April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

We live in West Hillhurst, we have had exactly 0 phone calls, pamphlets in the mail, or door knockers. My wife is home nearly all day and is astounded by the silence.

You are either not registered with Elections Alberta or registered without a phone number.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You are either not registered with Elections Alberta or registered without a phone number.

This was an option?!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by First Lady

NO. I've run three times (others on this forum have as well). Not ever has this even crossed my mind.

How many do you know personally here in Alberta?



We have regular elections. Being elected is probably the most insecure position to ever have.



Because they do care. Because it is way more than the "process".



For every one that is elected there are what 3 or 4 failed ones. They aren't getting rich.

I suppose my argument would have been bolstered if I had described what I feel a politician is. A politician to me is an elected official, whereas people running for office are aspiring politicians. You don't run for fun right? You run to win, so you aspire to be a politician. Just running and never winning would make you...a liberal in Alberta?

And I can say I know no politicians personally. I also don't know any murderers personally. I'm guessing not all of them are insane crazy people. So while not all politicians are corrupt, many are. And I was at one time very hopefully this wasn't true, but like I said time has shown me

And I'm sorry but term limits and reducing the perks are absolutely the key the cleaning up the political process. Most libertarians I know whole-heartedly agree. Politicians should serve their country and creating term-limits makes this more like service than a job. But when it becomes a job or a career, they are "doing their job" more than they are serving their country or province. Also elections are not held frequently enough. 4 years is a looong time. If Danielle comes out day 1 of her Premiership and breaks virtually all her promises, everyone who voted for her and her change is stuck for 4 years. That is an eternity.

One thing I like about the Wildrose platform is the ability to recall, as it should be. We are the ones who vote, we should have the power to bring down a government, not some set in stone date every 4 years.

While again some politicians I'm sure do it for nobility (Layton was the last one I thought really did in Cananda), most do it because its a very lucrative career. Get elected once, once!, and unless they commit a crime to remove them from office, they have a fully guarenteed government pension and many other perks. Hence why politicians (not aspiring ones) never go broke.

And I know I'm new, but you'll have to get used to the fact I question absolutely everything. One of the great things I learned from college was to do exactly that. A great example one teacher gave us was a big battle in the War of 1812 (for the life of me I can't remember) and how there are books from 4 different perspectives (US, British North American, Spanish, Native American) of this one battle, and naturally they all tell different versions of how the events took place. Obviously the point being, don't assume anything you read or hear.

Question and gather facts for yourself rather than let others decide for you. Again facts have shown me in the past that politicians will act out of self-interest ahead of public interest. Its up to politicians to prove me wrong, not the other way around. If the Wildrose comes into power and turns out to be as great and noble as they are being made out to be (in the Sun specifically, ugh what a crappy paper), then no one will be happier than me. I'm just not gonna blindly believe what they, or any other political party, has to say. Prove it to me first.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You are either not registered with Elections Alberta or registered without a phone number.

We're definitely registered, we've lived here for 4 years. Our home phone may not be in the phone book though, so that could definitely be it.

Maybe the rocking chair and shotgun in the front window scares them off...

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Just running and never winning would make you...a liberal in Alberta?

An assumption on your part. Like many of the comments you've posted in the 5 days you've been registered here.

And I can say I know no politicians personally. I also don't know any murderers personally. I'm guessing not all of them are insane crazy people.

Murderers aside; do you get to know or at least "interview" people who will have an impact in your life? Healthcare providers, your mechanic, your barber, etc. Perhaps if you cared about bit more about the people who are looking after our government you would find the vast majority are regular people. Many of them truly do care about the future of our cities, province and country.

And I'm sorry but term limits and reducing the perks are absolutely the key the cleaning up the political process. Most libertarians I know whole-heartedly agree. Politicians should serve their country and creating term-limits makes this more like service than a job. But when it becomes a job or a career, they are "doing their job" more than they are serving their country or province. Also elections are not held frequently enough. 4 years is a looong time. If Danielle comes out day 1 of her Premiership and breaks virtually all her promises, everyone who voted for her and her change is stuck for 4 years. That is an eternity.

One thing I like about the Wildrose platform is the ability to recall, as it should be. We are the ones who vote, we should have the power to bring down a government, not some set in stone date every 4 years.

I agree some do become complacent. I too support recall; Dar Heatherington is a perfect example why it would be useful. I'm not completely sold on term limits yet.

And I know I'm new, but you'll have to get used to the fact I question absolutely everything.

As do I, which is why I'm holding you to task on your assumption all politicians are corrupt.

Obviously the point being, don't assume anything you read or hear.

Good advice. One would think if you are going to profess this, you would also follow it.

