Alberta PCs in trouble?

[cynic43]

Well, you see, Norway doesn't believe it's people are very smart, nor does Alaska. They save money for their people, no trust. Alberta gives us the money and let's us choose.

I'll take that freedom. If you choose to buy the HEMI and boat than do it, so long as they don't bitch later.

Why is the government saving money? For it's retirement? It's better to have those dollars in the economy where they can be used to stimulate new industry.

Spoken like a true blue Albertan....more hick than savy...

makes one shudder such attitudes still exist

[geoffrey]

Spoken like a true blue Albertan....more hick than savy...

makes one shudder such attitudes still exist

Say what you will, it's hard to argue with results.

GDP (PPP) per capita:

Alberta 69,789

Ontario 43,847

Canada 44,118

Attitudes that have produced the richest region in North America are certaintly not 'hick' or unsavy.

What exactly are you proposing to do?

--

August, you confuse me. For someone so against government spending/taxation (which I am too), you seem to side with these people that insist the government should save the money instead of individual Albertans? That's simply crazy.

If your advocating no-tax because we make enough off of oil, I'm with you. Alberta spends a ridiculous amount on social services and other government programs.

When you compare Alberta's government spending, it's higher per capita than any other province. But it's also the lowest % of GDP. Our government spends more but takes much less.

It's the big wrench in your theory on spending being more key than taxation.

But the government should never save (or even collect) money. Give it to the people to make their independant choices with through reduced taxation.

[cynic43]

Say what you will, it's hard to argue with results.

GDP (PPP) per capita:

Alberta 69,789

Ontario 43,847

Canada 44,118

This proves exactly what?

1. We foolishly created a boom which we can't seem to handle

2. We have the highest inflation in the country

3. We have more homeless than ever before

4. Labor costs are getting out of hand

5. Homes are getting beyond afforability ( this increased property taxes to an all time high )

6. Rents are just about bordering on criminal

etc etc

And yes I can argue with the results

Only the very wealthy will not argue the average worker like myself sure as hell can

[geoffrey]

1. We foolishly created a boom which we can't seem to handle

I can handle it great, life has never been better, seized on a bunch of new opportunities, put a chunk of change into property and am doing just fine. If you can't handle or take advantage of it, don't critize everyone else that is.

2. We have the highest inflation in the country

Yes, we do. But we also have much higher wages.

3. We have more homeless than ever before

They shouldn't come here without having a residence or job secured ahead of time. Who the hell does that? Alberta can't be blamed for other's stupidity. People come here thinking it's a free ride and than realise that people actually have to work to enjoy the wealth.

They can just all move right on through to Vancouver.

4. Labor costs are getting out of hand

I.e. workers are making a higher share than ever before? I thought this was what the left-wing types always loved! Unions getting double digit increases?? It's a socialist paradise!

5. Homes are getting beyond afforability ( this increased property taxes to an all time high )

Only if you otherwise live beyond your means. 30 year mortgages and zero down mortgages are all excellent ways now for lower-income individuals to enter the market.

6. Rents are just about bordering on criminal

I'm in a rental now until my condo is ready. $1000 a month, nice place, 800sq.ft, one bedroom. That's pretty reasonable, no? Maybe some people are used to living in places in depressed regions that simply don't exist anywhere in the world other than the Maritimes or Saskatchewan.

They come here thinking their $250,000 Saskatoon home will be comparable to something of the same monthly cost here. Ha. No. Toronto, Vancouver, and many American cities have comparable housing costs to Calgary. Someone from Toronto or Vancouver would think our rents quite reasonable. Someone from New York a bargin!

Or how about from Europe?

--

Nah. We are doing it right. Some people chose not to use that opportunity properly, but that's really not anyone's responsibility but their own.

[cynic43]

I can handle it great, life has never been better, seized on a bunch of new opportunities, put a chunk of change into property and am doing just fine. If you can't handle or take advantage of it, don't critize everyone else that is.

Yes, we do. But we also have much higher wages.

They shouldn't come here without having a residence or job secured ahead of time. Who the hell does that? Alberta can't be blamed for other's stupidity. People come here thinking it's a free ride and than realise that people actually have to work to enjoy the wealth.

