u/Natural_Thought808

Looking at the polling, I think Nenshi has a bigger problem than Danielle Smith.

The NDP can’t build a strategy around waiting for the UCP to make enough mistakes that voters eventually switch sides. They need to give Albertans a clear reason to choose them.

Healthcare, education, home insurance and car insurance are issues people actually feel in their everyday lives. Why not build a simple, populist economic agenda around making those things noticeably better?

Whatever you think of Smith, she knows how to dominate the political conversation. Nenshi needs to start setting the agenda instead of constantly responding to hers.

Elections usually aren’t won by waiting for the other side to lose. You have to give people something worth voting for

Not looking for a UCP vs NDP fight. I’m genuinely curious what could actually move voters.

Forget personalities and party loyalty for a minute. If Nenshi announced one major policy tomorrow that would noticeably improve your life, what would it have to be?

Lower home or car insurance? Better access to healthcare? Smaller classrooms and better funded schools? Lower utility bills? Something completely different?

And if your answer is “nothing,” what is the biggest thing stopping you from considering the NDP?

I think that discussion is more interesting than another thread about which party people already hate

Here’s an idea I’d love to see Alberta seriously debate.

Use part of Alberta’s resource wealth to build publicly owned electricity generation.

Not nationalize existing companies. Not ban private investment.

Build new power plants, renewables and storage that Albertans actually own, sell the electricity into the grid, and return the profits to the province.

We own the resources. Why shouldn’t we also own some of the assets powering our economy?

Especially when Alberta expects electricity demand to grow enormously over the coming decades

The Alberta NDP talks about good jobs and making sure Albertans share in economic growth. Here’s a policy that could actually do both: help workers buy the businesses they already work for.

When an Alberta business owner retires, the workers may know the company better than anyone but can’t buy it because banks want collateral they simply don’t have.

Why not create an Alberta Worker Buyout Fund that guarantees part of the loan, provides patient financing, and helps workers form co ops?

Alberta already uses government backed loan guarantees to help producer run co ops access financing. Why not expand that idea to ordinary workers?

Instead of another corporation or private equity fund buying the business, give the people who built it a real shot at owning it.

This feels like exactly the kind of pro worker, pro small business economic policy the NDP should own

I think Canadian political parties should be talking much more about worker ownership.

Canada now has Employee Ownership Trusts, which allow a trust to buy a controlling stake in a company for its employees without requiring every worker to personally buy shares. The federal government has also created tax incentives to encourage owners to sell businesses to employees.

But financing still seems like one of the biggest barriers. If a $10 million business is being sold, the workers may know how to operate it perfectly but not have millions in personal wealth or houses they can pledge as collateral. Traditional bank financing can therefore be difficult.

What policies could federal or provincial governments adopt to solve this?

Could Canada create government backed loan guarantees specifically for worker buyouts? A public employee ownership fund that provides patient, low interest financing? A right of first refusal giving workers an opportunity to bid when an owner retires or sells? Tax incentives for sellers who finance part of the employee buyout? Funding for the legal and accounting costs of converting businesses into worker co ops or Employee Ownership Trusts?

With so many Canadian business owners approaching retirement, it seems like there is a huge opportunity to keep viable businesses Canadian while allowing the workers who helped build them to become the owners.

I’m curious what specific policies people think would actually make worker buyouts financially practical at scale.

I would like to see the NDP talk more about worker ownership, especially when a profitable small business owner wants to retire or sell.

One of the biggest problems is financing. A group of workers may know the business inside and out and be capable of running it, but banks can still refuse to finance a buyout because no single worker has enough collateral to personally guarantee a large loan.

What specific policies could fix this?

For example, governments could create loan guarantees for worker buyouts, so a public agency guarantees part of the loan instead of requiring one employee to put their house on the line. They could also provide low interest patient capital, create a dedicated worker ownership investment fund, give workers a right of first refusal when an owner sells or closes a viable business, and fund technical help for workers trying to convert a company into a co op.

Instead of watching good businesses close or get bought by private equity, why not make it easier for the people who already work there to buy them?

What policies would actually make worker buyouts realistic at scale?

I keep hearing that Conservatives are the party of balanced budgets, so I actually went through their 2025 platform costing.

Their own numbers project deficits of $31.4B, $31.5B, $23.6B and $14.2B through 2028 to 2029. There is no balanced budget anywhere in the four year plan.

What concerns me more is how they get the deficit down. They assume billions in new revenue will appear from faster economic growth after eliminating the EV mandate, carbon pricing, emissions cap and regulations.

