Accountability Now

And here I thought you would be happy as they included Shawn Atleo of the First Nations.

Its becoming this way in Edmonton too. Poor performance for years but still a major waiting list for season tickets!

I went to Bad Grampa a few weeks back and nearly tore my guts apart laughing. Its definitlely the funniest movie I have seen in a long time but I will say it might not be for everyone.

IMO....it ultimately comes down to the exchange rate and how we as an exporting nation can get our products out to the world...including oil. The reality is that the exchange rate had consistantly been around 70-80 cents on the dollar and then shifted closer to parity in 2006 and reaching it in 2007. As much as I like this rate when i'm travelling, it doesn't help our exports especially in Ontario's manufacturing sector.

Nice try. Even with the tax giveaways that you flaunt, he has been able to return the goverment to a surplus again. This of course after dealing with the Global Economic Crisis which actually started in 2006 with the bursting of the US housing bubble. Harper was facing an uphill battle from the day he got into office. The fact he ran two sizeable surpluses in those years is a feather in his cap. Most other sensible people realize that the deficits after this point were unavoidable considering the global economic environment.

Hey Reefer...ever hear of a global economy? Check back to those years the Liberals were running surpluses. You know who else had surpluses in four of those years? Our largest trading partner....the US. The US has only had like 8 surplus years in the last 100 so by chance do you think it was just a good time or do you actually think the Liberals created those surpluses. Harper did carry the surpluses on for a couple of years before the Global Financial Crisis hit. Again...not quite his fault. Now what is truly impressive is the fact that we are again looking at a surplus when the US and other countries are still reeling.

My original post was to show disagreement with the suggested 43.7% left wing popular vote. I have never said we are hard nose red wingers through and through. I am very aware that the left has some support. I just think that number is off and the historical numbers tend to agree with me.

Pardon the pun....but you are quite liberal with your numbers. You say they are claiming a 60/40 split when its actually its actually 54.6/43.7 with 1.7% going to other. Why is this a big deal? Because the highest poplular vote for the left wing (in Alberta) since the 1997 federal election was 37.6% which happened during the Stockwell Day- Harper transition (In other words, who would support the right wing at a time like that?). Over the six elections, the average has been 31.8% popular vote for left wing parties. BUT now....this poll is saying they have 43.7%? And I'm the one taking the leap? LOL. So its roughly 12% higher than the six election average (31.8%) and the 2011 election (31.3%). To me that is a significant difference which is why I say these polls don't seem right especially considering the extenuating circumstances of having Trudeau Jr (ie anti-Alberta himself) running against Harper (an MP from Calgary). Of course don't let the historical numbers get in the what you feel is a realistic projection. The funny part is you claim in the article that the polls weren't inaccurate. What he actually said is that the polls weren't TERRIBLY inaccurate....meaning they were still off. He goes on to say about how they underestimated the strength of the conservatives especailly in BC, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. That is quite the underestimate considering those three areas alone win the Conservatives a minority government. He also goes on to say that the weighted average polls were less accurate than the polls closer to the election. Yet....what is the graphic that was posted? Weighted average. Hmmm. I have never said that the left wing in Alberta is dead or that it doesn't have some support. I just don't believe its at 43.7%.

Alberta is the only province that does NOT have a single Liberal seat. And they have one NDP seat....ONE measly seat out of 28 seats total.And you're making a big deal about this? Hell the Green Party has a seat in BC...I guess they're going to win that province...hey? I get that seats might not equate to popular support but come on...what is more likely....that 40% of Alberta support leftwing when they currently have one seat to show for it OR that the poll is not correct. I choose the lattter but believe what you want. As for the mayors...they may have left wing tendancies when compared to the people they run against however does that make them left wing. Of course, people in civic elections don't vote for parties....they vote for people. The same is not the case in provincial or federal as people will vote party over people. The scandal? Lol....people in Alberta don't give a crap about $90k. They care about Keystone, Gateway and any other pipeline or project that will create revenue and jobs. Any announcement of these pipelines will secure a Conservative vote in Alberta...maybe not the rest of the country but definitely here.

