I see that as a needless expense. Crossing the floor is a part of our parliamentary system, and as it stands, MLAs who cross the floor now will be either punished or rewarded for it in the next election. This ensures that they must take the will of their constituents into account when making the decision to cross, thus staying in tune with the wishes of their voters. In the case of Forsyth and Anderson, it appears that they are enjoying widespread support for the move from their ridings, so would a by-election to confirm this really be necessary?

Anderson is making strong allegations against Stelmach and the PCs:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Braid+V...559/story.html

He alleges that party officials rigged the vote at the leadership review, instructing MLAs to veto delegates that voiced their intention to vote against Stelmach. I wouldn't be surprised, given what they have done over the past few years.

That is pretty much standard practice in delegated leadership reviews, if you have control over the parties executive, you can 'guide' the grassroots. Especially since people had to travel to the meeting you can do things like hold a fundraiser for the hotel costs under the name 'friends of stelmach' or something similar (note: I have no knowledge anything like this happened, just saying how I would do it if I were them) and only supply funding to delegates that pledge loyalty.

Another way is to instruct all party staffers, in Edmonton, in the ridings, etc to run for delegate spots, and make sure they are elected. People with their jobs on the line usually vote the 'right' way. Since elections are largely selections, and if there is a contest you would have to open declare your opposition, it is hard to get elected as an anti delegate.

One of the reasons leadership review isn't a wide vote is it would then be impossible to control.

An election would be had because there would be a vote of non-confidence unless the ruling party toed the opposition's line.

The leader of the opposition is traditionally asked whether they can command confidence of the house before there is a dissolution and an election in the event of a non confidence vote.

Don't mess with Alberta

So after 39 years they notice? Are they really going to attack Harper who's party supplied the PCs with its election database and management software in the last election? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

This issue the Wildrose should be raising more however, since I would think they might be able to make real noise about this, instead of just blowing smoke in public and playing footsies in private.

Oh please, no more of this. It just makes Albertans look like fools.

I'm no fan of Ted Morton & I don't like the type of slash & burn policies he's likely to introduce. I'm sure he'll appease the whiners down in Calgary somewhat but likely we'll have to spend a decade digging ourselves out of the mess he'll create when we go back into a massive infrastructure, health care and educational deficits.

Any one know when the first report is going to come out for the redistricting? I'm quite curious to see if they'll decide that the four new seats are enough to offset urban growth or if Stelmach failed in his attempt to keep the rural caucus intact.

It could be quite the screwy set up what with the odd combination of 2006 statscan data with municipal censuses from as recently as 2009.

If you put an end to equalization payments there wouldn't be any deficits, read that article, $21.1 billion taken from AB in 2009

Equalization is $14.4 billion a year. Which is collected from federal taxes. If equalization was eliminated and federal taxes lowered by an equivalent amount, the provincial government would still have to raise taxes to get any of the money.

Nope wrong

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...epert-oil.html

Yes yes yes, I didn't move to Alberta yesterday and I am quite familiar with the populist outrage that is generated by the thought of sending equalization payments to the feds. You should stipulate that If you put an end to equalization payments there wouldn't be any deficits in Alberta... some other provinces won't be so lucky. I'm not going to debate the merits of the equalization plan, As the debate is always greed vs. nationalism and it's getting tiresome. Want to live in a place flush with oil money that doesn't have to contribute a red cent to the well being of the rest of the country ? Move to Texas.

This would not be the case. Since equalization is funded through federal taxes, it is not 'payment' from the Alberta government to other governments. If the program is eliminated (which would require a constitutional amendment) the province doesn't get the money back, it would stay in the federal pot to be distributed in grants on a per capita basis, or used in direct funding programs ( foreign activities, central administration, military/security, directed project funds, interest/debt payments).

If the federal government happened to cut taxes by an equivalent amount, the provincial government would still have to raise taxes to get any of the 'equalization' funds.

^The general assumption is that if the equalization plan were abolished, Alberta would no longer have to pay its' percentage to the feds, & I'm pretty sure that's what korzym is inferring.

Alberta still would likely not have a deficit (Unitl the next time oil crashes anyways) but the hit would be much greater to the 'have nots' as the distributed amount of federal cash would be less stable & prone to changes based on federal revenues.

Albertan's might not have to pay their share, but Alberta wouldn't gain anything.

Not having equalization might also create problems like the European Union is having right now, where an individual province could default on debt and destroy the national economy. Would you really want Alberta to have to bail out another province?

Sure would be good to fix equalization - #1 would be to count under charging for hydro as loss of potential revenue by Quebec - which would really reduce the size of the program, but it isn't evil incarnate as Alberta populists would like people to believe.

That's a good start. Another 'fix' I would like to see is the transfer of $$$ based on the actual cost of services they are supposed to pay for. Equalization is supposed to allow 'have not' provinces to provide equal levels of service as the 'have' provinces do to their respective populations. Trouble is this does not take into account the actual cost of providing that service. For example, a goverment service that costs $1 in Alberta (for example) would likely cost 80 cents (guess) in a place like New Brunswick yet they still get $1.

Anyone think this province is in for an HST Tax like Ontario and BC in the near future?

What does this have to do with Alberta politics?