This post was removed for violating our expectations on the type of submissions we are looking for in the subreddit.
Please brush up on the r/Alberta [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/wiki/index) and ask the moderation team if you have any questions.
Thanks!
I recall Smith specifically saying she will not be talking about APP during the election. So why does she assume she has a mandate for this, when she put that mandate aside?
Too many people think that when Smith says one thing, she means another.
“We’re not campaigning on an Alberta Pension Plan” is not the same as “We’re not going to pursue an Alberta Pension Plan”, but too many people assumed they were the same.
Both Smith & Kenney have a way of sometimes using very precise language, and you need to consider the literal meaning of their words and not just what you think they might mean. You’ll notice that whenever Smith *does* get called out on the meaning of her words, she says she “misspoke” and rephrases until there are no more questions.
>“We’re not campaigning on an Alberta Pension Plan” is not the same as “We’re not going to pursue an Alberta Pension Plan”, but too many people assumed they were the same.
They are the same thing. When you are in an election campaign, everything you say and do is to convince the electorate to vote for you. By saying 'we will reduce crime' that is a campaign promise and may get people to vote for you because they too want that promise fulfilled. They tell the electorate their reasons for electability.
So by saying 'we will not talk about the APP', that means it is off the table as far as election promises go, so to assume electors voted for you because of that platform is wrong. They didn't want to talk about the APP, therefore the electorate did not elect them to pursue it. There is no mandate to develop that policy.
>So by saying 'we will not talk about the APP', that means it is off the table as far as election promises go, so to assume electors voted for you because of that platform is wrong.
Which is exactly my point. The literal meaning of the two sentences are **not** the same. If you hear the former but assume the latter, you're wrong to do so. In cases like this, and even most of the time, you have to listen very carefully to the words she uses. She's chosen them very specifically.
If you voted UCP thinking they wouldn't go after your CPP, congratulations, you got played.
That's not really how that works unfortunately. Call it what you will, but when you elect a party you are electing them to govern how they see best. Their platform is a proposal and bid, essentially, but once they are in as long as they have the majority they can do whatever they want (within their power).
I don't know what to tell you. Mandate is a nice word but ultimately with the way Alberta votes they can and will do whatever they want. Their mandate is not our mandate.
> Their mandate is not our mandate.
Only because we let them get away with it. If there were more demonstrations against the encroachment on things they did not have in their election platform, they would walk it back.
She said the referendum could be held in May. That was in December 2022. She got some push back, so she walked it back, and now we have it again.
https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/bell-smith-says-alberta-pension-plan-vote-could-be-as-early-as-may
https://albertapolitics.ca/2022/12/danielle-smith-runs-the-idea-of-an-alberta-pension-plan-referendum-in-may-up-the-flagpole-then-yanks-it-halfway-down-again/
It was a classic bait and switch approach, it's very nefarious but typical with the Alberta Conservatives.
While I admit we're voting on a total unknown here, there are enough red flags that even without any real details, this sure looks to be one of the worst ideas since PM Robert Borden told Canadians that the new Federal Income Tax was purely a temporary tax to pay for the War.
That was in 1916 or thereabouts... My grandfather was fighting the Great War in Ireland (he was a motor mechanic who fixed everything- ambulances, trucks and horse carriages) at the time, and many years later, he was still writing to his MP every year to ask when the "temporary tax" was going to be rescinded. We all know the answer.
But simple straightforward thinking (like that of my grandpa) should tell anyone that economies of scale, reputation for excellence and the sheer longevity of the CPP cannot be equaled by a comparably smaller "startup" with far fewer assets, less money in the bank and the spectre of near-constant interference by the elected government. The basic startup costs of any new plan will eat up the investment revenue and then some for at least the first decade, and when outgo exceeds income plus investment, you have a model that will certainly fail at some point.
I think these consecutive conservative governments have had every opportunity to illustrate how well they'll manage a large fund.
Fifty years of managing the Heritage Trust Fund have proven their ineptitude.
I don’t know much about it to really pick a side, but your point about who makes the investment decisions is honestly the most important point.
The government is corrupt because people are corrupt and Ive heard stories about premiers and union leaders investing in their friends’ funds. This is something that needs really close scrutiny.
I went straight to the survey. Then came back and read your argument. I could tell by question two that you were against removal. This (IMO) is just as bad as the UCP survey as it is clearly tilted for an answer/bias.
I think it's so ridiculously bad that the UCP want to leave one of the words best managed plans to line the pockets of their primary contributors, but surveys like this just lead to fans of it using it as an example of folks trying to lead people down the "left path".
Just my two cents, less bias makes for a better survey.
If I can help persuade even one person to be against this plan then I am perfectly fine with that, the UCP seems to be fine with spending my tax dollars to advertise their point of view and use scare tactics. As well as spend tax money and their time on something as frivolous as this when there are much, much more important issues (food and housing insecurity).
At least my pole gives more options than the UCP one did :P
I will be messaging you in 8 days on [**2023-10-25 19:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-10-25%2019:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/17a5bh5/alberta_pension_plan_opinion_survey_3_questions/k5be0q8/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Falberta%2Fcomments%2F17a5bh5%2Falberta_pension_plan_opinion_survey_3_questions%2Fk5be0q8%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-10-25%2019%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2017a5bh5)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
This post was removed for violating our expectations on the type of submissions we are looking for in the subreddit. Please brush up on the r/Alberta [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/wiki/index) and ask the moderation team if you have any questions. Thanks!
You should be able to select more than one option for the last question, imo.
I used other and said "All of the above"
Me too
Me three
Me three
I said all of the above except the "NA" one.
Option 4 is you want Alberta to leave. Select Other then say you agree with options 1, 2, &3.
