Provincial Election 2019 - Quick Poll

[RealJimmyJames]

Have a bunch of acquaintances who figure that the NDP is done for in Alberta because folks will want to vote them out. I know these individuals wouldn't have voted NDP last time, or at least haven't admitted to it. Got me wondering if anyone has actually changed their stance.

So, have you changed your mind about what Alberta Provincial party to vote for?

[J-hop]

Other than carbon taxation (getting rid of) I wonder what the hot topics will be.

[dubhead]

Didn't vote for the NDP and don't plan on it. Really don't know who to vote for next.

I do however predict a second NDP term as the right is a giant cluster fuck at the moment. The Wildrose will have to cut out the crazy to get centrists on board. They have also publicly put doewn a merger. If history is any indication it's unlikely that Albertan's will vote the PC's back in especially after such an extreme move to give them the boot. I also don't think a lot of people are willing to get behind one of Harper's goons making a power move to take over the provincial PC's.

I stil lthink there are actually plenty of quite NDP supporters out there and I would stay stay quite too with some of the straight up ignorant shit Anti NDP people say on social media.

Time will tell I suppose

[16hypen3sp]

The real show starts once the PC Party have their leader chosen.

If it's Kenney, I expect late-2017 and 2018 to be interesting. If it's not him, I don't see any hope of a merger between the PC and WRP. The NDP and any solid supporters they have are going to come out swinging in the campaign. Brian Topp is pulling the strings with Jansens recent floor crossing as a 'centrist' rebranding.

I voted WRP in 2015 and WRP in 2012. If an election was held now, I would still vote WRP. By the time the next election comes around, PC may be a viable option for me again. All depends on the next two years and what they bring.

Polls have the AB NDP at pretty much a total and complete collapse right now.

[btimbit]

Last time I wasn't able to vote. Missed the advance polls then got called out of town last minute, so missed the regular date as well.

Next time I'll try harder to make it. And my vote won't be to the NDP, but who on the right it goes too is yet to be decided

[dirtsniffer]

Already see the vote split happening

Over the last decade the PCs have been spending like socialists and clearly they hide in every level of the party.

The wildrose is the only choice. Or a merger, which would rid us of the PCs, which would be best.

[schurchill39]

I voted WRP last election and thus far I have really liked everything they have done as official opposition (mind you with the NDP as a majority it all seems to be falling on deaf ears).

What I find interesting is in the people around my office who openly admitted to voting NDP (some out of spite for the PC gov, others because NDP promised major health reform and a new cancer center) are now saying it was a huge mistake. They aren't quite as right wing as WRP is but definitely are swinging towards PC now.

[mzdspd]

I voted PC and we will see what happens in the next few years with their leadership. Next time will either be PC or WRP (leaning this way).

[HiTempguy1]

While I am a staunch conservative supporter, I felt the need to be rid of the PC's was worth a dice roll and voted ndp.

I learned a hard lesson. Never again will I vote against my interests/beliefs. Fucking unreal what they've done.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
While I am a staunch conservative supporter, I felt the need to be rid of the PC's was worth a dice roll and voted ndp.

I learned a hard lesson. Never again will I vote against my interests/beliefs. Fucking unreal what they've done.

This is not a comment/attack against you personally, but more of a general comment - I found it quite disappointing how many people acted from this point of view - the protest vote is an incredibly short-sighted action to take, IMO. It can have broad reaching, and long standing implications.

It begs the question, if you are a staunch Conservative supporter, why wouldn't you vote WRP (something that's at least closer to Cons than the NDP)? Still a vote to get the 40 year PC party out, but it likely aligns more closely with your interests/beliefs, no?

edit: FWIW I voted WRP. I'd vote for them again, but I think ideally WRP and PC band together to prevent another vote split, which I think is a very real possibility.

[JohnnyHockey]

Curious why no centrist party is taking shape...

[Buster]

People sent their protest vote to the NDP because they didn't want to place their protest vote with the ideologue WRP.

Then they are surprised when they get an ideologue NDP party in power. With the world's worst ideology.

Strange things.

[Buster]

Originally posted by JohnnyHockey
Curious why no centrist party is taking shape...

Why does everyone assume a centrist party is the best way forward. Centrist doesn't mean much, depending on where the centre actually is. Centrist parties in Canada are WAY WAY too left for the good of the populace.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the political party in the US or Canada, that figures out liberal social policies and combines that with a low-tax, fiscal conservative governing policy will start cleaning up in elections.

[suntan]

Originally posted by cjblair


This is not a comment/attack against you personally, but more of a general comment - I found it quite disappointing how many people acted from this point of view - the protest vote is an incredibly short-sighted action to take, IMO. It can have broad reaching, and long standing implications.

It begs the question, if you are a staunch Conservative supporter, why wouldn't you vote WRP (something that's at least closer to Cons than the NDP)? Still a vote to get the 40 year PC party out, but it likely aligns more closely with your interests/beliefs, no?

edit: FWIW I voted WRP. I'd vote for them again, but I think ideally WRP and PC band together to prevent another vote split, which I think is a very real possibility. First mistake is that you expect HiTempguy1 to act rationally and with all the information available to him.

[ZenOps]

I don't vote based on parties. I vote potato.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by Buster




I've said it before, I'll say it again: the political party in the US or Canada, that figures out liberal social policies and combines that with a low-tax, fiscal conservative governing policy will start cleaning up in elections.

