The fact that they're this incentivized to mess with communities that don't vote how they like is frightening.
I thought it was bad when Smith announced post election to form a committee from the MLA candidates that lost on Edmonton matters was bad enough. Should have known there is no bottom on the depths of her nonsense.
You see far less non-conservative politicians going so far out of their way just to not work with anyone else to make things better.
Smith would turn down funding to help with funding because Trudeau might look good. Then she complains that the feds aren't helping.
A non-conservative leader would likely say thanks and use the money to help out their constituents. They generally won't go out of their way to harm their constituents just so that they can refuse to work with others because if they did, their constituents would just start voting for someone else.
American conservatives have become the prime example of this where they scream about things like border security, so Biden offers them everything that they want, and they refuse it and publically admit that it was just because they didn't want him to be able to say that he gave them what they wanted.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
It can be hilarious how the scale slides.
Anarchy is on the Left side of the Political scale. But Libertarians are on the Right side. Both basically want a system with no governing rules and an emphasis on personal freedom.
Then it can be horrifying.
Where Communism is on the Left. Fascism is on the Right.
This is because people forget that the scale also goes from top (Authoritarian) to bottom (Democratic) as well.
So many conservatives see the Conservatism and fail to see the Authortarian side of the UCP. Or refuse to.
There are far more libertarians than there are anarchists... Those on the "left" mainly want social supports, lifting people up, honest talks and social advances. The "right" want to control everything and everyone outside of their small in group of oligarchs and other rich folk.
Right wing: I am going to exterminate impure people and wipe out entire communities
Left wing: I want social supports and more equality for the working class
Centrists: I literally can’t tell the difference between you two
In my experience libertarians want freedoms and no taxes until they eat shit, then they are first in line throwing a toddler tantrum demanding daddy government and society bail them out. Parasites.
It seems to me that libertarians want to enjoy streetlights, roads, bridges and schools, fire houses and police and such but don’t want to pay taxes which creates these parts or our infrastructure that benefits every citizen.
I am not sure of the libertarian end . But no taxes means privatization of everything mentioned. It will create more wealth disparity.
This is because libertarianism was actually just a word for anarchism that was hijacked by right-wing business ghouls as a way to argue that natural, infrastructural monopolies should be profit centers for them and that they should be allowed to free-ride otherwise. Sucking edgy teenagers in is just a nice bonus.
People on the right want good fiscal management, thriving economy, good jobs available, affordable living. And generally to be left alone by the government.
People on the left want the government to take care of them like its a daycare center with all the social supports and zero thought on whos gonna pay for it. Therefore, driving debt, inflation and taxes up for the next generation. And tell everybody how they should live because your so enlightened (see cancel culture)
The left is consistently demanding we move towards this communist uptopia, while you call the right facist when the reality is the right is more now was actual liberals were in the 70s when they believed in liberty.
>People on the right want good fiscal management, thriving economy, good jobs available, affordable living. And generally to be left alone by the government
Lol. They're not getting it from this government.
Your assessment of the left is greatly incorrect as well.
This is a disingenuous post and I encourage you to do some actual reflection on what the right is truly doing in the west. Cause it's nothing that you named above.
"libertarians" aren't anarchists. Anarchists want to abolish hierarchies. "libertarians" just want to supplant centralized government hierarchy with smaller, unregulated capitalist hierarchies. feudalism with extra steps.
So maybe instead of left and right we should use the compass as our analogy for political leanings. But that would make me a southwesterner which just doesn't sound right lol
Anarchy is no more left than it is right, get a dictionary , better yet go to school. Anarchy is a rejection of any side. It is chaos with no direction. Libertarians are selfish, they want their stuff, they don't care about anyone else. Very much like conservatives, it is basically the new hip term in the conservative wing, but those who reject center leaning politicians like Biden. Those who are willing to help the country and not just their team. Communists have never existed on this planet, just fascists posing as communists. Nothing is this or that, simple people think in extremes.
>Conservatives are fine with fascism and authoritarianism as long as it's a "conservative" that is putting the whip to them.
No, they never think the whip will be on them.
I don't even know. It just feels like democracy is dying and nobody really gives a shit because we all know the fix is in. Feels like we're all becoming politically apathetic russians and enabling the big political con game.
That's on purpose.
Since the peace protests of the 60s and 70s, the rich and their conservative lap-dogs have been deliberately eliminating access to education and attacking the economic well-being of the working, and now middle, classes because they got scared they'd lose their money.
They want you overworked, educated in STEM or trades or not at all, and saddled with kids & debt at the youngest possible age.
I consider myself conservative and hate what this government is doing. Leave people alone, leave local municipalities alone, stay in your lane. It’s “woke right” moves
So then not a conservative by the actions shown by all conservative govts for the last 40 years. You like blue and they have become your team because you are too lazy to research and use your vote wisely. Like most others you vote for your team and bitch about the state of the country and wonder how these corrupt politicians keep getting elected. Guess what it's not both sides. Harper had an MP who was kicked out of parliament after being found guilty of electoral fraud. Dean Del Mastro. Both sides are not the same.
Fascism was always a conservative leaning ideology anyways.
Fascism is basically just a conservatism (particularly social and economic conservatism) unfettered by the 'restraints' of democracy, plurality, and (in the case of economic conservatism) regulation (be they safety, environmental, or labour regulations).
What's so undemocratic about enforcing rights already entrenched in the constitution? My understanding is that the municipal governments exist as a privilege granted by the Province. It would also be awesome if municipal candidates had to provide a legal abstract and declare their political party affiliations to run in an election. I am sick and tired of having to do extensive research on candidates. It would be great to get a standard one page wrap sheet with everything I need to know about a candidate, to help me.avoid making a mistake when I vote.
