so kenney's idea of wasting everyones time and money with a ridiculous non binding vote that he doesnt even undersand the mechanics of is a reason to vote for him, because he will start the conversation that alberta is pissed, as if everyone thinks things are honky dory in alberta land?
That way of thinking is just wrong on so many levels and is far more likely to lead to lame duck representative being elected than your preferred method of voting. There are far too many alternative outcomes possible that make voting only for a leader such a dangerous play for voters, with the following 2 being the most obvious:
1.) A minority government would place far more importance on each and every MP or MLA elected to place significant influence beyond the party line.
2.) The leader you have irrationally voted for winds up not winning their own riding or a new leader is chosen for a variety of reasons (retirement, illness, death, scandal) during the term.
Under alternative 1, when you have a minority government, the party line tends to be even more tightly towed, so I can't say that I agree with you there. Alternative 2 strikes me as so rare that I don't think it is worth considering when you vote. Even in the case that a leader is replaced, a new election usually is not far away.
Quote:
No matter which way you spin it, you cannot simply assume your representative will be some insignificant backbencher. It happens, of course but our democracy just doesn't work effectively under those assumptions. Even a small player who is any good is going to make strides to improve their riding. It's unfortunate that some of these people don't get the chance to do it simply because of misguided voters not doing what is best for their own ridings.
I see the useless back-bencher far more often than not. Federally, under the last Conservative government, the PMO seemed to control everything, even key cabinet positions. This current federal government appears to be no different after everything that has come to light with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. I live in Ontario, so I won't comment on Alberta politics, but federally, we just don't have effective local representation and voting as if we do is naive to me. To each their own, though. Sounds like you are thoughtful about your vote, which is the most important thing in my opinion.
It doesn't prevent him from holding the referendum though...much like how Quebec did the same thing in regards to separation, it spurred massive change and in fact garner a massive amount of national attention.
Doesn’t the article also say that referencing Quebec in this situation either shows a lack of understanding of law, or outright lying to the public?
I think that point is that “much like Quebec did the same thing in regards of separation” is actually not a very good comparable.
It's also not mutually exclusive. At least federally, the factors influencing my voting decision are, in descending order of importance, the quality of the MP first, the party platform second, the quality of the leader last, with any other factors (e.g. SNC Lavalin, previous broken promises or trustworthiness, etc) being appropriately weighted in the circumstances.
Why does the quality of your MP matter?
It seems ridiculous to rank MP quality over party platform. Yes it’s the way the system was set up but your actual MP likely will make zero difference. The system no longer is set up that way. Your MP does not represent your interests in government. Whether they are from the ruling party or not might make a small difference.
If you want to actually vote for your representative you should be doing that at the nomination level based on the party you are most likely to vote for or the party most likely to win even though you don’t vote for them.
I agree that the individual needs to pass a basic character test but after that it just doesn’t matter
It doesn't prevent him from holding the referendum though...much like how Quebec did the same thing in regards to separation, it spurred massive change and in fact garner a massive amount of national attention.
Sure, because it had some teeth to it. Had the "leave" side won, they actually could have left. This is just nonsense with nothing behind it. The only discussion it will spur is that Albertans are a bunch of yokels and wasted millions of dollars on a vote that couldn't actually have any impact on anything at all. It's embarrassing.
Quote:
Thats why its step 1. If the feds then want to just ignore what that mandate would mean, then thats up to them.
What would it mean? Because from where I sit, I can't think of anything that a provincial government could possibly do that would be more meaningless or worthy of being ignored by the feds.
Quote:
Its time for this province to fight back and if its a dirty fight they want, so be it. Notley wont do that, particularly to BC. UCP will.
There are plenty of "fighting dirty" tactics that can be employed in retribution for the dirty tactics employed by BC, if that's what you want in a government. This isn't one of them. It's totally ineffectual, yet very, very expensive.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Because I want good, quality people in my government, and voting for them to get in the first time is the only way they'll get there. Sure, they may not have a major national impact during their first term, but you can't get to the higher echelons without getting elected first.
Quote:
It seems ridiculous to rank MP quality over party platform. Yes it’s the way the system was set up but your actual MP likely will make zero difference. The system no longer is set up that way. Your MP does not represent your interests in government.