At the same time, they are cutting taxes and government spending. That matters because of fiscal multipliers. A dollar spent on infrastructure or other productive investment can generate more GDP than a dollar of broad tax cuts, especially when people save part of the tax cut. Cutting higher multiplier spending to finance lower multiplier tax cuts can therefore weaken the growth you are counting on to reduce the deficit.

The income tax cut alone eventually costs almost $13.7B a year in revenue.

So I genuinely don't understand the “fiscally responsible Conservatives” argument here.

If your plan still runs a $14B deficit after four years while already assuming billions in extra revenue from future economic growth, what happens if those optimistic growth assumptions don't materialize?

More cuts? Bigger deficits? Or another promise that tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves?

Canada's productivity problem is becoming one of our biggest economic challenges, and I'm curious what other NDP supporters think the party's long term answer should be.

The 2025 NDP plan actually contained a productivity strategy that deserved more attention: an extra $10B per year in capital investment for ports, rail, highways and Arctic infrastructure, an East West clean energy grid, sector specific industrial strategies for manufacturing, energy, mining and transportation, and policies to attract private investment.

NDP policy also supports targeted tax credits for R&D, skills training, productivity and job creating investment, rather than simply giving corporations broad tax cuts and hoping they invest.

To me, that is fundamentally social democratic economics: government builds the infrastructure, energy capacity, skills and technology that businesses need, then private investment follows.

But after the 2025 election result, should the NDP make productivity and industrial policy a much bigger part of its economic message?

What would your NDP productivity agenda look like?

A piece I think the NDP should add is serious support for worker coops and employee ownership.

There is good evidence that employee ownership and worker participation can improve productivity. Some studies of worker coops have even found them more productive than comparable traditional firms.

The biggest problem is access to capital. Coops cannot raise money by selling ownership to outside investors as easily as corporations can.

Why not create public financing, loan guarantees and technical support to help coops expand and help workers buy retiring businesses?

Instead of hoping corporate tax cuts eventually increase investment, help workers own the capital and share directly in the productivity gains they create

Poilievre argues government investment crowds out private investment. But Canada's productivity problem is more complicated.

Businesses need electricity, housing, transportation, skilled workers, technology and R&D before many private investments are profitable.

That's why the Liberal approach makes more sense to me. It combines infrastructure investment with accelerated depreciation, machinery and technology write offs, R&D incentives and investment tax credits. Government removes bottlenecks while businesses get incentives to invest.

Finance Canada estimates infrastructure can generate roughly $0.80 to $2.70 of GDP per dollar invested, while R&D support can generate $0.80 to $1.90.

Meanwhile, the Conservative platform cuts the Housing Accelerator Fund, Housing Infrastructure Fund, low carbon programs and AI initiatives.

If a new power grid makes a factory possible, housing lets workers move to productive jobs or infrastructure lowers transportation costs, public investment isn't crowding out private capital. It's crowding it in.

So why is cutting the investments private businesses depend on supposed to solve Canada's investment problem?

Something in the Conservative platform doesn't add up to me.

They propose large tax cuts while also cutting programs such as the Housing Accelerator Fund, Housing Infrastructure Fund, low carbon programs and AI initiatives. They also expect more than $10B annually in savings from consultants by 2028 to 2029.

But economic policy isn't simply “less government = more growth.”

The real question is the fiscal multiplier and opportunity cost. If $1 of infrastructure, R&D or investment generates more economic activity than $1 of broad tax cuts, cutting the former to finance the latter can leave us with less growth, not more.

And their income tax cut alone eventually costs almost $13.7B annually.

So where is the evidence that this particular mix produces more GDP than investing the same money in infrastructure, productivity, R&D or targeted investment incentives?

“Taxes are lower” isn't an economic growth calculation.

I keep hearing that Conservatives are the party of balanced budgets, so I actually went through their 2025 platform costing.

Their own numbers project deficits of $31.4B, $31.5B, $23.6B and $14.2B through 2028 to 2029. There is no balanced budget anywhere in the four year plan.

What concerns me more is how they get the deficit down. They assume billions in new revenue will appear from faster economic growth after eliminating the EV mandate, carbon pricing, emissions cap and regulations.

At the same time, they are cutting taxes and government spending. That matters because of fiscal multipliers. A dollar spent on infrastructure or other productive investment can generate more GDP than a dollar of broad tax cuts, especially when people save part of the tax cut. Cutting higher multiplier spending to finance lower multiplier tax cuts can therefore weaken the growth you are counting on to reduce the deficit.

The income tax cut alone eventually costs almost $13.7B a year in revenue.

So I genuinely don't understand the “fiscally responsible Conservatives” argument here.

