Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: New Government?

  1. #1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    'And as far as "a new government" goes, are you saying that every time the Conservatives won between 1971 and 2015, it was a whole new, not at all related to what came before government? A new government is when a different party take over. Otherwise it's a new mandate for the same government.'

    Was the Lougheed the same as Klein as Redford? Me thinks not.
    And how many times was Lougheed reelected? Or Klein? That's a change of premier, not "a New government"

  2. #2
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I copied this conversation here to prevent yet another Charlie Foxtrot derail of the Super Lab thread.

    So, let's move the problem here. I guess I won't be accused again of sweeping things under a rug?

    I have always hated the term "New Government". The Government of Alberta is assumed to exist in perpetuity just like any organization. The only way there would be a new government is if Alberta dissolves. Even a rebranding to Dickberta would still inherit all the past from Alberta.

    If a new CEO and team takes over Canadian Tire, does that mean we have a "new" Canadian Tire? No.

    The Government (and related Bureaucracy) can still be sued and held responsible for sins of the previous years...as we well know.

    So, it is more a new party, or as the Americans rightly call it, a new Administration. Regardless of party, or premier, it is a new Administration whenever a new mandate is given.

    Regan and Trump are not the same. Kennedy and Carter are not the same. Clinton and Ike are not the same. Klein and Redford are not the same. etc...etc...etc..

    so, can we start using this term, or something else rather than a new government?
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  3. #3

    Default

    I actually agree with IanO on this. After an a election, a new government is formed, even if its the same party/leader in power. The only way it would be 'the same government' is if the election results doesn't change any of the seats. The NDP may still be in power, but their seat count may rise of fall, which changes the makeup of the government.

  4. #4
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I get that we were taught these words in school, but they are rather contrary to what is actually happening.

    Which then leads to the conversation we're having.

    ...just don't start blaming me when the next derail happens...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  5. #5

    Default

    71 Billion in debt by 2019 , your socialist government people spend and tax and make province dirt poor , only clowns would vote these clowns back in.
    Last edited by Creativemind; 21-03-2018 at 09:35 AM.

  6. #6
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...speaking of thread derails...anyone else have whiplash now... or is that the morning whiskey kicking in from the other two attempted derails this morning?

    I think you misunderstood the topic Creativemind...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creativemind View Post
    71 Billion in debt by 2019 , your socialist government people spend and tax and make province dirt poor , only clowns would vote these clowns back in.
    Most of that debt results of neglect of infrastructure for 40+ years of PC power. Go on. Clowns eh?

  8. #8
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand here we go...




    SOURCE
    https://giphy.com/gifs/toilet-diving...-jAaZrqnaxchHy
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  9. #9

    Default

    I think you need to realize that all conversations derail at some point. Everyone flies off on their own tangent. This thread is really not about anything anyways, so better to derail this one than other ones?

  10. #10
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...then the next time I hear from you...or anyone else...complaining about a lack of thread continuity, derails, flame wars, etc...whining about how things "used to be"...or crying out that so and so is being a such and such (especially since you were just a such and such to so and so)...or say you're gonna sue...

    Deaf ears.

    Either you all want more order, or leave the dumpster fire as is.

    If something this simple...with such a simple outcome...can derail...then actual discussions on actual issues stand no chance.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  11. #11

    Default

    Than You! The NDP didn't put us into that position; they were left a debt by another party which has left many members pocket heavy.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  12. #12

    Default

    Totally the answer I was expecting from you Dick

    I guess I'm of the opinion that some derails are good, but others aren't, and each persons opinion on thread derails will differ depending on their opinions on the original premise of the thread.


    I get very well that your job as 'king of the anthill' here is not an easy one, and certainly, its often a thankless one. It's part of the reason I gave up, and part of the reason you have given up too.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    'And as far as "a new government" goes, are you saying that every time the Conservatives won between 1971 and 2015, it was a whole new, not at all related to what came before government? A new government is when a different party take over. Otherwise it's a new mandate for the same government.'

    Was the Lougheed the same as Klein as Redford? Me thinks not.
    And how many times was Lougheed reelected? Or Klein? That's a change of premier, not "a New government"


    I see it as a matter of degrees, semantics, connotations and context. New government? Never technically speaking - no matter who wins the government is the ongoing legislative institution that continues on and on (“The King is dead, long live the King.”).

    However in general conversation context matters and it can mean a lot of different things. A re-election of the same players under the same Premier would not likely be referred to as a new government. Most people would say: “It’s the same old same old...” Lougheed got re-elected and most people I’m sure would have said ‘it’s the same government’ - however some anal person would certainly pipe up and say yes but not because Lougheed got rejected and it would still have been the same government if the NDP were elected. It’s the Alberta Government.

    In general normal conversation bringing in a new party leader and turning around the party fortunes like Klein after Getty, when a party majority re-election was being doubted, the old boys ousted and replaced by a new set of old boys, then a lot of people including those in the party prefer to spin it as a ‘new government’.
    Last edited by KC; 21-03-2018 at 01:22 PM.

  14. #14

    Default

    I suppose it is clearer in the US system that it is a new administration as the President is a different individual, even if from the same party. They are independent and separate from the Congress, which isn't technically part of the administration anyways.

