Decision 2012: Alberta Politics Thread
 

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFRzCJVNAE8

Now don't get it twisted, it wasn't me that asked him that question on Twitter, so for him to even address the issue, it means that there are plenty of Albertans getting upset with this $5,700/year tax Ottawa charges this province to be Canadian. Just a disclaimer: I'm proud as hell to be Albertan, if you come here and say this place sucks, by all means: get the hell out of here.

But this isn't a separation thread, in fact, the conservatives are least likely to put forward a separation motion IMO. Rather I think he's using this address as a veiled threat to Ottawa and the idiotic leaders of ontario and quebec, and by doing so, also drumming up support for himself by talking tough. For me it doesn't do much but for sure adds some spice, if you will, to Eddie's leadership controversy [which to me is based on the royalty regime, but I assume most people don't like his body language, demeanor, learned behaviour, etc]

I've seen the Wildrose party's format, I like it much better than the status quo.

And the date will be 2012 won't it? I believe the deadline to call an election was before December of 2009 or something of that sort? Currently the date is 2012 as far as I know.

By 2012, Ontario will likely have a different party in power and a different Premier, who are much more conservative than Stelmach (anything with Randy Hillier involved surely is conservative).

But I do agree, the dynasty is almost up. The Alberta PC's will be lucky to be the Official Opposition - the Liberals may make gains in central Calgary and Edmonton on a vote split, while the Wildrose should sweep the rural areas and suburban parts of Calgary.

Why is this even in the Calgary forum? This should be for all AB.

I think the latest an election can be called for is actually 2013, and as early as 2011.

Stelmach was a mistake from day one, and anyone with any shred of sense knew it. The PCs wrote their own obit with that choice (and why the sweet hell did they just RE-AFFIRM this decision???).

Luckily, we managed to find some lovely social conservatives to reverse 20 years of progress in Alberta.

well it looks like the wildrose have updated their platform since they first gained notoriety this year. I remember they had ridiculous policies that made me cringe at the thought of (none of which I can remember 100% so i'm not going to misquote them by guessing)

still though, I really don't like their yearly standardized testing they want to implement. We all see how well that worked in the united states, where teachers spend all year preparing these students for these exams, and only these exams... and it becomes less about the curriculum and more about passing a single test or face funding cuts etc. I do like the idea of removing the social promotion in alberta schools though. Back too if you fail, you repeat. Well, I guess I only really support this if they fund education properly and give kids the tools they need to succeed in the first place. Like maximum class sizes that aren't in the 40 student range.

I also strongly dislike the idea of removing section 3 of the human rights and multiculturalism act. Link if you're not familiar with the issue

other than that, they are pretty mainstream with their policies and I can see them succeeding in the next election with strong leadership, and who knows maybe it is time for a woman to lead alberta! Time will tell!

The removal of section 3 from the HRMA is extremely troubling and they won't tell us why they want to do it. They just say they will.

The Wildrose platform is mostly boilerplate, They'll have to come clean on their real motives and agendas sooner or later. Sadly, a lot of Albertans just don't seen to care about those types of trivial details.

And of course the Wildrose will kowtow to the oil companies in ways that would probably make Ralph Klein blush.

I have a feeling that if the WA got into power they might turn this Province into a place many Albertans might not be too proud of and fancy leaving. I can't say this for sure as I haven't looked at their platform in detail and that would be unfair, but from what I've seen of them, albeit it not much, I don't like what I'm seeing. What I can say with some certainty is that we very well could be facing a major change of direction in this Province's political operation, I just hope we don't turn right when we should be turning left.

^ ahh the popular "lets blame Stelmach for the current economic problems in Alberta" refrain, not the overall global energy slump nor the Alberta natural gas bust! An easy finger to point...somebody must pay.

Well, instead blame the Americans and their damn Shale gas for much of your current problems;) How is the current Government supposed to deal with a sudden $4 Billion + fall in natural gas royalties in one year alone? Try to restructure Oilsands royalties? Pull promised funding for infrastructure projects? Institute Provincial sales tax? Cut spending from each department? Now add to that the drop in corporate and personal taxes paid into provincial coffers; a bit of a problem that would cause any Government to stumble.

A 'shale gale' slams into Alberta

How the U.S. natural gas revolution is squeezing this province's economy

BY LISA SCHMIDT, CALGARY HERALD; CANWEST NEWS SERVICE (link)

In the good times, Peter Pleskie would look at his empty industrial yard as a sign of success for his oilpatch company.

