Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Do you really think you’d get honest, unbiased answers from a UCP MLA?

Nope, but I wouldn't miss any opportunity to remind these feckless losers that they are selling their souls for such a pathetic cause.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Absolutely. These are bad candidates. I have conversations with MLAs that CAN answer those questions though.

They aren't all shills and party line men/women. And on both sides, they are the ones that should get voted in, regardless of party affiliation.


Edit: I am overposting in this thread, haha. I will take a break. but I love these kinds of discussions!

I disagree wholeheartedly.
If there is a candidate that is well spoken, there is no way they are going to be anything else but a vote the party line shill.

You can't tell me with a straight face some new backbencher is going to stand up to their party leadership over their ethical and moral shortcomings.

You can't vote for the individual in federal and provincial elections. None of the "good on both sides" stuff works here.

On a personal note, I don't care how smart and nice a UCP candidate might come across as. I know he'll be kissing some repugnant ass and no way in hell would I vote for a candidate from that party.

[Monahammer]

Lol no, mostly every UCP MLA left that is running again is a shill. Shultz and a couple others possible exceptions but the rest are definitely shills. Even many of the staffers have rotated to a bunch of misfits.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I disagree wholeheartedly.
If there is a candidate that is well spoken, there is no way they are going to be anything else but a vote the party line shill.

You can't tell me with a straight face some new backbencher is going to stand up to their party leadership over their ethical and moral shortcomings.

You can't vote for the individual in federal and provincial elections. None of the "good on both sides" stuff works here.

On a personal note, I don't care how smart and nice a UCP candidate might come across as. I know he'll be kissing some repugnant ass and no way in hell would I vote for a candidate from that party.

So how are you any better than a UCP voter who wont vote for an NDP candidate even if they are the better candidate and representative?

NDP Candidates and Politicians are EXACTLY the same as and UCP Candidate and current politicians. Being on the NDP (or whoever) doesn't make someone a good or bad politician, the person themselves define that.

I am no UCP voter, but the NDP MLA's in office now can be just as snaky, back biting, dishonest and immoral as any current UCP MLA. They CAN be, not all are. Just like not every UCP MLA and candidate are.

This province is better with a mix of representatives from both parties. The best candidates should win, not the party people hate less.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

So how are you any better than a UCP voter who wont vote for an NDP candidate even if they are the better candidate and representative?

NDP Candidates and Politicians are EXACTLY the same as and UCP Candidate and current politician. Being on the NDP (or whoever) doesn't make someone a good or bad politician, the person themselves define that.

Probably because they never said they would vote for the NDP no matter what, they said they wouldn’t vote UCP.

Disqualifying one party from consideration isn’t the same as disqualifying all but one. And I’m sorry, but the UCP as a party has done enough harm that it is not difficult to disqualify anyone who runs for them. For all the apparently good people in the UCP, some difference they’ve made.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Probably because they never said they would vote for the NDP no matter what, they said they wouldn’t vote UCP.

Disqualifying one party from consideration isn’t the same as disqualifying all but one. And I’m sorry, but the UCP as a party has done enough harm that it is not difficult to disqualify anyone who runs for them. For all the apparently good people in the UCP, some difference they’ve made.

That's a fair assessment and comment. But I don't believe the UCP are some evil empire you are insinuating here.

You could pick any party in an province currently in power and depending on where you sit in the socially and economically and find many many things that have created harm for you and your community.

Same could be said for the NDP. They were very harmful to rural communities when they were in power in Alberta. But they did a lot of good too for some communities.

Good candidates are good candidates, regardless of party.

I get CP is pretty much ABC, but I will always advocate for non-partisan discussion where I can!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The vote for a backbencher is in the hopes that a) even if they don't break with their party on votes, they'll be pushing for your interests during the vast majority of the time they're working - voting in the leg or parliament is only a small part of what an MLA or MP does all day; and b) that this person who I am voting for because they seem to have a good head on their shoulders might rise in the ranks and might wield significant influence within their party one day, which will hopefully make that party better as a result.