They can just all move right on through to Vancouver.

I.e. workers are making a higher share than ever before? I thought this was what the left-wing types always loved! Unions getting double digit increases?? It's a socialist paradise!

Only if you otherwise live beyond your means. 30 year mortgages and zero down mortgages are all excellent ways now for lower-income individuals to enter the market.

I'm in a rental now until my condo is ready. $1000 a month, nice place, 800sq.ft, one bedroom. That's pretty reasonable, no? Maybe some people are used to living in places in depressed regions that simply don't exist anywhere in the world other than the Maritimes or Saskatchewan.

They come here thinking their $250,000 Saskatoon home will be comparable to something of the same monthly cost here. Ha. No. Toronto, Vancouver, and many American cities have comparable housing costs to Calgary. Someone from Toronto or Vancouver would think our rents quite reasonable. Someone from New York a bargin!

Or how about from Europe?

--

Nah. We are doing it right. Some people chose not to use that opportunity properly, but that's really not anyone's responsibility but their own.

It never fails to amaze me how arrogant some Albertans are . I've seen the same attitude in the seventies. Want to guess how long that lasted?

[margrace]

It never fails to amaze me how arrogant some Albertans are . I've seen the same attitude in the seventies. Want to guess how long that lasted?

Its nice to live in a dream world of the young but remember reality is just around the corner. There are good times and bad times and we all experience them.

[jdobbin]

CP is running a story calling Stelmach the new "Mr. Dithers."

Ouch.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070903/...mach_leadership

Eight months after his surprise victory in Alberta's Conservative leadership race, Premier Ed Stelmach is trying to brush off dismal poll results and shake the unkind moniker of "Mr. Dithers" that some critics are using to describe the rookie premier's cautious leadership style.

Political analyst Jim Lightbody says Stelmach was a relative unknown when he won the Tory leadership, but now that Albertans know him they're "quite unimpressed."

"He seems like a very nice man who is in way over his head," said Lightbody, a political science professor at the University of Alberta. He says the Mr. Dithers tag is much deserved because Stelmach has been indecisive on key issues, such as nuclear energy and a growing scandal over Alberta's energy regulator hiring investigators to spy on citizens.

"We genuinely have an aimless ship here and it does seem to be sinking."

What the heck is happening in Alberta?

[August1991]

August, you confuse me. For someone so against government spending/taxation (which I am too), you seem to side with these people that insist the government should save the money instead of individual Albertans? That's simply crazy.

If your advocating no-tax because we make enough off of oil, I'm with you. Alberta spends a ridiculous amount on social services and other government programs.

When you compare Alberta's government spending, it's higher per capita than any other province. But it's also the lowest % of GDP. Our government spends more but takes much less.

It's the big wrench in your theory on spending being more key than taxation.

But the government should never save (or even collect) money. Give it to the people to make their independant choices with through reduced taxation.

Geoff, my point is that it doesn't really matter whether the government taxes or borrows; it matters whether the government spends.

So, if the government runs a deficit or a surplus, if it adds to the debt or adds to a nest egg, it doesn't matter. What matters is how much the government buys on our behalf.

Since you study corporate finance, you probably have heard of the Modigliani-Miller theorem. While the comparison is strictly incorrect, there's a similar unnamed theorem (sometimes called Ricardian Equivalence) for government.

As to your point about the Alberta government spending alot (per capita) but little (percentage of GDP), Alberta is a rich place. You gotta spend the money on something. I bet Albertans spend more per capita on tomatoes than Brazilians but less as a percentage of GDP.

----

Ultimately, you are asking whether the government should save or borrow on our behalf. I'm saying that the government should spend less on our behalf.

[geoffrey]

So, if the government runs a deficit or a surplus, if it adds to the debt or adds to a nest egg, it doesn't matter. What matters is how much the government buys on our behalf.

I agree that running reasonable deficits doesn't matter a whole lot... investing in nest eggs matters a great deal. Individuals will always outperform government in investment. Not only that, but they are much quicker to adapt to market pressures, exactly what we would need in a collapse of oil and gas.