That's the dream. I think it would be too difficult to get votes from the uneducated supporters of the right and left sides (which is what they would need to clean up). The people that are more emotional voters will tend to side with something that's all right (or all left) wing, because those parties will have more of an "identity" they can relate to/support.... if that makes sense at all. Not sure how to explain it.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
Already see the vote split happening

Over the last decade the PCs have been spending like socialists and clearly they hide in every level of the party.

The wildrose is the only choice. Or a merger, which would rid us of the PCs, which would be best.

The vote split is most concerning, but not as much as the whole farce we call a Democracy. The feds don't give a shit about Albertans. We're redneck cash cows to them.

Separation, Direct Democracy, or continuous demise. Take your pick.

With that said, and given the current confines, then WR.

[Feruk]

Voted WR last time. Undecided go-forward, but it'll be something PC/WR related.

The socially liberal and fiscally conservative party is always the dream. Haven't seen it yet though.

[ickyflex]

Wildrose for sure

[Feruk]

To add, why do we need these overcomplicated poll answers? Why not simply "who will you vote for in 2019?" I qualify for two of these categories...

[asp integra]

Theres no way in hell NDP can make a run at a second term. It will be PC or WR, or a merger of the two.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by ickyflex
Wildrose for sure

You would think so, but to many others, it means you're a racist ignorant redneck that just wants to kill gay people.

I could be totally wrong on WR, but the fiscal policies that Jean represents is a minor step in the right direction.

The NDP? Do you see any of them running on solar?

[HuMz]

I see the label as socially liberal-fiscally conservative as an oxymoron. I get that it seems reasonable and is definitely popular amongst younger conservative voters. However, with regards to most issues there is no separating the economic and social element. Moreover, many socially liberal policies have implications in regards to high cost and balancing the budget.

[ExtraSlow]

How about fiscally conservative and you don't mind abortion, gays, other religions and folks with other complexions?

That's all most people need in terms of socially progressive views.

[suntan]

It's not good enough to just "not mind" them anymore, you have to suck up to them and show the rest of the world how much you support them.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
How about fiscally conservative and you don't mind abortion, gays, other religions and folks with other complexions?

That's all most people need in terms of socially progressive views.

Virtually all Albertans agree with minding most of what you listed, that doesn't make someone socially liberal. Have a look at the liberal and NDP platforms and look at the costs involved with instituting many of these progressive polices.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by suntan
It's not good enough to just "not mind" them anymore, you have to suck up to them and show the rest of the world how much you support them.

Never thought I'd say this suntan, but :werd: on your vagueness.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by HuMz
I see the label as socially liberal-fiscally conservative as an oxymoron. I get that it seems reasonable and is definitely popular amongst younger conservative voters. However, with regards to most issues there is no separating the economic and social element. Moreover, many socially liberal policies have implications in regards to high cost and balancing the budget. I think being socially liberal and a fiscal conservative means you are closer to center on the conservative side. Being fiscally conservative does not mean you have to be on the extreme end of fiscal conservatism. It means you fiscally do not like wasting money, and the costs associated with the socially liberal ideas you bring up you would not consider wasteful.

I am more liberal than a fiscal reformist yet more conservative than a typical liberal. What should I call myself?

[suntan]

My line in the sand on fiscal conservatism:

If you feel that gov't spending cuts are necessary due to lowered gov't revenues instead of borrowing, then you are a fiscal conservative.

[Seth1968]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrnE6kaPeuE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrnE6kaPeuE

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by HuMz
I see the label as socially liberal-fiscally conservative as an oxymoron. I get that it seems reasonable and is definitely popular amongst younger conservative voters. However, with regards to most issues there is no separating the economic and social element. Moreover, many socially liberal policies have implications in regards to high cost and balancing the budget.

I completely agree with this. The conservative mindset leads to both a fiscal and social conservatism. You can't really have one without the other. Unfortunately, it will become clear the further on democracy goes that the people will continually vote exclusively on their most base of interests (ie: identity politics), which will work in the favour of liberal parties as they have no qualms about offering the moon to everyone.


Originally posted by cjblair

It begs the question, if you are a staunch Conservative supporter, why wouldn't you vote WRP (something that's at least closer to Cons than the NDP)? Still a vote to get the 40 year PC party out, but it likely aligns more closely with your interests/beliefs, no?


Because it seemed more of the same (You shouldn't have to ask this question, as you've asked it before) :dunno: The Wildrose did not seem like a legitimate contender at the time. It has also become clear to me that the PC's are essentially a Liberal-lite party. WR was a mixture of PC and social conservatives, combined with being a relatively young party that didn't seem to have a cohesive strategy.

At least I'm willing to admit my mistakes. I will now firmly support WildRose, and I do not want a PC party merger. :dunno: Tough lesson to learn, and I am honestly worried about the future of Alberta. Luckily, Brad Wall recently posted a photo, we have the lowest debt to GDP still out of any provinces by a significant margin.

Hopefully WildRose can be voted in for 2019 and get rid of the NDP's idiotic policies.

[Marsh]

Voted PC last time, not entirely sure this time. Either WR/PC, depending on where each party comes out on certain issues. I'm basically looking to see who will repeal most of this awful policy the NDP's have implemented (Carbon tax, min wage hikes, tax hikes, etc.)

Also not a fan of Kenney at all, so if he wins the PC leadership I'm likely to go with WR.

[ExtraSlow]

Kenny will be a disaster. I predict if he wins the leadership of the PC, the NDP win the election.

[suntan]

I'm totally voting NDP next time, I want to see just how much they screw things over.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
At least I'm willing to admit my mistakes.

With that said, I'd vote for ya.

[Seth1968]

No merger.

Reform did that, and Smith jumped ship.

