Alberta Tea Party ?

[pfezziwig]

Is this the beginning of a Tea Party movement in Canada? Throwing Conservatives out who are fiscally irresponsible (or C.O.I.N's as I like to call them 'COnservative In Name only'.

I'm sure tired of the so called federal Conservatives deficit spending. Is there any 'Conservative' party willing to be fiscally responsible, or is the Wild Rose party the only one?

[dre]

Is this the beginning of a Tea Party movement in Canada? Throwing Conservatives out who are fiscally irresponsible (or C.O.I.N's as I like to call them 'COnservative In Name only'.

I'm sure tired of the so called federal Conservatives deficit spending. Is there any 'Conservative' party willing to be fiscally responsible, or is the Wild Rose party the only one?

We havent had fiscal conservatives in this country for over 3 decades. If we want some now, well probably have to dig up some old remains and try to extract some DNA to clone one from. Apparently theyre doing that with the Wooly Mammoth, so I dont see why it couldnt work on other extinct animals as well.

[nicky10013]

We havent had fiscal conservatives in this country for over 3 decades. If we want some now, well probably have to dig up some old remains and try to extract some DNA to clone one from. Apparently theyre doing that with the Wooly Mammoth, so I dont see why it couldnt work on other extinct animals as well.

In the way that right wingers pine for them, "fiscal conservatives" have never existed period.

[wyly]

Is this the beginning of a Tea Party movement in Canada? Throwing Conservatives out who are fiscally irresponsible (or C.O.I.N's as I like to call them 'COnservative In Name only'.

I'm sure tired of the so called federal Conservatives deficit spending. Is there any 'Conservative' party willing to be fiscally responsible, or is the Wild Rose party the only one?

the wild rose party with the leader who wants to see the end of public healthcare...ya we really want more like her...

[Wild Bill]

Is this the beginning of a Tea Party movement in Canada? Throwing Conservatives out who are fiscally irresponsible (or C.O.I.N's as I like to call them 'COnservative In Name only'.

I'm sure tired of the so called federal Conservatives deficit spending. Is there any 'Conservative' party willing to be fiscally responsible, or is the Wild Rose party the only one?

Unfortunately, fiscal conservatives don't seem to be electable in Canada. We tried with the Reform Party but the opposition was "frothing at the mouth" rabid to block them from power. Understandable, considering Canadian politics has always been "brokerage" politics, where parties contest by bribing various segments of the electorate with their own tax money! A fiscally conservative part would put an end to that. No more getting a dozen or so canoe museums built with federal money in your home riding!

Harper knows all too well that the key to victory is to keep the "mushy middle" on side and give the old Reform type voter no other choice but the CPC. What are they going to do, vote Liberal? They have no choice but to hold their nose and vote for him.

If there ever was an alternative, like if the Wild Rose decided to run federally, Harper would lose a good chunk of his support over night! However, we'd be back in the days of a fractured conservative movement. It would be Liberals forever!

I don't know what the solution is, anymore. Manning's Reform Party movement seems to have been a total waste of time. We seem to have some very strong demographics among the voters but each is not strong enough to propel a party into power by themselves and there isn't enough common ground between them.

Manning may have already realized this. He founded a Centre for Conservative Studies, which is working to make many of his ideas more common and accepted among mainstream Canadians. This will take generations but if it's effective it may be the only chance for fiscal conservatism.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

Fiscal conservative...meaning what exactly? The Liberal government of the late 90s and early 00s balanced the budget by cutting spending and they never raised taxes. In fact, they lowered taxes, giving the largest single tax break in Canadian history, and another that was arguably the most meaningful. Now, I know, they weren't called Conservatives or conservatives, so they don't count to conservative ideologues, but if that isn't fiscal conservatism, then what is?

I know, some of you have wet dreams about Manning's policies, but that just isn't realistic. In order to govern, quite frankly, rigid ideology like that touted by the Reform party has to be thrown out the window. In order to govern successfully, a party has to become very pragmatic. That's why the Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, and now the Conservatives have been such successful governments...because they're basically interchangeable. They generally do what the people want. They don't raise taxes much if at all, they don't run huge deficits generally, and they provide the social programs that people want (with their own individual twists, of course). That's how systems with a democratic element generally have to work...and if the Wild Rose party thinks otherwise, they're in for a real shocker.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Smallc

[pinko]

"They generally do what the people want."