Since you study corporate finance, you probably have heard of the Modigliani-Miller theorem. While the comparison is strictly incorrect, there's a similar unnamed theorem (sometimes called Ricardian Equivalence) for government.

Ricardo dismissed his theory before his death. I disagree with the concept as well. Government deficits do affect capital markets... understandably government investment like the Heritage fund likely has the opposite effect (would the money be invested anyways, or spent, further increasing Alberta's current wealth?).

The bottom line of the theory being that if the government borrows, people will have to borrow less, and therefore it doesn't have an effect on the market. The government can always borrow cheaper than we can, and therefore it drives people at the high end of the risk spectrum out of the market by pushing the bar higher. There goes alot of high-tech business and other venture capital borrowing.

Aggregate demand obviously flucuates depending on government fiscal policy, the theory doesn't work (actually, I read a report saying the GST cut did not increase consumption, this works to your favour, but there is more evidence to the contrary). Taxation and debt issue have complexities in of themselves that make them different (psychological and otherwise).

Macroeconomics isn't my strongpoint, but in the time I spent in macro classes with one of the most neoclassical economics faculties in Canada, I never heard anyone argue the points of Ricardian Equivalence or Barro seriously.

As to your point about the Alberta government spending alot (per capita) but little (percentage of GDP), Alberta is a rich place. You gotta spend the money on something. I bet Albertans spend more per capita on tomatoes than Brazilians but less as a percentage of GDP.

Let me put it this way. The real costs of Alberta's spending are lower than Ontario's, despite the nominal dollars being higher. It's a fair criticism to say the government is too involved, and therefore is spending too much. It's not reasonable to say that Alberta spends too high per capita nominally. A dollar to us is worth alot less than a dollar to someone in Ontario.

Ultimately, you are asking whether the government should save or borrow on our behalf. I'm saying that the government should spend less on our behalf.

Indeed, and we agree on that point. But the issue here is saving on our behalf... I don't believe the Alberta government should be stockpiling funds for the future. It makes far more sense to return that money to individuals to invest on their own behalfs.

If the government spends less, that means the nest egg grows faster. It also means that Albertans see no reduction in personal debt or increase in personal savings. Following your line of thinking, saving and borrowing could idealistically be taken right out of the hands of individuals through spending cuts. Is this a path you want to follow? Should the spending cuts not be returned to the people that paid for these things to begin with?

It seems like you want the government to spend less... I want the government to do that as well, but I'll add I want the government to do less overall (including borrow and invest).

[jdobbin]

More on what is happening in Alberta.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070929/..._wildrose_party

t was 36 years ago that Alberta voters last dumped the governing party, and with support apparently ebbing for the previously unbeatable Progressive Conservatives, some are wondering if that time has come again.

It's also a tradition in Alberta that voters in the mood for change don't switch to the opposition - they prefer to try their luck instead with a totally new party. So the political landscape is wide open for a new challenger, but so far no serious one has emerged.

Former federal Reform leader Preston Manning points to opinion polls suggesting that over 30 per cent of voters are undecided on how they'll vote in the next election, which Premier Ed Stelmach is expected to call within a year. It's a sign of the kind of "unstable situation" than an upstart party could exploit, says Manning, who knows a thing or two about starting a successful political movement himself.

"There's a great deal of restlessness in the province," he said in an interview. "Whether someone or some group will come along to fill that vacuum, that's the $64,000 question."

The latest to present an alternative to the Tory juggernaut that has governed since 1971 is the fledgling Wildrose party, which held a town hall meeting recently in Edmonton. The weather was good. The coffee was hot. But less than 60 people turned out to hear founder Link Byfield make his pitch.

"The opposition parties that are in the legislature now are all flat (in the polls) and the Tories are descending, so what's growing is the undecided," Byfield said. "If there were ever a time to start a new party, now is it."

Is it possible for this new party to make large gains in Alberta?

[geoffrey]

Is it possible for this new party to make large gains in Alberta?

The Alberta Alliance could moderate itself. Or perhaps a new choice.

Or perhaps it's time that a few seperatists join in the mix?

[C.Morgan]

The Alberta Alliance could moderate itself. Or perhaps a new choice.

Or perhaps it's time that a few seperatists join in the mix?