WR or bust.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Marsh
Voted PC last time, not entirely sure this time. Either WR/PC, depending on where each party comes out on certain issues. I'm basically looking to see who will repeal most of this awful policy the NDP's have implemented (Carbon tax, min wage hikes, tax hikes, etc.)

Also not a fan of Kenney at all, so if he wins the PC leadership I'm likely to go with WR.

So keep in mind regarding the tax hikes. The prentice government had planned to bring in a progressive health care levy starting with those earning 50k/year paying an extra $200 per year up to $1000 levy for those making $130,800 or more. They also were going to introduce increased registry fees which the NDP reversed.

For the health care levy vs the NDPs new taxation scheme (which applies only to those earning 125k or more) I think I calculated that the crossover point at which the NDP taxation would be worse for an individual than the PC health care levy would be for those earning 175k or more (been a year since i calculated that so check the math).

It made no sense to me that all the PC supporters were up in arms about the NDPs new taxation which affected a very small percentage where as the PC's levy plan affected the majority and was way worse for the majority.

I'm definitely NOT an NDP supporter. Both ideas are shit IMO but the PC's would have had the most negative effect on me.
Edit:: that said, the NDP may have a worse effect on me in the end as their policies definitely aren't supporting my job security. I'd rather have more taxes off my salary than no salary at all

[suntan]

I've been saying that for ages: The PC health care levy was extremely punitive, and everybody knew it.

Alberta voters, to a tee, always, always vote for the party/person that promises the lowest tax regime.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by suntan
I've been saying that for ages: The PC health care levy was extremely punitive, and everybody knew it.

Alberta voters, to a tee, always, always vote for the party/person that promises the lowest tax regime.

the sad thing is I don't think everyone knew it. The number of people I heard bash the NDP for their tax plan yet had no idea about the effect of the health care levy.

I'm fine with people voting for more or less taxes based on their opinion. But too many people were stupid about it and didn't take the time to do the math and think about it

[HuMz]

Originally posted by tirebob
I think being socially liberal and a fiscal conservative means you are closer to center on the conservative side. Being fiscally conservative does not mean you have to be on the extreme end of fiscal conservatism. It means you fiscally do not like wasting money, and the costs associated with the socially liberal ideas you bring up you would not consider wasteful.

I am more liberal than a fiscal reformist yet more conservative than a typical liberal. What should I call myself?

An implication of my view that social and economic issues are strongly correlated, is that most people can't be separated neatly into opposing categories(which is why I criticized the position of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative).

In regards to not considering socially liberal policies wasteful, I would say that is the problem with your standard of fiscal conservatism being defined as government waste. That standard could essentially allow for any progressive policy to be implemented, as long as the money was spent efficiently.

This principle would be also diametrically opposed to what fiscal conservatism is. Many of these socially progressive policies drive up the debt, increase the size of government, add more regulations, and usually end up in wealth distribution schemes through taxation. All things that aren't usually associated with fiscal conservatism. I would also venture to guess that most people are against government waste, regardless of their political stripes.

[suntan]

Originally posted by J-hop


the sad thing is I don't think everyone knew it. The number of people I heard bash the NDP for their tax plan yet had no idea about the effect of the health care levy.

I'm fine with people voting for more or less taxes based on their opinion. But too many people were stupid about it and didn't take the time to do the math and think about it Well, you can still hate the NDP's tax plan and still vote for it, because the PC's was even worse.

Of course no one knew about the carbon tax back then; if the NDP mentioned that they wouldn't have had a chance in hell.

[Xtrema]

Anyone but Kenny or WR is my vote.

I hope PC survives but not likely. So I guess I have to become an extremist? :dunno:

I can't believe NDP become the most central party in this province, like WTF.

So depends on PC becoming WR or not, it will be a different answer from me.

[dubhead]

Originally posted by HuMz


An implication of my view that social and economic issues are strongly correlated, is that most people can't be separated neatly into opposing categories(which is why I criticized the position of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative).

In regards to not considering socially liberal policies wasteful, I would say that is the problem with your standard of fiscal conservatism being defined as government waste. That standard could essentially allow for any progressive policy to be implemented, as long as the money was spent efficiently.

This principle would be also diametrically opposed to what fiscal conservatism is. Many of these socially progressive policies drive up the debt, increase the size of government, add more regulations, and usually end up in wealth distribution schemes through taxation. All things that aren't usually associated with fiscal conservatism. I would also venture to guess that most people are against government waste, regardless of their political stripes.

Do you have examples of of socially progressive polices driving up spending and debt? Mostly just curious.

[BigMass]

progressives attempt to formulate policy given current data and scientific models projecting future outcomes. Conservatives are still scratching their heads on how to bring back cotton factory workers in light of the recent technological discovery of the cotton gin. People that voted NDP realize that the transition period will be difficult and potentially longer than some can tolerate, but necessary if we don't want to end up extinct in the socioeconomic sense of the word.

[Marsh]

Originally posted by J-hop


So keep in mind regarding the tax hikes. The prentice government had planned to bring in a progressive health care levy starting with those earning 50k/year paying an extra $200 per year up to $1000 levy for those making $130,800 or more. They also were going to introduce increased registry fees which the NDP reversed.

For the health care levy vs the NDPs new taxation scheme (which applies only to those earning 125k or more) I think I calculated that the crossover point at which the NDP taxation would be worse for an individual than the PC health care levy would be for those earning 175k or more (been a year since i calculated that so check the math).

It made no sense to me that all the PC supporters were up in arms about the NDPs new taxation which affected a very small percentage where as the PC's levy plan affected the majority and was way worse for the majority.

