Monthly Archives: April 2012

The dreaded robodial!!

Posted on by
1

 The tone of this last provincial election was simply horrific. Serious discussion of issues and policy was completely lost as every party engaged in a shrill fear and smear campaign where demonizing their opponents appeared to be much more important than highlighting what they perceive as their own merits. I admit, I jumped into the noise and hysteria in the twitter realm for awhile and yes I was as nasty as any on there. Still, even I who likes a degree of rough and tumble debate lost all appetite for the vulgar scroll of attacks online and backed off on the twitter scroll of insanity hashtagged #abvote. Only the NDP and their supporters tended to stay clear of the fray as they stuck to targeting their concentrated union support and indeed won all the seats they could in Alberta.

 We now have four years to dwell on how to avoid having such a nasty election campaign again if avoidance or at least mitigation is even possible after a performance like this. I hope some new behaviour and ideas surface that can lead to the retention of some degree of rationallity in future elections. I look forward to those discussions.

 Right now I still want to look at some simple and smaller things such as the visual pollution created by public campaign sign placement that I discussed in my last posting. What I want to touch on now is automated dialing which has really become prolific in politics this last few years (ht to Jeremy Nixon for bringing it up). While not earth shattering issues, the autodials and signs added to the buildup of white noise that led to many people simply shutting out the election altogether rather than dwelling on ideas and choices as they should have been able to do.

 Technology has radically changed autodialing in the last ten years. I remember us setting up an autodialer unit in the old Wildrose office years ago. It was great. We only needed to tie up three lines in order to dial out a blistering 180 calls per hour. In only two days we could get a message out to our whole membership for only a couple hundred dollars in long-distance fees. It was a great tool for getting out information to a reasonably small number of people in relatively short time at a decent cost. Compared to mailouts this was a huge advancement for us in member communication. We never really abused it as it was still awkward and expensive to do large dials so it was only used at need. That all changed quickly with the advent of web based voip-style autodial technology.

 In a few short years the technology developed to the point where for a couple hundred bucks and with 1/2 hour online setting up an individual could send out a phone blast to tens of thousands of numbers simultaniously. Polls can be set up and run through these systems quickly, easily and inexpensively. Even worse, it has become very easy to do these sorts of calls anonymously which has led to apparent abuses both federally and provincially.

 For anybody who has their number on the electors list it was an irritating election as our phones were simply barraged by calls from all parties and some unidentified groups. Campaigns with limited budgets found it hard to resist large broadcasts for small costs as was demonstrated by my local Liberal candidate who hit my phone a couple times on election day with what was clearly an untargeted (and ineffective) phone blast.

 The campaign that I worked on along with many others anticipated the pushback that autodialing abuse was causing and we utilized only live callers through volunteers and a paid live-dial service. Still, harried and tired voters while more appreciative of having a live voice call them were still tired of being contacted and it strongly reduced the efficacy of our GOTV campaigns. People stopped answering all calls from numbers that they didn’t recognize and responded with exhaustion and sometimes outright hostility to the volunteers making the calls. People had long stopped distinguishing between the parties when it came to the phone calls and simply lashed out at whoever called them next whether live or not. It didn’t matter if we used a live volunteer calling when the voters phone had been hammered by 8 autodials in the 24 hours prior to our live-dial. That voter was sick of it.

 Again I am not much on instituting more regulation but I think that the degree of abuse we have seen in autodialing calls for at least some examination of the issue. Perhaps allowing autodialing to people who have opted in or are already members of an organization is the best way to do it. Parties and groups simply will have to market to encourage people to opt in through doorknocking and other conventional forms of marketting. Stronger controls would also help in defending against unprincipled false autodials as we saw in the last provincial election.

 Banning or regulating are the options before us with public space signs and autodials. I think with open discussion and reasonable legislation we can take care of both of these annoying marketing techniques that have a very limited impact anyway. As long as rules are equally applied, no party would be disadvantaged.

