Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

No, you are right, it was. I said that. But i didn't know what it was, and was basing my hunch off of a suite of interactions with officials not a single data point.

Marshall Smith stepping off the plank is probably related, but he also lasted much longer than he should have- I heard that he was toast in August. They have a lot of resilience to scandals. And a seemingly large capacity to sweep things under the rug.

I anticipate the leadership review will yield some surprises, and that this is also why she has been making more egregious social policy related announcements over the last month. She's courting.

The Breakdown also had similar intel around the same time IIRC.

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I understand this still pending story relates to the Acetaminophen ("Tylenot") purchase. (something about side deals)

Thanks

[Reggie Dunlop]

Incidentally, Take Back Alberta's David Parker is ramping up the province-wide Grievance Tour post-convention.

[Harry Lime]

So, if Lagrange is insisting that alberta pull out of the pharmacare bill, because it duplicates what alberta already offers, that would mean that reproductive and diabetes medicine has been free in alberta this whole time, then?

Anyone who has paid out of pocket should be reimbursed, and anyone paying into a plan that includes deductions on those items should be compensated for the cost of the plan?

Sort of like how I want all of the dental costs I've accrued to be paid back by Lagrange and Smith.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Incidentally, Take Back Alberta's David Parker is ramping up the province-wide Grievance Tour post-convention.

If it weren’t for the irony I’d be strongly opposed to using that word to describe anything Parker is doing.

[puffnstuff]

Just browsing the policy points the ucp will be voting on at their clown convention.
I couldnt make it thru the whole list but some highlights
3. unions not allowed to donate to political parties
7. Parents rights crap
12. CO2 is foundational to life on earth and shall not be categorized as a pollutant, abandon net zero targets
16. There is only male or female
21. Distance itself (GOA) from the federal govt in as many facets as possible

I skipped posting some, obviously, but theres anti sex ed stuff, book banning stuff, anti trans stuff (more than one of them actually)
Very little to none of it focused on making life better in general.

Its an astonishingly horrendous list. I have to clean my browser now.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Just browsing the policy points the ucp will be voting on at their clown convention.
I couldnt make it thru the whole list but some highlights
3. unions not allowed to donate to political parties
7. Parents rights crap
12. CO2 is foundational to life on earth and shall not be categorized as a pollutant, abandon net zero targets
16. There is only male or female
21. Distance itself (GOA) from the federal govt in as many facets as possible

I skipped posting some, obviously, but theres anti sex ed stuff, book banning stuff, anti trans stuff (more than one of them actually)
Very little to none of it focused on making life better in general.

Its an astonishingly horrendous list. I have to clean my browser now.

Le sigh.

Look...I dont think Unions should be spending constituent money donating to Political Parties either...they dont know if the people they represent would voluntarily donate to that particular party so it gets murky.

But at the same time there needs to be some parity in terms of Political donations.

Companies donate all the time, whereas the difference being it is technically their money to do with as they choose.

Thats an ugly one. I wouldnt touch that.

[puffnstuff]

You know thats not why they are doing it, looking out for union members.

If I own shares in a company and instead of using profits to say; increase the shareholders dividends, they instead donate that to a political party, how is that really different? Shareholders can vote out the board that made the donation, same as union members can.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Locke

Le sigh.

Look...I dont think Unions should be spending constituent money donating to Political Parties either...they dont know if the people they represent would voluntarily donate to that particular party so it gets murky.

But at the same time there needs to be some parity in terms of Political donations.

Companies donate all the time, whereas the difference being it is technically their money to do with as they choose.

Thats an ugly one. I wouldnt touch that.

But isn't the roll of a union to do what is best for the members. And if , say a party was going to come down hard on unions in whatever way they can, would it not make sense to donate to the other party to protect union rights?

[iggy_oi]

Maybe the easier route would be to just not be an anti-union party and then unions wouldn’t feel compelled to donate money to any parties?

My Union doesn’t make donations to political parties so it wouldn’t affect me either way but I’m of the opinion that if the elected officials of a union are given a mandate by their members to support certain parties the government should allow them the freedom(we all know how much the UCP loves to champion “freedom”) to spend their money as they see fit.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

You know thats not why they are doing it, looking out for union members.