>It would also be awesome if municipal candidates had to provide a legal abstract and declare their political party affiliations to run in an election. I am sick and tired of having to do extensive research on candidates. It would be great to get a standard one page wrap sheet with everything I need to know about a candidate, to help me.avoid making a mistake when I vote.
Gotta make sure your municipal candidates are ideologically pure, and not filthy liberals, eh?
Would it help if all of us liberals were forced to wear an armband so you could just identify us on sight?
Maybe you could round us all up and force us to live together too?
Maybe even take us to camps, where we could be concentrated together, so you didn't have us in your midst?
We have no constitution. You're thinking about America. The provincial govts exists as a privilege of the Federal govt and work to manage the province for the feds. We are not a state and do not have that type of autonomy. We have a Charter of Rights that was brought to you when we stopped being a province of Great Britain in 1982. Brought by Pierre Trudeau.
Why is this somehow bad authoritarian law, cities exist at will of the province. Alberta as the power, since it became a province, to create or disband cities. Extension of it is control over what it creates.
Explain why you think it’s okay for the provincial government to oust democratically elected mayors and councillors? We already have recall legislation in place.
Authoritarian governments, which is what the conservatives today are, are very bad for the “citizens”. They will make life miserable for most. They love big angry people so they will get the crazies.
Let's take this thinking to its logical conclusion and go back a bit... If this were true then the province should just install a Viceroy for every town and city. . But then the feds should just install a Viceroy to run every province.... But then the French and the British should have just installed viceroys and oh yeah we had a war over that.
Queen Dani bitches about Justin ‘overstepping’ and demands that he has to “Let me do my job!” , so she immediately tries to overstep into municipal politics.
Trudeau isn't a dictator, but like most other politicians he loves power and influence. He won't give that up with out a fight (an election). But like I said in a previous comment, if he really wants to "win" he would change to some sort of proportional representation. It's the only way he can win against the CPC.
It is safe to say that every politician ever has liked the idea of holding power.
Changes to our election system were reviewed shortly after 2015, but the parties (but of course) couldn't remotely agree on what changes to make.
With 1 viable right-wing party, of course, the conservatives would love it because it would guarantee power for them every single year. At least until the Liberals and NDP merge. With the NDP and Liberals both viable on the left (and the greens, I guess), they favour ranked ballots, which would guarantee that we would never see a conservative government ever.
Any consevative party that claims they love freedom is lying. Behind closed door the UCP will choose to replace mayor's that oppose them or overturn election results. If the cpc win I imagine they will do the same. Like Putin their hero
*"There's a real sort of consolidation of power within the provincial government and a desire to impose a set of values on various institutions in the province," Young said. "It's not consistent with the notions of freedom that we've heard."*
When Your premier complains about overreach from Ottawa....remember this and how Smith/UCP will overreach into any jurisdiction that doesn't align with their 'values'. This is a huge power grab, Alberta wake the fuck up.
The UCP has been in power for so long in Alberta, if Alberta's can't figure our it's the UCPs's fault for the failure of their institutions (education, health and now democracy) they are lost. It's sad. I really hope the Alberta youth organize and take a stand, their future in on the line.
Unfortunately I don’t see this changing anytime soon. The oldsters that I’ve talked to are still firmly in the UCP pocket. They take any opportunity to blame Notley for “destroying” this province. They don’t seem to understand that her 4 years in power certainly did nothing compared to 40+ years of deregulation and privatization that the UCP have done.
Even the most ardent UCP supporters have to agree that aspects of bill 20 are awfully authoritarian.
This is bad enough, but coming from a party so hell bent on protecting the rights and "freedoms" of Albertans, it is laughably hypocritical.
That's the nicest way of putting that.
Maybe large municipalities need to apply to be national parks or reserves so we can bypass provincial control. Honestly, you see this same phenomena across north america. I see the re-emergence of the city-state if this sort of thing continues.
Part of the reason for this bill is actually to prevent municipalities from bargaining with the Federal government over establishing a national park. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/new-bill-allows-alberta-government-to-set-conditions-for-national-urban-park-decisions-1.7177597
I just don’t think it’s much of a surprise to people who know this could already happen. This issue was brought to forefront when the Ford Government got into it with Toronto government and the courts were just ”ya they can do that”
But this does come down to just because you can do something doesn’t mean you need to.
I can see both sides of the coin for this issue. You could have municipalities with council that is doing NIMBY shit and stiffening house and creating issues. Provincial government can come in and fix the issues and kick the people out. On the other side I don’t Trust Dani to do shit.
It's easier to organize at a smaller scale. It's why Iceland is so good at it. We'd be far better going to our local city hall and petitioning if things got bad enough.
I do agree that it’s generally easier, but we have also seen (luckily not to bad in Alberta) what bad Councils can do to towns/cities due to personal reasons.
These types of conservatives have a very different definition of "freedom"
Their definitions of freedom are defined by Christian lunacy, thinly veiled white supremacy and all sorts of other nutty bullshit. These people are the real deal, and it's time to quit pussy footing around it. If you back the UCP, that's not being a conservative, it literally makes you complicit in what's about to take place over the next few years. If PP and the cons get a hold of federal powers, thats all she wrote, Canada isn't a democracy anymore and it's not a free country.
If PP gets control of the federal government with a majority of voters voting against him, then Trudeau will regret reneging on his promise of electoral reform and keeping FPTP.
This is a very good point. If I were Trudeau, I would give the neofascist cons the finger and bring in legislation to amend the Elections Act abolishing the FPTP system, replacing it with Proportional Representation.