I insist that they do so, by pushing for legislation that will positively affect my riding and by attempting to influence the party towards policies that will have that effect. Of course, that doesn't mean I don't put a lot of emphasis on the party platform as well; as I said, they're not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
I agree that the individual needs to pass a basic character test but after that it just doesn’t matter
Totally and wholeheartedly disagree. This attitude can only ensure that the people we have representing us are mediocre and not terribly bright, and that if by chance someone talented actually does sneak in they'll have a harder time rising to prominence such that they can have an impact on the party's (and if in government, the country's) direction.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
We don't need to do anything. Just impose a job-killing carbon tax, and our social license will magically make them appear.
Right?
Pipelines and carbon tax. Very very important points that we as Albertans should be concerned with. Except it has nothing to do with the provincial government at this point. Carbon tax is a federal policy that Trudeau (maybe erroneously) gave provinces the ability to implement under defined constraints. Had Notley not done it, we would have been stuck with something very similar. Wouldn't make a difference if Kenney was premiere or not, you'd still have your carbon tax. The fact that someone so adamant about their political leanings doesn't understand this is crazy too me.
Unfortunately most voters in Alberta are uninformed and somehow think the provincial government will be able to get pipelines constructed and carbon tax removed. Not happening with the Liberals in power.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Carbon tax is a federal policy that Trudeau (maybe erroneously) gave provinces the ability to implement under defined constraints. Had Notley not done it, we would have been stuck with something very similar.
This isn't accurate. First of all, the Saskatchewan government is fighting this tooth and nail, and it's not unreasonable for Albertans to want a government that would do the same. Second, there are a ton of ways to implement a carbon tax in a manner that's actually revenue neutral, or is otherwise offset to make it relatively benign. It's totally reasonable to say you don't support the NDP because of the carbon tax.
Quote:
Unfortunately most voters in Alberta are uninformed and somehow think the provincial government will be able to get pipelines constructed
In a vacuum, I'd agree; the province should not have a role in determining whether an inter-provincial undertaking like a pipeline to tidewater gets constructed... except we've seen, since 2015, that the exact opposite is the current reality in this country. The BC government, and politicians in Quebec, have quite effectively frustrated major projects that they have absolutely no constitutional authority over. I've set out why I think the equalization payments referendum is utter nonsense, but at the same time, I can understand Transplant's sentiment about feeling like we're getting screwed, and wanting to fight dirty, since we basically seem to be Walter Sobchak at this point.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Sure, because it had some teeth to it. Had the "leave" side won, they actually could have left. This is just nonsense with nothing behind it. The only discussion it will spur is that Albertans are a bunch yokels
The "unfortunately most voters are uneducated and believe a new government can build a pipeline" argument are the same uninformed voters on the other end of the spectrum who eat up spend spend spend, more doctors for you, more nurses for you, more roads being paved for you, more teachers for you, etc.
There are a ton of uninformed UCP votes and I laugh reading comments in articles but I think this goes both ways and always will.
And the carbon tax thing can be fought... and will be fought. You have half of Canada binding together to go at this thing. As I explained yesterday, we will have someone at the adults table who wants to fight it in the UCP. Under the NDP we can just sling dirt back and forth with BC making no difference.
__________________ OFFICIAL CP REALTOR & PROPERTY MANAGER
Travis Munroe | Century 21 Elevate | 403.971.4300
Sure, because it had some teeth to it. Had the "leave" side won, they actually could have left. This is just nonsense with nothing behind it. The only discussion it will spur is that Albertans are a bunch of yokels and wasted millions of dollars on a vote that couldn't actually have any impact on anything at all. It's embarrassing.
What would it mean? Because from where I sit, I can't think of anything that a provincial government could possibly do that would be more meaningless or worthy of being ignored by the feds.
There are plenty of "fighting dirty" tactics that can be employed in retribution for the dirty tactics employed by BC, if that's what you want in a government. This isn't one of them. It's totally ineffectual, yet very, very expensive.
So, honest question, what about this constitutional challenge is toothless while the Quebec challenge was more legitimate? The expert interviewed in the article mentioned that the mechanism to change equalization involves more than just a Province, I guess that doesn't apply to secession? What about changing the equalization formula or not including natural resource revenues?
And the carbon tax thing can be fought... and will be fought. You have half of Canada binding together to go at this thing. As I explained yesterday, we will have someone at the adults table who wants to fight it in the UCP. Under the NDP we can just sling dirt back and forth with BC making no difference.
It can’t really be fought. Every single province who is “fighting” it is seeing it implemented April 1.
There’s no fight, there’s bitching and moaning. But no fight.