I'm definitely NOT an NDP supporter. Both ideas are shit IMO but the PC's would have had the most negative effect on me.
Edit:: that said, the NDP may have a worse effect on me in the end as their policies definitely aren't supporting my job security. I'd rather have more taxes off my salary than no salary at all

I agree with you about the healthcare premiums, they would have affected mine and most Albertan's bottom lines more than NDP taxation. I just think overall NDP policy has had more negative impact on businesses and job security as you mentioned than any PC initiative would have.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Marsh


I agree with you about the healthcare premiums, they would have affected mine and most Albertan's bottom lines more than NDP taxation. I just think overall NDP policy has had more negative impact on businesses and job security as you mentioned than any PC initiative would have.

PC was business friendly and socially progressive. My kind of party. Although it was ran by people for way too long and turn corrupt, hence the downfall. I had high hope for Redford.

NDP, is way too socialist to my taste. I don't mind a bit of tax or carbon tax, but all the dumb shit they are doing to the electrical grid system is very amateur.

WR has nothing constructive to offer yet other than fuck the establishment mentality.

I like the Alberta Party last time but cannot vote for them.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Xtrema
I don't mind a bit of tax or carbon tax, but all the dumb shit they are doing to the electrical grid system is very amateur.
I've yet to hear a single person explain WTF the end game is with regards to this issue. Today's announcement is just another head shaker, it's like a rudderless ship.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

I've yet to hear a single person explain WTF the end game is with regards to this issue. Today's announcement is just another head shaker, it's like a rudderless ship.

I think it has something to do with re-regulating the electrical market to some degree.

So far it's been a total fiasco and may in fact be the biggest mistake in AB government history.

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by Xtrema
[B] ...
WR has nothing constructive to offer yet other than fuck the establishment mentality.../B]

I think the wildrose has been very clear on their opinion of the power contracts and carbon tax. The equalization reform they are pushing for is also on point .

We only have to look to Ontario to see where our power prices are headed.

The wildrose has been committed in not pushing on social issues. Even if they are conservative, I think they are the only party was who is looking out for the interests of Alberta. Not just this group or that group. Rapidly increasing the debt is the most selfish thing a government can do.

But I also think that decreasing corporate tax is a great idea. I would love to exclude any income generated from patents from corporate revenue.

The post may not make much sense, Tuesday is the new Thursday.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Marsh
I'm basically looking to see who will repeal most of this awful policy the NDP's have implemented (Carbon tax, min wage hikes, tax hikes, etc.)

Also not a fan of Kenney at all, so if he wins the PC leadership I'm likely to go with WR.
My guess: nobody. Once a tax is in, it's rare for it to vanish.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by dubhead


Do you have examples of of socially progressive polices driving up spending and debt? Mostly just curious.

This is just off the top of my head in regards to the Canada & US along with proposals and things that have already happened. As a disclaimer I will say that some of these are genuine social justice issues. It is usually a case of a progressive response creating bigger government that has made the costs over inflated.

-Feeling that all children have a right to child care (National Child care program)

-Trying to make college more affordable (Federal Subsided student loans and more government subsidies, in turn driving up tuition costs even more)

-Thinking its not fair that minorities or people of color might be under represented in the workplace or in college (Affirmative Action policies instead of basing on merit)

-Created regulations to get mortgages into the hands of those who couldn't afford them (Community Reinvestment Act regulators eventually leading to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and bank bailouts)


-Solving a gender pay cap (creating task forces and wasting time trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist)

-Thinking that the planet is in serious trouble, yet ignoring that any changes here in Canada won't address the actual problem the world faces (limiting or wanting to stop oilsands growth, carbon taxes on a national and provincial level, forcing paying for the shutdown of coal electrical generation, increasing a ton of regulations on private business, creating massive federal agencies to implement this all)

One could spend hours trying to add up all the policies and costs that follow as a result of this line of thinking)

-Income equality, (more money needs to be taken from businesses and the rich to give to the poor, treating the economy as a zero sum)

-Aboriginal mistreatment (Created government welfare states, mandated aboriginal studies/deparments driving up costs)

-Minority, Feminist, and LGBT mistreatment (Trying to create mandatory studies of all these departments, sensitivity training etc, leading to higher costs)

-Everyone has a right to an abortion (federal government pays for 300,000 a year also contributing to lower birth rates)

-Mandating that healthcare can only be publicly provided (closing the door to private opportunities to help relieve the burdens on our system, contributing to a system that is unaffordable long-term)

-Wanting to create affordable health care in the US (creating Obamacare, resulting in health care being affordable for the majority)

-Thinking that classifying society based on biological sex is discriminatory to less then 1% of the population (creating regulations, tasks forces. Cheapest scenario involved would be only having to change signage on all public buildings, more expensive would be mandating gender neutral facilities).

-Feeling that it is the governments job to diversify the economy (results in governments picking winnners and losers, something they aren't good at, failures lead to tax dollars wasted)

-People not having enough jobs (thinking that job growth can be sustainted through pumping money into infrastructure and creation of government jobs)

-The belief that cutting government spending in tough times (automatically equates to firing teachers & nurses)

-Thinking that society is inherently racist or discriminatory (creating an entire publicly funded human rights tribunal, further driving up costs in our judicial system)

-Solving community problems primarily through government, instead of local communities, charities, and churches (creates more government and higher spending)

-Not happy with pay of entry level jobs (mandating higher minimum wages, making it harder to do business and increasing inflation)

The belief that a country needs to move towards more open borders (can lead to more unskilled immigrants who drive up government assistance costs)

-The belief that education should only be provided by the public school system (would effectively force more kids into the public system further increasing costs)

-Not willing to acknowledge that certain behaviors are harmful because of political correctness (leads to higher healthcare costs)

-The belief that any social justice issue needs to be solved regardless of additional debt added (takes money away from actually doing good as a result of interest payments)

-The belief that a child not having a mother or father is insignificant (An example of how detrimental this can be is looking at fatherless children fare. It is a huge indicator for incarceration rates and child success. This is major problem in the American black community.)