 In an indealistic world, people should look forward to elections as they will see the discussion of ideas and options leading up to their casting a ballot in choice of their preferred candidate. In the realistic world, people are increasingly disconnecting as the campaign simply turns into unbearable noise and even if they still choose to cast a ballot they likely have not been exposed to good policy discussion.

Regulating/ending use of autodialers and public space campaign signs would not lead to a massive shift towards voter engagement or a sudden trend of civility among parties. Ending the abuse of those marketing tools would be steps in the right direction though.

Can we all agree to work towards ending campaign signs on public spaces?

Posted on by
8

Many blogs and columns are busy dissecting and interpreting our election results from last Monday. I am still too tired to wade into that realm right now after weeks locked into a campaign office (a few weeks in Australia should remedy that starting this Saturday). The last couple days have been exhausting in packing an office while making sure that countless signs and related materials are picked up and recycled/disposed of and I can’t help but be frustrated by the waste of both materials and time in placing campaign signs on public spaces.

Campaign signs serve an important purpose. They help build familiarity with the name of a candidate and their party. On private lawns campaign signs allow people to openly demonstrate their support for a particular candidate to their neighbors. Private placements can have some impact as many people can be more inclined to join the wave if they see a large trend of neighbors supporting a particular candidate. The impact of signs on public space is negligible.

The bottom line is that in a campaign no candidate can afford to let their competitor gain an edge in any manner even if the advantage is very slim. If only one candidate refuses to participate in the placement of public signs they will look weaker as their competitors flood spaces with their signs. I got many calls from supporters who were concerned about certain public spaces being under represented by our party in signs and of course that led to a compulsion to add yet more signs to the mess.

While I am indeed libertarian leaning and generally am not favorable of increasing any regulations, I have to say that I would like municipalities to step in and place an outright ban on placing campaign signs on public space for all elections. We simply cant rely on campaigns to choose not to place these ugly and generally ineffective signs on their own. If one campaign begins the placement, others will follow. If it is legislated, no one campaign is given an advantage or disadvantage.

Signs can and still would be utilized on private lawns. Large signs can be used as well of course. It is a person’s property, let them display whatever they want on it. Wouldn’t it be nice if our parks and public spaces were immune from that visual pollution during campaigns though?

Some of the major intersections were nothing less than stomach turning as a virtual vomit of colors assailed the eyes while one drove looking at blur of signs from a variety of parties. I am pretty confident that most people simply stop seeing the signs after a few weeks.

It would be good for all campaigns if they were freed from the perceived obligation to jam public spaces with mountains of signs. Those signs are expensive. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on public signs by campaigns in Calgary alone in the last election? How many volunteer hours were spent on the placement and maintenance of these signs? The public signs are magnets for vandalism and every large campaign has a full time person designated to simply keeping those signs standing. Those dollars and those hours all could have been more effectively used in other aspects of the campaigns. I would prefer to have a volunteer on the phones or door-knocking full time rather than wasting time fixing and placing public signs. I would rather those dollars be spent on another lit drop or even better beer on election night. Both expenditures would be of more value.

This is not a great thunderous electoral reform issue such as recall or even fixed election dates. This is an issue of colossal waste happening that can be very easily fixed. I think it is time to start the process of getting legislation into place. I seriously doubt many people would miss the signs on public space in future elections.

It’s not wrong to be right.

Posted on by
3

 

Shortly after composing the blog below, I encountered the video below that makes my point for me perfectly. This is the level that the PC party supporters are now sinking to.

 

 

The hysteria from the small but shrill and vocal community of Alberta’s left-wing has reached a fever pitch since the Wildrose Party took a commanding lead in this provincial election. The hipster-latte community is aghast that Alberta would dare embrace a new political alternative without swinging towards the left. The insults towards Albertans at large are piling up and the spite and loathing being displayed by the self-styled progressives is striking.

