Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Not wildrose?

  1. #1
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    172

    Default Not wildrose?

    As Alberta’s Progressive Conservative government continues to self-destruct, voters can at last imagine its defeat in the next election. The big question is, what should replace it?

    A centrist combination of traditional opposition parties is preferable to the new offerings on display.

    Many voters are dismissing the Liberal and New Democratic parties, as lacking the appeal or potential to challenge for government. This may be because of their leaders’ image, the ideological baggage implied by their names or history, or other reasons, but to date neither one, acting alone, has galvanized enough people to seem a credible alternative.

    There is a buzz around the Wildrose Alliance Party whose unexpected victory in the Calgary-Glenmore by-election and its new leader have added a new possibility to the mix. Dissatisfied voters may be parking their support with Wildrose, but is Wildrose the best choice to replace the present government? I don’t think so.

    Let’s take a look.

    Even at this early stage, we can sense the territory the Wildrose party will occupy. It will involve a distrust of big government, following the old saw that “that government is best which governs least.” It will lean toward the “watchman state” and stress rights-based individual freedoms over utilitarian considerations of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.”

    Most Canadians prefer a judicious mix of these two ethical principles.

    In its most extreme form, neo-conservatism is deeply misanthropic - for example, Margaret Thatcher denied there is such a thing as society. For her, Britain consisted of atomistic individuals who compete for everything, mediated only by criminal law and the great market levers of supply and demand. Planning is out, government regulation is minimal, people sink or swim, aided largely by charitable organizations (like food banks), not government-funded social security.

    The implications for Alberta of such economistic market worship are ominous. There would be a continuation of the government’s hands-off approach to the timing or phasing of tar sands exploitation (even the new Minister of Energy questioned this approach, until the Premier hauled him into line), with mere exhortation to the oil patch to undertake voluntary improvement of environmental devastation. Apparently, royalties would be lowered even from their present unacceptably low level.

    Albertans want political change, but is Wildrose the flavour of government they want? Even former Premier Peter Lougheed has called for the government to “act more like an owner” and the whole province has become infamous for its “dirty oil.” Surely we have the right to demand better reclamation and more environmentally benign exploitation technologies, instead of saying “the market will decide.” Surely too, we should ensure a manageable pace of phased development of new tar sands projects, instead of wringing our hands while continuing a destructive boom-and-bust cycle.

    Most Albertans want a moderate, centrist government, one which is pragmatic but compassionate, not an ideologically driven one. We also want a mixed market economy, mediated by government regulation and the realization that some values cannot be monetized. We want sounder fiscal management, but not at the expense of savage social service cuts which will be borne by the most vulnerable. (For example, the present government’s slashing of mental health programs has added significantly to the unnecessary homelessness tragedy.)

    The best way to get a competent and caring government is for the moderate opposition to stop splitting the vote and work together. After the 2008 election, there could have been 22 or more opposition members, instead of only 11, if the Greens, Liberals and New Democrats had agreed not to run against each other where only one of the three had a chance. (In twelve seats, the combined vote for these three parties exceeded that cast for the victorious Conservative.) This kind of cooperation would encourage the legion of non-voters to realize their vote can make a difference if they turn out to cast their ballot in 2012.

    Moderate Albertans should pressure the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens (when they reorganize) to reach a “non-compete” agreement for a fair mix of exclusive candidacies. Conservatives have had their forty-year turn at government. It’s time for opposition parties with a track record to show Albertans that they’re ready to govern.

    Any centrist new party initiatives would play into the hands of Wildrose and the Conservatives, because they would split that vote even more than before. The Tories and Wildrose must be licking their chops as they watch the Renew group's attempt to found a new "progressive" party.

    The answer is electoral cooperation by Liberals, New Democrats, independent Greens and other centrists, who should let Wildrose and the Tories split the shrinking conservative vote and skate up the moderate electoral middle to victory.

    Phil Elder is Co-chair of the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project (Calgary) and a former New Democratic Party candidate. He resigned from the NDP when it refused to cooperate with the Liberals and Greens.


