Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Cappy]

I typically rely on a few columnists and editorialists that i have trusted for over a decade to provide me with a more in-depth position on conservative politics and policies - I call them, the rational right. They are not conservative because of religion or geography. They don't generally fall for the classic tropes we tend to attach to political names etc. They speak on policies and movements and give their opinion as someone who tends to fall right of center.

The two i gravitate to most are Andrew Coyne and Jen Gerson. I have followed Coyne since he was at McLean's. I would not always agree with his position (sometimes I would be "right" wing / more "left wing" on issues) but he always made reasoned and rational arguments.

I started following Jen Gerson later. I felt she was the same as Coyne, but concentrated on Alberta politics more, and would take a much more brash tone on issues (the "we're just not that pathetic" comment about the Edmonton arena is indicative).

To see how far away the political center has moved from these two commentators has been mind blowing to say the least - and has largely reflected my own movement away from Canadian Conservatism (although i was much slower in the uptake as Coyne essentially abandoned the Party during Harper's last run and i still voted for him).

You want a rational take on the Sovereignty Act, go find Coyne's articles at the Globe and Jen just released one at the Line. These two are in agreement with everyone that isnt a true blue conservative or a grifter riding the wave - the Act is dumb, it doesn't make sense, and it is more trouble than it is worth(less).

[PsYcNeT]

Like, can a single UCP-supporting poster lay out even a half-assed 4 or 5 bulletpoint list of reasons why the act is a good thing?

We get why it's symbolically good for Conservatives (because it's a massive Virtue Signal), but why is it actually good?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1598344335984320512

Jack Major, former Supreme Court justice:

Major, an Alberta resident who was on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1992 to 2005, said his first impression of the proposed act is that it's "really not that radical", if the ultimate arbiter will be the Supreme Court of Canada.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Followed by few words to say even less.

You don’t like the bill that’s great. Don’t kid yourself the amount of Albertans that do. It should scare you which side you are on when all these “good guys” on a federal leader level are circling in on this to stop it.

The panic and attacks we are seeing in this thread is that Smith’s plan might actually work.

It will get tossed out in court. Smith and co know it as well. They are just hoping Trudeau will take the bait and pick a fight with them so they can go back to their winning pattern of claiming the Federal government is trying to screw over Alberta.

The last thing the UCP wants is an election battle on issues vs Notley. They typically win on two issues:
1) They will save you money or stay out of the way so you can earn more money
2) They will fight the big bad guys out east who constantly screw over Ottawa

You can see in this thread - they are losing the voters who value (1), so they are trying to force (2) to be a more important issue.

They are also trying to make culture wars a big issue that they can win, but they've likely pushed too deep into that where its now a liability to them because they seem more extreme than the other side.

[Mr.Coffee]

The Alberta sovereignty stuff is a bit of a paper tiger / joke though.

I mean let's get real here, if the feds really wanted to make a scene or get serious they could. They are not letting Alberta separate, or whatever fantasy ridiculous stupid notions some people think.

Like, seriously, think about Alberta without Canada. It won't be good.

All the feds have to do to shut all this rhetoric down is literally just go and say 'sure, you go create an APP and all Albertans surrender all / any CPP / RRSP investments'. Boom, Albertans will stand off. And it's such a ridiculous notion to even say that, but maybe not as ridiculous as saying Alberta should separate or push for more sovereignty. One thing people don't understand is that the feds can pretty much do whatever they want. Like sure, there are laws, but all laws can change if they need to (even constitutions or any related acts).

The other softer approach the feds could do, is make some meaningful dialogue / advertisement happen that educates Albertans with all the many, many, many things that the feds / rest of the country actually does do for Alberta- which I think Albertans are hugely ignorant on and do not appreciate, whatsoever. Albertans are an insanely entitled group.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I typically rely on a few columnists and editorialists that i have trusted for over a decade to provide me with a more in-depth position on conservative politics and policies - I call them, the rational right. They are not conservative because of religion or geography. They don't generally fall for the classic tropes we tend to attach to political names etc. They speak on policies and movements and give their opinion as someone who tends to fall right of center.

The two i gravitate to most are Andrew Coyne and Jen Gerson. I have followed Coyne since he was at McLean's. I would not always agree with his position (sometimes I would be "right" wing / more "left wing" on issues) but he always made reasoned and rational arguments.

