Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, based on what though? I’m not advocating for the UCP here, but there’s no indication that the NDP plans to spend less. If we really wanted to look back to the past election, the NDP ran around throwing money at all kinds of things leading up to that as well. That gets piled on as spending for Kenney because they were out before they actually spent it, but it’s hard to delineate these numbers perfectly. It might be things that I’m in favour of (Deerfoot spending, the ring road, etc), but that was committed to by Notley and I think there was a lot of consternation at that amount of spending?

To be honest, I haven’t gone back and looked at all that. It’s just my impression that this is how things went. But the idea that Smith is spending all this money on things to try to get elected now and the NDP is going to take it away is pretty unlikely.

Pretty insane, then, that Smith is still the highest on the chart by far despite most of her spending landing on the next Premier instead.

A 9% increase in spending just counting things that have landed in the last 6 months and not things like the Arena that will land after the election is… something.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, based on what though? I’m not advocating for the UCP here, but there’s no indication that the NDP plans to spend less. If we really wanted to look back to the past election, the NDP ran around throwing money at all kinds of things leading up to that as well. That gets piled on as spending for Kenney because they were out before they actually spent it, but it’s hard to delineate these numbers perfectly. It might be things that I’m in favour of (Deerfoot spending, the ring road, etc), but that was committed to by Notley and I think there was a lot of consternation at that amount of spending?

To be honest, I haven’t gone back and looked at all that. It’s just my impression that this is how things went. But the idea that Smith is spending all this money on things to try to get elected now and the NDP is going to take it away is pretty unlikely.

In all your mental pretzling to make Notley look bad, you are missing the obvious fact here. This isn't proposed spending, this is what she actually spent since getting in power. She's just really really bad at this.

EDIT: Whoops, new page. Pepsi knows.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pretty insane, then, that Smith is still the highest on the chart by far despite most of her spending landing on the next Premier instead.

A 9% increase in spending just counting things that have landed in the last 6 months and not things like the Arena that will land after the election is… something.

I don’t want to put words in Slava’s mouth here but I think he is saying that Danielle spends super responsibly and even though there is even more spending to come that is more responsible than what Notley, who spent less than Danielle, may spend the money on. Come on people, we can’t risk having someone who could possibly spend as recklessly as Danielle.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Not trying to defend Smith here but what impact does increasing inflation have on these numbers as well. When Notley was in power there was significantly lower inflation with lower costs.

Now I believe that Smith has spent a lot of money recklessly in attempts to shore up her base and try and buy the Calgary vote. It is just that I believe raw data can hide extenuating circumstances and is done regardless of ones political position.

We have also had a push from a number of people who have looked at Alberta's budget and as soon as they see a surplus demand that it be spent on them. Plus if we are going to say that Smith spends too much it is a bit hard to then also criticize for cutting spending to things like wildland firefighting.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Not trying to defend Smith here but what impact does increasing inflation have on these numbers as well. When Notley was in power there was significantly lower inflation with lower costs.

Now I believe that Smith has spent a lot of money recklessly in attempts to shore up her base and try and buy the Calgary vote. It is just that I believe raw data can hide extenuating circumstances and is done regardless of ones political position.

We have also had a push from a number of people who have looked at Alberta's budget and as soon as they see a surplus demand that it be spent on them. Plus if we are going to say that Smith spends too much it is a bit hard to then also criticize for cutting spending to things like wildland firefighting.

If you account for pop growth and inflation and compare the last NDP year to today they spend about equally.

I think the point is that if you care about debt and budgets then the UCP is not better. They are not a fiscally conservative option. So if they are not a fiscally conservative option whats the point of desk g with the socially conservative crap.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I don’t want to put words in Slava’s mouth here but I think he is saying that Danielle spends super responsibly and even though there is even more spending to come that is more responsible than what Notley, who spent less than Danielle, may spend the money on. Come on people, we can’t risk having someone who could possibly spend as recklessly as Danielle.