If I own shares in a company and instead of using profits to say; increase the shareholders dividends, they instead donate that to a political party, how is that really different? Shareholders can vote out the board that made the donation, same as union members can.

1. Because the shareholders agree on the donation. Are you going to Poll every Union member? We're talking the difference between a dozen people and potentially tens of thousands.

2. Companies donate to political parties with the expectation of benefit.

If you've got a giant Union, they're not all NDP voters. They're all across the board.

Thats why I said, it gets murky. I think Unions should be allowed to donate to Political parties, but...its not as clear as that.

What if you're a Fascist? Do you want your Union Dues to be donated to the Greens? You worked for that money, they didnt and they dont represent your values.

And yet...I am still a proponent of Unions being allowed to donate to Political parties. I support that. Because otherwise we're really in Gilead.

If Corporate Interests went completely unopposed? Thats not something I thing we really want to contemplate.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But isn't the roll of a union to do what is best for the members. And if , say a party was going to come down hard on unions in whatever way they can, would it not make sense to donate to the other party to protect union rights?

I dont know how Unions 'roll' do they prefer skates or are they more of 'blade' kind of endeavour?

In seriousness, again, yes. If you read up my post a little, I do agree.

Again, I do not like Unions as they exist in their current form, I have no issue with labour having collective bargaining power.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

Le sigh.

Look...I dont think Unions should be spending constituent money donating to Political Parties either...they dont know if the people they represent would voluntarily donate to that particular party so it gets murky.

But at the same time there needs to be some parity in terms of Political donations.

Companies donate all the time, whereas the difference being it is technically their money to do with as they choose.

Thats an ugly one. I wouldnt touch that.

Notley already got rid of political contributions from corporations and unions when in power. It was good and is the way that it should be.

[DownInFlames]

I thought the gambling ads were annoying but polical attack ads three years before an election takes the cake. Especially when they're full of bull#### like the guy saying his property taxes doubled.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Le sigh.

Look...I dont think Unions should be spending constituent money donating to Political Parties either...they dont know if the people they represent would voluntarily donate to that particular party so it gets murky.

But at the same time there needs to be some parity in terms of Political donations.

Companies donate all the time, whereas the difference being it is technically their money to do with as they choose.

Thats an ugly one. I wouldnt touch that.

Not sure how you can say that you don’t think it’s fair for unions to spend money that their democratically elected leadership is responsible for because not all of their members will agree with where it is being spent, while at the same time saying it’s ok for large companies to do so because it’s “their money” when not all of their shareholders would necessarily agree to it. Do you really think that employees participating in company share programs really like seeing their employers spending their investment to support political parties that want to suppress their wages and rights?

I mean essentially your arguing that democratically elected governments shouldn’t be able to spend tax dollars on projects unless ever single tax paying constituent agrees on funding it.

Unions can’t make donations to political parties anyways so it’s all kind of a moot point. Ironically it was the political party that they support who legislated that. Fortunately millionaires can still make max donations to as many candidates as they like.

Originally Posted by Locke

1. Because the shareholders agree on the donation. Are you going to Poll every Union member? We're talking the difference between a dozen people and potentially tens of thousands.

Every union elects their leaders so yes they do get polled. Often times they hold special votes to determine which parties they want to endorse during an election. You know damn well that a board of directors of a company doesn’t need a unanimous vote from their shareholders to make a decision on something so how about cutting the crap a little on that one?

2. Companies donate to political parties with the expectation of benefit.

If you've got a giant Union, they're not all NDP voters. They're all across the board.

Thats why I said, it gets murky. I think Unions should be allowed to donate to Political parties, but...its not as clear as that.

All the effort being put into trying really hard to come off as being moderate here isn’t going to be worth it if you keep pulling arguments out of the same old playbook. The hypocrisy is fairly obvious. “Giant” unions don’t have the resources that giant corporations have and you know that. Companies spend money that every single shareholder may not want them to spend it on. The shareholders have options in those cases, as do the union members.

What if you're a Fascist? Do you want your Union Dues to be donated to the Greens? You worked for that money, they didnt and they dont represent your values.

You’re really reaching on this one.

And yet...I am still a proponent of Unions being allowed to donate to Political parties. I support that. Because otherwise we're really in Gilead.

It really doesn’t sound like you support it at all.

