Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
But a chance at what? Even if she takes half of Calgary and half of rural Alberta, that would (at the very least) keep the PCs to a minority unless the PCs win every last Edmonton seat.
Also, how can you claim that Smith's support in Edmonton is non-existent? The last poll I saw had them at 20% which obviously isn't going to result in seats but it isn't 'non-existent'. if Smith is able to pick up 5 points from the PCs in Edmonton, that could easily push them into some close three/four-way races in various Edmonton ridings. As well, if anybody bothers to check the demographic breakdown they'll find a much closer race than what one might presume. The WRA is exceptionally weak among teh 18-29 crowd which pulls down their over-all numbers. However, the 18-29 crowd don't vote very much. The WRA is actually leading in combined support (100% to 99%) among the other three demographics which decide elections.
Anybody looking at the numbers within the numbers can see that Redford is fighting an uphill battle for a majority. If she can outcampaign Smith, she may have a shot at squeeking out a majority (and I can't help but think we could see a flight of left wing voters to the PCs on election day which keeps the PCs in government). My personal opinion is that Smith is a vastly superior communicator and is also selling a message which has traditionally sold very well in Alberta. Redford has a very fine line to talk. She needs to appeal to traditional liberal supporters without completely abandoning Alberta's fiscal centre (which is obviously centre-right to that of Canada). The NDP and Liberals basically just need to run a campaign to hold their support levels and hope that a surging WRA can take enough support from the PCs to result in some better splits for them in the urban centres. Regardless, this is quite an exciting election for people interested in observing politics!
Keep in mind that WRA has been in campaign mode for almost two years now. Let's wait for some campaign adds from the PC and see then how it affects WRA numbers.
When WRA first arrived I could understand the support just because it was an alternative to the PC's and an alternative was long overdue but as time has rolled along all I can see is a party that has it's whole approach revolving around tearing down the governing party as opposed to actually offering a platform to get behind.
What am I missing?
As far as I can tell her message centres around vilifying the public sector and protecting the oil industry from any criticism. We reverted back to the old royalty regime mostly because of WRA rhetoric rather than any actual damage to the industry. With Danielle at the helm we can be assured we'll continue to give away our natural resources for peanuts.
For a solution to the problem, Premier Alison Redford need look no further than her earlier predecessor, Peter Lougheed, who took a tough love stance with the oil companies and set a bold royalty target of 35 per cent of oil revenues, amid uncertain times, to boot. Embracing such a target today would mean, based on the government’s own forecasts for production and oil prices, an additional $14 billion for Albertans over the next three years. The potential in the oilsands is even greater, where a less ambitious target of 25 per cent, to account for higher upfront costs, would bring in more than $31 billion. Altogether, that would mean a total of $45 billion in extra revenue over the next three years.
Quote:
Since 1986, less than $25 billion has gone to public coffers, while more than $285 billion worth of bitumen and synthetic crude have been produced. In 2010 alone, Albertans traded $36.6 billion worth of bitumen for less than $4 billion in royalties and land sales. In sum, Albertans have received roughly one-fifth of the value of the oil, gas and bitumen — our resources — produced in this province, and less than six per cent of that produced in the oilsands.
It's ironic that a government that is more right wing that Lougheed's ever was, it is now portrayed as being left-wing (or even socialist if you listen to WRA).
If it was Klein, he would have put an inflatable "King Ralph" on top, in the back, with a leg on one side and a leg on the other side.
They'd need a GPS to properly calibrate the direction of British Columbia, so the inflatable Ralph will always be pointing where the welfare recipients and low-income earners will be shipped.
When WRA first arrived I could understand the support just because it was an alternative to the PC's and an alternative was long overdue but as time has rolled along all I can see is a party that has it's whole approach revolving around tearing down the governing party as opposed to actually offering a platform to get behind.
What am I missing?
What is she selling? Smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes is her message (whether one thinks they will follow through or not is an entirely other question).
In short, Smith is a self-described libertarian (pro-choice, even).
As for the talk about going after Redford/PCs, I'm not sure I know of any opposition party which doesn't try to discredit the present government.
I think we will need to prepare ourselves for one of the most vicious elections we've seen in Alberta as both WRA and PCs are going to be out for blood as this could be an existential campaign for both of them.
