[GT] Alberta Votes 2023.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by you&me

That would be a great name!









To be honest, I was chuckling to myself reading some of the comments and thought how funny would it be for the NDP to re-brand as the Progressive Conservatives... They already have the platform that fits and now, after the election, truly believe a major (if not the) issue is branding and the toxicity of the NDP name in Alberta, whether fair or not.

Rewind the clock and if it's the newly formed "Progressive Conservative" party running on essentially the same platform as the NDP vs. Danielle Smith's UCPs yesterday, I honestly think the results are different... Though, maybe I'm just naive.

They would have to abandon some pretty core philosophies of the NDP as well:

1. Climate alarmism
2. Larger public sector
3. economic dependence on gov't activity and capital allocation
4. moving wealth from more productive sectors and geographies to less productive areas (ie equalization)
5. emphasis on social change over economic progress
6. emphasis on group/identity politics
7. desire for increased union powers

I could probably think of more. But these are areas that the average Albertan would disagree with not only the NDP party, but many of the NDP voters. The best you would get is a split on the left with the leftist True Believers unwilling or unable to form a coalition with the socially progressive but small gov't types. There wouldn't be a big enough tent.

(Incidentally, that list is also why the "bigot" argument doesn't fly. They are sound reasons to hold one's nose and vote for DS.)

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

MINUS EVERYTHING NICE about Florida

Well I don't want the humidity, and were already pretty well set on mosquitos....

[Fuzz]

I don't even know if you can call a lot of the NDP ads attack ads. They were just Danielle truths, mostly using her own words.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't even know if you can call a lot of the NDP ads attack ads. They were just Danielle truths, mostly using her own words.

Were there even that many attack ads? I don't watch cable so maybe tv was different, but it seemed most radio ads were misinformation attempts by the UCP to make it seem like the NDP were going to raise taxes a million billion percent

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

They would have to abandon some pretty core philosophies of the NDP as well:

1. Climate alarmism
2. Larger public sector
3. economic dependence on gov't activity and capital allocation
4. moving wealth from more productive sectors and geographies to less productive areas (ie equalization)
5. emphasis on social change over economic progress
6. emphasis on group/identity politics
7. desire for increased union powers

I could probably think of more. But these are areas that the average Albertan would disagree with not only the NDP party, but many of the NDP voters. The best you would get is a split on the left with the leftist True Believers unwilling or unable to form a coalition with the socially progressive but small gov't types. There wouldn't be a big enough tent.

(Incidentally, that list is also why the "bigot" argument doesn't fly. They are sound reasons to hold one's nose and vote for DS.)

Alberta already moves money productive sectors to non-productive sectors. You just need to look at the amount of tax dollars that move from the two major cities, where salaries and benefits economic productivity are much higher to the rural areas where economic development and salaries are much lower.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

So is the solution to become a have-not province? Or just not complain about it.

IMO, the main problems that Alberta has with equalization are:

1) Lack of respect of how big the difference is between Federal revenue and spending in Alberta; it's around 5% of Alberta GDP/>$4000 per person and is extraordinarily large compared to other provinces or US states. Rich blue American states complain all the time about supporting poor red states but they lose far less; $2500 per person (Connecticut), $1000 (NY) and barely anything in California and Washington State.

And when an economy loses 5% of GDP every year to redistribution; that impact its strength, its ability to diversify, its ability to save (like often compared Norway) that is almost never acknowledged by the Rest of Canada.

2) Lack of political influence. Despite providing large surpluses for the Federal Government, it doesn't have the political influence to move trans-provincial projects and export quickly to compete with the likes the Middle East or Australia with LNG. We also have the wasted effort of the just transition, "worrying" about far future Alberta when it should worry about finding meaningful jobs and industry for Atlantic Canada today.

I know a lot of conservatives complain about equalization and it's stupid. It's like complaining about paying more taxes. I wish I paid a million dollars in taxes.

But you might be angry about paying more taxes if your poorer neighbors and government officials were trying to prevent your business from expanding, or even trying to shut it down and calling you evil, backwards.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait, does this mean the Flames are in the SCF?!

Unfortunately not. On the plus side gay and trans couples with kids will soon legally be considered child molesters and subject to life in prison without parole, so it’s not all bad news.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Alberta already moves money productive sectors to non-productive sectors. You just need to look at the amount of tax dollars that move from the two major cities, where salaries and benefits economic productivity are much higher to the rural areas where economic development and salaries are much lower.

On the other hand the wealth generated from those Centers is heavily based on the extraction of resources from the rural areas. The way some posters talk about ending subsidies suggest they want a more colonial relationship where the cities corporations extract wealth but don’t provide the services required.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

I’m able to work and sip margaritas on the patio at the same time.

Please continue contributing nothing to this thread while passive-aggresively doing what you claim others are doing to you. It's not gotten old at all. Really.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

They would have to abandon some pretty core philosophies of the NDP as well:

1. Climate alarmism
2. Larger public sector
3. economic dependence on gov't activity and capital allocation
4. moving wealth from more productive sectors and geographies to less productive areas (ie equalization)
5. emphasis on social change over economic progress
6. emphasis on group/identity politics
7. desire for increased union powers

I could probably think of more. But these are areas that the average Albertan would disagree with not only the NDP party, but many of the NDP voters. The best you would get is a split on the left with the leftist True Believers unwilling or unable to form a coalition with the socially progressive but small gov't types. There wouldn't be a big enough tent.

