Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well let's also not overlook that the first order of business was an extremely ill-timed royalty review, based purely on ideology. There's a lot of "it wasn't so bad" going on here, that just has to be revisionist history.

How exactly is it revisionist history?
I've heard so many people complain about the royalty review and all anyone can say is that the timing was bad. I have yet to hear any complains about the actual structure of the revised royalty program from anyone who understands the differences between the old vs new programs.

Do you know what was/is in the programs?
If so, please elaborate on what issues you think the new system has, and why it's worse than the old system.

If your only knowledge and objection is the timing then I'll repeat something I've said on here many times,

There is never a good time to do a royalty review.
If you do it when prices are low, people will shout "Why are you doing this now, you'll just scare off buisness"
If you do it when prices are high people will shout "WHy are you doing this now, with prices so high, companies will just go elsewhere"

So sure, the timing was bad. It's always bad, but timing aside, they came up with a system that was, generally speaking, better for everyone.

It incentivizes development in all plays.
It incentivizes efficiencies from operators.
It provides breaks when prices are low, and it gives the province a lot of upside when prices are high.
How is any of that bad?

Do you not think the revised program is better?
If you think it is better then is not the right time to have implemented it as soon as possible?

What would you change about the program or the timing?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Yet another person with reading comprehension issues.

I can't vote NDP because I don't support their core values, which are decades in the making.

And they've made some big mistakes.

I also don't support the UCP.

How does that make me dishonest with myself?

I regret coming back. I've been called names, attacked based on things I didn't type, and this place has become a cesspool.

You keep saying mistakes, plural, but all you ever talk about is the PPAs.
Care to enlighten us on what their other big mistakes were?

Also, what core values are you so opposed to?

Is it support for education?
Is it protecting a robust healthcare system?
Is it working with the federal government to help benefit Alberta (TMX is a great example), instead picking fights they constantly lose?
Is it support for the oil and gas industry through finding oil takeaway capacity such as crude by rail or TMX?
Is it protection of marginalized and at risk communities like LGBTQ youth?

Seriously, you say you have big issues with the party, but so far you've only articulated 1.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In all seriousness, how big of an impact overall do you think not doing one would have had. Do you have any quantifiable data to support how badly it affected investment or our economy? Getting a little tired of the “it scared away invest in a market that was already on the downswing anyways” rhetoric.

Here's one article that explains some of the uncertainty and ramifications that the review caused though: https://financialpost.com/commoditie...estors-nervous

Take note that both would-be foreign investors were not investing in Alberta, and that deals that were being completed were largely not in Alberta. Of course the global markets had issues at that point, but those two points are directly as result of the royalty review. And for an added bonus, they touch on the NDP opposition to Keystone XL.

As far as whether it's quantifiable, it's extremely difficult to make that leap. But to suggest that this was rhetoric is just partisan. No investor clamors for uncertainty, which is exactly what the NDP did with that review.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

How exactly is it revisionist history?
I've heard so many people complain about the royalty review and all anyone can say is that the timing was bad. I have yet to hear any complains about the actual structure of the revised royalty program from anyone who understands the differences between the old vs new programs.

Do you know what was/is in the programs?
If so, please elaborate on what issues you think the new system has, and why it's worse than the old system.

If your only knowledge and objection is the timing then I'll repeat something I've said on here many times,

There is never a good time to do a royalty review.
If you do it when prices are low, people will shout "Why are you doing this now, you'll just scare off buisness"
If you do it when prices are high people will shout "WHy are you doing this now, with prices so high, companies will just go elsewhere"

So sure, the timing was bad. It's always bad, but timing aside, they came up with a system that was, generally speaking, better for everyone.

It incentivizes development in all plays.
It incentivizes efficiencies from operators.
It provides breaks when prices are low, and it gives the province a lot of upside when prices are high.
How is any of that bad?

Do you not think the revised program is better?
If you think it is better then is not the right time to have implemented it as soon as possible?

What would you change about the program or the timing?

I do think that the outcome was fine, but the timing was entirely ideological. Frankly, I'm not convinced that if they were to get into power next election that we wouldn't see a "windfall tax" or something of that ilk from them as well. They showed no propensity to "read the room" last time around, so I can only assume that this time would be no different.

And yeah, it could be argued that there is never a good time, but there are bad times and that was obviously one of them. I think that it was pretty obvious that the oil markets were in upheaval by the time they were elected, yet they did it anyway.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You don't know even a quarter of how bad it was

is it 1.3b bad?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Yet another person with reading comprehension issues.

I can't vote NDP because I don't support their core values, which are decades in the making.

And they've made some big mistakes.

I also don't support the UCP.

How does that make me dishonest with myself?

I regret coming back. I've been called names, attacked based on things I didn't type, and this place has become a cesspool.

Did anyone call you names? They disagree with your point and are forcing you to defend it yes. But seems relatively civil to me.

[Delgar]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

Haha, are we playing Trumpisms Bingo? If so, then I think I just won.


Will these records you are holding onto show how YUGE the incompetence is?

Again, reading comprehension issues. I said I saw them. Don't hold them.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'm big on the PPA issue because I have had access to records that show how bad it really was, that aren't in the public domain.

So you are violating an NDA, you were given records you shouldn't have access to, or you are lying to manipulate people to your political point of view.

All three options are quite unethical...

[Delgar]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

is it 1.3b bad?

Its quite a bit more. You could google a media event where Sarah Hoffman was speaking, to get the number she suggested and blamed it on someone else... actually on a specific person. She was low on the loss, but the first digit she suggested was a 2, at the time. Not all of the information was available even to her at the time.