The secret that really should not be a secret is that Alberta is predominantly populated by people who are right of center on the political spectrum. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT SO GET OVER IT!

The typical fearmongering is in full force as people try to imply that all people on the right/libertarian end of the spectrum are secretly intolerant racists who want to set Alberta back decades in social policy as abortion is outlawed along with being gay. Spectres are being raised of segregrated water fountains and comparisons made between Alberta and the American South. I have seen many indignantly howling that they will leave Alberta should a Wildrose government be formed (I wish).

All of the above tactics should sound very familiar because they were all used before by the federal Liberal party through the 90s and early 2000s. What people should also realize is that those fear and smear campaigns invariably backfire terribly with Albertans.

While what is considered right wing has evolved over the years, the makeup of people on that side of the spectrum has not. Gone are the moralizing days of the Social Credit regime of the 50s but what is here is a population of individualists who want limited government that allows people to live their lives prosperously and in peace from moralizing busybodies (both left and right). The balance has been reached between the traditional model of social conservatism and the new “South Park Conservatives” with the current incarnation of the Wildrose Party and it shows as a groundswell of Albertans are embracing this party.

Most people do not sit and dwell about where they formally land on the political spectrum. People will gravitate to parties that are indeed more solidly placed on the spectrum and in Alberta the majority of the citizens prefer to sit on the right. Nothing wrong with that and no apologies.

So here is the root of the failure of the attempted shaming and fearmongering. When the sanctimonious left tries to label entire parties as being racist, intolerant, hicks etc., they are attacking most Albertans. When you call a person a pile of disparaging and offensive names how can you possibly expect to draw them into your cause? All the left does when they use these tactics is entrench the supporters for the right of center parties and encourage them to get out to vote.

Look at the old Reform Party. Chretien and his Liberals called Reform supporters racists among all the other stereotypes despite 70% of Albertans supporting that party in the 90s. How did that all work out for Liberals in Alberta? The same tactics were attempted by Liberals against Harper’s Conservative Party only a few years ago. How did that go? Well there still is not a single federal Liberal seat in Alberta and Harper is our Prime Minister with a very comfortable majority.

The last time the Progressive Conservatives were strongly threatened in their reign was in the early 90s and it was by the Liberal Party being led by Lawrence Decore. What is being forgotten by many though is that Decore campaigned not from the left but the right despite the name of his party. Decore brought out the debt clock to demonstrate the out of control spending by the Progressive Conservatives and gained a great deal of traction as conservative Albertans. It was only through the appearance of Ralph Klein who campaigned on government austerity and cuts that the government of the day was narrowly saved.

Klein followed through on his promises to Albertans. Aggressive cuts were made to spending while the size of the bloated civil service was reduced (never saw service decline due to that). The illuminated left went ballistic as predicted. Protests sprung up and unions went postal in their entitlement and rage. Pundits and academics predicted that Albertans would lash back and fiercely punish the Klein government for having swung right. What happened? Klein won an even stronger majority.

Over the years, Klein’s government began to lose support as they began to drift back left into the lazy cycle of tax and spend rather than responsible governance. The inevitable insular attitude of government grew as they remained unchallenged and Albertans began again to drift away from the Progressives and new alternatives were being developed. Klein was pushed out and the rest is all history that we know.

The Wildrose Party has embraced those unapologetic and truly conservative people. The party worked hard for years building the foundation that has put the party into the lead in this Alberta election. In response to this growing threat, the Redford Progressives actually swung left and it shows. Weeks of gross post-budget spending promises from the Redford Progressives have repulsed Albertans and the Liberal style fearmongering from her party is falling flat. If the PC party was to have a hope of recovery it would have been by turning to the responsible-right as Klein did. Redford pulling government hard to the left sealed the fate of this 41 year old dynasty as she clearly has no clue what most Albertans really want.