That said, the Federal Carbon Tax is more appealing that our Provincial one, so there’s that.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
So, honest question, what about this constitutional challenge is toothless while the Quebec challenge was more legitimate? The expert interviewed in the article mentioned that the mechanism to change equalization involves more than just a Province, I guess that doesn't apply to secession? What about changing the equalization formula or not including natural resource revenues?
The point is there is a big difference between a province wanting to leave the country, hence no longer being governed by the constitution, vs one province saying "We want to change the constitution".
Certainly there is a mechanism to do the latter, but it in no way involves a referendum.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
This isn't accurate. First of all, the Saskatchewan government is fighting this tooth and nail, and it's not unreasonable for Albertans to want a government that would do the same.
Tooth and nail with the understanding that what may actually be wrong about the carbon tax was that federal taxes are supposed to be implemented equally across the country, allowing provinces to implement their own (again under constraints set and approval received from the federal government) was what was wrong. If they win, all it means is that the federal (Liberal) government will have to come up with the exact carbon tax giving no control to the province. So winning is losing until the Liberals are out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Second, there are a ton of ways to implement a carbon tax in a manner that's actually revenue neutral, or is otherwise offset to make it relatively benign. It's totally reasonable to say you don't support the NDP because of the carbon tax.
It still needed to get approved at the federal level. Not really sure what you think could have been implemented that would have been "benign."
But I do agree that the NDP could have done better with it but with the understanding that what they were actually doing was trying to get us "social licence" for pipelines. So it's just not enough for it to be a talking point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
In a vacuum, I'd agree; the province should not have a role in determining whether an inter-provincial undertaking like a pipeline to tidewater gets constructed... except we've seen, since 2015, that the exact opposite is the current reality in this country. The BC government, and politicians in Quebec, have quite effectively frustrated major projects that they have absolutely no constitutional authority over. I've set out why I think the equalization payments referendum is utter nonsense, but at the same time, I can understand Transplant's sentiment about feeling like we're getting screwed, and wanting to fight dirty, since we basically seem to be Walter Sobchak at this point.
Preventing pipelines in your province is a different beast than constructing them in a different province. It shouldn't be, but of course it is.
So, honest question, what about this constitutional challenge is toothless while the Quebec challenge was more legitimate?
There is literally a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says that a province has the ability to unilaterally determine whether it will secede. There is no court decision that in any way suggests that a province can unilaterally amend the Constitution Act, or re-write a federal statute like the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, or... somehow intercept a bunch of federal income tax money before it gets to the receiver general and, what, divert it into provincial coffers? How, exactly, would they do that? I seriously have no idea how anyone is suggesting this could possibly work, logistically. It's not like the Alberta government writes the feds a check every year.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
And the carbon tax thing can be fought... and will be fought. You have half of Canada binding together to go at this thing. As I explained yesterday, we will have someone at the adults table who wants to fight it in the UCP. Under the NDP we can just sling dirt back and forth with BC making no difference.
Read up on what is actually being fought. Then you'll see it's pretty much grandstanding.
No one is arguing that the federal government can't implement a carbon tax. What they can't do is allow provinces to come up with their own carbon tax that must be approved individually by the feds. So if all those fighting the carbon tax win, they're just giving up what little control they have on the carbon tax.
It's a bit more nuisance but if the federal government scrapped the current carbon tax altogether today, they could have a new carbon tax implemented equally across the board where the money goes straight to the federal government tomorrow and there's nothing that could prevent it.
If there's ever been a case of cutting your nose to spite the face, this lawsuit is it.
But yeah, let's spend millions fighting the government so we can be stuck with the same tax but not be allowed to control where the money goes. Great idea!
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 03-19-2019 at 03:21 PM.
Read up on what is actually being fought. Then you'll see it's pretty much grandstanding.
No one is arguing that the federal government can't implement a carbon tax. What they can't do is allow provinces to come up with their own carbon tax that must be approved individually by the feds. So if all those fighting the carbon tax win, they're just giving up what little control they have on the carbon tax.
It's a bit more nuisance but if the federal government scrapped the current carbon tax altogether today, they could have a new carbon tax implemented equally across the board where the money goes straight to the federal government tomorrow and there's nothing that could prevent it.
If there's ever been a case of spiting your nose, this lawsuit is it.
But yeah, let's spend millions fighting the government so we can be stuck with the same tax but not be allowed to control where the money goes. Great idea!
I don't think the Feds do that though if they lost. They might eventually but I think it would be a striking blow and take quite some time to craft. Then, how do you go to provinces that support you and try and negotiate that?
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
