Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really??? Do you think Jason Kenney going to spend over $2 billion or anything approach the materially of the NDP cockups fighting these things in the court?

Who knows! Kenney seems to be digging his heels into fighting the federal government and BC on multiple issues. This could drag on for years, get ugly, and be a complete boondoggle, which it assuredly will be.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Who's talking about $20 billion? The fact that we are essentially gambling and will be spending millions to do so in both direct and indirect cost (e.g. direct lawyer costs, bureaucratic productivity man hours, opportunity cost spent governing) is probably going to climb.

This strategy is effectively playing Roulette with our taxpayer money and betting on 00, and we have one shot.

I'll give Kenney all kinds of credit if somehow this all comes together and we get back $20 billion for Alberta. That is just such pie-in-the-sky crap and we're all going to find that out very soon.

For Kenney's sake, I hope Scheer gets into power and the Conservatives bend over backwards to service Alberta's ridiculous demands.

You are when you claimed it was just as bad the NDP suing themselves. It objectively, quantifiably, by orders of magnitude, is not. Unless you're under the impression that a referendum and team of lawyers will cost 20 Bil? That is why I think you're horribly confused on the actual downside risk of this in regards to cost. It's inconsequential.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree, but you see how hypocritical fiscal conservatives come across when they say things like this, right? This is essentially someone who makes $100k/year dropping $50/month on lottery tickets. It's not a big dent but it's still money that could probably be spent better elsewhere.

Its more like someone with a $75k car deciding to pay for replacement insurance in case some idiot runs into them and ruins their car.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Ok. Not really sure how that applies but care to elaborate? Unless you think the duty to consult equals a veto. I agree proper consultation should be done.

I'm saying that putting pressure on the feds to get a pipeline moving that they can't get moving until they satisfy the conditions set out by the FCA (or until they've appealed the FCA's decision to the SCC and received a favourable ruling) is a poor use of resources and political capital.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Who's talking about $20 billion? The fact that we are essentially gambling and will be spending millions to do so in both direct and indirect cost (e.g. direct lawyer costs, bureaucratic productivity man hours, opportunity cost spent governing) is probably going to climb.

This strategy is effectively playing Roulette with our taxpayer money and betting on 00, and we have one shot.

I'll give Kenney all kinds of credit if somehow this all comes together and we get back $20 billion for Alberta. That is just such pie-in-the-sky crap and we're all going to find that out very soon.

For Kenney's sake, I hope Scheer gets into power and the Conservatives bend over backwards to service Alberta's ridiculous demands.

Every government in Canada has a staff of attorneys at all times.

What extra costs?

Maybe they bring in a constitutional specialist or a former SC judge to advise and guide them, but the cost will be negligible at best.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Its more like someone with a $75k car deciding to pay for replacement insurance in case some idiot runs into them and ruins their car.

Except insurance is guaranteed to pay out. Opening up the equalization dialogue has pretty poor odds of doing so.

[GGG]

I actually think that Fildebrandt had some good ideas in discussing how to put pressure on the government in Bunks podcast.

Essentially you demand that you get the same provincial powers as Quebec already has. You provincialize EI and CPP, and collect your own taxes. Quebec, per Fildebrandt is also in discussion to collect federal taxes on Canada’s behalf. Take over immigration to better address economic needs. I forget what else was all in there but it was essentially take control of every responsibility constitutionally given to the provinces and all responsibilities that have been ceded to Quebec.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree, but you see how hypocritical fiscal conservatives come across when they say things like this, right? This is essentially someone who makes $100k/year dropping $50/month on lottery tickets. It's not a big dent but it's still money that could probably be spent better elsewhere.

I think even the most fiscally conservative conservative still recognizes that government expenses are necessary, it would only be hypocritical if you advocated for no government spending ever. And I don't think trying to exact one of a precious few points of leverage available to us is akin to any way to buying a lottery ticket. And the total cost of all of this would have to swell to $250,000,000 to match the proportions of someone making 100k spending 600 dollars a year on lottery tickets.

[CliffFletcher]

I suppose one of the merits of a referendum on equalization is it will mean a lot of news stories, features, etc. on how equalization actually works and what it's for. Maybe my faith in the wisdom and compassion of Canadians is misguided, but I think once people understand it transfers money from places where there are a lot of young and affluent taxpayers to places where there are more older and poor Canadians so they can keep schools and hospitals open (or at least slow the rate at which they're closing), Canadians will vote to continue supporting the program.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I think even the most fiscally conservative conservative still recognizes that government expenses are necessary, it would only be hypocritical if you advocated for no government spending ever. And I don't think trying to exact one of a precious few points of leverage available to us is akin to any way to buying a lottery ticket. And the total cost of all of this would have to swell to $250,000,000 to match the proportions of someone making 100k spending 600 dollars a year on lottery tickets.

I guess we'll see. I honestly believe this has a bigger chance of backfiring on Alberta than it does seeing any meaningful concessions.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree, but you see how hypocritical fiscal conservatives come across when they say things like this, right? This is essentially someone who makes $100k/year dropping $50/month on lottery tickets. It's not a big dent but it's still money that could probably be spent better elsewhere.

In isolation, sure I guess.

But alternative is the previous guy who ran up a $60,000 credit card debt on an income of $50,000/year in just a span of 4 years. With no plan at all to pay it back, nevermind close the gap in spending.

And they took a $2,000 cash advance out just to light it on fire for fun and games.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

There seems to some confusion on Kenney's approach to the issue, here's the basics:

There's a clause from a Supreme Court Case of Quebec Secession in 1998 that states if a Province votes in favor of a referendum with a clear question that triggers immediate good faith negotiations on behalf of the Federal government in regards to that question. So voting on a referedum question on equalization obligates the Feds to negotiate, basically it just forces them to the table. So it's not about getting Provinces to join or lead a mutiny, just trying to make the Feds uncomfortable and make the case that if Alberta is continually unconstitutionally blocked from generating prosperity for the country we shouldn't be forced to pay disproportionately in to this program.

This is a very incomplete understanding of what that ruling was.

First, it was about a secession referendum, it isn't clearly defined if that would apply to all referendums. If effectively declared that a province can unilaterally secede, provided certain conditions are met (one being that there has to be a clear question, in this case the federal government would have to approve it to be bound by it).

It is also clear that the other provinces are brought in, because that is necessary for a Constitutional change to allow it to happen. For this to kick in, it obligates the feds and the other provinces to negotiate. If the other provinces aren't in the negotiation, you can't have a constitutional change, which again brings us back to the question:what is the referendum trying to achieve?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree, but you see how hypocritical fiscal conservatives come across when they say things like this, right? This is essentially someone who makes $100k/year dropping $50/month on lottery tickets. It's not a big dent but it's still money that could probably be spent better elsewhere.

No Fiscal conservatives aren't being hypocritical when they have a better grasp of the materiality of millions vs. billions than the people they are arguing with. There's a reason why the dollars and cents crowd is mostly lining up behind one horse in this race and the people who have trouble with them are mostly behind the party that makes up fantastical positive GDP numbers to rationalize billions in extra campaign promises on top of their already bloated deficit they created while in office.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I guess we'll see. I honestly believe this has a bigger chance of backfiring on Alberta than it does seeing any meaningful concessions.

Again I don't think it really goes there unless the trifecta of Alberta industry killing events happen. Transmountain cancelled and the 2 bills being passed by a re-elected liberal government.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

No Fiscal conservatives aren't being hypocritical when they have a better grasp of the materiality of millions vs. billions than the people they are arguing with. There's a reason why the dollars and cents crowd is mostly lining up behind one horse in this race and the people who have trouble with them are mostly behind the party that makes up fantastical positive GDP numbers to rationalize billions in extra campaign promises on top of their already bloated deficit they created while in office.

Is this the same dollars and cents crowd who completely lost their minds over the reported salary for Trudeau's nannies? There are plenty of examples of fiscal conservatives going bat#### over incredibly trivial amounts of money.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by chemgear

In isolation, sure I guess.

But alternative is the previous guy who ran up a $60,000 credit card debt on an income of $50,000/year in just a span of 4 years. With no plan at all to pay it back, nevermind close the gap in spending.

And they took a $2,000 cash advance out just to light it on fire for fun and games.

I guess I should add that I'm in no way defending the NDP's fiscal record over the last four years. I'm just saying that dropping dollars and resources into something that doesn't really appear to have a much of a plan or a legitimate chance of achieving its intended objective doesn't inspire a tonne of confidence.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

In isolation, sure I guess.

But alternative is the previous guy who ran up a $60,000 credit card debt on an income of $50,000/year in just a span of 4 years. With no plan at all to pay it back, nevermind close the gap in spending.

And they took a $2,000 cash advance out just to light it on fire for fun and games.

Or 35,000 in mortgage debt and 25,000 in student loan debt. Completely realistic for someone making 50,000 a year.

[Slava]

Surely I’m not the only one old enough to remember Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accord and what a complete mess that was? Opening the constitution “to just fix this one little thing” means opening it up and dealing with all kinds of junk.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Surely I’m not the only one old enough to remember Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accord and what a complete mess that was? Opening the constitution “to just fix this one little thing” means opening it up and dealing with all kinds of junk.

That's sort of the point. If you can show to be willing to push it to that length perhaps you get some concessions before it gets there.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Slava

Surely I’m not the only one old enough to remember Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accord and what a complete mess that was? Opening the constitution “to just fix this one little thing” means opening it up and dealing with all kinds of junk.

Yeah, that's the other thing that I think people are missing. Opening the constitution is basically a festivus celebration for the provinces, FN, various disaffected groups, etc.