From One Caucus to Another
November 24, 2016 11:30 AM   Subscribe

Sandra Jansen recently left the Progressive Conservatives to join the NDP in Alberta, primarily due to the right-wing PCs becoming more extreme. On Tuesday she read aloud some examples of the abuse she has received and called for a fight against it. As a result, she's been assigned a security detail.
posted by juiceCake (70 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite
 
Jansen's campaign manager, Stephen Carter, talked to As It Happens (first segment in that recording) a few days ago about what happened during her leadership run, particularly the in-person harassment at the PCAA policy convention earlier this month.
posted by figurant at 11:57 AM on November 24, 2016


Kellie Leitch's run for the Conservative leadership and her approval that Trump won the US election is exactly the kind of shit I will be dedicating myself to preventing and undermining.

What Jansen has undergone is disgusting, but sadly not surprising. I wish her the best.
posted by Kitteh at 11:58 AM on November 24, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's surprising to me. The PCs have had female candidates run for leader before, and they've had more progressive candidates. It might be that this level of vitriol was there before, but you certainly didn't hear about it. This feels new.
posted by figurant at 12:03 PM on November 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


Canadians! The Conservative leadership race is being voted on very weirdly -- each riding gets an equal number of votes, split up among the votes by members in that riding. If you live in a not-very-Conservative riding, your vote for leadership can be worth a LOT.

There's a lot of detail about it here.

And from the Conservatives:
The Election Process as set out in the Constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada shall be conducted on a One-Member, One-Vote Point System where:
a) Each Electoral District is worth 100 points.
b) Candidates are assigned a point total based on his or her percentage of the vote in each Electoral District.
c) To win, a Candidate must obtain a majority of points from across the country.
d) Balloting shall be conducted by Preferential Ballot (single transferable vote).
6.2 Calculation of Electoral District Points for Initial Counting Round
6.2.1 The total points received by each Candidate for each Electoral District shall be determined based upon the percentage vote that each Candidate receives from the valid ballots cast for that Electoral District (spoiled ballots are not valid ballots for the purposes of calculating the percentage received).
You have to join by March to vote. If you're in Alberta, probably not worth it; if you're in a Liberal or NDP area, you can have outsize influence just by voting. (You would probably not be able to vote in the NDP leadership race though.)
posted by jeather at 12:11 PM on November 24, 2016 [11 favorites]


It might be that this level of vitriol was there before, but you certainly didn't hear about it.

According to scuttlebut, it was being done in the halls by Kenney staffers as well.
posted by bonehead at 12:19 PM on November 24, 2016


"The dog-whistle politics that I heard at the PC policy conference (earlier this month) were chilling to me: eroding public education, taking away women's reproductive rights and trying to out gay kids in schools,'' said Jansen.

Which is really rich considering how Kenney has reacted in the past to public discussions of his (open secret) orientation.
posted by bonehead at 12:21 PM on November 24, 2016


The interim leader of the Conservatives has been cloning Trump language as well. These are scary times in Canada.
posted by Yowser at 12:21 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kellie Leitch's run for the Conservative leadership and her approval that Trump won the US election is exactly the kind of shit I will be dedicating myself to preventing and undermining.

This x1000. "Canadian values", indeed.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:23 PM on November 24, 2016 [6 favorites]


Leitch's chances of winning on a Trump platform are lower because she's a woman, which is cold consolation.
posted by Yowser at 12:27 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


@jeather - a few people I know are temporarily joining the PC party just to vote. I think it's inspired, am tempted to do it - I wonder, though, is there a way that might backfire?
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:35 PM on November 24, 2016


Kevin O'Leary is considering running for the national leadership.
posted by My Dad at 12:36 PM on November 24, 2016


I know former housemates of Leitch. She scares the heck out of me.

And Kevin O'Leary, who wants to be Canada's Trump, is gearing up for a run at the federal Conservative leadership. Wonderful times. Ugh.
posted by fimbulvetr at 12:37 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yowser: "The interim leader of the Conservatives has been cloning Trump language as well. "

That kind of thing has been a problem for the Conservatives at least since CCRAP. You didn't hear about it much under Harper because he was so good at preventing his bench from talking about anything.
posted by Mitheral at 12:38 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


You can't just leave this hanging without dishing out the good details, fimb! If she's scary in public, it's in everyone's interest to know what she's like in private.
posted by Yowser at 12:39 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


From what I have been told, her public persona is not skin deep.
posted by fimbulvetr at 12:41 PM on November 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


All these despicable "Canada's answer to Trump" opportunist-fascists should be hashtagged #Mooseolini forever
posted by oulipian at 12:42 PM on November 24, 2016 [40 favorites]


As far as I can tell, the ways it can backfire is that you cannot join another federal party at the same time (see: NDP leadership race), you are financially supporting the Conservatives, you will get mail from them forever, and if you want to go into politics (or if your partner does) in a different party at any level, this will look bad.