If Corporate Interests went completely unopposed? Thats not something I thing we really want to contemplate.

Welcome to Alberta

Again, I do not like Unions as they exist in their current form, I have no issue with labour having collective bargaining power.

As they currently exist? In this province their collective bargaining power is about as suppressed as it can be…oh wait, are you saying you don’t like that?

[Fuzz]

Gaslighter in Chief continues assault on rapidly growing economic sector.

The Alberta government is proposing additional restrictions on wind and solar farms that it says are designed with environmental protection in mind.

A first look at what those grassland and irrigated land restrictions could be was made available when the government asked some municipalities, industry officials, and landowners for input this summer.

According to a webinar used in that engagement process, Alberta is looking to prohibit wind and solar farms on irrigated land.

Land that could be irrigable could also be prohibited, though an analysis would be done before a decision is made.

That same webinar also shows Alberta is considering prohibiting renewable energy facilities from being erected on most grassland areas.

"I think the restrictions start off from ideas that would be good and that would be beneficial environmentally, but the way they're applied doesn't make sense from a science perspective," she said.

Jason Wang, a senior electricity analyst with the clean energy think tank the Pembina Institute agreed with Luo, and said if Alberta wants to protect grasslands and agriculture lands then restrictions like these would need to be applied across the energy sector, rather than solely on renewables.

"It feels very elementary to say, but these sectors aren't being treated in the same way," Wang said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...351877?cmp=rss

I wonder if this kind of nonsense opens the province up to lawsuits. You can't seriously argue you are doing it to protect the environment while still permitting oil and gas on the exact same land. In the meantime, we lose access to cheaper energy, jobs, and investment. Truly a strong Conservative position to argue from, right?

[Muta]

If Marlaina and they UCP were truly libertarian / free market at heart as they claim they are, they'd let the people decide what type of power (oil, gas, renewables, nuclear, etc,) emerges as the victor through demand for product, and let the market sort itself out.

UCP supporters - how do you defend this double-standard against renewables that is very anti-business and anti-free market?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Muta

If Marlaina and they UCP were truly libertarian / free market at heart as they claim they are, they'd let the people decide what type of power (oil, gas, renewables, nuclear, etc,) emerges as the victor through demand for product, and let the market sort itself out.

UCP supporters - how do you defend this double-standard against renewables that is very anti-business and anti-free market?

There has never been and never will be a free market for electricity though. It will heavily rely on government intervention, policy making, natural monopolies and investment in "winners/losers" based on forces outside of free markets.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

There has never been and never will be a free market for electricity though. It will heavily rely on government intervention, policy making, natural monopolies and investment in "winners/losers" based on forces outside of free markets.

So you don't think that the UCP is intentionally stifling investments and progress in renewable energies in Alberta? They are literally only doing this to virtue signal to their base. They are literally turning away needed investment and diversification in this province, and creating bull#### reasons to justify it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Muta

So you don't think that the UCP is intentionally stifling investments and progress in renewable energies in Alberta? They are literally only doing this to virtue signal to their base. They are literally turning away needed investment and diversification in this province, and creating bull#### reasons to justify it.

Sure I agree that investment and progress is being impacted. But free market forces and factors are not going to fix that because that isn't an industry which plays by those rules. There are all sorts of aspects that need to be taken into consideration from technical, grid related stuff, to demand side, to environmental and all sorts of others things. I don't believe the UCP is doing the right things in all cases but I'm also a proponent of nuclear baseload so that is what I would like to see as the future.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Muta

So you don't think that the UCP is intentionally stifling investments and progress in renewable energies in Alberta? They are literally only doing this to virtue signal to their base. They are literally turning away needed investment and diversification in this province, and creating bull#### reasons to justify it.

The dumb part of their strategy is from what we are seeing, rural property owners and municipalities are heavily in favour of renewables and the revenue they'll create for them.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Locke

1. Because the shareholders agree on the donation. Are you going to Poll every Union member? We're talking the difference between a dozen people and potentially tens of thousands.

I don't think "all" shareholders agree on the donation in the case of public companies where they have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of shareholders.

2. Companies donate to political parties with the expectation of benefit.

How are unions any different in this respect? They're not donating out of the goodness of their hearts; they're donating to the party(ies) they think will create policies that will benefit them.