Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Playfair

The extreme partisanship and lack of balance in discussion on Calgarypuck over the years is astonishing. When I joined it was a very conservative based site, but it was also balanced - calling out wrongs on either side while also not slamming the other side other. Other then those who committed Fata's.

Yes I guess I am speaking politically, but it is also a maturity matter. Seems that we have slowly over the years have become HF board. I find that sad.

I always appreciated the balanced approach in the past and learned a lot about both sides, whether it be politics, hockey, world events, etc. Now it seems the site has become like the news and the world in general - polarized.

Forgive me if it is off topic, it is just an observation as a long time lurker.

I dare you to go into the AB politics thread and defend that stupid mofo of a premier that we have.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by direwolf

And yes, the solution for the Cons couldn't be more simple. Move your party back to the centre, dump the Maple MAGA crap, and they'll finally start to win elections again. It's amazing that they still haven't figured this out.

It isn’t that simple. I’d like nothing more than for the CPC to dump the populist right. But these internal party struggles are fought by the small fraction of the electorate who participate in politics at the party constituency level. And the populist right today is more engaged and motivated at the grassroots than moderates. Jason Kenney didn’t walk away from the UCP because the average Albertan who goes out and checks Conservative on their ballot every four years had turned against him. He was driven out by hostility at the constituency level, where the populist right dominate.

Even if moderate, establishment conservatives do manage to take back control of the party at the constituency level, it’s almost certain that a new party will spring up on the right - it has happened again and again in this country. And if that party got even 10 per cent of the popular vote in a federal election, the CPC would have a very narrow path to electoral victory.

The federal Conservatives were lost in the wilderness for 13 years until the right was united under Harper. The only time the Conservatives have lost in Alberta is when they split the vote with the Wild Rose. Those lessons dominate the thinking of conservative strategists in this country.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Playfair

The extreme partisanship and lack of balance in discussion on Calgarypuck over the years is astonishing. When I joined it was a very conservative based site, but it was also balanced - calling out wrongs on either side while also not slamming the other side other. Other then those who committed Fata's.

Yes I guess I am speaking politically, but it is also a maturity matter. Seems that we have slowly over the years have become HF board. I find that sad.

I always appreciated the balanced approach in the past and learned a lot about both sides, whether it be politics, hockey, world events, etc. Now it seems the site has become like the news and the world in general - polarized.

Forgive me if it is off topic, it is just an observation as a long time lurker.

I have no doubts there are still loads of moderate people like yourself who read CP. But they’ve stopped posting. That’s just the way social media has developed.

Are a few people ruining the internet for the rest of us?

… we found extensive evidence that social media is less like a neutral reflection of society and more like a funhouse mirror. It amplifies the loudest and most extreme voices while muting the moderate, the nuanced and the boringly reasonable. And much of that distortion, it turns out, can be traced back to a handful of hyperactive online voices. Just 10% of users produce roughly 97% of political tweets…

Humans create mental models about what other people think or do. It’s how we figure out social norms and navigate groups. But on social media, this shortcut backfires. We don’t get a representative sample of opinions. Instead, we see a flood of extreme, emotionally charged content.

In this way, many of us are led to believe that society is far more polarized, angry, and deluded than it really is. We think everyone on the other side of the generation gap, political spectrum, or fandom community is radical, malicious, or just plain dumb. Our information diet is shaped by a sliver of humanity whose job, identity, or obsession is to post constantly...

Most of us aren’t spending time on our phones trolling our foes. We’re busy working, raising families, spending time with friends, or simply trying to find some harmless entertainment on the internet. Yet, our voices are drowned out. We have effectively handed over a megaphone to the most obnoxious people and let them tell us what to believe and how to act.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...the-rest-of-us

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I have no doubts there are still loads of moderate people like yourself who read CP. But they’ve stopped posting. That’s just the way social media has developed.

This is spot on for quite a few of the serial posters here at CP:

In this way, many of us are led to believe that society is far more polarized, angry, and deluded than it really is. We think everyone on the other side of the generation gap, political spectrum, or fandom community is radical, malicious, or just plain dumb. Our information diet is shaped by a sliver of humanity whose job, identity, or obsession is to post constantly...

[troutman]

Liberal posters did not invent Trump, Poilievre, Smith, Musk etc. “Moderate” posters can’t defend the indefensible.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I have no doubts there are still loads of moderate people like yourself who read CP. But they’ve stopped posting. That’s just the way social media has developed.

I find CP has no tolerance for MAGA, but tons of discourse on moderate conservatism. If there are people that are finding CP divisive or polarizing, it's because their support of MAGA is ridiculed. Characterizing anyone that supports any shred of MAGA and its variants (fascists, maple-MAGA etc.) as "moderate" is also causing issues.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by troutman

Liberal posters did not invent Trump, Poilievre, Smith, Musk etc. “Moderate” posters can’t defend the indefensible.