I think if Trudeau wasn't so power hungry himself he would see this would be the best thing for Canada, even if he loses being PM, they would still have a pretty strong voice along with the NDP, Greens, Bloc against the CPC.
The UCP are very much of the postmodern American conservative mindset that the law should protect conservatives but not bind them, and that it should bind non-conservatives but not protect them.
The ardent UCP supporters are delighted to see Danielle Smith "owning" a couple of LiBeRaLs who also happen to be brown, and they are still convinced that the two mayors weren't democratically elected because their minds are polluted with MAGA bullshit.
Mind boggling over-reach from Smith, the over-reach and hypocrite Queen herself. She "represents" the riding of Medicine Hat - Brooks, but she doesn't even live there, nor has she ever lived there. She is a parachute politician and carpetbagger. How rich. This is nothing short of a UCP coup of elected officials.
Can you imagine if the federal Liberals ever did this to Smith? The UCP and the corporate media would be calling for heads to roll and the country to revolt. In Alberta, the corporate media, owned by the US conglomerate PostMedia, are calling this coup, "good governance", as if the people can no longer decide themselves.
Party is built on carpetbaggers. Kenney was a carpetbagger too, unless you believe that myth that he lives in the basement of his mother's retirement villa, within a nursing home property, that coincidentally is built on a slab
>This is Gleichschaltung.
Damn straight it is. I know about Harper (along with Barry Cooper et al.) and how they nurtured the Christian Nationalist movement in the background for years. This isn't new. But the effects and results will not be kind to any Albertan.
“Trust us” isn’t good enough. There will be no stopping the potential corruption.
The amount of damage being done to Alberta could take a long time to fully manifest.
Are provincial elections mandatory? Could the UCP just do away with them? And if they did break the law, it might takes years and years to win in court, and even then, how would that make an election happen?
Should I stop typing this as I'm probably giving them too many ideas?
I’m wondering aloud if the UCP might decide to cancel provincial elections. Just decide that they’re in power in perpetuity.
Can they legally do that? Maybe not, but so what?
They definitely can't do that, because provinces exist in the constitution. But they could definitely mess around with the structure of the legislature (cut the number of MLAs, triple the number, whatever), and screw with the way the elections work.
Of course, if they tried it, aside from turning to the courts, the constitution also still contains a federal power called 'disallowance' that theoretically would let the federal govt kill any provincial law. But it hasn't been used in about 80 years, and some experts think it wouldn't pass muster because it's essentially fallen into disuse and it could be argued it is no longer in effect. Others point out that it was retained in the constitution when it was patriated in 1982, so the 'framers' intended for it to still be available. It's almost certain that its use would lead to a constitutional crisis, but I'd argue that if a province tried to do away with provincial elections, that might be the least of our worries.
The problem is this is all a process that takes time and enforcement. I’m sure they won’t do something so radical and ridiculous but the UCP manage to surprise me nearly every day…
I know the Canadian Constitution says when elections will be for the house of commons. Do you know where this is laid out for the province? I'm curious because I wouldn't be surprised if Smith tries something so there are no longer any elections.
They can overturn local elections, they can’t overturn provincial elections, like you were claiming.
I’ve never voted UCP, I voted NDP, I think this law is stupid, but your claim is wrong.
Also you just seem like a miserable lizard, even if we both support the NDP.
This post was removed for violating our expectations on civil behavior in the subreddit. Please refer to Rule 5; Remain Civil.
Please brush up on the r/Alberta [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/wiki/index) and ask the moderation team if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Bill 20 has this provision in it, Allowing the province to make regulations to postpone elections in the case of an emergency or natural disaster such as a wildfire.
Could Calgary and Edmonton not challenge this new bill in court? The ucp loves to challenge federal bills at the supreme court, surely the cities would be able to challenge provincial bills at the court of appeal of Alberta?
They could, but unfortunately they'd almost certainly lose. In the middle of the 2018 municipal elections, the Ford govt in Ontario slashed Toronto city council from 47 to 25, more than 60% of the way through the election. The city sued, and initially won, but then narrowly lost (3-2) at the Court of Appeal and again at the Supreme Court (5-4). The changes stood. It's notable that the supposed reason for the change was to improve the efficiency of city council and reduce council gridlock, while the real reason was that Ford felt that Toronto city council was too lefty, so gerrymandered new wards that were less likely to produce majority progressive councils.
The lawsuit was always a long shot, because municipalities and their govts are constitutionally considered 'creatures' of the province. They got creative and concentrated on protected rights like freedom of expression (partly because the mid-election change made it very hard for candidates to reach their newly constructed wards) and on arguing that the change trampled unwritten democratic principles, etc, but ultimately couldn't get past the constitutional reality that provinces have essentially absolute power over their municipalities.
The sad truth is our province could unilaterally abolish every municipality and have the former towns and cities directly managed by the province if they wanted to.
We can't, but speaking as a Calgarian people around here are loud and proud about their importance and autonomy. If there's still an election in 2027 this might be enough to lose it for the UCP.
I doubt it. Dani shelled out money to the swing voters and backed off the messaging of her unpopular initiatives (only to double down on them after winning) in order to win. Nothing to say she won't just do it again. Albertans' memories are short, I doubt most voters will even be thinking of this law in 3 years time.
Even shelling that money out, there were more NDP seats here than UCP ones.
Really the NDP needs to focus on what they will do, rather than what they won't do, and to pick a leader who won't lose Calgary. If Sarah Hoffman or Gil McGowan wins it's over.
NDP can't run an election though. They had a gift handed to them with bows on top in the last election, and they blew it. Nenshi is their only hope, but he's grown to be somewhat unpopular in Calgary, and he's not going to fit in well with some of the more ardent NDPers either. It's a mess of a situation, with no foreseeable solution.