I started following Jen Gerson later. I felt she was the same as Coyne, but concentrated on Alberta politics more, and would take a much more brash tone on issues (the "we're just not that pathetic" comment about the Edmonton arena is indicative).

To see how far away the political center has moved from these two commentators has been mind blowing to say the least - and has largely reflected my own movement away from Canadian Conservatism (although i was much slower in the uptake as Coyne essentially abandoned the Party during Harper's last run and i still voted for him).

You want a rational take on the Sovereignty Act, go find Coyne's articles at the Globe and Jen just released one at the Line. These two are in agreement with everyone that isnt a true blue conservative or a grifter riding the wave - the Act is dumb, it doesn't make sense, and it is more trouble than it is worth(less).

I also quite like those two. I follow Coyne on Twitter and I find it so amusing that he continually retweets all the comments that say "you're just a Liberal/Conservative shill!"

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The Alberta sovereignty stuff is a bit of a paper tiger / joke though.

I mean let's get real here, if the feds really wanted to make a scene or get serious they could. They are not letting Alberta separate, or whatever fantasy ridiculous stupid notions some people think.

Like, seriously, think about Alberta without Canada. It won't be good.

All the feds have to do to shut all this rhetoric down is literally just go and say 'sure, you go create an APP and all Albertans surrender all / any CPP / RRSP investments'. Boom, Albertans will stand off. And it's such a ridiculous notion to even say that, but maybe not as ridiculous as saying Alberta should separate or push for more sovereignty. One thing people don't understand is that the feds can pretty much do whatever they want. Like sure, there are laws, but all laws can change if they need to (even constitutions or any related acts).

The other softer approach the feds could do, is make some meaningful dialogue / advertisement happen that educates Albertans with all the many, many, many things that the feds / rest of the country actually does do for Alberta- which I think Albertans are hugely ignorant on and do not appreciate, whatsoever. Albertans are an insanely entitled group.

Well its a paper tiger because if Smith is right and this is just affirming the rights that the province already has, then it accomplishes nothing. If she's wrong and it's offside, then it gets struck down.

Basically, regardless of which is true, it's pointless and meaningless. Congratulations on making your number one priority a moot point either way.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The Alberta sovereignty stuff is a bit of a paper tiger / joke though.

I mean let's get real here, if the feds really wanted to make a scene or get serious they could. They are not letting Alberta separate, or whatever fantasy ridiculous stupid notions some people think.

Like, seriously, think about Alberta without Canada. It won't be good.

All the feds have to do to shut all this rhetoric down is literally just go and say 'sure, you go create an APP and all Albertans surrender all / any CPP / RRSP investments'. Boom, Albertans will stand off. And it's such a ridiculous notion to even say that, but maybe not as ridiculous as saying Alberta should separate or push for more sovereignty. One thing people don't understand is that the feds can pretty much do whatever they want. Like sure, there are laws, but all laws can change if they need to (even constitutions or any related acts).

The other softer approach the feds could do, is make some meaningful dialogue / advertisement happen that educates Albertans with all the many, many, many things that the feds / rest of the country actually does do for Alberta- which I think Albertans are hugely ignorant on and do not appreciate, whatsoever. Albertans are an insanely entitled group.

You of all people know oil and gas revenues pay the rent in this country.

If it’s a paper tiger the Federal big boys sure aren’t acting like it.

What they really don’t like is the embarrassment of the defiance and the precedence it sets.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You of all people know oil and gas revenues pay the rent in this country.

If it’s a paper tiger the Federal big boys sure aren’t acting like it.

What they really don’t like is the embarrassment of the defiance and the precedence it sets.

What federal big boys are panicking?

Trudeau said he didnt want a fight over it.

Most conservatives think this bill is just "owning the libs" when in reality the people who are most upset about it are actually Albertans who disagree with it and think its bad for business.

The Bill is a watered down version of what Smith promised /what her supporters expected. As you quoted Major, he essentially says, in his opinion, it just switches who has to bring a constitutional challenge - right now its the Province, under the bill (arguably) its the feds. That doesnt change anything!

