Who are you voting for

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure. But the NDP have an impressively consistent record.

And you couldn't say that about various right-wing governments propensity for mortgaging the future for short-term gains? The whole stuff about Rae's Ontario government is kind of ridiculous, too. There wasn't much positive to say for the Harris or McGinty governments either.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by kn

Just curious, is having an "online presence" a prerequisite for political office today? And what qualifies as an "online presence"? Do you need Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/Google+ etc., etc.? I'm not sure what else is out there.

You could start with a web site other than the page that your party creates for you. Pretty much every candidate has this, even most candidates that aren't serious. But not these two.

But at minimum I would also like to see Twitter. At the beginning of every election cycle, I follow all candidates in my riding. In 2015, pretty much every serious candidate has it. Everyone had it in 2012. I would also add Facebook as necessary if you want to be taken seriously, even though I would not look at it anywhere near as much.

If it is a good political idea to print and distribute flyers, then social media is a no-brainer. I know most wouldn't follow everyone like I do, but many would check out the riding hashtag (#yycbuffalo, in my case). If you are passing on this free advertising, you are not really trying.

Is there any serious candidates out there that doesn't have a Twitter account? The only ones that I am aware of that don't are paper candidates for WRP or NDP so they can say they have a full or near-full slate. Because of the serious backlash on the PCs, I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of these get elected.

And although not absolutely necessary to hold public office, it is useful. I find out about some things in the community from city councillors. I rarely interact with them, but I have. I am more likely to tweet them than to call them.

[InglewoodFan]

For the first time in 25+ years of voting, I'm undecided the day before election day. I'm not happy with the PCs but any party I'd consider voting for instead is fielding pretty bad candidates in my riding.

[puckedoff]

Royalty review will cost the province thousands of jobs... as if $60 oil wasn't bad enough. Hopefully whoever wins this election ends up with a minority at most.

[Boblobla]

I voted PCs. I had a really hard time with it and almost didn't vote. I would have voted NDP if I had seen even one sign in any of the communities around me that had their candidates name on it. It showed me that the NDP didn't have a single #### to give for my riding. Even the liberal candidate had a sign with his name glued to it.

I was on the WRP protest train until the leadership debate. I am hoping for a PC minority with an NDP opposition.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Royalty review will cost the province thousands of jobs... as if $60 oil wasn't bad enough. Hopefully whoever wins this election ends up with a minority at most.

So just reviewing the royalties will cost us jobs? Even if they don't change anything at this time?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Calgary Bow - Voted Alberta Party in advanced polls

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Royalty review will cost the province thousands of jobs... as if $60 oil wasn't bad enough. Hopefully whoever wins this election ends up with a minority at most.

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So just reviewing the royalties will cost us jobs? Even if they don't change anything at this time?

Now that's grade a fear mongering

[#-3]

Originally Posted by kn

Just curious, is having an "online presence" a prerequisite for political office today? And what qualifies as an "online presence"? Do you need Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/Google+ etc., etc.? I'm not sure what else is out there.

Yes, an online presence is a prerequisite for selling yourself these days. To think you could be elected without a heavy online presence is almost laughable.

To even bother running for office you should have.

1. Web-site (with. biography, mission statement, contact information, how to volunteer)

2. Twitter if nothing else just to collect followers and retweet anything you feel is good news for the party.

I would say the other stuff is optional, but couldn't hurt if you have the support staff or time.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So just reviewing the royalties will cost us jobs? Even if they don't change anything at this time?

There is some merit to that argument.

Corporations like stability, particularly when investing millions (billions) of dollars. If the tax regime is constantly changing, they're less eager to invest in Alberta, versus another jurisdiction, since there is uncertainty as to whether the returns that have been budgeted out will change half way through the 5-10 year program, potentially rendering the project unfeasible after money has been invested. Sure, Alberta is a lot safer, more technologically advanced and has more educated labour than say, Nigeria or Albania, and the government is much more stable, but the costs of doing business are comparatively astronomical.

As mentioned before, Alberta is ideal for foreign investment only when there is a balance between taxation, regulation, labour costs and profits. Frequently challenging that balance (even if nothing changes) may scare off some investment to another producing jurisdiction, rightly or wrongly.