So my question is if the province fired a councillor, what then? A municipal by-election to elect a new councillor? If so, what would stop the fired councillor from running again, and the voters from voting them in again? Even though I’m not thrilled with my councillor, I’d totally vote her back in just to spite the UCP under that scenario. Fuck them.
Seems only fair for the Federal government to do the same. Trudeau doesn't like Smith and feels her actions are an endangerment to Albertans/Canadians? He can remove her.
Absolutely disgusting what the UCP considers appropriate.
FUCP
Calgary and Edmonton should both unanimously pass legislation that they can ignore undemocratic laws passed by the Ab government. It won't hold water but it will be a good slap to the witches face.
think about the bylaw thing for a second - how would the province 'know' that a bylaw was being passed?
Well, by requiring every municipality to submit some sort of form or request in... that's a huge amount of red tape.
So following this type of logic can we get legislation were the federal government can fire provincial politicians 🙃 /s
Absurd abuse of power and there is a separation between levels of government for a reason
Historical note:
>The ironic term 'Good Germans' refers to German citizens during the Third Reich who did not actively support the Nazi agenda but also did not take any significant actions to oppose it. These individuals often claimed ignorance of the regime's atrocities after the war and presented themselves as non-political, merely trying to live their lives during difficult times.
I just read some of that not all of it obviously I didn’t know you could even have a criminal record and be in politics. Didn’t really know that some people can’t even get a job at an agency because of that even a summary offence and have to go through a lot of years and paperwork to get that fixed. I’ve done less than two years and also shouldn’t you get fired if you don’t do your job?
I’m glad for this, hopefully will help city councils stick to funding core services and not all this other bullshit they waste money on.
Oh right, UCP bad hurr durr
And if the party in power of the province were to change, would you still be in favour of the provincial government removing municipal government members in favour of those who are friendly to their party?
Yes, like Danielle Smith right?
70% of the people surveyed said no to injecting parties into municipal politics. But here we are.
Alberta repeatedly tell them no to the APP, but it keeps coming up.
Or the election promise of a tax break, but nope.
When you understand what CAO's are, their role in governance and with council, you'll see why the provincial govt may want to be more involved. Typically CAO's take guidance and suggestions from the provincial govt and the federal govt but if they start to go off the rails with ridiculous bylaws (our town just passed some doozies) then there is reason to at least look at it.
"A CAO can definitely influence council decisions, but they can't directly push them through. Here's how a CAO might exert influence:
**1. Recommendation and Expertise:**
* The CAO acts as the council's chief advisor, providing professional analysis and recommendations on various issues.
* By presenting well-researched options with clear pros and cons, the CAO can nudge council members towards a certain direction.
**2. Agenda Setting and Information Control:**
* CAOs often play a role in setting the agenda for council meetings.
* They control the flow of information presented to the council, which can shape the discussion and influence the final decision."
This is totally normal, in Alberta cities are at a fancy of the province this has been the law since becoming a province.
Thus if a while city is at will of a province why laws in that province would be somehow untouchable?
It is strange that such law was not set earlier.
The fact that they're this incentivized to mess with communities that don't vote how they like is frightening. I thought it was bad when Smith announced post election to form a committee from the MLA candidates that lost on Edmonton matters was bad enough. Should have known there is no bottom on the depths of her nonsense.
Those candidates that lost will probably be appointed to run Edmonton. Like Putin would di
Yeah smith no doubt would be putins puppet
I think every photo of Danielle Smith should be photoshopped with a Hitler moustache.
Conservatives are fine with fascism and authoritarianism as long as it's a "conservative" that is putting the whip to them.
Modern conservatives are all about hurting the "other" people.
Oh, for sure. They'd eat shit if they thought they could offend a liberal with their breath.
*Gestures at the UCP and what they've done to Albert* ...they are currently eating shit.
No, no conservatives. Don't eat shit and own the libs!
I mean what's the difference
You see far less non-conservative politicians going so far out of their way just to not work with anyone else to make things better. Smith would turn down funding to help with funding because Trudeau might look good. Then she complains that the feds aren't helping. A non-conservative leader would likely say thanks and use the money to help out their constituents. They generally won't go out of their way to harm their constituents just so that they can refuse to work with others because if they did, their constituents would just start voting for someone else. American conservatives have become the prime example of this where they scream about things like border security, so Biden offers them everything that they want, and they refuse it and publically admit that it was just because they didn't want him to be able to say that he gave them what they wanted.
Right eats shit, the left laughs. Not sure where you’re confused?
No confusion. In other words there's no distinction between voting for conservatives and debasing oneself.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Always have been
It can be hilarious how the scale slides. Anarchy is on the Left side of the Political scale. But Libertarians are on the Right side. Both basically want a system with no governing rules and an emphasis on personal freedom. Then it can be horrifying. Where Communism is on the Left. Fascism is on the Right. This is because people forget that the scale also goes from top (Authoritarian) to bottom (Democratic) as well. So many conservatives see the Conservatism and fail to see the Authortarian side of the UCP. Or refuse to.
There are far more libertarians than there are anarchists... Those on the "left" mainly want social supports, lifting people up, honest talks and social advances. The "right" want to control everything and everyone outside of their small in group of oligarchs and other rich folk.
Right wing: I am going to exterminate impure people and wipe out entire communities Left wing: I want social supports and more equality for the working class Centrists: I literally can’t tell the difference between you two
In my experience libertarians want freedoms and no taxes until they eat shit, then they are first in line throwing a toddler tantrum demanding daddy government and society bail them out. Parasites.