    Here in Canada that's not quite the same, technically we could have a new Prime Minister part way through a term with all the same MP's and many of the same cabinet ministers, so is that administration really that new? I could argue no, at least not until the next election when there would be new mandate and some changes in MP's. I don't know if it is really a new government either, but it seems to be the terminology used more in Canada. Perhaps we need to come up with something better.

  15. #15

    Default

    As usual definitions seldom hep in debates around semantics, connotations and common usage:

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/government

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creativemind View Post
    71 Billion in debt by 2019 , your socialist government people spend and tax and make province dirt poor , only clowns would vote these clowns back in.
    Comments from a non-Albertan. Interesting.

    Nonetheless we hear the same sort of comments as those above coming from Albertan as well. Seems that there are many, many new residents that have moved into this province since the 1980s or were wee little kids in the 1980s or not even born by then.

    Either way we all need to teach a lot more political and fiscal history in this province so we can lessen the emotional, irrational talk like that provided here.
    Last edited by KC; 21-03-2018 at 01:34 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    Nevermind the new. The old voted for the Tories for how many decades which put is in debt even through the good economic times. The same people that elected them in now want to blame another party for their mistakes. I'll reiterate this once more, people in this society always blame others for a problem they cause. When did our society become so dysfunctional?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  18. #18
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Nevermind the new. The old voted for the Tories for how many decades which put is in debt even through the good economic times. The same people that elected them in now want to blame another party for their mistakes. I'll reiterate this once more, people in this society always blame others for a problem they cause. When did our society become so dysfunctional?
    ”the old voted for the tories for how many decades”?

    we were probably a lot younger than you when we started to vote for them...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  19. #19

    Default

    I remember going door to door for Steve Paproski back in the late 1970s. Yes, back then I voted Progressive Conservative. And in Canada I tend to look at a government as being the party in power as opposed to who runs it. A premier or Prime Minister can step down and someone else take over without an election. Same government? I say yes.

  20. #20
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    So, by your logic, Klein = Getty?

    Stelmach = Redford?

    The PM/Premier is a de facto dictator to her/his caucus, "whipping" them into shape. I completely look at the Getty Administration as different than the Redford Administration of the Alberta Government.

    Just because we combine the executive and legislative branches doesn't mean that the same concept shouldn't apply.

    Again, I get the term "form Government" is often said in any speech from a Lieutenant Governor or Governor General...but decisions made by Trudeau the first will still have to be borne by Trudeau the second, even though there've been several new governments (by the old parlance) since PET left office.

    So, I don't see any harm in trying to separate the perpetual entity of the Province of Alberta and the mechanism of Government/Governing being separated from the party who administers it for that elected time.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  21. #21

    Default

    Parties can drift over time. Getty was much closer to Lougheed than Redford. Klein drifted further right the longer he was in. You're not going to see a party make a U Turn, turning from an alt-right Kenny type suddenly becoming more like Notley.

    Social Credit losing to the PCs was a major change. As was the NDP turfing the PCs.

    In your view, what sort of change of personnel does it take to create a change in government? A cabinet shuffle that replaces half of the ministers with new people? Just the Premier?

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Parties can drift over time. Getty was much closer to Lougheed than Redford. Klein drifted further right the longer he was in. You're not going to see a party make a U Turn, turning from an alt-right Kenny type suddenly becoming more like Notley.

    Social Credit losing to the PCs was a major change. As was the NDP turfing the PCs.

    In your view, what sort of change of personnel does it take to create a change in government? A cabinet shuffle that replaces half of the ministers with new people? Just the Premier?
    I would argue it usually takes an election as part of the process. If you replace the Premier, sure there is some change, but the new premier inherits all the MLA's of the previous one and doesn't have their own mandate.

    Some time the change is not that noticeable or major, as from Lougheed to Getty, but there was change and Getty did approach things differently in some ways. Even Redford kept aspects of the Lougheed PC philosophy, although there were decades and many twists and turns separating their governments.

  23. #23
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    (...)

    Social Credit losing to the PCs was a major change. As was the NDP turfing the PCs.

    In your view, what sort of change of personnel does it take to create a change in government? A cabinet shuffle that replaces half of the ministers with new people? Just the Premier?
    To your first point...i remember when Premier Notley's Administration was elected, many here were comparing her policies and views to Lougheed...so what happened there? .

    To the second point, I've tried to make my stance clear. Government, like a company, is assumed to exist forever. However, their President and / or CEO is not. Without a merger, acquisition , or rebranding to a whole new corporation, the company remains. General Motors still exists. Ford still existed Sans - Ford for decades. The same with Alberta. The Government is perpetual, until such time as it officially dissolves or merges. So,, to me, a change in leader denotes a change in Administration of the Government of Alberta. Moving cabinet ministers does not change the leadership in caucus, nor in the Administration. The leader... be it Rachel or Alison....sets the tone, and in terms of a RACI, has the A on the whole shooting match.

    I guess the term dissolving government....or new government... always rubbed me the wrong way given we can pseudo - elect a new leader via an administering party's convention or constitution
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

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
  •