Which people would you be referring to?

[Michael Hardner]

Which people would you be referring to?

The majority. That could mean, for example, the 23 million or so who live east of Manitoba versus 3.7 million in Alberta.

[Shwa]

This is a very interesting post WB, may I?

Unfortunately, fiscal conservatives don't seem to be electable in Canada. We tried with the Reform Party but the opposition was "frothing at the mouth" rabid to block them from power.

Yes, but it wasn't necessarily the fiscal conservative aspect of the Reform Party that the opposition were frothing at the mouth over. If I recall correctly there were some socially conservative values that were outright rejected along with a certain brand of fiscal conservatism - that is, fiscal-conservatism-at-all-costs - that the "opposition," i.e. the majority of Canadians, thoroughly repudiated with their votes. The Reform Party was rejected holistically, not just because of their fiscal conservative policies. I mean, Stockwell Day, come on now, are you kidding me??

Understandable, considering Canadian politics has always been "brokerage" politics, where parties contest by bribing various segments of the electorate with their own tax money! A fiscally conservative part would put an end to that.

Lookey here, as a former Reform Party supporter, where a "fiscally conservative" party would put an end to bribing various segments of the electorate, you have managed quite neatly to segment the electorate by talking about the "mushy middle" below. So let me ask, in your segmentation of the electorate, what other segments are there other than the "mushy middle?" The "hard right" perhaps? What other segments are there?

No more getting a dozen or so canoe museums built with federal money in your home riding!

So, first of all there is no riding with a dozen canoe museums and I only know of one Canoe Museum, the one in Peterborough. Have you ever been? Have you ever been to any museum at all? Do you not think that spending money in ridings to boost tourism and cultural knowledge and pride is worthy of spending money on?

Harper knows all too well that the key to victory is to keep the "mushy middle" on side and give the old Reform type voter no other choice but the CPC. What are they going to do, vote Liberal? They have no choice but to hold their nose and vote for him.

Of course not - they have plenty of choices like anyone else. They can form their own party, call it the Rereformed Party or something and get smartly rejected by the segmented electorate once again. I, for one, would enjoy this.

If there ever was an alternative, like if the Wild Rose decided to run federally, Harper would lose a good chunk of his support over night! However, we'd be back in the days of a fractured conservative movement. It would be Liberals forever!

Harper is a realistic politician who knows how things operate in TROC for the most part. I would love a National Wild Rose Party in Canada, just to see them and all that they stand for to be thoroughly rejected by the segmented electorate acting as "opposition."

I don't know what the solution is, anymore. Manning's Reform Party movement seems to have been a total waste of time. We seem to have some very strong demographics among the voters but each is not strong enough to propel a party into power by themselves and there isn't enough common ground between them.

More recognition of the segmented electorate, which is the nature of Canadian politics, that fiscal-conservatism-at-any-cost Reform Party failed to heed. Manning's Reform Party was a waste of time so much so that they had to rename it to try and remove the stigma of the odious brand.

Manning may have already realized this. He founded a Centre for Conservative Studies, which is working to make many of his ideas more common and accepted among mainstream Canadians. This will take generations but if it's effective it may be the only chance for fiscal conservatism.

Yeah, a nice "cushy upper" scholarly position designed to disguise the fact that it really amounts to nothing more than a pasture.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Shwa

[Esq]

Is this the beginning of a Tea Party movement in Canada? Throwing Conservatives out who are fiscally irresponsible (or C.O.I.N's as I like to call them 'COnservative In Name only'.

I'm sure tired of the so called federal Conservatives deficit spending. Is there any 'Conservative' party willing to be fiscally responsible, or is the Wild Rose party the only one?

The Social Party is fiscally conservative. It puts social issues into the "provincial sphere" to decide.

Priorities are:

-Elimination of the Debt

-Removal of Income Taxes

-Removal of Goods and Services

-Public Safety Concerns

Major Initiatives are:

Creation of An Advisorial Council that maintains a 1 vote per voter, and pool voting mechanism (Also using this mechanism to do things like appointments that were once partisan to allow populus based voting)

Example Judges, Sentators, the Governor General that would previously be political appointments.

