Commenters under our stories accuse them of being nothing more than Tories with another name, and the deputy premier ridiculed them as selling out their own values.

I get that a complete reversal, or removal of core values, would be seen as a betrayal of all the supporters who have been with a party since the beginning, but as I say in my column this week, there’s room for improvement. And if you think a losing party would keep going to voters with the exact same playbook election after election, you’re fooling yourself.

If the goal of your party is to win an election, you want a winning platform. But it has to be one that sticks with your core values. A complete killing of the Alberta Human Rights Commission may not have worked for the public, but let’s look at other reform. Or let’s do a better job of explaining the benefit of the original policy.

I have no issue with policy review. It’s natural to review policy.

What I take issue with is a party that says one thing during a campaign then does the opposite once elected. That’s unforgivable.

Gord Lowe doesn’t always say the right things.

He is one of the biggest defenders of the city’s budget, the first to say we’re getting good bang for our buck, even though many of us disagree.

But he deserves credit for his take on information requests.

He’s right, the city should just automatically disclose info that’s routinely requested. It’s a boon for transparency, and could possibly save the city some cash in the long run.

And if the data is publicly available, I have less concern with Lowe’s notion of charging people to have it compiled to their specifications. That’s a user fee I could support, so long as the public data was somewhat user-friendly.

Either way, this is a better approach than the one taken by Lowe’s council colleague Dale Hodges who was more interested in cost recovery.

1. Let one of your opponents listen to your budget briefing, then let their comments get lost in the shuffle of opposition politicians and other groups. And do it under the guise of “we’re full.”

2. Refuse them entry for the first time in 20 years, deal with at least 24 hours of criticism over the decision, let someone else extend them the olive branch, then turn around and say a spot just opened up.

Sometimes it’s just best leave well enough alone.

That concept was lost on the Tories, who told officials with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation they would not be welcome at Thursday’s budget briefing.

Now, at the start of a legislature sitting, this would normally be a minor distraction, with a Speech from the Throne to get worked up over, and the normal sparring in question period.

But this isn’t a new session, with no new Throne Speech, no legislative agenda.

All the focus is on the budget and the Tories’ reputation as stewards of the public purse.

The CTF has long been critical of the PC government, so the ouster from the lockup is at best terrible optics and, at worst, it’s petty and punative.

Some would like to point out that left-wing labour groups have never been allowed into the budget lockup, so it’s only fair the right is getting its lumps.

Forget that other groups haven’t been allowed in, and forget that it’s an alleged “right-wing” distraction.

A group that routinely spars with the government, one that for 20 years got access to the budget lockup, was suddenly told “Sorry, no go.” If the left shoe were being kicked off, I’d find it baffling too.

The optics of it are terrible, especially in a contentious budget cycle where the specific group has been a thorn in the side of the government.

Then for the premier’s office to turn around and overrule the finance department, AFTER the official opposition had offered a way in for the CTF and three other groups. Two of those groups could be called left-wing, I might add.

So we go from “We’re full, so too bad,” to “We’re focused on the budget and welcome their continued input.”

But …

There’s always a but, isn’t there?

Stuff keeps coming out about the whole thing.

The Peace Bridge had many critics, yours truly among them.

I think the bridge looks plenty cool, but I question whether it serves the purpose as it was pitched, whether it’s needed cycling infrastructure, whether the design contract was awarded according to the rules laid out in the city’s own master plan for the core — CentreCity.

Anyway, all that aside, the bridge had fervent defenders. Bloggers, tweeps, journalists, online commenters, but none more fervent than bureaucrats and aldermen.

Trust me. I took my fair share of criticism for columns assailing the bridge. Some warranted, some not, and all in all, I’m fine agreeing to disagree. I just hope the city learns a lesson from what was, arguably a PR nightmare.

So it’s baffling to think the city would have to defend itself against an architect who was hand-picked, heralded by bridge supporters and promoted every step of the way.

