Alberta Politics Thread

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think my definition is in any way perverting the meaning of "pragmatism" in the political context

There is no political context. Pragmatism can come from anywhere on the political/ideological spectrum.

but if using that word offends you, go ahead and call it whatever you want.

It's exactly what I called it - Ideology.

The point is that there's a qualitative difference between the two modes of governing, between the two types of policies I described above - doing things to keep the lights on and the system running, as opposed to doing things because they're morally virtuous. Do you disagree with that?

No, but again differences in modes of governing is IDEOLOGY.

I can also see and appreciate the virtue in both of the situations you describe. There's virtue in wanting to be fiscally responsible and there's virtue in wanting to reduce your carbon footprint. Which one is more moral again comes down to your IDEOLOGY.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

It's exactly what I called it - Ideology.

Well, this is clearly wrong. There's no inherent ideology involved in nuts and bolts governing, in making policies that advance the functionality of the system we live in. The ideology comes in when you start talking about how best to keep the system running. One side wants a policy that sees lower taxes on corporations, suggesting that this will employ more people, put more money in their pockets and increase consumer spending. Another says, no, the best way to do this is to give tax cuts to the lowest income individuals themselves, and that will cause them to spend more money, leading to demand that spurs employment. That's ideology. The category of policy-making isn't.

The same is true of morality-based policy. That aim isn't inherently ideological, the ideology comes in when people start arguing about what specific policies should be pursued. One side says that it's right that we should have easy access to abortion, because women have a right to choose when it comes to their bodies. The other side says we shouldn't, because abortion is murder. Those are ideologies.

I can also see and appreciate the virtue in both of the situations you describe. There's virtue in wanting to be fiscally responsible and there's virtue in wanting to reduce your carbon footprint. Which one is more moral again comes down to your IDEOLOGY.

Now you're equivocating on the meaning of "virtue". The term has multiple colloquial uses, and I'm using it in its moral sense.

It's not inherently virtuous to do practical things. There's an difference between doing something because it's sensible, and doing something because it's just the right thing to do, morally speaking.

Paying off your credit card at the end of the month is sensible. Not lying to people is the right thing to do. Both are actions we would encourage, but there's a clear difference between them, qualitatively. That seems intuitively obvious to me. Do you not see that distinction?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The sad thing is that the tools that he left, no debt and a healthy rainy day fund couldn't be spent and wrecked quick enough.

C'mon, Klein ####ed his successors proper. He jacked down stable government revenue through overly aggressive tax cuts and then jacked up program spending once the oil boom hit. Contratz Ralphie ol' boy... you saddled your successors with the two hardest tasks any government has to deal when commodity prices fell (That's tax hikes and/or program cuts).

Klein's governance was an unsustainable model.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Parallex

C'mon, Klein ####ed his successors proper. He jacked down stable government revenue through overly aggressive tax cuts and then jacked up program spending once the oil boom hit. Contratz Ralphie ol' boy... you saddled your successors with the two hardest tasks any government has to deal when commodity prices fell (That's tax hikes and/or program cuts).

Klein's governance was an unsustainable model.

Early Klein did a lot of good and necessary things for the province. Later Klein set the wheels in motion for the ####-show that followed.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm a huge proponent of Ralph, I know hes vilified because he 'gutted' the public service, but I also understand the circumstances that pretty much necessitated that. And make no mistake, its coming again. And it'll be worse this time.

This exactly. The mess that is being left right now will need to be cleaned up and it's going to take huge budget cuts all over again.

Klein's biggest failing was that he didn't have a plan for when the bills were all paid off so he started throwing money at the squeaky wheels. If he would have kept spending under control and started funneling extra resource dollars into the Heritage fund we would be better off today. However, the mistakes that Klein made were a fart in the wind compared to the last 10 years of incompetence ending with the crowning jewel of stupidity that is this current clown show.

[CaptainCrunch]

Calgary School fees soar despite NDP election promise to cut fees in half. Families can't afford to pay

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/11/20...ng-school-fees

he Calgary Board of Education has confirmed a 58% increase in families receiving fee waivers due to an inability to pay — a significant jump at a board where enrolment normally increases at only 2% annually, officials say.

While the NDP ran on a spring 2015 election platform of reducing school fees by 50% across the board, Eggen admitted the current economic reality has prevented them from reaching that goal.

[Dion]

[belsarius]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...090/story.html

The source said that if the deal is ratified, the two sides would divvy up the losses of the unprofitable PPAs, paving the way for the government to move ahead with its broader reforms of Alberta’s deregulated power market.

The cost to taxpayers is unclear at this point.

The province has apparently agreed to take on losses tied to the government hiking the carbon levy, while industry players would assume losses connected to slumping electricity prices that have sunk to 20-year lows.

Sounds like exactly what would work in the best interest of both parties. GoA pays for the costs associated with the carbon levy and industry doesn't get to off load market losses to the public.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...090/story.html




Sounds like exactly what would work in the best interest of both parties. GoA pays for the costs associated with the carbon levy and industry doesn't get to off load market losses to the public.

[OldDutch]

So, we are only on the hook for half the loss?

Seeing as Trudeau just announced federal phase out, would we have been on the hook provincially for anything had we waited?

Feels like NDP fudged up, and now are paying for half damages in a face save. Really interested in what the end story is on this. Just a mess.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

So, we are only on the hook for half the loss?

Seeing as Trudeau just announced federal phase out, would we have been on the hook provincially for anything had we waited?