It seems if one posts contrary to the NDP, attacks just come here.

[Delgar]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

So you are violating an NDA, you were given records you shouldn't have access to, or you are lying to manipulate people to your political point of view.

All three options are quite unethical...

Not one of your options are even remotely possible. Or correct. If you send my via DM a scan of your driver's license, I'll send you my phone number. And if you'd like to discuss from there, let's go.

I take great offense with this post.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Its quite a bit more. You could google a media event where Sarah Hoffman was speaking, to get the number she suggested and blamed it on someone else... actually on a specific person. She was low on the loss, but the first digit she suggested was a 2, at the time. Not all of the information was available even to her at the time.

It seems if one posts contrary to the NDP, attacks just come here.

I think that it's more a pretty healthy hatred of the UCP, mostly by conservatives that recognize that the UCP is not conservative.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Not one of your options are even remotely possible. Or correct. If you send my via DM a scan of your driver's license, I'll send you my phone number. And if you'd like to discuss from there, let's go.

I take great offense with this post.

It's interesting to me that with ongoing legal matters with PPAs, you are able to comment on the situation and contextualize the results of the proceedings before they are (assumingly) complete and made public. How does this not violate an NDA or ethical legal behavior?

Are you involved in the litigation? This seems like a big no-no. But I'm not in law so I could be wrong.

[Delgar]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Did anyone call you names? They disagree with your point and are forcing you to defend it yes. But seems relatively civil to me.

See post 383, I was called a "con for life".

So, yes, I was called a name, it was not civil, and I launched back. Then those who disagree with my political views pile on. And at no point was I was I defending the UCP. I said I didn't like the NDP now I'm a villain.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Not one of your options are even remotely possible. Or correct. If you send my via DM a scan of your driver's license, I'll send you my phone number. And if you'd like to discuss from there, let's go.



I take great offense with this post.

You take great offense, but if it's not public domain, you are discussing private information on a public form.

Then you try to convince me to send you very private information that could be used for Identity Theft...

Yes everything about you seems ethical and an upstanding person...

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I do think that the outcome was fine, but the timing was entirely ideological. Frankly, I'm not convinced that if they were to get into power next election that we wouldn't see a "windfall tax" or something of that ilk from them as well. They showed no propensity to "read the room" last time around, so I can only assume that this time would be no different.

And yeah, it could be argued that there is never a good time, but there are bad times and that was obviously one of them. I think that it was pretty obvious that the oil markets were in upheaval by the time they were elected, yet they did it anyway.

So they did something that had an objectively good outcome, when they said they would do it, and you think this is a bad thing?

Seriously what is the issue?
It wasn't out of the blue, it was one of their election promises (Remember "Fair share"?).
What exactly do you take issue with?
You would have preferred delaying or not doing a review that resulted in a better royalty structure?
What benefit would there have been to delay implementing a better system?


If you think the timing was the only issue, then when would you prefer it have been done, and why?

I would argue that during a time of upheaval is the best time to make changes like they did.

The industry was being hit hard, and sure I'll concede that the uncertainty of a royalty review caused some short term hesitance for investment, but what came out of it was a royalty structure that helped the industry recover.

[Delgar]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

You take great offense, but if it's not public domain, you are discussing private information on a public form.

Then you try to convince me to send you very private information that could be used for Identity Theft...

Yes everything about you seems ethical and an upstanding person...

You show me yours, I'll show you mine. I have nothing to hide.

That I'm getting piled on for alleged ethical violations by people who don't know the facts, the context, or even the existing public record, and are just jumping on because they defend the NDP, makes this a very difficult debate to have. I don't hold documents, I know where they are, I could easily get them via FOIP or even just asking, because they're not necessarily public restricted they just haven't been looked at by journalists who could also get them. I don't have any present access different from any other person, but I also know the records are available, if someone cares.

What surprises me is that no one seems to care.

[Muta]

To be honest, I’d love to see some of the conservative posters who were super active and very aggressive and hostile to others in this thread between 2018 and 2019 come back, and defend their support for the UCP and the last four years of their carnage. They seem to have disappeared like ghosts (of course).

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by Muta

To be honest, I’d love to see some of the conservative posters who were super active and very aggressive and hostile to others in this thread between 2018 and 2019 come back, and defend their support for the UCP and the last four years of their carnage. They seem to have disappeared like ghosts (of course).

Maybe that's a good thing? The actions of the UCP have been horrific, maybe they changed their allegiance.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You show me yours, I'll show you mine. I have nothing to hide.



That I'm getting piled on for alleged ethical violations by people who don't know the facts, the context, or even the existing public record, and are just jumping on because they defend the NDP, makes this a very difficult debate to have. I don't hold documents, I know where they are, I could easily get them via FOIP or even just asking, because they're not necessarily public restricted they just haven't been looked at by journalists who could also get them. I don't have any present access different from any other person, but I also know the records are available, if someone cares.



What surprises me is that no one seems to care.

I generally try to keep my PII information private, and not give it to some random people on the internet that could use it to steal my identity.

As for the pile on your posts on this topic are sketchy, do a FIOP and post the results, then you will convince people. But just to say it's bad, trust me I know, makes skeptics want to not believe you.

[Looch City]

Naw man, you’re the sketchy one in here.

Trust me on this, I’ve got proof. But can’t show you. It’s being audited. Just trust me bro. FOIP it.

Why am I being attacked??

Edit: in all seriousness, the burden of proof is on YOU if you have all this incriminating data/numbers/whatever. Obviously we’ll call you out if you’re just spouting random stuff and staying “trust me, I have access this info”.