Question and gather facts for yourself rather than let others decide for you. Again facts have shown me in the past that politicians will act out of self-interest ahead of public interest.

Facts? That you have what, pulled from headlines about a small percentage of politicians? Perhaps you should get out a bit more and actually MEET some of the people you choose to slag.

Its up to politicians to prove me wrong, not the other way around.

I guess that is where we differ. I respect all people who put there name forward for office. Yes, they might do something to lose that respect. You take the opposite approach.

[GP_Matt]

I think you have been watching The Wire to much Clay. I personally know quite a few politicians and none of them are doing it for the money. They do it for many diverse reasons but money isn't it. People that I know have signed on because they want to contribute to society or because they don't like the way things are going and realize that if no one steps up it will continue.

The average aspiring MLA in Alberta will spend $10000 of his own money on the campaign and will take an entire month off of work to run. They also spend a lot of evenings and weekends leading up to the campaign traveling to training/planning sessions and participating locally. During the campaign they are usually busy for 14-15 hours a day campaigning, planning and meeting with donors. If they get elected they will receive about $125000 a year for the next four years and by current standards will receive one years severance if they step down or are defeated. Assuming the typical candidate stays for two terms they will work for 8 years and receive two years of severance but no pension upon stepping down.
It is good money, but in doing that they are giving up 8 years of potential career growth which in Alberta for a lot of people would put them ahead of the $125K salary. Especially once you look at the hours and traveling that is required of an MLA. If money was your driver there are far easier ways to generate that income.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by First Lady

An assumption on your part. Like many of the comments you've posted in the 5 days you've been registered here.



Murderers aside; do you get to know or at least "interview" people who will have an impact in your life? Healthcare providers, your mechanic, your barber, etc. Perhaps if you cared about bit more about the people who are looking after our government you would find the vast majority are regular people. Many of them truly do care about the future of our cities, province and country.



I agree some do become complacent. I too support recall; Dar Heatherington is a perfect example why it would be useful. I'm not completely sold on term limits yet.



As do I, which is why I'm holding you to task on your assumption all politicians are corrupt.


Good advice. One would think if you are going to profess this, you would also follow it.



Facts? That you have what, pulled from headlines about a small percentage of politicians? Perhaps you should get out a bit more and actually MEET some of the people you choose to slag.



I guess that is where we differ. I respect all people who put there name forward for office. Yes, they might do something to lose that respect. You take the opposite approach.

Indeed I have made assumptions. Thats all I can do because sadly in politics proof is often hard to come by. If we had a respectable news media that was concerned with reporting and investigating the news rather than creating the news perhaps more political corruption would be unearthed

Also I have to assume a lot with the Wildrose in particular because while the PCs, Liberals and NDP all have a record to run on....the Wildrose do not. As the new kid, the Wildrose has no record to run on, just a platform and as such a lot of assumptions must be made. How do you know they are going to be fiscal conservatives? You don't...you assume they will be, but you can't point to their legislative history and say "See, this proves they are fiscal conservatives". Voting on a new party is essentially a leap of faith.

Why I think term limits will work effectively is because it will ensure there is always new blood to a legislative assembly, and it always will force you to work with new people, both opponents and supporters. Career politicians to me don't benefit the public because again they worry more about the next election cycle than serving their people.

And with my assumption politicians are corrupt here's an example I think fits well. Say everyday I walk into work, and when I open the door I get hit in the face with a banana cream pie. I keep coming in, and change nothing, and keep getting hit in the face. At some point I'm either gonna learn to open the door and step aside or I'm just going to accept that I'm gonna get hit in the face.

As I mentioned in maybe my first post, in all my time following politics, I have not seen a single political party who came into power that didn't lose it as a result of corruption and scandal. So all I've seen is corruption and scandal, and yes sadly it has jaded me to politicians. Hence why to me, they must prove themselves to me.

Just on a side note, I really quite appreciate you engaging with me. Most other political related forums I go when someone disagrees with me its right to the name calling. You're taking time out from your no doubt busy schedule to engage with not just me but others here. Its much appreciated.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I suppose my argument would have been bolstered if I had described what I feel a politician is....

Sorry Clay, you need to pull back a bit. While many of your individual points are valid as a whole you're just a too hard lined to be taken seriously. It's quite easy to look at the political system as a whole and see the inefficiencies and problems that are prevalent on the surface, it's quite another to dive into the muck and start fixing them.

The devil is in the details as they say, it's not just as simple as "Rob Anders is an embarrassment to public office, there for all politicians are just feeding at the public trough".

Is there corrupt politicians out there that are truly just in it for money & don't give a rats *** about the public? Yes, of course there is. But given the amount of time/money/commitment it takes to reach public office they are in the minority.