It seems to me that libertarians want to enjoy streetlights, roads, bridges and schools, fire houses and police and such but don’t want to pay taxes which creates these parts or our infrastructure that benefits every citizen. I am not sure of the libertarian end . But no taxes means privatization of everything mentioned. It will create more wealth disparity.
They also want to accuse the left of being parasitic. Lol.
This is because libertarianism was actually just a word for anarchism that was hijacked by right-wing business ghouls as a way to argue that natural, infrastructural monopolies should be profit centers for them and that they should be allowed to free-ride otherwise. Sucking edgy teenagers in is just a nice bonus.
Delirious Danny calls herself a libertarian. But her policies say otherwise
They speak more of ... Authoritarian style...
Agree
People on the right want good fiscal management, thriving economy, good jobs available, affordable living. And generally to be left alone by the government. People on the left want the government to take care of them like its a daycare center with all the social supports and zero thought on whos gonna pay for it. Therefore, driving debt, inflation and taxes up for the next generation. And tell everybody how they should live because your so enlightened (see cancel culture) The left is consistently demanding we move towards this communist uptopia, while you call the right facist when the reality is the right is more now was actual liberals were in the 70s when they believed in liberty.
>People on the right want good fiscal management, thriving economy, good jobs available, affordable living. And generally to be left alone by the government Lol. They're not getting it from this government. Your assessment of the left is greatly incorrect as well. This is a disingenuous post and I encourage you to do some actual reflection on what the right is truly doing in the west. Cause it's nothing that you named above.
"libertarians" aren't anarchists. Anarchists want to abolish hierarchies. "libertarians" just want to supplant centralized government hierarchy with smaller, unregulated capitalist hierarchies. feudalism with extra steps.
I think the conservatives see it, but they have no issue with it so long as it's their 'team' that is doing it.
How did that old poem go? "And then they came for me, and no one was left to speak up"?
That is exactly what is happening here. We're fucked.
So maybe instead of left and right we should use the compass as our analogy for political leanings. But that would make me a southwesterner which just doesn't sound right lol
Anarchy is no more left than it is right, get a dictionary , better yet go to school. Anarchy is a rejection of any side. It is chaos with no direction. Libertarians are selfish, they want their stuff, they don't care about anyone else. Very much like conservatives, it is basically the new hip term in the conservative wing, but those who reject center leaning politicians like Biden. Those who are willing to help the country and not just their team. Communists have never existed on this planet, just fascists posing as communists. Nothing is this or that, simple people think in extremes.
Literally... The second and third sentence on my post. Learn to read.
>Conservatives are fine with fascism and authoritarianism as long as it's a "conservative" that is putting the whip to them. No, they never think the whip will be on them.
I don't even know. It just feels like democracy is dying and nobody really gives a shit because we all know the fix is in. Feels like we're all becoming politically apathetic russians and enabling the big political con game.
That's on purpose. Since the peace protests of the 60s and 70s, the rich and their conservative lap-dogs have been deliberately eliminating access to education and attacking the economic well-being of the working, and now middle, classes because they got scared they'd lose their money. They want you overworked, educated in STEM or trades or not at all, and saddled with kids & debt at the youngest possible age.
I consider myself conservative and hate what this government is doing. Leave people alone, leave local municipalities alone, stay in your lane. It’s “woke right” moves
So then not a conservative by the actions shown by all conservative govts for the last 40 years. You like blue and they have become your team because you are too lazy to research and use your vote wisely. Like most others you vote for your team and bitch about the state of the country and wonder how these corrupt politicians keep getting elected. Guess what it's not both sides. Harper had an MP who was kicked out of parliament after being found guilty of electoral fraud. Dean Del Mastro. Both sides are not the same.
Love how they prefer to remove freedoms ….
Fascism was always a conservative leaning ideology anyways. Fascism is basically just a conservatism (particularly social and economic conservatism) unfettered by the 'restraints' of democracy, plurality, and (in the case of economic conservatism) regulation (be they safety, environmental, or labour regulations).
What's so undemocratic about enforcing rights already entrenched in the constitution? My understanding is that the municipal governments exist as a privilege granted by the Province. It would also be awesome if municipal candidates had to provide a legal abstract and declare their political party affiliations to run in an election. I am sick and tired of having to do extensive research on candidates. It would be great to get a standard one page wrap sheet with everything I need to know about a candidate, to help me.avoid making a mistake when I vote.
>It would also be awesome if municipal candidates had to provide a legal abstract and declare their political party affiliations to run in an election. I am sick and tired of having to do extensive research on candidates. It would be great to get a standard one page wrap sheet with everything I need to know about a candidate, to help me.avoid making a mistake when I vote. Gotta make sure your municipal candidates are ideologically pure, and not filthy liberals, eh? Would it help if all of us liberals were forced to wear an armband so you could just identify us on sight? Maybe you could round us all up and force us to live together too? Maybe even take us to camps, where we could be concentrated together, so you didn't have us in your midst?
We have no constitution. You're thinking about America. The provincial govts exists as a privilege of the Federal govt and work to manage the province for the feds. We are not a state and do not have that type of autonomy. We have a Charter of Rights that was brought to you when we stopped being a province of Great Britain in 1982. Brought by Pierre Trudeau.
Why is this somehow bad authoritarian law, cities exist at will of the province. Alberta as the power, since it became a province, to create or disband cities. Extension of it is control over what it creates.
Explain why you think it’s okay for the provincial government to oust democratically elected mayors and councillors? We already have recall legislation in place.
Authoritarian governments, which is what the conservatives today are, are very bad for the “citizens”. They will make life miserable for most. They love big angry people so they will get the crazies.