For example, the Carbon Tax would still be found constitutional by a court, and there is nothing in the Act that would say Alberta could not follow a court order. If anything, it just creates more jobs for lawyers and more tax payer money going to failed constitutional challenges so these politicians can look good on the cover of a magazine.

[Bs&Cs]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You of all people know oil and gas revenues pay the rent in this country..

This is also false

[Yikes]

Nah, Ottawa knows exactly where they stand on this. They might play along till the Alberta election, deal with whatever the outcome is..toss the odd bone. Ottawa likes Alberta right where it is and that ain't changing regardless of any legal witches brew. I'm sure the lawyers will be happy to fight back and forth for years and years and years cuz that's what they do.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I typically rely on a few columnists and editorialists that i have trusted for over a decade to provide me with a more in-depth position on conservative politics and policies - I call them, the rational right. They are not conservative because of religion or geography. They don't generally fall for the classic tropes we tend to attach to political names etc. They speak on policies and movements and give their opinion as someone who tends to fall right of center.

The two i gravitate to most are Andrew Coyne and Jen Gerson. I have followed Coyne since he was at McLean's. I would not always agree with his position (sometimes I would be "right" wing / more "left wing" on issues) but he always made reasoned and rational arguments.

I started following Jen Gerson later. I felt she was the same as Coyne, but concentrated on Alberta politics more, and would take a much more brash tone on issues (the "we're just not that pathetic" comment about the Edmonton arena is indicative).

To see how far away the political center has moved from these two commentators has been mind blowing to say the least - and has largely reflected my own movement away from Canadian Conservatism (although i was much slower in the uptake as Coyne essentially abandoned the Party during Harper's last run and i still voted for him).

You want a rational take on the Sovereignty Act, go find Coyne's articles at the Globe and Jen just released one at the Line. These two are in agreement with everyone that isnt a true blue conservative or a grifter riding the wave - the Act is dumb, it doesn't make sense, and it is more trouble than it is worth(less).

I don't really have anything useful to add but I just wanted to say that Coyne will be turning 62 later this month which is pretty crazy to me. I see him on CBC a fair bit and I always thought he was pretty young (45 or so, maybe 50.) I never would have guessed that he was encroaching on senior status.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Yikes

Nah, Ottawa knows exactly where they stand on this. They might play along till the Alberta election, deal with whatever the outcome is..toss the odd bone. Ottawa likes Alberta right where it is and that ain't changing regardless of any legal witches brew. I'm sure the lawyers will be happy to fight back and forth for years and years and years cuz that's what they do.

Allot of truth to this above.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1598701033743699971

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Allot of truth to this above.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1598701033743699971

This is the regular "At Issue" panel. The question is "how ottawa will handle the Sovereignty Act"

Why do you need someone from Alberta on the panel?

Perhaps they should get Rachel Notley on it?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This is the regular "At Issue" panel. The question is "how ottawa will handle the Sovereignty Act"

Why do you need someone from Alberta on the panel?

Perhaps they should get Rachel Notley on it?

A Sun reporter taking a moment to crap on the CBC, and smear it around his followers? Well I never!

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You of all people know oil and gas revenues pay the rent in this country.

If it’s a paper tiger the Federal big boys sure aren’t acting like it.

What they really don’t like is the embarrassment of the defiance and the precedence it sets.

Maybe yeah, I'm sure they don't like the defiance.

Yes oil and gas revenues of course are hugely important, but you know what else is? A stable investment environment and when you go threaten sovereignty this creates enormous investment risk.

When you drill a good well in Alberta, maybe you get 100-500 bbl/d. You get some discounted pricing, but your economic analysis knows that any major investment is relatively safe, in a (theoretically) safe political climate. There are no wars, upheaval, etc. You can go deploy the same capital in far riskier jurisdictions and get far more production / way more revenue. But those jurisdictions usually have more risk. So the oil and gas investment in Alberta is a less risky investment partially due to political environment, abundance of infrastructure, knowledge and technical ability is prevalent, etc. This is all a MAJOR reason why multiple royalty reviews were a terrible idea. Now you have created risk on investment, and when you go buy a lease / license at a landsale you run econs on the theoretical well you'll drill and how much you can afford for the land / bonus. So the province gives you an agreement to produce from its' Crown land, and then takes the bonus revenue, and then arbitrarily just changes the royalty regime from under your feet after you've paid them the bonus / committed to the lands? That's Venezuela level stuff, and that's what Alberta did. However, even though this risk was bad, it definitely wasn't a "crazy amount" of risk. Alberta separating or sovereignty BS is a crazy amount of risk, and will drive investment out of Alberta and into other oil and gas jurisdictions with far better production numbers / econs. It's actually a horrendous idea that will decimate Alberta's economy.

Fact is, Alberta needs Canada. It's okay to play the long game and play it smart, as eventually Alberta is going to need Canada when oil and gas starts to die off a bit in the future. The time for Alberta to contemplate separating was in 1985, not now. Plus how does Alberta even get its' product to market? What do those trade deals look like with Canada? Not good, would be my guess.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1598344335984320512

Jack Major, former Supreme Court justice:

Major, an Alberta resident who was on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1992 to 2005, said his first impression of the proposed act is that it's "really not that radical", if the ultimate arbiter will be the Supreme Court of Canada.

From the link, attributed to Jack Major:

Major suggested he wasn't concerned about the line in the proposed act that allows a motion to pass against federal legislation that's deemed "otherwise harmful to Albertans."

He said that phrase would have "no meaning" after the issue has been decided by the Supreme Court.

"The validity of federal legislation, if it's harmful in the opinion of Albertans is not going to be implemented until the court says it's constitutional."

The support, if you can call it that, is luke warm at best and really makes the argument that many of us are making against the Act. The Act is meaningless and a waste of time if all it says is the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. That already exists. If the feds propose something unconstitutional, the province can seek redress.

The idea that the province can take action against an otherwise constitutionally sound federal law, because it "causes harm" to Albertans is an absolute joke. Income taxes, arguably, causes harm to Albertans. So can those be ignored or not? The answer is rather obvious, so why bother.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You of all people know oil and gas revenues pay the rent in this country.

If it’s a paper tiger the Federal big boys sure aren’t acting like it.

What they really don’t like is the embarrassment of the defiance and the precedence it sets.

It contributes 8.21% of the National GDP, likewise it is related to other service industry related revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada

[Wastedyouth]

edit - nvm.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

It contributes 8.21% of the National GDP, likewise it is related to other service industry related revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada

There's a lot of ideas that get repeated a ton that become so entrenched in people's knowledge everywhere that we'd call propaganda if they happened in China or Russia or even the US for us here. A good chunk of the divide occuring in the US is some people realizing that US exceptalizism is basically a myth and they are just a country of people like everywhere else and the rest of the people sticking to the 'USA is best' talk.

Canada and Alberta have the same type of propaganda/myths that arent' really true if you dig into it.
- Canadian hockey players are grittier and have more drive than other countries
- Canada's soliders were more heroic than others in wars
- War of 1812 was a big Canada/UK win
- We are better people than other countries
- Canada would be a backwater economically if it wasn't for oil and gas
- Alberta oil is greener than other countries oil

Some of that is 'good' propaganda - its beneficial to a country that its people are proud of it and willing to contribute to it - but it doesn't make it true.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

Sure, but they don’t consider themselves lame, you do, which they don’t care about.

I don't consider them lame. What I do consider lame is the jump in, dump a 5-second bit and run. Or come in and and run away. That's lame.

I grew up in rural, rural Alberta. I agreed with some opinions, disagreed with others. Shocking I know. And likely shocking for you that I have voted for pretty much every party, at every level of government in Alberta and multiple provinces across Canada.

But stand up. Engage. Put something out there. Finally, Yoho is doing that. Its not easy but advocacy is not easy, and you have to push through it.

Instead we were for the longest time getting snippets like this...

Originally Posted by Yoho

For simpletons yes..

