April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If you say so.

Looks to me like both parties are made up of the same motley crew that we've had for the past few decades. Only on one side, they're slightly less experienced, and on average a little bit dumber--so there's slightly more potential for fun screwups when they take office!

Voting for "change" is fun!

This is where it's tough though. As a centrist in a riding that's close (I think) and the other parties are probably 15 points behind, what do you do?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is where it's tough though. As a centrist in a riding that's close (I think) and the other parties are probably 15 points behind, what do you do?

I thought I would face the same dilemma, especially considering my total disillusionment with the Liberals.

But... based on lawn-sign prevalence (which I realize is not an exact science) the Liberal candidate looks to be quite strong in my riding again. (I'm in Currie)

Basically, "strategic voting" won't work, because I have no idea who's ahead; for all I know it's a three way race. So I'm basing my choice on who's most qualified, ignoring party affiliations.

My choices are: a school principal, a chemical engineer with 35 years experience in the oil patch, and a real estate agent who virtually doesn't have a mark on her slate.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I thought I would face the same dilemma, especially considering my total disillusionment with the Liberals.

But... based on lawn-sign prevalence (which I realize is not an exact science) the Liberal candidate looks to be quite strong in my riding again. (I'm in Currie)

Basically, "strategic voting" won't work, because I have no idea who's ahead; for all I know it's a three way race. So I'm basing my choice on who's most qualified, ignoring party affiliations.

My choices are: a school principal, a chemical engineer with 35 years experience in the oil patch, and a real estate agent who virtually doesn't have a mark on her slate.

I think Currie is going to be close for sure. Mine is clearly between a Redford PC and the Wildrose. The Liberal managed 24% last time, but thats not enough.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think Currie is going to be close for sure. Mine is clearly between a Redford PC and the Wildrose. The Liberal managed 24% last time, but thats not enough.

Part of me wonders if the Liberals will actually do a little better in Calgary than in Edmonton, just because

a) there is historical strength in the central ridings of the city, and
b) unlike Edmonton, there is virtually no NDP presence in Calgary.

In that case, we might actually see vote-splitting benefiting Liberal candidates in Currie or Varsity.

I wouldn't be that shocked to see the Liberals down to 4 seats total, with 3 of them in Calgary (Buffalo, Mountain View and one of Varsity or Currie) and Raj Sherman being the only other one. The rest of the leg. might well split PC/Wild Rose, with the PCs strong in the suburbs of the cities and Wild Rose stronger in rural areas. Maybe give the NDP a couple in Edmonton?

If only polls in Alberta gave us regional breakdowns...

[kn]

I decided to spend some time outlining what the four major parties have been promising us thus far. My sources were strictly their websites. This is not "platform" information, just what has been promised or brought to attention via press releases. I was surprised at some of the promises that have not garnered any media attention. I tried to be impartial but I'll admit that the WildRose has some slick PDFs that make it easy to find the information. The PC website is pretty good too. The NDP is lacking in cost information except for one press release and the Liberals are well behind in terms of the quality of information provided. I apologize in advance if I got any of the details wrong.


Edit: Here's a platform tracker which is pretty much what I was looking for. Hopefully it will be updated with promises as the election goes along.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...ker/index.html




Progressive Conservatives

• increase to $20 million from $10 million for amateur sport organizations
• Alberta Children’s Physical Activity Tax Credit of $500 at a cost of $36 million
• Fast-track Emergency Rooms to reduce wait times
• Expand access to local medical education (pilot project between University of Lethbridge and University of Calgary)
• Expand and make permanent the Rural Integrated Community Clerkship Program
• Seniors’ Activity Tax Credit of $500 at a cost of $24 million
• 50 new schools and upgrading for 70 more over the next four years at a cost of $2.4 billion
• $200 million for the redevelopment of the Medicine Hat Regional Hospital
• Funding for the Dunmore Road interchange in Medicine Hat
• Guarantee that Albertans have the option to ask their local pharmacist to renew their prescriptions without having to visit a doctor
• 140 Family Care Clinics over the next three years
• Seniors’ Property Tax Deferral Program
• $150 million annual commitment to AOSTRA2 (Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority)
• Create a Property Rights Advocate Office and review the Expropriation Act and Surface Rights Act

