Project Alberta

Knave · Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:28 pm

Danny H. wrote:

I think there are simply too many regulations and too much red tape in many sections of the work place. IMO, a lot of these are redundant and simplification could do wonders for reducing government bureaucracy. That's what I meant by free enterprise. There's probably a better way to word that though...

I'm not arguing with you, but simply saying that for a majority of electorate such measures simply won't impress them nor get their attention.

Come an election, time will be precious. It'll be important for the Alliance - and every other party - to focus on the few things that will get the most positive attention. I just don't think those changes you mention to labour laws and so on will "grab" voters the same way taxes, health care, education and infrastructure will -- that's all.

Danny H. · Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:39 pm

Knave wrote:

Come an election, time will be precious. It'll be important for the Alliance - and every other party - to focus on the few things that will get the most positive attention. I just don't think those changes you mention to labour laws and so on will "grab" voters the same way taxes, health care, education and infrastructure will -- that's all.

Good point, we will agree on that. Issues that interest me are rarely the same issues that interest the average voter.

Knave · Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:42 pm

Danny H. wrote:

Knave wrote:

Come an election, time will be precious. It'll be important for the Alliance - and every other party - to focus on the few things that will get the most positive attention. I just don't think those changes you mention to labour laws and so on will "grab" voters the same way taxes, health care, education and infrastructure will -- that's all.

Good point, we will agree on that. Issues that interest me are rarely the same issues that interest the average voter.

Well, in all honesty, parties often get trapped stumping for policies that mean the world to their policy wonks and more politically-inclined, but really go over the heads of the Average Joe.

Getting elected, especially in our current environment and high tide of apathy, is really about appealing to the lowest common denominator with stuff that's easily digestable and hits people where it counts the most - their pocketbook.

B.Max · Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:47 pm

Knave wrote:

Quote:

Fiscal responsibility, government accountability, free enterprise.

Almost, but not quite.

The polices have to be policies that people can relate to. Clear and understandable. Now I noticed in the AA policies they mention an Alaska type dividend cheque. I went and looked at it, and it's not all that clear as to how it would work. So how are they going to explain it. As soon as people are a little bit confused by it, they will be turned off by it. This issue is a clear winner with most people. But if you have to keep trying to explain it over and over again the oposition will smell blood, further confuse it, and turn your own policy against you.

C.Morgan · Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:01 pm

B.Max wrote:

Knave wrote:

Quote:

Fiscal responsibility, government accountability, free enterprise.

Almost, but not quite.

The polices have to be policies that people can relate to. Clear and understandable. Now I noticed in the AA policies they mention an Alaska type dividend cheque. I went and looked at it, and it's not all that clear as to how it would work. So how are they going to explain it. As soon as people are a little bit confused by it, they will be turned off by it. This issue is a clear winner with most people. But if you have to keep trying to explain it over and over again the oposition will smell blood, further confuse it, and turn your own policy against you.

There are policies like that with every party. While some few individuals may bring them up, most people wont bother digging that deep.

We can learn from Harper's last campaign in that you only need a few and you need to stick to them. Healthcare and Education are always the top two though most voters could not say what they would like done with them, only that they are concerned with them.

Taxation, transparency and democratic reform are good ones but they do fall below the aforementioned two.

B.Max · Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:14 pm

C.Morgan wrote:

There are policies like that with every party. While some few individuals may bring them up, most people wont bother digging that deep.

Yeah that may be true. But you need at least one horse you can ride to the finish line. There is nothing more boring than health and education. That's what thre government will be taking about in order to put the voters to sleep. You don't have that luxury. You want them wide awake and the only way to that is to set the agenda, your agenda.

First Lady · Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:23 pm

B.Max wrote:

Yeah that may be true. But you need at least one horse you can ride to the finish line. There is nothing more boring than health and education. That's what thre government will be taking about in order to put the voters to sleep. You don't have luxury. You want them wide awake and the only way to that is to set the agenda, your agenda.

Healthcare and education are always the top two issues mentioned..... at the doors, forums, general inquiries to candidates.... there is no escaping them.

B.Max · Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:31 pm

First Lady wrote:

[there is no escaping them.

Yes there is. If I have to listen to a month of that, I'm gona go up and join Cory on the ice.

C.Morgan · Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:37 pm

B.Max wrote:

First Lady wrote:

[there is no escaping them.

Yes there is. If I have to listen to a month of that, I'm gona go up and join Cory on the ice.

There is plenty of room.

You are right though, we still have to distiguish ourselves.