I just wanted to make the additional point that WRAs fiscal plan as they outlined in their budget is something that I think a lot of Albertans would support. Almost all Albertans agree that it is shameful how low AHST has become (les per capita than in the mid 70s). The left have argued that higher taxes would allow them to save more (though Albertans just flat out don't want higher taxes and don't trust the NPD/Liberals to save any increased revenue). I think the WRA has a pretty credible plan for growing the AHST if adhered to could see the plan pushing 100 billion within a generation. It isn't unrealistic that Alberta could be the owner of the second largest sovereign wealth fund in the western world within 20 years.
As for the talk about going after Redford/PCs, I'm not sure I know of any opposition party which doesn't try to discredit the present government.
It's not that I am surprised by it but I guess the difference for me is that the other parties atleast have a history of sorts to weigh them against.
I still see the WRA's message still being mostly anti PC which made sense when they first hit the scene but I would have hoped that as we moved along here they would have changed over more towards what WRA can or will do.
But I guess that's the type of political world we live in right now.
I find it unnerving how even the dailies seem to be throwing support behind the WRA and yet they haven't actually done anything to show what they are capable of aside from some general positions and the occassional contradiction.
I just wanted to make the additional point that WRAs fiscal plan as they outlined in their budget is something that I think a lot of Albertans would support. Almost all Albertans agree that it is shameful how low AHST has become (les per capita than in the mid 70s). The left have argued that higher taxes would allow them to save more (though Albertans just flat out don't want higher taxes and don't trust the NPD/Liberals to save any increased revenue). I think the WRA has a pretty credible plan for growing the AHST if adhered to could see the plan pushing 100 billion within a generation. It isn't unrealistic that Alberta could be the owner of the second largest sovereign wealth fund in the western world within 20 years.
Why raising royalties/taxes is not an option? After so many years in which personal income taxes had a diminishing share of revenues, at the expense of revenues from natural resources, no wonder the government is more accountable to industry interests. People were scared into believing that doom and gloom would ensue if royalties are increased and faced with WRA threat, PC caved in. Why not return to Lougheed years in which we set a target for how much the government should receive from resources, compared with the industry?
Danielle's smaller government means indiscriminately cutting provincial employees salaries (and that includes teachers, nurses, etc...), under-funding education and health, based on a campaign of vilifying the public sector and using shoddy statistics from the Conservative Mecca, UofC School of Public Policy. I admit she has some good points, the government has grown too much, but this growth is in upper management positions, not in the unionized employees. I expect the government to do a departmental review (which they said they would do), and find savings. But I don't see why the average employee in the public sectors should bite the bullet to fix the deficit when oil companies enjoy record revenues (and pay low royalties) for the resources we supposedly all own.
I frankly don't understand this obsession with perpetual lower taxes at the expense of saving for the future. If Danielle becomes PM I would expect more prosperity cheques and more rhetoric of how we are overtaxed, rather than a serious effort to build up a large sovereign wealth fund.
It's not that I am surprised by it but I guess the difference for me is that the other parties atleast have a history of sorts to weigh them against.
A history in what sense? A history in government, a history in past elections?
Quote:
I still see the WRA's message still being mostly anti PC which made sense when they first hit the scene but I would have hoped that as we moved along here they would have changed over more towards what WRA can or will do.
I think they've actually made some very specific pledges. Obviously not every single idea they've made comes with a fully detailed implication plan, but I've never yet seen an opposition government that has. The reality is the politicians come up with the broad outline and direction while the deputy ministers, et al. actually put it into action.
Quote:
But I guess that's the type of political world we live in right now.
I agree that it is unfortunate. However I have long since stopped 'blaming politicians'. Politicians have and will continue to do what works with the populace. Peopel keep saying that voters are turned off because of political games. That is nonsense. Political games occur/work because voters are turned off. We get the politicians/government/democracy that we deserve.
Quote:
I find it unnerving how even the dailies seem to be throwing support behind the WRA and yet they haven't actually done anything to show what they are capable of aside from some general positions and the occassional contradiction.
I think 'throwing their support behind the WRA' is a bit of a stretch. There is certainly interest in the party beacuse it is the first time since 1993, and the Decore Liberals, that there has been an even remotely credible opposition/alternative. That is basically one election since 1971 where there was an actual political contest (people forget that Social Credit vote basically held but the NDP and Liberal vote completely moved to Lougheed -combined NDP/Liberal vote fell from 26% to 12%).
Make no mistake, if the WRA makes mistakes they'll be diced up. The whole bus incident didn't help them at all as it is essential for Smith to demonstrate that there is a level of professionalism and competency that would enable them to be effective administrators. One or two more of those kind of accidents and it will be the 'accident prone' WRA. Make no mistake, if WRA has a chance it will have to be Smith beating Redford, not the WRA beating the PCs.