    -- Phil Elder

  2. #2

    Default

    I am a bit tired of all these "theories" as to why "centre left" parties do so pitifully in elections in Alberta.

    There is no need for democratic renewal. We are in a democracy, people can set up parties, they can merge parties, and they choose who their representatives are. As to a merger, or agreement, I think people are kidding themselves if merging all these parties is going to produce something, generate a syngergy, that will create something that enough people here like.

    Right now, Albertans chose the PC's. Recently, per the polls they have shown a willingness to consider another centre right party, the Wild Rose Alliance. Some electorates where there are strong Liberal candidates (there aren't many), will vote Liberal. All is fine for everyone except those who don't like who Albertans are supporting in the polls. Don't like it, fine, set up your party (it can be humbling though). Or, if politics is so important to you, you might be happier living somewhere that the electorate is more left wing. I know that one of the reasons I was happy to move to Alberta was the conservative nature of politics, and I have no doubt many other immigrants who are "refugees" from left wing provinces feel the same way.

    Pure centrist, or "moderate centrist" parties never do well anywhere without political stripes. People don't like fence sitters, they like leaders who make decisions. Even as a conservative, I'd rather have a left wing government that is trying to do something based on its philosophies than a middling "no-direction" government that has no ideological basis. I'd go so far as to say this is what is killing the PC's right now, a lack of ideology, they have gone to far centre, away from the ideology they had under Klein which was closer to where most Albertans are. IMO it is big part of why the PC's are losing their support to the WRA right now.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-06-2010 at 09:43 AM.

  3. #3
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    835

    Default

    Perhaps the Liberal and New Democratic brands are too broken to ever work in Alberta. The Greens dissolved about a year ago.

    I don't think winning 22 seats, instead of 11, is the goal for progressive-minded people. To form a government, a new coalition will have to include so-called "Red" Tories. The model proposed above does not do that. If Ted Morton emerges as the next Premier, perhaps Dave Hancock and others will be searching for a new home.

    In the event of a fundamental reorganization of politics in Alberta, we have to be open to new options, not just stick with the established parties.
    http://www.twitter.com/ckls

  4. #4

    Default

    ^
    The Wild Rose are far from moderate right. They claim the PC's are lefties.
    I read Ms. Smith's comments. I even read Rob Anderson's letter in the journal. I even follow their blogs on occasion.

    My conclusion is that the Wild Rose woud be the absolutely worst choice for a government anywhere.

    That whole idea about saving taxes so that communities with more money can reinvest in their community is one of the worst ideas ever since it builds fences instead of working to support the overall community. It's isolated and caters to people who live in gated commnities.

    Oil is a dying commodity. BP cracked the seal. Now everyone has a hate on for oil and Alberta will be a pariah if we stay stuck to one industry. Under the WRA, it would oil companies to expand production while increasing pollution. If they think the industry will regulate itself properly, they should go for a swim in the Gulf.

    Alberta isn't even all that conservative. That's part of their manipulative sloganeering. We had gay marriage, abortion, and a socialized health care system years ago. None of those values are conservative so really, they're blowing smoke up Canada's collective bum.

    My Dad was around before the conservatives. The only mention of him online is by Preston Manning, but he helped start the seperatist movement. My Dad never mentioned God ever. There was no religious interference except for that put out by the social credit party people.

    I grew up with all that stuff drilled into me and the only thing it did was make me a hardcore agnostic centrist. I believe in fiscal conservatism where the government actively looks to reduce spending while still providing the services they were voted in to tend to.

    We need a smaller government; that's obvious. However, we also need a responsible government that is capable of providing for us. We need efficiency. We need transparency, and we need to get away from the corporate domination.

    I disagree that centrist parties do poorly. We've just never seen one. The closest we have would be the NDP or Greens and you could hardly call them moderate.
    Given half the chance and a decent platform and it'd be an easy sweep.

  5. #5
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NAITSA Advocacy
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    The Progressive Conservatives have been a centrist party. Where is the evidence otherwise? Because they haven't been extreme left? That hardly qualifies.

