Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Torture

Exactly. See Burnaby, BC which has long been a stick in the mud for TMX and fought approvals by the NEB/CER. Or how about Christy Clarke's "5 conditions" for a pipeline that was Federally regulated?

Yeah fair I guess. Can we just agree that NIMBYism writ large is a gigantic problem then in Canada, without speaking to the obvious? Will you guys agree to that?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Depends on the circumstance and context. It can look that way depending on the situation, yes.

My opinion is that ultimately it depends if there are viable competitive conditions that allow multiple groups to do something or allow for something or not. So for example, if new service is required from CP / CN and they won't do it without special treatment. Well, we've created a monopoly / oligopoly for them that is literally unbreakable without returning to slave labour prices so, yeah, extortion there. Nobody can build a new railroad. It is not economic.

BBS is right, it's not only indigenous communities that are necessarily extortionist, but they are for sure and the current construction climate requires you basically to give up interest in infrastructure projects to them to get stuff done. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily right but it's where we are due to years of terrible consultation by industry so to a degree to reap what you sow.

So if both companies and land owners do this would it not be more appropriate to frame it as something other than extortion? Otherwise by your definition every single business deal would considered extortion to some degree.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So if both companies and land owners do this would it not be more appropriate to frame it as something other than extortion? Otherwise by your definition every single business deal would considered extortion to some degree.

I might be wrong, but I believe we call this system "Capitalism"

That said, I do agree that NIMBYism is a big challenge. Not just for pipelines, but for all sorts of infrastructure - solar farms, wind farms, the transmission lines needed for the energy transition, cell phone towers, development in cities, etc. I don't pretend to know the solution, but it's everywhere and not just midstream companies that see it.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So if both companies and land owners do this would it not be more appropriate to frame it as something other than extortion? Otherwise by your definition every single business deal would considered extortion to some degree.

No, again it depends on the situation / context. But for any inter provincial pipe being build today? Yes, this is the case (what I’d consider extortion).

[OptimalTates]

I’m going to say something with clear racist undertones but then say “not to be brandished racist” after. I guess the whole “Not to be racist but” hasn’t been working out?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Torture

That said, I do agree that NIMBYism is a big challenge. Not just for pipelines, but for all sorts of infrastructure - solar farms, wind farms, the transmission lines needed for the energy transition, cell phone towers, development in cities, etc. I don't pretend to know the solution, but it's everywhere and not just midstream companies that see it.

As someone who works in an industry where NIMBYISM is present on an almost-daily basis, it is extremely annoying and tiring to hear from so-called 'experts' about projects in which they usually fail to see the forest through the trees - but of course, that's not the case and they know better than the people working in the industry or on those projects. If anything, NIMBYers motivate us to push our developments through faster and with stronger resolve.

[Monahammer]

You guys think TMX is having problems? Just wait until NRCAN decides the government needs to build an ammonia pipeline to port to get low carbon intensity Hydrogen TM to global market.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No, again it depends on the situation / context. But for any inter provincial pipe being build today? Yes, this is the case (what I’d consider extortion).

That’s fair enough, though I still think it’s unfortunately a natural part of the negotiating process and characterizing it as extortion does little to change that or help the process. Essentially any amount of money demanded could be characterized that way by one party regardless of whether that amount is asking too much, too little, or is indeed fair market value.

[Red Slinger]

I'm hearing a lot of adds on the radio for both the NDP and UCP. The NDP ads are labelled as coming from the NDP while the UCP is usually coming from the "Government of Alberta", and they are sometimes close to the line between communicating government policy versus a campaign advertisement.

However, I gotta say, the NDP adds are just awful. So far, they have been just negative advertising. This isn't necessarily a bad strategy but the ads themselves are very poorly done. They tend to just state stuff like "the UCP wants to cancel public healthcare", which isn't entirely true. And generally, they don't explain why what they're complaining about is bad. Just terrible communicating in general. There's been very little positive advertising from the NDP (that I've seen) that talks about the policies and changes that the NDP want to implement. It can't just be "the UCP are awful and trust us, we're better". Maybe they'll get to that later but so far the NDP messaging has been a cluster. The NDP can't afford to give any fence-sitters or people considering the NDP for the first time any additional reason to go back to the UCP and it seems like their advertising strategy thus far is a misstep.

I can't wait to see what Daniel Smith does when she has an actual mandate.

[Yamer]

The trouble is it's hard to both afford and congest details on differing policy approaches in an advertisement. You're never going to get an explanation for exactly why an NDP position on healthcare is more beneficial to Albertan's than the UCP in a radio hit or YouTube ad. It's always been "we're good, they're bad, here's a soundbite".

I tend to think if you're swayed either way by political advertisements you're likely not all that qualified to vote in the first place.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I can't wait to see what Daniel Smith does when she has an actual mandate.

She is on full gag-order at the moment. Her opening her mouth is just going to damage her chances. Every word she is saying is being managed at the moment.

