But my point is that you could espouse those same socially conservative positions in most other regions of Canada and there would be a certain amount of support for them. All I'm saying is the degree of difference in the outlook of most ordinary Albertans on social issues, as compared to other Canadians, tends to be grossly exaggerated.

Another way of looking at the phenomenon is this: if you took the views on social issues of the people in Calgary Southwest, and those in the Annex, which set of views do you think would be more representative of the views of all Canadians from coast to coast? My guess would be Calgary Southwest. I happen to be very liberal on social issues, but I have no illusions that my views are close to those of the average Canadian with a minivan and a mortgage.

I'm guessing you weren't watching the Wildrose party during the last provincial election, or questioned any of their candidates as to some of their beliefs and things they'd vote for. This was a party that was proposing a tax rebate for couples where the woman (specifically) stayed home to take care of the kids. Not a tax rebate for any parent, whether a single parent or not, not a tax rebate for a father, but specifically a tax rebate for the mother.

And they're now more popular in Calgary than the conservatives.

And, for what it's worth, I support local candidates, based on their responses to the questions I ask them.
If I was forced to put my name to a party, at one point it would have been the Greens, but then May came in and their policies started to swing leftward out of my comfort zone. So these days it'd probably be the Rhino party.

I'm guessing you're one of the Liberal Party of Canada strategists who is routinely counted on to provide insight into Alberta society. You're doin' a swell job.

That's hilarious. Back here on planet Earth, DPT, Ontario has some of the lowest urban crime rates in the country, and Alberta has some of the highest. Check the stats, mate.

…and no hope of producing anything competitive anytime soon in any market…

And Alberta actually produces something? I always thought Albertans (meaning "displaced Newfoundlanders") were just grunts used by American companies to extract the oil which they then sell to fellow Americans. Does something get produced along the way? Do tell…

People grossly overstate, or overestimate, how "right wing" Alberta is compared to the rest of Canada. And to the extent that there are differences, they are really shades of difference rather than sharp divisions.

First of all, on the fiscal side, Alberta governments generally/historically have been quite free-spending compared to their provincial counterparts. About the only time the Alberta gov't really took an axe to spending was during Klein's first term, and that was a quasi-fiscal emergency. Yes, taxes are comparatively low, but they can be, as a result of oil revenue.

Then on the social side — I've lived there, and a woman can get an abortion in Alberta about easily as she can go buy a pair of socks at Wal Mart. You go to a party in Calgary full of yuppie professionals in their 30s and 40s, and people are conspicuously smoking dope. Alberta ain't the Annex, but it ain't exactly some social conservative dystopia either.

Actually, the price is determined by supply and demand: economics 101. And the price will be the same no matter where it comes from, so I agree that it makes absolutely no sense for the US to stop buying our oil, unless of course, as Ranter says, for some reason, the supply is not reliable, in which case they will switch in a heartbeat.

The problem is that steady Ed changed the royalty structure repeatedly. It created uncertainty in planning long term projects (which almost all of these are) so the companies just took their money somewhere else and created jobs in Sask.

Well, they can mandate that Grade Eleven History classes be supplemented with Flintstones episodes…

Suncor (previously Great Canadian Oil Sands) came onstream in 1967. Syncrude in 1978. NEP was announced in the fall of 1980, and finally eliminated completely around 1986.

Suncor/Syncrude only became profitable in the early 90s due to a change iin technology (bucket/monster trucks), favourable tax/royalty rates, and increasing oil prices. Key milestones are not NEP related

Interesting little tidbit about the tar sands only being viable because of initial government assistance. I hadn't realized that, but it doesn't really go against my ideological beliefs that government money to force economic growth usually causes more problems than it solves.

After all, I don't think the development of the tar sands would have been put off forever (since it becomes more viable the higher oil prices go) but it probably would have just started to be developed recently, rather than selling a good chunk of it on the cheap, essentially subsidized with tax dollars.

It's also hard to see how it would make any difference since really how much father right can Alberta politics go?

All this just so the oilpatch can get a better royalty deal? I mean what else is Wildrose going to do that's markedly different than the Conservatives?

The good news: with Alberta carrying a five billion dollar deficit, we're unlikely to see the Alliance initiate a referendum on secession, despite the party's separatist roots.

On second thought, perhaps that's the bad news…. ;)

http://www.propublica.org/series/buried-secrets-g…

Of course, it bears mentioning that there would be no tarsands without the NEP.

And your just stupid enough to believe there’s no contridiction between what you say you believe and what you’ve written. Cretin!