    Look, the PCs will celebrate 40 years in power next year. That's your starting point. The second is that there has been no competing centrist party in Alberta. The Liberals have been an "oppose whatever the government does" party since after Decore. The NDP is too left for most voters because people believe that there are some things that people can bloody well do for themselves.

    That's left the PCs. And the populist rhetoric coming from the WA is no shocker. The PCs have governed from the centre-left for a long time now. They spend a tonne. More per-capita on health and education than most provinces. But they don't manage particularly well and the public sector unions hate them because they hated Klein and too much is never enough. Easy fodder for people spouting "lower taxes and smaller government".

    Nobody bothers to stand up in the PC party and say "10% single rate with 20k free IS low taxes!!!" or "Of COURSE we're spending a tonne! We're adding 100,000 people a year!!!"

    Let's face it, it's not like the province is falling apart, is it? But these guys are attacked, often unfairly, from both the left and the right.

    The left hates the oil sands and the government knows that diversification doesn't happen overnight. Shutting down the oilsands when the rest of the planet is hardly doing anything about CO2 makes no sense to them. Rightly so.

    The right thinks they spend too much even though spending is actually needed.

    They really can't win, can they? Unless they start managing better and standing up for themselves in a more forceful, honest way, the WA will be government because that garbage populist rhetoric is meaningful in a province where the opposition hasn't told anybody what they stand for other than spend more and cut oil jobs.

  6. #6
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2

    Default

    I don't agree that Albertans currently enjoy good services from their government. Parkland Institute research demonstrates that Alberta's funding for health and education are inferior to other provinces. If you or a loved one need homecare, daycare, or psychiatric care, this province's cheap ways will fail you unless you are independently wealthy. Our environmental protection and our support for green alternatives are mediocre. None of this matters to those who support minimalist government. But for the 40 percent of Albertans who vote for a more active government and the many others who decline to vote because they think that only right-wingers can win elections in Alberta, it all matters a great deal. For those of you who are in that minority-seeking-to-be-a-majority camp, please check us out at drp.ca

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonR View Post
    Let's face it, it's not like the province is falling apart, is it? But these guys are attacked, often unfairly, from both the left and the right.
    The province is not falling apart, but I think you are deluding yourself if you think the PC's are perfect, or that not having things falling apart is the best we can do. I don't think it is ever healthy for any government at any level to be in power too long, you always, without exception, get fat, wastage and patronage. The perfect example is the size of the cabinet, which is larger than many countries, totally obscene given the size of Alberta and the responsibilities of the Province. I'd like to see a change of government, and WRA is the most likely to achieve that. I'm sure the PC's will come back, but they will then come back a leaner better party for a leaner better government. It is just time for a change and like it or not, that means a shift a little right.

  8. #8

    Default Good posts Phil Elder and Alvin Finkel

    Thank you DRP and congratulations to the Alberta Liberal Party for its passage of the DRP motion for progressive parties to work out a non-compete plan for the next election—this is a progressive step towards strengthening democracy in the Alberta legislature. I hope the DRP can continue to persuade progressive politicians and the electorate that the only way we can bring about political change in Alberta is by suspending our own entrenched loyalties to party ideology. The larger ideology at stake here is the preservation and reinforcement of democracy, so let’s put our ideological attachments on hold and open our minds to new possibilities. By dogmatically adhering to party allegiances I fear the outcome of the next election will provide little opposition to the woefully inadequate balance of power in the Alberta legislature.
    Many Liberals, New Democrats, Greens, and others favour a fiscally responsible government that implements fair but adequate taxation policies to provide sufficient funding for core social programs—programs that are publicly administered and regulated. Given that political analysts have compared the Liberal and NDP policies and found about a 95% overlap, surely their members can provisionally put the 5% differences aside so that both parties can form a viable opposition in 2012 and put an end to the Conservative juggernaut. After that success, we can all return to our preferred parties. Then again, as a consequence of a non-compete strategy, such a change of experience could change Albertans’ views enough to form a new, progressive amalgamation. However this plays out, the DRP’s proposal is a visionary, temporary solution, without which Albertans will have an ongoing, long-term problem–one that could move this province even further to the right.
    To prevent that, the DRP has a plan to jump-start the process of creating a viable opposition (or defeating the Conservatives) and paving a path to proportionate representation—a win-win solution for progressive parties, the people, and the province.
    I wish them much success.
    Judy J. Johnson, Calgary
    Last edited by Judy J. Johnson; 19-06-2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason: deleted the [SIZE 3] tags
    Judy J. Johnson, Calgary

