Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

"Vote for your local candidate, not the party...they said."

[Muta]

The normalization of inept, unethical and sometimes criminal behaviour over the last several years have really butchered the traditional conservative movement. We're at a point now where someone like Smith can #### up so much, but not face consequences for her actions due to apathy, ignorance, tribalism and a general bubble-version of the world from conservative voters.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - conservatives... TAKE BACK YOUR SANE PLACE ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. Put an end to this extreme right-wing insanity that is weirdly steamrolling this province right now and the conservative movement across North America as a whole. Wake up from the matrix and realize and see the political landscape for the platforms parties are putting forth, not the colors they wear.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Except that he’s absolutely right. Oil and gas exploitation is destroying the planet. This is unequivocally true. Albertans have fought back because it’s also their livelihood. But how many more generations of humanity do we have left just so that you can make a paycheque?

It sounds callous to say, and it is, but it’s a stark reality. Many people make their living off of destroying the planet, and they’d rather not think about that.

Random consumers attempt to shift blame onto oil and gas companies is always so funny.

Companies don't go produce, transport and sell oil and gas for fun. It's because people use it and they can profit from it.

If you want companies to stop producing oil and gas, stop using it. Ultimately the reality is that the blame for oil and gas production should lie at the feet of consumers and people. Companies are subservient to market demands, not some evil monolithic creatures foisting production upon society.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Is it too late to remove her as the UCP candidate? It doesn't smell right letting her continue to campaign under the UCP banner and get elected as a UCP with only a promise that she would be expelled. Should she not be immediately expelled?

I think it is though. That's what I mean...you can't get her off the ballot at this point, so really all you can say is that while you are running and might win, you're not one of us if you win. You could say that stronger than what Smith has said, but that's basically it.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think it is though. That's what I mean...you can't get her off the ballot at this point, so really all you can say is that while you are running and might win, you're not one of us if you win. You could say that stronger than what Smith has said, but that's basically it.

At this point, the only thing Smith could do is kick the candidate out of the party, but she can't force her to step out of the race entirely (just run as an independent). There is no way Smith will kick any candidates out though (especially in safe ridings) because the margins are so tight. She needs every seat to try and form government so don't trust her when she says "this person will be removed later" -- if the numbers are tight enough they'll find a way to keep her in the party.

Pretty clear where her priorities lie...

[Major Major]

The hilarious part about turn style voters in this province is that the thing that they pine for, special interest for a special province, is only achievable by voting for other parties. Becoming politically unpredictable is the most surefire way of garnering political attention.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

The normalization of inept, unethical and sometimes criminal behaviour over the last several years have really butchered the traditional conservative movement. We're at a point now where someone like Smith can #### up so much, but not face consequences for her actions due to apathy, ignorance, tribalism and a general bubble-version of the world from conservative voters.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - conservatives... TAKE BACK YOUR SANE PLACE ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. Put an end to this extreme right-wing insanity that is weirdly steamrolling this province right now and the conservative movement across North America as a whole. Wake up from the matrix and realize and see the political landscape for the platforms parties are putting forth, not the colors they wear.

'Member when Deborah Dreever wore a pot leaf sweater, and held her finger up to the flag, and everyone on the right freaked the #### out? Smith not wearing the poppy is just as egregious, if not more so given her words that went with it. Not to mention being guilty of breaching the conflict of interest act, and fraternizing with Artur and Ezra, yet somehow, those same voters who painted the NDP as anti Canada will find a way to dig deep and support this fool.


Politics have gone waaaay downhill since Dreever.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

At this point, the only thing Smith could do is kick the candidate out of the party, but she can't force her to step out of the race entirely (just run as an independent). There is no way Smith will kick any candidates out though (especially in safe ridings) because the margins are so tight. She needs every seat to try and form government so don't trust her when she says "this person will be removed later" -- if the numbers are tight enough they'll find a way to keep her in the party.

Pretty clear where her priorities lie...

Absolutely. Since the UCP can't drop another candidate in, they are worried they may only win by one seat and don't want to risk that.

My worry is that it is all great to say right now that she will get the boot.. but what happens if it ends up 44-43 with a promise to expel someone... so you keep her under your banner and not expel her if it is that close.. "Sorry I misspoke about expelling her".

Anything less than immediately removing her from the UCP banner is just lip service.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Johnson won't be a member of UCP caucus (just announced) should she win. Though it's merely a formality and she'll be brought back in after her "penitence." She's hardly an outlier. Someone should start a pool.

It's a move not made with consideration of Lacombe-Ponoka constituents, but rather the important urban votes in mind. Optics.

[Ozy_Flame]

They can force her to get unbranded signs. Don't use the UCP branding.

As far as I can see. there's nothing in the existing laws that says she has to keep using the party's colors and logos.

And for the record, they probably want her to so they can pad their seat count due to how close this election may be.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Random consumers attempt to shift blame onto oil and gas companies is always so funny.

Companies don't go produce, transport and sell oil and gas for fun. It's because people use it and they can profit from it.

If you want companies to stop producing oil and gas, stop using it. Ultimately the reality is that the blame for oil and gas production should lie at the feet of consumers and people. Companies are subservient to market demands, not some evil monolithic creatures foisting production upon society.

All this is true except for that it assumes that consumers have unrestrained freedom to operate how they please. Thomas Hughes' theory on the development of large technical systems argues that once systems are large enough they gain so much momentum that neither the internal or external operators can change their course. While it is true that consumers can shape the market, there needs to be a large external force to help steer the momentum of something as large as carbon based economies.