I recognize that not all progressives hold to all of these and I am sure there is a debate to be had with some of these as to whether the conservative response would even be more economical. However, at the very least I think it should show how closely related a social belief or issue usually has a large economic implication.

[Go4Long]

I also think that Kenney would be the worst choice for the PC leadership. He can't win at the top of the ticket. Him leading the ticket would likely cause more vote splitting on the right side of the aisle and could lead to another NDP win with a low percentage of the popular vote. He's for a merger, but he wants it to be with him at the helm which makes absolutely fuckin no sense. His unfavorables among moderates are way too high, even among conservatives he doesn't give anyone good feelings. Brian Jean on the other hand is pretty much universally loved, and is keeping his party on message, a merger with Brian Jean at the helm running on fiscal conservation, a revised look at equalization, and some of the other parts of the WRP platform that are gaining them attention at the moment would absolutely decimate in the next provincial election...like 70% of the popular vote decimate.

[M.alex]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp


I think it has something to do with re-regulating the electrical market to some degree.

So far it's been a total fiasco and may in fact be the biggest mistake in AB government history.

it will be; they're just creating a problem where there is none.

btw, it amazes me that most people are like 'yea, f*k deregulation'; transmission/delivery portion of your bill is regulated and you're paying out the ass for that and it's only going up from here.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

I've yet to hear a single person explain WTF the end game is with regards to this issue. Today's announcement is just another head shaker, it's like a rudderless ship.

Here's what I think the end game is going to be:

1) We cancel coal, green energy will cause price go up to 15-17c/kwh
2) Government will pay for electricity above 6.8c, so 10c/kwh will be covered either via carbon tax revenue or whatever.
3) We become a have-not province in the long run. Business and Albertans are sheltered from high electricity prices and we don't have to pay equalization payments.

Basically why be financially responsible when you are penalized for it in an environment that doesn't reward that?

[suntan]

Only way for Alberta to become have-not is for its GDP to drop to about 50% of what it is now.

"Problem" is that the typical Alberta employee is literally 50% more productive than any other Canadian worker.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Go4Long
I also think that Kenney would be the worst choice for the PC leadership. He can't win at the top of the ticket. Him leading the ticket would likely cause more vote splitting on the right side of the aisle and could lead to another NDP win with a low percentage of the popular vote. He's for a merger, but he wants it to be with him at the helm which makes absolutely fuckin no sense. His unfavorables among moderates are way too high, even among conservatives he doesn't give anyone good feelings. Brian Jean on the other hand is pretty much universally loved, and is keeping his party on message, a merger with Brian Jean at the helm running on fiscal conservation, a revised look at equalization, and some of the other parts of the WRP platform that are gaining them attention at the moment would absolutely decimate in the next provincial election...like 70% of the popular vote decimate.

Best guess I have is that Kenney gets elected to Pc leader, merger happens but alienates those who think Kenney is a carpetbagging slimeball, ndp Still get elected (maybe a minority government), merged right party boots Kenney to find an electable leader.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Here's what I think the end game is going to be:

1) We cancel coal, green energy will cause price go up to 15-17c/kwh
2) Government will pay for electricity above 6.8c, so 10c/kwh will be covered either via carbon tax revenue or whatever.
3) We become a have-not province in the long run. Business and Albertans are sheltered from high electricity prices and we don't have to pay equalization payments.

Basically why be financially responsible when you are penalized for it in an environment that doesn't reward that?

I think you're giving them WAY to much credit. It reads to me more like they made a couple decisions early on from an ideological position. They either ignored or didn't understand the ramifications of those decisions and are instead of admitting their mistakes just trying to patch solutions together.

There's been a number of examples of them bringing something forward, struggling to explain it, and then "patching" it with a subsidy or rebate program. Now maybe that's the plan all along but it reads more like a group that has no idea what they're doing.

[tonytiger55]

Going sideways (no pun intended)...

Why do conservative politicians have the helmet head style hairstyle/cuts? Like why? Short back and sides would be fine, but its almost like the same length..

Kenny/Harper being an example.. it reminds me of lego..

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topvideo/2014/labour-presser-full-140711_16x9_xtraxtralarge_1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/f6ZsXxp.jpg

http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/lego-farage-460x259.jpg

Why...why..?

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by J-hop
Other than carbon taxation (getting rid of) I wonder what the hot topics will be.

As long as the PC's don't go mentioning a PST again, and income tax hikes for average people, they are a shoe in.

If energy prices turn around before 2019, we could be stuck with NDP again.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by tonytiger55
Going sideways (no pun intended)...

Why do conservative politicians have the helmet head style hairstyle/cuts? Like why? Short back and sides would be fine, but its almost like the same length..

Kenny/Harper being an example.. it reminds me of lego..

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topvideo/2014/labour-presser-full-140711_16x9_xtraxtralarge_1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/f6ZsXxp.jpg

http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/lego-farage-460x259.jpg

Why...why..?

hairclub for men.

That's where they glue your custom hair piece to your scalp. My boss wears one, and has the same haircut.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by suntan
Well, you can still hate the NDP's tax plan and still vote for it, because the PC's was even worse.