Wildrose

• Balanced Budget and Savings Act
• Cap increases in annual government spending to rate of inflation plus population growth
• Reinstate mandatory balanced-budget legislation that the PCs repealed in 2009
• Mandate that 50% of all cash surpluses be invested in the Heritage Fund
• Prohibit government from transferring interest earned in the Heritage Fund into general revenues until annual earnings from the Fund surpass government revenues from oil and gas
• $2000/child tax deduction phased in over two years after a $250 million cash surplus at a cost of $130 million
• Banning all mandatory school fees in public, Catholic and public charter schools
• $500 tax credit for children’s sports, arts, and cultural activities at a cost of $30 million/year
• Alberta Energy Dividend
• 20% of surpluses over $750 million will be distributed (projected to be $1 billion by 2014-2015)
• Alberta’s Patient Wait Time Guarantee ($180 million)
• Albertans on wait lists longer than the Canadian Wait Time Alliance Benchmarks for 10 major health procedures may choose to have the procedure performed at a private facility in or out of province and have the procedure paid by Alberta Health Insurance
• Allow for a mix and public and private health care delivery
• Protection of Public Health Care Guarantee
• Cancellation of the $2 billion Carbon Capture and Storage grant program

Liberals

• $250 reduction in post-secondary tuition
• Post Secondary Heritage Fund to phase out tuition by 2025
• Pay greater of 5% or $1000 of student debt for every year the student stays in the province and works after graduation
• $76 million/year for ESL
• $100 million for early childhood education
• $15 million for school lunch program
• Strongest in the country guarantees for new homes and condos
• 3 years on defects in labour and materials
• 5 years on defects in the building envelope
• 10 years on structural defects

NDP

• An extra $1.90 per barrel of bitumen in revenues through a new royalty system that gives companies who upgrade in Alberta a break
• Require all new oilsands development to have plans for upgrading in Alberta
• Set aside $1 billion to pay for services with the balance into the Heritage Fund
• Increase taxes on wealthy Albertans while holding current taxes on others
• Raise corporate tax by 2% while reducing taxes for small business by 33%
• Cost $2,062,060,000; Revenue $3,008,000,000; Balance of $945,940,000 reinvested in Heritage Fund
• 1500 long-term care beds
• $100 million for home care
• Cap drug costs at $25/month
• Boost annual funding for LRT and transit by 50% through Green TRIP
• Funding for school boards to keep schools open in mature neighbourhoods
• $50 million for New Beginnings Community Fund
• $5000 interest free home retrofit loan

[kn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Looks to me like both parties are made up of the same motley crew that we've had for the past few decades. Only on one side, they're slightly less experienced, and on average a little bit dumber.

And people wonder why populism exists in Alberta...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by kn

And people wonder why populism exists in Alberta...

Are you suggesting the Wild Rose is populist?

Wow. I've heard some good ones, but that kind of takes the cake. If only William Jennings Bryan could see what has become of his movement.

[GP_Matt]

I am curious about the PC promise to allow pharmacists to renew prescriptions without a doctor. Isn't there cases where the doctor wants to review a prescription before renewing it? Taking the check away from the doctor seems like a dangerous precedence in breaking down the separation between doctors and pharmacists.
I am not really sure of all the issues here but it seems like something that shouldn't be announced lightly.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Are you suggesting the Wild Rose is populist?

Wow. I've heard some good ones, but that kind of takes the cake. If only William Jennings Bryan could see what has become of his movement.

The Alberta Dividend, direct democracy initiatives, and a general belief that people at the grassroots level are better suited to manage local affairs than a cadre of government elites would lend credence that there are populist elements among the Party, certainly more than any of the other alternatives. If it doesn't have populist elements, how would you characterize the Party? Do you think the forces that enabled the Reform Party to form simply vanished in the intervening years?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by kn

The Alberta Dividend, direct democracy initiatives, and a general belief that people at the grassroots level are better suited to manage local affairs than a cadre of government elites would lend credence that there are populist elements among the Party, certainly more than any of the other alternatives. If it doesn't have populist elements, how would you characterize the Party? Do you think the forces that enabled the Reform Party to form simply vanished in the intervening years?

Let's be clear: the Alberta Dividend is silly pandering to Dave-Rutherford conservatives who buy the whole "I know what to do with my money better than the government" line. The Tories did the same thing not too many years back, and for the exact same reason: to buy your vote. I'm not going to pretend my vote isn't for sale, but it costs more than an iPad.

Direct democracy initiatives? Talk to me when the Wild Rose Alliance proposes meaningful electoral reform in Alberta. Not this goofy straw poll for Senators that we run.

The rest is just sophistry. This "cadre of government elites" are the very people who make up the leadership of the Wild Rose Alliance. Your Rod Loves and Tom Flanagans and so on--a murderer's row of intellectual poverty and dogmatic faith in the widely-discredited economics of Milton Friedman.

This is the SAME group that ran on a "change" agenda in the early 90s. Even their ideas are the same (the "Alberta Dividend" is a particularly egregious retread of an old tory standby).

So no, they're not "populists." The Wild Rose Alliance represents total continuity with the conservative elite in this province--their "grassroots" message is just a sop to the rhetoric of populism that resonates so well with the "Als" of this world. But real populism is a distant memory; I suppose it died with William Jennings Bryan.