I am not clear how federal party membership interacts with provincial, something else you might want to look at.

I also think the idea is inspired, especially as I live in a very non-Tory riding.
posted by jeather at 12:48 PM on November 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ok cool. (There is mail redistribution; yuk to the funding, but that's ok if it ends up contributing to turning things around; no danger of me getting into formal politics, and the odds of me dating a career politician are even smaller; federal party issues, will check that out).

I was thinking of some kind of backlash or maybe a legal challenge, later... but the rules are what they are now, so - fair game?
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:22 PM on November 24, 2016


#Mooseolini forever

I dunno, man, there is absolutely nothing funny about these fuckers.

The far-right has a good chance to gain a foothold in Canada. Unemployment is 10% in Calgary. Can you believe that?
posted by My Dad at 1:31 PM on November 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


I mean, we have the federal Liberals now because of an amazing coordination of tactical voting (among other things, but I think it's safe to say the strategic voting campaign had some effect). We're good at it. We could probably accomplish something interesting with enough people involved.
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:33 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Colour me naive, but even though I don't share most of his political views, I don't fear O'Leary like I do Trump. No comb-over, for starters.

People like Leitch do scare me.
posted by Artful Codger at 1:48 PM on November 24, 2016


I am pretty sure there is internal backlash over this, but all it means probably is that they won't do this way of choosing a leader again, I do not believe they can change it now.
posted by jeather at 1:54 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile, the federal government introduces legislation to amend the voting rules that Harper introduced. Basically:

-the voter information card will again function as ID at the polling station;
-voters can once again vouch for another's identity at the polling station;
-the chief electoral officer will again be allowed to conduct public education campaigns;
-Canadians living abroad for more than five years will be allowed to vote

And some new ideas, like allowing youth to "pre-register" to be an eligible voter the moment they turn 18.
posted by nubs at 1:55 PM on November 24, 2016 [18 favorites]


Kellie Leitch's run for the Conservative leadership and her approval that Trump won the US election is exactly the kind of shit I will be dedicating myself to preventing and undermining.

This x1000. "Canadian values", indeed.


For those who might be baffled by the reference, leadership hopefuls Leitch has proposed that new Canadians be screened to make sure they hold "Canadian values." I wrote to Ms. Leitch and asked if -- since my family has been here since before Confederation -- if I would have a chance to have my say in what exactly Canadian values are.

No response yet.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:12 PM on November 24, 2016 [12 favorites]


I am pretty sure there is internal backlash over this, but all it means probably is that they won't do this way of choosing a leader again, I do not believe they can change it now.

And this is a change back from how it was; the provincial conservatives used to run it as a "province wide" vote, where any party member could cast a ballot - and after the first round, the top three candidates got put into a second runoff vote (where members could indicate a first choice/second choice). There was dissatisfaction with that method, though because both times it was used, the winner (Stelmach in 2006, and Redford in 2011)got in largely on the strength of their 2nd choice votes. The method also created a lot of "five-minute Tories" as you could buy a membership at the polling stations, vote and never engage with the party again.

So they went back to the Delegate style, which is already causing headaches and Kenney is playing very loose with the rules. He started his run while he was still a member of the federal government, and recently got fined for having a hospitality suite in the same hotel as the Delegate Selection meeting for one riding. Not to mention that the sum total of his platform seems to be "Merge the party with the Wildrose."
posted by nubs at 2:12 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anyways, not to bend this discussion too far away from Sandra and the vile crap going on:

Here's the full text of her remarks. And some more indepth stuff on the leadership race in general.
posted by nubs at 2:23 PM on November 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


There's a couple of intertwining issues that concern me with Jansen and the provincial conservative leadership race. Number one is my fear that the Conservatives are going to be cannibalized by their extremist offshoot, like the federal Conservatives were eaten by the Alliance Party. This sort of thing happens when electoral defeat disheartens the people in the centre, who leave the party or go dormant, leaving no one to resist the invader.