The Social party is for all intents and purposes the most fiscally responisible party in terms of Policy.

They aim to make the government self sustaining without taxes, no reduction in required services, and opening up government to Canadians. This is partly accomplished done through enfranchisement of the public.

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/SP.htm

The Social Party is a federal party, since it thinks that pronvices are more or less for business and community issues of a more regional basis - in this respect it opens up regional councils.

Pronvincially the objectives are a little different:

Creating a partnership for the right to work.

More stakeholders through private public/corporations for health and education - as already exists but with more capacity for involvement of the public in voting on issues that effect them on a more localized basis.

Meanwhile health care is seens a lifestyle option, the provinces would have access to National Health Insurance - but could opt for private insurance if they had it. Only those living under the poverty line would get free basis preventative and emergency care, while those just above the line - low income would be subsidized, a little like Obama care but it would be a federal health insurance program that covers subsidized and poverty care.

Corporate and personal income taxes would be droped - and instead fees for non essential services.

Essential and non essential services would be opned up to voluntary participation - with a portion of the service reduction from volunteers going back to them.

Post Secondary Education would be a priority to make free for Citizens, and within the provinces to permanent residents who earn social credits - meaning they earned a certain amount of community service. This would remain free as long as they have earned the social credits.

Some things that may not be popular are opening up more toll roads - but making "provincial vehicle insurance" an option - at a "group rate" for those not opting for private insurance.

Property taxes however would be maintained - but these could be reduced by social credits.

Property owners could however lease out sections of their land for development under developmental plans -such as co-op farming, sustainable agroforestry or otherwise.

These projects are aimed to provide direct aid rather than monetary aid to those in poverty, as well as provide them with skills, it also allows them to build social credit for free post secondary studies or the ability to live on land their own land even without employment.

The provincial governments profits would mostly come from royalties, licensing, and service fees.

A reduction in overall beaurocracy, and "voluntary support" is the central focus.

Government of those with the time or interest to be part of government.

Both levels provincial and federal support divesting the debt into individual responsibility. People would be responsible for servicing their personal share of the debt.

Likewise on a federal level the debt would be paid down by printing off the debt for any delinquint accounts.

An inheritence tax rule would come into place also in that the personal portion of debt had to be paid down befor providing inheritence - however, there are some hardship allowances, as well as survivorship.

It seems a burden but when people can pay down their debt in 5 to 10 years while getting the services they want it really isn't hardship.

Its the only way it is going to get done though, getting the people to do it.

It also allows people who pay it off, to never have to pay it again.

Socially though the party is libertarian, in that it feels individuals make social lifestyle choices, the governments role is only to provide for public safety concerns, in the laws it makes effecting individuals, not cultural and social laws to regulate society.

Bylaws can be created at lower levels of government to address local cultural issues.

---

Things like same sex marriage arn't really legal concerns because there is no reason why law needs to be involved in marriage.

Issues like abortion if medical are medical concerns, if not, why would a doctor perform an unneeded non publically funded procedure. Only needed medical procedures would be provided for those in poverty or under subsidy.

Most social issues really are none of the governments business.

Leave it to society to decide things not related to governance, don't let the government be your cultural totalitarian police state, that is the bottom line.

Freedom for the people in determining their own practices, in as much as it doesn't violate the safety of other members of society.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Esq

[Michael Hardner]

Freedom for the people in determining their own practices, in as much as it doesn't violate the safety of other members of society.

And, with the government out of the way power will accumulate as it always does, and the poor will be free to buy public healthcare that they can't afford.

We're familiar with libertarian arguments here. It's only supported by a fringe minority, which is a good thing in my opinion.

[Esq]

And, with the government out of the way power will accumulate as it always does, and the poor will be free to buy public healthcare that they can't afford.

We're familiar with libertarian arguments here. It's only supported by a fringe minority, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Teaparty could be seen as fringe in America also. - even if it is the americans that are the fringe these days in america.

Social Health care is all provided through a national health insurance plan - that private companies can compete with or resell.

The medical community itself is in the first line to pay for those in poverty and subsidies for low income persons.

