tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post115998866835643693..comments2023-09-22T06:22:50.820-06:00Comments on Ken Chapman: Hancock's Policy Platform is Out!kenchapmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11384045981190810115noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160115515882687652006-10-06T00:18:00.000-06:002006-10-06T00:18:00.000-06:00Norris is the first politician in North America to...Norris is the first politician in North America to lose to a Muslim after 9-11 in a wealthy constituency with a large Jewish population. That is not negligence or inadvertance - you have to work hard to mess up that badlyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160100343766099282006-10-05T20:05:00.000-06:002006-10-05T20:05:00.000-06:00Just as winning a seat in Calgary is no indication...Just as winning a seat in Calgary is no indication of prowess, so losing your seat in Edmonton is no indication of anything. In fact Norris was the best performer at the U of C forum because he can reach beyond the club and save the party, as Art Smith knows and that's why Art is supporting Mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160096770755479532006-10-05T19:06:00.000-06:002006-10-05T19:06:00.000-06:00How can there be no vote on the government spendin...How can there be no vote on the government spending money? Alberta has got greater problems than not having a plan to deal with out of control economic growth, if the executive can spend money without the authorization of the legislature. Just checking, but isn't that contrary to the rule of law? Acting that way doesn't sound too conservative to me.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12175177945201851664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160076376667046292006-10-05T13:26:00.000-06:002006-10-05T13:26:00.000-06:00Thx Grassroots Avenger for the reply: I bet there ...Thx Grassroots Avenger for the reply: I bet there was no vote taken on the $400 cheques. My understnding is the Premier went out of a Caucus retreat meeting and unilaterally announced the $400 cheque scheme to the awaiting media without serious discussion or decision within the Caucus meeting itself. <BR/><BR/>Was it a Klein brain fart, a political power tactic, or a noblese oblige "right" of the Premier in his mind...who knows. But that is the level of planning and policy consideration it was given. <BR/><BR/>My guess is rather than look divided - which we now know they were - they let it happen. The party members responded on what they thought of that and other things with the leadership review vote on April 1. <BR/><BR/>Same kind of lets not look divided reasoning led to Oberg being invited back to Caucus early. When he was kicked out there was no expectation of an August session - to spend the Surplus...rememeber - the "conservatives" were spending the surplus!!! The optics of a PC leadership candidate on the other side of the Legislature sitting with the opposition and behind the Alliance guy would not be "good."kenchapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11384045981190810115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160075075959804802006-10-05T13:04:00.000-06:002006-10-05T13:04:00.000-06:00Ken, you are absolutely correct that the current r...Ken, you are absolutely correct that the current regime has been spending like drunken sailors. $400 cheques is not smart fiscal conservatism. Of course, we must acknowledge that Dave has been a part of the established status quo. Did Dave vote against those $400 cheques?<BR/><BR/>This leadership race gives the people of Alberta a chance to set the province back on track. That is why when Dave and other candidates start proposing more ways to SPEND money they are moving in the completely wrong direction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160073134670203762006-10-05T12:32:00.000-06:002006-10-05T12:32:00.000-06:00PROGRESSIVE does not mean Big government. No more ...PROGRESSIVE does not mean Big government. No more than Conservative means small minded!<BR/><BR/>The so called fiscal conservatives running the show now have increased spending by 60%... do you feel the province is on top of the issues with that big throw money at problem kind of spending? <BR/><BR/>Explain the fiscal conservative rationale of a $400 per head (total about $1.4B) handouts of non-renewable resource money - dollars we will never see again and for which we get no long term return except to add to inflation and recycling cost of "stuff."<BR/><BR/>The Progressive approach is to say if the marketplace can't or will not handle it, individual responsiblity alone is not enough and there is a NEED for us to deal with certain issues - together - then lets define the role of government in relation to those NEEDS. then lets determine what outcomes we want - and can - achieve and then put the necesary resource in place as a society - to actually reach those goals.<BR/><BR/>The so called fiscal conservatives are so quick to name call but are blind to facts. Facts like George Bush type big spenders in rhetorical frugal disguises...just look at the savings Haliburton has caused for the American taxpayer in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>One more thing Anonymous - again why anonymous in your comments? You sure don't sound "shy!" What or who are you afraid of? Maybe Real Freedom of Speech? That means taking personal responsibility for what one says? Surely you are BIG on personal ressponsibility!kenchapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11384045981190810115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160072458292209192006-10-05T12:20:00.000-06:002006-10-05T12:20:00.000-06:00Hey Anonymous, I didn't mean to imply that it was ...Hey Anonymous, I didn't mean to imply that it was irrelevant. Far from it. It's just old news by now, and I was surprised that Dave would be the one to bring it up.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, like I said, I thought Hancock came across well. He's not my first choice, but probably my second at this point, third at worst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160070966556160582006-10-05T11:56:00.000-06:002006-10-05T11:56:00.000-06:00Something to note? Aren't we as a party being aske...Something to note? Aren't we as a party being asked to elect a leader that will in turn be able to win subsequent elections - earning the approval of the Albertan electorate to acheive a continued majority government?<BR/><BR/>Norris couldn't even keep his own seat and he thinks he has the right to ask us to elect him as party leader?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160065657749857782006-10-05T10:27:00.000-06:002006-10-05T10:27:00.000-06:00I saw Hancock at the all candidates forum yesterda...I saw Hancock at the all candidates forum yesterday (Oct. 4) at the UofC.<BR/><BR/>Generally, I liked what I saw. Good policy mind. I don't know where he would be able to draw the line if we had to curtal spending, but I will still give him the benefit of the doubt.<BR/><BR/>He did take a bit of a indirect cheap shot at Norris though, which I don't think earned him any points. The fact that Norris didn't win his own seat in '04 is something to note, but it has been thoroughly covered in the press and elsewhere. Uncharacteristic of Dave, from what I know of him, but he did bring it up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31415271.post-1160064429607163542006-10-05T10:07:00.000-06:002006-10-05T10:07:00.000-06:00**He is a progressive because he believes that gov...**He is a progressive because he believes that government has a positive role in bettering people’s lives “regardless of situation or circumstance.”**<BR/><BR/>So in simpler terms:<BR/><BR/>Hancock = big government<BR/><BR/>No wonder you put "PROGRESSIVE" in capital letters all the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com