[onetwo_threefour]

I think I've read through the whole thread, and I would go back to something said much earlier that I think has been overlooked in the partisanship. I am not a Redford "supporter" although I had hoped that with her background she would be a better Premier than Stelmach, and a strike a better balance than Klein who I think let Alberta's infrastructure fall apart to a degree that fixing it is more expensive than it would be had we taken a few more years to pay off the debt and invest a little more in infrastructure spending.

Anyway, my thought on the matter is that everybody seems to be ignoring that the 'decision' made by Redford, (and I'm willing to say she did make the decision) was done in such a way as to eliminate the real conflict of interest anyway. What I'm getting at is that there was an independent panel that was tasked to recommend a firm/consortium. That panel, after reviewing all of the evidence, said there was literally nothing to choose between the three firms put in front of Redford on the criteria they had considered.

Redford then comes back with further considerations that do distinguish between the three remaining firms, and which considerations do not appear to be tied to any of her personal potential conflicts of interest and are arguably quite appropriate, being avoiding other conflicts and preferring an Alberta based consortium. Apparently based on those further considerations, she makes a recommendation (or decision if you prefer) which is then implemented. So, we have an independent committee that determines the suitability of the various consortiums that says there is no reason not choose any one of them. That right there eliminates the concern that a conflict of interest has left Alberta with a poor choice firm. Instead the only concern is whether Redford stands to gain personally or selected one of the three based on personal factors. To that argument, I think Redford elaborating on her reasons for recommending the one that she did provides an objective measure. If we can go back and objectively apply the considerations that Redford says she applied, and the inescapable conclusion is that the firm she picked is the one that best satisifes those considerations, then the appearance of any personal conflict can be safely ignored.

Sure, it's possible that at some future date when she retires from politics, the firm she chosses might offer her a partnership or other 'reward' but that's true whether she picked her husband's firm or either of the other two. In her position and with her history, there is every likelihood that she has previous or current personal and/or professional relationships with lawyers at most or all of the firms that were up fo consideration. The bias itself is simply not an issue as I see it.

She has been a poor communicator about it and has not won the public to her side as Ralph would have, and as some guy on the news said, she needs to recognize that she's not making a legal argument to a judge or jury, but a political argument to the public and she's failing on that.

Anyway, I don't think she has much, if any, political capital left and she's pretty much going to be a lame duck with a majority. The PC's are going to have a tough time next election.