Stephen Harper had plan to unite Alberta’s right as Conservative Party

[petros]

Well, my small brain does understand that the royalty review is over and done with and very few changes have been recommended, but we are still hearing political opponents of the NDP harp on it because it is really the only ammo against the NDP that they have. So they're happy to be firing blanks as long as they can keep firing.

I maintain that the capital strike you talk of is fueled by the drop in oil prices and nothing more. Unless you can bring something concrete to the table as to actual strategies that would offer Albertans some way out of their predicament my small brain is going to assume that your arguments are fueled by partisan loyalty and not facts.

To bring this back to the original topic, what possible strategies could Mr. Harper, or any conservatives for that matter, employ to win the voters back in Alberta, other than to criticize every move the NDP makes without offering any alternative strategies of their own? Lower taxes? Let's not lose sight of the $7B/yr shortfall in gov't revenue due to the oil crash. Maybe they could close a few schools or hospitals?

It's not ammo against NDP more so than the logic of the timing.

Look at big sisters SK.

Did SK raise Potash royalties before or after establishing West coast ports?

Did the capital go to coffers or investing right back into Potash export expansion.

How many bulker ships does AB own?

 

[Angstrom]

They backed down on the royalty review.

The industry's "hard times" have been dealt with successfully through some tough but necessary business decisions on the part of the companies themselves. Most of them remain profitable at this point. Share prices have rebounded since the beginning of the year which is a good reflection on investor confidence.

I still maintain that the crap being piled at the NDP's doorstep would be piled at the door of the Alberta legislature no matter who was inside. That goes back to your contention that people in general are evil and greedy, which, in the case of the Alberta oil industry, may be truer than I care to admit right now.

Well if we look at the reversal in NDP rhetorics from Notley, I think it's also fair to say, someone is learning at our expenses. Obviously. I haven't seen a full reversal of policy by anyone so quickly in all my years of following politics.

You don't think having someone who would have said and done what the NDP are doing now from day one, help the overall situation?

 

[Nick Danger]

Just the idea the NDP wants to abandone oil is a huge risk factor for a industry who has invested trillions in infrastructure.

The idea of a carbon tax is a huge risk factor for investors

Imagine all the stranded investment that can't be recovered if the NDP ban oil production.

You don't think companies pay attention to risks of losing all their money to a bunch of dimwits?

That's their job, they get payed to assess risks

Just the idea the NDP won probably added to the risk factor calculation :lol:

It's obvious to any thinking person that the writing is on the wall for the future of fossil fuel burning. That should be on the mind of government, business and the workforce. Isn't Suncor moving into solar power? The idea that we can simply maintain the status quo is no more realistic to government than it is to the industry players themselves.

 

[petros]

It's obvious to any thinking person that the writing is on the wall for the future of fossil fuel burning. That should be on the mind of government, business and the workforce. Isn't Suncor moving into solar power? The idea that we can simply maintain the status quo is no more realistic to government than it is to the industry players themselves.

Fossil fuel burning isn't going anywhere, we are switching to NG.

 

[Nick Danger]

You don't think having someone who would have said and done what the NDP are doing now from day one, help the overall situation?

It's a toss-up. There is the reality of replacing lost government revenue to consider . The Conservatives' suggestion that the rank-and-file taxpayer should help foot the bill lost them the election. The NDP's suggestion that everybody should help is being played up by their political opponents to the extent that it may well lose them the next election. Now that the royalty review proved to be a potential loser for the NDP, what course will they take now?

 

[Angstrom]

It's obvious to any thinking person that the writing is on the wall for the future of fossil fuel burning. That should be on the mind of government, business and the workforce. Isn't Suncor moving into solar power? The idea that we can simply maintain the status quo is no more realistic to government than it is to the industry players themselves.

Sure, but let the market be the judge of that. When risk analyst calculate that it's more efficient and profitable to move to something else, they will. Until that happens forcing the situation will only quadruple electricity rates like in Ontario.

You can't decide to force investors to invest in something they don't want, or don't feel is worth investing in.

It's a toss-up. There is the reality of replacing lost government revenue to consider . The Conservatives' suggestion that the rank-and-file taxpayer should help foot the bill lost them the election. The NDP's suggestion that everybody should help is being played up by their political opponents to the extent that it may well lose them the next election. Now that the royalty review proved to be a potential loser for the NDP, what course will they take now?

Looks like the left learnt a valuable lesson of how the world works. It's called, capital strike.

They learnt it from the unions.

Look, the oil industry made the NDP bend to everything they wanted. Like a strike is supposed to do.

I've never seen such a huge reversal on party policies ever. The oil industry performed a capital strike and told Notley to bend over and they all took a turn.

 

[Nick Danger]

Sure, but let the market be the judge of that. When risk analyst calculate that it's more efficient and profitable to move to something else, they will. Until that happens forcing the situation will only quadruple electricity rates like in Ontario.

You can't decide to force investors to invest in something they don't want, or don't feel is worth investing in.