Many are stumped. Alberta has been growing in population for decades and predominantly the people have come from provinces that swing left. The left has hoped that this influx of people would change Alberta and make us eventually embrace the left-wing. This has not happened and the reason for that is quite simple.

People with the courage to take a chance, leave their friends and family to cross a nation seeking a better future are not by their very nature left-wing. People with that kind of ambition and courage are individualists. These are not people who want a large and pampering government nannying their every move. These are the people who want governance by parties such as Reform, the old PCs and now Wildrose. These will never be left-leaning people.

People who are naturally left-wing are the folks who will sit at home in hard times and demand that somebody solve their problems for them. These people want government created jobs or even outright welfare. They will not move and will always vote for whoever promises the most goodies with the least personal responsibility. We in Alberta need never fear an influx of these people as they simply do not have the courage or ambition to move from wherever they are. What few strong left-leaners we have in Alberta are often home-grown.

The temptation is always there to swing left and spend more. The ivory-tower gang is always pushing for such. Thankfully the electorate knows better and consistently embraces the right in Alberta as long as it is reasonably packaged for them as the Wildrose Party is.

As long as we happily and unapologetically stick to our principles we will continue to be the properous and truly conservative province that we are.

Outcome or ideology? Which is more important to you?

Posted on by
Reply

 

There are few sacred-cows that have been more carefully crafted and fiercely protected than that of Canada’s health care system.

Tommy Douglas has been essentially canonized as a founder of our system and it is considered blasphemy to dare even consider questioning the merit of the system. Politicians and journalists alike are pilloried should they ever dare suggest that Canada’s health system may not be the best one on the entire planet. If health system issues should ever arise, the only appropriate response to the zealous is the addition of more funding. Systemic change is simply unacceptable.

Now back to reality. The World Health Organization used to publish comprehensive rankings of health systems based on accessibility, cost and outcomes. Unfortunately they have not done this since 2000. In their last ranking though, Canada was 30th and dropping like a stone when compared to other nations.  Considering we have changed nothing systemically in the last 10 years, it can be safely assumed that the trend has continued.

The most successful systems in the world have involved a mixture of public and private involvement while maintaining universal access. This is not conjecture. This is documented fact. The only other systems that legislate such a degree of government monopoly in them as Canada are North Korea and Cuba. I assure you those countries are not good models to follow.

When the word “private” is used almost immediately people begin chirping about the American system. There should almost be some form of “Godwin’s law” that applies to the insertion of the big bad American boogyman in healthcare discussion. As soon as some fool takes the leap to bring up the American system, they immediately shall have been deemed to have lost the debate.

I am going to expose the big secret here: THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF HEALTH SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD AND DOZENS OF THEM ARE SUPERIOR TO THE CANADIAN AND AMERICAN ONES!!

Protectors of the status-quo (usually unions) constantly try to shut down discussion by trying to polarize debate. It is simply shallow and foolish to assume that Canada and the USA are the only two health-care systems in the world yet if we look at most Canadian discussion it would appear that way.

Another secret is that we have private provision all over the place. There are countless private labs, clinics and yes even hospitals in operation in Canada. Unfortunately, these facilities are still constrained by our inflexible system and often have to be almost snuck into the system by politicians who realize the need for expansion of our provision options but are afraid to dare question the sanctity of the status-quo.

We need to rip down this facade and have a real discussion. Hysterics and demonization of all who dare question the status-quo is harming us all.

We all have to ask ourselves; what is more important; the outcomes or personal ideology?

This is what it comes down to. The outright dismissal of private involvement is an ideology. The polarization of the discussion is an ideology. The self-blinding to all other discussion is an ideology.

We need to open the discussion and look to the best systems if we want to improve our own. I was impressed with Danielle Smith in last night’s debate in her being willing to entertain examining other means of health provision while the other 3 leaders stuck to the cowardly and closed minded defense of the unsustainable and failing status-quo. The whispered and shouted fearmongering continue about the Wildrose Party as ideologues dismiss any notion of real solutions and try to quell all discussion.

