[TravellingChris]

^ Until there is a by-election.

A single byelection, regardless of how it goes, will do nothing to change the overall result--Smith still has a majority.

Unless you have eleven byelections, and the NDP wins every one of them, the reins of power aren't changing hands.

I understand the wishful thinking, but the only two numbers that matter are the current seat count and the date of the next general election.

 

[TravellingChris]

^
i thought we put this past us starting with lougheed and confirming it when we had a jewish mayor in one of our largest cities and a muslim mayor in the other and lgbtq2s albertans were starting to be comfortable being themselves in public…

i hope I’m wrong but this sure seems like another big step backwards for all of us including those of us who still consider ourselves “small c” progressive conservatives.

I guess rachelle notley should be pretty happy because she’s probably going to be loaned even more non-ndp votes than she got last time.

Regardless of what the UCP does at their convention, I hardly think this reflects on Alberta as a whole.

Look at the progress that has been made over recent decades. Edmonton and Calgary have both had female mayors, Edmonton as far back as thirty-four years ago. Alberta is the only province in Canada to have had three female premiers. As you note, Edmonton had a Jewish mayor for several terms and Calgary an immensely popular Muslim mayor. Edmonton's current mayor was born in India and came to Canada with nothing, building up a very successful life and career here that included serving as a federal cabinet minister. Calgary also has a mayor of Indian heritage who was born abroad. This isn't just progress, it's immense progress.

Alberta has also been head and shoulders above many other provinces and U.S. states in terms of recycling--we were one of the first provinces in Canada to have a bottle-deposit system (Ontario and Manitoba still don't), the first to expand it beyond soft drink and liquor bottles to include milk, juice and water. (And these initiatives were all enacted under Conservative governments.) Other provinces, including British Columbia and Saskatchewan, only followed suit when they saw the results that conservative Alberta had achieved. Most U.S. states don't even have a deposit system.

Calgary also has one of the largest and most heavily used LRT systems in North America, which was initiated and almost entirely constructed during the tenure of Conservative provincial governments. Edmonton's network, while not as extensive, is catching up.

Regardless of what one political party does or doesn't do at its convention, there are plenty of examples of progressive developments if you simply look for them.

 

[northlands]

^ AB also had the first large scale carbon pricing schemes on heavy emitters dating back to the Steady Eddy era

 

[Airboy]

Industry tends to drive progress even when the GoA is stalled. I look at the Alternative energy industry. There is still a lot of progress in those areas. Something that may have been developed and fleshed out here though is usually sold off. I'm expecting Danni to put a hold on Lithium mining here as it is just starting to be developed.

 

[David A]

Regardless of what the UCP does at their convention, I hardly think this reflects on Alberta as a whole.

Look at the progress that has been made over recent decades. Edmonton and Calgary have both had female mayors, Edmonton as far back as thirty-four years ago. Alberta is the only province in Canada to have had three female premiers. As you note, Edmonton had a Jewish mayor for several terms and Calgary an immensely popular Muslim mayor. Edmonton's current mayor was born in India and came to Canada with nothing, building up a very successful life and career here that included serving as a federal cabinet minister. Calgary also has a mayor of Indian heritage who was born abroad. This isn't just progress, it's immense progress.

Alberta has also been head and shoulders above many other provinces and U.S. states in terms of recycling--we were one of the first provinces in Canada to have a bottle-deposit system (Ontario and Manitoba still don't), the first to expand it beyond soft drink and liquor bottles to include milk, juice and water. (And these initiatives were all enacted under Conservative governments.) Other provinces, including British Columbia and Saskatchewan, only followed suit when they saw the results that conservative Alberta had achieved. Most U.S. states don't even have a deposit system.

Calgary also has one of the largest and most heavily used LRT systems in North America, which was initiated and almost entirely constructed during the tenure of Conservative provincial governments. Edmonton's network, while not as extensive, is catching up.

Regardless of what one political party does or doesn't do at its convention, there are plenty of examples of progressive developments if you simply look for them.

Yes, there are examples of progressive developments, often in areas not totally controlled by the provincial government. But, the provincial government shouldn't be such an obstacle or an impediment but a catalyst for them.

It also doesn't help that people elsewhere see our regressive Premier on the news so regularly and make their impressions of Alberta based on that.

 

[TravellingChris]

Yes, there are examples of progressive developments, often in areas not totally controlled by the provincial government. But, the provincial government shouldn't be such an obstacle or an impediment but a catalyst for them.

It also doesn't help that people elsewhere see our regressive Premier on the news so regularly and make their impressions of Alberta based on that.

Anyone formulating their views of Alberta on a single elected official is either uneducated, simple-minded or unwilling to learn much about the wider world. It's like someone drawing conclusions about the United States solely based on Donald Trump: in the U.S. everyone therefore must be closed-minded, intolerant, handsy and willing to mislead banks in order to qualify for loans. For crying out loud, Trump ran in two presidential elections and in each one, his opponent garnered more votes than he did. So clearly not everyone in the United States--not even close to a majority--believes, thinks, acts as he does.

It's similarly intellectually lazy to draw conclusions about Albertans and Alberta just because of what one party and one government leader says or does.

In fact, I would suggest that anyone outside this province who draws conclusions about Alberta being monolithic simply based on the actions and pronouncements of Smith has: A) never visited this province and knows little to nothing about us, and B) is simple-minded, quick to judgment and whose opinion is not worth worrying about.

 

[David A]

People who live elsewhere, further away from Alberta do not spend all day focusing on the nuances of our politics, nor does the national media. Often there is just a clip of our Premier saying something confrontational or provocative.

