New Liberal Leader Declares War on Alberta

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Wezil
He was second choice among his own party members.

So?

Lots of people will vote for a Liberal candidate to thwart Conservatives even though their first choice would be say NPD or whatever.
Happens in all types of election.

[Asher]

You're assuming the Liberals won't splinter.

[Arcite]

“Canadians will have to choose two clear visions of the path that our country must take at the beginning of this century,” Mr. Dion said.

That choice, he said, was between “the very right-wing party who thinks that the United States is not only an ally for us, but also a model, or the party that want to preserve always the independent voice of Canada in the world.”

“Do we want an additional useless tax cut or do we want to put 800,000 kids out of poverty in this country? Canadians will choose,” Mr. Dion said.

“This party has such a big tent that it is able also to welcome the people that have first a social conscience, but know they need to have a strong market economy to do it,” Mr. Dion said, before highlighting the need to reconcile the economy with the environment.

“The final issue is the style of leadership that we want,” he said. “A leader that is so much a control freak that is muzzling his ministers — maybe for good reasons — and inviting the staff to spy on them ,or do we want collegial leadership with the dream team?”

---

Well thats enough to get my vote when the time comes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Arcite
Well thats enough to get my vote when the time comes.

It's enough to put me off because of his arrogance and brashness.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


I'm not talking about politics though if you know what I mean.
I KNOW, just like you that most Canadians don't have the environment as first priority.
But it is one of MY top priority.
From that perspective, Dion is superior to Harper by far no?

I wouldn't say that. Niether one of them is going to do a thing for the environment. Dion, at best, will just create rhetoric to make real environmental issues seem less important.

The environment will never be saved by people who work for the economy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by General Ludd
The environment will never be saved by people who work for the economy.

And if you don't work for the economy...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Asher

And if you don't work for the economy...

... it works you.


But no economy or culture that is fueled by the commodification of the environment, nature, and life will ever be sustainable, so it is only a matter of time before it collapses and anarchy can reign.

[cinch]

The main problem with my fellow Albertans is that they tend to take critiques of Oil Sands development as personal attacks.

Dion is talking about sustainable development. This is what Stelmach should be talking about, too. It is *the* most pressing issue for Albertans today. The economy is still not nearly as diversified as it needs to be for the sake of long-term security. Fort Mac is a total mess--tent cities, crime, an economy out of touch with reality... We need to start being open to ways in which we can slow development--not stall it--enough to keep tabs on its environmental, human, and yes, even overall economic cost.

Blindly worshipping the Calgary skyscrapers has got us and will get us nowhere.

[Asher]

Originally posted by cinch
The main problem with my fellow Albertans is that they tend to take critiques of Oil Sands development as personal attacks.

Dion is talking about sustainable development.

What he's talking about is more tax on a booming economy that won't get him any votes anyway. That's less about sustainable development and more about putting more money in federal coffers and gaining votes outside of Alberta.

Blindly worshipping the Calgary skyscrapers has got us and will get us nowhere.

Got us nowhere? Are you sure about that?

[cinch]

The Petroleum industry has got us out of debt. 'Worshipping the skyscrapers'--giving tax breaks and free reign to the oil corporations--has indeed kept us from actually benefiting in the long term. It has led to a scarred environment, a ridiculously deformed municipality in Fort Mac, and led to little if any improvements not only in social programs (hippy concerns like education and health) but WRT the overall economic picture. Topping charts of 'economic growth index' means nothing if the people of the province will never see any real improvement--and I'm not talking about prosperity cheques.

[Asher]

Originally posted by cinch
The Petroleum industry has got us out of debt. 'Worshipping the skyscrapers'--giving tax breaks and free reign to the oil corporations--has indeed kept us from actually benefiting in the long term.

It's brought many billions of dollars to the Alberta government to invest as it pleases. Billions more now that the construction incentives (no royalty paid) for the oilsands are expiring.

It has led to a scarred environment, a ridiculously deformed municipality in Fort Mac

This is what occurs when you have a booming economy -- rapid growth. If you don't like strong economies, move to BC or Saskatchewan.

and led to little if any improvements not only in social programs (hippy concerns like education and health) but WRT the overall economic picture.

This has nothing to do with oil companies.

Topping charts of 'economic growth index' means nothing if the people of the province will never see any real improvement--and I'm not talking about prosperity cheques.

The problem is in Edmonton -- government. Not oil companies, not taxes, not a booming economy.

The problem is government, so get your arguments right. Raising taxes won't improve education/health, we've already got way too much money. Raising taxes reduces the economic viability of further business, which reduces employment, which raises unemployment, which lowers wages.

You think this is a "real improvement"?

[Victor Galis]

Why did I have to invest in oil I should have been a war profiteer...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Why did I have to invest in oil I should have been a war profiteer...

On to other things-- Asher has a point in that most of the complaints are issues for government. For instance if the Alberta provincial government had

1. released land in Fort MacMurray earlier or
2. done a bunch of infrastructure work starting 10 years ago even at the cost of delaying paying off the debt a year or so


Alberta would be in much better shape.

BUt government often makes decisions that do not make a lot of sense. AS we speak, they are refurbishing an old warehouse to deal with the homeless. Its emergency winter shelter and it seems the cost will be at least a million dollars to house 300 homeless a night. Once winter has passed the site will be torn down for a road widening project.

Now I am all in favor of helping but. A million bucks for 300 people. That comes to 3333 per person. If we assume a remaining 4 month winter season thats 834 per month per person. . . . While some of that can be salvaged, much of the costs will be sunk into a b uilding that will be demolished

It just seems that its another stop-gap government measure.

[Dinner]

It seems the government will make back most of that money when it sells the land. Unless of course it had to purchase the land just for this project.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems the government will make back most of that money when it sells the land. Unless of course it had to purchase the land just for this project.

The government already owns the land to expand the nearby highway. Basically next year the building comes down to make room for pavement.

The costs mentioned are generally to refurbish what was a furniture store/warehouse into something with enough bathrooms to handle 300 occupants and whatever else zoning codes require.

If it was a permanent site I could see spending the money but the costs for a temporary site are such that it would have been cheaper to rent motel rooms