Vote for them if you want; just don't be surprised when what you get is more of the same.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not going to pretend my vote isn't for sale, but it costs more than an iPad.

Mine doesn't.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Mine doesn't.

Who'm I kidding? Mine doesn't either. iPads are awesome.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am curious about the PC promise to allow pharmacists to renew prescriptions without a doctor. Isn't there cases where the doctor wants to review a prescription before renewing it? Taking the check away from the doctor seems like a dangerous precedence in breaking down the separation between doctors and pharmacists.
I am not really sure of all the issues here but it seems like something that shouldn't be announced lightly.

That legislation exists already in BC, and i believe also has in Alberta for some time . There are many limitations (no narcotics, psych meds, rx cannot be older than 6 months, etc.), and liability still resides with the prescriber (in this case a pharmacist). No pharmacist is going to renew a med for a complex issue for no valid reason any more than a walk-in/family physician would. The change is meant to help alleviate the dr shortage by allowing pharmacists to make decisions they are trained to make. For example, many times a prescription for a blood pressure medication that a person has been on for 5 years runs out. Very rarely can you get in to see your physician right away, yet you are out. The pharmacist can renew that med (assuring that bp control, and other potential issues are normal). The current option is either a $ 700 emergency room visit (happens very often, at least here in kamloops), a walk-in visit for a simple 1 month renewal, or worse yet, not take it at all until the next visit. This is not meant for meds that are new or complex. Remember that the pharmacist wants to protect their livelihood too, and has the same desire to benefit the health of the patient as the doctor. Pharmacist have often done "emergency supplies" of medications, but previously existing legislation does not really allow for it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That legislation exists already in BC, and i believe also has in Alberta for some time . There are many limitations (no narcotics, psych meds, rx cannot be older than 6 months, etc.), and liability still resides with the prescriber (in this case a pharmacist). No pharmacist is going to renew a med for a complex issue for no valid reason any more than a walk-in/family physician would. The change is meant to help alleviate the dr shortage by allowing pharmacists to make decisions they are trained to make. For example, many times a prescription for a blood pressure medication that a person has been on for 5 years runs out. Very rarely can you get in to see your physician right away, yet you are out. The pharmacist can renew that med (assuring that bp control, and other potential issues are normal). The current option is either a $ 700 emergency room visit (happens very often, at least here in kamloops), a walk-in visit for a simple 1 month renewal, or worse yet, not take it at all until the next visit. This is not meant for meds that are new or complex. Remember that the pharmacist wants to protect their livelihood too, and has the same desire to benefit the health of the patient as the doctor. Pharmacist have often done "emergency supplies" of medications, but previously existing legislation does not really allow for it.

When you put it that way, it sounds like a very good idea.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Codes

I think we all knew this already, but a report from the Parkland Institute has concluded that Albertans are being "short changed", if you will, on royalties from the tar sands. We have received less than 20% of the wealth generated from the oil sands, and since 1997, closer to 9%. If the target of 35% mandated in 1970 was met, Alberta would have made an additional $195 billion between 1971 and 2010.

I understand why the government cut royalties, to attract and spur production, but now that the tar sands are a major source of oil, do you think it is time to modify the royalty regime to generate more revenue for the province?

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/05/Lo...ampaign=050412

Somewhat thought-provoking article, but it doesn't provide enough information to provide a clear answer. For starters, if we upped the government slice of the pie to 35%, does that $195B account for the pie getting smaller? Furthermore, the oil sands does much for Alberta than provide government revenue (I think we all know this). If we raise royalties, is that offset by losses to citizens, coporate tax, income tax, property tax etc.?

There are possible reasons why we should perhaps take a smaller piece than other jurisdictions. For example, if costs are higher here (and I believe they may be) then we need lower royalties to offset that and make us competitive.

To me, the figure that should be benchmarked is royalties as a percentage of return on investment, because that's what drives investment decisions. You could say that we she be comparable in that compared to other jurisdictions, perhaps higher because we offer a relatively safe investment climate (compared to, say, certain Middle Eastern countries). But even then, if you base your rates based on that you're still kind of assuming that the market has it right, and it may not.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by kn

I decided to spend some time outlining what the four major parties have been promising us thus far. My sources were strictly their websites. This is not "platform" information, just what has been promised or brought to attention via press releases. I was surprised at some of the promises that have not garnered any media attention.

I want to point out some really bad economic policies.

Wildrose

• Cap increases in annual government spending to rate of inflation plus population growth
• Reinstate mandatory balanced-budget legislation that the PCs repealed in 2009

Balanced budget legislation is a terrible idea: governments should run deficits in slow economic periods to stimulate the economy and get required infrastructure at lower prices than at cycle peaks when costs are higher. Ironic, but perpetually balanced budgets actually lead to higher spending for a given service level. Nobody benefits from that.

