Alberta Provincial Politics

[ByeByeBaby]

a couple more articles regarding the election.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-analysis-janet-brown-poll-1.6808614

Calgary voters look off to their right and see Danielle Smith. That's a problem for UCP​

This is a great article, lots of interesting tidbits. One thing that really caught my eye was this figure:

The 'other' and 'don't know' voters can be a number of things, and they can change the election in unpredictable ways. I think of the 2015 federal election when there were a lot of 'undecided' voters who had 100% decided they weren't voting for Harper, but who were undecided between the Liberals and NDP. Three basic possibilities for other voters:

• Genuinely undecided between the parties (or just plain uninvolved/uninformed); you would expect these to be in the middle of the spectrum. They could be convinced either way.
• 'Shy' voters who are politically partisan and only support one party (in this two-party case) but are either hesitant to vote or who are hesitant to admit that they will vote -- a number of moderate Republicans who voted for Trump for instance; these would be to the sides but not the extremes. They will only vote for their party if they vote.
• Extremist voters who are rebelling against their party's mainstream; this is where the WIldrose came from originally, and these would be on the extreme edge. They could break off to new extreme parties, or vote for the 'mainstream' one.

It looks like the undecided are mostly in the middle; 4, 5 and 6; this implies they might be undecided and available for either party to win. The NDP side is solid; there are few shy/hesitant voters and nobody on the far left is going to defect. I will say one thing that Danielle Smith has done effectively in her governance is convince the extreme right flank of the UCP that she will support their ideas and policies; there's pretty full support there. It would be better news for the UCP if the 'other' voters were all 7, 8 and 9 voters who they could probably convince to hold their nose.




As an aside, while messing around with other stuff I noticed this interesting relationship between the gender wage gap (average male wage / average female wage) and the 2019 election results:

The gender pay gap outlier is Ft McMurray-Wood Buffalo of course.

 

[Surrealplaces]

NDP trending upward on 388. Still showing the UCP having a slim lead, but but very slim.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Wowww this is a NAILBITER!

It would be hilarious if the NDP lost the popular vote but formed a majority government. Take THAT populists! An Uno reverse for the MAGAts

 

[AJX]

Conventional wisdom would say anyone swayed by crime issues are inaccessible voters to the NDP. The best they can hope is inoculation—ensure that the issue as a whole transitions to a non-issue.

Not necessarily. My sister has always been on the fence when it comes to politics, at times voting, for a party, based on one particular issue. She was planning to vote for the NDP, but might be voting for the UCP because of their promise of extra policing. She doesn’t believe the NDP would do the same.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

If the NDP promises to do it, their promise is as good as the UCP’s on this. Especially since the cities are already doing it themselves.

 

[AJX]

Toews would have been a far better Premier.....boring and austere.

The window to pay down the provincial debt is short as this is likely the last oil boom. With $18B+ in non-renewable resource revenue, the NDP is likely to shovel billions into already over-funded (realtive to other provinves) public services with no menaingful impact on service levels. As bad as Smith has been, allowing the likes of the ATA, UNA and AUPE to have any impact whatsoever on government decision making would be even worse. An NDP government would spend more, meaning more dependence on resource revenues and therefore lessened ability to move past dependence on non-recurring revenues.

I wouldn’t count on the UCP spending less money overall, yes, they might spend less money on healthcare or education, but as we’ve seen in the past, they are capable of spending money on things like pipelines or giving away money to oil companies to clean up their wells.
It’s not like conservatives don’t know how to spend money. Remember back in the 90s when Ralph Klein came in and made a bunch of cutbacks? He was cutting back on the spending that was ramped up by previous conservative governments.
I agree that the NDP will probably be in spend mode if elected but so will the UCP, it’s just the NDP would be spending it on things I care about.

 

[AJX]

My apologies for all the posts, but I’m gonna say what others have said. Regardless of the fiscal spending side of things, the UCP is downright scary. Voting Danielle Smith in wouldn’t be good for us here in Alberta, and it sends a message to the rest of Canada that Alberta still has a high share of ignorant rednecks.
I’m not totally against the conservatives, but I am against Danielle Smith’s version of it.
If my only fear of the NDP getting voted in is that they might spend more on services, I’m good with that.

 

[DougB]

Sounds like a good way too scare off all the good talent to the private sector.

Talent always heads to the private sector. People that stay in the public sector tend to overvalue security, which is why they won't leave if compensation declines relative to the outside government.