These days, neat rows of excavators, trucks and other heavy construction equipment fill the CerPro Energy Services compound west of Medicine Hat, reminders of his sudden reversal in fortune.

CerPro was once a rising business star, rapidly expanding to a workforce of more than 300 people in less than four years as Canada's oilpatch flourished.

An explosion of natural gas drilling earlier this decade drove demand for his construction business at well sites, gas plants and pipelines throughout southern Alberta and southeast Saskatchewan.

"It seemed like there was going to be no end to the boom," says Pleskie, a welder by trade.

In early December, nearly $20 million worth of new CerPro equipment rolled off the lot for the last time, put on the auction block after the company was pushed into bankruptcy in late June.

The equipment sold for just $8.2 million.

"We powered through as hard as we could," he says.

Pleskie's troubles stem from a dramatic slowdown in Alberta's natural gas business, driven largely by an emerging new resource: shale gas.

This "shale gale," as renowned oilpatch author Daniel Yergin has termed it, is moving relentlessly across North America, driven by new technology that has unlocked major stores of the fuel.

And all Albertans, whether they know it or not, are caught in a downdraft, from out-of-work rig hands and rural hotel operators to white-collar executives in downtown office towers and ailing patients lined up in hospital emergency wards.

The natural gas industry -- long the bedrock of Alberta's economy -- faces major threats amid a fundamental shift south of the border. Massive stores of shale gas, once beyond the reach of engineers, are now successfully being squeezed out from under Texas and other U.S. states.

Now Medicine Hat, the unofficial heart of Alberta's natural gas industry for more than a century, is being battered by this shale storm, along with dozens of other Alberta communities. The abrupt slowdown in gas exploration is swelling unemployment rolls and bankruptcies, while choking off corporate profits and money flowing into government coffers.

Lower production and weak prices have slashed the provincial government's take from natural gas to $1.9 billion this year, compared to more than $6 billion a year ago.

The Stelmach government now faces nearly a $9-billion shortfall over the next three years due to the sharp drop in royalty revenues, led downward by natural gas.

The change underscores the fact that Alberta's oilpatch is really about natural gas, which traditionally pumps more than two-thirds of the province's resource revenues.

But the gas windfall is evaporating faster than anyone could have imagined.

"How quickly that geological advantage has turned into a disadvantage," says Derek Burleton, chief economist with TD Bank, who authored a study this fall on pressures facing Alberta's gas industry.

"The concern, and rightly so, is that this could persist. This isn't just a one-or two-year thing."

The stakes are high for Alberta's 3.6 million residents. The province's natural gas fuels nearly $40 billion in annual production -- more than one-10th of the entire economy.

The threat that Alberta's key export could be quickly displaced by cheaper gas closer to U.S. markets is high on the minds of provincial politicians.

"Seventy per cent of our royalties are in natural gas, so we're exceptionally vulnerable when that's down," says Finance Minister Iris Evans.

full article - http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...940/story.html

Well its just prejudice if you haven't looked at their platform isn't it? Consistent with what is taught in schools, in universities, Wildrose will create statutes that support proven economic policies. I think their platform is fantastic, safe for the freedom of speech thing.

And the fact their leader is a woman, an extra bonus - it doesn't matter what the candidate's demographics are at all to me, and I would rather see a politician get elected because of their ideas instead of their heritage or gender, I think Alberta can achieve this feat of a female premier the right way.

Smith is heavy on economic policy. The province's future lies in a vigorous oil-and-gas sector and a vigorous agriculture sector. Staking a future on nanotechnology or the knowledge economy is "silly" -- except when new technology can help the oil and gas industry, she says. On global warming, she's a skeptic, sort of, but says an energy-efficiency strategy is just basically a good idea.

...


"Individuals and non-profit groups are the first line of support for underprivileged Albertans," Smith says.

...

That tension between the social conservatives and libertarians -- Smith considers herself part of the latter group -- is one of her biggest challenges. So far she mostly refuses to discuss "issues that divide," such as gay rights and abortion

...

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...934/story.html

What concerns me most about the WAP platform is the language around "school choice legislation". Sounds an awful lot like drastically expanding private schools in Alberta (thereby inevitably weakening the public system).

Other statements about more autonomy for municipalities and true sustainable funding for cities is more encouraging.

I agree that their platform on their website is mostly boiler plate and is without much useful detail or actually policy stances. I'm sure this is by design.

The issues I have with the WA is as stated before by others, they are not responding to a number of issues (social) as well the list of Ms Smith backers. I would like to see a full platform before I make my final judgement. That said the minute we remove the PC's from power we will see the same thing that happened at the national level. The PC old guard will become come WA and we will get the same old crap. As it is there are a number of old Conservative and Social Credit leading this party.