Medicaid and medicare are provided for those who cannot afford it. It is isn't completely synonymous to obamacare, but it doesn't take away anything that medicare in Canada already provides - what it does is, it asks doctors to be more conservative in how they go about treating people. I would hope it would also provide for medical research and alternative medicine practices, by having more clinical trials. the thing is that a lot of medical issues now can be treated that 10 years ago were only able to be mitigated. We have far more cures today than we did 10 years ago let alone 20 years ago. This is a trend that will only increase as time goes on. we don't need treatment and screening. We need to implement cures. Also we need healty lifestyles, not preventative medicine. - the basis of rebating a portion of peoples plan costs who don't use their insurance in a term period is a way of rewarding healthy people by giving them their health care dollars back for not using the services. The portion that is kept goes to medical research (for public patents on technologies and medicine, and buying rights to some medicine to provide it at lower costs), and lowering the overall costs of providing health care.

Also through social credit individuals can earn a better medical service. It is true that poor people would not have necisarily access to all the expensive things for non emergency screening purposes - but I think that there is over use of some technologies and treatments. So I don't think it jepordizes peoples health, it actually protects exposure to things like xrays.

It also allows the medical community to invest in more cost effective medicine, rather than the best most expensive medicine that may be overkill. The public patents and buying wise low technology, AI programs, and more cost effective screening, more funding to research centers in cutting edge medicine like nanotecs, gene therapy, and tissue cloning, it is a future based medicine.

Also through "pay fors" charity aid outside the NHIP basic plan can be raised for those. We have fund raisers for people already.

The bottom line here is that. The rich can afford a better plan if they want it, but do they want it, if they can use that money for something else - some yes, some maybe not. That should be their choice.

If middle income people want better health insurance they can opt, but if that is a difference between 0% taxes and 20% taxes, I'd rather let them take that 20% taxes and pay at their own local level or for what health issues they may have.

The NHIP allows people to pick their plan based on their health needs, not everyone needs diabetic care in their plan, or rare disease treatment. Those who need these things get to pool this. It is all about most efficient use of resources, and it is that way with medicare anyway. So it isn't a loss, it is actually an improvement due to more clarity on providing services people ask for instead of services the government wants to pay for.

Access isn't reduced, - more care is made available by opening things up to private health providers, but under the premise that they have to give the public rate (or less) for emergency care in emergency situations or where there is a life threatening situation that their services are required and they are equiped to reduce the level of harm. (without endangering anyone elses health)

Socially things are very libertarian - because it lets people live their lives without government intervention if they arn't breaking the law, if they arn't infringing someone elses rights.

I don't see why you would want the government to but into your lifestyle? I also don't see why you would want to but into someone elses.

If we wanted a totalitarian society the population would be declining quickly. If it was just a matter of fullfilling the majorities whim irrespective of individual rights.

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/healthpolicyplan.htm (you can click on the text boxes to read more about that item)

Edited January 30, 2011 by Esq

[Wild Bill]

The majority. That could mean, for example, the 23 million or so who live east of Manitoba versus 3.7 million in Alberta.

Careful, Michael! When you talk like this you are really saying to the "3.7 million' "You are a minority and therefore will be an ignored part of Canada forever!"

This on top of the fact that when attempts are made to add seats to the West, due to increased population, the West sees that they don't get as many seats as they should because it might offend Quebec back East!

I don't care about demographics and different political cultures. In any organization you can't expect to have a segment of your membership doomed to forever have to pay dues and be permanently blocked from having any real power with input into how the organization is run! It is a recipe for a sense of permanent estrangement - even a sense of being 'used'.

If you let your regions feel that they are mere minorities not worthy of participating in policy then you should not be surprised if you have problems with regional alienation. Elitism is a poor way to foster unity.

The ironic thing is that in Canada we often also ignore the views of the majority! Justice issues are a perfect example.

Anyhow, I've belonged to several service clubs over the years and have seen first hand what happens to those run by a 'clique', or 'cabal of old guys'. It can take some years or even decades but eventually you see that the membership has slowly drifted away, until there's not many left BUT those old guys!

Countries are different, of course. You can't give up citizenship like you can a membership. Still, if too many people start feeling like they WANT to, you get problems!