Feels like NDP fudged up, and now are paying for half damages in a face save. Really interested in what the end story is on this. Just a mess.

Nah, we're (the taxpayer) on the hook for the whole thing. We either pay because the government settles this and saves face, or we pay because the utilities pay and pass it along.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

So, we are only on the hook for half the loss?

Seeing as Trudeau just announced federal phase out, would we have been on the hook provincially for anything had we waited?

Feels like NDP fudged up, and now are paying for half damages in a face save. Really interested in what the end story is on this. Just a mess.

The Fed announcement gave the provinces the leeway to determine how to meet that goal. It would still have been a provincial problem that made the PPAs "more unprofitable". The only difference would be the NDP could have tried to pass the blame to the Feds for forcing their hand.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Slava

Nah, we're (the taxpayer) on the hook for the whole thing. We either pay because the government settles this and saves face, or we pay because the utilities pay and pass it along.

That's not true either. The utilities were already in a loss situation and not passing it on to anyone. This saves the public from having to pay for those losses that the companies were already taking.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

That's not true either. The utilities were already in a loss situation and not passing it on to anyone. This saves the public from having to pay for those losses that the companies were already taking.

Well the PPAs weren't profitable before this legislation was dreamt up, I agree with you there. But to say that the utilities didn't profit isn't altogether accurate. They did make a lot of money from this arrangement through the years, although as cheaper sources became available (gas dropping significantly, being the major one) it became not profitable.

But we hit a point now where we are going to pay regardless. We either let the utilities out of the PPA deal due to the much discussed "Enron clause", or they recoup losses. No one is just going to eat this for the taxpayer at this point.

[Kjesse]

I'll wait to comment until we know the actual terms of settlement.

Note how the settlement seems to have been reached after the NDP threatened to retroactively change the law. By any measure that's dirty pool.

My guess at this point is the power companies need certainty to move forward and fighting a retroactive change in law would take 3 to 5 years and go to the SCC. They're in the business of power production not fighting corrupt governments.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'll wait to comment until we know the actual terms of settlement.

Note how the settlement seems to have been reached after the NDP threatened to retroactively change the law. By any measure that's dirty pool.

My guess at this point is the power companies need certainty to move forward and fighting a retroactive change in law would take 3 to 5 years and go to the SCC. They're in the business of power production not fighting corrupt governments.

And every company that's bidding on the provinces "green Energy" projects have just added a 20% just in case we get jacked by these morons surcharge.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'll wait to comment until we know the actual terms of settlement.

Note how the settlement seems to have been reached after the NDP threatened to retroactively change the law. By any measure that's dirty pool.

My guess at this point is the power companies need certainty to move forward and fighting a retroactive change in law would take 3 to 5 years and go to the SCC. They're in the business of power production not fighting corrupt governments.

And in 3-5 years, its a moot point because the NDP won't be in power.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, this is clearly wrong. There's no inherent ideology involved in nuts and bolts governing, in making policies that advance the functionality of the system we live in. The ideology comes in when you start talking about how best to keep the system running. One side wants a policy that sees lower taxes on corporations, suggesting that this will employ more people, put more money in their pockets and increase consumer spending. Another says, no, the best way to do this is to give tax cuts to the lowest income individuals themselves, and that will cause them to spend more money, leading to demand that spurs employment. That's ideology. The category of policy-making isn't.

Different parties have different policies and different ideas about how to make us function, and they implement them differently. Without the policies you describe the "nuts and bolts" simply do not work as you clearly state. So I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

The same is true of morality-based policy. That aim isn't inherently ideological, the ideology comes in when people start arguing about what specific policies should be pursued. One side says that it's right that we should have easy access to abortion, because women have a right to choose when it comes to their bodies. The other side says we shouldn't, because abortion is murder. Those are ideologies.

Morals are 100% based in Ideology, with out it there'd literally be nothing to aim for.

Now you're equivocating on the meaning of "virtue". The term has multiple colloquial uses, and I'm using it in its moral sense.

So was I.

It's not inherently virtuous to do practical things.

That's your opinion, not mine. Neither of them is wrong.

There's an difference between doing something because it's sensible, and doing something because it's just the right thing to do, morally speaking.

Again, your definition of what's sensible or the "right thing to do" might not be same as mine or anyone anyone else's. Sure, we may agree on some things but that doesn't mean I have to agree to everything you think is right.

Paying off your credit card at the end of the month is sensible. Not lying to people is the right thing to do. Both are actions we would encourage, but there's a clear difference between them, qualitatively. That seems intuitively obvious to me. Do you not see that distinction?

I guess I see moral virtue in both, and that's okay. You're the one who's ranking these in a qualitative manor, and thats okay too.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

And in 3-5 years, its a moot point because the NDP won't be in power.

Right, which makes this a thinly veiled extortion racket.

Banana Republic indeed.

Remind me again why all of this was needed at all again? Something, something carbon is bad?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

Different parties have different policies and different ideas about how to make us function, and they implement them differently. Without the policies you describe the "nuts and bolts" simply do not work as you clearly state. So I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

That there is a categorical difference between policy aimed at making the province function and policy aimed at doing the right thing. The ideology comes in when different parties start considering how they accomplish those goals.

I guess I see moral virtue in both, and that's okay. You're the one who's ranking these in a qualitative manor, and thats okay too.

I'm not ranking them, I'm distinguishing between them. I'm pretty surprised you don't see a categorical difference between paying off your credit card at the end of the month and donating to charity, and see both as actions motivated by morality. I think that's a pretty counterintuitive position, for most people.