Just wondering, in what way (or ways) do you feel that the Alberta Alliance needs to moderate itself?

[Canadian Blue]

Perhaps get rid of the regressive social conservative aspect of their platform. In my own view most Albertan's tend to be more Libertarian [not pure Libertarians] than anything else on the issues, and in the end they really don't see the point in legislating morality.

[C.Morgan]

Perhaps get rid of the regressive social conservative aspect of their platform. In my own view most Albertan's tend to be more Libertarian [not pure Libertarians] than anything else on the issues, and in the end they really don't see the point in legislating morality.

Rumour has it that their current VP of policy is an agnostic libertarian.

I dont see a pile of social conservative aspects in the platform. Which do you mean?

[geoffrey]

Just wondering, in what way (or ways) do you feel that the Alberta Alliance needs to moderate itself?

See your next post:

Rumour has it that their current VP of policy is an agnostic libertarian.

I dont see a pile of social conservative aspects in the platform. Which do you mean?

Let's cut the BS, end the rumours and have the Alberta Alliance come out as the Libertarian alternative in Alberta. It will sell. Farmers like it, business people like it and it's acceptable by most people in the cities.

Social conservatism is dead with this passing generation. No need to run a platform on it. The votes are fewer and further between and those that make decisions in Alberta are rarely hardline socons.

I took a look at the AA's policies. Your right. There isn't alot of socon stuff there. But the perception remains. Change that, and the AA can win some seats.

Their focus must be more urban. Calgary is a major city now, as is Edmonton. Their policies are rural weighted, which is good in a province where that is neccessary to win, but I want to see more on transportation and housing.

The AA also has work to do on the environment. Sustainability through technology is a major winner, and one compatibile with pro-business ideals. You don't have to support Kyoto to want to clean up our lakes, rivers and soil. These will become economic issues. Protection of parkland from logging is key, Morton's approval of clearcut logging in Kananaskis has brought the ire of many people.

I'm a big pro business guy, perhaps as free market as it gets. But environmental responsibility by the government on it's land is a requirement. Can the AA step up there?

--

I'm as Alberta PC as it gets, a huge Ralph fan and a supporter of their legacy. That said, Stelmach has failed so far. I'll do anything to prevent the reigns of power moving to the left. That's not what Alberta is about. I'm never willing to be under the leadership of Kevin Taft and his band of merry socialists.

The PC's will be gone within 2 elections. I hope the AA will be there to step up into the void. I'd be willing to lend my support if I could be convinced their social conservative roots are behind them and they are ready to be a progressive governing party. I'm not fully there.

[C.Morgan]

See your next post:

Let's cut the BS, end the rumours and have the Alberta Alliance come out as the Libertarian alternative in Alberta. It will sell. Farmers like it, business people like it and it's acceptable by most people in the cities.

Social conservatism is dead with this passing generation. No need to run a platform on it. The votes are fewer and further between and those that make decisions in Alberta are rarely hardline socons.

I took a look at the AA's policies. Your right. There isn't alot of socon stuff there. But the perception remains. Change that, and the AA can win some seats.

Their focus must be more urban. Calgary is a major city now, as is Edmonton. Their policies are rural weighted, which is good in a province where that is neccessary to win, but I want to see more on transportation and housing.

The AA also has work to do on the environment. Sustainability through technology is a major winner, and one compatibile with pro-business ideals. You don't have to support Kyoto to want to clean up our lakes, rivers and soil. These will become economic issues. Protection of parkland from logging is key, Morton's approval of clearcut logging in Kananaskis has brought the ire of many people.

I'm a big pro business guy, perhaps as free market as it gets. But environmental responsibility by the government on it's land is a requirement. Can the AA step up there?

--

I'm as Alberta PC as it gets, a huge Ralph fan and a supporter of their legacy. That said, Stelmach has failed so far. I'll do anything to prevent the reigns of power moving to the left. That's not what Alberta is about. I'm never willing to be under the leadership of Kevin Taft and his band of merry socialists.

The PC's will be gone within 2 elections. I hope the AA will be there to step up into the void. I'd be willing to lend my support if I could be convinced their social conservative roots are behind them and they are ready to be a progressive governing party. I'm not fully there.