Both of those are perfectly reasonable bases for ignoring the party affiliation and voting for the person in your riding.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Same could be said for the NDP. They were very harmful to rural communities when they were in power.

I've heard this, but no one I know has ever articulated how.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The vote for a backbencher is in the hopes that a) even if they don't break with their party on votes, they'll be pushing for your interests during the vast majority of the time they're working - voting in the leg or parliament is only a small part of what an MLA or MP does all day; and b) that this person who I am voting for because they seem to have a good head on their shoulders might rise in the ranks and might wield significant influence within their party one day, which will hopefully make that party better as a result.

Both of those are perfectly reasonable bases for ignoring the party affiliation and voting for the person in your riding.

This is a great response!

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Same could be said for the NDP. They were very harmful to rural communities when they were in power in Alberta. But they did a lot of good too for some communities.

Originally Posted by timun

I've heard this, but no one I know has ever articulated how.

Maybe not rural communities (ie small towns) but the rural community (farms etc) were not happy with some of the changes to labor laws/workers comp changes IIRC.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by timun

I've heard this, but no one I know has ever articulated how.

Because Bill 6, family something something

[Wastedyouth]

Cutting funding for rural policing. (to be fair, UCP not much better, probably worse! haha)

Cutting funding to rural healthcare. (to be fair, UCP not much better)

A complete lack of ability to help with ICF legislation, which is both poorly worded and badly implemented leading to multiple law suits between rural and urban municipalities. (UCP also not great... although Schulz is really pick up the slack)

And try to get an NDP MLA or Minister on the phone or into a meeting to discuss rural concerns if you were a Municipal Elected Official, fat ####ing chance. (This is a huge win for UCP. Their MLAs "seem" to be much more willing to engage with rural municipalities and their needs. Although that probably stems from that being their base)

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Maybe not rural communities (ie small towns) but the rural community (farms etc) were not happy with some of the changes to labor laws/workers comp changes IIRC.

That whole thing was way overblown and misunderstood. The things people were mad about weren't even part of the bill. Hell, both Redford and Stelmach had said they were going to do the exact same thing. Frankly I was surprised to find out Alberta was the only province where health and safety laws didn't apply to farming.

People were just mad that it was the NDP that did it. That was in the works since '08

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

So how are you any better than a UCP voter who wont vote for an NDP candidate even if they are the better candidate and representative?

NDP Candidates and Politicians are EXACTLY the same as and UCP Candidate and current politicians. Being on the NDP (or whoever) doesn't make someone a good or bad politician, the person themselves define that.

I am no UCP voter, but the NDP MLA's in office now can be just as snaky, back biting, dishonest and immoral as any current UCP MLA. They CAN be, not all are. Just like not every UCP MLA and candidate are.

This province is better with a mix of representatives from both parties. The best candidates should win, not the party people hate less.

Here's the thing though.
I'd rather vote for a bad politician who is going to implement an agenda I agree with, than a good politician who is going to implement an agenda that I think is genuinely harmful to the province/Albertans.

That being said, I'm also considering the leaders when I vote.
The UCP is run by the worst kind of politician, who is running on that harmful platform.
The NDP have a platform that I much more closely align with, and RN is a much more trustworthy/competent leader.

Now when you add in the fact that I think the proportion of "Good" vs "Bad" politicians in the UCP vs the NDP is much much higher it isn't even a race.
It doesn't really matter if I vote for a "Good" candidate, if they are going to be absolutely swamped by the bad ones in their own party.

I could have the best candidate in the world running for the UCP, and it still isn't enough to sway me to vote for them, because ultimately they are supporting a platform that I don't believe in, and I truly think is harmful. A "Good" candidate who believes the opposite of what I believe is not a good candidate.

None of this is to say that all UCP candidates are bad people.
There are just none that I would want to represent me, because by running for the UCP they are telling me that we stand on the opposite sides of some very big issues.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

That's a fair assessment and comment. But I don't believe the UCP are some evil empire you are insinuating here.

You could pick any party in an province currently in power and depending on where you sit in the socially and economically and find many many things that have created harm for you and your community.

Same could be said for the NDP. They were very harmful to rural communities when they were in power in Alberta. But they did a lot of good too for some communities.

