Alberta Politics Thread

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

But Ralph Bucks was stupid. Really, really stupid.

But if all people see of his tenure is public spending cuts and Ralph Bucks then they're missing the forest for the trees. Its just their personal narrative to say that public spending can never be cut...or else.

[DiracSpike]

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.

But Ralph Bucks was stupid. Really, really stupid.

But if all people see of his tenure is public spending cuts and Ralph Bucks then they're missing the forest for the trees. Its just their personal narrative to say that public spending can never be cut...or else.

No for sure, I was like 15 when that happened and even I thought it was stupid. By any measure there was a lot of public good that money would have accomplished. It just has nothing to do with what's happening now, you know the current NDP policies are indefensible when people are invoking something that happened in 2005 instead of talking about the issues.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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

You summed up the entirety of the Klein tenure as pragmatism that maybe got out of hand, (taken to the extreme, not necessarily extreme by their nature) if you didn't mean that why did you write it?

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?

I don't know, you're the one that is putting me on the side to defend the NDP. You'll notice I haven't made a comment in this thread in regards to power production/transmission/regulation/contract law because I am out of my element and not qualified to speak on the subject matter, so I am very clearly not defending the NDP on this issue. It's you who has decided on this arbitrary, binary construct and when called out for your poorly reasoned analysis on the pragmatism and ideology of provincial government history, attempted to malign my position by associating me with the NDP.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You summed up the entirety of the Klein tenure as pragmatism that maybe got out of hand, (taken to the extreme, not necessarily extreme by their nature) if you didn't mean that why did you write it?

You then took that and imputed meaning to it that wasn't there, making comments about Ralph Bucks.

It's really simple. Take two guys, Bob and Joe, who aren't well off and are struggling to make ends meet. Both have families. One day, Bob and Joe both come into a significant amount of money by windfall.

Bob decides, "I'm going to use this to pay down my debt, and I'm going to invest the rest of it in some non-risky investments that'll give me a good return over time. It's not like this is going to make us rich or dramatically change our lifestyle, but it'll make things a lot easier on us". That's pragmatic. You might look at Bob and say he's sensible, but you're not going to say "that action makes you a virtuous person".

Joe decides, "I'm going to use this money to basically eliminate my family's carbon footprint. The whole nine yards - energy efficient appliances and plumbing, solar panels for electricity, everything I can do to make our lives less impactful on the environment. It'll never come close to paying for itself in terms of energy costs, and our day to day lives won't be any easier, but that's not why I'm doing it - I think it's important to do my part for the environment." That's an attempt to act in a virtuous manner.

Do you see the distinction I'm trying to draw?

It's you who has decided on this arbitrary, binary construct and when called out for your poorly reasoned analysis on the pragmatism and ideology of provincial government history, attempted to malign my position by associating me with the NDP.

You putting words in my mouth does not qualify as "calling me out for poorly reasoned analysis". This has roughly the value, as a contribution to the thread, as if you'd just posted "you're dumb! There, I win the argument! I declare it to be so!" It's obnoxious.

Moreover, I wasn't trying to "align you with the NDP". You suggested that the policies were equally pragmatic and that me observing that one set of policies is is aimed more at pragmatism while the other is aimed at virtue was just a matter of my perspective. I explained what I meant by "pragmatic", and asked you to clarify how the NDP's policies could possibly meet that definition.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's really simple. Take two guys, Bob and Joe, who aren't well off and are struggling to make ends meet. Both have families. One day, Bob and Joe both come into a significant amount of money by windfall.

Bob decides, "I'm going to use this to pay down my debt, and I'm going to invest the rest of it in some non-risky investments that'll give me a good return over time. It's not like this is going to make us rich or dramatically change our lifestyle, but it'll make things a lot easier on us". That's pragmatic. You might look at Bob and say he's sensible, but you're not going to say "that action makes you a virtuous person".

Joe decides, "I'm going to use this money to basically eliminate my family's carbon footprint. The whole nine yards - energy efficient appliances and plumbing, solar panels for electricity, everything I can do to make our lives less impactful on the environment. It'll never come close to paying for itself in terms of energy costs, and our day to day lives won't be any easier, but that's not why I'm doing it - I think it's important to do my part for the environment." That's an attempt to act in a virtuous manner.

Do you see the distinction I'm trying to draw?

What your describing is a difference in ideology. Both can be pragmatists if both are achieving their desired goals through action, which both seem to be doing in your examples.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

What your describing is a difference in ideology. Both can be pragmatists if both are achieving their desired goals through action, which both seem to be doing in your examples.

Can I take from this that you see no difference between an action undertaken solely out of a desire to be morally righteous, and one taken to simply keep the lights on?

If so, I disagree; I think there is a clear difference between the two. Typically, governments take both types of actions, and it's generally clear which is which (though there are certainly some policies that fall into a gray area). Whether one type of action is better for governments is a separate question, obviously, but I fail to understand why you would think they're the same.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

What your describing is a difference in ideology. Both can be pragmatists if both are achieving their desired goals through action, which both seem to be doing in your examples.

I think this is it entirely. The goals are completely different but I don't think one is more or less ideologically focused than the other. The NDP are focused on climate change regardless of the financial cost. Klein was focused on paying down the Debt regardless of the social costs.

The NDP policies may end up costing the province a lot in lose investment and extra costs. But Klein's policies also cost a lot in successive governments needing to play catchup and spending on infrastructure during a boom which highly inflated costs.

Their ideologies are vastly different but I don't think one was less ideological driven than the other.