"Questioning everything" is a fun game to play for sure, but it offers no real solutions. You can however make quite a career out of it (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc) if you choose. But just realize making noise/pointing out problems is not the same thing as being heard & solving problems.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by fotze

They will stop exploring here though. They will, its 100%. The Alberta basin is one of the world's crappiest and maginal and is only exploited because of the royalty structure.

That last part is especially boggling. This town is littered with people and companies who have lost everything from 'exploring'.

I just can't get over how wrong that last part is. Wow.

Pisses me off how little people in the province know about the industry that funds so much.

They should scrap CALM 20 and have an oilpatch 101 for all high school students.

Again if only I added one word! BIG oil will never stop exploring, and thats who is mostly exploring in the oil sands. It may hurt the small time companies, but if they have any value they'll be acquired by the bigger players anyways.

They will never stop fully exploring. Come on. Unless its outright unprofitable to do so, oil companies need to produce oil to make money. This is the second largest oil reserve in the world. Saudi Arabia is a country based off Sharia law, in an extremely politcally unstable part of the world, and yet they explore there anyways.

I said I want a fair structure, and I also said without access to financial information, I can't rightly say what that fair structure is. But this province and country should reap as much of the rewards from this as it can in a fair, reasonable manner.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Ha. Time to start keeping records of who the crazies are!

On the other hand, it's Edmonton...

Colby Cosh has done some further digging on the Battle of Castledowns....

That is where the story would ordinarily lie down and die, but someone else does recall that greeting.

In 2008, Brent Rathgeber, the (successful) Conservative candidate for the federal riding of Edmonton-St. Albert, joined Lukaszuk for doorknocking in Michalchuk’s neighbourhood. The federal riding covers much of same north-Edmonton territory as Lukaszuk’s provincial riding. Rathgeber was reluctant to give Maclean’s an account of his 2008 jaunt with Lukaszuk, but his memory is distinct, and it does not agree with Lukaszuk’s.

The MP knows the neighbourhood well, since a friend lives very close to Michalchuk. They visited that friend, Rathgeber says, and on their way out, Lukaszuk piped up:

TL says to me “Remember that incident in ’01 when that guy pulled the gun on me? It’s right around here somewhere.” I didn’t really know much about the ’01 incident but I had heard about it.

We proceed to a house almost directly across from [the friend's place], an old man answers the door in his undershirt, takes one look at TL and says “[Eff] off”. We immediately leave the property but TL exclaims “That’s the house!”

We kind of laughed about the incident, and the irony of him still being that angry, and then went on to the next house.

Rathgeber adds that he recognized both Michalchuk and Michalchuk’s house immediately when he saw them on television Saturday night. His story not only suggests that Lukaszuk had (in 2008) a pretty clear memory of Michalchuk that he has now unaccountably lost; you’ll notice it actually features Lukaszuk showing off for an acquaintance by deliberately provoking the local Grumpy Old Bear.

Read the full story.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Again if only I added one word! BIG oil will never stop exploring, and thats who is mostly exploring in the oil sands. It may hurt the small time companies, but if they have any value they'll be acquired by the bigger players anyways.

They will never stop fully exploring. Come on. Unless its outright unprofitable to do so, oil companies need to produce oil to make money. This is the second largest oil reserve in the world. Saudi Arabia is a country based off Sharia law, in an extremely politcally unstable part of the world, and yet they explore there anyways.

I said I want a fair structure, and I also said without access to financial information, I can't rightly say what that fair structure is. But this province and country should reap as much of the rewards from this as it can in a fair, reasonable manner.

This statement highlights dramatic ignorance of the oil and gas industry in Alberta. You even highlight that you don't even have the wherewithal to be able to determine what the optimal royalty structure is even. So how can you pound your hand on the table demanding a 'Fair' royalty structure, when for all you know it's already fair?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This statement highlights dramatic ignorance of the oil and gas industry in Alberta. You even highlight that you don't even have the wherewithal to be able to determine what the optimal royalty structure is even. So how can you pound your hand on the table demanding a 'Fair' royalty structure, when for all you know it's already fair?