My second concern is that Jansen's floor crossing to a new party will radicalize the Conservatives that aren't already Wildrose sympathizers. There's nothing people dislike more in this province than a politician that switches parties, so her extremely public action will probably make the PC voters circle their metaphorical wagons and rally around Kenney, or anyone else that looks like the opposite of what Jansen represents.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:49 PM on November 24, 2016


According to the Toronto Star, Leitch would dismantle the CBC if she became PM.

One thing I'd like the Liberals to reinstate is the per vote subsidy. Is that coming back too?
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:36 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd like the per vote subsidy and the hard limit on election spending no matter how long the stupid campaign lasts for back. None of this proportionate to the length of the election crap.
posted by jeather at 3:45 PM on November 24, 2016


According to scuttlebut, it was being done in the halls by Kenney staffers as well.

Jansen just confirmed that tonight on As it Happens on CBC. She said she was literally being chased down the halls, had c_nt written on her nomination papers, and so on.

Kenney is a hardcore misogynist and homophobe. The latter trait is ironic, yes, but ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of being inconvenient and/or tragic, but not really irony in the literal sense.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:40 PM on November 24, 2016 [6 favorites]


As Kevin O'Leary goes, though, his claims to entrepreneurial prowess are grossly overinflated. Sound familar?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:08 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Noted gentleman bachelor, Harperite and all-around class act Jason Kenney, has already made a few ethical missteps (1, 2, 3) in this leadership run, so it shouldn't be too shocking that he'd have his team go after Jansen. After all he likely pushed Donna Kennedy-Glans out of the race as well as Sandra Jansen.

For the record, Kevin O'Leary has also said he'd run for the Liberals.
posted by Ashwagandha at 5:27 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


In regards to the federal race, I can't believe any of the frontrunners, if chosen as leader, would stand a chance at building the sort of grassroots coalition needed to form government. They are such bozos.

Leitch has all the personality of a mop bucket, with none of the personality and cunning of Stephen Harper. The entire sorry mess of a leadership race is making Maxime Bernier look like a sophisticated intellectual--which he is not. It's hard to imagine either Bernier or Leitch going up against Trudeau in 2019.
posted by My Dad at 5:44 PM on November 24, 2016


In regards to the federal race...

If the federal Conservatives wanted to actually get somewhere with their party and not be total asshats to Canada they'd be well served by appointing Michael Chong as their leader. But because they are asshats they'll get whatever Reform reject that shouts the loudest.
posted by Ashwagandha at 5:50 PM on November 24, 2016 [6 favorites]


That Canadaland (The Commons) interview with Leitch was the end of her campaign, right? I mean I just assumed.
posted by ~ at 6:04 PM on November 24, 2016


She was such a dullard in that interview. Her remarks about her connection to the late Joe Flaherty seem to indicate she has some patrons in the party establishment?
posted by My Dad at 6:31 PM on November 24, 2016


That Canadaland (The Commons) interview with Leitch was the end of her campaign

Are you assuming that people who would vote for Kellie Leitch listen to Canadaland? Because I think you'd be mistaken. The fans of Kellie Leitch are more the type to spend a lot of time reading Ezra Levant articles and white power forums. She has this incredible confidence in her position that even if she lost the Conservative leadership race she'd continue to run for the office.
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:39 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Canadaland has its head so far up its arse that I'm amazed anyone listens to it.

It's the Larry King(CNN era) of podcasts
posted by Yowser at 6:47 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Are you assuming that people who would vote for Kellie Leitch listen to Canadaland?

No, definitely not and that's a fair point. It felt like more of a law of physics thing than a political science thing. Maybe the third law of thermodynamics? Just: That the distance between - whatever that was - and what a candidate should doing be was so vast that I thought her candidacy might just have ceased to be (with a little popping sound) from first principles.
posted by ~ at 7:13 PM on November 24, 2016


I think Canadaland is relevant if you are in journalism (I am). Jesse Brown is a character, for sure, but he covers issues no one else does, such as police surveillance of journalists. A bit "head up its ass", I guess, if you aren't worried about freedom of speech.
posted by My Dad at 7:36 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


So I just subjected myself to Canadaland Commons. Where the hosts know less than a hole in the ground.

Anyways, Leitch was asked why she ran for office. Her answer? Because Jim Flaherty told her to. Not exactly a confidence inspiring start.

The next few minutes, she's nearly incoherent as she rambles on about... God knows what.
posted by Yowser at 7:38 PM on November 24, 2016


Yes, I'm aware of his relevance to journalism, which is why I compared him to the milquetoast journo interviewer Larry King.
posted by Yowser at 7:39 PM on November 24, 2016


if you aren't worried about freedom of speech.

