Alberta Politics Thread

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Lots of stats here for the stats guys

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/electricity/682.asp

Resolute is 100% correct here. Approx 80% of total usage is residential. Any increases or rate riders will be passed on directly to these users.

As if the NDP needed more dirt on their grave, if they do this you might as well dump a truckload of cement on the tombstone.

Isn't the total residential usage 18%? 9882 GWh of 54,877 total in 2015.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Isn't the total residential usage 18%? 9882 GWh of 54,877 total in 2015.

Aw crap, you're right. I was looking at number of users and mistook that for GWH

I stand corrected.

That's actually pretty interesting, I believe the split 20 years go was closer to 50/50.

In that case it's going to be passed on primarily to businesses. Fun times to be a manufacturer in Alberta.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And to do it, Notley essentially needs to declare war on the poor and the middle class. The complete opposite of what she promised.

This is what an ideological driven government gets you.

Really? this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. So the political party you subscribe to has no ideological views? and would never govern based on them?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view point on the NDP, but you need to look up the definition of ideology.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

Really? this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. So the political party you subscribe to has no ideological views? and would never govern based on them?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view point on the NDP, but you need to look up the definition of ideology.

I dont think its stupid at all. As per the bolded: wouldnt Govern 'exclusively' on them.

The NDP is following through on promises and programs despite the fact that they are detrimental to the people of Alberta.

They are raising costs and imposing financial burdens at a point of almost record unemployment and recession.

Its called 'kicking someone when they're down.'

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Aw crap, you're right. I was looking at number of users and mistook that for GWH

I stand corrected.

That's actually pretty interesting, I believe the split 20 years go was closer to 50/50.

In that case it's going to be passed on primarily to businesses. Fun times to be a manufacturer in Alberta.

Yeah it doesn't really make it any better. I haven't done enough looking into what they are doing to actually have an informed opinion, but just another cost heaped onto businesses is not going to help.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Aw crap, you're right. I was looking at number of users and mistook that for GWH

I stand corrected.

That's actually pretty interesting, I believe the split 20 years go was closer to 50/50.

In that case it's going to be passed on primarily to businesses. Fun times to be a manufacturer in Alberta.

Oil and gas producers are big electricity users as well, I'm sure they are looking forward to this kick while they are down.

Edit: just for the record I was writing this response while Locke posted, I didn't steal the kick while down idiom. Obviously, great minds yada yada.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont think its stupid at all. As per the bolded: wouldnt Govern 'exclusively' on them.

The NDP is following through on promises and programs despite the fact that they are detrimental to the people of Alberta.

They are raising costs and imposing financial burdens at a point of almost record unemployment and recession.

Its called 'kicking someone when they're down.'

I don't disagree on the NDP, but all political parties are based in ideology. Just because you don't agree with the current governments ideology doesn't mean the party you do agree with doesn't have their own.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Plus as much as I hate to defend Kenney, he isn't totally wrong in the ambiguity of the rule.

I'd agree with that except that Kenney took it to the level that no reasonable person could conclude that he wasn't breaking the rules. It was in the same building and on the same floor the only way he could have been nearer was if he set up a tent inside the room.

Specificity goes a long way to preventing borderline breaches. This wasn't a borderline breach.

I'm sure if he breaks another rule it won't be an automatic 5k, I would see a second strike (depending on severity) as forfeiting the rest, and a third being kicked out of the race.

Why not make it 10K then? Another 10K hit would then eat up the rest of his bond and a third strike puts him out. Same result as an escalating fine except you send a stronger message the first time out.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Absolutely.

If the government says "hey let's build the infrastructure to carry the renewable gen capacity to market" guess who is going to pay? Taxpayers.

So yeah, we have to potential (as taxpayers) to be on the hook for:

- Line infrastructure upgrades
- capacity subsidies (NDP will subsidize renewables when they aren't generating, which is more than 50% of the time)
- price spikes in the market (who knows what those may be)
- PPE contract cancellation penalties

What am I missing?

With Alberta having limited ties to other grids, there's would also be an increased risk of a Alberta-wide blackout if too little dispatchable electricity generation is kept. Like what happened in South Australia recently when several wind farms stopped generating without warning.

[para transit fellow]

From the National Post;

Kenny's Quest part 1

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...uest-episode-1

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

I don't disagree on the NDP, but all political parties are based in ideology. Just because you don't agree with the current governments ideology doesn't mean the party you do agree with doesn't have their own.

Ideology might not have been the best way to put it, but he's essentially saying that the NDP are governing on the basis that their cause is righteous, not that it will actually be good for Albertans. Some governments will govern in a practical, nuts and bolts type of way, rather than to achieve some overall societal goal that they think is virtuous.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ideology might not have been the best way to put it, but he's essentially saying that the NDP are governing on the basis that their cause is righteous, not that it will actually be good for Albertans.