  9. #9
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NAITSA Advocacy
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonR View Post
    Let's face it, it's not like the province is falling apart, is it? But these guys are attacked, often unfairly, from both the left and the right.
    The province is not falling apart, but I think you are deluding yourself if you think the PC's are perfect, or that not having things falling apart is the best we can do. I don't think it is ever healthy for any government at any level to be in power too long, you always, without exception, get fat, wastage and patronage. The perfect example is the size of the cabinet, which is larger than many countries, totally obscene given the size of Alberta and the responsibilities of the Province. I'd like to see a change of government, and WRA is the most likely to achieve that. I'm sure the PC's will come back, but they will then come back a leaner better party for a leaner better government. It is just time for a change and like it or not, that means a shift a little right.
    Re-read my post, my friend. I certainly didn't say they were perfect.

  10. #10
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    It is just time for a change and like it or not, that means a shift a little right.
    I agree that there is a need to pursue change, but moving back to the Klein ideology is not a positive option. Indeed, ideology itself is not a positive option.

    On some issues, such as education, Wildrose policy can't be qualified as a "little right." It borders on wing-nut territory.
    http://www.twitter.com/ckls

  11. #11

    Default

    ^
    We agree on something at least GG.

    We need to go more 'militant' centrist if we're going to fix the province personally. This 'rightwing' attitude is self serving to include only those with the means. Everyone else can fight for the scraps.

  12. #12
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NAITSA Advocacy
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ^
    We agree on something at least GG.

    We need to go more 'militant' centrist if we're going to fix the province personally. This 'rightwing' attitude is self serving to include only those with the means. Everyone else can fight for the scraps.
    Just as the leftwing attitude would have us all equally poor and miserable. Funny how centrist seems to mean "left" to so many.

  13. #13

    Default

    ^just as "low taxes" and "less waste" (e.g. reasonable sized cabinets) means "right" to so many.

  14. #14
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    We agree on something at least GG.

    We need to go more 'militant' centrist if we're going to fix the province personally.
    I'd probably choose "principled" instead "militant," armin, but I think I see where you are going with this. Being a centrist doesn't mean a person lack values. Rather, the goal is to do the right thing, moving beyond the limitations imposed by ideology. A solution to a problem may involve government, or it may involve business, or most likely it will involve both.
    http://www.twitter.com/ckls

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Grovenor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    We agree on something at least GG.

    We need to go more 'militant' centrist if we're going to fix the province personally.
    I'd probably choose "principled" instead "militant," armin, but I think I see where you are going with this. Being a centrist doesn't mean a person lack values. Rather, the goal is to do the right thing, moving beyond the limitations imposed by ideology. A solution to a problem may involve government, or it may involve business, or most likely it will involve both.

    That is a much better choice of word.

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,004

    Default

    The differences between the Liberals and the NDP are far greater than those between the Liberals and the PC's. None of the Liberals I know personally (I admit, there aren't many) would ever consider joining up with the NDP. The only thing they share is a hatred of the PC's.

    Those who assume joining the two parties would effectively add the votes together are way off the mark. It's the surest way to death for either party, and even talk of a merger is damaging, at least to the Liberal brand (not that it could get a lot worse here). I could understand the NDP thinking it might be good for them, because they don't stand any chance at all now.

    Merging the Liberals, Greens, and NDP would mostly benefit the Conservatives.

