Alberta Politics Thread

[Kavvy]

Wildrose parades LGBTQ shirts in Calgary to show inclusivity

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...clusivity.html


I sorta really like this, and don't think the two are mutually exclusive:

Jeromy Farkas, president of the Wildrose’s Calgary-Elbow constituency association, said his constituency demands and expects the party to condemn homophobia and defend the rights of all people.

Essentially, that includes supporting religious organizations that don’t condone same-sex marriages while championing gay rights, according to Alex McColl, who’s also part of the Calgary-Elbow constituency.

But then there is still this:

In 2014, the Wildrose voted against 148-109 at a party convention an attempt to enshrine an equality statement that respects the rights of people regardless of race, religious belief, colour, gender and sexual orientation.

[Slava]

Sure, they were wearing the shirts in Calgary, meanwhile the other parties were in the pride parade in Edmonton. So it's a bit half-hearted to say the least.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Wildrose parades LGBTQ shirts in Calgary to show inclusivity

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...clusivity.html


I sorta really like this, and don't think the two are mutually exclusive:




But then there is still this:

How is this still a thing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

How is this still a thing.

I'm not sure how much faster you expect Canadian society and poiticians to move on this issue. Considering that as recently as 12 years ago most Canadians were opposed to gay marriage, the pace of political change has been astonishing. As to why we don't have 100 per cent consensus on the issue:

A) Religion.
B) Immigration from parts of the world that are less progressive than North America on LGBT issues (which is pretty much everywhere outside Europe).
C) Old people. A lot of people stop changing their mind about stuff after they're about 50.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile, a few Wildrose MLAs learned they really need to hire interns that can research historical context for them...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...616083?cmp=rss

The hysterics are frankly so depressing. We're talking about a 5 cent tax on gasoline to hopefully lurch us toward reducing dangerous GHG emissions.

But, instead it's the second genocide of a European prairie folk playing out on a mass scale.

Sometimes (most times) I think we're going to deserve whatever it is we get.

[Wiggum_PI]

Alberta premier's office spent same amount as Alison Redford's staff

Premier Rachel Notley's office spent nearly $340,000 last year, an amount that matches the spending under former Premier Alison Redford.

According to documents posted online, Notley and her staff spent $339,348.64 in the 2015-16 fiscal year.

Redford spent $340,555.67 and $323,243.21 in her last two years in office.

The documents break down spending for Notley and staff in the premier's office into three categories: meals, accommodations, and travel; hospitality and working sessions; and goods, supplies and services and other expenses.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...taff-1.3615793

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Alberta premier's office spent same amount as Alison Redford's staff



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...taff-1.3615793

Meet the new boss, just as bad as the old boss. But now, the new boss comes with higher taxes!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The hysterics are frankly so depressing. We're talking about a 5 cent tax on gasoline to hopefully lurch us toward reducing dangerous GHG emissions.

4.5 cents on January 1, 2017, increased to 6.7 cents on January 1, 2018. This is on top of the 4 cents per litre that the PCs/NDP already added.

So really, the NDP are upping our costs by just under 11 cents per litre. And it won't do a damned thing to reduce consumption. We've already seen numerous times that psychological barriers on gasoline consumption don't work.

It is merely a for-profit tax grab by Notley. Even understanding that, you are right. It doesn't justify the hyperbole.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

4.5 cents on January 1, 2017, increased to 6.7 cents on January 1, 2018. This is on top of the 4 cents per litre that the PCs/NDP already added.

So really, the NDP are upping our costs by just under 11 cents per litre. And it won't do a damned thing to reduce consumption. We've already seen numerous times that psychological barriers on gasoline consumption don't work.

It is merely a for-profit tax grab by Notley. Even understanding that, you are right. It doesn't justify the hyperbole.

We can argue about how relatively effective the carbon tax will be but saying it wont be effective is basically repudiating the entire field of economics. But, hey what do they know?

Saying the carbon tax wont be effective is basically saying that gasoline demand is 100% inelastic to price. That's simply false and ignorant.

[Dan02]

So what would you guess be it's only 95% inelastic to price?

[Resolute 14]

I wasn't talking about the carbon tax, Tinordi. So if you want to offer a rebuttal, please offer one for the actual conversation, not the one going on inside your own head that nobody else is privy too.

I was talking about the gasoline tax. All we will see at the pump is higher prices, and we've seen over and over again that consumption doesn't really decrease despite the price.