If he restricted himself to that he would be fine. The problem is he doesn't and allows his personal issues to cloud his journalism.
posted by Ashwagandha at 7:51 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


allows his personal issues to cloud his journalism.

He's certainly axe-grindy (Margaret Wente need not ever be mentioned ever again), and he is indeed a character. Anything concrete you would care to mention, or perhaps you just don't care for Brown, like you you may not care for a style of craft beer? It's really hard to tell.
posted by My Dad at 8:04 PM on November 24, 2016


Anything concrete you would care to mention

Nope, not here. I apologise for the derail. Especially in a thread about Sandra Jansen and her poor treatment by Alberta PCs (likely at the behest of Jason Kenney).
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:16 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Horrifying to see such crap all playing out simultaneously in a provincial and federal conservative leadership.



Ages ago I joined the provincial conservatives to vote for noted anti free trade activist (and historian and farmer) David Orchard. He swept the vote on Vancouver Island but then j got mail from the party. At least they were still the party of Joe Clark back then!

I watched Jansen's speech and think she is brace and commendable. Marilyn Waring has an essay about being a woman MP, and the unbelievable misogyny she experienced the worst was reading about how when she travelled as an MP the women MPs would gather and share the same stories... but also talk about how they hid it because they wanted more women to run... talk about a catch 22.

I'm excited Charlie Angus may run for the federal NDP so I won't be joining the anti Leitch vote. But she must not win so I commend any of you for doing the dirty work.
.
posted by chapps at 8:18 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Colour me naive, but even though I don't share most of his political views, I don't fear O'Leary like I do Trump.

Have you watched Dragon's Den? What a misogynist piece of crap that guy is. Though to be fair, I was once flipping through the channels and stopped on Dragon's Den thinking it would be ok because he wasn't on the panel that episode, but nope...they still found ways to infuse the whole thing with a thick coat of slimy misogyny. As I recall, the female panelists were required to rub the beard and face of one of the petitioners, and later to demonstrate how one would sleep in a bed. What is it with that show?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:38 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


What a misogynist piece of crap that guy is.

Coincidentally, he was interviewed on As It Happens tonight. Note how he speaks about the 2 female premiers of Alberta and Ontario. While it's true he's no Trump, he's definitely not somebody who should hold any position of actual power in our country. Being a pushy loudmouth businessman does not make you an expert in running a country.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:24 PM on November 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm not sure why we have to look to the Conservatives when it comes to creeping authoritarianism in Canada. The Trudeau government is quite cosy with Chinese officials who would rather we shut up about human rights and democracy and all that stuff. Trudeau's brother has just written a book, and is on the record as saying that Western values of freedom of expression and personal liberty are "relative" and are not compatible with China.
posted by My Dad at 9:27 PM on November 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unemployment is 10% in Calgary. Can you believe that?

So re-nationalize Petro-Canada.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:15 PM on November 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Alberta never bothered to build a reserve fund, as Norway has. They reap what they sewed.
posted by Yowser at 11:03 PM on November 24, 2016


Colour me naive, but even though I don't share most of his political views, I don't fear O'Leary like I do Trump. No comb-over, for starters.

Given their time co-hosting Shark Tank, Mark Cuban knows how to flame O'Leary on Twitter like he flames Trump.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:18 AM on November 25, 2016


Isn't Don Cherry youse guys' Trump? He ends up being the dystopian Prime Minister in this alternate history by a Canadian historian.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:28 AM on November 25, 2016


Yowser: "Alberta never bothered to build a reserve fund, as Norway has. They reap what they sewed."

They have the Heritage fund which is similar in concept but laughably poor in execution. Because taxes bad and putting any sort of brake on the oil sector is political suicide. Albertans are still mad about the National Energy Policy; even the ones who weren't born at the time. The Heritage Fund funding reflects this; contributions were initially set at 30% of revenues but had declined to 0% in 1987. They've started making contributions recently but it is still only a few percentage points rather than Norway's 100% or even Alaska's 25%.
posted by Mitheral at 3:11 AM on November 25, 2016


Yowser: "Alberta never bothered to build a reserve fund, as Norway has. They reap what they [sowed]."

One thing about the economics of the tarsands: it's more expensive oil to produce, we had to sell it to the US at below market prices, and we all know the companies made profits. So it's not hard to figure out that the royalties and taxes collected by the gov'ts of Alberta and Canada weren't all they could have been.