I think 'throwing their support behind the WRA' is a bit of a stretch. There is certainly interest in the party beacuse it is the first time since 1993, and the Decore Liberals, that there has been an even remotely credible opposition/alternative. That is basically one election since 1971 where there was an actual political contest (people forget that Social Credit vote basically held but the NDP and Liberal vote completely moved to Lougheed -combined NDP/Liberal vote fell from 26% to 12%).
I think a Klein/Decore comparison is more appropriate for this election than Strom/Lougheed that you suggested before. Both Klein and and Redford came after leaders that lost the support of the party and the population, and were faced with a strong opposition from a newly emerged opposition leader. I wonder what is the future of WRA if they don't have a significant showing. Looking 5-10 years into the future I cannot see both PC and WRA as political forces in Alberta.
A history in what sense? A history in government, a history in past elections?
For starters they have brand recognition, even if a political scientist as yourself can quickly and easily make distinctions between the fed/prov parties, Joe Average most likely doesn't. Atleast not to the same degree.
For those that do occassionally pay attention to what's happening at the Leg there is, even as neutered opposition parties, a history of both what issues that they have jumped on and the demeanour in which they have done it with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
I think they've actually made some very specific pledges. Obviously not every single idea they've made comes with a fully detailed implication plan, but I've never yet seen an opposition government that has. The reality is the politicians come up with the broad outline and direction while the deputy ministers, et al. actually put it into action.
And for me maybe this is the distinction.
As a new party on the scene that has inexplicably already been annointed legit despite not pissing a drop in practice, I would would like to see a higher degree of scrutiny on how they expect to execute their platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
I agree that it is unfortunate. However I have long since stopped 'blaming politicians'. Politicians have and will continue to do what works with the populace. Peopel keep saying that voters are turned off because of political games. That is nonsense. Political games occur/work because voters are turned off. We get the politicians/government/democracy that we deserve.
Well whatever people want to attribute to the cause vs effect debate is secondary to the point.
I would suggest though that the onus to change the perception falls on the politician. That they can get away with the games they play and therefore will speaks volumes about the character of the people we are dealing with. IMO of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
I think 'throwing their support behind the WRA' is a bit of a stretch.
Oh it is an option, it just isn't one that has much support. I, personally, would be fine with a HST and decreased income taxes.
Quote:
After so many years in which personal income taxes had a diminishing share of revenues, at the expense of revenues from natural resources, no wonder the government is more accountable to industry interests.People were scared into believing that doom and gloom would ensue if royalties are increased and faced with WRA threat, PC caved in. Why not return to Lougheed years in which we set a target for how much the government should receive from resources, compared with the industry?
Moose I need a little clarification. You seem worried that income taxes are becoming a smaller portion of total revenue, but then seem to call for increased royalties. What 'tax plan' are you actually promoting?
Quote:
Danielle's smaller government means indiscriminately cutting provincial employees salaries (and that includes teachers, nurses, etc...), under-funding education and health, based on a campaign of vilifying the public sector and using shoddy statistics from the Conservative Mecca, UofC School of Public Policy.
I'm not so sure you'd see any kind of massive cuts. I've read about hiring freezes, bonus freezes, and a freeze in salary increases. I've also seen them talk about going after the management level of the public sector (they talk about getting from a 4:1 worker/manager ratio to a 10:1 ratio).
Quote:
I admit she has some good points, the government has grown too much, but this growth is in upper management positions, not in the unionized employees. I expect the government to do a departmental review (which they said they would do), and find savings. But I don't see why the average employee in the public sectors should bite the bullet to fix the deficit when oil companies enjoy record revenues (and pay low royalties) for the resources we supposedly all own.
Could you point me to where she's calling for an assault on the frontline public service?
Quote:
I frankly don't understand this obsession with perpetual lower taxes at the expense of saving for the future. If Danielle becomes PM I would expect more prosperity cheques and more rhetoric of how we are overtaxed, rather than a serious effort to build up a large sovereign wealth fund.
Well they've pledged that half of all future surplus dollars would, by law, go to the AHST. WRA's policy is to limit spending growth to inflation plus population increase. That hardly sounds draconian. Hell, that wouldnt' even shrink the size of government, but only maintain it.
