Saskatchewan Election 2016
 

Seems like a foregone conclusion here but does anyone have any comments on how its been going so far?

My riding is probably going to be interesting and the amount of harassment I'm getting from the two parties is downright annoying.

Brad Wall please. :tup:

:tup:

Brad
 

No need for a new wall here. Let's just keep the one we have !!

After what happened in Alberta, I think there were many people concerned that we may see something similar here. But after a week and a half of "official" campaigning, I don't see any likelihood of anything other than another Sask Party majority. Basically status quo for one more term. Could see some changes after that, though, as I would think this will be Brad Wall's last term as Premier.

The Alberta Tories had the legacy of disappointing leaders Stelmach, Redford and Prentice as well as a second right of centre party to split the vote. The SP on the other hand has Wall who is the most popular premier in Canada and is also squeaky clean based on my own personal experiences.

If the economy continues the way it is for 4 more years then I would give the NDP good odds of forming government next time around (as is the usual cycle of kicking out the bums when times aren't good), but this time the Sask Party will win handily. Not saying the downturn is the Sask Party's fault, just like the economic malaise when the NDP last got kicked out was their fault. Saskatchewan is such a bit player that our governments have almost no input on the state of our resource economy, it's out of our hands.

Having said that, personally I think both the NDP and Sask Party are useless when it comes to the economy based on their unwillingness to actually save when times are good.

I would guess there is zero chance Wall will run again. The NDP will have a shot in four years

Brad Wall, Alberta’s other premier

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/brad...her-premier-2/

A lot of people have been advocating for a savings fund for resource revenues - some smart people that I respect. But I don't get it. What are the merits of saving when you are still paying interest on x$billion in debt. Are you going to realize more on investment than you are paying in interest? Maybe but I don't want my tax dollars taking those kind of risks. Definately pay off the debt and hold taxes firm until debt is paid off and then start saving but I don't see the value until then. Alberta certainly could have spent a lot less, kept taxes higher and had a significant heritage fund in place but they blew it.

Maybe this little dip in resource revenue ( i hope its a temporary dip) is good in that it may help curb spending on billion dollar infrastructure projects that are luxuries for all intents and purposes. (I think the east side bypass is a necessity, not a luxury......but the west side.....?)

The NDP really needs to get a new leader. Cam is just slow off the mark and reactive; basically Greg Sellinger without the experience.

I may be misunderstanding the student loan into grant promise they made but are they basically saying write off all student loans? Nice if you are a student but not necessarily a responsible use of funds. I laughed out loud when cbc was interviewing the president of the UofR students union. I don't know the UofR guy and I just assume he is left of Karl Marx because he is president of anything at UofR but even he was questioning the "affordability of such a promise".

You figure he will just pack it in? I don't think he has any national aspirations as he has no problems poking quebec with a stick which isn't the best move for someone with federal ambitions.

I'll be watching this thread with a keen eye. As an outsider, I don't see the appeal of Brad Wall--it's easy to live fat and talk shit about the rest of the country when you're raking in free money. But it seems that both of our provinces have some pitiful options when it comes to provincial politics.

You're right, of course, but the takeaway from every single peak and valley in resource prices is that resource revenue is a windfall, and using it to deleverage is smart.

Some here don't see the appeal either (38% apparently). I'm not too keen on talking smack on the national level either - I remember very well the years we were a have not province and we could be back there quite easily with a couple twists in markets.

I concur with this - election cycles being every 4 years, that seems to be the extent of the vision for the province.

One of my issues with Wall is the extent which he is harping on equalization payments - it's ironic to me as it wasn't that long ago that Saskatchewan was a major recipient of such payments. Given the reliance of SK on natural resources as the major economic driver of the province, it's entirely possible that SK will once again rely on other parts of the country.

Thats a good article.

It does indeed raise interesting points. One thing that could be beneficial if treating resource revenues as permanent income is if what BC does were followed elsewhere. IIRC, they don't recognize all revenue within the year it is made, but spread it over a number of future years (7 I think?), this would almost act like a short term "heritage fund" that would smooth the highs and lows and provide some stability in case of a downturn. I never really thought much of this aspect to their system before, but the article is making me pause a bit on the whole topic.

(Please correct me if I'm not remembering BC's system quite right).

Generally to keep an economy afloat and fluid you want to spend when times are bad, and save/cut when times are good. You basically fill in the gaps left by private industry. Paying down debt can be considered saving in that situation, and is a good idea. However, there shouldn't be any question that going into debt and large deficits is okay if times are bad. It's better to keep the economy fluid with cash infusions than to cut when times are bad. Europe has done the opposite of this in the last few years with their austerity plans. North America decided on large stimulus packages instead, and saw good rebounds.

Debt is good sometimes, and bad other times, basically. By the same token, spending your temporary oil resources immediately is a bad idea. Norway has a good model, where they have very very high royalty rates, but produce less oil than they could. They save this money in a sovereign wealth fund, and will have most of the money still there when their oil runs out. We have the opposite approach where we take low royalty payments, but try to max the volume. The problem with that is that you run out of oil much more quickly, and waste the money on short-term goals, not long-term stability. Think about the future of the Middle-East when their oil runs out, for example...they will have nothing. Albert and SK could be the same if we keep relying on the boom-bust of oil.