Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Are you for what the government is doing to auto insurance or against it? It seems so far that everything the government is doing has served only to increase premiums year-over-year. A vote to reverse what the government has done with auto insurance reforms would seem to make sense, in that case.

I am against pretty much everything the UCP has done with the insurance industry over the last 6 years. The reason the insurance rates have been going up is because the UCP has been deregulating the insurance industry for years now and, predictably, it has resulted in the cost of insurance going up. Making the industry better for corporations and worse for people.

However, my understanding of that vote was only to stop Smith from implementing the "no-fault" change (planned for Jan 2027) that would have prevented lawsuits from happening. It had nothing to do with walking back all of the other changes that the UCP made to allow prices to skyrocket.

[Slava]

Well, I’m against the move to no-fault. If someone hits me, I want to sue for compensation. The reality is that insurance premiums are rising for other reasons, not because of these lawsuits.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I actually don't have any issue with AIMCO being an investor at all, better overall the more local, domestic support we have the better. Some people are more pessimistic that it will be built but it's not like nobody needs oil or that there is some glut of available pipeline capacity for decades.

I just hope that the government doesn't throw taxpayer money or take unnecessary risk with this. We have burned enough money with KXL, oil by rail contracts and a lot more.

...

Tell me you don't have the first clue about diversification or who is funding the pension plan without telling me...

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Tell me you don't have the first clue about diversification or who is funding the pension plan without telling me...

If AIMCO decided to invest in a local infrastructure project such as a pipeline in it's own backyard as a diversification play, I don't think that is a bad thing if it warrants it such an investment. As Slava pointed out, the toll fee's revenue from a pipeline is exactly the type of income that pension plans love. Long term, stable, fairly predictable. Pension funds do this all over the world

I guess AB taxpayers fund a portion of AIMCO through employee/employer contributions alongside AB based employee's. AIMCO also has a fiduciary responsibility to their clients and their beneficiaries, they are not going to purposefully take a giant loss on a multi billion dollar investment just cause Danielle Smith says so???

I know there is a lot of anxiety with AIMCO in general with some people but it's not like they have shown themselves to be incompetent morons who are investing in type writer factories or throwing billions into tulip investments with the hope of a massive payoff.

I am too lazy to look up full details but Quebec's Caisse de dépôt may have made some suspect investments in Bombardier when that company was building the C-Series aircraft. Excellent plane but the company really didn't have the financial muscle to go head to head with Boeing and Airbus in that category and management of that entire company has been useless for a long time up until then.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Sert

Jason Kenney invited and and encouraged the nutbars, knowing they were nutbars, because he thought he could use them to achieve his own political ends. He let the tiger out of the cage, grabbed its tail, and then it ate him, and now it's rampaging around our village. He knew better and did it anyway, and if he had an ounce of integrity he would be out there every day trying to repair the damage that he's done to this province. Instead I'm sure he's quietly collecting a cheque from right wing institutions like the Manning Foundation (or whatever they're calling themselves these days). I hear Preston is flush with taxpayer cash at the moment.

He's proven over the years he isn't a good person. I'm not surprised at all he's hiding away.

besides, maybe he's also concerned about being outed if he comes forward to try and repair any damage he helped cause.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is the part that confuses me at times.

Separation is, well, I wouldnt call it a 'fantasy pipe dream' largely because people tend to be happy when, against all odds, those come true whereas I think Alberta Separation would be an unmitigated nightmare the likes of which we can't even imagine.

"Careful what you wish for...you just might get it..."

However...going back to the threat of Quebec separation, what it can be...is 'the big stick' to try and get what you really want. That strategy did work for Quebec and it worked rather well.

The caveat to that is...'is this a strategy?' Is it a game? A political game being played? Because in Alberta's case? I'm not so convinced. These people seem F###ing crazy! I mean legitimately unhinged. I dont think they have the mental wherewithal to be making political maneuvers of this magnitude. I get the feeling that the people behind this move aren't doing it for political points or maneuvering but rather actually really and genuinely want this.

And that to me is very concerning.

No one should truly want this.

No one should want an Alberta Pension Plan. No one should want an Alberta Police Force. No one should want Alberta Separation.

