Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=947

Referring to this.

[stone hands]

i dont need no booklearnin to be smart

commies are bad for the economy, duh. everyone knows this

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Regorium

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=947

Referring to this.

And as mentioned many times already this poll is pretty thoroughly discredited.

It was paid for by NDP booster Unifor, was not designed for public release and it was solely to inform how Unifor mobilized activists and organizers. It was leaked by the Union.

Also poll wasn’t uniquely randomized sample, but a repeated measures design poll for Unifor.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Evidence based policy proposals.

What are those 'evidence-based' policy proposals in this election campaign?

Which party has cornered this championship belt?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

And as mentioned many times already this poll is pretty thoroughly discredited.

It was paid for by NDP booster Unifor, was not designed for public release and it was solely to inform how Unifor mobilized activists and organizers. It was leaked by the Union.

Also poll wasn’t uniquely randomized sample, but a repeated measures design poll for Unifor.

While the poll results may be systemically flawed, the demographic distributions all have the same systemic error, and thus you can derive trends from the data.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by troutman

and the highly educated.

I would be very curious to see how this broke down in terms of the subject of their education, ie STEM/Business/medicine/Humanities/arts.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Unions - no surprise
Teachers - no surprise
Nurses - no surprise
Women - not in my circles
Artists - no surprise
LGBTQ - no surprise
Academics - no surprise
Highly educated - difficult to define "highly educated", but in my circles which some might define as highly educated ..... NDP has very minimal support

maybe he meant to say people with arts degrees.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I agree. They seem to be very nice and genuine people with balanced centre-weighted political views. That's not a party yet though. Just two nice guys. Sounds like the moving truck slogan...

Except the AP is running candidates in all 87 ridings, and some pretty strong ones at that.
A party is more than just who gets elected.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by stone hands

i dont need no booklearnin to be smart

Sometimes the more you dive down the rabbithole of formal education, you lose the plot as far as creating and applying practical solutions to the real world.

I'm not saying absence of education is ideal or that education is bad, just that far too often we yield to people who have spent all their time analyzing and studying things as opposed to people who are out there doing things. We then expect these people to have all the answers for real world applications and quite frankly more often than not they do not. But their academic success makes them far too overconfident that they do.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What are those 'evidence-based' policy proposals in this election campaign?

Which party has cornered this championship belt?

Well, I'm not an ideologue so I can pretty firmly say that neihter party has cornered this championship belt.

What I CAN say though is that letting the federal government impose a carbon tax on Alberta when Alberta already has one that was agreed to by the largest players in the energy sector, and then threatening to waste a bunch of money in a losing court battle with the Feds isn't an evidence based policy.

GSAs are an evidence based education initiative. There is no evidence based reason for limiting them, but there is evidence that having them reduces childhood suicide.

Imagine being pro childhood suicide because you used to spend your free time berating gay men.

I can get on board debating all sorts of things about corporate tax reductions vs mobilizing the work force with affordable daycare, but there is no evidence at all presented in their platform for where they are going to find 'efficiencies' in a healthcare system with the lowest admin costs in Canada. This is claptrap.

[stone hands]

Ivory tower intellectuals are the worst, I agree.

Second worst is all of my buddies who failed high school who went on to make 6 figures doing manual labour up north thinking they're so much better than everyone else because they suffer from terminal dunning-kreuger

Third worst is probably me :[

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Unions - no surprise
Teachers - no surprise
Nurses - no surprise
Women - not in my circles
Artists - no surprise
LGBTQ - no surprise
Academics - no surprise
Highly educated - difficult to define "highly educated", but in my circles which some might define as highly educated ..... NDP has very minimal support

Obviously it’s because they’re all racist homophobes.

[Ozy_Flame]

"Highly Educated" is a term that people throw around to refer to academic accomplishments, at least in the conventional sense. That line is now blurred because of the opportunity to self-educate through life experiences, and then use said experiences to build a portfolio of decisions to better your own life and/or society.

Education is a relative term to someone's one internal standards. I know a couple of PHD grads doing cool things and I know a few guys who made six figures in the patch with only a high school education. Both groups probably think they're intelligent and highly educated from an internal dialogue standpoint.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What I CAN say though is that letting the federal government impose a carbon tax on Alberta when Alberta already has one that was agreed to by the largest players in the energy sector, and then threatening to waste a bunch of money in a losing court battle with the Feds isn't an evidence based policy.

Academically, the Carbon tax is the best most efficient means of reducing carbon emissions . . . . . if there is a closed system where the carbon price is the same and applied in the same fashion in all jurisdictions/countries where capital can be invested. This is not currently the case.

Being the 'leader' in carbon pricing means you're the 'leader' in chasing away capital investment tied in any way to carbon (Ie Alberta's primary industry) to other less punitive jurisdictions. With the current government right now that means Alberta is closer to being on even footing with Canada but not most of the world. Right now our capital investment is not just fleeing the province but the entire country.