I think a better comparison would have been Bob paying nothing to upkeep his home in order to pay it off fast not regarding how much it would cost in the future. And Joe is charging his credit card to keep his house up to snuff not regarding how much extra it is going to cost to pay off.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Can I take from this that you see no difference between an action undertaken solely out of a desire to be morally righteous, and one taken to simply keep the lights on?

I absolutely see a difference in their ideology, but it has nothing to do with pragmatism.

If so, I disagree; I think there is a clear difference between the two. Whether one type of action is better for governments is a separate question, obviously, but I fail to understand why you would think they're the same.

They both have different goals in life, and are both being pragmatic about them by taking action to achieve them.

how is that hard to understand?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 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 agree that they don't really have a plan, per se, but they do have an ideology. As you say, they are flying by the seat of their pants. They know what they want, but they have no real idea how to get from point A to B to C to D so are just seemingly launching at random.


And Flash - I think CHL, in his "pragmatism to the extreme" comment, clearly meant the early years with the hard cuts and single-minded goal of clearing the debt. Once he achieved that, Klein's later years got a little... directionless. Thus things like Ralphbucks.

Grimbl420 - Speaking of bringing up Klein - given how many liberal/left wing people think Klein went waaaaay too far in his cost cutting measures, and given I suspect you fit this grouping, I can only surmise that you are actually agreeing with my comments re: Notley but can't bring yourself to actually say it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

They both have different goals in life, and are both being pragmatic about them by taking action to achieve them.

how is that hard to understand?

It's not, you're just using a different definition of "pragmatism" than I am. I'm defining it as essentially an end in itself - stability, predictability, keeping the lights on... as distinct from policies that are touted as morally righteous (and in fact might be), but don't really do anything in the sense of keeping the system running optimally.

That's not to say that the latter sort of policies are bad inherently or that it's wrong for government to pursue policies of that sort. I'd suggest, for example, that legalizing gay marriage had more to do with morality than pragmatism, but it was still a good thing for the government to do.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Grimbl420 - Speaking of bringing up Klein - given how many liberal/left wing people think Klein went waaaaay too far in his cost cutting measures, and given I suspect you fit this grouping, I can only surmise that you are actually agreeing with my comments re: Notley but can't bring yourself to actually say it.

I Voted for Klein evert time I could. I also voted for Notley.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The NDP policies may end up costing the province a lot in lose investment and extra costs. But Klein's policies also cost a lot in successive governments needing to play catchup and spending on infrastructure during a boom which highly inflated costs.

Nice false equivalence. The NDP ideology fundamentally damages the employment situation in Alberta, and drives out private businesses permanently.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Nice false equivalence. The NDP ideology fundamentally damages the employment situation in Alberta, and drives out private businesses permanently.

Nice hyperbole.

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not, you're just using a different definition of "pragmatism" than I am. I'm defining it as essentially an end in itself - stability, predictability, keeping the lights on... as distinct from policies that are touted as morally righteous (and in fact might be), but don't really do anything in the sense of keeping the system running optimally.

that's the problem right there. "You're defining it". It only has one definition. You can't just change it to suit your ideological needs.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think my definition is in any way perverting the meaning of "pragmatism" in the political context, but if using that word offends you, go ahead and call it whatever you want. 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?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

given how many liberal/left wing people think Klein went waaaaay too far in his cost cutting measures

Klein went way to far in his everything.

He went way to far in his cost cutting measures... then went way to far in his revenue cutting measures... then went way to far in his spending measures. Alberta's current fiscal situation is as ####ed up as it is as a downstream result of Klein's mismanagement.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Nice hyperbole.

I don't think you know what the word means.

I know its the defense mechanism of NDP supporters, but look at the effects of their policies on the economy of the province and look at what's yet to come when the full weight of those policies hit in the new year

Yes absolutely low commodity prices have to take a share of the blame or effect. But the NDP party is literally acting like a grave digger throwing dirt on the face of a still alive person.

At the end of the day you can throw out the word hyperbole as much as you want but hyperbole is rooted in truth and the feel or interpretation of the person that's using the hyperbole.

[DiracSpike]

Klein left this province with zero debt, a Heritage fund, and a booming private sector that was allowed to thrive through minimal Government interference. That would pretty much be a pipe dream to any other district in the world. Sure, not all jurisdictions have the luxury of resource revenues, but you only have to look at how the three inept succeeding leaders managed to bungle that legacy that it's still a difficult and impressive feat.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day you can throw out the word hyperbole as much as you want but hyperbole is rooted in truth and the feel or interpretation of the person that's using the hyperbole.

Ah, good ol' Truthiness.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Klein went way to far in his everything.

He went way to far in his cost cutting measures... then went way to far in his revenue cutting measures... then went way to far in his spending measures. Alberta's current fiscal situation is as ####ed up as it is as a downstream result of Klein's mismanagement.

He did, but at the end of the day the things that he did leave. A debt free province, a rainy day fund of about 15 billion, were all pissed away by successive governments who didn't see a dollar that they didn't want to spend.

When he ran for premiere this province was in debt to the tune of about 20 billion dollars in 1993 dollars.

When he ran for election he ran on cutting public spending and he ran on rapid repayment of the provincial debt, and he won in a landslide so at least he was honest in his campaigning a pretty rare thing today.

But the repayment and the cuts, had to happen because this province was broke and interest payments were going to strangle any future growth.

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 by incompetence corruption and outright stupidity.

I'm not saying that austerity based politics will make a comeback here. This generation doesn't have the stomach for it. But spending cuts are going to have to happen, and the rapid growth of the public sector is going to have to stop, especially in the management and administrative areas.

Or our largest social program spending will be in the form of interest payments.