We need to stop the politics of envy, fear and division so that we can have a frank examination of our healthcare system based on what can lead to the best outcomes rather than the zealous and closeminded approach that we have had so far. Healthcare consistently ranks at the top of people’s concerns in politics yet it is the issue with which we are the most reticent in discussion.

Take off the ideological blinders and pursue what works best. It really is as simple as that. I am optimistic that a Wildrose government may be willing to be the first in a long time to do so.

 

Promises promises.

Posted on by
Reply

 

 I am recycling a picture from one of my past blog posts. Who says I can’t be green? The picture does say it well though.

My past post was based on why politicians can be prone to lying in campaigns and how we as an electorate encourage and feed that habit.

 Now as expected the parties are battling to outpromise each other in buying our love with our own money. No party is innocent of this tactic. The only difference between the parties is the degree of the unreasonable promises.

 I was inspired to touch on this by Alison Redford’s pledge to end poverty. While nice and fluffy, to put it bluntly it is a shallow and stupid promise of something that is impossible to deliver on. As long as there is a top in society, there will indeed always be a bottom that will be considered impoverished. A person may as well pledge to end cancer. It is a worthy goal but it simply won’t be happening through a campaign promise.

 My ears pretty much close as soon as I see somebody spit out the vapid promise to end poverty. Had they simply said mitigate poverty, alleviate poverty or even reduce poverty my interest would be piqued as perhaps something innovative and viable has been proposed. When it is the shallow talking point of elimination of something that has existed since the beginning of human kind, I simply dismiss it as the baseless unsustainable crap that we have unfortunately come to expect from our governments.

 The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has categorized the spending promises of all of the parties in this election. They are predictible and telling.

 The Redford Progressives are in full desperation mode and it shows in the billions in extra spending they are proposing beyond the budget they just force-fed to Albertans a few weeks ago. They lead the pack in mass unsustainable spending promises.

 The NDP is next. They are a socialist party who has no hope of forming government so their spending promises are to be expected. Even if their plans are unviable, they are at least honest about them.

 Sherman’s Liberals are next. Like the NDP, this is a party that really has nothing to lose in this election so has no fear of promising the unrealistic.

 At the back of the spending pack is the Wildrose Party with $308 million (so far) in proposed spending increases. This does indeed make the Wildrose the best of the worst, but it is still way too much spending coming from a party based on fiscal conservatism. If deficit elimination is indeed the goal, then some of these promises will have to be broken if they are being realistic with them. I understand the temptation to jump on the spending bandwagon but it really is a shallow way to try to gain support.

The Wildrose Party has been surging as Albertans have been recognizing the party to be a viable replacement to the tired Progressive Party that has governed Alberta since 1971. Albertans have embraced the fresh approach and honesty from Danielle Smith and the party and I hope that trend continues. The Wildrose is proposing spending increases at a rate 1/10th the cost of the Progressive Party promises and that alone makes the Wildrose an infinitely better choice on election day. Like any party though, they do have to be kept in check by all of us lest they drift too far away from their base.

 I hope the powers that be are watching the polls closely. A recent and comprehensive forum poll has shown that the Wildrose is maintaining the lead in Alberta. The same poll also indicates that a majority of people reject the wisdom of the vote-buy effort with the “dani-bucks”. People clearly don’t want to see foolish, blind spending. They like the responsible approach and it shows.

 Clearly people are ready to embrace the Wildrose the way they are. There is no need to promise the moon and the stars in this final couple weeks. If the Wildrose sticks to the honesty and realistic goals that they built themselves on, they will form our next government.

 Shallow and unviable promises only harm future governance and build even more electoral cynicism. Lets hope the race to the bottom with promises in this election is finished now.

Can we legislate against cheesy campaign songs????? Campaign planners, just say no!