Also we need to talk about which federal government. The one currently in power or the one that will be in power for the majority of the next provincial term? They might be two different parties with different policies. There's a realistic scenario where we have an NDP government provincially and a Conservative federal government that abolishes the national carbon tax. In that scenario we can not only be non-competitive with foreign jurisdictions, we can also be non-competitive within our own country. If one cares about employment in Alberta over the next 4 years that could be a disaster!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Academically, the Carbon tax is the best most efficient means of reducing carbon emissions . . . . . if there is a closed system where the carbon price is the same and applied in the same fashion in all jurisdictions/countries where capital can be invested. This is not currently the case.

Being the 'leader' in carbon pricing means you're the 'leader' in chasing away capital investment tied in any way to carbon (Ie Alberta's primary industry) to other less punitive jurisdictions. With the current government right now that means Alberta is closer to being on even footing with Canada but not most of the world. Right now our capital investment is not just fleeing the province but the entire country.

Also we need to talk about which federal government. The one currently in power or the one that will be in power for the majority of the next provincial term? They might be two different parties with different policies. There's a realistic scenario where we have an NDP government provincially and a Conservative federal government that abolishes the national carbon tax. In that scenario we can not only be non-competitive with foreign jurisdictions, we can also be non-competitive within our own country. If one cares about employment in Alberta over the next 4 years that could be a disaster!

Scrapping the carbon tax because an incoming conservative federal government is planning on scrapping that requirement is an evidence based policy decision.

Scrapping the carbon tax, in favour of a DIFFERENT, carbon tax because it only impacts 'large emitters' and not 'regular folk' is populist claptrap.

Scrapping the carbon tax and replacing it with a different carbon tax because a federal conservative party might scrap a carbon tax requirement all together doesn't make any damned sense.

This is what I'm talking about. The UCP is just going to spend a ####load of money transitioning the economy again and upsetting the regulatory environment that sees alberta slowly but steadily emerging from a recession.

And what if the federal conservatives don't win, or don't win in a majority? Pretty effing big gamble on the Alberta economy. Doesn't sound very 'conservative' to me. It actually sounds reckless to me.

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by stone hands

dunning-kreuger
:[

Thanks! I learned something new today.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I'm not an ideologue so I can pretty firmly say that neihter party has cornered this championship belt.

What I CAN say though is that letting the federal government impose a carbon tax on Alberta when Alberta already has one that was agreed to by the largest players in the energy sector, and then threatening to waste a bunch of money in a losing court battle with the Feds isn't an evidence based policy.

GSAs are an evidence based education initiative. There is no evidence based reason for limiting them, but there is evidence that having them reduces childhood suicide.

Imagine being pro childhood suicide because you used to spend your free time berating gay men.

I can get on board debating all sorts of things about corporate tax reductions vs mobilizing the work force with affordable daycare, but there is no evidence at all presented in their platform for where they are going to find 'efficiencies' in a healthcare system with the lowest admin costs in Canada. This is claptrap.

Hmm, I wonder why this is...

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Academically, the Carbon tax is the best most efficient means of reducing carbon emissions . . . . .

I think this also applies to the 4% corporate tax decrease. Academically it should create jobs, but time and again it is shown to do nothing more than increase income disparity and benefit only those at the top.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is what I'm talking about. The UCP is just going to spend a ####load of money transitioning the economy again and upsetting the regulatory environment that sees alberta slowly but steadily emerging from a recession.

This is pure BS. The economy isn't 'recovering' because of the regulatory environment.

Here's potential election outcomes for you:

- UCP wins, CPC wins, Carbon tax abolished in both places, Alberta is more cost competitive with the world in it's most important industry

- UCP wins, LPC wins, Albertan's pay the federal carbon tax, lose some control of how the carbon funds are spent in Alberta, UCP spends money on legal challenges with other provinces. Investment climate with regards to carbon policy stays relatively similar to today.

- NDP wins, LPC wins, Status quo. Investment climate continues to be non-competitive with other global jurisdictions.

- NDP wins, CPC wins, Carbon tax abolished federally, but remains provincially. Investment climate in Alberta is immediately worse relative to other Canadian provinces and global jurisdictions.

On this one specific issue regardless of federal election outcome, voting for one party has asymmetrically better prospects and the other party has asymmetrically worse prospects.

And BTW with regards to 'diversification' many falsely equate positive oil and gas investment with lower non- oil and gas investment. This is patently false. We have resources, do we develop them to their potential or do we not? If we do, that's jobs and money Alberta reaps, if we don't that's jobs and money that we forgo.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I think this also applies to the 4% corporate tax decrease. Academically it should create jobs, but time and again it is shown to do nothing more than increase income disparity and benefit only those at the top.

This fellow disagrees

https://twitter.com/user/status/1113416483990798336