Yeah that’s exactly what I’m saying

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pretty insane, then, that Smith is still the highest on the chart by far despite most of her spending landing on the next Premier instead.

A 9% increase in spending just counting things that have landed in the last 6 months and not things like the Arena that will land after the election is… something.

But that’s a great example. The arena is committed to by the province. So, Notley wins the election and unless she plans to cancel that deal, they’re spending that money.

[GirlySports]

Was the Affordability Action Plan grotesque? Is the issue the $600, kids, seniors or the $180,000 qualification?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Was the Affordability Action Plan grotesque? Is the issue the $600, kids, seniors or the $180,000 qualification?

The giveaway to oil companies through RStar was pretty bad.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The giveaway to oil companies through RStar was pretty bad.

Did I miss where R star was actually implemented?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

But that’s a great example. The arena is committed to by the province. So, Notley wins the election and unless she plans to cancel that deal, they’re spending that money.

They aren't committed to it, it hasn't even gone through a cabinet vote. It's about as solid as her promise not to charge for doctor visits. This was an election promise, that's all. The NDP could say and do absolutely nothing after they win because there is nothing compelling them to do anything.

[Mr.Coffee]

One of the bigger spending things Notley is promising on as I understand it is commitment to Canada's / federal government's '2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Canada's Next Step for Clean Air and a Strong Economy'. Canada has been pushing to move to a 'net-zero' carbon emissions model by 2050 but then have now tried pushing through new regulation called "Clean Electricity Regulations" to speed up the process to 2035.

The NDP / Notley have concurred and stated they're on board with the plan.

Based on what I have seen (can't post it, sorry, received it in an email from a group called "Alberta Institute" in an article written by a guy named Peter McCaffrey- not sure his or this group's political association); but this author makes claims that such a program is anticipated to cost $87 Billion, based on the fact that the current grid is 85% non-renewable energy (not sure if this is true?). So, to overhaul 85% of electricity in Alberta to non-carbon emission would imply a gigantic spend and basically this author cites reports from AESO (based on a July 2020 report that stated transitioning AB to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 would cost $52 Billion in "additional capital investments and generation operating costs", as well as 'a new report' by "Navius" which Peter claims is a "traditionally left-leaning environmental economic research group" that would imply additional impact of $35 Billion in indirect costs to Alberta before counting inflation (this is how the author arrives at $87 Billion).

He then goes on to cite scale references to that number, ie. 'current budget is $63 Billion', '290x the controversial Calgary arena', and '48x the cost of the Red Deer Hospital'. He also states the current carbon tax currently costs about $2 Billion to Albertans and that $87 Billion over 12 years is $7 Billion a year, so just a ridiculously huge number and unlikely Notley has really deep dived on any of this.

Anyway, people in this thread are always asking how on earth people could ever give pause to voting NDP, or support the UCP or give credible verifiable anything legitimate rationale for that type of leaning, so there is one example depending on the truthiness of the article and facts laid out therein, I guess.

I will state I am not a voter in Alberta in this election, so I don't really lay this out with a slant just thought that there's been months of people asking for any credible reason for anyone to ever vote UCP and this came across my email, and thought it could be decent for discussion or fact checking.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There are many reasons. Alot of the discussion in this thread is about the extremes and about the headlines.

However, people are mostly one-issue voters and don't look at the extremes. I'll give you one example in my world. The non-union Alberta employee wage freeze.

2016:
https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...-salary-freeze



Two year wage freeze turned into 6 years. With the UCP, they stopped the freeze and there has been two one time wage increases. One in mid 2022 of 12% to make people who were there from the start whole again and then another increase at the end of 2022, and expecting another one later this year.

2022:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ends-1.6403001




I'm one of these managers and was not able to receive a raise nor increase wages of my employees nor increase the head count of my team even though the workload has increase 3-fold. Something iggy_oi has blasted me about for years, very fairly. Girly doesn't pay her employees, well, I can't.

So if you're a non-union Alberta provincial worker, why would you vote for the NDP who could freezing your wages again?