If your plan still runs a $14B deficit after four years while already assuming billions in extra revenue from future economic growth, what happens if those optimistic growth assumptions don't materialize?

More cuts? Bigger deficits? Or another promise that tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves?

I keep hearing that lower taxes for the wealthy, weaker unions, privatisation and a smaller government are supposed to make everyone richer because investment and wealth eventually flow down.

But looking at Britain, I am struggling to see where the promised result is.

Union membership fell from about 52% in 1980 to 24% by 2019. At the same time, wage inequality rose sharply during the 1980s.

Then came the post 2010 period of austerity and weak investment. The IFS found that real wages in 2023 were basically where they were in 2010. It described this as Britain's longest period without real wage growth since the Napoleonic Wars.

I am not saying Margaret Thatcher caused every problem Britain has today. Globalisation, technology, the financial crisis, Brexit and COVID obviously matter too.

But at what point do we question the economic model itself?

What if a stronger middle class requires stronger worker bargaining power, affordable housing, infrastructure, education, healthcare and productive public investment alongside private business?

Did Britain actually become richer because of trickle down economics, or did it become a richer country where ordinary workers received a smaller share of the gains?

Americans are constantly told sky high drug prices are necessary because pharmaceutical companies take enormous risks developing new medicines. But taxpayers are taking enormous risks too.

NIH funded research was associated with 99.4% of new drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 in one JAMA study, with $187 billion in NIH research connected to those medicines. Researchers found NIH investment was comparable to industry investment when accounting methods were made comparable.

So why does the public help finance the science, then get treated like a regular customer once the resulting medicine reaches the pharmacy?

For decades we have heard the same argument: cut taxes at the top, investment rises, the economy grows, wages rise and eventually everyone benefits.

But research repeatedly finds that tax cuts for high income households have relatively weak effects on economic growth, while increasing inequality. Corporate tax cuts can increase investment, but that does not mean they generate enough additional GDP or tax revenue to cover their cost.

Meanwhile, infrastructure, education, transfers to lower income households and targeted investment incentives can have substantially larger fiscal multipliers.

So why are broad tax cuts for the wealthy still sold as serious growth policy when there are more efficient ways to stimulate investment and demand?

Whenever federal debt rises, we hear the trillion dollar number. But economists normally compare debt with GDP because a larger economy can support more debt.

Two examples show why.

Canada's federal debt rose from $457.6B in 2007 to $628.9B in 2014, yet debt to GDP was only 29.0% versus 31.5%. The debt number increased 37%, but the burden relative to the economy barely changed.

More recently, federal debt increased by $30.3B in 2024 to 2025, yet debt to GDP actually fell from 42.1% to 41.2% because the economy grew faster than the debt.

Even Finance Canada has explicitly called debt to GDP the more appropriate measure of the debt burden.

So shouldn't the debate be about whether debt is growing faster than our ability to carry it, rather than throwing around the biggest dollar number available?

I keep hearing the same argument: cut taxes for corporations and high earners, investment rises, the economy grows, and eventually everyone benefits.

But Canada’s own 2009 stimulus analysis estimated a $1 corporate income tax measure generated only about $0.10 of GDP in year one and $0.30 by year two, compared with $1.60 for infrastructure and $1.70 for measures targeting low income households.

This does not mean taxes do not matter. It means not every tax cut generates enough growth to replace the revenue lost.

So why are blanket corporate tax cuts still treated as “pro growth,” while infrastructure, healthcare, education and transfers to working people are treated simply as government spending?

For decades we have heard the same promise: cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, investment will explode, the economy will grow, and eventually workers will benefit.

But a tax cut does not pay for itself just because it creates some growth.

Think about the fiscal multiplier. It asks how much economic activity you create for every $1 the government spends or gives up in revenue.

If a $100 tax cut creates only $50 of additional economic activity, government still gave up $100 to create $50 of growth. That is not free money.

This is why broad tax cuts can increase deficits or reduce money available for services by more than the economic growth and new tax revenue they generate.

Meanwhile, investing $100 in infrastructure, healthcare, education or childcare can pay workers directly, improve productivity and create additional spending throughout the economy.

Businesses matter. Investment matters. Tax rates matter.

But why does Alberta keep treating corporate tax cuts as “investment” while schools, hospitals, universities, infrastructure and workers are treated as expenses?

How many decades does wealth need to trickle down before we admit that simply making the people at the top richer is not an economic strategy for working Albertans?

I keep hearing that UCP policies are supposed to make Alberta more affordable, competitive and prosperous. But when I look at many of the actual policy choices since 2019, I keep noticing the same pattern: costs that were previously limited or covered by government seem to get shifted onto workers, students and families.