Of course no one knew about the carbon tax back then; if the NDP mentioned that they wouldn't have had a chance in hell.

Many would rather have a minor Carbon tax, over the PC PST. Including me quite honestly. Apparently, the price they set for Carbon is 1/3 of what it should be.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Gestalt


Many would rather have a minor Carbon tax, over the PC PST. Including me quite honestly. Apparently, the price they set for Carbon is 1/3 of what it should be.

I pick carbon tax over PST or Health Care Premium.

Only way I'll take PST is for it to replace provincial income tax.

[suntan]

Lol no one was proposing a PST. Total political suicide.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by suntan
Lol no one was proposing a PST. Total political suicide.

Prentice sure was.

Honestly, I cant imagine a way to possibly make the PC's campaign worse. It's like they wanted to lose.

Economic downturn? No problem, its Albertan's fault (the famous look in the mirror comment from Prentice)

PST? Maybe. Ok, not right now, but we cant rule it out.

Cuts to services

Income Tax increase on average households.

Seriously, who would vote for that.

In comes the NDP, promise no PST and a tax increase only on the well off.

Promise to lower small business taxes.

Promise to restore education, health and service that the PCs cut

It was as if it was deliberate.

[msommers]

Let someone else take the hit during the recession then when things recover get back in power for 40 more years!

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by msommers
Let someone else take the hit during the recession then when things recover get back in power for 40 more years!

If they were that thoughtful, my hat's off to them. But im never voting for them again. WR for this guy.

[dubhead]

Originally posted by HuMz


This is just off the top of my head in regards to the Canada & US along with proposals and things that have already happened. As a disclaimer I will say that some of these are genuine social justice issues. It is usually a case of a progressive response creating bigger government that has made the costs over inflated.

-Feeling that all children have a right to child care (National Child care program)

-Trying to make college more affordable (Federal Subsided student loans and more government subsidies, in turn driving up tuition costs even more)

-Thinking its not fair that minorities or people of color might be under represented in the workplace or in college (Affirmative Action policies instead of basing on merit)

-Created regulations to get mortgages into the hands of those who couldn't afford them (Community Reinvestment Act regulators eventually leading to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and bank bailouts)


-Solving a gender pay cap (creating task forces and wasting time trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist)

-Thinking that the planet is in serious trouble, yet ignoring that any changes here in Canada won't address the actual problem the world faces (limiting or wanting to stop oilsands growth, carbon taxes on a national and provincial level, forcing paying for the shutdown of coal electrical generation, increasing a ton of regulations on private business, creating massive federal agencies to implement this all)

One could spend hours trying to add up all the policies and costs that follow as a result of this line of thinking)

-Income equality, (more money needs to be taken from businesses and the rich to give to the poor, treating the economy as a zero sum)

-Aboriginal mistreatment (Created government welfare states, mandated aboriginal studies/deparments driving up costs)

-Minority, Feminist, and LGBT mistreatment (Trying to create mandatory studies of all these departments, sensitivity training etc, leading to higher costs)

-Everyone has a right to an abortion (federal government pays for 300,000 a year also contributing to lower birth rates)

-Mandating that healthcare can only be publicly provided (closing the door to private opportunities to help relieve the burdens on our system, contributing to a system that is unaffordable long-term)

-Wanting to create affordable health care in the US (creating Obamacare, resulting in health care being affordable for the majority)

-Thinking that classifying society based on biological sex is discriminatory to less then 1% of the population (creating regulations, tasks forces. Cheapest scenario involved would be only having to change signage on all public buildings, more expensive would be mandating gender neutral facilities).

-Feeling that it is the governments job to diversify the economy (results in governments picking winnners and losers, something they aren't good at, failures lead to tax dollars wasted)

-People not having enough jobs (thinking that job growth can be sustainted through pumping money into infrastructure and creation of government jobs)

-The belief that cutting government spending in tough times (automatically equates to firing teachers & nurses)

-Thinking that society is inherently racist or discriminatory (creating an entire publicly funded human rights tribunal, further driving up costs in our judicial system)

-Solving community problems primarily through government, instead of local communities, charities, and churches (creates more government and higher spending)

-Not happy with pay of entry level jobs (mandating higher minimum wages, making it harder to do business and increasing inflation)

The belief that a country needs to move towards more open borders (can lead to more unskilled immigrants who drive up government assistance costs)

-The belief that education should only be provided by the public school system (would effectively force more kids into the public system further increasing costs)

-Not willing to acknowledge that certain behaviors are harmful because of political correctness (leads to higher healthcare costs)

-The belief that any social justice issue needs to be solved regardless of additional debt added (takes money away from actually doing good as a result of interest payments)

-The belief that a child not having a mother or father is insignificant (An example of how detrimental this can be is looking at fatherless children fare. It is a huge indicator for incarceration rates and child success. This is major problem in the American black community.)

I recognize that not all progressives hold to all of these and I am sure there is a debate to be had with some of these as to whether the conservative response would even be more economical. However, at the very least I think it should show how closely related a social belief or issue usually has a large economic implication.

Thanks for the thourgh post for some reason couldn't completely frame it up in my head last night, too many night shifts and all. You certainly highlight the problem with left leaning governments create by "spreading equality" through regulating people to death.

I think I'm with tirebob in that there's got to be a way to find a moderate center between the two even though you do a great job of pointing out the inherent difficulty of separating social and fiscal politics.

[J-hop]

Good post HuMz

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by dubhead

there's got to be a way to find a moderate center between the two even though you do a great job of pointing out the inherent difficulty of separating social and fiscal politics.

