I’ll rephrase my question. Do you believe that given the context in which these contradicting tweets are being presented that there is a questionable if not misleading narrative to Vivian Krause’s criticism of Notley?
For the record from what I’ve seen Krause’s investigative work is generally accurate but IMO these tweets reflect poorly on her credibility. I’m not sure what her lawyer said in the letter but I don’t think Notley would ignore it if there was a solid case to be made, especially when it could have been a major political win for her to take on the fight. Having one lawyer say there’s a case to be made doesn’t make it a strong case or a winning case.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I’ll rephrase my question. Do you believe that given the context in which these contradicting tweets are being presented that there is a questionable if not misleading narrative to Vivian Krause’s criticism of Notley?
For the record from what I’ve seen Krause’s investigative work is generally accurate but IMO these tweets reflect poorly on her credibility. I’m not sure what her lawyer said in the letter but I don’t think Notley would ignore it if there was a solid case to be made, especially when it could have been a major political win for her to take on the fight. Having one lawyer say there’s a case to be made doesn’t make it a strong case or a winning case.
I refer you to the response of DeluxeMoustache. Said it better that I could have.
If I read it correctly, one tweet said Notley would not take a phone call.
The other tweet says Krause did meet with Notley’s caucus and staff.
So if Notley did not speak directly with Krause and rather delegated correspondence with Krause to her staff, these statements can both be true.
Yeah, I mean the biggest issue from those tweets is that Krause thought she deserved a call with Notley. I respect and appreciate her work entirely, but I feel like complaining about not getting a call with Notley when she had multiple calls and meetings with her team is a bit silly.
I don’t see it as directly contradictory though.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
If I read it correctly, one tweet said Notley would not take a phone call.
The other tweet says Krause did meet with Notley’s caucus and staff.
So if Notley did not speak directly with Krause and rather delegated correspondence with Krause to her staff, these statements can both be true.
I thought about that but the first tweet also stated that Notley “didn’t even want to be informed” which if that was the case why would her caucus and staff meet with her? If Krause’s position is that she should have been able to speak directly with Notley over the phone I think that’s a little bit laughable, most people aren’t able to simply call up a sitting Premier. It makes no sense politically for Notley to have no interest in something like this.
I refer you to the response of DeluxeMoustache. Said it better that I could have.
I will refer you to my response to DM’s post. Specifically the part about Notley not wanting to be informed yet having her caucus and staff meet with Krause.
To reiterate my other point which Pepsi also alluded to, if Krause’s initial tweet is out of frustration because Notley wouldn’t speak to her directly over the phone then that’s a little bit silly.
And at the same time, this issue is significant enough for the leader of the province to take a personal interest, especially given the promises/ messaging that she has communicated.
I can’t think of a more important issue for the economic well-being of the province and its population. It is something that the leader should want to be informed on, recognize for its significance, and address.
(Having said that, it’s much easier for a politician to take a stand on simpler issues).
Definitely pursuing the issue publically means taking a stand that runs contrary to a mountain of contradictory press.
Last edited by DeluxeMoustache; 03-22-2019 at 07:12 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
And at the same time, this issue is significant enough for the leader of the province to take a personal interest, especially given the promises/ messaging that she has communicated.
I can’t think of a more important issue for the economic well-being of the province and its population. It is something that the leader should want to be informed on, recognize for its significance, and address.
(Having said that, it’s much easier for a politician to take a stand on simpler issues).
I agree. I just don’t see anything from Krause that lends credibility to her claims that Notley isn’t fighting for the industry or was dismissive towards her. Again I respect the investigative work Krause has done, but I find these tweets to be partisan in nature and unnecessary.
I honestly don’t see the issue you have with her claims.
We are not off the boom and bust rollercoaster.
This November I took a screenshot of global oil prices. When WTI, Brent, Mexico, Oman, etc were all in the 55-62 dollar range, WCS was 15 dollars. (!). We are on the bust train, you can be sure of that.
The world has agreed on the price of oil and our political environment can’t be navigated so that we get access to tidewater, global markets, and fair value. Our national and provincial politicians are holding our little wee country of 35 million accountable to every squeaky wheel, while a country of 1.4 billion people is adding new coal plants totaling the same capacity as the current US coal fleet.
The US is making a dramatic change in its function in the geopolitical realm and meanwhile Canada is having our ass handed to us on a platter.
The things Krause has researched, the trail of money is there in black and white. Economic warfare has been waged on Alberta and Canada, and our leadership has done nothing.
Like I say, it is a tough battle because it is way too complex for a politician to wage in the public domain, especially for a NDP, where part of the facts don’t dovetail nicely with the party ideals.
I think Krause is fine to call out Notley and get more eyes on the reality of our economic situation
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
Sure they have differences of opinion. But to make a simple blanket statement that they don’t agree with her, this is from your article:
Quote:
First, I’m not disputing her research that shows American charities like the Rockefeller Foundation have funded Canadian anti-pipeline groups and activities like the Tar Sands Campaign. Her work there is sound.
I am familiar with Hislop and have read many of his posts in the past, but that one was all over the place.
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
That website tries to say that the corporate tax increase caused the corporate tax received by Alberta to drop. Conveniently ignoring that corporate profit dropped over that time period. Shown a graph between 2014/15 and today and attribution that drop to the corporate tax increase is so dishonest.
That website tries to say that the corporate tax increase caused the corporate tax received by Alberta to drop. Conveniently ignoring that corporate profit dropped over that time period. Shown a graph between 2014/15 and today and attribution that drop to the corporate tax increase is so dishonest.
Of course there will be no perfect illustration, but at the same time, the NDP certainly didn't do anything to try and get the corporate incomes up...
The Following User Says Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I will refer you to my response to DM’s post. Specifically the part about Notley not wanting to be informed yet having her caucus and staff meet with Krause.
To reiterate my other point which Pepsi also alluded to, if Krause’s initial tweet is out of frustration because Notley wouldn’t speak to her directly over the phone then that’s a little bit silly.
My guess is Krause was trying to get a hold of Notley to get a response from her directly on the information she passed onto staff and caucus members. More importantly why she didn't go the legal route and what her future plans were on that issue.
Notley ignored her and she decided to make a tweet as a last ditch effort to get Notley to give answers on why she did nothing. I see no issues what what she did.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I agree. I just don’t see anything from Krause that lends credibility to her claims that Notley isn’t fighting for the industry or was dismissive towards her. Again I respect the investigative work Krause has done, but I find these tweets to be partisan in nature and unnecessary.
Krause was a supporter of Notley and her work until the issue of the Rockefeller group was raised. It's not partisan to ask why a legal matter wasn't persued. She was doing it for the betterment of the industry and not for any particular party.
But what actually keeps me up at night is the long term - what are we actually doing to prepare for a world that will inevitably need less of our product? What are we doing to be a part of that transition, not only fight against it. Who is talking about this?
We should be using our oil and gas royalties to build an @$$load of nuclear reactors. If we're going to blow money on stuff, at least once the world wakes up and realizes that no one is going to voluntarily live in energy poverty to reduce emissions, we'll have something of value left over!
Last edited by Cowboy89; 03-23-2019 at 01:04 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