As well many ‘moderate’ posters will surely continue to vote UCP and CPC.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Wolven

When you joined, the conservatives were progressive. Or at least they pretended to be progressive by putting it in the party name. 20 years ago we would comment about how the PCs and Liberals were both very centrist parties and the main differences between them was some spending.

But then both the Federal and Alberta Provincial PC parties merged and were largely taken over by far-right parties.
- The Federal Conservatives are more Reform than PC
- The Alberta UCP are more Wildrose (or worse) than PC

This really isn't a problem with CalgaryPuck, or any other political conversation, the problem is that the right wing parties are moving hard into far-right ideologies and are constantly attacking the other parties as extremist to try and hide how extreme they have become.

Many of these conservative politicians are grifters and false populists who will lie and steal for personal gain and completely ignore accountability and responsibility to the people who voted for them. They are living on the brand name of past conservative parties and hoping no one is noticing that they have no intention of honouring that trust that many conservative voters are blindly putting into these new "conservative" party.

In all fairness, the government's of Kenney and Smith have largely done what I voted them to do. They paired back per capita spending, returned to balanced budgets, are paying down the debt and increasing the heritage fund. All in all, I think health care and education in Alberta are really good. Infrastructure is good. Taxes are low. Theyre also moving the energy infrastructure file forward, not wasting the tariffs crisis.

The corruption issue around AHS could be a game changer, but it's not clear how big that is, and whether it involves cabinet. The green line decision isnt great either.

I really like Nenshi, but his policies are largely unknown especially around fiscal spending. Smith has done a decent job - and polling confirms this. Im fine with UPC for now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

In all fairness, the government's of Kenney and Smith have largely done what I voted them to do. They paired back per capita spending, returned to balanced budgets, are paying down the debt and increasing the heritage fund. All in all, I think health care and education in Alberta are really good. Infrastructure is good. Taxes are low. Theyre also moving the energy infrastructure file forward, not wasting the tariffs crisis.

The corruption issue around AHS could be a game changer, but it's not clear how big that is, and whether it involves cabinet. The green line decision isnt great either.

I really like Nenshi, but his policies are largely unknown especially around fiscal spending. Smith has done a decent job - and polling confirms this. Im fine with UPC for now.

I’m incredibly confused with the idea that the Smith government is somehow paying down the debt. This is a government that despite the good prices for oil, has shown no financial acumen in anyway. They haven’t balanced the budget. Last year they touted a balanced budget, but it was literally because they borrowed enough money to put them into a positive position. It’s embarrassing. And this is during times when things are good!

That’s not even getting into their social policies and other misgivings I would have. Just looking at them from a pure financial perspective, it’s a complete joke. I know that some posters are waiting for this…but they borrowed for operations, and that’s a cardinal sin where there is no coming back from. It was ridiculous when the NDP did this, but at least they were contending with a massive decline in oil prices. What’s the UCP excuse? It’s just pure incompetence and policy failure.

[Fuzz]

All in all, I think health care and education in Alberta are really good.

Me thinks his deck of cards is lacking a few key pieces.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Slava

I’m incredibly confused with the idea that the Smith government is somehow paying down the debt. This is a government that despite the good prices for oil, has shown no financial acumen in anyway. They haven’t balanced the budget. Last year they touted a balanced budget, but it was literally because they borrowed enough money to put them into a positive position. It’s embarrassing. And this is during times when things are good!

That’s not even getting into their social policies and other misgivings I would have. Just looking at them from a pure financial perspective, it’s a complete joke. I know that some posters are waiting for this…but they borrowed for operations, and that’s a cardinal sin where there is no coming back from. It was ridiculous when the NDP did this, but at least they were contending with a massive decline in oil prices. What’s the UCP excuse? It’s just pure incompetence and policy failure.

The RBC fiscal tables, which are free for anyone to use, suggest the story I presented above. They constrained per capita spending growth, are keeping taxes low and are running surplus budgets, which has put Alberta in a really good spot with regards to fiscal.

Below is a recent CBC article I found suggesting an $8b surplus
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...iday-1.7572464

Here is a recent article noting the heritage fund has doubled in past 5 years: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...plus-1.7589162

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

All in all, I think health care and education in Alberta are really good.

Honest question - have you used either of these in the past few years, or is this just your perception?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The RBC fiscal tables, which are free for anyone to use, suggest the story I presented above. They constrained per capita spending growth, are keeping taxes low and are running surplus budgets, which has put Alberta in a really good spot with regards to fiscal.

Below is a recent CBC article I found suggesting an $8b surplus
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...iday-1.7572464

Here is a recent article noting the heritage fund has doubled in past 5 years: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...plus-1.7589162

The Fraser Institute has different figures and says that the next few years are likely more deficit budgets. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...t-smith-budget

And do you think that the Heritage Fund has done well because of anything the government has done, or because the investments have had the tailwind of good markt conditions since 2020?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Looch City

It's really not that hard to understand. I mean for God sake, just look at Ford in Ontario.