"So did every government" say's the people that don't agree with it or are most by affected it. You're also assuming that all albertans are impacted negatively by the NDP and that simply isn't true.

Some governments will govern in a practical, nuts and bolts type of way, rather than to achieve some overall societal goal that they think is virtuous.

Like Klein did? or like Prentice wanted to do? Ask the people who were negatively affected by Klein's austerity what they think of his government, and their answer will be eerily similar to your opinion of the NDP.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

Really? this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. So the political party you subscribe to has no ideological views? and would never govern based on them?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view point on the NDP, but you need to look up the definition of ideology.

Well, to fully flesh out my thought fragment there, this is what a government that eschews reality and pragmatism in favour of blind devotion to ideology gets you. Notley and the NDP are intent on remaking society as a whole to suit their delusions, and they honestly don't care how much damage they do in the process.

And the people who will suffer most are the ones that they claimed to be fighting for when they were elected.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

Like Klein did? or like Prentice wanted to do? Ask the people who were negatively affected by Klein's austerity what they think of his government, and their answer will be eerily similar to your opinion of the NDP.

Maybe so, but rather than appeals to the subjective emotion of those worst affected, look at it objectively; Klein's austerity was pragmatism taken to the extreme.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, to fully flesh out my thought fragment there, this is what a government that eschews reality and pragmatism in favour of blind devotion to ideology gets you. Notley and the NDP are intent on remaking society as a whole to suit their delusions, and they honestly don't care how much damage they do in the process.

And the people who will suffer most are the ones that they claimed to be fighting for when they were elected.

I could say the same of the previous government's tenure and their complete inaction on infrastructure or climate change or their complete boneheadedness in not planning for a bust in the boom and bust economy that is Alberta.

Again I don't totally disagree with you on the NDP but I understand their stance, in the fact that they're trying to implement their elected platform in probably the worst time for them to be doing it. They're in a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation, and don't envy the choices they have to make.

[CaptainCrunch]

If they were going by their election promises?

But they're not, the carbon tax is a prime example of that because they knew that if in their platform they said we will implement a carbon tax they're still a party sitting in the cheap seats on the opposition side of the house.

Right now they're flailing badly and it almost seems like they're panicking because they're learning that governing is hard. And because of that they're blundering and they're going to crush the people (The poor and middle class) that they're supposed to be champions of.

They aren't governing by ideology at all. They're governing stupidly and compounding their blunders with mistakes and then throwing on a whipped cream topping of complete incompetence.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Maybe so, but rather than appeals to the subjective emotion of those worst affected, look at it objectively; Klein's austerity was pragmatism taken to the extreme.

Apologetics are rampant.

Klein threatened to use the non-withstanding clause specifically "to achieve some overall societal goal that they think is virtuous", as was the near cult like following 'balancing the books' received.

You're arguing that Klein's policies were pragmatic as if giving each albertan $400 was the logical, non-ideologically motivated natural order of things. Not because these policies themselves are pragmatic, but because the tenure of Klein's leadership is ostensibly pragmatic in your eyes.

The worst part of it is I don't think you have any idea how partisan you sound when you argue from the perspective that Klein's tenure is the result of pragmatism but the NDP tenure thus far is ideologically motivated.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're arguing that Klein's policies were pragmatic as if giving each albertan $400 was the logical, non-ideologically motivated natural order of things. Not because these policies themselves are pragmatic, but because the tenure of Klein's leadership is ostensibly pragmatic in your eyes.

Did I? Wow, that's strange, because I certainly don't remember typing that. Would you mind not putting words in my mouth, please?

I'm not endorsing specific policies, I'm saying the motivation behind them was, in my view, basic functionality and stability - providing the services that can be paid for. That's what I mean by pragmatism, and there's nothing virtuous about it at all. How can the NDP's goals possibly be spun as being primarily aimed at functionality? That's a serious question, how do their actions lead to stability?

[DiracSpike]

How badly do the NDP have to eff up before the apologists stop bringing up minor qualms they had with the PC's from a decade ago?

This is the most incompetent Government in my lifetime and you're bringing up Ralph bucks, seriously.

[Tron_fdc]

I dunno fellas, I don't think the NDP is openly and intellectually governing according to ideology on this one. I see no "plan".

I truly think they're flying by the seat of their pants. They have no idea what they're doing and are implementing/changing legislation to try and fit their climate change narrative. Again, they have an idea what they want but absolutely no realistic plan to get it.

Back in '99 there was only a very small handful of people who knew what deregulation meant. I doubt those people are still around, and I know for sure they're not (for lack of a better term) NDPers. Every step the NDP makes REEKS of amateur hour here. No industry professionals, no consultations, just individuals in their party saying we want more renewables. That's perfectly fine, but how are you going to do it without creating Ontario 2.0?