I would be lying if I said there were no longer socons involved with the AA.

The policies have been revised though and through democratic means so only the most hardcore of socons have not been accepting of where we are standing these days.

Jane Greydanus who ran in Calgary Elbow was an excellent example of the kind of urban candidate that the AA can field. It was tough and she didnt do as well as hoped but the road simply isnt easy getting exposure out there.

Our next policy convention will be in a little less than a month from now. I expect that we will have some good additions of common sense policies and the removal of some redundant ones.

The party has a pretty comprehensive environmental policy as well http://www.albertaalliance.ca/policies/environment.html

The key thing is balance.

It is a tough slog though. Our lone MLA is doing what he can but common sense just doesnt seem to grab the press that easily.

There never really was that much in the party policy before that was all that Socon. Most of that is mistaken perception.

Perception can be reality at the polls however and we do need to work on that.

[geoffrey]

Jane Greydanus who ran in Calgary Elbow was an excellent example of the kind of urban candidate that the AA can field. It was tough and she didnt do as well as hoped but the road simply isnt easy getting exposure out there.

Jane Greydanus seemed like a reasonable candidate. She would have had my vote if I liked a few blocks more north.

Our next policy convention will be in a little less than a month from now. I expect that we will have some good additions of common sense policies and the removal of some redundant ones.

I hope you do. Alberta needs it.

The party has a pretty comprehensive environmental policy as well http://www.albertaalliance.ca/policies/environment.html

The key thing is balance.

I like it.

Perception can be reality at the polls however and we do need to work on that.

It is everything at the polls. That's how the party is perceived. I'm very into politics, especially provincially, and I was under that impression until I took a hard look at your policies.

If the AA want to be serious going into the expected spring election, I suggest you take the Harper approach, narrow it down to a few key issues that win votes and push hard. Get some progressive smiley faces out there. If the AA can take an urban seat, you guys will have a platform for the future.

I think you can count on my support. I may even join up.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The PC's are in trouble because they haven't listened to the people. The AA folks are merely more conservative than the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. I am not convinced they will gain much ground next election. I think this next election will be interesting in as much as there will be real issues at stake. This time the government will have no choice but to fight an election on those issues. This election will pit one Albertan against another over the royalty issue. People inside the patch will be against increases while everybody else will be for changes to the existing royalty structures.

Partisan affiliation will likely continue to dominate the Alberta Legislature, but expect a few independent candidates. What many Albertans want is to have government downsized and spending curtailed. They want the Heritage Fund to be revitalized and used as it was designed. It is strange to talk to some of the old folks and find out what the expectations were from that fund. That fund was designed to provide a dividend to citizens in the same manner as the Alaskan Permanent Fund. It was designed not by the Tories but the old Social Credit government before them. Strangely enough those same folks voted out the Socreds, for no other reason that they were in power too long. Now the PC government has been in power even longer, and finally its time for a change.

All of the partisan factions have good platforms even the NDP folks, yet the chances of getting any single party in majority are shrinking fast. There is no visionary leadership in any of the parties. Citizens want real change, but we are diverse in our opinions and there is no single person or group that has brought forth a concept that resonates with a majority of the citizens. We need people with ideas, not partisans with spending agendas.

Personally, I like to see a new political party of independents! A group of candidates that would be accountable to their constituents instead of party leaders or Premiers would have a certain appeal to some citizens, namely the 45+ crowd. Albertans might even become less apathetic and begin to vote starting with the next election if for no other reason than the government has been in power too long and has become unresponsive to the desires of the public. There is great political opportunity in Alberta at this time for good honest folks to unseat the old legislators with relative ease. People are not trusting politicians here very much, because of the pork barrel politics and the trough hogs that are currently in power. This good be an interesting election.

[fellowtraveller]

jdobbin has loosed a fox in the henhouse with this talk of the Alberta Alliance and Wildrose Party. If you're wondering about the analogy, you're the chickens.

Neither will do anyhting at all in any election. The AA leader will have to work hard to retain their single seat. The leader of the Wildrose is a certified whack job hardcore Christian who slips further into madness every year.