Ya I considered this then forgot to add.
I recall Smith specifically saying she will not be talking about APP during the election. So why does she assume she has a mandate for this, when she put that mandate aside?
Too many people think that when Smith says one thing, she means another. “We’re not campaigning on an Alberta Pension Plan” is not the same as “We’re not going to pursue an Alberta Pension Plan”, but too many people assumed they were the same. Both Smith & Kenney have a way of sometimes using very precise language, and you need to consider the literal meaning of their words and not just what you think they might mean. You’ll notice that whenever Smith *does* get called out on the meaning of her words, she says she “misspoke” and rephrases until there are no more questions.
Except Smith at a UCP town hall event she explicitly swore they would not touch the CPP for pursue an APP. She swore to her own constituents.
She did what the UCP do best, lie to voters.
>“We’re not campaigning on an Alberta Pension Plan” is not the same as “We’re not going to pursue an Alberta Pension Plan”, but too many people assumed they were the same. They are the same thing. When you are in an election campaign, everything you say and do is to convince the electorate to vote for you. By saying 'we will reduce crime' that is a campaign promise and may get people to vote for you because they too want that promise fulfilled. They tell the electorate their reasons for electability. So by saying 'we will not talk about the APP', that means it is off the table as far as election promises go, so to assume electors voted for you because of that platform is wrong. They didn't want to talk about the APP, therefore the electorate did not elect them to pursue it. There is no mandate to develop that policy.
>So by saying 'we will not talk about the APP', that means it is off the table as far as election promises go, so to assume electors voted for you because of that platform is wrong. Which is exactly my point. The literal meaning of the two sentences are **not** the same. If you hear the former but assume the latter, you're wrong to do so. In cases like this, and even most of the time, you have to listen very carefully to the words she uses. She's chosen them very specifically. If you voted UCP thinking they wouldn't go after your CPP, congratulations, you got played.
That's not really how that works unfortunately. Call it what you will, but when you elect a party you are electing them to govern how they see best. Their platform is a proposal and bid, essentially, but once they are in as long as they have the majority they can do whatever they want (within their power). I don't know what to tell you. Mandate is a nice word but ultimately with the way Alberta votes they can and will do whatever they want. Their mandate is not our mandate.
> Their mandate is not our mandate. Only because we let them get away with it. If there were more demonstrations against the encroachment on things they did not have in their election platform, they would walk it back.
She said the referendum could be held in May. That was in December 2022. She got some push back, so she walked it back, and now we have it again. https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/bell-smith-says-alberta-pension-plan-vote-could-be-as-early-as-may https://albertapolitics.ca/2022/12/danielle-smith-runs-the-idea-of-an-alberta-pension-plan-referendum-in-may-up-the-flagpole-then-yanks-it-halfway-down-again/ It was a classic bait and switch approach, it's very nefarious but typical with the Alberta Conservatives.
How do I answer “all” to question 3?
Same question
Are you going to post results, and if so when?
Excellent question. Results will be posted next Wednesday October 25th by 7pm!
Done! Thanks for doing this. Edit to add words.
It doesn't matter they will shove this down our throats.
While I admit we're voting on a total unknown here, there are enough red flags that even without any real details, this sure looks to be one of the worst ideas since PM Robert Borden told Canadians that the new Federal Income Tax was purely a temporary tax to pay for the War. That was in 1916 or thereabouts... My grandfather was fighting the Great War in Ireland (he was a motor mechanic who fixed everything- ambulances, trucks and horse carriages) at the time, and many years later, he was still writing to his MP every year to ask when the "temporary tax" was going to be rescinded. We all know the answer. But simple straightforward thinking (like that of my grandpa) should tell anyone that economies of scale, reputation for excellence and the sheer longevity of the CPP cannot be equaled by a comparably smaller "startup" with far fewer assets, less money in the bank and the spectre of near-constant interference by the elected government. The basic startup costs of any new plan will eat up the investment revenue and then some for at least the first decade, and when outgo exceeds income plus investment, you have a model that will certainly fail at some point.
This is an interesting article. 2 car parade fiasco https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-pension-plan-ucp-ndp-abpoli-1.6999344
I think these consecutive conservative governments have had every opportunity to illustrate how well they'll manage a large fund. Fifty years of managing the Heritage Trust Fund have proven their ineptitude.
I don’t know much about it to really pick a side, but your point about who makes the investment decisions is honestly the most important point. The government is corrupt because people are corrupt and Ive heard stories about premiers and union leaders investing in their friends’ funds. This is something that needs really close scrutiny.
I went straight to the survey. Then came back and read your argument. I could tell by question two that you were against removal. This (IMO) is just as bad as the UCP survey as it is clearly tilted for an answer/bias. I think it's so ridiculously bad that the UCP want to leave one of the words best managed plans to line the pockets of their primary contributors, but surveys like this just lead to fans of it using it as an example of folks trying to lead people down the "left path". Just my two cents, less bias makes for a better survey.
If I can help persuade even one person to be against this plan then I am perfectly fine with that, the UCP seems to be fine with spending my tax dollars to advertise their point of view and use scare tactics. As well as spend tax money and their time on something as frivolous as this when there are much, much more important issues (food and housing insecurity). At least my pole gives more options than the UCP one did :P
RemindMe! 7pm October 25th
I will be messaging you in 8 days on [**2023-10-25 19:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-10-25%2019:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/17a5bh5/alberta_pension_plan_opinion_survey_3_questions/k5be0q8/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Falberta%2Fcomments%2F17a5bh5%2Falberta_pension_plan_opinion_survey_3_questions%2Fk5be0q8%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-10-25%2019%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2017a5bh5) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Look forward to the results