[Looch City]

The Smith and UCP Apology Tour ^TM

Anyone know what count we're on now? Apology #29?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

All this is true except for that it assumes that consumers have unrestrained freedom to operate how they please. Thomas Hughes' theory on the development of large technical systems argues that once systems are large enough they gain so much momentum that neither the internal or external operators can change their course. While it is true that consumers can shape the market, there needs to be a large external force to help steer the momentum of something as large as carbon based economies.

You wrote words but they (significantly) lack merit in any practical reality I live in. What I wrote is reality about how society functions and what you wrote is a desire to absolve yourself of blame related to operating in said society. It's incongruent with reality no matter how much you want it to be. Who are you actually blaming and which large external force are you talking about? Are you well versed with what will happen in modern society if oil and gas companies just arbitrarily ceased production?

If it made sense for people, people would do it. It's how and why things change over time. There's no conspiracy. People need the #### to live normal fruitful lives in the societies we have built.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Random consumers attempt to shift blame onto oil and gas companies is always so funny.

Companies don't go produce, transport and sell oil and gas for fun. It's because people use it and they can profit from it.

If you want companies to stop producing oil and gas, stop using it. Ultimately the reality is that the blame for oil and gas production should lie at the feet of consumers and people. Companies are subservient to market demands, not some evil monolithic creatures foisting production upon society.

The oil companies deserve heaps of blame for their active role in climate-change denial over the decades. No different than big tobacco, even if though their product is extremely useful and necessary.

Edit: like going to jail levels of blame. The global cost of climate change will be trillions of dollars, largely caused by the use of their products, something they were well aware of.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not defending what she said (by any stretch of the imagination), but out of curiosity, what would you have Smith do here? Like what other consequences can she impose?

Pretty simple. Kick her out of the party. She would then have to run as an independent. Of course, this will not happen. And you can bet if they need her seat to rule, they will welcome her back into caucus with open arms.

[Fuzz]

The prime minister has been found guilty of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act for the second time, using his position of authority over Wilson-Raybould to influence her decision to intervene in a criminal prosecution, violating the principles of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law. There is no fine. No charges. No trial. No resignation. No public inquiry. Not even an independent parliamentary committee investigation.


I can only presume when they drafted the law in 2006, lawmakers assumed that being found guilty of a violation of the Conflict of Interest Act would be so egregious, that the offender would face serious political fallout or even be forced to resign. So much for that. The problem is, without consequences you can be sure it will happen again.

https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...-ethics-breach


Danielle Smith agrees that there should be strong consequences for her actions. She really has written an article for every one of her massive missteps. Which makes it even more mind bending that she can now make those same mistakes she criticized others for. Like, she already knows better!

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The oil companies deserve heaps of blame for their active role in climate-change denial over the decades. No different than big tobacco, even if though their product is extremely useful and necessary.

Edit: like going to jail levels of blame. The global cost of climate change will be trillions of dollars, largely caused by the use of their products, something they were well aware of.

Can you please provide examples?

I have my doubts that all of society just accepted what “oil and gas companies” told them with regard to denying climate change existed / exists outright and that all consumers are like little lambs cruelly and unknowingly deceived.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You wrote words but they (significantly) lack merit in any practical reality I live in. What I wrote is reality about how society functions and what you wrote is a desire to absolve yourself of blame related to operating in said society. It's incongruent with reality no matter how much you want it to be. Who are you actually blaming and which large external force are you talking about? Are you well versed with what will happen in modern society if oil and gas companies just arbitrarily ceased production?

If it made sense for people, people would do it. It's how and why things change over time. There's no conspiracy. People need the #### to live normal fruitful lives in the societies we have built.

I don't think Hughes or myself fixate on blame. We are more interested in observing and analyzing change over time. Or in this case, Hughes is being employed to push back on your assumptions about human agency within large technological societies.

I would recommend giving this a read.

https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1986/p86-9.pdf

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I don't think Hughes or myself fixate on blame. We are more interested in observing and analyzing change over time. Or in this case, Hughes is being employed to push back on your assumptions about human agency within large technological societies.

I would recommend giving this a read.

https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1986/p86-9.pdf

My understanding of kermitologys original post was more blame oriented onto Albertans for supporting the oil and gas industry. It seemed to insinuate Albertans are wrong for supporting the industry that economically supports the bedrock of finances for the province and I think it’s quite a strange position detached from reality. Oil and gas companies serve a market demand, so, seems to me like there’s an industry that’s required there. Pretending that there are some external powers and forces causing this effect is also an odd position but I’ll read what you posted, thanks.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

My understanding of kermitologys original post was more blame oriented onto Albertans for supporting the oil and gas industry. It seemed to insinuate Albertans are wrong for supporting the industry that economically supports the bedrock of finances for the province and I think it’s quite a strange position detached from reality. Oil and gas companies serve a market demand, so, seems to me like there’s an industry that’s required there. Pretending that there are some external powers and forces causing this effect is also an odd position but I’ll read what you posted, thanks.

I was re reading what you said, I think that a common criticism of Hughes is that he doesn't define well who a system build is. Just the same, I was implying that government could be an external force. Another criticism of Hughes is that he more or less sees everything as a part of the technological system. I don't think he would agree that government is an external force. Either way his concept of momentum is very interesting and explains how oil and gas is nearly impossible to displace internally or externally.

This is still a really common methodology historians use, but the more recent development is the actor network theory which better defines some of the intangible aspects like the environment. In the case of oil and gas, the fact that cold winters require indoor heating out be a significant part of the system for example. But then again agreeing on material needs is another pedantic rabbit hole.