And yet...here we are.

Quebec knows how to play the game because they can and will vote for anyone. The carrot is their votes, the ultimate stick is separation. Alberta has no idea how to play.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Most semi-intelligent or even just honest people can look at two similar policies and feel totally different about them based on the people they’re supposed to trust with forming them and executing them.

That’s what UCP supporters with their flaccid “but other parties are doing them!” whining don’t see to be able to understand.

Should healthcare be improved? Yes
Should you trust a party that hates public healthcare to do it? No

Should education be improved? Yes
Should you trust a party that hates public education and universities to do it? No

Should immigration be improved? Yes
Should you trust a party that hates immigrants to do it? No

Should voting rights and accessibility be improved? Yes
Should you trust a party that hates democracy to do it? No

Even just looking at the basics or what’s already been done (especially the easiest, low hanging fruit). Look at the Tylenol debacle for example. Was it a good idea to secure more tylenol to address a provincial shortage? Yes. Did the UCP completely screw it up by sourcing a heavily delayed, nearly unusable version? Yes.

They’ve proven time and time again they can’t even handle the simplest things without making everything worse. The only people defending losers are the people who see themselves appropriately represented by losers.

The Provincial Policy force is my example of this.

Ontario has one, why can't we?

Because the party presenting it is doing so for highly nefarious purposes and i don't trust the reasons for doing it.

I had a chat with my dad on this, and the reasonableness of a provincial police turned into questions about government appointed judges vs judge voting and sheriff elections - which are bat#### insane.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Quebec knows how to play the game because they can and will vote for anyone. The carrot is their votes, the ultimate stick is separation. Alberta has no idea how to play.

And the reason why Quebec is able to play that game is because they have 78 parliament seats available vs 37 for Alberta.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

And the reason why Quebec is able to play that game is because they have 78 parliament seats available vs 37 for Alberta.

So what you’re saying is if Quebec separates we’ll go from having just over 10% of the seats in the House of Commons to just under 14%.

Maybe Smith should be pushing for that instead of pushing for giving us no say in what the country does at all?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

And the reason why Quebec is able to play that game is because they have 78 parliament seats available vs 37 for Alberta.

What? 37 seats could be a powerful block of seats if there was any chance those seats might flip to a different party. In the last 20 years we've had 5 minority governments and 2 majority governments. With 5 minority governments, Alberta could be a bigger player in Federal politics with 37 seats and could use the leverage of those 37 seats to get things for Alberta.

No, the reason why Quebec is able to play this game is because Quebec will vote for whichever party looks like they will meet the needs of Quebec. Parties need to actually compete for Quebec votes but it is worth it because Quebec will actually shift their votes to the party that appears to be trying the hardest. If none of the parties are saying things to make Quebec happy then they will default to the Bloc. That is excellent leverage.

Alberta on the other hand votes the same way all of the time. The voters are on autopilot and the politicians are on autopilot. Nothing really needs to be promised to Alberta because regardless of what anyone says they will always vote CPC.

If Alberta showed any capacity at all to vote for the other parties they would all be forced to try harder to secure Alberta's seats. The Liberals would campaign here to try and secure a majority. The NDP would campaign here because they want to represent hard working non-billionaires, which is everyone in Alberta. Even the CPC would have to try harder to make Alberta happy and avoid losing these seats to the other parties. But, none of the Federal parties care about Alberta because nothing seems to change how Alberta votes. Even when the Conservative parties merge and change, Alberta keeps automatically handing them the seats and demands nothing in return.

In short, Alberta cries about having no leverage in the federal arena but then perpetually throws the leverage away in every election.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, 37 seats is enough to completely change the outcome (whether a different party leading or majority/minority) of most elections in Canada since Chrétien. Suggesting it isn’t enough to play the same game Quebec plays is just most self-defeating Albertan behaviour.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, I’m against the move to no-fault. If someone hits me, I want to sue for compensation. The reality is that insurance premiums are rising for other reasons, not because of these lawsuits.

