Petro-investors prefer Manitoba over Alberta, Saskatchewan: survey

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I agree the leader is the face of the party and we will have a new one by October. I don't feel Paul or Iris have caused any huge damage to either party. I think he has done a great deal to get us to this point and did the right thing by stepping aside for someone else to take us to the next level.

I have to disagree on this. I think Paul did a tremendous amount of damage in that debate. As did Taft. People wanted an alternative to Stelmach desperately. Hinman had to be sure to say nothing that made people think he was a right wing nut. He didn't do that. First social issue that came up, and he shot himself in the foot. Result? 0 seats rather than upwards of 10. Taft did the same thing. It was imperative for him to look like anything but a spend happy socialist. He didn't do that either. First fiscal issue that came up, and he's competing with Mason on who can drain the coffers faster. Result? Going from 16 seats to 7 seats rather than upwards of 30.

Iris Evans did damage for sure, but until there's an alternative, there's no real way to attack her. One by one, Stelmach's MLAs are either being made to look like idiots by poor policy (Blackett, Liepert), or doing the job themselves with incompetent remarks (Evans, Elniski)

I agree that a new leader must take the party to the next level, there's nowhere to go but up, really.

Originally Posted by First Lady

I agree Paul did not articulate our position well in that particular case. (and yes, we have discussed it) All in all though the feedback on the debate was very favorable.

The final feedback is the election. I'd say the feedback was very poor.

Originally Posted by First Lady

They elected Broyce Jacobs; also a mormon. Other areas have elected Tony Abbott; a minister and one of the female Calgary MLA's (her name escapes me right now) is a Sunday School teacher. I don't see religious involvement as being a huge impediment to being electable.

They aren't the leaders. They are largely kept in line by party solidarity. If they were in charge, it would present an issue.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Actually they mesh very well. Libertarians (and our party) generally believe in freedom and protection of rights. The majority of the religious right just want to be left alone to have the freedom for themselves, their church and family to practice their religion.

Unfortunately it is a very small group who want to ram their beliefs down societys' collective throat.

I expand more on this here: http://janemorgan.blogspot.com/2009/...t-another.html

I'd have to disagree. Libertarians believe in the freedom and protection of rights, progression of society and the free-flow of knowledge. The religious right tends to be socially conservative, repressive, intolerant, and traditional. How can these views actually mesh? Yes, some simply want to be left alone, but there's a fine line between freedom to practice their religion, and freedom from "secular nonsense." Take the recent PC so-con Bill 44. Libertarians would encourage all types of theories, facts and myths, because people are free to learn and arrive at their own conclusions. The religious right feels compelled to defend their "freedom" to teach their kids whatever they want, even if its hateful, regressive, or overwhelmingly inaccurate.

Its a very small and vocal group, and right now, they permeate the PCs and have the appearance of that with your party as well. Despite their economic ineptitude, it makes the Liberals look appealing by comparison.

Originally Posted by First Lady

I would agree nearly all of it is in place, except the "no patience for the religious right". I really don't know what you mean by that.

If you mean the Bill Whatcotts of the world; I don't think I (personally) ever had any patience for them....
But I do support their right to spew the garbage they do.

No patience for the religious right simply means no tolerance for regressive social policy, such as censoring education, temperance, aborton bans, stem cell bans, etc. (ironically, the PCs have already pushed two of those)

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You were right the first time; it was Dec 2008.

I thought so based on the content, but the article's date said 2007.

Originally Posted by First Lady

We don't have a policy on separation and never have.

Perhaps not officially, but when you have members in the executive who have campaigned on that as their raison d'etre of previous parties, the connections seem to be there.

[Sylvanfan]

When it comes to a finite resource like Oil and Gas, I don't know if it's something you want to give away too cheaply though. You want rates set so that you'll still get a good level of activity and investment. But when things are going crazy and energy prices are pretty high having really cheap rates is something that could be regretted later on. But finding a good balance is always tough.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I have to disagree on this. I think Paul did a tremendous amount of damage in that debate. As did Taft. People wanted an alternative to Stelmach desperately. Hinman had to be sure to say nothing that made people think he was a right wing nut. He didn't do that. First social issue that came up, and he shot himself in the foot. Result? 0 seats rather than upwards of 10. Taft did the same thing. It was imperative for him to look like anything but a spend happy socialist. He didn't do that either. First fiscal issue that came up, and he's competing with Mason on who can drain the coffers faster. Result? Going from 16 seats to 7 seats rather than upwards of 30.

Iris Evans did damage for sure, but until there's an alternative, there's no real way to attack her. One by one, Stelmach's MLAs are either being made to look like idiots by poor policy (Blackett, Liepert), or doing the job themselves with incompetent remarks (Evans, Elniski)

I agree that a new leader must take the party to the next level, there's nowhere to go but up, really.

The final feedback is the election. I'd say the feedback was very poor.

They aren't the leaders. They are largely kept in line by party solidarity. If they were in charge, it would present an issue.

We could likely debate all of these at great length. I will leave these ones for now and agree to disagree.

I really do appreciate your opinion and view.