Posted on by
2

OK what do all of the songs below have in common?

Well for one, they are all Alberta political campaign songs, they all have likely had utterly no impact in encouraging people to vote for their person/party and they all make me want to stab myself in the ear with a pencil.

 I understand that the production of these songs was likely fun and they helped in some small way to bond existing supporters. Come on though, they typically sound as low-budget as they indeed are and only really serve to irritate.

 It took talent and work to create these songs and I can appreciate that. At this time though, I think that talent and effort may better be utilized on doorsteps than in low budget recording scenarios.

 When it comes to these songs too, it should be kept in mind that musical genre crosses political lines. I understand that many in Alberta love country music. While I am a born and bred Albertan, I despise country music. I have tried to learn to like it but alas like brussels sprouts I just can’t make myself enjoy that stuff. I would rather listen to a choir composed of Helen Keller clones trying to sing Handel’s Messiah than listen to country music. Does that mean that Wildrose or other parties should then model campaign songs playing classic rock to appeal to folks like me? No! Then the country crowd won’t want to listen. Just stick to platforms.

 Not the end of the world I guess. Many people are complaining about being called too much, too many flyers in their mail and too many ads. Well I want to complain about the rotten songs composed and recorded during campaigns.

 Should you want to torture yourself, by all means listen to the songs below. I won’t try to rate which one is less bad than another. I will post more as they surface if they do. With any luck these will be all I find. 😉

How dare we consider empowering those uppity unwashed masses!!

Posted on by
5

 

 Well I see that the latest fabricated issue to hit the political social media set has been the sudden apparent discovery of the Wildrose Party’s support of citizen’s initiated referenda and the accompanying hysteria following as a leftist minority tries to use that issue to convince people of an evil (exceedingly well) hidden agenda. Polls and my own work on the ground in this election show pretty clearly that Albertans are not paying any attention to the fearmongering and the Wildrose is continuing it’s steady march towards the legislature as the party is gaining the trust and support that Redford’s Progressives discarded.

 As with my last posting though, what strikes me is the disdain shown to Albertans by the small but vocal latte-left set. These people truly do see Albertans as unwashed rubes and feel that we must must have government reduce individual rights and increase nanny-government control ever further to protect us from ourselves and each other. I guess these people feel that we can be reprogrammed through social engineering into some fantastic progressive utopia down the road. Reality dictates that totalitarianism is hardly of benefit for people if history is any indicator.

 The shrill howlings against citizen’s initiated referenda take some very offensive assumptions. People are screaming that with referenda Alberta would make abortion illegal. OK folks, for one it is not even in our jurisdiction. For another thing, you are telling us that you feel that a majority of Albertans would like to illegalize this. I have even seen some people online claiming that a referendum would be held to illegalize homosexuality. Do you really think such a proposal would even reach a ballot? It sure as hell would not be approved by a majority of Albertans.

The anti-democratic fearmongers who are howling about citizen’s initiated referenda are claiming if we empower this province of bigotted hicks democratically that we would rush right out and use that legislation to infringe upon the rights of others. That patronizing attitude of loathing towards our province is tiresome and offensive in itself. If you really think this province has a strong majority of people who feel that way, why not simply move somewhere else before we hicks build a new iron-curtain?

 Others claim that referenda would be used wastefully and frivolously by people. Citizen’s initiatives are used responsibly and effectively all over the world. With good legislation it can be safely ensured that only issues worthy of a broad public debate and settlement will make it to a ballot. I know Mercer did a good spoof on referenda with the use of an internet petition and a joke. In reality, a true paper petition is very difficult to get filled out within a time limit. Anybody who is claiming that it would be easy to get 10s of thousands of official (name, address, phone number, witness) signatures on paper in a limited time period is either lying or has never actually tried real petitioning.