I may not have agreed with what they had to say, and find this development a delicious twist of irony, but I will give them credit for lovin’ the one they were with. To the bitter end. Even though I didn’t agree with it.

Just a shame the Chosen One couldn’t see that from his perch in Manhattan.

Say what you will about the province’s new laws surrounding impaired driving, and I and our readers have said plenty, but when you’re trying to combat drunk driving, it’s hard to get the message through to people that they should take a cab if it’s a nightmare to get a taxi.

Enter Jonathan Denis, taking the city to task over a looming cab crunch on yet another New Year’s Eve.

I may not be convinced the province’s current approach is the right approach, I can imagine it must be pretty frustrating to be trying to set a specific tone regarding drunk driving and then have Calgary’s lack of cabs thrown in your face.

Denis is right. The city needs to get moving on more taxi licences, even temporary ones for big occasions, and better public transit.

Beyond that, they city should start looking at what would be involved in the deregulation of the taxi system.

But Denis can’t forget the province has a role to play here. A report done for the solicitor general’s office when Fred Lindsay was still the minister, and his ministry oversaw the province’s liquor laws, highlighted one big problem: Forcing bars to shut their doors all at once pushes hundreds, or thousands depending on the city, onto the street at the same time, exacerbating any existing taxi shortage.

So while I applaud Denis for talking tough with the city on taxis, the provincial government needs to look at what else it can do to help — whether it’s staggered closings, allowing all bars to stay open as late as they choose, or even whether removing last call would eliminate the crush of drunks on the street.

Other countries have seen success in areas like these, and it’s time the province steps up as well.

Calgary’s top cop can be hard to pin down, and I often don’t see eye-to-eye with him.

I’ve disagreed with his stance on the police budget, distracted driving, and his response to investigations involving his officers. Just about a year ago, I took him to task for pushing a very old-fashioned approach to dealing with social disorder: Raising the drinking age. The numbers, I said last January, just don’t bear out his theory.

But there are times where we see eye to eye, and he has ended 2012 pushing a very progressive approach to crime — attempting to keep people with mental health and addiction issues out of the justice system.

Programs like the Calgary Drug Court have proven successful because they help deal with the cause of some people’s criminal ways, drug addiction, and ensure they receive help for that addiction.

Recidivism rates among graduates in programs like this are low, so they help reduce crime, and keep the costs to the taxpayer down. A win-win for people who want to stamp out crime and save cash.

Hanson has taken the approach a step further, and announced in a year-end interview with the Sun the Safe Communities Opportunity and Resource Centre would open this year, helping people get in touch with appropriate resources, whether health or social care, and hopefully prevent people from turning to crime.

These kinds of initiatives are essential to help keep streets safe, and are an important step forward.

With this pilot project a go, here’s hoping Hanson moves to pressure the province on his next big cause: So-called “safe jails,” where addicts whose crimes are more serious are serving time in facilities for addicts.

Every addict who comes out of jail clean of drugs is one less addict we need to worry about.

For the most part, people are accepting of the trade-off that comes with living in the core: you’re in the middle of town, but that means it’s going to be noisy, especially on the weekend.

But I get why people would want drunks doing a number 1 or, worse, a number 2 near their front door.

At some point in time, Connaught and Victoria Park were probably a little more quiet, but anyone who moved here in the last eight years would kidding themselves to think it was solely a residential area with some restaurants and retail.

I’ve often been baffled that the bar scene in Calgary, and Edmonton, for that matter, didn’t crop up downtown. In Calgary’s case, the Beltline is at least adjacent to the core than in the capital, but I digress.

As drunks are wandering near where people live on a weekly basis, there are complaints, and now a move afoot to clamp down on the problem.

What reports like this fail to recognize, and what Mar, as someone who raises the spectre of Electric Avenue need to realize, is that attempts to engineer results in an area like this may cap the problem, but it won’t reduce the problem.

It will also push the problem to other areas.

A concerted “social engineering” push may have quieted Electric Avenue, but 17 Ave. eventually cropped up.

