April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Senator Clay Davis]

But cutting costs while simultaneously improving service is exactly how we should fix the economy! That's a sure fire winner!

I don't expect to be able to convince hardcore Wildrose supporters of anything. After all they view PCs as liberal (which makes me wonder...do they view actual Liberals as commies then?)

Things people enjoy falls into the "wants" category and that's where I'd be concerned about gov't having unplanned windfalls.

I get wants and needs. They can also be the same thing amazingly. You want water on a hot day because you're thirsty. You need water to survive. You want a cheeseburger after smoking a doobie because you got the munchies. You need (well not a cheeseburger) food to survive. Roads are a great example of both. We want roads, and we need roads. We just don't need all the roads we want.

[MarchHare]

I don't expect to be able to convince hardcore Wildrose supporters of anything. After all they view PCs as liberal (which makes me wonder...do they view actual Liberals as commies then?)

Judging from many comments I've read on this forum and *shudder* newpaper comments sections, many far-right posters really do think Redford is a left-wing extremist like Jack Layton and the Alberta Liberals and NDP are following in the footsteps of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

[MarchHare]

In lighter news, the National Post has put together a drinking game for tonight's leaders' debate:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04...ebate-alberta/

[vennegoor of hesselink]

Typical Alberta. Only one white male in the leaders debate tonight, and he's a New Democrat. Who's supposed to represent my people?!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Man if Redford gets Smith on just 3 Ron Paul-esque rants Team Smith is gonna be hammered!

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Man if Redford gets Smith on just 3 Ron Paul-esque rants Team Smith is gonna be hammered!

It's going to be an interesting debate. My gut says that at the end of the day, nothing will change. Every time there's been a big hyped up debate over the past few years, it pretty much been a dud, with neither of the candidates able to throw that classic knock out blow.

Redford has by far the hardest and I would say near impossible position going into the debate. She's got to get a game changer on Smith, while deflecting hard questions and attacks from Raj, Smith and Mason.

Raj and Mason are vying for third place, but at the same time they have to convince people who would normally vote for them to stay with them rather than voting in a "Any But The Wildrose" stance.

In the end, each party will release statements saying their candidate won and the other clearly lost. My gut says that it won't change anything in regards to polls and won't really solidify people's current party stances.

Redford will look like a strong leader to her PC supporters and will look like a bully trying to push the hidden agenda on to Danielle Smith for Wildrose supporters.

Smith will look like a professional and a classic example of leadership to her supporters, while looking like she's hiding something to supporters of the other parties.

I think Redford will try and go for a couple of zingers, which is always risky because it's always prime for a counter attack... sort of like when Layton hit Ignatieff with the attendance in Parliament comment in the last election. Smith will basically do the Harper stare into the camera and play it completely safe. I really doubt it, but it'll be interesting to see if she goes on the attack as she has the most to lose at this point from a big gaff.

[Senator Clay Davis]

All of your points are 100% correct. I said Reford needs a command performance tonight, but even that might be enough. She needs to hope Smith gets knocked down a rung or two and she can't be the on doing it because it will look like more of the same "fear mongering" that Redford is already engaged in. She essentially needs help from Mason and Raj to attack Smith for her so she can come out looking better.

So far from what I've seen I can't see Smith getting rattled enough to do or say something to open the doors for the PC. She has to know even a mediocre performance tonight shouldn't hurt her. I think the Wildrose has a very locked in voting percentage at this point (I'd guess around 30%) so realistically she only needs to appeal to around 10-15% of the rest and and those peoples minds will not be changed tonight.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

It's going to be an interesting debate. My gut says that at the end of the day, nothing will change. Every time there's been a big hyped up debate over the past few years, it pretty much been a dud, with neither of the candidates able to throw that classic knock out blow.

Redford has by far the hardest and I would say near impossible position going into the debate. She's got to get a game changer on Smith, while deflecting hard questions and attacks from Raj, Smith and Mason.

Raj and Mason are vying for third place, but at the same time they have to convince people who would normally vote for them to stay with them rather than voting in a "Any But The Wildrose" stance.

In the end, each party will release statements saying their candidate won and the other clearly lost. My gut says that it won't change anything in regards to polls and won't really solidify people's current party stances.

Redford will look like a strong leader to her PC supporters and will look like a bully trying to push the hidden agenda on to Danielle Smith for Wildrose supporters.

Smith will look like a professional and a classic example of leadership to her supporters, while looking like she's hiding something to supporters of the other parties.

I think Redford will try and go for a couple of zingers, which is always risky because it's always prime for a counter attack... sort of like when Layton hit Ignatieff with the attendance in Parliament comment in the last election. Smith will basically do the Harper stare into the camera and play it completely safe. I really doubt it, but it'll be interesting to see if she goes on the attack as she has the most to lose at this point from a big gaff.