There isn't. No different then when you get expats from europe or Ontarions moving out west here. They can't believe the freedom we have from oppressive government oversight and regulation.

There is only one answer, and that is the absolute MINIMUM government possible.

[dirtsniffer]

My new favorite pass time is telling people for Ontario to go home. It's too bad that most of the ones that moved here were trying to get away from it..

[suntan]

Originally posted by Gestalt


Prentice sure was.

Honestly, I cant imagine a way to possibly make the PC's campaign worse. It's like they wanted to lose.

Economic downturn? No problem, its Albertan's fault (the famous look in the mirror comment from Prentice)

PST? Maybe. Ok, not right now, but we cant rule it out.

Cuts to services

Income Tax increase on average households.

Seriously, who would vote for that.

In comes the NDP, promise no PST and a tax increase only on the well off.

Promise to lower small business taxes.

Promise to restore education, health and service that the PCs cut

It was as if it was deliberate. Prentice's problem was that he was too honest. Never a good trait during an election.

Also having an election during a recession increases the odds that the incumbent party can lose.

If the PCs were serious about a PST, there wouldn't have been a peep about it.

[dirtsniffer]

just like how we are getting fucked with the carbon tax and power bills

[mrsingh]

Originally posted by Gestalt


Prentice sure was.

Honestly, I cant imagine a way to possibly make the PC's campaign worse. It's like they wanted to lose.

Economic downturn? No problem, its Albertan's fault (the famous look in the mirror comment from Prentice)

PST? Maybe. Ok, not right now, but we cant rule it out.

Cuts to services

Income Tax increase on average households.

Seriously, who would vote for that.

In comes the NDP, promise no PST and a tax increase only on the well off.

Promise to lower small business taxes.

Promise to restore education, health and service that the PCs cut

It was as if it was deliberate.



Originally posted by suntan
Prentice's problem was that he was too honest. Never a good trait during an election.

Also having an election during a recession increases the odds that the incumbent party can lose.

If the PCs were serious about a PST, there wouldn't have been a peep about it.

I agree, he was a politician who spoke the real truth about what had to be done, and was clear upfront about it. At least he didn't hide a secret agenda about carbon taxes and real change just to get elected.

I am not questioning forty years of PC power along with a lack of foresight contributed to where we are today, but I think of the lot of the criticism Prentice faced was blown out of proportion. It was almost like people didn't like hearing the truth. It is a recession, even if my income hasn't changed much, my choices have. I eat out less, I save more and I drive cheaper cars. I really think that is what he was driving to. :dunno:

As for the poll, the NDP is a party I did not vote for, and never will. I had enough experience growing up with them in government in BC to know what a total shitshow giving them any sort of power is.

[Gestalt]

I read a report today. At current oil prices, 30% of producers in Alberta pay no royalties, zero, and others pay upto 7%. This was the restructuring roll back in 2012. We also have complex deductions and loopholes.

Yet the Freedom Loving Texans and North Dakotans take 25% irrespective of oil price from producers.

No wonder we need to have our hands out now.

Alberta with its low population has a income problem, not a spending one.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by Gestalt
I read a report today. At current oil prices, 30% of producers in Alberta pay no royalties, zero, and others pay upto 7%. This was the restructuring roll back in 2012. We also have complex deductions and loopholes.

Yet the Freedom Loving Texans and North Dakotans take 25% irrespective of oil price from producers.

No wonder we need to have our hands out now.

Alberta with its low population has a income problem, not a spending one.

Source? Curious to read the article myself

[suntan]

Originally posted by Gestalt
I read a report today. At current oil prices, 30% of producers in Alberta pay no royalties, zero, and others pay upto 7%. This was the restructuring roll back in 2012. We also have complex deductions and loopholes.

Yet the Freedom Loving Texans and North Dakotans take 25% irrespective of oil price from producers.

No wonder we need to have our hands out now.

Alberta with its low population has a income problem, not a spending one. Yeah you have zero idea how taxes are structured in the US.

In Texas, property taxes are very very high. Think 5-10X what you're paying now. That money pays for lots of things like education and roads.

No state income tax.

Also you probably didn't know that there's a federal royalty on o&g as well down there.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by beyond_ban


Source? Curious to read the article myself

I don't know. Just Random reading last night. Injist google Alberta royalties Texas Dakota and got a few hits. Try that.

The gist is, in 2009 we briefly raised royalties. Of course there was an uproar and I think it was in 2011 they not only rolled them back, they greatly reduced them at low oil andgas prices.

The result is the near zero rates today.

I'm on my phone quick google gave me these
http://www.parklandinstitute.ca/billions_forgone
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/comparing-royalty-rates-in-alberta-saskatchewan-texas-and-north-dakota-1.3071622

[dirtsniffer]

lol, i couldnt even count the number of times the cbc article says it is impossible to accurately compare rates.

[suntan]

That Parkland "analysis" was just about the dumbest thing I've ever read, and Seth1968 still posts.

[suntan]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
lol, i couldnt even count the number of times the cbc article says it is impossible to accurately compare rates. I can tell you that many producers here would be just fine with a flat simple rate.

But the gov't will never agree to it.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by Gestalt


I don't know. Just Random reading last night. Injist google Alberta royalties Texas Dakota and got a few hits. Try that.

The gist is, in 2009 we briefly raised royalties. Of course there was an uproar and I think it was in 2011 they not only rolled them back, they greatly reduced them at low oil andgas prices.

The result is the near zero rates today.