You're not getting through to me? Don't get upset because I have pointed out a fallacy in your postion. I undestand that you have expressed these models aren't 100% accurate. And in theory, popular support doesn't equate to seats. I get that 100%. My point is that these polls are nothing more than a conversation piece. edit: They are a convesation piece because even 308 has shown they can easily get the popular vote wrong. They have also shown that when they do get the popular vote right that it does equate to accurate seat projections. Something you clearly disagreed with.

If you read the rest of it you will see it shows that IF they had the popular support correct, then the seat projection would have been accurate. It is fairly clear that the popular support on the last federal poll was NOT correct. What's to believe its correct this time?

You keep saying that the polls are an indicaiton of popular support. I disagreed and have shown you, as per the last 308 federal election polls, that they don't. I have been reading everything you have posted.

As per my last post....they didn't even get the popular vote right which you are saying is what this poll is about. I said its not. Anymore to discuss?

The poll that you seem to support disagrees with you. As per the last time these guys did a federal election poll: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2011/05/projection-vs-results.html Their error last time is that they felt popular support was higher or lower than what it is when in fact they didn't get popular support right at all. As is what I am saying is the case here.

1. Don't know as I can't vote in those elections so I don't really follow their platforms. Regardless...mayors do not follow party politics. My point is that Alberta has always been and for the conceivable future, will always be Conservative. 2. Are you kidding me? Then what are they and please don't say Center as I don't want to laugh myself to sleep. 3. I think polling everywhere is faulty as it is limited to sample size. It becomes particularly faulty when certain parts of the population are chosen over others....with the others being the majority.

Many scientific polls suggested Wildrose would be in power. We have a Conservative majority. Any other evidence required? Btw...polls are taken on a small sample size. So don't bring the word scientific into it as anyone in science know the probability for error increases with smaller samples.

I'm quite aware of our electoral system...thanks. I am also aware of the misleading tendencies that polls can provide which is what I'm saying is happening here. We saw this in our last provincial election where it wasn't so obvious. This however is quite obvious as there isn't 45% left wing support nor is there any Liberal support especially for their anti Alberta leader.

45% left wing in Alberta? That alone tells me this poll is skewed. Of course no one in Alberta believes polls anyway after the last provincial election.

So the lawyer on the aboriginal law section says we should just give them the money. Good to know! I trust there is no bias there! Lol. Of course the people paying the bills (ie the taxpayers) might have a different view. Your article states that 90% of the cases are won...which means 10% are lost. I don't know all the numbers but lets take the 2012 land claims that cost 519 million. 10% of that is $51m...a good chunk of the legal bills and that's just for land claims. The government has been screwed over already by these bleeding heart courts so I trust they are going to ensure its papered properly and done right this time so there is no more going back to the well.

I know...which is why I said 106 (or 123) million in legal fees is not bad considering it manages 5.8 billion in transfers.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1343917447368/1343917513262 On this link you'll see a PDF for the 2012 audit. On page 30 it shows the breakdown for all expenses including Legal Services. Your figure of 10 billion is for provision of future claims and the legal fees to process those claims.....SHOULD they arise. The 10 billion is not for legal alone.

Nope...not confused. Are you still saying the government spent 10 billion in 2012 for litigation in land claims? We've been through this already. According to the AANDC audit, the total bill for legal services was 123 million. Total amount which includes consulation on use, settlements and everything else AANDC requires legal services for.

Jacee...I'm glad to see that you are at least down to 106 million versus that bogus 10 billion that you used to blast off about. Remember this one? That was a hoot. Just taking your info above, there was $519 million in settled claims. Do you think these actually come for free. Apparently you have never been in a car accident and seen what lawyers take. Of course we can't just look at the $519 million as the legal services aren't just for litigation. They are also there to administer the 5.8 billion in transfer payments made to First Nations. I'm quite happy spending $123 million to ensure the 5.8 billion is handled correctly.

Yes... I remember that. It was because they came to the table and then walked away from the money made be beleive they were just their to fight the unions off.

Lol....I still remember that one union boss after asked if he would take cuts in order to keep their jobs and he said "We have worked too hard for too long to take cuts now". Yes...no cuts just unemployment now.