Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yet another poll today that does not bode well for anyone except the UCP.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uplo...ril-4-2019.pdf

Of particular note is page 14 where people list their top issues.

The one Kenney is attacking is Albertans' top priority.

The one Notley is attacking isn't even on the list.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yet another poll today that does not bode well for anyone except the UCP.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uplo...ril-4-2019.pdf

I'm not sure this is great for the UCP, either, as it shows only a 9 point lead. In the circumstances, that's actually tighter than I'd have thought at this point. Satisfaction is closer than I would have thought, too. Calgary mirrors the overall province in most results, and based on that, a 9 point lead may be totally insurmountable eight days out, but it has been shrinking.

[Calgary14]

Here is a summary article on the results of the carbon tax: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ated-1.5050438

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure this is great for the UCP, either, as it shows only a 9 point lead. In the circumstances, that's actually tighter than I'd have thought at this point. Satisfaction is closer than I would have thought, too. Calgary mirrors the overall province in most results, and based on that, a 9 point lead may be totally insurmountable eight days out, but it has been shrinking.

I find that just looking at a poll in isolation might lead you to think the UCP support is shrinking.

However, when you compared this poll the the previous one done by ledger, they have the UCP unchanged, and the ndp 3 points higher.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elec...acker/alberta/

Pretty much every poll show UCP support unchanged in the last couple of weeks but with ndp support growing.

[transplant99]

Well...he said he will pick a fight with BC and he aint backin down.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1115319649212583936

[Ozy_Flame]

I know they'll win - likely with a majority - but I have to wonder if the UCP thought this was going to be a resounding 60-75% balance in-favor.

The polls generally show only half of Albertans want what the UCP is selling. It's not exactly a mudhole stomping at about 50-55%, at least in my opinion.

I hope the UCP will govern for every Albertan, not just their voters. And that they will be able to make platform adjustments in an honest and communicative fashion and without derision or vitriol as the province recovers.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

Here is a summary article on the results of the carbon tax: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ated-1.5050438

Of particular note, they predict $2.6 billion brought in through the tax to this point. And based on that nice little pie chart, less than 40% of it has been used to cover green initiatives or rebates.

Even by Notley's completely effed up understanding of what "revenue neutral" means, her tax isn't close to revenue neutral.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by jammies

The unemployed cost governments more than they produce, making this trivially true, no matter what tax system you have. Do you have a point?

Yes, claiming a "stable PST would make our economy less susceptible to the swings on natural resources" is wishful thinking, as the employment levels are susceptible to natural resources swings in Alberta.

When things are on a downswing there's lower employment, lower spending, and therefore lower revenue from a PST. Where is the stability?

[Calgary14]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Of particular note, they predict $2.6 billion brought in through the tax to this point. And based on that nice little pie chart, less than 40% of it has been used to cover green initiatives or rebates.

Even by Notley's completely effed up understanding of what "revenue neutral" means, her tax isn't close to revenue neutral.

And not only that, the total of $2.6B collected from carbon taxes has resulted in about a 1% reduction in emissions in Alberta (3 million tonne reduction quoted by Notley in the article, and in 2016 total Alberta emissions were 262.9 million tonnes)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Zarley

The Edmonton numbers don’t look good for the NDP in this poll: 49% UCP, 37% NDP. They had a fairly significant lead there, and if that’s evaporated they are in trouble.

I question that poll, because that would be a 180 from all the other polls with regard to Edmonton over the past few weeks.

That said, Edmonton is very dependent on the provincial government. As a result a lot of people there base their vote on who's winning so that they at least have representation in government. Back in the 90s Edmonton went through a very tough time after the Klein government took power with virtually no PC MLAs from Edmonton. Below David Staples highlights the anxiety many Edmontonians might feel about a change in government that isn't necessarily supported by Edmonton MLAs:

https://edmontonjournal.com/business...dangerous-2019

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I know they'll win - likely with a majority - but I have to wonder if the UCP thought this was going to be a resounding 60-75% balance in-favor.