Here are some examples:

1. Deindexed income tax brackets in 2019, creating bracket creep as inflation pushed wages higher. The UCP later restored the indexation it had removed.
2. Ended the postsecondary tuition freeze, allowing tuition to rise.
3. Cut provincial funding to postsecondary institutions, shifting more of the cost toward students.
4. Allowed large tuition increases before later introducing a 2% cap on domestic tuition increases.
5. Created a $13 minimum wage for workers under 18, compared with the regular $15 minimum wage.
6. Kept the general minimum wage at $15 while inflation reduced its purchasing power.
7. Removed the cap on auto insurance rate increases. Alberta subsequently faced major concerns about insurance affordability.
8. Removed the electricity price cap, leaving households more exposed to electricity price increases.
9. Changed overtime rules, including averaging arrangements that changed when some workers qualify for overtime.
10. Reduced postsecondary operating support while universities and colleges became increasingly dependent on tuition and other revenue.
11. Education funding struggled to keep pace with Alberta's rapid enrolment growth. Danielle Smith herself acknowledged Alberta was adding roughly 33,000 students annually and that previously announced school construction was not enough.
12. Used a K to 12 funding formula partly based on previous enrolment, which created problems during rapid population growth. The UCP has since changed the formula to respond more quickly to enrolment.
13. Healthcare funding has also faced the combined pressure of population growth and inflation. Increasing spending by 3% does not represent an improvement in services per person if population and healthcare costs rise by more than 3%.
14. Delayed the personal income tax cut promised during the 2023 election before eventually beginning to phase it in.
15. Shifted more postsecondary costs toward students while simultaneously reducing corporate taxes.
16. Increased or introduced various user fees, shifting some government costs directly onto people using those services.
17. Cut Alberta's corporate income tax rate from 12% to 8%, one of the UCP's biggest early tax changes.
18. Made keeping government spending growth below population growth plus inflation a fiscal objective. If spending continually grows slower than the number of people requiring services plus the cost of providing them, real per person resources decline unless efficiency improvements make up the difference.
19. Allowed school capacity to fall behind population growth. By 2026, the Alberta government itself said student enrolment had increased by more than 80,000 in four years.

What stands out to me is the pattern.

Deindex tax brackets, then restore indexation.

Remove the tuition freeze, let tuition rise, then introduce a tuition cap.

Remove affordability protections, then introduce relief programs after costs rise.

Underfund services relative to population growth and inflation, then point to the fact that nominal spending still increased.

Meanwhile, the corporate tax reduction from 12% to 8% was made permanent.

Obviously, not every problem in Alberta was caused by the UCP. Population growth, inflation, federal policy and global economic conditions matter too. And I am not arguing that every NDP policy was automatically better.

My question is about priorities.

Why does the UCP approach so often seem to involve lowering costs for businesses or government while shifting more of the bill onto students, workers and households?

And for UCP supporters, which policies since 2019 do you think clearly left the average working Albertan better off than the NDP alternative would have?

Genuine question for UCP supporters.

Since the UCP took power in 2019, can you name one major policy where the UCP approach has clearly helped working class Albertans more than the NDP alternative would have?

Pick anything: wages, taxes, healthcare, education, electricity, insurance, housing, childcare, pensions or workers’ rights.

I am not asking whether you dislike the NDP or prefer smaller government. I am asking for a specific policy and a measurable result.

What did the UCP do, how did it help an average working family, and why was it better for that family than the NDP policy?

I am genuinely interested in comparing actual results rather than party slogans

I keep hearing that private companies are better at running things because competition keeps prices low.

So healthcare confuses me.

The United States uses private insurance much more than most rich countries.

But Americans spend around $15,000 per person on healthcare.

Many other rich countries spend closer to half that amount while covering basically everyone.

And America doesn't have better results to show for all that extra money.

Americans live shorter lives than the average person in other rich countries. The U.S. also has more deaths from illnesses that could have been prevented or treated.

America obviously has great doctors and hospitals. If you have good insurance and money, you can get some of the best care in the world.

But I'm asking about the whole system.

Why does it cost so much?

Americans are paying insurance companies. Hospitals have huge billing departments. Doctors deal with different insurance plans. Patients have premiums, deductibles and copays. Medical services and drugs can also cost much more than they do in other countries.

Countries like Australia also use private businesses and private insurance, but the government guarantees healthcare for everyone and has much more control over costs.

So here is my question:

If competition and private insurance are supposed to make healthcare cheaper and more efficient, why does the American system cost so much more than universal systems?

Shouldn't the cheaper system that covers everyone and gets better overall results be considered more efficient?