    I would have liked to see a Green party that wasn't co-opted by the rabid left. Federally, Elizabeth May, for example.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  17. #17
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Jimbo does not think "Liberals" will vote for the NDP in ridings where their party has no candidate. Perhaps that is true for some fierce partisans. But few people join parties anymore or identify with any particular party. There's no recent provincial polling to reveal what percentage of usual Liberal and NDP voters are prepared to "trade" their votes. But federal polling is clear: almost all of these party's voters, as opposed to their members, ARE prepared to vote for the other party in order to displace the Tories.

    The latest Angus Reid poll suggests that 43 percent of Canadians would vote for a Liberal-NDP merger led by Jack Layton, only three percent fewer than those prepared to vote for these parties if the status quo is maintained (27 percent Liberal, 19 percent NDP). While a merger would raise Tory support by two percent, the merged party would still lead the Conservatives 43 percent to 37 percent.
    A CP-Harris Decima poll shows that 55 percent of Canadians want Liberals and New Democrats to cooperate (such polls unfortunately rarely include the Greens within cooperative arrangements). Supporters of non-compete arrangements in electoral contests (28 percent) outnumber supporters of a merger (13 percent) and a post-electoral coalition (14 percent) as the preferred option.
    Voters who want compassionate government to replace governments that extol human greed are clearly uninterested in the "narcissism of small differences" that divides the current centre-left parties. With individuals such as Jean Chretien, Ed Broadbent, Warren Kinsella, and Roy Romanow breaking ranks from the my-party-to-the-death crowd, something new is happening in Canadian politics. It remains to be seen both federally and provincially whether the party leaders can rise above the cliquisness and pettiness that characterize many party insiders and prevents these parties from forming governments that can implement the changes they allege to be necessary.

  18. #18

    Default

    ^
    That's if you think our leaders had our needs in mind.
    All of them are self serving.

  19. #19
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NAITSA Advocacy
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Politicians are no more lying and self serving than everybody else.

    And the "extol human greed" rhetoric when it comes to anything to the right of Jack Layton has gotten old. It's not any more true than calling Jack a communist.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin Finkel View Post
    ... But federal polling is clear: almost all of these party's voters, as opposed to their members, ARE prepared to vote for the other party in order to displace the Tories...
    I appreciate your position, but respectfully disagree.

    See, the above sentiment is part of the problem, for me anyway, Alvin. Give me something to vote FOR, and I'll consider it. I'd really appreciate a viable option to consider, one that goes beyond just getting rid of the other guys.

    The only poll that counts is the one on election day. And time and time again the actual votes show far more people voting Conservative during the elections than advance polls indicate. It's just not "cool" to say you're voting Progressive Conservative, and I suspect many people keep it to themselves to avoid the politically correct smarmy browbeating coming from some (not everyone) on "the left".

    As I said, none of the Liberal I know would ever consider getting into bed with the NDP. The ones I know don't identify themselves with "the left", and instead consider themselves as being in the centre. They may be somewhat more to the left as far as social policy goes, but certainly not as far as fiscal policy goes, and, personally, some of the NDP foreign policy is downright frightening. See Libby Davies, federally.

    The Liberals I know are far more closely aligned with the Conservatives as far as policy. Their party here in Alberta, and perhaps federally, needs a lot of work, but getting together with the NDP is the wrong direction imho, and, speaking personally, they'd certainly never get my vote.

    Of course "left" and "right" are relative terms. Our average Conservative would be considered "left" in much of the US.

    It's the NDP who are desperately looking for some kind of merge, but I don't see the Liberals I know of being willing to sacrifice who they are and what they stand for, as far as I can tell anyway. I know politics can make for strange bedfellows, and it's the art of compromise, etc, but if there was ever a coalition destined for self destruction, it's that one.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  21. #21

    Default

    ^
    I lost all respect for the NDP when Layton tried to fire Davies for her comments.
    Considering Cannon just installed sanctions on Iran for whatever reason shows we need to discuss our positions regarding foreign support.

    Anyways, what's up with the Edmonton Journal's blatant favouratism of the WRA?
    Today there's 3 articles in there, all of which support the WRA. What's the deal with them wanting legislation to carry weapons? Are they seriously effing nuts?
    Don't these people realize handguns are counterproductive? We already have way too many stabbings. What happens when you allow more guns? They get stolen and used in crimes.