A reduction in concentration of bars, or winning a war of attrition, may reduce problems for some residents in Mar’s ward, but it will spread drunks elsewhere, make it harder to plan transportation strategies for dealing with bar crowds, and, honestly, will help kill Calgary’s growing image as a place with something going on.

A vibrant nightlife is part of building an image as a city that isn’t just a stopping point on the way to Banff.

And, if social engineering ever actually worked, wouldn’t the success in dealing with Electric Avenue have prevented 17 Ave.’s problems from ever happening?

It does not lead to promiscuity. Full stop. As I, and many others, mentioned when this issue was first addressed.

Bishop Fred Henry is of the belief that girls who have received the vaccine are led down the path to risky behaviour, and that’s not what his schools should be teaching.

He may not like to call them his schools, but as they take quite a bit of guidance from him, I’m sticking with that description.

Anyway, this study is just one in a line of others that prove the opposite of what Henry and the Catholic trustees have been saying.

Do I think they’ll change their tune? No. Sadly.

In fact, the new spin coming from other vaccine opponents would seem to give Henry more ammo, however faulty, should he choose to use it.

Some are now suggesting that the real issue is that if these girls are not promiscuous, then why should we be giving them a shot.

The same reason we give other vaccines: prevention. The vaccine can, with quite a bit of success, prevent young women from getting HPV should they come into contact with the virus at any point in their lives. Getting it to them before they become sexually active, whether it’s at 16 or 26, makes the most sense.

Same goes for boys, should they decide to make it available to them as well.

But hey, why let logic rule the day?

Some pitbull owners don’t like bites by their beloved breed reported on, will question the media’s balance on reporting other attacks, and will accuse us of supporting a breed ban. All this because a columnist had some harsh words for owners who don’t question bad owners, a provincial cabinet minister said it’s up for municipalities to institute bans and a poll on our website asking if readers supported a ban.

In our paper’s editorial today, we clearly lay the blame where it’s deserved, for those who were wondering.

Based on some of the comments on my column this week, I’m not sure it will persuade some.

But in reply to a couple of commenters (yes, I am pettily furthering the argument), Michael Platt didn’t call for a breed ban in in his column August 20. He has written the opposite in the past, and has been the one who reported that pitbulls aren’t the worst offenders in terms of total bites.

He did say “other breeds bite more frequently, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find a dog with the bloody-minded tenacity of the pitbull: once they attack, they rarely stop. Hence the massive damage to their victims,” but he never calls for a ban.

His point, quite rightly, is that if bad owners cause enough problems for the breed, without a change in focus, the community could see a ban imposed.

“It’s bad owners who are behind the vast majority of dog attacks, yet pitbull defenders never seem to ask why so many of their chosen breed end up with people who couldn’t properly raise a goldfish,” he wrote.

If they want to snarl, maybe those who love pitbulls should snarl at the people ruining the breed.”

Some pitbull owners get it, as evidenced in some of the comments under my column and Platt’s. Some don’t.

The problem isn’t the breed, or any breed.

But, as the band Sloan once sang “It’s not the band I hate, it’s their fans.”

I am baffled at some political and societal stances it takes, especially on the Northern Gateway, gossiping and Israel.

Oppression in some Muslim countries is not of concern to the church, but boycotting Israeli products is.

The gossiping item is just funny.

And then there’s the Northern Gateway pipeline. The church has categorically rejected the pipeline over environmental and supposed economic concerns. But how they can support that on a moral basis is baffling because, when on the other hand there is the benefit it will provide families, the economic spinoff to charities that comes from people earning a living and the benefit, despite the Church’s assertion to the contrary, the pipeline will provide Aboriginal communities through an equity stake in the project. Plus jobs to construct the pipeline, and jobs created through any oilsands expansion in Alberta. They are single-minded in their approach.

As I mentioned in my column regarding gay marriage, not all activism within and on the part of the church is wrong. But just like the Calgary Catholic School Board decision on the HPV vaccine in schools, there are some cases outside their moral boundaries.