Alberta could have socked more away... but hindsight is 20-20.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:07 AM on November 25, 2016


Alberta could have socked more away... but hindsight is 20-20.

Norway set up their fund in 1990 to avoid exactly the situation Alberta is in right now. So 26 years ago the Dutch Disease was already a known problem and the boom bust cycle of resource dependency was well understood.

"Hey who could possibly known how this would play out?"

"Everyone".
posted by srboisvert at 6:45 AM on November 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Hey who could possibly known how this would play out?"

"Everyone".


Yes, a downturn is always inevitable, but the severity or duration are unknowns.

My main point above is that the tarsands revenues flowing into Canadian government coffers weren't as colossal as you might imagine. I think you'd find that the money per barrel that flowed into Canadian government coffers was considerably less than what Norway and other countries were earning. Less to put into that piggybank after meeting current budgetary needs.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:40 AM on November 25, 2016


It wasn't so much a question of revenue into federal coffers, it was Alberta making the decision to not sock away spoils of the boom in its own coffers for a rainy day, unlike other places that made different decisions.

I reluctantly quote the Fraser Institute, but as a fiscally-conservative think tank, they view this as a "missed opportunity" for Alberta:

Over the past decade, the province of Alberta treated boom-time resource revenues like a permanent state of affairs. That set the province up for fiscal failure, for multiple lost opportunities.

One high-profile example is the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. The fund was enacted via legislation from the Alberta government in 1976. It was created, in part, to save for the future by diverting a portion of resource revenues every year that otherwise would end up in the government’s general revenue fund.

In theory, the fund would provide options for future Alberta governments—everything from disbursing cheques to citizens (as occurs in Alaska with the Alaska Permanent Fund) or replacing resource revenue streams when they slow to a trickle.

When then-premier Peter Lougheed created the fund, it was immediately given two deposits—a one-time payment to “kick start” the fund, and a portion of the current year’s resource revenues (30 per cent). That latter practice continued up to and including 1987, though in ever-smaller proportions.

After 1987, no deposits were made until nearly two decades later, when deposits were resumed briefly between 2006 and 2008, only to cease once again.

By the end of 2014, the fund’s market value was $18.4 billion.

Now consider a comparison: the Alaska Permanent Fund, created the same year as Alberta’s fund but which accepted its first deposit in 1978.

How has Alaska done? As of the end of 2014, the Alaska Permanent Fund was worth US $52.8 billion, or $61.3 billion Canadian.


They then go on to say "how dare Alberta do things like spend on government programs blah blah blah," but the point about Alberta's fund vs. Alaska's stands.

But they also model what it would look like if Alberta had followed Norway's model (pdf)...

If the Alberta government had followed Norway’s example, and contributed 100 per cent of its non-renewable resource revenues into its Heritage Fund, then from 1982-2011 total contributions would have been $169.5 billion, rather than $9.1 billion.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:48 AM on November 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think you'd find that the money per barrel that flowed into Canadian government coffers was considerably less than what Norway and other countries were earning.

The technology for extraction and the price per barrel is always decreasing. What that is exactly is a pretty closely held secret, but I've heard directly from senior oil people that even the present price levels are quite profitable. What scares them right now is uncertainty. The market is still in an oversupply situation and what's happening to the south isn't making calculations easier. But the Canadian producers would be happy with a $45USD bbl of ANS price if they could count on that lasting more than a week or two.

Royalty rates being stable are part of that. Most of the companies can live with what the NDP are doing there too.

Alberta could have socked more away... but hindsight is 20-20.

Alberta could have saved at all the last boom even. Instead, the PCs spent rivers of money on infrastructure, tax holidays and even stunt payments to the electorate. Klein and his sucessors spent the last 15 years showing their bums to what Peter Lougheed wanted for the province.
posted by bonehead at 7:50 AM on November 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Most of the companies can live with what the NDP are doing there too.

That's interesting I was wondering if that was case. Being on the other side of the country I don't get the constant stream of Albertan rhetoric and what we do get it is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:08 AM on November 25, 2016


I love the ritual dragging of Alberta as much as anyone, but as a province rather than a country it's in a bit of a different situation from Norway.

Immigration into a country is a bit more of a barrier than movement within a country. Between 1960 and 2016, Norway went from a population of 3.5 m to 5.2 m, a 48% increase. Alberta went from 1.3 m to 4.2 m, a 220% increase, much of it from other parts of Canada. During the last boom, Alberta added basically the population of Red Deer every year. New Albertans need roads, schools and hospitals, and they need them immediately. In theory the added tax revenue will pay for this infrastructure over the long term, but since it needs to be built right now this is funded from current tax revenue, resource revenue, or debt. The Heritage Fund, imperfect as it is, didn't get a lot of top ups because the money either wasn't there during the busts, or was needed for other things during the booms.

