Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

I would say that if you are for LGBTQ2IA rights and pro-choice on the abortion debate, but also believe in prudent fiscal policy (don't spend money you don't have or can't afford to), you're probably at least partly right in that definition, no?

Yeah, see that's my point.
No one can give me anything but the most nebulous idea of what that means.

"Fiscally conservative" is exactly the same as "prudent fiscal policy". It doesn't mean anything unless you actually define what you think it means.
"don't spend money you don't have, or can't afford to" is just as vague.
Does that mean don't run a defecit?
Don't rely on non-renewable resource income?
Don't cut taxes, or increase spending?

"I'm fiscally conservative" is a cop out for people who don't really want to give any thought to what that actually means.

[Fuzz]

It's short for "I don't want the government to spend money on things I don't like/need/use".

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Muta

If this abortion restriction stuff ends up being true, would this play into your vote in the next election; or in other words, is this extreme right-wing conservatism (and it has gone incredibly right wing) still the preferred option for you ('blue above all') given it's basically a two-party race at the provincial level?

Yes.

I am not a "conservative" but I voted for my MLA who is a UCP representative.

I just had a long conversations with him about Bill 18 and Bill 20 last night (he called me).

We did not agree on many parts. He listened to me rant and bitch about Smith and his party and he responded to those criticisms. I told him his party is being everything they hate about the Federal Liberals, which he didn't like. I didn't agree with him and said he is either being mislead by his own party or complicit in the bad legislation.

I told him I would wait and see the final wording when it reached the floor and he said he respected my opinion and would take my suggestions to how it should be better implemented or adjusted to be less authoritarian (my words).

And now I wait to see what comes of it (probably nothing).

He knows he is losing my support with some of these decisions. It may not truly register with him, but I choose to believe it might (he has taken my advice in the past on some other issues).

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...ll-20-backlash

Although it does seem they are at least listening to us in some ways.

[Jimmy Stang]

Alberta to amend parts of Bill 20 in face of widespread backlash

Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver said the government would amend parts of the bill that grant cabinet new, unilateral powers to oust councillors as well as repeal or amend local bylaws


https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...ll-20-backlash

This is page one of the UCP playbook.

- Introduce an absolute pile of steaming turd policy/bill.
- Minor tweaks because "Listening to Albertans"
- Push on with it still being terrible.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I F*****G hate this phrose.
And I say that as someone who used to identify that way.
The problem, and it applied to me too, is that no one can actually tell you what they mean by it.
I've come to the conclusion that it means some variation of:

1) I WOULD support good social programs, and a progressive agenda, if it was free.
2) I have a limited number of social causes I think we should spend money on. Anything outside of that narrow view is considered "Liberal" fiscal policy
3) I want the reason we have poor social programs, and crumbling health care to be because we have low corporate taxes, and are too reliant on oil and gas revenue.

I would honestly like anyone here who identifies this way to actually explain tome what they think it means.

No. Thats ridiculous.

I'd support good social programs if you could show me how they can be sustainably funded. If that requires Tax increases, then so be it. But show me that you're not just wasting the money, that its going to what they're saying its supposed to be going to.

If you want umpteen billions for schools and hospitals where do you expect the extra to come from for whatever your program-du-jour is?

I'm not going to be Judge, Jury and Executioner, but if you implement programs you can't fund then they're going to fail, so there needs to be more behind the concept than hopes, dreams and good feelings.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Citizen 1: Did you see the UCP severely limited abortion for Albertans?

Citizen 2: They did? That's no good, that will make me re-think my vote next time. I'm socially progressive but fiscally conservative. This is not good.

2027 voting day:

Citizen 2: Abortion limits? They did that? Huh. I sort of remember that. Guess I'll have to keep my eye on it. But NDP is going to raise corporate taxes!

Votes blue again.

A little fyp.

*Note - As I have stated a few times before, I thought it was a bonehead move for NDP to announce corp tax hikes before the last electon.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Locke

No. Thats ridiculous.

I'd support good social programs if you could show me how they can be sustainably funded. If that requires Tax increases, then so be it. But show me that you're not just wasting the money, that its going to what they're saying its supposed to be going to.

If you want umpteen billions for schools and hospitals where do you expect the extra to come from for whatever your program-du-jour is?