Less investment = less jobs.

[terminator]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

And right here we have the biggest issue:

a) people still literally believe trickle down economics is real

and

b) people honestly believe that the PCs can (and will) maintain the status quo, so as to ensure their steadily eroding quality of life will remain unchanged.

It's impossible to maintain this QoL in North America. Things have changed too drastically in relation to the economies and QoL in the rest of the world, and we're seeing much greater balance.

We need to start thinking about sustainability, not maintainability.

Woah, this is complete Kook Aid talk.

Tell me, what is wrong with the North American QoL. particularly Alberta and Canada's? Based on current royalty structure plenty is possible, albeit better money management, provincially, would go a long way.

The NDP will be raising royalties, which at such a week time in the oil market will kill the Alberta oil economy. Its ridiculous to think otherwise. Kindly, read their platform, its topic #1.

[Ozy_Flame]

Alberta Party should have ran more people, I think they would have bested the Liberals in terms of seats with more candidates. Basically they're a business-focused centrist party with a more charismatic leader in Clark and just, well, not the Liberals. I'll be voting for my AP candidate this election too. I just cant' bring myself to vote NDP on account of their waffling on the Keystone issue, and I certainly can't vote Wildrose because of their previous faux pas with religion and anti-gay stuff, not to mention their boogeyman stance on taxes. PC's? Forget about it.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by terminator

Woah, this is complete Kook Aid talk.

Tell me, what is wrong with the North American QoL. particularly Alberta and Canada's? Based on current royalty structure plenty is possible, albeit better money management, provincially, would go a long way.

The NDP will be raising royalties, which at such a week time in the oil market will kill the Alberta oil economy. Its ridiculous to think otherwise. Kindly, read their platform, its topic #1.

The NDP have already said they will NOT raise royalties when oil is weak. In addition, they haven't said they will raise royalties AT ALL. They want to examine them to ensure they are appropriate.

[cracher]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

You could start with a web site other than the page that your party creates for you. Pretty much every candidate has this, even most candidates that aren't serious. But not these two.

But at minimum I would also like to see Twitter. At the beginning of every election cycle, I follow all candidates in my riding. In 2015, pretty much every serious candidate has it. Everyone had it in 2012. I would also add Facebook as necessary if you want to be taken seriously, even though I would not look at it anywhere near as much.

If it is a good political idea to print and distribute flyers, then social media is a no-brainer. I know most wouldn't follow everyone like I do, but many would check out the riding hashtag (#yycbuffalo, in my case). If you are passing on this free advertising, you are not really trying.

Is there any serious candidates out there that doesn't have a Twitter account? The only ones that I am aware of that don't are paper candidates for WRP or NDP so they can say they have a full or near-full slate. Because of the serious backlash on the PCs, I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of these get elected.

And although not absolutely necessary to hold public office, it is useful. I find out about some things in the community from city councillors. I rarely interact with them, but I have. I am more likely to tweet them than to call them.

I'd like to find fault in your statement, but I cannot.

To be completely fair, however, it should be noted that she only very recently found out that she was going to do this. She doesn't have the benefit of having a year+ and the big $crilla to get the machine running like Khan. With some time to get up to speed, I'm confident that she will be an outstanding representative. (full disclosure: been friends with her for a long time).

[Weitz]

Considering the amount of Oil companies that are on the brink of bankruptcy based on price alone, a significant change in Royalty rates could easily push them over.

If you take a look at the amount of Wells the Alberta Orphan Well Fund has to abandon this year, it is an unprecedented amount. And based on talk there are thousands more to possibly come.

[takinghits]

PC created this fiscal mess. I voted NDP in advanced polls.

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

The NDP have already said they will NOT raise royalties when oil is weak. In addition, they haven't said they will raise royalties AT ALL. They want to examine them to ensure they are appropriate.

That is a wide open statement with the intent of raising royalties.

And in their platform they do mention implementing a sliding scale for Royalties, i.e. fluctuating royalties with oil prices. This will kill E&P profits cause both primary and secondary job loss and indeed, a much hurt Alberta. Somehow this is suppose to reduce our bitumen dependence? Jesus, I'm a minority and would rather vote for WR then the NDP.