I generally don't like exposing too much of my actual life on here, but it's important. I am a non-union provincial employee. The 2016 freeze certainly hurt retention, but we did maintain our headcount through to 2019. In 2020, the UCP began a series of cuts to the operating grant for my organization, totalling 20% over the course of 3 years. This affected the various departments differently, but headcount for my team was cut in half.

So workload was greatly increased, morale devastated, and recruitment/retention made twice as difficult. And salaries still did not move until the freeze lifted in 2022, which by the way did not come with any increase in government grant, so my org had to scrounge up the money from elsewhere to slow the bleeding.

I don't have to make any impassioned speeches to colleagues about why Smith is a burning trash heap or why Notley is not actually Stalin re-incarnate. All I have to do is give them cold numbers about budget and headcount that are completely undeniable, and ask them what might be the best choice for their career and livelihood for as long as they stay employed in this sector.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Did I miss where R star was actually implemented?

Have the even started the pilot for it? I can't imagine it goes farther then that considering the new liability program was recently rolled out.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

One of the bigger spending things Notley is promising on as I understand it is commitment to Canada's / federal government's '2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Canada's Next Step for Clean Air and a Strong Economy'. Canada has been pushing to move to a 'net-zero' carbon emissions model by 2050 but then have now tried pushing through new regulation called "Clean Electricity Regulations" to speed up the process to 2035.

The NDP / Notley have concurred and stated they're on board with the plan.

Based on what I have seen (can't post it, sorry, received it in an email from a group called "Alberta Institute" in an article written by a guy named Peter McCaffrey- not sure his or this group's political association); but this author makes claims that such a program is anticipated to cost $87 Billion, based on the fact that the current grid is 85% non-renewable energy (not sure if this is true?). So, to overhaul 85% of electricity in Alberta to non-carbon emission would imply a gigantic spend and basically this author cites reports from AESO (based on a July 2020 report that stated transitioning AB to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 would cost $52 Billion in "additional capital investments and generation operating costs", as well as 'a new report' by "Navius" which Peter claims is a "traditionally left-leaning environmental economic research group" that would imply additional impact of $35 Billion in indirect costs to Alberta before counting inflation (this is how the author arrives at $87 Billion).

He then goes on to cite scale references to that number, ie. 'current budget is $63 Billion', '290x the controversial Calgary arena', and '48x the cost of the Red Deer Hospital'. He also states the current carbon tax currently costs about $2 Billion to Albertans and that $87 Billion over 12 years is $7 Billion a year, so just a ridiculously huge number and unlikely Notley has really deep dived on any of this.

Anyway, people in this thread are always asking how on earth people could ever give pause to voting NDP, or support the UCP or give credible verifiable anything legitimate rationale for that type of leaning, so there is one example depending on the truthiness of the article and facts laid out therein, I guess.

I will state I am not a voter in Alberta in this election, so I don't really lay this out with a slant just thought that there's been months of people asking for any credible reason for anyone to ever vote UCP and this came across my email, and thought it could be decent for discussion or fact checking.

The trick is to approach articles written by Libertarian think tanks with a degree of skepticism.

The Alberta Institute is an independent, libertarian, public policy think tank that aims to advance personal freedom and choice in Alberta.

Founded in 2018, we work to develop and promote solutions to a wide range of municipal, provincial, and federal public policy issues in a strictly non-partisan way.

Our solutions are informed by our belief in a free and open society built on individual rights, private property, peace, voluntaryism, free markets, free minds, free trade, free movement, self-ownership, and reason.

We promote these beliefs through a wide variety of activities and actions, including research, data analysis, publications, newsletters, advocacy, events, conferences, and more.

https://www.albertainstitute.ca/about

I often wonder when people say "written by some guy at some place I didn't bother to check to see if they have any potential biases but, they go on to claim..."

Like, why wouldn't you check that stuff out? You could be getting lied to by Alex Jones and spreading nonsense, but never know it, even though it takes 15 seconds to figure out.