    Absolutely moronic.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ^
    What's the deal with them wanting legislation to carry weapons? Are they seriously effing nuts?
    Don't these people realize handguns are counterproductive? We already have way too many stabbings. What happens when you allow more guns? They get stolen and used in crimes.

    Absolutely moronic.
    Um mm, whats moronic is assuming that a proposal to be voted on is party policy, you will find plenty of nutcase ideas being voted on and dismissed in conventions of all parties of all political stripes.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ^
    What's the deal with them wanting legislation to carry weapons? Are they seriously effing nuts?
    Don't these people realize handguns are counterproductive? We already have way too many stabbings. What happens when you allow more guns? They get stolen and used in crimes.

    Absolutely moronic.
    Um mm, whats moronic is assuming that a proposal to be voted on is party policy, you will find plenty of nutcase ideas being voted on and dismissed in conventions of all parties of all political stripes.
    http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Const...498/story.html

    So the Wild Rose plan is to vote to allow Albertans the right to carry guns.
    Does this mean I can go buy ninja throwing stars? Hey, it's my right. Can I get a sniper rifle too? Using a 50cal to duck hunt has always been my dream.

    Praise God & pass the ammunition.

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    I want my, I want my M16. (with apologies to Mark Knopfler).
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  25. #25
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    753

    Default

    doesn't the federal laws relating to firearms superceed the provincial laws anyways? seems like a vote grab to me
    i love lamp

  26. #26
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NAITSA Advocacy
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    They are simply proposals, not policies. Proposals from people who don't understand federalism of constitutional law, but only proposals nonetheless.

  27. #27
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    E=town
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ^
    What's the deal with them wanting legislation to carry weapons? Are they seriously effing nuts?
    Don't these people realize handguns are counterproductive? We already have way too many stabbings. What happens when you allow more guns? They get stolen and used in crimes.

    Absolutely moronic.
    Um mm, whats moronic is assuming that a proposal to be voted on is party policy, you will find plenty of nutcase ideas being voted on and dismissed in conventions of all parties of all political stripes.
    http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Const...498/story.html

    So the Wild Rose plan is to vote to allow Albertans the right to carry guns.
    Does this mean I can go buy ninja throwing stars? Hey, it's my right. Can I get a sniper rifle too? Using a 50cal to duck hunt has always been my dream.

    Praise God & pass the ammunition.
    Hi all this is my first post on connect2edmonton. Here is as good as any place to start posting...
    I'm not so sure about ninja stars, but a sniper rifle doesn't mean anything, really. but I suppose 1 rifle of many commonly used in that sort of role is a .338 Lapua Magnum, which, as long as they are of legal length and magazine capacity, etc, are not illegal to own. Non-restricted, in fact. Because of their high power, some rifle ranges can not accommodate certain rifles like the above mentioned, however. Duck hunting, on the other hand, with that would be illegal, as you are required to use ammunition which does not consist of a single projectile when firing (Read: shotgun firing birdshot).

    Sdimedru, the law is really murky on that topic and difficult to understand, but basically provinces get to select their own firearms "czar" (Chief firearms officer) who enforces the rules and they are legally allowed to vary by province. Hence why Toronto can ban handguns, much like Chicago, and BC can ban bullet resistant armor, these things are subject more to provincial legislation and the policy of the CFO since Federal law is pretty much this:
    4. A chief firearms officer shall not issue to an individual an authorization to carry a particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun that is needed in the circumstances described in section 2 or paragraph 3(a) unless the chief firearms officer determines that
    (a) the individual has successfully completed training in firearms proficiency and the use of force that is appropriate for using the firearm in those circumstances; and
    (b) the firearm is appropriate in those circumstances.
    So it comes down to the policy of the CFO who is to my knowledge, answerable to the provincial govt, not the federal govt. It is not the job of the RCMP, EPS, et al to dole out licenses to carry, but it is their job to make sure someone who is carrying is properly licensed and carrying safely.
    As a small side note, I'll add that you may remember that news story a while back about those guys shooting ducks with their rifle and filming it, who got in trouble. I doubt the law will change anytime soon regarding acceptable hunting of different types of game, ie shotguns for waterfowl, and minimum caliber for larger game and requirement of using expanding bullets.
    Last edited by magu2k; 02-07-2010 at 09:18 PM.