I'm on my phone quick google gave me these
http://www.parklandinstitute.ca/billions_forgone
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/comparing-royalty-rates-in-alberta-saskatchewan-texas-and-north-dakota-1.3071622

This CBC article kind of explains to you why comparing royalties here to Texas doesn't work. Cost of production here is much higher plus we are limited heavily by weather. In the article it even clearly states that it is an apples to oranges comparison.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by beyond_ban


This CBC article kind of explains to you why comparing royalties here to Texas doesn't work. Cost of production here is much higher plus we are limited heavily by weather. In the article it even clearly s poptates that it is an apples to oranges comparison.

It's always different, when someone pays zero.

It's just business. I work at an auto repair place, we don't get our parts for free, our oil for free, and then sell it at a profit.

That one reason I'm such a Trump fan. A no nonsense business man. Like when he said Keystone would be built when he is President. But Trans Canada is going to make billions from it, and they can build it, if he gets 25%.

It's just business.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by Gestalt


It's always different, when someone pays zero.

It's just business. I work at an auto repair place, we don't get our parts for free, our oil for free, and then sell it at a profit.

That one reason I'm such a Trump fan. A no nonsense business man. Like when he said Keystone would be built when he is President. But Trans Canada is going to make billions from it, and they can build it, if he gets 25%.

It's just business.

So what are you suggesting? You think that we should impose heavy royalties and scare corporate investment further away? Our oil is not special in any way, other than the fact that we have a lot of it. If a company can turn a greater profit somewhere else, that is where they will go. I mean, it's just business.

[Gestalt]

We should support business, but not subsidize it or give them free bees. Royalties and business tax is good, because it's profit based or production based.

And yes, our production costs are more, but our oil is priced less. So a percentage of less is already less. But zero on the low side and 7 on the high side seems bad to me.

[dirtsniffer]

I'd tell you to go back to Ontario if I didn't think you were 16 years old.

[Gestalt]

I'm all for business. But getting a free pass is not business

Handouts, freebies, charity, getting something for nothing is some NDP type stuff whether it's to a province, company, people. It's not business.

Business is sink or swim, the strong survive, swim with the sharks. Not being a leech.

[dirtsniffer]

I don't think you understand how Calgary became what it is today. Corporate subsidies and low tax rates convinced american oil companies to have their offices here, generating 1000's of jobs.

[Gestalt]

When was this, and is Calgary better for it today? How long do we keep hand feeding these dependants?

I read royalties have been in major decline since the early 80s. Which strangely coincides with increasing hospital wait times.

[dirtsniffer]

source?

nah nevermind.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Gestalt
I read royalties have been in major decline since the early 80s. Which strangely coincides with increasing hospital wait times.
Explain the correlation.

[Gestalt]

Sure. Over the last about 30 years, royalty rates have been on a steady decline.

Over the same period, wait times for treatment have increased.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Gestalt
Sure. Over the last about 30 years, royalty rates have been on a steady decline.

Over the same period, wait times for treatment have increased.

You already said that :rofl:

What's the correlation between the 2 as you see it?

[Gestalt]

I don't know what you are asking.

You need me to tell you it's an inverse correlation?
As one variable goes down, the other variable goes up.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Gestalt
I don't know what you are asking.

You need me to tell you it's an inverse correlation?
As one variable goes down, the other variable goes up.
I was hoping you'd elaborate. I think you knew that, but have chosen to play dumb?

Elaborate on the correlation as you see it. The less royalty revenue we take in equates to higher hospital wait times because? You're the one that brought up the relationship between the two and described that relationship as "strange", explain what you meant. I'm not trying to pin you down on something, I'm genuinely interested.

[suntan]

Less royalties = more pirates.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by Gestalt
I don't know what you are asking.

You need me to tell you it's an inverse correlation?
As one variable goes down, the other variable goes up.

Correlation sure, but causation?

As stated, you cannot tax what you don't have. Increasing royalties to take a piece of the already anemic pie does not attract investment in our natural resources. We need to attract producers rather than scare them away with a long list of negatives such as royalties and an eventual carbon tax. Such restrictions only drive business to other areas where profit is more easily attainable.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by beyond_ban


We need to attract producers

While I agree with your assessment, we are permanently out of the "growth" game in the oilsands.

Between global demand, current supply, and the future of renewables, trying to attract oilsands "investment" for growth is a fools game IMO.

If oil spikes to $150/barrel, it doesn't matter how shitty our tax regime is, the oil companies will invest here. The point of taxing/royalties the oil is that it is Albertans' oil. Once it is gone, it is gone, and as Albertans, we should gain some benefits from it beyond "jobs".

What that regime looks like have no idea. But I personally think its time to get off the "investment" bandwagon for oilsands. We're past that point. Might as well get as much benefit as possible from what we have now :dunno:

[Gestalt]

Alberta has to think like an owner of a valuable resource. Not a peasant or begger.

Please take our oil for free? That makes sense to anyone in business?

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


While I agree with your assessment, we are permanently out of the "growth" game in the oilsands.



Attract producers may have been the wrong choice of word, but i was meaning that we must be able to make our resources as attractive as possible so that we still offer producers a chance at making money, which in turn will ensure that they remain active in our industry. Without them we are screwed - O&G may not be for everyone, but it pays the bills and until something more feasible comes to the surface, we are stuck with it.

I do agree that investing money to growing the market is not at all worth it, the best bet is to offer an attractive playing field and let the invisible hand take over from there.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by Gestalt
Alberta has to think like an owner of a valuable resource. Not a peasant or begger.

Please take our oil for free? That makes sense to anyone in business?

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Org/pdfs/FS_Royalties.pdf

There is the current royalty plan, although i believe a revised (increased) plan was passed through legislation early 2016 and will be applied in the new year.