I'd have to disagree. Libertarians believe in the freedom and protection of rights, progression of society and the free-flow of knowledge. The religious right tends to be socially conservative, repressive, intolerant, and traditional. How can these views actually mesh? Yes, some simply want to be left alone, but there's a fine line between freedom to practice their religion, and freedom from "secular nonsense." Take the recent PC so-con Bill 44. Libertarians would encourage all types of theories, facts and myths, because people are free to learn and arrive at their own conclusions. The religious right feels compelled to defend their "freedom" to teach their kids whatever they want, even if its hateful, regressive, or overwhelmingly inaccurate.

Its a very small and vocal group, and right now, they permeate the PCs and have the appearance of that with your party as well. Despite their economic ineptitude, it makes the Liberals look appealing by comparison.

No patience for the religious right simply means no tolerance for regressive social policy, such as censoring education, temperance, aborton bans, stem cell bans, etc. (ironically, the PCs have already pushed two of those)

I agree Bill 44 is a prefect example of a good idea gone bad when the wrong people get involved.

The PC's are going down the socon road. I am still trying to figure out if he is pushing that because he truly wants the province to go there or if he is trying to appease Morton supporters or if they think that is where we are bleeding their support from.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Perhaps not officially, but when you have members in the executive who have campaigned on that as their raison d'etre of previous parties, the connections seem to be there.

Ohhh..... rrrighttt... I forgot the "hidden agenda"......

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Ohhh..... rrrighttt... I forgot the "hidden agenda"......

To dismiss my concern as worrying about a "hidden agenda" is, to be frank, insulting.

Cory Morgan, VP of WRA until earlier this month and still a board member.

Assuming Wiki is up to date:
Founder of the "Alberta Independance Party" in 2000
Then joined "Separation Party of Alberta" and ran under their flag on '04

It sure does seem like a person with a strong point of view. That agenda didn't look too "hidden" to me.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

To dismiss my concern as worrying about a "hidden agenda" is, to be frank, insulting.

My apologies; it certainly was not my intention to insult.

Cory Morgan, VP of WRA until earlier this month and still a board member.

Yes, he was VP of Policy for a the better part of early 2008 (filling in after Link stepped down). June 6th he was elected to the position of Southern Director.

Previously he was VP of Policy for the Alberta Alliance.

Assuming Wiki is up to date:
Founder of the "Alberta Independance Party" in 2000
Then joined "Separation Party of Alberta" and ran under their flag on '04

Yup and he ran as an AIP candidate in 2001 and as a WAP candidate in 2008.

He was also a director with the Alberta Party way back as well. There is a good chance he voted for the NDP at one time too...

People who are active tend to come with a long resume of involvment.

It sure does seem like a person with a strong point of view.

Absolutely, he has never made any bones about his leanings.

That agenda didn't look too "hidden" to me.

It is not his "agenda"... hidden or otherwise. He has matured (oh man he is not going to like reading that) and realized there are many, many things that need to be fixed with Alberta and that he can have a greater impact in other areas. Even his fellow separatists call him a traitor.

Believe me if he thought separation was the be all, end all. He would still be out there with the SPA.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

When it comes to a finite resource like Oil and Gas, I don't know if it's something you want to give away too cheaply though. You want rates set so that you'll still get a good level of activity and investment. But when things are going crazy and energy prices are pretty high having really cheap rates is something that could be regretted later on. But finding a good balance is always tough.

Absolutely 110% agree, nail on the head and an extra "good job" for staying on the topic.

AB gov's timing was late.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Absolutely 110% agree, nail on the head and an extra "good job" for staying on the topic.

AB gov's timing was late.

Not just late, but poorly planned and executed.

I've talked to a few people in exploration, and they tend to think Oilsands royalties were too low, but the rest were about right. Especially seeing as the oilsands royalty rates were set to stimulate production. It also would have been a lot easier if they were better fixed to prices and derived directly from the wellhead. It probably would have been better if they actually listened to the industry, rather than go on the advice of the royalty review firm that has a reputation of working for governments that want to increase rates.

Also, most people would be surprised how much compensation a landowner gets for leasing a couple acres of land for a wellsite. The average wellsite sees about $20k go into a landowner's pocket, plus a couple thousand a year rent. If it wasn't for the Oilpatch, the family farm would be dead, and agriculture in general would be hurting a lot more. You'd think Farmer Ed would be cognisant of that.

Personally, I've always found the idea of a fair share a little dubious. Yes, oil companies make a lot of money, but they are expensive to run. It reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where they film the Radioactive Man movie. Figure there's subsurface land sales, royalties, processing costs, regulatory costs, corporate taxes, federal taxes, consumption taxes, agriculture bailouts (via high regulated surface compensation rates), and then the taxes on each employee, contractor and consultant who all make above average incomes, and hence, higher taxation. All that's missing is the leaving town tax.

How come corporate greed is so maligned, and government greed is perceived as demanding a "fair share"? Had they simply quietly upped the oilsands rates and left everything else alone, I think they could have avoided a lot of hardship.

[Azure]

At the very least, they should have left the 'gas' royalty structure alone.

Otherwise, good post Thunderball.