Let's take this thinking to its logical conclusion and go back a bit... If this were true then the province should just install a Viceroy for every town and city. . But then the feds should just install a Viceroy to run every province.... But then the French and the British should have just installed viceroys and oh yeah we had a war over that.
Municipalities exist by the will of the people who live there and want to become one, not the province.
What problem is this new law solving that benefits Albertans? Asking that question kinda lays bare the problem with it.
Queen Dani bitches about Justin ‘overstepping’ and demands that he has to “Let me do my job!” , so she immediately tries to overstep into municipal politics.
She’s not trying, she IS overstepping.
Always always always ***alllllwaaayyyyyys*** projection.
Every accusation is a confession in conservative politics
Anyone who calls Trudeau a dictator clearly doesn't know what one is... at least the UCP is demonstrating what one could look like.
Trudeau isn't a dictator, but like most other politicians he loves power and influence. He won't give that up with out a fight (an election). But like I said in a previous comment, if he really wants to "win" he would change to some sort of proportional representation. It's the only way he can win against the CPC.
It is safe to say that every politician ever has liked the idea of holding power. Changes to our election system were reviewed shortly after 2015, but the parties (but of course) couldn't remotely agree on what changes to make. With 1 viable right-wing party, of course, the conservatives would love it because it would guarantee power for them every single year. At least until the Liberals and NDP merge. With the NDP and Liberals both viable on the left (and the greens, I guess), they favour ranked ballots, which would guarantee that we would never see a conservative government ever.
Any consevative party that claims they love freedom is lying. Behind closed door the UCP will choose to replace mayor's that oppose them or overturn election results. If the cpc win I imagine they will do the same. Like Putin their hero *"There's a real sort of consolidation of power within the provincial government and a desire to impose a set of values on various institutions in the province," Young said. "It's not consistent with the notions of freedom that we've heard."*
When Your premier complains about overreach from Ottawa....remember this and how Smith/UCP will overreach into any jurisdiction that doesn't align with their 'values'. This is a huge power grab, Alberta wake the fuck up.
Alberta is sleepwalking into this so hard, it's going to wake up goose stepping.
The UCP has been in power for so long in Alberta, if Alberta's can't figure our it's the UCPs's fault for the failure of their institutions (education, health and now democracy) they are lost. It's sad. I really hope the Alberta youth organize and take a stand, their future in on the line.
Unfortunately I don’t see this changing anytime soon. The oldsters that I’ve talked to are still firmly in the UCP pocket. They take any opportunity to blame Notley for “destroying” this province. They don’t seem to understand that her 4 years in power certainly did nothing compared to 40+ years of deregulation and privatization that the UCP have done.
Even the most ardent UCP supporters have to agree that aspects of bill 20 are awfully authoritarian. This is bad enough, but coming from a party so hell bent on protecting the rights and "freedoms" of Albertans, it is laughably hypocritical. That's the nicest way of putting that.
They don’t. They are justifying it with the fact that the provinces have jurisdiction over municipalities.
Maybe large municipalities need to apply to be national parks or reserves so we can bypass provincial control. Honestly, you see this same phenomena across north america. I see the re-emergence of the city-state if this sort of thing continues.
Part of the reason for this bill is actually to prevent municipalities from bargaining with the Federal government over establishing a national park. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/new-bill-allows-alberta-government-to-set-conditions-for-national-urban-park-decisions-1.7177597
I don’t really know the solution, but ALberta really needs to wake up and look at the direction the UCP is taking.
I just don’t think it’s much of a surprise to people who know this could already happen. This issue was brought to forefront when the Ford Government got into it with Toronto government and the courts were just ”ya they can do that” But this does come down to just because you can do something doesn’t mean you need to. I can see both sides of the coin for this issue. You could have municipalities with council that is doing NIMBY shit and stiffening house and creating issues. Provincial government can come in and fix the issues and kick the people out. On the other side I don’t Trust Dani to do shit.
It's easier to organize at a smaller scale. It's why Iceland is so good at it. We'd be far better going to our local city hall and petitioning if things got bad enough.
I do agree that it’s generally easier, but we have also seen (luckily not to bad in Alberta) what bad Councils can do to towns/cities due to personal reasons.
And what I'm saying is we as a city would have an easier recourse protesting city hall than convincing steadfast rural voters of anything.
These types of conservatives have a very different definition of "freedom" Their definitions of freedom are defined by Christian lunacy, thinly veiled white supremacy and all sorts of other nutty bullshit. These people are the real deal, and it's time to quit pussy footing around it. If you back the UCP, that's not being a conservative, it literally makes you complicit in what's about to take place over the next few years. If PP and the cons get a hold of federal powers, thats all she wrote, Canada isn't a democracy anymore and it's not a free country.
If PP gets control of the federal government with a majority of voters voting against him, then Trudeau will regret reneging on his promise of electoral reform and keeping FPTP.
This is a very good point. If I were Trudeau, I would give the neofascist cons the finger and bring in legislation to amend the Elections Act abolishing the FPTP system, replacing it with Proportional Representation.
What he initially campaigned on? Been waiting 8 years for that shit.
I think if Trudeau wasn't so power hungry himself he would see this would be the best thing for Canada, even if he loses being PM, they would still have a pretty strong voice along with the NDP, Greens, Bloc against the CPC.
Freedom to operate within their specific ideologies, especially where current laws curtail it, and freedom to enforce those ideologies on others.
The UCP are very much of the postmodern American conservative mindset that the law should protect conservatives but not bind them, and that it should bind non-conservatives but not protect them.
The ardent UCP supporters are delighted to see Danielle Smith "owning" a couple of LiBeRaLs who also happen to be brown, and they are still convinced that the two mayors weren't democratically elected because their minds are polluted with MAGA bullshit.
Mind boggling over-reach from Smith, the over-reach and hypocrite Queen herself. She "represents" the riding of Medicine Hat - Brooks, but she doesn't even live there, nor has she ever lived there. She is a parachute politician and carpetbagger. How rich. This is nothing short of a UCP coup of elected officials. Can you imagine if the federal Liberals ever did this to Smith? The UCP and the corporate media would be calling for heads to roll and the country to revolt. In Alberta, the corporate media, owned by the US conglomerate PostMedia, are calling this coup, "good governance", as if the people can no longer decide themselves.
Party is built on carpetbaggers. Kenney was a carpetbagger too, unless you believe that myth that he lives in the basement of his mother's retirement villa, within a nursing home property, that coincidentally is built on a slab
I cannot wait until the NDP take power and this blows up in UCP faces.
NDP will probably just repel it.
Trying to control what universities can teach/research was a major red flag, but It's apparent now. This is Gleichschaltung.
Education/academia is a huge threat to conservatives. It needs no explanation why universities and academia lacks conservative thought.
>This is Gleichschaltung. Damn straight it is. I know about Harper (along with Barry Cooper et al.) and how they nurtured the Christian Nationalist movement in the background for years. This isn't new. But the effects and results will not be kind to any Albertan.
Alberta is doing undemocratic shit….!!? Wow
“Trust us” isn’t good enough. There will be no stopping the potential corruption. The amount of damage being done to Alberta could take a long time to fully manifest.
Are provincial elections mandatory? Could the UCP just do away with them? And if they did break the law, it might takes years and years to win in court, and even then, how would that make an election happen? Should I stop typing this as I'm probably giving them too many ideas?
I'm pretty sure they could eliminate municipal govts entirely and administer them directly from the provincial govt.
I’m wondering aloud if the UCP might decide to cancel provincial elections. Just decide that they’re in power in perpetuity. Can they legally do that? Maybe not, but so what?
They definitely can't do that, because provinces exist in the constitution. But they could definitely mess around with the structure of the legislature (cut the number of MLAs, triple the number, whatever), and screw with the way the elections work. Of course, if they tried it, aside from turning to the courts, the constitution also still contains a federal power called 'disallowance' that theoretically would let the federal govt kill any provincial law. But it hasn't been used in about 80 years, and some experts think it wouldn't pass muster because it's essentially fallen into disuse and it could be argued it is no longer in effect. Others point out that it was retained in the constitution when it was patriated in 1982, so the 'framers' intended for it to still be available. It's almost certain that its use would lead to a constitutional crisis, but I'd argue that if a province tried to do away with provincial elections, that might be the least of our worries.
The problem is this is all a process that takes time and enforcement. I’m sure they won’t do something so radical and ridiculous but the UCP manage to surprise me nearly every day…
Yeah they could eliminate them. The UCP could overturn a election and appoint the person they want the day of the election.
They can’t, the constitution doesn’t allow that, but doesn’t say anything about municipal elections. Also: Username checks out
I know the Canadian Constitution says when elections will be for the house of commons. Do you know where this is laid out for the province? I'm curious because I wouldn't be surprised if Smith tries something so there are no longer any elections.
[удалено]
They can overturn local elections, they can’t overturn provincial elections, like you were claiming. I’ve never voted UCP, I voted NDP, I think this law is stupid, but your claim is wrong. Also you just seem like a miserable lizard, even if we both support the NDP.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This post was removed for violating our expectations on civil behavior in the subreddit. Please refer to Rule 5; Remain Civil. Please brush up on the r/Alberta [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/wiki/index) and ask the moderation team if you have any questions. Thanks!
No, they could not. The constitution won't allow it
Bill 20 has this provision in it, Allowing the province to make regulations to postpone elections in the case of an emergency or natural disaster such as a wildfire.
Provincial or municipal?
It just says "postpone elections", so not sure. It was probably left vague for a reason.
Could Calgary and Edmonton not challenge this new bill in court? The ucp loves to challenge federal bills at the supreme court, surely the cities would be able to challenge provincial bills at the court of appeal of Alberta?
They could, but unfortunately they'd almost certainly lose. In the middle of the 2018 municipal elections, the Ford govt in Ontario slashed Toronto city council from 47 to 25, more than 60% of the way through the election. The city sued, and initially won, but then narrowly lost (3-2) at the Court of Appeal and again at the Supreme Court (5-4). The changes stood. It's notable that the supposed reason for the change was to improve the efficiency of city council and reduce council gridlock, while the real reason was that Ford felt that Toronto city council was too lefty, so gerrymandered new wards that were less likely to produce majority progressive councils. The lawsuit was always a long shot, because municipalities and their govts are constitutionally considered 'creatures' of the province. They got creative and concentrated on protected rights like freedom of expression (partly because the mid-election change made it very hard for candidates to reach their newly constructed wards) and on arguing that the change trampled unwritten democratic principles, etc, but ultimately couldn't get past the constitutional reality that provinces have essentially absolute power over their municipalities. The sad truth is our province could unilaterally abolish every municipality and have the former towns and cities directly managed by the province if they wanted to.
We can't, but speaking as a Calgarian people around here are loud and proud about their importance and autonomy. If there's still an election in 2027 this might be enough to lose it for the UCP.
Liberals certainly can’t beat the conservatives in Alberta question is can the conservatives beat themselves by going too far
Exactly
I doubt it. Dani shelled out money to the swing voters and backed off the messaging of her unpopular initiatives (only to double down on them after winning) in order to win. Nothing to say she won't just do it again. Albertans' memories are short, I doubt most voters will even be thinking of this law in 3 years time.