If the problems are never addressed, you start hearing about secession movements, like Quebec or Alberta breaking away. A lot of people don't know that when Reform was first born there was a strong chance it could have been an Albertan Separatist Party. The support level was not trivial! A LOT of citizens liked the idea! Manning successfully sold the idea that a party from the West had a shot at change at the federal level. If he hadn't, our history might have been very different.

I know you didn't mean your comment in quite that way, Michael. Still, one should be careful! There are still people who would like to take their "minority" province or region out of Canada. Their numbers can be surprisingly high.

Is it wise to encourage them?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Careful, Michael! When you talk like this you are really saying to the "3.7 million' "You are a minority and therefore will be an ignored part of Canada forever!"

This on top of the fact that when attempts are made to add seats to the West, due to increased population, the West sees that they don't get as many seats as they should because it might offend Quebec back East!

I don't care about demographics and different political cultures. In any organization you can't expect to have a segment of your membership doomed to forever have to pay dues and be permanently blocked from having any real power with input into how the organization is run! It is a recipe for a sense of permanent estrangement - even a sense of being 'used'.

If you let your regions feel that they are mere minorities not worthy of participating in policy then you should not be surprised if you have problems with regional alienation. Elitism is a poor way to foster unity.

The ironic thing is that in Canada we often also ignore the views of the majority! Justice issues are a perfect example.

Anyhow, I've belonged to several service clubs over the years and have seen first hand what happens to those run by a 'clique', or 'cabal of old guys'. It can take some years or even decades but eventually you see that the membership has slowly drifted away, until there's not many left BUT those old guys!

Countries are different, of course. You can't give up citizenship like you can a membership. Still, if too many people start feeling like they WANT to, you get problems!

If the problems are never addressed, you start hearing about secession movements, like Quebec or Alberta breaking away. A lot of people don't know that when Reform was first born there was a strong chance it could have been an Albertan Separatist Party. The support level was not trivial! A LOT of citizens liked the idea! Manning successfully sold the idea that a party from the West had a shot at change at the federal level. If he hadn't, our history might have been very different.

I know you didn't mean your comment in quite that way, Michael. Still, one should be careful! There are still people who would like to take their "minority" province or region out of Canada. Their numbers can be surprisingly high.

Is it wise to encourage them?

This province need not separate from the rest of the nation, at least not yet. What this province, or at least its people seem to have decided is that we need to make more decisions in our own best interest. We believe there is room within the Canadian Constitution to provide for a much greater provincial role than is currently the case.

Alberta has a unique place in Canadian society, whether or not people care to believe it or not. This is the land of opportunity within Canada. Alberta is open for business like no other province can be. Its not like we are for sale, but we will rent you land to make money from in the blink of an eye. WE have low taxes, a good business environment and a petroleum powered economy. Just about a paradise of economic environment to invest in. All that is needed is the political will at the provincial level to lead in a direction beneficial to its citizens. This government has never been anti-business and it never will be. It has pandered to the developers, who have traditionally been foreign investors, for sure and yet that could change. There is now money here, not just public funds but independent Albertan dollars as well, more than enough to start on a path of secondary industrial development.

Conservative thinking is able to exploit this opportunity. Liberal thinking is able to make it pay enough to deliver more services and programs than we already have. Only a fool would fail to appreciate the opportunities that the province of Alberta may avail itself of. Unlike the rest of the nation, we can build on our successes and profit from our mistakes. There really is a place where the Canadian Goose laid a golden egg, it called Alberta. There is no Canadian province with as much potential as Alberta.

[Michael Hardner]

Careful, Michael! When you talk like this you are really saying to the "3.7 million' "You are a minority and therefore will be an ignored part of Canada forever!"

No, I'm not "really saying that".

This on top of the fact that when attempts are made to add seats to the West, due to increased population, the West sees that they don't get as many seats as they should because it might offend Quebec back East!

Do you have an example ? Gerrymandering happens all the time, and your boys are in power now so you should see some on your side.

I don't care about demographics and different political cultures. In any organization you can't expect to have a segment of your membership doomed to forever have to pay dues and be permanently blocked from having any real power with input into how the organization is run! It is a recipe for a sense of permanent estrangement - even a sense of being 'used'.