But there is a growing consensus among the electorate that letting "the market" decide will only result in more of the same, and that that is not good enough. Doesn't any government have a responsibility to listen to that? Without getting into a big argument over the right and wrong of it, the environmental vote is a political force to be contended with, and while the country may presently run on fossil fuels, the government runs on votes.

Looks like the left learnt a valuable lesson of how the world works. It's called, capital strike.

They learnt it from the unions.

So what now? They still need money to run the province, where is it going to come from if they aren't allowed to ask the oil industry for it?

Look, the oil industry made the NDP bend to everything they wanted.

And the oil industry's motivation is what, the economic welfare of the province? Is there a lesson to be learned here in the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate?

 

[Angstrom]

But there is a growing consensus among the electorate that letting "the market" decide will only result in more of the same, and that that is not good enough. Doesn't any government have a responsibility to listen to that? Without getting into a big argument over the right and wrong of it, the environmental vote is a political force to be contended with, and while the country may presently run on fossil fuels, the government runs on votes.



So what now? They still need money to run the province, where is it going to come from if they aren't allowed to ask the oil industry for it?

The same way they always have. Create new revenue threw growth by being as investment frendly as imaginable. Borrow money until times get better.

As for the electorate. Unless you have 1 trillion dollars to invest, I suggest you get your nose out of other people's business.

Investors can capital strike. So forcing them to do anything will only end badly for the electorate like we have witness in Alberta.

And the oil industry's motivation is what, the economic welfare of the province? Is there a lesson to be learned here in the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate?

I'm not sure what's stoping you from creating a multi national Alberta co-operative corporation, with a moral compass. Are you just waiting for someone else to do it for you?

Better yet. Make a huge co-op to buy all the stranded Alberta infrastructures.

If you want a socialist system, don't expect capitalist to want to pay for it :lol:

You'll have to relying on other socialist to pay for it. Because capitalist will simply take their money elsewhere.

Capitalist have clearly stated, they don't want to pay taxes. Don't be surprised when they leave when you raise taxes.

 

[Nick Danger]

If you want a socialist system, don't expect capitalist to want to pay for it :lol:

I don't want a socialist system. It doesn't work. I've said that a bunch of times. A capitalist system doesn't work either. There has to be an equitable mixture of both philosophies and right now I think the balance is weighted to heavily in the the capitalists' favour in that there isn't enough money to keep the store open and you're saying it's a bad idea to ask big oil to kick in a little more. Borrowing to keep the store open just downloads the bill on to rank and file Albertans, and that's not right. The oil is theirs after all, should they be standing by EI while the money leaves the province?

 

[Angstrom]

And that last sentence sums up why the right thinks the left is stupid. Because after raising taxes, the left is surprised the right pack up and leave with their money.

I don't want a socialist system. It doesn't work. I've said that a bunch of times. A capitalist system doesn't work either. There has to be an equitable mixture of both philosophies and right now I think the balance is weighted to heavily in the the capitalists' favour in that there isn't enough money to keep the store open and you're saying it's a bad idea to ask big oil to kick in a little more. Borrowing to keep the store open just downloads the bill on to rank and file Albertans, and that's not right. The oil is theirs after all, should they be standing by EI while the money leaves the province?

Again, You got your answer. No, the oil companies don't want to help. All they care is keeping their jobs, and that means pleasing the majority owner with a big fat quarterly check.

I don't think balancing the Alberta books is a priority for the oil industries. Especially when a NDP government is in power who threatens to ban oil.

A socialist system could work. But you need socialist to work hard at funding it. I've seen some co-op companies owned by the workers do very well.

The problem with socialists is they don't like working hard.

 

[Nick Danger]

And that last sentence sums up why the right thinks the left is stupid. Because after raising taxes, the left is surprised the right pack up and leave with their money.

Again, You got your answer. No, the oil companies don't want to help. All they care is keeping their jobs, and that means pleasing the majority owner with a big fat quarterly check.

There isn't a word there I can argue with. It's a perfect argument in favour of a move to the left.

I don't think balancing the Alberta books is a priority for the oil industries. Especially when a NDP government is in power who threatens to ban oil.

Excuse me, I must have missed that threat. I have seen Ms. Notely fighting for pipelines to either coast though.

 

[Angstrom]

Working hard is directly linked to your level of personal greed.

Socialist don't really ask for to much because they have no greed for much.

Capitalist want it all, and so they are motivated to work their asses off to get what their high greed demands.

The only problem to socialism is the socialist arn't motivated enough to fund it themselves. And the capitalist don't want it in the first place so don't expect them to pay for it.

So China created state owned corporation owned by the people of China. And they are doing fine with funding their socialism.

Make your own co-op companies, it works.

 

[Nick Danger]

There was a good arrangement between the province and the oil corps when prices were running high. The corps did well, shareholders made money, the government made money ,employees made money and the trickle down kept the whole province in the black. Now the price is down, fewer employees are working twice as hard, the government is making a quarter of what they did, the trickle down has all but dried up, and the shareholders are still making money.