I think a Klein/Decore comparison is more appropriate for this election than Strom/Lougheed that you suggested before. Both Klein and and Redford came after leaders that lost the support of the party and the population, and were faced with a strong opposition from a newly emerged opposition leader. I wonder what is the future of WRA if they don't have a significant showing. Looking 5-10 years into the future I cannot see both PC and WRA as political forces in Alberta.
The only reason I brought up the Strom/Lougheed election was in consideration of the vote splits (I would say as far as the personality/politics of the situation, the Strom/Lougheed comparison was no longer valid once Stelmach stepped down). The SoCreds didn't exactly 'lose' support (they received more votes in '71 than ever before, but were killed by the concentration of NDP/Liberal voters with the PCs who saw blood in the water if they shifted to PL).
Going by Alberta's poitical history, it is likely an existential situation where the winner will govern for a generation and the loser will cease to exist after a few more elections (though people forget some times how much support SoCreds held even after 71). I know there is a group of NDP/Liberal/Green voters who probably make up about 20% of the electorate who are unlikely to ever support a centrist/centre right party. That still could potentialy lead to a three party system where the loser (WRA or PC) fills the role that the Liberals never could or never did fill (but almost did under Decore).
For starters they have brand recognition, even if a political scientist as yourself can quickly and easily make distinctions between the fed/prov parties, Joe Average most likely doesn't. Atleast not to the same degree.
For those that do occassionally pay attention to what's happening at the Leg there is, even as neutered opposition parties, a history of both what issues that they have jumped on and the demeanour in which they have done it with.
I don't disagree with you here, I'm just not 100% sure what your point is... Are you saying because they're a new party you think they've not done a good enough job and need to do more outlining what they stand for?
Quote:
And for me maybe this is the distinction.
As a new party on the scene that has inexplicably already been annointed legit despite not pissing a drop in practice, I would would like to see a higher degree of scrutiny on how they expect to execute their platform.
I'm curious, then, what increased specifications you would like to see that weren't listed in their alternative budget...
Quote:
Well whatever people want to attribute to the cause vs effect debate is secondary to the point.
I don't know, I think the point is universally accepted, so I would say the cause/effect is the primary concern, no?
Quote:
I would suggest though that the onus to change the perception falls on the politician. That they can get away with the games they play and therefore will speaks volumes about the character of the people we are dealing with. IMO of course.
Canadian voters have continually awarded politicians who are the best at working the system instead of punishing them. The political class is who we make it in Canada.
Quote:
What can I say, I see it differently.
Not that I'm challenging your impression, and I agree that they've received more attention than the other opposition parties have in Alberta (for good reason I would say), but is there any particular write/paper you find exemplifies this?
I don't disagree with you here, I'm just not 100% sure what your point is... Are you saying because they're a new party you think they've not done a good enough job and need to do more outlining what they stand for?
I am saying they seem to be getting a free pass.
Perhaps a better way of making my point is to ask why the WRA enjoys the credibility it does?
Is the very nature of the WRA not born from a special interest point of view?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
I'm curious, then, what increased specifications you would like to see that weren't listed in their alternative budget...
Their alternate budget reads like a classic over promise from a party that knows it will never have to deliver. It's the kind of platform item that used to get the NDP mocked for in this province.
For example is it really relevant to use a per capita spending comparison with the three most populous provinces as the base point on infrastructure? Do those provinces have the same infrastructure deficit linked as intrinsically with their main economic drivers as Alberta?
Does differing/delaying over 4 billion dollars for another year actually reduce spending when other needs would otherwise be queued up and in need of addressing?
This budget, although appearing to cut dollars today, will create a greater infrastructure deficit in a few years time.
So in terms of scrutinizing their budget, why not press them for the list of where they are cutting/deferring projects?
If per capita is considered the appropriate way to allocate funds then why not cutting education funding to fall in line as well?
I guess the point is that there are always questions to ask and yet no one seems to be asking the WRA theirs.
And yet they have all but been annointed the official opposition already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
I don't know, I think the point is universally accepted, so I would say the cause/effect is the primary concern, no?
Canadian voters have continually awarded politicians who are the best at working the system instead of punishing them. The political class is who we make it in Canada.
Ok so it's the voters fault for enabling it, what can the voter do to effect change?
Tell me what I can do to change what the so called rules of the game are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
Not that I'm challenging your impression, and I agree that they've received more attention than the other opposition parties have in Alberta (for good reason I would say), but is there any particular write/paper you find exemplifies this?
Nothing specific that I can point to jumps out. It's just a general impression I have been left with over the last month or so on days that I get to read the dailies and watch the news.