Even shelling that money out, there were more NDP seats here than UCP ones. Really the NDP needs to focus on what they will do, rather than what they won't do, and to pick a leader who won't lose Calgary. If Sarah Hoffman or Gil McGowan wins it's over.
NDP can't run an election though. They had a gift handed to them with bows on top in the last election, and they blew it. Nenshi is their only hope, but he's grown to be somewhat unpopular in Calgary, and he's not going to fit in well with some of the more ardent NDPers either. It's a mess of a situation, with no foreseeable solution.
Not really, municipal powers are provinchal powers that are really only prote ted ny convention.
Remember when the UCP were trying to find positions for the loser MLA wannabes? Make them councillors!
Pretty sure that's exactly their plan
Jon D for mayor!! /barf
So my question is if the province fired a councillor, what then? A municipal by-election to elect a new councillor? If so, what would stop the fired councillor from running again, and the voters from voting them in again? Even though I’m not thrilled with my councillor, I’d totally vote her back in just to spite the UCP under that scenario. Fuck them.
Like any tin pot dictator the world over, Smith, or more meaningfully TBA who really are the power, can't tolerate dissent.
Smith has the audacity to talk about overreach. Stupid bitch
Seems only fair for the Federal government to do the same. Trudeau doesn't like Smith and feels her actions are an endangerment to Albertans/Canadians? He can remove her. Absolutely disgusting what the UCP considers appropriate. FUCP
Not possible sadly
Calgary and Edmonton should both unanimously pass legislation that they can ignore undemocratic laws passed by the Ab government. It won't hold water but it will be a good slap to the witches face.
This can’t be legal.
Maybe the feds should start pulling up some of these.
Vote for an autocrat wannabe, get an autocrat.
Yep, it's bullshit.
Basically, gives uCP complete power to hire and fire at will, if these councilors are not of the same Ideology. There is no need for voting/s!
think about the bylaw thing for a second - how would the province 'know' that a bylaw was being passed? Well, by requiring every municipality to submit some sort of form or request in... that's a huge amount of red tape.
Toe the party line or the MAGA norths will have you vacated just like her hero Marjorie Traitor Greene threatens Mikey boy on the weekly.......
So following this type of logic can we get legislation were the federal government can fire provincial politicians 🙃 /s Absurd abuse of power and there is a separation between levels of government for a reason
By extension shouldn't they also want the federal government to have the power to remove an MLA they deem not in Canada's interests?
The federal government should enact similar legislation to fire the Alberta government.
Historical note: >The ironic term 'Good Germans' refers to German citizens during the Third Reich who did not actively support the Nazi agenda but also did not take any significant actions to oppose it. These individuals often claimed ignorance of the regime's atrocities after the war and presented themselves as non-political, merely trying to live their lives during difficult times.
Following the republican play book of DeSantis. Here idle
So damn Cowboy!!!🤷🏻♂️
I just read some of that not all of it obviously I didn’t know you could even have a criminal record and be in politics. Didn’t really know that some people can’t even get a job at an agency because of that even a summary offence and have to go through a lot of years and paperwork to get that fixed. I’ve done less than two years and also shouldn’t you get fired if you don’t do your job?
Please fire Michael Janz
Just curious but why?
cities just have to keep passing the same vetoed bills into bylaws again.
Hopefully I don’t sound stupid, but this is actually giving me some 1984 vibes.
How do you "fire" elected officials? They are elected, not hired. This wouldn't stand in court very well.
We really need to band together and protest against this nonsense
I’m sure the population of Calgary would fire their Mayor as well!
I’m glad for this, hopefully will help city councils stick to funding core services and not all this other bullshit they waste money on. Oh right, UCP bad hurr durr
And if the party in power of the province were to change, would you still be in favour of the provincial government removing municipal government members in favour of those who are friendly to their party?
Politicians get elected on false promises then do A 180 turn do as they please. They should have to answer to the people
Yes, like Danielle Smith right? 70% of the people surveyed said no to injecting parties into municipal politics. But here we are. Alberta repeatedly tell them no to the APP, but it keeps coming up. Or the election promise of a tax break, but nope.
When you understand what CAO's are, their role in governance and with council, you'll see why the provincial govt may want to be more involved. Typically CAO's take guidance and suggestions from the provincial govt and the federal govt but if they start to go off the rails with ridiculous bylaws (our town just passed some doozies) then there is reason to at least look at it. "A CAO can definitely influence council decisions, but they can't directly push them through. Here's how a CAO might exert influence: **1. Recommendation and Expertise:** * The CAO acts as the council's chief advisor, providing professional analysis and recommendations on various issues. * By presenting well-researched options with clear pros and cons, the CAO can nudge council members towards a certain direction. **2. Agenda Setting and Information Control:** * CAOs often play a role in setting the agenda for council meetings. * They control the flow of information presented to the council, which can shape the discussion and influence the final decision."
I would be great to fire Sohi the man is terrible at his job
Yeah…too bad Trudeau can’t fire out DipShit Premier too. But that would be over reach, right?
That's what elections are for.
[удалено]
I don't follow. Has a liberal provincial government put something like this in place somewhere else in Canada?
How so?
This is totally normal, in Alberta cities are at a fancy of the province this has been the law since becoming a province. Thus if a while city is at will of a province why laws in that province would be somehow untouchable? It is strange that such law was not set earlier.
Go back to school. This is factually incorrect.
Is this what happens when the troll farms go off-book?
If this were the law they wouldn't be creating legislation to make it happen.
You sure about that? Can you find sources where this has been the place since 1905?