1. Reject the ultra right.
2. Win elections as a moderate/social conservative.

It's really that simple.

That is the balance that has been lost. Right wing went bat#### crazy and now anything slightly to the left of them is akin to socialism/Venezuela.

To be fair Ford is quite far right. He has largely the same strategy as Smith in Alberta. Sell parks, cronyism, privatize healthcare, support Trump (which he’s since dropped), cut education.

It’s actually remarkable Ontario keeps supporting him. He really is Marlaina lite with better media skills.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Fraser Institute has different figures and says that the next few years are likely more deficit budgets. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...t-smith-budget

And do you think that the Heritage Fund has done well because of anything the government has done, or because the investments have had the tailwind of good markt conditions since 2020?

Fraser institute is biased as conservative. IMO, they want to project higher deficits to suggest the government needs to slash more spending. In reality, the opposite is probably true because the government has a contingency line in their forward looking budgets, which biases towards higher surpluses. I think it makes more sense to use the RBC fiscal tables as backward looking to see what governments have done as their track record. If you want to delve into forward looking projections, you would have to look at their assumptions around resource prices (and this revenues). I also think with Carney suppressing immigration, real wages will rise and spending will plateau, providing another driver for higher revenues without higher expenses.

By definition Heritage fund returns are a mix of both. Heritage fund growth = returns + new injections of capital. The returns are just market returns. But the new injections of capital are driven by conservative policies, with half of surplus paying down debt and half invested into heritage fund.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Fraser Institute has different figures and says that the next few years are likely more deficit budgets. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...t-smith-budget

And do you think that the Heritage Fund has done well because of anything the government has done, or because the investments have had the tailwind of good markt conditions since 2020?

The consensus around here is that the Frasier Institute is garbage though and they shouldn't be trusted for anything.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

In all fairness, the government's of Kenney and Smith have largely done what I voted them to do. They paired back per capita spending,…

How are you defining “paired back”?

Provincial government spending per capita in Alberta has increased significantly under the UCP.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

How are you defining “paired back”?

Provincial government spending per capita in Alberta has increased significantly under the UCP.

Rate of change in per capita spending relative to other provincial jurisdictions.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Fraser institute is biased as conservative. IMO, they want to project higher deficits to suggest the government needs to slash more spending. In reality, the opposite is probably true because the government has a contingency line in their forward looking budgets, which biases towards higher surpluses. I think it makes more sense to use the RBC fiscal tables as backward looking to see what governments have done as their track record. If you want to delve into forward looking projections, you would have to look at their assumptions around resource prices (and this revenues). I also think with Carney suppressing immigration, real wages will rise and spending will plateau, providing another driver for higher revenues without higher expenses.

By definition Heritage fund returns are a mix of both. Heritage fund growth = returns + new injections of capital. The returns are just market returns. But the new injections of capital are driven by conservative policies, with half of surplus paying down debt and half invested into heritage fund.

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The consensus around here is that the Frasier Institute is garbage though and they shouldn't be trusted for anything.

This exactly why I used a Fraser Institute piece. When it comes to the Liberals or NDP you guys are fond of their hit pieces and now that the shoe is on the other foot, you think it’s a bad source.

And Gull, I’m fine to use their track record. Their budget this year has a large deficit, and it looks worse going forward. That’s without tariffs, and this is the result of bad management. The reality is that energy prices are good, and they have spent too much money. Instead of a legitimate plan to bring this budget to balance though, we have a government that is giving away millions of dollars in healthcare scandals and the budget is bad enough that their own MLAs have questioned it.

Probably more concerning though, is where in the world is it all going?! The healthcare sector is begging for more money. The education system continues to cry out for assistance. Those are the two largest provincial responsibilities, and yet the budget isn’t balanced. Smith and her government have no answer, and somehow you’re making the argument that this is good financial management and people should laud this?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It isn’t that simple. I’d like nothing more than for the CPC to dump the populist right. But these internal party struggles are fought by the small fraction of the electorate who participate in politics at the party constituency level. And the populist right today is more engaged and motivated at the grassroots than moderates. Jason Kenney didn’t walk away from the UCP because the average Albertan who goes out and checks Conservative on their ballot every four years had turned against him. He was driven out by hostility at the constituency level, where the populist right dominate.

Even if moderate, establishment conservatives do manage to take back control of the party at the constituency level, it’s almost certain that a new party will spring up on the right - it has happened again and again in this country. And if that party got even 10 per cent of the popular vote in a federal election, the CPC would have a very narrow path to electoral victory.

The federal Conservatives were lost in the wilderness for 13 years until the right was united under Harper. The only time the Conservatives have lost in Alberta is when they split the vote with the Wild Rose. Those lessons dominate the thinking of conservative strategists in this country.

If conservative parties don't provide an outlet for the separatists, white supremacists, pedophiles, etc., they'll go and create their own party.