StatsCan only offers 2010-2014 for its fuel consumption page, but in that time frame, Calgary went from a low of about 93 cents per litre in April 2010 to a peak of 130 cents in May 2013. Overall fuel consumption in Alberta still rose 15% over that time - from 5.4 billion litres in 2010 to 6.2 billion in 2013. (and up to 6.4 billion in 2014).

(Yes, I realize I am mixing local price with provincial usage and that makes it an imprecise comparison. It is still enough to demonstrate the point.)

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Dan02

So what would you guess be it's only 95% inelastic to price?

I don't need to guess. I can go research that topic and develop a sense of what the range of elasticities is. I suggest you do the same because it's not 95%.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

We can argue about how relatively effective the carbon tax will be but saying it wont be effective is basically repudiating the entire field of economics. But, hey what do they know?

Saying the carbon tax wont be effective is basically saying that gasoline demand is 100% inelastic to price. That's simply false and ignorant.

What is the carbon tax suppose to do? Save the world?

The entire field of economics?

Remember those 1000 or so architects who signed an affidavit saying the Twin Towers were taken down by a demolition?

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I wasn't talking about the carbon tax, Tinordi. So if you want to offer a rebuttal, please offer one for the actual conversation, not the one going on inside your own head that nobody else is privy too.

I was talking about the gasoline tax. All we will see at the pump is higher prices, and we've seen over and over again that consumption doesn't really decrease despite the price.

StatsCan only offers 2010-2014 for its fuel consumption page, but in that time frame, Calgary went from a low of about 93 cents per litre in April 2010 to a peak of 130 cents in May 2013. Overall fuel consumption in Alberta still rose 15% over that time - from 5.4 billion litres in 2010 to 6.2 billion in 2013. (and up to 6.4 billion in 2014).

(Yes, I realize I am mixing local price with provincial usage and that makes it an imprecise comparison. It is still enough to demonstrate the point.)

It would be interesting to see these figures on a per capita basis. I reckon Alberta's population increase had an effect on increase in fuel consumption.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I wasn't talking about the carbon tax, Tinordi. So if you want to offer a rebuttal, please offer one for the actual conversation, not the one going on inside your own head that nobody else is privy too.

I was talking about the gasoline tax. All we will see at the pump is higher prices, and we've seen over and over again that consumption doesn't really decrease despite the price.

StatsCan only offers 2010-2014 for its fuel consumption page, but in that time frame, Calgary went from a low of about 93 cents per litre in April 2010 to a peak of 130 cents in May 2013. Overall fuel consumption in Alberta still rose 15% over that time - from 5.4 billion litres in 2010 to 6.2 billion in 2013. (and up to 6.4 billion in 2014).

(Yes, I realize I am mixing local price with provincial usage and that makes it an imprecise comparison. It is still enough to demonstrate the point.)

Hmm, Resolute_14's amateur hour statistical analysis or 40 years of peer reviewed economics research on the price elasticity of gasoline demand...

You're missing references to Hitler, 9/11 conspiracies and some more base climate denial to really convince me.

[Resolute 14]

Hmm, Tinordi once again fails to defend his point.

At least you didn't do your usual hit and run one liner this time. More's the pity.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Izzle

It would be interesting to see these figures on a per capita basis. I reckon Alberta's population increase had an effect on increase in fuel consumption.

Naturally. Population estimates for Alberta were 3.6 million in 2010 and a shade over 4 million in 2013. Net increase of 11%.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

By the NDPs own admission the carbon tax will hardly make a dent in consumer emissions.

Eventually the incentives and commercial/industrial impacts will slow emissions growth. Especially as they ramp the tax up. They hope provincial emissions growth will level off in 5-10 years. That's the plan. When they hike the tax it'll probably move the needle a bit more.

[Tinordi]

I've defended my point about as much as this debate warrants it. If you think the price of something has no impact on the consumption and then back it up with laughably bad analysis then I'll give your argument the defense it deserves which is derision and ostracism.

I will reiterate my argument: We can argue the relative effectiveness of the tax to lower gasoline demand but to claim all it is is a cash grab that will have no impact is both ignorant and false.

But please go on and try to put words in my mouth and make baseless boasts about how you won this round.

[Resolute 14]

The gasoline tax is a cash grab, and recent history - at least - informs us that it will have no impact on consumption.

But you go ahead and keep moving those goalposts and arguing in ad hominems, Tinordi. It's what you are best at.