Liberals

• Post Secondary Heritage Fund to phase out tuition by 2025

This only makes sense if 100% of the benefit of educating a student goes to the province, and if it were, there would be no reason to go to school. Make education available through loans, not grants. One of the best ways to get people to waste something is to make it free.

NDP

• Require all new oilsands development to have plans for upgrading in Alberta

Our competitive advantage in extraction is stronger than our competitive advantage in upgrading. Therefore, our economy should specialize in extraction and any attempt to force it away from that will result in a net loss. This is classic old-school protectionism that doesn't work - it works at an individual level but when one jurisdiction does it others follow and then everyone loses their efficiency through specilization. That's why we have free trade agreements. This policy would definitely make it more difficult for the federal government to negociate new agreements and might even contravene some of the agreements we already have.

You'll notice that I left out the PCs. While their platform as stated in kn's post didn't have anything as bad as the other three, they have been guilty of the same thing that Wildrose proposes to do: underspending when the economy is bad and overspending when the ecomony is good. While it's difficult to say for sure if any particular element of their platform is worth it or not (though I rather dislike tax credits), the budget appears to be following that pattern.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Let's be clear: the Alberta Dividend is silly pandering to Dave-Rutherford conservatives who buy the whole "I know what to do with my money better than the government" line. The Tories did the same thing not too many years back, and for the exact same reason: to buy your vote. I'm not going to pretend my vote isn't for sale, but it costs more than an iPad.

At its worse, it’s good retail politics. At its best, it’s a recognition that the money doesn’t belong to government, a concept difficult for statist elites to comprehend.

Direct democracy initiatives? Talk to me when the Wild Rose Alliance proposes meaningful electoral reform in Alberta. Not this goofy straw poll for Senators that we run.

Yeah, why should we elect the senate when it can be used for patronage appointments? And citizen-initiated referenda? Who would want the great unwashed proposing legislation?

The rest is just sophistry. This "cadre of government elites" are the very people who make up the leadership of the Wild Rose Alliance. Your Rod Loves and Tom Flanagans and so on--a murderer's row of intellectual poverty and dogmatic faith in the widely-discredited economics of Milton Friedman.

This is the SAME group that ran on a "change" agenda in the early 90s. Even their ideas are the same (the "Alberta Dividend" is a particularly egregious retread of an old tory standby).

So no, they're not "populists." The Wild Rose Alliance represents total continuity with the conservative elite in this province--their "grassroots" message is just a sop to the rhetoric of populism that resonates so well with the "Als" of this world. But real populism is a distant memory; I suppose it died with William Jennings Bryan.

Populism has always existed in Alberta’s political culture. The UFA, Social Credit, and Reform Party all had populist elements. Manning experienced it under his father long before Flanagan was around. I can’t speak for the Wildrose or other parties, but I know when I was a director for the Calgary-West constituency association in the early days of the Reform Party, anyone could have a say in shaping policy. That being said, any populist movement will necessarily need to be articulated and usually that's by an “elite”. The question revolves around the different outlook between a populist elite and statist elite. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on comparative analyses of various schools of economic theory but I’d be really surprised if Love and Flanagan were ideologues who saw no role for government. They simply have more faith in people and the market to make better decisions than the state.

Vote for them if you want; just don't be surprised when what you get is more of the same.

Actually, I think it’ll be more of a change than we’ve seen with the Harper Conservatives since Wildrose will not be as hampered by the need to represent various diverse regions of the country or feel pressured to move to the left.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Balanced budget legislation is a terrible idea: governments should run deficits in slow economic periods to stimulate the economy and get required infrastructure at lower prices than at cycle peaks when costs are higher. Ironic, but perpetually balanced budgets actually lead to higher spending for a given service level. Nobody benefits from that.

While you may have a fair point on principle, in practise we have seen that no government has ever been able to achieve this policy.... instead spending when times are bad, and spending more when times are good. Governments across the world are terrible at controlling spending, it just isn't a reasonable expectionion.

As such, the only plausible alternative is to limit spending to a defined amount of growth. Yes, we may see better return on that spending in one year compared to the next, but it is the only reasonable way to restrain government from unnecessary debt financing.

[kn]

I just heard on QR77 that the PCs have brought in from Toronto Stelmack's campaign manager along with Jamie Watt of CBC's "The Insider" fame. Elliot keeps her title of campaign manager.

[killer_carlson]

I entirely disagree that balanced budgets are a terrible idea.

You presuppose that the government won't have budgeted for capital projects in slow periods, or that the only option is government spending (and that p3. Projects are not an option).