That all being said, I'm not saying these numbers or his facts are wrong, but given the source I'd have plenty of reasons to be skeptical.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

One of the bigger spending things Notley is promising on as I understand it is commitment to Canada's / federal government's '2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Canada's Next Step for Clean Air and a Strong Economy'. Canada has been pushing to move to a 'net-zero' carbon emissions model by 2050 but then have now tried pushing through new regulation called "Clean Electricity Regulations" to speed up the process to 2035.

The NDP / Notley have concurred and stated they're on board with the plan.

Based on what I have seen (can't post it, sorry, received it in an email from a group called "Alberta Institute" in an article written by a guy named Peter McCaffrey- not sure his or this group's political association); but this author makes claims that such a program is anticipated to cost $87 Billion, based on the fact that the current grid is 85% non-renewable energy (not sure if this is true?). So, to overhaul 85% of electricity in Alberta to non-carbon emission would imply a gigantic spend and basically this author cites reports from AESO (based on a July 2020 report that stated transitioning AB to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 would cost $52 Billion in "additional capital investments and generation operating costs", as well as 'a new report' by "Navius" which Peter claims is a "traditionally left-leaning environmental economic research group" that would imply additional impact of $35 Billion in indirect costs to Alberta before counting inflation (this is how the author arrives at $87 Billion).

He then goes on to cite scale references to that number, ie. 'current budget is $63 Billion', '290x the controversial Calgary arena', and '48x the cost of the Red Deer Hospital'. He also states the current carbon tax currently costs about $2 Billion to Albertans and that $87 Billion over 12 years is $7 Billion a year, so just a ridiculously huge number and unlikely Notley has really deep dived on any of this.

Anyway, people in this thread are always asking how on earth people could ever give pause to voting NDP, or support the UCP or give credible verifiable anything legitimate rationale for that type of leaning, so there is one example depending on the truthiness of the article and facts laid out therein, I guess.

I will state I am not a voter in Alberta in this election, so I don't really lay this out with a slant just thought that there's been months of people asking for any credible reason for anyone to ever vote UCP and this came across my email, and thought it could be decent for discussion or fact checking.

The author of that report basically said that the 87 Billion dollar number was a complete lie, made up by the UCP. I have actually never heard of a government asking for a report and then the report’s author saying they lied about the entire report.

What the author said is it would cost the government nothing but it would cut GDP growth by 0.03% a year (3 one hundredths of a single point). That would be a loss of about 100 million dollars a year in GDP growth.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

I generally don't like exposing too much of my actual life on here, but it's important. I am a non-union provincial employee. The 2016 freeze certainly hurt retention, but we did maintain our headcount through to 2019. In 2020, the UCP began a series of cuts to the operating grant for my organization, totalling 20% over the course of 3 years. This affected the various departments differently, but headcount for my team was cut in half.

So workload was greatly increased, morale devastated, and recruitment/retention made twice as difficult. And salaries still did not move until the freeze lifted in 2022, which by the way did not come with any increase in government grant, so my org had to scrounge up the money from elsewhere to slow the bleeding.

I don't have to make any impassioned speeches to colleagues about why Smith is a burning trash heap or why Notley is not actually Stalin re-incarnate. All I have to do is give them cold numbers about budget and headcount that are completely undeniable, and ask them what might be the best choice for their career and livelihood for as long as they stay employed in this sector.

Thanks for this. That's very interesting because our headcount was also maintained during the freeze but then increased from 6 to 8 afterwards. Possibly because my org is self-funded so once the freeze was lifted, they made their employees whole and added to the staffing budget? Don't want to pry too much but I'm quite surprised and saddened to hear this.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

One of the bigger spending things Notley is promising on as I understand it is commitment to Canada's / federal government's '2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Canada's Next Step for Clean Air and a Strong Economy'. Canada has been pushing to move to a 'net-zero' carbon emissions model by 2050 but then have now tried pushing through new regulation called "Clean Electricity Regulations" to speed up the process to 2035.

The NDP / Notley have concurred and stated they're on board with the plan.