100% correct you are. Maybe this structure is fair, but sadly we can't know for ourselves, only those with access to the numbers can. And I suppose "fair" is also in the eye of the beholder. To some people increasing royalty rates is "fair", to others eliminating royalties is "fair"

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

100% correct you are. Maybe this structure is fair, but sadly we can't know for ourselves, only those with access to the numbers can. And I suppose "fair" is also in the eye of the beholder. To some people increasing royalty rates is "fair", to others eliminating royalties is "fair"

It's not really an 'eye of the beholder' arguement either. It comes down to absolute dollars. The more production the greater the units the government gets a royalty on. Lower royalties make more wells economical hence more production. There's an intersection where hiking the royalty actually drops future production and thus despite taking more in percentage terms, the government actually takes in less absolute dollars. Especially true when you take into account royalty structure's effect on ancillary revenues such as land sales, and income taxes on the people who would otherwise be drilling more wells. If you need assurances it's fair look no further to the past where the government raised royalties, recieved less money and then went back on their changes. It's not fair to any party to raise royalties, choke out investment, and end up with less revenue for government programs as well.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Is the deplorable racism and bigotry being alluded to the old white guy from the PC's making the (dumbass) comment that the WRP was made up almost completely of old white men?

Wow...people need to inhale...you make it sound like the guy burned a cross

People can decide for themselves. Here is the full interview.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Polit.../ID=2221090246

My favourite comment from Olson is that there will be "blood letting" if Wildrose form government....* booga booga * LMAO

[photon]

Originally Posted by worth

Since March 22 I have received 21 Phone calls relating to this election.

888-697-2009 = 8 Calls
Unknown = 4 Calls
403-768-0117 = 4 Calls
403-774-1623 = 2 Calls
403-216-5422 = 1 Call
403-279-5898 = 1 Call
403-768-0119 = 1 Call

Yup, I eventually blocked a few of them, if I hadn't the first number probably would have been well into double digits.

A few of them said they would honour my request to be taken off their call list... the Wild Rose ones don't seem to have done so even though they said they would.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's not really an 'eye of the beholder' arguement either. It comes down to absolute dollars. The more production the greater the units the government gets a royalty on. Lower royalties make more wells economical hence more production. There's an intersection where hiking the royalty actually drops future production and thus despite taking more in percentage terms, the government actually takes in less absolute dollars. Especially true when you take into account royalty structure's effect on ancillary revenues such as land sales, and income taxes on the people who would otherwise be drilling more wells. If you need assurances it's fair look no further to the past where the government raised royalties, recieved less money and then went back on their changes. It's not fair to any party to raise royalties, choke out investment, and end up with less revenue for government programs as well.

With regards to fairness, I mean what the NDP views as fair and what most people view as fair aren't even close, so it somewhat is in the eye of the beholder. Like I said there is a balance somewhere that maximizes revenue for the province/country while providing acceptable returns to investors (oil companies).

Remember this is one time only money, once the oil is gone, so is the money. When history is writen I don't want it to say we didn't maximize our revenue potential here or worse were taken advantage of by oil companies. With how much oil there is in this province (again, worlds 2nd largest reserves), we should be able to have surplus governments for many years and more importantly the Heritage Fund has to be increase, and infrastructure projects can be paid for sooner for, in theory, less money.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

With regards to fairness, I mean what the NDP views as fair and what most people view as fair aren't even close, so it somewhat is in the eye of the beholder. Like I said there is a balance somewhere that maximizes revenue for the province/country while providing acceptable returns to investors (oil companies).

Remember this is one time only money, once the oil is gone, so is the money. When history is writen I don't want it to say we didn't maximize our revenue potential here or worse were taken advantage of by oil companies. With how much oil there is in this province (again, worlds 2nd largest reserves), we should be able to have surplus governments for many years and more importantly the Heritage Fund has to be increase, and infrastructure projects can be paid for sooner for, in theory, less money.

I don't think you're getting it. It's not a linear relationship where higher royalty percentages = more money for the government. It's not a zero-sum game. That was already proven to be false. Most of what you wrote is rather just how people who don't have any information or the capacity to know (I throw the NDP in that group as well) feel about royalties as opposed to actually what is the revenue maximizing structure.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I 100% get that higher royalties don't mean more returns. Charging more for a product may increase revenue, but may not necessarily result in a better ROI or be more profitable. I want to maximize the overall economic impact, positively of course, of the oil sands. If the numbers show lowering the royalty rates produce better returns than I'm all for it. I'm studying accounting so if the numbers work, then lets do it. The numbers, after all, never lie.

[MarchHare]

I think what Clay is trying to say is that provincial revenue from royalties should map easily to a Laffer curve. If the government sets the rate too high, they're disincentiving production and total revenues go down. On the other hand, if the rate is too low, Albertans are leaving money on the table from our one-time non-renewable resource. Are rates currently set at the level where the citizens of Alberta receive the maximum return from our resource? I honestly don't know, but that's certainly a discussion worth having.

[Senator Clay Davis]

MarchHare is correct. We are in essence the "shareholders" in the extraction and production of oil. I just want our "shareholder value" maximized.