Healthcare and education can't be ignored, but every party will be addressing both though they all may have different ideas as to how to improve those areas.

We do stand out on the royalty issue as well. That only gains a certain segment of the population in itself, but the entire pro-business aspect is good to have.

It is tough to see what will be making headlines in the election. In the last one nobody saw the AISH issue coming until Klein stuck his foot in it.

We can and have to prepare as good a platform as possible. We also have to be ready for unexpected issues to come to the fore.

B.Max · Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:22 pm

C.Morgan wrote:

We do stand out on the royalty issue as well. That only gains a certain segment of the population in itself, but the entire pro-business aspect is good to have.

It is tough to see what will be making headlines in the election. In the last one nobody saw the AISH issue coming until Klein stuck his foot in it.

Hopefully it's your agenda that will be making the headlines. That is what you want, and your people have to be able to carry it at forums and debates ect. The last thing the government will want to see is something out there that people can relate to, and that is clear, and a potential winner. I think it's going to take three good issues you can ride to the end to put these guys away, and this dividend cheque is one of them. Yeah yeah I know, we're all suppose to be above that as uppity Canadians, but in the end the little secrete is, we, like Americans vote with our wallet. Now that's on your positive side. The royalty thing is on the negative side. That's your attack ad side. That's where you want to show Stelmach attacking the goose that laid the golden egg. But what ever it is, you want to be setting the agenda or the government is gona put em to sleep.

rbacon · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:05 pm

The best time to talk Democratic Reform is just as you are coming out of the 36 year Coma. An Alberta Constitution by Albertan's For Albertan's and of Albertan's. Property Rights strongly enshrined. An Alaska style heritage fund. If the oil is truly Albertan's instead of handing it to left wing Liberal Mayors hand it to the people. No more healthcare tax. End all property tax. Do something exciting for God's sake. Besides Healthcare, changing diapers, dishing out nauseating Leftwing PC/Liberal Pablum and changing diapers. Take over the Agenda and control the fight.

sazook · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:09 pm

Right on.. And don't wait around for unexpected issues to come to the fore,, CREATE the issues ,,,, ALL of them!!!

prowest · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:18 pm

Forgive me if I sound totally and utterly skeptical when I say this: Phooey!

Knave · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:23 pm

prowest wrote:

Forgive me if I sound totally and utterly skeptical when I say this: Phooey!

Come again?

First Lady · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:25 pm

prowest wrote:

Forgive me if I sound totally and utterly skeptical when I say this: Phooey!

Is that Phooey to the last few posts on election issues?
.... or Phooey to the whole merger idea?

Knave · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:31 pm

Ah, a post on Mr. Patels' blog explains a little further;

Quote:

So, let me get this straight: one party, Alberta Alliance, that has managed to achieve higher numbers in polls than the Alberta NDP only on very, very, very rare occasions, despite being a conservative party as opposed to the NDP, and another party, Wildrose Party, the paint of which is still fresh and sticky, are thinking about merging to form the Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta.

Forgive me if I sound totally and utterly skeptical when I say this: Phooey!

The Alberta Alliance has been hanging on by a thread for years (and only has a seat in the Legislative Assembly because the Alliance party leader was grandfathered in, so to speak, after crossing the floor from the Tories) but has not made any headway with voters. As already stated, in 99% of all polls, the Alliance ranks below the Alberta NDP and often even behind the Alberta Greens. In other words, the idea of the Alberta Alliance as a potential saviour is clearly not working.

The Wildrose Party would have had a chance to give voters something new, something fresh and innovative. Instead, as I noticed when looking at their initial platform ideas, they amounted to nothing more than a carbon copy (albeit improved) of the Alberta Alliance. A merger of the two movements (calling them parties would mean ascribing to them a status they have not really earned yet by any account) would merely guarantee a perennial 3-4% slot in polls and elections.

If this merger goes through, and the Wildrose Party fails to be significantly different and innovative, the next provincial election will produce one of two outcomes:

- The Tories are reduced to a minority government, while Liberals and NDP see a much improved seat count (even the Alberta Greens might get a seat); or
- Liberal leader Kevin Taft's Technicolor dreams come true and he becomes the next premier of Alberta.

Source; http://www.wernerpatels.com/2007/12/let ... he-ye.html

B.Max · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:32 pm

First Lady wrote:

prowest wrote:

Forgive me if I sound totally and utterly skeptical when I say this: Phooey!

Is that Phooey to the last few posts on election issues?
.... or Phooey to the whole merger idea?