Alberta was once the most progressive province in the country; we have lost that during the last 20 years.

Calgary-area MLAs set to defect to Wildrose

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...189/story.html


This positively reeks of political opportunism, but it's clear that many Alberta politicians have no shame whatsoever.

I cannot wait until the WRA is forced to reveal their true platform and agenda. I also wish the media would stop referring to them as 'right of centre'... it's pretty clear who the Calgary tabloids are throwing their support behind.

If the Wildrose Alliance continues to grow, the Liberals may also benefit in Edmonton and central Calgary if they can take advantage of PC-WAP vote splits (in rural Alberta and outlying parts of Calgary, WAP would win outright)

I doubt the PC's will fall to Official Opposition status - they have a much better chance IMO of dropping even farther. If they remain this much behind the WAP, they would be reduced to 3rd party status even if they poll slightly ahead of the Liberals, since they would lose on a lot of splits.

See above comment.

Politician

a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

"Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs, and, as those are forever changing, what is wisdom to-day would be folly and perhaps, ruin to-morrow. Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. It cannot have fixed principles, from which a wise man would never swerve, unless the inconstancy of men's view of interest and the capriciousness of the tempers could be fixed." [Fisher Ames (1758–1808)]

This is not just an Alberta occurence. I don't mind a politician crossing the floor, but the law should be chagned so that a by election must be called within 6 months of this happening to give the people a chance to voice their opinion.

So, should someone kicked out of caucus be held to the same thing? They weren't elected as an independent, they are no longer representing the platform they were originally elected on. In the end just strengthens the party leaders' hands.

Yeah, the three way split will be good for the Liberals. If the PCs are able to keep the battles up in the cities, the Liberals could even sneak up the middle, or end up with the balance of power in a minority.

I'll amend my thoughts. If you voluntarily quit then you should have to resign your seat and have a by election. If you are forced out of caucus you can always sit as an independant. You could also resign if you so choose and force a by election.

What if the leader goes crazy, refuses to resign, and the LG rightly cannot dismiss him or her (theory of responsible government et al). If government members all resign from caucus, shouldn't they have a right to reform a new government if they have the majority of seats? Or should there be an election?

Personally I think that while members of legislatures are elected to represent the people, that it is important to not overemphasize 'representation' vs leadership and acting in the best interest of the people according to the representatives view.

Getting rid of floor crossing is just a slippery slope to recall, direct democracy and the end of the principle of responsible government (needing to maintain the confidence of the house, leader of government appointed being able to carry a majority of members of the house).

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?

^ and for a harmonized sales tax you need to have a provincial sales tax first.

Technically don't we already have an HST? 0% PST + 5% GST = 5% HST.

No More Cookie Monster In Alberta!
 

Former Alberta Health Minister Stephen Duckette was more interested in eating his cookie! Glad his A$$ was fired! Can you believe he was paid over $700 thousand dollars a year. :koko: Worth watching this youtube clip of this fool before he lands his next job on Sesame Street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYlvQ5qEhgE

WHHHAAAAAAATTTT ?????? That's not possible.

Executives get paid a lot. We can pay a NHL rookie that much - but an executive in charge of all health care delivery in the province? No! Outrage! Rabble Rabble!

Re: Cookie Monster - He did it all for the cookie.

---

2012 is still a little far off, but I'm most interested in the new Alberta Party that's in the works. Hopefully they can find a way to be liberal without being Liberal.

What do you think public officials should be paid? Especially ones in charge of large portfolios like that? What sort of talent do you want running these organizations, and at what price are you willing to pay for it?

I'll play devil's advocate for a second here (along with you other handsome devils). You can opt out of going to a hockey game... paying your taxes, not so much.

Then again, I can never get a grasp on what executives get paid nowadays and don't know what is a competitive wage, especially for a public position.

Yeah, I'm not paying NHL players salaries with my taxes. What a stupid comparison.

Seems like a lot. And the guy seemed rather incompetent. But it also sounds like our illustrious government kept stricking their noses in. This has to so with more than just a cookie.

I would be surprised if the Alberta Party even is able to get up to the Green's level of public support for the next election. Building a party takes time, and the Alberta Party has none of it.

As a good friend of mine says, the Alberta Party makes sense if you get rid of the Alberta Liberals in some way. But as is, it is just a distraction. (full disclosure, I sat on the Alberta Liberal executive board for two years, including during the last election)