I kind of agree it will end up changing nothing. I envision that this will be pretty difficult for Redford to win because she's coming from behind and the reason why she's behind in the first place is the party's record (which since she decided to wait for an election now as opposed to the fall is now part of her own record). She has to argue for a better version of change while making the awkward arguement that somehow the reason for needing change isn't because of her or her own party's doing.

Going for the zinger on Smith might just leave her open to a crippling blow. Unfortunately for Redford, when the winds of change blow it rarely helps the incumbent government. The upstart opposition always gets to frame their arguement at whatever position seems better, whereas the Tories can't change their record.

I think Danielle Smith can properly deflect a 'Conscience Rights' jab by Redford by bringing up that the policy is the exact same as Ted Morton's bill back in 2006. That kind of deflects the concept that a vote for the PC's is one that opposes social conservatism. But then again it might just suit Smith to stress that she herself is decidedly pro-choice and pro-gay marriage/rights and as such her party will not legislate on morality.

[First Lady]

Heard Danielle on radio this morning. She admitted is a bit nervous and given the other three all have debate experience, she feels like the underdog going in.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Of course she's a little nervous. I doubt even a year ago she figured she'd be leading the front-running party at this point. I'd be nervous too haha. But realistically that she has no real debate experience shouldn't matter that much because she does have experience of being a national TV host which I gotta imagine is just as pressure packed as a debate. Granted shes has things to help as a TV host (cue cards, teleprompter etc), but I'd imagine she'll be well prepared for tonight.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You have said this, in one form or another, over and over in this thread.

I need to question now how you quantify that statement? I assume you mean that we spent more per capita, but is that all? Does it account for differences in population earnings or GDP between the provinces in question? Is there anything else that factors in?

Because saying Alberta spent more than Newfoundland during that time frame is like saying the sky is blue, because Newfoundland was dead broke so of course we spent more money. Did we spend more per capita based on the provincial GDP or average population income though?

Since this is the basis for almost every comment you make in this thread and would seem to be the foundation for your support of the WRP, I assume you know what the metrics actually are and would gladly share them with us.

I'm talking about per capita spending; the comparisons based on provincial averages. The data is from Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited, “The 2009 Canadian Federal and Provincial Governments Overview: Restoring Fiscal Balance,” which was comissioned by the Federal Government and quoted in the Alberta 2010 budget.

If you want to look for yourself go to the fiscal plan and the graph is on page 17.

Our spending has been absolutely outrageous. In 2007, for example, Alberta spent 6.7 billion alone, while Ontario spent 6. Of course they have 4 times our population so you would expect they spent more...

While there may be a real infrastructure deficit on the ground, we can be absolutely certain it is NOT from lack of spending.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It is pretty absurd that we spend more per capita than Ontario with essentially a third as many people. But to be fair Ontario (more in the Golden Horseshoe area) already has quite a strong infrastructure in place. I don't know the ins and outs of the area, but I'd imagine they haven't had to build two city ring roads like we have had to in the last 10 years. Realistically Ontario has to more maintain its infrastructure whereas we need to upgrade ours. It still should not be that much of a gap though, and obviously indicates there's some wasteful spending going on

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm talking about per capita spending; the comparisons based on provincial averages. The data is from Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited, “The 2009 Canadian Federal and Provincial Governments Overview: Restoring Fiscal Balance,” which was comissioned by the Federal Government and quoted in the Alberta 2010 budget.

If you want to look for yourself go to the fiscal plan and the graph is on page 17.

Our spending has been absolutely outrageous. In 2007, for example, Alberta spent 6.7 billion alone, while Ontario spent 6. Of course they have 4 times our population so you would expect they spent more...

While there may be a real infrastructure deficit on the ground, we can be absolutely certain it is NOT from lack of spending.

If the metric is either simply total or per captia spending then the figure can misleading. If you don't consider factors such as total provincial income, average taxpayer income, economic situations that demanded immediate investment.

You quoting the 2007 numbers, which is pretty much the height of the boom in Alberta without any consideration for any other factor, is either intentional to give your point false support or an indication of the confirmation bias you are experiencing.

Or do you think that there were no extra costs incurred by the province that are associated with the booming oil sands development?

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It is pretty absurd that we spend more per capita than Ontario with essentially a third as many people. But to be fair Ontario (more in the Golden Horseshoe area) already has quite a strong infrastructure in place. I don't know the ins and outs of the area, but I'd imagine they haven't had to build two city ring roads like we have had to in the last 10 years. Realistically Ontario has to more maintain its infrastructure whereas we need to upgrade ours. It still should not be that much of a gap though, and obviously indicates there's some wasteful spending going on

Per capita spending, by the definition of being PER PERSON, disregards the entire notion of total population, so I fail to see how that makes it absurd at all. Maybe you missed some explanation?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah I don't even know what I was thinking there. Apologies on that one. And on that note 3:1 isn't that bad when you consider all the factors, especially as I mentioned the establish infrastructure in Ontario. Takes a whole lot more to build roads than simply paving them.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yeah I don't even know what I was thinking there. Apologies on that one. And on that note 3:1 isn't that bad when you consider all the factors, especially as I mentioned the establish infrastructure in Ontario. Takes a whole lot more to build roads than simply paving them.

