Yes that's exactly it. Kenney actually made some sense on the radio. Like I can't imagine voting for him or any of his goons but I kind of hope he wins? That makes no sense but here we are. And on the other hand the most satisfying thing ever would be if he lost.
I think that describes where I am. I have long thought that Kenney is greasy and smarmy, and he's probably involved in that whole kamikaze candidate ploy. But there's a pretty legitimate upside to him winning, and that's sentiment. I know that the supporters of other parties joke about how things change the day after because the saviour rode in, and I don't believe that. However, sentiment matters, and I do think that April 18th, despite there being no actual changes or policies implemented, people will feel better.
And at the same time, while I do dislike him and what he stands for, let's not pretend that Rachel and the NDP have no warts. I can't get onside with them having people accused of sexual misconduct and just keeping it silent. Like if that was the UCP they would be out with the pitchforks and torches! And don't even get me started on the economic and financial ridiculousness. I'm a Keynesian, so I should have some sympathy for them, but what we've seen isn't Keynesian.
The UCP is not going to win an equalization legal battle or avoid adhering to a Federally mandated carbon tax. This legal battle will be nothing more than another financial drain on our economy and take our politicians focus off of, you know, actually finding ways to improve life in Alberta.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
The UCP is not going to win an equalization legal battle or avoid adhering to a Federally mandated carbon tax. This legal battle will be nothing more than another financial drain on our economy and take our politicians focus off of, you know, actually finding ways to improve life in Alberta.
No confusion here. But those are pretty bold proclamations. Also the hilarity of making such bold proclamations followed up with "insulting voters intelligence".
Yes that's exactly it. Kenney actually made some sense on the radio. Like I can't imagine voting for him or any of his goons but I kind of hope he wins? That makes no sense but here we are. And on the other hand the most satisfying thing ever would be if he lost.
Maybe you should consider the Alberta Party and make a stand - seems to be best of both sides
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
The UCP is not going to win an equalization legal battle or avoid adhering to a Federally mandated carbon tax. This legal battle will be nothing more than another financial drain on our economy and take our politicians focus off of, you know, actually finding ways to improve life in Alberta.
Depends on how you define 'battle. It's true they likely would not win on legal grounds in terms of whether we could 'opt out' etc. but that is not what the UCP envisions. By having a referendum, and if that referendum passes, then the Federal government is forced to negotiate equalization again in good faith - they do not have a choice. The entire point of the exercise is to bring attention to the program and it's flaws and to force a new discussion.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
Maybe you should consider the Alberta Party and make a stand - seems to be best of both sides
Yeah I would do that in most ridings but I kind of want David Khan to get a seat. So I guess I'll go that route. The Alberta Party has some odd policies too. But I guess I cant say much about that if I'm voting Liberal.
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Depends on how you define 'battle. It's true they likely would not win on legal grounds in terms of whether we could 'opt out' etc. but that is not what the UCP envisions. By having a referendum, and if that referendum passes, then the Federal government is forced to negotiate equalization again in good faith - they do not have a choice. The entire point of the exercise is to bring attention to the program and it's flaws and to force a new discussion.
Pretty sure 7 of 10 provinces would need to agree to that change in formula. Do we have 7 provinces willing to go along with the bread and butter province wanting to pay less? I feel like Doug Ford's Ontario would go with it, but most others would reject, and it would be all for not, and a waste of time and money.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Yeah I would do that in most ridings but I kind of want David Khan to get a seat. So I guess I'll go that route. The Alberta Party has some odd policies too. But I guess I cant say much about that if I'm voting Liberal.
Lay that Pipe!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Depends on how you define 'battle. It's true they likely would not win on legal grounds in terms of whether we could 'opt out' etc. but that is not what the UCP envisions. By having a referendum, and if that referendum passes, then the Federal government is forced to negotiate equalization again in good faith - they do not have a choice. The entire point of the exercise is to bring attention to the program and it's flaws and to force a new discussion.
I wonder how a court that can't decide what "meaningful consultation" looks like is going to decide what "negotiating in good faith" looks like. Also, this could very well be a "careful what you wish for" situation. If equalization gets opened up, it's not just Alberta who will get to submit proposals and it'd be a very easy route for the Liberals to throw some red meat to their supporters in Quebec, BC, and the Atlantic provinces.
Pretty sure 7 of 10 provinces would need to agree to that change in formula. Do we have 7 provinces willing to go along with the bread and butter province wanting to pay less? I feel like Doug Ford's Ontario would go with it, but most others would reject, and it would be all for not, and a waste of time and money.
Then maybe they should have a referendum asking the provinces “who thinks Quebec is getting more than their fair share?”
I'm looking forward to watching Notley and the NDP after the election.
are they going to continue their newfound support for oil, or go back to their old ways.
I'm sure it won't take long to find out how sincere their fossil fuel fight was.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
Pretty sure 7 of 10 provinces would need to agree to that change in formula. Do we have 7 provinces willing to go along with the bread and butter province wanting to pay less? I feel like Doug Ford's Ontario would go with it, but most others would reject, and it would be all for not, and a waste of time and money.
I don't know if its that interesting, when i looked at her list, I didn't see any groups that were actively involved and campaigning here. Some of them are policy think tanks or universities for example that aren't lobby groups.
But if she can show interference I'm all for it.
But reading her twitter account she's a bit of a flail and to me her research isn't research as much as throwing stuff against a wall.
But personally, I want all activist groups to not be able to accept foreign money unless they report it publicly and what its used for.
I'm really not seeing money going to third party organizations that are working counter to parties in the election. Or attacking Alberta's economy for example.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