Based on what I have seen (can't post it, sorry, received it in an email from a group called "Alberta Institute" in an article written by a guy named Peter McCaffrey- not sure his or this group's political association); but this author makes claims that such a program is anticipated to cost $87 Billion, based on the fact that the current grid is 85% non-renewable energy (not sure if this is true?). So, to overhaul 85% of electricity in Alberta to non-carbon emission would imply a gigantic spend and basically this author cites reports from AESO (based on a July 2020 report that stated transitioning AB to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 would cost $52 Billion in "additional capital investments and generation operating costs", as well as 'a new report' by "Navius" which Peter claims is a "traditionally left-leaning environmental economic research group" that would imply additional impact of $35 Billion in indirect costs to Alberta before counting inflation (this is how the author arrives at $87 Billion).

He then goes on to cite scale references to that number, ie. 'current budget is $63 Billion', '290x the controversial Calgary arena', and '48x the cost of the Red Deer Hospital'. He also states the current carbon tax currently costs about $2 Billion to Albertans and that $87 Billion over 12 years is $7 Billion a year, so just a ridiculously huge number and unlikely Notley has really deep dived on any of this.

Anyway, people in this thread are always asking how on earth people could ever give pause to voting NDP, or support the UCP or give credible verifiable anything legitimate rationale for that type of leaning, so there is one example depending on the truthiness of the article and facts laid out therein, I guess.

I will state I am not a voter in Alberta in this election, so I don't really lay this out with a slant just thought that there's been months of people asking for any credible reason for anyone to ever vote UCP and this came across my email, and thought it could be decent for discussion or fact checking.

I'm pretty sure it's been shown that the 87 billion number is an attempt to mislead about the cost. While still expensive they are adding two numbers together when they are are already combined.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...plan-1.6832796

There is zero reason to vote UCP in this election.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I'm pretty sure it's been shown that the 87 billion number is an attempt to mislead about the cost. While still expensive they are adding two numbers together when they are are already combined.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...plan-1.6832796

There is zero reason to vote UCP in this election.

That sounds fair. But I also think that on political issues like this where there could be (legitimate) concerns for many Albertans, especially given the cost of living struggles for many over the last couple years, I'm just not sure why Notley would blankly state "I'm in" on a plan without fully understanding the costs. Or maybe she does, but it sure as #### isn't going to be cheap, especially with all the other healthcare promises she is seemingly making.

So, I think it is very fair to actually give pause as to spending plans (for both parties) and these parties in a race to buy votes should think more carefully about what they put out there or claim they will commit to. Like, how does Notley say "gonna have to think about this arena deal" and then in the same face turn around and say "all in on the net-zero carbon emissions plan" that will undoubtedly be way more ####ing expensive? I highly doubt she has that costed and figured out, just as all of you are saying the numbers seem dubiously expensive. However, I am pretty confident it is going to be expensive- just to what degree.

From a political standpoint, she should just say the same thing as the arena deal 'will have to evaluate when more details and numbers emerge with clarity'. This is the best answer.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The trick is to approach articles written by Libertarian think tanks with a degree of skepticism.

https://www.albertainstitute.ca/about

I often wonder when people say "written by some guy at some place I didn't bother to check to see if they have any potential biases but, they go on to claim..."

Like, why wouldn't you check that stuff out? You could be getting lied to by Alex Jones and spreading nonsense, but never no it, even thoguh it takes 15 seconds to figure out.

That all being said, I'm not saying these numbers or his facts are wrong, but given the source I'd have plenty of reasons to be skeptical.

Honestly, sorry / not sorry, but screw off with this. It takes about 3 seconds to write a post or several hours to properly research into the ground the 50 issues pertaining to this election that I'm not even voting in.

YOU are one of the key reasons this thread has ground to a halt for actual reasonable discourse and is now 1/50th of what it used to be for actual good discussion. I don't really have time or care enough to go ####ing research everything to the tits so that I can debate with the army of zealots in here squashing every discussion point with impunity. I posted it for discussion and to see what others thought. "Dill with it".