Who says they aren't building roads in Ontario? Far more people move to ontario every year than alberta, even during the height of the boom. If anything they are building far more roads than we are. We have to remember that the vast majority of immigrants into this country settle in the GTA area and most of the population growth in this country comes from immigration.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-...tbl-eng.htm#a7

[First Lady]

Alberta Progressive Conservatives on way out after 41 years in power

Ouch.... I don't agree 100% with it... but ouch.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If the metric is either simply total or per captia spending then the figure can misleading. If you don't consider factors such as total provincial income, average taxpayer income, economic situations that demanded immediate investment.

You quoting the 2007 numbers, which is pretty much the height of the boom in Alberta without any consideration for any other factor, is either intentional to give your point false support or an indication of the confirmation bias you are experiencing.

Or do you think that there were no extra costs incurred by the province that are associated with the booming oil sands development?


Per capita spending, by the definition of being PER PERSON, disregards the entire notion of total population, so I fail to see how that makes it absurd at all. Maybe you missed some explanation?

Unfortunately, it seems every major economist in Canada disagrees with you. That's why they use a per capita number, to show the true amount of spending per individual on a constant and comparable basis.

So while one might argue that average age of population, for example, might have an effect on per capita spending, it gives you something measurable to compare.

Using a definition of income to increase spending is basically exactly what the PC's have done. If you got it... spend it. And thats why have huge amounts of waste, lost efficiency, and poor outcomes. It's the major reason why we have such little to show for the staggering amounts of public spending.

I'm not sure how you somehow square oilsands development with spending more than a province four times our size, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm sure you went and reviewed the budget documents. The one that Alberta, and Canada, uses to compare provincial spending habits. And no comfirmation bias can change the facts:

Alberta spent much more than other provinces on infrastructure (and other program spending) in the 80's. Even at the depth of 'cuts' in the 90's, Alberta spent as much as the average Canadian province. And since then Alberta has spent more per person on infrastructure than the average province in Canada every single year, averaging 75% more now.

Them's just the facts.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ontario and as I mentioned specifically the Golden Horseshoe area, is the most important area of the country for trade (the Quebec City-Windsor corridor as a whole really). So fair or not I'm guessing they got a ton a federal funding for the roadways for the corridor. Plus its been an established corridor for at least 20 years.

Population growth is not necessarily a reason for increased infrastructure spending. In theory if a city/province plans its infrastructure properly and correctly projects population trends, it should already have strong infrastructure in place. I mean realistically without the oilsands Calgary and Edmonton likely don't see the population booms, which would obviously reduce the amount needed for infrastructure.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Unfortunately, it seems every major economist in Canada disagrees with you. That's why they use a per capita number, to show the true amount of spending per individual on a constant and comparable basis.

So while one might argue that average age of population, for example, might have an effect on per capita spending, it gives you something measurable to compare.

Using a definition of income to increase spending is basically exactly what the PC's have done. If you got it... spend it. And thats why have huge amounts of waste, lost efficiency, and poor outcomes. It's the major reason why we have such little to show for the staggering amounts of public spending.

I'm not sure how you somehow square oilsands development with spending more than a province four times our size, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm sure you went and reviewed the budget documents. The one that Alberta, and Canada, uses to compare provincial spending habits. And no comfirmation bias can change the facts:

Alberta spent much more than other provinces on infrastructure (and other program spending) in the 80's. Even at the depth of 'cuts' in the 90's, Alberta spent as much as the average Canadian province. And since then Alberta has spent more per person on infrastructure than the average province in Canada every single year, averaging 75% more now.

Them's just the facts.

They might be facts, but that still doesn't say why spending above the average is a bad thing. By definition, half the provinces in the country spend more than the average.

If a province is richer, which Alberta certainly is, on what grounds could you possibly justify being below average? I get the idea that we are spending too much, I don't deny that and fully support measures to cut the budget to bring spending more in line with our provincial means. I just don't understand why you have drawn this line that spending more than average is bad.

Would you say your car/home/computer/porn collection is above average in terms of quality? Would you suddenly think you were a fool for spending that money to obtain those things, even if you could afford it? Of course not. I fail to see why anyone would place such unrealistic demands on our government then.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rathji

By definition, half the provinces in the country spend more than the average median.

Fixed your post. But I agree with it otherwise.