I thought that too (wanting to sue for compensation)... however, I think that is mostly because insurance companies never seem to make you whole after a claim. They always nitpick things down so that they are only getting you a fraction of the way there and then you either need to eat the difference or sue someone to get to 100%.

If insurance was structured to get people back to 100% through the claim then I think most of us would be fine with not having the lawsuit option.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, I’m against the move to no-fault. If someone hits me, I want to sue for compensation. The reality is that insurance premiums are rising for other reasons, not because of these lawsuits.

Not sure you'd be saying that if it was you that hit someone and they decided to sue you into the stone age.

Just saying it goes both ways.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Wolven

What? 37 seats could be a powerful block of seats if there was any chance those seats might flip to a different party. In the last 20 years we've had 5 minority governments and 2 majority governments. With 5 minority governments, Alberta could be a bigger player in Federal politics with 37 seats and could use the leverage of those 37 seats to get things for Alberta.

No, the reason why Quebec is able to play this game is because Quebec will vote for whichever party looks like they will meet the needs of Quebec. Parties need to actually compete for Quebec votes but it is worth it because Quebec will actually shift their votes to the party that appears to be trying the hardest. If none of the parties are saying things to make Quebec happy then they will default to the Bloc. That is excellent leverage.

Alberta on the other hand votes the same way all of the time. The voters are on autopilot and the politicians are on autopilot. Nothing really needs to be promised to Alberta because regardless of what anyone says they will always vote CPC.

If Alberta showed any capacity at all to vote for the other parties they would all be forced to try harder to secure Alberta's seats. The Liberals would campaign here to try and secure a majority. The NDP would campaign here because they want to represent hard working non-billionaires, which is everyone in Alberta. Even the CPC would have to try harder to make Alberta happy and avoid losing these seats to the other parties. But, none of the Federal parties care about Alberta because nothing seems to change how Alberta votes. Even when the Conservative parties merge and change, Alberta keeps automatically handing them the seats and demands nothing in return.

In short, Alberta cries about having no leverage in the federal arena but then perpetually throws the leverage away in every election.

Everything you said is true. When I have told people this you should see the constipated look they give me. Not vote blue no matter what? Make the parties actual deliver? Madness! And then proceed to vote blue.

It puzzles me that they can't see this.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I thought that too (wanting to sue for compensation)... however, I think that is mostly because insurance companies never seem to make you whole after a claim. They always nitpick things down so that they are only getting you a fraction of the way there and then you either need to eat the difference or sue someone to get to 100%.

If insurance was structured to get people back to 100% through the claim then I think most of us would be fine with not having the lawsuit option.

Sure, as long as insurance is going to compensate you for the injury, inconvenience, and everything that goes along with this, I'm okay with that. But when they won't, I want some ability for recourse.

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

Not sure you'd be saying that if it was you that hit someone and they decided to sue you into the stone age.

Just saying it goes both ways.

Of course, it goes both ways, which is why I carry insurance.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, 37 seats is enough to completely change the outcome (whether a different party leading or majority/minority) of most elections in Canada since Chrétien. Suggesting it isn’t enough to play the same game Quebec plays is just most self-defeating Albertan behaviour.

Also, where Alberta goes, Saskatchewan follows. A Bloc Westacois would have a lot of power

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

He's proven over the years he isn't a good person. I'm not surprised at all he's hiding away.

besides, maybe he's also concerned about being outed if he comes forward to try and repair any damage he helped cause.

Kenney is one f the lawyers employed by the coal company that is suing Alberta for millions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Kenney is one f the lawyers employed by the coal company that is suing Alberta for millions.

So he was involved in coal policy changes that allow his client to sue and take resources and dollars from Alberta taxpayers, and he's gonna make bank off of it? And he's not in prison? What a system.


####, these people are just all horrible humans, aren't they?

[Slava]

Well, Kenney isn't actually a lawyer; he's a "Senior Advisor".

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Kenney is one f the lawyers employed by the coal company that is suing Alberta for millions.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So he was involved in coal policy changes that allow his client to sue and take resources and dollars from Alberta taxpayers, and he's gonna make bank off of it? And he's not in prison? What a system.


####, these people are just all horrible humans, aren't they?

Thanks for the misinformation.