I'm not going to be Judge, Jury and Executioner, but if you implement programs you can't fund then they're going to fail, so there needs to be more behind the concept than hopes, dreams and good feelings.

So what exactly is conservative about that?

Are non-conservatives capable of achieving this?
Have conservative politicians never presented a proposal they have no idea how to fund?

I take issue with the "Fiscally conservative" because it simply isn't a thing.
At the very least what you're describing isn't a thing that should be attributed to one side of the political spectrum or the other.

Neither Conservatives nor Liberals tend to follow that play book when it comes to getting elected, or running the show, so why do we give one side so much credit for some mythical thing we all love, but doesn't actually exist, and if it does, certainly isn't the sole possession of one party or political wing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, see that's my point.
No one can give me anything but the most nebulous idea of what that means.

"Fiscally conservative" is exactly the same as "prudent fiscal policy". It doesn't mean anything unless you actually define what you think it means.
"don't spend money you don't have, or can't afford to" is just as vague.
Does that mean don't run a defecit?
Don't rely on non-renewable resource income?
Don't cut taxes, or increase spending?

"I'm fiscally conservative" is a cop out for people who don't really want to give any thought to what that actually means.

Well to me there is a difference. First, let me say that I do think that I'm socially progressive.

Fiscal conservatism is about reduced taxes, reduced government debts, smaller governments, less government interference and freer markets. Ideas like that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So what exactly is conservative about that?

Are non-conservatives capable of achieving this?
Have conservative politicians never presented a proposal they have no idea how to fund?

I take issue with the "Fiscally conservative" because it simply isn't a thing.
At the very least what you're describing isn't a thing that should be attributed to one side of the political spectrum or the other.

Neither Conservatives nor Liberals tend to follow that play book when it comes to getting elected, or running the show, so why do we give one side so much credit for some mythical thing we all love, but doesn't actually exist, and if it does, certainly isn't the sole possession of one party or political wing.

Not spending more money than you have?

Governments over-spend constantly because they dont have limits, thats the Conservatism.

I keep saying this, if new programs aren't economically sustainable they will crumble and fail and then nobody wins, but so many people seem to believe that Government funds are Magic and they just appear out of nowhere.

And I know that it isnt 'Party Specific' which is why I dont consider myself either a Conservative nor a Liberal.

I'm all for Social programs to help the less fortunate. If the Government can afford to pay for them.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well to me there is a difference. First, let me say that I do think that I'm socially progressive.

Fiscal conservatism is about reduced taxes, reduced government debts, smaller governments, less government interference and freer markets. Ideas like that.

Except most of what you described aren't actually things Conservative Governments do.

Especially not in Alberta.
Lower taxes? Sure, sometimes, but the UCP haven't, at least not for you and me.
Reduced government debts? Not without massive injections of non-renewable resource income
Less Government interference? Debatable (let's not forget they just put the kaibosh on wind power for....reasons)
Free Markets? Also debatable.

But let's also not forget that lowering taxes, and reduced government debts are incompatible without also some major spending cuts. Something I would say most Conservative governments aren't very good at.

None of what you're describing are, in practice, things that can be claimed solely by one side of the political spectrum or the other. So saying "Fiscally Conservative" doens't mean anything.

"Fiscal Conservativism", is just a way of saying you wish you could have a list of things that are mutually exclusive:
1) Lower taxes
2) Lower Debt
3) No change to services

You might as well be saying "things are magically cheaper" fiscally.

To be fair, I think it's 100% fine to be in support of those things.
I don't think your stance is completely wrong or off the rails, I'm likely not that different.

My point is that I think "Fiscally Conservative" is a silly term, and it certainly isn't something people should use as a blanket term to describe, or justify voting for a Canadian "Conservative" party.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Locke

No. Thats ridiculous.

I'd support good social programs if you could show me how they can be sustainably funded. If that requires Tax increases, then so be it. But show me that you're not just wasting the money, that its going to what they're saying its supposed to be going to.

If you want umpteen billions for schools and hospitals where do you expect the extra to come from for whatever your program-du-jour is?

I'm not going to be Judge, Jury and Executioner, but if you implement programs you can't fund then they're going to fail, so there needs to be more behind the concept than hopes, dreams and good feelings.

Originally Posted by Slava

Well to me there is a difference. First, let me say that I do think that I'm socially progressive.