 

[DougB]

Following with this analogy, would re-electing the UCP be more along the lines of not trusting that the medical professional's cure works and therefore ignoring getting treatment or is it more that since there is a cure (never ending resource revenues?) we disregard everything and continue with our risky behavior? What is the cure? I'd argue, from a social perspective, that re-electing the UCP is like polio, or whooping cough or small pox, something that should be effectively eradicated in Alberta but we seem to be encouraging the growth of.

Is productivity the right word here? I'm definitely not understanding what you are trying to say. Surely the value of these institutions (and other government run services) goes beyond operating them cash neutral? Is this an efficiency argument? Is the balanced operational budget statement in reference to the NDP borrowing to fund operations when resource revenues cratered? What do the 2 have to do with each other? I understand improved efficiency would create better value but did you expect the NDP to cut services to the level of revenue in that situation? No level of efficiency gains was going to solve that issue.

Mentioning issues like trusting professionals is falling victim to the culture wars, aka noise.

What is the point of incremental social spending if it doesn't deliver measurable results? Sure sending more would be #progressive, but so what?

Operational spending must by definition self-fund.

 

[DougB]

What about if someone elects a government that promises to cut public sector employment, or who cuts public sector wages, or who hijacks public sector worker pension funds so that they can redirect investments to suit their cronies? No certainty there.

Look, it's okay to be honest and say you think we should have a worse health care system or a worse education system so that you can pay slightly less in taxes; you don't need to tie yourself in knots inventing a bunch of abstract principles. It'll be easier on all of us.

Public sector pension funds are DB. Even if the employer invests pension contributions poorly, the obligation to the pensioners is the same. Are you concerned about Quebec using its provincial pension fund to diversify its economy, as it has done for decades? The best solution would be to convert all pensions to DC or even better, move to something like Australia's Superannuation, and completely depoliticize pensions.

It has little to do with taxes. Trying to reposition an issue as personal is classic deflection. Borrowing money to fund health and education is never sustainable. It is incredibly dishonest in pushing decision into the future when options become narrower as debt obligations become larger. Canadian governments, especially in Alberta, haven't conducted program reviews, substantially changed service delivery or substantially restructured their workforces since the 90s,

 

[DougB]

What if taxes are set at a level where that is impossible.

Tax rates are irrelevant if incremental social spending doesn't deliver incremental per capita GDP.

 

[DougB]

What about if someone elects a government that promises to cut public sector employment, or who cuts public sector wages, or who hijacks public sector worker pension funds so that they can redirect investments to suit their cronies? No certainty there.

Look, it's okay to be honest and say you think we should have a worse health care system or a worse education system so that you can pay slightly less in taxes; you don't need to tie yourself in knots inventing a bunch of abstract principles. It'll be easier on all of us.

Lots of places spend far less on health and education than does Alberta (ex. Germany, Australia, Japan, Quebec) while offering similar to better health and education outcomes. Past a point, spending does not correlate with quality.

 

[DougB]

My apologies for all the posts, but I’m gonna say what others have said. Regardless of the fiscal spending side of things, the UCP is downright scary. Voting Danielle Smith in wouldn’t be good for us here in Alberta, and it sends a message to the rest of Canada that Alberta still has a high share of ignorant rednecks.
I’m not totally against the conservatives, but I am against Danielle Smith’s version of it.
If my only fear of the NDP getting voted in is that they might spend more on services, I’m good with that.

Danielle Smith is unfocused and makes poor decisions....Those are reasons to not support the UCP. Sending messages about rednecks is social media fodder.

 

[DougB]

Many people think it’s decision between dollars, and social values. The perception is that the UCP will be better for the economy, and better for people’s wallet. I’m not saying that will be the case, but that’s a perception for many.
On the other hand, there is the perception that the NDP would be better for social issues, like health and education, LGBQT etc.. I personally believe that is the case, and not solely a perception.

Full transparency here, I’m not in love with the NDP, but I will be voting for them because I’m putting the social issues ahead of any perceived financial issues.

The decision is between dollars and dollars. Social policy is a fallacy as government follows on social issues,. Social policy is a construct of political scientists as it is great at eliciting emotions to obfuscate holding government to account for delivering measurable results. In an individualistic society, government hasn't had the ability to influence social values in a long time, probably the 70s, but definitely not post-Internet. The NDP is only better for government employees.

 

[darwink]

Talent always heads to the private sector. People that stay in the public sector tend to overvalue security, which is why they won't leave if compensation declines relative to the outside government.

I think you’d be surprised by the staffing problems with the city and provincial governments have had post 2008.

Can’t apply 1990s thinking to the current situation. Government jobs are a lot less stable than you believe imo.