Good candidates are good candidates, regardless of party.

I get CP is pretty much ABC, but I will always advocate for non-partisan discussion where I can!

I’m not saying the UCP are an evil empire, how can you advocate for non-partisan discussion while throwing stuff like that out there and painting CP as “ABC”? I would think that while advocating for treating MLAs as individuals and not as party stand-ins, you would be more inclined to treat posters as individuals and avoid painting CP with a broad brush, no?

What I am saying is that the UCP has done enough damage that voting for someone running under the UCP banner because they’re a good person and the damage could have been even worse without them is… not a compelling argument to me. The UCP have been awful from a financial side of things. They blow money as bad or worse than any provincial government I’ve seen, they replaced an unlikeable but competent leader with an unlikeable and incompetent leader, they’ve made changes to education I disagree with and I fundamentally disagree with their views on healthcare and taxation. For the things they’ve done that I could, in theory, agree with, I feel they’ve done them poorly (provincial park fees) or been forced to do them by the federal government and created worse programs instead of better ones (childcare subsidy, carbon tax).

I liked Prentice, I was hopeful for Kenney. I‘ve even gone to bat for Jean. I am not a conservative but I have tried to see the best in every Conservative politician, preferring they have to prove me wrong than prove me right. But Smith is terrible, the UCP have an awful track record, and nothing about them gives me hope that the future will be different, so why do I owe a UCP MLA a chance at my vote? Why should i have to ignore everything to give them a chance when they’re already in government and have done SFA to change the negative direction of the UCP?

[timun]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Maybe not rural communities (ie small towns) but the rural community (farms etc) were not happy with some of the changes to labor laws/workers comp changes IIRC.

Right, farm workers were previously exempt from the Employment Standards Code and thus OHS regs, WCB coverage, and were barred from forming unions. I want someone to explain to me how giving farm workers the same rights as any other worker was "harmful to rural communities". I know there was a hullaballoo with farmers panicking that they'd have to pay workers comp premiums for their kids and neighbours pitching in at harvest time, and that's not at all what the NDP's changes imposed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Maybe not rural communities (ie small towns) but the rural community (farms etc) were not happy with some of the changes to labor laws/workers comp changes IIRC.

A lot of people were not happy about being asked to wear masks during a pandemic. Just because someone isn’t happy about something doesn’t mean they’re right. Wastedyouth labelling what the NDP did as harmful is a joke and Wastedyouth should probably acknowledge that their statement is at best an exaggeration regardless of what their motivation for making such a statement was.

The NDP made it so farm workers needed the same license requirements to operate heavy equipment as anyone else in the province.

They also made it so that farm workers had to be covered by WCB, the same as any other business.

They also gave farm workers the right to unionize, just like almost any other employee in any other industry. In the time that they had this right before the UCP took it away a whopping ZERO farms unionized.

I’m not a farmer so I can’t pretend to know that I completely understand why they oppose these types of things but if there are any on here who would like to explain why there was so much opposition to things like giving their workers the right to refuse unsafe work I’d be happy listen, and I’m sure others would like to hear their side of it as well.

[Monahammer]

Ah yes, rural alberta was hurt that it could no longer enslave it's children. Very, very harmful!

[timun]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m not a farmer so I can’t pretend to know that I completely understand why they oppose these types of things but if there are any on here who would like to explain why there was so much opposition to things like giving their workers the right to refuse unsafe work I’d be happy listen, and I’m sure others would like to hear their side of it as well.

^^^Exactly! I've heard this common refrain that the NDP somehow ####ed rural Albertans over and I have never, ever read or heard an actual explanation as to how.

Not that I don't believe a lot of rural voters believe that the NDP ####ed them—I've written multiple times in this thread that I think pretty much every rural riding in the province is the UCP's to lose because the voter base is so vehemently against the NDP—but not one rural voter has ever articulated in precisely what way they got ####ed by the NDP government.

[Geraldsh]

I heard a ucp supporter say he would never/ever vote ndp because the rcmp confiscated guns during the high river flood - how you gonna argue with that?