It is easy to dismiss people elsewhere for this, but likewise really how much do most Albertan know or care about say the nuances of politics in say Quebec or Nova Scotia?

 

[TravellingChris]

People who live elsewhere, further away from Alberta do not spend all day focusing on the nuances of our politics, nor does the national media. Often there is just a clip of our Premier saying something confrontational or provocative.

It is easy to dismiss people elsewhere for this, but likewise really how much do most Albertan know or care about say the nuances of politics in say Quebec or Nova Scotia?

I would never draw conclusions about "everyone in Quebec" based on the policies or statements of Premier Legault. Nor would I judge all Indians based on the (increasingly erratic and dictatorial) behaviour of Prime Minister Modi. Nor would I malign all Hungarians because of the authoritarian policies of Viktor Orban.

In each case, it's important to remember that there is ALWAYS a large portion of society who did not vote for the officeholder in question and does not support their agenda. So a given politician is never representative of society as a whole--they merely are a good campaigner who managed to win an election. You can never extrapolate that because this person is in office, then everybody who lives in a certain region or country feels and acts exactly the way the politician does. And as I pointed out, it's also possible to get more votes overall than one's opponent, as Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Scheer and Erin O'Toole all did, and still lose the election.

Again, anyone who judges all Albertans and Alberta based on what Danielle Smith says or does, given that you and I and three million other people DIDN'T vote UCP in the last election (that includes people eligible to cast ballots who didn't, as well as those ineligible to vote who nevertheless live here), is intellectually lazy.

 

[jason403]

Of course people will judge us based on our democratically elected government. To do otherwise would be intellectually lazy.

 

[TravellingChris]

Of course people will judge us based on our democratically elected government. To do otherwise would be intellectually lazy.

Cute.

Most people with any awareness of the world will understand that, with the exception of dictatorships with sham elections in which the man at the top gets 99% of the vote, not everybody in a given province or country supports the ruling party. Anyone who knows anything at all about elections even in democratic countries will understand that no democratic system perfectly reflects the will of the electorate and there will always be as many people who oppose the governing party as support it.

To make simplistic conclusions about Alberta despite the fact that the UCP won the recent election with less than a million votes (out of a population of 4+ million), is lazy and reflects poorly on the person making them. It's disappointing that you consider this reasonable or acceptable.

 

[jason403]

Of course an election doesn't mean 100% of people agree with a ruling party, but they got elected and hold a majority of seats while getting 53% of the popular vote. Like it or not, this reflects upon Alberta, and you can and should absolutely expect others to judge alberta based on this.

 

[kcantor]

Cute.
…
To make simplistic conclusions about Alberta despite the fact that the UCP won the recent election with less than a million votes (out of a population of 4+ million), is lazy and reflects poorly on the person making them. It's disappointing that you consider this reasonable or acceptable.

cute…

it’s not simplistic in the least to assume that in a free election those who were elected to form a majority government accurately reflect the views of those that voted for them.

they may not entirely mirror the views of those who voted for them but those differences were clearly acceptable enough for those votes not to have been cast elsewhere.

as for the “less than a million”, there are roughly three million eligible voters in alberta (not four) and 60% of them voted and 55% of them voted ucp. clearly they don’t represent the views of all albertans but just as clearly they do represent the views of albertans.

as for what that means from my perspective, i have to quote ed koch who famously said “the people have spoken. and now they must be punished.”

 

[Whattagame]

Cute.

Most people with any awareness of the world will understand that, with the exception of dictatorships with sham elections in which the man at the top gets 99% of the vote, not everybody in a given province or country supports the ruling party. Anyone who knows anything at all about elections even in democratic countries will understand that no democratic system perfectly reflects the will of the electorate and there will always be as many people who oppose the governing party as support it.

To make simplistic conclusions about Alberta despite the fact that the UCP won the recent election with less than a million votes (out of a population of 4+ million), is lazy and reflects poorly on the person making them. It's disappointing that you consider this reasonable or acceptable.

"Most people with any awareness of the world..." = No true Scotsman and ad populum

"...not everybody in a given province or country supports the ruling party." = Straw man

"...lazy and reflects poorly on the person making them." = Ad hominem

If you want to argue from a position of intellectual superiority, I recommend tightening up the logical fallacies.

 

[David A]

Never have I heard the Premier of Quebec (or of Alberta) referred to as the Premier of Some of Quebec (or Alberta) in the media or elsewhere. Yes, they don't represent everyone's views, but they did win an election which means they got more votes than other parties. So they legally and otherwise have authority to speak on behalf of their jurisdiction, whether we like it or not.

 

[TravellingChris]

it’s not simplistic in the least to assume that in a free election those who were elected to form a majority government accurately reflect the views of those that voted for them.

they may not entirely mirror the views of those who voted for them but those differences were clearly acceptable enough for those votes not to have been cast elsewhere.

as for the “less than a million”, there are roughly three million eligible voters in alberta (not four) and 60% of them voted and 55% of them voted ucp. clearly they don’t represent the views of all albertans but just as clearly they do represent the views of albertans.

as for what that means from my perspective, i have to quote ed koch who famously said “the people have spoken. and now they must be punished.”

I never spoke about the total number of eligible voters in Alberta, I was talking total population...less than a million people out of the total population of 4M+ actually went to the polls and voted UCP. That's a less than a quarter of the entire population. The people who voted UCP, in other words the people that many folks on this board seem to have a problem with, are less than 25% of the public.