 

[captain morgan]

Notely understand as well as anyone the tenuous relationship between all the players in this show. I expect that's why they softened their stance on the royalty review. She does however, have a responsibility to get the best possible deal for Albertans on what is in fact, an Albertan resource. The former government was happy to reduce taxes as oil profits soared, trading off the tax rate for the tax volume as production and profits increased. Conditions have changed. An adjustment is required to maintain gov't revenues. It doens't take a crystal ball to see that, and any responsibly run oil company should expect and plan for it.

It sounds like you have thoughts on the best possible deal for Albertans.... As it stands right now, the gvt was previously in a position wherein AB was among the wealthiest jurisdictions in NorAm and the Western world (as far as Western democracies go).

They royalty framework is on top of the corp and personal taxes collected, so it is accurate to say that the prov gvt makes far more than the Oil Cos and doesn't risk one thin dime.

I'd say that this represents a pretty sweet deal

Oilsands operations are continuing their expansion as we speak. Projects that were already underway when the oil price tanked still moving towards completion, projects like Suncor's Fort Hills plant and a major expansion at CNRL. Projects that were in the early stages, still on the drawing board so to speak, have been suspended because the construction costs must be factored into their cost per barrel to produce, and likely won't be considered again until we see prices above $60/barrel.

Correct and that is in many ways testament to the potential consequences of driving away capital, especially patient, long-term capital. Those oilsands projects and (limited) expansions are the result of mechanisms that were put into motion long ago. It's not just as easy as thinking a large company can make a snap decision and change direction on a dime

Above is really testament to understanding the possibility that Notley's ill-advised decision can have far reaching affects

How?

Lower corp tax rates provided an immediate boost to the company's bottom line.

There are other examples like a business environment that is not overly regulated or brimming with secondary costs (essentially forms of tax) or rife with a myriad of fees, licenses, etc

The NDP are blocking those efforts?

She campaigned on the platform that she didn't support them

Please be specific on "piss-poor policies".

Ummmm, raising taxes and threatening a royalty increase during a low point in the commodity cycle and recession?

 

[Angstrom]

There was a good arrangement between the province and the oil corps when prices were running high. The corps did well, shareholders made money, the government made money ,employees made money and the trickle down kept the whole province in the black. Now the price is down, fewer employees are working twice as hard, the government is making a quarter of what they did, the trickle down has all but dried up, and the shareholders are still making money.

Take away their money and watch them walk away, and Alberta will be left with even less revenues.

 

[Nick Danger]

Ummmm, raising taxes and threatening a royalty increase during a low point in the commodity cycle and recession?

Take away their money and watch them walk away, and Alberta will be left with even less revenues.

"Walking away" will be a business decision. They will not leave because they are making less money, the oil price crash has proven that. They will leave when they can no longer show a profit, and from what we are seeing we are nowhere near that point.

You guys are advocating giving further breaks to people who have enjoyed massive breaks for decades. Even now they are profiting while downloading this financial set back onto the citizenry of Alberta through layoffs and wage and shift reductions.

The reasoning behind giving these guys all the breaks they got in the first place was that they would be a benefit to the province's economy. You know, jobs, tax revenue, all that stuff. If those benefits are disappearing why wouldn't we want to revisit the original bargain? It's just business.

 

[Angstrom]

"Walking away" will be a business decision. They will not leave because they are making less money, the oil price crash has proven that. They will leave when they can no longer show a profit, and from what we are seeing we are nowhere near that point.

You guys are advocating giving further breaks to people who have enjoyed massive breaks for decades. Even now they are profiting while downloading this financial set back onto the citizenry of Alberta through layoffs and wage and shift reductions.

The reasoning behind giving these guys all the breaks they got in the first place was that they would be a benefit to the province's economy. You know, jobs, tax revenue, all that stuff. If those benefits are disappearing why wouldn't we want to revisit the original bargain? It's just business.

I Agree with you, but only because Its to my advantage. I doubt capitalist will agree with us :lol:

They will kick and fight us the whole way.

They can't leave, they have 300+ billion dollar invested stranded, stuck. Investments they can't liquidate easily.

Let's burn those rich bastards so bad they will never want to invest in Canada ever again!!!! **** them all!!!!

 

[personal touch]

Why do we talk about yesterday people like SH?
I have said it before and I will say it again,
I wish the Conservatives would disappear,so yesterday conversation,let's move the conversation to modern times.

 

[Angstrom]

Why do we talk about yesterday people like SH?
I have said it before and I will say it again,
I wish the Conservatives would disappear,so yesterday conversation,let's move the conversation to modern times.

We did touch base on how Notley got bent over by the oil industry and they all had a turn at her, which is apparent with her 180 degree reversal on oil policy in recent months. And how that changes the dynamics.

 

[petros]

I Agree with you, but only because Its to my advantage. I doubt capitalist will agree with us :lol:

They will kick and fight us the whole way.

They can't leave, they have 300+ billion dollar invested stranded, stuck. Investments they can't liquidate easily.

Let's burn those rich bastards so bad they will never want to invest in Canada ever again!!!! **** them all!!!!

Wanna bet. Imperial Oil and Shell walked away from SK thanks to Tommy Douglas and doubled down in Alberta.

True story bro.