(Incidentally, that list is also why the "bigot" argument doesn't fly. They are sound reasons to hold one's nose and vote for DS.)

Don't forget that some people simply don't like Rachel Notley or the way she ran things last time. She froze non-union public sector pay for 4 years, and then implemented a surprise carbon tax to make everything more expensive during a downturn. That combination right there would be enough to lose peoples trust and cost her thousands of votes. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... Not going to happen. So without a new leader, just changing the party name may not have worked.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't even know if you can call a lot of the NDP ads attack ads. They were just Danielle truths, mostly using her own words.

I mean if you want to play dumb and pretend they weren't attack ads, go nuts, but the point is that they had very little messaging that spoke to their own vision or goals. It was 99% focused on Smith.

Not that the UCP ads were any better...maybe even worse. I didn't particularly find any of the party's messaging particularly inspiring. But hey, I'm no political strategist.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Don't forget that some people simply don't like Rachel Notley or the way she ran things last time. She froze non-union public sector pay for 4 years, and then implemented a surprise carbon tax to make everything more expensive during a downturn. That combination right there would be enough to lose peoples trust and cost her thousands of votes. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... Not going to happen.

The Carbon Tax wasn't a surprise, was it? We had a choice between implementing one ourselves or paying the Federal one, so Notley did the former. Kenney got rid of it and wasted our money fighting Ottawa and we got stuck with the latter.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

They would have to abandon some pretty core philosophies of the NDP as well:


7. desire for increased union powers

Originally Posted by StickMan

She froze non-union public sector pay for 4 years,

Why are you so scared of Unions?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

The Carbon Tax wasn't a surprise, was it? We had a choice between implementing one ourselves or paying the Federal one, so Notley did the latter. Kenney got rid of it and wasted our money fighting Ottawa and we got stuck with the latter.

Really begs the question, if 'standing up to Ottawa' is so important to some people, at what point is it not worth it? In the case of the carbon tax, Notley tried to implement one where at least the money would stay in Alberta. Now that got cancelled and because of the UCP, we're giving it to the Feds instead. Hurray?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm really worried about losing mine. They have already cut back hours for lifestyle reasons. Whatever happens, we can be assured healthcare is going to get much worse.

I see my doctor once a month and have to make next months appointment right afterwards. A spur of the moment appointment sometimes takes weeks to get in.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

The Carbon Tax wasn't a surprise, was it? We had a choice between implementing one ourselves or paying the Federal one, so Notley did the latter. Kenney got rid of it and wasted our money fighting Ottawa and we got stuck with the latter.

The campaign promise was to combat climate change, and to assign a team of experts who would recommend the best option forward. They assigned Andrew Leach chair of the committee without a defined goal in mind..

"The Leach panel doesn’t have any targets to shoot for. The government is deliberately giving Leach and his team free rein to investigate the problem and find solutions without imposing a conclusion ahead of time."

That panel included the Chief Sustainability Officer for Enbridge, Sustainability officer from Suncor, environmentalist with Sustainable Prosperity, and a director at Unifor.

The advice from Academia/Industry/Environment/Union came to was a carbon tax. This wasn't a big surprise by Notley, this was a campaign promise fulfilled in the least partisan way possible.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Really begs the question, if 'standing up to Ottawa' is so important to some people, at what point is it not worth it? In the case of the carbon tax, Notley tried to implement one where at least the money would stay in Alberta. Now that got cancelled and because of the UCP, we're giving it to the Feds instead. Hurray?

There shouldn't even be a carbon tax, especially on home heating. But the Trudeau tax at least give a bit of a rebate, where the notley tax just went towards expensive light bulbs?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The campaign promise was to combat climate change, and to assign a team of experts who would recommend the best option forward. They assigned Andrew Leach chair of the committee without a defined goal in mind..

"The Leach panel doesn’t have any targets to shoot for. The government is deliberately giving Leach and his team free rein to investigate the problem and find solutions without imposing a conclusion ahead of time."

That panel included the Chief Sustainability Officer for Enbridge, Sustainability officer from Suncor, environmentalist with Sustainable Prosperity, and a director at Unifor.

The advice from Academia/Industry/Environment/Union came to was a carbon tax. This wasn't a big surprise by Notley, this was a campaign promise fulfilled in the least partisan way possible.

What a madman! Just look at how she handled this. I can't believe she didn't just put in Manning as chair and hand him a draft report. Just unfathomable the incompetence by Notley.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by StickMan

There shouldn't even be a carbon tax, especially on home heating. But the Trudeau tax at least give a bit of a rebate, where the notley tax just went towards expensive light bulbs?

The 'Notley' carbon tax included a rebate too.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

What a madman! Just look at how she handled this. I can't believe she didn't just put in Manning as chair and hand him a draft report. Just unfathomable the incompetence by Notley.

It was looked at as a way of adding a sales tax to everything without actually creating the dreaded provincial sales tax.