And, sorry Roman, but I also have a hard time with this:

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

I’ll admit.
I’m somewhat hesitant to post much on here. Being called lame was fairly minor to how far some posters went. It’s almost like they are so sure their opinion is right, they have no way to view anything else as anything but stupid. I feel many don’t realize that there are posters from in Calgary, out of Calgary, in Alberta and out, and that different areas likely have far different opinions and needs and values to a point. Sometimes what’s right for one poster is not for another and vice versa.
I am fairly involved in certain levels of politics. Have got a lot more invested in them over the past few years. I do enjoy political discussion and engaging with thoughtful, respectful people who don’t jump to the your wrong and stupid conclusion if opinions are different.
I live a very busy life, and have much better things to do than post on a message board, just to be lambasted for different opinions than the majority. The fact that so many obviously don’t have anything better to do, might explain the reason they feel the way they do politically.
I honestly have no idea how so many people are so opposed to a provincial government putting Alberta’s best interests first over federal issues/attacks on our prosperity. I think it is ridiculous so many people would fight against an act that puts the needs of Albertans first and more power to fight for Albertans. I would love to just call you all stupid, or crazy, but I won’t. I never have called any poster rude names nor will I. Say all you want that it’s soft or weak, not to post much in fear of getting called names or put down, but isn’t that what we all want is for people to live their best lives and be treated kindly regardless of differences? In no way is it easy to be put down at any age or mental standing. Life has been hard enough on so many the past bit. In a time when many need a lift, to some it’s not worth trying to engage in conversation, knowing full well at some point you will be called stupid by someone who disagrees with you right or wrong.
I’m not sure if those posters do it in order to feel like they’ve had the upper hand and make themselves feel better by putting others down or what, but there will be limited discussion if those that take the effort to post and debate leave the forum not feeling like it was a good experience.

One poster who gained a lot of respect from me was GGG. I don’t agree with a lot of his posts, GGG doesn’t agree with mine I don’t think, but GGG took the time to reach out to me and encourage me to keep posting and interacting. It was a small gesture but after feeling like I got beat down all day, it was a huge pick up a while back.

I know many of you will roll your eyes at this, or say you had it coming, or stop whining. You may be right or wrong but you are entitled to feel how you want I won’t argue but also won’t change how I feel or why.

There is a difference between calling a political figure a name on a board that that person will very likely never see and calling another poster something.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, all the best.

So good advice, don't put people down. But then in the same post you go on to call people:

-"don't have anything better to do" than post on a message board with an opinion contrary to yours. You lead a busy life, that's good/what works for you, but you are demeaning people who have a different political ideology than you as "not having anything better to do"..."that's while they feel that way ideologically". Uh.

-no idea why people would oppose this Act, they are "ridiculous". "I would love to call you crazy, stupid, etc but I won't". Well, you didn't use the words but you effectively have. People have spent pages and pages telling why they oppose it, quoting constitutional experts, media, other sources, etc....and, yet. they are ridiculous for not supporting it. The whole paragraph effectively espouses how people who disagree with you are mean, stupid, etc, and shouldn't be like that, but then....you've effectively done that by not literally saying it, but implying everyone who disagrees with you is.

-You are going to disagree with this, but I've seen very little evidence of why you, or Yoho, or whoever actually supports this. Instead, we have seen UCP meme drops in here, comments like "its ridiculous that no one would support this and put Alberta first!!" and....not much else. Why, Roman, why? I need something of actual substance. as someone noted, you note that you have been involved in the political process/politics. That's great, that's awesome, and I commend you for doing that. But if that's the case, you should be able to provide much, much more than "ALberta good, feds bad, why do people just blast away on a keyboard in opposition?". There is nothing in there to even give me pause for thought. Give me solid, hard things. Move beyond the "standing up to Ottawa!". You are criticizing people for just blabbering that they oppose it, but I hate to break it to you, but you are just doing the opposite with no actual rationale. Smith! UCP! Alberta First! Ridiculous people don't support this! I'm not saying it, but people shouldn't be mean, but they are just hammering away on a message board against it, must be there opposite opinions to me, they have nothing else better to do but be angry!

Originally Posted by Yoho

Followed by few words to say even less.

You don’t like the bill that’s great. Don’t kid yourself the amount of Albertans that do. It should scare you which side you are on when all these “good guys” on a federal leader level are circling in on this to stop it.

The panic and attacks we are seeing in this thread is that Smith’s plan might actually work.

I appreciate you actually posting content of your own, Yoho. Its great to see. But I would be careful assuming that everyone outside of this message board supports this. I'm from rural, rual Alberta, a place even more conservative than you can get, and yet....people from there are up in arms against this. We've also seen opinion polls after opinion polls point to dissatisfaction overall, but I know those likely don't count for whatever reason.