Yes, it left me wondering too.

C.Morgan · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:39 pm

Knave wrote:

Ah, a post on Mr. Patels' blog explains a little further;

Quote:

So, let me get this straight: one party, Alberta Alliance, that has managed to achieve higher numbers in polls than the Alberta NDP only on very, very, very rare occasions, despite being a conservative party as opposed to the NDP, and another party, Wildrose Party, the paint of which is still fresh and sticky, are thinking about merging to form the Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta.

Forgive me if I sound totally and utterly skeptical when I say this: Phooey!

The Alberta Alliance has been hanging on by a thread for years (and only has a seat in the Legislative Assembly because the Alliance party leader was grandfathered in, so to speak, after crossing the floor from the Tories) but has not made any headway with voters. As already stated, in 99% of all polls, the Alliance ranks below the Alberta NDP and often even behind the Alberta Greens. In other words, the idea of the Alberta Alliance as a potential saviour is clearly not working.

The Wildrose Party would have had a chance to give voters something new, something fresh and innovative. Instead, as I noticed when looking at their initial platform ideas, they amounted to nothing more than a carbon copy (albeit improved) of the Alberta Alliance. A merger of the two movements (calling them parties would mean ascribing to them a status they have not really earned yet by any account) would merely guarantee a perennial 3-4% slot in polls and elections.

If this merger goes through, and the Wildrose Party fails to be significantly different and innovative, the next provincial election will produce one of two outcomes:

- The Tories are reduced to a minority government, while Liberals and NDP see a much improved seat count (even the Alberta Greens might get a seat); or
- Liberal leader Kevin Taft's Technicolor dreams come true and he becomes the next premier of Alberta.

Source; http://www.wernerpatels.com/2007/12/let ... he-ye.html

Considering that Mr. Patels is dead wrong about the leader having crossed the floor (Paul Hinman was elected in a general election under the Alberta Alliance banner), I can say with confidence that he has not looked deeply enough into the party to come up with anything that could be considered an informed opinion of it.

First Lady · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:42 pm

werner wrote:

So, let me get this straight: one party, Alberta Alliance, that has managed to achieve higher numbers in polls than the Alberta NDP only on very, very, very rare occasions, despite being a conservative party as opposed to the NDP, and another party, Wildrose Party, the paint of which is still fresh and sticky, are thinking about merging to form the Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta.

Forgive me if I sound totally and utterly skeptical when I say this: Phooey!

I think you are just cranky cause you spent all that time writing your Alberta 2008 predictions:
http://www.ideas-issues.com/2007/12/alb ... t-95354512

.... and didn't see this coming.... :lol:

Quote:

The Alberta Alliance has been hanging on by a thread for years (and only has a seat in the Legislative Assembly because the Alliance party leader was grandfathered in, so to speak, after crossing the floor from the Tories) but has not made any headway with voters. As already stated, in 99% of all polls, the Alliance ranks below the Alberta NDP and often even behind the Alberta Greens. In other words, the idea of the Alberta Alliance as a potential saviour is clearly not working.

The Wildrose Party would have had a chance to give voters something new, something fresh and innovative. Instead, as I noticed when looking at their initial platform ideas, they amounted to nothing more than a carbon copy (albeit improved) of the Alberta Alliance. A merger of the two movements (calling them parties would mean ascribing to them a status they have not really earned yet by any account) would merely guarantee a perennial 3-4% slot in polls and elections.

Each of us going on our own likely would have met the same fate.

Going forward together; we are stronger and better positioned to take on the PC's

Quote:

If this merger goes through, and the Wildrose Party fails to be significantly different and innovative, the next provincial election will produce one of two outcomes:

- The Tories are reduced to a minority government, while Liberals and NDP see a much improved seat count (even the Alberta Greens might get a seat); or
- Liberal leader Kevin Taft's Technicolor dreams come true and he becomes the next premier of Alberta.

Outcome # 2 was always possible; #1 is now possible, only you got the opposition party wrong.... :mrgreen:

Knave · Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:45 pm

C.Morgan wrote:

Considering that Mr. Patels is dead wrong about the leader having crossed the floor (Paul Hinman was elected in a general election under the Alberta Alliance banner), I can say with confidence that he has not looked deeply enough into the party to come up with anything that could be considered an informed opinion of it.

If you scroll down to the comments on the post above, you'll note that I've already pointed that out.

Methinks he has Paul Hinman and Gary Masyk confused....

Project Alberta

Empowering Albertans

Who is online