The first thing you're going to see is Smith declaring she has the mandate of ALL Albertans, and the UCP/Comms account are going to be shouting this from the roof tops.

After the declaration of mandate is done, the muzzle comes off, and she's going to be opening her big trap on all the crazy she had to bite her lip on, including:

• health mandates
• social services as socialist waste
• separatist punchlines
• freedoms and convoys
• pensions and polices forces
• municipalities dropping the ball and needing UCP oversight
• carbon tax crazy
• coal mines and stripping
• Justin ruined all the pipelines and export capacity
• rural is just as important (if not more) than big cities
• both sides all sides on things like war and diplomacy
• private health insurance is best insurance

That's just to start.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I'm hearing a lot of adds on the radio for both the NDP and UCP. The NDP ads are labelled as coming from the NDP while the UCP is usually coming from the "Government of Alberta", and they are sometimes close to the line between communicating government policy versus a campaign advertisement.

However, I gotta say, the NDP adds are just awful. So far, they have been just negative advertising. This isn't necessarily a bad strategy but the ads themselves are very poorly done. They tend to just state stuff like "the UCP wants to cancel public healthcare", which isn't entirely true. And generally, they don't explain why what they're complaining about is bad. Just terrible communicating in general. There's been very little positive advertising from the NDP (that I've seen) that talks about the policies and changes that the NDP want to implement. It can't just be "the UCP are awful and trust us, we're better". Maybe they'll get to that later but so far the NDP messaging has been a cluster. The NDP can't afford to give any fence-sitters or people considering the NDP for the first time any additional reason to go back to the UCP and it seems like their advertising strategy thus far is a misstep.

I can't wait to see what Daniel Smith does when she has an actual mandate.

The UCP add says that during Notley's time as Premier, she raised taxes 97 times. I would like to see a list of those taxes. That number does not seem plausible to me.

[Monahammer]

Meh, we can all #### on attack ads and basic campaign ads as moronic, but the data shows time and time again that they work to sway important groups of voters. I agree that they seem hollow and pointless, but the reality is that the vast majority of the voting public is hollow and vapid.

[WhiteTiger]

This is actually a pretty good move, and far past the "it's about time" point

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/edmont...1_6312693.html

In an effort to strengthen transparency, accountability and trust in police, Alberta's UCP government promised Tuesday to mandate body-worn cameras for all law-enforcement officers.

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

This is actually a pretty good move, and far past the "it's about time" point

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/edmont...1_6312693.html

Cops will push back on that huge.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Yikes

Cops will push back on that huge.

Yeah, Edmonton cops have been for years. Here's hoping they are ignored and this goes through.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I'm hearing a lot of adds on the radio for both the NDP and UCP. The NDP ads are labelled as coming from the NDP while the UCP is usually coming from the "Government of Alberta", and they are sometimes close to the line between communicating government policy versus a campaign advertisement.

However, I gotta say, the NDP adds are just awful. So far, they have been just negative advertising. This isn't necessarily a bad strategy but the ads themselves are very poorly done. They tend to just state stuff like "the UCP wants to cancel public healthcare", which isn't entirely true. And generally, they don't explain why what they're complaining about is bad. Just terrible communicating in general. There's been very little positive advertising from the NDP (that I've seen) that talks about the policies and changes that the NDP want to implement. It can't just be "the UCP are awful and trust us, we're better". Maybe they'll get to that later but so far the NDP messaging has been a cluster. The NDP can't afford to give any fence-sitters or people considering the NDP for the first time any additional reason to go back to the UCP and it seems like their advertising strategy thus far is a misstep.

I've been getting a lot of online NDP ads, and I can't help but agree: they're totally missing the mark. It's incredibly inane and annoying. Big swing and a miss.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I do not understand why the strategy from the NDP isn't full on, "happy days are coming soon", "here are all the great things we'll do", "here are our best candidates talking about making your life better" stuff. Confidence inspiring stuff. The overriding theme should be, "Don't worry, the adults will be back in charge soon. You can count on us to govern in a sane and normal manner". Who doesn't want just... sanity, at this point?

[FacePaint]

Or do both... "The NPD will cancel the $50M war room and put that money into hiring healthcare workers. We're chasing frontline workers, not bigfoot cartoons. Find details at gonotley.ca "

"The NDP will cancel the $2M hiring of XYZ grifter and spend half in heritage fund, the other half to cancelling the Kananaskis pass to make life more affordable. Find more at..."

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by FacePaint

Or do both... "The NPD will cancel the $50M war room and put that money into hiring healthcare workers. We're chasing frontline workers, not bigfoot cartoons. Find details at gonotley.ca "

"The NDP will cancel the $2M hiring of XYZ grifter and spend half in heritage fund, the other half to cancelling the Kananaskis pass to make life more affordable. Find more at..."

Yup, tying the waste to tangible alternative programs would be a very good start. Punch the UCP with one hand and use the other to offer alternatives to the electorate.