If you let your regions feel that they are mere minorities not worthy of participating in policy then you should not be surprised if you have problems with regional alienation. Elitism is a poor way to foster unity.

The ironic thing is that in Canada we often also ignore the views of the majority! Justice issues are a perfect example.

Anyhow, I've belonged to several service clubs over the years and have seen first hand what happens to those run by a 'clique', or 'cabal of old guys'. It can take some years or even decades but eventually you see that the membership has slowly drifted away, until there's not many left BUT those old guys!

Countries are different, of course. You can't give up citizenship like you can a membership. Still, if too many people start feeling like they WANT to, you get problems!

If the problems are never addressed, you start hearing about secession movements, like Quebec or Alberta breaking away. A lot of people don't know that when Reform was first born there was a strong chance it could have been an Albertan Separatist Party. The support level was not trivial! A LOT of citizens liked the idea! Manning successfully sold the idea that a party from the West had a shot at change at the federal level. If he hadn't, our history might have been very different.

I know you didn't mean your comment in quite that way, Michael. Still, one should be careful! There are still people who would like to take their "minority" province or region out of Canada. Their numbers can be surprisingly high.

Is it wise to encourage them?

The people of Ontario have been said to be the only ones who identify themselves as Canadians above their provincial citizenship. As such, they have also shown their willingness to reduce power for the good of the nation. ( See Ontario's role during Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord talks. ) Also, there has historically been less per-capita representation in larger cities such as Toronto and Montreal than rural ridings.

Like Quebec, though, enough is *never* enough. Do you ever hear Albertans say "Those Ontarians are so willing to give us more power than our numbers deserve ?" or Quebec ? Of course not.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, I'm not "really saying that".

Do you have an example ? Gerrymandering happens all the time, and your boys are in power now so you should see some on your side.

The people of Ontario have been said to be the only ones who identify themselves as Canadians above their provincial citizenship. As such, they have also shown their willingness to reduce power for the good of the nation. ( See Ontario's role during Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord talks. ) Also, there has historically been less per-capita representation in larger cities such as Toronto and Montreal than rural ridings.

Like Quebec, though, enough is *never* enough. Do you ever hear Albertans say "Those Ontarians are so willing to give us more power than our numbers deserve ?" or Quebec ? Of course not.

Nor do we desire or require them to. There is enough room within the constitution to allow Alberta to seek and follow a path of development different from the rest of the nation.

[pfezziwig]

I must confess that the Chretian/Martin Liberals look a lot more fiscally conservative than Harper's Conservatives, I will vote liberal next election, Harper's convervatives had made it pretty clear they are not serious about the deficit and government expansion for the next 4 years. Sure is hard to admit this and vote Liberal, I suppose the Conservative's are counting on that.

[Alta4ever]

I must confess that the Chretian/Martin Liberals look a lot more fiscally conservative than Harper's Conservatives, I will vote liberal next election, Harper's convervatives had made it pretty clear they are not serious about the deficit and government expansion for the next 4 years. Sure is hard to admit this and vote Liberal, I suppose the Conservative's are counting on that.

YOu do understand the difference between provincial and federal politics right?

Harper is federal.....this is a provincial thread.

[wyly]

I must confess that the Chretian/Martin Liberals look a lot more fiscally conservative than Harper's Conservatives, I will vote liberal next election, Harper's convervatives had made it pretty clear they are not serious about the deficit and government expansion for the next 4 years. Sure is hard to admit this and vote Liberal, I suppose the Conservative's are counting on that.

I've always found the claim that conservatives to be fiscally prudent a myth...running a country is not the same as running as business it's more like running a home/family that's something conservatives can never get their collective heads around...

and conservatives tend to spend cash on things that have no financial return, only debt like the military...left leaning governments tend to spend on people who give a net return by being productive taxpayers...

[pfezziwig]

I must confess that the Chretian/Martin Liberals look a lot more fiscally conservative than Harper's Conservatives, I will vote liberal next election, Harper's convervatives had made it pretty clear they are not serious about the deficit and government expansion for the next 4 years. Sure is hard to admit this and vote Liberal, I suppose the Conservative's are counting on that.

a

Edited February 4, 2011 by pfezziwig