The polls generally show only half of Albertans want what the UCP is selling. It's not exactly a mudhole stomping at about 50-55%, at least in my opinion.

I hope the UCP will govern for every Albertan, not just their voters. And that they will be able to make platform adjustments in an honest and communicative fashion and without derision or vitriol as the province recovers.

50% is devastation for the NDP. FPTP, baby!

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Shazam

50% is devastation for the NDP. FPTP, baby!

That's awesome!

[Flash Walken]

Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark!

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Of particular note, they predict $2.6 billion brought in through the tax to this point. And based on that nice little pie chart, less than 40% of it has been used to cover green initiatives or rebates.

Even by Notley's completely effed up understanding of what "revenue neutral" means, her tax isn't close to revenue neutral.

It's revenue neutral because it barely covers the yearly interest that we will be paying every year from now on just in interest payments on the NDP uncontrolled spending over just 4 years.

Neutral baby!

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

And not only that, the total of $2.6B collected from carbon taxes has resulted in about a 1% reduction in emissions in Alberta (3 million tonne reduction quoted by Notley in the article, and in 2016 total Alberta emissions were 262.9 million tonnes)

Wow. Almost $900 a tonne. Such a deal. Wait...$867 per tonne.

We should just buy some of those Murray Edward's hyperloop carbon sucker doo-dads. Those are like $150 a ton.

[DiracSpike]

Pretty clear Horgan and friends are scared ####less of Alberta turning off the taps. Which is weird because oil is bad and pipelines are ticking time bombs of environmental destruction.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

And not only that, the total of $2.6B collected from carbon taxes has resulted in about a 1% reduction in emissions in Alberta (3 million tonne reduction quoted by Notley in the article, and in 2016 total Alberta emissions were 262.9 million tonnes)

Further to that point, the main reasons emissions have dropped is the coal phase-out and the increased efficiency of oil-sands processing.

The carbon tax itself has done almost nothing to reduce emissions. That's why the NDP (and federal Libs) would/will have to massively increase the tax to actually have any effect on outputs.

And even further to that, these changes will have exactly zero effect on the environment at all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Wow. Almost $900 a tonne. Such a deal. Wait...$867 per tonne.

We should just buy some of those Murray Edward's hyperloop carbon sucker doo-dads. Those are like $150 a ton.

Saying it cost $900 is hyperbole like saying it cost $0. It has to be greater than zero as otherwise no behaviour change would occcur but it’s not $900 either as most of what happens is wealth transfer rather than just cost addition.

The question on how much it cost is much more complicated than just comparing the two headline numbers. You would need to answer did the cost of goods increase at a greater amount than the Carbon tax collected. Otherwise you are including how the tax was spent with is the tax a cost effective way of reducing Carbon.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by GGG

Saying it cost $900 is hyperbole like saying it cost $0. It has to be greater than zero as otherwise no behaviour change would occcur but it’s not $900 either as most of what happens is wealth transfer rather than just cost addition.

The question on how much it cost is much more complicated than just comparing the two headline numbers. You would need to answer did the cost of goods increase at a greater amount than the Carbon tax collected. Otherwise you are including how the tax was spent with is the tax a cost effective way of reducing Carbon.

Sure the wealth re-distrubution part of it stays in the economy so isn't a direct $/ton factor, although it infuriates me all the same.
Of the $2.6B the re-distribution amounted to $450MM (according to this article) so I think it is fair to say the rest of the money is spent on "projects/investments" to reduce green house gas.

So maybe $733/ton is more realistic, when talking about how much money they sucked out of the taxpayers.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

And not only that, the total of $2.6B collected from carbon taxes has resulted in about a 1% reduction in emissions in Alberta (3 million tonne reduction quoted by Notley in the article, and in 2016 total Alberta emissions were 262.9 million tonnes)

So basically margin of error?