[Table 5]

The NDP's policies having a negative effect on the economy and personal wealth of ownership is a reasonable hypothesis, but on the political front, I do find it a little funny that some assume that the PCs were more likely to have some sort of stadium deal done with the Flames...but now that the NDP is here, it's less likely.

At the end of the day, the Flames don't need a "deal" unless it means they are getting something from the Public (because if they are funding it all themselves they don't need to involve the provincial government, all they need to do is submit a development permit like every one else). So basically, some people assumed/hoped the right-wing "fiscally conservative" government was going to spend millions of public dollars to subsidize a private project... but the NDP, who people mock for being money-wasting commies, are going to keep their wallet's tight.

Shouldn't that be backwards? Shouldn't fiscal conservatives be the ones who say no to subsidizing things? What does it say about PC party values if they did have a deal in place to help out billionaires during an economic downturn?

When it comes to the politics of it all, there are really only two scenarios here one can assume:

Scenario A:
If still in power, the PC's wouldn't have given any public funding to the Flames because it went against their values. On the other hand, we now have a party in power who has a reputation of spending public money. So one would thus assume that the NDP are more likely to fund a stadium.

Scenario B:
By getting involved and subsidizing a privately owned enterprise with public funds, the PC's would have proven to be crappy fiscal conservatives. And in turn, if the NDP says no to public funds, they on paper are more conservative than the Conservatives.

You can't rail against the NDP for being a party that wastes money and raises taxes, and at the same time blame them for saying no to a subsidy.