As a province, Alberta's sovereignty is a bit more tenuous than Norway's, which ties into why Alberta taxes plummeted during the latter Klein years (there's a handy graph of this that I can't find right now, which compares the modest tax increases of the NDP to the much higher taxes under Klein). With all the resource revenue coming in (which was from natural gas, not oil) and the debt paid off, the province was genuinely worried that the Chretien government might start seizing this income (rightly or wrongly, but the NEP was held up as an example). Knocking down the tax rates was seen as a way to keep the budget surpluses from becoming too tempting for the feds.

This, not surprisingly, was a dumb idea. The provincial budget became much more beholden to unpredictable and uncontrollable fluctuations in resource revenue, and led to the current budget woes. But the reasons we got to that point are as much structural as they are wilful blindness.
posted by figurant at 8:57 AM on November 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


After the pretty lean 90s, the natural gas boom was during the 2000s, the late Klein era basically, while for most of the post-Klein period, 2010-2016 oil has been the major royalty source (PDF graph 1971-2015).

Knocking down the tax rates was seen as a way to keep the budget surpluses from becoming too tempting for the feds.

IDK. A lot of it was simply for domestic voters. Harper took over in 2006 and Alberta didn't suddenly start socking it away again either. There's one year of contributions (in 2012?) but that's it.
posted by bonehead at 9:15 AM on November 25, 2016


I find I'm not scared of people like Trump, O'leary or any of their sycophants. I'm scared of what their enablers will do for them. They are venal and greedy and are (apparently) led by ego over all else. I can perceive and understand them and their motives.

It's the people who seek to appease them that worry me. The people who will turn on their own cohort to please them.

Those are the bastards to watch for. Trump with no audience is a loud asshole in a closet.
O'Leary with no national platform is a rich man yelling in the wind.

It's the people that choose to listen to them. Those people. Those are your real problem.
posted by NiteMayr at 9:34 AM on November 25, 2016 [4 favorites]




Artful Codger: "My main point above is that the tarsands revenues flowing into Canadian government coffers weren't as colossal as you might imagine. I think you'd find that the money per barrel that flowed into Canadian government coffers was considerably less than what Norway and other countries were earning. Less to put into that piggybank after meeting current budgetary needs."

Sure, Norway was in an advantageous situation. But for the longest time Alberta was putting NOTHING away. Zero, Zilch, Nada. And they spend money like a bachelor party at Vegas; easily noticeable in highways where four lane freeways serve minor population centers. Alberta has no sales tax. The had no charges for healthcare (all other provinces have a monthly fee for healthcare). So many of the people there (remember this is the home of Reform and WildRose) are rabidly anti tax. Their income tax was barely progressive (1% spread between lowest and highest brackets when I lived there). The obvious looming heavy retraction was one of the reasons I left the province in the middle of the boom because the Province was actively setting themselves up for a very heavy hit when oil prices came down.

And yet people (and I mean a group including many family members still there) were genuinely surprised when oil dropped $50 and the money stopped flowing. And infuriatingly they blamed the brand new NDP government even though they'd had as much control over the situation as a cannonball in flight.
posted by Mitheral at 12:56 PM on November 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


We're not Norway, it's true. Our province has grown much faster, and needed to spend much more. But at the same time we should have kept up at least some payments into the Heritage Trust Fund. Moral culpability, like reality, is somewhere in the muddled middle. Actually I think we've done pretty well after 44 years of conservative government. We could have ended up with zero public services and no public debt, like the Wildrose people want, but with most of the population stuck deep in personal debt. (The classic right-wing end game.) But the province is in pretty decent shape today, current economic downturn notwithstanding.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:36 PM on November 25, 2016


Remember when oil was at $150 a barrel?
posted by My Dad at 4:01 PM on November 25, 2016


Remember when income tax was 10% across the board?

(Alberta's grasshoppering is not limited to oil money.)
posted by Sys Rq at 10:35 PM on November 25, 2016


Tell Albertans that their taxes were higher in 2013 on people making less than $93,000 dollars a year than in say Ontario, and they'll look at you like you're an idiot.

But it's true.
posted by Yowser at 1:47 AM on November 26, 2016




« Older Gävlebocken 2016 - The Goat Stands Again   |   "This is a weird way to earn a living." Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments