.

IV) Have a flip through some of the candidates and their positions on these matters. I know that these candidates have personal views and those don't make it party policy. Does that mean that voters ought to ignore that though? When candidates have a radical history or have made comments very publicly about these issues its got nothing to do with a hidden agenda.


Lastly, about conscience rights, I just want a Wildrose supporter to give an example of where this would be used and not be a big deal. In the Herald yesterday they talked about cases where doctors didn't want to treat patients with tattoos or patients who smoked. Is that OK? Is it OK for a doctor to not provide birth control? What if a doctor wants to refuse treatment because someone is overweight? Who decides where the line is drawn? I understand you can go to this new court, but honestly who wants to go through that?

What you are calling a "hidden agenda" doesn't seem to be very well hidden if that's the case.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by The Goon

Today's Globe & Mail editorial:

Alberta's unsatisfactory choice

The electors of Alberta have more than two weeks to consider critically both of the parties that have a real prospect of forming the next government: the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party. Neither is a model of good fiscal policy.

To quote from the article:

Neither major party in Alberta is communicating a sense of seriousness about the future. With a glut of crude oil on the Gulf Coast and an abundance of natural gas in the United States – a country that may be at last achieving energy independence – Alberta may need to rethink where its major markets are really going to be.

Bingo - this is EXACTLY why I think both the PC's and Wildrose aren't viable for office. Neither has any realistic plan for the future. The PC's are fighting for their lives from an entitled perch while the Wildrose are capitalizing on a populist sentiment of anger over the PC's and attempting to buy votes for $300 (/facepalm).

I had hope that Alberta would show improvement this election but it seems we're still a province of short sighted thinkers who are only looking forward to cashing in the next oil boom and promising not to blow it all this time.

Anyone recall the 1998 Calgary Board of Education? Remember how truly broken and inept it was? Guess who was a major part of that: http://daveberta.ca/alberta-election...ard-education/

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm tired of hearing "hidden agenda" as some sort of defence for policy that is not hidden in any way.

Further to Slava's point above, examining the possible consequeces of a policy, including the worst case scenario, isn't a "witch hunt", fearmongering, etc. It's due diligence.

[killer_carlson]

I can say I am more concerned about redford's "hidden agenda" to keep spending despite announcement after announcement that wasn't in her budget. (wink wink)

It isn't due diligence it is fear mongering. Dress it up as much as you want. Surely your campaigns have something more to talk about rather than fear monger against the wr ... Or is there an implicit admission about your own policies?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I can say I am more concerned about redford's "hidden agenda" to keep spending despite announcement after announcement that wasn't in her budget. (wink wink)

It isn't due diligence it is fear mongering. Dress it up as much as you want. Surely your campaigns have something more to talk about rather than fear monger against the wr ... Or is there an implicit admission about your own policies?

Are you suggesting that the policies (and potential consequences of those policies) of a party that (shockingly) might form the next provincial government should be immune from examination, discussion and criticism?

[Jacks]

Has Redford denied that the PC's are planning to institute a death penalty?

We don't know, she's not talking about it, that's pretty much a non denial. Even if she did deny it we know there are lots of people in her party who support a death penalty. It probably won't happen but can we really take that chance?

They could bring it in through the back door, it's her hidden agenda.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I can say I am more concerned about redford's "hidden agenda" to keep spending despite announcement after announcement that wasn't in her budget. (wink wink)

It isn't due diligence it is fear mongering. Dress it up as much as you want. Surely your campaigns have something more to talk about rather than fear monger against the wr ... Or is there an implicit admission about your own policies?

Why don't you just point to an example of conscience rights that isn't a big deal then? Surely there are examples of the implementation that show why we shouldn't worry?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Are you suggesting that the policies (and potential consequences of those policies) of a party that (shockingly) might form the next provincial government should be immune from examination, discussion and criticism?

Not at all..however when one of the issues has blatently and completely been dismissed, but the opposition and their supporters continue to expound on it, then i too wonder why.

And "might" form the next government? I would suggest that right now as we sit here, its not a matter of might....only if it will be a minorit or a majority. Only a severe mis-step by Smith in the debate can change that at this point.

Also the only shocking part of that is how quickly the wra has been embraced by the voters....goes to show you how poorly Redford and her Progressive Liberals have registered with Albertans and the arrogance and entitlement with which they have governed has soured the masses.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why don't you just point to an example of conscience rights that isn't a big deal then? Surely there are examples of the implementation that show why we shouldn't worry?

I will honestly ask this cause i dont know being out of the country the last 11 years...is there an example in Canada that shows where conscience rights has been a big deal??

[killer_carlson]

I'd rather have someone show me an actual platform of the wild rose that comes close to legislating morality.

There are none. In fact, this party is about personal freedoms.

I'm not going to let someone trap the party into a narrowly defined question, especially when there is no party intention to legislate on morality. By answering the question as slava has framed it, you are presupposing an intention to legislate - when no such intention exists.

I'll toss one back at you. Some ndp members are anti oilsands, referring to them as tar sands and supporting the radicalism of mulclair. If the ndp were to form government, how long before they shut down the oilsands

(it can go both ways)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I can say I am more concerned about redford's "hidden agenda" to keep spending despite announcement after announcement that wasn't in her budget. (wink wink)

It isn't due diligence it is fear mongering. Dress it up as much as you want. Surely your campaigns have something more to talk about rather than fear monger against the wr ... Or is there an implicit admission about your own policies?

We didn't make this stuff up. You can call it fearmongering all you want, but that's a copout, and a weak-kneed one at that. If they don't have the balls to answer questions about this "conscience rights" crap, it's their own fault.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why don't you just point to an example of conscience rights that isn't a big deal then? Surely there are examples of the implementation that show why we shouldn't worry?

There are lots of them. Currently they are all already provided for in the code of ethics. For example, you can already arrange for a different doctor to perform a procedure that's against your conscience, so long as you make the arrangements ahead of time and with the consent of the patient.

As such, it really comes down to how broadly they want to implement these rights. If all it means is that they plan to ensure the existing provisions in the code of ethics are not removed in the future, great. If it extends to being able to say no to anything medical related just because it's against your conscience and you can decide that it's against your conscience at any time, the I'm strongly opposed to conscience rights as it will simply become an excuse for discrimination.

It may be pandering to social conservatives, but I know a lot of very socially conservative people and pretty much none of them support the idea of unlimited conscience rights for medical people or marriage commissioners after acquainting themselves with what it might mean. Limited, very well defined conscience rights has some support, but unlimited conscience rights is opposed by people from all walks of life.

Fortunately, it's unlikely that conscience rights would ever become law simply because it's unlikely to withstand a legal challenge and the more people think about what it really means, the less people support it.

As a result, the conscience rights issue, if it was actually likely to become law, would be concerning, but since it's very unlikely to ever become one, I'm ignoring the issue as I choose who I will vote for.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I'll toss one back at you. Some ndp members are anti oilsands, referring to them as tar sands and supporting the radicalism of mulclair. If the ndp were to form government, how long before they shut down the oilsands

(it can go both ways)

That's a very good analogy. Furthermore, those are highly legitimate questions that any voter who is considering voting NDP should definitely be asking.

[Slava]

Well I'm sure that since conscience rights are so innocuous that you can just provide a simple example where its fine to deny service?

I think the reason yoj don't want to is because you know exactly what it amounts to; legalized discrimination.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I'm sure that since conscience rights are so innocuous that you can just provide a simple example where its fine to deny service?

I think the reason yoj don't want to is because you know exactly what it amounts to; legalized discrimination.

Again....then why not show a simple example in canada where it has occurred?