  28. #28
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    I think that WRA will do well in Calgary but the more centrist PCs will sweep the rest of the province. This will work greatly in Edmonton's favor as we deny Calgary the representation and gifts that they grew too accustomed to during the Klein years.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,496

    Default

    right to bear arms have been dropped by wildrose alliance because they does not want to be labeled as guntoting rednecks !
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  30. #30
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    6

    Default

    This thread sort of reminds me of the school board thread...talking about ECSD being more open and collaborative, and EPSB being about performance, etc. No, this isn't an off-topic post. I'm correlating now. The political environment in Alberta has long been the subject of internal (Albertans') and external (other Cdns') speculation. There are many speculations about the lack of success from competing parties. I correlate it to the school board issues, because I believe completely that a school is only as good as its principal. I don't think the policy making, collaborative strategizing, or really any other centralized ocean-boiling activities can make that much difference. A good principal can overcome adversity, and great strategy in the hands of a bad principal...won't be so great. To get the correlation going on the political side, consider this: if Ralph came back to the arena, as leader of a new coalition, against both pc's and wild rose - what do you think his chances would be? I think he would get in. Jack Layton comes off as a chirpy little jerk...Ignatieff as a line-towing harlequin. I've known people who are senior in the opposition. Charming, successful, articulate. They would make excellent foils to wet-noodle Premier...and wouldn't be afraid to have an opinion. Would this make a difference? Well, it's hard to know, but there certainly hasn't been a candidate with anything like the kind of charm and appeal that Ralph had. Believe me, I'm not a booster, supporter, and my voting has never been with the PC's. But I can spot the charm. Klein and Stelmach have basically nothing in common. Klein is more like Trudeau and Chretien than anyone else. Big mouth, big kahones, big majorities.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmskid View Post
    But I can spot the charm. Klein and Stelmach have basically nothing in common. Klein is more like Trudeau and Chretien than anyone else. Big mouth, big kahones, big majorities.
    And people like personalities, even "mean" personalities (e.g. Harper). Nobody likes a "nothing" though, and that's what Ed comes across as (unlike Ms Smith, who is certainly interesting). Ed is a bit like Paul Martin, he may be capable, but capable doesn't cut it for the top job in politics - Ed's rightful place was number 2, not the guy in charge.

  32. #32
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I would agree, but not with the Harper one per se. His personality in terms of popular opinion might be more "cold" than mean. I think because he's smart...and I do believe that he is legitimately smart, that he carries on. I don't think he would stand a chance against a Klein or Trudeau or Chretien, or Danny Williams...I would even put Preston Manning in that group. You just never get that "what's his name again?" feeling...

    Jury's out still on Smith. I haven't seen her much, so no real opinion there. I would say she's got a much harder road of it, though...

  33. #33
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmskid View Post
    Jury's out still on Smith. I haven't seen her much, so no real opinion there. I would say she's got a much harder road of it, though...
    She's young, attractive and articulate. The real test would be how she performs under the dome.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  34. #34

    Default

    ^real test will be how she performs on TV in comparison to Ed, that's what will decide the next election, a leader battle (just like every other election nowdays).

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    bureaucrat vs ex media type
    I wonder who will show better

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmskid View Post
    Jury's out still on Smith. I haven't seen her much, so no real opinion there. I would say she's got a much harder road of it, though...
    She's young, attractive and articulate. The real test would be how she performs under the dome.
    If that fails, she could always become a journalist for Naked News.
    Same requirements.

  37. #37
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Hmmm. Well, it wouldn't be hard to look young and attractive next to Mr. Ed. Although, I can't help the *shudder* (ref: Anne Coulter) when I think about attractive female politicos though...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •