Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Yet you continue to hold NDP to a much much much higher standard than the ####ing idiots you helped vote in.

So what’s the problem? Apparently he has flipped his position, that would be a good thing no?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

So what’s the problem? Apparently he has flipped his position, that would be a good thing no?

Maybe I've missed something different, but he's said recently that he will not vote NDP.

Abstaining is cowardly. I'd normally defend someone throwing a vote to a hopeless party, but I think that will also be a cowardly move this time unless that voter can honestly say they believe in those policies.

But I'm gonna guess that very few people know who is currently the leader of the Alberta Party or any of their platform planks.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Maybe I've missed something different, but he's said recently that he will not vote NDP.

Abstaining is cowardly. I'd normally defend someone throwing a vote to a hopeless party, but I think that will also be a cowardly move this time unless that voter can honestly say they believe in those policies.

But I'm gonna guess that very few people know who is currently the leader of the Alberta Party or any of their platform planks.

I must have missed that. I agree abstaining is cowardly, or lazy.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Maybe I've missed something different, but he's said recently that he will not vote NDP.

Abstaining is cowardly. I'd normally defend someone throwing a vote to a hopeless party, but I think that will also be a cowardly move this time unless that voter can honestly say they believe in those policies.

But I'm gonna guess that very few people know who is currently the leader of the Alberta Party or any of their platform planks.

This is the attitude I see more and more. If you’re not voting UCP, that’s good, but only if you vote for the NDP. I’m not a big fan of that because it just encourages more divisiveness and polarization.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is the attitude I see more and more. If you’re not voting UCP, that’s good, but only if you vote for the NDP. I’m not a big fan of that because it just encourages more divisiveness and polarization.

In normal/historical politics I'd agree (honestly I hate the notion of strategic voting). But this has been completely ####ed.

Frankly I don't give a damn if snowflake "conservatives" get their feelings hurt at this point.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is the attitude I see more and more. If you’re not voting UCP, that’s good, but only if you vote for the NDP. I’m not a big fan of that because it just encourages more divisiveness and polarization.

In the before times I would agree. But now we're left with one somewhat normal political party and a party of absolute bat#### insanity, how is this even a choice? The NDP are perceived to be bad for the O&G industry, even though Notley turned into a staunch defender of Alberta oil once she was actually in power. The UCP are doing far more real damage to healthcare and education, and if left unchecked will likely screw up our pensions, police force, film industry, and cost us millions in tax dollars once the inevitable lawsuits against the "sovereignty act" start coming

Or is that still not enough to overcome the Notley boogywoman?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

In the before times I would agree. But now we're left with one somewhat normal political party and a party of absolute bat#### insanity, how is this even a choice? The NDP are perceived to be bad for the O&G industry, even though Notley turned into a staunch defender of Alberta oil once she was actually in power. The UCP are doing far more real damage to healthcare and education, and if left unchecked will likely screw up our pensions, police force, film industry, and cost us millions in tax dollars once the inevitable lawsuits against the "sovereignty act" start coming

Or is that still not enough to overcome the Notley boogywoman?

Well that’s the polarization I was talking about. The idea that we have two choices and neither one is particularly appealing is more like a two party system that we see south of the border, which is far from ideal. What we have now is “vote for the NDP because the UCP is terrible”. That’s not exactly inspiring, despite the fact it’s true that the UCP is terrible.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Yet you continue to hold NDP to a much much much higher standard than the ####ing idiots you helped vote in.

You must have missed many posts where I called Jason Kenney a used car salesman. Or the fact I sent an email to my MLA Roger Reid about the parties stance on de indexing people on AISH and how I got nothing more than canned response from that idiot. I was far from being supportive of the party.

Reading comprehension seems to a problem here with you and others that only choose to believe that I somehow love the UCP and will be voting for them. That part I can't change, so believe whatever you want.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well that’s the polarization I was talking about. The idea that we have two choices and neither one is particularly appealing is more like a two party system that we see south of the border, which is far from ideal. What we have now is “vote for the NDP because the UCP is terrible”. That’s not exactly inspiring, despite the fact it’s true that the UCP is terrible.

Do you have objections to specific NDP policies or the general idea of the NDP?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well that’s the polarization I was talking about. The idea that we have two choices and neither one is particularly appealing is more like a two party system that we see south of the border, which is far from ideal. What we have now is “vote for the NDP because the UCP is terrible”. That’s not exactly inspiring, despite the fact it’s true that the UCP is terrible.

Dude.. there’s two viable parties. NDP and UCP. So if you’re not voting NDP, it implies you’re either abstaining () or voting UCP ()

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you have objections to specific NDP policies or the general idea of the NDP?

Fiscally, they’re terrible. On energy they did a number of things that were emblematic of their ideological approach to things (the royalty review, the appointment of Tzeporah Berman spring to mind). And the continued bloating of the public service under the guise of creating better infrastructure and providing better service to Albertans. Then you have the broken promises about school fees, and the laughable cabinet appointments. And you know I didn’t mention the billions spent on their power debacle, the lightbulbs, the borrowing to pay all these people to do this junk. It was fiscally pathetic. The only reason it looks ok now is we got another royalty boom to cover the tab.

It’s not like they were this bastion of good government. They totally got lucky, and it reminds me of the Eddie Murphy bit in Delirious where he’s imitating the white guy saying he was drunk and yelling “I just voted for Jesse Jackson!” The punchline (delivered only as Murphy can) is the same sobered up guy who says “he ####ing won?!” That’s 2015.

And I’ll just say it now. No the UCP isn’t better, because I know that’s what people are going to ask. But that’s my point…two options and a lot of people don’t really want to vote for either.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Dude.. there’s two viable parties. NDP and UCP. So if you’re not voting NDP, it implies you’re either abstaining () or voting UCP ()

Aren’t you in BC?

[GGG]

Why do you see the royalty review as an example of bad governance?

The government made a campaign promise, delivered on the promise, hired experts to evaluate, the listened to experts when they told them they were wrong and tweaked the royalty system rather than just take more.

What other government has followed expert advice that directly conflicted with their beliefs and idealogical.

Do you believe Smith would ever make this decision like this.
It took Kenny until hospitals were overwhelmed to make that decision.

The rest almost doesn’t matter

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do you see the royalty review as an example of bad governance?

The government made a campaign promise, delivered on the promise, hired experts to evaluate, the listened to experts when they told them they were wrong and tweaked the royalty system rather than just take more.

What other government has followed expert advice that directly conflicted with their beliefs and idealogical.

Do you believe Smith would ever make this decision like this.
It took Kenny until hospitals were overwhelmed to make that decision.

The rest almost doesn’t matter

The royalty review matters because a competent government would’ve done what every party does when they campaign on dumb things. They could’ve reversed their course. When the federal Liberals campaigned on removing the GST, they bailed on that, because it was the sensible thing to do.

[Harry Lime]

Doesn't that list of NDP gaffs just seem quaint in comparison to the UCP? Laughable cabinet appointments? The Kenney cabinet, as well as the minor Smith shuffle are full of the most loathsome characters I've ever seen. I barely knew any of their names before they took office, but now I associate their names with the lowest of the low.

The latest Smith vote buying venture (inflation relief) gives money to rich people because they happen to have children, whilst ignoring poor people because they have not, or can not. What absolute scum. The NDP issues feel like a nursery rhyme.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

The royalty review matters because a competent government would’ve done what every party does when they campaign on dumb things. They could’ve reversed their course. When the federal Liberals campaigned on removing the GST, they bailed on that, because it was the sensible thing to do.

So are you against the revised royalty structure for conventional gas wells?

I disagree with you that a competent government would just know the answer without doing the research. Research like a review of the current structure with review by industry experts and make recommended changes. If you don’t review the structure on what basis do you assume it’s correct?

[Muta]

I'll just keep bringing up the $1.4 billion that the UCP bet with our money on an already failed pipeline, and lost. Just. ####ing. Gave. Away. They should never, ever be given a free pass for this. This is worse and more irresponsible than anything the ANDP did while in power. People need to be reminded of this for generations.

Conservatives have so, so much more egg on their face in this province. They are absolutely terrible at money management, are socially regressive, and are trying to hang on to the 'good ol' days' while the rest of the world has changed. Their time is done, they had their chance for over 40 years. The fact that some want to attack the NDP for their 'record', versus the party they're competing against and the history they've established, is absolutely embarrassing.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Slava

The royalty review matters because a competent government would’ve done what every party does when they campaign on dumb things. They could’ve reversed their course. When the federal Liberals campaigned on removing the GST, they bailed on that, because it was the sensible thing to do.

Competent government, competent leader.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1194693739802849280

https://pressprogress.ca/calgary-rad...tish-columbia/

With talk of Alberta separatist sentiment running high, right-wing Calgary radio host Danielle Smith spent part of Wednesday’s broadcast pondering whether Alberta could expand its territory to the Pacific Ocean — by taking over half of British Columbia.

Smith, the former leader of Alberta’s Wildrose Party who now hosts a daily radio show on Calgary’s News Talk 770, welcomed a guest to start a “conversation” about whether Alberta could “redraw” its provincial borders.

Gerard Lucyshyn, a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, told Smith about a recent report he authored at the right-wing think tank which advocates “redrawing” Alberta and Saskatchewan’s borders in order to “secure tide-water rights for the Prairie provinces.”

At one point in the show, Smith said Alberta’s boundaries are “totally arbitrary.”

“We only established our boundaries in 1905,” Smith noted. “If it’s only been 120 years or so, 115 years, why couldn’t we reconsider what our boundaries are and redraw them once again?”

Smith further suggested Alberta could “renegotiate our borders” in order to “correct this historic problem.”

While she conceded she does not know “if this would fly,” the former Wildrose leader ended her segment by concluding that the idea of a “new province of Alberta” that includes territory taken away from BC deserves some serious thought.

“Jeepers, if it’s as easy as an Order-in-Council, I say let’s maybe look at doing this,” Smith said.

[direwolf]

Jesus H Christ, this woman is a f'n lunatic living in a far-right looney tunes fantasy world. What a colossal embarrassment for Alberta.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Slava

Fiscally, they’re terrible. On energy they did a number of things that were emblematic of their ideological approach to things (the royalty review, the appointment of Tzeporah Berman spring to mind). And the continued bloating of the public service under the guise of creating better infrastructure and providing better service to Albertans. Then you have the broken promises about school fees, and the laughable cabinet appointments. And you know I didn’t mention the billions spent on their power debacle, the lightbulbs, the borrowing to pay all these people to do this junk. It was fiscally pathetic. The only reason it looks ok now is we got another royalty boom to cover the tab.

It’s not like they were this bastion of good government. They totally got lucky, and it reminds me of the Eddie Murphy bit in Delirious where he’s imitating the white guy saying he was drunk and yelling “I just voted for Jesse Jackson!” The punchline (delivered only as Murphy can) is the same sobered up guy who says “he ####ing won?!” That’s 2015.

And I’ll just say it now. No the UCP isn’t better, because I know that’s what people are going to ask. But that’s my point…two options and a lot of people don’t really want to vote for either.

Do you have any statistics on public sector wage growth over the past 10 years?

I think you'll be surprised when the increases hit. Almost like throwing a grenade on negotiations and the folding isn't a strong negotiation tactic.

The NDP was a bit messy early on but generally ran a tight an conservative economic program once they got up and running.