Through these policies, we’ll protect important services by planning ahead for oil downturns and reducing Alberta’s over-reliance on high oil and gas prices.
Through these policies, we’ll implement competitive, realistic royalty rates as prices rise, to ensure full and fair value for Albertans as the owners of the resources.
100% of incremental royalty revenue, above the sums earned by Alberta under the current regime, will be invested into Alberta’s Heritage Fund – an important first step to achieving the original vision for this fund.

Source http://www.albertandp.ca/platform

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I am not surprised one bit about the results of voting here. Vocal left-leaning posters outnumber vocal right-leaning posters on this forum significantly in most politics-related discussions.

I like to think I'm a vocal left leaning sort myself, but I'm not insane.

http://www.albertandp.ca/platform

You can download their platform there. If I assume they're actually successful in accomplishing the majority of their promises, I actually think it would be bad for the province.

It's not even a matter of a lack of trust; the underlying intentions are flawed at first instance. And they can't pay for those, so once you introduce trust, I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by Table 5

I haven't done so yet, but I'm voting for the NDP. I don't really care for them that much (a lot of the time I disagree with their policies), but half the reason I'm voting for them is to show all the Chicken Littles that someone else apart from the PCs can hold government without the world caving in on itself.

I see the situation being similar to trading Iginla.

Worst post in the thread. Just to show that the world won't end under another party? That's absurd. First because although the world wouldn't end, it would have negative consequences. But second, analogizing politics with sports (where people blindly root for their chosen home team) is everything wrong with North American politics in the first place.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Complete honesty people, how many of you think this is even possible, if not likely?

It's pretty unlikely, but just because they're unlikely to drop an atomic bomb on the province does not mean they wouldn't be able to significantly screw things up.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Alberta Party should have ran more people, I think they would have bested the Liberals in terms of seats with more candidates. Basically they're a business-focused centrist party with a more charismatic leader in Clark and just, well, not the Liberals. I'll be voting for my AP candidate this election too. I just cant' bring myself to vote NDP on account of their waffling on the Keystone issue, and I certainly can't vote Wildrose because of their previous faux pas with religion and anti-gay stuff, not to mention their boogeyman stance on taxes. PC's? Forget about it.

Yeah, it's a tough one, and I agree with you that the Alberta Party seems like it had an opening here or would have had it been in a position where it could gear up. Everything I see makes them sound like a sound option, except that it also seems like it'd be a wasted vote in most places.

Anyway, I live in Mountain View so the best realistic option here is another Liberal victory for Dr. Swann.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

An example of a fantastic NDP government is Roy Romanow, the first balanced budget in Canada, was held up as the model for the Chretien liberals and Ralph borrowed his policies. He raised taxes and cut spending. He came in after a disastrous PC government so bad that the party no longer exists.

If you are going to base your vote on bogeymen know that there have also been very pragmatic NDP governments. And remember that like all political parties the NDP will have to get reflected so they won't stray too far from the center.

Saskatchewan is a place where you can run for the NDP and still be considered a credible person. When the NDP was looking for candidates a few months ago, they got the same people they always got to run for office, which is not on average a highly qualified group. Nobody expected those candidates to win, so it didn't really matter.

This is similar to the NDP in QC last election, where people who weren't even campaigning won seats. I'd be concerned about the quality of representation some of these ridings will receive.

I still think we should change gov'ts, because 40 years of the PCs is embarrassing as a democracy. My perfect outcome would be an equal three way split, minority gov't where everyone has to try to get along.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So just reviewing the royalties will cost us jobs? Even if they don't change anything at this time?

Yes! When planning large scale capex, you have to have a good idea of what the royalties are going to cost. The margins on many projects right now are slim-to-none as it is; if there is any uncertainty over the royalty rates that will affect profitabilty of the projects X year life (15-50), how can you make the case to your management/CEO to invest in the project?

It is not just raising royalty rates that will kill investment, the review and uncertainty which will impact every capital project will absolutely kill investment. No capex will hurt construction, electricians, service providers etc. and they will feel immediate impact.