 There is no better way to address a large divisive independent issue than a referendum. It opens a targetted discussion of the issue and lets the electorate choose the best course of action. To oppose this democractic tool because you don’t trust the people with the power of choice is loathsome. What next? Shall we end general elections too in case those fools in Alberta pick what you determine to be the wrong government?

 The fearmongering is failing on the ground but the buzzing noise is getting irritating from the elitist set online.

Whose money is it?

Posted on by
7

 I will begin by saying I am not terribly enthusiastic with the latest Wildrose Party campaign pledge which is to cut a dividend cheque back to Albertans from future surplus funds. This concept has potential to become terribly inefficient and complicated and I could foresee the administration costs of this alone eating up a great deal of the funds being given back to Albertans. I much rather would see a more efficient and simple cut to the rate of our income tax with any future surplus funds being dedicated to a fund that could generate revenues thus leading to even more tax reductions.

 That all being said, what I fully agree with in principle is getting those dollars back into the pockets of Albertans even if I don’t feel that the Wildrose picked the most efficient way to do so. Government is way too big and encompassing as it is and getting money back to citizens where it belongs is always a good idea.

 Now there is a class of folks who really do not think much of Albertans at large out there. These people feel that we are a province populated by hicks and uncultured folks who really need a big nanny government to guide and direct us in all of our actions and expenditures. We have seen this in the actions of Nanny Redford as the bulk of her legislation has been dedicated towards further controlling the actions of Albertans whether it is in educational choice, healthy living or even control of the disposition of our property. We are not to be trusted with those responsibilities and they really should be taken out of our collectively incompetent hands and put into the wise guidance of a large intrusive government for our own good.

 What has been interesting lately though has been how open this attitude has been getting. Redford came right out and said that she wants to change the very character of Albertans. Nanny Redford truly feels that it is her right and responsibility as Premier to adjust the character of Albertans to whatever her personal vision for us is to be.

Parties even farther to the left such as the NDP and Alberta Party are of course even more inclined to have big-government control all of our actions as individuals thus their minuscule support in a province like Alberta which is populated by individualists.

 Now I do have to thank Alberta Party representative Chris McClure for encapsulating the patronizing attitude held by the big government set in two tweets.

 First Chris said:           “yeah, give the masses back more money to waste, rather than using it to make healthcare and education better. Dumb policy”

 Yes, to these people Alberta citizens are simply “the masses” who are assumed to waste any money that may end up in their hands as opposed to being taken by government. We simply cannot be trusted to have our own money. Now there are two assumptions being made here by Chris. One is wrong and the other is simply offensive. Chris’s assumption that government will always spend excess dollars to improve healthcare and education for Albertans is simplistic and outright wrong. The offensive assumption is that Albertans will simply waste money if allowed to keep it themselves.

 Next in response Chris goes even further with: “if people could spend money wisely, personal debt issues would not be an issue. Expect most people to go buy a new tv”

 Yes, Chris feels if only government were big enough we all would not have personal debt issues. Perhaps we could ban borrowing? Who knows. Chris has made it clear that if we are allowed to have OUR OWN MONEY in our pockets we will simply waste it on unimportant items.

 Now who the hell are you to determine what is unimportant to individuals anyway Chris? It is our money. If we want to give it to charity or blow it on magic beans, it really is none of your damned business.

 Control is what it is all about people. That is why folks like Chris and his Alberta Party and Redford with her Progressive party try to assume more and more control of our lives and why they are terrified of empowering things such as personal choice, property and wealth.

 Again, I may not fully agree with the release by Wildrose Party I most strongly agree with the principle that it represents in that we as Albertans know how best to spend OUR  money.

 It appears so far that only the Wildrose Party is showing the respect  we deserve in working towards further empowering Alberta citizens and working towards the smaller more accountable government that we need and deserve.

 The “beer and popcorn” patronism fell flat when the federal Liberals used it and it will not win the hearts of Albertans as Liberals within the PC and Alberta Party use it either.