Fiscal conservatism is about reduced taxes, reduced government debts, smaller governments, less government interference and freer markets. Ideas like that.

I think this is the point that BBS is trying to make.

They both consider themselves "fiscally conservative" but I think I would call Locke closer to a "fiscally traditional conservative" and Slava a "fiscally Neo-Liberal conservative".

There's a lot of ambiguity by saying "fiscally conservative" as much as there is ambiguity in saying "fiscally liberal".

I don't think conservative and liberal terms really belong with fiscal responsibility.

I believe during the hard times the government needs to be larger, it needs to have more support programs and funding available to people and spend outside of its means to maintain the economy where the free market fails. I also think they need to reduce taxes in these times and take on more debt. So reduced taxes (fiscally conservative) bigger debt (fiscally liberal).

During the good times, I think the government needs to wind down spending, reduce support programs as their need decreases and take a step back from the market. But they should also be taking advantage of a stronger market and increasing taxes, saving the excess funds to be used during the downtimes, not increasing expenditures because they can afford it. So increasing taxes (fiscally liberal), smaller government (fiscally conservative).

The free market is cyclical in nature and I believe that the government has a role to play in ensuring the people it governs do not suffer the downturns or upturns to such extremes.

Had Klein used debt to finance infrastructure growth in Alberta when wages were low and people needed work, we could have done it a lot cheaper than trying to accomplish that same work when jobs were plentiful and workers expensive. When the boomtime hit, we could have been repaying the debt quickly and saving for a rainy day instead of passing out Ralph bucks and over-paying for services.

So using the definition of fiscally conservative provided, I would fit in that category as wanting low taxes (during downturns) and smaller government (during upturns) and I could be fiscally liberal because I support debt spending (during downturns) and increased taxes (during upturns).

So I agree with BBS.. "Fiscally Conservative" is a silly term.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

This is page one of the UCP playbook.

- Introduce an absolute pile of steaming turd policy/bill.
- Minor tweaks because "Listening to Albertans"
- Push on with it still being terrible.

Meh. It's just the same process used by every government these days with an extra tweaking step added in the middle

[edslunch]

[Roughneck]

Good to see executives getting their due credit. No way the project could have been delivered delayed and over budget without them.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Blaming their ownership of it for the overrun is asinine. Kinder saw the train coming and got the hell out of the way, that price was coming. You could blame the government for some of the conditions placed in the approval for the costs but there are lots of private owned projects well over budget - ask tc energy about coastal gas link. Or just about any lng developer.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Blaming their ownership of it for the overrun is asinine. Kinder saw the train coming and got the hell out of the way, that price was coming. You could blame the government for some of the conditions placed in the approval for the costs but there are lots of private owned projects well over budget - ask tc energy about coastal gas link. Or just about any lng developer.

IMO, it's mostly not "Government of Canada project owner" to blame for how much this cost.

It is however, the fault of "Government of Canada, entity in charge of creating a legal and regulatory environment that makes progress possible".

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

This is page one of the UCP playbook.

- Introduce an absolute pile of steaming turd policy/bill.
- Minor tweaks because "Listening to Albertans"
- Push on with it still being terrible.

This just happened in Cochrane. The municipal government wanted to build a concrete plant and gravel pit down by the river, bordering Glenbow Provincial Park and a bunch of residential neighborhoods.

They had a town forum to discuss the plan where there was almost universal opposition.

They agreed to mitigate the problems presented by the citizens, using mitigators to mitigate the mitigation. They were very vague.

Project was approved.

[Looch City]

Listen, UCP is bad and all but I draw the line at Nenshi's arrogance.

Vote UCP, don't be arrogant.

[fotze2]

Is this where we call Locke a racist?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

This just happened in Cochrane. The municipal government wanted to build a concrete plant and gravel pit down by the river, bordering Glenbow Provincial Park and a bunch of residential neighborhoods.

They had a town forum to discuss the plan where there was almost universal opposition.

They agreed to mitigate the problems presented by the citizens, using mitigators to mitigate the mitigation. They were very vague.

Project was approved.

It’s also a winning formula for developers. Propose something that is outside of the current zoning in every regard, have a public consultation, magnanimously ‘make concessions’, but keep what they really wanted. Ok, we’ll bring the height down and add the garbage bins (but we’ll keep the extra units we jammed in).