Alberta Election

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Did anyone watch Rachel Maddow (I think) on MSNBC last night May 7. I wanted to post it but had no luck. Very interesting riff.
 
Its relative. The larger the vote the bigger the mandate, the bigger the changes a gvt can do. So a gvt with 42% can morally make bigger changes than one with 37% but less than one with 50%. Also in this case the NDP is less able to make major changes in rural area as they have so few rural MPs. But a split vite does not mean they can not do anything. Many Wildrose supporters are blue colour union workers who are socially conservative, but support greater UNion powers, and more gvt spending in health and eduction. So the NDP has the moral authority to do so as well the political ability. Meanwhile the federal Tories do what they want without regard for the majority that voted against them.
 
Can Frodo make ordinary people fro up as a projectile missal?

I've heard sermons like that ... a deterrent ... to just about everything and everything just?
 
Do you know some people believe the devil is spiritual too ... sort of a devious spirit to gods on the subtlest Ide!

Whey ouda sight ...
 
The real question is what mandate does the NDP have? What did Albertans think they were voting for? What kind of legislation are they prepared to accept? If the NDP in Alberta is simply an honest version of the Liberal party, then it can't even begin to get that province on track.
To talk of the oil industry as being essential for the future is more than a little naive, and even delusionary. The land and the waters cannot forever tolerate that treatment. Nor can the climate. There's a reality. There are things in life we cannot have - and oil is one of them. And yet, I suspect the NDP will encourage the oil industry. If so, what you will get, at best, is destructive but honest government instead of a destructive but dishonest one.
How much support does it really have for social programmes. It can't do much in areas that people really don't support.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
What did Albertans think they were voting for?
Click to expand...
For me, like I've said elsewhere, healthcare. I don't have high hopes, but there's a chance. As it is now, when I show up to emerge they know little about anything. They did a huge campaign about your med list - to carry a stupid hard copy with you everywhere. I've seen what happens with my clear list in the hospital. I have to list things as an allergy that aren't. Doctors are still mailing/faxing important info and it's not getting where it needs to be. The only things that can be accessed via different clinics on the system seems to be test results, and even then, at my GP that is one computer for the clinic and there are system access problems fairly often.

For many around me, it's schools.
 
There was a brief CBC interview clip at her rally, right after her speech. I am trying to find it. She said something about a clean energy plan...but can't find that little clip.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
The real question is what mandate does the NDP have? What did Albertans think they were voting for? What kind of legislation are they prepared to accept? If the NDP in Alberta is simply an honest version of the Liberal party, then it can't even begin to get that province on track.
To talk of the oil industry as being essential for the future is more than a little naive, and even delusionary. The land and the waters cannot forever tolerate that treatment. Nor can the climate. There's a reality. There are things in life we cannot have - and oil is one of them. And yet, I suspect the NDP will encourage the oil industry. If so, what you will get, at best, is destructive but honest government instead of a destructive but dishonest one.
How much support does it really have for social programmes. It can't do much in areas that people really don't support.
Click to expand...
She wants a living wage. $15/ hr min.
 
Kimmio said:
She wants a living wage. $15/ hr min.
Click to expand...
Actualy that is not necessarily a living wage. Depends where you are and what your family make up is. $15 is higher than a living wage for some and lower for others.

THe problem with the logic of making minimum wage a living wage (as good-hearted as the idea is) is that it is not going to work--it will end up raising the costs of many things, thereby raising the actual living wage......
 
GordW said:
Actualy that is not necessarily a living wage. Depends where you are and what your family make up is. $15 is higher than a living wage for some and lower for others.

THe problem with the logic of making minimum wage a living wage (as good-hearted as the idea is) is that it is not going to work--it will end up raising the costs of many things, thereby raising the actual living wage......
Click to expand...

It's better than the current rate, I guess. Here a living wage is 20 or 21 dollars/ hr and we don't currently make that, so we are now sharing accommadations with a friend/ roommate for the time being. It's not so bad. A little chosen family, we are. Times are tough everywhere though and it only makes sense that if people are working (even if they aren't temporarily) that they earn enough to pay for basics. I don't see how employers with a conscience can object to that. I don't think it has to raise the prices of things - it might but it doesn't have to.
 
GordW said:
Actualy that is not necessarily a living wage. Depends where you are and what your family make up is. $15 is higher than a living wage for some and lower for others.

THe problem with the logic of making minimum wage a living wage (as good-hearted as the idea is) is that it is not going to work--it will end up raising the costs of many things, thereby raising the actual living wage......
Click to expand...

This is an old argument and not necessarily true. I only have first year Economics but my understanding is that putting more money in the hands of the people does not drive up prices to any significant degree. It gives the people more purchasing power and stimulates the economy - creating more jobs and more opportunities.
 
Stores in the downtown core are closing/ turning over all the time. People can't afford to shop or go out to eat much anymore. This is a tourist city - you can see the signs that it's suffering in places that were thriving ten years ago - so it's concerning to see that. Also, that means fewer ground-up jobs in hospitality/ retail.

It's pretty bad - hypocritical or just unfair - when a person can't afford to shop or eat at the place they work! IMO.
 
Seeler said:
This is an old argument and not necessarily true. I only have first year Economics but my understanding is that putting more money in the hands of the people does not drive up prices to any significant degree. It gives the people more purchasing power and stimulates the economy - creating more jobs and more opportunities.
Click to expand...
It seemed to happen during the boom in Calgary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top